From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V13 #220 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Tuesday, August 21 2007 Volume 13 : Number 220 To unsubscribe: e-mail ecto-digest-request@smoe.org and put the word unsubscribe in the message body. Today's Subjects: ----------------- Recent changes to the Ectophiles' Guide ["The Ectophiles' Guide" Subject: Recent changes to the Ectophiles' Guide Latest changes to the Ectophiles' Guide 19 August 2007 New Guide entries added for: * Maya & Sage * Victoria Parks * Tracey Thorn * Venus Hum Changes made to the entries for: * Tori Amos (new album) * Bjork (new album) * The Breeders (additional album) * Jonatha Brooke (new album) * Rickie Lee Jones (two new albums) * Angelique Kidjo (new album) * Natalie MacMaster (two new albums) * Madonna (two new albums) * Joanna Newsom (additional comments) * Joan Osborne (two new albums) * Sarah Slean (new album) * Tara Fuki (new album) * Two Loons for Tea (new album) - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this email because you have asked to be notified of updates to the Ectophiles' Guide to Good Music at http://www.ectoguide.org/. If you are no longer interested in receiving these notifications, please unsubscribe yourself using the form at http://www.ectoguide.org/guide.cgi?newsubscribe&action=unsubscribe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:01:55 -0500 From: CollectedSounds Subject: Re: MySpace is what you make of it On 8/20/07, raven@igc.org wrote: > I've used Lavasoft products for many years, I always liked > what they did... some other anti-spyware products I use are > AVG Anti-Spyware and > Spyware Doctor, > I find more than one anti-spyware product can catch > some spyware that the other software tools miss. Yep I use all those (AdAware, AVG, Spyware Doctor) and also Spybot Search and Destroy, and Spyware Blaster (which actually prevents Spyware from getting on your computer in the first place, however, you'd have to update it every ten seconds in order fro it to really work, but I have noticed the other programs catch less since I installed this.) And I find each program catches stuff the others don't. Thanks for the tips on turning off ads, I'll have to look into that. I use Firefox and really haven't had any problems but those flashing, seizure inducing ads are insanely irritating. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:23:33 -0400 From: DanStark <2005.carnivore99@verizon.net> Subject: Re: Limewire going legit - deals with Nettwerk & Iris birdie wrote: >Limewire is following in the footsteps of Napster and will be opening a store >256kbs MP3 downloads DMR free I realize I'm in the vast minority here, but I just have zero interest in paying for any type of lossy compressed music file. In fact I think it's quite sad how lossy compression technology has lowered the standards of acceptable audio fidelity so dramatically. MP3s are fine as a convenience format for transporting non-critical material over the web. But what happened to all the critical listeners who used to buy up the multitude of audiophile magazines and even complained that even CDs were not good enough quality compared to vinyl? Now we're throwing away 80% of that CD data and nobody seems to care. Millions of people are happily forking over a dollar a track for compressed audio, making it so acceptable that soon it may end up being our only choice. I don't get it. I'm not deaf yet. If I can buy a 12-to-15 track CD for $13.99 and get full, uncompressed digital audio quality (not to mention the artwork and a physical disc backup in case my hard drive crashes), why would I want to pay almost the same price for vastly inferior MP3s? I can hear the difference, can't anybody else? Dan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:48:32 -0700 From: Steve VanDevender Subject: Re: Limewire going legit - deals with Nettwerk & Iris DanStark writes: > I don't get it. I'm not deaf yet. If I can buy a 12-to-15 track CD > for $13.99 and get full, uncompressed digital audio quality (not to > mention the artwork and a physical disc backup in case my hard drive > crashes), why would I want to pay almost the same price for vastly > inferior MP3s? I can hear the difference, can't anybody else? I still like buying CDs, but I also often rip and encode them (although my method of choice is Ogg Vorbis rather than MP3) onto my laptop to have a far more portable music collection. I can't say that I can hear the difference, though. I am also of the opinion that many people who claim to be able to hear a difference between CD audio and well-encoded MP3 or Ogg (128 Kbps or greater) might well discover that they really aren't as good at hearing the difference as they think they are if subjected to a double-blind listening comparison test. There is a lot of subjectivity in audio perception. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:52:57 -0400 (GMT-04:00) From: Greg Dunn Subject: Re: Limewire going legit - deals with Nettwerk & Iris No, I'll bet most people can't hear the difference (apologies to ectofolk, but then we're not "most people", eh?). I strongly suspect a lot of the so-called "golden ear" group would fail a controlled double-blind test using good MP3s and uncompressed audio. Frankly, it's pretty subtle if the bit rate is >200k and the codec is any good; unfortunately, this doesn't apply to online downloads. 128k is miserably inadequate for most music and even some voice-only recordings. That said, I too refuse to buy any lossy compressed format, because it's tantamount to admitting that I don't care about audio quality, and I think the consumer should get something tangible for their money. CDs are already a frightful money maker considering how little it costs to produce them in quantity. Throwing away 80% of the data, the booklet, the media, and then charging the same amount, just fries my fritters. I'm not in that big of a hurry to get my hands on the music. (looks around at the CD library) Though it'd be nice to losslessly compress the packaging... - -----Original Message----- >From: DanStark <2005.carnivore99@verizon.net> >Sent: Aug 20, 2007 12:23 PM >To: Ecto >Subject: Re: Limewire going legit - deals with Nettwerk & Iris > >birdie wrote: >>Limewire is following in the footsteps of Napster and will be opening a store >>256kbs MP3 downloads DMR free > >I realize I'm in the vast minority here, but I just have zero >interest in paying for any type of lossy compressed music file. In >fact I think it's quite sad how lossy compression technology has >lowered the standards of acceptable audio fidelity so dramatically. > >MP3s are fine as a convenience format for transporting non-critical >material over the web. But what happened to all the critical >listeners who used to buy up the multitude of audiophile magazines >and even complained that even CDs were not good enough quality >compared to vinyl? Now we're throwing away 80% of that CD data and >nobody seems to care. Millions of people are happily forking over a >dollar a track for compressed audio, making it so acceptable that >soon it may end up being our only choice. > >I don't get it. I'm not deaf yet. If I can buy a 12-to-15 track CD >for $13.99 and get full, uncompressed digital audio quality (not to >mention the artwork and a physical disc backup in case my hard drive >crashes), why would I want to pay almost the same price for vastly >inferior MP3s? I can hear the difference, can't anybody else? > >Dan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:22:08 -0700 (PDT) From: alan Subject: Re: Limewire going legit - deals with Nettwerk & Iris On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Steve VanDevender wrote: > DanStark writes: > > I don't get it. I'm not deaf yet. If I can buy a 12-to-15 track CD > > for $13.99 and get full, uncompressed digital audio quality (not to > > mention the artwork and a physical disc backup in case my hard drive > > crashes), why would I want to pay almost the same price for vastly > > inferior MP3s? I can hear the difference, can't anybody else? > > I still like buying CDs, but I also often rip and encode them (although > my method of choice is Ogg Vorbis rather than MP3) onto my laptop to > have a far more portable music collection. > > I can't say that I can hear the difference, though. I am also of the > opinion that many people who claim to be able to hear a difference > between CD audio and well-encoded MP3 or Ogg (128 Kbps or greater) might > well discover that they really aren't as good at hearing the difference > as they think they are if subjected to a double-blind listening > comparison test. There is a lot of subjectivity in audio perception. I have heard the "I can tell the difference" argument against MP3s for a number of years. Almost always it turns out using a really crappy bitrate (Like 128kb or less.) I rip my cds at 320kb and they sound as good as the CDs themselves. Of course, finding an online vendor that will sell you them in that quality is rare, if not impossible. Ogg Vorbis is a nice format. It would be even nicer if they released a spec for it instead of just source code. - -- Refrigerator Rule #1: If you don't remember when you bought it, Don't eat it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:35:04 -0700 From: Peter Clark Subject: Re: Limewire going legit - deals with Nettwerk & Iris I can hear the difference. I do analog. Turntables. R2R tape decks. Most "digital" will make your ears bleed. Too bad almost everyone under the age of thirty has never heard the difference. Peter C -=High Performance Analogue=- www.redpoint-audio-design.com DanStark wrote: > birdie wrote: >> Limewire is following in the footsteps of Napster and will be opening >> a store >> 256kbs MP3 downloads DMR free > > I realize I'm in the vast minority here, but I just have zero interest > in paying for any type of lossy compressed music file. In fact I > think it's quite sad how lossy compression technology has lowered the > standards of acceptable audio fidelity so dramatically. > > MP3s are fine as a convenience format for transporting non-critical > material over the web. But what happened to all the critical listeners > who used to buy up the multitude of audiophile magazines and even > complained that even CDs were not good enough quality compared to > vinyl? Now we're throwing away 80% of that CD data and nobody seems > to care. Millions of people are happily forking over a dollar a track > for compressed audio, making it so acceptable that soon it may end up > being our only choice. > > I don't get it. I'm not deaf yet. If I can buy a 12-to-15 track CD > for $13.99 and get full, uncompressed digital audio quality (not to > mention the artwork and a physical disc backup in case my hard drive > crashes), why would I want to pay almost the same price for vastly > inferior MP3s? I can hear the difference, can't anybody else? > > Dan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:03:44 +1000 From: afries Subject: Re: Limewire going legit - deals with Nettwerk & Iris DanStark wrote: > MP3s are fine as a convenience format for transporting non-critical > material over the web. But what happened to all the critical listeners > who used to buy up the multitude of audiophile magazines and even > complained that even CDs were not good enough quality compared to > vinyl? Actually they were always just a tiny minority; most people were (and are) content enough to play their music over any haphazard contraption. Boom boxes, portable cassette decks - remember those? Their sound quality was closer to a phone handset than real hi-fi gear. Sound quality is not all that important much of the time, because I think for most people music is more about its various social aspects than celebration of sound as such. 'Audiophilia' is an expensive and extremely geeky hobby that only few guys (I'd say at least 99% of those drooling over super-sensitive turntables and valve powered amps are men) ever got into. I imagine they are still around, if you look for them hard enough. But I agree with you - I'm not really interested in buying music files online either. Not so much because of sound quality because to be honest I can't tell a difference between a well encoded file and the original, at least on my gear. But I like getting a physical object, and some artwork, maybe even a booklet of lyrics if I'm lucky. It makes me feel that I actually got something for my money. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:34:59 -0500 From: CollectedSounds Subject: Re: Limewire going legit - deals with Nettwerk & Iris On 8/20/07, DanStark wrote: > why would I want to pay almost the same price for vastly > inferior MP3s? I can hear the difference, can't anybody else? I'm sure many folks can but I don't think I am one of them. I can tell when I am listening to a burned CD in my car vs. a store bought one, but only back to back and the same exact music. My ear just isn't that refined. But I do appreciate/admire those if you who can tell! However, I still have never bought a digital download because of the other reasons you mentioned. I want to hold the CD in my hand, read the lyrics, gaze at the artwork. All of that is important to the experience too (especially in the case of artists who do a lot in that way such as Hannah Fury). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:48:30 -0700 From: Steve VanDevender Subject: Re: Limewire going legit - deals with Nettwerk & Iris CollectedSounds writes: > On 8/20/07, DanStark wrote: > > > why would I want to pay almost the same price for vastly > > inferior MP3s? I can hear the difference, can't anybody else? > > I'm sure many folks can but I don't think I am one of them. I can tell > when I am listening to a burned CD in my car vs. a store bought one, > but only back to back and the same exact music. My ear just isn't that > refined. But I do appreciate/admire those if you who can tell! It's interesting that you would claim that, since burning a copy of a CD means duplicating the data on the CD, and there's absolutely no reason the duplicate should sound different when played on the same equipment because it should have all the same bits as the original. Thinking you're supposed to hear a difference tends to make you think you do hear a difference, even if the difference doesn't exist. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:36:03 -0500 From: Carolyn Andre Subject: Re: MP3s and CDs and our ears (was Limewire going legit...) At 04:48 PM 8/20/2007, Steve VanDevender wrote: >CollectedSounds writes: > > On 8/20/07, DanStark wrote: > > > > > why would I want to pay almost the same price for vastly > > > inferior MP3s? I can hear the difference, can't anybody else? > > > > I'm sure many folks can but I don't think I am one of them. I can tell > > when I am listening to a burned CD in my car vs. a store bought one, > > but only back to back and the same exact music. My ear just isn't that > > refined. But I do appreciate/admire those if you who can tell! > >It's interesting that you would claim that, since burning a copy of a CD >means duplicating the data on the CD, and there's absolutely no reason >the duplicate should sound different when played on the same equipment >because it should have all the same bits as the original. Not sure how it would have an effect, but home burning of a CD does use a different technology than the commercially pressed/burned ones. Perhaps that has an effect on the way the data lies on the coated surface, causing some kind of microscopic "skipping" which in turn causes the CD player to do more interpolating for the home-burned ones?? >Thinking you're supposed to hear a difference tends to make you think >you do hear a difference, even if the difference doesn't exist. Well, back to mp3s vs original CDs. My aging ears do hear a difference - on some albums - when I'm listening to MP3s and AACs on my iPod through my inMotion iPod speakers, that make me pull out the CD and stick it in the computer instead. CollectedSounds also wrote: >However, I still have never bought a digital download because of the >other reasons you mentioned. I want to hold the CD in my hand, read >the lyrics, gaze at the artwork. All of that is important to the >experience too (especially in the case of artists who do a lot in that >way such as Hannah Fury). I still buy mainly CDs, only buying downloads for single tracks or some live concert things that have been available (like Vienna Teng and Cowboy Junkies)Yes, I find myself frequently annoyed when listening to the aforementioned iPod and want to check who plays or sings backing vocals/harmony on a track. And the displayed album art sure doesn't help me much . But I do like MP3s on artist websites and MySpace for a quick way to listen to entire songs multiple times, before making a buy decision. The format is much preferable to the truncated .wav and .aiff files of the old days (back when I walked 12 miles to work through 6 feet of snow :-). I can't believe in this day and age of technology the number of artists that still have no music on their site. They have honkin Flash stuff and a "buy it now" link - frequently to a site which has no sample tracks or only 1 or 2, but no samples to listen to. Doh, music?? Regards, Carolyn Andre - --- candre@house-of-music.com Chicago, IL / USA Support Independent Music! Use the Internet http://house-of-music.com ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 2007 21:39:31 -0400 From: Dan Riley Subject: dissing lossiness (Re: Limewire going legit - deals with Nettwerk & Iris) DanStark <2005.carnivore99@verizon.net> writes: > I realize I'm in the vast minority here, but I just have zero interest > in paying for any type of lossy compressed music file. So you don't own any recorded music? *EVERY* mechanical and electronic method of music reproduction we have is lossy (and, generally, compressed). If you aren't at a live acoustic performance you are listening to a lossy reproduction. Different reproduction methods make different tradeoffs in fidelity, listenability, usability for other purposes, portability, etc. If you want to argue the relative merits of those tradeoffs, that's fine, but dismissing a reproduction format because it is lossy--and you think you're preferred format isn't--is nonsense. - -dan (apparently in a bad mood...) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:59:48 -0400 From: "Michael Quinn" Subject: RE: MP3s and CDs and our ears (was Limewire going legit...) Is the burned CD made with WAV or MP3 files? With WAV (or some other lossless codec) it should be pretty much identical to a store bought CD. With a lossy MP3 format it IS inferior but the difference is most noticeable on good quality expensive equipment so you probably would only notice a subtle difference on your car stereo unless it's a top of the line car stereo or a very poorly encoded mp3. On my good stereo equipment I notice a substantial difference but in my MP3 player the difference is minimal. I'm glad they seem to be lessening the DRM crap in online music but I still will not buy anything in any of these stores for close to CD prices until they allow you the option of downloading a lossless format. Mike - -----Original Message----- From: owner-ecto@smoe.org [mailto:owner-ecto@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Carolyn Andre Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 10:36 PM To: Ecto Subject: Re: MP3s and CDs and our ears (was Limewire going legit...) At 04:48 PM 8/20/2007, Steve VanDevender wrote: >CollectedSounds writes: > > On 8/20/07, DanStark wrote: > > > > > why would I want to pay almost the same price for vastly > > > inferior MP3s? I can hear the difference, can't anybody else? > > > > I'm sure many folks can but I don't think I am one of them. I can tell > > when I am listening to a burned CD in my car vs. a store bought one, > > but only back to back and the same exact music. My ear just isn't that > > refined. But I do appreciate/admire those if you who can tell! > >It's interesting that you would claim that, since burning a copy of a CD >means duplicating the data on the CD, and there's absolutely no reason >the duplicate should sound different when played on the same equipment >because it should have all the same bits as the original. Not sure how it would have an effect, but home burning of a CD does use a different technology than the commercially pressed/burned ones. Perhaps that has an effect on the way the data lies on the coated surface, causing some kind of microscopic "skipping" which in turn causes the CD player to do more interpolating for the home-burned ones?? >Thinking you're supposed to hear a difference tends to make you think >you do hear a difference, even if the difference doesn't exist. Well, back to mp3s vs original CDs. My aging ears do hear a difference - on some albums - when I'm listening to MP3s and AACs on my iPod through my inMotion iPod speakers, that make me pull out the CD and stick it in the computer instead. CollectedSounds also wrote: >However, I still have never bought a digital download because of the >other reasons you mentioned. I want to hold the CD in my hand, read >the lyrics, gaze at the artwork. All of that is important to the >experience too (especially in the case of artists who do a lot in that >way such as Hannah Fury). I still buy mainly CDs, only buying downloads for single tracks or some live concert things that have been available (like Vienna Teng and Cowboy Junkies)Yes, I find myself frequently annoyed when listening to the aforementioned iPod and want to check who plays or sings backing vocals/harmony on a track. And the displayed album art sure doesn't help me much . But I do like MP3s on artist websites and MySpace for a quick way to listen to entire songs multiple times, before making a buy decision. The format is much preferable to the truncated .wav and .aiff files of the old days (back when I walked 12 miles to work through 6 feet of snow :-). I can't believe in this day and age of technology the number of artists that still have no music on their site. They have honkin Flash stuff and a "buy it now" link - frequently to a site which has no sample tracks or only 1 or 2, but no samples to listen to. Doh, music?? Regards, Carolyn Andre - --- candre@house-of-music.com Chicago, IL / USA Support Independent Music! Use the Internet http://house-of-music.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:05:53 -0400 From: "Michael Quinn" Subject: RE: dissing lossiness (Re: Limewire going legit - deals with Nettwerk & Iris) The "diss" against lossy formats like MP3 is that they are so lossy and compressed that they offer an inferior sound reproduction compared to (most) other methods. Nothing is as good as live music in a perfect acoustic environment but some recording methods come a lot closer to that ideal than others. I think most people would agree that MP3s have certain advantages however it would be a shame to see higher quality recordings become increasingly rare because most people are satisfied with the mp3. I think there is certainly enough room for multiple recording methods. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-ecto@smoe.org [mailto:owner-ecto@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Dan Riley Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 9:40 PM To: Ecto Subject: dissing lossiness (Re: Limewire going legit - deals with Nettwerk & Iris) DanStark <2005.carnivore99@verizon.net> writes: > I realize I'm in the vast minority here, but I just have zero interest > in paying for any type of lossy compressed music file. So you don't own any recorded music? *EVERY* mechanical and electronic method of music reproduction we have is lossy (and, generally, compressed). If you aren't at a live acoustic performance you are listening to a lossy reproduction. Different reproduction methods make different tradeoffs in fidelity, listenability, usability for other purposes, portability, etc. If you want to argue the relative merits of those tradeoffs, that's fine, but dismissing a reproduction format because it is lossy--and you think you're preferred format isn't--is nonsense. - -dan (apparently in a bad mood...) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:02:03 -0400 From: "Michael Quinn" Subject: RE: MP3s and CDs and our ears (was Limewire going legit...) Is the burned CD made with WAV or MP3 files? With WAV (or some other lossless codec) it should be pretty much identical to a store bought CD. With a lossy MP3 format it IS inferior but the difference is most noticeable on good quality expensive equipment so you probably would only notice a subtle difference on your car stereo unless it's a top of the line car stereo or a very poorly encoded mp3. On my good stereo equipment I notice a substantial difference but in my MP3 player the difference is minimal. I'm glad they seem to be lessening the DRM crap in online music but I still will not buy anything in any of these stores for close to CD prices until they allow you the option of downloading a lossless format. Mike - -----Original Message----- From: owner-ecto@smoe.org [mailto:owner-ecto@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Carolyn Andre Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 10:36 PM To: Ecto Subject: Re: MP3s and CDs and our ears (was Limewire going legit...) At 04:48 PM 8/20/2007, Steve VanDevender wrote: >CollectedSounds writes: > > On 8/20/07, DanStark wrote: > > > > > why would I want to pay almost the same price for vastly > > > inferior MP3s? I can hear the difference, can't anybody else? > > > > I'm sure many folks can but I don't think I am one of them. I can tell > > when I am listening to a burned CD in my car vs. a store bought one, > > but only back to back and the same exact music. My ear just isn't that > > refined. But I do appreciate/admire those if you who can tell! > >It's interesting that you would claim that, since burning a copy of a CD >means duplicating the data on the CD, and there's absolutely no reason >the duplicate should sound different when played on the same equipment >because it should have all the same bits as the original. Not sure how it would have an effect, but home burning of a CD does use a different technology than the commercially pressed/burned ones. Perhaps that has an effect on the way the data lies on the coated surface, causing some kind of microscopic "skipping" which in turn causes the CD player to do more interpolating for the home-burned ones?? >Thinking you're supposed to hear a difference tends to make you think >you do hear a difference, even if the difference doesn't exist. Well, back to mp3s vs original CDs. My aging ears do hear a difference - on some albums - when I'm listening to MP3s and AACs on my iPod through my inMotion iPod speakers, that make me pull out the CD and stick it in the computer instead. CollectedSounds also wrote: >However, I still have never bought a digital download because of the >other reasons you mentioned. I want to hold the CD in my hand, read >the lyrics, gaze at the artwork. All of that is important to the >experience too (especially in the case of artists who do a lot in that >way such as Hannah Fury). I still buy mainly CDs, only buying downloads for single tracks or some live concert things that have been available (like Vienna Teng and Cowboy Junkies)Yes, I find myself frequently annoyed when listening to the aforementioned iPod and want to check who plays or sings backing vocals/harmony on a track. And the displayed album art sure doesn't help me much . But I do like MP3s on artist websites and MySpace for a quick way to listen to entire songs multiple times, before making a buy decision. The format is much preferable to the truncated .wav and .aiff files of the old days (back when I walked 12 miles to work through 6 feet of snow :-). I can't believe in this day and age of technology the number of artists that still have no music on their site. They have honkin Flash stuff and a "buy it now" link - frequently to a site which has no sample tracks or only 1 or 2, but no samples to listen to. Doh, music?? Regards, Carolyn Andre - --- candre@house-of-music.com Chicago, IL / USA Support Independent Music! Use the Internet http://house-of-music.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:42:02 -0400 From: Greg Dunn Subject: Re: MP3s and CDs and our ears (was Limewire going legit...) At 9:36 PM -0500 8/20/07, Carolyn Andre wrote: >At 04:48 PM 8/20/2007, Steve VanDevender wrote: >>CollectedSounds writes: >> > On 8/20/07, DanStark wrote: >> > >> > > why would I want to pay almost the same price for vastly >> > > inferior MP3s? I can hear the difference, can't anybody else? >> > >> > I'm sure many folks can but I don't think I am one of them. I can tell >> > when I am listening to a burned CD in my car vs. a store bought one, >> > but only back to back and the same exact music. My ear just isn't that >> > refined. But I do appreciate/admire those if you who can tell! >> >>It's interesting that you would claim that, since burning a copy of a CD >>means duplicating the data on the CD, and there's absolutely no reason >>the duplicate should sound different when played on the same equipment >>because it should have all the same bits as the original. > >Not sure how it would have an effect, but home burning of a CD does >use a different technology than the commercially pressed/burned >ones. Perhaps that has an effect on the way the data lies on the >coated surface, causing some kind of microscopic "skipping" which in >turn causes the CD player to do more interpolating for the >home-burned ones?? No, the technology only differs in that the commercially pressed CDs have mechanically created pits and lands on the playable surface, whereas burned CDs use variable-transparency dye which is changed by the CD burner's laser. The 1s and 0s picked up by the optics should be identical; and even if they aren't, quite, the robust error correction designed into the data format (which is the same for all CDs) will ensure it is by the time it reaches the detector hardware. I remember being fascinated by the technology when I first acquired a CD player; masking surprisingly large sectors of the CD off with black tape had no effect on the sound output at all! Looking at the bits output from the detector with an oscilloscope revealed that the error correction was able to restore the data perfectly - up to the point where it dropped so many bits that it failed the redundancy checks, whereupon the sound started glitching badly. It really does seem to be an "all or nothing" proposition, and is proof that someone knew what they were doing when they wrote the Red Book. :-) MP3s, OTOH, don't have much in the way of redundancy - a corrupt MP3 will come apart in nasty disarray if the data isn't perfect. - -- - -- | Greg Dunn | I don't understand why anyone | | gregdunn@indy.net | would want to migrate to Windows | | The Sultan of Slack(tm) | NT - 'Migrate' is what sheep do. | | http://www.indy.net/~gregdunn/ | Usenet posting | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:30:29 -0400 From: "robert bristow-johnson" Subject: Re: dissing lossiness (Re: Limewire going legit - deals with Nettwerk & Iris) wow! an ecto topic that is technical! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Riley" > To: Ecto > Subject: dissing lossiness (Re: Limewire going legit - deals with Nettwerk & Iris) > Date: 20 Aug 2007 21:39:31 -0400 > > > DanStark <2005.carnivore99@verizon.net> writes: > > I realize I'm in the vast minority here, but I just have zero interest > > in paying for any type of lossy compressed music file. > > So you don't own any recorded music? > > *EVERY* mechanical and electronic method of music reproduction we have > is lossy (and, generally, compressed). no. that is not true. not in the sense we audio engineers mean when we say "lossy compression". > If you aren't at a live > acoustic performance you are listening to a lossy reproduction. lossy compression is not the same issue as having a finite sampling rate or quantization as a consequence of finite word size. about the latter two: 1. finite sampling rate. until they come up with a result (from blind or double-blind tests) that we can actually hear the difference if all audio content above 20 kHz is removed, then sampling at 48 kHz or even 44.1 kHz cannot be considered "lossy" in any meaningful way. it might be lossy if dogs or birds or bats are listening, but not us. google a guy named Bob Katz, he's an acquaintance of mine and a practicing studio engineer. we did this experiment (i helped design the low-pass filter) where he used a 96 kHz or 192 kHz professional audio recording systems (nowadays Digidesign Pro Tools routinely does 96 kHz sampling) with a pretty wide word (i think 24 bits) and he recorded (using some nice B&K instrumentation microphone) some percussive sounds (castanet, etc.) that had lotsa high frequency content (in the band from 20kHz to nearly 48 kHz). then we utterly low-pass filtered out the stuff above 22 kHz (the transistion band was from 20 to 22 kHz) with what we call a "brick-wall low pass filter" that Bob could run on the sound files. then he played them back and he could not hear the loss, even though he expected to. so you do not need an infinite sampling rate to avoid "lossy". 2. finite word size. CDs are 16-bit words. for each bit, you get 6.02 dB of "dynamic range". in my dictionary, "dynamic range" when expressed in dB, means "headroom" plus "signal-to-noise ratio". so, given a fixed headroom, for every bit you add to the word, you get 6 dB less noise. now our hearing, besides being pretty limited to 20 kHz, also has a limited dynamic range. when dBs are used to express absolute loudness (normally dBs are used to express *relative* loudness of two different levels or sounds), we define the level "0 dB" to be the "threshold of hearing". sounds quieter than 0 dB, you will not hear. on the other end of the scale is about 120 or 130 dB, which is called the "threshold of pain". so this is what you have when you are standing 100 ft away from the 767 taking off. absolute deafening loudness. now, although i will admit there is *some* loss by quantizing to 16-bit words, since the dynamic range is 96 dB, therefore you can have a sound which, although loud, is not at your very top level of loudness that you can tolerate, and the quantization noise can be above your threshold of hearing, if you could listen to the quantization noise all by itself. but if they were 24-bit words (which is the minimum in a recording studio), that's 144 dB, and that means you could have the loudest friggin sound that you could possibly stand to hear (130 dB), represented by numbers whose quantization error is sooo small, that the noise represented by that quantization error is 14 dB *less* than the threshold of hearing. 24-bit words flying at you 48000 times per second is, for monophonic audio, lossless. now when those words start going into an MP3 converter (like what iTunes has), that is a completely different issue. now the audio is split into bands, for each band a measurement and decision is made as to how many bits to allocate to that band so you won't hear the quantization error in that band. sometimes you hear artifacts of this data reduction, sometimes you don't. the term "lossy" is meant to be compared to "lossless compression" which is what happens if you make a .zip file of something. that kind of archival data compression works by eliminating sorta redundancies in data (it's easy to see how such works in the context of a pure text file). but zipping a .wav file does not save too much data, and that is why there was some impetus to the design of lossy compression formats that take advantage of psycho-acoustic results regarding what things we can normally hear and what we cannot and how some loud sounds can mask other sounds that are much less loud. > Different reproduction methods make different tradeoffs in fidelity, > listenability, usability for other purposes, portability, etc. If you > want to argue the relative merits of those tradeoffs, that's fine, but > dismissing a reproduction format because it is lossy--and you think > you're preferred format isn't--is nonsense. if the preferred format are 24 bit wave files, they are not lossy. and the 15 megabyte/minute of music cost will remind you that they are not. 16 bit wave files (as well as CD audio) has *some* loss in the mastering because the samples are only 16 bits. but there is no data compression that is coupled to psycho-acoustic phenomena as there is for MP3. there is clearly a difference, sometimes an unheard difference, but there is a qualitative difference between a recording that had the standard word size limit and another that was MP3ized. - -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V13 #220 ***************************