My new digital camera

[Agathon]

So why do CDs suck when compared to a decent turntable and valve amplification?

[MRT144]

thats a different ballgame completely that you should just shut up about.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MRT144
thats a different ballgame completely that you should just shut up about.

It's the same basic principle that you were trying to argue. Only a cretin believes that numbers are sufficient to determine heard audio quality. Manufacturing good audio equipment, and matching separates is as much an art as a science.

I miss my Arcam Alpha system...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Agathon
I have the Powershot S3.

Cost me nothing. The department paid for it.

What does a Philosophy prof need with a $450-$500 camera (so that your department would pay 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).

[Dinner]

The larger megapixels are important if you want to print a picture larger then the standard photo size.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MRT144


whats the redbook standard on CDs?

if you can answer that then youll realize your folly

Wait, are you confusing the CD sampling rate with compression bitrates?

[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?

[Kuciwalker]

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

Actually, I think that's because of a part of the conversion process that requires a higher sample rate (roughly double IIRC) than the source frequency.

[KrazyHorse]

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...

[KrazyHorse]

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?

You're completely ****ing off.

[KrazyHorse]

Compressed bitrate != sampling rate.

Samples contain 16*2 bits of information on a CD

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The larger megapixels are important if you want to print a picture larger then the standard photo size.

Yeah. I thought that was obvious too.

Hell... I'd hate to see what my papers looked like if they were printed using the same scale of antialiasing as my monitor.

[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.

[KrazyHorse]

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 range

[KrazyHorse]

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.

What the **** are you on about?

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.