2) the ability of a media consumer, having paid for a legit copy of a movie or a cd, to manipulate it in any way he/she sees fit short of redistribution for profit.
It's relevant because you asked what the significance was of me saying that Xing was the first encoder I ever used. Which you then misinterpreted to read that I was still using Xing, which I never said, and which is untrue.
"It is you who is "ill-informed" and have a low tolerance for new information."
What new information do you think you're presenting me with?
"I never made any claims about "signal chains.""
Sure you did - when you inferred that the quality of the headphones one uses are the sole criteria for audio quality. Again, you can take the best electrostatic headphones in the world and plug them into a sound blaster, and they'll sound like shit. A signal chain is only as strong as its weakest link - you can have a half million dollar monitoring rig, and if there's one bad connection or one iffy cable anywhere in it, the whole thing is for shit. This is one of many reasons why professional audio is best left to professionals.
"If you use LAME, what parameters are you using?"
It depends on a few things, like source material and target file size - most MP3's I make these days are of my own stuff for myspace, which won't let you have any files larger that 10M. When gets to be a bit constricting when I'm trying to post my latest 18-minute electroclash epic. I've had to go as low as 96kHz mono just to get a track to successfully upload. If I'm ripping a CD I bought to be able to put it on my MP3 player, I'll usually use 196, but again, it depends on the source material and how much free space I have left.
" Why don't you take your great ears over to hydrogen audio"
Ah, yes, hydrogen audio. The place you claimed had some supporting facts for your "9 out of 10" claim regarding mp3 vs pcm. Which I looked for and wasn't able to find, and which you are either unable or unwilling to cite a link to.
"because if you can actually tell every mp3 from the source material using a modern version of lame in an ABX test then they would like to hear from you."
True double-blind ABX testing is performed under rigorous standards and conditions I have a sneaking suspicion not everybody who posts on that board has met. a) you must have a *very very quiet* listening environment - like a studio control room, with no computers present (at least none with fans) b) you must have a *very very good* monitoring rig - something like ProTools, or an Apogee interface, connected via balanced connections to a *professional* amplifier driving *professional* monitors; c) you must have somebody else working the controls and have absolutely no idea which selection you're listening to, lest your own personal bias affect the outcome. Unfortunately, my current setup doesn't meet all these stringent requirements and I have no other party to man the controls for me.
That said, even with the limitations of my current setup, I can still easily tell the difference between mp3 and pcm, especially with jazz or classical music, or music with long reverb tails or fadeouts. Of course, I'd never be so presumtuous as to call this a serious double-blind ABX test. And anybody who would is misleading you, be it intentionally or not.
"The simple fact is, if you can hear the difference between every mp3 and the source, YOU are encoding them wrong."
Wah wah wah. I can almost hear you stomping your feet as you say that. Given your assumption that I'm still using the Xing encoder, in spite of my not having said that and then expressly denied it, this statement is null and void. You appear to have decided that there's no way anybody can disagree with you and have a point, that there's nobody in the world that can tell the difference between pcm and mp3 (apparently not even that 1 in 10 you alluded to but now refuse to back up with any kind of reference). Bear in mind that I never said that there's not anybody who can't honestly tell the difference - I'm sure there are. I just think that 9 out of 10 figure is a little bit of ad copy that you've chosen to make part of an ideology. And, having challenged that ideology with known facts, I'm now the object of undue derision on your part. You have decided that *I* am the problem, facts be damned.
"Nyquist, oversampling and dither for A/D and D/A conversion"
Yup. Been to school for that actually. I use 48k myself for projects that are near and dear to my heart. But for most stuff I find 44.1 to be adequate. Of course, 24 bit is always preferable to 16 bit. Hell, I want 32 bit - let's have enough dynamic range to do physical injury to people!
"Now where high frequencies (>20kHz) can make a difference is if they non-linearly interact with the audible portion of the frequency spectrum."
And this is the part of it that I keep hearing over and over, but still have trouble buying into. I know it technically makes sense, but the fact of the matter is, why record frequencies that a) no speaker will reproduce b)no amplifier will reproduce and c) no human ear will hear?
"DVDs are usually 16bit/48kHz"
I thought they were 24/96. Never ripped a DVD myself, I might be wrong.
Also to have an excuse to fill up huge discs with bits. Remember, back when DVD's were new, a large part of their copy protection was considered to be the perceived unwillingness of your average "pirate" to bother ripping and exhanging 5.1G files.
"A 96kHz sampling rate means that the sound wave is measured 96k times per second."
The reason CD's are recorded at 44100Hz is because, after Nyquist is taken into account, that translates to a maximum recordable frequency of 22050Hz, or roughly a little bit above the top range of human hearing. In other words, record at lower sample rates, and you start losing the ability to reproduce the original data accurately - in layman's terms, you lose the treble.
Now, when you increase the sample rate to 96kHz, the top reproducable frequency becomes 48kHz. Well, well above the range of what even dogs can hear. Sample rate doesn't affect dynamic range (that would be bit depth), only frequency respose.
Now, answer my original question. If frequencies you can't hear don't make any difference, why are DVD's encoded at 96kHz?
It's supposed to mean that I've been making mp3's since probably before you had pubes.
"Xing is widely regarded to be the worst encoder."
Today, by far. That's why I don't use it anymore.
"Considering that Xing is the only encoder you mention"
How about Fraunhofer and Opticom, two more old-school encoders? Which, before you go assuming things, I also don't use anymore?
"Considering that Xing is the only encoder you mention, I'm going to believe you are listening to poorly made mp3s."
I said it was the first, Einstein, not the only. I use LAME like everybody else today. But feel free to assume whatever you want.
"There is a ton of them over at hydrogenaudio."
Great. Cite one. Cuz I couldn't find a single one for mp3 vs pcm. I found a bunch for mp3 vs wma, or mp4 vs ogg, but no mp3 vs pcm. I await your citation.
"Midrange Grado headphones are hardly "midrange listening equipment."
That depends what model they are and the signal chain behind them. You plug a pair of freakin electrostats into a sound blaster, it'll still sound like the garbage it is. Just very very clear garbage. You appear to have a very poor grasp of the concept of a signal chain.
"Even people with golden ears can't tell the difference between lame encoded samples at 256 and the original source except on a few tricky samples which you can find on the lame page."
You can keep repeating this crap all you want, it doesn't change the fact that, in music with any dynamic range whatsoever (ie classical or jazz), I can easily tell. But by all means, keep repeating yourself. Try it in caps. It still won't make it true. MP3 is lossy, it discards musical data because it thinks you won't hear it. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong.
"You whining about crappy mp3s and saying you can hear the difference is meaningless when the only codec you even mention is xing."
Ha. I'm sorry that you consider being presented with information that contradicts your previously held (and ill-informed) views to be "whining". If you have such a low tolerance for new information I suggest you discontinue your participation in this thread.
Perfect pitch is being able to hear a tone and tell you the musical note. Absolute pitch is being able to hear a tone and tell you the frequency in Hz.
" VBR Alt Preset Standard LAME encoded is indistinguishable from its source for something like 9 out of 10 people."
This statement doesn't contain nearly enough information to be accurate. Indistinguishable listening through what speakers, through what amplifier, in what environment? Double-blind testing? I would wager that in a pro studio control room, through pro near- or mid-fields or headphones, that ratio would increase dramatically. Maybe 9 out of 10 people listening in their car, or through crappy laptop speakers can't tell the difference.
I don't suppose you've got a link for this "9 out of 10" business?
"Fine, so you're the 10% maybe - or maybe you have just been hearing poorly made MP3s"
Son, I'm a professional mastering engineer. You've heard of "perfect pitch"? I have absolute pitch. I can walk into a resonant rectangular room, clap my hands, and within a few seconds tell you what 2, if not 3, of the room's nodes are. I was making mp3's when they were brand new - the first encoder I used was Xing. So believe me when I say I'm not hearing poorly made mp3's.
"original CD and a LAME encoded MP3"
Original CD of what? Pop, rock or rap? Those are all compressed to shit in the mastering stage, which makes the effects of perceptual encoding much less noticable. The real test would be to make an mp3 of a classical or jazz song, something with some dynamic range to begin with.
"midrange Grado headphones"
Midrange listening equipment will not enable you to be an accurate judge in an AB test. You need a near top-notch quality amplifier and pair of speakers (or headphones), a well-insulated listening environment with no ambient noise, and somebody else operating the computer while you're blindfolded. Anything less has no scientific validity.
"HD space"
This is the only real advantage of mp3. You can fit a shitton of music on a CD, and a gigashitton on a hard drive. Also, mp3 is cool if you're on dialup.
1) The frequencies that are gone are ones that definitely do fall into the audible audio spectrum. They're just the ones that the lossy compression algorithm thinks you're least likely to notice being gone due to larger quantities of information in adjacent bands. But the algorithm isn't always right.
2) If frequencies you can't hear don't make any difference, then why are DVD's recorded with a 96kHz sampling rate? Why are all the hot new DAC's 24bit 192kHz?
3) If you honestly think that a sound's graphical representation in a specrun analyzer has no relation whatsoever to it's representation through speakers, you don't understand what a spectrum analyzer is or how to use it.
People said the same thing about cassettes. They sounded good enough to average ears over average systems to be considered an acceptable substitute for vinyl or CD. But the fact remains that casettes and MP3's are both lossy copies.
Run a full 16/44 WAV throuh a spectrum analyser. Then convert it to mp3 and do the same thing. You will see the difference for yourself.
The fact that your average ears are unable to percieve the lossiness of mp3 in no way negates its existance. Mine certainly can.
You are correct, science has never had and never will have the whole, entire, unvarnished truth. Which is why science should never stop looking. And why you will never find a real scientist anywhere that will ever say that science knows everything. Every scientist I know is well aware that there's vast amounts of knowledge waiting to be gotten to.
In fact, the only people who have ever claimed that scientists think they know everything is the radical, pseudo-religious right. Which makes me wonder just where you've gotten your perception that scientists think they know everything.
We shouldn't just sit around on our asses, ignoring all the truth that science *has* managed to put together, and not act on it. At some point you gotta go with what you know, while you try and expand that knowledge.
Your analogy is specious. In addition, you obviously haven't bothered to read the rest of the thread where I've addressedthisrepeatedly. So here we go again.
Firstly, computer fundamentals are taught and are usually a prerequisite for taking any more in-depth or application-specific course at the high school level. And it's a good thing that they are taught. For you to intimate that they are not is patently false.
Secondly, to liken the teaching of different OS's to Bics vs RollerMates or to Black and Decker vs Kenmore is to deny that computers are many orders of magnitude more complex than ball-point pens or power tools, both of which have at most three or four controls. This is also patently false, and happens to be very disrespectful of and dismissive toward computer users and their skills.
Schools teach manual and automatic transmissions in driver's ed. The reason for this is that they operate differently, and you may someday find yourself in a situation where you are required to operate either one. Schools should also teach Windows, MacOS and *ix/ux for the same reason - they operate differently, and you never know when you're going to need to know how to use one.
"These kids need to learn essential skills not essential marketing."
Which is exactly why I think they should be taught how to use whatever they might have to use in the working world, both in specific and in abstract. As it stands today, all they're learning is MS - I'm advocating opening the schools up to teach MS, Mac, and *ix/us (and possibly Palm). You appear to be in favor of a continued MS monoculture.
"How do you know those are the only mechanisms involved?"
That's what you said. Those are your words. In other words, you're asking to me to prove that there are NO other mechanisms involved. You're asking to me to prove the ABSENCE of any other contributing mechanisms. The fact that you choose not to admit that that's proving a negative doesn't change the fact that that's exactly what it is.
Let me turn it around, though, and ask you an answerable, fair question. What proof do *you* have that mechanisms other than natural selection *were* involved in the creation of human, or other primate, reflexes? Let's hear it, Einstein.
Have a slightly larger, more diverse tech team operate on-call district-wide, instead of one or two dedicated techs per school, who are either slammed to wall (cuz they're only two people) or sitting around doing nothing. Hire temps. Solutions exist.
Not to mention that the prime reason public school computer techs are busy, when they are busy, is because the public schools operate a MS-exclusive environment (usually XP) - which means that these poor guys are busy trying to patch or reapir the latest 'sploit or infection. Apple or *ix/ux systems, as long as they were set up properly, would IMHO require much less maintenance than Winboxen.
"2) Spend three times as much on hardware."
Surely you can't be so dense as to think that I'm advocating buying three times as many computers as w currently buy without a corresponding trebling of the student body. See here for what I've already said on the subject.
"3) Mac and Linux boxes would never get used. The kids would pick Windows every time."
Well, if only 1/3-1/2 of the boxes were Windows, and those were full, guess what they'd do? They'd figure out how to check their email on a Mac or *ix/ux, and learn a little bit about them in the process.
Remember, we're not just talking about open lab time here. We're talking about splitting the resources (instructional and financial) currently devoted to Microsoft-exclusive installations between MS, Apple, and *ix/ux - and Palm should probably be inlcuded as well. We're talking about some teaching time being devoted to alternate systems as well. Monoculture is BAD and shouldn't be the policy for public schools. It was bad when Apple did it, and it's bad when MS does it. When these kids get out in the workplace who knows what they're gonna be working with?
Firstly, just because you say it doens't make it so. Secondly, it certainly wouldn't be the first thing in public school to be wasteful.
"The idea behind your argument is you need to give children the most exposure to computer platforms as possible so they can make a choice as to which is their favorite or whatnot."
That's a part of it. A bigger part is responsibly preparing students for what they'll face in the workplace, which today means Windows but could mean *ix/ux tomorrow, or Apple in very limited situations.
"You weren't thinking about it or it is unimportant to your particular view of the computing world."
I wasn't thinking about it, you're exactly right. And students should receive instruction on any system that's likely to be in use in the business world, Palm included.
"It is not a high school or middle school or elementary school's job to teach children how to use a computer."
Holy ivory tower, Batman. You don't have kids, do you? It most certainly is, especially the higher grades. My folks are both public school teachers, so believe me when I say that schools get scrutinized very closely to make sure that they do exactly that. You can have whatever opinion you want about computers in the classroom, but if you're writing this from inside America, understand that you've been outvoted. The parents want it taught, the districts want it taught, and the administration wants it taught. So guess what? It's gettin' taught! (Note: The "it" in this case is Microsoft systems and applications, exclusively)
"It is their job to give them tools they will use later in life to teach themselves how to do and use anything they want."
Right. Like knowing how to use a computer. Make up your mind, dude.
"Composition is a tool, logic is a tool, research skills are a tool, reading comprehension is a tool."
Which is why public schools teach all those things. Computers are tools as well, and the public schools have a mandate from the public to fulfill regarding the education thereof.
"A kid taught how to find answers can easily move between Windows, MacOS, Linux, OS/2, CP/M, PalmOS, or their TiVo."
You appear to have had absolutely zero interaction with any modern kids. If you think any average 15-year-old can move easily from windows to Linux I'm not sure there's any point to continuing this discussion. Your average high school SENIOR wouldn't have the foggiest idea what to do with a CLI.
"Supporting more than a handful of different systems is often times ridiculously difficult."
I'm not talking about more than a handful. I"m talking about what they're going to work with in the real world when they go to get a job as an insurance actuary, a car salesman or a secretary. Which means Microsoft, Apple, *is/ux, and Palm.
"If a district wants systems their IT staff can't manage they're going to need a larger staff which adds another layer of departmental complexity."
Now you're just being obstructionist. There are many, many potential solutions to funding and maintenance issues. If libraries - not to mention Kinko's - can keep PC's, macs, and proprietary IS running side by side, so can our schools. I refuse to subscribe to your notion that just because something might possibly be more difficult that it shouldn't be attempted.
Look, general computer concepts should be and are being taught in public schools. Whether you like it or not, certain particulars of comptuer usage are as well. As it stands now, in the vast majority of public schools this is Windows-based instruction. I'm advocating opening it up to include Apple, *ix/ux and Palm, to more accurately reflect the changing possibilities and diveristy found in today's workplace. You seem to be advocating for a continuing Windows lockin.
I'm done repeating myself - see here, or here, or here. I've been more than clear that all three are valid and relevant platforms and all three should be taught.
Again, I must repeat myself. Knowing how to write a letter doesn't mean you know how to write one on a comptuer. Knowing how to use a word processor doesn't mean you know how to write a letter. Schools should teach both the fundamentals of composition as well as a broad variety of OS's and apps for doing so. What is so hard to understand?... Kids don't know the "ins-and-outs" of TV production but that doesn't stop them from having a favorite show. School is not the place for anybody's fanboyism to be forced on children, it's the place for them to learn as many and varied types of information as possible. Any school that doesn't teach how to use Windows is falling down on the job. Any school that doesn't teach how to use MacOS is falling down on the job. Any school that doesn't teach *ix/ux is falling down on the job. Any school that doesn't teach computing fundamentals is falling down on the job. None of them are mutually exclusive!
Just because you like something doesn't mean it's the only thing kids should learn.
I'm getting so tired of repeating myself. School is for learning. The purpose of school is to educate, not to generate fanboys. The most effective school is the one that teaches things with the greatest depth and diversity. The best computer education a school could provide would cover MS, Mac and *ix/ux EQUALLY.
Have access to != know how to use. If it did I wouldn't have any work down here at all. What little money I've made in the Sunshine State has been mostly from teaching grandmothers how to not install spyware.
"Most of the Windows and office functionality can be learned with a variety of Linux distributions and OpenOffice -- and any of the many intro/"dummies" books that populate the shelves."
These kids can't be bothered to read friggin cliff's notes for crying out loud. Not to mention the fact that high school egos would never permit them to read anything with "dummies" on it. Their friends might see them.
I've been getting so much flak about this that I went and asked God. Here's what he said:
MS apps and systems should be taught. MacOS apps and systems should be taught. *ix/ux apps and systems should be taught. Clearer now? Did none of you people read this?
"my response is that whilst this may be true now, 10, 20, 30+ years from now it will most likely not be the case."
Which is exactly why student should learn Windows, *ix/ux, and MacOS.
"for that reason schools shouldn't teach software at all, instead of teaching/any/ word proccessing tool available today, they should teach the proper form for adressing a letter"
They already do, at least at the public high school I attended. And it's a good thing.
But knowing how to write a letter won't teach you how to write one on a computer, just like knowing how to operate a word processor won't teach you how to write a letter. Schools should teach various OS's and applications, none to the exclusion of others.
"You do so in another thread"
We have different definitions of "thread" then. What you appear to consider a thread I apparently consider a first-tier subthread. But, having read it, hopefully you have a better picture of my position on the matter.
As long as you believe schools are for education, there's no justification for only teaching one system, no matter what it is. The more students learn the better. They need to have *ux/ix side by side with Windows and MacOS, and they need to learn all three.
Slashdot Mirror
"Couldn't one argue that accepting audio files in return is a form of payment"
tricky, because not everybody will agree on the worth of those files. But a dollar is a dollar to everybody.
Also, plenty of file sharers (I'm assuming that's what you're alluding to) don't require anything in return.
Also, if music files were the same as money, I'd never have to work again.
1) faster expiration.
2) the ability of a media consumer, having paid for a legit copy of a movie or a cd, to manipulate it in any way he/she sees fit short of redistribution for profit.
"how is this relevant?"
It's relevant because you asked what the significance was of me saying that Xing was the first encoder I ever used. Which you then misinterpreted to read that I was still using Xing, which I never said, and which is untrue.
"It is you who is "ill-informed" and have a low tolerance for new information."
What new information do you think you're presenting me with?
"I never made any claims about "signal chains.""
Sure you did - when you inferred that the quality of the headphones one uses are the sole criteria for audio quality. Again, you can take the best electrostatic headphones in the world and plug them into a sound blaster, and they'll sound like shit. A signal chain is only as strong as its weakest link - you can have a half million dollar monitoring rig, and if there's one bad connection or one iffy cable anywhere in it, the whole thing is for shit. This is one of many reasons why professional audio is best left to professionals.
"If you use LAME, what parameters are you using?"
It depends on a few things, like source material and target file size - most MP3's I make these days are of my own stuff for myspace, which won't let you have any files larger that 10M. When gets to be a bit constricting when I'm trying to post my latest 18-minute electroclash epic. I've had to go as low as 96kHz mono just to get a track to successfully upload. If I'm ripping a CD I bought to be able to put it on my MP3 player, I'll usually use 196, but again, it depends on the source material and how much free space I have left.
" Why don't you take your great ears over to hydrogen audio"
Ah, yes, hydrogen audio. The place you claimed had some supporting facts for your "9 out of 10" claim regarding mp3 vs pcm. Which I looked for and wasn't able to find, and which you are either unable or unwilling to cite a link to.
"because if you can actually tell every mp3 from the source material using a modern version of lame in an ABX test then they would like to hear from you."
True double-blind ABX testing is performed under rigorous standards and conditions I have a sneaking suspicion not everybody who posts on that board has met. a) you must have a *very very quiet* listening environment - like a studio control room, with no computers present (at least none with fans) b) you must have a *very very good* monitoring rig - something like ProTools, or an Apogee interface, connected via balanced connections to a *professional* amplifier driving *professional* monitors; c) you must have somebody else working the controls and have absolutely no idea which selection you're listening to, lest your own personal bias affect the outcome. Unfortunately, my current setup doesn't meet all these stringent requirements and I have no other party to man the controls for me.
That said, even with the limitations of my current setup, I can still easily tell the difference between mp3 and pcm, especially with jazz or classical music, or music with long reverb tails or fadeouts. Of course, I'd never be so presumtuous as to call this a serious double-blind ABX test. And anybody who would is misleading you, be it intentionally or not.
"The simple fact is, if you can hear the difference between every mp3 and the source, YOU are encoding them wrong."
Wah wah wah. I can almost hear you stomping your feet as you say that. Given your assumption that I'm still using the Xing encoder, in spite of my not having said that and then expressly denied it, this statement is null and void. You appear to have decided that there's no way anybody can disagree with you and have a point, that there's nobody in the world that can tell the difference between pcm and mp3 (apparently not even that 1 in 10 you alluded to but now refuse to back up with any kind of reference). Bear in mind that I never said that there's not anybody who can't honestly tell the difference - I'm sure there are. I just think that 9 out of 10 figure is a little bit of ad copy that you've chosen to make part of an ideology. And, having challenged that ideology with known facts, I'm now the object of undue derision on your part. You have decided that *I* am the problem, facts be damned.
HAND.
"Nyquist, oversampling and dither for A/D and D/A conversion"
Yup. Been to school for that actually. I use 48k myself for projects that are near and dear to my heart. But for most stuff I find 44.1 to be adequate. Of course, 24 bit is always preferable to 16 bit. Hell, I want 32 bit - let's have enough dynamic range to do physical injury to people!
"Now where high frequencies (>20kHz) can make a difference is if they non-linearly interact with the audible portion of the frequency spectrum."
And this is the part of it that I keep hearing over and over, but still have trouble buying into. I know it technically makes sense, but the fact of the matter is, why record frequencies that a) no speaker will reproduce b)no amplifier will reproduce and c) no human ear will hear?
"DVDs are usually 16bit/48kHz"
I thought they were 24/96. Never ripped a DVD myself, I might be wrong.
exACTly! :)
Also to have an excuse to fill up huge discs with bits. Remember, back when DVD's were new, a large part of their copy protection was considered to be the perceived unwillingness of your average "pirate" to bother ripping and exhanging 5.1G files.
"A 96kHz sampling rate means that the sound wave is measured 96k times per second."
The reason CD's are recorded at 44100Hz is because, after Nyquist is taken into account, that translates to a maximum recordable frequency of 22050Hz, or roughly a little bit above the top range of human hearing. In other words, record at lower sample rates, and you start losing the ability to reproduce the original data accurately - in layman's terms, you lose the treble.
Now, when you increase the sample rate to 96kHz, the top reproducable frequency becomes 48kHz. Well, well above the range of what even dogs can hear. Sample rate doesn't affect dynamic range (that would be bit depth), only frequency respose.
Now, answer my original question. If frequencies you can't hear don't make any difference, why are DVD's encoded at 96kHz?
Those terms were not spelled out in our agreement.
Play fair.
"Not quite sure what that is supposed to mean"
It's supposed to mean that I've been making mp3's since probably before you had pubes.
"Xing is widely regarded to be the worst encoder."
Today, by far. That's why I don't use it anymore.
"Considering that Xing is the only encoder you mention"
How about Fraunhofer and Opticom, two more old-school encoders? Which, before you go assuming things, I also don't use anymore?
"Considering that Xing is the only encoder you mention, I'm going to believe you are listening to poorly made mp3s."
I said it was the first, Einstein, not the only. I use LAME like everybody else today. But feel free to assume whatever you want.
"There is a ton of them over at hydrogenaudio."
Great. Cite one. Cuz I couldn't find a single one for mp3 vs pcm. I found a bunch for mp3 vs wma, or mp4 vs ogg, but no mp3 vs pcm. I await your citation.
"Midrange Grado headphones are hardly "midrange listening equipment."
That depends what model they are and the signal chain behind them. You plug a pair of freakin electrostats into a sound blaster, it'll still sound like the garbage it is. Just very very clear garbage. You appear to have a very poor grasp of the concept of a signal chain.
"Even people with golden ears can't tell the difference between lame encoded samples at 256 and the original source except on a few tricky samples which you can find on the lame page."
You can keep repeating this crap all you want, it doesn't change the fact that, in music with any dynamic range whatsoever (ie classical or jazz), I can easily tell. But by all means, keep repeating yourself. Try it in caps. It still won't make it true. MP3 is lossy, it discards musical data because it thinks you won't hear it. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong.
"You whining about crappy mp3s and saying you can hear the difference is meaningless when the only codec you even mention is xing."
Ha. I'm sorry that you consider being presented with information that contradicts your previously held (and ill-informed) views to be "whining". If you have such a low tolerance for new information I suggest you discontinue your participation in this thread.
Perfect pitch is being able to hear a tone and tell you the musical note. Absolute pitch is being able to hear a tone and tell you the frequency in Hz.
"I'll give you $20"
I'll be waiting for your check.
" VBR Alt Preset Standard LAME encoded is indistinguishable from its source for something like 9 out of 10 people."
This statement doesn't contain nearly enough information to be accurate. Indistinguishable listening through what speakers, through what amplifier, in what environment? Double-blind testing? I would wager that in a pro studio control room, through pro near- or mid-fields or headphones, that ratio would increase dramatically. Maybe 9 out of 10 people listening in their car, or through crappy laptop speakers can't tell the difference.
I don't suppose you've got a link for this "9 out of 10" business?
"Fine, so you're the 10% maybe - or maybe you have just been hearing poorly made MP3s"
Son, I'm a professional mastering engineer. You've heard of "perfect pitch"? I have absolute pitch. I can walk into a resonant rectangular room, clap my hands, and within a few seconds tell you what 2, if not 3, of the room's nodes are. I was making mp3's when they were brand new - the first encoder I used was Xing. So believe me when I say I'm not hearing poorly made mp3's.
"original CD and a LAME encoded MP3"
Original CD of what? Pop, rock or rap? Those are all compressed to shit in the mastering stage, which makes the effects of perceptual encoding much less noticable. The real test would be to make an mp3 of a classical or jazz song, something with some dynamic range to begin with.
"midrange Grado headphones"
Midrange listening equipment will not enable you to be an accurate judge in an AB test. You need a near top-notch quality amplifier and pair of speakers (or headphones), a well-insulated listening environment with no ambient noise, and somebody else operating the computer while you're blindfolded. Anything less has no scientific validity.
"HD space"
This is the only real advantage of mp3. You can fit a shitton of music on a CD, and a gigashitton on a hard drive. Also, mp3 is cool if you're on dialup.
1) The frequencies that are gone are ones that definitely do fall into the audible audio spectrum. They're just the ones that the lossy compression algorithm thinks you're least likely to notice being gone due to larger quantities of information in adjacent bands. But the algorithm isn't always right.
2) If frequencies you can't hear don't make any difference, then why are DVD's recorded with a 96kHz sampling rate? Why are all the hot new DAC's 24bit 192kHz?
3) If you honestly think that a sound's graphical representation in a specrun analyzer has no relation whatsoever to it's representation through speakers, you don't understand what a spectrum analyzer is or how to use it.
Have a nice day.
People said the same thing about cassettes. They sounded good enough to average ears over average systems to be considered an acceptable substitute for vinyl or CD. But the fact remains that casettes and MP3's are both lossy copies.
Run a full 16/44 WAV throuh a spectrum analyser. Then convert it to mp3 and do the same thing. You will see the difference for yourself.
The fact that your average ears are unable to percieve the lossiness of mp3 in no way negates its existance. Mine certainly can.
You are correct, science has never had and never will have the whole, entire, unvarnished truth. Which is why science should never stop looking. And why you will never find a real scientist anywhere that will ever say that science knows everything. Every scientist I know is well aware that there's vast amounts of knowledge waiting to be gotten to.
In fact, the only people who have ever claimed that scientists think they know everything is the radical, pseudo-religious right. Which makes me wonder just where you've gotten your perception that scientists think they know everything.
We shouldn't just sit around on our asses, ignoring all the truth that science *has* managed to put together, and not act on it. At some point you gotta go with what you know, while you try and expand that knowledge.
Your analogy is specious. In addition, you obviously haven't bothered to read the rest of the thread where I've addressed this repeatedly. So here we go again.
Firstly, computer fundamentals are taught and are usually a prerequisite for taking any more in-depth or application-specific course at the high school level. And it's a good thing that they are taught. For you to intimate that they are not is patently false.
Secondly, to liken the teaching of different OS's to Bics vs RollerMates or to Black and Decker vs Kenmore is to deny that computers are many orders of magnitude more complex than ball-point pens or power tools, both of which have at most three or four controls. This is also patently false, and happens to be very disrespectful of and dismissive toward computer users and their skills.
Schools teach manual and automatic transmissions in driver's ed. The reason for this is that they operate differently, and you may someday find yourself in a situation where you are required to operate either one. Schools should also teach Windows, MacOS and *ix/ux for the same reason - they operate differently, and you never know when you're going to need to know how to use one.
"These kids need to learn essential skills not essential marketing."
Which is exactly why I think they should be taught how to use whatever they might have to use in the working world, both in specific and in abstract. As it stands today, all they're learning is MS - I'm advocating opening the schools up to teach MS, Mac, and *ix/us (and possibly Palm). You appear to be in favor of a continued MS monoculture.
"How do you know those are the only mechanisms involved?"
That's what you said. Those are your words. In other words, you're asking to me to prove that there are NO other mechanisms involved. You're asking to me to prove the ABSENCE of any other contributing mechanisms. The fact that you choose not to admit that that's proving a negative doesn't change the fact that that's exactly what it is.
Let me turn it around, though, and ask you an answerable, fair question. What proof do *you* have that mechanisms other than natural selection *were* involved in the creation of human, or other primate, reflexes? Let's hear it, Einstein.
"Um. 1) Much more hassle for the admins."
Have a slightly larger, more diverse tech team operate on-call district-wide, instead of one or two dedicated techs per school, who are either slammed to wall (cuz they're only two people) or sitting around doing nothing. Hire temps. Solutions exist.
Not to mention that the prime reason public school computer techs are busy, when they are busy, is because the public schools operate a MS-exclusive environment (usually XP) - which means that these poor guys are busy trying to patch or reapir the latest 'sploit or infection. Apple or *ix/ux systems, as long as they were set up properly, would IMHO require much less maintenance than Winboxen.
"2) Spend three times as much on hardware."
Surely you can't be so dense as to think that I'm advocating buying three times as many computers as w currently buy without a corresponding trebling of the student body. See here for what I've already said on the subject.
"3) Mac and Linux boxes would never get used. The kids would pick Windows every time."
Well, if only 1/3-1/2 of the boxes were Windows, and those were full, guess what they'd do? They'd figure out how to check their email on a Mac or *ix/ux, and learn a little bit about them in the process.
Remember, we're not just talking about open lab time here. We're talking about splitting the resources (instructional and financial) currently devoted to Microsoft-exclusive installations between MS, Apple, and *ix/ux - and Palm should probably be inlcuded as well. We're talking about some teaching time being devoted to alternate systems as well. Monoculture is BAD and shouldn't be the policy for public schools. It was bad when Apple did it, and it's bad when MS does it. When these kids get out in the workplace who knows what they're gonna be working with?
"This is wasteful and very unproductive."
Firstly, just because you say it doens't make it so. Secondly, it certainly wouldn't be the first thing in public school to be wasteful.
"The idea behind your argument is you need to give children the most exposure to computer platforms as possible so they can make a choice as to which is their favorite or whatnot."
That's a part of it. A bigger part is responsibly preparing students for what they'll face in the workplace, which today means Windows but could mean *ix/ux tomorrow, or Apple in very limited situations.
"You weren't thinking about it or it is unimportant to your particular view of the computing world."
I wasn't thinking about it, you're exactly right. And students should receive instruction on any system that's likely to be in use in the business world, Palm included.
"It is not a high school or middle school or elementary school's job to teach children how to use a computer."
Holy ivory tower, Batman. You don't have kids, do you? It most certainly is, especially the higher grades. My folks are both public school teachers, so believe me when I say that schools get scrutinized very closely to make sure that they do exactly that. You can have whatever opinion you want about computers in the classroom, but if you're writing this from inside America, understand that you've been outvoted. The parents want it taught, the districts want it taught, and the administration wants it taught. So guess what? It's gettin' taught! (Note: The "it" in this case is Microsoft systems and applications, exclusively)
"It is their job to give them tools they will use later in life to teach themselves how to do and use anything they want."
Right. Like knowing how to use a computer. Make up your mind, dude.
"Composition is a tool, logic is a tool, research skills are a tool, reading comprehension is a tool."
Which is why public schools teach all those things. Computers are tools as well, and the public schools have a mandate from the public to fulfill regarding the education thereof.
"A kid taught how to find answers can easily move between Windows, MacOS, Linux, OS/2, CP/M, PalmOS, or their TiVo."
You appear to have had absolutely zero interaction with any modern kids. If you think any average 15-year-old can move easily from windows to Linux I'm not sure there's any point to continuing this discussion. Your average high school SENIOR wouldn't have the foggiest idea what to do with a CLI.
"Supporting more than a handful of different systems is often times ridiculously difficult."
I'm not talking about more than a handful. I"m talking about what they're going to work with in the real world when they go to get a job as an insurance actuary, a car salesman or a secretary. Which means Microsoft, Apple, *is/ux, and Palm.
"If a district wants systems their IT staff can't manage they're going to need a larger staff which adds another layer of departmental complexity."
Now you're just being obstructionist. There are many, many potential solutions to funding and maintenance issues. If libraries - not to mention Kinko's - can keep PC's, macs, and proprietary IS running side by side, so can our schools. I refuse to subscribe to your notion that just because something might possibly be more difficult that it shouldn't be attempted.
Look, general computer concepts should be and are being taught in public schools. Whether you like it or not, certain particulars of comptuer usage are as well. As it stands now, in the vast majority of public schools this is Windows-based instruction. I'm advocating opening it up to include Apple, *ix/ux and Palm, to more accurately reflect the changing possibilities and diveristy found in today's workplace. You seem to be advocating for a continuing Windows lockin.
I'm done repeating myself - see here, or here, or here. I've been more than clear that all three are valid and relevant platforms and all three should be taught.
Again, I must repeat myself. Knowing how to write a letter doesn't mean you know how to write one on a comptuer. Knowing how to use a word processor doesn't mean you know how to write a letter. Schools should teach both the fundamentals of composition as well as a broad variety of OS's and apps for doing so. What is so hard to understand?... Kids don't know the "ins-and-outs" of TV production but that doesn't stop them from having a favorite show. School is not the place for anybody's fanboyism to be forced on children, it's the place for them to learn as many and varied types of information as possible. Any school that doesn't teach how to use Windows is falling down on the job. Any school that doesn't teach how to use MacOS is falling down on the job. Any school that doesn't teach *ix/ux is falling down on the job. Any school that doesn't teach computing fundamentals is falling down on the job. None of them are mutually exclusive!
Just because you like something doesn't mean it's the only thing kids should learn.
I'm getting so tired of repeating myself. School is for learning. The purpose of school is to educate, not to generate fanboys. The most effective school is the one that teaches things with the greatest depth and diversity. The best computer education a school could provide would cover MS, Mac and *ix/ux EQUALLY.
"Who doesn't have access to a Windows box?"
Have access to != know how to use. If it did I wouldn't have any work down here at all. What little money I've made in the Sunshine State has been mostly from teaching grandmothers how to not install spyware.
"Most of the Windows and office functionality can be learned with a variety of Linux distributions and OpenOffice -- and any of the many intro/"dummies" books that populate the shelves."
These kids can't be bothered to read friggin cliff's notes for crying out loud. Not to mention the fact that high school egos would never permit them to read anything with "dummies" on it. Their friends might see them.
I've been getting so much flak about this that I went and asked God. Here's what he said:
Windows... is my son. MacOS is my son. *ix/ux is my son. The guy who said there was no room at the inn was my son. Next question.
"Microsoft-specific training"
MS apps and systems should be taught. MacOS apps and systems should be taught. *ix/ux apps and systems should be taught. Clearer now? Did none of you people read this?
"my response is that whilst this may be true now, 10, 20, 30+ years from now it will most likely not be the case."
/any/ word proccessing tool available today, they should teach the proper form for adressing a letter"
Which is exactly why student should learn Windows, *ix/ux, and MacOS.
"for that reason schools shouldn't teach software at all, instead of teaching
They already do, at least at the public high school I attended. And it's a good thing.
But knowing how to write a letter won't teach you how to write one on a computer, just like knowing how to operate a word processor won't teach you how to write a letter. Schools should teach various OS's and applications, none to the exclusion of others.
"You do so in another thread"
We have different definitions of "thread" then. What you appear to consider a thread I apparently consider a first-tier subthread. But, having read it, hopefully you have a better picture of my position on the matter.
Oh, that's right, I forgot. There's no way anybody could ever use a unix variant for evil, right?
As long as you believe schools are for education, there's no justification for only teaching one system, no matter what it is. The more students learn the better. They need to have *ux/ix side by side with Windows and MacOS, and they need to learn all three.