Say it to the rest On behalf of Zomgqashiyo

[mr_maudlin]

Blimey that second video was good, didn't understand much of it, but it was good. 

When I worked in a hi-fi shop in the 1980's (and when we weren't endlessly quoting that Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch about hi-fi shops) we always worked on the mantra of spend the most money on the source of the music (e.g. turntable/CD). And I think this argument about FLACS from TDK D90's recorded on your dad's Grundig music centre with a string type FM aerial blu-tacked to the wall that the cat kept playing with, is sort of the same thing. Sort of.



--- In peel@yahoogroups.com, Roger Carruthers <unity.gain@...> wrote:
>
> If ever you find yourself getting too precious about audio quality, try
> this:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
> and thisŠ
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
> 
> Why these were not on the reading list when I did my Masters in Sound
> Engineering, I'll never know ;-)
> Cheers
> Roger
>  
>  
> 
>   
>    
> I get rather hacked off when people start bleating about lossless formats,
> as if it's going to make ANY difference to the sonic quality of aged
> recordings often made on cheap tapes and ripped years later on a different
> tape deck often without azimuth correction.
> 
> On a personal note, I'm not prepared to wait around for an hour at a time
> while a massive wav / flac file is uploaded to whatever file server is
> called into use. My time is more important, as is my bandwidth.
> 
> DM
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>   On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 12:59, Stuart Brooks <stuartb@> wrote:
>   
>   
>  
>  
>  
>    
> I¹ve always thought that the quality of the ripping (eg make sure tape heads
> and transport are in good condition, use a 3 head deck, adjust azimuth) and
> of the original source (AM/FM) were of much greater importance. There are
> quite a few ripped tapes out there that could have done with some azimuth
> tweaking and that¹s something that you can¹t fix down the line. And Dolby
> level mismatch on playback can have some seriously strange results.
>  
> If you drop much below 192kbps then the best FM recordings would start to
> sound a bit more squishy on a good system but I really doubt that any of the
> tapes we have would really benefit from wav over say a 320kpbs mp3. Once you
> drop below 128kpbs then audio becomes much more noticeably cardboardy and
> flat.
>  
> There are a few of the oldest Peel shows out there which were output as wav
> and they sound awful, due to poor tapes/decks, and a well ripped mp3 even at
> 128kpbs sounds much better.
>  
> I have kept lossless flacs of everything I¹ve ripped as no doubt one day
> there will be a Supermooo and we¹ll all have Superfast broadband and 10Tb
> discs.....
>  
>  
> From: Mark <mailto:mutetourettes@>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:36 PM
> To: peel@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [peel] Re: Say it to the rest On behalf of Zomgqashiyo
>  
>   
> heheh well I'm happy to upload the wav files if someone tells me where to
> stick it... 
>  
> it's an interesting debate, and I've been tempted to up the bitdepth and
> sampling rate of tapes I archive (mostly public talks etc, not radio) just
> in case some mythical future noise-reduction/restoration thingmyjig can use
> the extra bits... but I got that nice old apogee A/D converter (it's limited
> to 16/48 and under) for next to nothing and it sounds so nice that I tend to
> use it and be satisfied with that rather than save up for 24/96 gear of
> similar quality.. I haven't done much comparing of the consumer-level 24/96
> gear that I have... doesn't seem worth the extra storage space..
>  
> In this case I think it's pretty moot, as there's radio tuning/interference
> farts and whatnot... but hey...
>