[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Signal" wrote in message
...
Why is the acoustic noise floor a factor in
transcribing LPs and cassettes?

It's easier to hear what you're doing if there isn't
loads of noise all around you.

And easier to simply use headphones for monitoring.
Removes the chance of acoustically induced turntable
vibration as well.

Roger that.

Going fanless is a lot of expense and trouble and possibly warranted if you
are recording live while sitting right next to the PC. But for transcribing
tapes and LPs, going fanless is more trouble than it is worth. CPU power is
also not an issue, so a CPU with modest power dissipation is just fine.

[Scott Dorsey]

Signal wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.

Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually indistinguishable from PCM.

Possibly in mono, definitely not in stereo. It is shameful what MP3 does
to stereo imaging, even at very high bitrates.

You hear an obvious difference with MP3 compressed at the "extreme"
setting? It's subtle at best to my ears. Maybe I should try an A/B
with cans...

You can't just imaging at ALL on cans.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Signal wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.

Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually indistinguishable from PCM.

Possibly in mono, definitely not in stereo. It is shameful what MP3 does
to stereo imaging, even at very high bitrates.

You hear an obvious difference with MP3 compressed at the "extreme"
setting? It's subtle at best to my ears. Maybe I should try an A/B
with cans...

You can't judge imaging at ALL on cans. There's no real image at all,
just stuff to the right and left.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Signal wrote:

"Richard Crowley" 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.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

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.

--scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[jer0en]

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.

[jer0en]

pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.

[jer0en]

at 192k sample rate? I find that hard to believe.

[jer0en]

possibly. but if I select pcm on any dvd player I will get stereo, as
opposed to surround.

[jer0en]

I am most definitively not a professional. I have been a psychiatric patient
for the past 25 years, i.e. since I was 18, and I have never worked
professionally at all, as a direct result of which my income has always been
social security which, none the less, never held me back from making useful
contributions to this group, though I admit to having studied philosophy for
7 months at the PU.

[jer0en]

where
did you
GET
that

expression

[jer0en]

so noted, but not agreed

[jer0en]

you have definitely never heard the original BASF low noise tape cassette.
they came in white plastic cases. beats pulp of anything from the chromium
era.

[jer0en]

they used the same tape to record the masters for LPs of the orange BASF
label. classical stuff, but best recordings ever.

you can easily recognize the tape from the record.

[jer0en]

I've been psychotic to many times to start all that again. but I believe
you.

[Richard Crowley]

"jer0en" wrote ...
pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.

"pcm" literally means binary, digital (vs. analog)
It is not a useful name for practical purposes.

"pcm" doesn't even specifically imply audio, much
less stereo audio.

[jer0en]

I've opened up a revox once. it proved to be one giant removable connection.
and that's how it sounded, moroles like a sound blaster. are you sure the
nakamichi dragon is any different? since they are in the same price
category.

[jer0en]

even on mp3

[jer0en]

ok

[jer0en]

and isn't it wonderful?

[Richard Crowley]

"jer0en" wrote in message
. ..
so noted, but not agreed

PLONKED
for refusing to follow basic rules of conversation.
We have no idea what you are replying to unless
you quote it.

[jer0en]

metaphysics. ok. why do I place my speakers as far apart as possible? to
approximate headphones as much as possible. because headphones is how the
engineer/mixer made it, and what (image) the engineer/mixer meant it to be.
if what was meant includes an image is the matter we are discussing.

so what is an image? if an image is something that speakers add to what the
mixer made with headphones alone, it cannot be meant that way, and therefore
we should consider it undesirable, blame it on distortion and not attempt to
reproduce it. however, if the image was indeed meant and made as such by the
mixer we should, and appreciate it.

personally I doubt if the human brain is capable of extrapolating
interlacing speaker images using headphones alone, unless the mixer would be
using speakers as monitors, which they don't. this is largely supported by
my findings that the less (analogue) play-back is distorted, the more the
signal will separate into simply left and right, like david gilmour's solo
on us and them, each note coming from the other speaker.

so in my opinion the stereo image is a ghost of distortion, a user projected
atmosphere assiociated with particular equipment, but I could be wrong, and
also it could actually be mixed using speakers. appreciate the five-way
split-up of the headphone image, didn't know that.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


You can't judge imaging at ALL on cans. There's no real
image at all, just stuff to the right and left.

Really?

I understand people who complain about the "In the head" sound, because I do
hear that. Unlike them, I don't find it to be objectionable.

I mix on headphones all the time.

I hear a stereo image with a right, to midright, to center, to midleft to
left sound source positioning, all within my head.

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" wrote in message


"Peter Larsen" 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. ;-)

[jer0en]

am I correct in summarizing that, just like hard disks used to record data
in mfm, CDs record digital audio in pcm? short, that pcm is the encoding
type used for all non-SA audio CDs? I had no idea.

in that case, of course, there would be a slight but noticeable difference
between pcm and mp3, only worth discussing in would-be satanic congregations
seeking the submission and subsequent destruction of man through copyright
law.

satan could have my soul anytime, at least he isn't liable to make any
copies.

[jer0en]

pcm. why won't it just say "stereo"?

instead of referring to the bloody redbook.

who cares about data encoding in nineteen 2008 anyway? since the ATA
interface standard from 1987 NOBODY knows what storage/encoding technology
is applied on any hard drive that is produced, except for the manufacturer
who is in an air-tight chamber behind locked doors on floor 53.

[jer0en]

bloody hell we don't even know the logical format of an NTFS partition. who
cares about pcm?????

[jer0en]

got the picture, see above. I know the specs, or rather the names of digital
audio formats, but except for a few imperative CDs I never actually listen
to digital music.

so I only know pcm from my stereo tube when I play a dvd and mp3 only from
people I know. I have never played mp3 at home.

doing a test would be easy, but why bother if you already know what it will
sound like? it's not gonna be anything else than golf-ball speaker sounds
coming from a 15 inch woofer speaker system, which is what you need to play
back analogue audio. not the tape cassettes, the records!

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:17:08 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote
(in article ):

"jer0en" wrote ...
pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.

"pcm" literally means binary, digital (vs. analog)
It is not a useful name for practical purposes.

"pcm" doesn't even specifically imply audio, much
less stereo audio.



Actually it refers to the TYPE of digital encoding called "Pulse Code
Modulation." There are other types as well such as MFM (Modified FM
Modulation), DPM (Digital Phase Modulation) etc. These other are generally
not used for audio AFAIK. DSD or Direct-Stream Digital is the only other
encoding type that I know of that is used for audio and its the format for
SACD.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:29:26 -0700, Signal wrote
(in article ):

"Richard Crowley" wrote:

pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.

"pcm" literally means binary, digital (vs. analog)
It is not a useful name for practical purposes.

"pcm" doesn't even specifically imply audio, much
less stereo audio.

PCM in this context, whatever could it mean?? Sorry for being so
ambiguous that I got you flustered. Sheeesh... I thought this group
was populated by audio professionals, not space cadets!





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

Pulse Code Modulation. Its the method by which ones and zeros are written to
media to represent a digital word In Redbook CD each word consists of 16-bits
and each bit is written to disc (or tape, or the hard drive) using Pulse Code
Modulation.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 14:05:03 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article ):

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 neither. It has nothing to do with the actual quanization, only how the
samples are written to media. In other words asking whether PCM is compressed
or not is like asking someone is a gasoline powered car has two doors or
four.

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.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"jer0en" wrote:

got the picture, see above. I know the specs, or rather the names of digital
audio formats, but except for a few imperative CDs I never actually listen
to digital music.

so I only know pcm from my stereo tube when I play a dvd and mp3 only from
people I know. I have never played mp3 at home.

doing a test would be easy, but why bother if you already know what it will
sound like? it's not gonna be anything else than golf-ball speaker sounds
coming from a 15 inch woofer speaker system, which is what you need to play
back analogue audio. not the tape cassettes, the records!

You should quote what you are replying to. Otherwise, your point is
lost and people don't bother to read you.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Signal wrote:

Jenn wrote:

got the picture, see above. I know the specs, or rather the names of
digital
audio formats, but except for a few imperative CDs I never actually listen
to digital music.

so I only know pcm from my stereo tube when I play a dvd and mp3 only from
people I know. I have never played mp3 at home.

doing a test would be easy, but why bother if you already know what it
will
sound like? it's not gonna be anything else than golf-ball speaker sounds
coming from a 15 inch woofer speaker system, which is what you need to
play
back analogue audio. not the tape cassettes, the records!

You should quote what you are replying to. Otherwise, your point is
lost and people don't bother to read you.

I wouldn't bother Jenn. He claims to be psychotic.





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

ic

[Scott Dorsey]

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?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

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.

..wav files and red book CDs are PCM. PCM is a general description of any
data format that is directly sampled with direct waveform amplitudes.

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.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

jer0en wrote:
pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.

No, there are plenty of PCM surround formats. Not very popular for
distribution, though. Just because it's PCM doesn't mean it has any
particular channel format.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

jer0en wrote:
you have definitely never heard the original BASF low noise tape cassette.
they came in white plastic cases. beats pulp of anything from the chromium
era.

I used that stuff for bin mastering work for years. If you like that stuff,
RMGI is still making it. Tape Warehouse will sell you big pancakes of it,
or bulk load it into whatever cassette shells you'd like.

Won't do anything about the massive flutter problems inherent in the cassette
format, of course.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

jer0en wrote:
they used the same tape to record the masters for LPs of the orange BASF
label. classical stuff, but best recordings ever.

No, I believe that stuff was done on 369. Sort of the predicessor to the
modern RMGI 468 tape.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

jer0en wrote:
pcm. why won't it just say "stereo"?

Because stereo is the channel format. It has nothing to do with the
encoding.

instead of referring to the bloody redbook.

The Red Book refers to the channel format, the encoding, and the the
medium. Red Book volumes contain PCM data, either stereo or quadrophonic.
Sadly, when the Red Book was written, nobody was thinking about a mono
format although in retrospect it would have been useful.

who cares about data encoding in nineteen 2008 anyway? since the ATA
interface standard from 1987 NOBODY knows what storage/encoding technology
is applied on any hard drive that is produced, except for the manufacturer
who is in an air-tight chamber behind locked doors on floor 53.

Audio engineers care about data encoding, because it is their job.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 19:34:59 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

jer0en wrote:
you have definitely never heard the original BASF low noise tape cassette.
they came in white plastic cases. beats pulp of anything from the chromium
era.

I used that stuff for bin mastering work for years. If you like that stuff,
RMGI is still making it. Tape Warehouse will sell you big pancakes of it,
or bulk load it into whatever cassette shells you'd like.

Won't do anything about the massive flutter problems inherent in the cassette
format, of course.
--scott


Or self erasure, or poor S/N, or high distortion or drop-outs caused by
narrow track widths, etc.