Group: rec.audio.high-end
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
"Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
news:fu8nb902b4b@news4.newsguy,com
> In article <fu6cgp02j6c@news2.newsguy,com >,
> "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline,net > wrote:
>
>>>> If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from
>>>> live music and compared that to a good recording
>>>> derived from that feed, I bet that you would NOT be
>>>> able to distinguish live from recorded music.
>>>
>>> But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context
>>> that I mean it. You're hearing it through a speaker, of
>>> course. I believe that you are correct in your
>>> statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording
>>> is "live".
>>
>> I think we all know that. It's my meaning that
>> _*recording*_ itself can't approach live sound if *live*
>> hasn't been captured in the first place. How possibly
>> can a _recording_ of a trumpet be expected to sound live
>> if the information going into making any recording
>> doesn't sound LIVE in the first place?
>
> True enough. Obviously, some recordings sound more live
> than others, and none are even close to perfect.
Avoiding loudspeakers and listening rooms are two powerful steps towards
improving realism.
"Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
news:fu8nb902b4b@news4.newsguy,com
> In article <fu6cgp02j6c@news2.newsguy,com >,
> "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline,net > wrote:
>
>>>> If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from
>>>> live music and compared that to a good recording
>>>> derived from that feed, I bet that you would NOT be
>>>> able to distinguish live from recorded music.
>>>
>>> But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context
>>> that I mean it. You're hearing it through a speaker, of
>>> course. I believe that you are correct in your
>>> statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording
>>> is "live".
>>
>> I think we all know that. It's my meaning that
>> _*recording*_ itself can't approach live sound if *live*
>> hasn't been captured in the first place. How possibly
>> can a _recording_ of a trumpet be expected to sound live
>> if the information going into making any recording
>> doesn't sound LIVE in the first place?
>
> True enough. Obviously, some recordings sound more live
> than others, and none are even close to perfect.
Avoiding loudspeakers and listening rooms are two powerful steps towards
improving realism.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
In article <fub4f302i0s@news1.newsguy,com >,
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
> news:fu8nb902b4b@news4.newsguy,com
> > In article <fu6cgp02j6c@news2.newsguy,com >,
> > "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline,net > wrote:
> >
> >>>> If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from
> >>>> live music and compared that to a good recording
> >>>> derived from that feed, I bet that you would NOT be
> >>>> able to distinguish live from recorded music.
> >>>
> >>> But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context
> >>> that I mean it. You're hearing it through a speaker, of
> >>> course. I believe that you are correct in your
> >>> statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording
> >>> is "live".
> >>
> >> I think we all know that. It's my meaning that
> >> _*recording*_ itself can't approach live sound if *live*
> >> hasn't been captured in the first place. How possibly
> >> can a _recording_ of a trumpet be expected to sound live
> >> if the information going into making any recording
> >> doesn't sound LIVE in the first place?
> >
> > True enough. Obviously, some recordings sound more live
> > than others, and none are even close to perfect.
>
> Avoiding loudspeakers and listening rooms are two powerful steps towards
> improving realism.
That is exactly my point. All recordings are heard through speakers.
Speakers are imperfect devices. Stereo systems never sound just like
live.
In article <fub4f302i0s@news1.newsguy,com >,
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
> news:fu8nb902b4b@news4.newsguy,com
> > In article <fu6cgp02j6c@news2.newsguy,com >,
> > "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline,net > wrote:
> >
> >>>> If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from
> >>>> live music and compared that to a good recording
> >>>> derived from that feed, I bet that you would NOT be
> >>>> able to distinguish live from recorded music.
> >>>
> >>> But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context
> >>> that I mean it. You're hearing it through a speaker, of
> >>> course. I believe that you are correct in your
> >>> statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording
> >>> is "live".
> >>
> >> I think we all know that. It's my meaning that
> >> _*recording*_ itself can't approach live sound if *live*
> >> hasn't been captured in the first place. How possibly
> >> can a _recording_ of a trumpet be expected to sound live
> >> if the information going into making any recording
> >> doesn't sound LIVE in the first place?
> >
> > True enough. Obviously, some recordings sound more live
> > than others, and none are even close to perfect.
>
> Avoiding loudspeakers and listening rooms are two powerful steps towards
> improving realism.
That is exactly my point. All recordings are heard through speakers.
Speakers are imperfect devices. Stereo systems never sound just like
live.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:39:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fub4f302i0s@news1.newsguy,com >):
> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
> news:fu8nb902b4b@news4.newsguy,com
>> In article <fu6cgp02j6c@news2.newsguy,com >,
>> "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline,net > wrote:
>>
>>>>> If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from
>>>>> live music and compared that to a good recording
>>>>> derived from that feed, I bet that you would NOT be
>>>>> able to distinguish live from recorded music.
>>>>
>>>> But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context
>>>> that I mean it. You're hearing it through a speaker, of
>>>> course. I believe that you are correct in your
>>>> statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording
>>>> is "live".
>>>
>>> I think we all know that. It's my meaning that
>>> _*recording*_ itself can't approach live sound if *live*
>>> hasn't been captured in the first place. How possibly
>>> can a _recording_ of a trumpet be expected to sound live
>>> if the information going into making any recording
>>> doesn't sound LIVE in the first place?
>>
>> True enough. Obviously, some recordings sound more live
>> than others, and none are even close to perfect.
>
> Avoiding loudspeakers and listening rooms are two powerful steps towards
> improving realism.
>
I have a friend with a pair of Stax SR-404s and a matching headphone
amplifier which I have listened to extensively. In a way, you are right. The
'phones eliminate the speakers and the room and because the diaphragms are so
small and low-mass they can be made absolutely linear over a much wider
range than can any pair of speakers and as a result, can sound uncanny (no
pun intended) and real to certain point. Where headphones fail, is that
unless one is listening to a binaural recording DESIGNED for headphone
listening, normal stereo recording technique gives one a rather strange
perspective which always breaks the spell for me, and speakers as well as
live music, assault the entire body, often on a really visceral level
(especially low bass) and that's always missing from headphone listening.
Then of course, I've never been to a performance where the musicians follow
me as I move my head :-). But a good pair of headphones can sound real in a
way that speakers never could.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:39:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fub4f302i0s@news1.newsguy,com >):
> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
> news:fu8nb902b4b@news4.newsguy,com
>> In article <fu6cgp02j6c@news2.newsguy,com >,
>> "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline,net > wrote:
>>
>>>>> If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from
>>>>> live music and compared that to a good recording
>>>>> derived from that feed, I bet that you would NOT be
>>>>> able to distinguish live from recorded music.
>>>>
>>>> But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context
>>>> that I mean it. You're hearing it through a speaker, of
>>>> course. I believe that you are correct in your
>>>> statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording
>>>> is "live".
>>>
>>> I think we all know that. It's my meaning that
>>> _*recording*_ itself can't approach live sound if *live*
>>> hasn't been captured in the first place. How possibly
>>> can a _recording_ of a trumpet be expected to sound live
>>> if the information going into making any recording
>>> doesn't sound LIVE in the first place?
>>
>> True enough. Obviously, some recordings sound more live
>> than others, and none are even close to perfect.
>
> Avoiding loudspeakers and listening rooms are two powerful steps towards
> improving realism.
>
I have a friend with a pair of Stax SR-404s and a matching headphone
amplifier which I have listened to extensively. In a way, you are right. The
'phones eliminate the speakers and the room and because the diaphragms are so
small and low-mass they can be made absolutely linear over a much wider
range than can any pair of speakers and as a result, can sound uncanny (no
pun intended) and real to certain point. Where headphones fail, is that
unless one is listening to a binaural recording DESIGNED for headphone
listening, normal stereo recording technique gives one a rather strange
perspective which always breaks the spell for me, and speakers as well as
live music, assault the entire body, often on a really visceral level
(especially low bass) and that's always missing from headphone listening.
Then of course, I've never been to a performance where the musicians follow
me as I move my head :-). But a good pair of headphones can sound real in a
way that speakers never could.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Apr 11, 2:44 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac,com > wrote:
> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
> that separate it from any recorded sound.
But you are factually wrong. We've known how to fool people reliably
since the 1960's, when AR started doing it with string quartets.
What we can't yet do is fool people reliable in the domestic
environment with domestically acceptable equipment.
But the fact that we can do it at all refutes your claim.
> For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
> oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
> even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
> being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
> the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
> tell the difference.
But with good and reasonably cheap domestic equipment and a decent
recording it is possible for people to hear the differences quite
clearly. The fact that recordings can't always do that doesn't mean
that they can't do it at all.
On Apr 11, 2:44 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac,com > wrote:
> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
> that separate it from any recorded sound.
But you are factually wrong. We've known how to fool people reliably
since the 1960's, when AR started doing it with string quartets.
What we can't yet do is fool people reliable in the domestic
environment with domestically acceptable equipment.
But the fact that we can do it at all refutes your claim.
> For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
> oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
> even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
> being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
> the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
> tell the difference.
But with good and reasonably cheap domestic equipment and a decent
recording it is possible for people to hear the differences quite
clearly. The fact that recordings can't always do that doesn't mean
that they can't do it at all.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:08 -0700, eseedhouse@gmail,com wrote
(in article <fu11o8016l4@news1.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 11, 2:44 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac,com > wrote:
>
>> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
>> that separate it from any recorded sound.
>
> But you are factually wrong. We've known how to fool people reliably
> since the 1960's, when AR started doing it with string quartets.
Except that as a participant in those "live vs recording" demonstrations by
AR, I can tell you that they rarely fooled anyone except people with no
listening experience either in hi-fi or live music.
>
> What we can't yet do is fool people reliable in the domestic
> environment with domestically acceptable equipment.
> But the fact that we can do it at all refutes your claim.
>
>> For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
>> oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
>> even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
>> being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
>> the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
>> tell the difference.
>
> But with good and reasonably cheap domestic equipment and a decent
> recording it is possible for people to hear the differences quite
> clearly. The fact that recordings can't always do that doesn't mean
> that they can't do it at all.
True enough but only the most inexperienced of listeners would ever mistake
either for the real thing.
>
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:08 -0700, eseedhouse@gmail,com wrote
(in article <fu11o8016l4@news1.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 11, 2:44 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac,com > wrote:
>
>> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
>> that separate it from any recorded sound.
>
> But you are factually wrong. We've known how to fool people reliably
> since the 1960's, when AR started doing it with string quartets.
Except that as a participant in those "live vs recording" demonstrations by
AR, I can tell you that they rarely fooled anyone except people with no
listening experience either in hi-fi or live music.
>
> What we can't yet do is fool people reliable in the domestic
> environment with domestically acceptable equipment.
> But the fact that we can do it at all refutes your claim.
>
>> For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
>> oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
>> even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
>> being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
>> the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
>> tell the difference.
>
> But with good and reasonably cheap domestic equipment and a decent
> recording it is possible for people to hear the differences quite
> clearly. The fact that recordings can't always do that doesn't mean
> that they can't do it at all.
True enough but only the most inexperienced of listeners would ever mistake
either for the real thing.
>
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Apr 15, 3:41 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:08 -0700, eseedho...@gmail,com wrote
> (in article <fu11o801...@news1.newsguy,com >):
>
> > On Apr 11, 2:44 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac,com > wrote:
> >> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
> >> that separate it from any recorded sound.
> > But you are factually wrong. We've known how to fool people reliably
> > since the 1960's, when AR started doing it with string quartets.
> Except that as a participant in those "live vs recording" demonstrations by
> AR, I can tell you that they rarely fooled anyone except people with no
> listening experience either in hi-fi or live music.
This seems to me to amount to agreement that the claim "Live acoustic
music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities that separate it from any
recorded sound." is factually wrong. Rarely is not "never". And
there was no qualification in the claim for regular folks with regular
ears being foolable. If anyone can be so fooled, ever, the claim is
wrong.
On Apr 15, 3:41 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:08 -0700, eseedho...@gmail,com wrote
> (in article <fu11o801...@news1.newsguy,com >):
>
> > On Apr 11, 2:44 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac,com > wrote:
> >> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
> >> that separate it from any recorded sound.
> > But you are factually wrong. We've known how to fool people reliably
> > since the 1960's, when AR started doing it with string quartets.
> Except that as a participant in those "live vs recording" demonstrations by
> AR, I can tell you that they rarely fooled anyone except people with no
> listening experience either in hi-fi or live music.
This seems to me to amount to agreement that the claim "Live acoustic
music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities that separate it from any
recorded sound." is factually wrong. Rarely is not "never". And
there was no qualification in the claim for regular folks with regular
ears being foolable. If anyone can be so fooled, ever, the claim is
wrong.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
"Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
news:ftom3q06me@news3.newsguy,com
> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays
> distinctive qualities that separate it from any recorded
> sound.
I don't think you have the evidence at your disposal that it should take to
say that with such certainty.
> Live acoustic music produced in Alice Tully,
> whether full or empty, will always sound like live music,
> and recorded sound has never displayed the those
> distinctive qualities.
That would be limited by your personal experiences, no?
> For example, it's easy to tell
> the difference between an oboe and an English Horn in any
> live situation I've ever experienced, even when you don't
> know the score and can't see which instrument is being
> played.
I don't see how that is relevant.
> It's often possible to even tell the make and
> model of the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's
> sometimes impossible to tell the difference.
We all know that some recordings are badly made and/or processed heavily.
Sometimes they are processed to obscure these sorts of things. What does
that say with certainty about recordings made by the best of means? I
think - it says nothing.
"Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
news:ftom3q06me@news3.newsguy,com
> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays
> distinctive qualities that separate it from any recorded
> sound.
I don't think you have the evidence at your disposal that it should take to
say that with such certainty.
> Live acoustic music produced in Alice Tully,
> whether full or empty, will always sound like live music,
> and recorded sound has never displayed the those
> distinctive qualities.
That would be limited by your personal experiences, no?
> For example, it's easy to tell
> the difference between an oboe and an English Horn in any
> live situation I've ever experienced, even when you don't
> know the score and can't see which instrument is being
> played.
I don't see how that is relevant.
> It's often possible to even tell the make and
> model of the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's
> sometimes impossible to tell the difference.
We all know that some recordings are badly made and/or processed heavily.
Sometimes they are processed to obscure these sorts of things. What does
that say with certainty about recordings made by the best of means? I
think - it says nothing.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:57:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fu8o5f02bo8@news4.newsguy,com >):
> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
> news:ftom3q06me@news3.newsguy,com
>
>> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays
>> distinctive qualities that separate it from any recorded
>> sound.
>
> I don't think you have the evidence at your disposal that it should take to
> say that with such certainty.
Evidence? You carry all the evidence that you should need hanging on either
side of your head.
>> Live acoustic music produced in Alice Tully,
>> whether full or empty, will always sound like live music,
>> and recorded sound has never displayed the those
>> distinctive qualities.
>
> That would be limited by your personal experiences, no?
>
>> For example, it's easy to tell
>> the difference between an oboe and an English Horn in any
>> live situation I've ever experienced, even when you don't
>> know the score and can't see which instrument is being
>> played.
>
> I don't see how that is relevant.
>> It's often possible to even tell the make and
>> model of the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's
>> sometimes impossible to tell the difference.
>
> We all know that some recordings are badly made and/or processed heavily.
> Sometimes they are processed to obscure these sorts of things. What does
> that say with certainty about recordings made by the best of means? I
> think - it says nothing.
It says that the best of recordings are light years away from being perfect.
Better than ever, yes, but perfect no. A lot of people hold up the 1950's
recordings of Mercury's C.R. Fine and RCA's Louis Layton, and perhaps Rudy
Van Gelder's jazz recordings as being among the best ever made and while I
agree that many of these sound simply amazing, the technology exists today to
simply blow them away and do so relatively cheaply and with a minimum of
equipment. But even as good as it's possible to get today - even on ordinary
16-bit, 24KHz CD, most recordings still don't sound very good and even the
best fall short of reality. Producers have agendas and some of those agendas
have little to do with sound quality of the recordings they make and
everything to do with selling CDs.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:57:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fu8o5f02bo8@news4.newsguy,com >):
> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
> news:ftom3q06me@news3.newsguy,com
>
>> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays
>> distinctive qualities that separate it from any recorded
>> sound.
>
> I don't think you have the evidence at your disposal that it should take to
> say that with such certainty.
Evidence? You carry all the evidence that you should need hanging on either
side of your head.
>> Live acoustic music produced in Alice Tully,
>> whether full or empty, will always sound like live music,
>> and recorded sound has never displayed the those
>> distinctive qualities.
>
> That would be limited by your personal experiences, no?
>
>> For example, it's easy to tell
>> the difference between an oboe and an English Horn in any
>> live situation I've ever experienced, even when you don't
>> know the score and can't see which instrument is being
>> played.
>
> I don't see how that is relevant.
>> It's often possible to even tell the make and
>> model of the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's
>> sometimes impossible to tell the difference.
>
> We all know that some recordings are badly made and/or processed heavily.
> Sometimes they are processed to obscure these sorts of things. What does
> that say with certainty about recordings made by the best of means? I
> think - it says nothing.
It says that the best of recordings are light years away from being perfect.
Better than ever, yes, but perfect no. A lot of people hold up the 1950's
recordings of Mercury's C.R. Fine and RCA's Louis Layton, and perhaps Rudy
Van Gelder's jazz recordings as being among the best ever made and while I
agree that many of these sound simply amazing, the technology exists today to
simply blow them away and do so relatively cheaply and with a minimum of
equipment. But even as good as it's possible to get today - even on ordinary
16-bit, 24KHz CD, most recordings still don't sound very good and even the
best fall short of reality. Producers have agendas and some of those agendas
have little to do with sound quality of the recordings they make and
everything to do with selling CDs.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fub40902cjd@news1.newsguy,com
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:57:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <fu8o5f02bo8@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
>> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
>> news:ftom3q06me@news3.newsguy,com
>>
>>> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays
>>> distinctive qualities that separate it from any recorded
>>> sound.
>>
>> I don't think you have the evidence at your disposal
>> that it should take to say that with such certainty.
>
> Evidence? You carry all the evidence that you should need
> hanging on either side of your head.
Ears?
Those aren't evidence, they are part of your test equipment setup.
> It says that the best of recordings are light years away
> from being perfect. Better than ever, yes, but perfect
> no. A lot of people hold up the 1950's recordings of
> Mercury's C.R. Fine and RCA's Louis Layton, and perhaps
> Rudy Van Gelder's jazz recordings as being among the best
> ever made and while I agree that many of these sound
> simply amazing, the technology exists today to simply
> blow them away and do so relatively cheaply and with a
> minimum of equipment.
Agreed.
> But even as good as it's possible
> to get today - even on ordinary 16-bit, 24KHz CD, most
> recordings still don't sound very good and even the best
> fall short of reality.
Agreed.
> Producers have agendas and some
> of those agendas have little to do with sound quality of
> the recordings they make and everything to do with
> selling CDs.
Agreed.
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fub40902cjd@news1.newsguy,com
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:57:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <fu8o5f02bo8@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
>> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
>> news:ftom3q06me@news3.newsguy,com
>>
>>> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays
>>> distinctive qualities that separate it from any recorded
>>> sound.
>>
>> I don't think you have the evidence at your disposal
>> that it should take to say that with such certainty.
>
> Evidence? You carry all the evidence that you should need
> hanging on either side of your head.
Ears?
Those aren't evidence, they are part of your test equipment setup.
> It says that the best of recordings are light years away
> from being perfect. Better than ever, yes, but perfect
> no. A lot of people hold up the 1950's recordings of
> Mercury's C.R. Fine and RCA's Louis Layton, and perhaps
> Rudy Van Gelder's jazz recordings as being among the best
> ever made and while I agree that many of these sound
> simply amazing, the technology exists today to simply
> blow them away and do so relatively cheaply and with a
> minimum of equipment.
Agreed.
> But even as good as it's possible
> to get today - even on ordinary 16-bit, 24KHz CD, most
> recordings still don't sound very good and even the best
> fall short of reality.
Agreed.
> Producers have agendas and some
> of those agendas have little to do with sound quality of
> the recordings they make and everything to do with
> selling CDs.
Agreed.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:03:27 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fud1jv028l9@news1.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:fub40902cjd@news1.newsguy,com
>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:57:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <fu8o5f02bo8@news4.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
>>> news:ftom3q06me@news3.newsguy,com
>>>
>>>> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays
>>>> distinctive qualities that separate it from any recorded
>>>> sound.
>>>
>>> I don't think you have the evidence at your disposal
>>> that it should take to say that with such certainty.
>>
>> Evidence? You carry all the evidence that you should need
>> hanging on either side of your head.
>
> Ears?
>
> Those aren't evidence, they are part of your test equipment setup.
In the sense that the proof of the pudding is in the eating (or in this case,
the listening), it is.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:03:27 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fud1jv028l9@news1.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:fub40902cjd@news1.newsguy,com
>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:57:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <fu8o5f02bo8@news4.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
>>> news:ftom3q06me@news3.newsguy,com
>>>
>>>> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays
>>>> distinctive qualities that separate it from any recorded
>>>> sound.
>>>
>>> I don't think you have the evidence at your disposal
>>> that it should take to say that with such certainty.
>>
>> Evidence? You carry all the evidence that you should need
>> hanging on either side of your head.
>
> Ears?
>
> Those aren't evidence, they are part of your test equipment setup.
In the sense that the proof of the pudding is in the eating (or in this case,
the listening), it is.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:29:31 -0700, bob wrote
(in article <ftmlur015pk@news5.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote
>
>>> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
>>> it.
>>
>> I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course it
>> sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument or
>> the
>> set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax - every
>> time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can you not
>> ALWAYS discern live music from canned? I think anybody can. Music and
>> reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
>> determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the sound
>> doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a
>> saxophone
>> and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm not
>> discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument) sounds
>> different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a saxophone
>> makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our aural
>> memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound of a
>> live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always sounds
>> like
>> a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it, not
>> having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice versa).
>> The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are able to
>> identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced.
>
> Granted, the binary distinction live vs. recorded is (at least
> usually) clear. But that isn't strong enough to make your point. You
> want to be able to determine whether one recorded sound is closer to
> live than another recorded sound. I don't think you can do that
> without specifying *which* live sound you have in mind--a full Avery
> Fisher, or an empty Alice Tully.
>
> At least, you can't if you want to anchor your perception to some
> objective reality. Which is why I think you don't really anchor your
> perception to some objective reality at all. You develop a mental
> construct of what a live performance (of the particular type you're
> listening to) *ought* to sound like. And it's not at all clear that
> this construct is fixed. You could have a different idea of what live
> music sounds like each day. It's hard, then, to call that a
> "standard."
>
> bob
I disagree. I record live musicians playing in real space at least once a
week (and lately, as much as two and three times a week). I think I have a
fairly accurate mental picture about how live music sounds. Wednesday
evening, for instance, I recorded a large jazz band, Tonight it will be a
symphony orchestra, and Monday it will be a wind ensemble (concert band).
Later next week, I record a string quartet in concert in a big hall. I think
that this keeps my perspective on the sound of live music very fresh and as
accurate as aural memory allows. I know that it's really very easy for one's
prejudices to color that aural memory, but anybody who regularly attends
concerts of different types of music can mostly keep those prejudices at bay.
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:29:31 -0700, bob wrote
(in article <ftmlur015pk@news5.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote
>
>>> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
>>> it.
>>
>> I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course it
>> sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument or
>> the
>> set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax - every
>> time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can you not
>> ALWAYS discern live music from canned? I think anybody can. Music and
>> reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
>> determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the sound
>> doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a
>> saxophone
>> and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm not
>> discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument) sounds
>> different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a saxophone
>> makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our aural
>> memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound of a
>> live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always sounds
>> like
>> a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it, not
>> having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice versa).
>> The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are able to
>> identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced.
>
> Granted, the binary distinction live vs. recorded is (at least
> usually) clear. But that isn't strong enough to make your point. You
> want to be able to determine whether one recorded sound is closer to
> live than another recorded sound. I don't think you can do that
> without specifying *which* live sound you have in mind--a full Avery
> Fisher, or an empty Alice Tully.
>
> At least, you can't if you want to anchor your perception to some
> objective reality. Which is why I think you don't really anchor your
> perception to some objective reality at all. You develop a mental
> construct of what a live performance (of the particular type you're
> listening to) *ought* to sound like. And it's not at all clear that
> this construct is fixed. You could have a different idea of what live
> music sounds like each day. It's hard, then, to call that a
> "standard."
>
> bob
I disagree. I record live musicians playing in real space at least once a
week (and lately, as much as two and three times a week). I think I have a
fairly accurate mental picture about how live music sounds. Wednesday
evening, for instance, I recorded a large jazz band, Tonight it will be a
symphony orchestra, and Monday it will be a wind ensemble (concert band).
Later next week, I record a string quartet in concert in a big hall. I think
that this keeps my perspective on the sound of live music very fresh and as
accurate as aural memory allows. I know that it's really very easy for one's
prejudices to color that aural memory, but anybody who regularly attends
concerts of different types of music can mostly keep those prejudices at bay.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:ftjge8023b4@news4.newsguy,com
> But if you grew-up listening to tape and LP as I did, you
> learn to listen around those obstacles because the music
> is STILL there.
Sorta. I grew up on a steady diet of acoustical music, and I was never that
happy with the LP format. I did like tape, particularly half-track at 7 1/2
or 15 ips.
> With MP3 and other lossy schemes, I find
> that the music sounds like its been put in a blender and
> reduced to mush.
Depends on the bitrate. In a earlier portion of this post that you clipped,
you mentioned 128 bps, and that has always been sort of a hinge point. Below
128 kbps, music is often in trouble, and well above 128 kbps, music is often
unhindered.
> Mush that has nasty artifacts riding on it. In other words I find that I
> cannot listen around MP3
> nastiness because the music ISN'T still there.
Like I said, try bitrates higher than 128 kbps, try other coders.
> While I
> realize that it's possible for one to use a higher
> bit-rate when one is ripping their own CDs, and at 320
> kbps, MP3 doesn't sound all that bad, Apple is the
> largest online music store in the world and they only
> give one the option of 128 kbps.
Remember that the music business still nurtures hopes of selling you
physical media, even after you've downloaded the song. I see the choice of
128 kbps as being a commercial strategy to foster further sales.
> I always thought that
> Sony's Mini-Disc compression scheme sounded much better
> than MP3 and the downloads available on Sony's on-line
> music store (now defunct) Sounded MUCH more listenable
> than did the MP3s available from Apple and other on-line
> music sources.
My recollection is that the basic historical MD format was based on a much
higher basic bitrate that 128 kbps. Of course Sony cut that down a lot in
the later days. I believe that bit for bit, ATRAC can't hold a candle to AAC
and really good MP3.
> And, finally, I don't see what my tolerance for canned
> music sins, whether they be analog or digital has to do
> with my notion of "real music". Live music has none of
> the drawbacks of recording and storage schemes past or
> present.
However, there are as many different flavors of live music as there are
seats in the auditorium and on stage.
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:ftjge8023b4@news4.newsguy,com
> But if you grew-up listening to tape and LP as I did, you
> learn to listen around those obstacles because the music
> is STILL there.
Sorta. I grew up on a steady diet of acoustical music, and I was never that
happy with the LP format. I did like tape, particularly half-track at 7 1/2
or 15 ips.
> With MP3 and other lossy schemes, I find
> that the music sounds like its been put in a blender and
> reduced to mush.
Depends on the bitrate. In a earlier portion of this post that you clipped,
you mentioned 128 bps, and that has always been sort of a hinge point. Below
128 kbps, music is often in trouble, and well above 128 kbps, music is often
unhindered.
> Mush that has nasty artifacts riding on it. In other words I find that I
> cannot listen around MP3
> nastiness because the music ISN'T still there.
Like I said, try bitrates higher than 128 kbps, try other coders.
> While I
> realize that it's possible for one to use a higher
> bit-rate when one is ripping their own CDs, and at 320
> kbps, MP3 doesn't sound all that bad, Apple is the
> largest online music store in the world and they only
> give one the option of 128 kbps.
Remember that the music business still nurtures hopes of selling you
physical media, even after you've downloaded the song. I see the choice of
128 kbps as being a commercial strategy to foster further sales.
> I always thought that
> Sony's Mini-Disc compression scheme sounded much better
> than MP3 and the downloads available on Sony's on-line
> music store (now defunct) Sounded MUCH more listenable
> than did the MP3s available from Apple and other on-line
> music sources.
My recollection is that the basic historical MD format was based on a much
higher basic bitrate that 128 kbps. Of course Sony cut that down a lot in
the later days. I believe that bit for bit, ATRAC can't hold a candle to AAC
and really good MP3.
> And, finally, I don't see what my tolerance for canned
> music sins, whether they be analog or digital has to do
> with my notion of "real music". Live music has none of
> the drawbacks of recording and storage schemes past or
> present.
However, there are as many different flavors of live music as there are
seats in the auditorium and on stage.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <ftmbvt01n6t@news4.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:ftjge8023b4@news4.newsguy,com
>
>> But if you grew-up listening to tape and LP as I did, you
>> learn to listen around those obstacles because the music
>> is STILL there.
>
> Sorta. I grew up on a steady diet of acoustical music, and I was never that
> happy with the LP format. I did like tape, particularly half-track at 7 1/2
> or 15 ips.
>
>> With MP3 and other lossy schemes, I find
>> that the music sounds like its been put in a blender and
>> reduced to mush.
>
> Depends on the bitrate. In a earlier portion of this post that you clipped,
> you mentioned 128 bps, and that has always been sort of a hinge point. Below
> 128 kbps, music is often in trouble, and well above 128 kbps, music is often
> unhindered.
>
>> Mush that has nasty artifacts riding on it. In other words I find that I
>> cannot listen around MP3
>> nastiness because the music ISN'T still there.
>
> Like I said, try bitrates higher than 128 kbps, try other coders.
>
>> While I
>> realize that it's possible for one to use a higher
>> bit-rate when one is ripping their own CDs, and at 320
>> kbps, MP3 doesn't sound all that bad, Apple is the
>> largest online music store in the world and they only
>> give one the option of 128 kbps.
>
> Remember that the music business still nurtures hopes of selling you
> physical media, even after you've downloaded the song. I see the choice of
> 128 kbps as being a commercial strategy to foster further sales.
>
>> I always thought that
>> Sony's Mini-Disc compression scheme sounded much better
>> than MP3 and the downloads available on Sony's on-line
>> music store (now defunct) Sounded MUCH more listenable
>> than did the MP3s available from Apple and other on-line
>> music sources.
>
> My recollection is that the basic historical MD format was based on a much
> higher basic bitrate that 128 kbps. Of course Sony cut that down a lot in
> the later days. I believe that bit for bit, ATRAC can't hold a candle to AAC
> and really good MP3.
>
>> And, finally, I don't see what my tolerance for canned
>> music sins, whether they be analog or digital has to do
>> with my notion of "real music". Live music has none of
>> the drawbacks of recording and storage schemes past or
>> present.
>
> However, there are as many different flavors of live music as there are
> seats in the auditorium and on stage.
>
Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of those seats. That's why
live music played in real space is the one absolute reference in audio
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <ftmbvt01n6t@news4.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:ftjge8023b4@news4.newsguy,com
>
>> But if you grew-up listening to tape and LP as I did, you
>> learn to listen around those obstacles because the music
>> is STILL there.
>
> Sorta. I grew up on a steady diet of acoustical music, and I was never that
> happy with the LP format. I did like tape, particularly half-track at 7 1/2
> or 15 ips.
>
>> With MP3 and other lossy schemes, I find
>> that the music sounds like its been put in a blender and
>> reduced to mush.
>
> Depends on the bitrate. In a earlier portion of this post that you clipped,
> you mentioned 128 bps, and that has always been sort of a hinge point. Below
> 128 kbps, music is often in trouble, and well above 128 kbps, music is often
> unhindered.
>
>> Mush that has nasty artifacts riding on it. In other words I find that I
>> cannot listen around MP3
>> nastiness because the music ISN'T still there.
>
> Like I said, try bitrates higher than 128 kbps, try other coders.
>
>> While I
>> realize that it's possible for one to use a higher
>> bit-rate when one is ripping their own CDs, and at 320
>> kbps, MP3 doesn't sound all that bad, Apple is the
>> largest online music store in the world and they only
>> give one the option of 128 kbps.
>
> Remember that the music business still nurtures hopes of selling you
> physical media, even after you've downloaded the song. I see the choice of
> 128 kbps as being a commercial strategy to foster further sales.
>
>> I always thought that
>> Sony's Mini-Disc compression scheme sounded much better
>> than MP3 and the downloads available on Sony's on-line
>> music store (now defunct) Sounded MUCH more listenable
>> than did the MP3s available from Apple and other on-line
>> music sources.
>
> My recollection is that the basic historical MD format was based on a much
> higher basic bitrate that 128 kbps. Of course Sony cut that down a lot in
> the later days. I believe that bit for bit, ATRAC can't hold a candle to AAC
> and really good MP3.
>
>> And, finally, I don't see what my tolerance for canned
>> music sins, whether they be analog or digital has to do
>> with my notion of "real music". Live music has none of
>> the drawbacks of recording and storage schemes past or
>> present.
>
> However, there are as many different flavors of live music as there are
> seats in the auditorium and on stage.
>
Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of those seats. That's why
live music played in real space is the one absolute reference in audio
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:ftmlsd015oq@news5.newsguy,com ...
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <ftmbvt01n6t@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
>> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>> news:ftjge8023b4@news4.newsguy,com
>>
>>> But if you grew-up listening to tape and LP as I did, you
>>> learn to listen around those obstacles because the music
>>> is STILL there.
>>
But too, if you _grew-up_ listening to tape and LP as I too did, you now
suffer age related hearing loss, (and/or loss from listening to years of
music (canned and/or live), so you are not at sensitive to tape hiss and
certain frequencies of LP surface noise.
>> Sorta. I grew up on a steady diet of acoustical music, and I was never
>> that
>> happy with the LP format. I did like tape, particularly half-track at 7
>> 1/2
>> or 15 ips.
>>
>>> With MP3 and other lossy schemes, I find
>>> that the music sounds like its been put in a blender and
>>> reduced to mush.
>>
>> Depends on the bitrate. In a earlier portion of this post that you
>> clipped,
>> you mentioned 128 bps, and that has always been sort of a hinge point.
>> Below
>> 128 kbps, music is often in trouble, and well above 128 kbps, music is
>> often
>> unhindered.
>>
>>> Mush that has nasty artifacts riding on it. In other words I find that I
>>> cannot listen around MP3
>>> nastiness because the music ISN'T still there.
>>
>> Like I said, try bitrates higher than 128 kbps, try other coders.
>>
>>> While I
>>> realize that it's possible for one to use a higher
>>> bit-rate when one is ripping their own CDs, and at 320
>>> kbps, MP3 doesn't sound all that bad, Apple is the
>>> largest online music store in the world and they only
>>> give one the option of 128 kbps.
>>
>> Remember that the music business still nurtures hopes of selling you
>> physical media, even after you've downloaded the song. I see the choice
>> of
>> 128 kbps as being a commercial strategy to foster further sales.
>>
>>> I always thought that
>>> Sony's Mini-Disc compression scheme sounded much better
>>> than MP3 and the downloads available on Sony's on-line
>>> music store (now defunct) Sounded MUCH more listenable
>>> than did the MP3s available from Apple and other on-line
>>> music sources.
>>
>> My recollection is that the basic historical MD format was based on a
>> much
>> higher basic bitrate that 128 kbps. Of course Sony cut that down a lot in
>> the later days. I believe that bit for bit, ATRAC can't hold a candle to
>> AAC
>> and really good MP3.
>>
>>> And, finally, I don't see what my tolerance for canned
>>> music sins, whether they be analog or digital has to do
>>> with my notion of "real music". Live music has none of
>>> the drawbacks of recording and storage schemes past or
>>> present.
>>
>> However, there are as many different flavors of live music as there are
>> seats in the auditorium and on stage.
>>
>
> Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of those seats. That's
> why
> live music played in real space is the one absolute reference in audio
Yes, some canned sounds much better than that from some seats, and from many
seats in some auditoriums.
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:ftmlsd015oq@news5.newsguy,com ...
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <ftmbvt01n6t@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
>> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>> news:ftjge8023b4@news4.newsguy,com
>>
>>> But if you grew-up listening to tape and LP as I did, you
>>> learn to listen around those obstacles because the music
>>> is STILL there.
>>
But too, if you _grew-up_ listening to tape and LP as I too did, you now
suffer age related hearing loss, (and/or loss from listening to years of
music (canned and/or live), so you are not at sensitive to tape hiss and
certain frequencies of LP surface noise.
>> Sorta. I grew up on a steady diet of acoustical music, and I was never
>> that
>> happy with the LP format. I did like tape, particularly half-track at 7
>> 1/2
>> or 15 ips.
>>
>>> With MP3 and other lossy schemes, I find
>>> that the music sounds like its been put in a blender and
>>> reduced to mush.
>>
>> Depends on the bitrate. In a earlier portion of this post that you
>> clipped,
>> you mentioned 128 bps, and that has always been sort of a hinge point.
>> Below
>> 128 kbps, music is often in trouble, and well above 128 kbps, music is
>> often
>> unhindered.
>>
>>> Mush that has nasty artifacts riding on it. In other words I find that I
>>> cannot listen around MP3
>>> nastiness because the music ISN'T still there.
>>
>> Like I said, try bitrates higher than 128 kbps, try other coders.
>>
>>> While I
>>> realize that it's possible for one to use a higher
>>> bit-rate when one is ripping their own CDs, and at 320
>>> kbps, MP3 doesn't sound all that bad, Apple is the
>>> largest online music store in the world and they only
>>> give one the option of 128 kbps.
>>
>> Remember that the music business still nurtures hopes of selling you
>> physical media, even after you've downloaded the song. I see the choice
>> of
>> 128 kbps as being a commercial strategy to foster further sales.
>>
>>> I always thought that
>>> Sony's Mini-Disc compression scheme sounded much better
>>> than MP3 and the downloads available on Sony's on-line
>>> music store (now defunct) Sounded MUCH more listenable
>>> than did the MP3s available from Apple and other on-line
>>> music sources.
>>
>> My recollection is that the basic historical MD format was based on a
>> much
>> higher basic bitrate that 128 kbps. Of course Sony cut that down a lot in
>> the later days. I believe that bit for bit, ATRAC can't hold a candle to
>> AAC
>> and really good MP3.
>>
>>> And, finally, I don't see what my tolerance for canned
>>> music sins, whether they be analog or digital has to do
>>> with my notion of "real music". Live music has none of
>>> the drawbacks of recording and storage schemes past or
>>> present.
>>
>> However, there are as many different flavors of live music as there are
>> seats in the auditorium and on stage.
>>
>
> Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of those seats. That's
> why
> live music played in real space is the one absolute reference in audio
Yes, some canned sounds much better than that from some seats, and from many
seats in some auditoriums.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:45:35 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote
(in article <ftom5v06oo@news3.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:ftmlsd015oq@news5.newsguy,com ...
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <ftmbvt01n6t@news4.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>>> news:ftjge8023b4@news4.newsguy,com
>>>
>>>> But if you grew-up listening to tape and LP as I did, you
>>>> learn to listen around those obstacles because the music
>>>> is STILL there.
>>>
>
> But too, if you _grew-up_ listening to tape and LP as I too did, you now
> suffer age related hearing loss, (and/or loss from listening to years of
> music (canned and/or live), so you are not at sensitive to tape hiss and
> certain frequencies of LP surface noise.
>
>>> Sorta. I grew up on a steady diet of acoustical music, and I was never
>>> that
>>> happy with the LP format. I did like tape, particularly half-track at 7
>>> 1/2
>>> or 15 ips.
>>>
>>>> With MP3 and other lossy schemes, I find
>>>> that the music sounds like its been put in a blender and
>>>> reduced to mush.
>>>
>>> Depends on the bitrate. In a earlier portion of this post that you
>>> clipped,
>>> you mentioned 128 bps, and that has always been sort of a hinge point.
>>> Below
>>> 128 kbps, music is often in trouble, and well above 128 kbps, music is
>>> often
>>> unhindered.
>>>
>>>> Mush that has nasty artifacts riding on it. In other words I find that I
>>>> cannot listen around MP3
>>>> nastiness because the music ISN'T still there.
>>>
>>> Like I said, try bitrates higher than 128 kbps, try other coders.
>>>
>>>> While I
>>>> realize that it's possible for one to use a higher
>>>> bit-rate when one is ripping their own CDs, and at 320
>>>> kbps, MP3 doesn't sound all that bad, Apple is the
>>>> largest online music store in the world and they only
>>>> give one the option of 128 kbps.
>>>
>>> Remember that the music business still nurtures hopes of selling you
>>> physical media, even after you've downloaded the song. I see the choice
>>> of
>>> 128 kbps as being a commercial strategy to foster further sales.
>>>
>>>> I always thought that
>>>> Sony's Mini-Disc compression scheme sounded much better
>>>> than MP3 and the downloads available on Sony's on-line
>>>> music store (now defunct) Sounded MUCH more listenable
>>>> than did the MP3s available from Apple and other on-line
>>>> music sources.
>>>
>>> My recollection is that the basic historical MD format was based on a
>>> much
>>> higher basic bitrate that 128 kbps. Of course Sony cut that down a lot in
>>> the later days. I believe that bit for bit, ATRAC can't hold a candle to
>>> AAC
>>> and really good MP3.
>>>
>>>> And, finally, I don't see what my tolerance for canned
>>>> music sins, whether they be analog or digital has to do
>>>> with my notion of "real music". Live music has none of
>>>> the drawbacks of recording and storage schemes past or
>>>> present.
>>>
>>> However, there are as many different flavors of live music as there are
>>> seats in the auditorium and on stage.
>>>
>>
>> Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of those seats. That's
>> why
>> live music played in real space is the one absolute reference in audio
>
> Yes, some canned sounds much better than that from some seats, and from many
> seats in some auditoriums.
>
I've never experienced that. I've never heard an audio system that comes
within a country mile of sounding like real music - even when heard from the
worst seat in the house. Sure perspectives can be skewed by being in the
wrong seat, even certain frequencies attenuated or artificially boosted, but
still it's live music and it doesn't sound like canned no matter where one
sits.
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:45:35 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote
(in article <ftom5v06oo@news3.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:ftmlsd015oq@news5.newsguy,com ...
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <ftmbvt01n6t@news4.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>>> news:ftjge8023b4@news4.newsguy,com
>>>
>>>> But if you grew-up listening to tape and LP as I did, you
>>>> learn to listen around those obstacles because the music
>>>> is STILL there.
>>>
>
> But too, if you _grew-up_ listening to tape and LP as I too did, you now
> suffer age related hearing loss, (and/or loss from listening to years of
> music (canned and/or live), so you are not at sensitive to tape hiss and
> certain frequencies of LP surface noise.
>
>>> Sorta. I grew up on a steady diet of acoustical music, and I was never
>>> that
>>> happy with the LP format. I did like tape, particularly half-track at 7
>>> 1/2
>>> or 15 ips.
>>>
>>>> With MP3 and other lossy schemes, I find
>>>> that the music sounds like its been put in a blender and
>>>> reduced to mush.
>>>
>>> Depends on the bitrate. In a earlier portion of this post that you
>>> clipped,
>>> you mentioned 128 bps, and that has always been sort of a hinge point.
>>> Below
>>> 128 kbps, music is often in trouble, and well above 128 kbps, music is
>>> often
>>> unhindered.
>>>
>>>> Mush that has nasty artifacts riding on it. In other words I find that I
>>>> cannot listen around MP3
>>>> nastiness because the music ISN'T still there.
>>>
>>> Like I said, try bitrates higher than 128 kbps, try other coders.
>>>
>>>> While I
>>>> realize that it's possible for one to use a higher
>>>> bit-rate when one is ripping their own CDs, and at 320
>>>> kbps, MP3 doesn't sound all that bad, Apple is the
>>>> largest online music store in the world and they only
>>>> give one the option of 128 kbps.
>>>
>>> Remember that the music business still nurtures hopes of selling you
>>> physical media, even after you've downloaded the song. I see the choice
>>> of
>>> 128 kbps as being a commercial strategy to foster further sales.
>>>
>>>> I always thought that
>>>> Sony's Mini-Disc compression scheme sounded much better
>>>> than MP3 and the downloads available on Sony's on-line
>>>> music store (now defunct) Sounded MUCH more listenable
>>>> than did the MP3s available from Apple and other on-line
>>>> music sources.
>>>
>>> My recollection is that the basic historical MD format was based on a
>>> much
>>> higher basic bitrate that 128 kbps. Of course Sony cut that down a lot in
>>> the later days. I believe that bit for bit, ATRAC can't hold a candle to
>>> AAC
>>> and really good MP3.
>>>
>>>> And, finally, I don't see what my tolerance for canned
>>>> music sins, whether they be analog or digital has to do
>>>> with my notion of "real music". Live music has none of
>>>> the drawbacks of recording and storage schemes past or
>>>> present.
>>>
>>> However, there are as many different flavors of live music as there are
>>> seats in the auditorium and on stage.
>>>
>>
>> Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of those seats. That's
>> why
>> live music played in real space is the one absolute reference in audio
>
> Yes, some canned sounds much better than that from some seats, and from many
> seats in some auditoriums.
>
I've never experienced that. I've never heard an audio system that comes
within a country mile of sounding like real music - even when heard from the
worst seat in the house. Sure perspectives can be skewed by being in the
wrong seat, even certain frequencies attenuated or artificially boosted, but
still it's live music and it doesn't sound like canned no matter where one
sits.
