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

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Being curious about this whole .mp3, can you or can't you tell issue,
and to lay to rest my own piece of mind, I decided to head downtown
and talk to one of the engineers of my acquaintance at the recording
studio there. They do a lot of work for local artists and the
occasional big name folkie who cruises through town for one reason or
another.

I took along a Acoustic Alchemy CD I have that I'm particularly fond
of just to test a couple of things.

First, depending on the sampling rate, you can hear a difference
between the CD and the .mp3. However, it becomes harder as the
sampling rate is increased and in truth, at around 250 kbps it became
harder to discern. At the max 320 kbps it was almost impossible and
to be totally honest, I'm not sure I could tell in terms of what I was
looking for.

The reason I used this particular CD is because there is a mistake in
oen of the songs, about two seconds long, in which there is a chording
mistake. My theory went this way - at the higher compression rates,
the mistake could and would be more noticeable and at lower rates the
mistake would be less noticeable.

It turned out that it didn't make a difference - probably because I
knew it was there and was looking for it.

However, I could notice a difference in the whole song at 128 kbps and
at 192 kbps - at 256 kbps it really was hard to tell the difference.

Just as an experiment, we went lower to 64 kbps and artifacts crept in
at that point which kind of proves a point about compression.

So I guess we're all right in a way - what it really depends on is (1)
the format being used to compress the file and (2) the sampling rate.

I feel better anyway.

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.

RCE

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

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Brahms Concerto for Violin and Orchestra, just under 100 KB
My iPOD holds 60 GB
I'm not worried.

And the sampling rate for this was?

RCE

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

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Being curious about this whole .mp3, can you or can't you tell issue,
and to lay to rest my own piece of mind, I decided to head downtown
and talk to one of the engineers of my acquaintance at the recording
studio there. They do a lot of work for local artists and the
occasional big name folkie who cruises through town for one reason or
another.

I took along a Acoustic Alchemy CD I have that I'm particularly fond
of just to test a couple of things.

First, depending on the sampling rate, you can hear a difference
between the CD and the .mp3. However, it becomes harder as the
sampling rate is increased and in truth, at around 250 kbps it became
harder to discern. At the max 320 kbps it was almost impossible and
to be totally honest, I'm not sure I could tell in terms of what I was
looking for.

The reason I used this particular CD is because there is a mistake in
oen of the songs, about two seconds long, in which there is a chording
mistake. My theory went this way - at the higher compression rates,
the mistake could and would be more noticeable and at lower rates the
mistake would be less noticeable.

It turned out that it didn't make a difference - probably because I
knew it was there and was looking for it.

However, I could notice a difference in the whole song at 128 kbps and
at 192 kbps - at 256 kbps it really was hard to tell the difference.

Just as an experiment, we went lower to 64 kbps and artifacts crept in
at that point which kind of proves a point about compression.

So I guess we're all right in a way - what it really depends on is (1)
the format being used to compress the file and (2) the sampling rate.

I feel better anyway.

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.

RCE

For a quick and dirty analysis of file size vs. encoding bandwidth open your
Windows Media Player Tools Options Rip Music.

You will see a slider that will give some idea of file size delta from
120Kbps thru 320Kbps.

A Google search will uncover more detailed information if you're interested.

HTH....

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

"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?

RCE

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

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Being curious about this whole .mp3, can you or can't you tell issue,
and to lay to rest my own piece of mind, I decided to head downtown
and talk to one of the engineers of my acquaintance at the recording
studio there. They do a lot of work for local artists and the
occasional big name folkie who cruises through town for one reason or
another.

I took along a Acoustic Alchemy CD I have that I'm particularly fond
of just to test a couple of things.

First, depending on the sampling rate, you can hear a difference
between the CD and the .mp3. However, it becomes harder as the
sampling rate is increased and in truth, at around 250 kbps it became
harder to discern. At the max 320 kbps it was almost impossible and
to be totally honest, I'm not sure I could tell in terms of what I was
looking for.

The reason I used this particular CD is because there is a mistake in
oen of the songs, about two seconds long, in which there is a chording
mistake. My theory went this way - at the higher compression rates,
the mistake could and would be more noticeable and at lower rates the
mistake would be less noticeable.

It turned out that it didn't make a difference - probably because I
knew it was there and was looking for it.

However, I could notice a difference in the whole song at 128 kbps and
at 192 kbps - at 256 kbps it really was hard to tell the difference.

Just as an experiment, we went lower to 64 kbps and artifacts crept in
at that point which kind of proves a point about compression.

So I guess we're all right in a way - what it really depends on is (1)
the format being used to compress the file and (2) the sampling rate.

I feel better anyway.

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.

RCE


This is starting to sound like the "cooler test" thread posted at
rec.boats.cruising.

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 system. Add into the mix folks who have less than
perfect hearing and you have a vast majority.

So let's agree that the audiophiles with high quality hardware, perfectly
wired and set up in professional recording studios....*who* also have great
hearing can hear a difference between CD and MP3.

OK. You win on that point.

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

MP3's rock. ;-)

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

"Bishoop" wrote in message
...


For a quick and dirty analysis of file size vs. encoding bandwidth open
your Windows Media Player Tools Options Rip Music.

You will see a slider that will give some idea of file size delta from
120Kbps thru 320Kbps.

A Google search will uncover more detailed information if you're
interested.

HTH....


Thanks!

RCE

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

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


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 ......

RCE

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

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:50:28 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
Being curious about this whole .mp3, can you or can't you tell issue,
and to lay to rest my own piece of mind, I decided to head downtown
and talk to one of the engineers of my acquaintance at the recording
studio there. They do a lot of work for local artists and the
occasional big name folkie who cruises through town for one reason or
another.

I took along a Acoustic Alchemy CD I have that I'm particularly fond
of just to test a couple of things.

First, depending on the sampling rate, you can hear a difference
between the CD and the .mp3. However, it becomes harder as the
sampling rate is increased and in truth, at around 250 kbps it became
harder to discern. At the max 320 kbps it was almost impossible and
to be totally honest, I'm not sure I could tell in terms of what I was
looking for.

The reason I used this particular CD is because there is a mistake in
oen of the songs, about two seconds long, in which there is a chording
mistake. My theory went this way - at the higher compression rates,
the mistake could and would be more noticeable and at lower rates the
mistake would be less noticeable.

It turned out that it didn't make a difference - probably because I
knew it was there and was looking for it.

However, I could notice a difference in the whole song at 128 kbps and
at 192 kbps - at 256 kbps it really was hard to tell the difference.

Just as an experiment, we went lower to 64 kbps and artifacts crept in
at that point which kind of proves a point about compression.

So I guess we're all right in a way - what it really depends on is (1)
the format being used to compress the file and (2) the sampling rate.

I feel better anyway.

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.

RCE


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

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

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

"RCE" wrote in message
...

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




This is starting to sound like the "cooler test" thread posted at
rec.boats.cruising.

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 system. Add into the mix folks who have less
than perfect hearing and you have a vast majority.

So let's agree that the audiophiles with high quality hardware, perfectly
wired and set up in professional recording studios....*who* also have
great hearing can hear a difference between CD and MP3.

OK. You win on that point.

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 ......

RCE





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.

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

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:50:28 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
Being curious about this whole .mp3, can you or can't you tell issue,
and to lay to rest my own piece of mind, I decided to head downtown
and talk to one of the engineers of my acquaintance at the recording
studio there. They do a lot of work for local artists and the
occasional big name folkie who cruises through town for one reason or
another.

I took along a Acoustic Alchemy CD I have that I'm particularly fond
of just to test a couple of things.

First, depending on the sampling rate, you can hear a difference
between the CD and the .mp3. However, it becomes harder as the
sampling rate is increased and in truth, at around 250 kbps it became
harder to discern. At the max 320 kbps it was almost impossible and
to be totally honest, I'm not sure I could tell in terms of what I was
looking for.

The reason I used this particular CD is because there is a mistake in
oen of the songs, about two seconds long, in which there is a chording
mistake. My theory went this way - at the higher compression rates,
the mistake could and would be more noticeable and at lower rates the
mistake would be less noticeable.

It turned out that it didn't make a difference - probably because I
knew it was there and was looking for it.

However, I could notice a difference in the whole song at 128 kbps and
at 192 kbps - at 256 kbps it really was hard to tell the difference.

Just as an experiment, we went lower to 64 kbps and artifacts crept in
at that point which kind of proves a point about compression.

So I guess we're all right in a way - what it really depends on is (1)
the format being used to compress the file and (2) the sampling rate.

I feel better anyway.

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.

RCE


BTW, the 'better fanfare' I posted in the other place is from a Telarc CD,
"Stars and Stripes".
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

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.

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

"RG" wrote in message
news:cYnRf.12354$Uc2.5761@fed1read04...

"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.


I think Richard is *preoccupied* at this time..........perhaps all night.
;-)

Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.........but well worth it.

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

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:50:28 -0500, "RCE" wrote:

I wonder, for the Ipod fans, what the
file size becomes if sampled at these higher rates.

File size is more or less linear with sampling rate, i.e., 256 is
about twice as large as 128.

There is also a MP3 format with variable sampling rates which works on
the assumption that not everything needs a high rate. Usually sounds
OK, at least for casual listening.

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

"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.

Not necessarily. there is a compression algorithm, not just taking every
6th bit.

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

"RCE" wrote in message
...

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


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


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


Just tell the doc, to be careful. Going where no man has gone before.
(Assumption)

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

JimH wrote:



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.

JimH,
Richard followed SOP when he clipped your post. He only left the
appropriate part based upon his addition. Why are you concerned that
your message must be left in all posts?

--
Reggie

"That's my story and I am sticking to it."

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

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
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.

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.

So I suppose that enters into it somehow.
Tom,
Can you see things other normal people can't see? ;)

--
Reggie

"That's my story and I am sticking to it."

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

JimH wrote:
"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. ;-)


JimH,
You worry me. What was the problem with RCE editing the long post to
make a joke? He did not edit your post to change the meaning of your
post, he just removed what was not pertinent to his joke.

--
Reggie

"That's my story and I am sticking to it."

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

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:33:52 +0000, CalifBill wrote:


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

Not necessarily. there is a compression algorithm, not just taking every
6th bit.

Well, I did misuse the term "sampling rate". I should have used bit rate,
but a bit rate of 256kbps is still around 1/6 of a bit rate of 1411.2kbps.
It's my understanding that the compression algorithms vary the sample
frequency and the sample size, in bits, to get the bit rate.

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

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

Interior bank alarms are my "thing" - I can hear them in the
background every time I have to go into the lobby for something.
Drives me nuts.

I had the same problem, but they used the same alarms in package stores
and 7/11 stores. I would always hear the high pitched squeal.
Unfortunately, I haven't heard them in years


"That's my story and I am sticking to it."

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

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:33:21 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"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


Is that the CD you bought? It sounds like a good one Makes me wonder if I
should update my 1978 version. How do you like the vocals?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

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

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 05:09:20 -0500, Reggie Smithers
wrote:

JimH wrote:



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.

JimH,
Richard followed SOP when he clipped your post. He only left the
appropriate part based upon his addition. Why are you concerned that
your message must be left in all posts?

I couldn't find anything inappropriate with Rich's clipping the post
either. But I couldn't find anything wrong with my mentioning the deletion
of a bunch of .wav files over in the 'other place'. Jim took offense at
that also. Oh well!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

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

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RCE wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Brahms Concerto for Violin and Orchestra, just under 100 KB
My iPOD holds 60 GB
I'm not worried.

And the sampling rate for this was?

RCE


320 kbps

Do you mean 100 Megabytes? not 100 Kilo bytes? 100 kilobytes, at 320kbps
sampling rate would be one short clip.

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:33:21 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"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


Is that the CD you bought? It sounds like a good one Makes me wonder if I
should update my 1978 version. How do you like the vocals?
--

If you don't have it ... you should get it before you can't. The reviews
say this is the best of them all.
It's a hybrid - so it will play in a conventional CD player, but to really
get the full benefit of this DSD recording, you need to use the SACD layer
with, obviously, a SACD player with the 6 analog outputs.

RCE

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

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
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.

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.

So I suppose that enters into it somehow.


I have below average hearing, I am most certainly not an audiophile and
I have no problem telling the difference between a vinyl LP (the best
range of sound), a CD(often missing a lot of the middle range compared
to analogue), and an mp3 with a bit rate below 250 (sounds like AM
radio), played on my home stereo.

Brings to mind first-year physics labs. My 3 lab partners were all
male. One day we went in and the lab instructor says - "Guys you'll be
doing this one today". It was an experiment on finding harmonics. She
told me women can't ususally hear the spot as easily as men. It was
true. My partners had no problem hearing the harmonic point as we
filled the glass tube with water. I heard a vague buzzing. The tables
were turned when we did optics. Find a second or third order green in a
split spectrum. I can discern, under the right conditions, up to seven
orders. My partners only saw one shade of green.

Stella

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

"Black Dog" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
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.

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.

So I suppose that enters into it somehow.


I have below average hearing, I am most certainly not an audiophile and I
have no problem telling the difference between a vinyl LP (the best range
of sound), a CD(often missing a lot of the middle range compared to
analogue), and an mp3 with a bit rate below 250 (sounds like AM radio),
played on my home stereo.

Brings to mind first-year physics labs. My 3 lab partners were all male.
One day we went in and the lab instructor says - "Guys you'll be doing
this one today". It was an experiment on finding harmonics. She told me
women can't ususally hear the spot as easily as men. It was true. My
partners had no problem hearing the harmonic point as we filled the glass
tube with water. I heard a vague buzzing. The tables were turned when we
did optics. Find a second or third order green in a split spectrum. I
can discern, under the right conditions, up to seven orders. My partners
only saw one shade of green.

Stella


What's "green"?

RCE

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

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:46:19 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:33:21 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"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


Is that the CD you bought? It sounds like a good one Makes me wonder if I
should update my 1978 version. How do you like the vocals?
--

If you don't have it ... you should get it before you can't. The reviews
say this is the best of them all.
It's a hybrid - so it will play in a conventional CD player, but to really
get the full benefit of this DSD recording, you need to use the SACD layer
with, obviously, a SACD player with the 6 analog outputs.

RCE


Is this it?

http://tinyurl.com/heum5


--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

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

Oh, and did everything come out alright in your 'procedure'?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

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

RCE wrote:
"Black Dog" wrote in message
...

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

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.

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.

So I suppose that enters into it somehow.


I have below average hearing, I am most certainly not an audiophile and I
have no problem telling the difference between a vinyl LP (the best range
of sound), a CD(often missing a lot of the middle range compared to
analogue), and an mp3 with a bit rate below 250 (sounds like AM radio),
played on my home stereo.

Brings to mind first-year physics labs. My 3 lab partners were all male.
One day we went in and the lab instructor says - "Guys you'll be doing
this one today". It was an experiment on finding harmonics. She told me
women can't ususally hear the spot as easily as men. It was true. My
partners had no problem hearing the harmonic point as we filled the glass
tube with water. I heard a vague buzzing. The tables were turned when we
did optics. Find a second or third order green in a split spectrum. I
can discern, under the right conditions, up to seven orders. My partners
only saw one shade of green.

Stella



What's "green"?

RCE



Mmmm! What if you are a middle aged male and can distinguish between 10
or so shades of green? Would you be too much in touch with your
feminine side?

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

RCE wrote:
"Black Dog" wrote in message
...

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

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.

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.

So I suppose that enters into it somehow.


I have below average hearing, I am most certainly not an audiophile and I
have no problem telling the difference between a vinyl LP (the best range
of sound), a CD(often missing a lot of the middle range compared to
analogue), and an mp3 with a bit rate below 250 (sounds like AM radio),
played on my home stereo.

Brings to mind first-year physics labs. My 3 lab partners were all male.
One day we went in and the lab instructor says - "Guys you'll be doing
this one today". It was an experiment on finding harmonics. She told me
women can't ususally hear the spot as easily as men. It was true. My
partners had no problem hearing the harmonic point as we filled the glass
tube with water. I heard a vague buzzing. The tables were turned when we
did optics. Find a second or third order green in a split spectrum. I
can discern, under the right conditions, up to seven orders. My partners
only saw one shade of green.

Stella



What's "green"?

RCE




Leaves, grass, seaweed, Kermit

It's not that easy . . .

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

Don White wrote:
RCE wrote:

"Black Dog" wrote in message
...

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

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.

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.

So I suppose that enters into it somehow.



I have below average hearing, I am most certainly not an audiophile
and I have no problem telling the difference between a vinyl LP (the
best range of sound), a CD(often missing a lot of the middle range
compared to analogue), and an mp3 with a bit rate below 250 (sounds
like AM radio), played on my home stereo.

Brings to mind first-year physics labs. My 3 lab partners were all
male. One day we went in and the lab instructor says - "Guys you'll
be doing this one today". It was an experiment on finding
harmonics. She told me women can't ususally hear the spot as easily
as men. It was true. My partners had no problem hearing the
harmonic point as we filled the glass tube with water. I heard a
vague buzzing. The tables were turned when we did optics. Find a
second or third order green in a split spectrum. I can discern,
under the right conditions, up to seven orders. My partners only saw
one shade of green.

Stella




What's "green"?

RCE


Mmmm! What if you are a middle aged male and can distinguish between 10
or so shades of green? Would you be too much in touch with your
feminine side?

You can get a job on a decorating show. Or one of those wardrobe
makeover things. But you can't pick my clothes, Don, I hate green.