Slashdot Mirror
Xiph Episode 2: Digital Show & Tell
An anonymous reader writes "Continuing a firehose tradition of maximum information density, Xiph.Org's second video on digital media explores multiple facets of digital audio signals and how they really behave in the real world. Demonstrations of sampling, quantization, bit-depth, and dither explore digital audio behavior on real audio equipment using both modern digital analysis and vintage analog bench equipment... just in case we can't trust those newfangled digital gizmos. You can also download the source code for each demo and try it all for yourself!"
Plus you get to look at Monty's beard and hear his soothing voice. There's a handy wiki page with further information and a summary of the video if text is your thing.
Found it very informative to a non-guru.
Aside from that, the video and its audio, and I'm not kidding here,
were very pleasant and sympathetic to the ears and eyes.
If a 100Mhz analog scope can't detect the stair steps, then there is absolutely no fucking way you have the slightest chance of detecting it.
100,000,000 Hz vs your ears at maybe 20,000 Hz.
See the difference?
He has actual hardware there, as he explains quite old consumer grade hardware, which does the conversion from analog to digital to analog, and the result is still for all intents and purposes PERFECT. Yes, the delivery is smug, but rightly so. Talking to "audiophiles" is like talking to people who believe in homeopathy: It is extremely difficult to not just make fun of the fools. When you instead manage to deliver an explanation and a demo that clear, you get to be smug. (Captcha: mockery)
He knows what he is talking about, he explains things clearly, he is not condescending to the viewer -- I think the apparent smugness is not for real, or maybe it is just how his personality comes over. And if you still don't understand how there is no stair-step, you need to watch the video again! Even though I've done loads of DSP, the nice demos he gives really illustrate well what he is saying, and who can argue with pure-analogue gear proving the point -- not just theory and hand waving, but real experimental evidence. Really nice work.
See the difference?
But, but, but... I'm an audiophile, dammit! I listen with my soul. That's why I can hear it!
That is all.
This guy knows what he's talking about, and communicates it well. Amateur audiophiles should especially read his article here: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html.
... for all the bullshit Blackboard technology mess, videotaped classroom lectures, and .edu buzzwords, this sort of thing is exactly how open education should be done.
congrats Monty, once again you've done well.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
He says several times that he used sine waves as a simple illustration. Then he switches to square waves. You apparently don't understand sampling theory well enough to understand why your second sentence, in the context of PCM audio, is incorrect. Perhaps reading this will help: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html.
On the other hand, you might just be an AC troll, an "audiophile" or an old enthusiast or sound engineer who might have been an excellent technician but never developed a proper understanding of signals. In any case, anybody tempted to agree with your post should read the article at that link.
We listen to nothing more than sums of pure sine waves.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.