OT: Digitizing My LP Collection

I know the difference between a scientist and an asswipe that puts down Einstein because he is clueless about physics.

I am the scientist, and you are the uneducable asswipe.

You are so stupid, you cannot even make a valid Usenet post. Line lengths are to be less than 79 characters, idiot. More proof that you are 100% clueless about pretty much everything.

I also know about sound.

The sounds you are making right now match that of a cockroach farting.

Reply to
GooseMan
Loading thread data ...

On a sunny day (Mon, 06 Jun 2011 06:14:51 -0700) it happened GooseMan wrote in :

Well, that '79' is the only number you provided, and, since you are Always Wrong, it is wrong:

formatting link
Usenet does NOT specify a maximum line length for the text body.

Been farting again?

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

I don't think you know the difference between compression and lossy formats. non-lossy and lossy can both be compressed.

ZIP can compress with out loss of information. Please get your facts together before going into battle.

Jamie.

Reply to
Jamie

David Eather expounded in news:1aadnR5UnrQEinHQnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

..

...

...

It would be wise to review the limits and shortcomings of MP3 before you undertook such a large effort (your time is worth something after all).

As a starting point, look at the sections "Audio Quality" and "Design Limitations" below:

formatting link

This of course is by no means exhaustive. You'll find several other net resources that talk about the limitations of the MP3 format.

For my money, MP3 is good enough for the cell phone or to put entire collections on a CD for the car radio. File size is the dominant concern in these situations.

But for any other purpose where quality is important, particularly a "collection", I would not use any compression technique at all (even non-lossy compression software may have bugs 8-/).

When you buy a CD to replace your LP (when you can), you get the uncompressed form of it, which is the way it should be.

And if anyone knows where I can buy a "Battered Wives" CD, then I'm all ears. It's been my experience that not all LPs are available on CD.

Warren

Reply to
Warren

In my experience (after having digitized around 100 LPs, and around

500 CDs), the .flac files coming out of the usual "flacenc" encoder are *not* "the same size as the original wav file." Not even close.

They're usually 40% - 60% of the size of the .WAV file... roughly a

2:1 compression ratio.

I imagine that anybody who actually experiments with FLAC compression of music-grade audio data files will see similar results.

--
Dave Platt                                    AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page:  http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Dave Platt

Yep!

Reply to
David Eather

Let me see...

You gave advice from on high about a subject you know little about and that advice was... inconsistent

You then attemtepted to defend your position and accidentally exposed how little you know about the subject.

You then used your own short comings to justify a personal attack on me.

Magnificent!

Reply to
David Eather

Reply to
David Eather

Wrong, it is wrong:

You are clueless.

Proof that you are clueless (further proof).

Reply to
GooseMan

FLAC is preferred by those that know.

MP3 is ALWAYS a compressed, AND lossy format.

Please? Fuck Off And Die, dumbfuck.

Facts? "can both be compressed..." They can ALSO both NOT be compressed. Sheesh.

Reply to
GooseMan

Now that would be a miracle.

A clear contradiction of terms. If 'from on high', the tomes would not be advice, idiot.

I studied the CD format and the rainbow books related to it before the device were even available on the market. I have studied many forms of quantisization and digitization of various signals. I have made stimulators for the testing of fighter aircraft... recently.

I have owned more player types, and own more optical disc formats than you have or have even seen.

I watched (and participated) as "DDD" was the term-of-the-day back when CD was all there was.

I have assisted in the production of a CD recording back in 1993, when the masters were 1GB hard drives and DAT tapes.

Says the dork that is arguing FOR MP3? Bwuahahahahaha!

I know more about digital signal processing (and have experience with) than you are aware, chump. Your claim is baseless bullshit.

A true scientist would see that the response proved your claim untrue. You are, however, too thick to have seen it. Not surprised.

You need a magnifier but not for the reasons you think.

Reply to
GooseMan

You're hilarious! I hope it is intentional. Everyone can see what you posted and how hopelessly wrong (or confused) it was. It's public record and *you* created it. Your wonderful embellishments of your carer highlights, even if true, can't change it and probably won't change any opinions of you.

More of your weirdness: I didn't suggest MP3. I suggested the OP save as .WAV ie. uncompressed format. You suggested he should stay away from compression altogether and use FLAC, which the first paragraph of their home page tells you is an audio compressor.

You said: A FLAC format encoding does NOT compress the file and merely packetizes it up for better error handling in playback engines.

FLAC said: FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec, an audio format similar to MP3, but lossless, meaning that *audio is compressed in FLAC* without any loss in quality. This is similar to how Zip works, except with FLAC you will get much better compression because it is designed specifically for audio, and you can play back compressed FLAC files in your favorite player (or your car or home stereo, see supported devices) just like you would an MP3 file.

Don't abuse other people for your mistakes. You didn't distinguish between lossless and lossy compression. If it was just poorly chosen words then just correct yourself. If you didn't know the difference than be happy you have learnt something new or just stay silent. Booming and blubbering more error and spittle just makes you look pathetic.

Maybe you could try changing your user Usenet name again?

Reply to
David Eather

On a sunny day (Mon, 6 Jun 2011 18:49:37 +0000 (UTC)) it happened Warren wrote in :

In case of a car you want to use a compander (reduce dynamic range), as the noise is high, same for AM transmissions. mp3 has a much higher dynamic range than you find i na car or even a normal living room, or even a very silent studio.

FYI, there is a lot of bullshit about mp3, even on wikipedia I am sure. Did you know that all digital broadcasting in Europe uses mp2 as format? Only a few years ago some AC3 channels were added on satellite to support more than 2 channels. But there is now also a mp3 multi channel format.

I have done extensive tests with mp2 / mp3 encoding decoding, and I can tell you that for most practical puposes mp2 and mp3 at a high bitrate cannot be told apart from PCM. There are a lot of audio fruitcakes around who need oxygen free cables to remove that last piece of 'distortion'. Best would be to expose those to an AB test.

Cellphones only, you sound alike that Always Wrong guy.

You have no clue what you are on about, that is evident now.

Probably made from tape and remastered digitally, filtered, companded, expanded, echo added, stereo image changed..., what noyt, whatever the sound technican felt like, and he may have had a bad day and a cold. :-) You would not know.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

On a sunny day (Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:21:05 +1000) it happened David Eather wrote in :

I have decided to ignore that person from now on, as he does not learn. He keeps repeating the same mistakes that were pointed out to him in the past. So it is a waste of time to try to teach him. All you end up with is arguments.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

An article about AlwaysWrong:

formatting link

Reply to
JW

AlwaysWrong should read this:

formatting link

[This space reserved for argument]
Reply to
JW

And if you had a clue, you would find that it is an "audio compressor" merely by the nature of the family of software it falls in with.

The fact remains that FLAC does NOT compress ANY info. It ONLY compresses the dead space, and even that puts what an MP3 encoder does to the signal to shame.

Reply to
GooseMan

Jan Panteltje expounded in news:iskod2$esa$ snipped-for-privacy@news.albasani.net:

I don't need anything more than I said. I'm not fussy in the car.

The existence of crap doesn't change the realities.

Were we talking about mp2? No doubt it compromises quality as well.

My sympathies to them. Just because they use it doesn't mean that you need to. You _do_ have a choice.

Increasing your bit-rate is still a _compromise_. What you get back from it is worse than the original.

If OTOH you say "it's good enough for _me_", then I won't argue with that. You've made your own call on quality, no matter how unwise it might be.

This is superfluous to the MP3 discussion.

So rather than have an enlightened discussion, you reach immediately for that ad hominem attack. How delightful.

..

More name calling and zero brain content.

And your MP3 version of that same track is better?!?

I'll leave you to your own fate.

Anyone who understands how MP3 works would not keep their collection in that format when quality is important.

Warren

Reply to
Warren

On a sunny day (Tue, 7 Jun 2011 14:03:38 +0000 (UTC)) it happened Warren wrote in :

I do not think so, I am a proven exception already :-)

You are proven wrong.

All you use is hearsay. Maybe you even never encoded anything to mp3 at different bitrates and listened to it. You fail the numbers, just like A..W.. :-)

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

On a sunny day (Tue, 07 Jun 2011 07:49:06 -0400) it happened JW wrote in :

Best is to let the subject rest I think. There are a lot of nicer things in the world worth attention.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.