[Jack]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"Jack" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

Where are the results of your DBTs?

Anybody can write poetry. Real men can hear differences
in blind tests, or admit they can't.

Real men? If you listen to the WMA file you'll hear that
no blind tests are needed in this case.

Jack, real men can read and obviously you can't. I posted the results
of my blind tests with Steven's files on 11/28. That was two days ago.
Where are yours?

All I did is transform Stephen's coded files back into .wav files with
standard software and compare those .wav files adn the original .wav
file with some well-known free software that is pointed to by links at
www.pcabx.com .

BTW, blind tests comparing .wav files to coded files are slam-dunk
easy. Please see www.pcabx.com and the Hydrogen Audio forums for more
information.

It looks like you're trying to market something that's not pertinent to
this example. Pomposity isn't much of a sales technique, either.

I already described in detail what the artifacts are.

No Jack, you just posted some poetry.

Is your agenda to argue for the sake of argument? Listen to the files
already. Here they are, properly named now.

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372691 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00 WAV)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5372700 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00 WMA)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5372709 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00 MP3)

When something sounds that much off, ABX or ABC or ABD is not needed.

You started off inexplicably assuming I'm opposed to blind testing, when I
hadn't made a single comment on it. I'm all for blind testing if there are
subtle differences, but that's not the case here. Are you of the mind that
the whole world is against ABX by default? "Anti-ABX conspiracy rocks the
metro area!"

But of course Jack you're always right and people like Steven and I
are always wrong, and the fact that all of this technology was
developed with blind tests means nothing to you...

You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned files! I just closed
my eyes and heard the difference even better. The MP3 is significantly
cleaner than the WMA, which isn't usually the case with those formats at
128 kbps.

Jack

[Jack]

Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

In rec.audio.tech Jack wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

I was too lazy to upload anything but you got me started now.

wma Blaze 128 CBR
http://www.badongo.com/file/5333875

Oddly, that WMA file is actually 192 kbps per Winamp and Windows file
properties.

mp3 LAME 192 VBR
http://www.badongo.com/file/5333913

That MP3 shows as 131 kbps (VBR) per EncSpot Pro (analyzes MP3
headers). EncSpot also shows the encoder as FhG, not LAME. Were those
typos?

Definitely not in the case of the MP3. That was made by me using
LAME, via foobar2000. I don't even have FhG on any of my computers.

EncSpot (freeware) doesn't claim to read all headers 100% so it could be a
fluke. There's some sort of data string that's not literal text.

Also, is that a remastered version of the song? Those "slushy" highs
sound a lot crisper than on my original CD. I have Reprise Records
Catalog # 2257-2.

There is no remastered version of Decade.

You are correct. Listening again to the whole song, that "brush" drum gets
more muffled toward the middle, which is what I was focusing on. Neil was
known for his imperfect analog mixes in those days - who knows what the
deal is. Indeed, the WMA sounds fair near the beginning. Check out my
samples from 3:30 to 4:00, which is where you can really hear mush.

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372691 (Down By The River 3:30 to 4:00 WAV)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5372700 (Down By The River 3:30 to 4:00 WMA)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5372709 (Down By The River 3:30 to 4:00 MP3)

The above were encoded from the WAV file with GoldWave 5.22, which
currently uses FhG and Windows Media 9.2. Make your own at that exact time
using WMA 128 kbps and we'll be on the same page.

I'm burned out on this thread now. Neil said it's better to burn out than
to fade away..............

Jack

[Jack]

Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

here's the same segment, done by me. I verified the codecs and
bitrates this time


FLAC via foobar2k
http://www.badongo.com/file/5364152

128WMA CBR via FairStars Audio Converter (shows as 129 kbps)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5364159

For whatever reason that version sounds passable, which deepens the
mystery. I originally encoded the whole song "on the fly" with Windows
Media Player 11, then again with a ripped WAV and GoldWave 5.22. Same
weak results for me both times. Note: the WMP player version number (11)
and the actual WMA codec number (9.2) are not related.

Compare your WMA to my unfortunate one:

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372700 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00 WMA)

190MP3 VBR via LAME 3.97 (shows as 183-219 kbps)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5364184

Anything will sound pretty good at that bitrate. A 128 kbps MP3 would
have been a direct comparison.

I'll have to check out some of those other WMA encoders. I don't
understand how they could be better than Windows' original version,
unless they use older WMA codecs and something odd happened in WMA 9.2.
This is hard to analyze on Usenet.

Jack

[Jack]

Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

128WMA CBR via FairStars Audio Converter (shows as 129 kbps)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5364159

Now it gets interesting: GoldWave shows that yours was encoded with WMA
9.1, whereas mine (below) is WMA 9.2.

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372700 (3:30 to 4:00 WMA)

There is a chance they muddled something between those versions. Something
that just doesn't like old Neil Young analog masters?

Jack

[Arny Krueger]

"Jack" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"Jack" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

Where are the results of your DBTs?

Anybody can write poetry. Real men can hear differences
in blind tests, or admit they can't.

Real men? If you listen to the WMA file you'll hear that
no blind tests are needed in this case.

Jack, real men can read and obviously you can't. I
posted the results of my blind tests with Steven's files
on 11/28. That was two days ago. Where are yours?

All I did is transform Stephen's coded files back into
.wav files with standard software and compare those .wav
files adn the original .wav file with some well-known
free software that is pointed to by links at
www.pcabx.com .

BTW, blind tests comparing .wav files to coded files are
slam-dunk easy. Please see www.pcabx.com and the
Hydrogen Audio forums for more information.

It looks like you're trying to market something that's
not pertinent to this example.

How not pertinent?

Pomposity isn't much of a sales technique, either.

I'm not selling a thing, just trying to shake you out of your intellectual
slumber.

I already described in detail what the artifacts are.

No Jack, you just posted some poetry.

Is your agenda to argue for the sake of argument?

If you haven't noticed Jack, you're the only person reporting audible
problems here, as far as I can see.

Listen to the files already.

I listened to Steven's files already, Jack. Talk about being full of
yourself!

Here they are, properly named now.

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372691 (Down By The River
3:30-4:00 WAV)

Broken link.

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372700 (Down
By The River 3:30-4:00 WMA)

Broken link

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372709 (Down By The River
3:30-4:00 MP3)

Broken link

When something sounds that much off, ABX or ABC or ABD is
not needed.

All the golden ears with their heads in the ground say exactly that. Magic
wires, green pens, magic amplifiers, they say it for the whole enchelada.

You started off inexplicably assuming I'm opposed to
blind testing,

No, that only became clear when you started going off like this.

when I hadn't made a single comment on it.

The ignorance and hostility is oozing out of your post, Jack.

I'm all for blind testing if there are subtle
differences, but that's not the case here. Are you of the
mind that the whole world is against ABX by default?

The whole world against ABX? LOL!

Jack, you're *special*.

"Anti-ABX conspiracy rocks the metro area!"

Only in your mind, Jack. ABX has been around for almost 30 years, and is
generally recognized as being certain kind of listening test that is good
for situations like this. I don't have to sell squat. I simply point people
to some free, helpful information. Other similarly well-regarded testing
methods that relate include ABC/hr

But of course Jack you're always right and people like
Steven and I are always wrong, and the fact that all of
this technology was developed with blind tests means
nothing to you...

You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned
files!

Been there, done that. Thanks for calling me a fool and a liar by
implication.

I just closed my eyes and heard the difference
even better. The MP3 is significantly cleaner than the
WMA, which isn't usually the case with those formats at
128 kbps.

Stop stonewalling, Jack.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jack" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"Jack" wrote in message

Eeyore wrote in
:



Jack wrote:

Kevin McMurtrie wrote

Audio compression will stay around for some uses.
CPUs and algorithms will always be much cheaper than
long distance bandwidth and wireless bandwidth.
Regardless of how fast the internet gets, 10x
compression still means 10x customer capacity. 10x
compression on your mobile player means 10x the room
for music.

Also, there are now warnings of Internet bottlenecks
by 2010 due to multimedia content and increased
population/usership.

The usual scaremongering. Journalists are clueless
about technology.

The pipes will simply get bigger to take the load.

Like oil will keep flowing no matter what? They are
warning that billion$ must be spent now to make sure it
doesn't happen. The Net was not originally conceived for
this much audio and video transfer.

Things change. Arpanet was not designed to support the
world wide web. It could barely do light email.

My comment was also about people's perception that growth
(of any kind) can go on without limits in a finite world.


Straw man. Everybody knows that the world and even the part of the universe
that we can explore in any sense is finite. The only question is how limited
our resources really are.

It's a mass-delusion of modern life in the oil age.

Talk about someone with something to sell!

At some point Internet capacity will peak, just like the
ability to supply electricity to power it all.

The internet is getting to be far more energy-efficient. The amount of power
it takes to run it might peak, but that is a different thing than what you
are talking about, Jack,

Computers/servers have become a major energy hog.

Actually, the amount of power that a desktop computer draws from the power
line (system unit) has been fairly stable at about 100 watts. Since we
started trading 100 watt + CRTs for 35 watt LCDs, the average power used by
a typical PC system has probabaly dropped quite a bit. Laptops use far less
power and are a bigger fraction of the market than ever. The growth of the
numbers of PC's will probably fall off once there is one for everybody to
have their own.

Finally, lossy coders for audio have become far better than they once were.
If you want to really hear some bad coders, try

http://www.pcabx.com/product/coder_decoder/index.htm

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Jack wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

here's the same segment, done by me. I verified the codecs and
bitrates this time


FLAC via foobar2k
http://www.badongo.com/file/5364152

128WMA CBR via FairStars Audio Converter (shows as 129 kbps)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5364159

For whatever reason that version sounds passable, which deepens the
mystery. I originally encoded the whole song "on the fly" with Windows
Media Player 11, then again with a ripped WAV and GoldWave 5.22. Same
weak results for me both times. Note: the WMP player version number (11)
and the actual WMA codec number (9.2) are not related.


Compare your WMA to my unfortunate one:

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372700 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00 WMA)

190MP3 VBR via LAME 3.97 (shows as 183-219 kbps)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5364184

Anything will sound pretty good at that bitrate. A 128 kbps MP3 would
have been a direct comparison.

128CBR LAME 3.97 via foobar
http://www.badongo.com/file/5380221


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"Jack" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

Where are the results of your DBTs?

Anybody can write poetry. Real men can hear differences
in blind tests, or admit they can't.

Real men? If you listen to the WMA file you'll hear that
no blind tests are needed in this case.

Jack, real men can read and obviously you can't. I
posted the results of my blind tests with Steven's files
on 11/28. That was two days ago. Where are yours?

All I did is transform Stephen's coded files back into
.wav files with standard software and compare those .wav
files adn the original .wav file with some well-known
free software that is pointed to by links at
www.pcabx.com .

BTW, blind tests comparing .wav files to coded files are
slam-dunk easy. Please see www.pcabx.com and the
Hydrogen Audio forums for more information.

It looks like you're trying to market something that's
not pertinent to this example.

How not pertinent?

Pomposity isn't much of a sales technique, either.

I'm not selling a thing, just trying to shake you out of your intellectual
slumber.

I already described in detail what the artifacts are.

No Jack, you just posted some poetry.

Is your agenda to argue for the sake of argument?

If you haven't noticed Jack, you're the only person reporting audible
problems here, as far as I can see.

Listen to the files already.

I listened to Steven's files already, Jack. Talk about being full of
yourself!

Here they are, properly named now.

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372691 (Down By The River
3:30-4:00 WAV)

Broken link.


Badongo only hosts files for a day or two.


Jack's WMA codec seems to have issues.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"Jack" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

Where are the results of your DBTs?

Anybody can write poetry. Real men can hear
differences in blind tests, or admit they can't.

Real men? If you listen to the WMA file you'll hear
that no blind tests are needed in this case.

Jack, real men can read and obviously you can't. I
posted the results of my blind tests with Steven's
files on 11/28. That was two days ago. Where are yours?

All I did is transform Stephen's coded files back into
.wav files with standard software and compare those
.wav files adn the original .wav file with some
well-known free software that is pointed to by links at
www.pcabx.com .

BTW, blind tests comparing .wav files to coded files
are slam-dunk easy. Please see www.pcabx.com and the
Hydrogen Audio forums for more information.

It looks like you're trying to market something that's
not pertinent to this example.

How not pertinent?

Pomposity isn't much of a sales technique, either.

I'm not selling a thing, just trying to shake you out of
your intellectual slumber.

I already described in detail what the artifacts are.

No Jack, you just posted some poetry.

Is your agenda to argue for the sake of argument?

If you haven't noticed Jack, you're the only person
reporting audible problems here, as far as I can see.

Listen to the files already.

I listened to Steven's files already, Jack. Talk about
being full of yourself!

Here they are, properly named now.

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372691 (Down By The River
3:30-4:00 WAV)

Broken link.

Badongo only hosts files for a day or two.

They were back this afternoon, so I downloaded them.

[NRen2k5]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"Jack" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

Where are the results of your DBTs?

Anybody can write poetry. Real men can hear differences in
blind tests, or admit they can't.
Real men? If you listen to the WMA file you'll hear that no
blind tests are needed in this case.
Jack, real men can read and obviously you can't. I posted the
results of my blind tests with Steven's files on 11/28. That was
two days ago. Where are yours?

All I did is transform Stephen's coded files back into .wav files
with standard software and compare those .wav files adn the
original .wav file with some well-known free software that is
pointed to by links at www.pcabx.com .

BTW, blind tests comparing .wav files to coded files are
slam-dunk easy. Please see www.pcabx.com and the Hydrogen Audio
forums for more information.
It looks like you're trying to market something that's not
pertinent to this example.

How not pertinent?

Pomposity isn't much of a sales technique, either.

I'm not selling a thing, just trying to shake you out of your
intellectual slumber.

I already described in detail what the artifacts are.

No Jack, you just posted some poetry.

Is your agenda to argue for the sake of argument?

If you haven't noticed Jack, you're the only person reporting audible
problems here, as far as I can see.

Listen to the files already.

I listened to Steven's files already, Jack. Talk about being full of
yourself!

Here they are, properly named now.

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372691 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00
WAV)

Broken link.

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372700 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00
WMA)

Broken link

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372709 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00
MP3)

Broken link

When something sounds that much off, ABX or ABC or ABD is not
needed.

All the golden ears with their heads in the ground say exactly that.
Magic wires, green pens, magic amplifiers, they say it for the whole
enchelada.

You started off inexplicably assuming I'm opposed to blind testing,


No, that only became clear when you started going off like this.

when I hadn't made a single comment on it.

The ignorance and hostility is oozing out of your post, Jack.

I'm all for blind testing if there are subtle differences, but
that's not the case here. Are you of the mind that the whole world
is against ABX by default?

The whole world against ABX? LOL!

Jack, you're *special*.

"Anti-ABX conspiracy rocks the metro area!"

Only in your mind, Jack. ABX has been around for almost 30 years,
and is generally recognized as being certain kind of listening test
that is good for situations like this. I don't have to sell squat. I
simply point people to some free, helpful information. Other
similarly well-regarded testing methods that relate include ABC/hr

But of course Jack you're always right and people like Steven and
I are always wrong, and the fact that all of this technology was
developed with blind tests means nothing to you...

You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned files!

Been there, done that. Thanks for calling me a fool and a liar by
implication.

I just closed my eyes and heard the difference even better. The MP3
is significantly cleaner than the WMA, which isn't usually the case
with those formats at 128 kbps.

Stop stonewalling, Jack.

Wow, the lengths to which some people will go to avoid such simple tests
when the thing you want to test is something they're sooo certain of....

[Arny Krueger]

"NRen2k5" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message


I just closed my eyes and heard the difference even
better. The MP3 is significantly cleaner than the WMA,
which isn't usually the case with those formats at 128
kbps.

Stop stonewalling, Jack.

Wow, the lengths to which some people will go to avoid
such simple tests when the thing you want to test is
something they're sooo certain of....

After 30 years its in the running for being one of the older stories in
modern hi fi.

Interestingly enough, there might be an audible problem - if he'd only
bother to just listen.

The confidence he expresses is obviously false bravado. Because, if he was
really sure of himself, he'd do his homework. At this point, it is all about
fear of the dark for him.

[Eeyore]

Jack wrote:

You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned files! I just closed
my eyes and heard the difference even better. The MP3 is significantly
cleaner than the WMA, which isn't usually the case with those formats at
128 kbps.

Why are you even bothering with 128 kbps files ? They're a waste of time.

Graham

[Richard Crowley]

"Eeyore" wrote...
Jack wrote:
You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned files! I just
closed
my eyes and heard the difference even better. The MP3 is
significantly
cleaner than the WMA, which isn't usually the case with those formats
at
128 kbps.

Why are you even bothering with 128 kbps files ? They're a waste of
time.

That is exactly what I was thinking about this entire discussion.
WMA (and MP3 and Ogg, etc etc) is what it is. If you don't
like how it sounds on some particular music, then bump the
bitrate or use some other encoding. End of discussion.
Unless you are developing audio compression codecs, in
which case, this is the wrong newsgroup.

[Eeyore]

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote...
Jack wrote:

You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned files! I just
closed
my eyes and heard the difference even better. The MP3 is
significantly cleaner than the WMA, which isn't usually the case with
those formats
at 128 kbps.

Why are you even bothering with 128 kbps files ? They're a waste of
time.

That is exactly what I was thinking about this entire discussion.
WMA (and MP3 and Ogg, etc etc) is what it is. If you don't
like how it sounds on some particular music, then bump the
bitrate or use some other encoding. End of discussion.
Unless you are developing audio compression codecs, in
which case, this is the wrong newsgroup.

PC World UK has 250GB drives for just £45.

You'll get about 420 CDs on that *uncompressed* for 11 pence each !

Why on earth bother with compression ?

Graham

[Broadway Blue]

Eeyore wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote...
Jack wrote:

You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned files! I just
closed my eyes and heard the difference even better. The MP3 is
significantly cleaner than the WMA, which isn't usually the case
with those formats at 128 kbps.

Why are you even bothering with 128 kbps files ? They're a waste of
time.

That is exactly what I was thinking about this entire discussion.
WMA (and MP3 and Ogg, etc etc) is what it is. If you don't
like how it sounds on some particular music, then bump the
bitrate or use some other encoding. End of discussion.
Unless you are developing audio compression codecs, in
which case, this is the wrong newsgroup.

PC World UK has 250GB drives for just £45.

You'll get about 420 CDs on that *uncompressed* for 11 pence each !

Why on earth bother with compression ?

Well, if all you own is a 1GB flash MP3 player or a 4 GB iPod Nano, not
compressing your music would result in having very few tracks on your
portable player to listen to!!!

[Eeyore]

Broadway Blue wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote...
Jack wrote:

You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned files! I just
closed my eyes and heard the difference even better. The MP3 is
significantly cleaner than the WMA, which isn't usually the case
with those formats at 128 kbps.

Why are you even bothering with 128 kbps files ? They're a waste of
time.

That is exactly what I was thinking about this entire discussion.
WMA (and MP3 and Ogg, etc etc) is what it is. If you don't
like how it sounds on some particular music, then bump the
bitrate or use some other encoding. End of discussion.
Unless you are developing audio compression codecs, in
which case, this is the wrong newsgroup.

PC World UK has 250GB drives for just £45.

You'll get about 420 CDs on that *uncompressed* for 11 pence each !

Why on earth bother with compression ?

Well, if all you own is a 1GB flash MP3 player or a 4 GB iPod Nano, not
compressing your music would result in having very few tracks on your
portable player to listen to!!!

But the quality of those is so poor it's no longer a serious consideration
in that application surely ?.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Broadway Blue" wrote in message

Eeyore wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote...
Jack wrote:

You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned
files! I just closed my eyes and heard the difference
even better. The MP3 is significantly cleaner than
the WMA, which isn't usually the case with those
formats at 128 kbps.

Why are you even bothering with 128 kbps files ?
They're a waste of time.

That is exactly what I was thinking about this entire
discussion. WMA (and MP3 and Ogg, etc etc) is what it
is. If you don't like how it sounds on some particular music, then bump
the bitrate or use some other encoding. End of
discussion. Unless you are developing audio compression codecs, in
which case, this is the wrong newsgroup.

PC World UK has 250GB drives for just £45.

You'll get about 420 CDs on that *uncompressed* for 11
pence each ! Why on earth bother with compression ?

Well, if all you own is a 1GB flash MP3 player or a 4 GB
iPod Nano, not compressing your music would result in
having very few tracks on your portable player to listen
to!!!

4 GB = ca. 120 uncompressed songs. It's gotta be about greediness or
laziness.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Broadway Blue" wrote
Eeyore wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote...
Jack wrote:

You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned
files! I just closed my eyes and heard the difference
even better. The MP3 is significantly cleaner than
the WMA, which isn't usually the case with those
formats at 128 kbps.

Why are you even bothering with 128 kbps files ?
They're a waste of time.

That is exactly what I was thinking about this entire
discussion. WMA (and MP3 and Ogg, etc etc) is what it
is. If you don't like how it sounds on some particular music, then bump
the bitrate or use some other encoding. End of
discussion. Unless you are developing audio compression codecs, in
which case, this is the wrong newsgroup.

PC World UK has 250GB drives for just £45.

You'll get about 420 CDs on that *uncompressed* for 11
pence each ! Why on earth bother with compression ?

Well, if all you own is a 1GB flash MP3 player or a 4 GB
iPod Nano, not compressing your music would result in
having very few tracks on your portable player to listen
to!!!

4 GB = ca. 120 uncompressed songs.

Or ~ 500 compressed songs @ 320 kbps.

Still no need for 128k.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Broadway Blue" wrote
Eeyore wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote...
Jack wrote:

You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned
files! I just closed my eyes and heard the
difference even better. The MP3 is significantly
cleaner than the WMA, which isn't usually the case
with those formats at 128 kbps.

Why are you even bothering with 128 kbps files ?
They're a waste of time.

That is exactly what I was thinking about this entire
discussion. WMA (and MP3 and Ogg, etc etc) is what it
is. If you don't like how it sounds on some
particular music, then bump the bitrate or use some
other encoding. End of
discussion. Unless you are developing audio
compression codecs, in which case, this is the wrong
newsgroup.

PC World UK has 250GB drives for just £45.

You'll get about 420 CDs on that *uncompressed* for 11
pence each ! Why on earth bother with compression ?

Well, if all you own is a 1GB flash MP3 player or a 4 GB
iPod Nano, not compressing your music would result in
having very few tracks on your portable player to listen
to!!!

4 GB = ca. 120 uncompressed songs.

Or ~ 500 compressed songs @ 320 kbps.

Still no need for 128k.

I think that the advice along the lines of, if you don't like it, up the
bitrate, is very practical advice.

Life is too short to worry about trying to miniaturize angels to see how
many you can get to dance on the tip of a the sharpest pin you can find. We
already figured out that Jack is a little over the edge about trying to
conserve bandwidth.

[Broadway Blue]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Broadway Blue" wrote
Eeyore wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote...
Jack wrote:

You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned
files! I just closed my eyes and heard the
difference even better. The MP3 is significantly
cleaner than the WMA, which isn't usually the case
with those formats at 128 kbps.

Why are you even bothering with 128 kbps files ?
They're a waste of time.

That is exactly what I was thinking about this entire
discussion. WMA (and MP3 and Ogg, etc etc) is what it
is. If you don't like how it sounds on some
particular music, then bump the bitrate or use some
other encoding. End of
discussion. Unless you are developing audio
compression codecs, in which case, this is the wrong
newsgroup.

PC World UK has 250GB drives for just £45.

You'll get about 420 CDs on that *uncompressed* for 11
pence each ! Why on earth bother with compression ?

Well, if all you own is a 1GB flash MP3 player or a 4 GB
iPod Nano, not compressing your music would result in
having very few tracks on your portable player to listen
to!!!

4 GB = ca. 120 uncompressed songs.

Or ~ 500 compressed songs @ 320 kbps.

Still no need for 128k.

I think that the advice along the lines of, if you don't like it, up
the bitrate, is very practical advice.

I'd never go as low as 128kbps myself, in fact 192 kbps would be
the lowest I'd have on my MP3 player. As yes, 128kbps does sound
fairly crap.... but others may have better ears than me!

[Richard Crowley]

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
No it isn't. A file on a disc could be described as imformation that
must be taken in sequence, but it is still a file. A data stream is an
inexorable flow of data which must be dealt with as it comes.

If you want to use the adjective "real-time" data stream, then I
would agree with you. Else, there is no temporal requirement
or implication for a "data stream".

Most modern programming languages ("C" for example)
only treat input/output data as a stream, there is no "block"
notion of data. It doesn't matter whether the data is coming
from a 10-year old disk file or from a real-time ADC. It is
just a data stream to most software. And that is the way all
data is processed, even on 64-bit wide CPUs.

[Eeyore]

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
No it isn't. A file on a disc could be described as imformation that
must be taken in sequence, but it is still a file. A data stream is an
inexorable flow of data which must be dealt with as it comes.

If you want to use the adjective "real-time" data stream, then I
would agree with you. Else, there is no temporal requirement
or implication for a "data stream".

Most modern programming languages ("C" for example)
only treat input/output data as a stream, there is no "block"
notion of data. It doesn't matter whether the data is coming
from a 10-year old disk file or from a real-time ADC. It is
just a data stream to most software. And that is the way all
data is processed, even on 64-bit wide CPUs.

EOF

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:33:12 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
No it isn't. A file on a disc could be described as imformation that
must be taken in sequence, but it is still a file. A data stream is an
inexorable flow of data which must be dealt with as it comes.

If you want to use the adjective "real-time" data stream, then I
would agree with you. Else, there is no temporal requirement
or implication for a "data stream".

Most modern programming languages ("C" for example)
only treat input/output data as a stream, there is no "block"
notion of data. It doesn't matter whether the data is coming
from a 10-year old disk file or from a real-time ADC. It is
just a data stream to most software. And that is the way all
data is processed, even on 64-bit wide CPUs.


Rubbish a := getchar() extracts one single byte from a file, not the
slightest hint of a stream. If I want to see a data stream I will look
at the digital outputs of my DAB radio or DVD player.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[[email protected]]

On Dec 3, 3:33 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
Most modern programming languages ("C" for example)
only treat input/output data as a stream, there is no "block"
notion of data. It doesn't matter whether the data is coming
from a 10-year old disk file or from a real-time ADC. It is
just a data stream to most software. And that is the way all
data is processed, even on 64-bit wide CPUs.

And what the sorry lot of you are missing is that MPEG audio
is processed as BLOCKS, not as a continuous stream. The
algorithms take a pile of samples until it has a block,
processes the block applying the psychoacoustic
criteria as needed, then produces a block a psychoacoustically
reduced data.

And then, lo and behold, it takes that block and runs it through
a nice, old everyday Lempel-Ziv data compressor, and out
spits a block of data that has been compressed both
psychoacoustically AND compressed data wise to remove
redundant data patterns.

At the other end, the first thing that happens is that it
takes one of these compressed blocks and uncompresses
it, and then applies minimal reconstruction to get the final
data in the block out, and then parcels out the data, sample
by sample.

The ONLY thing that makes this whole process "real-time" is
NOT whether the data is a stream (it is) or a blocked (it is), but
that it can happen at least as fast as the data is arriving or needs
to be delivered.

[Richard Crowley]

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Rubbish a := getchar() extracts one single byte from a file, not the
slightest hint of a stream.

"getchar = Gets a character or word from an input stream"

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infoce...etrf1/getc.htm

Good thing you're not a programmer anymore.

[Jack]

I decided, after more listening tests, to use WMA 9.2 VBR "Quality 75" as
my general encoding standard - mostly for car audio. It corrects the Neil
Young artifacts and only seems to be 3% to 12% larger on average than a WMA
128 kbps CBR file. All seems to be well now.

Jack

[Jack]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

BTW, blind tests comparing .wav files to coded files are
slam-dunk easy. Please see www.pcabx.com and the
Hydrogen Audio forums for more information.

It looks like you're trying to market something that's
not pertinent to this example.

How not pertinent?

Because the artifacts are so obvious that blind tests aren't needed. You
shot out of the starting gate with the nutty assumption that I refuse to do
blind listening tests. You won't even listen to (or at least comment on) my
samples, so what difference does it make?

It looks I wandered into the path of a defensive Usenet persona, from which
there is no escape or hope of reasonableness!

Pomposity isn't much of a sales technique, either.

I'm not selling a thing, just trying to shake you out of your
intellectual slumber.

Because the artifacts are so obvious that blind tests aren't needed. Are
you of the mind that a 128 kbps WMA file is supposed to sound just like the
source CD in all cases? You're confusing me with someone you must have had
this argument with earlier.

I'm all for blind tests when it's worth it to put effort into them. These
artifacts are like comparing crackers to wet bread.

I already described in detail what the artifacts are.

No Jack, you just posted some poetry.

Is your agenda to argue for the sake of argument?

If you haven't noticed Jack, you're the only person reporting audible
problems here, as far as I can see.

Apparently I'm the only one whose listened to my own samples! What a waste
of time it was posting this.

Listen to the files already.

I listened to Steven's files already, Jack. Talk about being full of
yourself!

Listen to my samples, you putz. I started this thread after all.

Here they are, properly named now.

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372691 (Down By The River
3:30-4:00 WAV)

Broken link.

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372700 (Down
By The River 3:30-4:00 WMA)

Broken link

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372709 (Down By The River
3:30-4:00 MP3)

Broken link

Like hell those links are broken. They certainly work at this minute and
nothing about them has changed. Try again - that's the beauty of computers.

BTW, I am using WMA 9.2 while Steve is using WMA 9.1. It's quite possible
there is a glitch between the versions that manifests itself in odd tracks
like that. Since you refuse to listen to my actual samples, I guess that
point is moot. I seem to have gotten a mumbled comment from Steve that I'm
onto something, but this place is not fair and balanced.

Here they are one last time, if you're tired of pretending that "broken"
links are stopping you from being reasonable.

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372691 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00 WAV)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5372700 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00 WMA)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5372709 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00 MP3)

Jack

[Jack]

Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

Badongo only hosts files for a day or two.

Those same links are still working as of 12/03/07. Temporarily down, maybe.

Jack's WMA codec seems to have issues.

Amazing! You can hear them without a blind test, even? Please explain said
issues to this Kreuger character, since you seem to be in his gang of
whatever.

Jack

[Jack]

Eeyore wrote in
:

Jack wrote:

You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned files! I just
closed my eyes and heard the difference even better. The MP3 is
significantly cleaner than the WMA, which isn't usually the case with
those formats at 128 kbps.

Why are you even bothering with 128 kbps files ? They're a waste of
time.

You people have the whole world figured out, don't you?!

WMA 128k sounds quite good on my car stereo and it's not a cheap one. As I
explained before, I am planning for 5,000+ songs (16gb flash) and trying to
conserve space. I also have other tracks in mixed formats at higher
bitrates. You have to dive in and encode at some point. You can't keep
waiting for the next thing to get cheaper. In hindsight I would have chosen
WMA VBR "Quality 75" which keeps the files relatively small and cured the
Neil Young glitch.

I had no real issues with WMA 128k until this one track. Try one of Freddy
Krueger's ABX tests before sneering at it so casually. MP3 at 128k is
borderline mediocre because it's an older format - not as densely packed.

Online stores like buymusic.com were/are selling songs at WMA 128k, so it's
hardly junk. I would describe it as 90% to 97% of CD quality, depending on
speaker/headphone resolution. Music stores have upped the WMA bitrate to
256 kbps in many cases but it's not a quantum improvement.

Jack

[Jack]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

My comment was also about people's perception that growth
(of any kind) can go on without limits in a finite world.


Straw man. Everybody knows that the world and even the part of the
universe that we can explore in any sense is finite. The only question
is how limited our resources really are.

Apparently you haven't been exposed to Cornucopian economic theory,
practiced by about 2/3rds of the Republican Party. If a resource tapers
off, someone will magically find a substitute for it. Google "Julian
Simon."

At some point Internet capacity will peak, just like the
ability to supply electricity to power it all.

The internet is getting to be far more energy-efficient. The amount of
power it takes to run it might peak, but that is a different thing
than what you are talking about, Jack,

But there are tens of millions more people on this planet each year,
which consistently outpaces technological efficiency. Consumption has
risen annually in most sectors since they've kept records, except for
certain depressions and recessions.

Computers/servers have become a major energy hog.

Actually, the amount of power that a desktop computer draws from the
power line (system unit) has been fairly stable at about 100 watts.
Since we started trading 100 watt + CRTs for 35 watt LCDs, the average
power used by a typical PC system has probabaly dropped quite a bit.
Laptops use far less power and are a bigger fraction of the market
than ever. The growth of the numbers of PC's will probably fall off
once there is one for everybody to have their own.

Again, the growth of the human population is nowhere close to falling
off. There are not a stable number of users to set a benchmark.

Finally, lossy coders for audio have become far better than they once
were. If you want to really hear some bad coders, try

http://www.pcabx.com/product/coder_decoder/index.htm

We do agree on that, which if you recall, was my original puzzlement at
the WMA glitch. This whole thread has deteriorated into something it was
never meant to be. The one solid bit of info seems to be a difference in
output between WMA 9.2 (via my GoldWave 5.22) and WMA 9.1 uploaded by
Steve. His did not have the same artifacts.

Jack

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:13:48 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Rubbish a := getchar() extracts one single byte from a file, not the
slightest hint of a stream.

"getchar = Gets a character or word from an input stream"

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infoce...etrf1/getc.htm

Good thing you're not a programmer anymore.

Have you ever seen a stream? Does it just wait there stationary while
you dip a cup in for the next drink? No, it goes on flowing. Please
try and understand the concepts behind names.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Eeyore]

Jack wrote:

Online stores like buymusic.com were/are selling songs at WMA 128k, so it's
hardly junk.

Uh ?

Are you seriously suggesting that just because you can buy something it isn't
junk ?

Goodness me !

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Jack" wrote in message

Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

Badongo only hosts files for a day or two.

Those same links are still working as of 12/03/07.
Temporarily down, maybe.

Jack's WMA codec seems to have issues.

Amazing! You can hear them without a blind test, even?
Please explain said issues to this Kreuger character,
since you seem to be in his gang of whatever.

Still fighting science eh Jack?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jack" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

BTW, blind tests comparing .wav files to coded files
are slam-dunk easy. Please see www.pcabx.com and the
Hydrogen Audio forums for more information.

It looks like you're trying to market something that's
not pertinent to this example.

How not pertinent?

Because the artifacts are so obvious that blind tests
aren't needed. You shot out of the starting gate with the
nutty assumption that I refuse to do blind listening
tests.

You've been pretty adamant about not doing them, and repeatly abused my
suggestions that you try them.

You won't even listen to (or at least comment on)
my samples, so what difference does it make?

Actually, I did both, which is more than you've done for me.

I'm done with you, Jack and leave you to wallow in your own bad faith and
out-of-control emotions.

Here they are one last time, if you're tired of pretending that "broken"
links are stopping you from being reasonable.

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372691 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00 WAV)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5372700 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00 WMA)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5372709 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00 MP3)

Can't read, can you Jack? I mentioned that I downloaded them what 2 days
ago?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jack" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

My comment was also about people's perception that
growth (of any kind) can go on without limits in a
finite world.


Straw man. Everybody knows that the world and even the
part of the universe that we can explore in any sense is
finite. The only question is how limited our resources
really are.

Apparently you haven't been exposed to Cornucopian
economic theory, practiced by about 2/3rds of the
Republican Party. If a resource tapers off, someone will
magically find a substitute for it. Google "Julian Simon."

The idea that resources will be creatively replaced by something more
suitable has many historical precidents. Between the population growth and
industrial uses, trees were running out in England, and getting inconvenient
in the eastern US. Then someone discovered coal. Coal ran its course as
*the* mainstream energy source and then someone discovered oil. Easy US oil
started running out and then someone discovered the mid east. Etc.

At some point Internet capacity will peak, just like
the ability to supply electricity to power it all.

The internet is getting to be far more energy-efficient.
The amount of power it takes to run it might peak, but
that is a different thing than what you are talking
about, Jack,

But there are tens of millions more people on this planet
each year, which consistently outpaces technological
efficiency.

Does it? Or are the losses of millions in Africa outweighed by the advances
made by the billions in Asia, notably India and China?

Consumption has risen annually in most
sectors since they've kept records, except for certain
depressions and recessions.

Since it was consumed, it was supplied. Therefore supplies have continued to
increase at about the same pace as consumption.

Computers/servers have become a major energy hog.

Actually, the amount of power that a desktop computer
draws from the power line (system unit) has been fairly
stable at about 100 watts. Since we started trading 100
watt + CRTs for 35 watt LCDs, the average power used by
a typical PC system has probabaly dropped quite a bit.
Laptops use far less power and are a bigger fraction of
the market than ever. The growth of the numbers of PC's
will probably fall off once there is one for everybody
to have their own.

Again, the growth of the human population is nowhere
close to falling off. There are not a stable number of
users to set a benchmark.

The rise in the efficiency of production and use of power by humans
continues.

Finally, lossy coders for audio have become far better
than they once were. If you want to really hear some bad
coders, try

http://www.pcabx.com/product/coder_decoder/index.htm

We do agree on that, which if you recall, was my original
puzzlement at the WMA glitch. This whole thread has
deteriorated into something it was never meant to be. The
one solid bit of info seems to be a difference in output
between WMA 9.2 (via my GoldWave 5.22) and WMA 9.1
uploaded by Steve. His did not have the same artifacts.

I guess that every once in a while MS drops a loser on us. Then they fix
things better.

[Richard Crowley]

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Have you ever seen a stream? Does it just wait there stationary while
you dip a cup in for the next drink? No, it goes on flowing. Please
try and understand the concepts behind names.

It is the computer age, for better or for worse.
The meaning of words change and enlarge as
society and technology inexorably move on.

[Steve Maki]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:49:27 -0800, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
Have you ever seen a stream? Does it just wait there stationary while
you dip a cup in for the next drink? No, it goes on flowing. Please
try and understand the concepts behind names.

It is the computer age, for better or for worse.
The meaning of words change and enlarge as
society and technology inexorably move on.

Still, my impression of the term *streaming* as most used in the internet
age is that it is akin to *broadcasting*, where you can *join* in midstream,
can't ask for repeats if there's a problem, and can leave on a whim with no
questions asked. Not quite like file transfers...

Steve Maki

[Richard Crowley]

"Steve Maki" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:
Have you ever seen a stream? Does it just wait there stationary
while
you dip a cup in for the next drink? No, it goes on flowing. Please
try and understand the concepts behind names.

It is the computer age, for better or for worse.
The meaning of words change and enlarge as
society and technology inexorably move on.

Still, my impression of the term *streaming* as most used in the
internet
age is that it is akin to *broadcasting*, where you can *join* in
midstream,
can't ask for repeats if there's a problem, and can leave on a whim
with no
questions asked. Not quite like file transfers...

The concept of data streams existed DECADES before the
notion of streaming media files. Get a perspective here,
folks.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Jack wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

Badongo only hosts files for a day or two.

Those same links are still working as of 12/03/07. Temporarily down, maybe.

Jack's WMA codec seems to have issues.

Amazing! You can hear them without a blind test, even? Please explain said
issues to this Kreuger character, since you seem to be in his gang of
whatever.

I was only going by your reports, actually. I haven't listened to your
samples myself, and I can't rule out that you're imagining things.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

BTW, blind tests comparing .wav files to coded files
are slam-dunk easy. Please see www.pcabx.com and the
Hydrogen Audio forums for more information.

It looks like you're trying to market something that's
not pertinent to this example.

How not pertinent?

Because the artifacts are so obvious that blind tests
aren't needed. You shot out of the starting gate with the
nutty assumption that I refuse to do blind listening
tests.

You've been pretty adamant about not doing them, and repeatly abused my
suggestions that you try them.

You won't even listen to (or at least comment on)
my samples, so what difference does it make?

Actually, I did both, which is more than you've done for me.

I'm done with you, Jack and leave you to wallow in your own bad faith and
out-of-control emotions.

Here they are one last time, if you're tired of pretending that "broken"
links are stopping you from being reasonable.

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372691 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00 WAV)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5372700 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00 WMA)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5372709 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00 MP3)

Can't read, can you Jack? I mentioned that I downloaded them what 2 days
ago?


I just ABX's his WMA file
NY_DBTR_3-30_to_4-00_WMA_128kbps.wma
and his .wav file. I scored 16/16 right.

I gave up trying to do same for his mp3128, and my own WMA128, versus the .wav;
I couldnt hear a difference between any of them 'sighted', much less blind, on
this segment.

So I'd say there really is something wrong with his WMA encoding.
It's definitely not intrinsic to WMA128 though.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason