You clearly don't understand how MP3 processing works. There is no serious attempt to reconstruct the pre-compression waveform.
It is true that I just proved you wrong about measurements by proving that high bitrrate encoders preserve the waveforms of simple signals, notwithstandaing. But that was about simple test signals, not about music.
When a MP3 encoder encodes music, it removes portions of the music that your ear does not perceive because of masking. If that causes waveform distoriton, so be it. This key point causes a lot of people a lot of trouble because they can't conceive of two different waveforms sounding so much the same. Understand that, and you will have a good idea of why the ear is so tolerant of distortion in general.
So you were lyiing in the post where I corrected you said otherwise? Or maybe you are concealing your ignorance of the true facts by saying something vague. The MP3s that measure well are MP3 that contain simple waveforms that lack components that are masked by the ear.
If you contrive a test waveform that are very complex like real world music, and have some way to measure how well the decoded wave is like the pre-encoding waveform, it will not measure well.
Interestingly enough, the whole rest of your post sheds no additional light on how MP3 processing works. If it did it would contain words like "masking" and phases like "critical bands".
I'll leave what you wrote for the rest of your aimless and rambling post exactly as it was, so that people can see that in fact you were unable to say anything meaningful about how MP3 encoding and decoding works. I don't think you know, and your made-up weirdness about trying to reconstruct the original waveform is good evidence of that.
If you want to save yourself a lot of embarrassment, read up the Wikipedia article about MP3 encoding and decoding. It isn't easy reading.
"The use in MP3 of a lossy compression algorithm is designed to greatly reduce the amount of data required to represent the audio recording and still sound like a faithful reproduction of the original uncompressed audio for most listeners. ."
Note that the article says that the goal is to create a file that the goal is to create a wavefrom that :"still sound like a faithful reproduction of the original uncompressed audio for most listeners."
Not recreate the same wavefrom, but rather "...create a waveform that sounds like a faithful reproduction of the original uncompressed audio..."
Some here have some knowledge of the subject to be sure and believe what they may know to be true .
Nothing wrong with that but when dicussion degenerates into vitriole attacks and snide comments
then free intelegent dicsussion is inhibited .
OTOH at least for me (and many others ) I know that if I'm listening to 16/44.1 or better on a decent system its much more likely ( highly probable in fact to sound better than mp3***.)
Some here perhaps should come over to Audiokarma or maybe Steve Hoffman's forums just to see alternative viewpoints you may or may not find it interesting as they are more focused on audio than TV there. OTOH if you enjoy discussing audio it's a diversion from the usall TV stuff here
which is pretty good btw I'm learning a lot about TV here (I don't know everything :-) .
The bad part about the whole thread here is WE meaning ALL of us after post 5 or 6 hijacked the thread and contributed nothing of value to the OP 's origional topic.
Arnold I will say you did give OP good advise in post 3. You shouldn't take offense that I do not share your beliefs it's nothing personal or meant to be derogatory or denigrating in any way.
My beliefs are based on my experiences and knowlege not yours so ofc they are bound to be different .
Oh Arnold, Of course I can not fly you should know that !
Unfortunately this thread has morphed into little more than a pissing contest most of us were guilty as charged and then some of the self proclaimed scientific illuminati were in fact trolling this tread and making snide comments and contributed nothing ,seems like in a lot of forums *some* folks that have a lot of posts somehow feel entitled to thread crap.
Hopefully the OP will not be to discouraged from this thread , most threads here aren't as bad as this one became.
OP would also do well to check out Audiokharma for audio questions.
Kinda of a poor welcome welcome for a new poster! This thred ended up being a crap fest (Ofc there was one main instigator maybe two) not
much free discussion although some did attempt some free discussion and got thread crapped .
I've met a' few educated fools' in my day *some* were *some* my college proffs some years ago I recognize their methods similar to what I read
on a few posts here trying intimidate some of the other posters with their knowlege
or references right,partially right , wrong maybe out of context or at least debatable . There was never much free discussion in those classes either.
That being said I think the Moderators would be doing us all a service by locking the tread