Errors-To: owner-tmbg-digest@tmbg.org Reply-To: tmbg-digest@tmbg.org Sender: owner-tmbg-digest@tmbg.org Precedence: bulk From: owner-tmbg-digest@tmbg.org To: tmbg-digest@tmbg.org Subject: tmbg-list Digest #15-25 tmbg-list Digest, Volume 15, Number 25 Thursday, 25 February 1999 Today's Topics: Non-TMBG: Flansburgh versus Christ and modern irony Re: Non-TMBG: Flansburgh versus Christ and modern irony Re: TMBG: mp3s and such Re: TMBG: mp3s and such NON-TMBG: Ben Folds Five suggestions please Re: TMBG: eBay, the Universe, and Everything TMBG: mp3 quality Re: TMBG: mp3s and such Re: NON-TMBG: Ben Folds Five suggestions please TMBG: TMBG/Kingston Trio Re: TMBG: eBay, the Universe, and Everything TMBG: LiveConcerts.com TMBG: Vote for Flans Re: TMBG: mp3s and such Re: TMBG: mp3s and such Administrivia: If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing send mail to tmbg-digest-request@tmbg.org for instructions on how to be automatically removed. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The views expressed herein are those of the individual authors. --------------------------------------------------------------------- tmbg-list is digested with Digest 3.5b (John Relph ). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Leon X. Deggs" Subject: Non-TMBG: Flansburgh versus Christ and modern irony Message-Id: <919841682.11758.109@excite.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 23:34:42 PST People: Let me help you solve the problem of the Flans/Jesus thing. Let's assume that the Jesus voters were also cheating. Let's also think about their reason to cheat. Christ is dead - both in real life and in fashion. Secular/non-secular swings have been happening for centuries and the God-botherers wanted to try to prove that - yes - Christ is alive and living in the US. Why should they need to prove it if their belief is strong enough? Enough people believe Elvis lives and he is often seen in shopping malls. But no-one EVER sees Jesus. Why? Also, why wasn't Buddha or Allah mentioned? NOT because these cultures don't have computers or Internet access, but rather because they don't wish to belittle their faith by participating in some childish voting ballot. They know - the muslims and islamics - that their God(s) are alive and well and watching over the flock. They don't need to prove to the rest of the living breathing world that he's/they're there. For this reason - and this reason alone - the English-speaking God-Squad needed to vote constantly for Jesus to make sure people thought that the secular/non secular swing had turned in favor of the Jesus Crew. But they're wrong. People in this century have been allowed - through various bills and wars - to think for themselves. No-one can be bothered to hassle Jesus every night. Or can they? I'm sticking my ignorant limey neck out here, but isn't there a section of states in middle America that are the God-troubling states? Surely these people should be investigated concerning the rigging of the ballot. $0.02 for everyone. Responses and hate-mail welcome. I enjoy stepping on the toes of people who believe in outdated concepts like Betamax. Leon. Back with nasty opinions and a voice to shout them with. _____________ Leon X. Deggs _______________________________________________________ Get your free, private email at http://mail.excite.com/ ------------------------------ From: linnel@snet.net Message-Id: <199902241147.GAA16969@pop.snet.net> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:42:28 -0500 Subject: Re: Non-TMBG: Flansburgh versus Christ and modern irony > Let me help you solve the problem of the Flans/Jesus thing. > Let's assume that the Jesus voters were also cheating. > Let's also think about their reason to cheat. Christ is dead - both in real > life and in fashion. Secular/non-secular swings have been happening for > centuries and the God-botherers wanted to try to prove that - yes - Christ > is alive and living in the US. > > Why should they need to prove it if their belief is strong enough? > Enough people believe Elvis lives and he is often seen in shopping malls. > But no-one EVER sees Jesus. Why? > Also, why wasn't Buddha or Allah mentioned? NOT because these cultures don't > have computers or Internet access, but rather because they don't wish to > belittle their faith by participating in some childish voting ballot. They > know - the muslims and islamics - that their God(s) are alive and well and > watching over the flock. They don't need to prove to the rest of the living > breathing world that he's/they're there. > > For this reason - and this reason alone - the English-speaking God-Squad > needed to vote constantly for Jesus to make sure people thought that the > secular/non secular swing had turned in favor of the Jesus Crew. > > But they're wrong. People in this century have been allowed - through > various bills and wars - to think for themselves. No-one can be bothered to > hassle Jesus every night. Or can they? > > I'm sticking my ignorant limey neck out here, but isn't there a section of > states in middle America that are the God-troubling states? Surely these > people should be investigated concerning the rigging of the ballot. well you know... i'd be the first to agree with you, about your theory... aren't Godly people not supposed to... you know... cheat? isn't that some form of a lie and isn't that a sin of some sort? i'm no bible expert, but i think it's safe to assume that cheating is a no no... and about Jesus not being in this century... are the rules limiting their time of existance to this century, or their impact on people in this century? because there is a difference. he HAS influenced a lot of people this century, whether we like it or not. and i don't. Flans should kick his little godly behind in this race. and with that uplifting sign off.... jen- the one that is sitting on your head fishing for the perfect spanish shoe ps- welcome back Leon... heheh. ------------------------------ From: linnel@snet.net Message-Id: <199902241154.GAA22484@pop.snet.net> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:48:40 -0500 Subject: Re: TMBG: mp3s and such > >Really, I'm not too taken with goodnoise.com and mp3 trading on the > >internet. most people rip their mp3s (goodnoise included) at 126kbps > >which doesn't really allow for CD quality, > > 128 is close to CD quality...and some people even make mp3's at 256, which > is CD quality, or at least very very close to it. how is that possible? let's go over basic math here... 256- 128=128.now, if 128 is CD quality or close to it, then 256 should be a whole heck of a lot better... in fact, 2 times better. and if 256 is CD quality, then that makes 128 HALF as good. see what i mean? (speaking in number terms only, you see) jen- the one who has Algebra first period today. d'oh. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:11:05 -0500 (EST) From: Josh Axelrad Subject: Re: TMBG: mp3s and such Message-ID: Heh... nice thought... Those numbers are bitrates... basically you have a .wav file which is CD quality made at 16 bits, 44khz stereo. Then you can take that .wav and compress it into mp3. What this gives is basically diminishing returns... for example: If you encode it at 64kbps that is 64 kilabits per second which means it will take a sample from the wav and compress 64kilabits of it into the mp3 every second. (basically, I am going on general knowledge here not very highly tech knowledge on the subject). When you then go up to 128kbits per second you have twice as much information and twice as big a file but NOT necessarily twice as good sounding. In fact when you go from 64 to 128 it may be twice as good sounding just because our ears are discerning enough to need the more information encoded by a 128kbps bitrate. However, when you then double the bitrate again from 128 to 256 you are again getting twice the information and getting twice as big a file but our ears are not nearly good enough to make this sound twice as good. On most mp3s I have played around with the 256 version maybe sounds 3-5% better than the 128 version except in extreme cases where the music has certain features which don't mp3 well at 128. And both these version are within about 6-8% as good sounding as the original. In many cases I can't tell any difference and in some cases I can tell a very slight difference... So basically, altho in a way you were right about doubling the bitrate, it has more to do with our ears ability to discern sounds(which isn't linear) than the linear progression of the bitrates -- Jish TMBG.net and the EFnet #TMBG Home Page http://www.tmbg.net/ On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 linnel@snet.net wrote: > > > >Really, I'm not too taken with goodnoise.com and mp3 trading on the > > >internet. most people rip their mp3s (goodnoise included) at 126kbps > > >which doesn't really allow for CD quality, > > > > 128 is close to CD quality...and some people even make mp3's at 256, which > > is CD quality, or at least very very close to it. > > how is that possible? let's go over basic math here... 256- > 128=128.now, if 128 is CD quality or close to it, then 256 should be > a whole heck of a lot better... in fact, 2 times better. and if 256 is > CD quality, then that makes 128 HALF as good. see what i mean? > (speaking in number terms only, you see) > > jen- the one who has Algebra first period today. d'oh. > ------------------------------ From: rhilton@bitc.org.uk Message-Id: Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:44:19 +0000 Subject: NON-TMBG: Ben Folds Five suggestions please If I was going to buy a Ben Fold Five CD which one would people recommend? Also does anyone know which CD the Crash Test Dummies version of Peter Punkinhead (wrong spelling I suspect) is on? Email me privately! Thanks Richard ------------------------------ From: Matthew Coon Message-Id: <199902241454.JAA04732@omni.cc.purdue.edu> Subject: Re: TMBG: eBay, the Universe, and Everything Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:54:31 -0500 (EST) > I just saw (via CBand Sat) the promo episode (entire 1st episode, I > assume) of "The Norm Show", and I felt that it was my responsibility to > warn everyone here that it has no TMBG references in it at all. > I would have to disagree. To produce a show so utterly devoid of even coincidental TMBG references implies an intimate familiarity with the band. Perhaps the Johns *are* the producers? At any rate, hats off to this sly TMBG tribute show! m@t ------------------------------ Message-Id: <36D43027.52FEE3CE@mail.hcc.cc.fl.us> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:00:24 -0500 From: Bert Rubini Organization: none Subject: TMBG: mp3 quality bjorky wrote: > Really, I'm not too taken with goodnoise.com and mp3 trading on the > internet. most people rip their mp3s (goodnoise included) at 126kbps > which doesn't really allow for CD quality, more like tape or phono > quality, the mp3s obtained online are really only useful if you want to > play them on your computer only. This is interesting, I've been ripping mp3s from CD (at 128 kbps) and then using the mp3s to make CD tracks, and I think the fidelity is pretty good, in fact it's much better than I expected. What I do is convert the mp3 to a hi-fi wav file, then my burner copies the wav to the disc as a .cda file. Is this what you do? You think the fidelity is poor? Maybe your mp3 to wav converter is losing info. If CD burning is something you do often, I'd be happy to give you some details on how i do it, e-mail me if you want. I'm very happy with the fidelity of my copies. bert np: bjork "telegram" -- My homepage - now updated with even more boring photos and mindless tedium!: http://www.hcc.cc.fl.us/services/faculty/bertrubini/home.htm ------------------------------ Message-Id: <4.1.19990224131439.0094c890@mail.clemson.edu> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:16:27 -0500 From: Adam Tyner Subject: Re: TMBG: mp3s and such Uh.....I take it you haven't enrolled in any economics classes. Look into something called "the law of diminishing returns". (Actually, it's been 3 years, so I may be misremembering the exact name...) It definitely applies here. -Adam At 06:48 AM 2/24/99, linnel@snet.net wrote: > >how is that possible? let's go over basic math here... 256- >128=128.now, if 128 is CD quality or close to it, then 256 should be >a whole heck of a lot better... in fact, 2 times better. and if 256 is >CD quality, then that makes 128 HALF as good. see what i mean? >(speaking in number terms only, you see) -- /=---------------- http://www.he-man.org/ctyner/ ----------------=\ http://www.crystal-night.com/~ctyner/tuscadero.html http://www.awod.com/gallery/rwav/ctyner/ He-Man, Tuscadero, "Weird Al", Yoo-hoo, Killer Tomatoes, & more! ------------------------------ Message-Id: <4.1.19990224131707.009461a0@mail.clemson.edu> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:19:01 -0500 From: Adam Tyner Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: Ben Folds Five suggestions please At 01:44 PM 2/24/99, rhilton@bitc.org.uk wrote: >If I was going to buy a Ben Fold Five CD which one would people >recommend? Either the s/t or Whatever And Ever Amen...both would be fine places to start. Personally, I started off with WAEA.... >Also does anyone know which CD the Crash Test Dummies version of >Peter Punkinhead (wrong spelling I suspect) is on? "The Ballad Of Peter Pumpkinhead", AFAIK, is only available on the single of that name and the "Dumb And Dumber" soundtrack. I'd like to point out that it's not worth getting...well, IMO. -Adam -- /=---------------- http://www.he-man.org/ctyner/ ----------------=\ http://www.crystal-night.com/~ctyner/tuscadero.html http://www.awod.com/gallery/rwav/ctyner/ He-Man, Tuscadero, "Weird Al", Yoo-hoo, Killer Tomatoes, & more! ------------------------------ From: FID889@aol.com Message-ID: <61c592dc.36d46588@aol.com> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:48:08 EST Subject: TMBG: TMBG/Kingston Trio hey all i don't know if any of you like the old time classic folk music, but i was listening to one of my kingston trio CD's and i couldn't hope but notice the beginning of MTA sounded a lot like the kitten intro done by flansburgh. I was just wondering if anyone else noticed this...or even enjoyed the same kind of good groups. megan "A good little boy" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:57:05 -0600 From: Bob Scott Message-ID: <36D467A1.5A13E343@tmbg.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: TMBG: eBay, the Universe, and Everything Matthew Coon wrote: > > I just saw (via CBand Sat) the promo episode (entire 1st episode, I > > assume) of "The Norm Show", and I felt that it was my responsibility to > > warn everyone here that it has no TMBG references in it at all. > > > > I would have to disagree. To produce a show so utterly devoid of > even coincidental TMBG references implies an intimate familiarity > with the band. Perhaps the Johns *are* the producers? At any rate, > hats off to this sly TMBG tribute show! > > m@t Once again, the world sees that sarcasm begets sarcasm! In fact, the show was called 'The John Show', and the theme was by none other than... You guessed it... Ween! bobscott@tmbg.org AKA Bob "Why do I even bother?" Scott ------------------------------ Message-ID: <36D4B957.7DA8@polbox.com> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:45:43 -0500 From: disenchanted Subject: TMBG: LiveConcerts.com apologies if y'all have seen this. i've been busy and all. http://www.liveconcerts.com/lcarchive/instudio/kcrw/980911/They_Might_Be_Giants/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 22:12:17 -0500 From: Sarah Subject: TMBG: Vote for Flans Message-id: <36D4BF91.7A8E@wmich.edu> Hey, can someone please tell me the cheat address for this vote thing.... I went to it a LONG time ago, and forgotted to bookmark it, naturally i do not remember it..... what is it? ~Sarah "In the small pond, you'll be a big fish" >>>>>>>>> http://www.angelfire.com/me/momerath <<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ Message-Id: <4.1.19990224224759.00939cd0@mail.clemson.edu> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 22:51:22 -0500 From: Adam Tyner Subject: Re: TMBG: mp3s and such That particular law means the more you put in, the less increases result, and it has everything to do with sound quality. The higher you go in bit-rate, the lower the increase in quality. 44.1kHz is undoubtedly better than a 22kHz file, but the difference isn't as drastic as the jump from 11kHz to 22kHz. Similarly, 128kps is a huge leap in quality over 56kps, but 256kps, while noticeable (depending on the source file, of course), is not by any stretch of the imagination twice the quality of 128kps. -Adam At 04:42 PM 2/24/99, you wrote: > >well, you took it right because i haven't and don't care to. i was offering >a point >from the most ignorant point of view in this case, since i haven't >taken this economics class (although i don't really know what it >has to do with these numbers and sound quality). i never claimed >to know any information about this stuff, i was just trying to point >out what i thought was something odd. no class needed for that. -- /=---------------- http://www.he-man.org/ctyner/ ----------------=\ http://www.crystal-night.com/~ctyner/tuscadero.html http://www.awod.com/gallery/rwav/ctyner/ He-Man, Tuscadero, "Weird Al", Yoo-hoo, Killer Tomatoes, & more! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:34:29 -0500 (EST) From: Kevin Keeler Subject: Re: TMBG: mp3s and such Message-ID: another way to think of it.... instead of 256 being twice as good, think 256 having 1/2 the errors. sooooo.. if 128 k has x fuckups per second (wow.. fuckups can be quantified), 256 would have x/2 fuckups per second. personal;ly this makes alot more sense to me. and also explains how mp3s wil never be cd quality. this also goes into the little zeno's paradox thing--but ignore that. to say "twice as good" is soooo arbitrary it makes almost no sense. also, in certain tyopes of files with certain audio aspets, 256 can sound HUGELY better than 128. my experioence shows analog recordings with lots of tape hiss or funny artifacts benefit greatly. prool yhas to do with a bunch of algorithms i dont understand. --kevin On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Josh Axelrad wrote: > Heh... nice thought... > > Those numbers are bitrates... basically you have a .wav file which is CD > quality made at 16 bits, 44khz stereo. Then you can take that .wav and > compress it into mp3. What this gives is basically diminishing returns... > for example: > > If you encode it at 64kbps that is 64 kilabits per second which means it > will take a sample from the wav and compress 64kilabits of it into the mp3 > every second. (basically, I am going on general knowledge here not very > highly tech knowledge on the subject). When you then go up to 128kbits per > second you have twice as much information and twice as big a file but NOT > necessarily twice as good sounding. In fact when you go from 64 to 128 it > may be twice as good sounding just because our ears are discerning enough > to need the more information encoded by a 128kbps bitrate. > > However, when you then double the bitrate again from 128 to 256 you are > again getting twice the information and getting twice as big a file but > our ears are not nearly good enough to make this sound twice as good. On > most mp3s I have played around with the 256 version maybe sounds 3-5% > better than the 128 version except in extreme cases where the music has > certain features which don't mp3 well at 128. And both these version are > within about 6-8% as good sounding as the original. In many cases I can't > tell any difference and in some cases I can tell a very slight > difference... > > So basically, altho in a way you were right about doubling the bitrate, it > has more to do with our ears ability to discern sounds(which isn't linear) > than the linear progression of the bitrates > > -- > Jish > TMBG.net and the EFnet #TMBG Home Page > http://www.tmbg.net/ > > On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 linnel@snet.net wrote: > > > > > > >Really, I'm not too taken with goodnoise.com and mp3 trading on the > > > >internet. most people rip their mp3s (goodnoise included) at 126kbps > > > >which doesn't really allow for CD quality, > > > > > > 128 is close to CD quality...and some people even make mp3's at 256, which > > > is CD quality, or at least very very close to it. > > > > how is that possible? let's go over basic math here... 256- > > 128=128.now, if 128 is CD quality or close to it, then 256 should be > > a whole heck of a lot better... in fact, 2 times better. and if 256 is > > CD quality, then that makes 128 HALF as good. see what i mean? > > (speaking in number terms only, you see) > > > > jen- the one who has Algebra first period today. d'oh. > > > ------------------------------ End of tmbg-list Digest #15-25 ******************************