flint wrote:
If your goal is to make a bunch of MP3s with similar average levels, then
you have succeeded and I applaude you.

Thank you! Applause accepted.

I check my work frequently by actually listening to the "normalized"
MP3s I've created because I *am* concerned greatly about not
deliberately contributing to (what I perceive as being) the poor
fidelity that's already a part of my life.

MP3 encoding is distorting your audio way beyond what even the
cheapest normalizing software could do.

Yes, and so does my local news/talk AM radio station. (To which I just
have to say, "Aw, damn," before going on about my usual daily affairs.) g

One nice thing, however, about my US Top 40 hits collection. I do spend
the money and take the time to burn the WAVs for *those* to CD-Rs before
I delete them. This is because I am already aware that one day
something better than MP3 is going to come along and make me feel the
need to do it all over again. At least my practice of saving the WAVs
will save me a lot of time in the future since I will not have to go
about re-ripping them all over again. But for now, I find the
*convenience* of my MP3s due to the compactness of their filesizes to be
an overwhelming asset in their favor over sonic purity when it comes to
listening to my music wherever "turntables with moonrock needles" cannot
be located.

I never accused you of sharing music,

No, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was simply providing a more
illuminated view of what I do actually do with my files (i.e. keep them
to myself) since it seems that you would do the same.

I only acused you of creating a huge stink in this group by sharing
(in words) what you are doing and bragging about it like you are
inventing something.

For a common guy like me to finally have a means via freeware to do what
I do with my CDs, WAVs and MP3s it *is* similar to having invented
something. Sure, the tools that I'm using to do what I'm doing aren't
unique to me - but have you ever met anyone else in your life who's
actually decided to do something like what I'm actually doing?

For me, I think it *is* something to get excited about because every
other person I've ever met who was into ripping and encoding MP3s does
nothing but rip and encode MP3s - because it's a relatively easy process
for them to learn and do. I take it a giant step further, however,
because if I'm going to bother doing all this work, I'm damn sure going
to do everything I can to achieve the most consistently superior results
that I am able to achieve.

It's not a matter of bragging at all. It's a matter of attempting to
wake a few others up to an otherwise unheard of, unseen reality. If I
choose to share with a friend an MP3, they get from me something that
almost always sounds extremely good. Meanwhile, because they know
nothing about "normalize", if/when they reciprocate, I get something
that usually sounds pretty crappy in comparison. So, yeah, naturally
I'm going to promote my view. But promotion of my view and bragging
about it aren't the same.

Now as for the "huge stink" in this group, I'll credit that to all those
who believe they've found valid reasons to label me a "Liniot", a
"****wit" and a "USENET troll" while I've gone about simply attempting
to defend my integrity as a man who actually does care more than most
about the fidelity of the music to which he listens on a regular basis.

I get the impression all you want to do is solve a simple problem with a
simple solution - great.

Yes. I'd also "really like it a lot" if more people would normalize
their damn MP3s before making them. Because, trust me, all of the MP3s
I made from my "older CDs" prior to my discovery of "normalize" sound
like **** to me and I know I will eventually have to spend even more
time recreating them than I at first believed I would. sigh

It was the subjective comments about a recording merely because it was not
recorded at a level you like that bothered me so much.

Understood. However, regardless of its "mission", I still believe that
MFSL either (1) should keep any ****ty CDs they produce off the market
or (2) print the damn (lousy) peak/level readings for each of their CDs'
tracks clearly somewhere on the backside of their packaging so a guy
like me can see exactly what he's getting before he lays down some heavy
bucks for it. IIRC, Capitol's 1994 Remaster only cost me about half of
what that MFSL disc did ... and I enjoy it twice as much!

Over,

Myke

--

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