| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
DVDr vs CDr.
When recording on cassette tapes was still the main way for us home
audio enthusiasts (of limited budget) to record music, and CDs were just beginning to replace the old LP, I took a cue from a friend and made the switch to using a hi-fi video recorder. I used it to record favorite albums, 'party tapes' and my own semi-musical meanderings, (still kept a cassette recorder/player for some things). The reason for doing this was of course the higher quality, audio-wise, of hi-fi video compared to cassette tapes. Now it's a generation later and I'm wondering if I shouldn't take the same approach with digital recording. With the price of stand-alone DVD recorders coming down to reasonable levels do you think it would be a good idea to buy a DVD recorder for my home audio system, (using it, in part, to preserve old analog recordings), and just skip buying a CD recorder altogether? (I've got a burner for my pc, but that's all.) What would be the pluses and minuses of doing this? Thanks for any comments. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"Gareth Hardy" wrote in
message With the price of stand-alone DVD recorders coming down to reasonable levels do you think it would be a good idea to buy a DVD recorder for my home audio system, (using it, in part, to preserve old analog recordings), and just skip buying a CD recorder altogether? (I've got a burner for my pc, but that's all.) What would be the pluses and minuses of doing this? Thanks for any comments. Ever hear of using computers for audio? It works! Advantages of CDR: Portability - you can use them in your car, at your mates etc Price - CDR can be obtained for about 20% the price of a DVD-R Readiness - Sounds like you already have the kit you need. Advantages of DVDR: Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio) No audible benefits. More space - A CDR has just 16% the capacity of a DVDR Good point, but in fact most practical CD-R's are full of empty space, as actually used. More compression options - Dolby, MPEG1 and 2, and (of course) uncompressed. Right Disadvantages of DVD-R: (1) DVD-R drives are at least 3-4x more expensive than CD-R drives. (2) Recording software to actually exploit the hardware capabilities of the DVD can be relatively expensive. We're talking $100's versus free. (3) DVD-Rs are relatively slow recorders of CD-Rs. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Gareth Hardy" wrote in message With the price of stand-alone DVD recorders coming down to reasonable levels do you think it would be a good idea to buy a DVD recorder for my home audio system, (using it, in part, to preserve old analog recordings), and just skip buying a CD recorder altogether? (I've got a burner for my pc, but that's all.) What would be the pluses and minuses of doing this? Thanks for any comments. Ever hear of using computers for audio? It works! Advantages of CDR: Portability - you can use them in your car, at your mates etc Price - CDR can be obtained for about 20% the price of a DVD-R Readiness - Sounds like you already have the kit you need. Advantages of DVDR: Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio) No audible benefits. CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies because of the fewer sampling points there. Higher sampling rates lessen the effects. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"FDR" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Gareth Hardy" wrote in message With the price of stand-alone DVD recorders coming down to reasonable levels do you think it would be a good idea to buy a DVD recorder for my home audio system, (using it, in part, to preserve old analog recordings), and just skip buying a CD recorder altogether? (I've got a burner for my pc, but that's all.) What would be the pluses and minuses of doing this? Thanks for any comments. Ever hear of using computers for audio? It works! Advantages of CDR: Portability - you can use them in your car, at your mates etc Price - CDR can be obtained for about 20% the price of a DVD-R Readiness - Sounds like you already have the kit you need. Advantages of DVDR: Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio) No audible benefits. CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies because of the fewer sampling points there. Irrelevant and wrong. There are no tricks, just proven technology. As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect. Furthermore in CD audio, that happens at or above 22.05 KHz, which is way more than people can hear the absence of in a musical/voice context. AFAIK there are no bias-controlled, level-matched, time-synchronized listening tests that show otherwise, and doing such tests is nearly trivial in this day and age. Higher sampling rates lessen the effects. AFAIK there are no bias-controlled, level-matched, time-synchronized listening tests that show that either, and doing such tests is again nearly trivial in this day and age. If you need to hear for yourself, take your 24/96 sound card over to www.pcabx.com and take a listen. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio)
No audible benefits. CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies because of the fewer sampling points there. Irrelevant and wrong. I'm not an audio expert, but I thought that having a higher sampling rate is not primarily to benefit the high frequency waveforms. It creates a smoother waveform at lower frequencies so polyphonics sound clearer. As well as being no expert, chances are I wouldn't notice the difference between 44.1KHz audio and 96KHz anyway. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"Gareth Hardy" wrote in message ...
With the price of stand-alone DVD recorders coming down to reasonable levels do you think it would be a good idea to buy a DVD recorder for my home audio system, (using it, in part, to preserve old analog recordings), and just skip buying a CD recorder altogether? (I've got a burner for my pc, but that's all.) What would be the pluses and minuses of doing this? Thanks for any comments. Advantages of CDR: Portability - you can use them in your car, at your mates etc Price - CDR can be obtained for about 20% the price of a DVD-R Readiness - Sounds like you already have the kit you need. Advantages of DVDR: Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio) More space - A CDR has just 16% the capacity of a DVDR More compression options - Dolby, MPEG1 and 2, and (of course) uncompressed. A dvdr is the same as 7 cdr and you can get a good dvdr disc for less than £1.00 now. 25 dvd-r for less than £20(remember thats the same as 175 cdr discs). David |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "FDR" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Gareth Hardy" wrote in message With the price of stand-alone DVD recorders coming down to reasonable levels do you think it would be a good idea to buy a DVD recorder for my home audio system, (using it, in part, to preserve old analog recordings), and just skip buying a CD recorder altogether? (I've got a burner for my pc, but that's all.) What would be the pluses and minuses of doing this? Thanks for any comments. Ever hear of using computers for audio? It works! Advantages of CDR: Portability - you can use them in your car, at your mates etc Price - CDR can be obtained for about 20% the price of a DVD-R Readiness - Sounds like you already have the kit you need. Advantages of DVDR: Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio) No audible benefits. CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies because of the fewer sampling points there. Irrelevant and wrong. There are no tricks, just proven technology. Nyquist states that 2f is the sampling rate. Tell me what you get when any sine wavel looks like when it's sampled at twice it's frequency. The actual reconstruction can be that of a triangle, sawtooth or flatline depending on the time it was sampled. Fact is that there are fewer data points at the high end. You cna never retrieve data that's not there. Yes, there are algorithms to shape the signal and try to reconstruct it to the original but it's just harder and less accurate. Sampling somethin at 8x vs. 2x will always be preferred. As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect. How near perfect? Won't it be more near perfect with more data points? This reminds me of the figure of the face on the Mars. Then when they got higher resolution pictures you could easily tell that it wasn't a face. Furthermore in CD audio, that happens at or above 22.05 KHz, which is way more than people can hear the absence of in a musical/voice context. CD players use steep filters to reject anything above 20khz so it doesn't matter. AFAIK there are no bias-controlled, level-matched, time-synchronized listening tests that show otherwise, and doing such tests is nearly trivial in this day and age. Maybe, but I know that high end frequencies on a CD sound harsh to my ears. Higher sampling rates lessen the effects. AFAIK there are no bias-controlled, level-matched, time-synchronized listening tests that show that either, and doing such tests is again nearly trivial in this day and age. If you need to hear for yourself, take your 24/96 sound card over to www.pcabx.com and take a listen. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies because of the fewer sampling points there. Irrelevant and wrong. There are no tricks, just proven technology. What technology? Assigning voltage to a time point? As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect. Yes, near perfect, or maybe harsh? Tell me how are you gonna discribe sine wave with 2 sample points? You can't, it is gonna be a triangle wave. So higher the freqs on CD, sharper they become. Thats why more sample points are needed in high-end audio. And if you have good speakers, you can really, maybe not actually hear the difference, but feel the difference between 44.1kHz and 96kHz sampling rate. I would discribe it as a more open, brilliant, sparkling, fresh full airy sound. You can laugh but it's true  Furthermore in CD audio, that happens at or above 22.05 KHz, which is way more than people can hear the absence of in a musical/voice context. True that we cannot "hear" above 22k or below 20Hz. But have you ever "felt" 15Hz? Psicho acoustics are playing with that kind of problems. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
Disadvantages of DVD-R: (1) DVD-R drives are at least 3-4x more expensive than CD-R drives. A DVD-RW drive can be brought for less than £100 now which is only £50 more than the highest spec CD-RW drive. (2) Recording software to actually exploit the hardware capabilities of the DVD can be relatively expensive. We're talking $100's versus free. Only about £30 for ulead dvd moviefactory or something silimar. (3) DVD-Rs are relatively slow recorders of CD-Rs. DVD-R writes at 1/2/4x which equates to 9/18/36x cd speeds. The only reason DVD-Rs take long to record is because they are 7 times bigger than a cd. David |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
dgk" wrote in message
... On 25 Jun 2003 01:41:20 -0700, (Golitely) wrote: Computer CD burners are pushing 52X. DVD burners have been stuck at 4X. This may or may not be important to you. I've been holding off on DVD because I burn a lot of stuff (mostly live concerts) and when I get the chance to burn some stuff that is accumulating on the hard drive I want to burn it fast. I'm not sure of the speed of standalone CD burners, since I can't conceive of using one rather than a PC one that costs 1/4 as much and does more. However it has to be much faster than DVD. AFAIK, CD and DVD speeds are different. My old DVD ROM drive which was 2x DVD was actually equal to a 20x CD speed. I wouldn't use 52x speed anyway. I use my 40x CD burner at a max of 24x most of the time. It is not always wise to burn so fast as it can affect how some equipment can read the disc. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
Unbelievable tripe. WRONG.
CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies because of the fewer sampling points there. Higher sampling rates lessen the effects. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:40:40 +0200, "Sasa [Sason] Miocic"
wrote: Tell me how are you gonna discribe sine wave with 2 sample points? I think he said "more than 2 points". With a point at time=0, one 1/44,100 second later and 1/44,100 second after that, there is a unique sine wave with frequency 22,050 that fits those points. Hopefully that will be close to the original sound. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
Unbelievable tripe. WRONG
"Gareth Hardy" wrote in message ... Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio) No audible benefits. CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies because of the fewer sampling points there. Irrelevant and wrong. I'm not an audio expert, but I thought that having a higher sampling rate is not primarily to benefit the high frequency waveforms. It creates a smoother waveform at lower frequencies so polyphonics sound clearer. As well as being no expert, chances are I wouldn't notice the difference between 44.1KHz audio and 96KHz anyway. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
Look at the theorem from Nyquist in mathematical form. You are spewing BS.
"Sasa [Sason] Miocic" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies because of the fewer sampling points there. Irrelevant and wrong. There are no tricks, just proven technology. What technology? Assigning voltage to a time point? As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect. Yes, near perfect, or maybe harsh? Tell me how are you gonna discribe sine wave with 2 sample points? You can't, it is gonna be a triangle wave. So higher the freqs on CD, sharper they become. Thats why more sample points are needed in high-end audio. And if you have good speakers, you can really, maybe not actually hear the difference, but feel the difference between 44.1kHz and 96kHz sampling rate. I would discribe it as a more open, brilliant, sparkling, fresh full airy sound. You can laugh but it's true Furthermore in CD audio, that happens at or above 22.05 KHz, which is way more than people can hear the absence of in a musical/voice context. True that we cannot "hear" above 22k or below 20Hz. But have you ever "felt" 15Hz? Psicho acoustics are playing with that kind of problems. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
It's true. The output is filtered in a way to basically fill-in the missing
data points. Take a course in DSP sometime. "Buckaroo" wrote in message ... Unbelievable tripe. WRONG. CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies because of the fewer sampling points there. Higher sampling rates lessen the effects. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
Or get a refund on one that teaches this. What data points
are allegedly missing? FDR wrote: It's true. The output is filtered in a way to basically fill-in the missing data points. Take a course in DSP sometime. "Buckaroo" wrote in message ... Unbelievable tripe. WRONG. CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies because of the fewer sampling points there. Higher sampling rates lessen the effects. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
I do realize you are making this up as you go along.
Wrong is wrong and all your hand waving and avoidance won't change the fact that you simply do not have a clue what you are talking about. As for the ears hearing analog, you may want to check a good physiology reference or articles in Scientific American as to how the ear really perceives sound and how the signals from the inner ear [past the bones and drum] are passed to the brain. Not that it has one single solitary thing to do with whether or not players have filters to "fill in the missing data points", but you are wrong on the ears as well. FDR 0 Facts 2. FDR wrote: You do realize that the ear hears analog, not digital, right? "Lon Stowell" wrote in message ... Or get a refund on one that teaches this. What data points are allegedly missing? FDR wrote: It's true. The output is filtered in a way to basically fill-in the missing data points. Take a course in DSP sometime. "Buckaroo" wrote in message ... Unbelievable tripe. WRONG. CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies because of the fewer sampling points there. Higher sampling rates lessen the effects. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"Lon Stowell" wrote in message ... I do realize you are making this up as you go along. Wrong is wrong and all your hand waving and avoidance won't change the fact that you simply do not have a clue what you are talking about. As for the ears hearing analog, you may want to check a good physiology reference or articles in Scientific American as to how the ear really perceives sound and how the signals from the inner ear [past the bones and drum] are passed to the brain. Not that it has one single solitary thing to do with whether or not players have filters to "fill in the missing data points", but you are wrong on the ears as well. I've done a report on the ear for a class referencing medical books that my wife has (she's a physician). I know how the ear works, so don't act condescending to me. I also know that everyday sounds are analog in nature. Sound pressure gets transduced though a microphone to an analog voltage, then gets converted to binary and loses some info because of sampling and other errors, get's reproduced to analog with some interpolation to recover some lost info and amplified to a usable signal that can be put through a speaker to recreate sound pressure. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
Unbelievable tripe. WRONG
Not good enough, Buckaroo. Your contribution to this thread seems to be telling everyone how crap they are without offering any pointers as to why. While I'm quite happy to be told I'm wrong (when I am, which is often), I think it's only fair to state why. There are plenty of people other than me who are equally misguided and can benefit from your huge wisdom. So come on, enlighten us. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"Gareth Hardy" wrote in
message Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio) No audible benefits. CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies because of the fewer sampling points there. Irrelevant and wrong. I'm not an audio expert, but I thought that having a higher sampling rate is not primarily to benefit the high frequency waveforms. What higher sampling rates do is allow recording and playing back of waves at higher frequencies. That's different than benefiting high frequency waves that are recorded by a given sample rate. It creates a smoother waveform at lower frequencies so polyphonics sound clearer. Wrong. Since you admit you don't know what you are talking about, let me tell you the basics. A properly-designed and operating digital system provides essentially perfect reproduction of all waves (subject to sample size and format considerations) up to a frequency equal to about half the sample rate, AKA the Nyquist frequency. For audio CDs that's about 22 KHz. For a variety of practical reasons, Nyquist is hard to approach exactly , but a 44.1 KHz CD can reasonably be expected to work up to about 20 KHz. IOW on an audio CD, 20 Hz and 20 KHz are reproduced with equal accuracy. There are more samples in the 20 Hz wave, but believe it or not that makes no practical difference at all. As well as being no expert, chances are I wouldn't notice the difference between 44.1KHz audio and 96KHz anyway. That comes from being human and not a bat or a dog. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"FDR" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "FDR" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Gareth Hardy" wrote in message With the price of stand-alone DVD recorders coming down to reasonable levels do you think it would be a good idea to buy a DVD recorder for my home audio system, (using it, in part, to preserve old analog recordings), and just skip buying a CD recorder altogether? (I've got a burner for my pc, but that's all.) What would be the pluses and minuses of doing this? Thanks for any comments. Ever hear of using computers for audio? It works! Advantages of CDR: Portability - you can use them in your car, at your mates etc Price - CDR can be obtained for about 20% the price of a DVD-R Readiness - Sounds like you already have the kit you need. Advantages of DVDR: Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio) No audible benefits. CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies because of the fewer sampling points there. Irrelevant and wrong. There are no tricks, just proven technology. Nyquist states that 2f is the sampling rate. Tell me what you get when any sine wavel looks like when it's sampled at twice it's frequency. OK we've got another jerk-off who can't tell the difference between what I said which was: "As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect." and "Tell me what you get when any sine wave looks like when it's sampled at twice it's frequency." At Nyquist and higher the digitized waveform is undefined. It can literally be anything. The actual reconstruction can be that of a triangle, sawtooth or flatline depending on the time it was sampled. Wrong, its undefined because sampling a wave at Nyquist is improper. I suppose you never heard of anti-aliasing filters either? The purpose of an anti-aliasing filter is to prevent the conundrum you presented. Every good digital system has at least one. If you want to waste your time worrying about improperly-designed systems, be my guest, but not on my time or my post! Fact is that there are fewer data points at the high end. It makes no difference, even in the real world. You need to spend some lab time before you shoot of your mouth with tripe like this. You can never retrieve data that's not there. Hence anti-aliasing filters. Yes, there are algorithms to shape the signal and try to reconstruct it to the original but it's just harder and less accurate. Nope, you're grotesquely wrong. Nobody even tries. Sampling something at 8x vs. 2x will always be preferred. You're using words you obviously don't know the meaning of. As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect. How near perfect? Won't it be more near perfect with more data points? Nope. This reminds me of the figure of the face on the Mars. Then when they got higher resolution pictures you could easily tell that it wasn't a face. Irrelevant metaphor. Furthermore in CD audio, that happens at or above 22.05 KHz, which is way more than people can hear the absence of in a musical/voice context. CD players use steep filters to reject anything above 20khz so it doesn't matter. Actually that happens when the recording is digitized, not when it is reconstructed in the CD player. AFAIK there are no bias-controlled, level-matched, time-synchronized listening tests that show otherwise, and doing such tests is nearly trivial in this day and age. Maybe, but I know that high end frequencies on a CD sound harsh to my ears. The fact that your system is out of balance and needs some spectral contouring is not my problem, and its not the fault of the digital recording process. Higher sampling rates lessen the effects. AFAIK there are no bias-controlled, level-matched, time-synchronized listening tests that show that either, and doing such tests is again nearly trivial in this day and age. If you need to hear for yourself, take your 24/96 sound card over to www.pcabx.com and take a listen. Needless to say, we've got another internet troll who won't actually sully himself by coming face-to-face with the relevant facts. Yawn! |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"FDR" wrote in message
It's true. The output is filtered in a way to basically fill-in the missing data points. Take a course in DSP sometime. The points aren't missing if they aren't necessary. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"David" wrote in message
om Disadvantages of DVD-R: (1) DVD-R drives are at least 3-4x more expensive than CD-R drives. A DVD-RW drive can be brought for less than £100 now which is only £50 more than the highest spec CD-RW drive. Debating trade crap logic. So, the cheapest DVD recorder only costs a bit more than the most expensive CD recorder. Do you realize how erroneous this logic is or are you really that bloody stupid? (2) Recording software to actually exploit the hardware capabilities of the DVD can be relatively expensive. We're talking $100's versus free. Only about £30 for ulead dvd moviefactory or something similar. Tell me about how you can a 6-channel 24/96 audio recording or a 2-channel 24/192 recording with Ulead DVD Movie Factory. It can't. That's because this cheap software doesn't fully exploit the potential of the DVD format, particularly for audio. It's for putting pictures and movies on DVDs, not high quality sound! Could you learn to read the specs before you waste my time with crap like this? (3) DVD-Rs are relatively slow recorders of CD-Rs. DVD-R writes at 1/2/4x which equates to 9/18/36x cd speeds. The only reason DVD-Rs take long to record is because they are 7 times bigger than a cd. Last time I looked a cheap CD recorder can write at 52x. 52x 36x. end of story. Look I have before me two PC's on a 2-channel KVM switch. If I take my hands off the keyboard I put one hand on top of each one. One has a Pioneer DVR 104 DVD recorder and one has a Liteon 52x CD-R burner. They both have EZ CD 5 as well as other popular burning software on them. Do you have any questions? ;-) |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"FDR" wrote
It's true. The output is filtered in a way to basically fill-in the missing data points. Take a course in DSP sometime. "Buckaroo" wrote in message ... Unbelievable tripe. WRONG. CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies because of the fewer sampling points there. Higher sampling rates lessen the effects. Thanks everyone for all the comments and info, and lively discussion, so far. What about the issue of *recording* the digital information? Wouldn't differences between sampling rates, number of bits and DACs used have some impact on how precise or detailed the recording will be? Also, concerning the audio portion of DVD recording/playback, are there any unresolved issues surroundng competing formats, just in the area of *stereo* playback, leaving off matters involving 5.1 and so forth? Thanks again. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
Wrong. Since you admit you don't know what you are talking about, let me
tell you the basics. Thanks, Arny. That's all I needed. The silence from buckaroo is deafening (or is that a sampling rate problem). I still don't really understand, but thanks for trying. My understanding now is that if decoded properly, the same WAV file (say a tuba) will sound the same at 32KHz, 48Khz and 96KHz because having extra samples at low frequency will only smooth out to what the DAC would have done with fewer samples anyway (I think). |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"Golitely" wrote in message
om "FDR" wrote It's true. The output is filtered in a way to basically fill-in the missing data points. Take a course in DSP sometime. "Buckaroo" wrote in message ... Unbelievable tripe. WRONG. CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies because of the fewer sampling points there. Higher sampling rates lessen the effects. Thanks everyone for all the comments and info, and lively discussion, so far. What about the issue of *recording* the digital information? Wouldn't differences between sampling rates, number of bits and DACs used have some impact on how precise or detailed the recording will be? Number of bits per sample, yes. Also, concerning the audio portion of DVD recording/playback, are there any unresolved issues surrounding competing formats, just in the area of *stereo* playback, leaving off matters involving 5.1 and so forth? Thanks again. The interesting challenge is to make a 2-channel 24/96 or 24/192 DVD recording with a reasonable outlay for recording software, i.e., less than $100. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Digital audio technology. You ought to try to learn how it works some day! I don't remember saying that I don't know the subject... Assigning voltage to a time point? Oh spare me the expert-sounding horsecrap! That horsecrap is basic fundation of digital recording... Yet another craphead who can't read. I specifically excluded that possibility when I said: "As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect." Yes, slightly more than two. And higher it goes, less it becomes. I just concluded, and brought new thought. Nice, call your fellowgroupmembers crapheads. Agression comes from fear. Yo do not have to be affraid, sometimes people makes mistakes, even you... So higher the freqs on CD, sharper they become. My boy you need to get your head out from that book where the sun shines not, and spend some time in the real world. Yeah yeah... Thats why more sample points are needed in high-end audio. Nope, wrong. And if you have good speakers, you can really, maybe not actually hear the difference, but feel the difference between 44.1kHz and 96kHz sampling rate. Wrong. Look I told you were you could go and listen for yourself. Let me guess, you're too cheap to buy a good 24/96 sound card. You spent all your money on vinyl and toobs. Well, don't come belly-aching to me with your erroneous crap. Listen, not everybody can afford expensive digital stuff. However, I use Echoaudio mia 24/96 which is more than a good soundcard. And no, I dont use vinyl. Tube as a preamp yes. So you only gave one page, maybe you just learned everything from there? Let's not make stupid conclusions okay? I would describe it as a more open, brilliant, sparkling, fresh full airy sound. You can laugh but it's true It's false and its easy to demonstrate that its false. Just listen at the place I told you to go listen to. It is false that 96kHz is better sounding than 44.1kHz?! Man, this is going to my archive to laugh occasionally... True that we cannot "hear" above 22k or below 20Hz. But have you ever "felt" 15Hz? Psicho acoustics are playing with that kind of problems. I can hear a 15 KHz sine wave if its loud enough. Why would I need to worry about whether I can feel it or not? No, actually you can't hear it. You can feel it. As you can feel supersonic sounds. I don't have time to explain it to you now, read some books... But again you can't read. What I said is "Furthermore in CD audio, that happens at or above 22.05 KHz, which is way more than people can hear the absence of in a musical/voice context.: If you sit and think about it and have average or better intelligence, you might eventually get what I was trying to say. If not, have an adult explain it to you! Maybe you should think of you additude first, and then try to speak. Sound better, like 96k... |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
And a good CD-R for less than 5 cents, if you keep an eye out for sales, rebates, and other deals. Not here in the UK. Cheapest CDR i have seen is about 20p. The cost of importing CD-R from the states would cancell out any saving I would have made. 25 dvd-r for less than £20(remember thats the same as 175 cdr discs). For reliable discs that write faster than 1X? Faster than 2X? The 5 cent CD's I mentioned above are usually approved for 48-52X speeds (and actually, last time I bought a spindle, I paid 2 cents per disc, not 5). Prices taken from www.blankshop.co.uk Datawrite Yellow 4x DVD-R pack of 25 = £24.75 Datawrite Red 4x DVD-R pack of 25 = £19.74 Pioneer 4x DVD-R in slim jewel case = £4.00 Ice branded 4x DVD-R in packs of 25 = £19.99 Ice branded 4x DVD-R in a tub of 100 = £79.00 unbranded Ritek 4x DVD-R in pack of 25 = £31.24 unbranded Ritek 4x DVD-R in pack of 100 = £124.98 Datawrite Ritek 4x DVD-R in pack of 25 = £32.25 Memorex 4.7gb 4x DVD-R in a jewel case = £1.49 Memorex 4.7gb 4x DVD-R in pack of 10 = £13.90 Could go on but i won't. David |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"Gareth Hardy" wrote in
message Wrong. Since you admit you don't know what you are talking about, let me tell you the basics. Thanks, Arny. That's all I needed. The silence from buckaroo is deafening (or is that a sampling rate problem). I still don't really understand, but thanks for trying. My understanding now is that if decoded properly, the same WAV file (say a tuba) will sound the same at 32KHz, 48Khz and 96KHz because having extra samples at low frequency will only smooth out to what the DAC would have done with fewer samples anyway (I think). The understanding I want you to have is that a 96 KHz WAV file (say of a tuba) will sound the same at 32KHz, 44 Khz and 96KHz, as long as the extra high frequency extension afforded by the higher sample rate doesn't have any audible consequences. For example, a 96 KHz .WAV file won't sound the same if properly downsampled to 22 KHz because chopping off all information above 11 KHz often DOES have audible consequences. OTOH, a 96 KHz wave file will sound the same if properly downsampled to 44.1 KHz because chopping off all information above 22 KHz generally DOESN'T have audible consequences. Anybody who doesn't believe me need only listen for themselves to the files freely downloadable at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .. Be sure to use one of the DBT test coordinators freely downloadable from http://www.pcabx.com/program/index.htm , and follow the instructions posted at http://www.pcabx.com/training/getting_started.htm . |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"Sasa [Sason] Miocic" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Digital audio technology. You ought to try to learn how it works some day! I don't remember saying that I don't know the subject... Assigning voltage to a time point? Oh spare me the expert-sounding horsecrap! That horsecrap is basic fundation of digital recording... No it's not. Yet another craphead who can't read. I specifically excluded that possibility when I said: "As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect." Yes, slightly more than two. And higher it goes, less it becomes. I just concluded, and brought new thought. Wrong, you added nothing but errors. Nice, call your fellowgroupmembers crapheads. Agression comes from fear. Yo do not have to be affraid, sometimes people makes mistakes, even you... Sasa, you were pretending to be an expert and continue to do so. So higher the freqs on CD, sharper they become. My boy you need to get your head out from that book where the sun shines not, and spend some time in the real world. Yeah yeah... Thats why more sample points are needed in high-end audio. Nope, wrong. And if you have good speakers, you can really, maybe not actually hear the difference, but feel the difference between 44.1kHz and 96kHz sampling rate. Wrong. Look I told you were you could go and listen for yourself. Let me guess, you're too cheap to buy a good 24/96 sound card. You spent all your money on vinyl and toobs. Well, don't come belly-aching to me with your erroneous crap. Listen, not everybody can afford expensive digital stuff. Listen 24/96 sound cards aren't all that expensive any more. However, I use Echoaudio mia 24/96 which is more than a good soundcard. Agreed. The Mia is entirely suitable for your education in this matter. Now hitch that Mia to the files and programs you can download from www.pcabx.com and get started for some basic lessons in audio audibility. And no, I dont use vinyl. Tube as a preamp yes. So you only gave one page, maybe you just learned everything from there? Let's not make stupid conclusions okay? You obviously didn't read that page. I would describe it as a more open, brilliant, sparkling, fresh full airy sound. You can laugh but it's true It's false and its easy to demonstrate that its false. Just listen at the place I told you to go listen to. It is false that 96kHz is better sounding than 44.1kHz?! Yes. Man, this is going to my archive to laugh occasionally... Come back when you have had your ears opened at www.pcabx.com . True that we cannot "hear" above 22k or below 20Hz. But have you ever "felt" 15Hz? Psicho acoustics are playing with that kind of problems. I can hear a 15 KHz sine wave if its loud enough. Why would I need to worry about whether I can feel it or not? No, actually you can't hear it. You can feel it. As you can feel supersonic sounds. I don't have time to explain it to you now, read some books... But again you can't read. What I said is "Furthermore in CD audio, that happens at or above 22.05 KHz, which is way more than people can hear the absence of in a musical/voice context.: If you sit and think about it and have average or better intelligence, you might eventually get what I was trying to say. If not, have an adult explain it to you! Maybe you should think of you additude first, and then try to speak. Sound better, like 96k... Sasa, you've already shown what your attitude is with your claim that www.pcabx.com is just a single page. It's a whole freakin' web site that would educate you well, were you to actually lower yourself to spend some time with it. But Sasa, you obviously know it all. Who am I to try to dispel your erroneous thinking? |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:22:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Nyquist states that 2f is the sampling rate. Tell me what you get when any sine wavel looks like when it's sampled at twice it's frequency. At Nyquist and higher the digitized waveform is undefined. It can literally be anything. In the analog to digital conversion, a Fourier transform is used, and an inverse Fourier transform for digital to analog, right? Hence anti-aliasing filters. What exactly does it do (briefly)? |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Sasa, you've already shown what your attitude is with your claim that www.pcabx.com is just a single page. It's a whole freakin' web site that would educate you well, were you to actually lower yourself to spend some time with it. This says it all about that PAGE: "This Page created 9/22/1999 This Page last updated 06/02/2003 (c) Copyright 1999, 2000, 2001 Arnold B. Krueger, All rights reserved." It's your PAGE and you even say it's a PAGE. If you can't even remember what you wrote or what you have on the web then what use are you? |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
The understanding I want you to have is that a 96 KHz WAV file (say of a
tuba) will sound the same at 32KHz, 44 Khz and 96KHz, as long as the extra high frequency extension afforded by the higher sample rate doesn't have any audible consequences. .... OTOH, a 96 KHz wave file will sound the same if properly downsampled to 44.1 KHz because chopping off all information above 22 KHz generally DOESN'T have audible consequences. I'm wondering - why does DAT use a 68KHz sampling rate if it doesn't do any good to go that high? |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"Jan Philips" wrote in message ... On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:22:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Nyquist states that 2f is the sampling rate. Tell me what you get when any sine wavel looks like when it's sampled at twice it's frequency. At Nyquist and higher the digitized waveform is undefined. It can literally be anything. In the analog to digital conversion, a Fourier transform is used, and an inverse Fourier transform for digital to analog, right? No, generally a A/D samples a signal and then depending on the voltage level, it determines what the corresponding binary would be. It's not that complicated. The check is sometimes done against a decaying time constant or a step voltage. The analog voltage input has limits (say 0 to 4 volts) and the binary has limits (say 0 to 2^16). |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:36:29 GMT, "FDR"
wrote: No, generally a A/D samples a signal and then depending on the voltage level, it determines what the corresponding binary would be. Ok, and the Fourier transform isn't involved? I thought that it probably was, since the process seems so similar to what a Fourier transform and inverse Fourier transform does. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:13:17 GMT, "FDR"
wrote: Fourier transforms just transform from time domain to frequency domain. Yes, I realized that later, only the D/A is like a Fourier transform. You can use Fourier to do processing, but for just digitizing an analog signal a simple D/A is the way to go. And a simple D/A doesn't use Fourier transform? The FT would take the data obtained form A/D and tell you which set of sine waves - frequency and phase - (or any set of orthogonal functions) would reproduce the original signal as closely as possible with the data you have (subject to the Nyquist limit). From what I've been told, the D/A conversion interpolates a smooth curve through the data points, not simply a stair-step. If it doesn't use the FT then what does it do - a cubic interpolation or something like that? |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"Jan Philips" wrote in message
news  The understanding I want you to have is that a 96 KHz WAV file (say of a tuba) will sound the same at 32KHz, 44 Khz and 96KHz, as long as the extra high frequency extension afforded by the higher sample rate doesn't have any audible consequences. ... OTOH, a 96 KHz wave file will sound the same if properly downsampled to 44.1 KHz because chopping off all information above 22 KHz generally DOESN'T have audible consequences. I'm wondering - why does DAT use a 68KHz sampling rate if it doesn't do any good to go that high? DAT uses 48 KHz and 44.1 Khz. 48 KHz was chosen to provide similar bandpass characteristics as 15 ips analog tape. It was known at the time that 24 KHz was somewhat overkill, but the difference between and 44.1 and 48 isn't really worth arguing about. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
DVDr vs CDr.
"Jan Philips" wrote in message
news  On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:13:17 GMT, "FDR" wrote: Fourier transforms just transform from time domain to frequency domain. Yes, I realized that later, only the D/A is like a Fourier transform. You can use Fourier to do processing, but for just digitizing an analog signal a simple D/A is the way to go. And a simple D/A doesn't use Fourier transform? Nor does an A/D. The FT would take the data obtained form A/D and tell you which set of sine waves - frequency and phase - (or any set of orthogonal functions) would reproduce the original signal as closely as possible with the data you have (subject to the Nyquist limit). But you don't need sort of complexity that to just record, play back, and transmit music. From what I've been told, the D/A conversion interpolates a smooth curve through the data points, not simply a stair-step. The interpolation is generally done via a conceptually simple but steep-sloped low-pass filter. If it doesn't use the FT then what does it do - a cubic interpolation or something like that? A conceptually-simple low pass filter suffices wonderfully. The low pass filter gets a little complex when one tries to have good filtering at and above Nyquist, but smooth response below. Nevertheless, its now usually mostly done in the digital domain via oversampling, and has low analog parts count. |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
