CD Storage

<For those that prefer their music unadulterated, MP3 is not an
option.>

I've always suspected that. Could you elaborate?
I found a pair of old 3-way 12" speakers from the '60s and they seem to
reproduce with a lot more fidelity than anything you could buy at Radio

Shack these days, especially in the midrange. Is this just nostalgia
bias?

I suppose the thing that really throws me about audio
is that you tend to expect everything electronic to get
cheaper (I stress cheaper!) and better almost exponentially,
as time goes by but as far
as sound quality goes this isn't quite the case.

On 4/23/2006 8:14 AM Art Greenberg mumbled something about the following:
> On 23 Apr 2006 04:46:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> <For those that prefer their music unadulterated, MP3 is not an
>> option.>
>>
>> I've always suspected that. Could you elaborate?
>
> MP3 is a form of compression. It is a lossy method, meaning data is lost in
> the process. This data loss means that decompressing (playing back) does not
> yield exactly what was there before compression. Some people may actually be
> able to hear the difference. For playback on a small battery operated device
> with its attendant design compromises and a crappy earpiece, this is probably
> not a problem. One a home audio system with good speakers, it probably is a
> problem.
>
> You can learn more about this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3
>
>> I found a pair of old 3-way 12" speakers from the '60s and they seem to
>> reproduce with a lot more fidelity than anything you could buy at Radio
>> Shack these days, especially in the midrange. Is this just nostalgia bias?
>
> I don't expect Radio Shack speakers these days could be considered "high end."
>

Some of us can't tell the difference in a 160 bit MP3 and the CD, even
on a good stereo (I know I can't, but I can tell the difference between
a 128 bit MP3 and CD). Now, on my Harley, a 128 bit MP3 sounds just as
good as a CD (I imagine a 64 bit would come pretty close as well, but
I'm not going to try), because there is too much wind noise at 65+ MPH
to be able to notice the poorer quality. I know others who can't tell
the difference between a 192 bit MP3 and CD, and others, you have to go
to 256 bit. Personally, CDs produce TOO MUCH clarity. I remember the
first time I heard the Beatles on CD after listening to them for years
on vinyl. All of a sudden, I can hear the chimes. This was bad, the
chimes were supposed to be part of the background ambiance, not part of
the sound. But this is what happens with digital recordings vs analogue
recordings.

You think people are nuts about the difference between MP3 and CD, you
should read the stuff that goes on between the Multi-channel DSD and
stereo DSD people.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 [email protected] to reply

On 23 Apr 2006 04:46:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> <For those that prefer their music unadulterated, MP3 is not an
> option.>
>
> I've always suspected that. Could you elaborate?

MP3 is a form of compression. It is a lossy method, meaning data is lost in
the process. This data loss means that decompressing (playing back) does not
yield exactly what was there before compression. Some people may actually be
able to hear the difference. For playback on a small battery operated device
with its attendant design compromises and a crappy earpiece, this is probably
not a problem. One a home audio system with good speakers, it probably is a
problem.

You can learn more about this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3

> I found a pair of old 3-way 12" speakers from the '60s and they seem to
> reproduce with a lot more fidelity than anything you could buy at Radio
> Shack these days, especially in the midrange. Is this just nostalgia bias?

I don't expect Radio Shack speakers these days could be considered "high end."

--
Art

"R. Pierce Butler" wrote in message

> CD. There is virtually no major difference in fidelity between vinyl and
> CD provided it is done properly.

If you define audio "fidelity" in the usual sense, the faithfulness of the
output signal/image to the input signal/image, that is not really the case.

CD's inarguably have a more limited frequency response due to implementation
of Nyquist-Shannon sampling not present in analog recording/playback.

Therefore there is certainly a quantifiable/measurable difference in
"fidelity", as generally defined.

... whether it is "major" or not to the ear of the listener is subjective
and dependent upon the listener's perception, or lack thereof. ;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
> "Swingman" writes:
> >"R. Pierce Butler" wrote in message
> >
> >> CD. There is virtually no major difference in fidelity between vinyl
and
> >> CD provided it is done properly.
> >
> >If you define audio "fidelity" in the usual sense, the faithfulness of
the
> >output signal/image to the input signal/image, that is not really the
case.
> >
> >CD's inarguably have a more limited frequency response due to
implementation
> >of Nyquist-Shannon sampling not present in analog recording/playback.
>
> Inarguably? Try rec.audio.high-end.

LOL ... Not even remotely necessary, Scott. After 30 years behind a
recording console, and 20 of that owning a commercial recording studio
(www.hsound.com), I'd at least like to think that I operated at least one
level higher in the audio chain ... providing the actual fodder for their
endless conjecture/speculations. ;)

> Note that the A->D and D->A process is _not_ lossy[*], and the full
fidelity
> and range of the input analog signal is preserved throughout the digital
> domain.

I am thinking that you are confused, or have misunderstanding, regarding the
differences in the two technologies. Read up a bit (no pun intended) on
Nyquist frequencies/filtering, sampling, and bit rates in the digital
domain, particularly at how they relate to current CD technololgy, and you
will see how inaccurate the above really is.

> Coupled with the known defects in analog recording (i.e. the need
> to boost certain frequency ranges to compensate for deficiencies in the
> analog recording process - RIAA equalization),
> as well as the normal degradation
> cause by scratching a hard gemstone across rather soft vinyl means that
> a properly mixed, mastered and recorded digital domain recording will
universally
> sound better than an analog (vinyl or magnetic tape) recording.

The technical inaccuracies in the above nothwithstanding, "sound better" to
whom?

> scott
>
> [*] Don't be confused by the "sampling" terminology. the output waveform
> is identical to the input waveform after A->D->A conversion with modern CD
> recording and playback hardware.

LOL ... being a gambling man, I'd not hesitate to peg the degree of
"confusion" on the differences between analog and digital recording, to the
number of commercially released albums, both analog and digital, the two of
us have engineered, respectively.

Wanna bet on it? ... ;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:07:43 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Note that the A->D and D->A process is _not_ lossy

Of course it is. The input analog signal *must* be low-pass filtered before
sampling to avoid aliasing artifacts. That filter unavoidably introduces not
only loss near and above the cutoff frequency, but it introduces distortion
due to phase shift. These days, really good filters can be had that minimize
the added distortions, but there is no such thing as a perfect, totally
transparent low-pass filter.

Whether or not the effect is significant is another matter, and a subjective
one.

> Coupled with the known defects in analog recording (i.e. the need
> to boost certain frequency ranges to compensate for deficiencies in the
> analog recording process - RIAA equalization)

Equalization is done to maintain S/N at higher frequencies in playback of
vinyl. It isn't meant to overcome "defects" in the analog recording process.

> as well as the normal degradation cause by scratching a hard gemstone
> across rather soft vinyl means that a properly mixed, mastered and recorded
> digital domain recording will universally sound better than an analog
> (vinyl or magnetic tape) recording.

After many plays of that vinyl, probably so. At the first play, with really
decent equipment, maybe not.

--
Art

Guess who <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 22 Apr 2006 17:47:40 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>A revolutionary way to store CD's in one-fourth the space
>
> All my music [from personal LPs to CD, not downloaded] + personal CDs
> reduced to MP3 fits onto three DVDs .... about 12 Gb so far, with some
> to go. Shareware/freeware is stored likewise. Little room, strong
> plastic containers. Music for listening immediately is compressed
> further by their software onto a Sony Walkman Mp3 player; 2.5 Gb of
> Mp3 onto a 1Gb unit. That's HOW many hours of music?
>
> Soon everything you can possibly own will be stored onto something the
> size of your thumb. Storage space will not be a problem.
>
>

For those that prefer their music unadulterated, MP3 is not an option.

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> <For those that prefer their music unadulterated, MP3 is not an
> option.>
>
> I've always suspected that. Could you elaborate?

There are many short wav files that show the various problems with lossy
compression. Some are glaring and some less so. YMMV.

> I found a pair of old 3-way 12" speakers from the '60s and they seem to
> reproduce with a lot more fidelity than anything you could buy at Radio
> Shack these days, especially in the midrange. Is this just nostalgia
> bias?
>


It might be bias or not. There have been some advancements made in the
speaker industry since 1968. I think you should give some newer speakers a
listen and avoid the RS stuff.

Odinn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 4/23/2006 8:14 AM Art Greenberg mumbled something about the
> following:
>> On 23 Apr 2006 04:46:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>> <For those that prefer their music unadulterated, MP3 is not an
>>> option.>
>>>
>>> I've always suspected that. Could you elaborate?
>>
>> MP3 is a form of compression. It is a lossy method, meaning data is
>> lost in the process. This data loss means that decompressing (playing
>> back) does not yield exactly what was there before compression. Some
>> people may actually be able to hear the difference. For playback on a
>> small battery operated device with its attendant design compromises and
>> a crappy earpiece, this is probably not a problem. One a home audio
>> system with good speakers, it probably is a problem.
>>
>> You can learn more about this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3
>>
>>> I found a pair of old 3-way 12" speakers from the '60s and they seem
>>> to reproduce with a lot more fidelity than anything you could buy at
>>> Radio Shack these days, especially in the midrange. Is this just
>>> nostalgia bias?
>>
>> I don't expect Radio Shack speakers these days could be considered
>> "high end."
>>
>
> Some of us can't tell the difference in a 160 bit MP3 and the CD, even
> on a good stereo (I know I can't, but I can tell the difference between
> a 128 bit MP3 and CD). Now, on my Harley, a 128 bit MP3 sounds just as
> good as a CD (I imagine a 64 bit would come pretty close as well, but
> I'm not going to try), because there is too much wind noise at 65+ MPH
> to be able to notice the poorer quality. I know others who can't tell
> the difference between a 192 bit MP3 and CD, and others, you have to go
> to 256 bit.

> Personally, CDs produce TOO MUCH clarity. I remember the
> first time I heard the Beatles on CD after listening to them for years
> on vinyl. All of a sudden, I can hear the chimes. This was bad, the
> chimes were supposed to be part of the background ambiance, not part of
> the sound. But this is what happens with digital recordings vs analogue
> recordings.


I disagree. That is what happens when an audio engineer remasters a
recording or in the case of the early days, doesn't know how to master a
CD. There is virtually no major difference in fidelity between vinyl and
CD provided it is done properly. I am talking perfect, never played vinyl
on about $20,000 worth of turntable and cartridge vs. a CD. For example DG
over compensated the opposite way and wound up sounding like a poor bit of
vinyl in the early days since about the mid 90's are now pretty good and
sound very close to a live performance. They sound so good that a live
performance was disappointing to my wife. She said the live performance
sounded just like what we hear at home. (I don't have any vinyl playback
equipment.)


>
> You think people are nuts about the difference between MP3 and CD, you
> should read the stuff that goes on between the Multi-channel DSD and
> stereo DSD people.
>

I don't get into "religous" audio discussions as a rule. (:>)

pierce

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I suppose the thing that really throws me about audio
> is that you tend to expect everything electronic to get
> cheaper (I stress cheaper!) and better almost exponentially,
> as time goes by but as far
> as sound quality goes this isn't quite the case.
>
>

Compare the 1963 common record player to todays MP3 player. Then adjust for
inflation.

On 22 Apr 2006 17:47:40 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>A revolutionary way to store CD's in one-fourth the space

All my music [from personal LPs to CD, not downloaded] + personal CDs
reduced to MP3 fits onto three DVDs .... about 12 Gb so far, with some
to go. Shareware/freeware is stored likewise. Little room, strong
plastic containers. Music for listening immediately is compressed
further by their software onto a Sony Walkman Mp3 player; 2.5 Gb of
Mp3 onto a 1Gb unit. That's HOW many hours of music?

Soon everything you can possibly own will be stored onto something the
size of your thumb. Storage space will not be a problem.

> > Some of us can't tell the difference in a 160 bit MP3 and the CD, even
> > on a good stereo (I know I can't, but I can tell the difference between
> > a 128 bit MP3 and CD).

I figure that would be the status quo since quite a few of us here are in
our later years and our hearing isn't exemplary. Don't know about everybody
else, but wav or MP3, it all sounds the same to me. Possibly, if I had a
really good stereo system, I might be able to tell the difference, but I
doubt it.

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:21:01 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> > Some of us can't tell the difference in a 160 bit MP3 and the CD, even
>> > on a good stereo (I know I can't, but I can tell the difference between
>> > a 128 bit MP3 and CD).
>
>I figure that would be the status quo since quite a few of us here are in
>our later years and our hearing isn't exemplary. Don't know about everybody
>else, but wav or MP3, it all sounds the same to me. Possibly, if I had a
>really good stereo system, I might be able to tell the difference, but I
>doubt it.
>

I think folk should get a copy of Flanders and Swan ..."Hi-fidelity".
One of my favourite lines ..."The ear can't hear quite as high as
that, but it aught to please a passing bat."

Like other pretentions, there is little real noticeable difference in
a single reduction, except by the pretentious. Certainly, repeated
copies of copies of copies would compound errors, but initial loss is
negligible to the human ear.

Now .... on to finish that oak end-table while I listen to my Sony
formatted hours of music sent through a finger-size FM transmitter,
picked up on my cheap shop radio. I'll start with Pavaroti.

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:57:31 GMT, "R. Pierce Butler"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> I suppose the thing that really throws me about audio
>> is that you tend to expect everything electronic to get
>> cheaper (I stress cheaper!) and better almost exponentially,
>> as time goes by but as far
>> as sound quality goes this isn't quite the case.
>>
>>
>
>Compare the 1963 common record player to todays MP3 player. Then adjust for
>inflation.

OK, it's a bit OT, but since one result is that I can listen to my
choice of music while doing quiet-work in the woodshop....

I have taken all my old LPs and CDs and converted then to MP3 format.
There's about 12Gb on one of the computer hard drives. It's also
copied entirely onto 3 DVD discs. Further, I recently got a 1Gb
thumb-size Walkman Mp3 player.

Good enough, except I also bought a finger-size FM transmitter that
powers from the computer USB or from battery. The Walkman software
will compress the MP3 format even further, so I can put actually 2.5Gb
of music on the 1Gb MP3 player. I connect that to the FM transmitter
with the battery connection if away from the computer, then I crank up
the radio at the transmission frequency [a choice of about 6
frequencies depending on location] and listen in surround-sound.

Now I listen to countless hours of my choice of music while working in
the woodshop ...or wherever. There's really no comparison with the
old-time LP technology. The sound is incredible.

[I still have a few of the old records, the special ones, and a linear
turntable. ...just in case.]

On 23 Apr 2006 04:46:01 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

><For those that prefer their music unadulterated, MP3 is not an
>option.>
>
>I've always suspected that. Could you elaborate?

MP3 was developed by someone who liked Suzanne Vega. According to their
neighbur co-workers at Fraunhofer, they liked Suzanne Vega a _lot_. So
for female vocalists with typical ranges, then it works fine. If you
live in Bristol or like Drum & Bass, then even I can hear the
difference.

I've no idea how the later Suzanne Vega works....

"Swingman" <[email protected]> writes:
>"R. Pierce Butler" wrote in message
>
>> CD. There is virtually no major difference in fidelity between vinyl and
>> CD provided it is done properly.
>
>If you define audio "fidelity" in the usual sense, the faithfulness of the
>output signal/image to the input signal/image, that is not really the case.
>
>CD's inarguably have a more limited frequency response due to implementation
>of Nyquist-Shannon sampling not present in analog recording/playback.

Inarguably? Try rec.audio.high-end.

Note that the A->D and D->A process is _not_ lossy[*], and the full fidelity
and range of the input analog signal is preserved throughout the digital
domain. Coupled with the known defects in analog recording (i.e. the need
to boost certain frequency ranges to compensate for deficiencies in the
analog recording process - RIAA equalization), as well as the normal degradation
cause by scratching a hard gemstone across rather soft vinyl means that
a properly mixed, mastered and recorded digital domain recording will universally
sound better than an analog (vinyl or magnetic tape) recording.

scott

[*] Don't be confused by the "sampling" terminology. the output waveform
is identical to the input waveform after A->D->A conversion with modern CD
recording and playback hardware.