FLAC Support Coming to Chrome and Firefox this Month.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8

I make a point to hunt for free music offers, and I'll try to focus on jazz the next few times and see what I can come up with. There's got to be some company, somewhere, that gives away at least a track every now and then.

Thanks, Gtrs!

[GtrsRGr8]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

Yes, sir!

I should have said "unless," instead of "except."

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8

I should have said "unless," instead of "except."

If it happens again, I'll have to call 911.

[GtrsRGr8]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

If it happens again, I'll have to call 911.

Abuse of 911 is a crime, you know.

Does Peru have an extradition treaty with the U.S.?

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8

Abuse of 911 is a crime, you know.

Does Peru have an extradition treaty with the U.S.?

I'm working on it!

[GtrsRGr8]

I don't like to make posts of no news, but I still haven't heard from Naxos concerning the download issue(s) concerning their most recent FLAC offerings.

On a related subject, I received an automated message from Naxos wanting me to rate their customer service. Anybody want to weigh in? If so, I'll send them a composite answer, from the ratings that you guys suggest.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8

I don't like to make posts of no news, but I still haven't heard from Naxos concerning the download issue(s) concerning their most recent FLAC offerings.

On a related subject, I received an automated message from Naxos wanting me to rate their customer service. Anybody want to weigh in? If so, I'll send them a composite answer, from the ratings that you guys suggest.

You can use my comments as a composite answer. Hopefully (if they're open to constructive criticism), it will help them.

[GtrsRGr8]

Good News. I finally heard from Naxos and they said that they had put the album that I chose in a zip file (like they said they would) in Dropbox. Unless there is another glitch preventing me from opening and listening to the album, that will be all that I will say about the matter from here on.


ADDENDUM: Oh, I should have mentioned that the representative, Ms Saquing, did apologize for the delay in sending it.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

High resolution audio only wastes space

They can know. Xiph.org is the current maintainer of the FLAC encoder/decoder. The only reason why you want high-res audio is when you do editing and archiving. For listening, 16 bit resolution is enough, because the background noise ("tape hiss") is close to 0 already.

That's article is crap. Hi-res audio is not a waste of space. You don't need 24/192. But 24/96 is not a waste of space. 24/96 helps improve audio that's in the audible range that most people can hear.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

If Xiph.org, the current maintainers of FLAC state that 192/24 audio is useless for playback (and can actually be inferior), thus only wasting space, I tend to believe them.

Good mastering practices, such as not crushing the dynamic range to get the audio to play as loudly as possible, are FAR more important than a high bit depth.

Mostly what that article is saying is that 24/192 gives a possible dynamic range that can be damaging to our haring. It also says that since we cannot hear past 20khz that we don't need 24/192.

That article doesn't take into account the audio benefits in the range most of us can hear. It doesn't take it's account artifacts that can get into the audio at the top end when you use a cutoff point near the top end. It's scare mongering is what it is and it's mostly wrong when it comes to NORMAL music. I have never heard of any music recorded so dynamically that to hear the soft bits, you'd damange your hearing on the loud bits.

[JSWolf]

I know HDTracks has a sampler that they give away for free. The music is 24/96.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I have never heard of any music recorded so dynamically that to hear the soft bits, you'd damange your hearing on the loud bits.

Listen to some classical CD's. Some have parts so quiet, especially in the beginning, that you're tempted to turn up the volume. If you do however, the later parts blast your head off. They use the full dynamic spectrum of a CD.

A song in that same category is "Down to the waterline", by Dire Straits. It starts so quietly that if you turn op your stereo to hear the intro at a 'normal' sound level, it'll blast the roof off when the main part kicks in.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Listen to some classical CD's. Some have parts so quiet, especially in the beginning, that you're tempted to turn up the volume. If you do however, the later parts blast your head off. They use the full dynamic spectrum of a CD.

A song in that same category is "Down to the waterline", by Dire Straits. It starts so quietly that if you turn op your stereo to hear the intro at a 'normal' sound level, it'll blast the roof off when the main part kicks in.

I've never heard of any hi-res recording using dynamic range greater than that of a standard redbook CD. If such existed, word would get out.

So that article saying that 24/192 is a waste of space is saying things that aren't going to happen. As is said on Dad's Army, "We're doomed!" is incorrect. We are not going to get audio that dyanmic. And so what if some people cannot hear up to 20khz? The reason for 24/192 or 24/96 is that is also effects audio in the normal hearing range. I've seen the graphs for audio at 24/96 and 24/192 and yes, there can be sound past 20khz.

The problem with audio these days is not an over abundance of dynamic range. It's a squashing of dynamic range and upping the overall volume to the point where sometimes there is very noticable distortion. Having one of these recordings at 16/44.1, 24/96, or 24/192 is not going to make a bit of different on the dynmac range. It's still going to sound rather bad.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I've never heard of any hi-res recording using dynamic range greater than that of a standard redbook CD. If such existed, word would get out.

They don't, because it's not fun to listen to a recording that starts at 10 decibels and then goes up to 89 decibels (the official max of a CD).

So that article saying that 24/192 is a waste of space is saying things that aren't going to happen. As is said on Dad's Army, "We're doomed!" is incorrect. We are not going to get audio that dyanmic. And so what if some people cannot hear up to 20khz? The reason for 24/192 or 24/96 is that is also effects audio in the normal hearing range. I've seen the graphs for audio at 24/96 and 24/192 and yes, there can be sound past 20khz.

While you're correct, it's still a waste of space for 99.9% of people, because only the ones with the very best hearing and most expensive equipment in a specially designed listening room will be able to use the extra sound and dynamics. The CD is already better than what most equipment can play, and it's better than what most people can hear; so a FLAC at 16-bit/44.1 kHz is good enough for me.

The problem with audio these days is not an over abundance of dynamic range. It's a squashing of dynamic range and upping the overall volume to the point where sometimes there is very noticable distortion. Having one of these recordings at 16/44.1, 24/96, or 24/192 is not going to make a bit of different on the dynmac range. It's still going to sound rather bad.

And *THAT* is what the article is actually about: that higher resolutions don't provide the improvements people are looking for. Good mastering is what provides the improvement. If I buy older music, I always buy the oldest CD I can find, because back then (before 1995), CD's were mastered to not exceed the 89 dB max, and they were not squashed. Some of my newest CD's have brick wall mastering, and go up to 100 dB...

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

While you're correct, it's still a waste of space for 99.9% of people, because only the ones with the very best hearing and most expensive equipment in a specially designed listening room will be able to use the extra sound and dynamics. The CD is already better than what most equipment can play, and it's better than what most people can hear; so a FLAC at 16-bit/44.1 kHz is good enough for me.

And *THAT* is what the article is actually about: that higher resolutions don't provide the improvements people are looking for. Good mastering is what provides the improvement. If I buy older music, I always buy the oldest CD I can find, because back then (before 1995), CD's were mastered to not exceed the 89 dB max, and they were not squashed. Some of my newest CD's have brick wall mastering, and go up to 100 dB...

I agree that 24/192 is overkill. 24/96 is not. The real use of 24/96 is to get the best sound from the recording (depending on how it was originally recorded). 16/44.1 is going to be good enough for the victims of the loudness wars. I've heard some recordings that are just awful and would not benefit from being hi-res. But I have heard some hi-res recordings that sound very good. For example, Tom Petty's recordings. He had a hand in the mastering for hi-res release and they sound quite good and not flat at all. When recording an P to the computer, 24/96 is going to get more of the sound than 16/44.1. I'm not say 16/44.1 is lousy. It's perfect for audiobooks & loudness wars victims.

What I don't get is why ruin good recordings by remastering them to be flat?