[Danny T]

On Sep 20, 10:24*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Danny T wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:30 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Danny T wrote:
And pardon my bringing this up again but all anyone listens to anymore
is an MP3 format anyway.... I pick up my guitar or sit at my piano to
make art. I sell a product. I don't care if someone loves me for it, I
want my new car and a boat....

Give 'em an MP3 and keep the extra coin.

Suit yourself. You are quite wrong about that being all people listen
to, unless your market is basically ****ty pop music for people who
aren't really listening anyway.

Doug Sax and Bill Schnee are taking a different approach:

http://www.transaudioelite.com/atctoinnewdo.html

There are people who appreciate good music that also sounds good.

BTW, I've wanted to pick up on some of your tunes. Got pointers? Thanks.
You need to go back and read what I wrote. I like good music and when
I play it for me I want it to sound great. The majority of the world
can't hear it to save their life and if you think otherwise, it is you
who is wrong. I didn't say you had to like it, but fact is fact to
anyone that actually wants to make a living.

Danny, you said:

all anyone listens to anymore is an MP3 format anyway.

In which case you are far more wrong than I am. You blew it when you
used the word "all". Nuff said.

Now, what tunes have you written? I am curious about your work. I'd like
to hear your stuff. If it affords you nice boats and such it must be
kinda cool. What and where is it?

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

Hank, are you really one of those people that drag out a flame war
based on a misspelled word or semantics? I think I was damned clear
that I was talking about a general public and not what I listen to.
You blew it when you decided to be some kind of starving idealistic,
die poor, artist. I'm an artist but for some reason people always
climb all over me for not being poor. I'm just realistic and know when
to holster my art and make a living.

As for tunes, most of what I have done for the past many years is
sound tracks and commercials. I write a lot of tunes but I've been
playing on boats for most of the past 6 years. I've done lots of work
since then but I can't think of any reason to put it in the hands of
someone looking to prove a point or insult me. I'll just license it
where it makes me a living. Who cares what you think of it if someone
else wants to pay me for it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Danny T" wrote in message

On Sep 20, 6:29 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"acousticism" wrote in message



Don't you want your recordings to be the highest quality
possible?

As a delivery format, 44/16 provides exactly that. - the
best possible audible sound quality.

does anyone remember why 44.1/16 was adopted in the first
place....

The BBC had been experimenting with various sample rates and word lengths,
and believed that 32/13 would reproduce high quality audio.

The 16 bit part was gratuitous. It was already known that a properly
dithered 13-14 bits does the job just fine, but since they were coat-tailing
in with computer parts, going to 16 bits was sorta free.

There are various stories about the sample rate. They knew that 32 kHz
would do the job. They knew how big the disc could get and still fit into a
standard width car radio chassis. They knew how much data they could squeeze
on a disc that size and still have a producible disc with the current
plastic molding technology (which was a little dicey in the early days).
They picked the highest sample rate that allow the longest mainstream
classical musical work in its slowest published performance fit on one side
of a disc.

Didn't it have something to do with your ear
not being able to hear anything more then that anyway?

Yes.

That leaves processing as the only reason to get into
anything even in 44/1/24 and that has plenty of extra
room for the math.

Yes.

[Don Pearce]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Danny T" wrote in message

On Sep 20, 6:29 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"acousticism" wrote in message



Don't you want your recordings to be the highest quality
possible?

As a delivery format, 44/16 provides exactly that. - the
best possible audible sound quality.

does anyone remember why 44.1/16 was adopted in the first
place....

The BBC had been experimenting with various sample rates and word lengths,
and believed that 32/13 would reproduce high quality audio.

The 16 bit part was gratuitous. It was already known that a properly
dithered 13-14 bits does the job just fine, but since they were coat-tailing
in with computer parts, going to 16 bits was sorta free.

There are various stories about the sample rate. They knew that 32 kHz
would do the job. They knew how big the disc could get and still fit into a
standard width car radio chassis. They knew how much data they could squeeze
on a disc that size and still have a producible disc with the current
plastic molding technology (which was a little dicey in the early days).
They picked the highest sample rate that allow the longest mainstream
classical musical work in its slowest published performance fit on one side
of a disc.

Didn't it have something to do with your ear
not being able to hear anything more then that anyway?

Yes.

That leaves processing as the only reason to get into
anything even in 44/1/24 and that has plenty of extra
room for the math.

Yes.



I think this BBC Engineering monograph from 1968 throws a lot of useful
light around the place

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/archive...nograph_75.pdf

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Danny T" wrote in message

On Sep 20, 6:29 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"acousticism" wrote in message



Don't you want your recordings to be the highest
quality possible?

As a delivery format, 44/16 provides exactly that. -
the best possible audible sound quality.

does anyone remember why 44.1/16 was adopted in the
first place....

The BBC had been experimenting with various sample rates
and word lengths, and believed that 32/13 would
reproduce high quality audio. The 16 bit part was gratuitous. It was
already known
that a properly dithered 13-14 bits does the job just
fine, but since they were coat-tailing in with computer
parts, going to 16 bits was sorta free. There are various stories about
the sample rate. They
knew that 32 kHz would do the job. They knew how big the
disc could get and still fit into a standard width car
radio chassis. They knew how much data they could
squeeze on a disc that size and still have a producible
disc with the current plastic molding technology (which
was a little dicey in the early days). They picked the
highest sample rate that allow the longest mainstream
classical musical work in its slowest published
performance fit on one side of a disc.
Didn't it have something to do with your ear
not being able to hear anything more then that anyway?

Yes.

That leaves processing as the only reason to get into
anything even in 44/1/24 and that has plenty of extra
room for the math.

Yes.



I think this BBC Engineering monograph from 1968 throws a
lot of useful light around the place

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/archive...nograph_75.pdf


To say the least.

Especially:

Page 7:

"Subjective tests using white noise show that the ratio of peak signal to
RMS noise should be at least 72 dB".

12 bits gives 77 dB.

Page 8:

"...a sampling rate in excess of 30 kHz is required for broadcast quality."


The era that the CD ruled, running from 1983 when it was introduced
world-wide, to approximately year 2000 when MP3 and other lossy-compressed
formats started supplanting CD format, was actually about technical
overkill.

Modern perceptual coding techniques as implemented have effectively rolled
back the mainstream distribution media bandwidth from 22 kHz back to about
16 kHz, and dynamic range rolled back from 96 dB back into somewhere around
70 dB.

Note that the above relates to distribution formats, not production
formats. Because dynamic range can easily be lost during production even if
all-digital, higher resolution may be required during critical processing
steps.

All-digital production techniques generally have negligible effect on
bandwidth, and the bandwidth of analog signal processing equipment (except
recording) is generally much greater than 20 KHz.

IOW, thanks Don for this landmark reference.

[hank alrich]

Richard Crowley wrote:

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...

It [iTunes] is now a permanent part of the Mac OS.

Oh, that's special. (not)

While I have not installed OS10.5, I have found that using the Custom
Install gives me the option to install what I want and not what I don't
want.

When Lanis gets back form AK with her laptop I'll take a look at here
install discs. I kind of doubt they ahve changed that part of it.
Happiness often comes down to familiarity with any particular OS and
what one can do to manage it according to one's wishes.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Danny T]

On Sep 21, 6:39*am, Don Pearce wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Danny T" wrote in message

On Sep 20, 6:29 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"acousticism" wrote in message



Don't you want your recordings to be the highest quality
possible?

As a delivery format, 44/16 provides exactly that. - the
best possible audible sound quality.

does anyone remember why 44.1/16 was adopted in the first
place....

The BBC had been experimenting with various sample rates and word lengths,
and believed that 32/13 would reproduce high quality audio.

The 16 bit part was gratuitous. It was already known that a properly
dithered 13-14 bits does the job just fine, but since they were coat-tailing
in with computer parts, going to 16 bits was sorta free.

There are various stories about the sample rate. * They knew that 32 kHz
would do the job. They knew how big the disc could get and still fit into a
standard width car radio chassis. They knew how much data they could squeeze
on a disc that size and still have a producible disc with the current
plastic molding technology (which was a little dicey in the early days)..
They picked the highest sample rate that *allow the longest mainstream
classical musical work in its slowest published performance fit on one side
of a disc.

Didn't it have something to do with your ear
not being able to hear anything more then that anyway?

Yes.

That leaves processing as the only reason to get into
anything even in 44/1/24 and that has plenty of extra
room for the math.

Yes.

I think this BBC Engineering monograph from 1968 throws a lot of useful
light around the place

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/archive...s/bbc_monograp...

d

AGREED!
Unfortunately, the sales people don't get much out of it when they are
trying to sell the kiddies and narcissists the latest, greatest gear
to make them have the best music out there. Then we are living in a
world that spends 1.2 billion on movie effects and 15,000 on a script
and 10,000 for the soundtrack on a good day.

Anyone ever see the movie Idiocracy.

[Geoff]

Arny Krueger wrote:

The 16 bit part was gratuitous. It was already known that a properly
dithered 13-14 bits does the job just fine, but since they were
coat-tailing in with computer parts, going to 16 bits was sorta free.

Remember when audiphiles used to cream over LPs of digital 14-bit recordings
?

geoff

[Danny T]

On Sep 21, 5:57*pm, "geoff" wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

The 16 bit part was gratuitous. It was already known that a properly
dithered 13-14 bits does the job just fine, but since they were
coat-tailing in with computer parts, going to 16 bits was sorta free.

Remember when audiphiles used to cream over LPs of digital 14-bit recordings
?

geoff

I have to laugh when I hear people talking about the great sound of
vinyl. Now don't get me wrong. I know that there was a certain
sweetness to the compression and all but after the 3rd or 4th time you
played the LP, or the first time you made out to the LP and left it on
the table until morning the thing sounded like rice cripsies coming
through your PA.

I don't know if my ears are getting old, I'm getting use to digital or
digital is getting better but I recently listened to an LP on an old
turntable I was considering keeping and after about one song I chucked
the turntable and the LP's that were remaining. (afterwards I realized
I should have sold the stuff but what the hell, it was fun to destroy)

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

The 16 bit part was gratuitous. It was already known that a properly
dithered 13-14 bits does the job just fine, but since they were
coat-tailing in with computer parts, going to 16 bits was sorta free.

Remember when audiphiles used to cream over LPs of digital 14-bit recordings
?

And some of them actually sounded pretty good. Not all of them, mind you...
but you have to realize that a lot of the earlier 16 bit recorders weren't
any better than 14-bit accurate at best anyway, so some of those 14-bit
recordings were more likely twelve...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Acousticism]

How many software plugins do you use on a regular basis?

[Acousticism]

How many software plugins do you use on a regular basis? And what
format are they?

[Geoff]

acousticism wrote:
How many software plugins do you use on a regular basis? And what
format are they?

Who me ?

DX and VST. Probably only a dozen different ones regularly. Each track comes
loaded by default with 3 ( Noise Gate, 4-band parametric EQ, and
Compressor), but you can customise that to whatever you want.

If you mean how many active plugin instances - maybe 40 or so at any one
time. Never a ZCPU load problem, unless there are too many Ozones in there !

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
acousticism wrote:
How many software plugins do you use on a regular basis?

Me? None.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Danny T]

On Sep 22, 11:25*pm, acousticism wrote:
How many software plugins do you use on a regular basis? And what
format are they?

I use to use the C4 a lot but now there is a standard multi band that
comes with cubase but other then reverb *true verb mostly, I don't
use plug ins much at all.

[Geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article
,
acousticism wrote:
How many software plugins do you use on a regular basis?

Me? None.

Don't you plug in lots of big phenolic pcbs with 1/4" pitch contacts ?

;-)

geoff

[hank alrich]

geoff wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article
,
acousticism wrote:
How many software plugins do you use on a regular basis?

Me? None.

Don't you plug in lots of big phenolic pcbs with 1/4" pitch contacts ?

;-)

geoff

Yeah, and he does it with his digits, too.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Les Cargill]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
acousticism wrote:
How many software plugins do you use on a regular basis?

Me? None.
--scott

sed and grep are plugins.

--
Les Cargill

[[email protected]]

On 2008-09-23 said:
How many software plugins do you use on a regular basis?
Me? None.
sed and grep are plugins.
Maybe for processing text, but not audio g.
I use both regularly.





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania

[Federico]

How many software plugins do you use on a regular basis? And what
format are they?

How many do I have or how many do I use at once?
.....
I mostly use Waves pluging.
My sessions grow up to, let's say, a hundred of plugins for a heavy
processed song.
TDM and RTAS format on Mac.
RTAS and VST on PC.
F.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:

On 2008-09-23 said:
How many software plugins do you use on a regular basis?
Me? None.
sed and grep are plugins.
Maybe for processing text, but not audio g.
I use both regularly.

My accounting system is actually built with Software Tools components and
shell scripts and it's kind of clunky but has proven to be reliable over
the years.

And it doesn't matter if anything else works if the accounts can't be
collected...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2008-09-24 (ScottDorsey) said:
wrote:
How many software plugins do you use on a regular basis?
Me? None.
sed and grep are plugins.
Maybe for processing text, but not audio g.
I use both regularly.
My accounting system is actually built with Software Tools
components and shell scripts and it's kind of clunky but has proven
to be reliable over the years.
And it doesn't matter if anything else works if the accounts can't
be collected...
That and scheduling, and I do both with plaintext and other
text goodies. NOw since it's the lady who actually owns the
business and I'm basically just the audio guy she's doing
accounting in some spreadsheet. Before it was all text
based, and it worked!!!

TOok me awhile to figure out sed. Even the tutorials didn't
make a lot of sense until I started looking at some
examples.


DOn't know what I"d do without grep g.



Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania

[Acousticism]

When it comes to visual design, do you prefer 3D, or 2D that is simple
and easy to understand?