Storage media sizes exploding

It always amuses me when the next greatest memory technology is invented and
the technology 'journalists' say that now we will be able to store 10
billion songs on our 'ipods'.

Why don't they say that we can now store one billion songs, and they won't
have to sound like crap ?!!

geoff

"geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in
news:Z6KdnefW47O6GILVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com:

> It always amuses me when the next greatest memory technology is
> invented and the technology 'journalists' say that now we will be able
> to store 10 billion songs on our 'ipods'.
>
> Why don't they say that we can now store one billion songs, and they
> won't have to sound like crap ?!!

How about the few hundred songs I really like and they sound spectacular!

Carey Carlan wrote:
> "geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in
> news:Z6KdnefW47O6GILVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>> It always amuses me when the next greatest memory technology is
>> invented and the technology 'journalists' say that now we will be able
>> to store 10 billion songs on our 'ipods'.
>>
>> Why don't they say that we can now store one billion songs, and they
>> won't have to sound like crap ?!!
>
> How about the few hundred songs I really like and they sound spectacular!


That's why I also prefer uncompressed linear-PCM audio over all other
digital audio formats. The sample-rate must be at least 44.1 kHz and the
bit-resolution must be at least 16-bit.

If you must compress, use WMA but do so with the following wisdom:

Beware all digital audio compression formats other than WMA, stink badly!!

Here are my rules for digital audio:

A. Whether compressed or not, the audio must be monaural and with a
sample-rate of at least 44.1 kHz.

B. The only compression allowed is WMA. No other compression format is
permitted.

C. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of at
least 16-bit

D. If compression is used, then the sample-rate of the compressed and
the uncompressed version of the audio must be the same.

E. If compression is used, the only thing that should be decreased is
the bit-resolution. The sample-rate must remain unchanged [e.g. WMA in
44.1 kHz sample-rate, 20kbps bit-rate, and mono]. Notice the sample-rate
should not change, just the bit-rate.

Let's say a song that was originally recorded in stereo is given to me.
The song must to be converted to mono* via the following steps:

1. Record audio from CD [or other stereo audio source] into Wavelab,
Adobe Audition [or other audio software] into a file. For simplicity
let's call this file "Track1.wav"

2. Make a copy of Track1.wav and save the copy as "Track1B.wav"

3. Open Track1.wav and reduce the gain of its audio by 77.5%

4. Convert Track1.wav to monaural audio

5. Save Track.1

6. Open Track1B.wav and reduce its audio gain by 50%

7. Invert the phase of the left channel of Track1B.wav

8. Convert Track1B.wav to mono

9. Save Track1B.wav

10. Create a new stereo wave file whose bit-resolution is 16-bit and
sample rate is 44.1 kHz. For simplicity let's call this file "untitled.wav"

11. Copy and paste the audio of Track1.wav into the left channel of
untitled.wav

12. Copy and paste the audio of Track1B.wave into the right channel of
untitled.wav

13. Convert untitled.wav to mono

14. Save untitled.wav

*Songs that were originally-recorded in stereo need to be converted to
mono via the above 14 steps because different sounds are recorded
differently in the L and R channels. The audio that is originally panned
to the center is significantly louder than the audio whose phase is
different in the left & right channels. This is why I reduce the
loudness of non-inverted stereo audio file by 77.5% [before converting
it to mono].

In the stereo file whose left channel has its phase inverted, I decrease
the loudness only by 50% and then convert it to mono. Usually -- the
lead vocals, bass, and percussion are recorded identically in both the
left and right channels. The piano, chorus, guitar, and synth pads are
usually recorded differently in the left and right channel.

"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:481f9a17$0$31747$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> *Songs that were originally-recorded in stereo need to be converted to
> mono via the above 14 steps because different sounds are recorded
> differently in the L and R channels. The audio that is originally panned
> to the center is significantly louder than the audio whose phase is
> different in the left & right channels. This is why I reduce the
> loudness of non-inverted stereo audio file by 77.5% [before converting
> it to mono].

Wha-a?

Peace,
Paul

Paul Stamler wrote:
> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:481f9a17$0$31747$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>> *Songs that were originally-recorded in stereo need to be converted to
>> mono via the above 14 steps because different sounds are recorded
>> differently in the L and R channels. The audio that is originally panned
>> to the center is significantly louder than the audio whose phase is
>> different in the left & right channels. This is why I reduce the
>> loudness of non-inverted stereo audio file by 77.5% [before converting
>> it to mono].
>
> Wha-a?
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>


Huh?

"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote ...
> Huh?

May we quote you?

"geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:Z6KdnefW47O6GILVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> It always amuses me when the next greatest memory technology is invented
> and the technology 'journalists' say that now we will be able to store 10
> billion songs on our 'ipods'.
>
> Why don't they say that we can now store one billion songs, and they
> won't have to sound like crap ?!!
>
> geoff
German has a word, "zeitgeist", which has come to mean "the spirit of the
times." Today's zeitgeist goes against quality. We would have to hope for a
renaissance of quality.

Bob Morein

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> "geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:Z6KdnefW47O6GILVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> It always amuses me when the next greatest memory technology is invented
>> and the technology 'journalists' say that now we will be able to store 10
>> billion songs on our 'ipods'.
>>
>> Why don't they say that we can now store one billion songs, and they
>> won't have to sound like crap ?!!
>>
>> geoff
> German has a word, "zeitgeist", which has come to mean "the spirit of the
> times." Today's zeitgeist goes against quality. We would have to hope for a
> renaissance of quality.
>
> Bob Morein
>
>

You don't buy an iPod for quality, you buy it for convenience. If you
want quality buy something that was designed for it.

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>
> You don't buy an iPod for quality, you buy it for convenience. If you
> want quality buy something that was designed for it.

But everything with an 'i' is quality.....

geoff

geoff wrote:
> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>> You don't buy an iPod for quality, you buy it for convenience. If you
>> want quality buy something that was designed for it.
>
> But everything with an 'i' is quality.....
>
> geoff

I'm not sure where you get this from, even tongue in cheek, NO ONE has
ever said that having an "i" is quality :-) Even the "pod" part is
really stupid since they are all square. I have an iPod video (5g 30g),
someone gave it to me... it actually doesn't sound bad at all, depending
on what I put into it. I beats the hell out of a cassette player, is way
smaller than a CD player and hold a hell of a lot more music. It only
has a 30 gig harddrive. I mostly keep classic rock and pop in it, along
with whatever videos I'm into at the moment (watched all the Fawlty
Towers recently on it as a matter of fact... I'm a sucker for those old
british comedies they used to show on PBS) It's quite listenable and
watchable, but it all depends on what you put in it. It still plays PCM
if you want better than mp3 sound quality, but that kind of defeats the
purpose of having all of the songs you own in a convenient playback
device. And that is the purpose of the iPod, so let's not assign a new
purpose for the device and then complain when it falls short. It is what
it is. Now, back to my iPod to watch "Open All Hours" :-)

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
> geoff wrote:
>> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>>> You don't buy an iPod for quality, you buy it for convenience. If
>>> you want quality buy something that was designed for it.
>>
>> But everything with an 'i' is quality.....
>>
>> geoff
>
> I'm not sure where you get this from, even tongue in cheek, NO ONE has
> ever said that having an "i" is quality :-) Even the "pod" part is
> really stupid since they are all square. I have an iPod video (5g
> 30g), someone gave it to me... it actually doesn't sound bad at all,
> depending on what I put into it. I beats the hell out of a cassette
> player, is way smaller than a CD player and hold a hell of a lot more
> music. It only has a 30 gig harddrive. I mostly keep classic rock and
> pop in it, along with whatever videos I'm into at the moment (watched
> all the Fawlty Towers recently on it as a matter of fact... I'm a
> sucker for those old british comedies they used to show on PBS) It's
> quite listenable and watchable, but it all depends on what you put in
> it. It still plays PCM if you want better than mp3 sound quality, but
> that kind of defeats the purpose of having all of the songs you own
> in a convenient playback device. And that is the purpose of the iPod,
> so let's not assign a new purpose for the device and then complain
> when it falls short. It is what it is. Now, back to my iPod to watch
> "Open All Hours" :-)

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
> geoff wrote:
>> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>>> You don't buy an iPod for quality, you buy it for convenience. If
>>> you want quality buy something that was designed for it.
>>
>> But everything with an 'i' is quality.....
>>
>> geoff
>
> I'm not sure where you get this from, even tongue in cheek, NO ONE has
> ever said that having an "i" is quality :-)

Apple sort of imply that anything other than Apple is 'lower' quality, so
it's a relative thing.

>. And that is the purpose of the iPod,
> so let's not assign a new purpose for the device and then complain
> when it falls short. It is what it is. Now, back to my iPod to watch
> "Open All Hours" :-)

We get a sat channel called UKTV here - repeats of classic Brit comedies,
and more recent classics like Green Wing. But haven't seen Aud Wiedersen Pet
for a while....

geoff

"geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:IqidnYMOYaXIdYLVnZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> Apple sort of imply that anything other than Apple is 'lower' quality,

Of course they do, so does every other manufacturer. It's called marketing.

MrT.

On Mon, 5 May 2008, Romeo Rondeau wrote:

> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>> "geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:Z6KdnefW47O6GILVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> It always amuses me when the next greatest memory technology is invented
>>> and the technology 'journalists' say that now we will be able to store 10
>>> billion songs on our 'ipods'.
>>>
>>> Why don't they say that we can now store one billion songs, and they
>>> won't have to sound like crap ?!!
>>>
>>> geoff
>> German has a word, "zeitgeist", which has come to mean "the spirit of the
>> times." Today's zeitgeist goes against quality. We would have to hope for
>> a renaissance of quality.
>>
>> Bob Morein
>>
>
> You don't buy an iPod for quality, you buy it for convenience. If you want
> quality buy something that was designed for it.
>
Now this is amusing. It's hard to tell whether you are using "iPod" in a
generic way or not.

People buy iPods for the name. They buy mp3 players, the iPod being one
of many types of mp3 players, for convenience.

"Quality" when referring to mp3 players is about durability. One might
even bring in lifespan for a given price, since I get the impression
that iPods don't have that long a lifespan yet you are paying a premium
for that name. A $30 mp3 player doesn't have to have much durability,
since the cost of replacement is small, yet they likely have as
much durability and lifespan as an iPod.

Michael

Michael Black wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 2008, Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>
>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>> "geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:Z6KdnefW47O6GILVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> It always amuses me when the next greatest memory technology is
>>>> invented and the technology 'journalists' say that now we will be
>>>> able to store 10 billion songs on our 'ipods'.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't they say that we can now store one billion songs, and
>>>> they won't have to sound like crap ?!!
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>> German has a word, "zeitgeist", which has come to mean "the spirit of
>>> the times." Today's zeitgeist goes against quality. We would have to
>>> hope for a renaissance of quality.
>>>
>>> Bob Morein
>>
>> You don't buy an iPod for quality, you buy it for convenience. If you
>> want quality buy something that was designed for it.
>>
> Now this is amusing. It's hard to tell whether you are using "iPod" in a
> generic way or not.
>
> People buy iPods for the name. They buy mp3 players, the iPod being one
> of many types of mp3 players, for convenience.
>
> "Quality" when referring to mp3 players is about durability.

Says who? We were talking about sound quality. Thanks for playing, though.