[Neil[_9_]]

I watched this movie the other day, and found it to have some revealing
perspectives on analog vs. digital production. Much of the movie focuses
on the Neve console built for the studio, and has interviews with Neve
and several artists that recorded their hits at Sound City.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_City_(film)

--
best regards,

Neil

[Robert Stevens]

I ended up with one of the Studer A800s they had from the early 80s. It is in a couple scenes in the middle of the movie.

[[email protected]]

Neil:

Just found it and watched on Hulu!
What a ride! And the revival at the
end was touching and energizing -
I won't let on just which famous
Brit rocked the place.

Neil Young about half-way through
got about as in-depth regarding
digital audio as anyone would,
mentioning an "error" with it that
he didn't elaborate on. Just that
digital wasn't quite what analog was.


Enlightening to know that a large
proprtion of my album collection was
recorded at Sound City!

[geoff]

On 26/02/2017 12:09 AM, wrote:


Neil Young about half-way through
got about as in-depth regarding
digital audio as anyone would,
mentioning an "error" with it that
he didn't elaborate on. Just that
digital wasn't quite what analog was.

Ah yes, his famous total lack of ability to comprehend A-D and D-A and
resultant damning of it. Apart from the Pono, that is ...

geoff

[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/25/2017 6:25 AM, geoff wrote:
On 26/02/2017 12:09 AM, wrote:


Neil Young about half-way through
got about as in-depth regarding
digital audio as anyone would,
mentioning an "error" with it that
he didn't elaborate on. Just that
digital wasn't quite what analog was.

Ah yes, his famous total lack of ability to comprehend A-D and D-A and
resultant damning of it. Apart from the Pono, that is ...

geoff

My take on it is that a lot of artists' perspective toward digital was
formed in the early transitional years, and this movie is largely about
that time period. From a personal perspective, I sold our analog studio
about that time (late 70's) simply because the cost of conversion was
unjustifiable due to many things, including the rise of home studios and
disco-based "beat" music.

--
best regards,

Neil

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:09:28 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Neil:

Just found it and watched on Hulu!
What a ride! And the revival at the
end was touching and energizing -
I won't let on just which famous
Brit rocked the place.

Neil Young about half-way through
got about as in-depth regarding
digital audio as anyone would,
mentioning an "error" with it that
he didn't elaborate on. Just that
digital wasn't quite what analog was.


Enlightening to know that a large
proprtion of my album collection was
recorded at Sound City!

Neil Young? A dipwad, period. Him and his Pono crap and Neil's friends who enjoy deceiving others. A late bloomer, audiophile. Right.

Jack

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:25:19 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 26/02/2017 12:09 AM, wrote:


Neil Young about half-way through
got about as in-depth regarding
digital audio as anyone would,
mentioning an "error" with it that
he didn't elaborate on. Just that
digital wasn't quite what analog was.

Ah yes, his famous total lack of ability to comprehend A-D and D-A and
resultant damning of it. Apart from the Pono, that is ...

Remember when Neil was part of CSN&Y? Remember when Neil wanted several Takes, because HE was displeased with sound quality? No, you don't, because Neil didn't give a crap about sound/audio quality.

He just seen an opportunity to compete against Apple, but failed. Had Neil had ALL of what he offered for Pono, remixed, he might have stood a chance, but he didn't.

Now, let's talk Steven Wilson, who "remixed" a Chicago (group) album. Steven's own music must not be that great (even asked local radio station), so he remixes other's work. Steven does make subtle changes to the stereo mix, and I agree with them. However, now Steven is into remixing Horn bands (via Rhino Records (guess Bill Inglot is GONE).

Actually, I like Steven's work, since he is (sometimes too) conservative, nice to digitally enhance!

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Neil wrote:
On 2/25/2017 6:25 AM, geoff wrote:
On 26/02/2017 12:09 AM, wrote:

Neil Young about half-way through
got about as in-depth regarding
digital audio as anyone would,
mentioning an "error" with it that
he didn't elaborate on. Just that
digital wasn't quite what analog was.

Ah yes, his famous total lack of ability to comprehend A-D and D-A and
resultant damning of it. Apart from the Pono, that is ...

What was cool was that the filmmakers let him talk about how digital
technology makes things different but they didn't let him go off on any
of his bizarre tangents. He was edited well.

My take on it is that a lot of artists' perspective toward digital was
formed in the early transitional years, and this movie is largely about
that time period. From a personal perspective, I sold our analog studio
about that time (late 70's) simply because the cost of conversion was
unjustifiable due to many things, including the rise of home studios and
disco-based "beat" music.

Well, there are a lot of different things going on. The main difference
between traditional analogue and digital production methods is not sound
quality per se but the fact that everything is so much faster in the digital
world and you're not locked down to doing things in realtime. Add that to
being able to undo, and you have totally changed the way production is done
and not always for the better. The fast pace and not having the ability to
slow down and think about things is where a lot of artists have problems.

But you're right that early digital systems sounded pretty bad, and a lot
of artists remember those days (and many of them heard better back in those
days too). So you have a lot of the same kinds of issues that we had in
the eighties with people complaining about how bad solid state electronics
sounded, because they remembered the solid state gear of twenty years earlier
that sounded very bad.

Neil Young has a different set of problems, though. He has severely damaged
his hearing and has extreme recruitment, and likely this exaggerates the
artifacts of lossy encoding. Perceptual encoding systems like mp3 rely on
a model of how hearing works, and when your hearing doesn't match that model
they can go horribly wrong. So he likely has a legitimate concern about
lossy encoding. It probably does sound much worse to him than it does us.

However, because he doesn't have the slightest idea about the actual technology
he confuses a lot of different unrelated issues together and waves his arms and
comes out and says "everything digital is bad." This doesn't help anything.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 11:44:54 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Neil wrote:
On 2/25/2017 6:25 AM, geoff wrote:
On 26/02/2017 12:09 AM, wrote:

Neil Young about half-way through
got about as in-depth regarding
digital audio as anyone would,
mentioning an "error" with it that
he didn't elaborate on. Just that
digital wasn't quite what analog was.

Ah yes, his famous total lack of ability to comprehend A-D and D-A and
resultant damning of it. Apart from the Pono, that is ...

What was cool was that the filmmakers let him talk about how digital
technology makes things different but they didn't let him go off on any
of his bizarre tangents. He was edited well.

My take on it is that a lot of artists' perspective toward digital was
formed in the early transitional years, and this movie is largely about
that time period. From a personal perspective, I sold our analog studio
about that time (late 70's) simply because the cost of conversion was
unjustifiable due to many things, including the rise of home studios and
disco-based "beat" music.

Well, there are a lot of different things going on. The main difference
between traditional analogue and digital production methods is not sound
quality per se but the fact that everything is so much faster in the digital
world and you're not locked down to doing things in realtime. Add that to
being able to undo, and you have totally changed the way production is done
and not always for the better. The fast pace and not having the ability to
slow down and think about things is where a lot of artists have problems.

But you're right that early digital systems sounded pretty bad, and a lot
of artists remember those days (and many of them heard better back in those
days too). So you have a lot of the same kinds of issues that we had in
the eighties with people complaining about how bad solid state electronics
sounded, because they remembered the solid state gear of twenty years earlier
that sounded very bad.

Personally, I have yet to HEAR any of what people complained about with EARLY CDs. Was this less than impressive sound attributed with D-A convertors? Heck, no. I attribute the less than impressive sound to A.) Not working with genuine First Generation Master tapes, B.) Ill sounding Sony PCM machines that most didn't know how to operate, C.) HUMANS that had no business (re)mastering music but loved the money they gained, and D.) Not having the electronics (replaced by DAW) as they did back in the days of analog mastering.

Some silly attempts to RECTIFY the ill CD audio was to use vacuum tube equipment. Brilliant! As Doug Sax wrote, before RIP, is that MAN will eventually get a better handle on digital sound.

Jack


Neil Young has a different set of problems, though. He has severely damaged
his hearing and has extreme recruitment, and likely this exaggerates the
artifacts of lossy encoding. Perceptual encoding systems like mp3 rely on
a model of how hearing works, and when your hearing doesn't match that model
they can go horribly wrong. So he likely has a legitimate concern about
lossy encoding. It probably does sound much worse to him than it does us..

However, because he doesn't have the slightest idea about the actual technology
he confuses a lot of different unrelated issues together and waves his arms and
comes out and says "everything digital is bad." This doesn't help anything.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 26/02/2017 2:41 AM, Neil wrote:
On 2/25/2017 6:25 AM, geoff wrote:
On 26/02/2017 12:09 AM, wrote:


Neil Young about half-way through
got about as in-depth regarding
digital audio as anyone would,
mentioning an "error" with it that
he didn't elaborate on. Just that
digital wasn't quite what analog was.

Ah yes, his famous total lack of ability to comprehend A-D and D-A and
resultant damning of it. Apart from the Pono, that is ...

geoff

My take on it is that a lot of artists' perspective toward digital was
formed in the early transitional years, and this movie is largely about
that time period. From a personal perspective, I sold our analog studio
about that time (late 70's) simply because the cost of conversion was
unjustifiable due to many things, including the rise of home studios and
disco-based "beat" music.



Most of the great unwashed seemed to equate 'digital' with MP3 9and
Apple equiv) , and crappy streamed downloads. This can be either in a
positive or negative light.

Apparently CDs other other media are not 'digital' any more, but get
dmaned when the negative mode is on.

geoff

[geoff]

On 26/02/2017 6:56 AM, wrote:


Personally, I have yet to HEAR any of what people complained about
with EARLY CDs. Was this less than impressive sound attributed with
D-A convertors? Heck, no. I attribute the less than impressive sound
to A.) Not working with genuine First Generation Master tapes, B.)
Ill sounding Sony PCM machines that most didn't know how to operate,
C.) HUMANS that had no business (re)mastering music but loved the
money they gained, and D.) Not having the electronics (replaced by
DAW) as they did back in the days of analog mastering.

Some silly attempts to RECTIFY the ill CD audio was to use vacuum
tube equipment. Brilliant! As Doug Sax wrote, before RIP, is that MAN
will eventually get a better handle on digital sound.


A particular era of remastering is what I objected to most, and to a
degree original production.

That was partly to do with the limited digital technology of the time
(processing bit-dept achievable), coupled with the production idea that
make something sounding 'brighter' - sometimes glaringly - made it better.

geoff

[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/25/2017 11:44 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Neil wrote:
My take on it is that a lot of artists' perspective toward digital was
formed in the early transitional years, and this movie is largely about
that time period. From a personal perspective, I sold our analog studio
about that time (late 70's) simply because the cost of conversion was
unjustifiable due to many things, including the rise of home studios and
disco-based "beat" music.

Well, there are a lot of different things going on. The main difference
between traditional analogue and digital production methods is not sound
quality per se but the fact that everything is so much faster in the digital
world and you're not locked down to doing things in realtime. Add that to
being able to undo, and you have totally changed the way production is done
and not always for the better. The fast pace and not having the ability to
slow down and think about things is where a lot of artists have problems.

During the "dawn of digital" one could see the potential for new
production techniques, but it wasn't realized until about a decade after
studios had to decide what they were going to do. For example, the 3M
and other digital recorders were still based on reels of tape, so
retakes were required and splicing was out. In the meantime, classic
electronic music (read, synthesizer techniques aka musique concrete)
dominated the disco scene, and bands that previously would go to a
studio to record their demos were using Tascam gear at home, so the
money was siphoned off.

But you're right that early digital systems sounded pretty bad, and a lot
of artists remember those days (and many of them heard better back in those
days too). So you have a lot of the same kinds of issues that we had in
the eighties with people complaining about how bad solid state electronics
sounded, because they remembered the solid state gear of twenty years earlier
that sounded very bad.

There wasn't anything really wrong with solid state electronics per se,
even in the '60s. There was some bad design using transistors, but there
was also some excellent gear. What I think musicians had a problem with
is that solid state didn't mask artifacts such as the odd harmonics that
were a part of the overdrive they liked. But, that was easily dealt
with, too, if one knew what they were dealing with.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Neil wrote:
During the "dawn of digital" one could see the potential for new
production techniques, but it wasn't realized until about a decade after
studios had to decide what they were going to do. For example, the 3M
and other digital recorders were still based on reels of tape, so
retakes were required and splicing was out.

Right. And that sort of thing continued on in the small studio world with
systems like ADAT, for quite some time. I'd consider those "transitional
systems." They have all of the disadvantages of analogue production techniques
with all the disadvantages of early digital sound quality.

It was possible to splice DASH tapes, though, although 3M format was not
spliceable. In theory it's possible to splice Mitsubishi tapes but in
practice it's a horror.

In the meantime, classic
electronic music (read, synthesizer techniques aka musique concrete)
dominated the disco scene, and bands that previously would go to a
studio to record their demos were using Tascam gear at home, so the
money was siphoned off.

I avoided that whole movement myself, thank God. I might even still have
a DISCO SUCKS t-shirt somewhere.

There wasn't anything really wrong with solid state electronics per se,
even in the '60s. There was some bad design using transistors, but there
was also some excellent gear.

People were continuing to design like they did in the tube era. Lots of
capacitively-coupled gain stages with global feedback. The problem with
doing this is that the low impedances meant huge capacitors were needed,
so we wound up with electrolytic coupling all over the place. Transistors
were mostly slow, so slew-limiting became a problem very fast. The attitude
that adding more negative feedback would clean anything up was reasonable in
the tube world but suddenly didn't hold water.

Not to mention that germanium transistors were not either linear or
temperature-stable. Biasing them with a single leakage resistor like a
tube kind of works.... but isn't such a good plan if you care about
stability or distortion.

A lot of techniques and a lot of reasonable assumptions in the tube world
suddenly didn't apply.

It took years before people to figure out tricks like DC coupling, constant
current sources, symmetric low-level stages, etc. It's a different mindset
entirely: you have more gain than you know what to do with and you can use
as many active devices as you want.

What I think musicians had a problem with
is that solid state didn't mask artifacts such as the odd harmonics that
were a part of the overdrive they liked. But, that was easily dealt
with, too, if one knew what they were dealing with.

I came from the classical world, where people actually did want recordings
that sounded like the performance, so I didn't see so much of that. What
I saw were devices that had great distortion numbers on the datasheet but
actually very high even-harmonic distortion in practical applications.
(And yes, it's true that odd harmonics can mask some of that, which is why
early attempts at going transformerless had mixed results...)
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Klay Anderson[_2_]]

For a god tine, find "The Wrecking Crew" on a streaming service.

Klay

[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/26/2017 9:48 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Neil wrote:
During the "dawn of digital" one could see the potential for new
production techniques, but it wasn't realized until about a decade after
studios had to decide what they were going to do. For example, the 3M
and other digital recorders were still based on reels of tape, so
retakes were required and splicing was out.

Right. And that sort of thing continued on in the small studio world with
systems like ADAT, for quite some time. I'd consider those "transitional
systems." They have all of the disadvantages of analogue production techniques
with all the disadvantages of early digital sound quality.

It was possible to splice DASH tapes, though, although 3M format was not
spliceable. In theory it's possible to splice Mitsubishi tapes but in
practice it's a horror.

IMO, the most practical solutions at the time were based on the video
editing system technologies of the day. By the mid 80's, DAWs started to
take over, but they were also based on video recording and editing concepts.

In the meantime, classic
electronic music (read, synthesizer techniques aka musique concrete)
dominated the disco scene, and bands that previously would go to a
studio to record their demos were using Tascam gear at home, so the
money was siphoned off.

I avoided that whole movement myself, thank God. I might even still have
a DISCO SUCKS t-shirt somewhere.

;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/26/2017 9:48 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Not to mention that germanium transistors were not either linear or
temperature-stable. Biasing them with a single leakage resistor like a
tube kind of works.... but isn't such a good plan if you care about
stability or distortion.

And today, "engineers" prize gear built with one or more germanium
transistors for its distortion.

Go figure.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Neil wrote:
On 2/25/2017 11:44 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:
My take on it is that a lot of artists' perspective toward digital was
formed in the early transitional years, and this movie is largely about
that time period. From a personal perspective, I sold our analog studio
about that time (late 70's) simply because the cost of conversion was
unjustifiable due to many things, including the rise of home studios and
disco-based "beat" music.

Well, there are a lot of different things going on. The main difference
between traditional analogue and digital production methods is not sound
quality per se but the fact that everything is so much faster in the
digital
world and you're not locked down to doing things in realtime. Add
that to
being able to undo, and you have totally changed the way production is
done
and not always for the better. The fast pace and not having the
ability to
slow down and think about things is where a lot of artists have problems.

During the "dawn of digital" one could see the potential for new
production techniques, but it wasn't realized until about a decade
after
studios had to decide what they were going to do. For example, the 3M
and other digital recorders were still based on reels of tape, so
retakes were required and splicing was out. In the meantime, classic
electronic music (read, synthesizer techniques aka musique concrete)
dominated the disco scene, and bands that previously would go to a
studio to record their demos were using Tascam gear at home, so the
money was siphoned off.


You didn't just go to a studio. It was very expensive. The rest of the
production process - pressing - was extremely expensive.

A little later ( 1980ish ) you had "home" studios based on
narrow-format tape where people financed their own singles and
albums. "Home" might have been a storefront but then commercial
real estate prices were a thing.

But you're right that early digital systems sounded pretty bad, and a lot
of artists remember those days (and many of them heard better back in
those
days too). So you have a lot of the same kinds of issues that we had in
the eighties with people complaining about how bad solid state
electronics
sounded, because they remembered the solid state gear of twenty years
earlier
that sounded very bad.

There wasn't anything really wrong with solid state electronics
per se, even in the '60s. There was some bad design using
transistors, but there
was also some excellent gear. What I think musicians had a
problem with
is that solid state didn't mask artifacts such as the odd harmonics
that
were a part of the overdrive they liked.

That came later. For a span of time, you couldn't give an old Fender
tube amp away. Lotta Peavey Bandits and Lab Series amps then.

But, that was easily dealt
with, too, if one knew what they were dealing with.


You also had people using Acoustic Control SS amps with *horns*
for electric guitar. WTF? Major icepick.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Klay Anderson wrote:
For a god tine, find "The Wrecking Crew" on a streaming service.

Klay



Also "Muscle Shoals."

--
Les Cargill

[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/26/2017 12:53 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 2/25/2017 11:44 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:
My take on it is that a lot of artists' perspective toward digital was
formed in the early transitional years, and this movie is largely about
that time period. From a personal perspective, I sold our analog studio
about that time (late 70's) simply because the cost of conversion was
unjustifiable due to many things, including the rise of home studios
and
disco-based "beat" music.

Well, there are a lot of different things going on. The main difference
between traditional analogue and digital production methods is not sound
quality per se but the fact that everything is so much faster in the
digital
world and you're not locked down to doing things in realtime. Add
that to
being able to undo, and you have totally changed the way production is
done
and not always for the better. The fast pace and not having the
ability to
slow down and think about things is where a lot of artists have
problems.

During the "dawn of digital" one could see the potential for new
production techniques, but it wasn't realized until about a decade
after
studios had to decide what they were going to do. For example, the 3M
and other digital recorders were still based on reels of tape, so
retakes were required and splicing was out. In the meantime, classic
electronic music (read, synthesizer techniques aka musique concrete)
dominated the disco scene, and bands that previously would go to a
studio to record their demos were using Tascam gear at home, so the
money was siphoned off.


You didn't just go to a studio. It was very expensive. The rest of the
production process - pressing - was extremely expensive.

In the late '60s - mid '70s it was common in this neck of the woods to
record demos in studios. Most never pressed a disc, but took cassettes
of the session.

A little later ( 1980ish ) you had "home" studios based on
narrow-format tape where people financed their own singles and
albums. "Home" might have been a storefront but then commercial
real estate prices were a thing.

Yeah, there was some of that for a very short time. Once the 4-track
cassette decks became available, the "semi-pro" studios closed. At least
around here.

But you're right that early digital systems sounded pretty bad, and a
lot
of artists remember those days (and many of them heard better back in
those
days too). So you have a lot of the same kinds of issues that we had in
the eighties with people complaining about how bad solid state
electronics
sounded, because they remembered the solid state gear of twenty years
earlier
that sounded very bad.

There wasn't anything really wrong with solid state electronics
per se, even in the '60s. There was some bad design using
transistors, but there
was also some excellent gear. What I think musicians had a
problem with
is that solid state didn't mask artifacts such as the odd harmonics
that
were a part of the overdrive they liked.

That came later. For a span of time, you couldn't give an old Fender
tube amp away. Lotta Peavey Bandits and Lab Series amps then.

I was mainly referring to pre-Peavey days... Magnetone, Silvertone,
Supro, et al. The Fenders of the day were mostly going for a "clean"
sound by comparison.

But, that was easily dealt
with, too, if one knew what they were dealing with.


You also had people using Acoustic Control SS amps with *horns*
for electric guitar. WTF? Major icepick.

I think they were trying to out-ring the Vox Super Beatles.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 25-02-2017 17:44, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Neil Young has a different set of problems, though. He has severely damaged
his hearing and has extreme recruitment, and likely this exaggerates the
artifacts of lossy encoding. Perceptual encoding systems like mp3 rely on
a model of how hearing works, and when your hearing doesn't match that model
they can go horribly wrong. So he likely has a legitimate concern about
lossy encoding. It probably does sound much worse to him than it does us.

I can't find any real difference in the workings of lossy encoding and
threshold shift.

However, because he doesn't have the slightest idea about the actual technology
he confuses a lot of different unrelated issues together and waves his arms and
comes out and says "everything digital is bad." This doesn't help anything.

Very often nowadays "digital" unspecificed is lossy encoded digital and
then the vinyl LP does come out on top. I'm beginning to wonder just how
much full wordlength digital audio that gets to the end consumer.

--scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Trevor]

On 27/02/2017 3:25 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
Very often nowadays "digital" unspecificed is lossy encoded digital
and then the vinyl LP does come out on top.


Rubbish, I have well over 1,000 pristine vinyl records, but a well
recorded digital file properly encoded at maximum VBR or 320kbs fixed
rate will beat most, if not all of them. Most by a *long* way!
Why anyone would continue to equate MP3 with 128kbs (or less) files
these days is beyond me. But then the whole debate is irrelevant now
when storing uncompressed files or ALAC/FLAC files is cheaper and takes
less physical space than 64kbs MP3 did only a few years ago!
And ***FAR*** less cost and size than vinyl records!!!!!!!!!

Trevor.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 27-02-2017 10:34, Trevor wrote:

On 27/02/2017 3:25 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:

Very often nowadays "digital" unspecificed is lossy encoded digital
and then the vinyl LP does come out on top.

Rubbish, I have well over 1,000 pristine vinyl records, but a well
recorded digital file properly encoded at maximum VBR or 320kbs fixed
rate will beat most, if not all of them. Most by a *long* way!
Why anyone would continue to equate MP3 with 128kbs (or less) files
these days is beyond me. But then the whole debate is irrelevant now
when storing uncompressed files or ALAC/FLAC files is cheaper and takes
less physical space than 64kbs MP3 did only a few years ago!
And ***FAR*** less cost and size than vinyl records!!!!!!!!!

Trevor, my experience is that you're almost always right. But what comes
out of a FM transmitter nowadays appears to be encoded at less than 320
kbits.

Trevor.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/27/2017 4:34 AM, Trevor wrote:


Why anyone would continue to equate MP3 with 128kbs (or less) files
these days is beyond me.

Because that's what most people listen to, or worse. You aren't "most
people," so you don't have anything to complain about. But the
proverbial "most people" are still downloading MP3 or streaming, and, in
fact, "most people" aren't complaining about the sound quality of what
they're hearing. Those who are concerned with sound know, or can learn,
what they can do to improve it. But most are satisfied with the sound
and love the convenience.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Neil wrote:
On 2/26/2017 9:48 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

It was possible to splice DASH tapes, though, although 3M format was not
spliceable. In theory it's possible to splice Mitsubishi tapes but in
practice it's a horror.

IMO, the most practical solutions at the time were based on the video
editing system technologies of the day. By the mid 80's, DAWs started to
take over, but they were also based on video recording and editing concepts.

Video-style editing was horrible. It was better than the horror of assemble
and insert work with video because unlike video there was no generation loss.
But I have images in my head of watching two Mitsubishi machines under computer
control running in realtime copying one bar at a time from one machine to the
other for hours until... ooops, the count on the EDL was off by a note on
that edit, got to change the file and start all over from the beginning now...

It was so much easier just to cut with the razor blade.

The DAW systems actually came in at about the same time nonlinear video editing
did, which is surprising since the amount of resources needed for something
like the Video Toaster are a good bit higher than what is needed for audio.
Nonlinear editing made real video editing work much easier.

Video editing was so bad that a lot of folks shot 16mm for video finish only
because it allowed them to edit film on a flatbed instead of assembling shot
by shot with two VTRs.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "
Because that's what most people listen to, or worse. You aren't "most
people," so you don't have anything to complain about. But the
proverbial "most people" are still downloading MP3 or streaming, and, in
fact, "most people" aren't complaining about the sound quality of what
they're hearing. Those who are concerned with sound know, or can learn,
what they can do to improve it. But most are satisfied with the sound
and love the convenience. "


I still maintain that processing done in mastering
has a far more audible effect on a piece than
encoding it to a lossy format 1/3rd to 1/5th of the
original file size.

[John Williamson]

On 27/02/2017 14:41, wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: "
Because that's what most people listen to, or worse. You aren't "most
people," so you don't have anything to complain about. But the
proverbial "most people" are still downloading MP3 or streaming, and, in
fact, "most people" aren't complaining about the sound quality of what
they're hearing. Those who are concerned with sound know, or can learn,
what they can do to improve it. But most are satisfied with the sound
and love the convenience. "


I still maintain that processing done in mastering
has a far more audible effect on a piece than
encoding it to a lossy format 1/3rd to 1/5th of the
original file size.

This may be true, but decisions made in mastering were (hopefully) made
while listening to a decent set of monitors, so should represent exactly
what the artiste/ engineer/ producer wanted the listeners to hear.

This result is then fed into a data compression unit, what comes out is
not what went in (Cymbals and percussion tend to suffer most), and may
not represent what the production team envisaged. Many listeners either
buy the CD and rip it to whatever size fits their available storage and
listen to it on cheap earbuds or just download it from a pirate site,
which may be a 128kbs mp3 which has been processed from a 64kbps file on
a really bad site with storage problems. A very few listeners in a
domestic situation can tell the difference, and they are the ones that
complain about it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:30:04 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 27/02/2017 14:41, wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: "
Because that's what most people listen to, or worse. You aren't "most
people," so you don't have anything to complain about. But the
proverbial "most people" are still downloading MP3 or streaming, and, in
fact, "most people" aren't complaining about the sound quality of what
they're hearing. Those who are concerned with sound know, or can learn,
what they can do to improve it. But most are satisfied with the sound
and love the convenience. "


I still maintain that processing done in mastering
has a far more audible effect on a piece than
encoding it to a lossy format 1/3rd to 1/5th of the
original file size.

This may be true, but decisions made in mastering were (hopefully) made
while listening to a decent set of monitors, so should represent exactly
what the artiste/ engineer/ producer wanted the listeners to hear.

This result is then fed into a data compression unit, what comes out is
not what went in (Cymbals and percussion tend to suffer most), and may
not represent what the production team envisaged. Many listeners either
buy the CD and rip it to whatever size fits their available storage and
listen to it on cheap earbuds or just download it from a pirate site,
which may be a 128kbs mp3 which has been processed from a 64kbps file on
a really bad site with storage problems. A very few listeners in a
domestic situation can tell the difference, and they are the ones that
complain about it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

When Napster was big, I found a 96kbps MP3, and it sounded better than a lot above that bitrate 128-160.

Jack

[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/27/2017 9:12 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/27/2017 4:34 AM, Trevor wrote:


Why anyone would continue to equate MP3 with 128kbs (or less) files
these days is beyond me.

Because that's what most people listen to, or worse. You aren't "most
people," so you don't have anything to complain about. But the
proverbial "most people" are still downloading MP3 or streaming, and, in
fact, "most people" aren't complaining about the sound quality of what
they're hearing. Those who are concerned with sound know, or can learn,
what they can do to improve it. But most are satisfied with the sound
and love the convenience.


Perhaps we lose perspective about why most people "listen" to music. MP3
and streaming are the current-day versions of cassettes, which were
immensely popular for the same reason; people *aren't* listening to the
music so much as they're creating familiar background noises.

--
best regards,

Neil

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "When Napster was big, I found a 96kbps MP3, and it sounded better than a lot above that bitrate 128-160.

Jack "

I noticed that phenomenon too. When higher
bitrate mp3s became the norm over time, they
were unfortunately ripped from newer, more
heavily processed masters or so-called
remasters of older material. Less dynamic
and more loudified than older mp3s done
from original sources.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 11:00:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: "When Napster was big, I found a 96kbps MP3, and it sounded better than a lot above that bitrate 128-160.

Jack "

I noticed that phenomenon too. When higher
bitrate mp3s became the norm over time, they
were unfortunately ripped from newer, more
heavily processed masters or so-called
remasters of older material. Less dynamic
and more loudified than older mp3s done
from original sources.

Actually, the group is/was Spiral Starecase, but were from the Master tape or Remixed, since (opening & ending)....

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...oretoday-t.mp3

By my ears, the better mastering, the less distortion at lower bitrates.
A decent song that fails to encode well at lower bitrates is..
J. Geils: "Give It to Me", even after Sterling Sound enhances.

Someone mentioned the Wrecking Crew (Remastered Remaster)....
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...cated2the1.mp3

Jack

[geoff]

On 27/02/2017 10:34 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 27/02/2017 3:25 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
Very often nowadays "digital" unspecificed is lossy encoded digital
and then the vinyl LP does come out on top.


Rubbish, I have well over 1,000 pristine vinyl records, but a well
recorded digital file properly encoded at maximum VBR or 320kbs fixed
rate will beat most, if not all of them. Most by a *long* way!
Why anyone would continue to equate MP3 with 128kbs (or less) files
these days is beyond me.


Because that is what most of the people listen to most of the time (?)


But then the whole debate is irrelevant now
when storing uncompressed files or ALAC/FLAC files is cheaper and takes
less physical space than 64kbs MP3 did only a few years ago!
And ***FAR*** less cost and size than vinyl records!!!!!!!!!

I've had a 64MB iPod touch full of CDs ripped to ALAC for many years
now. Changed same to FLAC and have them on my phone too.

geoff

[geoff]

On 28/02/2017 4:29 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On 27/02/2017 14:41, wrote:


This result is then fed into a data compression unit, what comes out is
not what went in (Cymbals and percussion tend to suffer most),


Or anything delicate and primarily of naturally acoustic origin. "I
don't remember a flanger on the guitar and hi-hat in that track !"

geoff

[Nil[_2_]]

On 27 Feb 2017, Trevor wrote in rec.audio.pro:

But then the whole debate is irrelevant now when storing
uncompressed files or ALAC/FLAC files is cheaper and takes less
physical space than 64kbs MP3 did only a few years ago!

That's absolutely incorrect. There is no way that ALAC/FLAC files
could ever take up less space than any MP3 from the same source.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: "
Because that's what most people listen to, or worse. You aren't "most
people," so you don't have anything to complain about. But the
proverbial "most people" are still downloading MP3 or streaming, and, in
fact, "most people" aren't complaining about the sound quality of what
they're hearing. Those who are concerned with sound know, or can learn,
what they can do to improve it. But most are satisfied with the sound
and love the convenience. "


I still maintain that processing done in mastering
has a far more audible effect on a piece than
encoding it to a lossy format 1/3rd to 1/5th of the
original file size.

It depends a lot on the record. As an engineer, though, I can often do
something about the mastering but I can't do anything about the MP3 encoding.

And what's worse is that sometimes the two interact, which is why the whole
idea of mastering specifically for MP3 release is a very good one.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:56:12 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 26/02/2017 6:56 AM, wrote:


Personally, I have yet to HEAR any of what people complained about
with EARLY CDs. Was this less than impressive sound attributed with
D-A convertors? Heck, no. I attribute the less than impressive sound
to A.) Not working with genuine First Generation Master tapes, B.)
Ill sounding Sony PCM machines that most didn't know how to operate,
C.) HUMANS that had no business (re)mastering music but loved the
money they gained, and D.) Not having the electronics (replaced by
DAW) as they did back in the days of analog mastering.

Some silly attempts to RECTIFY the ill CD audio was to use vacuum
tube equipment. Brilliant! As Doug Sax wrote, before RIP, is that MAN
will eventually get a better handle on digital sound.


A particular era of remastering is what I objected to most, and to a
degree original production.

That was partly to do with the limited digital technology of the time
(processing bit-dept achievable), coupled with the production idea that
make something sounding 'brighter' - sometimes glaringly - made it better..

geoff

On a Wrecking Crew CD set, some songs I heard early on now sound better. But, really, did they take the tapes and re-digitalize them? Maybe, but this music, though I love it, isn't worth the cost! The Animals, if you remember them, lots of higher frequencies are no existent. Maybe recorded that way. But, then again, they are on a Polygram or Polydor CD, so they may just have (spent) copies of Masters, probably recorded in UK.

You know, G', I used to listen to FM Stereo Radio, thought they received superior copies to promote, since mine didn't sound like theirs (vinly LPs). Even went as far as tracking down promo copies. Thing is, so few even talk about FM Stereo sound, why I don't actually believe the majority pay attention to what they are listen to.

Yeah, probably, early on, they didn't have the necessary tools to work in a digital world. They'd be luck to have a graphic equalizer.

Jack

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "That what's worse is that sometimes the two interact, which is why the whole idea of mastering specifically for MP3 release is a very good one.
--scott "

And what would mastering for lossy
codecs involve, compared to mastering
for CD?

[Trevor]

On 28/02/2017 1:01 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
On 27-02-2017 10:34, Trevor wrote:
On 27/02/2017 3:25 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
Very often nowadays "digital" unspecificed is lossy encoded digital
and then the vinyl LP does come out on top.

Rubbish, I have well over 1,000 pristine vinyl records, but a well
recorded digital file properly encoded at maximum VBR or 320kbs fixed
rate will beat most, if not all of them. Most by a *long* way!
Why anyone would continue to equate MP3 with 128kbs (or less) files
these days is beyond me. But then the whole debate is irrelevant now
when storing uncompressed files or ALAC/FLAC files is cheaper and takes
less physical space than 64kbs MP3 did only a few years ago!
And ***FAR*** less cost and size than vinyl records!!!!!!!!!

Trevor, my experience is that you're almost always right. But what comes
out of a FM transmitter nowadays appears to be encoded at less than 320
kbits.

Sadly NO argument there Peter! And most digital broadcasts as bad or
worse. :-(
However I wouldn't use that as a frame of reference for anything myself!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 28/02/2017 1:12 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/27/2017 4:34 AM, Trevor wrote:


Why anyone would continue to equate MP3 with 128kbs (or less) files
these days is beyond me.

Because that's what most people listen to, or worse.

Easy to say, harder to prove. 5 or 10 years ago I would have readily
agreed, however I don't know anybody who encodes at 128kbs any more, and
most download sites are at least 256kbs now. FAR better than the
cassettes they once listened to, and better than the majority of vinyl.
(Ignoring the completely separate issue of mastering decisions of course.)


You aren't "most
people," so you don't have anything to complain about. But the
proverbial "most people" are still downloading MP3 or streaming, and, in
fact, "most people" aren't complaining about the sound quality of what
they're hearing. Those who are concerned with sound know, or can learn,
what they can do to improve it. But most are satisfied with the sound
and love the convenience.

Exactly.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 28/02/2017 2:58 AM, Neil wrote:
On 2/27/2017 9:12 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/27/2017 4:34 AM, Trevor wrote:
Why anyone would continue to equate MP3 with 128kbs (or less) files
these days is beyond me.

Because that's what most people listen to, or worse. You aren't "most
people," so you don't have anything to complain about. But the
proverbial "most people" are still downloading MP3 or streaming, and, in
fact, "most people" aren't complaining about the sound quality of what
they're hearing. Those who are concerned with sound know, or can learn,
what they can do to improve it. But most are satisfied with the sound
and love the convenience.


Perhaps we lose perspective about why most people "listen" to music. MP3
and streaming are the current-day versions of cassettes, which were
immensely popular for the same reason; people *aren't* listening to the
music so much as they're creating familiar background noises.


While this is very true, people are getting higher bit rates now from
their download sites whether they understand, or can hear the difference
or not. Things have simply moved on. Arguing that "most" people still
listen to 128kbs or less requires proof that no one can provide it seems
to me.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 28/02/2017 6:06 AM, geoff wrote:
On 27/02/2017 10:34 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 27/02/2017 3:25 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
Very often nowadays "digital" unspecificed is lossy encoded digital
and then the vinyl LP does come out on top.


Rubbish, I have well over 1,000 pristine vinyl records, but a well
recorded digital file properly encoded at maximum VBR or 320kbs fixed
rate will beat most, if not all of them. Most by a *long* way!
Why anyone would continue to equate MP3 with 128kbs (or less) files
these days is beyond me.


Because that is what most of the people listen to most of the time (?)

Question mark indeed! There is simply NO proof that this is still the
case. Almost all download sites are now 256kbs or better. And the
encoders are better than they once were as well.



But then the whole debate is irrelevant now
when storing uncompressed files or ALAC/FLAC files is cheaper and takes
less physical space than 64kbs MP3 did only a few years ago!
And ***FAR*** less cost and size than vinyl records!!!!!!!!!

I've had a 64MB iPod touch full of CDs ripped to ALAC for many years
now. Changed same to FLAC and have them on my phone too.


I have hard disks full of wave files, with back ups as FLAC. My MP3
player is full of max VBR HQ encoded files which is more than good
enough for earbuds or background music IMO.

Trevor.