As a tangent to the mp3 thread; what is a 'natural' artificial sound and given that it is artificial, should it even be expected to sound natural?
What I mean is: reproduced sound is artificial, we know that.
But, for some at least, the aim of home hi-fi is to have a 'natural' sounding system. This may mean one that is faithful to the sound of the original instruments but within the constraints of plucking that sound from it's original context (assuming it had one) and dropping them into a entirely different space.
To me the difference between the two files was that one sounded more artificial than the other and I therefore assumed that that was the mp3.
But artificial (in this context) might also mean better suited to it's playing environment. When I'm preparing images for the web some use of unsharp mask makes for a 'better' jpeg on screen. My thought on the mp3 was that it had had some unsharp mask applied.
What I mean is: reproduced sound is artificial, we know that.
But, for some at least, the aim of home hi-fi is to have a 'natural' sounding system. This may mean one that is faithful to the sound of the original instruments but within the constraints of plucking that sound from it's original context (assuming it had one) and dropping them into a entirely different space.
To me the difference between the two files was that one sounded more artificial than the other and I therefore assumed that that was the mp3.
But artificial (in this context) might also mean better suited to it's playing environment. When I'm preparing images for the web some use of unsharp mask makes for a 'better' jpeg on screen. My thought on the mp3 was that it had had some unsharp mask applied.