Re: OT Ipods

As usual, you mistakenly assume that it's all about you.

I posted this for the benefit of anyone -- you among them, but not only
you -- who might be interested in knowing the truth. I wouldn't expect you
to be interested in facts. You never are.

Rob, when you post stuff, have a clue first. Then people like me wouldn't
feel compelled to set the record straight for those who might accept what
you say as gospel. (Not that anyone would, in your case.)

Randy


"Rob Hamilton" <Janellenrob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43943683.97861E94@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> \"R&B\" wrote:
>
>> "Rob Hamilton" <Janellenrob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Digital files tend to lack low ends at the very least.
>> > Absent to very muddy.
>>
>> Too much low end is what makes audio muddy. So if there's an absence of
>> low
>> end, it can't be muddy. It can be shrill or thin, but not muddy. Lows
>> (and/or a lack of high end) are what add mud. If anything, digital tends
>> to
>> make the high end more prevalent, which may be what you're talking about.
>>
>> Analogue tape always had a distinct limitation to how well it could
>> record
>> highs. After abut 15 Khz, the drop-off was pretty severe. Digital
>> doesn't
>> have this problem. That said, human hearing begins to roll off pretty
>> quickly around that range, too. Only your German Shephard would notice
>> the
>> difference.
>>
>> I would disagree that digital files lack low end. The reason why some
>> music
>> sounds a little thin is because producers equalize it that way so it will
>> stand out more when played on the radio (or the radio stations themselves
>> equalize their signal to reduce some low end). They've done that since
>> the
>> '60s when top-40 radio was still on AM radio. It's not done as much
>> today,
>> or to the same degree it was done "back in the day," but it's still done
>> to
>> some extent, especially on "pop" stations. Radio broadcasters do this,
>> ostensibly, to make their station seem "louder" than their competitors.
>> (The human ear can be tricked into perceiving something as "louder" by
>> boosting certain frequencies, especially in the midrange and lower
>> high-end.
>> "Presence," on the other hand, is achieved by boosing a bit in certain
>> lower-end frequences -- like on the old "loudness" buttons you found on
>> old-time stereo amps back when you worked at the Hi-Fi store.)
>>
>> > As I recall the highs are around 12K for MP3's as well.
>>
>> There is absolutely nothing inherent to Fraunhauffer .mp3 compression
>> algorhythms (Fraunhauffer owns all the patents on .mp3 compression) that
>> cuts off the highs at 12 Khz. To prove this, all you have to do is play
>> an
>> .mp3 through some software such as Adobe Audition and view the frequency
>> spectrum analyzer. You'll see there are frequencies well above 12 Khz
>> (if
>> they were recorded in the first place). .mp3 itself does not inherantly
>> roll off high end. That's just false.
>>
>> What .mp3 compression does is to selectively eliminate digital 1s and 0s
>> using algorhythms that, in theory, do not affect the acoustics of the
>> sound
>> in a way that is perceptible to human ears. It's all in an effort to
>> shrink
>> the file size without affecting the sound. Obviously, there are
>> different
>> compression schemes that you can choose within the .mp3 realm. The more
>> you
>> compress it, the more is lost. Those who complain about bad .mp3 sound
>> are
>> often listening to files that were compressed poorly by ignorant people
>> who
>> don't know how to do it.
>>
>> That's why I was always wary of songs downloadable from Napster. You
>> never
>> knew how the user had compressed the files. Those files that were
>> compressed at, say, 96 Kbps (kilobits per second), would have far more
>> "information" removed than a file that was compressed to 256 Kbps. The
>> former would yield a smaller file, of course, but not so much so to make
>> the
>> loss in audio quality a desireable trade-off. Similarly, those files
>> that
>> are encoded at 8 bit resolution are going to be garbage compared to 16
>> bit,
>> 24 bit or 32 bit. (8 bit is the worst, and sounds about like phone
>> quality.)
>>
>> > MP3's are the latest in the series of "new technology"
>> > that represents yet again another overall reduction in
>> > sound quality. I guess I was spoiled too much working
>> > in HiFi shops in the days of tube amps!
>>
>> Well, I won't argue that tube amps aren't the bomb. They still are.
>> That's
>> why I, and just about everybody else who earns their living recording
>> sound,
>> uses tube amps for their condensor microphones. (Or they just use a tube
>> mic.) Tubes yield a much warmer sound than any solid state mic pre-amp
>> technology can. There's no disagreement there. (That said, "warmth," in
>> some cases, isn't what the producer is going for, so tube preamps aren't
>> necessarily always the ideal choice, depending on what's being recorded.
>> Warmth, for example, may not be what you want when recording a cymbal
>> crash.
>> But I certainly want it on all my voiceovers.)
>>
>> But even producers who were the most resistent to change when digital
>> audio
>> was first introduced have since been won over by the pristine (and
>> noise-free) capturing that only digital recording can achieve. They've
>> come
>> to believe that in the final analysis, it's the acoustics of the room,
>> mic
>> placement, the mics (and mic preamps) themselves, and the capture device
>> (sound card) that dictate the "warmth" (or relative lack thereof) of the
>> sound recorded. And even with that, there are those who still prefer to
>> send the sound out of the editing software (Pro Tools, usually) through a
>> processing box that replicates analogue treatment, and back into the
>> computer (sometimes the same thing can be achieved by the ever-improving
>> software "plug-ins" that can be purchased). When digital audio capturing
>> first started sweeping the industry, and for almost a full decade
>> thereafter, these digital naysayers continued to thumb their nose at
>> digital
>> capturing, preferring instead to record to analogue tape, claiming it
>> yielded a "warmer" sound, then transfer the audio to digital for
>> post-production manipulation, where "generation loss" (in dubbing) would
>> never be an issue. But nowadays, you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody
>> in
>> the industry that still records to analogue tape in the first place.
>> It's
>> just too noisy (tape hiss, potential drop-outs, etc.). Digital
>> technology
>> (both hardware and software), not to mention the new generation of
>> microphones and preamps, have all improved so much, there's no need to
>> even
>> play in the analogue realm anymore.
>>
>> Randy
>
> Remember what you said about the degree to which you care what I think?
> Ditto to
> you.
>
>
> --
> _____________________________________________
> Some other forums
>
> http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/SEGOLF/
> http://forums.prospero.com/golfequip/
> http://www.freegolfinfo.com/
>
>


.

Loading