[David F. Cox]

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

In the electronics world PCM stands for pulse code modulation - a two level
system that translates amplitude by the width of the pulse. Is it different
in the audio world?

David F. Cox

[David F. Cox]

"jer0en" wrote in message
.. .
bloody hell we don't even know the logical format of an NTFS partition.
who
cares about pcm?????

Marketing? Theirs just have stereo, ours have PCM. The best sell because
their customers understand, the others because they are confused.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

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

Finally, after being on the usenet since 1993, I find something to
disagree with you in. It is finding the usable cans for it that is
difficult.

Any suggestions? Do you include a shuffler?

I have gotten fond of the HD 430's I use with this laptop, on location I use
HD25, cheap and costly versions. I used my very old stax's for late night
editing ... SR4 I think, currently their transformerbox (Number 00004)
needs at least some new resistors after a mains hum event.

No shuffler, I don't see the point, headphone-listening is about learning to
listen to the image you get rather than about making it appear as if it was
loudspeaker listening.

My contributions to the rap cd's were monitored on location with HD25's. I
expect to get one of the AT M50's that people here rave about some day.

--scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

On Jul 5, 5:05 pm, "jer0en" wrote:
what do you mean? pulse code modulation? is pcm uncompressed, like cd or
wav? no. so of course there wouldn't be any noticeable difference with mp3.

it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any difference between
mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you have a studio theatre in your living,
let alone pcm and mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing.

bull****
do so on my laptopspeakers
mp3 even with high bit rate sucks the life out of transients and
overtone details

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually
indistinguishable from PCM.

That tells us about either you ears or the type of
music you listen to. You may not be able to
"distinguish" it, but don't project that onto others.

You know nothing about my hearing acuity, or what I
listen to, and nor did I say I _couldn't_ distinguish
MP3 and PCM. Don't put words in my mouth you snotty
little man.

Oh, you have described your hearing acuity very well.

It is as finely honed as your social skills.

Another puffed up cretin who can't read.

Actually, he reads quite well, especially the "snotty
little man" part. ;-)

I don't suffer fools gladly, probably why we never got
along.

Everybody else is a fool Paul, and you are the smartest guy around, right?

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Jul 5, 5:05 pm, "jer0en" wrote:
what do you mean? pulse code modulation? is pcm
uncompressed, like cd or wav? no. so of course there
wouldn't be any noticeable difference with mp3.

it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any
difference between mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you
have a studio theatre in your living, let alone pcm and
mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing.

bull****
do so on my laptopspeakers
mp3 even with high bit rate sucks the life out of
transients and overtone details

Still relying on those sighted evaluations, right?

They let you hear whatever you want to believe.

[jer0en]

it is your job to uphold a virtual version of reality, to the extent of
actual care? what are they paying you? I've been wanting to ask that for
quite a while. there is no digital data storage/encoding standard on earth,
least of all one that is worth caring, and least of all in digital audio
engineering.

bet you also care about all the specifics of your funeral, or isn't that a
part of your job?

[jer0en]

no, it's not marketing. the procedure of defining technological concepts,
that is including their commercial names, is way to rigid and COMPLETELY top
level to allow some silly sales executives on the ground floor to be a part
of it. "pcm" comes from floor 53.

[jer0en]

since your post suggest that normally other physical formats than pcm would
be used for surround, it only confirms the importance of discussing the
having of standards in digital data storage/encoding technologies, and the
specifics of these, because we are shure that the best standard will
eventually supersede all others, eventhough the specifics of the predicate
"good", including "best", will for ever remain part of an unfinishable
discussion we generally refer to as philosophy. and eventhough state and
religion are now separate, state and philosophy join very well together.

[jer0en]

definitive cynism for instance, like nietzsche and to some extent darwin,
simply states that good is that which prevails.

personally, I could not conceive of a better definition of evil.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 6, 6:44 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

bull****
do so on my laptopspeakers
mp3 even with high bit rate sucks the life out of
transients and overtone details

Still relying on those sighted evaluations, right?

They let you hear whatever you want to believe.

lap top speakers = sighted evaluations

bad logic there old man

they sound even worse when using monitors in my studio.
do you have your own studio??
or is your church supplying all your gear??

[jer0en]

what you in fact say is that pcm is a technique to digitally store analogue
samples, which should preferably go for all encoding types that record
audio digitally. it doesn't seem to define pcm.

alternatively, pcm doesn't seem to define anything either, so why not just
say "stereo".

[Scott Dorsey]

Signal wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any difference between
mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you have a studio theatre in your living,
let alone pcm and mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing.

I hate to tell you this, but it is very, very obvious to hear the differences
between mp3 and CD files. I suggest you first of all go and listen on a
decent playback system, and secondly I suggest you get the AES disc that
gives exaggerated examples of various lossy compression artifacts. Once you
learn what they sound like, they will start driving you up the wall until
soon you will not be able to stand mp3 encoding any longer.

Depends on the source material. Assuming finest quality encoding
practices, differences range from blatantly obvious to virtually
(possibly absolutely) imperceptible.

Oh, of course, I can build test tracks to deliberately make it
imperceptable. In fact, for a while the techno guys were using
several generations of MD as an effect, because they liked what
the ATRAC encoding did to the sound. Take a record that already
has several deliberate generations of encoding and one more is
not apt to change much.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

David F. Cox wrote:
"jer0en" wrote in message
...
pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.

In the electronics world PCM stands for pulse code modulation - a two level
system that translates amplitude by the width of the pulse. Is it different
in the audio world?

No, you are thinking of PWM, pulse width modulation. PCM is a bitstream
of (usually binary but sometimes Gray code or something weird) digital
code pulses which indicate succeeding analogue values.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen wrote:

No shuffler, I don't see the point, headphone-listening is about learning to
listen to the image you get rather than about making it appear as if it was
loudspeaker listening.

But that's exactly why I say you can't get real imaging on headphones. If
a recording is made to give a good image on a pair of speakers, with all
the instruments in the right place and the edges of the sound field extending
well beyond the speakers, when you play it back on headphones everything
goes all wrong with a hole in the middle.

Yes, if a recording is specifically made for headphone playback, you can
get a great image.... but then you have a recording you can't listen to on
speakers.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[David F. Cox]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
David F. Cox wrote:
"jer0en" wrote in message
l...
pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.

In the electronics world PCM stands for pulse code modulation - a two
level
system that translates amplitude by the width of the pulse. Is it
different
in the audio world?

No, you are thinking of PWM, pulse width modulation. PCM is a bitstream
of (usually binary but sometimes Gray code or something weird) digital
code pulses which indicate succeeding analogue values.
--scott

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

Thank you - time for more searches and revision

[jer0en]

But that's exactly why I say you can't get real imaging on headphones. If
a recording is made to give a good image on a pair of speakers, with all
the instruments in the right place and the edges of the sound field
extending
well beyond the speakers, when you play it back on headphones everything
goes all wrong with a hole in the middle.

probably due to less distortion.

in both digital and analogue amplification as well as in speaker design 29th
century techniques are being applied to have the instruments come from all
the right places, basicly to have the engineers agree on a perfect
recording, while completely corrupting the source signal as a whole in the
background to prevent illegal copying, and audial copying to begin with.

you should start with exchanging you mains plugs with large glass 5A / 250V
fuses in parellel to get the desired value, then at least you would have
actual current. they cost about 50 cents.

Yes, if a recording is specifically made for headphone playback, you can
get a great image.... but then you have a recording you can't listen to on
speakers.

and not even satan would be content to listen to music over headphones at
home, unless in order to record illegal copies of an original.

if I were to live in Diy, I would simply buy two 2 or 3 inch general
frequency speakers and line them with a sky doughnut for seclusion, solder a
2x0.25 microphone cable to each and connect these with an oehlbach jack (15
euro).

but then again I don't know how important headphones are for a recording
engineer facing and consequently caring for all kinds of digital data
storage and encoding technologies, and the standards thereof.

[jer0en]

not currently. are there any white bloodcells in alt.audio.eq? there seem to
be digital viruses around.

[jer0en]

well well

[jer0en]

if find mp3 completely harmless, whereas music is supposed to do things with
you.

[jer0en]

so pcm is not a storage/encoding technology for specific media like for
instance mfm was, but just a sampling technology for analogue AV.

[jer0en]

you see, mfm was a storage/encoding tech to store data on hard disk that was
already(binary) digital. it seems that pcm is at least one phase prior to
this proces, and has nothing to do with writing the data to the actual
medium. so either the name pcm, or at least comparing pcm to mfm, is
confusing.

[jer0en]

since mp3 is a compression algorithm, comparing pcm to mp3 is not even
comparing a fruit to a fruit, and not just purely technically speaking, but
commercially speaking as well, unless the source of the mp3 file would have
been a pcm recording, which, I gather, is not necessarily so.

indeed, digital standards are something to care about, but first they would
have to be properly categorized. that is, publicly, and not on floor 53.

[jer0en]

mfm is a physical storage standard, concerning writing binary digital data
to a physical medium.

pcm is a logical sampling standard, concerning writing digitally encoded
analogue samples to a file.

mp3 is a compression algorithm for digital audio files, independant of the
sampling technique used to record the original.

while pcm has been used as the standard sampling technique for all normal
CDs since 1983, as described in the cd red book, though from an entirely
different category, mp3 seems to be identifying itself as a standard
superseding pcm allowing all kinds of other, superior sampling techniques to
hide under its umbrella.

the logicer you go, the killer it gets

[jer0en]

one day we'll all be listening to the white noise of a superior facsimile
signal, and they will probably commercially call it source direct.

[jer0en]

I'm afraid that currently I'm not into shipping. products have to be
available at local stores for me to have any access to them.

[jer0en]

and if I like music. I'm afraid it is a bit deeper than that.

[jer0en]

well they tend to get lost or break after 25 years or so. so the main
problem is really availability.

[jer0en]

do you have any confirmation on that? I have audial confirmation on my
version. it's thin, but it is at least something.

[jer0en]

my point being that it was available to children of 3 buying liquorice. 369
and 468 are cute numbers, but only to those who have exclusive access of the
material.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Yes, if a recording is specifically made for headphone playback, you
can
get a great image.... but then you have a recording you can't listen
to on speakers.

Are my contributions to the RAP CD's "recordings you can't listen to on
speakers"?

--scott


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[jer0en]

by the way, who are the techno guys? are they any good?

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 00:22:30 -0700, David F. Cox wrote
(in article ) :


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

In the electronics world PCM stands for pulse code modulation - a two level
system that translates amplitude by the width of the pulse. Is it different
in the audio world?

David F. Cox



No.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 05:34:46 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article ):

what you in fact say is that pcm is a technique to digitally store analogue
samples, which should preferably go for all encoding types that record
audio digitally. it doesn't seem to define pcm.

alternatively, pcm doesn't seem to define anything either, so why not just
say "stereo".




You are talking apples and oranges here. PCM is merely the way that ones and
zeros are represented on the recording media. It has nothing whatsoever to do
with the quantization process that turns the audio into digital words, nor
does it have anything to do with what's being quantized. A better analogy
from the old mono/phonograph days would be the difference between vertically
cut or laterally cut records. The music, in either case, is the same
recording, only the way in which it is inscribed in the grooves differs.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 06:19:49 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article ):

But that's exactly why I say you can't get real imaging on headphones. If
a recording is made to give a good image on a pair of speakers, with all
the instruments in the right place and the edges of the sound field
extending
well beyond the speakers, when you play it back on headphones everything
goes all wrong with a hole in the middle.

probably due to less distortion.

in both digital and analogue amplification as well as in speaker design 29th
century techniques are being applied to have the instruments come from all
the right places, basicly to have the engineers agree on a perfect
recording, while completely corrupting the source signal as a whole in the
background to prevent illegal copying, and audial copying to begin with.

you should start with exchanging you mains plugs with large glass 5A / 250V
fuses in parellel to get the desired value, then at least you would have
actual current. they cost about 50 cents.

Yes, if a recording is specifically made for headphone playback, you can
get a great image.... but then you have a recording you can't listen to on
speakers.

and not even satan would be content to listen to music over headphones at
home, unless in order to record illegal copies of an original.

if I were to live in Diy, I would simply buy two 2 or 3 inch general
frequency speakers and line them with a sky doughnut for seclusion, solder a
2x0.25 microphone cable to each and connect these with an oehlbach jack (15
euro).

but then again I don't know how important headphones are for a recording
engineer facing and consequently caring for all kinds of digital data
storage and encoding technologies, and the standards thereof.



Most recording engineers do not use headphones for "mix-down", they use
near-field monitor speakers and many classical recording engineers use good
quality audiophile speakers. Well recorded classical or jazz is recorded to
two-track using just a stereo pair of microphones. Their correct placement
assures proper imaging and phase coherence. It is permissible to use accent
microphones on instruments requiring them as long as they are subordinate to
the main stereo pair. Multi-miked symphonic music sounds terrible because
instruments that mix together in the air between the orchestra and the
listener's seat, sound altogether different than they do when miked up-close.
Also, multimiked orchestras have NO image. Pan-potting an instrument to it's
approximate place linearly from left-to right across the stage gives you just
that, a bunch of musicians lined-up in a straight line across the stage. Real
orchestras don't do that either. So, multi-miking is just wrong any way you
look at it. With modern pop music, none of this is important because most pop
music doesn't actually exist in real space anyway.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 08:03:10 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article ):

by the way, who are the techno guys? are they any good?


What "tech guys"? To whom or to what are you responding? When you don't quote
the post you are answering, no one has the slightest idea what you are
talking about. PLEASE quote the material to which you are responding.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 07:55:35 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article ):

do you have any confirmation on that? I have audial confirmation on my
version. it's thin, but it is at least something.

Confirmation of what? Nobody has any way of knowing what you are talking
about or to whom your comments are aimed. Please quote the posts you are
responding to.

[jer0en]

and resuming about a 100 REs, apart from having the right to sing and vote,
we know seem to have a right to care, specifically about the merits of
digital audio standards.

[jer0en]

I would agree that, for mixing down, monitoring between speakers is better
than between headphones.

only trouble is that to my knowledge of play-back equipment, the only
studios that would have the infinitesimal power resources required to do
(15"?) speaker monitoring undistortedly, would be island's, virgin's and
possibly deutsche grammophon.

in all other places on earth you would get moderate up to incredible
distortion over speakers, which is just the beginning of what people at home
experience, whatever VH end stuff they may have, namely infinitesimal
distortion.

the result of this in the studio would be that recordings would be ADAPTED,
that is be rid of any dangerous amplitudes and usually entire dangerous
frequency ranges, to at least be reproduceable undistortedly in the studio
itself.

and that is before it would be stored on any superior medium.

headphones however are a lot less comfy, but produce about 100 times less
distortion because their power requirements are about 100 times less, which
would allow you to do at least a complete (as to the frequency spectrum)
original recording, e.g. for posterity.

no not for the record

[jer0en]

there is preciously little advanced about listening to actually undistorted
music of whatever genre. there is no image, no pounding base, no screaming
treble. it's more like listening to the czar's music box than anything else.

the point is that music is worth listening to this way, because not the
recording but the music "as is" would have this special intrinsic quality,
as opposed to (car hifi) loudness, that we call BEAUTY.

there's no need to be adding any images, particularly if you're not even
shure that they exist, since we are perfectly capable of creating them
ourselves. so if you record music, please have it sound as simple as you
can. and if you experience an image, get rid of it.