Quote from: B17-Bomber on January 20, 2026, 10:57:14 PM

Martha Jane Weber is Janie Mabry?   I used to run a yahoo group devoted to NFL Films music and former Music Editor for NFL Films - Phillip Speiller logged on briefly, he did confirm that Martha Jane Weber was an alias, but couldn't remember his actual name
as for the other mysterious NFL Composer Beverly Hermann, he said that was William Charles Soden, but  i'm very skeptical of that.

Speaking of NFL Films, did you ever come across the 3 very early CDs which were printed in late 80s?

Yes, I own them.

I am tempted to record a few tracks from one of the vinyl records in WAV just to see what people’s ears make of them.  I always record in WAV and convert to FLAC as they sound great.

Hmm. True.

I mean come on, @Christopher-2010. FLAC is WAV, but it's slightly smaller in size, but still lossless like WAV. Not trying to be rude to you, but. Just be grateful with what you got.

Anyway, I agree with you, Retro.

I'm looking at the wave form through Ocenaudio.

Ocenaudio? Never used that before. But i'm sure you'll get WAV from FLAC file.

By the way, i generally used Audacity for so long now. And i see FLAC being lossless like WAV, but it's compresssed, but not compressed like MP3 (though my format preferences are MP3 and FLAC).

Gosh I seemed to have missed all the drama on this topic while I was asleep. So, sorry I'm late to this party! I'm always fascinated by the determination of those who have a flawed understanding of audio formats to try to convince us that lossless formats are anything but. As I mentioned in my post above a WAV file is merely a container not a guarantee of high quality audio. What if one was to convert a 128kbps MP3 file to WAV? Would that improve the quality of the audio? Of course not. It's a bit like saying you want to buy a car so long as it's red! A red Ford is not the same as a Ferrari.

As @ChunYinZi has explained often the tracks one obtains direct from the library web sites are not as perfect as their equivalent releases on CD. The human ear can only pick up frequencies within a certain range. The CD format at 44100Hz is more than adequate. Of course if one is an audio professional carrying out a multitude of edits it often suits them to have a higher frequency rate to minimise any quality loss. Though any loss would not be noticeable to the human ear.

May I ask @Christopher-2010 why it matters so much to you that the files you are after should be of such a high quality that the average human ear would not notice the difference? Also I'm puzzled by your reference to someone on YouTube uploading uncompressed audio files. Surely all audio on YouTube is compressed isn't it to satisfy streaming bandwidth requirements.

At the end of the day surely what this forum is about is the enjoyment of music. I have a large number of albums in MP3 format which I've collected over the years and still enjoy listening to them. I certainly wouldn't delete them all just because they don't meet the higher standards we seem to be obsessed with nowadays.

End of rant!

For those who would appreciate FLAC copies of the KPM Archive albums 1-10 you'll find them here ==> pixeldrain.com/l/RM3Dymzp

I’ve learned what FLAC actually is, and it's is now alright if someone gave me FLAC. What I realised is that it’s not FLAC that compresses the audio, it’s the production music libraries like APM Music, Cavendish Music, Extreme Music, and Warner Chappell Music that slightly compress the music, so the music's volume doesn't overpass the top. I'm sorry.