The death of audio [Archive]

June 27th 13, 08:43 PM

J. g. holt the founder of stereophile at the end of his life was of the
mind that audio is near death for having neglected this:

Interview in stereophile, of which the entire thing is worth the timed to
read.

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real
world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s,
when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls
(double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other
serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of
endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual
embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the
mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel.

It is ironic the very mag he founded was in the forefront of this neglect
and of promoting voodoo audio., as it and fellow travelers continue.

Audio_Empire[_2_]

June 27th 13, 09:18 PM

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 12:43:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> J. g. holt the founder of stereophile at the end of his life was of the
>
> mind that audio is near death for having neglected this:
>
>
>
> Interview in stereophile, of which the entire thing is worth the timed to
>
> read.
>
>
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/
>
>
>
> Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real
>
> world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s,
>
> when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls
>
> (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other
>
> serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of
>
> endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual
>
> embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the
>
> mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel.
>
>
>
> It is ironic the very mag he founded was in the forefront of this neglect
>
> and of promoting voodoo audio., as it and fellow travelers continue.

Gordon was frustrated by the path that most equipment manufacturers were
taking - chasing millionaires. Youngsters were demonstrating that they would
rather listen to portable devices on headphones than on stereo gear, and with
few of them becoming audiophiles, Gordon saw most manufacturers heading
that growing part of the market, the millionaire. These guys want to show-off
their wealth so, when they build a new house, they set aside a "music room"
where a (never played) grand piano shares the space with a half-million dollar
stereo (also never played). He was disgusted that the mid market was being
abandoned, and that the magazines were following this up-market migration
with their reviews of this cost-is-no-object bling. But he was wrong in his
conclusions (thankfully). The record crowds at audio shows world-wide indicate
that the interest in high-end audio is not waning and the hobby isn't dying

Gary Eickmeier

June 28th 13, 12:58 PM

wrote:
> J. g. holt the founder of stereophile at the end of his life was of
> the mind that audio is near death for having neglected this:
>
> Interview in stereophile, of which the entire thing is worth the
> timed to read.
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/
>
> Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real
> world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the
> 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty
> controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized
> every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal]
> is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and
> of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many
> people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel.
>
> It is ironic the very mag he founded was in the forefront of this
> neglect and of promoting voodoo audio., as it and fellow travelers
> continue.

All true enough, but I am afraid the death of audio is more of a
generational thing. We were fascinated by the technology of sound
reproduction because we grew up first in the "hi fi" era and then when
stereo came out we were convinced that the goal of "being there" could be
achieved, so we kept on at it with the dedication of an alchemist. The paths
we took were many and the opportunity for profit sometimes shameful.

Nowadays, audio is still with us in the many forms you have mentioned, plus
motion pictures, car stereo, and the web. Having grown up with these fully
mature systems they think nothing of it, tehy just use it like appliances to
listen to pop tunes.

Perhaps a good analogy would be photography or video. I certainly was
fascinated by both growing up, and have tried endlessly to get more
realistic reproduction of still pictures and movies. We went through the
digital revolution as well, to our great joy. But now EVERYONE has a camera
or several cameras, and they go around shooting movies vertically composed
without tripods and watch it on cel phones or Youtube. They couldn't care
less about projecting movies onto a big screen or even surround sound
systems.

Not due to the industry committing suicide, just familiarity with the toys
we have created and unimpressed with them because they grew up with all of
them.

Gary Eickmeier

Andrew Haley

June 28th 13, 11:36 PM

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>

> Perhaps a good analogy would be photography or video. I certainly
> was fascinated by both growing up, and have tried endlessly to get
> more realistic reproduction of still pictures and movies. We went
> through the digital revolution as well, to our great joy. But now
> EVERYONE has a camera or several cameras, and they go around
> shooting movies vertically composed without tripods and watch it on
> cel phones or Youtube. They couldn't care less about projecting
> movies onto a big screen or even surround sound systems.

Well, all this is saying in effect is that people other thanm nerds
are enjoying themselves with the hobby. They really couldn't care
less; this is not a bad thing.

Andrew.

Audio_Empire

June 28th 13, 11:36 PM

In article >,
"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:

> wrote:
> > J. g. holt the founder of stereophile at the end of his life was of
> > the mind that audio is near death for having neglected this:
> >
> > Interview in stereophile, of which the entire thing is worth the
> > timed to read.
> >
> > http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/
> >
> > Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real
> > world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the
> > 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty
> > controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized
> > every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal]
> > is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and
> > of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many
> > people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel.
> >
> > It is ironic the very mag he founded was in the forefront of this
> > neglect and of promoting voodoo audio., as it and fellow travelers
> > continue.
>
> All true enough, but I am afraid the death of audio is more of a
> generational thing. We were fascinated by the technology of sound
> reproduction because we grew up first in the "hi fi" era and then when
> stereo came out we were convinced that the goal of "being there" could be
> achieved, so we kept on at it with the dedication of an alchemist. The paths
> we took were many and the opportunity for profit sometimes shameful.
>
> Nowadays, audio is still with us in the many forms you have mentioned, plus
> motion pictures, car stereo, and the web. Having grown up with these fully
> mature systems they think nothing of it, tehy just use it like appliances to
> listen to pop tunes.
>
> Perhaps a good analogy would be photography or video. I certainly was
> fascinated by both growing up, and have tried endlessly to get more
> realistic reproduction of still pictures and movies. We went through the
> digital revolution as well, to our great joy. But now EVERYONE has a camera
> or several cameras, and they go around shooting movies vertically composed
> without tripods and watch it on cel phones or Youtube. They couldn't care
> less about projecting movies onto a big screen or even surround sound
> systems.
>
> Not due to the industry committing suicide, just familiarity with the toys
> we have created and unimpressed with them because they grew up with all of
> them.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

Good point. In my day, using, again your photography analogy, the only
people who used "good cameras" were photography buffs. Lots of people
bought them (GIs in PX's around the world) but few actually used them.
Most people used simple box cameras, and in my day, a box camera was
simply that * a box camera. You shot on roll film, by "clicking" the
shutter and "winding the camera 'till the next number showed up in the
little red window. Then you dropped the film off at the drug store and
waited for your pictures to come back to you as you wondered which ones
will "come out". The process depended on the fact that the film had
rather wide latitude and would produce acceptable images even though
everything was fixed: shutter speed, aperture, focus. Only photo buffs
dealt with light-meters, and adjustments. But photo buffs loved it. I
remember learning all of the processes involved. Developing B&W, color
negative film, as well as color slide film. I made prints from my
enlarger for all of them.

Audio was similar. I built kits for the electronics, my dad and I built
speaker cabinets together, and having a fine stereo as a teen was a
point of pride with me. Like the photography hobby, I enjoyed learning
about the equipment and the processes involved on both ends of the
recording chain. Today, like photography, the equipment is just there.
One really need not think about it. You want sound, you buy the box that
does that. Everybody has a receiver and a pair of speakers and they
don't give a hoot or a hollar about the stuff. Likewise, everybody has a
decent digital camera (I have a 10 megapixel, 5X zoom digital camera
that I keep in the car. I paid $50 for it!). While technology has made
all the fiddling redundant, to the average joe, all he needs do is point
and shoot just like his dad did with the family Brownie, only today, all
of his pictures come out.

I have noted many times that if you talk to another audiophile, chances
are good that you'll find that his "other" hobby is photography.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Audio_Empire

June 30th 13, 02:40 PM

In article >,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Friday, June 28, 2013 3:36:38 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I have noted many times that if you talk to another audiophile, chances
> >
> > are good that you'll find that his "other" hobby is photography.
>
> Yet anyone with a cell phone or a tablet today is a photographer.
> You might find this article interesting.

Actually, that's pretty irrelevant to the point. When I say
"photographer" in the sense that it's a hobby, I mean that the person
is likely to have "high-end" cameras like a Nikon D600 or a Canon EOS-6D
and a variety of lenses to go with it. People who take photography
seriously as in someone who goes out on a Saturday morning, for
instance, with the sole purpose of "taking pictures." There aren't as
many people like that as there used to be, as computers and digital
imaging have made that "less fun" for many of us while making it more
possible for the average "Joe" to take more and better pictures.

> http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/27/video-is-the-digital-camera-dead/

On the other hand, a quote pulled from the above article states: "These
devices don¹t displace serious photography equipment, such as the gear I
usually carry on vacation or when going on the road to cover events.*
Cell phones and tablets don¹t have much flexibility in terms of zoom,
lighting, and sound for videos, for instance, and anything other than
snapshots requires a higher level of technology..."

> If the author is correct....the likely outcome for people who want to enjoy
> high end hardware photography with all the lens and filters etc. will find
> the cost skyrocketing as equipment manufacturers find themselves catering to
> a shrinking niche market....just as "high-end" audio manufacturers.
> Of course the kids will be enjoying video and become accomplished at even
> greater image creation through the use of software while old school
> photographers cry about a dying art.

Nothing wrong with empowering people and sparking the interests of kids
to get interested in the art of photography. I don't doubt that many
people ONLY need a smartphone to do their photography with, but I'd say
that merely empowers casual, snapshot photography and by its very
ubiquitous nature is more of a modern "Brownie" than a modern
Hassleblad.

And music playback devices, such the same smartphones and iPod-like
appliances have cut into the bottom of the audio market, somewhat, but
I don't see High-End audio being impacted that much. Prices have gone up
as much due to inflation as due to portable devices and the "iPod
Generation." Again, iPods and similar devices empower people who have no
real interest in audio or music (except for their generation's pop
music) to hear this music wherever they go and whenever they want. It
does not lessen the ability those who truly love music and want to hear
it reproduced correctly. But what modern society as a whole has done, is
to reduce the number of THOSE people by restricting young minds' access
to culture in general by dropping music and art appreciation classes
from the modern school curriculum. When I came into the hobby of audio,
Classical music sales were about 10% of all recordings sold. Now it's
far less than 1% and shrinking. Walk through a college dorm in my day
and you heard mostly classical and jazz coming from the radios and
record players of the male students' rooms. Not it's hip-hop and rap.
Not casting any aspersions here, just stating an obvious contrast in the
change.

Audio_Empire
>
> ScottW

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Robert Peirce

June 30th 13, 03:54 PM

In article >,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Friday, June 28, 2013 3:36:38 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
>
> > I have noted many times that if you talk to another audiophile, chances
> >
> > are good that you'll find that his "other" hobby is photography.
>
> Yet anyone with a cell phone or a tablet today is a photographer.
> You might find this article interesting.
>
> http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/27/video-is-the-digital-camera-dead/
>
> If the author is correct....the likely outcome for people who want to enjoy
> high end hardware photography with all the lens and filters etc. will find
> the cost skyrocketing as equipment manufacturers find themselves catering to
> a shrinking niche market....just as "high-end" audio manufacturers.
> Of course the kids will be enjoying video and become accomplished at even
> greater image creation through the use of software while old school
> photographers cry about a dying art.
>
> ScottW

Audio_Empire, that is interesting and true for me. I never thought of
it before. I wonder why that is the case.

ScottW, everybody takes pictures. Few people who take pictures are
photographers. Several actual photographers have done remarkable work
with iPhones. It isn't the equipment. It's what you do with it.

Audio_Empire

July 1st 13, 12:11 PM

In article >,
Robert Peirce > wrote:

> In article >,
> ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 28, 2013 3:36:38 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
> >
> > > I have noted many times that if you talk to another audiophile, chances
> > >
> > > are good that you'll find that his "other" hobby is photography.
> >
> > Yet anyone with a cell phone or a tablet today is a photographer.
> > You might find this article interesting.
> >
> > http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/27/video-is-the-digital-camera-dead/
> >
> > If the author is correct....the likely outcome for people who want to enjoy
> > high end hardware photography with all the lens and filters etc. will find
> > the cost skyrocketing as equipment manufacturers find themselves catering
> > to
> > a shrinking niche market....just as "high-end" audio manufacturers.
> > Of course the kids will be enjoying video and become accomplished at even
> > greater image creation through the use of software while old school
> > photographers cry about a dying art.
> >
> > ScottW
>
> Audio_Empire, that is interesting and true for me. I never thought of
> it before. I wonder why that is the case.
>
> ScottW, everybody takes pictures. Few people who take pictures are
> photographers. Several actual photographers have done remarkable work
> with iPhones. It isn't the equipment. It's what you do with it.

Precisely. Of course there's always the 'infinite number of monkeys
behind an infinite number of typewriters' analogy with regard to people
and cell phones containing digital cameras, but mostly good pictures
come from good photographers, not just people with cell phones. Many
cell phones can be used as audio recorders as well, but I don't expect
the next "Reference Recording" release to come from one of them.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Robert Peirce

July 1st 13, 03:23 PM

Audio_Empire

July 1st 13, 10:43 PM

In article >,
Robert Peirce > wrote:

> In article >,
> ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, June 30, 2013 7:54:49 AM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
> > >ScottW, everybody takes pictures. Few people who take pictures are
> > >photographers. Several actual photographers have done remarkable work with
> > >iPhones. It isn't the equipment. It's what you do with it.
> >
> >
> > Kind of like some audiophiles listen to amazing quality music on MP3
> > players
> > and earbuds.
> >
> > ScottW
>
> Not quite. The first digital cameras were only about 2Mb. I use a
> Nikon that is 4Mb and I believe iPhones are 5 with an increasingly good
> lens. You can easily get 20-30Mb today but once you get to about 300
> dpi on a print you aren't going to be able to see more resolution
> without a magnifying glass. OTOH, if you print at 50 dpi you are going
> to see it right away compared to 300 but not necessarily by itself.

There is certainly some correlation in your analogy, however, you are
way off on your resolution by an order of magnitude. An 8 X 10 print,
using a good color printer (1440 X 1440 DPI or better) made from a 2 or
even a 4 Mp (you said Mb; I think you meant Mp (for megapixel) camera is
going to look pretty soft. I edit and do the layout for a car magazine
every month, and my 8.5 X 11 covers have pictures that come from many
different sources. I have to reject many as being too low resolution for
publication. My rule of thumb in 10 Mp minimum. The digital Camera that
I currently use is more than 18 Mp and pictures from it can be blown up
to poster size before they start to fall apart. No digital cameras can
compare with 35mm Kodachrome for resolution - yet.
>
> Maybe that is the real audio analogy. High-end fanatics are using a
> magnifying glass. MP3 listeners are using 50 dpi but since they haven't
> seen 300 dpi they don't know how much better it is.

The analogy works, but only just. MP3 listeners don't notice the
artifacts, or if they do, the artifacts simply don't bother them. A 50
DPI picture, OTOH, wouldn't really be adequate to anybody. One probably
couldn't make out what the picture was supposed to be at that
resolution. Of course, the latter relies an awful lot on how far away
the viewer is from the picture and the whole picture's relative size.

> My first audio experience was listening to an old AM radio. I was only
> in it for the music and it sounded fine. Later I heard better equipment
> and my tastes improved. Today I probably couldn't bear to listen to
> that old AM radio. OTOH, I can't really hear the difference in a 3000
> dpi rig without ignoring the music in favor of the sound.

I don't understand your point with that last sentence. You seem to have
mixed your metaphors. "hear the difference" in 3000dpi?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Audio_Empire

July 2nd 13, 12:18 AM

In article >,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sunday, June 30, 2013 7:54:49 AM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
> >ScottW, everybody takes pictures. Few people who take pictures are
> >photographers. Several actual photographers have done remarkable work with
> >iPhones. It isn't the equipment. It's what you do with it.
>
>
> Kind of like some audiophiles listen to amazing quality music on MP3 players
> and earbuds.
>
> ScottW

Not at all. Photography is proactive. What is done with it as a medium
is totally based on the photographer's perception of when to click the
shutter and how to frame the subject to get a great picture. IOW, were
he still with us, Ansel Adams could take an iPhone and make great
landscape art with it and Henri Cartier-Bresson could take great candid
pictures of people with it. The average Joe would likely get nothing but
snapshots for Facebook from the same iPhone camera.

OTOH, Listening to music is almost totally passive. The listener has no
real control over it (other than playback volume and perhaps some EQ)
and is at the mercy of the actual recording and the playback quality of
the listening device.

The correct analogy here would be looking at one of Adams' or
Cartier-Bresson's pictures, not producing one. Furthering the analogy,
it would be the difference between seeing these great pictures from
Adams or Cartier-Bresson on television or seeing them through a museum
window.

Audiophiles (or anyone else for that matter) cannot "listen to amazing
quality music on MP3 players and earbuds." because that quality is not
there. By definition, the MP3 algorithm has discarded up to more than
90% of it! You might not notice that it's gone (depending upon your
listening skills among other things), but it's hardly "amazing quality
music" and other than choosing to listen to it, the "audiophile" in
question, ostensibly, had no part in the music-making process.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Audio_Empire

July 2nd 13, 10:54 PM

In article >,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Monday, July 1, 2013 4:18:29 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sunday, June 30, 2013 7:54:49 AM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
> >
> > > >ScottW, everybody takes pictures. Few people who take pictures are
> >
> > > >photographers. Several actual photographers have done remarkable work
> > > >with
> >
> > > >iPhones. It isn't the equipment. It's what you do with it.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Kind of like some audiophiles listen to amazing quality music on MP3
> > > players
> >
> > > and earbuds.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> >
> >
> > Not at all. Photography is proactive. What is done with it as a medium
> >
> > is totally based on the photographer's perception of when to click the
> >
> > shutter and how to frame the subject to get a great picture. IOW, were
> >
> > he still with us, Ansel Adams could take an iPhone and make great
> >
> > landscape art with it and Henri Cartier-Bresson could take great candid
> >
> > pictures of people with it. The average Joe would likely get nothing but
> >
> > snapshots for Facebook from the same iPhone camera.
> >
>
> An average joe photographer I used to know (and software engineer in real
> life) used his iphone to photograph a 360 degree panoramic view of Paris
> from some lofty perch and brought those shots home where he used some
> freebie software to stitch them seamlessly together and print a picture of
> the Paris cityscape that now wallpapers his office. Ansel Adams couldn't
> even dream of such a photograph.
>
>
>
> ScottW

Only because the equipment to do it easily didn't exist when Adams was
alive and actively taking photographs. On the other hand, panorama
tripod heads have been available almost as long as photography has
existed as an art form. Therefore we have to assume that Mr. Adams
didn't take such a panorama because he didn't want to.

Also, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, which is your
somewhat non-sequitur remark that taking great pictures with a cellphone
is somehow akin to listening to "amazing quality music" from an MP3
player. I'll tell you what's amazing: that MP3 is listenable by anyone
under any circumstances. It's just amazing that throwing away more than
90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even
remotely LIKE music. But it does!

Audio_Empire

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

David E. Bath

July 3rd 13, 12:59 AM

In article >,
Audio_Empire > writes:

snip

> I'll tell you what's amazing: that MP3 is listenable by anyone
> under any circumstances. It's just amazing that throwing away more than
> 90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even
> remotely LIKE music. But it does!

And I'll repeat what many others in this forum have said: If you
believe that, then you haven't listened to any well made MP3s. Try a
well made Variable Bit Rate MP3 at a rate >= 192 and you'll see that
they can sound quite good, good enough that someone who actual LIKEs
music will enjoy, which includes me.

An excellent tool to make your own MP3s is Exact Audio Copy with the
LAME encoder. It is also an excellent tool to recover tracks from a
damaged CD in that it will automatically sjow down and re-read errored
sectors to exact the data.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

Gary Eickmeier

July 3rd 13, 12:45 PM

Audio_Empire wrote:

> The digital Camera that I currently use is more than 18 Mp and
> pictures from it can be blown up to poster size before they start to
> fall apart. No digital cameras can compare with 35mm Kodachrome for
> resolution - yet.

That statement caught my eye. I trust your experience with this stuff, so
maybe you could expand on that a little. I am under the distinct impression
that modern digital cameras have way surpassed the resolution of film. I
know I have had many negatives scanned for digital printing, and even my
medium format stuff doesn't compare to digital. My newest DSLR is 24 Mp.
That would make a 13 x 20 print at 300 dpi!

I know a lot depends on format size and lenses, so I presume you are talking
about 35mm slides and not 6 x 7 or something, right?

Gary Eickmeier

allen

July 3rd 13, 05:47 PM

On 2 Jul 2013 21:54:32 GMT, Audio_Empire >
wrote:

<snip>

>Also, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, which is your
>somewhat non-sequitur remark that taking great pictures with a cellphone
>is somehow akin to listening to "amazing quality music" from an MP3
>player. I'll tell you what's amazing: that MP3 is listenable by anyone
>under any circumstances. It's just amazing that throwing away more than
>90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even
>remotely LIKE music. But it does!
>
>Audio_Empire
>
>--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

MP3 doesn't come anywhere near to throwing away 90% of the music; 90%
size compression doesn't equal 10% of the music.

Do an invert comparison between MP3 and lossless/wav - it's remarkable
just how small the differences between the waveforms actually are,
without even mentioning ABX testing etc...

Audio_Empire

July 3rd 13, 08:30 PM

In article >,
(David E. Bath) wrote:

> In article >,
> Audio_Empire > writes:
>
> snip
>
> > I'll tell you what's amazing: that MP3 is listenable by anyone
> > under any circumstances. It's just amazing that throwing away more than
> > 90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even
> > remotely LIKE music. But it does!
>
> And I'll repeat what many others in this forum have said: If you
> believe that, then you haven't listened to any well made MP3s. Try a
> well made Variable Bit Rate MP3 at a rate >= 192 and you'll see that
> they can sound quite good, good enough that someone who actual LIKEs
> music will enjoy, which includes me.
>
> An excellent tool to make your own MP3s is Exact Audio Copy with the
> LAME encoder. It is also an excellent tool to recover tracks from a
> damaged CD in that it will automatically sjow down and re-read errored
> sectors to exact the data.

I certainly wish that people would read what's actually written here
(and then correctly interpret it!), rather than what they think, wish,
of hope was written! What do you think I meant when I stated: " It's
just amazing that throwing away more than 90% (in many cases) of the
music leaves anything that sounds even remotely LIKE music. But it
does!" means? It means that in spite of the indignities inflicted upon
the music by the lossy compression algorithm called MP3, that the
results are often very listenable and enjoyable.
My only beef was with the PP's non sequitur remark that MP3 can give
excellent quality. The best MP3 IS listenable, but it's not "excellent"
by any stretch of the meaning of the word "excellent."

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Audio_Empire[_2_]

July 3rd 13, 08:30 PM

n article >,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:54:32 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
>
> >
> > Only because the equipment to do it easily didn't exist when Adams was
> >
> > alive and actively taking photographs. On the other hand, panorama
> >
> > tripod heads have been available almost as long as photography has
> >
> > existed as an art form.
>
> Capable of a seamless high resolution 360 view? It was AM radio in
> comparison.

Since Adams used 8 X10 view cameras, I'd say that such a panorama would have been VERY high resolution (and the panoramic tripod head would have guaranteed seamlessness). You must realize that digital has a way to go to even match 35mm Kodachrome resolution, much less 8 X10 resolution!
>
> > Therefore we have to assume that Mr. Adams
> >
> > didn't take such a panorama because he didn't want to.
>
> Way to drill down to root cause.
> A more probable explanation is because the results would have been
> unimpressive.

A panorama made out of a bunch of 8 X 10 contact prints would have been unimpressive? Are you sure that you have any idea at all about what you are talking about here?

> >
> > Also, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, which is your
> >
> > somewhat non-sequitur remark that taking great pictures with a cellphone
> >
> > is somehow akin to listening to "amazing quality music" from an MP3
> >
> > player.
>
> The point that you seem to miss is that high-end audio...like high-end
> photography hasn't died.
> It's simply become ubiquitous.

I'm not missing it at all. It's just that you (A) by using mediocre examples, you failed to express the point very well, and (B) you keep extolling mediocrity in both images and music reproduction by calling it "high-end" when neither are anything of the sort. Both lossy compression in music and digital cameras are compromises of convenience over quality.

Of course we all look forward to the day when digital photography matches the resolution of Kodachrome film - and I have no doubt that it will get there, but lossy music compression will never sound as good as even a 16-bit/44.1-KHz CD, much less something more high-resolution such as SACD or 24-bit LPCM.

> All that remains is your highly subjective and rather pompous argument that
> people don't listen right.

If your definition of being correct is pomposity, Then I guess I'm pompous.

Audio_Empire[_2_]

July 3rd 13, 08:32 PM

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 4:45:02 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Audio_Empire wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > The digital Camera that I currently use is more than 18 Mp and
>=20
> > pictures from it can be blown up to poster size before they start to
>=20
> > fall apart. No digital cameras can compare with 35mm Kodachrome for
>=20
> > resolution - yet.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> That statement caught my eye. I trust your experience with this stuff, so=
=20
>=20
> maybe you could expand on that a little. I am under the distinct impressi=
on=20
>=20
> that modern digital cameras have way surpassed the resolution of film. I=
=20
>=20
> know I have had many negatives scanned for digital printing, and even my=
=20
>=20
> medium format stuff doesn't compare to digital. My newest DSLR is 24 Mp.=
=20
>=20
> That would make a 13 x 20 print at 300 dpi!

I'd be happy to expand on it. Kodachrome, which was a color transparency fi=
lm which was "non-substantive". This means that after processing, there was=
no silver halide left in the film. it has all be replaced with color dyes =
(which were added to the slide during the processing) this is in stark cont=
rast to Ektachrome, FujiChrome and AgfaChrome transparency films (and all c=
olor negative films) which were "substantive" meaning that the dye-layers w=
ere placed on the film during manufacture and silver halides remained on th=
is film after processing. This meant that Kodachrome was essentially grain=
less. That's why, when Kodachromes were projected onto large screens, the i=
mages remained sharp and crisp. Ektachromes (and other substantive films) h=
ad some grain and this could be seen on the screen when projected (although=
today's pro ktachrome 100 is very fine grained and compares fairly well wi=
th Kodachrome. It's hard to make a direct comparison between film and digit=
al images, but I think that we can all agree that in digital imaging a sing=
le pixel is the smallest image element that any digital camera can possibly=
resolve. Obviously, the more megapixels, the higher resolution because mor=
e pixels will cover the same imaging space making the smallest detail that =
the camera can register much smaller than the smallest detail registered by=
a camera with fewer pixels for the same virtual image area. Right now, goo=
d image sensors in consumer cameras are 16-24 Megapixels, which means prett=
y good resolution, but comparisons with film are dicey, because consumer ca=
mera image sensors are considerably smaller than a frame of 35mm film and t=
he distribution of the pixels on a camera sensor are orderly, i.e. arranged=
in neat rows and columns and they never overlap. In film, the grain sizes =
are random as is their distribution, and they can overlap. This makes film =
SEEM to have a higher resolution even if the number of pixels and the numbe=
r of grains per unit of measure are exactly the same (which they aren't). I=
n order for a digital camera to have the same apparent resolution and sharp=
ness to that of film, it would have to have far more and smaller pixels tha=
n a film image.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I know a lot depends on format size and lenses, so I presume you are talk=
ing=20
>=20
> about 35mm slides and not 6 x 7 or something, right?

That's right, I'm talking about 35mm. The same principles apply to larger f=
ormats as well, only more so. Remember, a larger piece of film has more emu=
lsion on it than a smaller piece, yet the grain for the same type and speed=
of film remains the same size no matter how much area the emulsion covers.=
Meaning that larger than 35mm film has much higher resolving power because=
the picture is covering a much larger area on the film. In fact, with larg=
e format cameras like 8 X 10 inch view cameras, the limitation for resoluti=
on becomes the large-format lens, not the dilm.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Gary Eickmeier

David E. Bath

July 4th 13, 04:32 AM

In article >,
Audio_Empire > writes:
> In article >,
> (David E. Bath) wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Audio_Empire > writes:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> > I'll tell you what's amazing: that MP3 is listenable by anyone
>> > under any circumstances. It's just amazing that throwing away more than
>> > 90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even
>> > remotely LIKE music. But it does!
>>
>> And I'll repeat what many others in this forum have said: If you
>> believe that, then you haven't listened to any well made MP3s. Try a
>> well made Variable Bit Rate MP3 at a rate >= 192 and you'll see that
>> they can sound quite good, good enough that someone who actual LIKEs
>> music will enjoy, which includes me.
>>
>> An excellent tool to make your own MP3s is Exact Audio Copy with the
>> LAME encoder. It is also an excellent tool to recover tracks from a
>> damaged CD in that it will automatically sjow down and re-read errored
>> sectors to exact the data.
>
> I certainly wish that people would read what's actually written here
> (and then correctly interpret it!), rather than what they think, wish,
> of hope was written! What do you think I meant when I stated: " It's
> just amazing that throwing away more than 90% (in many cases) of the
> music leaves anything that sounds even remotely LIKE music. But it
> does!" means? It means that in spite of the indignities inflicted upon
> the music by the lossy compression algorithm called MP3, that the
> results are often very listenable and enjoyable.
> My only beef was with the PP's non sequitur remark that MP3 can give
> excellent quality. The best MP3 IS listenable, but it's not "excellent"
> by any stretch of the meaning of the word "excellent."

I did totally mis-read what you said and I strongly apologise.

And I don't want anyone to think that I use MP3s for all of my
listening, only via a portable player and in my car. I always use
either CDs or LPs for listening at home.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

Gary Eickmeier

July 4th 13, 02:52 PM

Audio_Empire wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 4:45:02 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> Audio_Empire wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The digital Camera that I currently use is more than 18 Mp and
>>
>>> pictures from it can be blown up to poster size before they start to
>>
>>> fall apart. No digital cameras can compare with 35mm Kodachrome for
>>
>>> resolution - yet.
>>
>>
>>
>> That statement caught my eye. I trust your experience with this
>> stuff, so
>>
>> maybe you could expand on that a little. I am under the distinct
>> impression
>>
>> that modern digital cameras have way surpassed the resolution of
>> film. I
>>
>> know I have had many negatives scanned for digital printing, and
>> even my
>>
>> medium format stuff doesn't compare to digital. My newest DSLR is 24
>> Mp.
>>
>> That would make a 13 x 20 print at 300 dpi!
>
> I'd be happy to expand on it. Kodachrome, which was a color
> transparency film which was "non-substantive". This means that after
> processing, there was no silver halide left in the film. it has all
> be replaced with color dyes (which were added to the slide during the
> processing) this is in stark contrast to Ektachrome, FujiChrome and
> AgfaChrome transparency films (and all color negative films) which
> were "substantive" meaning that the dye-layers were placed on the
> film during manufacture and silver halides remained on this film
> after processing. This meant that Kodachrome was essentially
> grainless. That's why, when Kodachromes were projected onto large
> screens, the images remained sharp and crisp. Ektachromes (and other
> substantive films) had some grain and this could be seen on the
> screen when projected (although today's pro ktachrome 100 is very
> fine grained and compares fairly well with Kodachrome. It's hard to
> make a direct comparison between film and digital images, but I think
> that we can all agree that in digital imaging a single pixel is the
> smallest image element that any digital camera can possibly resolve.
> Obviously, the more megapixels, the higher resolution because more
> pixels will cover the same imaging space making the smallest detail
> that the camera can register much smaller than the smallest detail
> registered by a camera with fewer pixels for the same virtual image
> area. Right now, good image sensors in consumer cameras are 16-24
> Megapixels, which means pretty good resolution, but comparisons with
> film are dicey, because consumer camera image sensors are
> considerably smaller than a frame of 35mm film and the distribution
> of the pixels on a camera sensor are orderly, i.e. arranged in neat
> rows and columns and they never overlap. In film, the grain sizes are
> random as is their distribution, and they can overlap. This makes
> film SEEM to have a higher resolution even if the number of pixels
> and the number of grains per unit of measure are exactly the same
> (which they aren't). In order for a digital camera to have the same
> apparent resolution and sharpness to that of film, it would have to
> have far more and smaller pixels than a film image.
>>
>>
>>
>> I know a lot depends on format size and lenses, so I presume you are
>> talking
>>
>> about 35mm slides and not 6 x 7 or something, right?
>
> That's right, I'm talking about 35mm. The same principles apply to
> larger formats as well, only more so. Remember, a larger piece of
> film has more emulsion on it than a smaller piece, yet the grain for
> the same type and speed of film remains the same size no matter how
> much area the emulsion covers. Meaning that larger than 35mm film has
> much higher resolving power because the picture is covering a much
> larger area on the film. In fact, with large format cameras like 8 X
> 10 inch view cameras, the limitation for resolution becomes the
> large-format lens, not the dilm.

Well, all that is very learned, but, as with audio, we need some sort of
comparison testing to tell whether one is better than another. Without a DBT
in audio, we are talking through our hats. Can you point out any studies or
comparison tests that support yor claim?

Gary Eickmeier

Andrew Haley

July 4th 13, 02:53 PM

Audio_Empire > wrote:
>
> I'd be happy to expand on it. Kodachrome, which was a color
> transparency film which was "non-substantive". This means that after
> processing, there was no silver halide left in the film. it has all
> be replaced with color dyes (which were added to the slide during
> the processing) this is in stark contrast to Ektachrome, FujiChrome
> and AgfaChrome transparency films (and all color negative films)
> which were "substantive" meaning that the dye-layers were placed on
> the film during manufacture and silver halides remained on this film
> after processing. This meant that Kodachrome was essentially
> grainless

That's not quite true: you certainly can see dye globules if you
magnify enough.

I realize that we're getting rather off-topic here, but the limiting
resolution of Kodachrome isn't grain but the thickness of the film.
Light scatters within the emulsion layers, and this causes a drop-off
in sharpness. [1] Because of this, the MTF of Kodachrome (i.e. its
spatial frequency response) is already down to 50% at 50 cycles/mm and
it falls off very rapidly after that. Kodak didn't even measure it
finer than 80 cycles/mm, where the MTF was almost down to 10%.

Perceptual sharpness depends on high-frequency contrast. David
B. Goldstein puts it this way: "And while [Popular Photography] did in
fact note in its review of the Canon 1Ds and 1Ds Mark II that these
cameras produced superior pictures to those of film cameras despite
slightly lower resolution, its editors did not generalize these
findings to a conclusion that good MTF at moderate spatial frequencies
was more important than greater-than-zero MTF is at the highest
frequencies." [2]

Andrew.

[1] The Reproduction of Colour, 6th Edition R. W. G. Hunt, Chapter 18,
Image Structure In Colour Photography.
[2] Physical Limits in Digital Photography, David B. Goldstein,
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/guest/physical_limits_long.html

Mats Peterson

July 4th 13, 02:53 PM

(David E. Bath) wrote:
> In article >,
> Audio_Empire > writes:
>> In article >,
>> (David E. Bath) wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Audio_Empire > writes:
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>>> I'll tell you what's amazing: that MP3 is listenable by anyone
>>>> under any circumstances. It's just amazing that throwing away more than
>>>> 90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even
>>>> remotely LIKE music. But it does!
>>>
>>> And I'll repeat what many others in this forum have said: If you
>>> believe that, then you haven't listened to any well made MP3s. Try a
>>> well made Variable Bit Rate MP3 at a rate >= 192 and you'll see that
>>> they can sound quite good, good enough that someone who actual LIKEs
>>> music will enjoy, which includes me.
>>>
>>> An excellent tool to make your own MP3s is Exact Audio Copy with the
>>> LAME encoder. It is also an excellent tool to recover tracks from a
>>> damaged CD in that it will automatically sjow down and re-read errored
>>> sectors to exact the data.
>>
>> I certainly wish that people would read what's actually written here
>> (and then correctly interpret it!), rather than what they think, wish,
>> of hope was written! What do you think I meant when I stated: " It's
>> just amazing that throwing away more than 90% (in many cases) of the
>> music leaves anything that sounds even remotely LIKE music. But it
>> does!" means? It means that in spite of the indignities inflicted upon
>> the music by the lossy compression algorithm called MP3, that the
>> results are often very listenable and enjoyable.
>> My only beef was with the PP's non sequitur remark that MP3 can give
>> excellent quality. The best MP3 IS listenable, but it's not "excellent"
>> by any stretch of the meaning of the word "excellent."
>
> I did totally mis-read what you said and I strongly apologise.
>
> And I don't want anyone to think that I use MP3s for all of my
> listening, only via a portable player and in my car. I always use
> either CDs or LPs for listening at home.
>

MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old
time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a
portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD
or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system.

Mats

--
Mats Peterson
http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/

Audio_Empire

July 5th 13, 04:00 PM

In article >,
"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:

> Audio_Empire wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 4:45:02 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> >> Audio_Empire wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> The digital Camera that I currently use is more than 18 Mp and
> >>
> >>> pictures from it can be blown up to poster size before they start to
> >>
> >>> fall apart. No digital cameras can compare with 35mm Kodachrome for
> >>
> >>> resolution - yet.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> That statement caught my eye. I trust your experience with this
> >> stuff, so
> >>
> >> maybe you could expand on that a little. I am under the distinct
> >> impression
> >>
> >> that modern digital cameras have way surpassed the resolution of
> >> film. I
> >>
> >> know I have had many negatives scanned for digital printing, and
> >> even my
> >>
> >> medium format stuff doesn't compare to digital. My newest DSLR is 24
> >> Mp.
> >>
> >> That would make a 13 x 20 print at 300 dpi!
> >
> > I'd be happy to expand on it. Kodachrome, which was a color
> > transparency film which was "non-substantive". This means that after
> > processing, there was no silver halide left in the film. it has all
> > be replaced with color dyes (which were added to the slide during the
> > processing) this is in stark contrast to Ektachrome, FujiChrome and
> > AgfaChrome transparency films (and all color negative films) which
> > were "substantive" meaning that the dye-layers were placed on the
> > film during manufacture and silver halides remained on this film
> > after processing. This meant that Kodachrome was essentially
> > grainless. That's why, when Kodachromes were projected onto large
> > screens, the images remained sharp and crisp. Ektachromes (and other
> > substantive films) had some grain and this could be seen on the
> > screen when projected (although today's pro ktachrome 100 is very
> > fine grained and compares fairly well with Kodachrome. It's hard to
> > make a direct comparison between film and digital images, but I think
> > that we can all agree that in digital imaging a single pixel is the
> > smallest image element that any digital camera can possibly resolve.
> > Obviously, the more megapixels, the higher resolution because more
> > pixels will cover the same imaging space making the smallest detail
> > that the camera can register much smaller than the smallest detail
> > registered by a camera with fewer pixels for the same virtual image
> > area. Right now, good image sensors in consumer cameras are 16-24
> > Megapixels, which means pretty good resolution, but comparisons with
> > film are dicey, because consumer camera image sensors are
> > considerably smaller than a frame of 35mm film and the distribution
> > of the pixels on a camera sensor are orderly, i.e. arranged in neat
> > rows and columns and they never overlap. In film, the grain sizes are
> > random as is their distribution, and they can overlap. This makes
> > film SEEM to have a higher resolution even if the number of pixels
> > and the number of grains per unit of measure are exactly the same
> > (which they aren't). In order for a digital camera to have the same
> > apparent resolution and sharpness to that of film, it would have to
> > have far more and smaller pixels than a film image.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I know a lot depends on format size and lenses, so I presume you are
> >> talking
> >>
> >> about 35mm slides and not 6 x 7 or something, right?
> >
> > That's right, I'm talking about 35mm. The same principles apply to
> > larger formats as well, only more so. Remember, a larger piece of
> > film has more emulsion on it than a smaller piece, yet the grain for
> > the same type and speed of film remains the same size no matter how
> > much area the emulsion covers. Meaning that larger than 35mm film has
> > much higher resolving power because the picture is covering a much
> > larger area on the film. In fact, with large format cameras like 8 X
> > 10 inch view cameras, the limitation for resolution becomes the
> > large-format lens, not the dilm.
>
> Well, all that is very learned, but, as with audio, we need some sort of
> comparison testing to tell whether one is better than another. Without a DBT
> in audio, we are talking through our hats. Can you point out any studies or
> comparison tests that support yor claim?
>
> Gary Eickmeier

It's not a claim. You can count pixels and you can measure film
resolution using graticle charts, etc.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Audio_Empire

July 5th 13, 09:21 PM

In article >,
Andrew Haley > wrote:

> Audio_Empire > wrote:
> >
> > I'd be happy to expand on it. Kodachrome, which was a color
> > transparency film which was "non-substantive". This means that after
> > processing, there was no silver halide left in the film. it has all
> > be replaced with color dyes (which were added to the slide during
> > the processing) this is in stark contrast to Ektachrome, FujiChrome
> > and AgfaChrome transparency films (and all color negative films)
> > which were "substantive" meaning that the dye-layers were placed on
> > the film during manufacture and silver halides remained on this film
> > after processing. This meant that Kodachrome was essentially
> > grainless
>
> That's not quite true: you certainly can see dye globules if you
> magnify enough.

Dye "globules" aren't the same thing as "grain".
>
> I realize that we're getting rather off-topic here, but the limiting
> resolution of Kodachrome isn't grain but the thickness of the film.
> Light scatters within the emulsion layers, and this causes a drop-off
> in sharpness. [1] Because of this, the MTF of Kodachrome (i.e. its
> spatial frequency response) is already down to 50% at 50 cycles/mm and
> it falls off very rapidly after that. Kodak didn't even measure it
> finer than 80 cycles/mm, where the MTF was almost down to 10%.
>
> Perceptual sharpness depends on high-frequency contrast. David
> B. Goldstein puts it this way: "And while [Popular Photography] did in
> fact note in its review of the Canon 1Ds and 1Ds Mark II that these
> cameras produced superior pictures to those of film cameras despite
> slightly lower resolution, its editors did not generalize these
> findings to a conclusion that good MTF at moderate spatial frequencies
> was more important than greater-than-zero MTF is at the highest
> frequencies." [2]
>
> Andrew.

All true. Not that makes anything I stated, untrue. The main point
ANYWAY YOU CUT IT is that consumer digital has yet you equal the
resolution of the best 35mm film.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Audio_Empire

July 5th 13, 09:21 PM

In article >,
Mats Peterson > wrote:

> (David E. Bath) wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Audio_Empire > writes:
> >> In article >,
> >> (David E. Bath) wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Audio_Empire > writes:
> >>>
> >>> snip
> >>>
> >>>> I'll tell you what's amazing: that MP3 is listenable by anyone
> >>>> under any circumstances. It's just amazing that throwing away more than
> >>>> 90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even
> >>>> remotely LIKE music. But it does!
> >>>
> >>> And I'll repeat what many others in this forum have said: If you
> >>> believe that, then you haven't listened to any well made MP3s. Try a
> >>> well made Variable Bit Rate MP3 at a rate >= 192 and you'll see that
> >>> they can sound quite good, good enough that someone who actual LIKEs
> >>> music will enjoy, which includes me.
> >>>
> >>> An excellent tool to make your own MP3s is Exact Audio Copy with the
> >>> LAME encoder. It is also an excellent tool to recover tracks from a
> >>> damaged CD in that it will automatically sjow down and re-read errored
> >>> sectors to exact the data.
> >>
> >> I certainly wish that people would read what's actually written here
> >> (and then correctly interpret it!), rather than what they think, wish,
> >> of hope was written! What do you think I meant when I stated: " It's
> >> just amazing that throwing away more than 90% (in many cases) of the
> >> music leaves anything that sounds even remotely LIKE music. But it
> >> does!" means? It means that in spite of the indignities inflicted upon
> >> the music by the lossy compression algorithm called MP3, that the
> >> results are often very listenable and enjoyable.
> >> My only beef was with the PP's non sequitur remark that MP3 can give
> >> excellent quality. The best MP3 IS listenable, but it's not "excellent"
> >> by any stretch of the meaning of the word "excellent."
> >
> > I did totally mis-read what you said and I strongly apologise.
> >
> > And I don't want anyone to think that I use MP3s for all of my
> > listening, only via a portable player and in my car. I always use
> > either CDs or LPs for listening at home.
> >
>
> MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old
> time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a
> portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD
> or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system.
>
> Mats

I think most of us do use either Apple Lossless or FLAC for the majority
of our listening when using compression. OTOH, I still find the ability
to listen to stereo "broadcasts" from around the world via internet
radio to be simply spellbinding and amazing. My ability to "tune in"
WCRB in Boston, for instance on a Saturday evening from my easy chair in
California and hear a live broadcast of the Boston Symphony, Pops or
Tanglewood concert in stereo from clear across the country makes the MP3
artifacts that accompany those concerts fade into relative
insignificance.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Audio_Empire[_2_]

July 6th 13, 02:14 AM

In article >,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:53:22 AM UTC-7, Mats Peterson wrote:
> > MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old t=
ime=20
> > radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a portable=
=20
> > player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD or FLAC) at=
=20
> > home with the hi-fi system. Mats -- Mats Peterson=20
> > http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/
>=20
>=20
> When you make such a gross general statement as "MP3" you simply demonstr=
ate=20
> an extreme lack of experience with the technology to be taken seriously. =
=20
> Everyone who has commented positively on MP3s has included the caveat of =
high=20
> quality high bit rate files. I use vbr of 240 to 355 and there is absolu=
tely=20
> no audible degradation.

Let's not go too far in the other direction either. Perhaps YOU can't hear =
the artifacts with high VBR, but believe me, they are there. In my experien=
ce it depends a lot on what kind of music you are compressing. I agree that=
pop music, jazz and even symphonic classical, with a VBR of 240+ it's prob=
ably pretty difficult for many to hear any artifacts. But believe me these =
artifacts become very audible (on headphones, at least - they are pretty fa=
r down) when you compare solo acoustic guitar, harpsichord, even some piano=
recordings. Even people who swear that they can't hear the artifacts, find=
that they can hear them clearly once they have been pointed out by someone=
switching between the uncompressed source and the ripped file. On speakers=
, I can't hear it either, but I can easily hear 192 Bps either VBR or fixed=
..=20

I've never checked this, but it seems to me that I read somewhere that by t=
he time one employed a VBR high enough to be essentially transparent, that =
one might as well use some kind of lossless compression scheme like FLAC or=
ALE, because the file sizes become about equal at that point.

> Further...the "el cheapo" earbuds that came with my Sansa clip have lower=
=20
> distortion and flatter and more extended HF response than the in room=20
> response of nearly any conventional speaker.

Since my ear lacks the fold that allows most people to use ear-buds, I'll h=
ave to take your word about that. I can't get ear-buds to stay in long enou=
gh for me to hear whether they're any good or not, but, frankly, I don't se=
e how anyone can get a seal good enough for the buds to have any bass.=20

Andrew Haley

July 6th 13, 02:17 AM

Audio_Empire > wrote:

> All true. Not that makes anything I stated, untrue. The main point
> ANYWAY YOU CUT IT is that consumer digital has yet you equal the
> resolution of the best 35mm film.

Well no, that's really not true, for the reasons that I stated: MTF at
< 10% is not perceptually relevant. Kodachrome is not sharp when
comapred with a good digital camera.

Andrew.

Mats Peterson

July 6th 13, 03:18 AM

ScottW > wrote:
> On Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:53:22 AM UTC-7, Mats Peterson wrote:
>> MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/
>
>
> When you make such a gross general statement as "MP3" you simply
> demonstrate an extreme lack of experience with the technology to be
> taken seriously. Everyone who has commented positively on MP3s has
> included the caveat of high quality high bit rate files. I use vbr
> of 240 to 355 and there is absolutely no audible degradation.
>
> Further...the "el cheapo" earbuds that came with my Sansa clip have
> lower distortion and flatter and more extended HF response than the
> in room response of nearly any conventional speaker.
>
> ScottW

Perhaps it's you who has an extreme lack of hearing? I can hear the
difference between 320 kbps and lossless without any problem. But let's
not start that old debate again, it's rather tedious.

Mats

--
Mats Peterson
http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/

Mats Peterson

July 6th 13, 03:18 AM

ScottW > wrote:
> On Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:53:22 AM UTC-7, Mats Peterson wrote:
>> MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/
>
>
> When you make such a gross general statement as "MP3" you simply
> demonstrate an extreme lack of experience with the technology to be
> taken seriously. Everyone who has commented positively on MP3s has
> included the caveat of high quality high bit rate files. I use vbr
> of 240 to 355 and there is absolutely no audible degradation.
>
> Further...the "el cheapo" earbuds that came with my Sansa clip have
> lower distortion and flatter and more extended HF response than the
> in room response of nearly any conventional speaker.
>
> ScottW

Furthermore, I think I'm one of the more experienced persons here (if
that's the word you would like to use when it comes to this inferior
technology) when it comes to MP3. Over the years I have tried a lot of
different encoders, because they do differ in quality. I'm still not
happy with the results. I know there is better stuff like AAC, etc, but
in the end you always lose bits of the audio that are important for the
depth and dimension of the music, even if the creators don't think so.
And now we're talking encoding of full-range content. Once again, I'm
fine with MP3 when it comes to old time radio, etc.

Mats

--
Mats Peterson
http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/

Audio_Empire[_2_]

July 6th 13, 03:22 AM

In article >,
Andrew Haley > wrote:

> Audio_Empire > wrote:
>
> > All true. Not that makes anything I stated, untrue. The main point
> > ANYWAY YOU CUT IT is that consumer digital has yet you equal the
> > resolution of the best 35mm film.
>
> Well no, that's really not true, for the reasons that I stated: MTF at
> < 10% is not perceptually relevant. Kodachrome is not sharp when
> comapred with a good digital camera.
>
> Andrew.

That's simply incorrect from what I can tell. Try this. Get the best digital projector you can find. Next get a top quality 35mm slide projector (like my Lietz Pradalux); project a Kodachrome slide to 60" X 80". Now take a 24 Megapixel digital picture and project it to the same size, both on matte screens. Now, stand 5 feet in front of each and tell me which image has held together better. In case you don't get to try that experience, I'll give you the results. I think that you will find that The Kodachrome will show a little inconsistent color gradation, but far less discernible grain (or picture elements if you prefer) when enlarged that much, but the digital picture will have broken down into individual pixels and diagonal lines will have become stair-steps. Now, some sources will sat that the most recent emulsion of Kodachrome is equal to 20 Megapixesl digital, but that's misleading.. All digital pixels are the same dimension for a given sensor, and they are usually rectangular, rather than square, so the number of pixels/inch is different in the horizontal and the vertical plane. film emulsion is more random with individual grains being different sized and different shaped. This randomness makes the eye less able to concentrate on the grains than with digital where the hard edges follow the symmetry of the individual pixels, drawing the viewer's eye to them. So, even if a digital camera picture and a fine-grained film image did have similar numbers of "picture elements", the film image would still seem sharper.

[ Please steer the conversation back towards audio topics.
Photography has ceased to serve a metaphorical purpose
here and is now being discussed in its own right. -- dsr]

Mats Peterson

July 6th 13, 04:06 PM

Audio_Empire > wrote:
> In article >,
> ScottW > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:53:22 AM UTC-7, Mats Peterson wrote:
>>> MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old time
>>> radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a portable
>>> player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD or FLAC) at
>>> home with the hi-fi system. Mats -- Mats Peterson
>>> http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/
>>
>>
>> When you make such a gross general statement as "MP3" you simply demonstrate
>> an extreme lack of experience with the technology to be taken seriously.
>> Everyone who has commented positively on MP3s has included the caveat of high
>> quality high bit rate files. I use vbr of 240 to 355 and there is absolutely
>> no audible degradation.
>
>
> Let's not go too far in the other direction either. Perhaps YOU can't hear
> the artifacts with high VBR, but believe me, they are there. In my
> experience it depends a lot on what kind of music you are compressing.
> I agree that pop music, jazz and even symphonic classical, with a VBR
> of 240+ it's probably pretty difficult for many to hear any artifacts.
> But believe me these artifacts become very audible (on headphones, at
> least - they are pretty far down) when you compare solo acoustic guitar,
> harpsichord, even some piano recordings. Even people who swear that
> they can't hear the artifacts, find that they can hear them clearly
> once they have been pointed out by someone switching between the
> uncompressed source and the ripped file. On speakers, I can't hear
> it either, but I can easily hear 192 Bps either VBR or fixed.
>

Thank you. Another sane person in this group. And yes, it depends of
course on the type of music how well you will hear the degradation, but
it will always be there.

Mats

--
Mats Peterson
http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/

Mats Peterson

July 6th 13, 04:06 PM

Mats Peterson

July 6th 13, 04:08 PM

Andrew Haley

July 6th 13, 04:08 PM

Audio_Empire > wrote:
> In article >,
> Andrew Haley > wrote:
>
>> Audio_Empire > wrote:
>>
>> > All true. Not that makes anything I stated, untrue. The main point
>> > ANYWAY YOU CUT IT is that consumer digital has yet you equal the
>> > resolution of the best 35mm film.
>>
>> Well no, that's really not true, for the reasons that I stated: MTF at
>> < 10% is not perceptually relevant. Kodachrome is not sharp when
>> comapred with a good digital camera.
>
> That's simply incorrect from what I can tell. Try this. Get the best
> digital projector you can find. Next get a top quality 35mm slide
> projector (like my Lietz Pradalux); project a Kodachrome slide to
> 60" X 80". Now take a 24 Megapixel digital picture and project it to
> the same size, both on matte screens. Now, stand 5 feet in front of
> each and tell me which image has held together better. In case you
> don't get to try that experience, I'll give you the results.

I don't think there are any 24 megapixel digial projectors.

> [ Please steer the conversation back towards audio topics.
> Photography has ceased to serve a metaphorical purpose
> here and is now being discussed in its own right. -- dsr]

Alright, I will. There is a parallel here between audio and
photography: a tendency to concentrate on perceptually irrelevant
concerns at the expense of what really matters. We've certainly seen
that with jitter measurements and measurements of "distortion" in MP3
streams.

Andrew.

Andrew Haley

July 6th 13, 05:43 PM

Audio_Empire > wrote:
> In article >,
> Andrew Haley > wrote:
>
>> Audio_Empire > wrote:
>>
>> > All true. Not that makes anything I stated, untrue. The main point
>> > ANYWAY YOU CUT IT is that consumer digital has yet you equal the
>> > resolution of the best 35mm film.
>>
>> Well no, that's really not true, for the reasons that I stated: MTF
>> at < 10% is not perceptually relevant. Kodachrome is not sharp
>> when comapred with a good digital camera.
>
> That's simply incorrect from what I can tell. Try this. Get the best
> digital projector you can find.

No. That's not a reasonable comprison, since no digital projector
I've ever seen can get close to the resolution of a digital camera.

> [ Please steer the conversation back towards audio topics.
> Photography has ceased to serve a metaphorical purpose
> here and is now being discussed in its own right. -- dsr]

Okay. I promise not to respond further.

I do not that there is no digital camera currently made with
rectangular pixels, but never mind. It's not the first thing about
which Mr. Empire is wrong, and I'm sure it won't be the last. :-)

Andrew.

Audio_Empire[_2_]

July 7th 13, 05:35 AM

On Saturday, July 6, 2013 9:43:42 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Audio_Empire > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
>
> > Andrew Haley > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Audio_Empire > wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > All true. Not that makes anything I stated, untrue. The main point
>
> >> > ANYWAY YOU CUT IT is that consumer digital has yet you equal the
>
> >> > resolution of the best 35mm film.
>
> >>
>
> >> Well no, that's really not true, for the reasons that I stated: MTF
>
> >> at < 10% is not perceptually relevant. Kodachrome is not sharp
>
> >> when comapred with a good digital camera.
>
> >
>
> > That's simply incorrect from what I can tell. Try this. Get the best
>
> > digital projector you can find.
>
>
>
> No. That's not a reasonable comprison, since no digital projector
>
> I've ever seen can get close to the resolution of a digital camera.
>
>
>
> > [ Please steer the conversation back towards audio topics.
>
> > Photography has ceased to serve a metaphorical purpose
>
> > here and is now being discussed in its own right. -- dsr]
>
>
>
> Okay. I promise not to respond further.
>
>
>
> I do not that there is no digital camera currently made with
>
> rectangular pixels, but never mind. It's not the first thing about
>
> which Mr. Empire is wrong, and I'm sure it won't be the last. :-)

Well, he's not wrong here. I place pictures into a publication I edit
every month. When I zoom in using Photoshop, the pixels are rectangular,
not square. And If I knew your e-mail address, I could prove it.

That's my last word on this subject, since we have been asked to get back
on topic.

Audio_Empire

Audio_Empire[_2_]

July 7th 13, 05:48 PM

On Friday, July 5, 2013 7:18:28 PM UTC-7, Mats Peterson wrote:
> ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:53:22 AM UTC-7, Mats Peterson wrote:
>
> >> MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > When you make such a gross general statement as "MP3" you simply
>
> > demonstrate an extreme lack of experience with the technology to be
>
> > taken seriously. Everyone who has commented positively on MP3s has
>
> > included the caveat of high quality high bit rate files. I use vbr
>
> > of 240 to 355 and there is absolutely no audible degradation.
>
> >
>
> > Further...the "el cheapo" earbuds that came with my Sansa clip have
>
> > lower distortion and flatter and more extended HF response than the
>
> > in room response of nearly any conventional speaker.
>
> >
>
> > ScottW
>
>
>
> Perhaps it's you who has an extreme lack of hearing? I can hear the
>
> difference between 320 kbps and lossless without any problem. But let's
>
> not start that old debate again, it's rather tedious.

Not to add fuel to the fire, here, but It's the old story that lots of people who
consider themselves audiophiles or at least audio enthusiasts have never bothered
to teach themselves how to listen to reproduced music. There are many reasons for
this. With some, it's a matter of their musical tastes. They have been listening to
overproduced and highly volume compressed pop music exclusively for their entire
audiophile "career" and have simply, never listened to enough real, unamplified live
music to know what they should be listening to or for.

Then there are the audio "experts" who consider themselves
"above and beyond" audiophiles, (which they consider a dirty word) who eschew all
high-end audio, and pride themselves on KNOWING that everything sounds the same
because the numbers say that it's so. These people never actually listen because
everything sounds the same. They won't believe that any component sounds superior
to any other, and if they hear an instance where there is a difference, then it's
obviously because one of the components being auditioned is defective or some other
anomaly has occurred. At any rate they would never acknowledge that they heard a
difference. After all, a $100 Panasonic receiver bought from Costco, sounds identical
to a $5000 Krell amp of similar power. While they CAN be right in many instances about
the physics, these people tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They never use
their ears. Measuring equipment, is, after all, much more accurate.

Another group are those who simply can't hear. I know a number of people in this latter
category. They say they want good sound, but really don't know it when they hear it.
These people tend to ape the opinions of others, being incapable of forming any of their
own. I suspect that there are a number of these latter in our midst on this NG, and I KNOW
there are several in the previous category and could (but won't) name them..

You can't be much of an audio enthusiast when you (A) don't know what live, unamplified
music actually sounds like (and refresh that knowledge often by attending live concerts) and
(B) can't, don't, or won't trust your ears.

Audio_Empire

Mats Peterson[_3_]

July 8th 13, 04:21 PM

Audio_Empire > wrote:
>
> Not to add fuel to the fire, here, but It's the old story that lots of people who
> consider themselves audiophiles or at least audio enthusiasts have never bothered
> to teach themselves how to listen to reproduced music. There are many reasons for
> this. With some, it's a matter of their musical tastes. They have been listening to
> overproduced and highly volume compressed pop music exclusively for their entire
> audiophile "career" and have simply, never listened to enough real, unamplified live
> music to know what they should be listening to or for.
>
> Then there are the audio "experts" who consider themselves
> "above and beyond" audiophiles, (which they consider a dirty word) who eschew all
> high-end audio, and pride themselves on KNOWING that everything sounds the same
> because the numbers say that it's so. These people never actually listen because
> everything sounds the same. They won't believe that any component sounds superior
> to any other, and if they hear an instance where there is a difference, then it's
> obviously because one of the components being auditioned is defective or some other
> anomaly has occurred. At any rate they would never acknowledge that they heard a
> difference. After all, a $100 Panasonic receiver bought from Costco, sounds identical
> to a $5000 Krell amp of similar power. While they CAN be right in many instances about
> the physics, these people tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They never use
> their ears. Measuring equipment, is, after all, much more accurate.
>
> Another group are those who simply can't hear. I know a number of people in this latter
> category. They say they want good sound, but really don't know it when they hear it.
> These people tend to ape the opinions of others, being incapable of forming any of their
> own. I suspect that there are a number of these latter in our midst on this NG, and I KNOW
> there are several in the previous category and could (but won't) name them.
>
> You can't be much of an audio enthusiast when you (A) don't know what live, unamplified
> music actually sounds like (and refresh that knowledge often by attending live concerts) and
> (B) can't, don't, or won't trust your ears.
>
> Audio_Empire

Now the real subject was whether the MP3 artifacts are inaudible or not.
You're straying away from it somewhat here. But I do agree on what you're
saying, nevertheless. Now please let's end this thread. I'm afraid it
won't lead anywhere (as usual).

Mats

--
Mats Peterson
http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/

Audio_Empire

July 8th 13, 08:56 PM

In article >,
Mats Peterson > wrote:

> >
> > You can't be much of an audio enthusiast when you (A) don't know what live,
> > unamplified
> > music actually sounds like (and refresh that knowledge often by attending
> > live concerts) and
> > (B) can't, don't, or won't trust your ears.
> >
> > Audio_Empire
>
> Now the real subject was whether the MP3 artifacts are inaudible or not.
> You're straying away from it somewhat here. But I do agree on what you're
> saying, nevertheless. Now please let's end this thread. I'm afraid it
> won't lead anywhere (as usual).
>
> Mats

Well, my point simply was that people who, for whatever reason, can't
don't or won't hear reproduced music in a critical way, are unlikely to
be able to point-at digital compression artifacts for what they are,
either. So to this rather wide group of MP3 listeners, there are no
artifacts, and depending upon the nature of their "hearing affliction",
either can't, don't or won't acknowledge them. That doesn't mean that
they don't exist however. It's like the guy who pulls up beside you at a
stop-light with his car radio blaring so loud that its in a state of
constant "clipping'. You wonder how he can stand to listen to something
that's essentially pure distortion. But he doesn't notice it. He just
knows that his "tunes" are playing very loudly, and he likes that.
Certainly. one who can listen through all that distortion is not going
to be bothered by a few compression artifacts. 8^)

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Mats Peterson[_3_]

July 9th 13, 09:14 AM

Audio_Empire > wrote:
>> Now the real subject was whether the MP3 artifacts are inaudible or not.
>> You're straying away from it somewhat here. But I do agree on what you're
>> saying, nevertheless. Now please let's end this thread. I'm afraid it
>> won't lead anywhere (as usual).
>>
>> Mats
>
> Well, my point simply was that people who, for whatever reason, can't
> don't or won't hear reproduced music in a critical way, are unlikely to
> be able to point-at digital compression artifacts for what they are,
> either. So to this rather wide group of MP3 listeners, there are no
> artifacts, and depending upon the nature of their "hearing affliction",
> either can't, don't or won't acknowledge them. That doesn't mean that
> they don't exist however. It's like the guy who pulls up beside you at a
> stop-light with his car radio blaring so loud that its in a state of
> constant "clipping'. You wonder how he can stand to listen to something
> that's essentially pure distortion. But he doesn't notice it. He just
> knows that his "tunes" are playing very loudly, and he likes that.
> Certainly. one who can listen through all that distortion is not going
> to be bothered by a few compression artifacts. 8^)
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Yes, that is true enough. I was perhaps exaggerating a bit regarding
"straying away" from the subject. I do see your point. A major problem
with leading a discussion like this one, is of course that we all hear
differently. But that won't make the degradation of MP3 compression
go away. And after all, MP3 has little to nothing to do with high-end
audio whatsoever. It is best discussed in a dedicated group such as
alt.music.mp3.

Mats

--
Mats Peterson
http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/

Arny Krueger[_5_]

July 9th 13, 02:33 PM

"Mats Peterson" > wrote in message
...

> MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old
> time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a
> portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD
> or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system.

I find that it is helpful to consider only the subjective impressions of
people who:

(1) Compare MP3s directly to the .wav files they are made from
(2) Have the means to make this comparison level-matched, time-synched, and
double blind
(3) Hear differences in a statistically significant percentage of the the
comparisons

(2) Turns out to be very easy using free software tools available for
download from multiple sources.

If one does that, concerns about audible differences are generally relate to
issues other than high frequencies.

Audio_Empire

July 9th 13, 07:14 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Mats Peterson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old
> > time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a
> > portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD
> > or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system.
>
> I find that it is helpful to consider only the subjective impressions of
> people who:
>
> (1) Compare MP3s directly to the .wav files they are made from
> (2) Have the means to make this comparison level-matched, time-synched, and
> double blind
> (3) Hear differences in a statistically significant percentage of the the
> comparisons
>
> (2) Turns out to be very easy using free software tools available for
> download from multiple sources.
>
> If one does that, concerns about audible differences are generally relate to
> issues other than high frequencies.

Frequency response is generally not the issue here anyway. The issue is
sounds generated by the compression and expanding action that is NOT
part of the music and therefore can bee looked at as noise/distortion.
These sounds are put there by the compression algorithm, and with
certain kinds of music are easily heard.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Audio_Empire

July 11th 13, 08:31 PM

In article >,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 11:14:04 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Mats Peterson" > wrote in message
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old
> >
> > > > time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a
> >
> > > > portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD
> >
> > > > or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I find that it is helpful to consider only the subjective impressions of
> >
> > > people who:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > (1) Compare MP3s directly to the .wav files they are made from
> >
> > > (2) Have the means to make this comparison level-matched, time-synched,
> > > and
> >
> > > double blind
> >
> > > (3) Hear differences in a statistically significant percentage of the the
> >
> > > comparisons
> >
> > >
> >
> > > (2) Turns out to be very easy using free software tools available for
> >
> > > download from multiple sources.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > If one does that, concerns about audible differences are generally relate
> > > to
> >
> > > issues other than high frequencies.
> >
> >
> >
> > Frequency response is generally not the issue here anyway. The issue is
> >
> > sounds generated by the compression and expanding action that is NOT
> >
> > part of the music and therefore can bee looked at as noise/distortion.
> >
> > These sounds are put there by the compression algorithm, and with
> >
> > certain kinds of music are easily heard.
>
>
> But as you said these are only easily heard with headphones or earbuds and
> even your golden ears has difficulty with masking of these artifacts with
> high quality compression.
> Further, considering that compression is an option, and these highly
> resolving systems capable of revealing these artifacts cost <$100....I stand
> by my statement that high end isn't dead. It's ubiquitous.

Would you like to explain to me what's optional about lossy compression
when there's no way to listen to streaming Internet radio without it?
While some Internet radio is streamed at 192 KBPS, most is 128 KBPS or
less. While 192 KBPS compression is higher quality than most, I can
still hear it with some program material,

> Just as high end digital photography is blowing away film and in a consumer
> format no less.
>
> http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/nokia-lumia-1020/4505-6452_7-35822762.html
>
> "You can sum up Nokia's just-unveiled Lumia 1020 in three words: 41,
> megapixel, camera."
>
> "The Windows 8 phone will sell exclusively in the U.S. at AT&T for a hefty
> $299.99...."

Too bad it runs Windows. That means it'll do everything poorly. I would
love to see some real pictures this puppy.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[email protected]

July 13th 13, 01:04 AM

I'm more concerned about the death of phono/RCA connectors on the backs of receivers and TVs!

I would like to sprint for a 40-50" LED by 2014, but there's nowhere to plug in all of my perfectly functional older playback gear(DVD/VHS combo, etc).

HDMIs are replacing analog connecters so fast there isn't even a mini 1/8" audio in port on audio gear any more.

Audio_Empire

July 13th 13, 03:48 AM

In article >,
wrote:

> I'm more concerned about the death of phono/RCA connectors on the backs of
> receivers and TVs!
>
> I would like to sprint for a 40-50" LED by 2014, but there's nowhere to plug
> in all of my perfectly functional older playback gear(DVD/VHS combo, etc).
>
> HDMIs are replacing analog connecters so fast there isn't even a mini 1/8"
> audio in port on audio gear any more.

I have just the opposite problem. My big Pioneer Elite rear-projector HD
TV is too old to have any HDMI inputs. As a result, I have a Blu-Ray
player, but it won't output anything other 480i from Blu-Ray discs over
the analog PbPyR output jacks. Regular DVD's it will at least output at
480p, but NOT Blu-Ray discs! What a waste!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Audio_Empire

July 13th 13, 06:04 AM

In article >,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:31:43 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
>
> >
> > > But as you said these are only easily heard with headphones or earbuds
> > > and
> >
> > > even your golden ears has difficulty with masking of these artifacts
> > > with
> >
> > > high quality compression.
> >
> > > Further, considering that compression is an option, and these highly
> >
> > > resolving systems capable of revealing these artifacts cost <$100....I
> > > stand
> >
> > > by my statement that high end isn't dead. It's ubiquitous.
> >
> >
> >
> > Would you like to explain to me what's optional about lossy compression
> >
> > when there's no way to listen to streaming Internet radio without it?
>
> It's optional in the sense that even the very inexpensive Sansa Fuse
> supports FLAC.

But all Internet radio is MP3. That's NOT optional.

> > While some Internet radio is streamed at 192 KBPS, most is 128 KBPS or
> >
> > less. While 192 KBPS compression is higher quality than most, I can
> >
> > still hear it with some program material,
>
>
> When did MP3 become defined by Internet Radio? That would be like defining
> analogue tape by cassette.

You miss the point which is that not all MP3 usage is optional. if you
buy your music from iTunes or some such, it's supplied to you as MP3. If
you want to listen to Internet radio, it's MP3. You have no choice
(except not to listen at all).
>
> On the other hand....without audio compression there wouldn't be any IR for
> you to listen to.

That's still irrelevant to the point.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[email protected]

July 14th 13, 06:53 PM

I just don't want to be forced to have to buy all new peripherals after buying a new display, that's all.

Arny Krueger[_5_]

July 14th 13, 11:26 PM

> wrote in message
...
>I just don't want to be forced to have to buy all new peripherals after
>buying a new display, that's all.

It is still pretty common for new video gear to have component video (CV)
inputs, which generally includes standard L & R RCA jack audio audio inputs.

Some AVRs convert standard analog audio inputs into HDMI and some don't, so
that can be a way to use legacy audio gear with modern flat screen TVs. My
Denon AVR 1613 does. My Yamaha doesn't.

You can also find stand-alone CV to HDMI converters on eBay and at AV
stores.

Audio_Empire

July 15th 13, 03:51 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >I just don't want to be forced to have to buy all new peripherals after
> >buying a new display, that's all.
>
> It is still pretty common for new video gear to have component video (CV)
> inputs, which generally includes standard L & R RCA jack audio audio inputs.
>
> Some AVRs convert standard analog audio inputs into HDMI and some don't, so
> that can be a way to use legacy audio gear with modern flat screen TVs. My
> Denon AVR 1613 does. My Yamaha doesn't.
>
> You can also find stand-alone CV to HDMI converters on eBay and at AV
> stores.

I have bought a number of these HDMI to component converters and none of
them work very well. The last one I bought supposedly does HDMI to
either PbPyR or VGA. With either mode selected, the picture is so dark
you cannot see it without turning the black level all the way up (and
even then it looks awful) and the picture has streaks through it that
are very annoying especially with light foreground objects against a
dark background. I suspect it's the implementation of Intel's HDCP
that's the culprit here. I'm going to have to wait until my 58" Elite
HDTV finally dies before I can justify spending the dough for a new
HDMI-equipped flat-screen (of at least 60").

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[email protected]

July 17th 13, 12:09 AM

Audio_Empire:
> I have just the opposite problem. My big Pioneer Elite rear-projector HD
> TV is too old to have any HDMI inputs. As a result, I have a Blu-Ray.."

I think it was only the last two model years that TV mfgs decided to
scale wayyyy back on rcas and really bone up on hidmees.

Audio_Empire

July 17th 13, 06:05 PM

In article >,
wrote:

> Audio_Empire:
> > I have just the opposite problem. My big Pioneer Elite rear-projector HD
> > TV is too old to have any HDMI inputs. As a result, I have a Blu-Ray.."
>
> I think it was only the last two model years that TV mfgs decided to
> scale wayyyy back on rcas and really bone up on hidmees.

My Sony Blu-Ray player DOES have PbPrY outputs, and it outputs HD from
NetFlix, Amazon, etc. Internet streaming video sites, but it won't
output HD from a Blu-Ray disc and in fact, it plays Blu-Ray HD discs
ONLY as 480i, It won't even output 480p over component except from
standard Definition DVD videos! What a load of paranoid bullpuckey. As
if any pirate is going to to make analog copies of Blu-Ray HD content.
It's simply a ploy by the manufacturers to get people to buy new
equipment. Anti-Piracy my arse!

[ Please turn the topic back to audio matters. -- dsr ]

~misfit~[_3_]

September 28th 13, 02:37 PM

Somewhere on teh intarwebs wrote:
> J. g. holt the founder of stereophile at the end of his life was of
> the mind that audio is near death for having neglected this:
>
> Interview in stereophile, of which the entire thing is worth the
> timed to read.
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/
>
> Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real
> world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the
> 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty
> controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized
> every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal]
> is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and
> of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many
> people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel.
>
> It is ironic the very mag he founded was in the forefront of this
> neglect and of promoting voodoo audio., as it and fellow travelers
> continue.

Here's a short piece I just read that is sort of relevant:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/27/tech/innovation/death-stereo-system/index.html?

# # # # # !!Warning - Reminiscing follows!! # # # # #

There are some truths in it. I remember when I went (from my home in New
Zealand) to live and work on Norfolk Island for a year or three at the end
of the 70s - I guess similar to the author's move to college. I had a
component system and five 'beer crates' of LPs (about 25 to the wooden
crate, leaving 'flipping room' - they were a real boon to the young carefree
budding audiophile as they were *very* strong and LPs fitted into them
perfectly).

I didn't take my system and LPs with me and rather foolishly let myself be
talked into letting a friend 'look after' the records rather than put them
into storage. On my return in 1980 we had a party at said friends house as I
was gagging to hear some of my music again... Two hours later, after having
listened to scratches, skips, pops and 'loops' I gave him the whole
collection! So much for looking after it - he'd turned into a real party
animal who let just anyone change the records - usually not worrying about
putting the last one away. :-( I was so stressed out by the experience I
embraced the small part of me that was still hippy and divested myself of
material wories.

I started buying CDs a while later and didn't look back.
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
[Sent from my OrbitalT ocular implant interface.]