"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
...

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.

Don't know about all high-bias, but I swore by TDK SA-C90 blanks twenty
years ago to the extent I bought them by the case. It may be my imagination,
but when they went from the paper labels (that inevitably peeled off) to the
stamped plastic, the consistent quality I loved went away.

I have program matter on twenty year-old TDK SA-C90s that sound as good
today as they did back then.

John

John LeBlanc wrote:

Don't know about all high-bias, but I swore by TDK SA-C90 blanks twenty
years ago to the extent I bought them by the case. It may be my imagination,
but when they went from the paper labels (that inevitably peeled off) to the
stamped plastic, the consistent quality I loved went away.

I have program matter on twenty year-old TDK SA-C90s that sound as good
today as they did back then.

Well, let's see... In my book, comparing TDK SA-90s to Maxell's XL-II
90s is a lot like horse**** vs. dog****!

Just kiddin' ya there, John. Couldn't resist.

Actually, I too bought crateloads of SA-90s and XL-IIs all throughout
the 80s as well - basically because that's all there was to be had by a
guy my age at the time. I heard rumours that Radio Shack was soon to
release a CD-recorder named "Thor" back in 1986 but it never materialized.

Myke

--

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

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

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.

That propensity explains this and several other threads.
:-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Bob Cain 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.

That propensity explains this and several other threads.
:-)

ROFLMAO! :-) Y'know, I think you've got something there, Bob!

Maybe I should have named this "Doin' The Pigeon (With Lossy)" instead!

That pigeon incident happened sometime around 1991. I've always
regretted not having my camcorder with me that day. It was so funny. I
kept thinkin', y'know, this bird *has* wings, why does it allow me to
keep doing this?" I can still see it in my mind's eye waddling along
with its grey head and its beady little red eyes which kept glancing
back at me every few seconds just to see if I was still there and
walking along behind it. Eventually it *did* fly off towards a grassy
patch a few feet from the sidewalk but I must have walked it for a good
ten minutes straight before it finally decided it'd had enough!

I'm slightly off-topic with this amn't I?

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