RIAA kills youtube-mp3.org

[bob p]

wow and flutter is inaudible on decent equipment.

CD introduced new problems like jitter, data correction, phase delays in sequential DA conversion. i remember having headaches whenever i listed to a CD player that had single DA converters.

[Justin Thomas]

And to this day something just grates on me after a few hours of CD...

but, how far off topic have we drifted again? :P

Justin

[bob p]

no farther than normal.

[bob p]

for those of you who may not know what a Pono is:

After watching that video, I think everyone gave the Pono rave reviews because they all got high in Neil Young's car... kind of like hanging out with Willie Nelson on the bus...

[The Dude]

For discussion only- I'm not arguing!

I've read several blind tests and whether the Pono is "better" is inconclusive and "slightly noticeable" at best.

I also have to wonder what good 24 bit 128K is when most modern audio is recorded on a standard Protools rig at 16 bit 44.1K at worst or 24 bit 98K at best (most commonly 24 bit 48K). IMO, you can't recreate something that's already been discarded via a lower sample rate by simply re-upping the rate. Most certainly, the Pono format is better than an MP3, but I can't see how going beyond the rate the recording was made would produce any gain in fidelity. In fact, I'd argue that dithering up would create digital artifacts and degrade fidelity. I've had to dither CD audio from 44.1K to 48K for video and the artifacts are noticeable if you are paying attention. Dithering algorithms are far from perfect.

[Gnobuddy]

linux users can use youtube-dl if you can stand command line programs.

I think youtube-dl downloads videos (not just audio). At any rate, though I've only used it on Linux, it does have a Windows version: https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/

Now here's the interesting part: when you play any sort of video clip on You Tube or whatever), the audio from it is already flowing through your computing device's sound-card and operating system software. But, thanks to powerful corporate entities with large throngs of lawyers, you, as the owner of said computing device, are forbidden to have access to that audio in digital form - only analogue versions are allowed to reach line-out jacks. This seems to be true for all the contemporary mainstream commercial operating systems - Windows, OSX, iOS, Android.

On Linux, though, you can and do have access to any digital audio signal flowing through your operating systems audio sub-system. The easy way to get access is to install a piece of Gnome software called simply "audio-recorder": https://launchpad.net/audio-recorder

In a nutshell, audio-recorder lets you record to a file (in either WAV or various compressed formats) any audio that you're listening to via your sound-cards line-out jack. If you start audio-recorder and then start up a video clip (say from YouTube), it will record the corresponding audio to a file. Stop audio-recorder when the clip ends, and you are left with the audio recording, to do with as you please.

-Gnobuddy

[Justin Thomas]

Dithering algorithms...

PERFECT!

Justin

[bob p]

For discussion only- I'm not arguing!

I've read several blind tests and whether the Pono is "better" is inconclusive and "slightly noticeable" at best.

I also have to wonder what good 24 bit 128K is when most modern audio is recorded on a standard Protools rig at 16 bit 44.1K at worst or 24 bit 98K at best (most commonly 24 bit 48K). IMO, you can't recreate something that's already been discarded via a lower sample rate by simply re-upping the rate. Most certainly, the Pono format is better than an MP3, but I can't see how going beyond the rate the recording was made would produce any gain in fidelity. In fact, I'd argue that dithering up would create digital artifacts and degrade fidelity. I've had to dither CD audio from 44.1K to 48K for video and the artifacts are noticeable if you are paying attention. Dithering algorithms are far from perfect.

Bit it's DIGITAL. And the numbers are BIGGER. It HAS to be better. lol.

I can't say that requantizing has ever made any sense to me.

[bob p]

GB I've done that with Sox. the MP3 end up sounding like they were recorded in a tunnel but the FLAC sound just fine.

I'm pissed off that the conversion to HDTV killed off my VCR.

What I'd really like is to have a way to record video out of my HDMI jack. I'd like to roll my own DVR for live TV but it seems that the powerful corporate entities with large throngs of lawyers are keeping me from having access to the video stream on my PC. Its as if I'm not allowed to have DVR functionality unless I rent a DVR from my cable provider.

[Gnobuddy]

...it seems that the powerful corporate entities with large throngs of lawyers are keeping me from having access to the video stream on my PC. Its as if I'm not allowed to have DVR functionality unless I rent a DVR from my cable provider.

The first DVR software I ever heard of was on Linux, and it happened years before HDMI interfaces arrived. You had to buy and install an analogue TV tuner card into your PC, then install Linux and the special video recording software, and if you managed to get everything properly configured, you could record video onto your hard drive. In those early days, it took a fair bit of tinkering and Linux savvy to make it happen.

Some commercial analogue DVRs arrived in the years immediately after that. There was much concern from corporate lawyers about piracy, but there was also the precedent of the VCR and "fair use", so it took a little while before the analogue DVRs all mysteriously disappeared off the market.

When the HDMI interfaced arrived, things changed drastically. From what I read in technical magazines of the time, much of the specification of the HDMI interface was dictated by MPAA and RIAA lawyers. It is not just a hardware format, it's the format the music and movie industries decided you would be allowed to have. That's one of the reasons why HDMI remains a flaky format to this day. There is so much hand-shaking and "Are you blessed by the RIAA?" interrogation going back and forth between two HDMI devices that time-outs, and sometimes outright incompatibility, still occurs between some HDMI devices. I remember talk of "analogue holes" (plain analogue audio or video signals) which had to be closed, so that no consumer would ever have direct access to anything but an encrypted digital stream - your TV couldn't have analogue video output connectors, for example, and neither could new DVD or Blu-ray players.

You can still go to a thift-store and buy an older DVD player or Blu-ray player that has analogue audio and video output jacks, though. The lawyers couldn't recall every old device and crush it, though I'm sure they would have liked to.

Along the same lines, remember when Sony was a hardware company, and a good one? That changed when they also became a music and video company. Corporate philosophy changed to the point where they even felt they had the right to sneakily install a root-kit (malware) onto your computer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_B...ootkit_scandal

The insanity has no limits - it gets worse every few years. These days, not even the CPU in your computer is under your control: https://boingboing.net/2016/06/15/in...ship-with.html

-Gnobuddy

[Steve A.]

What I'd really like is to have a way to record video out of my HDMI jack. I'd like to roll my own DVR for live TV but it seems that the powerful corporate entities with large throngs of lawyers are keeping me from having access to the video stream on my PC. Its as if I'm not allowed to have DVR functionality unless I rent a DVR from my cable provider.

Perhaps this is no longer relevant in 2017 but there used to be video cards for the PC that would record video digitally as well as sound cards which would record audio digitally. And I used to use a standalone DVD recorder to record TV shows digitally but haven't done that for 6 or 7 years when I dropped cable TV.

I was reading how the first generation DVR's would allow you to copy the digital files to your PC but RIAA, et al, soon put an end to that.

Steve A.

P.S. I used to use a USB device that would convert the yellow, black and red cables from a VCR into a signal I could record and edit on my PC, eventually burning them to DVD if I wanted. Do they make anything like that which would take an HDMI signal?

I've been out of the loop on all that since cutting my cable, just getting internet and now phone service from my cable company. Funny story, they send out a letter once or twice a year offering me very basic cable for an additional $9.95 a month "plus taxes and fees." I called them and had them add up the taxes and fees... that brought the total up to $19.00!!! No thank you, ma'am...

I never looked into this but was wondering how much the taxes and fees were for the more comprehensive cable packages that cost $125 to $150 a month or even more. Probably not *that* much more than $9 a month...

Steve A.

[Steve A.]

I also have to wonder what good 24 bit 128K is when most modern audio is recorded on a standard Protools rig at 16 bit 44.1K at worth or 24 bit 98K at best (most commonly 24 bit 48K).

I've avoided Protools for exactly that reason, preferring to use Sonar for multitrack and Cool Edit/Adobe Audition for editing stereo files (both of them support up to 32 bit 192khz files.) I did extensive live recordings with my digital field recorders between 2005 and 2010, most of them 24/96.

I've seen recordings of classic albums at 192k, presumably digitized from the original analog tapes since as you said oversampling does not improve sound quality. There is one exception: you can digitally process 16/44.1 tracks using 24 or 32 bit processors (like adding reverb) and the resulting files *will* sound better as 24 or 32 bit tracks. Kinda like adding a 24 or 32 bit frosting to a 16 bit cake — the cake itself will taste, er, sound no better at higher bit rates but the frosting will.

When discussing 44.1 vs 96k the Nyquist theorem*** is often brought up. Since most of us cannot hear anything above 22khz there is no reason to go higher than 44.1khz — right?

Wrong! Drums in particular come out much better (crisper) at 96khz than 44.1khz as they are taking more than twice as many samples per second. With 24/96 source tracks I can do 24 bit digital processing and when I eventually dither it down to 16/44.1 the results are noticeably better.

There was one other reason I did my live recordings at 24 bit: I could keep the record levels lower to avoid the harsh distortion that results from exceeding 0dB. In post-production I could increase the volume to levels closer to 0dB but at the loss of bit depth. Since my end result was usually 16/44.1 that was a problem only if my record levels were WAY low.

The Tascam DR-40 I bought in 2014 has a really cool feature: it can simultaneously record a second "safety" pair of tracks at -6dB, -12dB or -18dB. I *finally* got around to using the recorder and I can keep the primary tracks kinda hot knowing that if it goes into the red I have the safety copy to cover my ass. Thank you, Mr. Tascam!

Steve A.

P.S. In addition to live recordings I made hundreds of vinyl rips at 24/96 using my digital field recorder. While editing the tracks in Adobe Audition there is an optional spectral display which shows all of the frequencies present. Although the original audio tapes for older albums went no higher than ~24khz the vinyl rips had transients going up to 48khz. So the process of playing LPs added to what was actually recorded on the original master tapes. Even though our hearing does not go up to 48khz in addition to the actual frequencies there are also the sums and differences between those present at any given moment. (We can hear those extra frequencies when we play two notes on a guitar, perhaps more noticeable when we have some overdrive and distortion going on.)

***

It was known from Nyquist’s Theorem that in order to reproduce any given audio frequency, the sample rate had to be at least double the highest frequency you wanted to reproduce.

Is It Time To Abandon 44.1kHz? ? Pro Tools Expert

[The Dude]

While we're doggin' MP3's, I have to mention something I see often that absolutely drives me bonkers- when I see a soundman plug an MP3 player or his phone loaded with low res MP3's into the console to setup and EQ the sound system. I just wanna go slap 'em.

[bob p]

Perhaps this is no longer relevant in 2017 but there used to be video cards for the PC that would record video digitally as well as sound cards which would record audio digitally.

I have a box of those cards that I can't use anymore. They only work on NTSC signals and NTSC isn't being broadcast any more. At best, I could use a set-top box to convert HD signals to NTSC signals and record the NTSC, but then I don't have an NTSC TV to play them back on.

AFAIK there is no equivalent card that can capture video/audio out of an HDMI port. That's prohibited by design.

[bob p]

I think the biggest benefit of 24 bit recording is that you can keep the signal above the noise floor, so that quiet passages don't fall down into an area where they co-mingle with noise, like they do in 16 bit.