Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
Scott Dorsey wrote: "Here's the problem, because the people who are doing the education today include advertisers and total idiots who have no idea what they are talking about"
And folks like me who genuinely care but just get a lot of the terms mixed up, admittedly. I'm also one of those who doesn't believe it's necessary to have a bunch of pieces of paper on the wall proving this or that, in order to be an advocate for change in this business. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
On 6/23/2014 10:19 AM, Ron C wrote:
On 6/23/2014 9:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: Ron C wrote: You bring some questions to mind. For starters: [1] What are the demographics of the sound quality obsessed folks? [I'd suspect a graying trend.] Surprisingly it's not, there are actually a lot of younger people who are starting to wake up and realize that sound quality is actually important. That's nice to hear. Now I'm wondering what genera they're following. [2] Who'll be educating people on good playback possibilities, and to what end? Here's the problem, because the people who are doing the education today include advertisers and total idiots who have no idea what they are talking about. That's not so good to hear, but sadly not surprising. I know that Neil Young has got a bunch of people interested in the idea of better sound quality, but unfortunately when he goes into details about better sound quality and how it is achieved, he doesn't have any idea what he is talking about. So people hear that stuff and they parrot it back and now that we're 30 years into the digital audio revolution people are STILL talking about stairstepped waveforms coming out of DACs. I recall way too many such discussions in this news group, and that's from people who at least knew enough to find this group. I shudder to think what the general public (mis-)understands. Seems there's a bunch of lip service but nobody has been [effectively] stepping up to the plate. Hey, I'm trying! Don't blame me! --scott I don't think I'd blame anyone here. What seems to be needed are better educated marketers (and clients.) It's been a continuing up hill battle for engineers. About all we can do is continue to fight the good fight. Well, people don't need to know the details about how it works. They just have to be able to hear the difference enough to feel that it's worth the extra cost to buy the better equipment. Unfortunately, sound engineers are trained to hear more and discern more audio details than the average consumer, so of course they won't be satisfied with what the public at large buys. We vote with our dollars, and what's good enough for the teeming corporate masses may not be good enough for you.... |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
Well, people don't need to know the details about how it works. They just have to be able to hear the difference enough to feel that it's worth the extra cost to buy the better equipment. iF THEY HAVE THEIR HEAD FILLED WITH FALSE INFORMATION, THEY CAN IMAGINE ALL SORTS OF THINGS, AND ATTRIBUTE THINGS BOTH GOOD AND BAD TO TOTALLY FALSE CAUSES. oops sorry aboit the caps ! We vote with our dollars, and what's good enough for the teeming corporate masses may not be good enough for you.... MacDonalds - YEAH ! geoff |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
недеља, 22. јун 2014. 02.18.19 UTC+2, Paul је написао/ла:
On 6/21/2014 1:02 PM, Mike Rivers wrote: On 6/21/2014 2:26 PM, wrote: I was just pointing out that about anything on Amazon is at least 256VBR, has been so for at least 5 years. Well, I guess this shows how infrequently I purchase music downloads, probably none in the last five years, maybe four or five total since the technology as a product has been available. Are they still less than a buck, at that bit rate? What real need is there to buy music these days? EVERYTHING is on youtube, and it's easy enough to rip it direct from the videos. It's compressed, of course, but it's still listenable on the fly. And nearly everyone has an internet connection, with some sort of speakers attached. Support independent artists! The last time I bought music was Sade's last album, which I did just to support the band. Other than that, it's all youtube.... She does not need your support, but she surelly wellcomed it. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
wrote in message
... Scott Dorsey wrote: "Here's the problem, because the people who are doing the education today include advertisers and total idiots who have no idea what they are talking about" And folks like me who genuinely care but just get a lot of the terms mixed up, admittedly. I'm also one of those who doesn't believe it's necessary to have a bunch of pieces of paper on the wall proving this or that, in order to be an advocate for change in this business. Being an idiot won't help. When you prove that you have no idea what you're talking about (apparently that's whenever you open your pie hole), nobody will be persuaded. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ron C wrote: You bring some questions to mind. For starters: [1] What are the demographics of the sound quality obsessed folks? [I'd suspect a graying trend.] Surprisingly it's not, there are actually a lot of younger people who are starting to wake up and realize that sound quality is actually important. [2] Who'll be educating people on good playback possibilities, and to what end? Here's the problem, because the people who are doing the education today include advertisers and total idiots who have no idea what they are talking about. I know that Neil Young has got a bunch of people interested in the idea of better sound quality, but unfortunately when he goes into details about better sound quality and how it is achieved, he doesn't have any idea what he is talking about. So people hear that stuff and they parrot it back and now that we're 30 years into the digital audio revolution people are STILL talking about stairstepped waveforms coming out of DACs. I have stuff that was built under a high-calbre marque, but built for people who shop at That Store. It nulls to close to -100 db. The stuff that's not null is not going to be offensive - it's either really mild harmonics or hash. I end up *adding* distortion to get things like bass to mix better. So far as the repro/record chain goes... that's *probably* good enough. I dunno how it gets much better than that. Seems there's a bunch of lip service but nobody has been [effectively] stepping up to the plate. Hey, I'm trying! Don't blame me! --scott -- Les Cargill |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
On 6/23/2014 6:16 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote: From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding "Blind tests show that AAC demonstrates greater sound quality and transparency than MP3 for files coded at the same bit rate." Well, THERE'S damning with faint praise. Well, there are many here who agreed the higher bit-rate MP3s can be very close to the original PCM file. So if AAC is better at the same bit rate, then Youtube should be able to have decent audio, right? Unless they just wanna save space on their servers..... |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
Les Cargill wrote:
I have stuff that was built under a high-calbre marque, but built for people who shop at That Store. It nulls to close to -100 db. The stuff that's not null is not going to be offensive - it's either really mild harmonics or hash. I end up *adding* distortion to get things like bass to mix better. So far as the repro/record chain goes... that's *probably* good enough. Except that people are using that equipment to play back mp3 files. Back in the fifties, electronics got so good that the real limitations were the speakers, the rooms, and the distribution media. Distribution media got better and better.... with the shift to digital there was a bit of a step backwards but it was followed by many steps forward, so that by the early 1990s the distribution medium was no longer a bottleneck at all. But then, we have the sliding back into lower fidelity distribution with the popularity of lossy compression. I am told this is because people want more hours of material rather than better sounding material, but if that is the case I think that's a side effect of the change in listening patterns more than anything else. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
Back in the fifties, electronics got so good that the real limitations were the speakers, the rooms, and the distribution media. What do you mean by "electronics"? I'd have to include the chain of electronics preceding the distribution medium -- including the recorder. There's no question digital recording is closer to "the truth" than analog. And I have little doubt that mics and related recording electronics have gotten less-inaccurate over the past 50 years. But it wasn't until multi-ch SACD came along that I heard //commercial// recordings that could stand comparison with live sound. The medium is not //the// controlling factor in sound quality. SACDs vary in quality (though the variation is far less than than among CDs). The most-realistic commercial recordings I've ever heard are from the digital-hatin' folks at Linn -- and it is not due solely to the fact that they're on SACDs. Some of their high quality would be audible on [crosses himself] -- phonograph records! [sound of screaming from a cheap horror movie] |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: I have stuff that was built under a high-calbre marque, but built for people who shop at That Store. It nulls to close to -100 db. The stuff that's not null is not going to be offensive - it's either really mild harmonics or hash. I end up *adding* distortion to get things like bass to mix better. So far as the repro/record chain goes... that's *probably* good enough. Except that people are using that equipment to play back mp3 files. So don't do that. You can't fix that with a different format. I once "reinvented" lossy compression by taking the static FFT of a .wav file, then clearing buckets that had the least signal. I was doing that in the service of noise reduction ( it worked okay, but left massive ringey artifacts) . Reminded me of the single-ended NR from CoolEdit only much, much worse. If you apply Robert J. Bristow's biquads in cascade or parallel to get rid of single coil hum, you get a similar thing. You had the same artifacts. They're just inevitable. You can maybe use FLAC coupled with ... maybe ADPCM to get 1/4 reduction - maybe. I strongly suspect FLAC just takes advantage of the symmetry of the FFT. But *storage* has *gotten cheaper, faster, than any other commodity in the history of the planet*. There are 128GByte thumb drives. That's 200 full-rate CDs. I don't think I have that many CDs. I look at people using phones as primary computers, and I am just dumbfounded. It makes absolutely no sense. Well, it *does*, but not for me. Back in the fifties, electronics got so good that the real limitations were the speakers, the rooms, and the distribution media. But the electronics got better farther down the food chain since then. There are perfectly workable 100WPC amps for $100 . Distribution media got better and better.... with the shift to digital there was a bit of a step backwards but it was followed by many steps forward, so that by the early 1990s the distribution medium was no longer a bottleneck at all. Right. And all that is still true. I still buy CDs. But then, we have the sliding back into lower fidelity distribution with the popularity of lossy compression. I am told this is because people want more hours of material rather than better sounding material, Why??? I say that; I see the phone zombies at work. Long as they're not walking they're reasonably safe. but if that is the case I think that's a side effect of the change in listening patterns more than anything else. --scott I think it's a function of open plan offices and corporate network monitoring. People Bring Their Own Network. IT departments are starting to count on it - some will actually allow a partial or full subsidy for hotspots. -- Les Cargill |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
On 26/06/2014 1:04 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Back in the fifties, electronics got so good that the real limitations were the speakers, the rooms, and the distribution media. What do you mean by "electronics"? I'd have to include the chain of electronics preceding the distribution medium -- including the recorder. There's no question digital recording is closer to "the truth" than analog. And I have little doubt that mics and related recording electronics have gotten less-inaccurate over the past 50 years. But it wasn't until multi-ch SACD came along that I heard //commercial// recordings that could stand comparison with live sound. The medium is not //the// controlling factor in sound quality. SACDs vary in quality (though the variation is far less than than among CDs). The most-realistic commercial recordings I've ever heard are from the digital-hatin' folks at Linn -- and it is not due solely to the fact that they're on SACDs. Some of their high quality would be audible on [crosses himself] -- phonograph records! [sound of screaming from a cheap horror movie] Speaker remain the weak link in the chain. An order of magnitude or two more distorted and non-linear than everything else, even more than phonygraph records ! geoff |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
"geoff" wrote in message
... Speakers remain the weak link in the chain. It is more correct to say "weakest". The improvements "ahead of" the speaker are often audible. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
On 27/06/2014 12:28 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message ... Speakers remain the weak link in the chain. It is more correct to say "weakest". The improvements "ahead of" the speaker are often audible. It could be argued that the prior links are pretty much 'strong', now. geoff |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Back in the fifties, electronics got so good that the real limitations were the speakers, the rooms, and the distribution media. Distribution media got better and better.... with the shift to digital there was a bit of a step backwards but it was followed by many steps forward, so that by the early 1990s the distribution medium was no longer a bottleneck at all. But then, we have the sliding back into lower fidelity distribution with the popularity of lossy compression. I am told this is because people want more hours of material rather than better sounding material, I just don't see it at all. Decades ago most people had LoFi radiograms and cassette players, they now have MP3 which is *not* the limiting factor on the equipment often used to play them. Decades ago a few of us had really good HiFi in our homes, just as a few do today. Even those that did usually also used cassettes in their car despite the low quality. These same people now often use MP3 in their car despite their lower quality than CD, *but* superior quality to the cassettes they once used. How is anything worse? In fact since reasonably good HiFi is now far cheaper than it ever was, more people have fairly decent HiFi in their home for when they choose to listen to their CD's. And even their MP3's usually sound better on most peoples systems than their vinyl or cassettes once did on their cheap radiograms. The big change AFAIC is far more people are listening to more of their own music, more of the time, and a lot less radio (portable or car), which was also LoFi. Trevor. |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
And even their MP3's usually sound better on most peoples
systems than their vinyl or cassettes once did on their cheap radiograms. agreed in the 50s and 60s distribution was via AM radio and scratch and play 45 RPMs. After that came LPs and 8 tracks and cassettes and FM radio. 128K MP3s are at least as good. Mark |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
Possibly true, or possibly edited in there by an enthusiastic iDiot.
There is a reference note: http://graphics.ethz.ch/teaching/mmc...randenburg.pdf |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
Trevor wrote: "music, more of the time, and a lot less radio (portable or car), which was also LoFi"
Hopefully that situation will change with the likes of R128 and its US equivalent. Having to maintain -23LUFS rms will mean no radio station will sound louder than another, elmininating the need for the kind of comp/limiting presently sucking the life out of FM and AM terrestrial. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
|
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
wrote in message
... Trevor wrote: "music, more of the time, and a lot less radio (portable or car), which was also LoFi" Hopefully that situation will change with the likes of R128 and its US equivalent. Having to maintain -23LUFS rms will mean no radio station will sound louder than another, elmininating the need for the kind of comp/limiting presently sucking the life out of FM and AM terrestrial. You've demonstrated that you don't understand any of this, and explained that you don't even understand the numbers. Now you're proving it all over again. |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
wrote in message ... Hopefully that situation will change with the likes of R128 and its US equivalent. Having to maintain -23LUFS rms will mean no radio station will sound louder than another, elmininating the need for the kind of comp/limiting presently sucking the life out of FM and AM terrestrial. As if it will matter. There are only a handful of commercial AM radios ever made that go above 10kHz. And most FM radios people own are inferior to 128kbs MP3 let alone 320kbs MP3. And broadcast digital radio is also universally awfull unfortunately. I'd far prefer to stick with high bit rate MP3 and a halfway decent player for casual listening myself. And then I don't have to put up with music I don't like, or ads I like even less! :-) Trevor. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
"geoff" wrote in message ... At best 128kbps nowhere near as good as vinyl or FM. At best nowhere near as good as the *best* vinyl or FM. But often better than the average FM, and much of the vinyl that was pressed even when new. When worn or played on a cheap radiogram, I'd rather take 128kbs MP3 thanks. Trevor. |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
On 29/06/2014 7:50 p.m., Trevor wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message ... At best 128kbps nowhere near as good as vinyl or FM. At best nowhere near as good as the *best* vinyl or FM. But often better than the average FM, and much of the vinyl that was pressed even when new. When worn or played on a cheap radiogram, I'd rather take 128kbs MP3 thanks. Trevor. We are talking about the capabilities of the media - not the crap people might put on it. Radiogram ?!!! Time to move into the 1980s now ! geoff |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
We are talking about the capabilities of the media - not the crap people might put on it geoff " Loudness war-music is only half the equation. The stations did their damage with their own compression and hard limiters. Radio - esp FM - once did and can sound great again. We just need to change some mentalities and technical ignorance. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
wrote
technical ignorance |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
In article , Trevor wrote:
Kludge wrote: But then, we have the sliding back into lower fidelity distribution with the popularity of lossy compression. I am told this is because people want more hours of material rather than better sounding material, I just don't see it at all. Decades ago most people had LoFi radiograms and cassette players, they now have MP3 which is *not* the limiting factor on the equipment often used to play them. Pick up a copy of Time or Playboy from 1975 or so. You'll find a huge, huge number of advertisements for audio gear, pretty expensive gear. You will not find those ads today. A lot of people used to spend a lot of money on home stereo gear, and for the most part that doesn't happen any more. In 1975 if you'd gone into the A&R office of a record label, you'd have found a decent KLH turntable and a pair of AR4 or comparable speakers. Nothing super expensive, but a whole lot better than the boom box or iPhone that you'd find today. It's true, that there was low fidelity equipment back in the seventies, but there was enough "hi-fi" gear out there that people knew what it was and they recognized that their low fidelity gear was indeed low fidelity. Decades ago a few of us had really good HiFi in our homes, just as a few do today. Even those that did usually also used cassettes in their car despite the low quality. These same people now often use MP3 in their car despite their lower quality than CD, *but* superior quality to the cassettes they once used. How is anything worse? I think what makes it worse is that in those times, people had some notion that what they were using could be better, and today people don't. In fact since reasonably good HiFi is now far cheaper than it ever was, more people have fairly decent HiFi in their home for when they choose to listen to their CD's. And even their MP3's usually sound better on most peoples systems than their vinyl or cassettes once did on their cheap radiograms. The big change AFAIC is far more people are listening to more of their own music, more of the time, and a lot less radio (portable or car), which was also LoFi. This is true, but take a look at the speakers and/or earbuds that they are using.... and I would claim that the speakers and room are more of a limiting factor than even the distribution medium in many cases. -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
In article , Trevor wrote:
As if it will matter. There are only a handful of commercial AM radios ever made that go above 10kHz. Actually, in the pre-NRSC days there were a lot of them. Pick some random table radio from the 1950s and you'll find the top end corner is the result of the crappy full-range speaker and not the IF width. These days, due to noise and crowding, there are very few AM radios with the -6dB corner even out to 5 KHz. But it wasn't always like this. It's not going to get any better, either, until the FCC finally decides to actually enforce part 15 emission rules and the ambient noise levels drop. Even then I doubt they will ever drop down to the levels they were in the 1950s in most locations. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
On 6/27/2014 11:10 AM, Tobiah wrote:
Possibly true, or possibly edited in there by an enthusiastic iDiot. There is a reference note: http://graphics.ethz.ch/teaching/mmc...randenburg.pdf That paper concludes that AAC can compress music and still be "near-CD or CD" quality. So it would seem Youtube audio can be good if given a high enough bit-rate. But they probably use lower bit-rates, so they can maximize the number of videos they can store and stream..... |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
"geoff" wrote in message ... At best 128kbps nowhere near as good as vinyl or FM. At best nowhere near as good as the *best* vinyl or FM. But often better than the average FM, and much of the vinyl that was pressed even when new. When worn or played on a cheap radiogram, I'd rather take 128kbs MP3 thanks. We are talking about the capabilities of the media - not the crap people might put on it. The potential capabilities are irrelevant to most people, even CD. Radiogram ?!!! Time to move into the 1980s now ! I wasn't using one even in the seventies, but most people had cheap/crap radiograms or turntables, and very few people today have *good* turntables or radios. Fortunately most can play CD's now with pretty good quality, until the signal reaches their cheap speakers anyway! 256/320kbs MP3 is more than enough for most of them. And since you insist on 128kbs, it's time for YOU to move into the 2000's! :-) Trevor. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... In article , Trevor wrote: Kludge wrote: But then, we have the sliding back into lower fidelity distribution with the popularity of lossy compression. I am told this is because people want more hours of material rather than better sounding material, I just don't see it at all. Decades ago most people had LoFi radiograms and cassette players, they now have MP3 which is *not* the limiting factor on the equipment often used to play them. Pick up a copy of Time or Playboy from 1975 or so. You'll find a huge, huge number of advertisements for audio gear, pretty expensive gear. You will not find those ads today. A lot of people used to spend a lot of money on home stereo gear, and for the most part that doesn't happen any more. That's mainly due to the fact that you don't need to spend a few months wages on a turntable or amplifier to get good performance any more (thankfully). Certainly here in Australia the number of people who buy expensive speakers is about what it always was. ie a very small percentage of the population. In 1975 if you'd gone into the A&R office of a record label, you'd have found a decent KLH turntable and a pair of AR4 or comparable speakers. Nothing super expensive, but a whole lot better than the boom box or iPhone that you'd find today. I'n interesting claim I find hard to believe is common, you'd certainly find far better than a boom box over here. It's true, that there was low fidelity equipment back in the seventies, but there was enough "hi-fi" gear out there that people knew what it was and they recognized that their low fidelity gear was indeed low fidelity. Sure the majority knew their gear was LoFi, but they were *not* going to spend the money necessary in those days to buy HiFi. Decades ago a few of us had really good HiFi in our homes, just as a few do today. Even those that did usually also used cassettes in their car despite the low quality. These same people now often use MP3 in their car despite their lower quality than CD, *but* superior quality to the cassettes they once used. How is anything worse? I think what makes it worse is that in those times, people had some notion that what they were using could be better, and today people don't. Well that much is most probably true. In fact since reasonably good HiFi is now far cheaper than it ever was, more people have fairly decent HiFi in their home for when they choose to listen to their CD's. And even their MP3's usually sound better on most peoples systems than their vinyl or cassettes once did on their cheap radiograms. The big change AFAIC is far more people are listening to more of their own music, more of the time, and a lot less radio (portable or car), which was also LoFi. This is true, but take a look at the speakers and/or earbuds that they are using.... and I would claim that the speakers and room are more of a limiting factor than even the distribution medium in many cases. No argument, but I would also claim that the sound from a half way decent set of ear buds is better than the vast majority ever heard from their radiograms back in the day. And I just have not seen a vast change in speaker quality or room performance one way or the other. My opinion is that if anything the average persons speakers are now a little better in the mid range, but have less bass, which helps mitigate the room problems to some degree. So perhaps a slight overall improvement for many. Trevor. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... In article , Trevor wrote: As if it will matter. There are only a handful of commercial AM radios ever made that go above 10kHz. Actually, in the pre-NRSC days there were a lot of them. Pick some random table radio from the 1950s and you'll find the top end corner is the result of the crappy full-range speaker and not the IF width. From experience very few manufacturers opted to go above 10kHz for AM radio because that would require more expensive design and filtering to stop interchannel carrier interference. The problem got worse when channel spacing changed to 9kHz of course. And if they relied on the speaker to provide the filtering, how is that an improvement? Adding a better speaker would only show up the interference problem, *not* result in real HiFi. Sure plenty of people still love the warmth of their valve radios, but they would sound just the same if you pumped MP3's through them! (without them knowing of course, people really hate having their misconceptions contradicted by real blind tests IME, been there done that years ago putting vinyl through and A/D-D/A, and straight through, and asking them to pick which was which. Those who couldn't pick which was which still claimed vinyl was somehow better than digital :-) These days, due to noise and crowding, there are very few AM radios with the -6dB corner even out to 5 KHz. But it wasn't always like this. True, but it was never HiFi either. It's not going to get any better, either, until the FCC finally decides to actually enforce part 15 emission rules and the ambient noise levels drop. Even then I doubt they will ever drop down to the levels they were in the 1950s in most locations. How many care about AM performance these days anyway? They could now transmit some high bit rate digital instead, but often choose as low as 64kbs :-( Not that I care, I only ever listen to radio in the shower! And most people here only listen to talk back radio, so they don't care about radio sound quality either. Trevor. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
On 30/06/2014 4:56 p.m., Trevor wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message ... At best 128kbps nowhere near as good as vinyl or FM. At best nowhere near as good as the *best* vinyl or FM. But often better than the average FM, and much of the vinyl that was pressed even when new. When worn or played on a cheap radiogram, I'd rather take 128kbs MP3 thanks. We are talking about the capabilities of the media - not the crap people might put on it. The potential capabilities are irrelevant to most people, even CD. Radiogram ?!!! Time to move into the 1980s now ! I wasn't using one even in the seventies, but most people had cheap/crap radiograms or turntables, and very few people today have *good* turntables or radios. Fortunately most can play CD's now with pretty good quality, until the signal reaches their cheap speakers anyway! 256/320kbs MP3 is more than enough for most of them. And since you insist on 128kbs, it's time for YOU to move into the 2000's! :-) Wasn't me gettin' a stiffy about 128kbps ! I have an ipod touch (my ONLY Apple device, because the likes of SignalScopePro wasn't possible on anything else at the time !) which contains exclusively 'ALAC' lossless files. geoff |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
On 30/06/2014 5:39 p.m., Trevor wrote:
Not that I care, I only ever listen to radio in the shower! That's an idea ! But I'll need a mains extension cable to reach that far ;-0 geoff |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
On Monday, June 30, 2014 12:56:15 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message ... At best 128kbps nowhere near as good as vinyl or FM. At best nowhere near as good as the *best* vinyl or FM. But often better than the average FM, and much of the vinyl that was pressed even when new. When worn or played on a cheap radiogram, I'd rather take 128kbs MP3 thanks. We are talking about the capabilities of the media - not the crap people might put on it. The potential capabilities are irrelevant to most people, even CD. agreed FM stereo is limited to 15 kHz due to the MPX process which samples at 38 kHz. Add in some real life multi-path and the distortion can be bad Add in real life radio station dynamics compression and limiting Vinyl, in a car or portable? I'll take an MP3 over that. Mark |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
In article , Paul wrote:
On 6/27/2014 11:10 AM, Tobiah wrote: Possibly true, or possibly edited in there by an enthusiastic iDiot. There is a reference note: http://graphics.ethz.ch/teaching/mmc...randenburg.pdf That paper concludes that AAC can compress music and still be "near-CD or CD" quality. Note that this is from a source that is not exactly unbiased. So it would seem Youtube audio can be good if given a high enough bit-rate. But they probably use lower bit-rates, so they can maximize the number of videos they can store and stream..... As I said earlier, the real problem is the transcoding. If you send them up an AAC file so they don't have to transcode it, the sound quality will be a great amount better than if they have to convert an MPEG file to AAC. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
On 6/30/2014 6:57 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote: On 6/27/2014 11:10 AM, Tobiah wrote: Possibly true, or possibly edited in there by an enthusiastic iDiot. There is a reference note: http://graphics.ethz.ch/teaching/mmc...randenburg.pdf That paper concludes that AAC can compress music and still be "near-CD or CD" quality. Note that this is from a source that is not exactly unbiased. So it would seem Youtube audio can be good if given a high enough bit-rate. But they probably use lower bit-rates, so they can maximize the number of videos they can store and stream..... As I said earlier, the real problem is the transcoding. If you send them up an AAC file so they don't have to transcode it, the sound quality will be a great amount better than if they have to convert an MPEG file to AAC. --scott This article recommends the obvious: start off with uncompressed audio: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/tips-...ter-33570.html Can you start off with the uncompressed PCM audio file? Can you choose the AAC compression bit-rate? I don't upload many videos, but I don't remember being able to choose this. |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
|
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
On Monday, June 30, 2014 5:04:18 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 1/07/2014 1:03 a.m., wrote: agreed FM stereo is limited to 15 kHz due to the MPX process which samples at 38 kHz. Add in some real life multi-path and the distortion can be bad So can a broken MP3 player. Add in real life radio station dynamics compression and limiting That is user error, not the medium. Vinyl, in a car or portable? I'll take an MP3 over that. Now you are resorting to silliness. geoff well you have to admit, the entire discussion is kinda silly... like tastes great vs less filling having lived through AM radio, FM radio, 8 tracks, cassettes, reel to reel, vinyl, and CDs, .... I'm happy with MP3s and I guess for me, that's all that counts.. to each his own. have fun Mark |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
|
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV
On 7/1/2014 2:55 AM, geoff wrote:
I've never heard a 128kbps MP3 that I could enjoy though - even in the car. And my ears are far to old to be considered 'golden' . I don't "enjoy" the file, I'm entertained by the music. When I'm driving, my mind is really on something else. As long as I'm hearing music that's of the type I enjoy, when on the road, the lowest quality MP3 is better than what I can get on the car radio in most places, or for very long. There are certain forms of distortion that do indeed spoil my listening experience, but it's things like gross clipping (not just "make it louder" clipping" or flutter, not a slight loss of detail on the ride cymbal. There are certain forms of music that I wouldn't enjoy even if it was played from a high resolution WAV file. It's unfortunate that so many people claim that lower fidelity listening spoils the joy of listening to music. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|