Listening to downloaded music

It's come to my attention that many people think you can listen to
downloaded music using your computer. However, your computer's
soundcard is likely to be relatively putrid, unable to adequately
drive headphones or speakers. If, for instance, you downloaded some
of my ogg files and the volume was too low, the detail was mushy, and
the whole thing not worth the effort, the fault, dear Brutus, is not
in the files but in your computer.

You can do various things. One is simply to convert to wav, cut a CD,
and listen on an actual stereo system. Another is to bypass the
soundcard, and send the output either to headphone amps or to your
stereo system. Another is to wait until ogg players hit the market, I
suppose.

Any other suggestions from those more knowledgeable than me?

>Any other suggestions from those more knowledgeable than me?

God willing, we'll soon all enjoy Replay Gain...

http://www.replaygain.org/
http://home.wanadoo.nl/~w.speek/wavegain.htm

Also, vorbis is in on the act...

http://users.pandora.be/sjeng/vorbisgain.html

Finally, there's also mp3gain...

http://www.geocities.com/mp3gain/

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >Any other suggestions from those more knowledgeable than me?
>
> God willing, we'll soon all enjoy Replay Gain...
>
> http://www.replaygain.org/
> http://home.wanadoo.nl/~w.speek/wavegain.htm

Why wait? I've gotten wavegain working, and it should be useful. It
will not, however, turn anyone's computer into a hi-fi system.

Speaking of nifty software, Scala 2.2 has got an awesomely nifty new
feature: it converts midi to seq. The result is logically organized,
not the usual unruly mess.

on 7/27/03 3:06 AM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> It's come to my attention that many people think you can listen to
> downloaded music using your computer. However, your computer's
> soundcard is likely to be relatively putrid, unable to adequately
> drive headphones or speakers. If, for instance, you downloaded some
> of my ogg files and the volume was too low, the detail was mushy, and
> the whole thing not worth the effort, the fault, dear Brutus, is not
> in the files but in your computer.
>
> You can do various things. One is simply to convert to wav, cut a CD,
> and listen on an actual stereo system. Another is to bypass the
> soundcard, and send the output either to headphone amps or to your
> stereo system.

Not sure what you mean here. If you are bypassing the soundcard, where is
the "output" coming from that you are sending to headphones or amp? Perhaps
you just meant to bypass the amp built into the soundcard? I've never owned
a soundcard that had any kind of amp (in the sense of power amp) built in -
all have had line-level outputs, and at this point I've owned 4 different
sound cards, though a couple of years ago I switched from using sound cards
to using external USB and Firewire audio interfaces, so maybe things have
changed.

> Another is to wait until ogg players hit the market, I
> suppose.
>
> Any other suggestions from those more knowledgeable than me?

(Gene, now I understand where you were coming from, with your "burn a CD"
suggestions.)

I would expect that most 16-bit soundcards are "pretty good" nowadays, and
probably at least _minimally_ adequate for the purpose of hearing tunings
through ogg files, provided you connect the sound card up to an external
amplifier with some decent speakers (or headphones, if you like).

However, the signal-to-noise ratio from your sound card may be a fair bit
worse than your CD player, so when you crank it up through your external amp
you will have both more hiss and more distortion in the quieter passages
than would be acceptable for "hi fi" purposes. (Chances are the hiss will
drown out the distortion.)

But if you are seriously into computer music, then why not bite the bullet
and get a professional quality sound card or else an audio interface that
sits outside your computer and connects to it via USB or Firewire? With
this route you are likely to get sound quality that approaches or exceeds
what you are used to hearing from your CD player.

If your listening to computer-originated audio is rare, then this does not
apply to you, and burning an occasional CD may not be a problem. But if you
are listening to audio from the web on a regular basis, then at least
connecting your computer (with its existing sound card or sound "on the
motherboard") to your stereo system is a worthy thing. And if you are doing
it a lot, and you are serious about it, then spending a few hundred to get
professional quality sound out of your computer may also be a worthy thing.
Then you can just click on a link and listen, which is ideal, if you can
afford it.

Moderately good USB audio interfaces can be had for 400USD or so, and very
good FireWire audio interfaces for as little as 700USD. Last I heard the
MOTU 828 was selling at Guitar Center for $699.

When you buy one of these professional interfaces you are likely buying more
channels than you have need for. 8 output channels for a FireWire interface
and 4 to 6 for a USB interface are typical. But if you want the quality,
that's what you have to do, so just ignore the extra channels and connect
your amp up to channels 1 and 2.

In any case the first step would be to connect your sound card up to an amp,
and see how bad it is. Maybe this will be good enough for your purposes.
Still you can burn a CD now and then when you want to hear a particularly
piece in higher fidelity. But in the mean time you can at least *audition*
oggs and MP3s off the web with amplified computer audio, so that you know
what is worth burning a CD of.

Meanwhile, the G5 Macs that are coming out in a month or so have built-in
optical digital audio connections, so you can run an optical cable from your
computer direct into your 5.1 surround system's optical input. Then we can
work on Gene to start producing sound files that can take advantage of your
surround system--but I don't know that 5.1 MP3 or OGG formats exist yet.

-Kurt Bigler

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> on 7/27/03 3:06 AM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> Not sure what you mean here. If you are bypassing the soundcard,
where is
> the "output" coming from that you are sending to headphones or
amp? Perhaps
> you just meant to bypass the amp built into the soundcard?

I looked on the web, and found the following gear. No endorsement,
since I'm still stuck cutting CDs and haven't heard these things, but
I'm considering buying something along these lines.

http://www.stereo-link.com/

http://www.ahernstore.com/hifilinkpro.html

http://www.exhardware.com/reviews.php?Id=110

>Why wait?

I didn't see wavegain had clipping prevention working. Still,
it isn't clear whether it uses the 'reduce recommended gain'
method, or the 'hard limiter' method.

Ideally, mp3 and ogg players would support this stuff, so one
wouldn't have to apply a lossy process to his master wav files.
Anybody know of players that support it?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >Why wait?
>
> I didn't see wavegain had clipping prevention working. Still,
> it isn't clear whether it uses the 'reduce recommended gain'
> method, or the 'hard limiter' method.

Hard limiter is an option.

> Ideally, mp3 and ogg players would support this stuff, so one
> wouldn't have to apply a lossy process to his master wav files.

You aren't going to lose much audio quality simply by adjusting the
volume.

>I looked on the web, and found the following gear. No endorsement,
>since I'm still stuck cutting CDs and haven't heard these things,
>but I'm considering buying something along these lines.

What kind of soundcard do you have? Standard PC soundcards since
1998 or so have perfectly adequate line-level output.

It's the levels of your wavs that are funky. The 5-8th Preludes
and Fugues are way cold. Check 'em in a wave editor -- they look
pretty smooth, too, so even plain normalizing should work well to
bring the perceived level up without clipping. Others among your
files are already maxed out. So there isn't consistency.

-Carl

>> I didn't see wavegain had clipping prevention working. Still,
>> it isn't clear whether it uses the 'reduce recommended gain'
>> method, or the 'hard limiter' method.
>
>Hard limiter is an option.

Yeah, but they say something confusing about only using it with
extra manual gain. And I would imagine it would be mutually
exclusive with the 'reduce recommended gain' clipping prevention.

>> Ideally, mp3 and ogg players would support this stuff, so one
>> wouldn't have to apply a lossy process to his master wav files.
>
>You aren't going to lose much audio quality simply by adjusting
>the volume.

You're doing a multiplication, so there's rounding or truncation
going on. That's why wavegain offers dither. It's better not to
be doing lots of this to your masters. I've recently started
mastering in 24-bit to keep it out of the 16 most sig. bits. In
any event, the whole point of replaygain is to do it on the replay.
Wavegain is only an expedient until players start supporting the
replaygain.

-Carl

Cool -- mp3gain is lossless!

http://www.geocities.com/mp3gain/

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> >I looked on the web, and found the following gear. No endorsement,
> >since I'm still stuck cutting CDs and haven't heard these things,
> >but I'm considering buying something along these lines.
>
> What kind of soundcard do you have? Standard PC soundcards since
> 1998 or so have perfectly adequate line-level output.

My computer is a year old, and I have never heard soundcard output
which I thought was adequate for musical purposes. Them again, I've
never heard an external, which certainly might be.

> It's the levels of your wavs that are funky. The 5-8th Preludes
> and Fugues are way cold.

I've been adjusting them with wavgain, and plan to put up revised
versions eventually, but the adjustments have been small. Your
soundcard, like most soundcards, is no doubt crap, and there is the
real problem.

>My computer is a year old, and I have never heard soundcard
>output which I thought was adequate for musical purposes.

Have you ever plugged a sound card into a real amp and speakers?

>Your soundcard, like most soundcards, is no doubt crap, and there
>is the real problem.

I get excellent fidelity with headphones and the 6GB of sound files
I have. The difference between your first batch of preludes and
fugues and the more recent batch isn't small by any means. If you
get that much of a difference out of wavegain you'll be in good
shape. Except for the nerve-wrackingly thick brass sound on 8th
p&f of book 1.

-Carl

on 7/27/03 1:37 PM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>> on 7/27/03 3:06 AM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
>> Not sure what you mean here. If you are bypassing the soundcard,
> where is
>> the "output" coming from that you are sending to headphones or
> amp? Perhaps
>> you just meant to bypass the amp built into the soundcard?
>
> I looked on the web, and found the following gear. No endorsement,
> since I'm still stuck cutting CDs and haven't heard these things, but
> I'm considering buying something along these lines.
>
> http://www.stereo-link.com/
>
> http://www.ahernstore.com/hifilinkpro.html
>
> http://www.exhardware.com/reviews.php?Id=110

Well, the price is certainly right on the 2nd one (I didn't check or didn't
see prices on the other two).

However, many people are having problems with USB sound solutions, mainly
reliability problems which stem from the use of USB, I think. You might try
to arrange having a dedicated USB bus, because USB can not guarantee
continuous throughput to any single device when other devices are present on
the same bus. I think some computers with multiple USB connectors on the
back have each one on a separate bus, but this is not the norm.

For some people USB audio works fine however, and this might work fine for
you.

If you have any inclination toward "high end" you might be better off
getting an interface with balanced outputs (rather than RCA), to allow
connecting to pro amplifiers with balanced inputs, in order to eliminate
possible hum problems. These problems tend to be causes mostly by ground
loops, but eliminating ground loops between computers and audio equipment is
no easy trick, or so I have found.

Also I think it is harder (or more expensive) to isolate the audio gear from
interference originating from digital activity on the USB bus. This is one
problem that crops up and which will be worse with USB than firewire, and
worse with RCA than with balanced outputs.

If you try one, you might want to make sure what the return policy is, and
how much time you have to try it and return it if necessary.

Good luck. Chances are this will be better. But I'm concerned that a USB
solution might not be that much better than a good 2-year old sound card.
You might also look for a used MOTO 828 or something.

I had trouble with hum myself with almost every device I used, except when
using balanced outputs. The single exception is the Metric Halo Mobile I/O
2882, which support a cabling method that optimizes the use of the
unbalanced outputs. But those boxes are very steep, probably outside of
your range.

On the other hand these solutions that provide integrated 5.1 capability may
give you better value in the long run, if you have or expect to obtain a 5.1
system. That way there is no hum issue at all, since you have direct
digital into your amp. In fact if you don't have one you might at this
point be able to get a used 5.1-capable receiver on eBay or such for not
much money at all.

You need to be sophisticated about your synthesis/recording level setting.
In a synthesis situation you have the ideal situation actually since you can
presumably reproduce the entire synthesis at a different level with little
effort. Using Carl's solution of mastering to 24-bit also is a great way to
avoid that whole problem. Then with the right software you should be able
to generate oggs with optimal levels automatically.

Good luck.

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> I get excellent fidelity with headphones and the 6GB of sound files
> I have.

If this were true, you would not have made any complaints about low
sound volume, which is a classic symptom of a computer soundcard not
up to the job. You've got a problem, and will be a lot happier if you
deal with it.

The difference between your first batch of preludes and
> fugues and the more recent batch isn't small by any means. If you
> get that much of a difference out of wavegain you'll be in good
> shape. Except for the nerve-wrackingly thick brass sound on 8th
> p&f of book 1.

All wavegain has been telling me is that I wasn't that far off, and
that it wasn't the fault of my sound files. By the way, I like to
think of that brass as "portentous", not "nerve-wracking". :)

>If this were true, you would not have made any complaints about low
>sound volume, which is a classic symptom of a computer soundcard not
>up to the job. You've got a problem, and will be a lot happier if you
>deal with it.

Wavegain advises 4.85db of gain for pf7. According to Cool Edit
this file has average RMS power of about -25 and -30 db for L and R
channels, with peaks not far above that. If I normalize to 95%,
the average goes to -17 and -22 resp. This is big. And the
difference between channels is greater than you'll find in even the
most amateurish stereo recording. Basically, this file gets an "F".

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Wavegain advises 4.85db of gain for pf7.

On the other hand, for most of them it has been advising a slight
reduction in sound volume.

According to Cool Edit
> this file has average RMS power of about -25 and -30 db for L and R
> channels, with peaks not far above that. If I normalize to 95%,
> the average goes to -17 and -22 resp. This is big.

Not that big. 4.85 db is a twist of the volume knob; 10^(.485) is
about 3, so we are talking a factor of three; but of course sound is
heard on a log scale.

And the
> difference between channels is greater than you'll find in even the
> most amateurish stereo recording. Basically, this file gets an "F".

Are you saying things are panned too much to one side? Please advise!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> And the
> difference between channels is greater than you'll find in even the
> most amateurish stereo recording. Basically, this file gets an "F".

I took a look in SoundForge, and there is quite a lot of difference
between channels. On the other hand, this is the one where I decided
to simply leave the midi file I started from alone, aside from
retuning. Given that you complain when I make big changes and
complain when I don't, I'd have to say it's tough to satisfy you.
Given that while it's pretty tame, it at least (unlike many things
you can find on the net) isn't downright ugly, I don't know where you
get off giving out failing grades. Where are *your* soundfiles?

>Not that big. 4.85 db is a twist of the volume knob; 10^(.485) is
>about 3, so we are talking a factor of three; but of course sound
>is heard on a log scale.

The rule of thumb I've always heard is 6db = about twice as loud.
But I understand this is hotly contested.

BTW, when I was complaining about not being able to hear your files
I was in a *very* noisy cafe. But you're right, in theory, headphones
ought to be able to make your ears bleed. The laptop can't quite do
that, but of course I can hear the file fine in my room.

>Given that you complain when I make big changes and complain when I
>don't, I'd have to say it's tough to satisfy you.

:)

In this case, I'd say it's just a bad midi file. Just touch up
the panning before you render, as I did for the shootout.

>Where are *your* soundfiles?

The shootout is still up, and includes a WTC piece in meantone.
Three months, and last I checked only two people have listened.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> BTW, when I was complaining about not being able to hear your files
> I was in a *very* noisy cafe. But you're right, in theory,
headphones
> ought to be able to make your ears bleed. The laptop can't quite do
> that, but of course I can hear the file fine in my room.

I thought you were saying you couldn't hear it very well in your room.

> In this case, I'd say it's just a bad midi file. Just touch up
> the panning before you render, as I did for the shootout.

I was planning on using it as an excuse to go a lot farther than
that.

> >Where are *your* soundfiles?
>
> The shootout is still up, and includes a WTC piece in meantone.
> Three months, and last I checked only two people have listened.

It's not up in a way which is very user-friendly.

>> The shootout is still up, and includes a WTC piece in meantone.
>> Three months, and last I checked only two people have listened.
>
>It's not up in a way which is very user-friendly.

How so? The downloads are smaller, the file names are more
descriptive. And there's a web page with all the links...

/tuning/topicId_43429.html#43429

-C.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> >> The shootout is still up, and includes a WTC piece in meantone.
> >> Three months, and last I checked only two people have listened.
> >
> >It's not up in a way which is very user-friendly.
>
> How so? The downloads are smaller, the file names are more
> descriptive. And there's a web page with all the links...

I've been waiting for you to put them up with a separate link to each
piece in each tuning, telling us what the tuning is. The way you have
it now is very offputting.

on 7/27/03 10:26 PM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
>> And the
>> difference between channels is greater than you'll find in even the
>> most amateurish stereo recording. Basically, this file gets an "F".

> I don't know where you get off giving out failing grades.

I don't know about Carl, but when I say stuff like that (an old habit that I
hope I am breaking) it's because for some reason I feel I won't be taken
seriously otherwise.

But I agree that there is no point to it, and constructive input can be
given without resorting to grades. I don't think grades clarify anything
here, though I suspect Carl was trying to be really clear that he thought
you had work to do.

"Cleaner" input can express the full force of what needs to be conveyed
while allowing a possible difference of opinion. Yet often there is less
difference of opinion than it appears when we get down to the brass tacks of
what we have in front of us and stay away from judging things.

In this case I think some of the differences will be hard to clarify,
without Carl and Gene sitting down in front of the same system and listening
to the same thing. For example I think it is speculative on Gene's part
that Carl's system is lacking.

Anyway Carl will be over here today maybe we can listen to some of these
pieces on my relatively high-end system and maybe that will help clarify.
I'd personally like to see Gene getting clear input about what might be
improved, and I'll try to help some with that.

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

> I don't know about Carl, but when I say stuff like that (an old
habit that I
> hope I am breaking) it's because for some reason I feel I won't be
taken
> seriously otherwise.

It was probably because I dissed his soundcard. :)

Carl is a sneaky guy--he actually had some good things to say about
some of this stuff in email.

> But I agree that there is no point to it, and constructive input
can be
> given without resorting to grades.

Grades make me think of me giving out grades. When I give an "F",
even a "D" just isn't possible.

> I'd personally like to see Gene getting clear input about what
might be
> improved, and I'll try to help some with that.

That would be good!