L
LASERandDVDfan
Guest
Why is 24-bit better than 16-bit? - Reinhart
J
James Sweet
Guest
"LASERandDVDfan" <laseranddvdfan@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040203220644.26514.00001299@mb-m07.aol.com...
however it's certainly possible to make a good 16 bit system or a lousy 24
bit one.
news:20040203220644.26514.00001299@mb-m07.aol.com...
Well theoretically 24 bit will have much finer resolution than 16 bit,
however it's certainly possible to make a good 16 bit system or a lousy 24
bit one.
T
tweak
Guest
On 04 Feb 2004 03:06:44 GMT, laseranddvdfan@aol.com (LASERandDVDfan)
wrote:
70's.(Well... they did quickly come up with 24bit but Sony who was
spearheading the digital technology had too much invested in 16bit
encoding, also they'd paid big bucks for the development of the medium
that was to usher in the digital era- CD's.)
16bit just doesn't have enough sampling rate to encompass the mass of
data in complex musical scores. i.e. anything more complex than the
average 5 piece rock band.
Comb filters were used in the circuitry to "filter" out extraneous
artifacts i.e. noise.
Problem was when faced with more data than could be processed it used
the comb filter to restrict the flow of data to prevent overrun or
distortion.
Vital ambience's were lost. which is why CD's generally lack the depth
or robustness you get with analog setups.
While analog have alot of failings fidelity wise, analog system don't
filter anything out and you get everything.
I had a pro sound studio where we did alot of post production work for
film in the late 70's and early 80's.
I was anxious to go digital and got the then available digital studio
units available to test them out.
I tested the Soy PCM system first. I a/bed it against my exisiting
analog 24 track 3/4 inch units with attendant mixers and sound
processors.
It was indeed better in many respects. Dynamic range was very good,
Signal to noise was perfect. W&F was of course nonexsistent.
But when we listened with our ears we noticed that the bass was
thready and we lost almost all ambients during busy passages.
For example when we separated the wind sections from the percussion we
noticed that the subtle nuances in the flutes were totally gone and
the "air" in the studio was absent.
Also when compared to the analog recording imaging was just not as
good.
When we grilled Sony tech rep he admitted that these were things that
they had yet to achieve with the initial models but that they would be
working on it in later models.
I tested a 24bit recorder from an american company called soundstream.
It was a simple looking 3/4 inch reel unit but it was much better.
My sound techs tested it out and liked the results sothat was the unit
we went with.
And listening to it I had to admit it did a far superior job to the
more costly Sony unit.
We kept the soundstream unit right up to the time I retired out and
sold the studio.
I suppose compared to today's technology it might seem dated but it
did a bang up job for 20 some odd years ago.
wrote:
16bit audio was the best they could come up with in the late
70's.(Well... they did quickly come up with 24bit but Sony who was
spearheading the digital technology had too much invested in 16bit
encoding, also they'd paid big bucks for the development of the medium
that was to usher in the digital era- CD's.)
16bit just doesn't have enough sampling rate to encompass the mass of
data in complex musical scores. i.e. anything more complex than the
average 5 piece rock band.
Comb filters were used in the circuitry to "filter" out extraneous
artifacts i.e. noise.
Problem was when faced with more data than could be processed it used
the comb filter to restrict the flow of data to prevent overrun or
distortion.
Vital ambience's were lost. which is why CD's generally lack the depth
or robustness you get with analog setups.
While analog have alot of failings fidelity wise, analog system don't
filter anything out and you get everything.
I had a pro sound studio where we did alot of post production work for
film in the late 70's and early 80's.
I was anxious to go digital and got the then available digital studio
units available to test them out.
I tested the Soy PCM system first. I a/bed it against my exisiting
analog 24 track 3/4 inch units with attendant mixers and sound
processors.
It was indeed better in many respects. Dynamic range was very good,
Signal to noise was perfect. W&F was of course nonexsistent.
But when we listened with our ears we noticed that the bass was
thready and we lost almost all ambients during busy passages.
For example when we separated the wind sections from the percussion we
noticed that the subtle nuances in the flutes were totally gone and
the "air" in the studio was absent.
Also when compared to the analog recording imaging was just not as
good.
When we grilled Sony tech rep he admitted that these were things that
they had yet to achieve with the initial models but that they would be
working on it in later models.
I tested a 24bit recorder from an american company called soundstream.
It was a simple looking 3/4 inch reel unit but it was much better.
My sound techs tested it out and liked the results sothat was the unit
we went with.
And listening to it I had to admit it did a far superior job to the
more costly Sony unit.
We kept the soundstream unit right up to the time I retired out and
sold the studio.
I suppose compared to today's technology it might seem dated but it
did a bang up job for 20 some odd years ago.
T
tweak
Guest
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:19:11 -0500, "Leonard Caillouet"
<lcailloNOSPAM@devoynet.com> wrote:
The fact that you dis JBL shows you absolute ignorance.
jobber for aftermarket parts.
BTW I spent 40 some odd year in the repair business having grown up
workin in my old man's chain of repair shops.
But that was probably before your time so I'd guess that wouldn't
count either since it was before you eyes ever saw the light of day.
<lcailloNOSPAM@devoynet.com> wrote:
And how do you think they're better than what I use?"tweak" <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
newsbkv1053f2q20pofv90kh5p7dfa1aqgmqt@4ax.com...
Your quite long winded posting contains so much bluster and bullshit that
the real information that you may have to impart is lost...
I normally use klipsh for my home theatre and have been a firm
believer that JBL make's some of the best quality drivers you can buy.
You argue about the value of 24 bit recording systems over 16 bit and of
valve designs yet you listen to Klipsh and think JBL makes some of the best
driver? Give me a break...
OK if I'm so full of shit, what type of drivers do you use?
The fact that you dis JBL shows you absolute ignorance.
the Sony crap I have in the back storage room and you find me a parts
jobber for aftermarket parts.
BTW I spent 40 some odd year in the repair business having grown up
workin in my old man's chain of repair shops.
But that was probably before your time so I'd guess that wouldn't
count either since it was before you eyes ever saw the light of day.
T
tweak
Guest
On 03 Feb 2004 23:20:15 GMT, laseranddvdfan@aol.com (LASERandDVDfan)
wrote:
speed it's more likely a result of "hand grenade"
modification/tweeking. i.e. overclocking etc...
Yes Nero does run smoother/more reliable vs Roxio but it's XP not the
software that has the copyguard protection feature.
The point I was trying to make was why hassle with a bell and whistle
laden OS that runs clunky and has to many undesirable features.
I generally use Roxio for burning just simple audio. Usually mp3 to
wav's. I have other ware I use that does a better job for video.
For example a studio or station manager when procuring equipment for
the next fiscal year or upgrade etc... look for the best deal
financially.
They aren't techies and are seldom concerned with what the production
crews think would make ideal gear.
Sony is notorious for doing whatever it takes to get the supply
contracts for television etc...
I worked in the mid 80's as a videographer for an ABC affiliate,
covering collegiate sports mostly.
We used Ikegami's and loved them. Durable as a tank and the best video
image short of the Norelco studio units costing many times more.
When it came time for new cameras did we get new Iki's?
Hell no, the station manager made a deal with Sony and we got the very
crappy DX3's. Much poorer image and fragile as hell.
But the station manager got a house full of Sony product's and who
knows how much of a kickback?
And while I retired out of big budget film production some years back
I never did see one Sony monitor on any of the productions I worked
on. Don't doubt there are some that use 'em just never saw them
myself. (The favored brand I saw in most TV stations was Panasonic.
I did see a fair amount JVC as well and a bit of Proton commercial
grade.)
And as far as procurement for NASA and other government agencies since
when has the specs mattered?
God! if you think NASA uses Sony because they believe it to be the
best you're the one full of crap!
Better get out and get a little life experience, especially when it
comes to the workings in government agencies.
Don't be a Gorilla, cause I've seen alot of Sony with cracked cases
and broken knobs too.
Panasonic walkman going on 14 years ans still going strong.
Also a cd player that is going on 10 years now with NO problems.
The tape player cost around 24 bucks the cd player cost me about 49
bucks.
Can the same be said for your Sony?
wrote:
That's rich! Too fast. If a system is unstable because of too much
speed it's more likely a result of "hand grenade"
modification/tweeking. i.e. overclocking etc...
drive than the big two.
Yes Nero does run smoother/more reliable vs Roxio but it's XP not the
software that has the copyguard protection feature.
The point I was trying to make was why hassle with a bell and whistle
laden OS that runs clunky and has to many undesirable features.
I generally use Roxio for burning just simple audio. Usually mp3 to
wav's. I have other ware I use that does a better job for video.
above mentioned industries choose what to use you are truly naive.
For example a studio or station manager when procuring equipment for
the next fiscal year or upgrade etc... look for the best deal
financially.
They aren't techies and are seldom concerned with what the production
crews think would make ideal gear.
Sony is notorious for doing whatever it takes to get the supply
contracts for television etc...
I worked in the mid 80's as a videographer for an ABC affiliate,
covering collegiate sports mostly.
We used Ikegami's and loved them. Durable as a tank and the best video
image short of the Norelco studio units costing many times more.
When it came time for new cameras did we get new Iki's?
Hell no, the station manager made a deal with Sony and we got the very
crappy DX3's. Much poorer image and fragile as hell.
But the station manager got a house full of Sony product's and who
knows how much of a kickback?
And while I retired out of big budget film production some years back
I never did see one Sony monitor on any of the productions I worked
on. Don't doubt there are some that use 'em just never saw them
myself. (The favored brand I saw in most TV stations was Panasonic.
I did see a fair amount JVC as well and a bit of Proton commercial
grade.)
And as far as procurement for NASA and other government agencies since
when has the specs mattered?
God! if you think NASA uses Sony because they believe it to be the
best you're the one full of crap!
Better get out and get a little life experience, especially when it
comes to the workings in government agencies.
slight loss in image quality.
knobs. ALL polystyrene and the cheapest LDPE.
Don't be a Gorilla, cause I've seen alot of Sony with cracked cases
and broken knobs too.
Yeah, Panasonic makes very good units for the price. I have a
Panasonic walkman going on 14 years ans still going strong.
Also a cd player that is going on 10 years now with NO problems.
The tape player cost around 24 bucks the cd player cost me about 49
bucks.
Can the same be said for your Sony?
T
tweak
Guest
On 04 Feb 2004 03:06:44 GMT, laseranddvdfan@aol.com (LASERandDVDfan)
wrote:
Let me try again.
Here are some links to those who are the experts in audio recording.
I'll scrounge up more for you in the next day or two.
They can explain in precise technical terms why digital, and
especially 16bit is woefully inadequate for most audio mastering.
http://www.drtmastering.com/faq2.htm
http://www.great-music.net/analog.htm
http://lists.contesting.com/archives/html/TenTec/2001-06/msg00211.html
I'm I retired old fart who spent all of his working days in the
recording and film industry so bare with me while I dig up all the
facts to educate you on the complexities involved in mastering good
audio.
It's NOT as cut and dried as you want to believe.
wrote:
Let me try again.
Here are some links to those who are the experts in audio recording.
I'll scrounge up more for you in the next day or two.
They can explain in precise technical terms why digital, and
especially 16bit is woefully inadequate for most audio mastering.
http://www.drtmastering.com/faq2.htm
http://www.great-music.net/analog.htm
http://lists.contesting.com/archives/html/TenTec/2001-06/msg00211.html
I'm I retired old fart who spent all of his working days in the
recording and film industry so bare with me while I dig up all the
facts to educate you on the complexities involved in mastering good
audio.
It's NOT as cut and dried as you want to believe.
L
Leonard Caillouet
Guest
"tweak" <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:r31120pgh6q5q046um23e6k704pjoubluc@4ax.com...
that is waht I was pointing out. First, JBL makes a range of products from
crap to pretty good, and which driver you use depends on the application. I
would like to know what you find about the JBL drivers that make them the
"best" in any particular application. If you are talking about resolving
detail, as your discussion of recording techniques implies that you must,
there are many loudspeakers that do a better job than nearly anything JBL
makes, and few of them use JBL drivers.
Individual drivers, their technology, and their build, are not the entire
story in loudspeakers anyway. You have to look at the entire loudspeaker
system to make meaningful comparisons. As for what I use, I have an old
pair of Thiel speakers that used pretty generic drivers, nothing special.
Who do I think makes better quality drivers than JBL? Well, it depends on
the application, but in general B&W would be an easy example.
parts are always available when you want them, but that anyone who services
a wide array of electronics knows that Sony is far from the worst in this
regard and that there are many other manufacturers much more deserving of
your derision. Post the parts you need and someone may have a solution.
situation with parts TODAY? You pass yourself off as an expert in recording
and with so much experience with repairs, and imply that you are aged. What
have you done recently?
--
Leonard Caillouet
....I'd like to find you inner child and kick its little ass. Get over it...
(The Eagles)
news:r31120pgh6q5q046um23e6k704pjoubluc@4ax.com...
I did not intend to "dis" JBL. Your statement was vague and incorrect and
that is waht I was pointing out. First, JBL makes a range of products from
crap to pretty good, and which driver you use depends on the application. I
would like to know what you find about the JBL drivers that make them the
"best" in any particular application. If you are talking about resolving
detail, as your discussion of recording techniques implies that you must,
there are many loudspeakers that do a better job than nearly anything JBL
makes, and few of them use JBL drivers.
Individual drivers, their technology, and their build, are not the entire
story in loudspeakers anyway. You have to look at the entire loudspeaker
system to make meaningful comparisons. As for what I use, I have an old
pair of Thiel speakers that used pretty generic drivers, nothing special.
Who do I think makes better quality drivers than JBL? Well, it depends on
the application, but in general B&W would be an easy example.
It very much depends on the product and its age. My point was not that Sony
parts are always available when you want them, but that anyone who services
a wide array of electronics knows that Sony is far from the worst in this
regard and that there are many other manufacturers much more deserving of
your derision. Post the parts you need and someone may have a solution.
Perhaps, but how would you know? How does this experience relate to the
situation with parts TODAY? You pass yourself off as an expert in recording
and with so much experience with repairs, and imply that you are aged. What
have you done recently?
--
Leonard Caillouet
....I'd like to find you inner child and kick its little ass. Get over it...
(The Eagles)
T
Tom
Guest
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:40:22 -0600 tweak <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in
Message id: <r31120pgh6q5q046um23e6k704pjoubluc@4ax.com>:
[blah, blah, blah]
couldn't prove a point even if you molded it into a Lawn JartŠ and
pierced the skull of a Cocker Spaniel from 30 yards away.
Message id: <r31120pgh6q5q046um23e6k704pjoubluc@4ax.com>:
[blah, blah, blah]
Shut the fuck up, you twit. You're not impressing anyone, and you
couldn't prove a point even if you molded it into a Lawn JartŠ and
pierced the skull of a Cocker Spaniel from 30 yards away.
L
Leonard Caillouet
Guest
"Tom" <nobody@dev.nul> wrote in message
news:r8q12059q2jcuq24r2b1dul0u29osubl3o@4ax.com...
eloquent as this...LOL.
Leonard
news:r8q12059q2jcuq24r2b1dul0u29osubl3o@4ax.com...
Well, Tom, I guess that is what I was trying to say, but could not be as
eloquent as this...LOL.
Leonard
J
James Sweet
Guest
"Tom" <nobody@dev.nul> wrote in message
news:r8q12059q2jcuq24r2b1dul0u29osubl3o@4ax.com...
never got hurt, these days I'd love to find a set of them though, I guess
mostly because they're illegal to own, I can go buy a bunch of machette's
and swords and throw them around in the yard all day, but I can't have
Jarts? I don't get it, oh well.
news:r8q12059q2jcuq24r2b1dul0u29osubl3o@4ax.com...
Jarts, man I remember playing with those when I was little, I'm surprised I
never got hurt, these days I'd love to find a set of them though, I guess
mostly because they're illegal to own, I can go buy a bunch of machette's
and swords and throw them around in the yard all day, but I can't have
Jarts? I don't get it, oh well.
T
TCS
Guest
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:33:59 -0600, tweak <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote:
bits != recording equipment quality and mixing quality.
L
LASERandDVDfan
Guest
My system is not overclocked.
As a matter of fact, the processor that my machine uses hasn't even had its
multiplier unlocked. How can I overclock my system if the processor's
multiplier is still locked, for one?
As for the RAM, it's specified to run faster than DDR400. It's set to run at
DDR333
My system's bus settings are set to their recommended configurations according
to AMD and nVidia.
As for Win98SE and WinME. You must understand that these operating systems
were designed around the DOS kernel and devised well before the advent of 1 GHz
machines, much less 2 GHz and beyond.
The impact of running these operating systems on such machines had not been
realized yet as the technolgy to develop a 1 GHz machine hadn't even been
developed in the case of Win98 or perfected in the case of WinME. These
operating systems don't even work properly with 1 gigs of RAM without a
modification to one of the INI files governing the max cache size!
WinXP and Win2000 PRO, on the other hand, are based on the NT kernel.
Especially WindowsXP, where it was written to work with systems having a clock
going up to 3 GHz. Different ballgame here. One significant drawback is that
WinXP is problematic with SCSI rigs, although SCSI is pretty much obsolete with
the advent of SATA, for which WinXP has absolutely no problems with.
You can have a computer run too fast for various kinds of software that can
cause unpredictable and undesirable behavior. You can have a program run too
fast, or a program that is unable to keep itself regulated because of the
system speed versus program timing, or a program that will flat out not
communicate with various hardware installed due to an instability brought on by
the driver due to the speed. Many legacy programs will not have support to
make it work with faster computers!
Anyways, it's still rather amazing, that all the incarnations of Windows still
runs on the traditional x86 platform that has been around during the late
1970s! Goes to show just how versatile this platform is, doesn't it?
If you use WinXP's integrated CD/DVD writer options, then you are using Roxio
programming. Roxio developed the CD/DVD integrated writing front-end for
WinXP.
If you have experience with WinXP, what was the condition of the computer that
was running it?
Do you use crappy software and crappy hardware?
Do you apply the security updates that Microsoft issues for your OS? (This is
a problem with Windows overall, not just XP.)
Do you do the required housekeeping to keep your computer running at its peak
without clutter and crap?
Are you discriminate when it comes to installing software or are you hap-hazard
about it, downloading every program you find on the internet or at the store
and installing it?
Do you run too many apps at the same time, or run apps that are too much of a
resource hog to be useful? (Running two anti-virus programs simultaneously is
idiotic. Using Norton Utilities is a real great way of having your resources
hogged.)
If you use anti-virus, do you keep your definitions up to date? Do you use
decent anti-virus software, like Norton Anti-Virus?
If you surf the internet, do you use spyware elimination software, like
Lavasoft AdAware, to detect any changes that may have been made to your system
registry by website software installed usually without your consent during a
visit to a webpage?
Do you use programs that are known to have spyware elements, like Kazza P2P?
If you use Kazza Lite P2P, and know why you are using it in place of regular
Kazza, then perhaps you're not a total dimwit with computers.
Are your hardware drivers kept up to date?
No, I am making a point.
Again, if Trinitron is so bad, as cited by your so-called experts, then why is
it used in such critical applications, where you also have experts who swear by
them?
As for why I use Trinitron, it's because I've used the technology before. I am
familiar with it, and how it works. My very own experience dictates my choice
and, so far, I have never been disappointed for the years that I have used and
relied on Trinitron displays, both at work and at home.
Say what you must, but my own reason for using Trinitron are my own, but they
are very good reasons to me. What you may say or think will not change that.
Call me naive if you want to, but my experience has shown to me that Sony
displays kick ass, pure and simple. I've compared other displays before, and
none compare to Sony. This is, of course, after the displays are calibrated
for accuracy prior to testing.
I also know of a friend of mine who owns a professional video production
business. He swears by Sony and JVC while lambasting Panasonic, although too
much for my tastes as I've used some decent Panasonic gear before, like the
AG-1980 SVHS editor.
And where do you think I live?
I live in Central Florida in the vicinity of the Kennedy Space Center.
My family had been involved with NASA for over a decade before the shit hit the
fan with the privatization of the shuttle maintenance program (which, IMO, IS
the primary reason why Columbia was lost).
Regardless, a lot of video equpiment that's been used at the Space Center
during our tenure was Sony. This was before we were laid off by
Lockheed-Martin to reduce the overhead of quality assurance of the shuttle
fleet.
Be careful what you say.
Lucky you. Meanwhile, a lot of people have had problems with their Zenith
picture tubes shorting out, especially of sets in the particular vintage you've
specified.
And the only problem with cracking cases I've had was with a Sharp 25 inch
TV/VCR combo.
I am careful when handling electronics, not just for the sake of the case, but
for the common sense reasoning that any electronic device, regardless of
origin, is fragile.
Played almost on a daily basis for hours, 7 days a week all the way up to six
years?
I find your claim for your 10 year old Discman to be a bunch of bullshit. How
in the hell did you manage to pay only 49 dollars for a Discman in 1994?
But, Panasonic does make a decent Discman in a manner of speaking. I have a
Panasonic SL-239C (costed $125) which was made in 1996, used almost
continuously, and still works. Only one problem with them, though. The D/A
converter has piss poor linearity, which is a design fault as, apparently, a
lot of Panasonic/Technics players using their MASH converters had a design
fault that had a very unusual linearity flaw that starts off a -80 dB (-2.1)
and peaks suddenly at -90 dB (-6.1 all the way up to -12!).
The problem seems to be Matsushita's implementation of their own MASH system
because around the same time, AMC had a CD player which also used a MASH and
the linearity was kept in check all the way up to -90 dB (+0.5).
It probably has been corrected at this time.
Funny thing, I am using my Sony MDR-V600 headphones, which have excellent sound
quality with excellent efficiency and are very durable. - Reinhart
L
LASERandDVDfan
Guest
Irrelevant.
State a more clear and definitive answer.
First off, the concept of the CD was invented by Philips. Sony came in the
game later to help with its development. If Sony hadn't been in the game, the
CD would have been Philips' way, which would be 14-bit at 44 KHz, if the final
product would even work reliably enough to be practical.
Secondly, Sony wasn't the only company involved with digital audio which
involved these specs. Pioneer, Denon, and even the British Broadcasting
Company had involvement in the development of digital audio, among other
companies. As for PCM, those were devised on theories and mathematical models
established in the early 20th Century!
And what do you define as mass in this regard?
Quantization is nothing more than measuring a wave's amplitude and assigning it
a value.
16-bit quantization allows up to 65,536 possible amplitude values for the sound
wave, as calculated with 2^16.
24-bit quantization allows up to 14,777,216 possible amplitude values for the
sound wave, as calculated with 2^24.
Obviously, the higher the quantization, the more values of amplitude an encoder
can assign to a wave in creating a mathematical model. This is how
quantization has a say in determining the dynamic range and signal-noise ratio
in a digital audio system.
In theory, 24-bit should sound better but, in practical use, 24-bit is hardly a
quantum leap over 16-bit.
First off, regardless to what you believe, the dynamics that 16-bit
quantization allows is still superior to any analogue system that is out there.
Analogue systems that achieve high enough levels to be comparable in regards
to dynamic range and signal-noise do so by using companders, which has their
own set of problems when they do what they do. Meanwhile, 16-bit can achieve
anywhere from 96-98 dB of dynamics with approximately equal SNR WITHOUT the aid
of companders, and their inherent audible artifacts.
However, you still have to factor another important aspect of digital audio
encoding, which is sampling. This determines your maximum frequency response.
Digital audio for CD is sampled at a rate of 44.1 KHz, which gives it a 22,050
Hz maximum frequency response. The extra bandwidth above 20,000 Hz is to
accomodate filtering with brickwalls, although digital oversampling filters do
a much better job at filtering by upsampling the 44.1 KHz feed upwards to 352.8
KHz with the typical 8-times oversampling digital filter.
Both quantization and sampling work in concert for digitization of audio.
As for analogue recorders, they still have finite abilities in recording a
sound wave since they are limited by their own capabilities.
Plus, like digital audio, analogue audio recorders also do a conversion of the
soundwave into another form suitable for storage on the medium they deal with.
Digital audio has a grave misconception of "butchering the sound" in that it
doesn't capture everything. In reality, digital is nothing more than another
way of dealing with storage and reproduction of information.
In the same way, you could say that a lathe butchers the sound by turning a
sound wave into a mechanical interpretation cut on an LP mother using a source
that is rolled off at around 15-16 KHz to keep the cutterhead from overheating.
With the severe roll-off, LPs capture less than CDs, even with the use of dbx!
Analogue tapes may butcher the sound because it's converting a sound wave into
magnetic print patterns. It may be further butchered if you use companders in
an attempt to eliminate the inherent noise in analogue linear magnetic
recordings. And, again, analogue tapes using fixed heads can't capture
frequencies above a certain range unless you want to run the tape at a
ridiculously high linear speed, which can allow greater levels of wow and
flutter.
Hell, you can even say that microphones will butcher the sound because it's
turning a sound wave into electrical impulses of varying amplitude and
frequency of a finite nature. No microphone will ever be able to capture sound
at the infinite frequency ranges with infinite possibilities of amplitude. The
limits you place on sound start right when you pick it up from the mics.
It even starts when you listen to sounds live with your own ears, as the range
of human hearing is also finite in terms of perceiving frequencies and
amplitudes.
These aren't called comb filters, but brickwall analogue filters.
Bullshit.
The rate of process by the digital section, and therefore pitch, is governed by
a quartz oscillator. The information is transferred from the serial device
(the disc drive) to the digital section and is reassembled from its interleaved
state, which are arranged as block sectors on the disc, into a linear form.
The read is buffered, undergoes 8-14 modulation, is run through CIRC to correct
any errors, oversampled (which is done on just about all but the oldest CD
players), and then converted by the D/A.
Bullshit.
In analogue tapes, companders is, guess what, a form of filtering! The very
things that are used in hi-fi VCRs, for which you give praise.
Companders designed to minimize the inherent noise of tape hiss as well as
increasing the audio's signal-noise is a form of filtering. If you play a tape
that was treated to noise reduction without the NR process engaged on playback,
you'll get some crappy sound, all the way from too bright a sound with Dolby B
tapes to high levels of intolerable intrinsic noise with dbx.
As for LPs with dbx, same problem.
That was when they first came out. Have you ever tried the stuff that is the
current state-of-the-art now? If you haven't, then, I'm afraid, you are no
longer an authority.
Was the encoding equipment dithered?
I'll bet it wasn't.
That's what can happen if you don't dither the encoding equipment. - Reinhart
J
JW
Guest
On 05 Feb 2004 06:15:22 GMT laseranddvdfan@aol.com (LASERandDVDfan)
wrote in Message id: <20040205011522.21868.00000931@mb-m25.aol.com>:
front side bus (FSB) speed for the processor. Except for Intel boards of
course ;-)
wrote in Message id: <20040205011522.21868.00000931@mb-m25.aol.com>:
Many motherboards have a setup option in the BIOS where you can set the
front side bus (FSB) speed for the processor. Except for Intel boards of
course ;-)
L
LASERandDVDfan
Guest
Try looking up why you can't simply overclock an AthlonXP processor without
unlocking it first.
An AthlonXP with a locked multiplier will only allow you to attempt an
overclock by adjusting the FSB speed, but tweaking with this setting will push
the processor's clock speed to unstable and potentially damaging levels.
In my case, the multiplier in my Athlon XP 2600+ is locked at 12.5 and cannot
be changed unless it is modified. If I attempt to run the FSB at the next
higher setting, which is 200 MHz in my case, it will push the processor up to a
clock speed at approximately 2500 MHz (the rated speed with my version CPU is
rated to run at 2083 MHz), which means the processor will run unstable and will
have a tendency to cook itself even with the best cooling setups short of using
liquid nitrogen. Even a watercooling setup won't protect my Athlon running at
THAT speed for very long!
Of course, this assumes that the BIOS doesn't detect the overheat and shut the
machine down automatically in reaction.
Further assumption is whether or not Windows would even boot up successfully or
stay running for any appreciable amount of time.
You have to modify the processor in order to allow adjustable multiplier
settings so you can better control the kind of speeds that you are trying to
push the processor up to.
Right now, since my multiplier is locked at 12.5, I'm running it at the
recommended settings. - Reinhart
T
TCS
Guest
On 05 Feb 2004 06:15:22 GMT, LASERandDVDfan <laseranddvdfan@aol.com> wrote:
running a car's engine past the redline. Sure it'll go a little (very little)
faster, but at what cost? For every percent gain in speed, you'll lose 10%
in reliability. If you're data means nothing and having a system that can't
go 30 minutes without crashing is reasonable then by all means overclock
the fucker. About the only thing the system will be able to do is run
benchmarks. For a little while at a time.
The real question is "why would you want to?". Overclocking is just like
running a car's engine past the redline. Sure it'll go a little (very little)
faster, but at what cost? For every percent gain in speed, you'll lose 10%
in reliability. If you're data means nothing and having a system that can't
go 30 minutes without crashing is reasonable then by all means overclock
the fucker. About the only thing the system will be able to do is run
benchmarks. For a little while at a time.
L
LASERandDVDfan
Guest
The idea of overclocking is that processors are usually rated very
conservatively.
In the case of AthlonXP processors, they are considered an overclocker's dream
because they typically have a lot of overclocking headroom, especially the
Thorougbred B core and particularly the Barton core.
After you've unlocked the CPU, you can overclock something like an AthlonXP
2500+ with the Barton core and 512Kb cache to run at close to 3000+ levels
without difficulty or problems. This is because these two processors have the
same core, they're just rated differently on the markings.
Of course, this does not negate the fact that there is a risk when you do
overclock something. Also instabilities can arise not just from the processor,
but also from the bus and the components that are connected to it. For
instance, if you push the bus up higher beyond the capabilities of the RAM, you
can have instability problems arise out of the memory. - Reinhart
K
Ken G.
Guest
First off very well said ......
It seems with every increase in technology in our lives we see a
reduction in the things that are important, the quality of our lives and
the freedoms we all enjoy.
If I had to choose between having the latest movie to watch on my home
set or having my constitutional freedoms and not having the government
invading my life I believe I'd have to give up the movie. Most of the
technology I do enjoy I got from using common sense and frugality not
just running out and buying it just because everyone said so.
My computer tower I bought second hand at a greatly reduced price. All
else was scrounged. Monitor, mouse and keyboard. My vcr's are repair
jobs gotten out of dustbins or the cheapest hifi models on sale at my
local Wal-Mart.
I've been a staunch supporter of the philosophy behind the Mother Jones
publications all my life.
people should realize that you can have a good quality of life and not
be a slave to this consumeristic society we live in.
As you can see people here are cussing at people over electronic
equipment .. go figure ?
On to the topic matter .
I also repair and mostly newer stuff for a salvage buyer . I have had
the chance to sit down in my home with both plasma and LCD tv sets of
about 37 inch screens . They look nice but you cant get as ``real`` of
picture from them as you can from a CRT . The plasma is better at
viewing from an angle .
The LCD set ( Sharp Aquos ) had a stunning picture on new brodcasts but
totaly horrible picture on old video or black & white shows very blury &
pixely . The LCD also was bad at off center viewing angles . The picture
in this was so bright it was impossible to watch it in a low light room
, turning down the contrast e.t.c. was no good .. could not get the
bright whites down without getting the whole picture to dark . The
plasma was much better at finding a mellow picture for a darker room .
In my ears a CD has better sound . I do have some older equipment to
compare such as an old tube amp which sounds real good . A Carver or
Marantz amp from the mid 70`s has about the same sound all good & all
just mid quality .. nothing high end .
VCRs were really good and used for years . I just bought a DVD recorder
and it out runs the VCR sound and picture both by about 100% . The dvd
recorder is made much like a vcr . It has cable jacks and a tuner &
timer to record stuff just like the vcr worked . The disks are
inexpensive and can be erased , the freshly recorded disks can be taken
out of the recorder & played in any other dvd player without any messing
around ..... recorder , push record & when done open the tray .. go put
the recording in any player & its working .
As for lasting ... good luck . Every day use will eat up these dvd
machines if not the lazer its the motor it seems .
I dont use any of it very often so it should last me for years .
Pricing .. I see everyone wants to pay little or nothing for electronics
This is what has led all of it to be made so cheaply . The consumer
electronic companys are just following what the consumer wants and they
`can not` produce lasting quality if you do not want to pay for it .
Example .. remember the very first VCRs ? big heavy bulky 1000$ units
... i bet you could get one of those and repair it today & it will work
and what its 25 years old ? try that with a 2003 APEX DVD player when
its 25 years old .
You asked for it .. you got it ..
It seems with every increase in technology in our lives we see a
reduction in the things that are important, the quality of our lives and
the freedoms we all enjoy.
If I had to choose between having the latest movie to watch on my home
set or having my constitutional freedoms and not having the government
invading my life I believe I'd have to give up the movie. Most of the
technology I do enjoy I got from using common sense and frugality not
just running out and buying it just because everyone said so.
My computer tower I bought second hand at a greatly reduced price. All
else was scrounged. Monitor, mouse and keyboard. My vcr's are repair
jobs gotten out of dustbins or the cheapest hifi models on sale at my
local Wal-Mart.
I've been a staunch supporter of the philosophy behind the Mother Jones
publications all my life.
people should realize that you can have a good quality of life and not
be a slave to this consumeristic society we live in.
As you can see people here are cussing at people over electronic
equipment .. go figure ?
On to the topic matter .
I also repair and mostly newer stuff for a salvage buyer . I have had
the chance to sit down in my home with both plasma and LCD tv sets of
about 37 inch screens . They look nice but you cant get as ``real`` of
picture from them as you can from a CRT . The plasma is better at
viewing from an angle .
The LCD set ( Sharp Aquos ) had a stunning picture on new brodcasts but
totaly horrible picture on old video or black & white shows very blury &
pixely . The LCD also was bad at off center viewing angles . The picture
in this was so bright it was impossible to watch it in a low light room
, turning down the contrast e.t.c. was no good .. could not get the
bright whites down without getting the whole picture to dark . The
plasma was much better at finding a mellow picture for a darker room .
In my ears a CD has better sound . I do have some older equipment to
compare such as an old tube amp which sounds real good . A Carver or
Marantz amp from the mid 70`s has about the same sound all good & all
just mid quality .. nothing high end .
VCRs were really good and used for years . I just bought a DVD recorder
and it out runs the VCR sound and picture both by about 100% . The dvd
recorder is made much like a vcr . It has cable jacks and a tuner &
timer to record stuff just like the vcr worked . The disks are
inexpensive and can be erased , the freshly recorded disks can be taken
out of the recorder & played in any other dvd player without any messing
around ..... recorder , push record & when done open the tray .. go put
the recording in any player & its working .
As for lasting ... good luck . Every day use will eat up these dvd
machines if not the lazer its the motor it seems .
I dont use any of it very often so it should last me for years .
Pricing .. I see everyone wants to pay little or nothing for electronics
This is what has led all of it to be made so cheaply . The consumer
electronic companys are just following what the consumer wants and they
`can not` produce lasting quality if you do not want to pay for it .
Example .. remember the very first VCRs ? big heavy bulky 1000$ units
... i bet you could get one of those and repair it today & it will work
and what its 25 years old ? try that with a 2003 APEX DVD player when
its 25 years old
. You asked for it .. you got it ..
J
James Sweet
Guest
"LASERandDVDfan" <laseranddvdfan@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040206015710.25867.00000732@mb-m05.aol.com...
Intel and AMD CPU's have had locked multipliers since the late Pentium 1
class chips, this is nothing new. As the earlier poster said though, usually
you can bump up the FSB speed, which is what is multiplied by the multiplier
to get the final CPU speed. Many boards now let you bump it up in small
increments, though these days I see little point in overclocking. Back in
the day, I had an Intel 125MHz overdrive chip that would easily run at 166
MHz with a FSB change, that was a pretty substantial improvement and made it
as fast as a chip costing more than double what I had. Now days I could
probably overclock my 1.4 GHz Athlon to 1.5 or so, maybe a bit higher if I
really pushed it, but that's a pretty insignificant improvement, and
honestly 1.4 still feels plenty fast to me, it's the hard drive that feels
like the bottleneck.
news:20040206015710.25867.00000732@mb-m05.aol.com...
Intel and AMD CPU's have had locked multipliers since the late Pentium 1
class chips, this is nothing new. As the earlier poster said though, usually
you can bump up the FSB speed, which is what is multiplied by the multiplier
to get the final CPU speed. Many boards now let you bump it up in small
increments, though these days I see little point in overclocking. Back in
the day, I had an Intel 125MHz overdrive chip that would easily run at 166
MHz with a FSB change, that was a pretty substantial improvement and made it
as fast as a chip costing more than double what I had. Now days I could
probably overclock my 1.4 GHz Athlon to 1.5 or so, maybe a bit higher if I
really pushed it, but that's a pretty insignificant improvement, and
honestly 1.4 still feels plenty fast to me, it's the hard drive that feels
like the bottleneck.
J
James Sweet
Guest
I don't know who mother jones is, but I would say that your ideas are a good
reason not to shop at Wal Mart, they put so many family businesses out of
business and pay their employees pocket change selling virtually only cheap
crap imported from 3rd world contries.