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 :-)

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:49:41 +0000, The Artist
wrote:

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

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

"Laurence Payne" wrote
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:49:41 +0000, The Artist
wrote:

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

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

Well cassette tape ought to work well; it discards anything above, ooh,
8kHz! Nyquist says "It takes up less space then!". Does sound a bit
ropey, though.

I remember though, in the golden days of the Walkman in the late 1980s.
I had two really "high-end" Aiwa models. An HS-J08 and an HS-JX101, if I
remember correctly. They had, like, (wired) remote controls and stopped
automatically at the quiet bit between tracks, and so on. Those were
pretty cool, especially given the absence of any superior portable medium
at the time. (Portable CD players can be safely disregarded, then, as
now, because they're so big.)

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

"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

"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?)

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:09:25 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

What soundcard?


Trust 514DX Sound Expert Optical

OK. That's a bog-standard utility card, costing under £30. And
will probably perform rather better than the much-hyped Audigy cards
which, like all the SoundBlaster range, resample internally to 48KHz
before converting to the required output rate :-(


If that's the case then it would make sense to use the 48 KHz output and let
the standalone DAC handle the resampling, would it not?

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:15:49 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


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

snip/

Rather than mp3 (which will always be lossy, irrespective of the
bitrate), take a look at FLAC (s/w utilities available from
www.etree.org, or do a Google search). Lossless compression, and
plugins available for a widening range of players. Typically
compresses WAV files to 50-60% of their original size.


I'm *very* wary of all these 'proprietory' formats.

FLAC is non-proprietary (unlike the Shorten /SHN format, which FLAC is
fast-overtaking as the preferred format for non-lossy compression of
audio data). FLAC is maintained as an Open Source specification --
hence its likely adoption by hardware manufacturers (Rio already
support FLAC as one of the (de)compression formats on at least one of
their portable HDD_based players).


OK, seems a number of you would recommend FLAC. This is the one I will
investigate then.

Many thanks to all who replied.

"Keith G" wrote
Buy a longer bed then...... ;-)

Huh? *Whoosh* -- That was the sound of your joke (I assume) going way
over my head.

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

See:

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

*Drool*. *******. I've got wood now. HomerN-i-x-i-e T-u-b-e-s! Mmm!/


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

"Le Artiste" wrote
"Fleetie" emitted :

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

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

Well cassette tape ought to work well; it discards anything above, ooh,
8kHz! Nyquist says "It takes up less space then!". Does sound a bit
ropey, though.

What?

Never mind. A weak attempt at humour.

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

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:48:29 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

If that's the case then it would make sense to use the 48 KHz output
and let the standalone DAC handle the resampling, would it not?

According to Stewart P (no idea if hes right) the SBlive! manages to
balls up even 48:48 resampling.



--
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.