|
This I wanted to add per edit this morning to my post above, when the site went down (or was it just the transatlastnic connection?). It sounds a bit out of context now, but add it to the end of my post above:
But one thing we easily overlook these days. The more digital our data storing becomes (books, music, data), the more work-intense it becomes to maintain such libraries, and the shorter the intervals become at whioch we must technically upgrade, and make sure that the data format still s being accessible, technically. Certain libraries that by their status have a legal obligation to store all publications being ever released (like certain Landesbibliotheken in Germany), can sing a song of this. They have the problem that their earliest data recordings now are lost in that meaning that the technology to read these data no longer is being built, and existing examples of such old technology no longer functions. There is a risk, critical forethinkers argue, that the more digital our culture becomes, the more it one day will simply disappear, at least gets lost in more and more parts. It appears to me that digitalisation is only superior in immediate access to data, but for long time storage and archives I am not sure that it is all just advantages. Add to this problem that the widespread use of computer interfaces already has tailored and limited the way in which we access a problem - so that our way to approach that problem can be understood by said interface. the computer already has chnaged the way we think. The price for the comfortability of computers and the new ways of displaying existing digital data and libraries, comes at the price of a certain intellectual self-limitation that holds the risk of reducing the degrees of freedom of thought and intellectual mind, like a multiple choice test already represents a limitation over a test where the student must answer freely. A comparing thing we also see in science, where every problem getting examined in an experiment must be tailored and designed in a way so that it produces data in a format that can be calculated by established statistical tools and methods. It is always both advantage and disadvantage at the same time, which led Heisenberg to one of his famous quotes: What we observe is never nature itself, but nature that is exposed to our way of asking questions about it. We probably cannot and will not turn back the wheel of time, but I think it is mandaqtory for our wellbeing that we are not totally uncritical of new technology just because at the time of it'S appearing it gets sold to the crowd as being "cool". |
cassette tapes are still pretty much in use in the third world. The players and the media are cheap and robust compared to CD-players. And - a reason why many people here had a tape recorder for such a long time - you need no extra devices like a PC to record stuff. I think this will change over the time though, given how cheap digital storage devices are today.
Quote:
When the first CDs came onto the market, in the mid 80's, much stuff was mixed and recorded rather "quick and dirty". Given, that the digital recording technology was in the beginning and given that analogue/digital converters were not as sophisticated as they are today. So it was often that analogue produced material, which was recorded onto a CD had a better quality than digital recorded one. You see this on older CDs on the ADD/ADD symbols. When we talk in terms of maths, it should also be obvious that a digital signal can never 100% reproduce an analogue one, the keyword is quantisation, but this is rather theoretical nitpicking. Fact is, compared to todays possibilities in terms of sample and quantisation rate, the CD standard is quite outdated, however I would not say necessarily worse than the LP sound - note: this coming from a vinyl junkie! It was good given the time when it came out. (for the younger ones: all sounds that our ears hear are analogue :03:) in the matter of mp3s: all scientific relevant tests, with human guinea pigs ranging from Joe Sixpack to audio engineers and musicians, have shown the same result: at a certain bitrate it was virtually impossible for the people to hear any difference between a mp3 and a well mixed CD. This "break even point" is usually noted at 192b/s (at constant bitrate). You brought an interesting thought in: Do recording studios use an extra mix when they make commercial mp3s? As we all know, most mp3s are listened to with rather cheap devices, so I wonder if they take this into consideration. I will check it out next week, then I have access to a commercial musician again. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
On digital compression, I can only urge everybody to try out the OGG format, in most cases you get better quality over MP3 or at least the same - with less data space needed for same accoustic quality. I noticed that when I copied all my CDs to the Sanza Fuze, and tested some expeirmental attempts first. Quality-wise it is said to be superior. The disadvantage is that it takes the processor more workload to decompress and process the data, resulting in a higher energy consummation. In case of the Sanza the batteries lasted only half as long as it does now with MP3s at 196 and 256. I had used OGG first. But due to this reason I converted it all to MP3 and copied it over once again. But when processor workload and energy is no concern, then you can safely prefer OGG. It is preferred by purists. |
I don't see any contradiction in what you two guys wrote towards my statement. The listening experiments I mentioned were about the comparision between two digital formats; mp3 and CD (or pcm to be exact).
The same tests provide no real clear results when you compare Vinyl and a CD. I was talking from the technical point of view, thus my words that a CD must not be "necessarily worse". But, there is also a subconscious feeling when you listen to music, a stomach feeling if you want to say so. I have exactly the same when I listen to my oldest stereo records from the end of the 60s - also there may be a warm, "bonfire feeling" coming from little scratches or dust on my discs ;) Sky: ogg is only a data container :O:(love splitting hairs), but vorbis provides indeed better results than mp3 at the same bitrate - however they are both compressed formats. You should try flac one time, especially many fans of classic music love this codec, the files are bigger though and I guess the cpu workload also. The Sansa supports it - good player btw, I gave one to my Frau for her b-day. |
Quote:
Maybe it's a curse, maybe it's a blessing. It's just like not being able to drink. I'll never know what it's like to be blissfully buzzed, but I'll never have a DUI either. |
Myself I miss the cassettes. The old 8 track was doomed from the start really but was cool when it first came out. The ability to play an "album" in your car. But when cassettes came out the 8 track died quickly.
I am not an expert on recording cd's although I have done it. I miss using cassettes to record my LP's to play in the car, of using a graphics equalizer, and the ability to fade in and out when I wanted. If cd's are on the way out, the heck with it. I'll go back to enjoying my Yes albums on my STA-78 reciever and LAB-110 turntable I bought new back in the latter half of the 20th century. Maybe Sony is just moving overseas with their production like everyone else. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.