January 2004 - Orb - mailman.xmission.com

Re: [Orb] His master's voice
by Adam J Weitzman 05 Feb '04

05 Feb '04

I'm on digest, so I don't know if this has been answered, but your presumptions on both halves of the equation are wrong, and as a result, and your math is way off. From: P J Kane <postlibyan(a)netzero.com> > anyhoo, for the benefit of you two: an MP3 can be encoded at 192 > kbps, that's "kilobits per second" or, "192 x 8 (there are 8 pieces > of info in a bit) x 1,000" pieces of information, which works out to > be: 1,536,000 pieces of information PER SECOND. > > a CD is encoded at a mere 128 kbps, which works out to be 1,024,000 > pieces of information per second. > > so, there is quite a bit more information encoded in a high-quality MP3 > than there is in CD quality audio. Actually, there is 1 piece of info in a bit. You are thinking of a byte, which contains 8 bits. 192kbps works out to 192 x 1024 x 2 (don't forget stereo!) = 393,216 bits per second. A CD is encoded 44,100 samples per second x 16 bits per sample x 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits per second, or more than 3.5x more information than a 192kbps MP3. Even if you forget about the math, your entire premise is illogical. You are arguing that if you rip a 192kbps MP3, you would end up with more information than you started with on the CD, but it would take up less space. That makes no sense. It is well known that MP3 is a lossy algorithm. In order to get the compression, you have to lose data. I can absolutely tell the difference between vinyl and CD, and I can absolutely tell the difference between a CD and a 192kbps rip of the same music, in a clean environment. However, in my car, or walking around with headphones, where there's lots of ambient noise to overcome, it doesn't matter much, which is why they're so great for portability. -- Adam J Weitzman - voxpop arbitrageur

3 3

Re: [Orb] His master's voice
by P J Kane 04 Feb '04

04 Feb '04

<< I contend that you are wrong. >> why you.... i oughta..... no, i might be. but you might be as well. who can tell? << Go to a high end stereo/speaker shop and bring in the same album in a compressed and uncompressed format. I guarantee the people working there (if their worth their salt) will be able to tell the difference. >> or at least, they will SAY they can. like i am going to trust thoe people, who have a vested interest in me agreeing with their statements and thus shellign out for expensive audio gear.... << Same with vinyl and CD......people *can* tell the difference. The range of frequencies the you get with vinyl is greater than CD. >> and i contend that the range of frequency difference is nothign we cna hear, and that rather the difference has to do with the quality of the hardware. here is a comment: music folk do this all the time -- analog v. digital sound. film people NEVER do. you never hear anyone slam DVD as degrading the quality of celluloid film. why is that? << Like I said before, I'm no sonic expert or I would throw in a bunch of numbers to prove this..... >> heh. touche! << I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here? Playback? I'm talking about the wave form, not what it's played on. >> a waveform by itself is meaningless -- it is only when it is fed through hardware that you get sound, and therefore meaning. the hardware is as important, if not moreso, than the medium. << I don't own an mp3 player (well, I have winamp on my computer) so I'm not sure what the differences are between companies or if one company makes an mp3 player that sounds better than another. >> do you have a DVD player? many ll DVD players made in the past 3 years will also play MP3 CDs. << Again, some people use and love mp3. It is great for storing large amounts of audio to carry around. It's convenient. However, I don't like lossy formats and try not to use them whenever possible. That's just me, though. It's my opinion... and you know the saying about opinions.... >> fair enough. << FWIW, nobody on my planet likes mp3s....... >> i knew it.... PJK please don't hate me because i can't type..... --- All the cool kids are doing it: HTTP://www.EvilSponge.org

3 2

Re: [Orb] His master's voice
by P J Kane 02 Feb '04

02 Feb '04

<< I'm on digest, so I don't know if this has been answered, but your presumptions on both halves of the equation are wrong, and as a result, and your math is way off. >> nope, you're the first! << Actually, there is 1 piece of info in a bit. You are thinking of a byte, which contains 8 bits. >> dammit, you're right! i always get those two confused. what moron thought of using 2 words so close in sound like that.... << 192kbps works out to 192 x 1024 x 2 (don't forget stereo!) = 393,216 bits per second. A CD is encoded 44,100 samples per second x 16 bits per sample x 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits per second, or more than 3.5x more information than a 192kbps MP3. >> okay, fair enough. << Even if you forget about the math, your entire premise is illogical. You are arguing that if you rip a 192kbps MP3, you would end up with more information than you started with on the CD, but it would take up less space. That makes no sense. >> it is possible to cram more information into a smaller space with a compression algorithm. remember -- all of this info, be it CD or MP3, is just a set of 1s and 0s. a compression algorithm takes the information, find patterns, and makes a few equations to recreate the sequence of 1s and 0s without actually having to list them all. so: since an MP3 is compressed and a wav file (CD audio) isn't -- you cannot look at a file size and tell how much information is in each. << It is well known that MP3 is a lossy algorithm. In order to get the compression, you have to lose data. >> and i contend that no human being can tell, on a high end MP3. << I can absolutely tell the difference between vinyl and CD >> because you have different playback devices. you are comparing apples to oranges and saying, "This apple is the better orange." << and I can absolutely tell the difference between a CD and a 192kbps rip of the same music, in a clean environment. >> ah, there's the rub: clean environment would mean comparable playback equipment. maybe i just need to buy a better MP3 player, then i can hear the limitations? << However, in my car, or walking around with headphones, where there's lots of ambient noise to overcome, it doesn't matter much, which is why they're so great for portability >> right. in fact, in my life, there is almost never ambient noise. i dunno about you though... PJK please don't hate me because i can't type..... --- All the cool kids are doing it: HTTP://www.EvilSponge.org

3 2

Re: [Orb] His master's voice
by P J Kane 02 Feb '04

02 Feb '04

<< can you honestly tell the difference between bit sampling rates? >> << Honestly, yes. I can tell the difference. >> WOW! i had no idea we had 2 aliens on the list. i mean, it was kinda obvious that Thrash is "from another planet", but Mr. Blazo as well? what is this, some kind of invasion? anyhoo, for the benefit of you two: an MP3 can be encoded at 192 kbps, that's "kilobits per second" or, "192 x 8 (there are 8 pieces of info in a bit) x 1,000" pieces of information, which works out to be: 1,536,000 pieces of information PER SECOND. a CD is encoded at a mere 128 kbps, which works out to be 1,024,000 pieces of information per second. so, there is quite a bit more information encoded in a high-quality MP3 than there is in CD quality audio. almost half a million pieces of information per second difference. this extra information was added to take care of the tendency of re-sampling algorithms to "squash" the frequency ranges. so: if you have a high-quality MP3 and compare it to a CD, and you can "tell the difference", you were obviously born on another planet. just like those fools who say "i can hear a difference between vinyl and CD". no you can't -- your ear cannot detect such fine frequency and data rate variations. what you are hearing is differences in PLAYBACK technology. there are excellent turntables with 55+ years of work in them, whereas CD players have not been around quite so long, and MP3 players even less time. wait until MP3 playback has been going on for 55+ years, then see if you can tell the difference.... anyway, "Bla" and "Thrash" (or whatever they call you on your homeworld(s)),i am quite impressed that in your species you can not only detect and note that much information that quickly, but also detect very subtle differences. i just wish our planet had more to offer you than the current musical swill being produced..... PJK please don't hate me because i can't type..... --- All the cool kids are doing it: HTTP://www.EvilSponge.org

2 1

flash stuff wot we fink is good hehe
by Len 02 Feb '04

02 Feb '04

hi peeps check this out non orb but u still love eit http://www.hoogerbrugge.com/

2 1

According to hmv.co.uk
by derrien＠club-internet.fr 31 Jan '04

31 Jan '04

Hybrid : Higher than a skyscraper cd single and 12" will be released on February 9. CD 2.99 UKP 1. Higher Than A Skyscraper [Original] 2. Higher Than A Skyscraper [Freq Nasty's Ragga Rock Relic Remix] 3. Higher Than A Skyscraper [Hybrid Twitch and Sweet Mix] 4. Higher Than A Skyscraper [Orb's Towers of Babel Mix] 12" 3.99 UKP 1. Higher Than A Skyscraper [Hybrid Twitch And Sweet Mix] 2. Higher Than A Skyscraper [Orb's Towers Of Babel Mix] JCFromParis

1 0

LXP Live Wedgewood Rooms Portsmouth this comming Saturday
by Mark Weston 30 Jan '04

30 Jan '04

Hi All, Who else here is going to the Wedgewood in Portsmouth on Saturday........ I know Phil and Ali are anyone else......... regards Mark

2 2

Re: [Orb] goddamn asian bird flu crap
by Bill the Butcher's 30 Jan '04

30 Jan '04

> >OK, I thought I knew Orb but can't say I can ever recall hearing Wendy & >Lisa. > Its called "Staring at the Sun" and i rather enjoy it.... its a lil' immascualated but there are worse. (associated with prince since they were discovered by my hometown homo himself right?). >>Not Wendy and Lisa...... Ugh!!!! >> >>Ok, who agrees that that is THE WORST remix the Orb has ever done? That most dubious distinction definately goes to "What goes on in your mind" on the Aubrey #1 album... i think most will agree. matt _________________________________________________________________ Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up fast & reliable Internet access with prime features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1

4 3

Re: [Orb] goddamn asian bird flu crap
by Bill the Butcher's 30 Jan '04

30 Jan '04

Brian & Allen = Rosencrantz & Guildenstern or Bobo and Lil' Debo or whatever..... funny shite.. now use your big brains to ans my Baxter Question. I'm dyin to know the name of that song. I'll start playin Wendi & Lisa if you don't!!! la la la When i was a kid my father used to say..... > > Damn, Brian, now I not only feel like warmed over death but I'm scared >as > > well. I've slept most of the day and now, after going to get more >chicken > > soup and o.j. I kind of feel like going back to bed again. I seem to be > > holding the fever below 100F but a 99F fever can feel worse. > >When I started seeing things in the corner of the room, and hearing things >that >definitely weren't on the record, I got dragged into the ER by my SO... My >fever was 106, my O2 intake was less than 80% (Normal is 98%)... So just >make >sure you keep track of yourself, Alan... And go in if you need to. This >year >the flu SUCKED. > >-=brian=- _________________________________________________________________ Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up fast & reliable Internet access with prime features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1

3 2

goddamn asian bird flu crap
by Alan 29 Jan '04

29 Jan '04

Damn, Brian, now I not only feel like warmed over death but I'm scared as well. I've slept most of the day and now, after going to get more chicken soup and o.j. I kind of feel like going back to bed again. I seem to be holding the fever below 100F but a 99F fever can feel worse. _________________________________ www.psychicreform.com Change your mind. _________________________________ Things are more like they are now than they ever were before. --Zippy the Pinhead _________________________________

2 1