MP3 bitrates - Cassette-digital transfer
Leo Andrews
I thought it might be good to open this question up to everyone.
Like a lot of people, I've got a stack of cassettes from the 80s and 90s
and reckon it's time to transfer them to digital.
TEAC/Tascam do a product - the AD-800 which claims to be able to copy
from tape to MP3 but its encoded files are only 128k. That said,
cassette quality is hardly fit for broadcast.
With than in mind, do we think 128k is a high enough bitrate or should I
consider another approach?
Leo
John Williamson
128K MP3 is about the same generation loss as copying to another
cassette tape and playing the copy back.
If you can live with that, then the AD-800 will be good enough. If you
want to minimise quality loss, then a better cassette deck with vernier
(preferably automatic) azimuth adjustment and correctly aligned noise
reduction encoded at 192K or 128-224K VBR would be about as good as
playing the originals on the AD-800. The trade off is between
convenience, quality and time, and with the AD-800, it seems from the
advert on the website that it will only output mp3 to USB as a stream,
so you need to use a computer to record and edit the tracks anyway. Use
the line out, and a decent USB ADC, and get better quality in the same
time for a minimal extra cost. The extra storage costs for the better
quality are negligible at current HD costs.
Or value your time at the minimum wage, and check if the tracks can be
downloaded at a sensible price from one of the commercial services. 75%
of the tracks on commercial cassettes I have can be obtained that way,
and someone's done all the hard work for me, starting from a much better
quality source.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
hank alrich
Why take a compromised format and furhter compromise it in transfer?
Capture as wav files and convert to a higher mp3 bitrate later. Even
320kbps saves huge amounts of storage space, though I generally just
live with wav files.
--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman
Mark
it depends...
take your best tape and try it at 128k and compare to the original
and see if YOU can hear a difference. If you can then you decide if
that difference is enough to warrant a higher bit rate.
its also depends on the material
and the value of the recording i.e. is it irreplaceable etc.
The biggest impact on the sound quality from a cassette dub will not
be the MPEG bit rate, the most important factor will be the quality of
the playback used to capture it. Things like high freq rolloff due to
azimuth errors, noise, wow, flutter, speed accuracy, and proper
setting of Dolby..these things are much more significnat compared to
the 128k bit rate.
I'm going to throw these questions into the mix too.....
Assumming we are talking about commercial taps and you have already
paid for and own the tape versions:
Do you feel you have the moral/legal right to also have a digital
format copy of the same material for you own use?
If you think you do, does it make a difference morally/leagally how
you obtained that digital copy? i.e. does it make a difference if you
actually made the copy yourself or if you downloaded the copy off the
internet?
Mark
Arny Krueger
news:n1Zqp.19760$cx.1...@newsfe24.ams2
I don't think this is the whole story.
The Teac AD 800 is a cassette player with a USB port.
The MP3 encoding would appear to be a function that takes place on the PC it
is attached to.
I don't know about any software that might be packaged with it, but its
simple enough to obtain suitable software for making MP3s at any reasonable
bitrate as freeware.
IOW, if you can download and install say, Audacity you can use it to create
MP3s at any standard bitrate.
John Williamson
record mp3 files directly to a USB stick from CD, cassette or line in,
but unless I missed something in the manual, it will not stream mp3 data
to a PC. So, you can just about get away without using a PC by using the
built-in encoder and the unit's rudimentary editing facilities.
My earlier opinion that the OP would be better off buying a better
cassette deck and a half decent ADC with Audacity or some other
recording program still stands.
Leo Andrews
> Assumming we are talking about commercial taps and you have already
> paid for and own the tape versions:
>
> Do you feel you have the moral/legal right to also have a digital
> format copy of the same material for you own use?
>
Big assumption. These are recordings of my own material actually, not
commercial.
Scott Dorsey
I wouldn't transfer it to anything with lossy encoding. You keep an
unencoded master, then mp3 encode to make something to put in the car.
The hard part of the deal is getting the azimuth right on the tape and
keeping it right. Oh, and dealing with the Dolby mistracking. The digital
side is easy, just make a 44.1 wav file.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Leo Andrews
> It does on-board encoding, and on reading the manual, I see that it will
> record mp3 files directly to a USB stick from CD, cassette or line in,
> but unless I missed something in the manual, it will not stream mp3 data
> to a PC. So, you can just about get away without using a PC by using the
> built-in encoder and the unit's rudimentary editing facilities.
>
> My earlier opinion that the OP would be better off buying a better
> cassette deck and a half decent ADC with Audacity or some other
> recording program still stands.
>
You're right, you would need to copy it from USB stick to your PC and do
and processing in Audition afterwards. It's a pain that product only
encodes at 128k. There don't seem to be other products on the market of
reasonable quality. There's an ION/Alesis but honestly would you trust a
TEAC tape deck or an ION? I'd trust TEAC although happy to be proven wrong.
John Williamson
If you've enough cash available for as long as it takes to do the
transfers, a Nakamichi Dragon with the auto azimuth adjust feature is
the holy grail for the deck, and any reasonable ADC will be good enough
to encode the signal. Then you sell the Nakamichi on for what you paid
for it, more or less.
I Use an Ion TAPE2PC unit, which is good enough for most of the tapes
I've got, I turn the Dolby off and use a plugin for Winamp
http://www.hansvanzutphen.com/tape_restore_live/
to replace it, as it can be set up to cope with maladjusted recordings.
geoff
Yep - go to as used-CD store and buy the CDs, where available. That way
you'll get better everything and save a lot of your time. Un less you have
a surfeit of spare time. Use that for transferring the unobtanium cassttes.
Is it just me, but I do object the current near universal mis-use of the
word 'digital' wrt to music, to mean preceptually encoded data-reduced
versions.
geoff
geoff
I'd suggest FLAC or WAV.
geoff
Neil Gould
>
> Is it just me, but I do object the current near universal mis-use of
> the word 'digital' wrt to music, to mean preceptually encoded
> data-reduced versions.
>
or media format, results in "perceptually encoded data-reduced versions" of
the actual performance, I don't see much reason to complain.
--
Neil
ChrisCoaster
Do you have the user manual? I do not for a second believe that the
bitrate on that thing is "stuck" at 128k. In MP3 terms, I consider
128k to be barely adequate for recorded SPEECH, let alone music! My
bare minimum for music on MP3 nowadays is 192kbps, and I prefer 256k
or above. I'd say 1/3 of my mp3 collection is 128k, the rest is 160
or higher. That is because back in 2007 I did not pay attention to
bitrates. LOL!
But seriously, I did look for this unit's manual on line, could not
find it even at the TEAC/Tascam website, all they had was a pdf of the
"brochure", which is just a glossy sales instrument. I would also
suggest you look at connecting your best tape deck to something like
this: http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=1994&brandID=4
There you can select mp3 bitrates up to 320K, or record to wav if you
want to really archive your cassettes. I used the Zoom H4 and while
the menus aren't exactly "Mac-easy" to navigate once you know where
the basic stuff is you'll be up and running within an hour or two.
Good luck!
-CC
Scott Dorsey
By that argument, why even record at all?
Neil Gould
> Neil Gould <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>> geoff wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it just me, but I do object the current near universal mis-use of
>>> the word 'digital' wrt to music, to mean preceptually encoded
>>> data-reduced versions.
>>
>> Considering that the recording process, regardless of the technical
>> approach or media format, results in "perceptually encoded
>> data-reduced versions" of the actual performance, I don't see much
>> reason to complain.
>
> By that argument, why even record at all?
>
personally, culturally, and in several other ways valid. OTOH, the
limitations of a process or medium is not a valid reason NOT to record.
--
best regards,
Neil
Scott Dorsey
It's not a valid reason to add more limitations, either, though.
Neil Gould
I read Geoff's comment as a complaint about the use of a term that describes
a digital format because that format is more restrictive than another
digital format. If that's what he meant, then not only is the term "digital"
appropriate and not a mis-use, but there's a chain of degredation that
begins with using any currently available tools to capture an acoustic
event. As I see it, regardless of whether the available tools are a wax
cylinder or a 192 bit recorder, one should just do the best with what one
has.
--
best regards,
Neil
Scott Dorsey
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Neil Gould <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> Neil Gould <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>>>>> geoff wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it just me, but I do object the current near universal mis-use
>>>>>> of the word 'digital' wrt to music, to mean preceptually encoded
>>>>>> data-reduced versions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering that the recording process, regardless of the technical
>>>>> approach or media format, results in "perceptually encoded
>>>>> data-reduced versions" of the actual performance, I don't see much
>>>>> reason to complain.
>>>>
>>>> By that argument, why even record at all?
>>>>
>>> Well, we record for many reasons, and as far as I can tell, most of
>>> them are personally, culturally, and in several other ways valid.
>>> OTOH, the limitations of a process or medium is not a valid reason
>>> NOT to record.
>>
>> It's not a valid reason to add more limitations, either, though.
>>
>Hmm. What gave you the impression that I was advocating adding limitations?
I gathered that your argument was that, since recording is inherently an
imperfect representation of the original performance, that there was no
reason to avoid data reduction and other things that would make it more
imperfect.
Neil Gould
cleared it up for other readers of the thread. There have always been
reduced-quality formats for audio, along with market-based justifications
for their existance. As I see it, the task is to understand the limitations
in order to optimize the audio representation in a format.
--
best regards,
Neil
geoff
> I read Geoff's comment as a complaint about the use of a term that
> describes a digital format because that format is more restrictive
> than another digital format. If that's what he meant, then not only
> is the term "digital" appropriate and not a mis-use, but there's a
> chain of degredation that begins with using any currently available
> tools to capture an acoustic event. As I see it, regardless of
> whether the available tools are a wax cylinder or a 192 bit recorder,
> one should just do the best with what one has.
I was complaining that the term 'digital recording' is being erroneously
used to describe dat-reduced perceptually encoded (and inferior) methods.
Thus tarnishing 'digital' with the same brush as mp3' etc.
geoff
PStamler
What's erroneous about it? An mp3 sure as hell ain't analog.
Peace,
Paul
Neil Gould
*is* a digital format, so it's not a misuse. If there's a take-away, it
might be that "digital" doesn't have any greater implicit quality associated
with it than "analog" or any other format. I don't see that as a problem.
--
best regards,
Neil
hank alrich
I'm sorry, sir, but we no longer need your services here in the
marketing department. Have a nice day!
Neil Gould
> Neil Gould <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>
>> geoff wrote:
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>> I read Geoff's comment as a complaint about the use of a term that
>>>> describes a digital format because that format is more restrictive
>>>> than another digital format. If that's what he meant, then not only
>>>> is the term "digital" appropriate and not a mis-use, but there's a
>>>> chain of degredation that begins with using any currently available
>>>> tools to capture an acoustic event. As I see it, regardless of
>>>> whether the available tools are a wax cylinder or a 192 bit
>>>> recorder, one should just do the best with what one has.
>>>
>>> I was complaining that the term 'digital recording' is being
>>> erroneously used to describe dat-reduced perceptually encoded (and
>>> inferior) methods.
>>>
>>> Thus tarnishing 'digital' with the same brush as mp3' etc.
>>>
>> Yes, that's how I understood your comment. Howver, as Paul points
>> out, mp3 *is* a digital format, so it's not a misuse. If there's a
>> take-away, it might be that "digital" doesn't have any greater
>> implicit quality associated with it than "analog" or any other
>> format. I don't see that as a problem.
>
> I'm sorry, sir, but we no longer need your services here in the
> marketing department. Have a nice day!
8-D !
--
best regards,
Neil
Arny Krueger
news:0b9e5e7c-3567-42af...@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com
IME MP3s have a lot worse reputation than their actual sound. If you subject
most rabid MP3 critics to a blind comparison involving 192 or 320 k MP3s,
they will be amazed. If you pick your material, 128k MP3s can fool a lot of
people.
> What's erroneous about it? An mp3 sure as hell ain't
> analog.
They are a new kind of fish or fowl - digital, but not CD-quality.
Mike Rivers
> IME MP3s have a lot worse reputation than their actual sound.
That's true, if you look at their reputation among audio
"professionals." The more things you say suck, the more
people believe you're a professional. Just ask Apple how bad
MP3s are. ;)
> They are a new kind of fish or fowl - digital, but not CD-quality.
So are a lot of CDs.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
geoff
But what gets lost to the general public is that digital (as in PCM) sure
ain't MP3 (etc) either.
geoff
geoff
Even an MP3 isn't digital when you are listening to it.
\LPCM can represent analogue audio as well or better than analogue recording
and reproduction techniques. Data-reduced compression schemes like MP3
can't.
Tarring all 'digital' with the MP3 vbrush is unfair, and inconcise.
geoff
geoff
Neil Gould
> Neil Gould wrote:
>> geoff wrote:
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>> I read Geoff's comment as a complaint about the use of a term that
>>>> describes a digital format because that format is more restrictive
>>>> than another digital format. If that's what he meant, then not only
>>>> is the term "digital" appropriate and not a mis-use, but there's a
>>>> chain of degredation that begins with using any currently available
>>>> tools to capture an acoustic event. As I see it, regardless of
>>>> whether the available tools are a wax cylinder or a 192 bit
>>>> recorder, one should just do the best with what one has.
>>>
>>> I was complaining that the term 'digital recording' is being
>>> erroneously used to describe dat-reduced perceptually encoded (and
>>> inferior) methods.
>>>
>>> Thus tarnishing 'digital' with the same brush as mp3' etc.
>>>
>> Yes, that's how I understood your comment. Howver, as Paul points
>> out, mp3 *is* a digital format, so it's not a misuse. If there's a
>> take-away, it might be that "digital" doesn't have any greater
>> implicit quality associated with it than "analog" or any other
>> format. I don't see that as a problem.
>
> Even an MP3 isn't digital when you are listening to it.
>
lacks digital inputs, so all my I/O is analog... YMV?
> \LPCM can represent analogue audio as well or better than analogue
> recording and reproduction techniques. Data-reduced compression
> schemes like MP3 can't.
>
> Tarring all 'digital' with the MP3 vbrush is unfair, and inconcise.
>
Consumers were more than satisfied with the audio cassette for decades, and
I suspect it wasn't because they thought it represented the pinnacle of
analog technology. MP3 is simply the current day equivalent of the cassette,
and it is superior to that format. So, I really don't understand your
complaint.
--
best regards,
Neil
Peter Larsen
> Hi,
> I thought it might be good to open this question up to everyone.
> Like a lot of people, I've got a stack of cassettes from the 80s and
> 90s and reckon it's time to transfer them to digital.
> TEAC/Tascam do a product - the AD-800 which claims to be able to copy
> from tape to MP3 but its encoded files are only 128k. That said,
> cassette quality is hardly fit for broadcast.
> With than in mind, do we think 128k is a high enough bitrate or
> should I consider another approach?
It is not enough in as much as there is not a compact casette tape on this
planet that does not need some kind of treatment after transfer. In
principle a bit rate reduced format can be enough for the end result, but
you will probably regret it if you do not store in a full wordlenght format.
> Leo
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
geoff
>> Tarring all 'digital' with the MP3 vbrush is unfair, and inconcise.
>>
> Consumers were more than satisfied with the audio cassette for
> decades, and I suspect it wasn't because they thought it represented
> the pinnacle of analog technology. MP3 is simply the current day
> equivalent of the cassette, and it is superior to that format. So, I
> really don't understand your complaint.
So let's encourage to the general public the perception that the term
'analogue' refers solely to cassette ?
geoff
geoff
Actually (replying to myself !) the 'general public' seems to assume
'cassette tape' , which is just about as bad, buthardly a current issue ;-(
geoff
Neil Gould
to associate an audio format with a delivery medium at all, given the fact
that there are multiple simultaneous delivery media for any audio format?
--
best regards,
Neil
Peter Larsen
> geoff wrote:
>> So let's encourage to the general public the perception that the term
>> 'analogue' refers solely to cassette?
> That is a very strange conclusion to draw, geoff. Why do you feel the
> need to associate an audio format with a delivery medium at all,
> given the fact that there are multiple simultaneous delivery media
> for any audio format?
Methinks you misread what he wrote.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
ChrisCoaster
The more things you say suck, the more
> people believe you're a professional. Just ask Apple how bad
> MP3s are. ;)
> interesting audio stuff
_____________________
And, the more times someone says Obama was not born in the USA, the
more "credible" that source becomes in the eyes of the gullible. Just
ask Fox News!
-CC
PS: You are absolutely right Mike - just illustrating a just-as-real
parellel to what you said. :)
Neil Gould
previous posts in that thread, Peter? Geoff previously stated that it is a
misuse of the term "digital" when referring to mp3 format. I'm rebutting
that notion by saying that not only are mp3 files "digital", but that there
has never been an association between formats (analog and digital in this
case) and delivery media, and that such associations would not be useful. Do
you disagree?
--
best regards,
Neil
Peter Larsen
> Peter Larsen wrote:
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>> geoff wrote:
>>>> So let's encourage to the general public the perception that the
>>>> term 'analogue' refers solely to cassette?
>>> That is a very strange conclusion to draw, geoff. Why do you feel
>>> the need to associate an audio format with a delivery medium at all,
>>> given the fact that there are multiple simultaneous delivery media
>>> for any audio format?
>> Methinks you misread what he wrote.
> I know it's tough when things are snipped heavily, but did you read
> the previous posts in that thread, Peter? Geoff previously stated
> that it is a misuse of the term "digital" when referring to mp3
> format.
I didn't care to read every single word and comment only on the quoted.
I'm rebutting that notion by saying that not only are mp3
> files "digital", but that there has never been an association between
> formats (analog and digital in this case) and delivery media, and
> that such associations would not be useful. Do you disagree?
Geoff points out that it already is perceived by joe everyman that analogue
refers only to casette, not at all improbable and suggests that said
misperception should not be strengthened.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Neil Gould
> Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> Peter Larsen wrote:
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>
>>>> geoff wrote:
>
>>>>> So let's encourage to the general public the perception that the
>>>>> term 'analogue' refers solely to cassette?
>
>>>> That is a very strange conclusion to draw, geoff. Why do you feel
>>>> the need to associate an audio format with a delivery medium at
>>>> all, given the fact that there are multiple simultaneous delivery
>>>> media for any audio format?
>
>>> Methinks you misread what he wrote.
>
>> I know it's tough when things are snipped heavily, but did you read
>> the previous posts in that thread, Peter? Geoff previously stated
>> that it is a misuse of the term "digital" when referring to mp3
>> format.
>
> I didn't care to read every single word and comment only on the
> quoted.
>
it in the context of the thread, and so far, there is no evidence that my
understanding is incorrect.
> I'm rebutting that notion by saying that not only are mp3
>> files "digital", but that there has never been an association between
>> formats (analog and digital in this case) and delivery media, and
>> that such associations would not be useful. Do you disagree?
>
> Geoff points out that it already is perceived by joe everyman that
> analogue refers only to casette, not at all improbable and suggests
> that said misperception should not be strengthened.
>
Strengthening or weakening general perceptions is not likely to be
accomplished by creating non-existant distinctions between delivery formats.
To claim that an mp3 file is not digital is simply incorrect, and incorrect
information seldom clarifies matters.
--
best regards,
Neil
alex
> Why take a compromised format and furhter compromise it in transfer?
> Capture as wav files and convert to a higher mp3 bitrate later. Even
> 320kbps saves huge amounts of storage space, though I generally just
> live with wav files.
do you know FLAC? same quality as wav but half size, why not..
alex
> Hi,
>
> I thought it might be good to open this question up to everyone.
>
> Like a lot of people, I've got a stack of cassettes from the 80s and 90s
> and reckon it's time to transfer them to digital.
>
> TEAC/Tascam do a product - the AD-800 which claims to be able to copy
> from tape to MP3 but its encoded files are only 128k. That said,
> cassette quality is hardly fit for broadcast.
>
> With than in mind, do we think 128k is a high enough bitrate or should I
> consider another approach?
>
128kbit/s is considered a low bitrate for mp3 and compact-cassette is
considered a very low quality for analogue audio.
So both loose something. Sadly they doesn't loose quality the same way.
For sample, cassette typically looses the high end part and heavily
increase the noise, then the mp3 algorithm uses a very big part of his
bitrate to store that noise, then uses the remaining bits to store a
very approximate perceptual image of the sound.
128 may be fine for some use by directly coding clean original CD music,
but may expose all his limits in the attempt to deal with a very complex
signal produced by a noisly cassette recording.
So a big part of the already low bitrate is used to store the main
defect of the cassette, leaving a smaller part for the "real" music.
I suggest you to acquire the cassette in a uncompressed format, do your
best to carefully reduce the hiss by filtering, and then, once you're
satisfied, encode it to mp3.
No all-in-the-box product can reach this quality level.
hank alrich
> Il 18/04/2011 18.22, hank alrich ha scritto:
> > Why take a compromised format and furhter compromise it in transfer?
> > Capture as wav files and convert to a higher mp3 bitrate later. Even
> > 320kbps saves huge amounts of storage space, though I generally just
> > live with wav files.
> do you know FLAC?
Yes.
> same quality as wav but half size, why not..
My time is important enough that having what I need to work with
immediately at hand is worth the extra disc space.
I don't need thousands of songs on the laptop.
geoff
I don't. Unfortunately the general public appear to. That is the issue.
geoff
geoff
> Peter Larsen wrote:
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>>> geoff wrote:
>>
>>>> So let's encourage to the general public the perception that the
>>>> term 'analogue' refers solely to cassette?
>>
>>> That is a very strange conclusion to draw, geoff. Why do you feel
>>> the need to associate an audio format with a delivery medium at all,
>>> given the fact that there are multiple simultaneous delivery media
>>> for any audio format?
>>
>> Methinks you misread what he wrote.
>>
> I know it's tough when things are snipped heavily, but did you read
> the previous posts in that thread, Peter? Geoff previously stated
> that it is a misuse of the term "digital" when referring to mp3
> format.
No - I said it is a misuse of the term 'digital' when it almost exclusively
understood to mean data-reduced media such as MP3, and gives the larger,
more accurate, defintion of 'digital' a Bad Name. Or otherwise unduly
elevates MP3(etc) to a quality-status above that which it deserves.
geoff
ChrisCoaster
>
> - Show quoted text -
__________________________________
Fortunate for me I can't hear squat above 14kHz(where most mp3
compression starts) so I'm afraid it doesn't affect me. I suppose I
*would* notice excessive masking if being used - such as a guitar solo
over a bass line, etc. And I notice a slight improvement in
attacks(transients) in 256k and up as compared to 128k, particularly
in the lows.
But to keep the Foxes at bay, yes, lossy as mp3 is, it IS a digital
format.
-ChrisCoaster
geoff
> Fortunate for me I can't hear squat above 14kHz(where most mp3
> compression starts) so I'm afraid it doesn't affect me. I suppose I
> *would* notice excessive masking if being used - such as a guitar solo
> over a bass line, etc. And I notice a slight improvement in
> attacks(transients) in 256k and up as compared to 128k, particularly
> in the lows.
>
> But to keep the Foxes at bay, yes, lossy as mp3 is, it IS a digital
> format.
You are totally wrong about MP3 compression only affecting high frequencies,
like over 14K. Take a listen to anything with subtle sound components and
then listen again to the full version. Listen for subtle harmonics and
ambience. Acoustic guitars are very telling.
geoff
Neil Gould
digital files, but THEY ARE digital files, so calling them digital files is
the CORRECT usage of the term. The masses won't be enightened with
misinformation.
--
best regards,
Neil
Mike Rivers
> No - I said it is a misuse of the term 'digital' when it almost exclusively
> understood to mean data-reduced media such as MP3, and gives the larger,
> more accurate, defintion of 'digital' a Bad Name. Or otherwise unduly
> elevates MP3(etc) to a quality-status above that which it deserves.
Why are you associating "digital" with "quality?" Is it
because the general public does? That "digital" with no
other qualifiers automatically means "sounds better than
analog?" Sadly, I think that this is indeed the popular
conception of what "digital" means when speaking about sound
and audio, and not the means to the end (which could be good
or bad).
It would be better if Joe Public argued that MP3 files sound
better (or worse) than (analog - he probably doesn't know
that there are digital) cassettes, and some do. Others don't
care, but see the difference as primary physical in terms of
what they need to carry around in order to be surrounded by
music all the time.
As for me, I'd rather listen to a 128 kbps MP3 file from a
properly digitally recorded source than listen to a cassette
copy made on or played on a budget priced portable
recorder/player. To me the difference isn't between analog
and digital, it's between flutter and no flutter. If I was
comparing a 32 kbps on-line streaming audio source with a
mediocre cassette, I think I'd prefer the cassette because
the tradeoff would be flutter versus the gargley
"underwater" sound. But it's all a matter of personal
preference.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
ChrisCoaster
Not totally - I DID mention applied masking if you completely read my
post. It's just that from a purely spectral P O V, as you downgrade
from WAV>320>128> to say, uh, 80kb, the high end shows the severest
degredation. I am however aware of what you mentioned, along with the
generally metallic presence heard on lower rates, kind of like
listening to the underwater speakers in an Olympic training pool(!)
-CC
ChrisCoaster
> interesting audio stuff
____________________
And les't not forget the thousands of high-bit mp3s and WAVs out there
encoded from a low-bit mp3! I've run into altogether too much of that
sh#t! I right click on its properties and it says 320kb and it sounds
like a 64bit podcast. LOL! The stuff people get away with....
-CC
Mike Rivers
> And les't not forget the thousands of high-bit mp3s and WAVs out there
> encoded from a low-bit mp3!
I almost did that the other day. I was editing a concert
(24-bit 44.1 kHz file) in Sound Forge, and after I finished
(about 2-1/2 hours), clicked on Save As, gave it a new file
name, and clicked OK, not noticing that it was saving as an
MP3 file. Sound Forge remembers the last format you saved
(obviously the last time I used this copy, it was to create
an MP3 file) and that's what it does until you change it.
When I went to open the file in CD Architect and all I could
find was an MP3, my blood curdling scream could be heard for
blocks.
> I right click on its properties and it says 320kb and it sounds
> like a 64bit podcast. LOL! The stuff people get away with....
Well, there have been a lot of CDs made from analog tape,
some even from cassette.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
Arny Krueger
news:iov0lj$51s$1...@dont-email.me
> Well, there have been a lot of CDs made from analog tape,
> some even from cassette.
Not to mention all of the SACDs and DVD-As that were made from CDs and
analog tapes.
geoff
> It would only be a "misuse of the term digital" if mp3 files were not
> digital files, but THEY ARE digital files, so calling them digital
> files is the CORRECT usage of the term. The masses won't be
> enightened with misinformation.
You seemyet again to miss my point. I'll try again, so read slowly.
It is sad that the general public assumes any music described as 'digital'
to be of a similar nature to MP3.
geoff
geoff
> On 4/22/2011 7:39 PM, geoff wrote:
>
>> No - I said it is a misuse of the term 'digital' when it almost
>> exclusively understood to mean data-reduced media such as MP3, and
>> gives the larger, more accurate, defintion of 'digital' a Bad Name. Or
>> otherwise unduly elevates MP3(etc) to a quality-status above that
>> which it deserves.
>
> Why are you associating "digital" with "quality?" Is it
> because the general public does? That "digital" with no
> other qualifiers automatically means "sounds better than
> analog?"
Not at all. Digital is the medium. IThe music contained therein can sound as
good as, or in many cases better than, the analogue represations.
>Sadly, I think that this is indeed the popular
> conception of what "digital" means when speaking about sound
> and audio, and not the means to the end (which could be good
> or bad).
Thrue, and what is saddweer is they they a generally refriing to MP3 or iPod
quality 'digital'.
> It would be better if Joe Public argued that MP3 files sound
> better (or worse) than (analog - he probably doesn't know
> that there are digital) cassettes, and some do.
YES !!!!!
geoff
geoff
> __________________________
> Not totally - I DID mention applied masking if you completely read my
> post. It's just that from a purely spectral P O V, as you downgrade
> from WAV>320>128> to say, uh, 80kb, the high end shows the severest
> degredation. I am however aware of what you mentioned, along with the
> generally metallic presence heard on lower rates, kind of like
> listening to the underwater speakers in an Olympic training pool(!)
>
Like "I don't remember a phaser on that track."
geoff
John Williamson
audio meant CD, and nothing else.
The fact that all their phone calls used digital audio completely passed
them by.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Neil Gould
> Neil Gould wrote:
>> It would only be a "misuse of the term digital" if mp3 files were not
>> digital files, but THEY ARE digital files, so calling them digital
>> files is the CORRECT usage of the term. The masses won't be
>> enightened with misinformation.
>
> You seemyet again to miss my point. I'll try again, so read slowly.
>
problem with my reading abilities.
> It is sad that the general public assumes any music described as
> 'digital' to be of a similar nature to MP3.
>
The quality of mp3 audio would only make a difference to those that care
about the differences, and those that care can grasp those differences quite
easily. Meanwhile, people creating music can sell more of it because for so
many, those differences just don't matter, and in many cases, for good
reason.
--
Neil
ChrisCoaster
IOW: MP3 is digital's "lowest common denominator". :D
-CC
ChrisCoaster
Well all I can say is when you have to encode to mp3 use the highest
bitrates as space will allow.
As I said before owing to my own personal limitations the difference
between bitrates ceases to exist above 192kb. But I still seek 256kb
and higher just to be *safe*.
I have at least matured to the point that I no longer ascribe to the
"you can fit 2000 songs on XYZ player!" That capacity comes at a
cost.
And if you use a source such as Limewire what you are actually getting
might not be what is indicated. Someone can encode all their 96k and
128k up to 256 or 320, upload them to LW, and most folks wouldn't be
wise to it!
-CC
Mike Rivers
> You seemyet again to miss my point. I'll try again, so read slowly.
>
> It is sad that the general public assumes any music described as 'digital'
> to be of a similar nature to MP3.
There really isn't much point in talking about the general
public around here. They aren't us. I suspect that today's
version of the general public doesn't think of "digital"
when they think about musical content. If they can't hold it
in their hand, it's an "MP3" no matter what the actual
digital format.
They may not be correct, but there sure are a lot more of
them than there are of us.
Neil Gould
> On Apr 24, 7:30 am, "Neil Gould" <n...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>> geoff wrote:
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>> It would only be a "misuse of the term digital" if mp3 files were
>>>> not digital files, but THEY ARE digital files, so calling them
>>>> digital files is the CORRECT usage of the term. The masses won't be
>>>> enightened with misinformation.
>>
>>> You seemyet again to miss my point. I'll try again, so read slowly.
>>
>> If your misuse of the language doesn't convey your intent, that is
>> not a problem with my reading abilities.
>>
>>> It is sad that the general public assumes any music described as
>>> 'digital' to be of a similar nature to MP3.
>>
>> The quality of mp3 audio would only make a difference to those that
>> care about the differences, and those that care can grasp those
>> differences quite easily. Meanwhile, people creating music can sell
>> more of it because for so many, those differences just don't matter,
>> and in many cases, for good reason.
>>
>
> bitrates as space will allow.
> As I said before owing to my own personal limitations the difference
> between bitrates ceases to exist above 192kb. But I still seek 256kb
> and higher just to be *safe*.
>
or completely unaware of the details of the audio file. An extreme example;
when choosing an e-book to listen to on a long drive, my main interest is in
getting it in as compact a form as possible. Audio quality doesn't even
figure into the equation, since even the lowest bit rate is likely to be
adequate for the content. If it's loaded on an mp3 player, there might be
plenty of room left over for some higher bitrate music files.
--
best regards,
Neil
Les Cargill
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 4/22/2011 7:39 PM, geoff wrote:
>>
>>> No - I said it is a misuse of the term 'digital' when it almost
>>> exclusively understood to mean data-reduced media such as MP3, and
>>> gives the larger, more accurate, defintion of 'digital' a Bad Name. Or
>>> otherwise unduly elevates MP3(etc) to a quality-status above that
>>> which it deserves.
>>
>> Why are you associating "digital" with "quality?" Is it
>> because the general public does? That "digital" with no
>> other qualifiers automatically means "sounds better than
>> analog?"
>
> Not at all. Digital is the medium. IThe music contained therein can sound as
> good as, or in many cases better than, the analogue represations.
>
Ah, but what digital does is enhance replicability. That
makes better cheaper. Making better things cheaper always
confuses people.
>> Sadly, I think that this is indeed the popular
>> conception of what "digital" means when speaking about sound
>> and audio, and not the means to the end (which could be good
>> or bad).
>
> Thrue, and what is saddweer is they they a generally refriing to MP3 or iPod
> quality 'digital'.
>
>> It would be better if Joe Public argued that MP3 files sound
>> better (or worse) than (analog - he probably doesn't know
>> that there are digital) cassettes, and some do.
>
> YES !!!!!
>
> geoff
>
>
--
Les Cargill
Mike Rivers
> Well all I can say is when you have to encode to mp3 use the highest
> bitrates as space will allow.
The problem is that you don't know what the space will allow
unless you're doing the encoding for yourself. If you record
a master for a client and he asks for an MP3 copy, he might
want it for his iPod or he might want it for his web site,
or he might want to e-mail it to a friend or a collaborator.
He might not even think that some day it might to to a real
mastering house where they'd prefer the unbuggered WAV file.
> As I said before owing to my own personal limitations the difference
> between bitrates ceases to exist above 192kb.
Me, too. I listen to 192 or 128 kbps music files when I'm in
the car or on an airplane, or just doing something else at
my desk. But if I want to preserve better quality, If I have
the original PCM file, that's what I keep. Of course it
doesn't improve an MP3 file by converting it to PCM, but
then you can fool some of the people some of the time,
particularly when they've never heard the original.
Mike Rivers
> Ah, but what digital does is enhance replicability.
That's a different story. That aspect impresses (some would
say "enables") Joe Sixpack because he can rip a CD to his
iPod in five minutes instead of making a real time copy like
he used to do with cassettes or phonograph records.
Les Cargill
> On 4/24/2011 1:07 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> Ah, but what digital does is enhance replicability.
>
> That's a different story. That aspect impresses (some would say
> "enables") Joe Sixpack because he can rip a CD to his iPod in five
> minutes instead of making a real time copy like he used to do with
> cassettes or phonograph records.
>
>
No, once CD manufacturing equipment stopped being the bottleneck,
it made better recordings available to more people. Since you could
not *just* design a CD playback drive unless you had significant
NRE to sink into it, the output from the players was closer in quality
than for turntable/phono preamp combos.
Then once the Discman and good brickwall filtering became
commonplace, pretty much all the playback was
identical.
There really isn't any reason for .mp3 at all, and
especially not as a commercial distribution medium. If
the CD makers had gone early enough to a standard $5
list for a title, there probably wouldn't *be* an iTunes.
And there's the small detail of not having anything to sell
worth buying in the first place.
I do have a .mp3 player - I have used it twice (on flights)
and it was a Christmas present. I spent more time uploading crap to it
than using it. I sure as pheck ain't buying an iPhone nor
iPod - bloody useless. I refuse to use it for what most people
appear to use it for - masking noise in a cube farm - because
that's apparently how the people who make cube farms
want things to be.
--
Les Cargill
geoff
> I do have a .mp3 player - I have used it twice (on flights)
> and it was a Christmas present. I spent more time uploading crap to
> it than using it. I sure as pheck ain't buying an iPhone nor
> iPod - bloody useless. I refuse to use it for what most people
> appear to use it for - masking noise in a cube farm - because
> that's apparently how the people who make cube farms
> want things to be.
I sucuumbed to the Dark Side and bought an iPod touch - mainly for the
Guitar Toolkit application, but have since purchased the (incredile)
SignalScopePro, and very useful SignalSuite applications. I have also
transferred many CDs onto it (lossless of course), but seldom use it for
that purpose.
geoff
geoff
> geoff wrote:
>>
> care about the differences, and those that care can grasp those
> differences quite easily. Meanwhile, people creating music can sell
> more of it because for so many, those differences just don't matter,
> and in many cases, for good reason.
So why do we bother trying to do good ?
geoff
geoff
> Well all I can say is when you have to encode to mp3 use the highest
> bitrates as space will allow.
> As I said before owing to my own personal limitations the difference
> between bitrates ceases to exist above 192kb. But I still seek 256kb
> and higher just to be *safe*.
> I have at least matured to the point that I no longer ascribe to the
> "you can fit 2000 songs on XYZ player!" That capacity comes at a
> cost.
I find 256kbps MP3 CD-ROMs that I made for the car noticably less pleasant
listening that the CDs they originated from. And the only bits of my ears
that are still 'golden' get dug out every few days with a bud...
geoff
geoff
> IOW: MP3 is digital's "lowest common denominator". :D
Naa, 8-bit, 8KHz is lower, but adequate for it's purpose.
geoff
Ron Capik
Later...
Ron Capik
--
Scott Dorsey
It's clear to me that some of us aren't trying any more. A quick
review of the recordings currently on the charts will ineidcate that.
But the answer is because of the 1% of people who do still care.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey
>On 4/24/2011 9:40 PM, geoff wrote:
>> ChrisCoaster wrote:
>>> IOW: MP3 is digital's "lowest common denominator". :D
>>
>> Naa, 8-bit, 8KHz is lower, but adequate for it's purpose.
>>
Telephones. Land-mobile radios.
8-bit uLaw encoding actually sounds better than you'd ever expect.
geoff
Pretty much all telephone calls other than local. I don't think they bother
with FDM these days.
geoff
Neil Gould
sounded as good as the original recordings. As I see it, the challenge is to
get as close as possible to the original on the distributed media, and that
takes experience, insight, talent and skill.
--
Neil
Arny Krueger
news:ip1c42$ovf$1...@speranza.aioe.org
> ChrisCoaster wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 7:30 am, "Neil Gould"
>> Well all I can say is when you have to encode to mp3 use
>> the highest bitrates as space will allow.
>> As I said before owing to my own personal limitations
>> the difference between bitrates ceases to exist above
>> 192kb. But I still seek 256kb and higher just to be
>> *safe*.
> People make personal choices such as yours all the time,
> either consciously or completely unaware of the details
> of the audio file. An extreme example; when choosing an
> e-book to listen to on a long drive, my main interest is
> in getting it in as compact a form as possible. Audio
> quality doesn't even figure into the equation, since even
> the lowest bit rate is likely to be adequate for the
> content. If it's loaded on an mp3 player, there might be
> plenty of room left over for some higher bitrate music
> files.
The good news is that memory for storing music is getting cheaper and more
portable all of the time, thus relegating the need for such choices to the
past. Last fall I was delighted to obtain a 2 GB Sansa Clip+ for about $30.
It has been my companion since. I was just offered a slightly physically
larger (and thus more suitable for my old eyes) Sansa Fuze with 4 GB of
internal storage at about the same price.
Both the Clip and the Fuze handle a rich selection of lossy and lossless
formats and are readily expandable with inexpensive uSDHC cards with up to
16 GB additional space. Their technical performance is a few dB short of
true CD quality, but is in the same range as a good stereo receiver driven
by a good CD player.
Maybe 5 years ago I paid over $250 for a Creative 20GB "Jukebox" hard
drive-based player with far more limitations, far shorter battery life, and
that was also huge and very heavy (it was the about size of a portable CD
player but weighed several times as much). The hard drive made it fragile.
They all drive the same headphone jack! ;-)
Arny Krueger
> geoff wrote:
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>> geoff wrote:
>>>>
>>> The quality of mp3 audio would only make a difference
>>> to those that care about the differences, and those
>>> that care can grasp those differences quite easily.
>>> Meanwhile, people creating music can sell more of it
>>> because for so many, those differences just don't
>>> matter, and in many cases, for good reason.
>>
>> So why do we bother trying to do good ?
>>
> Why not? Distributed media (radio, records, tapes, mp3,
> whatever) has never sounded as good as the original
> recordings.
Can't be true given all the high-resolution digital media formats that are
now readily available.
> As I see it, the challenge is to get as close
> as possible to the original on the distributed media, and
> that takes experience, insight, talent and skill.
Getting identically close to the origional is now trivial and has been for
well over a decade.
A reasonable extrapolation of your claim is that *all* audio production
efforts are futile given that their inevitable consquence is making changes
to the origional recordings.
*You* may think that all of *your* audio production efforts are futile, but
I'm a little prouder of at least some my work than that. ;-)
Neil Gould
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
> news:ip3m3t$3l0$1...@speranza.aioe.org
>> geoff wrote:
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>> geoff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> The quality of mp3 audio would only make a difference
>>>> to those that care about the differences, and those
>>>> that care can grasp those differences quite easily.
>>>> Meanwhile, people creating music can sell more of it
>>>> because for so many, those differences just don't
>>>> matter, and in many cases, for good reason.
>>>
>>> So why do we bother trying to do good ?
>>>
>> Why not? Distributed media (radio, records, tapes, mp3,
>> whatever) has never sounded as good as the original
>> recordings.
>
> Can't be true given all the high-resolution digital media formats
> that are now readily available.
>
digital media would be radio, television, CDs, blue-ray discs, etc. Although
one can pass source files more easily than before, that isn't what is
typically distributed.
>> As I see it, the challenge is to get as close
>> as possible to the original on the distributed media, and
>> that takes experience, insight, talent and skill.
>
> Getting identically close to the origional is now trivial and has
> been for well over a decade.
>
Well, we can disagree about that. As I previously wrote, it would only make
a difference to those that can tell the difference.
> A reasonable extrapolation of your claim is that *all* audio
> production efforts are futile given that their inevitable consquence
> is making changes to the origional recordings.
>
I wouldn't say anything of the kind. I *would* say that those that are able
to identify the issues (e.g. the results of different dithering algorithms)
are more likely to produce a final product that is closer to the original.
I have always worked in a higher-resolution format than the final product so
that mixing, dithering, etc. doesn't create undesirable audible artifacts. I
can still hear differences between the source files and the final product
when played on the same system, although those differences aren't as
dramatic as they were between first-generation 30 ips tape and LPs. ;-)
> *You* may think that all of *your* audio production efforts are
> futile, but I'm a little prouder of at least some my work than that.
> ;-)
>
I don't know where you get the idea that I think *my* production efforts are
futile.
--
best regards,
Neil
Mike Rivers
> There really isn't any reason for .mp3 at all, and
> especially not as a commercial distribution medium.
Of course there's a reason for MP3, or at least some form of
file size reduction. There is always a finite limit to the
amount of available storage space for any one device or
medium, and there are many places in the world (including my
house) where Internet transfer speed is sufficient to stream
real time uncompressed (even "CD standard" audio). Both of
these are important to commercial distribution.
Of course it doesn't have to be MP3, there are other,
perhaps less affecting, means of reducing the amount of data
stored or transmitted. But for better or worse, there's an
accepted standard, it's in the vocabulary of just about
every music enthusiast and computer user, so you won't win
any battles trying to convert the world.
> If the CD makers had gone early enough to a standard $5
> list for a title, there probably wouldn't *be* an iTunes.
If you're a musician trying to make money, would you sell
your CDs for $5?
> And there's the small detail of not having anything to sell
> worth buying in the first place.
Then why are you even involving yourself in this discussion?
Go play your drums.
Les Cargill
> On 4/24/2011 10:27 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> There really isn't any reason for .mp3 at all, and
>> especially not as a commercial distribution medium.
>
> Of course there's a reason for MP3, or at least some form of file size
> reduction. There is always a finite limit to the amount of available
> storage space for any one device or medium, and there are many places in
> the world (including my house) where Internet transfer speed is
> sufficient to stream real time uncompressed (even "CD standard" audio).
> Both of these are important to commercial distribution.
>
Gee, I dunno - we used to go to places called "record stores". I
feel pretty safe in saying that internet distribution of music has
failed pretty soundly. It's what, 25%, after billions in investment,
Lord only knows how much in device sales?
> Of course it doesn't have to be MP3, there are other, perhaps less
> affecting, means of reducing the amount of data stored or transmitted.
> But for better or worse, there's an accepted standard, it's in the
> vocabulary of just about every music enthusiast and computer user, so
> you won't win any battles trying to convert the world.
>
The whole thing's just goofy.
>> If the CD makers had gone early enough to a standard $5
>> list for a title, there probably wouldn't *be* an iTunes.
>
> If you're a musician trying to make money, would you sell your CDs for $5?
>
Absolutely.
>> And there's the small detail of not having anything to sell
>> worth buying in the first place.
>
> Then why are you even involving yourself in this discussion? Go play
> your drums.
>
>
>
Not me; I meant the majors.
--
Les Cargill
Mike Rivers
> Gee, I dunno - we used to go to places called "record
> stores". I
> feel pretty safe in saying that internet distribution of
> music has failed pretty soundly. It's what, 25%, after
> billions in investment,
> Lord only knows how much in device sales?
I still go to record stores, but nowadays they're used CD
stores. Sadly that doesn't make any money for the artists.
Device sales? Well, iPods cost a whole lot more than CD
players, so I guess that when people spend $300 for
something to play music on, they expect not to have to pay
anything for the music.
>> If you're a musician trying to make money, would you sell
>> your CDs for $5?
> Absolutely.
Really? You must be really good to be able to sell enough at
that price to make a living. Eat much? Drive to many gigs?
> Not me; I meant the majors.
It's way more expensive for a major label to make a CD than
for an individual artist who records himself in his bedroom,
burns his own disks, and prints his own labels. Then he has
to give away a few songs in order to interest people in
buying his full CDs for $5. Hope he has a good job.
Les Cargill
> On 4/25/2011 9:13 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> Gee, I dunno - we used to go to places called "record
>> stores". I
>> feel pretty safe in saying that internet distribution of
>> music has failed pretty soundly. It's what, 25%, after
>> billions in investment,
>> Lord only knows how much in device sales?
>
> I still go to record stores, but nowadays they're used CD stores. Sadly
> that doesn't make any money for the artists.
>
> Device sales? Well, iPods cost a whole lot more than CD players, so I
> guess that when people spend $300 for something to play music on, they
> expect not to have to pay anything for the music.
>
Right! Exactly. Although my first CD player cost more than $300.
>>> If you're a musician trying to make money, would you sell
>>> your CDs for $5?
>
>> Absolutely.
>
> Really? You must be really good to be able to sell enough at that price
> to make a living. Eat much? Drive to many gigs?
>
I abandoned making a living at music around 1982. It's
been a nice hobby since then. I knew what "recoupable" meant,
so to speak... didn't really care for road work. Got tired
of music people, mainly.
And good has SFA to do with it...
>> Not me; I meant the majors.
>
> It's way more expensive for a major label to make a CD than for an
> individual artist who records himself in his bedroom, burns his own
> disks, and prints his own labels.
Eh? You can get a lockout for a week or a day or two for a few
kilodollars. Could back in the day, too.
> Then he has to give away a few songs
> in order to interest people in buying his full CDs for $5. Hope he has a
> good job.
"Life is hard and then you die." - Johnny Winter.
Or, if you prefer:
"Prepare the Standard Rich and Famous Contract" - Orson
Welles, "The Muppet Movie".
--
Les Cargill
Ron Capik
MP3s rather than bandwidth limited stuff.
I believe that low bit rate MP3 stuff can
be a lot worse than linear 8 bit 8kHz.
Later...
Ron Capik
--
hank alrich
> On 4/25/2011 9:13 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>
> > Gee, I dunno - we used to go to places called "record
> > stores". I
> > feel pretty safe in saying that internet distribution of
> > music has failed pretty soundly. It's what, 25%, after
> > billions in investment,
> > Lord only knows how much in device sales?
>
> I still go to record stores, but nowadays they're used CD
> stores. Sadly that doesn't make any money for the artists.
>
> Device sales? Well, iPods cost a whole lot more than CD
> players, so I guess that when people spend $300 for
> something to play music on, they expect not to have to pay
> anything for the music.
>
> >> If you're a musician trying to make money, would you sell
> >> your CDs for $5?
>
> > Absolutely.
>
> Really? You must be really good to be able to sell enough at
> that price to make a living. Eat much? Drive to many gigs?
We've been doing okay asking fifteen bucks for ten songs. We sing 'em
like they're worth that much and some folks apparently agree.
> > Not me; I meant the majors.
>
> It's way more expensive for a major label to make a CD than
> for an individual artist who records himself in his bedroom,
> burns his own disks, and prints his own labels. Then he has
> to give away a few songs in order to interest people in
> buying his full CDs for $5. Hope he has a good job.
Saw a guy play a set last Friday. He had a huge stash of CD's that he
was trying to give away, suggesting people take them and then "like" him
on his Farcebook fan page. I was having trouble understanding his
strategy, trying to convince people his product was worth next to
nothing.
--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman
Mike Rivers
> Right! Exactly. Although my first CD player cost more than
> $300.
I was a late bloomer and I think I paid about $120 for my
first CD player. Still have it and it still works.
> I abandoned making a living at music around 1982. It's
> been a nice hobby since then. I knew what "recoupable" meant,
I see. So if everyone who played music was like you, where's
our music going to come from in the future? Will we only be
able to hear music from people who are just getting started
in the commercial field and will soon burn out? Or maybe
we'll go back to the old days when musicians dedicated their
life to their career and worked hard to be successful.
> Eh? You can get a lockout for a week or a day or two for a
> few kilodollars. Could back in the day, too.
Yes, but major artists don't make records in a day or two.
It's not in their DNA.
Mike Rivers
> We've been doing okay asking fifteen bucks for ten songs. We sing 'em
> like they're worth that much and some folks apparently agree.
That's certainly fair. But for five bucks, it would hardly
be worth carrying a box of CDs to a gig.
> Saw a guy play a set last Friday. He had a huge stash of CD's that he
> was trying to give away, suggesting people take them and then "like" him
> on his Farcebook fan page. I was having trouble understanding his
> strategy, trying to convince people his product was worth next to
> nothing.
It's a new way of publicity. While they don't give me any
gear, I get e-mail from several manufacturers of audio
related products inviting me to "like" them on their
facebook page. I think you even have to do that to download
Korg's AudioGate (audio file format converter) program.
I've heard from touring musicians that promoters look at how
many Facebook fans from their area you have when you're
trying to book a tour. It gives them a sense of how much
money they can make from you. Maybe it works, maybe it
doesn't, but I think it's kind of tacky.
0jun...@bellsouth.net
On 2011-04-25 walk...@nv.net(hankalrich) said:
>Saw a guy play a set last Friday. He had a huge stash of CD's that
>he was trying to give away, suggesting people take them and then
>"like" him on his Farcebook fan page. I was having trouble
>understanding his strategy, trying to convince people his product
>was worth next to nothing.
HE hasn't thought this one through. What's the farsebook
page gonna do for him. But then, he probably doesn't plan
to quit his day job.
Another hobbyist no doubt.
Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com
hank alrich
> On 4/25/2011 11:26 PM, hank alrich wrote:
>
> > We've been doing okay asking fifteen bucks for ten songs. We sing 'em
> > like they're worth that much and some folks apparently agree.
>
> That's certainly fair. But for five bucks, it would hardly
> be worth carrying a box of CDs to a gig.
The guy I mention below had a huge box, and I saw nobody take him up on
his offer. We carry a small box. <g>
> > Saw a guy play a set last Friday. He had a huge stash of CD's that he
> > was trying to give away, suggesting people take them and then "like" him
> > on his Farcebook fan page. I was having trouble understanding his
> > strategy, trying to convince people his product was worth next to
> > nothing.
>
> It's a new way of publicity. While they don't give me any
> gear, I get e-mail from several manufacturers of audio
> related products inviting me to "like" them on their
> facebook page. I think you even have to do that to download
> Korg's AudioGate (audio file format converter) program.
>
> I've heard from touring musicians that promoters look at how
> many Facebook fans from their area you have when you're
> trying to book a tour. It gives them a sense of how much
> money they can make from you. Maybe it works, maybe it
> doesn't, but I think it's kind of tacky.
Yesterday I had a meeting with a gal who runs a booking agency. She
isn't working with developing aritsts, but she was happy to help me
identify venues where what we do might go over well, and where the
operators are reliable and genuine. For the venue bookers and promoters
she's working with it's not about one's fan page; it's about verifiable
numbers of attendees at shows for which admission was paid, i'e. keeping
a database of one's draw.
hank alrich
> On 2011-04-25 walk...@nv.net(hankalrich) said:
>
> >Saw a guy play a set last Friday. He had a huge stash of CD's that
> >he was trying to give away, suggesting people take them and then
> >"like" him on his Farcebook fan page. I was having trouble
> >understanding his strategy, trying to convince people his product
> >was worth next to nothing.
>
> HE hasn't thought this one through. What's the farsebook
> page gonna do for him. But then, he probably doesn't plan
> to quit his day job.
He works at a booking agency, and has been in some aspect of the
business for years.
> Another hobbyist no doubt.
He's about to release another CD. I don't have enough evidence to know
how it has been working out, or how it will work out for him. Still, I
didn't understand it and I don't think it's an angle I want to try.
hank alrich
> On 4/26/2011 12:20 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>
> > Right! Exactly. Although my first CD player cost more than
> > $300.
>
> I was a late bloomer and I think I paid about $120 for my
> first CD player. Still have it and it still works.
>
> > I abandoned making a living at music around 1982. It's
> > been a nice hobby since then. I knew what "recoupable" meant,
>
> I see. So if everyone who played music was like you, where's
> our music going to come from in the future? Will we only be
> able to hear music from people who are just getting started
> in the commercial field and will soon burn out? Or maybe
> we'll go back to the old days when musicians dedicated their
> life to their career and worked hard to be successful.
>
> > Eh? You can get a lockout for a week or a day or two for a
> > few kilodollars. Could back in the day, too.
>
> Yes, but major artists don't make records in a day or two.
> It's not in their DNA.
Here's a goodie:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/042511gershwin
The Absolute Glut of New Music... In 1930
"Never, in all our history of popular music, has there been such a
plethora of composers - professional, amateur, alleged - as we have
today. Responsible, of course, are those two fresh hotbeds, the
coniferous cinema and the radio.
The merciless ether - by unceasing plugging - has cut down the life of a
popular song to but a few weeks, with the result that anyone who thinks
he can carry a tune - even if it's nowhere in particular - nowadays
takes a 'shot' at music-making."
George Gershwin, ranting in the New York World Sunday Magazine, May,
1930.
geoff
> On 4/25/2011 11:26 PM, hank alrich wrote:
> I get e-mail from several manufacturers of audio
> related products inviting me to "like" them on their
> facebook page.
Doesn't it sound a bit wet - "I've got 763 people who 'like' me on
Facebook". Wow.
geoff
hank alrich
Mike Rivers
> Yesterday I had a meeting with a gal who runs a booking agency.
> For the venue bookers and promoters
> she's working with it's not about one's fan page; it's about verifiable
> numbers of attendees at shows for which admission was paid, i'e. keeping
> a database of one's draw.
That certainly makes sense, but it's sooooo much easier just
to look on Facebook. <g>
Les Cargill
> On 4/26/2011 12:20 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> Right! Exactly. Although my first CD player cost more than
>> $300.
>
> I was a late bloomer and I think I paid about $120 for my first CD
> player. Still have it and it still works.
>
>> I abandoned making a living at music around 1982. It's
>> been a nice hobby since then. I knew what "recoupable" meant,
>
> I see. So if everyone who played music was like you, where's our music
> going to come from in the future?
How *ever* will we manage?
> Will we only be able to hear music
> from people who are just getting started in the commercial field and
> will soon burn out? Or maybe we'll go back to the old days when
> musicians dedicated their life to their career and worked hard to be
> successful.
>
That was when rent was $100 or $300 a month and you could make that in a
night or four.
>> Eh? You can get a lockout for a week or a day or two for a
>> few kilodollars. Could back in the day, too.
>
> Yes, but major artists don't make records in a day or two. It's not in
> their DNA.
>
Hie them to the bus, then. They need more road
time...
>
>
>
--
Les Cargill
Arny Krueger
news:88OdnUIDp-YftCrQ...@giganews.com
Acquaintances email me periodically saying something like: Our commercial
venture is engaged in a death match with other similar ventures to see who
can get the most *action* on this social networking site you never heard or,
or maybe you did. So, go join the site and vote for us.
Obviously, all of the above are spinning their wheels in a business sense,
because they won't even get 15 minutes of fame if they *win*.
The only winner in any sense are the social networking site because this
scam will inflate their user lists. And will the people who sign up for this
scam ever return to the site or the person doing the emailing? Probably not.
mcp6453
> Hi,
I haven't read every post in this thread, but I have a question. Here is my
understanding of MP3 bit rates, referring to a 128K MP3 file.
64K mono is the same per-channel quality as 128K stereo
90K or so mono is the same per-channel quality as 128K *joint* stereo
As it was explained to me, joint stereo trades quality for separation. Was
someone blowing smoke, or is there some legitimacy to this information?
anahata
> As it was explained to me, joint stereo trades quality for separation.
Not exactly.
Joint stereo takes advantage of the fact that at any given moment the two
channels will have very similar spectral distribution, so some of the
data doesn't have to be duplicated. That means more bits available for
improving the quality. You don't get a reduction in separation by using
joint stereo, but it doesn't work if the two channels are completely
different.
All you really need to know i sthat joint stereo at 128k is better than
separate stereo (i.e. 2 x 64k), PROVIDED that it's genuine stereo sound.
--
Anahata
ana...@treewind.co.uk --/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444
ChrisCoaster
And what are masters stored on nowadays - as opposed to in the Beatle/
Stones era?
-CC
Neil Gould
> On Apr 25, 7:31 am, "Neil Gould" <n...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>> geoff wrote:
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>> geoff wrote:
>>
>>>> The quality of mp3 audio would only make a difference to those that
>>>> care about the differences, and those that care can grasp those
>>>> differences quite easily. Meanwhile, people creating music can sell
>>>> more of it because for so many, those differences just don't
>>>> matter, and in many cases, for good reason.
>>
>>> So why do we bother trying to do good ?
>>
>> Why not? Distributed media (radio, records, tapes, mp3, whatever)
>> has never sounded as good as the original recordings. As I see it,
>> the challenge is to get as close as possible to the original on the
>> distributed media, and that takes experience, insight, talent and
>> skill.
>>
> And what are masters stored on nowadays - as opposed to in the Beatle/
> Stones era?
>
files.
--
Neil
Scott Dorsey
>And what are masters stored on nowadays - as opposed to in the Beatle/
>Stones era?
At least one major label is storing DLTs with safeties on 2".
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."