Lies about vinyl vs digital

[Ralf11]

Adobe sux - I'd move to something else from LR6 if I could.  I keep waiting for competitors programs to improve one thing or the other, and to make it easy to switch.

 

 

[lucretius]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Adobe sux - I'd move to something else from LR6 if I could.  I keep waiting for competitors programs to improve one thing or the other, and to make it easy to switch.

 

 

DxO Photolab 2 or Capture One Pro 12

[lucretius]

40 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Adobe will be forcing you to move to a subscription model pretty soon I think. They just published a warning that anyone using older versions of their software may be in copyright violation. 

 

Adobe used to to be such a good company... 😩

 

I missed that warning. Do you know were I can find it?

 

You can still download your  older (purchased) apps:

https://helpx.adobe.com/download-install/kb/downloaded-older-app.html

[The_K-Man]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

There is no data reduction involved at all. Just lossless data compression.  

 

If the result is a smaller file size, than DATA REDUCTION is involved.

 

Compression in my world refers only to the audible effect of altered dynamic range.

[The_K-Man]

35 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Adobe will be forcing you to move to a subscription model pretty soon I think. They just published a warning that anyone using older versions of their software may be in copyright violation. 

 

Adobe used to to be such a good company... 😩

 

All about the money now.  As foretold in the Good Book.

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 Compression in my world refers only to the audible effect of altered dynamic range.

The rest of us are in the real world.

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

The rest of us are in the real world.

 

My granny could have hit that pitch. 👺

[The_K-Man]

22 minutes ago, mansr said:

The rest of us are in the real world.

 

I deal with the general public, who most think MP3 and other lossy/lossless perceptual codecs compress the sound dynamically.  THAT's the real world.

 

I seek to reduce that confusion.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

I missed that warning. Do you know were I can find it?

 

You can still download your  older (purchased) apps:

https://helpx.adobe.com/download-install/kb/downloaded-older-app.html

 

 

https://apple.news/A1Kre4IvPRM-qOal5I_SOkA

 

 

[daverich4]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Adobe will be forcing you to move to a subscription model pretty soon I think. They just published a warning that anyone using older versions of their software may be in copyright violation. 

 

Adobe used to to be such a good company... 😩

 

You won’t be getting sued by Adobe, it has nothing to do with them. They’re giving users a heads up that agreements with third party add-ons have expired with some of the software and it’s no longer legal to use THAT software. The possibility of getting sued comes from the third party companies, not Adobe. 

 

https://petapixel.com/2019/05/14/adobe-warns-that-using-older-cc-apps-could-get-you-sued/

 

[esldude]

2 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

I'm trying to encourage the correct, confusion-free, terminology.

 

Give it a try

Anyone who knows what FLAC is was at no point confused.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

If the FR(freq. response?) is different, then there are two different versions, or masterings.

Please try and keep up.  There was resampling which caused an FR change. It should not, but it did.

[lucretius]

5 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

You won’t be getting sued by Adobe, it has nothing to do with them. They’re giving users a heads up that agreements with third party add-ons have expired with some of the software and it’s no longer legal to use THAT software. The possibility of getting sued comes from the third party companies, not Adobe. 

 

https://petapixel.com/2019/05/14/adobe-warns-that-using-older-cc-apps-could-get-you-sued/

 

 

That and they are only talking about Creative Cloud apps, not those that precede them, e.g. Lightroom 6 or Photoshop CS6.

[Paul R]

56 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

If the result is a smaller file size, than DATA REDUCTION is involved.

 

Compression in my world refers only to the audible effect of altered dynamic range.

 

No, a smaller size can mean data reduction, but in the case of FLACs, it does not.

 

It only means storage reduction for the exact same data. 

 

There is a very significant difference mate, in *any* world.  Your IT people should be able to explain it to you. Buy one a couple beers. 

 

-Paul

[esldude]

25 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

I deal with the general public, who most think MP3 and other lossy/lossless perceptual codecs compress the sound dynamically.  THAT's the real world.

 

I seek to reduce that confusion.

So far you are the only one confused.  So to reduce confusion.......

 

 

 

[davide256]

10 hours ago, Teresa said:

No one says ultrasonics can be heard, it is said ultrasonics effect what we can hear. Once again the quote from Chandos Records:

 

Why should  Chandos Records have credibility in this area? Do they have a whitepaper you can link to?

 

As to 44.1/16 vs 96/24... if anyone tells you a cutoff filter always behaves perfectly below the cutoff point, don't trust them.  With a  cutoff point of 22 kilohertz, I would expect

artifacts in the 11~22khz range.

Sampling at 96 khz  or a highest frequency of 48 khz means that the artifacts would be moved into the 24-48khz range, well beyond the limits of human hearing.

 

 

[davide256]

37 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

No, a smaller size can mean data reduction, but in the case of FLACs, it does not.

 

It only means storage reduction for the exact same data. 

 

There is a very significant difference mate, in *any* world.  Your IT people should be able to explain it to you. Buy one a couple beers. 

 

-Paul

Reminds me  of dialup modem days when we used data compression modulation schemes to get 56khz rates out of lines that had a physical limit of 2.4khz.... amazing how much of raw data is just repeated 1's and 0's.

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, The_K-Man said:

 

I deal with the general public, who most think MP3 and other lossy/lossless perceptual codecs compress the sound dynamically.  THAT's the real world.

 

I seek to reduce that confusion.

 

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "lossless perceptual codec". 

 

I also don't think the "general public" has the faintest idea what dynamic compression is.

[lucretius]

13 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "lossless perceptual codec". 

 

I also don't think the "general public" has the faintest idea what dynamic compression is.

 

I think the "perceptual" is a reference to MQA -- which Bob says is perceptually lossless.

 

Also, could he be referring to dynamic range compression?

[mansr]

1 hour ago, The_K-Man said:

I deal with the general public, who most think MP3 and other lossy/lossless perceptual codecs compress the sound dynamically.  THAT's the real world.

I never met anyone holding that belief.

[mansr]

56 minutes ago, Paul R said:

No, a smaller size can mean data reduction, but in the case of FLACs, it does not.

Lossless compression reduces the data size but not the information content.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, lucretius said:

 

I think the "perceptual" is a reference to MQA -- which Bob says is perceptually lossless.

 

If so, The K-Man has been drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

 

 

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, marce said:

Just refer to us as M&M

IGNORED

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

. Since the processing is very minimal, it is probable that the effect can only be heard on very low powered systems, if it can be heard at all.

 

 

Paul

 My system is not low powered. It uses an Intel i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz  and would be more electrically quiet than most desktop PCs due to additional internal low noise (<4uV) voltage regulation (+12V to +5V) to both the OS and Music SSDs etc.

Alex

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Rexp said:

Just tried comparing in Foobar and the 24/192 is clearly better than the 16/44.1 its not even close. Maybe the down sampled file would sound better if the original was recorded at 24/176.4? Very interesting, Thank you @Paul R

 

Just be aware - unless Foobar has significantly changed in the meantime - that the ABX module is useless for comparing this sort of thing; the software resamples what you're comparing to a common rate, and saves temporary copies to a work folder - that's what you are actually listening to.