Lionel said:

You sound like an ambulance now.


As long as I'm not chasing them..... :-)


But doesn't prevent you from drawing fire. ;-)



My function here in RAO is somewhat like a lightning rod.
Fire, from whatever direction, doesn't affect me at all, unless it
comes from my wife :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Sander deWaal a écrit :
Lionel said:


You sound like an ambulance now.




As long as I'm not chasing them..... :-)



But doesn't prevent you from drawing fire. ;-)




My function here in RAO is somewhat like a lightning rod.

Ruthenium or platinum coated ?

Fire, from whatever direction, doesn't affect me at all, unless it
comes from my wife :-)

Does she use silver bullets ?

Lionel said:

Fire, from whatever direction, doesn't affect me at all, unless it
comes from my wife :-)

Does she use silver bullets ?


Worse. She uses her voice :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 07:07:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


And yet...under certain circumstances
it could indeed. For one thing, ATRAC removes something
like 7/8ths of the signal, in theory leaving only that
which is audible. Now if an amp was clipping or near
clipping, if speakers were being used near the limits of
their power handling, minidisc could indeed improve the
sound--I'm sure I don't need to elaborate.

Point of order here - how do speakers and power amps get
involved with transcribing media?

I thought I didn't need to elaborate--obviously I do.

This is going to be "good"! ;-)

The theory is that by removing 7/8ths of the signal the
amp
and speakers, relieved of the need to reproduce that
7/8ths, have a much easier time and thus are operating
more within their limits. Hence, especially where both
were hitherto operating near their limits, better sound.

One thing that ATRAC (or any other perceptual coder) most
definately does not do is remove any significant amount of
energy from the audio signals that it encodes or decodes
unlesss it is introducing very large audible chances, which
ATRAC most certainly does not do. Certainly not 7/8 of the
energy. Not even 1/8 of the energy.


snip remaining equally ill-formed thinking

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
snip
Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot to have something
that sounds better than the LP.
snip

Unless one is listening to music :-)

Unless one never heard that music before the LP format
butchered it.

Arny Krueger wrote:

I own a Pioneer combo player, have owned it for the better
part of a year. I have a stack of DVD-As and another stack
of SACDs.

My impression is that just listening to random discs is not
a good way to judge differing formats.

I agree. However, I have done some A/B comparing between
assorted 5.1 releases and their two-channel versions (either
older originals or new releases that were done as both 5.1
and two-channel versions), with the latter listened to both
in "pure" form and with Yamaha processor DSP ambiance
enhancement and additional channels, and this did allow for
some reasonably solid conclusions about what one can expect
from both situations.

Conclusion number one: a good 5.1 release will usually sound
better than the equally good two-channel version, assuming
the remastering job was handled with reasonable expertise.
This will be true whether the 5.1 is SACD, DVD-A, DTS, or
Dolby Digital.

Conclusion number two: a good 5.1 release will usually sound
no better than, and sometimes a bit worse than, the equally
good two-channel version after the latter has been given a
really good DSP ambiance simulation job by a home-based
processor. Much will depend upon the expertise of the
technician who did the 5.1 work.

Note that this only includes recordings where the surround
channels are dealing with hall ambiance and not discrete
instrumentation. With pop releases that put instruments all
around the listener all bets are off. Actually, many 5.1
releases are only 4.1 channels (no solid center feed), and
so a good DSP device that also can derive a steered center
feed from the two-channel version's phantom image will
usually soundstage better than the re-engineered 5.1 version
- particularly when the listener is not in the sweet spot.

For me, this is good news. Purchase a good DSP device and
some additional speakers and one's entire recording
collection will probably be significantly upgraded -
overnight. This is a lot cheaper and faster than opting to
purchase an SACD or DVD-A player and whole new 5.1
collection one disc at a time.

Howard Ferstler

paul packer wrote:

Well, if that program does indeed correct the inherent errors in the
original then by making life easier for the player's error correction
it probably will improve the sound, at least in theory.

Here's something to contemplate. When minidisc first began to be taken
seriously (around '97) some listeners reported that they found the
sound BETTER than the original. Of course their impressions weren't
taken seriously, for how could a compressed medium sound better than
the original? And yet...under certain circumstances it could indeed.
For one thing, ATRAC removes something like 7/8ths of the signal, in
theory leaving only that which is audible. Now if an amp was clipping
or near clipping, if speakers were being used near the limits of their
power handling, minidisc could indeed improve the sound--I'm sure I
don't need to elaborate.

Amp clipping and the like would appear downstream from the
manipulated source material, and so the ATRAC feature would
not have any impact.

Howard Ferstler

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:20:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


So Paul, who would this be that things that everything
pretty much sounds the same

That would be Arnie Krooger.

There ain't no such person.

and why is that comment relevant
here?

Because I'm replying to a post by Arnie Krooger.

A figment of the demented mind of George Middius.

But tell me, out of curiousity, have you seriously
listened to SACD or DVD-A, and if so what was your
impression?

I own a Pioneer combo player, have owned it for the
better part of a year. I have a stack of DVD-As and
another stack of SACDs.

My impression is that just listening to random discs is
not a good way to judge differing formats.

Eh? You'll have to explain that. The whole point of any
format is that one listens to random discs--that I
believe is the typical consumer experience, and the
consumer is the point. If one can't hear an improvement
by listening to random discs then it clearly isn't an
improvement.

Comparing disc players by playing random discs makes about
as much sense as judging resturants by comparing appetizers
from one resturant to desserts at another. After all if you
choose random menu items, you just might end up doing just
that.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
snip
Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot to have something
that sounds better than the LP.
snip

Unless one is listening to music :-)

Unless one never heard that music before the LP format
butchered it.

Arny , I wasn't going to restart the stale LP vs. CD polemic but you
insist.
First of all I must question your right to lay down the law on the
subject. You said once that you consider prolonged listening a waste of
time. Well, this is the only way I do listen. I sit down and *listen*.
To play the kind of music I most often play as background is not only
wasteful- it is irritating. (exception: some of the pop I enjoy becomes
obnoxious after 20 minutes)
Secondly: For LP listening good equipment is paramount. What kind of
turntable, arm , cartridge and phono preamp did you have before you
decided that LPs always "butcher" your music (while CDs never
do?)?.

But I should not complain. It is thanks to people like you that I've
been getting sonically superb LPs for $ 1:00 in 2nd hand stores. Last 5
days: Almeida playing Spanish guitar music, Muti conducting Chabrier;s
Espana, Maazel conducting "The rite of spring on "London",.Van
Cliburn playing Liszt and Monteux conducting Prokofiev. Not only great
sound but also great performances.
Keep in touch
Ludovic Mirabel
Want a list of good CDs? They also exist.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:23:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I thought I didn't need to elaborate--obviously I do.

This is going to be "good"! ;-)

The theory is that by removing 7/8ths of the signal the
amp
and speakers, relieved of the need to reproduce that
7/8ths, have a much easier time and thus are operating
more within their limits. Hence, especially where both
were hitherto operating near their limits, better sound.

One thing that ATRAC (or any other perceptual coder) most
definately does not do is remove any significant amount of
energy from the audio signals that it encodes or decodes
unlesss it is introducing very large audible chances, which
ATRAC most certainly does not do. Certainly not 7/8 of the
energy. Not even 1/8 of the energy.

Quote: "While Minidisc recorders do not produce true digital audio
recordings, Sony's "compression" scheme, called ATRAC, is excellent..
(Sony prefers not to use the term compression and refers to ATRAC as
"data reduction.) In normal record mode, called LP1, ATRAC employs a
5:1 "reduction" ratio -- meaning that it discards 80% of the audio
data. Yet the fidelity is surprisingly good, and it sounds great even
with material that would sound bad if compressed with MP3 -- which is
normally uses a 10:1 ratio."
Clearly I'm not the only one suffering from this delusion, Arny.
This is not from a technical site and I quote it simply because it
apes everything I've read on the subject of ATRAC in Hi-Fi reviews
--namely, that it "discards" around 7/8 of the signal. Not being a
technical person I only have one definition of "discards". You may
have another.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:23:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I thought I didn't need to elaborate--obviously I do.

This is going to be "good"! ;-)

The theory is that by removing 7/8ths of the signal the
amp
and speakers, relieved of the need to reproduce that
7/8ths, have a much easier time and thus are operating
more within their limits. Hence, especially where both
were hitherto operating near their limits, better sound.

One thing that ATRAC (or any other perceptual coder) most
definately does not do is remove any significant amount
of energy from the audio signals that it encodes or
decodes unlesss it is introducing very large audible
chances, which ATRAC most certainly does not do.
Certainly not 7/8 of the energy. Not even 1/8 of the
energy.

Quote: "While Minidisc recorders do not produce true
digital audio recordings, Sony's "compression" scheme,
called ATRAC, is excellent.. (Sony prefers not to use the
term compression and refers to ATRAC as "data reduction.)
In normal record mode, called LP1, ATRAC employs a 5:1
"reduction" ratio -- meaning that it discards 80% of the
audio data.

So what?

Just because you discard 80% of the detailed information
riding on a far larger very audible signal, has the energy
contained in that larger signal been necessarily diminished
by 80%? No!

Yet the fidelity is surprisingly good, and it
sounds great even with material that would sound bad if
compressed with MP3 -- which is normally uses a 10:1
ratio." Clearly I'm not the only one suffering from this
delusion, Arny. This is not from a technical site and I
quote it simply because it apes everything I've read on
the subject of ATRAC in Hi-Fi reviews --namely, that it
"discards" around 7/8 of the signal. Not being a
technical person I only have one definition of
"discards".

Your idea here is just plain wrong, Paul.

You may have another.

I really don't care as much about marketing blurbs, I mostly
I care about what actually happens.

As I mentioned before I have a Sony ATRAC recorder, and I've
actually tested its performance.

I've found that if I record a CD whose energy I determine by
measuring with my ATRAC recorder, the ATRAC-encoded version
of the CD measures up with about the same amount of energy.
This is also true with MP3 and AAC encoding. The human ear
measures loudness primarily based on energy, not
informatiion.

Therefore, any form of encoding that causes a significant
loss of energy will make an obvious change in how the music
sounds. ATRAC is better than that! It does corrupt the sound
quality a bit, but its not bad particularly compared to
common forms of analog recording such as cassette tape,
consumer analog tape, and vinyl.

Just because a signal has more information, doesn't mean
that it has more energy, and vice-versa.

For example, consider an audio signal with a 1 volt
amplitude. Its information content, according to Shannon's
information theory, is based on its dynamic range and its
bandwidth. If you attenuate the audio signal by 6 dB,
neither its dynamic range nor its bandwidth need be reduced.
Therefore, its information content is unchanged. However,
attenuating it by 6 dB reduces its energy by about 75%.

If you have a relatively wideband, noise-free amplifier; you
can amplify the attenuated signal by 6 dB with neglible loss
of dynamic range or bandwidth. When you amplify it by 6 dB
youo restore its energy levels, but its information content
remains essentially unchanged.

In the case of ATRAC encoding, the information is lost
permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
remains about the same.

wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
snip
Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot to have something
that sounds better than the LP.
snip

Unless one is listening to music :-)

Unless one never heard that music before the LP format
butchered it.

Arny , I wasn't going to restart the stale LP vs. CD
polemic but you insist.

As usual Ludovix, your narrow view of audio has created a
controversy that exists only in your mind.

I am not comparing LP and CD, I'm comparing live sound and
master recordings in any modern format to LP transcriptions
of them.

I still remember when I learned about what LP mastering
really involves, and heard a comparison between a master
tape and supposedly high quality LP playback. I learned that
the essence of making a LP is to take music from a
high-resolution clean format to an audibly lower-resolution,
dirtier format.

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message

paul packer wrote:

Well, if that program does indeed correct the inherent
errors in the original then by making life easier for
the player's error correction it probably will improve
the sound, at least in theory.

Here's something to contemplate. When minidisc first
began to be taken seriously (around '97) some listeners
reported that they found the sound BETTER than the
original. Of course their impressions weren't taken
seriously, for how could a compressed medium sound
better than the original? And yet...under certain
circumstances it could indeed. For one thing, ATRAC
removes something like 7/8ths of the signal, in theory
leaving only that which is audible. Now if an amp was
clipping or near clipping, if speakers were being used
near the limits of their power handling, minidisc could
indeed improve the sound--I'm sure I don't need to
elaborate.

Amp clipping and the like would appear downstream from the
manipulated source material, and so the ATRAC feature
would not have any impact.

In practice ATRAC has a slight impact on distorted music.

However, ATRAC does not as a rule impact music like consumer
analog tape, particularly cassette.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:22:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Amp clipping and the like would appear downstream from the
manipulated source material,

Yes, it would.

and so the ATRAC feature
would not have any impact.

Yes, it would, for that reason. Is your mind running upstream, Howard?

In practice ATRAC has a slight impact on distorted music.

Eh?

However, ATRAC does not as a rule impact music like consumer
analog tape, particularly cassette.

Agreed.

Gee, Arnie, we actually agreed.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:17:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:23:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I thought I didn't need to elaborate--obviously I do.

This is going to be "good"! ;-)

The theory is that by removing 7/8ths of the signal the
amp
and speakers, relieved of the need to reproduce that
7/8ths, have a much easier time and thus are operating
more within their limits. Hence, especially where both
were hitherto operating near their limits, better sound.

One thing that ATRAC (or any other perceptual coder) most
definately does not do is remove any significant amount
of energy from the audio signals that it encodes or
decodes unlesss it is introducing very large audible
chances, which ATRAC most certainly does not do.
Certainly not 7/8 of the energy. Not even 1/8 of the
energy.

Quote: "While Minidisc recorders do not produce true
digital audio recordings, Sony's "compression" scheme,
called ATRAC, is excellent.. (Sony prefers not to use the
term compression and refers to ATRAC as "data reduction.)
In normal record mode, called LP1, ATRAC employs a 5:1
"reduction" ratio -- meaning that it discards 80% of the
audio data.

So what?

Just because you discard 80% of the detailed information
riding on a far larger very audible signal, has the energy
contained in that larger signal been necessarily diminished
by 80%? No!

Yet the fidelity is surprisingly good, and it
sounds great even with material that would sound bad if
compressed with MP3 -- which is normally uses a 10:1
ratio." Clearly I'm not the only one suffering from this
delusion, Arny. This is not from a technical site and I
quote it simply because it apes everything I've read on
the subject of ATRAC in Hi-Fi reviews --namely, that it
"discards" around 7/8 of the signal. Not being a
technical person I only have one definition of
"discards".

Your idea here is just plain wrong, Paul.

You may have another.

I really don't care as much about marketing blurbs, I mostly
I care about what actually happens.

Well, I don't care much about what you've measured frankly. My point
was very simple: the marketers of ATRAC as a system assure us that 80%
of the signal is removed. It has been interpolated from that, not by
me, that this may make the signal easier to handle by amps and
speakers operating near their limits, and thus lead to better sound.
If you have an issue with that, I suggest you take it up with those
who first suggested it, or simply ignore it--whatever you wish. The
point about this debate is that you seemed to be denying what Sony and
others themselves tell us about ATRAC. That puts you on fairly shaky
ground.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:17:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:23:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I thought I didn't need to elaborate--obviously I do.

This is going to be "good"! ;-)

The theory is that by removing 7/8ths of the signal
the amp
and speakers, relieved of the need to reproduce that
7/8ths, have a much easier time and thus are operating
more within their limits. Hence, especially where both
were hitherto operating near their limits, better
sound.

One thing that ATRAC (or any other perceptual coder)
most definately does not do is remove any significant
amount of energy from the audio signals that it
encodes or decodes unlesss it is introducing very
large audible chances, which ATRAC most certainly does
not do. Certainly not 7/8 of the energy. Not even 1/8
of the energy.

Quote: "While Minidisc recorders do not produce true
digital audio recordings, Sony's "compression" scheme,
called ATRAC, is excellent.. (Sony prefers not to use
the term compression and refers to ATRAC as "data
reduction.) In normal record mode, called LP1, ATRAC
employs a 5:1 "reduction" ratio -- meaning that it
discards 80% of the audio data.

So what?

Just because you discard 80% of the detailed information
riding on a far larger very audible signal, has the
energy contained in that larger signal been necessarily
diminished by 80%? No!

Yet the fidelity is surprisingly good, and it
sounds great even with material that would sound bad if
compressed with MP3 -- which is normally uses a 10:1
ratio." Clearly I'm not the only one suffering from this
delusion, Arny. This is not from a technical site and I
quote it simply because it apes everything I've read on
the subject of ATRAC in Hi-Fi reviews --namely, that it
"discards" around 7/8 of the signal. Not being a
technical person I only have one definition of
"discards".

Your idea here is just plain wrong, Paul.

You may have another.

I really don't care as much about marketing blurbs, I
mostly I care about what actually happens.

Well, I don't care much about what you've measured
frankly.

Of course Paul - unbiased facts mean nothing to you.

In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
lost
permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
remains about the same.

My point was very simple: the marketers of ATRAC
as a system assure us that 80% of the signal is removed.

No, they say that 80% of the information was removed.

Paul, can you even get the simplist thing right?

Information and energy are not the same thing.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:45:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Paul, can you even get the simplist thing right?

Probably not. I don't even know what that word means.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:45:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Paul, can you even get the simplist thing right?

Probably not. I don't even know what that word means.

Good, keep it that way! ;-)

And once again on RAO, it's (drumroll.....)

Krooglish time!

the simplist

Arnii, if you weren't unconscious, I'd think that's a Freudian slip. (Remember
"hypocracy"? LOL!)

paul packer wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:22:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Amp clipping and the like would appear downstream from the
manipulated source material,

Yes, it would.

Good to see you thinking a bit.

and so the ATRAC feature
would not have any impact.

Yes, it would, for that reason. Is your mind running upstream, Howard?

ATRAC data reduces at the source and then the resulting
byproducts (data-reduced music) head downstream to the amps.
Consequently, amp distortion (clipping and the like) would
not be impacted by ATRAC. ATRAC cannot clean up a signal
from a device if the device comes after the output of the
ATRAC circuits.

Yeah, I suppose since ATRAC eliminates some of the otherwise
inaudible part of the source material there would be a
pint-sized reduction in amplifier distortion if the
downstream amp was "just" at the clipping level sometimes
with regular source material and the reduction in signal
strength was "just" enough to pull the amp back from
clipping a tad. However, I think this is ridiculous hair
splitting, since it is rare indeed for an amp to be
operating that kind of borderline level.

You started out thinking OK, and then you lost it.

In practice ATRAC has a slight impact on distorted music.

Eh?

Yeah, that comment kind of baffles me, too. ATRAC might add
a bit of audible distortion at times, but I do not see how
it would have any more impact on distorted music than on
non-distorted music. It reduces levels of materials it
considers inaudible, whether those materials are part of the
music or distortion due to upstream problems (microphones,
recording consoles, etc.). I think that most pop music would
be subjectively unaffected by ATRAC, since most pop music
(ugh!) is loaded with distortion to begin with.

However, ATRAC does not as a rule impact music like consumer
analog tape, particularly cassette.

Agreed.

Gee, Arnie, we actually agreed.

It has a supposedly inaudible impact.

Howard Ferstler

paul packer wrote:

Well, I don't care much about what you've measured frankly. My point
was very simple: the marketers of ATRAC as a system assure us that 80%
of the signal is removed. It has been interpolated from that, not by
me, that this may make the signal easier to handle by amps and
speakers operating near their limits, and thus lead to better sound.

Yours is a preposterous assumption. It would be a waste of
time to debate you on this issue.

Howard Ferstler

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:52:38 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

paul packer wrote:

Well, I don't care much about what you've measured frankly. My point
was very simple: the marketers of ATRAC as a system assure us that 80%
of the signal is removed. It has been interpolated from that, not by
me, that this may make the signal easier to handle by amps and
speakers operating near their limits, and thus lead to better sound.

Yours is a preposterous assumption. It would be a waste of
time to debate you on this issue.

Can't read, Howard? My posts says "it has been interpolated from that,
not by me..." Clearly you don't need to debate ME at all.