Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.

[Kompu Kid]

Hello All:

I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
one.

What brand and model would you folks recommend?

Thanks!

Deguza

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is some background info:

- One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
old records and cassettes to digital medium.

- I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
motherboard seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
providing 6-channel audio".

- I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
may not be able to hear the difference.

- I tested a Dell Optiplex GX820 I use at work. It was noisy. But a
Dell laptop (inspiron?), worked relatively well.

[Eeyore]

Kompu Kid wrote:

> Hello All:
>
> I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
> one.
>
> What brand and model would you folks recommend?

For value for money you can't really ever go too far wrong with Dell. I've used several and they all worked fine. None were the cheapest but not by a long way
were they THAT expensive either.

The best PC is one you spec (and probably build) yourself, taling into account your needs.

DO NOT 'overspec' what you need. It's simply money down the drain and it'll likely be noisier. too.

Avoid Windows Vista like the plague. Dell ought still be able to install XP for you. If not get a copy of XP 'somewhere else'. IIRC MS has just said it'll
continue to support XP til 2014.


> - One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
> old records and cassettes to digital medium.

Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or uncompressed for example ?


> - I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
> motherboard seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
> providing 6-channel audio".

A totally rubbish chipset for on-board (MOBO) audio IIRC. Anything today would beat it without even trying. Hey, it was adequate at the time.


> - I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
> can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
> older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
> may not be able to hear the difference.

Almost anything today will be better. I recently bought secondhand a brace of Creative Audigies on ebay, for little more than a couple of dollars each.
They'll outrank any on-board audio most likely but do read the manual as to how to turn OFF the onboard audio first.

And if you want REALLY good quality PC audio you can now buy cards that rank up with the bulk of broadcasting and recording studios.


> - I tested a Dell Optiplex GX820 I use at work. It was noisy. But a
> Dell laptop (inspiron?), worked relatively well.

If noise is an issue for you, you may prefer a lower spec PC that uses less power and hence needs less cooling. That'll do audio just fine and requires almost
zero cooling compared to today's power PC gamer machines. A 1 GHz CPU will EASILY do the job. Look at 'mini ITX' for example.

You can even get 'fanless' PCs these days. Ideal for an audio server but probably not for 'Need for Speed' !

Graham

[Kompu Kid]

On Jul 3, 6:37 pm, Eeyore >
wrote:
> Kompu Kid wrote:
> > Hello All:
>
> > I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
> > one.
>
> > What brand and model would you folks recommend?
>
> For value for money you can't really ever go too far wrong with Dell. I've used several and they all worked fine. None were the cheapest but not by a long way
> were they THAT expensive either.
>
> The best PC is one you spec (and probably build) yourself, taling into account your needs.
>
> DO NOT 'overspec' what you need. It's simply money down the drain and it'll likely be noisier. too.
>
> Avoid Windows Vista like the plague. Dell ought still be able to install XP for you. If not get a copy of XP 'somewhere else'. IIRC MS has just said it'll
> continue to support XP til 2014.
>
> > - One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
> > old records and cassettes to digital medium.
>
> Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or uncompressed for example ?
>
> > - I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
> > motherboard seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
> > providing 6-channel audio".
>
> A totally rubbish chipset for on-board (MOBO) audio IIRC. Anything today would beat it without even trying. Hey, it was adequate at the time.
>
> > - I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
> > can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
> > older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
> > may not be able to hear the difference.
>
> Almost anything today will be better. I recently bought secondhand a brace of Creative Audigies on ebay, for little more than a couple of dollars each.
> They'll outrank any on-board audio most likely but do read the manual as to how to turn OFF the onboard audio first.
>
> And if you want REALLY good quality PC audio you can now buy cards that rank up with the bulk of broadcasting and recording studios.
>
> > - I tested a Dell Optiplex GX820 I use at work. It was noisy. But a
> > Dell laptop (inspiron?), worked relatively well.
>
> If noise is an issue for you, you may prefer a lower spec PC that uses less power and hence needs less cooling. That'll do audio just fine and requires almost
> zero cooling compared to today's power PC gamer machines. A 1 GHz CPU will EASILY do the job. Look at 'mini ITX' for example.
>
> You can even get 'fanless' PCs these days. Ideal for an audio server but probably not for 'Need for Speed' !
>
> Graham

Graham,

Thanks for your comments.

You ask:

" Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or
uncompressed for example ?"

I use Nero and once in a while Audacity.

I digitize everything as wave files and keep these as "masters".

For my mp3 player, I convert them into highly compressed mp3 files. I
use the same for my podcast page.

For my CD player, I use 192 bps or higher mp3 files. For certain music
I even go higher to 320 bps.

Deguza

[Steven Pigeon]

Kompu Kid wrote:
> You ask:
>
> " Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or
> uncompressed for example ?"
>
> I use Nero and once in a while Audacity.
>
> I digitize everything as wave files and keep these as "masters".

You can use lossless encoding, like FLAC. FLAC will give you
some compression (2:1, or so) so the files aren't as big as
RIFF/wave files. Since it's lossless, you have perfect restitution
on decompression; for "masters", it's pretty much win-win.


> For my CD player, I use 192 bps or higher mp3 files. For certain music
> I even go higher to 320 bps.

VBR + psychoacoustic modeling tend to converge to a given file
size, even when you let the bitrate go arbitrarily high. You might
see only a 5% file size difference between a 320 kbits/s vbr file
and a 256 kbits/s vbr file (given all psychoacoustic optimizations
are on). I do too use the 320 kbits/s format.


Best,

S.

>
> Deguza

[jwvm]

On Jul 3, 8:55*pm, Kompu Kid > wrote:
> Hello All:

>
> - One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
> old records and cassettes to digital medium.
>
> - I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
> motherboard *seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
> providing 6-channel audio".

CMI makes some really bad sound chips. It might be OK for skype but
probably not much else.
>
> - I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
> can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
> older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
> may not be able to hear the difference.

My experience with a similar chip is that is has lots of clicks and
pops. These are really easy to hear.

>
> - I tested a Dell Optiplex GX820 I use at work. It was noisy. But a
> Dell laptop (inspiron?), worked relatively well.

Do you mean fan noise? A laptop will usually be quieter but the hard
drive won't win any speed contests. As Mike points out, you probably
don't really need a new computer for what you are currently doing.
BTW, most new computers come standard with Vista and that OS can be
quite painful for the sorts of things that you might want to do. If
you still think that you need a new computer, you might want to get a
(legal) copy of XP.

[Eeyore]

jwvm wrote:

> BTW, most new computers come standard with Vista and that OS can be
> quite painful for the sorts of things that you might want to do. If
> you still think that you need a new computer, you might want to get a
> (legal) copy of XP.

So, So agreed.

And DON'T update media player either or it'll start telling what you can and
can't do with your own files. It knows best you see.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Kompu Kid wrote:

> You ask:
>
> " Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or
> uncompressed for example ?"
>
> I use Nero and once in a while Audacity.

Nero's probably perfectly competent. Audacity is well regarded.


> I digitize everything as wave files and keep these as "masters".

Fine.


> For my mp3 player, I convert them into highly compressed mp3 files. I
> use the same for my podcast page.
>
> For my CD player, I use 192 bps or higher mp3 files. For certain music
> I even go higher to 320 bps.

Is that simply to get more tracks on ? If you like quality I wouldn't go below 320kbps. I was astonished at the difference on complex tracks.

Seriously research fanless PCs btw. Audio needs very low processing power.

Graham

[Andrew Barss]

In rec.audio.tech Kompu Kid > wrote:
: Hello All:

: I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
: one.

: What brand and model would you folks recommend?

Get a Mac Mini, if you're looking for a desktop style (these are tiny), or a
Macbook. Cheap, reliable, very easy to use. I just converted a 450 CD
collection to FLAC files using my Macbook with free software (MAX).

I wa a longtime Windows user, then switched over to Mac and OS X last fall.
Much better.


-- Andy Barss

[Martin Schöön]

Kompu Kid > writes:

> Hello All:
>
> I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
> one.
>
> What brand and model would you folks recommend?
>
I use a five year old Shuttle SK41G running Linux.
The sound HW on the motherboard is perfectly adequate for
recording music. I didn't count on this but gave it a try
and was delighted by the outcome.

The recording SW I use is Rezound. Audacity should be OK too.

Any of the CD-burning front-ends work fine for me.

--
Martin Schöön "Problems worthy of attack
show their worth by hitting back."
Piet Hein

[RD Jones]

On Jul 3, 7:55 pm, Kompu Kid > wrote:
> Hello All:
>
> I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
> one.
>
> What brand and model would you folks recommend?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Deguza
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Here is some background info:
>
> - One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
> old records and cassettes to digital medium.
>
> - I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
> motherboard seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
> providing 6-channel audio".
>
> - I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
> can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
> older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
> may not be able to hear the difference.
>
> - I tested a Dell Optiplex GX820 I use at work. It was noisy. But a
> Dell laptop (inspiron?), worked relatively well.

If you _want_ a newer computer on general principle, fine.
But you don't NEED a new machine to do basic 2 channel
audio.

Here's my suggestions:
Disable the on-board sound (in BIOS) and put in a real
sound card like the Audiophile 2496. It's unbalanced, but
high spec and ideal for your use.
Fill the thing with RAM, as much as the OS and MB will
support, at least 512M.
Possibly add some storage, hard drives are cheap these
days.
Defeat all the startup apps (AV) and run only what you need
running as you need it.


OK, OK, you still want a new 'puter. (the name KompuKid
sez it all).
Go git yerself that new multimedia machine with all the bells
and whistles and dedicate the old computer as an audio
workhorse.

rd

[Richard Crowley]

"Kompu Kid" wrote...
> I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new
> off-the-shelf one.
>
> What brand and model would you folks recommend?

Your stated audio applications are not a compelling reason to
replace your computer. I regularly use a computer (or two)
that are at least that old for various audio applications. There
is nothing that has happened in computers in the last 7 years
that would provide any significant benefit to you for your stated
applications.

Now if you have some money burning a hole in your pocket,
go out and buy a decent audio interface (even an external USB
one, for example, so that you don't have to deal with whatever
digital hash exists inside the computer box.)

And may be a good turntable, arm, cartridge, stylus, RIAA
preamp, etc. for LP transcriptions. And a Nakamichi cassette
machine with adjustable azimuth for transcribing old cassettes.
You would actually get audible benefits from spending your
money on the audio bits, not on the computer.

Note that I make a living from the computer industry and have
every pecuniary interest in getting you to buy a new computer,
because it will likely have a CPU chip in it that we made next
door. But to be truthful, you don't appear to need a new PC
for your stated applications.

[jer0en]

it's not your ears or anybody else's. like the who's tommy you could
identify actual hifi the second you witness it. trouble is you probably
never will, since you've burnt all of it.

as to mp3, sounds the same on and from every pc, so why bother?

but if you actually care to do quality in digital audio, go as slow as it
will go. basicly use a 100Mhz Pentium 1 and run W98. it's the width of the
mainboard parallel lines that does it.

do not use soundblaster cards, use something inconspicuous with a lot of BIG
capacitors on it, which feed the bass. probably the older the better,
because of component quality.

problem would be the w98 software. no idea. I run MP9 under it. never used
it though. easy cd creator 5 works fine.

finally, do not create mp3 but WAV files. or what is the uncompressed cd
format again? no idea, cd's run under os12, probably no file format at all,
just a track format. anyway, create uncompressed digital audio, WAV is ok.

there is a remote but existing chance you would witness any difference on an
MP3 player, but if you record it on a cd, provided you have either 70's or
VH end amplifiers, you should be able to notice it.

by the way, did anyone ever inform you that copying soul is illegal?

[jer0en]

if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.

if other people also experience things get actually worse than mp3, I would
cry.

also I would file a complaint, don't ask me where. I would file a complaint,
because I would be denied the experience of the true sound of mp3 music for
the entirity of my life time.

[Kompu Kid]

On Jul 4, 9:31 am, jwvm > wrote:
> On Jul 3, 8:55 pm, Kompu Kid > wrote:
>
> > Hello All:
>
> > - One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
> > old records and cassettes to digital medium.
>
> > - I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
> > motherboard seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
> > providing 6-channel audio".
>
> CMI makes some really bad sound chips. It might be OK for skype but
> probably not much else.
>
>
>
> > - I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
> > can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
> > older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
> > may not be able to hear the difference.
>
> My experience with a similar chip is that is has lots of clicks and
> pops. These are really easy to hear.

I never ran into this problem. My ears usually cannot distinguish
between the original and the digitized versions.

>
>
>
> > - I tested a Dell Optiplex GX820 I use at work. It was noisy. But a
> > Dell laptop (inspiron?), worked relatively well.
>
> Do you mean fan noise? A laptop will usually be quieter but the hard
> drive won't win any speed contests. As Mike points out, you probably

It is actually some sort of electrical noise that gets on to the
digitized music.

Deguza

[..]

[Kompu Kid]

On Jul 4, 7:57 am, Steven Pigeon > wrote:
> Kompu Kid wrote:
> > You ask:
>
> > " Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or
> > uncompressed for example ?"
>
> > I use Nero and once in a while Audacity.
>
> > I digitize everything as wave files and keep these as "masters".
>
> You can use lossless encoding, like FLAC. FLAC will give you
> some compression (2:1, or so) so the files aren't as big as
> RIFF/wave files. Since it's lossless, you have perfect restitution
> on decompression; for "masters", it's pretty much win-win.

The version of Nero I use (6.6.1.4) does not seem to have the FLAC
encoding.

I wonder if later versions would have them.

> > For my CD player, I use 192 bps or higher mp3 files. For certain music
> > I even go higher to 320 bps.
>
> VBR + psychoacoustic modeling tend to converge to a given file
> size, even when you let the bitrate go arbitrarily high. You might
> see only a 5% file size difference between a 320 kbits/s vbr file
> and a 256 kbits/s vbr file (given all psychoacoustic optimizations
> are on). I do too use the 320 kbits/s format.

My experiments some months ago came up with a linear increase in size
when I saved at different bit rates.


Deguza

[Steven Pigeon]

Kompu Kid wrote:

> My experiments some months ago came up with a linear increase in size
> when I saved at different bit rates.

True when using CBR (constant bit rate). Using VBR + psychoacoustic
optimisation LAME produces files that are larger with higher bitrates
but not necessarily by much, and certainly not linearly in the bitrate.
When you go beyond 192 kbits/s, the files grow, but not by more than 5
to 10%, even if you double the bitrate. The psychoacoustic model (that
can be tweaked) removes anything it judges inaudible, so at high enough
bitrate, everything that was to be removed is removed.

For example:

The byte sizes (using full psychoacoustic optimization)

file:The replicants - TheConspiracy.wav
style: progressive trance / techno
wave 44.1Khz 85203596 bytes ("raw" from the CD)
112 kbits/s 6746564 bytes
128 kbits/s 7681056 bytes
160 kbits/s 9372175 bytes
192 kbits/s 10010644 bytes
256 kbits/s 10419792 bytes
320 kbits/s 10555355 bytes

same with
Beethoven - Zwolf Variationen 66.wav
style: classical
wave 44.1KHz 97078844 bytes ("raw" from the CD)
112 kbits/s 7620826 bytes
128 kbits/s 8403531 bytes
160 kbits/s 9101899 bytes
192 kbits/s 9198778 bytes
256 kbits/s 9219866 bytes
320 kbits/s 9226891 bytes


You can try this experiment yourself, using --vbr (or --vbr-new)
and -q 0 (max quality) -B <maxbitrate> as parameters to LAME.

Best,

S.

>
>
> Deguza
>

[Scott Dorsey]

Kompu Kid > wrote:
>I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
>one.
>
>What brand and model would you folks recommend?
>
>- One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
>old records and cassettes to digital medium.
>
>- I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
>motherboard seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
>providing 6-channel audio".
>
>- I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
>can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
>older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
>may not be able to hear the difference.

Keep your computer. Get a better sound card. Put all the rest of your
money into upgrading your arm and cartridge. Get a calibration tape for
your cassette deck and whatever tool is required to ride azimuth.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eeyore]

jer0en wrote:

> if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
> different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.

Why do you snip everything before you so no-one has a clue who you're replying
to ?

Please learn some netiquette.

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

jer0en > wrote:
>if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
>different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.

Hell, I notice discrepancies between different runs of the same mp3
converter on the same computer.

>if other people also experience things get actually worse than mp3, I would
>cry.

It's hard to imagine anything much worse than mp3. Maybe cassettes...
okay, I will grant the Philips Compact Cassette is actually worse than MP3.
But you have to work hard at it.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Signal > wrote:
>"jer0en" > wrote:
>
>>if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
>>different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.
>
>Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually indistinguishable from PCM.

Possibly in mono, definitely not in stereo. It is shameful what MP3 does
to stereo imaging, even at very high bitrates.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eeyore]

Kompu Kid wrote:

> jwvm > wrote:
> >
> > Do you mean fan noise? A laptop will usually be quieter but the hard
> > drive won't win any speed contests. As Mike points out, you probably
>
> It is actually some sort of electrical noise that gets on to the
> digitized music.

LAPTOPS are NOTORIOUS for the BUZZ they cause when on mains power coupled to
audio equipment.

I know the EXACT reason and it's damn complicated but very involved with EMI
regulations. There are very fews ways of fixing it other than inline audio
transformers or active balanced line interfaces.

Get a DESKTOP. Like the fanless mini-ITX style I suggested. You DO NOT need a
fast CPU or latest O/S. A chcuk of memeory would likely do no harm though. And
don't load it up with junk freeeware, cos it'll only stop working properly.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Kompu Kid wrote:

> The version of Nero I use (6.6.1.4) does not seem to have the FLAC
> encoding.

Don't fret. Big disks are cheap today. Get a RAID interface and you can mirror
them and it doesn't even matter if one goes totally down. (worked for me ! ).
You just swap it out and rebuild.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

> "jer0en" > wrote:
>
> >if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
> >different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.
>
> Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually indistinguishable from PCM.

Sometimes. You might be shocked. It's HIGHLY related to the 'complexity'
of the music.

I've heard mp3 vs (ok 192k) CD and almost thought it must have come from
a different master.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Keep your computer. Get a better sound card. Put all the rest of your
> money into upgrading your arm and cartridge. Get a calibration tape for
> your cassette deck and whatever tool is required to ride azimuth.

I kind of agree, but would he not benefit from a fanless PC to reduce the
acoustic noise floor ?

Depends where the PC is of course.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> jer0en > wrote:
> >if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
> >different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.
>
> Hell, I notice discrepancies between different runs of the same mp3
> converter on the same computer.
>
> >if other people also experience things get actually worse than mp3, I would
> >cry.
>
> It's hard to imagine anything much worse than mp3. Maybe cassettes...
> okay, I will grant the Philips Compact Cassette is actually worse than MP3.
> But you have to work hard at it.

If people only knew what mp3 did / how it worked, they'd run away screaming.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >>>if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
> >>>different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.
> >>
> >>Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually indistinguishable from PCM.
> >
> >Possibly in mono, definitely not in stereo. It is shameful what MP3 does
> >to stereo imaging, even at very high bitrates.
>
> You hear an obvious difference with MP3 compressed at the "extreme"
> setting? It's subtle at best to my ears. Maybe I should try an A/B
> with cans...

I could hear the difference in my Saab !

Graham

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 4 Jul 2008 22:20:21 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Keep your computer. Get a better sound card. Put all the rest of your
>money into upgrading your arm and cartridge. Get a calibration tape for
>your cassette deck and whatever tool is required to ride azimuth.

I'd like to see this and raise ya a record cleaning machine,
for the vinyl transfers, and I know you wouldn't disagree.

Folks who haven't heard their old vinyl records after being
properly cleaned just haven't heard 'em. It's not even remotely
just a matter of noise, either.

The threshold (in dollars) of when a record washing machine
becomes as important as the stuff in the signal path is a
tough call, but I personally place it in the small-hundreds-
of-dollars range.

IOW, after you've bought a nice phono cartridge and a modern
tonearm (something in the Rega class at least), my personal
call is that the next money needs to go towards a record
washing machine.

Good arguments can be made instead for a really good phono equalizer
(specialised electronics, included in conventional preamps,
but difficult to make perfect, for phono use only), and
both are important, but my call is for the washing machine,
even if it means using an "ordinary" phono equalizer.

Maybe I was a frustrated Maytag repairman in an earlier life.

Hopefully others will make a strong case for the better
electronics also, so the OP will go into the project as well
armed as possible. Vinyl playback is not trivial - very
cool if done right though, and, maybe surprisingly
very enjoyable.

And as you and others have said, the analog to digital
conversion isn't at all the first place to be expending
energies. The earliest parts of complex processes are the most
critical, (almost!) without exception.


Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[UnsteadyKen]

Signal said:

> You hear an obvious difference with MP3 compressed at the "extreme"
> setting? It's subtle at best to my ears. Maybe I should try an A/B
> with cans...

Try testing using a recording made with "Q" sound system, such as
Roger Water's Amused to death or Pink Floyd's Pulse.
The damage to the surround effects is fairly obvious over speakers.
IMHO.
--
Ken

[Richard Crowley]

"Signal" wrote ...
> "jer0en" wrote:
>>if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
>>different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.
>
> Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually indistinguishable from PCM.

That tells us about either you ears or the type of music you listen
to. You may not be able to "distinguish" it, but don't project that
onto others.

[Richard Crowley]

"Eeyore" wrote ...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Keep your computer. Get a better sound card. Put all the rest of your
>> money into upgrading your arm and cartridge. Get a calibration tape for
>> your cassette deck and whatever tool is required to ride azimuth.
>
> I kind of agree, but would he not benefit from a fanless PC to reduce the
> acoustic noise floor ?

Why is the acoustic noise floor a factor in transcribing LPs and
cassettes? We must assume that the OP is not doing something
as silly as placing his turntable on top of the computer box.

[Mr.T]

"jwvm" > wrote in message
...

>My experience with a similar chip is that is has lots of clicks and
>pops. These are really easy to hear.

"Clicks and pops" are not usually caused by the sound chip, but rather poor
computer optimisation and insufficient buffering, or bad CD/ripping
software.
However cheap sound chips usually have poor S/N ratio and/or poor distortion
and/or poor frequency response.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> Now if you have some money burning a hole in your pocket,
> go out and buy a decent audio interface (even an external USB
> one, for example, so that you don't have to deal with whatever
> digital hash exists inside the computer box.)

That old wives tale again! In fact there are internal soundcards available
that beat any USB sound box on the market.
But reasonable examples of both can exceed the stated requirements by a LONG
way in any case.

> And may be a good turntable, arm, cartridge, stylus, RIAA
> preamp, etc. for LP transcriptions.

Definitely, but only if it's worth it to him.

>And a Nakamichi cassette
> machine with adjustable azimuth for transcribing old cassettes.

Now THAT is hardly ever worth it IMO, unless maybe you have some
irreplaceable, original recordings in that format, which you think actually
justifies the expense. If not, try to find a CD or vinyl copy instead.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> >Why is the acoustic noise floor a factor in transcribing LPs and
> >cassettes?
>
> It's easier to hear what you're doing if there isn't loads of noise
> all around you.

And easier to simply use headphones for monitoring. Removes the chance of
acoustically induced turntable vibration as well.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> >Possibly in mono, definitely not in stereo. It is shameful what MP3 does
> >to stereo imaging, even at very high bitrates.
>
> You hear an obvious difference with MP3 compressed at the "extreme"
> setting? It's subtle at best to my ears. Maybe I should try an A/B
> with cans...

Just make sure you don't select the "joint stereo" option when compressing.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> It's hard to imagine anything much worse than mp3. Maybe cassettes...
> okay, I will grant the Philips Compact Cassette is actually worse than
MP3.
> But you have to work hard at it.

You'd have to work hard at lowering the bit rate and coder quality, for MP3
to reach the abysmal level of the best cassettes.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >It's hard to imagine anything much worse than mp3. Maybe cassettes...
>
> If only the standard cassette deck was a Nakamichi Dragon...

And the MP3 bit rate was 64kbs.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Kompu Kid" > wrote in message
...
> The version of Nero I use (6.6.1.4) does not seem to have the FLAC
> encoding.
> I wonder if later versions would have them.

Or you could simply try encoding the files BEFORE you try to burn them to CD
with Nero.

MrT.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:27:37 +0100, Eeyore
> wrote:

>LAPTOPS are NOTORIOUS for the BUZZ they cause when on mains power coupled to
>audio equipment.
>
>I know the EXACT reason and it's damn complicated but very involved with EMI
>regulations. There are very fews ways of fixing it other than inline audio
>transformers or active balanced line interfaces.

You make it sound as if these are expensive or unweildy solutions.
They aren't. Anyone who wants the convenience of using his laptop as
a portable recording or playback device will have done something along
these lines. Or decided their usage needs are compatible with running
on battery.

[Arny Krueger]

"Kompu Kid" > wrote in message

> On Jul 4, 7:57 am, Steven Pigeon
> > wrote:
>> Kompu Kid wrote:
>>> You ask:
>>
>>> " Using which software btw ? Into what format ?
>>> Compressed or uncompressed for example ?"
>>
>>> I use Nero and once in a while Audacity.
>>
>>> I digitize everything as wave files and keep these as
>>> "masters".
>>
>> You can use lossless encoding, like FLAC. FLAC will give
>> you some compression (2:1, or so) so the files aren't as big
>> as RIFF/wave files. Since it's lossless, you have
>> perfect restitution on decompression; for "masters",
>> it's pretty much win-win.
>
> The version of Nero I use (6.6.1.4) does not seem to have
> the FLAC encoding.

You may need to open up your horizons well past what Nero provides.

There is plenty of freeware out there to enable you to run FLAC stand-alone
and skip Nero all together.

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" > wrote in message

> "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote ...
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Keep your computer. Get a better sound card. Put all
>>>> the rest of your money into upgrading your arm and
>>>> cartridge. Get a calibration tape for your cassette
>>>> deck and whatever tool is required to ride azimuth.
>
> If he's got a whole bunch of tapes from various sources,
> probably as well to tune azimuth by ear per tape.
>
>>> I kind of agree, but would he not benefit from a
>>> fanless PC to reduce the acoustic noise floor ?
>>
>> Why is the acoustic noise floor a factor in transcribing
>> LPs and cassettes?
>
> It's easier to hear what you're doing if there isn't
> loads of noise all around you.

For digitizing tapes and LPs, headphones are the monitoring tools of choice,
and that make modest noise from the CPU a non issue.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u
> "Signal" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Why is the acoustic noise floor a factor in
>>> transcribing LPs and cassettes?
>>
>> It's easier to hear what you're doing if there isn't
>> loads of noise all around you.
>
> And easier to simply use headphones for monitoring.
> Removes the chance of acoustically induced turntable
> vibration as well.

Roger that.

Going fanless is a lot of expense and trouble and possibly warranted if you
are recording live while sitting right next to the PC. But for transcribing
tapes and LPs, going fanless is more trouble than it is worth. CPU power is
also not an issue, so a CPU with modest power dissipation is just fine.

[Scott Dorsey]

Signal > wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>>>if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
>>>>different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.
>>>
>>>Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually indistinguishable from PCM.
>>
>>Possibly in mono, definitely not in stereo. It is shameful what MP3 does
>>to stereo imaging, even at very high bitrates.
>
>You hear an obvious difference with MP3 compressed at the "extreme"
>setting? It's subtle at best to my ears. Maybe I should try an A/B
>with cans...

You can't just imaging at ALL on cans.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Signal > wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>>>if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
>>>>different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.
>>>
>>>Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually indistinguishable from PCM.
>>
>>Possibly in mono, definitely not in stereo. It is shameful what MP3 does
>>to stereo imaging, even at very high bitrates.
>
>You hear an obvious difference with MP3 compressed at the "extreme"
>setting? It's subtle at best to my ears. Maybe I should try an A/B
>with cans...

You can't judge imaging at ALL on cans. There's no real image at all,
just stuff to the right and left.
--scott

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Signal wrote:

> "Richard Crowley" > wrote:

>>> Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually indistinguishable from PCM.

>> That tells us about either you ears or the type of music you listen
>> to. You may not be able to "distinguish" it, but don't project that
>> onto others.

> You know nothing about my hearing acuity, or what I listen to, and nor
> did I say I _couldn't_ distinguish MP3 and PCM. Don't put words in my
> mouth you snotty little man.

Oh, you have described your hearing acuity very well. It is as finely honed
as your social skills.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> You can't judge imaging at ALL on cans. There's no real image at all,
> just stuff to the right and left.

Finally, after being on the usenet since 1993, I find something to disagree
with you in. It is finding the usable cans for it that is difficult.

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[jer0en]

what do you mean? pulse code modulation? is pcm uncompressed, like cd or
wav? no. so of course there wouldn't be any noticeable difference with mp3.

it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any difference between
mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you have a studio theatre in your living,
let alone pcm and mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing.

[jer0en]

pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.

[jer0en]

at 192k sample rate? I find that hard to believe.

[jer0en]

possibly. but if I select pcm on any dvd player I will get stereo, as
opposed to surround.

[jer0en]

I am most definitively not a professional. I have been a psychiatric patient
for the past 25 years, i.e. since I was 18, and I have never worked
professionally at all, as a direct result of which my income has always been
social security which, none the less, never held me back from making useful
contributions to this group, though I admit to having studied philosophy for
7 months at the PU.

[jer0en]

where
did you
GET
that

expression

[jer0en]

so noted, but not agreed

[jer0en]

you have definitely never heard the original BASF low noise tape cassette.
they came in white plastic cases. beats pulp of anything from the chromium
era.

[jer0en]

they used the same tape to record the masters for LPs of the orange BASF
label. classical stuff, but best recordings ever.

you can easily recognize the tape from the record.

[jer0en]

I've been psychotic to many times to start all that again. but I believe
you.

[Richard Crowley]

"jer0en" wrote ...
> pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.

"pcm" literally means binary, digital (vs. analog)
It is not a useful name for practical purposes.

"pcm" doesn't even specifically imply audio, much
less stereo audio.

[jer0en]

I've opened up a revox once. it proved to be one giant removable connection.
and that's how it sounded, moroles like a sound blaster. are you sure the
nakamichi dragon is any different? since they are in the same price
category.

[jer0en]

even on mp3

[jer0en]

ok

[jer0en]

and isn't it wonderful?

[Richard Crowley]

"jer0en" > wrote in message
. ..
> so noted, but not agreed

PLONKED
for refusing to follow basic rules of conversation.
We have no idea what you are replying to unless
you quote it.

[jer0en]

metaphysics. ok. why do I place my speakers as far apart as possible? to
approximate headphones as much as possible. because headphones is how the
engineer/mixer made it, and what (image) the engineer/mixer meant it to be.
if what was meant includes an image is the matter we are discussing.

so what is an image? if an image is something that speakers add to what the
mixer made with headphones alone, it cannot be meant that way, and therefore
we should consider it undesirable, blame it on distortion and not attempt to
reproduce it. however, if the image was indeed meant and made as such by the
mixer we should, and appreciate it.

personally I doubt if the human brain is capable of extrapolating
interlacing speaker images using headphones alone, unless the mixer would be
using speakers as monitors, which they don't. this is largely supported by
my findings that the less (analogue) play-back is distorted, the more the
signal will separate into simply left and right, like david gilmour's solo
on us and them, each note coming from the other speaker.

so in my opinion the stereo image is a ghost of distortion, a user projected
atmosphere assiociated with particular equipment, but I could be wrong, and
also it could actually be mixed using speakers. appreciate the five-way
split-up of the headphone image, didn't know that.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message


> You can't judge imaging at ALL on cans. There's no real
> image at all, just stuff to the right and left.

Really?

I understand people who complain about the "In the head" sound, because I do
hear that. Unlike them, I don't find it to be objectionable.

I mix on headphones all the time.

I hear a stereo image with a right, to midright, to center, to midleft to
left sound source positioning, all within my head.

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" > wrote in message


> "Peter Larsen" > wrote:

>>>>> Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually
>>>>> indistinguishable from PCM.

>>>> That tells us about either you ears or the type of
>>>> music you listen to. You may not be able to
>>>> "distinguish" it, but don't project that onto others.

>>> You know nothing about my hearing acuity, or what I
>>> listen to, and nor did I say I _couldn't_ distinguish
>>> MP3 and PCM. Don't put words in my mouth you snotty
>>> little man.

>> Oh, you have described your hearing acuity very well.

>> It is as finely honed as your social skills.

> Another puffed up cretin who can't read.

Actually, he reads quite well, especially the "snotty little man" part. ;-)

[jer0en]

am I correct in summarizing that, just like hard disks used to record data
in mfm, CDs record digital audio in pcm? short, that pcm is the encoding
type used for all non-SA audio CDs? I had no idea.

in that case, of course, there would be a slight but noticeable difference
between pcm and mp3, only worth discussing in would-be satanic congregations
seeking the submission and subsequent destruction of man through copyright
law.

satan could have my soul anytime, at least he isn't liable to make any
copies.

[jer0en]

pcm. why won't it just say "stereo"?

instead of referring to the bloody redbook.

who cares about data encoding in nineteen 2008 anyway? since the ATA
interface standard from 1987 NOBODY knows what storage/encoding technology
is applied on any hard drive that is produced, except for the manufacturer
who is in an air-tight chamber behind locked doors on floor 53.

[jer0en]

bloody hell we don't even know the logical format of an NTFS partition. who
cares about pcm?????

[jer0en]

got the picture, see above. I know the specs, or rather the names of digital
audio formats, but except for a few imperative CDs I never actually listen
to digital music.

so I only know pcm from my stereo tube when I play a dvd and mp3 only from
people I know. I have never played mp3 at home.

doing a test would be easy, but why bother if you already know what it will
sound like? it's not gonna be anything else than golf-ball speaker sounds
coming from a 15 inch woofer speaker system, which is what you need to play
back analogue audio. not the tape cassettes, the records!

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:17:08 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote
(in article >):

> "jer0en" wrote ...
>> pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.
>
> "pcm" literally means binary, digital (vs. analog)
> It is not a useful name for practical purposes.
>
> "pcm" doesn't even specifically imply audio, much
> less stereo audio.
>
>

Actually it refers to the TYPE of digital encoding called "Pulse Code
Modulation." There are other types as well such as MFM (Modified FM
Modulation), DPM (Digital Phase Modulation) etc. These other are generally
not used for audio AFAIK. DSD or Direct-Stream Digital is the only other
encoding type that I know of that is used for audio and its the format for
SACD.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:29:26 -0700, Signal wrote
(in article >):

> "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
>
>>> pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.
>>
>> "pcm" literally means binary, digital (vs. analog)
>> It is not a useful name for practical purposes.
>>
>> "pcm" doesn't even specifically imply audio, much
>> less stereo audio.
>
> PCM in this context, whatever could it mean?? Sorry for being so
> ambiguous that I got you flustered. Sheeesh... I thought this group
> was populated by audio professionals, not space cadets!
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

Pulse Code Modulation. Its the method by which ones and zeros are written to
media to represent a digital word In Redbook CD each word consists of 16-bits
and each bit is written to disc (or tape, or the hard drive) using Pulse Code
Modulation.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 14:05:03 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article >):

> what do you mean? pulse code modulation? is pcm uncompressed, like cd or
> wav? no. so of course there wouldn't be any noticeable difference with mp3.

It's neither. It has nothing to do with the actual quanization, only how the
samples are written to media. In other words asking whether PCM is compressed
or not is like asking someone is a gasoline powered car has two doors or
four.
>
> it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any difference between
> mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you have a studio theatre in your living,
> let alone pcm and mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing.
>
>

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"jer0en" > wrote:

> got the picture, see above. I know the specs, or rather the names of digital
> audio formats, but except for a few imperative CDs I never actually listen
> to digital music.
>
> so I only know pcm from my stereo tube when I play a dvd and mp3 only from
> people I know. I have never played mp3 at home.
>
> doing a test would be easy, but why bother if you already know what it will
> sound like? it's not gonna be anything else than golf-ball speaker sounds
> coming from a 15 inch woofer speaker system, which is what you need to play
> back analogue audio. not the tape cassettes, the records!

You should quote what you are replying to. Otherwise, your point is
lost and people don't bother to read you.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
Signal > wrote:

> Jenn > wrote:
>
> >> got the picture, see above. I know the specs, or rather the names of
> >> digital
> >> audio formats, but except for a few imperative CDs I never actually listen
> >> to digital music.
> >>
> >> so I only know pcm from my stereo tube when I play a dvd and mp3 only from
> >> people I know. I have never played mp3 at home.
> >>
> >> doing a test would be easy, but why bother if you already know what it
> >> will
> >> sound like? it's not gonna be anything else than golf-ball speaker sounds
> >> coming from a 15 inch woofer speaker system, which is what you need to
> >> play
> >> back analogue audio. not the tape cassettes, the records!
> >
> >You should quote what you are replying to. Otherwise, your point is
> >lost and people don't bother to read you.
>
> I wouldn't bother Jenn. He claims to be psychotic.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

ic

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> You can't judge imaging at ALL on cans. There's no real image at all,
>> just stuff to the right and left.
>
>Finally, after being on the usenet since 1993, I find something to disagree
>with you in. It is finding the usable cans for it that is difficult.

Any suggestions? Do you include a shuffler?
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

jer0en > wrote:
>what do you mean? pulse code modulation? is pcm uncompressed, like cd or
>wav? no. so of course there wouldn't be any noticeable difference with mp3.

..wav files and red book CDs are PCM. PCM is a general description of any
data format that is directly sampled with direct waveform amplitudes.

>it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any difference between
>mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you have a studio theatre in your living,
>let alone pcm and mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing.

I hate to tell you this, but it is very, very obvious to hear the differences
between mp3 and CD files. I suggest you first of all go and listen on a
decent playback system, and secondly I suggest you get the AES disc that
gives exaggerated examples of various lossy compression artifacts. Once you
learn what they sound like, they will start driving you up the wall until
soon you will not be able to stand mp3 encoding any longer.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

jer0en > wrote:
>pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.

No, there are plenty of PCM surround formats. Not very popular for
distribution, though. Just because it's PCM doesn't mean it has any
particular channel format.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

jer0en > wrote:
>you have definitely never heard the original BASF low noise tape cassette.
>they came in white plastic cases. beats pulp of anything from the chromium
>era.

I used that stuff for bin mastering work for years. If you like that stuff,
RMGI is still making it. Tape Warehouse will sell you big pancakes of it,
or bulk load it into whatever cassette shells you'd like.

Won't do anything about the massive flutter problems inherent in the cassette
format, of course.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

jer0en > wrote:
>they used the same tape to record the masters for LPs of the orange BASF
>label. classical stuff, but best recordings ever.

No, I believe that stuff was done on 369. Sort of the predicessor to the
modern RMGI 468 tape.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

jer0en > wrote:
>pcm. why won't it just say "stereo"?

Because stereo is the channel format. It has nothing to do with the
encoding.

>instead of referring to the bloody redbook.

The Red Book refers to the channel format, the encoding, and the the
medium. Red Book volumes contain PCM data, either stereo or quadrophonic.
Sadly, when the Red Book was written, nobody was thinking about a mono
format although in retrospect it would have been useful.

>who cares about data encoding in nineteen 2008 anyway? since the ATA
>interface standard from 1987 NOBODY knows what storage/encoding technology
>is applied on any hard drive that is produced, except for the manufacturer
>who is in an air-tight chamber behind locked doors on floor 53.

Audio engineers care about data encoding, because it is their job.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 19:34:59 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article >):

> jer0en > wrote:
>> you have definitely never heard the original BASF low noise tape cassette.
>> they came in white plastic cases. beats pulp of anything from the chromium
>> era.
>
> I used that stuff for bin mastering work for years. If you like that stuff,
> RMGI is still making it. Tape Warehouse will sell you big pancakes of it,
> or bulk load it into whatever cassette shells you'd like.
>
> Won't do anything about the massive flutter problems inherent in the cassette
> format, of course.
> --scott
>

Or self erasure, or poor S/N, or high distortion or drop-outs caused by
narrow track widths, etc.

[David F. Cox]

"jer0en" > wrote in message
. ..
> pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.

In the electronics world PCM stands for pulse code modulation - a two level
system that translates amplitude by the width of the pulse. Is it different
in the audio world?

David F. Cox

[David F. Cox]

"jer0en" > wrote in message
.. .
> bloody hell we don't even know the logical format of an NTFS partition.
> who
> cares about pcm?????

Marketing? Theirs just have stereo, ours have PCM. The best sell because
their customers understand, the others because they are confused.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Peter Larsen > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:

>>> You can't judge imaging at ALL on cans. There's no real image at
>>> all, just stuff to the right and left.

>> Finally, after being on the usenet since 1993, I find something to
>> disagree with you in. It is finding the usable cans for it that is
>> difficult.

> Any suggestions? Do you include a shuffler?

I have gotten fond of the HD 430's I use with this laptop, on location I use
HD25, cheap and costly versions. I used my very old stax's for late night
editing ... SR4 I think, currently their transformerbox (Number 00004)
needs at least some new resistors after a mains hum event.

No shuffler, I don't see the point, headphone-listening is about learning to
listen to the image you get rather than about making it appear as if it was
loudspeaker listening.

My contributions to the rap cd's were monitored on location with HD25's. I
expect to get one of the AT M50's that people here rave about some day.

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

On Jul 5, 5:05 pm, "jer0en" > wrote:
> what do you mean? pulse code modulation? is pcm uncompressed, like cd or
> wav? no. so of course there wouldn't be any noticeable difference with mp3.
>
> it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any difference between
> mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you have a studio theatre in your living,
> let alone pcm and mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing.

bull****
do so on my laptopspeakers
mp3 even with high bit rate sucks the life out of transients and
overtone details

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually
>>>>>>> indistinguishable from PCM.
>>
>>>>>> That tells us about either you ears or the type of
>>>>>> music you listen to. You may not be able to
>>>>>> "distinguish" it, but don't project that onto others.
>>
>>>>> You know nothing about my hearing acuity, or what I
>>>>> listen to, and nor did I say I _couldn't_ distinguish
>>>>> MP3 and PCM. Don't put words in my mouth you snotty
>>>>> little man.
>>
>>>> Oh, you have described your hearing acuity very well.
>>
>>>> It is as finely honed as your social skills.
>>
>>> Another puffed up cretin who can't read.
>>
>> Actually, he reads quite well, especially the "snotty
>> little man" part. ;-)
>
> I don't suffer fools gladly, probably why we never got
> along.

Everybody else is a fool Paul, and you are the smartest guy around, right?

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

> On Jul 5, 5:05 pm, "jer0en" > wrote:
>> what do you mean? pulse code modulation? is pcm
>> uncompressed, like cd or wav? no. so of course there
>> wouldn't be any noticeable difference with mp3.
>>
>> it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any
>> difference between mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you
>> have a studio theatre in your living, let alone pcm and
>> mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing.
>
> bull****
> do so on my laptopspeakers
> mp3 even with high bit rate sucks the life out of
> transients and overtone details

Still relying on those sighted evaluations, right?

They let you hear whatever you want to believe.

[jer0en]

it is your job to uphold a virtual version of reality, to the extent of
actual care? what are they paying you? I've been wanting to ask that for
quite a while. there is no digital data storage/encoding standard on earth,
least of all one that is worth caring, and least of all in digital audio
engineering.

bet you also care about all the specifics of your funeral, or isn't that a
part of your job?

[jer0en]

no, it's not marketing. the procedure of defining technological concepts,
that is including their commercial names, is way to rigid and COMPLETELY top
level to allow some silly sales executives on the ground floor to be a part
of it. "pcm" comes from floor 53.

[jer0en]

since your post suggest that normally other physical formats than pcm would
be used for surround, it only confirms the importance of discussing the
having of standards in digital data storage/encoding technologies, and the
specifics of these, because we are shure that the best standard will
eventually supersede all others, eventhough the specifics of the predicate
"good", including "best", will for ever remain part of an unfinishable
discussion we generally refer to as philosophy. and eventhough state and
religion are now separate, state and philosophy join very well together.

[jer0en]

definitive cynism for instance, like nietzsche and to some extent darwin,
simply states that good is that which prevails.

personally, I could not conceive of a better definition of evil.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 6, 6:44 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > bull****
> > do so on my laptopspeakers
> > mp3 even with high bit rate sucks the life out of
> > transients and overtone details
>
> Still relying on those sighted evaluations, right?
>
> They let you hear whatever you want to believe.

lap top speakers = sighted evaluations

bad logic there old man

they sound even worse when using monitors in my studio.
do you have your own studio??
or is your church supplying all your gear??

[jer0en]

what you in fact say is that pcm is a technique to digitally store analogue
samples, which should preferably go for all encoding types that record
audio digitally. it doesn't seem to define pcm.

alternatively, pcm doesn't seem to define anything either, so why not just
say "stereo".

[Scott Dorsey]

Signal > wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>>it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any difference between
>>>mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you have a studio theatre in your living,
>>>let alone pcm and mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing.
>>
>>I hate to tell you this, but it is very, very obvious to hear the differences
>>between mp3 and CD files. I suggest you first of all go and listen on a
>>decent playback system, and secondly I suggest you get the AES disc that
>>gives exaggerated examples of various lossy compression artifacts. Once you
>>learn what they sound like, they will start driving you up the wall until
>>soon you will not be able to stand mp3 encoding any longer.
>
>Depends on the source material. Assuming finest quality encoding
>practices, differences range from blatantly obvious to virtually
>(possibly absolutely) imperceptible.

Oh, of course, I can build test tracks to deliberately make it
imperceptable. In fact, for a while the techno guys were using
several generations of MD as an effect, because they liked what
the ATRAC encoding did to the sound. Take a record that already
has several deliberate generations of encoding and one more is
not apt to change much.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

David F. Cox > wrote:
>"jer0en" > wrote in message
. ..
>> pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.
>
>In the electronics world PCM stands for pulse code modulation - a two level
>system that translates amplitude by the width of the pulse. Is it different
>in the audio world?

No, you are thinking of PWM, pulse width modulation. PCM is a bitstream
of (usually binary but sometimes Gray code or something weird) digital
code pulses which indicate succeeding analogue values.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>
>No shuffler, I don't see the point, headphone-listening is about learning to
>listen to the image you get rather than about making it appear as if it was
>loudspeaker listening.

But that's exactly why I say you can't get real imaging on headphones. If
a recording is made to give a good image on a pair of speakers, with all
the instruments in the right place and the edges of the sound field extending
well beyond the speakers, when you play it back on headphones everything
goes all wrong with a hole in the middle.

Yes, if a recording is specifically made for headphone playback, you can
get a great image.... but then you have a recording you can't listen to on
speakers.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[David F. Cox]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> David F. Cox > wrote:
>>"jer0en" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.
>>
>>In the electronics world PCM stands for pulse code modulation - a two
>>level
>>system that translates amplitude by the width of the pulse. Is it
>>different
>>in the audio world?
>
> No, you are thinking of PWM, pulse width modulation. PCM is a bitstream
> of (usually binary but sometimes Gray code or something weird) digital
> code pulses which indicate succeeding analogue values.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Thank you - time for more searches and revision

[jer0en]

> But that's exactly why I say you can't get real imaging on headphones. If
> a recording is made to give a good image on a pair of speakers, with all
> the instruments in the right place and the edges of the sound field
extending
> well beyond the speakers, when you play it back on headphones everything
> goes all wrong with a hole in the middle.
>
probably due to less distortion.

in both digital and analogue amplification as well as in speaker design 29th
century techniques are being applied to have the instruments come from all
the right places, basicly to have the engineers agree on a perfect
recording, while completely corrupting the source signal as a whole in the
background to prevent illegal copying, and audial copying to begin with.

you should start with exchanging you mains plugs with large glass 5A / 250V
fuses in parellel to get the desired value, then at least you would have
actual current. they cost about 50 cents.

> Yes, if a recording is specifically made for headphone playback, you can
> get a great image.... but then you have a recording you can't listen to on
> speakers.

and not even satan would be content to listen to music over headphones at
home, unless in order to record illegal copies of an original.

if I were to live in Diy, I would simply buy two 2 or 3 inch general
frequency speakers and line them with a sky doughnut for seclusion, solder a
2x0.25 microphone cable to each and connect these with an oehlbach jack (15
euro).

but then again I don't know how important headphones are for a recording
engineer facing and consequently caring for all kinds of digital data
storage and encoding technologies, and the standards thereof.

[jer0en]

not currently. are there any white bloodcells in alt.audio.eq? there seem to
be digital viruses around.

[jer0en]

well well

[jer0en]

if find mp3 completely harmless, whereas music is supposed to do things with
you.

[jer0en]

so pcm is not a storage/encoding technology for specific media like for
instance mfm was, but just a sampling technology for analogue AV.

[jer0en]

you see, mfm was a storage/encoding tech to store data on hard disk that was
already(binary) digital. it seems that pcm is at least one phase prior to
this proces, and has nothing to do with writing the data to the actual
medium. so either the name pcm, or at least comparing pcm to mfm, is
confusing.

[jer0en]

since mp3 is a compression algorithm, comparing pcm to mp3 is not even
comparing a fruit to a fruit, and not just purely technically speaking, but
commercially speaking as well, unless the source of the mp3 file would have
been a pcm recording, which, I gather, is not necessarily so.

indeed, digital standards are something to care about, but first they would
have to be properly categorized. that is, publicly, and not on floor 53.

[jer0en]

mfm is a physical storage standard, concerning writing binary digital data
to a physical medium.

pcm is a logical sampling standard, concerning writing digitally encoded
analogue samples to a file.

mp3 is a compression algorithm for digital audio files, independant of the
sampling technique used to record the original.

while pcm has been used as the standard sampling technique for all normal
CDs since 1983, as described in the cd red book, though from an entirely
different category, mp3 seems to be identifying itself as a standard
superseding pcm allowing all kinds of other, superior sampling techniques to
hide under its umbrella.

the logicer you go, the killer it gets

[jer0en]

one day we'll all be listening to the white noise of a superior facsimile
signal, and they will probably commercially call it source direct.

[jer0en]

I'm afraid that currently I'm not into shipping. products have to be
available at local stores for me to have any access to them.

[jer0en]

and if I like music. I'm afraid it is a bit deeper than that.

[jer0en]

well they tend to get lost or break after 25 years or so. so the main
problem is really availability.

[jer0en]

do you have any confirmation on that? I have audial confirmation on my
version. it's thin, but it is at least something.

[jer0en]

my point being that it was available to children of 3 buying liquorice. 369
and 468 are cute numbers, but only to those who have exclusive access of the
material.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Yes, if a recording is specifically made for headphone playback, you
> can
> get a great image.... but then you have a recording you can't listen
> to on speakers.

Are my contributions to the RAP CD's "recordings you can't listen to on
speakers"?

> --scott


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[jer0en]

by the way, who are the techno guys? are they any good?

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 00:22:30 -0700, David F. Cox wrote
(in article >):

>
> "jer0en" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.
>
> In the electronics world PCM stands for pulse code modulation - a two level
> system that translates amplitude by the width of the pulse. Is it different
> in the audio world?
>
> David F. Cox
>
>

No.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 05:34:46 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article >):

> what you in fact say is that pcm is a technique to digitally store analogue
> samples, which should preferably go for all encoding types that record
> audio digitally. it doesn't seem to define pcm.
>
> alternatively, pcm doesn't seem to define anything either, so why not just
> say "stereo".
>
>
>

You are talking apples and oranges here. PCM is merely the way that ones and
zeros are represented on the recording media. It has nothing whatsoever to do
with the quantization process that turns the audio into digital words, nor
does it have anything to do with what's being quantized. A better analogy
from the old mono/phonograph days would be the difference between vertically
cut or laterally cut records. The music, in either case, is the same
recording, only the way in which it is inscribed in the grooves differs.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 06:19:49 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article >):

>> But that's exactly why I say you can't get real imaging on headphones. If
>> a recording is made to give a good image on a pair of speakers, with all
>> the instruments in the right place and the edges of the sound field
> extending
>> well beyond the speakers, when you play it back on headphones everything
>> goes all wrong with a hole in the middle.
>>
> probably due to less distortion.
>
> in both digital and analogue amplification as well as in speaker design 29th
> century techniques are being applied to have the instruments come from all
> the right places, basicly to have the engineers agree on a perfect
> recording, while completely corrupting the source signal as a whole in the
> background to prevent illegal copying, and audial copying to begin with.
>
> you should start with exchanging you mains plugs with large glass 5A / 250V
> fuses in parellel to get the desired value, then at least you would have
> actual current. they cost about 50 cents.
>
>> Yes, if a recording is specifically made for headphone playback, you can
>> get a great image.... but then you have a recording you can't listen to on
>> speakers.
>
> and not even satan would be content to listen to music over headphones at
> home, unless in order to record illegal copies of an original.
>
> if I were to live in Diy, I would simply buy two 2 or 3 inch general
> frequency speakers and line them with a sky doughnut for seclusion, solder a
> 2x0.25 microphone cable to each and connect these with an oehlbach jack (15
> euro).
>
> but then again I don't know how important headphones are for a recording
> engineer facing and consequently caring for all kinds of digital data
> storage and encoding technologies, and the standards thereof.
>
>

Most recording engineers do not use headphones for "mix-down", they use
near-field monitor speakers and many classical recording engineers use good
quality audiophile speakers. Well recorded classical or jazz is recorded to
two-track using just a stereo pair of microphones. Their correct placement
assures proper imaging and phase coherence. It is permissible to use accent
microphones on instruments requiring them as long as they are subordinate to
the main stereo pair. Multi-miked symphonic music sounds terrible because
instruments that mix together in the air between the orchestra and the
listener's seat, sound altogether different than they do when miked up-close.
Also, multimiked orchestras have NO image. Pan-potting an instrument to it's
approximate place linearly from left-to right across the stage gives you just
that, a bunch of musicians lined-up in a straight line across the stage. Real
orchestras don't do that either. So, multi-miking is just wrong any way you
look at it. With modern pop music, none of this is important because most pop
music doesn't actually exist in real space anyway.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 08:03:10 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article >):

> by the way, who are the techno guys? are they any good?


What "tech guys"? To whom or to what are you responding? When you don't quote
the post you are answering, no one has the slightest idea what you are
talking about. PLEASE quote the material to which you are responding.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 07:55:35 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article >):

> do you have any confirmation on that? I have audial confirmation on my
> version. it's thin, but it is at least something.

Confirmation of what? Nobody has any way of knowing what you are talking
about or to whom your comments are aimed. Please quote the posts you are
responding to.

[jer0en]

and resuming about a 100 REs, apart from having the right to sing and vote,
we know seem to have a right to care, specifically about the merits of
digital audio standards.

[jer0en]

I would agree that, for mixing down, monitoring between speakers is better
than between headphones.

only trouble is that to my knowledge of play-back equipment, the only
studios that would have the infinitesimal power resources required to do
(15"?) speaker monitoring undistortedly, would be island's, virgin's and
possibly deutsche grammophon.

in all other places on earth you would get moderate up to incredible
distortion over speakers, which is just the beginning of what people at home
experience, whatever VH end stuff they may have, namely infinitesimal
distortion.

the result of this in the studio would be that recordings would be ADAPTED,
that is be rid of any dangerous amplitudes and usually entire dangerous
frequency ranges, to at least be reproduceable undistortedly in the studio
itself.

and that is before it would be stored on any superior medium.

headphones however are a lot less comfy, but produce about 100 times less
distortion because their power requirements are about 100 times less, which
would allow you to do at least a complete (as to the frequency spectrum)
original recording, e.g. for posterity.

no not for the record

[jer0en]

there is preciously little advanced about listening to actually undistorted
music of whatever genre. there is no image, no pounding base, no screaming
treble. it's more like listening to the czar's music box than anything else.

the point is that music is worth listening to this way, because not the
recording but the music "as is" would have this special intrinsic quality,
as opposed to (car hifi) loudness, that we call BEAUTY.

there's no need to be adding any images, particularly if you're not even
shure that they exist, since we are perfectly capable of creating them
ourselves. so if you record music, please have it sound as simple as you
can. and if you experience an image, get rid of it.

[jer0en]

please gather at the following coordinates:

[jer0en]

> You are talking apples and oranges here. PCM is merely the way that ones
and
> zeros are represented on the recording media.

the way you put it, pcm is a physical encoding and storage technology like
mfm was, the only difference being that mfm was a physical data format used
for magnetic hard drives and pcm would be a physical data format used for
optical media.

note that PHYSICAL encoding only applies to data that is already digital,
usually involving some kind of compression to store as much data (encoded
zeros and ones) as possible on the smallest possible track length. so it
does not relate to sampling or quantizing, as you call it, of analogue data.

in IT, physical means prior to file, which is a logical (media independant)
unit. so how do you explain scott dorsey, who seems to imply that pcm is a
(conventional) sampling procedure resulting in both files, which are
media-independant, and data carriers that do not employ the file structure,
like commercial audio CDs.

> .wav files and red book CDs are PCM. PCM is a general description of any
> data format that is directly sampled with direct waveform amplitudes.

[jer0en]

I'm afraid that anything that, besides as an image, could be described as a
"field", can in fact only be (due to) distortion. there are no vaguenesses
in undistorted music, just plainly distinct sound sources from plainly
distinct directions.

[jer0en]

and if you experience distortion, please do not call it an image or a field.

[jer0en]

stands to reason. if I mp3-encode a mute signal, there should be no
difference with the original.

[jer0en]

> For the same source and settings you should get identical output
> files. What convertor are you using?

any converter. but since no error correction is included with (commercially
distributed digital) audio before the data reaches the safety of the hard
drive, which does apply error correction, if you accidentally breathe you
will get a different output file.

[jer0en]

of course in serially designed pc systems (PCIe) error correction is added
to the packages when data is moved around the pc system, but this does not,
and because of copyright issues never will include the reading procedure
performed by the cd drive. which on PCIe systems has to read at such an
incredible rate that nothing above mp3 will survive the reading procedure
anyway.

[jer0en]

> Confirmation of what? Nobody has any way of knowing what you are talking
> about or to whom your comments are aimed. Please quote the posts you are
> responding to.

and now I'm gonna kill you

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

> On Jul 6, 6:44 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>> bull****
>>> do so on my laptopspeakers
>>> mp3 even with high bit rate sucks the life out of
>>> transients and overtone details

>> Still relying on those sighted evaluations, right?

>> They let you hear whatever you want to believe.

> lap top speakers = sighted evaluations

??????????

> bad logic there old man

??????????

> they sound even worse when using monitors in my studio.

Still relying on those sighted evaluations, right?

> do you have your own studio??

Yes,

> or is your church supplying all your gear??

More like the reverse.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> > On Jul 6, 6:44 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> bull****
> >>> do so on my laptopspeakers
> >>> mp3 even with high bit rate sucks the life out of
> >>> transients and overtone details
>
> >> Still relying on those sighted evaluations, right?
>
> >> They let you hear whatever you want to believe.
>
> > lap top speakers = sighted evaluations
>
> ??????????
>
> > bad logic there old man
>
> ??????????
>
> > they sound even worse when using monitors in my studio.
>
> Still relying on those sighted evaluations, right?
>
> > do you have your own studio??
>
> Yes,
>
> > or is your church supplying all your gear??
>
> More like the reverse.

ahh, no I listen with my eyes closed and my ears open
maybe this explains why you can not hear the differences
you are to busy looking at you testing equipment.

so you get to play with your equipment by volunteering at your church.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 12:05:24 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article >):

> I would agree that, for mixing down, monitoring between speakers is better
> than between headphones.
>
> only trouble is that to my knowledge of play-back equipment, the only
> studios that would have the infinitesimal power resources required to do
> (15"?) speaker monitoring undistortedly, would be island's, virgin's and
> possibly deutsche grammophon.
>
> in all other places on earth you would get moderate up to incredible
> distortion over speakers, which is just the beginning of what people at home
> experience, whatever VH end stuff they may have, namely infinitesimal
> distortion.
>
> the result of this in the studio would be that recordings would be ADAPTED,
> that is be rid of any dangerous amplitudes and usually entire dangerous
> frequency ranges, to at least be reproduceable undistortedly in the studio
> itself.
>
> and that is before it would be stored on any superior medium.
>
> headphones however are a lot less comfy, but produce about 100 times less
> distortion because their power requirements are about 100 times less, which
> would allow you to do at least a complete (as to the frequency spectrum)
> original recording, e.g. for posterity.

That's ridiculous. Electrostatic headphones have less distortion than do most
speakers because they are push-pull, not due to their power requirements.
Regular headphones have just the same kinds of and amounts of distortion as
most speakers due to the fact that they are subject to the same
non-linearities as are speakers. However, headphones usually aren't as flat
in frequency response as speakers but offset that by having no room
influences to cover the sound. I'd say their a wash.
>
> no not for the record
>
>

[jer0en]

you mean tiny little magnat pans? how cute, I had no idea they existed. but
if anything would be liable to create a field inside your head they would.

> Regular headphones have just the same kinds of and amounts of distortion
as
> most speakers due to the fact that they are subject to the same
> non-linearities as are speakers.

yes, of course, the faulty design is the same, but set aside the higher
impedance of headphones, for normal operation headphones use a volume level
that is close to line level, hardly needing any amplification.

and you should know that distortion is logarithmically proportional with the
volume level, because of the power requirements. the supply of which for
instance depends on the quality of your mains fuses, and the number of
non-soldered mains connections behind it.

talking power supply everything must be amps. everything connected to mains
(transformers), including mains itself, must be (230V) 16, 32, 64 and
depending on the studio up to hundreds of amperes from start to finish. and
they must be clean amps.

all which is of course useless if you record digitally, the equipment for
which could probably reliably operate on two AA-size penlites, with
equivalent recording results.

> headphones usually aren't as flat in frequency response as speakers

I think you mean currently. due to the application of 29th century frequency
filtering alloys, like for instance in mains fuses, currently no flat
frequency response headphones are available. this is not a temporary thing,
it will be for allways. this is why tDPS recommends diying them from
scratch.

if graham bell could produce a functional speaker, so could we. they only
need to be 3 inch. I would use copper for the coil, that way they would have
to prohibit pure metal, which would probably cost more than it would yield,
from any perspective.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 06:41:09 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article >):

> you mean tiny little magnat pans? how cute, I had no idea they existed. but
> if anything would be liable to create a field inside your head they would.
>
>> Regular headphones have just the same kinds of and amounts of distortion
> as
>> most speakers due to the fact that they are subject to the same
>> non-linearities as are speakers.
>
> yes, of course, the faulty design is the same, but set aside the higher
> impedance of headphones, for normal operation headphones use a volume level
> that is close to line level, hardly needing any amplification.
>
> and you should know that distortion is logarithmically proportional with the
> volume level, because of the power requirements. the supply of which for
> instance depends on the quality of your mains fuses, and the number of
> non-soldered mains connections behind it.

I'm sorry, but for any practical purposes, modern amplifiers introduce so
little distortion as to be essentially transparent. I'll bet you money that
in a double-blind test that you wouldn't be able to tell a US$25,000 high-end
amplifier from a the amp in a $150 Japanese receiver.

[jer0en]

and I bet you money that I could tell the difference between a US$25.000 and
a US$25001 VH end amp from the same manufacturer.

[jer0en]

I would require a decent pre amp though. like mine.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:54:36 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article >):

> and I bet you money that I could tell the difference between a US$25.000 and
> a US$25001 VH end amp from the same manufacturer.
>
>

Asinine. There is no $25,000 and $25,001 from the same manufacturer. If you
are trying to say that you can hear the difference between two identical
amplifiers from the same manufacturer (unit-to-unit variation), they I say
bull. All ABX and double-blind tests give the same results. Nobody can tell
one amp from another when they don't to which they are listening. Non-sighted
evaluations like this result in statistical "blind-chance" results.

[Andre Majorel]

On 2008-07-06, jer0en > wrote:

>> Confirmation of what? Nobody has any way of knowing what you are talking
>> about or to whom your comments are aimed. Please quote the posts you are
>> responding to.
>
> and now I'm gonna kill you

No. Now you're going to learn to leave an attribution line.

--
André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
"Cette supposition rappelle assez celle de ce prédicateur qui, en
pleine chaire, faisait remarquer à ses fidèles la bonté de Dieu qui
avait placé les rivières auprès des villes." -- Alexandre Dumas

[jer0en]

no I was talking different models, in one of which a single 29th cy ffa
metalfoil 3.3R resistor would be replaced with plain uncompressed carbon of
the same size. I could tell in which channel.

ffa = frequency filtering alloy

but you can say low noise if you like

[jer0en]

then again, that resistor would probably make it US$26.000.

[jer0en]

next thing you tell me hitler killed 6M jews in deathlager, 2 bombs exploded
over hiroshima and nagasaki in '45 and men have walked the moon in '69. just
like the coming of black jah, these are all plain facts. do you ever watch
the news? NOBODY believes that **** anymore. I would use copper.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Eeyore > wrote:


> Kompu Kid wrote:

> > Hello All:
> >
> > I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
> > one.
> >
> > What brand and model would you folks recommend?

> For value for money you can't really ever go too far wrong with Dell. I've used several and they all worked fine. None were the cheapest but not by a long way
> were they THAT expensive either.

> The best PC is one you spec (and probably build) yourself, taling into account your needs.

> DO NOT 'overspec' what you need. It's simply money down the drain and it'll likely be noisier. too.

> Avoid Windows Vista like the plague. Dell ought still be able to install XP for you. If not get a copy of XP 'somewhere else'. IIRC MS has just said it'll
> continue to support XP til 2014.

Regardless of its performance as an OS, Vista actually has a rather impressive pedigree on its
audio side.



--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Eeyore > wrote:


> Signal wrote:

> > "jer0en" > wrote:
> >
> > >if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
> > >different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.
> >
> > Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually indistinguishable from PCM.

> Sometimes. You might be shocked. It's HIGHLY related to the 'complexity'
> of the music.

Mainly the high frequency contenct, actually.

Some of the most difficult music to encode is rather musically simple
electronic stuff. It's not necessarily true that a symphonic piece will
be harder to encode 'transparently' than a pop tune.





--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Eeyore > wrote:


> Scott Dorsey wrote:

> > jer0en > wrote:
> > >if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
> > >different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.
> >
> > Hell, I notice discrepancies between different runs of the same mp3
> > converter on the same computer.
> >
> > >if other people also experience things get actually worse than mp3, I would
> > >cry.
> >
> > It's hard to imagine anything much worse than mp3. Maybe cassettes...
> > okay, I will grant the Philips Compact Cassette is actually worse than MP3.
> > But you have to work hard at it.

> If people only knew what mp3 did / how it worked, they'd run away screaming.


I do, and I don't. So I use them for portable players...which I even 8gasp* sometimes plug
into the 'big' rig.

Then again, I've done ABX tests using my own mp3s, and have found the point where
I can't tell them apart from source on most music.

The supposedly inherent crappiness of mp3s is highly anecdotal, and over and over has not been
supported by actual ABX tests when good codecs are used. And some mp3 codecs have gotten very
good.


--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Chris Hornbeck > wrote:

> Hopefully others will make a strong case for the better
> electronics also, so the OP will go into the project as well
> armed as possible. Vinyl playback is not trivial - very
> cool if done right though, and, maybe surprisingly
> very enjoyable.

Is it so surprising? By the time you get around to listening, you've invested a considerable
amount of money , equipment, and quasi-ritualistic technology setup and media preparation to
get the 'proper' playback. Not to mentiom the nostalgia factor (for baby boomers) or
retro-cool factor (for the kids).

Then again, when I've done LP transfers, it's always been a relief to put the whole Rube
Goldbergesque apparatus away when it's done. The only thing I miss is the cover art.


--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech jer0en > wrote:
> what do you mean? pulse code modulation? is pcm uncompressed, like cd or
> wav?

it certainly can be.

> no. so of course there wouldn't be any noticeable difference with mp3.

your logic is wanting here.


> it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any difference between
> mp3 and cd or wav quality,


I'd never say impossible, and I would always say it depends on the codec,
its settings, the music, and the listener.






--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech jer0en > wrote:
> pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.

OK, you don't know what you're talking about. Please stop.


Just by way of example, DVD-Audio 5.1 surround, is PCM.



--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> jer0en > wrote:
> >what do you mean? pulse code modulation? is pcm uncompressed, like cd or
> >wav? no. so of course there wouldn't be any noticeable difference with mp3.

> .wav files and red book CDs are PCM. PCM is a general description of any
> data format that is directly sampled with direct waveform amplitudes.

> >it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any difference between
> >mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you have a studio theatre in your living,
> >let alone pcm and mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing.

> I hate to tell you this, but it is very, very obvious to hear the differences
> between mp3 and CD files. I suggest you first of all go and listen on a
> decent playback system, and secondly I suggest you get the AES disc that
> gives exaggerated examples of various lossy compression artifacts. Once you
> learn what they sound like, they will start driving you up the wall until
> soon you will not be able to stand mp3 encoding any longer.

The AES disc dates from *how* many years ago? (I have it too, but not at hand)

MP3 codecs have come a long way in just the past five years.






--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech wrote:
> On Jul 5, 5:05 pm, "jer0en" > wrote:
> > what do you mean? pulse code modulation? is pcm uncompressed, like cd or
> > wav? no. so of course there wouldn't be any noticeable difference with mp3.
> >
> > it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any difference between
> > mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you have a studio theatre in your living,
> > let alone pcm and mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing.

> bull****
> do so on my laptopspeakers
> mp3 even with high bit rate sucks the life out of transients and
> overtone details

Bull****.

Do so using ABX comparison.



--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech wrote:
> On Jul 6, 6:44 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > > bull****
> > > do so on my laptopspeakers
> > > mp3 even with high bit rate sucks the life out of
> > > transients and overtone details
> >
> > Still relying on those sighted evaluations, right?
> >
> > They let you hear whatever you want to believe.

> lap top speakers = sighted evaluations


er...no

> bad logic there old man

er..back atcha.

> they sound even worse when using monitors in my studio.

OK, now, how do they sound on your best monitors
when you use a good codec, and
run the comparison double-blind and level-matched??

Actually, don't tell me how they sound. Just post the ABX results.


--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

> In rec.audio.tech jer0en > wrote:
>> pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.
>
> OK, you don't know what you're talking about. Please
> stop.
>
>
> Just by way of example, DVD-Audio 5.1 surround, is PCM.

Even DVD-V 5.1 surround is PCM. It's just that the audio is coded with Dolby
Digital PCM, and not linear PCM.

[Scott Dorsey]

Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>In rec.audio.tech Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>> I hate to tell you this, but it is very, very obvious to hear the differences
>> between mp3 and CD files. I suggest you first of all go and listen on a
>> decent playback system, and secondly I suggest you get the AES disc that
>> gives exaggerated examples of various lossy compression artifacts. Once you
>> learn what they sound like, they will start driving you up the wall until
>> soon you will not be able to stand mp3 encoding any longer.
>
>The AES disc dates from *how* many years ago? (I have it too, but not at hand)

It's been a while, I admit.

>MP3 codecs have come a long way in just the past five years.

This is true, but you will STILL hear plenty of the same kinds of artifacts,
as well as some new ones. They are changed, but the forms remain the same.
--scott

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

[jer0en]

actually error correction is what definitively sets aside digital from
analogue data.

without adding error correction information, digital data simply reverts to
being another AC signal, perhaps with the added property of being digitally
interpretable by an appropriate digital interpreter.

but without error correction, exactly the same happens to digitally as to
analoguely interpretable signals, they deteriorate with every other
millimeter that they travel, in short you only loose and loose signal
information until the signal is eventually depleted.

with error correction exactly the same happens, but now with each arrival of
the digital signal at the following system device, the error correction is
used to rebuild the digital data into the exact original, and if
deterioration was too great to allow this by using the error correction
information that was added, a FATAL read error is triggered by the OS and,
if not the whole system, at least the originating storage device is HALTED.
which usually means you have to restart the system or at least change the
storage medium.

ECC (error coding and correction) for instance, which was used on mfm hard
disks, allows restoration of 11 consecutive lost bits, beyond which the OS
will halt. the quality of the error correction, i.e. the amount of
consecutive lost bits it allows restoration of, has been finely tuned to fit
the (read) quality of the storage devices, allowing normal operation of the
system, i.e. without having fatal read errors all of the time that would
halt the system, while on the other hand taking up the least disk space
possible.

which results in the following drill: you either get all or you get zilch.
simply because a single corrupt bit in digital executable code passing
through the processor could destroy the whole system.

this means that digital systems completely rely on the application of error
correction and therefore do not apply but the slightest form of signal
protection, at least not before parallel ATA 33 and the base-80 flatcable,
that eventually resulted in the serial PCIe computer systems of today, which
in fact apply a mixture of error correction and signal protection, which is
procedurally unconventional to say the least.

now due to the protection of copyright law, no error correction information
is added to the data on commercial CDs and DVDs, and the OS stored on these
media does not halt the system in case of a misread. it just substitutes a
zero.

due to all kinds of circumstances; the quality of the laser unit, the read
speed, the number of parallel processes running, etc. etc., the number of
zeros "read" is bound to increase.

but the root of the matter is that once the data is read, the resulting AC
signal will then be travelling through the digital device (cd/dvd player)
completely unprotected, through nanometerwide signal paths that could in
fact only make sense in an environment in which error correction is
consistently applied.

calling such a device or medium "digital" is not just a hoax, if anything it
would be a blatant lie. and that was already the case in 1983.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> >In rec.audio.tech Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> >> I hate to tell you this, but it is very, very obvious to hear the differences
> >> between mp3 and CD files. I suggest you first of all go and listen on a
> >> decent playback system, and secondly I suggest you get the AES disc that
> >> gives exaggerated examples of various lossy compression artifacts. Once you
> >> learn what they sound like, they will start driving you up the wall until
> >> soon you will not be able to stand mp3 encoding any longer.
> >
> >The AES disc dates from *how* many years ago? (I have it too, but not at hand)

> It's been a while, I admit.

> >MP3 codecs have come a long way in just the past five years.

> This is true, but you will STILL hear plenty of the same kinds of artifacts,
> as well as some new ones.

No, I probably won't hear them, if the mp3 is well-made, because the codecs have gotten THAT
much better. I can still hear them on mediocre 128kbs downloads of unknown provenance, though.

And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the best codecs at 192kbps and above, you
probably wouldn't hear them either?



--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Les Cargill]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>> Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>>> In rec.audio.tech Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>>>> I hate to tell you this, but it is very, very obvious to hear the differences
>>>> between mp3 and CD files. I suggest you first of all go and listen on a
>>>> decent playback system, and secondly I suggest you get the AES disc that
>>>> gives exaggerated examples of various lossy compression artifacts. Once you
>>>> learn what they sound like, they will start driving you up the wall until
>>>> soon you will not be able to stand mp3 encoding any longer.
>>> The AES disc dates from *how* many years ago? (I have it too, but not at hand)
>
>> It's been a while, I admit.
>
>>> MP3 codecs have come a long way in just the past five years.
>
>> This is true, but you will STILL hear plenty of the same kinds of artifacts,
>> as well as some new ones.
>
> No, I probably won't hear them, if the mp3 is well-made, because the codecs have gotten THAT
> much better. I can still hear them on mediocre 128kbs downloads of unknown provenance, though.
>
> And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the best codecs at 192kbps and above, you
> probably wouldn't hear them either?
>
>
>


Couldn't you generate this sort of thing by taking the difference signal
between an MP3 and the original PCM dataset?

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the best codecs at 192kbps and above, you
>probably wouldn't hear them either?

On the best codecs at 192kbps, the tonal problems aren't so severe but I
bet you can still hear repeating modulation on the sound of a triangle.

At the higher rates with modern codecs, the tonality is a whole lot better
than it used to be, and only the stereo image goes to pot. This is a big
improvement, but it's still not transparency.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>> do you have your own studio??
>
> Yes,
>
Hehehe... oh, right! Located next to your
purported video production studio, no doubt.

[jer0en]

signal deterioration of course depending on the amplitude (strength) and
frequency (speed) of the signal, magnetic interference along the signal path
(warded off by shielding) and, first of all, the material composition and
mass of the conductor, i.e. the width of the signal path, and the number of
clamped removable connections along it, that act as width bottlenecks.

[jer0en]

material composition is what the industry currently focusses on, introducing
29th cy frequency filtering alloys in the environment that filter out the
human response elements from AV, in order to sensually bleed dry and submit
human life to its rule.

[jer0en]

and if you can see humour in that, you cannot be from around here. are you
now?

[[email protected]]

On Jul 8, 1:03 pm, Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> In rec.audio.tech wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 6:44 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > > bull****
> > > > do so on my laptopspeakers
> > > > mp3 even with high bit rate sucks the life out of
> > > > transients and overtone details
>
> > > Still relying on those sighted evaluations, right?
>
> > > They let you hear whatever you want to believe.
> > lap top speakers = sighted evaluations
>
> er...no
>
> > bad logic there old man
>
> er..back atcha.
>
> > they sound even worse when using monitors in my studio.
>
> OK, now, how do they sound on your best monitors
> when you use a good codec, and
> run the comparison double-blind and level-matched??
>
> Actually, don't tell me how they sound. Just post the ABX results.
>
> --
> -S
> Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
> intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
> SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

I did, mp3 Sucks details from the music!!!!

[[email protected]]

On Jul 8, 4:37 pm, Steven Sullivan > wrote:


> And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the best codecs at 192kbps and >above, you probably wouldn't hear them either?


and you are now flip flopping


I do hear the difference!!!

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

> On Jul 8, 4:37 pm, Steven Sullivan >
> wrote:
>
>
>> And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the
>> best codecs at 192kbps and >above, you probably wouldn't
>> hear them either?
>
>
> and you are now flip flopping
>
>
> I do hear the difference!!!

Since when did you reverse your position on ABX?

[[email protected]]

On Jul 8, 3:16 pm, "jer0en" > wrote:
> actually error correction is what definitively sets aside digital from
> analogue data.
> ...
> without adding error correction information, digital data simply reverts to
> being another AC signal,
> ...
> but without error correction, exactly the same happens to digitally as to
> analoguely interpretable signals,
> they deteriorate with every other
> millimeter that they travel, in short you only loose and loose signal
> information until the signal is eventually depleted.
>
> ...
>
> now due to the protection of copyright law, no error correction information
> is added to the data on commercial CDs and DVDs, and the OS stored on these
> media does not halt the system in case of a misread. it just substitutes a
> zero.
>
> due to all kinds of circumstances; the quality of the laser unit, the read
> speed, the number of parallel processes running, etc. etc., the number of
> zeros "read" is bound to increase.
>
> but the root of the matter is that once the data is read, the resulting AC
> signal will then be travelling through the digital device (cd/dvd player)
> completely unprotected, through nanometerwide signal paths that could in
> fact only make sense in an environment in which error correction is
> consistently applied.

If they gave out Nobel prizes in pure hogwash, you'd
most certainly be awash in pure hogs.

Your little novella on error correction is at once entertaining,
fantastic, rambling, largely irrelevant and, fortunately, wrong.

[Arny Krueger]

"jer0en" > wrote in message


> signal deterioration of course depending on the amplitude
> (strength) and frequency (speed) of the signal, magnetic
> interference along the signal path (warded off by
> shielding) and, first of all, the material composition
> and mass of the conductor, i.e. the width of the signal
> path, and the number of clamped removable connections
> along it, that act as width bottlenecks.

Bad prose, bad rhetoric, bad facts, bad conclusions.

If the width of conductors was a problem, no modern computer would boot, let
alone compute.

If any of the items you mentioned were irresolvable problems, nothing would
work.

Most data paths in modern digital equipment is not error-checked because it
doesn't need to be. Short lengths of wire are really pretty good stuff -
highly reliable and accurate.

[Richard Crowley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
> "jer0en" wrote
>> signal deterioration of course depending on the amplitude
>> (strength) and frequency (speed) of the signal, magnetic
>> interference along the signal path (warded off by
>> shielding) and, first of all, the material composition
>> and mass of the conductor, i.e. the width of the signal
>> path, and the number of clamped removable connections
>> along it, that act as width bottlenecks.
>
> Bad prose, bad rhetoric, bad facts, bad conclusions.

"jer0en" is actually a sophisticated automated random phrase
generator in development by some AI graduate students with
too much time on their hands over the summer break. It is to
their credit that so many of us were fooled into thinking that it
was a real human. But clearly no real human is that uninformed
of technical facts. Or else "Radium" is using a new alias.

Plonk the noise source and help improve Usenet.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 9, 6:43 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 4:37 pm, Steven Sullivan >
> > wrote:
>
> >> And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the
> >> best codecs at 192kbps and >above, you probably wouldn't
> >> hear them either?
>
> > and you are now flip flopping
>
> > I do hear the difference!!!
>
> Since when did you reverse your position on ABX?

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Les Cargill > wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> >> Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> >>> In rec.audio.tech Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> >>>> I hate to tell you this, but it is very, very obvious to hear the differences
> >>>> between mp3 and CD files. I suggest you first of all go and listen on a
> >>>> decent playback system, and secondly I suggest you get the AES disc that
> >>>> gives exaggerated examples of various lossy compression artifacts. Once you
> >>>> learn what they sound like, they will start driving you up the wall until
> >>>> soon you will not be able to stand mp3 encoding any longer.
> >>> The AES disc dates from *how* many years ago? (I have it too, but not at hand)
> >
> >> It's been a while, I admit.
> >
> >>> MP3 codecs have come a long way in just the past five years.
> >
> >> This is true, but you will STILL hear plenty of the same kinds of artifacts,
> >> as well as some new ones.
> >
> > No, I probably won't hear them, if the mp3 is well-made, because the codecs have gotten THAT
> > much better. I can still hear them on mediocre 128kbs downloads of unknown provenance, though.
> >
> > And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the best codecs at 192kbps and above, you
> > probably wouldn't hear them either?
> >
> >
> >


> Couldn't you generate this sort of thing by taking the difference signal
> between an MP3 and the original PCM dataset?



No, because the mp3 is certainly *measurably different* from the source.
But that doesn't mean you can necessarily hear the differnece...
even if you can hear the 'difference signal' in isolation.

mp3s are based on psymodels of what gets masked during typical hearing.
That's the whole 'trick' of good lossy compression...it's based on
psychoacoustics.




--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> >And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the best codecs at 192kbps and above, you
> >probably wouldn't hear them either?

> On the best codecs at 192kbps, the tonal problems aren't so severe but I
> bet you can still hear repeating modulation on the sound of a triangle.

> At the higher rates with modern codecs, the tonality is a whole lot better
> than it used to be, and only the stereo image goes to pot. This is a big
> improvement, but it's still not transparency.

Well, a good set of ABX comparisons would tell us that, yes?



--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 9, 6:43 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 4:37 pm, Steven Sullivan >
> > wrote:
>
> >> And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the
> >> best codecs at 192kbps and >above, you probably wouldn't
> >> hear them either?
>
> > and you are now flip flopping
>
> > I do hear the difference!!!
>
> Since when did you reverse your position on ABX?

no reversal,
I do not accept _hardware switchers_ for ABX.
any hardware in the audio circuit adds it's coloration and nulls any
differences.
I used itunes, nothing mechanical in the signal path.
same song, different formats, matched levels, no open GUI window
switched by keyboard.

the term _probably_ is where I say flip flop
> >> And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the
> >> best codecs at 192kbps and >above, you probably wouldn't
> >> hear them either?

either there is or is not a difference
if there is material removed, there is a difference.
I hear a difference
Scott hears a difference (independent verification)

my mom can not hear a difference between cassettes and lp's
its the same music she says. therefore ... !
now would my own mother lie to me?
or are her ears not trained to discern the subtle differences?
Kinda like you Arny!!!!!!

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message


> either there is or is not a difference

There is always a difference. The interesting question is whether the
difference is audible.


> if there is material removed, there is a difference.

So what? There is always a difference.

> I hear a difference

Based on what, the above flawed logic?

> Scott hears a difference (independent verification)

It's not clear that you were comparing comparable things.

> my mom can not hear a difference between cassettes and lp's

My regrets.

> its the same music she says. therefore ... !
> now would my own mother lie to me?
> or are her ears not trained to discern the subtle
> differences?

Or, she has some age-related hearing impairments. Or whatever.

> Kinda like you Arny!!!!!!

How do you know that?

[[email protected]]

On Jul 9, 4:50 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > either there is or is not a difference
>
> There is always a difference. The interesting question is whether the
> difference is audible.
>
> > if there is material removed, there is a difference.
>
> So what? There is always a difference.
>
> > I hear a difference
>
> Based on what, the above flawed logic?
>
> > Scott hears a difference (independent verification)
>
> It's not clear that you were comparing comparable things.
>
> > my mom can not hear a difference between cassettes and lp's
>
> My regrets.
>
> > its the same music she says. therefore ... !
> > now would my own mother lie to me?
> > or are her ears not trained to discern the subtle
> > differences?
>
> Or, she has some age-related hearing impairments. Or whatever.
>
> > Kinda like you Arny!!!!!!
>
> How do you know that?

you do not hear any difference!!!

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

> On Jul 9, 4:50 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> either there is or is not a difference
>>
>> There is always a difference. The interesting question
>> is whether the difference is audible.
>>
>>> if there is material removed, there is a difference.
>>
>> So what? There is always a difference.
>>
>>> I hear a difference
>>
>> Based on what, the above flawed logic?
>>
>>> Scott hears a difference (independent verification)
>>
>> It's not clear that you were comparing comparable things.
>>
>>> my mom can not hear a difference between cassettes and
>>> lp's
>>
>> My regrets.
>>
>>> its the same music she says. therefore ... !
>>> now would my own mother lie to me?
>>> or are her ears not trained to discern the subtle
>>> differences?
>>
>> Or, she has some age-related hearing impairments. Or
>> whatever.
>>
>>> Kinda like you Arny!!!!!!
>>
>> How do you know that?
>
> you do not hear any difference!!!

Delusions of omniscience noted. In fact you don't know any such thing, nor
is there a reason for you to believe that you do.

You're just trolling. :-(

[[email protected]]

On Jul 10, 6:46 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 4:50 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> either there is or is not a difference
>
> >> There is always a difference. The interesting question
> >> is whether the difference is audible.
>
> >>> if there is material removed, there is a difference.
>
> >> So what? There is always a difference.
>
> >>> I hear a difference
>
> >> Based on what, the above flawed logic?
>
> >>> Scott hears a difference (independent verification)
>
> >> It's not clear that you were comparing comparable things.
>
> >>> my mom can not hear a difference between cassettes and
> >>> lp's
>
> >> My regrets.
>
> >>> its the same music she says. therefore ... !
> >>> now would my own mother lie to me?
> >>> or are her ears not trained to discern the subtle
> >>> differences?
>
> >> Or, she has some age-related hearing impairments. Or
> >> whatever.
>
> >>> Kinda like you Arny!!!!!!
>
> >> How do you know that?
>
> > you do not hear any difference!!!
>
> Delusions of omniscience noted. In fact you don't know any such thing, nor
> is there a reason for you to believe that you do.
>
> You're just trolling. :-(

154,000 posts for arny krueger
who trolls quite well.

[jer0en]

sorry guys, this is as far as it goes.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 03:57:35 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article >):

> no I was talking different models, in one of which a single 29th cy ffa
> metalfoil 3.3R resistor would be replaced with plain uncompressed carbon of
> the same size. I could tell in which channel.
>
> ffa = frequency filtering alloy
>
> but you can say low noise if you like
>
>

I thought FFA meant "Fast-Fourier Analysis" ?

[Richard Crowley]

"Sonnova" wrote ...
> jer0en wrote
>> no I was talking different models, in one of which a single 29th cy ffa
>> metalfoil 3.3R resistor would be replaced with plain uncompressed carbon
>> of
>> the same size. I could tell in which channel.
>>
>> ffa = frequency filtering alloy
>>
>> but you can say low noise if you like
>>
>>
>
> I thought FFA meant "Fast-Fourier Analysis" ?

Judging by the technical knowledge of some people here,
it is Future Farmers of America.

[Les Cargill]

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Sonnova" wrote ...
>> jer0en wrote
>>> no I was talking different models, in one of which a single 29th cy ffa
>>> metalfoil 3.3R resistor would be replaced with plain uncompressed carbon
>>> of
>>> the same size. I could tell in which channel.
>>>
>>> ffa = frequency filtering alloy
>>>
>>> but you can say low noise if you like
>>>
>>>
>> I thought FFA meant "Fast-Fourier Analysis" ?
>
> Judging by the technical knowledge of some people here,
> it is Future Farmers of America.
>
>

Don't be so sure about that. Farming's gettin' pretty
techie.

--
Les Cargill

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:43:08 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote
(in article >):

> "Sonnova" wrote ...
>> jer0en wrote
>>> no I was talking different models, in one of which a single 29th cy ffa
>>> metalfoil 3.3R resistor would be replaced with plain uncompressed carbon
>>> of
>>> the same size. I could tell in which channel.
>>>
>>> ffa = frequency filtering alloy
>>>
>>> but you can say low noise if you like
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I thought FFA meant "Fast-Fourier Analysis" ?
>
> Judging by the technical knowledge of some people here,
> it is Future Farmers of America.
>
>

There is that....

[jer0en]

people do not typically discuss the tactics of an ongoing planetary war in
the acronym finder, but ffa of course would have its roots in transistor
design, after germanium was abandonned for silicon, the industry struggling
for one decennium to arrive at the quality required to have man eat the
bait, and in the next decennia to tune down the quality required to have man
eat the **** of his perpetual submission. why bother with micro-sizing logic
if you can do the same if not better on the molecular level, even if the
current year would be 2008?