Not really. Distortion is an achilles heel of lossy compression because there's actually a lot of information in distortion, and it often doesn't make it through the compression processes sounding right.
Mr Young is losing it. He was a proponent of dvdaudio and sacd so complaining about standard cd's is nonsense. At least from a two channel perspective. Besides he probably can't hear a lick over 14,000 hz now anyway which makes his opinion on audio quality dubious at best.
Thanks, ...Jim
On 2012-02-03, at 10:30 AM, Douglas Alan <darkwate...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not really. Distortion is an achilles heel of lossy compression because there's actually a lot of information in distortion, and it often doesn't make it through the compression processes sounding right.
> |>ouglas
> -- > To unsubscribe from this group or for more info about it, see http://bit.ly/fYIdVy
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:03 AM, YMC <yellowmat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mr Young is losing it. He was a proponent of dvdaudio and sacd so > complaining about standard cd's is nonsense. At least from a two channel > perspective.
Why does being a proponent of DVD Audio and SACD mean that complaining about standard CDs is nonsense?
This debate was decided a decade ago and I feign not to rehash it, but.... No one (golden ears included) has better than chance accuracy at distinguishing between them.
Thanks, ...Jim
On 2012-02-03, at 11:22 AM, Douglas Alan <darkwate...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:03 AM, YMC <yellowmat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mr Young is losing it. He was a proponent of dvdaudio and sacd so complaining about standard cd's is nonsense. At least from a two channel perspective.
> Why does being a proponent of DVD Audio and SACD mean that complaining about standard CDs is nonsense?
> |>ouglas
> -- > To unsubscribe from this group or for more info about it, see http://bit.ly/fYIdVy
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM, YMC <yellowmat...@gmail.com> wrote: > This debate was decided a decade ago and I feign not to rehash it, but.... > No one (golden ears included) has better than chance accuracy at > distinguishing between them.
> Thanks, > ...Jim
I think it erroneous to oversimplify this issue. CDs when perfectly implemented may sound as good as can possibly be, but they are often not perfectly implemented. E.g., the horrible tendency that heated up with the CD era to do "hot" mastering. Complaints therefore might be perfectly valid (i.e., most CDs might actually sound like crap compared to old vinyl), even if the proposed solution is not the right one.
CD's where originally over engineered to begin with, but as you pointed out the implementation of the technology was suspect at times.
I was merely applying occams razor to the old and tired debate, and believe me when I say that I was once a proponent of all high rez formats.
Now though I see it as mere snake oil. The only artists in my collection of hi-rez discs that really stick out are Al DiMeola and Steven Wilson who both know how to create deeply satisfying surround sound versions of their recordings.
Thanks, ...Jim
On 2012-02-03, at 5:54 PM, Douglas Alan <darkwate...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM, YMC <yellowmat...@gmail.com> wrote: > This debate was decided a decade ago and I feign not to rehash it, but.... No one (golden ears included) has better than chance accuracy at distinguishing between them.
> Thanks, > ...Jim
> I think it erroneous to oversimplify this issue. CDs when perfectly implemented may sound as good as can possibly be, but they are often not perfectly implemented. E.g., the horrible tendency that heated up with the CD era to do "hot" mastering. Complaints therefore might be perfectly valid (i.e., most CDs might actually sound like crap compared to old vinyl), even if the proposed solution is not the right one.
> |>ouglas
> -- > To unsubscribe from this group or for more info about it, see http://bit.ly/fYIdVy
ok we don't stop to chat about Neil Youngs preference of vinyl
resolution v mp3 when theres an avalanche on the way. Come on this is
not a god damn knitting circle. You spread out one person goes across
the terrain on a rope then the next. I honestly assess the situation
to see what's been ignored or overlooked. Consider such as what close
people in the the last decade may have come with their weather hanging
round them asking about me, or more interestingly those who avoided
the subject altogether. A simple test for those on the payroll
I saw Killer Elite
On Feb 3, 10:54 pm, Douglas Alan <darkwate...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM, YMC <yellowmat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This debate was decided a decade ago and I feign not to rehash it, but....
> > No one (golden ears included) has better than chance accuracy at
> > distinguishing between them.
> > Thanks,
> > ...Jim
> I think it erroneous to oversimplify this issue. CDs when perfectly
> implemented may sound as good as can possibly be, but they are often not
> perfectly implemented. E.g., the horrible tendency that heated up with the
> CD era to do "hot" mastering. Complaints therefore might be perfectly valid
> (i.e., most CDs might actually sound like crap compared to old vinyl), even
> if the proposed solution is not the right one.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 8:42 PM, YMC <yellowmat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Now though I see it as mere snake oil. The only artists in my collection > of hi-rez discs that really stick out are Al DiMeola and Steven Wilson who > both know how to create deeply satisfying surround sound versions of their > recordings.
It may be that SACDs are merely snake-oil, but I doubt it. The "loudness war" is a well-documented phenomenon. Here's an article that claims to tell you how you can objectively measure it on your own:
I'm not sure that the correlation between bitrate and hot mastering is as close as this author maintains, but it does seem reasonable to me that there is a correlation.
In any case, in that SACDs and DVD Audio discs are marketed towards audiophiles, it seems very likely to me that they are not mastered hot, and therefore will end up sounding much better. This is just a guess, as I don't know this for sure, but I should think that audiophiles wouldn't stand for it if the expensive SACDs they bought sounded as crappy as the hot-mastered CD.
The executive summary of this is that the SACD/DVD Audio technology part of the solution is indeed snake-oil, but the end result would not be snake oil at all. But isn't that how it always is with market segmentation? E.g., it may or may not be the case that that $500 an ounce black truffle actually makes the food taste significantly better, but you can't argue with the fact that the end result by the 3-star Michelin chef who threw a few scrapings of the aforementioned expensive truffle is a culinary masterpiece.
ok Douglas you're up first, secure your rope & you want to be
concentrating on how far you can go before you can't see the group, 2
tugs when you stop, 3 if anythings wrong. I'll let you know if any
wolves are formating for a snack & if anyone runs up to cut the rope.
Oh yeah watch out for a sudden Glacier drop.
On Feb 4, 11:19 pm, Douglas Alan <darkwate...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 8:42 PM, YMC <yellowmat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Now though I see it as mere snake oil. The only artists in my collection
> > of hi-rez discs that really stick out are Al DiMeola and Steven Wilson who
> > both know how to create deeply satisfying surround sound versions of their
> > recordings.
> It may be that SACDs are merely snake-oil, but I doubt it. The "loudness
> war" is a well-documented phenomenon. Here's an article that claims to tell
> you how you can objectively measure it on your own:
> I'm not sure that the correlation between bitrate and hot mastering is as
> close as this author maintains, but it does seem reasonable to me that
> there is a correlation.
> In any case, in that SACDs and DVD Audio discs are marketed towards
> audiophiles, it seems very likely to me that they are not mastered hot, and
> therefore will end up sounding much better. This is just a guess, as I
> don't know this for sure, but I should think that audiophiles wouldn't
> stand for it if the expensive SACDs they bought sounded as crappy as the
> hot-mastered CD.
> The executive summary of this is that the SACD/DVD Audio technology part of
> the solution is indeed snake-oil, but the end result would not be snake oil
> at all. But isn't that how it always is with market segmentation? E.g., it
> may or may not be the case that that $500 an ounce black truffle actually
> makes the food taste significantly better, but you can't argue with the
> fact that the end result by the 3-star Michelin chef who threw a few
> scrapings of the aforementioned expensive truffle is a culinary masterpiece.
> ok Douglas you're up first, secure your rope & you want to be
> concentrating on how far you can go before you can't see the group, 2
> tugs when you stop, 3 if anythings wrong. I'll let you know if any
> wolves are formating for a snack & if anyone runs up to cut the rope.
> Oh yeah watch out for a sudden Glacier drop.
> On Feb 4, 11:19 pm, Douglas Alan <darkwate...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 8:42 PM, YMC <yellowmat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Now though I see it as mere snake oil. The only artists in my collection
> > > of hi-rez discs that really stick out are Al DiMeola and Steven Wilson who
> > > both know how to create deeply satisfying surround sound versions of their
> > > recordings.
> > It may be that SACDs are merely snake-oil, but I doubt it. The "loudness
> > war" is a well-documented phenomenon. Here's an article that claims to tell
> > you how you can objectively measure it on your own:
> > I'm not sure that the correlation between bitrate and hot mastering is as
> > close as this author maintains, but it does seem reasonable to me that
> > there is a correlation.
> > In any case, in that SACDs and DVD Audio discs are marketed towards
> > audiophiles, it seems very likely to me that they are not mastered hot, and
> > therefore will end up sounding much better. This is just a guess, as I
> > don't know this for sure, but I should think that audiophiles wouldn't
> > stand for it if the expensive SACDs they bought sounded as crappy as the
> > hot-mastered CD.
> > The executive summary of this is that the SACD/DVD Audio technology part of
> > the solution is indeed snake-oil, but the end result would not be snake oil
> > at all. But isn't that how it always is with market segmentation? E.g., it
> > may or may not be the case that that $500 an ounce black truffle actually
> > makes the food taste significantly better, but you can't argue with the
> > fact that the end result by the 3-star Michelin chef who threw a few
> > scrapings of the aforementioned expensive truffle is a culinary masterpiece.
That's pretty cool. Maybe I'll have to implement a computer simulation/visualization of that when I have some free time. And also when I get back down from the mountain peak.
Sorry don't bother it would be too slow do it in your head. Plus
there's no way I'm letting you near any visualizations. You do not
have my best interests at heart so it would compromise my work.
There's one person who decides what is willed into my work & that's
me. Plus I'm sensing a pathological narcissism jealousy from someone
near you, for no reason. I get this alot from women for no reason,
perhaps their worse kind of jealousy is because they sense I am not
jealous of anything. And I will not be played off someone else for a
reaction, leave that to the conditioned. There are maybe 6-12 people
on this planet who do have my be interests at heart because they
understand the crack. But there's nothing stopping you trying if I
like it I could amend it or always use it as a program of not what to
do in this situation. Start with the betas protect the alpha who in
turn protects the livelyhood of the pack. & loyalty to the alpha.
On Feb 5, 7:59 pm, Douglas Alan <darkwate...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's pretty cool. Maybe I'll have to implement a computer
> simulation/visualization of that when I have some free time. And also when
> I get back down from the mountain peak.
> Plus there's no way I'm letting you near any visualizations. You do not > have my best interests at heart so it would compromise my work.
Why do you say that? I certainly try to have your best interests at heart. Though, as I'm sure I often don't understand my *own* best interests, it certainly can be a challenge to figure out others'.
> There's one person who decides what is willed into my work & that's > me. Plus I'm sensing a pathological narcissism jealousy from someone > near you, for no reason.
That's probably Don. He's big with the pathological narcissism. He lives on the other coast, though, so fret not.
Start with the betas protect the alpha who in
> turn protects the livelyhood of the pack. & loyalty to the alpha.
You often display startlingly insights, Angela. I wouldn't have thought of this from the article on simulating wolf pack movements, but you are right. It also reminds me of a recent season of Survivor that I completely watched in just a couple of days. In this season, Boston Rob ended up playing the game more perfectly than anyone ever has. He would have made even the greatest Mafia don proud.
> I'm not sure that the correlation between bitrate and hot mastering is as close as this author maintains, but it does seem reasonable to me that there is a correlation.
> In any case, in that SACDs and DVD Audio discs are marketed towards audiophiles, it seems very likely to me that they are not mastered hot, and therefore will end up sounding much better. This is just a guess, as I don't know this for sure, but I should think that audiophiles wouldn't stand for it if the expensive SACDs they bought sounded as crappy as the hot-mastered CD.
> The executive summary of this is that the SACD/DVD Audio technology part of the solution is indeed snake-oil, but the end result would not be snake oil at all. But isn't that how it always is with market segmentation? E.g., it may or may not be the case that that $500 an ounce black truffle actually makes the food taste significantly better, but you can't argue with the fact that the end result by the 3-star Michelin chef who threw a few scrapings of the aforementioned expensive truffle is a culinary masterpiece.
Sorry Doug... I didn't really want to drag this out. Hot mastering was not my point. i'm well aware of that but it's a totally different issue. In short, two channel cd audio at 1.4 Mb/sec can sound just as good as two channel at 2.8 Mb/sec, or even 5Mb/sec. We simply don't have the ability to discern the difference with our crappy hearing. Of course, multi channel audio requires a bigger sized disc, hence dvd-a and sacd (also dolby true hd, and dts master hd), but where does the diminishing point of return start? It's very subjective.
ps: I sold a set of Cardas twin-link rca's (circa 1992) to a friend of mine for $200. That should make you laugh at the hypocrisy of audiophilia.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM, yellowmatter <yellowmat...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Sorry Doug... I didn't really want to drag this out. Hot mastering was not > my point. i'm well aware of that but it's a totally different issue.
It's not a different issue. A lot of people hear crappy CD's and they rightfully remember that their vinyl sounded better. Or they hear an SACD and it sounds better. So they come to the *very reasonable* conclusion that vinyl and SACDs are better than CD's. And they're right! At least on the issue of which ones generally sound better in the actual world we live in.
It is true that they might not be right on what the best way to solve the problem is, though. Wouldn't the best way to solve the problem be to just * not* hot master CDs to begin with? Sounds like a plan! Only that's probably not going to happen. The record companies are probably going to keep hot mastering CDs until the day that the very last CD is pressed. But that won't deter them, since then they'll keep right on hot-mastering the AAC's that you buy on iTunes.
But who knows, maybe someday if enough Neil Young's spoke out, the record companies will start offering special "high resolution" AAC's that have special secret sauce in them. Only the secret sauce will just be the lack of hot mastering, and they'll charge you extra for this service.
Maybe, on a few occasions, I'll actually be willing to pay for such a thing, as there is plenty of music that I love, but there the actual recording sounds kind of crappy. These days that probably has more to do with lossy compression and junk audio drivers in my iPhone, and personally I'm willing to suffer for the convenience, as otherwise I'd never find time to listen to music at all! On the other hand, I can still dream of a day when beautiful crystal clear sound streams out of my iPhone earbuds into my eager brain via Spotify. But, for the moment, it's, as always, two steps forward, one step back.
> ps: I sold a set of Cardas twin-link rca's (circa 1992) to a friend of > mine for $200. That should make you laugh at the hypocrisy of audiophilia.
I don't know about "hypocrisy". He clearly just probably doesn't have a clue about what's likely to give him the biggest bang for the buck. I just read an article by Alan Parsons today where he said that audiophiles are typically spending their money on the wrong thing. They should be spending it on better room acoustics:
Oh my goodness. It is a totally different issue. There are plenty of bands that have total control of their finished product and the relative saturation levels.
Hey, did you go see Tool?
...Jim
On 2012-02-10, at 3:51 PM, Douglas Alan <darkwate...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not a different issue. A lot of people hear crappy CD's and they rightfully remember that their vinyl sounded better. Or they hear an SACD and it sounds better. So they come to the very reasonable conclusion that vinyl and SACDs are better than CD's. And they're right! At least on the issue of which ones generally sound better in the actual world we live in.
> > Plus there's no way I'm letting you near any visualizations. You do not
> > have my best interests at heart so it would compromise my work.
> Why do you say that?
Let's just say I'd prefer that Misty talked that didn't, otherwise he
should stay outside in the safe realm of the frozen garden where he
wont dissolve. I'm not pyschic you know to know what a snowman is
thinking & I wonder if at all sometimes.
> You often display startlingly insights, Angela. I wouldn't have thought of
> this from the article on simulating wolf pack movements, but you are right.
> It also reminds me of a recent season of Survivor that I completely watched
> in just a couple of days. In this season, Boston Rob ended up playing the
> game more perfectly than anyone ever has. He would have made even the
> greatest Mafia don proud.
I've not seen this, Survivor series I like the Bear Grylls series
however. Games shows are always about attaining the prize or
manipulating viewers/contestants into falling for their game plan. But
as I've not seen it, it may be different.
I did see a tv program on Channel 5 called The Bermuda Triangle:
Mysteries Revealed, which had a good computer visulization of how a
space craft could go through a space tunnel creating a wave vessel of
a space which protected it (I think from about the pressure of 14
times trillion of pressure to the -14) made it get their really fast,
similar to the flight that went to missing through a storm tunnel &
got to its destination far too fast for the plane engine capacity.
> I don't know about "hypocrisy". He clearly just probably doesn't have a
> clue about what's likely to give him the biggest bang for the buck. I just
> read an article by Alan Parsons today where he said that audiophiles are
> typically spending their money on the wrong thing. They should be spending
> it on better room acoustics:
> That's almost certainly true. It's almost certainly not cheap, either.
I think this is true as thinking about it I had growing up the most
perfect rooms acoustically to listen to music, a lounge with a raised
sprung floor that acted a perfect bass trap, & wood on part of the
walls some advantage of having that 70's decor. Our stereo sounded
like music I've never heard better, & plus I was allowed to play it as
loud as I wanted. And back then the neighbours didnt mind. Or with the
windows open so it travelling into the garden. My mum also always had
music on all day with the radio on.
And another play room almost all covered in wood with a angled roof
with more wood cladding, and with one wall of glass,plus a stone tiled
floor my record player sounded great in that.
Nowadays I rarely ever play music even into a room it's mainly on
headphones.
I do think the best place to hear music is in surround at the cinema,
my favourite was the music from the 3D experience of Tron:the Legacy
that was the best music I've heard in film it should have won an oscar.
> > I don't know about "hypocrisy". He clearly just probably doesn't have a
> > clue about what's likely to give him the biggest bang for the buck. I just
> > read an article by Alan Parsons today where he said that audiophiles are
> > typically spending their money on the wrong thing. They should be spending
> > it on better room acoustics:
> > That's almost certainly true. It's almost certainly not cheap, either.
> I think this is true as thinking about it I had growing up the most
> perfect rooms acoustically to listen to music, a lounge with a raised
> sprung floor that acted a perfect bass trap, & wood on part of the
> walls some advantage of having that 70's decor. Our stereo sounded
> like music I've never heard better, & plus I was allowed to play it as
> loud as I wanted. And back then the neighbours didnt mind. Or with the
> windows open so it travelling into the garden. My mum also always had
> music on all day with the radio on.
> And another play room almost all covered in wood with a angled roof
> with more wood cladding, and with one wall of glass,plus a stone tiled
> floor my record player sounded great in that.
> Nowadays I rarely ever play music even into a room it's mainly on
> headphones.
> I do think the best place to hear music is in surround at the cinema,
> my favourite was the music from the 3D experience of Tron:the Legacy
> that was the best music I've heard in film it should have won an oscar.
