Just a tip.......
For anybody using the successor to youtube-dl, for highest audio quality set your arg of audio quality
to "--audio-quality 1". (It really will make a difference, it defaults to about 7 (low quality))

jackpatton@astraweb.com wrote:
> Just a tip.......
> For anybody using the successor to youtube-dl, for highest audio quality set your arg of audio quality
> to "--audio-quality 1". (It really will make a difference, it defaults to about 7 (low quality))

I prefer to vary it on individual downloads.
You get such a variety of qualities on YouTube. I see MP3s with bitrates
of all sorts. And then FLAC has become very popular in recent years.

I tend to be rather like yourself; get best quality every time. But I
have excellent storage, great broadband, and good hearing.
Some famous classical music recordings from the 40s and 50s, however,
provided in FLAC or MP3 320kbps, seem rather over the top, when even
128kbps exceeds the original quality. And this same argument applies
even further to videos, some being 8K UHD.

Ed

In message <g2kbuipn5bgek49d7ibg6i86jsioh04mv8@4ax.com> at Mon, 4 Mar
2024 08:54:10, jackpatton@astraweb.com writes
>Just a tip.......
>For anybody using the successor to youtube-dl, for highest audio
>quality set your arg of audio quality
>to "--audio-quality 1". (It really will make a difference, it
>defaults to about 7 (low quality))

Tell us more about this "successor". (I've just checked with -U, and
"yt-dlp is up to date (stable@2023.12.30 from yt-dlp/yt-dlp)" - but I
can see that's two months old; obviously the server it checks with is
still responding, but that doesn't mean ... oh, hang on, I've just
noticed you said "to youtube-dl": do you mean yt-dlp _as_ the successor?
I read somewhere that it defaults to the best audio and video available.

I generally download as video (with no parameters, unless I want
subtitles), then "extract original audio stream" (I use Pazera, but
there are plenty of other such extractors - I use Pazera as it
specifically says it's extracting without any recoding, which some of
the others make far from clear). Most of the time - but then my tastes
are for older material, so this may vary - I then find the extracted
audio is nominally a higher standard than the material justifies anyway:
nearly always 44100 Hz (or occasionally 48000) stereo, even if the
material is actually mono and/or has nothing above 10 kHz (or
occasionally 5 kHz).

Are you downloading very recent material?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it's nice to look at and it makes you feel good, it's art. - Grayson Perry,
interviewed in Radio Times 12-18 October 2013

Ed Cryer wrote:
> jackpatton@astraweb.com wrote:
>> Just a tip.......
>> For anybody using the successor to youtube-dl, for highest audio
>> quality set your arg of  audio quality
>> to "--audio-quality 1".   (It really will make a difference, it
>> defaults to about 7 (low quality))
>
>
> I prefer to vary it on individual downloads.
> You get such a variety of qualities on YouTube. I see MP3s with bitrates
> of all sorts. And then FLAC has become very popular in recent years.
>
> I tend to be rather like yourself; get best quality every time. But I
> have excellent storage, great broadband, and good hearing.
> Some famous classical music recordings from the 40s and 50s, however,
> provided in FLAC or MP3 320kbps, seem rather over the top, when even
> 128kbps exceeds the original quality. And this same argument applies
> even further to videos, some being 8K UHD.
>
> Ed
Analogue to digital.
There are people who claim that vinyl recordings are superior to digital
ones. There are people who claim that radio on FM is superior to digital.
I say "Don't dismiss their claims too lightly". Try listening to it; and
bear in mind digital bitrate, which is often inferior in quality on
digital radio; 128kbps being standard.
Digital recordings have been purified to an extent that they've become
almost alien; all the background noise cleansed until they deliver a
sound that you'll never hear in a concert hall; never on the streets;
never but in the artificial world of digital.
A needle bouncing around the grooves of a piece of plastic; or some
ancient video recorded at so many frames per second on a camera with
low-level lens. It sounds and looks "real"; a slice of history. I've
heard Florence Nightingale on an old recording made by Thomas Edison.
But we're being flooded with "remastered" recordings. Rolling Stones,
Beatles, Queen amongst them. And they float outside of time; like some
ghost of an Aristotelian universal concept.
Ed

In message <us55l4$3a231$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 4 Mar 2024 18:57:34,
Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> writes
>Ed Cryer wrote:
>> jackpatton@astraweb.com wrote:
>>> Just a tip.......
>>> For anybody using the successor to youtube-dl, for highest audio
>>>quality set your arg of  audio quality
>>> to "--audio-quality 1".   (It really will make a difference, it
>>>defaults to about 7 (low quality))
>> I prefer to vary it on individual downloads.
>> You get such a variety of qualities on YouTube. I see MP3s with
>>bitrates of all sorts. And then FLAC has become very popular in
>>recent years.
>> I tend to be rather like yourself; get best quality every time. But
>>I have excellent storage, great broadband, and good hearing.
>> Some famous classical music recordings from the 40s and 50s, however,
>>provided in FLAC or MP3 320kbps, seem rather over the top, when even
>>128kbps exceeds the original quality. And this same argument applies
>>even further to videos, some being 8K UHD.
>> Ed
>
>Analogue to digital.
>
>There are people who claim that vinyl recordings are superior to
>digital ones. There are people who claim that radio on FM is superior
>to digital.

In the early days of CD audio, I might have considered their point
(though probably not agreed with it). But nowadays, I'd have to ask them
what they mean by "digital": there isn't a single "digital", as there
was (more or less) initially. With digital compression (I'm talking
about mp3 and similar, not amplitude compression, which I think we all
agree is insidious), "digital" can mean many things, only one of which
is "CD quality". [OK, there are a few that are "better" than CD quality.
But I think the setups - and ears - that can detect _those_ differences
are very rare.]

>I say "Don't dismiss their claims too lightly". Try listening to it;
>and bear in mind digital bitrate, which is often inferior in quality on
>digital radio; 128kbps being standard.

You have to say which sort of digital radio. In UK, original DAB is I
think MP2, for which many would say 128kbps is inadequate for a full
modern stereo signal; DAB+ is something else - AAC, I think - which is a
much more efficient coding.

>Digital recordings have been purified to an extent that they've become
>almost alien; all the background noise cleansed until they deliver a
>sound that you'll never hear in a concert hall; never on the streets;
>never but in the artificial world of digital.

I think you mean "modern" recordings, rather than "Digital". All those
things can be done to analogue recordings too, these days.

"Background noise" - depends whence; if from anything in the recording
chain, such as tape noise or electronic distortion, I'm fine with it
being removed. If it's something that was on the original master -
analogue _or_ digital - I'm a bit more dubious; I wouldn't dismiss it
_entirely_, in that modern algorithms can be very clever, but when it
gets subjective - your "original concert hall" - I tend to agree with
you.

That's for classical or other mostly-acoustically-created music (folk,
jazz, etc.); when it comes to pop, one can argue endlessly - and, most
of the time, non-productively - as to what you're trying to reproduce:
what would be heard by someone at the front of the audience, elsewhere,
what the performer him or her self hears through his headphones if worn,
or the speaker bins at foot level ...
>
>A needle bouncing around the grooves of a piece of plastic; or some

Where the complete system chain distortion is rarely less than a
percent, usually several.

I like the _experience_ of records as much as anyone - the needle drop,
the tape hiss if any (including on records), the surface noise
(especially shellac) ... there are some tracks that to me are not
_right_ without those, because that's how I first got to know them. But
I'd never claim that's an _accurate_ rendition.

>ancient video recorded at so many frames per second on a camera with

Actually, once you've separated the frame rate from the light source
(and thus flicker), quite low frame rates are surprisingly not
noticeable unless the material involves some particular kinds of
movement (panning in particular, though even there it's most noticeable
with a modern fast "shutter" [giving a strobe - freeze-motion - effect],
which wasn't the case on original cameras [film or video]).

>low-level lens. It sounds and looks "real"; a slice of history. I've
>heard Florence Nightingale on an old recording made by Thomas Edison.
>But we're being flooded with "remastered" recordings. Rolling Stones,
>Beatles, Queen amongst them. And they float outside of time; like some
>ghost of an Aristotelian universal concept.

You're probably right about some of those things; in most cases, they're
swamped by the adverse but almost universal simple audio level
compression - the "loudness war" - which started mid-20th century (well
before digital), but really took off in about the 1990s, when digital
level compression techniques really got going.
>
>Ed
>
John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It is complete loose-stool-water, it is arse-gravy of the worst kind
- Stephen Fry on "The Da Vinci Code"

J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <us55l4$3a231$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 4 Mar 2024 18:57:34,
> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> writes
>> Ed Cryer wrote:
>>> jackpatton@astraweb.com wrote:
>>>> Just a tip.......
>>>> For anybody using the successor to youtube-dl, for highest audio
>>>> quality set your arg of  audio quality
>>>> to "--audio-quality 1".   (It really will make a difference, it
>>>> defaults to about 7 (low quality))
>>>   I prefer to vary it on individual downloads.
>>> You get such a variety of qualities on YouTube. I see MP3s with
>>> bitrates  of all sorts. And then FLAC has become very popular in
>>> recent years.
>>>  I tend to be rather like yourself; get best quality every time. But
>>> I  have excellent storage, great broadband, and good hearing.
>>> Some famous classical music recordings from the 40s and 50s, however,
>>> provided in FLAC or MP3 320kbps, seem rather over the top, when even
>>> 128kbps exceeds the original quality. And this same argument applies
>>> even further to videos, some being 8K UHD.
>>>  Ed
>>
>> Analogue to digital.
>>
>> There are people who claim that vinyl recordings are superior to
>> digital ones. There are people who claim that radio on FM is superior
>> to digital.
>
> In the early days of CD audio, I might have considered their point
> (though probably not agreed with it). But nowadays, I'd have to ask them
> what they mean by "digital": there isn't a single "digital", as there
> was (more or less) initially. With digital compression (I'm talking
> about mp3 and similar, not amplitude compression, which I think we all
> agree is insidious), "digital" can mean many things, only one of which
> is "CD quality". [OK, there are a few that are "better" than CD quality.
> But I think the setups - and ears - that can detect _those_ differences
> are very rare.]
>
>> I say "Don't dismiss their claims too lightly". Try listening to it;
>> and bear in mind digital bitrate, which is often inferior in quality
>> on digital radio; 128kbps being standard.
>
> You have to say which sort of digital radio. In UK, original DAB is I
> think MP2, for which many would say 128kbps is inadequate for a full
> modern stereo signal; DAB+ is something else - AAC, I think - which is a
> much more efficient coding.
>
>> Digital recordings have been purified to an extent that they've become
>> almost alien; all the background noise cleansed until they deliver a
>> sound that you'll never hear in a concert hall; never on the streets;
>> never but in the artificial world of digital.
>
> I think you mean "modern" recordings, rather than "Digital". All those
> things can be done to analogue recordings too, these days.
>
> "Background noise" - depends whence; if from anything in the recording
> chain, such as tape noise or electronic distortion, I'm fine with it
> being removed. If it's something that was on the original master -
> analogue _or_ digital - I'm a bit more dubious; I wouldn't dismiss it
> _entirely_, in that modern algorithms can be very clever, but when it
> gets subjective - your "original concert hall" - I tend to agree with you.
>
> That's for classical or other mostly-acoustically-created music (folk,
> jazz, etc.); when it comes to pop, one can argue endlessly - and, most
> of the time, non-productively - as to what you're trying to reproduce:
> what would be heard by someone at the front of the audience, elsewhere,
> what the performer him or her self hears through his headphones if worn,
> or the speaker bins at foot level ...
>>
>> A needle bouncing around the grooves of a piece of plastic; or some
>
> Where the complete system chain distortion is rarely less than a
> percent, usually several.
>
> I like the _experience_ of records as much as anyone - the needle drop,
> the tape hiss if any (including on records), the surface noise
> (especially shellac) ... there are some tracks that to me are not
> _right_ without those, because that's how I first got to know them. But
> I'd never claim that's an _accurate_ rendition.
>
>> ancient video recorded at so many frames per second on a camera with
>
> Actually, once you've separated the frame rate from the light source
> (and thus flicker), quite low frame rates are surprisingly not
> noticeable unless the material involves some particular kinds of
> movement (panning in particular, though even there it's most noticeable
> with a modern fast "shutter" [giving a strobe - freeze-motion - effect],
> which wasn't the case on original cameras [film or video]).
>
>> low-level lens. It sounds and looks "real"; a slice of history. I've
>> heard Florence Nightingale on an old recording made by Thomas Edison.
>> But we're being flooded with "remastered" recordings. Rolling Stones,
>> Beatles, Queen amongst them. And they float outside of time; like some
>> ghost of an Aristotelian universal concept.
>
> You're probably right about some of those things; in most cases, they're
> swamped by the adverse but almost universal simple audio level
> compression - the "loudness war" - which started mid-20th century (well
> before digital), but really took off in about the 1990s, when digital
> level compression techniques really got going.
>>
>> Ed
>>
> John
That ancient recording of Florence Nightingale is highly analogue. No
digits, no bits, no bytes anywhere. It's held on a circular piece of
pre-plastic stuff; and was made by a needle attached to a horn into
which Florence spoke.
It recorded, but missed out on many of the high treble and high bass
frequencies that we humans hear.
When you convert that to digital you can never convert the whole thing.
You'll always lose some element of the original; you'll add nothing
other than supposition of how it would sound under "digital".
Consider how analogue recordings were made. And then consider how
digital looks at them; what it homes in on, and translates.
Ed

In message <us5fqq$3c2kn$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 4 Mar 2024 21:51:33,
Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> writes
[]
>That ancient recording of Florence Nightingale is highly analogue. No
>digits, no bits, no bytes anywhere. It's held on a circular piece of
>pre-plastic stuff; and was made by a needle attached to a horn into
>which Florence spoke.
>It recorded, but missed out on many of the high treble and high bass
>frequencies that we humans hear.
>
>When you convert that to digital you can never convert the whole thing.
>You'll always lose some element of the original; you'll add nothing
>other than supposition of how it would sound under "digital".
>
>Consider how analogue recordings were made. And then consider how
>digital looks at them; what it homes in on, and translates.
>
>Ed

However, implicit in what you say above is the suggestion that when you
reproduce it with purely analogue means, you somehow get a perfect - or
at least better - reproduction. While I don't think digital captures
everything, I certainly don't think analogue does either. If anything,
digital has _known_ shortcomings which can be quantified (and, IMO,
reduced to far below the shortcomings inherent in the original,
certainly in that case).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I know people who worry more about the health consequences of drinking a coffee
at breakfast than a bottle of urine at dinner
- Revd Richard Cole, RT 2021/7/3-9

On 3/4/2024 4:51 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <us55l4$3a231$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 4 Mar 2024 18:57:34, Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> writes
>>> Ed Cryer wrote:
>>>> jackpatton@astraweb.com wrote:
>>>>> Just a tip.......
>>>>> For anybody using the successor to youtube-dl, for highest audio quality set your arg of  audio quality
>>>>> to "--audio-quality 1".   (It really will make a difference, it defaults to about 7 (low quality))
>>>>   I prefer to vary it on individual downloads.
>>>> You get such a variety of qualities on YouTube. I see MP3s with bitrates  of all sorts. And then FLAC has become very popular in recent years.
>>>>  I tend to be rather like yourself; get best quality every time. But I  have excellent storage, great broadband, and good hearing.
>>>> Some famous classical music recordings from the 40s and 50s, however, provided in FLAC or MP3 320kbps, seem rather over the top, when even 128kbps exceeds the original quality. And this same argument applies even further to videos, some being 8K UHD.
>>>>  Ed
>>>
>>> Analogue to digital.
>>>
>>> There are people who claim that vinyl recordings are superior to digital ones. There are people who claim that radio on FM is superior to digital.
>>
>> In the early days of CD audio, I might have considered their point (though probably not agreed with it). But nowadays, I'd have to ask them what they mean by "digital": there isn't a single "digital", as there was (more or less) initially. With digital compression (I'm talking about mp3 and similar, not amplitude compression, which I think we all agree is insidious), "digital" can mean many things, only one of which is "CD quality". [OK, there are a few that are "better" than CD quality. But I think the setups - and ears - that can detect _those_ differences are very rare.]
>>
>>> I say "Don't dismiss their claims too lightly". Try listening to it; and bear in mind digital bitrate, which is often inferior in quality on digital radio; 128kbps being standard.
>>
>> You have to say which sort of digital radio. In UK, original DAB is I think MP2, for which many would say 128kbps is inadequate for a full modern stereo signal; DAB+ is something else - AAC, I think - which is a much more efficient coding.
>>
>>> Digital recordings have been purified to an extent that they've become almost alien; all the background noise cleansed until they deliver a sound that you'll never hear in a concert hall; never on the streets; never but in the artificial world of digital.
>>
>> I think you mean "modern" recordings, rather than "Digital". All those things can be done to analogue recordings too, these days.
>>
>> "Background noise" - depends whence; if from anything in the recording chain, such as tape noise or electronic distortion, I'm fine with it being removed. If it's something that was on the original master - analogue _or_ digital - I'm a bit more dubious; I wouldn't dismiss it _entirely_, in that modern algorithms can be very clever, but when it gets subjective - your "original concert hall" - I tend to agree with you.
>>
>> That's for classical or other mostly-acoustically-created music (folk, jazz, etc.); when it comes to pop, one can argue endlessly - and, most of the time, non-productively - as to what you're trying to reproduce: what would be heard by someone at the front of the audience, elsewhere, what the performer him or her self hears through his headphones if worn, or the speaker bins at foot level ...
>>>
>>> A needle bouncing around the grooves of a piece of plastic; or some
>>
>> Where the complete system chain distortion is rarely less than a percent, usually several.
>>
>> I like the _experience_ of records as much as anyone - the needle drop, the tape hiss if any (including on records), the surface noise (especially shellac) ... there are some tracks that to me are not _right_ without those, because that's how I first got to know them. But I'd never claim that's an _accurate_ rendition.
>>
>>> ancient video recorded at so many frames per second on a camera with
>>
>> Actually, once you've separated the frame rate from the light source (and thus flicker), quite low frame rates are surprisingly not noticeable unless the material involves some particular kinds of movement (panning in particular, though even there it's most noticeable with a modern fast "shutter" [giving a strobe - freeze-motion - effect], which wasn't the case on original cameras [film or video]).
>>
>>> low-level lens. It sounds and looks "real"; a slice of history. I've heard Florence Nightingale on an old recording made by Thomas Edison.
>>> But we're being flooded with "remastered" recordings. Rolling Stones, Beatles, Queen amongst them. And they float outside of time; like some ghost of an Aristotelian universal concept.
>>
>> You're probably right about some of those things; in most cases, they're swamped by the adverse but almost universal simple audio level compression - the "loudness war" - which started mid-20th century (well before digital), but really took off in about the 1990s, when digital level compression techniques really got going.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>> John
>
> That ancient recording of Florence Nightingale is highly analogue. No digits, no bits, no bytes anywhere. It's held on a circular piece of pre-plastic stuff; and was made by a needle attached to a horn into which Florence spoke.
> It recorded, but missed out on many of the high treble and high bass frequencies that we humans hear.
>
> When you convert that to digital you can never convert the whole thing. You'll always lose some element of the original; you'll add nothing other than supposition of how it would sound under "digital".
>
> Consider how analogue recordings were made. And then consider how digital looks at them; what it homes in on, and translates.
>
> Ed

If you were in the room with Florence Nightingale, there would not
be clicks and pops, or excess emphasis of the high frequency content
of the speech.

You have consumed these internally, and the "whole set of sounds" is
how you remember Florence. Any other playback of the material,
where the clicks and pops were suppressed and the tonal quality
was balanced with an equalizer, you would declare this to be a
"false memory" as it were.

*******

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_and_the_Chipmunks

"The Chipmunks' voices were recorded at half the normal tape speed
on audiotape by voice talent talking or singing at half the normal
speaking rate. When the tape was played back at normal speed, they
would sound a full octave higher in pitch, at normal tempo."

(Slowed to how it was originally recorded)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WswvKfBLNiM

And, as heard on a record player. This is how most people would remember it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPBCu_q6rMc

So which version will you internalize ?

We could post process just about any event today,
add click and pops, and make it sound like a 78.

Part of the sound on an old recording, could be
due to how the microphones worked back then. There
have been a few changes since then in microphones.
On recordings done with electronics, they might
have used a ribbon microphone, instead of a dynamic
microphone, or an electret, and these are bound
to sound different. Some recordings were cut on
a metallic master and transferred to other material
types for sale, and such a method might not use
electronics at all (as far as the roll or disc
you received at home goes). You might still use
an amplifier to play it back (instead of a megaphone).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/His_Master's_Voice.jpg/440px-His_Master's_Voice.jpg

Paul

On 3/4/2024 1:44 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <g2kbuipn5bgek49d7ibg6i86jsioh04mv8@4ax.com> at Mon, 4 Mar 2024 08:54:10, jackpatton@astraweb.com writes
>> Just a tip.......
>> For anybody using the successor to youtube-dl, for highest audio quality set your arg of  audio quality
>> to "--audio-quality 1".   (It really will make a difference, it defaults to about 7 (low quality))
>
> Tell us more about this "successor". (I've just checked with -U, and "yt-dlp is up to date (stable@2023.12.30 from yt-dlp/yt-dlp)" - but I can see that's two months old; obviously the server it checks with is still responding, but that doesn't mean ... oh, hang on, I've just noticed you said "to youtube-dl": do you mean yt-dlp _as_ the successor?
> I read somewhere that it defaults to the best audio and video available.
>
> I generally download as video (with no parameters, unless I want subtitles), then "extract original audio stream" (I use Pazera, but there are plenty of other such extractors - I use Pazera as it specifically says it's extracting without any recoding, which some of the others make far from clear). Most of the time - but then my tastes are for older material, so this may vary - I then find the extracted audio is nominally a higher standard than the material justifies anyway: nearly always 44100 Hz (or occasionally 48000) stereo, even if the material is actually mono and/or has nothing above 10 kHz (or occasionally 5 kHz).
>
> Are you downloading very recent material?

When a video is re-muxed, the content does not need to be re-encoded.
In the best-case, it won't be.

It depends on whether a container is compatible with a stream type.
Re-encoding is necessary if the stream won't fit in the requested container.

yt-dlp contains a command line parameter to "keep originals",
so the video stream file and audio stream file are available
for you to study and compare to the "output" video file. You can
check the CODEC type of all three, and spot whether it is re-encoded.

Paul

Paul wrote:
> On 3/4/2024 4:51 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
>> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <us55l4$3a231$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 4 Mar 2024 18:57:34, Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> writes
>>>> Ed Cryer wrote:
>>>>> jackpatton@astraweb.com wrote:
>>>>>> Just a tip.......
>>>>>> For anybody using the successor to youtube-dl, for highest audio quality set your arg of  audio quality
>>>>>> to "--audio-quality 1".   (It really will make a difference, it defaults to about 7 (low quality))
>>>>>   I prefer to vary it on individual downloads.
>>>>> You get such a variety of qualities on YouTube. I see MP3s with bitrates  of all sorts. And then FLAC has become very popular in recent years.
>>>>>  I tend to be rather like yourself; get best quality every time. But I  have excellent storage, great broadband, and good hearing.
>>>>> Some famous classical music recordings from the 40s and 50s, however, provided in FLAC or MP3 320kbps, seem rather over the top, when even 128kbps exceeds the original quality. And this same argument applies even further to videos, some being 8K UHD.
>>>>>  Ed
>>>>
>>>> Analogue to digital.
>>>>
>>>> There are people who claim that vinyl recordings are superior to digital ones. There are people who claim that radio on FM is superior to digital.
>>>
>>> In the early days of CD audio, I might have considered their point (though probably not agreed with it). But nowadays, I'd have to ask them what they mean by "digital": there isn't a single "digital", as there was (more or less) initially. With digital compression (I'm talking about mp3 and similar, not amplitude compression, which I think we all agree is insidious), "digital" can mean many things, only one of which is "CD quality". [OK, there are a few that are "better" than CD quality. But I think the setups - and ears - that can detect _those_ differences are very rare.]
>>>
>>>> I say "Don't dismiss their claims too lightly". Try listening to it; and bear in mind digital bitrate, which is often inferior in quality on digital radio; 128kbps being standard.
>>>
>>> You have to say which sort of digital radio. In UK, original DAB is I think MP2, for which many would say 128kbps is inadequate for a full modern stereo signal; DAB+ is something else - AAC, I think - which is a much more efficient coding.
>>>
>>>> Digital recordings have been purified to an extent that they've become almost alien; all the background noise cleansed until they deliver a sound that you'll never hear in a concert hall; never on the streets; never but in the artificial world of digital.
>>>
>>> I think you mean "modern" recordings, rather than "Digital". All those things can be done to analogue recordings too, these days.
>>>
>>> "Background noise" - depends whence; if from anything in the recording chain, such as tape noise or electronic distortion, I'm fine with it being removed. If it's something that was on the original master - analogue _or_ digital - I'm a bit more dubious; I wouldn't dismiss it _entirely_, in that modern algorithms can be very clever, but when it gets subjective - your "original concert hall" - I tend to agree with you.
>>>
>>> That's for classical or other mostly-acoustically-created music (folk, jazz, etc.); when it comes to pop, one can argue endlessly - and, most of the time, non-productively - as to what you're trying to reproduce: what would be heard by someone at the front of the audience, elsewhere, what the performer him or her self hears through his headphones if worn, or the speaker bins at foot level ...
>>>>
>>>> A needle bouncing around the grooves of a piece of plastic; or some
>>>
>>> Where the complete system chain distortion is rarely less than a percent, usually several.
>>>
>>> I like the _experience_ of records as much as anyone - the needle drop, the tape hiss if any (including on records), the surface noise (especially shellac) ... there are some tracks that to me are not _right_ without those, because that's how I first got to know them. But I'd never claim that's an _accurate_ rendition.
>>>
>>>> ancient video recorded at so many frames per second on a camera with
>>>
>>> Actually, once you've separated the frame rate from the light source (and thus flicker), quite low frame rates are surprisingly not noticeable unless the material involves some particular kinds of movement (panning in particular, though even there it's most noticeable with a modern fast "shutter" [giving a strobe - freeze-motion - effect], which wasn't the case on original cameras [film or video]).
>>>
>>>> low-level lens. It sounds and looks "real"; a slice of history. I've heard Florence Nightingale on an old recording made by Thomas Edison.
>>>> But we're being flooded with "remastered" recordings. Rolling Stones, Beatles, Queen amongst them. And they float outside of time; like some ghost of an Aristotelian universal concept.
>>>
>>> You're probably right about some of those things; in most cases, they're swamped by the adverse but almost universal simple audio level compression - the "loudness war" - which started mid-20th century (well before digital), but really took off in about the 1990s, when digital level compression techniques really got going.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>> John
>>
>> That ancient recording of Florence Nightingale is highly analogue. No digits, no bits, no bytes anywhere. It's held on a circular piece of pre-plastic stuff; and was made by a needle attached to a horn into which Florence spoke.
>> It recorded, but missed out on many of the high treble and high bass frequencies that we humans hear.
>>
>> When you convert that to digital you can never convert the whole thing. You'll always lose some element of the original; you'll add nothing other than supposition of how it would sound under "digital".
>>
>> Consider how analogue recordings were made. And then consider how digital looks at them; what it homes in on, and translates.
>>
>> Ed
>
> If you were in the room with Florence Nightingale, there would not
> be clicks and pops, or excess emphasis of the high frequency content
> of the speech.
>
> You have consumed these internally, and the "whole set of sounds" is
> how you remember Florence. Any other playback of the material,
> where the clicks and pops were suppressed and the tonal quality
> was balanced with an equalizer, you would declare this to be a
> "false memory" as it were.
>
> *******
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_and_the_Chipmunks
>
> "The Chipmunks' voices were recorded at half the normal tape speed
> on audiotape by voice talent talking or singing at half the normal
> speaking rate. When the tape was played back at normal speed, they
> would sound a full octave higher in pitch, at normal tempo."
>
> (Slowed to how it was originally recorded)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WswvKfBLNiM
>
> And, as heard on a record player. This is how most people would remember it.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPBCu_q6rMc
>
> So which version will you internalize ?
>
> We could post process just about any event today,
> add click and pops, and make it sound like a 78.
>
> Part of the sound on an old recording, could be
> due to how the microphones worked back then. There
> have been a few changes since then in microphones.
> On recordings done with electronics, they might
> have used a ribbon microphone, instead of a dynamic
> microphone, or an electret, and these are bound
> to sound different. Some recordings were cut on
> a metallic master and transferred to other material
> types for sale, and such a method might not use
> electronics at all (as far as the roll or disc
> you received at home goes). You might still use
> an amplifier to play it back (instead of a megaphone).
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/His_Master's_Voice.jpg/440px-His_Master's_Voice.jpg
>
> Paul
Very interesting.
I was watching a Buster Keaton film recently, The General (recommended
by our micky). The very quaintness of it all, the different times,
different technology, different social norms, those are what I love
about it.
Ed

In message <us69jd$3k3am$1@dont-email.me> at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 00:12:11,
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
[]
>When a video is re-muxed, the content does not need to be re-encoded.
>In the best-case, it won't be.

I was talking about the audio part, though similar applies.
>
>It depends on whether a container is compatible with a stream type.
>Re-encoding is necessary if the stream won't fit in the requested container.
>
>yt-dlp contains a command line parameter to "keep originals",
>so the video stream file and audio stream file are available
>for you to study and compare to the "output" video file. You can
>check the CODEC type of all three, and spot whether it is re-encoded.
>
> Paul
But:

1. AIUI, most YouTube downloads are _offered_ in a multitude of forms -
various combinations of resolutions for the video and bitrate for the
audio; which of these is the original. I don't know if is marked. (I'm
not sure about sites other than YouTube; despite the unfortunate name,
yt-dl[p] work on almost any site that has video on it.) I don't know if
some of the combinations offered by YT are actually _upscalings_, though
I don't think so.
2. I vaguely remember reading somewhere - I can't remember whether it
was about youtube-dl, or yt-dlp (I always assumed both) - that if you
don't specify any parameter other than the URL, it usually gets the best
(video and audio) available. (Being a command-line utility, I'm pretty
sure it _doesn't_ adjust to suit your hardware/chosen window size, which
I think the YT own player does.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A. Top-posters.
Q. What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 18:44:51 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> I've just
>noticed you said "to youtube-dl": do you mean yt-dlp _as_ the successor?
yes.
>I read somewhere that it defaults to the best audio and video available.
I was not aware that was the case for audio. if you do a ' -F' arg, you get available files and one
video will be tagged as best and it will be chosen -- that it would choose the "best" video I was aware
of. If similar is done for audio, i never noticed.
(after checking a couple and finding no difference i continued to use the 'youtube-dl /?' *lengthy* help
file which I redirected to file some years ago.)
For an audio file to be used as background music by VLC i use a .bat that incorporates
"-x --audio-format mp3 --audio-quality 1".
I had always used 128kbps as "CD quality" but i notice i can tell a difference in that and, say,
320kbps"

jack

In message <aearuid504asm7arqb0gfbkvt0i190tvtv@4ax.com> at Sun, 10 Mar
2024 09:07:07, jackpatton@astraweb.com writes
>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 18:44:51 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> I've just
>>noticed you said "to youtube-dl": do you mean yt-dlp _as_ the successor?
>yes.

Right. (I have it shortened to just y anyway, to save typing.)

>>I read somewhere that it defaults to the best audio and video available.

I've recently discovered that's not the case - at least, assuming higher
resolution video is "better". Maybe it isn't, if it's just being
upscaled at YouTube! (The 720 - or less if the source material is less -
it serves me is fine for me: I don't have any display with more than 768
pixels vertically, so no point in having files containing more.)

>I was not aware that was the case for audio. if you do a ' -F' arg,
>you get available files and one
>video will be tagged as best and it will be chosen -- that it would
>choose the "best" video I was aware

I must do a few -Fs and have a look at which is so tagged. I'd been
_assuming_ it was one of the highest resolutions offered, but maybe not.
(Does it always _have_ that tag?)

Seems odd _if_ YouTube are offering upscaling, when surely that could be
done at the user; you'd think it would just mean they'd have to serve
more data, so bigger load on the servers. I suppose they can perhaps
have a _better_ upscaling algorithm/process than the user might, but
still ...

Reminiscent of flatbed scanners offering huge interpolated resolutions -
_in the scanner_, rather than in the driver software which surely would
be a better place for it: putting it in the scanner only results in
slower scanning (if limited by the interface), _and_ it can't be
upgraded.

>of. If similar is done for audio, i never noticed.
>(after checking a couple and finding no difference i continued to use
>the 'youtube-dl /?' *lengthy* help
>file which I redirected to file some years ago.)

Me too! (Both of us are probably thus using not the latest help, but I
don't think it changes much.)

I've never noticed whether there's a "best" tag for audio formats. I
will admit, if I just want audio, I still download the video and then
"extract original audio" using something else (Pazera, but there are
plenty such extractors). I can usually have that done in fewer seconds
than a -F/-f would take. (Most audio tracks I want are 2-5 minutes
long.)

>For an audio file to be used as background music by VLC i use a .bat
>that incorporates
>"-x --audio-format mp3 --audio-quality 1".

I am not a fan of background music (no criticism implied); I didn't even
know VLC _had_ that ability. What sort of thing are you watching - do
you watch a lot of silent films, or your own (silent) cine film scans?
(I've just started converting mine, but the results need a lot of work
[which I may never get round to] before I'd think of adding audio to
them.)

>I had always used 128kbps as "CD quality" but i notice i can tell a
>difference in that and, say,
>320kbps"
>
>jack
>
>
Interesting. I recently was rather shocked to discover that my hearing
now rolls off around 8 kHz - though apparently that's normal for people
in their 60s, though on the low side slightly in my case. (I'll be 64
next month.) I'm not aware of the degradation - in particular, I have no
difficulty understanding people. (I never attended loud discos or had
noisy employment, so I don't know the cause of the decline - just
ageing, I guess.) However, even when I had more, I don't think I could
ever tell (for mp3, anyway: I could for mp2, as used on DAB) any
advantage from going above 128, and for a lot of material, 96. When I
examine an audio file, I do look at it on a spectrogram (I use GoldWave,
since I bought it just before Audacity came along; I'd probably use the
latter if starting out now), and - even though I can't hear it - I don't
reduce the bitrate such that any of the content is lost. (I know mp2
bitrate doesn't map linearly to frequency response; I've built up a
table of what corresponds to what, from experience, erring on the
cautious side. [I can share it if anyone's interested.]) I _do_ lop off
the top if there's no (relevant - I'm not talking about surface noise or
tape hiss) content up there, though, which is surprisingly common (apart
from what I assume is video timebase breakthrough, which is there on
90-95% of all clips!). [I even half the _sample_ rate if there's nothing
above 10 kHz.] The biggest reduction, though, is recoding as mono for
mono material: the vast majority (NOT all) of what's on YouTube, at
least when downloaded with yt-dlp default, is encoded as 44100 stereo,
regardless of whether it's mono or not: that recoding alone more or less
halves the filesize. (I think mp3 encoding is supposed to notice if the
two channels are similar/identical and take advantage of that, but it
clearly doesn't.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They are public servants, so we will threat them rather as Flashman treats
servants. - Stephen Fry on some people's attitudo to the BBC, in Radio Times,
3-9 July 2010

On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 14:11:39 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>>For an audio file to be used as background music by VLC i use a .bat
>>that incorporates
>>"-x --audio-format mp3 --audio-quality 1".
>
>I am not a fan of background music (no criticism implied); I didn't even
>know VLC _had_ that ability. What sort of thing are you watching - do
>you watch a lot of silent films, or your own (silent) cine film scans?
>(I've just started converting mine, but the results need a lot of work
>[which I may never get round to] before I'd think of adding audio to
>them.)

by "background" i just mean music playing on my computer with no video, just music to keep me company
while i am doing things like writing this usenet message. :-)
Where i could configure VLC not to raise the player even if there is video to play, i do it mostly
because of the space involved where it may be the difference between several gig and a few hundred meg
of storage.
I have configured my computers for well over a decade to come up streaming classical music from a
california station (KUSC) on VLC to let me know wifi is operating and the computer is ready (the
catch-up indexing and all is done in a few seconds). And then when I sit down, i usually change it to a
rock (usually oldies) playlist unless there is a particularly nice piece playing on KUSC.
I never have gotten into silent films, I do watch a movie a night with some youtube science or
motorcycle videos thrown in. Or, currently, i am watching Rick and Morty on one of those foreign
domains (.to seems popular as a foreign domain) also, your y.exe will download movies from the ok.ru,
besides they can be downloaded with native windows commands. (I made all my .exes for that command-line
..exe start with "yt". (I even made one "ty" copy of my main "yt" for the not-uncommon keyboard
transposition i make.) I set my main arguments via environment variables.

>
>>I had always used 128kbps as "CD quality" but i notice i can tell a
>>difference in that and, say,
>>320kbps"
>>
>>jack

And that's even with my hearing going south at about 8k....youngster. I am in my mid-seventies. :-)
>>
>>
>Interesting. I recently was rather shocked to discover that my hearing
>now rolls off around 8 kHz - though apparently that's normal for people
>in their 60s, though on the low side slightly in my case. (I'll be 64
>next month.) I'm not aware of the degradation - in particular, I have no
>difficulty understanding people. (I never attended loud discos or had
>noisy employment, so I don't know the cause of the decline - just
>ageing, I guess.) However, even when I had more, I don't think I could
>ever tell (for mp3, anyway: I could for mp2, as used on DAB) any
>advantage from going above 128, and for a lot of material, 96. When I
>examine an audio file, I do look at it on a spectrogram (I use GoldWave,
>since I bought it just before Audacity came along; I'd probably use the
>latter if starting out now), and - even though I can't hear it - I don't
>reduce the bitrate such that any of the content is lost. (I know mp2
>bitrate doesn't map linearly to frequency response; I've built up a
>table of what corresponds to what, from experience, erring on the
>cautious side. [I can share it if anyone's interested.]) I _do_ lop off
>the top if there's no (relevant - I'm not talking about surface noise or
>tape hiss) content up there, though, which is surprisingly common (apart
>from what I assume is video timebase breakthrough, which is there on
>90-95% of all clips!). [I even half the _sample_ rate if there's nothing
>above 10 kHz.] The biggest reduction, though, is recoding as mono for
>mono material: the vast majority (NOT all) of what's on YouTube, at
>least when downloaded with yt-dlp default, is encoded as 44100 stereo,
>regardless of whether it's mono or not: that recoding alone more or less
>halves the filesize. (I think mp3 encoding is supposed to notice if the
>two channels are similar/identical and take advantage of that, but it
>clearly doesn't.)
>--
>J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

One good thing about downloading form youtube is that all commercials are gone from the downloaded video
file...

In message <fm4uuitdfqh18e034otisqp3vbo8ee583o@4ax.com> at Mon, 11 Mar
2024 11:52:56, jackpatton@astraweb.com writes
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 14:11:39 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[]
>>I am not a fan of background music (no criticism implied); I didn't even
>>know VLC _had_ that ability. What sort of thing are you watching - do
>>you watch a lot of silent films, or your own (silent) cine film scans?
>>(I've just started converting mine, but the results need a lot of work
>>[which I may never get round to] before I'd think of adding audio to
>>them.)
>
>by "background" i just mean music playing on my computer with no video,
>just music to keep me company

Oh, I see. I'd probably use my default audio player (WinAmp!).

>while i am doing things like writing this usenet message. :-)
>Where i could configure VLC not to raise the player even if there is
>video to play, i do it mostly
>because of the space involved where it may be the difference between
>several gig and a few hundred meg
>of storage.

Yes, I usually extract audio from music videos I like, too.

>I have configured my computers for well over a decade to come up
>streaming classical music from a
>california station (KUSC) on VLC to let me know wifi is operating and
>the computer is ready (the

Ah. I rarely shut mine down. (Though I'm a bit concerned - this morning
I found it shut down, and on restarting, it said it hadn't shut down
properly. First guess - that the power lead had come out and the battery
run down - wasn't the case [I think it would have sleep/hibernated then
anyway]. Seems OK for the moment, touch [knock on in US] wood!)

>catch-up indexing and all is done in a few seconds). And then when I
>sit down, i usually change it to a
>rock (usually oldies) playlist unless there is a particularly nice
>piece playing on KUSC.
>I never have gotten into silent films, I do watch a movie a night with
>some youtube science or

I'm currently finding enough TV, though mainly US crime series (the
alphabet ones) rather than movies. Though do like quite a lot of YouTube
science - techmoan for example.

>motorcycle videos thrown in. Or, currently, i am watching Rick and
>Morty on one of those foreign

I don't know that duo.

>domains (.to seems popular as a foreign domain) also, your y.exe will
>download movies from the ok.ru,

I don't know that domain.

>besides they can be downloaded with native windows commands. (I made
>all my .exes for that command-line
>.exe start with "yt". (I even made one "ty" copy of my main "yt" for
>the not-uncommon keyboard
>transposition i make.) I set my main arguments via environment variables.
>
I just have y.exe, and ys.bat for when I want subtitles - which doesn't
work, to my puzzlement, because it contains exactly the same parameters
which, if entered manually, work! (I just "type ys.bat" to remind me
what to type.)
[]
>And that's even with my hearing going south at about 8k....youngster. I
>am in my mid-seventies. :-)
>>>
Ah, we old computer codgers! ("I remember when ..." - the first computer
I programmed had 16 memory locations. No, not 16K.)
[]
>One good thing about downloading form youtube is that all commercials
>are gone from the downloaded video
>file...
>
Indeed. Almost certainly against the Ts&Cs!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A true-born Englishman does not know any language. He does not speak English
too well either but, at least, he is not proud of this. He is, however,
immensely proud of not knowing any foreign languages. (George Mikes, "How to
be Inimitable" [1960].)

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:25:54 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <fm4uuitdfqh18e034otisqp3vbo8ee583o@4ax.com> at Mon, 11 Mar
>2024 11:52:56, jackpatton@astraweb.com writes
>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 14:11:39 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>[]
>>>I am not a fan of background music (no criticism implied); I didn't even
>>>know VLC _had_ that ability. What sort of thing are you watching - do
>>>you watch a lot of silent films, or your own (silent) cine film scans?
>>>(I've just started converting mine, but the results need a lot of work
>>>[which I may never get round to] before I'd think of adding audio to
>>>them.)
>>
>>by "background" i just mean music playing on my computer with no video,
>>just music to keep me company
>
>Oh, I see. I'd probably use my default audio player (WinAmp!).
>
I still occasionally run winamp on my win 7 64 bit as a standalone and on my old xp machine that i have
been working on the last few weeks for the fun of it -- where it is an installed app. I have the last
or the near last release with the player that goes to a user defined % of transparency if not in
use/focus.
I also have a coupla other media apps that i sometimes run on each -- like media player and BSplayer.
(I am going to change the "boots with the machine app" to bsplayer as soon as i figure out how to bring
it up streaming a url. It is streaming crystal clear now but i plugged the url in after i brought it
up.) VLC has started garbling the stream. I running 3.0.11 up there and 3.0.2 in win 7. BS player
is playing better -- probably has a lighter footprint. In its day that XP machine was fine, for the
software of the day but that was twenty years ago.....

My Win 7 is 64 bit. It runs most all 32 bit apps but draws the line at 16.

>>while i am doing things like writing this usenet message. :-)
>>Where i could configure VLC not to raise the player even if there is
>>video to play, i do it mostly
>>because of the space involved where it may be the difference between
>>several gig and a few hundred meg
>>of storage.
>
>Yes, I usually extract audio from music videos I like, too.
>
>>I have configured my computers for well over a decade to come up
>>streaming classical music from a
>>california station (KUSC) on VLC to let me know wifi is operating and
>>the computer is ready (the
>
>Ah. I rarely shut mine down. (Though I'm a bit concerned - this morning
>I found it shut down, and on restarting, it said it hadn't shut down
>properly. First guess - that the power lead had come out and the battery
>run down - wasn't the case [I think it would have sleep/hibernated then
>anyway]. Seems OK for the moment, touch [knock on in US] wood!)
>

Something such as that leaves you wondering what happened. Did the event log give you any clues?

>>catch-up indexing and all is done in a few seconds). And then when I
>>sit down, i usually change it to a
>>rock (usually oldies) playlist unless there is a particularly nice
>>piece playing on KUSC.
>>I never have gotten into silent films, I do watch a movie a night with
>>some youtube science or
>
>I'm currently finding enough TV, though mainly US crime series (the
>alphabet ones) rather than movies. Though do like quite a lot of YouTube
>science - techmoan for example.
>

I watch Isaac Arthur and John Michael Godier. Arthur is getting too commercial, but i have to admit he
is really good at doing a smooth segue from his science and futurism into commercial pimping for his
various sponsors.

>>motorcycle videos thrown in. Or, currently, i am watching Rick and
>>Morty on one of those foreign
>
>I don't know that duo.
>

It's a half-hour animated show, started in 2013. I had heard of them but never checked them out until
this year.

..
>>domains (.to seems popular as a foreign domain) also, your y.exe will
>>download movies from the ok.ru,
>
>I don't know that domain.
>
>>besides they can be downloaded with native windows commands. (I made
>>all my .exes for that command-line
>>.exe start with "yt". (I even made one "ty" copy of my main "yt" for
>>the not-uncommon keyboard
>>transposition i make.) I set my main arguments via environment variables.
>>
>I just have y.exe, and ys.bat for when I want subtitles - which doesn't
>work, to my puzzlement, because it contains exactly the same parameters
>which, if entered manually, work! (I just "type ys.bat" to remind me
>what to type.)

interesting -- I just had that sort of thing happen with a bat i wanted to run from the xp desktop a
couple of hours ago. Turns out that CMD goes to documents and settings subfolder natively and that
apparently does not contain the windows path (or chain) where taskmgr is, so i had modify my bat to cd
to c:\ and THEN execute taskmgr. (worked fine thereafter)
>[]
>>And that's even with my hearing going south at about 8k....youngster. I
>>am in my mid-seventies. :-)
>>>>
>Ah, we old computer codgers! ("I remember when ..." - the first computer
>I programmed had 16 memory locations. No, not 16K.)
>[]

Wow! The Altair 440 had 4 mem bytes (i am pretty sure). But that was years before i touched a
microcomputer keyboard.

>>One good thing about downloading form youtube is that all commercials
>>are gone from the downloaded video
>>file...
>>
>Indeed. Almost certainly against the Ts&Cs!

Most of what i do is against somebody's terms and conditions :-)
I have had most iterations of Windows since 3.1 in 1993 and with win 7 I am on the first "legal" copy
of windows i have had. My XP OS copy is an "educational" copy someone gave me and so always passed the
copyright trawlers that microsoft would send under assumed names as "important updates".

In message <j7ouui1kshubplqi5p39t1h8o10mn5lvsd@4ax.com> at Mon, 11 Mar
2024 17:11:02, jackpatton@astraweb.com writes
[snip]
>up.) VLC has started garbling the stream. I running 3.0.11 up there
>and 3.0.2 in win 7. BS player
>is playing better -- probably has a lighter footprint. In its day that
>XP machine was fine, for the
>software of the day but that was twenty years ago.....

Yes, I was fond of XP too.
>
>My Win 7 is 64 bit. It runs most all 32 bit apps but draws the line at 16.

Ah, I'm running 7-32, because of some software that is a shell
extension, and won't work under 64.
[]
>>Ah. I rarely shut mine down. (Though I'm a bit concerned - this morning
>>I found it shut down, and on restarting, it said it hadn't shut down
>>properly. First guess - that the power lead had come out and the battery
>>run down - wasn't the case [I think it would have sleep/hibernated then
>>anyway]. Seems OK for the moment, touch [knock on in US] wood!)
>>
>
>Something such as that leaves you wondering what happened. Did the
>event log give you any clues?

I've always found the event log hard to understand.
[]
>>I'm currently finding enough TV, though mainly US crime series (the
>>alphabet ones) rather than movies. Though do like quite a lot of YouTube
>>science - techmoan for example.
>>
>
>I watch Isaac Arthur and John Michael Godier. Arthur is getting too
>commercial, but i have to admit he
>is really good at doing a smooth segue from his science and futurism
>into commercial pimping for his
>various sponsors.

Don't know those.
[]
>>I just have y.exe, and ys.bat for when I want subtitles - which doesn't
>>work, to my puzzlement, because it contains exactly the same parameters
>>which, if entered manually, work! (I just "type ys.bat" to remind me
>>what to type.)
>
>interesting -- I just had that sort of thing happen with a bat i
>wanted to run from the xp desktop a

Ah, I'm running it from a command window anyway.

>couple of hours ago. Turns out that CMD goes to documents and settings
>subfolder natively and that
>apparently does not contain the windows path (or chain) where taskmgr
>is, so i had modify my bat to cd
>to c:\ and THEN execute taskmgr. (worked fine thereafter)

I have a shortcut that opens cmd: in D:\videos\yt-dlp, which is where I
have my y.exe . (That command window normally left open, so I can cut
and paste to it.)
[]
>>Ah, we old computer codgers! ("I remember when ..." - the first computer
>>I programmed had 16 memory locations. No, not 16K.)
>>[]
>
>Wow! The Altair 440 had 4 mem bytes (i am pretty sure). But that
>was years before i touched a
>microcomputer keyboard.

Here's BRENDA:
http://forum.6502.org/download/file.php?id=228&t=1&sid=71fbbab10a3900404b
bf16f9e3c7ed50

The BaRnardian Electronic Numerical Demonstration Apparatus (I think
I've got that right) was the shape and size of the luggage space in a
Hillman Imp (British model of car), because that's where the maths
master built it. (With the assistance of one year's fourth form, who
built the cards behind the bulbs.) [It's some way towards the bottom of
http://forum.6502.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3227&view=previous .]
>
>>>One good thing about downloading form youtube is that all commercials
>>>are gone from the downloaded video
>>>file...
>>>
>>Indeed. Almost certainly against the Ts&Cs!
>
>Most of what i do is against somebody's terms and conditions :-)
>I have had most iterations of Windows since 3.1 in 1993 and with win 7
>I am on the first "legal" copy

I had 3.1, I think legally (though I think I had to install it from the
floppies it came on), and sort-of-legal copies of 95, 98, and 98OSR2 (I
bought the CDs, but they may have been OEM ones); my XP came
preinstalled. I think a 7 did; this machine was bought with 7 on it, but
in January 2023, which I think was after sellers were supposed to stop
supplying such.

>of windows i have had. My XP OS copy is an "educational" copy someone
>gave me and so always passed the
>copyright trawlers that microsoft would send under assumed names as
>"important updates".
>
Yes, I was familiar with those - "volume licences". I didn't know about
the copyright trawlers - but then I was never that bothered about
"updates", and was in general happy when XP and 7, each in their time,
ceased "support", i. e. when they settled down. (10 must be getting
close to that point now.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Everyone learns from science. It all depends how you use the knowledge. - "Gil
Grissom" (CSI).

jackpatton@astraweb.com wrote on 12/3/24 2:52 am:

<Snip>

> domains (.to seems popular as a foreign domain) also, your y.exe
> will download movies from the ok.ru,

Hmm! Here in Australia, we have a saying/Question .... "R.U.O.K??". as
in "Are You OK?" which links to ruok.org.au an Australian non-profit
suicide prevention organization founded by Gavin Larkin in 2009
--
Daniel

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:36:30 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <j7ouui1kshubplqi5p39t1h8o10mn5lvsd@4ax.com> at Mon, 11 Mar
>2024 17:11:02, jackpatton@astraweb.com writes
[snip]
>>My Win 7 is 64 bit. It runs most all 32 bit apps but draws the line at 16.
>
>Ah, I'm running 7-32, because of some software that is a shell
>extension, and won't work under 64.

We were discussing XTREE -- under 64 bit I have been running ZTREE which is "almost" as good as XTREE
which has been my familiar go-to swiss knife of a PC file manager since 1993.

Couple XTREE with Qedit and that is a pretty much unbeatable pair, IMO. .

I recently downloaded Xtreme 64 and gave it a spin because ZTREE coughed and sputtered on one of the
alt-L commands, Xtreme 64 is an xtree clone for 64 bit machines.

[]
>>>I just have y.exe, and ys.bat for when I want subtitles - which doesn't
>>>work, to my puzzlement, because it contains exactly the same parameters
>>>which, if entered manually, work! (I just "type ys.bat" to remind me
>>>what to type.)
>>

I recently incorporated the arg of "--all-subs" into my system level batch file of "YT"
and have found that i unless I specify the output to be .SRT if will be .VTT, which was a new one on me
but VLC handles .vtt as a subtitle file with aplomb.

I recently dled a playlist of an album from youtube and got half a dozen vtt files with the mp3 files
(rewritten from .webm files) and VLC played the .vtt lyric files as subtitles with the music
videos......

[]
>Here's BRENDA:
>http://forum.6502.org/download/file.php?id=228&t=1&sid=71fbbab10a3900404b
>bf16f9e3c7ed50
>
>The BaRnardian Electronic Numerical Demonstration Apparatus (I think
>I've got that right) was the shape and size of the luggage space in a
>Hillman Imp (British model of car), because that's where the maths
>master built it. (With the assistance of one year's fourth form, who
>built the cards behind the bulbs.) [It's some way towards the bottom of
>http://forum.6502.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3227&view=previous .]
Was he near Bletchley Park ? :-)

jack

In message <0nb0vi59f4nhb5mbme3fj7jlpbgnd46tgo@4ax.com> at Tue, 12 Mar
2024 06:59:53, jackpatton@astraweb.com writes
>On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:36:30 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <j7ouui1kshubplqi5p39t1h8o10mn5lvsd@4ax.com> at Mon, 11 Mar
>>2024 17:11:02, jackpatton@astraweb.com writes
>[snip]
>
>>>My Win 7 is 64 bit. It runs most all 32 bit apps but draws the line at 16.
>>
>>Ah, I'm running 7-32, because of some software that is a shell
>>extension, and won't work under 64.
>
>We were discussing XTREE -- under 64 bit I have been running ZTREE
>which is "almost" as good as XTREE
>which has been my familiar go-to swiss knife of a PC file manager since 1993.

Of course, I can still run the real XTREE! And do, for one or two
things. It does almost rail one core, even when not apparently doing
anything, though, which is odd!
[]
>alt-L commands, Xtreme 64 is an xtree clone for 64 bit machines.
>
If I remember the name (which is unlikely!) when I eventually have to go
64, I'll give it a look.
[]
>I recently incorporated the arg of "--all-subs" into my system level
>batch file of "YT"
>and have found that i unless I specify the output to be .SRT if will be
>.VTT, which was a new one on me
>but VLC handles .vtt as a subtitle file with aplomb.

I never thought to try otherwise; As you say, VLC handles it, so as long
as it works there, I'm happy. I tend to use VLC for (playing, anyway)
anything to do with videos, unless it won't.
>
>I recently dled a playlist of an album from youtube and got half a
>dozen vtt files with the mp3 files
>(rewritten from .webm files) and VLC played the .vtt lyric files as
>subtitles with the music
>videos......
>
Interesting! I've not tried DLing playlists.
>
>[]
>
>>Here's BRENDA:
>>http://forum.6502.org/download/file.php?id=228&t=1&sid=71fbbab10a3900404b
>>bf16f9e3c7ed50
>>
>>The BaRnardian Electronic Numerical Demonstration Apparatus (I think
>>I've got that right) was the shape and size of the luggage space in a
>>Hillman Imp (British model of car), because that's where the maths
>>master built it. (With the assistance of one year's fourth form, who
>>built the cards behind the bulbs.) [It's some way towards the bottom of
>>http://forum.6502.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3227&view=previous .]
>
>Was he near Bletchley Park ? :-)
>
No (AFAIK - he might have been!). He _was_ quite a character; as well as
one of the school maths masters, he also started computing there (it
wasn't really a school subject in the early '70s), and also built
(electronic) church organs - even exported one or two, I think.
Certainly not near Bletchley - which is sort of near Oxford - when I
knew him; the school (and the previous one he taught at) was in county
Durham, which is in the north-east of England.
>
>jack
John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Advertising is legalized lying. - H.G. Wells