Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:50:28 -0500, RCE wrote:


Nice job and good information. I admit I haven't followed the
progression
of mp3 technology based on the early low sampling rates that were used
and
the resultant losses. I was unaware that sampling rates of 256kbps were
even possible. Maybe there's hope. I wonder, for the Ipod fans, what
the
file size becomes if sampled at these higher rates.

Uncompressed CDs have a bit rate of 1411.2 kbps. So, a 256kbps sampling
rate will give a compression ration of @ 6:1.

Last I knew (probably outdated) the mp3 "standard compression" was like
12:1, and the sampling rate was around 88kbsp. Has this changed?


I believe the "default" sampling rate, to the extent one exists, is 128 kbs.
Since I don't download songs I'm not 100% sure, but I believe this is the
typical compression rate you might find for a song downloaded from one of
the retailers that offer such things. In my earlier eperiences with MP3
files, this is the rate that I encoded songs that I ripped form my CDs. I
did so because it was the default setting of the software I used and didn't
know any better. I can certainly tell the difference between the source
material and MP3 files encoded at this rate. And you really don't need high
end gear to tell the difference, at least I don't. Using my MP3 player and
a decent set of Sony full-sized studio cans, I can easily hear the
difference between a 128 kps MP3 and a FLAC encoding, or even an MP3 encoded
at a higher sampling rate.

After doing some research on the subject, I quickly changed my default
encoding parameters. All of the discussion on this forum heretofore has
been about using various levels of sampling at a constant but rate (CBR).
Just to confuse things further, as it turns out, MP3's don't have to be
sampled at a CBR. They can be sampled at a variable bit rate (VBR).
Obviously a piece music is anything but constant in its levels of complexity
throughout its length. It turns out that some parts of a piece of music
might sound just fine at a relatively low sampling rate while others demand
a much higher sampling rate to achieve the same level of perceived quality.
This is precisely what VBR encoding is designed to recognize and accomodate.
Theoretically, it should yield the optimal balance between the yin and yang
of file compression and sonic quality for a given level of overall sonic
quality desired, and the encoding demands required of the specific music at
hand.

To complicate things further, there is more than one MP3 encoder out there.
Fraunhofer and LAME are a couple of the more popular ones. I currently use
the LAME encoder and use a the VBR preset standard setting. Here is a short
description of LAME VBR preset settings:

________________________

Built-in presets

Lame features some built-in presets. Those presets are designed to provide
the highest possible quality.
They have for the most part been subject to and tuned via rigorous listening
tests to verify and achieve this objective. These are continually updated to
coincide with the latest developments that occur and as a result should
provide you with nearly the best quality currently possible from LAME.

If your goal is quality, these presets are highly recomended over any custom
set of parameters you might use. To activate presets, you should use:
lame --preset preset_name

VBR modes
--preset medium
This preset should provide near transparency to most people on most music.
The resulting bitrate should be in the 150-180kbps range, according to music
complexity.
--preset standard
This preset should generally be transparent to most people on most music and
is already quite high in quality.
The resulting bitrate should be in the 170-210kbps range, according to music
complexity.
--preset extreme
If you have extremely good hearing and similar equipment, this preset will
provide slightly higher quality than the "standard" mode.
The resulting bitrate should be in the 200-240kbps range, according to music
complexity.

____________________________

For a good understanding of MP3 encoding and the options available, go to
http://www.mp3dev.org/. There's more there than you really want to know.

Russ

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

I wonder what sampling rate Telarc used for the 1812? Seems like they had
a
pamphlet out in the late 70's that came with the CD's giving that
information. I just looked at my 1812, but the sampling rate isn't
mentioned anywhere.
--
'Til next time,

John H


There have been a few versions of it released by Telarc. The most recent,
in SACD, is described here, but no sampling rates are given:

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200..._pops_new.html

RCE

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..


So why did you clip my entire message then?

Not a nice thing to do Richard..........so I reinserted my full original
message with this reply.

Good luck on the test tomorrow. Tonight will not be too fun for you.


My reply was meant to be humorous.

RCE

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..


So why did you clip my entire message then?

Not a nice thing to do Richard..........so I reinserted my full original
message with this reply.

Good luck on the test tomorrow. Tonight will not be too fun for you.


My reply was meant to be humorous.

RCE


Fair enough but I obviously missed the humor. But it does not explain away
you editing my original reply.

NP though as my point has been made.

Regardless......good luck tonight...........have plenty of reading material
available.

Tomorrow will be a breeze. ;-)

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:14:13 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
m...


In reality though.........you lose.

MP3's rock. ;-)



To tell the truth, right now I am in the middle of the pre-inspection prep
process and it's becoming increasingly difficult to stay focused on this
discussion ..... oh, man ......

BBBBAAAAAAAAAWWWWWAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA!!!

Oh - right - I'm sorry - that was uncalled for.

~~ snicker ~~

Look at it this way - gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "loosey
goosey".

~~ snicker ~~

So will we be calling you Bruceth tomorrow?

Seriously good luck on the test - your a better man than I.

Smart ass pansy ...

oh ..... man ..... not again ...

RCE

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

~~ snicker ~~

So will we be calling you Bruceth tomorrow?

Seriously good luck on the test - your a better man than I.


What's worse, is I just found out that tomorrow's "inspector" is a female.
I am not programmed for this new world order.

Hope she's not some womans' lib men hater type ...

RCE

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

"RG" wrote in message
news:AfnRf.12351$Uc2.5122@fed1read04...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:50:28 -0500, RCE wrote:


Nice job and good information. I admit I haven't followed the
progression
of mp3 technology based on the early low sampling rates that were used
and
the resultant losses. I was unaware that sampling rates of 256kbps
were
even possible. Maybe there's hope. I wonder, for the Ipod fans, what
the
file size becomes if sampled at these higher rates.

Uncompressed CDs have a bit rate of 1411.2 kbps. So, a 256kbps
sampling
rate will give a compression ration of @ 6:1.

Last I knew (probably outdated) the mp3 "standard compression" was like
12:1, and the sampling rate was around 88kbsp. Has this changed?


I believe the "default" sampling rate, to the extent one exists, is 128
kbs. Since I don't download songs I'm not 100% sure, but I believe this is
the typical compression rate you might find for a song downloaded from one
of the retailers that offer such things. In my earlier eperiences with
MP3 files, this is the rate that I encoded songs that I ripped form my
CDs. I did so because it was the default setting of the software I used
and didn't know any better. I can certainly tell the difference between
the source material and MP3 files encoded at this rate. And you really
don't need high end gear to tell the difference, at least I don't. Using
my MP3 player and a decent set of Sony full-sized studio cans, I can
easily hear the difference between a 128 kps MP3 and a FLAC encoding, or
even an MP3 encoded at a higher sampling rate.

After doing some research on the subject, I quickly changed my default
encoding parameters. All of the discussion on this forum heretofore has
been about using various levels of sampling at a constant but rate (CBR).
Just to confuse things further, as it turns out, MP3's don't have to be
sampled at a CBR. They can be sampled at a variable bit rate (VBR).
Obviously a piece music is anything but constant in its levels of
complexity throughout its length. It turns out that some parts of a piece
of music might sound just fine at a relatively low sampling rate while
others demand a much higher sampling rate to achieve the same level of
perceived quality. This is precisely what VBR encoding is designed to
recognize and accomodate. Theoretically, it should yield the optimal
balance between the yin and yang of file compression and sonic quality for
a given level of overall sonic quality desired, and the encoding demands
required of the specific music at hand.

To complicate things further, there is more than one MP3 encoder out
there. Fraunhofer and LAME are a couple of the more popular ones. I
currently use the LAME encoder and use a the VBR preset standard setting.
Here is a short description of LAME VBR preset settings:

________________________

Built-in presets

Lame features some built-in presets. Those presets are designed to provide
the highest possible quality.
They have for the most part been subject to and tuned via rigorous
listening tests to verify and achieve this objective. These are
continually updated to coincide with the latest developments that occur
and as a result should provide you with nearly the best quality currently
possible from LAME.

If your goal is quality, these presets are highly recomended over any
custom set of parameters you might use. To activate presets, you should
use:
lame --preset preset_name

VBR modes
--preset medium
This preset should provide near transparency to most people on most music.
The resulting bitrate should be in the 150-180kbps range, according to
music complexity.
--preset standard
This preset should generally be transparent to most people on most music
and is already quite high in quality.
The resulting bitrate should be in the 170-210kbps range, according to
music complexity.
--preset extreme
If you have extremely good hearing and similar equipment, this preset will
provide slightly higher quality than the "standard" mode.
The resulting bitrate should be in the 200-240kbps range, according to
music complexity.

____________________________

For a good understanding of MP3 encoding and the options available, go to
http://www.mp3dev.org/. There's more there than you really want to know.

Russ




Good stuff. Thanks.

RCE

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:01:10 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:

The bottom line is that I don't think that *many* folks can distinguish
the
difference in sound quality between an MP3 and a CD on/in the average
home,
boat or car stereo syste

Probably not, but in a home? I think so.

I can certainly hear the difference on my home system, and my boat system.
Just as important, I can easily tell the difference using my portable
digital music player and a decent set of full sized headphones, which is the
way I usually listen to compressed music files.



Of course the other problem is that I have abnormally acute hearing
even at my middle age - I can hear things others "normal" can't.


Me too. For instance, I can easily hear the high frequency sound of the
spooling of the turbo on my PowerStroke. When I mention it to other people
that might be in the truck with me, they just look at me and wonder what I'm
talking about. Another example: I was on the docks at the marina one
afternoon, and I could hear the CO alarm going off at a constant clip in an
unattended boat several slips away. It was driving me nuts, but when I
mentioned it to the guys I was drinking a beer with, none of them had
noticed it.

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

~~ snicker ~~

So will we be calling you Bruceth tomorrow?

Seriously good luck on the test - your a better man than I.


What's worse, is I just found out that tomorrow's "inspector" is a female.
I am not programmed for this new world order.

Hope she's not some womans' lib men hater type ...

RCE


Just put one of these on your behind and you will be fine:
http://www.4alfalfa.com/ImagesMain/Appreciation/pin.jpg

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

~~ snicker ~~

So will we be calling you Bruceth tomorrow?

Seriously good luck on the test - your a better man than I.


What's worse, is I just found out that tomorrow's "inspector" is a female.

Youch. Maybe you can get her to talk dirty to you or sumthin' to set the
mood. Probably not.

Been there a couple of times myself. My "guy" is a short, bespectacled
Jewish guy. He's completely devoid of a sense of humor. In the 4 or 5
times I've seen this guy over the years, I've never even been able to get so
much as a smile out of him. Maybe that's what a career in proctology does
to you. I don't know. Then again, he's probably heard all the jokes a
zillion times. The last time I was on the table I tried to lighten things
up a bit. I mentioned that I've been missing the remote control to my DVD
player, and to let me know if he found it. The nurse was doing her best to
try and suppress laughter, but the doc wasn't fazed one bit. World's best
straight man.

Probably one of the more interesting aspects of the "procedure" is the juice
the anesthesiologist is likely to use. Don't recall the technical name for
it, but it's essentially an amnesia drug. You will be awake and conscious
during the entire procedure, possibly telling stupid remote control jokes,
yet you will remember absolutely none of it. I remember watching the juice
being shot into the IV, and unlike other anesthetics where you feel it
hitting your veins and you instantly go out like a light, I felt no effect
from this stuff at all. A few of minutes go by, and I figure I'll just
watch the show on the TV monitor. I remember telling the nurse that the
drug doesn't seem to be having any effect, and then I remember her nodding
her head and smiling at me. Next thing I remember I'm in the recovery room.
Wild stuff.