audio questions

[Albuquerque]

Qwest offers 20Mb service via existing "fiber to the node, copper to the home" infrastructure AKA, DSL.

Interesting, that would be the first DSL connection I've seen with that kind of advertised speed. My only interaction with Qwest (four years ago) was quite terrible, but it was in the capacity of a business leasing eight T1 lines that catastrophically failed every time it rained. It took us three years of bantering to finally get them to own up to the problem and fix it; hopefully their service has improved since then.

Any word on how many subscribers have that kind of service available?

I think we're nearing the cross-over point in terms of broadband usage though. This report shows just over 65 million broadband connections in the U.S. as of the end of Q2 this year. Unfortunately, I can't find statistics from this year on total internet connections, the best I can come up with is that in 2006 there were 132 million internet connections with 42.9 million (32.3 percent) being broadband.

Yeah, that sounds at least reasonable. But that's a massive installed base of users under 56kbps transfer capabilities, and I'd wager a free cup of coffee that at least another half of those on "broadband" are under 1mbit -- maybe even under 512kbit. My point in that paragraph was really that anyone with a >=15mbit connection is in an unbelievably small minority. Hell, I only have 10mbit connection at my house, and while I could conceivably get ahold of a 20mbit connection, the price would double.

The real point is the technology on which 2008 is hinging all of his drivel has a market penetration of single-percentage points -- likely very low single percentage points at that. And the people who could actually tell the true difference? Probably about the same percentage...

Meaning all this banter about how compression is Teh Debil / evil incarnate / terrible / awful / sorely obvious is pretty much worthless no matter how you want to spin it.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Interesting, that would be the first DSL connection I've seen with that kind of advertised speed. My only interaction with Qwest (four years ago) was quite terrible, but it was in the capacity of a business leasing eight T1 lines that catastrophically failed every time it rained. It took us three years of bantering to finally get them to own up to the problem and fix it; hopefully their service has improved since then.

I've never used Qwest DSL, but many of my private clients have and most of them switched to Comcast

Any word on how many subscribers have that kind of service available?

Other than going to their website and typing in your address - no. However they do have a disclaimer on the bottom of their service availability site that states availability in 10 cities and up to 2 million households by the end of this year (no word which cities, though you can bet Seattle, Denver, and Minneapolis are on the list).

Yeah, that sounds at least reasonable. But that's a massive installed base of users under 56kbps transfer capabilities, and I'd wager a free cup of coffee that at least another half of those on "broadband" are under 1mbit -- maybe even under 512kbit.

Absolutely. A friend of mine has 384Kbps DSL and I really feel sorry for the guy as he has multiple users in his house. It's slower than dial-up at times!

My point in that paragraph was really that anyone with a >=15mbit connection is in an unbelievably small minority. Hell, I only have 10mbit connection at my house, and while I could conceivably get ahold of a 20mbit connection, the price would double.

The real point is the technology on which 2008 is hinging all of his drivel has a market penetration of single-percentage points -- likely very low single percentage points at that. And the people who could actually tell the true difference? Probably about the same percentage...

Sure, since broadband penetration has not yet reached majority status, it's only common sense that these upper echelon services would only account for a very small minority of internet connections in the U.S.

Meaning all this banter about how compression is Teh Debil / evil incarnate / terrible / awful / sorely obvious is pretty much worthless no matter how you want to spin it.

I think you misunderstand the intent of my previous post, which was simply to provide more information. I am not arguing on the OP's behalf.

 

[Albuquerque]

I think you misunderstand the intent of my previous post, which was simply to provide more information. I am not arguing on the OP's behalf.

That's exactly how I took it; I must apologize if I came off any differently

And I agree with your thoughts on 384kbps DSL; my father has 256k DSL and it's painful -- I think tethering my phone goes faster on EDGE network at his house. Yikes!

 

[Rys]

I have a 24Mbit ADSL2+ service here in the UK. It's fairly common on LLU circuits over here.

 

[Albuquerque]

I have a 24Mbit ADSL2+ service here in the UK. It's fairly common on LLU circuits over here.

Just out of curiosity - you say it's fairly common, would you say that any semblence of "the majority" of broadband subscribers have these sorts of speeds? Where do you feel the median is for broadband subscribers in the UK? Or in the EU as a whole?

The US often gets the short end of the stick on broadband availability (wired and wireless) simply due to the massive amount of land area that must be covered and the infrastructure that would be needed to support it. I know that Asian countries are significantly beyond us in terms of broadband technology saturation, mostly because the eleventy brazillion people that use it are confined to about four thousand square miles of living area

Ok, so that's a bit of an overgeneralization, but I'm wondering how much of that carries over into your area?

And even if UK households enjoy an average of >15mbps broadband speeds, does that somehow negate the need for data compression? I personally would still argue "hell no."

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Albuquerque: England and Japan have faily high population densities, with 392 and 337 people per KM^2, respectively (according to wikipedia). If you include the entire UK the balance shifts in Japan's favor with the UK population density dropping to 267 per KM^2.

Dunno how that translates into actual broadband adoption rates or availability of upper tier services, but I imagine the relatively small land mass and relatively high population density of each country contributes greatly to both adoption rates and availability of upper tier services.

 

[Albuquerque]

Yup, pretty much along the same lines I was thinking. I was more curious what Rys thinks is the "norm" over on his side of the pond; I think we both have an idea of what the "norm" is over here

 

[Rys]

First off, you're completely right that 2008 is talking out of his arse when it comes to throwing compression out of the window The guy is nutso.

LLU isn't the status quo here in the UK, and neither is BT's "21st Century Network", which is just getting off the ground in terms of rollout (my employer just started their trial, or is just about to, I can't remember). There's still some way to go before we're a nation of users with access to > 8Mbit/sec on DSL, which is where the "Max" products stop. That said, most LLU'd exchanges have ADSL2+ DSLAMs.

For cable here, most services are 10Mbit+, and a lot of people enjoy 20Mbit. So while > 8Mbit isn't for a tiny few by any means, you're right, it's not the norm.

I have the luxury of working for an ISP, so I enjoy a fast connection for the majority of my computing life, be it at home or work. Long may it continue, it's really liberating.

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

First off, you're completely right that 2008 is talking out of his arse when it comes to throwing compression out of the window The guy is nutso.
LLU isn't the status quo here in the UK, and neither is BT's "21st Century Network", which is just getting off the ground in terms of rollout (my employer just started their trial, or is just about to, I can't remember). There's still some way to go before we're a nation of users with access to > 8Mbit/sec on DSL, which is where the "Max" products stop. That said, most LLU'd exchanges have ADSL2+ DSLAMs.

For cable here, most services are 10Mbit+, and a lot of people enjoy 20Mbit. So while > 8Mbit isn't for a tiny few by any means, you're right, it's not the norm.

I have the luxury of working for an ISP, so I enjoy a fast connection for the majority of my computing life, be it at home or work. Long may it continue, it's really liberating.

Lossless compression is fine with me. In fact I was defending WMA lossless.

The problem I have is that many things are only available lossily compressed. I'm fine if everything is offered in 2 formats; the problem I have is that pc games, for example, are using ddl and mp3's rather than lpcm 5.1.

Those who do have access to higher end technology are being ignored, and I don't think that's fair. For example, i'm looking forward to the new prince of persia on the pc, but if i want to play it, i'm forced to having low-tech quality due to lossy compression. It's best for everyone if they make a dvd version where the audio is in low bit rate mp3's and ddl, and then a bd-rom version that has lossless audio.

I don't think lossy compression should be thrown out the window, but everything should be offered in lossless format too.

 

[Bambers]

Eh? you were claiming that wma lossless had horrible DR in another thread

Incidentally it's 470-940kbps according to WMP.

______

average uk bb speed is around 3mbps iirc.

adsl 24mbit is on offer however you usually need to be living right next to your local exchange to get that speed and it drops off fairly quickly over distance (depenant on line quality)

Cable is fiber to street box copper to home but doesn't cover all the uk. It's available in 2, 10 and 20mbit speeds with 50 on trial in some areas however virgin (the cable isp) run STM which clamps users connection speeds for a bit if they down/upload x many GB during peak hours.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Why are you so worried about sound quality when you're using shit speakers like those Logitech satellites and those Behringer computer speakers. You are NEVER going to hear the difference between lossy and lossless, especially not on low quality speakers. You'd be far better off putting money into speakers and trying to get the most out of a CD.

 

[Albuquerque]

Very true. Your multi-terabyte harddrive, 50mbps network connection and $200 aftermarket 24bit-192Khz soundcard are all for naught if your're listening to your audio on a set of Sams Club speakers.

Good thing I'm not an audio snob; I love my Logitech 530's and will never get rid of them until they die a horrific death. So far, they've been quite excellent for my use.

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

Yes, my speakers are crap; that's why I'm going to get a better setup soon (~$550 maybe a little more; that includes just the 1st 2 speakers, so it's going to be quite a bit more than $550 actually); I'm just mad that when i do get it, it will probably serve no purpose b/c everything will still be exclusively in mp3's and ddl.

The 10% thd on the logitech satelites scared me out of using them; i don't think the $200 sound card with hdmi output and lpcm is on the market, but how would that be better than the hdmi-output and lpcm offered by my iceq4 1gb 4850?

Speakers and receiver matter most, right?

I know that may be a dumb question, but with digital, I honestly don't think a discrete is any better than non-discrete. I don't know how it could be if the dacs used are inside the receiver, when using digital.

 

[Moloch]

Pay no mind to the THD, they just used the 10% in order to claim the put out more wattage than they really do, cleanly.
Btw it's an amp rating, not a satalite rating, it's 10% for the satt and "subwoofer".

 

[Scott_Arm]

Speakers and receiver matter most, right?

I'd say speakers by far matter the most with the receiver being important, but not as much. You're better off dumping your money into speakers than into sources and amplifiers. To be honest, I doubt your current speakers are even getting "the most" out of mp3 or other compressed formats. You'll be hard pressed to find a speaker that can even get the most out of a CD. Take a look at some exotic speakers like the Bang & Olufsen Beolab 5s. Your concern about HD formats is totally misplaced. If there is a difference, you'd probably never be able to notice it, even on a stereo that cost $50K, and especially not on some satellite speakers.

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

I'd say speakers by far matter the most with the receiver being important, but not as much. You're better off dumping your money into speakers than into sources and amplifiers. To be honest, I doubt your current speakers are even getting "the most" out of mp3 or other compressed formats. You'll be hard pressed to find a speaker that can even get the most out of a CD. Take a look at some exotic speakers like the Bang & Olufsen Beolab 5s. Your concern about HD formats is totally misplaced. If there is a difference, you'd probably never be able to notice it, even on a stereo that cost $50K, and especially not on some satellite speakers.

Thanks for answering my questions.

There's no enjoyment to get out of mp3's or lossy formats.

I don't know how many times i have to say this, but even though i have lousy speakers, I DO notice a great magnitude of difference between an mp3 and the same track in wma lossless. I'd like to know why people keep on telling me i can't notice something when I actually do. When people try to tell me that I can't notice a difference when I actually can, for no good reason, it kind of pisses me off. Please don't make some completely retarded incorrect assumption about me.

I mean after all, wma lossless wouldn't exist if the average music listener like me couldn't tell the difference on $50k stereos, when in fact people with $20 headphones can probably tell the difference between an mp3 on myspace and the same track downloaded from music giants, or a cd track ripped in mp 3 vs wma lossless.

So it's nice to answer my question and thanks for doing so, but you shouldn't try to insult people.

 

[RobertR1]

Thanks for answering my questions.

There's no enjoyment to get out of mp3's or lossy formats.

I don't know how many times i have to say this, but even though i have lousy speakers, I DO notice a great magnitude of difference between an mp3 and the same track in wma lossless. I'd like to know why people keep on telling me i can't notice something when I actually do. When people try to tell me that I can't notice a difference when I actually can, for no good reason, it kind of pisses me off. Please don't make some completely retarded incorrect assumption about me.

I mean after all, wma lossless wouldn't exist if the average music listener like me couldn't tell the difference on $50k stereos, when in fact people with $20 headphones can probably tell the difference between an mp3 on myspace and the same track downloaded from music giants, or a cd track ripped in mp 3 vs wma lossless.

So it's nice to answer my question and thanks for doing so, but you shouldn't try to insult people.

Spec whore + placebo effect describes you best.

 

[Albuquerque]

Thanks for answering my questions.
<snip>
So it's nice to answer my question and thanks for doing so, but you shouldn't try to insult people.

I'm pretty sure it's you doing the insulting; people far smarter than you (and I) who are incredibly-well versed on this technology and the implications therein are telling you that this massive descrepancy you're talking about doesn't exist.

And here you are telling them that it does. You were even going on a tirade about lossless compression several pages ago in this forum, and now you've at least finally turned that corner -- for what reason I'm not sure.

It's pretty obvious even the owner of the site is getting tired of your ramblings; maybe when everyone else around you is telling you something different, it isn't because you're right and they're not...

 

[Snyder]

One thing: IQ, do you have some hearing impairment? (Serious Question!)
People most sensitive to mp3 vs. lossless are usually those whose acoustic perception is strongly different from the norm (and thus different from the psychoacoustic models mp3 uses)...

Edit: Of course, not counting people who think they are sensitive to mp3 vs. lossless...

 

[_xxx_]

Pretty much any musician will tell you the difference between any mp3 and the original with ease. Especially music with lots of dynamics is an easy candidate. Again, try Death's "Human" or "Individual Thoughts Patterns" or Nevermore "Dreaming Neon Black". It's day and night, even with some $20 headphones.