No. It merely means the content found on vinyl sounds better, not because the vinyl itself has anything to do with it, but merely because the content put on it started out better.
Yes. People who think vinyl is better than CD are idiots. The best vinyl recordings have been measured to be good for around 60dB of dynamic range. By comparison, CD is guaranteed to have a full 96dB of dynamic range, by simple fact of it being 16-bit LPCM. Vinyl cannot handle low frequencies without distorting, and becomes increasingly distorted above 5kHz. CDs made from a proper band-limited input are distortion free for the entire Nyquist range, from 0 to 22kHz. On top of that all, CDs are erasure coded, so they have to get fairly heavily scratched up before they have any sort of pops or skipping. From a technical standpoint, CDs are unquestionably better than any vinyl format.
There are three reasons why someone might think otherwise:
They are being fashionable. They want to be part of a "counter-culture" crowd that thinks vinyl is cool, so they too think vinyl is cool. All other audio technologies must therefore be bad, and disparaging remarks made against them. These people are a lost cause.
They are being nostalgic. They remember the "old days" when they listened to vinyl, and thus that sound is the meter by which they measure everything else. Vinyl is inaccurate. It distorts the highs. It distorts the lows. Different pickups add their own unique flavor (distortion). Tube amps add more flavor (more distortion). They aren't looking to hear the music itself. They're looking to hear the music altered by the playback device in a manner they're accustomed to. If that's how they like their music, then by all means, I'm not going to stop them. Of course, there's no reason digital reprocessing filters couldn't be developed to simulate that distortion and make CDs or other digital formats sound the same.
They are mistaking correlation with causation. Around the same time we got CDs, we started getting increasing amounts of use of dynamic compression in music studios. Everyone wants their rock song to be louder than the next, so they compress the shit out of it and remove all the original variance and quality in the music. As the statement goes, garbage in, garbage out, and all the merits of CDs are for naught when used to perfectly reproduce bad sound. They're comparing good mastering on a poor medium to shitty mastering on a good medium, finding "poor" sounds better than "shitty", and mistakenly believing that CDs are the cause. These people have a legitimate gripe, but are merely ignorant in their focus.
Are you suggesting he's using the cost, availability, and limited storage of film as an artificial restriction to force him to operate in a certain manner? Surely he could do the same thing with digital cameras and a bit of self control.
No, because he made sure to point out the fact that he was shooting the whole thing in 35mm monochrome, before converting it to digital. Ignoring the fact that the claimed advantages of analog film are dubious at this point anyway, any perceived advantage would be lost in the transfer. This is nothing but PR fluff, and all the retro hipsters are going to eat it up. It's like those idiots who think vinyl is better than CD.
If you missed it, he's going to be using an open source digital editing suite to edit the film. When you add that digital step, there is zero value in recording in analog.
I think launching a space craft to deflect an asteroid such that it crashes into the House/Senate while they are in session puts you firmly in the "Evil Genius" category.
The LASERs were solar, and the debris cloud circling the Earth following the impact meant sharks had no way to power them. Being temporarily useless, they were discarded for the extra mobility.
The trouble is that we're basically at the Nyquist limit in terms of transmission efficiency. That means any increase in wireless network capacity is going to require increased power consumption, either directly through higher power output, or from having a higher quantity of more directional equipment. As more users begin taking advantage of high bandwidth online services, the network capacity will have to grow, and thus power consumption will grow to match.
So basically, they want to be able to use the Play store with their own independent authentication mechanism? They don't want their customers to have to create a Google/Gmail account to tie their purchases to, and they want to force Google to change their store to allow for such?
My experience has always been the opposite. The handful of firewire components I've had always "just worked", while any heavy USB usage was liable to cause a kernel panic.
USB2 was considerably worse. Even rated at 480Mbps, FW400 would still run circles around it. The trouble was that as mentioned elsewhere, even the lackluster performance of USB2 was "good enough" for the mass market. Where USB was CPU driven, and thus dirt cheap to implement, Firewire required real hardware and DMA, along with a significant licensing cost, and the couple dollars it added to every piece of equipment that implemented it sunk the format.
2. Hydrogen still delivers more bang per unit of measure than any hydrocarbon.
That depends entirely on your unit of measure. Units of volume are pretty important too, and you have to get compressed hydrogen up to around three thousand atmospheres before it has the same volumetric density as gasoline.
The counter is that traditional crystalline silicon panels are expensive to produce, and even cheaper (and less efficient) amorphous ones still require a significant energy input to manufacture. Light sensors and tracking motors need maintenance. The panels themselves can get damaged and need replacement. A simple, robust plant could be grown for comparatively low cost, and even though the percentage of conversion is much lower, requiring much larger swaths of land for energy generation, it could potentially be a cheaper solution. That's the same reason why there is so much interest in thin film polymer cells, even though the best are only capable of a couple percent.
RAW format just means the raw, unprocessed data, straight off the image sensor. It's a greyscale image with a stored filter pattern. You can have uncompressed bitmaps that are not RAW. You can have compressed RAWs that are unprocessed. Uncompressed and RAW are two completely independent and non-exclusive properties.
For what it's worth, it would be stupid to operate a video camera in uncompressed mode when hardware stream compressors are so readily available, and are typically good for at least 2:1 compression ratio.
There is no ban on reprocessing. It was lifted in the 80s, not long after it was originally put into place. The government simply no longer funds reprocessing, leaving it up to power companies to pay for it, or not.
Actually, the only reason more "waste" isn't being reprocessed is because reprocessing is damned expensive, and power companies aren't responsible for the long term disposal of waste.
Slashdot Mirror
Hah! I was actually going to post the same thing.
No. It merely means the content found on vinyl sounds better, not because the vinyl itself has anything to do with it, but merely because the content put on it started out better.
Yes. People who think vinyl is better than CD are idiots. The best vinyl recordings have been measured to be good for around 60dB of dynamic range. By comparison, CD is guaranteed to have a full 96dB of dynamic range, by simple fact of it being 16-bit LPCM. Vinyl cannot handle low frequencies without distorting, and becomes increasingly distorted above 5kHz. CDs made from a proper band-limited input are distortion free for the entire Nyquist range, from 0 to 22kHz. On top of that all, CDs are erasure coded, so they have to get fairly heavily scratched up before they have any sort of pops or skipping. From a technical standpoint, CDs are unquestionably better than any vinyl format.
There are three reasons why someone might think otherwise:
You can get cameras with 12-bit color, and projectors with the same.
Are you suggesting he's using the cost, availability, and limited storage of film as an artificial restriction to force him to operate in a certain manner? Surely he could do the same thing with digital cameras and a bit of self control.
No, because he made sure to point out the fact that he was shooting the whole thing in 35mm monochrome, before converting it to digital. Ignoring the fact that the claimed advantages of analog film are dubious at this point anyway, any perceived advantage would be lost in the transfer. This is nothing but PR fluff, and all the retro hipsters are going to eat it up. It's like those idiots who think vinyl is better than CD.
If you missed it, he's going to be using an open source digital editing suite to edit the film. When you add that digital step, there is zero value in recording in analog.
Are you suggesting Openshot swallows?
I think launching a space craft to deflect an asteroid such that it crashes into the House/Senate while they are in session puts you firmly in the "Evil Genius" category.
The LASERs were solar, and the debris cloud circling the Earth following the impact meant sharks had no way to power them. Being temporarily useless, they were discarded for the extra mobility.
The trouble is that we're basically at the Nyquist limit in terms of transmission efficiency. That means any increase in wireless network capacity is going to require increased power consumption, either directly through higher power output, or from having a higher quantity of more directional equipment. As more users begin taking advantage of high bandwidth online services, the network capacity will have to grow, and thus power consumption will grow to match.
We'll use company script, of course!
So basically, they want to be able to use the Play store with their own independent authentication mechanism? They don't want their customers to have to create a Google/Gmail account to tie their purchases to, and they want to force Google to change their store to allow for such?
For the spice?
My experience has always been the opposite. The handful of firewire components I've had always "just worked", while any heavy USB usage was liable to cause a kernel panic.
USB2 was considerably worse. Even rated at 480Mbps, FW400 would still run circles around it. The trouble was that as mentioned elsewhere, even the lackluster performance of USB2 was "good enough" for the mass market. Where USB was CPU driven, and thus dirt cheap to implement, Firewire required real hardware and DMA, along with a significant licensing cost, and the couple dollars it added to every piece of equipment that implemented it sunk the format.
The trouble is you get into name reuse. The Blue Angels' C-130 is named Fat Albert, and the SR-71 was the Sled.
2. Hydrogen still delivers more bang per unit of measure than any hydrocarbon.
That depends entirely on your unit of measure. Units of volume are pretty important too, and you have to get compressed hydrogen up to around three thousand atmospheres before it has the same volumetric density as gasoline.
The counter is that traditional crystalline silicon panels are expensive to produce, and even cheaper (and less efficient) amorphous ones still require a significant energy input to manufacture. Light sensors and tracking motors need maintenance. The panels themselves can get damaged and need replacement. A simple, robust plant could be grown for comparatively low cost, and even though the percentage of conversion is much lower, requiring much larger swaths of land for energy generation, it could potentially be a cheaper solution. That's the same reason why there is so much interest in thin film polymer cells, even though the best are only capable of a couple percent.
Eh? A "fuel cell" is a chemical reactor, that oxidizes a fuel source to produce electricity and exhaust. It has nothing to do with storage.
What is a dollar-mile?
No, but when he got it wet once, part of the paint on the 'B' rubbed off to reveal "Folex".
RAW format just means the raw, unprocessed data, straight off the image sensor. It's a greyscale image with a stored filter pattern. You can have uncompressed bitmaps that are not RAW. You can have compressed RAWs that are unprocessed. Uncompressed and RAW are two completely independent and non-exclusive properties.
For what it's worth, it would be stupid to operate a video camera in uncompressed mode when hardware stream compressors are so readily available, and are typically good for at least 2:1 compression ratio.
There is no ban on reprocessing. It was lifted in the 80s, not long after it was originally put into place. The government simply no longer funds reprocessing, leaving it up to power companies to pay for it, or not.
Actually, the only reason more "waste" isn't being reprocessed is because reprocessing is damned expensive, and power companies aren't responsible for the long term disposal of waste.