I suppose what is done with video is no help ? When SD is upped to HD ? It works very well on my PVR to the extent I have lost interest in HD . Not saying no difference , just less than I would have thought likely . Switching the TV on the SD soon makes me want HD or upped SD ( Panasonic ) . As I said previously video is better understood . contrast , clear borders , colour saturation , black levels . There are even special tricks plasma's need to fool the eye ( ghost images ) . I suspect we don't know these rules so well in audio ?
Red Giant - Products - Magic Bullet Instant HD 1.2
Red Giant - Products - Magic Bullet Instant HD 1.2
if you can't see the difference between an SD upscaled to HD and the same material in HD, then something is not as it was supposed to be. I don't know what... the decoder, the monitor, the file itself... I have watched 1080p and it is quite better than 720p. 480p/360p is not even worthwhile. it's like watching a crappy watercolour painted version.
Here is the link that I received today in e-mail:
Recording: In The Studio: The Top 10 Reasons Why Music Is Compressed - Pro Sound Web
The guy advocates compression.
Recording: In The Studio: The Top 10 Reasons Why Music Is Compressed - Pro Sound Web
The guy advocates compression.
Then we must mean different things by 'optimal'. Fair enough.
Well a true optimisation would take account of these people's happiness too, unlike your compromise solution.
More evidence that our meanings of 'optimal' differ - mine is not subject to opinion like yours.
Why is that 'unfortunate' ? Do GM's senior management see it the same way?
Which sounds as though you are now agreeing with me
I agree or disagree with you depending on what you understand as optimal. To me, optimal means that the product satisfies the primary goal that has been set for it.
It seems to me you are looking at it far too much from the engineering side, whereas I am looking at it from its ultimate goal as a product, which is to sell and produce profits.
Looking at it from the economic side, it is a success, because it sells, and in my opinion, it is economically optimal because it satisfies not only that on e basic goal, but does so without endangering its sister model, Opel/Vauxhall Astra, and it satisfies the other goal of GM, which is to make Chevrolet its world-wide brand, and to do that, it must assert the Chevrolet brand in Europe. As you may or may not know, Chevrolet has no strong foothold anywhere outside the US, where it is said to be the single most popular brand around (so I've read).
Since it shares its platform with the said Opel Astra/Vauxhall, it can be made cheaper than if it were made all on its own, along the way also helping the Astra to be cheaper, as the same parts are made in greater numbers.
So, from GM's point of view, it satisfies a whole list of requirements, and does so well, which leads me to believe that they did hit the optimal point.
From my poin t of view, it's clerly the optimal solution simply because it has no serious competitor when one looks at the equipment and facilities offered in that price range, as others cost more to much more for the level of features offered, because it is backed by a comprehensive network of dealers, because I happen to know the owner of the dealership I bought it from, and because its warranty is 5 years, whereas other famous brand names, such as BMW and Mercedes-Benz give a 2 year warranty, the VW group (VW, Audi, Seat, Škoda) and Renault give a 4 year warranty, etc. In fact, only two manufacturers, Kia and Hunday, offer a 7 year warranty, but their products are in my view technically inferior and ultimtely more expensive, even if only by a bit.
It is only in PURELY technical terms that it is not the optimal solution, but that said, if the technology used was better, its price would also be higher, and depending on how higher, it may balance the gain in technology with the loss in price advantage, or not, who knows.
But I cannot disassociate its technological basis from its price, because it is ultimately a product made to be sold, not technology for its own sake. It had a whole set of objectives, not just one - to sell, and in my view, it has managed to satisfy a number of conflicting criteria rather admirably. We don't see that too often.
I think I said I could see the difference ! However I am impressed anything is possible which closes the gap . I worked in professional video so take an interest . Much HD is not worth the label . The best HD I saw recently was the Eurovison song contest . How typical . Recently horse racing was more detailed in HD and better saturation in SD . Obviously a choice of the program director . Neither program was a choice , just looking out of interest .
I watched Vertigo in HD . Now that was excellent .The colour gets a bit wild at times . The detail excellent and saturation near perfect . North by Northwest soon I hope ? 3 D is a bit like quadraphonic , don't need it I feel .
I want to see Bilko in HD . Memory has it as very HD black and white .
Frankly Wave, his list is full of it. He may be a veteran, but he's doing audio no favores. Let's hope he retires soon.
Optimal means satisfies set of criteria. Example: what is optimal for stationary speaker is suboptimal for portable speaker. So for portable speaker light material would be preferable, for stationary speakers heavy material would be preferable. Here is a picture of my subwoofer attached. It is of course suboptimal for a boombox, but why would I prefer portable boxes in my living room when concrete horn under the floor works better?
Attachments
DVV . I will be drinking with the same types tonight and they still say the same . How to design compressors is always our number one conversation . Friends are friends . Off on my holidays now . DVV you can say all the wild things in my place .
We sort of look at valves now . That was taboo .
Nige
We sort of look at valves now . That was taboo .
Nige
without listening to it.
here are some pictures, can you tell me which are the flac and which the mp3?
Agreed.
Whether the set of criteria is itself optimal for a given purpose is another matter.
And why exactly is your subwoofer suboptimal for a boombox?
A misunedrstaning - I meant hearing the difference between standard Red Book CD and MP3.
Just be careful not to confuse Audio data compression, which is what MP3 is, with Dynamic range compression, a very different thing; orthogonal in fact.
Frank
That is not my meaning for optimal. I agree with Wave, there are a set of criteria and optimal best fulfills that chosen set in totality.
It seems to me that your business understanding ie somewhat lacking. The purpose of business is not 'to produce profits' but rather, as Drucker says 'to create a customer'. To me, engineering encompasses 'building the right product' just as much as 'building the product right', but you might consider the former as 'marketing'.
As I said before, in my meaning 'optimal' is not a matter of opinion so it does seem we've been talking at crossed purposes. I propose to halt the discussion here
I'll add my 0.10
10: Compression is part of the sound of contemporary music. Completely uncompressed music would sound lifeless and boring to most listeners. They crave more energy than unprocessed sound offers.
Too general a claim... The self titled Animals as Leaders ("contemporary" music) album is horrible to listen to... why? Because it is brickwalled compressed.
9: Louder music, even if it’s just slightly louder, almost always sounds better than quieter music.
that is why we have these things called amplifiers that take a weak signal and make it stronger which in the end is heard louder.
8: Most music is listened to in the background to accompany some other activity like working, reading exercising, driving, or cooking. When you’re doing something else, uncompressed music’s constantly shifting volume level would be an annoyance.
That's not music, that's barely one step above muzak. Have you ever held a deep, thoughtful, meaningful conversation with a friend while doing the dishes? I thought not. How can you be involved in a meaningful way to the music you hear while you are involved in something else? Frankly i don't give a **** if you want to cater to these people, but don't you dare lump us with them.
7: When listening in shuffle mode, there’s a good chance you’ll skip over the quieter songs to get to the next tune. Record producers live in fear of a mix that’s too quiet.
excuse me... what ? This is so absurd i don't think it even merits discussion.
6: In the days before CD mastering, engineers needed to boost the quietest sounds to keep them above the LP’s noise floor, and reduce the loudest sounds volume level to keep the “needle” in the groove. Digital didn’t have those problems, but we still wound up with CDs that have less soft-to-loud dynamic range than LPs.
a) he doesn't say what dynamic range he is referring to. The dynamic range that the CD is capable of (16bits is ~98 dB. vinyl is what? 70 dB?) or the dynamic range that we end up with after the mastering?
b) if someone is mastering a recording targeted at CD while having vinyl in mind i think (i'm no recording engineer) there is something wrong.
5: Engineers like using different types of compression to create new sounds to catch the ear. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong? The engineer is not the performer. His work better be in agreement with what the performer wants, or he fails at his purpose.
4: People so rarely listen to music in quiet surroundings, they need compression to keep music loud enough to be heard over the noise.
So because the majority of people do not know how to appreciate music, you cater to them. Catering to the lowest common denominator, gotcha.
3: If people really didn’t like compression, they would stop buying/listening to compressed music (see No. 1).
... were we given a choice? When? Where is the "uncompressed" version of the music i like? Since we are not given a choice, you can't blame us for our actions.
2: People mistake compression for dynamics; when all the sounds are loud and “punchy,” it’s called “dynamic.” Naturally dynamic music lacks the kick of a compressed mix.
Compressed means that the upper levels of "loud" are all brought to the same level of "loud". By definition compression means loss of dynamic range.
If that claim were true, a live orchestra would have less kick than his compressed master. Absurd. Is he thinking of an expander, perhaps? I know colloquially compressing and expanding are both called compression, but from a guy who claims to be a master at his art, i'd expect him to use the correct terminology.
1: Audiophiles like to complain about compressed music, but they actually prefer it.
No we ******* don't. That is why you see people even trying to uncompress recordings that are compressed to hell. I can not link directly because it is against the rules, but try searching for "animals as leaders unbrickwalled". Understand what this means? Try searching for "not remastered" on torrent sites. Understand what this means?
10: Compression is part of the sound of contemporary music. Completely uncompressed music would sound lifeless and boring to most listeners. They crave more energy than unprocessed sound offers.
Too general a claim... The self titled Animals as Leaders ("contemporary" music) album is horrible to listen to... why? Because it is brickwalled compressed.
9: Louder music, even if it’s just slightly louder, almost always sounds better than quieter music.
that is why we have these things called amplifiers that take a weak signal and make it stronger which in the end is heard louder.
8: Most music is listened to in the background to accompany some other activity like working, reading exercising, driving, or cooking. When you’re doing something else, uncompressed music’s constantly shifting volume level would be an annoyance.
That's not music, that's barely one step above muzak. Have you ever held a deep, thoughtful, meaningful conversation with a friend while doing the dishes? I thought not. How can you be involved in a meaningful way to the music you hear while you are involved in something else? Frankly i don't give a **** if you want to cater to these people, but don't you dare lump us with them.
7: When listening in shuffle mode, there’s a good chance you’ll skip over the quieter songs to get to the next tune. Record producers live in fear of a mix that’s too quiet.
excuse me... what ? This is so absurd i don't think it even merits discussion.
6: In the days before CD mastering, engineers needed to boost the quietest sounds to keep them above the LP’s noise floor, and reduce the loudest sounds volume level to keep the “needle” in the groove. Digital didn’t have those problems, but we still wound up with CDs that have less soft-to-loud dynamic range than LPs.
a) he doesn't say what dynamic range he is referring to. The dynamic range that the CD is capable of (16bits is ~98 dB. vinyl is what? 70 dB?) or the dynamic range that we end up with after the mastering?
b) if someone is mastering a recording targeted at CD while having vinyl in mind i think (i'm no recording engineer) there is something wrong.
5: Engineers like using different types of compression to create new sounds to catch the ear. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong? The engineer is not the performer. His work better be in agreement with what the performer wants, or he fails at his purpose.
4: People so rarely listen to music in quiet surroundings, they need compression to keep music loud enough to be heard over the noise.
So because the majority of people do not know how to appreciate music, you cater to them. Catering to the lowest common denominator, gotcha.
3: If people really didn’t like compression, they would stop buying/listening to compressed music (see No. 1).
... were we given a choice? When? Where is the "uncompressed" version of the music i like? Since we are not given a choice, you can't blame us for our actions.
2: People mistake compression for dynamics; when all the sounds are loud and “punchy,” it’s called “dynamic.” Naturally dynamic music lacks the kick of a compressed mix.
Compressed means that the upper levels of "loud" are all brought to the same level of "loud". By definition compression means loss of dynamic range.
If that claim were true, a live orchestra would have less kick than his compressed master. Absurd. Is he thinking of an expander, perhaps? I know colloquially compressing and expanding are both called compression, but from a guy who claims to be a master at his art, i'd expect him to use the correct terminology.
1: Audiophiles like to complain about compressed music, but they actually prefer it.
No we ******* don't. That is why you see people even trying to uncompress recordings that are compressed to hell. I can not link directly because it is against the rules, but try searching for "animals as leaders unbrickwalled". Understand what this means? Try searching for "not remastered" on torrent sites. Understand what this means?
Nice to meet you Frank. My name is Anatoliy.
I am not advocating neither dynamic range compression, nor lossy file compression. I just posted a link on a blog of a guy that advocates dynamic range compression. He is a typical audio engineer of the modern era.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.