Playing time of mp3 v uncompressed

[jason]

If an uncompressed PCM file is converted to MP3 (or some other compressed
format), will the duration of both be exactly the same?

[John Williamson]

On 18/05/2015 16:32, Jason wrote:
> If an uncompressed PCM file is converted to MP3 (or some other compressed
> format), will the duration of both be exactly the same?
>
Yes.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jason wrote:
> If an uncompressed PCM file is converted to MP3 (or some other compressed
> format), will the duration of both be exactly the same?
>


It depends. So no.

With LAME, you will sometimes get a few samples difference in size.
Usually the .mp3 is offset a little and a tad longer.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Jason > wrote:
>If an uncompressed PCM file is converted to MP3 (or some other compressed
>format), will the duration of both be exactly the same?

Probably, but there is no guarantee of sample-accuracy at all with MP3.
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 11:32:59 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
> If an uncompressed PCM file is converted to MP3 (or some other compressed
> format), will the duration of both be exactly the same?

I wouldn't worry; I only say that because I never heard of it being an issue for anyone. Maybe 15 years ago, encoding errors may have caused MP3 speed problems, but CPUs, etc. are faster.

[jason]

On Mon, 18 May 2015 12:05:41 -0700 (PDT) "JackA" >
wrote in article >
>
> On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 11:32:59 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
> > If an uncompressed PCM file is converted to MP3 (or some other compressed
> > format), will the duration of both be exactly the same?
>
> I wouldn't worry; I only say that because I never heard of it being an issue for anyone. Maybe 15 years ago, encoding errors may have caused MP3 speed problems, but CPUs, etc. are faster.

It should have nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of CPU's... It's a
straight digital transformation.

[[email protected]]

I did recently have a problem with Variable-Bitrate MP3s
that I ripped to audio CD for playback, and they had a skippy
quality that I cannot quite describe. I re-exported those
files to Constant Bitrate, ripped them to CD, problem gone.

[hank alrich]

Jason > wrote:

> It should have nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of CPU's... It's a
> straight digital transformation.

You may intelligently ignore any post from a troll, who has yet to post
anything of merit here.

AFAICT, even if he wanted to talk about audio, he is unequipped to do
so, as he knows nothing, at all, about audio, let alone about the
question you asked.

Both Les Cargill and Scott Dorsey have responded from cogent personal
knowledge bases.

(And to all of you who keep feeding the troll, worrying about the peanut
gallery, this is what you are reaping, here. Please just stop.)

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

[jason]

On Mon, 18 May 2015 21:15:32 -0500 "hank alrich" > wrote
in article >
> Both Les Cargill and Scott Dorsey have responded from cogent personal
> knowledge bases.
>

...which I appreciate!

I asked on behalf of a friend, an artist, who's making
a multi-media work using four media player gadgets I'd never
seen: http://www.miccatron.com/micca-speck/ (Cute!)

She starts all simultaneously with an IR remote and notes that
one of the four drifts out of sync with the other three but only
after 2 hours. I think she's lucky! The content--video + audio--is
different on each but they are related so that drift becomes
noticeable (after 2 hours). She wondered if something in the
compression of the audio (and video) might have affected that. I don't
think so.

I suggested that she try to make sure all four are at the same
temperature - she has them stacked now so the one on top is very
warm. They can be arranged differently. Like I said, hours without
much drift is probably as good as it gets, but crystals are
temp sensitive so equalizing that may help. A little...

[Ralph Barone[_2_]]

hank alrich > wrote:
> Jason > wrote:
>
>> It should have nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of CPU's... It's a
>> straight digital transformation.
>
> You may intelligently ignore any post from a troll, who has yet to post
> anything of merit here.
>
> AFAICT, even if he wanted to talk about audio, he is unequipped to do
> so, as he knows nothing, at all, about audio, let alone about the
> question you asked.
>
> Both Les Cargill and Scott Dorsey have responded from cogent personal
> knowledge bases.
>
> (And to all of you who keep feeding the troll, worrying about the peanut
> gallery, this is what you are reaping, here. Please just stop.)


As I understand it, MP3 files consist of a sequence of frames, each of
which contains some number of ms of audio (26?), so I would assume that
pretty much every MP3 file out there would have a marginally longer playing
time than the uncompressed original.

[[email protected]]

>
> She starts all simultaneously with an IR remote and notes that
> one of the four drifts out of sync with the other three but only
> after 2 hours. I think she's lucky! The content--video + audio--is
> different on each but they are related so that drift becomes
> noticeable (after 2 hours). She wondered if something in the
> compression of the audio (and video) might have affected that. I don't
> think so.
>
if I understood correctly you have 4 nomininally the same devices and you want to playback 4 files and remain in sync (lip sync)??? for 2 hours and the problem you have is 1 device drifts out of sync.

THe first experiment is to swap around devices and files. This will tell you, is it always the same FILE that gets out of sync or is it always the same DEVICE.


I would consider finding some natural break in the material every 1/2 hour or so where the devices can all be stopped for a short time and restarted so they getback in sync.

Or you can find a local electronics wizard that may be able to custom modify the 4 devices so they can all run off of a common clock.

Mark

[JackA]

On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 8:48:03 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> I did recently have a problem with Variable-Bitrate MP3s
> that I ripped to audio CD for playback, and they had a skippy
> quality that I cannot quite describe. I re-exported those
> files to Constant Bitrate, ripped them to CD, problem gone.

Many of the 128kb MP3s people made back in the Napster file trading days sounded poor. Was it due to software or computers. I'd say computers.

Let me ask you (and others), do you have a preference, Joint or Stereo MP3 encoding?

If so, why either?

Thanks.

Jack

[jason]

On Tue, 19 May 2015 06:33:46 -0700 (PDT) "
> wrote in article <ffc9d896-30ab-470d-84e3-
>
> if I understood correctly you have 4 nomininally the same devices and you want to playback 4 files and remain in sync (lip sync)??? for 2 hours and the problem you have is 1 device drifts out of sync.
>
> THe first experiment is to swap around devices and files. This will tell you, is it always the same FILE that gets out of sync or is it always the same DEVICE.
>
>
> I would consider finding some natural break in the material every 1/2 hour or so where the devices can all be stopped for a short time and restarted so they getback in sync.
>
> Or you can find a local electronics wizard that may be able to custom modify the 4 devices so they can all run off of a common clock.
>
> Mark
>
No need for lip sync - that's more precision than required.
She has been doing the swapping you suggest and seems as of yesterday
to have identified one of the four players as the laggard - doesn't
seem to have anything to do with the files. She has six players and
is now doing some more swapping... The suggestion to periodically restart
everything is a good one and she's done that before. The trouble is
that the final installation for this setup is in a local museum where
she won't be on hand to push any buttons. (There might be a way to
fix that with some tinkering - probably simpler than modifying the
players to use a common clock, which circuitry is probably buried
amongs the surface-mount devices.....)

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "Let me ask you (and others), do you have a preference,
Joint or Stereo MP3 encoding? "


I ripped all of "Experienced" to 256kb Joint Mp3 in one folder, and 256kb Full stereo
in another. The difference in total size? Less than one half-MB!


Wanna save space? Go variable bitrate. But constant if you write to
CD-R.

[John Williamson]

On 19/05/2015 16:33, JackA wrote:
> On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 8:48:03 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>> I did recently have a problem with Variable-Bitrate MP3s
>> that I ripped to audio CD for playback, and they had a skippy
>> quality that I cannot quite describe. I re-exported those
>> files to Constant Bitrate, ripped them to CD, problem gone.
>
> Many of the 128kb MP3s people made back in the Napster file trading days sounded poor. Was it due to software or computers. I'd say computers.
>
Software. The type of computer makes no difference to the finished file,
as all it does is manipulate data according to the instructions given to
it by the program. The settings within the program can, however, make a
significant difference to the resulting output file, and in the early
days of MP3 encoding, computers were slow enough to make it worthwhile
trading a loss in output quality against a higher encoding speed.

Early versions of "MP3" encoders which weren't the real Fraunhofer one
did jobs varying from diabolically bad to better than the real thing.
The Fraunhofer encoder was optimised to produce its best results at
128kbps, constant rate, and on speech. Using 192kbps on the Fraunhofer
encoder could produce worse sounding files than using the default bit rate.

> Let me ask you (and others), do you have a preference, Joint or Stereo MP3 encoding?
>
> If so, why either?
>
It depends on the original.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Frank Stearns]

JackA > writes:

>On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 8:48:03 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>> I did recently have a problem with Variable-Bitrate MP3s
>> that I ripped to audio CD for playback, and they had a skippy
>> quality that I cannot quite describe. I re-exported those
>> files to Constant Bitrate, ripped them to CD, problem gone.

>Many of the 128kb MP3s people made back in the Napster file trading days sounded
>poor. Was it due to software or computers. I'd say computers.

Incorrect. The computers were only doing what they "were told" by the algorithms.
Given the same algorithm and input data, the output from a "slow" or "fast"
computer will be bit-identical. It's just that one machine can do the job more
quickly than the other.

You could say that slow computers had an indirect impact in that the immediate
gratification crowd would not sit still for the slower machines to encode at a
higher bit rate, or use a more sophisticated algorithm. Insted, they settled on
crappier standards that required less computational power and thus less time. (Not
mention getting 50,000 tunes on your ipod instead of a measely 10,000.)

But there's no excuse these days. Storage is realtively cheap and one can encode a
very good sounding 320 Kbps MP3 in 1/20 of realtime whereas in the old days that
same encoding might have taken 5x, 10x realtime, even more.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[JackA]

On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 11:24:30 PM UTC-4, Ralph Barone wrote:
> hank alrich > wrote:
> > Jason > wrote:
> >
> >> It should have nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of CPU's... It's a
> >> straight digital transformation.
> >
> > You may intelligently ignore any post from a troll, who has yet to post
> > anything of merit here.
> >
> > AFAICT, even if he wanted to talk about audio, he is unequipped to do
> > so, as he knows nothing, at all, about audio, let alone about the
> > question you asked.
> >
> > Both Les Cargill and Scott Dorsey have responded from cogent personal
> > knowledge bases.
> >
> > (And to all of you who keep feeding the troll, worrying about the peanut
> > gallery, this is what you are reaping, here. Please just stop.)
>
>
> As I understand it, MP3 files consist of a sequence of frames, each of
> which contains some number of ms of audio (26?), so I would assume that
> pretty much every MP3 file out there would have a marginally longer playing
> time than the uncompressed original.

"Which yields ~26ms per frame. For a different sampling rate you would get a different duration. The key is MPEG audio always represents a fixed number of samples per frame, but the time duration of each sample is dependent on the sampling rate".

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6294807/calculate-mpeg-frame-length-ms

Jack

[[email protected]]

The issue with VBR is that the number of samples per second
varies with complexity/other factors in the track. CDDA(Compact Disc
Digital Audio) players do not like that.

[Scott Dorsey]

Jason > wrote:
>She starts all simultaneously with an IR remote and notes that
>one of the four drifts out of sync with the other three but only
>after 2 hours. I think she's lucky! The content--video + audio--is
>different on each but they are related so that drift becomes
>noticeable (after 2 hours). She wondered if something in the
>compression of the audio (and video) might have affected that. I don't
>think so.

Noticeable drift after 2 hours is pretty damn good!

Switch the mp3 files between two devices and see if the problem follows
the device or the file. I bet the clock on the device is a little slow.

>I suggested that she try to make sure all four are at the same
>temperature - she has them stacked now so the one on top is very
>warm. They can be arranged differently. Like I said, hours without
>much drift is probably as good as it gets, but crystals are
>temp sensitive so equalizing that may help. A little...

You can buy precision crystals and you can buy three-cent ceramic resonators....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 1:02:37 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> The issue with VBR is that the number of samples per second
> varies with complexity/other factors in the track. CDDA(Compact Disc
> Digital Audio) players do not like that.

your terminology is a little off

SAMPLING rate and BIT rate are two different thing

The sampling rate is the pre compressed bit rate.

the SAMPLING rate is fixed usually at 44.1 ksps.
You can select to use other sampling rates, but it is still fixed and does not vary dynamically.

When you select VBR, the MP3 Compression rate can vary dynamically increasing for complex sounds and decreasing for simpler sounds but AVERAGING out at the selected bit rate 128 kbps for example. The original SAMPLING rate still remains fixed.

Mark

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 19 May 2015 14:16:44 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Jason > wrote:
>>She starts all simultaneously with an IR remote and notes that
>>one of the four drifts out of sync with the other three but only
>>after 2 hours. I think she's lucky! The content--video + audio--is
>>different on each but they are related so that drift becomes
>>noticeable (after 2 hours). She wondered if something in the
>>compression of the audio (and video) might have affected that. I don't
>>think so.
>
>Noticeable drift after 2 hours is pretty damn good!
>
>Switch the mp3 files between two devices and see if the problem follows
>the device or the file. I bet the clock on the device is a little slow.
>
>>I suggested that she try to make sure all four are at the same
>>temperature - she has them stacked now so the one on top is very
>>warm. They can be arranged differently. Like I said, hours without
>>much drift is probably as good as it gets, but crystals are
>>temp sensitive so equalizing that may help. A little...
>
>You can buy precision crystals and you can buy three-cent ceramic resonators....
>--scott

For a couple of thousand bucks you can buy a Rubidium standard
oscillator that you can use to lock all your clocks - it will keep
them in sync for years, never mind minutes.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 19 May 2015 11:22:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 1:02:37 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>> The issue with VBR is that the number of samples per second
>> varies with complexity/other factors in the track. CDDA(Compact Disc
>> Digital Audio) players do not like that.
>
>your terminology is a little off
>
>SAMPLING rate and BIT rate are two different thing
>
>The sampling rate is the pre compressed bit rate.
>
>the SAMPLING rate is fixed usually at 44.1 ksps.
>You can select to use other sampling rates, but it is still fixed and does not vary dynamically.
>
>When you select VBR, the MP3 Compression rate can vary dynamically increasing for complex sounds and decreasing for simpler sounds but AVERAGING out at the selected bit rate 128 kbps for example. The original SAMPLING rate still remains fixed.
>
>Mark
>

You need to multiply the sampling rate by the bit depth and the number
of channels to get the pre-compressed bit rate. Actually it is a bit
higher still because there is a fair amount of housekeeping data that
goes along with the payload bits.

d

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 2:16:48 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Jason > wrote:
> >She starts all simultaneously with an IR remote and notes that
> >one of the four drifts out of sync with the other three but only
> >after 2 hours. I think she's lucky! The content--video + audio--is
> >different on each but they are related so that drift becomes
> >noticeable (after 2 hours). She wondered if something in the
> >compression of the audio (and video) might have affected that. I don't
> >think so.
>
> Noticeable drift after 2 hours is pretty damn good!
>
> Switch the mp3 files between two devices and see if the problem follows
> the device or the file. I bet the clock on the device is a little slow.
>
> >I suggested that she try to make sure all four are at the same
> >temperature - she has them stacked now so the one on top is very
> >warm. They can be arranged differently. Like I said, hours without
> >much drift is probably as good as it gets, but crystals are
> >temp sensitive so equalizing that may help. A little...
>
> You can buy precision crystals and you can buy three-cent ceramic resonators....

Get one of those fancy controlled ovens for crystal oscillators!!

I found a poor replacement for a crystal for CB radio is not a tube signal generator. Boy, the drift!! But, I did manage to contact TX from NJ, early Sun morning, in between CB channels!!

Jack

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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 12:30:51 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 19/05/2015 16:33, JackA wrote:
> > On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 8:48:03 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> >> I did recently have a problem with Variable-Bitrate MP3s
> >> that I ripped to audio CD for playback, and they had a skippy
> >> quality that I cannot quite describe. I re-exported those
> >> files to Constant Bitrate, ripped them to CD, problem gone.
> >
> > Many of the 128kb MP3s people made back in the Napster file trading days sounded poor. Was it due to software or computers. I'd say computers.
> >
> Software. The type of computer makes no difference to the finished file,
> as all it does is manipulate data according to the instructions given to
> it by the program. The settings within the program can, however, make a
> significant difference to the resulting output file, and in the early
> days of MP3 encoding, computers were slow enough to make it worthwhile
> trading a loss in output quality against a higher encoding speed.
>
> Early versions of "MP3" encoders which weren't the real Fraunhofer one
> did jobs varying from diabolically bad to better than the real thing.
> The Fraunhofer encoder was optimised to produce its best results at
> 128kbps, constant rate, and on speech. Using 192kbps on the Fraunhofer
> encoder could produce worse sounding files than using the default bit rate.
>
> > Let me ask you (and others), do you have a preference, Joint or Stereo MP3 encoding?
> >
> > If so, why either?
> >
> It depends on the original.


Oh, oh!! Care to explain, even brief?

I was PROBABLY one off the few here to initially encode an MP3. Was it under Win95, 100-120MHz CPU, but MP3 encoder was DOS based, 8 bit, it took FOREVER to encode, circa Y2k!! Back in those days, RIAA was probably smiling!!

Jack

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

[John Williamson]

On 19/05/2015 20:39, JackA wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 12:30:51 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 19/05/2015 16:33, JackA wrote:
>>> Let me ask you (and others), do you have a preference, Joint or Stereo MP3 encoding?
>>>
>>> If so, why either?
>>>
>> It depends on the original.
>
>
> Oh, oh!! Care to explain, even brief?
>
Joint mode gives a better trade off for perceived quality in the same
disc space where the channels don't have much difference in phase and
amplitude information. It is marginal, though, to the point where most
of the time I just use stereo mode.

> I was PROBABLY one off the few here to initially encode an MP3. Was it under Win95, 100-120MHz CPU, but MP3 encoder was DOS based, 8 bit, it took FOREVER to encode, circa Y2k!! Back in those days, RIAA was probably smiling!!
>
I bought my first HD based MP3 player in 2002 (Archos Jukebox recorder,
20 GB drive), and I encoded stuff for it (slowly) at 128kbps, VBR,
initially using a 486 DX4 computer under Windows 95. I'd been using a
CD-R based one for a year or two, but wasn't over happy with the CD
based unit's bad indexing and poor tracking abilities. That could only
play back CBR files. It also played MPEG videos (Do you remember Video
CD?) through a TV set.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 3:54:34 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 19/05/2015 20:39, JackA wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 12:30:51 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 19/05/2015 16:33, JackA wrote:
> >>> Let me ask you (and others), do you have a preference, Joint or Stereo MP3 encoding?
> >>>
> >>> If so, why either?
> >>>
> >> It depends on the original.
> >
> >
> > Oh, oh!! Care to explain, even brief?
> >
> Joint mode gives a better trade off for perceived quality in the same
> disc space where the channels don't have much difference in phase and
> amplitude information. It is marginal, though, to the point where most
> of the time I just use stereo mode.
>
> > I was PROBABLY one off the few here to initially encode an MP3. Was it under Win95, 100-120MHz CPU, but MP3 encoder was DOS based, 8 bit, it took FOREVER to encode, circa Y2k!! Back in those days, RIAA was probably smiling!!
> >
> I bought my first HD based MP3 player in 2002 (Archos Jukebox recorder,
> 20 GB drive), and I encoded stuff for it (slowly) at 128kbps, VBR,
> initially using a 486 DX4 computer under Windows 95. I'd been using a
> CD-R based one for a year or two, but wasn't over happy with the CD
> based unit's bad indexing and poor tracking abilities. That could only
> play back CBR files. It also played MPEG videos (Do you remember Video
> CD?) through a TV set.

VCDs, I GUESS they called them? No, not really, John. But I di remember the first CD burners, and how screwed up they were. Data too slow to keep up with the burner, need a big buffer! You remember CD players in computers as the speed increased, they reminded me of a vacuum cleaner, as noisy as they were!!

But, I do remember going to CompUSA and getting a sound card upgrade for my computer, since my Bass & Treble control were blanked out in Windows. I bought a Creative Labs sound card, because it specifically mentioned it had a Bass & Treble control on the package. I installed and found nothing! I get on the horn with Creative and after a long pause, they that card does not have what I wanted, and mentioned a higher priced model that did. Long story short, Creative is a shyster company, not fit to be in the USA!! Welcome to the "new" world.

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

[Gareth Magennis]

But, I do remember going to CompUSA and getting a sound card upgrade for my
computer, since my Bass & Treble control were blanked out in Windows. I
bought a Creative Labs sound card, because it specifically mentioned it had
a Bass & Treble control on the package. I installed and found nothing! I get
on the horn with Creative and after a long pause, they that card does not
have what I wanted, and mentioned a higher priced model that did. Long story
short, Creative is a shyster company, not fit to be in the USA!! Welcome to
the "new" world.




It would be interesting to hear Creative's version of this event.

Yours sounds somewhat suspect. Like, kind of missing information in various
important areas and stuff.



Gareth.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 5:45:40 PM UTC-4, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> But, I do remember going to CompUSA and getting a sound card upgrade for my
> computer, since my Bass & Treble control were blanked out in Windows. I
> bought a Creative Labs sound card, because it specifically mentioned it had
> a Bass & Treble control on the package. I installed and found nothing! I get
> on the horn with Creative and after a long pause, they that card does not
> have what I wanted, and mentioned a higher priced model that did. Long story
> short, Creative is a shyster company, not fit to be in the USA!! Welcome to
> the "new" world.
>
>
>
>
> It would be interesting to hear Creative's version of this event.

In a court of law, sure, I would definitely enjoy hearing their side of this event.


>
> Yours sounds somewhat suspect. Like, kind of missing information in various
> important areas and stuff.

If you support false advertising, that's nice, I do not. And I should have known (just checked), Creative is located in California. My theory, take a large hacksaw, cut away all of California and New York, let them float away, and this USA place will improve!!

Jack

>
>
>
> Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis]

>
> It would be interesting to hear Creative's version of this event.

In a court of law, sure, I would definitely enjoy hearing their side of this
event.


>
> Yours sounds somewhat suspect. Like, kind of missing information in
> various
> important areas and stuff.

If you support false advertising, that's nice, I do not.




No, the fact is I do not believe what you are saying is actually what
happened.
I would like to hear Creative's version of events, but that, of course, is
unlikely to happen.

So we just have yours.


Hmmm.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 5:45:40 PM UTC-4, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> But, I do remember going to CompUSA and getting a sound card upgrade for my
> computer, since my Bass & Treble control were blanked out in Windows. I
> bought a Creative Labs sound card, because it specifically mentioned it had
> a Bass & Treble control on the package. I installed and found nothing! I get
> on the horn with Creative and after a long pause, they that card does not
> have what I wanted, and mentioned a higher priced model that did. Long story
> short, Creative is a shyster company, not fit to be in the USA!! Welcome to
> the "new" world.
>
>
>
>
> It would be interesting to hear Creative's version of this event.
>
> Yours sounds somewhat suspect. Like, kind of missing information in various
> important areas and stuff.
>
>
>
> Gareth.

Shyster operated companies never stop...

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/26-home-theater-computers/522876-creative-labs-pays-their-false-advertising-24bit-audio-96khz.html

[Gareth Magennis]

>
>
> It would be interesting to hear Creative's version of this event.
>
> Yours sounds somewhat suspect. Like, kind of missing information in
> various
> important areas and stuff.
>
>
>
> Gareth.

Shyster operated companies never stop...

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/26-home-theater-computers/522876-creative-labs-pays-their-false-advertising-24bit-audio-96khz.html





That link is 10 years old.

[hank alrich]

Gareth Magennis > wrote:

> No, the fact is I do not believe what you are saying is actually what
> happened.

The fact is everything the troll posts has no basis in fact. The more
you feed it the more it will defecate here.

I fail to understand why anybody in rec.audio.pro is still replying to
this troll.

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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 6:27:43 PM UTC-4, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> >
> > It would be interesting to hear Creative's version of this event.
>
> In a court of law, sure, I would definitely enjoy hearing their side of this
> event.
>
>
> >
> > Yours sounds somewhat suspect. Like, kind of missing information in
> > various
> > important areas and stuff.
>
> If you support false advertising, that's nice, I do not.
>
>
>
>
> No, the fact is I do not believe what you are saying is actually what
> happened.

I really don't care what you "believe", Gareth, my beef isn't with YOU.


> I would like to hear Creative's version of events, but that, of course, is
> unlikely to happen.
>
> So we just have yours.

Maxleung has it correct: "I think a better punishment would be to not buy anything from Creative AT ALL. :) "

>
>
> Hmmm.

[geoff]

On 20/05/2015 9:26 a.m., JackA wrote:
> VCDs, I GUESS they called them? No, not really, John. But I di
> remember the first CD burners, and how screwed up they were. Data too
> slow to keep up with the burner, need a big buffer!


I was a victim of the famous(ly terrible) HP 4020i ;-( , a product which
I believe ended up in a class action suit. Can't remember what year, but
very early days.

Never got into MP3s (for myself) , even now.

geoff

[geoff]

On 20/05/2015 10:21 a.m., JackA wrote:
> If you support false advertising, that's nice, I do not. And I should have known (just checked), Creative is located in California. My theory, take a large hacksaw, cut away all of California and New York, let them float away, and this USA place will improve!!
>
>

False advertising ? Or your amply-demonstrated lack of reading
comprehension ?

geoff

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 6:32:42 PM UTC-4, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> >
> >
> > It would be interesting to hear Creative's version of this event.
> >
> > Yours sounds somewhat suspect. Like, kind of missing information in
> > various
> > important areas and stuff.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gareth.
>
> Shyster operated companies never stop...
>
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/26-home-theater-computers/522876-creative-labs-pays-their-false-advertising-24bit-audio-96khz.html
>
>
>
>
>
> That link is 10 years old.

And? Though you didn't believe ME about false advertising. Your logic is poor. If you wish to support a shyster company, enjoy.

Jack

Jack

[Gareth Magennis]

> That link is 10 years old.

And? Though you didn't believe ME about false advertising. Your logic is
poor. If you wish to support a shyster company, enjoy.

Jack




Jack, I think you have some sort of mental health problem.

I will not respond any longer.


Gareth.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 6:34:47 PM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
> Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>
> > No, the fact is I do not believe what you are saying is actually what
> > happened.
>
> The fact is everything the troll posts has no basis in fact. The more
> you feed it the more it will defecate here.

Hank, I was listening to the prologue of Mr. Bojangles, you know, Uncle Charlie and his dog, Teddy. Teddy's howling reminded me of your singing. That's cruel, sorry, didn't mean to insult the dog!


>
> I fail to understand why anybody in rec.audio.pro is still replying to
> this troll.

Scott and Mike just love me!!! :-)

Jack

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

[Nil[_2_]]

On 19 May 2015, "Gareth Magennis" >
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> It would be interesting to hear Creative's version of this event.
>
> Yours sounds somewhat suspect. Like, kind of missing information
> in various important areas and stuff.

Or out and out lies, like most of what the troll posts here. Lies,
half-truths, misleading statements, and self-aggrandation. What a toxic
putz it is.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 6:37:50 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 20/05/2015 9:26 a.m., JackA wrote:
> > VCDs, I GUESS they called them? No, not really, John. But I di
> > remember the first CD burners, and how screwed up they were. Data too
> > slow to keep up with the burner, need a big buffer!
>
>
> I was a victim of the famous(ly terrible) HP 4020i ;-( , a product which
> I believe ended up in a class action suit. Can't remember what year, but
> very early days.

Never heard of that one! Burnt up?
>
> Never got into MP3s (for myself) , even now.

I just find them fascinating, really. A job WELL DONE!!!

But, I see now why FLAC was developed, because everyone was attempting to corner the market with their own "lossless" encoding. I just use 32 bit WAVs..

Hey, John, back in the 80's, I needed to upgrade memory on a computer, but you had to configure DIP or SIP switches. We had lost the manuals. Late night at work, we had Thomas Registers volumes. I looked up the computer company and phoned. They said I could download information from the bulletin board. Had to ask my Dad to, I think he had a 300 baud modem. But, it worked and I got the document!!! Guess that's when computers were made in the USA.

Jack

>
> geoff

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 6:40:00 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 20/05/2015 10:21 a.m., JackA wrote:
> > If you support false advertising, that's nice, I do not. And I should have known (just checked), Creative is located in California. My theory, take a large hacksaw, cut away all of California and New York, let them float away, and this USA place will improve!!
> >
> >
>
> False advertising ? Or your amply-demonstrated lack of reading
> comprehension ?

I don't care to hear about your two cent gain class action suit, not your two cents here. O k?

Jack :)

>
> geoff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

(Don Pearce) wrote:
> On 19 May 2015 14:16:44 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> Jason > wrote:
>>> She starts all simultaneously with an IR remote and notes that
>>> one of the four drifts out of sync with the other three but only
>>> after 2 hours. I think she's lucky! The content--video + audio--is
>>> different on each but they are related so that drift becomes
>>> noticeable (after 2 hours). She wondered if something in the
>>> compression of the audio (and video) might have affected that. I don't
>>> think so.
>>
>> Noticeable drift after 2 hours is pretty damn good!
>>
>> Switch the mp3 files between two devices and see if the problem follows
>> the device or the file. I bet the clock on the device is a little slow.
>>
>>> I suggested that she try to make sure all four are at the same
>>> temperature - she has them stacked now so the one on top is very
>>> warm. They can be arranged differently. Like I said, hours without
>>> much drift is probably as good as it gets, but crystals are
>>> temp sensitive so equalizing that may help. A little...
>>
>> You can buy precision crystals and you can buy three-cent ceramic resonators....
>> --scott
>
> For a couple of thousand bucks


Much less than that now... a full order of magnitude less.

> you can buy a Rubidium standard
> oscillator that you can use to lock all your clocks - it will keep
> them in sync for years, never mind minutes.
>

Maybe *YOU* can :) Clock distro is fiddly.

> d
>

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Ralph Barone wrote:
> hank alrich > wrote:
>> Jason > wrote:
>>
>>> It should have nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of CPU's... It's a
>>> straight digital transformation.
>>
>> You may intelligently ignore any post from a troll, who has yet to post
>> anything of merit here.
>>
>> AFAICT, even if he wanted to talk about audio, he is unequipped to do
>> so, as he knows nothing, at all, about audio, let alone about the
>> question you asked.
>>
>> Both Les Cargill and Scott Dorsey have responded from cogent personal
>> knowledge bases.
>>
>> (And to all of you who keep feeding the troll, worrying about the peanut
>> gallery, this is what you are reaping, here. Please just stop.)
>
>
> As I understand it, MP3 files consist of a sequence of frames, each of
> which contains some number of ms of audio (26?), so I would assume that
> pretty much every MP3 file out there would have a marginally longer playing
> time than the uncompressed original.
>


There is enough metadata in them to where endcoing, then decoding, then
encoding, then decoding ... will converge on a fixed number
of samples for all the PCM files after a while. Might happen
on the first try.

LAME -V1 is good enough for flying tracks around, IMO. It's better if
you put a single-sample impulse or an eight-count, just in
case. I'ts the usual; don't trust things you don't have to.

Everything I say relates only to LAME. I don't use any other coder.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

(Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2015 11:22:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 1:02:37 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>>> The issue with VBR is that the number of samples per second
>>> varies with complexity/other factors in the track. CDDA(Compact Disc
>>> Digital Audio) players do not like that.
>>
>> your terminology is a little off
>>
>> SAMPLING rate and BIT rate are two different thing
>>
>> The sampling rate is the pre compressed bit rate.
>>
>> the SAMPLING rate is fixed usually at 44.1 ksps.
>> You can select to use other sampling rates, but it is still fixed and does not vary dynamically.
>>
>> When you select VBR, the MP3 Compression rate can vary dynamically increasing for complex sounds and decreasing for simpler sounds but AVERAGING out at the selected bit rate 128 kbps for example. The original SAMPLING rate still remains fixed.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>
> You need to multiply the sampling rate by the bit depth and the number
> of channels to get the pre-compressed bit rate. Actually it is a bit
> higher still because there is a fair amount of housekeeping data that
> goes along with the payload bits.
>
> d
>

A .wav file is (nearly always) 44-48 bytes and then nothing
but samples.

..mp3 are much more fiddly, but I read you as referring to the
uncompressed stream.

Many pardons if it's simple comprehension fail on my end.

--
Les Cargill

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 6:43:54 PM UTC-4, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> > That link is 10 years old.
>
> And? Though you didn't believe ME about false advertising. Your logic is
> poor. If you wish to support a shyster company, enjoy.
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
> Jack, I think you have some sort of mental health problem.
>
> I will not respond any longer.

Hank will kiss you all over for it.

You claim I'm a liar. I guess that's the "norm" in this "group".

Have a nice day.

Jack

>
>
> Gareth.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 6:27:43 PM UTC-4, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> >
> > It would be interesting to hear Creative's version of this event.
>
> In a court of law, sure, I would definitely enjoy hearing their side of this
> event.
>
>
> >
> > Yours sounds somewhat suspect. Like, kind of missing information in
> > various
> > important areas and stuff.
>
> If you support false advertising, that's nice, I do not.
>
>
>
>
> No, the fact is I do not believe what you are saying is actually what
> happened.

During my recent internet search, someone purchased a Blaster sound card on eBay, because he said it was "rare" for it to have ALL the chips installed. That is what mine was missing, a necessary chip.

Jack

> I would like to hear Creative's version of events, but that, of course, is
> unlikely to happen.
>
> So we just have yours.
>
>
> Hmmm.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 2:52:56 PM UTC-4, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2015 11:22:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 1:02:37 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> >> The issue with VBR is that the number of samples per second
> >> varies with complexity/other factors in the track. CDDA(Compact Disc
> >> Digital Audio) players do not like that.
> >
> >your terminology is a little off
> >
> >SAMPLING rate and BIT rate are two different thing
> >
> >The sampling rate is the pre compressed bit rate.
> >
> >the SAMPLING rate is fixed usually at 44.1 ksps.
> >You can select to use other sampling rates, but it is still fixed and does not vary dynamically.
> >
> >When you select VBR, the MP3 Compression rate can vary dynamically increasing for complex sounds and decreasing for simpler sounds but AVERAGING out at the selected bit rate 128 kbps for example. The original SAMPLING rate still remains fixed.
> >
> >Mark
> >
>
> You need to multiply the sampling rate by the bit depth and the number
> of channels to get the pre-compressed bit rate. Actually it is a bit
> higher still because there is a fair amount of housekeeping data that
> goes along with the payload bits.

You should never use the word, "bit" (bit higher), when talking about binary files!! A "tad" higher is a better choice :-)

Hey, Geoff, know it all, we have bits, bytes, words, double words - but where do they end?

Jack

>
> d

[geoff]

On 20/05/2015 11:05 a.m., JackA wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 6:37:50 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
>> On 20/05/2015 9:26 a.m., JackA wrote:
>>> VCDs, I GUESS they called them? No, not really, John. But I di
>>> remember the first CD burners, and how screwed up they were. Data
>>> too slow to keep up with the burner, need a big buffer!
>>
>>
>> I was a victim of the famous(ly terrible) HP 4020i ;-( , a product
>> which I believe ended up in a class action suit. Can't remember
>> what year, but very early days.
>
> Never heard of that one! Burnt up?

http://tinyurl.com/n93xpg2

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 20/05/2015 00:59, JackA wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 6:43:54 PM UTC-4, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>>> That link is 10 years old.
>>
>> And? Though you didn't believe ME about false advertising. Your logic is
>> poor. If you wish to support a shyster company, enjoy.
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jack, I think you have some sort of mental health problem.
>>
>> I will not respond any longer.
>
> Hank will kiss you all over for it.
>
> You claim I'm a liar. I guess that's the "norm" in this "group".
>
It's the general consensus on this group, backed up by your continuous
lies when posting. If you posted the truth, or even a close
approximation to something sensible, people might start listening to you.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Luxey]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 9:54:34 PM UTC+2, John Williamson wrote:
> On 19/05/2015 20:39, JackA wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 12:30:51 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 19/05/2015 16:33, JackA wrote:
> >>> Let me ask you (and others), do you have a preference, Joint or Stereo MP3 encoding?
> >>>
> >>> If so, why either?
> >>>
> >> It depends on the original.
> >
> >
> > Oh, oh!! Care to explain, even brief?
> >
> Joint mode gives a better trade off for perceived quality in the same
> disc space where the channels don't have much difference in phase and
> amplitude information. It is marginal, though, to the point where most
> of the time I just use stereo mode.
>
> > I was PROBABLY one off the few here to initially encode an MP3. Was it under Win95, 100-120MHz CPU, but MP3 encoder was DOS based, 8 bit, it took FOREVER to encode, circa Y2k!! Back in those days, RIAA was probably smiling!!
> >
> I bought my first HD based MP3 player in 2002 (Archos Jukebox recorder,
> 20 GB drive), and I encoded stuff for it (slowly) at 128kbps, VBR,
> initially using a 486 DX4 computer under Windows 95. I'd been using a
> CD-R based one for a year or two, but wasn't over happy with the CD
> based unit's bad indexing and poor tracking abilities. That could only
> play back CBR files. It also played MPEG videos (Do you remember Video
> CD?) through a TV set.
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

mp3.com was up and running happily in 1999, jus like couple more of similarly
structured platforms. I had couple of albums published there, as well as
on one other site, by the name I can not remember now.
As far as I can remember, at least one more participant from RAP did on
mp3.com, too, namely now unfortunately deceased Roger W. Norman.
They were accepting uploads at 128 kbps and it was pain from 28.8kbps dial up,
but I did it anyway.

After a while the concept broke up, the one of mp3.com being place for otherwise unsigned, upcoming and alternative, when big hitters, like Madonna
and the rest realized the potential. After a little more while, it got sold,
abandoned the whole concept of publishing and turned into some kind of platform
for sharing pirated files.

Kind of www. version of Napster, where the Napster, talk and **** arrived years
later, with expansion of cable providers, broadband, ADSL and stuff.

[Luxey]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 12:34:47 AM UTC+2, hank alrich wrote:
> Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>
> > No, the fact is I do not believe what you are saying is actually what
> > happened.
>
> The fact is everything the troll posts has no basis in fact. The more
> you feed it the more it will defecate here.
>
> I fail to understand why anybody in rec.audio.pro is still replying to
> this troll.
>
> --
> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

It's beyond me.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 3:47:33 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 20/05/2015 00:59, JackA wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 6:43:54 PM UTC-4, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> >>> That link is 10 years old.
> >>
> >> And? Though you didn't believe ME about false advertising. Your logic is
> >> poor. If you wish to support a shyster company, enjoy.
> >>
> >> Jack
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jack, I think you have some sort of mental health problem.
> >>
> >> I will not respond any longer.
> >
> > Hank will kiss you all over for it.
> >
> > You claim I'm a liar. I guess that's the "norm" in this "group".
> >
> It's the general consensus on this group


Oh, a dedicated spokesperson?

, backed up by your continuous
> lies when posting.

Lies?

If you posted the truth, or even a close

And how do you determine what is lies and what is facts? Crystal-ball?



> approximation to something sensible, people might start listening to you.

They listen one way or another


Jack

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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 3:04:52 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 20/05/2015 11:05 a.m., JackA wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 6:37:50 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> >> On 20/05/2015 9:26 a.m., JackA wrote:
> >>> VCDs, I GUESS they called them? No, not really, John. But I di
> >>> remember the first CD burners, and how screwed up they were. Data
> >>> too slow to keep up with the burner, need a big buffer!
> >>
> >>
> >> I was a victim of the famous(ly terrible) HP 4020i ;-( , a product
> >> which I believe ended up in a class action suit. Can't remember
> >> what year, but very early days.
> >
> > Never heard of that one! Burnt up?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/n93xpg2

And you had the opportunity to....

"Similar problems have also been reported with drives from Philips, who reportedly is one of HP's manufacturers".

But their headphones kick the llama's behind!

Interesting!

Jack

>
> geoff

[david gourley[_2_]]

John Williamson > said...news:cs2sggFt09fU1
@mid.individual.net:

> On 20/05/2015 00:59, JackA wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 6:43:54 PM UTC-4, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>>>> That link is 10 years old.
>>>
>>> And? Though you didn't believe ME about false advertising. Your logic
is
>>> poor. If you wish to support a shyster company, enjoy.
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jack, I think you have some sort of mental health problem.
>>>
>>> I will not respond any longer.
>>
>> Hank will kiss you all over for it.
>>
>> You claim I'm a liar. I guess that's the "norm" in this "group".
>>
> It's the general consensus on this group, backed up by your continuous
> lies when posting. If you posted the truth, or even a close
> approximation to something sensible, people might start listening to you.
>

That's not going to happen. It is only something to ignore and refuse to
continue feeding this troll.

david

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 9:51:26 AM UTC-4, david gourley wrote:
> John Williamson > said...news:cs2sggFt09fU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
> > On 20/05/2015 00:59, JackA wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 6:43:54 PM UTC-4, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> >>>> That link is 10 years old.
> >>>
> >>> And? Though you didn't believe ME about false advertising. Your logic
> is
> >>> poor. If you wish to support a shyster company, enjoy.
> >>>
> >>> Jack
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jack, I think you have some sort of mental health problem.
> >>>
> >>> I will not respond any longer.
> >>
> >> Hank will kiss you all over for it.
> >>
> >> You claim I'm a liar. I guess that's the "norm" in this "group".
> >>
> > It's the general consensus on this group, backed up by your continuous
> > lies when posting. If you posted the truth, or even a close
> > approximation to something sensible, people might start listening to you.
> >
>
> That's not going to happen. It is only something to ignore and refuse to
> continue feeding this troll.

Nice of you to chime-in, David!!!

Do you have anything interesting to share with us?

Jack




>
> david

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 4:55:04 AM UTC-4, Luxey wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 12:34:47 AM UTC+2, hank alrich wrote:
> > Gareth Magennis > wrote:
> >
> > > No, the fact is I do not believe what you are saying is actually what
> > > happened.
> >
> > The fact is everything the troll posts has no basis in fact. The more
> > you feed it the more it will defecate here.
> >
> > I fail to understand why anybody in rec.audio.pro is still replying to
> > this troll.
> >
> > --
> > shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
> > HankandShaidriMusic.Com
> > YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
>
> It's beyond me.

Maybe he should buy a razor so he doesn't look like a degenerate I'd expect to find in usenet.

I stopped by when I heard ALL the foul language being used here. No one at all complained about it. So, they tag ME the troll.

I'm guessing the average IQ is so low here, both Scott and Mike feel like mentors.

Jack

[Trevor]

On 20/05/2015 4:50 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> For a couple of thousand bucks you can buy a Rubidium standard
> oscillator that you can use to lock all your clocks - it will keep
> them in sync for years, never mind minutes.

Which of course is a trifle overkill for the purpose. Or why not use a
Cesium standard instead, they are even dearer. :-)
However for FAR less money you can lock to a GPS standard for similar
accuracy these days, after all that's what they use for GPS.
Still completely unnecessary of course, since all you need is a common
clock, not a particularly accurate one.

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 3:04:52 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 20/05/2015 11:05 a.m., JackA wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 6:37:50 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> >> On 20/05/2015 9:26 a.m., JackA wrote:
> >>> VCDs, I GUESS they called them? No, not really, John. But I di
> >>> remember the first CD burners, and how screwed up they were. Data
> >>> too slow to keep up with the burner, need a big buffer!
> >>
> >>
> >> I was a victim of the famous(ly terrible) HP 4020i ;-( , a product
> >> which I believe ended up in a class action suit. Can't remember
> >> what year, but very early days.
> >
> > Never heard of that one! Burnt up?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/n93xpg2
>
> geoff

No wonder why! Look at who's in control!!...

http://fortune.com/2015/05/22/hp-split-cost/

Women in business, they'll drain you dry.

Jack