"Gene Pool" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 06:38:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


All MP3s are effectively converted back to .wav before we hear them.
There's
no way to avoid doing that.


wav is a file type architecture that comes in various format options.

Right, and some of them imbed a lossy-compressed file. I was speaking
generically - .wav file as an uncompressed binary PCM format.


If you are referring to the process of burning mp3's to standard cd
format then they are converted to wav format.

Agreed. CDA is a binary PCM format so some kind of conversion must take
place.

There is no conversion
to .wav format if the playback device (either software or hardware)
can handle the mp3 format (or for that matter .sit, .mod, ,voc, etc ad
nauseum) directly.

If you take the software of a MP3 player apart, you end up with a binary PCM
digital-to-analog conversion device (DAC) that requires a binary PCM input.
That means that the MP3 file is converted to binary PCM and stored in some
working buffer, prior to being shipped off to the sound card.

There is no upward conversion to wav format needed

Sure there is. The DAC chips in sound cards are pretty uncompromising as to
the format of data they require. Look on a sound card or a motherboard and
read the manufacturer names and part numbers. Look those parts up on the
manufacturer's web site. With few if any exceptions, the input data stream
they require is binary PCM plus a clock. That binary PCM is the same binary
PCM as you find in a straight-up .wav file with minor reformatting.

and would degrade the ability of the player to decode various complex
formats on the fly such as VBR at 384k.

Not at all. VBR at 384k still has a lot less binary data than 44/16 stereo.
44/16 stereo is a bitrate of something like 1,300 kb.

Your little mp3 walkman would
choke if it had to convert all sounds to wav before outputting them.

I don't have a MP3 walkman, but I do have a MP3 Nomad 2. Inside its guts,
there's a microprocessor that handles the conversion of MP3 to binary PCM,
and there's the function if not an explicitly chip that does the
digital-to-analog conversion from binary PCM to analog.

Here's a technical overview of such a chip:

http://www.cirrus.com/en/products/pro/detail/P912.html

Relevant and critical text from that page:

"Typical applications for the CS7410 include portable CD-based MP3/WMA
players and boomboxes."

If you look at the right-hand end of the functional block diagram you see a
box labeled "PCM DACs".


For a more detailed explanation, please see:

http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2449/PCW41106/

Again, the block diagram shows a separate DAC chip.

http://www.cirrus.com/en/images/prod...lkdiag_mag.jpg
The final result is merely sound not wav sound. (There may even be
licensing fees associated with wav files knowing Microsoft has a hand
in it.)

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Gene Pool said:

All MP3s are effectively converted back to .wav before we hear
them. There's no way to avoid doing that.

[snip] Your little mp3 walkman would
choke if it had to convert all sounds to wav before outputting them.
The final result is merely sound not wav sound.

You have just corrected the Krooborg. Prepare for the snotstorm.

George, you are quite the prophet!

I posted a well-documented, purely technical reply about a half-hour ago.

I'm sure you've already read it. I'm sure it went right over your pointed
little head, as usual.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Gene Pool said:

All MP3s are effectively converted back to .wav before we hear
them. There's no way to avoid doing that.

[snip] Your little mp3 walkman would
choke if it had to convert all sounds to wav before outputting them.
The final result is merely sound not wav sound.

You have just corrected the Krooborg. Prepare for the snotstorm.

George, you are quite the prophet!

I posted a well-documented, purely technical reply about a half-hour ago.

I'm sure you've already read it. I'm sure it went right over your pointed
little head, as usual.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:


"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote in message
news:PfHqb.135738$e01.462505@attbi_s02...

If I understand correctly the damage to ears will still occur even once
it's
converted back to WAV.

All MP3s are effectively converted back to .wav before we hear them.
There's no way to avoid doing that.

(It makes sense if what they are saying is correct).

Don't bet on it being correct. It looks to me like a classic snake oil
pitch. The article makes a number of true, well-known statements
expressed in slightly obscure ways, and then starts turning crazy a
little at a time.




Arny, I agree with you. Saying that MP3 compressed music is damaging to
ones hearing is like saying that listening to square waves will cause
deafness or listening to the AM portable radio will cause deafness. I do
know of one way to cause deafness. Stand on the flight line of a aircraft
carrier without hearing protection during takeoffs. That big roar will be
the last thing you will ever hear.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:


"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote in message
news:PfHqb.135738$e01.462505@attbi_s02...

If I understand correctly the damage to ears will still occur even once
it's
converted back to WAV.

All MP3s are effectively converted back to .wav before we hear them.
There's no way to avoid doing that.

(It makes sense if what they are saying is correct).

Don't bet on it being correct. It looks to me like a classic snake oil
pitch. The article makes a number of true, well-known statements
expressed in slightly obscure ways, and then starts turning crazy a
little at a time.




Arny, I agree with you. Saying that MP3 compressed music is damaging to
ones hearing is like saying that listening to square waves will cause
deafness or listening to the AM portable radio will cause deafness. I do
know of one way to cause deafness. Stand on the flight line of a aircraft
carrier without hearing protection during takeoffs. That big roar will be
the last thing you will ever hear.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:30:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


If you take the software of a MP3 player apart, you end up with a binary PCM
digital-to-analog conversion device (DAC) that requires a binary PCM input.
That means that the MP3 file is converted to binary PCM and stored in some
working buffer, prior to being shipped off to the sound card.

You are confused. Do not confuse PCM for .wav. I worked as a systems
developer for JPEG Group as early as 1989 as an outboud adjutant via
IBM/Microsoft consulting. PCM and .wav are two distinct entities, one
hardware based the other software. According to your ascertion above
then pcm files are '.wav's in disguise' which they are not. The pages
you referenced add nothing to the definition of a wav file. Read and
study this page and try to understand the complexity of wav formats
and their C code examples. Read and learn ARNY BABY!

http://www.borg.com/~jglatt/tech/wave.htm

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:30:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


If you take the software of a MP3 player apart, you end up with a binary PCM
digital-to-analog conversion device (DAC) that requires a binary PCM input.
That means that the MP3 file is converted to binary PCM and stored in some
working buffer, prior to being shipped off to the sound card.

You are confused. Do not confuse PCM for .wav. I worked as a systems
developer for JPEG Group as early as 1989 as an outboud adjutant via
IBM/Microsoft consulting. PCM and .wav are two distinct entities, one
hardware based the other software. According to your ascertion above
then pcm files are '.wav's in disguise' which they are not. The pages
you referenced add nothing to the definition of a wav file. Read and
study this page and try to understand the complexity of wav formats
and their C code examples. Read and learn ARNY BABY!

http://www.borg.com/~jglatt/tech/wave.htm

"Gene Pool" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
:

I was speaking generically - .wav file as an uncompressed binary PCM
format.

If you take the software of a MP3 player apart, you end up with a
binary PCM digital-to-analog conversion device (DAC) that requires a
binary PCM input. That means that the MP3 file is converted to
binary PCM and stored in some working buffer, prior to being shipped
off to the sound card.

You are confused. Do not confuse PCM for .wav.

I'm not confused. I stated the conditions under which I equated the two,
just above. I said: "I was speaking generically - .wav file as an
uncompressed binary PCM format". It appears that you didn't read my post
very well. How did that happen?

I worked as a systems
developer for JPEG Group as early as 1989 as an outboud adjutant via
IBM/Microsoft consulting. PCM and .wav are two distinct entities, one
hardware based the other software.

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two, at the
beginning of my post.

According to your ascertion above
then pcm files are '.wav's in disguise' which they are not.

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two, at the
beginning of my post.

The pages
you referenced add nothing to the definition of a wav file.

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two, at the
beginning of my post.

Read and
study this page and try to understand the complexity of wav formats
and their C code examples. Read and learn ARNY BABY!

It appears that you didn't read my post very well. How did that happen?

http://www.borg.com/~jglatt/tech/wave.htm

Been there, done that. I stated the conditions under which I equated the
two, at the beginning of my post. It appears that you didn't read my post
very well. How did that happen?

"Gene Pool" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
:

I was speaking generically - .wav file as an uncompressed binary PCM
format.

If you take the software of a MP3 player apart, you end up with a
binary PCM digital-to-analog conversion device (DAC) that requires a
binary PCM input. That means that the MP3 file is converted to
binary PCM and stored in some working buffer, prior to being shipped
off to the sound card.

You are confused. Do not confuse PCM for .wav.

I'm not confused. I stated the conditions under which I equated the two,
just above. I said: "I was speaking generically - .wav file as an
uncompressed binary PCM format". It appears that you didn't read my post
very well. How did that happen?

I worked as a systems
developer for JPEG Group as early as 1989 as an outboud adjutant via
IBM/Microsoft consulting. PCM and .wav are two distinct entities, one
hardware based the other software.

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two, at the
beginning of my post.

According to your ascertion above
then pcm files are '.wav's in disguise' which they are not.

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two, at the
beginning of my post.

The pages
you referenced add nothing to the definition of a wav file.

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two, at the
beginning of my post.

Read and
study this page and try to understand the complexity of wav formats
and their C code examples. Read and learn ARNY BABY!

It appears that you didn't read my post very well. How did that happen?

http://www.borg.com/~jglatt/tech/wave.htm

Been there, done that. I stated the conditions under which I equated the
two, at the beginning of my post. It appears that you didn't read my post
very well. How did that happen?

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:26:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Gene Pool" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
:
=

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two, at the
beginning of my post.
=
Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two, at the
beginning of my post.

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two, at the
beginning of my post.

WHACK!

I stated the conditions under which I equated the
two, at the beginning of my post. It appears that you didn't read my post
very well. How did that happen?

There, I think I got it reset.

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:26:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Gene Pool" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
:
=

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two, at the
beginning of my post.
=
Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two, at the
beginning of my post.

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two, at the
beginning of my post.

WHACK!

I stated the conditions under which I equated the
two, at the beginning of my post. It appears that you didn't read my post
very well. How did that happen?

There, I think I got it reset.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:26:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Gene Pool" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
:
=

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two,
at the beginning of my post.
=
Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two,
at the beginning of my post.

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two,
at the beginning of my post.

WHACK!

So Weil, now you're taking exception when I agree with someone, again and
again?

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:26:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Gene Pool" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
:
=

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two,
at the beginning of my post.
=
Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two,
at the beginning of my post.

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two,
at the beginning of my post.

WHACK!

So Weil, now you're taking exception when I agree with someone, again and
again?

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:28:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:26:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Gene Pool" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
:
=

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two,
at the beginning of my post.
=
Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two,
at the beginning of my post.

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two,
at the beginning of my post.

WHACK!

So Weil, now you're taking exception when I agree with someone, again and
again?

Except that you weren't really agreeing with the poster, now were you?

Not that it matters.

Obviously, the joke goes whizzing right past you...

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:28:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:26:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Gene Pool" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
:
=

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two,
at the beginning of my post.
=
Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two,
at the beginning of my post.

Agreed, and I stated the conditions under which I equated the two,
at the beginning of my post.

WHACK!

So Weil, now you're taking exception when I agree with someone, again and
again?

Except that you weren't really agreeing with the poster, now were you?

Not that it matters.

Obviously, the joke goes whizzing right past you...

Arny Krueger wrote:
All MP3s are effectively converted back to .wav before
we hear them. There's no way to avoid doing that.

"Gene Pool" wrote ...
wav is a file type architecture that comes in various format options.
If you are refering to the process of burning mp3's to standard cd
format then they are converted to wav format. There is no conversion
to .wav format if the playback device (either software or hardware)
can handle the mp3 format (or for that matter .sit, .mod, ,voc, etc ad
nauseum) directly. There is no upward conversion to wav format needed

Then what do YOU think is feeding the A/D converter that creates
the audio you hear? If you substitute "44K sample/sec, uncompressed,
fixed-point, 16-bit" for "wav" I see nothing wrong with Mr. Krueger's
explanation.

... Your little mp3 walkman would choke if it had to
convert all sounds to wav before outputting them.

Your little mp3 walkman (and everything else that produces audio)
feeds the A/D converter with the same data stream that is captured
in "wav files". How do YOU think it works?

The final result is merely sound not wav sound.

You'll have to define what YOU mean by "merely sound" and
"wav sound". Else this doesn't make sense.

(There may even be licensing fees associated with wav
files knowing Microsoft has a hand in it.)

Now that's just silly. Perhaps the whole post was meant to
be read as a jest.

Arny Krueger wrote:
All MP3s are effectively converted back to .wav before
we hear them. There's no way to avoid doing that.

"Gene Pool" wrote ...
wav is a file type architecture that comes in various format options.
If you are refering to the process of burning mp3's to standard cd
format then they are converted to wav format. There is no conversion
to .wav format if the playback device (either software or hardware)
can handle the mp3 format (or for that matter .sit, .mod, ,voc, etc ad
nauseum) directly. There is no upward conversion to wav format needed

Then what do YOU think is feeding the A/D converter that creates
the audio you hear? If you substitute "44K sample/sec, uncompressed,
fixed-point, 16-bit" for "wav" I see nothing wrong with Mr. Krueger's
explanation.

... Your little mp3 walkman would choke if it had to
convert all sounds to wav before outputting them.

Your little mp3 walkman (and everything else that produces audio)
feeds the A/D converter with the same data stream that is captured
in "wav files". How do YOU think it works?

The final result is merely sound not wav sound.

You'll have to define what YOU mean by "merely sound" and
"wav sound". Else this doesn't make sense.

(There may even be licensing fees associated with wav
files knowing Microsoft has a hand in it.)

Now that's just silly. Perhaps the whole post was meant to
be read as a jest.

Then what do YOU think is feeding the A/D converter that creates
the audio you hear? If you substitute "44K sample/sec, uncompressed,
fixed-point, 16-bit" for "wav" I see nothing wrong with Mr. Krueger's
explanation.
The digital stream you mention is only the format and data chunks
which by themselves do not fully represent a complete wave file. I was
sending digital streams to hybrid software/hardware DAC's nineteen
years ago before the wave format was invented. A digital stream does
not have to be wave type, can't you get that through your head! We
experimented with early voc, duff (my own standard I developed in
1985) and mod files to dac's so I guess they are waves too as you see
them. Read the format via the web link I posted earlier.

Then what do YOU think is feeding the A/D converter that creates
the audio you hear? If you substitute "44K sample/sec, uncompressed,
fixed-point, 16-bit" for "wav" I see nothing wrong with Mr. Krueger's
explanation.
The digital stream you mention is only the format and data chunks
which by themselves do not fully represent a complete wave file. I was
sending digital streams to hybrid software/hardware DAC's nineteen
years ago before the wave format was invented. A digital stream does
not have to be wave type, can't you get that through your head! We
experimented with early voc, duff (my own standard I developed in
1985) and mod files to dac's so I guess they are waves too as you see
them. Read the format via the web link I posted earlier.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message


Gene Pool said:


All MP3s are effectively converted back to .wav before we hear
them. There's no way to avoid doing that.


[snip] Your little mp3 walkman would
choke if it had to convert all sounds to wav before outputting them.
The final result is merely sound not wav sound.


You have just corrected the Krooborg. Prepare for the snotstorm.


George, you are quite the prophet!

I posted a well-documented, purely technical reply about a half-hour ago.

I'm sure you've already read it. I'm sure it went right over your pointed
little head, as usual.

Arny, your biggest mistake is attempting to communicate with these
buffoons. Leave them to their ignorance (and bad manners).
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

Arny Krueger wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message


Gene Pool said:


All MP3s are effectively converted back to .wav before we hear
them. There's no way to avoid doing that.


[snip] Your little mp3 walkman would
choke if it had to convert all sounds to wav before outputting them.
The final result is merely sound not wav sound.


You have just corrected the Krooborg. Prepare for the snotstorm.


George, you are quite the prophet!

I posted a well-documented, purely technical reply about a half-hour ago.

I'm sure you've already read it. I'm sure it went right over your pointed
little head, as usual.

Arny, your biggest mistake is attempting to communicate with these
buffoons. Leave them to their ignorance (and bad manners).
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:54:56 -0500, "Scott Duncan"
wrote:

This probably sounds like a silly question and I did find one article on the
web supporting it.

Does lossy compression (being digital-MD,MP3,DTS) cause hearing loss?

Thanks.

My apologies to this group. Every so often I like to stir the pot with
debate on items of a picayune nature. There is however much to be
learned not from the subject discussed but from the way it is
discussed! My kudos to all who held their cool. To those who did not,
let this be a mirror into your own psyche.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:54:56 -0500, "Scott Duncan"
wrote:

This probably sounds like a silly question and I did find one article on the
web supporting it.

Does lossy compression (being digital-MD,MP3,DTS) cause hearing loss?

Thanks.

My apologies to this group. Every so often I like to stir the pot with
debate on items of a picayune nature. There is however much to be
learned not from the subject discussed but from the way it is
discussed! My kudos to all who held their cool. To those who did not,
let this be a mirror into your own psyche.

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:

...snip..

It made sense to me. I have severe nerve damage in lots of places due to
cancer of the spinal cord and other things and you'd be surprised what all
can go wrong when things don't work like they should or the right signals
are doing what they're supposed to. What I got from reading it was more or
less "use it or lose it". IOW, if we are only "feed" things that have the
"trimming and filling in" done then we'll lose our natural ability to do so.
I can definitely tell you this is how nerves function. And not just the
major motor ones.

OK, maybe I can imagine short term loss of some perception but the brain
is an amazingly adaptive thing. Once normal input is restored I would expect
all functions to renormalize. An analogy I see would be claiming that black
and white movies would cause permanent degradation of our color vision.
I don't know that all those years of B&W TV viewing had any such impact.

Sounds like a lot of snake oil's been mixed in there...

Ron Capik
--

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:

...snip..

It made sense to me. I have severe nerve damage in lots of places due to
cancer of the spinal cord and other things and you'd be surprised what all
can go wrong when things don't work like they should or the right signals
are doing what they're supposed to. What I got from reading it was more or
less "use it or lose it". IOW, if we are only "feed" things that have the
"trimming and filling in" done then we'll lose our natural ability to do so.
I can definitely tell you this is how nerves function. And not just the
major motor ones.

OK, maybe I can imagine short term loss of some perception but the brain
is an amazingly adaptive thing. Once normal input is restored I would expect
all functions to renormalize. An analogy I see would be claiming that black
and white movies would cause permanent degradation of our color vision.
I don't know that all those years of B&W TV viewing had any such impact.

Sounds like a lot of snake oil's been mixed in there...

Ron Capik
--

"Gene Pool" wrote ...
My apologies to this group. Every so often I like to
stir the pot with debate on items of a picayune nature.

Lots of heat and not a glimmer of light.
Thanks, but no thanks. Plonk to you, sir.

"Gene Pool" wrote ...
My apologies to this group. Every so often I like to
stir the pot with debate on items of a picayune nature.

Lots of heat and not a glimmer of light.
Thanks, but no thanks. Plonk to you, sir.

In article , "Scott Duncan"
wrote:

This probably sounds like a silly question and I did find one article on the
web supporting it.

Does lossy compression (being digital-MD,MP3,DTS) cause hearing loss?

Thanks.

Is lossy compression detrimental to your mental and physical health? Most
of the early scientific research says yes. The most interesting
speculations I have heard come from Rupert Neve's wife.

Does the compression itself cause hearing loss, probably not direcly, but
I'd say indirectly. I know I always monitor poor quality audio louder.



www.monsterisland.com

In article , "Scott Duncan"
wrote:

This probably sounds like a silly question and I did find one article on the
web supporting it.

Does lossy compression (being digital-MD,MP3,DTS) cause hearing loss?

Thanks.

Is lossy compression detrimental to your mental and physical health? Most
of the early scientific research says yes. The most interesting
speculations I have heard come from Rupert Neve's wife.

Does the compression itself cause hearing loss, probably not direcly, but
I'd say indirectly. I know I always monitor poor quality audio louder.



www.monsterisland.com

"Mike Caffrey" wrote in message
...

Does the compression itself cause hearing loss, probably not direcly, but
I'd say indirectly. I know I always monitor poor quality audio louder.


Yes. I was upset to find out after ripping all my audio CD's with EAC and
LAME to their highest quality for playing in my car they actually sounded
"less pleasing" (in my car) than the default 128k ones did. Notice I said
"less pleasing" (and not "worse") and also qualified it to the listening
location of my car (big van actually).

"Mike Caffrey" wrote in message
...

Does the compression itself cause hearing loss, probably not direcly, but
I'd say indirectly. I know I always monitor poor quality audio louder.


Yes. I was upset to find out after ripping all my audio CD's with EAC and
LAME to their highest quality for playing in my car they actually sounded
"less pleasing" (in my car) than the default 128k ones did. Notice I said
"less pleasing" (and not "worse") and also qualified it to the listening
location of my car (big van actually).