Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message
In sci.electronics.design Trevor wrote: "Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message ... Good analog gear will give you almost undistorted 10KHz square wave. What is the highest sine wave frequency that should be taken into the equation to make that 10KHz square wave to even remotedly resemble the original one? Right, but ever tried getting a 10kHz square wave from a vinyl record? Does it REMOTELY resemble a square wave? Obviously vinyl records are NOT "good analog gear" which is what most people discovered decades ago. Yep, there is no clean 10KHz square wave from vinyl, I agree. But it is better than that abruptly cut at 22KHz. Not true. The problem with 10 KHz from the LP is that it has considerable inherent nonlinear distortion from geometric sources. 24/96 is way better, it covers all you can get from analog audio perfectly, no complaints. I use 24/96 for measurements, but for recording no one has ever proven that 44.1 KHz lacks audible fidelity. Fight this: http://hlloyge.hl.funpic.de/wp-conte...p-inserted.pdf |
#122
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message
Once again -- people listen to the _music_ , not the accurate reproduction or whatever is good on paper. This is one reason why crappy analog tape and LPs sufficed for so many decades. Of course, the emergence of digital alternatives settled all that for 99+% of everybody. If one likes unhealthy charred barbeque steak there is no reason to persuade him steam boiled vegetables and turkey meat is healthier Excluded middle argument noted. Properly grilled (but not charred) vegetables and meat can be a delicious treat. |
#123
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 08:55:23 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
wrote: SoothSayer wrote: [...] You have to MODULATE the AMPLITUDE of a "carrier" with the intended "signal".. Simply seeing something that appears to be "enveloped" does not mean that it is amplitude modulated. Linear summation does not get you there. Time for a trigonometry refresher course: Modulation is multiplication of two signals, e.g., for sine waves cos A * cos B. A basic trigonometric identity tells us this is identical to: 0.5 cos(A+B) - 0.5 cos(A-B), which is a simple linear sum of sine waves. In conclusion, your assertion that linear summation can't get you a modulated waveform is wrong. Jeroen Belleman --- No, he's right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude_modulation and, the pudding: Version 4 SHEET 1 1380 680 WIRE -496 -48 -544 -48 WIRE -384 -48 -416 -48 WIRE 432 -48 272 -48 WIRE 752 -48 624 -48 WIRE -464 0 -896 0 WIRE -464 16 -464 0 WIRE 656 16 624 16 WIRE 752 16 752 -48 WIRE -624 32 -752 32 WIRE -544 32 -544 -48 WIRE -544 32 -624 32 WIRE -496 32 -544 32 WIRE 272 32 272 -48 WIRE -384 48 -384 -48 WIRE -384 48 -432 48 WIRE 432 48 400 48 WIRE -752 64 -752 32 WIRE -624 64 -624 32 WIRE -496 64 -544 64 WIRE -80 64 -320 64 WIRE 128 96 64 96 WIRE -80 128 -208 128 WIRE 128 144 128 96 WIRE -896 160 -896 0 WIRE -752 160 -752 144 WIRE -624 160 -624 144 WIRE -464 160 -464 80 WIRE -320 160 -320 64 WIRE -208 160 -208 128 WIRE 272 160 272 112 WIRE 400 160 400 48 WIRE 752 160 752 96 WIRE -896 288 -896 240 WIRE -752 288 -752 240 WIRE -752 288 -896 288 WIRE -624 288 -624 240 WIRE -624 288 -752 288 WIRE -544 288 -544 64 WIRE -544 288 -624 288 WIRE -464 288 -464 240 WIRE -464 288 -544 288 WIRE -320 288 -320 240 WIRE -320 288 -464 288 WIRE -208 288 -208 240 WIRE -208 288 -320 288 WIRE 128 288 128 224 WIRE 128 288 -208 288 WIRE 272 288 272 240 WIRE 272 288 128 288 WIRE 400 288 400 240 WIRE 400 288 272 288 WIRE 656 288 656 16 WIRE 656 288 400 288 WIRE 752 288 752 240 WIRE 752 288 656 288 WIRE -896 352 -896 288 FLAG -896 352 0 SYMBOL Opamps\\LT1007 -464 -16 R0 SYMATTR InstName U1 SYMBOL voltage -464 256 R180 WINDOW 0 24 104 Left 0 WINDOW 3 24 16 Left 0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName V4 SYMATTR Value 15 SYMBOL voltage -896 144 R0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName V5 SYMATTR Value 15 SYMBOL voltage -752 144 R0 WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR Value SINE(0 1 100) SYMATTR InstName V2 SYMBOL voltage -624 144 R0 WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR Value SINE(0 1 10k) SYMATTR InstName V3 SYMBOL res -400 -64 R90 WINDOW 0 -34 57 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 -31 57 VTop 0 SYMATTR InstName R4 SYMATTR Value 1000 SYMBOL res -736 160 R180 WINDOW 0 36 76 Left 0 WINDOW 3 36 40 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName R2 SYMATTR Value 1000 SYMBOL res -608 160 R180 WINDOW 0 36 76 Left 0 WINDOW 3 36 40 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName R3 SYMATTR Value 1000 SYMBOL SPECIALFUNCTIONS\\MODULATE -80 64 R0 WINDOW 0 37 -55 Left 0 WINDOW 3 55 119 Center 0 SYMATTR InstName A2 SYMATTR Value mark=10k space=0 SYMBOL voltage -208 144 R0 WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR Value SINE(0 1 100) SYMATTR InstName V6 SYMBOL voltage -320 144 R0 WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR Value 1 SYMATTR InstName V7 SYMBOL res 112 128 R0 SYMATTR InstName R5 SYMATTR Value 10k SYMBOL Optos\\4N25 528 16 R0 WINDOW 0 1 68 Center 0 WINDOW 3 1 98 Center 0 SYMATTR InstName U2 SYMBOL voltage 400 144 R0 WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR Value SINE(12 2 100) SYMATTR InstName V1 SYMBOL voltage 272 144 R0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName V8 SYMATTR Value 15 SYMBOL res 288 128 R180 WINDOW 0 36 76 Left 0 WINDOW 3 36 40 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName R1 SYMATTR Value 1000 SYMBOL voltage 752 144 R0 WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR Value SINE(1 1 10k) SYMATTR InstName V9 SYMBOL res 736 0 R0 SYMATTR InstName R6 SYMATTR Value 10k TEXT -880 312 Left 0 !.tran .1 TEXT -744 -120 Left 0 ;LINEAR SUMMATION TEXT -176 -120 Left 0 ;AMPLITUDE MODULATION TEXT 368 -128 Left 0 ;AMPLITUDE MODULATION --- JF |
#124
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 08:55:23 +0100, Jeroen Belleman wrote: SoothSayer wrote: [...] You have to MODULATE the AMPLITUDE of a "carrier" with the intended "signal".. Simply seeing something that appears to be "enveloped" does not mean that it is amplitude modulated. Linear summation does not get you there. Time for a trigonometry refresher course: Modulation is multiplication of two signals, e.g., for sine waves cos A * cos B. A basic trigonometric identity tells us this is identical to: 0.5 cos(A+B) - 0.5 cos(A-B), which is a simple linear sum of sine waves. In conclusion, your assertion that linear summation can't get you a modulated waveform is wrong. Jeroen Belleman --- No, he's right: I tell you, he's wrong. What you did is not what the above formula said. Substitute V2 = SINE(0 .5 10100 0 0 90) and V3 = SINE(0 .5 9900 0 0 -90) and you'll see that the waveform from the adder matches that of the modulator exactly. The spiel with the phase of the sources is because LTspice generates sines rather than cosines, which is of no importance to the argument. I rest my case. Jeroen Belleman |
#125
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
SoothSayer wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 08:55:23 +0100, Jeroen Belleman wrote: SoothSayer wrote: [...] You have to MODULATE the AMPLITUDE of a "carrier" with the intended "signal".. Simply seeing something that appears to be "enveloped" does not mean that it is amplitude modulated. Linear summation does not get you there. Time for a trigonometry refresher course: Are you sure? Could it be semantics? Modulation is multiplication of two signals, e.g., for sine waves cos A * cos B. Funny, I thought modulation was using one signal to control the amplitude of another signal. Multiplication? Yes, multiplication. And the product can be exactly represented by the *sum* of some number of other sine wave signals. This is basic signal processing mathematics. Usenet isn't really the ideal medium to teach this stuff. To much pollution. Try Wikipedia, or perhaps gasp a book. Jeroen Belleman |
#126
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 05:47:43 -0500, Dick Pierce
wrote: SoothSayer wrote: Simply seeing something that appears to be "enveloped" does not mean that it is amplitude modulated. Linear summation does not get you there. Yes, it can, if you linearly sum the right components. If in the example I gace, I sum a 900 Hz, 1000 Hz and 1100 Hz sine save of the right amplitudes and phase, I will get a signal which is identical in every respect to the non-linear modulation of a 1 kHz carrier by a 100 Hz signal. Yup. The complex Fourier transform of the AM signal is exactly that: carrier plus two sidebands. So three summed sines of appropriate amplitude and phase are exactly the same as the AM signal. Couldn't be otherwise. John |
#127
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 07:29:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message OK, what is the spectrum of e.g. shattered glass sound or a gunshot? Ask your friendly neighborhood FFT. How high it goes when you strike high-hat or ride cymbal? Actually, cymbals are not really powerful sources of HF sound. They usually peak in the 8-10 KHz range and roll off at something like 12 dB/octave above that. What is the spectral width of even 1KHz square wave? Nearly infinite, but how is this relevant to audio? Good analog gear will give you almost undistorted 10KHz square wave. True. If you want very low distortion, the digital domain is where you go. What is the highest sine wave frequency that should be taken into the equation to make that 10KHz square wave to even remotedly resemble the original one? Do you mean "sounds like" or do you mean traces on the screen of an oscilliscope? The lowest harmonic of a 10 KHz square wave is 30 KHz! John |
#128
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:01:06 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
wrote: John Fields wrote: On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 08:55:23 +0100, Jeroen Belleman wrote: SoothSayer wrote: [...] You have to MODULATE the AMPLITUDE of a "carrier" with the intended "signal".. Simply seeing something that appears to be "enveloped" does not mean that it is amplitude modulated. Linear summation does not get you there. Time for a trigonometry refresher course: Modulation is multiplication of two signals, e.g., for sine waves cos A * cos B. A basic trigonometric identity tells us this is identical to: 0.5 cos(A+B) - 0.5 cos(A-B), which is a simple linear sum of sine waves. In conclusion, your assertion that linear summation can't get you a modulated waveform is wrong. Jeroen Belleman --- No, he's right: I tell you, he's wrong. What you did is not what the above formula said. Substitute V2 = SINE(0 .5 10100 0 0 90) and V3 = SINE(0 .5 9900 0 0 -90) and you'll see that the waveform from the adder matches that of the modulator exactly. The spiel with the phase of the sources is because LTspice generates sines rather than cosines, which is of no importance to the argument. I rest my case. Jeroen Belleman --- You're right, thanks. :-) --- JF |
#129
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
In sci.electronics.design Trevor wrote: "Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message ... Good analog gear will give you almost undistorted 10KHz square wave. What is the highest sine wave frequency that should be taken into the equation to make that 10KHz square wave to even remotedly resemble the original one? Right, but ever tried getting a 10kHz square wave from a vinyl record? Does it REMOTELY resemble a square wave? Obviously vinyl records are NOT "good analog gear" which is what most people discovered decades ago. Yep, there is no clean 10KHz square wave from vinyl, I agree. But it is better than that abruptly cut at 22KHz. Wrong. Simply wrong. geoff |
#130
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 13:17:39 -0500, Dick Pierce
wrote: Sergey Kubushyn wrote: Yep, there is no clean 10KHz square wave from vinyl, I agree. That's becasue there is no 10 kHz square wave AT ALL from vinyl. No. There are NO square waves at all on vinyl. The slew rate of the leading edge of the pulse is zero. The stylus, much less the vinyl itself cannot handle, much less accurately reproduce it. Then, there is that instantaneous track wear issue that worsens with each play. Even the grossest approximation thereof requires a minimum of a 30 kHz bandwidth. The medium is NOT made for the source signal described. In fact, neither are sonic transducers (speakers). You disagree? Then show us a reproducible example of an LP that can produce a 10 kHz square wave that's distinguishable from a 10 kHz sine wave. Cannot be done. It is idiocy to claim it can, and idiocy to entertain it at all, in fact. But it is better than that abruptly cut at 22KHz. How is cutting off below 20 kHz better than cutting off at 22 kHz? Pretty funny, some of the things folks say. |
#131
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Randy wrote in message news You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era. I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique attraction. Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is "better" in almost every way. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs 919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#132
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On 03/03/2011 09:22 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
[...] I asked a question, you answered it. I'm embarassed to say that I once knew the answer but the fog of other battles, and all that. Been there, done that... -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs 919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#133
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:37:01 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote: On 02/27/2011 09:02 PM, Trevor wrote: "Randy wrote in message m... Even if the source material was marginal, you'd still have sonic advantages with a CD. For example, the elimination of ticks and pops, wow-and-flutter, and rumble. But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... Gee I sure don't! And I certainly don't miss the ticks, pops, wow, flutter, and rumble either. Nor the cost of replacement stylii or cartridges. Or trying to find decently made vinyl records in the first place! In fact I can't think of one thing I miss besides the bigger cover art. But the storage hassle more than negates that IMO. Trevor, You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era. Ah, nostalgia! It's not what it used to be. d |
#134
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On 03/03/2011 10:34 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
[...] the FFT [...] Who said anything about the FFT? The Fourier Transform (which was what Dick stated) is NOT equivalent to the FFT. By the way, the "inherent periodicity" claim of the FFT is/was being hotly debated over on comp.dsp. However, I agree with your viewpoint, Don. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs 919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#135
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 13:06:28 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote: On 03/03/2011 10:34 AM, Don Pearce wrote: [...] the FFT [...] Who said anything about the FFT? The Fourier Transform (which was what Dick stated) is NOT equivalent to the FFT. Mr Upside Down mentioned the FFT in the post I was responding to. By the way, the "inherent periodicity" claim of the FFT is/was being hotly debated over on comp.dsp. However, I agree with your viewpoint, Don. Ta. d |
#136
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On 03/05/2011 01:20 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
Mr Upside Down mentioned the FFT in the post I was responding to. Doh! I'll blame it on Thunderbird's thread graphics! -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs 919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#137
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
Randy Yates wrote: On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Randy wrote in message news You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era. I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique attraction. Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is "better" in almost every way. You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV. -- You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's Teflon coated. |
#138
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"John Larkin" wrote in message ... What is the highest sine wave frequency that should be taken into the equation to make that 10KHz square wave to even remotedly resemble the original one? Do you mean "sounds like" or do you mean traces on the screen of an oscilliscope? The lowest harmonic of a 10 KHz square wave is 30 KHz! Right, and as you have been repeatedly told, well above the range of the human auditory system, and beyond the range of 99.9999% of vinyl records ever made. Those few that do have some actual signal at 30+kHz are still down in the noise, with distortion levels likely exceeding any actual signal. Since nobody can hear it anyway, that last condition is fairly irrelevant fortunately. Trevor. |
#139
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era. Ah, nostalgia! It's not what it used to be. Careful Don, Randy already called me a jackass for saying that old joke! :-) Trevor. |
#140
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
message Randy Yates wrote: On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Randy wrote in message news You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era. I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique attraction. Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is "better" in almost every way. You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV. I think the relevant comparison would be digital over cable versus analog over cable. No surprise, digital still wins hands down. In retrospect, its surprising that analog was as good as it was. |
#141
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message Randy Yates wrote: On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Randy wrote in message news4edndYKdafAJvDQnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@supernew s.com You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era. I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique attraction. Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is "better" in almost every way. You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV. I think the relevant comparison would be digital over cable versus analog over cable. No surprise, digital still wins hands down. When you cherry pick the comparison conditions. Mike's point was that he received OTA prior to "digital TV" and does not now. Another comparison: in one month of cable digital TV, you get more problems (frozen frames, dropouts (video and/or audio), outages, incorrect menus, etc.) than in ten years of analog ota tv, or in ten years of analog cable tv. Another comparison: in 1 minute of watching HDTV, analog TV becomes obsolete in the viewer's opinion. So you can cherry pick either way. My vote goes to digital, of course, but I still appreciate Mike's humor. Ed In retrospect, its surprising that analog was as good as it was. |
#142
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 19:19:20 +1100, "Trevor" wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era. Ah, nostalgia! It's not what it used to be. Careful Don, Randy already called me a jackass for saying that old joke! :-) Trevor. That's fine. I'm quite happy to be a jackass. d |
#143
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"ehsjr" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message Randy Yates wrote: On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Randy wrote in message news You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era. I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique attraction. Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is "better" in almost every way. You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV. I think the relevant comparison would be digital over cable versus analog over cable. No surprise, digital still wins hands down. When you cherry pick the comparison conditions. I'm not cherry picking, I'm just talking about what happens around here. Mike's point was that he received OTA prior to "digital TV" and does not now. Well by law all OTA TV where I live is digital. It is what it is. Another comparison: in one month of cable digital TV, you get more problems (frozen frames, dropouts (video and/or audio), outages, incorrect menus, etc.) than in ten years of analog ota tv, or in ten years of analog cable tv. Not my particular experience. Besides, you're cherry-picking faults to *exclude* the typical analog faults. Another comparison: in 1 minute of watching HDTV, analog TV becomes obsolete in the viewer's opinion. That sounds to me like very good news! So you can cherry pick either way. My vote goes to digital, of course, but I still appreciate Mike's humor. Who is cherry picking? |
#144
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 08:12:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message Randy Yates wrote: On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Randy wrote in message news You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era. I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique attraction. Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is "better" in almost every way. You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV. I think the relevant comparison would be digital over cable versus analog over cable. No surprise, digital still wins hands down. In retrospect, its surprising that analog was as good as it was. The real problem with analog TV was that it required quite a few well trained professionals in the production and distribution stages, making the operations quite costly. By digitizing the analog SD component signal to Rec.601 format as early as possible, makes it easier to use system with very minimal or no manual maintenance by any highly trained technicians. From the distribution point of view, a SD program can be distributed in 2-3 MHz OTA bandwidth, while an analog program would require 6-8 MHz (depending on country).Getting rid of NTSC/PAL also made it possible to get rid of cross luminne/crominance errors but unfortunately instead we got various pixelization errors in MPEG2/4:-( |
#145
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
ehsjr wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message Randy Yates wrote: On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Randy wrote in message news You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era. I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique attraction. Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is "better" in almost every way. You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV. I think the relevant comparison would be digital over cable versus analog over cable. No surprise, digital still wins hands down. When you cherry pick the comparison conditions. Mike's point was that he received OTA prior to "digital TV" and does not now. Another comparison: in one month of cable digital TV, you get more problems (frozen frames, dropouts (video and/or audio), outages, incorrect menus, etc.) than in ten years of analog ota tv, or in ten years of analog cable tv. Ehhh.... let's relist he 1) multipath. 2) *always* low SNR unless you're getting blasted or on an actual *good* cable connection. 3) AM noise sensitivity. 4) Going back to dinosaur days, before PLLs, vertical hold drift. 5) 400 lbs of analog filters, tubes, transformers and whatnot. 6) Keeping your left hand in your pocket at all times... 7) Antenna rotators... Don't get me wrong, NTSC was a bloody miracle, given how it came to be ( check the book "Tube" some time, or the PBS series based on it, or both ) but *the* solution to digital already exists - fiber. And it's mostly here. http://www.amazon.com/Tube-Invention-Television-David-Fisher/dp/0788160788/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1299541953&sr=8-6 Another comparison: in 1 minute of watching HDTV, analog TV becomes obsolete in the viewer's opinion. So you can cherry pick either way. My vote goes to digital, of course, but I still appreciate Mike's humor. Ed In retrospect, its surprising that analog was as good as it was. -- Les Cargill |
#146
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
Arny Krueger wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message Randy Yates wrote: On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Randy wrote in message news You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era. I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique attraction. Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is "better" in almost every way. You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV. I think the relevant comparison would be digital over cable versus analog over cable. The analog service on cable is converted from digital, and it sucks. No surprise, digital still wins hands down. In retrospect, its surprising that analog was as good as it was. -- You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's Teflon coated. |
#147
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 12:46:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ehsjr" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message Randy Yates wrote: On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Randy wrote in message news You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era. I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique attraction. Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is "better" in almost every way. You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV. I think the relevant comparison would be digital over cable versus analog over cable. No surprise, digital still wins hands down. When you cherry pick the comparison conditions. I'm not cherry picking, I'm just talking about what happens around here. You just did. Mike's point was that he received OTA prior to "digital TV" and does not now. Well by law all OTA TV where I live is digital. It is what it is. It is where Michael lives, too. It is what it is, except when it isn't, which was Michael's point. He isn't alone. Another comparison: in one month of cable digital TV, you get more problems (frozen frames, dropouts (video and/or audio), outages, incorrect menus, etc.) than in ten years of analog ota tv, or in ten years of analog cable tv. Not my particular experience. Besides, you're cherry-picking faults to *exclude* the typical analog faults. The typical analog fault is snow or much less often ghosting. It is still watchable as it degrades a long way down. Digital is *far* more picky and doesn't fail gracefully at all. Another comparison: in 1 minute of watching HDTV, analog TV becomes obsolete in the viewer's opinion. That sounds to me like very good news! Pay attention! So you can cherry pick either way. My vote goes to digital, of course, but I still appreciate Mike's humor. Who is cherry picking? *YOU* are. |
#148
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Les Cargill" wrote in message ... 7) Antenna rotators... Never needed one with analog, but I could certainly use one now with digital since one transmission tower is in a different location, and I cannot get a decent signal on all channels. Digitals problem of failing with too much signal as well as too little means I have to switch an attenuator in and out if I don't want picture breakup and audio squeals. Of course some recievers do a far better job than others, just as they did in the analog days. While technology steadily improves, the quality delivered by some manufacturers certainly doesn't :-( Trevor. |
#149
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
wrote in message
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 12:46:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "ehsjr" wrote in message Another comparison: in one month of cable digital TV, you get more problems (frozen frames, dropouts (video and/or audio), outages, incorrect menus, etc.) than in ten years of analog ota tv, or in ten years of analog cable tv. Not my particular experience. Besides, you're cherry-picking faults to *exclude* the typical analog faults. The typical analog fault is snow or much less often ghosting. No doubt true for OTA, but for cable systems the most noticable flaw I saw was lack of detail and slightly incorrect colors. It is still watchable as it degrades a long way down. In my case analog was never excellent, even with a very good signal strength and freedom from snow and ghosting. This was cable. We had about 2 years of concurrent OTA analog and digital here, and I compared the two many times. Digital is *far* more picky and doesn't fail gracefully at all. Digital is essentially unchanged until certain minimal standards are not met, and then it falls apart completely. That is what it does by design. Since digital TV is UHF or high band VHF here, the physical size of an antenna with very high gain and excellent directivity is much more managable with digital. The judgement call is over what you call graceful failure. Never being as good is IMO not exactly graceful. At some points in a comparison the analog signal will be degraded to the extent that it is no longer enjoyable, while a comparable digital signal will still be ideal. In many locations the analog signal will never be totally free of ghosts, while the digital signal will be unchanged from optimal. |
#150
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Les Cargill" wrote in message
Ehhh.... let's relist he 1) multipath. 2) *always* low SNR unless you're getting blasted or on an actual *good* cable connection. 3) AM noise sensitivity. 4) Going back to dinosaur days, before PLLs, vertical hold drift. 5) 400 lbs of analog filters, tubes, transformers and whatnot. 6) Keeping your left hand in your pocket at all times... 7) Antenna rotators... Don't get me wrong, NTSC was a bloody miracle, given how it came to be ( check the book "Tube" some time, or the PBS series based on it, or both ) but *the* solution to digital already exists - fiber. And it's mostly here. http://www.amazon.com/Tube-Invention-Television-David-Fisher/dp/0788160788/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1299541953&sr=8-6 I guess that would be your allusion to how inherently flakey NTSC color actually was. We all know that NTSC stood for "Never The Same Color " and that is how it was for several decades after introduction. I agree - its amazing that they got it working as well as they did. The one thing that survives from the era of analog color is the CBS color wheel which was never accepted for the purpose but now does wonderful things in DLP color TVs. |
#151
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... In many locations the analog signal will never be totally free of ghosts, while the digital signal will be unchanged from optimal. Right, and in some locations you can get a picture on analog that many found watchable, but NO picture on digital at all. And so far no one has mentioned bit rates. The trend here unfortunately has been to constantly lower bit rates to fit in more channels, so that what was once a FAR better picture on digital, is often no better than analog. We have just swapped noise for pixelation. At least we have a few more channels to choose from however, so it's not all bad. But to make the problem worse, we now have most of our High Definition channels broadcasting 1960's re-runs that are obviously NOT high definition in any sense of the word, and not even wide-screen format. What a waste of all those new big screen HiDef TV's people have bought! Obviously a ploy to force people onto pay TV channels. Is it as bad in the USA? And how about digital radio. Such low bit rates it's always worse than FM. Add in real reception problems in cars where people often listen to radio, and one is almost forced to the conclusion that there is a deliberate conspiracy to create problems rather than solve them! The technology is certainly not to blame, just it's implementation by non technical politicians paid by vested interest groups :-( Trevor. |
#152
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Trevor" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... In many locations the analog signal will never be totally free of ghosts, while the digital signal will be unchanged from optimal. Right, and in some locations you can get a picture on analog that many found watchable, but NO picture on digital at all. That has to be true - different frequencies is probably the major reason why. And so far no one has mentioned bit rates. The trend here unfortunately has been to constantly lower bit rates to fit in more channels, so that what was once a FAR better picture on digital, is often no better than analog. Your "no better than analog" claim has to be true if someone goes off the deep end, but in practice, nobody seems to be going there. For example the local PBS output runs 3 services, 2 16:9 HD and 1 4:3 digital format. We have just swapped noise for pixelation. Thats not how it works. With scalers and transcoding the distinctions are blurred. The two 16:9 services on our PBS outlet show a clear hierarchy of quality, but it is non trivial for me to characterize the difference. I think they are both the same number of vertical pixels, but one has a clearer more dynamic picture than the other. The Blu Ray palayer, the cable box and DLP TV have scalers, so the display is always painted @ 1080i. Just because there are pixels on the screen doesn't mean that they get the data that is required to make them strut their stuff. At least we have a few more channels to choose from however, so it's not all bad. But to make the problem worse, we now have most of our High Definition channels broadcasting 1960's re-runs that are obviously NOT high definition in any sense of the word, and not even wide-screen format.] Ca. 1960 movies might have content that taxes even modern HD. Cinerama and the high end Cinemascope releases come to mind. What a waste of all those new big screen HiDef TV's people have bought! Obviously a ploy to force people onto pay TV channels. Is it as bad in the USA? YMMV. Things are pretty good here in the city, but I've spent some time upstate and its mixed bag. Down here the cable services are now 100% digital with 100s of channels and with all but the local OTA channel distribution coded. Local OTA channels are clear QAM. The actual bitrates seem to vary all over the place. Upstate the cable system was a hodgepodge of 100 channels both digital and analog, and the implementation of digital was a mixture of encoded premium services and clear QAM standard services. I believe the local OTA channels were clear QAM. And how about digital radio. Such low bit rates it's always worse than FM. Add in real reception problems in cars where people often listen to radio, and one is almost forced to the conclusion that there is a deliberate conspiracy to create problems rather than solve them! The technology is certainly not to blame, just it's implementation by non technical politicians paid by vested interest groups :-( And then there are the satellite services, both TV and radio... |
#153
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:23:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message u "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... In many locations the analog signal will never be totally free of ghosts, while the digital signal will be unchanged from optimal. Right, and in some locations you can get a picture on analog that many found watchable, but NO picture on digital at all. That has to be true - different frequencies is probably the major reason why. WRONG! And so far no one has mentioned bit rates. The trend here unfortunately has been to constantly lower bit rates to fit in more channels, so that what was once a FAR better picture on digital, is often no better than analog. Your "no better than analog" claim has to be true if someone goes off the deep end, but in practice, nobody seems to be going there. Actually, they are. Perhaps you just aren't sensitive to the digital artifacts (or willfully ignore them). For example the local PBS output runs 3 services, 2 16:9 HD and 1 4:3 digital format. We have just swapped noise for pixelation. Thats not how it works. With scalers and transcoding the distinctions are blurred. The two 16:9 services on our PBS outlet show a clear hierarchy of quality, but it is non trivial for me to characterize the difference. I think they are both the same number of vertical pixels, but one has a clearer more dynamic picture than the other. The Blu Ray palayer, the cable box and DLP TV have scalers, so the display is always painted @ 1080i. That may not be "how it works", but it *is* the result. Just because there are pixels on the screen doesn't mean that they get the data that is required to make them strut their stuff. Whatever that means... At least we have a few more channels to choose from however, so it's not all bad. But to make the problem worse, we now have most of our High Definition channels broadcasting 1960's re-runs that are obviously NOT high definition in any sense of the word, and not even wide-screen format.] Ca. 1960 movies might have content that taxes even modern HD. Cinerama and the high end Cinemascope releases come to mind. Try reading. What a waste of all those new big screen HiDef TV's people have bought! Obviously a ploy to force people onto pay TV channels. Is it as bad in the USA? YMMV. Things are pretty good here in the city, but I've spent some time upstate and its mixed bag. Down here the cable services are now 100% digital with 100s of channels and with all but the local OTA channel distribution coded. Local OTA channels are clear QAM. The actual bitrates seem to vary all over the place. Upstate the cable system was a hodgepodge of 100 channels both digital and analog, and the implementation of digital was a mixture of encoded premium services and clear QAM standard services. I believe the local OTA channels were clear QAM. I thought you just said that "no one seems to be going there"? And how about digital radio. Such low bit rates it's always worse than FM. Add in real reception problems in cars where people often listen to radio, and one is almost forced to the conclusion that there is a deliberate conspiracy to create problems rather than solve them! The technology is certainly not to blame, just it's implementation by non technical politicians paid by vested interest groups :-( And then there are the satellite services, both TV and radio... Yes, and they suck too (XM less so than Dish). |
#154
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:23:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: That has to be true - different frequencies is probably the major reason why. Dingledorf! Digital requires a minimum signal strength and needs to be below a specific bit-error-rate (10%). So, in many cases where the "tuner" *could* actually get and give you the signal, it puts up a blank screen because it has decided the signal is below its minimum acceptable strength or BER. It has NOTHING to do with the frequency it is being transmitted on. If anything it would improve as a result of that. I was 50 miles from most of the broadcasters in SD and got them all because I only needed to point my antenna in one spot. Moving nearer to the coast at a mere 12 miles form various transmitters, my channel count dropped because I had to actually point the antenna at four different directions. Then, there were the nearby buildings causing multipath issues at the main carrier level, which causes the tuner to declare the signal to be below the threshold it set. The signals are there. You simply need a good tuner and antenna to get them. |
#155
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:23:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Ca. 1960 movies might have content that taxes even modern HD. Cinerama and the high end Cinemascope releases come to mind. "MacKenna's Gold". Wait! What is it... Oh! "How The West Was Won" That is exactly what you refer to (except for the tax part). Check out the BluRay release. Your brain taxes your grasp of what is going on with HD screen arrays. Hopefully, this thread taxes your brain. Maybe it will wake up. |
#156
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:23:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: The actual bitrates seem to vary all over the place. SOURCE. There are several "channels" on cable that are about as poorly compressed as it gets. So it most certainly depends entirely on the channel. Cable companies are not what they once were. They used to care about the quality of what got delivered. Now, they don't give a fat flying **** at all. Half of them can't even keep their heads ends up to snuff. I have seen it take ten minutes for them to re-align a fouled dish position. Cross posting retards are even worse when the dumb asses add more groups. |
#157
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:59:07 -0800, SoothSayer
wrote: On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:23:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Ca. 1960 movies might have content that taxes even modern HD. Cinerama and the high end Cinemascope releases come to mind. "MacKenna's Gold". Wait! What is it... Oh! "How The West Was Won" That is exactly what you refer to (except for the tax part). Check out the BluRay release. Your brain taxes your grasp of what is going on with HD screen arrays. Hopefully, this thread taxes your brain. Maybe it will wake up. Not to mention 2001: A Space Oddessey |
#158
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"SoothSayer" wrote in message ... The signals are there. You simply need a good tuner and antenna to get them. Right, and often a far better tuner/antenna/mast/cable etc. than people are used to, or expect. Trevor. |
#159
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Your "no better than analog" claim has to be true if someone goes off the deep end, but in practice, nobody seems to be going there. They certainly are here unfortunately. We have just swapped noise for pixelation. Thats not how it works. With scalers and transcoding the distinctions are blurred. As is the picture at very low bit rates! The two 16:9 services on our PBS outlet show a clear hierarchy of quality, but it is non trivial for me to characterize the difference. I think they are both the same number of vertical pixels, but one has a clearer more dynamic picture than the other. The Blu Ray palayer, the cable box and DLP TV have scalers, so the display is always painted @ 1080i. Whilst you may get whatever scale your box outputs and/or your TV accepts, the way compression systems work is that the lower the bit rate, the bigger average block size. Some systems can interpolate and reduce the block size sure, but they cannot increase the resolution back to what a higher bit rate would give. Hence we now get 1960's TV show re-runs broadcast on OTA Hi-Def channels that actually have lower resolution than what good analog TV was capable of. Truly sad given what the technology can really manage. You are indeed lucky if that does not happen in the USA. Just because there are pixels on the screen doesn't mean that they get the data that is required to make them strut their stuff. Exactly. Ca. 1960 movies might have content that taxes even modern HD. Cinerama and the high end Cinemascope releases come to mind. I was talking about 1960's TV shows, but unfortunately not all old movie transfers are done well either, even if the original prints might still be capable of it. A lot of the old movies broadcast here are simply taken from DVD, even when broadcast on the so called Hi-Def channels, and there are plenty of appalling examples of bad digital transfer IME. Simply upscaling that video to Hi-Def scan rates does NOT make the picture "High Definition" IMO. It simply allows them to advertise it as such. What a waste of all those new big screen HiDef TV's people have bought! Obviously a ploy to force people onto pay TV channels. Is it as bad in the USA? YMMV. Things are pretty good here in the city, but I've spent some time upstate and its mixed bag. Well I'm in a major city, and things are pretty diabolical at the moment. They were far better when they first started digital TV broadcasting, but things have gotten progressivley worse, except for the number of channels. Down here the cable services are now 100% Right, it seems to be a ploy to force you onto cable, whether you want to pay it or not. And then there are the satellite services, both TV and radio... Right, I don't want or need those either. Trevor. |
#160
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:30:58 +1100, "Trevor" wrote:
"SoothSayer" wrote in message .. . The signals are there. You simply need a good tuner and antenna to get them. Right, and often a far better tuner/antenna/mast/cable etc. than people are used to, or expect. Trevor. I never said anything about a mast. Indoor, desktop (set top) antenna with pre-amp. Crappy old first year tuner from US Digital. The drop out point is what the user needs access to the threshold of. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|