Discussion:
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
(too old to reply)
Diesel
2017-05-20 14:00:12 UTC
Permalink
"David B." <***@nomail.afraid.org> news:ofms3d$bb1$***@dont-email.me
Fri, 19 May 2017 13:34:48 GMT in alt.2600, wrote:

> On 5/17/2017 12:43 PM, burfordTjustice wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 17:56:31 +0100
>> "David B." <***@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> whole HHI team
>>
>> what proof do you have there is more than just him?
>
> I only have Dustin Cook's word - but I believe him on this matter.

You should know by now that burpandfart isn't the brightest bulb in
the set. It's filament burned out a long time ago...

Why do you believe me on this matter, and, not other matters, David?

And why did you try (again) to solicit another to help you deal with
me?

MID: <C87RA.739350$***@fx27.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149456200100

Just what did you hope to accomplish? They can't help you. Nobody can
help you, David. When are you going to learn that? I feel as if you
owe me, and, until I feel that we're square, Things like this:

http://picpaste.com/RqBgftvA.jpg

And more, will continue, for what you did. I wouldn't help you do
nefarious things to forum sites. I was more than willing to analyze
any malware you could provide a url to, but, I wasn't willing to do
any blackhat hacking for your benefit. And, our email correspondence,
in it's entirely in the order it was sent/received backs my
statements concerning you. I don't care if some individuals are
'afraid' of a .zip file, either. Their loss, I hope you stalk them
with ease, as I've little doubt you will if you think they can be of
use to you.

http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/bdemail1.zip

For that, you thought it was okay to try and dox me and place myself
and loved ones in danger? Not cool, David. And, like I always said,
your 'apology' and claimed understanding of what you did when you
spoke to Aardvark in person was pure bullshit by you. You just told
him what he wanted to hear (likely because he was within physical
reach of your wrinked old ass and could have done a number on you had
you been honest instead) and tried to bullshit me as well.

So, now that our 'history' is well known, would you care to explain
why you decided to try and dox me the first time? What did you think
you'd accomplish by doing that, David? Why did you go out of your way
to make me an enemy?

Oh, and, btw, I added the rec.photo.digital to this reply which will
generate a new thread. I think the participants of that newsgroup
should be made aware of you and your bad habits. And well, you sort
of invited me with your plead for assistance in dealing with me.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
burfordTjustice
2017-05-20 15:17:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 20 May 2017 14:00:12 -0000 (UTC)
Diesel <***@privacy.net> wrote:

> burpandfart


LOL Grade school level..can't expect much from a wire puller/fetcher.
LOL!!
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2017-05-21 05:41:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 20 May 2017 14:00:12 -0000 (UTC), LO AND BEHOLD; "Diesel
<***@privacy.net>" determined that the following was of great importance
and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<***@1klo30J1Jtp.MlnY8MRAj54kBh2.93>:

>"David B." <***@nomail.afraid.org> news:ofms3d$bb1$***@dont-email.me
>Fri, 19 May 2017 13:34:48 GMT in alt.2600, wrote:
>
>>On 5/17/2017 12:43 PM, burfordTjustice wrote:
>>>On Tue, 16 May 2017 17:56:31 +0100 "David B." <***@nomail.afraid.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>>whole HHI team
>>>what proof do you have there is more than just him?
>>I only have Dustin Cook's word - but I believe him on this matter.
>
>You should know by now that burpandfart isn't the brightest bulb in the
>set. It's filament burned out a long time ago...
>
>Why do you believe me on this matter, and, not other matters, David?
>
>And why did you try (again) to solicit another to help you deal with me?
>
>
>MID: <C87RA.739350$***@fx27.fr7>
>http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149456200100
>
>Just what did you hope to accomplish? They can't help you. Nobody can
>help you, David. When are you going to learn that? I feel as if you owe
>me, and, until I feel that we're square, Things like this:
>
>http://picpaste.com/RqBgftvA.jpg
>
>And more, will continue, for what you did. I wouldn't help you do
>nefarious things to forum sites. I was more than willing to analyze any
>malware you could provide a url to, but, I wasn't willing to do any
>blackhat hacking for your benefit. And, our email correspondence, in
>it's entirely in the order it was sent/received backs my statements
>concerning you. I don't care if some individuals are 'afraid' of a .zip
>file, either. Their loss, I hope you stalk them with ease, as I've
>little doubt you will if you think they can be of use to you.
>
>http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/bdemail1.zip
>
>For that, you thought it was okay to try and dox me and place myself and
>loved ones in danger? Not cool, David. And, like I always said, your
>'apology' and claimed understanding of what you did when you spoke to
>Aardvark in person was pure bullshit by you. You just told him what he
>wanted to hear (likely because he was within physical reach of your
>wrinked old ass and could have done a number on you had you been honest
>instead) and tried to bullshit me as well.
>
>So, now that our 'history' is well known, would you care to explain why
>you decided to try and dox me the first time? What did you think you'd
>accomplish by doing that, David? Why did you go out of your way to make
>me an enemy?
>
>Oh, and, btw, I added the rec.photo.digital to this reply which will
>generate a new thread. I think the participants of that newsgroup
>should be made aware of you and your bad habits. And well, you sort of
>invited me with your plead for assistance in dealing with me.

you should tell him what version of lame you use to encode your 44.1kHz CDs. it might impress him.

--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Diesel
2017-05-21 14:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus =?UTF-8?B?8J+Qtuesmw==?=
<***@127.0.0.1> news:-***@giganews.com
Sun, 21 May 2017 05:41:21 GMT in alt.2600, wrote:

> you should tell him what version of lame you use to encode your
> 44.1kHz CDs. it might impress him.

I'd be wasting my time. You already lost him at encode.
Maybe you can educate him on the amazing sound quality of vinyl?




--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
Shadow
2017-05-21 15:21:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 14:46:53 -0000 (UTC), Diesel <***@privacy.net>
wrote:

>Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus =?UTF-8?B?8J+Qtuesmw==?=
><***@127.0.0.1> news:-***@giganews.com
>Sun, 21 May 2017 05:41:21 GMT in alt.2600, wrote:
>
>> you should tell him what version of lame you use to encode your
>> 44.1kHz CDs. it might impress him.
>
>I'd be wasting my time. You already lost him at encode.
>Maybe you can educate him on the amazing sound quality of vinyl?
>

Diesel, there have been many complaints about your comparing
weasels (delightfully photogenic fun and rabbit loving animals) to the
nefarious BD.
As you can see here:

https://www.rspca.org.uk/..../...../BDvsWeaselAbuse.html

Specially from the Devon branch, who are familiar with his
criminal and drunken activities.
Please correct your headers.
[]'s

PS BD has been training his dog to run off with that page.
Visit it before it's too late.


--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Diesel
2017-05-22 01:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Shadow <***@dow.br> news:***@4ax.com
Sun, 21 May 2017 15:21:42 GMT in alt.2600, wrote:

> On Sun, 21 May 2017 14:46:53 -0000 (UTC), Diesel <***@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus =?UTF-8?B?8J+Qtuesmw==?=
>><***@127.0.0.1>
>>news:-***@giganews.com Sun, 21 May
>>2017 05:41:21 GMT in alt.2600, wrote:
>>
>>> you should tell him what version of lame you use to encode your
>>> 44.1kHz CDs. it might impress him.
>>
>>I'd be wasting my time. You already lost him at encode.
>>Maybe you can educate him on the amazing sound quality of vinyl?
>>
>
> Diesel, there have been many complaints about your comparing
> weasels (delightfully photogenic fun and rabbit loving animals) to
> the nefarious BD.
> As you can see here:
>
> https://www.rspca.org.uk/..../...../BDvsWeaselAbuse.html
>
> Specially from the Devon branch, who are familiar with his
> criminal and drunken activities.
> Please correct your headers.
> []'s
>
> PS BD has been training his dog to run off with that page.
> Visit it before it's too late.
>
>

ROFL!


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
burfordTjustice
2017-05-21 15:45:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 14:46:53 -0000 (UTC)
Diesel <***@privacy.net> wrote:

> amazing sound quality of vinyl?


Vinyl is superior to CD and digital
nospam
2017-05-21 15:52:22 UTC
Permalink
In article <ofscfo$jcp$***@dont-email.me>, burfordTjustice
<***@tues.uk> wrote:

>
> > amazing sound quality of vinyl?
>
> Vinyl is superior to CD and digital

other way around. digital audio surpasses anything vinyl can do.
burfordTjustice
2017-05-21 15:57:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 11:52:22 -0400
nospam <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <ofscfo$jcp$***@dont-email.me>, burfordTjustice
> <***@tues.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > > amazing sound quality of vinyl?
> >
> > Vinyl is superior to CD and digital
>
> other way around. digital audio surpasses anything vinyl can do.

You got it bassackwards
nospam
2017-05-21 16:40:59 UTC
Permalink
In article <ofsd6l$jcp$***@dont-email.me>, burfordTjustice
<***@tues.uk> wrote:

> > >
> > > > amazing sound quality of vinyl?
> > >
> > > Vinyl is superior to CD and digital
> >
> > other way around. digital audio surpasses anything vinyl can do.
>
> You got it bassackwards

no, i definitely don't.
burfordTjustice
2017-05-22 12:06:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 12:40:59 -0400
nospam <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <ofsd6l$jcp$***@dont-email.me>, burfordTjustice
> <***@tues.uk> wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > > amazing sound quality of vinyl?
> > > >
> > > > Vinyl is superior to CD and digital
> > >
> > > other way around. digital audio surpasses anything vinyl can do.
> >
> > You got it bassackwards
>
> no, i definitely don't.

You may believe as you wish...dustin is looking for a roomy.
Bill W
2017-05-21 15:52:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 11:45:08 -0400, burfordTjustice
<***@tues.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 May 2017 14:46:53 -0000 (UTC)
>Diesel <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> amazing sound quality of vinyl?
>
>
>Vinyl is superior to CD and digital

Yes it is, if you need a larger coaster or sharp edged frisbee. And
remember, LP's were used effectively against Zombies in Shaun of the
Dead. I doubt CD's would have worked nearly as well. Vinyl can save
lives.
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2017-05-21 17:02:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 11:45:08 -0400, LO AND BEHOLD; "burfordTjustice
<***@tues.uk>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<ofscfo$jcp$***@dont-email.me>:

>On Sun, 21 May 2017 14:46:53 -0000 (UTC) Diesel <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>amazing sound quality of vinyl?
>
>Vinyl is superior to CD and digital
>

"Vinyl is the only consumer playback format we have that's fully analog and fully lossless," Gonsalves said. "You just need a decent turntable with a decent needle on it and you're going to enjoy a full-fidelity listening experience. It's a little bit more idiot-proof and a little bit less technical."

The analog format allows for artists to transport their music from magnetic tape to LP to your speakers or headphones without the complications of digital conversion. This, ideally, is the closest one can get to what the artist intended — if the artist recorded on tape and sent the reels over to an engineer like Gonsalves to cut a lacquer master from. But whether its origins are digital or analog (more on this later),

**a vinyl disc should have more musical information than an MP3 file — so it should be an improvement on streaming sites such as YouTube or SoundCloud, especially on a good system.**

<herpderp>

--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
nospam
2017-05-21 18:54:14 UTC
Permalink
In article <fKydnVWp8NWmVbzEnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Fakey's
Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> "Vinyl is the only consumer playback format we have that's fully analog and
> fully lossless," Gonsalves said. "You just need a decent turntable with a
> decent needle on it and you're going to enjoy a full-fidelity listening
> experience. It's a little bit more idiot-proof and a little bit less
> technical."

vinyl is not lossless at all. it's actually quite lossy, much more than
digital is (easily proven mathematically).

> The analog format allows for artists to transport their music from magnetic
> tape to LP to your speakers or headphones without the complications of
> digital conversion. This, ideally, is the closest one can get to what the
> artist intended ‹ if the artist recorded on tape and sent the reels over to
> an engineer like Gonsalves to cut a lacquer master from. But whether its
> origins are digital or analog (more on this later),

nonsense.

digital will preserve what the artist wanted far, far better than any
analog format.

> **a vinyl disc should have more musical information than an MP3 file ‹ so it
> should be an improvement on streaming sites such as YouTube or SoundCloud,
> especially on a good system.**

that would depend on the particular song on youtube or soundcloud.

a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
Vassilis Spiliopoulos
2017-05-21 19:10:45 UTC
Permalink
On 5/21/2017 9:54 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <fKydnVWp8NWmVbzEnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Fakey's
> Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> "Vinyl is the only consumer playback format we have that's fully analog and
>> fully lossless," Gonsalves said. "You just need a decent turntable with a
>> decent needle on it and you're going to enjoy a full-fidelity listening
>> experience. It's a little bit more idiot-proof and a little bit less
>> technical."
>
> vinyl is not lossless at all. it's actually quite lossy, much more than
> digital is (easily proven mathematically).
>
>> The analog format allows for artists to transport their music from magnetic
>> tape to LP to your speakers or headphones without the complications of
>> digital conversion. This, ideally, is the closest one can get to what the
>> artist intended ‹ if the artist recorded on tape and sent the reels over to
>> an engineer like Gonsalves to cut a lacquer master from. But whether its
>> origins are digital or analog (more on this later),
>
> nonsense.
>
> digital will preserve what the artist wanted far, far better than any
> analog format.
>
>> **a vinyl disc should have more musical information than an MP3 file ‹ so it
>> should be an improvement on streaming sites such as YouTube or SoundCloud,
>> especially on a good system.**
>
> that would depend on the particular song on youtube or soundcloud.
>
> a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
> valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
Okay, this must be one of the most avant-garde and off topic messages I
have ever seen on the Usenet.
nospam
2017-05-21 19:24:30 UTC
Permalink
In article <ofsons$15c3$***@adenine.netfront.net>, Vassilis Spiliopoulos
<***@vask1lux.de> wrote:

> On 5/21/2017 9:54 PM, nospam wrote:
> > In article <fKydnVWp8NWmVbzEnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Fakey's
> > Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >
> >> "Vinyl is the only consumer playback format we have that's fully analog and
> >> fully lossless," Gonsalves said. "You just need a decent turntable with a
> >> decent needle on it and you're going to enjoy a full-fidelity listening
> >> experience. It's a little bit more idiot-proof and a little bit less
> >> technical."
> >
> > vinyl is not lossless at all. it's actually quite lossy, much more than
> > digital is (easily proven mathematically).
> >
> >> The analog format allows for artists to transport their music from magnetic
> >> tape to LP to your speakers or headphones without the complications of
> >> digital conversion. This, ideally, is the closest one can get to what the
> >> artist intended Ð if the artist recorded on tape and sent the reels over to
> >> an engineer like Gonsalves to cut a lacquer master from. But whether its
> >> origins are digital or analog (more on this later),
> >
> > nonsense.
> >
> > digital will preserve what the artist wanted far, far better than any
> > analog format.
> >
> >> **a vinyl disc should have more musical information than an MP3 file Ð so
> >> it
> >> should be an improvement on streaming sites such as YouTube or SoundCloud,
> >> especially on a good system.**
> >
> > that would depend on the particular song on youtube or soundcloud.
> >
> > a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
> > valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > http://www.avg.com
> >
> Okay, this must be one of the most avant-garde and off topic messages I
> have ever seen on the Usenet.

your newsreader is *very* broken, because it added your stupid avg
infested signature into the quoted content rather than your content,
making it look like it's part of what i wrote, which i definitely did
not.

avg is garbage as is your newsreader, thunderbird.

relevant headers:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.8.0
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 170521-0, 05/21/2017), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
THE STINGER - AKA 'KING OF AUK'
2017-05-21 21:00:56 UTC
Permalink
O\_n \_/ \S/ u_/n\_, \_/ \2/ 1_/ \_/M\_a \y/ \_/ 2_/0\_1 \7/ \_/ 1_/5
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
:_/2\_4 \:/ 3_/0\_/ \_- \0/ 4_/0\_0 \,/ \_/ n_/o\_s \p/ a_/m\_/ \_<
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
n_/o\_s \p/ a_/m\_@ \n/ o_/s\_p \a/ m_/.\_i \n/ v_/a\_l \i/ d_/>\_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\w/ r_/o\_t \e/ :_/ \_/ \_/>\_/ \_/ \_> \I/ n_/ \_/a\_r \t/ i_/c\_l
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
e_/ \_/<\_o \f/ s_/o\_n \s/ $_/1\_5 \c/ 3_/$\_1 \@/ a_/d\_e \n/ i_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
n\_e \./ n_/e\_t \f/ r_/o\_n \t/ ._/n\_e \t/ >_/,\_/ \_V \a/ s_/s\_i
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
l\_i \s/ \_/ S_/p\_i \l/ i_/o\_p \o/ u_/l\_o \s/ \_/ \_/ >_/<\_v \a/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
s\_s \i/ l_/i\_s \@/ v_/a\_s \k/ 1_/l\_u \x/ ._/d\_e \>/ \_/ w_/r\_o
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
t_/e\_: \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ \_/ >_/>\_/ \_O \n/ \_/ 5_//\_2 \1/ /_/2\_0
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
1_/7\_/ \_9 \:/ 5_/4\_/ \_P \M/ ,_/ \_/n\_o \s/ p_/a\_m \_/ \w/ r_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
o\_t \e/ :_/ \_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \>/ \_/ I_/n\_/ \_a \r/ t_/i\_c \l/ e_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\</ f_/K\_y \d/ n_/V\_W \p/ 8_/N\_W \m/ V_/b\_z \E/ n_/Z\_2 \d/ n_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
U\_U \7/ -_/Y\_3 \N/ n_/Z\_2 \d/ @_/g\_i \g/ a_/n\_e \w/ s_/.\_c \o/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
m\_> \,/ \_/ F_/a\_k \e/ y_/'\_s \_/ \_/ \>/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_ð \Ÿ/ _/¶
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/ W_/h\_i \s/ t_/l\_e \_/ \H/ o_/l\_d \e/ r_/ \_/E\_m \e/ r_/i\_t
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
u_/s\_/ \_? \?/ \_/ <_/r\_o \o/ t_/@\_1 \2/ 7_/.\_0 \./ 0_/.\_1 \>/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/w\_r \o/ t_/e\_: \_/ \_/ \>/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_/ \_> \>/ \_/ >_/>\_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\"/ V_/i\_n \y/ l_/ \_/i\_s \_/ \t/ h_/e\_/ \_o \n/ l_/y\_/ \_c \o/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
n\_s \u/ m_/e\_r \_/ \p/ l_/a\_y \b/ a_/c\_k \_/ \f/ o_/r\_m \a/ t_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_w \e/ \_/ h_/a\_v \e/ \_/ t_/h\_a \t/ '_/s\_/ \_f \u/ l_/l\_y \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
a_/n\_a \l/ o_/g\_/ \_a \n/ d_/ \_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \>/ >_/ \_/f\_u \l/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
l\_y \_/ \l/ o_/s\_s \l/ e_/s\_s \,/ "_/ \_/G\_o \n/ s_/a\_l \v/ e_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
s\_/ \_s \a/ i_/d\_. \_/ \"/ Y_/o\_u \_/ \j/ u_/s\_t \_/ \n/ e_/e\_d
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/a\_/ \_d \e/ c_/e\_n \t/ \_/ t_/u\_r \n/ t_/a\_b \l/ e_/ \_/w\_i
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
t_/h\_/ \_a \_/ \_/ \>/ >_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \d/ e_/c\_e \n/ t_/ \_/n\_e
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
e_/d\_l \e/ \_/ o_/n\_/ \_i \t/ \_/ a_/n\_d \_/ \y/ o_/u\_' \r/ e_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_g \o/ i_/n\_g \_/ \t/ o_/ \_/e\_n \j/ o_/y\_/ \_a \_/ \f/ u_/l\_l
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
-_/f\_i \d/ e_/l\_i \t/ y_/ \_/l\_i \s/ t_/e\_n \i/ n_/g\_/ \_/ \_>
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
>_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \e/ x_/p\_e \r/ i_/e\_n \c/ e_/.\_/ \_I \t/ '_/s\_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\a/ \_/ l_/i\_t \t/ l_/e\_/ \_b \i/ t_/ \_/m\_o \r/ e_/ \_/i\_d \i/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
o\_t \-/ p_/r\_o \o/ f_/ \_/a\_n \d/ \_/ a_/ \_/l\_i \t/ t_/l\_e \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
b_/i\_t \_/ \l/ e_/s\_s \_/ \_/ \>/ >_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \t/ e_/c\_h \n/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
i\_c \a/ l_/.\_" \_/ \_/ \>/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_/ \_> \>/ \_/ >_/ \_/v\_i
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
n_/y\_l \_/ \i/ s_/ \_/n\_o \t/ \_/ l_/o\_s \s/ l_/e\_s \s/ \_/ a_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
t\_/ \_a \l/ l_/.\_/ \_i \t/ '_/s\_/ \_a \c/ t_/u\_a \l/ l_/y\_/ \_q
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
u\_i \t/ e_/ \_/l\_o \s/ s_/y\_, \_/ \m/ u_/c\_h \_/ \m/ o_/r\_e \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
t_/h\_a \n/ \_/ \_/ >_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \d/ i_/g\_i \t/ a_/l\_/ \_i \s/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/(\_e \a/ s_/i\_l \y/ \_/ p_/r\_o \v/ e_/n\_/ \_m \a/ t_/h\_e \m/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
a\_t \i/ c_/a\_l \l/ y_/)\_. \_/ \_/ \>/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_/ \_> \>/ \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
>\_> \_/ \T/ h_/e\_/ \_a \n/ a_/l\_o \g/ \_/ f_/o\_r \m/ a_/t\_/ \_a
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
l_/l\_o \w/ s_/ \_/f\_o \r/ \_/ a_/r\_t \i/ s_/t\_s \_/ \t/ o_/ \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
t\_r \a/ n_/s\_p \o/ r_/t\_/ \_t \h/ e_/i\_r \_/ \m/ u_/s\_i \c/ \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
f\_r \o/ m_/ \_/m\_a \g/ n_/e\_t \i/ c_/ \_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \>/ >_/ \_/t
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
a_/p\_e \_/ \t/ o_/ \_/L\_P \_/ \t/ o_/ \_/y\_o \u/ r_/ \_/s\_p \e/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
a\_k \e/ r_/s\_/ \_o \r/ \_/ h_/e\_a \d/ p_/h\_o \n/ e_/s\_/ \_w \i/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
t\_h \o/ u_/t\_/ \_t \h/ e_/ \_/c\_o \m/ p_/l\_i \c/ a_/t\_i \o/ n_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
s\_/ \_o \f/ \_/ \_/ >_/>\_/ \_> \>/ \_/ d_/i\_g \i/ t_/a\_l \_/ \c/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
o\_n \v/ e_/r\_s \i/ o_/n\_. \_/ \T/ h_/i\_s \,/ \_/ i_/d\_e \a/ l_/l
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
y_/,\_/ \_i \s/ \_/ t_/h\_e \_/ \c/ l_/o\_s \e/ s_/t\_/ \_o \n/ e_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_c \a/ n_/ \_/g\_e \t/ \_/ t_/o\_/ \_w \h/ a_/t\_/ \_t \h/ e_/ \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_> \>/ \_/ >_/>\_/ \_a \r/ t_/i\_s \t/ \_/ i_/n\_t \e/ n_/d\_e \d/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/Ã\_ \_/ \i/ f_/ \_/t\_h \e/ \_/ a_/r\_t \i/ s_/t\_/ \_r \e/ c_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
o\_r \d/ e_/d\_/ \_o \n/ \_/ t_/a\_p \e/ \_/ a_/n\_d \_/ \s/ e_/n\_t
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/t\_h \e/ \_/ r_/e\_e \l/ s_/ \_/o\_v \e/ r_/ \_/t\_o \_/ \_/ \>/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
>\_/ \_> \>/ \_/ a_/n\_/ \_e \n/ g_/i\_n \e/ e_/r\_/ \_l \i/ k_/e\_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\G/ o_/n\_s \a/ l_/v\_e \s/ \_/ t_/o\_/ \_c \u/ t_/ \_/a\_/ \_l \a/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
c\_q \u/ e_/r\_/ \_m \a/ s_/t\_e \r/ \_/ f_/r\_o \m/ ._/ \_/B\_u \t/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/w\_h \e/ t_/h\_e \r/ \_/ i_/t\_s \_/ \_/ \>/ >_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \o/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
r\_i \g/ i_/n\_s \_/ \a/ r_/e\_/ \_d \i/ g_/i\_t \a/ l_/ \_/o\_r \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
a_/n\_a \l/ o_/g\_/ \_( \m/ o_/r\_e \_/ \o/ n_/ \_/t\_h \i/ s_/ \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
l\_a \t/ e_/r\_) \,/ \_/ \_/ >_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \_/ \>/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_n
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
o\_n \s/ e_/n\_s \e/ ._/ \_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \>/ \_/ \_/ >_/>\_/ \_> \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
d_/i\_g \i/ t_/a\_l \_/ \w/ i_/l\_l \_/ \p/ r_/e\_s \e/ r_/v\_e \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
w_/h\_a \t/ \_/ t_/h\_e \_/ \a/ r_/t\_i \s/ t_/ \_/w\_a \n/ t_/e\_d
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/ f_/a\_r \,/ \_/ f_/a\_r \_/ \b/ e_/t\_t \e/ r_/ \_/t\_h \a/ n_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_a \n/ y_/ \_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \>/ \_/ a_/n\_a \l/ o_/g\_/ \_f \o/ r_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
m\_a \t/ ._/ \_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \>/ \_/ \_/ >_/>\_/ \_> \>/ \_/ *_/*\_a
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/v\_i \n/ y_/l\_/ \_d \i/ s_/c\_/ \_s \h/ o_/u\_l \d/ \_/ h_/a\_v
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
e_/ \_/m\_o \r/ e_/ \_/m\_u \s/ i_/c\_a \l/ \_/ i_/n\_f \o/ r_/m\_a
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
t_/i\_o \n/ \_/ t_/h\_a \n/ \_/ a_/n\_/ \_M \P/ 3_/ \_/f\_i \l/ e_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_à \/ \_/ s_/o\_/ \_/ \_> \>/ \_/ >_/>\_/ \_i \t/ \_/ \_/ >_/>\_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\>/ >_/ \_/s\_h \o/ u_/l\_d \_/ \b/ e_/ \_/a\_n \_/ \i/ m_/p\_r \o/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
v\_e \m/ e_/n\_t \_/ \o/ n_/ \_/s\_t \r/ e_/a\_m \i/ n_/g\_/ \_s \i/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
t\_e \s/ \_/ s_/u\_c \h/ \_/ a_/s\_/ \_Y \o/ u_/T\_u \b/ e_/ \_/o\_r
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/ S_/o\_u \n/ d_/C\_l \o/ u_/d\_, \_/ \_/ \>/ >_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \e/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
s\_p \e/ c_/i\_a \l/ l_/y\_/ \_o \n/ \_/ a_/ \_/g\_o \o/ d_/ \_/s\_y
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
s_/t\_e \m/ ._/*\_* \_/ \_/ \>/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_/ \_> \>/ \_/ >_/ \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
t\_h \a/ t_/ \_/w\_o \u/ l_/d\_/ \_d \e/ p_/e\_n \d/ \_/ o_/n\_/ \_t
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
h\_e \_/ \p/ a_/r\_t \i/ c_/u\_l \a/ r_/ \_/s\_o \n/ g_/ \_/o\_n \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
y_/o\_u \t/ u_/b\_e \_/ \o/ r_/ \_/s\_o \u/ n_/d\_c \l/ o_/u\_d \./
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \>/ \_/ \_/ >_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \a/ \_/ v_/i\_n \y/ l_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_r \e/ c_/o\_r \d/ \_/ c_/o\_m \p/ a_/r\_e \d/ \_/ w_/i\_t \h/ \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
t\_h \e/ \_/ b_/e\_s \t/ \_/ t_/h\_a \t/ \_/ d_/i\_g \i/ t_/a\_l \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
c_/a\_n \_/ \d/ o_/ \_/i\_s \_/ \t/ h_/e\_/ \_o \n/ l_/y\_/ \_/ \_>
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
>_/ \_/>\_/ \_v \a/ l_/i\_d \_/ \c/ o_/m\_p \a/ r_/i\_s \o/ n_/,\_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\n/ o_/t\_/ \_w \h/ a_/t\_/ \_s \o/ m_/e\_/ \_r \a/ n_/d\_o \m/ \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
p\_e \r/ s_/o\_n \_/ \u/ p_/l\_o \a/ d_/e\_d \_/ \t/ o_/ \_/y\_o \u/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
t\_u \b/ e_/.\_/ \_/ \_> \>/ \_/ >_/ \_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \>/ \_/ -_/-\_-
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/ \_/ >_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \T/ h_/i\_s \_/ \e/ m_/a\_i \l/ \_/ h_/a\_s
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/ b_/e\_e \n/ \_/ c_/h\_e \c/ k_/e\_d \_/ \f/ o_/r\_/ \_v \i/ r_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
u\_s \e/ s_/ \_/b\_y \_/ \A/ V_/G\_. \_/ \_/ \>/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_h \t/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
t\_p \:/ /_//\_w \w/ w_/.\_a \v/ g_/.\_c \o/ m_/ \_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \>/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/ \_> \>/ \_/ O_/k\_a \y/ ,_/ \_/t\_h \i/ s_/ \_/m\_u \s/ t_/ \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
b\_e \_/ \o/ n_/e\_/ \_o \f/ \_/ t_/h\_e \_/ \m/ o_/s\_t \_/ \a/ v_/a
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
n_/t\_- \g/ a_/r\_d \e/ \_/ a_/n\_d \_/ \o/ f_/f\_/ \_t \o/ p_/i\_c
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/ m_/e\_s \s/ a_/g\_e \s/ \_/ I_/ \_/ \_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \h/ a_/v\_e
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/ e_/v\_e \r/ \_/ s_/e\_e \n/ \_/ o_/n\_/ \_t \h/ e_/ \_/U\_s \e/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
n\_e \t/ ._/ \_/ \_/>\_/ \_/ \_> \y/ o_/u\_r \_/ \n/ e_/w\_s \r/ e_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
a\_d \e/ r_/ \_/i\_s \_/ \*/ v_/e\_r \y/ *_/ \_/b\_r \o/ k_/e\_n \,/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_N \O/ \_/ Y_/O\_U \R/ S_/ \_/I\_S \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/b\_e \c/ a_/u\_s \e/ \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
i\_t \_/ \a/ d_/d\_e \d/ \_/ y_/o\_u \r/ \_/ s_/t\_u \p/ i_/d\_/ \_a
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
v_/g\_/ \_/ \_> \i/ n_/f\_e \s/ t_/e\_d \_/ \s/ i_/g\_n \a/ t_/u\_r
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
e_/ \_/i\_n \t/ o_/ \_/t\_h \e/ \_/ q_/u\_o \t/ e_/d\_/ \_c \o/ n_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
t\_e \n/ t_/ \_/r\_a \t/ h_/e\_r \_/ \t/ h_/a\_n \_/ \y/ o_/u\_r \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
c\_o \n/ t_/e\_n \t/ ,_/ \_/ \_/>\_m \a/ k_/i\_n \g/ \_/ i_/t\_/ \_l
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
o_/o\_k \_/ \l/ i_/k\_e \_/ \i/ t_/'\_s \_/ \p/ a_/r\_t \_/ \o/ f_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_w \h/ a_/t\_/ \_i \_/ \w/ r_/o\_t \e/ ,_/ \_/w\_h \i/ c_/h\_/ \_i
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/ d_/e\_f \i/ n_/i\_t \e/ l_/y\_/ \_d \i/ d_/ \_/ \_/>\_n \o/ t_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
.\_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \_/ \>/ a_/v\_g \_/ \i/ s_/ \_/g\_a \r/ b_/a\_g
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
e\_/ \_a \s/ \_/ i_/s\_/ \_y \o/ u_/r\_/ \_n \e/ w_/s\_r \e/ a_/d\_e
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
r_/,\_/ \_t \h/ u_/n\_d \e/ r_/b\_i \r/ d_/.\_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \_/ \>/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
r\_e \l/ e_/v\_a \n/ t_/ \_/h\_e \a/ d_/e\_r \s/ :_/ \_/ \_/>\_U \s/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
e\_r \-/ A_/g\_e \n/ t_/:\_/ \_M \o/ z_/i\_l \l/ a_//\_5 \./ 0_/ \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
(\_W \i/ n_/d\_o \w/ s_/ \_/N\_T \_/ \6/ ._/1\_; \_/ \W/ O_/W\_6 \4/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
;\_/ \_r \v/ :_/4\_5 \./ 0_/)\_/ \_G \e/ c_/k\_o \// 2_/0\_1 \0/ 0_/1
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
0_/1\_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \T/ h_/u\_n \d/ e_/r\_b \i/ r_/d\_/ \4/ 5_/.\_8
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
._/0\_/ \_/ \_> \X/ -_/A\_n \t/ i_/v\_i \r/ u_/s\_: \_/ \A/ V_/G\_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\(/ V_/P\_S \_/ \1/ 7_/0\_5 \2/ 1_/-\_0 \,/ \_/ 0_/5\_/ \2/ 1_//\_2
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
0_/1\_7 \)/ ,_/ \_/O\_u \t/ b_/o\_u \n/ d_/ \_/m\_e \s/ s_/a\_g \e/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/ \_/>\_X \-/ A_/n\_t \i/ v_/i\_r \u/ s_/-\_S \t/ a_/t\_u \s/ :_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_C \l/ e_/a\_n \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/
--
The Stinger - Scourge of Teh Usenets
_ _
HALP! ( | / )
\\ \|/,' __
\_o_/ (")(_)-"()))=-
) <-YOU <\\
/\__
_____ \ ________________________________
<-HOLE


( )
( ) (
) _ )
( \_
_(_\ \)__
(____\___)) <-MORE OF YOU
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2017-05-21 19:39:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 14:54:14 -0400, LO AND BEHOLD; "nospam
<***@nospam.invalid>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<210520171454143276%***@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <fKydnVWp8NWmVbzEnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Fakey's 🐶
>Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>"Vinyl is the only consumer playback format we have that's fully analog
>>and fully lossless," Gonsalves said. "You just need a decent turntable
>>with a decent needle on it and you're going to enjoy a full-fidelity
>>listening experience. It's a little bit more idiot-proof and a little
>>bit less technical."
>
>vinyl is not lossless at all. it's actually quite lossy, much more than
>digital is (easily proven mathematically).

the fact that preamplifiers have equalization and/or tone settings seems to befuddle most of you "propeller-hat" types. that equates to losses from the original signal. the room affects the sound as well.

try again.

>>The analog format allows for artists to transport their music from
>>magnetic tape to LP to your speakers or headphones without the
>>complications of digital conversion. This, ideally, is the closest one
>>can get to what the artist intended ‹ if the artist recorded on tape
>>and sent the reels over to an engineer like Gonsalves to cut a lacquer
>>master from. But whether its origins are digital or analog (more on this
>>later),
>
>nonsense.
>
>digital will preserve what the artist wanted far, far better than any
>analog format.
>
>>**a vinyl disc should have more musical information than an MP3 file ‹
>>so it should be an improvement on streaming sites such as YouTube or
>>SoundCloud, especially on a good system.**
>
>that would depend on the particular song on youtube or soundcloud.
>
>a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
>valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.

"diesel" claims that 44.1kHz sampling rate is ideal to brag about, though.

i agree that a 320kHz and greater sample rate will beat out vinyl. this broken-brained diesel idiot, however, believes that recording an analog signal at 48kHz sampling rate and 32-bit float frames is WORSE than a lame-encoded mp3 of his from a 44.1kHz sample-rate CD that he plans on sharing with criminals on torrent.

--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Shadow
2017-05-21 23:48:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 14:54:14 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <fKydnVWp8NWmVbzEnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Fakey's
>Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> "Vinyl is the only consumer playback format we have that's fully analog and
>> fully lossless," Gonsalves said. "You just need a decent turntable with a
>> decent needle on it and you're going to enjoy a full-fidelity listening
>> experience. It's a little bit more idiot-proof and a little bit less
>> technical."
>
>vinyl is not lossless at all. it's actually quite lossy, much more than
>digital is (easily proven mathematically).
>
>> The analog format allows for artists to transport their music from magnetic
>> tape to LP to your speakers or headphones without the complications of
>> digital conversion. This, ideally, is the closest one can get to what the
>> artist intended ‹ if the artist recorded on tape and sent the reels over to
>> an engineer like Gonsalves to cut a lacquer master from. But whether its
>> origins are digital or analog (more on this later),
>
>nonsense.
>
>digital will preserve what the artist wanted far, far better than any
>analog format.
>
>> **a vinyl disc should have more musical information than an MP3 file ‹ so it
>> should be an improvement on streaming sites such as YouTube or SoundCloud,
>> especially on a good system.**
>
>that would depend on the particular song on youtube or soundcloud.
>
>a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
>valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.

YouTube is usually crappy 96 kb/s.
I encode my MP3's to lame q2 (about 190 kb/s variable). Can't
distinguish it from 320 kb/s constant, and the files are smaller.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
nospam
2017-05-21 23:56:56 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, Shadow
<***@dow.br> wrote:

> YouTube is usually crappy 96 kb/s.

that's definitely crappy.

> I encode my MP3's to lame q2 (about 190 kb/s variable). Can't
> distinguish it from 320 kb/s constant, and the files are smaller.

in encode at 256k or 320k fixed. disk space is cheap.
Diesel
2017-05-22 01:12:26 UTC
Permalink
nospam <***@nospam.invalid> news:210520171956563030%
***@nospam.invalid Sun, 21 May 2017 23:56:56 GMT in
rec.photo.digital, wrote:

> In article <***@4ax.com>, Shadow
> <***@dow.br> wrote:
>
>> YouTube is usually crappy 96 kb/s.
>
> that's definitely crappy.
>
>> I encode my MP3's to lame q2 (about 190 kb/s variable). Can't
>> distinguish it from 320 kb/s constant, and the files are smaller.
>
> in encode at 256k or 320k fixed. disk space is cheap.
>

fixed? So you encode silence with the same bitrate as other sounds and
voices which may not be able to take advantage of either 256k or 320k
to sample them on the encoding? Space is cheap, but, why waste it like
that? It's not as if you're actually benefiting from the decision. In
fact, you're wasting not only space, but cpu cycles as well.




--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2017-05-22 01:35:25 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 May 2017 01:12:26 -0000 (UTC), LO AND BEHOLD; "Diesel
<***@privacy.net>" determined that the following was of great importance
and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<***@bvT1be.XCeThKOKg0gN6dSwm8vXdVzviz5rzr0AZi9de2985>:


>nospam <***@nospam.invalid> news:210520171956563030%
>***@nospam.invalid Sun, 21 May 2017 23:56:56 GMT in
>rec.photo.digital, wrote:
>
>>In article <***@4ax.com>, Shadow
>><***@dow.br> wrote:
>>>YouTube is usually crappy 96 kb/s.
>>that's definitely crappy.
>>>I encode my MP3's to lame q2 (about 190 kb/s variable). Can't
>>>distinguish it from 320 kb/s constant, and the files are smaller.
>>in encode at 256k or 320k fixed. disk space is cheap.
>
>fixed? So you encode silence with the same bitrate as other sounds and
>voices which may not be able to take advantage of either 256k or 320k
>to sample them on the encoding? Space is cheap, but, why waste it like
>that? It's not as if you're actually benefiting from the decision. In
>fact, you're wasting not only space, but cpu cycles as well.

that's not as bad as compressing 44.1kHz sample rate recordings even more than they already are compressed and then claiming that it's "better" than a 48kHz recording of virgin vinyl through a $500+ audiophile/archivist grade cartridge/stylus/tonearm combo.

...and now you're counting cpu cycles??! are you on a timeshare and speaking to us from 1994?

--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Diesel
2017-05-22 04:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus =?UTF-8?B?8J+Qtuesmw==?=
<***@127.0.0.1> news:ALSdnZZEdb3A3b_EnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com
Mon, 22 May 2017 01:35:25 GMT in alt.2600, wrote:

> On Mon, 22 May 2017 01:12:26 -0000 (UTC), LO AND BEHOLD; "Diesel
> <***@privacy.net>" determined that the following was of great
> importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
> <***@bvT1be.XCeThKOKg0gN6dSwm8vXdVzviz5rzr0AZi9de29
> 85>:
>
>
>>nospam <***@nospam.invalid> news:210520171956563030%
>>***@nospam.invalid Sun, 21 May 2017 23:56:56 GMT in
>>rec.photo.digital, wrote:
>>
>>>In article <***@4ax.com>, Shadow
>>><***@dow.br> wrote:
>>>>YouTube is usually crappy 96 kb/s.
>>>that's definitely crappy.
>>>>I encode my MP3's to lame q2 (about 190 kb/s variable). Can't
>>>>distinguish it from 320 kb/s constant, and the files are
>>>>smaller.
>>>in encode at 256k or 320k fixed. disk space is cheap.
>>
>>fixed? So you encode silence with the same bitrate as other sounds
>>and voices which may not be able to take advantage of either 256k
>>or 320k to sample them on the encoding? Space is cheap, but, why
>>waste it like that? It's not as if you're actually benefiting from
>>the decision. In fact, you're wasting not only space, but cpu
>>cycles as well.
>
> that's not as bad as compressing 44.1kHz sample rate recordings
> even more than they already are compressed and then claiming that
> it's "better" than a 48kHz recording of virgin vinyl through a
> $500+ audiophile/archivist grade cartridge/stylus/tonearm combo.

As I've told you before, even if the container file is setup to
retain 48k sample rate, your ORIGINAL SOURCE material, an analog
record, doesn't have it. You can't get something from nothing. How
hard is that for you to understand?




--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
nospam
2017-05-22 01:55:21 UTC
Permalink
In article
<***@bvT1be.XCeThKOKg0gN6dSwm8vXdVzviz5rzr0AZi9de2985>,
Diesel <***@privacy.net> wrote:

> >
> >> I encode my MP3's to lame q2 (about 190 kb/s variable). Can't
> >> distinguish it from 320 kb/s constant, and the files are smaller.
> >
> > in encode at 256k or 320k fixed. disk space is cheap.
> >
>
> fixed? So you encode silence with the same bitrate as other sounds and
> voices which may not be able to take advantage of either 256k or 320k
> to sample them on the encoding? Space is cheap, but, why waste it like
> that? It's not as if you're actually benefiting from the decision. In
> fact, you're wasting not only space, but cpu cycles as well.

both are cheap.

it's *significantly* easier to downsample if needed than re-encode all
over again at a higher rate.
Diesel
2017-05-22 04:54:56 UTC
Permalink
nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
news:210520172155219312%***@nospam.invalid Mon, 22 May 2017
01:55:21 GMT in alt.2600, wrote:

> In article
> <***@bvT1be.XCeThKOKg0gN6dSwm8vXdVzviz5rzr0AZi9de29
> 85>, Diesel <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> I encode my MP3's to lame q2 (about 190 kb/s variable). Can't
>> >> distinguish it from 320 kb/s constant, and the files are
>> >> smaller.
>> >
>> > in encode at 256k or 320k fixed. disk space is cheap.
>> >
>>
>> fixed? So you encode silence with the same bitrate as other
>> sounds and voices which may not be able to take advantage of
>> either 256k or 320k to sample them on the encoding? Space is
>> cheap, but, why waste it like that? It's not as if you're
>> actually benefiting from the decision. In fact, you're wasting
>> not only space, but cpu cycles as well.
>
> both are cheap.

Yes, we've already established that. Why are you doing it is the
question? What benefit do you feel that you're getting?




--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
nospam
2017-05-22 17:33:38 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@vAr9Pz.Pqz.7Khf7Ow0T6d9vfP>, Diesel
<***@privacy.net> wrote:

> >> >> I encode my MP3's to lame q2 (about 190 kb/s variable). Can't
> >> >> distinguish it from 320 kb/s constant, and the files are
> >> >> smaller.
> >> >
> >> > in encode at 256k or 320k fixed. disk space is cheap.
> >>
> >> fixed? So you encode silence with the same bitrate as other
> >> sounds and voices which may not be able to take advantage of
> >> either 256k or 320k to sample them on the encoding? Space is
> >> cheap, but, why waste it like that? It's not as if you're
> >> actually benefiting from the decision. In fact, you're wasting
> >> not only space, but cpu cycles as well.
> >
> > both are cheap.
>
> Yes, we've already established that. Why are you doing it is the
> question? What benefit do you feel that you're getting?

i explained that in the part you snipped. the quality can always be
reduced if needed, but increasing the quality would require
re-encoding.
Diesel
2017-05-23 00:45:20 UTC
Permalink
nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
news:220520171333388378%***@nospam.invalid Mon, 22 May 2017
17:33:38 GMT in alt.2600, wrote:

> In article <***@vAr9Pz.Pqz.7Khf7Ow0T6d9vfP>, Diesel
> <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> >> >> I encode my MP3's to lame q2 (about 190 kb/s variable).
>> >> >> Can't
>> >> >> distinguish it from 320 kb/s constant, and the files are
>> >> >> smaller.
>> >> >
>> >> > in encode at 256k or 320k fixed. disk space is cheap.
>> >>
>> >> fixed? So you encode silence with the same bitrate as other
>> >> sounds and voices which may not be able to take advantage of
>> >> either 256k or 320k to sample them on the encoding? Space is
>> >> cheap, but, why waste it like that? It's not as if you're
>> >> actually benefiting from the decision. In fact, you're wasting
>> >> not only space, but cpu cycles as well.
>> >
>> > both are cheap.
>>
>> Yes, we've already established that. Why are you doing it is the
>> question? What benefit do you feel that you're getting?
>
> i explained that in the part you snipped. the quality can always
> be reduced if needed, but increasing the quality would require
> re-encoding.

Okay then. I still think it's a waste of your time, but, as you say,
storage space and cpu cycles these days are cheap. So, I won't argue
with you on it.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet. Please
be patient. I will get to you shortly.
nospam
2017-05-23 01:37:55 UTC
Permalink
In article
<***@e06CY6xq3GH5m68HUE3VEvsg39d86ym6pP8R9bC.4>, Diesel
<***@privacy.net> wrote:

> >> >> >> I encode my MP3's to lame q2 (about 190 kb/s variable).
> >> >> >> Can't
> >> >> >> distinguish it from 320 kb/s constant, and the files are
> >> >> >> smaller.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > in encode at 256k or 320k fixed. disk space is cheap.
> >> >>
> >> >> fixed? So you encode silence with the same bitrate as other
> >> >> sounds and voices which may not be able to take advantage of
> >> >> either 256k or 320k to sample them on the encoding? Space is
> >> >> cheap, but, why waste it like that? It's not as if you're
> >> >> actually benefiting from the decision. In fact, you're wasting
> >> >> not only space, but cpu cycles as well.
> >> >
> >> > both are cheap.
> >>
> >> Yes, we've already established that. Why are you doing it is the
> >> question? What benefit do you feel that you're getting?
> >
> > i explained that in the part you snipped. the quality can always
> > be reduced if needed, but increasing the quality would require
> > re-encoding.
>
> Okay then. I still think it's a waste of your time, but, as you say,
> storage space and cpu cycles these days are cheap. So, I won't argue
> with you on it.

the encoding time is the same because the bottleneck is the cd drive,
but even if there was a difference, i'd never notice it because i'm not
sitting there waiting for it to finish.
Tony Cooper
2017-05-23 05:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Just out of curiosity, who is this David Brooks that has done
something that has resulted in this long and stunningly uninteresting
thread?

The only David Brooks I know of is a political commentator who appears
frequently on the Sunday morning political talk shows.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
PeterN
2017-05-22 01:58:59 UTC
Permalink
On 5/21/2017 7:56 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <***@4ax.com>, Shadow
> <***@dow.br> wrote:
>
>> YouTube is usually crappy 96 kb/s.
>
> that's definitely crappy.
>
>> I encode my MP3's to lame q2 (about 190 kb/s variable). Can't
>> distinguish it from 320 kb/s constant, and the files are smaller.
>
> in encode at 256k or 320k fixed. disk space is cheap.
>

How do you "in code" anything.

--
PeterN
nospam
2017-05-22 02:04:26 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@news7.newsguy.com>, PeterN
<"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net> wrote:

> >
> >> I encode my MP3's to lame q2 (about 190 kb/s variable). Can't
> >> distinguish it from 320 kb/s constant, and the files are smaller.
> >
> > in encode at 256k or 320k fixed. disk space is cheap.
> >
>
> How do you "in code" anything.

carefully
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2017-05-22 04:09:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 20:48:00 -0300, LO AND BEHOLD; "Shadow <***@dow.br>"
determined that the following was of great importance and subsequently
decided to freely share it with us in
<***@4ax.com>:

>On Sun, 21 May 2017 14:54:14 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <fKydnVWp8NWmVbzEnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Fakey's 🐶
>>Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>"Vinyl is the only consumer playback format we have that's fully analog
>>>and fully lossless," Gonsalves said. "You just need a decent turntable
>>>with a decent needle on it and you're going to enjoy a full-fidelity
>>>listening experience. It's a little bit more idiot-proof and a little
>>>bit less technical."
>>vinyl is not lossless at all. it's actually quite lossy, much more than
>>digital is (easily proven mathematically).
>>>The analog format allows for artists to transport their music from
>>>magnetic tape to LP to your speakers or headphones without the
>>>complications of digital conversion. This, ideally, is the closest one
>>>can get to what the artist intended ‹ if the artist recorded on tape
>>>and sent the reels over to an engineer like Gonsalves to cut a lacquer
>>>master from. But whether its origins are digital or analog (more on this
>>>later),
>>nonsense. digital will preserve what the artist wanted far, far better
>>than any analog format.
>>>**a vinyl disc should have more musical information than an MP3 file ‹
>>>so it should be an improvement on streaming sites such as YouTube or
>>>SoundCloud, especially on a good system.**
>>that would depend on the particular song on youtube or soundcloud. a
>>vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
>>valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
>
> YouTube is usually crappy 96 kb/s. I encode my MP3's to lame q2 (about
>190 kb/s variable). Can't distinguish it from 320 kb/s constant, and
>the files are smaller. []'s

this was recorded on a stereo VHS recorder and then encoded to 192kB/s mp3* with bladeenc *(if i recall correctly, that was 16 fucking years ago - i wonder how old "diesel" was that year... considering he portrays himself as a 21 year old fratboy these days. LOL)

https://archive.org/details/Schleigho20011115123PleasantStS2t03Matrices/Schleigho_2001-11-15_123+Pleasant+St_s2t01_Impressions+(Coltrane).mp3

--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Eric Stevens
2017-05-21 23:50:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 14:54:14 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <fKydnVWp8NWmVbzEnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Fakey's
>Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> "Vinyl is the only consumer playback format we have that's fully analog and
>> fully lossless," Gonsalves said. "You just need a decent turntable with a
>> decent needle on it and you're going to enjoy a full-fidelity listening
>> experience. It's a little bit more idiot-proof and a little bit less
>> technical."
>
>vinyl is not lossless at all. it's actually quite lossy, much more than
>digital is (easily proven mathematically).
>
>> The analog format allows for artists to transport their music from magnetic
>> tape to LP to your speakers or headphones without the complications of
>> digital conversion. This, ideally, is the closest one can get to what the
>> artist intended ‹ if the artist recorded on tape and sent the reels over to
>> an engineer like Gonsalves to cut a lacquer master from. But whether its
>> origins are digital or analog (more on this later),
>
>nonsense.
>
>digital will preserve what the artist wanted far, far better than any
>analog format.
>
>> **a vinyl disc should have more musical information than an MP3 file ‹ so it
>> should be an improvement on streaming sites such as YouTube or SoundCloud,
>> especially on a good system.**
>
>that would depend on the particular song on youtube or soundcloud.
>
>a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
>valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.

The problem is that 'the best that digital can do' is very rare and
almost impossible to find.

The vast majority of digital recording is fizzed up in an attempt to
get something approaching an acceptable sound out of vastly inadequate
equipment which has never had a chance of reproducing the original
sound. Vinyl has its problem recordings also but fortunately the
number of people who will try to play vinyly records through ear buds
are few.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
nospam
2017-05-21 23:56:56 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
<***@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >
> >a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
> >valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
>
> The problem is that 'the best that digital can do' is very rare and
> almost impossible to find.

nonsense. it's trivial to find and even easier to create.

> The vast majority of digital recording is fizzed up in an attempt to
> get something approaching an acceptable sound out of vastly inadequate
> equipment which has never had a chance of reproducing the original
> sound.

don't blame the medium for the mistakes of the person producing it.

someone could just as easily fuck up a vinyl record. simple example:
stamp it off center. guaranteed speed variation.

> Vinyl has its problem recordings also but fortunately the
> number of people who will try to play vinyly records through ear buds
> are few.

irrelevant.
Eric Stevens
2017-05-22 00:46:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 19:56:56 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
>> >valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
>>
>> The problem is that 'the best that digital can do' is very rare and
>> almost impossible to find.
>
>nonsense. it's trivial to find and even easier to create.

But that's not what is being done.
>
>> The vast majority of digital recording is fizzed up in an attempt to
>> get something approaching an acceptable sound out of vastly inadequate
>> equipment which has never had a chance of reproducing the original
>> sound.
>
>don't blame the medium for the mistakes of the person producing it.
>
>someone could just as easily fuck up a vinyl record. simple example:
>stamp it off center. guaranteed speed variation.

That's accidental. What is done to MP3 is deliberate. Compression of
dynamic range. Artificially boosting base, plus all kinds of other
sins.
>
>> Vinyl has its problem recordings also but fortunately the
>> number of people who will try to play vinyly records through ear buds
>> are few.
>
>irrelevant.

They don't have the same motivation to tailor the recorded sound to
inadequate equipment.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
nospam
2017-05-22 00:53:19 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
<***@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> >a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
> >> >valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
> >>
> >> The problem is that 'the best that digital can do' is very rare and
> >> almost impossible to find.
> >
> >nonsense. it's trivial to find and even easier to create.
>
> But that's not what is being done.

of course it's being done.

> >> The vast majority of digital recording is fizzed up in an attempt to
> >> get something approaching an acceptable sound out of vastly inadequate
> >> equipment which has never had a chance of reproducing the original
> >> sound.
> >
> >don't blame the medium for the mistakes of the person producing it.
> >
> >someone could just as easily fuck up a vinyl record. simple example:
> >stamp it off center. guaranteed speed variation.
>
> That's accidental. What is done to MP3 is deliberate.

doesn't matter.

> Compression of
> dynamic range. Artificially boosting base, plus all kinds of other
> sins.

that can be done with analog just as easily as with digital.

it's actually more common with analog than with digital because of the
limitations of analog.

> >> Vinyl has its problem recordings also but fortunately the
> >> number of people who will try to play vinyly records through ear buds
> >> are few.
> >
> >irrelevant.
>
> They don't have the same motivation to tailor the recorded sound to
> inadequate equipment.

doesn't matter.
Bill W
2017-05-22 01:25:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 May 2017 12:46:28 +1200, Eric Stevens
<***@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 May 2017 19:56:56 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>><***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> >a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
>>> >valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
>>>
>>> The problem is that 'the best that digital can do' is very rare and
>>> almost impossible to find.
>>
>>nonsense. it's trivial to find and even easier to create.
>
>But that's not what is being done.
>>
>>> The vast majority of digital recording is fizzed up in an attempt to
>>> get something approaching an acceptable sound out of vastly inadequate
>>> equipment which has never had a chance of reproducing the original
>>> sound.

It's fizzed up in an attempt to emulate that noisy, warm hissy sound
of analog. The reason early digital was crap is that most engineers
didn't know how to use it to create something other than rock dry
lifeless recordings, miking and room treatment being the most obvious
issues. They figured it all out long ago, though. The fact that there
are still plenty of less-than-gifted recording engineers doesn't
change that.

>>don't blame the medium for the mistakes of the person producing it.
>>
>>someone could just as easily fuck up a vinyl record. simple example:
>>stamp it off center. guaranteed speed variation.
>
>That's accidental. What is done to MP3 is deliberate. Compression of
>dynamic range. Artificially boosting base, plus all kinds of other
>sins.

But MP3 does not represent digital. The only thing that matters is the
master recording. What's done later with the master is what can cause
the problems.

>>> Vinyl has its problem recordings also but fortunately the
>>> number of people who will try to play vinyly records through ear buds
>>> are few.
>>
>>irrelevant.
>
>They don't have the same motivation to tailor the recorded sound to
>inadequate equipment.

Mastering engineers have every motivation to make the recording sound
great on every conceivable playback device. It requires compromise,
but the good engineers are very, very good. I've tried it with some of
my stuff, and all I learned was to have lots of respect for those
guys.
Eric Stevens
2017-05-22 03:08:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 18:25:14 -0700, Bill W <***@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 22 May 2017 12:46:28 +1200, Eric Stevens
><***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 21 May 2017 19:56:56 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>>><***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
>>>> >valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that 'the best that digital can do' is very rare and
>>>> almost impossible to find.
>>>
>>>nonsense. it's trivial to find and even easier to create.
>>
>>But that's not what is being done.
>>>
>>>> The vast majority of digital recording is fizzed up in an attempt to
>>>> get something approaching an acceptable sound out of vastly inadequate
>>>> equipment which has never had a chance of reproducing the original
>>>> sound.
>
>It's fizzed up in an attempt to emulate that noisy, warm hissy sound
>of analog. The reason early digital was crap is that most engineers
>didn't know how to use it to create something other than rock dry
>lifeless recordings, miking and room treatment being the most obvious
>issues. They figured it all out long ago, though. The fact that there
>are still plenty of less-than-gifted recording engineers doesn't
>change that.
>
>>>don't blame the medium for the mistakes of the person producing it.
>>>
>>>someone could just as easily fuck up a vinyl record. simple example:
>>>stamp it off center. guaranteed speed variation.
>>
>>That's accidental. What is done to MP3 is deliberate. Compression of
>>dynamic range. Artificially boosting base, plus all kinds of other
>>sins.
>
>But MP3 does not represent digital. The only thing that matters is the
>master recording. What's done later with the master is what can cause
>the problems.

But it is what is done later which is sold to the buying public.
>
>>>> Vinyl has its problem recordings also but fortunately the
>>>> number of people who will try to play vinyly records through ear buds
>>>> are few.
>>>
>>>irrelevant.
>>
>>They don't have the same motivation to tailor the recorded sound to
>>inadequate equipment.
>
>Mastering engineers have every motivation to make the recording sound
>great on every conceivable playback device. It requires compromise,
>but the good engineers are very, very good. I've tried it with some of
>my stuff, and all I learned was to have lots of respect for those
>guys.

But they can't make a recording which sounds equally great on all
possible reproducing devices. For example music played through
http://cdn.hiconsumption.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Skullcandy-Fix.jpg
would sound quite different from music played through B&W speakers
such as http://tinyurl.com/mu5nghe The B&Ws will have a far better
base, a smoother treble and a much wider dynamic range. Anything aimed
for them will sound faint and anaemic on the ear buds. Anything aimed
at the ear buds will sound awful on the B&Ws. There are far more
earbuds than there B&W 800 series so guess which one is going to be
favoured for the final output.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
Ron C
2017-05-22 03:18:36 UTC
Permalink
On 5/21/2017 11:08 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2017 18:25:14 -0700, Bill W <***@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 May 2017 12:46:28 +1200, Eric Stevens
>> <***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 May 2017 19:56:56 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>>>> <***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
>>>>>> valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that 'the best that digital can do' is very rare and
>>>>> almost impossible to find.
>>>>
>>>> nonsense. it's trivial to find and even easier to create.
>>>
>>> But that's not what is being done.
>>>>
>>>>> The vast majority of digital recording is fizzed up in an attempt to
>>>>> get something approaching an acceptable sound out of vastly inadequate
>>>>> equipment which has never had a chance of reproducing the original
>>>>> sound.
>>
>> It's fizzed up in an attempt to emulate that noisy, warm hissy sound
>> of analog. The reason early digital was crap is that most engineers
>> didn't know how to use it to create something other than rock dry
>> lifeless recordings, miking and room treatment being the most obvious
>> issues. They figured it all out long ago, though. The fact that there
>> are still plenty of less-than-gifted recording engineers doesn't
>> change that.
>>
>>>> don't blame the medium for the mistakes of the person producing it.
>>>>
>>>> someone could just as easily fuck up a vinyl record. simple example:
>>>> stamp it off center. guaranteed speed variation.
>>>
>>> That's accidental. What is done to MP3 is deliberate. Compression of
>>> dynamic range. Artificially boosting base, plus all kinds of other
>>> sins.
>>
>> But MP3 does not represent digital. The only thing that matters is the
>> master recording. What's done later with the master is what can cause
>> the problems.
>
> But it is what is done later which is sold to the buying public.
>>
>>>>> Vinyl has its problem recordings also but fortunately the
>>>>> number of people who will try to play vinyly records through ear buds
>>>>> are few.
>>>>
>>>> irrelevant.
>>>
>>> They don't have the same motivation to tailor the recorded sound to
>>> inadequate equipment.
>>
>> Mastering engineers have every motivation to make the recording sound
>> great on every conceivable playback device. It requires compromise,
>> but the good engineers are very, very good. I've tried it with some of
>> my stuff, and all I learned was to have lots of respect for those
>> guys.
>
> But they can't make a recording which sounds equally great on all
> possible reproducing devices. For example music played through
> http://cdn.hiconsumption.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Skullcandy-Fix.jpg
> would sound quite different from music played through B&W speakers
> such as http://tinyurl.com/mu5nghe The B&Ws will have a far better
> base, a smoother treble and a much wider dynamic range. Anything aimed
> for them will sound faint and anaemic on the ear buds. Anything aimed
> at the ear buds will sound awful on the B&Ws. There are far more
> earbuds than there B&W 800 series so guess which one is going to be
> favoured for the final output.
>
You have now effectively linked this thread to the thread on monitor
calibration and color management.
Thank you for moving things back to a rec.photo.digital related concept.
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--
Eric Stevens
2017-05-22 04:05:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 23:18:36 -0400, Ron C <***@verizon.net> wrote:

>On 5/21/2017 11:08 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 May 2017 18:25:14 -0700, Bill W <***@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 May 2017 12:46:28 +1200, Eric Stevens
>>> <***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 21 May 2017 19:56:56 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>>>>> <***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
>>>>>>> valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that 'the best that digital can do' is very rare and
>>>>>> almost impossible to find.
>>>>>
>>>>> nonsense. it's trivial to find and even easier to create.
>>>>
>>>> But that's not what is being done.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The vast majority of digital recording is fizzed up in an attempt to
>>>>>> get something approaching an acceptable sound out of vastly inadequate
>>>>>> equipment which has never had a chance of reproducing the original
>>>>>> sound.
>>>
>>> It's fizzed up in an attempt to emulate that noisy, warm hissy sound
>>> of analog. The reason early digital was crap is that most engineers
>>> didn't know how to use it to create something other than rock dry
>>> lifeless recordings, miking and room treatment being the most obvious
>>> issues. They figured it all out long ago, though. The fact that there
>>> are still plenty of less-than-gifted recording engineers doesn't
>>> change that.
>>>
>>>>> don't blame the medium for the mistakes of the person producing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> someone could just as easily fuck up a vinyl record. simple example:
>>>>> stamp it off center. guaranteed speed variation.
>>>>
>>>> That's accidental. What is done to MP3 is deliberate. Compression of
>>>> dynamic range. Artificially boosting base, plus all kinds of other
>>>> sins.
>>>
>>> But MP3 does not represent digital. The only thing that matters is the
>>> master recording. What's done later with the master is what can cause
>>> the problems.
>>
>> But it is what is done later which is sold to the buying public.
>>>
>>>>>> Vinyl has its problem recordings also but fortunately the
>>>>>> number of people who will try to play vinyly records through ear buds
>>>>>> are few.
>>>>>
>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> They don't have the same motivation to tailor the recorded sound to
>>>> inadequate equipment.
>>>
>>> Mastering engineers have every motivation to make the recording sound
>>> great on every conceivable playback device. It requires compromise,
>>> but the good engineers are very, very good. I've tried it with some of
>>> my stuff, and all I learned was to have lots of respect for those
>>> guys.
>>
>> But they can't make a recording which sounds equally great on all
>> possible reproducing devices. For example music played through
>> http://cdn.hiconsumption.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Skullcandy-Fix.jpg
>> would sound quite different from music played through B&W speakers
>> such as http://tinyurl.com/mu5nghe The B&Ws will have a far better
>> base, a smoother treble and a much wider dynamic range. Anything aimed
>> for them will sound faint and anaemic on the ear buds. Anything aimed
>> at the ear buds will sound awful on the B&Ws. There are far more
>> earbuds than there B&W 800 series so guess which one is going to be
>> favoured for the final output.
>>
>You have now effectively linked this thread to the thread on monitor
>calibration and color management.
>Thank you for moving things back to a rec.photo.digital related concept.

:-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
Bill W
2017-05-22 05:03:18 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 May 2017 15:08:09 +1200, Eric Stevens
<***@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 May 2017 18:25:14 -0700, Bill W <***@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 May 2017 12:46:28 +1200, Eric Stevens
>><***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 21 May 2017 19:56:56 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>>>><***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
>>>>> >valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that 'the best that digital can do' is very rare and
>>>>> almost impossible to find.
>>>>
>>>>nonsense. it's trivial to find and even easier to create.
>>>
>>>But that's not what is being done.
>>>>
>>>>> The vast majority of digital recording is fizzed up in an attempt to
>>>>> get something approaching an acceptable sound out of vastly inadequate
>>>>> equipment which has never had a chance of reproducing the original
>>>>> sound.
>>
>>It's fizzed up in an attempt to emulate that noisy, warm hissy sound
>>of analog. The reason early digital was crap is that most engineers
>>didn't know how to use it to create something other than rock dry
>>lifeless recordings, miking and room treatment being the most obvious
>>issues. They figured it all out long ago, though. The fact that there
>>are still plenty of less-than-gifted recording engineers doesn't
>>change that.
>>
>>>>don't blame the medium for the mistakes of the person producing it.
>>>>
>>>>someone could just as easily fuck up a vinyl record. simple example:
>>>>stamp it off center. guaranteed speed variation.
>>>
>>>That's accidental. What is done to MP3 is deliberate. Compression of
>>>dynamic range. Artificially boosting base, plus all kinds of other
>>>sins.
>>
>>But MP3 does not represent digital. The only thing that matters is the
>>master recording. What's done later with the master is what can cause
>>the problems.
>
>But it is what is done later which is sold to the buying public.
>>
>>>>> Vinyl has its problem recordings also but fortunately the
>>>>> number of people who will try to play vinyly records through ear buds
>>>>> are few.
>>>>
>>>>irrelevant.
>>>
>>>They don't have the same motivation to tailor the recorded sound to
>>>inadequate equipment.
>>
>>Mastering engineers have every motivation to make the recording sound
>>great on every conceivable playback device. It requires compromise,
>>but the good engineers are very, very good. I've tried it with some of
>>my stuff, and all I learned was to have lots of respect for those
>>guys.
>
>But they can't make a recording which sounds equally great on all
>possible reproducing devices. For example music played through
>http://cdn.hiconsumption.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Skullcandy-Fix.jpg
>would sound quite different from music played through B&W speakers
>such as http://tinyurl.com/mu5nghe The B&Ws will have a far better
>base, a smoother treble and a much wider dynamic range. Anything aimed
>for them will sound faint and anaemic on the ear buds. Anything aimed
>at the ear buds will sound awful on the B&Ws. There are far more
>earbuds than there B&W 800 series so guess which one is going to be
>favoured for the final output.

You're not comparing analog to digital anymore, you're comparing the
final products derived from the two formats. Engineers had to do the
same thing with analog back then to allow for various playback
systems. Don't forget cassettes, 8 tracks, Walkmans, Nagamichi
Dragons, crap vinyl, and great vinyl (MFSL). You're comparing apples
to oranges, or something like that.

(I would have replied right away, but my other PC wouldn't boot.
Again. This is becoming tedious. This time the preliminary blame goes
to Asus, though.)

BTW, did Forte ever reply?
Eric Stevens
2017-05-22 07:45:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 22:03:18 -0700, Bill W <***@nowhere.com>
wrote:

--- snip ---

>>But they can't make a recording which sounds equally great on all
>>possible reproducing devices. For example music played through
>>http://cdn.hiconsumption.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Skullcandy-Fix.jpg
>>would sound quite different from music played through B&W speakers
>>such as http://tinyurl.com/mu5nghe The B&Ws will have a far better
>>base, a smoother treble and a much wider dynamic range. Anything aimed
>>for them will sound faint and anaemic on the ear buds. Anything aimed
>>at the ear buds will sound awful on the B&Ws. There are far more
>>earbuds than there B&W 800 series so guess which one is going to be
>>favoured for the final output.
>
>You're not comparing analog to digital anymore, you're comparing the
>final products derived from the two formats. Engineers had to do the
>same thing with analog back then to allow for various playback
>systems. Don't forget cassettes, 8 tracks, Walkmans, Nagamichi
>Dragons, crap vinyl, and great vinyl (MFSL). You're comparing apples
>to oranges, or something like that.
>
>(I would have replied right away, but my other PC wouldn't boot.
>Again. This is becoming tedious. This time the preliminary blame goes
>to Asus, though.)
>
Quite true, but the wave of highly portable listening systems arrived
after vinyl reached its peak. People are arguing not only about
digital vs (analog) vinyl but the engineering techniques of two
different eras.

The only time I have ever used earphones is on an airplane. I have
some 2000 vinyl LPs plus a lesser number of CDs, some of which
duplicate the vinyl. I have high quality sound gear (including Quad
ESL63 speakers) and I can *hear* the inferior quality of most of the
CDs.

I have long suspected that at least part of the problem is the
deliberate exclusion by much digital recording of the harmonics from
the higher frequencies.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
nospam
2017-05-22 17:33:39 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
<***@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >You're not comparing analog to digital anymore, you're comparing the
> >final products derived from the two formats. Engineers had to do the
> >same thing with analog back then to allow for various playback
> >systems. Don't forget cassettes, 8 tracks, Walkmans, Nagamichi
> >Dragons, crap vinyl, and great vinyl (MFSL). You're comparing apples
> >to oranges, or something like that.
> >
> >(I would have replied right away, but my other PC wouldn't boot.
> >Again. This is becoming tedious. This time the preliminary blame goes
> >to Asus, though.)
> >
> Quite true, but the wave of highly portable listening systems arrived
> after vinyl reached its peak. People are arguing not only about
> digital vs (analog) vinyl but the engineering techniques of two
> different eras.

nope. *you* brought up the engineering techniques.

everyone else is discussing analog versus digital. not what some random
(and incompetent) music producer did.

the simple fact is that digital surpasses analog, something which can
be mathematically proven. end of story.

> The only time I have ever used earphones is on an airplane. I have
> some 2000 vinyl LPs plus a lesser number of CDs, some of which
> duplicate the vinyl. I have high quality sound gear (including Quad
> ESL63 speakers) and I can *hear* the inferior quality of most of the
> CDs.

you mean the inferior quality of vinyl.

the only way a cd can sound inferior is if the person making it fucked
up somehow or if the source itself was shitty, such as making a cd from
a vinyl original, which qualifies as the person making it fucking up.

> I have long suspected that at least part of the problem is the
> deliberate exclusion by much digital recording of the harmonics from
> the higher frequencies.

you suspect wrong.
Eric Stevens
2017-05-22 21:45:49 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 May 2017 13:33:39 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >You're not comparing analog to digital anymore, you're comparing the
>> >final products derived from the two formats. Engineers had to do the
>> >same thing with analog back then to allow for various playback
>> >systems. Don't forget cassettes, 8 tracks, Walkmans, Nagamichi
>> >Dragons, crap vinyl, and great vinyl (MFSL). You're comparing apples
>> >to oranges, or something like that.
>> >
>> >(I would have replied right away, but my other PC wouldn't boot.
>> >Again. This is becoming tedious. This time the preliminary blame goes
>> >to Asus, though.)
>> >
>> Quite true, but the wave of highly portable listening systems arrived
>> after vinyl reached its peak. People are arguing not only about
>> digital vs (analog) vinyl but the engineering techniques of two
>> different eras.
>
>nope. *you* brought up the engineering techniques.

The engineering techniques of the time are used with the output device
techniques of the time. For this reason the techniques used for the
vinyl era are different from those used for the MP3 era.
>
>everyone else is discussing analog versus digital. not what some random
>(and incompetent) music producer did.
>
>the simple fact is that digital surpasses analog, something which can
>be mathematically proven. end of story.
>
>> The only time I have ever used earphones is on an airplane. I have
>> some 2000 vinyl LPs plus a lesser number of CDs, some of which
>> duplicate the vinyl. I have high quality sound gear (including Quad
>> ESL63 speakers) and I can *hear* the inferior quality of most of the
>> CDs.
>
>you mean the inferior quality of vinyl.
>
>the only way a cd can sound inferior is if the person making it fucked
>up somehow or if the source itself was shitty, such as making a cd from
>a vinyl original, which qualifies as the person making it fucking up.
>
>> I have long suspected that at least part of the problem is the
>> deliberate exclusion by much digital recording of the harmonics from
>> the higher frequencies.
>
>you suspect wrong.

What is the highest fundamental frequency for which the third harmonic
can be encoded by MP3?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
nospam
2017-05-22 21:56:51 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
<***@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> >You're not comparing analog to digital anymore, you're comparing the
> >> >final products derived from the two formats. Engineers had to do the
> >> >same thing with analog back then to allow for various playback
> >> >systems. Don't forget cassettes, 8 tracks, Walkmans, Nagamichi
> >> >Dragons, crap vinyl, and great vinyl (MFSL). You're comparing apples
> >> >to oranges, or something like that.
> >> >
> >> >(I would have replied right away, but my other PC wouldn't boot.
> >> >Again. This is becoming tedious. This time the preliminary blame goes
> >> >to Asus, though.)
> >> >
> >> Quite true, but the wave of highly portable listening systems arrived
> >> after vinyl reached its peak. People are arguing not only about
> >> digital vs (analog) vinyl but the engineering techniques of two
> >> different eras.
> >
> >nope. *you* brought up the engineering techniques.
>
> The engineering techniques of the time are used with the output device
> techniques of the time. For this reason the techniques used for the
> vinyl era are different from those used for the MP3 era.

you're comparing engineering techniques, not digital versus analog.

a proper comparison is where *everything* other than the medium (vinyl
and cd) is identical, then compared in an objective double-blind test.

anything else introduces a number of variables.

> >> I have long suspected that at least part of the problem is the
> >> deliberate exclusion by much digital recording of the harmonics from
> >> the higher frequencies.
> >
> >you suspect wrong.
>
> What is the highest fundamental frequency for which the third harmonic
> can be encoded by MP3?

nobody but you cares about a third harmonic nor is this about mp3
either.

digital audio can reproduce the entire range that humans can hear.
that's all that matters. anything else can't be heard so there's no
need to reproduce it.
Eric Stevens
2017-05-23 00:02:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 May 2017 17:56:51 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >> >You're not comparing analog to digital anymore, you're comparing the
>> >> >final products derived from the two formats. Engineers had to do the
>> >> >same thing with analog back then to allow for various playback
>> >> >systems. Don't forget cassettes, 8 tracks, Walkmans, Nagamichi
>> >> >Dragons, crap vinyl, and great vinyl (MFSL). You're comparing apples
>> >> >to oranges, or something like that.
>> >> >
>> >> >(I would have replied right away, but my other PC wouldn't boot.
>> >> >Again. This is becoming tedious. This time the preliminary blame goes
>> >> >to Asus, though.)
>> >> >
>> >> Quite true, but the wave of highly portable listening systems arrived
>> >> after vinyl reached its peak. People are arguing not only about
>> >> digital vs (analog) vinyl but the engineering techniques of two
>> >> different eras.
>> >
>> >nope. *you* brought up the engineering techniques.
>>
>> The engineering techniques of the time are used with the output device
>> techniques of the time. For this reason the techniques used for the
>> vinyl era are different from those used for the MP3 era.
>
>you're comparing engineering techniques, not digital versus analog.

I've been doing that for some time. It's at least part of the reason
why some people still think the sound of music recorded on vinyl is
better than that obtainable on digital.
>
>a proper comparison is where *everything* other than the medium (vinyl
>and cd) is identical, then compared in an objective double-blind test.
>
>anything else introduces a number of variables.

But that's not what is happening in the market.
>
>> >> I have long suspected that at least part of the problem is the
>> >> deliberate exclusion by much digital recording of the harmonics from
>> >> the higher frequencies.
>> >
>> >you suspect wrong.
>>
>> What is the highest fundamental frequency for which the third harmonic
>> can be encoded by MP3?
>
>nobody but you cares about a third harmonic nor is this about mp3
>either.
>
The typical frequency range of musical instruments is shown in
https://universe-review.ca/I13-17-Musicalns00.jpg This acknowledges
the presence of harmonics but a cursory examination will show that the
range of harmonics has been artificially limited. For a better
indication of the range of harmonics see
https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm As to whether
harmonics can be detected by the human ear above 20kHz see the
reference in that paper to Oohashi and AES preprint 3207 which
unfortunately is paywalled.

>digital audio can reproduce the entire range that humans can hear.
>that's all that matters. anything else can't be heard so there's no
>need to reproduce it.

I knew you would say that. :-)

I believe you to be wrong if you extend that claim to *all* humans.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
nospam
2017-05-23 00:33:26 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
<***@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> >> >You're not comparing analog to digital anymore, you're comparing the
> >> >> >final products derived from the two formats. Engineers had to do the
> >> >> >same thing with analog back then to allow for various playback
> >> >> >systems. Don't forget cassettes, 8 tracks, Walkmans, Nagamichi
> >> >> >Dragons, crap vinyl, and great vinyl (MFSL). You're comparing apples
> >> >> >to oranges, or something like that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >(I would have replied right away, but my other PC wouldn't boot.
> >> >> >Again. This is becoming tedious. This time the preliminary blame goes
> >> >> >to Asus, though.)
> >> >> >
> >> >> Quite true, but the wave of highly portable listening systems arrived
> >> >> after vinyl reached its peak. People are arguing not only about
> >> >> digital vs (analog) vinyl but the engineering techniques of two
> >> >> different eras.
> >> >
> >> >nope. *you* brought up the engineering techniques.
> >>
> >> The engineering techniques of the time are used with the output device
> >> techniques of the time. For this reason the techniques used for the
> >> vinyl era are different from those used for the MP3 era.
> >
> >you're comparing engineering techniques, not digital versus analog.
>
> I've been doing that for some time. It's at least part of the reason
> why some people still think the sound of music recorded on vinyl is
> better than that obtainable on digital.

which means the difference are the production values, not vinyl versus
digital.

obviously, different production values will sound different. that's the
whole point.

> >a proper comparison is where *everything* other than the medium (vinyl
> >and cd) is identical, then compared in an objective double-blind test.
> >
> >anything else introduces a number of variables.
>
> But that's not what is happening in the market.

because people have agendas and do not want objective tests that expose
their agendas.

> >> >> I have long suspected that at least part of the problem is the
> >> >> deliberate exclusion by much digital recording of the harmonics from
> >> >> the higher frequencies.
> >> >
> >> >you suspect wrong.
> >>
> >> What is the highest fundamental frequency for which the third harmonic
> >> can be encoded by MP3?
> >
> >nobody but you cares about a third harmonic nor is this about mp3
> >either.
> >
> The typical frequency range of musical instruments is shown in
> https://universe-review.ca/I13-17-Musicalns00.jpg This acknowledges
> the presence of harmonics but a cursory examination will show that the
> range of harmonics has been artificially limited.

nothing over 20k, so no issues at all with cds.

> For a better
> indication of the range of harmonics see
> https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm As to whether
> harmonics can be detected by the human ear above 20kHz see the
> reference in that paper to Oohashi and AES preprint 3207 which
> unfortunately is paywalled.

if you want to reproduce harmonics that can't be heard, then up the
sample rate. a redbook cd is not the *only* form of digital audio.

> >digital audio can reproduce the entire range that humans can hear.
> >that's all that matters. anything else can't be heard so there's no
> >need to reproduce it.
>
> I knew you would say that. :-)
>
> I believe you to be wrong if you extend that claim to *all* humans.

here we go again.
Eric Stevens
2017-05-23 00:59:25 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 May 2017 20:33:26 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >> >> >You're not comparing analog to digital anymore, you're comparing the
>> >> >> >final products derived from the two formats. Engineers had to do the
>> >> >> >same thing with analog back then to allow for various playback
>> >> >> >systems. Don't forget cassettes, 8 tracks, Walkmans, Nagamichi
>> >> >> >Dragons, crap vinyl, and great vinyl (MFSL). You're comparing apples
>> >> >> >to oranges, or something like that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >(I would have replied right away, but my other PC wouldn't boot.
>> >> >> >Again. This is becoming tedious. This time the preliminary blame goes
>> >> >> >to Asus, though.)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Quite true, but the wave of highly portable listening systems arrived
>> >> >> after vinyl reached its peak. People are arguing not only about
>> >> >> digital vs (analog) vinyl but the engineering techniques of two
>> >> >> different eras.
>> >> >
>> >> >nope. *you* brought up the engineering techniques.
>> >>
>> >> The engineering techniques of the time are used with the output device
>> >> techniques of the time. For this reason the techniques used for the
>> >> vinyl era are different from those used for the MP3 era.
>> >
>> >you're comparing engineering techniques, not digital versus analog.
>>
>> I've been doing that for some time. It's at least part of the reason
>> why some people still think the sound of music recorded on vinyl is
>> better than that obtainable on digital.
>
>which means the difference are the production values, not vinyl versus
>digital.

The production values are all part of the final product.
>
>obviously, different production values will sound different. that's the
>whole point.
>
>> >a proper comparison is where *everything* other than the medium (vinyl
>> >and cd) is identical, then compared in an objective double-blind test.
>> >
>> >anything else introduces a number of variables.
>>
>> But that's not what is happening in the market.
>
>because people have agendas and do not want objective tests that expose
>their agendas.
>
That's not what I was referring to. The digital people are mainly
selling to buyers with tinny equipment. The vinyl people are at least
pretending that they are selling to people with better equipment. But
in the end it doesn't matter whether its digital or vinyl, the speaker
is the weakest link in the reproduction chain and people with tinny
(or tiny) speakers will never get the full benefit of the original
source.

>> >> >> I have long suspected that at least part of the problem is the
>> >> >> deliberate exclusion by much digital recording of the harmonics from
>> >> >> the higher frequencies.
>> >> >
>> >> >you suspect wrong.
>> >>
>> >> What is the highest fundamental frequency for which the third harmonic
>> >> can be encoded by MP3?
>> >
>> >nobody but you cares about a third harmonic nor is this about mp3
>> >either.
>> >
>> The typical frequency range of musical instruments is shown in
>> https://universe-review.ca/I13-17-Musicalns00.jpg This acknowledges
>> the presence of harmonics but a cursory examination will show that the
>> range of harmonics has been artificially limited.
>
>nothing over 20k, so no issues at all with cds.

But what sort of wave forms can people still distinguish between at
higher frequencies. I suspect that for at least some people those high
frequency harmonics are important.

>
>> For a better
>> indication of the range of harmonics see
>> https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm As to whether
>> harmonics can be detected by the human ear above 20kHz see the
>> reference in that paper to Oohashi and AES preprint 3207 which
>> unfortunately is paywalled.
>
>if you want to reproduce harmonics that can't be heard, then up the
>sample rate. a redbook cd is not the *only* form of digital audio.

Yep.
>
>> >digital audio can reproduce the entire range that humans can hear.
>> >that's all that matters. anything else can't be heard so there's no
>> >need to reproduce it.
>>
>> I knew you would say that. :-)
>>
>> I believe you to be wrong if you extend that claim to *all* humans.
>
>here we go again.

Nope.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
nospam
2017-05-23 01:37:55 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
<***@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> >> The engineering techniques of the time are used with the output device
> >> >> techniques of the time. For this reason the techniques used for the
> >> >> vinyl era are different from those used for the MP3 era.
> >> >
> >> >you're comparing engineering techniques, not digital versus analog.
> >>
> >> I've been doing that for some time. It's at least part of the reason
> >> why some people still think the sound of music recorded on vinyl is
> >> better than that obtainable on digital.
> >
> >which means the difference are the production values, not vinyl versus
> >digital.
>
> The production values are all part of the final product.

however, they're *not* part of vinyl versus digital.

you can make either medium sound like shit if you want. that proves
nothing, other than you can make something sound like shit.

> >obviously, different production values will sound different. that's the
> >whole point.
> >
> >> >a proper comparison is where *everything* other than the medium (vinyl
> >> >and cd) is identical, then compared in an objective double-blind test.
> >> >
> >> >anything else introduces a number of variables.
> >>
> >> But that's not what is happening in the market.
> >
> >because people have agendas and do not want objective tests that expose
> >their agendas.
> >
> That's not what I was referring to. The digital people are mainly
> selling to buyers with tinny equipment. The vinyl people are at least
> pretending that they are selling to people with better equipment. But
> in the end it doesn't matter whether its digital or vinyl, the speaker
> is the weakest link in the reproduction chain and people with tinny
> (or tiny) speakers will never get the full benefit of the original
> source.

nonsense.

> >> >> >> I have long suspected that at least part of the problem is the
> >> >> >> deliberate exclusion by much digital recording of the harmonics from
> >> >> >> the higher frequencies.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >you suspect wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >> What is the highest fundamental frequency for which the third harmonic
> >> >> can be encoded by MP3?
> >> >
> >> >nobody but you cares about a third harmonic nor is this about mp3
> >> >either.
> >> >
> >> The typical frequency range of musical instruments is shown in
> >> https://universe-review.ca/I13-17-Musicalns00.jpg This acknowledges
> >> the presence of harmonics but a cursory examination will show that the
> >> range of harmonics has been artificially limited.
> >
> >nothing over 20k, so no issues at all with cds.
>
> But what sort of wave forms can people still distinguish between at
> higher frequencies. I suspect that for at least some people those high
> frequency harmonics are important.

very unlikely.

feel free to do an objective double blind test comparing music with
harmonics removed versus with them intact and see how many people can
hear a difference and if so, which is which. i'm quite sure the results
will be no better than chance.

and as you note above, the rest of the system, including the speakers,
would need to be able to reproduce the harmonics. if not, then there's
absolutely no reason whatsoever to record them.
Whisky-dave
2017-05-23 11:06:24 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, 22 May 2017 18:33:42 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> <***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > >You're not comparing analog to digital anymore, you're comparing the
> > >final products derived from the two formats. Engineers had to do the
> > >same thing with analog back then to allow for various playback
> > >systems. Don't forget cassettes, 8 tracks, Walkmans, Nagamichi
> > >Dragons, crap vinyl, and great vinyl (MFSL). You're comparing apples
> > >to oranges, or something like that.
> > >
> > >(I would have replied right away, but my other PC wouldn't boot.
> > >Again. This is becoming tedious. This time the preliminary blame goes
> > >to Asus, though.)
> > >
> > Quite true, but the wave of highly portable listening systems arrived
> > after vinyl reached its peak. People are arguing not only about
> > digital vs (analog) vinyl but the engineering techniques of two
> > different eras.
>
> nope. *you* brought up the engineering techniques.
>
> everyone else is discussing analog versus digital. not what some random
> (and incompetent) music producer did.
>
> the simple fact is that digital surpasses analog,

No it does not, and it can't.


>something which can
> be mathematically proven. end of story.

then prove it. but the fact is analogue is better than digital because it preserves all values.

This is why the higher sample rates are better than lower sample rates as you increase sample rates you can closer to the original.
nospam
2017-05-23 16:46:40 UTC
Permalink
In article <eb3f8c36-4bee-4fec-8f16-***@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > everyone else is discussing analog versus digital. not what some random
> > (and incompetent) music producer did.
> >
> > the simple fact is that digital surpasses analog,
>
> No it does not, and it can't.

it can and does, and quite easily too.

> >something which can
> > be mathematically proven. end of story.
>
> then prove it. but the fact is analogue is better than digital because it
> preserves all values.

go study sampling theory.

> This is why the higher sample rates are better than lower sample
> rates as you increase sample rates you can closer to the original.

it only needs to be twice the highest frequency.
Tony Cooper
2017-05-23 18:39:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 23 May 2017 12:46:40 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>> then prove it. but the fact is analogue is better than digital because it
>> preserves all values.
>
>go study sampling theory.

What airline do you recommend for field study?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
android
2017-05-23 19:05:47 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Tony Cooper <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 May 2017 12:46:40 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >> then prove it. but the fact is analogue is better than digital because it
> >> preserves all values.
> >
> >go study sampling theory.
>
> What airline do you recommend for field study?

Read my sig!
--
teleportation kills
nospam
2017-05-23 20:03:52 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >> then prove it. but the fact is analogue is better than digital because it
> >> preserves all values.
> >
> >go study sampling theory.
>
> What airline do you recommend for field study?

all you do is bash. you are incapable of a normal discussion.
Whisky-dave
2017-05-24 08:45:38 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 17:46:43 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <eb3f8c36-4bee-4fec-8f16-***@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > everyone else is discussing analog versus digital. not what some random
> > > (and incompetent) music producer did.
> > >
> > > the simple fact is that digital surpasses analog,
> >
> > No it does not, and it can't.
>
> it can and does, and quite easily too.

here yuor talking crap.


> > >something which can
> > > be mathematically proven. end of story.
> >
> > then prove it. but the fact is analogue is better than digital because it
> > preserves all values.
>
> go study sampling theory.

go study digitala system processing.


>
> > This is why the higher sample rates are better than lower sample
> > rates as you increase sample rates you can closer to the original.
>
> it only needs to be twice the highest frequency.

No it does not, especailly if you care more than just about what humans can hear.
nospam
2017-05-22 17:33:41 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, Bill W
<***@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
> (I would have replied right away, but my other PC wouldn't boot.
> Again. This is becoming tedious. This time the preliminary blame goes
> to Asus, though.)

why asus this time and not windows?
Bill W
2017-05-22 19:37:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 May 2017 13:33:41 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>, Bill W
><***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> (I would have replied right away, but my other PC wouldn't boot.
>> Again. This is becoming tedious. This time the preliminary blame goes
>> to Asus, though.)
>
>why asus this time and not windows?

It's a bios issue. I removed a malfunctioning USB hub that had been
plugged into the mobo, and right after that the SSD disappeared from
the boot priority list. It remains in the boot override list, and I
can boot from there. There are complaints about this sort of thing
everywhere, and there are fixes. I'm going to update the bios first,
and then move on to the other fix, which seems to be to unplug all of
the other drives, and then boot again. That supposedly makes the SSD
reappear in the boot priority list. I don't think it's limited to Asus
boards, though. It probably has something to do with Sata standards,
along with mobo/bios design issues.
nospam
2017-05-22 19:59:24 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, Bill W
<***@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >> (I would have replied right away, but my other PC wouldn't boot.
> >> Again. This is becoming tedious. This time the preliminary blame goes
> >> to Asus, though.)
> >
> >why asus this time and not windows?
>
> It's a bios issue. I removed a malfunctioning USB hub that had been
> plugged into the mobo, and right after that the SSD disappeared from
> the boot priority list. It remains in the boot override list, and I
> can boot from there. There are complaints about this sort of thing
> everywhere, and there are fixes. I'm going to update the bios first,
> and then move on to the other fix, which seems to be to unplug all of
> the other drives, and then boot again. That supposedly makes the SSD
> reappear in the boot priority list. I don't think it's limited to Asus
> boards, though. It probably has something to do with Sata standards,
> along with mobo/bios design issues.

windows.

on a mac, none of that happens.
Bill W
2017-05-23 00:12:13 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 May 2017 15:59:24 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>, Bill W
><***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> >> (I would have replied right away, but my other PC wouldn't boot.
>> >> Again. This is becoming tedious. This time the preliminary blame goes
>> >> to Asus, though.)
>> >
>> >why asus this time and not windows?
>>
>> It's a bios issue. I removed a malfunctioning USB hub that had been
>> plugged into the mobo, and right after that the SSD disappeared from
>> the boot priority list. It remains in the boot override list, and I
>> can boot from there. There are complaints about this sort of thing
>> everywhere, and there are fixes. I'm going to update the bios first,
>> and then move on to the other fix, which seems to be to unplug all of
>> the other drives, and then boot again. That supposedly makes the SSD
>> reappear in the boot priority list. I don't think it's limited to Asus
>> boards, though. It probably has something to do with Sata standards,
>> along with mobo/bios design issues.
>
>windows.
>
>on a mac, none of that happens.

I want so bad to blame MS, but the error message was cannot find OS,
so unless MS wrote some hiding function in Windows, I have to blame
Asus. And now, after I downloaded their AI Suite 3, I suddenly
remembered how evil that software is. It cripples Windows, and makes
dialog boxes blank, and then it's a pain to uninstall. Worse yet, my
mobo isn't listed on their website in their dropdown list, so I can't
even find the right bios for an update. They must be owned by MS. And
I still can't get the boot order to include my SSD, even though it's
the only drive connected, and it will boot to it automatically if I
don't intervene.

I just want to throw up. Maybe MSI?...
nospam
2017-05-23 00:25:38 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, Bill W
<***@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >> >> (I would have replied right away, but my other PC wouldn't boot.
> >> >> Again. This is becoming tedious. This time the preliminary blame goes
> >> >> to Asus, though.)
> >> >
> >> >why asus this time and not windows?
> >>
> >> It's a bios issue. I removed a malfunctioning USB hub that had been
> >> plugged into the mobo, and right after that the SSD disappeared from
> >> the boot priority list. It remains in the boot override list, and I
> >> can boot from there. There are complaints about this sort of thing
> >> everywhere, and there are fixes. I'm going to update the bios first,
> >> and then move on to the other fix, which seems to be to unplug all of
> >> the other drives, and then boot again. That supposedly makes the SSD
> >> reappear in the boot priority list. I don't think it's limited to Asus
> >> boards, though. It probably has something to do with Sata standards,
> >> along with mobo/bios design issues.
> >
> >windows.
> >
> >on a mac, none of that happens.
>
> I want so bad to blame MS, but the error message was cannot find OS,

that's not an error message. it's sharing how happy it is. :)

> so unless MS wrote some hiding function in Windows, I have to blame
> Asus. And now, after I downloaded their AI Suite 3, I suddenly
> remembered how evil that software is. It cripples Windows, and makes
> dialog boxes blank, and then it's a pain to uninstall. Worse yet, my
> mobo isn't listed on their website in their dropdown list, so I can't
> even find the right bios for an update. They must be owned by MS. And
> I still can't get the boot order to include my SSD, even though it's
> the only drive connected, and it will boot to it automatically if I
> don't intervene.

on a mac, you just plug in the ssd. done.

> I just want to throw up. Maybe MSI?...

cough.mac.cough
Bill W
2017-05-23 01:05:18 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 May 2017 20:25:38 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>, Bill W
><***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> (I would have replied right away, but my other PC wouldn't boot.
>> >> >> Again. This is becoming tedious. This time the preliminary blame goes
>> >> >> to Asus, though.)
>> >> >
>> >> >why asus this time and not windows?
>> >>
>> >> It's a bios issue. I removed a malfunctioning USB hub that had been
>> >> plugged into the mobo, and right after that the SSD disappeared from
>> >> the boot priority list. It remains in the boot override list, and I
>> >> can boot from there. There are complaints about this sort of thing
>> >> everywhere, and there are fixes. I'm going to update the bios first,
>> >> and then move on to the other fix, which seems to be to unplug all of
>> >> the other drives, and then boot again. That supposedly makes the SSD
>> >> reappear in the boot priority list. I don't think it's limited to Asus
>> >> boards, though. It probably has something to do with Sata standards,
>> >> along with mobo/bios design issues.
>> >
>> >windows.
>> >
>> >on a mac, none of that happens.
>>
>> I want so bad to blame MS, but the error message was cannot find OS,
>
>that's not an error message. it's sharing how happy it is. :)

Okay, that's pretty funny...

>> so unless MS wrote some hiding function in Windows, I have to blame
>> Asus. And now, after I downloaded their AI Suite 3, I suddenly
>> remembered how evil that software is. It cripples Windows, and makes
>> dialog boxes blank, and then it's a pain to uninstall. Worse yet, my
>> mobo isn't listed on their website in their dropdown list, so I can't
>> even find the right bios for an update. They must be owned by MS. And
>> I still can't get the boot order to include my SSD, even though it's
>> the only drive connected, and it will boot to it automatically if I
>> don't intervene.
>
>on a mac, you just plug in the ssd. done.
>
>> I just want to throw up. Maybe MSI?...
>
>cough.mac.cough

Waaaay too much invested in this PC. I just unplugged it, turned it
over to shake out all the remaining electrons, went downstairs to eat,
and I am confident that it fixed itself. I'll know in a minute, but
even if I never get the boot priority thing fixed, I can always force
the boot every time. I don't turn it off very often.
android
2017-05-22 20:38:57 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Bill W <***@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >why asus this time and not windows?
>
> It's a bios issue. I removed a malfunctioning USB hub that had been
> plugged into the mobo, and right after that the SSD disappeared from
> the boot priority list. It remains in the boot override list, and I
> can boot from there. There are complaints about this sort of thing
> everywhere, and there are fixes. I'm going to update the bios first,
> and then move on to the other fix, which seems to be to unplug all of
> the other drives, and then boot again. That supposedly makes the SSD
> reappear in the boot priority list. I don't think it's limited to Asus
> boards, though. It probably has something to do with Sata standards,
> along with mobo/bios design issues.

Oki...
--
teleportation kills
Ron C
2017-05-22 02:07:05 UTC
Permalink
On 5/21/2017 8:46 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2017 19:56:56 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>> <***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
>>>> valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
>>>
>>> The problem is that 'the best that digital can do' is very rare and
>>> almost impossible to find.
>>
>> nonsense. it's trivial to find and even easier to create.
>
> But that's not what is being done.
>>
>>> The vast majority of digital recording is fizzed up in an attempt to
>>> get something approaching an acceptable sound out of vastly inadequate
>>> equipment which has never had a chance of reproducing the original
>>> sound.
>>
>> don't blame the medium for the mistakes of the person producing it.
>>
>> someone could just as easily fuck up a vinyl record. simple example:
>> stamp it off center. guaranteed speed variation.
>
> That's accidental. What is done to MP3 is deliberate. Compression of
> dynamic range. Artificially boosting base, plus all kinds of other
> sins.
>>
>>> Vinyl has its problem recordings also but fortunately the
>>> number of people who will try to play vinyly records through ear buds
>>> are few.
>>
>> irrelevant.
>
> They don't have the same motivation to tailor the recorded sound to
> inadequate equipment.
>
OK, I've been lurking and avoiding comment.
Your understanding of MP3 compression seems
limited at best. The compression techniques used
in [the likes of] MP3 are perceptual, and the distortions
are seldom related to compression of dynamic range.
There's a lot of psycho acoustics that goes into those
[data] compression algorithms.
~~
The nuisances of [band limited] sampling theory are
hard to grasp for many, but the validity of the concept
has been well proven. The channel capacity of 44.1/16
CD audio absolutely surpasses that of said vinyl media.

--
==
Later...
Ron C
--
nospam
2017-05-22 02:13:01 UTC
Permalink
In article <T6mdnXzoXONQ2r_EnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Ron C
<***@verizon.net> wrote:

> The nuisances of [band limited] sampling theory are
> hard to grasp for many, but the validity of the concept
> has been well proven. The channel capacity of 44.1/16
> CD audio absolutely surpasses that of said vinyl media.

exactly correct.

same for digital cameras and film.
Ron C
2017-05-22 02:17:47 UTC
Permalink
On 5/21/2017 10:13 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <T6mdnXzoXONQ2r_EnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Ron C
> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> The nuisances of [band limited] sampling theory are
>> hard to grasp for many, but the validity of the concept
>> has been well proven. The channel capacity of 44.1/16
>> CD audio absolutely surpasses that of said vinyl media.
>
> exactly correct.
>
> same for digital cameras and film.
>
Understood.
~~
Now, care to jump in to the quagmire of dither? ;-)
--
==
L...
R C
--
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2017-05-22 02:53:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 22:17:47 -0400, LO AND BEHOLD; "Ron C
<***@verizon.net>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<hsidnfblVc_N17_EnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>:

>On 5/21/2017 10:13 PM, nospam wrote:
>>In article <T6mdnXzoXONQ2r_EnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Ron C
>><***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>The nuisances of [band limited] sampling theory are hard to grasp for
>>>many, but the validity of the concept has been well proven. The channel
>>>capacity of 44.1/16 CD audio absolutely surpasses that of said vinyl
>>>media.
>>exactly correct. same for digital cameras and film.
>Understood. ~~ Now, care to SPNAK! in to the quagmire of dither? ;-)

i recorded many a concert using a stereo vcr, which encodes a digital PCM audio to tape.

this was in an era where idiots were buying DATs and missing parts of the shows because they had to swap out their tape.

i could keep recording for hours because VHS.

LOL

https://archive.org/details/Schleigho20011115123PleasantStS2t03Matrices

i hope diesel will let me know how much it sucks.

--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
nospam
2017-05-22 03:02:57 UTC
Permalink
In article <PNydnaul1_Ayz7_EnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Fakey's
Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> i could keep recording for hours because VHS.

only 2 hours at its best quality, which wasn't all that good.

the 6hr speed was *horrible*.
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2017-05-22 03:17:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 23:02:57 -0400, LO AND BEHOLD; "nospam
<***@nospam.invalid>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<210520172302572707%***@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <PNydnaul1_Ayz7_EnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Fakey's 🐶
>Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>i could keep recording for hours because VHS.
>
>only 2 hours at its best quality, which wasn't all that good.

for /video/, sure...

>the 6hr speed was *horrible*.

i wasn't recording video, though. i was recording only audio. which means that it didn't matter what quality the video was recorded.

anything that would change the encoded PCM signal would make it "not PCM", right? also, did you not realize that performing such a task would take extra logic, extra $$$, and some sort of compression algorithm that was never used?

right?

there's a reason they chose the PCM standard.

HTH



--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Diesel
2017-05-22 04:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Ron C <***@verizon.net> news:hsidnfblVc_N17_EnZ2dnUU7-
***@giganews.com Mon, 22 May 2017 02:17:47 GMT in alt.2600, wrote:

> On 5/21/2017 10:13 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <T6mdnXzoXONQ2r_EnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Ron C
>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The nuisances of [band limited] sampling theory are
>>> hard to grasp for many, but the validity of the concept
>>> has been well proven. The channel capacity of 44.1/16
>>> CD audio absolutely surpasses that of said vinyl media.
>>
>> exactly correct.
>>
>> same for digital cameras and film.
>>
> Understood.
> ~~
> Now, care to jump in to the quagmire of dither? ;-)

No, thanks. I'm not on the same level as Bob Katz.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
Diesel
2017-05-22 04:54:57 UTC
Permalink
nospam <***@nospam.invalid> news:210520172213012966%
***@nospam.invalid Mon, 22 May 2017 02:13:01 GMT in alt.2600, wrote:

> In article <T6mdnXzoXONQ2r_EnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Ron C
> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> The nuisances of [band limited] sampling theory are
>> hard to grasp for many, but the validity of the concept
>> has been well proven. The channel capacity of 44.1/16
>> CD audio absolutely surpasses that of said vinyl media.
>
> exactly correct.
>
> same for digital cameras and film.

Agreed. With the caveat, digital cameras beyond a certain MP.



--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
Eric Stevens
2017-05-22 03:29:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2017 22:07:05 -0400, Ron C <***@verizon.net> wrote:

>On 5/21/2017 8:46 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 May 2017 19:56:56 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>>> <***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
>>>>> valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that 'the best that digital can do' is very rare and
>>>> almost impossible to find.
>>>
>>> nonsense. it's trivial to find and even easier to create.
>>
>> But that's not what is being done.
>>>
>>>> The vast majority of digital recording is fizzed up in an attempt to
>>>> get something approaching an acceptable sound out of vastly inadequate
>>>> equipment which has never had a chance of reproducing the original
>>>> sound.
>>>
>>> don't blame the medium for the mistakes of the person producing it.
>>>
>>> someone could just as easily fuck up a vinyl record. simple example:
>>> stamp it off center. guaranteed speed variation.
>>
>> That's accidental. What is done to MP3 is deliberate. Compression of
>> dynamic range. Artificially boosting base, plus all kinds of other
>> sins.
>>>
>>>> Vinyl has its problem recordings also but fortunately the
>>>> number of people who will try to play vinyly records through ear buds
>>>> are few.
>>>
>>> irrelevant.
>>
>> They don't have the same motivation to tailor the recorded sound to
>> inadequate equipment.
>>
>OK, I've been lurking and avoiding comment.
>Your understanding of MP3 compression seems
>limited at best. The compression techniques used
>in [the likes of] MP3 are perceptual, and the distortions
>are seldom related to compression of dynamic range.
>There's a lot of psycho acoustics that goes into those
>[data] compression algorithms.

The compression I'm talking about is that required for the limitations
of reproducing equipment, particularly speakers and the like. This
problem is exacerbated by the use of instruments, drums, double base
and the ubiquitous synthesizer, with heavily driven base output.
>~~
>The nuisances of [band limited] sampling theory are
>hard to grasp for many, but the validity of the concept
>has been well proven. The channel capacity of 44.1/16
>CD audio absolutely surpasses that of said vinyl media.

Except for the pervasive belief that sounds above (usually) 18kHz
contribute nothing to the music.
>
>--
>==
>Later...
>Ron C
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2017-05-22 03:34:04 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 May 2017 15:29:48 +1200, LO AND BEHOLD; "Eric Stevens
<***@sum.co.nz>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<***@4ax.com>:

>On Sun, 21 May 2017 22:07:05 -0400, Ron C <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On 5/21/2017 8:46 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>On Sun, 21 May 2017 19:56:56 -0400, nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>>>><***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
>>>>>>valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
>>>>>The problem is that 'the best that digital can do' is very rare and
>>>>>almost impossible to find.
>>>>nonsense. it's trivial to find and even easier to create.
>>>But that's not what is being done.
>>>>
>>>>>The vast majority of digital recording is fizzed up in an attempt to get
>>>>>something approaching an acceptable sound out of vastly inadequate
>>>>>equipment which has never had a chance of reproducing the original
>>>>>sound.
>>>>don't blame the medium for the mistakes of the person producing it.
>>>>someone could just as easily fuck up a vinyl record. simple example:
>>>>stamp it off center. guaranteed speed variation.
>>>That's accidental. What is done to MP3 is deliberate. Compression of
>>>dynamic range. Artificially boosting base, plus all kinds of other
>>>sins.
>>>>
>>>>>Vinyl has its problem recordings also but fortunately the number of
>>>>>people who will try to play vinyly records through ear buds are few.
>>>>irrelevant.
>>>They don't have the same motivation to tailor the recorded sound to
>>>inadequate equipment.
>>OK, I've been lurking and avoiding comment. Your understanding of MP3
>>compression seems limited at best. The compression techniques used in
>>[the likes of] MP3 are perceptual, and the distortions are seldom
>>related to compression of dynamic range. There's a lot of psycho
>>acoustics that goes into those [data] compression algorithms.
>
>The compression I'm talking about is that required for the limitations
>of reproducing equipment, particularly speakers and the like. This
>problem is exacerbated by the use of instruments, drums, double base
>and the ubiquitous synthesizer, with heavily driven base output.
>>~~ The nuisances of [band limited] sampling theory are hard to grasp for
>>many, but the validity of the concept has been well proven. The channel
>>capacity of 44.1/16 CD audio absolutely surpasses that of said vinyl
>>media.
>
>Except for the pervasive belief that sounds above (usually) 18kHz
>contribute nothing to the music.
>>-- == Later... Ron C

LOL

that guy you're responding to sounds like a decrepit VHF/UHF ham operator trying to make sense of modern times by applying RF theory and coming up with nothing but excuses.

digital sampling is not "better" than analog aside from storage concerns and marketing purposes.

--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Whisky-dave
2017-05-22 10:23:24 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, 22 May 2017 00:56:59 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <***@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> <***@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > >
> > >a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
> > >valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
> >
> > The problem is that 'the best that digital can do' is very rare and
> > almost impossible to find.
>
> nonsense. it's trivial to find and even easier to create.

Microphones are analogue not digital, so you lose infromation when digitising.

otherwise 25k wouldn't be a better option than 64K.

Digital can and is far kore convient and easy to package.
nospam
2017-05-22 17:33:40 UTC
Permalink
In article <95d49e10-c4b7-4a90-a4ef-***@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > >a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
> > > >valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
> > >
> > > The problem is that 'the best that digital can do' is very rare and
> > > almost impossible to find.
> >
> > nonsense. it's trivial to find and even easier to create.
>
> Microphones are analogue not digital, so you lose infromation when digitising.

microphones don't digitize anything and nothing is lost when digitizing
either (assuming it's done properly).

> otherwise 25k wouldn't be a better option than 64K.

25k and 64k of what?

> Digital can and is far kore convient and easy to package.

you've had too much to drink already and it's still early.
Whisky-dave
2017-05-23 11:18:07 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, 22 May 2017 18:33:43 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <95d49e10-c4b7-4a90-a4ef-***@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >a vinyl record compared with the best that digital can do is the only
> > > > >valid comparison, not what some random person uploaded to youtube.
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that 'the best that digital can do' is very rare and
> > > > almost impossible to find.
> > >
> > > nonsense. it's trivial to find and even easier to create.
> >
> > Microphones are analogue not digital, so you lose infromation when digitising.

> microphones don't digitize anything

No they don't.


and nothing is lost when digitizing
> either (assuming it's done properly).

it;s never done properly though is it.

>
> > otherwise 25k wouldn't be a better option than 64K.
>
> 25k and 64k of what?

sampling rates. Which is why in audio 320k is better than 256k & 128K is better than 64K.
In photogrpahy it;s why a 14 bit A-D is better than a 10 bit A-D and why a 14 bit A-D will be better still and beyond that .
But there's resoulution and sampling rate both need to be considered.




>
> > Digital can and is far kore convient and easy to package.
>
> you've had too much to drink already and it's still early.

and yuo're talking crap.
Why are the better and mostly more expensive DLSRs use 14 bit D-A and not 12 10 or 8 bit.

You might also think about 8-bit computer games and why 16 bit are better and 32 and 64 bit better.
nospam
2017-05-23 16:46:40 UTC
Permalink
In article <40102493-66af-4a7a-b79c-***@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > and nothing is lost when digitizing
> > either (assuming it's done properly).
>
> it;s never done properly though is it.

it almost always is.

if not, that's a flaw with the person doing it, not digital itself.
don't blame the medium for someone's incompetence

analog is also not always done properly.

> > > otherwise 25k wouldn't be a better option than 64K.
> >
> > 25k and 64k of what?
>
> sampling rates. Which is why in audio 320k is better than 256k & 128K is
> better than 64K.

that's an mp3 bit rate, not a sampling rate.

> In photogrpahy it;s why a 14 bit A-D is better than a 10 bit A-D and why a 14
> bit A-D will be better still and beyond that .
> But there's resoulution and sampling rate both need to be considered.

resolution of a camera sensor *is* sampling rate.

> > > Digital can and is far kore convient and easy to package.
> >
> > you've had too much to drink already and it's still early.
>
> and yuo're talking crap.
> Why are the better and mostly more expensive DLSRs use 14 bit D-A and not 12
> 10 or 8 bit.

for a wider dynamic range.

> You might also think about 8-bit computer games and why 16 bit are better
> and 32 and 64 bit better.

or i might not, because it's completely irrelevant.
Whisky-dave
2017-05-24 08:58:41 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 17:46:44 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <40102493-66af-4a7a-b79c-***@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > and nothing is lost when digitizing
> > > either (assuming it's done properly).
> >
> > it;s never done properly though is it.
>
> it almost always is.

No it's not due to the technology used which improves with time.

This is how why digital sensor are improving.

We used to be only be able to sample a scene at a few thousand pixels.
Now it's MP as the number of samples increases the image is more accuratly reproduced.

Animals can see faster frame rates than humans.
So just because yuo see 24 FPS as a moving picture it doesn't mean there's not individual frames, that make up the picture but in the real world people don't move in frames in a digital way peole move in an anologue way.
nospam
2017-05-21 15:52:21 UTC
Permalink
In article
<***@Cco1pX6K3bB8q.kG1DZLdKy3p337qlbac13HudqE96fW2N9dr3T
lA8202TNnI>, Diesel <***@privacy.net> wrote:

>
> > you should tell him what version of lame you use to encode your
> > 44.1kHz CDs. it might impress him.
>
> I'd be wasting my time. You already lost him at encode.
> Maybe you can educate him on the amazing sound quality of vinyl?

vinyl is nowhere near as good as what cds are capable of.
Diesel
2017-05-22 01:12:24 UTC
Permalink
nospam <***@nospam.invalid>
news:210520171152218459%***@nospam.invalid Sun, 21 May 2017
15:52:21 GMT in alt.2600, wrote:

> In article
> <***@Cco1pX6K3bB8q.kG1DZLdKy3p337qlbac13HudqE96fW2N
> 9dr3T lA8202TNnI>, Diesel <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> > you should tell him what version of lame you use to encode your
>> > 44.1kHz CDs. it might impress him.
>>
>> I'd be wasting my time. You already lost him at encode.
>> Maybe you can educate him on the amazing sound quality of vinyl?
>
> vinyl is nowhere near as good as what cds are capable of.
>

Sarcasm is lost on you...


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
RJH
2017-05-22 07:58:27 UTC
Permalink
On 21/05/2017 16:52, nospam wrote:
> In article
> <***@Cco1pX6K3bB8q.kG1DZLdKy3p337qlbac13HudqE96fW2N9dr3T
> lA8202TNnI>, Diesel <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> you should tell him what version of lame you use to encode your
>>> 44.1kHz CDs. it might impress him.
>>
>> I'd be wasting my time. You already lost him at encode.
>> Maybe you can educate him on the amazing sound quality of vinyl?
>
> vinyl is nowhere near as good as what cds are capable of.
>

By whichever technical measure you pluck from the air. The fact remains
that some people prefer listening to vinyl.

Deal with it ;-)

--
Cheers, Rob
Diesel
2017-05-22 11:09:55 UTC
Permalink
RJH <***@gmx.com> news:ofu5gm$t8r$***@dont-email.me Mon, 22 May
2017 07:58:27 GMT in alt.2600, wrote:

> On 21/05/2017 16:52, nospam wrote:
>> In article
>> <***@Cco1pX6K3bB8q.kG1DZLdKy3p337qlbac13HudqE96fW2
>> N9dr3T lA8202TNnI>, Diesel <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> you should tell him what version of lame you use to encode your
>>>> 44.1kHz CDs. it might impress him.
>>>
>>> I'd be wasting my time. You already lost him at encode.
>>> Maybe you can educate him on the amazing sound quality of vinyl?
>>
>> vinyl is nowhere near as good as what cds are capable of.
>>
>
> By whichever technical measure you pluck from the air. The fact
> remains that some people prefer listening to vinyl.

Some people prefer doing crystal meth too, thinking it's not doing them
serious harm. :)



--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
burfordTjustice
2017-05-22 12:00:57 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 May 2017 11:09:55 -0000 (UTC)
Diesel <***@privacy.net> wrote:

> RJH <***@gmx.com> news:ofu5gm$t8r$***@dont-email.me Mon, 22 May
> 2017 07:58:27 GMT in alt.2600, wrote:
>
> > On 21/05/2017 16:52, nospam wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <***@Cco1pX6K3bB8q.kG1DZLdKy3p337qlbac13HudqE96fW2
> >> N9dr3T lA8202TNnI>, Diesel <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> you should tell him what version of lame you use to encode your
> >>>> 44.1kHz CDs. it might impress him.
> >>>
> >>> I'd be wasting my time. You already lost him at encode.
> >>> Maybe you can educate him on the amazing sound quality of vinyl?
> >>
> >> vinyl is nowhere near as good as what cds are capable of.
> >>
> >
> > By whichever technical measure you pluck from the air. The fact
> > remains that some people prefer listening to vinyl.
>
> Some people prefer doing crystal meth too, thinking it's not doing
> them serious harm. :)
>
>
>

How long have have you been doing it, crystal meth??
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2017-05-22 16:36:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 May 2017 11:09:55 -0000 (UTC), LO AND BEHOLD; "Diesel
<***@privacy.net>" determined that the following was of great importance
and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<***@vAr9Pz.Pqz.7Khf7Ow0T6d9vfP>:

>RJH <***@gmx.com> news:ofu5gm$t8r$***@dont-email.me Mon, 22 May
>2017 07:58:27 GMT in alt.2600, wrote:
>
>>On 21/05/2017 16:52, nospam wrote:
>>>In article
>>><***@Cco1pX6K3bB8q.kG1DZLdKy3p337qlbac13HudqE96fW2
>>>N9dr3T lA8202TNnI>, Diesel <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>you should tell him what version of lame you use to encode your 44.1kHz
>>>>>CDs. it might impress him.
>>>>I'd be wasting my time. You already lost him at encode. Maybe you can
>>>>educate him on the amazing sound quality of vinyl?
>>>vinyl is nowhere near as good as what cds are capable of.
>>By whichever technical measure you pluck from the air. The fact remains
>>that some people prefer listening to vinyl.
>
>Some people prefer doing crystal meth too, thinking it's not doing them
>serious harm. :)

some people like to make broken analogies, thinking they don't look like twits. :/

--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
David B.
2017-05-22 17:15:40 UTC
Permalink
On 5/22/2017 5:36 PM, Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 wrote:

> some people like to make broken analogies, thinking they don't look like twits. :/

Dustin Cook - aka Diesel - *IS* a TWIT!

--
David B.
Diesel
2017-05-23 00:45:18 UTC
Permalink
"David B." <***@nomail.afraid.org>
news:ofv65e$ap3$***@dont-email.me Mon, 22 May 2017 17:15:40 GMT in
alt.2600, wrote:

> On 5/22/2017 5:36 PM, Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus
> 🐶笛 wrote:
>
>> some people like to make broken analogies, thinking they don't
>> look like twits. :/
>
> Dustin Cook - aka Diesel - *IS* a TWIT!
>

Score one for the good guys!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkcrTBG_M-Y&feature=em-comments

They honored my copyright David. video has been deleted!



--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
David B.
2017-05-23 09:43:52 UTC
Permalink
On 5/23/2017 1:45 AM, Diesel wrote:
> "David B." <***@nomail.afraid.org>
> news:ofv65e$ap3$***@dont-email.me Mon, 22 May 2017 17:15:40 GMT in
> alt.2600, wrote:
>
>> On 5/22/2017 5:36 PM, Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus
>> 🐶笛 wrote:
>>
>>> some people like to make broken analogies, thinking they don't
>>> look like twits. :/
>>
>> Dustin Cook - aka Diesel - *IS* a TWIT!
>>
>
> Score one for the good guys!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkcrTBG_M-Y&feature=em-comments
>
> They honored my copyright David. video has been deleted!

It's good to know, categorically, that 'Diesel' *IS* Dustin Cook!

Have Google have also tied up your recent request to being from the same
individual who asked for this image to be blurred out on a Google
StreetView image?

http://goo.gl/maps/ZOKA9

The property is built on a slope and your 'Lab' is located at the back,
isn't it? Google knows all, Dustin! ;-)

--
David B.
-hh
2017-05-23 12:12:58 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 5:43:53 AM UTC-4, David B. wrote:
> On 5/23/2017 1:45 AM, Diesel wrote:
> > "David B." <***@nomail.afraid.org>
> > news:ofv65e$ap3$***@dont-email.me Mon, 22 May 2017 17:15:40 GMT in
> > alt.2600, wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/22/2017 5:36 PM, Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus
> >> 🠶笛 wrote:
> >>
> >>> some people like to make broken analogies, thinking they don't
> >>> look like twits. :/
> >>
> >> Dustin Cook - aka Diesel - *IS* a TWIT!
> >>
> >
> > Score one for the good guys!
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkcrTBG_M-Y&feature=em-comments
> >
> > They honored my copyright David. video has been deleted!
>
> It's good to know, categorically, that 'Diesel' *IS* Dustin Cook!
>
> Have Google have also tied up your recent request to being from the same
> individual who asked for this image to be blurred out on a Google
> StreetView image?
>
> http://goo.gl/maps/ZOKA9
>
> The property is built on a slope and your 'Lab' is located at the back,
> isn't it? Google knows all, Dustin! ;-)

It doesn't do much good to blur, either ... as that's merely a small brick ranch
with a weird dumpy chair plunked down in front of the white garage door, which
indicates that the garage is full of crap (not a car). And similarly, the carport
to the left of the garage denies his tan pickup truck parking in there; looks like
its an outdoor seating area with a couple of chairs.

Oh, and that monkey grass along the side of the driveway is a classic TN
"decorative", like the window air conditioners mounted in the front windows.
With 2015's property tax being only $679/year, its hardly a surprise.


-hh
Diesel
2017-05-23 18:52:46 UTC
Permalink
"David B." <***@nomail.afraid.org>
news:og1029$n13$***@dont-email.me Tue, 23 May 2017 09:43:52 GMT in
alt.2600, wrote:

> On 5/23/2017 1:45 AM, Diesel wrote:
>> "David B." <***@nomail.afraid.org>
>> news:ofv65e$ap3$***@dont-email.me Mon, 22 May 2017 17:15:40 GMT in
>> alt.2600, wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/22/2017 5:36 PM, Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus
>>> ðŞ¶ç¬› wrote:
>>>
>>>> some people like to make broken analogies, thinking they don't
>>>> look like twits. :/
>>>
>>> Dustin Cook - aka Diesel - *IS* a TWIT!
>>>
>>
>> Score one for the good guys!
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkcrTBG_M-Y&feature=em-comments
>>
>> They honored my copyright David. video has been deleted!
>
> It's good to know, categorically, that 'Diesel' *IS* Dustin Cook!

[fair warning for those who have the attention span of a goldfish;
this reply is a long taunting 'wordwall']

David,

I announced who I was when I began using this handle, nearly two
years ago. I made no effort to conceal my identity with it. I did
that for a few reasons. One of which being, I didn't want anyone to
think I was trying to avoid any filters they might have set on me. I
don't mind people filtering me if I annoy them, I'm completely okay
with it. I make it a point to keep the 'email' address the same to
make such filtering, easier.

Another reason I went with the handle Diesel is because it's a very
common word and makes things a little more difficult for the
anoncoward stalker. And, my fqdn line (I had to point it out to you,
because you and whoever you begged to checkout the source code I
shared wasn't as tech savvy as they led you to believe, not only did
they not give you a good explanation of what the source was doing,
they couldn't figure out what it did as a complete program either.
You seriously need to find more competent people)

Despite the fact my name is certainly Dustin Cook, It's not that
uncommon of a name online anymore. I had trouble finding myself on a
couple of databases. No kidding. A few people have the same year,
age, and middle initial as myself, too. And, damn if they didn't live
in some of the same states. I looked up two Dustins this morning
thinking they were me, only to find out, I don't know ANY of the
people they 'might' be related to and although we had several states
in common, I've never set foot in several of the others listed, and,
since geography was never my best subject in school, I couldn't tell
you where they are in relation to my location without using a map.
*shrug*

I do find your effort to spin another fight you lost with me into an
attempt to learn my actual meatspace for continued
stalking,blackmail, and intimidation efforts, though.

Fact is, you didn't think google would 'intervene' as you put it and
delete the video. You were wrong. Dropbox would actually do the same
thing to you, If I felt the need to pursue the matter. But, what's
the point. At the end of the day, you're going to retain copies of my
stuff and abuse what you have as you see fit. All because, I wouldn't
help you stalk other people that I don't know. Heh, that's my reward
for being a good guy and not doing blackhat things for hire. And you
call yourself a good guy and christian. ROFL!

You're a christian in the sense of the crusades kind of christian,
and/or one of the modern priests the churchs have to hide by parish
relocation because they can't leave children alone in a sexual way.
They aren't good guys either.

I don't expect anyone to just take what i've written about your
activities on my word alone. Especially the people in
rec.photo.digital. That's why I continue to host our entire email
correspondence on my BugHunter programs domain.

http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/bdemail1.zip

Not to worry David, you've snowballed them good, they have no idea
what kind of person you actually are. And! several of them are scared
to death of downloading and unzipping the file on the url above. They
think the simple act of downloading and! or unzipping it will give
them something and/or otherwise pose a risk to their machines.
Photography experts some of them may be, but, IT intelligence leaves
MUCH to be desired. They are of the 'computer is like a toaster
oven' mentality.

And, laughingly, atleast one thinks I have an axe to grind with you.
ROFL! They have no idea you started shit with me because I wouldn't
help you stalk other people. Long before I ever responded in a
hostile manner. Two+ years long before. I told you, and our email
correspondence will confirm ALL of this,

As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but, you can't
make him drink it.

I'd be more than happy to analyze any malicious file or url you sent
me, but, I wasn't going to scour the entire sites domain, and break
into it for full access for your benefit. All you had to do was
provide me a url and/or malicious file of some kind and I would have
examined it and reported back my findings as well as including a
signature for detection/removal into BugHunters database.

I told you this, several times. I extended you courtesy that you
didn't deserve, I was professional and quite civil with you the
entire time, although I already knew that you were discussing myself
and my program behind my back, trying to learn more about ME in
particular. Not my program.

You didn't actually email me because you wanted to know more about
the program, You wanted to know more about me, and, thought you could
snooker me if you inquired about the program and convinced me to
trust you a bit. I never fell for it. Everything I told you via email
was already known, and, I had no problems confirming it for you. As I
told you via email, I changed my 'evil ways' for the better. So I
figured I could prove that I was a good guy by being completely
honest and candid with you via email; even going so far as to answer
your personal questions that had nothing to do with my program.

You didn't contact me out of the blue either. You read some old shit
about some of the things I did, and wrongly assumed I would be the
same person you read about, and help you get back at two specific
forum administrators that banned you from their sites. It was never
about my program. You just thought it would be your way in, to earn
my trust, and eventually ask your favors. And, you figured, we'd be
friends enough by then, that I actually would do that stuff for you.

When you realized that you wouldn't be succesful, you proceeded to
create a gsv of an address someone else posted, create fresh threads
in several different newsgroups, to try and force me to help you out.
You were sure bad guys hungout on those servers, and, you thought
that if you placed myself and/or family in harms way, I'd 'smarten
up' and do your bidding. You were wrong.

I'm not surprised you haven't shared the screenshot you have with my
name on Malwarebytes Antimalware scanner. I understand why you'd
prefer not to do that for that newsgroup though, especially when you
tried (and failed) to abuse a retired police officer to do something
to me for you.

MID: <C87RA.739350$***@fx27.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149456200100

Do, please, read the WHOLE thread started by Mr Cook - called "Wanna
torrent? :)" - on the 'alt.computer.workshop' group.

Just *HOW* can I 'hang him out to dry'? (if you catch my drift!)

You hijacked their thread when you posted that offtopic comment; It
had nothing to do with the discussion already in progress. And, the
only reason you participated was so that you could butter someone up
and ask them. You're *well known* for using that method of attack,
btw. I can spot it a mile away, it's so common for you.

Why is it okay for you to try and dox me multiple times; I think
you're at address number five, or is it six now? Along with stalking
me for years, but it's not okay for me to succesfully dox you (and
how)? Why is it not okay for me, or HHI, to do what we do, but it's
perfectly okay for you to violate others copyrights, as you
repeatedly do with not only myself, but others as well?

I don't understand your logic, David. Did your god or dog tell you
it's okay to treat others like shit, but, not okay for them to do you
a solid in return? Is that what you're going by? Between the bottles,
I mean. You do take a little break between finishing one off and
opening another, don't you?

Is your wife an enabler of your excessive drinking, or, does she
insist that if you want it, you get it yourself? IE: does she go and
get it for you just so she doesn't have to listen to you piss and
moan about it?

Maybe you can finally tell me why you accused me of hacking your
computers to learn about your drinking problem? Do you actually have
some sort of journal where you admit what a fuckup you actually are
to yourself? Do you have your medical records and history on any of
the computers? Did you think I took copies of either of the
aforementioned and learned about your problem as a result of that?

Why did you give people I don't know, but you do, irl, my email
address and discuss me with them? You know you actually scared one or
more of them? You gave them the impression I'm a movie like hacker
and could do anything on a whim to them. Like they do in the movies.

Movies aren't real life, David. And, hacking is a much more involved
(boring for the average individual watching a movie) process than
what the movies and tv shows make it appear.

> Have Google have also tied up your recent request to being from
> the same individual who asked for this image to be blurred out on
> a Google StreetView image?

tied up? As I told you when your friend Eagle originally inquired,
*I* had nothing whatsoever to do with the blurring. I don't even know
how to do that! it took me a few minutes to determine how to report
your illegal youtube upload.

In fact, prior to your little stunt, I didn't even have a youtube
'channel'; now, thanks to having to sign in to youtube vs google (for
email), I do. but, it has no content. I don't even know the url to
it. And, I don't plan to add any content, either. In case you haven't
noticed, shit for brains, wannabe stalker/'good guy', I'm not exactly
a big fan of cameras. I tend to avoid them, whenever possible. I've
never liked my picture being taken, I've yet to take a 'selfie'; and,
pending a very good reason for doing so, I'm not likely to, either.
You should be glad you got the chance to see me on video that
consists of little over a minute with myself actually taking up,
mebbe 15 seconds or so of that. I'm what you call, camera shy.

You just think I have an ego the size of a house. Because, as is so
typical for you, you're misinformed.

> http://goo.gl/maps/ZOKA9

The scripts kill this old box, David. It really doesn't handle modern
websites with a lot of scripts well at all. :( I'm still migrating my
stuff over to the faster machines, so, I can soon reload this one
with cent OS and turn it into a simple file server. Cent is likely
going to be overkill for my intentions, I could just use Linux Mint
with Samba, actually. I may go that route for consistency, but, since
I have CentOS7 iso, I was wanting to try it out locally, hands on, vs
shell (ssh) account access that I've used for years. Or, as you put
it, give it a 'whirl'

That's less taxing on it, and it can serve out the time it has left
before the mainboard and/or HD and/or PS goes south on me. I have no
intentions of continuing to keep this machine alive if it should
toast any of the aforementioned components. The HD is IDE based
(difficult for me to source a 'new' one locally), the mainboard has
been extinct for years now, and, I can't justify the cost of a new
power supply or my time to tear the machine down and replace it. It's
over a decade and a half old, depending on which copyright
date/firmware you're looking at. heh.

As far as the link itself, as I told you, when you used it to try and
dox me (you have a bad habit about doing that, but, whine like a
bitch when it's done correctly to you; double standard?) you've once
again, scored the wrong residence.

You've posted several addresses you thought were mine over the years.
You started with another one in kingsport with the title 'is this
your house Dustin' because I turned down your repeated! requests to
hack into a couple of specific web forums and provide you the user
records. You had/still have an issue with the forum administrators
and because you lack the ability to do anything on your own, tried
(and failed) to trick me into doing some absolutely, blackhat, shady
as fuck all, things on your behalf.

Because I declined, repeatedly, you tried to dox me for my trouble.
I'd done nothing nefarious of any kind to you prior to you trying it
with me, first. And, when I decided to go ahead and dox you good (via
scene release .nfo files), it was over two years! later. And, as I
recall (I can pull the MID for your reply, if you'd like), you
claimed I'd be in serious trouble for doing it. So, knowing I
wouldn't be in any trouble, I went ahead with the doxing for you. I
did ask if you knew what an .nfo file was beforehand. :)

> The property is built on a slope and your 'Lab' is located at the
> back, isn't it? Google knows all, Dustin! ;-)

Actually, no. I've been quite candid concerning the property where my
lab is located. I discussed equipment sitting outside, a large work
garage that's not attached to the house, etc. And, especially
important to me, my dust (no pun intended) problem due to a lack of
grass problem. Which, I'm happy to report, My efforts to seed grass
is showing results. At the rate it's growing, I might even get to mow
it once or twice before the fall. This *should* greatly reduce the
dust problem; My heavy machinery doesn't like it.

I even went so far as to mention that I spent sometime spraying one
of my pieces of equipment with a water hose; because it was yellow
when I put it where it is, and, I knew rust didn't turn it a shit
brown color that fast.

Google knows much, but, all simply isn't possible. It learns new
things every day. As it's still having to learn/store data, it can't
know 'all' Maybe one day, though. Doubtful, but, maybe.

As far as google having a gsv of my actual meatspace, I tried it this
morning with my actual physical address; it doesn't recognize it. As
I also mentioned having no neighbors near me, and having to make sure
I don't run near empty (or I won't be getting back to civilization),
it's pretty obvious the url you've shared doesn't have my house in
it. They seem to have neighbors, real close. I couldn't fire my guns
off my back porch, on either level, if I had neighbors that close to
me. Local law here.

Where could I possibly keep a backhoe, skid, and bobcat in the url
you shared, outside, David? Or, my military surplus diesel
generators? How about my pile of copper wire and other metals that I
keep an eye on with digital video cameras. I see no place to store
any of that stuff with the url you shared. But, if I walk outside, I
can see my stuff (I can always just look up and see it on a video
screen too, but, that's besides the point) Oh, and one more thing, I
didn't claim to live at the place where the short video was created,
either. And, if you think my lab is that small, computer wise, you're
a bigger idiot than I already know you to be. Plus, we have the age
of the video to consider. I intentionally created it using a low
quality camera, and, I did some post production work to make the
video that much more degraded (on a PC, never a mac!), but, not to
the point where it was completely unwatchable. And finally, I used a
lossy codec (XviD) to create the resulting avi file that you retained
and attempted to alter further on a mac, when you managed to lose the
entire audio track, and somehow, work from your master copy; thereby,
fucking yourself quite nicely in the process.

I did provide you a copy of the same file that you illegally retained
from my website though. The thing is, as you've learned, the .zip
file itself is encrypted, and, you can't seem to locate anyone with
enough smarts to break the cypher and unlock the contents for you.
It's been over a year now. Any progress? Rhetorical question. If you
could (or someone you know could) decrypt the .zip and get to the
video for you, that's what you would have used on your youtube
channel. As you've also learned, the encryption isn't the built in
stuff typical archiving apps can use, either.

And as you've freely shared with everybody, you've also learned that
miekemos (the lead malware researcher for Malwarebytes) *IS*
incompetent with regard to anything that's not script/macro based.
As, that's her only field of 'expertise' and, I use the term, very
loosely. I can't tell you how much I laughed my ass off when I
learned who it was that was trying to help you out. That doesn't say
much for the companies ability to actually keep you safe from modern
threats. Which is what I've been writing about them for years. You,
being the wannabe that you actually are, only helped to CONFIRM what
I'd already been writing about the companies realistic abilities.

They have a kickass, dishonest as hell, marketing/advertising/pr
group, but, the seme cannot be said for their other departments.
Which is why I advise people not to drink the koolaid and replace
their antivirus program with the Malwarebytes package. As, the
Malwarebytes program doesn't have the right type of crew with a solid
coding background to be able to make good on the claims. They'll have
to either hire competent coders capable of reverse engineering
malicious executables, or, buy out another smaller antivirus
antimalware company and rebrand it. Which is exactly what they did to
create the mac version. :)

The coder recruitment problem they have stems from how things are
hanlded internally. They offend more than they help, and, can't keep
many good coders on payroll as a result. But, hey, Marcin does win
awards and he's a good talker in public. I bet he could sell a
truckload of ice to an eskimo. That's something, right? :)


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
David B.
2017-05-23 20:02:50 UTC
Permalink
On 5/23/2017 7:52 PM, Diesel wrote:
[....]

> But, hey, Marcin does win
> awards and he's a good talker in public. I bet he could sell a
> truckload of ice to an eskimo. That's something, right? :)

Right! :-)

Here's you, Dustin, posing outside 108 Warrior Dr
Colonial Heights, Kingsport, Tennessee

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sulg6m5a38mlrgl/Dustin%20Cook%20and%20his%20white%20van.tiff?dl=0

If this is NOT your home (with your Lab in the basement) just WHOSE home
*IS* it?!!!

--
The truth WILL out! ;-)
Diesel
2017-05-24 00:44:15 UTC
Permalink
"David B." <***@nomail.afraid.org>
news:og24ap$uhv$***@dont-email.me Tue, 23 May 2017 20:02:50 GMT in
alt.2600, wrote:

> On 5/23/2017 7:52 PM, Diesel wrote:
> [....]
>
>> But, hey, Marcin does win
>> awards and he's a good talker in public. I bet he could sell a
>> truckload of ice to an eskimo. That's something, right? :)
>
> Right! :-)

I'm glad we agree on that David.

> Here's you, Dustin, posing outside 108 Warrior Dr
> Colonial Heights, Kingsport, Tennessee

Are you sure about that? Colonial Heights and Kingsport are one in
the same. As is Lynn Garden, Sullivan Gardens, etc. I personally
refer to them as 'sub divisions' of kingsport. I'm sure there's a
proper term for it, but, I don't know it. It's something that's taken
me years, literally, to get used to.


> If this is NOT your home (with your Lab in the basement) just
> WHOSE home *IS* it?!!!

It's not my home anymore so than the other addresses you provided
are. including the one that started this problem you have with me,
initially.

And, I couldn't help but notice, you didn't address ANY of the points
I raised in the lengthy post, nor did you answer any of the questions
presented to you. Perhaps you forgot that your comment as well as my
reply was crossposted to rec.photo.digital? As I wrote initially
there when I tried to warn them about you, you're a stalker. A failed
one, but, a stalker non the less.

You're doing a fine job of confirming what I wrote about you in that
newsgroup. If they still don't see you for what you are, after the
previous post that you neglected (ever so carefully, or so you
thought) to comment on/answer any questions raised, then, there's
just no hope for any of them, and, you should be able to play them
like a fiddle without any real effort on your part. Which *should*
please you greatly, considering how often you fail to find such
gullible people.

Btw, the video showed two computers and two desks. Which is a problem
for the LAB itself, as it contains several more computers (not even
including the laptops) and more physical space to store them. Either
the LAB ggrew larger over night, or, the video wan't showing all of
the equipment and gear in the LAB. Knowing me, I'd opt for the latter
on that.

This reply has also been crossposted, because, well, you couldn't
have provided a better example of what I warned them you were if you
tried. :-)

In fact, not one single post have you denied ANYTHING I wrote about
you, or your actions, or the reason you've been trying to locate my
actual meatspace. Not one single time. Sometimes, David, silence on
the issued raised concerning you are very telling. <BFG>

http://picpaste.com/RqBgftvA.jpg

Nice isn't it? I think it's an excellent postcard picture myself.
Fits you, quite nicely. And, it's something you've had coming for a
very long time, too. How long did you think you'd be able to violate
my copyrights and continue attempting to stalk me without a nasty
response in return?

At the end of the day, David, some of us see you for what you
actually are, The only ones who don't are the gullible suckers you
reel in to do your bidding, because, your unable to learn how things
work on your own. You're a drunkard stalker who has many issues irl
as a result of your excessive drinking problem.

With all of that said, If you'd like to provide a better pic of Nicks
gravesite, you know how to reach me. As long as the resultion is
superior to what's already on the postcard, we'll switch over to it.

One caveat, though. We're unable to change the picture releases
already sent to distro. As once distro has the release, it's read-
only from that point forward.



--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
burfordTjustice
2017-05-24 11:26:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 May 2017 00:44:15 -0000 (UTC)
Diesel <***@privacy.net> wrote:

> It's not my home anymore

there is no proof of that,

then there is, after the street view was posted it got blurred.

Hmmmm
-hh
2017-05-24 01:55:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:56:15 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
> "David B." wrote:
>
> > On 5/23/2017 1:45 AM, Diesel wrote:
> >> "David B." <***@nomail.afraid.org>
> >> news:ofv65e$ap3$***@dont-email.me Mon, 22 May 2017 17:15:40 GMT in
> >> alt.2600, wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5/22/2017 5:36 PM, Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus
> >>> 🠶笛 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> some people like to make broken analogies, thinking they don't
> >>>> look like twits. :/
> >>>
> >>> Dustin Cook - aka Diesel - *IS* a TWIT!
> >>>
> >>
> >> Score one for the good guys!
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkcrTBG_M-Y&feature=em-comments
> >>
> >> They honored my copyright David. video has been deleted!
> >
> > It's good to know, categorically, that 'Diesel' *IS* Dustin Cook!
>
> [fair warning for those who have the attention span of a goldfish;
> this reply is a long taunting 'word wall']

Which apparently is code for "Bag of Butthurt Wee Willie Whine"


> David,

[3107 word line whine ... blissfully deleted]

Gosh, golly: imagine if all of the effort it took to write that tirade
was put into backing up his 'bad browser' claim with a solution
which actually satisfied my capabilities requirements list.

Good thing then that Dustin still has nearly 24 hours on his credibility
'Doomsday Clock' before it expires.

Now we can be naively optimistic that he's actually a smarter guy than
I am, and is simply going to go for a dramatic save at two minutes before
Midnight....or we can just expect that he's not smarter than the average
bear and has nothing - - and, like most people of ill repute, will just try
to ignore and/or deny how his "techie" bluff was called.


Now the whine did concede being pwned by David over two years ago,
but it did also try to expect us to believe that he doesn't have an axe to grind?

As Noah would say, "Riiiiiiiight!"


In the end, people make mistakes in their life. Most move on. Dustin hasn't.


-hh
nospam
2017-05-22 17:33:40 UTC
Permalink
In article <ofu5gm$t8r$***@dont-email.me>, RJH <***@gmx.com> wrote:

> >>> you should tell him what version of lame you use to encode your
> >>> 44.1kHz CDs. it might impress him.
> >>
> >> I'd be wasting my time. You already lost him at encode.
> >> Maybe you can educate him on the amazing sound quality of vinyl?
> >
> > vinyl is nowhere near as good as what cds are capable of.
>
> By whichever technical measure you pluck from the air. The fact remains
> that some people prefer listening to vinyl.

this isn't about what some people prefer. people can listen to vinyl
all they want. nobody cares.

the fact is that the audio quality of vinyl is inferior to digital
audio, just as film is inferior to digital photography, both of which
can be mathematically proven.

> Deal with it ;-)

deal with the facts, that vinyl and film have both been surpassed.
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2017-05-22 20:05:37 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 May 2017 13:33:40 -0400, LO AND BEHOLD; "nospam
<***@nospam.invalid>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<220520171333408517%***@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <ofu5gm$t8r$***@dont-email.me>, RJH <***@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>you should tell him what version of lame you use to encode your 44.1kHz
>>>>>CDs. it might impress him.
>>>>I'd be wasting my time. You already lost him at encode. Maybe you can
>>>>educate him on the amazing sound quality of vinyl?
>>>vinyl is nowhere near as good as what cds are capable of.
>>By whichever technical measure you pluck from the air. The fact remains
>>that some people prefer listening to vinyl.
>
>this isn't about what some people prefer. people can listen to vinyl all
>they want. nobody cares.
>
>the fact is that the audio quality of vinyl is inferior to digital
>audio, just as film is inferior to digital photography, both of which
>can be mathematically proven.
>
>>Deal with it ;-)
>
>deal with the facts, that vinyl and film have both been surpassed.

44.1kHz digitally sampled recording of analog masters are definitely NOT "better than" vinyl pressed from those masters, IMO.

there's no way you're going to convince me that you can ignore huge chunks of data in between the sampling points and come up with something "better".

--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
nospam
2017-05-22 20:26:52 UTC
Permalink
In article <RvydnfZM0qMM2b7EnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Fakey's
Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>
> 44.1kHz digitally sampled recording of analog masters are definitely NOT
> "better than" vinyl pressed from those masters, IMO.

you're wrong. simple as that.

and masters have been digital for several decades, with quality well in
excess of anything vinyl can ever hope to do.

> there's no way you're going to convince me that you can ignore huge chunks of
> data in between the sampling points and come up with something "better".

nothing is ignored.

the fact is that digital audio surpasses analog audio in every way. you
can downgrade digital audio to sound like analog audio (by adding
distortion or pops or whatever), but you can't make analog sound as
good as digital.
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2017-05-22 21:18:18 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 May 2017 16:26:52 -0400, LO AND BEHOLD; "nospam
<***@nospam.invalid>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<220520171626522004%***@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <RvydnfZM0qMM2b7EnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Fakey's 🐶
>Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>44.1kHz digitally sampled recording of analog masters are definitely NOT
>>"better than" vinyl pressed from those masters, IMO.
>
>you're wrong. simple as that.
>
>and masters have been digital for several decades, with quality well in
>excess of anything vinyl can ever hope to do.
>
>>there's no way you're going to convince me that you can ignore huge
>>chunks of data in between the sampling points and come up with
>>something "better".
>
>nothing is ignored.

it most certainly is ignored. if i take a sample at times 1, 2, and 3 i can only make a guess as to what the amplitude of the signal is at time 1.5... or 1.58... or 1.599999999999999... and that's exactly what your digital players do, the "guess" at the signal in between samples. i think you need to read up on "oversampling" in CD players. matsushita had something called MASH in their higher-end CD hardware.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-sigma_modulation#Decimation_structures

all of this extra technology and signal processing, mind you, just to get a bit closer to the pure analog sound that was originally digitized.

if you have to "guess" at what the signal amplitude is between samples, you don't have a "lossless" medium. period. all digital is lossless. 44.1kHz sampling rate is not better than being at a concert or hearing high-speed tape masters nor will it sound any better than virgin vinyl on a properly set up system.

surely you don't think that digital recording of analog sounds is anything more than an auditory-pixelated (and by definition, lossy) representation of a continuous analog signal?

>the fact is that digital audio surpasses analog audio in every way. you
>can downgrade digital audio to sound like analog audio (by adding
>distortion or pops or whatever), but you can't make analog sound as
>good as digital.

question. so how is it "digital" anymore when it's played back through analog equipment into a very real analog world moving analog air to vibrate our analog eardrums? i don't know of any "digital loudspeaker" or "digital class-A amplifier" manufacturers. perhaps you know better about those sort of things?

--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
nospam
2017-05-22 21:41:54 UTC
Permalink
In article <X6mdnSdUtpsHyL7EnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Fakey's
Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> >>there's no way you're going to convince me that you can ignore huge
> >>chunks of data in between the sampling points and come up with
> >>something "better".
> >
> >nothing is ignored.
>
> it most certainly is ignored.

nothing is ignored. you don't understand sampling theory.

> if i take a sample at times 1, 2, and 3 i can
> only make a guess as to what the amplitude of the signal is at time 1.5... or
> 1.58... or 1.599999999999999... and that's exactly what your digital players
> do, the "guess" at the signal in between samples.

nope. there is no guessing.

> i think you need to read
> up on "oversampling" in CD players. matsushita had something called MASH in
> their higher-end CD hardware.

you need to read about the basics of sampling theory and what
oversampling means.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-sigma_modulation#Decimation_structures
>
> all of this extra technology and signal processing, mind you, just to get a
> bit closer to the pure analog sound that was originally digitized.

nope.

> if you have to "guess" at what the signal amplitude is between samples, you
> don't have a "lossless" medium. period. all digital is lossless. 44.1kHz
> sampling rate is not better than being at a concert or hearing high-speed
> tape masters nor will it sound any better than virgin vinyl on a properly set
> up system.

it's not guessing.

> surely you don't think that digital recording of analog sounds is anything
> more than an auditory-pixelated (and by definition, lossy) representation of
> a continuous analog signal?

it's been mathematically proven that an input signal can be digitally
sampled and perfectly reproduced.

> >the fact is that digital audio surpasses analog audio in every way. you
> >can downgrade digital audio to sound like analog audio (by adding
> >distortion or pops or whatever), but you can't make analog sound as
> >good as digital.
>
> question. so how is it "digital" anymore when it's played back through
> analog equipment into a very real analog world moving analog air to vibrate
> our analog eardrums? i don't know of any "digital loudspeaker" or "digital
> class-A amplifier" manufacturers. perhaps you know better about those
> sort of things?

yes, the digital data is ultimately converted to analog so you can hear
it. so what?
Ron C
2017-05-23 02:40:39 UTC
Permalink
On 5/22/2017 5:41 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <X6mdnSdUtpsHyL7EnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, Fakey's
> Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>>> there's no way you're going to convince me that you can ignore huge
>>>> chunks of data in between the sampling points and come up with
>>>> something "better".
>>>
>>> nothing is ignored.
>>
>> it most certainly is ignored.
>
> nothing is ignored. you don't understand sampling theory.
>
>> if i take a sample at times 1, 2, and 3 i can
>> only make a guess as to what the amplitude of the signal is at time 1.5... or
>> 1.58... or 1.599999999999999... and that's exactly what your digital players
>> do, the "guess" at the signal in between samples.
>
> nope. there is no guessing.
>
>> i think you need to read
>> up on "oversampling" in CD players. matsushita had something called MASH in
>> their higher-end CD hardware.
>
> you need to read about the basics of sampling theory and what
> oversampling means.
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-sigma_modulation#Decimation_structures
>>
>> all of this extra technology and signal processing, mind you, just to get a
>> bit closer to the pure analog sound that was originally digitized.
>
> nope.
>
>> if you have to "guess" at what the signal amplitude is between samples, you
>> don't have a "lossless" medium. period. all digital is lossless. 44.1kHz
>> sampling rate is not better than being at a concert or hearing high-speed
>> tape masters nor will it sound any better than virgin vinyl on a properly set
>> up system.
>
> it's not guessing.
>
>> surely you don't think that digital recording of analog sounds is anything
>> more than an auditory-pixelated (and by definition, lossy) representation of
>> a continuous analog signal?
>
> it's been mathematically proven that an input signal can be digitally
> sampled and perfectly reproduced.
>
>>> the fact is that digital audio surpasses analog audio in every way. you
>>> can downgrade digital audio to sound like analog audio (by adding
>>> distortion or pops or whatever), but you can't make analog sound as
>>> good as digital.
>>
>> question. so how is it "digital" anymore when it's played back through
>> analog equipment into a very real analog world moving analog air to vibrate
>> our analog eardrums? i don't know of any "digital loudspeaker" or "digital
>> class-A amplifier" manufacturers. perhaps you know better about those
>> sort of things?
>
> yes, the digital data is ultimately converted to analog so you can hear
> it. so what?
>
You seem to avoid the term bandlimited in your responses.
Band limiting is a key to understanding sampling theory.

In the [Nyquist] limit the maximum rate of change is zero.
Thus at that limit NO change can take place between samples.

Conversely, at zero frequency the maximum rate of change
is Nyquist limited to half the sampling rate.

Think Heisenberg .. within the "band" you can't [within limits] know
the frequency AND amplitude at the same time.

[OK, maybe a bit of hand waving in that explanation.]
--
==
Later....
Ron C
--
RJH
2017-05-23 07:28:43 UTC
Permalink
On 22/05/2017 18:33, nospam wrote:
> In article <ofu5gm$t8r$***@dont-email.me>, RJH <***@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> you should tell him what version of lame you use to encode your
>>>>> 44.1kHz CDs. it might impress him.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be wasting my time. You already lost him at encode.
>>>> Maybe you can educate him on the amazing sound quality of vinyl?
>>>
>>> vinyl is nowhere near as good as what cds are capable of.
>>
>> By whichever technical measure you pluck from the air. The fact remains
>> that some people prefer listening to vinyl.
>
> this isn't about what some people prefer. people can listen to vinyl
> all they want. nobody cares.
>

Of course some people care.

> the fact is that the audio quality of vinyl is inferior to digital
> audio, just as film is inferior to digital photography, both of which
> can be mathematically proven.
>

Nope, can't agree. You suggested that 'vinyl is nowhere near as good as
what cds are capable of'. At what? Satisfying technical tests? Or
sounding good? Or is there something else?


>> Deal with it ;-)
>
> deal with the facts, that vinyl and film have both been surpassed.
>

Which is not the point. Some people still prefer the results - a
significant and growing minority in the case of vinyl.

Many things have been 'surpassed' - steam trains, CRT TVs, hifi in
general - even electric light, and don't get me started on food. Yet
many feel the original did a better job of doing what it was designed to
do.

The variables you choose and the method of measurement determine which
is 'nowhere near as good'. If you define variables as only those capable
of mathematical expression, then yes, we have a problem resolving this
'good' question.

--
Cheers, Rob
nospam
2017-05-23 16:46:41 UTC
Permalink
In article <og0o4u$uv2$***@dont-email.me>, RJH <***@gmx.com> wrote:

> >>> vinyl is nowhere near as good as what cds are capable of.
> >>
> >> By whichever technical measure you pluck from the air. The fact remains
> >> that some people prefer listening to vinyl.
> >
> > this isn't about what some people prefer. people can listen to vinyl
> > all they want. nobody cares.
>
> Of course some people care.

very few, if any.

> > the fact is that the audio quality of vinyl is inferior to digital
> > audio, just as film is inferior to digital photography, both of which
> > can be mathematically proven.
>
> Nope, can't agree.

it doesn't matter whether you agree or not. facts don't need your
approval to be correct.

the fact is that vinyl cannot reproduce audio as accurately as digital
audio and film cannot reproduce scenes as accurately as digital
photography can.

tl;dr - vinyl and film are inferior mediums. simple as that.

> You suggested that 'vinyl is nowhere near as good as
> what cds are capable of'. At what? Satisfying technical tests? Or
> sounding good? Or is there something else?

again, digital audio reproduces sound more accurately than vinyl can
ever hope to do. it's just how it is.

about the only thing vinyl can do better is that it can be used for art:
<https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/02/9b/67/029b678548516c7423f5
a63ad74c349c.jpg>

> >> Deal with it ;-)
> >
> > deal with the facts, that vinyl and film have both been surpassed.
>
> Which is not the point.

it is the point.

> Some people still prefer the results

this isn't about what someone prefers.

it's about an objective comparison of the quality and accuracy of two
mediums in reproducing sound.

> - a
> significant and growing minority in the case of vinyl.

nope. people are buying vinyl for nostalgic reasons, not for how it
sounds (and they often don't even listen to it).

vinyl sales are nowhere near as much as some might think. sales are up
*slightly* and remain almost nothing compared to other formats. even cd
sales are down, having been replaced with online music and streaming.

<http://4dpavshx5ly3quwy2v9yv83i.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uplo
ads/2015/01/vinylunits.jpg>
<http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea2acccd1d54e7c030000/music-
industry.jpg>

> Many things have been 'surpassed' - steam trains, CRT TVs, hifi in
> general - even electric light, and don't get me started on food. Yet
> many feel the original did a better job of doing what it was designed to
> do.

many people are wrong. nothing new there.

> The variables you choose and the method of measurement determine which
> is 'nowhere near as good'. If you define variables as only those capable
> of mathematical expression, then yes, we have a problem resolving this
> 'good' question.

i'm not choosing anything.

the simple objective and indisputable fact is that digital audio can
reproduce sounds more accurately than vinyl. period.

some people might prefer lower quality sound for whatever reason, but
that's their own *subjective* *preference*.
Loading...