|
Interesting articles on the vinyl vs. digital debate (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| thoughtlessjex |
| quote: | Originally posted by harriz
Numbers speak for themselves...
At CD (16/44.1) quality there are 65,536 discrete levels to describe the sample.
At DVD (24/96K) quality there are 16.777,216 discrete levels to describe the sample.
Quite a big difference if you ask me....
DVD 16.777,216
-CD -----65,536
If a job gave you $16.777,216 a year and another job gave you $65.536 a year
would you say...
''Either one... It doesn't really matter.... they are both really good jobs''
''I couldn't even tell the difference in pay''
You wouldn't. So shut it. |
First of all, we're talking digital vs vinyl. If you're saying represent music on DVDs, fine, I'd support that because it means more play time. But if you can't prove that vinyls have anything on CDs in terms of fidelity, then you "shut it."
Second of all, you're responding to a deleted post. Respond to the one that's there, and actually read it before doing so. |
|
|
| harriz |
How many times do we have to go through this?
24 bit 96k goes straight on the record without down-sampling.
I am not going attempt to explain digital audio to you people.
I give up.I am bored. F**k this. You win.
The high end is not rolled of to save space, mp3s sound superb and most studios will immediately encode any digital file to achieve the superior sound of mp3s.
Happy? Now Fu*k this!
The only reason why you people spend thousands to get cdjs is because Dj tiesto is getting a big, fat, 4 digit check in the mail every month to sponsor the equipment.
It's not like you crackers know when you are being marketed upon.... |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by harriz
The only reason why you people spend thousands to get cdjs is because Dj tiesto is getting a big, fat, 4 digit check in the mail every month to sponsor the equipment.
It's not like you crackers know when you are being marketed upon.... |
ok you win. I request all CDJ users to sell off their equipment. Don't you guys know Tiesto is such a gimp ? How dare he strike the Jesus pose ??
Everybody listen to Harriz.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| bobba lou |
| is it me or no matter whats being discussed, harriz just comes off as an . |
|
|
| harriz |
| quote: | Originally posted by bobba lou
is it me or no matter whats being discussed, harriz just comes off as an . |
Hater |
|
|
| pvdclubber |
| quote: | Originally posted by harriz
How many times do we have to got through this?
|
we salute you harriz and your very informative posts
if you feel passionate about something discuss it in an adult manner,
i'm still waiting on a comment from your side about the 15khz roll-off
here is my source: http://www.mp3-tech.org/content/?Mp3%20Limitations
here the theory
"Scalefactor band 21 problem:
The last scalefactor band (sfb21 for long blocks or sfb12 for short blocks) has no own scalefactor. This scalefactor band covers the range from 16kHz up to the higher frequency limit, when using 44.1 or 48kHz sampling frequency.
If the resolution of this part of the spectrum must be increased (determined by the psychoacoustic model), the local scalefactor, which is missing, can not be used to adjust resolution. In this case, the only solution is to adjust the global gain value, but this global gain is impacting every scalefactor band.
To increase sfb21 resolution, the global gain value has to be reduced. To balance this, scalefactors of other scalefactor bands can be reduced. But once they reach a value of 0, they can not be reduced anymore, meaning that an higher than needed resolution will locally be used in those bands, leading to an inflate of the bitrate. When encoding sfb21 content, it is common to encounter some scalefactor bands that are encoded with a too high resolution just to accomodate the coding needs of sfb21"
so your mp3s have no frequencies above 15khz theory has gone out of the window.
and as one of the above posters has rightly mentioned vinyl playback quality rapidly deteriorates
i'm a bit disappointed by your immature posting considering your post count. |
|
|
| harriz |
| quote: | Originally posted by pvdclubber
"Scalefactor band 21 problem:
The last scalefactor band (sfb21 for long blocks or sfb12 for short blocks) has no own scalefactor. This scalefactor band covers the range from 16kHz up to the higher frequency limit, when using 44.1 or 48kHz sampling frequency.
If the resolution of this part of the spectrum must be increased (determined by the psychoacoustic model), the local scalefactor, which is missing, can not be used to adjust resolution. In this case, the only solution is to adjust the global gain value, but this global gain is impacting every scalefactor band.
To increase sfb21 resolution, the global gain value has to be reduced. To balance this, scalefactors of other scalefactor bands can be reduced. But once they reach a value of 0, they can not be reduced anymore, meaning that an higher than needed resolution will locally be used in those bands, leading to an inflate of the bitrate. When encoding sfb21 content, it is common to encounter some scalefactor bands that are encoded with a too high resolution just to accomodate the coding needs of sfb21"
|
Read it again;)
160/192: 
256:  |
|
|
| pvdclubber |
| quote: | Originally posted by harriz
Read it again;)
160/192:
256: |
why do you think the graph shows values past 16khz???
because they exist
and if you looked at a 320 graph you would be able to see that it is pretty much indistinguishable from the orignal wav source
i'm giving up on this, as you clearly don't understand what i have been posting
the future is pure digital, vinyl will have a romantic niche
you should try and get hold of michael jackson's thriller album.
try listening to a cd copy from 1992 and the digitally remastered cd version from 2001, then you will hear how superior digital is. |
|
|
| bobba lou |
| quote: | Originally posted by harriz
Hater |
thanks, and you are the techno evangelist ;) |
|
|
| Konijn |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ishkur
REAL vinyl disc jockeys who have plied their trade for years and are exceptionally good at what they do will still cling to the artform. After spending that much time practising and honing your personal flavour on a specific aparatus, would you want to immediately throw it all away?
|
word up - i honed my skills on this, and i'll be damned if some whippersnapper tells me that there's something better.
also, who needs newfangled things like "stoves" and "houses" ? you want to keep it real you better find yourself a cave and grab some flint and a twig. |
|
|
| harriz |
| quote: | Originally posted by bobba lou
thanks, and you are the techno evangelist ;) |
What the fu ck is that supposed to mean? |
|
|
| sleepydragon |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
Actually, it's not simple. If you intend to play out in a club, lounge or whatever and show up with a bag of records and all you have available are cd turntables you are screwed. |
well if a club doesnt have vinyl or cd decks then it isnt worthy of being open to be honest. u would find out what decks they had before u went anyway and if they dont have cd take ur own. |
|
|
|
|
