View Single Post
Old 2007-09-24, 01:00 PM
PencilGeek PencilGeek is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Northern California
Re: Reconsider ISO posting policy?

Originally Posted by direwolf-pgh
what did you use at that audio engineering school you went to?
LOL. Back in the days I took audio engineering, we used Ampex 24-track 3-inch reel-to-reel multi-track decks to record, and mixed down to 1/2 track 1/4-inch decks for studio masters. There were no such things as a CDs, DVDs, or even software to record or modify audio. Heck, this was right before the IBM-PC was first introduced.

I wasn't trying to make a point about the skills I learned in audio engineering to work with software, I was making the point about the skills learned to mix down, equalize, compress if necessary, minimize noise, splice things together and create a master reference recording. I was saying I believed I could do a better job than Joe Sixpack at mastering my own recordings.

I'm going to add two cents - cause this thread is killing me.
Everyone is dancing around the question you asked - as to not 'hurt your feelings' - whatever. Id rather give you an honest and direct response.

1. You're using the wrong program to work with audio, attempting to create DVD-A, etc.. IMO.
2. Should any forum change their seeding policy because you're having issues.... um, no.
By all means, let's not step on anybody's sensibilities. I've purchased and used 6 or 8 audio and video editing packages (maybe even more). I've even purchased two or three Blu-Ray editing packages, and we all know those aren't cheap. Some of these programs do things well, others aren't worth a dime. I've also used a few of these low-end, free, or nearly free packages (although not the ones specifically mentioned in this thread). In my experience, they are pure pieces of crap that are barely worth a dime. They are either completly impossible to use, or don't do eveything I want, or crash with the very first I use them. And as a software writer by trade, there's nothing that pisses me off more than a piece of software that crashes the first time I try to use it. I've become a firm believer in 'you get what you pay for.' (Even though WaveLab isn't cheap, I believe it's mostly a piece of crap also...but at least it creates a DVD-A.) So while we're not stepping on sensibilities here, let me say that if mediocrity is your standard, then you will always be satisfied with your results.

You are not the first to create a DVD-A or work with higher bitrate files.
You are the first to believe a new seeding policy is needed to deal with these files.

Pencilgeek, why do you believe a new policy is needed ?
I don't necessarily believe a new policy is needed. As a previous guy responded: it's only a discussion. I'm completely open-minded about the possibilities of changing software or doing things a little differently in order to get the same end result.

File sizes, download speeds, etc. are pure emotional arguments to me. I don't care about file sizes and download speeds. I don't care if somebody only wants to play it on their computer. It's more important to me that somebody have a true and accurate rendition of my master recording as I mastered it, than it is for me to care how long it took them to download it, or how and where they will play it. Remember, I don't master my shows to CD-Audio or DVD-Audio for the benevolence of mankind; I do it for myself and if others can benefit as a byproduct, then everybody goes away happy. I'm already doing them the favor by making the shows available; it's not incumbent on me to spend an extra minute of my time or dollar of my money to give it away in a format other than the one I created for my own personal use. Therefore, if there's some tool I can use to create 96/24 FLAC files without any substantial invenstment in my time or money, then I'm willing to do it. Otherwise...too lose...because we all know I don't lose...I own the recordings.

Now that we haven't stepped on anybody's sensibilities, I am very curious what tools are available that might do what you want, with the least amount of time and/or investment on my part. Are there tools that can read a WAV file with regions meta-data and break up into FLAC files? Or is there an audio editing package that will read a regions list and/or CUE list and auto break apart into individual files? Because as I said earlier, if I have to break down a flat WAV file by hand into 31 individual files, I'm not interested in that type of time investment. Doing so would also make my own projects (my personal use) messier and more time-intensive to create and maintain.

Likewise, if there was a DVD-V program that could simply be pointed to a 96/24 WAV file with regions and/or CUE, and would simply and conveniently create the output with a basic text-based menu (again, without any apreciable time or intervention on my part), then I'd certainly be willing to give it a try.

Finally, back to the main topic. I don't think offering ISO's will break the backs of the trading community. I believe I understand why they are disallowed (I think I read it's because of the risk of unauthorized or inappropriate material being released). I believe these are all problems that can be solved with a little effort and creative thinking. And from my point of view, it certainly solves a lot of nagging problems about distribution and the competence of Joe Sixpack and his abilities to recreate the master as I intended it to be heard.

As an aside, and at the expense of hijacking my own topic, I'd really love to know how many of these people wanting 96/24 FLAC files have nothing more to play it on than their PC's with 1" speakers attached...or even a "high-end" computer speaker set up. How many of you guys are really hooking your computers up to $10000 (or more) of audio gear to play these 96/24 files? Because if you're not, you're really fooling yourselves into thinking you'll benefit with these files.

I hate the bands that you like.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes