<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cecil and Sally - Undated Episode</title>
	<link>http://blogs.oldradio.net/archives/2008/10/18/cecil-and-sally-undated-episode/</link>
	<description>Ramblings of an Old Man on Old-Time and Contemporary Radio, Television, the Arts, and the News; includes OTR Podcast</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 21:01:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Nostalgic Rumblings &#187; OTR to MP3 - What Bitrate Argument Returns (w/Podcast)</title>
		<link>http://blogs.oldradio.net/archives/2008/10/18/cecil-and-sally-undated-episode/#comment-7963</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:12:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.oldradio.net/archives/2008/10/18/cecil-and-sally-undated-episode/#comment-7963</guid>
					<description>[...] Let me give you an example. A while back on this podcast, I posted an episode of Cecil and Sally provided to me by Fred Berney. Naturally, someone took my 32kbps file, &#8220;cleaned&#8221; it (probably by converting to WAV file and running it through open-source noise-reduction software), then re-encoded it to 96kbps and posted it on the newsgroups as an &#8220;improvement.&#8221; Of course, the only thing that person could accomplish without having access to the source file (which was/is on CD) is remove more information, making it sound worse, not better. This is why we have so much garbage sound out there&#8230;people who either don&#8217;t give a rat&#8217;s patoots about the sound quality in the first place, or people who are foolish enough to think they can &#8220;improve&#8221; a low-bandwidth file by transcoding to a higher bandwidth. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Let me give you an example. A while back on this podcast, I posted an episode of Cecil and Sally provided to me by Fred Berney. Naturally, someone took my 32kbps file, &#8220;cleaned&#8221; it (probably by converting to WAV file and running it through open-source noise-reduction software), then re-encoded it to 96kbps and posted it on the newsgroups as an &#8220;improvement.&#8221; Of course, the only thing that person could accomplish without having access to the source file (which was/is on CD) is remove more information, making it sound worse, not better. This is why we have so much garbage sound out there&#8230;people who either don&#8217;t give a rat&#8217;s patoots about the sound quality in the first place, or people who are foolish enough to think they can &#8220;improve&#8221; a low-bandwidth file by transcoding to a higher bandwidth. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

