I would have to disagree with "very little/no perceptible difference
between it an uncompressed audio."  I have done work relating to the
survival of audio features through an MP3 encode/decode and there is a
whale of a difference even at 320k (5:1 compression).  The basic problem
is that the perceptual model requires that assumptions be made about
what is or isn't important.  Try burning a CD of an uncompressed song
and a compressed/decompressed song and listen to them in a decent
stereo.  If you can't tell the difference then you either got very lucky
with the material encoded or you are fooling yourself.  Do you have any
documention of the Berkeley tests to which you are refering?
	That said, I am not saying that its not a great thing that you can
distribute your music via MP3.  It certainly beats RealAudio.  This is
what the internet is for - for everyone to be able to become a
distributor of their own work without capital costs.  I distribute all
of my software this way, which I could never do without the net.
	As for why are the music companies unhappy about MP3, its not because
MP3 is the best posible format, but because people are stealing their
products.  And MP3 often sounds better than a cassette, which may
undercut their sales there.  Once bandwidth increases, people will
probably be stealing uncompressed audio via the net (and then movies,
etc...).  MP3 is just the present compromise between sound quality and
bandwidth.  But I think that it is a disservice to say that MP3 is "CD
Quality."  It is hard enough to establish a quality standard without
diluting it unnecessarily.  Part of csound is the ability to deliver
music at the highest possible quality on a given device (set your sr and
kr accordingly).  And many are unhappy with the sound quality 44.1/16
uncompressed.  But you work with what you have.  But don't fool yourself
that it can't be better.

-- 
Mike Berry
mikeb@nmol.com
http://www.nmol.com/users/mikeb

	Switch Flipper wrote:

> Mp3 is a great format... it is intended to compress audio by filtering out
> all tones imperceptible to the human ear.  When encoded at 160k, there is
> very little/no perceptible difference between it an uncompressed audio...
> there have been studies at berkely and other such respectable places to try
> and prove this, and they have shown that more than not people cannot tell
> the difference.  Of course there are exceptions to this, but on the whole
> mp3 is a great format -- if it was not, would sony and a whole whack of
> other large record companies have formed a commission to battle music piracy
> in the mp3 format?  It's catching on.