[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Albie wrote:

Why does one never seem to get a straight answer around here? 8-)

We do not *do* simple around here, it is against the union contract.

AFAICS, all you need do is to play your MP3 files back via software
that offers "Reverse" channels. You're on your own there, because I
still use WinAmp 2.8 (?), and this primitive does not offer that
feature. Most dedicated pre-amps _do_ have a channel reverse.

It is still a "must remember" thing, what is asked about is a "get it right"
thing.

Failing this, you require a file editor that allows Copy/Paste, but
now you must reverse each of your files.

No, no no and no. You only do that for a spoiler that allows you to identify
what work P.D.Q. Bach has pdq'ed.

I realize you want to avoid
doing this. (Sound Forge is good, but WaveOSaur is legitimately free!
8-) Its downside is, of course, a total lack of a manual.)

Reverse is a simple word with a clear meaning, since you ask for simplicity
and clarity please ponder at least 3/8's of a millisecond on what it
actually means.

As to the wag who derides playing classical music with MP3 files, he
should avoid paper, pen and ink as they say. It is well-established
by now that the vast majority of mortals can discern no difference
when the sources have been well-recorded.

First the took the psychoacoustics and based encode-decode schemes on them,
next those schemes had to be modified based on listening tests. My current
level of outdated information is that the books have not yet been rewritten.
I have also seen politically correct AES papers that - imo correctly - put
the major part of the difference between 96 k sample rate recordings and 48
k sample rate recordings in the category "those that use it also care more
about sound quality".

When differences were
statistically proved, the few golden-eared listeners (like the VP of
A&R at DG) preferred the MP3 sound to the CD!! 8-)

What makes you assume that said VP has hearing that is perfect, even if only
by ENT standards that require only that he understands spoken word. There is
one special case where mp3 encoding can be helpful, one and only one. That
case is distortion or artifacts from digital noise reduction, such small and
audibly very bothering noises will be discarded in mp3 encoding.

I understand that
many heavyweights in the field of psychology were involved when MP3
was developed and tested. It is nothing to deprecate.

Read the latter part of the above paragraph and the stuff about the
non-rewritten books on psychoacoustics again. The real rorschach test of mp3
is whether a Strad sounds like one afterwards, and it doesn't, it sounds
like a Yamaha.

Oh, and I can't remember who it was, but some world-class conductor
did place his violin section on the right. 8-)

I you may be writing about the alternative viennese orchestra setup. My
recollection is that it is not used as much because the standard setup makes
it easist for all the musicians to keep the pitch, it may be imperfect.

Albie

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Dunno about violins on the right (don't doubt it, just have never
heard of that), but I do know that George Szell (Cleveland Orch.)
swapped the violas and celli, putting the violas on the outside
right. (There's a picture showing this on the cover of an ablum I
have of his.) No doubt there have been other unconventional seating
arrangements used over the years.

Doing that has some merit because it makes them more well defined by being
closer to the audience, but it has the disadvantage that the instrument
radiates away from the audience rather than towards it. In a string quartet
it is the setup I prefer from a recording viewpoint tho' ... violas can get
lost between 2' and cello otherwise, and the cello as the third from the
left as seen from the audience will also project more in the direction of
the audience than it will in position 4 and thus it is better able to
compensat for being in the 2' tier. In full ensemble as well as in chamber
ensemble context it primarily must be about required communication in the
ensemble, so for the same ensemble it could be work, ie. performed oeuvre,
dependent.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Albie wrote:

On MP3 files? Without re-encoding?

No. Seems unlikely that there are ANY applications that can
manipulate MP3 without decoding and re-encoding. Same problem in
the video world with most flavors of MPEG.

Au contraire! I just did it. With Audacity, one loads an MP3 file,
edits same and then "Exports" it back to Either an MP3 file or a WAV
file! It probably does silently convert to RAW in order to edit, but
the user has no inkling of it.

I trust you about the magnitude of inkling, but you yourself describe a
decode-encode.

THIS JUST IN! I see where WaveOSaur has a "Swap Channels" function. I
have not used it, but it appears as a MenuItem under the "Process"
Menu. HEY, FINALLY A DIRECT ANSWER TO A QUESTION !! 8-)

No Albie, the OP wants it right for all files he downloads to his preferred
earbuster.

Albie

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Andrej Kluge wrote:

My MP3s have 256 kb/s, and this is OK for me. My hearing is not what
it used to be anyway (the trebles are dwindling), so this is -- for
me -- the best tradeoff between quality and file size.

It is not about treble, it is about detail, except that treble can get
splatty at low bit rates. Some of the time I downsample to 32 kHz samplerate
prior to encoding when using max quality variable bit rate ... anyway: mp3
sounds like the lack of detail just after a major noise exposure .... that
lack of detail applies 20-whatever it allows, the mptreble over 14 kHz kinda
sounds like white noise anyway .... I seriously think that not bothering the
encode with it is better than having it splattified.

Ciao
AK

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Doug Freyburger wrote:

Side by side in an otherwise silent room, sure I can tell an MP3 from
a wave file. Ah to even have a room where I could do that on a
regular basis ...

Better check with Arny's ABX software, it is good for the modesty, not all
nuances are best detected in short abx listening sessions, but it does put
things in a good order of importance.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[David Nebenzahl]

On 1/27/2010 12:08 AM Peter Larsen spake thus:

Andrej Kluge wrote:

geoff wrote:

Of course I could just reverse the ear plugs of my headphones, but
this is no real solution...

This is presumable some file where sides really matter ?

Actually, yes. This is classical music, and if the violins play on
the wrong side it sounds definitely weird. Are there only pop/rock
aficionados present who don't understand this?

There is no reason why absolute L and R should not also matter in other
renderings of real or imaginary acoustic events.

I dunno; take a listen to the opening track of Jimi Hendrix's "Axis:
Bold as Love". Does it really matter if the whooshy sounds pan from
right to left to right, or vice versa?


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

[Andrej Kluge]

Hi,

Peter Larsen wrote:
No Albie, the OP wants it right for all files he downloads to his
preferred earbuster.

Um, actually no. As I wrote I want it only for this special case -- a CD box
which I ripped from CD (not downloaded) and which has the audio channels
reversed (maybe it was done intentionally?).

Ok, I confess: while it is indeed classical music, it is no orchestral
music, but solo harpsichord. The trebles are on the left and the bass is on
the right, i.e. like you would hear it if you stand on the other side of the
harpsichord, facing the pianist (as opposed to what the pianist himself
would hear). That was a very strange experience. But I tell you what:
meanwhile (I'm about halfway through listening to it now) I got accustomed
to it :-)

Ciao
AK

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 1/27/2010 12:08 AM Peter Larsen spake thus:

Andrej Kluge wrote:

geoff wrote:

Of course I could just reverse the ear plugs of my headphones, but
this is no real solution...

This is presumable some file where sides really matter ?

Actually, yes. This is classical music, and if the violins play on
the wrong side it sounds definitely weird. Are there only pop/rock
aficionados present who don't understand this?

There is no reason why absolute L and R should not also matter in
other renderings of real or imaginary acoustic events.

I dunno; take a listen to the opening track of Jimi Hendrix's "Axis:
Bold as Love". Does it really matter if the whooshy sounds pan from
right to left to right, or vice versa?

How about a drumkit eh? - nothing said about the w i d t h of said.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Andrej Kluge wrote:

Hi,

Peter Larsen wrote:
No Albie, the OP wants it right for all files he downloads to his
preferred earbuster.

Um, actually no. As I wrote I want it only for this special case -- a
CD box which I ripped from CD (not downloaded) and which has the
audio channels reversed (maybe it was done intentionally?).

Ok, I confess: while it is indeed classical music, it is no orchestral
music, but solo harpsichord. The trebles are on the left and the bass
is on the right, i.e. like you would hear it if you stand on the
other side of the harpsichord, facing the pianist (as opposed to what
the pianist himself would hear). That was a very strange experience.
But I tell you what: meanwhile (I'm about halfway through listening
to it now) I got accustomed to it :-)

I record from the audience's perspective. Generally that would imply
recording any "piano class" object at least partly from the side it opens
the lid towards since that side would normally be the one the audience
hears.

Ciao
AK

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Doug Freyburger]

geoff wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Mr.T wrote:

And anybody who claims they are unable to tell an MP3 from a wave
file, and still fails to make any mention of bit rates is just as
stupid!

That or they listen to their music in their car and the background
noise overwhelms any of that detail. Why do so few folks listen to
classical music in their car? You mean there were supposed to be
violins going while that truck went by? I think the "wall of sound"
concept was introduced to rock music because so many folks were
listening to the music on their car radios so the music needed to
overwhelm that truck going by.

I use 256K (non-joint) stereo MP3s in my car on long trips. I can hear the
difference easily between these and the source CDs, in the car, while
driving, and that with average pop-rock, let alone anything more subtle.

Clearly your hearing works differently than mine. I've seen people
moving their lips in very loud environments like rock concerts. Clearly
they believe the person they are facing will be able to hear them and
therefore they think they could hear the person facing them. Not me.
High enough background noise overwhlems the sound for me and turns it
off. If I'm in a car on the interstate and I go by a big truck it
doesn't matter in the least what sort of sound is theoretically coming
out of the speakers. It's enough Db under the level of the truck so
it's turned off for me.

I do wish there was such a thing as a test that measures hearing loss in
a way that has meaning in industrialized society. I get that playing a
quiet sound in a silent room does have some use. I've tried playing
those ring tones that kids use that adults can't here and I can only
hear the sound 5-10 years younger than the table predicts. But high
pitch pure tones aren't of much use when I'm at the airport and a jet
passes overhead. Or walking past a construction site with a jack
hammer. Or at a rock concert watching someone's lips move and figuring
they believe I should be able to hear something.

[Andrej Kluge]

Hi,

Dick Pierce wrote:
Andrej Kluge wrote:

Ok, I confess: while it is indeed classical music, it is no
orchestral music, but solo harpsichord. The trebles are on the
left and the bass is on the right, i.e. like you would hear it if
you stand on the other side of the harpsichord, facing the pianist
(as opposed to what the pianist himself would hear).

One minor nit to start: pianists play, as a general rule,
pianos, not harpsichords. Harpsichordists, cembalists or
clavicinists play harpischords.

I knew someone would notice that slip :-) (the word escaped me when I wrote
this)

Be that as it may, I have several harpsichords here.

You lucky dog.

The radiation pattern of such intruments is EXCEEDINGLY
complex and variable. Where, in fact, the major portion of
a given note is radiated from the soundboard is not at all
well correlated with the position of the key that sounded
that not. And further, which portion of the note (spectrally)
is radiated form where is as well VERY complex.

Well, I know how a grand piano looks inside, and that the strings here are
crossed so the direction where the sound comes from is indeed not easy to
discern. However, from what I've seen of cembalo (harpsichords) pictures
their strings are straight, i.e. the long (bass) strings are on the left
(seen from the player).

Your stated phenomenon of a clear left-right auditory sense
of where a note is oming from is exceedingly difficult to
detect when you are sitting at the keyboard playing and make
the concious effort to isolate what your hands are doing and,
positionally, what your ears are hearing.

I just listened to other cembalo recordings of my collection (with
headphones or course) and noticed that in most of them (except the one in
question, and one other recording) both bass and treble comes (more or less)
from the center. The other recording with rather clear left/right separation
of bass/treble has the bass on the left and treble on right.

For the audience, such a clear left-right distinction is
simply absent auditorially, even from someone sitting 10
feet from the instrument.

Yes, of course.

All that being said, the vast majority of harpsichord
recordings that exhibit a distinct bass-to-left, treble-
to-right image do so unnaturally, some to the point of
sounding just plain wierd.

Well, I wondered myself how these CDs have been recorded. Presumably with
two microphones hung directly into the instrument? The cembalo here is very
closely recorded, with practically no reverb (I like that since it brings
out contrapuntal structures very clearly). BTW, it's the 10 CD box with
Händel's complete harpsichord music played by Eberhard Kraus.

But, if you want weird, I suppose you get to demand
the proper wierd.

Sorry, I don't understand that (which may be because I'm German)

Thanks and Ciao
AK

[David Nebenzahl]

On 1/27/2010 7:55 AM Peter Larsen spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 1/27/2010 12:08 AM Peter Larsen spake thus:

Andrej Kluge wrote:

geoff wrote:

Of course I could just reverse the ear plugs of my headphones, but
this is no real solution...

This is presumable some file where sides really matter ?

Actually, yes. This is classical music, and if the violins play on
the wrong side it sounds definitely weird. Are there only pop/rock
aficionados present who don't understand this?

There is no reason why absolute L and R should not also matter in
other renderings of real or imaginary acoustic events.

I dunno; take a listen to the opening track of Jimi Hendrix's "Axis:
Bold as Love". Does it really matter if the whooshy sounds pan from
right to left to right, or vice versa?

How about a drumkit eh? - nothing said about the w i d t h of said.

Huh? What on earth does that have to do with channel assignment.

Sometimes you're just *out there*, man.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

[Geoff]

Andrej Kluge wrote:
Hi,

Peter Larsen wrote:
No Albie, the OP wants it right for all files he downloads to his
preferred earbuster.

Um, actually no. As I wrote I want it only for this special case -- a
CD box which I ripped from CD (not downloaded) and which has the
audio channels reversed (maybe it was done intentionally?).

Ok, I confess: while it is indeed classical music, it is no orchestral
music, but solo harpsichord. The trebles are on the left and the bass
is on the right, i.e. like you would hear it if you stand on the
other side of the harpsichord, facing the pianist (as opposed to what
the pianist himself would hear). That was a very strange experience.
But I tell you what: meanwhile (I'm about halfway through listening
to it now) I got accustomed to it :-)

Kind of depends if the player is facing you, back to you, or as would be
more usual - side on.


geoff

[Andrej Kluge]

Hi,

Dick Pierce wrote:
The stound of a harpsichord or piano does not come from
the strings, it comes from the soundboard. The strings
have far too small a radiating area and acoustically couple
very inefficiently. Rather, the vibration of the strings
is coupled mechanically through the bridge pines through
the bridge to the soundboard and thence mechanically to
the portion(s) of the soundboard that's best at radiating
that particular frequency when excited from that particular
point in the bridge.

Interesting, I didn't know that. One of my friends has a spinet in his
basement. Next time I see him I have to have a closer look.

In all of the times I have played and listened live to harpsichord
performance on may dozens of different instruments ranging from
real historical samples to modern reproducrtions, I can't say
that I have ever heard the clear left/right distinction you
observe in your recordings.

I could send you a sample if you want. In one piece there is a scale right
at the beginning, you can clearly hear how it goes from right to left.

Ciao
AK

[Andrej Kluge]

Hi,

Dick Pierce wrote:
Thanks for the offer but, no thanks. I would consider such
a presentation to be strange and, unless the recording was
the only one around for the piece or the performance was
exemplary, I'd not be interested.

Well, I think many pieces of that CD box are the only recordings you will
find of them. And yes, IMO the performance is outstanding, YMMV.

But you can hear a sample he

http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/deta...9/hnum/7600128

Track 27 (Menuet h-Moll) will show the left/right issue quite well.

Or:
http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/deta...6/hnum/7600094

Track 6 (Fantasia a-Moll)

Ciao
AK

[David Nebenzahl]

On 1/27/2010 1:39 PM Andrej Kluge spake thus:

Dick Pierce wrote:

The stound of a harpsichord or piano does not come from
the strings, it comes from the soundboard. The strings
have far too small a radiating area and acoustically couple
very inefficiently. Rather, the vibration of the strings
is coupled mechanically through the bridge pines through
the bridge to the soundboard and thence mechanically to
the portion(s) of the soundboard that's best at radiating
that particular frequency when excited from that particular
point in the bridge.

Interesting, I didn't know that. One of my friends has a spinet in his
basement. Next time I see him I have to have a closer look.

That's true for *all* stringed instruments (well, all "acoustic" ones at
any rate). A vibrating string by itself can produce almost no audible
sound. It needs some kind of diaphragm to move air.

And to further complicate matters, it's not just the soundboard of the
instrument that radiates sound. Depending on the instrument, other parts
also participate: for instance, the back in both the guitar and violin
family of instruments contributes significantly to the sound.

And directionality is yet another more complex subject. At least with a
violin (and undoubtedly other instruments as well), the perceived
direction of sound--as well as the perceived direction depending on
frequency--is not always the obvious one. There seems to be a certain
amount of acoustic black magic at work betwixt sound source and listener.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

[Andrej Kluge]

Hi,

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/27/2010 1:39 PM Andrej Kluge spake thus:

Dick Pierce wrote:

The stound of a harpsichord or piano does not come from
the strings, it comes from the soundboard.

Interesting, I didn't know that. One of my friends has a spinet in
his basement. Next time I see him I have to have a closer look.

That's true for *all* stringed instruments (well, all "acoustic"
ones at any rate). A vibrating string by itself can produce almost
no audible sound. It needs some kind of diaphragm to move air.

I admid that I looked up "soundboard" in the dictionary only after I wrote
my posting (in German: "Korpus", "Klangkörper"). I thought it is some
special device in harpsichords, but of course every string instrument has
it.

And directionality is yet another more complex subject. At least
with a violin (and undoubtedly other instruments as well), the
perceived direction of sound--as well as the perceived direction
depending on frequency--is not always the obvious one.

Yet in the recordings I mentioned the direction of the notes can be clearly
heard.

Thanks and Ciao
AK

[Geoff]

Andrej Kluge wrote:
Hi,

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/27/2010 1:39 PM Andrej Kluge spake thus:

Dick Pierce wrote:

The stound of a harpsichord or piano does not come from
the strings, it comes from the soundboard.

Interesting, I didn't know that. One of my friends has a spinet in
his basement. Next time I see him I have to have a closer look.

That's true for *all* stringed instruments (well, all "acoustic"
ones at any rate). A vibrating string by itself can produce almost
no audible sound. It needs some kind of diaphragm to move air.

I admid that I looked up "soundboard" in the dictionary only after I
wrote my posting (in German: "Korpus", "Klangkörper"). I thought it
is some special device in harpsichords, but of course every string
instrument has it.

And directionality is yet another more complex subject. At least
with a violin (and undoubtedly other instruments as well), the
perceived direction of sound--as well as the perceived direction
depending on frequency--is not always the obvious one.

Yet in the recordings I mentioned the direction of the notes can be
clearly heard.

Thanks and Ciao
AK

[Geoff]

Andrej Kluge wrote:

Yet in the recordings I mentioned the direction of the notes can be
clearly heard.

And from a rasonably 'audience' listening position ?

geoff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

David Nebenzahl wrote:

I dunno; take a listen to the opening track of Jimi Hendrix's "Axis:
Bold as Love". Does it really matter if the whooshy sounds pan from
right to left to right, or vice versa?

How about a drumkit eh? - nothing said about the w i d t h of said.

Huh? What on earth does that have to do with channel assignment.

I didn't say anyting about the width because it doesn't have anything to do
with channel assignment.

Sometimes you're just *out there*, man.

There is a standard setup of a drumkit, so there is a proper way to render
it in stereo, just as there is a proper way to render a piano or a string
quartet.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mr.T]

"Andrej Kluge" wrote in message
...
Well, I think many pieces of that CD box are the only recordings you will
find of them. And yes, IMO the performance is outstanding, YMMV.

Seems to me they have probably just panned it that way deliberately, and
simply converting it to mono may be an improvement. That will provide better
quality MP3's at any given bit rate as a bonus.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Andrej Kluge" wrote in message
...
Yet in the recordings I mentioned the direction of the notes can be
clearly
heard.

But may have been deliberately panned with frequency dependant channel
splitting, at the whim of the producer.
Frankly I'd just convert it to mono!

MrT.

[Andrej Kluge]

Hi,

Mr.T wrote:
Yet in the recordings I mentioned the direction of the notes can
be clearly heard.

But may have been deliberately panned with frequency dependant
channel splitting, at the whim of the producer.

Somehow I don't think so, as the recordings are from 1972. Did such
knowledge/technology exist back then?

Frankly I'd just convert it to mono!

No, this doesn't sound good with headphones (IMO.

Ciao
AK

[Andrej Kluge]

Hi,

Andrej Kluge wrote:
Yet in the recordings I mentioned the direction of the notes can be
clearly heard.

By the way, in those two samples I mentioned, the cembalo in use was a
Grimaldi. I found pictures of those on the web:

http://www.de.early-keyboard.com/Grimaldi.htm

They seem rather long (compared to other cembali) -- I suspect the sound
engineer had put one microphone at the far left side and the other on the
far right side of it, and thus created this spacial distinction?

Ciao
AK

[Mr.T]

"Andrej Kluge" wrote in message
...
But may have been deliberately panned with frequency dependant
channel splitting, at the whim of the producer.

Somehow I don't think so, as the recordings are from 1972. Did such
knowledge/technology exist back then?

Of course, you just use a couple of mics (or even send the same signal to
two mixer channels), EQ, and pan as desired. Simple.


Frankly I'd just convert it to mono!

No, this doesn't sound good with headphones (IMO.


Hell if you are using headphones, simply swap them to the other ears! How
hard is that?
Either way it's still going to sound wrong of course.

MrT.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 1/29/2010 5:17 AM Dick Pierce spake thus:

These instruments are very typical of 17th and 18th century
Italian harpsichords. and they are actually somewhat smaller
in overall size compared to other regional variants. If you
were to look, for example, at some of the early- to mid-18th
century German harpsichords, which are, as harpsichord go,
almost gargantuan, things like the Grimaldi would look tiny
by comparison.

Being a harpsichord person, you might appreciate this story. (Then
again, you might not.)

In another lifetime, I used to play in orchestras. One time we were
doing some Baroque violin concerto or other (Bach or some such), with a
harpsichord next to the conductor's podium. I remember during the dress
rehearsal, the solo violinist went over to the harpsichord to give the
orchestra an A. He hit the key and had an annoyed look on his face. He
then proceeded to hit the key several times more, each time with more
force and a more annoyed look.

We thought it was pretty funny.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

[John[_48_]]

Winamp allows you to swap Left/Right channels when you play (using
plugins):

Options Preferences
- Plug-ins - DSP/Effect
Select "Nullsoft Signal Processing Studio DSP"
Click "Configure active plug-in"
Click "Load" button
Load "justin - stereo channel swap.sps"

There is also a separate stereo swapper plugin.

Hope that helps,
John
http://www.mp3-boss.com

[Bohgosity BumaskiL]

"Andrej Kluge" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Richard Crowley wrote:

It seems highly doubtful that it can be done *losslessly*.
Because the data for the two channels is not independent
while encoded in stereo MP3 (as it would be in WAV,
for example.)

Well I was hoping there would be only a bit or two to be changed in the
MP3
header that control the channel assignement. (like those MP3 gain changing
programs where this is done without re-encoding the actual data)

If not, I will have to live with it.

You can look up the format in wikipedia, and more details are in technical
documents. I think such an operation is do-it-yourself. Maybe there is an
*MP3 mod utility* (lossless MP3 modification utility). Some such thing is
for JPEGs. I am lost at how you managed to exchange stereo channels
unintentionally. This is coming from a guy who has sixteen presets on my
stereo processor in Nero WaveEdit. If you actually prefer violins on one
side or the other, then it might do you some good to lose that polarity. I
will always do my duet vocals cross-channel from my synth, now that I am
routinely including synth.
_______
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/Sucker.mp3
If it sounds too good to be true, then don't be a sucker.