On 9/9/2010 12:51 PM, dave wrote:
John Smith wrote:


I have a certain fondness for analog signals the fact very simple simple
circuits can be used to construct a radio ... but, it is time.

Regards,

AAC sounds like ****. Whether it's "HD" FM, XM, or POS iTunes.


That statement reeks of stupidity ... like saying radios sound like chit
.... some implementation do, others don't ... a statement which is both
true and false is worthless.

Regards,
JS

On Sep 9, 3:05*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/9/2010 12:51 PM, dave wrote:

John Smith wrote:

I have a certain fondness for analog signals the fact very simple simple
circuits can be used to construct a radio ... but, it is time.

Regards,

AAC sounds like ****. Whether it's "HD" FM, XM, or POS iTunes.

That statement reeks of stupidity ... like saying radios sound like chit
... some implementation do, others don't ... a statement which is both
true and false is worthless.

Regards,
JS

Subject restored...

John Smith wrote:


That statement reeks of stupidity ... like saying radios sound like chit
... some implementation do, others don't ... a statement which is both
true and false is worthless.

Regards,
JS


aac at 256 kbps still sounds like crap compared to FLAC or WAV.

On 9/9/2010 4:11 PM, dave wrote:

...
aac at 256 kbps still sounds like crap compared to FLAC or WAV.

Well, that is because you are like that damn princess which could detect
a pea placed under her mattress! You are special, special ed ... err,
special dave ... to the rest of us, am radio at 64 kbps sounds great, 32
ain't bad and 16 will suffice ... at 128 kbps I doubt there is even any
loss at all ... only one with special ed (special dave) abilities is
made uncomfortable! ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

On Sep 9, 7:08*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/9/2010 4:11 PM, dave wrote:

...
aac at 256 kbps still sounds like crap compared to FLAC or WAV.

Well, that is because you are like that damn princess which could detect
a pea placed under her mattress! *You are special, special ed ... err,
special dave ... to the rest of us, am radio at 64 kbps sounds great, 32
ain't bad and 16 will suffice ... at 128 kbps I doubt there is even any
loss at all ... only one with special ed (special dave) abilities is
made uncomfortable! *ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

Subject restored...

DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:08 pm, John wrote:
On 9/9/2010 4:11 PM, dave wrote:

...
aac at 256 kbps still sounds like crap compared to FLAC or WAV.

Well, that is because you are like that damn princess which could detect
a pea placed under her mattress! You are special, special ed ... err,
special dave ... to the rest of us, am radio at 64 kbps sounds great, 32
ain't bad and 16 will suffice ... at 128 kbps I doubt there is even any
loss at all ... only one with special ed (special dave) abilities is
made uncomfortable! ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

Subject restored...

128 sounds very ragged to me. It's fine for the car or background music
but when I put on my Grado headphones the lossy compression is not
really a pleasure to listen to.

On 9/9/2010 8:33 PM, dave wrote:

...
128 sounds very ragged to me. It's fine for the car or background music
but when I put on my Grado headphones the lossy compression is not
really a pleasure to listen to.

This:
"Audio (MP3)
32 kbit/s – MW (AM) quality
96 kbit/s – FM quality - This is questionable since FM broadcast is
transmitted in analog 30hz-15khz. Similarly one cannot compare directly
an LP record to CD using kbit/s.
128–160 kbit/s – Standard Bitrate quality; difference can sometimes be
obvious (e.g. lack of low frequency quality and high frequency "swashy"
effects)[citation needed]
224–320 kbit/s – VBR to highest MP3 quality"

from he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate

At 225 kbit, it is strange it is so offensive to your ear, it is
approaching concert hall quality ... 96 kbit is ~equal to fm radio ... I
think what your are hearing is more in your mind than anywhere else.

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
[...]
At 225 kbit, it is strange it is so offensive to your ear, it is
approaching concert hall quality ... 96 kbit is ~equal to fm radio ... I
think what your are hearing is more in your mind than anywhere else.
[...]


Those comparisons are interesting, and there's some truth in them.

But it's a huge simplification to say that 96 kbps "is equal to FM
radio." FM radio has drawbacks and artifacts, and so does a 96 kbps
mp3 or AAC stream. Maybe they're roughly the same level of
degradation to most people's ears, but each has a very different
sort of degradation.

Some people object more to the odd added "details" and
phasing/intermodulation anomalies of compressed digital than to the
increased hiss and (pre-emphasis related) reduction in high-end
levels of FM. And some feel the opposite.

And Dave is right. A compressed-data signal that sounds quite
acceptable in the car, or on speakers in a noisy home, can sound
_much_ worse on headphones or in a pristine, silent listening
environment, where its subtle details can be heard.

At 260 or 320 kbps, I'm very happy with stereo mp3s, even on
headphones. At 128 kbps, headphones and my best speakers reveal some
occasionally annoying flaws.



With every good wish,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

John Smith wrote:
On 9/9/2010 8:33 PM, dave wrote:

...
128 sounds very ragged to me. It's fine for the car or background music
but when I put on my Grado headphones the lossy compression is not
really a pleasure to listen to.

This:
"Audio (MP3)
32 kbit/s – MW (AM) quality
96 kbit/s – FM quality - This is questionable since FM broadcast is
transmitted in analog 30hz-15khz. Similarly one cannot compare directly
an LP record to CD using kbit/s.
128–160 kbit/s – Standard Bitrate quality; difference can sometimes be
obvious (e.g. lack of low frequency quality and high frequency "swashy"
effects)[citation needed]
224–320 kbit/s – VBR to highest MP3 quality"

from he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate

At 225 kbit, it is strange it is so offensive to your ear, it is
approaching concert hall quality ... 96 kbit is ~equal to fm radio ... I
think what your are hearing is more in your mind than anywhere else.

Regards,
JS

I have done blind A/B testing. WAV or FLAC always beats AAC, at any
bitrate. AAC+ SBR, the flavor used for digital radio, is even more
annoying due to false triggering of the pink noise pumper and the total
lack of any sense of space. A typical 78 RPM analog record has more
ambience.

I do all my entertainment radiolistening via web unless I'm somewhere
without wireless broadband or listening to the AM radio. I find the
vast majority of FM radio stations unlistenable due to the extreme
dynamics processing.

On Sep 9, 4:08*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/9/2010 4:11 PM, dave wrote:

...
aac at 256 kbps still sounds like crap compared to FLAC or WAV.

- Well, that is because you are like that damn princess which could
detect
- a pea placed under her mattress! *You are special, special ed ...
err,
- special dave ... to the rest of us, am radio at 64 kbps sounds
great, 32
- ain't bad and 16 will suffice ... at 128 kbps I doubt there is even
any
- loss at all ... only one with special ed (special dave) abilities is
- made uncomfortable! *ROFLOL
-
- Regards,
- JS

Yeah Dave is so s p e c i a l . . .
Wez Call Him 'Super Dave'
http://www.stevemandich.com/evelincarnate/superdave.jpg