Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
"jer0en" wrote in message . .. pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround. In the electronics world PCM stands for pulse code modulation - a two level system that translates amplitude by the width of the pulse. Is it different in the audio world? David F. Cox |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
"jer0en" wrote in message .. . bloody hell we don't even know the logical format of an NTFS partition. who cares about pcm????? Marketing? Theirs just have stereo, ours have PCM. The best sell because their customers understand, the others because they are confused. |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Peter Larsen wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: You can't judge imaging at ALL on cans. There's no real image at all, just stuff to the right and left. Finally, after being on the usenet since 1993, I find something to disagree with you in. It is finding the usable cans for it that is difficult. Any suggestions? Do you include a shuffler? I have gotten fond of the HD 430's I use with this laptop, on location I use HD25, cheap and costly versions. I used my very old stax's for late night editing ... SR4 I think, currently their transformerbox (Number 00004) needs at least some new resistors after a mains hum event. No shuffler, I don't see the point, headphone-listening is about learning to listen to the image you get rather than about making it appear as if it was loudspeaker listening. My contributions to the rap cd's were monitored on location with HD25's. I expect to get one of the AT M50's that people here rave about some day. --scott Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
On Jul 5, 5:05 pm, "jer0en" wrote:
what do you mean? pulse code modulation? is pcm uncompressed, like cd or wav? no. so of course there wouldn't be any noticeable difference with mp3. it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any difference between mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you have a studio theatre in your living, let alone pcm and mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing. bull**** do so on my laptopspeakers mp3 even with high bit rate sucks the life out of transients and overtone details |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
"Signal" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote: Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually indistinguishable from PCM. That tells us about either you ears or the type of music you listen to. You may not be able to "distinguish" it, but don't project that onto others. You know nothing about my hearing acuity, or what I listen to, and nor did I say I _couldn't_ distinguish MP3 and PCM. Don't put words in my mouth you snotty little man. Oh, you have described your hearing acuity very well. It is as finely honed as your social skills. Another puffed up cretin who can't read. Actually, he reads quite well, especially the "snotty little man" part. ;-) I don't suffer fools gladly, probably why we never got along. Everybody else is a fool Paul, and you are the smartest guy around, right? |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
wrote in message
On Jul 5, 5:05 pm, "jer0en" wrote: what do you mean? pulse code modulation? is pcm uncompressed, like cd or wav? no. so of course there wouldn't be any noticeable difference with mp3. it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any difference between mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you have a studio theatre in your living, let alone pcm and mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing. bull**** do so on my laptopspeakers mp3 even with high bit rate sucks the life out of transients and overtone details Still relying on those sighted evaluations, right? They let you hear whatever you want to believe. |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
it is your job to uphold a virtual version of reality, to the extent of
actual care? what are they paying you? I've been wanting to ask that for quite a while. there is no digital data storage/encoding standard on earth, least of all one that is worth caring, and least of all in digital audio engineering. bet you also care about all the specifics of your funeral, or isn't that a part of your job? |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
no, it's not marketing. the procedure of defining technological concepts,
that is including their commercial names, is way to rigid and COMPLETELY top level to allow some silly sales executives on the ground floor to be a part of it. "pcm" comes from floor 53. |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
since your post suggest that normally other physical formats than pcm would
be used for surround, it only confirms the importance of discussing the having of standards in digital data storage/encoding technologies, and the specifics of these, because we are shure that the best standard will eventually supersede all others, eventhough the specifics of the predicate "good", including "best", will for ever remain part of an unfinishable discussion we generally refer to as philosophy. and eventhough state and religion are now separate, state and philosophy join very well together. |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
definitive cynism for instance, like nietzsche and to some extent darwin,
simply states that good is that which prevails. personally, I could not conceive of a better definition of evil. |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
On Jul 6, 6:44 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
bull**** do so on my laptopspeakers mp3 even with high bit rate sucks the life out of transients and overtone details Still relying on those sighted evaluations, right? They let you hear whatever you want to believe. lap top speakers = sighted evaluations bad logic there old man they sound even worse when using monitors in my studio. do you have your own studio?? or is your church supplying all your gear?? |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
what you in fact say is that pcm is a technique to digitally store analogue
samples, which should preferably go for all encoding types that record audio digitally. it doesn't seem to define pcm. alternatively, pcm doesn't seem to define anything either, so why not just say "stereo". |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
Signal wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote: it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any difference between mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you have a studio theatre in your living, let alone pcm and mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing. I hate to tell you this, but it is very, very obvious to hear the differences between mp3 and CD files. I suggest you first of all go and listen on a decent playback system, and secondly I suggest you get the AES disc that gives exaggerated examples of various lossy compression artifacts. Once you learn what they sound like, they will start driving you up the wall until soon you will not be able to stand mp3 encoding any longer. Depends on the source material. Assuming finest quality encoding practices, differences range from blatantly obvious to virtually (possibly absolutely) imperceptible. Oh, of course, I can build test tracks to deliberately make it imperceptable. In fact, for a while the techno guys were using several generations of MD as an effect, because they liked what the ATRAC encoding did to the sound. Take a record that already has several deliberate generations of encoding and one more is not apt to change much. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
David F. Cox wrote:
"jer0en" wrote in message ... pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround. In the electronics world PCM stands for pulse code modulation - a two level system that translates amplitude by the width of the pulse. Is it different in the audio world? No, you are thinking of PWM, pulse width modulation. PCM is a bitstream of (usually binary but sometimes Gray code or something weird) digital code pulses which indicate succeeding analogue values. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
Peter Larsen wrote:
No shuffler, I don't see the point, headphone-listening is about learning to listen to the image you get rather than about making it appear as if it was loudspeaker listening. But that's exactly why I say you can't get real imaging on headphones. If a recording is made to give a good image on a pair of speakers, with all the instruments in the right place and the edges of the sound field extending well beyond the speakers, when you play it back on headphones everything goes all wrong with a hole in the middle. Yes, if a recording is specifically made for headphone playback, you can get a great image.... but then you have a recording you can't listen to on speakers. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... David F. Cox wrote: "jer0en" wrote in message l... pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround. In the electronics world PCM stands for pulse code modulation - a two level system that translates amplitude by the width of the pulse. Is it different in the audio world? No, you are thinking of PWM, pulse width modulation. PCM is a bitstream of (usually binary but sometimes Gray code or something weird) digital code pulses which indicate succeeding analogue values. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Thank you - time for more searches and revision |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
But that's exactly why I say you can't get real imaging on headphones. If
a recording is made to give a good image on a pair of speakers, with all the instruments in the right place and the edges of the sound field extending well beyond the speakers, when you play it back on headphones everything goes all wrong with a hole in the middle. probably due to less distortion. in both digital and analogue amplification as well as in speaker design 29th century techniques are being applied to have the instruments come from all the right places, basicly to have the engineers agree on a perfect recording, while completely corrupting the source signal as a whole in the background to prevent illegal copying, and audial copying to begin with. you should start with exchanging you mains plugs with large glass 5A / 250V fuses in parellel to get the desired value, then at least you would have actual current. they cost about 50 cents. Yes, if a recording is specifically made for headphone playback, you can get a great image.... but then you have a recording you can't listen to on speakers. and not even satan would be content to listen to music over headphones at home, unless in order to record illegal copies of an original. if I were to live in Diy, I would simply buy two 2 or 3 inch general frequency speakers and line them with a sky doughnut for seclusion, solder a 2x0.25 microphone cable to each and connect these with an oehlbach jack (15 euro). but then again I don't know how important headphones are for a recording engineer facing and consequently caring for all kinds of digital data storage and encoding technologies, and the standards thereof. |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
not currently. are there any white bloodcells in alt.audio.eq? there seem to
be digital viruses around. |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
well well
|
#100
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
if find mp3 completely harmless, whereas music is supposed to do things with
you. |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
so pcm is not a storage/encoding technology for specific media like for
instance mfm was, but just a sampling technology for analogue AV. |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
you see, mfm was a storage/encoding tech to store data on hard disk that was
already(binary) digital. it seems that pcm is at least one phase prior to this proces, and has nothing to do with writing the data to the actual medium. so either the name pcm, or at least comparing pcm to mfm, is confusing. |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
since mp3 is a compression algorithm, comparing pcm to mp3 is not even
comparing a fruit to a fruit, and not just purely technically speaking, but commercially speaking as well, unless the source of the mp3 file would have been a pcm recording, which, I gather, is not necessarily so. indeed, digital standards are something to care about, but first they would have to be properly categorized. that is, publicly, and not on floor 53. |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
mfm is a physical storage standard, concerning writing binary digital data
to a physical medium. pcm is a logical sampling standard, concerning writing digitally encoded analogue samples to a file. mp3 is a compression algorithm for digital audio files, independant of the sampling technique used to record the original. while pcm has been used as the standard sampling technique for all normal CDs since 1983, as described in the cd red book, though from an entirely different category, mp3 seems to be identifying itself as a standard superseding pcm allowing all kinds of other, superior sampling techniques to hide under its umbrella. the logicer you go, the killer it gets |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
one day we'll all be listening to the white noise of a superior facsimile
signal, and they will probably commercially call it source direct. |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
I'm afraid that currently I'm not into shipping. products have to be
available at local stores for me to have any access to them. |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
and if I like music. I'm afraid it is a bit deeper than that.
|
#108
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
well they tend to get lost or break after 25 years or so. so the main
problem is really availability. |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
do you have any confirmation on that? I have audial confirmation on my
version. it's thin, but it is at least something. |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
my point being that it was available to children of 3 buying liquorice. 369 and 468 are cute numbers, but only to those who have exclusive access of the material. |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Yes, if a recording is specifically made for headphone playback, you can get a great image.... but then you have a recording you can't listen to on speakers. Are my contributions to the RAP CD's "recordings you can't listen to on speakers"? --scott Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
by the way, who are the techno guys? are they any good?
|
#113
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 00:22:30 -0700, David F. Cox wrote
(in article ) : "jer0en" wrote in message . .. pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround. In the electronics world PCM stands for pulse code modulation - a two level system that translates amplitude by the width of the pulse. Is it different in the audio world? David F. Cox No. |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 05:34:46 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article ): what you in fact say is that pcm is a technique to digitally store analogue samples, which should preferably go for all encoding types that record audio digitally. it doesn't seem to define pcm. alternatively, pcm doesn't seem to define anything either, so why not just say "stereo". You are talking apples and oranges here. PCM is merely the way that ones and zeros are represented on the recording media. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantization process that turns the audio into digital words, nor does it have anything to do with what's being quantized. A better analogy from the old mono/phonograph days would be the difference between vertically cut or laterally cut records. The music, in either case, is the same recording, only the way in which it is inscribed in the grooves differs. |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 06:19:49 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article ): But that's exactly why I say you can't get real imaging on headphones. If a recording is made to give a good image on a pair of speakers, with all the instruments in the right place and the edges of the sound field extending well beyond the speakers, when you play it back on headphones everything goes all wrong with a hole in the middle. probably due to less distortion. in both digital and analogue amplification as well as in speaker design 29th century techniques are being applied to have the instruments come from all the right places, basicly to have the engineers agree on a perfect recording, while completely corrupting the source signal as a whole in the background to prevent illegal copying, and audial copying to begin with. you should start with exchanging you mains plugs with large glass 5A / 250V fuses in parellel to get the desired value, then at least you would have actual current. they cost about 50 cents. Yes, if a recording is specifically made for headphone playback, you can get a great image.... but then you have a recording you can't listen to on speakers. and not even satan would be content to listen to music over headphones at home, unless in order to record illegal copies of an original. if I were to live in Diy, I would simply buy two 2 or 3 inch general frequency speakers and line them with a sky doughnut for seclusion, solder a 2x0.25 microphone cable to each and connect these with an oehlbach jack (15 euro). but then again I don't know how important headphones are for a recording engineer facing and consequently caring for all kinds of digital data storage and encoding technologies, and the standards thereof. Most recording engineers do not use headphones for "mix-down", they use near-field monitor speakers and many classical recording engineers use good quality audiophile speakers. Well recorded classical or jazz is recorded to two-track using just a stereo pair of microphones. Their correct placement assures proper imaging and phase coherence. It is permissible to use accent microphones on instruments requiring them as long as they are subordinate to the main stereo pair. Multi-miked symphonic music sounds terrible because instruments that mix together in the air between the orchestra and the listener's seat, sound altogether different than they do when miked up-close. Also, multimiked orchestras have NO image. Pan-potting an instrument to it's approximate place linearly from left-to right across the stage gives you just that, a bunch of musicians lined-up in a straight line across the stage. Real orchestras don't do that either. So, multi-miking is just wrong any way you look at it. With modern pop music, none of this is important because most pop music doesn't actually exist in real space anyway. |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 08:03:10 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article ): by the way, who are the techno guys? are they any good? What "tech guys"? To whom or to what are you responding? When you don't quote the post you are answering, no one has the slightest idea what you are talking about. PLEASE quote the material to which you are responding. |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 07:55:35 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article ): do you have any confirmation on that? I have audial confirmation on my version. it's thin, but it is at least something. Confirmation of what? Nobody has any way of knowing what you are talking about or to whom your comments are aimed. Please quote the posts you are responding to. |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
and resuming about a 100 REs, apart from having the right to sing and vote,
we know seem to have a right to care, specifically about the merits of digital audio standards. |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
I would agree that, for mixing down, monitoring between speakers is better
than between headphones. only trouble is that to my knowledge of play-back equipment, the only studios that would have the infinitesimal power resources required to do (15"?) speaker monitoring undistortedly, would be island's, virgin's and possibly deutsche grammophon. in all other places on earth you would get moderate up to incredible distortion over speakers, which is just the beginning of what people at home experience, whatever VH end stuff they may have, namely infinitesimal distortion. the result of this in the studio would be that recordings would be ADAPTED, that is be rid of any dangerous amplitudes and usually entire dangerous frequency ranges, to at least be reproduceable undistortedly in the studio itself. and that is before it would be stored on any superior medium. headphones however are a lot less comfy, but produce about 100 times less distortion because their power requirements are about 100 times less, which would allow you to do at least a complete (as to the frequency spectrum) original recording, e.g. for posterity. no not for the record |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
there is preciously little advanced about listening to actually undistorted
music of whatever genre. there is no image, no pounding base, no screaming treble. it's more like listening to the czar's music box than anything else. the point is that music is worth listening to this way, because not the recording but the music "as is" would have this special intrinsic quality, as opposed to (car hifi) loudness, that we call BEAUTY. there's no need to be adding any images, particularly if you're not even shure that they exist, since we are perfectly capable of creating them ourselves. so if you record music, please have it sound as simple as you can. and if you experience an image, get rid of it. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings. | Pro Audio | |||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help! | General | |||
Analog recordings on a computer | Tech | |||
Why don't classical piano recordings sound as good as pop recordings? | High End Audio | |||
digitizing cassette recordings | General |