patriarch wrote in
6:

Andy Dingley wrote in
:

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 16:16:22 -0600, "Jay Windley"
wrote:

At the outset I wouldn't have lumped Bauhaus and Imperial Japan
necessarily into compatible categories,

That's an accident of history. Germany had relatively little contact
with Japan up to WW1, in comparison with Britain, France or the USA.
They're not seen as related, compared to someone like FLW who was
hugely influenced, but convergent evolution certainly made them
compatible.

Didn't FLW do the the big hotel in Tokyo from which MacArthur ran
post-war Japan?

Correct. Imperial Hotel, Tokyo.


Patriarch

Lobby Dosser wrote in message news:F8K9d.108$y77.93@trnddc05...
Didn't FLW do the the big hotel in Tokyo from which MacArthur ran
post-war Japan?

Correct. Imperial Hotel, Tokyo.

I bet the roof leaked. I wonder if McArthur bumped his head in the doorways.

Dick "function over form" Durbin

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:37:42 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Why do you view something that someone has done with their own resources
for their satisfaction as money wasted and "not doing good?" Certainly
the people building the house benefited from its construction -- it
provided money and jobs. Those supplying water and fuel will benefit as
will those who provide maintenance and upkeep or who provide the supplies
for those activities.

It seems more Hubris to place oneself in judgement of what another does
with their resources and judging "all the good that might have been done
with just the money wasted ... "



"Beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on
simplicity."



"[Socrates] There seem to be two causes of the deterioration of the
arts.

[Adeimantus] What are they?

[Socrates] Wealth, I said, and poverty.

[Adeimantus] How do they act?

[Socrates] The process is as follows: When a potter becomes rich, will
he, think you, any longer take the same pains with his art?

[Adeimantus] Certainly not.

[Socrates] He will grow more and more indolent and careless?

[Adeimantus] Very true.

[Socrates] And the result will be that he becomes a worse potter?

[Adeimantus] Yes; he greatly deteriorates.

[Socrates] But, on the other hand, if he has no money, and cannot
provide himself with tools or instruments, he will not work equally
well himself, nor will he teach his sons or apprentices to work
equally well.

[Adeimantus] Certainly not.

[Socrates] Then, under the influence either of poverty or of wealth,
workmen and their work are equally liable to degenerate?

[Adeimantus] That is evident.

[Socrates] Here, then, is a discovery of new evils, I said, against
which the guardians will have to watch, or they will creep into the
city unobserved.

[Adeimantus] What evils?

[Socrates] Wealth, I said, and poverty; the one is the parent of
luxury and indolence, and the other of meanness and viciousness, and
both of discontent."

Plato, The Republic, Book IV.



Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

"To be is to do"--Socrates

"To do is to be"--Sartre

"To be or not to be"--Shakespeare

"Be, do, have"--Hubbard

"Do be do be do"--Sinatra

"Yabba Dabba Dooo"--Flintsone

UA100

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:23:28 GMT, Unisaw A100
wrote:

"To be is to do"--Socrates

"To do is to be"--Sartre

"To be or not to be"--Shakespeare

"Be, do, have"--Hubbard

"Do be do be do"--Sinatra

"Yabba Dabba Dooo"--Flintsone

UA100


"...deep doodoo." - GHWB


Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

My old 501s sounded like crud. They sounded much better after a
recone. No highs, no lows, got to be Bose. That 1977 vintage Sansui
receiver does ok for me.

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:06:56 GMT, patrick conroy
calmly ranted:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:38:18 GMT, Unisaw A100
wrote:

album (a CD to allayouse dilettantes) and check out his
first name.

Oops! Mea culpa on that one t(w)o(o).

Speaking of LP's - anyone else still shlepping theirs around?
I finally worked through my issues and unloaded my last box.
Turntable too.
Stanton 681EEE stylus.

Guilty as charged. I just brought my 100 LPs, Technics SL-DD2 t-table
and Audio Technica DR300E stylus 900 miles north to Oregon 3 years
ago. The first album on: King Crimson "In the Court of the Crimson
King" blasting "21st Century Schizoid Man" through the old Bose 501s.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Life is full of little surprises. * Comprehensive Website Development
--Pandora * http://www.diversify.com

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:20:36 GMT, "Bob Schmall"
calmly ranted:


"Tom Watson" wrote in message

Jimi said, quoting Zimmerman,:
-snip-
Yeah
Ooh baby
All along the watchtower

Yeah, and Longfellow's spinning like a top in his grave. Gotta be the
worst
lyrics since doo wop.

Thank Bob Dylan for the lyrics and Jimi for the hot licks.

No to little Bobby Zimmerman, yes to the drug-addled,
pick-it-with-your-teeth genius.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1097293011.Rh+n1k/i6qZ8D+HBQfZvrw@teranews...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:01:31 GMT, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:

Hubris it is. Whether it is rooted in ego gratification or a sense of
being
lost in a conformist nation is a nice discussion in itself. Someone made
the
undeniable point to me that people have a right to build whatever they
want.
(He did not say "can afford.") Granted, but personal rights are not the
issue. Rather, where is the responsibility? Where is the very conservative
urge to not waste, to preserve, to "conserve?" My brother-in-law built a
3,600 sq ft. "retirement" home that is exactly twice the size of his
previous one, replete with pool and waterfall, 10 foot ceilings and video
theater. It's sad to think of all the good that might have been done with
just the money wasted in that home.

Bob


Why do you view something that someone has done with their own resources
for their satisfaction as money wasted and "not doing good?" Certainly
the people building the house benefited from its construction -- it
provided money and jobs.

As would the construction of an appropriately-scaled home.

Those supplying water and fuel will benefit as
will those who provide maintenance and upkeep or who provide the supplies
for those activities.

As would the construction of an appropriately scaled home.

It seems more Hubris to place oneself in judgement of what another does
with their resources and judging "all the good that might have been done
with just the money wasted ... "

The individual who built that McMansion has a sister who was fired for no
cause just before her husband contracted
the most vicious form of cancer. Part of his arm was cut out and he can't
work any more at his trade. Another sister's husband lost his career after
he had a stroke and couldn't return to his job. She works two jobs--at
59--to keep them going.
If he had built the house without the f-ing waterfall, he might have been
able to help them.
It is with great humility that I ask you to butt out of situations with
which you are not concerned, and cease from your own judgments of same.

Bob Schmall

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:17:07 GMT, "Bob Schmall" wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1097293011.Rh+n1k/i6qZ8D+HBQfZvrw@teranews...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:01:31 GMT, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:

.... snip
Why do you view something that someone has done with their own resources
for their satisfaction as money wasted and "not doing good?" Certainly
the people building the house benefited from its construction -- it
provided money and jobs.

As would the construction of an appropriately-scaled home.

.... nsip
able to help them.
It is with great humility that I ask you to butt out of situations with
which you are not concerned, and cease from your own judgments of same.

Bob Schmall


No comment would have been made had you not posted a judgmental statement
in a world forum.

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message news:DpS9d.67908
With all due respect, Bob, it seems you have a personal problem here;
why jump on Mark/Juniata for expressing their opinion.

I am truly sorry to hear of the troubles of your extended family, but
the "butt out" comment was over the top IMHO.

Mutt

...
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1097293011.Rh+n1k/i6qZ8D+HBQfZvrw@teranews...

[SNIP]

The individual who built that McMansion has a sister who was fired for no
cause just before her husband contracted
the most vicious form of cancer. Part of his arm was cut out and he can't
work any more at his trade. Another sister's husband lost his career after
he had a stroke and couldn't return to his job. She works two jobs--at
59--to keep them going.
If he had built the house without the f-ing waterfall, he might have been
able to help them.
It is with great humility that I ask you to butt out of situations with
which you are not concerned, and cease from your own judgments of same.

Bob Schmall

Tom Watson wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:37:42 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Why do you view something that someone has done with their own resources
for their satisfaction as money wasted and "not doing good?" Certainly
the people building the house benefited from its construction -- it
provided money and jobs. Those supplying water and fuel will benefit as
will those who provide maintenance and upkeep or who provide the supplies
for those activities.

It seems more Hubris to place oneself in judgement of what another does
with their resources and judging "all the good that might have been done
with just the money wasted ... "



"Beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on
simplicity."



"[Socrates] There seem to be two causes of the deterioration of the
arts.

[Adeimantus] What are they?

[Socrates] Wealth, I said, and poverty.

[Adeimantus] How do they act?

[Socrates] The process is as follows: When a potter becomes rich, will
he, think you, any longer take the same pains with his art?

[Adeimantus] Certainly not.

[Socrates] He will grow more and more indolent and careless?

[Adeimantus] Very true.

[Socrates] And the result will be that he becomes a worse potter?

[Adeimantus] Yes; he greatly deteriorates.

[Socrates] But, on the other hand, if he has no money, and cannot
provide himself with tools or instruments, he will not work equally
well himself, nor will he teach his sons or apprentices to work
equally well.

[Adeimantus] Certainly not.

[Socrates] Then, under the influence either of poverty or of wealth,
workmen and their work are equally liable to degenerate?

[Adeimantus] That is evident.

[Socrates] Here, then, is a discovery of new evils, I said, against
which the guardians will have to watch, or they will creep into the
city unobserved.

[Adeimantus] What evils?

[Socrates] Wealth, I said, and poverty; the one is the parent of
luxury and indolence, and the other of meanness and viciousness, and
both of discontent."

Plato, The Republic, Book IV.



Regards,
Tom.

Thanks, Tom, for the reminder that these issues have been with us a
long, long time; and for the example of a disciplined mind, applied
with insight, to the question of "the good life".

The common and civil element in our choices--the realm of
responsibility and ethics--is missing in the gauntly individualist
"It's mine and I'll do what I want", and your quote describes well a
consequence of that loss.

No age is free from schlock, but we are building/buying homes (and
other structures) with little (or no) regard for the future or current
world. Those large Victorians housed large families (so did the
hovels), and most of the country still farmed. Our grandchildren will
curse our choices.

The one saving grace might be the shrinking of the middle class,
thanks in part to the vast difference in wealth creation and
distribution now underway. (We can thank GW and the tax "cut" for
some of this...damn, I think I just argued the "cut" was a good
thing.) ;-)


Dan

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 16:16:22 -0600, "Jay Windley"
wrote:






Many years ago, one of my first design jobs was at Herman Miller. We spent
a lot of time fuming over the fact that Laz-E-Boy outsold us ten to one.
But just because the market favors something doesn't make it objectively
good.

Herman Miller - very nice.

My father sold *nice* furniture down in the Merchandise Mart for
years. As such, I grew accustomed to liking/appreciating such items as
Rowland's 40/4 in the den, a Corbusier or a Wassily in the living room
or a Breuer in the kitchen.

But I think your point about the consistency of a design - any theme -
is the noteworthy point.

I live in a McMansion - it suits our family needs in this stage of our
life. If I win the lottery and have enough money to afford anything,
the first thing I'll do is hire an architect then build and furnish a
house that suits my style.

Interesting reflection - is that I wouldn't do this without an
architect, but I'd likely not hire an interior designer. Hmmm. A
little hypocrisy I guess.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1097292536.fTw3BkRJXwTtU0oh+FMEoA@teranews...
|
| If people are acquiring these kinds of homes because that is
| what those people consider "nice things", then who are any of
| us to denigrate that?

We shouldn't. But what if people are told that a huge, poorly designed
house is a "nice thing" by the nice man who wants to sell you one, and we
buy because that's all that's on the market, and we don't want to go to the
hassle of getting what we really want?

There are two kinds of people in the world in this respect: those who go
back to the counter at the fast-food place and demand that they put the
cheese on it like they asked for, and those who rationalize the cook's
mistake and say "I really didn't want the cheese anyway."

If we look around at people in our peer group and see that they all own
McMansions, might we get the impression that that's what we're "supposed" to
have, and that not having it is a form of deprivation?

Yes, anything done for the wrong reasons will fundamentally disappoint. But
our society seems inching ever more toward doing everything for the wrong
reasons. We don't buy exciting furniture because it's "weird" or "won't
stand up to wear." We buy unexciting houses because anything out of a very
narrow range of "normal" will have "poor resale value."

I guess my feeling here is that it seems that "nice things" are being
systematically defined by a culture looking more toward corporate
consumerism than any sort of appreciation of something according to its
merits. So people continue to buy and build McMansions because they're
repeatedly told by subtle and not-so-subtle means that it's a "nice thing",
and they live in them not ever knowing why they're not satisfied with them.

There's a guy who built a house in my parents' town -- an ugly castle,
complete with battlements and pinnacled towers. He obviously paid someone
an awful lot of money to get what he wanted. It's gawdawful, but it's what
he wanted. I wouldn't live in that thing for a million dollars, nor live
where I could see it. But the owner got what he wanted, and so he's happy.
The last thing I want to do is rain all over that guy's parade. We need
more people like him, if only to continue to buck the trend of
corporate-designed pablum.

--Jay

I've still got over 300 of them. My old Pioneer turney thing still
pluggin along too!



patrick conroy wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:38:18 GMT, Unisaw A100
wrote:

album (a CD to allayouse dilettantes) and check out his
first name.

Oops! Mea culpa on that one t(w)o(o).

Speaking of LP's - anyone else still shlepping theirs around?
I finally worked through my issues and unloaded my last box.
Turntable too.
Stanton 681EEE stylus.

"patrick conroy" wrote in message
...
|
| But I think your point about the consistency of a design
| - any theme - is the noteworthy point.

And I run the risk of being labeled a design snob. But I run the risk of
mixed design abominations myself, simply because I like so many different
things. My father, who used to teach architecture, and my sister, who is an
architect, agree that I missed my calling in life in becoming an engineer.
I think a designer of artistic things needs to have an appreciation for and
a skill in various idioms. Not so that he can mix them, but so that he can
execute any of those idioms with fidelity and skill, and with a proper
amount of satisfaction.

Let's face it, many people have to turn out pablum in order to pay the
bills. If a sturdy oak coffee table with simply routed edges and the
standard two coats of lacquer is what keeps the professionals in business,
then there will always be that. But I worry about the woodworker -- amateur
or professional -- who doesn't at least long to produce solitary masterworks
as a labor of love whether they're commercially viable or not.

| I live in a McMansion - it suits our family needs in this
| stage of our life.

Then you bought the right house. If its appearance pleases you and its
interior serves your needs and its quality is otherwise a good buy for what
you paid, then you have the right house regardless of what I or anyone else
might say.

My quibble with the McMansion concept is summed up as any combination of:

1. A house that's designed by the builder or the builder's architect with
more attention paid to cost-effective building than to utility. I.e., the
ideal size for a room is not necessarily harmonious with standard joist
lengths.

2. A house whose organization and ornament seems more driven by what was on
sale that month or in large lots than in executing favorably any of the
design philosophies to which it alludes. I.e., Victorian gingerbread only
works if it's used copiously, not just in the one dormer that fits the
standard mass-produced gingerbread piece.

3. A house in which design elements are included or scaled inappropriately.
I.e., if your life has never before required a living room that echos, why
the hell do you think it suddenly will?

| Interesting reflection - is that I wouldn't do this without an
| architect, but I'd likely not hire an interior designer. Hmmm. A
| little hypocrisy I guess.

Yes, and I think we're probably all a little hypocritical in this respect to
some extent.

--Jay

Yep. Still buy good ones at estate sales too. For fifty cents it's
hard to resist stuff I like. One of my many tasks in the future will be
to copy them to CDs - if I live long enough :-).

Skip a step and rip them straight to MP3s. CD is going to be as dead as the 8
track in a few years.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:06:56 GMT, patrick conroy
wrote:

Speaking of LP's - anyone else still shlepping theirs around?

Friend of mine has a record label. He signs up bands (biggish names
too) that already have CD deals and presses big black grooved things
for the audiophile market. It's not a big market, but it's still
there.
--
Smert' spamionam

OK, so I don't keep up :-). I thought MP3 was a recording technique.
You're telling me it's a separate and distinct medium? I guess I'll
have to do a google.

MP3 (WMA or whatever) is the digital recording and playback of music. No more
little bits of plastic.
That is why RIAA has their panties in a wad over it. They aren't trying to
protect the music business, just the plastic business.
I haven't used a record, tape or CD to listen to music for almost 4 years. Once
you figure out you can have instant access to a thousand albums with the touch
of a button you wonder why anyone would.
I have MP3 players in all of my cars and 2 in the house. With networking the
house players can all be connected to a central server.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:50:05 -0700, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

In article ,
says...
Yep. Still buy good ones at estate sales too. For fifty cents it's
hard to resist stuff I like. One of my many tasks in the future will be
to copy them to CDs - if I live long enough :-).

Skip a step and rip them straight to MP3s. CD is going to be as dead as the 8
track in a few years.

OK, so I don't keep up :-). I thought MP3 was a recording technique.
You're telling me it's a separate and distinct medium? I guess I'll
have to do a google.



MP3 is a compression protocol. it's essentially the audio channel of
an MPEG video file.

I have MP3 players

OK, what media do the players use?

The music is digital, stored on a hard drive. There is no real "media". It is
just data.
You can transport it on CDRs, DVDs or any other digital media but I just keep
mine on hard drives.

Just to keep this on topic 2 of the 4 PC based players I use have wooden cases.

Greg wrote:
:OK, so I don't keep up :-). I thought MP3 was a recording technique.
:You're telling me it's a separate and distinct medium? I guess I'll
:have to do a google.

: MP3 (WMA or whatever) is the digital recording and playback of music. No more
: little bits of plastic.
: That is why RIAA has their panties in a wad over it. They aren't trying to
: protect the music business, just the plastic business.
: I haven't used a record, tape or CD to listen to music for almost 4 years. Once
: you figure out you can have instant access to a thousand albums with the touch
: of a button you wonder why anyone would.

Well, the sampling rate for a typical MP3 is about one one-hundredth
of that for a CD. So, go with MP3s if you like really degraded sound.

-- Andy BArss

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...

Well, the sampling rate for a typical MP3 is about one one-hundredth
of that for a CD. So, go with MP3s if you like really degraded sound.


Precisely. Noticeably degraded sound.
--

-Mike-

And I think that brings up another point. Compare this cost difference in the US, just a few states away with the cost
of doing business anywhere in the world. Do you think that the cost of a widget, with all manufacturing costs the same,
except for the cost of living, would be the same to produce in CA as it would in ND ? Heck the cost of housing in ND is
1/10 that of CA. Granted the scenery is not the same, but when I go to the store to buy that widget, I could care less
what the scenery at the manufacturing facility is. Now for all the CA and ND residents that would read this, my intent
is not to slam you or your *chosen* lifestyle, I am just pointing out a simple fact.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
Paul Harvey gave a couple of statistics today. A 2200 sq. ft, 4 bedroom
home in North Dakota would sell for $130,000. The same exact home moved to
La Jolla, CA would be $1.75 million.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:47:28 +0000, Mike Marlow wrote:


"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...

Well, the sampling rate for a typical MP3 is about one one-hundredth of
that for a CD. So, go with MP3s if you like really degraded sound.


Precisely. Noticeably degraded sound.

And a patent-encumbered format as well. Stick with the shiny silver discs
for your master copy and use Ogg Vorbis for portability.

--
Joe Wells

Well, the sampling rate for a typical MP3 is about one one-hundredth
of that for a CD. So, go with MP3s if you like really degraded sound.

100:1??? bull****!
Both use a 44kz sample rate.
MP3 just uses a compression scheme that reduces the file size by about 1/5 -
1/10 depending on bit rate. You can save them in WAV at exactly the same
resolution if you are that much of a purist. The price of disk drives is so low
these days that this is a reasonable option.

I defy you to tell the difference between a 256 kbs MP3 and CD when played on
the normal stereo system in the usual home setting. In a moving car with 60 or
70 db of background noise your CD "quality" is totally wasted and you can
probably use 128k or even 64k.
320kbs MP3 is far superior to what you can get from FM radio, Vinyl or tape. It
is certainly better than the average stereo system can reproduce. If it wasn't
so good the RIAA would not have their panties in such a wad over it.
The people who say MP3s are "really degraded" are the same folks who think they
can hear the oxygen in their speaker cables. Most of us don't live in a sound
conditioned space with a $10,000 sound system and if you are really a
woodworker your hearing is probably "really degraded" more than an MP3 anyway.
There is as much bull**** going on in the marketing of stereos as there is in
golf clubs, exercise equipment and marital aids. If you really think it works,
it works.

And a patent-encumbered format as well. Stick with the shiny silver discs
for your master copy and use Ogg Vorbis for portability.

How is it encumbered? There are at least a dozen "rippers" and hundreds of
players.
If you like shuffling fragile pieces of plastic, you stick with the silver
disks, records, cassettes or even your 8-tracks. They will be collector items
some day ... assuming they don't succome to the ravages of time.
I guess the world needs coasters too.

Hi Greg,

I agree completely. After having ripped my 400+ CD collection to my HD,
I seldom play directly from the originals anymore. I use 192k VBR and
the sound is excellent and identical to my aging ears. Each CD used 50
to 100 MB space, depending on TT, so I get about 10-15 discs/GB. Plenty
of space on my 80 gig HD.

The great thing is that you can compose custom playlists for whatever
occasion you want, shuffle etc, etc. I have an older Mac and use
Soundjam (precursor to I-Tunes, I believe).

The woodworking part came in (sort of) when I ran wires through the
walls from the computer to the receiver, speaker selector and into the
kitchen, DR and deck - each with its own volume control. It was a PITA,
but it was worth it. Lots of drywall patching!

I think that you can do all this wireless now, but I like all that
copper.

I still have to get the music into the shop tho!

Lou

In article , Greg
wrote:

Well, the sampling rate for a typical MP3 is about one one-hundredth
of that for a CD. So, go with MP3s if you like really degraded sound.

100:1??? bull****!
Both use a 44kz sample rate.
MP3 just uses a compression scheme that reduces the file size by about 1/5 -
1/10 depending on bit rate. You can save them in WAV at exactly the same
resolution if you are that much of a purist. The price of disk drives is so
low
these days that this is a reasonable option.

I defy you to tell the difference between a 256 kbs MP3 and CD when played on
the normal stereo system in the usual home setting. In a moving car with 60
or
70 db of background noise your CD "quality" is totally wasted and you can
probably use 128k or even 64k.
320kbs MP3 is far superior to what you can get from FM radio, Vinyl or tape.
It
is certainly better than the average stereo system can reproduce. If it wasn't
so good the RIAA would not have their panties in such a wad over it.
The people who say MP3s are "really degraded" are the same folks who think
they
can hear the oxygen in their speaker cables. Most of us don't live in a sound
conditioned space with a $10,000 sound system and if you are really a
woodworker your hearing is probably "really degraded" more than an MP3
anyway.
There is as much bull**** going on in the marketing of stereos as there is in
golf clubs, exercise equipment and marital aids. If you really think it works,
it works.

I still have to get the music into the shop tho!

My pool bar player is actually in the shop. It is wired through the wall to the
monitor and keyboard in the pool bar. I also have speakers in the shop tho. My
"keyboard" is actually a Seeburg 3W1 wallbox running through a keyboard card.
This is a DOS player (MPXPLAY) that can select songs by number. Perfect match
for a jukebox. It defaults to random play but that is all configuration
options.
I run the same software in the cars. "Key on" to "music" in about 15 seconds,
no crashes and no shutdown.

"loutent" wrote in message

I agree completely. After having ripped my 400+ CD collection to my HD,
I seldom play directly from the originals anymore. I use 192k VBR and
the sound is excellent and identical to my aging ears. Each CD used 50
to 100 MB space, depending on TT, so I get about 10-15 discs/GB. Plenty
of space on my 80 gig HD.

These days I do most of my recreational listening over an iPod, either
plugged directly into the stereo in the truck/shop, or with iTunes on a
computer.

I have 2500 of just my favorite tunes on the iPod/iTunes, and the only place
the difference in sound quality is apparent, or bugs me, is in the studio
over a tuned pair of near field monitors. Everywhere else it is acceptable
.... AAMOF, listening is relative and your ears adjust quickly to lower sound
quality, witness the lowly cassette of yore.

Not to mention that I would rather hear a low quality recording of a good
song, than an audiophile quality recording of a bad song.

..... and I'd kill to keep someone from stealing my iPod.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04

Greg wrote:
:And a patent-encumbered format as well. Stick with the shiny silver discs
:for your master copy and use Ogg Vorbis for portability.

: How is it encumbered? There are at least a dozen "rippers" and hundreds of
: players.
: If you like shuffling fragile pieces of plastic, you stick with the silver
: disks, records, cassettes or even your 8-tracks.


Um, your MP3s are recorded to a hard drive (in your computer or
your iPod). Hard drives are fragile too.




They will be collector items
: some day ... assuming they don't succome to the ravages of time.
: I guess the world needs coasters too.


Like hosed hard drive platters?

-- Andy Barss

Greg wrote:
:Well, the sampling rate for a typical MP3 is about one one-hundredth
:of that for a CD. So, go with MP3s if you like really degraded sound.

: 100:1??? bull****!

I was in error -=- but the compression rate used by iTunes, and as far as
I know *all* online music services, is compressed in the 128kbps range.
That really is quite lossy, and way below the amount of data that a CD
encodes.


I don't have particularly good hearing; I'm hardly an audiophile; and I
don't believe in Monster cables, mopane disks (obww content) on top of my
speakers, or any of the other mystical claims of the audionut world.


But I've heard MP3s of ther sort you czsn download frfom commerical sites;
and I've heard CDs of the same tracks; and there really is an audible
difference, and a big one even to this casual listener.

: MP3 just uses a compression scheme that reduces the file size by about 1/5 -
: 1/10 depending on bit rate.

Yup. And do you think that the 80-90% of data that is lost by this
compression method doesn't result in degradation of the sound?

DAGS on "iPod compression CD", and you'll find a bunch of reports of this
lossyness.

You can save them in WAV at exactly the same
: resolution if you are that much of a purist. The price of disk drives is so low
: these days that this is a reasonable option.


Sure -- but that assumes you start out owning the CD and can choose the
resolution. That is not an option, AFAIK, with any of the online
commercial sites.


: I defy you to tell the difference between a 256 kbs MP3 and CD when played on
: the normal stereo system in the usual home setting.

I can hear it. If you can't -- great. But I can -- loss of
soundstage separation of instruments, loss of treble, etc.


In a moving car with 60 or
: 70 db of background noise your CD "quality" is totally wasted and you can
: probably use 128k or even 64k.


Or 8-track, which has about the same resolution as a typical commercial
MP3.


: 320kbs MP3 is far superior to what you can get from FM radio, Vinyl or tape.

Not so sure there about vinyl. I'm agnostic in the debate, but I've seen
compelling data from audio engineers that a freshly pressed LP has several
times the audio resolution of a CD.

It
: is certainly better than the average stereo system can reproduce. If it wasn't
: so good the RIAA would not have their panties in such a wad over it.


Hunh? They're worried because the MP3 format (at typical resolution) is
prety good, and easy to copy and make avail;able on the web.
Big difference between "pretty good" and "Cd quality".

-- Andy Barss

Um, your MP3s are recorded to a hard drive (in your computer or
your iPod). Hard drives are fragile too.

You don't have to handle the hard drive. They are not really that fragile
either. The MP3 player in my garage survived a fire that melted PVC pipes and
the one in my car sits in the Florida sun all day.

If you rip your own you can choose any resolution you like. Most MP3s posted on
ABSM newsgroups are 256k or 320k. The reality is, most places I listen will
have enough background noise and poor acoustics such that 64 kbs would probably
work.
If you set in a foam room with a great stereo and you just groove on the music,
then you need CDs, oxygen free cables and all that stuff but when you put out
the doobie and actually go do something while you are listening to your music
you are wasting all that quality.

Or 8-track, which has about the same resolution as a typical commercial
MP3.

8 Track was 1/4" tape at 3 IPS. That was pretty much the state of the art in
the 60s. The bad reputation came from cheap players and substandard cartridges.
If you use a real Lear cartridge in a quality machine it was as good as the
open reel machines. RIAA jammed cassettes down our throat because the media was
cheaper and they could make more profit.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:21:01 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

Greg wrote:
:And a patent-encumbered format as well. Stick with the shiny silver discs
:for your master copy and use Ogg Vorbis for portability.

: How is it encumbered? There are at least a dozen "rippers" and hundreds of
: players.
: If you like shuffling fragile pieces of plastic, you stick with the silver
: disks, records, cassettes or even your 8-tracks.


Um, your MP3s are recorded to a hard drive (in your computer or
your iPod). Hard drives are fragile too.





Back up your data.
Back up your data.
Back up your data.
Back up your data.
Back up your data.
Back up your data.
Back up your data.
Back up your data.
Back up your data.
Back up your data.
Back up your data.
Back up your data.
Back up your data.
Back up your data.
Back up your data.
Back up your data.
Back up your data.
Back up your data.





They will be collector items
: some day ... assuming they don't succome to the ravages of time.
: I guess the world needs coasters too.


Like hosed hard drive platters?

-- Andy Barss



oh yeah, don't forget to Back up your data.

oh yeah, don't forget to Back up your data.

That is one major advantage of PC based players on a network. It is very easy
to have lots of copies spinning.
The reality is I also keep the stuff on SCSI drives that are not installed in
the systems, a holdover from before I got the network running. I still have
SCSI cables hanging out the back of my players. The drives are dirt cheap. I
use them like diskettes..
I have been burned once. Never again.

Andrew Barss wrote:

Greg wrote:
:Well, the sampling rate for a typical MP3 is about one one-hundredth
:of that for a CD. So, go with MP3s if you like really degraded sound.

: 100:1??? bull****!

I was in error -=- but the compression rate used by iTunes, and as far as
I know *all* online music services, is compressed in the 128kbps range.
That really is quite lossy, and way below the amount of data that a CD
encodes.

Uh, a CD samples at 44kHz. 128 is not "way below" 44.

I don't have particularly good hearing; I'm hardly an audiophile; and I
don't believe in Monster cables, mopane disks (obww content) on top of my
speakers, or any of the other mystical claims of the audionut world.


But I've heard MP3s of ther sort you czsn download frfom commerical sites;
and I've heard CDs of the same tracks; and there really is an audible
difference, and a big one even to this casual listener.

Which tells you absolutely nothing about MP3. Only about the quality of the
MP3s that you got from those specific sites, which were recorded from God
knows what using God knows what by God knows who.

: MP3 just uses a compression scheme that reduces the file size by about
: 1/5 - 1/10 depending on bit rate.

Yup. And do you think that the 80-90% of data that is lost by this
compression method doesn't result in degradation of the sound?

First, 80-90% is not lost. You can get 40% compression with no loss at all.
MP3 goes beyond that by using a model that degrades the signal in ways that
an expert panel of listeners can't detect using recordings specifically
selected for the purpose.

DAGS on "iPod compression CD", and you'll find a bunch of reports of this
lossyness.

Try just searching "MP3 compression" instead. The fact that MP3 is lossy is
not any great secret. It was designed to be lossy, it's known to be lossy,
the cleverness of the algorithms is in how they deal with the loss.

You can save them in WAV at exactly the same
: resolution if you are that much of a purist. The price of disk drives is
: so low these days that this is a reasonable option.


Sure -- but that assumes you start out owning the CD and can choose the
resolution. That is not an option, AFAIK, with any of the online
commercial sites.

You seem to be confusing two issues here, the performance of MP3 as a
compression algorithm and the quality of the recordings downloadable from
"legal" music sites.

: I defy you to tell the difference between a 256 kbs MP3 and CD when
: played on the normal stereo system in the usual home setting.

I can hear it. If you can't -- great. But I can -- loss of
soundstage separation of instruments, loss of treble, etc.

You've done that specific comparison, played back a CD and 256 kb/s MP3 that
you RIPped from that CD using LAME or another high quality encoder, both on
the same device, and had someone switch the two randomly while you were not
looking? And you can hear the difference? Try 320 then. And if you can
hear _that_ then call the MPEG committee as they'll want to use you as a
tester.

In a moving car with 60 or
: 70 db of background noise your CD "quality" is totally wasted and you
: can probably use 128k or even 64k.


Or 8-track, which has about the same resolution as a typical commercial
MP3.


: 320kbs MP3 is far superior to what you can get from FM radio, Vinyl or
: tape.

Not so sure there about vinyl. I'm agnostic in the debate, but I've seen
compelling data from audio engineers that a freshly pressed LP has several
times the audio resolution of a CD.

So does 320 kb/sec MP3. However all of them can record signals to 22 KHz
and the number of humans whose acoustic range goes above that level can
probably be counted on the fingers of one hand, so anything beyond that
level would seem to be irrelevant for all but a very few gifted
individuals.

It
: is certainly better than the average stereo system can reproduce. If it
: wasn't so good the RIAA would not have their panties in such a wad over
: it.


Hunh? They're worried because the MP3 format (at typical resolution) is
prety good, and easy to copy and make avail;able on the web.
Big difference between "pretty good" and "Cd quality".

While this is true it's not really relevant to the discussion.

-- Andy Barss

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote:

Andrew Barss wrote:

I was in error -=- but the compression rate used by iTunes, and as far as
I know *all* online music services, is compressed in the 128kbps range.
That really is quite lossy, and way below the amount of data that a CD
encodes.

Uh, a CD samples at 44kHz. 128 is not "way below" 44.

What is the relationship between a sampling rate in kHz and a bit rate
in kbps?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

"alexy" wrote in message
:

Andrew Barss wrote:

I was in error -=- but the compression rate used by iTunes, and as far
as
I know *all* online music services, is compressed in the 128kbps range.
That really is quite lossy, and way below the amount of data that a CD
encodes.

Uh, a CD samples at 44kHz. 128 is not "way below" 44.

What is the relationship between a sampling rate in kHz and a bit rate
in kbps?

In the world of digital audio they are two different things. What follows is
purposely a _very_ simplified explanation, so if some dip**** wants to get
anal, GFY in advance:

The "bit rate" defines "resolution", or the number of bits used to define
the sample, and directly correlates to the "dynamic range" available in the
digital recording (difference between the lowest and loudest sound).

A CD is 16 bit resolution, a standard mp3 is 128 mbps

The "sample rate defines" how frequently the sound is sampled and converted
to digital, and directly correlates to frequency response of the digital
recording. Without going into the sordid details, the frequency response of
a digital recording is roughly twice the sampling rate. A CD has a sampling
rate of 44.1 kHz, which means the highest frequency that is reproduced is
roughly 88.2 KHz.

(Although you can't hear this high, these higher frequencies do color the
sound at audible frequencies, which is why an old fart recording engineer
like me can still record and mix past the prime of my current set of ears.)

A CD is standardized at a 44.1 kHz sampling rate, and a standard mp3 also
has a sampling rate of 44.kHz.

...basically, if it sounds good to your ears, that is all that counts.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
www.hsound.com
Last update: 10/04/04

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
|
| In the world of digital audio they are two different things. What follows
is
| purposely a _very_ simplified explanation, so if some dip**** wants to
get
| anal, GFY in advance:

Noted. I stand F in advance.

| A CD is 16 bit resolution, a standard mp3 is 128 mbps

As you noted, two very different things. What follows is a less simplified
explanation, meant neither to upstage, correct, nor to annoy Swingman.

Digitization of sound in the simplest case, as you noted, is a matter of
taking a certain number of samples every second and representing each sample
as a number that describes the amplitude of the sound at that instant.

Two values -- the sampling rate and the sampling resolution -- dictate the
quality of the encoding. The telephone uses 8 bits per sample. This gives
you 256 possible levels of sound between the faintest and the loudest sound.
It samples at 8 kHz, or 8,000 times per second. So once every 1/8000 second
it checks the sound amplitude and assigns it a number between 0 and 255
depending on where it falls in the loud-soft range. So every second the
telephone produces 64,000 bits of information that can be used to
reconstruct the signal at the other end.

A compact disc, on the other hand, uses 16 bits per sample, giving 65,536
possible levels of sound at each instant. This is an important increase in
quality. Sound, especially music, is a convolution of many different waves
at a wide range of frequencies. You tell the difference in character
between a violin, and oboe, and a trumpet all playing the same note by the
relative presence and absence of overtones that occur at very high
frequencies and "beat" against each other. Having only 256 levels of sound
"forces" sound to be at one level or another, possibly erasing and important
overtone. That's why you don't necessarily recognize voices over the
phone -- you rely on the overtones to discern Jim's voice from Janice's.

The CD also samples at 44.1 kHz. That 16-bit sample is taken once ever
1/44100 second. This figure was chosen because it was thought at the time
that the human ear could only hear frequencies up to about 22 kHz and that
any tighter frequencies were inaudible. (Now we believe that the human ear
may hear sounds as high as 40-50 kHz.) In signal processing, the Nyquist
principle says that if you want to digitally capture a signal at 22 KHz, you
have to sample it at twice that frequency or greater, or 44+ kHz.

These two values together define the CD sample, which samples two channels
of sound at those parameters, producing 1,411,200 bits of information every
second.

Now comes the bandwidth issue. Whatever you use to store and transmit those
signals in that format has to be capable of delivering the information at
the proper rate. Telephone equipment has to be capable of delivering 64,000
bits per second (bps) per telephone call. CD equipment has to be capable of
delivering 1.4 Mbps. In some contexts that bandwidth (data-carrying
capacity) simply isn't available, or is expensive to provide.

Enter MPEG and its sound encodings. MPEG is primarily an information
*transmission* format designed to control the transfer of audio and video
information over certain delivery systems such as cable and satellite.
Those systems have inherent data-delivery rate limits that may be fairly
draconian.

If you sample utter silence with the CD method, you still get exactly the
same amount of data as you would sampling a Grateful Dead song of the same
length. It would be nice if you only had to transmit sound data only when
there was actual sound, since silence is the default output. That way you
could make the most of a limited or fixed data rate without sacrificing
quality. If your link is capable of only 100 kbps, you could send 100,000
bits in one second that may expand to ten seconds of silence followed by two
seconds of brilliantly reproduced sound. That way, when the decoder is
playing out those twelve seconds of music, your transmission system is busy
sending the next 1,200,000 bits of encoded information.

MP3, MP4, AC3, and other more advanced encoding schemes depart from the
plodding, "dumb" take-a-fixed-sample-every-nth-of-a-second method and use a
variable sampling rate coupled with high-level mathematical ways of
approximating the shapes of sound waveforms. So where the CD method dumbly
sends a sequence of numbers representing a climbing waveform: 4, 8, 12, 30,
70, 118, 200; the newer methods might simply record a digital shorthand that
says, "in the output, generate a geometrically-ramped signal from 4 to 200
over 0.001 second", and that takes fewer bits to describe. Now of course
you don't get exactly the same numbers back out at the other end as you put
in. So the art is to carefully establish those approximations so the
difference between them and the original isn't noticeable.

But that's why MP3 quality is expressed as a bandwith -- so much information
per unit time -- and why CD quality is expressed as a sampling
rate/resolution. They are completely different *methods* of representing
sound in digital form and so they can't be directly compared. Obviously for
low transmission speeds the adaptive methods like MP3 have to rely more and
more on approximations that can be expressed in shorthand, and have to
extend those shorthands over longer ranges of input data. But the notion
behind 128 kbps is, "We have 128,000 bits per second of achievable
bandwidth; let's make the most of it by adapting our sampling strategy to
that ceiling."

MPEG compression methods can take into account things like channel coherency
and frequency separation issues. Low frequencies are non-directional, so
you can't tell whether they come from the left or right channel. Thus you
don't need to encode a rumbling bass on both the left and right. And in
most recordings, there isn't a lot of difference between the left and right
channels. So they can introduce the notion of a "common" data stream that
represents the common left-right agnostic information and then smaller data
streams that represent only what's different about the left or right
channel.

You can tune each method to produce sound that is fundamentally
indistinguishable in quality from each other, or from a high-quality analog
recording. So saying that MP3s are inherently "better" or "worse" isn't
really addressing the question. You can make CD-type encoding bad (like the
telephone does) by lowering the bitrate and the sample resolution. You can
make MP3 sound very good by increasing the raw bitrate available to it. But
perceived quality being equal, MP3 makes more efficient use of the available
bitrate.

If you wanted to compare the two as bitrates, a 192 Kbps MP3 will sound as
good as a CD for all but the most sensitive listeners, but the MP3 will
require only 192,000 bits per second of storage and transmission space, but
the CD will require about 1,400,000 bits per second of storage and
transmission space. Not quite, but nearly and order of magnitude
improvement in bandwidth usage.

There is actually a tie-in to woodworking here, so it's not as off-topic as
it seems.

Say you want to duplicate a contour in some piece -- say an old crown
molding. You can follow a fairly straightforward but tedious method of
taking the cross section at intervals and establishing the relative position
of all the points along the profile curve at small intervals, relative to
some reference. We have contour gauges that do this. So your "data set"
for that molding is a set of contour gauge tracings at intervals along the
length of the piece.

But a smarter method might be to note that the molding is an extrusion, so
you only have to sample one cross section that applies to the whole length.
Or at worst, the molding might be a repeating pattern, so you only have to
sample the pattern at intervals and then just specify that the pattern is to
be repeated as needed. Instead of a contour gauge that blindly collects the
same amount of data each time it is used, you might note instead that the
contour is composed of a circular arc (of a certain radius and center point,
with certain angular end points) followed by a line segment (of two end
points), and so forth. So your record of the contour is a high-level
description of the geometry, not a lengthy collection of raw points in space
(i.e., the settings of each pin in the contour gauge). That might actually
come in handy later as you're making the molding plane blade or selecting
router bits. You might have a router bit that cuts that specific circular
arc or line segment.

The point is that your description taken by the second method -- while more
complicated to obtain and possibly to reproduce than simple contour gauge
tracings -- is more concise and may boil down to standard tool crib
equipment. Where that's important, you have an advantage.

--Jay
(who used to program MPEG satellite systems for a living)