On 2024-05-25, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> Relf wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> DistroMan, RonB, Uncle_Matuch, rBowman,
>> Ahlstrom, DFS, ChrisV, Huntzinger & Crump,
>>
>> You guys should try (Up_Mixed) Stereo_To_Surround_Sound someday;
>> until then, you won't know what you're missing.
>
> I don't care what I'm missing. Happy with what I have.

I don't listen to music enough to be obsessive about it. The quality I'm
getting now seems really good to me. I don't need any extra work to make it
better (which would probably be lost with my ears anyhow).

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-25, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-25 3:08 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2024-05-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 25 May 2024 04:33:40 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>>>
>>>> CDs? Who said anything about that digital crap? I'm talking about an era
>>>> with 20 lb turntables with built in strobe rings so you could get the
>>>> speed exactly right. Styli cut from diamonds mined by virgins in South
>>>> Africa. Tone arms with verniers on the counterweights so you could get
>>>> the tracking force exactly right. Built in spirit levels in case the
>>>> world was tilting. Pure analog, baby.
>>>
>>> And those sharp needles wearing away a little bit more from the delicate
>>> grooves with every play. Not to mention embedding the dust ever deeper
>>> into the soft, yielding plastic, where you can never get it out.
>>>
>>> There’s a reason we normal people left that technology behind in the
>>> 1970s. That’s where it belongs.
>>
>> And yet it's making a comeback with some audiophiles. I bought a ton of
>> records when CDs first came out. They were cheap.
>
> A while back, a friend of mine's husband was trying to sell me on vinyl
> as I was buying some of his CDs. He was telling me how the sound is
> better, this and that. The entire time, I was reminding myself of the
> constant popping I would hear when listening to albums as a kid. The
> slightest thing would ruin the sound on that vinyls.
>
> If the technology were so great, video vinyls wouldn't have bankrupted
> RCA in the 1980s.

That probably had more to do with poor management than the medium, as other
record companies didn't go bankrupt.

As for popping... that usually happened when records were mistreated... or
warped.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-25, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> I remember audiophiles from back in the day. They could hook up an o-scope
>>> and prove their system was reproducing 22000 Hz signals flawlessly. I
>>> suppose dogs appreciated it.
>>
>>So the ones you met would actually *trust* oscilloscopes? Because the
>>“true” audiophile didn’t like CDs because they could “hear the gaps
>>between the samples”. You could hook an oscilloscope up to the audio
>>outputs from your CD or DVD player and show that it was producing flawless
>>continuous waveforms, but that wasn’t enough for them: their ears were
>>hearing things that no mere electrical signal could reproduce!
>
> Heh. I personally battled that kind of ignorance, on many occasions.
> They would claims 0's and 1's "missed something" that analog did not,
> for example.
>
> When I touted CD's excellent dynamic range, one ignoramus fought back
> with "What good is CD's high dynamic range, when if the signal drops
> 3dB the number of bits used is halved from 16 to 8?" Err... Half of
> 2^16 is 2^15, not 2^8. He was too stupid to understand that he was
> effectively asking "What good is high dynamic range, if you have poor
> dynamic range"?

I have no idea about the technical data. I just know that some of my music
sounded better on the record player than it did from the CD. But maybe the
early CDs had less range than newer ones. (It seems like I remember reading
something about that.) It's been a long time ago now.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-25, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> RonB wrote:
>
>>People tell me you can't tell the difference between analog and digital, but
>>I don't necessarily believe them.
>
> Well they can sound indistinguishable, but not necessarily. Move one
> to a low-quality format, like vinyl, and they will sound different.
>
>>To me (at least when I had ears) analog seemed more "full." (If that makes any sense.)
>
> Vinyl's distortions are pleasing, to many people.

That may be it. Especially if you're used to the sound from records. I
probably wouldn't notice it now.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-25, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
> Le 24-05-2024, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>> I'm not an audiophile and I'm certainly not going to buy a $1,500 iPhone or
>> $2,000 Mac simply to listen to music. What I've got sounds great to me.
>
> Audiophiles don't use iPhones or Mac to listen to music. They buy a real
> HiFi system. There are some physical limitations with what can be done
> with 2 cm wide speakers.

But you can plug an iPhone into some kind of docking setup for bigger
speakers.

But I understand about the advantage of HiFi systems. Though I haven't seen
one in the wild for a while.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-25, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-24 7:46 p.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2024-05-24, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> <snips>
>>>>
>>>> You would have better ears than I have to tell the difference.
>>>
>>> The ears are one thing, but even if you only know about the
>>> specifications, you would know that what Spotify offers can't compete.
>>> Apple's lossy codec is the best there is, so a song encoded at 256kbps
>>> using it will sound magnificent no matter what kind of speakers you use.
>>> If that is not sufficient for you, it also offers lossless at no extra
>>> charge. Meanwhile, the default for Spotify is AAC at 128kbps, using an
>>> inferior codec that is probably the one offered by Nero. High quality
>>> there is 256kbps, more or less on par with what Apple Music offers at
>>> the low end but, again, with a worse encoder. There is no lossless option.
>>
>> I'm not an audiophile and I'm certainly not going to buy a $1,500 iPhone or
>> $2,000 Mac simply to listen to music. What I've got sounds great to me.
>
> I think that most people are getting their phones the way that I got my
> 13: through their service provider at a lower price than if they bought
> it outright for two years worth of monthly payments. I recall that if I
> had decided to buy the iPhone 13 directly, I would have paid around
> $1,300. Through monthly payments for two years, the total price amount
> to around $900. That was if I wanted to actually own the device too. If
> I had opted to lease it, I would have paid considerably less.
>
> As for the Mac, you're buying one because you plan on editing videos or
> making music. If that's not what you're doing, you want the Mac because
> it has better battery life, better updates and a more comprehensible
> operating system than Windows. Otherwise, Windows is fine.

As I've mentioned before, Mac OS seems "clumsy" to me. Seems like you have
to take more steps to do the same thing you can do more directly in Linux.
But, I'm guessing, if I used it more I would get used to it. No real reason
to get used to it though (for me anyhow).

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-25, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-24 7:51 p.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2024-05-24, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-24 11:32 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-05-24 8:30 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-24 3:00 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-24, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <brevsnip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Probably because some people think that Apple Music also requires Apple
>>>>>>>>> hardware. Even without Apple hardware, the sound quality is superior as
>>>>>>>>> is the selection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You would have better ears than I have to tell the difference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ears are one thing, but even if you only know about the
>>>>>>> specifications, you would know that what Spotify offers can't compete.
>>>>>>> Apple's lossy codec is the best there is, so a song encoded at 256kbps
>>>>>>> using it will sound magnificent no matter what kind of speakers you use.
>>>>>>> If that is not sufficient for you, it also offers lossless at no extra
>>>>>>> charge. Meanwhile, the default for Spotify is AAC at 128kbps, using an
>>>>>>> inferior codec that is probably the one offered by Nero. High quality
>>>>>>> there is 256kbps, more or less on par with what Apple Music offers at
>>>>>>> the low end but, again, with a worse encoder. There is no lossless option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But is the "loss" noticeable to human ears?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is. There is an additional punch to the Apple AAC encoder that is
>>>>> lacking in Nero's. Nero's does a good job, but it isn't as good. It's
>>>>> better than MP3 though.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And if so, does it matter? I enjoy a tune the same whether I listen to it
>>>>>> through earbuds, $15 logitech speakers, whether in quiet or a bit of
>>>>>> background noise. Most of musical information is low frequency (under 5 kHz),
>>>>>> though the harmonics increase that up to maybe 16 kHz.
>>>>>
>>>>> For people who aren't audiophiles, there isn't a difference in audio
>>>>> quality, but they will likely notice the greater selection from Apple. I
>>>>> also think that Apple has an excellent interface, with YouTube's being
>>>>> the absolute worst.
>>>>
>>>> I stopped listening to YouTube while walking. Sick of commerials in the middle
>>>> of a 10-minute tune. Also the slightest accidental touch of the phone screen
>>>> can stop the playback.
>>>>
>>>> Switched to SomaFM... their Secret Agent channel has some good walkin' tunes.
>>>
>>> YouTube Music doesn't have commercials if you pay for it. It also
>>> removes ads from YouTube itself, making for a much more pleasant viewing
>>> experience there too.
>>
>> It doesn't have ads if you use uBlock Origin either.
>
> True, but my being a Catholic makes me reluctant to use services in a
> way that doesn't benefit the provider. I stopped blocking ads a while
> back and pay to support the sites I most often frequent. If I am not
> interested in paying and a site becomes needlessly annoying to use, I
> simply check out an alternative.

I look at it differently. The site is available. uBlock Origin is available.
I'm not shedding any tears for Google. If there is a small site I do unblock
ads on it. If it's a huge corporate site, I don't care. I especially despise
ads on a site where I buy something.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-25, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>> The ears are one thing, but even if you only know about the
>>> specifications, you would know that what Spotify offers can't compete.
>>> Apple's lossy codec is the best there is, so a song encoded at 256kbps
>>> using it will sound magnificent no matter what kind of speakers you use.
>>> If that is not sufficient for you, it also offers lossless at no extra
>>> charge. Meanwhile, the default for Spotify is AAC at 128kbps, using an
>>> inferior codec that is probably the one offered by Nero. High quality
>>> there is 256kbps, more or less on par with what Apple Music offers at
>>> the low end but, again, with a worse encoder. There is no lossless option.
>>
>>But is the "loss" noticeable to human ears?
>
> Especially for us old folks. Most the "savings" in lossy compression
> is a reduction in high frequencies. I'm more concerned with audio
> quality than most people are, and I think that Spotify's sound quality
> is quite good. But then, I'm old.
>
> I think that I can still tell that my CD's are better, if they are
> mastered well. OTOH, some of my old rock CD's have terrible mastering
> (very little bass) and I find Spotify's mastering to be much better!

I can hear some difference in quality also. Some of the old music I like
from the 70s gets remastered and re-released and I'm often interested in the
those CDs / MP3s.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

>As I've mentioned before, Mac OS seems "clumsy" to me. Seems like you have
>to take more steps to do the same thing you can do more directly in Linux.
>But, I'm guessing, if I used it more I would get used to it. No real reason
>to get used to it though (for me anyhow).

I like that post. Apple is weird.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Le 25-05-2024, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> a écrit :
> I have no idea about the technical data. I just know that some of my music
> sounded better on the record player than it did from the CD. But maybe the
> early CDs had less range than newer ones. (It seems like I remember reading
> something about that.) It's been a long time ago now.

The CD didn't change since the beginning. But the way to record, and to
restore the sound evolved a lot since the beginning. There is no issue
with the CD. If you hear it on a shitty system, you'll have shitty
sound. If you hear it on the good system, you can have something close
to what was recorded. Now, people listening to vinyls put money on it
and don't have shitty system. So, of course a vinyl on a good system has
a better sound than a CD on a poor quality system. But the fault is not
on the CD. I have never been impressed by the quality of the vinyl
compare to that of a CD on a good system.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

>some of my music
>sounded better on the record player than it did from the CD. But maybe the
>early CDs had less range than newer ones. (It seems like I remember reading
>something about that.) It's been a long time ago now.

Early CDDA players were primitive compared to what we have today, with
DVD-Audio and its equivalent in computers.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Relf wrote:

>DistroMan, RonB, Uncle_Matuch, rBowman,
>Ahlstrom, DFS, ChrisV, Huntzinger & Crump,
>
>You guys should try (Up_Mixed) Stereo_To_Surround_Sound someday;
>until then, you won't know what you're missing.

Where do you find such recordings to try?

Surround receivers will simulate surround-sound from stereo, but I've
never really played with it...

--
"So sorry, but Vista is a big sales and financial success for MS - and
will shortly finish wiping the floor with Linux and it's 392 free
distros." - some dumb fsck

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>"So sorry, but Vista is a big sales and financial success for MS - and
>will shortly finish wiping the floor with Linux and it's 392 free
>distros." - some dumb fsck

That really is funny, because of how many people literally put XP on
machines sold with Vista.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

You (ChrisV) replied ( to me ):
> > You guys should try (Up_Mixed) Stereo_To_Surround_Sound someday;
> > until then, you won't know what you're missing.
>
> Where do you find such recordings to try ?

Any/Every song/movie can be Up_Mixed to 7.1 (8 Channel).

> [ Surround_Sound drivers ] simulate surround-sound from stereo,
> but I've never really played with it...

Sans Stereo_To_Surround_Sound Up_Mix, Movies & Songs sound like crap.
I use surroundsound headphones ( the Logitech g635 USB HeadSet ).

Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>The CD didn't change since the beginning. But the way to record, and to
>restore the sound evolved a lot since the beginning. There is no issue
>with the CD. If you hear it on a shitty system, you'll have shitty
>sound. If you hear it on the good system, you can have something close
>to what was recorded. Now, people listening to vinyls put money on it
>and don't have shitty system. So, of course a vinyl on a good system has
>a better sound than a CD on a poor quality system. But the fault is not
>on the CD. I have never been impressed by the quality of the vinyl
>compare to that of a CD on a good system.

I can understand how, under excellent conditions, vinyl may produce a
more pleasing sound. But there are a lot of things that can, and do,
go wrong with that archiac technology. When CD came out, I switched to
it and never looked back.

I've also never wanted anything better than CD, for stereo. As a
delivery system for stereo sound, it's plenty good. There's no
denying that properly mastered multi-channel surround can be better,
though.

On 5/25/2024 1:11 PM, Joel wrote:
> shitv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "So sorry, but Vista is a big sales and financial success for MS - and
>> will shortly finish wiping the floor with Linux and it's 392 free
>> distros." - some dumb fsck

And it did wipe the floor with Linux - as EVERY desktop Windows version
has - reaching 24% market share within a couple/few years, while Linux
never even reached 2% within 20 years.

> That really is funny,

It WAS funny to see various drunk cola idiots declare Vista a "failure".
I watched it in realtime, here on cola.

But some Win over Lin beatdowns are funnier than others. The funniest
ones are those where the goobers at the Free Software Foundation declare
"victory" over MS or Windows - AFTER MS sells hundreds of millions of
Windows licenses.

I don't know if Microsoft can recover from those beatdowns.

> because of how many people literally put XP on machines sold with Vista.

That's just lies and imagination.

On 5/23/2024 9:38 AM, Tyrone wrote:
> On May 23, 2024 at 7:58:35 AM EDT, "Andrzej Matuch" <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>
>> There is no benefit to a corporation looking to have a monopoly to use
>> UNIX. Microsoft will hold onto the Windows core for as long as they
>> can, and if they replace it, they will likely do so with a rewritten
>> Windows core.
>
> Microsoft has no monopoly. On anything.

True. And they never did.

> It is to their benefit to retire Windows.

heh!

Might as well toss your application for membership to the MS Board of
Directors in the trash.

> Windows usage is shrinking, and has been for the last 14 years.

Where else does it go from nearly 100%?

(I can't find it any longer, but I recall seeing somewhere online that
Windows reached 97.5% desktop market share)

> Monopolies don't go from 95% of the market to 70%.

I thought you were slinging bullshit, but 2 sites I trust confirm approx
those numbers.

1st datasource

https://analytics.usa.gov/data/live/os.csv

summary of raw data downloaded at 1:50pm today

# OS Site Visits (last 30 days)
-------------------------------------
1 iOS 564742856
2 Windows 540394858
3 Android 309334579
4 Macintosh 174235737
5 Linux 42301343
6 Chrome OS 31815361
7 (not set) 1388130
8 (other) 894191
9 Win32 159772
10 Tizen 29973
12 Fuchsia 22361
13 OS/2 16369
14 Firefox OS 12761
15 Playstation 4 12249
16 FreeBSD 4021
17 NIX 3758
18 BlackBerry 3468
19 SymbianOS 791
20 Windows Phone 521
21 OpenBSD 265
22 Sony 243
23 NetBSD 172
------------------------
Total 1,665,373,779
------------------------

desktop/laptop (11): Windows, Macintosh, Linux, Chrome OS, Win32, OS/2,
FreeBSD, Unix, NIX, OpenBSD, NetBSD
phone/mobile (6): iOS, Android, Blackberry, FirefoxOS, SymbianOS, WinPhone
other (6): Tizen, Fuschia, Playstation, Sony, (other), (not set)

One entry in the raw data was blank. I assigned (not set).

Results for desktop/laptop:
OS Visits % Total
----------------------------------
Windows 540554630 68.5% (incl Win32)
Macintosh 174235737 22.1%
Linux 42301343 5.4%
Chrome OS 31815361 4.0%
OS/2 16369 0.0021%
FreeBSD 4021 0.0005%
UNIX 3758 0.0005%
OpenBSD 265 0.0000%
NetBSD 172 0.0000%
----------------------------------
Total 788,931,656 100%

Last time I used that source - 4 years ago - it had Linux at 1.6%.

2nd datasource

https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/browsers/#desktop-site-by-os/os-family-timeseries

May 12 2024

Windows 62.3%
MacOS 17.5%
Other 15.6%
Linux 2.2%

From 10-15 years ago, big Windows drop, big Mac gain, Linux up
significantly depending on source.

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>On 5/25/2024 1:11 PM, Joel wrote:
>> shitv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> "So sorry, but Vista is a big sales and financial success for MS - and
>>> will shortly finish wiping the floor with Linux and it's 392 free
>>> distros." - some dumb fsck
>
>And it did wipe the floor with Linux - as EVERY desktop Windows version
>has - reaching 24% market share within a couple/few years, while Linux
>never even reached 2% within 20 years.

What ...

>> That really is funny,
>
>It WAS funny to see various drunk cola idiots declare Vista a "failure".
> I watched it in realtime, here on cola.

The *ONLY* reason Vista "succeeded" was because of OEM installs, dude.
No one "upgraded" from XP to Vista. People *downgraded* Vista *to*
XP, in fact.

>But some Win over Lin beatdowns are funnier than others. The funniest
>ones are those where the goobers at the Free Software Foundation declare
>"victory" over MS or Windows - AFTER MS sells hundreds of millions of
>Windows licenses.
>
>I don't know if Microsoft can recover from those beatdowns.

Heh.

>> because of how many people literally put XP on machines sold with Vista.
>
>That's just lies and imagination.

No, it's truth. People were not pleased with Vista through its first
service pack, it was still a fucking beta at SP1. Get real.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Le 23-05-2024, Tyrone <none@none.none> a écrit :
>
> Microsoft has no monopoly. On anything. It is to their benefit to retire
> Windows. Windows usage is shrinking, and has been for the last 14 years.

The benefit of Microsoft is not to retire Windows, it's to reduce its
costs. It's not the same.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Le 25-05-2024, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> a écrit :
>
> Results for desktop/laptop:
> OS Visits % Total
> ----------------------------------
> Linux 42301343 5.4%
>
> Last time I used that source - 4 years ago - it had Linux at 1.6%.
> [SNIP]
> From 10-15 years ago, big Windows drop, big Mac gain, Linux up
> significantly depending on source.

From what I understood, I didn't checked but it seems possible from what
I saw, Linux is not significantly up everywhere in the same way. It
looks that Linux is heavily used in India (again, I didn't checked but
10% looks possible to me). And it increase significantly the market
share in the world. Linux is improving everywhere, but it's mostly in
India that the improvement is the strongest and more visible.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On Sat, 25 May 2024 06:49:10 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Microsoft should just give up on Dotnet. Nobody wants to use it for
> anything important. It was basically a corporate vanity project that
> Bill Gates started in his last days at Microsoft (maybe as some kind of
> “take that” response to Java), and it seems nobody still at the company
> is brave enough to declare it a pile of crap and get rid of it.

Yeah, C++/MFC was such a joy.

On Sat, 25 May 2024 07:17:32 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> I think that I can still tell that my CD's are better, if they are
> mastered well. OTOH, some of my old rock CD's have terrible mastering
> (very little bass) and I find Spotify's mastering to be much better!

I've been surprised how many rock CDs make very little use of stereo. They
might as well be mono.

On Sat, 25 May 2024 08:33:44 -0400, Joel wrote:

> I can't imagine using something other than Spotify, for streaming music.
> Not a chance in hell that it'd be as smooth as their Linux app, trying
> to use Apple BS or another giant corporate thing. The codecs just
> aren't that important, ultimately, I worry about that in my collection
> of actual files, not for streaming, it's good enough and that is
> sufficient for me.

I don't use it very often but Jango works for me. For the car or in the
gym it's mostly mp3s I've ripped from CDs.

Le 25-05-2024, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> a écrit :
> On Sat, 25 May 2024 07:17:32 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> I think that I can still tell that my CD's are better, if they are
>> mastered well. OTOH, some of my old rock CD's have terrible mastering
>> (very little bass) and I find Spotify's mastering to be much better!
>
> I've been surprised how many rock CDs make very little use of stereo. They
> might as well be mono.
>

The old ones probably. The need for better recording and the
availability of better tools have really improved the recordings since
more than 40 years.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

>> I can't imagine using something other than Spotify, for streaming music.
>> Not a chance in hell that it'd be as smooth as their Linux app, trying
>> to use Apple BS or another giant corporate thing. The codecs just
>> aren't that important, ultimately, I worry about that in my collection
>> of actual files, not for streaming, it's good enough and that is
>> sufficient for me.
>
>I don't use it very often but Jango works for me. For the car or in the
>gym it's mostly mp3s I've ripped from CDs.

Interesting, I'll try it out tonight. Listening to a purchased MP3
album (from some time ago) with Audacious at the moment.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.