We're talking big-reel commercial tapes (the kind NPR used to send out), not dinky home-user tapes. And nope, not headphones... even FM over ordinary radio was good enough to hear what I was talking about.
If I were to visually map what I hear, tape/vinyl is 3D, and CD is 2D. I've noticed this as well with a friend's tapes (he tapes live bands in various venues, using equipment that's high-end for portables) -- sometimes I've startled him by correctly guessing the general aspects of a venue I've never seen, just by how stuff sounds on his tapes. Once he's CDized 'em, that sense of "space" is lost.
A lot of why we have $200M movies is because Hollywood is accustomed to being exhorbitantly wasteful (and probably to laundering a great deal of money that way, but that's another discussion).
Example: Back when I was doing bits and extras, the average one-hour drama cost about $500k per episode to make, as funded by the studio. But I worked on one show that only cost $80k per episode to make. The difference? The $80k show was funded out of the producer's own pocket, so he kept a tight rein on expenditures.
Crew was filled out in the usual way. Production values were no worse than average. People on the set were paid the going rate (and treated somewhat better than average, overall -- we certainly ate better than the usual). So why the huge financial discrepency? Perhaps that we were *BUSY* ALL DAY, rather than working in short bursts surrounded by long periods of slack time, like the more-typical production. We were expected to get it right the first time, and no piddlefucking around was allowed.
And, of course, there was no studio producer's pocket for the unaccounted cash (like extras' budget) to magically disappear into.
I'm wondering if he was also fishing for the Other Important Parties' notions about what constitutes a website. Sortof like saying "I'm not sure what a unicycle is" to make 'em spew an explanation, the goal being to determine if what the OIP *really* mean was "bicycle".
I've seen teachers do that sort of thing when trying to determine if a student actually knew the material or was just tapdancing.
I work with a PC user group that is primarily elderly people (several in their 80s). And to most of them, this computer and digital thing is still totally baffling, largely because they DON'T have the background (having not grown up with computers) and DON'T have an interest in the guts. But for those who DO find it sparks an interest -- my observation is that they learn whatever they do learn very thoroughly, and once they have a grasp on the concepts, they make far fewer mistakes than do younger people who start off thinking they know enough to "do stuff with the computer".
So yeah, getting 'em started can be an exercise in extreme patience. But once they get going, they self-teach better than most kids do.
Interesting tho perfectly accurate description of MP3s:) Oddly in some folks' view, I also prefer CBR to VBR, because VBR has a faint but annoying muddiness that's not present in CBR.
Making my own CDs from tape would be an interesting experiment, if I had the tapes to do it with. I used to DJ at a station that had a subscription to the Chicago Symphony tapes. Too bad they cost an arm and a leg back then...
I've tried a wide variety of classical CDs from the library, and have been to varying degrees disappointed (as a general rule, the "bigger" the expected sound, the more "damaged" it is). I can't believe that *all* CD mastering sucks, nor that all the "big empty space" sound from an orchestral venue is high frequency (especially since much of it is the result of people shuffling stuff around). That only leaves "it ain't there on the CD" as a possible culprit.
Can't be just my CD player either (that being the computer, with decent sound card and good speakers) -- I've had the same complaint about classical CDs played on friends' high-end dedicated equipment.
Yep -- if you handle enough vinyl, you get so you can "see" the music in the vinyl's patterns. Even beginners can spot loud (big wide grooves) vs soft (shallow narrow grooves).
When I was DJing (1980ish), when I was in a hurry I would sometimes do a visual scan of new arrivals, to make preliminary guesses as to which I'd want to use. And when I was previewing, rather than listen to a whole song (which I generally didn't have time to do), I'd drop the needle into spots that had different grooving, to quickly sample the variety within a given song.
I presume mostly to save the bother of having to rip the vinyl yourself. A lot of people don't have the equipment or the expertise to do it.
Besides, REAL vinyl purists only play the album ONCE -- to record it onto some other media for everyday use -- because after that first play, it's never quite as perfect again, due to the initial mechanical wear on microgrooves.
In my ears' opinion, you are entirely correct. Just because there doesn't *seem* to be much to hear doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Wander up the discussion a ways and see where I rant about CDs vs classical music.
I do agree that bass lines suffer from CDizing -- winds up sounding "half strength" so to speak.
CD/MP3's sound doesn't bother me much for most rock, but there are a few unusual songs that I was familiar with from vinyl and now can only get on CD/MP3, and I can hear that some parts are weak compared to the vinyl incarnation.
A couple examples that come to mind are Peter Gabriel's "Games Without Frontiers" and Tears for Fears' "Mad World".
[professional dog trainer hat, covering a couple thousand dogs]
Because dogs usually (not always) can hear higher pitched sounds than humans, there is this notion that the higher-pitched the whistle, the better the dog will respond to it. Even some pro trainers believe this. In my experience, the truth is quite the reverse -- the higher the pitch, the more likely the dog is to ignore it, quite possibly because the dog didn't clearly hear it.
Try a high-pitched whistle and a low-pitched whistle at a distance of a couple hundred yards in a high wind, and see which one you can hear. Hint: the high-pitched whistle will be inadible, while the low-pitched whistle will be heard clearly. (You'd think this would be obvious to anyone who's ever planted blinds at a field trial.) And in my experience, if a dog-savvy human can't hear the whistle under a given set of conditions, neither will even a superior dog.
As to other sounds, in my observation dogs are a lot more likely to notice and respond to very faint lower-pitched sounds, like an automobile, than they are to high-pitched sounds. Frex, dogs will notice and can recognise a vehicle by sound when it's still up to a mile away, if there's not too much competing noise. They tend not to notice faint high-pitched sounds unless they are very close or have some other significance, like a mouse underfoot or the warning tone from an electric collar.
As to the chart showing various species -- gee, those with smaller heads have smaller sounding chambers, which I suppose defines the minimum wavelength each can hear. The only glaring anomaly is the whale, but its hearing evolved for a different environment.
To repeat myself from up above somewhere -- I don't mind so much what CDizing does to rock and various other genres (tho it's not great for jazz either), but to my ear, classical on CD is unlistenable. It sounds not only flat, but like big chunks are missing (most notably the ambient background that is part of a given orchestra's identity).
Recently someone sent me a "mosquito" tone that supposedly old folks can't hear. Well, I'm 52 this month and I can hear it even at low volume; if I turn up the volume it's quite painful.
I can also hear all the tones emitted by my fairly expensive vermin repeller, which is why I can't use the bloody thing.
I dunno about that, but (having grown up with live/tape/vinyl) I think Beethoven sounds bloody horrible on CD. I've tried several times to listen to favourite symphonies on CD and it just sounds like too much is "missing". (See my previous post where I rant about my superhearing:)
I'm one of those freaks who can see and hear beyond the norm. I have tested-perfect hearing (less some volume deafness with age, but I don't seem to have lost any range or accuracy). My own anecdote:
With tape or vinyl, I can ID some orchestras, and sometimes which hall they're in, BEFORE they play a single note -- even over FM radio. Some orchestras and certain venues have a distinctive "ambience signature" which I can hear. (I suppose rather like "hearing the sea" in a seashell -- they all sound different.)
Put the same work, orchestra, and venue on a CD, and now I can't ID it -- whatever it is that I hear from tape/vinyl just isn't there. (In fact I find classical music on CD or MP3 unlistenable, because to my ear it sounds like big chunks are "missing", most especially with "massive" works like Beethoven's symphonies. -- This doesn't bother me with most other genres, probably because there's less going on in the first place.)
This isn't a matter of frequencies outside of human hearing; this ambient background is firmly in the midrange. And as you say, it's subtle -- I'm well aware that most people won't hear it even if they specifically listen for it.
I can generally tell MP3s made from vinyl from those made from CD, too -- there's a difference in their depth of tone, even at a lowly 128kbit.
Brian Wilson (of the Beach Boys) has been known to rail against what CDs do to music. I think it is not coincidental that he's also reputed to have a perfect ear.
As you say, some people can hear stuff like this, and others can't, so they think we're suffering from auditory delusions.:)
I see minute differences between colours, too. As I recall, that ability has been ID'd as due to a specific fairly-rare gene. Since vision and hearing both rely partly on bio-pigments, I wonder if the two abilities are related??
I don't really know anything about this USB turntable, but it certainly *looks* like a good prospect... main question for me is how good/durable/replaceable/expensive is the needle. It does appear to have a standard counterbalanced arm. (Anyone know offhand how good Costco's price really is?)
To quote from your link, ===== "We are dealing with a predator here and a predator, when he is offered prey and the prey gives in will take advantage of that prey," he said. "What we are teaching here is for the children to not allow the predator to take control.... They actually become the superior the dominant party in the room, and it is actually the gunman who becomes the prey." =====
This is exactly the point I was making in a post up above. If you designate people as "prey" THEY WILL REACT ACCORDINGLY, by allowing themselves to be killed without significant resistance (fleeing until you're cornered and killed is NOT resistance). However if you teach them that they can react to "defend the pack", and that they are NOT prey, then any threat itself becomes the prey.
Thanks for the link. I wonder how many similar cases are out there?
People do seem to think that anyone who carries a gun will just blaze away at the drop of a hat. If anything the reverse is true -- since you feel in control, you can react with more restraint than if you feel like a target.
And yes, I have been in a situation where having a gun made all the difference (long story short, it helped run off someone who was beating up my neighbour).
Exactly so. You don't learn anything from panic; if anything, panic *prevents* learning. You DO learn from being shown "this is the bad situation, here is how to deal with it" -- and knowing how to cope prevents panic. D'oh!
I think the root of the problem is somewhere else, tho: the rebellion against rote learning in all its forms; now there's all this "creative learning" where kids have to figure stuff out for themselves, even if they don't have a clue where to start. Learning to line up and calmly get out during a fire drill is rote learning. Being told that you have to figure out the best way to evacuate the building for yourself -- that's "creative" but it's sure not going to get the school emptied in an orderly fashion during a real emergency. Better to teach the drill first, get it down pat, THEN have the kids examine WHY the drill is done the way it is, and consider whether it could be improved -- but not *during* the drill itself.
I think this fell under "let's make the kids creatively figure out for themselves how to cope with a shooter" -- IOW, not just stupidity, but a fundamental teaching mistake, however well-intentioned.
I too prefer "dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery." Better to have a few nuts running around loose, than to lock EVERYONE up. Which is what the no-self-defense-allowed laws effectively do.
And if you can get the other monkeys started throwing things... well, if 50 heavy textbooks come flying at a guy's head all at once, he's going to duck, even if he IS holding the gun. And that gives the group a reasonable chance to jump and incapacitate him.
I agree with someone up above -- we're losing our survival instincts. These same instincts used to tell us when maximum survival results from a few individuals putting themselves at risk to prevent a greater risk to the whole. But if you designate people as "prey", they will behave like prey -- and will then find it difficult or impossible to fight back. Our nanny state has defined us as prey.
When I was a kid, if someone had threatened a schoolroom with a gun, the nearest dozen strapping lads would have jumped him and taken him down (and probably beaten him senseless). Yeah, maybe the first one gets shot and killed in the process. But no one else dies.
I've played live "killer games" where a few folks are designated "predators" and everyone else as "prey". When I'm among the hunted, my own first instinct is to organize an offense against the predators and take them out. The hardest part is getting anyone else to go along with it -- like I said, if you tell people they are prey, most will react accordingly. Not many have strong enough predator and pack instincts to resist the mindless fear that results from being regarded as prey.
These very same people, if told they are now predators, will react accordingly, and work cooperatively to eliminate threats.
Slashdot Mirror
We're talking big-reel commercial tapes (the kind NPR used to send out), not dinky home-user tapes. And nope, not headphones... even FM over ordinary radio was good enough to hear what I was talking about.
If I were to visually map what I hear, tape/vinyl is 3D, and CD is 2D. I've noticed this as well with a friend's tapes (he tapes live bands in various venues, using equipment that's high-end for portables) -- sometimes I've startled him by correctly guessing the general aspects of a venue I've never seen, just by how stuff sounds on his tapes. Once he's CDized 'em, that sense of "space" is lost.
Interesting examples, thanks.... the Ford bio thing in particular re commercial value vs fair use. (Whereas home-taping is worth exactly zilch.)
I just had the perverse thought of "what if they'd printed everything *but* the pardon-related snippets?"
Well then, Sonny must have achieved what the Co$ says its most-devoted members will... ;)
A lot of why we have $200M movies is because Hollywood is accustomed to being exhorbitantly wasteful (and probably to laundering a great deal of money that way, but that's another discussion).
Example: Back when I was doing bits and extras, the average one-hour drama cost about $500k per episode to make, as funded by the studio. But I worked on one show that only cost $80k per episode to make. The difference? The $80k show was funded out of the producer's own pocket, so he kept a tight rein on expenditures.
Crew was filled out in the usual way. Production values were no worse than average. People on the set were paid the going rate (and treated somewhat better than average, overall -- we certainly ate better than the usual). So why the huge financial discrepency? Perhaps that we were *BUSY* ALL DAY, rather than working in short bursts surrounded by long periods of slack time, like the more-typical production. We were expected to get it right the first time, and no piddlefucking around was allowed.
And, of course, there was no studio producer's pocket for the unaccounted cash (like extras' budget) to magically disappear into.
"Under the right circumstances, it can be fair to use an entire work, or unfair to use even very small portions."
Just for illustrative purposes, what would be good examples of each?
I'm wondering if he was also fishing for the Other Important Parties' notions about what constitutes a website. Sortof like saying "I'm not sure what a unicycle is" to make 'em spew an explanation, the goal being to determine if what the OIP *really* mean was "bicycle".
I've seen teachers do that sort of thing when trying to determine if a student actually knew the material or was just tapdancing.
I work with a PC user group that is primarily elderly people (several in their 80s). And to most of them, this computer and digital thing is still totally baffling, largely because they DON'T have the background (having not grown up with computers) and DON'T have an interest in the guts. But for those who DO find it sparks an interest -- my observation is that they learn whatever they do learn very thoroughly, and once they have a grasp on the concepts, they make far fewer mistakes than do younger people who start off thinking they know enough to "do stuff with the computer".
So yeah, getting 'em started can be an exercise in extreme patience. But once they get going, they self-teach better than most kids do.
Likely the vast majority of Europeans derive their views of Americans from American media, which is far more homogenous than are Americans themselves.
Doubtless the reverse is also true.
Good post, thanks. I can see how a "tiered by user's level of experience" nannynet setup by ISPs also buys right into the TC Way.
Interesting tho perfectly accurate description of MP3s :) Oddly in some folks' view, I also prefer CBR to VBR, because VBR has a faint but annoying muddiness that's not present in CBR.
Making my own CDs from tape would be an interesting experiment, if I had the tapes to do it with. I used to DJ at a station that had a subscription to the Chicago Symphony tapes. Too bad they cost an arm and a leg back then...
I've tried a wide variety of classical CDs from the library, and have been to varying degrees disappointed (as a general rule, the "bigger" the expected sound, the more "damaged" it is). I can't believe that *all* CD mastering sucks, nor that all the "big empty space" sound from an orchestral venue is high frequency (especially since much of it is the result of people shuffling stuff around). That only leaves "it ain't there on the CD" as a possible culprit.
Can't be just my CD player either (that being the computer, with decent sound card and good speakers) -- I've had the same complaint about classical CDs played on friends' high-end dedicated equipment.
Yep -- if you handle enough vinyl, you get so you can "see" the music in the vinyl's patterns. Even beginners can spot loud (big wide grooves) vs soft (shallow narrow grooves).
When I was DJing (1980ish), when I was in a hurry I would sometimes do a visual scan of new arrivals, to make preliminary guesses as to which I'd want to use. And when I was previewing, rather than listen to a whole song (which I generally didn't have time to do), I'd drop the needle into spots that had different grooving, to quickly sample the variety within a given song.
I presume mostly to save the bother of having to rip the vinyl yourself. A lot of people don't have the equipment or the expertise to do it.
Besides, REAL vinyl purists only play the album ONCE -- to record it onto some other media for everyday use -- because after that first play, it's never quite as perfect again, due to the initial mechanical wear on microgrooves.
In my ears' opinion, you are entirely correct. Just because there doesn't *seem* to be much to hear doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Wander up the discussion a ways and see where I rant about CDs vs classical music.
I do agree that bass lines suffer from CDizing -- winds up sounding "half strength" so to speak.
CD/MP3's sound doesn't bother me much for most rock, but there are a few unusual songs that I was familiar with from vinyl and now can only get on CD/MP3, and I can hear that some parts are weak compared to the vinyl incarnation.
A couple examples that come to mind are Peter Gabriel's "Games Without Frontiers" and Tears for Fears' "Mad World".
[professional dog trainer hat, covering a couple thousand dogs]
Because dogs usually (not always) can hear higher pitched sounds than humans, there is this notion that the higher-pitched the whistle, the better the dog will respond to it. Even some pro trainers believe this. In my experience, the truth is quite the reverse -- the higher the pitch, the more likely the dog is to ignore it, quite possibly because the dog didn't clearly hear it.
Try a high-pitched whistle and a low-pitched whistle at a distance of a couple hundred yards in a high wind, and see which one you can hear. Hint: the high-pitched whistle will be inadible, while the low-pitched whistle will be heard clearly. (You'd think this would be obvious to anyone who's ever planted blinds at a field trial.) And in my experience, if a dog-savvy human can't hear the whistle under a given set of conditions, neither will even a superior dog.
As to other sounds, in my observation dogs are a lot more likely to notice and respond to very faint lower-pitched sounds, like an automobile, than they are to high-pitched sounds. Frex, dogs will notice and can recognise a vehicle by sound when it's still up to a mile away, if there's not too much competing noise. They tend not to notice faint high-pitched sounds unless they are very close or have some other significance, like a mouse underfoot or the warning tone from an electric collar.
As to the chart showing various species -- gee, those with smaller heads have smaller sounding chambers, which I suppose defines the minimum wavelength each can hear. The only glaring anomaly is the whale, but its hearing evolved for a different environment.
To repeat myself from up above somewhere -- I don't mind so much what CDizing does to rock and various other genres (tho it's not great for jazz either), but to my ear, classical on CD is unlistenable. It sounds not only flat, but like big chunks are missing (most notably the ambient background that is part of a given orchestra's identity).
Recently someone sent me a "mosquito" tone that supposedly old folks can't hear. Well, I'm 52 this month and I can hear it even at low volume; if I turn up the volume it's quite painful.
I can also hear all the tones emitted by my fairly expensive vermin repeller, which is why I can't use the bloody thing.
I dunno about that, but (having grown up with live/tape/vinyl) I think Beethoven sounds bloody horrible on CD. I've tried several times to listen to favourite symphonies on CD and it just sounds like too much is "missing". (See my previous post where I rant about my superhearing :)
I'm one of those freaks who can see and hear beyond the norm. I have tested-perfect hearing (less some volume deafness with age, but I don't seem to have lost any range or accuracy). My own anecdote:
:)
With tape or vinyl, I can ID some orchestras, and sometimes which hall they're in, BEFORE they play a single note -- even over FM radio. Some orchestras and certain venues have a distinctive "ambience signature" which I can hear. (I suppose rather like "hearing the sea" in a seashell -- they all sound different.)
Put the same work, orchestra, and venue on a CD, and now I can't ID it -- whatever it is that I hear from tape/vinyl just isn't there. (In fact I find classical music on CD or MP3 unlistenable, because to my ear it sounds like big chunks are "missing", most especially with "massive" works like Beethoven's symphonies. -- This doesn't bother me with most other genres, probably because there's less going on in the first place.)
This isn't a matter of frequencies outside of human hearing; this ambient background is firmly in the midrange. And as you say, it's subtle -- I'm well aware that most people won't hear it even if they specifically listen for it.
I can generally tell MP3s made from vinyl from those made from CD, too -- there's a difference in their depth of tone, even at a lowly 128kbit.
Brian Wilson (of the Beach Boys) has been known to rail against what CDs do to music. I think it is not coincidental that he's also reputed to have a perfect ear.
As you say, some people can hear stuff like this, and others can't, so they think we're suffering from auditory delusions.
I see minute differences between colours, too. As I recall, that ability has been ID'd as due to a specific fairly-rare gene. Since vision and hearing both rely partly on bio-pigments, I wonder if the two abilities are related??
I don't really know anything about this USB turntable, but it certainly *looks* like a good prospect ... main question for me is how good/durable/replaceable/expensive is the needle. It does appear to have a standard counterbalanced arm. (Anyone know offhand how good Costco's price really is?)
To quote from your link, ... They actually become the superior the dominant party in the room, and it is actually the gunman who becomes the prey."
=====
"We are dealing with a predator here and a predator, when he is offered prey and the prey gives in will take advantage of that prey," he said. "What we are teaching here is for the children to not allow the predator to take control.
=====
This is exactly the point I was making in a post up above. If you designate people as "prey" THEY WILL REACT ACCORDINGLY, by allowing themselves to be killed without significant resistance (fleeing until you're cornered and killed is NOT resistance). However if you teach them that they can react to "defend the pack", and that they are NOT prey, then any threat itself becomes the prey.
Thanks for the link. I wonder how many similar cases are out there?
People do seem to think that anyone who carries a gun will just blaze away at the drop of a hat. If anything the reverse is true -- since you feel in control, you can react with more restraint than if you feel like a target.
And yes, I have been in a situation where having a gun made all the difference (long story short, it helped run off someone who was beating up my neighbour).
Exactly so. You don't learn anything from panic; if anything, panic *prevents* learning. You DO learn from being shown "this is the bad situation, here is how to deal with it" -- and knowing how to cope prevents panic. D'oh!
I think the root of the problem is somewhere else, tho: the rebellion against rote learning in all its forms; now there's all this "creative learning" where kids have to figure stuff out for themselves, even if they don't have a clue where to start. Learning to line up and calmly get out during a fire drill is rote learning. Being told that you have to figure out the best way to evacuate the building for yourself -- that's "creative" but it's sure not going to get the school emptied in an orderly fashion during a real emergency. Better to teach the drill first, get it down pat, THEN have the kids examine WHY the drill is done the way it is, and consider whether it could be improved -- but not *during* the drill itself.
I think this fell under "let's make the kids creatively figure out for themselves how to cope with a shooter" -- IOW, not just stupidity, but a fundamental teaching mistake, however well-intentioned.
I too prefer "dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery." Better to have a few nuts running around loose, than to lock EVERYONE up. Which is what the no-self-defense-allowed laws effectively do.
I agree with someone up above -- we're losing our survival instincts. These same instincts used to tell us when maximum survival results from a few individuals putting themselves at risk to prevent a greater risk to the whole. But if you designate people as "prey", they will behave like prey -- and will then find it difficult or impossible to fight back. Our nanny state has defined us as prey.
When I was a kid, if someone had threatened a schoolroom with a gun, the nearest dozen strapping lads would have jumped him and taken him down (and probably beaten him senseless). Yeah, maybe the first one gets shot and killed in the process. But no one else dies.
I've played live "killer games" where a few folks are designated "predators" and everyone else as "prey". When I'm among the hunted, my own first instinct is to organize an offense against the predators and take them out. The hardest part is getting anyone else to go along with it -- like I said, if you tell people they are prey, most will react accordingly. Not many have strong enough predator and pack instincts to resist the mindless fear that results from being regarded as prey.
These very same people, if told they are now predators, will react accordingly, and work cooperatively to eliminate threats.