One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:23:51 +0000
Le Artiste wrote:

I have noted mportant sound quality
enhancements incurred in the implementation of new driver iterations
on several sound cards, but, note, the information Mr Krueger
presents on his website and relies on in informal argument is
typically very out of date, and based on early driver releases.

Interesting...

Non-factual.

Dormer's complaint with me is based on the SBLive! sound card which is now
totally obsolete.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:43:14 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Interesting...

Non-factual.

Is he right or isnt he?

Dormer's complaint with me is based on the SBLive! sound card which is now
totally obsolete.

Yet still on sale. Hrm.


--
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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:00:50 +0000, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:02:02 +0000, Le Artiste
wrote:

That's not strictly true, because the side effects of the compression
format can have in some circumstances.

I should say, I thought the context was compression using acoustic
masking techniques.. MP3, AAC, ATRAC etc


So which compression system do you recommend, in what circumstances,
and why?

I use .wav, or .mp3 if you want them smaller.

Yeah. But which one has "beneficial consequences", and in what
circumstances?

For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

Wrong.

..wav is a container format, just like .avi for "Video for Windows" and
..ogg for some types of open-source multimedia files (eg. audio encoded
with Vorbis, Speex, FLAC, and video encoded with Theora).

..wav can contain PCM data, but it could just as easily contain MP3 audio
data, ADPCM audio data, etc.

--
Now playing: something else

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:51:11 +0000, Le Artiste
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :

Good point. The 'signal in' is, of course, analogue. SoundForge saves WAVs
as 16/44.1 so I guess that's answered my question ain't it?

If you have a soundcard that offers other bit-rates and sample
frequencies, SoundForge will happily record and save at higher (or,
indeed, lower) resolutions.

It's questionable whether a higher sample frequency is worth it. 24
bits certainly are, if recording music with any dynamic range. Maybe
not from vinyl though? What's the practical dynamic range off vinyl?

About 13 bits, from unplayed perfectly clean top-class vinyl.

Of course, for capturing 13bits of information into a computer, 16bit
recording is de rigeur.

No, it's simply convenient. You can certainly use 13-bit to reduce
storage requirements.

Also, I would argue that beyond the technical
13bit dynamic range limitation that you state, there's a whole bunch
of euphonic stuff going on in bits 14, and below.

You can argue that if you like, it will still be irrelevant........

You should be aware that in a properly dithered 13-bit A/D conversion,
information well below the noise floor will be captured, just as it is
with analogue recording. It is trivially easy to record and replay say
a 3kHz tone at -105dB on a 16-bit recorder, and have it be perfectly
audible.

Of course, the ubiquitous nature of 16-bit recording, and the wide
availabilty of CD-R, does suggest that anyone transcribing their
precious and fragile LPs would use 16/44, which is much more than
adequate to capture everything on any commercial LP.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:54:43 +0000, "Nick J."
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

Wrong.

.wav is a container format, just like .avi for "Video for Windows" and
.ogg for some types of open-source multimedia files (eg. audio encoded
with Vorbis, Speex, FLAC, and video encoded with Theora).

.wav can contain PCM data, but it could just as easily contain MP3 audio
data, ADPCM audio data, etc.

OK, I'll give you that one! OTOH, when people refer to .wav files for
audio, I have never seen anyone suggest that these were anything other
than uncompressed PCM.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:54:43 +0000
"Nick J." wrote:

For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

Wrong.

.wav is a container format,

Correct, but I havent seen a compressed one, ever.

--
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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

Ian Molton wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:54:43 +0000
"Nick J." wrote:


For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

Wrong.

.wav is a container format,

Correct, but I havent seen a compressed one, ever.

I deal with them on a daily basis.

--
Now playing: something else

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:54:43 +0000, "Nick J."
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

Wrong.

.wav is a container format, just like .avi for "Video for Windows" and
.ogg for some types of open-source multimedia files (eg. audio encoded
with Vorbis, Speex, FLAC, and video encoded with Theora).

.wav can contain PCM data, but it could just as easily contain MP3 audio
data, ADPCM audio data, etc.

OK, I'll give you that one! OTOH, when people refer to .wav files for
audio, I have never seen anyone suggest that these were anything other
than uncompressed PCM.

That's because people haven't lived! ;)

--
Now playing: something else

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message


On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:43:14 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Interesting...

Non-factual.

Is he right or isn't he?

He's mostly wrong with a tiny grain of truth someplace in all the noise.

He debated this with me over in comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech maybe a year or two ago
when it was more relevant. He got shouted down by the group.

Dormer's complaint with me is based on the SBLive! sound card which
is now totally obsolete.

Yet still on sale. Hrm.

So is the first sequel - Audigy.

So is the second sequel - Audigy 2

The Live! is the third generation going backwards.

Let's put it this way, the Audigy pretty much corrected the problems I found
with the Live! that Dormer would like to pretend were non-existent.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Le Artiste" wrote in message

"Ian Molton" emitted :

Interesting...

Non-factual.

Is he right or isnt he?

I'll upload the JPG's of my FFT results somewhere, if I can locate them.

The JPGs were made using different analytical software than that which I
used for my two sets of earlier tests which yielded similar results for
vastly different driver releases.

BTW, the use of JPGs is typical of Dormer's technical incompetence on the
web. The screen shots are high contrast with a limited palette. JPG is far
from being the ideal format for portraying them.

The vendor made some significant changes to how his software worked just
before Dormer started using it. There were substantial differences in the
numbers the analytical software used would generate for the same data before
and after the vendor changed his software. Dormer faulted me for sticking
with the same analysis that I'd used with dozens of other cards. I justified
sticking with the same analysis so that the data would be comparable.

Dormer has a long and regrettably track record for libeling me. For example
he faulted me when his incompetently overclocked cheap-ass computer ate its
hard drive. He claims that an alpha copy of my software was on it, which is
why it crashed. This was a multi-gigbyte hard drive and my software ran a
few hundred kilobytes. Furthermore my software was a straight-up Visual
Basic application that did no bit-twiddling with the guts of Windows. I
think Dormer was telling a made-up story to impress his peer group on RAO,
which includes well-known idiots like Middius.

Of course I was right, but that is something Krueger himself wouldn't
admit to.

Check the google archives. you'll find me admitting to errors on numerous
occasions. Has Dormer ever admitted to an error? I don't think so.

Dormer's complaint with me is based on the SBLive! sound card which
is now totally obsolete.

Yet still on sale. Hrm.

.. and still in use on probably tens if not hundreds of thousands of
computers.

So are SB 16s. Your point?

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Le Artiste" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

I have noted mportant sound quality
enhancements incurred in the implementation of new driver
iterations on several sound cards, but, note, the information Mr
Krueger presents on his website and relies on in informal argument
is typically very out of date, and based on early driver releases.

Interesting...

Non-factual.

Dormer's complaint with me is based on the SBLive! sound card which
is now totally obsolete.

Most of the sound cards on your website are obsolete. In fact, the
whole site is looking pretty close to obsolete.

And Dormer, the URL of your up-to-date web site is????

LOL!

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

Le Artiste wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :


For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

Wrong.

.wav is a container format, just like .avi for "Video for Windows" and
.ogg for some types of open-source multimedia files (eg. audio encoded
with Vorbis, Speex, FLAC, and video encoded with Theora).

.wav can contain PCM data, but it could just as easily contain MP3 audio
data, ADPCM audio data, etc.

OK, I'll give you that one! OTOH, when people refer to .wav files for
audio, I have never seen anyone suggest that these were anything other
than uncompressed PCM.


9 times out of 10 the person means exactly 44.1Khz, 16bit PCM.

Well they should say that, or people will think they mean what they
write, and respond appropriately.

--
Now playing: something else

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

Le Artiste wrote:

"Nick J." emitted :


For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

Wrong.

.wav is a container format, just like .avi for "Video for Windows" and
.ogg for some types of open-source multimedia files (eg. audio encoded
with Vorbis, Speex, FLAC, and video encoded with Theora).

.wav can contain PCM data, but it could just as easily contain MP3 audio
data, ADPCM audio data, etc.

OK, I'll give you that one! OTOH, when people refer to .wav files for
audio, I have never seen anyone suggest that these were anything other
than uncompressed PCM.

9 times out of 10 the person means exactly 44.1Khz, 16bit PCM.

Well they should say that, or people will think they mean what they
write, and respond appropriately.

90% of the population can't be wrong!! :-)

Yes they can. :)

--
Now playing: something else

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Le Artiste" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

Interesting...

Non-factual.

Is he right or isn't he?

He's mostly wrong with a tiny grain of truth someplace in all the
noise.

The information I provided at the time was very accurate (within
100ths of dB). I performed several before and after tests, and was
meticulous about it.

Dormer, did you document the changes in Spectra that happened between my
last Live! measurements, and yours?

He debated this with me over in comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech maybe a year or
two ago when it was more relevant. He got shouted down by the group.

That is a lie.

Anything I say that you disagree with is lie, Dormer.

I did not get shouted down by the group at all.

Yeah, sure.

One or
two CreativeLabs haters persisted in denegrating the Live! and
promoting another soundcard to the group

Step one, dismiss the people who disagreed with you as being hopelessly
biased.

others were interested in
the results, some posted to the group, and several friendly and
productive email exchanges took place.

Step two, glorify the people who agreed with you, and cite private
communcations that your critics can't possibly see.

One person mailed to say he had
similar results to mine, but couldn't understand why Krueger refused
to keep his website in tune with reality.

Step three, focus on someone who decided to ally themselves with you.

Dormer's complaint with me is based on the SBLive! sound card which
is now totally obsolete.

Yet still on sale. Hrm.

So is the first sequel - Audigy.

So is the second sequel - Audigy 2

The Live! is the third generation going backwards.

Let's put it this way, the Audigy pretty much corrected the problems
I found with the Live! that Dormer would like to pretend were
non-existent.

Here we go again (sigh).

The problems with the Live! are well documented, I shall not
regurgitate them again.

Finally, we get Dormer to admit that there were in fact problems with the
Live!

That they were audible is apparent from the files anybody can download from

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

However, it was shown that a driver revision
corrected anomalies that affected a previously attrocious sample rate
conversion.

Dormer ignores the fact that I was told this once before, retested the card,
and found no evidence that supported the claim.

Please compare and contrast the frequency response curve I posted for my
last SBLive! test first posted on 2/2/ 2002
as

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/c...ndex.htm#FR_LB

and this one

http://audio.rightmark.org/test/crea...!5.1-1644.html

Which had to be done some years later, as the software used was not relesed
until 4 Sept. 2002 per:

http://audio.rightmark.org/lukin/rmaa/

I believe this was somewhat after Dormer's big *revelations*.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Le Artiste" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

Interesting...

Non-factual.

Is he right or isn't he?

I'll upload the JPG's of my FFT results somewhere, if I can locate
them.

The JPGs were made using different analytical software than that
which I used for my two sets of earlier tests which yielded similar
results for vastly different driver releases.

"Different analytical software"?

Bleugh!!

We both used SpectraLab.

As I've explained to you many times, to no avail, the vendor changed how
some critical parts of this software worked about the same time Dormer
started flogging this problem. The relevant area is SNR, and the differences
for the same data can be as much as 6 or more dB.

Arny, I used the most current version.. did you not use a current
version?

As I've explained to you many times, to no avail, there are solid reasons to
use software that provides comparable results over a period of time.

BTW, the use of JPGs is typical of Dormer's technical incompetence
on the web. The screen shots are high contrast with a limited
palette. JPG is far from being the ideal format for portraying them.

JPG's work fine.

It's all about using the best tools in a relevant way. I'm sorry Dormer that
you lack the tools to work effectively with common file formats that are
more appropriate for the application. JPEGs of high resolution,
limited-palette screen shots either fuzz up the detail or involve files that
are way too large.

The vendor made some significant changes to how his software worked
just before Dormer started using it. There were substantial
differences in the numbers the analytical software used would
generate for the same data before and after the vendor changed his
software. Dormer faulted me for sticking with the same analysis that
I'd used with dozens of other cards. I justified sticking with the
same analysis so that the data would be comparable.

This is absolute tosh, and a load of old blather.

Thanks for dismissing relevant facts, again Dormer. Earlier, I claimed that
you are a blithering idiot who dismisses relevant evidence that exposes your
ignorance, and you performed on cue.

You say you will
stick by data, continuing to perpetuate tired arguments based on that
tired old data, even when you are notified that the situation has
changed.

I've presented my case.

Heck, I got 88dB SN/R in tests you got 82dB. A deviation of that size
is in no way caused by a minor software revision, particularly
something of the calibre of SpectraLab.

Except it is.

Stop blaming your tools!

Thanks for dismissing relevant facts, again Dormer. Earlier, I claimed that
you are a blithering idiot who dismisses relevant evidence that exposes your
ignorance, and you performed on cue.


Dormer has a long and regrettably track record for libeling me. For
example he faulted me when his incompetently overclocked cheap-ass
computer ate its hard drive.

This is an example of Krueger accusing somebody of doing something
("libel"), then acting out the scenario himself. It's quite weird. He
litters his commentary with bitterness and hate, as exemplified by the
words "incompetently", "cheap-ass" and "ate", in this example. None of
it is true.

Dormer is so afraid of taking responsibility for what he says that he is now
habitually posting with the no-archive flag turned on. Nevertheless, here's
a quote of one of his recent posts where he tries to lie his way out of a
discussion of this very situation:

http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=t...3%40fed1read01
Follow the thread for other quotes from Dormer as he spins his way out of
control.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:50:32 +0000
"Nick J." wrote:

Correct, but I havent seen a compressed one, ever.

I deal with them on a daily basis.

Out of interest, what is in yours?

--
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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:54:43 +0000, "Nick J."
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

Wrong.

.wav is a container format, just like .avi for "Video for Windows"
and .ogg for some types of open-source multimedia files (eg. audio
encoded with Vorbis, Speex, FLAC, and video encoded with Theora).

.wav can contain PCM data, but it could just as easily contain MP3
audio data, ADPCM audio data, etc.

Agreed.

OK, I'll give you that one! OTOH, when people refer to .wav files for
audio, I have never seen anyone suggest that these were anything other
than uncompressed PCM.

One day I ran into a MP3 coder that created .wav files. The source of the
software was a little organization that had a name that started with a "F"
and ended up with "hofer".

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Nick J." wrote in message

Ian Molton wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:54:43 +0000
"Nick J." wrote:


For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

Wrong.

.wav is a container format,

Correct, but I havent seen a compressed one, ever.

I deal with them on a daily basis.

Yep, and the contents could easily be MP3s.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Le Artiste" wrote in message

"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :

Good point. The 'signal in' is, of course, analogue. SoundForge
saves WAVs as 16/44.1 so I guess that's answered my question
ain't it?

If you have a soundcard that offers other bit-rates and sample
frequencies, SoundForge will happily record and save at higher
(or, indeed, lower) resolutions.

It's questionable whether a higher sample frequency is worth it.
24 bits certainly are, if recording music with any dynamic range.
Maybe not from vinyl though? What's the practical dynamic range
off vinyl?

About 13 bits, from unplayed perfectly clean top-class vinyl.

Of course, for capturing 13bits of information into a computer,
16bit recording is de rigeur.

No, it's simply convenient. You can certainly use 13-bit to reduce
storage requirements.

I know of *nobody* who captures audio at 13bit.

4... 8... 12... 16... sure!

Also, I would argue that beyond the technical
13bit dynamic range limitation that you state, there's a whole bunch
of euphonic stuff going on in bits 14, and below.

You can argue that if you like, it will still be irrelevant........

You should be aware that in a properly dithered 13-bit A/D
conversion, information well below the noise floor will be captured,
just as it is with analogue recording.

So how long is a piece of string? I capture vinyl at 48Khz/20bit.

Let me guess - with SBLive! and APS drivers? Or are you so fond of
downsampling that you do this with your old Gina?

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:44:21 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

The information I provided at the time was very accurate (within
100ths of dB). I performed several before and after tests, and was
meticulous about it.

Dormer, did you document the changes in Spectra that happened between
my last Live! measurements, and yours?

Just a thought here, but unless spectra was *innacurate* before or after
whatever changes you cite, the results should be comparable...

mind you, 100ths of a dB seems a bit 'off' also.

--
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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:01:36 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:50:32 +0000
"Nick J." wrote:

Correct, but I havent seen a compressed one, ever.

I deal with them on a daily basis.

Out of interest, what is in yours?

At a guess .. .wav files used for alerts etc in Windows s/w ... a
random selection of .wav files in the \windows\media folder of this PC
shows:

16/48 stereo
16/44.1 stereo
16/22.05 stereo
8/11.025 mono

I'm sure that I also have some 24/96 material that's stored as .wav
files

Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote


Of course, the ubiquitous nature of 16-bit recording, and the wide
availabilty of CD-R, does suggest that anyone transcribing their
precious and fragile LPs



Fragile LPs???

Are you kidding? - I lightly caught a DVD+R on the corner of the loading
tray the other day and it was instantly scratched in an arc (OK, looked more
like part of a logarithmic spiral...) from edge to centre! Immediately stone
dead and completely 'invisible' to the computer - wouldn't even play with
'clicks'......

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:49:49 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

Are you kidding? - I lightly caught a DVD+R on the corner of the
loading tray the other day and it was instantly scratched in an arc
(OK, looked more like part of a logarithmic spiral...) from edge to
centre! Immediately stone dead and completely 'invisible' to the
computer - wouldn't even play with'clicks'......

you either had a duff one or you did more than just clip it.

you can make a scratch up to 1mm deep and about the same across
(radially) on a CD and it will still play. DVDs are similar.

--
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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:31:53 +0000
Julian Fowler wrote:

Correct, but I havent seen a compressed one, ever.

I deal with them on a daily basis.

Out of interest, what is in yours?

At a guess .. .wav files used for alerts etc in Windows s/w ... a
random selection of .wav files in the \windows\media folder of this PC
shows:

16/48 stereo
16/44.1 stereo
16/22.05 stereo
8/11.025 mono

that isnt anything to do with compression - you're just quoting
samplerate / resolution / channels.

--
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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:12:05 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:31:53 +0000
Julian Fowler wrote:

Correct, but I havent seen a compressed one, ever.

I deal with them on a daily basis.

Out of interest, what is in yours?

At a guess .. .wav files used for alerts etc in Windows s/w ... a
random selection of .wav files in the \windows\media folder of this PC
shows:

16/48 stereo
16/44.1 stereo
16/22.05 stereo
8/11.025 mono

that isnt anything to do with compression - you're just quoting
samplerate / resolution / channels.

Fair point ... I was responding to the slightly tangential suggestion
that WAV and 44.1/16/stereo are synonymous.

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:49:49 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

Are you kidding? - I lightly caught a DVD+R on the corner of the
loading tray the other day and it was instantly scratched in an arc
(OK, looked more like part of a logarithmic spiral...) from edge to
centre! Immediately stone dead and completely 'invisible' to the
computer - wouldn't even play with'clicks'......

you either had a duff one or you did more than just clip it.

you can make a scratch up to 1mm deep and about the same across
(radially) on a CD and it will still play. DVDs are similar.


No, Mr Molton, DVDs are not similar - just stare hard at one and it'll come
up 'Data Error (cyclic redundancy check) or somesuch. I've handled 'digital
disks' since Pontius was a pilot and these DVD Rs and RWs are reet touchy
little things - far more so than CD Rs and RWs, IMO......

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

Keith G wrote:

No, Mr Molton, DVDs are not similar - just stare hard at one and
it'll come up 'Data Error (cyclic redundancy check) or somesuch. I've
handled 'digital disks' since Pontius was a pilot and these DVD Rs
and RWs are reet touchy little things - far more so than CD Rs and
RWs, IMO......

Burning on a computer burner? As a matter of idle interest, what brands of
disk have you tried, and are there any that you find better? How about burn
speed?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:11:19 +0000, Le Artiste
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :

Good point. The 'signal in' is, of course, analogue. SoundForge saves WAVs
as 16/44.1 so I guess that's answered my question ain't it?

If you have a soundcard that offers other bit-rates and sample
frequencies, SoundForge will happily record and save at higher (or,
indeed, lower) resolutions.

It's questionable whether a higher sample frequency is worth it. 24
bits certainly are, if recording music with any dynamic range. Maybe
not from vinyl though? What's the practical dynamic range off vinyl?

About 13 bits, from unplayed perfectly clean top-class vinyl.

Of course, for capturing 13bits of information into a computer, 16bit
recording is de rigeur.

No, it's simply convenient. You can certainly use 13-bit to reduce
storage requirements.

I know of *nobody* who captures audio at 13bit.

4... 8... 12... 16... sure!

So what? It's certainly *possible*, just like compressed .wav files
are *possible*, and no doubt it's just as common................

Also, I would argue that beyond the technical
13bit dynamic range limitation that you state, there's a whole bunch
of euphonic stuff going on in bits 14, and below.

You can argue that if you like, it will still be irrelevant........

You should be aware that in a properly dithered 13-bit A/D conversion,
information well below the noise floor will be captured, just as it is
with analogue recording.

So how long is a piece of string? I capture vinyl at 48Khz/20bit.

Thereby completely wasting the 4 LSBs, since 16-bit would be far more
than adequate, as noted above.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:49:49 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

Of course, the ubiquitous nature of 16-bit recording, and the wide
availabilty of CD-R, does suggest that anyone transcribing their
precious and fragile LPs

Fragile LPs???

Are you kidding? - I lightly caught a DVD+R on the corner of the loading
tray the other day and it was instantly scratched in an arc (OK, looked more
like part of a logarithmic spiral...) from edge to centre! Immediately stone
dead and completely 'invisible' to the computer - wouldn't even play with
'clicks'......

No doubt you have the information backed up somewhere else. Try that
with a direct-cut LP..........................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message


On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:44:21 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

The information I provided at the time was very accurate (within
100ths of dB). I performed several before and after tests, and was
meticulous about it.

Dormer, did you document the changes in Spectra that happened between
my last Live! measurements, and yours?

Just a thought here, but unless spectra was *innacurate* before or
after whatever changes you cite, the results should be comparable...

Agreed.

mind you, 100ths of a dB seems a bit 'off' also.

Of course sonically, a few 100ths of a dB don't matter, but it is possible
to measure FR with that kind of precision, and I've done it quite often.
And, there's equipment that is THAT good. Any halfways-decent audio
interface with digital input or output for example, as well as some of the
better analog stuff. Consider this:

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/L....htm#FR_1644-a

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:27:03 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

And, there's equipment that is THAT good. Any halfways-decent audio
interface with digital input or output for example, as well as some of the
better analog stuff. Consider this:

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/L....htm#FR_1644-a

What causes the massive 'spike' in frequency response above 20kHz ?

--
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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message


On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:27:03 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

And, there's equipment that is THAT good. Any halfways-decent audio
interface with digital input or output for example, as well as some
of the better analog stuff. Consider this:

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/L....htm#FR_1644-a

What causes the massive 'spike' in frequency response above 20kHz ?

I think that's per design. It's part of the *price* they pay for the
exceedingly flat response below 20 KHz.

The "massive spike" actually is less than 0.2 dB high. Because its narrow
and at such a high frequency, it's sonically meaningless.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

Le Artiste wrote:
"Nick J." emitted :


For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

Wrong.

.wav is a container format, just like .avi for "Video for Windows" and
.ogg for some types of open-source multimedia files (eg. audio encoded
with Vorbis, Speex, FLAC, and video encoded with Theora).

.wav can contain PCM data, but it could just as easily contain MP3 audio
data, ADPCM audio data, etc.

OK, I'll give you that one! OTOH, when people refer to .wav files for
audio, I have never seen anyone suggest that these were anything other
than uncompressed PCM.

9 times out of 10 the person means exactly 44.1Khz, 16bit PCM.

Well they should say that, or people will think they mean what they
write, and respond appropriately.

90% of the population can't be wrong!! :-)

Yes they can. :)

I wouldn't bother entering Family Fortunes you don't stand a chance :)

I don't have the required knowledge. I cannot do The Sun's crossword.

T2 or G2 crossword, yes. Sun's crossword, no.

--
Now playing: Will Young - Leave Right Now [128kbps]

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Nick J." wrote in message


Ian Molton wrote:


On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:54:43 +0000
"Nick J." wrote:

For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

Wrong.

.wav is a container format,

Correct, but I havent seen a compressed one, ever.

I deal with them on a daily basis.

Yep, and the contents could easily be MP3s.

Most of them are ADPCM, but many are MP3s. I did a batch conversion
from PCM WAV to FLAC a few weeks ago.

--
Now playing: Will Young - Leave Right Now [128kbps]

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

No, Mr Molton, DVDs are not similar - just stare hard at one and
it'll come up 'Data Error (cyclic redundancy check) or somesuch. I've
handled 'digital disks' since Pontius was a pilot and these DVD Rs
and RWs are reet touchy little things - far more so than CD Rs and
RWs, IMO......

Burning on a computer burner? As a matter of idle interest, what brands of
disk have you tried, and are there any that you find better? How about
burn
speed?



OK, I'll play.

Talking only DVD media here, I have found that the 'better' (ie less prone
to failure) disks are, without exception, the branded 'famous names' like
Philips, Ricoh, Maxell, Memorex, Imation, HP etc. I have not yet had one
failure from disks like these. Cheap, unbranded disks that I have tried are
Maplins own and PC World's own 'PC Line' - failure rates here were about 3%.

The thing to bear in mind is that unbranded disks are very likely to be made
by a famous name and that one famous name (Ricoh perhaps the best example)
will be producing disks marketted under other 'famous names'. There are a
number of free utilities like DVDINFOPro http://www.dvdinfopro.com/ that
will give up these secrets, if they are important to you.

Massive differences in price mean that it pays to try and 'match the disk to
the job' - ie cheap disks for recording/saving dross of the telly (which
will very likely be repeated in 3 months anyway) and summat special for a
'one-time only' family event, for example. There is simply no point (unless
you are very well-wedged) in paying over the odds to try and minimise
'coaster production' when a failure rate of 2 or 3 % on disks costing only
50 odd pence each will still not approach anything like the 5.99 prices for
the same type of disk (with a well-known name) on jobs that don't merit the
extra reliability. In a 'batch run' of, say, movie backups it ain't the end
of the world to have to do one twice if the cost savings are high enough.

It is important to bear in mind also that almost all DVD recorders and
players have their likes and dislikes for different flavours of disks and it
pays to find this out early in the game. Many online media stores will send
a mixed sample pack of media for you to conduct your own experiments. I
think you will find that this is much to do with the dyes that are used with
Prodisc being a bit of an habitual offender and Ritek being the current
'Golden ********' of the DVD media world these days. For those of you who
can detect a 'rosy glow' in various formats (like vinyl, for instance) you
might want to match the player/recorder to the preferred disks with a deeper
purple dye.

(Of course, with vinyl, you could always trying changing yer cartridge for
summat a bit more up-to-date.... :-)

Anyway, as far as I know, posh, expensive DVD kit is no more immune from
this than a cheap jobbie from a supermarket. The DVD forums carry much
information on these matters. Fortunately, computer DVD drives seem able to
cope with anything you throw at them!

Speed? As always, when one is a relatively early adopter, you end up stuck
with slower speeds than people who tap in at a later generation. All my kit
is oriented to 2x for 'minus' stuff and 2.4 for 'plus' stuff. (No idea what
the bitrates are - I see them every time I burn a dsik but I'm suffering
from 'unit blindness' these days and don't take much notice!) The new 4x
stuff will be with us very soon, if it isn't already......!!

Out of interest for anyone who is looking to get into the game, the name
Lucky Goldstar (LG) is the one to watch - if you do not need to change Book
Type, you will find the LG GSA4040 multiburner (plus, minus and RAM) very
hard to beat at about £85 as an OEM unit from places like Dabs.com. Also,
there are a string of LG multi (plus and minus) recorders coming out at very
reasonable prices like the new DR4810:

http://www.whatvideotv.com/news/fram...ws.php?id=5441

http://www.unbeatable.co.uk/CatalogueItem_16463.html


As well as the LG 5810-MJC due soon:

http://www.techonline.com/community/news/32280

http://www.cirrus.com/en/press/releases/P396.html

....which will be another step toward the better compatability we should be
getting from what is*supposed* to be a 'universal format' but which is, yet,
anything but!

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:25:00 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

Out of interest for anyone who is looking to get into the game, the
name Lucky Goldstar (LG) is the one to watch

No chance.

Crap build quality, and when they got caught out for not following the
atapi standard (causing their drives to get their firmware wiped if used
with certain linux machnies, they refused warranty claims.

AVOID at ALL COSTS.

--
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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:25:00 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

Out of interest for anyone who is looking to get into the game, the
name Lucky Goldstar (LG) is the one to watch

No chance.

Crap build quality,


Bull****, but if you want to pay premium prices (x 4 ?) for Sony etc (and if
they can match the spec. - doubtful) you go right ahead - don't mind me.


and when they got caught out for not following the
atapi standard (causing their drives to get their firmware wiped if used
with certain linux machnies, they refused warranty claims.


LOL

Keep it real.........



AVOID at ALL COSTS.


Damn, there's me with a spare one I don't need and I was going to give it to
you!

Ho hum.....

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" emitted :

Speed? As always, when one is a relatively early adopter, you end up
stuck
with slower speeds than people who tap in at a later generation. All my
kit
is oriented to 2x for 'minus' stuff and 2.4 for 'plus' stuff. (No idea
what
the bitrates are - I see them every time I burn a dsik but I'm suffering
from 'unit blindness' these days and don't take much notice!) The new 4x
stuff will be with us very soon, if it isn't already......!!

Already out, sailor.


Oooh, suits you!



8x is on it's way.. ;-)


I was really referring to the hardware available atm....



Out of interest for anyone who is looking to get into the game, the name
Lucky Goldstar (LG) is the one to watch - if you do not need to change
Book
Type, you will find the LG GSA4040 multiburner (plus, minus and RAM) very
hard to beat at about £85 as an OEM unit from places like Dabs.com.

The Pioneer 106 is a PC unit I've seen recommended again and again..
how does this compare? Apprently it doesn't matter what you throw at
the 106, it will burn successfully.. branded, unbranded, frisbee's..


Indeed, I understand the 106 is a star performer, not sure what formats are
covered....


Maybe you can help me out?


Play yer cards right and you never know.... :-)


I'm looking to get into the DVD archiving
game, with a little bit of editing, but I don't want to spend the rest
of my life sitting in front of a computer.


You don't have to. With kit as it is atm the vaious stages of the operation
take about half an hour each pass. You don't have to crank a handle - if
you've got summat else to do (within reach, as it were) you can get on with
it. Right now, I'm a) ****ing about in here, b) cleaning vinyl, c) listening
to (someone else's) excellent vinyl rips on my valve gear, d) smoking
cigarettes and drinking tea......


I fancy a standalone - but
can you just drop the disc into a PC burner, rip the video, tweak it,
and pop it back on? [Type of thing..]


Yes. Needs one or two different little software packages according to what
exactly you want to 'archive' and where it's coming from (hence a +/-/RAM
burner is handy to have)......


NP Marius Salsa Album (theh theh theh.... :-)

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:49:49 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

Of course, the ubiquitous nature of 16-bit recording, and the wide
availabilty of CD-R, does suggest that anyone transcribing their
precious and fragile LPs

Fragile LPs???

Are you kidding? - I lightly caught a DVD+R on the corner of the loading
tray the other day and it was instantly scratched in an arc (OK, looked
more
like part of a logarithmic spiral...) from edge to centre! Immediately
stone
dead and completely 'invisible' to the computer - wouldn't even play with
'clicks'......

No doubt you have the information backed up somewhere else.


Actually no - information 'coming in'....


Try that with a direct-cut LP..........................


Wouldn't fit in the tray.... :-)

If you want 'fragile' try this (I've done it and will demonstrate it to
anyone who wants) - get a ****e LP ('Singalonga Max' on 90 gm Ronco would be
ideal) and bend it in half 'til the opposite edges of the same side touch,
(NEVER FACING TOWARD YOU OR ANYONE ELSE, FFS!), let it spring back, work it
flat a bit, stick it on and play it.

Next, try it with a CD........

:-)

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:38:42 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:25:00 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

Out of interest for anyone who is looking to get into the game, the
name Lucky Goldstar (LG) is the one to watch

No chance.

Crap build quality,

Untrue, they are as well made as anything else. Also, one of the
*very* few writers to handle DVD-RAM.

and when they got caught out for not following the
atapi standard (causing their drives to get their firmware wiped if used
with certain linux machnies, they refused warranty claims.

AVOID at ALL COSTS.

I take it you mean avoid Linux at all costs? Good advice..........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering