What music gets made...

...in a world like this. Wish it were more upbeat, but these days my Muse is consoling me rather than dancing with me. Nonetheless:

Lamentable World (2mb, quite short)
http://www.microtonal.org/mp3/lament.ogg

Peace,
Jon

On Tuesday 08 February 2005 04:44 am, Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:
> ...in a world like this. Wish it were more upbeat, but these days my Muse
> is consoling me rather than dancing with me. Nonetheless:
>
> Lamentable World (2mb, quite short)
> http://www.microtonal.org/mp3/lament.ogg

Jon, I only wish we heard more music from you! This was very expressive and
reflective, and was the perfect mood for my morning, and, it was the perfect
length for what it was saying.

Interesting that we have both written 'laments' lately....

Was this an improvisation/composition? (the ambiguity was an absolute
testament to you ability in either) What was the tuning? It was JI, perhaps a
a subset of Partch's diamond?

Best,
--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

Thanks, Jon, that's really nice, it had a real transparency to it. What tuning did you use?

- Dave

---
Dave Seidel
[blog] http://superluminal.com/dave/weblog
[music] http://mysterybear.net

Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:
> > ...in a world like this. Wish it were more upbeat, but these days my Muse > is consoling me rather than dancing with me. Nonetheless:
> > Lamentable World (2mb, quite short)
> http://www.microtonal.org/mp3/lament.ogg
> > Peace,
> Jon
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >

Hi Aaron (and Dave gets answered as well),

{you wrote...}
>Jon, I only wish we heard more music from you!

I wish I made more music. It will flow when the time is right.

>This was very expressive and reflective, and was the perfect mood for my >morning, and, it was the perfect length for what it was saying.

Ow. I hope your day improves (it was a pretty 'sad' reflection!)

>Interesting that we have both written 'laments' lately....

The thought crossed my mind, almost renamed it, but that is what is was.

>Was this an improvisation/composition? (the ambiguity was an absolute >testament to you ability in either) What was the tuning? It was JI, >perhaps a a subset of Partch's diamond?

Specs:
- 97% improv, 2% tweak, 1% adding one note in a second track. I'm finding it a good idea to keep the DAW running while I'm trying patches, improvising, etc. Then if I find a moment I can tweak.
- main instrument: Steinway soundfont in VSampler3 layered with z3ta+ in Chainer
- CronoX with one sound by a friend of mine
- didn't think I'd ever play around in this: 22tet. Not really consonant enough for me, and I dislike ETs, but it is a subset and the bit of grating seemed appropriate for things not being perfect in the world.

Too many words for so little music.

Regards,
Jon

exquisitely beautiful

>On Tuesday 08 February 2005 04:44 am, Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:
> >
>>...in a world like this. Wish it were more upbeat, but these days my Muse
>>is consoling me rather than dancing with me. Nonetheless:
>>
>>Lamentable World (2mb, quite short)
>>http://www.microtonal.org/mp3/lament.ogg
>> >>

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

> ...in a world like this. Wish it were more upbeat, but these days my Muse
> is consoling me rather than dancing with me. Nonetheless:
>
> Lamentable World (2mb, quite short)
> http://www.microtonal.org/mp3/lament.ogg
>
> Peace,
> Jon

Dear Jon,

Please let me apologize for giving my first impressions based on listening
through foam earplugs, not necessarily the best for even frequency
response -- and an indication that I might want to move to a top floor
apartment in this building where uninsulated floor impact noise from
whoever lives above isn't an impending factor ("The person who lives
upstairs isn't there now, as far I can tell, but might return if I lower
my degree of ear protection"). A possible lesson is that sound sensitivity
combined with a downstairs apartment in this kind of building isn't an
ideal mix: it's not so much the specific tenant in the apartment above as
the structural situation (maybe typical of a lot of global politics
these days, I regret to say).

Anyway, a tender and expressive piece, which for me has a delicate aspect
of viewpoint fitting your words about what you have created: I hear that
the world is "out of sorts," but yet viewed with a gentle yearning; and
those arpeggios are very telling!

Thank you for sharing this: both the music, and what it says to me about
spiritual yearning and balance in such a word.

Please feel encouraged to create and share more when/as you can.

Most appreciatively,

Margo

bauu,lots of oggs and lots of no library listening today..I'll ask
the librarian if there's a way around this

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> ...in a world like this. Wish it were more upbeat, but these days
my Muse
> is consoling me rather than dancing with me. Nonetheless:
>
> Lamentable World (2mb, quite short)
> http://www.microtonal.org/mp3/lament.ogg
>
> Peace,
> Jon

Dan,

{you wrote...}
>bauu,lots of oggs and lots of no library listening today..I'll ask the >librarian if there's a way around this

Yeah. See what you can do with the librarians, but this is *exactly* one of the reasons that I usually stay with mp3. Guess I should have done it this time as well. The bleeding edges strikes again...

Cheers,
Jon

Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:

>Dan,
>
>{you wrote...}
> >
>>bauu,lots of oggs and lots of no library listening today..I'll ask the >>librarian if there's a way around this
>> >>
>
>Yeah. See what you can do with the librarians, but this is *exactly* one of >the reasons that I usually stay with mp3. Guess I should have done it this >time as well. The bleeding edges strikes again...
>
>Cheers,
>Jon >
>
> >
With all due respect, Jon, stick with the OGGs. This is a great opportunity to educate a librarian or two, especially because public libraries throughout the world (not just in the US) are facing tremendous pressures, on the one hand to save money, but on the other hand, to computerize. And open source/free software and open source data formats offer a tremendous opportunity to make progress on both points.

DJW

Yes, and they should like the fact that oggs are so much smaller, saving on both bandwidth and storage space.

- Dave

Daniel Wolf wrote:
> With all due respect, Jon, stick with the OGGs. This is a great > opportunity to educate a librarian or two, especially because public > libraries throughout the world (not just in the US) are facing > tremendous pressures, on the one hand to save money, but on the other > hand, to computerize. And open source/free software and open source data > formats offer a tremendous opportunity to make progress on both points.
> > DJW

Dan,

{you wrote...}
>With all due respect, Jon, stick with the OGGs. This is a great >opportunity to educate a librarian or two...

I wanted to share music. I was unable to by virtue of my choice. Why must I put the education of librarians ahead of my desire to share music? When it comes to political, social, or economic activism, I will put my heart and soul into matters that I find critical to the human condition. I did so this last fall, and am still disconsolate that my efforts came to naught. At the rare times I'd like to share artistic moments with friends and colleagues, I'd like to leave it at that, and keep the placards and barricades at home.

I know you, and I know you are sincere in your request, and I accept it with respect. I'd just like to ask others to wage this particular war, as I have other imperatives.

Best to you in Magyar-ville (a song made famous by Janos Buffett),
Jon

>Yes, and they should like the fact that oggs are so much smaller, saving
>on both bandwidth and storage space.
>
>- Dave

This is a common misconception. Oggs are not very much smaller.
The difference is significant at 64Kbps, subtle at 128Kbps, and
inperceptible at 192Kbps (in fact, mp3 may be better at this
bitrate).

-Carl

I suppose it depends on the music, but I make the statement based on direct experience. For the music I've been making, the difference is quite non-trivial. For example, my latest piece[1] is 17MB as an MP3, and 2MB as an OGG, and this is at 320Kbps.

- Dave

[1] http://mysterybear.net/article/9/the-gemini-nebula

Carl Lumma wrote:
> This is a common misconception. Oggs are not very much smaller.
> The difference is significant at 64Kbps, subtle at 128Kbps, and
> inperceptible at 192Kbps (in fact, mp3 may be better at this
> bitrate).
> > -Carl

>> This is a common misconception. Oggs are not very much smaller.
>> The difference is significant at 64Kbps, subtle at 128Kbps, and
>> inperceptible at 192Kbps (in fact, mp3 may be better at this
>> bitrate).
>
>I suppose it depends on the music, but I make the statement based on
>direct experience. For the music I've been making, the difference is
>quite non-trivial. For example, my latest piece[1] is 17MB as an MP3,
>and 2MB as an OGG, and this is at 320Kbps.
>
>- Dave

Not possible. 320Kbps is 320Kbps. I've downloaded both your
oggs and mp3s, and your oggs are at a much lower bitrate, and
they don't sound as good.

-Carl

Dave,

{you wrote...}
>I suppose it depends on the music, but I make the statement based on >direct experience. For the music I've been making, the difference is >quite non-trivial. For example, my latest piece[1] is 17MB as an MP3, and >2MB as an OGG, and this is at 320Kbps.

Check your settings again - you aren't encoding the oggs anywhere near what you think you are. From your files:

mp3:
MPEG 1.0 layer 3
320kbit, 18752 frames

ogg:
Average bitrate : 38 kbps
Nominal bitrate : 160 kbps

Cheers,
Jon

On Friday 18 February 2005 06:38 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >> This is a common misconception. Oggs are not very much smaller.
> >> The difference is significant at 64Kbps, subtle at 128Kbps, and
> >> inperceptible at 192Kbps (in fact, mp3 may be better at this
> >> bitrate).
> >
> >I suppose it depends on the music, but I make the statement based on
> >direct experience. For the music I've been making, the difference is
> >quite non-trivial. For example, my latest piece[1] is 17MB as an MP3,
> >and 2MB as an OGG, and this is at 320Kbps.
> >
> >- Dave
>
> Not possible. 320Kbps is 320Kbps. I've downloaded both your
> oggs and mp3s, and your oggs are at a much lower bitrate, and
> they don't sound as good.

While it is true that a high quality mp3 and high quality ogg would be
indistinguishable, the usual medium/low bitrates have consistently been in
ogg's favor in ABX listening tests, as well as winning for samller file size
for comparable audio quality. This is irrefutable, and there is plenty of
evidence on the net out there if you google for it.

-A.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

Jon and friends,

My 2 cents: I think that I want to stand up for better formats. Caving to
something because it is ubiquitous means that no one is motivated to move
away from the inferior format that is mp3. Not caving means that the initial
effort to change pays off when enough people are able to listen to Ogg-Vorbis
files. The market works by demand only, and no or little demand for
Ogg-Vorbis means being stuck with mp3 dominance. And the existence of that
little demand happens because people say "I should really just make this file
and mp3". At some critical mass, enough people make a difference, and you
have big companies like IBM massively pushing and underdog OS like Linux, to
make a parallel example. OTOH, not doing this leads to a lackluster status
quo, lack of innovation.

If I really want to see/hear something that is not in an easily available
format, I as a user am motivated to get the appropriate software. End of
story. As a distributor of content, putting the end user through that or not
is a personal choice, I suppose. I believe we will, however, we all be better
off using a superior audio codec, and we as musicians have to stick to our
guns and be serious about supporting it, esp. since there is a lot of
commercial/industrial support already for the competition.

Jon, I think your argument at this point is a red herring. The ease with which
someone can download an Ogg-Vorbis player on any platform is so minimal. I
realize that Dan's case is rare (being at the mercy of an ill-informed public
library system administrator), but I don't want go out and cave in to mp3 on
that case alone. Let the *library*, and everyone else, cave in and learn
about a superior audio codec. I'm sure at one point, the library computer
couldn't play an mp3, either. They had to learn how to configure their
browser to recognize *that* data type, and now they have another. Big
whoop....

Best,
Aaron.

On Friday 18 February 2005 05:22 pm, Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:
> Dan,
>
> {you wrote...}
>
> >With all due respect, Jon, stick with the OGGs. This is a great
> >opportunity to educate a librarian or two...
>
> I wanted to share music. I was unable to by virtue of my choice. Why must I
> put the education of librarians ahead of my desire to share music? When it
> comes to political, social, or economic activism, I will put my heart and
> soul into matters that I find critical to the human condition. I did so
> this last fall, and am still disconsolate that my efforts came to naught.
> At the rare times I'd like to share artistic moments with friends and
> colleagues, I'd like to leave it at that, and keep the placards and
> barricades at home.
>
> I know you, and I know you are sincere in your request, and I accept it
> with respect. I'd just like to ask others to wage this particular war, as I
> have other imperatives.
>
> Best to you in Magyar-ville (a song made famous by Janos Buffett),
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

>Jon and friends,
>
>My 2 cents: I think that I want to stand up for better formats. Caving to
>something because it is ubiquitous means that no one is motivated to move
>away from the inferior format that is mp3.

So you use Musepack, right?

>Jon, I think your argument at this point is a red herring.

If it were a Red Herring, then almost nothing you see in reality around
you is valid. The economics of re-engineering are inseparable from life
as we know it.

-Carl

>> >> This is a common misconception. Oggs are not very much smaller.
>> >> The difference is significant at 64Kbps, subtle at 128Kbps, and
>> >> inperceptible at 192Kbps (in fact, mp3 may be better at this
>> >> bitrate).
>> >
>> >I suppose it depends on the music, but I make the statement based on
>> >direct experience. For the music I've been making, the difference is
>> >quite non-trivial. For example, my latest piece[1] is 17MB as an MP3,
>> >and 2MB as an OGG, and this is at 320Kbps.
>> >
>> >- Dave
>>
>> Not possible. 320Kbps is 320Kbps. I've downloaded both your
>> oggs and mp3s, and your oggs are at a much lower bitrate, and
>> they don't sound as good.
>
>While it is true that a high quality mp3 and high quality ogg would be
>indistinguishable, the usual medium/low bitrates have consistently been
>in ogg's favor in ABX listening tests,

That's true, but I'm not interested in medium/low bitrates.

>as well as winning for samller file size for comparable audio quality.

That's a different version of what you just said, minus the medium/low
restriction. And without that restriction, it isn't necc. true. Unless
an ABX test has been done at transparent bitrates since I've last checked,
there's no reason to believe Ogg is any better in this range.

-Carl

Aaron,

{you wrote...}
>If I really want to see/hear something that is not in an easily available >format, I as a user am motivated to get the appropriate software. End of story.

Not if you, like Dan, don't control the computer.

>As a distributor of content, putting the end user through that or not is a >personal choice, I suppose.

Suppose? I'm living proof - he didn't hear the music. YOU write the librarian.

Jon

You're right, of course, I was being sloppy. So I generated it again at the highest quality setting I can get from Audacity (average bitrate 154, nominal bitrate 499), and it's still only 8MB -- less than half the MP3 size, and sounds at least as good, if not better.

I'll update my page with the better OGG version, as soon as I have access to a fast net connection again in a few days. Thanks for the nudge. :-)

- Dave

Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:
> Check your settings again - you aren't encoding the oggs anywhere near what > you think you are. From your files:
> > mp3:
> MPEG 1.0 layer 3
> 320kbit, 18752 frames
> > ogg:
> Average bitrate : 38 kbps
> Nominal bitrate : 160 kbps
> > Cheers,
> Jon

>You're right, of course, I was being sloppy. So I generated it again
>at the highest quality setting I can get from Audacity (average bitrate
>154, nominal bitrate 499), and it's still only 8MB -- less than half
>the MP3 size, and sounds at least as good, if not better.

What are you using to encode mp3?

I've done *extensive* listening tests (including ABX) comparing the
two formats (though most recently 2 years ago) and I found that
"lame alt-preset-standard" is transparent on my equipment. That's
good enough for me. And I don't like ogg's metadata. To get me to
switch, it would have to be transparent at 96Kbps, and it's not.
It's not even transparent at 128Kbps. This kind of improvement isn't
even worth talking about. Meanwhile, arguments about the open source
nature of ogg are not convincing -- I see no reason that Fraunhofer's
patent should apply less to vorbis than it does to LAME.

-Carl

I'm using Audacity to encode both MP3 and OGG. It uses Lame for MP3. I'm content to provide both types of files and let people download/listen to whichever one they want. I'm starting to play with FLAC as well. I'm no evangelist, I will use whatever is expedient and practical and meets my standards. But as far as I'm concerned, WAV is the actual format I'm working in, since that's what Csound is generating, and that's what I use when I burn a CD -- everything else is just a way to make it available for download.

- Dave

Carl Lumma wrote:
> What are you using to encode mp3?
> > I've done *extensive* listening tests (including ABX) comparing the
> two formats (though most recently 2 years ago) and I found that
> "lame alt-preset-standard" is transparent on my equipment. That's
> good enough for me. And I don't like ogg's metadata. To get me to
> switch, it would have to be transparent at 96Kbps, and it's not.
> It's not even transparent at 128Kbps. This kind of improvement isn't
> even worth talking about. Meanwhile, arguments about the open source
> nature of ogg are not convincing -- I see no reason that Fraunhofer's
> patent should apply less to vorbis than it does to LAME.
> > -Carl

>I'm using Audacity to encode both MP3 and OGG. It uses Lame for MP3.

Yes, but it dosen't use the presets (I don't think).

>I'm starting to play with FLAC as well.

FLAC is excellent. I'm about to have a whole bunch of CDs ripped
to it...

http://www.ripdigital.com

>I'm no evangelist, I will use whatever is expedient and practical and
>meets my standards. But as far as I'm concerned, WAV is the actual
>format I'm working in, since that's what Csound is generating, and
>that's what I use when I burn a CD -- everything else is just a way
>to make it available for download.

For me, I can't get rid of CDs fast enough. They're ruining my life,
and yours too (you just don't know it). WAV is not good because it
doesn't have error correction, and is vulnerable to bit shifts from
your fs.

-Carl

I have always found the entire package, whether Lp or Cd's useful as it allows for extra palettes to approach the music. There are so many different ways to approach and think about music, that it is useful to have a few hints before diving in. It is like getting food without as plate

Carl Lumma wrote:

> For me, I can't get rid of CDs fast enough.
>
>-Carl
>
> >
--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Carl,

{you wrote...}
>And I don't like ogg's metadata. To get me to switch, it would have to be >transparent at 96Kbps, and it's not.

...and blahblahblah. You know what I find REALLY funny about this: you were the one that harangued so much about ogg/vorbis that I started using it. And now you've backed off. Wild.

As for getting rid of CDs, be my guest. We all have our particular obsessions, so you can have your data your way, and me mine, etc.

Cheers,
Jon

KG,

{you wrote...}
>I have always found the entire package...

Hear, hear!

Jon

Hi Kraig,

>> For me, I can't get rid of CDs fast enough.
>
>I have always found the entire package, whether Lp or Cd's useful as it
>allows for extra palettes to approach the music. There are so many
>different ways to approach and think about music, that it is useful to
>have a few hints before diving in. It is like getting food without as
>plate

Actually, I intend to scan the liner notes, and then keep the CDs in
safe storage forever.

And as soon as I'm rich enough to pay off the RIAA, put the entire
database (music and liner notes) up on the web, free of charge.

-Carl

>>And I don't like ogg's metadata. To get me to switch, it would have
>>to be transparent at 96Kbps, and it's not.
>
>...and blahblahblah. You know what I find REALLY funny about this: you
>were the one that harangued so much about ogg/vorbis that I started
>using it. And now you've backed off. Wild.

I know, I was way ahead of the curve. I expect Aaron and company
to reach phase II within months.

Seriously, where you been? I switched sides years ago.

>As for getting rid of CDs, be my guest. We all have our particular
>obsessions, so you can have your data your way, and me mine, etc.

You can have it yours until the CDs degrade or get burned in a fire
or stolen. Then you can't have it.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

> >
> If it were a Red Herring, then almost nothing you see in reality around
> you is valid. The economics of re-engineering are inseparable from life
> as we know it.
>
> -Carl
>

Carl,

We're musicians here, not engineers. We have unique responsibility towards life as it should be, not towards the poverties and shortcomings of life as it is. We're entitled to demand audio formats that actually sound good and are both free and open.

You -- and Jon, too -- are forceful advocates on this list for loading up on new and better technologies in service of music-making, so it's a bit surprising that you choose to back off in this case. The few seconds that it'll take a listener to download capacity for OGG will certainly be recovered in the value of the listening experience.

DJW

Carl Lumma wrote:

>
>
> That's true, but I'm not interested in medium/low bitrates.
>

If you want an audience for your music in the world at large, then bandwidth is even a bigger issue. Quality versus bandwidth is a serious consideration for those who pay by the minute for their internet access (which is still most users). Perhaps an optimal solution is to offer both an OGG file at medium/low bitrate and a WAV file for those with less limited access.

DJW

Dave Seidel wrote:

> You're right, of course, I was being sloppy. So I generated it again at
> the highest quality setting I can get from Audacity (average bitrate
> 154, nominal bitrate 499), and it's still only 8MB -- less than half the
> MP3 size, and sounds at least as good, if not better.
>
> I'll update my page with the better OGG version, as soon as I have
> access to a fast net connection again in a few days. Thanks for the
> nudge. :-)
>
> - Dave

This is quite likely -- OGG can handle files composed of sine ensembles like this more efficiently than MP3.

DJW

On Friday 18 February 2005 09:26 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >You're right, of course, I was being sloppy. So I generated it again
> >at the highest quality setting I can get from Audacity (average bitrate
> >154, nominal bitrate 499), and it's still only 8MB -- less than half
> >the MP3 size, and sounds at least as good, if not better.
>
> What are you using to encode mp3?
>
> I've done *extensive* listening tests (including ABX) comparing the
> two formats (though most recently 2 years ago) and I found that
> "lame alt-preset-standard" is transparent on my equipment. That's
> good enough for me. And I don't like ogg's metadata.

What's not to like about being able to have as much information about a track
as possible, right there in the file? You can't even fit a large title into
an mp3 track.

> To get me to
> switch, it would have to be transparent at 96Kbps, and it's not.
> It's not even transparent at 128Kbps. This kind of improvement isn't
> even worth talking about. Meanwhile, arguments about the open source
> nature of ogg are not convincing -- I see no reason that Fraunhofer's
> patent should apply less to vorbis than it does to LAME.

Ogg-Vorbis doesn't use their algorithm, so there are no patent restrictions.

> -Carl
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

On Friday 18 February 2005 08:45 pm, Dave Seidel wrote:
> You're right, of course, I was being sloppy. So I generated it again at
> the highest quality setting I can get from Audacity (average bitrate
> 154, nominal bitrate 499), and it's still only 8MB -- less than half the
> MP3 size, and sounds at least as good, if not better.

I rest my case.

The counter-argument is purely academic, and like Daniel Wolf, I think it's
purely blowing air to say how 'hard' it is to download ogg-playing software.

I've always found that at least mp3's encoded in 'lame' *never* sound better
than oggs, only comparable, but usually slightly worse.

So, being a musician, I want to encode my music in the highest fidelity codec.
It's really kind of a simple argument when you think about it.

Again, ask yourself, did we always have the capability to listen to mp3's? No.
We had to configure our internet software experience at some point to
recognize new mime types. Well, here we are again. It's not really painful at
all. It takes a few minutes. I don't understand what all the major whining
about .ogg is about, really.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

On Friday 18 February 2005 07:21 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >> >> This is a common misconception. Oggs are not very much smaller.
> >> >> The difference is significant at 64Kbps, subtle at 128Kbps, and
> >> >> inperceptible at 192Kbps (in fact, mp3 may be better at this
> >> >> bitrate).
> >> >
> >> >I suppose it depends on the music, but I make the statement based on
> >> >direct experience. For the music I've been making, the difference is
> >> >quite non-trivial. For example, my latest piece[1] is 17MB as an MP3,
> >> >and 2MB as an OGG, and this is at 320Kbps.
> >> >
> >> >- Dave
> >>
> >> Not possible. 320Kbps is 320Kbps. I've downloaded both your
> >> oggs and mp3s, and your oggs are at a much lower bitrate, and
> >> they don't sound as good.
> >
> >While it is true that a high quality mp3 and high quality ogg would be
> >indistinguishable, the usual medium/low bitrates have consistently been
> >in ogg's favor in ABX listening tests,
>
> That's true, but I'm not interested in medium/low bitrates.
>
> >as well as winning for samller file size for comparable audio quality.
>
> That's a different version of what you just said, minus the medium/low
> restriction. And without that restriction, it isn't necc. true. Unless
> an ABX test has been done at transparent bitrates since I've last checked,
> there's no reason to believe Ogg is any better in this range.

Agreed. MP3 and OGG are indistinguishable at high bitrates, but that was never
my argument. I said:

"While it is true that a high quality mp3 and high quality ogg would be
indistinguishable, the usual medium/low bitrates have consistently been in
ogg's favor in ABX listening tests, as well as winning for samller file size
for comparable audio quality. This is irrefutable, and there is plenty of
evidence on the net out there if you google for it."

So, I admit that there's no difference in *audio* quality at transparent bit
rates, except ogg-vorbis wins yet again for file size at comparable audio
quality, because it is a superior algorithm. And this is obviously true for
medium/low bitrates, and even thoughyou aren't interested in that, Carl, the
rest of the world tends to download and use mp3's most commonly at 128kbps.

So it's an important piece of data....

This is not subjective. It's just a fact.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

>> You're right, of course, I was being sloppy. So I generated it again at
>> the highest quality setting I can get from Audacity (average bitrate
>> 154, nominal bitrate 499), and it's still only 8MB -- less than half the
>> MP3 size, and sounds at least as good, if not better.
>>
>> I'll update my page with the better OGG version, as soon as I have
>> access to a fast net connection again in a few days. Thanks for the
>> nudge. :-)
>>
>> - Dave
>
>This is quite likely -- OGG can handle files composed of sine ensembles
>like this more efficiently than MP3.

Um, can you provide a reference?

-Carl

>>And I don't like ogg's metadata.
>
>What's not to like about being able to have as much information
>about a track as possible, right there in the file?

The standard fields are not as good -- it puts too much trust
in users to craft the semantics.

>You can't even fit a large title into an mp3 track.

You can with ID3 v.2.

>> To get me to
>> switch, it would have to be transparent at 96Kbps, and it's not.
>> It's not even transparent at 128Kbps. This kind of improvement isn't
>> even worth talking about. Meanwhile, arguments about the open source
>> nature of ogg are not convincing -- I see no reason that Fraunhofer's
>> patent should apply less to vorbis than it does to LAME.
>
>Ogg-Vorbis doesn't use their algorithm, so there are no patent
>restrictions.

Read the patent.

-Carl

>> You're right, of course, I was being sloppy. So I generated it again at
>> the highest quality setting I can get from Audacity (average bitrate
>> 154, nominal bitrate 499), and it's still only 8MB -- less than half the
>> MP3 size, and sounds at least as good, if not better.
>
>I rest my case.

Less than half of the size of Dave's 320Kbps mp3, which wasted lots of
bits.

>I've always found that at least mp3's encoded in 'lame' *never* sound
>better than oggs, only comparable, but usually slightly worse.

You mean, at the same bitrate? That's probably true...

>So, being a musician, I want to encode my music in the highest fidelity
>codec. It's really kind of a simple argument when you think about it.

So why aren't you using Musepack?

-Carl

>>> To get me to
>>> switch, it would have to be transparent at 96Kbps, and it's not.
>>> It's not even transparent at 128Kbps. This kind of improvement isn't
>>> even worth talking about. Meanwhile, arguments about the open source
>>> nature of ogg are not convincing -- I see no reason that Fraunhofer's
>>> patent should apply less to vorbis than it does to LAME.
>>
>>Ogg-Vorbis doesn't use their algorithm, so there are no patent
>>restrictions.
>
>Read the patent.

The one I was referring to there is #5,579,430. There are others.

Here's Wikipedia's take on vorbis licensing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis#Licensing

Here are two long threads where vorbis infringement is debated.
Looks grim, IMO:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13531

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13686

However, this guy claims open source projects in general should be
immune from patent threats:

http://www.vnunet.com/news/1157906

Here's hydrogenaudio's pros/cons page on vorbis:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Ogg_Vorbis

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

> >> You're right, of course, I was being sloppy. So I generated it > again at
> >> the highest quality setting I can get from Audacity (average bitrate
> >> 154, nominal bitrate 499), and it's still only 8MB -- less than > half the
> >> MP3 size, and sounds at least as good, if not better.
> >>
> >> I'll update my page with the better OGG version, as soon as I have
> >> access to a fast net connection again in a few days. Thanks for the
> >> nudge. :-)
> >>
> >> - Dave
> >
> >This is quite likely -- OGG can handle files composed of sine ensembles
> >like this more efficiently than MP3.
>
> Um, can you provide a reference?
>
> -Carl

I made some documentary copies of all of my Rayna card installations. These usually involve 12 to 30 sine waves in big number JI. OGGs were all acceptable. MP3s either subtracted things or added artifacts.

DJW

>> >This is quite likely -- OGG can handle files composed of sine ensembles
>> >like this more efficiently than MP3.
>>
>> Um, can you provide a reference?
>>
>> -Carl
>
>I made some documentary copies of all of my Rayna card installations.
>These usually involve 12 to 30 sine waves in big number JI. OGGs were
>all acceptable. MP3s either subtracted things or added artifacts.
>
>DJW

What encoders/bitrates/settings did you use?

-Carl

On Saturday 19 February 2005 11:04 am, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >>And I don't like ogg's metadata.
> >
> >What's not to like about being able to have as much information
> >about a track as possible, right there in the file?
>
> The standard fields are not as good -- it puts too much trust
> in users to craft the semantics.
>
> >You can't even fit a large title into an mp3 track.
>
> You can with ID3 v.2.

....which alot of popular player don't support, as well as the other reasons
not to use mp3 already (like, fidelity)

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

Carl Lumma wrote:

> >> >This is quite likely -- OGG can handle files composed of sine > ensembles
> >> >like this more efficiently than MP3.
> >>
> >> Um, can you provide a reference?
> >>
> >> -Carl
> >
> >I made some documentary copies of all of my Rayna card installations.
> >These usually involve 12 to 30 sine waves in big number JI. OGGs were
> >all acceptable. MP3s either subtracted things or added artifacts.
> >
> >DJW
>
> What encoders/bitrates/settings did you use?
>
> -Carl
>
I tried about a dozen variations. MP3s were never acceptable.

DJW

At 12:38 PM 2/19/2005, you wrote:
>
>On Saturday 19 February 2005 11:04 am, Carl Lumma wrote:
>> >>And I don't like ogg's metadata.
>> >
>> >What's not to like about being able to have as much information
>> >about a track as possible, right there in the file?
>>
>> The standard fields are not as good -- it puts too much trust
>> in users to craft the semantics.
>>
>> >You can't even fit a large title into an mp3 track.
>>
>> You can with ID3 v.2.
>
>....which alot of popular player don't support,

Such as?

-Carl

>> >I made some documentary copies of all of my Rayna card installations.
>> >These usually involve 12 to 30 sine waves in big number JI. OGGs
>> >were all acceptable. MP3s either subtracted things or added artifacts.
>> >
>> >DJW
>>
>> What encoders/bitrates/settings did you use?
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>I tried about a dozen variations. MP3s were never acceptable.

What encoder, and what year was this?

And ultimately, if you can me a FLAC file, I'm genuinely interested to
see if I can reproduce the problem you were having.

-Carl

Very sweet Jon, in a very bitter sort of way of course. Somehow the
disembodied acousto-electronic sound of the instrument/production
adds even more depth to the "emotion" or message of this piece. Or so
it seems to me. Great job, the gold-to-lead ratio is very high in the
music of yours I've heard so far, if you'll excuse my alchemical
lingo. And it had all the spontaneity of an improvisation (was it?)

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> ...in a world like this. Wish it were more upbeat, but these days
my Muse
> is consoling me rather than dancing with me. Nonetheless:
>
> Lamentable World (2mb, quite short)
> http://www.microtonal.org/mp3/lament.ogg
>
> Peace,
> Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Specs:
> - 97% improv, 2% tweak, 1% adding one note in a second track.

Aha. Sorry I didn't see you had already answered that.

> - didn't think I'd ever play around in this: 22tet.

Not ever? A bit prejudicial, perhaps?

> Not really consonant
> enough for me,

What timbres did you try it with?

> and I dislike ETs, but it is a subset

It sounded to me like the interval of 655 cents above the tonic might
have been taking the place of the more "contented" 709 cents in this
particular subset . . . I don't know if you even meant for there to
be a tonic, though . . .

> and the bit of grating
> seemed appropriate for things not being perfect in the world.

The uncomfortable marriage of acoustic and electronic sound worlds
also seemed to convey that, for me.

> Too many words for so little music.

Keep it up (especially the music :) )!!!!

Somehow I felt an affinity to your work in this, Kraig. Is there
still nothing redeeming that you can see in 22-equal . . . at least
in Jon's hands?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> exquisitely beautiful
>
>
> >On Tuesday 08 February 2005 04:44 am, Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:
> >
> >
> >>...in a world like this. Wish it were more upbeat, but these days
my Muse
> >>is consoling me rather than dancing with me. Nonetheless:
> >>
> >>Lamentable World (2mb, quite short)
> >>http://www.microtonal.org/mp3/lament.ogg
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Hi Paul!
No, actually i can see what you like in 22. it is quite an eccentric play on diatonic and the 12 tone language. It is as if one can attempt to do like things , but it gets you quickly into other areas. I believe when i first started on this list i mentioned that there was something to 22 tone scales in general as opposed to 31, which i tried first. It is as if when we expand to higher number tunings we want to subconsciously be able to give what we left an entirely new slant. 31 doesn't really do that. I sense that much of your writing is in search for a 'justification' of your preference for this . while it does have a common thread with 12, it is differences that i sense is really what makes it come alive for you.

Paul Erlich wrote:

>Somehow I felt an affinity to your work in this, Kraig. Is there >still nothing redeeming that you can see in 22-equal . . . at least >in Jon's hands?
>
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> >wrote:
> >
>>exquisitely beautiful
>>
>>
>> >>
>>>On Tuesday 08 February 2005 04:44 am, Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>>>...in a world like this. Wish it were more upbeat, but these days >>>> >>>>
>my Muse
> >
>>>>is consoling me rather than dancing with me. Nonetheless:
>>>>
>>>>Lamentable World (2mb, quite short)
>>>>http://www.microtonal.org/mp3/lament.ogg
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>-- >>Kraig Grady
>>North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>>The Wandering Medicine Show
>>KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> Hi Paul!
> No, actually i can see what you like in 22. it is quite an
>eccentric
> play on diatonic

Right . . . well as you know, I consider normal triadic diatonic
stuff impossible in 22, as opposed to 19 which is perfect for it. But
22 shines in its "septimal diatonics" which resemble Micheal
Harrison's {2,3,7}-JI scales but have fewer wolves. For example, a
septimal Aeolian 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 in 22-equal, which has three
approximate 4:6:7:9 chords.

> and the 12 tone language.

The thing it has in common with 12-equal is that the 'commas' 50:49
and 64:63 (and thus 225:224 and 2048:2025 as well) vanish in both
systems. You can think of these commas as defining scales of 10, 12,
22, 34, 56 . . . notes per octave, as explained and illustrated in my
new paper (which I sent you). The 10-note scales you may remember
from my old paper, and they certainly "work" in both 12 and 22,
though 22 does a bit less damage to the 5-limit, and a good deal less
damage to the 7-limit, consonances.

> It is as if one can attempt
> to do like things , but it gets you quickly into other areas.

I prefer to avoid the "like" things these days, and stick to
the "other areas", such as Porcupine. Igliashon made a nice Porcupine
lattice (and I extended it) which I hope he'll upload soon.

> I believe
> when i first started on this list i mentioned that there was
>something
> to 22 tone scales in general as opposed to 31, which i tried first.
>It
> is as if when we expand to higher number tunings we want to
> subconsciously be able to give what we left an entirely new slant.
>31
> doesn't really do that.

Not sure I'm completely following. Can you expand on this? My new
paper does include more of the 22-compatible systems than the 31-
compatible systems. But among the 31-compatible systems in there,
you'll find not only the conventional Meantone with its normal
diatonics (pentatonics, chromatics, etc), but also

Cynder (1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 in 31-equal is a 16-note
Cynder scale),

Miracle (which you know),

Myna (1 5 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 5 1 in 31-equal is an 15-note Myna
scale),

Orson/Orwell (3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 in 31-equal is a 13-note
Orson/Orwell scale), and

Wurschmidt (1 1 7 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 7 1 1 or 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 6
1 1).

But these alternate systems seem to require scales with a lot of
notes (compared with 7 or 5 for Meantone) in order to project their
underlying harmonies -- not to mention that many of these scales have
those longish strings of 1s. It's hard to keep a whole lot of notes
in your memory when listening, and also hard to project coherent
scales that consist of long strings of tiny intervals. So you're
right if you mean that 31 is awfully hard to find non-diatonic
analogues to the diatonic system in.

> I sense that much of your writing is in search
> for a 'justification' of your preference for this.

Does that include the new paper I sent you? Any actual justification
for the 'cutoffs' I used, which precluded a lot more 31-compatible
systems from being included, was left out. But the reason was to
limit undue complexity, related to the desire for scales without a
lot of notes I mentioned above. Is that what you were referring to?

> while it does have a
> common thread with 12,

Just about every ET that you would arrive at through tempering has a
common thread with 12 -- what doesn't?

> it is differences that i sense is really what
> makes it come alive for you.

Yes -- Meantone in 31 does less damage to the harmonies than meantone
in 12, but that alone doesn't make 31 exciting enough to justify the
expense for me. Besides, it's already been done (16th and 17th
centuries).

Oops -- too much theory. Follow up to the tuning list, then, wouldja?