10 obsolete technologies to kill in 2010
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Cigarette-lighter receptacles in cars—true, we only use them as a source of
power these days. But what can we replace them with? I gather there’s a move
to 48V electrics in newer cars (mainly at the upper end of the market for
now), but it seems a bit roundabout to me to step up the car battery power
to 100-240V to feed it to an AC outlet where you plug in the AC adaptor for
your gadget, only to step it down to 12V or 5V DC or whatever else it needs.
Couldn’t we provide, say, a standard 12V DC outlet that gadgets can plug
straight into?
WWW—agreed, if only because it takes too long to say. :)
Home entertainment remotes—I’m not so sure about the idea of using mobile
phones. Some people are actually resorting to things like wireless keyboards
to control their home entertainment systems, which is about as far from
mobile phones as you can get.
Music CDs—they’re still the only thing my car stereo can play.
geoff
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:hh15pp$etp$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142656/Mike_Elgan_10_obsolete_technologies_to_kill_in_2010>
>
> Cigarette-lighter receptacles in cars-true, we only use them as a source
> power these days. But what can we replace them with? I gather there's a
> move
> to 48V electrics in newer cars (mainly at the upper end of the market for
> now), but it seems a bit roundabout to me to step up the car battery power
> to 100-240V to feed it to an AC outlet where you plug in the AC adaptor
> for
> your gadget, only to step it down to 12V or 5V DC or whatever else it
> needs.
> Couldn't we provide, say, a standard 12V DC outlet that gadgets can plug
> straight into?
>
>
> Home entertainment remotes-I'm not so sure about the idea of using mobile
> phones. Some people are actually resorting to things like wireless
> keyboards
> to control their home entertainment systems, which is about as far from
> mobile phones as you can get.
>
If that dork thinks that "no significant advantages over downloadable media,
such as MP3 files" then good luck to him. Sounds like the sort of tit who
has his widescreen TV set to always stretch out 4:3 to 16:9 and doesn't even
notice (or care about) the short fat people and cars with oval wheels.
geoff
Enkidu
>
> Music CDs—they’re still the only thing my car stereo can play.
>
in? My not-so-new car stereo can play music CDs, MP3, and a number of
other formats.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
Logo
I use these all the time.
I have my work business card and I have a personal business card (its
much easier than trying to tell someone my home phone, address,
movbile, and email address in one go)
I also don't want all my business contacts (hundreds of them that
change on a regular basis) sitting in my phone nor do I want my
plumbers details in there either.
Richard
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> Music CDs—they’re still the only thing my car stereo can play.
> >
> I'd be surprised if that is all it does. What millennium did you buy it
> in? My not-so-new car stereo can play music CDs, MP3, and a number of
> other formats.
Still uses an obsolete fragile low capacity storage medium.
I am suprised they still charge the premium they do for car headdecks
with a dvd transport in them. Even then its a stupid idea IMO when a USB
drive or SD card is so much more robust and able to be rewritten easily etc.
Thats why I got the $80 headdeck from the warehouse for the crap car.
Takes SD, and USB, and plays them.
Crap user interface but the $800 ones are not ten times better so not
worth it.
Mutley
>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> Music CDs�they�re still the only thing my car stereo can play.
> >
>I'd be surprised if that is all it does. What millennium did you buy it
>in? My not-so-new car stereo can play music CDs, MP3, and a number of
>other formats.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Cliff
My wife's 3 year old Mazda 2 will only play audio CDs no MP3 or the
like.. So these cars are hardly last century..
Richard
The only benifit they offer over MP3 is allegedly better sound quality.
And it has been proven by the crap that comes out that no one gives an
ass about sound quality.
It also mentioned "such as MP3 files" - there are other formats as well,
many of which surpass the specs of a redbook audio cd, just none that
are blessed by the copyright holders with their restrictive DRM etc. I
have many 192k flac files sourced from dvd-a or something. Cant hear a
difference between them and the 44.1kHz downconversion I made to encode
for the mp3 player.
Optical discs are annoying, inconvenant, require stupudly large devices
to play them on, take massive amounts of space up, are slow, suffer from
moving when being used, cant have 2 tracks off them being played at the
same time in different locations, and really really deserve to die.
The only feature of them that makes them worthwhile is you can wrap them
up in some shiney paper and give them to people at xmas if you belive in
that sort of thing.
Richard
>>>
>> I'd be surprised if that is all it does. What millennium did you buy it
>> in? My not-so-new car stereo can play music CDs, MP3, and a number of
>> other formats.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Cliff
>
> My wife's 3 year old Mazda 2 will only play audio CDs no MP3 or the
> like.. So these cars are hardly last century..
Mums 4 year old hyundai does mp3 and wma off round shiney trinkets that
are a pain in the ass. No aux in or USB slot so never really gets used
other than with the FM recieving the lousy signal from an ipod transmitter.
victor
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:05:11 +1300, Richard wrote:
>
>> The only benifit they offer over MP3 is allegedly better sound quality.
>
> MP3s given that MP3s take 16bit 44.1kHz PCM audio and use various methods to throw away audio
> information.
mp3s and other encoded formats don't have to be derived from cds,
depending on the format selected they discard no audible information and
still achieve significant reduction in bitrate.
>
> Thus, there is no "allegedly" about it - CDs are absolutely *capable* of better sound quality.
Only if they are selected as the original source and the audio at the
destination is audibly degraded. If you can't hear a difference, then
the cd is not capable of better sound quality.
It is possible that encoding directly to a digital distribution format
from a 24/96 master will avoid signal degradation caused by going
through the 16/44.1 compromised format first.
>
> This is, of course, entirely subject to what sort of audio is being put onto the CDs - is it a poorly
> mastered piece of rubbish, or is it a state-of-the-art high quality audio product.
>
> If poorly mastered rubbish then you might as well bung it into low bitrate MP3s and distribute it over the
> Internet.
>
>
No point living in the past.
Clued up artists are releasing their material through services like
Bandcamp where uploads at 16/44.1 wav is the worst quality they will
accept. Much better to upload free and download at 24/96 FLAC for $10 an
album straight to the artist. New benchmark.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> mp3s and other encoded formats don't have to be derived from cds,
> depending on the format selected they discard no audible information and
> still achieve significant reduction in bitrate.
MP3 specifically is an older lossy format, and many people do notice the
difference at bitrates below 192k.
Newer lossy formats like AAC do a better job at lower bitrates.
EMB
> Business cards obsolete?
>
> I use these all the time.
>
> I have my work business card and I have a personal business card (its
> much easier than trying to tell someone my home phone, address,
> movbile, and email address in one go)
They save a shitload of writing down my details for people who keep
impaling themselves on the front bumper of my battletruck.
Nicolaas Hawkins
Perhaps you should consider mounting a self-service dispenser up there...
Or perhaps something a tad less innocuous - like a couple of inflatable
rubber fingers.
--
- Nicolaas
Mutley
>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:03:42 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>>> Thus, there is no "allegedly" about it - CDs are absolutely *capable*
>>> of better sound quality.
>>
>> Only if they are selected as the original source and the audio at the
>> destination is audibly degraded. If you can't hear a difference, then
>> the cd is not capable of better sound quality.
>
>That is faulty logic. The audio format on CDs *is* the uncompressed standard for PCM audio for music.
>
>Just because your own equipment is so poor that you cannot hear all the detail in a CD then you can't
>blame the original audio source for that.
>
>
>> It is possible that
>> encoding directly to a digital distribution format from a 24/96 master
>> will avoid signal degradation caused by going through the 16/44.1
>> compromised format first.
>
>16/44.1 *is* the audio standard. It is not in any way a "compromised" format.
>
>24/96 is a high-definition audio standard for audio DVDs, not for CDs.
>
>Have you ever seen an audio DVD player for sale in NZ? Come to think of it, have you *ever* seen an
>audio DVD for sale in NZ?
>
Define an "Audio DVD Player" ??
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Define an "Audio DVD Player" ??
Something that can play DVD-Audio discs.
Richard
I would have thought it was obvious, but sadly there are several people
out there that seem to have confised concert and music dvds with
dvd-audio and sell them as such.
victor
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:03:42 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>> Bandcamp where uploads at 16/44.1 wav is the worst quality they will
>> accept.
>
>
>
They mean the usual ripped CD PCM, but it really doesn't matter, its a
legacy format, the current industry mastering standard is 24/96.
Its easy to record a live mix as 24/96, Garageband comes standard with
Macs supporting 24bit recording. Then upload your work for sale as 24/96
flac
victor
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:03:42 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>>> of better sound quality.
>> Only if they are selected as the original source and the audio at the
>> destination is audibly degraded. If you can't hear a difference, then
>> the cd is not capable of better sound quality.
>
>
> Just because your own equipment is so poor that you cannot hear all the detail in a CD then you can't
> blame the original audio source for that.
>
>
>> encoding directly to a digital distribution format from a 24/96 master
>> will avoid signal degradation caused by going through the 16/44.1
>> compromised format first.
>
Its a standard for cds that is the best they could do in 1982, thats all.
>
> 24/96 is a high-definition audio standard for audio DVDs, not for CDs.
And files downloadable from the internet
>
> Have you ever seen an audio DVD player for sale in NZ? Come to think of it, have you *ever* seen an
> audio DVD for sale in NZ?
Seen plenty of computers that record and replay 24/96 audio.
Seen plenty of downloadable 24/96 files
>
> Also, there is little point for encoding an MP3 at greater than 16/44.1 because even at 16/44.1
> considerable audio information is disposed of; and even greater audio information would need to be
> disposed of if you encoded the MP3 at 24/96; and the whole point of using an audio compression
> codec is to achieve a reduction in file size while not reducing the quality of the resultant output too
> much.
The only reason for encoding an mp3 is if you want to play an mp3. If
you do, you can choose your bitrate to suit yourself.
I keep my collection as flac and transcode as necessary to other formats
victor
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:03:42 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>>> better sound quality than MP3s given that MP3s take 16bit 44.1kHz PCM
>>> audio and use various methods to throw away audio information.
>> mp3s and other encoded formats don't have to be derived from cds,
>
> worse audio product.
>
>
>> depending on the format selected they discard no audible information and
>> still achieve significant reduction in bitrate.
>
> when encoding from uncompressed PCM audio - the same as what is on CDs.
>
> All other compression codecs - including MP3 and OGG - achieve their reduction in bit-rate by actively
> discarding audio information; and the greater the reduction in bit-rate means the greater amount of
> audio information has to be discarded, so what you're saying is incorrect.
>
>
You have some of the popular misconceptions about codecs.
Never mind, its not my problem.
victor
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:03:42 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>>> of better sound quality.
>> Only if they are selected as the original source and the audio at the
>> destination is audibly degraded. If you can't hear a difference, then
>> the cd is not capable of better sound quality.
>
No its just an old traditional distribution format.
Standard mastering is now 24/96, which is transcoded down to cd redbook
for cd release, with the inevitable loss of quality.
"cd quality" is no longer a required intermediate step, the original
acquisition quality is now the limit.
victor
>
> Uncompressed PCM Audio recorded with 16bit or 24bit samples (or greater) and sampled at 44.1kHz,
> 48kHz, 88.2kHz, or 96kHz is *the* standard format for high quality audio - that is PCM Audio.
>
> Butchering your recording with a lossy compression CODEC is not the way to go if you want to have a
> high quality audio recording.
>
>
Lossy codecs don't butcher anything.
As I said, its not my problem if you don't know what you are talking about.
victor
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:06:59 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>>> Also, there is little point for encoding an MP3 at greater than 16/44.1
>>> because even at 16/44.1 considerable audio information is disposed of;
>>> and even greater audio information would need to be disposed of if you
>>> encoded the MP3 at 24/96; and the whole point of using an audio
>>> compression codec is to achieve a reduction in file size while not
>>> reducing the quality of the resultant output too much.
>> The only reason for encoding an mp3 is if you want to play an mp3. If
>> you do, you can choose your bitrate to suit yourself. I keep my
>> collection as flac and transcode as necessary to other formats
>
>
How last millennium of you.
If thats acceptable, good for you, CD players are an inferior method of
extracting jitter free information from cds.
Collector_NZ
Heck I am a manager with my company, but they are anal about direct
contact everything has to go via a central service desk so no company card.
But I do have several of my own, my weather station
(http://tokoroa.dyndns.org) and yes it will identify me.
Plus a personal card of my own which gives my company 24 hr numbers plus
my home and personal cell phone numbers, needless to say you have to be
special ;) to get one of those.
victor
> MP3 than from compressing a 16/44.1 audio file. Audio information is still discarded - and in the case
> of 24/96 audio - considerably more audio information is discarded because there is considerably more
> audio information that needs to be discarded in order to fit into the same bit-rate.
>
>
You are again displaying your ignorance.
You will indeed get a better result from encoding directly from a 24 bit
master than a cd, but more to the point a lossless 24/96 encoding is
smaller and better quality than an uncompressed cd rip.
victor
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:53:07 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>> Its easy
>> to record a live mix as 24/96, Garageband comes standard with Macs
>> supporting 24bit recording.
>
> You *are* using *good* AD converters I presume? You are using a *good* analogue or digital mixing
> desk I presume?
yup
>
> Do you really think that you will get the best audio result using a lossy compression CODEC?
>
>
Lossy compression codecs are distribution formats, Its only polite to
offer a choice, extra slim, homogenized or full fat. So yeah the best
result is the one that plays best for the end user, whether they want to
burn a cd or listen to flac through a custom DA convertor, or listen to
AAC on an ipod or stream to shoutcast or a radio transmitter or dj with
ableton, there are all sorts of appropriate and accessible tools.
The rule is to preserve the integrity of the signal chain as late in the
process as possible.
victor
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:36:23 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>> but more to
>> the point a lossless 24/96 encoding is smaller and better quality than
>> an uncompressed cd rip.
>
>
>
More and more people all the time
Have you been living under a rock ?
Have you missed the news about CD sales ?
victor
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:24:30 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>> Lossy codecs don't butcher anything.
>
>
> Remember - the whole point of using a CODEC is primarily to reduce the storage requirements for a
> digital audio file - and it does so by discarding parts of the file.
>
> Would you care do explain how discarding parts of a digital audio file results in a superior audio product
> than the original?
>
>
Would you explain why it would be necessary to discard audible
information in order to reduce the file size ?
victor
>
> Just because digital studio recording is now mostly done at higher bit and sampling rates than red-book
> audio is no reason why those higher rates should be adopted for distributing audio over the Internet -
> especially for those clueless morons who want it in MP3 format.
>
>
I expect they have their reasons, it costs no more to distribute 24/96
lossless as well and offer a file format choice at the point of purchase.
geoff
> Carnations wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:03:42 +1300, victor wrote:
>>
>>> Clued up artists are releasing their material through services like
>>> Bandcamp where uploads at 16/44.1 wav is the worst quality they will
>>> accept.
>>
>> WAV is only a container - the audio inside it might actually be MP3
>> instead of PCM audio.
> They mean the usual ripped CD PCM, but it really doesn't matter, its a
> legacy format, the current industry mastering standard is 24/96.
Sorry that's crap. 24/96 is "a" standard. Not "the" standard.
Anything destined for CD (still the default object media) is mastered to
16/44k1, which by far exceeds the capabilities of most reproduction systems.
And is OTT wrt anything destined for MP3 etc.
geoff
geoff
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:06:59 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>>> 16/44.1 because even at 16/44.1 considerable audio information is
>>> disposed of; and even greater audio information would need to be
>>> disposed of if you encoded the MP3 at 24/96; and the whole point of
>>> using an audio compression codec is to achieve a reduction in file
>>> size while not reducing the quality of the resultant output too
>>> much.
>>
>> The only reason for encoding an mp3 is if you want to play an mp3. If
>> you do, you can choose your bitrate to suit yourself. I keep my
>> collection as flac and transcode as necessary to other formats
>
> sound system.
>
Or mediocre quality sound for that matter. OK for the car , I guess.
geoff
geoff
>>
>
> How last millennium of you.
> If thats acceptable, good for you, CD players are an inferior method
> of extracting jitter free information from cds.
You really do lap up the snake-oil, don't you.
geoff
geoff
> You are again displaying your ignorance.
Ha ha
> You will indeed get a better result from encoding directly from a 24
> bit master than a cd, but more to the point a lossless 24/96 encoding
> is smaller and better quality than an uncompressed cd rip.
If the 24/96 encoding is LOSSLESS then it will be the same as the original
24/96 ! So of course it will sound better (on paper) that 16/44k1.
But anybody would be hard-pressed to tell the difference, if all done
competently.
geoff
geoff
The reduction in CD sales is because for the most part people:
1 - Don't want to pay for anything
2 - Don't care about or are not particularly interested in sound quality.
As people mature, I think you'll find at least an element of those will
become more ionterested in non-crippled formats, CD being the existing one
with it's full potential 'quality limitaions' for the most part not yet even
approached.
geoff
victor
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:57:20 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>>> Would you care do explain how discarding parts of a digital audio file
>>> results in a superior audio product than the original?
>>>
>>>
>> Would you explain why it would be necessary to discard audible
>> information in order to reduce the file size ?
>
Do you not understand how any encoding works ?
>
> The lower the bit-rate the more audio (note I did not say "audible") information is discarded until you get
> to a point where you do have to discard audible material that perceptive listeners can hear and
> appreciate.
So use bit rates above that level
victor
upload.
victor
accurate extraction than consumer cd players.
Many enthusiasts now rip their cds to flac using eac, and play them out
through a quality external converter
Anyway here is a tutorial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping#Obtaining_an_accurate_rip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_Audio_Copy
There isn't much point in claiming that a cd is a better format if the
typical player drops samples.
victor
victor
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:45:19 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>>>> Would you explain why it would be necessary to discard audible
>>>> information in order to reduce the file size ?
>>> Do you really not understand how MP3 encoding works?
>> Do you not understand how any encoding works ?
>
>
>
>>> The lower the bit-rate the more audio (note I did not say "audible")
>>> information is discarded until you get to a point where you do have to
>>> discard audible material that perceptive listeners can hear and
>>> appreciate.
>> So use bit rates above that level
>
> MP3 encoding is NOT preferred due to its inferior quality.
>
>
So if you can't hear the difference what exactly is inferior about it ?
victor
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:53:07 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>> The rule is to preserve the integrity of the signal chain as late in the
>> process as possible.
>
>
> The "rule" is to not distribute your high-quality master mixes on the Internet!!!
Why not ?
Its simple for anyone to rip your cd to lossless flac or AAC and upload
it, so why not put your own best material on your own site and invite
your fans to buy it, collect their email addresses and interact with them ?
Andrew Dubber puts it best.
http://www.newmusicstrategies.com/2008/04/03/should-i-be-worried-about-piracy/
Mutley
>In message <t5tdj5dvluo06bljf...@4ax.com>, Mutley wrote:
>
>> Define an "Audio DVD Player" ??
>
>Something that can play DVD-Audio discs.
You mean one like this??
geoff
>>
> Not at all, a computer using audio extraction software can do a more
> accurate extraction than consumer cd players.
> Many enthusiasts now rip their cds to flac using eac, and play them
> out through a quality external converter
> Anyway here is a tutorial
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping#Obtaining_an_accurate_rip
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_Audio_Copy
> There isn't much point in claiming that a cd is a better format if the
> typical player drops samples.
Reading FAQs and quoting them is one thing. Understanding them is
(evidently) another.
Have you ever heard a CD that sounded good, or even fantastic ? I have. If
one can, then they all could, the music on the is the variable.
geoff
geoff
Um what ? I listen to CDs every day. In my lounge, on a CD player. On
speaker worth over $20K Weird huh ?
geoff
geoff
geoff
There aren't any (for MP3) above 320K, which usually still give artifacts
and weirdness if you listen critically and compare with the uncompressed
version. And most MP3s anybody ever hears are 160kbps or lower.
I've done a bunch of CD-ROMs for the car at 256kbps, and can identify those
as being compressed with ease, in the car, moving, on macadam.
geoff
geoff
>
> the best "distribution format" for audio is Red-book CD or Audio DVD
> - all other formats are inferior for one reason or another.
DVD-A is extremely rare and likely to go the way of HD-DVD any time. SACD is
still hanging in, but the differences heard in comparisons with same
originan music is usually due to changes done in mastering between to two
releases.
geoff
geoff
> Carnations wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:53:07 +1300, victor wrote:
>>
>>> The rule is to preserve the integrity of the signal chain as late
>>> in the process as possible.
>>
>> LOL!!!
>>
>> The "rule" is to not distribute your high-quality master mixes on
>> the Internet!!!
>
> Why not ?
> Its simple for anyone to rip your cd to lossless flac or AAC and
> upload it, so why not put your own best material on your own site and
> invite your fans to buy it, collect their email addresses and interact
> with
> them ?
A great way to faciltitate remaining as a professional musician, and
starving.
geoff
geoff
It already is. And a Bad Thing for the world at large - a further dumbing
down.
Note that when the next big mega-capacity iToy is released they always say
"can fit 20 million songs", not "can fit 20,000 songs that sound good" -
this is "good" withing the constraints of a low-voltage battery-powered
device of course.
geoff
Richard
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:36:23 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>> but more to
>> the point a lossless 24/96 encoding is smaller and better quality than
>> an uncompressed cd rip.
>
>
>
someone who doesnt want useless pieces of polycarbonate in obnoxious
polystyrene cases cluttering up their living space, when generally they
get used once to rip it to the computer and then go on a shelf never to
be used again.
Richard
> The only reason for encoding an mp3 is if you want to play an mp3. If
> you do, you can choose your bitrate to suit yourself.
> I keep my collection as flac and transcode as necessary to other formats
likewise - to v0 MP3 for the car stereo off solid state storage, and to
he-aac+ at 48kbps for the mobile.
Richard
> Carnations wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:06:59 +1300, victor wrote:
>>
>>>> Also, there is little point for encoding an MP3 at greater than
>>>> 16/44.1 because even at 16/44.1 considerable audio information is
>>>> disposed of; and even greater audio information would need to be
>>>> disposed of if you encoded the MP3 at 24/96; and the whole point of
>>>> using an audio compression codec is to achieve a reduction in file
>>>> size while not reducing the quality of the resultant output too
>>>> much.
>>> The only reason for encoding an mp3 is if you want to play an mp3. If
>>> you do, you can choose your bitrate to suit yourself. I keep my
>>> collection as flac and transcode as necessary to other formats
>> sound system.
>>
>> MP3s don't cut the mustard if you want high quality sound.
>
> Or mediocre quality sound for that matter. OK for the car , I guess.
I can seldom pick the difference when encoding to v0. The ones that I
can is normally on something that is heavily clipped and has processing
after that which gets more distorted. mp3 is the least of the problem
when you can see virtually horizontal lines in the waveform before
compression.
And even if I can pick the difference, there is more of a change in the
sound moving a foot to one side or moving the coffee table or whatever
in a form that is easy to pick with the placement of things in the mix.
Richard
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:01:20 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>> I expect they have their reasons, it costs no more to distribute 24/96
>> lossless as well and offer a file format choice at the point of
>> purchase.
>
> Duh!
>
> You don't want to distribute your studio masters over the Internet!!
There is no concept of a master in digital. Every copy is identical.
Richard
> the best "distribution format" for audio is Red-book CD or Audio DVD - all other formats are inferior for
> one reason or another.
You really are attached to ownership of some physical item that you have
to store and move with you when you move house arnt you?
I am expecting that music will be just stored in the "cloud" in about
5-10 years - are already seeing some very good subscription services in
the real world with real internet.
Richard
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:46:07 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>>> The "rule" is to not distribute your high-quality master mixes on the
>>> Internet!!!
>> Why not ?
>
>
>
>> Its simple for anyone to rip your cd to lossless flac or AAC and upload
>> it, so why not put your own best material on your own site and invite
>> your fans to buy it, collect their email addresses and interact with
>> them ?
>
> rather than download some rubbish format that they have to download and burn to CD themselves.
And I will think you will find that there are a much larger number of
people that find CD's are an obsticle to enjoying their music they
eliminate by ripping the bought CD to a more convenient digital storage
medium like HDD or whatever.
Richard
I read one test where they used a consumer CD recorder off a SACD's
analog output and did an A/B/X test but with the CD 0.5dB louder than
the SACD and the CD won by a large margin. They redid it with the CD at
the same level and it was pretty much an even split as to be expected
when people cannot tell the difference.
Quite funny I thought.
Richard
> victor wrote:
>> Carnations wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:03:42 +1300, victor wrote:
>>>
>>>> Clued up artists are releasing their material through services like
>>>> Bandcamp where uploads at 16/44.1 wav is the worst quality they will
>>>> accept.
>>> WAV is only a container - the audio inside it might actually be MP3
>>> instead of PCM audio.
>> They mean the usual ripped CD PCM, but it really doesn't matter, its a
>> legacy format, the current industry mastering standard is 24/96.
>
>
> Sorry that's crap. 24/96 is "a" standard. Not "the" standard.
>
> Anything destined for CD (still the default object media) is mastered to
> 16/44k1, which by far exceeds the capabilities of most reproduction systems.
> And is OTT wrt anything destined for MP3 etc.
Even the 16 bit only giving 96dB is not an issue as they apply dither
coming down from the higher bit depth masters. A little more resolution
would possibly be nice, but I find I can hear a 1 bit signal on my
system before playing stuff, but afterwards cant since I have just been
listening to loud music so really I think 16 bit is enough. Particually
since I would say most people listen to music a hell of a lot quieter
than I do.
Hell I was picking up some speakers from someone off trademe once and
they had a 5 watt tube amp. I recon it wasnt even able to push the
system to 85dB in the room, and the guy was saying that he never runs
them that loud!
Richard
> EMB wrote:
>> Logo wrote:
>>> Business cards obsolete?
>>>
>>> I use these all the time.
>>>
>>> I have my work business card and I have a personal business card (its
>>> much easier than trying to tell someone my home phone, address,
>>> movbile, and email address in one go)
>>
>> They save a shitload of writing down my details for people who keep
>> impaling themselves on the front bumper of my battletruck.
>
> Heck I am a manager with my company, but they are anal about direct
> contact everything has to go via a central service desk so no company card.
> But I do have several of my own, my weather station
> (http://tokoroa.dyndns.org) and yes it will identify me.
> Plus a personal card of my own which gives my company 24 hr numbers plus
> my home and personal cell phone numbers, needless to say you have to be
> special ;) to get one of those.
I still see a place for them, but they should have a QR or similar on
them either with the info in it, or a url with your vcf file. Screw
typing peoples details in manually to your phone.
Sadly it seems QR has got nowhere outside of japan.
Richard
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:57:20 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>>> Would you care do explain how discarding parts of a digital audio file
>>> results in a superior audio product than the original?
>>>
>>>
>> Would you explain why it would be necessary to discard audible
>> information in order to reduce the file size ?
>
> Do you really not understand how MP3 encoding works?
>
> to a point where you do have to discard audible material that perceptive listeners can hear and
> appreciate.
>
Would you rather use 64kbit for telephone quality audio, or for some
nice listenable HE-AAC+ audio?
Which has more audio content in it?
Richard
> There aren't any (for MP3) above 320K, which usually still give artifacts
> and weirdness if you listen critically and compare with the uncompressed
> version. And most MP3s anybody ever hears are 160kbps or lower.
>
> I've done a bunch of CD-ROMs for the car at 256kbps, and can identify those
> as being compressed with ease, in the car, moving, on macadam.
So what? Do you still enjoy the music? Thats all that matters.
Richard
> with HDD failure or with termination of the "subscription" service.
>
> CDs or DVDs do that nicely. "Subscriptions" and "cloud" bullshit do not.
>
> The only advantage to "cloud computing" is to the provider of the service - ordinary users get no real-
> world advantage.
HDDs can be backed up. Subscription means you get exposed to a crapload
more music then you would if you just bought random things.
It has all the benefits of pirating music - which is new artists can be
tried without any financial outlay in case they are crap and similar and
none of the problems of having to move on recordings you are sick of at
a considerable loss.
CDs fail, can get stolen, are usable in one place only at a time. To me
that is vastly more limiting then a subscripton service that gives
limitless content effectivly on several devices.
If the service is terminated, then no big deal - join another one.
Why do you have the materilistic desire to own and possess the stuff in
that manner? It seems crazy to me to want to own things that just have
to move with you between houses etc, when music is just a series of ones
and zeros that can be send across the planet to your device at a much
lower cost than sending a round shiney trinket of a bygone era of
physical distribution.
Then again, some people still buy books and read them then put them on a
shelf when they can just borrow at zero cost from a library.
victor
> rates.
>
> In any case I prefer not to use lossy compression formats to store digital audio.
>
>
You already are, and an inefficient one at that.
Wouldn't it be better to use a format that contained more useful
information.
victor
One of the top brands in the hi fi industry agrees
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8368895.stm
CD player production ends at Linn
"The shift from CD players to digital music streamers has been very
recent. It was only during 2009 that the digital players outsold Linn's
CD players.
The newer technology allows digital streaming through other operating
systems, including home computers and networking throughout homes.
Gilad Tiefenbrun, managing director of Linn Products, said: "Our
customers have fast recognised the limitations of CD players and in the
age of home networking, people now want better control of their music
and the ability to enjoy it in any room of their home.
"CD players no longer belong in the specialist domain."
The company reckons that the CD format will continue to be useful as a
way of recording and storing music. It claims that a CD recorded onto a
hard disk can achieve a higher quality than one played on a CD player."
victor
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:22:57 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>>> Why should I if I want to play the music on a good sound system? CD
>>> quality or better is preferred - and MP3 encoding is NOT preferred due
>>> to its inferior quality.
>> So if you can't hear the difference what exactly is inferior about it ?
>
> Are you suggesting that *you* can't hear the difference between CD Quality and MP3 quality?
>
>
Are you trying to deny what you said in a previous post ?
victor
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:29:08 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>> So why bother with the cd format at all unless you are ripping a cd to
>> upload.
>
> Is that what *you* use CDs for?
>
>
I told you earlier in the thread that my whole collection has been
ripped to flac and uploaded to my media server.
Its a far superior way to listen to that content.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8368895.stm
**The company reckons that the CD format will continue to be useful as a
way of recording and storing music. It claims that a CD recorded onto a
hard disk can achieve a higher quality than one played on a CD player. **
Linn Products has become the first manufacturer to announce it will give
up on CDs from the start of next year.
Instead, the niche company, based in East Renfrewshire, will focus on
producing digital streaming equipment.
The firm, which makes systems costing from £2,500 to more than £100,000,
said discerning customers recognised the superior quality of digital
streaming.
Yet it continues to make turntables for vinyl records, as there remains
a demand for the quality of sound compression offered by older record
technology.
Linn, which has its own small record label, foresees a move to what it
calls Studio Master Quality material, available for download.
Digital players
victor
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:22:45 +1300, geoff wrote:
>
>> Carnations wrote:
>>> the best "distribution format" for audio is Red-book CD or Audio DVD -
>>> all other formats are inferior for one reason or another.
>> SACD is still hanging in, but the differences heard in comparisons with
>> same originan music is usually due to changes done in mastering between
>> to two releases.
>
> Management to be imposed on the Audio DVD format.
>
> Nevermind, for the purposes of ordinary people at home CD quality is more than good enough, and
> considerably better than vinyl and compact cassette.
>
> Heh heh - presumably Victor will also say that Vinyl is better than CD.
>
>
They have the same limitations of any other physical storage, you can't
link to them, playlist them stream them, you are stuck with a pile of
plastic.
victor
> victor wrote:
>> geoff wrote:
>>> victor wrote:
>>>> Carnations wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:03:42 +1300, victor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Clued up artists are releasing their material through services
>>>>>> like Bandcamp where uploads at 16/44.1 wav is the worst quality
>>>>>> they will accept.
>>>>> WAV is only a container - the audio inside it might actually be MP3
>>>>> instead of PCM audio.
>>>> They mean the usual ripped CD PCM, but it really doesn't matter,
>>>> its a legacy format, the current industry mastering standard is
>>>> 24/96.
>>>
>>> Sorry that's crap. 24/96 is "a" standard. Not "the" standard.
>>>
>>> Anything destined for CD (still the default object media) is
>>> mastered to 16/44k1, which by far exceeds the capabilities of most
>>> reproduction systems. And is OTT wrt anything destined for MP3 etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Its going to be bad news for anyone in the cd duplication business
>> fer sure.
>
> It already is. And a Bad Thing for the world at large - a further dumbing
> down.
>
> Note that when the next big mega-capacity iToy is released they always say
> "can fit 20 million songs", not "can fit 20,000 songs that sound good" -
> this is "good" withing the constraints of a low-voltage battery-powered
> device of course.
>
>
> geoff
>
>
I doubt that there is any audio copied to cds that didn't originate from
a computer these days.
The CD is now becoming just an inconvenient and unnecessary intermediate
step.
The new opportunity in quality sound is to curate collections of higher
quality material for on-line distribution.
victor
> victor wrote:
>> Carnations wrote:
>>>
>>>> The rule is to preserve the integrity of the signal chain as late
>>>> in the process as possible.
>>> LOL!!!
>>>
>>> The "rule" is to not distribute your high-quality master mixes on
>>> the Internet!!!
>> Why not ?
>> upload it, so why not put your own best material on your own site and
>> invite your fans to buy it, collect their email addresses and interact
>> with
>> them ?
>
> starving.
>
>
> geoff
>
>
What is the alternative ?
For someone to wave their magic wand and make you one of the half dozen
lilyallenladygagabeyoncetaylorswiftclones ?
victor
> Carnations wrote:
>> the best "distribution format" for audio is Red-book CD or Audio DVD
>> - all other formats are inferior for one reason or another.
>
> DVD-A is extremely rare and likely to go the way of HD-DVD any time. SACD is
> still hanging in, but the differences heard in comparisons with same
> originan music is usually due to changes done in mastering between to two
> releases.
>
>
>
>
They are all pieces of polycarbonate they have NO FUTURE.