Windows 10 to feature native support for FLAC and MKV

[Slimer]

And will likely do a better job of implementing both than GNU/Linux.

<http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/11/27/1347217/windows-10-to-feature-native-support-for-mkv-and-flac?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed>

--
Slimer
OpenMedia & Wikipedia Supporter
www.silverlips.ca

[Snit]

On 11/27/14, 8:06 AM, in article m57elh$ns$2...@dont-email.me, "Slimer"

<slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote:

> And will likely do a better job of implementing both than GNU/Linux.
>
> <http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/11/27/1347217/windows-10-to-feature-native-
> support-for-mkv-and-flac?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed>

Excellent news... and hopefully it will push Apple to do the same. On this,
though, MS is ahead of Apple.


--
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[tmelmosfire]

On Thursday, 27 November 2014 16:31:01 UTC, Snit wrote:
> On 11/27/14, 8:06 AM, in article m57elh$ns$2...@dont-email.me, "Slimer"
> <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote:
>
> > And will likely do a better job of implementing both than GNU/Linux.
> >
> > <http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/11/27/1347217/windows-10-to-feature-native-
> > support-for-mkv-and-flac?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed>
>
> Excellent news... and hopefully it will push Apple to do the same. On this,
> though, MS is ahead of Apple.

This disproves the idea you are an iCultist who thinks Apple is the best at everything.

[Snit]

On 11/27/14, 1:40 PM, in article
2897f9f8-8ade-4ff9...@googlegroups.com, "tmelmosfire"

Given how nobody can say what "iCultists" believe or do there is no way to
show anyone is or is not a part of this group. Frankly they just seem to be
RonB's imaginary friends... though now some of the rest of the herd speaks
of them, too.

[Steve Carroll]

The proof you are an iCultist is in your signiture.

[Darklight]

Slimer wrote:

> And will likely do a better job of implementing both than GNU/Linux.

Have you noticed how windows 10 looks like linux? And some of the features
they are implementing are already used on the kde desktop interface.
so how do you think they are implementing flac and mkv support.

You do know that some years ago Microsoft brought into opensuse.
Why do you think they done that?
>
> <http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/11/27/1347217/windows-10-to-feature-native-support-for-mkv-and-flac?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed>
>

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Darklight wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Microsoft's innovating VLC, GStreamer, and MPlayer now?

"We're the innovators here! Give us your technology, or else!"

--
Demographic polls show that you have lost credibility across the board.
Especially with those 14 year-old Valley girls.

[Slimer]

On 28/11/2014 6:00 AM, Darklight wrote:
> Slimer wrote:
>
>> And will likely do a better job of implementing both than GNU/Linux.
> Have you noticed how windows 10 looks like linux? And some of the features
> they are implementing are already used on the kde desktop interface.
> so how do you think they are implementing flac and mkv support.
>
> You do know that some years ago Microsoft brought into opensuse.
> Why do you think they done that?

I'm not sure where to start. Your statement is so filled with errors
that I don't believe it is worth it.

Windows 10 doesn't look at all like GNU/Linux. It might have a few of
the features made "popular" by GNU/Linux but the interface was
Microsoft's first and then copied by GNU/Linux developers so no, it
doesn't look at all like GNU/Linux does especially since _GNU/Linux does
*NOT* have a standard or default look_.

If they are implementing FLAC support it is because Microsoft has
finally determined that people prefer it over WMA Lossless. As for MKV,
they implemented support for it on the Xbox One so I would have been
surprised if Microsoft didn't add it into Windows. The format has become
popular so ignoring it makes no sense. The Microsoft of the 90s might
have but today's is on the ball.

As for OpenSUSE, I assure you that OpenSUSE existed WAAAAAAY before
Microsoft "helped" in developing Mono.

[A]

Slimer wrote:
> And will likely do a better job of implementing both than GNU/Linux.
>
> <http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/11/27/1347217/windows-10-to-feature-native-support-for-mkv-and-flac?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed>
>
>

VLC will play both formats in Windows XP, Vista, 7 and 8. So, BFD.

--
A

[Brian Gregory]

More than that - install any one of several widely available free codec
packs and any player will play them.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

[Steve Carroll]

This disproves the idea you admit to your mistakes.

Here's are but a few of your many, many mistakes. Can you spot the ones you've 'admitted' to having made?


"Keep in mind virtual desktops pre-date X-Windows (they were seen on Xerox machines in the 1970s)." - Snit
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/E4P17zHoZ18/GpTamPCG0RMJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_desktop
--

Regarding the issue of lateral position shifting of centered web-pages where some pages are longer than others (thus creating a scrollbar):
"Can you find a website that is centered that does *not* do that, assuming some pages scroll and some do not. LOL!" - Snit

When confronted, you tossed this red herring:
"Steve also has *no* idea what the purpose of the site is nor why it has or lacks any feature..."

Fact: The "purpose" of a site has *nothing* to do with your erroneous statement.

Notice you then tried to cover your error the 'Snit' way:
"That is what Google does on their home page. It is fairly common." - Snit
It was "fairly common"... *after* he researched it ;)
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/DLF7F-jiGl0/5r8zo0ZRUAMJ
--

On EXIF data":
"EXIF data is the date of the image, Tim, not the date of the download." - Snit
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/w9pWSa90DrI/qCc2GP2sCoAJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchangeable_image_file_format
--

On set theory (and sex):
"Items in a set need not contain all the items in any given subset within that set."
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/sN1HvpwXrKw/7nrGK5fKuwIJ

When 'owl' tried to defend the above as a "typo" (a typo?!), I pointed out this wasn't an isolated incident. When asked how you were using the word, you gave the following definition for the word "sex":

sex n
1. either of the two reproductive categories, male or female, of animals and plants
2. sexual intercourse
3. sexual activity or behavior leading to it
4. the genitals (literary)
5. the set of characteristics that determine whether the reproductive role of an animal or plant is male or female

And you issued the following statement:
"Sex is a subset of sexual activities" - Snit - (I guess he didn't comprehend point 3 very well)

Yet, you also parroted the definition you produced:
"Sexual activities are sex by definition, you moron" - Snit

Then there's this tidbit, which contradicts the now famous point 3 of your definition:
"A passionate kiss could be called a "sexual activity" but it is not sex."

In Snit world, a passionate kiss is not sex... but it is sex. How the f*ck does that work? Another "typo"? Oh well, anyone can see that you're obviously very confused about set theory, let's just hope you never combine it with sex again, the result could be detrimental to society.

"I do not see any *logical* reason to disallow incest" - Snit (Really? Not a single reason? Wow...).
--

On the MacBook Air:
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it is clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much just throw it away." - Snit

When confronted over this enough (it took awhile), you eventually admitted you were merely parroting an argument you'd read in an online article, at least, that's the claim that you figured would let your stupidity off the hook. That you believed the claim enough to parrot it is supposed to be forgotten by the reader ;)
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/feSyFVVDV50/0BJSoL4jYhMJ
--

With a "friend" (and being deceptive about your Masters degree):

Your "friend" wrote:
"He can't afford that much. The guy can barely affordable to feed himself, much less a house that he isn't completely embarrassed by. The reality is that Snit has no education. He's a liar and a parasite." - Silver Slimer
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/lujLIc3TH3g/1YO956whU3EJ

Regarding your Masters degree, from the same thread:
"Keep in mind I have never lied about my level of education (if I had you would quote it). Heck, Carroll named a University and claimed I said that is where my degree is from... but he just flat out made up that." - Snit

Fact: Nothing was "made up", you said Kaplan was where your "Masters in IT" was "from":
"I have a degree in Psychology from UNLV and a Masters in IT from Kaplan University."
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/e0A4xSg5LTA/Hy0QBcuuLsUJ
--

On assessing war criminality:
"He has lied about the war on Iraq. An illegal war. One that makes him a war criminal." - Snit

A week later:
"Right: I can not unequivocally state that Bush is a war criminal." - Snit

The following week:
"Bush is a war criminal". - Snit

And:
"Ok... Morally he is a war criminal. Legally, it has not been decided." - Snit

Geez, Snit! He either is or he isn't. I'm curious what 'morals' you're using to make that last statement. Are they based upon "religion"?! Say it ain't so!

Lots of fun can be found in this thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/n08mkd9Vu0E/m4njQg0byasJ
--

On digital telecommunications:
When on a journey to "prove" another of his ridiculous COLA episodes Snit creates a thread that begins with:

"OK, I hate to admit this, but the Skype is done and *I* screwed up the recoding..."
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/VDp3Wm8Kt9E/w4lQbBtnpyQJ
--

On KHTML licensing:

"Webkit is licensed under the GPL. Apple used KHTML as a starting point... and it was licensed under the GPL.

But by all means, Peter, explain why you are more of an expert about the license of WebKit than the license shown at webkit.org.

LOL!" - Snit
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/RPgY6uyISz0/533S4hx19LEJ

License: GNU Lesser General Public License (aka LGPL)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML
--

On the creation of trend lines:

When Snit went outside of COLA for "support" for his argument, a poster sensibly responded with:

"I gather there are two questions here:

1) Is the trendline approriately fitted to that data?

2) Is the trendline useful in some way?"

In your usual non-sensical fashion, you replied:

"Not quite: the question was merely if the process of creating the trend line was correct..." - Snit
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.soft-sys.sas/XFMX5rRiIt4/IXlUpjxiSTIJ

I wonder if you'd care to explain how point 1 can be ignored if there is a concern for accuracy. I'm thinking you never did find your trend line very "useful" after this.
--

I could fill volumes with this stuff ;)

[Nobody]

On 11/28/2014 05:06 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Darklight wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Slimer wrote:
>>
>>> And will likely do a better job of implementing both than GNU/Linux.
>>
>> Have you noticed how windows 10 looks like linux? And some of the features
>> they are implementing are already used on the kde desktop interface.
>> so how do you think they are implementing flac and mkv support.
>>
>> You do know that some years ago Microsoft brought into opensuse.
>> Why do you think they done that?
>>>
>>> <http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/11/27/1347217/windows-10-to-feature-native-support-for-mkv-and-flac?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed>
>>>
>
> Microsoft's innovating VLC, GStreamer, and MPlayer now?
>
> "We're the innovators here! Give us your technology, or else!"

Embrace, extend, extinguish.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2014-11-29, Brian Gregory <bvdvgvrv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/11/2014 16:17, A wrote:
>> Slimer wrote:
>>> And will likely do a better job of implementing both than GNU/Linux.
>>>
>>> <http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/11/27/1347217/windows-10-to-feature-native-support-for-mkv-and-flac?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> VLC will play both formats in Windows XP, Vista, 7 and 8. So, BFD.
>>
>
> More than that - install any one of several widely available free codec
> packs and any player will play them.
>

...and those will likely just be the same collection of free software that powers VLC.

--
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
|||
/ | \

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2014-11-28, Darklight <nglen...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Slimer wrote:
>
>> And will likely do a better job of implementing both than GNU/Linux.

...not likely considering that the typical method for Windows robustly
supporting a wide array of audio and video formats is to emply LINUX
SOFTWARE. This is one area in particular where the Free Software community
does a great service to EVERYONE including Windows and Mac users.

> Have you noticed how windows 10 looks like linux? And some of the features
> they are implementing are already used on the kde desktop interface.
> so how do you think they are implementing flac and mkv support.
>
> You do know that some years ago Microsoft brought into opensuse.
> Why do you think they done that?
>>
>> <http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/11/27/1347217/windows-10-to-feature-native-support-for-mkv-and-flac?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed>
>>
>

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2014-11-28, Chris Ahlstrom <OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:
> Darklight wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Slimer wrote:
>>
>>> And will likely do a better job of implementing both than GNU/Linux.
>>
>> Have you noticed how windows 10 looks like linux? And some of the features
>> they are implementing are already used on the kde desktop interface.
>> so how do you think they are implementing flac and mkv support.
>>
>> You do know that some years ago Microsoft brought into opensuse.
>> Why do you think they done that?
>>>
>>> <http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/11/27/1347217/windows-10-to-feature-native-support-for-mkv-and-flac?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed>
>>>
>
> Microsoft's innovating VLC, GStreamer, and MPlayer now?

...don't forget ffmpeg!

>
> "We're the innovators here! Give us your technology, or else!"
>


--

[Brian Gregory]

Well maybe, but I find more bugs in VLC than I do if I just install
Combined Community Codec Pack and play in Media Player Classic Home Cinema.

[flatfish+++]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 23:47:16 +0000, Brian Gregory wrote:

> On 01/12/2014 01:37, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2014-11-29, Brian Gregory <bvdvgvrv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 28/11/2014 16:17, A wrote:
>>>> Slimer wrote:
>>>>> And will likely do a better job of implementing both than GNU/Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/11/27/1347217/windows-10-to-feature-native-support-for-mkv-and-flac?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> VLC will play both formats in Windows XP, Vista, 7 and 8. So, BFD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> More than that - install any one of several widely available free codec
>>> packs and any player will play them.
>>>
>>
>> ...and those will likely just be the same collection of free software that powers VLC.
>>
>
> Well maybe, but I find more bugs in VLC than I do if I just install
> Combined Community Codec Pack and play in Media Player Classic Home Cinema.

VLC tends to be buggy but mPlayer is even worse.
The latest version of VLC has been working fine for me though.
Under Windows 8.1 of course.

--
flatfish+++

Linux: The Operating System That Put The City Of Munich Out Of
Business.
Before Switching To Linux Read This:
http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html

[Snit]

On 12/1/14, 4:49 PM, in article 125hs9j7td6bz$.tl3dh59mjwxw$.d...@40tude.net,

"flatfish+++" <phlat...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>> More than that - install any one of several widely available free codec
>>>> packs and any player will play them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...and those will likely just be the same collection of free software that
>>> powers VLC.
>>>
>>
>> Well maybe, but I find more bugs in VLC than I do if I just install
>> Combined Community Codec Pack and play in Media Player Classic Home Cinema.
>
> VLC tends to be buggy but mPlayer is even worse.
> The latest version of VLC has been working fine for me though.
> Under Windows 8.1 of course.

My wife uses MPlayerX and we have been seeing a lot of going to gray for up
to 5 seconds or so... rather annoying. Maybe I should test VLC on her system
again. I forget why she did not like it but she used to use it and moved
away from it.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Brian Gregory wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 01/12/2014 01:37, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>> ...and those will likely just be the same collection of free software
>> that powers VLC.
>
> Well maybe, but I find more bugs in VLC than I do if I just install
> Combined Community Codec Pack and play in Media Player Classic Home Cinema.

You need to be using VLC in Linux, then. :-)

--
Let the people think they govern and they will be governed.
-- William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania

[flatfish+++]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 19:38:22 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Brian Gregory wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 01/12/2014 01:37, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>> ...and those will likely just be the same collection of free software
>>> that powers VLC.
>>
>> Well maybe, but I find more bugs in VLC than I do if I just install
>> Combined Community Codec Pack and play in Media Player Classic Home Cinema.
>
> You need to be using VLC in Linux, then. :-)

lol!
He will spend so much time trying to make Linux function that he
won't have time to mess with VLC.

Right Chrissy Ahlstrom?

[Brian Gregory]

On 01/12/2014 23:49, flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 23:47:16 +0000, Brian Gregory wrote:
>
>> On 01/12/2014 01:37, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2014-11-29, Brian Gregory <bvdvgvrv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 28/11/2014 16:17, A wrote:
>>>>> Slimer wrote:
>>>>>> And will likely do a better job of implementing both than GNU/Linux.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/11/27/1347217/windows-10-to-feature-native-support-for-mkv-and-flac?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> VLC will play both formats in Windows XP, Vista, 7 and 8. So, BFD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More than that - install any one of several widely available free codec
>>>> packs and any player will play them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...and those will likely just be the same collection of free software that powers VLC.
>>>
>>
>> Well maybe, but I find more bugs in VLC than I do if I just install
>> Combined Community Codec Pack and play in Media Player Classic Home Cinema.
>
> VLC tends to be buggy but mPlayer is even worse.
> The latest version of VLC has been working fine for me though.
> Under Windows 8.1 of course.
>

The only problem I can remember with the current VLC 2.1.5 was that I
found a video file where seeking back and forth in it totally failed
taking me to somewhere totally different from where I wanted. Media
Player Classic Home Cinema played it perfectly.

Not so long ago I remember many versions of VLC on Windows couldn't even
play an audio CD without crashing. It was like the developers weren't
talking to each other, it would get fixed for one version and the next
version it'd be broken again. I think it was the 2.0.x versions.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Brian Gregory wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 01/12/2014 23:49, flatfish+++ wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 23:47:16 +0000, Brian Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>> Well maybe, but I find more bugs in VLC than I do if I just install
>>> Combined Community Codec Pack and play in Media Player Classic Home Cinema.
>>
>> VLC tends to be buggy but mPlayer is even worse.

For formal viewing, I'd use smplayer over mplayer.

But mplayer is good for previewing movies and songs, or if I feel too lazy
to move my mouse to a menu entry.

>> The latest version of VLC has been working fine for me though.
>> Under Windows 8.1 of course.
>
> The only problem I can remember with the current VLC 2.1.5 was that I
> found a video file where seeking back and forth in it totally failed
> taking me to somewhere totally different from where I wanted. Media
> Player Classic Home Cinema played it perfectly.
>
> Not so long ago I remember many versions of VLC on Windows couldn't even
> play an audio CD without crashing. It was like the developers weren't
> talking to each other, it would get fixed for one version and the next
> version it'd be broken again. I think it was the 2.0.x versions.

Never had many issues with mplayer or VLC, really.

Could never stand Windows Media Player. A grotesque UI.

--
I suppose some of the variation between Boston drivers and the rest of the
country is due to the progressive Massachusetts Driver Education Manual which
I happen to have in my top desk drawer. Some of the Tips for Better Driving
are worth considering, to wit:

[131.16d]:
"Directional signals are generally not used except during vehicle
inspection; however, a left-turn signal is appropriate when making
a U-turn on a divided highway."

[96.7b]:
"When paying tolls, remember that it is necessary to release the
quarter a full 3 seconds before passing the basket if you are
traveling more than 60 MPH."

[110.13]:
"When traveling on a one-way street, stay to the right, so as not
to interfere with oncoming traffic."

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2014-12-01, Brian Gregory <bvdvgvrv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/12/2014 01:37, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2014-11-29, Brian Gregory <bvdvgvrv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 28/11/2014 16:17, A wrote:
>>>> Slimer wrote:
>>>>> And will likely do a better job of implementing both than GNU/Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/11/27/1347217/windows-10-to-feature-native-support-for-mkv-and-flac?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> VLC will play both formats in Windows XP, Vista, 7 and 8. So, BFD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> More than that - install any one of several widely available free codec
>>> packs and any player will play them.
>>>
>>
>> ...and those will likely just be the same collection of free software that powers VLC.
>>
>
> Well maybe, but I find more bugs in VLC than I do if I just install
> Combined Community Codec Pack and play in Media Player Classic Home Cinema.
>

...all very vague.

--

Nevermind the pirates. Sony needs to worry about it's own back catalog. |||
/ | \

[flatfish+++]

Open source programmers are known to be and act like children. These
days they infighting about SystemD....

While the rest of the world is busy using their computers via useful
software, the Linux developers are arguing and fighting like school
yard children.

And they wonder why people are turned off on Linux?
One look at the Linux community is more than enough to turn off most
people. And if that's not enough, using Linux, as an average user,
for any length of time will turn off the rest of them.

[flatfish+++]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 19:51:05 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Brian Gregory wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 01/12/2014 23:49, flatfish+++ wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 23:47:16 +0000, Brian Gregory wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well maybe, but I find more bugs in VLC than I do if I just install
>>>> Combined Community Codec Pack and play in Media Player Classic Home Cinema.
>>>
>>> VLC tends to be buggy but mPlayer is even worse.
>
> For formal viewing, I'd use smplayer over mplayer.

I should have been clearer, I was talking about smplayer.

>
> But mplayer is good for previewing movies and songs, or if I feel too lazy
> to move my mouse to a menu entry.

I may be lazy, but not that lazy!
lol!

>>> The latest version of VLC has been working fine for me though.
>>> Under Windows 8.1 of course.
>>
>> The only problem I can remember with the current VLC 2.1.5 was that I
>> found a video file where seeking back and forth in it totally failed
>> taking me to somewhere totally different from where I wanted. Media
>> Player Classic Home Cinema played it perfectly.
>>
>> Not so long ago I remember many versions of VLC on Windows couldn't even
>> play an audio CD without crashing. It was like the developers weren't
>> talking to each other, it would get fixed for one version and the next
>> version it'd be broken again. I think it was the 2.0.x versions.
>
> Never had many issues with mplayer or VLC, really.

Some weird stuff once in a while but overall VLC is pretty darn good
for me as well. I think VLC and mplayer don't deal as well with
videos/music that have errors in the file as some of the other
players do.

> Could never stand Windows Media Player. A grotesque UI.

You may be surprised to hear this from me, but I agree 100 percent.
It is completely non-intuitive.
Horrible IMHO.

[flatfish+++]

So says the king of rhymes and riddles......

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2014-12-02, Brian Gregory <bvdvgvrv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/12/2014 23:49, flatfish+++ wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 23:47:16 +0000, Brian Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/12/2014 01:37, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> On 2014-11-29, Brian Gregory <bvdvgvrv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/11/2014 16:17, A wrote:
>>>>>> Slimer wrote:
>>>>>>> And will likely do a better job of implementing both than GNU/Linux.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/11/27/1347217/windows-10-to-feature-native-support-for-mkv-and-flac?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> VLC will play both formats in Windows XP, Vista, 7 and 8. So, BFD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> More than that - install any one of several widely available free codec
>>>>> packs and any player will play them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...and those will likely just be the same collection of free software that powers VLC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well maybe, but I find more bugs in VLC than I do if I just install
>>> Combined Community Codec Pack and play in Media Player Classic Home Cinema.
>>
>> VLC tends to be buggy but mPlayer is even worse.
>> The latest version of VLC has been working fine for me though.
>> Under Windows 8.1 of course.
>>
>
> The only problem I can remember with the current VLC 2.1.5 was that I
> found a video file where seeking back and forth in it totally failed
> taking me to somewhere totally different from where I wanted. Media
> Player Classic Home Cinema played it perfectly.
>
> Not so long ago I remember many versions of VLC on Windows couldn't even
> play an audio CD without crashing. It was like the developers weren't

Sounds like a reversion driven by the fact that it's not 1998 anymore.

1998 is about the last time I directly played a CD.

[Slimer]

CDs are still the least expensive way to get high quality sound. M4A
from iTunes and MP3 from 7digital don't cut it for everyone.

--
Slimer
OpenMedia, Wikipedia & Hope for Paws Supporter

[flatfish+++]

Bit-Rot is a big thing with CD these days. People go back to that CD
they bought in the 1980s and find it doesn't work anymore.
Even worse for DVD.

At least with vinyl or tape you can work around it.
With a CD if it can't read the TOC, you are pretty much dead.

[Slimer]

I don't know if what happens to CDs constitutes bit-rot though. At the
end of the day, it's not so much that the data corrupted itself as much
as it is the fact that the media became unreadable. Age will do that to
any medium though, from vinyl to Blu-Ray.

If sound can still be extracted from decade-old vinyls though, that's
awesome. I would assume that there's little more than pops and fizzes on
that old record. Brand new records provide you with the best sound
imaginable though.

[Peter Köhlmann]

Vinyl will not corrupt if stored correctly

> If sound can still be extracted from decade-old vinyls though, that's
> awesome. I would assume that there's little more than pops and fizzes on
> that old record. Brand new records provide you with the best sound
> imaginable though.
>

And why would physical grooves decay? You can play a 50 years old vinyl and
it will sound exactly as 50 years ago if it hasn't been played.

I have *lots* of vinyl disks, and they still sound nearly as new, even after
40 years and having often been played in some cases. But then, my record
player costs more than a high end apple toy.

[Slimer]

That's what everyone keeps telling me but there has to be an inevitable
pop and fuzz here and there after a while. The slightest amount of dust
seems to affect them.

>> If sound can still be extracted from decade-old vinyls though, that's
>> awesome. I would assume that there's little more than pops and fizzes on
>> that old record. Brand new records provide you with the best sound
>> imaginable though.
>>
> And why would physical grooves decay? You can play a 50 years old vinyl and
> it will sound exactly as 50 years ago if it hasn't been played.
>
> I have *lots* of vinyl disks, and they still sound nearly as new, even after
> 40 years and having often been played in some cases. But then, my record
> player costs more than a high end apple toy.

Do you also have FLAC versions of the vinyls in case something happens?

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 15:19:56 -0500, flatfish+++ <phlat...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Bit-Rot is a big thing with CD these days. People go back to that CD
>they bought in the 1980s and find it doesn't work anymore.
>Even worse for DVD.

If bit rot is possible with pressed CD/DVDs, it's news to me. Plenty of
other things can go wrong, especially if proper handling and storage aren't
observed, but I believe bit rot is reserved for the writeable variety of
optical discs.

>At least with vinyl or tape you can work around it.
>With a CD if it can't read the TOC, you are pretty much dead.

Don't let the kids handle it and don't store it in direct sunlight or in the
car where temps hit 140+ and you should be fine. In the life of a pressed CD
or DVD, the 1980's weren't that long ago.

[Brian Gregory]

On 02/12/2014 20:19, flatfish+++ wrote:
> Bit-Rot is a big thing with CD these days. People go back to that CD
> they bought in the 1980s and find it doesn't work anymore.
> Even worse for DVD.
>
> At least with vinyl or tape you can work around it.
> With a CD if it can't read the TOC, you are pretty much dead.
>

Of all mass produced discs it's worst on early CDs.
With mass produced CDs the metal layer is on the top or close to the top
of the disc and if not protected well by a good layer of appropriately
chosen paint or varnish like material can oxidise, or get scratched. CDs
that have had sticky labels stuck on them are particularly bad.

DVDs are better because the data carrying layer or layers is/are between
two relatively thick polycarbonate layers.

Recordable discs can fade and avoiding sunlight and higher room
temperatures along with choosing good brands (I prefer Verbatim and
Taiyo Yuden) will help.

Some people say re-recordable (RW and RE) will likely last longer than
one time R disks if looked after sensibly. But I find the re-recordable
discs generally start out with much higher correctable error rates than
carefully recorded one time discs so personally I'm not sure.

[Brian Gregory]

On 02/12/2014 23:48, Brian Gregory wrote:
> Of all mass produced discs it's worst on early CDs.

> ....

I should add that I'm only discussing CDs, DVDs, Blu-ray and similar
optical discs.

[flatfish+++]

Might be a bad use of terminology on my part but basically what I am
saying is CD in apparently good, non scratched condition, fails to
play.
You are DOA.
Nothing you can do.

At least with vinyl or tape you can recover.

[Brian Gregory]

On 02/12/2014 23:54, flatfish+++ wrote:
> Might be a bad use of terminology on my part but basically what I am
> saying is CD in apparently good, non scratched condition, fails to
> play.
> You are DOA.
> Nothing you can do.
>
> At least with vinyl or tape you can recover.
>

In practice trying another player/reader often works but yes that's
right, and not only that but the drives don't seem to be designed to
allow scanning to recover parts that are readable except in cases of
relatively minor problems.

[flatfish+++]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:58 +0000, Brian Gregory wrote:

> On 02/12/2014 23:54, flatfish+++ wrote:
>> Might be a bad use of terminology on my part but basically what I am
>> saying is CD in apparently good, non scratched condition, fails to
>> play.
>> You are DOA.
>> Nothing you can do.
>>
>> At least with vinyl or tape you can recover.
>>
>
> In practice trying another player/reader often works but yes that's
> right, and not only that but the drives don't seem to be designed to
> allow scanning to recover parts that are readable except in cases of
> relatively minor problems.

Yep.
Using another player is my first line of attack.
I'm finding a decent number of my commercial CD's from the 90's are
having problems. I'm finding a LOT of my home burned data CD and DVD
are having even more problems despite using top quality media and
always good quality burners like Plextor, Sony etc.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Char Jackson wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub121/sec4.html

Among the manufacturers that have done testing, there is consensus that,
under recommended storage conditions, CD-R, DVD-R, and DVD+R discs
should have a life expectancy of 100 to 200 years or more; CD-RW,
DVD-RW, DVD+RW, and DVD-RAM discs should have a life expectancy of 25
years or more. Little information is available for CD-ROM and DVD-ROM
discs (including audio and video), resulting in an increased level of
uncertainty for their life expectancy. Expectations vary from 20 to 100
years for these discs.


--
With all the fancy scientists in the world, why can't they just once
build a nuclear balm?

[Slimer]

On 02/12/2014 7:03 PM, flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:58 +0000, Brian Gregory wrote:
>
>> On 02/12/2014 23:54, flatfish+++ wrote:
>>> Might be a bad use of terminology on my part but basically what I am
>>> saying is CD in apparently good, non scratched condition, fails to
>>> play.
>>> You are DOA.
>>> Nothing you can do.
>>>
>>> At least with vinyl or tape you can recover.
>>>
>>
>> In practice trying another player/reader often works but yes that's
>> right, and not only that but the drives don't seem to be designed to
>> allow scanning to recover parts that are readable except in cases of
>> relatively minor problems.
>
> Yep.
> Using another player is my first line of attack.
> I'm finding a decent number of my commercial CD's from the 90's are
> having problems. I'm finding a LOT of my home burned data CD and DVD
> are having even more problems despite using top quality media and
> always good quality burners like Plextor, Sony etc.

So what I'm understanding is that it might be a good idea to rip all of
those CDs to FLAC and keep those albums on an external HD of some kind
forever. Considering the CDs won't last forever anyway.

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 18:54:41 -0500, flatfish+++ <phlat...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:38:54 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 15:19:56 -0500, flatfish+++ <phlat...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Bit-Rot is a big thing with CD these days. People go back to that CD
>>>they bought in the 1980s and find it doesn't work anymore.
>>>Even worse for DVD.
>>
>> If bit rot is possible with pressed CD/DVDs, it's news to me. Plenty of
>> other things can go wrong, especially if proper handling and storage aren't
>> observed, but I believe bit rot is reserved for the writeable variety of
>> optical discs.
>>
>>>At least with vinyl or tape you can work around it.
>>>With a CD if it can't read the TOC, you are pretty much dead.
>>
>> Don't let the kids handle it and don't store it in direct sunlight or in the
>> car where temps hit 140+ and you should be fine. In the life of a pressed CD
>> or DVD, the 1980's weren't that long ago.
>
>Might be a bad use of terminology on my part but basically what I am
>saying is CD in apparently good, non scratched condition, fails to
>play.
>You are DOA.
>Nothing you can do.

Has that actually ever happened, or is it something you read about? I'd be
surprised to learn that it's a real concern. Again, I think we're talking
about pressed CDs and DVDs, not the stuff that someone recorded at home.

>At least with vinyl or tape you can recover.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Both of those media types have their own
issues.

[Peter Köhlmann]

Dust can be removed. Easily even
And dust will not cover the records when stored in their sleeves

>>> If sound can still be extracted from decade-old vinyls though, that's
>>> awesome. I would assume that there's little more than pops and fizzes on
>>> that old record. Brand new records provide you with the best sound
>>> imaginable though.
>>>
>> And why would physical grooves decay? You can play a 50 years old vinyl
>> and it will sound exactly as 50 years ago if it hasn't been played.
>>
>> I have *lots* of vinyl disks, and they still sound nearly as new, even
>> after 40 years and having often been played in some cases. But then, my
>> record player costs more than a high end apple toy.
>
> Do you also have FLAC versions of the vinyls in case something happens?

Why would I? Short of a fire there is nothing which would "happen" to those
records

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Char Jackson wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

http://www.gnu.org/software/ddrescue/

GNU ddrescue is a data recovery tool. It copies data from one file or
block device (hard disc, cdrom, etc) to another, trying to rescue the
good parts first in case of read errors.

Ddrescuelog is a tool that manipulates ddrescue logfiles, shows logfile
contents, converts logfiles to/from other formats, compares logfiles,
tests rescue status, and can delete a logfile if the rescue is done.
Ddrescuelog operations can be restricted to one or several parts of the
logfile if the domain setting options are used.

The basic operation of ddrescue is fully automatic. That is, you don't
have to wait for an error, stop the program, read the log, restart it
from a new position, etc.

No guarantees, of course.

--
question = ( to ) ? be : ! be;
-- Wm. Shakespeare

[chrisv]

Char Jackson wrote:

>If bit rot is possible with pressed CD/DVDs, it's news to me. Plenty of
>other things can go wrong, especially if proper handling and storage aren't
>observed, but I believe bit rot is reserved for the writeable variety of
>optical discs.

I've never had a normal audio CD go bad, even from the early days of
the technology.

--
"It has been shown time and time again that consumers dont want/need
Linux." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

[flatfish+++]

Happened several times with commercial recordings.

>>At least with vinyl or tape you can recover.
>
> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Both of those media types have their own
> issues.

Even if it's gluing a record together or splicing back a tape you can
at least get "something" out of it.

With a CD, chances are slim to none.

[Slimer]

True, plus the other problem, scratches, are as much a problem on vinyl
as they are on CDs. I guess there truly is no reason to choose CD
anymore if neither medium is being considered for its portability (as
far as a I know, CDs were created to allow people to play albums at
decent quality within a car or on a portable player).

>>>> If sound can still be extracted from decade-old vinyls though, that's
>>>> awesome. I would assume that there's little more than pops and fizzes on
>>>> that old record. Brand new records provide you with the best sound
>>>> imaginable though.
>>>>
>>> And why would physical grooves decay? You can play a 50 years old vinyl
>>> and it will sound exactly as 50 years ago if it hasn't been played.
>>>
>>> I have *lots* of vinyl disks, and they still sound nearly as new, even
>>> after 40 years and having often been played in some cases. But then, my
>>> record player costs more than a high end apple toy.
>>
>> Do you also have FLAC versions of the vinyls in case something happens?
>
> Why would I? Short of a fire there is nothing which would "happen" to those
> records

True.

[Slimer]

On 03/12/2014 7:57 AM, chrisv wrote:
> Char Jackson wrote:
>
>> If bit rot is possible with pressed CD/DVDs, it's news to me. Plenty of
>> other things can go wrong, especially if proper handling and storage aren't
>> observed, but I believe bit rot is reserved for the writeable variety of
>> optical discs.
>
> I've never had a normal audio CD go bad, even from the early days of
> the technology.

They "just work," just like GNU/Linux, right?

[Char Jackson]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 08:23:01 -0500, flatfish+++ <phlat...@yahoo.com>

I still think you mean pressed CDs, which aren't recordings at all. They're
made by stamping a blank with a glass master.

>>>At least with vinyl or tape you can recover.
>>
>> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Both of those media types have their own
>> issues.
>
>Even if it's gluing a record together or splicing back a tape you can
>at least get "something" out of it.

If you can glue a broken record album together and get listenable music from
it afterward, then your gluing skills are far better than mine. The other
common forms of damage, groove damage and warping, are also not likely to
yield enjoyable music after the fact. With tape, if it broke cleanly you can
splice it, but if it stretched or became degaussed or otherwise physically
damaged, you're not likely to get much from it.

>With a CD, chances are slim to none.

I'll cross that bridge if I come to it. The vast majority of my CDs were
purchased between 1981-1992 and none have shown any issues yet. Thanks for
the heads up, though.

[Slimer]

Is it even worth restoring a broken tape to working order? I can't
imagine the sound quality on that medium to be worth the effort.

In fact, according to a link I just read, it clearly states that
cassettes sound not only worse than vinyl but 8-tracks as well. To me,
that's absolute garbage

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2014-12-02, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 15:19:56 -0500, flatfish+++ <phlat...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Bit-Rot is a big thing with CD these days. People go back to that CD
>>they bought in the 1980s and find it doesn't work anymore.
>>Even worse for DVD.
>
> If bit rot is possible with pressed CD/DVDs, it's news to me. Plenty of
> other things can go wrong, especially if proper handling and storage aren't
> observed, but I believe bit rot is reserved for the writeable variety of
> optical discs.

Apparently the Library of Congress has a lot of problems with this. Although
I don't think I have seen any of it myself.

>
>>At least with vinyl or tape you can work around it.
>>With a CD if it can't read the TOC, you are pretty much dead.
>
> Don't let the kids handle it and don't store it in direct sunlight or in the
> car where temps hit 140+ and you should be fine. In the life of a pressed CD
> or DVD, the 1980's weren't that long ago.
>

Back in the day, people thought that CDs were indestructible and treated
them accordingly. They bragged about doing things to their CDs that would now
make us all shudder. On the other hand, if you are only "using" a bit of media
once (to rip it) then you can treat it very gently and easily keep it out of the
sunlight.

[JEDIDIAH]

Apparently it varies by manufacturer and apparently some were very bad.

Yet another reason to rip everything and back up stuff as much as you can
and do as much as you can to avoid bit rot on your ripped copies.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2014-12-03, Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Slimer wrote:
>
>> On 02/12/2014 5:49 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Slimer wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/12/2014 3:19 PM, flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:30:03 -0500, Slimer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/12/2014 11:08 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2014-12-02, Brian Gregory <bvdvgvrv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2014 23:49, flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 23:47:16 +0000, Brian Gregory wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2014 01:37, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2014-11-29, Brian Gregory <bvdvgvrv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/11/2014 16:17, A wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Slimer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And will likely do a better job of implementing both than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GNU/Linux.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/11/27/1347217/windows-10-to-feature-native-support-for-mkv-and-flac?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed>

[deletia]

>>> I have *lots* of vinyl disks, and they still sound nearly as new, even
>>> after 40 years and having often been played in some cases. But then, my
>>> record player costs more than a high end apple toy.
>>
>> Do you also have FLAC versions of the vinyls in case something happens?
>
> Why would I? Short of a fire there is nothing which would "happen" to those
> records

So you have no backups of potentially very interesting information.

[JEDIDIAH]

That's disputable. Thumbdrives are cheap and plentiful. Meanwhile, CDs
are a single use medium. The smallest available thumb drives are cheap enough
to treat as disposable and can be used over and over again.

If you've got a fetish for optical media, even DVD makes more sense as it
has more capacity. That's the last optical media I bothered with (about 10 years
ago) before I switched completely to thumbdrives and the like.

Although anyone snooty enough to turn his nose up at any of the CD alternatives
that have arisen in the last 20 years isn't going to be dickering around with a PC.

[deletia]

> Vinyl will not corrupt if stored correctly

That's a very big if. Vinyl requires more care and effort than most consumers
are willing to expend. H*LL. This is why I liked them so much back when this
would have been an argument between LP and cassette.

[deletia]

> I have *lots* of vinyl disks, and they still sound nearly as new, even after
> 40 years and having often been played in some cases. But then, my record
> player costs more than a high end apple toy.
>

[flatfish+++]

It depends upon what's on it.
If it's junior's 5th grade recital, it will probably be worth saving.

> In fact, according to a link I just read, it clearly states that
> cassettes sound not only worse than vinyl but 8-tracks as well. To me,
> that's absolute garbage

8 tracks are clearly the worst. They are also ticking time bombs
because as the lubricant in the tape dries out, they implode.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

JEDIDIAH wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2014-12-02, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 15:19:56 -0500, flatfish+++ <phlat...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Bit-Rot is a big thing with CD these days. People go back to that CD
>>>they bought in the 1980s and find it doesn't work anymore.
>>>Even worse for DVD.
>>
>> If bit rot is possible with pressed CD/DVDs, it's news to me. Plenty of
>> other things can go wrong, especially if proper handling and storage aren't
>> observed, but I believe bit rot is reserved for the writeable variety of
>> optical discs.
>
> Apparently the Library of Congress has a lot of problems with this.
> Although I don't think I have seen any of it myself.

What!?? Don't they dump it all to paper tape? :-D

--
If I don't document something, it's usually either for a good reason,
or a bad reason. In this case it's a good reason. :-)
-- Larry Wall in <1992Jan17.0...@netlabs.com>

[Chris Ahlstrom]

JEDIDIAH wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

I have this USB stick I use in my car; it often sits for hours in the hot
sun. So now I sometimes get "Bad Media" or sound glitches, when I know the
file was initially good.

--
Remember that as a teenager you are in the last stage of your life when
you will be happy to hear that the phone is for you.
-- Fran Lebowitz, "Social Studies"

[flatfish+++]

I don't see CD being used much at all anymore. It used to be the band
would sell them at their shows.

These days local bands are using USB sticks to promote the band.
Another method is download "gift" cards.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

JEDIDIAH wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Here's a real oldie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbOHlKzlqCA

Gershon Kingsley - Rhapsody in Blue - From "Switched-On Gershwin" 1970

It's full of annoying glitches that weren't there in the vinyl recording I
listened to back then in a college library.

I'll be it was recorded by a feeble Windows NT box.

--
"A penny for your thoughts?"
"A dollar for your death."
-- The Odd Couple

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>I have this USB stick I use in my car; it often sits for hours in the hot
>sun. So now I sometimes get "Bad Media" or sound glitches, when I know the
>file was initially good.

Similar to what happened to our Wintrolls' minds, except the culprits
were mostly likely booze and inhalants.

--
"'No way to not know what not possibly he did not do.' - What the FSCK
does this even mean?" - Ezekreep, shamelessly lying about what
chrisv wrote, so that Kreep could foam and ridicule, while evading
chrisv's air-tight logic.

[Char Jackson]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 10:47:54 -0500, Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote:

>Is it even worth restoring a broken tape to working order? I can't
>imagine the sound quality on that medium to be worth the effort.

Silly me, within the context of tape I was thinking of high end reel to
reel, since that was my last exposure to audio tape. Way back in the day, I
have experience with splicing 8-track tapes and the small 3"-3.5" reel
tapes, and I spliced a VHS tape a time or two.

In general, you're right. Sound quality usually leaves much to be desired
when it comes to tape, and cassette is arguably the worst of it. The tracks
are too narrow and the speed is too slow.

>In fact, according to a link I just read, it clearly states that
>cassettes sound not only worse than vinyl but 8-tracks as well. To me,
>that's absolute garbage

Within the cassette world, commercially recorded tapes were usually the
absolute worst with regards to sound quality, so I used to buy record albums
and record them onto higher grade cassette tapes. For a dozen years or so, I
used dbx noise reduction which virtually eliminated tape hiss and other
system noise, but of course it's still cassette tape, so you're still
dealing with the rest of that format's limitations. Plus, there were no
automotive cassette decks that could decode dbx, so those tapes had to stay
in the house.

[JEDIDIAH]

I dunno. I am more inclined to blame the head unit for glitches than the media.

For every technology you can name, there are people that have their own horror stories.

[Char Jackson]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 11:23:45 -0500, flatfish+++ <phlat...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>8 tracks are clearly the worst. They are also ticking time bombs
>because as the lubricant in the tape dries out, they implode.

8-tracks used a dry lubricant.

As a music format, I always felt that 8-tracks sounded better than
cassettes, but a lot of years have gone by and I can't go back and do any
blind tests.

[flatfish+++]

Yes.
Graphite in fact. It collects dirt and goos up the capstan causing
speed issues.

Cassettes had superior sound for many reasons most of which had to do
with the head stack on 8 track players being out of alignment due to
it moving up and down each time a new track was selected. That
clunking sound was not good for head alignment. Cassette machines
(not the auto reversible kind) were much gentler on the heads and the
tape and shell design was far superior.

[Slimer]

Thumbdrives allow you to store a crapload of MP3 and M4A files, but CDs
contain AIFF files which have an excellent, uncompressed quality. We're
comparing apples to oranges here.

> If you've got a fetish for optical media, even DVD makes more sense as it
> has more capacity. That's the last optical media I bothered with (about 10 years
> ago) before I switched completely to thumbdrives and the like.

Once again, apples to oranges.

> Although anyone snooty enough to turn his nose up at any of the CD alternatives
> that have arisen in the last 20 years isn't going to be dickering around with a PC.

MP3 and M4A files are not a CD alternative, they are a compressed and
lossy version of the album you would get on a CD in excellent quality.
To a lot of people, the convenience of having lossy files IMMEDIATELY
versus going out and buying a CD makes a sense obsolete. However, many
of us truly enjoy the music we're paying for and therefore want to get
it in the best quality possible with the option of later transferring it
to a lossy codec for convenience.

[Slimer]

THAT is bit rot, not a CD becoming useless.

[chrisv]

Bud Frede wrote:

>Vinyl loses its plasticizers over time. It becomes brittle and the
>needle passing through the groove then causes fractures and
>spalling.
>
>I don't know how audible it is though. There's so much in-built
>distortion in the medium that it's hard to tell unless the damage is
>gross. (Pops, ticks, and other surface noise.)
>
>The only thing that was good about vinyl is that it was possible to
>mass-produce copies for very little cost. It was never very accurate,
>even compared to 1/4" tape.
>
>Mono records were a bit better than stereo in this respect. Stereo
>records had quite poor channel separation, and screwed-up phase
>response. It's impossible to keep one channel from affecting the other
>mechanically, and the generated signals bleed from one channel to the
>other due to their close proximity in the phono cartridge.
>
>The very weak generated signal, even with moving magnet cartridges,
>combined with a large motor producing EMI, makes it very difficult to
>amplify the signal enough to make is usable. The sheer amount of gain
>needed guarantees lots of noise. Add in the need to apply RIAA curve
>compensation and you've got a recipe for disaster. It's a miracle that
>records work even as well as they do. :-)
>
>If you add in a moving coil cartridge so beloved by the "audiophiles,"
>you've just multipled your signal problems by a couple of orders of
>magnitude, and not gained anything because the medium doesn't have
>enough resolution to justify anything more than a normal MM cartridge.
>
>We should all be very glad that CD replaced the earlier media. It's
>superior in almost every way.
>
>One really unfortunate thing for fans of popular music is that the
>record companies have been re-mastering everything in sight, producing
>compressed-flat garbage. I've basically stopped buying new CDs. I'll buy
>old ones, but most of the stuff mastered this century is worthless to
>me. I'm hoping that the record companies will come to their senses,
>but I'm not holding my breath.
>
>Vinyl had the crap compressed out of it too, along with the radical EQ,
>so it's almost as if the record companies found CD to be too good and
>only want to distribute crap that they don't care if people copy.

Good post. I agree with everything you said.

--
"Well I gotta admit - when society gets to the point where housewives,
farmers and journalists start writing and understanding shell scripts,
Linux is bound to take over the computing world." - trolling fsckwit
"Ezekiel"

[Slimer]

On 03/12/2014 12:03 PM, chrisv wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> I have this USB stick I use in my car; it often sits for hours in the hot
>> sun. So now I sometimes get "Bad Media" or sound glitches, when I know the
>> file was initially good.
>
> Similar to what happened to our Wintrolls' minds, except the culprits
> were mostly likely booze and inhalants.

Back to the old chrisv already.

[Slimer]

Professional audio people tend to say that 8-tracks are better than
cassettes as far as quality is concerned so I'm tempted to agree with
them even though I've never heard or even held one in my hands.

--
Slimera

[Brian Gregory]

On 03/12/2014 18:15, Slimer wrote:
> ...

> Thumbdrives allow you to store a crapload of MP3 and M4A files, but CDs
> contain AIFF files which have an excellent, uncompressed quality. We're
> comparing apples to oranges here.

Pardon?
CDs contain raw uncompressed PCM, as do AIFF files but there are no AIFF
headers or tail ends on a CD.

Thumb drives can also contain files of raw PCM, or say FLAC which is a
bit smaller but has the same quality. Or you can compress using your
favourite audio codec at whatever bit-rate it takes to sound good to you.

Basically thumb drives are flexible and can hold telephone quality audio
files up to beyond CD quality.


> ...

> MP3 and M4A files are not a CD alternative, they are a compressed and
> lossy version of the album you would get on a CD in excellent quality.
> To a lot of people, the convenience of having lossy files IMMEDIATELY
> versus going out and buying a CD makes a sense obsolete. However, many
> of us truly enjoy the music we're paying for and therefore want to get
> it in the best quality possible with the option of later transferring it
> to a lossy codec for convenience.

I haven't been disappointed with the quality of a bought MP3 for many
years and I'm sure I'm not that unusual though I do admit that my
hearing isn't perfect and my playback equipment isn't at all high end
either.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

[Brian Gregory]

On 03/12/2014 10:52, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> ...
> http://www.gnu.org/software/ddrescue/
>
> GNU ddrescue is a data recovery tool. It copies data from one file or
> block device (hard disc, cdrom, etc) to another, trying to rescue the
> good parts first in case of read errors.
>
> Ddrescuelog is a tool that manipulates ddrescue logfiles, shows logfile
> contents, converts logfiles to/from other formats, compares logfiles,
> tests rescue status, and can delete a logfile if the rescue is done.
> Ddrescuelog operations can be restricted to one or several parts of the
> logfile if the domain setting options are used.
>
> The basic operation of ddrescue is fully automatic. That is, you don't
> have to wait for an error, stop the program, read the log, restart it
> from a new position, etc.
>
> No guarantees, of course.
>

Won't help you recover from an optical disc if the drive says "No Disc
present" will it, which in my experience can even be the first sign of
trouble.

[Brian Gregory]

On 03/12/2014 03:30, Char Jackson wrote:
>> Might be a bad use of terminology on my part but basically what I am
>> saying is CD in apparently good, non scratched condition, fails to
>> play.
>> You are DOA.
>> Nothing you can do.
>
> Has that actually ever happened, or is it something you read about? I'd be
> surprised to learn that it's a real concern. Again, I think we're talking
> about pressed CDs and DVDs, not the stuff that someone recorded at home.

Yes. I bought a set of six audio CDs from Amazon. I couldn't get one of
the set to play at all, had to send them back to be replaced. Another
set arrived with a different disc unplayable. Sent back for a refund.
Bought a set in a local shop and finally got a usable set.

>
>> At least with vinyl or tape you can recover.
>
> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Both of those media types have their own
> issues.
>

[Char Jackson]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 20:03:35 +0000, Brian Gregory
<bvdvgvrv...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 03/12/2014 03:30, Char Jackson wrote:
>>
>> Has that actually ever happened, or is it something you read about? I'd be
>> surprised to learn that it's a real concern. Again, I think we're talking
>> about pressed CDs and DVDs, not the stuff that someone recorded at home.
>
>Yes. I bought a set of six audio CDs from Amazon. I couldn't get one of
>the set to play at all, had to send them back to be replaced. Another
>set arrived with a different disc unplayable. Sent back for a refund.
>Bought a set in a local shop and finally got a usable set.

Was the playback hardware a factor? Were the CDs issued by a major label?
Were they pressed or recorded?

My niece bought a movie soundtrack CD a few years ago and I was surprised to
see that it wasn't pressed; it had clearly started its life as a writeable
blank. Fortunately, it played just fine in her home and car.

[chrisv]

Char Jackson wrote:

>My niece bought a movie soundtrack CD a few years ago and I was surprised to
>see that it wasn't pressed; it had clearly started its life as a writeable
>blank. Fortunately, it played just fine in her home and car.

I suppose that for very small production runs, that would be a more
economical method of production.

--
"one would hope (OSS) does look like the work of amateurs since they
are indeed amateurs most of the time." - "True Linux advocate"
Hadron Quark

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2014-12-03, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Char Jackson wrote:
>
>>My niece bought a movie soundtrack CD a few years ago and I was surprised to
>>see that it wasn't pressed; it had clearly started its life as a writeable
>>blank. Fortunately, it played just fine in her home and car.
>
> I suppose that for very small production runs, that would be a more
> economical method of production.
>

Amazon sells a number of works on a "print on demand" basis.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2014-12-03, Brian Gregory <bvdvgvrv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/12/2014 18:15, Slimer wrote:
> > ...
>> Thumbdrives allow you to store a crapload of MP3 and M4A files, but CDs
>> contain AIFF files which have an excellent, uncompressed quality. We're
>> comparing apples to oranges here.

You can store anything you want on computer media.

The real issue will be whether or not your target device is smart
enough to read that data off of whatever media you have selected.

3rd party hardware device support and the network effect problem is
the real issue here.

>
> Pardon?
> CDs contain raw uncompressed PCM, as do AIFF files but there are no AIFF
> headers or tail ends on a CD.

[deletia]

[Slimer]

On 03/12/2014 2:51 PM, Brian Gregory wrote:
> On 03/12/2014 18:15, Slimer wrote:
> > ...
>> Thumbdrives allow you to store a crapload of MP3 and M4A files, but CDs
>> contain AIFF files which have an excellent, uncompressed quality. We're
>> comparing apples to oranges here.
>
> Pardon?
> CDs contain raw uncompressed PCM, as do AIFF files but there are no AIFF
> headers or tail ends on a CD.
>
> Thumb drives can also contain files of raw PCM, or say FLAC which is a
> bit smaller but has the same quality. Or you can compress using your
> favourite audio codec at whatever bit-rate it takes to sound good to you.
>
> Basically thumb drives are flexible and can hold telephone quality audio
> files up to beyond CD quality.

Ah, my apologies. I forgot what the format of the uncompressed audio
was. Thanks for the correction.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Brian Gregory wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

I agree with the first part; haven't experienced the second part.

Eject, and reinsert.

--
BOFH excuse #188:

..disk or the processor is on fire.

[Brian Gregory]

They were pressed CDs.

Hardware may have been a factor. It was quite a while ago and I think I
only had access to my PC and a portable CD player and I wouldn't have
even tried in the portable because I needed to rip them to MP3.

[chrisv]

Bud Frede wrote:

> chrisv writes:

>
>> Bud Frede wrote:
>>>
>>>We should all be very glad that CD replaced the earlier media. It's
>>>superior in almost every way.
>

><snip>

>
>>
>> Good post. I agree with everything you said.
>

>A number of years ago I used to lurk in some of the rec.audio
>newsgroups. I posted from time to time and the audiophool's heads
>practically exploded if I said something about their LP records.

Yeah, it's rather remarkable how many people there are who think that
the archaic "needle wiggling in a vinyl grove" technology is superior
to CD.

I mean, if you enjoy LP's, fine, but *please* don't claim superiority.
*Please* don't spout nonsense "reasons" why digital isn't as good as
analog.

>I sometimes wonder if this is why some of the Windows fans are so
>vehemently against Linux? :-)

Hehe. Even Windows fans aren't *that* bad... To be comparable to
vinyl fans, they would have to be DOS fans. 8)

--
'But then the COLA freeloaders, amongst others, steal the code, branch
it and then make their own "Free" alternative.' - "True Linux
advocate" Hadron Quark

[Slimer]

On 04/12/2014 7:36 PM, chrisv wrote:

>> A number of years ago I used to lurk in some of the rec.audio
>> newsgroups. I posted from time to time and the audiophool's heads
>> practically exploded if I said something about their LP records.
>
> Yeah, it's rather remarkable how many people there are who think that
> the archaic "needle wiggling in a vinyl grove" technology is superior
> to CD.
>
> I mean, if you enjoy LP's, fine, but *please* don't claim superiority.
> *Please* don't spout nonsense "reasons" why digital isn't as good as
> analog.

Vinyl is technically better because an analog recording captures
everything the artist intended for the customer to hear and doesn't make
a distinction between noise and notes. As such, people will often prefer
a 24-bit 96khz FLAC of a album vinyl over a 16-bit 48khz FLAC of the
same album in CD form. There's also the fact that many of the CDs sold
since the 1990s increase the volume of the audio on the CD to attract
customers if ever that album is played in a record store. Doing that
essentially distorts the sound as loud sounds either clip or come close
to doing so and absolute silence is suddenly audible when it is not
meant to be.

In summary, the volume on CDs is often raised by the publisher rather
than by the user and that recording is therefore compromised.

[Snit]

On 12/4/14, 5:36 PM, in article b1u18apav6bphgq69...@4ax.com,

"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Bud Frede wrote:
>
>> chrisv writes:
>>
>>> Bud Frede wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We should all be very glad that CD replaced the earlier media. It's
>>>> superior in almost every way.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> Good post. I agree with everything you said.
>>
>> A number of years ago I used to lurk in some of the rec.audio
>> newsgroups. I posted from time to time and the audiophool's heads
>> practically exploded if I said something about their LP records.
>
> Yeah, it's rather remarkable how many people there are who think that
> the archaic "needle wiggling in a vinyl grove" technology is superior
> to CD.
>
> I mean, if you enjoy LP's, fine, but *please* don't claim superiority.
> *Please* don't spout nonsense "reasons" why digital isn't as good as
> analog.
>
>> I sometimes wonder if this is why some of the Windows fans are so
>> vehemently against Linux? :-)
>
> Hehe. Even Windows fans aren't *that* bad... To be comparable to
> vinyl fans, they would have to be DOS fans. 8)

I have no dog in this race, but doing a quick search shows there are
educated views that lean in both directions: <http://goo.gl/8NJOsK>.

Some interesting takes on it:
<http://goo.gl/tw0CyK> [blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com]
<http://goo.gl/ziKWFd> [vox.com]
<http://goo.gl/lSgQQQ> [gizmodo.com]



--
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[Slimer]

I have zero vinyls myself but a good friend of mine who is an absolute
audiophile is selling his gigantic CD collection (some of that to me)
and now swears by vinyl. There is apparently no comparison when it comes
to sound.

FLACs of 16-bit, 44khz files sound perfect to me though.

[Snit]

On 12/4/14, 7:41 PM, in article m5r605$89c$1...@dont-email.me, "Slimer"

<slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote:

>>>> I sometimes wonder if this is why some of the Windows fans are so
>>>> vehemently against Linux? :-)
>>>
>>> Hehe. Even Windows fans aren't *that* bad... To be comparable to
>>> vinyl fans, they would have to be DOS fans. 8)
>>
>> I have no dog in this race, but doing a quick search shows there are
>> educated views that lean in both directions: <http://goo.gl/8NJOsK>.
>>
>> Some interesting takes on it:
>> <http://goo.gl/tw0CyK> [blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com]
>> <http://goo.gl/ziKWFd> [vox.com]
>> <http://goo.gl/lSgQQQ> [gizmodo.com]
>
> I have zero vinyls myself but a good friend of mine who is an absolute
> audiophile is selling his gigantic CD collection (some of that to me)
> and now swears by vinyl. There is apparently no comparison when it comes
> to sound.
>
> FLACs of 16-bit, 44khz files sound perfect to me though.

I know people who have sworn by each - though not really talked about it
with anyone for a number of years. I have a brother who still have a large
vinyl collection though I think he just has it in boxes and rarely listens
to any of them (as in they likely have not been taken from their boxes in at
least a decade).

[Peter Köhlmann]

Slimer wrote:

> On 04/12/2014 7:36 PM, chrisv wrote:
>
>>> A number of years ago I used to lurk in some of the rec.audio
>>> newsgroups. I posted from time to time and the audiophool's heads
>>> practically exploded if I said something about their LP records.
>>
>> Yeah, it's rather remarkable how many people there are who think that
>> the archaic "needle wiggling in a vinyl grove" technology is superior
>> to CD.
>>
>> I mean, if you enjoy LP's, fine, but *please* don't claim superiority.
>> *Please* don't spout nonsense "reasons" why digital isn't as good as
>> analog.
>
> Vinyl is technically better because an analog recording captures
> everything the artist intended for the customer to hear and doesn't make
> a distinction between noise and notes.

Bullshit. Vinyl adds noise on its own.
That said, it also has some advantages. CDs will cut off sound apruptly at
about 22KHz, which will not happen with vinyl. Even though humans can't hear
that high frequencies, what they do hear is the "envelope" of the overall
sound. And high frequencies add to that. If you cut those off too early, you
(very slightly) change the overall sound

Also, CDs need their own master, not just the master tapes of the old vinyl
records. That was one of the reasons why many early CDs sounded poorly
compared to their vinyl "originals".

I still have the (rare) "Dark side of the moon" from Pink Floyd in the Half-
Speed recorded vinyl version. It was newly mastered for that record, and it
sounds much better than any available CD version

[chrisv]

> "Slimer" wrote:
>>
>> Vinyl is technically better because (nonsense snipped)

Gee, what a "surprise" to see this clueless liar spew utter nonsense.

--
"Vinyl is technically better (than CD)" - "Slimer"

[Slimer]

On 05/12/2014 3:17 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Slimer wrote:
>
>> On 04/12/2014 7:36 PM, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>>> A number of years ago I used to lurk in some of the rec.audio
>>>> newsgroups. I posted from time to time and the audiophool's heads
>>>> practically exploded if I said something about their LP records.
>>>
>>> Yeah, it's rather remarkable how many people there are who think that
>>> the archaic "needle wiggling in a vinyl grove" technology is superior
>>> to CD.
>>>
>>> I mean, if you enjoy LP's, fine, but *please* don't claim superiority.
>>> *Please* don't spout nonsense "reasons" why digital isn't as good as
>>> analog.
>>
>> Vinyl is technically better because an analog recording captures
>> everything the artist intended for the customer to hear and doesn't make
>> a distinction between noise and notes.
>
> Bullshit. Vinyl adds noise on its own.

I didn't make any comment on whether vinyl adds noise or not so I'm not
sure where we disagree here. I'm referring to the fact that the
recording itself doesn't make a distinction between the studio-level
noise and notes. In other words, it captures _everything_ and the
customer essentially gets an authentic sound.

> That said, it also has some advantages. CDs will cut off sound apruptly at
> about 22KHz, which will not happen with vinyl. Even though humans can't hear
> that high frequencies, what they do hear is the "envelope" of the overall
> sound. And high frequencies add to that. If you cut those off too early, you
> (very slightly) change the overall sound
>
> Also, CDs need their own master, not just the master tapes of the old vinyl
> records. That was one of the reasons why many early CDs sounded poorly
> compared to their vinyl "originals".
>
> I still have the (rare) "Dark side of the moon" from Pink Floyd in the Half-
> Speed recorded vinyl version. It was newly mastered for that record, and it
> sounds much better than any available CD version

And that doesn't shock me at all.

[Slimer]

On 05/12/2014 7:38 AM, chrisv wrote:
>> "Slimer" wrote:
>>>
>>> Vinyl is technically better because (nonsense snipped)
>
> Gee, what a "surprise" to see this clueless liar spew utter nonsense.

So I guess all of these links are wrong:

<http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?4645-Whoever-said-vinyl-was-better-than-CD-was-right!/page2>

<http://www.npr.org/2012/02/10/146697658/why-vinyl-sounds-better-than-cd-or-not>

<http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/02/10/2012/why-vinyl-sounds-better-than-cd-or-not.html>

<http://www.experts123.com/q/why-do-people-say-that-vinyl-lps-sound-so-much-better-than-cds.html>

Considering you don't seem to know anything about anything, perhaps you
should shut the fuck up and let the grown-ups speak.

[Slimer]

On 05/12/2014 7:38 AM, chrisv wrote:

>> "Slimer" wrote:
>>>
>>> Vinyl is technically better because (nonsense snipped)
>
> Gee, what a "surprise" to see this clueless liar spew utter nonsense.

Another one, just for my incompetent friend chrisv:

<http://www.denverpost.com/coloradosunday/ci_11968257>

[chrisv]

Bud Frede wrote:

> "Slimer" quacked:

>>
>> I still have the (rare) "Dark side of the moon" from Pink Floyd in the Half-
>> Speed recorded vinyl version. It was newly mastered for that record, and it
>> sounds much better than any available CD version
>

>I'm glad that it sounds better to you. Enjoy it. I'd speculate that
>you're hearing some type of euphonic distortion or perhaps a
>psychosomatic effect, but that's no barrier to you enjoying whatever you
>like.

Different mastering can and will make a *huge* difference. Those
"audiophiles" who refuse to have tone controls in their systems are
especially at the mercy of what some engineer thought was best.

Those early CD's that used LP masters.... FFS, what kind of drugs
were they on? Even if they could be so *incredibly* incompetent to
not know that the new technology did *not* use precompensation, didn't
anyone notice or care that the result had *no* fscking bass?

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Bud Frede wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> But you'll object that you went to an audiologist and the tests showed
> you can hear to 20K. Look at how high the level had to be before it was
> audible. There is nothing in music that is going to have such relatively
> elevated high frequencies at your seat in a concert hall.

Audiologists measure only up to 8K, except in lab experiments.

--
The misnaming of fields of study is so common as to lead to what might be
general systems laws. For example, Frank Harary once suggested the law that
any field that had the word "science" in its name was guaranteed thereby
not to be a science. He would cite as examples Military Science, Library
Science, Political Science, Homemaking Science, Social Science, and Computer
Science. Discuss the generality of this law, and possible reasons for its
predictive power.
-- Gerald Weinberg, "An Introduction to General Systems
Thinking"

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>Bud Frede wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> But you'll object that you went to an audiologist and the tests showed
>> you can hear to 20K. Look at how high the level had to be before it was
>> audible. There is nothing in music that is going to have such relatively
>> elevated high frequencies at your seat in a concert hall.
>
>Audiologists measure only up to 8K, except in lab experiments.

That sounds low, until one remembers that it's not a linear scale.
It's only one octave from 8k to 16k.

Then, going from 16k to 22k is only 1/2 octave.

There really isn't much up there, to miss.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Speech is like 4k max, and that is what audiologists care about most.

When I took some of my cassette tapes and sampled them (using Windows NT 4
and CoolEdit), I sampled at 22k. That was plenty for cassettes.

--
* aj thinks Kb^Zzz ought to pick different things to dream about than
general resolutions and policy changes.
<Kb^Zzz> aj - tell me about it, this is a Bad Sign

[Brian Gregory]

On 02/12/2014 00:43, Brian Gregory wrote:
> The only problem I can remember with the current VLC 2.1.5 was that I
> found a video file where seeking back and forth in it totally failed
> taking me to somewhere totally different from where I wanted. Media
> Player Classic Home Cinema played it perfectly.
>
> Not so long ago I remember many versions of VLC on Windows couldn't even
> play an audio CD without crashing. It was like the developers weren't
> talking to each other, it would get fixed for one version and the next
> version it'd be broken again. I think it was the 2.0.x versions.
>

I've just noticed VLC 2.1.5 64 bit can't play DVDs without nasty
corruption on the screen.

I guess it might be the particular Nvidia drivers I'm using at the
moment but other players play DVDs fine.

Anyway at present I'm becoming less and less impressed by VLC.

[Slimer]

On 2014-12-06 8:50 PM, Brian Gregory wrote:
> On 02/12/2014 00:43, Brian Gregory wrote:
>> The only problem I can remember with the current VLC 2.1.5 was that I
>> found a video file where seeking back and forth in it totally failed
>> taking me to somewhere totally different from where I wanted. Media
>> Player Classic Home Cinema played it perfectly.
>>
>> Not so long ago I remember many versions of VLC on Windows couldn't even
>> play an audio CD without crashing. It was like the developers weren't
>> talking to each other, it would get fixed for one version and the next
>> version it'd be broken again. I think it was the 2.0.x versions.
>>
>
> I've just noticed VLC 2.1.5 64 bit can't play DVDs without nasty
> corruption on the screen.
>
> I guess it might be the particular Nvidia drivers I'm using at the
> moment but other players play DVDs fine.
>
> Anyway at present I'm becoming less and less impressed by VLC.

You're missing the libdvdcss or libdvdcss2 package, VLC itself plays
DVDs fine as long as you have the necessary package. It might also be
called libdvdread4.

--
Slimer
OpenMedia, Wikipedia & Hope For Paws Supporter

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Brian Gregory wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> I've just noticed VLC 2.1.5 64 bit can't play DVDs without nasty
> corruption on the screen.
>
> I guess it might be the particular Nvidia drivers I'm using at the
> moment but other players play DVDs fine.
>
> Anyway at present I'm becoming less and less impressed by VLC.

That's because you're using it on Windows. And Windows isn't quite there
yet with 64-bit. Microsoft doesn't even have a 64-bit version of Visual
Studio yet, as far as I know.

--
Jack-and-Jill Party:
A Squire tradition; baby showers to which both men and
women friends are invited as opposed to only women. Doubled
purchasing power of bisexual attendance brings gift values up to
Eisenhower-era standards.
-- Douglas Coupland, "Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated
Culture"

[Peter Köhlmann]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Brian Gregory wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> I've just noticed VLC 2.1.5 64 bit can't play DVDs without nasty
>> corruption on the screen.
>>
>> I guess it might be the particular Nvidia drivers I'm using at the
>> moment but other players play DVDs fine.
>>
>> Anyway at present I'm becoming less and less impressed by VLC.
>
> That's because you're using it on Windows. And Windows isn't quite there
> yet with 64-bit. Microsoft doesn't even have a 64-bit version of Visual
> Studio yet, as far as I know.
>

Well, windows will probably never "be there" with 64 bits. Way too much
software exists only in 32bit versions. He is even running Mozilla in the
32bit version on his 64bit wintendo. Lame. Extremely lame. MS lame

Windows also has nothing like the x32-ABI provided by linux (OSX also
doesn't have it), where you run aplications in a mode where registers and
FP-Registers are used in 64bit mode, and floating point is using SSE, but
pointers are 32 bits wide and memory per process is limited to 4 GBytes.
This allows for applications which have all the advantages of 64bits, but
not the disadvantage (eventually slightly higher memory footprint when using
lots of pointers) when the application has no need for huge amounts of
memory