Undoing the FLAC Blog Bull****

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
lossless = no information lost

Pros:

1. audio is IDENTICAL to original

2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav

Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression schemes.

Done.

(Please consider this bull****: http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/)
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Nil[_2_]]

On 07 May 2015, Randy Yates > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
> lossless = no information lost
>
> Pros:
>
> 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
>
> 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
>
> Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression
> schemes.

I don't consider that to be a "con".

> Done.
>
> (Please consider this bull****:
> http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-a
> nd-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actua
> lly-is-and-why-its-important/)

Absolutely. What ignorant garbage.

[hank alrich]

Randy Yates > wrote:

> FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
> lossless = no information lost
>
> Pros:
>
> 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
>
> 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
>
> Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression schemes.
>
> Done.
>
> (Please consider this bull****:
>http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-y
>ou-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-a
>nd-why-its-important/)
>
> = http://tinyurl.com/pp3lbdk


Thank you. Ho hum, the troll and his drum…

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 7:21:11 PM UTC-4, Nil wrote:
> On 07 May 2015, Randy Yates > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
> > FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
> > lossless = no information lost
> >
> > Pros:
> >
> > 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
> >
> > 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
> >
> > Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression
> > schemes.
>
> I don't consider that to be a "con".
>
> > Done.
> >
> > (Please consider this bull****:
> > http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-a
> > nd-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actua
> > lly-is-and-why-its-important/)
>
> Absolutely. What ignorant garbage.

You people should just give up dealing with high quality audio and flip burgers, something you can possibly manage.

Randy knows FLAC can prove itself, I heard his Blood, Sweat & Tears tape hiss very well.
Funny, my cheapo 160 kBPS MP3 didn't have tape hiss. So, like that other article states, sound quality depends on the source material, not on its format.
Seriously, you should find the person that mentioned that and allow him to participate here, would be a valued asset.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "So, like that other article states, sound quality depends
on the source material, not on its format. "


I've been saying that to the same set of walls on here for nearly
three years!

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

JackA > writes:
> [...]
> So, like that other article states, sound quality depends on the
> source material, not on its format.

"Sound quality," in this context, means how close the signal from a
codec (mp3, aac, flac, whatever) is to the original, and NOT on factors
such as how accomplished the artist is, how well the violins are
recorded, how quiet the recording tape is, etc.

Given that definition, sound quality depends on format, not source
material.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[[email protected]]

See JackA???..

Randy Yates wrote: "Given that definition, sound quality depends on format,
not source material"


They're paid spokesman, salesmen on here, in addition to being
engineers. They'll tell you that the difference between 16bit
lossless and 24bit high res is "day & night" - just like the processing
used to make the 24 bit sound "different" from the 16.

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 10:56:07 PM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
> JackA > writes:
> > [...]
> > So, like that other article states, sound quality depends on the
> > source material, not on its format.
>
> "Sound quality," in this context, means how close the signal from a
> codec (mp3, aac, flac, whatever) is to the original, and NOT on factors
> such as how accomplished the artist is, how well the violins are
> recorded, how quiet the recording tape is, etc.
>
> Given that definition, sound quality depends on format, not source
> material.

Thing is, Randy, your hearing is far from accurate to tell the difference!
And what is "the original"? Sadly, with music, man is ALWAYS involved. Who says HE doesn't distort the sound just because HE feels it sounds better that way? So, we have to preserve distortion to gain HQ sound? We weren't THERE. We rely on OTHERS to bring US the best sound quality, but, as I'm finding, that seldom happen. Why did you think MFSL sold out? They saw the writing on the wall that eventually session tapes would be used and their "Master" stuff would soon sound bland in comparison.

Best,
Jack
> --
> Randy Yates
> Digital Signal Labs
> http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

JackA > writes:

> On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 10:56:07 PM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
>> JackA > writes:
>> > [...]
>> > So, like that other article states, sound quality depends on the
>> > source material, not on its format.
>>
>> "Sound quality," in this context, means how close the signal from a
>> codec (mp3, aac, flac, whatever) is to the original, and NOT on factors
>> such as how accomplished the artist is, how well the violins are
>> recorded, how quiet the recording tape is, etc.
>>
>> Given that definition, sound quality depends on format, not source
>> material.
>
> Thing is, Randy, your hearing is far from accurate to tell the
> difference!

No, it's not. My hearing is pretty crappy, and even I (granted it's
rare, but it does happen) can sometimes hear artifacts in MP3 coding.

> And what is "the original"?

This is utter bull****. The original is the original. Distorting it
makes it something else.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 07 May 2015 19:17:05 -0400, Randy Yates
> wrote:

>FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
>lossless = no information lost
>
>Pros:
>
> 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
>
> 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
>
>Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression schemes.
>
>Done.
>
>(Please consider this bull****: http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/)

Are file sizes really an issue any more? Storage capacity has been
soaring, and I know I will never again be running out of hard drive.
Straight LPCM is my only storage method now.

d

[John Williamson]

On 08/05/2015 00:17, Randy Yates wrote:
> FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
> lossless = no information lost
>
> Pros:
>
> 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
>
> 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
>
> Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression schemes.
>
> Done.
>
> (Please consider this bull****: http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/)
>
One place the article falls down is that when I start with a 24 bit live
recording that I made myself, then reduce it to 16 bits, then MP3 at 320
kbps, and then 128kbps, at each step after the first one, I and others
can clearly hear the reduction in quality using a pair of headphones
plugged into a laptop. As the sound card in the laptop is only capable
of 16 bit reproduction, I'm not shocked to find the 24 bit .wav sounds
the same as the 16 bit .wav, and the FLAC file plays back identically to
the .wav file.

I've reliably reproduced the result using a reasonably good car stereo.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

John Williamson > writes:

> On 08/05/2015 00:17, Randy Yates wrote:
>> FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
>> lossless = no information lost
>>
>> Pros:
>>
>> 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
>>
>> 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
>>
>> Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression schemes.
>>
>> Done.
>>
>> (Please consider this bull****: http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/)
>>
> One place the article falls down is that when I start with a 24 bit
> live recording that I made myself, then reduce it to 16 bits, then MP3
> at 320 kbps, and then 128kbps, at each step after the first one, I and
> others can clearly hear the reduction in quality using a pair of
> headphones plugged into a laptop. As the sound card in the laptop is
> only capable of 16 bit reproduction, I'm not shocked to find the 24
> bit .wav sounds the same as the 16 bit .wav, and the FLAC file plays
> back identically to the .wav file.
>
> I've reliably reproduced the result using a reasonably good car stereo.

By the way, FLAC can encode 16, 20, and 24 bit input files. See the
"Sample size in bits" field here: https://xiph.org/flac/format.html#frame
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[[email protected]]

On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 8:26:33 AM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
> John Williamson > writes:
>
> > On 08/05/2015 00:17, Randy Yates wrote:
> >> FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
> >> lossless = no information lost
> >>
> >> Pros:
> >>
> >> 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
> >>
> >> 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
> >>
> >> Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression schemes.
> >>
> >> Done.
> >>
> >> (Please consider this bull****: http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/)
> >>
> > One place the article falls down is that when I start with a 24 bit
> > live recording that I made myself, then reduce it to 16 bits, then MP3
> > at 320 kbps, and then 128kbps, at each step after the first one, I and
> > others can clearly hear the reduction in quality using a pair of
> > headphones plugged into a laptop. As the sound card in the laptop is
> > only capable of 16 bit reproduction, I'm not shocked to find the 24
> > bit .wav sounds the same as the 16 bit .wav, and the FLAC file plays
> > back identically to the .wav file.
> >
> > I've reliably reproduced the result using a reasonably good car stereo.
>
> By the way, FLAC can encode 16, 20, and 24 bit input files. See the
> "Sample size in bits" field here: https://xiph.org/flac/format.html#frame
> --
> Randy Yates
> Digital Signal Labs
> http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

two good things about .wav are that

1) they are universaly playable on any device
2) they can be directly edited in a DAW

However, the feature of FLAC that allows it to store metadata tags is a good one.



Mark

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

(Don Pearce) writes:

> On Thu, 07 May 2015 19:17:05 -0400, Randy Yates
> > wrote:
>
>>FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
>>lossless = no information lost
>>
>>Pros:
>>
>> 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
>>
>> 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
>>
>>Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression schemes.
>>
>>Done.
>>
>>(Please consider this bull****: http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/)
>
> Are file sizes really an issue any more? Storage capacity has been
> soaring, and I know I will never again be running out of hard drive.
> Straight LPCM is my only storage method now.

Storage is only one dimension. Streaming/downloading is another.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>
>two good things about .wav are that
>
>1) they are universaly playable on any device
>2) they can be directly edited in a DAW
>
>However, the feature of FLAC that allows it to store metadata tags is a good one.

True, but now we have the .bwav extensions for .wav to do that too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

On 8/05/2015 10:36 PM, wrote:
> two good things about .wav are that
>
> 1) they are universaly playable on any device

Not so, I've seen MP3 players that couldn't play WAV's. They don't play
FLAC either of course.

> 2) they can be directly edited in a DAW

And many DAW's will directly edit FLAC these days, it's simply converted
when you click to open, and when you click to save. And since it's
lossless, there is NO disadvantage other than an extra fraction of a
second on open, and a little longer on save.

> However, the feature of FLAC that allows it to store metadata tags is a good one.

Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.

Trevor.

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

> On Thu, 07 May 2015 19:17:05 -0400, Randy Yates
> > wrote:
>
> >FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
> >lossless = no information lost
> >
> >Pros:
> >
> > 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
> >
> > 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
> >
> >Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression schemes.
> >
> >Done.
> >
> >(Please consider this bull****:
> >http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you
> >-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-w
> >hy-its-important/)
> >
>
> Are file sizes really an issue any more? Storage capacity has been
> soaring, and I know I will never again be running out of hard drive.
> Straight LPCM is my only storage method now.
>
> d

Did you read the bit about archival faciity? And yes, at some point file
sizes are important.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[JackA]

On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 10:24:38 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> On 8/05/2015 10:36 PM, wrote:
> > two good things about .wav are that
> >
> > 1) they are universaly playable on any device
>
> Not so, I've seen MP3 players that couldn't play WAV's. They don't play
> FLAC either of course.
>
> > 2) they can be directly edited in a DAW
>
> And many DAW's will directly edit FLAC these days, it's simply converted
> when you click to open, and when you click to save. And since it's
> lossless, there is NO disadvantage other than an extra fraction of a
> second on open, and a little longer on save.
>
> > However, the feature of FLAC that allows it to store metadata tags is a good one.
>
> Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.

If FLAC was around in the days of dial-up internet, it would have received a two finger salute! So bloated, you know.

Jack

>
> Trevor.

[JackA]

On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 1:05:06 AM UTC-4, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Thu, 07 May 2015 19:17:05 -0400, Randy Yates
> > wrote:
>
> >FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
> >lossless = no information lost
> >
> >Pros:
> >
> > 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
> >
> > 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
> >
> >Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression schemes.
> >
> >Done.
> >
> >(Please consider this bull****: http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/)
>
> Are file sizes really an issue any more? Storage capacity has been
> soaring, and I know I will never again be running out of hard drive.
> Straight LPCM is my only storage method now.

LPCM? New one!! Thank you. But isn't Dolby TrueHD better?...

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1452759-lpcm-vs-dolby-truehd-vs-dts-hd-master-audio-3.html

I never thought much of Dolby noise reduction.

Jack


>
> d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 08 May 2015 09:33:14 -0400, Randy Yates
> wrote:

(Don Pearce) writes:
>
>> On Thu, 07 May 2015 19:17:05 -0400, Randy Yates
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
>>>lossless = no information lost
>>>
>>>Pros:
>>>
>>> 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
>>>
>>> 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
>>>
>>>Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression schemes.
>>>
>>>Done.
>>>
>>>(Please consider this bull****: http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/)
>>
>> Are file sizes really an issue any more? Storage capacity has been
>> soaring, and I know I will never again be running out of hard drive.
>> Straight LPCM is my only storage method now.
>
>Storage is only one dimension. Streaming/downloading is another.

Even in these days of broadband? I have 75Meg down and 20Meg up. I
mean, if you can stream video, then audio is not a problem, even
uncompressed.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 8 May 2015 08:53:34 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
wrote:

>On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 1:05:06 AM UTC-4, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 May 2015 19:17:05 -0400, Randy Yates
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
>> >lossless = no information lost
>> >
>> >Pros:
>> >
>> > 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
>> >
>> > 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
>> >
>> >Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression schemes.
>> >
>> >Done.
>> >
>> >(Please consider this bull****: http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/)
>>
>> Are file sizes really an issue any more? Storage capacity has been
>> soaring, and I know I will never again be running out of hard drive.
>> Straight LPCM is my only storage method now.
>
>LPCM? New one!! Thank you. But isn't Dolby TrueHD better?...
>
>http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1452759-lpcm-vs-dolby-truehd-vs-dts-hd-master-audio-3.html
>
>I never thought much of Dolby noise reduction.
>
>Jack
>
>
>>
>> d

LPCM new? Linear PCM is the original.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 8 May 2015 09:38:11 -0500, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 May 2015 19:17:05 -0400, Randy Yates
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
>> >lossless = no information lost
>> >
>> >Pros:
>> >
>> > 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
>> >
>> > 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
>> >
>> >Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression schemes.
>> >
>> >Done.
>> >
>> >(Please consider this bull****:
>> >http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you
>> >-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-w
>> >hy-its-important/)
>> >
>>
>> Are file sizes really an issue any more? Storage capacity has been
>> soaring, and I know I will never again be running out of hard drive.
>> Straight LPCM is my only storage method now.
>>
>> d
>
>Did you read the bit about archival faciity? And yes, at some point file
>sizes are important.

I'd just stick another drive in the bay. Storage costs are trivial to
the point of being a non-issue now.

d

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

> On Fri, 8 May 2015 09:38:11 -0500, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
> >Don Pearce > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 07 May 2015 19:17:05 -0400, Randy Yates
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
> >> >lossless = no information lost
> >> >
> >> >Pros:
> >> >
> >> > 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
> >> >
> >> > 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
> >> >
> >> >Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression schemes.
> >> >
> >> >Done.
> >> >
> >> >(Please consider this bull****:
> >> >http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you
> >> >-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-w
> >> >hy-its-important/)
> >> >
> >>
> >> Are file sizes really an issue any more? Storage capacity has been
> >> soaring, and I know I will never again be running out of hard drive.
> >> Straight LPCM is my only storage method now.
> >>
> >> d
> >
> >Did you read the bit about archival faciity? And yes, at some point file
> >sizes are important.
>
> I'd just stick another drive in the bay. Storage costs are trivial to
> the point of being a non-issue now.
>
> d

Maybe for you. Some folks are archiving 48 tracks of 24/96. Others are
archiving decades worth of historical material. I'm only dealing with
eight or ten tracks of 24/96, but the original sessions are two to three
hours, continuous.

And so far you haven't noticed the metadata advantage of FLAC? Even for
others, on a theoretical basis? ;-)


--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[JackA]

On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 12:31:18 PM UTC-4, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2015 08:53:34 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 1:05:06 AM UTC-4, Don Pearce wrote:
> >> On Thu, 07 May 2015 19:17:05 -0400, Randy Yates
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
> >> >lossless = no information lost
> >> >
> >> >Pros:
> >> >
> >> > 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
> >> >
> >> > 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
> >> >
> >> >Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression schemes.
> >> >
> >> >Done.
> >> >
> >> >(Please consider this bull****: http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/)
> >>
> >> Are file sizes really an issue any more? Storage capacity has been
> >> soaring, and I know I will never again be running out of hard drive.
> >> Straight LPCM is my only storage method now.
> >
> >LPCM? New one!! Thank you. But isn't Dolby TrueHD better?...
> >
> >http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1452759-lpcm-vs-dolby-truehd-vs-dts-hd-master-audio-3.html
> >
> >I never thought much of Dolby noise reduction.
> >
> >Jack
> >
> >
> >>
> >> d
>
> LPCM new? Linear PCM is the original.
>
> d

Lossless PCM. Sort of like FL[ossless]AC

Jack

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 8 May 2015 10:21:24 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
wrote:

>On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 12:31:18 PM UTC-4, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 May 2015 08:53:34 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 1:05:06 AM UTC-4, Don Pearce wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 07 May 2015 19:17:05 -0400, Randy Yates
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
>> >> >lossless = no information lost
>> >> >
>> >> >Pros:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
>> >> >
>> >> > 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
>> >> >
>> >> >Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression schemes.
>> >> >
>> >> >Done.
>> >> >
>> >> >(Please consider this bull****: http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/)
>> >>
>> >> Are file sizes really an issue any more? Storage capacity has been
>> >> soaring, and I know I will never again be running out of hard drive.
>> >> Straight LPCM is my only storage method now.
>> >
>> >LPCM? New one!! Thank you. But isn't Dolby TrueHD better?...
>> >
>> >http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1452759-lpcm-vs-dolby-truehd-vs-dts-hd-master-audio-3.html
>> >
>> >I never thought much of Dolby noise reduction.
>> >
>> >Jack
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> d
>>
>> LPCM new? Linear PCM is the original.
>>
>> d
>
>Lossless PCM. Sort of like FL[ossless]AC
>
>Jack

Linear PCM. Linear is specified as there are several PCM standards
used in telephony that do not use a linear transfer characteristic.
The steps close to zero are made closer together than those higher up.
The shape of the encoder is matched in complement by the decoder to
achieve overall linearity. The result of this is slightly higher
overall distortion, but several dBs lower noise floor. This is an
acceptable trade in 8-bit telephony, but not in music. Hence the use
of linear pulse code modulation.

d

[jason]

On Thu, 7 May 2015 18:55:25 -0700 (PDT) "JackA" >
wrote in article >
> Funny, my cheapo 160 kBPS MP3 didn't have tape hiss. So, like that other article states, sound quality depends on the source material, not on its format.
>
You drew the wrong conclusion. The format had EVERYTHING to do with it;
the MP3 encoder tossed out the hiss.

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

(Don Pearce) writes:
> [...]
> I have 75Meg down and 20Meg up.

On a cellular network?
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[geoff]

On 9/05/2015 2:24 a.m., Trevor wrote:

>
> Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.

And no longer an issue.

geoff

[geoff]

On 9/05/2015 3:53 a.m., JackA wrote:

>
> LPCM? New one!! Thank you. But isn't Dolby TrueHD better?...

Um "a new one " ? !!! No, LPCM is the basic unadulterated fundamental
original digital data. Dobly TrueHD is just another lossless data
compression scheme like FLAC, or MLP, or Sony PCA.

geoff

[geoff]

On 9/05/2015 5:21 a.m., JackA wrote:

>>
>> LPCM new? Linear PCM is the original.
>>
>> d
>
> Lossless PCM. Sort of like FL[ossless]AC

No, ****wit. Linear Pulse Code Modulation.

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "No, ****wit. Linear Pulse Code Modulation."


That'll be fine geoff. One can correct another without
resorting to name-calling.


(No wonder Usenet is going down...)

[geoff]

On 9/05/2015 12:38 p.m., wrote:
> geoff wrote: "No, ****wit. Linear Pulse Code Modulation."
>
>
> That'll be fine geoff. One can correct another without
> resorting to name-calling.
>
>
> (No wonder Usenet is going down...)
>


Usenet is going down because of ignorant stupid people who think they
know all about what others have spent their life loving and doing to the
best of their ability. And getting it, repeatedly, totally and
undebatably WRONG. And then steadfastly refusing to learn.

I think the 'name' is pretty much appropriate.

geoff

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

geoff > writes:

> On 9/05/2015 12:38 p.m., wrote:
>> geoff wrote: "No, ****wit. Linear Pulse Code Modulation."
>>
>>
>> That'll be fine geoff. One can correct another without
>> resorting to name-calling.
>>
>>
>> (No wonder Usenet is going down...)
>>
>
>
> Usenet is going down because of ignorant stupid people who think they
> know all about what others have spent their life loving and doing to
> the best of their ability. And getting it, repeatedly, totally and
> undebatably WRONG. And then steadfastly refusing to learn.
>
> I think the 'name' is pretty much appropriate.
>
> geoff

Hear, hear!
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[JackA]

On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 8:38:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> geoff wrote: "No, ****wit. Linear Pulse Code Modulation."
>
>
> That'll be fine geoff. One can correct another without
> resorting to name-calling.
>
>
> (No wonder Usenet is going down...)

Ah, he called me a F'wit before over k vs K.
At least he now has an education!

Jack :-)

[JackA]

On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 9:31:52 PM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
> geoff > writes:
>
> > On 9/05/2015 12:38 p.m., wrote:
> >> geoff wrote: "No, ****wit. Linear Pulse Code Modulation."
> >>
> >>
> >> That'll be fine geoff. One can correct another without
> >> resorting to name-calling.
> >>
> >>
> >> (No wonder Usenet is going down...)
> >>
> >
> >
> > Usenet is going down because of ignorant stupid people who think they
> > know all about what others have spent their life loving and doing to
> > the best of their ability. And getting it, repeatedly, totally and
> > undebatably WRONG. And then steadfastly refusing to learn.
> >
> > I think the 'name' is pretty much appropriate.
> >
> > geoff
>
> Hear, hear!

+1

Hear, hear tape hiss.

Jack :-)

> --
> Randy Yates
> Digital Signal Labs
> http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[JackA]

On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 6:49:37 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2015 18:55:25 -0700 (PDT) "JackA" >
> wrote in article >
> > Funny, my cheapo 160 kBPS MP3 didn't have tape hiss. So, like that other article states, sound quality depends on the source material, not on its format.
> >
> You drew the wrong conclusion. The format had EVERYTHING to do with it;
> the MP3 encoder tossed out the hiss.

Whoa, automatic noise suppression with MP3!

When you regulars reach maturity, I'll teach you about audio.

Jack

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 08 May 2015 19:03:36 -0400, Randy Yates
> wrote:

(Don Pearce) writes:
>> [...]
>> I have 75Meg down and 20Meg up.
>
>On a cellular network?

Er - maybe not. 23 Meg both ways is what I get on that.

d

[John Williamson]

On 09/05/2015 04:59, JackA wrote:
> On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 6:49:37 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 May 2015 18:55:25 -0700 (PDT) "JackA" >
>> wrote in article >
>>> Funny, my cheapo 160 kBPS MP3 didn't have tape hiss. So, like that other article states, sound quality depends on the source material, not on its format.
>>>
>> You drew the wrong conclusion. The format had EVERYTHING to do with it;
>> the MP3 encoder tossed out the hiss.
>
> Whoa, automatic noise suppression with MP3!
>
> When you regulars reach maturity, I'll teach you about audio.
>
>
The way an MP3 encoder works is to look for patterns in the input, and
encode those as well as possible, while fitting them into the bit rate
specified. It does this because patterns are what the ear responds to,
and even if the pattern is degraded, the brain will "fill in" the
missing bits. It will not recognise noise, as it's a random wave, and so
will not encode it as well. If you are unsure of the effect, then I
suggest you start with a hissy .wav file of something like a symphony
orchestra, and encode it, paying particular attention to the speed with
which the sound of the cymbals (Which is basically a short burst of
random noise) degrades as the MP3 bitrate reduces.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 09/05/2015 00:59, geoff wrote:
> On 9/05/2015 2:24 a.m., Trevor wrote:
>
>>
>> Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.
>
> And no longer an issue.
>
>
Storage space my no longer be as much of an issue as it used to be, but
in the world I live in, using mobile data, bandwidth is still a problem,
as sometimes my data link drops back to speeds that make me nostalgic
for the sheer speed of a 56K modem. I'd far rather try to stream or
download an MP3 file than an uncompressed .wav or a FLAC file of the
same performance.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 9/05/2015 3:59 p.m., JackA wrote:
> On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 6:49:37 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 May 2015 18:55:25 -0700 (PDT) "JackA" >
>> wrote in article >
>>> Funny, my cheapo 160 kBPS MP3 didn't have tape hiss. So, like that other article states, sound quality depends on the source material, not on its format.
>>>
>> You drew the wrong conclusion. The format had EVERYTHING to do with it;
>> the MP3 encoder tossed out the hiss.
>
> Whoa, automatic noise suppression with MP3!
>
> When you regulars reach maturity, I'll teach you about audio.

You think the inability to reproduce something that is originally there
is a Good Thing ?!!!

That in this case it happens to be tape hiss is irrelevant - could be,
just as easily, other low level HF musical information, and often is.

But you probably wouldn't hear that on you cheapo Philips.

geoff

[geoff]

On 9/05/2015 9:26 p.m., John Williamson wrote:
> On 09/05/2015 00:59, geoff wrote:
>> On 9/05/2015 2:24 a.m., Trevor wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.
>>
>> And no longer an issue.
>>
>>
> Storage space my no longer be as much of an issue as it used to be, but
> in the world I live in, using mobile data, bandwidth is still a problem,
> as sometimes my data link drops back to speeds that make me nostalgic
> for the sheer speed of a 56K modem. I'd far rather try to stream or
> download an MP3 file than an uncompressed .wav or a FLAC file of the
> same performance.
>
>


Can't imagine streaming music for serious listening - not a quality
thing but a lifestyle-choice thing.I'd rather be in a situation where I
can sit down, relax, and slot in a CD or SACD.

In mobile situations I'd be listening to FM or iPod (all ALAC lossless).

geoff

[geoff]

On 9/05/2015 3:47 p.m., JackA wrote:
> On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 8:38:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>> geoff wrote: "No, ****wit. Linear Pulse Code Modulation."
>>
>>
>> That'll be fine geoff. One can correct another without
>> resorting to name-calling.
>>
>>
>> (No wonder Usenet is going down...)
>
> Ah, he called me a F'wit before over k vs K.
> At least he now has an education!
>
> Jack :-)
>


Big P, T, G, M, k,'Unit', m, n, µ, p small - spot the odd one out in the
series. Still reckon my idea is better.

geoff

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

(Don Pearce) writes:

> On Fri, 08 May 2015 19:03:36 -0400, Randy Yates
> > wrote:
>
(Don Pearce) writes:
>>> [...]
>>> I have 75Meg down and 20Meg up.
>>
>>On a cellular network?
>
> Er - maybe not. 23 Meg both ways is what I get on that.

I do not believe we are quite to the point where compression (for file
size) is no longer an issue for the general public and in all scenarios.
If it isn't for your personal situation and scenarios, then I'm happy
for you.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

Randy Yates > writes:

> (Don Pearce) writes:
>
>> On Fri, 08 May 2015 19:03:36 -0400, Randy Yates
>> > wrote:
>>
(Don Pearce) writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>> I have 75Meg down and 20Meg up.
>>>
>>>On a cellular network?
>>
>> Er - maybe not. 23 Meg both ways is what I get on that.
>
> I do not believe we are quite to the point where compression (for file
> size) is no longer an issue for the general public and in all scenarios.
> If it isn't for your personal situation and scenarios, then I'm happy
> for you.

PS: It is still an issue for me, and until that changes, I'll be using
FLAC.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Nil[_2_]]

On 09 May 2015, Randy Yates > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> PS: It is still an issue for me, and until that changes, I'll be
> using FLAC.

Me, too. There is no downside to FLAC and a number of downsides to
uncompressed WAV, including storage. No matter how cheap disk drives
are, I will always want to use them efficiently.

Even Microsoft has recognized that FLAC format is a good thing - built-
in support for it is included in Windows 10.

[jason]

On Fri, 8 May 2015 10:21:24 -0700 (PDT) "JackA" >
wrote in article >
> Lossless PCM. Sort of like FL[ossless]AC
But not compressed. Think .wav or .bwav files.

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

Jason > writes:

> On Fri, 8 May 2015 10:21:24 -0700 (PDT) "JackA" >
> wrote in article >
>> Lossless PCM. Sort of like FL[ossless]AC
> But not compressed. Think .wav or .bwav files.

Lossless PCM is a misnomer. It stands for Linear PCM.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[geoff]

On 10/05/2015 2:42 p.m., Randy Yates wrote:
> Jason > writes:
>
>> On Fri, 8 May 2015 10:21:24 -0700 (PDT) "JackA" >
>> wrote in article >
>>> Lossless PCM. Sort of like FL[ossless]AC
>> But not compressed. Think .wav or .bwav files.
>
> Lossless PCM is a misnomer. It stands for Linear PCM.
>

And in case JackAss still hasn't figured it out, it is the raw digital
data that is the signal component of WAV (etc) files.

geoff

[Luxey]

Some people must be really bored.

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 10/05/2015 2:42 p.m., Randy Yates wrote:
>> Jason > writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 8 May 2015 10:21:24 -0700 (PDT) "JackA" >
>>> wrote in article >
>>>> Lossless PCM. Sort of like FL[ossless]AC
>>> But not compressed. Think .wav or .bwav files.
>>
>> Lossless PCM is a misnomer. It stands for Linear PCM.
>
>And in case JackAss still hasn't figured it out, it is the raw digital
>data that is the signal component of WAV (etc) files.

Well, these days most converters actually spit out sigma-delta coefficients
that have to be transformed into PCM inside the box. So it's no longer
as "raw" as it as back in the ladder converter days. But it's only slightly
cooked.
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 6:05:42 PM UTC-4, Nil wrote:
> On 09 May 2015, Randy Yates > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
> > PS: It is still an issue for me, and until that changes, I'll be
> > using FLAC.
>
> Me, too. There is no downside to FLAC and a number of downsides to
> uncompressed WAV, including storage. No matter how cheap disk drives
> are, I will always want to use them efficiently.
>
> Even Microsoft has recognized that FLAC format is a good thing - built-
> in support for it is included in Windows 10.

Bad thing about FLAC is was too late for binary encoding. Only a MINORITY of people offer or listen to FLAC because it adds LITTLE if ANYTHING to sound quality. Its Big File Size adds a greater chance of binary file corruption.

Jack

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 3:08:32 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 10/05/2015 2:42 p.m., Randy Yates wrote:
> > Jason > writes:
> >
> >> On Fri, 8 May 2015 10:21:24 -0700 (PDT) "JackA" >
> >> wrote in article >
> >>> Lossless PCM. Sort of like FL[ossless]AC
> >> But not compressed. Think .wav or .bwav files.
> >
> > Lossless PCM is a misnomer. It stands for Linear PCM.
> >
>
> And in case JackAss still hasn't figured it out, it is the raw digital
> data that is the signal component of WAV (etc) files.

Right, Geoff. Let me give YOU and idea what "audiophiles" do. It's a laugh, even more than FLAC. Stay tuned.

Jack

>
> geoff

[JackA]

On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 5:01:46 PM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
> Randy Yates > writes:
>
> > (Don Pearce) writes:
> >
> >> On Fri, 08 May 2015 19:03:36 -0400, Randy Yates
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> (Don Pearce) writes:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> I have 75Meg down and 20Meg up.
> >>>
> >>>On a cellular network?
> >>
> >> Er - maybe not. 23 Meg both ways is what I get on that.
> >
> > I do not believe we are quite to the point where compression (for file
> > size) is no longer an issue for the general public and in all scenarios..
> > If it isn't for your personal situation and scenarios, then I'm happy
> > for you.
>
> PS: It is still an issue for me, and until that changes, I'll be using
> FLAC.

Randy, not to criticize you or anything like that, but you posted a FLAC of that Blood, Sweat & Tears song. I quickly heard tape hiss noise. Is this the kind of sound quality you celebrate or would you prefer it didn't have tape have noticeable hiss noise? I feel you took the FLAC thing personally.

Anyway, a possibly unpublished demo version peace offering. While Jeff Barry supposedly wrote songs, I'm not sure what instrument(s) he played or if he sang. Ellie, on the other hand, certainly knew how to play piano and sing.. Now, both females are now RIP...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/maybeiknow-d.mp3

Jack



> --
> Randy Yates
> Digital Signal Labs
> http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[geoff]

On 11/05/2015 6:41 a.m., JackA wrote:

>
> Bad thing about FLAC is was too late for binary encoding.

Que ???!!!

>
Only a
> MINORITY of people offer or listen to FLAC because it adds LITTLE if
> ANYTHING to sound quality.

EXACTLY.

It adds NOTHING to sound quality. And it takes away NOTHING from sound
quality.
Unlike lossy technologies like MP3.

>Its Big File Size adds a greater chance of
> binary file corruption.

Absolute drivel. If that was the case almost nothing would ever work in
any computer.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>
>Absolute drivel. If that was the case almost nothing would ever work in
>any computer.

I believe the man is deliberately posting drivel in order to **** people
here off. I don't think anyone could actually believe any of that stuff,
it is too ludicrous. I think you have been trolled.

What worries me is that people coming in here who aren't familiar with the
situation might actually believe this stuff.
--scott

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

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> geoff > wrote:
> >
> >Absolute drivel. If that was the case almost nothing would ever work in
> >any computer.
>
> I believe the man is deliberately posting drivel in order to **** people
> here off. I don't think anyone could actually believe any of that stuff,
> it is too ludicrous. I think you have been trolled.
>
> What worries me is that people coming in here who aren't familiar with the
> situation might actually believe this stuff.
> --scott

As long as he gets fed here he'll keep ****ting in the punch bowl.

Just _stop_.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 5:32:37 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
> >
> >Absolute drivel. If that was the case almost nothing would ever work in
> >any computer.
>
> I believe the man is deliberately posting drivel in order to **** people
> here off. I don't think anyone could actually believe any of that stuff,
> it is too ludicrous. I think you have been trolled.
>
> What worries me is that people coming in here...


Same ol' same ol' "people". Nobody new, they come and they go. Only REGULARS gripe.

Jack

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 4:41:05 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 11/05/2015 6:41 a.m., JackA wrote:
>
> >
> > Bad thing about FLAC is was too late for binary encoding.
>
> Que ???!!!
>
> >
> Only a
> > MINORITY of people offer or listen to FLAC because it adds LITTLE if
> > ANYTHING to sound quality.
>
> EXACTLY.
>
> It adds NOTHING to sound quality. And it takes away NOTHING from sound
> quality.
> Unlike lossy technologies like MP3.
>
> >Its Big File Size adds a greater chance of
> > binary file corruption.
>
> Absolute drivel.

Statistically incorrect.

If that was the case almost nothing would ever work in
> any computer.

I can't help it if you applaud and use bloatware.

Jack

>
> geoff

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

(hank alrich) writes:
> [...]
> Just _stop_.

Until the guy stops trolling and posting under a fake name, I'll not be
responding to him directly. Notice I started a new thread for the FLAC
thing.

Any spineless coward can come on usenet and post garbage incognito. What
have they got to lose? A fool responds to such.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 7:08:26 PM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
> (hank alrich) writes:
> > [...]
> > Just _stop_.
>
> Until the guy stops trolling and posting under a fake name, I'll not be
> responding to him directly. Notice I started a new thread for the FLAC
> thing.
>
> Any spineless coward can come on usenet and post garbage incognito. What
> have they got to lose? A fool responds to such.
> --
> Randy Yates

Randy, only those who know they are wrong become upset.

I've seen one too many FLAC people post less than thrilling audio. It's like they believe FLAC will solve all their audio problems.

Jack
> Digital Signal Labs
> http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Trevor]

On 9/05/2015 9:59 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 9/05/2015 2:24 a.m., Trevor wrote:
>> Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.
>
> And no longer an issue.

NO longer an issue for *YOU* perhaps. As others have indicated the
advantages of meta data tags, and half the number of hard drives
required ARE a benefit to them!
Considering that I require back ups of my multi-tracks, and how many TB+
drives I have to store, all my back ups at least are FLAC, even if the
working files are wave.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 11/05/2015 9:08 AM, Randy Yates wrote:
> Any spineless coward can come on usenet and post garbage incognito. What
> have they got to lose?

The question IMO is what do they gain?

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 11/05/2015 8:55 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> On 9/05/2015 9:59 AM, geoff wrote:
>> On 9/05/2015 2:24 a.m., Trevor wrote:
>>> Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.
>>
>> And no longer an issue.
>
> NO longer an issue for *YOU* perhaps. As others have indicated the
> advantages of meta data tags, and half the number of hard drives
> required ARE a benefit to them!
> Considering that I require back ups of my multi-tracks, and how many TB+
> drives I have to store, all my back ups at least are FLAC, even if the
> working files are wave.
>
> Trevor.
>
>


You can do that with Broadcast WAV. So unless for some reason file-size
is an issue *for you*, then not an issue at all, other than personal
choice. Which is fine.

geoff

[JackA]

On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 6:47:44 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 11/05/2015 8:55 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> > On 9/05/2015 9:59 AM, geoff wrote:
> >> On 9/05/2015 2:24 a.m., Trevor wrote:
> >>> Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.
> >>
> >> And no longer an issue.
> >
> > NO longer an issue for *YOU* perhaps. As others have indicated the
> > advantages of meta data tags, and half the number of hard drives
> > required ARE a benefit to them!
> > Considering that I require back ups of my multi-tracks, and how many TB+
> > drives I have to store, all my back ups at least are FLAC, even if the
> > working files are wave.
> >
> > Trevor.
> >
> >
>
>
> You can do that with Broadcast WAV. So unless for some reason file-size
> is an issue *for you*, then not an issue at all, other than personal
> choice. Which is fine.
>
> geoff

BTW http://www.head-fi.org/t/705032/fixing-a-corrupt-flac-files

[Trevor]

On 11/05/2015 8:47 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 11/05/2015 8:55 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>> On 9/05/2015 9:59 AM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 9/05/2015 2:24 a.m., Trevor wrote:
>>>> Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.
>>>
>>> And no longer an issue.
>>
>> NO longer an issue for *YOU* perhaps. As others have indicated the
>> advantages of meta data tags, and half the number of hard drives
>> required ARE a benefit to them!
>> Considering that I require back ups of my multi-tracks, and how many TB+
>> drives I have to store, all my back ups at least are FLAC, even if the
>> working files are wave.
>>
>
>
> You can do that with Broadcast WAV. So unless for some reason file-size
> is an issue *for you*,

As I just wrote if you bothered to read, it *IS* an issue for me, and
many others that clearly store more data than you do.

Trevor.

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

Trevor > writes:

> On 11/05/2015 9:08 AM, Randy Yates wrote:
>> Any spineless coward can come on usenet and post garbage incognito. What
>> have they got to lose?
>
> The question IMO is what do they gain?

There is no good answer to that...
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Randy Yates > wrote:
>Trevor > writes:
>
>> On 11/05/2015 9:08 AM, Randy Yates wrote:
>>> Any spineless coward can come on usenet and post garbage incognito. What
>>> have they got to lose?
>>
>> The question IMO is what do they gain?
>
>There is no good answer to that...

Permit me to recommend the book "This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things"
by Whitney Philips, as published by MIT Press.
--scott


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

[JackA]

On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 1:49:24 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >,
> Randy Yates > wrote:
> >Trevor > writes:
> >
> >> On 11/05/2015 9:08 AM, Randy Yates wrote:
> >>> Any spineless coward can come on usenet and post garbage incognito. What
> >>> have they got to lose?
> >>
> >> The question IMO is what do they gain?
> >
> >There is no good answer to that...
>
> Permit me to recommend the book "This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things"
> by Whitney Philips, as published by MIT Press.

This is way more interesting...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/rap_troll_school.jpg

Jack

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

[geoff]

On 11/05/2015 11:52 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> On 11/05/2015 8:47 PM, geoff wrote:
>> On 11/05/2015 8:55 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>>> On 9/05/2015 9:59 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 9/05/2015 2:24 a.m., Trevor wrote:
>>>>> Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.
>>>>
>>>> And no longer an issue.
>>>
>>> NO longer an issue for *YOU* perhaps. As others have indicated the
>>> advantages of meta data tags, and half the number of hard drives
>>> required ARE a benefit to them!
>>> Considering that I require back ups of my multi-tracks, and how many TB+
>>> drives I have to store, all my back ups at least are FLAC, even if the
>>> working files are wave.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You can do that with Broadcast WAV. So unless for some reason file-size
>> is an issue *for you*,
>
> As I just wrote if you bothered to read, it *IS* an issue for me, and
> many others that clearly store more data than you do.
>
> Trevor.
>
>


Clearly. Which is why I qualified what I said with the bit you snipped off.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 12/05/2015 5:52 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 11/05/2015 11:52 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>> On 11/05/2015 8:47 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 11/05/2015 8:55 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>>>> On 9/05/2015 9:59 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 9/05/2015 2:24 a.m., Trevor wrote:
>>>>>> Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.
>>>>>
>>>>> And no longer an issue.
>>>>
>>>> NO longer an issue for *YOU* perhaps. As others have indicated the
>>>> advantages of meta data tags, and half the number of hard drives
>>>> required ARE a benefit to them!
>>>> Considering that I require back ups of my multi-tracks, and how many
>>>> TB+
>>>> drives I have to store, all my back ups at least are FLAC, even if the
>>>> working files are wave.
>>>
>>> You can do that with Broadcast WAV. So unless for some reason file-size
>>> is an issue *for you*,
>>
>> As I just wrote if you bothered to read, it *IS* an issue for me, and
>> many others that clearly store more data than you do.
>>
>
> Clearly. Which is why I qualified what I said with the bit you snipped off.

Rubbish, you failed to provide ANY reason one should use broadcast wave
simply to save meta data rather than FLAC, when both are lossless, both
have tags, and one is smaller. Now sometimes I do need to send BWAV
files, but I have no valid reason to save everything in that format,
especially all my back-ups. If you do and you are lucky that money and
storage space is never an issue to you, then that's fine, no need to
argue every else should though. Not unless you can provide another
reason that you so far have not?

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 12/05/2015 5:44 p.m., Trevor wrote:

>>>
>>> As I just wrote if you bothered to read, it *IS* an issue for me, and
>>> many others that clearly store more data than you do.
>>>
>>
>> Clearly. Which is why I qualified what I said with the bit you snipped
>> off.
>
> Rubbish, you failed to provide ANY reason one should use broadcast wave
> simply to save meta data rather than FLAC, when both are lossless, both
> have tags, and one is smaller. Now sometimes I do need to send BWAV
> files, but I have no valid reason to save everything in that format,
> especially all my back-ups. If you do and you are lucky that money and
> storage space is never an issue to you, then that's fine, no need to
> argue every else should though. Not unless you can provide another
> reason that you so far have not?
>
> Trevor.
>

" .... other than personal choice. Which is fine. "

The bit you 'lost'.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 12/05/2015 7:33 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 12/05/2015 5:44 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>>>> As I just wrote if you bothered to read, it *IS* an issue for me, and
>>>> many others that clearly store more data than you do.
>>>
>>> Clearly. Which is why I qualified what I said with the bit you snipped
>>> off.
>>
>> Rubbish, you failed to provide ANY reason one should use broadcast wave
>> simply to save meta data rather than FLAC, when both are lossless, both
>> have tags, and one is smaller. Now sometimes I do need to send BWAV
>> files, but I have no valid reason to save everything in that format,
>> especially all my back-ups. If you do and you are lucky that money and
>> storage space is never an issue to you, then that's fine, no need to
>> argue every else should though. Not unless you can provide another
>> reason that you so far have not?
>>
>
> " .... other than personal choice. Which is fine. "
>

Right, other than personal choice *and* file size, just as I said all
along. You still provide *NO* reason why your personal choice is better
though, so there is no debate to be had.

Trevor.

[Gray_Wolf[_2_]]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 15:44:23 +1000, Trevor > wrote:

>On 12/05/2015 5:52 AM, geoff wrote:

[snip]
>> Clearly. Which is why I qualified what I said with the bit you snipped off.
>
>Rubbish, you failed to provide ANY reason one should use broadcast wave
>simply to save meta data rather than FLAC, when both are lossless, both
>have tags, and one is smaller. Now sometimes I do need to send BWAV
>files, but I have no valid reason to save everything in that format,
>especially all my back-ups. If you do and you are lucky that money and
>storage space is never an issue to you, then that's fine, no need to
>argue every else should though. Not unless you can provide another
>reason that you so far have not?
>
>Trevor.

One thing I've noticed is I can play a 24bit 96kHz FLAC with my PCI
sound card still set to 44.1KHz. I can't do that with a wave file. I'd
have to reset the sound card's sample rate.

[[email protected]]

in an effort to make ths a more productive discussion, i will ask a question...

can someone explain how to add meta data tags onto a .wav file.

do common players such as windows media player recognize the tags?

thanks

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
> wrote:
>in an effort to make ths a more productive discussion, i will ask a question...
>
>can someone explain how to add meta data tags onto a .wav file.

Your DAW can probably write a broadcast wav with that information already, if
you look at the save options.

But the reference standard tool for editing that stuff is BWF MetaEdit.

>do common players such as windows media player recognize the tags?

I have no idea, but all of the broadcast software I have used seems to.
--scott

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

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

writes:

> in an effort to make ths a more productive discussion, i will ask a
> question...

Just a guess, but have you tried it with Audacity?
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Phil W[_3_]]

makolber:

> can someone explain how to add meta data tags onto a .wav file.

Wave editors or DAWs should be able. Wavelab can write/edit BWF tags.

> do common players such as windows media player recognize the tags?

As far as my limited experience goes:
- WinAmp can/could display the BWF tags in .WAV files
- WMP on WinXP and Win7 can not

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:00:30 AM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
> writes:
>
> > in an effort to make ths a more productive discussion, i will ask a
> > question...
>
> Just a guess, but have you tried it with Audacity?

I see no sign.

http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-programs-for-editing-and-managing-metadata-bwf-and-mp3-files
> --
> Randy Yates
> Digital Signal Labs
> http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Nil[_2_]]

On 12 May 2015, Gray_Wolf > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> One thing I've noticed is I can play a 24bit 96kHz FLAC with my
> PCI sound card still set to 44.1KHz. I can't do that with a wave
> file. I'd have to reset the sound card's sample rate.

I suspect your player is doing a resampling on the fly. It's not a
feature of FLAC per se, but a feature of your player. Though I'm
surprised your player wouldn't do the same thing for the WAV file.

[Nil[_2_]]

On 12 May 2015, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> can someone explain how to add meta data tags onto a .wav file.

I have used a program called Mp3tag to write info tags to most of my
audio files. It didn't used to handle WAV files, but as of a few
versions ago it does. I don't do it, though - all my archived WAV files
are converted to FLAC.

http://www.mp3tag.de/en/

The only info tag in a Broadcast WAV file that's useful to me is the
positioning one. If I'm trading files with someone else for editing in
a DAW, the file can be stamped with its start position, so the other
party can precisely line it up on his timeline.

> do common players such as windows media player recognize the tags?

A few do, not many. WMP did not, last time I looked.

[Scott Dorsey]

Nil > wrote:
>On 12 May 2015, Gray_Wolf > wrote in
>rec.audio.pro:
>
>> One thing I've noticed is I can play a 24bit 96kHz FLAC with my
>> PCI sound card still set to 44.1KHz. I can't do that with a wave
>> file. I'd have to reset the sound card's sample rate.
>
>I suspect your player is doing a resampling on the fly. It's not a
>feature of FLAC per se, but a feature of your player. Though I'm
>surprised your player wouldn't do the same thing for the WAV file.

It's likely to be the FLAC codec doing the resampling. Which may or
may not be a good thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 12/05/2015 11:29 p.m., Trevor wrote:

>>>
>>
>> " .... other than personal choice. Which is fine. "
>>
>
> Right, other than personal choice *and* file size, just as I said all
> along. You still provide *NO* reason why your personal choice is better
> though, so there is no debate to be had.
>
> Trevor.

Only reason uncompressed 'better' is that can universally be played
without any decoding. Now more devices and applications are directly
FLAC-enabled.

What I was suggesting is that the file-size-halving thing is less of an
issue (for many people at least) because huge hard drives are now common
as muck and cost next to nothing.

I don't bother with FLAC for normal storage or archiving, but do on my
smartphone, where space is limited. YMMV.

Over and out.

geoff

[Gray_Wolf[_2_]]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 13:47:50 -0400, Nil
> wrote:

>On 12 May 2015, Gray_Wolf > wrote in
>rec.audio.pro:
>
>> One thing I've noticed is I can play a 24bit 96kHz FLAC with my
>> PCI sound card still set to 44.1KHz. I can't do that with a wave
>> file. I'd have to reset the sound card's sample rate.
>
>I suspect your player is doing a resampling on the fly. It's not a
>feature of FLAC per se, but a feature of your player. Though I'm
>surprised your player wouldn't do the same thing for the WAV file.

I think it's the player doing it. Winamp will play both. Foobar2000
will have none of it. I usually use foobar2000 with my ASIO drivers
for serious listening

[Gray_Wolf[_2_]]

On 12 May 2015 14:49:58 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Nil > wrote:
>>On 12 May 2015, Gray_Wolf > wrote in
>>rec.audio.pro:
>>
>>> One thing I've noticed is I can play a 24bit 96kHz FLAC with my
>>> PCI sound card still set to 44.1KHz. I can't do that with a wave
>>> file. I'd have to reset the sound card's sample rate.
>>
>>I suspect your player is doing a resampling on the fly. It's not a
>>feature of FLAC per se, but a feature of your player. Though I'm
>>surprised your player wouldn't do the same thing for the WAV file.
>
>It's likely to be the FLAC codec doing the resampling. Which may or
>may not be a good thing.
>--scott

I usually can't much difference either way. :-)

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 3:52:47 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 12/05/2015 11:29 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>
> >> " .... other than personal choice. Which is fine. "
> >>
> >
> > Right, other than personal choice *and* file size, just as I said all
> > along. You still provide *NO* reason why your personal choice is better
> > though, so there is no debate to be had.
> >
> > Trevor.
>
> Only reason uncompressed 'better' is that can universally be played
> without any decoding. Now more devices and applications are directly
> FLAC-enabled.
>
> What I was suggesting is that the file-size-halving thing is less of an
> issue (for many people at least) because huge hard drives are now common
> as muck and cost next to nothing.
>
> I don't bother with FLAC for normal storage or archiving, but do on my
> smartphone, where space is limited. YMMV.
>
> Over and out.
>
> geoff

Okay, impress me. What takes more CPU power, Flac or MP3 (to decode, play)? Does a 128kbps MP3 require less CPU power than a 320kbps MP3?

I mean, everyone just mentioned storage space, nothing more.

10-4 Rubber Ducky.

Jack

[Nil[_2_]]

On 12 May 2015, Gray_Wolf > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> I think it's the player doing it. Winamp will play both. Foobar2000
> will have none of it. I usually use foobar2000 with my ASIO drivers
> for serious listening

I can play a 24-bit 96 kHz file in both FLAC and WAV format with
Foobar2000 through either one of the two audio interfaces in this
computer. One is the built-in motherboard sound card, the other is an
M-Audio AP2496 with ASIO. I see that Foobar2000 has a setting for
playback format - mine was set for 16-bit, but I changed it to 24- and
32-bit and it still plays OK. Check out Preferences | Playback | Output
- I bet you can get the files to play by fooling around with those
settings.

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
Okay, impress me. What takes more CPU power, Flac or MP3 (to decode, play)? Does a 128kbps MP3 require less CPU power than a 320kbps MP3? "

When I first double-click on a MP3 file, it takes Windows Media
Player 60-90 sec to start playing it on my machine. Subsequent
mp3s begin playing immediately. When I double-click a WAV, it
begins playing immediately, as do subsequent WAVs.

[jason]

On Sun, 10 May 2015 16:59:34 -0700 (PDT) "JackA" >
wrote in article >

>
> I've seen one too many FLAC people post less than thrilling audio. It's like they believe FLAC will solve all their audio problems.
>
FLAC has *nothing* to do with that. Don't you get it?? It simply
faithfully produces output that matches its input. GIGO.

[geoff]

"JackA" > wrote in message
...

> Okay, impress me. What takes more CPU power, Flac or MP3 (to decode,
> play)? Does a 128kbps MP3 require less CPU power than a 320kbps MP3?
>
> I mean, everyone just mentioned storage space, nothing more.


Who cares ? It is absolutely trivial.

geoff

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 9:56:10 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2015 16:59:34 -0700 (PDT) "JackA" >
> wrote in article >
>
> >
> > I've seen one too many FLAC people post less than thrilling audio. It's like they believe FLAC will solve all their audio problems.
> >
> FLAC has *nothing* to do with that. Don't you get it?? It simply
> faithfully produces output that matches its input. GIGO.

And if the input is foul or less than great, a Flac will improve your listening pleasure? See my recent MP3 vs Flac post. Now, people are claiming this limited edition USB Beatles thing is the best sounding. What happened to the 2009 Remasters? Did the people who Remastered it, know the sound would be fouled some, so, later, others could publish better sounding renditions? My point is, when do you make the Flac, when YOU feel it will never sound better?

Thanks.

Jack

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:10:56 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> "JackA" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Okay, impress me. What takes more CPU power, Flac or MP3 (to decode,
> > play)? Does a 128kbps MP3 require less CPU power than a 320kbps MP3?
> >
> > I mean, everyone just mentioned storage space, nothing more.
>
>
> Who cares ? It is absolutely trivial.

Who cares? Seems Beatles fans do. Like I always thought, record companies will never give you their best audio, because, simply put, there won't be anything to later sell.

Jack
>
> geoff

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:50:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
> Okay, impress me. What takes more CPU power, Flac or MP3 (to decode, play)? Does a 128kbps MP3 require less CPU power than a 320kbps MP3? "
>
> When I first double-click on a MP3 file, it takes Windows Media
> Player 60-90 sec to start playing it on my machine. Subsequent
> mp3s begin playing immediately. When I double-click a WAV, it
> begins playing immediately, as do subsequent WAVs.

Hmmmmmm?

My old WinAmp won't play my 32bit Waves. Actually, it (sometimes?) does, but distortion galore!!

Jack

[jason]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 05:45:30 -0700 (PDT) "
> wrote in article <397e0c9e-b80e-43a7-bd90-
>
>
> in an effort to make ths a more productive discussion, i will ask a question...
>
> can someone explain how to add meta data tags onto a .wav file.
>
> do common players such as windows media player recognize the tags?
>
> thanks
>
> Mark

Audition supports metadata editing.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 9:56:10 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2015 16:59:34 -0700 (PDT) "JackA" >
> wrote in article >
>
> >
> > I've seen one too many FLAC people post less than thrilling audio. It's like they believe FLAC will solve all their audio problems.
> >
> FLAC has *nothing* to do with that. Don't you get it?? It simply
> faithfully produces output that matches its input. GIGO.

J', now hear me out. For the LONGEST time, I've been looking for a great sounding version of Frank Sinatra's, "That's Life" song, one of my favorites. Every CD I checked, it sounded less than thrilling. YouTube video of a vinyl greatest hits LP sounded superior! A fellow collecting friend, who knows I'd give an arm to hear it sounding really nice, just sent me an early Take of it! So, somewhere, multi-tracks exist, since alternate Takes are generally found on session tapes! I don't care how much you Flac it, it will never sound its best until someone forks over a superior sounding version.

See my point?

Jack

[Frank Stearns]

JackA > writes:

>On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:10:56 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
>> "JackA" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Okay, impress me. What takes more CPU power, Flac or MP3 (to decode,
>> > play)? Does a 128kbps MP3 require less CPU power than a 320kbps MP3?
>> >
>> > I mean, everyone just mentioned storage space, nothing more.
>>
>>
>> Who cares ? It is absolutely trivial.

>Who cares? Seems Beatles fans do. Like I always thought, record companies will
>never give you their best audio, because, simply put, there won't be anything to
>later sell.

Highly unlikely, and it'd be a lot of trouble to do all that sneaky stuff.
Beside, there's no need to do that, given that technology itself marches on.

Example: Just got a call yesterday from a client who wants to do a reissue of one of
her albums. At the time it was recorded in 2008, we all did the best we possibly
good for sonics.

She wanted to touch up a few things, possibly remaster (I never liked the original
mastering job and in fact left the mastering session unhappy with the engineer who
was a nice fellow with good gear, but did not have the ear to match. He'd played in
too many rock bands when he was younger, apparently. Got overruled at the time by
the producer. Since then he agreed that I had been correct all along about the
mastering.)

But all that's besides the point. Given the large sonic improvements in Protools in
the past 6-7 years, we're just going to rebounce the tracks in PT11. That alone will
"improve the sound," and rather significantly at that. No elaborate conspiracies are
in play. A few folks might re-buy for that, but that's unlikely. It's mostly just
for new customers.

You might consider that angle. (Though yes, it's true that new technology can be
misused, even though the underlying sonics have the potential to be better.)

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:06:24 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> JackA > writes:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:10:56 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> >> "JackA" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > Okay, impress me. What takes more CPU power, Flac or MP3 (to decode,
> >> > play)? Does a 128kbps MP3 require less CPU power than a 320kbps MP3?
> >> >
> >> > I mean, everyone just mentioned storage space, nothing more.
> >>
> >>
> >> Who cares ? It is absolutely trivial.
>
> >Who cares? Seems Beatles fans do. Like I always thought, record companies will
> >never give you their best audio, because, simply put, there won't be anything to
> >later sell.
>
> Highly unlikely, and it'd be a lot of trouble to do all that sneaky stuff..


Come on, Frank, it's not like millions of people are demanding better sound quality!


> Beside, there's no need to do that, given that technology itself marches on.

How do YOU explain MP3s sounding superior on the USB Beatles thing?

>
> Example: Just got a call yesterday from a client who wants to do a reissue of one of
> her albums. At the time it was recorded in 2008, we all did the best we possibly
> good for sonics.
>
> She wanted to touch up a few things, possibly remaster (I never liked the original
> mastering job and in fact left the mastering session unhappy with the engineer who
> was a nice fellow with good gear, but did not have the ear to match. He'd played in
> too many rock bands when he was younger, apparently. Got overruled at the time by
> the producer. Since then he agreed that I had been correct all along about the
> mastering.)
>
> But all that's besides the point. Given the large sonic improvements in Protools in
> the past 6-7 years, we're just going to rebounce the tracks in PT11. That alone will
> "improve the sound," and rather significantly at that. No elaborate conspiracies are
> in play. A few folks might re-buy for that, but that's unlikely. It's mostly just
> for new customers.


You do have a point!! But, even though KMARocks whatever his handle, does not prefer things be remixed, I feel they sometimes should be (from my glimpse of multi-tracks). I mean, it's one thing to be selfish [Yelling, DON"T CHANGE THE MIX!], but after we all pass, those who grew-up with the music, don't you think a superior sounding mix should be left behind "new" people to admire? That's what I believe will be the next move with The Beatles, for example.

And, yes, digital enhancing finally caught up with music. I feel if I had the software, I could outdo the sound of many pros!

Actually, does ANYONE know when studios first began using software [+computers] to enhance and/or mix audio? I'm guessing about Y2k.

Thanks, Frank.

Jack

>
> You might consider that angle. (Though yes, it's true that new technology can be
> misused, even though the underlying sonics have the potential to be better.)
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
> --
> .

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:30:40 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:06:24 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> > JackA > writes:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:10:56 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> > >> "JackA" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >> > Okay, impress me. What takes more CPU power, Flac or MP3 (to decode,
> > >> > play)? Does a 128kbps MP3 require less CPU power than a 320kbps MP3?
> > >> >
> > >> > I mean, everyone just mentioned storage space, nothing more.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Who cares ? It is absolutely trivial.
> >
> > >Who cares? Seems Beatles fans do. Like I always thought, record companies will
> > >never give you their best audio, because, simply put, there won't be anything to
> > >later sell.
> >
> > Highly unlikely, and it'd be a lot of trouble to do all that sneaky stuff.
>
>
> Come on, Frank, it's not like millions of people are demanding better sound quality!
>
>
> > Beside, there's no need to do that, given that technology itself marches on.
>
> How do YOU explain MP3s sounding superior on the USB Beatles thing?
>
> >
> > Example: Just got a call yesterday from a client who wants to do a reissue of one of
> > her albums. At the time it was recorded in 2008, we all did the best we possibly
> > good for sonics.
> >
> > She wanted to touch up a few things, possibly remaster (I never liked the original
> > mastering job and in fact left the mastering session unhappy with the engineer who
> > was a nice fellow with good gear, but did not have the ear to match. He'd played in
> > too many rock bands when he was younger, apparently. Got overruled at the time by
> > the producer. Since then he agreed that I had been correct all along about the
> > mastering.)
> >
> > But all that's besides the point. Given the large sonic improvements in Protools in
> > the past 6-7 years, we're just going to rebounce the tracks in PT11. That alone will
> > "improve the sound," and rather significantly at that. No elaborate conspiracies are
> > in play. A few folks might re-buy for that, but that's unlikely. It's mostly just
> > for new customers.
>
>
> You do have a point!! But, even though KMARocks whatever his handle, does not prefer things be remixed, I feel they sometimes should be (from my glimpse of multi-tracks). I mean, it's one thing to be selfish [Yelling, DON"T CHANGE THE MIX!], but after we all pass, those who grew-up with the music, don't you think a superior sounding mix should be left behind "new" people to admire? That's what I believe will be the next move with The Beatles, for example.
>
> And, yes, digital enhancing finally caught up with music. I feel if I had the software, I could outdo the sound of many pros!
>
> Actually, does ANYONE know when studios first began using software [+computers] to enhance and/or mix audio? I'm guessing about Y2k.
>
> Thanks, Frank.
>
> Jack
>
> >
> > You might consider that angle. (Though yes, it's true that new technology can be
> > misused, even though the underlying sonics have the potential to be better.)
> >
> > Frank
> > Mobile Audio
> >
> > --
> > .

What I wanted to say, I have to rely on my own two ears to tell me what is the best sound quality, because I can not rely on my peers. Not that I'm superior in any way, shape or form. I have to satisfy myself, not others.

I feel there is a threshold with music, it becomes tough deciding what sound better. Since I didn't pay attention to lyrics, they weren't worth the time for me to decipher, I ignored them. Who knows, it may explain why I did poorly in school, not understanding what people said/say. But, I'd listen to a favorite song, and out of nowhere, a lyric jumps out, that I couldn't understand before! So, I not only gauge the music sound quality, but also how easily I can decipher the lyrics that I once missed.

Even Eric Records, once Bill Buster discovered my site, issued better sounding versions, since he knew they existed somewhere (posted on my site). And, yes, that is when I was posting 96kbps MP3s!

I THINK everyone here will agree, you do not need a fancy, uncompressed format to determine better sound quality? That's my point.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "My old WinAmp won't play my 32bit Waves. Actually,
it (sometimes?) does, but distortion galore!! "


WinAmp has adjustable preamp. Check where it's set.

[Frank Stearns]

JackA > writes:

>On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:06:24 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
>> JackA > writes:
>>=20
>> >On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:10:56 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
>> >> "JackA" > wrote in message=20
>> >> ...
>> >>=20
>> >> > Okay, impress me. What takes more CPU power, Flac or MP3 (to decode,=
>=20
>> >> > play)? Does a 128kbps MP3 require less CPU power than a 320kbps MP3?
>> >> >
>> >> > I mean, everyone just mentioned storage space, nothing more.
>> >>=20
>> >>=20
>> >> Who cares ? It is absolutely trivial.
>>=20
>> >Who cares? Seems Beatles fans do. Like I always thought, record companie=
>s will=20
>> >never give you their best audio, because, simply put, there won't be any=
>thing to=20
>> >later sell.
>>=20
>> Highly unlikely, and it'd be a lot of trouble to do all that sneaky stuff=
>.


>Come on, Frank, it's not like millions of people are demanding better sound=
> quality!


This gets into a lengthy discussion about culture in general, and how many art forms
-- but music in particular -- have degraded somewhat because a lot of folks simply
have no context. They never learned anything about music (nor were they exposed to a
wealth of music other than rock/pop) in early education.

Most of that kind of education got axed, sadly. And it was penny-wise and
pound-foolish of public education to do this given how music "exercising the mind"
improved other areas of academics.

That being said, many of us here produce with the finest attention to sonic quality
possible. It's our passion; it's what we do.

You will get enough lay people who have NO IDEA what you've done, but if it's a good
enough experience for them, some will notice that "something is different" and
they'll like it.

Is it enough to make them buy just for that alone? No, in most cases. But it's a
contribution, and one worth making, because over time it helps the entire state of
things, or at least helps to keep mediocrity in check. (Some areas of pop music are
hopeless in this regard and always have been; I'm talking about the stuff that
engage people enough so that they'll listen to again and again, not just once and
forget, or just as background noise).


>> Beside, there's no need to do that, given that technology itself marches =
>on.

>How do YOU explain MP3s sounding superior on the USB Beatles thing?

Been meaning to comment before when you toss about "mp3 this and mp3 that" --
you really have to specify what kind of MP3 you're talking about. A 40 Kbps
encoding is going to sound pretty awful no matter you do, while a 320 Kbps encoding
with a good algorithm can be rather remarkable. Still not quite as good as the
original higher-resolution PCM or DSD, but very hard to detect a diff unless you're
in a good monitoring environment.

But then, even at the same encoding rate, the algorithm itself will make a large
difference. AND, you need to select the CORRECT algorithm for the type of music
you're encoding. (In other words, you're giving optimized decode instructions for
the MP3 player, instructions that have been tailored precisely to the type of music
you're encoding.)

IIRC, one of the Sony Oxford software tools (they make very expensive and high-end
EQ, dynamics and reverb plug-ins for professional use) included and MP3 encoder
that you could insert last in the mix bus. It had many settings; you could check
what your mix might sound like while varying all those MP3 settings.

You'd either adjust your mix, or determine which encode settings would sound best
for the eventual MP3 release, or some combination.

-snip-

>You do have a point!! But, even though KMARocks whatever his handle, does n=
>ot prefer things be remixed, I feel they sometimes should be (from my glimp=
>se of multi-tracks). I mean, it's one thing to be selfish [Yelling, DON"T C=
>HANGE THE MIX!], but after we all pass, those who grew-up with the music, d=
>on't you think a superior sounding mix should be left behind "new" people t=
>o admire? That's what I believe will be the next move with The Beatles, for=
> example.

>And, yes, digital enhancing finally caught up with music. I feel if I had t=
>he software, I could outdo the sound of many pros!

The software side these days for what you do is either cheap or free. The first
thing you probably want to do is upgrade and expand your monitoring.


>Actually, does ANYONE know when studios first began using software [+comput=
>ers] to enhance and/or mix audio? I'm guessing about Y2k.

Much earlier than that. Others can update the exact history, but Soundstream was out
with a 2-track system in the early 1970s; Decca Classical was using a proprietary
system starting around the same time, perhaps a bit later. 3M probably made the
first offerings of production digital multitracks in the mid/late 70s.

The semi-pro/more affordable market was entered in the early 1980s with Sony's F1
processor which encoded a 15 bit PCM signal into a video format that could be
accepted by your VCR.

By the mid/late-80s Alesis bundled that idea into a single box and offered 8 tracks
on a standard VHS cassette.

But all of the above is mostly about recording. Mixing and production --
think Protools (then known as Soundtools) -- was out in the early 1980s. And there
are many systems I'm forgetting here.

So, digital has been happening way earlier then 2000. But in terms of really /cheap/
digital, that probably got going in full swing about 10 years ago, when
computational power go so dirt cheap.

Pinning an exact date really depends on specifically what you're talking about.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Frank Stearns]

JackA > writes:

-snips-


>I feel there is a threshold with music, it becomes tough deciding what soun=
>d better. Since I didn't pay attention to lyrics, they weren't worth the ti=
>me for me to decipher, I ignored them. Who knows, it may explain why I did =

Again, depends on what you're listening too. Not to pick on pop/rock too much (okay,
so I am) but if that's your reference point, I understand that sentiment. Often
second-rate poetry, sung by a overworked or simply ugly tonality, mixed (buried?) by
the producers/engineers for whatever reason (perhaps the first two just given) --
yeah, who cares about the words in a product like that?

But a good voice, with good material, properly recorded, is transcendent.

Remember that the voice is the original instrument. It's often the more
important half of music.


>poorly in school, not understanding what people said/say. But, I'd listen t=
>o a favorite song, and out of nowhere, a lyric jumps out, that I couldn't u=
>nderstand before! So, I not only gauge the music sound quality, but also ho=
>w easily I can decipher the lyrics that I once missed.

Again, better monitoring, better production, better things to listen to...


>Even Eric Records, once Bill Buster discovered my site, issued better sound=
>ing versions, since he knew they existed somewhere (posted on my site). And=
>, yes, that is when I was posting 96kbps MP3s!

Never heard of these folkls.


>I THINK everyone here will agree, you do not need a fancy, uncompressed for=
>mat to determine better sound quality? That's my point.

Yes, but you might appreciate better production as a way to enhance the experience.

Sure, you can watch a stage play out in the city park with nothing more than grass
and daylight, and get some entertainment value.

But move that to a better environment, with lighting, sets, and sounds to
appropriately enhance the content, and you'll likely have a deeper, more memorable
experience.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Gray_Wolf[_2_]]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 18:09:53 -0400, Nil
> wrote:

>On 12 May 2015, Gray_Wolf > wrote in
>rec.audio.pro:
>
>> I think it's the player doing it. Winamp will play both. Foobar2000
>> will have none of it. I usually use foobar2000 with my ASIO drivers
>> for serious listening
>
>I can play a 24-bit 96 kHz file in both FLAC and WAV format with
>Foobar2000 through either one of the two audio interfaces in this
>computer. One is the built-in motherboard sound card, the other is an
>M-Audio AP2496 with ASIO. I see that Foobar2000 has a setting for
>playback format - mine was set for 16-bit, but I changed it to 24- and
>32-bit and it still plays OK. Check out Preferences | Playback | Output
>- I bet you can get the files to play by fooling around with those
>settings.

Thanks, I'll check into that. I have a E-MU 0404 sound PCI card.
It'll do rates up to 192KHz. Foobar will play everything I have as
long as the sound card is set right. It'll even play the the audio on
most video formats. I just thought it odd that Winamp and the
VLC player will resample on the fly. I suppose to make it more idiot
proof.:-)

The only bit depth settings are in Winamp which has the option "Allow
24 Bit playback". The "speaker properties" in Win 7 default to what
ever the soundcard is set to.

[John Williamson]

On 13/05/2015 04:30, JackA wrote:

> Actually, does ANYONE know when studios first began using software [+computers] to enhance and/or mix audio? I'm guessing about Y2k.
>
The pioneers were doing digital recording in the 1980s, and some early
CDs boasted DDD, with recording, with mixing and mastering all in the
digital domain.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

>
> But all that's besides the point. Given the large sonic improvements in Protools in
> the past 6-7 years, we're just going to rebounce the tracks in PT11.
That alone will
> "improve the sound," and rather significantly at that.

============================
Really?

could you be more specific about the "large sonic impovments in Protools".

thanks

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
John Williamson > wrote:
>On 13/05/2015 04:30, JackA wrote:
>
>> Actually, does ANYONE know when studios first began using software [+computers] to enhance and/or mix audio? I'm guessing about Y2k.
>
>The pioneers were doing digital recording in the 1980s, and some early
>CDs boasted DDD, with recording, with mixing and mastering all in the
>digital domain.

Well, a lot of those SPARS codes were cheats. A lot of stuff was recorded
on a digital multitrack, went through some crappy converters to an analogue
console, then the mix was recorded on a digital 2-track through some more
crappy converters, then sent to the mastering house where they ran through
still more crappy converters into the analogue input of the 1610 machine
and the crappy converters of the 1610. Voila, DDD disk!

Very few people had any way to mix in the digital domain until 1994 when
the ProMix 01 came out... with its issues with truncation and zipper noise
when faders were moved.

In terms of actual DAW processing, Sonic came out in the late eighties, also
the WAVES stuff came out around then. Few mastering houses actually did any
processing in the box back then, though, but it was available if you wanted
it. The DAW came into the mastering room with 2-track gear long before it
came into the mixing studio.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>
>> But all that's besides the point. Given the large sonic improvements in Protools in
>> the past 6-7 years, we're just going to rebounce the tracks in PT11.
>That alone will
>> "improve the sound," and rather significantly at that.
>
>Really?
>
>could you be more specific about the "large sonic impovments in Protools".

The move to 32-bit floats for internal representation was a big deal.

With the current version, you can load a file into protools, save it, and get
out the same file that you put in. They will compare identically.
This was not the case originally.

Don't get me started on the truncation issues when you changed gains in
earlier Protools versions. Things are a whole lot better than they were
in the days when all this stuff was shiny and new.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> >> But all that's besides the point. Given the large sonic improvements in Protools in
> >> the past 6-7 years, we're just going to rebounce the tracks in PT11.
> >That alone will
> >> "improve the sound," and rather significantly at that.
> >
> >Really?
> >
> >could you be more specific about the "large sonic impovments in Protools".
>
> The move to 32-bit floats for internal representation was a big deal.
>
> With the current version, you can load a file into protools, save it, and get
> out the same file that you put in. They will compare identically.
> This was not the case originally.
>
> Don't get me started on the truncation issues when you changed gains in
> earlier Protools versions. Things are a whole lot better than they were
> in the days when all this stuff was shiny and new.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

OK, I understand the tuncation issues that can happen with bad gain staging, but there is a large gap between being "bit identical" and "large sonic improvements".

It would be interesting to set up a demo to hear these differences.

Mark

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

>On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> But all that's besides the point. Given the large sonic improvements in Protools in
>> >> the past 6-7 years, we're just going to rebounce the tracks in PT11.
>> >That alone will
>> >> "improve the sound," and rather significantly at that.
>> >
>> >Really?
>> >
>> >could you be more specific about the "large sonic impovments in Protools".
>>
>> The move to 32-bit floats for internal representation was a big deal.
>>
>> With the current version, you can load a file into protools, save it, and get
>> out the same file that you put in. They will compare identically.
>> This was not the case originally.
>>
>> Don't get me started on the truncation issues when you changed gains in
>> earlier Protools versions. Things are a whole lot better than they were
>> in the days when all this stuff was shiny and new.

>OK, I understand the tuncation issues that can happen with bad gain staging, but
there is a large gap between being "bit identical" and "large sonic improvements".

>It would be interesting to set up a demo to hear these differences.

If you're skeptical, so too have I been -- until I heard it.

In cases like this, I always like to try an invert-and-sum test of the two mixes to
see what's left over that might account for what I hear.

That's tough here because the reverb fields never come out bit-identical, even when
EVERYTHING else is the same, even the same PT version. Forget for a moment
comparing different versions, just two different bounces using the same version.
Reverb is always "left over".

I'm no DSP expert, but I'm assuming there's some sort of random number "start" or
"seed" used in non-convolution reverbs that accounts for this.

And, of course, reverb plug-in sonics seem very much affected by the changes in the
mix engines, so that's one more difficulty doing this kind of definitive comparison.

If you're PT user or know someone who is, and can print a mix using the same
original mix project and plug-ins -- but just with a later PT version -- give it
a whirl. See what you think.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Trevor]

On 13/05/2015 10:50 AM, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
> Okay, impress me. What takes more CPU power, Flac or MP3 (to decode, play)?
> Does a 128kbps MP3 require less CPU power than a 320kbps MP3? "

Both use so little resources of any computer made in the last couple of
decades, that it is pretty hard to tell. Certainly not something to
worry about.


> When I first double-click on a MP3 file, it takes Windows Media
> Player 60-90 sec to start playing it on my machine.

Perhaps you have set a huge buffer? I don't use WMP, but my MP3's start
playing immediately even on a slow computer.

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 7:27:03 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "Every CD I checked, it sounded less than thrilling. YouTube
> video of a vinyl greatest hits LP sounded superior!"
>
>
> It's the MASTERING on the CD that made that difference - NOT the format!

Too many involved to be as simple as a mastering problem.

This (edit) appears to be from a completely different session than the hit...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thatslife-a.mp3

Thanks.

Jack

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "

> When I first double-click on a MP3 file, it takes Windows Media
> Player 60-90 sec to start playing it on my machine.

Perhaps you have set a huge buffer? I don't use WMP, but my MP3's start
playing immediately even on a slow computer.

Trevor. "


But notice I added that when double-clicking on subsequent mp3s to
play them they start playing right away. Only on the first such file do
I wait that long.



Question: What/Where is this buffer of which you speak, and how may
I adjust it? (Windows Vista)

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "On 13/05/2015 10:50 AM, thekma...@

> When I first double-click on a MP3 file, it takes Windows Media
> Player 60-90 sec to start playing it on my machine.

Perhaps you have set a huge buffer? I don't use WMP, but my MP3's start
playing immediately even on a slow computer.

Trevor. "


But notice I added that this delay did not happen when playing
subsequent mp3s.


Question: What/Where is this buffer of which you speak and how
may I adjust it? (Vista)

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "On 13/05/2015 10:50 AM, thekma...@

> When I first double-click on a MP3 file, it takes Windows Media
> Player 60-90 sec to start playing it on my machine.

Perhaps you have set a huge buffer? I don't use WMP, but my MP3's start
playing immediately even on a slow computer.

Trevor. "


But notice I added that this delay did not happen when playing
subsequent mp3s.


Question: What/Where is this buffer of which you speak and how
may I adjust it? (Vista)

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 9:55:52 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Trevor wrote: "
>
> > When I first double-click on a MP3 file, it takes Windows Media
> > Player 60-90 sec to start playing it on my machine.
>
> Perhaps you have set a huge buffer? I don't use WMP, but my MP3's start
> playing immediately even on a slow computer.
>
> Trevor. "
>
>
> But notice I added that when double-clicking on subsequent mp3s to
> play them they start playing right away. Only on the first such file do
> I wait that long.
>
>
>
> Question: What/Where is this buffer of which you speak, and how may
> I adjust it? (Windows Vista)

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/257924-45-increase-buffer-size

Jack

[[email protected]]

5:47 PMJackA wrote:
"- show quoted text -
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/257924-45-increase-buffer-size

Jack "


Thanks Jack, but I think I'll leave well enough alone. After all, I did
mention too many times to count that this delay applies only to
playing the FIRST mp3. Double clicking subsequent ones they
play immediately. And knowing my track record with adv. settings
I'll probably EFF something up.


And besides, the answer in that thread got some criticism, so
it might be the wrong answer.

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 6:46:58 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> 5:47 PMJackA wrote:
> "- show quoted text -
> http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/257924-45-increase-buffer-size
>
> Jack "
>
>
> Thanks Jack, but I think I'll leave well enough alone. After all, I did
> mention too many times to count that this delay applies only to
> playing the FIRST mp3. Double clicking subsequent ones they
> play immediately. And knowing my track record with adv. settings
> I'll probably EFF something up.
>
>
> And besides, the answer in that thread got some criticism, so
> it might be the wrong answer.

Yeah, I think best to leave alone. BUT, when I got my Windows ME computer with, get this, a DVD player, the video was intermittent. Then I learned about DMA, Direct Memory Access and enabled it and DVD player worked like a champ!!

BUT, for my old (Acer) XP Home laptop I wanted an OLD version of WinAmp, before they began to fiddle with playing video!! I found an old version. Thing is, every once in a while, you open a song and the Equalizer goes nuts, sometimes driving each band up to the max!! A bit loud! LOL!

Jack

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 7:39:05 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> JackA > writes:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:06:24 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> >> JackA > writes:
> >>=20
> >> >On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:10:56 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> >> >> "JackA" > wrote in message=20
> >> >> ...
> >> >>=20
> >> >> > Okay, impress me. What takes more CPU power, Flac or MP3 (to decode,=
> >=20
> >> >> > play)? Does a 128kbps MP3 require less CPU power than a 320kbps MP3?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I mean, everyone just mentioned storage space, nothing more.
> >> >>=20
> >> >>=20
> >> >> Who cares ? It is absolutely trivial.
> >>=20
> >> >Who cares? Seems Beatles fans do. Like I always thought, record companie=
> >s will=20
> >> >never give you their best audio, because, simply put, there won't be any=
> >thing to=20
> >> >later sell.
> >>=20
> >> Highly unlikely, and it'd be a lot of trouble to do all that sneaky stuff=
> >.
>
>
> >Come on, Frank, it's not like millions of people are demanding better sound=
> > quality!
>
>
> This gets into a lengthy discussion about culture in general, and how many art forms
> -- but music in particular -- have degraded somewhat because a lot of folks simply
> have no context. They never learned anything about music (nor were they exposed to a
> wealth of music other than rock/pop) in early education.
>
> Most of that kind of education got axed, sadly. And it was penny-wise and
> pound-foolish of public education to do this given how music "exercising the mind"
> improved other areas of academics.
>
> That being said, many of us here produce with the finest attention to sonic quality
> possible. It's our passion; it's what we do.
>
> You will get enough lay people who have NO IDEA what you've done, but if it's a good
> enough experience for them, some will notice that "something is different" and
> they'll like it.
>
> Is it enough to make them buy just for that alone? No, in most cases. But it's a
> contribution, and one worth making, because over time it helps the entire state of
> things, or at least helps to keep mediocrity in check. (Some areas of pop music are
> hopeless in this regard and always have been; I'm talking about the stuff that
> engage people enough so that they'll listen to again and again, not just once and
> forget, or just as background noise).
>
>
> >> Beside, there's no need to do that, given that technology itself marches =
> >on.
>
> >How do YOU explain MP3s sounding superior on the USB Beatles thing?
>
> Been meaning to comment before when you toss about "mp3 this and mp3 that" --
> you really have to specify what kind of MP3 you're talking about. A 40 Kbps
> encoding is going to sound pretty awful no matter you do, while a 320 Kbps encoding
> with a good algorithm can be rather remarkable. Still not quite as good as the
> original higher-resolution PCM or DSD, but very hard to detect a diff unless you're
> in a good monitoring environment.
>
> But then, even at the same encoding rate, the algorithm itself will make a large
> difference. AND, you need to select the CORRECT algorithm for the type of music
> you're encoding. (In other words, you're giving optimized decode instructions for
> the MP3 player, instructions that have been tailored precisely to the type of music
> you're encoding.)
>
> IIRC, one of the Sony Oxford software tools (they make very expensive and high-end
> EQ, dynamics and reverb plug-ins for professional use) included and MP3 encoder
> that you could insert last in the mix bus. It had many settings; you could check
> what your mix might sound like while varying all those MP3 settings.
>
> You'd either adjust your mix, or determine which encode settings would sound best
> for the eventual MP3 release, or some combination.
>
> -snip-
>
> >You do have a point!! But, even though KMARocks whatever his handle, does n=
> >ot prefer things be remixed, I feel they sometimes should be (from my glimp=
> >se of multi-tracks). I mean, it's one thing to be selfish [Yelling, DON"T C=
> >HANGE THE MIX!], but after we all pass, those who grew-up with the music, d=
> >on't you think a superior sounding mix should be left behind "new" people t=
> >o admire? That's what I believe will be the next move with The Beatles, for=
> > example.
>
> >And, yes, digital enhancing finally caught up with music. I feel if I had t=
> >he software, I could outdo the sound of many pros!
>
> The software side these days for what you do is either cheap or free. The first
> thing you probably want to do is upgrade and expand your monitoring.
>
>
> >Actually, does ANYONE know when studios first began using software [+comput=
> >ers] to enhance and/or mix audio? I'm guessing about Y2k.
>
> Much earlier than that. Others can update the exact history, but Soundstream was out
> with a 2-track system in the early 1970s; Decca Classical was using a proprietary
> system starting around the same time, perhaps a bit later. 3M probably made the
> first offerings of production digital multitracks in the mid/late 70s.
>
> The semi-pro/more affordable market was entered in the early 1980s with Sony's F1
> processor which encoded a 15 bit PCM signal into a video format that could be
> accepted by your VCR.
>
> By the mid/late-80s Alesis bundled that idea into a single box and offered 8 tracks
> on a standard VHS cassette.
>
> But all of the above is mostly about recording. Mixing and production --
> think Protools (then known as Soundtools) -- was out in the early 1980s. And there
> are many systems I'm forgetting here.
>
> So, digital has been happening way earlier then 2000.

I do not believe, because computers were way too slow to process audio.
Even when I and others were told about these new fangled MP3s (early 2000?), a young friend in WI informed me of them and recommended Goldwave software. Besides, Frank, I've seen it one too many times, people get these top dog audio apps and don't even know how to use them!!

Even with these MOGGS multi-track files, others claimed you had (upgrade) to a current version of Audacity to mix/encode them. How untrue that claim is/was!

Your Scott tells me there's no such thing as varying DC offset, yet, the author of Goldwave knew there should be a way to correct it! So, tell me, how many know how to use software.

Actually, I encoded my first MP3 under DOS (Win 95). Even at 128kpbs, I went to the store and returned, because I saw how slow the progress was!! Actually, I still have the 95 computer!!! WinME, one, too! :-)
I loved DOS, but too many illiterate people couldn't remember a handful of commands to save their life. So, tell me how people and computers work.

But in terms of really /cheap/
> digital, that probably got going in full swing about 10 years ago, when
> computational power go so dirt cheap.
>
> Pinning an exact date really depends on specifically what you're talking about.

I ask, what digital software and what computer were used. I claim computers were too slow, but you make it sound like their were full of speed at 100MHz CPU!!

I'm GUESSING that HDCD encoding stuff was a self contained digital unit that processed sound. Why Microsoft scarfed it up quickly! Remind me to post an HDCD I found in the budget bin, Joni Mitchell, odd sound.

Even this version of Mr. Bojangles, Nitty Gritty Dirt Band has me confused, with prologue, certainly not the hit mix!

Even this odd version of Sinatra's "That's Life" has me confused, I know Hal Blaine's drumming, but it's not Hal Blaine drumming here. Even contacted Denny Tedsco of Wrecking Crew film, maybe he can ask The Crew to see what others think!!


Even your Randy no longer wants to talk to me, It wasn't about Flac stuff, it is when he challenged me with HIS BS&T tune. and I asked what the tape hiss noise was. I guess I wasn't supposed to hear that. Actually it and vinyl ticks and pops used to drive me nuts! So, where are all your audio nuts?

Thanks, Frank, no hard feelings.

Jack

>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
> --
> .

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 7:39:05 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> JackA > writes:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:06:24 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> >> JackA > writes:
> >>=20
> >> >On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:10:56 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> >> >> "JackA" > wrote in message=20
> >> >> ...
> >> >>=20
> >> >> > Okay, impress me. What takes more CPU power, Flac or MP3 (to decode,=
> >=20
> >> >> > play)? Does a 128kbps MP3 require less CPU power than a 320kbps MP3?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I mean, everyone just mentioned storage space, nothing more.
> >> >>=20
> >> >>=20
> >> >> Who cares ? It is absolutely trivial.
> >>=20
> >> >Who cares? Seems Beatles fans do. Like I always thought, record companie=
> >s will=20
> >> >never give you their best audio, because, simply put, there won't be any=
> >thing to=20
> >> >later sell.
> >>=20
> >> Highly unlikely, and it'd be a lot of trouble to do all that sneaky stuff=
> >.
>
>
> >Come on, Frank, it's not like millions of people are demanding better sound=
> > quality!
>
>
> This gets into a lengthy discussion about culture in general, and how many art forms
> -- but music in particular -- have degraded somewhat because a lot of folks simply
> have no context. They never learned anything about music (nor were they exposed to a
> wealth of music other than rock/pop) in early education.
>
> Most of that kind of education got axed, sadly. And it was penny-wise and
> pound-foolish of public education to do this given how music "exercising the mind"
> improved other areas of academics.
>
> That being said, many of us here produce with the finest attention to sonic quality
> possible. It's our passion; it's what we do.


But, I ask, why could I receive applause in usenet and elsewhere by just digitally enhancing what others did, circa mid '90's, like EMI Legendary Masters series? If studios had that capability, can you show me a studio (photo) with a monitor with some waveform on it? They had 32 bit processing?

Music keeps me busy, because there are a ton of unanswered questions I have.. Like, I want to know who that (balding) half owner of Atlantic Records was doing scolding a female during Bobby Darin's Queen Of The Hop! She was black, but who the heck is she??! Bobby defended her from Ahmet Ertegun, because he didn't want a bar removed. Why I love studio chat!!

Jack


>
> You will get enough lay people who have NO IDEA what you've done, but if it's a good
> enough experience for them, some will notice that "something is different" and
> they'll like it.
>
> Is it enough to make them buy just for that alone? No, in most cases. But it's a
> contribution, and one worth making, because over time it helps the entire state of
> things, or at least helps to keep mediocrity in check. (Some areas of pop music are
> hopeless in this regard and always have been; I'm talking about the stuff that
> engage people enough so that they'll listen to again and again, not just once and
> forget, or just as background noise).
>
>
> >> Beside, there's no need to do that, given that technology itself marches =
> >on.
>
> >How do YOU explain MP3s sounding superior on the USB Beatles thing?
>
> Been meaning to comment before when you toss about "mp3 this and mp3 that" --
> you really have to specify what kind of MP3 you're talking about. A 40 Kbps
> encoding is going to sound pretty awful no matter you do, while a 320 Kbps encoding
> with a good algorithm can be rather remarkable. Still not quite as good as the
> original higher-resolution PCM or DSD, but very hard to detect a diff unless you're
> in a good monitoring environment.
>
> But then, even at the same encoding rate, the algorithm itself will make a large
> difference. AND, you need to select the CORRECT algorithm for the type of music
> you're encoding. (In other words, you're giving optimized decode instructions for
> the MP3 player, instructions that have been tailored precisely to the type of music
> you're encoding.)
>
> IIRC, one of the Sony Oxford software tools (they make very expensive and high-end
> EQ, dynamics and reverb plug-ins for professional use) included and MP3 encoder
> that you could insert last in the mix bus. It had many settings; you could check
> what your mix might sound like while varying all those MP3 settings.
>
> You'd either adjust your mix, or determine which encode settings would sound best
> for the eventual MP3 release, or some combination.
>
> -snip-
>
> >You do have a point!! But, even though KMARocks whatever his handle, does n=
> >ot prefer things be remixed, I feel they sometimes should be (from my glimp=
> >se of multi-tracks). I mean, it's one thing to be selfish [Yelling, DON"T C=
> >HANGE THE MIX!], but after we all pass, those who grew-up with the music, d=
> >on't you think a superior sounding mix should be left behind "new" people t=
> >o admire? That's what I believe will be the next move with The Beatles, for=
> > example.
>
> >And, yes, digital enhancing finally caught up with music. I feel if I had t=
> >he software, I could outdo the sound of many pros!
>
> The software side these days for what you do is either cheap or free. The first
> thing you probably want to do is upgrade and expand your monitoring.
>
>
> >Actually, does ANYONE know when studios first began using software [+comput=
> >ers] to enhance and/or mix audio? I'm guessing about Y2k.
>
> Much earlier than that. Others can update the exact history, but Soundstream was out
> with a 2-track system in the early 1970s; Decca Classical was using a proprietary
> system starting around the same time, perhaps a bit later. 3M probably made the
> first offerings of production digital multitracks in the mid/late 70s.
>
> The semi-pro/more affordable market was entered in the early 1980s with Sony's F1
> processor which encoded a 15 bit PCM signal into a video format that could be
> accepted by your VCR.
>
> By the mid/late-80s Alesis bundled that idea into a single box and offered 8 tracks
> on a standard VHS cassette.
>
> But all of the above is mostly about recording. Mixing and production --
> think Protools (then known as Soundtools) -- was out in the early 1980s. And there
> are many systems I'm forgetting here.
>
> So, digital has been happening way earlier then 2000. But in terms of really /cheap/
> digital, that probably got going in full swing about 10 years ago, when
> computational power go so dirt cheap.
>
> Pinning an exact date really depends on specifically what you're talking about.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
> --
> .

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 9:55:52 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Trevor wrote: "
>
> > When I first double-click on a MP3 file, it takes Windows Media
> > Player 60-90 sec to start playing it on my machine.
>
> Perhaps you have set a huge buffer? I don't use WMP, but my MP3's start
> playing immediately even on a slow computer.
>
> Trevor. "
>
>
> But notice I added that when double-clicking on subsequent mp3s to
> play them they start playing right away. Only on the first such file do
> I wait that long.
>
>
>
> Question: What/Where is this buffer of which you speak, and how may
> I adjust it? (Windows Vista)

After Trevor recommend a buffer size increase...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/computerchaos.gif

:-)

Jack B. ThreeD

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 7:51:39 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> JackA > writes:
>
> -snips-
>
>
> >I feel there is a threshold with music, it becomes tough deciding what soun=
> >d better. Since I didn't pay attention to lyrics, they weren't worth the ti=
> >me for me to decipher, I ignored them. Who knows, it may explain why I did =
>
> Again, depends on what you're listening too. Not to pick on pop/rock too much (okay,
> so I am) but if that's your reference point, I understand that sentiment. Often
> second-rate poetry, sung by a overworked or simply ugly tonality, mixed (buried?) by
> the producers/engineers for whatever reason (perhaps the first two just given) --
> yeah, who cares about the words in a product like that?
>
> But a good voice, with good material, properly recorded, is transcendent.
>
> Remember that the voice is the original instrument. It's often the more
> important half of music.
>
>
> >poorly in school, not understanding what people said/say. But, I'd listen t=
> >o a favorite song, and out of nowhere, a lyric jumps out, that I couldn't u=
> >nderstand before! So, I not only gauge the music sound quality, but also ho=
> >w easily I can decipher the lyrics that I once missed.
>
> Again, better monitoring, better production, better things to listen to....
>
>
> >Even Eric Records, once Bill Buster discovered my site, issued better sound=
> >ing versions, since he knew they existed somewhere (posted on my site). And=
> >, yes, that is when I was posting 96kbps MP3s!
>
> Never heard of these folkls.
>
>
> >I THINK everyone here will agree, you do not need a fancy, uncompressed for=
> >mat to determine better sound quality? That's my point.
>
> Yes, but you might appreciate better production as a way to enhance the experience.
>
> Sure, you can watch a stage play out in the city park with nothing more than grass
> and daylight, and get some entertainment value.
>
> But move that to a better environment, with lighting, sets, and sounds to
> appropriately enhance the content, and you'll likely have a deeper, more memorable
> experience.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio

Yeah, Frank, it was in a Photoshop newsgroup, a damsel in distress crying for help. All the pros looked at each other, didn't have a clue how to help the poor girl. So, I asked the fine lady how quickly she needed her graphics done, she yelled yesterday!! I took on the challenge with my cheap software. Maybe 45 minutes later I e-mailed her a proof, she was happier than ever!!...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/shutterwork.gif

Made a fast $50 :-)

Jack


>
> --
> .

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "Perhaps you have set a huge buffer? I don't use WMP, but my MP3's start"

Another piece I forgot to include: This delay does not happen
when playing mp3s via Real Player, WinAmp, iTunes, or
Foobar2000.


So it is definitely a WMP issue, but I'm not willing to
risk the integrity of my machine to uncover it.

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "After Trevor recommend a buffer size increase... "


WRONG. Read his reply three more times: He suggested that
my buffer was already too huge to begin with.

[JackA]

On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 8:35:02 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "After Trevor recommend a buffer size increase... "
>
>
> WRONG. Read his reply three more times: He suggested that
> my buffer was already too huge to begin with.

Yo, it was a JOKE!!!

Jack

[Trevor]

On 14/05/2015 11:55 PM, wrote:
> Trevor wrote: "
>> When I first double-click on a MP3 file, it takes Windows Media
>> Player 60-90 sec to start playing it on my machine.
>
> Perhaps you have set a huge buffer? I don't use WMP, but my MP3's start
> playing immediately even on a slow computer.
>
>
> But notice I added that when double-clicking on subsequent mp3s to
> play them they start playing right away. Only on the first such file do
> I wait that long.

Yes, my point was I don't wait at all even on the first file, and
haven't done for a couple of decades, so you must be doing something wrong.

> Question: What/Where is this buffer of which you speak, and how may
> I adjust it? (Windows Vista)

Check your software player options, Winamp for example has a fairly big
buffer by default, and the file won't start playing straight away, to
allow for online streaming hiccups. I have no experience with WMP, but
it's probably similar I imagine.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 15/05/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
> Trevor wrote: "Perhaps you have set a huge buffer? I don't use WMP, but my MP3's start"
>
> Another piece I forgot to include: This delay does not happen
> when playing mp3s via Real Player, WinAmp, iTunes, or
> Foobar2000.
>
> So it is definitely a WMP issue,

So strongly points to the buffer size being used by WMP is set big to
allow for streaming hiccups. Those other programs are likely set a lot
lower. Or perhaps WMP is just total crap, and the real question is why
do you need to use it if all those other players work OK?

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 16/05/2015 09:40, Trevor wrote:
> On 14/05/2015 11:55 PM, wrote:

>> Question: What/Where is this buffer of which you speak, and how may
>> I adjust it? (Windows Vista)
>
> Check your software player options, Winamp for example has a fairly big
> buffer by default, and the file won't start playing straight away, to
> allow for online streaming hiccups. I have no experience with WMP, but
> it's probably similar I imagine.
>
I don't use WMP if I can help it, but assuming these are local files,
it's possible it's downloading a decoder plug in, which then stays
resident until the next time WMP is closed down. MP3 isn't one of the
favoured formats for WMP, which likes WMA files.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

Trevor, John Williamson:


The problem is I have been living with this
WMP issue since 2011, when I rebuilt my
PC after my HD crashed. No other issues
with Vista SP2 besides this Media Player
MP3 playing issue.


Does MP have a buffer setting in one of its
options tabs?

[Trevor]

On 16/05/2015 8:47 PM, wrote:
> Trevor, John Williamson:
>
>
> The problem is I have been living with this
> WMP issue since 2011, when I rebuilt my
> PC after my HD crashed. No other issues
> with Vista SP2 besides this Media Player
> MP3 playing issue.
>
>
> Does MP have a buffer setting in one of its
> options tabs?

No idea, have you looked?
Why *must* you use WMP and not one of the many other players you said
work OK? I have found no reason to ever use it myself.

Trevor.

[Frank Stearns]

JackA > writes:


-snips-

>> are many systems I'm forgetting here.
>>=20
>> So, digital has been happening way earlier then 2000.

>I do not believe, because computers were way too slow to process audio.

They did indeed process audio, but not in the way we're used to now. There were
several "cheats" -- such as using 13-15 bits (not 16, even though labeled as such),
and no full-blown real-time manipulation, along with very limited track counts.
Typically two, but a bit later four.

So, for example, you might audition a single mono track for, say, EQ or compression
in a kind of crappy-sounding preview mode, then "apply" and the track would be
updated, offline, with whatever you wanted. You waited - 2x, 3x, 10x and up the
runtime of the track for the processing; then you could play the track in real time
again -- and you're permanently committed that change, unless you had a backup of
the original data.

>Even when I and others were told about these new fangled MP3s (early 2000?)=
>, a young friend in WI informed me of them and recommended Goldwave softwar=
>e. Besides, Frank, I've seen it one too many times, people get these top do=
>g audio apps and don't even know how to use them!!

There's knowing what the buttons do, and then there's having the good aesthetic
sense of how to use those buttons to get a sound.


>Even with these MOGGS multi-track files, others claimed you had (upgrade) t=
>o a current version of Audacity to mix/encode them. How untrue that claim i=
>s/was!

Protools shop here.


>Your Scott tells me there's no such thing as varying DC offset, yet, the au=
>thor of Goldwave knew there should be a way to correct it! So, tell me, how=
> many know how to use software.

Er, Scott told you that because there is NO SUCH THING AS "VARYING DC OFFSET". By
simple definition, DC does not vary -- if it does, it's no longer DC!

Now, you might have a something that looks like a shifting offset, in which case you
could perhaps find and apply a suitable high-pass filter.


>Actually, I encoded my first MP3 under DOS (Win 95). Even at 128kpbs, I wen=
>t to the store and returned, because I saw how slow the progress was!! Actu=
>ally, I still have the 95 computer!!! WinME, one, too! :-)
>I loved DOS, but too many illiterate people couldn't remember a handful of =
>commands to save their life. So, tell me how people and computers work.

If you liked DOS, try a real command-line driven OS such as UNIX.


>I ask, what digital software and what computer were used. I claim computers=
> were too slow, but you make it sound like their were full of speed at 100M=
>Hz CPU!!

See earlier part of this post.


>I'm GUESSING that HDCD encoding stuff was a self contained digital unit tha=
>t processed sound. Why Microsoft scarfed it up quickly! Remind me to post a=
>n HDCD I found in the budget bin, Joni Mitchell, odd sound.

Something might have been wrong with your player. One of the Mitchell HDCDs I have
and played on a regular CD player (but a good one, a modified Pioneed PD75), sounded
quite good. But a lot of that was just excellent engineering and hardware that paid
much closer attention to the quality of each link of signal chain all the way
through the process, not just the HDCD portion. (Pacific Microsonics was the
pioneer. Look them up and read about the history.)

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>JackA > writes:
>>> are many systems I'm forgetting here.
>>>=20
>>> So, digital has been happening way earlier then 2000.
>
>>I do not believe, because computers were way too slow to process audio.
>
>They did indeed process audio, but not in the way we're used to now.

The CD, a digital format, became very popular in the 1980s.

In the early part of the era, though, digital recording usually didn't include
computers at all. Hell, I just recorded to DTRS last night. Well, I suppose
there is an 8051 in there to control the transport, but it's not got any audio
going through it...
--scott

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

[geoff]

On 16/05/2015 12:33 a.m., wrote:
> Trevor wrote: "Perhaps you have set a huge buffer? I don't use WMP, but my MP3's start"
>
> Another piece I forgot to include: This delay does not happen
> when playing mp3s via Real Player, WinAmp, iTunes, or
> Foobar2000.
>
>
> So it is definitely a WMP issue, but I'm not willing to
> risk the integrity of my machine to uncover it.
>


A 2011 computer running Vista has no integrity. Way past time for an
upgrade. Can be had for next to nothing if you buy a 'used', say, i7
with Win7(64) on it.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 17/05/2015 09:39, geoff wrote:

> A 2011 computer running Vista has no integrity. Way past time for an
> upgrade. Can be had for next to nothing if you buy a 'used', say, i7
> with Win7(64) on it.
>
Vista will be supported by Microsoft until April 2017, so is no less
secure than any other Microsoft operating system that is currently being
supported, which includes XP, if you pay for the extended support
package, as many large businesses have. Upgrading to Windows 7 only gets
an extra 3 years of support.

If the Vista system is currently operating stably, there's no benefit in
upgrading yet, and if the hardware will support it (there's a
compatibility checker on the Microsft website), then wait a month or two
and upgrade to Windows 10 and hope that your software is still able to run.

In any case, Windows Media Player will change version from 11 in Vista
to 12 in any later system, which may cure the original problem.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "In any case, Windows
Media Player will change version from 11 in Vista
to 12 in any later system, which may cure the original
problem. "


I have a HP laptop with 8 on it and WMP is SOO
dumbed down! You can't even access the equalizer
on the thing. With OS upgrades, at least for the last
5 years it's been trading one good feature for another-
not so useful - feature.


My iPhone 4 is still on iOS 6 - and won't BlueTooth with
anything any longer. But that's not as important to me
as other features on ios 6 that were sacrificed on
7, 8, and so on - such as separating downloaded
or produced podcast episodes from my music.

[[email protected]]

Check all the menus.
On win7 the wmp eq is now hidden in some lower menu.
I think it is called enhancements or something stupid.
And now it floats in a separate window.
It is frustrating when newer versions ruin some nice features.

Mark

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 17-05-2015 09:39, geoff wrote:

> A 2011 computer running Vista has no integrity. Way past time for an
> upgrade. Can be had for next to nothing if you buy a 'used', say, i7
> with Win7(64) on it.

The only real problem with Vista is that the 32-bit version never should
have been, it should have been 64 bit only.

This here box ran a second hand Vista64 until the OS went on strike, my
guess is that the seller had kept the first installed box and but it
back online, but I don't know for a fact if that is so. Now it is
running Win7-64 and the only major change is that classic desktop no
longer is selectable.

But Vista32 ... "what are we waiting for" on all but one PC I have
encountered with it on.


> geoff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Phil W[_3_]]

geoff:
> On 16/05/2015 12:33 a.m., wrote:
>> Trevor wrote: "Perhaps you have set a huge buffer? I don't use WMP, but
>> my MP3's start"
>>
>> Another piece I forgot to include: This delay does not happen
>> when playing mp3s via Real Player, WinAmp, iTunes, or
>> Foobar2000.
>>
>> So it is definitely a WMP issue, but I'm not willing to
>> risk the integrity of my machine to uncover it.

Utter bull****, sorry, but that´s the plain truth! WMP on XP was not the
greatest player, but it worked "normally" even on pretty junked up systems.
The Win7 WMP (probably the same as in Vista) has been pretty much my only
media player, since it supports a whole lot more file formats and "just
works". When doubleclicking a mp3 file, it takes a bit to start the program,
which is due to other factors on this particular machine setup, but starts
playing immediately when ready (that´s maybe 2-3 seconds after double
clicking). If WMP is already running, a double-clicked mp3 starts playing
immediately.
If a Windows system takes so looooooong for this task, there´s something
seriously gone wrong.
Try setting up a new user and check for WMP behaviour with only this new
user logged on.
Anyway, I´d strongly suggest to re-install Windows from scratch - including
the latest available drivers for *all* components!

> A 2011 computer running Vista has no integrity. Way past time for an
> upgrade. Can be had for next to nothing if you buy a 'used', say, i7 with
> Win7(64) on it.

Well, an i7 computer might be not sooo cheap, unfortunately. An i5 will do
the job in most cases.
Windows 7 is much more preferrable above Vista and worth the effort of doing
a fresh (re-)install.

Phil

[JackA]

On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 3:31:21 PM UTC-4, Phil W wrote:
> geoff:
> > On 16/05/2015 12:33 a.m., wrote:
> >> Trevor wrote: "Perhaps you have set a huge buffer? I don't use WMP, but
> >> my MP3's start"
> >>
> >> Another piece I forgot to include: This delay does not happen
> >> when playing mp3s via Real Player, WinAmp, iTunes, or
> >> Foobar2000.
> >>
> >> So it is definitely a WMP issue, but I'm not willing to
> >> risk the integrity of my machine to uncover it.
>
> Utter bull****, sorry, but that´s the plain truth! WMP on XP was not the
> greatest player, but it worked "normally" even on pretty junked up systems.
> The Win7 WMP (probably the same as in Vista) has been pretty much my only
> media player, since it supports a whole lot more file formats and "just
> works". When doubleclicking a mp3 file, it takes a bit to start the program,
> which is due to other factors on this particular machine setup, but starts
> playing immediately when ready (that´s maybe 2-3 seconds after double
> clicking). If WMP is already running, a double-clicked mp3 starts playing
> immediately.
> If a Windows system takes so looooooong for this task, there´s something
> seriously gone wrong.
> Try setting up a new user and check for WMP behaviour with only this new
> user logged on.
> Anyway, I´d strongly suggest to re-install Windows from scratch - including
> the latest available drivers for *all* components!
>
> > A 2011 computer running Vista has no integrity. Way past time for an
> > upgrade. Can be had for next to nothing if you buy a 'used', say, i7 with
> > Win7(64) on it.
>
> Well, an i7 computer might be not sooo cheap, unfortunately. An i5 will do
> the job in most cases.
> Windows 7 is much more preferrable above Vista and worth the effort of doing
> a fresh (re-)install.

Win 7 sucks. It's made for brainless people.

XP was the last decent OS M$ offered. Since then, all downhill.
And, no, I'm not for 64 bit, forces upgrade of all software, sometimes that's not a possibility. Win 7 does have a virtual XP, but still.

Jack

>
> Phil

[John Williamson]

On 18/05/2015 20:53, JackA wrote:
>
> Win 7 sucks. It's made for brainless people.
>
Most intelligent people prefer it to XP. It boots faster, it is more
secure, and it is more stable. I've heard of very few Windows 7 systems
that fall over regularly, but have experience of several things that I
could accidentally do on XP that could make it fall over.

I have also had problems with a bluetooth mouse driver making a Windows
8.1 machine fall over spectacularly in the last few days.

> XP was the last decent OS M$ offered. Since then, all downhill.
> And, no, I'm not for 64 bit, forces upgrade of all software, sometimes that's not a possibility. Win 7 does have a virtual XP, but still.
>
It's been going downhill since DOS 5. That was fast, stable, small, and
if you wanted pretty pictures, you could run Windows on top of it.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 5:15:06 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 18/05/2015 20:53, JackA wrote:
> >
> > Win 7 sucks. It's made for brainless people.
> >
> Most intelligent people prefer it to XP. It boots faster, it is more
> secure, and it is more stable. I've heard of very few Windows 7 systems
> that fall over regularly, but have experience of several things that I
> could accidentally do on XP that could make it fall over.

- Secure? How many more times is M$ going to bother me with security updates!? Never ends. People upgrade because they generally have no choice.

>
> I have also had problems with a bluetooth mouse driver making a Windows
> 8.1 machine fall over spectacularly in the last few days.
>
> > XP was the last decent OS M$ offered. Since then, all downhill.
> > And, no, I'm not for 64 bit, forces upgrade of all software, sometimes that's not a possibility. Win 7 does have a virtual XP, but still.
> >
> It's been going downhill since DOS 5. That was fast, stable, small, and
> if you wanted pretty pictures, you could run Windows on top of it.

Yeah!!! Maybe you remember DOS Shell, Ctrl + Tab through each of the running apps, err, programs!! How about those Batch files to get you work done!!

Jack
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[Frank Stearns]

JackA > writes:

snips

>Win 7 sucks. It's made for brainless people.

I felt much the same, but was forced to use it for a number of reasons and after
using it now for 6 months, I am mostly a convert.

Win7 CAN be largely brought to heel. Get David Karp's book "Windows 7 Annoyances"
for a number of fixes. Oh, and use Win7 Pro. Don't bother with the stripped down
version.

>XP was the last decent OS M$ offered. Since then, all downhill.

Yes and no. Win7 can be faster and more stable if set up properly. Still, it won't
run some old (and valuable) apps, no matter what the worthless "compatibility
wizard" tells you.

A solution here is the *free* emulator from Oracle called "Virtual Box." You can set
it to run a number of different operating systems on various hosts. I use mine to
run XP on Win7 to get access to some vital old business applications. My customer
database, for example, goes back nearly 40 years; re-coding for Win7 would have been
a nightmare. The last major re-code was in 1996 to get it into Win95. Fortunately,
that code still runs fine under XP, which now runs in the Virtual Box emulator in
Win7. Incredibly fast, and more stable than it's ever been. And everyone plays nice
with one another.

>And, no, I'm not for 64 bit, forces upgrade of all software, sometimes that=
>'s not a possibility. Win 7 does have a virtual XP, but still.

It's not 32 v 64 bits itself that's the issue; the incompatabilities are far more
subtle and deeper. And, you never know just what might run or not run. Some ancient
utilities work fine under Win7 while newer programs that ought to run simply do not.

The Windows emulator sucks; too many limitations and it's clunky. In fact, I never
did get it to work properly. Get the Oracle product. Installation is a breeze, makes
sense, and it's stable.

As far as 64 bit, very necessary these days to get reasonable performance with (or
even access to) large apps and large files, such as those you might run into with
big audio or video projects.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[geoff]

On 20/05/2015 5:45 a.m., JackA wrote:
> I can't stand Win7 Pro, it's far from Pro, like, "Sorry, you can't
> place your photo here!!"

Win 7 to me (and many others) appears superior in stability and speed.
But then there is that HORRIBLE 'Libraries' paradigm that interferes
with putting things where you want, and finding them again from the
place you want, and deciding what info you want in the Explorer columns
(which is usually NOT the info I want).

There are ways to get rid of this behaviour. Google.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 19/05/2015 23:47, geoff wrote:
> On 20/05/2015 5:45 a.m., JackA wrote:
>> I can't stand Win7 Pro, it's far from Pro, like, "Sorry, you can't
>> place your photo here!!"
>
> Win 7 to me (and many others) appears superior in stability and speed.
> But then there is that HORRIBLE 'Libraries' paradigm that interferes
> with putting things where you want, and finding them again from the
> place you want, and deciding what info you want in the Explorer columns
> (which is usually NOT the info I want).
>
> There are ways to get rid of this behaviour. Google.
>
It only takes a few clicks and a bit of typing to tame the libraries to
work for you instead of against you. Set the libraries to contain the
directories you want to save to, or even create a new library just for
your work or a particular project. It also works in Windows 8, and
presumably will in Windows 10 when that comes out properly.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 4:02:34 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 19/05/2015 23:47, geoff wrote:
> > On 20/05/2015 5:45 a.m., JackA wrote:
> >> I can't stand Win7 Pro, it's far from Pro, like, "Sorry, you can't
> >> place your photo here!!"
> >
> > Win 7 to me (and many others) appears superior in stability and speed.
> > But then there is that HORRIBLE 'Libraries' paradigm that interferes
> > with putting things where you want, and finding them again from the
> > place you want, and deciding what info you want in the Explorer columns
> > (which is usually NOT the info I want).
> >
> > There are ways to get rid of this behaviour. Google.
> >
> It only takes a few clicks and a bit of typing to tame the libraries to
> work for you instead of against you. Set the libraries to contain the
> directories you want to save to, or even create a new library just for
> your work or a particular project. It also works in Windows 8, and
> presumably will in Windows 10 when that comes out properly.

A link would be helpful!!

Jack

>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[John Williamson]

On 20/05/2015 13:10, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 4:02:34 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 19/05/2015 23:47, geoff wrote:
>>> On 20/05/2015 5:45 a.m., JackA wrote:
>>>> I can't stand Win7 Pro, it's far from Pro, like, "Sorry, you can't
>>>> place your photo here!!"
>>>
>>> Win 7 to me (and many others) appears superior in stability and speed.
>>> But then there is that HORRIBLE 'Libraries' paradigm that interferes
>>> with putting things where you want, and finding them again from the
>>> place you want, and deciding what info you want in the Explorer columns
>>> (which is usually NOT the info I want).
>>>
>>> There are ways to get rid of this behaviour. Google.
>>>
>> It only takes a few clicks and a bit of typing to tame the libraries to
>> work for you instead of against you. Set the libraries to contain the
>> directories you want to save to, or even create a new library just for
>> your work or a particular project. It also works in Windows 8, and
>> presumably will in Windows 10 when that comes out properly.
>
> A link would be helpful!!
>
The procedure is documented in the Windows Help system.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 2:13:15 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 20/05/2015 13:10, JackA wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 4:02:34 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 19/05/2015 23:47, geoff wrote:
> >>> On 20/05/2015 5:45 a.m., JackA wrote:
> >>>> I can't stand Win7 Pro, it's far from Pro, like, "Sorry, you can't
> >>>> place your photo here!!"
> >>>
> >>> Win 7 to me (and many others) appears superior in stability and speed.
> >>> But then there is that HORRIBLE 'Libraries' paradigm that interferes
> >>> with putting things where you want, and finding them again from the
> >>> place you want, and deciding what info you want in the Explorer columns
> >>> (which is usually NOT the info I want).
> >>>
> >>> There are ways to get rid of this behaviour. Google.
> >>>
> >> It only takes a few clicks and a bit of typing to tame the libraries to
> >> work for you instead of against you. Set the libraries to contain the
> >> directories you want to save to, or even create a new library just for
> >> your work or a particular project. It also works in Windows 8, and
> >> presumably will in Windows 10 when that comes out properly.
> >
> > A link would be helpful!!
> >
> The procedure is documented in the Windows Help system.

I'll just take Frank's suggestion and purchase that book!!!

Jack
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 3:26:43 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 2:13:15 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> > On 20/05/2015 13:10, JackA wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 4:02:34 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> > >> On 19/05/2015 23:47, geoff wrote:
> > >>> On 20/05/2015 5:45 a.m., JackA wrote:
> > >>>> I can't stand Win7 Pro, it's far from Pro, like, "Sorry, you can't
> > >>>> place your photo here!!"
> > >>>
> > >>> Win 7 to me (and many others) appears superior in stability and speed.
> > >>> But then there is that HORRIBLE 'Libraries' paradigm that interferes
> > >>> with putting things where you want, and finding them again from the
> > >>> place you want, and deciding what info you want in the Explorer columns
> > >>> (which is usually NOT the info I want).
> > >>>
> > >>> There are ways to get rid of this behaviour. Google.
> > >>>
> > >> It only takes a few clicks and a bit of typing to tame the libraries to
> > >> work for you instead of against you. Set the libraries to contain the
> > >> directories you want to save to, or even create a new library just for
> > >> your work or a particular project. It also works in Windows 8, and
> > >> presumably will in Windows 10 when that comes out properly.
> > >
> > > A link would be helpful!!
> > >
> > The procedure is documented in the Windows Help system.
>
> I'll just take Frank's suggestion and purchase that book!!!
>
> Jack
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tciao for Now!
> >
> > John.

I see I can fix this problem. Sad M$ can't design a reliable OS. But, hey, their programmer can't even speak English....

http://www.sevenforums.com/bsod-help-support/19169-right-click-causes-explorer-crash-fix.html

[John Williamson]

On 20/05/2015 21:19, JackA wrote:

> I see I can fix this problem. Sad M$ can't design a reliable OS. But, hey, their programmer can't even speak English....
>
Rule number one of computing. *All* operating systems crash. Rule two.
All operating systems suck, some more than others.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 4:27:12 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 20/05/2015 21:19, JackA wrote:
>
> > I see I can fix this problem. Sad M$ can't design a reliable OS. But, hey, their programmer can't even speak English....
> >
> Rule number one of computing. *All* operating systems crash. Rule two.
> All operating systems suck, some more than others.

LOL! Now you're talking my language!

Footnote: The excuse I got from Blaster: "Sir, we do not have control over what marketing does".

Jack
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[JackA]

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 11:17:53 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> JackA > writes:
>
>
> -snips-
>
> >> are many systems I'm forgetting here.
> >>=20
> >> So, digital has been happening way earlier then 2000.
>
> >I do not believe, because computers were way too slow to process audio.
>
> They did indeed process audio, but not in the way we're used to now. There were
> several "cheats" -- such as using 13-15 bits (not 16, even though labeled as such),
> and no full-blown real-time manipulation, along with very limited track counts.
> Typically two, but a bit later four.
>
> So, for example, you might audition a single mono track for, say, EQ or compression
> in a kind of crappy-sounding preview mode, then "apply" and the track would be
> updated, offline, with whatever you wanted. You waited - 2x, 3x, 10x and up the
> runtime of the track for the processing; then you could play the track in real time
> again -- and you're permanently committed that change, unless you had a backup of
> the original data.
>
> >Even when I and others were told about these new fangled MP3s (early 2000?)=
> >, a young friend in WI informed me of them and recommended Goldwave softwar=
> >e. Besides, Frank, I've seen it one too many times, people get these top do=
> >g audio apps and don't even know how to use them!!
>
> There's knowing what the buttons do, and then there's having the good aesthetic
> sense of how to use those buttons to get a sound.
>
>
> >Even with these MOGGS multi-track files, others claimed you had (upgrade) t=
> >o a current version of Audacity to mix/encode them. How untrue that claim i=
> >s/was!
>
> Protools shop here.
>
>
> >Your Scott tells me there's no such thing as varying DC offset, yet, the au=
> >thor of Goldwave knew there should be a way to correct it! So, tell me, how=
> > many know how to use software.
>
> Er, Scott told you that because there is NO SUCH THING AS "VARYING DC OFFSET".

And? Should I tell the developer of Goldwave that he is stupid, because some stranger who hangs in usenet said there was no such thing. Scott is like most people, lacks logic.

Jack

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 7:17:09 PM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
> FLAC = free lossless audio codec.
> lossless = no information lost
>
> Pros:
>
> 1. audio is IDENTICAL to original
>
> 2. file size is smaller than linear PCM .wav
>
> Con: file size is bigger than .mp3 and other lossy compression schemes.

But, not one was complaining when Fender guitar amps easily hit 5% THD.
Tube amps, prior to solid state, had noticeable distortion, but the world didn't end.

With music, even voice, it becomes difficult to detect distortion below 1%.

Thing is, people become panicky when they read about the loss issue of MP3s. Even before free DAW, when people couldn't "see" music, no one was complaining about loudness.

That's all.

Jack

>
> Done.
>
> (Please consider this bull****: http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/)
> --
> Randy Yates
> Digital Signal Labs
> http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[PStamler]

On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 12:05:06 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:

> Are file sizes really an issue any more? Storage capacity has been
> soaring, and I know I will never again be running out of hard drive.
> Straight LPCM is my only storage method now.

Mine too. Storage capacity isn't a limiting factor anymore for most uses. Download time is, however, to the people who don't have access to superspeed Internet pipes.

Peace,
Paul

[[email protected]]

>>lossless = no information lost

Not 100% true.

"Information" includes any cue points (index points) embedded in
the WAV file. These are usually lost when making a FLAC.

It can be saved and restored only with the
"--keep-foreign-metadata" option, in FLAC version 1.2.1 or newer.


I read that SoundForge also saves and restores cue points in FLAC
files. If so, I suppose it injects the above option in its DLL
call.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
> wrote:
>>>lossless = no information lost
>
>Not 100% true.
>
>"Information" includes any cue points (index points) embedded in
>the WAV file. These are usually lost when making a FLAC.
>
>It can be saved and restored only with the
>"--keep-foreign-metadata" option, in FLAC version 1.2.1 or newer.

You know, that's an interesting point. The audio is lossless, but the
metadata may or may not be. Index points are easy to transfer, but
you can put an awful lot of metadata in a .bwv file.
--scott

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