<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Take the MP3 Challenge</title>
	<link>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/</link>
	<description>Musings on DVDs, video games, the Web and other techno-stuff</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:17:10 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Technobabble &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Drum and bugle corps go techno</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-921</link>
		<dc:creator>Technobabble &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Drum and bugle corps go techno</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:40:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-921</guid>
		<description>[...] TAKE THE TECHNOBABBLE MP3 CHALLENGE! Can you tell the difference between MP3s and the original CD? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] TAKE THE TECHNOBABBLE MP3 CHALLENGE! Can you tell the difference between MP3s and the original CD? [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Technobabble &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Readers pick top iPhone apps &#8212; most free!</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-912</link>
		<dc:creator>Technobabble &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Readers pick top iPhone apps &#8212; most free!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:10:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-912</guid>
		<description>[...] TAKE THE MP3 CHALLENGE! Can you tell the difference between MP3s and the original CD? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] TAKE THE MP3 CHALLENGE! Can you tell the difference between MP3s and the original CD? [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Technobabble &#187; Blog Archive &#187; A good DVD-tracking app?</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-888</link>
		<dc:creator>Technobabble &#187; Blog Archive &#187; A good DVD-tracking app?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-888</guid>
		<description>[...] TAKE THE MP3 CHALLENGE! Can you tell the difference between MP3s and the original CD? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] TAKE THE MP3 CHALLENGE! Can you tell the difference between MP3s and the original CD? [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Technobabble &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Blu-ray player selling for $119</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-883</link>
		<dc:creator>Technobabble &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Blu-ray player selling for $119</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:54:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-883</guid>
		<description>[...] TAKE THE MP3 CHALLENGE! Can you tell the difference between MP3s and the original CD? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] TAKE THE MP3 CHALLENGE! Can you tell the difference between MP3s and the original CD? [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Technobabble &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Blu-ray goes portable &#8212; for $800</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-876</link>
		<dc:creator>Technobabble &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Blu-ray goes portable &#8212; for $800</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:40:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-876</guid>
		<description>[...] TAKE THE MP3 CHALLENGE! Can you tell the difference between MP3s and the original CD? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] TAKE THE MP3 CHALLENGE! Can you tell the difference between MP3s and the original CD? [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Technobabble &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Don&#8217;t forget to take the MP3 Challenge</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-866</link>
		<dc:creator>Technobabble &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Don&#8217;t forget to take the MP3 Challenge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:47:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-866</guid>
		<description>[...] MP3s are that bad, you should be able to tell easily, right? Prove it! Take my MP3 Challenge. Simply post which of three choices of the same song sample is from the original CD and which are [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] MP3s are that bad, you should be able to tell easily, right? Prove it! Take my MP3 Challenge. Simply post which of three choices of the same song sample is from the original CD and which are [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frink</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-865</link>
		<dc:creator>Frink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-865</guid>
		<description>It's a trick - they all sound the same. If they were encoded differently my company supplied 10 year old, cell phone signal capturing, frayed wire, Labtec speakers would have certainly produced tonality differences that would have made the encoding obvious.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a trick - they all sound the same. If they were encoded differently my company supplied 10 year old, cell phone signal capturing, frayed wire, Labtec speakers would have certainly produced tonality differences that would have made the encoding obvious.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Randy A. Salas</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-864</link>
		<dc:creator>Randy A. Salas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:50:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-864</guid>
		<description>Tyler, thanks for taking the time to share your comments. I agree on the caliber of equipment needed. That also reminds me about the fallacy that MP3s sound bad on home stereos. That was true of old iTunes downloads, which were generally at a paltry 160kbps. But I haven't found any problems with my collection (at 320).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tyler, thanks for taking the time to share your comments. I agree on the caliber of equipment needed. That also reminds me about the fallacy that MP3s sound bad on home stereos. That was true of old iTunes downloads, which were generally at a paltry 160kbps. But I haven&#8217;t found any problems with my collection (at 320).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Minneapolis Star Tribune &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Take the MP3 Challenge</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-863</link>
		<dc:creator>Minneapolis Star Tribune &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Take the MP3 Challenge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:30:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-863</guid>
		<description>[...] Technobabble – [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Technobabble – [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tyler</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-862</link>
		<dc:creator>tyler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:45:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/technobabble/2009/06/01/take-the-mp3-challenge/#comment-862</guid>
		<description>Ok, I'll bite. Here's my guesses:

Gwen Stefani:
A – 320 MP3 
B – 256 MP3 
C – CD copy

Moody Blues
A – 320 MP3
B - CD
C – 256 MP3

Glinka
A –  320 Mp3
B – CD
C – 256 Mp3

Nelson
A – 320 MP3
B – CD
C – 256 Mp3

Davis
A – 256 MP3
B -  320 MP3
C – CD

Burton
A – 256 – MP3
B – 320 MP3
C - CD


I've missed most of the discussion about MP3 quality, but I'd like to throw in the following: in my experience, there's diminishing returns. With modern MP3 encoders, 192 kbps (v2 encoding), the source material is "close enough" for most consumer-grade players and home systems. The core sounds sound acceptable like themselves - even cymbals and transients, which used to completely fall apart. Beyond 192kpbs, high frequency clean up a little bit, but more importantly the stereo image solidifies and become more apparent. 

You really need good equipment to hear that, though. I used Sony studio headphones for this test (MDR-7509) and used to be a live sound engineer (tuned ear, but not a golden one)...and I'm betting I still got most of these wrong.

I think it's silly that people make a big deal out of this - if it doesn't sound good, fix it. Besides, winning an Internet Argument doesn't get you a trophy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok, I&#8217;ll bite. Here&#8217;s my guesses:</p>
<p>Gwen Stefani:<br />
A – 320 MP3<br />
B – 256 MP3<br />
C – CD copy</p>
<p>Moody Blues<br />
A – 320 MP3<br />
B - CD<br />
C – 256 MP3</p>
<p>Glinka<br />
A –  320 Mp3<br />
B – CD<br />
C – 256 Mp3</p>
<p>Nelson<br />
A – 320 MP3<br />
B – CD<br />
C – 256 Mp3</p>
<p>Davis<br />
A – 256 MP3<br />
B -  320 MP3<br />
C – CD</p>
<p>Burton<br />
A – 256 – MP3<br />
B – 320 MP3<br />
C - CD</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve missed most of the discussion about MP3 quality, but I&#8217;d like to throw in the following: in my experience, there&#8217;s diminishing returns. With modern MP3 encoders, 192 kbps (v2 encoding), the source material is &#8220;close enough&#8221; for most consumer-grade players and home systems. The core sounds sound acceptable like themselves - even cymbals and transients, which used to completely fall apart. Beyond 192kpbs, high frequency clean up a little bit, but more importantly the stereo image solidifies and become more apparent. </p>
<p>You really need good equipment to hear that, though. I used Sony studio headphones for this test (MDR-7509) and used to be a live sound engineer (tuned ear, but not a golden one)&#8230;and I&#8217;m betting I still got most of these wrong.</p>
<p>I think it&#8217;s silly that people make a big deal out of this - if it doesn&#8217;t sound good, fix it. Besides, winning an Internet Argument doesn&#8217;t get you a trophy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
