Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
Gosh, I used to like Joe Walsh's music a lot, but lost contact over the
years. Can't believe he is still here today-ish, actually just as good, if not better - humour, voice and guitar playing intact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcPq9O96qpE Gareth. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 3:45:34 PM UTC-5, gareth magennis wrote:
Gosh, I used to like Joe Walsh's music a lot, but lost contact over the years. Can't believe he is still here today-ish, actually just as good, if not better - humour, voice and guitar playing intact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcPq9O96qpE Looks like Eagle Rock has an issue with that video. Jack Gareth. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
JackA:
That's where YouTube is headed. Pretty soon the only videos allowed on there will be of families - Dad swinging from a ladder hanging Christmas lights on the roof, mom in the kitchen setting fire to the oven, and the kids riding the family dog around the den like a horse! No more copywritten material period. Not what YouTube was originally meant for. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
wrote in message ... JackA: That's where YouTube is headed. Pretty soon the only videos allowed on there will be of families - Dad swinging from a ladder hanging Christmas lights on the roof, mom in the kitchen setting fire to the oven, and the kids riding the family dog around the den like a horse! No more copywritten material period. Not what YouTube was originally meant for. Well that's weird, the link works perfectly well in the UK. It is a concert recorded in the UK, but I doubt that has much to do with it. ?? Gareth. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
Oh well, this is the album I fell in love with as a naive youth who thought he knew everything already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec-d...D17A451BE7753E Gareth. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 4:18:27 PM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA: That's where YouTube is headed. Pretty soon the only videos allowed on there will be of families - Dad swinging from a ladder hanging Christmas lights on the roof, mom in the kitchen setting fire to the oven, and the kids riding the family dog around the den like a horse! No more copywritten material period. Not what YouTube was originally meant for. I know what you mean! I see things, like The Beatles - the *new* owners don't wish to give anything away for free (while Google's YT makes a fortune for it), so they axe it from YouTube. Jack |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 4:31:01 PM UTC-5, gareth magennis wrote:
wrote in message legroups.com... JackA: That's where YouTube is headed. Pretty soon the only videos allowed on there will be of families - Dad swinging from a ladder hanging Christmas lights on the roof, mom in the kitchen setting fire to the oven, and the kids riding the family dog around the den like a horse! No more copywritten material period. Not what YouTube was originally meant for. Well that's weird, the link works perfectly well in the UK. It is a concert recorded in the UK, but I doubt that has much to do with it. ?? Gareth. Here in the States it says "..not available in your country." Kind of explains things. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
wrote in message ... On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 4:31:01 PM UTC-5, gareth magennis wrote: wrote in message legroups.com... JackA: That's where YouTube is headed. Pretty soon the only videos allowed on there will be of families - Dad swinging from a ladder hanging Christmas lights on the roof, mom in the kitchen setting fire to the oven, and the kids riding the family dog around the den like a horse! No more copywritten material period. Not what YouTube was originally meant for. Well that's weird, the link works perfectly well in the UK. It is a concert recorded in the UK, but I doubt that has much to do with it. ?? Gareth. Here in the States it says "..not available in your country." Kind of explains things. OK, I will do a quick review then: Joe Walsh, looking kind of old, but sober. Sings good, plays guitar good, seems to be getting on with what he does best. Which is being Joe Walsh. I like that. Gareth. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 6:09:07 PM UTC-5, gareth magennis wrote:
wrote in message ... On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 4:31:01 PM UTC-5, gareth magennis wrote: wrote in message legroups.com... JackA: That's where YouTube is headed. Pretty soon the only videos allowed on there will be of families - Dad swinging from a ladder hanging Christmas lights on the roof, mom in the kitchen setting fire to the oven, and the kids riding the family dog around the den like a horse! No more copywritten material period. Not what YouTube was originally meant for. Well that's weird, the link works perfectly well in the UK. It is a concert recorded in the UK, but I doubt that has much to do with it. ?? Gareth. Here in the States it says "..not available in your country." Kind of explains things. OK, I will do a quick review then: Joe Walsh, looking kind of old, but sober. Sings good, plays guitar good, seems to be getting on with what he does best. Which is being Joe Walsh. I like that. Liked Joe, but liked him with The James Gang. But, the root of my music interest is with Big Bands, because most are recorded live and little, if any, instrument amplification is needed and very dynamic sound. I feel, Big Bands became famous since they could fill a large ballroom with sound without the need of high power amplifiers... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVbTTmEmDxY Jack Gareth. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
JackA wrote: "Liked Joe, but liked him with The James Gang. But, the root of my music interest is with Big Bands, because most are recorded live and little, if any, instrument amplification is needed and very dynamic sound. I feel, Big Bands became famous since they could fill a large ballroom with sound without the need of high power amplifiers... "
You, JackA, advocating "dynamic sound"? I don't believe it... |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 8:26:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: "Liked Joe, but liked him with The James Gang. But, the root of my music interest is with Big Bands, because most are recorded live and little, if any, instrument amplification is needed and very dynamic sound. I feel, Big Bands became famous since they could fill a large ballroom with sound without the need of high power amplifiers... " You, JackA, advocating "dynamic sound"? I don't believe it... Look, without SOME compression, some, actually, many analog songs will sound a bit lifeless if you don't add compression. I mean, YOU'RE the one who advocates not changing sound. So, do you want dull CD sound or how it sounded on vinyl? Jack |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
- show quoted text -
Look, without SOME compression, some, actually, many analog songs will sound a bit lifeless if you don't add compression. I mean, YOU'RE the one who advocates not changing sound. So, do you want dull CD sound or how it sounded on vinyl? Jack " CDs by themselves don't sound "dull". They have the potential to kick vinyl's ASS spectrum-wise and dynamics wise. It's up to the client how it ultimately sounds. Same, to an extent, goes for the vinyl record. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message ... snip Joe Walsh, looking kind of old, but sober. Sings good, plays guitar good, seems to be getting on with what he does best. Which is being Joe Walsh. I like that. Joe did some nice playing between segments of an NFL broadcast a couple years back. Just him with his axe and an amp, and it took the place of the standard music beds the league used. It was wonderful. Always liked his playing and it always amazed me how distinct his vocal diction was when he sang opposed to his speaking voice. Same with Ozzy. Poly |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
That simply isn't true. Fromy my hearing, man had little tools to master with. It wasn't until DAW became a reality is when things began to audio improve on CD. If what you feel is true, vinyl fans would have never returned to it or even had it supllieda. As that participant here mentioned, a profrsssor has to TEACH people what good audio quality is. Even Hitler said, people do not know what is good for them. And watching the Democratic party destroying America, and the world, I can firmly believe it.
Jack |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On 14/02/2016 7:28 AM, JackA wrote:
That simply isn't true. Fromy my hearing, man had little tools to master with. It wasn't until DAW became a reality is when things began to audio improve on CD. If what you feel is true, vinyl fans would have never returned to it or even had it supllieda. As that participant here mentioned, a profrsssor has to TEACH people what good audio quality is. Even Hitler said, people do not know what is good for them. And watching the Democratic party destroying America, and the world, I can firmly believe it. Well clearly your hearing is as good as your typing. Many of those exact same tools are used today (sometimes exclusively) to master audio for CD or other digital results. Sure DAWs offer a lot more versatility, range, and amounts of control, but in the end it's the person doing the job who gets to choose what they want to use, if the end result pleases whoever is paying the bills...... maybe occasionally with exceptions. But they can turn down the job if they feel artistically compromised. geoff |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
"geoff" wrote in message
... You seem to be trying to talk sense to something that you'd be better off scraping off your boot-sole on the edge of the curb. You're attempting to engage, and therefore encouraging, a worthless puddle of slime that makes common cause with the jack-booted goose-steppers of early twentieth century Germany, and the hooded cowards in yellow-stained sheets, of the US from the reconstruction age to the present-day, among others. Please don't be like Dorsey. Don't encourage the vermin. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
199.21.136.70
Nameservers: ns2.vermontel.net 216.66.108.34 ns1.vermontel.net 216.66.108.26 Continent: North America (NA) Country: United States (US) Capital: Washington State: New Hampshire City Location: Orford Postal: 03777 Area: 603 Metro: 523 ISP: Topsham Communications LLC Organization: Topsham Communications LLC AS Number: AS22121 Topsham Communications LLC Time Zone: America/New_York Local Time: 07:04:54 Timezone GMT offset: -18000 Sunrise / Sunset: 06:47 / 17:16 |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
thekma @ ****4brains.com wrote in message
... Are you stalking me again Theckma, you retarded dumb****? Not really; maybe you're stalking some server that my post passed through, but you're obviously too retarded to understand. Guess again! But since you posted about me again, I'll just call you a brainless cretin with the intellect of a gopher. I figure you want me to call you a shortbus dumb****, or you wouldn't be stalking me. Theckma, the dorkless doofus, I know you like being called names like that. It enrages you, but you secretly love it, or you wouldn't be stalking me. is it hard to drink your juice box and eat your cookie with that retard hockey-helmet? Well tough ****, li'l buddy. It's there to protect the other kids from being hit by that useless block of granite on your neck. With the blank stare of a retard on the front, and small deposit of horse **** inside instead of a brain. CKWAFA. AOCASBDFRWAHH! |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
"None" wrote in message
... thekma @ ****4brains.com wrote in message ... Did you delete your post from gurgle groups? You're probably too ****ing stupid to know that your post went out to all the actual news servers, and the whole world can read it. Just not the dim bulbs and dumb ****s like you who think usenet is part of gurgle, and who think deleting a post from gurgle groups makes it go away. Nope. Now get back on the short bus! WAFSBMYA. Right, li'l buddy? |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
"polymod" said...news:dOIvy.39203$VC3.18403
@fx25.iad: "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message news:fCtvy.863910$Wj7.130798 @fx33.am4... snip Joe Walsh, looking kind of old, but sober. Sings good, plays guitar good, seems to be getting on with what he does best. Which is being Joe Walsh. I like that. Joe did some nice playing between segments of an NFL broadcast a couple years back. Just him with his axe and an amp, and it took the place of the standard music beds the league used. It was wonderful. Always liked his playing and it always amazed me how distinct his vocal diction was when he sang opposed to his speaking voice. Same with Ozzy. Poly He was really good when he was a guest this past year on "Live From Daryl's House." It's probably on YouTube, highly recommended. david |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 6:50:02 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 14/02/2016 7:28 AM, JackA wrote: That simply isn't true. Fromy my hearing, man had little tools to master with. It wasn't until DAW became a reality is when things began to audio improve on CD. If what you feel is true, vinyl fans would have never returned to it or even had it supllieda. As that participant here mentioned, a profrsssor has to TEACH people what good audio quality is. Even Hitler said, people do not know what is good for them. And watching the Democratic party destroying America, and the world, I can firmly believe it. Well clearly your hearing is as good as your typing. Dingleberry, forgive my tiny phone keyboard. I see you can't spell either (in another thread). But, no, it give YOU ammo to attack since you have little else to offer. Many of those exact same tools are used today (sometimes exclusively) to master audio for CD or other digital results. Yes, today, not yesterday. If I had a DAW and a fast computer about the late 80's, I know I could have easily gained a million $ with superior sound quality. Sure DAWs offer a lot more versatility, range, and amounts of control, but in the end it's the person doing the job who gets to choose what they want to use, if the end result pleases whoever is paying the bills...... maybe occasionally with exceptions. But they can turn down the job if they feel artistically compromised. Very true, it's who's behind the keyboard that does make a difference. And, yes, you maybe be able to come close with analog electronics, but it would cost a small fortune. In the late 80's, people blindly put contents on CD. After, when they heard something, they jumped for joy, yelling, "Houston, we have noise!" Jack geoff |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
JackA wrote: "Very true, it's who's behind the keyboard that does make a difference. And, yes, you maybe be able to come
close with analog electronics, but it would cost a small fortune. In the late 80's, people blindly put contents on CD. After, when they heard something, they jumped for joy, yelling, "Houston, we have noise!" " Come on, for Chrissake! Those initial CDs didn't sound THAT awful! Sure, Vinyl master tapes(with the bottom rolled off to varying degrees) might have been the source, but seriously, we're not talking Edison cylinders here. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 11:16:46 PM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: "Very true, it's who's behind the keyboard that does make a difference. And, yes, you maybe be able to come close with analog electronics, but it would cost a small fortune. In the late 80's, people blindly put contents on CD. After, when they heard something, they jumped for joy, yelling, "Houston, we have noise!" " Come on, for Chrissake! Those initial CDs didn't sound THAT awful! Sure, Vinyl master tapes(with the bottom rolled off to varying degrees) might have been the source, but seriously, we're not talking Edison cylinders here. No, they weren't that awful, but a far cry competing with vinyl. At least I found on my own, it more or less had to do with a couple different Sony PCM machines. It seems most were concerned about distortion, and used conservative settings of those machines. But, then there's an issue with bass and/or equalization. Seems most didn't have tools to do any correcting. I have to agree with Scott's phrase, "tape jockies", about all the were. No "real" engineers, just average Joes. Jack |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
JackA: "But, then there's an issue with bass and/or equalization. Seems most didn't have tools to do any correcting. I
have to agree with Scott's phrase, "tape jockies", about all the were. No "real" engineers, just average Joes. " What sort of correcting do you, JackA, suggest might have been needed on those early analog to digital to CD transfers? Conservative EQ to restore bass lobbed off for transfer originally to vinyl, left-to-right channel balance, or, something else? |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On 15/02/2016 5:30 PM, JackA wrote:
On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 11:16:46 PM UTC-5, wrote: JackA wrote: "Very true, it's who's behind the keyboard that does make a difference. And, yes, you maybe be able to come close with analog electronics, but it would cost a small fortune. In the late 80's, people blindly put contents on CD. After, when they heard something, they jumped for joy, yelling, "Houston, we have noise!" " Come on, for Chrissake! Those initial CDs didn't sound THAT awful! Sure, Vinyl master tapes(with the bottom rolled off to varying degrees) might have been the source, but seriously, we're not talking Edison cylinders here. Many sounded (and sound) fantastic. No, they weren't that awful, but a far cry competing with vinyl. At least I found on my own, it more or less had to do with a couple different Sony PCM machines. It seems most were concerned about distortion, and used conservative settings of those machines. No. But, then there's an issue with bass and/or equalization. Seems most didn't have tools to do any correcting. I have to agree with Scott's phrase, "tape jockies", about all the were. No "real" engineers, just average Joes. Of course adequate tools existed - none of it is rocket-surgery ! The problem was the rush to simply get stuff out asap. geoff |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 12:03:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA: "But, then there's an issue with bass and/or equalization. Seems most didn't have tools to do any correcting. I have to agree with Scott's phrase, "tape jockies", about all the were. No "real" engineers, just average Joes. " What sort of correcting do you, JackA, suggest might have been needed on those early analog to digital to CD transfers? Conservative EQ to restore bass lobbed off for transfer originally to vinyl, left-to-right channel balance, or, something else? No, I'm doing the correcting on the audio they published. Allow me to explain: As found.... http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...atsamore-o.mp3 MANY CDs were like this (above), shy of dynamics. Buy any (past) MCA Vintage Music CDs, even the "masters" when mastered by the audiophile, Steve Hoffman, they sounded ill, why they are so cheap. Same song, but enhanced, even a touch of bass added, 1953 recording... http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...thatsamore.mp3 Any clearer to you yet? Remember, it is YOU PEOPLE who claim the person "mastering" (back in its day) had a lot of audio work to do! Jack |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:14:27 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/02/2016 05:03, wrote: JackA: "But, then there's an issue with bass and/or equalization. Seems most didn't have tools to do any correcting. I have to agree with Scott's phrase, "tape jockies", about all the were. No "real" engineers, just average Joes. " What sort of correcting do you, JackA, suggest might have been needed on those early analog to digital to CD transfers? Conservative EQ to restore bass lobbed off for transfer originally to vinyl, left-to-right channel balance, or, something else? Going by the stuff he's posted here, a massive 3kHz boost. Ha!! Anther jealous usenet person. Join the gang. Jack -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 1:34:15 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 15/02/2016 5:30 PM, JackA wrote: On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 11:16:46 PM UTC-5, wrote: JackA wrote: "Very true, it's who's behind the keyboard that does make a difference. And, yes, you maybe be able to come close with analog electronics, but it would cost a small fortune. In the late 80's, people blindly put contents on CD. After, when they heard something, they jumped for joy, yelling, "Houston, we have noise!" " Come on, for Chrissake! Those initial CDs didn't sound THAT awful! Sure, Vinyl master tapes(with the bottom rolled off to varying degrees) might have been the source, but seriously, we're not talking Edison cylinders here. Many sounded (and sound) fantastic. No, they weren't that awful, but a far cry competing with vinyl. At least I found on my own, it more or less had to do with a couple different Sony PCM machines. It seems most were concerned about distortion, and used conservative settings of those machines. No. But, then there's an issue with bass and/or equalization. Seems most didn't have tools to do any correcting. I have to agree with Scott's phrase, "tape jockies", about all the were. No "real" engineers, just average Joes. Of course adequate tools existed - none of it is rocket-surgery ! The problem was the rush to simply get stuff out asap. Funny!!! Jack geoff |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
JackA wrote: "MANY CDs were like this (above), shy of dynamics. Buy.."
The SOURCE was "shy of dynamics", not the CD format. CD can take anything that's thrown at it - a One Direction dial-tone, or a Chesky Records compilation CD(something you should avail yourself of so you can learn what a good recording sounds like). |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 9:14:44 AM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: "MANY CDs were like this (above), shy of dynamics. Buy.." The SOURCE was "shy of dynamics", not the CD format. I see. That's why EMI was quick to correct these "EMI Legendary Masters" series of CDs. That's why you can find Remaster after Remaster, because the source was the problem. Let's get real! CD can take anything that's thrown at it - a One Direction dial-tone, or a Chesky Records compilation CD(something you should avail yourself of so you can learn what a good recording sounds like). As I feel, 15% of people KNOW decent sound quality. Next! Jack |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
JackA wrote: "That's why you can find Remaster after Remaster, because the source was the problem. "
No, you find "Remaster after Remaster" because it MAKES MONEY. Learn! |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 9:33:33 AM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: "That's why you can find Remaster after Remaster, because the source was the problem. " No, you find "Remaster after Remaster" because it MAKES MONEY. Learn! "Now mastering began to evolve into the digital state as we know it today. In the first half of 1995, MP3s began to spread on the Internet and their small file size set about revolution in the music industry that continues to this day. This meant that the mastering engineer had to become well versed in how to get the most from this format, something that took many mastering engineers years to get the hang of". What that says is, you're wrong! Jack |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 1:34:15 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 15/02/2016 5:30 PM, JackA wrote: On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 11:16:46 PM UTC-5, wrote: JackA wrote: "Very true, it's who's behind the keyboard that does make a difference. And, yes, you maybe be able to come close with analog electronics, but it would cost a small fortune. In the late 80's, people blindly put contents on CD. After, when they heard something, they jumped for joy, yelling, "Houston, we have noise!" " Come on, for Chrissake! Those initial CDs didn't sound THAT awful! Sure, Vinyl master tapes(with the bottom rolled off to varying degrees) might have been the source, but seriously, we're not talking Edison cylinders here. Many sounded (and sound) fantastic. No, they weren't that awful, but a far cry competing with vinyl. At least I found on my own, it more or less had to do with a couple different Sony PCM machines. It seems most were concerned about distortion, and used conservative settings of those machines. No. Yes.... "With the introduction of the CD in 1982, the cutting engineer was now finally known as a mastering engineer was forced into the digital age using a modified video tape recorder called the Sony 1630 to deliver a digital CD master to the replicator, but still utilizing many of the analog tools from the vinyl past from EQ and compression. The 1989 introduction of the Sonic Solutions Digital Audio Workstation with pre-mastering software provided a CD master instead of a bulky 1630". Jack But, then there's an issue with bass and/or equalization. Seems most didn't have tools to do any correcting. I have to agree with Scott's phrase, "tape jockies", about all the were. No "real" engineers, just average Joes. Of course adequate tools existed - none of it is rocket-surgery ! The problem was the rush to simply get stuff out asap. geoff |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On 15/02/2016 14:48, JackA wrote:
"Now mastering began to evolve into the digital state as we know it today. In the first half of 1995, MP3s began to spread on the Internet and their small file size set about revolution in the music industry that continues to this day. This meant that the mastering engineer had to become well versed in how to get the most from this format, something that took many mastering engineers years to get the hang of". What that says is, you're wrong! No, what that says is that mp3 is a lossy format that requires care when mastering to live within its limitations, just as vinyl and analogue tape do. If I want a CD to sound exactly the same as vinyl or analogue tape, all I need is a decent playback machine and a good ADC. The result will sound exactly the same as the original. If I use minimal processing for removal of hiss, clicks, tape flutter and turntable rumble from a good quality master, it can sound better, but it will never sound as accurate as a purely digital recording. If I want an mp3 to sound as good as a vinyl disc, then I need to get very clever with the mp3 encoder parameters and other mastering processes to get the best sound possible. 128kbps mp3 was originally meant to be about the same apparent quality as cassette tape on spoken word recordings. As time has gone on and storage has got cheaper, very good results are possible using 320kbps files. Better results at the same bit rate can be got using other types of perceptual encoding, but then you get compatibility problems with consumer playback equipment, which almost all has mp3 decoding hard coded, and some of which can't even handle a .wav file. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:07:31 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/02/2016 14:48, JackA wrote: "Now mastering began to evolve into the digital state as we know it today. In the first half of 1995, MP3s began to spread on the Internet and their small file size set about revolution in the music industry that continues to this day. This meant that the mastering engineer had to become well versed in how to get the most from this format, something that took many mastering engineers years to get the hang of". What that says is, you're wrong! No, what that says is that mp3 is a lossy format that requires care when mastering to live within its limitations, just as vinyl and analogue tape do. I feel they mean a digital format. If I want a CD to sound exactly the same as vinyl or analogue tape, all I need is a decent playback machine and a good ADC. The result will sound exactly the same as the original. If I use minimal processing for removal of hiss, clicks, tape flutter and turntable rumble from a good quality master, it can sound better, but it will never sound as accurate as a purely digital recording. If I want an mp3 to sound as good as a vinyl disc, then I need to get very clever with the mp3 encoder parameters and other mastering processes to get the best sound possible. 128kbps mp3 was originally meant to be about the same apparent quality as cassette tape on spoken word recordings. As time has gone on and storage has got cheaper, very good results are possible using 320kbps files. Better results at the same bit rate can be got using other types of perceptual encoding, but then you get compatibility problems with consumer playback equipment, which almost all has mp3 decoding hard coded, and some of which can't even handle a .wav file. Knowing HOW slow it took to make a 128kbps MP3, I say that was the primary cause of this 128k bitrate. You say Vocals, this person can't hear much difference!... http://forums.winamp.com/archive/ind.../t-229919.html I opted 160k, because it's tough to notice much difference, even 320k! I don't believe your ears or my ears can detect minor amounts of distortion.. Jack -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On 15/02/2016 15:41, JackA wrote:
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:07:31 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote: Knowing HOW slow it took to make a 128kbps MP3, I say that was the primary cause of this 128k bitrate. At the time, it was the best compromise available between quality and transmission bitrate, as the Fraunhofer coding was originally developed for phone companies to use on their (Then cutting edge) systems. At the time, it was the highest bitrate that could be converted in real time, if I remember correctly. You say Vocals, this person can't hear much difference!... http://forums.winamp.com/archive/ind.../t-229919.html I opted 160k, because it's tough to notice much difference, even 320k! I don't believe your ears or my ears can detect minor amounts of distortion. I can tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and CD playback with close to 100% accuracy, even on a laptop using decent headphones. So can a number of people I've tried the experiment on. 160kbps stands out like a very sore thumb in this context. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
John Williamson wrote:
On 15/02/2016 15:41, JackA wrote: On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:07:31 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote: Knowing HOW slow it took to make a 128kbps MP3, I say that was the primary cause of this 128k bitrate. At the time, it was the best compromise available between quality and transmission bitrate, as the Fraunhofer coding was originally developed for phone companies to use on their (Then cutting edge) systems. At the time, it was the highest bitrate that could be converted in real time, if I remember correctly. You say Vocals, this person can't hear much difference!... http://forums.winamp.com/archive/ind.../t-229919.html I opted 160k, because it's tough to notice much difference, even 320k! I don't believe your ears or my ears can detect minor amounts of distortion. I can tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and CD playback with close to 100% accuracy, even on a laptop using decent headphones. I find that reasonably hard to believe. So can a number of people I've tried the experiment on. This too. Are you sure you're doing all the experimental cue control properly? No Clever Hans effect*? *where people get tells from how the experiment is carried out. 160kbps stands out like a very sore thumb in this context. It's certainly different. -- Les Cargill |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On 16/02/2016 3:20 AM, JackA wrote:
As I feel, 15% of people KNOW decent sound quality. Get something decent to listen on, and maybe even you too can approach being one of those 15%. geoff |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On 16/02/2016 4:41 AM, JackA wrote:
Knowing HOW slow it took to make a 128kbps MP3, I say that was the primary cause of this 128k bitrate. Slow ? A typical song should take far less than a minute. Even 10 years ago. I don't believe your ears or my ears can detect minor amounts of distortion. Especially on playback equipment that masks it. But can far more easily detect missing detail, frequencies (esp upper mid and high) , and bizarre 'phasing' effects. geoff |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ohm Walsh speakers | Audio Opinions | |||
Ohm's With the Walsh Driver | Tech | |||
Ohm's With the Walsh Driver | Pro Audio | |||
Ohm's With the Walsh Driver | Pro Audio | |||
WTB: Ohm Walsh F | Marketplace |