David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

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.

You're entitled to that. But I don't know anyone who frequents this group
who does not dislike the MP3 encoding processes to some degree - so I'd
be inclined to let him off the hook.

The only time he's "on the hook" as far as I'm concerned is (1) when he
refers to my by names other than my own, (2) when he blatantly
misrepresents my positions for the sake of causing me more trouble than
I'm due to receive and (3) when he continues to speak about things which
I perceive to pertain only to uncompressed audio in a discussion which
assumes the presence of lossy compression.

Other than that, I think Geoff's a really great guy who I would not
hesitate to consult for technical advice pertaining to his particular
field(s) of endeavor. There is definitely some overlap between my life
and his in that regard. I really don't enjoy being "at odds" with him.

It really changes the audio a bit too much to be respected a great deal by people who do their best to make it as good as possible for a
living.

And that's perfectly understandable. The RIAA considers it be even
*more* abhorrent ... due to it's fear of being rendered obsolete.

Once up in the seriously high bit rates, it
can be really good.

At what point does it become better than common, high-bias audiotape?
My ignorant ears "say" 128kb/s.

By the way... thank you for not crossposting.

Thank you for noticing... and you're welcome.
That other conversation was already 3 NGs deep once I joined in.

and if Google is reporting these times incorrectly, I apologize.

No apology needed. I wasn't offended by your initial comment.

No, louder is better *with* *lossy*. It's right there (and quite
deliberately placed) in the subject line.

Now you're picking on me with semantics. g I have quoted your
whole phrase enough times that you understand what I mean.

I can see why you'd consider it as such, however, the subject of this
thread is very deliberately and specifically worded so as to make it
clear in no uncertain terms that *this* discussion in *this* newsgroup
assumes and requires the presence of lossy compression in order for it
to make any sense. There was too much "Just turn it up!" being said in
the other NG - which *even* *if* *true* completely fails to address the
ATH effects of lossy compression which lies at the core of that which
I'd been trying to discuss from the beginning.

Do you have ANY other audio processing tools besides "normalize" in your kit ?

Yes. But none that perform as well as "normalize" for its intended and
stated purpose.

Myke

--

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