On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:26:52 +1200, Geoff Wood wrote:

and mixing for shellac, all take into account the end conditions. So,
the original mix for Dark Side of The Moon would sound different to a
remix done today by the same people, probably.

But none of these variations are remixes (apart from the 5:1 toys). We are
talking about different *masters* of the same mix. Some EQed, some maybe
'restored', some (such as MFSL ?) left pure but treated scrupulously, as
with kid-gloves.

Yes, I'm fully aware of that.

To make it crystal clear, my point is that I'm fully prepared to accept
DSOTM sounding different to the original master IF it is REMIXED by Alan
Parsons and/or Pink Floyd. Anything else is a barstardisation.

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Yes, I do remember that, as a matter of fact. Unfortunately, I never
got to hear it. What were the final results? Did anyone ever report in
as having destroyed their Polks with one of those things? I never found
out about it one way or the other. But, man, were those the days!

Almost twenty years ago I blew out one of the tweeters on my
Warfdale's with Flim And The BB's "Tricycle" CD, one of the
earliest. I had no idea what dynamic range meant until
then. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

You clearly don't understand what's happening here. Pumping up the
level on CD will have *no* effect on masking,

You clearly don't understand that I've never even *hinted* that it
would. My focus in this regard is in relation to preventing problems
associated with the Absolute Threshold of Hearing (which, incidentally,
sounds to me as if it could be the title of a Pink Floyd bootleg).

and excess levels will clip, whether on CD or MD.

But there are no excess levels which clip in my normalized "remaster".
This is clearly evident in the screenshot which you didn't see.

Data compression is used on MD because it
*has* to be, not because it's a good idea.

Given the actual purpose for the existence of MD in relation to those
who use MD, it is a good idea. Your perception of the purpose and
usefulness of that format is obviously restricted within the confines of
a very small box. MiniDisc isn't just for music. And audiophiles have
for years been known to get snooty with regard to certain *cassette
tapes* which are far worse than MiniDiscs in *all* respects.

Why are you using MDs as a source in the first place?
CDs are fundamentally superior.

You're thinking strictly in academic terms here; certainly not practical
ones.

ATRAC is widely regarded as superior,

That's nice to know because my extended experience with MiniDisc
recording and my "gut instinct" both seem to confirm this.
Unfortunately, it is also my experience with encoding my own MP3s from
my own CDs that have me believing that "louder is better".

but they both work in the same basic way.

Are you sure of this? In terms of psychoacoustic filtration of sounds
which are deemed "too weak to be heard" are they the same?

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Martin Tillman wrote:

However, ignoring what kit the end product is to be used on when
mixing and mastering is silly,so recordings made when 33rpm vinyl was
king took into account the limitations of the medium, in the same way
as mixing for the cinema, mixing for TV (which is what I do), mixing
for CD and mixing for shellac, all take into account the end
conditions.

Just as I am attempting to take into account my own "end conditions" by
normalizing an original MFSL wav ... which, btw, I will agree is
probably just fine for being heard straight from the CD with the volume
cranked up. I do believe that so many years ago when I first listened
to the 1994 Capitol remaster which more closely resembles my own
"normalized MFSL" WAV, I pulled a Joe Sixpack and compared both discs at
the same volume setting in an effort to eliminate that variable while
attempting to compare the fidelity of each disc in relation to the
others. Naturally, the Capitol disc "won" and the MFSL CD was relegated
to the dungeon.

So, the original mix for Dark Side of The Moon would sound different
to a remix done today by the same people, probably. That's OK by me,
but bunging it through some 'normaliser' (which, as evidenced by the
screenshots, also buggers the dynamic range (so it isn't actually a
'normaliser anyway, by definition) ), is absolutely not on.

Yes, I do believe it's quite clear now that the li'l Linux app named
"normalize" can be made to do more than just normalize in a pure sense -
which, btw, is not to imply that it *always* does more either.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Martin Tillman wrote:

Eh? You blind too?

Yeah, I'm blind.

Not only have you reduced the dynamic range (which normalisation doesn't
do, so you are not normalising), in some places you have actually
INVERTED the dynamic range!!!

To give you a clue(!), look at the peaks around 11 minutes and 24.5
minutes. In the original the peaks are higher at 24.5 than at 11.
You've made the peaks at 11 higher than at 24.5!

*This* is actually more along the lines of the form of analysis I was
hoping to garner by way of posting the screenshots. Thanks.

I believe I see what you're seeing, however, given the obviously compact
visual nature of that screenshot, every peak you see in the image is not
necessarily being rendered *exactly* as it in reality may be.

Such comparisons will certainly require a more exploded view for more
accurate analysis.

My purpose in posting that particular screenshot was to illustrate the
bogus nature of the charges being hurled against me for introducing
clipping, limiting, compression and reduced dynamic range after having
merely adjusted its amplitude +4.5dB (which brings its loudness more in
line with that of Capitol's 1994 remastered edition.)

You can see my full-width screenshot of Capitol's remastered waveform
here if you still think it might be worth a look as far as comparing
their botch-job to mine:

http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/20...4_Remaster.png

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Geoff Wood wrote:
"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

Low amplitudes are certainly something to be avoided when recording to
MiniDiscs because they'll undoubtedly cause the ATRAC compression
filters to remove the weakest, most susceptible frequencies that are
present in the soundsource.

And moreso with MP3,

Are you just saying that? Or do you actually *know* that MP3
compression and ATRAC compression are both the same with regard to their
penchant for discarding underpumped freqs? I admit that while I am
fairly familiar with the processes MiniDisc recorders employ to reduce
the amount of data being stored, I am less familiary with MP3's method.

which you delight in listening to extensively.

I delight in listening to my MP3s when they are the most practical means
available to me for enjoying the music in my CD collection, yes. You
seem to have a problem with that. Remember, I own 2,100+ CDs. Hauling
them with me everywhere I go for the sake of being a sonic snot would
not only be a logistical nightmare, it would be physically impossible.
Now if you're gonna be a troll, take it somewhere else, please.

128 is defintie insufficient.

Insufficient to what end?

192 is seldom-used,

Pop E. Cock. I encode *all* of my full-album length MP3s at 192KBps.

160 more common

Who gives a rip about what's "more common"? I have a monumental task at
hand to be accomplished for *me*, not for the plebes! The last thing I
intend to do is "munge" (as you say) my entire project by employing some
inadequate yet "more common" bitrate. Geez.

and much better than 128

When I transfer the cassette tapes of the radio I recorded throughout
the 1980s to CD-RW and them rip-n-encode them to MP3, I use 128KBps and
all the clarity and sonic beauty of the hiss from the master tape is
still in there to be fully enjoyed right along with the music.

though still audibly inferior to uncompressed (datawise).

Agreed, but we're not really discussing that now are we? Nor have we
really ever been. And the only time - as far as I can see - that I've
ever been rightfully put in my place throughout this entire thread is
when I actually got sidetracked and misled into forgetting my original
purpose. My primary goal here is not to discuss what I can do to
produce the best compact discs because that's not what I do. I've
already purchased the commercial CDs and I always respectfully return to
them as my initial sources for material as needed. Nevertheless, a
majority of the compact discs I own were not mastered with subsequent
MP3 encoding practices in mind, hence the gross inadequacy of the nature
of my MFSL Pink Floyd CD in relation to the mission at hand.

Well, my normalized MP3s do unquestionably sound better than those which
are not. I listen to them all the time. When they play in random
shuffle mode, it's patently obvious which ones have and which ones have
not been normalized.

'Better' to you being 'louder'. Although barely perceptably.

'Better' to me being 'louder' because I believe - though I'm not
absolutely certain of it - that fewer of the frequencies were discarded
during the encoding process as a result of their amplitudes having
previously been increased via "normalize".

What new and old methods of measuring peaks ? There has always been one
consistent method.

The original practice of measuring appropriately optimum peak levels in
"up from 0dB" fashion vs. "down from 0dBFS" fashion as is apparently
done today. You're obviously not reading every single post in this
thead - and given the gargantuan size of it now, I can't say that I
blame you.

Well, I just conducted a test. I put on my Capitol 1994 Remastered CD
of Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" and turned the volume knob all
the way down - and son of a gun, I couldn't hear *any* of the
frequencies that are recorded on that disc!

I have little confidence in your abiity to hear any subtleties at all, let
alone identify or describe them. Describing your playback chain might help.

That, Geoff, was a *real joke*. Remember how you said "some people have
a sense of humour" after I balked at your move to label me a "Liniot" in
"humourously" derogatory fashion?

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

"George W." wrote:

Since you're still crossposting why not add rec.audio.pro to the list
and see what they think?

I like watching a good train wreck.....

YES! ROTFLOL! On second thought, my tolerance for gore may
not be up to the spectacle. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

I delight in listening to my MP3s when they are the most practical means
available to me for enjoying the music in my CD collection, yes. You
seem to have a problem with that. Remember, I own 2,100+ CDs. Hauling
them with me everywhere I go for the sake of being a sonic snot would
not only be a logistical nightmare, it would be physically impossible.
Now if you're gonna be a troll, take it somewhere else, please.

Would not a reasonable approach be selecting a wallet of , say, 12 CDs to
take with you for the day. Or do require instant access to 2100 x
(average)12 songs ?


geoff

Martin Tillman wrote:

To make it crystal clear, my point is that I'm fully prepared to accept
DSOTM sounding different to the original master IF it is REMIXED by Alan
Parsons and/or Pink Floyd. Anything else is a barstardisation.

I understand your thinking for the past and the present but it is
totally impractical for the future.

Is George Martin's attempt at adding orchestration to John Lennon's
original cassette demo of "Grow Old With Me" a *******isation or a
labour of love?

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Bob Cain wrote:

Almost twenty years ago I blew out one of the tweeters on my
Warfdale's with Flim And The BB's "Tricycle" CD, one of the
earliest. I had no idea what dynamic range meant until
then. :-)

Wow!

Almost fifteen years ago I melted a crossover with an amp more powerful
than the one I should have been using at the time. I had no idea what
exponential wattage meant until them. :-)

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

George W. wrote:
Since you're still crossposting why not add rec.audio.pro to the list
and see what they think?

I like watching a good train wreck.....

Hey, that sounds like a great place to go for some really *serious* talk
about how best to prep a WAV for MD / MP3! I bet there's a *lot* of
"professional MP3 encoders" over there! Thanks for the tip!

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Geoff Wood wrote:

Would not a reasonable approach be selecting a wallet of , say, 12 CDs to
take with you for the day.

What are you, my mother?

Or do require instant access to 2100 x (average)12 songs ?

More is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than more.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:41:32 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

To give you a clue(!), look at the peaks around 11 minutes and 24.5
minutes. In the original the peaks are higher at 24.5 than at 11.
You've made the peaks at 11 higher than at 24.5!

*This* is actually more along the lines of the form of analysis I was
hoping to garner by way of posting the screenshots. Thanks.

I believe I see what you're seeing, however, given the obviously compact
visual nature of that screenshot, every peak you see in the image is not
necessarily being rendered *exactly* as it in reality may be.

The resolution of the screenshot is entirely adequate to clearly
demonstrate what I wrote. You've destroyed the dynamic range.

Such comparisons will certainly require a more exploded view for more
accurate analysis.

No, they won't.


My purpose in posting that particular screenshot was to illustrate the
bogus nature of the charges being hurled against me for introducing
clipping, limiting, compression and reduced dynamic range after having
merely adjusted its amplitude +4.5dB (which brings its loudness more in
line with that of Capitol's 1994 remastered edition.)

Well, you've most certainly shot yourself in the foot - big time!

Martin Tillman wrote:

The resolution of the screenshot is entirely adequate to clearly
demonstrate what I wrote. You've destroyed the dynamic range.

Compare the dynamic range of my WAV to that of Capitol's 1994 digitally
remastered edition and then tell me I've "destroyed the dynamic range".
If I have then they have too. Better write 'em a nasty letter right
now and 'em about it. Better alert the entire Pink Floyd fanbase too
while you're at it. Capitol's destroyed the dynamic range!!!

Such comparisons will certainly require a more exploded view for more
accurate analysis.

No, they won't.

Oh, OK, fine. I was going to provide you with one but since you're so
certain it'll do no good, I won't bother.

My purpose in posting that particular screenshot was to illustrate the
bogus nature of the charges being hurled against me for introducing
clipping, limiting, compression and reduced dynamic range after having
merely adjusted its amplitude +4.5dB (which brings its loudness more in
line with that of Capitol's 1994 remastered edition.)

Well, you've most certainly shot yourself in the foot - big time!

Is that right? Well, I challenge you then to demonstrate where the
clipping, limiting, compression and/or reduced dynamic range I've
contributed to it is located. Otherwise, cierre la boca, kapisce?

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:

"George W." wrote:

Since you're still crossposting why not add rec.audio.pro to the list
and see what they think?

I like watching a good train wreck.....

YES! ROTFLOL! On second thought, my tolerance for gore may
not be up to the spectacle. :-)

Laugh it up.

Sorry, Myke, I just know what they do to people who come
armed only with confidant, self congratulatory speculation
(not that the best of them don't do a fair bit of that
themselves :-)


I spent time today browsing around and reading FAQs, etc. to find out
more information about the psychoacoustic model employed by MP3 and it
is indeed similar to MiniDisc's ATRAC compression scheme in that it
removes *not only* masked frequencies but also those frequencies which
are predetermined to be "too quiet to be heard" by common human ears.

I suggest you run your hypothesis on the effect of absolute
level on the encoding process by the developers of the Lame
MP3 codec. Who knows, they may validate you. I've never
seen that issue addressed and can think of a lot of reasons
why and means by which that would be factored out of the
process, but that is speculation on my part. There is a
mailing list they monitor that you can find out more about
at:

http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder

See you there, I hope. I've got to admit I sense a desire
in you to learn and understand but I find your technique of
leading with the chin to be a bit mystifying. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

While the MFSL CD of Pink Floyd's, "Dark Side Of The Moon" may be just
fine for playback directly from the CD it is entirely inappropriate for
being encoded as an MP3 because it amplitudes are too low to drive a
majority of its frequencies above their Absolute Thresholds of Hearing.


Read the FAQs harder. A gain of 4dB is going to make diddley-squat
difference to the 'Absolute Threasholds of Hearing". Or to your encoding.

The difference (if any) would be totally insignificant compared to the audio
damage inflicted by the mere act of encoding in the first place.

geoff

Bob Cain wrote:

Sorry, Myke, I just know what they do to people who come
armed only with confidant, self congratulatory speculation
(not that the best of them don't do a fair bit of that
themselves :-)

I hear ya.

I suggest you run your hypothesis on the effect of absolute
level on the encoding process by the developers of the Lame
MP3 codec. Who knows, they may validate you.

I will take a stab at it at my earliest convenience, believe me.

I've never seen that issue addressed

Neither have I. Everyone else I know simply rips and encodes to create
their MP3s ... like swiping a brush down the middle of a canvas and
calling it a "mashterpiece". This is how I used to do it too. Then
about 8 months ago, I discovered this "normalize" application for Linux
and thought it'd be worth investigating. Then I noticed an immediate
and stunning improvement in the sounds of my MP3s after using it.

Unfortunately, most everyone here appears to spend most of their time
pondering the delicacies of their high-definition masters and scoffing
at MP3, carte-blanche, instead of perhaps contemplating ways to
incorporate the best of both formats into their lives. This in turn
leads to no healthy communication about such matters which in turn
causes nobody to learn this technique until perhaps somebody like me
comes bumbling along and inadvertently hijacks a thread by mentioning it!

http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder

See you there, I hope.

Thanks. I need some sleep first, though!

I've got to admit I sense a desire in you to learn
and understand but I find your technique of leading
with the chin to be a bit mystifying. :-)

There's a word for it but I don't remember right now what it is.
Oh, yeah I do! It's called "personality". :-D

Myke

P.S. I'm a Taurus.

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Geoff Wood wrote:
"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

While the MFSL CD of Pink Floyd's, "Dark Side Of The Moon" may be just
fine for playback directly from the CD it is entirely inappropriate for
being encoded as an MP3 because it amplitudes are too low to drive a
majority of its frequencies above their Absolute Thresholds of Hearing.

Read the FAQs harder. A gain of 4dB is going to make diddley-squat
difference to the 'Absolute Threasholds of Hearing". Or to your encoding.

Well, tell ya what. I'll just leave that kind of risky behaviour up to
you. You don't give a damn about either MP3 or MiniDisc recording
quality anyway, so I don't even know why you bothered to respond to me
again. You know what I'm trying to do with my CDs and my MP3s and you
obviously have no more experience with any of my projects than I do with
any of yours, so... Go shave your beard, Trolliot.

What about the Christopher Cross, "Another Page" CD I mentioned early on
in the other thread?

That "older, quieter" disc required a good 13.33dBs of pumpitude before
I was able to do anything reasonable with it. But I guess that's just
fine for you in your "just turn it up a little" CD-only world, isn't it?

Here are the images:

http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/All_Right_Before.png
http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/All_Right_After.png

And here are two MP3 samples in a zip archive:

http://www.mykec.com/mykec/audio/All_Right.zip

Eat that!

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

What about the Christopher Cross, "Another Page" CD I mentioned early on
in the other thread?

That "older, quieter" disc required a good 13.33dBs of pumpitude before
I was able to do anything reasonable with it. But I guess that's just
fine for you in your "just turn it up a little" CD-only world, isn't it?

Here are the images:

http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/All_Right_Before.png
http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/All_Right_After.png

That is not the CD - it is one track. That is the level that the producer
has decided it appropriate for that track, sitting well with the other
tracks to make up the whole album.

It is not clear from the graphic whether (presumably for the purpose of a
compilation) you have (conventionally) normalised it to 0dB and avoided
clipping, or have done your '-10 thang', which could well have driven the
peaks into clipping if additional compression was not applied.

geoff

Geoff Wood wrote:

Here are the images:

http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/All_Right_Before.png
http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/All_Right_After.png

That is not the CD - it is one track.

Yes, but entire CD is just as "bad" as that track.

I was working only with that individual track for a separate purpose
than my usual "whole album" purpose at the time that screenshot was made.

That is the level that the producer has decided it appropriate for
that track, sitting well with the other tracks to make up the whole
album.

Yeah, any particular idea *why* the producer might have decided to go
with such a low level? I've ripped a lot of WAVs from a lot of discs in
the past 2 years and that one CD stands alone as having the lowest
average level of them all. And it's not an MFSL disc either so you can
rest assured even when you pump up the volume, it sounds *baaaaaaad*.

Check out the before/after MP3s in the zip file I provided too.
Hear the difference.

It is not clear from the graphic whether (presumably for the purpose
of a compilation) you have (conventionally) normalised it to 0dB and
avoided clipping, or have done your '-10 thang', which could well
have driven the peaks into clipping if additional compression was not
applied.

Those are older screenshots which predate our conversation. They were
taken at least a couple if not several months ago. There was no reason
to add all the pretty pictures and words to those images at the time I
placed them online.

And to answer your question, my '-10 thang' was exactly what I did to
create the difference you see between those two images.

Meanwhile, I just ripped-and-encoded the tracks from the digitally
remastered CD version of an album I can't stand; KISS, "Animalize".

Average level for it was -9.45dBFS.

The math says that's +0.55dB *louder* than what *I* would have given it
had I done the '-10 thang' to it so, it's pretty clear to me that what
I'm doing on my own is still fairly consistent with what passes for an
industry standard today ... at least as far average pop/rock pumpitude
is concerned.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:27:51 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Martin Tillman wrote:

The resolution of the screenshot is entirely adequate to clearly
demonstrate what I wrote. You've destroyed the dynamic range.

Compare the dynamic range of my WAV to that of Capitol's 1994 digitally
remastered edition and then tell me I've "destroyed the dynamic range".

You both have, judging by the screenshots, though I can't tell what they
sound like...

If I have then they have too. Better write 'em a nasty letter right
now and 'em about it. Better alert the entire Pink Floyd fanbase too
while you're at it. Capitol's destroyed the dynamic range!!!

They certainly have. I know which one I want to listen too.

Ironic, innit, that we had a crap system called vinyl with little
dynamic range, that was, thankfully, replaced by another system,
digital, with enormous dynamic range - more than you really need under
most circumstances - and what do most of the record producers then foist
on an unsuspecting public? Music so squashed it dies.


My purpose in posting that particular screenshot was to illustrate the
bogus nature of the charges being hurled against me for introducing
clipping, limiting, compression and reduced dynamic range after having
merely adjusted its amplitude +4.5dB (which brings its loudness more in
line with that of Capitol's 1994 remastered edition.)

Well, you've most certainly shot yourself in the foot - big time!

Is that right? Well, I challenge you then to demonstrate where the
clipping, limiting, compression and/or reduced dynamic range I've
contributed to it is located. Otherwise, cierre la boca, kapisce?

I can't show you any clipping or limiting, but, to repeat for the third
time, 11 minutes and 24.5 minutes.

Just skirting over the largest thread I've ever seen on usenet in nearly
10 years, tape vs. MD, it is patently obvious that your 'normalize' is
perfectly capable of doing more than normalising, it'll limit and clip
too if you tell it to. Obviously, you are entering values into it that
will cause it to do this, because you certainly aren't just normalising.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 06:00:30 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer
wrote:

MP3 is 'brute force' merely by virtue of it's encoding rate being
user-selectable, almost universally to highly detrimental values -
exactly those that excite you so much by their 'small file-size'.

For general listening purposes, 192KBps and even 128KBps MP3s are well
beyond adequate.

I think we have discovered the fatal flaw right there. If you really
think that 128kB/sec MP3 is 'well beyond adequate', then we can safely
dismiss any further opinions you might have on sound quality.......

Well, my normalized MP3s do unquestionably sound better than those which
are not. I listen to them all the time. When they play in random
shuffle mode, it's patently obvious which ones have and which ones have
not been normalized.

That doesn't make them better, dude, it just means that *you* prefer
that sound. Heck, there's people out there who actually prefer tube
amps and vinyl!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:28:08 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

You clearly don't understand what's happening here. Pumping up the
level on CD will have *no* effect on masking,

You clearly don't understand that I've never even *hinted* that it
would. My focus in this regard is in relation to preventing problems
associated with the Absolute Threshold of Hearing (which, incidentally,
sounds to me as if it could be the title of a Pink Floyd bootleg).

Which part of 'no effect on masking' did you fail to understand? The
threshold of hearing is dependent on sound levels, not on closeness to
0dB FS on the CD, IOW just crank up the amplifier a little.

and excess levels will clip, whether on CD or MD.

But there are no excess levels which clip in my normalized "remaster".
This is clearly evident in the screenshot which you didn't see.

Sure I did, and just how do you think you can 'normalise' to a higher
average level *without* modifying the transfer curve, i.e. applying
compansion and/or limiting?

Data compression is used on MD because it
*has* to be, not because it's a good idea.

Given the actual purpose for the existence of MD in relation to those
who use MD, it is a good idea. Your perception of the purpose and
usefulness of that format is obviously restricted within the confines of
a very small box. MiniDisc isn't just for music. And audiophiles have
for years been known to get snooty with regard to certain *cassette
tapes* which are far worse than MiniDiscs in *all* respects.

You clearly don't understand the basic principles I'm talking about
here. Lossy compression is *never* a good idea, it's just *necessary*
if you want to get a certain amount of information into a storage
medium which is too small to hold it.

Why are you using MDs as a source in the first place?
CDs are fundamentally superior.

You're thinking strictly in academic terms here; certainly not practical
ones.

There's nothing 'practically' superior about MDs, they're simply
*convenient* .

ATRAC is widely regarded as superior,

That's nice to know because my extended experience with MiniDisc
recording and my "gut instinct" both seem to confirm this.
Unfortunately, it is also my experience with encoding my own MP3s from
my own CDs that have me believing that "louder is better".

Believe that if you like, it's not applicable to anyone else.

but they both work in the same basic way.

Are you sure of this? In terms of psychoacoustic filtration of sounds
which are deemed "too weak to be heard" are they the same?

Essentiallythey are - I'd have to do some digging to determine the
details. Indeed, *all* modern codecs are based on the same
psychoacoustic principles. Basically, they have to be!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:12:34 GMT, Martin Tillman
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:26:52 +1200, Geoff Wood wrote:

and mixing for shellac, all take into account the end conditions. So,
the original mix for Dark Side of The Moon would sound different to a
remix done today by the same people, probably.

But none of these variations are remixes (apart from the 5:1 toys). We are
talking about different *masters* of the same mix. Some EQed, some maybe
'restored', some (such as MFSL ?) left pure but treated scrupulously, as
with kid-gloves.

Yes, I'm fully aware of that.

To make it crystal clear, my point is that I'm fully prepared to accept
DSOTM sounding different to the original master IF it is REMIXED by Alan
Parsons and/or Pink Floyd. Anything else is a barstardisation.

How about the 5.1 SACD? :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article ,
Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

cyrus the virus wrote:

the tools have always been around to squash music into oblivion..

Probably so. But please do not confuse my beloved "normalization" with
"squashing music into oblivion". I am still reeling from the shock of
having successfully whooped the ass of Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs. My
routine practice of normalization does not involve forcing peaks to
clip. It does not involve destroying dynamic range. It does not
involve the inadvertent addition of digital distortion to what was
originally a pristine, professionally-sanctioned waveform. All of what
you have read from others about my ill-advised use of normalize when
producing MP3s from WAVs from my CDs has been revealed to be an
overflowing crock of ****. And I can and will easily prove this in the
immediately near future.


i wasn't commenting on you, but the green day album and just about any
other rock album after that.

the normalization thing depends on the process. from the few times and
few apps i've used that use normalization, it scans the entire track for
the loudest point and raises the volume level so that loudest point is
at zero. there is no sort of clipping/compressing/limiting going on.


but somewhere around the '93-'94 era, like you stated,
it became "in" to do it.

Alright. That's it! I'm blamin' Bill Gates! ;-D

he is of course to blame for anything gone bad


the sonic impact is there from older cd's still,
turn up the volume knob.

This from you is ill-conceived too.

how so? if all you're doing is raising the loudest point in a song to
digital zero, thats basically turning up a volume knob (all else being
equal). but if there is some type of compressing/limiting going on, that
is a different animal.


Stay tuned and I will *prove* to you soon that your assumption is 100%
totally incorrect.


hopefully, this thread is getting a bit tiring.

We still have a lot to learn,

Myke

--
cyrus

In article ,
Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

flint wrote:

The average level of the signal on a CD will not affect the "sound" of that
signal.

You and I might understand this but Joe Sixpack doesn't - and in my
little MP3-makin' world - Joe Sixpack, unfortunately, is *everywhere*,
whether he's welcome there or not...

If Joe were ever to care enough to actually sit down and compare 2
different versions of the same music on CD, he's more than likely going
to want to compare them at the same level of volume in order to
eliminate that variable.

If the two discs are not mastered at the same level of volume and all
Joe does is simply listen to each of them, side-by-side, one right after
the other, I guarantee you he's going to pick the louder one and
consider the quieter one to be "inferior" if not outright "defective".

And if you try to tell him that they're really the same thing and all he
has to do to make them sound equally well is crank up the volume just a
little bit more, I guarantee you he'll look you straight in the eye and
say, "But I shouldn't *have* to crank up the volume if it really is the
same as that other one over there."

Perception is key.

And if he really wants to buy it right then, Joe will take the
"superior" CD and may even also perceive you to be a liar.

Myke

and this perception is exactly why the loudness wars even started.
volume and quality is really trivial when the music actually affects
you.

--
cyrus

StArSeEd wrote:

Yep, the only effects peak-based normalization will have on the playback of a CD are raising its
volume and raising its effective S/N ratio ('effective' referring to the noise from the analog
components of the stereo system itself, not from the CD; lower volume on the knob = lower system
noise, generally speaking). The dynamic range (and, therefore, "punch") will remain the same.

However, I believe it is foolish to not "normalize" a WAV prior to
encoding it to MP3 - or transferring it to MD - because the frequencies
in a less-than-normalized WAV stand much greater chance of being
discarded entirely from the sound by the lossy compression algorithm
employed during the encoding process.

If the amplitude of a given frequency in an unmodified WAV is "too quiet
to be heard" it will be removed by the ATRAC and MP3 lossy compression
schemes. However, if normalizing the WAV causes the amplitude of that
frequency to be boosted enough that it then becomes audible, it will be
retained.

This is why I normalize before I encode. If you're just talking about
boosting amplitude for subsequent playback of the WAV from CD, fine.
There is no advantage to that. However, if you're attempting to boost
the loudness of the WAV so that more of frequencies in the recording are
likely to survive the compression filters, then your resulting louder
MD/MP3 will sound better. I don't understand why this is being so hotly
debated here. It's all pretty obvious to me.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:23:44 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

StArSeEd wrote:

Yep, the only effects peak-based normalization will have on the playback of a CD are raising its
volume
[snip]
However, I believe it is foolish to not "normalize" a WAV prior to
encoding it to MP3 - or transferring it to MD - because the frequencies
in a less-than-normalized WAV stand much greater chance of being
discarded entirely from the sound by the lossy compression algorithm
employed during the encoding process.

Give me strength...


If the amplitude of a given frequency in an unmodified WAV is "too quiet
to be heard" it will be removed by the ATRAC and MP3 lossy compression
schemes.

What? You are a troll.

However, if normalizing the WAV causes the amplitude of that
frequency to be boosted enough that it then becomes audible, it will be
retained.

Troll, troll, troll. I've spotted you, hehehehe!


This is why I normalize before I encode. If you're just talking about
boosting amplitude for subsequent playback of the WAV from CD, fine.
There is no advantage to that

Hey, you've finally seen the light?

However, if you're attempting to boost
the loudness of the WAV so that more of frequencies in the recording are
likely to survive the compression filters, then your resulting louder
MD/MP3 will sound better. I don't understand why this is being so hotly
debated here.

It wasn't.

It's all pretty obvious to me.

Yeah right.

Can someone please put this troll straight, I haven't got the energy
myself.

Good grief...

Lord Hasenpfeffer:
StArSeEd wrote:
Yep, the only effects peak-based normalization will have on the playback of a CD
are raising its volume and raising its effective S/N ratio ('effective' referring
to the noise from the analog components of the stereo system itself, not from the
CD; lower volume on the knob = lower system noise, generally speaking). The
dynamic range (and, therefore, "punch") will remain the same.
However, I believe it is foolish to not "normalize" a WAV prior to encoding it ...
If the amplitude of a given frequency in an unmodified WAV is "too quiet to be
heard" it will be removed by the ATRAC and MP3 lossy compression schemes. ...
However, if you're attempting to boost the loudness of the WAV so that more of
frequencies in the recording are likely to survive the compression filters, then
your resulting louder MD/MP3 will sound better. I don't understand why this is
being so hotly debated here. ...

It's being hotly debated because you keep saying the same thing, over and over, to every single
post, regardless of whether or not the other posters are talking about premastering waves for
MP3/ATRAC encoding or not. In the case of my response above, I wasn't. Neither was the poster
to whom I replied. You're either skim-reading, thereby missing the important words (in my reply
above, "playback"), or you have a very short memory.

Here's some food for thought: bit allocation. If the 'inaudible' frequencies are
masked/dropped by the encoder, would there not be more bits allocated to those which ARE
audible, leading to a higher overall quality? This is, after all, the principal which led to
the use of psychoacoustic filters and masking and frequency cutoffs in the first place. As a
test of bit allocation vs. frequency response, try feeding LAME the -k (keep all frequencies;
disable filtering) parameter (using a bitrate which will make the differences more obvious, such
as 128k). If the encoder cannot allocate enough bits to the barely-audible frequencies to make
them sound good, the encoder should filter them out and allocate more bits to the REST of the
audio to make IT sound better. This is exactly why BladeEnc MP3s sound like utter **** -
inadequate filtering of the frequencies to which BladeEnc cannot allocate enough bits required
to retain some semblance of their original form. The results? High-frequency
ringing/twinkling/sparkling/whatever you want to call it. Early versions of ATRAC suffered from
a similar phenomenon.

-StArSeEd
--
dchub://tsphub.dyndns.org:1979
IRC EFnet #smashing_pumpkins
Email: am
ICQ UIN: 1711589

Martin Tillman:
Lord Hasenpfeffer:
If the amplitude of a given frequency in an unmodified WAV is "too quiet
to be heard" it will be removed by the ATRAC and MP3 lossy compression
schemes.
What? You are a troll.

Actually, he is correct.

However, if normalizing the WAV causes the amplitude of that
frequency to be boosted enough that it then becomes audible, it will be
retained.
Troll, troll, troll. I've spotted you, hehehehe!

Correct again, two for two.

This is why I normalize before I encode. If you're just talking about
boosting amplitude for subsequent playback of the WAV from CD, fine.
There is no advantage to that
Hey, you've finally seen the light?

The minor S/N ratio boost is an advantage for noisier systems. Two for three.

However, if you're attempting to boost the loudness of the WAV so that
more of frequencies in the recording are likely to survive the compression
filters, then your resulting louder MD/MP3 will sound better.

BZZZT! Incorrect. Two for four.

I don't understand why this is being so hotly debated here.
It wasn't.

Sure it is, it wouldn't have gone on this long if it wasn't.

It's all pretty obvious to me.
Yeah right.

What may seem obvious to him is in reality an imagined manifestation of his failure
to grasp the "bigger picture". Just because more of the source audio is audible in
a resulting MP3 does not mean it will sound "better" - unless the encoder can allocate
enough bits to those previously-missing signals (usually high-freq signals, which, I
can assure you, require many more bits to sound decent than do lower-frequency signals),
it will actually sound worse, and, more often than not, as in the case of BladeEnc,
*much* worse.

Can someone please put this troll straight, I haven't got the energy myself.

How was that?

Good grief...

R.I.P. Charles Schulz.

-StArSeEd
--
dchub://tsphub.dyndns.org:1979
IRC EFnet #smashing_pumpkins
Email: am
ICQ UIN: 1711589

Martin Tillman wrote:

This is why I normalize before I encode. If you're just talking about
boosting amplitude for subsequent playback of the WAV from CD, fine.
There is no advantage to that

Hey, you've finally seen the light?

It's about ****ing time that you've finally realized that I understand
this and that CD-audio quality after normalization has nothing at all to
do with my hypothesis.

So now that YOU have finally seen the light, quit calling me names,
crawl back under your bridge and stop bothering the goats.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

StArSeEd wrote:

Here's some food for thought: bit allocation. If the 'inaudible' frequencies are
masked/dropped by the encoder, would there not be more bits allocated to those which ARE
audible, leading to a higher overall quality? This is, after all, the principal which led to
the use of psychoacoustic filters and masking and frequency cutoffs in the first place. As a
test of bit allocation vs. frequency response, try feeding LAME the -k (keep all frequencies;
disable filtering) parameter (using a bitrate which will make the differences more obvious, such
as 128k). If the encoder cannot allocate enough bits to the barely-audible frequencies to make
them sound good, the encoder should filter them out and allocate more bits to the REST of the
audio to make IT sound better. This is exactly why BladeEnc MP3s sound like utter **** -
inadequate filtering of the frequencies to which BladeEnc cannot allocate enough bits required
to retain some semblance of their original form. The results? High-frequency
ringing/twinkling/sparkling/whatever you want to call it. Early versions of ATRAC suffered from
a similar phenomenon.

Thank you for moving this conversation forward instead of wallowing
around in the same old mud of "just turn the volume knob".

First off, a lot of people here are making the mistake of assuming that
I use "normalize" to push RMS levels to Full Scale. I am not doing
anything even *close* to that nor would I ever.

Secondly, others seem to be stuck with believing that I am using
"normalize" because I want to create "louder = better" sounding CDs.
That too is absolutely false. I *never* create/burn normalized audio
CDs unless I'm making a "mix" disc - a topic that's only marginally
related to this thread at best.

You are obviously on a "right track" as far as I and this thread are
concerned and I appreciate your "food for thought".

As for everyone else who's still operating under stupid false
assumptions about my hypothesis and, therefore, at their wits end about
what they think I'm saying and doing, just go away because you've
obviously got nothing positive to contribute here!

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote in message ...
...
Unfortunately, most everyone here appears to spend most of their time
pondering the delicacies of their high-definition masters and scoffing
at MP3, carte-blanche, instead of perhaps contemplating ways to
incorporate the best of both formats into their lives.

Personally I think MP3 is really becoming obselete. It was great back
when hard drives were tiny & expensive, but now they are huge & cheap.
Using a lossy compression on audio would make sense only if you valued
your hard drive space more than quality. But since the hard drive
space issue is virtually non-existant do we really need to compress
audio to the tiniest possible space?

The only reason mp3 is so popular now is not because of the quality it
offers but because the size makes it ideal for bootlegging (this is
considering that bootlegging via mp3 takes place at 192k CBR, while a
320k CBR and even some VBRs are significantly higher quality).

If you do not own a cd-burner or have very limited hard drive space
then mp3 might still be viable for you. Everyone else should check out
loss-less compression or just archive everything as WAV files. I hate
to kill my favorite music by carving it up via mp3 (or insert any
other lossy audio compression scheme here).

This rant courtesy of the repressed child inside whom always kicks me
when I play an mp3m.

Yosah Akbah Muhammed wrote:

Personally I think MP3 is really becoming obselete.

I do not choose MP3 simply for Playin' Kewl Toonz Dood.
I have professional reasons for using it.

Besides, the principles addressed by my hypothesis are not limited to
MP3 encoding. If my assertions are correct, they are true for all forms
of psychoacoustically-based lossy compression algorithms. I personally
prefer MiniDisc's ATRAC to MP3 but use both for various reasons.

But since the hard drive space issue is virtually non-existant do
we really need to compress audio to the tiniest possible space?

I will continue compress until hard drive space is large enough to
accommodate 2,100+ CDs' worth of uncompressed audio data!

If you do not own a cd-burner

I own a cd-burner.

or have very limited hard drive space

I do not have very limited hard drive space.

I hate to kill my favorite music by carving it up via mp3

Compact discs cannot be uploaded to websites.
Uncompressed WAVs are impractically large.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Yosah Akbah Muhammed wrote:

Personally I think MP3 is really becoming obselete.

I do not choose MP3 simply for Playin' Kewl Toonz Dood.
I have professional reasons for using it.

Besides, the principles addressed by my hypothesis are not limited to
MP3 encoding. If my assertions are correct, they are true for all forms
of psychoacoustically-based lossy compression algorithms. I personally
prefer MiniDisc's ATRAC to MP3 but use both for various reasons.

Are you planning on testing that hypothesis as has been
suggested?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Here's a GIF animation of your All_Right_Before.mp3 and After files. I
think you'll see exactly what is going on with "Normalize".

http://www.c3di.com/images/All_right.gif


Eat that!


The first image shows the original at the location of the max peak in the
file. Then the second image is proper normalization in CoolEdit 2000 of the
exact same time frame. Then the third is what the command line program
"Normalize" does to the file.

Definitely a bit of limiting going on there, but only at a couple of places
in the whole file. The perceived volume level of the properly normalized
file and the After "Normalize" file is significant in my opinion.

If better is having all your files RMS at about the same level, then this
file is definitely better. If anyone were to suggest that this "Normalize"
file sounds "better" I would have to call them "foolish" :-)

"Normalize" is not just a Unix command line program. It is available for
most platforms including Windows.

It is definitely doing some limiting where the peaks above 0 dB would clip.
Even the documentation mentions it, but not exactly what it is doing. It
would be intersting to see the exact code, but I'm too lazy to download it
and look at what it is doing.

Cheers,
Pete



"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...
Read the FAQs harder. A gain of 4dB is going to make diddley-squat
difference to the 'Absolute Threasholds of Hearing". Or to your
encoding.

Well, tell ya what. I'll just leave that kind of risky behaviour up to
you. You don't give a damn about either MP3 or MiniDisc recording
quality anyway, so I don't even know why you bothered to respond to me
again. You know what I'm trying to do with my CDs and my MP3s and you
obviously have no more experience with any of my projects than I do with
any of yours, so... Go shave your beard, Trolliot.

What about the Christopher Cross, "Another Page" CD I mentioned early on
in the other thread?

That "older, quieter" disc required a good 13.33dBs of pumpitude before
I was able to do anything reasonable with it. But I guess that's just
fine for you in your "just turn it up a little" CD-only world, isn't it?

Here are the images:

http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/All_Right_Before.png
http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/All_Right_After.png

And here are two MP3 samples in a zip archive:

http://www.mykec.com/mykec/audio/All_Right.zip

Eat that!

Myke

Pete Carney wrote:

Here's a GIF animation of your All_Right_Before.mp3 and After files. I
think you'll see exactly what is going on with "Normalize".

http://www.c3di.com/images/All_right.gif

Now, that's cool and certainly makes the point. How do you
make a GIF animation?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...
StArSeEd wrote:

Yep, the only effects peak-based normalization will have on the playback
of a CD are raising its
volume and raising its effective S/N ratio ('effective' referring to the
noise from the analog
components of the stereo system itself, not from the CD; lower volume on
the knob = lower system
noise, generally speaking). The dynamic range (and, therefore, "punch")
will remain the same.

However, I believe it is foolish to not "normalize" a WAV prior to
encoding it to MP3

Foolish not to normalise maybe, but defintiely not to "normalise" - your
version which includes applying the compression that you seem to acknowledge
as a Bad Thing while similtaneiously explaining that you prefer it .

geoff

Bob Cain:
Pete Carney:
Here's a GIF animation of your All_Right_Before.mp3 and After files. I
think you'll see exactly what is going on with "Normalize".
http://www.c3di.com/images/All_right.gif
Now, that's cool and certainly makes the point. How do you
make a GIF animation?

Alchemy Mindworks' GIF Construction Set is probably the most popular oldschool GIF animator.. at
least it used to be. Microsoft made one too at some point, though as I recall, it wasn't quite
as full-featured as the former.

http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/gifcon.html

*looks at the page*

Jesus, that program's come a LONG way since.. a long time ago.

-StArSeEd
--
dchub://tsphub.dyndns.org:1979
IRC EFnet #smashing_pumpkins
Email: am
ICQ UIN: 1711589

Bob Cain wrote:

Are you planning on testing that hypothesis as has been
suggested?

Planning on? Yes.

Done it yet? No.

It all I can do just to keep the discussion on-track and troll-free
right now!

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-