[BC] Cascading Algorithms

Sun Jul 2 22:15:12 CDT 2006

John....

your second line sums up what I've been trying to say for two days now. 
Thank you. I remember when James Gabbert ran a program called Excursions in 
Stereo. But those were the days people had "High Fidelity" systems. As 
you've pointed out we've dumbed down significantly since then. One quick 
story. When I was 17 years old I was a board op for a Classical Station in 
San Francisco. (forgive me all, I've told this story before but it's been 
awhile so it's time for it to come up in rotation) KSFR the calls. We won 1 
of 7 audio awards given by Stereo Hi-Fi Review or one of those. Seriously, 
we had a custom console where you could punch a listen to the turntable 
output all the way through the chain to the air signal. You could NOT tell 
the difference between the turntable output and the air signal. I remember 
that as if it were yesterday. I know Bob Orban will back me up on this 
claim. Suffice it to say those days are over except for a few. It's a shame. 
Anyway, you hit it right on the head. Thanks and have another glass for me.

Steve Newman
Steve Walker Productions
Opp, AL  36467

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Buffaloe" <johnbuffaloe at bext.com>
To: "'Broadcasters' Mailing List'" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 9:32 PM
Subject: RE: [BC] Cascading Algorithms

> OK.  Let's face the facts like real men.  Nobody under 30 (with the
> exception of a few MIT engineering students) gives a crap any more about
> audio quality.  All of us GEB's (of which Rich Wood is the Golden Ear Lobe
> winner) are dinosaurs.  Audio quality has given way to convenience in
> dragging around three thousand songs data bit mashed to hell so we can 
> have
> our entire libraries of songs we're sick of anyway available to us while 
> we
> visit the terlit on our 757 from Poughdunk to Sausagelito.  It's important
> that we have these devices because everyone else that has a Donna Karan 
> suit
> has one too.  The difficulty is in fitting the Blue Tooth earpiece under 
> the
> Bose noise canceling headphones so that we can actually hear the phone 
> call
> and the right channel at the same time.  That is of course if you happen 
> to
> be right eared, but that's another topic and I digress.
>
> Look back at the efforts we used to make to have the best studios, the 
> best
> monitoring, the best home systems, the best tube amplifiers, or whatever,
> and look at the modern user that just wants convenience and what they want
> when and where they want it.  I had the best sounding radio station in San
> Diego running uncompressed CD's through an uncompressed digital STL with
> processing sans clipping.  The PD decided to run compressed live assist
> automation so the jocks could take more phone calls.  There was a marked
> difference (loss) in the audio quality, but I'm just another old GEB.
>
> Today, it's about convenient gizmos.  They don't have to sound the best,
> they only have to fulfill the need for instant gratification.  It ain't
> about the quality of the audio folks.  If it was, manufacturers would be
> touting the latest full spectrum audio linear devices and selling them by
> the boodle.  Seen one lately in your local "Tweeter?"
>
> It defies logic to me, but so does the popularity of Rap and Hip Hop.
>
> All of this reduced data stuff is crap packaged as perfume.  And the
> multitudes are shelling out for it.  Not IBOC, but iPods, Sirius, XM, cell
> phone MP3 players, ad nauseum.  Fine.  That's what they want, then give it
> to them then go home and hug your kids.  Maybe they'll awaken to the
> swinging pendulum and demand more when they hear what good audio sounds 
> like
> in the never ending game of "gadgets."
>
> Sorry.  I think I had one glass of wine too many.
>
> John A. Buffaloe
> Bext, Inc.
> 1-888-BEXTINC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
> [mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Tekel
> Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 8:37 PM
> To: broadcast at radiolists.net
> Subject: [BC] Cascading Algorithms
>
> Rich Wood wrote:
> > I ask "how long can you listen to CDs with good quality earbuds." The
> > answer from everyone, so far, is some variation of "I can listen for
> > hours."  The second question is "how long can you listen to your MP3
> > player with good quality earbuds.?" The last response I got was
> > "about an hour. It hurts my ears." No discussion of codecs is involved.
>
> That's nothing.  Try asking how long they can listen to XM through
> earbuds. In a noisy store when played through cheap demo speakers it
> already sounds hideous.  Listening to XM in a quiet environment through
> earbuds or headphones would be like torture to me, and would surely give
> me a headache after only a few minutes.  Its horrendous SBR "synthetic
> treble" has all the mellowness of a swarm of screeching cicadas.  And
> since it also uses SBR, IBOC has this same exact problem, especially now
> that most FM IBOC stations are multicasting and bitrate of their main
> audio channel has been severely compromised.
>
> Sirius may not be aural heaven either, since they're still using the
> Lucent PAC codec whose use with IBOC was embarrassingly rejected by the
> NRSC, but since PAC does not use "synthetic treble" I actually find Sirius
> to be less painful to my ears than XM or IBOC.  Sirius also limits their
> treble response to 12 kHz and blends all audio above 1.8 kHz to mono,
> which helps to mask a lot of the codec artifacts.  After all, there is no
> need to try to squeeze full "digital-quality" stereo audio through a codec
> which just can't handle it gracefully.
>
> Another reason why XM sounds so bad is that they are deliberately
> transcoding their audio.  Last I heard, their music is stored on their
> servers as 384 kbps MP2 files.  That format by itself already has plenty
> of audible artifacts, and when you transcode it to ~32 kbps AACplus for
> transmission over XM, it surely isn't going to sound any better!  And yet
> the RIAA is still getting their knickers in a knot over the concept of XM
> subscribers being able to make "CD-quality" digital recordings of the
> music that comes over their favorite channels.  Add in another layer of
> transcoding when the received XM audio is saved as, say, a 128 kbps MP3
> file, and the result is probably so poor that it would be the aural
> equivalent of what you see when you try to dub a MacroVision-protected
> video tape.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
> http://www.radiolists.net/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
> http://www.radiolists.net/
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 6/30/2006
> 