|
I've honestly never even looked at Google music... it sounds like something I can check out to see if it's a good fit before I even try an Android device. Does it do smart playlists? I would expect them to, and it probably sounds like I'm too hung up on that, but it really is a key feature for me.
Of course I'm on a limited data plan (damn you American wireless carriers!), I assume it caches stuff locally...
Look at me still talking when there's science to do
When I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you
|
|
|
|
|
Not owning either an IOS or Android device, I can't respond to the issues of comparing how useful the music-management software is, but I do wonder if the audio quality of what is played would vary with the quality of the D=>A converters they use, general signal pollution produced by the total electronic activity of the device-as-a-whole.
Not to mention: quality of the hardware that finally renders the music signal: headphones, amplifier to speakers, in-ear-buds, etc.
And, of course, there's the question of the quality of the source audio file (ripped digitally, I assume): whether the source is compressed losslessly (for example into .flac fles): or, down-sampled into an .mp3 with loss of dynamic range and other qualities).
I bet there are audiophile forums, or sites, somewhere that discuss and analyze these topics ... endlessly.
yrs, Bill
“Thus on many occasions man divides himself into two persons, one who tries to fool the other, while a third, who in fact is the same as the other two, is filled with wonder at this confusion. Thinking becomes dramatic, and acts out the most complicated plots within itself, and, spectator, again, and again, becomes: actor.” From a book by the Danish writer, Paul Moller, which was a favorite of Niels Bohr.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: And, of course, there's the question of the quality of the source audio file (ripped digitally, I assume): whether the source is compressed losslessly (for example into .flac fles): or, down-sampled into an .mp3 with loss of dynamic range and other qualities).
Ugh, the whole lossless vs. lossy compression is an endless and painful debate that I happen to have strong opinions about. There are astonishingly few double blind tests out there, and I've even concocted some for myself (which I guess would be just plain "blind" tests) - encode lossless, MP3 and AAC of different bitrates versions for each of a bunch of songs across genres - randomize the list but don't look at it (put duplicates in, make the list long enough that they may or may not be played, make it all the same song if you want, etc.), and just listen, and write down where you think you can hear a difference. Be honest about it and the results may surprise you (it did me) - and it varies GREATLY by genre, and by person and their own hearing, I'm sure.
I consider myself an audiophile, but not one of the insane ones (but then, doesn't everyone?) - I play guitar and like all guitarists drive everyone in the band crazy tweaking my knobs to death. From my experience, and I will admit my high frequency hearing (which is where a lot of compression artifacts show up) is not that of a teenager, and is probably subpar for my age due to being in bands and to too many concerts, but for my ears, the sweet spot is to do a 160 kbps MP3 with variable bit rate set to "highest" quality. It really works for me, that's the point at which I cannot tell the difference between lossless and compressed with any reliability. Anything lower, and I can tell with near 100% accuracy. At this rate (again, with VBR, and high quality VBR, which is key) and higher it is completely random, 50/50 chance that I pick the lossless vs. MP3. Some types of songs - interestingly, folk and singer/songwriter stuff - end up higher than 256kbps (160kbps is just the floor), which is of course the high quality VBR at work, and I guess is needed to capture the more complicated and dynamic sound of acoustic guitars. Other genres - like heavy metal - frequently ends up around 170-180kbps (which makes sense for certain songs, given the non-dynamic nature of guitars with heavy distortion playing power chords, it's like zipping a text file full of e's vs. compressing something already compressed). Orchestral stuff tends to end up around 200kbps - I thought it would be higher. It spikes where the encoder decides you need more info in order to hear all the audible information, and makes perfect sense given how human hearing works, assuming the encoder is smart, which I think they are these days.
Signal to noise, etc. is pretty moot at this point (for phones, iPods, etc.). With few exceptions (and there are exceptions) the S/N ratio is well beyond what human ears can detect (and the iPhone, when measured with lab equipment, scores pretty well there, but like I said with very little real world effect vs. most other devices). Output quality becomes important really in the power department. Some high end over the ear headphones just may not be able to get enough "oomph" from certain devices. These high end headphone results I read about online, I generally use earbuds with my phone when at work or walking - and I've gone through many pairs, and that pretty much comes down to preference and how much you want to spend. I think a lot of what people think are encoding artifacts are actually due to the awful scourge facing our planet today: the loudness wars, the artifacts of which are easy to identify, completely unnecessary, and is impossible to unhear once you hear it (and is also present on the "lossless" CD - which sounds like they just clip the 24-bit master to 16 bits instead of scaling it, but they can't really be that stupid, right? 24-bit mastering makes lots of sense, but 16 bits for the end product is PLENTY for the dynamic range capabilities of human beings).
Not to randomly claim credentials, but DSP is my day job, though it's not audio, I use many very similar concepts, so I like to think I know what I'm talking about. Very few of the audiophile flamewars are based on any sort of scientific testing (or logic) whatsoever, so I avoid them like the plague these days 
Ok, you got me going. Sorry 'bout that. This is probably on the 18th page by now so no one will read it anyway.
Look at me still talking when there's science to do
When I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you
|
|
|
|
|
Hi David,
My sincere thanks for your long and eloquent reply, and the quality of its technical content, so "well-tempered" by awareness of your own experiences, and the possible impact of those experiences on how: you can, now: "listen" !
At age 69, with tinnitus, my hearing range (frequency), and ability to discriminate dynamic range, is definitely limited, and I have an accompanying hyperacusis (over-reaction to loud sounds so they are experienced by me as, literally, "painful").
Subjectively, it seems to me that I can hear a difference in quality of converted music files from CD's between .flac files, and high-kbps high-VBR .mp3's; but, there's no science in that remark.
For compression I usually use .ogg rather than .mp3, but, again, just a personal choice not based on any "evidence."
You would think that a scientific comparison could be done, from a superbly recorded 24-bit digital master (perhaps examples from different genres of music: classical, rock, blues, folk, jazz ?), all converted to .flac, .ogg, .mp3 at various settings. And, then, the resulting digitally converted files could be analyzed by laboratory-grade audio equipment, and computer, to rigorously indicate reduction in whatever (dynamic range ? loss of sound at certain frequencies ?).
And, of course, that would still leave you with the questions "hanging" of how capable anyone person's actual ears are of discrimination, and how any one "rendering device," that finally produces the sound, is going to have output of some measurable quality.
I have read about, as you mention, the iPhone scoring high for "rendering quality" in testing done with some scientific basis. I assume, but do not know, that testing was done by taking the direct analog output from the iPhone straight into lab-quality testing devices.
I'm so physically uncomfortable with in-ear buds, I only use circumaural headphones; but the quality of the phones I wear (and can afford) would be sneered at by any audiophile ... mere LogiTech G930's ...
I am curious to ask you what software, on what hardware, you use now to convert, for example, a CD's music files to a 160kbs VBR .mp3. I'm assuming you are using Macintosh hardware, based on your remarks.
yrs, Bill
“Thus on many occasions man divides himself into two persons, one who tries to fool the other, while a third, who in fact is the same as the other two, is filled with wonder at this confusion. Thinking becomes dramatic, and acts out the most complicated plots within itself, and, spectator, again, and again, becomes: actor.” From a book by the Danish writer, Paul Moller, which was a favorite of Niels Bohr.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure we're even allowed (by Internet Law) to have a reasonable discussion about audio encoding bitrates, but we'll give it a go
Yes, these days I use Mac hardware for most of my (home) tasks. I've ended up using the built in iTunes encoders - starting several years ago, it really ramped up its quality (that's according to what I read) and the extra steps of using Lame just wasn't worth it (since I use iTunes to organize my music now). I started encoding my CDs into MP3s in the mid 90's, and those encoders have long been eclipsed in quality. Some may sneer at the use of the iTunes encoder, but since I used it to compare the enocodes to lossless versions (which it can also do), I guess all of my previous statements should be qualified with "the iTunes encoder results" vs. lossless, which was what was easiest for my uses (since I could just click "Create MP3 Version" in iTunes and as long as I had my settings setup right, it would create what I wanted). My gut feel is that these days you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between encoders, but I haven't tested that.
All audio, when encoded using lossy compression, will be very noticeably different when measured on lab equipment - an oscilloscope would be enough to show it, a frequency domain analyzer (which several scopes of course have) makes the differences even more obvious. Though you get into issues of synchronization and whatnot that makes it a pain to ensure you do it right. But there will be differences. I've done all of this, because I have the equipment available and it looked like I was doing work.
Human hearing, however, isn't as sensitive as a scope (I don't think I'm saying anything you don't know). The real breakthrough when MP3's caught on, and what I hadn't realized was even possible before then, was its use of the characteristics of human hearing, and knowing what info it could discard without being noticed by anyone but dolphins (and possibly bats). At 128k, AAC (and other encoding methods) are noticeably better than MP3 but as you increase bitrate the differences lessen. I settled on VBR 160k MP3 because MP3's are just more universally playable than AAC (even though I have apple devices, I don't want to be tied to AAC). I did my big self test mostly because I used to have fairly high bitrates, including many lossless out of paranoia, but limited space on my phone, and I simply wanted more music with me all the time, and I found VBR 160k as the sweet spot that - overall - saved tons of space (except for some albums where it increased the size, which actually made me "trust" HQ VBR even more). I think I've been able to do that without sacrificing quality (to my ears - tinnitus as well here, at 39). After all, the best music is that which you have with you so you can listen to it
As for earbuds, I used to hate them comfort wise, but I've settled on a couple I like. I found some Skullcandy buds that I like (I can't find the model on them, but you have to be careful with them, they make some truly horrible cheap-o crap too) and I also use - Apple fanboy alert - the Apple "Ear Pods" (terrible name). For $30, you cannot do better soundwise (IMHO), and they are the first earbuds I've EVER used that stay in my ears without constant adjustments while running (and sweating). The biggest problem is that they're white and thus scream "Hey look I'm using Apple stuff!" Your mileage (and ear shape) may vary, of course.
Look at me still talking when there's science to do
When I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you
|
|
|
|
|
I'm seriously thinking about looking for another job, but my current job title is making it annoyingly difficult to explain that yes, I am actually a programmer / developer and yes I've been doing it for the last 8 years. So I asked my current boss (tactfully) if I could change my job title to something that actually reflects what I do. She told me that I can't change my current title (it's part of the corporate job "ladder"), but I can hyphenate is and add whatever I want afterwards. For example:
Title that doesn't suggest anything programming related - senior developer.
So my question is, what would be a good title to stick on the end that might actually help communicate that I am actually a developer? As it is now, I'm largely a solo developer (hence the lack of suitable job titles) so I do everything and I feel my title should communicate so degree of seniority (hence not just "programmer" or "developer" or "code monkey").
Any suggestions (serious or otherwise)?
|
|
|
|
|
I once had:
"Section leader who couldn't be bothered to think of a pretentious name for his section but who wanted a long job title to annoy the personnel department when the time came to have the business cards printed"
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
|
|
|
|
|
I've always tended to go the other way -- for a few years, I told people my job title was either "Chief Technowhiz" or "Staff Non-Technophobe"
|
|
|
|
|
Wjousts wrote: senior developer
and then add the name of the system which you are mostly programming for - the product name, if it is a well-known product or a general name like "Database system", "for .Net Framework Applications", "Linux Systems", "MySQL and PHP", "Microsoft Environment" and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
Remember you haven't told your current designation , then how shall we suggest you with ?
Some companies stick with Program Analyst I, II, II etc may be you can give a try.
Else request for Senior Developer , Technical Lead/Team Lead etc
Thanks,
Ranjan.D
|
|
|
|
|
I was a "Research Scientist II", which became a "Research Scientist" the last time they changed the job ladder (which annoyed me no end, because it looks like a demotion), then I got promoted (hooray) to "Senior Research Scientist", then they messed with the ladder again and my title got changed to the utterly stupid "Research Investigator". I told my boss that I hated that title (especially since I lost both "senior" and "scientist") unless it came with a badge and a gun. On the bright side, it gives me some cover to complain about my title without tipping them off that I'm thinking about leaving.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh Gosh ! how can some one be designated as Investigator , Heads up for bringing in and sure you deserve a change. I'm sure if you put down the papers they will designate you want ever you wish for, You know crazy managers , management do this very often. Until you raise your voice or heads up these things won't change.
Good Luck to you, The best thing is to roll back your designation to Research Scientist II , I love it
Thanks,
Ranjan.D
|
|
|
|
|
My title's currently Technical Architect, but I spend such a large percentage of my time helping out other team members/users with completely unrelated things that I introduce myself as Dogsbody.
Possible Title Suggestion for you: Solution Architect and Developer.
|
|
|
|
|
Normally all subcontractors are known as Software Consultants - that is their official title given by the agencies. Within the company they work for, some seek titles; others, like myself couldn't be bothered.
The only time the title is required is when I produce documents. I normally put down Software Developer. In the 5 years that I've been there, nobody has noticed that that job title doesn't really exist in the company. Everyone else is an Engineer of some sort, a Technical Expert (in what?) or head of something.
On the CV, I just put down Developer: it covers Programmer, Analyst, Analyst/Programmer, Software Engineer, Architect, Technical Lead, Consultant. After all, my job has been roughly the same whatever they've called me.
|
|
|
|
|
(?) -> Research Investigator - Senior Scientist
|
|
|
|
|
I understand completely on this one and I'm sort of in the same boat, though I'm not looking for another job. I've been writing software here for about two years. They are trying to work out a job title that best fits my job duties, including programming, database and server maintenance, computer repairs, and a bunch of other things which are IT related. They're still trying to get my pay well above what it is now. However, they find it difficult because they don't have any titles which incorporate the things I do, at least not accurately. They (upper management) are trying to work out a job title which incorporates my job duties as completely as possible. They've even mentioned having to create an all new title.
I am a solo developer as well which, as you stated, makes it difficult for them to find a title. So I would like to know as well. 
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe they end up with something like "The Super Guru programmer God who does magic things we don't understand" 
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly, that's how I feel they think about my position and is part of why I want to leave. They have no idea what I'm doing, which was okay for a while, but is now rather unsatisfying.
|
|
|
|
|
Marco Alessandro Bertschi wrote: The Super Guru programmer God who does magic things we don't understand
What a coincidence, that is my job title! 
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful"
Chris C-B
|
|
|
|
|
That was my nickname in high school.
--
Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
DeathByChocolate wrote: The Super Guru programmer God who does magic things we don't understand for chocolate
I think you missed the important part.
|
|
|
|
|
peterchen wrote: ... for chocolate
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful"
Chris C-B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're letting her get away with this?
May I suggest: Pansy.
PRO-TIP: When you get a different job make sure you let her know the whole job title issue is the reason why you left the company. Tell them you're big on flexibility in that area and that your new job doesn't pay more but you get to chose your own title.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
