Memory

In article , R. Mark Clayton
scribeth thus

"gremlin_95" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2014 13:14, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/04/2014 09:59, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:40:04 +0100, Johny B Good wrote:

I regard not only CD as pre-historic but DVD and Blu-Ray[1] too. It's
not that that makes me feel old, just the effects of old age creeping
up on me.

Presumably old age is having its normal affect on hearing and sight
so you don't notice how crap downloads and/or streaming are compared
to CD or Blu-Ray (or even DVD come to that). B-)

What worries *me* is that many teenagers are of the opinion that
downloads are better quality than CDs.

Even at my age, I can tell the difference, even on earbuds and small
screens.


There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell the
difference

Ditto - originally I thought MP3's were inferior [to CD] because they were
not lossless compression (like zip), however for most purposes you really
can't hear the difference.

Quite suitable for personal audio players and the like but needs to be
getting on for 320 K/bits for good audio..

PS typical digital audio streams are 44 - 48k samples per second.

Yes don't we just DABbing well know it;!..


--
Dawood



--
Tony Sayer

On 28/04/2014 19:09, gremlin_95 wrote:

There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell
the difference

That I can understand. Let's assume you have crap speakers! (I have a
decent set of headphones - because I used to work on audio, and couldn't
hear the defects. They let me keep them when I left)

What I can't understand is them thinking a download is better.

Andy

On 28/04/2014 20:31, tony sayer wrote:
In article , R. Mark Clayton
Ditto - originally I thought MP3's were inferior [to CD] because they were
not lossless compression (like zip), however for most purposes you really
can't hear the difference.

Quite suitable for personal audio players and the like but needs to be
getting on for 320 K/bits for good audio..

128k is about equivalent to compact cassette, IME.

PS typical digital audio streams are 44 - 48k samples per second.

*Samples* per second, not bits per second. 44k *bits* per second is low
fidelity mp3 or any other lossy compression well down into distorted
telephone quality speech territory. 44k *samples* per second at 16 bits
per sample is CD quality.

Yes don't we just DABbing well know it;!..

Shouldn't have let the accountants determine the quality.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 28/04/2014 20:31, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 28/04/2014 19:09, gremlin_95 wrote:

There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell
the difference

That I can understand. Let's assume you have crap speakers! (I have a
decent set of headphones - because I used to work on audio, and couldn't
hear the defects. They let me keep them when I left)

What I can't understand is them thinking a download is better.

It's what teemagers are used to. They also seem to like listening on the
squeaker built in to their phone, or share the audio on earbuds, getting
a channel each.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:

*Samples* per second, not bits per second. 44k *bits* per second is low
fidelity mp3 or any other lossy compression well down into distorted
telephone quality speech territory. 44k *samples* per second at 16 bits
per sample is CD quality.

But that's just one channel. For stereo you have:

44.1k x 16 bits per sample * 2 channels

= 1411200 bits per second... ie about 1.34 Mbps


--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to replacing "aaa" by "284".

On 28/04/2014 20:50, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/04/2014 20:31, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 28/04/2014 19:09, gremlin_95 wrote:

There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell
the difference

That I can understand. Let's assume you have crap speakers! (I have a
decent set of headphones - because I used to work on audio, and couldn't
hear the defects. They let me keep them when I left)

What I can't understand is them thinking a download is better.

It's what teemagers are used to. They also seem to like listening on the
squeaker built in to their phone, or share the audio on earbuds, getting
a channel each.



I guess I'm easily pleased. I used to commute by bus which took up
around 3 hours of my day. I was very content with my Sennheiser HD205s
and my iPod, I also use Sennheiser headphones when I am working at home
but I play the music from my laptop. I'm 19

--
Dazza

In article ,
John Williamson writes:
On 28/04/2014 20:31, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 28/04/2014 19:09, gremlin_95 wrote:

There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell
the difference

That I can understand. Let's assume you have crap speakers! (I have a
decent set of headphones - because I used to work on audio, and couldn't
hear the defects. They let me keep them when I left)

What I can't understand is them thinking a download is better.

It's what teemagers are used to. They also seem to like listening on the
squeaker built in to their phone, or share the audio on earbuds, getting
a channel each.

I can listen to music on almost anything.
Once I've heard it (or played it) and know it, when I'm listening it's
just gently jogging my brain to replay the high quality version it
stored in the learning process.

One thing I do recall from the days of LP's - you would occasionally
get a scratch or just a pip on a track. When I listened to another
recording or even a real concert, it always came as a surprise when
that scratch or pip I was anticipating was missing!

Similarly on tapes, there were a few recordings I had where the tape
was a few bars short of the end of the piece and I couldn't be bothered
to rerecord or didn't have a spare tape. I got used to that piece of
music finishing mid-note, and again it was a surprise to listen on the
radio and for it not to stop where it usually did!

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 28/04/2014 19:37, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"gremlin_95" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2014 13:14, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/04/2014 09:59, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:40:04 +0100, Johny B Good wrote:

I regard not only CD as pre-historic but DVD and Blu-Ray[1] too. It's
not that that makes me feel old, just the effects of old age creeping
up on me.

Presumably old age is having its normal affect on hearing and sight
so you don't notice how crap downloads and/or streaming are compared
to CD or Blu-Ray (or even DVD come to that). B-)

What worries *me* is that many teenagers are of the opinion that
downloads are better quality than CDs.

Even at my age, I can tell the difference, even on earbuds and small
screens.


There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell the
difference

Ditto - originally I thought MP3's were inferior [to CD] because they were
not lossless compression (like zip), however for most purposes you really
can't hear the difference.

I find it really depends on the bit rate of the MP3 and the quality of
the encoder. 128kbps MP3s clearly sound inferior to CDs to me. 360kpbs
however is very much closer.

(I rip all my discs to flac just to be on the safe side ;-)

PS typical digital audio streams are 44 - 48k samples per second.

16 bits each and twice for stereo - so a CD is about 1.3Mbps uncompressed.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/04/2014 21:42, gremlin_95 wrote:
On 28/04/2014 20:50, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/04/2014 20:31, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 28/04/2014 19:09, gremlin_95 wrote:

There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell
the difference

That I can understand. Let's assume you have crap speakers! (I have a
decent set of headphones - because I used to work on audio, and couldn't
hear the defects. They let me keep them when I left)

What I can't understand is them thinking a download is better.

It's what teemagers are used to. They also seem to like listening on the
squeaker built in to their phone, or share the audio on earbuds, getting
a channel each.



I guess I'm easily pleased. I used to commute by bus which took up
around 3 hours of my day. I was very content with my Sennheiser HD205s
and my iPod, I also use Sennheiser headphones when I am working at home
but I play the music from my laptop. I'm 19

Modern PC sound systems are pretty decent in general these days - give
then decent material to play, and stick it through a decent amp and
speakers and the results are on par with a good many CD players IME.
(the noise floor can be a bit higher on some, depending on the quality
of the sound card output stage)

My workshop audio is via a PC as a source and its more than adequate
(although note its competing with dust extraction and machine tools some
of the time!)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/04/2014 23:18, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson writes:
On 28/04/2014 20:31, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 28/04/2014 19:09, gremlin_95 wrote:

There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell
the difference

That I can understand. Let's assume you have crap speakers! (I have a
decent set of headphones - because I used to work on audio, and couldn't
hear the defects. They let me keep them when I left)

What I can't understand is them thinking a download is better.

It's what teemagers are used to. They also seem to like listening on the
squeaker built in to their phone, or share the audio on earbuds, getting
a channel each.

I can listen to music on almost anything.
Once I've heard it (or played it) and know it, when I'm listening it's
just gently jogging my brain to replay the high quality version it
stored in the learning process.

One thing I do recall from the days of LP's - you would occasionally
get a scratch or just a pip on a track. When I listened to another
recording or even a real concert, it always came as a surprise when
that scratch or pip I was anticipating was missing!

Rather like when you get used to album tracks in a particular order, and
then someone plays the "greatest hits" version and it completely throws
your anticipation at the end of each track ;-)

Similarly on tapes, there were a few recordings I had where the tape
was a few bars short of the end of the piece and I couldn't be bothered
to rerecord or didn't have a spare tape. I got used to that piece of
music finishing mid-note, and again it was a surprise to listen on the
radio and for it not to stop where it usually did!



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/