[John Williamson]

On 06/01/2020 08:25, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I would have thought there was little danger of an issue. After all, the
file type has been around since the early 1990s to my knowledge and is
basically a pcm file. Other compressed formats can be used to hide things
in.
Brian

mp3 files contain metadata as well as audio, the metadata tags can be
quite large and include items which can be used to conceal malware.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 05/01/2020 10:27, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Mike Rivers

wrote:

Maybe to share. While MP3 doesn't offer the highest fidelity, it's the
most common audio file format and just about everyone can play it.

Given that many decent DAPs, etc, support better codecs, that's a pretty
sad fact if true. Bit like finding that most people still use shellac 78s!

Jim

High bit rate mp3 files are almost indistinguishable from PCM audio of
the same bit depth and sample rate, even by professionals on decent
playback systems.

I use them happily for playback when not listening critically. For
critical work, then 24 bit uncompressed or losslessly compressed files
are what is needed, and as I tend to be editing as well, that rules out
native use of FLAC and similar codecs


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 10:15:44 +0000, John Williamson
wrote:

On 06/01/2020 08:25, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I would have thought there was little danger of an issue. After all, the
file type has been around since the early 1990s to my knowledge and is
basically a pcm file. Other compressed formats can be used to hide things
in.
Brian

mp3 files contain metadata as well as audio, the metadata tags can be
quite large and include items which can be used to conceal malware.

All formats contain metadata. And you can't necessarily determine a
file type from its suffix. WAV is a wrapper that can contain all
manner of audio. 16-bit PCM is just one of a lengthy list.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson wrote:
On 06/01/2020 00:05, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Indeed. I know a lot of people still using XP to run Pro Tools, and it
isn't the most wonderful thing in the world but it's stable. Everyone I
know that tried Vista for studio applications very quickly went back to
XP. Thank God for Clonezilla!


XP is fine as long as it has either no live internet connection or a
decent security suite running, and as it has been going out of use, very
few new exploits are about, as the return on writing them makes it not
worth the effort.

I would never want a live internet connection to an editing workstation.
That's just asking for trouble. Stick it on a backend network with sftp
only if you must.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article , John Williamson
wrote:

High bit rate mp3 files are almost indistinguishable from PCM audio of
the same bit depth and sample rate, even by professionals on decent
playback systems.

Yes and no. :-)

e.g. Some years ago I got some 'AVRO' issued 256k mp3 files made using a
decent pro encoder. These were for one of the celebration events for the
Concergebauw or Haitink IIRC. In general, they sound quite good, albeit
that I have no source LPCM to compare with.

However in some quiet passages the result became quite 'ragged'. I finally
realised that the encoder judgement rule settings was treating a lot of the
low level detail as 'noise floor' simply because it wasn't fully taking
into account the overall low sound level.

So not all mp3 files are equal, even when at the same mp3 rate.

I use them happily for playback when not listening critically. For
critical work, then 24 bit uncompressed or losslessly compressed files
are what is needed, and as I tend to be editing as well, that rules out
native use of FLAC and similar codecs

As per earlier: Given the current cheapness and ubiquity of storage I long
ago decided there was no point in mp3. You can store quite a lot of flac
onto something like a = 4TB NAS, or even onto a couple of = 256 GB SD
card.

So to me nowdays, mp3 seems about as useful than making new 78 rpm discs
of shellac when you can choose alternatives.

Jim

--
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:

All formats contain metadata. And you can't necessarily determine a file
type from its suffix. WAV is a wrapper that can contain all manner of
audio. 16-bit PCM is just one of a lengthy list.

Indeed. I'm not quite sure what most DAPs would make of, say, the
'broadcast' Wave files one of my old recorders makes. Not the usual sort of
'tagging' I suspect people have adopted for home audio. :-)

Jim

--
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[[email protected]]

gray_wolf wrote:

Sounds like a slow computer. Back in the old days my computer
could take 2-3 minutes to open a average size mp3 in Cool edit Pro...

Re-read what I wrote: I mentioned one application(Windows Media Player), and
one format file(MP3). WMP has no problem opening WAV or other audio
formats quickly. Just mp3s.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 1/6/2020 10:28 AM, Jim Lesurf wrote:
I'm not quite sure what most DAPs would make of, say, the
'broadcast' Wave files one of my old recorders makes. Not the usual sort of
'tagging' I suspect people have adopted for home audio

"Metadata" is the byword of the audio archiving community, and there are
a few emerging standards for filling out the available data fields in
the broadcast wave file format. The basic things that are important are
who the artist is, date of recording, and then they get into things that
involve who gets paid for using the audio. Any reasonable WAV player
that doesn't use the metadata should just ignore it, but modern day
programmers of applications that aren't dedicated audio players might
not know how to either accommodate or ignore tthe BWF chunk.

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

[John Williamson]

On 06/01/2020 15:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , John Williamson
wrote:

High bit rate mp3 files are almost indistinguishable from PCM audio of
the same bit depth and sample rate, even by professionals on decent
playback systems.

Yes and no. :-)

e.g. Some years ago I got some 'AVRO' issued 256k mp3 files made using a
decent pro encoder. These were for one of the celebration events for the
Concergebauw or Haitink IIRC. In general, they sound quite good, albeit
that I have no source LPCM to compare with.

I did a few experiments with recordings I had made, starting with 24 bit
PCM, and working down the quality range, and most listeners didn't
notice until I got down to 128 kbps mp3 files.

What did amuse me was an expressed preference by some listeners for the
128 kbs mp3 versions.

Admitted, the band concerned were playing 60s covers and I did take some
care with the settings, but still....
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Woody[_7_]]

On Tue 07/01/2020 13:58, John Williamson wrote:
On 06/01/2020 15:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , John Williamson
wrote:

High bit rate mp3 files are almost indistinguishable from PCM audio of
the same bit depth and sample rate, even by professionals on decent
playback systems.

Yes and no. :-)

e.g. Some years ago I got some 'AVRO' issued 256k mp3 files made using a
decent pro encoder. These were for one of the celebration events for the
Concergebauw or Haitink IIRC. In general, they sound quite good, albeit
that I have no source LPCM to compare with.

I did a few experiments with recordings I had made, starting with 24 bit
PCM, and working down the quality range, and most listeners didn't
notice until I got down to 128 kbps mp3 files.

What did amuse me was an expressed preference by some listeners for the
128 kbs mp3 versions.

Admitted, the band concerned were playing 60s covers and I did take some
care with the settings, but still....

I did similar. I downloaded a recording from Linn Records in flac, m4a,
and mp3. Playing one after another on decent kit and also headphones
there was very little noticable difference between flac and m4a, but
there was a quite sharp drop in HF details with mp3.

--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

[Scott Dorsey]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , John Williamson

e.g. Some years ago I got some 'AVRO' issued 256k mp3 files made using a
decent pro encoder. These were for one of the celebration events for the
Concergebauw or Haitink IIRC. In general, they sound quite good, albeit
that I have no source LPCM to compare with.

However in some quiet passages the result became quite 'ragged'. I finally
realised that the encoder judgement rule settings was treating a lot of the
low level detail as 'noise floor' simply because it wasn't fully taking
into account the overall low sound level.

This is adjustable! You can set some of those thresholds down manually
when necessary.. And yes, for classical music it's necessary.

So not all mp3 files are equal, even when at the same mp3 rate.

This is why we pay mastering engineers. It's just like cutting LPs, you are
trying to pack 10 gallons of music in a 5 gallon container. Something has to
be thrown away. It's better for a person with ears to help make the decision
about what instead of letting the computer do it.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

What I'd like to know is why, when I double click MP3 files of songs in Windows
Vista to play them in Windows Media Player, it takes 3-5min. to start playing?



Actually I have a similar problem. But it is only the FIRST time try to play an MP3 since the machine was booted. I usually just close media player and start again after 20 seconds. The second time and all times after that it starts to play immediately. I assumed it was some DRM thing.


I prefer the old version of media player because the WAVES / MIST visualization is actually a usable spectrum analyzer that I sometimes look at while casual listening. It can show problems that are outside my hearing range.

Mark

[[email protected]]

mako Mark:

Yes, that first time delay is similar to mine. Subsequent mp3s play faster, still not as fast as other formats.

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article , John Williamson
wrote:
I did a few experiments with recordings I had made, starting with 24 bit
PCM, and working down the quality range, and most listeners didn't
notice until I got down to 128 kbps mp3 files.

What did amuse me was an expressed preference by some listeners for the
128 kbs mp3 versions.

Admitted, the band concerned were playing 60s covers and I did take some
care with the settings, but still....

IIRC I read similar reports some years ago somewhere like in JAES. Perhaps
due to becoming habituated to the sound of 'popular' music via mp3. So in
effect, coming to regard the alterations as a 'part of the music'.

I got a similar impression some years ago wrt peak compression on R3 FM
which seemed to make something like a piano sound 'warmer' with more
sustain than via iplayer.

Jim

--
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article , Scott Dorsey
wrote:
However in some quiet passages the result became quite 'ragged'. I
finally realised that the encoder judgement rule settings was treating
a lot of the low level detail as 'noise floor' simply because it wasn't
fully taking into account the overall low sound level.

This is adjustable! You can set some of those thresholds down manually
when necessary.. And yes, for classical music it's necessary.

Understood and agreed. The surprise was that it actually was allowed to
happen when the encoding was being done by professionals.

So not all mp3 files are equal, even when at the same mp3 rate.

This is why we pay mastering engineers. It's just like cutting LPs, you
are trying to pack 10 gallons of music in a 5 gallon container.
Something has to be thrown away. It's better for a person with ears to
help make the decision about what instead of letting the computer do it.
--scott

Again, agreed. But again, a reason why some LPs sound rather poorer than
others, even when coming from professionals.

The advantage of LPCM - flac is that no such judgements are needed.

Jim

--
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[[email protected]]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
IIRC I read similar reports some years ago somewhere like in JAES. Perhaps
due to becoming habituated to the sound of 'popular' music via mp3. So in
effect, coming to regard the alterations as a 'part of the music'.

I got a similar impression some years ago wrt peak compression on R3 FM
which seemed to make something like a piano sound 'warmer' with more
sustain than via iplayer.


Just remember that the MP3 format does not, in any audible way, affect dynamic range compression or
loudness processing. Two factors led to that mass public mis-perception:

1. The timing of MP3 becoming a viable consumer digital format coinciding with the advent of the
digital-era Loudness Wars.

2. That digital audio as a subject itself contains many words with two meanings. IE 'compression'. It is
both something done to level differences in music, and, is a convenient term for the data-reduction
performed in the creation of lossy formats such as MP3.

[[email protected]]

Jim Lesurf:

To follow up:

So what youngsters are showing preference for is not the "sound of MP3",
but the sound of music, and of certain instruments, as modern mastering
techniques make them sound.

[Tobiah]

On 1/8/20 8:53 AM, wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
IIRC I read similar reports some years ago somewhere like in JAES. Perhaps
due to becoming habituated to the sound of 'popular' music via mp3. So in
effect, coming to regard the alterations as a 'part of the music'.

I got a similar impression some years ago wrt peak compression on R3 FM
which seemed to make something like a piano sound 'warmer' with more
sustain than via iplayer.


Just remember that the MP3 format does not, in any audible way, affect dynamic range compression or
loudness processing. Two factors led to that mass public mis-perception:

1. The timing of MP3 becoming a viable consumer digital format coinciding with the advent of the
digital-era Loudness Wars.

2. That digital audio as a subject itself contains many words with two meanings. IE 'compression'. It is
both something done to level differences in music, and, is a convenient term for the data-reduction
performed in the creation of lossy formats such as MP3.

Great points.

[John Williamson]

On 08/01/2020 17:00, wrote:
Jim Lesurf:

To follow up:

So what youngsters are showing preference for is not the "sound of MP3",
but the sound of music, and of certain instruments, as modern mastering
techniques make them sound.

In the case if my experiment, the only processing done to the files was
to alter the file format.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

On 8/01/2020 4:04 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

Again, agreed. But again, a reason why some LPs sound rather poorer than
others, even when coming from professionals.

So you are saying not all professionals are equal. What a radical
thought! :-) :-)

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article , Trevor wrote:
On 8/01/2020 4:04 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

Again, agreed. But again, a reason why some LPs sound rather poorer
than others, even when coming from professionals.

So you are saying not all professionals are equal. What a radical
thought! :-) :-)

Well, I've only ever been a 'professional' wrt the 'user end' of the flow.
Thus I can only judge those 'upstream' on the diversity of the results we
get. :-)

Jim

--
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 17:05:03 -0500, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 1/3/2020 4:05 PM, lid wrote:
I want to convert this to an MP3 file.

Please tell me what settings I should use for the MP3 file, eg; MP3
Fraunhofer IIS MPEG Layer-3 Codec (professional), attributes eg 128
kbit/sec, 48.000 Hz, Mono

If you take Don's advice to use the defaults (and his advice is
perfectly reasonable) you'll likely end up with a stereo file with the
same audio on both channels. There's nothing wrong with that other than
that the file is twice as big as it needs to be. So if you want a mono
MP3 file, you'll need to find the setting for it.

Where can I find the authentic site for Razor LAME?

A couple of sites which Google threw up are;

https://www.free-codecs.com/download/razorlame.htm

https://lame.sourceforge.io/


What is the main development / release / distribution site for Razor
LAME? Is there some other LAME package which I should use instead of
Razor?

Thank you.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 07 Jan 2020 17:04:46 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Scott Dorsey
wrote:
However in some quiet passages the result became quite 'ragged'. I
finally realised that the encoder judgement rule settings was treating
a lot of the low level detail as 'noise floor' simply because it wasn't
fully taking into account the overall low sound level.

This is adjustable! You can set some of those thresholds down manually
when necessary.. And yes, for classical music it's necessary.

Understood and agreed. The surprise was that it actually was allowed to
happen when the encoding was being done by professionals.

So not all mp3 files are equal, even when at the same mp3 rate.

This is why we pay mastering engineers. It's just like cutting LPs, you
are trying to pack 10 gallons of music in a 5 gallon container.
Something has to be thrown away. It's better for a person with ears to
help make the decision about what instead of letting the computer do it.
--scott

Again, agreed. But again, a reason why some LPs sound rather poorer than
others, even when coming from professionals.

The advantage of LPCM - flac is that no such judgements are needed.

Jim

Well, I've just been having fun with MP3s. I drive a lot, so I keep
myself occupied with audio books. In my new car I found that some
played and others wouldn't. Long story short - there was a maximum
amount of metadata my car player could deal with before it could no
longer read the file. So I just re-recorded everything minus metadata.

And - almost forgot - this only applied to sticks in the USB socket.
MP3s on CD ROM play with all the metadata present.

d

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 1/11/2020 1:56 AM, lid wrote:
Where can I find the authentic site for Razor LAME?

https://lame.sourceforge.io/


What is the main development / release / distribution site for Razor
LAME? Is there some other LAME package which I should use instead of
Razor?

Sourceforge is the official LAME development and support web site. If
you get the encoder there, you'll be getting the genuine article. The
basic LAME encoder can be run from a command line, but it's really
intended to be used with some other supporting application like Audacity
(which is a full out audio recorder and editor).

Razor is a graphic front end for LAME so you don't need to install
another program if you just want to encode files that you have on your
computer. It uses the genuine LAME encoder code, so the encoded quality
will be the same as any other program that uses LAME. If you're
concerned about the "legitimacy" of the download site, you're probably
safe with the link from the Sourceforge web site:

http://www.dors.de/razorlame/index.php

WinLame is another GUI front end for LAME from the Sourceforge group:

https://winlame.sourceforge.io/

[Phil W]

2020-01-11 /10:56 lid:

Where can I find the authentic site for Razor LAME?

A couple of sites which Google threw up are;

https://www.free-codecs.com/download/razorlame.htm

https://lame.sourceforge.io/


What is the main development / release / distribution site for Razor
LAME? Is there some other LAME package which I should use instead of
Razor?

Thank you.

The Sourceforge project page seems to be as official as it gets - BUT it
is rather intended for programmers, who want to compile the *source
code* themselves.
Yes, there´s a .bat file included in the .tar.gz to encode from, but
there are more comfortable ways to use the LAME codec.

https://lame.sourceforge.io/links.php
lists quite a few programs for various OS, which use the LAME codec -
just assume, they didn´t change anything in the actual codec code...

My suggestion is still the same as 1 week ago:
get "LameDropXPd", as it is IMHO the easiest and quickest method to
encode LAME MP3 files under Windows
- it has the latest LAME version
- is freeware (and absoluteley harmless)
- just works as expected
- it can even batch encode multiple file you drop on its window, at once
or after each other, while another file is being processed.
- does NOT require installation or does anything to Windows´ registry

After 15+ years of use, I have not yet encountered a situation, where
the resulting files could not be played, so it should be safe enough for
creating MP3 files to embed in HTML pages and compatible to most systems.

Just set all options to maximum quality and Constant Bit Rate and
everything should be fine - if you want samller file size, reduce
encoding quality, until there is an acceptable ratio between sound
quality and file size.

If you insist on using "dead" (as in no official website or development
anymore) software llike RazorLame, that´s your choice. For myself, I
would rather use software like Lamedrop, which at least gets updated
every few months or years, shortly after a new version of the Lame codec
is released - and also puts only 2 files on my computer rather than a
whole folder.


just go ahead, try it and hopefully be happy with it and get the actual
job done! ;-)


Phil

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 06:43:05 -0800, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 1/11/2020 1:56 AM, lid wrote:
Where can I find the authentic site for Razor LAME?

https://lame.sourceforge.io/


What is the main development / release / distribution site for Razor
LAME? Is there some other LAME package which I should use instead of
Razor?

Sourceforge is the official LAME development and support web site. If
you get the encoder there, you'll be getting the genuine article. The
basic LAME encoder can be run from a command line, but it's really
intended to be used with some other supporting application like Audacity
(which is a full out audio recorder and editor).

Razor is a graphic front end for LAME so you don't need to install
another program if you just want to encode files that you have on your
computer. It uses the genuine LAME encoder code, so the encoded quality
will be the same as any other program that uses LAME. If you're
concerned about the "legitimacy" of the download site, you're probably
safe with the link from the Sourceforge web site:

http://www.dors.de/razorlame/index.php

I looked at;

http://www.dors.de/razorlame/index.php

and the website is empty. All it says is;

"Not much here, I'm afraid!"

I have previously used Razor LAME 1.1.5, dated 2003. I would like to
upgrade to the latest version. I prefer to use Razor LAME because I've
already used the product and am comfortable with it.

If there is no authentic site for Razor, which website could I trust
for an app to run safely on my PC?

[Scott Dorsey]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Scott Dorsey
This is why we pay mastering engineers. It's just like cutting LPs, you
are trying to pack 10 gallons of music in a 5 gallon container.
Something has to be thrown away. It's better for a person with ears to
help make the decision about what instead of letting the computer do it.

Again, agreed. But again, a reason why some LPs sound rather poorer than
others, even when coming from professionals.

When I was starting out, I was cutting 45s... and I was cutting 25 to 30
sides a day... so you can believe that not a lot of care and attention was
being paid on each one. With something like lacquer cutting where you
really are having to make real compromises, it matters a lot about how
much time and care and listening is done. Professionals are sometimes
too expensive to have the time to do it right.

The advantage of LPCM - flac is that no such judgements are needed.

I don't really see a need for flac. For local storage, disks have become
so incredibly cheap that just keeping everything around as PCM files is
no problem. On the other hand, if you want to stream over the network,
nobody has clients to stream flac and you are stuck using the formats
that people can read (namely MP3 and RA).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
Where can I find the authentic site for Razor LAME?

A couple of sites which Google threw up are;

https://www.free-codecs.com/download/razorlame.htm

https://lame.sourceforge.io/

The definitive site is going to be sourceforge, but likely you just want a
quick binary distribution. The sourceforge site will probably tell you
where you can get such a thing.

That said, the LAME encoder is integrated into so many pieces of software
out there that there is seldom a real need to use the standalone one. If
you have the latest release of Audacity there's already a LAME encoder
part of it.
--scott

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

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article , Scott Dorsey
wrote:
The advantage of LPCM - flac is that no such judgements are needed.

I don't really see a need for flac. For local storage, disks have
become so incredibly cheap that just keeping everything around as PCM
files is no problem. On the other hand, if you want to stream over the
network, nobody has clients to stream flac and you are stuck using the
formats that people can read (namely MP3 and RA).

Well, as a domestic user I find that my NAS is well over half full even
using flac (and aac for BBC material). And flac also helps when I use a DAP
that only has a couple of mini sd cards[1]. So it seems useful for me. No
doubt my next NAS will be larger... :-)

If I were working in a professional context, I'd probably agree with you,
though.

I 'stream' over my network using a net filing system. Works fine with the
players, etc, on all my Linux and RISC OS boxes. IIUC No need for a media
'client' in the sense you give above, just 'everything is a file'. :-) I'd
probably do the same in a pro situation *if* that was convenient. But
presume this would depend on the context of who else was doing what, and
what others required, etc.

However as per my earlier comment, apart from a few years designing home
audio equipment, my interest tends to be home/domestic audio.

Jim

[1] IIRC one card c400GB and the other 256GB.

--
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[[email protected]]

For everyone else, you can download from;

http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV


I have converted this file to MP3.

Please listen to;

http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/x.mp3


Please telll me if the audio is as clear as with the WAV. I think it
is, but I would like to be re-assured.

[[email protected]]

Was this recorded during recent events in Iraq & Iran??

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:05:39 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Was this recorded during recent events in Iraq & Iran??

No.

[geoff]

On 13/01/2020 1:13 pm, lid wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:05:39 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Was this recorded during recent events in Iraq & Iran??

No.


Is this short collection of odd noises what you intended to show us ?

And the 'Wav' link doesn't work.

geoff

[Andy Burns[_2_]]

lid wrote:

http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/x.mp3

Please telll me if the audio is as clear as with the WAV. I think it
is, but I would like to be re-assured.

Based purely on the audio content, I was going to write
"YAmikecorleyAICM£5" then I noticed the domain name :-)

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:33:12 +1300, geoff
wrote:

Is this short collection of odd noises what you intended to show us ?

And the 'Wav' link doesn't work.

geoff

try http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV

if that doesn't work, try

http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.wav

both work for me, but your browser may behave differently

[[email protected]]

invalid wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:33:12 +1300, geoff
wrote:

Is this short collection of odd noises what you intended to show us ?

And the 'Wav' link doesn't work.

geoff

try http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV

if that doesn't work, try

http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.wav

both work for me, but your browser may behave differently

On my tablet, upper link works, bottom one doesn't. Strange: only difference between
the two is caps or lower case 'wav'!

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 04:01:00 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

invalid wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:33:12 +1300, geoff
wrote:

Is this short collection of odd noises what you intended to show us ?

And the 'Wav' link doesn't work.

geoff

try http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV

if that doesn't work, try

http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.wav

both work for me, but your browser may behave differently

On my tablet, upper link works, bottom one doesn't. Strange: only difference between
the two is caps or lower case 'wav'!

The system is case-sensitive.

d

[John Williamson]

On 13/01/2020 12:17, Don Pearce wrote:

The system is case-sensitive.

d

I get a zero length video on the first URL, and a 404 error on the second.

Iron browser, Windows 10, plenty of RAM and HD space.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 13/01/2020 12:28, John Williamson wrote:
On 13/01/2020 12:17, Don Pearce wrote:

The system is case-sensitive.

d

I get a zero length video on the first URL, and a 404 error on the second.

Iron browser, Windows 10, plenty of RAM and HD space.

This may be the problem here. "Inspect element" shows this

video controls="" autoplay="" name="media"source
src="http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV"
type="audio/x-wav"/video

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 12:28:54 +0000, John Williamson
wrote:

On 13/01/2020 12:17, Don Pearce wrote:

The system is case-sensitive.

d

I get a zero length video on the first URL, and a 404 error on the second.

Iron browser, Windows 10, plenty of RAM and HD space.

First one plays fine for me - the link drops it into Windows Media
Player

d