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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
DamnYankee wrote on Sun, 12 March 2006 13:27 | ||
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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? |
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. |
hargerst wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 00:45 | ||
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. |
DamnYankee wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 20:51 | ||||
Thank you very, very much, Harvey! I just hope this is an easy fix... Steve |