[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:40:17 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:26:25 -0800, Steven Sullivan
wrote

And there is rock that does the same. But either way,
Arny used the word 'most'. Most classical music does
not consist of a series of pppp ffff transitions,
right?

Doesn't matter. MP3 processing generally does an excellent job of
reproducing pppp ffff transitions. Heck, even vinyl does if you don't exceed
its limited dynamic range. BTW, high bitrate MP3 is ever so much more
sonically accurate than vinyl.

No, but that's where the MP3 artifacts are particularly
noticeable.

Not really.

Agreed. I sense some confusion - some people may think that since we call
MP3s "Compressed files" that there is some dynamics compression going on in
the same sense as there is with analog signal processing.

Again, have you actually discussed this with people who
develop mp3s?

Not really needed as there have been so many articles written about how MP3
coding works, and at many technical levels. It's just a matter of keeping up
with one's reading!

WHy don't you go hang out on www.hydrogenaudio.org
for a week, ask a few pertinent question of the MP3
codec *developers* and *testers* that frequent the
place -- the people who actually 'know' mp3 inside and
out -- and thus educate yourself?

Good idea. A wide range of levels of levels of expertise are represented
there, but no error goes unanswered very long.

I know what I hear and I can hear MP3 compression
artifacts often, especially on decent headphones.

True for low-bitrate MP3s, not true for high-bitrate MP3s. 128 kbps is sort
of the cusp.

Therefore I don't use it. All the
music on my iPOD is ALC

ALC??? Perhaps you meant AAC?

and I see no reason and have no
motivation to try MP3 merely because it's
the "popular" thing to do.

If you really meant AAC, then using AAC is a good idea, but AAC is still a
compressed file format. I believe the uncompressed file format for the iPod
is AIF.

People often think they 'know what they hear' by such
methods.

Time and again, they're wrong.

Sighted listening evalutations are in a similar class as public opinion
surveys.

I'd bet good money thyat I could make mp3s of symphonic
music that you'd be unable to tell from source.

Very likely. Symphonic music is as a rule, easy to compress.

Why is this so important to you?

Because we think that being accountable for what is said is important.

I've chosen loss-less
compression for my iPod

AAC?

and most of the time I listen to
uncompressed audio via PCM or DSD or LP.

If you don't like compressed audio, stay away from broadcast audio of any
kind, and stay away from video of just about any kind, real time or
recorded. If it wasn't already compressed in the camera, it probably got
compressed in the radio link.

Let's talk about some other topic.

Is there a problem with discussing modern technology?

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

vlad wrote:

Yes, I am forced to use iTunes. That is because iPod
does not talk to WinAmp. iTunes is a dreadful
application with inconsistent GUI and unrelayble ripper.
It does not tolerate anyhting running on a computer when
ripping CD's.

FWIW, you certainly can rip CDs, and lossy encode them,
with software other than itunes, and then load them onto
your ipod. I rip with EAC, encode with LAME, and drag
and drop the resulting mp3s into itunes to load them into
my ipod.

My Nomad Jukebox was almost entirely loaded with .wav files. Once available
space gets up over about 5 GB, there's no problem loading enough
uncompressed files to get through several days of listening.

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:48:54 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 25, 10:52 pm, Sonnova wrote:

No, I was chiding you for your PC comment about elitism. As someone else
pointed out, this group is about elitism. That's why its called
rec.audio.HIGH-END.

No, this group is not about elitism. There are people who would like
it to be, but they are, thankfully, in the minority. This group is
about high-quality sound reproduction, with "high quality" broadly
defined. Elitist know-nothings and knowledgeable commoners are equally
welcome here.

bob

You misunderstand. The concept of High-End audio is what is elitist, not
the
people talking about it.

"High-End" anything are businesses steeped in smugness. Enter a high-end
emporium; being smug along with what you're packing in your wallet is all
that matters. Two quotes which stick in my mind; one overheard made by a
salesman to a customer who asked why a particular cable was so costly:
"these cables are too good for you", and another a while back made to one
of my sons when he asked what he had available to replace his old simple
Carver amp: "I have two words for you, The Wiz".

[Steven Sullivan]

Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:40:17 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:26:25 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
And there is rock that does the same. But either way, Arny used the word
'most'. Most classical music does not consist of a series of pppp ffff
transitions, right?

No, but that's where the MP3 artifacts are particularly noticeable.

Not really.

Again, have you actually discussed this with people who develop
mp3s?


WHy don't you go hang out on www.hydrogenaudio.org
for a week, ask a few pertinent question of the MP3 codec *developers*
and *testers* that frequent the place -- the people who actually
'know' mp3 inside and out -- and thus educate yourself?

I know what I hear and I can hear MP3 compression artifacts often,
especially
on decent headphones. Therefore I don't use it. All the music on my iPOD is
ALC and I see no reason and have no motivation to try MP3 merely because
it's
the "popular" thing to do.

People often think they 'know what they hear' by such methods.

Time and again, they're wrong.

I'd bet good money thyat I could make mp3s of symphonic music that
you'd be unable to tell from source.

Why is this so important to you?

That's not an answer. Why do you keep making dubious claims about mp3s?

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

[Steven Sullivan]

Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:47:09 -0800, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ):

On 25 Nov 2007 21:28:11 GMT, vlad wrote:

But my goal is not Ipod. I consider it as a secondary device. I am
putting my collection on a music server. I also routed three audio
systems in my house to this server using SONOS (sorry for blatant
advertising :-) boxes. So now with couple clicks on my remote control
I can listen any CD from my music collection instantly. Even on my
music server there is a huge difference between backing up 40g or
200G. So compression is reasonable even on my music server.


For a home-based, hard-disk-based music server, personally I'd go for
a lossless format, particularly when a 500Gb USB hard drive costs a
mere 60 UK pounds. I use iTunes and ALC. I suspect if Apple tried to
replace ALC at some point in the future they'd have a rebellion on
their hands so I'd suggest it's a pretty unlikely scenario.

You bet they would have a rebellion on their hands.

They needn't replace ALAC, but they could add more lossless compressed
format compatibility. (Though actually FLAC is already 'compatible'
with the ipod if you use software other than Apple's, i.e., Rockbox.)


The advantage of a lossless codec is at least you know that what
you're playing back is bit-wise identical to the source. If I
continue to improve my playback hardware, there's at least the
potential that I'll be progressively hearing closer to the original
with each upgrade, unhindered by any potential losses introduced by my
storage medium (well I can live in hope can't i? ;-).

As to back-up, what I do is to use a utility that will allow
incremental backup. I have a second hard-drive, identical to the one
that's in daily use, and I use something called Second Copy
(www.secondcopy.com) which I've found to be very simple to set up and
quick and simple to use. With a utility like this, each time you back
up, you'll only be copying anything that's new rather than the whole
drive every time. So within a few minutes I can have an identical and
up to date standby copy of my iTunes library.

By the way, although I use a Mac Mini + iTunes for playback, I back up
the hard drive using a PC because I didn't manage to find an
equivalent to Second Copy for the Mac. However, that's probably
because I'm not that au fait with what's available for the Mac, and
maybe there's something just as good out there. Anyway, one advantage
of USB hard-drives: you can move them freely about between computers
and use whatever's the most readily available tool for the job.

Have you tried SuperDuper?

http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDup...scription.html

I'd guess with a proprietary music server your choices become somewhat
more limited. Personally I like the freedom of choice that rolling
you own using PCs or Macs gives you.

One last thought - wouldn't it be nice if they added an SP/DIF
Mini-TosLink output to the iPod for playback via your favourite DAC?

YES! You can get one added to your iPod by MSB (apparently it uses some
un-assigned pins in the iPod's docking connector). Unfortunately, you have to
buy their iLink digital dock for US$2,000 (includes modification of one
iPod) but the thing outputs TOSLINK optical "RCA" co-axial or AES/EBU via
XLR.

For much less than that you could buy an AVR that has an ipod dock.

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

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message

Therefore I don't use it. All the
music on my iPOD is ALC

ALC??? Perhaps you meant AAC?

He means ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec)

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

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:21:50 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:40:17 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:26:25 -0800, Steven Sullivan
wrote

And there is rock that does the same. But either way,
Arny used the word 'most'. Most classical music does
not consist of a series of pppp ffff transitions,
right?

Doesn't matter. MP3 processing generally does an excellent job of
reproducing pppp ffff transitions. Heck, even vinyl does if you don't exceed
its limited dynamic range. BTW, high bitrate MP3 is ever so much more
sonically accurate than vinyl.

No, but that's where the MP3 artifacts are particularly
noticeable.

Not really.

Agreed. I sense some confusion - some people may think that since we call
MP3s "Compressed files" that there is some dynamics compression going on in
the same sense as there is with analog signal processing.

Again, have you actually discussed this with people who
develop mp3s?

Not really needed as there have been so many articles written about how MP3
coding works, and at many technical levels. It's just a matter of keeping up
with one's reading!

WHy don't you go hang out on www.hydrogenaudio.org
for a week, ask a few pertinent question of the MP3
codec *developers* and *testers* that frequent the
place -- the people who actually 'know' mp3 inside and
out -- and thus educate yourself?

Good idea. A wide range of levels of levels of expertise are represented
there, but no error goes unanswered very long.

I know what I hear and I can hear MP3 compression
artifacts often, especially on decent headphones.

True for low-bitrate MP3s, not true for high-bitrate MP3s. 128 kbps is sort
of the cusp.

Therefore I don't use it. All the
music on my iPOD is ALC

ALC??? Perhaps you meant AAC?

Apple Lossless Compression. Not the same thing as AAC. iTunes gives one the
choice of either.

and I see no reason and have no
motivation to try MP3 merely because it's
the "popular" thing to do.

If you really meant AAC, then using AAC is a good idea, but AAC is still a
compressed file format. I believe the uncompressed file format for the iPod
is AIF.

People often think they 'know what they hear' by such
methods.

Time and again, they're wrong.

Sighted listening evalutations are in a similar class as public opinion
surveys.

I'd bet good money thyat I could make mp3s of symphonic
music that you'd be unable to tell from source.

Very likely. Symphonic music is as a rule, easy to compress.

Why is this so important to you?

Because we think that being accountable for what is said is important.

I've chosen loss-less
compression for my iPod

AAC?

ALC!

and most of the time I listen to
uncompressed audio via PCM or DSD or LP.

If you don't like compressed audio, stay away from broadcast audio of any
kind, and stay away from video of just about any kind, real time or
recorded. If it wasn't already compressed in the camera, it probably got
compressed in the radio link.

In video, the eye is the dominant sensory input and the ear takes a back
seat. I don't notice the compression artifacts in a movie or TV show because
I'm focused on the story not the sound. I don't listen to much radio - mostly
because there's nothing much worth listening to on the air these days. I
have Sirius radio on my satellite system and XM in the car. But in the car,
the background noise level is so high that any subtlety is lost anyway, so I
don't notice artifacts. Things seem to be wither black or white to you.


Let's talk about some other topic.

Is there a problem with discussing modern technology?

No, But we're just covering the same ground over and over again, it seems.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:26:45 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:40:17 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:26:25 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
And there is rock that does the same. But either way, Arny used the
word
'most'. Most classical music does not consist of a series of pppp ffff
transitions, right?

No, but that's where the MP3 artifacts are particularly noticeable.

Not really.

Again, have you actually discussed this with people who develop
mp3s?


WHy don't you go hang out on www.hydrogenaudio.org
for a week, ask a few pertinent question of the MP3 codec *developers*
and *testers* that frequent the place -- the people who actually
'know' mp3 inside and out -- and thus educate yourself?

I know what I hear and I can hear MP3 compression artifacts often,
especially
on decent headphones. Therefore I don't use it. All the music on my iPOD
is
ALC and I see no reason and have no motivation to try MP3 merely because
it's
the "popular" thing to do.

People often think they 'know what they hear' by such methods.

Time and again, they're wrong.

I'd bet good money thyat I could make mp3s of symphonic music that
you'd be unable to tell from source.

Why is this so important to you?

That's not an answer. Why do you keep making dubious claims about mp3s?

I guess because they aren't dubious to me.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:26:14 -0800, Norman M. Schwartz wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:48:54 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 25, 10:52 pm, Sonnova wrote:

No, I was chiding you for your PC comment about elitism. As someone else
pointed out, this group is about elitism. That's why its called
rec.audio.HIGH-END.

No, this group is not about elitism. There are people who would like
it to be, but they are, thankfully, in the minority. This group is
about high-quality sound reproduction, with "high quality" broadly
defined. Elitist know-nothings and knowledgeable commoners are equally
welcome here.

bob

You misunderstand. The concept of High-End audio is what is elitist, not
the
people talking about it.


"High-End" anything are businesses steeped in smugness.

Well, yeah!

Enter a high-end emporium; being smug along with what you're packing in your
wallet is all
that matters.

You are quite correct. If the sales guy can get away with selling you 2 -
15ft lengths (four for 'bi-wiring') of speaker cable that costs 20 grand,
he'll certainly do it and then turn around and sell you a set of ceramic
'elevators' to keep those expensive cables off of the floor. The fact that
you, the buyer, probably couldn't tell the difference in a double-blind ABX
test between those $20K cables and a couple of lengths of 16 GA lamp cord
doesn't bother that salesman in the least.

There are many scams out there designed to rob the unwary of their money but
most are illegal. Take something "esoteric" like hi-end audio and add a group
of neurotic compulsive-obsessive audiophiles. and its literally a legal
license to steal. Nowhere does the Latin phrase Caveat Emptor have more
meaning.

Two quotes which stick in my mind; one overheard made by a
salesman to a customer who asked why a particular cable was so costly:
"these cables are too good for you", and another a while back made to one
of my sons when he asked what he had available to replace his old simple
Carver amp: "I have two words for you, The Wiz".

UH-HUH!

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:27:21 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:47:09 -0800, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ):

On 25 Nov 2007 21:28:11 GMT, vlad wrote:

But my goal is not Ipod. I consider it as a secondary device. I am
putting my collection on a music server. I also routed three audio
systems in my house to this server using SONOS (sorry for blatant
advertising :-) boxes. So now with couple clicks on my remote control
I can listen any CD from my music collection instantly. Even on my
music server there is a huge difference between backing up 40g or
200G. So compression is reasonable even on my music server.


For a home-based, hard-disk-based music server, personally I'd go for
a lossless format, particularly when a 500Gb USB hard drive costs a
mere 60 UK pounds. I use iTunes and ALC. I suspect if Apple tried to
replace ALC at some point in the future they'd have a rebellion on
their hands so I'd suggest it's a pretty unlikely scenario.

You bet they would have a rebellion on their hands.

They needn't replace ALAC, but they could add more lossless compressed
format compatibility. (Though actually FLAC is already 'compatible'
with the ipod if you use software other than Apple's, i.e., Rockbox.)


The advantage of a lossless codec is at least you know that what
you're playing back is bit-wise identical to the source. If I
continue to improve my playback hardware, there's at least the
potential that I'll be progressively hearing closer to the original
with each upgrade, unhindered by any potential losses introduced by my
storage medium (well I can live in hope can't i? ;-).

As to back-up, what I do is to use a utility that will allow
incremental backup. I have a second hard-drive, identical to the one
that's in daily use, and I use something called Second Copy
(www.secondcopy.com) which I've found to be very simple to set up and
quick and simple to use. With a utility like this, each time you back
up, you'll only be copying anything that's new rather than the whole
drive every time. So within a few minutes I can have an identical and
up to date standby copy of my iTunes library.

By the way, although I use a Mac Mini + iTunes for playback, I back up
the hard drive using a PC because I didn't manage to find an
equivalent to Second Copy for the Mac. However, that's probably
because I'm not that au fait with what's available for the Mac, and
maybe there's something just as good out there. Anyway, one advantage
of USB hard-drives: you can move them freely about between computers
and use whatever's the most readily available tool for the job.

Have you tried SuperDuper?

http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDup...scription.html

I'd guess with a proprietary music server your choices become somewhat
more limited. Personally I like the freedom of choice that rolling
you own using PCs or Macs gives you.

One last thought - wouldn't it be nice if they added an SP/DIF
Mini-TosLink output to the iPod for playback via your favourite DAC?

YES! You can get one added to your iPod by MSB (apparently it uses some
un-assigned pins in the iPod's docking connector). Unfortunately, you have
to
buy their iLink digital dock for US$2,000 (includes modification of one
iPod) but the thing outputs TOSLINK optical "RCA" co-axial or AES/EBU via
XLR.

For much less than that you could buy an AVR that has an ipod dock.

That's not the point. The MSB iLink outputs a digital stream, while a regular
iPod dock is analog. The whole idea is to play back your ALC/ACC files
through a better-than-stock DAC. Also, iLink lets you hold the ipod in your
hand and wirelessly send the digital bitstream to the iLink where it can be
routed via TOSLINK, coax, or AES/EBU to a high end DAC, for the ultimate in
audio couch-potato-ism :-

Were it cheaper. I'd have one myself.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:16:40 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:15:22 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article
) :

Unh, just as we misinterpreted your claim that more
turntables are being sold, when in fact you mistakenly
dropped out the qualifier that it was brands and models
that you were talking about. I'm not sure I even buy
that, because in the day when the LP was all we had,
everybody and their brother were making turntables.

I SAID high-end turntables.

Well, very many of these turntables were high end, for those days.

Of course there were more
different brands of direct-drive junk and record
changers, but that's not what I'm talking about (as I
have already pointed out).

There was a time when certain better-made record changers were properly
considered to be high end because of the great inconvenience (listenus
interruptus) that they helped music lovers avoid. For example, the
Fisher-Lincoln record changer was considered to be high end in its day. So
was the Garrard Model 88, in its day.


I don't remember any record changer being considered "high-end" back in the
fifties. Certainly, the Garrard 88 and then the "Type-A" automatic turntable
were considered the king of the record changers - mostly because they had
four-pole motors and the Type-A had a heavy, machined platter and a
dynamically balanced arm, but nobody I knew considered them the creme de la
creme. The term high-end wasn't even coined until the tube backlash of the
late 60's and early seventies came along. I think Harry Pearson coined it,
but I could be wrong. The turntables that we lusted after when I was a lad
were the belt-drive Rek-O-Cuts, the Empire 308, (still a very aesthetically
pretty record deck. I remember an audio salon in my area that had an Empire
308 with a walnut Grado tonearm mounted on it, I still think it's the
prettiest record player I've ever seen) and the Weathers turntable with it's
tiny clock-motors and and FM pick-up was also considered quite good - there
may have been one or two more.

[Doug McDonald]

vlad wrote:
iTunes is a dreadful application with inconsistent GUI and
unrelayble ripper. It does not tolerate anyhting running on a computer
when ripping CD's. It creates skips even in your beloved ACC tracks if
it is not alone on the computer. Another thing: last Friday I tried to
move my music library to another hard drive. Simple file copy did not
work. iTunes did not recognize it. Keep in mind I know how to change
library's directory in iTunes. Move had to be done by iTunes. iTunes
lost half of the library (18G of data) in this move.

It certainly works for me after a copy of my files to a new place. Tje
other complaints are very true. It's badly written, typical for Apple.

You do have to learn how to use it when moving files ... its very oddball.
If you moves a whole iTunes directory .. not just "iTunes music" it
all works. You have to move all the auxiliary index files!

Doug McDonald

[---MIKE---]

Speaking of dynamic range in symphonic music ranging from PPPP to FFFF,
this is too much for home listening. I have a few SACDs (BIS label)
that have much to much dynamic range. The soft sections are inaudible
and then the loud sections are too loud. They should have used some
dynamic compression in mastering these discs. (The discs in question
are the Beethoven symphonies with the Minnesota Orchestra).

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[MINe109]

On Nov 25, 3:36 pm, vlad wrote:
On Nov 25, 9:05 am, Jenn wrote:

On Nov 24, 8:22 pm, vlad wrote:

snip

Before that if I wanted to listen
some obscure recording of Samuel Barber,

I'm sure you mean "of music of Samuel Barber" as Barber didn't make
recordings himself, AFAIK ;-)

you are right.

No, as a pianist he recorded a program of songs with a young Leontyne
Price.

Stephen

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:07:54 -0800, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ):

vlad wrote:
iTunes is a dreadful application with inconsistent GUI and
unrelayble ripper. It does not tolerate anyhting running on a computer
when ripping CD's. It creates skips even in your beloved ACC tracks if
it is not alone on the computer. Another thing: last Friday I tried to
move my music library to another hard drive. Simple file copy did not
work. iTunes did not recognize it. Keep in mind I know how to change
library's directory in iTunes. Move had to be done by iTunes. iTunes
lost half of the library (18G of data) in this move.

It certainly works for me after a copy of my files to a new place. Tje
other complaints are very true. It's badly written, typical for Apple.

I generally find Apple software to be much better than average. I haven't
ever used iTunes for Windows. Is it significantly different from iTunes for
OSX? Because I find that version excellent.

You do have to learn how to use it when moving files ... its very oddball.
If you moves a whole iTunes directory .. not just "iTunes music" it
all works. You have to move all the auxiliary index files!

Doug McDonald

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:37:09 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message

Therefore I don't use it. All the
music on my iPOD is ALC

ALC??? Perhaps you meant AAC?

He means ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec)

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

Actually, Apple calls it the Apple Lossless Encoder in iTunes, But most just
call it ALC.

[Steven Sullivan]

Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:37:09 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message

Therefore I don't use it. All the
music on my iPOD is ALC

ALC??? Perhaps you meant AAC?

He means ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec)

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

Actually, Apple calls it the Apple Lossless Encoder in iTunes, But most just

ALAC or ALE are the 'official' names. Most forums I frequent call it
ALAC.

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:37:09 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message

Therefore I don't use it. All the
music on my iPOD is ALC

ALC??? Perhaps you meant AAC?

He means ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec)

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

Actually, Apple calls it the Apple Lossless Encoder in
iTunes, But most just call it ALC.

I searched on ALC and came up dry. The ALC coder references were not to
audio encoders. ALAC produced thousands of relevant hits.

[Arny Krueger]

"---MIKE---" wrote in message


Speaking of dynamic range in symphonic music ranging from
PPPP to FFFF, this is too much for home listening. I
have a few SACDs (BIS label) that have much to much
dynamic range. The soft sections are inaudible and
then the loud sections are too loud. They should have
used some dynamic compression in mastering these discs.
(The discs in question are the Beethoven symphonies with
the Minnesota Orchestra).

Your problem is the limited dynamic range of your listening environment. I'd
be interested in the label, as I collect recordings with exceptional dynamic
range and I do have a SACD player.

The problem of recordings with more dynamic range than is practical for many
listeners has been around for a long time. The current trend towards
hypercompressed recordings relates to it.

We are probably pretty close to the point where reasonably fancy dynamics
processing can be encapsulated in a cheap IC or program code, embedded in
commodity players, and sold on the mass-market so that recordings with
excpetional dynamic range can be tailored to the listening environment at
playback time.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:16:40 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

There was a time when certain better-made record
changers were properly considered to be high end because
of the great inconvenience (listenus interruptus) that
they helped music lovers avoid. For example, the
Fisher-Lincoln record changer was considered to be high
end in its day. So was the Garrard Model 88, in its day.

I don't remember any record changer being considered
"high-end" back in the fifties. Certainly, the Garrard 88
and then the "Type-A" automatic turntable were considered
the king of the record changers - mostly because they had
four-pole motors and the Type-A had a heavy, machined
platter and a dynamically balanced arm, but nobody I knew
considered them the creme de la creme.

The Type-A was a creature of the mid-60s and has no place in a discussion of
changers in the 50s. Therefore the comments above are out of time and in
error. The Garrard 88 had a changing position in the audio market over its
relatively long life as a product.

The term high-end
wasn't even coined until the tube backlash of the late
60's and early seventies came along.

Actually, the term high end had been applied to all sort of things over the
years prior to the 70s, just not so much to audio.

I think Harry Pearson coined it, but I could be wrong.

Like I said, it was just another word related to the arts of sales and
marketing.

The turntables
that we lusted after when I was a lad were the belt-drive
Rek-O-Cuts, the Empire 308, (still a very aesthetically
pretty record deck.

My records show that the 308 was introduced in 1961, late 1960 at the
earliest. So again, this discussion is in the wrong decade.

I remember an audio salon in my area
that had an Empire 308 with a walnut Grado tonearm
mounted on it, I still think it's the prettiest record
player I've ever seen) and the Weathers turntable with
it's tiny clock-motors and and FM pick-up was also
considered quite good - there may have been one or two
more.

Only the weathers came from the 50s. It was never a high end product and
sold for a relatively cheap price, commensurate with its lightweight
construction.

[Doug McDonald]

Sonnova wrote:


In video, the eye is the dominant sensory input and the ear takes a back
seat. I don't notice the compression artifacts in a movie or TV show because
I'm focused on the story not the sound.

I certainly notice the video lossy compression artifacts. On
a scale of 1-10 (10 best) for video quality I rate over the air digital
variable from 5-9, Dish Network 2, DirectTV 1. On some rate
occasions with filmed material OTA ABC or Fox can be 10.

I would compare a 1 on this scale to MPEG 3 stereo at 32 kbps and
2 to MPEG 3 at 48 kbps, both chopped off at 4 to 6 kHz.

Doug McDonald

[Doug McDonald]

---MIKE--- wrote:
Speaking of dynamic range in symphonic music ranging from PPPP to FFFF,
this is too much for home listening. I have a few SACDs (BIS label)
that have much to much dynamic range. The soft sections are inaudible
and then the loud sections are too loud. They should have used some
dynamic compression in mastering these discs. (The discs in question
are the Beethoven symphonies with the Minnesota Orchestra).



NO!! You should do the compression yourself, and burn a CD of
the compressed material if you want a CD. That's what I do (though
I just use the compressed .wav or .mp3 files).

Doug McDonald

[Codifus]

On Nov 28, 10:41 pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:07:54 -0800, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ):

vlad wrote:
iTunes is a dreadful application with inconsistent GUI and
unrelayble ripper. It does not tolerate anyhting running on a computer
when ripping CD's. It creates skips even in your beloved ACC tracks if
it is not alone on the computer. Another thing: last Friday I tried to
move my music library to another hard drive. Simple file copy did not
work. iTunes did not recognize it. Keep in mind I know how to change
library's directory in iTunes. Move had to be done by iTunes. iTunes
lost half of the library (18G of data) in this move.

It certainly works for me after a copy of my files to a new place. Tje
other complaints are very true. It's badly written, typical for Apple.

I generally find Apple software to be much better than average. I haven't
ever used iTunes for Windows. Is it significantly different from iTunes for
OSX? Because I find that version excellent.



You do have to learn how to use it when moving files ... its very oddball.
If you moves a whole iTunes directory .. not just "iTunes music" it
all works. You have to move all the auxiliary index files!

Doug McDonald

I would expect so. Apple is bound to produce Windows software not as
well as on its own OSX software. I use iTunes 6. I tried iTunes 7 on
both Mac and PC, and yes, it has gotten quite bloated. Since I don't
own and iphone or the latest iPod, iTunes 6 is fine with me.

As for the interface, I find it to be simple and very effective.
What's to hate about it? Avoid the MP3 encoder built into itunes.
That's about it. AAC, ALC, WAV, AIF, yeah, it'll play them all, and
DRM is not the overblown issue that alot of users, most of which I
suspect never even used iTunes, harp about. DRM only put restrictions
on music files bought in the itunes store. That's it. If you make your
own AAC file, it's as free as an mp3.

I used to use Winamp 2 on Windows but needed more flexibilty. Also,
with Winamp 5 and later, the sound quality went down. Something to do
with Microsoft forcing Winamp 5+ and later to use different audio
drivers rather than hook directly into the Windows drivers. There are
workarounds like using foobar etc, but its a very clunky
implementation. I like to keep it simple so I can just enjoy the
music.

CD

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I think Harry Pearson coined it, but I could be wrong.

Like I said, it was just another word related to the arts of sales and
marketing.

Arny, Harry Pearson was an environmental reporter for the Newsday newspaper
before he started The Abs!ute Sound. He knew diddley about marketing at the
time and for quite a while thereafter.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:33:56 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:37:09 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message

Therefore I don't use it. All the
music on my iPOD is ALC

ALC??? Perhaps you meant AAC?

He means ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec)

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

Actually, Apple calls it the Apple Lossless Encoder in
iTunes, But most just call it ALC.

I searched on ALC and came up dry. The ALC coder references were not to
audio encoders. ALAC produced thousands of relevant hits.


Who cares! Apple calls the encoder the Apple Lossless Encoder, I call the
scheme Apple Lossless Compression. What the devil is the difference?

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:38:23 -0800, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ):

---MIKE--- wrote:
Speaking of dynamic range in symphonic music ranging from PPPP to FFFF,
this is too much for home listening. I have a few SACDs (BIS label)
that have much to much dynamic range. The soft sections are inaudible
and then the loud sections are too loud. They should have used some
dynamic compression in mastering these discs. (The discs in question
are the Beethoven symphonies with the Minnesota Orchestra).



NO!! You should do the compression yourself, and burn a CD of
the compressed material if you want a CD. That's what I do (though
I just use the compressed .wav or .mp3 files).

Doug McDonald

Actually, one could do that with a program like Audacity (free), couldn't
one? Good idea!

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I think Harry Pearson coined it, but I could be wrong.

Like I said, it was just another word related to the
arts of sales and marketing.

Arny, Harry Pearson was an environmental reporter for the
Newsday newspaper before he started The Abs!ute Sound.
He knew diddley about marketing at the time and for quite
a while thereafter.

The basic fallacy expressed here is the fallicy of the negative hypothesis.

I can't believe that anybody would seriously claim that Harry Pearson could
have never heard the phrase high end because he was a reporter for Newsday.

[Rob Tweed]

On 28 Nov 2007 23:44:07 GMT, Sonnova
wrote:

One last thought - wouldn't it be nice if they added an SP/DIF
Mini-TosLink output to the iPod for playback via your favourite DAC?

YES! You can get one added to your iPod by MSB (apparently it uses some
un-assigned pins in the iPod's docking connector). Unfortunately, you have
to
buy their iLink digital dock for US$2,000 (includes modification of one
iPod) but the thing outputs TOSLINK optical "RCA" co-axial or AES/EBU via
XLR.

For much less than that you could buy an AVR that has an ipod dock.

That's not the point. The MSB iLink outputs a digital stream, while a regular
iPod dock is analog. The whole idea is to play back your ALC/ACC files
through a better-than-stock DAC. Also, iLink lets you hold the ipod in your
hand and wirelessly send the digital bitstream to the iLink where it can be
routed via TOSLINK, coax, or AES/EBU to a high end DAC, for the ultimate in
audio couch-potato-ism :-

Were it cheaper. I'd have one myself.

If Apple built a digital interface into the iPod themselves, then I
might get an iPod myself! If I had 2k bucks to spend, I'm sure I'd
use it for something else rather than a modification of a device that
only cost a couple of hundred bucks in the first place.

Consider that a very cheap device such as the Edirol UA-1X USB digital
interface manages to provide a mini-Toslink-based SP/DIF interface,
doubling up with the headphone socket. It seems to me that Apple
ought to be able to do the same via the iPod's headphone socket
without much additional cost and without changing the physical
external layout. I'm surprised, in fact, that they haven't already
done so. Maybe they just haven't thought about it, in which case:
Steve Jobs remember you got the idea here, mate! :-)

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com

[---MIKE---]

Arny wrote: (regarding dynamic range)

Your problem is the limited dynamic
range of your listening environment.

I don't think this is the case. My room is 22' X 30' with an 18'
cathedral ceiling. I live in a very rural area with no outside sounds.
My main amp is an Apt 1 with 200 peak watts and I have 5 sub woofers!
The SACDs in question are just too extreme in dynamic range. If I turn
up the volume to hear the softest sections the loud sections are too
loud. Try the beginning of Beethoven's 4th symphony on the BIS SACD. I
wish a good compressor were available (I don't have a computer).

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[Doug McDonald]

codifus wrote:

As for the interface, I find it to be simple and very effective.
What's to hate about it?

Nothing if ALL you do is play music on the PC, as long as
you are willing put each and every file you want to
play in its "library". Other than that ... especially if
you have an iPod ..... it's a mess

Doug

[Doug McDonald]

Sonnova wrote:



NO!! You should do the compression yourself, and burn a CD of
the compressed material if you want a CD. That's what I do (though
I just use the compressed .wav or .mp3 files).

Doug McDonald

Actually, one could do that with a program like Audacity (free), couldn't
one? Good idea!

Yes, but Audacity's compressor is pretty lackluster. It
has no settable decay time unless "attack" means "decay".

My compressor uses a symmetric attack and delay, adjustable
from 5 dB sec down to .01 dB/sec.

Doug McDonald

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:34:03 -0800, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ):

On 28 Nov 2007 23:44:07 GMT, Sonnova
wrote:

One last thought - wouldn't it be nice if they added an SP/DIF
Mini-TosLink output to the iPod for playback via your favourite DAC?

YES! You can get one added to your iPod by MSB (apparently it uses some
un-assigned pins in the iPod's docking connector). Unfortunately, you
have
to
buy their iLink digital dock for US$2,000 (includes modification of one
iPod) but the thing outputs TOSLINK optical "RCA" co-axial or AES/EBU via
XLR.

For much less than that you could buy an AVR that has an ipod dock.

That's not the point. The MSB iLink outputs a digital stream, while a
regular
iPod dock is analog. The whole idea is to play back your ALC/ACC files
through a better-than-stock DAC. Also, iLink lets you hold the ipod in your
hand and wirelessly send the digital bitstream to the iLink where it can be
routed via TOSLINK, coax, or AES/EBU to a high end DAC, for the ultimate
in
audio couch-potato-ism :-

Were it cheaper. I'd have one myself.

If Apple built a digital interface into the iPod themselves, then I
might get an iPod myself! If I had 2k bucks to spend, I'm sure I'd
use it for something else rather than a modification of a device that
only cost a couple of hundred bucks in the first place.

Yeah, but that's not all it does. The iLink is also a dock and a wireless
receiver. One's no good without the other

Consider that a very cheap device such as the Edirol UA-1X USB digital
interface manages to provide a mini-Toslink-based SP/DIF interface,
doubling up with the headphone socket. It seems to me that Apple
ought to be able to do the same via the iPod's headphone socket
without much additional cost and without changing the physical
external layout. I'm surprised, in fact, that they haven't already
done so. Maybe they just haven't thought about it, in which case:
Steve Jobs remember you got the idea here, mate! :-)

Oh, I agree. I suspect that it has something to do with the whole anti-piracy
thing.

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:40:22 -0800, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:



NO!! You should do the compression yourself, and burn a CD of
the compressed material if you want a CD. That's what I do (though
I just use the compressed .wav or .mp3 files).

Doug McDonald

Actually, one could do that with a program like Audacity (free), couldn't
one? Good idea!

Yes, but Audacity's compressor is pretty lackluster. It
has no settable decay time unless "attack" means "decay".

My compressor uses a symmetric attack and delay, adjustable
from 5 dB sec down to .01 dB/sec.

Doug McDonald

OK, but the germ of the "idea" is sound, right?

[Arny Krueger]

"Doug McDonald" wrote in
message
Sonnova wrote:



NO!! You should do the compression yourself, and burn a
CD of the compressed material if you want a CD. That's what I
do (though I just use the compressed .wav or .mp3
files). Doug McDonald

Actually, one could do that with a program like Audacity
(free), couldn't one? Good idea!

Yes, but Audacity's compressor is pretty lackluster. It
has no settable decay time unless "attack" means "decay".

AFAIK Audacity is compatible with the vast number of VST plug-ins that are
avaiable, many of which are freeware.

http://audacity.sourceforge.net/help...em=vst-enabler

http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/windows

My compressor uses a symmetric attack and delay,
adjustable from 5 dB sec down to .01 dB/sec.

I'm sure there is a VST plugin someplace that might compare.

[Codifus]

Doug McDonald wrote:
codifus wrote:

As for the interface, I find it to be simple and very effective.
What's to hate about it?


Nothing if ALL you do is play music on the PC, as long as
you are willing put each and every file you want to
play in its "library". Other than that ... especially if
you have an iPod ..... it's a mess

Doug
Playing all your music from your PC is the point of a computer based
music server, no?

Tell me, how does Winamp, Windows Media Player, foobar, and the "others"
do it? At some point, for all of them, you have to rip your music to the
PC. In itunes, you rip it to the library.

I still dont get it.

CD

[Doug McDonald]

---MIKE--- wrote:

Try the beginning of Beethoven's 4th symphony on the BIS SACD. I
wish a good compressor were available (I don't have a computer).


If you need a hardware device, try finding a used DBX 117.

It's passable and adjustable, with linear compression.

Doug McDonald

[vlad]

On Dec 1, 7:41 am, Codifus wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:
codifus wrote:

As for the interface, I find it to be simple and very effective.
What's to hate about it?

Nothing if ALL you do is play music on the PC, as long as
you are willing put each and every file you want to
play in its "library". Other than that ... especially if
you have an iPod ..... it's a mess

Doug

Playing all your music from your PC is the point of a computer based
music server, no?

Tell me, how does Winamp, Windows Media Player, foobar, and the "others"
do it? At some point, for all of them, you have to rip your music to the
PC. In itunes, you rip it to the library.

I still dont get it.

CD

iPod interface was designed for people who buy music from iTunes or
ripping latest CD's with popular music, where the order of tracks and/
or exact labeling is not important.

Try to rip Mahler's symphony spanning 2 CD's or Wagner opera spanning
3-4 CD and make sure that tracks are in a right order, labels are
correct and fit on iPod screen, that each piece is presented as one
album with correct track numbering, etc. On top of it the cover
picture from GraceNote DB will be wrong, so you have to deal with it
too. Their interface is dreadful for this kind of work.

Also if you are ripping really old CD's (from 80s) then their
GraceNote data base simply don't have correct labels, no picture, etc.
So putting these CD's in a library is a nightmare. Looks like that
their programmers did not learn about "drag and drop" concept yet.

Of course it is all a matter of perception. I am sure that for Mac
fanatics who know 'a priory' that the Mac way is the best way this
interface is OK.

vlad

[Steven Sullivan]

vlad wrote:
On Dec 1, 7:41 am, Codifus wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:
codifus wrote:

As for the interface, I find it to be simple and very effective.
What's to hate about it?

Nothing if ALL you do is play music on the PC, as long as
you are willing put each and every file you want to
play in its "library". Other than that ... especially if
you have an iPod ..... it's a mess

Doug

Playing all your music from your PC is the point of a computer based
music server, no?

Tell me, how does Winamp, Windows Media Player, foobar, and the "others"
do it? At some point, for all of them, you have to rip your music to the
PC. In itunes, you rip it to the library.

I still dont get it.

CD

iPod interface was designed for people who buy music from iTunes or
ripping latest CD's with popular music, where the order of tracks and/
or exact labeling is not important.

Try to rip Mahler's symphony spanning 2 CD's or Wagner opera spanning
3-4 CD and make sure that tracks are in a right order, labels are
correct and fit on iPod screen, that each piece is presented as one
album with correct track numbering, etc. On top of it the cover
picture from GraceNote DB will be wrong, so you have to deal with it
too. Their interface is dreadful for this kind of work.

Also if you are ripping really old CD's (from 80s) then their
GraceNote data base simply don't have correct labels, no picture, etc.
So putting these CD's in a library is a nightmare. Looks like that
their programmers did not learn about "drag and drop" concept yet.

If I had my way, wvery iTunes install should come with a free version of Tag&Rename ;

(Actually if I had my way, we'd all be using foobar2000 instead of iTunes.)

Seriously, tagging is the bane of all music file libraries. Inevitably
one has to go in there with sleeves rolled up and do the dirty job
oneself.

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

[Jenn]

On Dec 1, 9:51 am, vlad wrote:
On Dec 1, 7:41 am, Codifus wrote:



Doug McDonald wrote:
codifus wrote:

As for the interface, I find it to be simple and very effective.
What's to hate about it?

Nothing if ALL you do is play music on the PC, as long as
you are willing put each and every file you want to
play in its "library". Other than that ... especially if
you have an iPod ..... it's a mess

Doug

Playing all your music from your PC is the point of a computer based
music server, no?

Tell me, how does Winamp, Windows Media Player, foobar, and the "others"
do it? At some point, for all of them, you have to rip your music to the
PC. In itunes, you rip it to the library.

I still dont get it.

CD

iPod interface was designed for people who buy music from iTunes or
ripping latest CD's with popular music, where the order of tracks and/
or exact labeling is not important.

Try to rip Mahler's symphony spanning 2 CD's or Wagner opera spanning
3-4 CD and make sure that tracks are in a right order, labels are
correct and fit on iPod screen, that each piece is presented as one
album with correct track numbering, etc. On top of it the cover
picture from GraceNote DB will be wrong, so you have to deal with it
too. Their interface is dreadful for this kind of work.

Also if you are ripping really old CD's (from 80s) then their
GraceNote data base simply don't have correct labels, no picture, etc.
So putting these CD's in a library is a nightmare. Looks like that
their programmers did not learn about "drag and drop" concept yet.

Of course it is all a matter of perception. I am sure that for Mac
fanatics who know 'a priory' that the Mac way is the best way this
interface is OK.

vlad

The databases are always a problem with classical, it seems. But
fixing it seems quite easy and it takes only a short time. I sort
everything by name and simply replace what is in that field with:
Mahler - Sym. 5 - 1
Mahler - Sym. 5 - 2
Mahler - Sym. 5 - 3
Mahler - Sym. 5 - 4
Mahler - Sym. 5 - 5

Easy as pie. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to do that, but
presently we do. No big deal, IMO.

[Greg Wormald]

In article ,
vlad wrote:

iPod interface was designed for people who buy music from iTunes or
ripping latest CD's with popular music, where the order of tracks and/
or exact labeling is not important.

Try to rip Mahler's symphony spanning 2 CD's or Wagner opera spanning
3-4 CD and make sure that tracks are in a right order, labels are
correct and fit on iPod screen, that each piece is presented as one
album with correct track numbering, etc. On top of it the cover
picture from GraceNote DB will be wrong, so you have to deal with it
too. Their interface is dreadful for this kind of work.

Also if you are ripping really old CD's (from 80s) then their
GraceNote data base simply don't have correct labels, no picture, etc.
So putting these CD's in a library is a nightmare. Looks like that
their programmers did not learn about "drag and drop" concept yet.

Of course it is all a matter of perception. I am sure that for Mac
fanatics who know 'a priory' that the Mac way is the best way this
interface is OK.

vlad

Ummm, Vlad, my Mac, using Itunes, keeps the track labels and track order
in order. The option "copy to play order" keeps it all straight on the
Ipod. And I can 'drag and drop'!
And if GraceNote doesn't have the data (some of my LP's have never been
issued as other than LP's) I can put the data in manually. If the cover
pic isn't the one from my copy I just delete it, scan in my own and add
it if it's important to me. Generally I don't put graphics on my Ipod,
it's for music listening not looking.
I don't understand where the problem is. Are you using Windoze?
Greg