"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message ...
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

You haven't even told us if you have a compression tool or if you know how
to use it.

If I have a "compression tool" I'm not aware of it.

Q: Where is the evidence of any (hyper-)compression in this screenshot?
A: There isn't any!

It doesn't look like it, but compression is harder to detect visually.

Limiting, otherwise known as 'clipping' of the waveform, is readily
apparent and is often much more destructive to the audio.

Are we still talking about the "Dark Side Of The Moon" screenshot?
Or the "Sunday Bloody Sunday" animation?

The Bloody Sunday .gif

In the case of DSotM, I see no clipping either. There is one peak that
reaches full scale at the bottom near the 33 minute mark and I have
posted at my site addition, medium and extreme closeups of that peak as
well which clearly reveal no limiting or clipping has taken place.

...unless I just still don't have my terms as well-defined as think I
do! :-)


Well... I stated in an earlier post today (transient peak), that I really don't
think you have a grip on the term "clipping" quite yet.

A). Attempting to exceed 0dBFS is 'digital clipping'.

B). Limiting a waveform so as not to exceed 0dBFS is also 'clipping'.


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

Darn screenshots... I keep trying to close the window using your work surface icon.

:-\

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message ...

The only time he's "on the hook" as far as I'm concerned is...

snip

(3) when he continues to speak about things which
I perceive to pertain only to uncompressed audio in a discussion which
assumes the presence of lossy compression.

Waffle. You told me yesterday that dealing with uncompressed audio
in preparation for MP3 was *very* important to what you wanted to learn
here.

Other than that, I think Geoff's a really great guy who I would not
hesitate to consult for technical advice pertaining to his particular
field(s) of endeavor. There is definitely some overlap between my life
and his in that regard. I really don't enjoy being "at odds" with him.

Ah c'mon... you're no more at odds with him than with me are you?
We all have things to say, we just say them differently.

Once up in the seriously high bit rates, it
can be really good.

At what point does it become better than common,

*
high-bias audiotape?
*

Very funny. ;-)

My ignorant ears "say" 128kb/s.

That's where, IMHO, things just start to get a little bit better.
Greater than 300kbps is astoundingly good for what it is.

Do you have ANY other audio processing tools besides "normalize" in your kit ?

Yes. But none that perform as well as "normalize" for its intended and
stated purpose.

You should, though it would consume a great deal of time, learn about
equalization, compression (NOT DATA compression), peak limiting
and a couple of others before diving into normalization. These could
severely reduce the negative impact of basic 'normalization' and serve
you well when approaching the encoding process.

RMS normalization is usually pretty devastating, as it simply hacks away
the peaks to achieve it's goal - - though I thought that link to the developer's
FAQ was interesting to say the least as he implies there is more to his
algorithm than would meet the eye - but he doesn't justify it clearly.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
Darn screenshots... I keep trying to close the window using your work surface icon.

Hehe!! You should see my wife's reaction whenever I use a full-screen
screenshot as my wallpaper!

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

(3) when he continues to speak about things which
I perceive to pertain only to uncompressed audio in a discussion which
assumes the presence of lossy compression.

Waffle. You told me yesterday that dealing with uncompressed audio
in preparation for MP3 was *very* important to what you wanted to learn
here.

My point on this is that if Geoff wants to espouse truths about what I'm
doing with the audio at the WAV level, then he also needs to be sure
that he's telling me something that doesn't pertain only to CD audio and
leaves out factors involving the MP3 encoding process. If I am
operating under an assumption of the presence of lossy encoding
algorithms and I perceive his arguments as pertaining only to audio
without considering the lossy elements, then it's his responsibility to
either overcome my misconceptions by demonstrating how his arguments do
indeed pertain to lossy encoding in addition to uncompressed audio - or
simply lurk. In other words, his methods of presentation as far as I am
concerned have appeared to me as being too highly based on opinions
rather than facts to overcome my natural skepticism of his message.
It's only been since last night after I conducted my own test(s) that
I've seen anything which remotely resembles a strong enough factual
basis to lend creedence to his point of view. His penchant for libel
*certainly* did not help to strengthen his case with me one bit.

Other than that, I think Geoff's a really great guy who I would not
hesitate to consult for technical advice pertaining to his particular
field(s) of endeavor. There is definitely some overlap between my life
and his in that regard. I really don't enjoy being "at odds" with him.

Ah c'mon... you're no more at odds with him than with me are you?
We all have things to say, we just say them differently.

Very differently. I'm much more tolerant and appreciative of your brand
of low-level goading than I am of the inflammatory nonsense with which
he opted to pollute this thread upon first contributing to it.

At what point does it become better than common,
high-bias audiotape?

Very funny. ;-)

And what is it exactly that you find to be so humourous in that question
of mine?

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message ...

I'm much more tolerant and appreciative of your brand
of low-level goading than I am of the inflammatory nonsense

"Low level goading..." I've got to remember to use that someday. g

At what point does it become better than common,
high-bias audiotape?

Very funny. ;-)

And what is it exactly that you find to be so humourous in that question
of mine?

Well.. even though you didn't exactly define things, all I could picture in
my mind was an audio cassette - barely reaching 10Khz or anything below
45hz - and loaded down with 'hiss'. I've heard some pros turn out a few
low bit rate streams that can beat that.

DM

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

"Low level goading..." I've got to remember to use that someday. g

Hehe... I once coerced a pigeon to walk about a 1/2 city block once and
all the way around a building by slowing zig-zagging along behind it
about 10-feet back - just close enough to motivate it but not so close
that I spooked it. It was a pretty funny thing to see and do.

Well.. even though you didn't exactly define things, all I could picture in
my mind was an audio cassette - barely reaching 10Khz or anything below
45hz - and loaded down with 'hiss'. I've heard some pros turn out a few
low bit rate streams that can beat that.

Surely the typical high-bias cassette can do better than 10Khz. Now
normal-bias that's a different story. Those have *always* sounded dull
to my ears. But high-bias tapes were always much, much brighter.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message

B). Limiting a waveform so as not to exceed 0dBFS is also 'clipping'.

Well that rather depend onhow yo do it. If invoked with a soft-knee (albeit
a very stf one) I would not call it clipping. Clipping implies an instantly
squared waveform top.


geoff

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

Very differently. I'm much more tolerant and appreciative of your brand
of low-level goading than I am of the inflammatory nonsense with which
he opted to pollute this thread upon first contributing to it.

My level of response its at all time comensurate with the attitude of
presentation in the flawed concept I am addressing. If I have been
over-assertive or abrupt, it is in reaction to your refusal to beleive
things that most of us here learned in our late teens (that is anybody
involved in the technical side of music, and/or electronics). FWIW late
teens was over 20 years ago for me.

At what point does it become better than common,
high-bias audiotape?

Very funny. ;-)

And what is it exactly that you find to be so humourous in that question
of mine?


You are saying 'tape' and not realising that in these circles 'tape' does
not mean cassette (which it also fails to beat the best of). Certainly the
type of people happy with 128kpbs MP3s were the same set that didn't find
anything lacking in casssette tapes.

geoff

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...

Surely the typical high-bias cassette can do better than 10Khz. Now
normal-bias that's a different story. Those have *always* sounded dull
to my ears. But high-bias tapes were always much, much brighter.

Don't know about all high-bias, but I swore by TDK SA-C90 blanks twenty
years ago to the extent I bought them by the case. It may be my imagination,
but when they went from the paper labels (that inevitably peeled off) to the
stamped plastic, the consistent quality I loved went away.

I have program matter on twenty year-old TDK SA-C90s that sound as good
today as they did back then.

John

John LeBlanc wrote:

Don't know about all high-bias, but I swore by TDK SA-C90 blanks twenty
years ago to the extent I bought them by the case. It may be my imagination,
but when they went from the paper labels (that inevitably peeled off) to the
stamped plastic, the consistent quality I loved went away.

I have program matter on twenty year-old TDK SA-C90s that sound as good
today as they did back then.

Well, let's see... In my book, comparing TDK SA-90s to Maxell's XL-II
90s is a lot like horse**** vs. dog****!

Just kiddin' ya there, John. Couldn't resist.

Actually, I too bought crateloads of SA-90s and XL-IIs all throughout
the 80s as well - basically because that's all there was to be had by a
guy my age at the time. I heard rumours that Radio Shack was soon to
release a CD-recorder named "Thor" back in 1986 but it never materialized.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

"Low level goading..." I've got to remember to use that someday. g

Hehe... I once coerced a pigeon to walk about a 1/2 city block once and
all the way around a building by slowing zig-zagging along behind it
about 10-feet back - just close enough to motivate it but not so close
that I spooked it. It was a pretty funny thing to see and do.

That propensity explains this and several other threads.
:-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...
Geoff Wood wrote:

My level of response its at all time comensurate with the attitude of
presentation in the flawed concept I am addressing. If I have been
over-assertive or abrupt, it is in reaction to your refusal to
beleive things that most of us here learned in our late teens (that
is anybody involved in the technical side of music, and/or
electronics). FWIW late teens was over 20 years ago for me.

I'm not talking about your over-assertiveness or abruptness. Your
penchant for name-calling

Most people would not call Liniot and troll offensive in light of the things
you were posting in a technical forum. Most readers found it hard to beleive
yuo were for real.

and flat out lying didn't serve to help your case.
Obviously if you go around calling people names and lying about
them in hopes

Sorry, what is this "lying" you refer to ? If you are referring to the
suggestion that you were in fact a 'troll' , that was an opinion and not a
lie. It was, as above, a likely scenario.

Please back up this nasty snipe with proof of a lie from me, or apologise.

geoff

Bob Cain wrote:

"Low level goading..." I've got to remember to use that someday. g

Hehe... I once coerced a pigeon to walk about a 1/2 city block once and
all the way around a building by slowing zig-zagging along behind it
about 10-feet back - just close enough to motivate it but not so close
that I spooked it. It was a pretty funny thing to see and do.

That propensity explains this and several other threads.
:-)

ROFLMAO! :-) Y'know, I think you've got something there, Bob!

Maybe I should have named this "Doin' The Pigeon (With Lossy)" instead!

That pigeon incident happened sometime around 1991. I've always
regretted not having my camcorder with me that day. It was so funny. I
kept thinkin', y'know, this bird *has* wings, why does it allow me to
keep doing this?" I can still see it in my mind's eye waddling along
with its grey head and its beady little red eyes which kept glancing
back at me every few seconds just to see if I was still there and
walking along behind it. Eventually it *did* fly off towards a grassy
patch a few feet from the sidewalk but I must have walked it for a good
ten minutes straight before it finally decided it'd had enough!

I'm slightly off-topic with this amn't I?

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

from me, or apologise.

Seek ye my post to David Morgan in this thread dated yesterday on this
very topic. You'll find my point-for-point refutation there.

No. You 'quote' it for all to see, or at least post the news item number
link.

geoff

Geoff Wood wrote:
"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

from me, or apologise.

Seek ye my post to David Morgan in this thread dated yesterday on this
very topic. You'll find my point-for-point refutation there.


No. You 'quote' it for all to see, or at least post the news item number
link.

I am reading these newsgroups with Mozilla which looks and acts fairly
identically to its email client. I am not using a standard "Usenet
newsreader" application therefore I cannot post a link in the form you
suggest. The best I could in that regard is find it via Google and post
the URL to the page which comes up there. But the link I would end up
posting will be "too long to fit" and would therefore need to be
reassembled manually in your browser's URL field.

Just go to http://groups.google.com and search for "Lord Hasenpfeffer
Geoff lies" and see what comes up with yesterday's date on it.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...


Just go to http://groups.google.com and search for "Lord Hasenpfeffer
Geoff lies" and see what comes up with yesterday's date on it.


No. You do it, or apologise.

geoff

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...
Geoff Wood wrote:

No. You do it, or apologise.

I've nothing for which to apologize to you.

It's Message #113 if that helps.

No that doesn't help.

You have accused me of lying, and I feel wronged. You should either
withdraw that accusation, or demonstrate where I have lied.

#113 doesn't help. Look at the news item serial number (like at the top
here) - please either post the message number of the 'lie', or snip a quote
from it. If you are such a web-guru, you should be able to figure out how
to get competent USENET software or use Google Groups to ascertain it. It
might be in one of your manuals.


geoff

You have accused me of lying, and I feel wronged.

Heh, *you* feel wronged.

You should either withdraw that accusation,

Hey, Mr. First Blood, You never withdrew *yours*!

or demonstrate where I have lied.

I already did.

#113 doesn't help.

Yeah, I guess it wouldn't.

Look at the news item serial number (like at the top here)

Is that what it'll take to get your software to find it?
Sheez.

- please either post the message number of the 'lie', or snip a quote
from it.

Just look for it upthread. It's not that hard to find.
It's gotta still be marked as "unread" in your newsreader.
That oughtta make it a bit easier to spot.

If you are such a web-guru,

Oh, come on, Geoff. You can do worse than that.
I've seen it happen. Just let it flow.

you should be able to figure out how to get competent USENET software
or use Google Groups to ascertain it. It might be in one of your
manuals.

How dare you to imply that my software isn't competent?!!
Are you completely ignorant to the amount of sheer
creative talent and mental prowess that's required just to
make a "simple" web-browser, email client and Usenet
reader all rolled into one comprehensive package? Gee whiz!
When they were passing out brains you must have thought they
said trains and told 'em you didn't want any!

I'd like to see you take that argument over to alt.fan.mozilla.
Y'know, they got chunks of guys like you in their stool!

No, seriously though, Geoff, I'm just giving you a hard time.
I'm not gonna sink that low and start putting you down because you're
not just like me. If building dynamic, data-driven web-applications
just isn't your forte, so what? Who cares? We can't all earn our
living doing the exact same stuff that everybody else is doing now can
we? Good Lord, no. We all have to learn to capitalize on our own
individual talents and make the most of what we're given or have the
capacity to learn. This world is made up of too many different types of
people. If we're ultimately ever going to get it to work, we've gotta
learn to help each other out and hold each other up when the other
obviously can't do it on his own. That's the only way to achieve real
lasting peace and harmony in this world. We all have to learn to help
each other. And to that end, I'll now go the extra mile and do my part
to help you where you cannot or simply will not help yourself. Here's
your link. Enjoy.



Myke


--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

You have accused me of lying, and I feel wronged.

Heh, *you* feel wronged.

You should either withdraw that accusation,

Hey, Mr. First Blood, You never withdrew *yours*!

Myke,

if you appreciate staying on topic as much as you seem to, it would be wise
not to let yourself be dragged into a ****ing contest. The way you
(over)react to founded or unfounded criticism doesn't help you in this
respect. If the thread in R.A.T. is still going on it has probably a lot to
do with the fact that you keep responding because you feel the need to
justify yourself. You get emotional and resort to name calling yourself as
well (the way you regularly describe "the guys on the other group" can
hardly be seen other than name calling).

Type such a reply, but do not hit send, store it in the drafts folder. If,
after a day, you still feel you want to send it, hit send it if you must. If
a flame thread concerning you ends up huge, it is only because *you* let it.
Stop replying and only reply to the on-topic stuff, and things will settle
down before you know it.

Erwin Timmerman

OK, OK... I hear ya. And you're right...

But tell me, in all honestly... Did you read the last paragraph?

Myke


if you appreciate staying on topic as much as you seem to, it would be wise
not to let yourself be dragged into a ****ing contest. The way you
(over)react to founded or unfounded criticism doesn't help you in this
respect. If the thread in R.A.T. is still going on it has probably a lot to
do with the fact that you keep responding because you feel the need to
justify yourself. You get emotional and resort to name calling yourself as
well (the way you regularly describe "the guys on the other group" can
hardly be seen other than name calling).

Type such a reply, but do not hit send, store it in the drafts folder. If,
after a day, you still feel you want to send it, hit send it if you must. If
a flame thread concerning you ends up huge, it is only because *you* let it.
Stop replying and only reply to the on-topic stuff, and things will settle
down before you know it.

Erwin Timmerman



--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

OK, OK... I hear ya. And you're right...

But tell me, in all honestly... Did you read the last paragraph?

Yes. At the time I skipped down and read part of it (as I'm not quite interested
in your quibble with Geoff I didn't read it all and skipped to the conclusion).
Your post would have been far more effective re staying on topic if you had
written only that paragraph...

OK, enough of this :-)

Erwin Timmerman

Erwin Timmerman wrote:

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

OK, OK... I hear ya. And you're right...

But tell me, in all honestly... Did you read the last paragraph?

Yes. At the time I skipped down and read part of it (as I'm not quite interested
in your quibble with Geoff I didn't read it all and skipped to the conclusion).
Your post would have been far more effective re staying on topic if you had
written only that paragraph...

OK, enough of this :-)

Making myself a liar, I have just one more illustration: You and I didn't get off to
a great start either. The only reason we stopped arguing is because you snipped all
my off-topic stuff in my second message, and only replied to the on-topic stuff.
When you react in an emotional way, even if only to justify yourself, there's a good
chance you'll say something that was uncalled for, which results in an emotional
reaction of the one you said it to (or about), etc etc etc...

These are just characters on a screen. Don't get fed up.

Erwin Timmerman

Erwin Timmerman wrote:

Your post would have been far more effective re staying on topic if you had
written only that paragraph...

Just showing how it can go both ways. Nothing more.

OK, enough of this :-)

Agreed. :-)

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Erwin Timmerman wrote:

Making myself a liar, I have just one more illustration: You and I didn't get off to
a great start either. The only reason we stopped arguing is because you snipped all
my off-topic stuff in my second message, and only replied to the on-topic stuff.

Yes, I remember that, now!

These are just characters on a screen. Don't get fed up.

No prob.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

How dare you to imply that my software isn't competent?!!
Are you completely ignorant to the amount of sheer
creative talent and mental prowess that's required just to
make a "simple" web-browser, email client and Usenet
reader all rolled into one comprehensive package?

I'm sure you be amouungst the throng happy to lambast IE and Outlook Express
as being crap incompetent software. OE provides the news item serial number
without over-exerting itself.


geoff

Geoff Wood wrote:

I'm sure you be amouungst the throng happy to lambast IE and Outlook Express
as being crap incompetent software. OE provides the news item serial number
without over-exerting itself.

Outlook Express does have a reputation for being a wide open door for
viruses.
Whether or not that makes it crapware, who's to say?

As for IE, I use it all the time to test the webpages I create.

Then again, no version of IE to date has been able to render the
following three pages correctly.

http://www.mykec.net/?page=transPNG
http://www.mykec.net/?page=Spooky
http://www.mykec.net/?page=The_World_Over

If you don't also have Mozilla, Netscape 6 or Netscape 7 on your system,
you will not be able to see what these pages are supposed to look like,
so if you're at all interested, I'd highly recommend that you head on
over to http://www.mozilla.org, download, install and compare.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Geoff Wood wrote:

I'm sure you be amouungst the throng happy to lambast IE and Outlook Express
as being crap incompetent software.

Save the following 5 ordinary lines of HTML to a text file with a .html
extension on your hard drive and browse it with IE. See what happens.

html
form
input type crash
/form
/html

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-