I have just completed a swap round with my computers, involving a disk
upgrade and moving my soundcard, which raises a couple of questions (and
also leaves my recent emails, address book and Favourites stranded 'offline'
atm):

The soundcard has digital input and outputs and offers both 44.1 KHz and 48
KHz output sampling rates. Selecting either of these seems to sound fine and
I can't say that I can tell the difference. (I cannot lay hands on the spec
sheet for the DAC atm, but I suspect it's happy either way.) Which output
should I select to be 'right' or 'best' for playing WAVs, MP3s and CDs from
the computer?

Next, the hard disk upgrade (200Gb) means I am better able to record music
and save it as WAVs which, I have to say, sound pretty convincing played
through the DAC. The question here is whether or not this the 'best' thing
to do - I can play them or make CDRs from them and so on, but is there a
'better' way to save the music for any reason? High bitrate MP3s or summat?

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:58:44 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


I have just completed a swap round with my computers, involving a disk
upgrade and moving my soundcard, which raises a couple of questions (and
also leaves my recent emails, address book and Favourites stranded 'offline'
atm):

The soundcard has digital input and outputs and offers both 44.1 KHz and 48
KHz output sampling rates. Selecting either of these seems to sound fine and
I can't say that I can tell the difference. (I cannot lay hands on the spec
sheet for the DAC atm, but I suspect it's happy either way.) Which output
should I select to be 'right' or 'best' for playing WAVs, MP3s and CDs from
the computer?

What soundcard?

Next, the hard disk upgrade (200Gb) means I am better able to record music
and save it as WAVs which, I have to say, sound pretty convincing played
through the DAC. The question here is whether or not this the 'best' thing
to do - I can play them or make CDRs from them and so on, but is there a
'better' way to save the music for any reason? High bitrate MP3s or summat?

A compressed format isn't going to sound *better*. But a high bitrate
MP3 may sound imperceptibly worse, and save a LOT of disk space.

I'd burn "audio" CDs. You get plenty on a disk, it's uncompressed
wav format (give or take a header or two:-) and doesn't restrict you
to computer playback.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 14:26:53 +0000
Laurence Payne wrote:

A compressed format isn't going to sound *better*.

Not wishing to incur the attentions of two individuals here, but...

define better ;-)

Now, to be clear, I *totally* agree that mp3 will never be better in terms of faithfullness to the original.

But one interesting point is this.

My hearing is not 'usual', in that I dont seem to filter what I hear the same way as other people.

This can cause me a lot of problems and makes it very very hard for me to follow a conversation if more than 2 people are talking, for example, as I hear *everything* - my brain doesnt seperate out the streams from different people properly.

The same applies to music, which in many cases I think allows me to get more out of a track, however it can also make a track sound VERY stressfull, as I have to really concentrate in order to hear it properly.

I have found that lower bitrate CBR mp3 (128, 160, 192) tends to 'throw away' some of what is distracting me, and makes some tracks far more enjoyable to listen to.

Again, this falls entirely into the same category as using tone controls to make things 'better', and is not the more accurate kind of 'better'.

Just thought it was an interestng point.

--
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 Sun, 25 Jan 2004 14:52:52 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

My hearing is not 'usual', in that I dont seem to filter what I hear the same way as other people.

This can cause me a lot of problems and makes it very very hard for me to follow a
conversation if more than 2 people are talking, for example, as I hear *everything* -
my brain doesnt seperate out the streams from different people properly.

I believe that's not uncommon, after a certain age. Rather like
EVERYONE over 40 needing reading glasses.

I certainly have it. (Which is, of course, why I investigated the
subject:-). It makes it difficult to filter conversations. It
makes UNWANTED music (Musak, "background" music etc.) doubly
irritating. But, as I don't play music as wallpaper, only when I
want to listen to it, it isn't a problem then.

With one exception. I do like to fall asleep to the World Service.
A determinedly lo-fi clock radio is best. Better sound keeps me
awake.

"Laurence Payne" wrote
I certainly have it. (Which is, of course, why I investigated the
subject:-). It makes it difficult to filter conversations. It
makes UNWANTED music (Musak, "background" music etc.) doubly
irritating. But, as I don't play music as wallpaper, only when I
want to listen to it, it isn't a problem then.

This scares me! I'm 32 and I've got about 3 years (I estimate) before
I'm gonna start developing a bald patch. And I'm still single so this
is worrying in the extreme. Now I read here that I can also possibly
"look forward" to a deterioration of brain function regarding my
ability to focus on a speaker in a noisy room. Nice.

With one exception. I do like to fall asleep to the World Service.
A determinedly lo-fi clock radio is best. Better sound keeps me
awake.

I have a crappy valve radio. Glowing in the dark, it is indeed,
comforting! Brand new valves, too! I'm happy to say, it has no
clock attached.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:43:52 -0000, "Fleetie"
wrote:

This scares me! I'm 32 and I've got about 3 years (I estimate) before
I'm gonna start developing a bald patch. And I'm still single so this
is worrying in the extreme. Now I read here that I can also possibly
"look forward" to a deterioration of brain function regarding my
ability to focus on a speaker in a noisy room. Nice.


EVERYTHING deteriorates.

But, hopefully, you get more ingenious in using what's left :-)

"Fleetie" wrote in message
...
"Laurence Payne" wrote
I certainly have it. (Which is, of course, why I investigated the
subject:-). It makes it difficult to filter conversations. It
makes UNWANTED music (Musak, "background" music etc.) doubly
irritating. But, as I don't play music as wallpaper, only when I
want to listen to it, it isn't a problem then.

This scares me! I'm 32 and I've got about 3 years (I estimate) before
I'm gonna start developing a bald patch.


Buy a longer bed then...... ;-)


And I'm still single so this
is worrying in the extreme. Now I read here that I can also possibly
"look forward" to a deterioration of brain function regarding my
ability to focus on a speaker in a noisy room. Nice.

With one exception. I do like to fall asleep to the World Service.
A determinedly lo-fi clock radio is best. Better sound keeps me
awake.

I have a crappy valve radio. Glowing in the dark, it is indeed,
comforting! Brand new valves, too! I'm happy to say, it has no
clock attached.


OK, you need a nice GPS controlled Nixisat to go with it then!

See:

http://www.amug.org/~jthomas/clockpage.html

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:58:44 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


I have just completed a swap round with my computers, involving a disk
upgrade and moving my soundcard, which raises a couple of questions (and
also leaves my recent emails, address book and Favourites stranded
'offline'
atm):

The soundcard has digital input and outputs and offers both 44.1 KHz and
48
KHz output sampling rates. Selecting either of these seems to sound fine
and
I can't say that I can tell the difference. (I cannot lay hands on the
spec
sheet for the DAC atm, but I suspect it's happy either way.) Which
output
should I select to be 'right' or 'best' for playing WAVs, MP3s and CDs
from
the computer?

What soundcard?


Trust 514DX Sound Expert Optical



Next, the hard disk upgrade (200Gb) means I am better able to record
music
and save it as WAVs which, I have to say, sound pretty convincing played
through the DAC. The question here is whether or not this the 'best'
thing
to do - I can play them or make CDRs from them and so on, but is there a
'better' way to save the music for any reason? High bitrate MP3s or
summat?

A compressed format isn't going to sound *better*. But a high bitrate
MP3 may sound imperceptibly worse, and save a LOT of disk space.


Yes, up 'til now I've saved over 45 Gig's worth of MP3s at 128K CBR which
can give up to 12 hours worth of 'better than Radio 2 quality' music from
just one disk. That's fine for the sort of music I have recorded so far -
almost all from CDs. (I do not download.) What I want to do now is record
whole LPs (typically 4-500 Mb each) and play them at the best possible
quality so's not to lose 'texture' and 'air' while getting the 'hands free'
convenience. (Saves on record and stylus wear when busy and only using the
music in the background - ie not listening 'properly'.)



I'd burn "audio" CDs. You get plenty on a disk, it's uncompressed
wav format (give or take a header or two:-) and doesn't restrict you
to computer playback.


The computer playback is possibly the most important aspect for me - instant
access to thousands of tracks and the facility to swipe and play many hours
of 'sonic wallpaper' at a stroke.

Keith G wrote:

Yes, up 'til now I've saved over 45 Gig's worth of MP3s at 128K CBR which
can give up to 12 hours worth of 'better than Radio 2 quality' music from
just one disk. That's fine for the sort of music I have recorded so far -
almost all from CDs. (I do not download.) What I want to do now is record
whole LPs (typically 4-500 Mb each) and play them at the best possible
quality so's not to lose 'texture' and 'air' while getting the 'hands free'
convenience. (Saves on record and stylus wear when busy and only using the
music in the background - ie not listening 'properly'.)

You will find that vinyl recordings suffer more than their CD
equivalents when being put through an MP3/Vorbis encode. Whilst trying
to replicate the 'wanted' audio content, the rumble, needle noise,
crackles, preamp noise all add up to give the encoder a bit of a hard time.

The Trust sound cards are based around the C-Media chipset, and it would
be greatly beneficial if you could perform the analogue-digital
conversion outside of the PC, and use the digital in on the card.

--
Now playing: Rage Against The Machine - Mic Check [128kbps]

"Nick J." wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

Yes, up 'til now I've saved over 45 Gig's worth of MP3s at 128K CBR
which
can give up to 12 hours worth of 'better than Radio 2 quality' music
from
just one disk. That's fine for the sort of music I have recorded so
far -
almost all from CDs. (I do not download.) What I want to do now is
record
whole LPs (typically 4-500 Mb each) and play them at the best possible
quality so's not to lose 'texture' and 'air' while getting the 'hands
free'
convenience. (Saves on record and stylus wear when busy and only using
the
music in the background - ie not listening 'properly'.)

You will find that vinyl recordings suffer more than their CD
equivalents when being put through an MP3/Vorbis encode. Whilst trying
to replicate the 'wanted' audio content, the rumble, needle noise,
crackles, preamp noise all add up to give the encoder a bit of a hard
time.


Hmmm, my experience differs. I've recorded quite a number of vinyl to MP3
tracks without encountering too much of what you describe. (I've posted
links to dozens of 'em here, during the last year or so....). In fact, I
find them far more satisfying than most digital rips, but then that's just
me.... ;-)



The Trust sound cards are based around the C-Media chipset, and it would
be greatly beneficial if you could perform the analogue-digital
conversion outside of the PC, and use the digital in on the card.


Yes, a nice idea and one which I won't rule out if I can get my hands on a
decent ADC at the right sort of money. (Suggestions anyone?)