Where's Occam's razor when you need it, folks? right next to your tinfoil hat? Well, if you think that my straightforward and obvious explanation of the reposts as basic commercial pragmatism (and not conspiratorial evil) is implausible, then so be it.
Obviously, it's more reasonable to believe that the editors remain in their jobs despite being so mentally incompetent that their keyboards should have short-circuited through filling up with drool, and that Slashdot keeps itself afloat financially through the generosity of the Magical Website Fairies...
128mbps MP3s should sound fucking cool, I'm sure. IMHO *if* you use a good encoder, they're listenable.
if you can't hear the difference between 128/192 128/256 you got hearing problems, plain and simple. Then that'd be why I said I preferred to rip at 192 or 256mpbs nowadays, wouldn't it?
I never claimed 128mbps was hifi quality- I said that it wasn't as bad as many people make out (the point which you entirely missed). The difference between the worst and the best 128mbps files I've heard is even greater than the difference between a well-encoded 128mbps and a well-encoded 192mbps file.
Ugh, just Google it yourself. You can start by googling for lathes, and [snip] No, the OP (and you) were the people making the claim. It's your job to demonstrate the basis for your belief.
And you seriously expect me to research all that stuff, to become an expert in such issues, including materials science, and to carry out the practical research (using probably very expensive equipment) to back it up? Just to prove or disprove some dubious claim that someone else made? Get a fucking clue!
a master sent to pressing right away sounded better than a master that was allowed the relax overnight. The final outcome being direct to metal mastering which sidesteps the whole relaxing issue. The OP was talking about playing his LPs. It had nothing to do with the masters- that you missed this fact leads me to suspect that you weren't paying attention, aren't not much of an expert, and are just an average ten-a-penny not-as-smart-as-he-thinks Slashdotter who thinks reading a few Google articles is a substitute for proper scientific research.
You mean you lack the curiosity and wits to educate yourself? My curiosity begins at wanting to know what the original basis of the myth was- it has limits.
And my wits dictate that if someone presents me with a claim of dubious veracity and they can't present me with any evidence beyond their own conjecture (and I don't know your qualifications in the field- what are they?), then I'm unwilling to believe it without further evidence.
Stop trying to shift the responsibility from your shoulders to mine.
You know, I've never been to China, I'm quite sceptical such a place exists. Then you're an idiot. There's overwhelming existence for the evidence of China from countless reputable sources.
The 1 or 2 grams of tracking force applied to the.000001 square inch contact area of the needle translates to a pressure of 10000 PSI. This is a fact. You think that doesn't cause some heat when the record moves? You think materials don't deform, or don't take time to do so? Frankly, I didn't need to *think* anything about it to justify my scepticism. The original "fact" was presented as something some unspecified person told him, and given the amount of audiophile BS out there, it was perfectly reasonable to express scepticism.
Now onto your points- assuming that what you say is correct (and that's a big assumption), you still haven't addressed the issue of (e.g.) how long the vinyl would take to cool down- not long I'd assume- and/or how long it would take to "heal" from this damage- assuming that it *could* actually "heal" and reform. Have you considered the behaviour of vinyl under such stresses?
More importantly, have practical experiments been conducted by reputable people to verify this theory? If not, I call BS. It's easy to come up with something that looks plausible on paper, based upon incomplete consideration of the facts- which was probably the original basis of this supposed issue. Until I hear more about this supposed phenomenon from a proper source- and not the hearsay of a bunch of flaky audiophiles- I'm quite happy to remain sceptical.
I too have a hard time listening to CD's that play all the way through, I'm used to hiss and scratches! Convert them to high-bitrate MP3s and get a player that supports a "hiss and scratches" plugin.
I think I'm being more serious than fatuous; I'm pretty sure that such plugins must exist.
Most will never be commercially available on CD, so I'm "stuck" with the LP's... Unless you digitise them yourself, of course- or obtain (through "non-legally-orthodox" means) someone else's rip.
What it states (proves) is that you can recreate/perfectly/ a waveform with bandwidth less than half the sampling frequency. You'll also notice a lot of scary-looking maths. That's because reconstituting an analog signal from digital is a little more complex than just playing join-the-dots, which seems to be what most people do when they talk about square waves at high frequencies. Nicely said... I used to wonder about that myself until I found out more. All that Nyquist-Shannon says is that it's *theoretically* possible to reconstitute a sound perfectly, and that's not using the obvious method that most laymen would think of. As you said,
Of course, how well your DAC implements this is an entirely different matter. But the other issue is that you have to ensure that your signal contains *no* frequencies above the chosen maximum (e.g. harmonics and the like), otherwise you'll have problems with aliasing and so on. And the problem is (AFAIK) that it's impossible to simply "filter out frequencies above x"; the methods used invariably filter out some of the high-end audible frequencies too. This is probably only an issue if your chosen sampling rate is close to the limit of human hearing- however, this *is* true with CDs.
The problem is that although people of that age have technically better hearing, the majority probably don't have the attention to musical detail that many people develop over time. I certainly notice things in records I listened to 20 years ago that I didn't then- even though my hearing is probably slightly inferior.
Of course, there are probably exceptions, but to be honest, I'm not aware of legions of 10 - 15 year olds complaining about the sound of iPods.
That record was literally a stereo killer. I saw phono cartridges lose the diamond tip or jump out of the groove when it hit that spot. Power amp fuses blew. Speakers were damaged etc. Sod the Sex Pistols, this has *got* to be the most punk LP ever released!
You should only play them once per day (I've been told) because the stylus friction deforms the record and it takes a while for the groove to "heal". Call me a sceptic, but who told you this? It sounds like one of those stupid myths that certain audiophile types will buy into uncritically and repeat as fact. These are the same types that will uncritically believe the unproven, pseudo-scientific marketing BS for any horrendously overpriced gadget, but won't touch a double-blind test with a bargepole.
Whenever I hear Queen's "Another One Bites the Dust", even after 25+ years, I STILL expect it to skip during the final chorus because my version got scratched there shortly after purchase. I don't know about that case, but don't you find you actually *miss* some of the defects?
In some cases I actually did get used to them. The intro of "More of that Jazz" on my recording of Queen's "Jazz" album (tape of a ropey LP)- for example- skipped the first couple of beats on the drum intro and the song started in the middle of the phrase. I actually find this more interesting and familiar than the undamaged version; I think this is partly because I got used to it, but I also like the interesting effect on the timing.
Other minor defects become part of the experience of listening to an album, just like listening to a cassette you got used to the silent preamble at the start of the tape- even down to the quiet leader giving way to the background hiss on the "proper" tape before the music came in.
In general though, if you'd never grown up with- and got used to- these defects, they'd just strike you as annoying, and I don't want to romanticise vinyl damage (I was always a cassette boy anyway!... not that I'd want to go back to them, even though I think they got a bad rap from music snobs).
I'm glad you mentioned the good quality headphones because- from what I'm aware of- the mediocre quality headphones and/or speakers that many people listen to music through can cover up many of the defects of MP3s.
Although there probably are legitimate criticisms of MP3s, I also think that they're the audio cassettes of the 21st century- music snobs hate them, everyone uses them, and although they're probably not the highest-quality format, the problems are overstated. Yes, I've heard some 112/128mbps MP3s with obvious (and annoying) artifacts, but I suspect that this is down to either transcoding or simply a poor-quality encoder in the first place. I've got many MP3s that I ripped using NotLame at 128mbps, and they're actually okay. I'd use 192 or 256 nowadays, but the point is that you can't damn the format solely on the basis of a poor encoder alone.
The 'retention' problem is not because this generation wants the kitchen sink; it's because these companies don't have any money to buy kitchens. Companies which claim they "can't afford" to pay people more often mysteriously can when they need to, or when it suits them. Bottom line, it may be true in some cases, but I suspect it's also very often either a deliberate bargaining chip or reflex behaviour from companies who can't (or rather, won't) pay the true value of something until they're forced to do so.
It believe this is just one more example of what my generation is facing (19-30), the "something for nothing" problem. Perhaps they got indoctrinated from hearing "Money for Nothing" from an early age;-)
Seriously, although I'm (only just) outside the age range you give, my circumstances mean that I can relate to the following;
Many of my peers expect to graduate college and start off on the same level their parents are (who have worked for 30 years). Yes; and the problem is that for people entering the market nowadays, 30 years of loyalty to a company won't guarantee you s***, in fact it's incredibly unlikely that you'll get to work for the same company for that long anyway.
Companies don't give a toss about people coming into the market, or about their future. They'd like to have people who've already spent time learning the skills that are required this week, pay them peanuts, and then when those skills are no longer relevant, get someone else.
There's no point in respectfully "paying your dues"; the cynical attitude described here is no worse than that being presented towards employees by the companies themselves. Yes, it may be economic reality on their part- in which case, the employees' attitude is an equally valid response.
its hilarious slashdot has a script to tag when a reply is a duplicate, but no script to stop duplicate stories on the front page. I love the way that, despite the endless posts about dupes on Slashdot, virtually no-one questions the (IMHO incorrect) assumption that most of them are based upon.
Namely, that the dupes are not intentional.
Of course they are- Slashdot is a commercial site. I'm guessing that the income from advertising page views far outweighs that from subscriptions.
If you get a good story that is generates a lot of discussion- and hence views- it's still eventually going to get pushed off the front page by newer stories. The most plausible way to get more life from it is to repost it and (implicitly) play along with the "whoops.... the editors duped it again!" consensus. It makes them look implausibly incompetent (IIRC Zonk once posted the same story twice himself), but they can probably live with that. Plus, it provides a focus for endless flawed discussions about why the editors keep "missing" these dupes.
I don't hate Slashdot for this, because (like the majority of us) I don't subscribe and never have. They have to make money somehow, and they'd probably get more stick for openly reposting and recycling stories. But for people to discuss this assuming that the editors really *are* that incompetent- yet somehow remain in employment, and that Slashdot- somehow- hasn't solved the problem of dupes after 10 years is just silly.
I wondered what "extreme mooning" meant. Perfect place for it to show up, gotta say... Yeah, I guessed that was what they meant by it. Umm... "extreme mooning" is a polite way of putting it:-6
But did he ask the Goatse guy's permission to use that image?;-)
The upside is that- like the Super Soaker- these panels will be far more efficient than their weedy predecessors.
The downside is that- like the Super Soaker- they'll only be available in eye-searingly garish combinations of purple, red and fluorescent green and yellow.
I see exactly where you're coming from. It's noticeable that the music videos which suffer most from MPEG-2 compression artifacts on The Hits (*) are typically those 80s ones which were originally shot on film, then transferred to horrible, soft NTSC video before being converted to PAL. They wouldn't have looked good to start off with, but when this sort of material hits MPEG-2, it obviously gives it a hard time.
I would have assumed that the softness of the image would let them get away with it, but far from it. The video and film noise are probably still significant- hence making the encoder work harder- and the sharpness of the digital artifacts probably show up more badly on a soft image that contains lots of graduations.
(*) Music video station on digital terrestrial TV in the UK, which has quite high MPEG-2 compression.
There's a whole other issue with photos and videos separate from copyright: getting a model release from the people shown in the picture. See this earlier case of Virgin Mobile Australia using a CC licensed photo off Flickr in an ad campaign. Thank God at least one person didn't let this misleading bit through without criticism. Heller says that
Here's another example: Virgin Mobile used a photo from a Flickr user who used the Creative Commons license, but the company forgot to check for a model release for the person in the photo. They got whacked for a hefty settlement, even though the photo itself was not the source of the problem. True CC licensing had nothing to do with that, but businesses don't think beyond the simple direct correlation, so the bad apple spoiled the barrel. Yes, but that's still not a problem with the CC itself.
I already discussed why I considered Virgin (or their agency) to be negligent in that case in the same thread. An advertising agency are a group of professionals whose jobs revolve around this type of thing. Even someone with a passing knowledge of the area would not assume that the CC license grants a model release. Actually, it's reasonable to assume that people in that position would consider the legal implications of *any* license carefully- and if they didn't, I would consider it negligent.
For reasons I explained in the post, even if there was a (supposed) model release, Virgin would be negligent if they didn't double-check the validity of this first.
But far more likely that he's just confusing 7" singles and 3 1/2" floppies. He's not confused at all. Vinyl records mostly come in two sizes: 7" and 12". My bad. Because the person I replied to mentioned 7.5", it must have biased me towards misreading the original phrase in the same way that he/she had. I had assumed it said 7 1/2", but looking at it again, it's clear that it says 7/12".
In which case the meaning was clear- they meant 7" and 12" (or very small 7/12" records;-)).
He means a gramophone record. They're called 7" singles. Even if the standard 7" vinyl single isn't exactly that size (I've never checked), it's always referred to as 7".
Unless he was talking about some weird and obscure nonstandard format, probably dating from the early gramophone days. But far more likely that he's just confusing 7" singles and 3 1/2" floppies.
Slashdot Mirror
Though I assume he still meant kbps in the second bit; I doubt anyone would notice the difference between 128 and 256 mbps(!)
Obviously, it's more reasonable to believe that the editors remain in their jobs despite being so mentally incompetent that their keyboards should have short-circuited through filling up with drool, and that Slashdot keeps itself afloat financially through the generosity of the Magical Website Fairies...
I never claimed 128mbps was hifi quality- I said that it wasn't as bad as many people make out (the point which you entirely missed). The difference between the worst and the best 128mbps files I've heard is even greater than the difference between a well-encoded 128mbps and a well-encoded 192mbps file.
And you seriously expect me to research all that stuff, to become an expert in such issues, including materials science, and to carry out the practical research (using probably very expensive equipment) to back it up? Just to prove or disprove some dubious claim that someone else made? Get a fucking clue! a master sent to pressing right away sounded better than a master that was allowed the relax overnight. The final outcome being direct to metal mastering which sidesteps the whole relaxing issue. The OP was talking about playing his LPs. It had nothing to do with the masters- that you missed this fact leads me to suspect that you weren't paying attention, aren't not much of an expert, and are just an average ten-a-penny not-as-smart-as-he-thinks Slashdotter who thinks reading a few Google articles is a substitute for proper scientific research. You mean you lack the curiosity and wits to educate yourself? My curiosity begins at wanting to know what the original basis of the myth was- it has limits.
And my wits dictate that if someone presents me with a claim of dubious veracity and they can't present me with any evidence beyond their own conjecture (and I don't know your qualifications in the field- what are they?), then I'm unwilling to believe it without further evidence.
Stop trying to shift the responsibility from your shoulders to mine. You know, I've never been to China, I'm quite sceptical such a place exists. Then you're an idiot. There's overwhelming existence for the evidence of China from countless reputable sources.
Now onto your points- assuming that what you say is correct (and that's a big assumption), you still haven't addressed the issue of (e.g.) how long the vinyl would take to cool down- not long I'd assume- and/or how long it would take to "heal" from this damage- assuming that it *could* actually "heal" and reform. Have you considered the behaviour of vinyl under such stresses?
More importantly, have practical experiments been conducted by reputable people to verify this theory? If not, I call BS. It's easy to come up with something that looks plausible on paper, based upon incomplete consideration of the facts- which was probably the original basis of this supposed issue. Until I hear more about this supposed phenomenon from a proper source- and not the hearsay of a bunch of flaky audiophiles- I'm quite happy to remain sceptical.
I think I'm being more serious than fatuous; I'm pretty sure that such plugins must exist. Most will never be commercially available on CD, so I'm "stuck" with the LP's... Unless you digitise them yourself, of course- or obtain (through "non-legally-orthodox" means) someone else's rip.
The problem is that although people of that age have technically better hearing, the majority probably don't have the attention to musical detail that many people develop over time. I certainly notice things in records I listened to 20 years ago that I didn't then- even though my hearing is probably slightly inferior.
Of course, there are probably exceptions, but to be honest, I'm not aware of legions of 10 - 15 year olds complaining about the sound of iPods.
In some cases I actually did get used to them. The intro of "More of that Jazz" on my recording of Queen's "Jazz" album (tape of a ropey LP)- for example- skipped the first couple of beats on the drum intro and the song started in the middle of the phrase. I actually find this more interesting and familiar than the undamaged version; I think this is partly because I got used to it, but I also like the interesting effect on the timing.
Other minor defects become part of the experience of listening to an album, just like listening to a cassette you got used to the silent preamble at the start of the tape- even down to the quiet leader giving way to the background hiss on the "proper" tape before the music came in.
In general though, if you'd never grown up with- and got used to- these defects, they'd just strike you as annoying, and I don't want to romanticise vinyl damage (I was always a cassette boy anyway!... not that I'd want to go back to them, even though I think they got a bad rap from music snobs).
I'm glad you mentioned the good quality headphones because- from what I'm aware of- the mediocre quality headphones and/or speakers that many people listen to music through can cover up many of the defects of MP3s.
Although there probably are legitimate criticisms of MP3s, I also think that they're the audio cassettes of the 21st century- music snobs hate them, everyone uses them, and although they're probably not the highest-quality format, the problems are overstated. Yes, I've heard some 112/128mbps MP3s with obvious (and annoying) artifacts, but I suspect that this is down to either transcoding or simply a poor-quality encoder in the first place. I've got many MP3s that I ripped using NotLame at 128mbps, and they're actually okay. I'd use 192 or 256 nowadays, but the point is that you can't damn the format solely on the basis of a poor encoder alone.
Seriously, although I'm (only just) outside the age range you give, my circumstances mean that I can relate to the following; Many of my peers expect to graduate college and start off on the same level their parents are (who have worked for 30 years). Yes; and the problem is that for people entering the market nowadays, 30 years of loyalty to a company won't guarantee you s***, in fact it's incredibly unlikely that you'll get to work for the same company for that long anyway.
Companies don't give a toss about people coming into the market, or about their future. They'd like to have people who've already spent time learning the skills that are required this week, pay them peanuts, and then when those skills are no longer relevant, get someone else.
There's no point in respectfully "paying your dues"; the cynical attitude described here is no worse than that being presented towards employees by the companies themselves. Yes, it may be economic reality on their part- in which case, the employees' attitude is an equally valid response.
Namely, that the dupes are not intentional.
Of course they are- Slashdot is a commercial site. I'm guessing that the income from advertising page views far outweighs that from subscriptions.
If you get a good story that is generates a lot of discussion- and hence views- it's still eventually going to get pushed off the front page by newer stories. The most plausible way to get more life from it is to repost it and (implicitly) play along with the "whoops.... the editors duped it again!" consensus. It makes them look implausibly incompetent (IIRC Zonk once posted the same story twice himself), but they can probably live with that. Plus, it provides a focus for endless flawed discussions about why the editors keep "missing" these dupes.
I don't hate Slashdot for this, because (like the majority of us) I don't subscribe and never have. They have to make money somehow, and they'd probably get more stick for openly reposting and recycling stories. But for people to discuss this assuming that the editors really *are* that incompetent- yet somehow remain in employment, and that Slashdot- somehow- hasn't solved the problem of dupes after 10 years is just silly.
Where's Occam's razor when you need it, folks?
It's already been done 8 or 9 years ago. Sadly, it doesn't actually have Barbie on the front, and the company making it went bankrupt.
But you could run Linux on it if you wanted to!
But did he ask the Goatse guy's permission to use that image?
The upside is that- like the Super Soaker- these panels will be far more efficient than their weedy predecessors.
The downside is that- like the Super Soaker- they'll only be available in eye-searingly garish combinations of purple, red and fluorescent green and yellow.
No, *really*.
I see exactly where you're coming from. It's noticeable that the music videos which suffer most from MPEG-2 compression artifacts on The Hits (*) are typically those 80s ones which were originally shot on film, then transferred to horrible, soft NTSC video before being converted to PAL. They wouldn't have looked good to start off with, but when this sort of material hits MPEG-2, it obviously gives it a hard time.
I would have assumed that the softness of the image would let them get away with it, but far from it. The video and film noise are probably still significant- hence making the encoder work harder- and the sharpness of the digital artifacts probably show up more badly on a soft image that contains lots of graduations.
(*) Music video station on digital terrestrial TV in the UK, which has quite high MPEG-2 compression.
"Blew Ray" sounds fairly explicit too. Yeah, I know they changed the spelling to appease the prudes, but I'm not fooled!
I already discussed why I considered Virgin (or their agency) to be negligent in that case in the same thread. An advertising agency are a group of professionals whose jobs revolve around this type of thing. Even someone with a passing knowledge of the area would not assume that the CC license grants a model release. Actually, it's reasonable to assume that people in that position would consider the legal implications of *any* license carefully- and if they didn't, I would consider it negligent.
For reasons I explained in the post, even if there was a (supposed) model release, Virgin would be negligent if they didn't double-check the validity of this first.
In which case the meaning was clear- they meant 7" and 12" (or very small 7/12" records
Unless he was talking about some weird and obscure nonstandard format, probably dating from the early gramophone days. But far more likely that he's just confusing 7" singles and 3 1/2" floppies.