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!!!
-================================-

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...
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


A few days was spent puting you straight on what normalisation, peak, RMS,
avarage, clipping, compression, etc actual means, and well basis decibels
theory. Now you are delving into the science and fundamentals of perceptual
coding..

And then ascertaining that your use of the word "normalise" related purely
to the Linux command-line program which *apparently* can apply compression
to attain normalisation on an RMS basis without clipping. You continue to
use that term with quotes, which is not conducive to clear discussion.
Please call it "RMS-normalise-compress" or quote specify the application
each time ou refer to it, rather than just using quotes, for the benefit of
those who 'missed out' on the earlier earlier threads in r.a.t .

1 - No, CDs are not mastered with the intention of providing material
best-prepared for MP3 encoders who prefer high RMS average level.
2 - Yes, "louder is better", for you.
3- No, peak normalisation of a few dB has inaudible effect on resultant MP3
'frequencies'.
4 - Yes, RMS normalisation may have profound effects on resultant MP3s
5 - No, it has zilch to do with threshold levels of frequency bands.
6 - It has to do with the hyper-compression that you demand.

Hypercompression is the subject of a whole bunch of scorn because of the
blanding of music it has created over the last few years, but that's a
different thread.

geoff

Geoff Wood wrote:

A few days was spent puting you straight on what normalisation, peak, RMS,
avarage, clipping, compression, etc actual means, and well basis decibels

Yeah, and next I suppose you'll say that I barged in all hell-bent to
teach everyone the differences between up and down - when in reality I
openly admitted from the start that I was not exactly clear on all the
terms - but that I did know how to successfully achieve my desired
results despite that fact. "I know how to walk the walk; just not talk
the talk", remember? And with regard to everything I believe(d) I
needed to do with "normalize" at the time, that still holds true - even
though my practices may not be the best thing for *you* to do in *your*
own life which are pursuant to *your* own goals.

And then ascertaining that your use of the word "normalise" related purely
to the Linux command-line program which *apparently* can apply compression
to attain normalisation on an RMS basis without clipping. You continue to
use that term with quotes, which is not conducive to clear discussion.
Please call it "RMS-normalise-compress" or quote specify the application
each time ou refer to it, rather than just using quotes, for the benefit of
those who 'missed out' on the earlier earlier threads in r.a.t .

I actually prefer the word "limitize" as was put forth as a proposed
solution in the other thread - because what I routinely use that
application to do does not involve compression; only limiting.

Hypercompression is the subject of a whole bunch of scorn because of the
blanding of music it has created over the last few years, but that's a
different thread.

Yes, yes, yes... and I've both told you and have shown you that I do
*not* *hyper-compress* anything by way of 'limitizing' to an average RMS
of -10dBFS.

Q: Where is the evidence of any (hyper-)compression in this screenshot?
A: There isn't any!

http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/20...ey_Smoking.png

Myke

--

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

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message ...

Yes, yes, yes... and I've both told you and have shown you that I do
*not* *hyper-compress* anything by way of 'limitizing' to an average RMS
of -10dBFS.

You haven't even told us if you have a compression tool or if you know how
to use it.

Q: Where is the evidence of any (hyper-)compression in this screenshot?
A: There isn't any!

It doesn't look like it, but compression is harder to detect visually. Limiting,
otherwise known as 'clipping' of the waveform, is readily apparent and is
often much more destructive to the audio.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

You haven't even told us if you have a compression tool or if you know how
to use it.

If I have a "compression tool" I'm not aware of it.

Q: Where is the evidence of any (hyper-)compression in this screenshot?
A: There isn't any!

It doesn't look like it, but compression is harder to detect visually.

Hmmm... Geoff has accused me many times of compressing and/or
hyper-compressing the WAV in that screenshot and "severely dicking with
the sound" but where any of that is evident in that image, he's yet to
reveal.

Limiting, otherwise known as 'clipping' of the waveform, is readily
apparent and is often much more destructive to the audio.

Are we still talking about the "Dark Side Of The Moon" screenshot?
Or the "Sunday Bloody Sunday" animation?

In the case of DSotM, I see no clipping either. There is one peak that
reaches full scale at the bottom near the 33 minute mark and I have
posted at my site addition, medium and extreme closeups of that peak as
well which clearly reveal no limiting or clipping has taken place.

....unless I just still don't have my terms as well-defined as think I
do! :-)

http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/20...FSL_Zoom_1.png
http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/20...FSL_Zoom_2.png

Myke

--

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

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message ...
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

You haven't even told us if you have a compression tool or if you know how
to use it.

If I have a "compression tool" I'm not aware of it.

Q: Where is the evidence of any (hyper-)compression in this screenshot?
A: There isn't any!

It doesn't look like it, but compression is harder to detect visually.

Limiting, otherwise known as 'clipping' of the waveform, is readily
apparent and is often much more destructive to the audio.

Are we still talking about the "Dark Side Of The Moon" screenshot?
Or the "Sunday Bloody Sunday" animation?

The Bloody Sunday .gif

In the case of DSotM, I see no clipping either. There is one peak that
reaches full scale at the bottom near the 33 minute mark and I have
posted at my site addition, medium and extreme closeups of that peak as
well which clearly reveal no limiting or clipping has taken place.

...unless I just still don't have my terms as well-defined as think I
do! :-)


Well... I stated in an earlier post today (transient peak), that I really don't
think you have a grip on the term "clipping" quite yet.

A). Attempting to exceed 0dBFS is 'digital clipping'.

B). Limiting a waveform so as not to exceed 0dBFS is also 'clipping'.


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message

B). Limiting a waveform so as not to exceed 0dBFS is also 'clipping'.

Well that rather depend onhow yo do it. If invoked with a soft-knee (albeit
a very stf one) I would not call it clipping. Clipping implies an instantly
squared waveform top.


geoff

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message ...


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

There is No question here. There is No statement of intent. There
is nothing more than what I have already repeatedly 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.

Don't forget Google... (which is really having some problems right now).
The message went to these groups... alt.audio.minidisc, rec.audio.tech,
and rec.audio.misc - on this date... (Saturday) 2003-06-28 21:57:53 PST

It appeared here on (Sunday) June 29, 2003 1:07 AM CST

By the way... thank you for not crossposting - and if Google is reporting
these times incorrectly, I apologize.

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.

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.

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

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

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!!!
-================================-

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message ...

The only time he's "on the hook" as far as I'm concerned is...

snip

(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.

Waffle. You told me yesterday that dealing with uncompressed audio
in preparation for MP3 was *very* important to what you wanted to learn
here.

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.

Ah c'mon... you're no more at odds with him than with me are you?
We all have things to say, we just say them differently.

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?
*

Very funny. ;-)

My ignorant ears "say" 128kb/s.

That's where, IMHO, things just start to get a little bit better.
Greater than 300kbps is astoundingly good for what it is.

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.

You should, though it would consume a great deal of time, learn about
equalization, compression (NOT DATA compression), peak limiting
and a couple of others before diving into normalization. These could
severely reduce the negative impact of basic 'normalization' and serve
you well when approaching the encoding process.

RMS normalization is usually pretty devastating, as it simply hacks away
the peaks to achieve it's goal - - though I thought that link to the developer's
FAQ was interesting to say the least as he implies there is more to his
algorithm than would meet the eye - but he doesn't justify it clearly.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

(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.

Waffle. You told me yesterday that dealing with uncompressed audio
in preparation for MP3 was *very* important to what you wanted to learn
here.

My point on this is that if Geoff wants to espouse truths about what I'm
doing with the audio at the WAV level, then he also needs to be sure
that he's telling me something that doesn't pertain only to CD audio and
leaves out factors involving the MP3 encoding process. If I am
operating under an assumption of the presence of lossy encoding
algorithms and I perceive his arguments as pertaining only to audio
without considering the lossy elements, then it's his responsibility to
either overcome my misconceptions by demonstrating how his arguments do
indeed pertain to lossy encoding in addition to uncompressed audio - or
simply lurk. In other words, his methods of presentation as far as I am
concerned have appeared to me as being too highly based on opinions
rather than facts to overcome my natural skepticism of his message.
It's only been since last night after I conducted my own test(s) that
I've seen anything which remotely resembles a strong enough factual
basis to lend creedence to his point of view. His penchant for libel
*certainly* did not help to strengthen his case with me one bit.

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.

Ah c'mon... you're no more at odds with him than with me are you?
We all have things to say, we just say them differently.

Very differently. I'm much more tolerant and appreciative of your brand
of low-level goading than I am of the inflammatory nonsense with which
he opted to pollute this thread upon first contributing to it.

At what point does it become better than common,
high-bias audiotape?

Very funny. ;-)

And what is it exactly that you find to be so humourous in that question
of mine?

Myke

--

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

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message ...

I'm much more tolerant and appreciative of your brand
of low-level goading than I am of the inflammatory nonsense

"Low level goading..." I've got to remember to use that someday. g

At what point does it become better than common,
high-bias audiotape?

Very funny. ;-)

And what is it exactly that you find to be so humourous in that question
of mine?

Well.. even though you didn't exactly define things, all I could picture in
my mind was an audio cassette - barely reaching 10Khz or anything below
45hz - and loaded down with 'hiss'. I've heard some pros turn out a few
low bit rate streams that can beat that.

DM

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

"Low level goading..." I've got to remember to use that someday. g

Hehe... I once coerced a pigeon to walk about a 1/2 city block once and
all the way around a building by slowing zig-zagging along behind it
about 10-feet back - just close enough to motivate it but not so close
that I spooked it. It was a pretty funny thing to see and do.

Well.. even though you didn't exactly define things, all I could picture in
my mind was an audio cassette - barely reaching 10Khz or anything below
45hz - and loaded down with 'hiss'. I've heard some pros turn out a few
low bit rate streams that can beat that.

Surely the typical high-bias cassette can do better than 10Khz. Now
normal-bias that's a different story. Those have *always* sounded dull
to my ears. But high-bias tapes were always much, much brighter.

Myke

--

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

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

Very differently. I'm much more tolerant and appreciative of your brand
of low-level goading than I am of the inflammatory nonsense with which
he opted to pollute this thread upon first contributing to it.

My level of response its at all time comensurate with the attitude of
presentation in the flawed concept I am addressing. If I have been
over-assertive or abrupt, it is in reaction to your refusal to beleive
things that most of us here learned in our late teens (that is anybody
involved in the technical side of music, and/or electronics). FWIW late
teens was over 20 years ago for me.

At what point does it become better than common,
high-bias audiotape?

Very funny. ;-)

And what is it exactly that you find to be so humourous in that question
of mine?


You are saying 'tape' and not realising that in these circles 'tape' does
not mean cassette (which it also fails to beat the best of). Certainly the
type of people happy with 128kpbs MP3s were the same set that didn't find
anything lacking in casssette tapes.

geoff