CD Storage

[joegold40]

A revolutionary way to store CD's in one-fourth the space and at less weight is manufactured by JEWELSLEEVE.COM

6 & 1/4" X 5 & 1/4" heavy duty vinyl sleeve, has double cushioning built into the sleeve. There are no hinges to break and CD's in Jewelsleeves weigh much less than ordinary plastic storage cases

The sleeves store ALL parts of the CD. (booklet, CD, & tray-card) - so you won't have to cut up any artwork or discard the tray card.

Jewelsleeves fit vertically into Jewel-Chests, Jewel-Trays, or custom carrying cases.

You can print your own labels with the included sheets of perforated, color- coded, laser labels, or insert the original CD tray card for an automatic index. The CDs printed spine goes at the top of the Jewelsleeve.

[Guess who]

All my music [from personal LPs to CD, not downloaded] + personal CDs reduced to MP3 fits onto three DVDs .... about 12 Gb so far, with some to go. Shareware/freeware is stored likewise. Little room, strong plastic containers. Music for listening immediately is compressed further by their software onto a Sony Walkman Mp3 player; 2.5 Gb of Mp3 onto a 1Gb unit. That's HOW many hours of music?

Soon everything you can possibly own will be stored onto something the size of your thumb. Storage space will not be a problem.

[R. Pierce Butler]

Guess who wrote in news: [e-mail]:

For those that prefer their music unadulterated, MP3 is not an option.

[edswoods.1]

I've always suspected that. Could you elaborate? I found a pair of old 3-way 12" speakers from the '60s and they seem to reproduce with a lot more fidelity than anything you could buy at Radio

Shack these days, especially in the midrange. Is this just nostalgia bias?

[Art Greenberg]

MP3 is a form of compression. It is a lossy method, meaning data is lost in the process. This data loss means that decompressing (playing back) does not yield exactly what was there before compression. Some people may actually be able to hear the difference. For playback on a small battery operated device with its attendant design compromises and a crappy earpiece, this is probably not a problem. One a home audio system with good speakers, it probably is a problem.

You can learn more about this at

I found a pair of old 3-way 12" speakers from the '60s and they seem to

I don't expect Radio Shack speakers these days could be considered "high end."

[Odinn]

On 4/23/2006 8:14 AM Art Greenberg mumbled something about the following:

Some of us can't tell the difference in a 160 bit MP3 and the CD, even on a good stereo (I know I can't, but I can tell the difference between a 128 bit MP3 and CD). Now, on my Harley, a 128 bit MP3 sounds just as good as a CD (I imagine a 64 bit would come pretty close as well, but I'm not going to try), because there is too much wind noise at 65+ MPH to be able to notice the poorer quality. I know others who can't tell the difference between a 192 bit MP3 and CD, and others, you have to go to 256 bit. Personally, CDs produce TOO MUCH clarity. I remember the first time I heard the Beatles on CD after listening to them for years on vinyl. All of a sudden, I can hear the chimes. This was bad, the chimes were supposed to be part of the background ambiance, not part of the sound. But this is what happens with digital recordings vs analogue recordings.

You think people are nuts about the difference between MP3 and CD, you should read the stuff that goes on between the Multi-channel DSD and stereo DSD people.

[R. Pierce Butler]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

There are many short wav files that show the various problems with lossy compression. Some are glaring and some less so. YMMV.

It might be bias or not. There have been some advancements made in the speaker industry since 1968. I think you should give some newer speakers a listen and avoid the RS stuff.

[R. Pierce Butler]

Odinn wrote in news: [e-mail]:

I disagree. That is what happens when an audio engineer remasters a recording or in the case of the early days, doesn't know how to master a CD. There is virtually no major difference in fidelity between vinyl and CD provided it is done properly. I am talking perfect, never played vinyl on about $20,000 worth of turntable and cartridge vs. a CD. For example DG over compensated the opposite way and wound up sounding like a poor bit of vinyl in the early days since about the mid 90's are now pretty good and sound very close to a live performance. They sound so good that a live performance was disappointing to my wife. She said the live performance sounded just like what we hear at home. (I don't have any vinyl playback equipment.)

I don't get into "religous" audio discussions as a rule. (:>)

pierce

[Upscale]

I figure that would be the status quo since quite a few of us here are in our later years and our hearing isn't exemplary. Don't know about everybody else, but wav or MP3, it all sounds the same to me. Possibly, if I had a really good stereo system, I might be able to tell the difference, but I doubt it.

[Guess who]

I think folk should get a copy of Flanders and Swan ..."Hi-fidelity". One of my favourite lines ..."The ear can't hear quite as high as that, but it aught to please a passing bat."

Like other pretentions, there is little real noticeable difference in a single reduction, except by the pretentious. Certainly, repeated copies of copies of copies would compound errors, but initial loss is negligible to the human ear.

Now .... on to finish that oak end-table while I listen to my Sony formatted hours of music sent through a finger-size FM transmitter, picked up on my cheap shop radio. I'll start with Pavaroti.

[Andy Dingley]

MP3 was developed by someone who liked Suzanne Vega. According to their neighbur co-workers at Fraunhofer, they liked Suzanne Vega a _lot_. So for female vocalists with typical ranges, then it works fine. If you live in Bristol or like Drum & Bass, then even I can hear the difference.

I've no idea how the later Suzanne Vega works....

[Swingman]

If you define audio "fidelity" in the usual sense, the faithfulness of the output signal/image to the input signal/image, that is not really the case.

CD's inarguably have a more limited frequency response due to implementation of Nyquist-Shannon sampling not present in analog recording/playback.

Therefore there is certainly a quantifiable/measurable difference in "fidelity", as generally defined.

... whether it is "major" or not to the ear of the listener is subjective and dependent upon the listener's perception, or lack thereof. ;)

[Scott Lurndal]

Inarguably? Try rec.audio.high-end.

Note that the A->D and D->A process is _not_ lossy[*], and the full fidelity and range of the input analog signal is preserved throughout the digital domain. Coupled with the known defects in analog recording (i.e. the need to boost certain frequency ranges to compensate for deficiencies in the analog recording process - RIAA equalization), as well as the normal degradation cause by scratching a hard gemstone across rather soft vinyl means that a properly mixed, mastered and recorded digital domain recording will universally sound better than an analog (vinyl or magnetic tape) recording.

scott

[*] Don't be confused by the "sampling" terminology. the output waveform is identical to the input waveform after A->D->A conversion with modern CD recording and playback hardware.

[edswoods.1]

I suppose the thing that really throws me about audio is that you tend to expect everything electronic to get cheaper (I stress cheaper!) and better almost exponentially, as time goes by but as far as sound quality goes this isn't quite the case.

[Art Greenberg]

Of course it is. The input analog signal *must* be low-pass filtered before sampling to avoid aliasing artifacts. That filter unavoidably introduces not only loss near and above the cutoff frequency, but it introduces distortion due to phase shift. These days, really good filters can be had that minimize the added distortions, but there is no such thing as a perfect, totally transparent low-pass filter.

Whether or not the effect is significant is another matter, and a subjective one.

Equalization is done to maintain S/N at higher frequencies in playback of vinyl. It isn't meant to overcome "defects" in the analog recording process.

After many plays of that vinyl, probably so. At the first play, with really decent equipment, maybe not.

[Swingman]

implementation

LOL ... Not even remotely necessary, Scott. After 30 years behind a recording console, and 20 of that owning a commercial recording studio

I'd at least like to think that I operated at least one level higher in the audio chain ... providing the actual fodder for their endless conjecture/speculations. ;)

I am thinking that you are confused, or have misunderstanding, regarding the differences in the two technologies. Read up a bit (no pun intended) on Nyquist frequencies/filtering, sampling, and bit rates in the digital domain, particularly at how they relate to current CD technololgy, and you will see how inaccurate the above really is.

The technical inaccuracies in the above nothwithstanding, "sound better" to whom?

LOL ... being a gambling man, I'd not hesitate to peg the degree of "confusion" on the differences between analog and digital recording, to the number of commercially released albums, both analog and digital, the two of us have engineered, respectively.

Wanna bet on it? ... ;)

[R. Pierce Butler]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Compare the 1963 common record player to todays MP3 player. Then adjust for inflation.

[Guess who]

OK, it's a bit OT, but since one result is that I can listen to my choice of music while doing quiet-work in the woodshop....

I have taken all my old LPs and CDs and converted then to MP3 format. There's about 12Gb on one of the computer hard drives. It's also copied entirely onto 3 DVD discs. Further, I recently got a 1Gb thumb-size Walkman Mp3 player.

Good enough, except I also bought a finger-size FM transmitter that powers from the computer USB or from battery. The Walkman software will compress the MP3 format even further, so I can put actually 2.5Gb of music on the 1Gb MP3 player. I connect that to the FM transmitter with the battery connection if away from the computer, then I crank up the radio at the transmission frequency [a choice of about 6 frequencies depending on location] and listen in surround-sound.

Now I listen to countless hours of my choice of music while working in the woodshop ...or wherever. There's really no comparison with the old-time LP technology. The sound is incredible.

[I still have a few of the old records, the special ones, and a linear turntable. ...just in case.]