On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:03:53 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:43:48 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

No, Im talking about the encoding process. IIRC the compression used
is huffman or LZW (or some such). This is done AFTER the encoding
process.

The encoding is part of the compression process. Don't be
disingenuous.

I wasnt trying to be. Someone said the encoding process was irrelevant,
all that mattered was the compression. Ah, heres the quote - Kurt
Hamster wrote:

'******** to the encoding, the fact remains there are audible
differences between compressed files (at any bit rate) and
uncompressed audio.'

By encoding he ment method of encoding, and by comressed files he ment the
whole
process of enocoding/compression/whatever else the computer does.

To be honest, this should have been obvious from the context.

--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:03:53 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:43:48 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

No, Im talking about the encoding process. IIRC the compression used
is huffman or LZW (or some such). This is done AFTER the encoding
process.

The encoding is part of the compression process. Don't be
disingenuous.

I wasnt trying to be. Someone said the encoding process was irrelevant,
all that mattered was the compression. Ah, heres the quote - Kurt
Hamster wrote:

'******** to the encoding, the fact remains there are audible
differences between compressed files (at any bit rate) and
uncompressed audio.'

And he was quite right, especially if you like acoustic jazz with lots
of intricate percussion. It doesn't matter which kind of lossy
compression algorithm is used, it is still *by definition* inferior to
an uncompressed recording. You can argue audibility of say MP3 at
assorted bitrates until the cows come home, but there is still *no
excuse* for using such a crippled system in a home player.

You can get at least 200 CDs onto a 120GB hard disk if you insist on
computer storage, and I don't know *anyone* who listens to more than
200 different discs in an average year.

The content of the source has f*ck all to do with linearity.

That is about the dumbest thing you've said yet - which is an
achievement in itself!

Linearity is a property of the system, not the data you put into it.

Which part of 'garbage in, garbage out' did you fail to understand?

None of it. And a linear system will reproduce garbage without
distortion, although Im failing to see your point here (do you have
one?)

Sure I do - a linear system is pointless, if not fed from a linear
source. Perfectly reproduced garbage remains garbage.

So, I repeat:

'Linearity is a property of the system, not the data you put
into it.'

So, you are presumably happy with garbage out. Enjoy......
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:51:36 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

'******** to the encoding, the fact remains there are audible
differences between compressed files (at any bit rate) and
uncompressed audio.'

And he was quite right, especially if you like acoustic jazz with lots
of intricate percussion.

FLAC is compressed...


--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

Just out of interest..... How many bad performances have you walked out
of?
And which was the worst? I can only remember walking out of 1, from a pub
in Killin, where the "entertainment" was truly, spectacularly bad. I've
walked out of a couple of films But it's incredibly hard to do!! I
always
feel I should appologise "really sorry, can't stay, can't stand this,
this
is crap, sorry, sorry, sorry" and thats just to a film!

I once walked out of Schindlers List cos the place was full of pricks who
couldn't keep still, ate sweets and kept getting up to go out for a fag!

HayHo... home cinema!!

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

There are no gains with MP3 other than price and size.

Portability and convenience? The iPod and iTunes has changed the
way I listen to music. Might not be the same quality as my
traditional system but, fcuk it, if I can have a box the size of a
fag packet holding 10,000 songs that I can listen to in the car or
almost 30,000 songs (mainly at 320kbps) on my home MP3 jukebox then
I'm willing to forego some quality for the sheer convenience.

WTF? How far away from work *are* you, when you need 10,000 songs in
your iPod? Why not use just a couple of dozen or so at full .wav
quality?

a) I'm on the road a lot, often driving across Europe for days at a time.
The whole point I was making was that the advent of the iPod has meant that
I no longer have to think about what I want to listen to, it makes the
decision for me. I've discovered all sorts of tracks I didn't even know I
had!

b) I'm honestly not that bothered about ultimate quality when in the car,
the iPod uses an iTrip to radio transmit tracks back through the car radio
and I suspect the iTrip does lots of unpleasant things to the signal in the
process. At the end of the day, in-car music is just about background noise
anyway, it's not something I concentrate on

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

You can get at least 200 CDs onto a 120GB hard disk if you insist on
computer storage, and I don't know *anyone* who listens to more than
200 different discs in an average year.

What?? I have the stereo on for at least 8 hours a day, that has to be
around 8-10 albums a day minimum. Those days when I'm not at home I'm on
the road and have music on in the car. It's safe to say rarely a day goes
by when I don't listen to at least 8 albums worth of music.

8 * (say) 300 days = 2400 albums/year as a minimum

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:33:52 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

the *compression* isnt what affects the quality though. the data is discarded in the encoding part of the process. The actual compression in mp3 is non-lossy, as it happens.

A rather pointless distinction. You can't separate the two parts of
the process.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:33:52 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

Fair enough. it might not be technically accurate. However if its sonically accurate (ie. one cant hear the difference) then I dont care.


But you CAN hear the difference :-)

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:47:52 +0000
Laurence Payne wrote:

Fair enough. it might not be technically accurate. However if its sonically accurate (ie. one cant hear the difference) then I dont care.


But you CAN hear the difference :-)

Not on all tracks. and on the ones I can I dont use mp3.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:47:58 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote:

Not on all tracks. and on the ones I can I dont use mp3.

Are you getting thirsty from all that back pedalling?

1) Do you honestly think my only sources are mp3s?
2) I've stated before that I dont use mp3 for everything.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.