In article <e14c73lgg05o9efjatqiv2n41e2gp2isa7@4ax.com>,
Scott en Aztl?n <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> said in misc.consumers:
>
> >> The fact that so many fat chicks are wearing Britney-Spears-style
> >> hip-huggers and belly shirts even though their flab is hanging out all
> >> over the place is proof positive that the American consumer is more
> >> influenced by trendiness than suckiness (or lack thereof).
> >
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <f55pk0$p70$6@reader2.panix.com>,
> EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>
>>>> Windows works just fine for most people most of the time. That's why it
>>>> sells as well as it does, and it's why it doesn't suck.
>>> And McDonalds makes the best burgers.
>>> Idiot.
>> No, the correct extension of his point would be that MacDonalds works fine
>> for most people. That's why they sell so much.
>
> That doesn't make McDonald's good. Rather, that makes most people
> stupid.
>
> Of course, some of us don't need that extra proof, but thank you anyway.
>
In article <slrnf7ap4f.n9l.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Pegleg wrote on [Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:39:40 -0700]:
> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:04:18 -0000, geoffm@lava.net (Geoff Miller)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>And why _would_ the iPod suck, exactly? What is it that you don't
> >>like?
> >
> > One reason I would never buy one is the fact it is tied to music from
> > apple. I expect to be able to put my own music on a mp3 player from
> > wherever I want.
>
> Most people with an iPod do not buy music via iTunes, that has been
> stated again and again. You can put any mp3 on there you want.
There's no bigger Apple supporter than I yet I have several complaints
about the iPod/iTunes duet. One of them exactly being that it only
handles mp3 data.
When the world said goodbye to vinyl and embraced compact discs, I was
very excited. I was involved in the industry and I know how hard the
scientists at PDO (Philips-duPont Optical) and Sony worked to get the
finest possibly quality out of the technology.
Now, what do we have? The computer industry, with heavy collusion from
Apple, have effectively dumbed-down the technology again. Wouldn't
surprise me if a proper test found that mp3 is vastly inferior to the
best that vinyl offered.
Apple was overpowered by Microsoft in the office. But they captured
first the desktop publishing industry (captured? Hell, they _invented
it!) then the pro and semi-pro audio industry. They also took and will
continue to take swipes at the semi-pro video industry. In other
words, creative art is Apple's strong point.
Moronic teenagers maybe can't tell the difference. Professionals surely
can and they wince. Why oh why would Apple shoot itself in the foot
like this? I'm very sad. And angry.
In article <f55pn7$p70$7@reader2.panix.com>,
<EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
John Bailo <jabailo@texeme.com> signed off with:
>
--
> The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
> certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
> -- Bertrand Russel
In alt.cellular.verizon Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <f55pk0$p70$6@reader2.panix.com>,
> EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> > > > Windows works just fine for most people most of the time. That's why it
> > > > sells as well as it does, and it's why it doesn't suck.
> >
> > > And McDonalds makes the best burgers.
> >
> > > Idiot.
> >
> > No, the correct extension of his point would be that MacDonalds works fine
> > for most people. That's why they sell so much.
> That doesn't make McDonald's good.
A trivial, irrelevant point.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Gamma <Gamma@coldmail.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnf7ap4f.n9l.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>, Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> Pegleg wrote on [Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:39:40 -0700]:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:04:18 -0000, geoffm@lava.net (Geoff Miller)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And why _would_ the iPod suck, exactly? What is it that you don't
>>>> like?
>>>
>>> One reason I would never buy one is the fact it is tied to music
>>> from apple. I expect to be able to put my own music on a mp3
>>> player from wherever I want.
>>
>> Most people with an iPod do not buy music via iTunes, that has been
>> stated again and again. You can put any mp3 on there you want.
> There's no bigger Apple supporter than I yet I have several complaints about
> the iPod/iTunes duet. One of them exactly being that it only handles mp3 data.
No it doesnt.
> When the world said goodbye to vinyl and embraced compact discs,
> I was very excited. I was involved in the industry and I know how
> hard the scientists at PDO (Philips-duPont Optical) and Sony
> worked to get the finest possibly quality out of the technology.
Irrelevant to what works fine with the sort of portable system an ipod is.
> Now, what do we have? The computer industry, with heavy collusion
> from Apple, have effectively dumbed-down the technology again.
Mindlessly silly.
> Wouldn't surprise me if a proper test found that mp3
> is vastly inferior to the best that vinyl offered.
Irrelevant to what works fine with the sort of portable system an ipod is.
> Apple was overpowered by Microsoft in the office. But they captured
> first the desktop publishing industry (captured? Hell, they _invented it!)
No they didnt.
> then the pro and semi-pro audio industry. They also took and
> will continue to take swipes at the semi-pro video industry. In
> other words, creative art is Apple's strong point.
Just as well, they're a complete dud at everything else.
> Moronic teenagers maybe can't tell the difference. Professionals
> surely can and they wince. Why oh why would Apple shoot itself
> in the foot like this? I'm very sad. And angry.
Your problem.
> So why serve up this shitty mp3 format ONLY?
They dont. And it clearly works well enough for hordes of people, and THATS what matters anyway.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:55:44 -0700, Gamma wrote
(in article <180620072255441528%Gamma@coldmail.com>):
> In article <slrnf7ap4f.n9l.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>, Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> Pegleg wrote on [Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:39:40 -0700]:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:04:18 -0000, geoffm@lava.net (Geoff Miller)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And why _would_ the iPod suck, exactly? What is it that you don't
>>>> like?
>>>
>>> One reason I would never buy one is the fact it is tied to music from
>>> apple. I expect to be able to put my own music on a mp3 player from
>>> wherever I want.
>>
>> Most people with an iPod do not buy music via iTunes, that has been
>> stated again and again. You can put any mp3 on there you want.
>
>
> There's no bigger Apple supporter than I yet I have several complaints
> about the iPod/iTunes duet. One of them exactly being that it only
> handles mp3 data.
Then what is my iPod doing with all these ALC musical selections on it? My
iPod has NO MP3s on it, not ONE.
> When the world said goodbye to vinyl and embraced compact discs, I was
> very excited. I was involved in the industry and I know how hard the
> scientists at PDO (Philips-duPont Optical) and Sony worked to get the
> finest possibly quality out of the technology.
And yet, many will tell you that even today, its not really good enough for
music.
> Now, what do we have? The computer industry, with heavy collusion from
> Apple, have effectively dumbed-down the technology again. Wouldn't
> surprise me if a proper test found that mp3 is vastly inferior to the
> best that vinyl offered.
Hell, the average CD is vastly inferior to the best vinyl has to offer. But
Apple loss-less compression of a musical recording done on iTunes and played
back on an iPod can actually be BETTER than CD playback:
> Apple was overpowered by Microsoft in the office. But they captured
> first the desktop publishing industry (captured? Hell, they _invented
> it!) then the pro and semi-pro audio industry. They also took and will
> continue to take swipes at the semi-pro video industry. In other
> words, creative art is Apple's strong point.
>
> Moronic teenagers maybe can't tell the difference. Professionals surely
> can and they wince. Why oh why would Apple shoot itself in the foot
> like this? I'm very sad. And angry.
>
> So why serve up this shitty mp3 format ONLY?
It's NOT mp3 format only. ALC is EXCELLENT and if you can bypass the analog
section of an iPod, its better than the CD playback on most CD decks because
it contains fewer read errors. The ripping algorithm that ALC uses keeps
repeating the same digital word until it gets a "read" that is perfect, I.E.
no Reed-Solomon correction required, and certainly no interpolation. Once
it's compressed, that track will never have read errors in it again.
Therefore its better than the CD.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:09:17 -0700, Justin wrote
(in article <slrnf7dm2t.n9l.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>):
> Gamma wrote on [Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:55:44 +0400]:
>> In article <slrnf7ap4f.n9l.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>, Justin
>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Pegleg wrote on [Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:39:40 -0700]:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:04:18 -0000, geoffm@lava.net (Geoff Miller)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And why _would_ the iPod suck, exactly? What is it that you don't
>>>>> like?
>>>>
>>>> One reason I would never buy one is the fact it is tied to music from
>>>> apple. I expect to be able to put my own music on a mp3 player from
>>>> wherever I want.
>>>
>>> Most people with an iPod do not buy music via iTunes, that has been
>>> stated again and again. You can put any mp3 on there you want.
>>
>>
>> There's no bigger Apple supporter than I yet I have several complaints
>> about the iPod/iTunes duet. One of them exactly being that it only
>> handles mp3 data.
>
> Actually, no. It prefers AAC, which is NOT Mp3. MP3 works, I believe WAV
> works too
>
>> Now, what do we have? The computer industry, with heavy collusion from
>> Apple, have effectively dumbed-down the technology again. Wouldn't
>> surprise me if a proper test found that mp3 is vastly inferior to the
>> best that vinyl offered.
>
> A 320kbit MP3 doesn't sound too terrible
>
Depends on who you are and what your standards are. I can listen to MP3 in
the car because the noise floor is so high that it masks any artifacts. I
cannot, however stand the sound of any MP3 on my home stereo system or on
headphones.
On 2007-06-18, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gamma <Gamma@coldmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Bill Gates <im@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote
>
>>>> 98% of songs on iPods DO NOT COME FROM APPLE.
>
>>> You've just plucked that number out of your arse.
>
>> Wrong. Steve Jobs quoted some real figures recently.
>
> No he didnt, they were just plucked from someone else's arse.
>
>> I forget, though, if 98 was THE figure. But, if not, it's close.
>
> Nope, that particular number was plucked from his arse.
Divide the number of songs sold via iTunes by the number of iPods in the
field, and you will get an upper limit for the average number of songs
from Apple per iPod. The number is something around ~30ish. Unless
people are buying iPods much larger than the need, you can correctly
conclude that only a small percentage of songs on most people's iPods
are purchased from Apple.
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Gamma <Gamma@coldmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Bill Gates <im@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote
>>>>> 98% of songs on iPods DO NOT COME FROM APPLE.
>>>> You've just plucked that number out of your arse.
>>> Wrong. Steve Jobs quoted some real figures recently.
>> No he didnt, they were just plucked from someone else's arse.
>>> I forget, though, if 98 was THE figure. But, if not, it's close.
>> Nope, that particular number was plucked from his arse.
> Divide the number of songs sold via iTunes by the number
> of iPods in the field, and you will get an upper limit for the
> average number of songs from Apple per iPod.
Useless for determining the total number of songs on those
ipods that didnt come from Apple and hence the percentage.
> The number is something around ~30ish.
You've just plucked that number out of your arse too.
> Unless people are buying iPods much larger than the need,
Or they just buy what happens to be available etc.
> you can correctly conclude that only a small percentage of
> songs on most people's iPods are purchased from Apple.
Doesnt alter the fact that that 98 percent figure is just plucked out of someone's arse.
And it isnt a static number with many either, most ended up binning
some stuff when they ran out of space and are much more likely to
bin stuff that they dont have to pay for again if they want it again etc.
Gamma <Gamma@coldmail.com> wrote in news:180620072255441528% Gamma@coldmail.com:
> So why serve up this shitty mp3 format ONLY?
>
All players should have monstrous hard drives and FLAC decoders?
I agree MP3 isn't perfect, but its files are small and its fidelity is
acceptable.
What you REALLY need to see is YOU! You're hearing is just like everyone
else's. It's just AWFUL! Go to a good audiologist and get him to do a
spectrum analysis of your hearing in EACH ear. Get the plot of that and
you'll think MP3 is wonderful. Human hearing is terrible!
Question: Can you hear the horizontal oscillator screaming in a TV set
with a picture tube in it? About 95% of the population never hears it.
I used to be able to hear it when I was much younger, before tininitis
started ringing all these bells from all the loud music I played as a DJ
and my one and only bout with anesthesia in a hospital, which left me
with very loud ringing that has never gone away in 20 years.
The young people reading this will, of course, ignore any warning I may
give them concerning what concerts, DJs, loud bars, their own digital
music players are doing to make them end up just like me....partially
deaf with a constant ringing tone that only quiets when I sleep.
I can't hear a CRT TV's horizontal screaming any more, even up close.
When I was young it drove me nuts to be around them. Oh, before you all
go out and pay big $$$$ for that superstereo, that horizontal frequency
those CRT TVs all radiate is 15,750 Hz....no where near the 20 Khz those
Klipsch speaker can produce perfectly. BTW, the music on all those
vinyls has the exact RIAA bandwidth music today has....50-15000 Hz.
There's a very money reason the bandwidth is limited to this range....to
sell the music on FM radio stations. FM radio stations, by FCC rules,
must not feed more than 15000 Hz highest audio frequency (including
harmonic overtones, noise, etc.), to their FM transmitters modulators.
15 Khz audio causes their RF bandwidth to be approximately 200 Khz....the
channel spacing of FM stations. Keeping the bandwidth restricted reduces
cochannel interference to other stations close by in frequency....even on
those crap consumer receivers you all have...no matter how much you paid
for it or how nice the cabinet and advertising was.
Shhh...don't tell anyone....hooking the speakers up with cheap zipcord
from Walmart has the same bandwidth as $150 Monster Cables, too!
Shhh....don't tell!
Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in
news:slrnf7dm2t.n9l.nospam@debian.dns2go.com:
> A 320kbit MP3 doesn't sound too terrible
>
I love it! You guys remind me of those "audiofools" who used to have
massive reel-to-reel recorders costing $US10K running 60 inches/second
taping stuff that was "superior".
THE SAMPLING RATE IS 44.1Kbps on ANY CD! 44.1Kbps! The audio fed to the
master is 50-15000 Hz, and has been since broadcast FM radio was
invented. Your hearing drops off, sharply, if you're a teen around 13-
14Khz. If your 40, around 8-10Khz as your eardrums harden up, unless you
go deaf from blasting it with noise all those years when it's MUCH less.
I'm 61, partially deaf from tininitis (ringing) and years of abuse as a
DJ. My audiogram looks like a topographical map of Nepal and drops off
around 6.8Khz by about 30db/octave.
128Kbps MP3 is OVERKILL!....(C; IT'S ALL IN YOUR MIND...AND PROGRAMMING!
Make a really blind test for your friends and test it in reality.....
Convert a CD that isn't distorted guitars screaming over a crowd, to
various MP3 sample rates. 22, 32, 64, 128, 256, 320Kbps. Give them all
a filename noone can know what sample rate is and mix them up, don't play
them in a line, of course. Now, without letting your victim audiofools
see the sample rate your playing of the SAME song from the SAME source
but at different MP3 sample rates, play them for them in the best pair of
earphone you can find....those really super monsters that impress
consumers.
Let them pick the BEST sounding, 2nd Best sounding, 3rd Best sounding
sample BY NUMBER, not by sample rate....a truly blind test. Without
telling them, insert a full-size wav sample of the song with no
compression right off the CD somewhere in the middle of your test. Don't
tell them you are going to do this...just do it.
I've given this little test to audiofools who make snide comments about
my DJ business being all MP3s played on a Gateway Laptop with Winamp,
using Sound Solutions' free 5-band compressor/expander/limiter multistage
and SqrSoft Advanced Crossfading, also a free Winamp plugin. The laptop
feeds 2 1450 watt QSC power amps, bridged, into 4 restored JBL bass horn
15" monsters with Emminence Kappa 15 woofers and the original JBL
mid/high horns in them. The woofers are rated at 850W each. I get
compliments all the time...and several complaints it's too loud and too
bassy...(c; I've broken a few windows and 2 chandeliers...
NOONE has picked out the full band wav file of the original music. Most
will pick the 32K or 64K MP3 samples because they have less treble, which
makes the bass more pronounced, like an old "tone control". This depends
a lot on your test subjects' age and hearing capability.
Oh, the music sampled MUST be totally FLAT in response....no equalizers,
no bass boosters, no processing of any kind....straight samples played on
a flat amp to flat headphones.....Don't cheat.
Let us know on this thread how you did....and who was shocked. Your
audiologist knows why....Your ears just SUCK!
In article <137d9rrg1hog925@corp.supernews.com>,
Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > In article <f55pk0$p70$6@reader2.panix.com>,
> > EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> >
> >>>> Windows works just fine for most people most of the time. That's why it
> >>>> sells as well as it does, and it's why it doesn't suck.
> >>> And McDonalds makes the best burgers.
> >>> Idiot.
> >> No, the correct extension of his point would be that MacDonalds works fine
> >> for most people. That's why they sell so much.
> >
> > That doesn't make McDonald's good. Rather, that makes most people
> > stupid.
> >
> > Of course, some of us don't need that extra proof, but thank you anyway.
> >
>
>
> McD's = Mystery Meat.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:17:03 -0700, Larry wrote
(in article <Xns9953C4CE8410Anoonehomecom@208.49.80.253>):
> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in
> news:slrnf7dm2t.n9l.nospam@debian.dns2go.com:
>
>> A 320kbit MP3 doesn't sound too terrible
>>
>
> I love it! You guys remind me of those "audiofools" who used to have
> massive reel-to-reel recorders costing $US10K running 60 inches/second
> taping stuff that was "superior".
60ips? You bet its superior, but most pro equipment runs at 30ips, not 60. Do
you even know why 30-60ips is superior? I'll be surprised if you do.
>
> THE SAMPLING RATE IS 44.1Kbps on ANY CD! 44.1Kbps! The audio fed to the
> master is 50-15000 Hz, and has been since broadcast FM radio was
> invented. Your hearing drops off, sharply, if you're a teen around 13-
> 14Khz. If your 40, around 8-10Khz as your eardrums harden up, unless you
> go deaf from blasting it with noise all those years when it's MUCH less.
> I'm 61, partially deaf from tininitis (ringing) and years of abuse as a
> DJ. My audiogram looks like a topographical map of Nepal and drops off
> around 6.8Khz by about 30db/octave.
You are assuming that frequency response is the only criteria for the
reproduction of music. I have heart-breaking news for you.... it isn't.
>
> 128Kbps MP3 is OVERKILL!....(C; IT'S ALL IN YOUR MIND...AND PROGRAMMING!
> Make a really blind test for your friends and test it in reality.....
> Convert a CD that isn't distorted guitars screaming over a crowd, to
> various MP3 sample rates. 22, 32, 64, 128, 256, 320Kbps. Give them all
> a filename noone can know what sample rate is and mix them up, don't play
> them in a line, of course. Now, without letting your victim audiofools
> see the sample rate your playing of the SAME song from the SAME source
> but at different MP3 sample rates, play them for them in the best pair of
> earphone you can find....those really super monsters that impress
> consumers.
You can't hide MP3's compression artifacts on real music performed in a live
space - especially on headphones. Now, some forms of music like some R&R
where there is little or no dynamic contrast, the artifacts can be hidden by
the phenomenon of temporal masking (the same phenomenon that lets you turn on
an electric fan in your bedroom to smother loud noise from outside), but any
symphonic music or string quartets, or solo piano, etc., simply sound
atrocious with MP3 at any data rate.
>
> Let them pick the BEST sounding, 2nd Best sounding, 3rd Best sounding
> sample BY NUMBER, not by sample rate....a truly blind test. Without
> telling them, insert a full-size wav sample of the song with no
> compression right off the CD somewhere in the middle of your test. Don't
> tell them you are going to do this...just do it.
Having been privy to several such trials, I can tell you that with classical
music or solo acoustic guitar, or quiet jazz, I can tell the difference every
time because I can hear the compression artifacts clearly.
>
> I've given this little test to audiofools who make snide comments about
> my DJ business being all MP3s played on a Gateway Laptop with Winamp,
> using Sound Solutions' free 5-band compressor/expander/limiter multistage
> and SqrSoft Advanced Crossfading, also a free Winamp plugin. The laptop
> feeds 2 1450 watt QSC power amps, bridged, into 4 restored JBL bass horn
> 15" monsters with Emminence Kappa 15 woofers and the original JBL
> mid/high horns in them. The woofers are rated at 850W each. I get
> compliments all the time...and several complaints it's too loud and too
> bassy...(c; I've broken a few windows and 2 chandeliers...
First of all, JBL horns sound like shit and always have. Secondly, what does
loud have to do with quality? Thirdly, its apparent from your equipment list
that you are listening to rock/pop. That being the case, you're right. You
can't hear the compression artifacts the loud music masks them.
>
> NOONE has picked out the full band wav file of the original music. Most
> will pick the 32K or 64K MP3 samples because they have less treble, which
> makes the bass more pronounced, like an old "tone control". This depends
> a lot on your test subjects' age and hearing capability.
My you certainly are limited in your understanding of this question, aren't
you?
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:56:39 -0700, Larry wrote
(in article <Xns9953C158E1C18noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>):
> Gamma <Gamma@coldmail.com> wrote in news:180620072255441528%
> Gamma@coldmail.com:
>
>> So why serve up this shitty mp3 format ONLY?
>>
>
> All players should have monstrous hard drives and FLAC decoders?
>
> I agree MP3 isn't perfect, but its files are small and its fidelity is
> acceptable.
>
> What you REALLY need to see is YOU! You're hearing is just like everyone
> else's. It's just AWFUL! Go to a good audiologist and get him to do a
> spectrum analysis of your hearing in EACH ear. Get the plot of that and
> you'll think MP3 is wonderful. Human hearing is terrible!
Would you like to explain how that has a bearing on anything? Humans hear how
humans hear. The sum total of audible experience goes through the brain where
it's interpreted. the non-linearity of the hearing apparatus is pretty
irrelevant.
>
> Question: Can you hear the horizontal oscillator screaming in a TV set
> with a picture tube in it? About 95% of the population never hears it.
That proves nothing except what we already know. That the top of the audible
spectrum attenuates with age and it attenuates faster/more if you've been
subjected to loud sound/music in your life. But the enjoyment of good
reproduction does not. I have a friend named J. Gordon Holt, you may have
heard of him, he practically INVENTED high-end audio. Gordon is over 75 now,
yet he can still sit down in front of a stereo system, listen to it for an
hour or so, and pinpoint everything that's wrong with it. I doubt if he can
hear (in an audiological way) over 10K.
> I used to be able to hear it when I was much younger, before tininitis
> started ringing all these bells from all the loud music I played as a DJ
> and my one and only bout with anesthesia in a hospital, which left me
> with very loud ringing that has never gone away in 20 years.
>
> The young people reading this will, of course, ignore any warning I may
> give them concerning what concerts, DJs, loud bars, their own digital
> music players are doing to make them end up just like me....partially
> deaf with a constant ringing tone that only quiets when I sleep.
I'm sorry to see that. You have my condolences.
>
> I can't hear a CRT TV's horizontal screaming any more, even up close.
Nor can I. Nor can anybody who's TV is HDTV or 480p interpolating :-)
> When I was young it drove me nuts to be around them. Oh, before you all
> go out and pay big $$$$ for that superstereo, that horizontal frequency
> those CRT TVs all radiate is 15,750 Hz....no where near the 20 Khz those
> Klipsch speaker can produce perfectly. BTW, the music on all those
> vinyls has the exact RIAA bandwidth music today has....50-15000 Hz.
> There's a very money reason the bandwidth is limited to this range....to
> sell the music on FM radio stations. FM radio stations, by FCC rules,
> must not feed more than 15000 Hz highest audio frequency (including
> harmonic overtones, noise, etc.), to their FM transmitters modulators.
> 15 Khz audio causes their RF bandwidth to be approximately 200 Khz....the
> channel spacing of FM stations. Keeping the bandwidth restricted reduces
> cochannel interference to other stations close by in frequency....even on
> those crap consumer receivers you all have...no matter how much you paid
> for it or how nice the cabinet and advertising was.
FM was good in the fifties and early 'sixties when the channels were few and
far between, even in large metropolitan areas. They didn't use either
compression or limiting in those days, and, in fact, the CBS Automax and
Volumax hadn't even been invented. A live broadcast in those days was about
as good as home listening got. I remember as a kid listening to the George
Washington University radio station (forget their call) in Washington DC and
their live Watergate concerts. They were glorious. I wish I still had the
tapes my dad and I made of them. But I moved to CA and he stayed in VA, and
eventually, as they got older, he shed himself of all that stuff (we had a
Marantz 10B tuner, if that means anything to you).
>
> Shhh...don't tell anyone....hooking the speakers up with cheap zipcord
> from Walmart has the same bandwidth as $150 Monster Cables, too!
> Shhh....don't tell!
Meh, I've heard differences between speaker cables, I just don't know whether
"different" is better or worse since I don't REALLY know what the original
sounds like. Most people use speaker cables like tone controls, and I'm noy
sure that's the right approach. OTOH, some speaker/amp combos aren't affected
by cables at all, and others are fairly profoundly affected. I remember some
years ago a company was selling some multi-conductor speaker cable where the
individual conductors were insulated and woven with the others to form a
coarse, cloth-like ribbon. If you used this cable on many of the solid-state
amplifiers of the time, they would go into ultrasonic oscillation. People
couldn't actually hear the oscillation itself, but it made the amps sound
"brighter" - that is until thermal runaway caused them to self-destruct.
"Larry" wrote:
> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in
> news:slrnf7dm2t.n9l.nospam@debian.dns2go.com:
>
>> A 320kbit MP3 doesn't sound too terrible
>>
>
> I love it! You guys remind me of those "audiofools" who used to have
> massive reel-to-reel recorders costing $US10K running 60 inches/second
> taping stuff that was "superior".
>
> THE SAMPLING RATE IS 44.1Kbps on ANY CD! 44.1Kbps!
Yea, just like a typical 320 kbps MP3. Bitrate of an MP3 is not the same as
its sampling rate.
>
> 128Kbps MP3 is OVERKILL!
It sounds like you are again confusing bitrate with sampling rate. A 128
kbps MP3 is hardly overkill. The issue with lossy music is just that. Very
little to do with sample rate.
On Jun 18, 7:17 pm, Larry <n...@home.com> wrote:
> Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote innews:slrnf7dm2t.n9l.nospam@debian.dns2go.com:
>
> > A 320kbit MP3 doesn't sound too terrible
>
> I love it! You guys remind me of those "audiofools" who used to have
> massive reel-to-reel recorders costing $US10K running 60 inches/second
> taping stuff that was "superior".
>
> THE SAMPLING RATE IS 44.1Kbps on ANY CD! 44.1Kbps! The audio fed to the
> master is 50-15000 Hz, and has been since broadcast FM radio was
> invented. Your hearing drops off, sharply, if you're a teen around 13-
> 14Khz. If your 40, around 8-10Khz as your eardrums harden up, unless you
> go deaf from blasting it with noise all those years when it's MUCH less.
> I'm 61, partially deaf from tininitis (ringing) and years of abuse as a
> DJ. My audiogram looks like a topographical map of Nepal and drops off
> around 6.8Khz by about 30db/octave.
No arguments there... most people's hearing is imperfect.
> 128Kbps MP3 is OVERKILL!....(C; IT'S ALL IN YOUR MIND...AND PROGRAMMING!
Completely and utterly false.
128Kbps MP3 has problems encoding artifacts that can be easily heard
by myself and others. Even VBR 192kbps LAME often has trouble with
some tricky passages where you can clearly hear tinning. AAC at that
same bitrate does a superior job preventing artifacts, but still has a
much higher fidelity when you ratchet up the bitrate.
"Shawn Hirn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-B4B8A3.07002518062007@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <137cgq8kjmb6n9c@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> > In article <137anb9lm00pud9@corp.supernews.com>,
>> > geoffm@lava.net (Geoff Miller) wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's unclear to me why having the
>> >> ability to talk on the telephone implies a *need* to.
>> >>
>> >> And that's a beef of mine against cellphones: they cause people
>> >> to talk at times and places when they'd once have been quiet.
>> >
>> > I know a guy who CANNOT *not* answer his phone.
>> >
>> > He carries two phones, one personal and one from his employer. I have
>> > seen him have three people on the phone at once--one on his personal
>> > phone, one on his work phone, and one on his work phone that he put on
>> > hold to take the second call on his work phone.
>> >
>> > I'll be talking to him, his phone will ring, and he'll never ever say,
>> > "Screw it" and ignore it.
>> >
>> > Me, I can ignore a ringing phone like nobody's business.
>> >
>>
>>
>> No telephone has the constitutional right to be answered simply because
>> it rang.
>
> I agree, and my cell phone spends most of its time on vibrate mode.
Mine spends most of its time turned off, in its holster, in my briefcase. I
light it up about once a week to check messages. (Prepaid semi-disposable,
used mainly for traveling. Costs me a whopping 8 bucks a month.)
In article <5doe09F2u2lttU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Divide the number of songs sold via iTunes by the number
> > of iPods in the field, and you will get an upper limit for the
> > average number of songs from Apple per iPod.
>
> Useless for determining the total number of songs on those
> ipods that didnt come from Apple and hence the percentage.
>
> > The number is something around ~30ish.
>
> You've just plucked that number out of your arse too.
You seem obsessed with people's asses. Apple releases sales figures for
iPods and download figures for the iTunes store. Feel free to look
those up for yourself and do the division.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:53:54 -0700, Tinman wrote
(in article <5donmjF35aqsvU1@mid.individual.net>):
> "Larry" wrote:
>> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in
>> news:slrnf7dm2t.n9l.nospam@debian.dns2go.com:
>>
>>> A 320kbit MP3 doesn't sound too terrible
>>>
>>
>> I love it! You guys remind me of those "audiofools" who used to have
>> massive reel-to-reel recorders costing $US10K running 60 inches/second
>> taping stuff that was "superior".
>>
>> THE SAMPLING RATE IS 44.1Kbps on ANY CD! 44.1Kbps!
>
> Yea, just like a typical 320 kbps MP3. Bitrate of an MP3 is not the same as
> its sampling rate.
>
>
>>
>> 128Kbps MP3 is OVERKILL!
>
> It sounds like you are again confusing bitrate with sampling rate. A 128
> kbps MP3 is hardly overkill. The issue with lossy music is just that. Very
> little to do with sample rate.
>
>
>
Yes. Sampling rate = the number of times/second the original analog waveform
is sampled for quantization. With a CD, that's 44.1thousand times/second.
Using Nyquist's theoram, one can quantize (convert from analog to digital)
using Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) roughly half of the sampling frequency.
Therefore, 44.1 Khz can quantize 22.05 KHz.
Bit rate, as used in conjunction with compressed digital audio, OTOH, is the
number of bits/second at which the compressed digital signal is streamed.
Higher bit rates require more bandwidth and take longer to stream either
across the internet or from, say, iTunes to the iPod. Online radio stations
often use extremely low bit rates to maximize server usage and to permit
listening on even relatively slow internet connections. Also, low bit rates
take up less space on storage media. An MP3 player of any given size can hold
almost twice as many "songs" at 180Kbps than it can at 320Kbps (all else
being equal). Of course the lower the bit rate, the worse the audio sounds.
In article <Xns9953C4CE8410Anoonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> 128Kbps MP3 is OVERKILL!....(C; IT'S ALL IN YOUR MIND...AND PROGRAMMING!
> Make a really blind test for your friends and test it in reality.....
> Convert a CD that isn't distorted guitars screaming over a crowd, to
> various MP3 sample rates. 22, 32, 64, 128, 256, 320Kbps. Give them all
> a filename noone can know what sample rate is and mix them up, don't play
> them in a line, of course. Now, without letting your victim audiofools
> see the sample rate your playing of the SAME song from the SAME source
> but at different MP3 sample rates, play them for them in the best pair of
> earphone you can find....those really super monsters that impress
> consumers.
I've done the following test:
1. Take a track from a CD, ripped to a lossless format.
2. Encoded it as an MP3 at various bitrates.
3. For each such MP3, test by running a test program that does the
following for each round of the test:
Randomly assigns the MP3 and the reference lossless recording
to two buttons, A and B. It also assigns the MP3 to a button
labeled MP3, and the reference to a button labeled REFERENCE.
When any of the above buttons are pressed, the corresponding
recording starts to play, after a random time delay, at a random
volume level.
I can press the buttons in any sequence, as many times as I wish.
When I think I know which recording was assigned to A and which to
B, I can tell the program, and it notes this, without telling me
whether I was right or wrong. It then goes back and repeats this,
doing all the randomization again. I do this 20 times and it
tells me how well I did.
I last did this when I was 46 (I'm 47 now), and my hearing has lost the
highs, as is normal for my age. Nevertheless, 128 Kbps was *easily* not
overkill.
The error you seem to be making is that you seem to be thinking that all
higher bitrates buy you in MP3 encoding is better high frequency
response. That's not how it works. The kind of errors you get in MP3
are much more complex than simply mishandling high frequencies.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:47:08 -0700, Tim Smith wrote
(in article <reply_in_group-A1CD32.19470818062007@news.supernews.com>):
> In article <Xns9953C4CE8410Anoonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>> 128Kbps MP3 is OVERKILL!....(C; IT'S ALL IN YOUR MIND...AND PROGRAMMING!
>> Make a really blind test for your friends and test it in reality.....
>> Convert a CD that isn't distorted guitars screaming over a crowd, to
>> various MP3 sample rates. 22, 32, 64, 128, 256, 320Kbps. Give them all
>> a filename noone can know what sample rate is and mix them up, don't play
>> them in a line, of course. Now, without letting your victim audiofools
>> see the sample rate your playing of the SAME song from the SAME source
>> but at different MP3 sample rates, play them for them in the best pair of
>> earphone you can find....those really super monsters that impress
>> consumers.
>
> I've done the following test:
>
> 1. Take a track from a CD, ripped to a lossless format.
>
> 2. Encoded it as an MP3 at various bitrates.
>
> 3. For each such MP3, test by running a test program that does the
> following for each round of the test:
>
> Randomly assigns the MP3 and the reference lossless recording
> to two buttons, A and B. It also assigns the MP3 to a button
> labeled MP3, and the reference to a button labeled REFERENCE.
>
> When any of the above buttons are pressed, the corresponding
> recording starts to play, after a random time delay, at a random
> volume level.
>
> I can press the buttons in any sequence, as many times as I wish.
> When I think I know which recording was assigned to A and which to
> B, I can tell the program, and it notes this, without telling me
> whether I was right or wrong. It then goes back and repeats this,
> doing all the randomization again. I do this 20 times and it
> tells me how well I did.
>
> I last did this when I was 46 (I'm 47 now), and my hearing has lost the
> highs, as is normal for my age. Nevertheless, 128 Kbps was *easily* not
> overkill.
>
> The error you seem to be making is that you seem to be thinking that all
> higher bitrates buy you in MP3 encoding is better high frequency
> response. That's not how it works. The kind of errors you get in MP3
> are much more complex than simply mishandling high frequencies.
>
>
He doesn't seem to understand the difference between bit rate and sampling
rate. While the latter does affect the highest frequency that can be
quantized, the former has nothing to do with frequency response but it does
effect compression amount. Basically, as I understand it, if you use a low
bit rate when compressing, the absolute amount of compression applied is
higher, while the higher the bit rate, the lower the amount of absolute
compression applied. That's why high bit rate MP3s sound better than low bit
rate MP3s.
At 18 Jun 2007 18:53:00 -0400 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> Why is it trivial and irrelevant?
>
> It's completely relevant to the point that "just because everyone wants
> it, doesn't mean it's any good".
Not really, because one could easily argue that most McDonald's consumers
DON'T actually "want it" but are sacrificing quality for convenience or
time-conservation. (A similar argument might be made for MS Windows as
well!) ;-)
The real "revolution" of the iPod was the supposed ease of use it brought
to the MP3 player, many of which had (and still have) akward interfaces
and difficult to set up playlists. iPod brought plug-n-play to MP3s- no
dragging files, setting up folders, etc. So, although overpriced
compared to many competing units on specs alone, it excels at ease of
use. One might even call the iPod the Apple Computer of MP3 players! ;-)
Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <0001HW.C29C4BB80102FD3AF0182648@news.comcast.net> ,
> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.msbtech.com/products/iLinkDetail.php
>
> It's kind of hard to take seriously an audio company that talks about
> "sign waves"!
>
Why? Sine wave = analog data. It's what your mouth makes when it
talks, and what your ears hear when you listen. Try less of the former
and more of the latter.
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Divide the number of songs sold via iTunes by the number
>>> of iPods in the field, and you will get an upper limit for the
>>> average number of songs from Apple per iPod.
>> Useless for determining the total number of songs on those
>> ipods that didnt come from Apple and hence the percentage.
>>> The number is something around ~30ish.
>>
>> You've just plucked that number out of your arse too.
> You seem obsessed with people's asses.
Just rubbing you nose in the fact that those numbers are
completely useless for the percentage being discussed.
> Apple releases sales figures for iPods
> and download figures for the iTunes store.
Pity those are useless for completely detemining the percentage being discussed.
> Feel free to look those up for yourself and do the division.
Pity those are useless for completely detemining the percentage being discussed.
So that percentage has been plucked out of someone's arse.
In article <aroa7318rorgqhq8uotegfat5550gs02jg@4ax.com>,
Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:04:18 -0000, geoffm@lava.net (Geoff Miller)
> wrote:
>
> >And why _would_ the iPod suck, exactly? What is it that you don't
> >like?
>
> One reason I would never buy one is the fact it is tied to music from
> apple. I expect to be able to put my own music on a mp3 player from
> wherever I want.
In article <137en4cr4233399@corp.supernews.com>,
Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
> > In article <0001HW.C29C4BB80102FD3AF0182648@news.comcast.net> ,
> > George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.msbtech.com/products/iLinkDetail.php
> >
> > It's kind of hard to take seriously an audio company that talks about
> > "sign waves"!
> >
>
>
> Why? Sine wave = analog data. It's what your mouth makes when it
> talks, and what your ears hear when you listen. Try less of the former
> and more of the latter.
Yes, that's a "sine" wave. But they talk about "sign" waves. When a
company misspells the name of a fundamental area of their field, that
does not instill confidence, and sine waves are a fundamental part of
audio. (Yes, the pun in the previous sentence was intentional).
Re: The great iPhone hunt of 2007 
Linear Mode
