[Paul[_13_]]

Everyone knows MP3 sounds bad versus WAV.


But how does WMA (which is the default file format when
you rip a CD in the Windows Media player) stack up against WAV?

I assume the difference is still pretty obvious on good monitors?

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Paul wrote:
Everyone knows MP3 sounds bad versus WAV.

Maybe. WAV is actually a container format.

Almost every WAV file you encounter will be an uncompressed PCM file, but
just because it's got a .WAV extension doesn't necessarily mean it is an
uncompressed PCM file. It's possible to make an MPEG-encoded file and put
it in a .WAV container.

But how does WMA (which is the default file format when
you rip a CD in the Windows Media player) stack up against WAV?

It depends because WMA is _also_ a container format that can use a variety
of different encoders. The default WMA encoder is pretty bad in spite of
jj johnson's work. There is also a lossless WMA encoder that is as good
as an uncompressed PCM format. There is a voice grade WMA encoder which
is worse than telephone-grade too.

With file types like these, just knowing the extension doesn't tell you
how the stuff inside the file was actually encoded. Which is kind of
shameful if you ask me.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/18/2014 8:45 PM, Paul wrote:

Everyone knows MP3 sounds bad versus WAV.

Not me. A 256 kpbs MP3 is practically indistinguishable from the PCM
file from which it was made. Try it some time. A 64 kpbs MP3 does sound
pretty poor compared to its parent PCM file.

But how does WMA (which is the default file format when
you rip a CD in the Windows Media player) stack up against WAV?

Again, it depends on the bit rate. For the same bit rate, some people
think that WMA sounds better than MP3, but then there are several MP3
encoders, and some of those sound better than others.

I assume the difference is still pretty obvious on good monitors?

Why assume? Why not listen for yourself and learn what the differences
sound like, both between compression formats and bit rates? There are
times when you want to use a low bit rate (like to make a file download
quickly) and not worry if it doesn't sound as good as your original.
There are times when you'll want to just use a WAV file and don't
compress at all.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

wma , mp3, mp4, flac, etc

that's the nice thing about standards....there are so many to choose from..



Mark

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/18/2014 7:55 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/18/2014 8:45 PM, Paul wrote:

Everyone knows MP3 sounds bad versus WAV.

Not me. A 256 kpbs MP3 is practically indistinguishable from the PCM
file from which it was made. Try it some time. A 64 kpbs MP3 does sound
pretty poor compared to its parent PCM file.


Most of the MP3s I have seen are around 128kbps.


But how does WMA (which is the default file format when
you rip a CD in the Windows Media player) stack up against WAV?

Again, it depends on the bit rate. For the same bit rate, some people
think that WMA sounds better than MP3, but then there are several MP3
encoders, and some of those sound better than others.

I assume the difference is still pretty obvious on good monitors?

Why assume? Why not listen for yourself and learn what the differences
sound like, both between compression formats and bit rates? There are
times when you want to use a low bit rate (like to make a file download
quickly) and not worry if it doesn't sound as good as your original.
There are times when you'll want to just use a WAV file and don't
compress at all.


I'll just stick to uncompressed WAV, because these are for
listening to reference albums on good monitors, to compare my
mixes against...

[PStamler]

On Friday, June 20, 2014 12:12:24 AM UTC-6, Paul wrote:

I'll just stick to uncompressed WAV, because these are for
listening to reference albums on good monitors, to compare my
mixes against...

You can also use them for listening to music for enjoyment.

Peace,
Another Paul

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/20/2014 8:39 PM, PStamler wrote:
On Friday, June 20, 2014 12:12:24 AM UTC-6, Paul wrote:

I'll just stick to uncompressed WAV, because these are for
listening to reference albums on good monitors, to compare my
mixes against...

You can also use them for listening to music for enjoyment.


That true, and it also brings up another point.

How many people here use monitors for listening
pleasure?

My Yamaha HS80Ms, while awesome sounding, and with
pretty good bass even without the recommended sub-woofer, are
a bit on the bright side. This brightness is somewhat
necessary to hear all the details of well recorded
music, and it's good the mix on these so that you don't
make things too shrill.

But my home speakers are significantly less bright
and warmer sounding. Certainly not as flat and not as clear,
but also not as harsh. They are muddier sounding, really,
and you can hear this when you A/B the signal back and forth, but
they are just fine for listening purposes.

[[email protected]]

Paul wrote: " Most of the MP3s I have seen are around 128kbps. "


Really? Well Paul, Bush DID win the 2000 presidential election, the twin Trade Center towers have been replaced by one spire, Michael Jackson is dead, an African-American is now President, and most folks encoding to MP3 do so at 256kB or higher.


Hope that fills you in on the past 15 or so years. BTW I wouldn't rip even the spoken word to 128! lol

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/21/2014 8:05 AM, wrote:
Paul wrote: " Most of the MP3s I have seen are around 128kbps. "


Really? Well Paul, Bush DID win the 2000 presidential election, the twin Trade Center towers have been replaced by one spire, Michael Jackson is dead, an African-American is now President, and most folks encoding to MP3 do so at 256kB or higher.


Not true in my collection.


Hope that fills you in on the past 15 or so years. BTW I wouldn't rip even the spoken word to 128! lol


I knew all of that, ****-wit. Your own spoken words wouldn't be
worth ripping to 1 kbps!

[[email protected]]

Paul wrote: " I knew all of that, ****-wit. Your own spoken words wouldn't be "

Easy there! You know that stress shortens more lives than cancer or guns?

I was just pointing out that about anything on Amazon is at least 256VBR, has been so for at least 5 years.

You're not the same Paul who has helped me out on alt.computer are you? That Paul is quite patient and explains the hows n whys when someone's Win-Doze goes haywire.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/21/2014 11:05 AM, wrote:

. . . and most folks
encoding to MP3 do so at 256kB or higher.

This may be true for knowledgeable folks who are encoding MP3s from
their own higher fidelity material. If I make a recording and send
someone a copy, it's 256 kpbs if I want them to really listen to it, or
64 kpbs if it's something like a recording of a two hour concert and
they want to pick a few songs from it to use on their next potentially
platinum download.

However, if you're listening to streaming music or purchasing music
downloads, 128 kpbs is about as good as it gets unless you pay extra for
a higher resolution format (simply because they can charge you for it).



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/21/2014 2:26 PM, wrote:
I was just pointing out that about anything on Amazon is at least 256VBR, has been so for at least 5 years.

Well, I guess this shows how infrequently I purchase music downloads,
probably none in the last five years, maybe four or five total since the
technology as a product has been available. Are they still less than a
buck, at that bit rate?

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/21/2014 11:26 AM, wrote:
Paul wrote: " I knew all of that, ****-wit. Your own spoken words wouldn't be "

Easy there! You know that stress shortens more lives than cancer or guns?

I was just pointing out that about anything on Amazon is at least 256VBR, has been so for at least 5 years.

You're not the same Paul who has helped me out on alt.computer are you? That Paul is quite patient and explains the hows n whys when someone's Win-Doze goes haywire.


Relax, you bone-head! I'm just ****in' with you!

Did you know good manners are free?

[John Williamson]

On 21/06/2014 21:02, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/21/2014 2:26 PM, wrote:
I was just pointing out that about anything on Amazon is at least
256VBR, has been so for at least 5 years.

Well, I guess this shows how infrequently I purchase music downloads,
probably none in the last five years, maybe four or five total since the
technology as a product has been available. Are they still less than a
buck, at that bit rate?

In the UK on Amazon, they're round about GBP 0.89 on average, and all
the ones I've paid for in the last year or so have been 320 kB/s CBR. A
complete album (20 to 40 tracks) will cost between GBP 3.99 and GBP 9.99

I expect that as is normal for UK - USA price comparisons, the USA price
will be the same numbers, but in USD.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 21/06/2014 20:58, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/21/2014 11:05 AM, wrote:

. . . and most folks
encoding to MP3 do so at 256kB or higher.

This may be true for knowledgeable folks who are encoding MP3s from
their own higher fidelity material. If I make a recording and send
someone a copy, it's 256 kpbs if I want them to really listen to it, or
64 kpbs if it's something like a recording of a two hour concert and
they want to pick a few songs from it to use on their next potentially
platinum download.

However, if you're listening to streaming music or purchasing music
downloads, 128 kpbs is about as good as it gets unless you pay extra for
a higher resolution format (simply because they can charge you for it).

By listening, I'd compare 128 kb/s VBR with cassette tape. A lot of
cheap equipment (And expensive equipment, for different reasons) may
actually play higher bitrates as inferior quality for reasons which
include power amp non-linearities, bad DAC design, and finally the
decoding software, which may not react correctly to some high rate files
produced by some encoders.

Not all MP3 files conform exactly to the Fraunhofer standard, nor do
many cheap decoders.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Nil[_2_]]

On 21 Jun 2014, Mike Rivers wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

Well, I guess this shows how infrequently I purchase music
downloads, probably none in the last five years, maybe four or
five total since the technology as a product has been available.
Are they still less than a buck, at that bit rate?

When you buy a CD from amazon.com you can now in most cases also
download mp3s of the same material. I just bought one the other day,
and the downloaded mp3s are all joint-stereo, VBR files that average
about 256 Kbps. They sound pretty good.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/21/2014 1:02 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/21/2014 2:26 PM, wrote:
I was just pointing out that about anything on Amazon is at least
256VBR, has been so for at least 5 years.

Well, I guess this shows how infrequently I purchase music downloads,
probably none in the last five years, maybe four or five total since the
technology as a product has been available. Are they still less than a
buck, at that bit rate?


What real need is there to buy music these days?

EVERYTHING is on youtube, and it's easy enough
to rip it direct from the videos. It's compressed, of course,
but it's still listenable on the fly.

And nearly everyone has an internet connection, with some
sort of speakers attached.

The last time I bought music was Sade's last album, which
I did just to support the band. Other than that, it's all
youtube....

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/21/2014 5:13 PM, John Williamson wrote:
In the UK on Amazon, they're round about GBP 0.89 on average, and all
the ones I've paid for in the last year or so have been 320 kB/s CBR. A
complete album (20 to 40 tracks) will cost between GBP 3.99 and GBP 9.99

In that case, I guess the best reason to offer "high resolution" files
is to have an opportunity to do the replication masters over, or maybe
re-mix, for more dynamic range. That would be a good thing. I'm sure
that the 320 kbps MP3s are still mastered so that they're all equal
loudness so nobody has to touch a volume control.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 22/06/2014 3:05 a.m., wrote:
Paul wrote: " Most of the MP3s I have seen are around 128kbps. "


Really? Well Paul, Bush DID win the 2000 presidential election, the twin Trade Center towers have been replaced by one spire, Michael Jackson is dead, an African-American is now President, and most folks encoding to MP3 do so at 256kB or higher.


Hope that fills you in on the past 15 or so years. BTW I wouldn't rip even the spoken word to 128! lol



Sorry to disappoint you, but the majority of MP3s 'out there' - the ones
that kids listen to - are still 128kbps.

geoff

[geoff]

On 22/06/2014 6:26 a.m., wrote:
Paul wrote: " I knew all of that, ****-wit. Your own spoken words wouldn't be "

Easy there! You know that stress shortens more lives than cancer or guns?

I was just pointing out that about anything on Amazon is at least 256VBR, has been so for at least 5 years.

Most downloads are not from Amazon, and not paid for at all.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 22/06/2014 07:15, geoff wrote:
On 22/06/2014 3:05 a.m., wrote:
Paul wrote: " Most of the MP3s I have seen are around 128kbps. "


Really? Well Paul, Bush DID win the 2000 presidential election, the
twin Trade Center towers have been replaced by one spire, Michael
Jackson is dead, an African-American is now President, and most folks
encoding to MP3 do so at 256kB or higher.


Hope that fills you in on the past 15 or so years. BTW I wouldn't rip
even the spoken word to 128! lol



Sorry to disappoint you, but the majority of MP3s 'out there' - the ones
that kids listen to - are still 128kbps.


And listened to on a half inch speaker driven to clipping. Or half a
pair of cheap earbuds, with their mate listening the other bud.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers:

Two years ago, a lot of Amazon songs were US .89 and .99.

Now you never see 89cents, and an increasing number are 1.29.

[[email protected]]

Paul wrote: " EVERYTHING is on youtube, and it's easy enough
to rip it direct from the videos. It's compressed, of course,
but it's still listenable on the fly.

And nearly everyone has an internet connection, with some
sort of speakers attached.

The last time I bought music was Sade's last album, which "


^This - is the reason for the current low-fi trend in consumer sound.

Hate to sound like the last man in the White House but, in the fight for better recorded sound quality: "You're either with us or against us".

And Paul, you win more flies with honey than by name calling. All that does is get you on ignore lists.

[None]

wrote in message
...
"You're either with us or against us".

Guaranteed stupidity.

And Paul, you win more flies with honey than by name calling. All
that does is get you on ignore lists.

You know all about being on "ignore lists" don't you! Moron.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/22/2014 5:38 AM, wrote:



^This - is the reason for the current low-fi trend in consumer sound.

Hate to sound like the last man in the White House but, in the fight for better recorded sound quality: "You're either with us or against us".


I'm all for better sound, but here's a hint: The public at large
drives the market, and they are not as anal as you or me.


And Paul, you win more flies with honey than by name calling. All that does is get you on ignore lists.


I don't need flies that disparage me and treat me like ****.

Please go ahead and put me on your ignore list. Your posts are
worthless to me.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/21/2014 11:15 PM, geoff wrote:
On 22/06/2014 3:05 a.m., wrote:
Paul wrote: " Most of the MP3s I have seen are around 128kbps. "


Really? Well Paul, Bush DID win the 2000 presidential election, the
twin Trade Center towers have been replaced by one spire, Michael
Jackson is dead, an African-American is now President, and most folks
encoding to MP3 do so at 256kB or higher.


Hope that fills you in on the past 15 or so years. BTW I wouldn't rip
even the spoken word to 128! lol



Sorry to disappoint you, but the majority of MP3s 'out there' - the ones
that kids listen to - are still 128kbps.


+1

[[email protected]]

Geoff wrote " - show quoted text -
Sorry to disappoint you, but the majority of MP3s 'out there' - the ones
that kids listen to - are still 128kbps.

geoff "


If that's the case - with regards to mp3 - then I suspect something called defautsettingitis, or, won'tlookformenuosis.


Whenever I rip a CD or convert an audio file to anything else, the first thing I do is look for a menu - settings/preferences - whatever fancy name it falls under. Same when I unbox a new TV or set up a second-hand one. It's like driving a different car: Before you even put the key in the ignition, you adjust seat, steering wheel, pedals(on some vehicles) and the mirrors. Make the car *yours*. Common sense!



No WONDER most bars or people's houses I visit I can't even watch the TVs because the damn things are left in default "Lookit Me! Buy Me!!" mode! Nobody gives a crap, and they're using their audio-video gear to only 10% of its sonic or visual potential. And big-box electronic houses don't help when they swap out reputable brand accessories with bling-factor crud like Beats & Skull Candy.


To "Paul", I was actually being funny with all that updating you on current events. since 128k mp3 debuted in the late '90s. Sorry if my dry humor seemed abrasive.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Paul wrote:

I'm all for better sound, but here's a hint: The public at large
drives the market, and they are not as anal as you or me.

There isn't just one market any longer. That's what makes this interesting,
the market is very fragmented. There are some sectors of that market that
are concerned, even obsessed about sound quality. There are others who could
not even care if the words are intelligible.

It is still possible to keep a small label alive supporting a very small
market, even as it becomes impossible to keep a large one alive supporting
a wider one. How long this will continue I don't know.

But I do think that much of the key is educating people so they understand
that actual good playback is possible, and why they might be willing to go out
of their way for it. Obviously many of them won't, but if they don't know
it exists, none of them will. We have a generation of people who have come to
expect Youtube quality when, with little more effort, they could have much
better.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Sean Conolly]

"Paul" wrote in message
...
On 6/21/2014 1:02 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/21/2014 2:26 PM, wrote:
I was just pointing out that about anything on Amazon is at least
256VBR, has been so for at least 5 years.

Well, I guess this shows how infrequently I purchase music downloads,
probably none in the last five years, maybe four or five total since the
technology as a product has been available. Are they still less than a
buck, at that bit rate?


What real need is there to buy music these days?

EVERYTHING is on youtube, and it's easy enough
to rip it direct from the videos. It's compressed, of course,
but it's still listenable on the fly.

Yeah, it's listenable, while missing a lot that makes it sound good. I was
listening to Heart's Little Queen, from '78 I think? It's really surprising
how much detail I hear on the CD that didn't come across on even the best
Youtube clip I could find. And that's with a 35 year old record.

Now a friend sent me a link on Spotify today to a hard to find album - and I
thought that did do justice to the CD - though I haven't heard the CD in
over 15 years.

Sean

[Nil[_2_]]

On 22 Jun 2014, "Sean Conolly" wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

Yeah, it's listenable, while missing a lot that makes it sound
good. I was listening to Heart's Little Queen, from '78 I think?
It's really surprising how much detail I hear on the CD that
didn't come across on even the best Youtube clip I could find. And
that's with a 35 year old record.

The audio on youtube clips is always heavily compressed so that they
sound, at best, like a bad mp3. But usually the soundtrack is already
compressed when submitted, so it undergoes yet another round of
compression, further degrading the sound.

It's cool that there is so much on youtube that you might not be able
to hear anywhere else, but the sound quality is always dismal.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/22/2014 9:33 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote:

I'm all for better sound, but here's a hint: The public at large
drives the market, and they are not as anal as you or me.

There isn't just one market any longer. That's what makes this interesting,
the market is very fragmented. There are some sectors of that market that
are concerned, even obsessed about sound quality. There are others who could
not even care if the words are intelligible.

It is still possible to keep a small label alive supporting a very small
market, even as it becomes impossible to keep a large one alive supporting
a wider one. How long this will continue I don't know.

But I do think that much of the key is educating people so they understand
that actual good playback is possible, and why they might be willing to go out
of their way for it. Obviously many of them won't, but if they don't know
it exists, none of them will. We have a generation of people who have come to
expect Youtube quality when, with little more effort, they could have much
better.
--scott



If Nil is to be believed:

"The audio on youtube clips is always heavily compressed so that they
sound, at best, like a bad mp3. But usually the soundtrack is already
compressed when submitted, so it undergoes yet another round of
compression, further degrading the sound."


So what kind of compression algorithm does Youtube add to a videos
audio track?

Is the end result approximately like 64kbps MP3, or perhaps 128kbps
MP3?

Would the solution be as simple as Youtube changing their
compression software, or perhaps convincing them to not compress
the audio at all? Or would that be highly unlikely, because they
want to maximize their server hard-drive space?

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Paul wrote:

"The audio on youtube clips is always heavily compressed so that they
sound, at best, like a bad mp3. But usually the soundtrack is already
compressed when submitted, so it undergoes yet another round of
compression, further degrading the sound."

So what kind of compression algorithm does Youtube add to a videos
audio track?

They use AAC, although I don't recall the rate.

If you send an MPEG encoded file up to Youtube, they will decode it and
then re-encode as AAC, causing much worse artifacts. If you send them
AAC at the wrong rate, they will decode it and re-encode it, causing much
worse artifacts.

The way to get decent audio quality out of Youtube is to pre-encode the
audio _exactly_ in the internal format that Youtube uses. (This goes for
video as well). Many digital editing applications have specific export
settings to allow you to export for youtube.

Is the end result approximately like 64kbps MP3, or perhaps 128kbps
MP3?

I don't think you can compare AAC and MP3 at all, the artifacts sound
very different. The space monkeys are much worse on MP3 when you do multiple
layers of encoding. AAC gets more bubbly sounds.

But the real problem, as mentioned above, is transcoding severely
exaggerating artifacts.

Would the solution be as simple as Youtube changing their
compression software, or perhaps convincing them to not compress
the audio at all? Or would that be highly unlikely, because they
want to maximize their server hard-drive space?

Youtube exists to sell views to advertisers. If the advertisers are not
complaining about the audio quality, they have no reason to change it.
--scott

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

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/22/2014 4:13 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote:

"The audio on youtube clips is always heavily compressed so that they
sound, at best, like a bad mp3. But usually the soundtrack is already
compressed when submitted, so it undergoes yet another round of
compression, further degrading the sound."

So what kind of compression algorithm does Youtube add to a videos
audio track?

They use AAC, although I don't recall the rate.

If you send an MPEG encoded file up to Youtube, they will decode it and
then re-encode as AAC, causing much worse artifacts. If you send them
AAC at the wrong rate, they will decode it and re-encode it, causing much
worse artifacts.

The way to get decent audio quality out of Youtube is to pre-encode the
audio _exactly_ in the internal format that Youtube uses. (This goes for
video as well). Many digital editing applications have specific export
settings to allow you to export for youtube.

Is the end result approximately like 64kbps MP3, or perhaps 128kbps
MP3?

I don't think you can compare AAC and MP3 at all, the artifacts sound
very different. The space monkeys are much worse on MP3 when you do multiple
layers of encoding. AAC gets more bubbly sounds.


From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

"Blind tests show that AAC demonstrates greater sound quality and
transparency than MP3 for files coded at the same bit rate."



But the real problem, as mentioned above, is transcoding severely
exaggerating artifacts.

Would the solution be as simple as Youtube changing their
compression software, or perhaps convincing them to not compress
the audio at all? Or would that be highly unlikely, because they
want to maximize their server hard-drive space?

Youtube exists to sell views to advertisers. If the advertisers are not
complaining about the audio quality, they have no reason to change it.
--scott

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/22/2014 12:33 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote:

I'm all for better sound, but here's a hint: The public at large
drives the market, and they are not as anal as you or me.

There isn't just one market any longer. That's what makes this interesting,
the market is very fragmented. There are some sectors of that market that
are concerned, even obsessed about sound quality. There are others who could
not even care if the words are intelligible.

It is still possible to keep a small label alive supporting a very small
market, even as it becomes impossible to keep a large one alive supporting
a wider one. How long this will continue I don't know.

But I do think that much of the key is educating people so they understand
that actual good playback is possible, and why they might be willing to go out
of their way for it. Obviously many of them won't, but if they don't know
it exists, none of them will. We have a generation of people who have come to
expect Youtube quality when, with little more effort, they could have much
better.
--scott



You bring some questions to mind. For starters:

[1] What are the demographics of the sound quality
obsessed folks? [I'd suspect a graying trend.]

[2] Who'll be educating people on good playback
possibilities, and to what end?

Seems there's a bunch of lip service but nobody has
been [effectively] stepping up to the plate.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[geoff]

On 23/06/2014 11:28 a.m., Paul wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

"Blind tests show that AAC demonstrates greater sound quality and
transparency than MP3 for files coded at the same bit rate."

Possibly true, or possibly edited in there by an enthusiastic iDiot.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/22/2014 7:45 PM, Ron C wrote:

[1] What are the demographics of the sound quality
obsessed folks? [I'd suspect a graying trend.]

These are the ones who listen at home, on speakers, not always in front
of a computer. They're the ones likely to buy a piece of hardware that
they can connect to their home listening system, perhaps one that
includes a means for and Internet connection to stream or download audio
and send it to their listening room without having to run cables around
the house.

But, too, there are also the "portable" and "at the computer all day"
crowd (which may include office workers who are listening on decent
headphones now in an attempt to hear better quality sound. They're
limited by the playback hardware, but this can get better. There are a
number of good quality D/A converters with a USB connector on one end
and a decent headphone amplifier on the other, and while you can spend a
grand on one, you can get a reasonable one for under $200 - less than a
computer, tablet, or phone.

[2] Who'll be educating people on good playback
possibilities, and to what end?

Faceless people via the Internet, who will impress some and will sound
like a talking head commercial to others. "Hi-Fi" was a limited market
from the 1950s, for about 30 years, by which time specialist showroom
had all but disappeared.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/22/2014 8:32 AM, wrote:
Two years ago, a lot of Amazon songs were US .89 and .99.

Now you never see 89cents, and an increasing number are 1.29.

Two years ago, I used to be able to get lunch for $5. Now it's more like
$7. That's just about the same percentage increase, about 44%. On the
other hand, my retirement pension increased by about 7% over that time
period.

Good thing I can still enjoy listening to the radio, and streaming radio
at lo fidelity, for no more out-of=pocket drain than before.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Paul wrote:
From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

"Blind tests show that AAC demonstrates greater sound quality and
transparency than MP3 for files coded at the same bit rate."

Well, THERE'S damning with faint praise.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Ron C wrote:
You bring some questions to mind. For starters:

[1] What are the demographics of the sound quality
obsessed folks? [I'd suspect a graying trend.]

Surprisingly it's not, there are actually a lot of younger people who are
starting to wake up and realize that sound quality is actually important.

[2] Who'll be educating people on good playback
possibilities, and to what end?

Here's the problem, because the people who are doing the education today
include advertisers and total idiots who have no idea what they are talking
about.

I know that Neil Young has got a bunch of people interested in the idea of
better sound quality, but unfortunately when he goes into details about better
sound quality and how it is achieved, he doesn't have any idea what he is
talking about. So people hear that stuff and they parrot it back and now
that we're 30 years into the digital audio revolution people are STILL talking
about stairstepped waveforms coming out of DACs.

Seems there's a bunch of lip service but nobody has
been [effectively] stepping up to the plate.

Hey, I'm trying! Don't blame me!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/23/2014 9:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ron C wrote:
You bring some questions to mind. For starters:

[1] What are the demographics of the sound quality
obsessed folks? [I'd suspect a graying trend.]

Surprisingly it's not, there are actually a lot of younger people who are
starting to wake up and realize that sound quality is actually important.

That's nice to hear. Now I'm wondering what genera they're following.

[2] Who'll be educating people on good playback
possibilities, and to what end?

Here's the problem, because the people who are doing the education today
include advertisers and total idiots who have no idea what they are talking
about.

That's not so good to hear, but sadly not surprising.

I know that Neil Young has got a bunch of people interested in the idea of
better sound quality, but unfortunately when he goes into details about better
sound quality and how it is achieved, he doesn't have any idea what he is
talking about. So people hear that stuff and they parrot it back and now
that we're 30 years into the digital audio revolution people are STILL talking
about stairstepped waveforms coming out of DACs.

I recall way too many such discussions in this news group, and
that's from people who at least knew enough to find this group.
I shudder to think what the general public (mis-)understands.

Seems there's a bunch of lip service but nobody has
been [effectively] stepping up to the plate.

Hey, I'm trying! Don't blame me!
--scott

I don't think I'd blame anyone here. What seems to be needed
are better educated marketers (and clients.) It's been a continuing
up hill battle for engineers. About all we can do is continue to fight
the good fight.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--