The Stephen Desper Thread

[Susan]

I love this thread.  Even when i don't understand it, i love it.

[Stephen W. Desper]

Where in nature is 2.0 or 5.1?

Is nature Infinity.Infinity?

No. Natural sounds are almost exclusively real point sources (more like single-speaker mono). They are certainly not virtual points in space. From an attacking pride of lions to an entertaining pipe organ, all sources of sound are sigular sonic events.  Did you view the video I just posted?  That choir is a collection of many indivdual vibrating membranes, not two undulating layers of tissue at the extremes of the choir.  The human brain evolved to serve us in the perception of the acoustic reality in which we survive and find life experience. For 40 million years mankind has been perceiving spatial dimension assuming that almost every sound event is the source of the location of that sound event. For the last 40 years we have been playing around with stereophonic reproduction and virtual imaging. Which way do you think the brain has developed to experience?  Believe me, the methodology the human auditory system uses for creatring and presenting acoustic reality to our indivdual internal conception of the real world is not complimentary to two- three- or five-channels of surround sound. Since we are dealing with a total illusion here, we can use the brain's own techniques to append the illusion so it conforms to a more natural model -- a model the brain can make more sense of.  ~swd        

[ComicList]

If you really want to improve the sound of your PC (at least in streaming audio) you've got to start with the source.  Check out http://www.bluebeat.com or "digital done right at BLUE BEAT."  Your Rhapsody service downloads at 128k -- and then you want to band-aid some program to make it better?   Try Blue Beat downloads, at a huge 320k, to your secure MP3 -- that's real CD quality without the compression artifacts.

Am I an audiophile?  I suspect I may be not.  I've created an account on Bluebeat and I imagine, at 320k, the music will sound better.  Compared to 128k, it has to, though I don't know, once I'm actually able to hear music on Bluebeat, I'll notice the difference, given my 40 year old set of ears.  In the end, Rhapsody appears to offer more choices of bands and albums, plus I won't ever see this message while using it:

Cslepage's Music...is in progress.
A crate must contain at least three hours of music to be playable and shared with others.

Rhapsody lets me listen to one song without choosing three hours of music.

To use an example, I drive a Honda CRV.  I would have loved to buy a new one with a rocking stereo, but budget concerns led me to buy a used one without a CD player.  Instead of paying hundreds of dollars to get a quality CD player installed, I spent about $30 and have a Walkman with a car-listening kit.  A band aid, yes, but inexpensive and convenient.  There will always be a market for something like Rhapsody that, at ten bucks a month, allows you to listen to wide variety of artists and songs, as much as you want.  Yes, the bit rate is not quite CD quality, but when I've played songs from Rhapsody, or made CDs from Rhapsody, I've yet to find someone who has said it isn't CD quality.  But there again, most people are not audiophiles.

I also have a MP3 collection that for the most part is less than 320k.  Nothing but a band aid is going to make them sound better.

When you use Bluebeat, do you use the Windows Media Player SRS effects?

[Stephen W. Desper]

I've yet to find someone who has said it isn't CD quality.  But there again, most people are not audiophiles.

I also have a MP3 collection that for the most part is less than 320k.  Nothing but a band aid is going to make them sound better.

When you use Bluebeat, do you use the Windows Media Player SRS effects?

No, I use 360Surround Matrix. 

Your feedback is exactly why I've drifted away from the music business.  People are going backwards.  They don't care about fidelity, just cheap playlists.  It's quantity, not quality. I have found that I like the audiophile end of the business. It's the only place where music aficionados actually sit in darkened rooms and do one thing -- Good Listening, ~swd 

[ComicList]

I imagine there have always been those that have had less interest in fidelity than others. 

I care about fidelity.  However, I have limited access to the hardware and music that is of the finest fidelity.  I have to make do with what I can get my hands on.  Thus, the band aids.

I remember the days when I spent time in that darkened room you speak of.  Too many other things going on, and a growing inability to tolerate headphones as I get older, keep me out of that room for the most part.

[Mark Kidd]

MP3s are convenient and still the only digital format other than CDA that my discman plays, but that's only because it's gained ubiquity in the market. Even for lossly compression, MP3 is pretty weak sauce. The codec itself has been band-aided so it's more flexible than it used to be, but with the bandwith and storage space we have now something losess like FLAC is easy and maintains true fidelity to the bits on the CD.

FLAC is just one lossless codec, but it's a forerunner among the current options: http://flac.sourceforge.net/

[ComicList]

I have FLACS as well.

[Stephen W. Desper]

I imagine there have always been those that have had less interest in fidelity than others. 

I care about fidelity.  However, I have limited access to the hardware and music that is of the finest fidelity.  I have to make do with what I can get my hands on.  Thus, the band aids.

I remember the days when I spent time in that darkened room you speak of.  Too many other things going on, and a growing inability to tolerate headphones as I get older, keep me out of that room for the most part.

COMMENT TO CHARLES --
I am fortunate to have some good equipment around me.  What I'm saying is that you would think that in 40 years we would have improved sound reproduction many fold.  The CD player brought what a $1,000 LP turntable could produce to the average guy for $100. But most people still want 1000 tunes on their cellphone for playback while on the run.  Well, OK, there's lots of music in the archives to load up on.  Digital cable was to bring us better looking TV pictures, but instead it delivers more channels of crappy shows with the same limited resolution.  I know it's all going to change someday, but the FCC keeps delaying the date. Here's the bottom line:

I can assemble a good two-channel stereo sound system from Circuit City for around two grand.  That's a CD player, Amplifier/Receiver and two - fresh from Japan - speakers on stands. Use Monster cable hookup wire and interconnects. Buy 10 CD's for $150; and listen. 

I can go on ebay and buy a vintage (1960) Fisher C-500 tube receiver, a used Thornes or AR turntable and Shure cartridge, and a couple of old JBL, Bozak, EV, AR, Tannoy, Warfdale or whatever American/British speakers and elevate them on some milk crates. Use lamp cord and cheap interconnects.  Buy 300 LP's for $150 from a used clothing store; and listen.

Guess which music system will give me the most musical experience and be the cheapest investment. 

On the over hand, there are people who spend hundred's of thousand's of dollars and are never satisfied.

Take the time to travel into Audiophile Land by clicking here >>>  http://www.exoticaudio.org/index.html . Take the time and visit at least five pages. It's an amazing market.  Very diverse. 

I'm just saying that for all the time that has past, all the research that's been done, and all the effort which has gone into the capturing of sound, you would think we would have come further along with the fidelity part.   ~swd     

[ComicList]

Digital cable was to bring us better looking TV pictures, but instead it delivers more channels of crappy shows with the same limited resolution.  I know it's all going to change someday, but the FCC keeps delaying the date.     

Digital cable is sold as something wonderful, but all it is designed to do, as I understand it, is allow cable companies to deliver more channels to their customers.   It isn't meant to improve the quality of resolution one bit.  I could very well be wrong. 

Read this:  Cable operators use digital technology to compress video signals, allowing more than one program service to be carried in the bandwidth space normally required for one analog program service.  http://www.ncta.com/Docs/PageContent.cfm?pageID=91

They go on to say Digital television also allows cable operators and program networks to offer high-definition television.  We get some HD channels where I live, and they are wonder to view.  Just not much to choose from.

I think I've babbled enough about musical fidelity. 

[Stephen W. Desper]

Digital cable was to bring us better looking TV pictures, but instead it delivers more channels of crappy shows with the same limited resolution.  I know it's all going to change someday, but the FCC keeps delaying the date.     

Digital cable is sold as something wonderful, but all it is designed to do, as I understand it, is allow cable companies to deliver more channels to their customers.   It isn't meant to improve the quality of resolution one bit.  I could very well be wrong. 

Read this:  Cable operators use digital technology to compress video signals, allowing more than one program service to be carried in the bandwidth space normally required for one analog program service.  http://www.ncta.com/Docs/PageContent.cfm?pageID=91

They go on to say Digital television also allows cable operators and program networks to offer high-definition television.  We get some HD channels where I live, and they are wonder to view.  Just not much to choose from.

I think I've babbled enough about musical fidelity. 

Analog television in this country is to be phased out in 2007 -- been extended to 2011.  After that, all analog (regular) TV's will not receive a signal. Every transmitter will be digital ony. A converter to keep your old TV's going will cost about $100 per set.

I think this medication I'm on makes me depressed about the future -- or at least somewhat sour. 

Guess I need a dose of uplifting Beach Boy surf music !!    ~swd   

[mike thornton]

stephen, it's all about quality. i have maybe 30 cd's (even then i play mostly just one cd, that being mason william's phonograph record-my "be my baby"). i have far more vinyl, perhaps 75 and they are mostly classical. i find that vintage stereo gear is the most satisfying. i have those wharfedale speakers that you mention (1969), a denon tt with a shure cartridge (early 80's), and a kenwood kr-9940 (mid 70's). my equip sounds almost as good as some off the charts expensive audiophile stuff. but it all pales in comparison to my vintage yamaha plain jane acoustic that i write with. you'd think with the advances in "fidelity" reproduction that we'd be really close. but, i haven't heard it.

[Mark Kidd]

I have FLACS as well.

Sorry if I was making an assumption there. I was glancing at this thread at the same time as I was showing one of my friends how to install a flac codec for the first time.

[ComicList]

I have FLACS as well.

Sorry if I was making an assumption there. I was glancing at this thread at the same time as I was showing one of my friends how to install a flac codec for the first time.

No harm, no foul.  I've saved songs from CDs as flacs when possible. 

[Stephen W. Desper]

PICTURES FOR aeijtzsche --

Capitol Records' early Ampex recorders





I know you like the history of recording.

Do you know who ROSS SNYDER is?

 

How does that man in the yellow coat tie-in with The Beach Boys?

ROSS SNYDER is the inventer of Multi-Track recording, or as it used to be called "sel-sync" recording.

His first model went to Les Paul -- called "the octopus"

   

That's right.  Without his idea, popular music would be no where. 

It all had to start somewhere.  Travel back to those early days of recording and enjoy a little history lesson.
 
The following Link is to a series of fascinating interviews that will take you back to the very beginnings of recording as we know it today.  Hear accounts of making the first multi-track recorder, the first practical demonstration of stereophonic sound to the audio professionals, the first public showcase of stereophonic sound.  I think you will find all this history, as told by the very people who made it, most interesting.
  
ROSS SNYDER REMEMBERS (past Ampex product developer)

~swd
 

PS ========================================


First Video Recorder made by AMPEX

[/b]


Now they are incorporated into pocket telephones!!   ~swd

[absinthe_boy]

I'm just saying that for all the time that has past, all the