On 2/26/2015 3:55 AM, AndyW wrote:
On 25/02/2015 13:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/25/2015 1:41 AM, rickman wrote:

That is a value judgement which most would disagree with not to mention
that your example is not valid. MP3 does not *remove* anything from the
signal. It is a form of compression that simply can't reproduce the
signal exactly. The use of the term "poor" is your value judgement.
Most people would say an MP3 audio sounds very much like the original.


That is a value judgement that all experts agree with - and an area I
have been intimately involved with for the last 13 years. You also
don't understand how mp3 works.

All experts agree that when comparing mp3 to the original, there is a
significant difference.

I think that there is a semantics issue here.

MP3 is lossy, it cannot be used to reproduce the original but it does
not 'remove' signal, they get lost.

IIRC some sound encoding deliberately removes some frequencies if the
are low amplitude and are close to a higher amplitude frequency.

Loses is passive, the data just gets lost. Remove implies some active
removal of data.

Andy


Andy,

You are really trying to split hairs here. The data are lost because
they are "removed" during compression. It is an active decision as to
what is compressed and what is ignored.

And yes, the term "removed" is used when describing the technical
aspects of MP3 compression.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================