"Golden Ears" also say that green pens make CD's sound warmer. I've even read "Golden Ear" reviews in Stereophile Magazine where changing the fiber orientation on the rug that the comfy chair was place on made the green-ringed CD sound expansive and warm instead of like shit.
Golden Ears don't say that. Audiophiles do. Audiophiles like to pretend that they are Golden Ears, just like creationists like to pretend that they're creation scientists. Please don't lump them into the same category.
A real golden ear is figuratively worth their weight in gold. They really do have good hearing. Often have perfect pitch. They were employed to help develop the MP3 standard. And yes they were subjected to double-blind tests.
This is why many sound engineers prefer vinyl. because it's an analogue format, vinyl has a potentially infinite sample frequency range
Oh for the love of god, please let this stupid meme die. Vinyl does *not* have an infinite sample frequency range. The needle cannot move that fast. The vinyl couldn't withstand the forces even if it could. The grooves have a width and their rate of attack and decay must be limited to avoid grooves overlapping. Sharp transients are worn away with regular use (the needle is a tiny chisel).
The practical frequency range of vinyl stops at about 16kHz. This was well proven with quadraphonic vinyl - a marketting gimmick if ever there was one - where the "goal" was to store a third and fourth channel of information and use frequency shifting (and other tricks) to extract the channels. It works perhaps twice before the vinyl degrades and the third and fourth channels go mute.
I notice nobody ever defends analogue tape as being "infinite in resolution" or "infinite in frequency". I wonder why? Tape sounds a hell of a lot better than vinyl.
(although it's obviously limited by the recording and playback equipment, and by the physics of the media itself)
Throwing that disclaimer in at the end doesn't excuse you. It's like saying "my car can go at light speed (limited by the physics of the car itself)". There is no value to the statement. Don't spread the nonsense.
Also, tiny variations in the (ideally uniform) spacing of the digital data on the disk -- called "jitter" -- can cause tiny amounts of distortion when sent through a lower-quality DAC.
AAC/MP3/OGG are all based on psychoacoustic models. Comparing their decoded spectrums is pointless. The spectrum isn't supposed to be faithfully reproduced. Frequencies that your brain wouldn't fully hear aren't fully stored.
The only value I can see in a spectrum comparison would be to find obvious errors in the encoder or decoder. Like the 16kHz spike in the Xing encoder. But how likely is that going to be these days?
The only proper comparison involves a good hi-fi, a sensibly furnished room, and a comfortable chair. It is called "golden ear" testing and it's the ONLY way to compare psychoacoustic models.
Or at least it's the only way until the research scientists work out how the human brain works.
Thats the one truely innovative thing (not that I'm convinced I like it) about linux, the license.
I couldn't care less for "innovative" features. I'd just be happy with something that works. This whole freaking "innovation" hoobah was invented by the lawyers in the Microsoft antitrust case and as far as I'm concerned it can stay there.
Re:This is what has made Linux successful,
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
And the only man that could ever lead me, was RMS the preacher man.
On the contrary, many scientists have switched from evolution to creationism did so because their field of study led them to that conclusion.
And significantly many more scientists disagree with their conclusions. For every creationist with "evidence" there are literally dozens of scientists disputing that "evidence". You claim that "many scientists" are creationists. How many creation scientists are named Steve? I can think of 2. There are at least 200 Steves with PhDs who say creationism is wrong. Extrapolate and you can estimate that less than 1% of doctorates agree with creationism.
Now I'd say that 1% is definitely not "many scientists". In fact, it's a pathetically small number. If these creationists can't even convince a significant majority of other scientists with their "evidence" then what does that say about the quality of their work? Is your immediate thought that 99% of scientists are ignorant? Perhaps there's a conspiracy at work to hide the biblical truth?! Think a little harder. What is the more logical explanation?
... but the idea that science is the only way to validate knowledge is a very narrowminded view
Yeah, it's not the only way, it's just the only way that works.
Re:This is what has made Linux successful,
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
No, you're thinking of the BSD-style licenses. The GPL license tells you *exactly* what you can and can't do with the software.
No, you are wrong. I am not thinking of the BSD license. I even copied in the relevant section of the GPL where it explicitly states that the GPL does not deal with your USE of the software. It boggles my mind that you could have missed it.
To be extremely clear here, because I obviously need to be, there is a difference between USE of the software and DISTRIBUTION/MODIFICATION/COPYING of the software. The GPL does not affect USE of the software. In fact, it explicitly states you may USE the software for any purpose. The classic example RMS gave was that if you want to use GPL software to harm innocent fluffy bunnies then there's nothing in the GPL to stop you. RMS made it very clear that you cannot have free software with limitations on use.
With the Windows XP EULA not only are you restricted in your DISTRIBUTION/MODIFICATION/COPYING rights (ie, you have no such rights) you are also restricted in your USE of the software. The GPL does not restrict your USE of software. You are completely and utterly wrong. As always.
Re:This is what has made Linux successful,
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
See, RMS insists that if you don't tell people what they can't do with software, that they'll do the worst.
RMS pushes the GPL and the GPL says that you can use the software for any purpose.
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
Anti-RMS propaganda with no basis in reality... there's something I didn't expect:-/
"We shouldn't be playing God," they say. But aren't we already? Haven't we been playing God since we started artificially extending peoples' lives through drugs and machines? Aren't contraceptive drugs "Playing God?" Aren't C-section births "Playing God?" Why do people accept all of those unnatural interventions, but draw the line at the next logical improvement of life?
It's baffling, isn't it. It reminds me of the Amish. It's not as if the Amish are adverse to technology; they're happy to use looms and metal tools and spectacles and horse-drawn buggies and intensive farming techniques. But they arbitrarily draw the line at electricity, life-saving medicines, modern construction materials and combustion engines. It's bizarre. Why draw the line there? Is there a group of retro-Amish who won't use anything more modern than bearskins and flint knives? If not, why not?
The anti-genetic mob are simply the Latest Luddites. The New Amish. They've drawn a line in the sand but the line was chosen arbitrarily. Society will eventually roll right over the top of them. Future generations will look back at the anti-GM crop destroyers as luddites from the 21st century. They will be remembered with the same contempt that we reserve for the luddites who destroyed steam engines less than 200 years ago.
Do we deny cancer treatment to everyone, just because there are people who are beyond treatment? Since they won't survive cancer, then no one should? It's ridiculous.
The new Slashdot spelling for ridiculous is "rediculuous". Giggle.
Don't be stupid. An analogue signal does not have infinite resolution. The "resolution" of the signal is determined by the ratio of signal to noise. This exactly equates to the amount of information you can extract. This is all described by Shannon's Theorem.
Vinyl has a very low SNR and therefore a very low resolution. This is caused by many things: grains in vinyl are quite large, the LP warps with heat and age, the LP wears because of friction against the needle, there are imperfections in the groove during the stamping process, the needle dynamics introduce a complex noise to the signal, and many other causes.
Concentrating on the "analogue" part of vinyl is an amateur's mistake. Vinyl is not a good medium for recording audio. It's only the "audiophiles" that enthuse about vinyl. My take on the matter is that "audiophile" is a secret code word meaning "stupid rich git with tin ears who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about".
Now there's no disagreement from me that vinyl has a very unique sound. It's definitely different to CD. The cause of that unique sound is the extreme distortion and noise. Some people happen to like that noise - fine, whatever - but don't try and pretend that it's hi-fi.
Quite often, you can hear the difference between a CD and vinyl as well.
Yeah, the CD frequencies don't wobble all over the place as the deck changes speed, and the CD audio isn't ruined by pops and squeaks caused by dust on the platter, and after playing one CD a few times you can still hear the high frequencies unlike vinyl where it gets muted over time.
Yes, there's certainly a difference. No wonder my entire collection is CD.
An orchestra might be good live, but is just as well enjoyed at home with a good stereo.
Absolutely not! Be it a symphony, an orchestra, a quartet or a choir, you've got to hear it live. The difference is beyond description.
For a good rock band, hell yeah they should be best when seen live.
I hate live rock music. It's always too loud, clouded in cigarette smoke, expensive drinks, no seating, smells rank, and crowded. I'm happier to hear rock music on my stereo.
The idea of that sounds great, but unfortunately in reality, over 95% of bands do not make money touring.
I claim "bullshit" on your figure. If your 95% figure was true then it couldn't explain the vast numbers of small-time performers who play at local clubs in my area who don't even have CDs or tapes for sale.
And it certainly doesn't explain the concerts (chamber orchestra) that I occasionally attend. They'll get an audience of 1000+ people per night but I can see they only have a single box of CDs for sale at the door. When I've attended multiple successive nights I have seen the same box with the same number of CDs remaining.
I'd like to know what the real percentage is for successful touring bands. I believe your 95% figure has been pulled out of your arse.
Infringement is when, given a copyrighted work, you without legal authority to do so (either granted by the copyright holder or by law or where the copyright is inapplicable for various reasons), do the following:
Copy it (in part or in full)
Base derivative works off of it
Distribute copies of it
Digitally broadcast it if it is a sound recording
Publicly perform it (for certain types of works)
Publicly display it (for certain types of works)
Which is exactly what I said, only you managed to say it in 3x as many words.
And I see all you've done is cut-n-pasted Sec 106 of the US copyright act. That doesn't show ingenuity or understanding; it just demonstrates that you're anal retentive. What value are you adding to this discussion? I say none at all.
That is about on the level of a grade school blackboard drawing of humping stick figures labeled "principal" and "teacher". Anybody who finds that "funny" needs to see a lawyer themselves - their emotional development has obviously been arrested.
Well, yes, that was the whole point. Gabe was sarcastically demonstrating how puerile American McGee actually is. I have to agree with Gabe.
Maybe you could read the News page on PA next time. Sometimes the jokes require a little bit of insider knowledge before you can "get" them.
I'm dead tired and the posts are blurring together. I've responded to dozens of postings so it's hard to keep it all clear. I rechecked your original post. Your claim is there is no damage done.
No. My claim is that real-property analogies are worthless. That is the third strike.
How is loss of revenue no damage?
The problem is that you equate "loss of revenue" with "theft". They are different things.
Before you bother responding, you should know that I don't download music because I think it's morally wrong as well as legally wrong. Also I'm on a 28.8k modem with 200MB/month caps, so there is no way in hell I could afford to download MP3s even if I wanted to. This is why I know you're not listening: you continue to talk down to me as if I'm gleefully downloading gigabytes of MP3s while flipping the bird at the artists. Open your ears, stop TALKING, and LISTEN for once.
First off copyright infringement applies if the work were being exploited.
No. Copyright infringement is when you make a copy without permission. End of story. No argument is possible. Put "what is copyright infringement" into Google if you are doubtful.
Shoplifting is closer to the truth if you prefer that word?
No. Copyright infringement.
I'm saying the answer isn't to say "screw the artist".
Neither am I.
Taping a song inorder to avoid buying the album is illegal.
No shit, sherlock.
I wish some one that responded was familar with our current laws.
Your condescending attitude is beyond reason.
You just said that a person recording music is doing nothing wrong.
No, I bloody well did not. I explicitly said that the artist not being paid is *BAD*.
I see no point in talking with you. You don't care what I say. You're not even listening.
Slashdot Mirror
Golden Ears don't say that. Audiophiles do. Audiophiles like to pretend that they are Golden Ears, just like creationists like to pretend that they're creation scientists. Please don't lump them into the same category.
A real golden ear is figuratively worth their weight in gold. They really do have good hearing. Often have perfect pitch. They were employed to help develop the MP3 standard. And yes they were subjected to double-blind tests.
Oh for the love of god, please let this stupid meme die. Vinyl does *not* have an infinite sample frequency range. The needle cannot move that fast. The vinyl couldn't withstand the forces even if it could. The grooves have a width and their rate of attack and decay must be limited to avoid grooves overlapping. Sharp transients are worn away with regular use (the needle is a tiny chisel).
The practical frequency range of vinyl stops at about 16kHz. This was well proven with quadraphonic vinyl - a marketting gimmick if ever there was one - where the "goal" was to store a third and fourth channel of information and use frequency shifting (and other tricks) to extract the channels. It works perhaps twice before the vinyl degrades and the third and fourth channels go mute.
I notice nobody ever defends analogue tape as being "infinite in resolution" or "infinite in frequency". I wonder why? Tape sounds a hell of a lot better than vinyl.
Throwing that disclaimer in at the end doesn't excuse you. It's like saying "my car can go at light speed (limited by the physics of the car itself)". There is no value to the statement. Don't spread the nonsense.
That is not "jitter". You are speaking crap.
AAC/MP3/OGG are all based on psychoacoustic models. Comparing their decoded spectrums is pointless. The spectrum isn't supposed to be faithfully reproduced. Frequencies that your brain wouldn't fully hear aren't fully stored.
The only value I can see in a spectrum comparison would be to find obvious errors in the encoder or decoder. Like the 16kHz spike in the Xing encoder. But how likely is that going to be these days?
The only proper comparison involves a good hi-fi, a sensibly furnished room, and a comfortable chair. It is called "golden ear" testing and it's the ONLY way to compare psychoacoustic models.
Or at least it's the only way until the research scientists work out how the human brain works.
I couldn't care less for "innovative" features. I'd just be happy with something that works. This whole freaking "innovation" hoobah was invented by the lawyers in the Microsoft antitrust case and as far as I'm concerned it can stay there.
And the only man that could ever lead me, was RMS the preacher man.
Oh, for the sake of god. What the hell is a "manufactor" supposed to be? The lowest common denominator of fingered appendages?
And it's would have.
Huh? Was that a case study in typing under the influence?
And significantly many more scientists disagree with their conclusions. For every creationist with "evidence" there are literally dozens of scientists disputing that "evidence". You claim that "many scientists" are creationists. How many creation scientists are named Steve? I can think of 2. There are at least 200 Steves with PhDs who say creationism is wrong. Extrapolate and you can estimate that less than 1% of doctorates agree with creationism.
Now I'd say that 1% is definitely not "many scientists". In fact, it's a pathetically small number. If these creationists can't even convince a significant majority of other scientists with their "evidence" then what does that say about the quality of their work? Is your immediate thought that 99% of scientists are ignorant? Perhaps there's a conspiracy at work to hide the biblical truth?! Think a little harder. What is the more logical explanation?
Yeah, it's not the only way, it's just the only way that works.
No, you are wrong. I am not thinking of the BSD license. I even copied in the relevant section of the GPL where it explicitly states that the GPL does not deal with your USE of the software. It boggles my mind that you could have missed it.
To be extremely clear here, because I obviously need to be, there is a difference between USE of the software and DISTRIBUTION/MODIFICATION/COPYING of the software. The GPL does not affect USE of the software. In fact, it explicitly states you may USE the software for any purpose. The classic example RMS gave was that if you want to use GPL software to harm innocent fluffy bunnies then there's nothing in the GPL to stop you. RMS made it very clear that you cannot have free software with limitations on use.
With the Windows XP EULA not only are you restricted in your DISTRIBUTION/MODIFICATION/COPYING rights (ie, you have no such rights) you are also restricted in your USE of the software. The GPL does not restrict your USE of software. You are completely and utterly wrong. As always.
RMS pushes the GPL and the GPL says that you can use the software for any purpose.
Anti-RMS propaganda with no basis in reality... there's something I didn't expect :-/
It's baffling, isn't it. It reminds me of the Amish. It's not as if the Amish are adverse to technology; they're happy to use looms and metal tools and spectacles and horse-drawn buggies and intensive farming techniques. But they arbitrarily draw the line at electricity, life-saving medicines, modern construction materials and combustion engines. It's bizarre. Why draw the line there? Is there a group of retro-Amish who won't use anything more modern than bearskins and flint knives? If not, why not?
The anti-genetic mob are simply the Latest Luddites. The New Amish. They've drawn a line in the sand but the line was chosen arbitrarily. Society will eventually roll right over the top of them. Future generations will look back at the anti-GM crop destroyers as luddites from the 21st century. They will be remembered with the same contempt that we reserve for the luddites who destroyed steam engines less than 200 years ago.
The new Slashdot spelling for ridiculous is "rediculuous". Giggle.
The GPL is as viral as humanity.
In other words, not at all.
Blasted submit button... entire post was:
Don't be stupid. An analogue signal does not have infinite resolution. The "resolution" of the signal is determined by the ratio of signal to noise. This exactly equates to the amount of information you can extract. This is all described by Shannon's Theorem.
Vinyl has a very low SNR and therefore a very low resolution. This is caused by many things: grains in vinyl are quite large, the LP warps with heat and age, the LP wears because of friction against the needle, there are imperfections in the groove during the stamping process, the needle dynamics introduce a complex noise to the signal, and many other causes.
Concentrating on the "analogue" part of vinyl is an amateur's mistake. Vinyl is not a good medium for recording audio. It's only the "audiophiles" that enthuse about vinyl. My take on the matter is that "audiophile" is a secret code word meaning "stupid rich git with tin ears who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about".
Now there's no disagreement from me that vinyl has a very unique sound. It's definitely different to CD. The cause of that unique sound is the extreme distortion and noise. Some people happen to like that noise - fine, whatever - but don't try and pretend that it's hi-fi.
Don't be stupid.
The "analog form" of LP is overrated. You don't get infinite resolution with analogue recordings. There is still a SNR to worry about.
Yeah, the CD frequencies don't wobble all over the place as the deck changes speed, and the CD audio isn't ruined by pops and squeaks caused by dust on the platter, and after playing one CD a few times you can still hear the high frequencies unlike vinyl where it gets muted over time.
Yes, there's certainly a difference. No wonder my entire collection is CD.
Absolutely not! Be it a symphony, an orchestra, a quartet or a choir, you've got to hear it live. The difference is beyond description.
I hate live rock music. It's always too loud, clouded in cigarette smoke, expensive drinks, no seating, smells rank, and crowded. I'm happier to hear rock music on my stereo.
Go figure. Horses and courses, I guess.
I claim "bullshit" on your figure. If your 95% figure was true then it couldn't explain the vast numbers of small-time performers who play at local clubs in my area who don't even have CDs or tapes for sale.
And it certainly doesn't explain the concerts (chamber orchestra) that I occasionally attend. They'll get an audience of 1000+ people per night but I can see they only have a single box of CDs for sale at the door. When I've attended multiple successive nights I have seen the same box with the same number of CDs remaining.
I'd like to know what the real percentage is for successful touring bands. I believe your 95% figure has been pulled out of your arse.
No, that's all of it.
Which is exactly what I said, only you managed to say it in 3x as many words.
And I see all you've done is cut-n-pasted Sec 106 of the US copyright act. That doesn't show ingenuity or understanding; it just demonstrates that you're anal retentive. What value are you adding to this discussion? I say none at all.
Well, yes, that was the whole point. Gabe was sarcastically demonstrating how puerile American McGee actually is. I have to agree with Gabe.
Maybe you could read the News page on PA next time. Sometimes the jokes require a little bit of insider knowledge before you can "get" them.
Uhhh, did I say Linux *anywhere* in my post?
No. My claim is that real-property analogies are worthless. That is the third strike.
The problem is that you equate "loss of revenue" with "theft". They are different things.
Before you bother responding, you should know that I don't download music because I think it's morally wrong as well as legally wrong. Also I'm on a 28.8k modem with 200MB/month caps, so there is no way in hell I could afford to download MP3s even if I wanted to. This is why I know you're not listening: you continue to talk down to me as if I'm gleefully downloading gigabytes of MP3s while flipping the bird at the artists. Open your ears, stop TALKING, and LISTEN for once.
No. Copyright infringement is when you make a copy without permission. End of story. No argument is possible. Put "what is copyright infringement" into Google if you are doubtful.
No. Copyright infringement.
Neither am I.
No shit, sherlock.
Your condescending attitude is beyond reason.
No, I bloody well did not. I explicitly said that the artist not being paid is *BAD*.
I see no point in talking with you. You don't care what I say. You're not even listening.