[Trevor]

On 28/02/2017 6:09 AM, geoff wrote:
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 !"

Yeah, sort of like "I don't remember an unmuted click track and steam
train on that vinyl disk" :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 28/02/2017 7:49 AM, Nil wrote:
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.

Try reading what I actually wrote!
"PHYSICAL" space compared to a few years ago.
You can get 128GB+ micro SD cards now!!!!!

Size and cost is simply no longer an issue, other than for the Library
of Congress perhaps!

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
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.

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

It involves _listening_ through the codec and seeing what it does to the
sound and then doing the equalization and dynamic processing with that in
mind.

Mastering is all about listening.
--scott




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

[Nil[_2_]]

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

Try reading what I actually wrote!
"PHYSICAL" space compared to a few years ago.
You can get 128GB+ micro SD cards now!!!!!

Well, OK, I see what you're trying to say. However, you really mean
that the storage medium takes up less physical space, and you're right
about that.

Size and cost is simply no longer an issue, other than for the
Library of Congress perhaps!

I'd say that it's *less* of an issue - if it were not an issue, data
storage media wouldn't continue to shrink, which it still does every
day in amazing ways.

[geoff]

On 28/02/2017 2:43 p.m., Trevor wrote:
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.


No proof indeed. But I do have a snoop at every opportunity, and rarely
find anything over 128K of offspring, and their friends players.

Not long ago helping somebody who was just starting out doing FOH and
foldback for his ethnic band. He had a phone jammed full of MP3s, all
128kbps, with which he was trying to tweak EQ etc. Now this guy isn't
totally stupid, but when I suggested maybe start with something a little
better, all I got back was a baffled stare.

These youths and young adults seem totally disconnected from the idea of
sound quality, and seem happy to listen to whatever squawks out of their
iPhones' inch-or-so speaker, or $10 earphones.

geoff

[Nil[_2_]]

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

No proof indeed. But I do have a snoop at every opportunity, and
rarely find anything over 128K of offspring, and their friends
players.

I have an idea about what that's all about. My nephews and nieces have
many gigabytes of MP3 music that they have stolen by downloading from
sharing internet sites. A lot of that stuff is many years old - the
files were created a long time ago in what seemed at the time to be
reasonable resolution. Time and technology have moved on, but those
same old music files just keep going 'round.

Another factor is that some popular music programs like Apple iTunes
and Windows Media Player create low-quality files by default. You can
change that, but I'm sure most people don't know how or care.

Most digital music you buy from legit sources like iTunes or Amazon are
decent quality. Too bad a lot of young users would rather steal.
Quantity over quality.

Not long ago helping somebody who was just starting out doing FOH
and foldback for his ethnic band. He had a phone jammed full of
MP3s, all 128kbps, with which he was trying to tweak EQ etc. Now
this guy isn't totally stupid, but when I suggested maybe start
with something a little better, all I got back was a baffled
stare.

That stuff sounds worse the louder you play it. Maybe never occurred to
him that what sounds good in his ear buds would sound crappy blasted
over a high-decibel PA system.

These youths and young adults seem totally disconnected from the
idea of sound quality, and seem happy to listen to whatever
squawks out of their iPhones' inch-or-so speaker, or $10
earphones.

It's not just youth. An anecdote: a friend of mine was promised an
unreleased studio recording of a local musical comedy by the show's
director. The music will be "emailed to him", which certainly means
low-quality MP3s. I said to my friend that he should see if he could at
least get an original CD of the music. He looked at me like I had two
heads and said, "well, I can make a CD from the files he sends me." At
that point I changed the subject. He just didn't understand the concept
at all and I knew anything I might say would just go in one ear and out
the other.

[Trevor]

On 28/02/2017 1:21 PM, Nil wrote:
On 27 Feb 2017, Trevor wrote in rec.audio.pro:
Try reading what I actually wrote!
"PHYSICAL" space compared to a few years ago.
You can get 128GB+ micro SD cards now!!!!!

Well, OK, I see what you're trying to say. However, you really mean
that the storage medium takes up less physical space,

Yes, that's what I wrote. The data takes up less physical space on the
storage medium as well due to far higher density, so there is no other
way to interpret it.


and you're right about that.

Size and cost is simply no longer an issue, other than for the
Library of Congress perhaps!

I'd say that it's *less* of an issue - if it were not an issue, data
storage media wouldn't continue to shrink, which it still does every
day in amazing ways.

Not really an issue for *audio* storage any more, still an issue for
video though. Just as the problem was gone with Standard Definition, we
went to HiDef. When that was almost a non issue along comes 4k. They are
already talking about 8k video, and that's all compressed of course.
Audio OTOH remains fine for distribution at 16/44. Recording 24 tracks
at 24/96 takes up a bit more space on the hard drive however, but that's
a different issue than what we are talking about here. NOBODY records 24
tracks to MP3 that I know of! The cost of a hard drive, or memory cards
now, is minuscule compared to the cost of 2" tape.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 28/02/2017 2:11 PM, geoff wrote:
On 28/02/2017 2:43 p.m., Trevor wrote:
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.


No proof indeed. But I do have a snoop at every opportunity, and rarely
find anything over 128K of offspring, and their friends players.

Not long ago helping somebody who was just starting out doing FOH and
foldback for his ethnic band. He had a phone jammed full of MP3s, all
128kbps, with which he was trying to tweak EQ etc. Now this guy isn't
totally stupid, but when I suggested maybe start with something a little
better, all I got back was a baffled stare.

These youths and young adults seem totally disconnected from the idea of
sound quality, and seem happy to listen to whatever squawks out of their
iPhones' inch-or-so speaker, or $10 earphones.


Now I don't disagree with that statement at all! However IME almost all
download sites are now 256kbs or better, so that's what people now get
whether they want it or not. Those who don't care about quality would
still have some older downloads at 128kbs as you say. Those who do their
own encoding know better and would not dream of using 128kbs these days.
However my original point remains, the debate is over, anybody who does
care is NOT using 128kbs or less any more! Simple as that.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 28/02/2017 2:32 PM, Nil wrote:
On 27 Feb 2017, geoff wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

No proof indeed. But I do have a snoop at every opportunity, and
rarely find anything over 128K of offspring, and their friends
players.

I have an idea about what that's all about. My nephews and nieces have
many gigabytes of MP3 music that they have stolen by downloading from
sharing internet sites. A lot of that stuff is many years old - the
files were created a long time ago in what seemed at the time to be
reasonable resolution. Time and technology have moved on, but those
same old music files just keep going 'round.

Perhaps, but new ones are almost always higher resolution.


Another factor is that some popular music programs like Apple iTunes
and Windows Media Player create low-quality files by default. You can
change that, but I'm sure most people don't know how or care.

Disagree. Most people who could be bothered to encode their own files,
rather than simply download someone else's, know what they are doing.



Most digital music you buy from legit sources like iTunes or Amazon are
decent quality.

Not as good as some illegal sites unfortunately. Many even have FLAC
files, something I would always want if I was paying money to download
them. Yet some paid sites charge more for a whole CD of compressed files
than the CD costs to buy. What a rip off!


Too bad a lot of young users would rather steal.
Quantity over quality.

Rubbish. If you ever looked at the illegal sites you'd see they have
almost universally been at 256 or 320kbs for quite a few years, or
roughly similar sizes for Apple encoded files. There is a simple reason,
people encode them for their own use before posting them on share sites.
And as I said already, anybody who could be bothered encoding audio
these days does NOT do it at the lowest quality settings any more.


Not long ago helping somebody who was just starting out doing FOH
and foldback for his ethnic band. He had a phone jammed full of
MP3s, all 128kbps, with which he was trying to tweak EQ etc. Now
this guy isn't totally stupid, but when I suggested maybe start
with something a little better, all I got back was a baffled
stare.

That stuff sounds worse the louder you play it. Maybe never occurred to
him that what sounds good in his ear buds would sound crappy blasted
over a high-decibel PA system.

It was stated he was doing FOH and foldback for a live band, so any
recorded music played would be background where people are usually
talking louder than the music and any defects will go completely
unnoticed. I used a player full of 128k files myself many years ago for
that purpose, and nobody ever complained. You can rarely hear what's
playing even since if you turn it up people just talk louder, and the
purpose of background music is NOT to **** everybody off between sets!



These youths and young adults seem totally disconnected from the
idea of sound quality, and seem happy to listen to whatever
squawks out of their iPhones' inch-or-so speaker, or $10
earphones.

It's not just youth. An anecdote: a friend of mine was promised an
unreleased studio recording of a local musical comedy by the show's
director. The music will be "emailed to him", which certainly means
low-quality MP3s. I said to my friend that he should see if he could at
least get an original CD of the music. He looked at me like I had two
heads and said, "well, I can make a CD from the files he sends me." At
that point I changed the subject. He just didn't understand the concept
at all and I knew anything I might say would just go in one ear and out
the other.

Why does it "certainly mean low-quality MP3s"? I have mailed audio CDR's
for decades to people who probably had no way of even playing MP3's once
upon a time. Wave files on a memory stick no harder than MP3 now either,
so perhaps your friend was right to look at you strange. Only he will
know when he gets them. I wouldn't waste my time speculating or
explaining something that may or may not be the case.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/27/2017 8:33 PM, Trevor wrote:
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.

I'm one. My Internet speed isn't fast enough to stream much faster than
128 kbps and still do other things through that connection. I can get a
faster Internet connection, but for me, it's not worth the increase in
cost.

My "streaming experience" isn't with music sources like Spotify or
Tidal, but rather, with radio stations that offer an Internet stream and
have real live DJs who play music that I like. The better ones stream at
128 kbps (sometimes sourced from old records), but 64 kbps is still
common. For me, it's background music for sure and while I realize that
what I'm not hearing isn't exactly what they heard in the studio, that
doesn't bother me.

Oh, and when I'm on a long road trip, I play previously recorded 128
kbps radio programs from my phone, going into the car's audio system via
a cassette adapter.

It might help that the music that I prefer to hear isn't the sort that
tends to suffer the greatest damage when perceptually encoded, because
it doesn't put drums in the forefront and compress vocals so they're
clipped most of the time.

But I know the world doesn't revolve around me. I just heard this
morning (on the radio) that for the first time in 25 years Ford will be
offering a car without a CD player or radio, replacing the conventional
audio system streaming audio and video. So when that becomes the norm,
an ISP (or bring your own music player) will be another cost of
operating your car. Or when when the car can drive itself, you can just
lay back and take a nap instead of catching up on the news on the way to
work or the hottest tunes on the way home. I'm probably one of the few
around here who remember when a radio in the car was an option. Heater,
too, and air conditioning in the car was only for movie stars.



--

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/27/2017 11:33 PM, Trevor wrote:

geoff (or maybe it was Nil) wrote
Another factor is that some popular music programs like Apple iTunes
and Windows Media Player create low-quality files by default. You can
change that, but I'm sure most people don't know how or care.

Disagree. Most people who could be bothered to encode their own files,
rather than simply download someone else's, know what they are doing.

Again, we have the "most people" argument. While I haven't taken a world
wide poll to prove it, I firmly believe that most people don't encode
their own files. That's too much bother, both to obtain an unencoded
source, and then figure out how to encode it and what to do with it.
"Most people" just let iTunes take care of that business. Really.

If you ever looked at the illegal sites you'd see they have
almost universally been at 256 or 320kbs for quite a few years

Show me an illegal site.

And then, show me that what they're deliving at 256 or 320 kbps were
encoded from full resolution files. I know that there's a lot of 24/96
stuff out there for grabs that was sourced directly off a CD, not even
the pre-mastered version that was mastered for CD.



--

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 28-02-2017 02:16, Trevor wrote:

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!

Agreed, but that however is the "digital" that people compare old analog
with. I'm almost done transcribing my new old Kajaran Carmen (RCA red
seaL ser 5600) that sounds so enticing because of a skilled hand
tweaking a good tone control to make the treble "just charming" and on a
second listen no way near how a real ensemble sounds. Sure to be better
than even the most excellent natural digital recording ... O;-)

Trevor.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[John Williamson]

On 28/02/2017 12:40, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/27/2017 11:33 PM, Trevor wrote:

geoff (or maybe it was Nil) wrote
Another factor is that some popular music programs like Apple iTunes
and Windows Media Player create low-quality files by default. You can
change that, but I'm sure most people don't know how or care.

Disagree. Most people who could be bothered to encode their own files,
rather than simply download someone else's, know what they are doing.

Again, we have the "most people" argument. While I haven't taken a world
wide poll to prove it, I firmly believe that most people don't encode
their own files. That's too much bother, both to obtain an unencoded
source, and then figure out how to encode it and what to do with it.
"Most people" just let iTunes take care of that business. Really.

For the best of both, buy a CD from Amazon and they let you download a
320kbps MP3 file of it from their website.




--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

Peter Larsen wrote: "I'm almost done transcribing my new old Kajaran Carmen
(RCA red seaL ser 5600) that sounds so enticing because of a skilled hand
tweaking a good tone control to make the treble "just charming" and on a
second listen no way near how a real ensemble sounds. Sure to be better
than even the most excellent natural digital recording ... O;-)


Kind regards

Peter Larsen "

You mean von Karajan?

As far as "tweaking a tone control" during
transfer, that automatically disqualfies it
from comparison to the original performance
or even an analog transfer.

Sheez, no WONDER folks think digital
sounds "different" - it's because something
was DONE TO IT during the transfer!

Flat transfers all the way!
Flat transfers all the way!

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
No proof indeed. But I do have a snoop at every opportunity, and rarely
find anything over 128K of offspring, and their friends players.

I do sound design for some of the larger science fiction conventions out
there as a side project, and these frequently contain a "masquerade" in which
people put on a short display of a costume to a prerecorded track. And
invariably the prerecorded tracks they provide are not only 128K MP3s, but
have gone through multiple generations of MP3 encoding because they edit
them and then re-encode them. I have given a number of talks about why it's
important to send in a .wav file or other unencoded file but it just seems to
roll right off of them.

Not long ago helping somebody who was just starting out doing FOH and
foldback for his ethnic band. He had a phone jammed full of MP3s, all
128kbps, with which he was trying to tweak EQ etc. Now this guy isn't
totally stupid, but when I suggested maybe start with something a little
better, all I got back was a baffled stare.

Well, hopefully he'll go home and think about that a little bit.

These youths and young adults seem totally disconnected from the idea of
sound quality, and seem happy to listen to whatever squawks out of their
iPhones' inch-or-so speaker, or $10 earphones.

Yes, but this isn't a new thing in any way. The same issues existed in
the cassette era. Getting people to actually care about sound can be
difficult, but sometimes (when they are a performer or doing FOH) it's
their job to care.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
Peter Larsen wrote: "I'm almost done transcribing my new old Kajaran Carmen
(RCA red seaL ser 5600) that sounds so enticing because of a skilled hand
tweaking a good tone control to make the treble "just charming" and on a
second listen no way near how a real ensemble sounds. Sure to be better
than even the most excellent natural digital recording ... O;-)

As far as "tweaking a tone control" during
transfer, that automatically disqualfies it
from comparison to the original performance
or even an analog transfer.

Sheez, no WONDER folks think digital
sounds "different" - it's because something
was DONE TO IT during the transfer!

Flat transfers all the way!

Mr. Larsen is talking about an LP, and likely the folks at RCA were _unable_
to do a flat transfer and stil manage to get the opera to fit on three or
four discs. Likely the top end was being ridden to allow them to cut the
record reasonably hot. The problem was made worse in the Red Seal era because
there was very limited electronic dynamic control available, but at least they
only had the mono excursion to worry about.

In the LP world, processing is essential in order to get things to cut cleanly
at all.

So, if you get a clean digital copy of the master, don't be surprised if it
sounds tonally very little like the LP.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 9:09:28 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/02/2017 12:40, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/27/2017 11:33 PM, Trevor wrote:

geoff (or maybe it was Nil) wrote
Another factor is that some popular music programs like Apple iTunes
and Windows Media Player create low-quality files by default. You can
change that, but I'm sure most people don't know how or care.

Disagree. Most people who could be bothered to encode their own files,
rather than simply download someone else's, know what they are doing.

Again, we have the "most people" argument. While I haven't taken a world
wide poll to prove it, I firmly believe that most people don't encode
their own files. That's too much bother, both to obtain an unencoded
source, and then figure out how to encode it and what to do with it.
"Most people" just let iTunes take care of that business. Really.

For the best of both, buy a CD from Amazon and they let you download a
320kbps MP3 file of it from their website.

Excuse me, but Amazon does not always offer 320kbps MP3s. I have gotten 256 CBR and sometimes VBR MP3s. Actually, sometimes what you download does NOT match the CD contents! Also, if I may, sometimes you may get and early version of an album, prior to any Bonus Tracks and Remastering!! Deceiving is Amazon. Just thought I'd toss that in!

Jack





--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 9:14:28 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Peter Larsen wrote: "I'm almost done transcribing my new old Kajaran Carmen
(RCA red seaL ser 5600) that sounds so enticing because of a skilled hand
tweaking a good tone control to make the treble "just charming" and on a
second listen no way near how a real ensemble sounds. Sure to be better
than even the most excellent natural digital recording ... O;-)


Kind regards

Peter Larsen "

You mean von Karajan?

As far as "tweaking a tone control" during
transfer, that automatically disqualfies it
from comparison to the original performance
or even an analog transfer.

Sheez, no WONDER folks think digital
sounds "different" - it's because something
was DONE TO IT during the transfer!

Flat transfers all the way!
Flat transfers all the way!

NO SUCH THING AS A "FLAT" TRANSFER.

People "UPPED" MP3 bitrate when they heard about Flac.
So, they re-encode their MP3s that sound like garbage, to ensure people can HEAR just how much they sound like garbage. Garbage in, Garbage Out.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "Excuse me, but Amazon does not always offer 320kbps MP3s. I have gotten 256 CBR and sometimes VBR MP3s. Actually, sometimes what you download does NOT match the CD contents! Also, if I may, sometimes you may get and early version of an album, prior to any Bonus Tracks and Remastering!! Deceiving is Amazon. Just thought I'd toss that in! "

I'll take that earlier(non-EFFED-with) version.
Sounds closer to the original.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 2:43:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: "Excuse me, but Amazon does not always offer 320kbps MP3s. I have gotten 256 CBR and sometimes VBR MP3s. Actually, sometimes what you download does NOT match the CD contents! Also, if I may, sometimes you may get and early version of an album, prior to any Bonus Tracks and Remastering!! Deceiving is Amazon. Just thought I'd toss that in! "

I'll take that earlier(non-EFFED-with) version.
Sounds closer to the original.

Slow down!
I have snippets of each (4) separate issues of the same album, then the very first version (Polydor), personally, digitally enhanced of a Not Fragile album. You know Bachman-Turner Overdrive, I'm sure. A friend offered them all to me, to evaluate.

So, we have everyone involved to REMASTER, even the GOLD BOY CDs at Audio Fidelity.

The latest, out of Canada, think Mercury Records, sounded a bit harsh (distortion) to me (reviewed waveform), but go look at the CD album reviews, the MAJORITY loved it.

So, don't ask me why the didn't like previous CDs. And, get this, the latest doesn't even offer any Bonus Tracks.

SINCE there is a Surround Sound CD of the album, they must have the multi-tracks to render that, maybe not. I certainly didn't HEAR anything new of the Stereo mix.

I don't care to hear tape hiss noise of a spent Master tape, and THAT is what CDs initially offered, maybe your FLAT transfer.

Jack

[Trevor]

On 28/02/2017 10:57 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/27/2017 8:33 PM, Trevor wrote:
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.

I'm one. My Internet speed isn't fast enough to stream much faster than
128 kbps and still do other things through that connection. I can get a
faster Internet connection, but for me, it's not worth the increase in
cost.

My "streaming experience" isn't with music sources like Spotify or
Tidal, but rather, with radio stations that offer an Internet stream and
have real live DJs who play music that I like. The better ones stream at
128 kbps (sometimes sourced from old records), but 64 kbps is still
common.

Yes I acknowledged digital radio broadcasts, and their internet
streaming equivalents are still sadly very low bit rates. But I was
talking about MP3 and other digital downloads as I stated.
Low bit rates streams are simply today's equivalent of AM radio that
people listed to for MANY decades, so I fail to see why people claim
undiscerning listeners are something new!


For me, it's background music for sure and while I realize that
what I'm not hearing isn't exactly what they heard in the studio, that
doesn't bother me.

Right, or lots of other people. I wouldn't listen to any lossy digital
for serious listening though.


Oh, and when I'm on a long road trip, I play previously recorded 128
kbps radio programs from my phone, going into the car's audio system via
a cassette adapter.

Wow, pulled the cassette player out of my then new car 25 years ago.
Haven't used one since.


It might help that the music that I prefer to hear isn't the sort that
tends to suffer the greatest damage when perceptually encoded, because
it doesn't put drums in the forefront and compress vocals so they're
clipped most of the time.

But I know the world doesn't revolve around me. I just heard this
morning (on the radio) that for the first time in 25 years Ford will be
offering a car without a CD player or radio, replacing the conventional
audio system streaming audio and video.

Bet (hope) it has an input for your MP3 player/phone as well. USB and/or
SD card slot would also be better. Certainly don't need a CD player any
more than I do a cassette player though.


So when that becomes the norm,
an ISP (or bring your own music player) will be another cost of
operating your car. Or when when the car can drive itself, you can just
lay back and take a nap instead of catching up on the news on the way to
work or the hottest tunes on the way home. I'm probably one of the few
around here who remember when a radio in the car was an option. Heater,
too, and air conditioning in the car was only for movie stars.

I added a radio to my first car. MUCH later I got my first one with
air-con. And I'm not *that* old! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 28/02/2017 11:40 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/27/2017 11:33 PM, Trevor wrote:

geoff (or maybe it was Nil) wrote
Another factor is that some popular music programs like Apple iTunes
and Windows Media Player create low-quality files by default. You can
change that, but I'm sure most people don't know how or care.

Disagree. Most people who could be bothered to encode their own files,
rather than simply download someone else's, know what they are doing.

Again, we have the "most people" argument. While I haven't taken a world
wide poll to prove it, I firmly believe that most people don't encode
their own files. That's too much bother, both to obtain an unencoded
source, and then figure out how to encode it and what to do with it.
"Most people" just let iTunes take care of that business. Really.

That was MY point, "most people" don't. So those who do usually care a
little more.


If you ever looked at the illegal sites you'd see they have
almost universally been at 256 or 320kbs for quite a few years

Show me an illegal site.
And then, show me that what they're deliving at 256 or 320 kbps were
encoded from full resolution files.

OK find a file less than 256kbs on newalbumreleases dot net amongst the
many thousands they have if you can. Plenty of FLAC there too.
NOT suggesting you should actually download any illegally though!!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 1/03/2017 1:09 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/02/2017 12:40, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/27/2017 11:33 PM, Trevor wrote:
geoff (or maybe it was Nil) wrote
Another factor is that some popular music programs like Apple iTunes
and Windows Media Player create low-quality files by default. You can
change that, but I'm sure most people don't know how or care.

Disagree. Most people who could be bothered to encode their own files,
rather than simply download someone else's, know what they are doing.

Again, we have the "most people" argument. While I haven't taken a world
wide poll to prove it, I firmly believe that most people don't encode
their own files. That's too much bother, both to obtain an unencoded
source, and then figure out how to encode it and what to do with it.
"Most people" just let iTunes take care of that business. Really.

For the best of both, buy a CD from Amazon and they let you download a
320kbps MP3 file of it from their website.

And then there were a few CD's that added compressed digital files on
the CD as a data track. Not sure if anyone is still doing that?

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

jjaj wrote: "So, we have everyone involved to REMASTER, even the GOLD BOY CDs at Audio
Fidelity.

The latest, out of Canada, think Mercury Records, sounded a bit harsh (distortion) to me (reviewed
waveform), but go look at the CD album reviews, the MAJORITY loved it. "

It's called MARKETING, Jack. Slap a golden
border around the edges of a jewel case
along with "Digitally Remastered"(or other
words to that effect), and it's like placebo,
even if, as I discovered, what was really
being done wasn't all that good...

https://www.facebook.com/2016SaveOur...?ref=bookmarks

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/28/2017 11:37 PM, Trevor wrote:

That was MY point, "most people" don't. So those who do usually care a
little more.

OK, so we agree on this. Now we can argue about whether majority rules,
and when it comes to marketing, _other than products marketed
specifically for a non-majority class_, the products "most people" see
are those that are suited for their class.

OK find a file less than 256kbs on newalbumreleases dot net amongst the
many thousands they have if you can. Plenty of FLAC there too.
NOT suggesting you should actually download any illegally though!!

So the way to get _apparently_ high resolution files is from a pirate
web site? I know there are legal (as in making some attempt to adhere
to provisions of copyright and performance rights) sources for real high
resolution files, and anyone, including the proverbial "most people" can
obtain them. But the majority of "most people" would prefer to settle
for lower cost or less risky sources for their music, and are happy just
to have the music available.

But let's talk about something related. Is there anything magic about
"320 kbps" if you don't know any more than that? I looked at the Jazz
and Blues category figuring I'd at least have heard of some of the
artists (and I did). "New releases" suggests CDs, so they start with a
16-bit 44.1 kHz source. But many, at least in this category, might be
new releases on CD but are sourced from material originally issued 30 or
more years earlier. So what's the real bandwidth? What's the real
resolution? What's the real noise floor? What's the real distortion?

You can make a 320 kbps file from a 64 kbps file. And as far as I know,
there isn't a way of deconstructing an MP3 file and getting back to its
original source. Is there?


--

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

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:34:35 AM UTC-5, wrote:
jjaj wrote: "So, we have everyone involved to REMASTER, even the GOLD BOY CDs at Audio
Fidelity.

The latest, out of Canada, think Mercury Records, sounded a bit harsh (distortion) to me (reviewed
waveform), but go look at the CD album reviews, the MAJORITY loved it. "

It's called MARKETING, Jack. Slap a golden
border around the edges of a jewel case
along with "Digitally Remastered"(or other
words to that effect), and it's like placebo,
even if, as I discovered, what was really
being done wasn't all that good...

https://www.facebook.com/2016SaveOur...?ref=bookmarks

Thanks. But....
"Bob Katz, a recording and mastering engineer who I have met in person, explains loudness and remasters. This video has led me to conclude that the best CDs were the earliest ones".

How can someone make such a wide claim, unless they have every CD that was published? I ask, why do people blast music in cars? There has to be a reason.
I returned my very first CD player, when Elton John was full of tape hiss noise (that was an "early" one). Certainly, not a convincing way to accelerate CD sales.

Jack

[[email protected]]

jjaj wrote: "How can someone make such a wide claim, unless they have every CD that was published? I ask, why do people blast music in cars? There
has to be a reason. I returned my very first CD player, when Elton John was full of tape hiss noise (that was an "early" one). Certainly, not a convincing
way to accelerate CD sales. "

You returned the machine?? Or just the Elton John disc?

I, for one, own many early CDs, and unless your treble
EQ is turned up substantially, such tape hiss is not such
the big deal you make it out to be.

[John Williamson]

On 01/03/2017 14:04, wrote:
jjaj wrote: "How can someone make such a wide claim, unless they have every CD that was published? I ask, why do people blast music in cars? There
has to be a reason. I returned my very first CD player, when Elton John was full of tape hiss noise (that was an "early" one). Certainly, not a convincing
way to accelerate CD sales. "

You returned the machine?? Or just the Elton John disc?

I, for one, own many early CDs, and unless your treble
EQ is turned up substantially, such tape hiss is not such
the big deal you make it out to be.

Don't forget that JackAss likes to boost the hell out of the 3kHz area.

He also seems to have tape hiss built in to his ears, from the amount he
complains about it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 9:40:37 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/03/2017 14:04, wrote:
jjaj wrote: "How can someone make such a wide claim, unless they have every CD that was published? I ask, why do people blast music in cars? There
has to be a reason. I returned my very first CD player, when Elton John was full of tape hiss noise (that was an "early" one). Certainly, not a convincing
way to accelerate CD sales. "

You returned the machine?? Or just the Elton John disc?

I, for one, own many early CDs, and unless your treble
EQ is turned up substantially, such tape hiss is not such
the big deal you make it out to be.

Don't forget that JackAss likes to boost the hell out of the 3kHz area.

He also seems to have tape hiss built in to his ears, from the amount he
complains about it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Okay, here's one of mine, let me see any of your audio compliments, bucko!....

"One of my favorite Raiders tracks. This one always bugged me because I thought the lead vocal was mixed too weak. Your tweaked version sounds better than the original. I can't really hear that edit in the acoustic bridge (which is good, because I don't WANT to hear it, right?)"


Hush, Jealous John

Jack

[geoff]

On 2/03/2017 1:56 AM, wrote:


How can someone make such a wide claim, unless they have every CD
that was published? I ask, why do people blast music in cars?

- Deaf
-Like like music and their car is somewhere they can do it in (relative)
privacy
-Want to impress others
- Or like the reason many middle-aged overweight men with ruddy
complexions tend to drive large wagons with huge engines, lots of chrome
bull-bars , roll-cages, and turbo intakes : small and dysfunctional penis.

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 2:04:07 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 2/03/2017 1:56 AM, wrote:


How can someone make such a wide claim, unless they have every CD
that was published? I ask, why do people blast music in cars?

- Deaf
-Like like music and their car is somewhere they can do it in (relative)
privacy
-Want to impress others
- Or like the reason many middle-aged overweight men with ruddy
complexions tend to drive large wagons with huge engines, lots of chrome
bull-bars , roll-cages, and turbo intakes : small and dysfunctional penis.

Viagra? Seek medical attention for an erection lasting 4 or more hours? I'd jump for joy!!!

But, then we have high power Home stereos, so SOMEONE must know something about Loudness.

Thanks.

Jack


geoff

[John Williamson]

On 01/03/2017 17:31, wrote:
Okay, here's one of mine, let me see any of your audio compliments, bucko!...

"One of my favorite Raiders tracks. This one always bugged me because I thought the lead vocal was mixed too weak. Your tweaked version sounds better than the original. I can't really hear that edit in the acoustic bridge (which is good, because I don't WANT to hear it, right?)"


Hush, Jealous John

Well, we've all heard your attempts, and the interested ones have heard
a few of my recordings, which were available online at a URL you were
aware of, have been sold to clients and by them to their clients. You
claim not to sell your stuff....

You can post as many claimed compliments as you wish, but unless your
clients vote the same way as the clients of most of the rest of us vote,
that is to say with their wallets, then they mean nothing. They also
mean nothing without at least a backup URL for them on the originator's
website.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 6:44:46 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/03/2017 17:31, wrote:
Okay, here's one of mine, let me see any of your audio compliments, bucko!...

"One of my favorite Raiders tracks. This one always bugged me because I thought the lead vocal was mixed too weak. Your tweaked version sounds better than the original. I can't really hear that edit in the acoustic bridge (which is good, because I don't WANT to hear it, right?)"


Hush, Jealous John

Well, we've all heard your attempts, and the interested ones have heard
a few of my recordings, which were available online at a URL you were
aware of, have been sold to clients and by them to their clients. You
claim not to sell your stuff....

You can post as many claimed compliments as you wish, but unless your
clients vote the same way as the clients of most of the rest of us vote,
that is to say with their wallets, then they mean nothing. They also
mean nothing without at least a backup URL for them on the originator's
website.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

I'll tell you what, I'm going to tweak this one song, I'm still not pleased with its overall tone, a tad muddy, stayed up ALL NIGHT working on it (went to work - no sleep), amazed what sounds NOW stand out that I NEVER heard before.
I'll post Original and Modified for you to hear, if you wish.

I take music much more seriously than any (paid) professional because I want to impress myself, I want to put MY stamp of approval on it, not some stranger, then put it out in the wilderness to see if I can impress others.

Steve A., who is from Both Sides Now (stereo chat board) has also complimented, I made him a believer in digital refinements. Granted, the past music is dead, so I'm amazed I get any compliments.

Sorry for being rude.

Jack

[[email protected]]

I am told Bob Irwin (Sundazed Records) is not a believer in digital wwhatever, why it is easy for me to improve on what he does. I did't know this, others told me.

Jack

[Trevor]

On 1/03/2017 11:51 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/28/2017 11:37 PM, Trevor wrote:
That was MY point, "most people" don't. So those who do usually care a
little more.

OK, so we agree on this. Now we can argue about whether majority rules,
and when it comes to marketing, _other than products marketed
specifically for a non-majority class_, the products "most people" see
are those that are suited for their class.

More usually simply what companies choose to provide, regardless their
customers are a wide range of class and needs,



OK find a file less than 256kbs on newalbumreleases dot net amongst the
many thousands they have if you can. Plenty of FLAC there too.
NOT suggesting you should actually download any illegally though!!

So the way to get _apparently_ high resolution files is from a pirate
web site? I know there are legal (as in making some attempt to adhere
to provisions of copyright and performance rights) sources for real high
resolution files, and anyone, including the proverbial "most people" can
obtain them. But the majority of "most people" would prefer to settle
for lower cost or less risky sources for their music, and are happy just
to have the music available.


As I already indicated, most legal download sites have long since
improved on 128kbs, although many are still 256kbs rather than maximum
rates. I wouldn't pay for any compressed file myself though, I still buy
*MANY* CD's and do it myself. I would accept FLAC if it was actually a
fair bit cheaper, but usually isn't.



But let's talk about something related. Is there anything magic about
"320 kbps" if you don't know any more than that? I looked at the Jazz
and Blues category figuring I'd at least have heard of some of the
artists (and I did). "New releases" suggests CDs, so they start with a
16-bit 44.1 kHz source. But many, at least in this category, might be
new releases on CD but are sourced from material originally issued 30 or
more years earlier. So what's the real bandwidth? What's the real
resolution? What's the real noise floor? What's the real distortion?

That's a completely separate issue. Obviously the CD rips are no better
than the CD's they are ripped from regardless of encoding. But often
much better than 30 YO vinyl, although not always.



You can make a 320 kbps file from a 64 kbps file.

Sure you can, but who does?

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

You can make a 320 kbps file from a 64 kbps file.

On 3/2/2017 10:33 PM, Trevor wrote:

Sure you can, but who does?


Someone who wants to make you think you're getting a high resolution
file. I doubt that there's much of this on the major download sites, but
someone who has a 20 year collection of songs could easily batch-convert
his collection to 320 kbps. Psychoacoustics takes over and he's
overjoyed (with no testing whatsoever) at how much better they sound,
and he shares them with the world.


--

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

[Trevor]

On 2/03/2017 1:40 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/03/2017 14:04, wrote:
jjaj wrote: "How can someone make such a wide claim, unless they have
every CD that was published? I ask, why do people blast music in cars?
There
has to be a reason. I returned my very first CD player, when Elton
John was full of tape hiss noise (that was an "early" one). Certainly,
not a convincing
way to accelerate CD sales. "

You returned the machine?? Or just the Elton John disc?

I, for one, own many early CDs, and unless your treble
EQ is turned up substantially, such tape hiss is not such
the big deal you make it out to be.


Not if your hearing has rolled it off already. I remember the disk I own
which was the worst offender and once drove me crazy, no longer does. I
remember when I was 20 complaining to a HiFi shop demonstrator that the
music he was using was full of hiss. He couldn't hear it, but I sure
could. I remember building my own single ended noise reduction system
back then because so much of what you could buy was full of noise. Fast
forward a few decades and sadly I now know why those old guys had no
idea of the amount of hiss on those records. :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 3/03/2017 10:47 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
You can make a 320 kbps file from a 64 kbps file.

On 3/2/2017 10:33 PM, Trevor wrote:

Sure you can, but who does?


Someone who wants to make you think you're getting a high resolution
file. I doubt that there's much of this on the major download sites, but
someone who has a 20 year collection of songs could easily batch-convert
his collection to 320 kbps. Psychoacoustics takes over and he's
overjoyed (with no testing whatsoever) at how much better they sound,
and he shares them with the world.

"Could", of course. So tell of one instance you know of? Or why are you
worrying about something that doesn't affect you and probably never
happens anyway? Sure doesn't bother me though.

Trevor.