Re: 24-bit on tap at Apple?

[Mark-T]

On Feb 22, band beyond description >
wrote:
> some in the music
> industry are rethinking their reliance on 16-bit quality for music
> downloads, and Apple's reportedly looking into upgrading their
> entire sales stream to 24-bit
> http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/22/24.bit.music/
> As a result, online music stores could eventually offer songs
> that sound truer to their original recordings, perhaps at a
> premium price.

> Professional music producers generally capture studio
> recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format.
> Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance,
> are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers
> like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files.

If the master is the original, then what does
"re-mastered" mean, as commonly used?
A genuine original copy?

"Waiter, I'll have the jumbo shrimp."

Mark

[Warren[_2_]]

Mark-T expounded in

oups.com:
...
>> Professional music producers generally capture studio
>> recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format.
>> Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance,
>> are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers
>> like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files.
>
> If the master is the original, then what does
> "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used?
> A genuine original copy?
> Mark

It just means that it is "re-mixed". There's a lot you can do
in between the original recording tracks and the final
resulting media (CD). The "master" recording normally includes
multiple tracks.

Something really ancient will be 1-track (mono) and an
entirely different process: more of an audio processing
challenge to remove pops and clicks etc. without killing the
original performance.

Warren

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:59:14 -0800 (PST), Mark-T >
wrote:

>On Feb 22, band beyond description >
>wrote:
>> some in the music
>> industry are rethinking their reliance on 16-bit quality for music
>> downloads, and Apple's reportedly looking into upgrading their
>> entire sales stream to 24-bit
>> http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/22/24.bit.music/
>> As a result, online music stores could eventually offer songs
>> that sound truer to their original recordings, perhaps at a
>> premium price.
>
>> Professional music producers generally capture studio
>> recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format.
>> Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance,
>> are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers
>> like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files.
>
>If the master is the original, then what does
>"re-mastered" mean, as commonly used?
>A genuine original copy?
>
>"Waiter, I'll have the jumbo shrimp."
>
>Mark

Real audiophiles insist on 32-bit DACs.

John

[DGDevin]

"Mark-T" wrote in message
...

> If the master is the original, then what does
> "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used?
> A genuine original copy?

The original raw multi-track tape (or these days data file) rarely does
anything but sit in a vault. A copy of that original is usually used to
produce a mixed master which contains the final (usually stereo) version
that will be released to the public, and that goes into the vault too while
copies or it are distributed to pressing plants to physically make LPs or
CDs, or presumably downloads today (sometimes with interim production copies
along the way). In the old days there could be different final versions for
singles and albums, or the U.S. or UK market and so on.

Re-mastering at least in theory means they started with the original raw
tracks and did the mixing and EQ all over again and carefully produced a new
mixed master recording with better quality than the old one. But sometimes
they start with the old final mix and just are more careful in making a
digital transer that will be used to make CDs. A lot of early CDs made from
analog tapes were not done very well, the analog to digital transfers were
poor, they benefited from more careful work later.

Unfortunately some re-mastered recordings have relied on too much noise
reduction software or compression and actually sound worse than previous
versions. There have also been re-mastered albums with questionable
choices, where somebody decided to edit tracks (I think I'll lose that
piano) or added reverb to the drums or whatever (to the outrage of fans who
loved the old version).

Of course since people will buy "re-mastered" versions there is a temptation
to use that label even if little or anything has been done to improve the
quality, and some supposedly re-mastered releases sound just like they did
the last time they were re-mastered with intense marketing before the band
switched labels.

> "Waiter, I'll have the jumbo shrimp."

Stereo or 5.1 mix sir?

[Tim Wescott]

On 02/24/2011 12:59 PM, Mark-T wrote:
> On Feb 22, band beyond >
> wrote:
>> some in the music
>> industry are rethinking their reliance on 16-bit quality for music
>> downloads, and Apple's reportedly looking into upgrading their
>> entire sales stream to 24-bit
>> http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/22/24.bit.music/
>> As a result, online music stores could eventually offer songs
>> that sound truer to their original recordings, perhaps at a
>> premium price.
>
>> Professional music producers generally capture studio
>> recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format.
>> Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance,
>> are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers
>> like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files.
>
> If the master is the original, then what does
> "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used?
> A genuine original copy?

Back in the days of vinyl, the "master disk" was a record made of metal
(aluminum? steel?), mixed from the original tapes. From this, the
record company would make molds for the actual disks that were sold.

If the tapes were saved, then you could digitize and clean up each track
individually, then re-mix a new, digital master.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remaster

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

[Dave Platt]

In article >,
Warren > wrote:

>>> Professional music producers generally capture studio
>>> recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format.
>>> Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance,
>>> are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers
>>> like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files.
>>
>> If the master is the original, then what does
>> "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used?
>> A genuine original copy?
>> Mark
>
>It just means that it is "re-mixed". There's a lot you can do
>in between the original recording tracks and the final
>resulting media (CD). The "master" recording normally includes
>multiple tracks.

Or, in some cases (for recordings originally mixed down to analog
master tapes) it means "re-digitized". Run the original 2-track album
master tape through a good tape deck, and convert it to digital format
(16 or 24-bit), ideally using a better mastering deck and better
A-to-D converters than were used the first time around.

In most cases, these days, it means "re-mixed, and/or processed
differently", as Warren said.

To my mind, this "24-bit" effort on Apple's part is missing the point.
24-bit isn't really the issue. A well-mastered 16-bit PCM recording
can sound truly wonderful... as a delivery mechanism, 16-bit linear
PCM seems entirely adequate to me.

The real problem is how the albums are handled prior to that. Most
commercial recordings today are released in a form which is far less
than "16-bit" in quality - they have been deliberately compressed
during the mastering process to sound "louder". They've been quashed,
pummeled, clipped, gain-ridden, smelched, and squeezed down into a
tiny dynamic range. The actual quality of the sound on many
commercial CDs is barely of what we would have called
"cassette-quality" back in the 1970s... in fact, some of it is
arguably worse than what you could get out of an 8-track player in a
beat-up old Chevy :-(

16-bit PCM can deliver better than 90 dB of dynamic range, with
extremely low distortion. A lot of music today is released with less
than 10 dB of effective dynamic range.

Things are made somewhat worse by lossy digital encoding (e.g. MP3 or
AAC or whatever) at too low a bit-rate.

I do think that the effort to release digitally-delivered music tracks
in a form which sounds better is a good one... but it isn't really
about "24-bit" vs "16-bit". It's about treating the music with
respect... letting it "live", with real dynamics and subtlety, rather
than giving in to the constant pressure to "make it sound louder on
the air" by squashing it into a thin paste.

--
Dave Platt > AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

[dizzy]

Dave Platt wrote:

>To my mind, this "24-bit" effort on Apple's part is missing the point.
>24-bit isn't really the issue. A well-mastered 16-bit PCM recording
>can sound truly wonderful... as a delivery mechanism, 16-bit linear
>PCM seems entirely adequate to me.

You're right, of course. 24 bits in the "deliver mechanism" is
****ing stupid. Period.

Are people stupid enough to fall for it as "better"?

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

dizzy wrote:
> Dave Platt wrote:
>
>> To my mind, this "24-bit" effort on Apple's part is missing the point.
>> 24-bit isn't really the issue. A well-mastered 16-bit PCM recording
>> can sound truly wonderful... as a delivery mechanism, 16-bit linear
>> PCM seems entirely adequate to me.
>
> You're right, of course. 24 bits in the "deliver mechanism" is
> ****ing stupid. Period.
>
> Are people stupid enough to fall for it as "better"?
>


They haven't been so far.

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

"John Larkin" > wrote in message
...
> Real audiophiles insist on 32-bit DACs.

You mean real Audiophools :-)
However at least better DAC's still work well with 16 bit files, even if
NONE can deliver better than true 24 bit resolution in our universe, and I
know of no normal home that can really use more than true 16 bit (96dB) DNR,
or anybody that normally listens to music in a sound proof isolation booth
on a regular basis. And lets not even consider how many actual recordings
even *remotely* approach 16 bit DNR to begin with!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"DGDevin" > wrote in message
m...
> Re-mastering at least in theory means they started with the original raw
> tracks

Nope, the term is widely used regardless of what the original source
material was. It simply means some process (anything at all) has been
performed between the source material and what is on the final product.


>and did the mixing and EQ all over again and carefully produced a new mixed
>master recording with better quality than the old one.

That's what they'd like you to believe of course, and *sometimes* it might
even actually be true.


>But sometimes they start with the old final mix and just are more careful
>in making a digital transer that will be used to make CDs.

Or not.


>A lot of early CDs made from analog tapes were not done very well, the
>analog to digital transfers were poor, they benefited from more careful
>work later.

Or not, depending on your preference for heavy compression.


> Unfortunately some re-mastered recordings have relied on too much noise
> reduction software or compression and actually sound worse than previous
> versions. There have also been re-mastered albums with questionable
> choices, where somebody decided to edit tracks (I think I'll lose that
> piano) or added reverb to the drums or whatever (to the outrage of fans
> who loved the old version).

Right.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Kirk McElhearn" <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com> wrote in message
. fr...
>> If the master is the original, then what does
>> "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used?
>> A genuine original copy?
>
> It means a new master is made from the original tapes.

Remastering of digital source files can still take place. The original need
not ever have been on tape.

Trevor.

[marcman]

On Feb 24, 11:17*pm, "Trevor" > wrote:
> "John Larkin" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Real audiophiles insist on 32-bit DACs.
>
> You mean real Audiophools :-)
> However at least better DAC's still work well with 16 bit files, even if
> NONE can deliver better than true 24 bit resolution in our universe, and I
> know of no normal home that can really use more than true 16 bit (96dB) DNR,
> or anybody that normally listens to music in a sound proof isolation booth
> on a regular basis.

I've spent half my life in a sound proof isolation booth.

Don't knock it 'till you've tried it . . .

> And lets not even consider how many actual recordings
> even *remotely* approach 16 bit DNR to begin with!

Huh? What?

>
> Trevor.

[Trevor]

"marcman" > wrote in message
...
> > Real audiophiles insist on 32-bit DACs.
>
> You mean real Audiophools :-)
> However at least better DAC's still work well with 16 bit files, even if
> NONE can deliver better than true 24 bit resolution in our universe, and I
> know of no normal home that can really use more than true 16 bit (96dB)
> DNR,
> or anybody that normally listens to music in a sound proof isolation booth
> on a regular basis.

}I've spent half my life in a sound proof isolation booth.
}Don't knock it 'till you've tried it . . .

I'm not knocking it, just staing that despite yourself, it is extremely rare
for normal listening.


> And lets not even consider how many actual recordings
> even *remotely* approach 16 bit DNR to begin with!

}Huh? What?

Ignoring fades, most modern pop recordings have about 20-30dB real DNR, and
NO recording ever made on tape comes remotely close to needing 16 bits, even
those that used Dolby SR, (and direct to disc recodings were even worse)
Only modern classical digital recordings approach true 16 bit DNR, but who
really wants to listen in a sound proof booth so they can hear the pages
turning anyway? Not too many I'm willing to bet!

Trevor.

[Michael A. Terrell]

marcman wrote:
>
> On Feb 24, 11:17 pm, "Trevor" > wrote:
> > "John Larkin" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Real audiophiles insist on 32-bit DACs.
> >
> > You mean real Audiophools :-)
> > However at least better DAC's still work well with 16 bit files, even if
> > NONE can deliver better than true 24 bit resolution in our universe, and I
> > know of no normal home that can really use more than true 16 bit (96dB) DNR,
> > or anybody that normally listens to music in a sound proof isolation booth
> > on a regular basis.
>
> I've spent half my life in a sound proof isolation booth.


A straightjacket & ducktape is cheaper. ;-)


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

[Rich Grise[_3_]]

Warren wrote:
>
> Something really ancient will be 1-track (mono) and an
> entirely different process: more of an audio processing
> challenge to remove pops and clicks etc. without killing the
> original performance.
>
http://www.chenyang-ism.com/Filtering.htm
-- first hit on
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=autocorrelation+noise+reduction

Cheers!
Rich

[[email protected]]

On Feb 24, 8:59*pm, Mark-T > wrote:
> On Feb 22, band beyond description >
> wrote:
>
> > some in the music
> > industry are rethinking their reliance on 16-bit quality for music
> > downloads, and Apple's reportedly looking into upgrading their
> > entire sales stream to 24-bit
> >http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/22/24.bit.music/
> > As a result, online music stores could eventually offer songs
> > that sound truer to their original recordings, perhaps at a
> > premium price.
> > Professional music producers generally capture studio
> > recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format.
> > Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance,
> > are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers
> > like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files.
>
> If the master is the original, then what does
> "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used?
> A genuine original copy?
>
> "Waiter, I'll have the jumbo shrimp."
>
> Mark

I read somewhere that HD video is only perceived as better if the
audio is also of higher quality. Perhaps "the market" is wising up to
the fact that the audio out of their IPOD is crap compared to their
TV. If apple up the quality of the silly white earphones then great.
As others have said there are better ways of doing great audio but we
can assume that this is marketing led.

Colin

[Arny Krueger]

"Warren" > wrote in message
. 210
> Mark-T expounded in
>
> oups.com:
> ..
>>> Professional music producers generally capture studio
>>> recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format.
>>> Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance,
>>> are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers
>>> like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files.

>> If the master is the original, then what does
>> "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used?
>> A genuine original copy?

It means that simple EFX like equalization and dynamics processing were done
or redone prior to preparing the distributed form of the recording.

Doing something as simple as increasing the level of the entire track by 1
dB can be called remastering. Just changing the order of the tracks on the
distributed media is remastering.

> It just means that it is "re-mixed".

No. Re-mixing would require access to the origional tracks which is
called something else besides remastering - usually "re-mixing".

> There's a lot you
> can do in between the original recording tracks and the
> final resulting media (CD). The "master" recording
> normally includes multiple tracks.

Mastering is not mixing and remastering is not remixing.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/pro-audio-faq/

Please read section VI.

[Arny Krueger]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message

> dizzy wrote:
>> Dave Platt wrote:
>>
>>> To my mind, this "24-bit" effort on Apple's part is
>>> missing the point. 24-bit isn't really the issue. A
>>> well-mastered 16-bit PCM recording can sound truly
>>> wonderful... as a delivery mechanism, 16-bit linear PCM
>>> seems entirely adequate to me.
>>
>> You're right, of course. 24 bits in the "deliver
>> mechanism" is ****ing stupid. Period.
>>
>> Are people stupid enough to fall for it as "better"?

> They haven't been so far.

Right - notice the smoldering ashes of DVD-A and SACD.

[Copacetic]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:59:14 -0800 (PST), Mark-T >
wrote:

>On Feb 22, band beyond description >
>wrote:
>> some in the music
>> industry are rethinking their reliance on 16-bit quality for music
>> downloads, and Apple's reportedly looking into upgrading their
>> entire sales stream to 24-bit
>> http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/22/24.bit.music/
>> As a result, online music stores could eventually offer songs
>> that sound truer to their original recordings, perhaps at a
>> premium price.
>
>> Professional music producers generally capture studio
>> recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format.
>> Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance,
>> are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers
>> like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files.
>
>If the master is the original, then what does
>"re-mastered" mean, as commonly used?
>A genuine original copy?
>
>"Waiter, I'll have the jumbo shrimp."
>
>Mark


Not only that, but FLAC already beats any bit level lame MP3s ever had.

[Arny Krueger]

"DGDevin" > wrote in message
m
> "Mark-T" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> If the master is the original, then what does
>> "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used?
>> A genuine original copy?
>
> The original raw multi-track tape (or these days data
> file) rarely does anything but sit in a vault.

If it still exists.

> Re-mastering at least in theory means they started with
> the original raw tracks and did the mixing and EQ all
> over again and carefully produced a new mixed master
> recording with better quality than the old one.

Not at all. That would be called "re-mixing".

> But sometimes

No, always.

> they start with the old final mix and just are
> more careful in making a digital transer that will be
> used to make CDs.

No, not necessarily more careful, just different.

> A lot of early CDs made from analog
> tapes were not done very well, the analog to digital
> transfers were poor, they benefited from more careful
> work later.

No, what happened is that a goodly number of CDs released in the early-mid
1980s were made from what are known as "cutting masters". This means that
the recordings intentionally had the inverse of the losses in LP disc
cutting and playback incorperated into them. This usually results in a
shrill-sounding, thin-sounding recording. These were mistakes, but
management said: "Ship it!". Most of these were redone in the 1990s.

[Arny Krueger]

"Tim Wescott" > wrote in message


> Back in the days of vinyl, the "master disk" was a record
> made of metal (aluminum? steel?), mixed from the
> original tapes. From this, the record company would make
> molds for the actual disks that were sold.

Master discs were cut from cutting masters that included compensation for
the losses that are inherent in the process of producing and playing LPs.

Cutting masters were always tapes, either digital or analog.

Remember that digital recording was applied to the production of LPs up to
nearly a decade before the release of the first CDs. This was done so that
when the CD format was finalized, it would be possible to exploit its sonic
and practical advantages from the start.

[AtTheEndofMyRope]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:57:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"DGDevin" > wrote in message
m
>> "Mark-T" wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> If the master is the original, then what does
>>> "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used?
>>> A genuine original copy?
>>
>> The original raw multi-track tape (or these days data
>> file) rarely does anything but sit in a vault.
>
>If it still exists.
>
>> Re-mastering at least in theory means they started with
>> the original raw tracks and did the mixing and EQ all
>> over again and carefully produced a new mixed master
>> recording with better quality than the old one.
>
>Not at all. That would be called "re-mixing".
>
>> But sometimes
>
>No, always.
>
>> they start with the old final mix and just are
>> more careful in making a digital transer that will be
>> used to make CDs.
>
>No, not necessarily more careful, just different.
>
>> A lot of early CDs made from analog
>> tapes were not done very well, the analog to digital
>> transfers were poor, they benefited from more careful
>> work later.
>
>No, what happened is that a goodly number of CDs released in the early-mid
>1980s were made from what are known as "cutting masters". This means that
>the recordings intentionally had the inverse of the losses in LP disc
>cutting and playback incorperated into them. This usually results in a
>shrill-sounding, thin-sounding recording. These were mistakes, but
>management said: "Ship it!". Most of these were redone in the 1990s.
>
>

Genesis: The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway

So bad you can hear the tape hiss.

Genesis had many "remasters" on their disc library and the problem is
that they used OTHER masters, so what got put on the "Remastered discs"
were really re-mixed.

They suck too, because the original cuts are what we want, not some lame
****'s choice of what to put down out of the pile of tape he has in front
of him.

[Arny Krueger]

"Kirk McElhearn" <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com> wrote in
message
. fr
> On 2011-02-25 13:52:06 +0100, "Arny Krueger"
> > said:
>>>> Are people stupid enough to fall for it as "better"?
>>
>>> They haven't been so far.
>>
>> Right - notice the smoldering ashes of DVD-A and SACD.
>
> That's not true. In classical music, SACDs are selling
> fairly well.

The last sales fibures I can find date back to 2008 when SACD & DVD were
still on local shelves. They're not on local shelves here any more.

In 2008 DVD+SACD sales were $6.4 million which is 426,000 units presuming
$15 each.

Physical media sales which are overwhelmingly CDs were $8 Billion in 2008.
No matter how you look at it, that's over 1,000 times more units putting
SACD+DVD at less than 0.1% of sales of physical media.

A 0.1% or less market share isn't even a good sized niche. 1% would be a
niche.

> Not as much as the manufacturers and patent holders would like, but
> they're still holding on.

In 2008 SACD+DVD sales were less than 25% of LP sales. LP's are holding on,
but just barely. 25% of just barely is not "even a good sized niche". That
was 3 years ago and things have only gotten worse for the SACD and DVD-A.
Lots worse.

[Warren[_2_]]

expounded in

oups.com:

...
> I read somewhere that HD video is only perceived as better
> if the audio is also of higher quality. ..
>
> Colin

I dunno about that.

The superbowl HD was just as good with the mute button on as it
was when it was off.

The only detraction was the word "Mute" at the top of the
screen. ;-)

Warren

[MadManMoon]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:35:25 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Kirk McElhearn" <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com> wrote in
>message
. fr
>> On 2011-02-25 13:52:06 +0100, "Arny Krueger"
>> > said:
>>>>> Are people stupid enough to fall for it as "better"?
>>>
>>>> They haven't been so far.
>>>
>>> Right - notice the smoldering ashes of DVD-A and SACD.
>>
>> That's not true. In classical music, SACDs are selling
>> fairly well.
>
>The last sales fibures I can find date back to 2008 when SACD & DVD were
>still on local shelves. They're not on local shelves here any more.
>
>In 2008 DVD+SACD sales were $6.4 million which is 426,000 units presuming
>$15 each.
>
>Physical media sales which are overwhelmingly CDs were $8 Billion in 2008.
>No matter how you look at it, that's over 1,000 times more units putting
>SACD+DVD at less than 0.1% of sales of physical media.
>
>A 0.1% or less market share isn't even a good sized niche. 1% would be a
>niche.
>
>> Not as much as the manufacturers and patent holders would like, but
>> they're still holding on.
>
>In 2008 SACD+DVD sales were less than 25% of LP sales. LP's are holding on,
>but just barely. 25% of just barely is not "even a good sized niche". That
>was 3 years ago and things have only gotten worse for the SACD and DVD-A.
>Lots worse.
>
>

One of the few good DVD-A releases was the Beatles' "Love" project.

[MadManMoon]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:44:34 +0000 (UTC), Warren >
wrote:

expounded in

>oups.com:
>
>..
>> I read somewhere that HD video is only perceived as better
>> if the audio is also of higher quality. ..
>>
>> Colin
>
>I dunno about that.
>
>The superbowl HD was just as good with the mute button on as it
>was when it was off.
>
>The only detraction was the word "Mute" at the top of the
>screen. ;-)
>
>Warren

Only because you "muted" the wrong device. You should have muted your
Audio Receiver.

[Trevor]

"Kirk McElhearn" <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com> wrote in message
. fr...
>>> It means a new master is made from the original tapes.
>>
>> Remastering of digital source files can still take place. The original
>> need
>> not ever have been on tape.
>
> I was using "tapes" as a metaphor. In most cases, though, when we see
> remasters it is from tape, not from digital.

Not always these days. And even the term "original tapes" can have a vast
number of meanings. You could even include early digital recordings made to
video tape I guess. Certainly most CD's fail to mention the exact source of
the material used for "remastering". And some albums have been "remastered"
so many times even the fans can't keep track. Pink Floyd's "DSotM" being one
example.

Trevor.

[MadManMoon]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 15:29:45 +1100, "Trevor" > wrote:

>
>"Kirk McElhearn" <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com> wrote in message
. fr...
>>>> It means a new master is made from the original tapes.
>>>
>>> Remastering of digital source files can still take place. The original
>>> need
>>> not ever have been on tape.
>>
>> I was using "tapes" as a metaphor. In most cases, though, when we see
>> remasters it is from tape, not from digital.
>
>Not always these days. And even the term "original tapes" can have a vast
>number of meanings. You could even include early digital recordings made to
>video tape I guess. Certainly most CD's fail to mention the exact source of
>the material used for "remastering". And some albums have been "remastered"
>so many times even the fans can't keep track. Pink Floyd's "DSotM" being one
>example.
>
>Trevor.
>

With the Gold Master release (CBS?) of that being the best I have.
Haven't been out looking though either. Haven't seen it in a while
either...

[Trevor]

"Kirk McElhearn" <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com> wrote in message
. fr...
>> Back in the days of vinyl, the "master disk" was a record made of metal
>> (aluminum? steel?), mixed from the original tapes. From this, the
>> record company would make molds for the actual disks that were sold.
>
> Yes, but that's not the "master" in "re-master;"

Right, you don't want to use a master tape equalised for vinyl to cut a CD
anyway, and certainly not a disc copy, unless nothing else remains!

>it's the master tape, the final mix-down.

Depends what you call the "final" mixdown, and the best remasters go back to
the original multi-track and remix anyway.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Warren" > wrote in message
. 213...
> The superbowl HD was just as good with the mute button on as it
> was when it was off.

Better surely? :-)

> The only detraction was the word "Mute" at the top of the
> screen. ;-)

So just reduce the volume to zero instead, and there is no "Mute" overlay to
annoy you.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Mastering is not mixing and remastering is not remixing.

True, BUT the terms ARE unfortunately used interchangebly by those who write
the cover details for CD's. Such people are RARELY technical personel, they
are marketing types wishing to promote the CD in the best light within the
scope of their limited knowlege. Even if it's the crappiest transfer
possible from a worn out vinyl record, it can still legitamately be called
"remastered", and usually is :-(
Old worn out vinyl can now be transferred to 24 bit digital files, and that
is happening too! :-( :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> In 2008 SACD+DVD sales were less than 25% of LP sales. LP's are holding
> on, but just barely. 25% of just barely is not "even a good sized niche".
> That was 3 years ago and things have only gotten worse for the SACD and
> DVD-A. Lots worse.

Yep, but music video DVD's and Blu-ray accounts for a good size market now.
Most people simply see no point in paying more for a DVD without video. And
the better Music video DVD's have a PCM soundtrack as well as surround sound
and video. All for less than the cost of the equivalent CD in some cases.
Less than the cost of SACD and DVDA in nearly all cases, here at least.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Remember that digital recording was applied to the production of LPs up to
> nearly a decade before the release of the first CDs. This was done so that
> when the CD format was finalized, it would be possible to exploit its
> sonic and practical advantages from the start.

Actually it was mostly done as a pont of difference from other techniques
being used at the time to try to improve the sound quality of vinyl. Half
speed mastering, Direct metal mastering, and Direct to disc recording were
all being tried to improve sound quality, as were those early digital
recorders (and video interfaces). That the digital recordings could be more
easily transferred to CD when it was released was only a minor benefit IMO,
since ANY transfer was still relatively easy compared with the problem of
actually making a CD master disc and pressing consumer discs in the very
early days.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Kirk McElhearn" <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com> wrote in message
. fr...
>> Depends what you call the "final" mixdown, and the best remasters go back
>> to
>> the original multi-track and remix anyway.
>
> Yes, it's making a new master tape, hence it generally always involves a
> remix, right?

Nope, it *sometimes* involves a remix from multi-track tapes. But *FAR* from
"generally always". More often it's simply A-D, EQ'd and compressed (and
usually some noise reduction) from one of the existing two track masters.
And it NEVER involves "making a new master tape" these days, since it stays
digital after the initial A-D (if the original is analog), and nobody I know
uses digtal tape as a backup any more.

Trevor.

[Andrew Haley]

In rec.audio.tech Warren > wrote:
> Mark-T expounded in
>
> oups.com:
> ..
>>> Professional music producers generally capture studio
>>> recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format.
>>> Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance,
>>> are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers
>>> like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files.
>>
>> If the master is the original, then what does
>> "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used?
>> A genuine original copy?
>> Mark
>
> It just means that it is "re-mixed".

No, that's not right. Mastering is usually done from stereo masters,
post-mixdown. The Wikipedia page at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_mastering explains the process.

Andrew.

[Randy Yates]

On 02/25/2011 08:00 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
> [...]
> This was done so that when the CD format was finalized, it would be
> possible to exploit its sonic and practical advantages from the
> start.

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... :)
--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[MalcolmO]

Hear, hear!

Today people get recording contracts based on how photogenic they are.
Machines sing them into tune. AND THEN

> Most
> commercial recordings today are released in a form which is far less
> than "16-bit" in quality - they have been deliberately compressed
> during the mastering process to sound "louder". They've been quashed,
> pummeled, clipped, gain-ridden, smelched, and squeezed down into a
> tiny dynamic range.

And they wonder why we don't buy records!
--
Malcolm
"They should know they're the Grateful Dead now." -- Phil

[Randy Yates]

On 02/27/2011 12:04 AM, MalcolmO wrote:
> Hear, hear!
>
> Today people get recording contracts based on how photogenic they are. Machines sing them into tune. AND THEN
>
>> Most
>> commercial recordings today are released in a form which is far less
>> than "16-bit" in quality - they have been deliberately compressed
>> during the mastering process to sound "louder". They've been quashed,
>> pummeled, clipped, gain-ridden, smelched, and squeezed down into a
>> tiny dynamic range.
>
> And they wonder why we don't buy records!

I thought it may be interesting to suggest some pre-digital era albums that
were of better source quality than much of what gets put into 1's and 0's
these days.

How about, "Year of the Cat", by Al Stewart?
--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Gladys]

On 2/27/2011 10:10 AM, Randy Yates wrote:
> On 02/27/2011 12:04 AM, MalcolmO wrote:
>> Hear, hear!
>>
>> Today people get recording contracts based on how photogenic they are.
>> Machines sing them into tune. AND THEN
>>
>>> Most
>>> commercial recordings today are released in a form which is far less
>>> than "16-bit" in quality - they have been deliberately compressed
>>> during the mastering process to sound "louder". They've been quashed,
>>> pummeled, clipped, gain-ridden, smelched, and squeezed down into a
>>> tiny dynamic range.
>>
>> And they wonder why we don't buy records!
>
> I thought it may be interesting to suggest some pre-digital era albums that
> were of better source quality than much of what gets put into 1's and 0's
> these days.
>
> How about, "Year of the Cat", by Al Stewart?

Or ones that were recorded perfectly digitally - like Mark Knopfler's
"Sailing To Philadelphia".

It can be done.

Gladys.

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article >,
"Trevor" > wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Remember that digital recording was applied to the production of LPs up to
> > nearly a decade before the release of the first CDs. This was done so that
> > when the CD format was finalized, it would be possible to exploit its
> > sonic and practical advantages from the start.
>
> Actually it was mostly done as a pont of difference from other techniques
> being used at the time to try to improve the sound quality of vinyl. Half
> speed mastering, Direct metal mastering, and Direct to disc recording were
> all being tried to improve sound quality, as were those early digital
> recorders (and video interfaces). That the digital recordings could be more
> easily transferred to CD when it was released was only a minor benefit IMO,
> since ANY transfer was still relatively easy compared with the problem of
> actually making a CD master disc and pressing consumer discs in the very
> early days.
>
> Trevor.

Digital multitrack recording was also used for it's improved signal to
noise ratio, lack of wow and flutter, lack of hiss buildup, ability to
play the tape over and over without losing highs as you overdubbed other
tracks, ability to get off the tape what you put on it (subject to the
vagaries of early converters.), although that's a mixed bag because the
euphonic compression that tape has is something we now miss as is head
bump artifacts on the low end, etc.

Editing was also seen as potentially easier, as you could calculate
crossfades and create edit decision lists that would allow you to edit
in ways that a razor blade can't. Of course, a good engineer with a
blade could do some awesome ****. I worked at it a lot and got good at
it, but not like some of the masters I saw at work. It's all pretty easy
on a computer now, so it's largely a lost skill.

Punching in and out was also something that some saw as an improvement,
what with the ability to set very precise ins and outs which included
crossfades. However, I miss the days that my clients called my Mike
Tyson due to my ability to quickly and accurately punch in and out,
sometimes even punching parts of words. Ah, the good old days, I don't
miss them a bit! Pro Tools, Logic, etc. rock!

[David Nebenzahl]

On 2/27/2011 9:10 AM Randy Yates spake thus:

> On 02/27/2011 12:04 AM, MalcolmO wrote:
>
>> Hear, hear!
>>
>> Today people get recording contracts based on how photogenic they
>> are. Machines sing them into tune. AND THEN
>>
>>> Most commercial recordings today are released in a form which is
>>> far less than "16-bit" in quality - they have been deliberately
>>> compressed during the mastering process to sound "louder".
>>> They've been quashed, pummeled, clipped, gain-ridden, smelched,
>>> and squeezed down into a tiny dynamic range.
>>
>> And they wonder why we don't buy records!
>
> I thought it may be interesting to suggest some pre-digital era albums that
> were of better source quality than much of what gets put into 1's and 0's
> these days.
>
> How about, "Year of the Cat", by Al Stewart?

I see you, and raise you: John McLaughlin/One Truth Band's "Electric
Dreams", @1979. (Completely analog, so far as I can tell.)


--
The phrase "jump the shark" itself jumped the shark about a decade ago.

- Usenet

[Trevor]

"Randy Yates" > 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.

[Trevor]

"Edwin Hurwitz" > wrote in message
...
> Ah, the good old days, I don't miss them a bit!
> Pro Tools, Logic, etc. rock!

No argument from me!

Trevor.

[David[_22_]]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Randy Yates" > 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.
>

Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and
compared it to the same release on CD then?
You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound engineers
that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic range
like they do CD.

[MadManMoon]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:03:21 -0000, "David" >
wrote:

>"Trevor" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Randy Yates" > 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.
>>
>
>Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and
>compared it to the same release on CD then?
>You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound engineers
>that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic range
>like they do CD.
>

That depends on the CD.

[David[_22_]]

"MadManMoon" > wrote in message
...
>>> "Randy Yates" > 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.
>>>
>>
>>Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and
>>compared it to the same release on CD then?
>>You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound
>>engineers
>>that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic
>>range
>>like they do CD.
>>
>
> That depends on the CD.

Which is why I put 'in general' as it has been what I have found more often
than not.
LPs do cost about 3 times the price of CDs now (~£18) but are 'in general'
pressed on good quality heavy weight virgin vinyl.

[Warren[_2_]]

Trevor expounded in
u:

>
> "Warren" > wrote in message
> . 213...
>> The superbowl HD was just as good with the mute button on
>> as it was when it was off.
>
> Better surely? :-)

Definitely during commercials!!

>> The only detraction was the word "Mute" at the top of the
>> screen. ;-)
>
> So just reduce the volume to zero instead, and there is no
> "Mute" overlay to annoy you.
>
> Trevor.

Not a problem really. If I use my cable box for mute, the
word vanishes after a short time. The TV mute is more
invasive and stays there.

Warren

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article >,
"David" > wrote:

> "Trevor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Randy Yates" > 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.
> >
>
> Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and
> compared it to the same release on CD then?
> You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound engineers
> that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic range
> like they do CD.

That's because in vinyl land they are trying to maximize the dynamic
range in the face of the limitations of the medium, while with CDs they
are knuckling under to pressure from the bean counters to make the CD as
loud as possible. For some reason when people listen to CDs they can't
find the volume knob and just turn the damn thing up.

[Trevor]

"David" > wrote in message
...
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and
> compared it to the same release on CD then?
> You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound
> engineers that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the
> dynamic range like they do CD.

Which of course has absolutely *nothing* to do with the pro's and cons of
vinyl Vs CD, only the mastering choices.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"David" > wrote in message
...
>>>Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and
>>>compared it to the same release on CD then?
>>>You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound
>>>engineers
>>>that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic
>>>range
>>>like they do CD.
>>>
>>
>> That depends on the CD.
>
> Which is why I put 'in general' as it has been what I have found more
> often than not.
> LPs do cost about 3 times the price of CDs now (~£18) but are 'in general'
> pressed on good quality heavy weight virgin vinyl.


And are still far inferiror in every technical aspect than a standard CD,
*IF* the same music is put on both. Whether it is or isn't is simply a
marketing choice.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Edwin Hurwitz" > wrote in message
...
> That's because in vinyl land they are trying to maximize the dynamic
> range in the face of the limitations of the medium, while with CDs they
> are knuckling under to pressure from the bean counters to make the CD as
> loud as possible.

Yes amazing that the medium with the greater possible dynamic range often
has less. BUT it's only a marketing choice, NOT an inherent benefit of vinyl
as some people still claim after all these years.

Trevor.

[TheGlimmerMan]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:36:23 +0000 (UTC), Warren >
wrote:

>Trevor expounded in
u:
>
>>
>> "Warren" > wrote in message
>> . 213...
>>> The superbowl HD was just as good with the mute button on
>>> as it was when it was off.
>>
>> Better surely? :-)
>
>Definitely during commercials!!
>
>>> The only detraction was the word "Mute" at the top of the
>>> screen. ;-)
>>
>> So just reduce the volume to zero instead, and there is no
>> "Mute" overlay to annoy you.
>>
>> Trevor.
>
>Not a problem really. If I use my cable box for mute, the
>word vanishes after a short time. The TV mute is more
>invasive and stays there.
>
>Warren

You do not have an A/V Receiver?

[MadManMoon]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:36:47 -0700, Edwin Hurwitz >
wrote:

>In article >,
> "David" > wrote:
>
>> "Trevor" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Randy Yates" > 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.
>> >
>>
>> Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and
>> compared it to the same release on CD then?
>> You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound engineers
>> that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic range
>> like they do CD.
>
>That's because in vinyl land they are trying to maximize the dynamic
>range in the face of the limitations of the medium,

The slew rate (speed) of the cutting lathe's tool head, and the limits
of the playback stylus' ability to read a given peak. What is the window
of operation that Vinyl enjoys?

> while with CDs they
>are knuckling under to pressure from the bean counters to make the CD as
>loud as possible.

Not in all cases. Just "modern" music, and "modern" producers and
engineers even. In the beginning folks actually tried to compose
acceptable mix-downs from the multi-track masters that were used to make
the lathe head mix downs.

I remember lyrics like "..when honor meant more to a man than life..."
AND the music that went with it.


>For some reason when people listen to CDs they can't
>find the volume knob and just turn the damn thing up.

The problems go far deeper than that.

Oh well. At lest we *should* be able to make a good transition to high
clarity, low noise recorded tracks.

Hell, I should be able to do pretty good right here on my PC, on my 8
year old Sound Blaster. Atlast compared to some of what I have heard on
disc.

I STILL say that one of the best albums ever made, despite having a
couple gaps and other artifacts, is a live album.

James Gang, Live At Carnegie Hall

THAT was what "loud" rock and roll was about. It would be cool if Joe
would get that band back together and do that tour again with modern amps
and drivers!

You should give it a listen LOUDLY. If you can't, then use headphones
or even ear plug types. Excellent album.

[MadManMoon]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:36:47 -0700, Edwin Hurwitz >
wrote:

> But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt
>> >> brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... :)


Try making moist breath on the needle (and record) as it plays. You
would be surprised at the absence of clicks suddenly. Static is a big
one.

[Trevor]

"Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message
...
>> Which of course has absolutely *nothing* to do with the pro's and cons of
>> vinyl Vs CD, only the mastering choices.
>
> The problem is people don't listen to CD or Vinyl. It is _music_ they
> listen
> to. All the wonderful technical parameters don't make music any better.

Right, or necessarily any worse.


> Sure, CD looks better on paper. But it is already rule of thumb that
> almost
> everything that goes on CD is of inferior quality

An opinion you get to have, but there is very little to actually compare,
let alone arrive at such a sweeping conclusion. Of course "almost everything
that goes on CD" never even makes it to vinyl these days!


>while those who make LPs
> take great care to do the best job possible to overcome media
> shortcomings.
> That makes the resulting _music_ from LP beating CD by a huge margin
> despite
> CD being better media on paper.

Once again you forget to add "In your opinion", and neglect to mention that
only a MINISCULE amount of music being made these days is available on vinyl
in any case! I would certainly hope that the tiny percentage that does make
it to vinyl is more carefully produced/manufactured than what it was in days
gone by, especially considering the huge price premium now being asked.


> Just try to listen to e.g. Bob Marley "Uprising" on a CD. It is a worst
> nightmare I ever heard. That is why I have all his records on LPs. CDs
> don't
> even come close to those. But they are better on paper, yes.

Right, and any differences are simply production/marketing choices or
compromises. Vinyl certainly requires far more of the latter!
One can easily copy a vinyl record to CD without any loss of quality. The
reverse is simply impossible.
And CD's/SACD's/DVDA's aimed at the audiophile ( and audiophool) market are
still far more numerous than new vinyl releases, despite being a tiny
percentage of the market.

Trevor.

[geoff]

David wrote:
> "Trevor" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Randy Yates" > 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.
>>
>
> Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl
> and compared it to the same release on CD then?
> You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound
> engineers that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of
> the dynamic range like they do CD.

They don't need to - the medium does it for them ! Or low-level detail is
lost.

Are you suggesting that those same engineers for some bizarre reason
over-compress the CD releases of that same material? Then they are
incompetent !

Or are you commenting on the general 'norms' of CD mastering these days ?

geoff

[geoff]

MadManMoon wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:36:47 -0700, Edwin Hurwitz >
> wrote:
>
>> But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt
>>>>> brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... :)
>
>
> Try making moist breath on the needle (and record) as it plays. You
> would be surprised at the absence of clicks suddenly. Static is a big
> one.

So much for the 'ideal listening position' !

geoff

[geoff]

Sergey Kubushyn wrote:

> Much of that worth listening does. As of remaining 99.9% of that
> monotonic indiscernible from each other noise I don't care.

Please don't denegrate reggae music like that.

geoff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Sergey Kubushyn wrote:

> Sure, CD looks better on paper. But it is already rule of thumb that
> almost everything that goes on CD is of inferior quality while those
> who make LPs take great care to do the best job possible to overcome
> media shortcomings. That makes the resulting _music_ from LP beating
> CD by a huge margin despite CD being better media on paper.

Sorry, your thumb may be non-standard, the issue is that those that master
for grammophone records tend to know what they are doing and master
completely different from how those that !!!MASTER FOR CD'S DO IT!!!

> Just try to listen to e.g. Bob Marley "Uprising" on a CD. It is a
> worst nightmare I ever heard.

A lot of early digital transcriptions ought to be re-done.

> That is why I have all his records on
> LPs. CDs don't even come close to those. But they are better on
> paper, yes.

What you assert is that nothing happened with AD conversion quality between
1985 and 2011.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger]

"MadManMoon" > wrote in
message

> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:36:47 -0700, Edwin Hurwitz
> > wrote:

>> That's because in vinyl land they are trying to maximize
>> the dynamic range in the face of the limitations of the
>> medium,
>
> The slew rate (speed) of the cutting lathe's tool head,
> and the limits of the playback stylus' ability to read a
> given peak. What is the window of operation that Vinyl
> enjoys?

If memory serves, vinyl's dynamic range starts falling pretty rapidly above
about 8 KHz.

While CD-4 recordings were made with 30+ KHz carriers on them, those signals
were cut at very low levels. Playing them tends to erase them after a few
playings, even with the best cartridges and stylii. People I know who have
experimented with CD4 tell me that about 10 playings is it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message


> Sure, CD looks better on paper. But it is already rule of
> thumb that almost everything that goes on CD is of
> inferior quality while those who make LPs take great care
> to do the best job possible to overcome media
> shortcomings. That makes the resulting _music_ from LP
> beating CD by a huge margin despite CD being better media
> on paper.

LP media limitations are well known to create a technological strait jacket
that very few people have the patience to try to escape from. There's a
reason why the CD blew the LP out of the mainstream music market and that is
better sound quality almost all of the time.

The idea that you have put your production people into strait jackets to get
the best work out of them is positively wierd and just a little insulting.

One unsaid thing about LP production in 2010 is that it is only for a
premium, niche market. I googled the price of the LP, and found that it
was over $45 and needs to be special ordered. The CD is being sold by Best
Buy for $9.99.

If the CD is poorly mastered, then its buyers have nobody to blame but
themselves. Refuse to buy badly mastered CDs! If you stumble into one, try
to take it back and make a big fuss! Don't throw out the baby with the bath
water!


> Just try to listen to e.g. Bob Marley "Uprising" on a CD.
> It is a worst nightmare I ever heard. That is why I have
> all his records on LPs. CDs don't even come close to
> those. But they are better on paper, yes.

Here we have a myth supported by very limited evidence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message


> Much of that worth listening does.

Any reasonble comparison of the number of new releases on LP and CD makes
that look like a fantasy. What I see is a diehard LP fan who has limited his
musical tastes to the limitations of his hobby-horse medium.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k

> What you assert is that nothing happened with AD
> conversion quality between 1985 and 2011.

In terms of sound quality from the best performing hardware, there was no
change.

In terms of price/performance, the changes were huge. Therefore, the sound
quality of everyday digital gear did improve quite a bit.

[MadManMoon]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 19:41:43 +1300, "geoff" > wrote:

>MadManMoon wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:36:47 -0700, Edwin Hurwitz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt
>>>>>> brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... :)
>>
>>
>> Try making moist breath on the needle (and record) as it plays. You
>> would be surprised at the absence of clicks suddenly. Static is a big
>> one.
>
>So much for the 'ideal listening position' !
>
>geoff
>
That was not the point.

[MadManMoon]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:25:01 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"MadManMoon" > wrote in
>message
>
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:36:47 -0700, Edwin Hurwitz
>> > wrote:
>
>>> That's because in vinyl land they are trying to maximize
>>> the dynamic range in the face of the limitations of the
>>> medium,
>>
>> The slew rate (speed) of the cutting lathe's tool head,
>> and the limits of the playback stylus' ability to read a
>> given peak. What is the window of operation that Vinyl
>> enjoys?
>
>If memory serves, vinyl's dynamic range starts falling pretty rapidly above
>about 8 KHz.
>
>While CD-4 recordings were made with 30+ KHz carriers on them, those signals
>were cut at very low levels. Playing them tends to erase them after a few
>playings, even with the best cartridges and stylii. People I know who have
>experimented with CD4 tell me that about 10 playings is it.
>

I wonder what format the audio tracks on a Laser Disc were put down as.

[David[_22_]]

"geoff" > wrote in message
>> Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl
>> and compared it to the same release on CD then?
>> You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound
>> engineers that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of
>> the dynamic range like they do CD.
>
> Are you suggesting that those same engineers for some bizarre reason
> over-compress the CD releases of that same material? Then they are
> incompetent !
>

Indeed they do and it's not incompetence, it's marketing pressure......'Loud
is good' and all that bollox.
The majority of people that buy digital music formats play it as background
music or in cars or on Ipods etc. so dynamic range is wasted on them.
The majority of people that still buy vinyl, sit down and listen to it.
Yes CD could be much better than vinyl but in reallity because of the
mastering, it's not.

D

[Arny Krueger]

"MadManMoon" > wrote in
message
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:25:01 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "MadManMoon" > wrote
>> in
>> message
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:36:47 -0700, Edwin Hurwitz
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> That's because in vinyl land they are trying to
>>>> maximize the dynamic range in the face of the
>>>> limitations of the medium,
>>>
>>> The slew rate (speed) of the cutting lathe's tool head,
>>> and the limits of the playback stylus' ability to read a
>>> given peak. What is the window of operation that Vinyl
>>> enjoys?
>>
>> If memory serves, vinyl's dynamic range starts falling
>> pretty rapidly above about 8 KHz.
>>
>> While CD-4 recordings were made with 30+ KHz carriers on
>> them, those signals were cut at very low levels. Playing
>> them tends to erase them after a few playings, even with
>> the best cartridges and stylii. People I know who have
>> experimented with CD4 tell me that about 10 playings is
>> it.
>>
>
> I wonder what format the audio tracks on a Laser Disc
> were put down as.

If memory serves:

On older LDs, the sound was recorded in FM and also received DBX noise
reduction or something like it.

Later LDs had regular Linear PCM tracks like CDs.

Full truth here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc

[geoff]

David wrote:
> "geoff" > wrote in message
>>> Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl
>>> and compared it to the same release on CD then?
>>> You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound
>>> engineers that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of
>>> the dynamic range like they do CD.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that those same engineers for some bizarre reason
>> over-compress the CD releases of that same material? Then they are
>> incompetent !
>>
>
> Indeed they do and it's not incompetence, it's marketing
> pressure......'Loud is good' and all that bollox.
> The majority of people that buy digital music formats play it as
> background music or in cars or on Ipods etc. so dynamic range is
> wasted on them. The majority of people that still buy vinyl, sit down and
> listen to
> it. Yes CD could be much better than vinyl but in reallity because of the
> mastering, it's not.

Well the answer is to record the vinyl onto CD and play it back from there
!

The different mastering (and noise, distortion, wow, flutter, limited
frequency and dynamic response, etc) will all be faithfully reproduced !

geoff

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article >,
"Trevor" > wrote:

> "Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Which of course has absolutely *nothing* to do with the pro's and cons of
> >> vinyl Vs CD, only the mastering choices.
> >
> > The problem is people don't listen to CD or Vinyl. It is _music_ they
> > listen
> > to. All the wonderful technical parameters don't make music any better.
>
> Right, or necessarily any worse.
>
>
> > Sure, CD looks better on paper. But it is already rule of thumb that
> > almost
> > everything that goes on CD is of inferior quality
>
> An opinion you get to have, but there is very little to actually compare,
> let alone arrive at such a sweeping conclusion. Of course "almost everything
> that goes on CD" never even makes it to vinyl these days!
>
>
> >while those who make LPs
> > take great care to do the best job possible to overcome media
> > shortcomings.
> > That makes the resulting _music_ from LP beating CD by a huge margin
> > despite
> > CD being better media on paper.
>
> Once again you forget to add "In your opinion", and neglect to mention that
> only a MINISCULE amount of music being made these days is available on vinyl
> in any case! I would certainly hope that the tiny percentage that does make
> it to vinyl is more carefully produced/manufactured than what it was in days
> gone by, especially considering the huge price premium now being asked.


And I think that David Glasser and all his colleagues at Airshow
Mastering (the only masterers I know personally, so I feel like I can
predict their response fairly accurately) would take exception to the
idea that they approach their craft with any less diligence simply
because their products would end up on a CD or other digital medium.
Their Grammies would seem to validate their attention to their craft.

Edwin

[Trevor]

"Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message
...
>
> These days most of it is like SPAM. There is no difference what brand it
> is
> or what color the label is, it is SPAM. And there is no need for a french
> chief for this, everybody would do. It is no longer needed that one can
> sing
> or play a musical instrument to become a "musician" or a "singer" -- 99%
> of
> all, sorry for an expression, music is just dancing to a phonogram an
> showing boobs. They can be deaf and dumb but still be "singers." No voice
> required.

While your opinion is shared by many, I fail to see how that makes vinyl
better than CD. ANYTHING can be released on either format, and frankly I
prefer a format which is technically superior, more convenient, cheaper, AND
allows ME a far greater choice. That you prefer your choices to be limited
to what is put on vinyl these days is your right, and you are welcome to it.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message
...
>> Well the answer is to record the vinyl onto CD and play it back from
>> there
>> The different mastering (and noise, distortion, wow, flutter, limited
>> frequency and dynamic response, etc) will all be faithfully reproduced !
>
> That is exactly what some of us, including myself, are doing. As a matter
> of
> fact it is not just copying to a CD -- they are digitized in 24/96 and
> that
> digitized material is saved and listened to if conditions permit.

Only the technically illiterate believe ANY vinyl requires 24/96 recording.
Even 14 bits is overkill for vinyl. So IF you actually find a record with
frequencies over 22kHz that you dog really likes, just save it at 16/88 or
16/96 and save yourself a few bytes :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
>
>> Much of that worth listening does. As of remaining 99.9% of that
>> monotonic indiscernible from each other noise I don't care.
>
> Please don't denegrate reggae music like that.

Reggae, I thought he meant ©RAP. :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k...
> the issue is that those that master for grammophone records tend to know
> what they are doing and master completely different from how those that
> !!!MASTER FOR CD'S DO IT!!!

One would hope so! Most learnt 25 years ago that what is required for
vinyl's limitations is NOT required for CD.
(Unfortunately the loudness wars are another issue)


> A lot of early digital transcriptions ought to be re-done.

Most have been thankfully, but not all are improvements :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> While CD-4 recordings were made with 30+ KHz carriers on them, those
> signals were cut at very low levels. Playing them tends to erase them
> after a few playings, even with the best cartridges and stylii. People I
> know who have experimented with CD4 tell me that about 10 playings is it.

Depends on many factors. My B&O MMC6000 could still recover the carrier
after *FAR* more playings than that. Of course the actual surround signal
was pretty crap to begin with on most (all?) CD4 records, just as might be
expected from such a compromised system.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Here we have a myth supported by very limited evidence.

Actually no evidence, just opinion.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Edwin Hurwitz" > wrote in message
...
> And I think that David Glasser and all his colleagues at Airshow
> Mastering (the only masterers I know personally, so I feel like I can
> predict their response fairly accurately) would take exception to the
> idea that they approach their craft with any less diligence simply
> because their products would end up on a CD or other digital medium.
> Their Grammies would seem to validate their attention to their craft.

No Argument, and would contradict the silly claim that *only* vinyl records
have proper mastering these days right!

Trevor.

[MadManMoon]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 02:31:18 +0000 (UTC), Sergey Kubushyn >
wrote:

>both ways but usually it is what
>happens.


You do NOT *know* that. You do NOT work in a recording studio.

You do NOT know what the **** you are squawking about.

EACH production is unique, and MANY get the SAME level of care that a
vinyl mix down got.

What a presumptuous twit you must be to say that. It's OK though. You
have successfully given yourself away as someone that makes **** up as
you go along.

[Trevor]

"Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message
...
> That does _NOT_ mean I personally cut my own LPs :) No, I do use CD as a
> media for everyday listening and 24/96 digital files for archival
> purposes.
> But if there is a choice of getting some recording in either form I will
> always choose vinyl as my primary source. Then I'll make 2 copies of it,
> one
> as 24/96 file and--oh horror!--another one as analog tape.

Wow, given the cost of R-R tape these days, and it's poor quality compared
to digital (I won't even mention how woefull cassettes are!) that is truly
amazing. But some people still think 78's are the only real media, so I
guess it takes all kinds. Anyone still claiming cylinders are the best I
wonder? :-)

And for the record I still have my Revox tape recorder, but I haven't even
turned it on in nearly a decade! (Wonder if it still works?)
My Thorens TT still works for copying old vinyl. Certainly wouldn't waste my
money on any new discs though.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for a suggestion but now, I won't do it. Music is _NOT_ a pure
> sinusoidal waves and there are other things like attack, shape etc. The
> primary mistake all those proponents of wonderful digital sound make is
> assumption that analog audio ends at 20KHz. It doesn't. It doesn't end
> even
> at 30KHz and higher. Its amplitude falls quite rapidly, yes, but there is
> no
> such an abrupt cutoff at 22KHz.

Right, the auditory system collapses well before that, unless you are an 8
YO girl!


> Another reason, totally unrelated, for 24/96 is that is a standard
> de-facto
> these days. All those 16/88 and 16/96 are not. And storage is dirt cheap
> these days to save pennies by using some weird format.

And how much do you pay for tape these days (per your other post) Now that's
a weird format these days! :-)

Trevor.

[Randy Yates]

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.
--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Trevor]

"Randy Yates" > wrote in message
m...
> Trevor,
>
> You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era.

Fair enough, and I don't!
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be anyway :-)

Trevor.

[David[_22_]]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
u...
>
> And are still far inferiror in every technical aspect than a standard CD,
> *IF* the same music is put on both. Whether it is or isn't is simply a
> marketing choice.
>

That's right Trevor. *IF* the same were put on both then so it may be *BUT*
it's not! If you want to go on listening to far inferior recordings on a
possibly better medium then it's up to you, but it's something you will
never know as you have not listened to a recent LP.
Yes they cost a few bob extra (but we weren't talking about the cost) but
are in general far better recordings.
Oh......and as far as availablility is concerned, nearly all are available
on vinyl. In fact I first had to buy a CD player only 6 years ago as there
was an album that came out that wasn't n vinyl, a month or two later it was.
Ever since then I've been able to get them all.

D

[David[_22_]]

"Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message
> I do _NOT_ claim vinyl is better than CD. What I claim is _music_ put on
> vinyl is _USUALLY_ made (mixed, processed, whatever you call it) to higher
> quality. There are exceptions, of course, both ways but usually it is what
> happens.
>
> That creates a paradox -- better sound comes on a worse media. But that is
> _sound_ I personally care for, not intrinsic media quality. And that
> paradoxically makes vinyl a better media for me and a few like me despite
> the fact it is actually worse physical media...
>

These are exactly my findings from the vast majority of albums that I have
bought over the last few years. Yes you have to pay more but they ARE
better mixes.

I do not work in a recording studio but I don't have to be in the recording
studio to fathom out which recording has been compressed more and which is
more natural. I don't go to the lengths you do to convert my LPs to CD as I
couldn't be bothered. What I do do though is buy the CD as well as they are
a third the price of the LP. So I can make a direct comparison of the two
mixes. Yes CD as a medium is superior to vinyl, we all know that, but LPs
are in general better recordings.

Obviously this is not the case for every recordings but I reckon easily as
high as 90% of the albums that I have boought over the last few years.

MadManMoon obviously has not bought an LP recently.

His loss, our gain.
Listen to the music not the media or player.

D

[Arny Krueger]

"Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message


>Music is
> _NOT_ a pure sinusoidal waves and there are other things
> like attack, shape etc.

Actually, every music wave form can be entirely represented as a collection
of enveloped sine wave.

> The primary mistake all those
> proponents of wonderful digital sound make is assumption
> that analog audio ends at 20KHz.

No such assumption has ever been made. What is known is that removing all
audio above 20 KHz has no audible effects.

>It doesn't. It doesn't end even at 30KHz and higher. Its amplitude falls
>quite
> rapidly, yes, but there is no such an abrupt cutoff at 22KHz.

Straw man argument.

> Another reason, totally unrelated, for 24/96 is that is a
> standard de-facto these days.

Says who?

It is one of several standards. 16/44 is the most widely used uncompressed
format and 16/48 (video) is a little behind. Most audio that people listen
to today has been lossy-compressed.

[Trevor]

"David" > wrote in message
...
> That's right Trevor. *IF* the same were put on both then so it may be
> *BUT* it's not! If you want to go on listening to far inferior recordings
> on a possibly better medium then it's up to you, but it's something you
> will never know as you have not listened to a recent LP.

No need, since I regualrly record, mix and/or master CD's myself. I could
easily have it cut to vinyl IF there was a market, and the differences would
be those required to suit the limitations of vinyl recording/playback.
Something I prefer NOT to bother with any more.


> Yes they cost a few bob extra (but we weren't talking about the cost) but
> are in general far better recordings.
> Oh......and as far as availablility is concerned, nearly all are available
> on vinyl. In fact I first had to buy a CD player only 6 years ago as
> there was an album that came out that wasn't n vinyl, a month or two later
> it was. Ever since then I've been able to get them all.

All of what YOU want maybe. But still about 1% or less of what's released on
CD every year.

Trevor.

[Randy Yates]

On 03/01/2011 10:41 PM, Trevor wrote:
> "Randy > wrote in message
> m...
>> Trevor,
>>
>> You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era.
>
> Fair enough, and I don't!
> Nostalgia ain't what it used to be anyway :-)

That's quite a jackass attitude you've got there.
--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[David Nebenzahl]

On 3/2/2011 5:09 PM Dick Pierce spake thus:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Music is _NOT_ a pure sinusoidal waves and there are other things
>>> like attack, shape etc.
>>
>> Actually, every music wave form can be entirely represented as a collection
>> of enveloped sine wave.
>
> Not even "enveloped" sine waves: simply sine waves.

Yes. Just what is an "enveloped" sine wave anyway, pray tell?


--
The phrase "jump the shark" itself jumped the shark about a decade ago.

- Usenet

[Randy Yates]

On 03/02/2011 09:37 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 3/2/2011 5:09 PM Dick Pierce spake thus:
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> "Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Music is _NOT_ a pure sinusoidal waves and there are other things
>>>> like attack, shape etc.
>>>
>>> Actually, every music wave form can be entirely represented as a collection of enveloped sine wave.
>>
>> Not even "enveloped" sine waves: simply sine waves.
>
> Yes. Just what is an "enveloped" sine wave anyway, pray tell?

Amplitude-modulated.
--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[geoff]

Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
>
> That is exactly what some of us, including myself, are doing. As a
> matter of fact it is not just copying to a CD -- they are digitized
> in 24/96 and that digitized material is saved and listened to if
> conditions permit. For everyday use (such as plaing it in one's car
> or whatever) that material is downsampled to 16/44 and put on CDs.
>
> And I betcha they sound light ages better than commercial CDs with
> the same material.
>

More likely they sound more to your expectaions, which may not necessary
'better' in terms of true fidelity to the master tape.

geoff

[geoff]

Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
>
> Thanks for a suggestion but now, I won't do it. Music is _NOT_ a pure
> sinusoidal waves and there are other things like attack, shape etc.
> The primary mistake all those proponents of wonderful digital sound
> make is assumption that analog audio ends at 20KHz. It doesn't. It
> doesn't end even at 30KHz and higher. Its amplitude falls quite
> rapidly, yes, but there is no such an abrupt cutoff at 22KHz.

However hearing perception does, but generally much lower than that unless
you are a child. And I betcha most of those beloved LPs have sweet FA above
15KHz coming off them.

If you want to understand about waveforms and 'digital, google Nyquist
theorum, which explains pretty well how lacking your basic understanding of
the subject is.

geoff

[geoff]

Sergey Kubushyn wrote:

> I do _NOT_ claim vinyl is better than CD. What I claim is _music_ put
> on vinyl is _USUALLY_ made (mixed, processed, whatever you call it)
> to higher quality.

You mean compressed more so that you can hear the quieter stuff above the
surface and preamp noise ?

geoff

[David[_22_]]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David" > wrote in message
> ...
>> That's right Trevor. *IF* the same were put on both then so it may be
>> *BUT* it's not! If you want to go on listening to far inferior
>> recordings on a possibly better medium then it's up to you, but it's
>> something you will never know as you have not listened to a recent LP.
>
> No need, since I regualrly record, mix and/or master CD's myself. I could
> easily have it cut to vinyl IF there was a market, and the differences
> would be those required to suit the limitations of vinyl
> recording/playback. Something I prefer NOT to bother with any more.
>

If you record mix and master the CDs yourself there would be absolutely no
point whatsoever in having the recording cut to vinyl, as you have
personally done the bit that so many record companies deliberately feck up.

[Arny Krueger]

"Randy Yates" > wrote in message
m
> On 03/02/2011 09:37 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> On 3/2/2011 5:09 PM Dick Pierce spake thus:
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> Music is _NOT_ a pure sinusoidal waves and there are
>>>>> other things like attack, shape etc.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, every music wave form can be entirely
>>>> represented as a collection of enveloped sine wave.
>>>
>>> Not even "enveloped" sine waves: simply sine waves.

>> Yes. Just what is an "enveloped" sine wave anyway, pray
>> tell?

> Amplitude-modulated.

Right.

I would like to hear how one simulates say piano notes by means of just
linear mixing of continuous sine waves.

[Arny Krueger]

"Randy Yates" > wrote in message
m

> 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.

[John Fields]

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:39:52 -0500, Dick Pierce
> wrote:

>Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Randy Yates" > wrote in message
>> m
>>
>>>On 03/02/2011 09:37 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 3/2/2011 5:09 PM Dick Pierce spake thus:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message

>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Music is _NOT_ a pure sinusoidal waves and there are
>>>>>>>other things like attack, shape etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually, every music wave form can be entirely
>>>>>>represented as a collection of enveloped sine wave.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not even "enveloped" sine waves: simply sine waves.
>>
>>
>>>>Yes. Just what is an "enveloped" sine wave anyway, pray
>>>>tell?
>>
>>
>>>Amplitude-modulated.
>>
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> I would like to hear how one simulates say piano notes by means of just
>> linear mixing of continuous sine waves.
>
>Are you saying that it's not possible? Here, take
>my shovel, dig up Mr. Fourier, tell him it's not
>possible.
>
>Take ANY amplitude-modulated waveform. Take it's
>Fourier transform. The result is some collection of
>continuous sine waves, n'est ce pas?
>
>Let's look at a simple case: a 1 kHz wave modulated by
>a 100 Hz envelope. That's three sine components, whose
>relative amplitudes are dependent upon the amount of
>modulation: one sitting at 900 Hz, one at 1000 Hz, and
>one at 1100 Hz. Y'know, sidebands, and all that?

---
But that's true only for _modulation_, which is nonlinear mixing due
to time-variable gain.

In the case where a 100Hz and a 1000Hz signal were linearly mixed,
(algebraically summed) the resulting spectrum would contain only a
single line at 100Hz and another at 1000Hz.

---
JF

[Arny Krueger]

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Randy Yates" > wrote in message
>> m
>>
>>> On 03/02/2011 09:37 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2011 5:09 PM Dick Pierce spake thus:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Music is _NOT_ a pure sinusoidal waves and there are
>>>>>>> other things like attack, shape etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, every music wave form can be entirely
>>>>>> represented as a collection of enveloped sine wave.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not even "enveloped" sine waves: simply sine waves.
>>
>>
>>>> Yes. Just what is an "enveloped" sine wave anyway, pray
>>>> tell?
>>
>>
>>> Amplitude-modulated.
>>
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> I would like to hear how one simulates say piano notes
>> by means of just linear mixing of continuous sine waves.

> Are you saying that it's not possible? Here, take
> my shovel, dig up Mr. Fourier, tell him it's not
> possible.

> Take ANY amplitude-modulated waveform. Take it's
> Fourier transform. The result is some collection of
> continuous sine waves, n'est ce pas?

Right - the needed memory jog - an amplitude modulated carrier has a certain
spectrum. It picks up sidebands that are related to the modulating
frequency.

> Let's look at a simple case: a 1 kHz wave modulated by
> a 100 Hz envelope. That's three sine components, whose
> relative amplitudes are dependent upon the amount of
> modulation: one sitting at 900 Hz, one at 1000 Hz, and
> one at 1100 Hz. Y'know, sidebands, and all that?

Yup.

> Take a more complex waveform with a more complex envelope,
> and it's merely an extension of the same thing.
Yup.

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.

Thank you.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Fields" > wrote in
message

> But that's true only for _modulation_, which is nonlinear
> mixing due to time-variable gain.


You can simulate modulation by adding other signals (the sidebands) by means
of linear mixing.

The over all process is nonlinear because new frequencies are added. But,
the process that Dick described fit within my question about linear mixing.
I didn't say that new frequencies couldn't be added.

You're both right as long as you don't say that Dick is wrong, per my
question. ;-)

[Martin Brown]

On 03/03/2011 13:25, Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Randy > wrote in message
> m
>> On 03/02/2011 09:37 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>> On 3/2/2011 5:09 PM Dick Pierce spake thus:
>>>
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Sergey > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> Music is _NOT_ a pure sinusoidal waves and there are
>>>>>> other things like attack, shape etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, every music wave form can be entirely
>>>>> represented as a collection of enveloped sine wave.
>>>>
>>>> Not even "enveloped" sine waves: simply sine waves.
>
>>> Yes. Just what is an "enveloped" sine wave anyway, pray
>>> tell?
>
>> Amplitude-modulated.
>
> Right.
>
> I would like to hear how one simulates say piano notes by means of just
> linear mixing of continuous sine waves.

A quick handwaving version of how you do it is to choose a suitable
mixture of sinewaves centred around the fundamental and its harmonics
with the phases tweaked to have a sharp attack and a slow decay around
the peak envelope position and to cancel elsewhere. It would not be an
efficient representation of a piece of music but it could be done.

A more detailed explanation is that a multiplication of the signal in
the time domain is a convolution in the frequency domain (and vice
versa). That is amplitude modulation of a simple continuous carrier wave
with or without harmonics can be achieved in the frequency domain by
convolving with the Fourier transform of the envelope shape you want to
impose. Shannons sampling theorem for a band limited function and the
fact that the Fourier transform preserves all information allows a
formal proof.

ISTR in the late 70's there was an infamous near unplayable direct
mastered vinyl record of the 1812 which featured on the cover an
electron micrograph of the offending groove. It destroyed expensive
styluses as well as playing through very few times before failing.

Whilst you can produce an unplayable CD with laser readback it never
damages the playback device though it might damage the speakers.

Regards,
Martin Brown

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:39:52 -0500, Dick Pierce
> wrote:

>>
>> I would like to hear how one simulates say piano notes by means of just
>> linear mixing of continuous sine waves.
>
>Are you saying that it's not possible? Here, take
>my shovel, dig up Mr. Fourier, tell him it's not
>possible.
>
>Take ANY amplitude-modulated waveform. Take it's
>Fourier transform. The result is some collection of
>continuous sine waves, n'est ce pas?

I have always had the impression that you needed something similar of
a continuous waveform to get the FFT, trying to take the FFT of a
single pulse does not make a lot sense.

While the decaying part of the piano waveform could be simulated with
a series of sine waves multiplied with a curve simulating the
inversely exponentially dying out string oscillations, the attack part
of the waveform is far more complicated.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:29:10 +0200, wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:39:52 -0500, Dick Pierce
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I would like to hear how one simulates say piano notes by means of just
>>> linear mixing of continuous sine waves.
>>
>>Are you saying that it's not possible? Here, take
>>my shovel, dig up Mr. Fourier, tell him it's not
>>possible.
>>
>>Take ANY amplitude-modulated waveform. Take it's
>>Fourier transform. The result is some collection of
>>continuous sine waves, n'est ce pas?
>
>I have always had the impression that you needed something similar of
>a continuous waveform to get the FFT, trying to take the FFT of a
>single pulse does not make a lot sense.
>
>While the decaying part of the piano waveform could be simulated with
>a series of sine waves multiplied with a curve simulating the
>inversely exponentially dying out string oscillations, the attack part
>of the waveform is far more complicated.

You are both right and wrong. You are wrong in that the FFT couldn't
care less what shape the waveform is. Provided its frequency is
contained within half the sampling rate, it will reproduce it.

You are right - and this is where most people forget what an FFT
really does - in that there is an implicit assumption within the FFT
that the entire sample is repeated ad infinitum. In fact when you
perform an FFT, you effectively join the ends together to make a loop.

d

[John Fields]

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:11:26 -0500, Dick Pierce
> wrote:

>John Fields wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:39:52 -0500, Dick Pierce
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Randy Yates" > wrote in message
m
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 03/02/2011 09:37 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 3/2/2011 5:09 PM Dick Pierce spake thus:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Music is _NOT_ a pure sinusoidal waves and there are
>>>>>>>>>other things like attack, shape etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Actually, every music wave form can be entirely
>>>>>>>>represented as a collection of enveloped sine wave.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not even "enveloped" sine waves: simply sine waves.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Yes. Just what is an "enveloped" sine wave anyway, pray
>>>>>>tell?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Amplitude-modulated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Right.
>>>>
>>>>I would like to hear how one simulates say piano notes by means of just
>>>>linear mixing of continuous sine waves.
>>>
>>>Are you saying that it's not possible? Here, take
>>>my shovel, dig up Mr. Fourier, tell him it's not
>>>possible.
>>>
>>>Take ANY amplitude-modulated waveform. Take it's
>>>Fourier transform. The result is some collection of
>>>continuous sine waves, n'est ce pas?
>>>
>>>Let's look at a simple case: a 1 kHz wave modulated by
>>>a 100 Hz envelope. That's three sine components, whose
>>>relative amplitudes are dependent upon the amount of
>>>modulation: one sitting at 900 Hz, one at 1000 Hz, and
>>>one at 1100 Hz. Y'know, sidebands, and all that?
>>
>>
>> ---
>> But that's true only for _modulation_, which is nonlinear mixing due
>> to time-variable gain.
>
>That's right, that's what he was asking about.

---
He said:

"I would like to hear how one simulates say piano notes by means of
just linear mixing of continuous sine waves."

Which isn't modulation, so heterodyning won't occur and no sidebands
will be generated.

In truth, to do what he asked would require all of the spectral
components of the note, with their amplitude variations, to be mixed
linearly, (summed algebraically with respect to time) which isn't
modulation.

---
JF

[John Fields]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:25:35 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"John Fields" > wrote in
>message
>
>> But that's true only for _modulation_, which is nonlinear
>> mixing due to time-variable gain.
>
>
>You can simulate modulation by adding other signals (the sidebands) by means
>of linear mixing.

---
Yes, of course, and that's the process you'd use to generate your
simulated piano note, but it's not modulation and its attendant
heterodyning.
---

>The over all process is nonlinear because new frequencies are added.

---
If the new frequencies are added by linear mixing, then there can be
no nonlinearity in the system, otherwise unwanted sidebands will be
generated.
---

>But,
>the process that Dick described fit within my question about linear mixing.
>I didn't say that new frequencies couldn't be added.

---
Yes, but with linear mixing, which you were asking about, any new
frequencies can be added arbitrarily, without creating sidebands,
while with modulation, which Dick was talking about, sidebands will be
created over which you'll have little, if any, control.
---

>You're both right as long as you don't say that Dick is wrong, per my
>question. ;-)

---
Well, you asked about linear mixing and he replied by stating that
that would create sidebands, which it will not. :-)

---
JF

[Arny Krueger]

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message

> John Fields wrote:
>>> You're both right as long as you don't say that Dick is
>>> wrong, per my question. ;-)
>>
>> Well, you asked about linear mixing and he replied by
>> stating that that would create sidebands, which it will
>> not. :-)
>
> NO I didn't. Someone asked about how continuous sine waves
> can have an envelope, someone else described it as
> "amplitude modulate" and I simply described one case as
> an example where an amplitude-modulated waveform can be
> decomposed into component, continuous sine waves. I never
> attempted or intended to describe how the process of
> modulation takes place, only how a collection of
> component sine waves can lead to that result.

The important point is that one can create an amplitude modulated
(enveloped) signal by simple linear mixing of the right signals, or one can
use that well-known nonlinear process called Amplitude Modulation. One also
can also create a frequency modulated signal by simple linear mixing of a
different and often far more complex collection of signals.

[Sherry in Vermont]

On 2011-03-03 13:13:09 -0500, Kirk McElhearn <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com> said:

> On 2011-03-03 18:33:27 +0100, "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>> The important point is that one can create an amplitude modulated
>> (enveloped) signal by simple linear mixing of the right signals, or one can
>> use that well-known nonlinear process called Amplitude Modulation. One also
>> can also create a frequency modulated signal by simple linear mixing of a
>> different and often far more complex collection of signals.
>
> But does it work in a barber shop?
>
> Kirk

<snort!> Spewed tea all over my monitor.

Sherry in Vermont

[Andrew[_9_]]

On Feb 26, 9:04*pm, MalcolmO > wrote:

> > Most
> > commercial recordings today are released in a form which is far less
> > than "16-bit" in quality - they have been deliberately compressed
> > during the mastering process to sound "louder". *They've been quashed,
> > pummeled, clipped, gain-ridden, smelched, and squeezed down into a
> > tiny dynamic range.
>
> And they wonder why we don't buy records!

Wait. We don't?

[geoff]

Kirk McElhearn wrote:
> On 2011-03-03 20:11:45 +0100, Sherry in Vermont
> > said:
>>>> The important point is that one can create an amplitude modulated
>>>> (enveloped) signal by simple linear mixing of the right signals,
>>>> or one can use that well-known nonlinear process called Amplitude
>>>> Modulation. One also can also create a frequency modulated signal
>>>> by simple linear mixing of a different and often far more complex
>>>> collection of signals.
>>>
>>> But does it work in a barber shop?
>>>
>>> Kirk
>>
>> <snort!> Spewed tea all over my monitor.
>
> At least it was tea, not beer...


Or spew ;-0

geoff

[Sherry in Vermont]

On 2011-03-03 14:29:19 -0500, Kirk McElhearn <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com> said:

> On 2011-03-03 20:11:45 +0100, Sherry in Vermont > said:
>
>>>> The important point is that one can create an amplitude modulated
>>>> (enveloped) signal by simple linear mixing of the right signals, or one can
>>>> use that well-known nonlinear process called Amplitude Modulation. One also
>>>> can also create a frequency modulated signal by simple linear mixing of a
>>>> different and often far more complex collection of signals.
>>>
>>> But does it work in a barber shop?
>>>
>>> Kirk
>>
>> <snort!> Spewed tea all over my monitor.
>
> At least it was tea, not beer...
>
> Kirk

Nah - always driving the kids hither and yon... no beer for me unless
we're staying home (only on Mondays thru the winter). I am a
lightweight - one beer and I am tipy. I prefer bowls to beer, I can
handle that better anyway. :)

Sherry in Vermont

[Sherry in Vermont]

On 2011-03-03 14:43:30 -0500, "geoff" > said:

> Kirk McElhearn wrote:
>> On 2011-03-03 20:11:45 +0100, Sherry in Vermont
>> > said:
>>>>> The important point is that one can create an amplitude modulated
>>>>> (enveloped) signal by simple linear mixing of the right signals,
>>>>> or one can use that well-known nonlinear process called Amplitude
>>>>> Modulation. One also can also create a frequency modulated signal
>>>>> by simple linear mixing of a different and often far more complex
>>>>> collection of signals.
>>>>
>>>> But does it work in a barber shop?
>>>>
>>>> Kirk
>>>
>>> <snort!> Spewed tea all over my monitor.
>>
>> At least it was tea, not beer...
>
>
> Or spew ;-0
>
> geoff

Ewwwww!

Sherry in Vermont

[Trevor]

"Randy Yates" > wrote in message
...
>>> You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era.
>>
>> Fair enough, and I don't!
>> Nostalgia ain't what it used to be anyway :-)
>
> That's quite a jackass attitude you've got there.

Better than being a humour impaired self righteous jackass I guess.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"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.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
>>
>> That is exactly what some of us, including myself, are doing. As a
>> matter of fact it is not just copying to a CD -- they are digitized
>> in 24/96 and that digitized material is saved and listened to if
>> conditions permit. For everyday use (such as plaing it in one's car
>> or whatever) that material is downsampled to 16/44 and put on CDs.
>>
>> And I betcha they sound light ages better than commercial CDs with
>> the same material.
>>
>
> More likely they sound more to your expectaions, which may not necessary
> 'better' in terms of true fidelity to the master tape.


Unfortunately many people cannot conceive of the idea that what "sounds
better" to them, is NOT actually a more accurate reproduction of the
original. Sad really.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"David" > wrote in message
...
> If you record mix and master the CDs yourself there would be absolutely no
> point whatsoever in having the recording cut to vinyl, as you have
> personally done the bit that so many record companies deliberately feck
> up.

No argument from me, and like many others I have lamented at the quality of
some of the biggest selling CD's on the market. But obviously those buying
Brittney Spears, Lady Ga Ga, Katy Perry etc. are happy, or not complaining
enough, and I doubt they are looking for them on vinyl! However there are
also many other recordings on CD that are actually OK, far more than is
available on new vinyl IME.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"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.


Actually both are very close to sine waves, except one has far more noise
and distortion.


> 24/96 is way better, it covers all you can get from analog audio
> perfectly,
> no complaints.

Right, but recording vinyl to 24/96 is only kidding yourself.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Sergey Kubushyn" > wrote in message
...
>>> More likely they sound more to your expectaions, which may not necessary
>>> 'better' in terms of true fidelity to the master tape.
>>
>> Unfortunately many people cannot conceive of the idea that what "sounds
>> better" to them, is NOT actually a more accurate reproduction of the
>> original. Sad really.
>
> Once again -- people listen to the _music_ , not the accurate reproduction
> or whatever is good on paper. If one likes unhealthy charred barbeque
> steak
> there is no reason to persuade him steam boiled vegetables and turkey meat
> is healthier :)

Nobody has a problem with YOU listening to what YOU prefer, only the blanket
claim that vinyl is the best source of music. Just the same as I don't care
what others eat, as long as it's not illegal or unsustainable.

Trevor.

[SoothSayer]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:33:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>The important point is that one can create an amplitude modulated
>(enveloped) signal by simple linear mixing of the right signals,

Nope. Not by mixing. 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.

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article <2011030314114543658-sherry13@togethernet>,
Sherry in Vermont > wrote:

> On 2011-03-03 13:13:09 -0500, Kirk McElhearn <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com> said:
>
> > On 2011-03-03 18:33:27 +0100, "Arny Krueger" > said:
> >
> >> The important point is that one can create an amplitude modulated
> >> (enveloped) signal by simple linear mixing of the right signals, or one can
> >> use that well-known nonlinear process called Amplitude Modulation. One also
> >> can also create a frequency modulated signal by simple linear mixing of a
> >> different and often far more complex collection of signals.
> >
> > But does it work in a barber shop?
> >
> > Kirk
>
> <snort!> Spewed tea all over my monitor.
>
> Sherry in Vermont

This is what happens when you let the deadheads in the with the techies!

:-)

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 20:29:19 +0100, Kirk McElhearn <kirkmc (at) mac
(dot) com> wrote:

>On 2011-03-03 20:11:45 +0100, Sherry in Vermont > said:
>
>>>> The important point is that one can create an amplitude modulated
>>>> (enveloped) signal by simple linear mixing of the right signals, or one can
>>>> use that well-known nonlinear process called Amplitude Modulation. One also
>>>> can also create a frequency modulated signal by simple linear mixing of a
>>>> different and often far more complex collection of signals.
>>>
>>> But does it work in a barber shop?
>>>
>>> Kirk
>>
>> <snort!> Spewed tea all over my monitor.
>
>At least it was tea, not beer...
>
>Kirk

Yeah, it's a sin to waste beer.

John

[Jeroen Belleman]

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

[SoothSayer]

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?

>
>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.

Is it identical? Are you saying "sum" or "multiply"? They are
different words. You should choose one.
>
>In conclusion, your assertion that linear summation can't
>get you a modulated waveform is wrong.
>
The 'waveform' is not what is required to be modulated to qualify as
AM. The amplitude of a carrier has to be modulated by the second signal.

Simple summation of the two signals is a summated pair of sine waves.
Shows up a little different on the scope. Besides, you said multiply, not
sum. So, two tens gets you a hundred?

Modulating the amplitude of one sine wave with the other is a different
injection method. Two tens will get you twenty.

[Arny Krueger]

"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?

[Arny Krueger]

"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-content/uploads/2007/09/audibility-of-a-cd-standard-ada-loop-inserted.pdf

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[John Fields]

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

[Jeroen Belleman]

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

[Jeroen Belleman]

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

[John Larkin]

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

[John Larkin]

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

[John Fields]

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

[geoff]

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

[SoothSayer]

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.

[Randy Yates]

On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Randy > wrote in message
> m
>
>> 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

[Randy Yates]

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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

[Randy Yates]

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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

[Randy Yates]

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

[Michael A. Terrell]

Randy Yates wrote:
>
> On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Randy > wrote in message
> > m
> >
> >> 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.

[Trevor]

"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.

[Trevor]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in
message
> Randy Yates wrote:
>>
>> On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Randy > wrote in message
>>> m
>>>
>>>> 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.

[ehsjr[_3_]]

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
m
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>
>

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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
>>>>> m
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?

[[email protected]]

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
>>>> m
>>>>
>>>>> 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:-(

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

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
>>>>> m
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 here:

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

[Michael A. Terrell]

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
> >>> m
> >>>
> >>>> 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.

[[email protected]]

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
>>>>>> m
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.

[Trevor]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

> 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.

[Arny Krueger]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message

> Ehhh.... let's relist here:

> 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.

[Trevor]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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...

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:23:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>"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.

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).

[SoothSayer]

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.

[SoothSayer]

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.

[SoothSayer]

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.

[SoothSayer]

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

[Trevor]

"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.

[Trevor]

"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.

[SoothSayer]

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.

[Trevor]

"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.
>
> I never said anything about a mast.

Right, I did.

> Indoor, desktop (set top) antenna with pre-amp.
> Crappy old first year tuner from US Digital.

Which might work well for you where you live. Consider yourself lucky. Many
others aren't.

Trevor.

[Rich Grise[_3_]]

SoothSayer wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:23:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>
>>Ca. 1960 movies might have content that taxes even modern HD. Cinerama and
>>the high end Cinemascope releases come to mind.
>
> "MacKenna's Gold".
>
The only part of this movie that I remember was Julie Newmar as some Indian
maiden swimming naked.

Thanks!
Rich

[Arny Krueger]

"SoothSayer" > wrote in message

> 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,

A visibly flawed if not unenjoyable if not unwatchable signal.

> it puts up a blank screen
> because it has decided the signal is below its minimum
> acceptable strength or BER.

Dooohhh.

You seem to have forgotten that the comparison is digital versus analog.

So what is analog doing at the same channel, time and place?

Trust me, it is not delivering a perfect picture.


> 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.

SD being what, San Diego?

> 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.

Sounds like San Deigo. Been there, done that and you're not going to pull
the wool over my eyes.

SD is like SF - due to the rugged terrain and the widely distributed
residential areas, OTA is exceedingly variable for both analog and digital.
Always has been, always will be. The SD area is a poster child for cable
and satellite. And satellite can be iffy if you are on the wrong side of the
mountain.


> The signals are there. You simply need a good tuner and antenna to get
> them.

A good antenna can't pick up a signal that isn't there or is highly
corrupted.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor" > wrote in message

> "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.

The results are not classic pixelation but rather a decrease in resolution.
Pixelation implies sharp edges.

> 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 you didn't say that.

> 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.

Agreed. One can see numerous formats and quality levels within the same TV
show. Especially true for news, but also true in other kinds of progamming.

>>> 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.

There seems to be more channels than good high quality programming. But who
is surprised?

>> 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.

I've been on cable since the 70s.

>> And then there are the satellite services, both TV and
>> radio...

> Right, I don't want or need those either.

If you want the IP, you're going to pay. The only question is which
currency.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>A visibly flawed if not unenjoyable if not unwatchable signal.

You obviously have no clue about how MPEG-2 works.

Just so you know, it is ALL MPEG-2 streams.

Also, bone up on FEC.

Since all you have ever seen is the blank screen the tuner delivers, you
wouldn't know.

I worked at GI, the company that made the hardware that the cable
companies and channel content providers ALL use. I HAVE seen what types
of drop-outs occur.

You are just an idiot that talks out of you ass because you mouth knows
better.

SOME of what you guess at has correctness in it, but very little, and
particularly as this thread turned to talk about video.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>So what is analog doing at the same channel, time and place?
>
>Trust me, it is not delivering a perfect picture.

No it isn't since it is no longer being broadcast.

But that is not all that is wrong with your declaration either.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Sounds like San Deigo. Been there, done that and you're not going to pull
>the wool over my eyes.

You're a total retard. You have NOT "been there", and you have not
"done that". You are a total ****ing retard. Hell, you can't even spell
it.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> And satellite can be iffy if you are on the wrong side of the
>mountain.

You're an idiot.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>A good antenna can't pick up a signal that isn't there or is highly
>corrupted.

Got any more gems of truth, Dingledorf?

[Arny Krueger]

"SoothSayer" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> A visibly flawed if not unenjoyable if not unwatchable
>> signal.

> You obviously have no clue about how MPEG-2 works.

That would be a joke on you.

> Just so you know, it is ALL MPEG-2 streams.

Doooh!

> Also, bone up on FEC.

AKA as ECC in much of the civilized universe.

> Since all you have ever seen is the blank screen the
> tuner delivers, you wouldn't know.

No need to make yourself look stupid.

> I worked at GI, the company that made the hardware that
> the cable companies and channel content providers ALL
> use. I HAVE seen what types of drop-outs occur.

I take it that with your obvious personality flaws, GI kept you away from
paying customers?

Too bad an IQ test is not required for internet access...

[Arny Krueger]

"SoothSayer" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> So what is analog doing at the same channel, time and
>> place?
>>
>> Trust me, it is not delivering a perfect picture.
>
> No it isn't since it is no longer being broadcast.

You've got a problem with people who remember what was happening say 18
months ago?

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> The results are not classic pixelation but rather a decrease in
> resolution. Pixelation implies sharp edges.

Call it what you want. How sharp the block edges are simply depends on your
equipment, but the resolution is always lower for lower bit rates.

>> I was talking about 1960's TV shows,
>
> But you didn't say that.

In fact I did. Or at least "1960's *RE-RUNS* that are obviously NOT high
definition in any sense of the word, and NOT even WIDESCREEN" certainly
implies it rather than the cinerama movies etc. you assumed, which obviously
ARE widescreen!
Not that all digital transfers of widescreen movies are even made to
widescreen format (or HD). IME many DVD movies are still 4:3 because they
have simply used an old video transfer. And then they are shown on TV. You
are not going to claim that a movie originally transferred to video tape
then to DVD, is somehow going to be HIGH DEFINITION just because it's
transmitted on a Hi-Def channel I hope?


> There seems to be more channels than good high quality programming. But
> who is surprised?

Not a problem, I just wish there was SOME actual Hi-Def programs still being
transmitted here. They were when we first got digital broadcasting.


> I've been on cable since the 70s.

Lucky you, I have never missed it (or paying for it) until I bought a large
screen TV, and they stopped screening HD material on our HD channels.

> If you want the IP, you're going to pay. The only question is which
> currency.

Our TV channels are still making a LARGE amount from advertising, just as
they always did. And they got BIG taxpayer funding to convert to digital
equipment. And even our *taxpayer* funded government owned channel now
screens ONLY news on it's HD channel, preferring to show all the wonderful
BBC documentaries that were once on it's HD channel, but now solely in SD
(no not San Diego :-)

So yes, my taxes and advertising dollars are still paying, but now I am
being short changed!

Trevor.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:24:28 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
> wrote:

> Don't feed the troll. Look up his IP address and you'll see he is
>near SD. Here are some of his ignorant sock puppets:

You're a goddamned idiot, boy!

Mike Terrell is a Usenet troll of the worst kind.

A self righteous utter retard. One of the worst examples of a "civil
human being" in existence.

**** off and DIE, Mike Terrell.

I hope your jaw hurts like a mother****er.

Just be glad I am not the mother****er coming to make it hurt.

My nyms ignore nothing.

The group should ignore your utter stupidity, however.

**** Off And DIE, Mike Terrell.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:30:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> Also, bone up on FEC.
>
>AKA as ECC in much of the civilized universe.

Wrong again, dip****.

ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.


I wish the retarded, cross-posting retards would simply stay the ****
out of the electronic groups.

Hey krug****, I'll bet you twisted wires together and added electrical
tape to hook up van speakers.

I used soldered connections. That is the difference between me and
you. You observe something with layman's eyes, then guess at what it is
about. I LEARN about something via research and careful, scientific
observation and KNOW what it is about.

PS. a.k.a. is not capitalized. So much for what you know about 'the
civilized universe'.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:31:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"SoothSayer" > wrote in message

>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So what is analog doing at the same channel, time and
>>> place?
>>>
>>> Trust me, it is not delivering a perfect picture.
>>
>> No it isn't since it is no longer being broadcast.
>
>You've got a problem with people who remember what was happening say 18
>months ago?
>
>
Touchy little bitch, eh?

It was not 'delivering a perfect picture" then, nor at any other time
it was operational, ya ****in' Luddite twit.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:32:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Thank you. He gets old, fast.
>
And dopes like you prove yourself as braindead even faster.

[Arny Krueger]

"SoothSayer" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:30:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Also, bone up on FEC.
>>
>> AKA as ECC in much of the civilized universe.

> Wrong again, dip****.

> ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.

Absolutely and totally wrong. ECC RAM in fact does no ECC. It just provides
some extra bits that are used by the ECC circuitry in the memory controller.

I was working on computers with ECC RAM when virtually all RAM was made out
of magnetic cores.

> I wish the retarded, cross-posting retards would simply
> stay the **** out of the electronic groups.

You would seem to qualify.

> Hey krug****, I'll bet you twisted wires together and
> added electrical tape to hook up van speakers.

I've long been a believer in wirenuts when soldering was not practical. But,
I've probably built more electronic equipment that is still in use by
accident than you ever dreamed could exist.

> I used soldered connections.

If they were up to your intrapersonal and technical skills, then they were
all cold joints.

> That is the difference
> between me and you. You observe something with layman's
> eyes, then guess at what it is about.

I guessed very well then, as they gave me an engineering degree, probably
while your dad's only hands-on sex life involved Playboy.

> I LEARN about
> something via research and careful, scientific
> observation and KNOW what it is about.

Which is why you have no clue about ECC and actually think that its done by
RAM chips as a rule.

LOL!

[SoothSayer]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>I've long been a believer in wirenuts when soldering was not practical. But,
>I've probably built more electronic equipment that is still in use by
>accident than you ever dreamed could exist.


Wiring up speakers with wire nuts?!

Yeah, you're a real pro, dumbass.

[JW]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500 "Arny Krueger" > wrote
in Message id: >:

>"SoothSayer" > wrote in message

>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:30:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Also, bone up on FEC.
>>>
>>> AKA as ECC in much of the civilized universe.
>
>> Wrong again, dip****.
>
>> ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.
>
>Absolutely and totally wrong. ECC RAM in fact does no ECC. It just provides
>some extra bits that are used by the ECC circuitry in the memory controller.
>
>I was working on computers with ECC RAM when virtually all RAM was made out
>of magnetic cores.

You're talking to the guy who thinks DRAM doesn't use capacitors for
storage, or didn't until I crammed that fact down his miserable throat and
he dropped the thread. We call him AlwaysWrong (among other things). He'll
never admit when he wrong.

>> I wish the retarded, cross-posting retards would simply
>> stay the **** out of the electronic groups.
>
>You would seem to qualify.
>
>> Hey krug****, I'll bet you twisted wires together and
>> added electrical tape to hook up van speakers.
>
>I've long been a believer in wirenuts when soldering was not practical. But,
>I've probably built more electronic equipment that is still in use by
>accident than you ever dreamed could exist.
>
>> I used soldered connections.
>
>If they were up to your intrapersonal and technical skills, then they were
>all cold joints.

Not true, some were solder shorts.

[Arny Krueger]

"JW" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500 "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote in Message id:
> >:
>
>> "SoothSayer" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:30:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Also, bone up on FEC.
>>>>
>>>> AKA as ECC in much of the civilized universe.
>>
>>> Wrong again, dip****.
>>
>>> ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.
>>
>> Absolutely and totally wrong. ECC RAM in fact does no
>> ECC. It just provides some extra bits that are used by
>> the ECC circuitry in the memory controller.
>>
>> I was working on computers with ECC RAM when virtually
>> all RAM was made out of magnetic cores.
>
> You're talking to the guy who thinks DRAM doesn't use
> capacitors for storage, or didn't until I crammed that
> fact down his miserable throat and he dropped the thread.

Ouch.

A real brain trust, eh?

> We call him AlwaysWrong (among other things). He'll never
> admit when he wrong.

I see no evidence that weakens your claim.

>>> I wish the retarded, cross-posting retards would simply
>>> stay the **** out of the electronic groups.
>>
>> You would seem to qualify.
>>
>>> Hey krug****, I'll bet you twisted wires together and
>>> added electrical tape to hook up van speakers.
>>
>> I've long been a believer in wirenuts when soldering was
>> not practical. But, I've probably built more electronic
>> equipment that is still in use by accident than you ever
>> dreamed could exist.
>>
>>> I used soldered connections.

>> If they were up to your intrapersonal and technical
>> skills, then they were all cold joints.

> Not true, some were solder shorts.

Ouch! ;-)

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>> ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.
>
>Absolutely and totally wrong. ECC RAM in fact does no ECC. It just provides
>some extra bits that are used by the ECC circuitry in the memory controller.
>
>I was working on computers with ECC RAM when virtually all RAM was made out
>of magnetic cores.

Core memory with an extra parity plane was quite common in the 1970's,
but I have not stumbled into core memories with ECC.

When semiconductor memory companies like Intel, tried to enter the
main memory business with 4 Kib, 8 Kib (partially faulty 16 Kib) and
16 Kib chips, which suffered from package alpha radiation, they had to
use ECC in order to reach similar reliability compared to parity
protected core memories.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>> ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.
>>
>> Absolutely and totally wrong. ECC RAM in fact does no
>> ECC. It just provides some extra bits that are used by
>> the ECC circuitry in the memory controller.
>>
>> I was working on computers with ECC RAM when virtually
>> all RAM was made out of magnetic cores.
>
> Core memory with an extra parity plane was quite common
> in the 1970's, but I have not stumbled into core memories
> with ECC.

IBM was pretty consistent about using ECC in 7030, 7090 and 360/85, which
were among the last top-of-the-line mainframes with core.


http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/vs-ibm-stretch.html

"IBM 7302 - IBM 7030 Core Storage (16384 - 72-bit words: 64 data bits & 8
ECC bits).

"The 7090 core memory was a direct takeoff of the 7030 core memory. The
memory bus provided the 7090 with 2 36 bit words at a time instead of one 64
bit plus 8 ECC bits word or 8 bytes and 1 byte ECC so the effective 7090
memory size was 32768 36 bit words."

http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/funcChar/A22-6916-1_360-85_funcChar_Jun68.pdf

Several references to an "ECC switch".

> When semiconductor memory companies like Intel, tried to
> enter the main memory business with 4 Kib, 8 Kib
> (partially faulty 16 Kib) and 16 Kib chips, which
> suffered from package alpha radiation, they had to use
> ECC in order to reach similar reliability compared to
> parity protected core memories.

Intel also made 4 K chips that were split in half and connected with a
fusable link, so either half could be used by itself if only half were bad.

They made add-on storage devices that were based on these, and added hot
spare banks of RAM that could be automatically swapped in if an existing
bank was getting too much ECC action. Microprocessors, I think 8086s,
supervised the whole operation.

Intel unfortunately discovered that chips that were a half defective when
first made, had vastly degraded reliability down the road.

[Arny Krueger]

"SoothSayer" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> I've long been a believer in wirenuts when soldering was
>> not practical. But, I've probably built more electronic
>> equipment that is still in use by accident than you ever
>> dreamed could exist.

> Wiring up speakers with wire nuts?!

> Yeah, you're a real pro, dumbass.

Keep talking sucker, your inexperience is showing.

[SoothSayer]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:05:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> Not true, some were solder shorts.
>
>Ouch! ;-)

It is fun to watch you children in your utter retardation.

[TheQuickBrownFox]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:58:03 +0200, wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>> ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.
>>
>>Absolutely and totally wrong. ECC RAM in fact does no ECC. It just provides
>>some extra bits that are used by the ECC circuitry in the memory controller.
>>
>>I was working on computers with ECC RAM when virtually all RAM was made out
>>of magnetic cores.
>
>Core memory with an extra parity plane was quite common in the 1970's,
>but I have not stumbled into core memories with ECC.

Mainly due to the FACT that he is an utter idiot.

[TheQuickBrownFox]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:00:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"SoothSayer" > wrote in message

>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I've long been a believer in wirenuts when soldering was
>>> not practical. But, I've probably built more electronic
>>> equipment that is still in use by accident than you ever
>>> dreamed could exist.
>
>> Wiring up speakers with wire nuts?!
>
>> Yeah, you're a real pro, dumbass.
>
>Keep talking sucker, your inexperience is showing.
>

Your total retardation is glaring like the ass crack of a fat slob
bitch with low waistline pant on.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:58:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> wrote in message

>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.
>>>
>>> Absolutely and totally wrong. ECC RAM in fact does no
>>> ECC. It just provides some extra bits that are used by
>>> the ECC circuitry in the memory controller.
>>>
>>> I was working on computers with ECC RAM when virtually
>>> all RAM was made out of magnetic cores.
>>
>> Core memory with an extra parity plane was quite common
>> in the 1970's, but I have not stumbled into core memories
>> with ECC.
>
>IBM was pretty consistent about using ECC in 7030, 7090 and 360/85, which
>were among the last top-of-the-line mainframes with core.

That's why he's known around here as "DimBulb" and "AlwaysWrong". He calls
himself over a hundred nyms (he's also known as "Nymbecile") but his scat
fetish is easy to spot.

>http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/vs-ibm-stretch.html
>
>"IBM 7302 - IBM 7030 Core Storage (16384 - 72-bit words: 64 data bits & 8
>ECC bits).
>
>"The 7090 core memory was a direct takeoff of the 7030 core memory. The
>memory bus provided the 7090 with 2 36 bit words at a time instead of one 64
>bit plus 8 ECC bits word or 8 bytes and 1 byte ECC so the effective 7090
>memory size was 32768 36 bit words."
>
>http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/funcChar/A22-6916-1_360-85_funcChar_Jun68.pdf
>
>Several references to an "ECC switch".
>
> > When semiconductor memory companies like Intel, tried to
>> enter the main memory business with 4 Kib, 8 Kib
>> (partially faulty 16 Kib) and 16 Kib chips, which
>> suffered from package alpha radiation, they had to use
>> ECC in order to reach similar reliability compared to
>> parity protected core memories.
>
>Intel also made 4 K chips that were split in half and connected with a
>fusable link, so either half could be used by itself if only half were bad.
>
>They made add-on storage devices that were based on these, and added hot
>spare banks of RAM that could be automatically swapped in if an existing
>bank was getting too much ECC action. Microprocessors, I think 8086s,
>supervised the whole operation.
>
>Intel unfortunately discovered that chips that were a half defective when
>first made, had vastly degraded reliability down the road.

IBM did similar things but didn't see such degradation.

[JosephKK]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:36:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> wrote in message

>
>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 12:46:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>
<snip>

>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.
>
And at other locations the analog signal was eminently watchable and the
digital signal never receivable (black screen with broken audio) in spite
of plenty of signal strength.

[Arny Krueger]

"SoothSayer" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:05:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Not true, some were solder shorts.
>>
>> Ouch! ;-)
>
> It is fun to watch you children in your utter
> retardation.

It is very appropriate that the above is so stupid it is undecipherable.

So tell me Sooth, how many of your kids have PhDs and are working in
scientific research? If so, please provide links to their recent papers.

[Arny Krueger]

"TheQuickBrownFox" >
wrote in message

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:58:03 +0200,
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.
>>>
>>> Absolutely and totally wrong. ECC RAM in fact does no
>>> ECC. It just provides some extra bits that are used by
>>> the ECC circuitry in the memory controller.
>>>
>>> I was working on computers with ECC RAM when virtually
>>> all RAM was made out of magnetic cores.
>>
>> Core memory with an extra parity plane was quite common
>> in the 1970's, but I have not stumbled into core
>> memories with ECC.
>
> Mainly due to the FACT that he is an utter idiot.

Doesn't make the independent supporting references that I provided go away.

[Arny Krueger]

"josephkk" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:36:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 12:46:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>
>> 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.
>>
> And at other locations the analog signal was eminently
> watchable and the digital signal never receivable (black
> screen with broken audio) in spite of plenty of signal
> strength.

Exactly. So you can't make up a rule that says that digital is on the
average less useful. OTA reception is always a YMMV thing.

[JW]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:15:44 -0500 "Arny Krueger" > wrote
in Message id: >:

>"SoothSayer" > wrote in message

>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:05:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Not true, some were solder shorts.
>>>
>>> Ouch! ;-)
>>
>> It is fun to watch you children in your utter
>> retardation.
>
>It is very appropriate that the above is so stupid it is undecipherable.

Yep, and that's another thing about him. His Usenet posts are barely
discernable as being authored by someone who has digits that oppose.

I'd feel sorry for him, but he's such a little prick I can't quite manage
that.

[SoothSayer]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:17:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> OTA reception is always a YMMV thing.


You're a complete loon.

[SoothSayer]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:29:18 -0500, JW > wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:15:44 -0500 "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>in Message id: >:
>
>>"SoothSayer" > wrote in message

>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:05:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Not true, some were solder shorts.
>>>>
>>>> Ouch! ;-)
>>>
>>> It is fun to watch you children in your utter
>>> retardation.
>>
>>It is very appropriate that the above is so stupid it is undecipherable.
>
>Yep, and that's another thing about him. His Usenet posts are barely
>discernable as being authored by someone who has digits that oppose.
>
>I'd feel sorry for him, but he's such a little prick I can't quite manage
>that.


May a funny black man blow strange yellow powder in your face, and you
be declared dead and be buried... yet alive.

Well, you wouldn't survive the autopsy or the embalmment anyway.

[Randy Yates]

On 03/11/2011 01:10 AM, josephkk wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:36:23 -0500, "Arny >
> wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 12:46:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>
>> 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.
>>
> And at other locations the analog signal was eminently watchable and the
> digital signal never receivable (black screen with broken audio) in spite
> of plenty of signal strength.

If the digital signa was at the same frequency, I'm not sure why that
would occur unless you had a multipath problem. If you are talking
about early ATSC, many receivers had limited ability to fight
multipath. But if you had a bad multipath problem, you'd have seen
it in the analog signal too.
--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Randy Yates]

On 03/12/2011 08:40 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
> On 03/11/2011 01:10 AM, josephkk wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:36:23 -0500, "Arny >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 12:46:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> And at other locations the analog signal was eminently watchable and the
>> digital signal never receivable (black screen with broken audio) in spite
>> of plenty of signal strength.
>
> If the digital signa was at the same frequency, I'm not sure why that
> would occur unless you had a multipath problem. If you are talking
> about early ATSC, many receivers had limited ability to fight
> multipath. But if you had a bad multipath problem, you'd have seen
> it in the analog signal too.

PS: At least some stations have changed frequency when going to digital;
if that is the case, there could be any combination of the following
to account for your observation:

1. Your antenna has less gain at the new frequency that the
old frequency.

2. Your antenna has a wider pattern (and thus is more susceptible
to multipath) at the new frequency than the old frequency.

3. The new frequency would have different multipath characteristics
that could significantly degrade the quality of the signal before it
ever hit the receiver.

--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Randy Yates" > wrote in message
m
> On 03/11/2011 01:10 AM, josephkk wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:36:23 -0500, "Arny
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 12:46:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> 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.
>> And at other locations the analog signal was eminently
>> watchable and the digital signal never receivable (black
>> screen with broken audio) in spite of plenty of signal
>> strength.
>
> If the digital signa was at the same frequency, I'm not
> sure why that would occur unless you had a multipath
> problem.

The digital and analog signals were never at the same frequency during the
period when we could compare OTA digital with analog signals for pretty
obvious reasons. In most cases the analog signal was VHF and the digital
signal was UHF.

[TheQuickBrownFox]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 07:34:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> In most cases the analog signal was VHF and the digital
>signal was UHF.

As if your knowledge of the difference was anything more than that of a
layman.

You're lucky that you know they are different frequencies, but I have
serious doubts that you know anything more about their differences, much
less anything about how transmissible or receivable either is.

The biggest indicator is the very fact that you bring it up as if it is
a factor to begin with.

[Randy Yates]

On 03/13/2011 07:34 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Randy > wrote in message
> m
>> On 03/11/2011 01:10 AM, josephkk wrote:
>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:36:23 -0500, "Arny
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 12:46:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> And at other locations the analog signal was eminently
>>> watchable and the digital signal never receivable (black
>>> screen with broken audio) in spite of plenty of signal
>>> strength.
>>
>> If the digital signa was at the same frequency, I'm not
>> sure why that would occur unless you had a multipath
>> problem.
>
> The digital and analog signals were never at the same frequency during the
> period when we could compare OTA digital with analog signals for pretty
> obvious reasons. In most cases the analog signal was VHF and the digital
> signal was UHF.

....except when the analog signal was UHF and the digital signal was UHF.

Actually one could still have compared the two, even if they weren't
present simultaneously, given the fact that human beings have memory;
indeed this is the scenario I had in mind.

Perhaps this was the exception rather than the rule, however - I really
don't know.
--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[MrTallyman]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 11:59:46 -0400, Randy Yates > wrote:

>On 03/13/2011 07:34 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Randy > wrote in message
>> m
>>> On 03/11/2011 01:10 AM, josephkk wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:36:23 -0500, "Arny
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 12:46:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> And at other locations the analog signal was eminently
>>>> watchable and the digital signal never receivable (black
>>>> screen with broken audio) in spite of plenty of signal
>>>> strength.
>>>
>>> If the digital signa was at the same frequency, I'm not
>>> sure why that would occur unless you had a multipath
>>> problem.
>>
>> The digital and analog signals were never at the same frequency during the
>> period when we could compare OTA digital with analog signals for pretty
>> obvious reasons. In most cases the analog signal was VHF and the digital
>> signal was UHF.
>
>...except when the analog signal was UHF and the digital signal was UHF.
>
>Actually one could still have compared the two, even if they weren't
>present simultaneously, given the fact that human beings have memory;
>indeed this is the scenario I had in mind.
>
>Perhaps this was the exception rather than the rule, however - I really
>don't know.


I remember the signals in Cincinnati were just as good, if not better
in the analog days.

I think that was at an even lower wattage on the UHF side.

No comparison now, as the transmitter antennas are different regardless
of what band they are on.

You may see local individual channels appear as well. But they will be
digital.

[Arny Krueger]

"Randy Yates" > wrote in message
m
> On 03/13/2011 07:34 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Randy > wrote in message
>> m
>>> On 03/11/2011 01:10 AM, josephkk wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:36:23 -0500, "Arny
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 12:46:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> And at other locations the analog signal was eminently
>>>> watchable and the digital signal never receivable
>>>> (black screen with broken audio) in spite of plenty of
>>>> signal strength.
>>>
>>> If the digital signa was at the same frequency, I'm not
>>> sure why that would occur unless you had a multipath
>>> problem.
>>
>> The digital and analog signals were never at the same
>> frequency during the period when we could compare OTA
>> digital with analog signals for pretty obvious reasons.
>> In most cases the analog signal was VHF and the digital
>> signal was UHF.

> ...except when the analog signal was UHF and the digital
> signal was UHF.

It turned out that in every case but one, the HDTV channels that once were
UHF analog, ended up at lower frequencies

50 went to 14
56 went to 43
62 went to 44

The exception:

38 went to 39

> Actually one could still have compared the two, even if
> they weren't present simultaneously, given the fact that
> human beings have memory; indeed this is the scenario I
> had in mind.

It is just that simultaneous comparison is easier and potentially more
accurate.


> Perhaps this was the exception rather than the rule,
> however - I really don't know.

[marcman]

On Mar 14, 8:16*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:


> 50 went to 14
> 56 went *to 43
> 62 went to 44
>
> The exception:
>
> 38 went to 39


Yeah, well, this one here . . . goes to eleven.