So why do CDs suck when compared to a decent turntable and valve amplification?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
My new digital camera
Collapse
X
-
thats a different ballgame completely that you should just shut up about."I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger
Comment
-
Originally posted by MRT144
thats a different ballgame completely that you should just shut up about.
I miss my Arcam Alpha system...Only feebs vote.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Agathon
I have the Powershot S3.
Cost me nothing. The department paid for it.
Um... wouldn't the higher megapixels be useful if you were printing the things?
I believe it is only to a certain extent (for a certain size of picture) and beyond that the marginal increase is barely noticeable (unless you are printing larger pictures - 5 MP cameras do 5'*7' very well, and having a 6 or 7 MP camera won't add much to that size).“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Comment
-
The larger megapixels are important if you want to print a picture larger then the standard photo size.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MRT144
whats the redbook standard on CDs?
if you can answer that then youll realize your folly12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
Comment
-
why the hell would i be talking about anything else but cd sampling rate? its the same sample rate as recording sample rate. the amount of little pictures that are taken of audio when recorded and played back?"I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger
Comment
-
Originally posted by MRT144
actually Digital to analog converters are a bottleneck as most of them only convert to 44.1khz. CDs are that way.
so why do we record at near double what can be burned to CD? like i said before. human perception. im pretty sure that even if we cant see something despite the digital device being a bottleneck, the subtleness of what was captured at such a high pixel rate is noticeable.
thats your problem KH, youre all numbers and not humanity
Comment
-
CDs sample at 44.1, with 16 bits per sample
multiply by two for stereo and a CD's bitrate is ~14 kbit/s
mp3s only have bitrates as stated (actually, double for stereo), so a 92 kbps mp3 achieves an 8-1 compression at the expense of data loss. A 44.1 mp3 only puts out 1 bit for the Cd's 16
secondly, modern CD players smooth across samples
AFAIK, monitors do nothing of the kind...12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
Comment
-
Originally posted by MRT144
why the hell would i be talking about anything else but cd sampling rate? its the same sample rate as recording sample rate. the amount of little pictures that are taken of audio when recorded and played back?
12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
Comment
-
Compressed bitrate != sampling rate.
Samples contain 16*2 bits of information on a CD
12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
Comment
-
Originally posted by Oerdin
The larger megapixels are important if you want to print a picture larger then the standard photo size.
Hell... I'd hate to see what my papers looked like if they were printed using the same scale of antialiasing as my monitor.Only feebs vote.
Comment
-
nyquist theorem. since our hearing range is aprox 20hz-22khz we sample at twice that, to begin with. and while most DAC have 4x-8x oversampling it doesnt change the fact that most digital recordings are made at 96k or higher to capture more info (and higher inaudible frequencies that do affect our percieved sound)
which is why i said the analogy wasnt perfect."I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger
Comment
-
My reply to you, Aggie, got eaten by a crash (linux crash...happens all the time on my workstation )
Video camera to high quality still has many more problems than simple lack of megapixels. Blurring from movement becomes extremely important at pictures in the megapixel range12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
Comment
-
Originally posted by MRT144
nyquist theorem. since our hearing range is aprox 20hz-22khz we sample at twice that, to begin with. and while most DAC have 4x-8x oversampling it doesnt change the fact that most digital recordings are made at 96k or higher to capture more info (and higher inaudible frequencies that do affect our percieved sound)
which is why i said the analogy wasnt perfect.
The Nyquist theorem is not at question.
Do you understand that there are two components to a CD's bitrate? There's the number of samples and the number of bits per sample. 44.1 kbps != 44.1 kHz sampling. Not even close. ALL YOUR AMPLITUDE INFORMATION IS LOST. All frequency components can only be given a single bit of information at that rate: on or off.
12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
Comment
Comment