Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV

[Paul[_13_]]

Everyone knows MP3 sounds bad versus WAV.


But how does WMA (which is the default file format when
you rip a CD in the Windows Media player) stack up against WAV?

I assume the difference is still pretty obvious on good monitors?

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Paul > wrote:
>Everyone knows MP3 sounds bad versus WAV.

Maybe. WAV is actually a container format.

Almost every WAV file you encounter will be an uncompressed PCM file, but
just because it's got a .WAV extension doesn't necessarily mean it is an
uncompressed PCM file. It's possible to make an MPEG-encoded file and put
it in a .WAV container.

>But how does WMA (which is the default file format when
>you rip a CD in the Windows Media player) stack up against WAV?

It depends because WMA is _also_ a container format that can use a variety
of different encoders. The default WMA encoder is pretty bad in spite of
jj johnson's work. There is also a lossless WMA encoder that is as good
as an uncompressed PCM format. There is a voice grade WMA encoder which
is worse than telephone-grade too.

With file types like these, just knowing the extension doesn't tell you
how the stuff inside the file was actually encoded. Which is kind of
shameful if you ask me.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/18/2014 8:45 PM, Paul wrote:

> Everyone knows MP3 sounds bad versus WAV.

Not me. A 256 kpbs MP3 is practically indistinguishable from the PCM
file from which it was made. Try it some time. A 64 kpbs MP3 does sound
pretty poor compared to its parent PCM file.

> But how does WMA (which is the default file format when
> you rip a CD in the Windows Media player) stack up against WAV?

Again, it depends on the bit rate. For the same bit rate, some people
think that WMA sounds better than MP3, but then there are several MP3
encoders, and some of those sound better than others.

> I assume the difference is still pretty obvious on good monitors?

Why assume? Why not listen for yourself and learn what the differences
sound like, both between compression formats and bit rates? There are
times when you want to use a low bit rate (like to make a file download
quickly) and not worry if it doesn't sound as good as your original.
There are times when you'll want to just use a WAV file and don't
compress at all.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

wma , mp3, mp4, flac, etc

that's the nice thing about standards....there are so many to choose from..



Mark

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/18/2014 7:55 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/18/2014 8:45 PM, Paul wrote:
>
>> Everyone knows MP3 sounds bad versus WAV.
>
> Not me. A 256 kpbs MP3 is practically indistinguishable from the PCM
> file from which it was made. Try it some time. A 64 kpbs MP3 does sound
> pretty poor compared to its parent PCM file.
>

Most of the MP3s I have seen are around 128kbps.


>> But how does WMA (which is the default file format when
>> you rip a CD in the Windows Media player) stack up against WAV?
>
> Again, it depends on the bit rate. For the same bit rate, some people
> think that WMA sounds better than MP3, but then there are several MP3
> encoders, and some of those sound better than others.
>
>> I assume the difference is still pretty obvious on good monitors?
>
> Why assume? Why not listen for yourself and learn what the differences
> sound like, both between compression formats and bit rates? There are
> times when you want to use a low bit rate (like to make a file download
> quickly) and not worry if it doesn't sound as good as your original.
> There are times when you'll want to just use a WAV file and don't
> compress at all.
>

I'll just stick to uncompressed WAV, because these are for
listening to reference albums on good monitors, to compare my
mixes against...

[PStamler]

On Friday, June 20, 2014 12:12:24 AM UTC-6, Paul wrote:

> I'll just stick to uncompressed WAV, because these are for
> listening to reference albums on good monitors, to compare my
> mixes against...

You can also use them for listening to music for enjoyment.

Peace,
Another Paul

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/20/2014 8:39 PM, PStamler wrote:
> On Friday, June 20, 2014 12:12:24 AM UTC-6, Paul wrote:
>
>> I'll just stick to uncompressed WAV, because these are for
>> listening to reference albums on good monitors, to compare my
>> mixes against...
>
> You can also use them for listening to music for enjoyment.
>

That true, and it also brings up another point.

How many people here use monitors for listening
pleasure?

My Yamaha HS80Ms, while awesome sounding, and with
pretty good bass even without the recommended sub-woofer, are
a bit on the bright side. This brightness is somewhat
necessary to hear all the details of well recorded
music, and it's good the mix on these so that you don't
make things too shrill.

But my home speakers are significantly less bright
and warmer sounding. Certainly not as flat and not as clear,
but also not as harsh. They are muddier sounding, really,
and you can hear this when you A/B the signal back and forth, but
they are just fine for listening purposes.

[[email protected]]

Paul wrote: " Most of the MP3s I have seen are around 128kbps. "


Really? Well Paul, Bush DID win the 2000 presidential election, the twin Trade Center towers have been replaced by one spire, Michael Jackson is dead, an African-American is now President, and most folks encoding to MP3 do so at 256kB or higher.


Hope that fills you in on the past 15 or so years. BTW I wouldn't rip even the spoken word to 128! lol

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/21/2014 8:05 AM, wrote:
> Paul wrote: " Most of the MP3s I have seen are around 128kbps. "
>
>
> Really? Well Paul, Bush DID win the 2000 presidential election, the twin Trade Center towers have been replaced by one spire, Michael Jackson is dead, an African-American is now President, and most folks encoding to MP3 do so at 256kB or higher.
>

Not true in my collection.

>
> Hope that fills you in on the past 15 or so years. BTW I wouldn't rip even the spoken word to 128! lol
>

I knew all of that, ****-wit. Your own spoken words wouldn't be
worth ripping to 1 kbps!

[[email protected]]

Paul wrote: " I knew all of that, ****-wit. Your own spoken words wouldn't be "

Easy there! You know that stress shortens more lives than cancer or guns?

I was just pointing out that about anything on Amazon is at least 256VBR, has been so for at least 5 years.

You're not the same Paul who has helped me out on alt.computer are you? That Paul is quite patient and explains the hows n whys when someone's Win-Doze goes haywire.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/21/2014 11:05 AM, wrote:

> . . . and most folks
> encoding to MP3 do so at 256kB or higher.

This may be true for knowledgeable folks who are encoding MP3s from
their own higher fidelity material. If I make a recording and send
someone a copy, it's 256 kpbs if I want them to really listen to it, or
64 kpbs if it's something like a recording of a two hour concert and
they want to pick a few songs from it to use on their next potentially
platinum download.

However, if you're listening to streaming music or purchasing music
downloads, 128 kpbs is about as good as it gets unless you pay extra for
a higher resolution format (simply because they can charge you for it).



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/21/2014 2:26 PM, wrote:
> I was just pointing out that about anything on Amazon is at least 256VBR, has been so for at least 5 years.

Well, I guess this shows how infrequently I purchase music downloads,
probably none in the last five years, maybe four or five total since the
technology as a product has been available. Are they still less than a
buck, at that bit rate?

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/21/2014 11:26 AM, wrote:
> Paul wrote: " I knew all of that, ****-wit. Your own spoken words wouldn't be "
>
> Easy there! You know that stress shortens more lives than cancer or guns?
>
> I was just pointing out that about anything on Amazon is at least 256VBR, has been so for at least 5 years.
>
> You're not the same Paul who has helped me out on alt.computer are you? That Paul is quite patient and explains the hows n whys when someone's Win-Doze goes haywire.
>

Relax, you bone-head! I'm just ****in' with you!

Did you know good manners are free?

[John Williamson]

On 21/06/2014 21:02, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/21/2014 2:26 PM, wrote:
>> I was just pointing out that about anything on Amazon is at least
>> 256VBR, has been so for at least 5 years.
>
> Well, I guess this shows how infrequently I purchase music downloads,
> probably none in the last five years, maybe four or five total since the
> technology as a product has been available. Are they still less than a
> buck, at that bit rate?
>
In the UK on Amazon, they're round about GBP 0.89 on average, and all
the ones I've paid for in the last year or so have been 320 kB/s CBR. A
complete album (20 to 40 tracks) will cost between GBP 3.99 and GBP 9.99

I expect that as is normal for UK - USA price comparisons, the USA price
will be the same numbers, but in USD.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 21/06/2014 20:58, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/21/2014 11:05 AM, wrote:
>
>> . . . and most folks
>> encoding to MP3 do so at 256kB or higher.
>
> This may be true for knowledgeable folks who are encoding MP3s from
> their own higher fidelity material. If I make a recording and send
> someone a copy, it's 256 kpbs if I want them to really listen to it, or
> 64 kpbs if it's something like a recording of a two hour concert and
> they want to pick a few songs from it to use on their next potentially
> platinum download.
>
> However, if you're listening to streaming music or purchasing music
> downloads, 128 kpbs is about as good as it gets unless you pay extra for
> a higher resolution format (simply because they can charge you for it).
>
By listening, I'd compare 128 kb/s VBR with cassette tape. A lot of
cheap equipment (And expensive equipment, for different reasons) may
actually play higher bitrates as inferior quality for reasons which
include power amp non-linearities, bad DAC design, and finally the
decoding software, which may not react correctly to some high rate files
produced by some encoders.

Not all MP3 files conform exactly to the Fraunhofer standard, nor do
many cheap decoders.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Nil[_2_]]

On 21 Jun 2014, Mike Rivers > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> Well, I guess this shows how infrequently I purchase music
> downloads, probably none in the last five years, maybe four or
> five total since the technology as a product has been available.
> Are they still less than a buck, at that bit rate?

When you buy a CD from amazon.com you can now in most cases also
download mp3s of the same material. I just bought one the other day,
and the downloaded mp3s are all joint-stereo, VBR files that average
about 256 Kbps. They sound pretty good.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/21/2014 1:02 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/21/2014 2:26 PM, wrote:
>> I was just pointing out that about anything on Amazon is at least
>> 256VBR, has been so for at least 5 years.
>
> Well, I guess this shows how infrequently I purchase music downloads,
> probably none in the last five years, maybe four or five total since the
> technology as a product has been available. Are they still less than a
> buck, at that bit rate?
>

What real need is there to buy music these days?

EVERYTHING is on youtube, and it's easy enough
to rip it direct from the videos. It's compressed, of course,
but it's still listenable on the fly.

And nearly everyone has an internet connection, with some
sort of speakers attached.

The last time I bought music was Sade's last album, which
I did just to support the band. Other than that, it's all
youtube....

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/21/2014 5:13 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> In the UK on Amazon, they're round about GBP 0.89 on average, and all
> the ones I've paid for in the last year or so have been 320 kB/s CBR. A
> complete album (20 to 40 tracks) will cost between GBP 3.99 and GBP 9.99

In that case, I guess the best reason to offer "high resolution" files
is to have an opportunity to do the replication masters over, or maybe
re-mix, for more dynamic range. That would be a good thing. I'm sure
that the 320 kbps MP3s are still mastered so that they're all equal
loudness so nobody has to touch a volume control.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 22/06/2014 3:05 a.m., wrote:
> Paul wrote: " Most of the MP3s I have seen are around 128kbps. "
>
>
> Really? Well Paul, Bush DID win the 2000 presidential election, the twin Trade Center towers have been replaced by one spire, Michael Jackson is dead, an African-American is now President, and most folks encoding to MP3 do so at 256kB or higher.
>
>
> Hope that fills you in on the past 15 or so years. BTW I wouldn't rip even the spoken word to 128! lol
>


Sorry to disappoint you, but the majority of MP3s 'out there' - the ones
that kids listen to - are still 128kbps.

geoff

[geoff]

On 22/06/2014 6:26 a.m., wrote:
> Paul wrote: " I knew all of that, ****-wit. Your own spoken words wouldn't be "
>
> Easy there! You know that stress shortens more lives than cancer or guns?
>
> I was just pointing out that about anything on Amazon is at least 256VBR, has been so for at least 5 years.

Most downloads are not from Amazon, and not paid for at all.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 22/06/2014 07:15, geoff wrote:
> On 22/06/2014 3:05 a.m., wrote:
>> Paul wrote: " Most of the MP3s I have seen are around 128kbps. "
>>
>>
>> Really? Well Paul, Bush DID win the 2000 presidential election, the
>> twin Trade Center towers have been replaced by one spire, Michael
>> Jackson is dead, an African-American is now President, and most folks
>> encoding to MP3 do so at 256kB or higher.
>>
>>
>> Hope that fills you in on the past 15 or so years. BTW I wouldn't rip
>> even the spoken word to 128! lol
>>
>
>
> Sorry to disappoint you, but the majority of MP3s 'out there' - the ones
> that kids listen to - are still 128kbps.
>
>
And listened to on a half inch speaker driven to clipping. Or half a
pair of cheap earbuds, with their mate listening the other bud.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers:

Two years ago, a lot of Amazon songs were US .89 and .99.

Now you never see 89cents, and an increasing number are 1.29.

[[email protected]]

Paul wrote: " EVERYTHING is on youtube, and it's easy enough
to rip it direct from the videos. It's compressed, of course,
but it's still listenable on the fly.

And nearly everyone has an internet connection, with some
sort of speakers attached.

The last time I bought music was Sade's last album, which "


^This - is the reason for the current low-fi trend in consumer sound.

Hate to sound like the last man in the White House but, in the fight for better recorded sound quality: "You're either with us or against us".

And Paul, you win more flies with honey than by name calling. All that does is get you on ignore lists.

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> "You're either with us or against us".

Guaranteed stupidity.

> And Paul, you win more flies with honey than by name calling. All
> that does is get you on ignore lists.

You know all about being on "ignore lists" don't you! Moron.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/22/2014 5:38 AM, wrote:

>
>
> ^This - is the reason for the current low-fi trend in consumer sound.
>
> Hate to sound like the last man in the White House but, in the fight for better recorded sound quality: "You're either with us or against us".
>

I'm all for better sound, but here's a hint: The public at large
drives the market, and they are not as anal as you or me.


> And Paul, you win more flies with honey than by name calling. All that does is get you on ignore lists.
>

I don't need flies that disparage me and treat me like ****.

Please go ahead and put me on your ignore list. Your posts are
worthless to me.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/21/2014 11:15 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 22/06/2014 3:05 a.m., wrote:
>> Paul wrote: " Most of the MP3s I have seen are around 128kbps. "
>>
>>
>> Really? Well Paul, Bush DID win the 2000 presidential election, the
>> twin Trade Center towers have been replaced by one spire, Michael
>> Jackson is dead, an African-American is now President, and most folks
>> encoding to MP3 do so at 256kB or higher.
>>
>>
>> Hope that fills you in on the past 15 or so years. BTW I wouldn't rip
>> even the spoken word to 128! lol
>>
>
>
> Sorry to disappoint you, but the majority of MP3s 'out there' - the ones
> that kids listen to - are still 128kbps.
>

+1

[[email protected]]

Geoff wrote " - show quoted text -
Sorry to disappoint you, but the majority of MP3s 'out there' - the ones
that kids listen to - are still 128kbps.

geoff "


If that's the case - with regards to mp3 - then I suspect something called defautsettingitis, or, won'tlookformenuosis.


Whenever I rip a CD or convert an audio file to anything else, the first thing I do is look for a menu - settings/preferences - whatever fancy name it falls under. Same when I unbox a new TV or set up a second-hand one. It's like driving a different car: Before you even put the key in the ignition, you adjust seat, steering wheel, pedals(on some vehicles) and the mirrors. Make the car *yours*. Common sense!



No WONDER most bars or people's houses I visit I can't even watch the TVs because the damn things are left in default "Lookit Me! Buy Me!!" mode! Nobody gives a crap, and they're using their audio-video gear to only 10% of its sonic or visual potential. And big-box electronic houses don't help when they swap out reputable brand accessories with bling-factor crud like Beats & Skull Candy.


To "Paul", I was actually being funny with all that updating you on current events. since 128k mp3 debuted in the late '90s. Sorry if my dry humor seemed abrasive.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Paul > wrote:
>
> I'm all for better sound, but here's a hint: The public at large
>drives the market, and they are not as anal as you or me.

There isn't just one market any longer. That's what makes this interesting,
the market is very fragmented. There are some sectors of that market that
are concerned, even obsessed about sound quality. There are others who could
not even care if the words are intelligible.

It is still possible to keep a small label alive supporting a very small
market, even as it becomes impossible to keep a large one alive supporting
a wider one. How long this will continue I don't know.

But I do think that much of the key is educating people so they understand
that actual good playback is possible, and why they might be willing to go out
of their way for it. Obviously many of them won't, but if they don't know
it exists, none of them will. We have a generation of people who have come to
expect Youtube quality when, with little more effort, they could have much
better.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Sean Conolly]

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/21/2014 1:02 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 6/21/2014 2:26 PM, wrote:
>>> I was just pointing out that about anything on Amazon is at least
>>> 256VBR, has been so for at least 5 years.
>>
>> Well, I guess this shows how infrequently I purchase music downloads,
>> probably none in the last five years, maybe four or five total since the
>> technology as a product has been available. Are they still less than a
>> buck, at that bit rate?
>>
>
> What real need is there to buy music these days?
>
> EVERYTHING is on youtube, and it's easy enough
> to rip it direct from the videos. It's compressed, of course,
> but it's still listenable on the fly.

Yeah, it's listenable, while missing a lot that makes it sound good. I was
listening to Heart's Little Queen, from '78 I think? It's really surprising
how much detail I hear on the CD that didn't come across on even the best
Youtube clip I could find. And that's with a 35 year old record.

Now a friend sent me a link on Spotify today to a hard to find album - and I
thought that did do justice to the CD - though I haven't heard the CD in
over 15 years.

Sean

[Nil[_2_]]

On 22 Jun 2014, "Sean Conolly" > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> Yeah, it's listenable, while missing a lot that makes it sound
> good. I was listening to Heart's Little Queen, from '78 I think?
> It's really surprising how much detail I hear on the CD that
> didn't come across on even the best Youtube clip I could find. And
> that's with a 35 year old record.

The audio on youtube clips is always heavily compressed so that they
sound, at best, like a bad mp3. But usually the soundtrack is already
compressed when submitted, so it undergoes yet another round of
compression, further degrading the sound.

It's cool that there is so much on youtube that you might not be able
to hear anywhere else, but the sound quality is always dismal.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/22/2014 9:33 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Paul > wrote:
>>
>> I'm all for better sound, but here's a hint: The public at large
>> drives the market, and they are not as anal as you or me.
>
> There isn't just one market any longer. That's what makes this interesting,
> the market is very fragmented. There are some sectors of that market that
> are concerned, even obsessed about sound quality. There are others who could
> not even care if the words are intelligible.
>
> It is still possible to keep a small label alive supporting a very small
> market, even as it becomes impossible to keep a large one alive supporting
> a wider one. How long this will continue I don't know.
>
> But I do think that much of the key is educating people so they understand
> that actual good playback is possible, and why they might be willing to go out
> of their way for it. Obviously many of them won't, but if they don't know
> it exists, none of them will. We have a generation of people who have come to
> expect Youtube quality when, with little more effort, they could have much
> better.
> --scott
>


If Nil is to be believed:

"The audio on youtube clips is always heavily compressed so that they
sound, at best, like a bad mp3. But usually the soundtrack is already
compressed when submitted, so it undergoes yet another round of
compression, further degrading the sound."


So what kind of compression algorithm does Youtube add to a videos
audio track?

Is the end result approximately like 64kbps MP3, or perhaps 128kbps
MP3?

Would the solution be as simple as Youtube changing their
compression software, or perhaps convincing them to not compress
the audio at all? Or would that be highly unlikely, because they
want to maximize their server hard-drive space?

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Paul > wrote:
>
>"The audio on youtube clips is always heavily compressed so that they
>sound, at best, like a bad mp3. But usually the soundtrack is already
>compressed when submitted, so it undergoes yet another round of
>compression, further degrading the sound."
>
> So what kind of compression algorithm does Youtube add to a videos
>audio track?

They use AAC, although I don't recall the rate.

If you send an MPEG encoded file up to Youtube, they will decode it and
then re-encode as AAC, causing much worse artifacts. If you send them
AAC at the wrong rate, they will decode it and re-encode it, causing much
worse artifacts.

The way to get decent audio quality out of Youtube is to pre-encode the
audio _exactly_ in the internal format that Youtube uses. (This goes for
video as well). Many digital editing applications have specific export
settings to allow you to export for youtube.

> Is the end result approximately like 64kbps MP3, or perhaps 128kbps
>MP3?

I don't think you can compare AAC and MP3 at all, the artifacts sound
very different. The space monkeys are much worse on MP3 when you do multiple
layers of encoding. AAC gets more bubbly sounds.

But the real problem, as mentioned above, is transcoding severely
exaggerating artifacts.

> Would the solution be as simple as Youtube changing their
>compression software, or perhaps convincing them to not compress
>the audio at all? Or would that be highly unlikely, because they
>want to maximize their server hard-drive space?

Youtube exists to sell views to advertisers. If the advertisers are not
complaining about the audio quality, they have no reason to change it.
--scott

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

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/22/2014 4:13 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Paul > wrote:
>>
>> "The audio on youtube clips is always heavily compressed so that they
>> sound, at best, like a bad mp3. But usually the soundtrack is already
>> compressed when submitted, so it undergoes yet another round of
>> compression, further degrading the sound."
>>
>> So what kind of compression algorithm does Youtube add to a videos
>> audio track?
>
> They use AAC, although I don't recall the rate.
>
> If you send an MPEG encoded file up to Youtube, they will decode it and
> then re-encode as AAC, causing much worse artifacts. If you send them
> AAC at the wrong rate, they will decode it and re-encode it, causing much
> worse artifacts.
>
> The way to get decent audio quality out of Youtube is to pre-encode the
> audio _exactly_ in the internal format that Youtube uses. (This goes for
> video as well). Many digital editing applications have specific export
> settings to allow you to export for youtube.
>
>> Is the end result approximately like 64kbps MP3, or perhaps 128kbps
>> MP3?
>
> I don't think you can compare AAC and MP3 at all, the artifacts sound
> very different. The space monkeys are much worse on MP3 when you do multiple
> layers of encoding. AAC gets more bubbly sounds.
>

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

"Blind tests show that AAC demonstrates greater sound quality and
transparency than MP3 for files coded at the same bit rate."



> But the real problem, as mentioned above, is transcoding severely
> exaggerating artifacts.
>
>> Would the solution be as simple as Youtube changing their
>> compression software, or perhaps convincing them to not compress
>> the audio at all? Or would that be highly unlikely, because they
>> want to maximize their server hard-drive space?
>
> Youtube exists to sell views to advertisers. If the advertisers are not
> complaining about the audio quality, they have no reason to change it.
> --scott
>

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/22/2014 12:33 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Paul > wrote:
>>
>> I'm all for better sound, but here's a hint: The public at large
>> drives the market, and they are not as anal as you or me.
>
> There isn't just one market any longer. That's what makes this interesting,
> the market is very fragmented. There are some sectors of that market that
> are concerned, even obsessed about sound quality. There are others who could
> not even care if the words are intelligible.
>
> It is still possible to keep a small label alive supporting a very small
> market, even as it becomes impossible to keep a large one alive supporting
> a wider one. How long this will continue I don't know.
>
> But I do think that much of the key is educating people so they understand
> that actual good playback is possible, and why they might be willing to go out
> of their way for it. Obviously many of them won't, but if they don't know
> it exists, none of them will. We have a generation of people who have come to
> expect Youtube quality when, with little more effort, they could have much
> better.
> --scott
>


You bring some questions to mind. For starters:

[1] What are the demographics of the sound quality
obsessed folks? [I'd suspect a graying trend.]

[2] Who'll be educating people on good playback
possibilities, and to what end?

Seems there's a bunch of lip service but nobody has
been [effectively] stepping up to the plate.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[geoff]

On 23/06/2014 11:28 a.m., Paul wrote:

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
>
> "Blind tests show that AAC demonstrates greater sound quality and
> transparency than MP3 for files coded at the same bit rate."

Possibly true, or possibly edited in there by an enthusiastic iDiot.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/22/2014 7:45 PM, Ron C wrote:

> [1] What are the demographics of the sound quality
> obsessed folks? [I'd suspect a graying trend.]

These are the ones who listen at home, on speakers, not always in front
of a computer. They're the ones likely to buy a piece of hardware that
they can connect to their home listening system, perhaps one that
includes a means for and Internet connection to stream or download audio
and send it to their listening room without having to run cables around
the house.

But, too, there are also the "portable" and "at the computer all day"
crowd (which may include office workers who are listening on decent
headphones now in an attempt to hear better quality sound. They're
limited by the playback hardware, but this can get better. There are a
number of good quality D/A converters with a USB connector on one end
and a decent headphone amplifier on the other, and while you can spend a
grand on one, you can get a reasonable one for under $200 - less than a
computer, tablet, or phone.

> [2] Who'll be educating people on good playback
> possibilities, and to what end?

Faceless people via the Internet, who will impress some and will sound
like a talking head commercial to others. "Hi-Fi" was a limited market
from the 1950s, for about 30 years, by which time specialist showroom
had all but disappeared.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/22/2014 8:32 AM, wrote:
> Two years ago, a lot of Amazon songs were US .89 and .99.
>
> Now you never see 89cents, and an increasing number are 1.29.

Two years ago, I used to be able to get lunch for $5. Now it's more like
$7. That's just about the same percentage increase, about 44%. On the
other hand, my retirement pension increased by about 7% over that time
period.

Good thing I can still enjoy listening to the radio, and streaming radio
at lo fidelity, for no more out-of=pocket drain than before.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Paul > wrote:
>From:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
>
>"Blind tests show that AAC demonstrates greater sound quality and
>transparency than MP3 for files coded at the same bit rate."

Well, THERE'S damning with faint praise.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Ron C > wrote:
>You bring some questions to mind. For starters:
>
>[1] What are the demographics of the sound quality
>obsessed folks? [I'd suspect a graying trend.]

Surprisingly it's not, there are actually a lot of younger people who are
starting to wake up and realize that sound quality is actually important.

>[2] Who'll be educating people on good playback
>possibilities, and to what end?

Here's the problem, because the people who are doing the education today
include advertisers and total idiots who have no idea what they are talking
about.

I know that Neil Young has got a bunch of people interested in the idea of
better sound quality, but unfortunately when he goes into details about better
sound quality and how it is achieved, he doesn't have any idea what he is
talking about. So people hear that stuff and they parrot it back and now
that we're 30 years into the digital audio revolution people are STILL talking
about stairstepped waveforms coming out of DACs.

>Seems there's a bunch of lip service but nobody has
>been [effectively] stepping up to the plate.

Hey, I'm trying! Don't blame me!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/23/2014 9:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Ron C > wrote:
>> You bring some questions to mind. For starters:
>>
>> [1] What are the demographics of the sound quality
>> obsessed folks? [I'd suspect a graying trend.]
>
> Surprisingly it's not, there are actually a lot of younger people who are
> starting to wake up and realize that sound quality is actually important.

That's nice to hear. Now I'm wondering what genera they're following.
>
>> [2] Who'll be educating people on good playback
>> possibilities, and to what end?
>
> Here's the problem, because the people who are doing the education today
> include advertisers and total idiots who have no idea what they are talking
> about.

That's not so good to hear, but sadly not surprising.
>
> I know that Neil Young has got a bunch of people interested in the idea of
> better sound quality, but unfortunately when he goes into details about better
> sound quality and how it is achieved, he doesn't have any idea what he is
> talking about. So people hear that stuff and they parrot it back and now
> that we're 30 years into the digital audio revolution people are STILL talking
> about stairstepped waveforms coming out of DACs.

I recall way too many such discussions in this news group, and
that's from people who at least knew enough to find this group.
I shudder to think what the general public (mis-)understands.
>
>> Seems there's a bunch of lip service but nobody has
>> been [effectively] stepping up to the plate.
>
> Hey, I'm trying! Don't blame me!
> --scott
>
I don't think I'd blame anyone here. What seems to be needed
are better educated marketers (and clients.) It's been a continuing
up hill battle for engineers. About all we can do is continue to fight
the good fight.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "Here's the problem, because the people who are doing the education today include advertisers and total idiots who have no idea what they are talking about"


And folks like me who genuinely care but just get a lot of the terms mixed up, admittedly. I'm also one of those who doesn't believe it's necessary to have a bunch of pieces of paper on the wall proving this or that, in order to be an advocate for change in this business.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/23/2014 10:19 AM, Ron C wrote:
> On 6/23/2014 9:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Ron C > wrote:
>>> You bring some questions to mind. For starters:
>>>
>>> [1] What are the demographics of the sound quality
>>> obsessed folks? [I'd suspect a graying trend.]
>>
>> Surprisingly it's not, there are actually a lot of younger people who are
>> starting to wake up and realize that sound quality is actually important.
>
> That's nice to hear. Now I'm wondering what genera they're following.
>>
>>> [2] Who'll be educating people on good playback
>>> possibilities, and to what end?
>>
>> Here's the problem, because the people who are doing the education today
>> include advertisers and total idiots who have no idea what they are
>> talking
>> about.
>
> That's not so good to hear, but sadly not surprising.
>>
>> I know that Neil Young has got a bunch of people interested in the
>> idea of
>> better sound quality, but unfortunately when he goes into details
>> about better
>> sound quality and how it is achieved, he doesn't have any idea what he is
>> talking about. So people hear that stuff and they parrot it back and now
>> that we're 30 years into the digital audio revolution people are STILL
>> talking
>> about stairstepped waveforms coming out of DACs.
>
> I recall way too many such discussions in this news group, and
> that's from people who at least knew enough to find this group.
> I shudder to think what the general public (mis-)understands.
>>
>>> Seems there's a bunch of lip service but nobody has
>>> been [effectively] stepping up to the plate.
>>
>> Hey, I'm trying! Don't blame me!
>> --scott
>>
> I don't think I'd blame anyone here. What seems to be needed
> are better educated marketers (and clients.) It's been a continuing
> up hill battle for engineers. About all we can do is continue to fight
> the good fight.


Well, people don't need to know the details about how it works.

They just have to be able to hear the difference enough to feel
that it's worth the extra cost to buy the better equipment.

Unfortunately, sound engineers are trained to hear more and
discern more audio details than the average consumer, so of course
they won't be satisfied with what the public at large buys.

We vote with our dollars, and what's good enough for the
teeming corporate masses may not be good enough for you....

[geoff]

>
>
> Well, people don't need to know the details about how it works.
>
> They just have to be able to hear the difference enough to feel
> that it's worth the extra cost to buy the better equipment.

iF THEY HAVE THEIR HEAD FILLED WITH FALSE INFORMATION, THEY CAN IMAGINE
ALL SORTS OF THINGS, AND ATTRIBUTE THINGS BOTH GOOD AND BAD TO TOTALLY
FALSE CAUSES.

oops sorry aboit the caps !

>
> We vote with our dollars, and what's good enough for the
> teeming corporate masses may not be good enough for you....

MacDonalds - YEAH !

geoff

[Luxey]

недеља, 22. јун 2014. 02.18.19 UTC+2, Paul је написао/ла:
> On 6/21/2014 1:02 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> > On 6/21/2014 2:26 PM, wrote:
>
> >> I was just pointing out that about anything on Amazon is at least
>
> >> 256VBR, has been so for at least 5 years.
>
> >
>
> > Well, I guess this shows how infrequently I purchase music downloads,
>
> > probably none in the last five years, maybe four or five total since the
>
> > technology as a product has been available. Are they still less than a
>
> > buck, at that bit rate?
>
> >
>
>
>
> What real need is there to buy music these days?
>
>
>
> EVERYTHING is on youtube, and it's easy enough
>
> to rip it direct from the videos. It's compressed, of course,
>
> but it's still listenable on the fly.
>
>
>
> And nearly everyone has an internet connection, with some
>
> sort of speakers attached.


Support independent artists!


> The last time I bought music was Sade's last album, which
>
> I did just to support the band. Other than that, it's all
>
> youtube....


She does not need your support, but she surelly wellcomed it.

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> Scott Dorsey wrote: "Here's the problem, because the people who are
> doing the education today include advertisers and total idiots who
> have no idea what they are talking about"
>
>
> And folks like me who genuinely care but just get a lot of the terms
> mixed up, admittedly. I'm also one of those who doesn't believe
> it's necessary to have a bunch of pieces of paper on the wall
> proving this or that, in order to be an advocate for change in this
> business.

Being an idiot won't help. When you prove that you have no idea what
you're talking about (apparently that's whenever you open your pie
hole), nobody will be persuaded.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Ron C > wrote:
>> You bring some questions to mind. For starters:
>>
>> [1] What are the demographics of the sound quality
>> obsessed folks? [I'd suspect a graying trend.]
>
> Surprisingly it's not, there are actually a lot of younger people who are
> starting to wake up and realize that sound quality is actually important.
>
>> [2] Who'll be educating people on good playback
>> possibilities, and to what end?
>
> Here's the problem, because the people who are doing the education today
> include advertisers and total idiots who have no idea what they are talking
> about.
>
> I know that Neil Young has got a bunch of people interested in the idea of
> better sound quality, but unfortunately when he goes into details about better
> sound quality and how it is achieved, he doesn't have any idea what he is
> talking about.
>
> So people hear that stuff and they parrot it back and now
> that we're 30 years into the digital audio revolution people are STILL talking
> about stairstepped waveforms coming out of DACs.
>

I have stuff that was built under a high-calbre marque, but built
for people who shop at That Store.

It nulls to close to -100 db. The stuff that's not null is not going to
be offensive - it's either really mild harmonics or hash. I end up
*adding* distortion to get things like bass to mix better.

So far as the repro/record chain goes... that's *probably* good enough.

I dunno how it gets much better than that.

>> Seems there's a bunch of lip service but nobody has
>> been [effectively] stepping up to the plate.
>
> Hey, I'm trying! Don't blame me!
> --scott
>

--
Les Cargill

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/23/2014 6:16 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Paul > wrote:
>> From:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
>>
>> "Blind tests show that AAC demonstrates greater sound quality and
>> transparency than MP3 for files coded at the same bit rate."
>
> Well, THERE'S damning with faint praise.


Well, there are many here who agreed the higher bit-rate MP3s
can be very close to the original PCM file.

So if AAC is better at the same bit rate, then Youtube should
be able to have decent audio, right?

Unless they just wanna save space on their servers.....

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>I have stuff that was built under a high-calbre marque, but built
>for people who shop at That Store.
>
>It nulls to close to -100 db. The stuff that's not null is not going to
>be offensive - it's either really mild harmonics or hash. I end up
>*adding* distortion to get things like bass to mix better.
>
>So far as the repro/record chain goes... that's *probably* good enough.

Except that people are using that equipment to play back mp3 files.

Back in the fifties, electronics got so good that the real limitations
were the speakers, the rooms, and the distribution media.

Distribution media got better and better.... with the shift to digital
there was a bit of a step backwards but it was followed by many steps
forward, so that by the early 1990s the distribution medium was no longer
a bottleneck at all.

But then, we have the sliding back into lower fidelity distribution with
the popularity of lossy compression. I am told this is because people want
more hours of material rather than better sounding material, but if that is
the case I think that's a side effect of the change in listening patterns
more than anything else.
--scott

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

> Back in the fifties, electronics got so good that the real
> limitations were the speakers, the rooms, and the
> distribution media.

What do you mean by "electronics"? I'd have to include the chain of
electronics preceding the distribution medium -- including the recorder.

There's no question digital recording is closer to "the truth" than analog.
And I have little doubt that mics and related recording electronics have
gotten less-inaccurate over the past 50 years. But it wasn't until multi-ch
SACD came along that I heard //commercial// recordings that could stand
comparison with live sound.

The medium is not //the// controlling factor in sound quality. SACDs vary in
quality (though the variation is far less than than among CDs). The
most-realistic commercial recordings I've ever heard are from the
digital-hatin' folks at Linn -- and it is not due solely to the fact that
they're on SACDs. Some of their high quality would be audible on [crosses
himself] -- phonograph records! [sound of screaming from a cheap horror movie]

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>> I have stuff that was built under a high-calbre marque, but built
>> for people who shop at That Store.
>>
>> It nulls to close to -100 db. The stuff that's not null is not going to
>> be offensive - it's either really mild harmonics or hash. I end up
>> *adding* distortion to get things like bass to mix better.
>>
>> So far as the repro/record chain goes... that's *probably* good enough.
>
> Except that people are using that equipment to play back mp3 files.
>


So don't do that. You can't fix that with a different format.

I once "reinvented" lossy compression by taking the static
FFT of a .wav file, then clearing buckets that had the least signal. I
was doing that in the service of noise reduction ( it worked okay, but
left massive ringey artifacts) . Reminded me of the single-ended NR from
CoolEdit only much, much worse.

If you apply Robert J. Bristow's biquads in cascade or parallel
to get rid of single coil hum, you get a similar thing.

You had the same artifacts. They're just inevitable. You can maybe use
FLAC coupled with ... maybe ADPCM to get 1/4 reduction - maybe. I
strongly suspect FLAC just takes advantage of the symmetry of the FFT.

But *storage* has *gotten cheaper, faster, than any other
commodity in the history of the planet*. There are 128GByte thumb
drives.

That's > 200 full-rate CDs. I don't think I have that many CDs.

I look at people using phones as primary computers, and I am just
dumbfounded. It makes absolutely no sense. Well, it *does*, but not
for me.

> Back in the fifties, electronics got so good that the real limitations
> were the speakers, the rooms, and the distribution media.
>

But the electronics got better farther down the food chain since then.
There are perfectly workable 100WPC amps for $100 .

> Distribution media got better and better.... with the shift to digital
> there was a bit of a step backwards but it was followed by many steps
> forward, so that by the early 1990s the distribution medium was no longer
> a bottleneck at all.
>

Right. And all that is still true. I still buy CDs.

> But then, we have the sliding back into lower fidelity distribution with
> the popularity of lossy compression. I am told this is because people want
> more hours of material rather than better sounding material,

Why??? I say that; I see the phone zombies at work. Long as they're not
walking they're reasonably safe.

> but if that is
> the case I think that's a side effect of the change in listening patterns
> more than anything else.
> --scott
>

I think it's a function of open plan offices and corporate network
monitoring. People Bring Their Own Network. IT departments are starting
to count on it - some will actually allow a partial or full subsidy for
hotspots.

--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 26/06/2014 1:04 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
>> Back in the fifties, electronics got so good that the real
>> limitations were the speakers, the rooms, and the
>> distribution media.
>
> What do you mean by "electronics"? I'd have to include the chain of
> electronics preceding the distribution medium -- including the recorder.
>
> There's no question digital recording is closer to "the truth" than
> analog. And I have little doubt that mics and related recording
> electronics have gotten less-inaccurate over the past 50 years. But it
> wasn't until multi-ch SACD came along that I heard //commercial//
> recordings that could stand comparison with live sound.
>
> The medium is not //the// controlling factor in sound quality. SACDs
> vary in quality (though the variation is far less than than among CDs).
> The most-realistic commercial recordings I've ever heard are from the
> digital-hatin' folks at Linn -- and it is not due solely to the fact
> that they're on SACDs. Some of their high quality would be audible on
> [crosses himself] -- phonograph records! [sound of screaming from a
> cheap horror movie]


Speaker remain the weak link in the chain. An order of magnitude or two
more distorted and non-linear than everything else, even more than
phonygraph records !


geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...

> Speakers remain the weak link in the chain.

It is more correct to say "weakest". The improvements "ahead of" the speaker
are often audible.

[geoff]

On 27/06/2014 12:28 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "geoff" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Speakers remain the weak link in the chain.
>
> It is more correct to say "weakest". The improvements "ahead of" the
> speaker are often audible.


It could be argued that the prior links are pretty much 'strong', now.

geoff

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Back in the fifties, electronics got so good that the real limitations
> were the speakers, the rooms, and the distribution media.
>
> Distribution media got better and better.... with the shift to digital
> there was a bit of a step backwards but it was followed by many steps
> forward, so that by the early 1990s the distribution medium was no longer
> a bottleneck at all.
>
> But then, we have the sliding back into lower fidelity distribution with
> the popularity of lossy compression. I am told this is because people
> want
> more hours of material rather than better sounding material,

I just don't see it at all. Decades ago most people had LoFi radiograms and
cassette players, they now have MP3 which is *not* the limiting factor on
the equipment often used to play them.

Decades ago a few of us had really good HiFi in our homes, just as a few do
today. Even those that did usually also used cassettes in their car despite
the low quality. These same people now often use MP3 in their car despite
their lower quality than CD, *but* superior quality to the cassettes they
once used. How is anything worse?
In fact since reasonably good HiFi is now far cheaper than it ever was, more
people have fairly decent HiFi in their home for when they choose to listen
to their CD's. And even their MP3's usually sound better on most peoples
systems than their vinyl or cassettes once did on their cheap radiograms.
The big change AFAIC is far more people are listening to more of their own
music, more of the time, and a lot less radio (portable or car), which was
also LoFi.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

And even their MP3's usually sound better on most peoples
>
> systems than their vinyl or cassettes once did on their cheap radiograms.
>
>

agreed

in the 50s and 60s distribution was via AM radio and scratch and play 45 RPMs.

After that came LPs and 8 tracks and cassettes and FM radio.

128K MP3s are at least as good.

Mark

[Tobiah]

> Possibly true, or possibly edited in there by an enthusiastic iDiot.

There is a reference note:

http://graphics.ethz.ch/teaching/mmcom12/slides/mp3_and_aac_brandenburg.pdf

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "music, more of the time, and a lot less radio (portable or car), which was also LoFi"


Hopefully that situation will change with the likes of R128 and its US equivalent. Having to maintain -23LUFS rms will mean no radio station will sound louder than another, elmininating the need for the kind of comp/limiting presently sucking the life out of FM and AM terrestrial.

[John Williamson]

On 27/06/2014 20:44, wrote:
> Trevor wrote: "music, more of the time, and a lot less radio (portable or car), which was also LoFi"
>
>
> Hopefully that situation will change with the likes of R128 and its US equivalent. Having to maintain -23LUFS rms will mean no radio station will sound louder than another, elmininating the need for the kind of comp/limiting presently sucking the life out of FM and AM terrestrial.
>
Being a cynic, I'd guess they'll use exactly the same dynamic range
compression as they do now, giving the current minimal dynamic range,
but set the output to the maximum allowed under the rules instead of
full modulation (Digital or analogue).

There'll be less signal coming out of the tuner, so people will just
turn the gain on the audio amp up, and you'll be back where you started,
but with the volume control turned up more. And the stations will get
hundreds of calls complaining about the lack of volume, as modern
portable radios in the EU have severely limited audio gain to avoid
breaking the rules on maximum earphone volume at maximum modulation.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> Trevor wrote: "music, more of the time, and a lot less radio
> (portable or car), which was also LoFi"
>
> Hopefully that situation will change with the likes of R128 and its
> US equivalent. Having to maintain -23LUFS rms will mean no radio
> station will sound louder than another, elmininating the need for
> the kind of comp/limiting presently sucking the life out of FM and
> AM terrestrial.

You've demonstrated that you don't understand any of this, and
explained that you don't even understand the numbers. Now you're
proving it all over again.

[geoff]

On 28/06/2014 1:43 a.m., wrote:
> And even their MP3's usually sound better on most peoples
>>
>> systems than their vinyl or cassettes once did on their cheap radiograms.
>>
>>
>
> agreed
>
> in the 50s and 60s distribution was via AM radio and scratch and play 45 RPMs.
>
> After that came LPs and 8 tracks and cassettes and FM radio.
>
> 128K MP3s are at least as good.
>
> Mark
>

At best 128kbps nowhere near as good as vinyl or FM.

geoff

[Trevor]

> wrote in message
...
>Hopefully that situation will change with the likes of R128 and its US
>equivalent. Having to maintain -23LUFS rms will mean no radio station will
>sound louder than another, >elmininating the need for the kind of
>comp/limiting presently sucking the life out of FM and AM terrestrial.

As if it will matter. There are only a handful of commercial AM radios ever
made that go above 10kHz. And most FM radios people own are inferior to
128kbs MP3 let alone 320kbs MP3. And broadcast digital radio is also
universally awfull unfortunately. I'd far prefer to stick with high bit rate
MP3 and a halfway decent player for casual listening myself. And then I
don't have to put up with music I don't like, or ads I like even less! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> At best 128kbps nowhere near as good as vinyl or FM.

At best nowhere near as good as the *best* vinyl or FM. But often better
than the average FM, and much of the vinyl that was pressed even when new.
When worn or played on a cheap radiogram, I'd rather take 128kbs MP3 thanks.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 29/06/2014 7:50 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> "geoff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> At best 128kbps nowhere near as good as vinyl or FM.
>
> At best nowhere near as good as the *best* vinyl or FM. But often better
> than the average FM, and much of the vinyl that was pressed even when new.
> When worn or played on a cheap radiogram, I'd rather take 128kbs MP3 thanks.
>
> Trevor.
>
>


We are talking about the capabilities of the media - not the crap people
might put on it.

Radiogram ?!!! Time to move into the 1980s now !

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
We are talking about the capabilities of the media - not the crap people
might put on it
geoff "


Loudness war-music is only half the equation. The stations did their damage with their own compression and hard limiters.

Radio - esp FM - once did and can sound great again. We just need to change some mentalities and technical ignorance.

[None]

> wrote
> <technical ignorance>

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
Kludge wrote:
>>
>> But then, we have the sliding back into lower fidelity distribution with
>> the popularity of lossy compression. I am told this is because people
>> want
>> more hours of material rather than better sounding material,
>
>I just don't see it at all. Decades ago most people had LoFi radiograms and
>cassette players, they now have MP3 which is *not* the limiting factor on
>the equipment often used to play them.

Pick up a copy of Time or Playboy from 1975 or so. You'll find a huge, huge
number of advertisements for audio gear, pretty expensive gear. You will not
find those ads today.

A lot of people used to spend a lot of money on home stereo gear, and for the
most part that doesn't happen any more.

In 1975 if you'd gone into the A&R office of a record label, you'd have
found a decent KLH turntable and a pair of AR4 or comparable speakers.
Nothing super expensive, but a whole lot better than the boom box or
iPhone that you'd find today.

It's true, that there was low fidelity equipment back in the seventies, but
there was enough "hi-fi" gear out there that people knew what it was and
they recognized that their low fidelity gear was indeed low fidelity.

>Decades ago a few of us had really good HiFi in our homes, just as a few do
>today. Even those that did usually also used cassettes in their car despite
>the low quality. These same people now often use MP3 in their car despite
>their lower quality than CD, *but* superior quality to the cassettes they
>once used. How is anything worse?

I think what makes it worse is that in those times, people had some notion
that what they were using could be better, and today people don't.

>In fact since reasonably good HiFi is now far cheaper than it ever was, more
>people have fairly decent HiFi in their home for when they choose to listen
>to their CD's. And even their MP3's usually sound better on most peoples
>systems than their vinyl or cassettes once did on their cheap radiograms.
>The big change AFAIC is far more people are listening to more of their own
>music, more of the time, and a lot less radio (portable or car), which was
>also LoFi.

This is true, but take a look at the speakers and/or earbuds that they are
using.... and I would claim that the speakers and room are more of a limiting
factor than even the distribution medium in many cases.

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>As if it will matter. There are only a handful of commercial AM radios ever
>made that go above 10kHz.

Actually, in the pre-NRSC days there were a lot of them. Pick some random
table radio from the 1950s and you'll find the top end corner is the result
of the crappy full-range speaker and not the IF width.

These days, due to noise and crowding, there are very few AM radios with
the -6dB corner even out to 5 KHz. But it wasn't always like this.

It's not going to get any better, either, until the FCC finally decides to
actually enforce part 15 emission rules and the ambient noise levels drop.
Even then I doubt they will ever drop down to the levels they were in the
1950s in most locations.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/27/2014 11:10 AM, Tobiah wrote:
>> Possibly true, or possibly edited in there by an enthusiastic iDiot.
>
> There is a reference note:
>
> http://graphics.ethz.ch/teaching/mmcom12/slides/mp3_and_aac_brandenburg.pdf


That paper concludes that AAC can compress music and still be
"near-CD or CD" quality.

So it would seem Youtube audio can be good if given a high enough
bit-rate. But they probably use lower bit-rates, so they can maximize
the number of videos they can store and stream.....

[Trevor]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
>>> At best 128kbps nowhere near as good as vinyl or FM.
>>
>> At best nowhere near as good as the *best* vinyl or FM. But often better
>> than the average FM, and much of the vinyl that was pressed even when
>> new.
>> When worn or played on a cheap radiogram, I'd rather take 128kbs MP3
>> thanks.
>
>
> We are talking about the capabilities of the media - not the crap people
> might put on it.

The potential capabilities are irrelevant to most people, even CD.


> Radiogram ?!!! Time to move into the 1980s now !

I wasn't using one even in the seventies, but most people had cheap/crap
radiograms or turntables, and very few people today have *good* turntables
or radios. Fortunately most can play CD's now with pretty good quality,
until the signal reaches their cheap speakers anyway! 256/320kbs MP3 is more
than enough for most of them.
And since you insist on 128kbs, it's time for YOU to move into the 2000's!
:-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Trevor >
> wrote:
> Kludge wrote:
>>>
>>> But then, we have the sliding back into lower fidelity distribution with
>>> the popularity of lossy compression. I am told this is because people
>>> want
>>> more hours of material rather than better sounding material,
>>
>>I just don't see it at all. Decades ago most people had LoFi radiograms
>>and
>>cassette players, they now have MP3 which is *not* the limiting factor on
>>the equipment often used to play them.
>
> Pick up a copy of Time or Playboy from 1975 or so. You'll find a huge,
> huge
> number of advertisements for audio gear, pretty expensive gear. You will
> not
> find those ads today.
> A lot of people used to spend a lot of money on home stereo gear, and for
> the
> most part that doesn't happen any more.

That's mainly due to the fact that you don't need to spend a few months
wages on a turntable or amplifier to get good performance any more
(thankfully). Certainly here in Australia the number of people who buy
expensive speakers is about what it always was. ie a very small percentage
of the population.



> In 1975 if you'd gone into the A&R office of a record label, you'd have
> found a decent KLH turntable and a pair of AR4 or comparable speakers.
> Nothing super expensive, but a whole lot better than the boom box or
> iPhone that you'd find today.

I'n interesting claim I find hard to believe is common, you'd certainly find
far better than a boom box over here.


> It's true, that there was low fidelity equipment back in the seventies,
> but
> there was enough "hi-fi" gear out there that people knew what it was and
> they recognized that their low fidelity gear was indeed low fidelity.

Sure the majority knew their gear was LoFi, but they were *not* going to
spend the money necessary in those days to buy HiFi.


>>Decades ago a few of us had really good HiFi in our homes, just as a few
>>do
>>today. Even those that did usually also used cassettes in their car
>>despite
>>the low quality. These same people now often use MP3 in their car despite
>>their lower quality than CD, *but* superior quality to the cassettes they
>>once used. How is anything worse?
>
> I think what makes it worse is that in those times, people had some notion
> that what they were using could be better, and today people don't.

Well that much is most probably true.


>>In fact since reasonably good HiFi is now far cheaper than it ever was,
>>more
>>people have fairly decent HiFi in their home for when they choose to
>>listen
>>to their CD's. And even their MP3's usually sound better on most peoples
>>systems than their vinyl or cassettes once did on their cheap radiograms.
>>The big change AFAIC is far more people are listening to more of their own
>>music, more of the time, and a lot less radio (portable or car), which was
>>also LoFi.
>
> This is true, but take a look at the speakers and/or earbuds that they are
> using.... and I would claim that the speakers and room are more of a
> limiting
> factor than even the distribution medium in many cases.

No argument, but I would also claim that the sound from a half way decent
set of ear buds is better than the vast majority ever heard from their
radiograms back in the day. And I just have not seen a vast change in
speaker quality or room performance one way or the other. My opinion is that
if anything the average persons speakers are now a little better in the mid
range, but have less bass, which helps mitigate the room problems to some
degree. So perhaps a slight overall improvement for many.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Trevor >
> wrote:
>>As if it will matter. There are only a handful of commercial AM radios
>>ever
>>made that go above 10kHz.
>
> Actually, in the pre-NRSC days there were a lot of them. Pick some random
> table radio from the 1950s and you'll find the top end corner is the
> result
> of the crappy full-range speaker and not the IF width.

From experience very few manufacturers opted to go above 10kHz for AM radio
because that would require more expensive design and filtering to stop
interchannel carrier interference. The problem got worse when channel
spacing changed to 9kHz of course. And if they relied on the speaker to
provide the filtering, how is that an improvement? Adding a better speaker
would only show up the interference problem, *not* result in real HiFi.
Sure plenty of people still love the warmth of their valve radios, but they
would sound just the same if you pumped MP3's through them!
(without them knowing of course, people really hate having their
misconceptions contradicted by real blind tests IME, been there done that
years ago putting vinyl through and A/D-D/A, and straight through, and
asking them to pick which was which. Those who couldn't pick which was which
still claimed vinyl was somehow better than digital :-)


> These days, due to noise and crowding, there are very few AM radios with
> the -6dB corner even out to 5 KHz. But it wasn't always like this.

True, but it was never HiFi either.


> It's not going to get any better, either, until the FCC finally decides to
> actually enforce part 15 emission rules and the ambient noise levels drop.
> Even then I doubt they will ever drop down to the levels they were in the
> 1950s in most locations.

How many care about AM performance these days anyway? They could now
transmit some high bit rate digital instead, but often choose as low as
64kbs :-(
Not that I care, I only ever listen to radio in the shower! And most people
here only listen to talk back radio, so they don't care about radio sound
quality either.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 30/06/2014 4:56 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> "geoff" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>> At best 128kbps nowhere near as good as vinyl or FM.
>>>
>>> At best nowhere near as good as the *best* vinyl or FM. But often better
>>> than the average FM, and much of the vinyl that was pressed even when
>>> new.
>>> When worn or played on a cheap radiogram, I'd rather take 128kbs MP3
>>> thanks.
>>
>>
>> We are talking about the capabilities of the media - not the crap people
>> might put on it.
>
> The potential capabilities are irrelevant to most people, even CD.
>
>
>> Radiogram ?!!! Time to move into the 1980s now !
>
> I wasn't using one even in the seventies, but most people had cheap/crap
> radiograms or turntables, and very few people today have *good* turntables
> or radios. Fortunately most can play CD's now with pretty good quality,
> until the signal reaches their cheap speakers anyway! 256/320kbs MP3 is more
> than enough for most of them.
> And since you insist on 128kbs, it's time for YOU to move into the 2000's!
> :-)

Wasn't me gettin' a stiffy about 128kbps !

I have an ipod touch (my ONLY Apple device, because the likes of
SignalScopePro wasn't possible on anything else at the time !) which
contains exclusively 'ALAC' lossless files.

geoff

[geoff]

On 30/06/2014 5:39 p.m., Trevor wrote:

> Not that I care, I only ever listen to radio in the shower!

That's an idea ! But I'll need a mains extension cable to reach that
far ;-0

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Monday, June 30, 2014 12:56:15 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> "geoff" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >>> At best 128kbps nowhere near as good as vinyl or FM.
>
> >>
>
> >> At best nowhere near as good as the *best* vinyl or FM. But often better
>
> >> than the average FM, and much of the vinyl that was pressed even when
>
> >> new.
>
> >> When worn or played on a cheap radiogram, I'd rather take 128kbs MP3
>
> >> thanks.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > We are talking about the capabilities of the media - not the crap people
>
> > might put on it.
>
>
>
> The potential capabilities are irrelevant to most people, even CD.
>
>
>
>
agreed

FM stereo is limited to 15 kHz due to the MPX process which samples at 38 kHz.
Add in some real life multi-path and the distortion can be bad
Add in real life radio station dynamics compression and limiting

Vinyl, in a car or portable?

I'll take an MP3 over that.

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Paul > wrote:
>On 6/27/2014 11:10 AM, Tobiah wrote:
>>> Possibly true, or possibly edited in there by an enthusiastic iDiot.
>>
>> There is a reference note:
>>
>> http://graphics.ethz.ch/teaching/mmcom12/slides/mp3_and_aac_brandenburg.pdf
>
> That paper concludes that AAC can compress music and still be
>"near-CD or CD" quality.

Note that this is from a source that is not exactly unbiased.

> So it would seem Youtube audio can be good if given a high enough
>bit-rate. But they probably use lower bit-rates, so they can maximize
>the number of videos they can store and stream.....

As I said earlier, the real problem is the transcoding. If you send them up
an AAC file so they don't have to transcode it, the sound quality will be a
great amount better than if they have to convert an MPEG file to AAC.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/30/2014 6:57 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Paul > wrote:
>> On 6/27/2014 11:10 AM, Tobiah wrote:
>>>> Possibly true, or possibly edited in there by an enthusiastic iDiot.
>>>
>>> There is a reference note:
>>>
>>> http://graphics.ethz.ch/teaching/mmcom12/slides/mp3_and_aac_brandenburg.pdf
>>
>> That paper concludes that AAC can compress music and still be
>> "near-CD or CD" quality.
>
> Note that this is from a source that is not exactly unbiased.
>
>> So it would seem Youtube audio can be good if given a high enough
>> bit-rate. But they probably use lower bit-rates, so they can maximize
>> the number of videos they can store and stream.....
>
> As I said earlier, the real problem is the transcoding. If you send them up
> an AAC file so they don't have to transcode it, the sound quality will be a
> great amount better than if they have to convert an MPEG file to AAC.
> --scott
>

This article recommends the obvious: start off with uncompressed
audio:

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/tips-making-youtube-recordings-sound-better-33570.html

Can you start off with the uncompressed PCM audio file?

Can you choose the AAC compression bit-rate? I don't upload many
videos, but I don't remember being able to choose this.

[geoff]

On 1/07/2014 1:03 a.m., wrote:

> agreed
>
> FM stereo is limited to 15 kHz due to the MPX process which samples at 38 kHz.
> Add in some real life multi-path and the distortion can be bad

So can a broken MP3 player.

> Add in real life radio station dynamics compression and limiting

That is user error, not the medium.

>
> Vinyl, in a car or portable?
>
> I'll take an MP3 over that.

Now you are resorting to silliness.

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Monday, June 30, 2014 5:04:18 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 1/07/2014 1:03 a.m., wrote:
>
>
>
> > agreed
>
> >
>
> > FM stereo is limited to 15 kHz due to the MPX process which samples at 38 kHz.
>
> > Add in some real life multi-path and the distortion can be bad
>
>
>
> So can a broken MP3 player.
>
>
>
> > Add in real life radio station dynamics compression and limiting
>
>
>
> That is user error, not the medium.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Vinyl, in a car or portable?
>
> >
>
> > I'll take an MP3 over that.
>
>
>
> Now you are resorting to silliness.
>
>
>
> geoff

well you have to admit, the entire discussion is kinda silly...

like tastes great vs less filling

having lived through AM radio, FM radio, 8 tracks, cassettes, reel to reel, vinyl, and CDs, ....

I'm happy with MP3s and I guess for me, that's all that counts.. to each his own.

have fun

Mark

[geoff]

On 1/07/2014 9:12 a.m., wrote:

>
> well you have to admit, the entire discussion is kinda silly...
>
> like tastes great vs less filling

No, not at all. We are discussing the potential maximum sonic quality of
various mediums. Not the program that people may put on it well, or badly.

>
> having lived through AM radio, FM radio, 8 tracks, cassettes, reel to reel, vinyl, and CDs, ....
>
> I'm happy with MP3s and I guess for me, that's all that counts.. to each his own.

Enjoy.

I've never heard a 128kbps MP3 that I could enjoy though - even in the
car. And my ears are far to old to be considered 'golden' .

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/1/2014 2:55 AM, geoff wrote:
> I've never heard a 128kbps MP3 that I could enjoy though - even in the
> car. And my ears are far to old to be considered 'golden' .

I don't "enjoy" the file, I'm entertained by the music. When I'm
driving, my mind is really on something else. As long as I'm hearing
music that's of the type I enjoy, when on the road, the lowest quality
MP3 is better than what I can get on the car radio in most places, or
for very long. There are certain forms of distortion that do indeed
spoil my listening experience, but it's things like gross clipping (not
just "make it louder" clipping" or flutter, not a slight loss of detail
on the ride cymbal.

There are certain forms of music that I wouldn't enjoy even if it was
played from a high resolution WAV file. It's unfortunate that so many
people claim that lower fidelity listening spoils the joy of listening
to music.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "spoil my listening experience, but it's things like gross clipping (not
just "make it louder" clipping" or flutter, not a slight loss of detail
on the ride cymbal.

There are certain forms of music that I wouldn't enjoy even if it was
played from a high resolution WAV file. It's unfortunate that so many
people claim that lower fidelity listening spoils the joy of listening to music"

Absolutely! And remember, differences between formats impact the fidelity far less than client requests and mastering decisions regarding EQ, brickwall limiting, and compression.

I have plenty 128k and 160k mp3s of unremastered sources that are backed up to CD-R & hard drive simply because a lossless unremastered source for those rareties and one-hit wonders is simply no longer available.

[geoff]

On 1/07/2014 11:19 p.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 7/1/2014 2:55 AM, geoff wrote:
>> I've never heard a 128kbps MP3 that I could enjoy though - even in the
>> car. And my ears are far to old to be considered 'golden' .
>
> I don't "enjoy" the file, I'm entertained by the music. When I'm
> driving, my mind is really on something else.


If it sounded any good you may find that you can actually enjoy the music !

> As long as I'm hearing
> music that's of the type I enjoy, when on the road, the lowest quality
> MP3 is better than what I can get on the car radio in most places, or
> for very long. There are certain forms of distortion that do indeed
> spoil my listening experience, but it's things like gross clipping (not
> just "make it louder" clipping" or flutter, not a slight loss of detail
> on the ride cymbal.
>
> There are certain forms of music that I wouldn't enjoy even if it was
> played from a high resolution WAV file. It's unfortunate that so many
> people claim that lower fidelity listening spoils the joy of listening
> to music.
>

I thought you got no joy (above) from music , only entertainment ....

In my car I can easily tell when FM stations are playing {inferiorly)
encoded music. Not all FM stations use mass-streamed feeds, and some
play actual CDs or vinyl exclusively. They also tend to be the ones who
treat their audio processing better.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/1/2014 5:24 PM, geoff wrote:

> If it sounded any good you may find that you can actually enjoy the music !

It sounds fine, and since I only load up my player with music that I
enjoy, I can enjoy it just fine even if THE FILE that it's playing from
is an MP3.

> I thought you got no joy (above) from music , only entertainment ....

I'm not sure I see the difference. I enjoy being entertained by the
music I'm hearing. If I was listening to thrash metal instead of
bluegrass, for examples, I wouldn't enjoy it and I wouldn't be
entertained. Some of this stuff comes off 78s, ferchrissake. Why should
I worry about quality.

> In my car I can easily tell when FM stations are playing {inferiorly)
> encoded music. Not all FM stations use mass-streamed feeds, and some
> play actual CDs or vinyl exclusively. They also tend to be the ones who
> treat their audio processing better.

I wish that was true, but even the classical station here buggers up
their music to some extent. Bluegrasscountry.org boosts the low end,
both on their on-line stream and on-air broadcast (which I expect comes
from the same source as the stream). But this doesn't trouble me.
Perhaps some forms of music which I don't listen to become more
offensive when processed for broadcast or on-line streaming (or
downloading), but then if I'm offended by the music when it's in good
shape, I'm not going to listen to it when it's buggered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fJmmDkvQyc
"A Song of Reproduction" - Flanders & Swann


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

> wrote in message
...
> Vinyl, in a car or portable?

Hey it was done once upon a time.

> I'll take an MP3 over that.

Me too.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/07/2014 1:03 a.m., wrote:
>> Vinyl, in a car or portable?
>> I'll take an MP3 over that.
>
> Now you are resorting to silliness.

Not at all, both were available once upon a time. Vinyl tended to skip a lot
over bumps in a car though! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/07/2014 1:03 a.m., wrote:
>> Vinyl, in a car or portable?
>> I'll take an MP3 over that.
>
> Now you are resorting to silliness.

Not at all, both were available once upon a time. Vinyl tended to skip a lot
over bumps in a car though! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/1/2014 2:55 AM, geoff wrote:
>> I've never heard a 128kbps MP3 that I could enjoy though - even in the
>> car. And my ears are far to old to be considered 'golden' .
>
> I don't "enjoy" the file, I'm entertained by the music. When I'm driving,
> my mind is really on something else. As long as I'm hearing music that's
> of the type I enjoy, when on the road, the lowest quality MP3 is better
> than what I can get on the car radio in most places, or for very long.
> There are certain forms of distortion that do indeed spoil my listening
> experience, but it's things like gross clipping (not just "make it louder"
> clipping" or flutter, not a slight loss of detail on the ride cymbal.
>
> There are certain forms of music that I wouldn't enjoy even if it was
> played from a high resolution WAV file. It's unfortunate that so many
> people claim that lower fidelity listening spoils the joy of listening to
> music.

Pretty much sums up my opinion. I enjoy, and have certainly paid for over
the years, the highest possible fidelity I can afford for critical
listening. But just as I would rather listen to cassettes in the car than
radio or nothing once upon a time, I'm now quite happy with MP3, even 128kbs
at a pinch, although there is no real reason to use that any more.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/2/2014 4:14 AM, Trevor wrote:
> I enjoy, and have certainly paid for over
> the years, the highest possible fidelity I can afford for critical
> listening. But just as I would rather listen to cassettes in the car than
> radio or nothing once upon a time, I'm now quite happy with MP3, even 128kbs
> at a pinch, although there is no real reason to use that any more.

You'd probably be revolted by my car playback system. My car is a 2003
model which has both a cassette and CD player, but the CD player won't
play a data disk, so it won't play audio files on disk. I have a
stand-alone MP3 player (4 GB, $12 at Micro Center) with a cassette
adapter plugged into the headphone output, so the audio path is MP3 ->
cassette adapter -> cassette player -> speakers. Most of what I listen
to are 128 kbps files recorded from whatever Internet stream the station
broadcasts (some 129 kbps some lower). But I like the music, the fact
that it's for the most part selected by a knowledgeable DJ, and without
commercials, political, or religious rantings.

A friend got a new car (2013 Nissan something) with a USB connector on
it. I brought over a thumb drive with some music files to show him what
he could do with it. It would play MP3s, but not WAV. I didn't try other
"lossless" formats like AAC or FLAC.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/2/2014 4:14 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> I enjoy, and have certainly paid for over
>> the years, the highest possible fidelity I can afford for critical
>> listening. But just as I would rather listen to cassettes in the car than
>> radio or nothing once upon a time, I'm now quite happy with MP3, even
>> 128kbs
>> at a pinch, although there is no real reason to use that any more.
>
> You'd probably be revolted by my car playback system. My car is a 2003
> model which has both a cassette and CD player, but the CD player won't
> play a data disk, so it won't play audio files on disk. I have a
> stand-alone MP3 player (4 GB, $12 at Micro Center) with a cassette adapter
> plugged into the headphone output, so the audio path is MP3 -> cassette
> adapter -> cassette player -> speakers. Most of what I listen to are 128
> kbps files recorded from whatever Internet stream the station broadcasts
> (some 129 kbps some lower). But I like the music, the fact that it's for
> the most part selected by a knowledgeable DJ, and without commercials,
> political, or religious rantings.

Not me. I've already got more music than I can listen to in my lifetime, so
I have no need for someone else's idea of what I should listen to,
commercials or otherwise. And while I don't have a problem with MP3 in the
car, a cassette adapter is not something I'd stoop to. You could buy a new
radio/CD/MP3 car player for $100 or so, I can't imagine you can't afford
that. And unlike many new cars, most older ones can fit standard radio's
quite easily.


> A friend got a new car (2013 Nissan something) with a USB connector on it.
> I brought over a thumb drive with some music files to show him what he
> could do with it. It would play MP3s, but not WAV. I didn't try other
> "lossless" formats like AAC or FLAC.

Yes, I've found that quite a few don't play .wav, but frankly how many car
systems could justify the difference between 320kbs (or high bit rate VBR)
MP3 and wav anyway? You can get far more MP3's on your USB stick, so why
bother with waves in the car? That cassette adapter OTOH! :-)

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/2/2014 7:48 AM, Trevor wrote:
> Not me. I've already got more music than I can listen to in my lifetime, so
> I have no need for someone else's idea of what I should listen to,

That's the trouble with kids these days. I occasionally get something
out of my collection to play (in the living room, on real speakers,
sitting on the couch) but I enjoy hearing what's new. Mind you, I don't
run out and buy something because I heard it on the radio and I liked it
(artists trying to make a living may berate me here), it's just
entertainment - here and gone. I make my donations to the radio
stations. I hope that one of these days they work out a way for the
stations to pay the artists.

> a cassette adapter is not something I'd stoop to. You could buy a new
> radio/CD/MP3 car player for $100 or so, I can't imagine you can't afford
> that. And unlike many new cars, most older ones can fit standard radio's
> quite easily.

I could afford it, but the radio is so integrated into the dashboard of
the car, with amplifiers scattered here and there, under the seats, in
the trunk, that there's no aftermarket replacement for the built-in
audio system, at least not in the Crutchfield catalog, which I figure is
the bible.

I've had a number of rental cars that have an MP3 player built into the
radio and I've been really disappointed with the way some of them work.
When you turn off the radio or the ignition, it doesn't remember where
you were in the file that was playing. Some of them don't even remember
what file was playing last and starts with the first file in the folder
unless you scroll through the directory listing manually and pick out
the one you want. It might not matter to someone with 1,000 songs on a
memory stick and the player set to random selection, but, I have about a
dozen "songs" each of which is two or three hours long. I have had cars
(I think the Toyota Camry) that do just what I want and simply pick up
playing where it left off, but nobody who writes about cars ever thinks
this is important enough to check and report on.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Paul[_13_]]

On 7/2/2014 8:05 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:

>
> I could afford it, but the radio is so integrated into the dashboard of
> the car, with amplifiers scattered here and there, under the seats, in
> the trunk, that there's no aftermarket replacement for the built-in
> audio system, at least not in the Crutchfield catalog, which I figure is
> the bible.
>
> I've had a number of rental cars that have an MP3 player built into the
> radio and I've been really disappointed with the way some of them work.
> When you turn off the radio or the ignition, it doesn't remember where
> you were in the file that was playing. Some of them don't even remember
> what file was playing last and starts with the first file in the folder
> unless you scroll through the directory listing manually and pick out
> the one you want. It might not matter to someone with 1,000 songs on a
> memory stick and the player set to random selection, but, I have about a
> dozen "songs" each of which is two or three hours long. I have had cars
> (I think the Toyota Camry) that do just what I want and simply pick up
> playing where it left off, but nobody who writes about cars ever thinks
> this is important enough to check and report on.
>

The other problem, I have heard, is that most of the car stereos
with USB ports will not play .WAV files, so you are forced to convert
to MP3.

If someone knows of a good car stereo with a USB port that will play
both MP3 and WAV, I'd like to know about it.

It would be great to check my mixes in the car, without burning a
CD......

[geoff]

On 3/07/2014 1:22 p.m., Paul wrote:

>
> The other problem, I have heard, is that most of the car stereos
> with USB ports will not play .WAV files, so you are forced to convert
> to MP3.
>
> If someone knows of a good car stereo with a USB port that will play
> both MP3 and WAV, I'd like to know about it.
>
> It would be great to check my mixes in the car, without burning a
> CD......
>


Car stereos with with iPod capability play ALAC lossless, and presumably
there are IOS apps that allow FLAC to be played (= same thing as
WAV/LPCM, effectively).

But Apple being Apple, maybe they ban FLAC capability from their
AppStore ....


geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "But Apple being Apple, maybe they ban FLAC capability from their AppStore"


That company will never be the same since Jobs left. But if he could come back? Look. Out. !

[geoff]

On 3/07/2014 9:27 p.m., wrote:
> geoff wrote: "But Apple being Apple, maybe they ban FLAC capability from their AppStore"
>
>
> That company will never be the same since Jobs left. But if he could come back? Look. Out. !
>


It was a c**t of a company then, just as now. He was chief c**t at the
time. Let's not make a god out of him.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/2/2014 9:22 PM, Paul wrote:
> If someone knows of a good car stereo with a USB port that will play
> both MP3 and WAV, I'd like to know about it.
>
> It would be great to check my mixes in the car, without burning a
> CD......

Burning a CD costs a lot less, and is far less bother, than buying a new
car. But you might want to look for a car (or a radio upgrade) that has
a line input jack. Now that new cars no longer have a cassette player,
when I travel, I leave my cassette adapter in my car at home and carry a
mini phone plug cable to connect my player to the rental car if it has a
jack for it.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 6:31:32 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 3/07/2014 9:27 p.m., the
l.com wrote:
>
> > geoff wrote: "But Apple being Apple, maybe they ban FLAC capability from their AppStore"
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > That company will never be the same since Jobs left. But if he could come back? Look. Out. !
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> It was a c**t of a company then, just as now. He was chief c**t at the
>
> time. Let's not make a god out of him.
>
>
>
> geoff

Attention, attention! "None.." is masquerading as geoff!

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 7:46:53 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 7/2/2014 9:22 PM, Paul wrote:
>
> > If someone knows of a good car stereo with a USB port that will play
>
> > both MP3 and WAV, I'd like to know about it.
>
> >
>
> > It would be great to check my mixes in the car, without burning a
>
> > CD......
>
>
>
> Burning a CD costs a lot less, and is far less bother, than buying a new
>
> car. But you might want to look for a car (or a radio upgrade) that has
>
> a line input jack. Now that new cars no longer have a cassette player,
>
> when I travel, I leave my cassette adapter in my car at home and carry a
>
> mini phone plug cable to connect my player to the rental car if it has a
>
> jack for it.
>
>
>
> --
>
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
____________

A bit off-topic Mike, but an acquaintance of mine owns a 2012 Subaru Impreza. The stereo is typical modern stock, decent features: CD/FM-AM/Aux in.


Problem is, the head unit has a button for Aux-in, but under the arm-rest console the Aux-jack was not there - labeled Aux but just a plastic cover that resisted all prying off.


So evidently the Aux was an option via Subaru. Still, there shouldn't have been an Aux button on the stereo if an aux jack wasn't ordered by the original buyer! smh

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/3/2014 8:16 AM, wrote:
> A bit off-topic Mike, but an acquaintance of mine owns a 2012 Subaru
> Impreza. The stereo is typical modern stock, decent features:
> CD/FM-AM/Aux in.

> Problem is, the head unit has a button for Aux-in, but under the
> arm-rest console the Aux-jack was not there - labeled Aux but just a
> plastic cover that resisted all prying off.

> So evidently the Aux was an option via Subaru. Still, there
> shouldn't have been an Aux button on the stereo if an aux jack wasn't
> ordered by the original buyer!

That is a bit odd, but then it's a cheap car. Maybe they had only one
radio faceplate. Or maybe they just forgot to install the jack. Does
pressing the button do anything, like change the radio display to Aux?

Or maybe he just didn't look in the right place for the jack. The first
Camry rental I had that had an Aux jack (and a couple of model years
later, a USB jack) had me hunting for the Aux jack. I finally downloaded
the manual from the web site, and with the help of that and a
flashlight, found it under a flip-up cover way at the back (forward) of
one of those open storage compartments in the dashboard. Heck, I had to
get the manual for a Nissan Maxima in order to find out how to open the
gas tank lid. I was looking for a button or level inside the car to
unlatch it. There was about a paragraph of instructions in the manual
involving what serves as an ignition switch (a pushbutton) and some
other switch, and then "The fuel tank door can be opened by pressing on
it."

Obligatory rec.audio.pro content: Don't drop your MP3 player into the
gas filler pipe.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "radio faceplate. Or maybe they just forgot to install the jack. Does pressing the button do anything, like change the radio display to Aux? "

Negatory. Current radio station or CD keeps playing.


"Or maybe he just didn't look in the right place for the jack. "

I thought I mentioned it was under armrest in console - I'm DJ, in passenger side.



Dropping ipod/mp3 in gas filler pipe? LOL never, but I damn near fed it to johnny a couple times. :D

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/3/2014 7:53 PM, wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote: "radio faceplate. Or maybe they just forgot to install the jack. Does pressing the button do anything, like change the radio display to Aux? "
>
> Negatory. Current radio station or CD keeps playing.
>
>
> "Or maybe he just didn't look in the right place for the jack. "
>
> I thought I mentioned it was under armrest in console - I'm DJ, in passenger side.

So there's a button that doesn't do anything, and a jack that you don't
know whether it's connected or not because your "test set" doesn't work.
I'd ask the dealer about it. If he says that's an option that you (or
the owner) didn't buy, then, well, it'd kind of silly to have all the
parts but not the function. Or maybe it's just broken. It might even be
covered under the warranty.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "know whether it's connected or not because your "test set" doesn't work. "

Test set?

I told you, emperically, everything there is in that Impreza, audio-wise. Under the arm rest, in the cavity where one might store CDs, makeup, golf tees, etc, there is a small black plate upon which is labeled in white text "AUX In". Next to those words is a smaller black plate, maybe 1/2" by 1/2", which looks like a plug - a piece of plastic inserted to occupy the space where an option or feature would, if ordered, be installed.

This is not complicated at all. I just think that the radio installed should reflect the absence(or presense) of all available/ordered features.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/3/2014 9:31 PM, wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote: "know whether it's connected or not because your
> "test set" doesn't work. "
>
> Test set?

"Test set" - the thing that you're using for testing, in this case, the
radio. It could be a meter if a meter would tell you whether or not
pressing the button engaged the Aux input. But the radio should serve
that function.

> Under the arm rest, in the cavity where one might store
> CDs, makeup, golf tees, etc, there is a small black plate upon which
> is labeled in white text "AUX In". Next to those words is a smaller
> black plate, maybe 1/2" by 1/2", which looks like a plug - a piece of
> plastic inserted to occupy the space where an option or feature
> would, if ordered, be installed.

That's the clue that I didn't understand or missed. If there's a hole
plug where there should be a jack, then there's no jack.

> I just think that the radio
> installed should reflect the absence(or presense) of all
> available/ordered features.

I agree. Or at least put a message up on the display that says "You
didn't pay for this feature, you cheapskate!"



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

> wrote in message
...
>>Mike Rivers wrote: "know whether it's connected or not because your "test
>>set" doesn't work. "

>I told you, emperically, everything there is in that Impreza, audio-wise.
>Under the arm rest, in the cavity where one might store CDs, makeup, golf
>tees, etc, there is a small black plate upon which is labeled in white text
>"AUX In". Next to those words is a smaller black plate, maybe 1/2" by
>1/2", which looks like a plug - a piece of plastic inserted to occupy the
>space where an option or feature would, if ordered, be installed.
>This is not complicated at all. I just think that the radio installed
>should reflect the absence(or presense) of all available/ordered features.

-------------------------------

Well if it's anything like some other cars I've seen, the radio has the
features, and all you need is the wiring harness/socket. Why you think they
should make different radio's, simply to prevent you from installing the
harness yourself is beyond me. Then again these tricks don't actually save
them much money, it's simply to have features that they can charge *much*
more for on higher spec models. :-(

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, July 4, 2014 7:47:36 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> <l.com> wrote in message
>
> news:df587781-bc1d-498d-a4broups.com...
>
> >>Mike Rivers wrote: "know whether it's connected or not because your "test
>
> >>set" doesn't work. "
>
>
>
> >I told you, emperically, everything there is in that Impreza, audio-wise..
>
> >Under the arm rest, in the cavity where one might store CDs, makeup, golf
>
> >tees, etc, there is a small black plate upon which is labeled in white text
>
> >"AUX In". Next to those words is a smaller black plate, maybe 1/2" by
>
> >1/2", which looks like a plug - a piece of plastic inserted to occupy the
>
> >space where an option or feature would, if ordered, be installed.
>
> >This is not complicated at all. I just think that the radio installed
>
> >should reflect the absence(or presense) of all available/ordered features.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
>
>
>
> Well if it's anything like some other cars I've seen, the radio has the
>
> features, and all you need is the wiring harness/socket. Why you think they
>
> should make different radio's, simply to prevent you from installing the
>
> harness yourself is beyond me. Then again these tricks don't actually save
>
> them much money, it's simply to have features that they can charge *much*
>
> more for on higher spec models. :-(
>
>
>
> Trevor.
__________

The reason they shouldn't use the same faceplate(one with an Aux button) where an aux jack is not installed is that it's FRUSTRATING - not just for my friend but for anyone in such a situation.

You all pile into the ride, road trip to... wherever, and your passengers all want to take turns deejaying. So the one in front presses aux, and looks on the dash, no aux jack. Looks under the arm rest, sees this plate engraved "Aux In", but no mini jack! Major bummer, unless the car has Bluetooth..

Which in that case, if it's too cheap to supply an Aux jack, why would it have bluetooth? smh at the whole mess...

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/4/2014 7:47 AM, Trevor wrote:

> Well if it's anything like some other cars I've seen, the radio has the
> features, and all you need is the wiring harness/socket. Why you think they
> should make different radio's, simply to prevent you from installing the
> harness yourself is beyond me. Then again these tricks don't actually save
> them much money, it's simply to have features that they can charge *much*
> more for on higher spec models. :-(

Back in the 1960s when not all cars had air conditioning, you could rent
a car with or without. If you rented it without, they simply unplugged
the wire to the compressor clutch. But you don't want to know how I know
that, do you? ;)


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/4/2014 9:24 AM, wrote:
> your passengers all want to take turns deejaying. So the one in front
> presses aux, and looks on the dash, no aux jack. Looks under the arm
> rest, sees this plate engraved "Aux In", but no mini jack! Major
> bummer, unless the car has Bluetooth.
>
> Which in that case, if it's too cheap to supply an Aux jack, why
> would it have bluetooth?

Well, you can just tell your friends that you were too cheap to buy that
option. Would someone else like to take their car instead?

Bluetooth can be viewed as a safety feature so you can use a
Bluetooth-equipped phone (seems most are) hands free. I once tried to
"pair" my tablet with the Bluetooth in a car (that was perfectly happy
with my phone) but it didn't see it at all. So, at least in that car,
Bluetooth couldn't be used for playing music from the tablet through the
radio. Did you try that in your friend's car to see if it worked? Where
there's a will, occasionally there's a way, but it's not guaranteed.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

Again: You're way overcomplicating things. Did I mention anywhere that my friends stereo had Bluetooth?

How could I test something that doesn't exist in this setup? There's no BT button anywhere.

I gave you all the facts 5 or 6 posts ago.

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> Again: You're way overcomplicating things. Did I mention anywhere
> that my friends stereo had Bluetooth?

"Major bummer, unless the car has Bluetooth."

> How could I test something that doesn't exist in this setup?
> There's no BT button anywhere.

Then why did you bring up Bluetooth?

> I gave you all the facts 5 or 6 posts ago.

Poor baby. Time for your nap?

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/4/2014 1:58 PM, wrote:
> Again: You're way overcomplicating things. Did I mention anywhere that my friends stereo had Bluetooth?

No, but you DID mention Bluetooth.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "On 7/4/2014 1:58 PM, wrote:
> Again: You're way overcomplicating things. Did I mention anywhere that my friends stereo had Bluetooth?

No, but you DID mention Bluetooth.
- show quoted text -"

Read carefully. I mentioned BT in the **context**(see there's that word again - everyone takes K-Man out of context dammit!) of a car that dispensed with a physical Aux In in favor of Bluetooth.

I then - listen closely - said that wouldn't make sense to put in a higher end interface(BT) in lieu of a 'low end' jack.

I never implied that my friend's Impreza had BT capability.

[None]

<kbaby sucks @ gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> I then - listen closely - said that wouldn't make sense to put in a
> higher end interface(BT) in lieu of a 'low end' jack.

Bluetooth is "higher end" than a jack? Nobody has to take you out of
context, K-infant. Your own posts stand alone as a testament to what
an ignorant little child you are.

[John Williamson]

On 05/07/2014 15:05, None wrote:
> <kbaby sucks @ gmail.com> wrote in message
> ...
>> I then - listen closely - said that wouldn't make sense to put in a
>> higher end interface(BT) in lieu of a 'low end' jack.
>
> Bluetooth is "higher end" than a jack? Nobody has to take you out of
> context, K-infant. Your own posts stand alone as a testament to what an
> ignorant little child you are.
>
>
In the marketing world, Bluetooth connectivity rates far higher than any
feeble piece pof wire...

In the real world, give me the wire every time.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "the real world, give me the wire every time. "

+1!!

[geoff]

On 6/07/2014 2:05 a.m., None wrote:
> <kbaby sucks @ gmail.com> wrote in message
> ...
>> I then - listen closely - said that wouldn't make sense to put in a
>> higher end interface(BT) in lieu of a 'low end' jack.
>
> Bluetooth is "higher end" than a jack? Nobody has to take you out of
> context, K-infant. Your own posts stand alone as a testament to what an
> ignorant little child you are.
>
>


Also, Bluetooth is inherently a lossy format. Wire can be full-spec linear.

geoff

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> Back in the 1960s when not all cars had air conditioning, you could rent a
> car with or without. If you rented it without, they simply unplugged the
> wire to the compressor clutch. But you don't want to know how I know that,
> do you? ;)

Obviously everyone (and their friends) who had to disconnect that wire knew
about it, and anyone else with some mechanical knowledge who wondered why
there was air-con controls, compressor etc. fitted to the car, but no cold
air :-)

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...

> Also, Bluetooth is inherently a lossy format.

Is it? How would it work, then, with a printer connection? Or a MindStorms
brick?

[John Williamson]

On 06/07/2014 14:23, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "geoff" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Also, Bluetooth is inherently a lossy format.
>
> Is it? How would it work, then, with a printer connection? Or a
> MindStorms brick?

Sloppy phrasing, I fear. Bluetooth uses a number of different protocols,
not all of which guarantee perfect data transfer.

The maximum guaranteed data rate that Bluetooth supports can't support
real time streaming of uncompressed audio data, especially at or near
its range limit.

Also, printers don't care *when* a particular packet arrives, they just
patiently wait for it, and Mindstorms don't use *that* much data.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 06/07/2014 12:03, Trevor wrote:
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Back in the 1960s when not all cars had air conditioning, you could rent a
>> car with or without. If you rented it without, they simply unplugged the
>> wire to the compressor clutch. But you don't want to know how I know that,
>> do you? ;)
>
> Obviously everyone (and their friends) who had to disconnect that wire knew
> about it, and anyone else with some mechanical knowledge who wondered why
> there was air-con controls, compressor etc. fitted to the car, but no cold
> air :-)
>
Who amount to about 1% of the expected hirers for that car, I'd say.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"geoff" wrote in message
...
>
>> Also, Bluetooth is inherently a lossy format.
>
>Is it? How would it work, then, with a printer connection? Or a MindStorms
>brick?

Different protocol. Physical layer is the same, but up above it isn't.
--scott

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

[Trevor]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> On 06/07/2014 12:03, Trevor wrote:
>> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Back in the 1960s when not all cars had air conditioning, you could rent
>>> a
>>> car with or without. If you rented it without, they simply unplugged the
>>> wire to the compressor clutch. But you don't want to know how I know
>>> that,
>>> do you? ;)
>>
>> Obviously everyone (and their friends) who had to disconnect that wire
>> knew
>> about it, and anyone else with some mechanical knowledge who wondered why
>> there was air-con controls, compressor etc. fitted to the car, but no
>> cold
>> air :-)
>>
> Who amount to about 1% of the expected hirers for that car, I'd say.

Probably true, which is why they wouldn't care. It does amaze me the lengths
some companies go to, to stuff their customers around in the hope of an
extra buck though. Nothing has changed on that score.

Trevor.