R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down

Author Topic: A digital question  (Read 5125 times)

hargerst

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1458
A digital question
« on: February 22, 2006, 01:09:59 pm »

Last year, I decided to treat myself to a 44" LCD HDTV digital TV, and added some HDTV channels to my Dish Network subscription.  The picture on the HDTV channels is superb, and I'm going back and watching all my old DVDs, which are, for the most part, wonderful.

BUT, on some movies, when you're watching a very dark scene, you don't see smooth blacks and greys. You see dark, large blobs of purple, green, and grey. Huge square chunks of them, with straight, boxey edges.

Now, I think this is because they're running out of bits or resolution at the dark end of the video spectrum.  It's pretty ugly looking. It got me to wondering if there's the same thing happening in the audio world when we start running out of bits or resolution.

Any thoughts?

It would explain some of people's unhappiness with digital sound.
Logged
Harvey "Is that the right note?" Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio

scott volthause

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
Re: A digital question
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2006, 01:21:37 pm »

That's the mpeg compression artifacts on the DVD. In order to reduce the movie size to fit on the DVD along with all the extras, they have to compress the video to fit. It's pretty much the same with jpeg image compression, you lose all the fine gradients in order to have a decent file size.

So you could say that an mp3 is like your DVD. It's a compromise.

I wouldn't say that 24 bit 48kHz digital audio suffers from that so much.
Logged

Fibes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4306
Re: A digital question
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2006, 01:28:43 pm »

Harvey,

It's dither.

A different thing in the video realm but evil nonetheless.

Digital cable does the same thing. Screw "digital quality."
Logged
Fibes
-------------------------------------------------
"You can like it, or not like it."
The Studio

  http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewArtist ?id=155759887
http://cdbaby.com/cd/superhorse
http://cdbaby.com/cd/superhorse2

spcbrown

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29
Re: A digital question
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2006, 02:50:28 pm »

I would add one thing and please correct me if I'm wrong, but LCD technology isn't the best either. I think either DLP or Plasma offer the blacker black and one or the other are the ones that win the shootouts in direct side by side competitions amongst LCD, DLP, & Plasma. I read a lot of Sound & Vision among other things.
Logged
regards,
Adam "The Thread Jacker" Brown

SirDonut

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 66
Re: A digital question
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2006, 08:29:56 am »

spcbrown wrote on Wed, 22 February 2006 19:50

I would add one thing and please correct me if I'm wrong, but LCD technology isn't the best either. I think either DLP or Plasma offer the blacker black and one or the other are the ones that win the shootouts in direct side by side competitions amongst LCD, DLP, & Plasma. I read a lot of Sound & Vision among other things.


It all depends on the model/manufacturer...I wouldnt make generalizations like that. I think the tube HDTVs look the best for the price. They cost at least 1/3 as much as their LCD/Plasma counterparts. Unfortunately manufacturers only make them up around 30 inches I believe as when they get any bigger they get super cumbersome.

Unfortunately it's really hard to shop for HDTVs as generally the salesmen are morons and the stores dont have true HD fed to a lot of the HDTVs. But hey, isn't that just like going to banjo center?
Logged

hargerst

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1458
Re: A digital question
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2006, 10:48:22 am »

When I went shopping, I almost bought the Sony 42" Plasma TV, but the Zenith 44" LCD was closing out at $1,600 and the HD picture was spectacular.  On HD sources (and DVD's), it's a great picture.

But those blotchy black squares on some regular sources (any scene that has the dialog "Watch your step - I'll find the lights.") are really annoying.
Logged
Harvey "Is that the right note?" Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio

Tidewater

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3816
Re: A digital question
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2006, 04:05:15 pm »

Notice that the HD example channels don't do that, like the stadium scene, where you can read the numbers on the seats..

I hate the splotches moving around.

Compression sucks. Dither, withers.


M
Logged
Time Magazine's 2007 Man of the Year

spcbrown

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29
Re: A digital question
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2006, 03:49:04 pm »

I was at Fry's just the other day and checked out all LCD, DLP, and Plasma TVs they had and indeed the first LCD looked great...it was the vivid color and bright and clear picture that got my attention which is what LCDs do best. The DLP and Plasmas had an obviously darker picture and didn't reveal color aswell as the LCD but the DLP and Plasma had better...call it definition to the picture. It is as usual...a compromise...ya get the (1)price ya want...(2)screen size...(3)portrail of living and vivid colors...(4)exacting picture definition. However...you can only have two of the four combined.
Logged
regards,
Adam "The Thread Jacker" Brown

Steve Brady

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: A digital question
« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2006, 12:18:19 pm »

Harvey,

You are absolutely correct about the bits/bytes issue. The digital world is limited to the number of bits/bytes available, where as the analog world is Infinity.  Darker colors have larger wavelengths, lighter colors have smaller wavelengths.  Larger modulations require more bits/bytes, which is why the dark colors are splotchy on your screen.

Same analogy goes for wavelengths of sound - the lower you get to 20Hz, the larger the wavelength thus the larger modulation requires more bits/bytes which is one of the reasons why digital can't reproduce the great deep bass in detail as analog.

Think about this: if you break down the tones just between notes C & D (beyond half steps) in the analog world, you can keep dividing the steps between the notes C & D smaller and smaller, and keep doing so until Infinity.  Our ears CAN hear those slight nuances between the steps in analog just as it can hear slight nuances in space & time.  It's like trying to find the exact value of 1/2 inch on a ruler.  You can't find exactly 1/2" in the analog world, because you can always go smaller - the smaller you go, the more accurate your measurement of 1/2" is.  Digital can only divide those steps between notes C & D down just so far because of the bit/byte limitation - just as it's limited to how small it can calculate the exact value of 1/2 inch on a large ruler, therefore Digital can only locate the closet value number it can given the number of bits/bytes dedicated.  

Big picture: not only does digital have to dedicate bit/bytes for note (sound) reproduction, but also for spatial reproduction.  This is why digital can never duplicate analog.  It can only provide/calculate the closest value it can (because of bit/byte limitations) and therfore it cannot provide accurate reproduction.  If you're with me so far, what this means is a supercomputer cannot provide enough bits/bytes and binary code to accurately reproduce the true world of analog Infinity.  

Here's another view in the words of someone from my hometown:

"The instant you digitize a signal, you destroy the phase-angle relationship between the high frequencies and the lows. That’s why you can’t make a decent chorus with a digital delay unit. Phase-angle distortion has been with us since the day 3M introduced their incredibly expensive, 15kHz digital-recording deck. I still remember the famous quote from their marketing department: “There is an introduction of phase-angle distortion, but the human ear can’t hear it".

"I find that so hysterical because the human ear can hear things we can’t measure yet. And the ear does use phase-angle information to determine the location sounds originate from, and the space within which you’re standing when you hear those sounds. Simply put, that’s what tells you, “Oh, that sound came from over there.” The end result is that digitized music destroys the spatial characteristics of the music....

"... The two advantages of digital are that it’s cheap, and it gives you lots of features. As far as sound quality goes, digital is always worse."

--Tom Scholz, - Guitar Player Magazine, May 2003
Logged
Steve Brady

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: A digital question
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2006, 06:19:02 pm »

It's the same reason why in an analogue recording you hear the depth and air around things and in a digital one, it seems flatter and shallower.
Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

Steve Brady

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: A digital question
« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2006, 06:54:47 pm »

wwittman wrote on Sat, 11 March 2006 23:19

It's the same reason why in an analogue recording you hear the depth and air around things and in a digital one, it seems flatter and shallower.


Yes Sir William - you are precisely correct.

Interestingly, some buds of mine were diehard digital freaks.  I had them over for a sound test.  The heart of my stereo is an all tube McIntosh preamp & all tube McIntosh power amp.  I compared a first class stamping of an album vs. the same album on CD and flipped between the Phono and CD while both were playing simultaneously.  The guys jaws dropped at how realistic the album sounded in comparison to the CD (and it was thru a crappy BSR turntable I bought at Montgomery Wards in the 1970s!).  The music from the CD didn't possess the same "spaciousness" and depth in comparison to the album.  Also, the cymbals on the CD sounded completely different and more brash and the bass was much less defined (thinner).  The album's cymbals were crisp, realistic and much shinier and the bass was so full that it literally rattled the windows.

I can understand the argument that digital may be more affordable and easier to manipulate, but for folks to say digital sounds better than analog is absurd.  It's mathematically impossible for digital to sound as good or better than analog.

Logged
Steve Brady

garret

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1012
Re: A digital question
« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2006, 11:06:51 pm »

I think the key point is that DVD video has extremely lossy MPEG2 data compression.   Typical DVD data rates are around 5 Mbits/second.   That sounds like a lot, but raw video of the same size (720 x 480 pixels) and frame rate (30 frames/second) would be 248 Mbits/second.   So we're talking a compression ratio of 50:1.  (I.e., they throw out 98% of the data, and keep just 2%).

To make a better analogy to digital audio, compare DVD to mp3 audio compression...

Raw CD-quality stereo audio is 1411 kbps. 50:1 compression would be 28kbps.  And to think I can't stand listening to mp3s at less than 128kbps.  Smile

Standard DVD's are never going to look good on a 42" screen...  some say they don't look good on any screen bigger than 20".  Optical laserdiscs (from 1978!) are still is the best format, besides film.

There are several competing standards for high definition DVD under development.   Last I saw though, HD DVD format was going to be around 28 Mbps.  So 10:1 compression.   That should be much better, but it'll still not be enough to please the "film is best" crowd.

So I guess my point is that you can't say that DVD looks bad just because it's digital.   It looks bad because it's digital and it's horribly overcompressed.  
Logged
tomorrow is already here - http://www.worksongs.net/

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: A digital question
« Reply #12 on: March 11, 2006, 11:38:00 pm »

call me not intellectually curious, but I don't care WHY digital doesn't sound or look as good, as much as I care THAT digital doesn;t sound or look as good,

I work in the fomrats that I have to.
but that doesn't mean I need to pretend they sound as good as the formats I used to work in.
Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

Steve Brady

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: A digital question
« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2006, 08:27:13 am »

garretg wrote on Sun, 12 March 2006 04:06


So I guess my point is that you can't say that DVD looks bad just because it's digital.   It looks bad because it's digital and it's horribly overcompressed.  



Digital will never be able duplicate analog due to its bit/byte limitation - it defies the law of physics.  Digital will never be able to dedicate enough bits/bytes to exactly duplicate the saturation, tint/shade of hue of a color that your eye sees in the real world.  Digital can only approximate because of bit/byte limitation.  Digital pictures appear "sharper" because the bit/byte limitations can't duplicate the detail of natural smoothness...and it never will.

In the case of your CD 128kpbs sound quality, that's the bare minimum of bit/bytes that gets the digital format to sound acceptable.  But even if you increased the bit/byte level by 1,000x, it still will not accurately reflect what your ear truly hears on magnetic tape - or in real life.  

One more thing: Digital creates odd-order distortion and phase angle destruction - and our brains are programmed for even-order distortion: Analog.

Now, magnetic tape doesn't reproduce sound exactly as we heard it the first time either, but it's light years ahead of where digital is.  Digital is a huge step backwards in sound and video reproduction, but as Tom Scholz says, digital is cheap, it's easily manipulable, and it adds to corporate bottom line.


Logged
Steve Brady

Steve Brady

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: A digital question
« Reply #14 on: March 12, 2006, 10:26:45 am »

wwittman wrote on Sat, 11 March 2006 23:19

It's the same reason why in an analogue recording you hear the depth and air around things and in a digital one, it seems flatter and shallower.


William,

Speaking of air makes me think of compression and the use of compressors.  Have you or Harvey done a 'Everything You Want To Know About Compressors But Were Afraid To Ask' type of post?

Correct and precise use of compression still remains a mystery to me (and probably MANY others as well)...

Thank you in advance...

Logged
Steve Brady

Ashermusic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 684
Re: A digital question
« Reply #15 on: March 12, 2006, 11:04:06 am »

DamnYankee wrote on Sun, 12 March 2006 13:27

garretg wrote on Sun, 12 March 2006 04:06


So I guess my point is that you can't say that DVD looks bad just because it's digital.   It looks bad because it's digital and it's horribly overcompressed.  



Digital will never be able duplicate analog due to its bit/byte limitation - it defies the law of physics.  Digital will never be able to dedicate enough bits/bytes to exactly duplicate the saturation, tint/shade of hue of a color that your eye sees in the real world.  Digital can only approximate because of bit/byte limitation.  Digital pictures appear "sharper" because the bit/byte limitations can't duplicate the detail of natural smoothness...and it never will.

In the case of your CD 128kpbs sound quality, that's the bare minimum of bit/bytes that gets the digital format to sound acceptable.  But even if you increased the bit/byte level by 1,000x, it still will not accurately reflect what your ear truly hears on magnetic tape - or in real life.  

One more thing: Digital creates odd-order distortion and phase angle destruction - and our brains are programmed for even-order distortion: Analog.

Now, magnetic tape doesn't reproduce sound exactly as we heard it the first time either, but it's light years ahead of where digital is.  Digital is a huge step backwards in sound and video reproduction, but as Tom Scholz says, digital is cheap, it's easily manipulable, and it adds to corporate bottom line.





from drewdaniels.com

"SOME TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ON THE DIGITAL VS. ANALOG DEBATE

There in fact is more ?information? in a high quality 30 inch per second analog tape recording than in a typical modern CD-quality digital recording, there is also more useless information?the stuff we know as noise?quite a can of worms whenever arguing the merits of analog versus digital.

Humans hear with their ears ? which are, strictly speaking, digital in nature,2 ?and with the brain, and to some degree depending on volume level and frequency, the whole body.  Psychoacousticians call the human hearing system the ?ear-brain,? and this description must be kept in mind whenever thinking about or offering argument about recorded audio.  At very low frequencies, sound is increasingly felt with the skin and skeleton.  At very high frequencies, hearing is increasingly ?sensed? with the tiny hairs called cilia on the face and ears, which are visible in bright back light.

Some of the extra information contained in analog tape recordings or analog direct to disc recordings, specifically, frequencies above the range of typical human hearing and loudspeaker reproduction capabilities, may be useful to the ear brain in the process of hearing music, but  extra information that is not part of the original musical sound sources may in fact not be at all useful?it may be only noise, tape hiss, tape over-modulation, record groove or tape modulation distortion or tape surface scrape, or a host of other non-linearities that really have nothing to do with the recorded music.  Extreme low frequencies, below the range of musical instruments but still within the range of human hearing, are almost completely lost in analog tape recording due to the fact that the signal wave lengths are so much longer than the physical width of the tape head itself.  This latter limitation is absent in digital recording, which captures frequencies as low as the analog input circuits allow?usually somewhere in the range of one to two hertz.

When digital CDs were introduced in 1984, there was much talk about how the ?warmth? of analog recordings seemed lost.  That same observation is no longer significant today.  The reason is simple; we have grown accustomed to the sound of the audio which we have at hand?that which we hear every day.  Before 1984, when we knew only the hiss of the tape and the crackle of the LP, it was disconcerting to hear clean, pure audio.  We simply were not used to it.

Classical music recording engineers of course, were immediately enamored of the clean sound, having heard lots of clean audio through headphones from live microphones, which were never processed or fed through blinking boxes that squeezed, squashed and manipulated the original signals.  However, human males have enormous difficulty integrating the experience and knowledge of others?particularly competitors?with their own knowledge, and so the experience and observations of classical music recording engineers was lost on the majority of non classical recording engineers.

In actual fact, virtually all of the high end stereophiles (and by that I'm talking about the super tweaks who spend as much as a quarter of a million dollars on a stereo system), who had spent a significant amount of time at concerts listening to live acoustic music, immediately embraced digital recording and then the CD.  Only listeners whose primary exposure to music was LP recordings and cassettes were ever among the group who found fault with the sound of CDs.

When the first CD re-releases of some popular LPs first appeared, there was a brief time lag before mastering labs figured out that the extensive EQ and processing exceptions made to compensate for the mechanical transfer functions of vinyl records and phono cartridges was not needed for CD mastering, but that abated as quickly as a year after the introduction of the CD to the mass market and has not been an issue since then."

Says it for me.

Logged
Composer, Logic Pro Certified Trainer, Level 2
Author of "Going Pro with Logic Pro 8"

www.jayasher.com

Steve Brady

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: A digital question
« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2006, 11:05:30 am »

wwittman wrote on Sat, 11 March 2006 23:19

It's the same reason why in an analogue recording you hear the depth and air around things and in a digital one, it seems flatter and shallower.

Logged
Steve Brady

Steve Brady

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: A digital question
« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2006, 11:44:49 am »

"SOME TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ON THE DIGITAL VS. ANALOG DEBATE

*snip*

"Humans hear with their ears ? which are, strictly speaking, digital in nature..."

No disrepect here, but this premise is incorrect.  Hearing is based on analog's mechanical and electrical energy - it's no way shape or form, "digital" in nature.  

Those tiny hairs are actually nerve cells that perform probably one of the most critical roles in hearing.  They differ in length and also have different degrees of resiliency to the cochlear fluid which passes over them.  As a soundwave its the eardrum forcing mechanical compression, that compression moves to the hammer of the middle ear and thru oval window of the inner ear (via the cochlea and its fluid).  When this occurs, these hair-like nerve cells are set in motion with each having a natural sensitivity to a particular frequency of soundwave vibration.  The nerve cells send the signal to the brain which interprets the quality, type, frequency, spacial characteristics, time (among a multitude of other things) as "sound".  It's all mechanical and electrical energy - there's nothing digital about it.  That's a biological fact.

*snip*

"...When digital CDs were introduced in 1984, there was much talk about how the ?warmth? of analog recordings seemed lost.  That same observation is no longer significant today.  The reason is simple; we have grown accustomed to the sound of the audio which we have at hand?that which we hear every day.  Before 1984, when we knew only the hiss of the tape and the crackle of the LP, it was disconcerting to hear clean, pure audio.  We simply were not used to it."

The "warmth" is the entire nuance of a particular sound cannot be captured with digital because of the bit/byte limitation which clips the actual sound being heard.  That's it in a nutshell.  

*snip*

"In actual fact, virtually all of the high end stereophiles (and by that I'm talking about the super tweaks who spend as much as a quarter of a million dollars on a stereo system), who had spent a significant amount of time at concerts listening to live acoustic music, immediately embraced digital recording and then the CD.  Only listeners whose primary exposure to music was LP recordings and cassettes were ever among the group who found fault with the sound of CDs..."

I think that's a stretch...and folks can say all they want about Digital vs. Analog - it's a free country, but the scientific reality is, the real world is an analog world.  What you see and hear in real life is analog.  The world is built in even order harmonic distortion.  The digital world is built in odd order harmonic distortion.  

The scientific and mathematical fact is, a supercomputer cannot dedicate enough bits and bytes accurately duplicate the analog world.  The analog world is built on Infinity.  The digital world is built on finite 0's and 1's.

Most respectfully,

DY


Logged
Steve Brady

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028
Re: A digital question
« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2006, 05:23:40 pm »

Harvey!! I want one of those damn things. Very Happy

All I can say is, the Chicago files jumped out at me really fast. The one that was tape? I heard the space on the second pass. The space around the drumkit knocked me right over.

I work in digital a lot but am planning, with great detail, an analog rig.That's how I started and I hear a difference that is HUGE. I wont claim to understand with any detail, the science behind what I'm hearing but it is without a doubt, there.The word resolution springs to mind every time I listen to my 440-B machine. and that is not as good as analog gets by a long shot,but it ain't bad either.

For me? 2"-16 and mix to 1/2" and then a pair of great converters to edit stuff if I have to. Sometimes, I have to do {ehemmm,,"Mastering"} for demo work. For real stuff? send out 1/2".

I just hear it and I've decided that if I hear it, I hear it and I'll do better work on analog.

This in no way means that I don't "like" digital recordings. I have a bunch of records done in PT that I think sound great!! That,as always, is thanks to the players and engineers knowing there stuff.

Hey, pick your weapon right?
Logged
"Transformation is no easy trick: It's what art promises and usually doesn't deliver." Garrison Keillor

 

hargerst

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1458
Re: A digital question
« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2006, 12:40:31 pm »

I wish I could offer some profound and insightful explanation here, but I can't.  There IS a difference between analog and digital.  For some types of music, it doesn't seem to make much difference; for other types of music, the difference is pretty obvious - sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

It has often been said that, "the last generation of an older technology is better than the first few generations of a newer technology".  I believe that.  My new digital tv is a big improvement over my old TV, and is spectacular on most sources, including DVD's.  

But watching the series "Stargate - SG-1" on the SciFi channel, for example, is a study in frustration; blobs of color in the dark scenes are mildly annoying at best and distracting at worst.  The "compression" scenario makes sense to me.

It seems like the whole entertainment industry (video and audio) is headed down a slippery slope - away from quality, and headed for convenience.  At least, it's true for the people in charge.

While iPod's, mp3's, and digital compression may be the wave of the future, I think there are enough of us still around that care about good quality to make a difference.

Eventually, we'll win.
Logged
Harvey "Is that the right note?" Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028
Re: A digital question
« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2006, 05:56:54 pm »

Well said Harvey,,

And FWIW, I don't mean to imply that digital means quantity or,bad quality over high quality either. That, as always, is up to the folks in the room. Digital has allowed a new bread of young people to enter the recording thing and in to many cases, they have to many choices and are sold the idea that "that box" can fix everything. I think your right though. Quality will always win out in the end.

Ivan.................................................

P.S. Man, I really want one of those big ass TV's!! talk about fancy Cool
Logged
"Transformation is no easy trick: It's what art promises and usually doesn't deliver." Garrison Keillor

 

hargerst

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1458
Re: A digital question
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2006, 07:28:00 pm »

ivan40 wrote on Mon, 13 March 2006 16:56

Well said Harvey,

And FWIW, I don't mean to imply that digital means quantity or,bad quality over high quality either. That, as always, is up to the folks in the room. Digital has allowed a new bread of young people to enter the recording thing and in to many cases, they have to many choices and are sold the idea that "that box" can fix everything. I think your right though. Quality will always win out in the end.

Ivan.................................................

P.S. Man, I really want one of those big ass TV's!! talk about fancy Cool

I had a 42" (that I paid $75 for a few years ago), but it wasn't wide screen or Hi Def.  We found this one at Best Buy (in their "Close-Outs") and we said, "Ah, What the hell, go for it."  I've really been enjoying it.
Logged
Harvey "Is that the right note?" Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio

Steve Brady

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: A digital question
« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2006, 07:35:27 pm »

hargerst wrote on Mon, 13 March 2006 17:40

I wish I could offer some profound and insightful explanation here, but I can't.  There IS a difference between analog and digital.  For some types of music, it doesn't seem to make much difference; for other types of music, the difference is pretty obvious - sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

It has often been said that, "the last generation of an older technology is better than the first few generations of a newer technology".  I believe that.  My new digital tv is a big improvement over my old TV, and is spectacular on most sources, including DVD's.  

But watching the series "Stargate - SG-1" on the SciFi channel, for example, is a study in frustration; blobs of color in the dark scenes are mildly annoying at best and distracting at worst.  The "compression" scenario makes sense to me.

It seems like the whole entertainment industry (video and audio) is headed down a slippery slope - away from quality, and headed for convenience.  At least, it's true for the people in charge.

While iPod's, mp3's, and digital compression may be the wave of the future, I think there are enough of us still around that care about good quality to make a difference.

Eventually, we'll win.


Agreed.  And there will *always* be a difference between digital and analog that is discernible by the human brain - because of the bits/bytes limitation of digital.  You see an example right there on your TV screen with the dark colors (musically, think of low notes/Hz and the long wavelengths that digitally require huges amounts of 0's & 1's to reproduce).  As memory increases, the dark colors won't be so splotchy, but there'll be the issue reproducing the exact color the eye sees in an analog world.

By the way, Harvey - have you ran across this problem on your Topaz:  Rapid, my new Neumann BCM-104 came in today so I'm eager to fire it up to hear what it sounds like.  I turned on my power supply this afternoon, the power supply light didn't turn on but the board lights up and functions as normal - WITH a nasty 60 cycle hum.  I replugged everything in, same results.  Any guess?  Or, do you have someone you recommend?

Thanks much!
Logged
Steve Brady

hargerst

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1458
Re: A digital question
« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2006, 07:45:09 pm »

DamnYankee wrote on Mon, 13 March 2006 18:35

Harvey - have you ran across this problem on your Topaz:  I turned on my power supply, the power supply light doesn't turn on but the board lights up and functions as normal - WITH a nasty 60 cycle hum.  I replugged everything in, same results.  Any guess?  Or, do you have someone you recommend?

Steve Magalnick
Victory Technologies Inc.
1780 N.E. 191st Street
Apt 212
N. Miami, Florida 33179

Phone#: 305-944-2503
Email: mag212@comcast.net

Great guy, and knows everything there is to know about Soundtracs boards.
Logged
Harvey "Is that the right note?" Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio

Bubblepuppy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
Re: A digital question
« Reply #24 on: March 14, 2006, 05:01:05 pm »

Actually the cathode ray tube still offers the best images of true black.
There is a new technology coming called FED, Field emission Display.
It works on the same principles as a regular CRT but they will be about 4 inches in depth and @ one 5th the cost. and no limit on size.
I read a lot of propellar Head stuff and I saw this in WIRED.
There is talk it will revitalize the older TV manufactures of CRT displays.
If I’m not mistaken most broadcast mixing and viewing still relies on things like the Sony Trinitron for program broadcast viewing.
Logged
"Trust Your Ears Not The Gear"

Bubblepuppy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
Re: A digital question
« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2006, 05:04:24 pm »

What about the MATRIX man?
Are you saying Trinity and Neo are still alive!!!!
DUDE!
Logged
"Trust Your Ears Not The Gear"

Fibes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4306
Re: A digital question
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2006, 05:15:43 pm »

I prefer the visuals of a good book.

The Matrix is just a poor, far too late version of Neuromancer.

Please don't consider that an opinion.

Logged
Fibes
-------------------------------------------------
"You can like it, or not like it."
The Studio

  http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewArtist ?id=155759887
http://cdbaby.com/cd/superhorse
http://cdbaby.com/cd/superhorse2

Steve Brady

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: A digital question
« Reply #27 on: March 14, 2006, 06:47:47 pm »

Bubblepuppy wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 22:01

Actually the cathode ray tube still offers the best images of true black.
There is a new technology coming called FED, Field emission Display.
It works on the same principles as a regular CRT but they will be about 4 inches in depth and @ one 5th the cost. and no limit on size.
I read a lot of propellar Head stuff and I saw this in WIRED.
There is talk it will revitalize the older TV manufactures of CRT displays.
If I’m not mistaken most broadcast mixing and viewing still relies on things like the Sony Trinitron for program broadcast viewing.



That sounds pretty cool!  And of course, I can't help but be partial to any new technology employing an anode and cathode - even if the anode plate is made of phosphor.  Very Happy

Gee, 1/5 the cost of LCD???  Don't tell Harvey or his big 44 incher!!!
Logged
Steve Brady

Steve Brady

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: A digital question
« Reply #28 on: March 14, 2006, 09:51:41 pm »

hargerst wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 00:45

DamnYankee wrote on Mon, 13 March 2006 18:35

Harvey - have you ran across this problem on your Topaz:  I turned on my power supply, the power supply light doesn't turn on but the board lights up and functions as normal - WITH a nasty 60 cycle hum.  I replugged everything in, same results.  Any guess?  Or, do you have someone you recommend?

Steve Magalnick
Victory Technologies Inc.
1780 N.E. 191st Street
Apt 212
N. Miami, Florida 33179

Phone#: 305-944-2503
Email: mag212@comcast.net

Great guy, and knows everything there is to know about Soundtracs boards.



Thank you very, very much, Harvey!  

I just hope this is an easy fix...

Steve
Logged
Steve Brady

hargerst

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1458
Re: A digital question
« Reply #29 on: March 14, 2006, 11:58:29 pm »

DamnYankee wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 20:51

hargerst wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 00:45

DamnYankee wrote on Mon, 13 March 2006 18:35

Harvey - have you ran across this problem on your Topaz:  I turned on my power supply, the power supply light doesn't turn on but the board lights up and functions as normal - WITH a nasty 60 cycle hum.  I replugged everything in, same results.  Any guess?  Or, do you have someone you recommend?

Steve Magalnick
Victory Technologies Inc.
1780 N.E. 191st Street
Apt 212
N. Miami, Florida 33179

Phone#: 305-944-2503
Email: mag212@comcast.net

Great guy, and knows everything there is to know about Soundtracs boards.



Thank you very, very much, Harvey!  

I just hope this is an easy fix...

Steve


Sounds like a filter capacitor went out - should be a pretty cheap fix.
Logged
Harvey "Is that the right note?" Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up