Do you know what Psychoacoustics means?
yes (and this is without a google, I swear-) based on psycho (mind) and acoustics (sound) it's evidently the study of how sound is interpreted and heard.
MP3 can take a digitized audio stream and compress it, either in real time or as a post process. It does not have to remove the high frequencies. It does not have to compromise the noise floor.
Never said it did. nearly every single MP3 encoder in existence does this by default. only one that doesn't would be LAME, and even then you need to provide options specifically saying not to. Did I mention I wrote a crappy mp3 encoder? it barely works and only encodes at a specific bit-rate, something like 128kbps and I don't think I quite mastered some of the headers since it doesn't seem to play properly in all players (but it does work in some) and also it only runs in win 9x and I'm too lazy to figure out why. I think it was integrated into a little chat program I had at one point as well. My point is, you don't have to tutor me on what MP3 is. I know.
It does not have to introduce distortions of any significant amount.
yes. it does, anything less then 320kbps for me is immediately noticable, drum cymbals are the first to go. at first it's hard to tell- it just sounds "different"; but the CD's sound infinitely better- this is why I switched to FLAC. MP3 is lossless. Works fine where space is an issue (for example, MP3 players) but I'd much rather have the full range of sound with absolutely no loss
It compress by a number of techniques, including, but not limited to
Linear Predictive Coding (LPC) Go look that up if you want.
*censored* does <ANY> of this have to do with telephone lines? seriously? all I said was that telephone voice is transmitted not in a compressed form (which would entail the use of specific hardware on both ends to decompress the data, like a compressing modem does (telephones are not modems)).
The reference I gave earlier for the MP3 book is for the enlightenment of everyone. I can not quote it here because it is a new copyrighted book. And it does not have any short little blurbs that make sense out of the context. You have to red a few pages to get the jest of what MP3 really does.
Again. I know what it does, because I did it as well. It was a few years ago but that hardly means I don't remember any of it.
Here is an experiment you can do at home. Make a recording of your own voice using the best stuff you have. Save it as a high quality WAV file. Notice the size. Now use a ZIP program to see if you can reduce the size. In many cases the ZIP program with use LPC to reduce it.
Um, no. it won't, in any cases. ZIP uses Lempel-Ziv and Deflate (a modified LZ), not LPC. some other compression formats (maybe RAR, 7z, zipx) might have LPC, but Not ZIP.
Or try another compression method and see. Programs for DATA compression use no loss or "loss-less" compression.
duh.
MP3 goes further and will destroy some information.
this the name LOSSY COMPRESSION...
But the human ear can not detect it if done moderately. And it is not simply a matter for spectrum. MP3 removes redundant audio patterns not significant to the human ear
[/quote]
That's exactly what I said. Omissions are not wrong, it's called brevity.
The OP was about why is MP3 different that other digital formats.
no, they asked why two different PCM waveforms compressed down to the same size.
Sample rate in MP3 does not means always what you think it means.
Now you're saying you think I know what it means and can statistically evaluate that what it really means is not always what I think it means?
But seriously, of course it doesn't. this is why I used to term "bitrate" explicitly. bitrate <essentially> (I have to emphasis this here, because apparently omitting anything means that I don't know about the omitted information) determines how much lossy compression occurs. a 96kbps file will always sound worse then a 320kbps file- except of course if they are both silence.
I have made recordings at 44100 HZ and saved them in RAW PCM format. Then I converted them to MP3 with not change in the sample rate. But the resulting MP3 can be streamed at 128000 bps and sound very good. But it is still at the 44100 sample rate.
And don't ague with me, resistance is futile.
I'm not arguing with you, and honestly I don't know who you are arguing with, because all your arguments contest things i never said or even implied.
[/quote]