Bit unfair on des. I used to see him live and most of the time he looked
better than on the screen. I strongly dispute this old thing of the camera
never lies. I think that very much depends on how its adjusted in the first
place.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 21/01/17 13:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Samsung now fixed and in the spare room. Looking just as awful as ever.
Perhaps they are designed for oriental flesh tones?

Donald Trump?

Or, for those with memories, Des O'Connor. More Polyfilla and Dulux than
makeup.

--
*IF ONE SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMER DROWNS, DO THE REST DROWN TOO?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Its very sad. I am often appalled at how the same track on two radio
stations can sound totally different. Muddled mp3 like swizzling noises a
bit like a knackered cassette tape snaking across the heads.
In my view passable spoken word is ok at 192kbits, but you need a much
higher rate or a dynamic rate system to sound right on music, unless its
already compressed to start with.

The phase errors are just awful but given you can get really good no loss
compression these days why do people cling on to mp3? I was told some years
ago its all down to buffer sizes, well that may have been true once but even
phones have more memory than enough these days.


Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Richard Robinson" wrote in message
...

I think a lot of people don't really listen to music very closely or pay
much attention to what they're hearing..

I agree.

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Richard Robinson" wrote in message
...

I think a lot of people don't really listen to music very closely
or pay
much attention to what they're hearing..

I agree.

mp3 works OK provided the data rate is high enough. For most people
192K - or preferably 256K or 320K - is difficult to tell from an
original (classical or jazz) CD - I would exclude much of today's
'music!'

I heard this track on Classic today and was quite surprised by the
quality/recording acoustic* when I listened to it on line when I got
home.
http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/dc.asp?dc=D_CDA68094
Track 8 - I Got Rhythm

*Others may of course disagree!


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

On 21-01-17 21:25, Brian Gaff wrote:

The phase errors are just awful but given you can get really good no loss
compression these days why do people cling on to mp3? I was told some years
ago its all down to buffer sizes, well that may have been true once but even
phones have more memory than enough these days.

"Buffer sizes"?

No, it is down to bandwidth and main storage. A lot of people
(especially in the UK) still pay for their phone data transfers
dependent on the amount of data - making lossless about 3 times
as expensive as 256k MP3. Storage space in phones and other mobile
devices is also limited. I can choose between having my whole
record collection in my car stereo as MP3, or something like a
third of it as lossless.

Julf

On 21-01-17 23:03, Woody wrote:

mp3 works OK provided the data rate is high enough. For most people
192K - or preferably 256K or 320K - is difficult to tell from an
original (classical or jazz) CD

Indeed. I would like to challenge anyone dismissing mp3 to a
blind listening test of well-processed mp3 at 256K. You would
have to be very well trained to spot the difference with typical
music material.

I once did a blind listening test on an audiophile forum to
see if people could hear a difference between "hi-res" and CD.
As an outlier test, I threw in a 256K mp3 file (decoded to
FLAC, so people couldn't tell from the file format what it
was). The mp3 file came out as the second most preferred of
all 9 alternatives - the "winner" was the 16/44.1 file that
I had increased the volume by 1 dB on...

Julf

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news
Bit unfair on des. I used to see him live and most of the time he looked
better than on the screen. I strongly dispute this old thing of the camera
never lies. I think that very much depends on how its adjusted in the
first place.
Brian

Yes. White balance.

Iain

In article , Johan Helsingius
wrote:
On 21-01-17 23:03, Woody wrote:

mp3 works OK provided the data rate is high enough. For most people
192K - or preferably 256K or 320K - is difficult to tell from an
original (classical or jazz) CD

Indeed. I would like to challenge anyone dismissing mp3 to a blind
listening test of well-processed mp3 at 256K. You would have to be very
well trained to spot the difference with typical music material.

Some years ago the Concertgebouw and Hatink released some 'free' high-rate
mp3 versions of their recordings. In general, these sounded pretty good to
me. The only defect I noticed was that an exceptionally quiet section of
one item was a little 'ragged'. I suspect due to some of encoder 'judgment
rules' deciding to discard components as being 'inaudible' which weren't
actually going to be masked at such low overall levels.


I once did a blind listening test on an audiophile forum to see if
people could hear a difference between "hi-res" and CD. As an outlier
test, I threw in a 256K mp3 file (decoded to FLAC, so people couldn't
tell from the file format what it was). The mp3 file came out as the
second most preferred of all 9 alternatives - the "winner" was the
16/44.1 file that I had increased the volume by 1 dB on...

IIRC There was a paper in the JAES some years ago that did some tests and
established that both members of the public and audio engineers could
detect mp3 artifacts provided the rates were low enough. But the main
interesting point in the paper was that the engineers detected the
artifacts as being such. They had the experience to know what things would
sound like *without* artifacts, and the nature of the artifacts to be
expected. The general public, however, simply tended to 'like' the 'sound',
and tended to prefer the modest/low rate mp3 to a clean version. Possibly a
matter of habituation.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 22/01/2017 09:52, Iain Churches wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news
Bit unfair on des. I used to see him live and most of the time he looked
better than on the screen. I strongly dispute this old thing of the camera
never lies. I think that very much depends on how its adjusted in the
first place.
Brian

Yes. White balance.


More to do with make-up and lighting, the white balance on the camera
should be neutral.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Johan Helsingius wrote:



I once did a blind listening test on an audiophile forum to
see if people could hear a difference between "hi-res" and CD.
As an outlier test, I threw in a 256K mp3 file (decoded to
FLAC, so people couldn't tell from the file format what it
was). The mp3 file came out as the second most preferred of
all 9 alternatives - the "winner" was the 16/44.1 file that
I had increased the volume by 1 dB on...



** That is a really worthless test methodology.

About 3 decades ago, I came up with a simple and really powerful one that avoided the horrible problems inherent in all A then B or ABX type tests.

Ocne set up, the test takes only a few seconds before the result is clear and convincing.

Unless your test operates in a similar way, it has no credibility with or impact on any listener. The principle is that of INSTANT change-over, while listening in stereo, in your home to your best loved tracks.

Read about it he

http://sound.whsites.net/absw.htm


Got any questions - I'm right here, every day.



..... Phil

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:27:36 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 22/01/2017 09:52, Iain Churches wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news
Bit unfair on des. I used to see him live and most of the time he looked
better than on the screen. I strongly dispute this old thing of the camera
never lies. I think that very much depends on how its adjusted in the
first place.
Brian

Yes. White balance.


More to do with make-up and lighting, the white balance on the camera
should be neutral.

White balance - and particularly skin tone balance on TV suffered with
the shift from illuminant C (the standard for the delta tube) and
illuminant E which came in with the PIL tube.

But even that is pretty good compared with that of the typical flat
screen.

d