192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

Are 192kbps MP3s of a high enough quality that they can stand up to playing
on a monster club sound system? I've heard recommendations of a higher
bitrate but would 192 suffice?

TIA.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

Jase wrote:
Are 192kbps MP3s of a high enough quality that they can stand up to
playing on a monster club sound system? I've heard recommendations of
a higher bitrate but would 192 suffice?

hmmm... if Club is running Bose/JBL/Peavey then maybe, if it's running Opus
/ EAW / Turbosound / Meyer then you'll be able to tell the difference
bitween 192 and 320 or uncompressed. YMMV.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Tim S Kemp" wrote in message
...
Jase wrote:
Are 192kbps MP3s of a high enough quality that they can stand up to
playing on a monster club sound system? I've heard recommendations of
a higher bitrate but would 192 suffice?

hmmm... if Club is running Bose/JBL/Peavey then maybe, if it's running
Opus
/ EAW / Turbosound / Meyer

Are you talking about speakers or other equipment?

then you'll be able to tell the difference
bitween 192 and 320 or uncompressed. YMMV.

How exactly will you tell the difference? Will it just be poor quality or
will there be any unwanted "effects"?

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

In article ,
says...

How exactly will you tell the difference? Will it just be poor quality or
will there be any unwanted "effects"?

Both.
------------
Alex

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Alex Rodriguez" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

How exactly will you tell the difference? Will it just be poor quality or
will there be any unwanted "effects"?

Both.
------------
Alex


You all must go to pretty fancy clubs where everyone is quiet and the music
is played softly enough that you can even understand what the singer is
singing. The acoustics in most clubs combined with the ambient noise makes
for such a poor listening experience to begin with that I doubt anyone would
notice the difference between an MP3 and a CD. You might notice a loss of
bass with some tracks though.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

citronzx wrote:

You all must go to pretty fancy clubs where everyone is quiet and the music
is played softly enough that you can even understand what the singer is
singing. The acoustics in most clubs combined with the ambient noise makes
for such a poor listening experience to begin with that I doubt anyone would
notice the difference between an MP3 and a CD. You might notice a loss of
bass with some tracks though.

Excuse my ignorance but how are you going to lose bass
with any bitrate of mp3?

Last time I made some mp3s I used LAME and tried various
bitrates until SWMBO said it was ok. We settled on variable
bitrate with a minimum of 128kbps.

--
Roger.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Old Fart at Play" wrote in message
...
citronzx wrote:

You all must go to pretty fancy clubs where everyone is quiet and the
music
is played softly enough that you can even understand what the singer is
singing. The acoustics in most clubs combined with the ambient noise
makes
for such a poor listening experience to begin with that I doubt anyone
would
notice the difference between an MP3 and a CD. You might notice a loss
of
bass with some tracks though.

Excuse my ignorance but how are you going to lose bass
with any bitrate of mp3?

Last time I made some mp3s I used LAME and tried various
bitrates until SWMBO said it was ok. We settled on variable
bitrate with a minimum of 128kbps.

--
Roger.


To tell you the truth I don't know enough about the compression algorithm to
say why. My evidence only anecdotal. If I rip a cd and compare the mp3
ripped version to the original off the cd both played from my computer there
seems to be a reduction in bass in the mp3 version. Now, I am very willing
to admit that this my just be a psychological effect but that is way that it
seems to sound to me.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

citronzx wrote:

To tell you the truth I don't know enough about the compression algorithm to
say why. My evidence only anecdotal. If I rip a cd and compare the mp3
ripped version to the original off the cd both played from my computer there
seems to be a reduction in bass in the mp3 version. Now, I am very willing
to admit that this my just be a psychological effect but that is way that it
seems to sound to me.

I've never heard actual loss of bass with the LAME encoder, but I have heard
a substantial loss of bass definition. Stuff goes from being clean and well
defined to being flabby and centered on one note. But then again, on a club
system you probably can't tell.

And forget about bass imaging. But then, few playback systems have any real
bass imaging anyway, let alone club rigs.

I think what you'll notice first is weirdness on the top end, but it might
be just fine for dance stuff.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

On 10 Feb 2004 19:02:08 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

citronzx wrote:

To tell you the truth I don't know enough about the compression algorithm to
say why. My evidence only anecdotal. If I rip a cd and compare the mp3
ripped version to the original off the cd both played from my computer there
seems to be a reduction in bass in the mp3 version. Now, I am very willing
to admit that this my just be a psychological effect but that is way that it
seems to sound to me.

I've never heard actual loss of bass with the LAME encoder, but I have heard
a substantial loss of bass definition. Stuff goes from being clean and well
defined to being flabby and centered on one note. But then again, on a club
system you probably can't tell.

And forget about bass imaging. But then, few playback systems have any real
bass imaging anyway, let alone club rigs.

I think what you'll notice first is weirdness on the top end, but it might
be just fine for dance stuff.
--scott
I'm interested in this weirdness in the top end aspect of MP3s,
because I was tasked with replacing some museum systems (originally
minidisc) with CF card MP3 players. The thing is that these systems
used left for mono sound and right for 20KHz tones to sequence the
lights. Even the highest quality LAME VBR completely failed to work
the lights wheras 256k fixed rate LAME worked just fine. How much
information is lost in the squishing ?
M

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

me wrote:

On 10 Feb 2004 19:02:08 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


citronzx wrote:

To tell you the truth I don't know enough about the compression algorithm to
say why. My evidence only anecdotal. If I rip a cd and compare the mp3
ripped version to the original off the cd both played from my computer there
seems to be a reduction in bass in the mp3 version. Now, I am very willing
to admit that this my just be a psychological effect but that is way that it
seems to sound to me.

I've never heard actual loss of bass with the LAME encoder, but I have heard
a substantial loss of bass definition. Stuff goes from being clean and well
defined to being flabby and centered on one note. But then again, on a club
system you probably can't tell.

And forget about bass imaging. But then, few playback systems have any real
bass imaging anyway, let alone club rigs.

I think what you'll notice first is weirdness on the top end, but it might
be just fine for dance stuff.
--scott

I'm interested in this weirdness in the top end aspect of MP3s,
because I was tasked with replacing some museum systems (originally
minidisc) with CF card MP3 players. The thing is that these systems
used left for mono sound and right for 20KHz tones to sequence the
lights. Even the highest quality LAME VBR completely failed to work
the lights wheras 256k fixed rate LAME worked just fine. How much
information is lost in the squishing ?
M
It depends on the bitrate. 320k MP3 seems to be generally accepted as CD
quality, 128K is about the equivalent of FM radio. I record FM
broadcasts and make them into 192 MP3s simply because I think the lower
bitrates take too much life out of the music. I don't even bother with
320K, I just keep my files in WAV or AIFF in that case. Takes up lots of
space, I know, but CD-Rs are cheap:)

CD

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

I think you or anyone else would be very hard pressed to reliably tell the
difference with any competently encoded track.

(enough weasel-words there?)

Mark Z.

--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.


"Jase" wrote in message
...
Are 192kbps MP3s of a high enough quality that they can stand up to
playing
on a monster club sound system? I've heard recommendations of a higher
bitrate but would 192 suffice?

TIA.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Scott Dorsey" wrote:

I've never heard actual loss of bass with the LAME encoder, but I have
heard
a substantial loss of bass definition. Stuff goes from being clean and
well
defined to being flabby and centered on one note. But then again, on a
club
system you probably can't tell.

This is particularly evident with real percussion recorded without serious
processing. I have tried several encoders and algorithms and they all
suffer in this respect, regardless of bitrate. I doubt it would be as
noticeable with dance music, regardless of the system, as the percussion is
generally electronic and centred on one note anyway.

W

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

In article , Old Fart at Play
writes
citronzx wrote:

You all must go to pretty fancy clubs where everyone is quiet and the music
is played softly enough that you can even understand what the singer is
singing. The acoustics in most clubs combined with the ambient noise makes
for such a poor listening experience to begin with that I doubt anyone would
notice the difference between an MP3 and a CD. You might notice a loss of
bass with some tracks though.

Excuse my ignorance but how are you going to lose bass
with any bitrate of mp3?

Last time I made some mp3s I used LAME and tried various
bitrates until SWMBO said it was ok. We settled on variable
bitrate with a minimum of 128kbps.

--
Roger.


Suppose SWMBO's vary a bit!. NPI!. Mine can reliably tell if stuff's
been MPEGED unless its 256 K or higher.....
--
Tony Sayer

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

In article , Scott Dorsey
writes
citronzx wrote:

To tell you the truth I don't know enough about the compression algorithm to
say why. My evidence only anecdotal. If I rip a cd and compare the mp3
ripped version to the original off the cd both played from my computer there
seems to be a reduction in bass in the mp3 version. Now, I am very willing
to admit that this my just be a psychological effect but that is way that it
seems to sound to me.

I've never heard actual loss of bass with the LAME encoder, but I have heard
a substantial loss of bass definition. Stuff goes from being clean and well
defined to being flabby and centered on one note. But then again, on a club
system you probably can't tell.

And forget about bass imaging. But then, few playback systems have any real
bass imaging anyway, let alone club rigs.

I think what you'll notice first is weirdness on the top end, but it might
be just fine for dance stuff.
--scott


Yep that's it!, lower the rates till they notice. Lets never, ever,
promote better quality sound 'tho, no that would never do!.

The new digital age dawns.

Never was so much promised and so little delivered!.....
--
Tony Sayer

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

In article , Codifus
writes
me wrote:

On 10 Feb 2004 19:02:08 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


citronzx wrote:

To tell you the truth I don't know enough about the compression algorithm to
say why. My evidence only anecdotal. If I rip a cd and compare the mp3
ripped version to the original off the cd both played from my computer there
seems to be a reduction in bass in the mp3 version. Now, I am very willing
to admit that this my just be a psychological effect but that is way that it
seems to sound to me.

I've never heard actual loss of bass with the LAME encoder, but I have heard
a substantial loss of bass definition. Stuff goes from being clean and well
defined to being flabby and centered on one note. But then again, on a club
system you probably can't tell.

And forget about bass imaging. But then, few playback systems have any real
bass imaging anyway, let alone club rigs.

I think what you'll notice first is weirdness on the top end, but it might
be just fine for dance stuff.
--scott

I'm interested in this weirdness in the top end aspect of MP3s,
because I was tasked with replacing some museum systems (originally
minidisc) with CF card MP3 players. The thing is that these systems
used left for mono sound and right for 20KHz tones to sequence the
lights. Even the highest quality LAME VBR completely failed to work
the lights wheras 256k fixed rate LAME worked just fine. How much
information is lost in the squishing ?
M
It depends on the bitrate. 320k MP3 seems to be generally accepted as CD
quality, 128K is about the equivalent of FM radio.

192 or higher thank you!. Don't tarnish FM with all this digital rate
crap thanks!...

I record FM
broadcasts and make them into 192 MP3s simply because I think the lower
bitrates take too much life out of the music. I don't even bother with
320K, I just keep my files in WAV or AIFF in that case. Takes up lots of
space, I know, but CD-Rs are cheap:)

CD

--
Tony Sayer

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

just my 2cents worth but

vinyl still offers the best sound in a club environment, in terms of
impact and depth. i've seen mp3 dudes drop sets after vinyl ones, and
seen the atmosphere vanish and people leave the floor.
mp3 sounds a little thin for big club tracks - just because something
has the same SPL doesn't mean it has the same 'bounce'
still, all things being relative, if all the other djs on the night
play mp3 too, noone will ever notice...


vib


ps. if you're getting paid to dj i hope you're buying the music you
play and not just kazaaing it
karma is a bitch ; )

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

On 11 Feb 2004 01:11:51 -0800
(vibrations) wrote:

vinyl still offers the best sound in a club environment, in terms of
impact and depth. i've seen mp3 dudes drop sets after vinyl ones, and
seen the atmosphere vanish and people leave the floor.

either ****E encoding or dj.

dont blame the format.

--
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.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Dorsey"
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:02 AM
Subject: 192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?


citronzx wrote:

To tell you the truth... (snip)

I think what you'll notice first is weirdness on the top end, but it might
be just fine for dance stuff.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

IME, they just sound harsh, with no depth- which fits with what the encoder
does, i.e. throw away the 'unimportant' information- lower level detail that
you CAN hear on a big thumping system. Try out an mp3 & wav. (or CD)
comparison somewhere with a big system if you can, & don't listen too
closely, i.e. don't overanalyse it. Just decide which one hurts your ears.
You WILL hear the difference, even with an ordinary domestic CD player.
I think an audience listening to a night of loud mp3's would finish up
feeling exhausted (read More exhausted than usual), perhaps without knowing
why. Mp3's are just fatiguing.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

Jase wrote:

Are 192kbps MP3s of a high enough quality that they can
stand up to playing on a monster club sound system?

First of all two points that are semi-made in other comments already: it
depends on encoder and decoder quality and on sound system quality.

I've heard recommendations of a higher
bitrate but would 192 suffice?

I have decided on archiving the content of my compact cassette drawers
in that format becasuse it - with the available encoder and played back
via winamp or the audio application used - seems to be the optimum
combination of qualify vs. space.

There are caveats, some encoding and decoding software sounds less good.
A "monster system" somehow suggests to the that it is "loud crap", in
which case it really might not matter, but spl-control as a safety
measure may matter, the more so as the highly compressed variants of
music come with high long term average values that may make peak levels
that would be "fairly safe" at a REAL (x) concert unsafe.

As for the bass issues mentioned it appears to be that they could be
caused by improper playback options selected in windows. It may come as
a complete surprise to you, but windows generally knows best, and it
knows that if you select desktop loudspeakers then they need "just that"
undocumented eq. It has all kinds of other weird ways of bend the sound
and maxbass it and whatever.

For perceived linear and high quality playback choose the playback
option headphones. I have tried to get documentation of what all those
settings actually do via asking in the relevant newsgroup on microsofts
newsserver, but to no avail.

(x) no, not something to do with realmedia .... something to do with
real sound and/or real sound rendered in unprocessed ways. Using the
realmedia format would btw. be one of the ways of *not* getting
acceptable results in the context in question, they are great for very
low bitrates but less great at higher bitrates.

TIA.

YMMV

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

In article et,
says...

You all must go to pretty fancy clubs where everyone is quiet and the music
is played softly enough that you can even understand what the singer is
singing. The acoustics in most clubs combined with the ambient noise makes
for such a poor listening experience to begin with that I doubt anyone would
notice the difference between an MP3 and a CD. You might notice a loss of
bass with some tracks though.

You must go to clubs that have crappy gear. Loud distortion sounds like
loud distortion. You can hear it, just louder. Most of the clubs I have
been to have sound systems that play clean and loud. So unless you are
really drunk, you can hear the lousy sound.
-------------
Alex

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Alex Rodriguez" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

You all must go to pretty fancy clubs where everyone is quiet and the
music
is played softly enough that you can even understand what the singer is
singing. The acoustics in most clubs combined with the ambient noise
makes
for such a poor listening experience to begin with that I doubt anyone
would
notice the difference between an MP3 and a CD. You might notice a loss
of
bass with some tracks though.

You must go to clubs that have crappy gear. Loud distortion sounds like
loud distortion. You can hear it, just louder. Most of the clubs I have
been to have sound systems that play clean and loud. So unless you are
really drunk, you can hear the lousy sound.
-------------
Alex


That was pretty much my point, the music's always sounds crappy in a packed
club. I'm talking about a place where everyone is talking and many are
dancing. Even it the sound system sounds terrific with the place empty, the
guests will not be able to tell over the ambient noise in a full club. You
can feel the bass, so you can dance, and you can make out words (if any) if
you already know the music but that's it. I'm talking about dance music
like: Top 20, R&B, Techno, and maybe some 80's. No one goes to a club for
the quality of the reproduction of the music, you just have to be able to
dance to it.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Codifus" wrote


It depends on the bitrate. 320k MP3 seems to be generally accepted as CD
quality, 128K is about the equivalent of FM radio. I record FM
broadcasts and make them into 192 MP3s simply because I think the lower
bitrates take too much life out of the music. I don't even bother with
320K, I just keep my files in WAV or AIFF in that case. Takes up lots of
space, I know, but CD-Rs are cheap:)


Agree entirely (a WAV from the vinyl sounds satisfyingly close to the
original, DACced and Vacced) but there are two problems here - hard disk
space is not yet that cheap or plentiful (I could fill my new 200 Gig HDD
with WAVs in a couple of days) and CDs have got to be the most 'imminently
obsolete' technology on the planet atm.....

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"tony sayer" wrote


Yep that's it!, lower the rates till they notice. Lets never, ever,
promote better quality sound 'tho, no that would never do!.

The new digital age dawns.


Er, no, it did that 30 years ago........



Never was so much promised and so little delivered!.....


Agreed, but perhaps we judge too soon/harshly - there may be time yet!

The fact that the 'engineers' have only managed to make 'digital recorded
music' sound *worse* so far is probably only some sort of 'glitch' - give a
million chimps a wordprocessor each for a million years and one of them will
turn out the Complete Works Of Shakespeare, eventually (they say).......

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"vibrations" wrote in message
om...
just my 2cents worth but

vinyl still offers the best sound in a club environment, in terms of
impact and depth.


Not just in clubs and not to mention texture, tone, detail, depth and
imaging.......


i've seen mp3 dudes drop sets after vinyl ones, and
seen the atmosphere vanish and people leave the floor.


You can flog Joe Public any old crap but you can't make him listen to
it.......


mp3 sounds a little thin for big club tracks - just because something
has the same SPL doesn't mean it has the same 'bounce'


Agreed entirely.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

In article , Keith G
writes

"tony sayer" wrote


Yep that's it!, lower the rates till they notice. Lets never, ever,
promote better quality sound 'tho, no that would never do!.

The new digital age dawns.


Er, no, it did that 30 years ago........


No that was the proper better quality digital age i.e. PCM used by the
BBC to improve sound links!....

Never was so much promised and so little delivered!.....


Agreed, but perhaps we judge too soon/harshly - there may be time yet!

The fact that the 'engineers' have only managed to make 'digital recorded
music' sound *worse* so far is probably only some sort of 'glitch' - give a
million chimps a wordprocessor each for a million years and one of them will
turn out the Complete Works Of Shakespeare, eventually (they say).......


Eventually!.....




--
Tony Sayer

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote in message
...
In uk.rec.audio "Keith G" wrote:

- give a
million chimps a wordprocessor each for a million years and one of them
will
turn out the Complete Works Of Shakespeare, eventually (they say).......

Or get they mate the gorilla to turn it out, and then claim it was
all the work of them, the chimps.

A million years for the 'Complete Works Of Shakespeare' what a waste
of a good chimp's life.



I sat through 'Coriolanus' at the Swan theeter (Stratford On Avon) once -
fekkin' hardest day of my life.....!!!

(Three people slashed their wrists.....)

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote in message
...
In uk.rec.audio "Keith G" wrote:

(I could fill my new 200 Gig HDD with WAVs in a couple of days)

That's about 400 'real' albums? - compressed using Monkey's Audio and
one could increase that storage capacity quite a bit. Maybe another 100+
real albums?

Geez Keith, even digitally ripping 400+ CDs (without tagging and art
work) is going to take a lot longer than a couple of days. And
transferring 400+ vinyl LPs to (wav) HDD with proper post-editing,
tagging etc., one would be working like a mad-man.

If the average guy started today with (a new) 200 Gig of HDD and ripped
each CD as it was bought, how long would it take to fill the HDD? IOW
how many CDs does the average guy buy per week and does one actually
have 400 _decent_ vinyl LPs to transfer in the first place :)



Yep, you're absolutely right! That was total ******** wasn't it? :-)

I was getting confused with DVDs. In fact, I actually managed to fill half
the disk in just a couple of days with about 45 Gig's worth of MP3s, a few
DVD-Videos and a few vinyl rips (it was a bit of an eye-opener to see the
disk space disappearing the way it did!) but, as you rightly say, a new 200
Gb disk would take months to fill up with vinyl rips only (WAVs which go
400-500 Mb each for a whole album).......

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

Ronnie McKinley wrote:

... I don't agree that HD space is really all that expensive.
IMO, HD space offers good value for money, with 120Gb, I think, now a
good bit below the £100.

At my local shop, 120gig 7200rpm drives are 66 quid, or 68 if you want an
8meg buffer on it. If one of those can hold about 180 CDs, then the
cost-per-CD is about 37p.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote in message
...
In uk.rec.audio "Keith G" wrote:

as you rightly say, a new 200
Gb disk would take months to fill up with vinyl rips only (WAVs which go
400-500 Mb each for a whole album).......


Months indeed :) .... and with CDs one would have to be buying at least
one CD per day. every day ..... 30+ CDs a month!!??!! :)


You know my view on CDs - I never buy 'em! (Deadest format there is -
already shot through the head, just hasn't fallen over yet.....)


You know my view on mp3 - annoying, wearisome and ultimately fatiguing.


Agreed. (True of all digital music, IMO.....)


I don't agree that HD space is really all that expensive. IMO, HD space
offers good value for money, with 120Gb, I think, now a good bit below
the £100. I think anyone with a PC based audio system, and who wants a
reasonable degree of 'high fidelity' it would seem just silly to rip or
transfer files as mp3. With a couple of 120Gb drives on board and that
should accommodate a reasonable size music collection in wave format,
compress using ape files and the 240Gb (2x120) should serve the function
of most average type people ..... for a good while, at least :)


I don't really disagree with any of what you say. My 200 Gb disk cost about
£117 - better value than 2 x 120 Gig but, more importantly, there isn't room
for more than 2 drives in the computer I'm using atm. (A cheap but brilliant
little eMachine jobbie). My usual method is to have all my programs on a
smaller disk (40 Gig) which doesn't get changed and the data on the larger
disk which I upgrade periodically - makes it easier to recover the machine
if/when summat goes tits-up.

Anyone who has yet to get into mass storage would do well to consider how
long it takes to move stuff about (even over a LAN) and definitely to
consider what a disaster looks like when you get over, say, a hundred Gig's
worth of stored material go down the pan! AFAIAC, hard drives are a rapidly
moving feast and I will 'disk hop' until such time as I can build a box with
enough storage space (2 or 4 Tb?) to allow me to comfortably store all the
'digital music' and video material I want.

FWIW, up 'til now my MP3 collection has been more for having than actually
playing. Now that I'm happy with my PC to 'HiFi' setup, I swipe a range of
MP3s and play them as background music. I have thousands of tracks not yet
heard - if anything really stands out (presents itself, as it were) I make
the effort to chase it down on vinyl and am now continually buying vinyl
online and have a number of eBay bids on the go. (Charity shops are history
now - having all jumped on the 'vinyl bandwagon' and reduced a healthy trade
in secondhand bargains into a dreary, tatty, ****-shovelling exercise...)
Any MP3s which really are ****e get deleted.

Anyway, I dispute this continual wailing about 'MP3 Quality' (now, there's a
good example of an oxymoron if you want one!) and the various
merits/demerits of different bitrates because by the time I've got them
dacced and vacced (external DAC and valve amplifier) even 128K MP3s sound
perfectly reasonable - easily as good as listening to the radio. Swim bought
me a copy of 'Wot HiFi' the other day and there was a test (surprise,
surprise) comparing MP3 players - IIRC, most of these had 128K of onboard
memory at most - which makes adds to the mockery of compressed music stored
at high bitrates. (Also, FWIW, I have conducted enough experiments to prove
that an Audio CDR made from 128K MP3s is virtually indistinguishable from
one made from WAVs., if that were the object of the exercise - which it
isn't!)

Vinyl recorded as WAVs is a different ballgame entirely - they are very
'listenable' in their own right and knock the **** out of the equivalent
CDs. I record LPs as I listen to them and play them over and over (as you
do) when I need a 'hands free' style of operation. Ultimately they get/will
get squished into summat smaller and chucked on the MP3 pile. (If I didn't
have the other clutter on the 200 Gig disk it would give me a potential of
up to 500 LPs recorded as WAVs which is not 'inconsequential' by any
standards!) Saving on stylus wear etc, is a bonus in this situation.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote in message
...
In uk.rec.audio "Keith G" wrote:

You know my view on CDs - I never buy 'em! (Deadest format there is -
already shot through the head, just hasn't fallen over yet.....)


Well it's all do with music, right? :)

I can by tons and tons of music, more importantly, NEW music, by
buying secondhand CDs. There are 1000s out there between a couple of
quid (or less) and around the fiver mark. I couldn't in a month of
Sundays buy the same amount on vinyl, and more importantly, the same
amount of new music on vinyl that I can with CD. Even if I had
pockets loads of money. Really rather simple :)


I've said it a hundred times - I *envy* anyone who can get it done with CDs!
But, having said that, I'm not aware of too many places to buy secondhand
CDs round here, anyways - only the same places as sell secondhand
vinyl......


I couldn't buy these on vinyl for that sort of money. Even new I
doubt I could pick some of them up on vinyl in the first place.


OK, discounting utterly any thoughts on format differences per se and only
considering the music, I think the the difference is that the opposite works
for me - there is very little 'new' music that interests me and 'any amount'
of older music that does. I doubt that I could easily find the sort of stuff
I like on CD in any case!

(If it weren't such crap a lot of the time, the best place to discover new
music would be the radio!)

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:36:52 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

Vinyl recorded as WAVs is a different ballgame entirely - they are very
'listenable' in their own right and knock the **** out of the equivalent
CDs.

I'll give you 30,000,000,000 UKP if you can substatiate that argument.

--
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.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:38:26 +0000
Ronnie McKinley wrote:

Vinyl recorded as WAVs is a different ballgame entirely - they are very
'listenable' in their own right and knock the **** out of the equivalent
CDs.

I'll give you 30,000,000,000 UKP if you can substatiate that argument.


You wouldn't have 30,000,000,000 UKP .... so stop the BS.

Ok, 5 grand.

He is expressing his personal OPINION.

Hes talking crap.

Vinyl recorded as a wav (16/44kHz or 16/48 tops as I am fairly sure Keiths equipment cant do better) will NOT sound different at all from the same uncompressed 16/44 recording from any other medium, CD, wifi link to a server, whatever.

--
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.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote

I've said it a hundred times - I *envy* anyone who can get it done with
CDs!
But, having said that, I'm not aware of too many places to buy secondhand
CDs round here, anyways - only the same places as sell secondhand
vinyl......


You can buy loads of S/H CDs on the net.


My Bank Manager says I can't........

(Actually, never mind him, Swim says I'd better not.....!!!)



Well in that case it must be very, very rare jazz or very, very
avant-garde :)


Wot, like Alonso X, El Sabio and Feodor Chaliapin? - Nah, think more like
McKinley's Cotton Pickers on RCA Victor (Mono) RD-7561 featuring such
memorable tracks as 'Beedle Um Bum' and 'Zonky'.....

(OK, it's McKinney's Cotton Pickers.... :-)



I would have thought by now (20 years on) if it was on a major label
or even a small label distributed by major or reasonable size
company then it would be on CD.

Out of interest what sort of stuff can't you pick up on CD?


OK, a very good example is the '504' Jazz label which features one-offs from
stalwarts (many long dead now) like:

George 'Kid Sheik' Cola
Sadie Goodson Cola
Frank 'Dude' Fields
Milford S Dolliole
Joshua 'Little Jack' Willis
Freddie Lonzo
Ralph Johnson
Sam Mooney
Les Muscutt (Born Barrow-In-Furness in 1941 and hopefully still knocking
around New Orleans somewhere)
Brian Turnock
Stanley Williams
Chester Zardis
Michael White
Vernon Gilbert
Clement Tervalon
Stanley A Stephens
Lionel Ferbos
David Griller
McNeal Breaux
John Robichaux
John 'Picky' Brunious
Eddie King
Paul 'Polo' Barnes
Lester Santiago
Charles Easley
Emile Maurice
Wendell Brunious
Louis Nelson
Clarence Ford
Jeanette Kimball
Stewart Davis
Chester Jones
George Girard
Pete Fountain
Joe Rotis
Roy Zimmerman
Bunny Frank
Charlie Duke
Wendell Eugene
Albert Walters
Raymond Burke
Emanuel Sayles
Theodore 'Teddy' Riley
Waldren 'Frog' Joseph
Manuel 'Manny' Crusto
Brian Turnock

to name but a few......

(My *intense* pleasure to salute these people with an individual mention
here.....)



(If it weren't such crap a lot of the time, the best place to discover
new
music would be the radio!)

Well I've always found the radio to be one of the best places for
discovering music, not just new music.

OK, what I meant really.



And of course old Jools hot finger's Holland still puts out a good
show on TV :)


Not lately, we find - the older he gets, the younger his programme gets.
(He'll be sporting a pony tail before long!)

Up 'til about 6 months ago Mr Holland's late-night eclectic offerings were a
very welcome relief from the dross that had usually preceded it. Lately it's
become more like TOTP3......!!!

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:36:52 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

Vinyl recorded as WAVs is a different ballgame entirely - they are very
'listenable' in their own right and knock the **** out of the equivalent
CDs.

I'll give you 30,000,000,000 UKP if you can substatiate that argument.



OK, my mate 'Shiny Nigel' (known to at least 2 other regular posters here)
says so.

My numbered Swiss Bank Account is 00001234 - I will expect funds to be in
place by close of business Monday next....

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:38:26 +0000
Ronnie McKinley wrote:

Vinyl recorded as WAVs is a different ballgame entirely - they are
very
'listenable' in their own right and knock the **** out of the
equivalent
CDs.

I'll give you 30,000,000,000 UKP if you can substatiate that argument.


You wouldn't have 30,000,000,000 UKP .... so stop the BS.

Ok, 5 grand.


Too late - I accepted your previous bid....




He is expressing his personal OPINION.

Hes talking crap.


What did you do with all those apostrophes I gave you - sold 'em for drink
and drugs?



Vinyl recorded as a wav (16/44kHz or 16/48 tops as I am fairly sure Keiths
equipment cant do better)


Digital music needs to be no more than 16/44....


will NOT sound different at all from the same uncompressed 16/44 recording
from any other medium, CD, wifi link to a server, whatever.


'Course it bloody does - sounds uncannily like the vinyl (but not
*completely* so - being in the middle of a sesh right this minute) which
does not sound much like the 'equivalent' CD at all. (As many others here
will attest, one way or another.....)

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:12:14 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

I'll give you 30,000,000,000 UKP if you can substatiate that argument.

OK, my mate 'Shiny Nigel' (known to at least 2 other regular posters here)
says so.

Oh well, in that case...

My numbered Swiss Bank Account is 00001234 - I will expect funds to be in
place by close of business Monday next....

Ah, ****. I thought it was 00001235. oh well.

--
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.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:12:14 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

I'll give you 30,000,000,000 UKP if you can substatiate that argument.

OK, my mate 'Shiny Nigel' (known to at least 2 other regular posters
here)
says so.

Oh well, in that case...

My numbered Swiss Bank Account is 00001234 - I will expect funds to be
in
place by close of business Monday next....

Ah, ****. I thought it was 00001235. oh well.



Not a problem that's another of my accounts......

;-)

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote in message
...
In uk.rec.audio "Keith G" wrote:


George 'Kid Sheik' Cola
Sadie Goodson Cola
Frank 'Dude' Fields
Milford S Dolliole
Joshua 'Little Jack' Willis
Freddie Lonzo
Ralph Johnson
Sam Mooney
Les Muscutt (Born Barrow-In-Furness in 1941 and hopefully still knocking
around New Orleans somewhere)
Brian Turnock
Stanley Williams
Chester Zardis
Michael White
Vernon Gilbert
Clement Tervalon
Stanley A Stephens
Lionel Ferbos
David Griller
McNeal Breaux
John Robichaux
John 'Picky' Brunious
Eddie King
Paul 'Polo' Barnes
Lester Santiago
Charles Easley
Emile Maurice
Wendell Brunious
Louis Nelson
Clarence Ford
Jeanette Kimball
Stewart Davis
Chester Jones
George Girard
Pete Fountain
Joe Rotis
Roy Zimmerman
Bunny Frank
Charlie Duke
Wendell Eugene
Albert Walters
Raymond Burke
Emanuel Sayles
Theodore 'Teddy' Riley
Waldren 'Frog' Joseph
Manuel 'Manny' Crusto
Brian Turnock

to name but a few......



Ah feck it !! ... 1'm not going through all that lot of NAMES ...
no bleedin' albums just, names??

Ok!! , who TF is Les Muscutt, to name but one.

Worked With: Frank Oxley Mike Dine Connie Jones Ernie Carson
Sammy Rimington Bill Huntington Willie Humphrey Lester Caliste
Michael White Bob Molinelli Simmons' International All Stars
Brian O'Connell Ernest Elly Clive Wilson Original Camellia Jazz
Band of New Or Gerald Adams Jeanette Kimball Judi K. Tim
Stambaugh


Appears On: Cliff Billett At Algiers Point Louisiana (2000)Banjo,
Guitar Pud Brown Pud Brown Plays Clarinet (1995)Banjo Ernie Carson
Ernie Carson and Rhythm (1975)Banjo Doc Cheatham Swinging Down in
New Orleans (1995)Banjo, Guitar Lionel Ferbos At the Jazz Band Ball
(1987)Banjo, Guitar Willie Humphrey & Brian... Two Clarinets on the
Porch (1991)Banjo, Guitar Connie Jones & Dick... Get out & Get Under
Moon: Live at... (1998)Guitar Judi K. It's Been a Long Long Time
(1984)Banjo Tim Laughlin Blue Orleans (1996)Banjo Original Camellia
Jazz... Clive Wilson & Trevor Richards (1994)Banjo, Guitar
Preservation Hall Jazz... Live (1992)Banjo Sammy Rimington Live
in-Store at the Louisiana... (2000)Banjo Simmons' International All
Live in Store at the Louisiana... (2002)Banjo Michael White Shake It
and Bake It (2000)Banjo Various Artists Traditional Jazz: The
Language of... (1999)Banjo

Song Highlights: China Boy from Two Clarinets on the Porch
Struttin' With Some Barbecue from Two Clarinets on the Porch
Taking a Chance on Love from Two Clarinets on the Porch Rose
Room from Two Clarinets on the Porch I Want to Be Happy from
Two Clarinets on the Porch Poor Butterfly from Two Clarinets on
the Porch Rosetta from Two Clarinets on the Porch Cabbage Song
from Two Clarinets on the Porch Moonglow from Two Clarinets on
the Porch Bourbon Street Parade from Two Clarinets on the Porch


Ain't actually rocket science ;))



Wot? Googling?

:-)

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote in message
...
In uk.rec.audio "Keith G" wrote:


Wot, like Alonso X, El Sabio and Feodor Chaliapin? - Nah, think more like
McKinley's Cotton Pickers on RCA Victor (Mono) RD-7561 featuring such
memorable tracks as 'Beedle Um Bum' and 'Zonky'.....

(OK, it's McKinney's Cotton Pickers.... :-)


Oh aye, forgot to mention it.

McKinney's Cotton Pickers

1928 The Band Don Redman Built Bluebird/RCA
1928 The Complete McKinney's Cotton Pickers, Vol.... RCA
1928 1928-1929 Classics
1929 1929-1930 Classics
1929 The Complete McKinney's Cotton Pickers, Vol.... RCA
1930 McKinney's Cotton Pickers/Don Redman Classics
1930 The Complete McKinney's Cotton Pickers, Vol.... RCA
1930 McKinney's Cotton Pickers (1928-1930) EPM Musique
1952 McKinney's Cotton Pickers RCA
1996 1930-1931/1939-1940 Classics
1999 Put It The 1928-1929 Frog
1999 Cotton Picker's Scat: 1930 Frog
2000 McKinney's Cotton Pickers, Vol. 3 Frog


Don't know about RCA Victor (Mono) RD-7561


Anyways .... WTF is ... MONO??


Don't worry about it.


OK, my juices are flowing now (and the band is playing strong), I'll see
your Googling and raise you a pic:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...ow/pickers.jpg


and two choons:


Beedle Um Bum recorded on 9th April 1929 by the Cotton Pickers:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...eedleumbum.mp3 (3 Mb)

and West Indies Blues recorded on 1st September 1978 by Wendell Eugene's New
Orleans Band:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...ndiesblues.mp3 (2 Mb)

Note the, er, similarity....... :-)

(Like this stuff is over 70 years old and I'm still playing it....!!!)


NB. This is New Orleans Jazz (the Real McCoy) - it ain't everybody's cup o'
tee. Don't bother if a) you're too tight to spend on the Phone Bill or b)
only *think* you like New Orleans Jazz....

Oh and yes, WAVs would have been better..... :-)

Enjoy!

PS. Did your Googling tell you that two sprog members of the Cotton Pickers
were none other than Coleman Hawkins and Benny Carter? No? - Better rush out
and buy the CD then......

;-)

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote in message
...
In uk.rec.audio "Keith G" wrote:


PS. Did your Googling tell you that two sprog members of the Cotton
Pickers
were none other than Coleman Hawkins and Benny Carter? No? - Better rush
out
and buy the CD then......



"William McKinney was a drummer who by 1923 had retired from playing
in favor of conducting and managing a big band. In 1926 his outfit
became known as McKinney's Cotton Pickers and the following year
they scored a major coup by hiring arranger/altoist/vocalist Don
Redman away from Fletcher Henderson. As the band's musical director,
Redman put together an outfit that competed successfully with
Henderson and the up-and-coming Duke Ellington. The lineup of
musicians by the time they started recording in 1928 included
Langston Curl, Claude Jones, George Thomas and Dave Wilborn but it
was the advanced arrangements, the tight ensembles and the high
musicianship of the orchestra on a whole that was most impressive.
There were a few special all-star sessions with such players as Joe
Smith, Sidney DeParis, Coleman Hawkins, Fats Waller, and Lonnie
Johnson making appearances and James P. Johnson sat in on one date.
Among the more rewarding recordings overall were "Four or Five
Times," "It's Tight like That," "It's a Precious Little Thing Called
Love" and four future standards that Redman introduced: "Gee Baby
Ain't I Good to You," "Baby Won't You Please Come Home," "I Want a
Little Girl" and "Cherry."

"It was a major blow in 1931 when Don Redman departed to form his
own band. Benny Carter took over as musical director but despite the
presence of such fine players as Doc Cheatham, Hilton Jefferson and
holdovers Quentin Jackson, Rex Stewart and Prince Robinson, there
would only be one final recording session. The Depression eventually
did the band in and after much turnover in 1934 the classic group
broke up. McKinney organized later versions of the Cotton Pickers
but without making an impression."


OK, that's good Googling and very interesting, but what I want to know is
where TF is MY bloody reply with the links in it?? (This bloody machine's
started eating posts again - 2 twinkles to 1 and I've not got anybody in
Blocked Senders....??)