Eclipse CD8454 vs. CD8053 ?

erobinson wrote: Fine, I'm not trying to get you to convert to mp3, I use AAC anyways, I just want to make sure people know that mp3 is a great way to compress music because as long as you encode it at a reasonable bit rate, you will never hear the difference even on the highest end system. I felt people might get the wrong idea from your post. I personally see no reason to use lossless encoding, as there is no good reason to waste hard drive space simply because I have the ability to waste the space and not care. Anyway, I'm done.

I also am not trying to say you are foolish, but that statement is simply wrong. kfr01 and I have been over this a few times, and I could sit you down in front of my system, and you WOULD hear the difference, NO MATTER the bit rate. I did an experiment I ripped a song I was VERY familiar with - Jennifer Warnes - The Hunter - with EAC (it was the first and ONLY time I have ever gotten it to work, BTW) saved as a WAV file. I then converted THAT file (using EZCDExtractor) to various bit-rate MP3 and FLAC formats, and without converting them back, I burned them DIRECTLY to CD, using Nero5. There was a NOTICEABLE difference, between wav and MP3, even at 320kbps. I (think, may have, might have) heard a difference even in the flac recordings. (This has yet to be empirically proven - as I said I MIGHT have heard a difference - the experiments are incomplete as of this writing.) Now, in the *CAR*, where the noise floor is so high already, it is very unlikely you will hear the differnece in MOST music, rolling down the road at 70MPH, with the windows down, but in the house, with an even moderate resolution system, you WILL hear the difference.It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."