[Mark]

Interesting article...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/...sic/index.html

But in my opinion, the biggest technical quality problem with new
music is not the 16 bit depth not even the MP3 compression.... the
problem IMO is the hyper dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.


Mark

[gjsmo]

On Feb 23, 12:36*pm, Mark wrote:
Interesting article...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/...sic/index.html

But *in my opinion, the biggest *technical quality problem with new
music is not the 16 bit depth not even the *MP3 compression.... *the
problem *IMO is the hyper dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.

Mark

Right, but 128kbps MP3s have ungodly amounts of artifacts. I'll admit
that 16-bit isn't so bad.
I use 320kbps AAC for everything mobile, FLAC otherwise. Sounds very
good. Most of my music isn't compressed that much

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/23/2011 12:36 PM, Mark wrote:

But in my opinion, the biggest technical quality problem with new
music is not the 16 bit depth not even the MP3 compression.... the
problem IMO is the hyper dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.

I didn't read the article yet, but I'll tell you this. I'm
rarely sufficiently attentive to the technical details of
music that I hear that MP3 encoding or even reduced dynamic
range doesn't bother me. What I find wrong with music today
is that there's about as much good (IMHO) music being made
as ever, but there's so much more bad music that the "pool"
is diluted. Of course radio stations have to play a little
of everything, so I'm hearing proportionally less music that
I actually enjoy.

This is a consequence of, among other things like
inexpensive recording equipment, easy and cheap downloadable
MP3 distribution. But they know darn well that they can't
sell many USB flash drives loaded with 50 songs for $50. Who
would want to listen to 50 songs by anyone who would do
that, anyway?


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:36:38 -0500, Mark wrote
(in article
):


Interesting article...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/...sic/index.html

But in my opinion, the biggest technical quality problem with new
music is not the 16 bit depth not even the MP3 compression.... the
problem IMO is the hyper dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.


Mark


Like CNN would know.

:id I say that out loud?"::

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:36:38 -0500, Mark wrote
(in article
):


Interesting article...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/...sic/index.html

But in my opinion, the biggest technical quality problem with new
music is not the 16 bit depth not even the MP3 compression.... the
problem IMO is the hyper dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.


Mark


Like CNN would know.

:id I say that out loud?"::

I hope so.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Arny Krueger]

"Mark" wrote in message

Interesting article...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/...sic/index.html

But in my opinion, the biggest technical quality
problem with new music is not the 16 bit depth not even
the MP3 compression.... the problem IMO is the hyper
dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.

Why it will be bad for users:

http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users

[Mark]

On Feb 24, 2:39*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message



Interesting article...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/...sic/index.html

But *in my opinion, the biggest *technical quality
problem with new music is not the 16 bit depth not even
the *MP3 compression.... *the problem *IMO is the hyper
dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.

Why it will be bad for users:

http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users


while I hate squashed music as much as anyone..., in light of the
protests going on in the Middle East and in Wisconsin, this seems a
little off the wall...


"When modern music is mixed to blow your ears off already, it negates
the dynamic benefits the digital revolution once promised. This is a
cultural issue within the industry, which faces protest on March 25
with Dynamic Range Day."

I see visions of burning compressors in the streets.

Mark

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/24/2011 2:39 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Why it will be bad for users:
http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users

What a bunch of drivel! Producers won't let 24-bit files
out the door with any more dynamic range than they could get
out of 16-bit files if they let THEM out the door. Give the
listeners dynamic range and they'll say "This file isn't
loud enough."

Witness all the amateur recording musicians who have exactly
that complaint and they get always get the answer "Those CDs
have been MASTERED and yours hasn't. That's why it's not as
loud."

Show me the audiophile with Dr. Dre headphones and I'll show
him a 24-bit file to play. Bet he'll ask for it to be
turned up.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:

Show me the audiophile with Dr. Dre headphones and I'll show
him a 24-bit file to play. Bet he'll ask for it to be
turned up.

I saw the Dr. Dre headphones on display at the AES show and I picked them
up, but the sound coming out of them was so loud I was afraid to put them
on my head.

There was a button on the demo panel marked "PLAY IT LOUD" that would increase
the volume beyond this point. I did not press it.

My suspicion is that the intended use of these headphones is to drive
people deaf.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[cedricl[_2_]]

On Feb 23, 9:36*am, Mark wrote:
Interesting article...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/...sic/index.html

But *in my opinion, the biggest *technical quality problem with new
music is not the 16 bit depth not even the *MP3 compression.... *the
problem *IMO is the hyper dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.

Mark

It's interesting that a Mac standard audio program like Peak, won't
let you make an MP3 from a 24 bit file. You have to convert it to 16
bit before the option to make an MP3 comes up.

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Mike Rivers wrote:

Show me the audiophile with Dr. Dre headphones and I'll show
him a 24-bit file to play. Bet he'll ask for it to be
turned up.

I saw the Dr. Dre headphones on display at the AES show and I picked them
up, but the sound coming out of them was so loud I was afraid to put them
on my head.

There was a button on the demo panel marked "PLAY IT LOUD" that would increase
the volume beyond this point. I did not press it.

My suspicion is that the intended use of these headphones is to drive
people deaf.

Or perhaps some attempt at a piezo affect on their neurons (or what pass for neurons
in such people), given that the mechanical end of their hearing system is probably
already a smoldering ruin from years of stupidly high SPL.

Their business, true; but it's is sad when anyone has lost perhaps one of the most
enchanting of all the senses through intention, rather than age or disease.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

Mark wrote in news:60a619c9-e151-4f24-8ac4-
:


Interesting article...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/...sic/index.html

But in my opinion, the biggest technical quality problem with new
music is not the 16 bit depth not even the MP3 compression.... the
problem IMO is the hyper dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.


Mark


All I see is Apple creating a reason to buy a new iPod.

Steve Hawkins

[Bill Graham]

Mark wrote:
Interesting article...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/...sic/index.html

But in my opinion, the biggest technical quality problem with new
music is not the 16 bit depth not even the MP3 compression.... the
problem IMO is the hyper dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.


Mark

How about the fact that it is tuneless and repiticious, and not worth
recording in any case?

[hank alrich]

cedricl wrote:

On Feb 23, 9:36 am, Mark wrote:
Interesting article...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/...sic/index.html

But in my opinion, the biggest technical quality problem with new
music is not the 16 bit depth not even the MP3 compression.... the
problem IMO is the hyper dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.

Mark

It's interesting that a Mac standard audio program like Peak, won't
let you make an MP3 from a 24 bit file. You have to convert it to 16
bit before the option to make an MP3 comes up.

That has nothing to do with Macs, and evertyhing to do with Peak. Logic
will make you an MP3 from a 24 bit file just fine.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

On 2/24/2011 2:39 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Why it will be bad for users:
http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users

Producers won't let 24-bit files
out the door with any more dynamic range than they could
get out of 16-bit files if they let THEM out the door.

The irony is that there are few if any performances that come close to
taxing the dynamic range of 16 bits done right. Most live performances have
dynamic range in the 65-75 dB range max, and that's about 20 dB less than
what good a job of 16 bits can deliver.

Give the listeners dynamic range and they'll say "This
file isn't loud enough."

Yup, I can't hear the quiet sections when I'm driving on rough pavement.

Witness all the amateur recording musicians who have
exactly that complaint and they get always get the answer
"Those CDs have been MASTERED and yours hasn't. That's
why it's not as loud."

Not realizing that people listen to music for excitement, and excitement
comes from contrast, not just loud, loud, loud.

Show me the audiophile with Dr. Dre headphones and I'll
show him a 24-bit file to play. Bet he'll ask for it to
be turned up.

I spend a fair amount of time conferencing with people who use earphones,
headphones, and portable digital players as their primary listening tools.
The vast majority of the complaints trace back to not enough loudness.

It's really pretty strange. Manufacturers particularly in Europe artifically
limit the output of their headphone jacks for political reasons. What do
you call a device with 4.5 volts of VCC that can only crank out about 1 volt
of signal? This has created a market for ultra-efficient low impedance
transducers so that the equipment is practical for people to use in the real
world.

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/25/2011 7:42 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

The irony is that there are few if any performances that come close to
taxing the dynamic range of 16 bits done right. Most live performances have
dynamic range in the 65-75 dB range max, and that's about 20 dB less than
what good a job of 16 bits can deliver.

When you consider the entire system (which may include
traffic noise, a TV set in the next room, the neighbor
mowing his lawn, or a screaming baby, the actual usable
dynamic range for most people is 35-40 dB. That's plenty to
have a sense of dynamics in the performance, but 6 dB isn't.

I spend a fair amount of time conferencing with people who use earphones,
headphones, and portable digital players as their primary listening tools.
The vast majority of the complaints trace back to not enough loudness.

I think that the makers of portable devices are to blame for
that, some out of consideration of the users' hearing,
others out of consideration for battery life. I don't know
what kind of electrical power you can get from the headphone
output of a $500 iPad, but I can tell you that my $20 MP3
player requires me to run it at full volume in order to hear
it adequately when listening in an airplane, on my
Sennheiser noise canceling headphones. These low voltage,
low power devices just don't move much air.

It's really pretty strange. Manufacturers particularly in Europe artifically
limit the output of their headphone jacks for political reasons. What do
you call a device with 4.5 volts of VCC that can only crank out about 1 volt
of signal?

Safe??? I remember one version of the Sony Walkman that had
a red LED that blinked when the output level was (what they
considered) harmful. I'm sure the first think any kid wanted
to do was see that LED light.

This has created a market for ultra-efficient low impedance
transducers so that the equipment is practical for people to use in the real
world.

I haven't been following efficiency, but I expect that it
can be better for properly fitted in-ear phones than
over-the-head phones. Lots of netlore about the impedance of
the phones being the problem, whenever someone complains
about low volume. But power is power. Ohm's Law still applies.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[alex]

Il 23/02/2011 18.36, Mark ha scritto:

Interesting article...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/...sic/index.html

But in my opinion, the biggest technical quality problem with new
music is not the 16 bit depth not even the MP3 compression.... the
problem IMO is the hyper dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.


Mark

totally agree...
No reasons, right now, to try to develop higher resolution standards for
music distribution other than CDDA because the main quality bottleneck
IS this horrible habit.

alex

[alex]

Il 25/02/2011 17.15, alex ha scritto:
Il 23/02/2011 18.36, Mark ha scritto:

Interesting article...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/...sic/index.html

But in my opinion, the biggest technical quality problem with new
music is not the 16 bit depth not even the MP3 compression.... the
problem IMO is the hyper dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.


Mark

totally agree...
No reasons, right now, to try to develop higher resolution standards for
music distribution other than CDDA because the main quality bottleneck
IS this horrible habit.

alex
obviously i mean the "intended" loss of dynamic range induced to raise
the loudness, which is what the OP intended IMHO...

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

(hank alrich) wrote in news:1jx7r2c.1v9f14p4ywanuN%
:

Steve Hawkins wrote:

Mark wrote in news:60a619c9-e151-4f24-8ac4-
:


Interesting article...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/...sic/index.html

But in my opinion, the biggest technical quality problem with new
music is not the 16 bit depth not even the MP3 compression.... the
problem IMO is the hyper dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.


Mark


All I see is Apple creating a reason to buy a new iPod.

Steve Hawkins

An iPod will play a 24 bit wav file already.


Assuming you already have one. :-) A lot of folks don't like MP3's.

Steve Hawkins

[DW Griffi[_2_]]

I'm on the third floor in a not urban neighborhood, four houses from
the corner. Sometimes when a car is at the corner red light playing
their audio, which the windows up, not only is it too loud in my
apartment, it literally rumbles my chest and I submit to holding my
ears to shield against the discomfort until the light changes.

The guy in the car is who these headphones must be made for. Or more
likely wannabees who don't have cars.

I completely understand that there is more to one's music experience
than the details in the music itself. At many times for me music has
had a role where it is important to the moment but not in a critical
way. And the guy in the car is certainly no more guilty than the
guitarist with two full stacks in a club, so it's nothing new. But in
the past the abuse came from users turning it up extra loud, or having
four cabinets when one would do, not from products marketed for abuse
But it has successfully gotten out of hand as a cultural thing beyond
the musicians/producers making the music, so now the people supplying
the music and hardware can claim the tailis wagging the dog.


On Feb 24, 7:31*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:



Show me the audiophile with Dr. Dre headphones and I'll show
him a 24-bit file to play. *Bet he'll ask for it to be
turned up.

I saw the Dr. Dre headphones on display at the AES show and I picked them
up, but the sound coming out of them was so loud I was afraid to put them
on my head.

There was a button on the demo panel marked "PLAY IT LOUD" that would increase
the volume beyond this point. *I did not press it.

My suspicion is that the intended use of these headphones is to drive
people deaf.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

Steve Hawkins wrote:
Mark wrote in news:60a619c9-e151-4f24-8ac4-
:


Interesting article...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/...sic/index.html

But in my opinion, the biggest technical quality problem with new
music is not the 16 bit depth not even the MP3 compression.... the
problem IMO is the hyper dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.


Mark


All I see is Apple creating a reason to buy a new iPod.

Steve Hawkins

I finallyt succumbed to the Dark Side and got a 64GB one. Now have it 1/3
full with about 1200 CDs in lossless.

geoff

[hank alrich]

alex wrote:

Il 23/02/2011 18.36, Mark ha scritto:

Interesting article...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/...sic/index.html

But in my opinion, the biggest technical quality problem with new
music is not the 16 bit depth not even the MP3 compression.... the
problem IMO is the hyper dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.


Mark

totally agree...
No reasons, right now, to try to develop higher resolution standards for
music distribution other than CDDA because the main quality bottleneck
IS this horrible habit.

alex

Why pander to the lowest common denominator? Why not offer something for
people who don't have that habit? Bad habits needn't become an all
encompassing self-fulfilling prophesy.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[hank alrich]

Steve Hawkins wrote:

(hank alrich) wrote in news:1jx7r2c.1v9f14p4ywanuN%
:

Steve Hawkins wrote:

Mark wrote in news:60a619c9-e151-4f24-8ac4-
:


Interesting article...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/...sic/index.html

But in my opinion, the biggest technical quality problem with new
music is not the 16 bit depth not even the MP3 compression.... the
problem IMO is the hyper dynamic range compression.

And that was not even mentioned in the article.


Mark


All I see is Apple creating a reason to buy a new iPod.

Steve Hawkins

An iPod will play a 24 bit wav file already.


Assuming you already have one. :-) A lot of folks don't like MP3's.

Steve Hawkins

Steve, iPods have been able to play wav files from the gitgo. The
obivous catch or some folks is that you can't put a zillion wavs in the
same amount of storage space.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/25/2011 7:16 PM, hank alrich wrote:

Why pander to the lowest common denominator? Why not offer something for
people who don't have that habit? Bad habits needn't become an all
encompassing self-fulfilling prophesy.

I suspect that it's pandering to the lowest common
denominator dealer, and the user just gets dragged along for
the ride. The dealers have an easier time selling a product
if they say that that stores 2,000 CDs than if it stores
200. And forget about them explaining to the customer about
the differences between PCM, MP3 and FLAC encoding.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 2/25/2011 7:16 PM, hank alrich wrote:

Why pander to the lowest common denominator? Why not offer something for
people who don't have that habit? Bad habits needn't become an all
encompassing self-fulfilling prophesy.

I suspect that it's pandering to the lowest common
denominator dealer, and the user just gets dragged along for
the ride. The dealers have an easier time selling a product
if they say that that stores 2,000 CDs than if it stores
200. And forget about them explaining to the customer about
the differences between PCM, MP3 and FLAC encoding.

Can we plese have something for those who already know the difference?
g

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[gjsmo]

Of course, there's always the issue of how good your sound system is -
a pair of s*** iPod headphones will still sound horrible with 24/192
lossless audio.
Then there's the fact that the most popular forms of distribution (CDs
and MP3s) are 16-bit. HDCD/SACD/DVD-A didn't take off for a reason -
the current format is good enough, and changing the ENTIRE industry
takes a while and involves ugly format wars. Also, MP3s are REALLY
outdated - as in 1993 outdated. If you want quality, just make
everything AAC, which can be done by the manufacturers, since
consumers don't care and they already work on most devices (is that a
run-on sentence?).

What we need is a portable music player for audiophiles - 24/192
capable, with 250GB of storage. I'm half tempted to build one.

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/26/2011 9:54 PM, gjsmo wrote:

What we need is a portable music player for audiophiles - 24/192
capable, with 250GB of storage. I'm half tempted to build one.

I saw something like that at CES a year or two back. I think
it might have been up to 96 kHz sample rate, but that's more
than anyone needs anyway. Definitely 24-bit. What they
really need to go along with it is a portable listening room
with a comfortable couch.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Anahata]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:16:39 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:

When you consider the entire system (which may include traffic noise, a
TV set in the next room, the neighbor mowing his lawn, or a screaming
baby, the actual usable dynamic range for most people is 35-40 dB.
That's plenty to have a sense of dynamics in the performance, but 6 dB
isn't.

I take it you are familiar with this classic approach to the problem:
"Dynamic Range versus Ambient Noise"
http://sound.westhost.com/dynamic-range.htm

The footnotes say the article was published around 1974, but from my own
memory it must have been 1970 or earlier. They also correctly point out
that 2kW of amplifier power in a home system was regarded as an
outrageous joke then, whereas it's not impossible now.

I later discovered the real author behind the "George Izzard O'Veering"
pseudonym was John Linsley Hood, who published a number of well-regarded
amplifier design articles in the same magazine.

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444