PDA

View Full Version : Are mp3 master recordings allowed @TTD???


Soreballs
2007-05-06, 06:15 PM
Are mp3 master recordings allowed on TTD???

I know master minidisk recordings are allowed, but I'm unaware of mp3 recordings being acceptable on any lossless sites.

I've just downloaded one that appears to be a mp3 recording -
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=37813

The lineage posted indicates lossless source -

Lineage: iRiver Recorder> wav> FLAC

I can't find anything in the FAQ that say mp3 is acceptable @<hidden>, even if it's the only source.
I may be wrong, but I'd appreciate it if you could post the link to any such clause statement.

If a mp3 master is acceptable here @<hidden>, why aren't mp3 master recordings posted with the lineage mp3>WAVE>flac?

There's tons of other sites where mp3 can be uploaded as they truely are i.e mp3, without converting to WAVE then flac!

rhinowing
2007-05-06, 07:23 PM
iriver records in WAV if its rockboxed. that record is not mp3 sourced. mp3 sources of ANY kind are not allowed at TTD

LeifH12345
2007-05-06, 07:34 PM
Saying an MP3 source transferred directly to the computer, saved as wav and converted to flac is lossy is like saying a cassette recording handled the same way is lossy. There is no quality lost, and the torrent was pulled. Its not like it was saved as an MP3, then convert to wav> flac. It was saved as wav, then converted to flac.

mbself
2007-05-06, 08:09 PM
Saying an MP3 source transferred directly to the computer, saved as wav and converted to flac is lossy is like saying a cassette recording handled the same way is lossy. There is no quality lost, and the torrent was pulled. Its not like it was saved as an MP3, then convert to wav> flac. It was saved as wav, then converted to flac.

The answer is no. Not even if it is the only source of a show.

I too have struggled with these questions as I learned about this whole music trading community. I think the problem with allowing mp3 sourced materials (even if it is from the only known source of a show) is that there is no way to at least verify that a recording has never been compressed multiple times which will in very short order create a very poor recording.

If a recording begins life as an mp3 then it will never spectragraph out as full range (for the sake of most of the files here full range is considered about 20hz to about 20khz). mp3 files drop off at about 15khz to 16khz. if it is converted to wav then recompressed to mp3 it will suffer frequency loss again. not having a baseline full range frequency graph makes it impossible to monitor the purity of the trading pool.


With the growing number of tiny devices capable of recording mp3 files....it would be nice if there were some way to allow them if they are confirmed to be the ONLY KNOWN SOURCE.

However, I understand the policy whole heartedly. I have even returned a device I had purchased whith the intent of recording shows to post here because it only recorded mp3 files. I am now awaiting the delivery of the Zoom h2 when it becomes available.

rhinowing
2007-05-06, 08:29 PM
With the growing number of tiny devices capable of recording mp3 files....it would be nice if there were some way to allow them if they are confirmed to be the ONLY KNOWN SOURCE.
or you can just put these on dime :rolleyes:

LeifH12345
2007-05-06, 08:32 PM
if it is converted to wav then recompressed to mp3 it will suffer frequency loss again.
That is not the case.

mbself
2007-05-06, 08:47 PM
or you can just put these on dime :rolleyes:


Right. :D

mbself
2007-05-06, 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbself
if it is converted to wav then recompressed to mp3 it will suffer frequency loss again.


That is not the case.


I think it probably is......I am sure that one of the mod's or one of the more technically proficient members can probably produce documentation of this fact. I know that multiple compressions and decompressions produces further frequency loss and digital artifacts.

The very title of "lossy compression" suggests that something is lost in the translation.

The whole point of the lossless codecs (shn, flac, ape...) is so that no matter how many times you convert between wav and these types of file...the conversion back to wav always produces a carbon copy of the wav.

If I find time during the next week or so I will do a test conversion of an mp3 file to wav, take a spectragraph, then go wav>mp3>wav>mp3>wav and take another spectragraph and I can promise you there will be deterioration of the original signal.

If I do the same thing from flac>wav>flac>wav>shn>wav>ape>wav there will be a verifiably identical copy of the first wav in the chain.

LeifH12345
2007-05-06, 10:48 PM
You don't seem to understand. In this situation, the MP3 is like the cassette in the tape deck. It wasn't saved that way, it was re-recorded if you will, and saved as wav, then converted to flac and posted. There was no quality lost in the transferring and MP3 files were never involved.

rhinowing
2007-05-06, 11:00 PM
dude, wav>mp3>wav>mp3 is definitely worse quality than wav>mp3

Audioarchivist
2007-05-07, 03:47 AM
Recently, there was an mp3 master sourced Riders On The Storm show posted. It was most likely recorded in mp3 format originally. It was pulled for being lossy. Duh. But it's master was mp3, and there was no better recording made. I don't think it should have been torn down. I guess what it really boils down to is that mp3 is a lossy recording format. If it begins as an mp3, however, things are a bit different.
I am sort of in the camp that thinks if the master recording was an mp3, it ought to be ok, in that a cassette master is ok, or a MiniDisc as a master (ie:format originally recorded to live) is ok. Would an old bootleg vinyl album be turned away? 78 rpm recording? Wax cylindars? I think if it was originally the only recording format, as a master only, it should be allowed. Not encouraged, but allowed.

Having stated my opinion that mp3 masters should not be turned away, starting as an mp3 and converting to wav or flac or any lossless form is kind of a waste of space, I guess. Wasted in that as an mp3 to begin with is small by eliminating certain parts of the music, and bloating the size of the mp3 file to a wav, while not losing any of that original mp3 quality, it doesn't make it any better than the original mp3. It's way bigger, but never worse.

Going the other way, from wav quality to mp3 then back to wav, is definitely a big nono here, as most know. That's where the "lossy" stuff should get tossed in the trash. Going from CD wav audio quality down to mp3 lossy, there is no going back!

If only everyone could upgrade their recording gear to suit YOUR needs!

Sometimes, a shitty walkman was all there was to tape that show in 1978, instead of that Nakamichi deck. Today, sometimes a shitty mp3 recorder is all that's around right then to record with. If that's all there was, I'm gonna be happy with it until that 24bit/96kHz taper falls out of the sky!
While the files' data will be bloated for flac trading, as a master, I think an mp3 would do in a pinch, just as long as the taper promises to think about taping future shows on better gear!


If there's a vote to be had, I vote that the Riders On The Storm torrent (first show with their new singer) be re-allowed and reseeded!

LeifH12345
2007-05-07, 04:37 AM
Going the other way, from wav quality to mp3 then back to wav, is definitely a big nono here, as most know. That's where the "lossy" stuff should get tossed in the trash. Going from CD wav audio quality down to mp3 lossy, there is no going back!

That isn't the case though.

LeifH12345
2007-05-07, 04:39 AM
If there's a vote to be had, I vote that the Riders On The Storm torrent (first show with their new singer) be re-allowed and reseeded!
Yes. And I do plan on getting beter equipment, but for now, this should be fine.

Soreballs
2007-05-07, 04:57 AM
I'm glad I started this little debate.
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the whole concept of sharing recordings on lossless sites.

Mp3 is a recognised lossy format no matter what you do to it. There's no 2 ways about it.

The 'Riders On The Storm' recording was taped in mp3 format & does not belong on a lossless site; whether it's a master or not.

I gather from what the taper has said; he played back the mp3 in real time on his recorder, while capturing it to his harddrive with WAVE software.
I would say, that this method of conversion to WAVE, is probably worse than letting 'intellegent' software do the mp3 to WAVE conversion for you anyway.

I'm also sure the actual quality will now be lesser than the master mp3 because of the bloating.

There are numurous sites out there where this recording could be shared quite freely as mp3. Here @<hidden> is not the place!

It's great to share, but please share in the correct places & please supply the correct lineage info where appropriate!

Soreballs
2007-05-07, 05:05 AM
Yes. And I do plan on getting beter equipment, but for now, this should be fine.

I'm not familiar with iRiver H10, but I know some iRiver models can be upgraded with the 'rockbox' 'firmware' to enable WAVE recording.

Maybe some other knowledgable member here, might be able to shed some light on the situ before you shell out your hard cash for another recorder.

I can only personally wish you the best of luck :)

AAR.oner
2007-05-07, 06:51 AM
Saying an MP3 source transferred directly to the computer, saved as wav and converted to flac is lossy is like saying a cassette recording handled the same way is lossy. There is no quality lost, and the torrent was pulled. Its not like it was saved as an MP3, then convert to wav> flac. It was saved as wav, then converted to flac.
unless you've modded the iriver with Rockbox or similar, it records in a lossy compressed mp3 state [i.e. before it ever reaches the computer]...just because you then save the file as a wav on the comp does not make the audio lossless...all you have to do is run a SA and FA to see that

being "lossless" its not just about losing quality in the transfer process, its also about lost quality in the source itself...as i said, look at the SA/FAs and you'll see...yer recording, and any mp3 for that matter, typically has no activity above 15 or 16kHz...in other words, a big chunk of your spectrum, in this case the "highs", are completely cut out...and it is noticeable, despite what some folks say

as for our policy, we simply do not allow lossy material here at TTD...we appreciate you recording shows and being willing to share them, but from the beginning, we decided to dedicate this site to only the best quality, which in turn meant only allowing completely lossless recordings...there are numerous other BT sites that would allow the recording tho, and i encourage you to share it at one of those sites :thumbsup

AAR.oner
2007-05-07, 06:59 AM
You don't seem to understand. In this situation, the MP3 is like the cassette in the tape deck. It wasn't saved that way, it was re-recorded if you will, and saved as wav, then converted to flac and posted. There was no quality lost in the transferring and MP3 files were never involved.
just to clarify, the mp3 source and the cassette master are two completely different things...the mp3, as i explained above, does not include a large part of the frequency spectrum, where as the cassette does...therefor:
cassette > comp [recorded as wav] > flac = lossless
mp3 > comp [recorded as wav] > flac = lossy

it all comes back to the compression--no matter where the mp3 compression occurs, be it the source or in the transfer, it always results in a lossy recording

mbself
2007-05-07, 10:21 AM
You don't seem to understand. In this situation, the MP3 is like the cassette in the tape deck. It wasn't saved that way, it was re-recorded if you will, and saved as wav, then converted to flac and posted. There was no quality lost in the transferring and MP3 files were never involved.

I am with you to a certain extent......I think we may be out of phase a little bit in what we (you and I) actually agree and disagree on.

--I think that mp3's should be allowed as long as it is the only known source of the show.

--I think that IFmp3's are ever to be allowed there needs to be a way (fingerprinting or checksums or something) to verify an mp3 file as the original, unadulterated mp3 file. I am not swift enough to know how to do this. I think it would be obvious that any show recorded before say 1993 or so would have had little if any chance of having originated as an mp3 file. Maybe there should be a date requirement that states something to the effect of:

Any show taped after 2002 that was recorded as mp3 will be allowed provided it was recorded originally as 320kbps.

--I completely agree with this site's dedication to a more pristine audio pool. I think if TTD ever does decide to allow mp3 MASTERS there should be stringent controls and strict enforcement of bitrate and purity standards.

--If mp3's are ever allowed it should only be segregated to a different section of the traders den. An mp3 masters section with dedicated mods to monitor for bogus posts and sub standard technical requirements. Also, an approved method for packaging the file to protect the integrity of the performance should be adopted and strictly enforced.

mbself
2007-05-07, 10:30 AM
You don't seem to understand. In this situation, the MP3 is like the cassette in the tape deck. It wasn't saved that way, it was re-recorded if you will, and saved as wav, then converted to flac and posted. There was no quality lost in the transferring and MP3 files were never involved.


on this point we disagree....

it is not fair to say an mp3 file was never involved. The friggin show originated as an mp3 file. the recording software performed lossy compression to save the data in the recorder. Audioarchivist, or whoever, was right when he said it would have been better to allow good software to make the conversion than for an extra digital to analog to digital conversion to occur.

I do think that to most ears a 320kbps mp3 recording sounds as good (if not better due to the lower noise nature of a digital file) as a type I cassette recorded on an average tape deck. But if it ever is allowed, do not go from the mp3 player>line out>line in>wav>flac.....those are wasted steps and will introduce more digital artifacts.

sbornemann
2007-05-07, 01:35 PM
Lets take a different point of view. Say in 1969, a single fan recorded a Led Zeppelin concert in Lossy format. Even though its the ONLY recording of this concert, TTD says don't post it because the spectrum peaks at 15kHz? Even if it sounds better than 90% of all Lossless Zep boots? This might be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

LeifH12345
2007-05-07, 03:40 PM
Yes, like what if some unheard Robert Johnson recordings were unearthed somehow, and they were considered to be a "lossy master". Would those get pulled?

To clear things up, the recording I made was played through the soundcard of my computer, recorded and saved as wav. files.

LeifH12345
2007-05-07, 04:30 PM
I'm not familiar with iRiver H10, but I know some iRiver models can be upgraded with the 'rockbox' 'firmware' to enable WAVE recording.

Maybe some other knowledgable member here, might be able to shed some light on the situ before you shell out your hard cash for another recorder.

I can only personally wish you the best of luck :)
Right. Just did some googling and found that or a similar firmware that allows me to record as wav. So, any future shows posted by me that have the lineage: iriver recorder> wav> flac will indeed be wav> flac and no MP3.

LeifH12345
2007-05-07, 04:35 PM
BTW, the next show you should see by me is Roger Waters: GM Place 06-21-07.

Audioarchivist
2007-05-07, 05:46 PM
Baby with the bathwater. Exactly.
Discounting a perfectly good PERFORMANCE because it was recorded on something you don't like sucks.
It never makes sense to step down a recording to mp3 if it was cd/wav quality. If that option doesn't exist, an mp3 is not that different than a type 1 cassette recorded 30 years ago. Nagra reel recorders seem to show a spectral freqency graph like a MiniDisc. I'm a believer in cassette masters, but I know some tapes I've dealt with had shit for frequency response above 12000, nevermind the 15000 that an mp3 cuts off at. So you should ban my cassette ReMaster by those standards. Where does one draw the line?
Quality should be important, but putting quality above performance is wrong. Look, to me unless it's DVD audio quality or 24bit/96kHz, everything is lossy in digital versus a good clean audiophile analog signal path.
As our technologies baby step up to where they really should be, we have to allow old school stuff to exist, or we will turn our backs on the music we love.

mbself
2007-05-07, 06:53 PM
Yes, like what if some unheard Robert Johnson recordings were unearthed somehow, and they were considered to be a "lossy master". Would those get pulled?

To clear things up, the recording I made was played through the soundcard of my computer, recorded and saved as wav. files.


i would stop mentioning this.....it is a bad practice. let the software convert to wav----i agree that there are situations where mp3 sources should be allowed....i said so earlier, but never take a digital recording and play it through a computers soundcard to convert it to wav....all kinds of bad shite happens to the data when that happens...let some good mp3 software make the conversion....it is better that way.


If mp3 sources were to be allowed here it needs to be in a place dedicated to mp3 sources.......there is no legitimate reason to upconvert from mp3 to wav to flac or whatever just to put it into a "lossless" format. Since the recording ORIGINATED AS A LOSSY FILE it will never BECOME a LOSSLESS file. I do not care if your capture it through the most expensive a/d converter in the world it is still a lossy file.

We can debate if that matters in the real world, but whether an mp3 capture is in itself lossless....???....it is not. If Microsoft were to release their WMA lossless codec or if the mp3 people came up with their own lossless codec and realesed it to recorder manufacturers then we could talk about all of this.

I also agree that "lossless" is in the eye of the beholder. This site considers "full range" to be relative to the CD standard (red book or green book or blue book or whatver the hell). So by those standards mp3 is lossy becouse the original audio was not captured at a frequency response of about 20-20khz.

I would like to agree with others (including my self) who have noted that old typeI cassettes recorded on bad recorders with bad mics are not as good (and arguably more "lossy") than a good mic to a good mp3 recorder at 320kbps. I would argue that mp3 at 320kbps would probably be as good as many md sourced recordings. But even md sourced recordings are only allowed with certain stipulations.

I do see and sympathize with what you are saying. I wanted badly to be able to use mp3 to record a festival in my hometown this summer. It would have allowed me to record the whole think without having to change media between acts. But when I questioned, it wasn't allowed here. And I understand the reasons for this site doing this. Until there is a change, post your stuff elsewhere.

But do not continue sending the analog signal from your mp3 box to your soundcard. That is not only unecessary and slower than using software....it is bad for the audio and that is what this is all about.

Five
2007-05-09, 02:20 PM
No MP3 at TTD

we're like etree & STG in that way

this just isn't the site for it.

It would be a nightmare to moderate... I can see it now... "hey I got this 1976 Jethro Tull show from Limeware and it has never surfaced in lossless! enjoy!" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

In special cases we will make an exception, as here (http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=34245) but as a general rule just forget it. Seed it somewhere that's mp3-friendly (99.9% of the internet).

Five
2007-05-09, 02:23 PM
however, one thing I would like to discuss allowing are cell phone vids. thousands and thousands are shot every night, and show up transcoded on youtube. at a stadium show in a large city you can expect at least one quality audio taper to be there on any given night but with video there is usually nothing, just brief cell phone vids, like the silent 8mm films of the 70s except not silent.

dcbullet
2007-05-09, 02:44 PM
however, one thing I would like to discuss allowing are cell phone vids. thousands and thousands are shot every night, and show up transcoded on youtube. at a stadium show in a large city you can expect at least one quality audio taper to be there on any given night but with video there is usually nothing, just brief cell phone vids, like the silent 8mm films of the 70s except not silent.

How would the cell phone vids be packaged for torrent? A torrent of AVI/MPG files? I guess you could make a VCD out of them? :hmm:

U2Lynne
2007-05-09, 06:02 PM
I can see allowing cell phone vids as filler/alternate angles on a full length DVD, but you aren't going to get a whole concert all captured on a cell phone vid (there isn't enough space on a cell phone to capture a whole concert). What exactly are you suggesting, Jamie?

AAR.oner
2007-05-09, 07:53 PM
however, one thing I would like to discuss allowing are cell phone vids. thousands and thousands are shot every night, and show up transcoded on youtube. at a stadium show in a large city you can expect at least one quality audio taper to be there on any given night but with video there is usually nothing, just brief cell phone vids, like the silent 8mm films of the 70s except not silent.
like lynne said, i can see it useful as filler on a DVD for tape/battery changes [tho i prefer a photo montage]

but it might be opening up a can of worms we probly don't want to deal with if a bunch of partial shows/snippets started popping up...and honestly, the quality on 99.9% of em would be complete shite, way worse than a VCD

i'm not saying i wouldn't like to have one if it was well done for personal viewing, juse like a good quality mp3 master if it was the only known source...but i wonder if opening up the non-lossless gates would lead to a flood of headaches...the vines are bad enough :lol:

stantheman1976
2007-05-09, 08:03 PM
The Bottom line:

Sites like this were created to distribute recordings in the purest forms available. If any exceptions are made then this site loses its entire purpose and reason for existence. If MP3 masters or low quality videos were allowed to be shared here it would pollute the purity of the entire community of people who take this seriously.

I applaud the mods here for the dilligence(sp?).

With that said, I have no problems with MP3 for personal use. It's a revolutionary format and has changed th way we listen to music. However, you will never change the fact that MP3 is lossy. It doesn't matter if the source starts as MP3 or is converted down the line. During conversion information is thrown away and can never be regained.

Soreballs
2007-05-10, 04:32 AM
Thank you Five.

"No MP3 at TTD" :clap:

That's what people on this & all other lossless sites need to understand.
There are countless other sites to share mp3 at.

There is also another easy way of sharing them.......if you must!

Create a webpage where members of your own personal sharing community can post links to RaR or zip folders containing mp3, etc. These will have to be uploaded to online storage sites beforehand...........simple, effective & no share ratios involved.

The only downside I can see is if you have members of your little sharing community posting something malicious instead of mp3 :devil:

Five
2007-05-10, 06:41 AM
well this whole thread got me thinking about recent developments and where the future of state of the art trading will take us. I guess that allowing atrac MD aud recordings to be traded came from etree. Especially back in the 1990s MD was the only compact affordable option so a large number of concerts are only available from these lossy tapers. But that is no longer the case. I'm thinking we should have a cutoff date for them and after that only allow atrac MD recordings made before that cutoff. everybody's making the upgrade, and wav recorders are available in all price ranges. I was reading that you can get used edirol r-09s online for $55 these days. :cool:

So this got me wondering what new developments in recording technology have happened in the last few years and what trashy little tapes might be getting recorded on equipment that's "below TTD standard" so to speak. It seems almost every concert photo I see that shows the audience has a sea of cell phones held aloft (whereas it used to be lighters back in the day). Okay a lot of those are taking crappy little pictures that are probably not of much interest but many of them are shooting video, a couple minutes at a time here and there during the concert to catch some exciting part of the lightshow or a personal favorite song.

The people shooting these cellphone vids might upload them on youtube and link it in a discussion at the band's board or some fansite board and after a while these links sorta die out. Looking to the future, say the year 2042 when introverted teens are getting into some rare unreleased classic rock from the 00's I can't help but think how great it would be to get a hold of some of those many cell phone vids to document a little bit of the visual aspect of the show. Of course, a nicely-shot stealth video neatly authored to DVD is tops but those aren't showing up for every single show.

Like I was saying before, its llike 8mm was in the 70s, except a little better.

Check out this 8mm compilation from 1972:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=A07JZBBL

it jumps all over the place because the guy obviously didn't have enough film or the intention of filming the entire show, but wouldn't you want a little collection of these kind of vids to go with any audio show that you enjoy? These kind of little vids seem disposable now, but in 20+ years... :cool:

so as for what I'm suggesting, maybe a forum just for untampered cell phone videos on bittorrent/rapidshare with lineage. It would serve to preserve these clips better than everything getting transcoded to awkward flash videos and stuck on youtube for a brief time only.

I'm on a limb, looking for some input here...

dcbullet
2007-05-10, 12:40 PM
Five:

I was thinking about the Zeppelin 8mm shots yesterday when considering your proposal. I think your thought that people will enjoy seeing vids of bands today in 40 years is correct.

But I also want to look at the full picture. When making a comparison to 8mm clips from the 70's, that was state of the art back then. We've had discussions at the Hotel and it seems like the consensus that 8mm was pretty much the practical limit of what a consumer would be using back then. Video tape and 16mm was very, very expensive.

Now today, I don't think cell phone vids fit into that category. Video camera's are relatively inexpensive, certainly not out of proportion with general audio recording costs that we demand for audio.

So, yes, I am with you but still trying to reconcile with the overall goal of quality.

saltman
2007-05-10, 01:09 PM
Five - I like your thoughts regarding documenting these events for the future. I like others agree it would be hard to moderate. I also don't think they would work very well in the format of our site. Typically they are not too watchable IMO due to being handheld above your head and I think the torrents would quickly die. The only hope for preservation would be in the few that got them before it died. They work at youtube because of the nature of how long they are stored. I'm not sure what the answer is but I like your thinking.

trustthex
2007-05-10, 01:15 PM
it is an interesting premise, but these videos are recorded at 176*120 sometimes... phones are getting better now, so i guess we are starting to get better resolution. but im pretty sure the codecs used are shitty, and we damn well know the "cameras" are. 8mm film is still in an analog format (not to open that can of worms), but it can be scaled up in resolution... screen resolutions keep getting better and better. shite, 720x480 is already child's play when you get into nicer monitors, imagine what it will be in 40 yrs.

dont get me wrong, im just as much of an archivist as y'all... but cell phone videos look like crap now imho. i know my phone cant take decent video, or anything that i would find acceptable to share anyway.

btw, that 8mm footage is gnarly, thanks!

Chachi420
2007-05-10, 01:52 PM
I don't like the idea of cellphone vids. That is so much worse quality for video than mp3 is for audio.

Don't let ttd's standards go down. If they can afford a cellphone, they can afford a miniDV camera to do it up right.

AAR.oner
2007-05-10, 07:27 PM
allow me a film snob moment :cool: , but you can't even compare cell phone vid to 8mm when it comes to quality...8mm far exceeds it...not to mention, "grain" and "pixelation" are two separate things--the former i actually enjoy, the latter is just irritating...and as excited as i was/am to get the Pink Floyd 8mm dvd, i honestly probly won't watch it much...just sayin

but i think the idea is an interesting one Five...it would definitely be worth a go if it was a whole website dedicated just to that...sorta a youtube meets the Archive thing...but i still wouldn't want to see it incorporated into the den

Tubular
2007-05-10, 11:44 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but mp3's and MiniDisc's ATRAC don't just cut off the high frequencies. That is just the telltale sign in a SA/FA. They also get rid of information all throughout the spectrum by throwing out info deemed less important, or less noticeable. So the master cassette that cuts off at 15kHz and the mp3 that cuts off at 15kHz are very different. The cassette contains more info, not to mention that it is analog. Analog recordings contain more info than digital recordings, though the size and quality of the analog tape used makes a big difference. It would be interesting to compare (same mics, caps, preamps, cables, location) a purely digital DAT sourced recording w/ a good AD converter (Apogee) > lossless transfer with a master metal cassette recording on a Nakamichi high end deck > @<hidden> 24bit/192kHz capture. Also cassettes and reels can be transferred @<hidden> 100bit/500kHz or whatever 25 years from now. DAT's can't sound better if they are upsampled and bit expanded (to my knowledge).

sbornemann
2007-05-11, 12:13 AM
We all agree trading MP3s made from a lossless source is pure evil, but this discussion should focus on the best source. If given the choice of a good sounding recording from a MP3 recorder or a terrible sounding lossless version from a cheap tape recorder, deep down inside wouldn't you want the better of the two regardless of source?

The idea is to keep things pure, so we want "Source > WAV > FLAC". That's what should be shared, period. If the only source (or best source) is a high quality MP3, then why not consider it acceptable? If the arguement is all lossless sourced records have a full 20kHz tonal spectrum, that's easily disproved on this website and it's the elephant in the room nobody talks about.

Why ban a recording who's specturm ends at 16kHz and is the "best source", yet give an inferior, lossless sourced show a green light? I've read FM broadcasts are compressed (correct me if I'm wrong) which technically makes them lossy ... using TTD's rules they would have to be banned, too.

In conclusion, MP3s have a bad stigma, but calling all MP3s bad is outright audio bigotry. As audio historians, we'll deprive future generations by placing draconian rules on the Master or Best Source.

diggrd
2007-05-11, 12:36 AM
One caveat to the above would be "Source > WAV > FLAC" except if the source is mp3 if it starts mp3 it should stay mp3

Audioarchivist
2007-05-11, 01:43 AM
I guess that bloating an mp3 as is to over 10 times it's original size to share as FLAC/APE/SHN=WAV is as pointless as upsampling those dat tapes in the future to 128bit/256kHz or whatever crazy digital format we'll come up with in the future.
Here's a thought : what about if the mp3 file needed audio restoration work, as many old tapes do, and one performed lots of different post processing things that it needs at 32 bit floating point 96 kHz internal processing, and the resulting file it spits out was (now enhanced at "our" sample rates) cleaned and polished, and now properly mastered...
I know I've performed near miracles on many recordings. Things like adding reverb to a dry soundboard tape to match approximate room acoustics, multiband compression to punch up weak basslines without killing dynamics in vocals, etc...
The resulting file seems like new, and the additional information from the post processing stuff 'pads out' the missing information somewhat.
I'm not saying the original information that was left out will come back, but other similar relevant information would take most of it's place. Heck, some of that info is probably better than it's missing original info!
Case in point, I recently posted a dual MiniDisc audience matrix recording I made of Robert Plant in 2005. Both original recordings had flaws and distortions, but I was able to radically eq and multiband compress (as well as simulate a pass through a HQ tape source in a digital plug-in and run the signals through a tube preamp to further change the signal to a more analog sound) processing at 32bit float at 192 kHz then combine the 2 sources to a 16/44.1 mixdown file...
The results sound like it did to me when I was there, but the original files all sound like crap!

I don't know exactly what I think of am MP3 master. I think just upsampling them to wav is bloating. I think TTD should be free of inferior mp3 trades that could have been lossless and came from lossless. I also think an original recording at mp3 that was properly remastered could very well be as good as anything if it's the best source available (ie the only recording from those mics in that room that day).
Just to say 'never an mp3 no matter what' is elitist, and equivalent to audio racism.
Lots to think about...

Tubular
2007-05-11, 04:03 AM
I also think an original recording at mp3 that was properly remastered could very well be as good as anything if it's the best source available (ie the only recording from those mics in that room that day).
Just to say 'never an mp3 no matter what' is elitist, and equivalent to audio racism.
Lots to think about...

I tend to agree, esp. if it is the only recording from that night. Also "best sounding" is highly subjective. Where it gets tricky is when you have several sources from one show and some are recorded at different resolutions (some using lossy compression), locations, and microphone types. Let's say someone runs Neumann U89i's > Tascam HD-P2 @<hidden> 24/192 from the taper's section and someone else runs FOB stealth Oktava's or other good but lower cost mics (the only FOB stealth rig running that night) > mp3 recorder or MD ATRAC @<hidden>/44.1. Some people may prefer the boomier, more distant hi-res sound from the high $$ rig section tape, and some may prefer the up-close SBD-like sound (although lossy, lower res, and probably chatty) from the el-cheapo FOB stealth. (Also, some people prefer Schoeps DAT section tapes over Schoeps DAT stealth FOB's.) Does TTD ban the lossy compression FOB even though a lot of people may consider it to be the better sounding source? What about webcasts, which may be the only SBD ever available from a show?

AAR.oner
2007-05-11, 07:36 AM
Does TTD ban the lossy compression FOB even though a lot of people may consider it to be the better sounding source? What about webcasts, which may be the only SBD ever available from a show?
correct, we wouldn't allow the mp3 source show, even if SOME people considered it to sound better...and we don't allow webcast captures either

i think people keep missing our [TTD Staff] point...we're not saying all mp3 sourced shows are shite and you shouldn't collect them...nor are we saying people shouldn't tape shows if all they have is a mp3 recorder...but when TTD first started, it was decided to only deal with lossless recordings, strictly lossless...exceptions were made for MD(M) recordings, but you have to "find the line" and stick with it...

also, you gotta understand the amount of work that goes into moderating a site like TTD...there's about 15 mods [some of which can only pop in occasionally due to "real life" stuff] for over 70,000 members...right now there are close to 2,500 torrents alone, not to mention all the other shows seeded via vines/loops/snail mail trdaes/etc...its difficult enough to keep it all straight as is, but if we allow certain mp3 recordings, but not others, then you have a major nightmare on yer hands...other headaches that would arise would be the numerous people lying about their mp3 set being the only recording, and the research that would have to go into it to verify...there would have to be bitrate standards that all the people complaining about no-mp3s now would complain that 320kbps requirement is too high...and then and then and then.................you get the point

if you have a mp3 master recording by all means share it, just do so at one of the 1000s of other mp3-friendly sites...we're not trying to be snobs, we just found our line and are sticking with it

AAR.oner
2007-05-11, 07:52 AM
another lil something to chew on, if you wanna tape shows and seed em, take the time to save some $ for a few months and do it right...as someone mentioned previously, you can get a digital wav recorder for only a few hundred buckz now...its not like back in the old days where you had to have a good bit of money and audio knowledge...anyone with a few hundred buckz and some time to research online can make a halfway decent recording today...people keep talking about "preserving the shows for years to come" and "an mp3 source is better than no source at all"--but if we're truly interested in being archivists, wouldn't we record them in at least an uncompressed format?!

we get a lot of people who are so adamant about "having to tape" immediately and "need gear but only have 75 dollars to spend"--FORGET IT! its gonna sound like shite, sorry but thats just reality...take the time to save, research, and get the proper gear...i borrowed a recorder for almost a year before buying my own deck because i knew i wanted a higher end HD recorder with quality XLR pre's...sure i coulda bought a JB3 right away and dealt with those 1/8" inputs, but i waited and got what i really wanted--and it was worth it

basically, we don't all need an Earthworks > 744 rig, but buying an old shitty MD deck and a pair of unknown mini mics from ebay for 40 buckz is a waste...better to save for a few months and be happy with the gear you got for years to come...

:climbs off of soapbox: :lol:

direwolf-pgh
2007-05-11, 08:02 AM
In conclusion, MP3s have a bad stigma, but calling all MP3s bad is outright audio bigotry. As audio historians, we'll deprive future generations by placing draconian rules on the Master or Best Source.

:roflol: how high were you when you wrote this ?

( *if you truly are an audio historian for the National Archives, please accept my apology in advance )

direwolf-pgh
2007-05-11, 09:15 AM
^^ok that didnt add to the discussion..

the only reason mp3 exists is because 10yrs ago..we needed a way to stream audio via the Internet to computers & for people working with MIDI. MIDI needed small audio files to fit the small hard drives of the time (100MB - 400MB drives). The internet was at 14,400 bit/s.

thats it. The computer industry needed a reasonable compromise for audio. it was the best solution at the time (1995).


take Aaroners' (and others) advice - if you're somewhat serious about recording music today - get the right equipment.

Recording to mp3 makes no sense. Dont use entry-level 10yr old technology to record a show. get a nice portable tape deck or go high end digital.

sbornemann
2007-05-11, 09:37 AM
correct, we wouldn't allow the mp3 source show, even if SOME people considered it to sound better...and we don't allow webcast captures either

i think people keep missing our [TTD Staff] point...we're not saying all mp3 sourced shows are shite and you shouldn't collect them...nor are we saying people shouldn't tape shows if all they have is a mp3 recorder...but when TTD first started, it was decided to only deal with lossless recordings, strictly lossless...exceptions were made for MD(M) recordings, but you have to "find the line" and stick with it...

also, you gotta understand the amount of work that goes into moderating a site like TTD...there's about 15 mods [some of which can only pop in occasionally due to "real life" stuff] for over 70,000 members...right now there are close to 2,500 torrents alone, not to mention all the other shows seeded via vines/loops/snail mail trdaes/etc...its difficult enough to keep it all straight as is, but if we allow certain mp3 recordings, but not others, then you have a major nightmare on yer hands...other headaches that would arise would be the numerous people lying about their mp3 set being the only recording, and the research that would have to go into it to verify...there would have to be bitrate standards that all the people complaining about no-mp3s now would complain that 320kbps requirement is too high...and then and then and then.................you get the point

if you have a mp3 master recording by all means share it, just do so at one of the 1000s of other mp3-friendly sites...we're not trying to be snobs, we just found our line and are sticking with it

Now that's an excellent rebuttal, a lot better than "MP3s suck!". Hats off to the staff at TTD, keep up the great work.

Tubular
2007-05-11, 10:47 AM
Great explanations, thanks. Couple more questions:

analog FM radio (lossy, right?) > lossless digital recorder, MD or cassette is allowed

is digital XM (lossy) or Sirius satellite radio (lossy) > lossless digital recorder, MD or cassette allowed?

is the upcoming terrestrial digital HD FM (lossy) or HD AM (lossy) > lossless digital recorder, MD, or cassette allowed?

I really don't see much difference between a lossy webcast and a lossy digital radio broadcast, except maybe higher bitrates with the radio broadcast.

Finally, when are we going to get a lossless video codec? Are any of the video codecs used for HD-DVD or Blu-Ray lossless? From what I've read, MPEG2 is lossy and according to wikipedia, miniDV is lossy: "DV uses DCT intraframe compression at a fixed bitrate of 25 megabits per second (25.146 Mbit/s)...DCT compression is lossy, and sometimes suffers from artifacting around small or complex objects such as text." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniDV

AAR.oner
2007-05-11, 04:22 PM
i'm gonna leave the FM issues to someone else who's more familiar, because all i know about XM/Sirius is that it sounds like shite :lol:

re: MPEG2--yes it is "lossy", since it utilizes compression...miniDV is compressed, as is HD...but you can't really compare video compression to audio compression, it's a whole different animal...in layman's terms, there is no such thing as lossless video, and i don't see it happening anytime soon--maybe 50 yrs down the road, but even then i doubt due to other issues we'll skip for now...basically, the amount of data raw video would take up would be ridiculous and the "cons" would far outway the "pros"...

i will note--when it comes to MPEG2 compression, i do believe the program used makes a difference...some perform far better than others in terms of artifacts, video noise, etc...and it goes without saying, the bitrate plays a key role as well...video compression is definitely a "you get what you pay for" thing

schmoe75
2007-05-11, 07:13 PM
Finally, when are we going to get a lossless video codec? Are any of the video codecs used for HD-DVD or Blu-Ray lossless? ]
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Description=blu+ray
Burner: $500-$3000
Blanks: $13-$40 (per disc)
Finally, how many people have a HD w/ 25 gigs of free space (though externals are getting cheap)
How do u propose torrenting a 25 gig set, much less a 50 gig show (with the current average upload capabilities of 30-60kbs for most people)?

Tubular
2007-05-11, 09:26 PM
I'm looking forward to high definition video torrents. Maybe in 3-5 years when prices on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray discs and burners come down, more people get fiber-optic internet, and hard disk storage becomes cheaper it will be feasible. It will really benefit shows captured from HD-TV, transferred from film, shows taped with new consumer HD-video cameras, or shows taped on miniDV (480p, plus that 25 Mbps could be fully utilized). I don't know how much better a show recorded on VHS, beta, or Hi-8 would look when transferred at higher bitrates to high definition as opposed to DVD. I guess I'm fine with a lossy video codec as long as it looks amazing; all digital is lossy (whether uncompressed or losslessly compressed) compared to analog (film or analog tape). Audio codecs like DTS HD master lossless (lossless compression, 24bit/96kHz x 5.1 ch) for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are a big step up too.

Tubular
2007-05-11, 11:57 PM
Phish 12-31-1999 25 gigs, 1166 completes :lol:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=19876

If bandwidth usage were so restricted and quick downloads were so important, we would all be listening to mp3's and watching VCD's or Xvid mpeg4's.

Tubular
2007-05-12, 12:56 AM
This would solve a lot of storage problems: 50 Terrabyte DVD's (50,000 gigs)
http://in.tech.yahoo.com/060708/139/65pz8.html

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :D :D

schmoe75
2007-05-12, 01:34 AM
Phish 12-31-1999 25 gigs, 1166 completes :lol:
Seeded: 03-28-06, 07:41 PM
It's only been up for a year+ ...and it was initially seeded by 4-6 people simultaneously, several of which had T-line connections...in addition to:
.......
18.125.0.xxx(49000) 12:49:20 25.65 GB dL 245.79 GB UL 9.58 100.00% 8.05 MB/s helping out after initially completing.

Unless you know a mass of people who have access to upload at 8 Mbs.....good day

Tubular
2007-05-12, 01:56 AM
I guess multiple initial seeders (cable ,dsl, fios, t1, t3, whatever) and lots of snail mail trades are the answer. High Definition's quality is worth the space, discs, and bandwidth in my opinion, especially something transferred from 35mm or 70mm film > 1080p or an HDTV broadcast captured at 1080p or 1080i, or an audience shot high def camera at 1080i (tripod, DAUD synch of course). If my ISP limited me to only a couple high def concert video downloads/uploads a month, it would still be worth it. So what if it takes weeks to download and then upload the same amount, it's high def!

KoolKat
2007-05-12, 06:48 AM
How do u propose torrenting a 25 gig set, much less a 50 gig show (with the current average upload capabilities of 30-60kbs for most people)?

:lol yeah...can you picture it chap.

Excellent quality
Size 32 Gb
NTSC
Running time: 4 minutes(approx)

:lol

K_K

Five
2007-05-12, 03:03 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but mp3's and MiniDisc's ATRAC don't just cut off the high frequencies. That is just the telltale sign in a SA/FA. They also get rid of information all throughout the spectrum by throwing out info deemed less important, or less noticeable. So the master cassette that cuts off at 15kHz and the mp3 that cuts off at 15kHz are very different. The cassette contains more info, not to mention that it is analog. Analog recordings contain more info than digital recordings, though the size and quality of the analog tape used makes a big difference.
this is a key point

here was my last tape with MD (atrac) compared to my first tape with Hi-MD (wav):
http://rapidshare.com/files/30942071/MDtoHIMDupgrade.flac.html

it was a different room but everything else was exactly the the same, the mics and everything. The atrac deck was pricy in its day (around $400) but these days you can get a wav recorder for less than that, as low as $55 used! In the $400 price range you could just about afford an m-audio microtrack2496 which is a rolls royce next to the pinto that is oldschool atrac md. Atrac MD is so fucking shit you have to record it thru your soundcard to get a digital copy of the recording you made! :headbang2

with regard to "only available source" there is some merit to the concept and somebody should keep tabs on cell phone vids, md, mp3 etc recordings but its just too much for us to handle and not at all the correct direction for TTD.

What do you guys think about a cutoff date for old ATRAC MD recordings, where after that date anything recorded ATRAC is no longer allowed?

Five
2007-05-12, 03:14 PM
Great explanations, thanks. Couple more questions:

analog FM radio (lossy, right?) > lossless digital recorder, MD or cassette is allowed
analog FM radio > MD = not allowed

is digital XM (lossy) or Sirius satellite radio (lossy) > lossless digital recorder, MD or cassette allowed?
no. too crap.

however, it is worth mentioning that are no longer very careful about checking the lossy/lossless broadcast quality of the station so long as it is captured from the open-air not streaming internet shite.

is the upcoming terrestrial digital HD FM (lossy) or HD AM (lossy) > lossless digital recorder, MD, or cassette allowed?
is that an open-air broadcast? (recording to MD not allowed either way)

it sounds strange, but that is how we've been doing it.

I really don't see much difference between a lossy webcast and a lossy digital radio broadcast, except maybe higher bitrates with the radio broadcast.
yes, much higher bitrates. some shows will be webcast simultaneously with a traditional radio broadcast, and although *most* modern broadcasts are lossy they are a hundred times better than a webcast.

Finally, when are we going to get a lossless video codec?
still waiting... there is lossless video, but not lossless audio to go with it, you're stuck with wav for the time being. I read some guy was working on it but its probably 3+ years away from being ready.

trustthex
2007-05-12, 03:15 PM
What do you guys think about a cutoff date for old ATRAC MD recordings, where after that date anything recorded ATRAC is no longer allowed?

i think it should be a moratorium going forward... give everyone who still tapes in md (myself included) time to upgrade their decks; i know that there are at least a few others on this board who tape in md. maybe this would even need its own topic. i know there are plenty of cheap solutions, but i spent enough on my md, i want to do the same on the digital i am going to buy...

perhaps july '07, or 01/01/08?

also, what is etree's current policy (just curious)?

Audioarchivist
2007-05-12, 05:14 PM
i think it should be a moratorium going forward... give everyone who still tapes in md (myself included) time to upgrade their decks; i know that there are at least a few others on this board who tape in md. maybe this would even need its own topic. i know there are plenty of cheap solutions, but i spent enough on my md, i want to do the same on the digital i am going to buy...

perhaps july '07, or 01/01/08?

also, what is etree's current policy (just curious)?
So, are you proposing all MD recordings get banned no matter what? I think that's nuts. At least as far as the MD masters I've made for the past 6 or 7 years now.
So, would this mean that MD master posts already put up would get banned?
If you start to do that, I'm just going to fold.
As Cartman says: "Screw you guys, I'm gong home..." :lol:
In all seriousness, I really do have lots of MD stuff and Cassette stuff still to go through and ReMaster. It'd be a real shame if the policy got changed to : not even an older MD master is good enough for you.
I do agree that MD is not the best, but come on. Every digital representation of any recording is lossy compared to any analog signal. Imagine smooth round sine waves being represented by square staircase-like steps. Higher resolutions just make smaller steps, but that round curved sinewave is still translated to 90 degree angles, just smaller steps that fool us a bit better.
I would love to upgrade when I can afford to, but I don't have that income level that lets me do that right soon. Wanna loan me the dough to buy one? I'll pay back eventually! Then again, I'm not planning on taping anything in the next while, anyway. As far as older MD recordings go, they are what they are, and if they as masters aren't good enough (at least in the historical documentation sense) like they are now, I suggest that you should perform some aerial fornication with fried pastry products (Go take a flying f^ck through a doughnut hole!) :D



Please take this as a homourous attempt to say something serious.


BTW, if I'm not mistaken (not that it matters that much) but ATRAC records at 24 bit. MD can be directly transferred digitally from ATRAC to WAV without going through a soundcard (if you have the right deck, which I don't, but...)
:tunes:

trustthex
2007-05-12, 05:19 PM
no, no, i wasn't proposing banning them period, i was saying if they are going to ban md/atrac recordings, they should set a date in the future where no new recordings are allowed so that we have time to get new gear...

for example:

smashing pumpkins
01-02-2008
american airlines
dallas, tx
source: mics > pre > md

would be illegal

smashing pumpkins
11-22-1996
the pyramid
memphis, tn
source: mics > pre > md

would not be

Tubular
2007-05-12, 05:40 PM
this is a key point

here was my last tape with MD (atrac) compared to my first tape with Hi-MD (wav):
http://rapidshare.com/files/30942071/MDtoHIMDupgrade.flac.html

it was a different room but everything else was exactly the the same, the mics and everything. The atrac deck was pricy in its day (around $400) but these days you can get a wav recorder for less than that, as low as $55 used! In the $400 price range you could just about afford an m-audio microtrack2496 which is a rolls royce next to the pinto that is oldschool atrac md. Atrac MD is so fucking shit you have to record it thru your soundcard to get a digital copy of the recording you made! :headbang2

with regard to "only available source" there is some merit to the concept and somebody should keep tabs on cell phone vids, md, mp3 etc recordings but its just too much for us to handle and not at all the correct direction for TTD.

What do you guys think about a cutoff date for old ATRAC MD recordings, where after that date anything recorded ATRAC is no longer allowed?

I listened to that sample clip and the difference is huge, but it is apples to oranges in my opinion. A different room can be a big factor, plus the band might have been using a better PA system and better equipment. Have you tried comparing it like this:

Same recording, room, date:

Hi MD > wav > FLAC vs. Hi MD > wav > 256 kbps mp3 w/Lame or Blade encoder

A lot of people (including me) would be hard pressed to tell the difference. I just made a bunch of mp3's (Blade at 192 kbps) from my CD studio albums (mostly rock) for my bro (he's not an audiophile and has an iPod, so mp3's are fine for him) [Side note: would the mp3's I made have to be transcoded to Apple's lossy format, thus reducing quality further?] I could barely tell the difference between the extracted wav's and the encoded mp3's listening through my computer's analog out > $50 Sony headphones. The wavs were a tiny bit more robust. Maybe if I had compared the two on my decent home stereo I would have noticed a bigger difference.

You have to record ATRAC MD through your soundcard to get a digital copy? You mean like a real time DAT to soundcard transfer using digital inputs and outputs or do you have to use the MiniDisc's analog out > soundcard's analog input?

Tubular
2007-05-12, 06:38 PM
So some analog FM broadcasts are not lossy? I believe all digital over the air broadcasts are lossy, whether they are satellite or terrestrial (ground based). The data rate needed to make them lossless would be too great I think. The new HD FM and HD AM signals will be transmitted along with the traditional analog AM and FM signals. They claim that HD FM will approach CD quality and that HD AM will approach analog FM quality. The greatest benefit will be for AM in my opinion, because analog FM already sounds good. Now I'll get to hear Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly spew their pro-Iraq war pro-Bush propaganda in high definition :rolleyes:

Tubular
2007-05-12, 07:08 PM
I should add that a new reciever or boom box with HD AM and HD FM decoding is needed to hear the digital signals.

Audioarchivist, don't pack up and go home, your cassette masters if they are transferred @<hidden> 24/96 might beat similar DAT recordings.

Audioarchivist
2007-05-12, 07:12 PM
You have to record ATRAC MD through your soundcard to get a digital copy? You mean like a real time DAT to soundcard transfer using digital inputs and outputs or do you have to use the MiniDisc's analog out > soundcard's analog input?
Yes, I do. On my units, there's a digital in, but no out, but maybe for the home decks there is. The newer MD portable recorders had (well, HAVE) a mini-USB plug to connect to computer. Back in the day, I bought one, but at that time there was no Atrac>wav codec available, so I returned it to the store. It was all for saving your mp3's to the MD for playing portable... not to record MD and digital xfer it back.
I believe now the codec has been released, so digital MD>wav is possible for those capable. I am not. Analog out for me. MiniDisc 24 bit 44.1 Atrac digital record > analog out > computer 16 bit 44.1 wav record is what I gotta do.

Tubular
2007-05-12, 07:28 PM
Even cassettes recorded on a lower end deck in which the spectrum cuts off at 15, 16 or 17 kHz aren't too bad (except maybe for lack of lower bass response) because once people get past their teenage years they can't hear above 16 or 17kHz anyway. I forget what country it was, maybe England, but this building or shopping mall used to have a big problem with rowdy teens hanging out around the outside. So they installed a device that emitted high frequency noise. Anybody above the age of 18 or 19 coudn't hear it, but all the younger teens couldn't stand the noise and stopped hanging out there. Problem solved.

Five
2007-05-12, 07:57 PM
yeah, there's a couple older home MD decks with a digital out so it is possible to record it with a direct digital connection (in real time, of course :rolleyes: ). The new hi-md decks are compatable with the old atrac MDs but don't let you bring it into your computer from the usb unless it is wav and maybe the highest quality setting of lossy (and only if it was recorded on the hi-md with the latest codec).

best deck I've ever recorded on was a sony wm-d3 (cassette). the eq curve is beautiful, drops off at just about the same as commercial releases (!) ... the common digital stuff being taped today sounds a little icy to me.

Tubular
2007-05-12, 08:12 PM
the common digital stuff being taped today sounds a little icy to me.

This is also due I think to the really cheap 1 bit AD converters used in some recording setups and then the really cheap 1 bit DA converters used in a lot of CD players.

http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

"The vast majority of A/D-converters used in PCM recording for conventional CD are 1-bit converters with high sampling frequency"

Then it must be better to keep the signal in DSD-format (SACD) than convert the signal to PCM (CD/DVD-A)?

IÍ: Yes, that is correct, but is it relevant question? The CD-system seems worse than it is when used with a one-bit converter. The problem is not the conversion from a one-bit converter to PCM but the one-bit converter itself!

Besides, the one-bit converters used in CD-players usually have higher resolution than DSD, which only samples 64 times faster than CD-system sample rate (i.e. DSD sampling rate = 2.8 MHz). The low sampling rate in DSD is used because of the systems ineffective coding and lack of storage space. By packing the information it becomes a bit more effective but it still is ineffective compared to PCM.

One-bit converters for CD-players often use sampling rates between 11 and 50 MHz. The best one-bit converter probably is JVC's PEM-DD and it is much better than DSD. This said with reservation, I might have missed some even better one-bit technology than PEM-DD. But as far as I know this is the technology that comes closest to true multi bit technology in resolution."

Audioarchivist
2007-05-12, 08:21 PM
Aah! What I would give to get my old Sony WM D3 Professional Cassette Recording Walkman back!!! Built in mic preamps were to die for, plus the bonus that tape can eat an overdriven signal, so way less distortion issues.
I switched over to MD so I could get two of them, so I could easily record ambient audience and soundboard, and quickly (well, sort of quick, at least easily) do aud/sbd matrix recordings... Easy to sync - drag and drop at 80 minutes at a time.
I've done lots of recording of friends in bands, as well as plenty of touring musicians through the years with this method. Even the crappiest sbd mixes help the ambient room mics sound up front and close. Officially sanctioned recording or stealth bootleg situations (no sbd there!) I still like to run 2 decks off 2 mics to stagger the inevitable disc flip in the middle of a song - at least one deck got that!
It's nearly impossible to keep phase issues out of sync-ing an analog tape (WOW and flutter = speed/pitch drift) versus almost any digital source.
Actually, what I'd do for a nice multitrack 8 in/8 out sound device and a laptop! Portable live multitrack rig...
The MD way I went was a low budget way to achieve this, years before it was so common.

Five
2007-05-13, 01:46 AM
^seems like the sync on that would be a little iffy but I'll take your word for it. much better to do on a 4-track (or +) where there is only one clock and internal synchronization. I've done recordings similar to that as well, sounds really good when you put it together, I like to get the bass as dry as possible by rolling it out of the aud portion :thumbsup

So some analog FM broadcasts are not lossy? I believe all digital over the air broadcasts are lossy, whether they are satellite or terrestrial (ground based). The data rate needed to make them lossless would be too great I think. The new HD FM and HD AM signals will be transmitted along with the traditional analog AM and FM signals. They claim that HD FM will approach CD quality and that HD AM will approach analog FM quality. The greatest benefit will be for AM in my opinion, because analog FM already sounds good. Now I'll get to hear Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly spew their pro-Iraq war pro-Bush propaganda in high definition :rolleyes:
when I say "lossy" in this context it is referring to mp3 or mp3-like codecs. The radio stations that have been broadcasting since long before mp3 or anything like it existed (eg BBC) are now broadcasting a lossy signal. maybe they need to conserve HD space?? :hmm: If you've got some samples of this new HD FM / HD AM signals for comparison to recent analog broadcasts and if it is superior as you say then perhaps we should consider allowing it here..

Five
2007-05-13, 02:31 AM
I listened to that sample clip and the difference is huge, but it is apples to oranges in my opinion. A different room can be a big factor, plus the band might have been using a better PA system and better equipment. Have you tried comparing it like this:

Same recording, room, date:

Hi MD > wav > FLAC vs. Hi MD > wav > 256 kbps mp3 w/Lame or Blade encoder

A lot of people (including me) would be hard pressed to tell the difference. I just made a bunch of mp3's (Blade at 192 kbps) from my CD studio albums (mostly rock) for my bro (he's not an audiophile and has an iPod, so mp3's are fine for him) [Side note: would the mp3's I made have to be transcoded to Apple's lossy format, thus reducing quality further?] I could barely tell the difference between the extracted wav's and the encoded mp3's listening through my computer's analog out > $50 Sony headphones. The wavs were a tiny bit more robust. Maybe if I had compared the two on my decent home stereo I would have noticed a bigger difference.
you're keen, the comparison was a little unfair because the room that atrac recording was made in is terrible to record in. I did another show there recently with a different deck and it also sounded like crap. but at least it didn't have that swish swish swish on the cymbals. you can really hear the swish on the atrac md recorders, which is puzzling because the frequency response is close to the best settings possible for mp3 but doesn't sound as good.

most ppl can't tell the difference at all even with 128kbps mp3s, certainly can't tell with 192 and higher. In an a/b you can tell that one is a little better than the other if you're really looking for it, and as a taper I want that little bit of quality in there if I can get it. but any atrac md recording I've made or downloaded I was always disappointed with the sound quality and can hear the swishing. A few years ago I couldn't tell the difference but now it drives me crazy. I especially hear it because I play close attention to the drums and the cymbals really slur.

More discussion is necessary, but I'm thinking that we should have a cutoff date of 2008-01-01. Everything from '92-'07 is okay but new MD recodings in 2008 and beyond are banned. That gives everybody time to upgrade their decks, maybe drop some hints to loved ones what you want for Christmas 2007.

Tubular
2007-05-13, 05:54 AM
^
when I say "lossy" in this context it is referring to mp3 or mp3-like codecs. The radio stations that have been broadcasting since long before mp3 or anything like it existed (eg BBC) are now broadcasting a lossy signal. maybe they need to conserve HD space?? :hmm: If you've got some samples of this new HD FM / HD AM signals for comparison to recent analog broadcasts and if it is superior as you say then perhaps we should consider allowing it here..

I'm not sure what kind of compression analog FM signals use, but they obviously don't sound as good as CD's (ignoring the freq. response differences). If you compared these:

#1) Cream "White Room" on Onkyo model #900 CD player > low pass and high pass filter to simulate FM's freq. response > Onkyo model #2500 receiver > Polk model #500 speakers

vs.

#2) Cream "White Room" on Onkyo model #900 CD player > analog FM transmitter > Onkyo model #2500 receiver w/good FM stereo reception > Polk model #500 speakers

#1 would always win. This indicates some type of lossy analog compression or signal loss to me. I doubt any radio station plays mp3's made from CD's as source material for their broadcasts. An exception may be made for voice clips, and one time about a year ago I heard a FM station broadcast a leaked-to-the-net track from GNR's upcoming Chinese Democracy (will it ever see the light of day?). I could tell the GNR track was a low bitrate mp3 because of all the wind-chime effects in the highs.

OK I did a little reading about HD AM and HD FM radio and the consensus is that it does use lossy compression although it wouldn't state it explicitly:

http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=12194&pg=1

"How does the system work? First, the audio content is digitized and then compressed, according to iBiquity's HDC codec, to reduce the overall bit rate and required transmission bandwidth. Next, the signal is multiplexed with the other digital data to be transmitted."

The digital signals share bandwidth with the analog signals. From what I read there isn't enough bandwidth available in the FM and especially AM bands to be able to deliver lossless compression, much less true high definition (24/96 or 24/192 x 2 ch or 5.1 ch). It will still be 16/44.1. The freq. response of analog AM sucks, that is why it is inhabited primarily by talk radio stations now. HD digital AM will improve the frequency response to that of analog FM, and HD digital FM will sound like a mid-quality mp3 (is that better than analog FM? Not in my opinion). There is a lot of controversy about this new format and a lot of the comments below the main article are great.

I am not a luddite, I love the convenience of the internet and downloading music and movies. Taping and trading has taken a huge leap forward from the days of real time copying cassette tapes and generational loss of quality. However, a lot of the "improvements" of the digital age are just a marketing scheme utilizing planned obsolescence. First CD's come out, and many touted its compact size and great sound (dubbed "perfect sound forever" ). A lot of audiophiles thought they sounded harsh and lifeless, dubbed them lossy, and continued to listen to the gorgeous, lifelike sound of their stereo vinyl LP's. Then SACD's (inferior to CD's at high frequencies because of its flawed 1 bit system) and DVD-Audio (a definite step forward) came out. I bet that every ten years or so in the future they will incrementally step up the quality of digital audio (and video too) by using a higher bit depth/sample rate, so that people will re-purchase albums recorded in analog and buy new source components. Digital cameras are a big improvement, right? No more pesky film to buy and deal with, no more trips to the developer to pick up prints. Except experts agree that film-like quality won't be achieved until cameras have about 20 megapixel resolution. When dig cameras first came out what were they, like 1 megapixel, if that? Every new year's models had incremental improvements of like .5 megapixel. It's a MFing rip-off!!! All those DVD's that have been sold over the last 10 years, obsolete. CPU processor speeds lurched forward at like 20 MHz increments at one point. Was this all because research and development hadn't caught up yet? No, they were holding back the best stuff to release later!! ::Rant over, continues to DL and UL obsolete DVD's::

A great post from the terrestrial HD Radio article:

I have had a 27 year career as a broadcast program director and engineer, mostly of classical music stations that featured superb audio quality. The reason that I *no longer listen to FM radio* is because of multipath. Our American FM stereo system, adapted all over the world, is a defective process using a noisy, interference prone amplitude modulated "difference" subcarrier. It was a bad decision in 1961, when it was approved by the FCC; but it was compatible with existing equipment. I tried my best as an engineer -- and a developer of broadcast transmission and processing gear -- to cope with its limits. I retired from the business in 1991 and was GLAD to be out of it. Digital audio via compact disks was SO MUCH BETTER that I never looked back! I tune in the FM bands, about once a year, just to check. They have become progressively worse, with heavy processing and clipping distortion, to the point of being pure noise and hash, and interference from too many stations. Pitiful!

IBOC has not helped this situation one bit, if one does NOT have a digital radio. It has made AM radio INFINITELY WORSE. The digital subcarriers bleed all over the now-duller frequency spectrum of the analogue audio signal, causing a hiss or even a gurgling sound that almost totally obliterates the intelligibility. Recently San Francisco's station KNEW has added some new "feature" to their digital transmission that results in making the station unlistenable at all on MOST of my radios. I have given up listening to the station, which is surely not what the management and program directors intend me to do. I can only assume that they are so ignorant of what the result is, in the field away from their studios and in the local environment of their 5 and 2 mv signal contours, that they have no clue that what they are doing to their OWN signal is, in effect, to "jam" it. I might guess that 10, 20, or perhaps even *50* listeners in the bay area are able to hear the improved digital signal...but everybody else, with standard AM radios, hears a worse signal. Is this progress?

So, what has happened is a close parallel to FM multiplex stereo. A bad, compromised "compatible" system has been shoehorned into the available RF spectrum. Very little testing has been done -- and my guess is that most of what HAS been done to test the system is very biased -- and the regulators just "roll over" and accept the blandishments of the supporters of the scheme.

Early FM multiplex stereo had TERRIBLE audio problems. Not only was multipath now a much worse problem than in the "pure mono" FM days, but also the intrinsic signal to noise ratio was degraded; clean reception area vastly reduced; and even listeners with the BEST equipment suffered from constant problems of audio distortion products due to the lousy, primitive, underdeveloped stereo generators of 1961-2 vintage (including severe problems of intermodulation, transient distortion and overshoot, and aliasing products: not solved until FM multiplex had existed for another 15 years, largely by my friend and associate Bob Orban.)

The same thing will surely happen with IBOC. I am merely experiencing the repetition of history. A good, solid, mature broadcast system -- double sideband amplitude modulation, in mono -- has been wrecked by adding to it what conventional receivers perceive as a spurious interference product. It will be MANY years before all of this is sorted out. Meanwhile, the shrinking share of market of marginal AM stations will simply drive them into greater loss and unprofitability. But the makers of fancy new digital gear will LOVE it, even if no one listens! Once they sell the first generation of the (barely working, primitive) system, they will start upgrading, improving, and perfecting what will become the next generation...so on, so forth.

I have a question to everyone involved in this absurd farce. What happens if a certain threshold of pain is reached in the minds of AM radio listeners, and EVERYBODY gives up listening?

Is this really the AGENDA?

Steve Waldee retired AM, FM broadcaster San Jose, CA.

Tubular
2007-05-13, 06:15 AM
Did anyone listen to FM back in the 70's and early to mid 80's when they spun vinyl? If so, did it sound better back then than it does today?

Tubular
2007-05-13, 08:42 AM
Another Example: The industry could have released Blu-Ray and HDDVD 5 years ago, when HDTV sets were becoming prevalent, but they wanted to squeeze every dollar out of DVD (released 1997) sales that they could. Also the industry wanted to sell EDTV's (extended def), TV's not quite capable of displaying full HDTV resolutions, but able to display progressive scan 480p from prog scan DVD players. That was another scam, selling non-progressive scan DVD players! Scan DVD players can be had for like 40 bucks now. Why was the copy protection for DVD's made so weak and easily breakable? Because they wanted to sell a crapload of DVD burners (single layer first, then DL of course) and blanks. They knew that the picture of DVD was good, a definite improvement over VHS, but not the reference quality of Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. The copy protection on commercial DVD-Audio (reference quality, released 2000 or 2001?) was extremely robust (unbreakable?). The only reason a decryption tool appeared on the net was that someone from one of the DVD-Audio authoring companies let a passkey leak. I can't find the DVD-A decryption tool anywhere, but DVD-Video decrypting tools litter the net. Also, two hi-def video formats, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray? They really couldn't agree on a single standard? Or more likely, they wanted to sell more discs and players to a confused public. And some sets only display 1080i, not the full 1080p? Some sets don't have HDMI, but others do? More BS. :down: :nono:

Tubular
2007-05-13, 09:34 AM
I apologize for all the consecutive posts, but here is another one: Why did the highest standard for DVD-Audio have to be 24bit/192kHz? The bit depth affects the sound quality much more than the sampling rate, so why not make the standard 48bit/96kHz?

Let's see

48bit x 96kHz x 2 ch = 9.216 Mbps
24bit x 192kHz x 2 ch= 9.216 Mbps

Tapers amateur and pro could have been pulling some unbelievably mind blowing tapes for several years now. :disbelief Same data rate=same amount of space on a disc. Hmmm, saving those higher bit depths for future incremental improvements? :puke

AAR.oner
2007-05-13, 10:09 AM
More discussion is necessary, but I'm thinking that we should have a cutoff date of 2008-01-01. Everything from '92-'07 is okay but new MD recodings in 2008 and beyond are banned. That gives everybody time to upgrade their decks, maybe drop some hints to loved ones what you want for Christmas 2007.
:thumbsup werd Five...i'd say thats a reasonable date, and i'm all for the idea...i'm assuming Hi-MD [wav] are excluded from the ban, just ATRAC-based recorders

A lot of people (including me) would be hard pressed to tell the difference. I just made a bunch of mp3's (Blade at 192 kbps) from my CD studio albums (mostly rock) for my bro (he's not an audiophile and has an iPod, so mp3's are fine for him) [Side note: would the mp3's I made have to be transcoded to Apple's lossy format, thus reducing quality further?] I could barely tell the difference between the extracted wav's and the encoded mp3's listening through my computer's analog out > $50 Sony headphones. The wavs were a tiny bit more robust. Maybe if I had compared the two on my decent home stereo I would have noticed a bigger difference.
the key thing to remember Tubular is just because you and some others can't tell the difference, doesnt mean everyone can't...like Five said, all you have to do is listen to the cymbals and it becomes painfully obvious...

in addition, you can't really expect to notice detail with an average soundcard > $50 cans...but even with a halfway decent pair of phones thru the same soundcard out, you'll begin to hear...bump that up to a halfway decent I/O and a pair of studio monitors and the world begins to change

[not trying to be an ass, just sayin bro]

AAR.oner
2007-05-13, 10:13 AM
once people get past their teenage years they can't hear above 16 or 17kHz anyway.
no offense, but thats complete horse shit...do you have any links/documentation re: this? i'd be interested in reading more

AAR.oner
2007-05-13, 10:25 AM
Did anyone listen to FM back in the 70's and early to mid 80's when they spun vinyl? If so, did it sound better back then than it does today?
you expect us to remember 20+ yrs ago?!?! :lol

i can attest to the difference between CD and vinyl as broadcast via analog FM in the mid-90s...never did any sort of analysis per se, but to the ear, its what youy'd expect...a warmth/fullness to the vinyl that CD will never possess

for most of us its no surprise...the digital world brings a level convenience that, depending on who yer talking, either far out-ways or falls completely short in regards to the loss of presence and warmth that analogue provides...

Tubular
2007-05-13, 10:28 AM
I read that story about the teens and hearing on Comcast, I'll try to dig up a link. Does lossy compression affect the sound of AUD's (more diffuse, random sound) more than SBD's and studio recordings? I can definitely hear a big difference in the 24 bit shows I have heard vs. 16 bit. Also, I hear the biggest difference in sound quality when I listen to vinyl vs. CD, so I don't think it is my ears (I hope). I found a hearing test 20kHz tone FLAC file on the archive, listened to it and couldn't hear a thing listening through my cheap soundcard > $50 cans.

AAR.oner
2007-05-13, 10:41 AM
a lot of "lower end" phones have a freq response that cuts off well below 20kHz, i'd guess thats the issue...and if you find a link to that article, i'd be very interested--cheers!

Tubular
2007-05-13, 11:01 AM
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5434687

teens turn repeller into adult-proof ringtone

you can download the ringtone and test yourself HECK YEAH I HEARD IT and I'm in my early 30's :D :D

AAR.oner
2007-05-13, 11:18 AM
i hear too, almost painfully so...sounds like my old TV thats goin out :lol

Tubular
2007-05-13, 11:33 AM
test your hearing here
http://www.jimmyr.com/blog/hearingloss.html

"For most adults, hearing loss progressively clips off the higher frequencies starting at 18kHz-20kHz after the age of 19."

I could hear the 17Khz fine, 18kHz weakly, but I couldn't really hear the 19Khz one at all. Could be my cans and soundcard, but I doubt it. Guess it's about time for geritol, pants up to my chest and an oxygen tank. :lol:

trustthex
2007-05-13, 11:38 AM
mmmmm that was fun... drove every animal in my house crazy, i could hear to 21000, i heard my speakers pop when i tried 22000, but couldnt hear anything...

Five
2007-05-13, 05:12 PM
I'm not sure what kind of compression analog FM signals use, but they obviously don't sound as good as CD's (ignoring the freq. response differences). If you compared these:

#1) Cream "White Room" on Onkyo model #900 CD player > low pass and high pass filter to simulate FM's freq. response > Onkyo model #2500 receiver > Polk model #500 speakers

vs.

#2) Cream "White Room" on Onkyo model #900 CD player > analog FM transmitter > Onkyo model #2500 receiver w/good FM stereo reception > Polk model #500 speakers

#1 would always win. This indicates some type of lossy analog compression or signal loss to me. I doubt any radio station plays mp3's made from CD's as source material for their broadcasts. An exception may be made for voice clips, and one time about a year ago I heard a FM station broadcast a leaked-to-the-net track from GNR's upcoming Chinese Democracy (will it ever see the light of day?). I could tell the GNR track was a low bitrate mp3 because of all the wind-chime effects in the highs.
They're using a bandpass filter to cut the highs at around 15kHz and the lows not sure where, plus they compress the amplitude so that the low peaks to high peaks are much closer together. If you hear something like "the ocean" by zep on the radio there's a part where it goes super-quiet and it just sounds stupid pushed up to the same volume then hearing the compressor clamp down hard and awkwardly when the band comes in again at full volume. They also do some strange stuff I don't quite understand using the carrier and cramming two channels into one that can be decoded with some phase tricks :wtf: :hmm: maybe somebody here can explain it properly, a tech guy explained it to me last year and I couldn't quite make sense of it. but I digress... the newer broadcasts cut off abrupty at 15kHz unlike older radio broadcasts which kind fuzzed at the same frequency ... and of course the bandpass and dynamics compression then and now.

I'm wondering if the new digital stations will be free of dynamics compression yet tainted by the slurriness of some mp3ish codec or another.

Check out this thread (with screencaps):
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9766

as for the other "the world is going to hell in a handbasket" stuff, I agree, although I think some of the links you've drawn in the conspiracy are a little far-fetched. I mean, within any company they'll pull these kinds of stunts and also use whatever info they have about how others are doing business to their advantage. I don't think there's star chamber meetings between the guys who make burners for computers and standalone dvd manufacturers :rolleyes:

Did anyone listen to FM back in the 70's and early to mid 80's when they spun vinyl? If so, did it sound better back then than it does today?
yeah, I remember and have got tapes. It sounded like records, not as "crisp" (usually in a good way) and some crackles. Sometimes a record would start skipping and it would take the dj a minute to fix it :lol

AAR.oner
2007-05-13, 05:58 PM
yeah, I remember and have got tapes. It sounded like records, not as "crisp" (usually in a good way) and some crackles. Sometimes a record would start skipping and it would take the dj a minute to fix it :lol
:lol

that was so much better than the dreaded digi-skip tho

Tubular
2007-05-13, 06:17 PM
as for the other "the world is going to hell in a handbasket" stuff, I agree, although I think some of the links you've drawn in the conspiracy are a little far-fetched. I mean, within any company they'll pull these kinds of stunts and also use whatever info they have about how others are doing business to their advantage. I don't think there's star chamber meetings between the guys who make burners for computers and standalone dvd manufacturers :rolleyes:

Pioneer (and Sony too) makes some of the best DVD burners, and they also make great standalone players. I'm sure they were part of the consortium that decided upon the DVD-Video standards, such as the copy protection. The newer DVD's have implemented better, though still defeatable, copy protection. Now that the secret of just how easy it is to copy these things is out, and everybody and his brother has purchased a Pioneer DVD burner and Pioneer standalone and probably hundreds if not thousands of blanks, they are starting to lose profits from DVD movie sales. What came upon the scene soon after dual layer discs (which allowed you to fit the whole movie on one disc with no compression) started to become more affordable and commonplace? Blu-Ray and HD-DVD to the rescue!!! Yaaayyyy!!!! high def picture and sound!!! OMG HD!!! :wolfkat: Sure people will still copy their friends' older DVDs, but for new releases/reissues a lot of people will want hi-definition. Classic and revered movies, especially. Who is going to want to watch a standard definition DVD copy of Star Wars or Raging Bull on their brand new 42" 1080p Samsung? Blu-Ray and HD-DVD have watermarking and very strong protection from what I hear. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just illustrating a point.

Tubular
2007-05-13, 08:08 PM
I can just picture the execs at Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Pioneer, and Samsung sitting around a boardroom table in like 1995 thinking, "we know high definition television is right around the corner, but if we can squeeze in a standard definition digital disc format between now and the advent of HDTV, perhaps even delay HDTV a little bit, we will all be swimming in our own Scrooge McDuck-style money bins, then we'll make all that money all over again when we launch Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Hell, we'll make even more money by bringing back a VHS vs. Betamax style format war!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHA" :devil: :devil:

Tubular
2007-05-14, 06:55 AM
Like junkies or drunks, we all need progressively stronger and stronger dope/more booze to get the same high. PLEASE, I'M BEGGING YOU, PLEASE, SELL ME AN UPGRADED VERSION OF THE SAME THING I BOUGHT FROM YOU THREE YEARS AGO. C'MON MAN I'LL SUCK YOUR _______. :roflol: :lol

I'm gonna wait a couple years until prices come down on HD sets (translation: SD sets are not manufactured anymore).

direwolf-pgh
2007-05-14, 10:17 AM
yeah, I remember and have got tapes. It sounded like records, not as "crisp" (usually in a good way) and some crackles. Sometimes a record would start skipping and it would take the dj a minute to fix it
:thumbsup used to happen often. Its a shame most stations dont spin their own records anymore. College radio is still fun.

Tubular
2007-05-14, 12:22 PM
Most of these new vinyl LP's that modern DJ's (techno, house, electronica or hip hop) spin are crap. They originate from digital sources, so they have none of the analog warmth and definition. I'm sure most people already knew that though.

Tubular
2007-05-17, 01:24 PM
Haha, just thought of another one. If analog FM stations start using 24 bit DVD-Audio discs as source material for their broadcasts (or microphone > 24 bit AD converters > digicorder for 7 second delay for FM talk stations) they will sound BETTER than the new "High Definition" digital FM broadcasts because HD digital FM is limited to mid-bitrate (or low-bitrate?) lossy compression @<hidden> 16/44.1!!!! The bandwidth/data rate limitations would prevent them from using 24 bit sources, even lossy compression 24 bit sources. Talk about a scam!!!

I have never heard XM or Sirius digital satellite radio (limited to lossy compression @<hidden> 16/44.1). Does it sound better or worse than current analog FM stations (who use uncompressed 16/44.1 CD's as source material)?

Am I correct in assuming the bitrates for HDTV will not be as good as the bitrates for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD?

slewofboots
2007-05-17, 11:25 PM
...BTW, if I'm not mistaken (not that it matters that much) but ATRAC records at 24 bit. MD can be directly transferred digitally from ATRAC to WAV without going through a soundcard (if you have the right deck, which I don't, but...)
:tunes:


I can't believe you actually have been recording in lossy MD (i.e. ATRAC) this long and still don't understand the concept. It doesn't matter how many bits it is (16bit vs 24 for example) if a compression algorithm is being applied to the digital stream prior to it being burned to disc. That's it! It's now lossy, and no amount of massaging can undo it, because some of the data is gone. You can't undo this shit.

rhinowing
2007-05-17, 11:39 PM
test your hearing here
http://www.jimmyr.com/blog/hearingloss.html

"For most adults, hearing loss progressively clips off the higher frequencies starting at 18kHz-20kHz after the age of 19."

I could hear the 17Khz fine, 18kHz weakly, but I couldn't really hear the 19Khz one at all. Could be my cans and soundcard, but I doubt it. Guess it's about time for geritol, pants up to my chest and an oxygen tank. :lol:
shit, i'm fucking deaf. lost it at 18khz, and I'm only 17

direwolf-pgh
2007-05-18, 03:04 AM
my ears are fucked - knew that after years of drumming - 13k & its gone.

PEPPER
2007-05-18, 03:27 AM
Over the years ive recorded many bands on various different devices.At one time as long as you could hear what you had recorded,then that was ok.Which is why i feel out of place.I have been thinking a lot recently,i will just do what i do.By that i mean,record the shows i want,and if people want them they can have them.Il admit i dont understand all the mhz or khz stuff,if i can hear on a cd what i have recorded thats enough for me.As long as its not full of distortion,then im quite happy with it.I use a md...so what,i dont use big expensive mics...so what,i know that makes me a bad person and il probably go to hell. :lol :lol :lol

Tubular
2007-05-18, 05:09 AM
but these days you can get a wav recorder for less than that, as low as $55 used! In the $400 price range you could just about afford an m-audio microtrack2496 which is a rolls royce next to the pinto that is oldschool atrac md. Atrac MD is so fucking shit you have to record it thru your soundcard to get a digital copy of the recording you made! :headbang2

$200 or less for a WAV recorder is something most people could afford to do and would result in better recordings for everyone. :cool:

PEPPER
2007-05-18, 05:45 AM
[QUOTE=Audioarchivist]

I would love to upgrade when I can afford to, but I don't have that income level that lets me do that right soon. Wanna loan me the dough to buy one? I'll pay back eventually! Then again, I'm not planning on taping anything in the next while, anyway. As far as older MD recordings go, they are what they are, and if they as masters aren't good enough (at least in the historical documentation sense) like they are now, I suggest that you should perform some aerial fornication with fried pastry products (Go take a flying f^ck through a doughnut hole!) :D



Please take this as a homourous attempt to say something serious.


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tubular
2007-05-18, 05:54 AM
Just curious, how much $$ was a portable DAT deck in like 92, 93 or 94 vs. a MiniDisc ATRAC?

Tubular
2007-05-18, 08:26 AM
Well since this thread has become so all-encompassing I might as well say this: I read that Rush Limbaugh (and lots of others) went completely deaf due to many years of heavy oxycontin/hydrocodone abuse. He now has to use a device (cochlear implant?) to be able to do his radio show. I'm sure the implant doesn't come close to restoring his hearing to the way it was before he started using drugs. Don't abuse prescription/hard drugs, kids! You don't know what they are going to do to your body! :nono: The long term effects of these newer drugs is not known. :disbelief

Also a good diet (more fruits, vegetables, chicken, fish, whole grains and less red meat and junk food) contributes to overall health and may help prevent premature hearing loss.

mbself
2007-05-18, 09:36 AM
The wav recorder for under $200.00 is here......sort of. I have had this on advanced order since April. It was originally due in late april or early may. Look at the date now:

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/H2/

I am working on plan B for taping a show in June.

Tubular
2007-05-19, 12:52 AM
On that same site is the M-Audio Microtrack 24/96. It may not be the best WAV recorder (no XLR inputs) but it has 1/4" balanced TRS inputs and has a S/PDIF coaxial digital input if you are using a separate preamp/AD converter. You can record at up to 24bit/96kHz, significantly higher resolution than CD (16bit/44.1kHz). It is on sale for $300 (with free shipping) here:

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MicroTrack

Add a 2 GB compact flash card (about $35) for recording longer shows @<hidden> CD quality:
http://www.flash-memory-store.com/2gb-compact-flash.html

or add an 8 GB compact flash card ($100) for recording longer shows @<hidden> 24bit/96kHz:
http://www.flash-memory-store.com/samsung-compact-flash-8gb.html

Audioarchivist
2007-05-19, 01:29 AM
The wav recorder for under $200.00 is here......sort of. I have had this on advanced order since April. It was originally due in late april or early may. Look at the date now:

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/H2/

I am working on plan B for taping a show in June.
Yeah that's a cool unit. I recently got to use this one, and I'm sold on it, but no $$$ yet:
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/H4/
Nice mics built in, onboard microphone modelling and other effects, instrument preamps for direct musician recording, and 4 track recording capability. 1/4 inch - XLR - 1/8 mini mic plugs, blablablah! Wow! The H2 is lots smaller, though (stealth)
Back in the day, when I was still able to use my Sony WM DC3, I was seriously looking at a portable DAT. They were around $1000 CDN, and I nearly bought one from a buddy used for about $400, but it was used to death, and needed fixing.
Anyway, I understand plenty of concepts, as far as slewofboots was saying. I'm just fixing someone's mistaken remark that atrac was 16 bit, when it's 24 bit atrac codec. Yes, it's a 'lossy' codec, but by my unscientific poll, a big percentage of us here also have matching 'lossy' ears!
I'm curious if anyone's heard my dual MD master recording of Robert Plant, which I 'massaged' the data into being a little less lossy than it was. I'm not claiming any miracle cures, but I'm way more satisfied listening to it post-processing than raw... It would be a good lesson for me if someone who's good with spotting loss would do their best to analyze that for me, and tell me what they think.
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=37041

AAR.oner
2007-05-19, 07:46 AM
as i believe Five mentioned in another thread that the Zoom recorder was brought up, i'd steer clear of their products...and i'm sure any of the other members around here who work in the audio field would concur...basically, they make cheap shite--maybe it looks good on paper but in reality :down:

not tryin to be argumentative, i'd just hate to see someone drop $200-$300 bucks on something thats gonna disappoint em a year or two down the road...just a FWIW :)

Tubular
2007-05-19, 10:44 AM
Some of the customer reviews are not very favorable for the Zoom:

"As a live sound engineer I often record the shows I mix. I normally use a multi-track recorder and record a stereo pair from the console and also take a second set of tracks from a stereo pair (XY) of small condenser mics. I bought the H4 hoping to be able to use it to do just this as it is advertised as a 4-track recorder. I thought I would use the H4's internal mics to capture the room and grab a stereo feed from the console using the mic/line inputs. To my dismay the H4 only records two track at a time. It seems to me that Zoom/Samson really missed the boat with this one! It would be great to be able to eliminate two extra mics and a bulky muti-track recorder from my setup. I'm still looking for an H4-like product with internal mics, that can capture four tracks at once.

Zoom H4 - So close, yet so far..."

Plus the max capacity to record is a 2 GB SD card, which would be fine for most shows @<hidden> 16/44.1, but you wouldn't be able to record 24/96 for very long. "The same 2GB card will record WAV at 44.1kHz/16 bit for 3 hrs, 22 min, 54 sec; and at 96kHz/24bit, 1 hr, 7 min, 38 sec." I guess you could switch cards at setbreak, but if the set lasts longer than 68 min., you lose music. The Microtrack can use compact flash cards up to 16 GB in size.

Some the reviews for the Microtrack aren't so favorable, either:

"It does include phantom powered mic inputs (as well as a separate input for electret mics), but the phantom power is only 30 volts, rather than the standard 48 volts. My Earthworks QTC40s seem to work OK with this, but Earthworks told me that they would not handle as high levels (i.e., very close miking) as they would with 48 volts. And there is no guarantee that all Earthworks mics (and other brands) will always work with the low voltage."

"It cannot accept a normal recording level. Everything that is plugged in is way too hot for the inputs. I even used a 25db pad and even had a few clipped signals. I have tried the 1/8" and the 1/4" and both have the same problem. Even after the firmware update that was supposed to fix the L/M/H switch issue, the only way I could record was send from 2 sub busses so I could control the levels of the soundboard. I should be able to accept any professional out from a soundboard...especially the tape out."

I think where the Microtrack 24/96 really shines is being simply a low-cost high-resolution recording device that you can connect a separate preamp/AD converter to via its coaxial digital input. Something like this: http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/FireWire410-main.html (MSRP $400)
But then you're getting up into the price range where you could buy a Tascam HD-P2 ($1000) http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/HDP2/ There have to be some good deals out there for a used Microtrack, used preamp/AD converter w/24/96 output, and a used Tascam HD-P2.

Tubular
2007-05-19, 12:41 PM
M-Audio Firewire 410 (2) XLR preamp/AD converter $250
http://www.amazon.com/M-Audio-FireWire-410-Recording-Interface/dp/B0000TP588

M-Audio Microtrack 24/96 $270
http://www.amazon.com/M-Audio-MicroTrack-Professional-2-Channel-Recorder/dp/B000ANQXKS/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-6177278-8336144?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1179591562&sr=1-1

Samsung 8 GB compact flash card $100
http://www.flash-memory-store.com/samsung-compact-flash-8gb.html

So a decent high resolution digital taping rig (not counting mics and cables) can be had for about $620 brand new. Or I think you can find the better Tascam HD-P2 for about $900 new. I didn't search very hard, there may be even better deals out there. Ebay would be worth checking out for all this stuff. Plus there are payment plans at different websites.

AAR.oner
2007-05-20, 09:32 AM
hey Tubular, have you checked out taperssection.com for used gear? register for their forum, then head to the Yard Sale subforum--used gear from the taper his/herself...never heard of anyone gettin burned there plus you've got someone with werking knowlege of the piece of equipment...ebay on the other hand can be a crap shoot, sometimes great and sometimes not-so-great

if you want to run a decent A/D pre between yer mics and MicroTrack, there's usually someone there selling a UA5 thats been Digi-modded, a great piece of equipment for the task :thumbsup

bonzo71
2007-05-27, 11:09 AM
Personally, I think the document is more important than the format. I respect the idea of setting standards in hopes of maintaining a certain level of quality, but I don't think banning a certain master format will help. An MD atrac recording with properly set recording levels and a good mic will sound better than a DAT with automatic recording levels and crappy mic.

It would be cool if someone with a wav recorder and an newer MD Atrac recorder (type-r and hi-sp) would record the same show line-in using manual recording levels and the same mics/position. I think the results would sound much closer in terms of quality than the samples Five posted. Here is a sample of an MD recording I made last year(atrac-r/Sony MZ-S1 manual recording levles).

http://www.unbase.com/n/0353141192

To my ears it sounds as good as any recording that ever came from my WM-D3.

Five
2007-05-28, 04:01 PM
yes, that recording is quite good for MD... do you have another track from that show where the drummer's really hitting the cymbals all the time? I think the lack of cymbals is what's really making it sound very close to full quality.

I confessed earlier that my example is a little skewed, because the room used for the atrac recording is really hard to get a good recording in. But it is a true story, that is my last atrac recording side by side with my first Hi-MD WAV recording. But still, I have downloaded some atrac MD shows and they sound really substandard on average (older codecs??).

the whole banning of atrac came about from the topic of high bitrate mp3 recordings, how they sound about the same as atrac which is allowed. so it is more logical to have both or none... since this is a lossless site, none is more logical!

I found a silver boot for $3.99 at a goodwill (like a permanent garage sale store) and got it home to discover that it was sourced from high bitrate mp3. it sounded 99.9% identical to what I imagine the lossless version would sound like, and also sounded better than 9/10 lossless torrents I have downloaded in the last few years. Another time a Billy Joel set showed up that was lossy-sourced at an average bitrate and got pulled, but it sounded much better than the fully lossless 12th generation tape that I left running on the tracker.

bottom line here is that for better or for worse, this is a lossless tracker. The potential for lossless is greater. wouldn't you feel better recording on a lossless recorder than on your atrac md? don't you believe that you have the strong potential of getting an even better recording by using a WAV recorder? if you can squeeze so much quality out of an antiquated lossy deck, imagine what you could do recording at 24bit.

chinajoe
2007-08-18, 04:02 PM
reading this thread has me more confused. im still trying to figure out the diff b/w lossless and lossy. take a show originally recorded on a maxell tape--wouldnt that be considered wav, which would make it lossless?

a show recorded on a hi- md recorder, would be lossless b/c the software included converts its to a wav? is it still lossless, or am i "lost" on the whole subject. futhermore, if i convert a wav to a flac, would it still be lossless?

i understand the whole mp3 thing, b/c its already compressed. thus, its lossy b/c the compression done while recording causes it to "lose" some of the music, crowd, etc...would this be right?

also, say a wav file was converted from tape to disc with the gawd awful dolby reduction crap--would this still be lossless, or would it be lossy at this point?

chinajoe
2007-08-19, 10:39 PM
sometimes, the quality of those cell phone videos is really good, about as often as republican mayor in chicago! really, we all have seen good ones. i think they can compliment a better video, giving one more perspective of the floor, etc...

Tubular
2007-08-20, 12:01 AM
All digital is lossy compared to analog, because you are digitally representing the smooth round analog sound waves with jagged edged graphs, like staircase steps. Higher bit depths (esp.) and sampling rates make the stair steps smaller, so more detail is captured, but it is still lossy.

When you're talking about "lossless digital" you are talking about the compression. mp3 and other lossy codecs throw out data that can't be recovered when they compress, FLAC and SHN do not because they are lossless codecs. All the info deleted when a .wav is compressed to FLAC is redundant data, meaning data that is carried in the other channel of a stereo recording, or elsewhere in the recording. A .wav file is just uncompressed digital audio.

Five
2007-08-20, 10:22 PM
Joe,

when we use the term 'lossy' on this forum we mean mp3, rm, aac, ac3, ogg ... stuff like that.

jpeace
2008-08-31, 04:10 PM
I will state my opinion as succintly as I can, though I could go on for some time about how this subject eliminates the availability of many shows for collectors who prefer this tracker. I am a taper. I am also poor. I survive on $700 a month, and I am perpetually chasing shutoffs of my utilities because of that. I use whatever recording gear is available to me to get the show because its the show that matters, not the gear. A WAV recorder for under $200...well that's a great idea, but if its over $40 I can't afford it. So I use an el cheapo cassette recorder that has no frequency response above 10khz and below 400hz. And it puts a hell of a lot of white noise on the tape too, forcing me to use a lot of NR. Look at my recent Riders On The Storm thread to see how shitty my recorder is. Fortunately this gig was taped by several DAT users and there are good sounding versions out there. However I also taped Kenny Wayne Shepherd with this recorder, and I haven't seen another recorder surface, so that's what you get. I'd much prefer a MD or mp3 recording of this stuff to my tapes any day. Your decisions to ban ATRAC and mp3 masters just keeps people from getting certain shows. Sure they can use a different tracker, but who wants to? I uploaded a Queensryche show to Dime and had it banned because someone did a SA on it and it looked lossy. It wasn't. I cut all the frequencies above and below a certain point because there wasn't any music information outside those points, just noise. This made a SA/FA look like mp3 when it wasn't. After explaining it to the mods the torrent was reinstated with apologies. But this (along with other stupid rules) has put me off uploading anything to Dime anymore. My point is, its the music that matters, not the format. I personally do not care if someone encodes my tapes to mp3 and recirculates them. If a person is satisfied with that standard of quality then they should be able to get it their way. More formats make higher availability and that'sa what I want to see: the music spread as far and wide as possible. Quality is secondary to quantity with me. Don't read me wrong on that. I personally want the best possible, but the average person doesn't care about that. I did a hearing test and I cannot hear a test tone above 16k. This sucks as I am a producer/engineer/concert taper, but its the price you pay for making a career in (rock) music your choice (not one that pays well either, bu that's my choice, too. Make it cheap enough that anyone can afford me. Same philisophy I have when I paint houses. I'll do a 3 story victorian for $1000. Better a job that pays little to no job that pays nothing). My point is that if an mp3 or a MD are the only known sources then they should be allowed. I realize the issue of people lying about lineage or not doing proper research, but that's why you police this stuff. Hell, find and assign mods to do just that one thing. But there are things out there that are going to disappear because of the elitist standards of sites like yours. For example, I transferred a couple Zappa shows from cassettes may years ago before lossless really took off. I made the transfers into 192 mp3s, then threw the tapes out, considering my work withthem to be done. Well it turns out that the Zappa trading community was blown away by the existence of these tapes, considerinbg them to be untaped/lost shows. I traded them to a prominent Zappa trader via WinMX and he spread the wealth. Now these recording are inferior to nearly all serious traders because they are lossy, but they are the only existing copies and there will never be others. THe trading community is deprived of these by anti-lossy standards such as the ones on this site. Now I realize that I have little clout here as I do not upload much here (or d/l much for that matter), but I have upped over 200 shows to Yeeshkul, the Pink Floyd tracker, as many co-members here can attest. So I am an important part of the trading community. I just feel that music belongs to everyone and it should not be profited on (this means you, record companies; you're dead. Lie down and accept it, already), nor should it be restricted to elitist traders with higher than average standards. I know the mission statement, but calling this a lossless site while still allowing minidisc recording from 2007 and back is hypocritical. Either allow them or don't. No lossy means no lossy. ALL MD recordings should be banned, or mp3 masters should also be allowed. One or the other. The way it is is self-conflicting.
Seems I've rambled despite my promise to be succint. I guess that's how it is when its important

AAR.oner
2008-09-17, 08:39 AM
strangely enough, we both work in audio and paint houses on the side! i guess that means i should address some of yer questions and comments today , hopefully being no less succinct as you

i will note, as a fellow "audio guy" it kinda concerns me that you seem to care little for things like fidelity, a broad frequency spectrum, gettin the best out of your recordings, etc -- just simple basic standards...but by gones, i'm not interviewing you for a position, either as an engineer or house painter :lol:







Quality is secondary to quantity with me.
although we have no problem with you believing that, you need to understand it is THAT philosophy which has lead to the "muddiness of the pool", making it tougher and tougher for serious collectors to wade thru...please re-read our Mission Statement, don't just skim it:
http://www.thetradersden.org/index.php?#statement
Welcome to The Traders' Den. We, the administrators, will be familiar faces to some, and new to others. Each of us have been involved in various trading communities for many years, and many have worked together on other trading sites. We have come together to create an online trading site with an entirely new ideology. This site will be geared towards a certain kind of collector: those who feel quality and integrity are important. Our policies will seem demanding to many users, but we have witnessed the decline in overall quality in many other trading circles due to lax restrictions. We offer a safe haven for traders frustrated with the dilution of quality in the trading pool, as well as our combined experience and devotion to helping new users enter an elite trading community.

Please read the seeding rules, FAQs, and linked tutorials for more information as to how we are employing our ideals to better serve traders of all music tastes. If there are any questions, comments, or ways we can help make the experience more rewarding, please don't hesitate to post in our forums or message one of us.

Quality is not an option in the seeds here, it will be the standard.

The Trader's Den Staff







I did a hearing test and I cannot hear a test tone above 16k. This sucks as I am a producer/engineer/concert taper,
yes, that really sucks! i mean, not hearing above 18-19kHz is one thing, but 16kHz?! how can you mix properly as an engineer? it'd make it tough on me thats for sure






Same philisophy I have when I paint houses. I'll do a 3 story victorian for $1000.
i know this is off the topic, but thats just plain retarded! and probly why you are living on $700/month...seems i'm in the same line of work as you and assuming we are both in the States -- how is it that i can make FAR more than that monthly while livin in one of the poorer parts of the country?!

are you sure its not your work ethic thats causing the low monthly income? "quantity over quality" doesn't work in [I]numerous aspects of life, not just collecting shows ;)






But there are things out there that are going to disappear because of the elitist standards of sites like yours.
why is it that some people like to pretend we are the only trading site on the internet? our "elitist standards" make up less than 5% of the BT/trading sites out there






For example, I transferred a couple Zappa shows from cassettes may years ago before lossless really took off. I made the transfers into 192 mp3s, then threw the tapes out, considering my work withthem to be done. Well it turns out that the Zappa trading community was blown away by the existence of these tapes, considerinbg them to be untaped/lost shows. I traded them to a prominent Zappa trader via WinMX and he spread the wealth. Now these recording are inferior to nearly all serious traders because they are lossy, but they are the only existing copies and there will never be others. THe trading community is deprived of these by anti-lossy standards such as the ones on this site.
if you transferred the tapes, traded them out, and they were spread around the Zappa community and undoubtedly beyond -- remind me again how we have deprived the trading community of these so-called rare gems...maybe they're not uploadable here, but i can name off the top of my head probly 3 dozen sites right now where they'd be perfectly fine! why do you refuse to upload them at one of those other sites and blame it on TTD?






nor should it be restricted to elitist traders with higher than average standards.
so yer saying that because we [TTD founders and the members who are in FULL AGREEMENT with our Mission Statement] -- because we have high standards due to a discerning ear/length of time collecting/etc and want the best of the best, which changes as technology changes -- that this small handful of audio/videophiles are restricting the entire world of trading -- from BT trackers to DC Hubs to FTP to snail Mail trading to vine/loop sites to........... :roflol: :roflol: :roflol:

no offense, but yer argument is swiss cheese at best...we might disagree philosophically, and my ears are obviously way better than yers, but to sit here and say that we single-handedly keep the entire world from hearing any recording is completely ludicrous!






I know the mission statement, but calling this a lossless site while still allowing minidisc recording from 2007 and back is hypocritical. Either allow them or don't. No lossy means no lossy. ALL MD recordings should be banned, or mp3 masters should also be allowed. One or the other. The way it is is self-conflicting.
it is a conundrum, isn't it? :rolleyes:

first off, if you've ever done a side by side comparison of ATRAC and MP3 compression, you would know that they are NOT the same -- far from it! i'm not gonna spend another 10mins typing out all the technical differences, as they've been gone over many many times here at TTD...but suffice it to say, MP3 strips out way more data than just a simple roll-off in the HFs

secondly, some of us on staff agreed with you that we should ban all MD recordings outright, lossy is lossy right? others felt that a sort of "grandfather clause" should be put in place [atleast for the time being]...in the end, we all agreed on the current rules that are in place [all staff have an equal voice here]

and third, how many "mp3 masters" are there really? i mean, 10 years ago MD was the consumer-level, reasonably-priced recording technology...therefore, a sizable amount of recordings from the 90s were made on these decks...but mp3 recorders are fairly new, not very popular when it comes to recording, and despite the shitty compression codec cost as much if not more than the majority of "low-end" lossless recorders...arguing mp3 masters and MD masters as the same thing is simply not a viable argument








although we always try to respect others opinions and philosophies here at TTD, the simple truth is this site was not designed for the type of trading philosophy you ascribe to...and the majority of the members of this site, whether they agree completely or not, continue to come to the site BECAUSE they appreciate our standards -- they know they can get the quality goods here...if someone has a major problem with those standards, feel free to have your account deleted and do not support this site -- simpla as that!

as technology changes, so will our standards and our rules...and as these things change, sometimes there will be rules which seem contradictory for a time -- but the world and black & white

but the one thing you will always be able to count on here at TTD:
Quality is not an option in the seeds here, it will be the standard.

jpeace
2008-09-17, 09:05 AM
and third, how many "mp3 masters" are there really? i mean, 10 years ago MD was the consumer-level, reasonably-priced recording technology...therefore, a sizable amount of recordings from the 90s were made on these decks...but mp3 recorders are fairly new, not very popular when it comes to recording, and despite the shitty compression codec cost as much if not more than the majority of "low-end" lossless recorders...arguing mp3 masters and MD masters as the same thing is simply not a viable argument


Gee. I think you are going to see a huge upswing in the amount of mp3 sourced shows out there because of one simple thing: i-pods that record. Now ton's of average Joe's with an ipod are going to start using them for concert taping simply because its in their pocket when they get there. Sure it's sad, but its sadder that this site will not allow an mp3 master, without re-encoding loss, to be put here, thus depriving the people who use only this site or sites like this of these shows.

AAR.oner
2008-09-17, 09:26 AM
Gee. I think you are going to see a huge upswing in the amount of mp3 sourced shows out there because of one simple thing: i-pods that record. Now ton's of average Joe's with an ipod are going to start using them for concert taping simply because its in their pocket when they get there

thats like saying we should allow cell phone video clips since it might be the only video of the show...sorry, but it ain't gonna happen -- thats not what TTD is here for



but its sadder that this site will not allow an mp3 master, without re-encoding loss, to be put here, thus depriving the people who use only this site or sites like this of these shows.

i'd venture to say that the people who only use this site and the ones with similar standards do so because they aren't interested in the low-quality pocket recordings...and i guarantee the ones who do want the mp3/lossy recordings get them at the dozns if not hundreds of other forums/communities outside of what you call the "elitist sites"






fwiw, i have numerous mp3 shows in my collection that were only "released" in that format, and there will never be a lossless version...we're not saying you shouldn't have mp3 sources in your collection, this just isn't the place to u/l them...simple as that

not to sound egocentric, but think of it in restaurant terms -- the sites which allow anything & everything being yer J&S cafeterias, and a site like TTD being yer Michelin-rated fine dining kinda place...we're not telling people they shouldn't go to the $5.99 all-you-can-eat buffet, it's just that yer not gonna get that kinda food at our restaurant ;)

Five
2008-09-17, 05:10 PM
Gee. I think you are going to see a huge upswing in the amount of mp3 sourced shows out there because of one simple thing: i-pods that record. Now ton's of average Joe's with an ipod are going to start using them for concert taping simply because its in their pocket when they get there. Sure it's sad, but its sadder that this site will not allow an mp3 master, without re-encoding loss, to be put here, thus depriving the people who use only this site or sites like this of these shows.
dude, this is dumber than a bag of hammers. iPods only record wav format. there are so many bazillions of them out there all capapable of recording it defeats your argument by your own logic :lol:

http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=60300
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=64102
...lots more out there if you search around.

u2rulesmyworld
2008-09-21, 11:30 PM
This point has probably already been made but if something is recorded in mp3 format(or any format) then that recording is(as a master) by definition not lossy. To my thinking a master recording CANNOT be lossy since no information has been removed from it. information not recorded is not information removed.

That said i dont think ANY mp3 recording should be shared here, it would encourage the use of lower quality recording devices. there are litterally zillions of tapers out there taping many different things. most of them with affordable decks and mics that produce good to excellent quality recordings.

u2rulesmyworld
2008-09-21, 11:45 PM
Seems I've rambled despite my promise to be succint. I guess that's how it is when its important

Its actually not that important, the recording of live music is not life and death

if you cant afford better gear that is a shame since you clearly have a passion for music/recording/sharing and that is admirable

BUT the reality is that your recordings may not meet a standard that is expected here or on dime

if you are going t ocut off the highs and lows to reduce live that is fine, just clearly state how the show was recorded and the editing that took place so the audio geekheads can know what they are getting

I agree some recording is better than no recording

that said im not interested in listening to poor quality recordings even if that is all that exist, my mindset is quality over quantity

jpeace
2008-09-22, 06:18 AM
Its actually not that important, the recording of live music is not life and death

if you cant afford better gear that is a shame since you clearly have a passion for music/recording/sharing and that is admirable

BUT the reality is that your recordings may not meet a standard that is expected here or on dime

if you are going t ocut off the highs and lows to reduce live that is fine, just clearly state how the show was recorded and the editing that took place so the audio geekheads can know what they are getting

I agree some recording is better than no recording

that said im not interested in listening to poor quality recordings even if that is all that exist, my mindset is quality over quantity


Understandable. I for the most part agree. But there is that chance you take that something magic will happen. When I recorded Queensryche at Darien Lake in 97 I wasn't aware anything special was going to happen, but it turns out that The Killing Words was only performed at that show on that tour, and I was the only taper. Not the most stunning recording, but not bad. And the fans fight over it since I released it last year. Even Michael Wilton from Queensryche got a copy from me. Similarly there is a Pink Floyds show from 1969 that sounds like complete shit, but is thge only time Saucerful Of Secrets was performed wth a horn section and a choir. I'd rather have a totally crap recording of that than no recording at all

bandbeyonddescription
2009-05-26, 11:37 PM
I am sort of in the camp that thinks if the master recording was an mp3, it ought to be ok, in that a cassette master is ok, or a MiniDisc as a master (ie:format originally recorded to live) is ok.

Yet, doesn't MiniDisc by definition employ a compression technology of its own, and therefore, should not be allowed either? :question:

rspencer
2009-05-27, 01:32 AM
Yes.

11. Mini-disc is accepted ONLY if it's from the original source master.
Quite simply, mini-disc uses a compression format which decreases the quality of a recorrding slightly from true CD quality. Since there are many excellent sounding MD sources in circulation, these are accepted provided that the original recording was made with an MD. Converting from other formats into MD and then to lossless audio is prohibited. Also, shows that have been through multiple MD generations are prohibited. Please seed your MD masters directly to lossless files, but keep the quality as good as possible by not seeding multiple gen MD stuff.

We no longer allow ATRAC MiniDisc recordings made on or after January 1, 2008 to be uploaded. This does not affect recordings made prior to January 1, 2008.