[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Scott Dorsey wrote:
I hate to tell you this, but it is very, very obvious to hear the differences
between mp3 and CD files. I suggest you first of all go and listen on a
decent playback system, and secondly I suggest you get the AES disc that
gives exaggerated examples of various lossy compression artifacts. Once you
learn what they sound like, they will start driving you up the wall until
soon you will not be able to stand mp3 encoding any longer.

The AES disc dates from *how* many years ago? (I have it too, but not at hand)

It's been a while, I admit.

MP3 codecs have come a long way in just the past five years.

This is true, but you will STILL hear plenty of the same kinds of artifacts,
as well as some new ones.

No, I probably won't hear them, if the mp3 is well-made, because the codecs have gotten THAT
much better. I can still hear them on mediocre 128kbs downloads of unknown provenance, though.

And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the best codecs at 192kbps and above, you
probably wouldn't hear them either?



--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Les Cargill]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Scott Dorsey wrote:
I hate to tell you this, but it is very, very obvious to hear the differences
between mp3 and CD files. I suggest you first of all go and listen on a
decent playback system, and secondly I suggest you get the AES disc that
gives exaggerated examples of various lossy compression artifacts. Once you
learn what they sound like, they will start driving you up the wall until
soon you will not be able to stand mp3 encoding any longer.
The AES disc dates from *how* many years ago? (I have it too, but not at hand)

It's been a while, I admit.

MP3 codecs have come a long way in just the past five years.

This is true, but you will STILL hear plenty of the same kinds of artifacts,
as well as some new ones.

No, I probably won't hear them, if the mp3 is well-made, because the codecs have gotten THAT
much better. I can still hear them on mediocre 128kbs downloads of unknown provenance, though.

And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the best codecs at 192kbps and above, you
probably wouldn't hear them either?





Couldn't you generate this sort of thing by taking the difference signal
between an MP3 and the original PCM dataset?

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the best codecs at 192kbps and above, you
probably wouldn't hear them either?

On the best codecs at 192kbps, the tonal problems aren't so severe but I
bet you can still hear repeating modulation on the sound of a triangle.

At the higher rates with modern codecs, the tonality is a whole lot better
than it used to be, and only the stereo image goes to pot. This is a big
improvement, but it's still not transparency.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

do you have your own studio??

Yes,

Hehehe... oh, right! Located next to your
purported video production studio, no doubt.

[jer0en]

signal deterioration of course depending on the amplitude (strength) and
frequency (speed) of the signal, magnetic interference along the signal path
(warded off by shielding) and, first of all, the material composition and
mass of the conductor, i.e. the width of the signal path, and the number of
clamped removable connections along it, that act as width bottlenecks.

[jer0en]

material composition is what the industry currently focusses on, introducing
29th cy frequency filtering alloys in the environment that filter out the
human response elements from AV, in order to sensually bleed dry and submit
human life to its rule.

[jer0en]

and if you can see humour in that, you cannot be from around here. are you
now?

[[email protected]]

On Jul 8, 1:03 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech wrote:
On Jul 6, 6:44 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
bull****
do so on my laptopspeakers
mp3 even with high bit rate sucks the life out of
transients and overtone details

Still relying on those sighted evaluations, right?

They let you hear whatever you want to believe.
lap top speakers = sighted evaluations

er...no

bad logic there old man

er..back atcha.

they sound even worse when using monitors in my studio.

OK, now, how do they sound on your best monitors
when you use a good codec, and
run the comparison double-blind and level-matched??

Actually, don't tell me how they sound. Just post the ABX results.

--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

I did, mp3 Sucks details from the music!!!!

[[email protected]]

On Jul 8, 4:37 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:


And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the best codecs at 192kbps and above, you probably wouldn't hear them either?


and you are now flip flopping


I do hear the difference!!!

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Jul 8, 4:37 pm, Steven Sullivan
wrote:


And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the
best codecs at 192kbps and above, you probably wouldn't
hear them either?


and you are now flip flopping


I do hear the difference!!!

Since when did you reverse your position on ABX?

[[email protected]]

On Jul 8, 3:16 pm, "jer0en" wrote:
actually error correction is what definitively sets aside digital from
analogue data.
...
without adding error correction information, digital data simply reverts to
being another AC signal,
...
but without error correction, exactly the same happens to digitally as to
analoguely interpretable signals,
they deteriorate with every other
millimeter that they travel, in short you only loose and loose signal
information until the signal is eventually depleted.

...

now due to the protection of copyright law, no error correction information
is added to the data on commercial CDs and DVDs, and the OS stored on these
media does not halt the system in case of a misread. it just substitutes a
zero.

due to all kinds of circumstances; the quality of the laser unit, the read
speed, the number of parallel processes running, etc. etc., the number of
zeros "read" is bound to increase.

but the root of the matter is that once the data is read, the resulting AC
signal will then be travelling through the digital device (cd/dvd player)
completely unprotected, through nanometerwide signal paths that could in
fact only make sense in an environment in which error correction is
consistently applied.

If they gave out Nobel prizes in pure hogwash, you'd
most certainly be awash in pure hogs.

Your little novella on error correction is at once entertaining,
fantastic, rambling, largely irrelevant and, fortunately, wrong.

[Arny Krueger]

"jer0en" wrote in message


signal deterioration of course depending on the amplitude
(strength) and frequency (speed) of the signal, magnetic
interference along the signal path (warded off by
shielding) and, first of all, the material composition
and mass of the conductor, i.e. the width of the signal
path, and the number of clamped removable connections
along it, that act as width bottlenecks.

Bad prose, bad rhetoric, bad facts, bad conclusions.

If the width of conductors was a problem, no modern computer would boot, let
alone compute.

If any of the items you mentioned were irresolvable problems, nothing would
work.

Most data paths in modern digital equipment is not error-checked because it
doesn't need to be. Short lengths of wire are really pretty good stuff -
highly reliable and accurate.

[Richard Crowley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
"jer0en" wrote
signal deterioration of course depending on the amplitude
(strength) and frequency (speed) of the signal, magnetic
interference along the signal path (warded off by
shielding) and, first of all, the material composition
and mass of the conductor, i.e. the width of the signal
path, and the number of clamped removable connections
along it, that act as width bottlenecks.

Bad prose, bad rhetoric, bad facts, bad conclusions.

"jer0en" is actually a sophisticated automated random phrase
generator in development by some AI graduate students with
too much time on their hands over the summer break. It is to
their credit that so many of us were fooled into thinking that it
was a real human. But clearly no real human is that uninformed
of technical facts. Or else "Radium" is using a new alias.

Plonk the noise source and help improve Usenet.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 9, 6:43 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Jul 8, 4:37 pm, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the
best codecs at 192kbps and above, you probably wouldn't
hear them either?

and you are now flip flopping

I do hear the difference!!!

Since when did you reverse your position on ABX?

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Les Cargill wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Scott Dorsey wrote:
I hate to tell you this, but it is very, very obvious to hear the differences
between mp3 and CD files. I suggest you first of all go and listen on a
decent playback system, and secondly I suggest you get the AES disc that
gives exaggerated examples of various lossy compression artifacts. Once you
learn what they sound like, they will start driving you up the wall until
soon you will not be able to stand mp3 encoding any longer.
The AES disc dates from *how* many years ago? (I have it too, but not at hand)

It's been a while, I admit.

MP3 codecs have come a long way in just the past five years.

This is true, but you will STILL hear plenty of the same kinds of artifacts,
as well as some new ones.

No, I probably won't hear them, if the mp3 is well-made, because the codecs have gotten THAT
much better. I can still hear them on mediocre 128kbs downloads of unknown provenance, though.

And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the best codecs at 192kbps and above, you
probably wouldn't hear them either?





Couldn't you generate this sort of thing by taking the difference signal
between an MP3 and the original PCM dataset?



No, because the mp3 is certainly *measurably different* from the source.
But that doesn't mean you can necessarily hear the differnece...
even if you can hear the 'difference signal' in isolation.

mp3s are based on psymodels of what gets masked during typical hearing.
That's the whole 'trick' of good lossy compression...it's based on
psychoacoustics.




--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Scott Dorsey wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the best codecs at 192kbps and above, you
probably wouldn't hear them either?

On the best codecs at 192kbps, the tonal problems aren't so severe but I
bet you can still hear repeating modulation on the sound of a triangle.

At the higher rates with modern codecs, the tonality is a whole lot better
than it used to be, and only the stereo image goes to pot. This is a big
improvement, but it's still not transparency.

Well, a good set of ABX comparisons would tell us that, yes?



--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 9, 6:43 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Jul 8, 4:37 pm, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the
best codecs at 192kbps and above, you probably wouldn't
hear them either?

and you are now flip flopping

I do hear the difference!!!

Since when did you reverse your position on ABX?

no reversal,
I do not accept _hardware switchers_ for ABX.
any hardware in the audio circuit adds it's coloration and nulls any
differences.
I used itunes, nothing mechanical in the signal path.
same song, different formats, matched levels, no open GUI window
switched by keyboard.

the term _probably_ is where I say flip flop
And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the
best codecs at 192kbps and above, you probably wouldn't
hear them either?

either there is or is not a difference
if there is material removed, there is a difference.
I hear a difference
Scott hears a difference (independent verification)

my mom can not hear a difference between cassettes and lp's
its the same music she says. therefore ... !
now would my own mother lie to me?
or are her ears not trained to discern the subtle differences?
Kinda like you Arny!!!!!!

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


either there is or is not a difference

There is always a difference. The interesting question is whether the
difference is audible.


if there is material removed, there is a difference.

So what? There is always a difference.

I hear a difference

Based on what, the above flawed logic?

Scott hears a difference (independent verification)

It's not clear that you were comparing comparable things.

my mom can not hear a difference between cassettes and lp's

My regrets.

its the same music she says. therefore ... !
now would my own mother lie to me?
or are her ears not trained to discern the subtle
differences?

Or, she has some age-related hearing impairments. Or whatever.

Kinda like you Arny!!!!!!

How do you know that?

[[email protected]]

On 2008-07-09 said:
"jer0en" is actually a sophisticated automated random phrase
generator in development by some AI graduate students with
too much time on their hands over the summer break. It is to
their credit that so many of us were fooled into thinking that it
was a real human. But clearly no real human is that uninformed
of technical facts.
DOesn't matter, already figured out there was no intelligent
discourse there, but usually that's the case with these
crossposts. I automatically figure there's no intelligent
life there if I see rec.audio.opinion in the newsgroups
line.
After seeing a few posts in this thread I figured that
whatever jer*** was it was too dumb to waste my time on.
Just uninformed and not worth the bother, unlike others who
play their impostor games with malicious intent.

Plonk the noise source and help improve Usenet.

best policy.



Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[[email protected]]

On Jul 9, 4:50 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



either there is or is not a difference

There is always a difference. The interesting question is whether the
difference is audible.

if there is material removed, there is a difference.

So what? There is always a difference.

I hear a difference

Based on what, the above flawed logic?

Scott hears a difference (independent verification)

It's not clear that you were comparing comparable things.

my mom can not hear a difference between cassettes and lp's

My regrets.

its the same music she says. therefore ... !
now would my own mother lie to me?
or are her ears not trained to discern the subtle
differences?

Or, she has some age-related hearing impairments. Or whatever.

Kinda like you Arny!!!!!!

How do you know that?

you do not hear any difference!!!

[[email protected]]

Mr Soul wrote:

I'm partial to custom made computers, because I think Dell & other
venders use older, lower quality parts. But certainly is price is
your main criteria, then get a Dell or HP.


I think Dell uses current generation parts and I think building one's own
box is cheaper.

So, there ya go.

[[email protected]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
blah blah



I KF'd this fool. Please stop responding to him.

Have you no pride? Geez!

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:50:44 -0400, wrote:

I think Dell uses current generation parts and I think building one's own
box is cheaper.

An arguable point these days, particularly if you have to factor in a
copy of Windows.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Jul 9, 4:50 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



either there is or is not a difference

There is always a difference. The interesting question
is whether the difference is audible.

if there is material removed, there is a difference.

So what? There is always a difference.

I hear a difference

Based on what, the above flawed logic?

Scott hears a difference (independent verification)

It's not clear that you were comparing comparable things.

my mom can not hear a difference between cassettes and
lp's

My regrets.

its the same music she says. therefore ... !
now would my own mother lie to me?
or are her ears not trained to discern the subtle
differences?

Or, she has some age-related hearing impairments. Or
whatever.

Kinda like you Arny!!!!!!

How do you know that?

you do not hear any difference!!!

Delusions of omniscience noted. In fact you don't know any such thing, nor
is there a reason for you to believe that you do.

You're just trolling. :-(

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr Soul" wrote in message


I'm partial to custom made computers, because I think
Dell & other venders use older, lower quality parts.

Simply not true, particularly of Dell and HP.

I've seen technology in Dells and HPs that were still just coming onto the
parts market for consumers and small builders.

I've seen Asus motherboards in HPs, and Asus is about as good as it gets.

Both Dell and HP can heavily engineer a computer for price or performance,
and you pretty much get what you pay for, either way. They also make
mistakes.

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:50:44 -0400,
wrote:

I think Dell uses current generation parts and I think
building one's own box is cheaper.

An arguable point these days, particularly if you have to
factor in a copy of Windows.

And that's explainable by the fact that large builders get great discounts
on Windows, compared to what is available to small systems builders. The
large builders also do well on other parts.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 10, 6:46 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message





On Jul 9, 4:50 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



either there is or is not a difference

There is always a difference. The interesting question
is whether the difference is audible.

if there is material removed, there is a difference.

So what? There is always a difference.

I hear a difference

Based on what, the above flawed logic?

Scott hears a difference (independent verification)

It's not clear that you were comparing comparable things.

my mom can not hear a difference between cassettes and
lp's

My regrets.

its the same music she says. therefore ... !
now would my own mother lie to me?
or are her ears not trained to discern the subtle
differences?

Or, she has some age-related hearing impairments. Or
whatever.

Kinda like you Arny!!!!!!

How do you know that?

you do not hear any difference!!!

Delusions of omniscience noted. In fact you don't know any such thing, nor
is there a reason for you to believe that you do.

You're just trolling. :-(

154,000 posts for arny krueger
who trolls quite well.

[Mr Soul]

I think Dell uses current generation parts and I think building one's own
box is cheaper.
If by "currnet generation parts", you mean what is currently available
in terms of technology, then Dell definitely does NOT do that. I have
checked Dell many times and what they appear to do is to be using
slightly older parts such as memory and disk drives for example. I
suspect that is because they buy these in bulk. For example when SATA
II (300) drives had come out, Dell continued to the use SATA I drives
for quite a long time, until they finally upgraded. They do the same
with memory.

If you mean that you can build a any box with any components cheaper
than you can buy one from Dell, then you may be right. But you cannot
build a box with the same or equivalent components cheaper than you
can buy from from Dell. I've looked many times and Dell's are always
cheaper, particularly if they throw a monitor in.

So there you go.

I'm using a DAW that I built that is probably ~4 years old. It cost
me over $1K to build it but it's the nicest machine I've ever owned.
I've never had a problem with it and it VERY quiet and VERY fast (for
it's generation) which both were requirements for me.

Mike
http://www.pcDAW.net

[Mr Soul]

Simply not true, particularly of Dell and HP.
I beg to differ with you. I can't really comment on HP but Dell
definitely uses older parts. I've checked numerous times and what
Dell tends to do is to use memory and disk drives that are slightly
older than the current technology. I suspect this is because they buy
these components in bulk.

As for quality, I've seen Dell's disk drives fail on numerous
occasions at several places I work.

I've seen Asus motherboards in HPs, and Asus is about as good as it gets.
I use Asus mobo's in all my machines, so I agree with you here. I
didn't realize HP uses Asus mobo's.

Mike

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr Soul" wrote in message

Simply not true, particularly of Dell and HP.

I beg to differ with you. I can't really comment on HP
but Dell definitely uses older parts.

Yup, they do that in their econo-boxes.

I've checked
numerous times and what Dell tends to do is to use memory
and disk drives that are slightly older than the current
technology. I suspect this is because they buy these
components in bulk.

Dell can buy whatever parts they want to buy, in whatever volumes that they
are available. They are bound by the same market technology as everybody
else. However, if I call Seagate and ask for a heads up about future
technology and pricing, I get a slightly different response than a project
engineer over at Dell. And not a better response, I'll bet.

As for quality, I've seen Dell's disk drives fail on
numerous occasions at several places I work.

I've seen eveybody's drives fail - I've probably built and serviced several
thosand machines in the past 20-odd years.

I've seen Asus motherboards in HPs, and Asus is about as
good as it gets.

I use Asus mobo's in all my machines, so I agree with you
here. I didn't realize HP uses Asus mobo's.

They do. I can't remember if I've seen them in Dell's machines or not.
Furhtermore, if Asus made some boards for Dell, I don't know if they would
necessarily be branded.

[David F. Cox]

"Mr Soul" wrote in message
...
Simply not true, particularly of Dell and HP.
I beg to differ with you. I can't really comment on HP but Dell
definitely uses older parts. I've checked numerous times and what
Dell tends to do is to use memory and disk drives that are slightly
older than the current technology. I suspect this is because they buy
these components in bulk.

Using proven technology?

[Mr Soul]

On Jul 10, 8:25*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Mr Soul" wrote in message



Simply not true, particularly of Dell and HP.
I beg to differ with you. *I can't really comment on HP
but Dell definitely uses older parts.

Yup, they do that in their econo-boxes.
Right but if you buy one of their high-end boxes, a custom-made
computer is usually cheaper.

I just checked Dell's site and I looked a middle line Home Office
machine - the XPS 420 costing $899 with no monitor. It uses a Quad
core Q6600 processor and a mobo with a 1066 FSB, both of which would
be considered a little dated now. If I were building a Quad machine I
would use a Q9450 or Q9300 both at 1333 FSB. I also wouldn't use a
mobo with less than a 1333 FSB. The Dell uses DDR 667 (PC 5400)
memory which is also slower by today's standards. I wouldn't put in
anything less than DDR2 1200 (PC2 9600) memory. The Dell has up-to-
date disks but I remember when SATA II disks (3.0 GB/s) came out, Dell
was still selling SATA I's for quite some time. I assume that that is
because they bought those disks in bulk.

Mike
http://www.pcDAW.net

[Mr Soul]

PS - even the video card that the XPS 420 uses a little weak: ATI
Radeon HD 2400 PRO 128 MB.

Mike

[RD Jones]

On 2008-07-09 said:
* *"jer0en" is actually a sophisticated automated random phrase
* *generator in development by some AI graduate students with
* *too much time on their hands over the summer break. It is to
* *their credit that so many of us were fooled into thinking that it
* *was a real human. But clearly no real human is that uninformed
* *of technical facts.

On Jul 9, 5:41 pm, wrote:
DOesn't matter, already figured out there was no intelligent
discourse there, but usually that's the case with these
crossposts. *I automatically figure there's no intelligent
life there if I see rec.audio.opinion in the newsgroups
line.
After seeing a few posts in this thread I figured that
whatever jer*** was it was too dumb to waste my time on.
Just uninformed and not worth the bother, unlike others who
play their impostor games with malicious intent.

* *Plonk the noise source and help improve Usenet.

best policy.

Is that why it doesn't (or can't) quote ?
It also speaks Dutch and has been posting since Oct 2006.

rd

[jer0en]

sorry guys, this is as far as it goes.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 03:57:35 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article ):

no I was talking different models, in one of which a single 29th cy ffa
metalfoil 3.3R resistor would be replaced with plain uncompressed carbon of
the same size. I could tell in which channel.

ffa = frequency filtering alloy

but you can say low noise if you like



I thought FFA meant "Fast-Fourier Analysis" ?

[Richard Crowley]

"Sonnova" wrote ...
jer0en wrote
no I was talking different models, in one of which a single 29th cy ffa
metalfoil 3.3R resistor would be replaced with plain uncompressed carbon
of
the same size. I could tell in which channel.

ffa = frequency filtering alloy

but you can say low noise if you like



I thought FFA meant "Fast-Fourier Analysis" ?

Judging by the technical knowledge of some people here,
it is Future Farmers of America.

[Les Cargill]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote ...
jer0en wrote
no I was talking different models, in one of which a single 29th cy ffa
metalfoil 3.3R resistor would be replaced with plain uncompressed carbon
of
the same size. I could tell in which channel.

ffa = frequency filtering alloy

but you can say low noise if you like


I thought FFA meant "Fast-Fourier Analysis" ?

Judging by the technical knowledge of some people here,
it is Future Farmers of America.



Don't be so sure about that. Farming's gettin' pretty
techie.

--
Les Cargill

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:43:08 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote ...
jer0en wrote
no I was talking different models, in one of which a single 29th cy ffa
metalfoil 3.3R resistor would be replaced with plain uncompressed carbon
of
the same size. I could tell in which channel.

ffa = frequency filtering alloy

but you can say low noise if you like



I thought FFA meant "Fast-Fourier Analysis" ?

Judging by the technical knowledge of some people here,
it is Future Farmers of America.



There is that....

[jer0en]

people do not typically discuss the tactics of an ongoing planetary war in
the acronym finder, but ffa of course would have its roots in transistor
design, after germanium was abandonned for silicon, the industry struggling
for one decennium to arrive at the quality required to have man eat the
bait, and in the next decennia to tune down the quality required to have man
eat the **** of his perpetual submission. why bother with micro-sizing logic
if you can do the same if not better on the molecular level, even if the
current year would be 2008?