"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message


Y'know sump'm, I think I've finally identified a major "missing link" in
our discussion here.

No, you haven't 'identified it'; it is extremely well-known.

MP3 is 'brute force' merely by virtue of it's encoding rate being
user-selectable, almost universally to highly detrimental values - exactly
those that excite you so much by their 'small file-size'.

However, I guess you'll manage to turn it around and totally contradict
yourself yet again, ending up claiming it is actually a Good Thing,
especially if put through a particular command line application in your OS
of choice.

geoff

Troll wrote:
"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

Y'know sump'm, I think I've finally identified a major "missing link" in
our discussion here.

No, you haven't 'identified it'; it is extremely well-known.

But it hasn't been brought up yet in our discussion.

Low amplitudes are certainly something to be avoided when recording to
MiniDiscs because they'll undoubtedly cause the ATRAC compression
filters to remove the weakest, most susceptible frequencies that are
present in the soundsource.

MP3 is 'brute force' merely by virtue of it's encoding rate being
user-selectable, almost universally to highly detrimental values -
exactly those that excite you so much by their 'small file-size'.

For general listening purposes, 192KBps and even 128KBps MP3s are well
beyond adequate.

And by way of your deliberate misinterpretation of my use of the term,
"brute force", it is clear that you have depleted your potential for
injecting meaningful contributions into this thread.

However, I guess you'll manage to turn it around and totally contradict
yourself yet again, ending up claiming it is actually a Good Thing,
especially if put through a particular command line application in your OS
of choice.

Well, my normalized MP3s do unquestionably sound better than those which
are not. I listen to them all the time. When they play in random
shuffle mode, it's patently obvious which ones have and which ones have
not been normalized.

It seems to me that if the older method of measuring peaks vs. the newer
method of measuring peaks is real, what sense does it make to create
collections of MP3s from CDs which hail from both eras? Tis best to
normalize the old and leave the new one alone for a superior balance lf
loudnesses across-the-board.

Of course, you still don't believe certain frequencies can become too
weak to be heard at lower amplitudes while others remain less affected.

Well, I just conducted a test. I put on my Capitol 1994 Remastered CD
of Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" and turned the volume knob all
the way down - and son of a gun, I couldn't hear *any* of the
frequencies that are recorded on that disc! Although thanks to you I
wasn't fooled by this. I knew beyond all doubt that even though I
couldn't hear them, those frequencies were still on that gold disc -
safe and sound.

Myke


--

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

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

Low amplitudes are certainly something to be avoided when recording to
MiniDiscs because they'll undoubtedly cause the ATRAC compression
filters to remove the weakest, most susceptible frequencies that are
present in the soundsource.

And moreso with MP3, which you delight in listening to extensively.

MP3 is 'brute force' merely by virtue of it's encoding rate being
user-selectable, almost universally to highly detrimental values -
exactly those that excite you so much by their 'small file-size'.

For general listening purposes, 192KBps and even 128KBps MP3s are well
beyond adequate.

128 is defintie insufficient. 192 is seldom-used, 160 more common, and much
better than 128 though still audibly inferior to uncompressed (datawise).

And by way of your deliberate misinterpretation of my use of the term,
"brute force", it is clear that you have depleted your potential for
injecting meaningful contributions into this thread.

As you like...

However, I guess you'll manage to turn it around and totally contradict
yourself yet again, ending up claiming it is actually a Good Thing,
especially if put through a particular command line application in your
OS
of choice.

Well, my normalized MP3s do unquestionably sound better than those which
are not. I listen to them all the time. When they play in random
shuffle mode, it's patently obvious which ones have and which ones have
not been normalized.

'Better' to you being 'louder'. Although barely perceptably.

It seems to me that if the older method of measuring peaks vs. the newer
method of measuring peaks is real,

What new and old methods of measuring peaks ? There has always been one
consistent method.

Well, I just conducted a test. I put on my Capitol 1994 Remastered CD
of Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" and turned the volume knob all
the way down - and son of a gun, I couldn't hear *any* of the
frequencies that are recorded on that disc!

I have little confidence in your abiity to hear any subtleties at all, let
alone identify or describe them. Describing your playback chain might help.

geoff

Geoff Wood wrote:
"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

Low amplitudes are certainly something to be avoided when recording to
MiniDiscs because they'll undoubtedly cause the ATRAC compression
filters to remove the weakest, most susceptible frequencies that are
present in the soundsource.

And moreso with MP3,

Are you just saying that? Or do you actually *know* that MP3
compression and ATRAC compression are both the same with regard to their
penchant for discarding underpumped freqs? I admit that while I am
fairly familiar with the processes MiniDisc recorders employ to reduce
the amount of data being stored, I am less familiary with MP3's method.

which you delight in listening to extensively.

I delight in listening to my MP3s when they are the most practical means
available to me for enjoying the music in my CD collection, yes. You
seem to have a problem with that. Remember, I own 2,100+ CDs. Hauling
them with me everywhere I go for the sake of being a sonic snot would
not only be a logistical nightmare, it would be physically impossible.
Now if you're gonna be a troll, take it somewhere else, please.

128 is defintie insufficient.

Insufficient to what end?

192 is seldom-used,

Pop E. Cock. I encode *all* of my full-album length MP3s at 192KBps.

160 more common

Who gives a rip about what's "more common"? I have a monumental task at
hand to be accomplished for *me*, not for the plebes! The last thing I
intend to do is "munge" (as you say) my entire project by employing some
inadequate yet "more common" bitrate. Geez.

and much better than 128

When I transfer the cassette tapes of the radio I recorded throughout
the 1980s to CD-RW and them rip-n-encode them to MP3, I use 128KBps and
all the clarity and sonic beauty of the hiss from the master tape is
still in there to be fully enjoyed right along with the music.

though still audibly inferior to uncompressed (datawise).

Agreed, but we're not really discussing that now are we? Nor have we
really ever been. And the only time - as far as I can see - that I've
ever been rightfully put in my place throughout this entire thread is
when I actually got sidetracked and misled into forgetting my original
purpose. My primary goal here is not to discuss what I can do to
produce the best compact discs because that's not what I do. I've
already purchased the commercial CDs and I always respectfully return to
them as my initial sources for material as needed. Nevertheless, a
majority of the compact discs I own were not mastered with subsequent
MP3 encoding practices in mind, hence the gross inadequacy of the nature
of my MFSL Pink Floyd CD in relation to the mission at hand.

Well, my normalized MP3s do unquestionably sound better than those which
are not. I listen to them all the time. When they play in random
shuffle mode, it's patently obvious which ones have and which ones have
not been normalized.

'Better' to you being 'louder'. Although barely perceptably.

'Better' to me being 'louder' because I believe - though I'm not
absolutely certain of it - that fewer of the frequencies were discarded
during the encoding process as a result of their amplitudes having
previously been increased via "normalize".

What new and old methods of measuring peaks ? There has always been one
consistent method.

The original practice of measuring appropriately optimum peak levels in
"up from 0dB" fashion vs. "down from 0dBFS" fashion as is apparently
done today. You're obviously not reading every single post in this
thead - and given the gargantuan size of it now, I can't say that I
blame you.

Well, I just conducted a test. I put on my Capitol 1994 Remastered CD
of Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" and turned the volume knob all
the way down - and son of a gun, I couldn't hear *any* of the
frequencies that are recorded on that disc!

I have little confidence in your abiity to hear any subtleties at all, let
alone identify or describe them. Describing your playback chain might help.

That, Geoff, was a *real joke*. Remember how you said "some people have
a sense of humour" after I balked at your move to label me a "Liniot" in
"humourously" derogatory fashion?

Myke

--

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

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

I delight in listening to my MP3s when they are the most practical means
available to me for enjoying the music in my CD collection, yes. You
seem to have a problem with that. Remember, I own 2,100+ CDs. Hauling
them with me everywhere I go for the sake of being a sonic snot would
not only be a logistical nightmare, it would be physically impossible.
Now if you're gonna be a troll, take it somewhere else, please.

Would not a reasonable approach be selecting a wallet of , say, 12 CDs to
take with you for the day. Or do require instant access to 2100 x
(average)12 songs ?


geoff

Geoff Wood wrote:

Would not a reasonable approach be selecting a wallet of , say, 12 CDs to
take with you for the day.

What are you, my mother?

Or do require instant access to 2100 x (average)12 songs ?

More is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than more.

Myke

--

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

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 06:00:30 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer
wrote:

MP3 is 'brute force' merely by virtue of it's encoding rate being
user-selectable, almost universally to highly detrimental values -
exactly those that excite you so much by their 'small file-size'.

For general listening purposes, 192KBps and even 128KBps MP3s are well
beyond adequate.

I think we have discovered the fatal flaw right there. If you really
think that 128kB/sec MP3 is 'well beyond adequate', then we can safely
dismiss any further opinions you might have on sound quality.......

Well, my normalized MP3s do unquestionably sound better than those which
are not. I listen to them all the time. When they play in random
shuffle mode, it's patently obvious which ones have and which ones have
not been normalized.

That doesn't make them better, dude, it just means that *you* prefer
that sound. Heck, there's people out there who actually prefer tube
amps and vinyl!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering