|
|
|
No differences between wav & flac file compresed at 50% 50%
|
|
Senior Member
|
24. March 2014 @ 17:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
CD's & Vinyls still a compressed format from the original "Master-Recording" Track (s).
In the last days I have being playing with WAVe, FLAC & mp3 compressions out of the same CD.
Using Audacity on Waveform (db)Mode: Analyzing the files, by overlay them & Zoom-In them all the way up.
Bit by bit is not diff. between CD to WAV at 792MB & CD to FLAC at 579MB
FIRST ORIGINAL TEST OUT OF 5:
Main Source: CD-R:
2 channels: Stereo.
File size: 792MB = 78:28:24 mins. (1 big file)
Bit rate: 44,100Hz.
Bit per sample: 16bit. PCM
Note: One single big file (Mix). I also have the 24 tracks version (CD-R) as a "Master". No Edit or CD-RW for me anymore tho :)
CD > WAV: (via MWM)
792MB = the same = 0% Compression.
44,100Hz.
16bit.
Note: CD = WAV a 100% bit by bit.
CD > FLAC: (via Music Bee)
Compression level 5 (default) = 45%
Rip speed: 4x + Volume adjustment.
578MB
44,100Hz.
16bit.
Note: CD = WAV = FLAC a 100% bit by bit.
CD > FLAC: (via Media Monkey)
Compression level 8 = 64%
513MB
44,100Hz.
16bit.
Note: CD & WAV diff. to FLAC by around 25%.
CD > mp3: at 320kbps (via WMP)
179MB = 77.5% ?
44,100Hz.
16bit.
Note: CD, WAV & FLAC; so diff. to mp3 by more that 75%.
Is like leasing to a similar song,
...but for sure: NO the same song bit by bit.
77.5% ?:
[No FLAC parameters as reference]
if the CD is 792MB = 100%
..so 1% = 7.92MB
7.92 x 22.5 = 178.2MB = 77.5% Compression Right !?
Any comments !?
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. March 2014 @ 17:17
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. March 2014 @ 09:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
This is as expected. Lossles wouldn't be lossless if something was different. Flac and Ape work as self ectracting zip files and the codex does the extracting as the files are played. Zips would be worthless if the compressed version didn't produce an excat duplicate.
Can you post this in "You too can be an audio expert" sticky? Some persons actually do review it. I have been trying to get information posted there versis trouble shooting. The information tends to be timeless with a broader appeal than how to resolve "My ipod does not work".
|
Senior Member
|
27. March 2014 @ 18:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have being Testing diff. CD > WAV and CD > FLAC Rippers:
There is NO-difference on the waveform (dB) Mode on Audacity: bit by bit between the 2 files [wav & flac].
Note: You start seeing differences after you compress flac at "55%" or higher.
BUT: so far: I found that flac is better that wav !!!
FINAL TEST RESULTS:
- I start my testes without any preference for any free CD-Ripper.
- Using Diff. CD-R's No DRM on 1 big mix files as a Source.
- The CD-R's Sources are made via: Pioneer Player (High-End) > Pioneer Mixer (High-End) > Tascam Recorder (High-End) .
- The test's was conducting using a simple laptop: 8 Core, 16bit OS. 8GB RAM. 1 Terabyte Memory, with a side to side bar speaker on the back & 2 small speakers on the front that come with it. (No extra speakers was add to the Computer)
P.S.
After collecting +10K CD's. since the 80's 'till today.
90% of them are collections or best albums.
2/3 of them are "English" & 1/3 are "Latin" rhythms from as far as 1917 'til the new music of today.
Most of them are Dance Music (All Genres).
I had made (In the last few years) close to 500 Custom-Mixes HITS ONLY classified by decade and genres [No mismatching aloud] & NON a single song is repeated twice. (Check by the computer virtual list)
1rs. TEST: (On the first post):
mp3 was automatically eliminated (It sound soulless & flat)
2nd. TEST:
wav was eliminated: No only 'cos wav use more MB's or flac has a flexible compression, etc. ; The diff. is on the sound coming from it.
Of course Audacity is not a player, is just a tester.
WMP, Media Monkey, Music Bee or Foobar2000 are a so-so players.
[flac & wav sound almost the same "(5% - 10%)" on all of them]
Using Winamp as a player; is when you hear the big difference: between 15% to 25% diff.
P.S. Leasing to a CD or CR-R playback on a computer or a ripped wav; they all almost sound the same.
WMP make better wav's & it sound better that the foobar2000 wav's tho.
3rd. TEST: (flac's rippers)
Media Monkey & FooBar200 was eliminated: Their flac's sound are missing something, low volume &/or no so crispy clear as EAC, Win-Amp, dbpoweramp or Music-Bee flac's files.
4th. TEST:
- EAC, dbpoweramp & Win-amp make similar flac's. (The differences are minimal "5% to 10%") They are crispy clear as the CD sound source (Probably the way most of the people like to enjoy their music.
- Music Bee on my personal opinion make the best flac's and ad a better dynamics to the ripped files.
- Ripping at low speed 4x, checking the Analyze Level Volume & check the Secure Rip with error recovery, etc. It take around 22 mins. to rip the CD-R without DRM to a flac format.
- The sound coming from it, has Clarity and Punch.
- I had never leasing to this kind of "Full Range" sounds coming from a simple Computer speakers, before.
5th. TEST:
I transfer (Burn using Winamp) one of the "Good" flac file made via Music-Bee back to a CD-R format:
CD-R > flac > CD-R
lossless > lossless > lossless
- The flac file sound great on the Computer or smaller gadget players.
- But the 2nd. generation CD-R printed with the flac in it "Home-Remastered" fall behind when is played on big home or pro players.
- The Original CD-R [Source] sound more Pure, Crispy and Clean on the big DJ equipment.
6th. TEST: [ "The Ultimate Challenge" ]
Audacity was putting on the side this time since we all know that bit by bit all wav's & flac's look the same on the graphics.
- I Rip 3 CD's to flac via dbpoweramp, Winamp, Music Bee & EAC.
Using as a main CD source: 24K Original Master Recording (Gold-CD's):
Pink Floyd - "The Wall"
Queen - "The Game"
Michael Jackson - "History"
- Use Winamp as a player.
- Rip all the Tracks and Edit each and all tracks files accordingly (NO losses ends).
- Uploading ALL the tracks #1's (Pink-Floyd) rip's made by the 4 rippers.
- Play them back and for on diff. sections of the track. (Switching the flac's & listening carefully)
NOTE: Since I had a hard time making the distinctions on the Computer speakers on the Tracks #1's rip by the diff. rippers: I opt to use a Pioneer Headphone (High-End) and adjust the Computer Volume and Winamp Player Volume to a 50%.
- I check all the Tracks #1's only. Then the #2's and so on.
- After I was done with the first album. I did the same process for the 2nd. album and then the 3rd. album.
Conclusion:
1.- Winamp rip more clear flac's that the other rippers. (Probably good to rip rock, solo, etc. music).
2.- Music Bee rip more punchy (Bass) flac's that the other rippers (Probably good to rip dance music like Club, Hip-Hop, Pop, etc.).
3.- EAC & dBpoweramp rip the flac's right in the middle between winamp and Music Bee. The Music sound more Elegant: No to much Bass or Treble on it; Just about right on the spot. (Probably good to rip Easy-Listening, Jazz, Classic, etc. music).
FINAL CONCLUSION:
EAC & dBpoweramp are the absolute Winners to rip CD's to flac's Compressed format and probably are the best programs to rip other formats too.
In my own opinion: I really not interested to rip CD's to any [Now on days] format other that flac.
WHY EAC & dBpoweramp are the winners ?
On my own personal conclusions:
1.- Madia Monkey, Foobar2000, Winamp & Music Bee fall all behind, 'cos even if all of this rippers use the same FLAC CODEC CODE to rip; they are all made to play music, they all have a defold set up in it, restriction on manually set-up to rip, etc.
2.- On the another hand: EAC & dBpoweramp if they are simple set-up on a Expert Mode , the ripper program will do his job in a Full potential witch is the Main Reason they was crated for.
3.- We all know that ALL-IN-ONE products are just plain garbage: Right.
The same concept is apply it here !!!
Thank you for your Time.
Sincerely: Mr Guss.
NOTE: @ Mez:
You can take my honest/humble results as you please.
I don't believe in copyrights laws.
Humans BORN FREE & I like to keep it that way.
Cheers :)
ANY COMMENTS !?
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. March 2014 @ 20:10
|
|
scorpNZ
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. March 2014 @ 19:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
CD > mp3: at 320kbps (via WMP)
179MB = 77.5% ?
44,100Hz.
16bit.
Note: CD, WAV & FLAC; so diff. to mp3 by more that 75%.
Is like leasing to a similar song,
...but for sure: NO the same song bit by bit.
........................................................................................
No that makes perfect sense regarding same 16bit but an obvious loss of sound quality ??? ; i'm more familiar with video compression so i'll apply the same to sound ; parts of the audio file will be either discarded or flagged to ignore ??? ;It has too or the sound would be distorted if attempting to compress without removing whatever it is the encoder has to be rid of to get an audible sound ; an extreme example is a mp3 of 64kbs it's a really high pitch ;it sounds bloody horrible compared to a 128kb yet both files are 16bit ; so what i can assume is you have to factor in the overall bitrate of the file as that denotes the quality or put another way the amount of available information contained in that container hence the size difference ; When it comes to quality of a video the bitrate is how you tell & it also can be visually seen by less pixelation & wash effect the higher you go; it also means you get an increase in overall video size.
Edit:just thought you can see it in sound as well when using audacity's graph thing,the lower the bitrate the lower the lines on the graph go so won't reach the top of audacity's edge where as a flac is quite obviously higher
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. March 2014 @ 19:05
|
Senior Member
|
29. March 2014 @ 19:44 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by scorpNZ:
Edit:just thought you can see it in sound as well when using audacity's graph thing,the lower the bitrate the lower the lines on the graph go so won't reach the top of audacity's edge where as a flac is quite obviously higher
Yup.
Sound is more simple but more tricky to see the similarities but to hear the difference, that on Video to only see them.
Like I say before:
I only had been playing with CD's. CD > CD-RW or CD > CD-R for 25yrs. or so. and make Mix-Tapes before that since the early 80's.
...and now that I'm playing with flac, wav & mp3 codec's in the last week or so. I know they produce difference results between them.
Even more surprising: Find differences between flac's rips conducted by diff rippers.
We all know that all of these rippers use the same FLAC CODEC CODE inside the Computer. But still all the CD > FLAC rippers produce diff. results with or with out adjusting the parameters.
I had been watch videos on you tube about diff. Audio-format-Test with better programs that Audacity, etc. and I was kind of skeptical a little. So I wanted to find out on my own.
ALAC vs FLAC, MP3 & WAV Audio Formats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMaDN8oiw4E
Other:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoBPNTAFZMo
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. March 2014 @ 20:28
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
2. April 2014 @ 16:39 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
CD > mp3: at 320kbps (via WMP)
179MB = 77.5% ?
44,100Hz.
16bit.
Note: CD, WAV & FLAC; so diff. to mp3 by more that 75%.
Is like leasing to a similar song,
...but for sure: NO the same song bit by bit.
........................................................................................
No that makes perfect sense regarding same 16bit but an obvious loss of sound quality ??? ; i'm more familiar with video compression so i'll apply the same to sound ; parts of the audio file will be either discarded or flagged to ignore ??? ;It has too or the sound would be distorted if attempting to compress without removing whatever it is the encoder has to be rid of to get an audible sound ; an extreme example is a mp3 of 64kbs it's a really high pitch ;it sounds bloody horrible compared to a 128kb yet both files are 16bit ; so what i can assume is you have to factor in the overall bitrate of the file as that denotes the quality or put another way the amount of available information contained in that container hence the size difference ; When it comes to quality of a video the bitrate is how you tell & it also can be visually seen by less pixelation & wash effect the higher you go; it also means you get an increase in overall video size.
Edit:just thought you can see it in sound as well when using audacity's graph thing,the lower the bitrate the lower the lines on the graph go so won't reach the top of audacity's edge where as a flac is quite obviously higher
Audio compression is different for the video compression routines that I understand,
The original mp3s merely truncated highs to comply with a bit rate. As you age and listen to music 2 things happen. 1) We continually lose the ability to here high pitch as we age. Teenagers can hear ?mosquito tones? but lose that ability in their early 20s. Highschoolers use mosquito ring-tones on their cell phone so teachers even fairly young ones can?t. There are also teenage disbursal devices used to drive away teenagers but not bother the adults. Through testing we know a 25 year old might be able hear 15 kHz if played at 120 db. The closer a tone gets to your hearing threshold the louder it must be. That is why loud music sounds better. You can hear more highs if they are loud. The highest notes of a piccolo and piano is about 5 kHz. Only resonances tones go higher than that. Some stringed instruments might produce resonance tones approaching 20 kHz. Loss will faithfully record them. The reality is resonance tones are low volume so you can?t hear them. For another reason why you couldn't hear them is because lower frequencies will mask the higher frequencies. In a nut shell, you can?t hear the extremely high tones.
2) Your brain grows in its capacity to listen to music. Like a muscle, the music processing area of your brain continues to increase the amount of O2 used as you listen to music.
As one part of your listening experiance diminishes another improves.
High tones take up most of the band width. Not only does a 20 kHz have 1,000 more data you need 2,000 times more samples (frames) to get that detail right. In lossless most of your band width is there to preserve information you can?t hear.
The original mp3 used truncation to compress. Your 320kbps mp3 is one of these. Variable Bit Rate compression does not rely on truncation for compression. Along with many other tricks it uses a trick that video compression uses. In video if you have a frame that doesn?t change for 8 frames you remove 7 frames and the codex knows to show that frame 8 times in a row. More sophisticated, is if someone is moving across the moving screen you piece together frames from a static and the moving person using differences. This trick is also used in VBRs. Masked sounds and anyother sound a human can?t hear regardless of pitch are removed. In lossless an hour of silence is as large and the most complex music. With a VBR the file is tiny to represent an hour of silence.
Lossless does not truly throw away any data. If you take a flac or an ape you can convert it back to a wave file that will be EXACTLY identical to to original wave file. This is the deffinition of lossless. This must be verified with every codex update. With a dif tool the process takes seconds. The CD (CDA), the wave and the flac are different formats and are supposed to be different. The different compression rates do not lose data but the higher compressions take longer to cram that giant info into that little file.
I think this is the most detailed explanation I have given on this topic to date. You are worth it!
The 2 take aways from this post - you should remember is lossless audio is lossless. The file may look different but music information is identical to the CDA and wave no matter what the format. The other is if you convert to an mp3, do yourself a favor and use VBR not a primitive constant bit rate MP3. These will sound identicle but are not. The music data is different that is why it is lossless. They are smaller but the fidelity is very close to lossless if you pick 0 ? Insane setting. There are no bit settings for vbrs. It is all about quality. 0 means do not truncate any peaks.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 2. April 2014 @ 16:46
|
Senior Member
|
3. April 2014 @ 18:40 |
Link to this message
|
@ Mez:
You sound like you don't want to move out of the mp3, just like those don't want to move on from Windows XP; don't make me wrong I still using XP for some programs that run "perfectly", but I also use Vista, W-7, & W-8, etc.
Times past bye and new things take over, just like all our generations.
I like 80's music, but I can't listen only 80's forever, it will drive me insane, I think.
On the another hand.
People age diff. since we all are no the same.
Hey, some people born with out hearing or see, etc. others with diff. levels of difficulties to hear, etc. Others are "perfectly" healthy, but even so: people screw themselves with all kinds of way of living life. (Drugs, no eating well, etc.)
Some foods are more healthy for vision, as other for hearing, etc. that's why people from diff. parts of the world are diff. 'cos WE ARE: what we consume & the condition we live on.
I agree with you on between lossless a 99% as I keep compressing my loudness thoughts to not interfere with the other fragmented volume 1%. lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_codec
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_com...ata%29#Lossless
Keep our bodies in healthy shape is as important as to keep our machines to compress and play files:
As we Tune our Computers like the Pro-Producers of Audio & Video, we can increase the performance dealing with large files.
Using One Partition for Big files only and other for Small files only is the way to go; as we apply diff. format parameters accordingly. (Even better using external SSD for Audio or Video only, etc.)
Also: Using a Solid State (SSD) Hard Drive: The Computer will perform better for these kind of "big" files too.
Optimize HHD for Audio or Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyRIZeCSxKw
other:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB-JUyQYxIw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q92kCvRjuc0
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 3. April 2014 @ 20:11
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
4. April 2014 @ 16:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have some stuff that does not run on XP. I connect to the web with a Win 7 computer. I don't want to get slammed with a 0 day made for XP. I am not all that wedded to XP but I have a few games, yes games, that keeps me using at least on XP computer. I have 2 XP computers, 1 visa and 5 win 7 computers.
I have MANY terabytes of stuff and about 3 to 4 are mp3s. That would be about 20 in well compressed flac and what a 100 in wave.
I am not wedded to 80s music either. I listen to all kinds of music from hill billies and swamp cajons to classical, to R&R, to new age to jazz to blues etc. My oldest recording are from the 1800s and I bought a few new releases within the last month. I would be surprised if you would recognize many of the current artists I buy today. None would be available at a brick and morter store.
|
Senior Member
|
4. April 2014 @ 18:21 |
Link to this message
|
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 4. April 2014 @ 19:14
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. April 2014 @ 09:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
OK you are much like me then. 70s and 80s R&R is my favorite genre and time but I listen to that 25-30% of the time.
I do not listen to HD because I really do not want to spend the money for equipment not because I am stuck in the past. My sound system will produce down to 4 Hz tones. The speakers and amps are old dinosaurs. You need to spend crazy money to repace it for comparable new equipment. I can barely keep my head above the water I have two kids in college and one in HS. I am suffering with decreased buying power but expenses getting worse.
|
Senior Member
|
7. April 2014 @ 17:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yup. Sometimes a simple hobby can take a lot. I hear you.
The equipment is one time deal; but the CD's & DVD's music videos can take an "eye" out of you. In special if you want to be up-to-date.
I try to be 6 months behind on music, & make the right choose to spend money on it. That's why I only buy collections.
On equipment 1yr or 2yrs. behind on turntables and replace once in awhile a thing than burn-out or not work properly anymore (Mixer, CD/DVD Recorder, Amp.).
I had listen to all kind of music equally ...but lately @ home, I tend more into easy-listening ( -105BPM all genres ) since I'm almost over the hill. lol
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. April 2014 @ 17:42
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. April 2014 @ 18:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
Although I used to be a hard core R&Rer, I listen to much more New Age (pretty and relaxing) music. It has been shown listening to some New Age music produces Alpha waves that will heal a frazzled mind. So it is more likely you are stressed which goes right along with being part of the 'over the hill gang'. That has always been the case in the DC National Art Gallary they have 4 paitings of a man's life. The baby, young man, middleaged man and old man are on a boat sailing down a river. The middle aged man is clinging to the mast for dear life as the boat goes down the rapids. These pantings are centuries old.
|
Senior Member
|
12. April 2014 @ 16:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm stress free. ($0.00 debt)
But I can't play Heavy Metal while Painting Canvas, "Yoga", "Meditation" or OOBE.
lol
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. April 2014 @ 16:13
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
16. April 2014 @ 12:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
At least for me, it is how I stay out of debt that stresses me. Most jobs expect to squeeze every last drop of energy out of you. Maybe you are working for a place that doesn't do that but you did say you were listening to more light music.
|
Senior Member
|
16. April 2014 @ 14:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm just a "Jewish" by association. lol
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. April 2014 @ 15:47
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
17. April 2014 @ 22:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
Statistically people that go bankrupt make poorer employees. They tend to be bigger risk takers. There is a huge glut of persons looking for work in most of the world so employers can afford to be picky.
Corporation exist to make money. If they don't they go out of business. There isn't a conspiracy to make everyone poorer. The first world felt sorry for the third world and helped them build factories so they wouldn't be destitute. They really didn't think about the consequences.
The job market is what the traffic will bear. The third world countries now have the ability to manufacture a great many things cheaper than the first world can. That is why the first world has huge trade imbalances with the third world. The first world is beginning to implode. As the third world begins to live better the first world will live much worse.
In the US, Obama has made some of our labor more expensive even though he said he wants to create American jobs. He wants to up the minimum wage. All that will do is make some earners a little better off and probably put an equal amount out of work. Robots will be doing what minimum wage earners do now or 1 person will have to do the job of 2 or get fired. This was already happening to the higher paying jobs.
|
Senior Member
|
18. April 2014 @ 15:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
.
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. April 2014 @ 15:46
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
23. April 2014 @ 13:32 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
P.S.
Hey: Many countries like Mexico or else. The Super controlled Govts. make illegal to own guns. So the people don't have a chance to rebel against their corrupt govt's.
We can agree on this point. In fact, Hitler outlawed guns very early in his rise to power.
Quote:
People don't believe in the Govt. or Financial institutions anymore.
Where "The American-Dream" brainwash is at !?]
It is gone! The public is as gullible and a herd of cattle but no one is stupid enough to believe that crap.
The first world felt sorry for the third world and helped them build factories so they wouldn't be destitute. They really didn't think about the consequences.
I just heard on NPR 80% of the abject poverty has been eliminated in the world in the last 30 years due to globalization. The poor are going to get richer and the rich will get poorer except for the filthy rich they will get MUCH richer. I don?t like this any more than you since I am one of the ones who is getting poorer.
There is some data to support as the the difference between the rich and poor diverge in a country the poor are less poor relative to the rest of the world. This may because the rich can only get richer if they exploit the poor. When there are more jobs, there is competition for workers and wages rise.
I agree that corporations are using globalization to make a profit.
Quote:
The Corporations latter find out that moving their Factories to Central America, the labor was even cheaper there and finally to China where the people make cent's of the dollar an hr.
So if this is not SLAVERY what it is ?
REAL SLAVERY!
Count yourself lucky you can think as you do. Being used and abused is NOTHING like being property.
Quote:
On another hand: On 3rd. World countries most of the people own the land, and the people all they have to do is build their own house one way or another. But the majority do not need the Corporate Bank Scammers money. So they don't have to slave themselves for 30yrs. for one "miserable" small "candy" house.
Cats dogs and rodents have better lives and more rights in the US than most people do in third world countries. I hope you were just making a point and don?t really believe what you stated..
Just in case you do believe this I will tell you about your rights in a 3rd world country. Before that, no one forced you to buy an expensive house. I bet you can homestead in Alaska right now. You get free land and money from the state from oil and mineral right profits. You can live better than most in the 3rd world.
In the 3rd world if you have a good income and do not share it with the local politicians anything can happen to you. Lets say you build a nice new house and the local boss likes it. He can send in some hoods to beat you and your family to death with sticks. Bullets cost too much. The boss can take over your place for ?back taxes?.
In places like China if you speak out to even a trusted friend who turns you in they throw you in prison. No trial is necessary for a troublemaker. They will take blood samples when you arrive. If you have a rare blood type they will advertise your organs on the internet and will harvest them if they have a buyer. If you complain, your cloths will be ripped off your body and thrown into a cell with 20-30 horney men. If you are particularly strong they will bind your arms so you can?t fight back. They will let you out when they need to straighten out someone else. If your attitude is still bad they will torture you.
Quote:
In order to keep Inflation = Theft with a "Decent Life" in America. People should be make $21 an Hour TODAY.
That is very well and good. I see you have real trouble grasping the problem with that. To make things obvious let raise the minimum wage to a million dollars an hour.
All jobs will go overseas and everyone except a rare few with get Laid Off because no one will buy a Big Mac for a million dollars. They will make their own food. I can tell you I wouldn?t buy one for 10 bucks unless I was making a lot of money. If everyone makes more you have runaway inflation and no one will by your products and gas will cost 50,000 a gallon.
I have no sympathy for someone complaining that they have been making minimum wage for 15 years and they are tired of making so little. He needs to improve himself so he can get a better job.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. April 2014 @ 13:36
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
23. April 2014 @ 13:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
I understand a careful individual could buy a house at the wrong time and have the property value plummet in half. This is bad I knew lots of people that were in this spot. Most were lucky and had a job. The ones that lost their job and there was an army of those were in a bad spot. I lost my job and couldn?t find another one for 13 months. I was really sweating it! I was lucky that I was laid off near the end of the year of massive layoffs. I do not know what would have happen if I was laid off at the beginning or worse a year before that. There were no job openings for a few years but plenty of layoffs. After that I was working gigs. 3-12 month contracts. I was paid well enough but they tried to sweat blood out of you and you were back on the street trying to find a job. It is rare to hire a programmer that has been out of work for a year or more. You get rusty. I have managed to out-live most of my competition so few can apply for the job openings now. I get 6-12 pings from head hunters per day wanting to me interview far from where I live.
|
Senior Member
|
23. April 2014 @ 15:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yup. People live hard times.
But the sacred secret always has being: How we spend our money, no how much we made.
If we care to make a lot, that means we care to spend a lot more for thing we don't need. (Is like digging our own graves)
Good thing I don't live in China.
Alaska is tuft to live on.
Live closed to the sea is to moggie. Beside the east and west coast sea water is to cold & dirty.
I like the desert more; as I get older.
Buying the first house is the biggest afford here in U.S. Paying it quickly is the challenge.
Build our own houses is the way to go, on any part of the world & save/pay cash is the best way to have a better life.
I just to buy cars "fix them" (most just to look good) and sale them. (Most people want Trucks or Flatbeds)
Now I fix Houses: One at the time, but it take very long to sale them or even rent it.
Build a house from scratch, is what I really want.
The main challenge is to buy the land, 'cos it almost have to be on cash.
A burned house is the best option that an empty lot, sometimes on Auctions. But location is the key.
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. April 2014 @ 16:02
|
Senior Member
|
24. April 2014 @ 07:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mrguss:
Yup. People live hard times.
But the sacred secret always has being: How we spend our money, no how much we made.
If we care to make a lot, that means we care to spend a lot more for thing we don't need. (Is like digging our own graves)
Good thing I don't live in China.
Alaska is tuft to live on.
Live closed to the sea is to moggie. Beside the east and west coast sea water is to cold & dirty.
I like the desert more; as I get older.
Buying the first house is the biggest afford here in U.S. Paying it quickly is the challenge.
Build our own houses is the way to go, on any part of the world & save/pay cash is the best way to have a better life.
I just to buy cars "fix them" (most just to look good) and sale them. (Most people want Trucks or Flatbeds)
Now I fix Houses: One at the time, but it take very long to sale them or even rent it.
Build a house from scratch, is what I really want.
The main challenge is to buy the land, 'cos it almost have to be on cash.
A burned house is the best option that an empty lot, sometimes on Auctions. But location is the key.
i can see the point about buying land and building a house.I live in australia and here you have to get permits signed and buildings inspected and the work done properly by licenced professions and signed off by professionals to say its done properly.
But i can see why its neccessary as i lived in a rough rooming house with so many issues, walls not sealed properly a powerbox that would have sparks jumping out of it,modifications to the sheds to make extra rooms that had electrical and safety issues (obviously not permitted modifications).
the cooker was hopeless but at least it wasn't leaking gas, hot water use to shut down for days at a time.Landlord might of been drunk or stoned all the time he was about 6'8 stocky guy that use to just try and intimidate anyone that had an issue with the house.
In some countries that would of been legal and acceptable as they don't have permits needed,personally think the council would of condemned the house had it not been selling and bulldozed by the new owners.
I'd rather have permits and paperwork to say the house it's safe and built properly than live in a dodgey ,dangerous unsafe house.
money
either earn a lot or don't spent much,only way to have any.
custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
25. April 2014 @ 16:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
In the US you do need permits for most urban and suburban areas. Normally, you do not need to be licensed if your are working on your own house. For small to mid range projects the owner can skip the permit if the work is not obvious from the street. It isn't legal but the local govt will not find out unless a neighbor 'rats you out'.
I read a weekly Chinese paper since it is free and the bias on the news isn't to the right of left it is an Asian bias. They always include a few human rights abuse articles. The paper lets everyone know even though things have vastly improved over there human life has far less value there than a cat's life in the US. An owner in the US can go to jail for leaving a dog chained out in the sun without water.
|
Senior Member
|
25. April 2014 @ 16:45 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xboxdvl2:
I can see the point about buying land and building a house.I live in australia and here you have to get permits signed and buildings inspected and the work done properly by licenced professions and signed off by professionals to say its done properly.
I'd rather have permits and paperwork to say the house it's safe and built properly than live in a dodgey ,dangerous unsafe house.
money
either earn a lot or don't spent much,only way to have any.
To jump into building a house (s):
1.- People need to have some kind of knowledge of it. I start fixing my families houses when I was 15yo. (Laying bricks, change windows, etc.)
2.- Know people that build houses for living. (All my friends work in construction & some have licensees.)
3.- Permits are easy to get here in U.S. and I always take pictures of the project as it get it done just in case we have issues with inspections, etc.
4.- Some Projects need to be made by licensed professionals (like The Frame of the house, electrical, etc)
Buying a House build by a Company that build hundreds of house at once don't always warranty you to get a good house:
General houses:
In the 60's was made out of concrete blocks walls and cast-iron sewers lines, insulation was poor, etc.
In the 70 & 80 the frames was made out of wood, & probably the best batch of house ever made.
In the 90's you start seeing cheaper & cheaper materials apply for building houses.
In the 00's those house are the worse ever build, had all kind of issues [Like the one's you mention in the first 6 months you live in a new house]. Usually build by a Scammer Contraction Co. with all permits required by the "Law" in a hurry to make $$$ & finally when bankrupt.
The challenge is to build better homes. No the Corporate Greedy thinking.
Money:
- People earning a lot; usually spend their money in garbage.
- Don't spent much, but have some kind of life and happiness.
- Invest is the best option. In special if we want to stop being an employees or stop to go into debt and work paying interest to the sharks (Banks - lenders - scammers, etc.) like forever.
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. April 2014 @ 16:23
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. April 2014 @ 11:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
Way off topic but as interesting and useful a post as I have seen in AD. I concurr about 60s lacking insulation but they were still forced to use more expensive materials and may be better built than even a 70s house. I lack your expertise but my mid 60s house is very well built. The house was built after you could use 2x4s to hold up the roof a few yers before and it would have used 2x12s.
Where I live, house fixeruppers make very good money. I know an electrical engineer who started turning over houses with his buddy after retiring. He made triple what he made as an EE. He did mention they had been lucky with their purchases.
Builders are structured to survive a backrupty in the US. I know persons that have bought new houses and many bought junk. One had his house sold out from under him and couldn't get his down payment back becase the builder was backrupt and gone.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
28. April 2014 @ 15:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yup.
My first house was build in 1969.
As a second owner was no bad at all. The first owner was an electrician and add a 220-240 volts (AC) Box. very handy for welding, etc.
The first thing I did was insulate the inner walls and ceiling.
The bad thing tho. is that is sitting 300 feet from a small earthquake fault line.
The second house (Fixer upper) was made in 1979.
No extra insulation need. Just change all: new insulated windows, paint & carpet.
I add many things all around and make a lot of experience on construction projects.
With a little bit of luck: I am ready to build a house from the ground up.
The money for sure is to build in the best zip-codes.
In U.S. anybody who bought a house between 2006 to 2008 new, old, etc. pay a lot of money for it: just to find out 2 or 3 years latter that the investment plumed to 1/3 to 1/4 that wherever they pay for.
And up to now all of them or file bankruptcy or just leave the house empty.
Why: 'cos who gonna keep paying for a house that they bought for 250K that today is value at 50K. (Just as example)
All those house never gonna reach the inflated bubble prices again.
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. April 2014 @ 15:48
|
|
