I had no idea how this thread got so wrong. It's all started with what
encoding to chose for Finale output, right?
Lets go step by step.
Metering software has two usages, one is for FOH or tuning control room,
which analyze the signal coming from reference microphone. This is _analog_.
FFT is
On 8:18 Uhr A-NO-NE Music wrote:
FFT is used to compare the output signal on one channel and measured
_analog_ signal on the other. The reference pink noise would be
produced from the metering application within.
I think we both mean the same, but I'd like to point out that an
analogue
Johannes Gebauer / 2005/09/30 / 04:32 AM wrote:
I think we both mean the same, but I'd like to point out that an
analogue signal as such cannot be used in any software, it has to be
digitized first, which is done through the soundcard's A/D. Software, by
definition, has no concept of analogue
On Sep 30, 2005, at 4:32 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
The computer which can directly process analogue signals as such has
yet to be invented.
I've got one between my ears, but it is slow, imprecise, balky, prone
to freezes and difficult to upgrade, requiring many long hours of
training
On 15:04 Uhr A-NO-NE Music wrote:
David has been saying
distortion introduced by soundcard is this jitter noise.
That can be true. However, as long as we are dealing with a soundfile,
and all the processing is done without ever leaving the digital domain,
there is no jitter introduced.
Johannes Gebauer / 2005/09/30 / 02:35 PM wrote:
Jitter, by definition, only occurs either
in A/D or in D/A conversion.
To be correct, only at A/D, not at D/A, if we are talking about the
jitter caused by clock.
Also, if, and only if, the soundcard has been doing a DA and then an AD
conversion
Christopher Smith wrote:
On Sep 30, 2005, at 4:32 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
The computer which can directly process analogue signals as such has
yet to be invented.
I've got one between my ears, but it is slow, imprecise, balky, prone to
freezes and difficult to upgrade, requiring many
On 21:04 Uhr A-NO-NE Music wrote:
That's what I was trying to explain. The applications he tried does
not
allow otherwise, as I understand it. That's why I mentioned inter-
application audio driver link, such as Soundflower or WireTap on Mac
side, needs to be involved on his Windows.
I've just finished a book espousing the concept of a theistic,
unconditional love and grace for ALL (Whoa!). It certainly is not
easy to buy into that concept as a mere human being, but I have vowed
to attempt it.
Dean
On Sep 29, 2005, at 6:02 PM, Randolph Peters wrote:
At 1:07 AM +0200
Dear Dean,
Thanks for your thoughts, but you might have the
wrong idea about what a kill filter is. A kill
filter means that any email coming from an author
goes straight into the trash where I don't have
to read it. I do this to avoid aggravation or
wasting my time. It is the equivalent of
On Sep 30, 2005, at 5:22 PM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
I've just finished a book espousing the concept of a theistic,
unconditional love and grace for ALL (Whoa!). It certainly is not easy
to buy into that concept as a mere human being, but I have vowed to
attempt it.
You believe that
Yes, the book ... very interesting, by the way, proposes that God is
the only universal entity which (who) is capable of unconditional
love, and that he has it for every soul on earth, past, present and
future. We can only hope to strive to do the same. The most
controversial message in
On 3:55 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote:
The tools I downloaded all required me to play the file in some other
program in order to get the waveform (instead of reading it directly
from the file). This means that those programs were capturing the
output from my soundcard, which means that this output
On 28.09.2005 23:39 Uhr Lee Actor wrote:
You are right that the software of necessity must analyze the digital
stream
before the D/A conversion, Johannes. However, real-time playback is
not
necessary to do a spectrum analysis.
I realize that. However, I got the impressions that David
On 29 Sep 2005 at 12:39, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 28.09.2005 23:39 Uhr Lee Actor wrote:
You are right that the software of necessity must analyze the
digital stream before the D/A conversion, Johannes. However,
real-time playback is not necessary to do a spectrum analysis.
I realize
On 20:29 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote:
I think you certainly recognize that if the spectrograph analyzer is
looking at the playback of the file rather than the file itself that
the result will include distortion introduced by my soundcard.
David,
I am still absolutely convinced that your
On 29 Sep 2005 at 21:21, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 20:29 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote:
I think you certainly recognize that if the spectrograph analyzer is
looking at the playback of the file rather than the file itself that
the result will include distortion introduced by my soundcard.
I
On 22:27 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, Johannes, you're just WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Thanks for keeping your voice down. (You manage to become really
offensive in the course of any discussion. Why is that? Is this some
kind of ego trip you have been on for the last few years? I for one am
On 29 Sep 2005 at 23:11, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 22:27 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, Johannes, you're just WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Thanks for keeping your voice down. (You manage to become really
offensive in the course of any discussion. Why is that? Is this some
kind of ego trip you
On 29.09.2005 23:41 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote:
So they listen for the soundcard input? How did you feed the MP3 into
that?
I had to initiate playback in an MP3 player, and tell it what device
to listen to.
Yes, but you still haven't answered my question: how did the output get
to the
On 30 Sep 2005 at 1:07, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 29.09.2005 23:41 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote:
So they listen for the soundcard input? How did you feed the MP3
into that?
I had to initiate playback in an MP3 player, and tell it what device
to listen to.
Yes, but you still haven't
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
Of Johannes Gebauer
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:08 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
On 29.09.2005 23:41 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote:
So they listen
On 29 Sep 2005 at 17:20, Lee Actor wrote:
On the technical point under discussion, you are of course 100%
absolutely correct. The software must listen to the digital data
stream going into the sound card; the only output from the sound
card is the post D/A analog waveform sent to the
At 1:07 AM +0200 9/30/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Your post, on the other hand, was, imho,
completely unacceptable on a forum like this,
and I really ask you to come to your senses and
learn some manners. It really p§$%$sses me off
how you treat others, including me, who only
tried to help
At 08:43 PM 9/29/2005, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Sep 2005 at 17:20, Lee Actor wrote:
On the technical point under discussion, you are of course 100%
absolutely correct. The software must listen to the digital data
stream going into the sound card; the only output from the sound
card is
On 1:30 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote:
Yes, but you still haven't answered my question: how did the output
get to the input? Inside or outside the computer? Ie, did you
connect
the output to the input?
The soundcard is INSIDE the computer. It's a device that is part of
the audio interface of
On Sep 28, 2005, at 12:08 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
David W. Fenton / 2005/09/26 / 05:40 PM wrote:
On 26 Sep 2005 at 14:29, Christopher Smith wrote:
. . . All there would be
left to do is to compare them with the original (presumably
sixteen-bit digital.) I would suppose that the maximum of
On 28 Sep 2005 at 0:08, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
David W. Fenton / 2005/09/26 / 05:40 PM wrote:
On 26 Sep 2005 at 14:29, Christopher Smith wrote:
. . . All there would be
left to do is to compare them with the original (presumably
sixteen-bit digital.) I would suppose that the maximum of
David W. Fenton / 2005/09/28 / 01:50 PM wrote:
BTW, I assume that you produced the spectrograph with some piece of
high-end audio software that you have. I Googled to see if there was
any freeware/shareware to do the same thing, and couldn't find
anything. Any ideas/suggestions, without
On 28 Sep 2005 at 14:12, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
David W. Fenton / 2005/09/28 / 01:50 PM wrote:
BTW, I assume that you produced the spectrograph with some piece of
high-end audio software that you have. I Googled to see if there was
any freeware/shareware to do the same thing, and couldn't
Check out versiontracker.com They just had a spectrograph type app on there
this week.
_A
From: David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: finale@shsu.edu
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:03:36 -0400
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
On 28 Sep 2005 at 14
On 28 Sep 2005 at 15:37, Adriel wrote:
Check out versiontracker.com They just had a spectrograph type app on
there this week.
I couldn't find anything recent that was not a plugin. And the only
things I did find were WAV only, or I could not figure out how to
analyze a file without playing
On 21:58 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote:
I couldn't find anything recent that was not a plugin. And the only
things I did find were WAV only, or I could not figure out how to
analyze a file without playing it (which will muck up the analysis by
being polluted with the frequency response and noise
David W. Fenton / 2005/09/28 / 03:58 PM wrote:
I couldn't find anything recent that was not a plugin. And the only
things I did find were WAV only, or I could not figure out how to
analyze a file without playing it (which will muck up the analysis by
being polluted with the frequency response
On 28 Sep 2005 at 22:10, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 21:58 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote:
I couldn't find anything recent that was not a plugin. And the only
things I did find were WAV only, or I could not figure out how to
analyze a file without playing it (which will muck up the analysis
by
On 22:35 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, it depends on how it's doing it. The only thing I could figure
out how to do on the software I downloaded was real-time analysis of
something playing on my PC. This, of necessity, would included the
basic noise and distortion built into my PC's audio
On 22:35 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, it depends on how it's doing it. The only thing I could figure
out how to do on the software I downloaded was real-time analysis of
something playing on my PC. This, of necessity, would included the
basic noise and distortion built into my PC's
On 28 Sep 2005 at 23:01, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 22:35 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, it depends on how it's doing it. The only thing I could figure
out how to do on the software I downloaded was real-time analysis of
something playing on my PC. This, of necessity, would included the
David,
At 00:40 27.09.2005, you wrote:
If you truly think that you can't set pan and reverb in Finale, then
it suggests to me that your statements about Finale's inadequacy for
tweaking a performance are not very credible, because you clearly
don't know much at all about what Finale has been
On 27 Sep 2005 at 20:03, Kurt Gnos wrote:
At 00:40 27.09.2005, you wrote:
If you truly think that you can't set pan and reverb in Finale, then
it suggests to me that your statements about Finale's inadequacy for
tweaking a performance are not very credible, because you clearly
don't know
David,
Ok. I should not have said that, I should have added easily or
something like that. By the way, I just had a look at your side and
must say it's very interesting. And it's very nice you can see the
graphics and download the midi.
I got a roland sound canvas about twelve years ago. It
On 27 Sep 2005 at 22:13, Kurt Gnos wrote:
Ok. I should not have said that, I should have added easily or
something like that. . . .
Well, easily is in the eye of the beholder. To me, setting pan and
so forth is simple in Finale, as it works just the same as any other
expression. Given that I
David W. Fenton / 2005/09/26 / 05:40 PM wrote:
On 26 Sep 2005 at 14:29, Christopher Smith wrote:
. . . All there would be
left to do is to compare them with the original (presumably
sixteen-bit digital.) I would suppose that the maximum of about 3 dB
differences in the mid-range wouldn't be
At 4:21 PM -0400 9/25/05, David W. Fenton wrote:
Does anyone hear any significant differences between the two? I can
convince myself that I do, but it seems only psychological.
David --
I can hear a very minor difference, but shouldn't your reasoning
include your target audience?
That
When he's right, he's right.
The only thing I would add is that iTunes (the Mac version, at least)
includes Apple Lossless, a compression technology that allows full
WAV/AIFF quality at half the size. If space is really at a premium,
you could try that (provided it's included in iTunes for
David W. Fenton wrote:
I'm about to start creating a bunch of MP3 files that are recorded
from my sound card playing back MIDI files created from Finale files.
It seems to me when comparing these two files:
http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/MozartK581ArrA.mp3
Chuck Israels wrote:
David,
Yes, I can hear a small difference. I know because I expected (before
reading carefully) to hear the more compressed file first and noticed a
slight veiling in the second sample.
That said, I don't think it makes a whit of practical difference in
On 26 Sep 2005 at 4:09, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
At 4:21 PM -0400 9/25/05, David W. Fenton wrote:
Does anyone hear any significant differences between the two? I can
convince myself that I do, but it seems only psychological.
I can hear a very minor difference, but shouldn't your
On 26 Sep 2005 at 5:14, Darcy James Argue wrote:
The only thing I would add is that iTunes (the Mac version, at least)
includes Apple Lossless, a compression technology that allows full
WAV/AIFF quality at half the size. If space is really at a premium,
you could try that (provided it's
On 26 Sep 2005 at 6:09, dhbailey wrote:
I find a noticeable difference in the upper partials, especially in
the viola's sound. The 192 sounds a bit richer.
I'll have to listen for that.
In my own tests to determine best encoding rates, I have found such a
tiny change between 192 and
On 26 Sep 2005 at 6:14, dhbailey wrote:
If it's to be posted on a web-site, possibly posting 2 files: the 192
file and one encoded at an even lower rate so that dial-up users could
select which one they wanted to download.
As the MP3 file is only going to ever be used on the website (if I'm
On Sep 26, 2005, at 11:05 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
David W. Fenton / 2005/09/25 / 04:21 PM wrote:
http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/MozartK581ArrA.mp3
http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/MozartK581ArrA1.mp3
I put them in a spectragraph, averaged between 230' and 330'.
On 26 Sep 2005 at 11:05, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
David W. Fenton / 2005/09/25 / 04:21 PM wrote:
http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/MozartK581ArrA.mp3
http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/MozartK581ArrA1.mp3
I put them in a spectragraph, averaged between 230' and 330'.
On Sep 26, 2005, at 2:22 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I actually haven't tried creating an MP3
with iTunes itself to see if it made a better MP3 -- I should try it
(though I'd miss batch conversion).
iTunes for Windows doesn't have batch conversion? Are you sure, as it
is a basic part of the
David W. Fenton / 2005/09/26 / 02:22 PM wrote:
an in that regard, it's superb -- MP3s
always sound significantly better played from iTunes than from any
other player I have. I wish I knew what iTunes was doing
It's all depends on decoder.
For example, iPod had never been able to playback MP3
On 26 Sep 2005, at 2:22 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
The difficulty with using the Apple
format is that none of my audio programs would probably be able to
use it directly to write CDs or make MP3s (other than iTunes itself).
Sure, but if you need to burn to CD, you can use iTunes to convert
On 26 Sep 2005 at 14:34, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Sep 26, 2005, at 2:22 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I actually haven't tried creating an MP3
with iTunes itself to see if it made a better MP3 -- I should try it
(though I'd miss batch conversion).
iTunes for Windows doesn't have
On 26 Sep 2005 at 15:40, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 26 Sep 2005, at 2:22 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
The difficulty with using the Apple
format is that none of my audio programs would probably be able to
use it directly to write CDs or make MP3s (other than iTunes
itself).
Sure, but
Hi David,
If you have Keep iTunes Music Folder Organized checked in your
iTunes preferences, iTunes audio files are stored in: iTunes Music/
Artist Name/Album Name
By default, converted files will have the same album name and artist
name as the source files, so they will be stored in the
Lee,
made me laugh, your post;-) ... at first, that is.
But after I'd gone through the rest of the post, I'm asking myself...
First, I just wanted to be helpful. While the difference between 128
and 192 mbs certainly doesn't matter with those crap sounds, anyone
calling himself (or herself)
At 04:14 PM 09/26/2005, David W. Fenton wrote:
There's a mixer in iTunes? The version I have is 4,
I had 4.9 until recently. In the lower right corner of the main
iTunes window is an icon that looks like an equalizer. It opens the
equalizer. g
and I'm not about
to upgrade to 5, given that I
On 26 Sep 2005 at 16:15, Darcy James Argue wrote:
If you have Keep iTunes Music Folder Organized checked in your
iTunes preferences, iTunes audio files are stored in: iTunes Music/
Artist Name/Album Name
Ah. I'd *never* do it that way -- subfolders like that just don't
have anything to do
On 26 Sep 2005 at 22:29, Kurt Gnos wrote:
And, David, I must confirm Lee, you don't have much of a whim of
knowledge considering manners and modern sound technology and
certainly don't know what you don't know
You have completely missed the point.
You are more interested in telling me how
On 26 Sep 2005 at 16:42, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 04:14 PM 09/26/2005, David W. Fenton wrote:
There's a mixer in iTunes? The version I have is 4,
I had 4.9 until recently. In the lower right corner of the main
iTunes window is an icon that looks like an equalizer. It opens the
equalizer.
On 26 Sep 2005 at 14:29, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Sep 26, 2005, at 11:05 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
David W. Fenton / 2005/09/25 / 04:21 PM wrote:
http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/MozartK581ArrA.mp3
http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/MozartK581ArrA1.mp3
I put
At 05:30 PM 09/26/2005, David W. Fenton wrote:
Oy, it was a couple of weeks ago when it came out that there was a
storm of complaints in one of the lists I read, because people had
downloaded and installed it and it rendered their systems unbootable.
I do see a couple of mentions on the Apple
David,
ok., I appologize... I didn't understand you, as well...;-)
and I appreciate the length of your answer - kind of being taken seriously...
but... until Finale 2006 you couldn't even set panorama to a sound.
And that's much in a midi file. I would recommend to export a midi
file from
On 26 Sep 2005 at 17:40, David W. Fenton wrote:
Now I should try using iTunes to convert and seeing if *that* sounds
different!
OK, I've done that now. The file is (all on one line):
http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/AAM-Mozart-
ClarinetQuintet192iTunes.mp3
I *think* I hear a
On 26 Sep 2005 at 23:54, Kurt Gnos wrote:
ok., I appologize... I didn't understand you, as well...;-)
and I appreciate the length of your answer - kind of being taken
seriously...
but... until Finale 2006 you couldn't even set panorama to a sound.
Panorama? Is that different from pan?
David,
Yes, I can hear a small difference. I know because I expected
(before reading carefully) to hear the more compressed file first and
noticed a slight veiling in the second sample.
That said, I don't think it makes a whit of practical difference in
demonstrating the arrangement to
On 25 Sep 2005 at 13:34, Chuck Israels wrote:
Yes, I can hear a small difference. I know because I expected
(before reading carefully) to hear the more compressed file first and
noticed a slight veiling in the second sample.
Well, it seems to me that there's a slightly more
On Sep 25, 2005, at 2:04 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
The only reason I would go for good sound is that this may be as
close to a performance as these pieces ever get
That's too bad. I think it's terrific that we have this method of
hearing a sketch of music, and I'm all for that, but as a
There is quite a difference between 128K and 192K. However,
considering the hideuos soundcard synth sounds, you may easily
neglect it. As you say, in natural sounds, it makes quite a
difference, but for the cheap synth sounds it doesn't really matter.
I use finale as a notation program, not
On 25 Sep 2005 at 23:54, Kurt Gnos wrote:
I use finale as a notation program, not for real music. .. .
Well, good for you!
. . . If I was
you, . . .
And you're clearly not.
. . . and I would want a decent playback of a Finale file, I would
save it to midi, import it to Nuendo and use
On 25 Sep 2005 at 23:54, Kurt Gnos wrote:
I use finale as a notation program, not for real music. .. .
Well, good for you!
. . . If I was
you, . . .
And you're clearly not.
[remaining know-it-all remarks snipped]
Kurt, if you haven't yet figured it out, it is a complete waste of
No I won't shut up yet. Two more.
JS
On Sep 25, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Lee Actor wrote:
On 25 Sep 2005 at 23:54, Kurt Gnos wrote:
I use finale as a notation program, not for real music. .. .
Well, good for you!
. . . If I was
you, . . .
And you're clearly not.
[remaining know-it-all
Sorry, sent the last one the wrong direction. My apologies.
JS
On Sep 25, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Lee Actor wrote:
On 25 Sep 2005 at 23:54, Kurt Gnos wrote:
I use finale as a notation program, not for real music. .. .
Well, good for you!
. . . If I was
you, . . .
And you're clearly not.
77 matches
Mail list logo
