David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

May I refer you to your original post, wherein you state for the record
that normalizing your raw files has created a means by which you
believe that you have overcome the limitations of encoding to MP3
thereby resulting in the conclusion that "Louder IS better (With Lossy)".

The limitations of encoding to MP3 are *assumed*, therefore, they cannot
be overcome. Meanwhile, I do believe it is possible to deliberately do
things which can minimize the adverse effects of said limitations.
Basically this all boils down to "Should we try harder to minimize the
adverse effects?" v. "It doesn't pay to try harder so let come what may."

I'm primarily concerned with preventing unnecessary ATH-centric
filtration of frequencies which is inherent to (I believe) all lossy
audio data-compression methods.

Then, my new acquaintance, you must design a new encoder.

Addendum: ...given the state of existing encoders with which I must contend.

My Myke here insists on normalising every piece of his 2100-strong
CD collection to -10dB average RMS,

That's lie #1. I only insist on normalizing those which fall below
-10dBFS. Most newer CDs in my collection go on to be encoded exactly as
they are ripped with no modification whatsoever.

and considers any tracks that don't meet this criteria to be flawed

That's lie #2. The tracks in and of themselves are fine. But *may*
need to be "better prepared" prior to being encoded.

and incompetently produced.

That's lie #3. MP3 encoding was not a factor in the decision-making
process when my CDs were mastered... and the rules which govern success
in CD and MP3 creation are not the same. Those who produce CDs take
only matters related to uncompressed audio into consideration. They do
not base decisions upon what works best for *both* CD and MP3! This
does not imply incompetence on their behalf at all.

Despite serious attempts to clue him up he clings to total misconceptions
regarding levels, amplification, attenuation, normalisation, the mastering
process, etc.

Nothing I can say will affect anyone's opinion about this.

He dismisses MFSLs Dark Side Of The Moon as being a peice of excrement
because the highest peak is -4dB or so,

That's lie #4. I do *not* consider it exrement because of its low
level. For CD audio alone, it's perfectly fine, given the intent of its
makers. For MP3 encoding? I don't believe it's appropriate in its
default, low-amp state. This, however, I do not hold against MFSL. MP3
didn't exist when that disc was mastered and even if it *did*, it would
not have affected their decision-making process at all.

and that buyers have been ripped off.

That's lie #5. Geoff implies here that I still believe something which
I no longer do. I did believe this at one time with regard to that
particular CD, yes, but have long since rescinded my position on that
after it was explained to me why that particular CD's levels are so low.

(they didn't get all the bits they paid for ?).

And that was *never* the reason for my prior belief in the "rip-off"
even when I *did* think that way, therefore, he's clearly
misrepresenting my position yet again.

This was actually what caused me to research all of your previous posts to
other groups, which validated it's content 100%.

These same tired accusations are bogus from the start and do not deserve
to be further discussed since they are nothing but baseless, filler
arguments obviously being injected into this thread for the purpose of
*starting* the so-called "train wreck" in this newsgroup which I have
sought to avoid.

Preprocessing WAVs to produce "better" MP3s *is* *the* issue.

Gosh... I can only ask why then, you lashed out at all of those who showed
you the err in your ways with regard to your method... followed by changing
the subject to the encoding process.

My arguments in favor of preprocessing the WAVs have *always* been made
with the subject of the encoding process in mind. Geoff is the one who
has gross dislike of the encoding process, not I, therefore his
arguments which centered around uncompressed audio only were completely
beside the point, IMHO.

There is No question here. There is No statement of intent. There
is nothing more than what I have already repeadly noted. This is
your original post - a duplicate of that made on another group

No, it was posted *here* *first*. It was re-posted elsewhere later.
That post was specifically intended for this newsgroup when I wrote it.

- which is merely a synopsis of your personal methodology, experiences,
and listening preferences,

This is so that the terms which were *not* well-defined at the beginning
of the previous thread in the other newsgroup could already be defined
from the beginning of this thread in this newsgroup; the purpose of this
being to avoid the miscommunications here which resulted in so much
disaster before.

culminating with a blanket statement of louder is better.

No, louder is better *with* *lossy*. It's right there (and quite
deliberately placed) in the subject line. I wanted to make it quite
clear here that everyone understood right from the start that I was not
here to discuss the merits of "louder is better" with regard to
uncompressed CD/WAV audio - as Geoff insisted on believing.

A mission statement lays out a set of goals to accomplish
You posted an opinion, not a goal to accomplish or a question for
the group.

The mission is to confirm or deny the sense in preprocessing WAV files
with "normalize" with regard to minimizing the adverse effects which are
caused by ATH-based frequency filtration techniques.

The mission never was to discuss the effects of "normalize" on WAVs with
regard to what it does to the WAV *only*.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-