Because during the mixing process, gains are adjusted. Dynamic range is fucked with. Things change, a lot, and an unintentional side effect is that it can be easy to end up with 8 or 10 bits worth of dynamic range from what was originally 16-bit source material, making it much easier to hear quantization errors.
Of course, much of this can be alleviated by doing the maths in 24- or 32-bit space instead of 16-bit space, but if you're already doing all of the the math you might as well use real data instead of filler data.
Sorry dude, but I learned that merging early is the only correct and civil way of doing things. And not only did I learn that way, but millions of others did as well.
Many of us were even taught that was *exceptionally rude* to pass the line of slowed, merged cars, only to duck into line at the last moment, whereby grown adults would shout "Oh, look at that asshole, who does he think he is?" at the offending party.
It might be a great concept and all, but it's going to take a lot of re-educating drivers. Which is almost fucking impossible in a country where a license renewal generally just consists of a photo, a vision test, and a rubber stamp.
Smart phones do not use NTP, although perhaps they should: It's computationally almost free, and can be very data-efficient, and works great even in free-running mode.
Cellular network time isn't always accurate. I can put a few devices together from different carriers, and they're within a minute or two. But right now, in fact, I have two Verizon devices in front of me: One is 16 seconds fast, and the other is 1 second slow, compared to NIST -- even though they have the same exact time source.
Maybe a minute or two is good enough, but it's not anything approaching high-accuracy. If I cared about time enough to have a high-quality wristwatch, I would not set it from the time displayed on my phone.
Meanwhile, IIRC, CID time did not include seconds in the timestamp. So it was only accurate within a minute, too.
I have this mental image of the trains actually running on time, but nobody knows what time it actually is so they all miss them anyway.
I maintain that dynamic range was never an issue for CDs.
Noise-shaping (or Sony's incarnation called "Super Bit-Mapping," or even the HDCD debacle where the "extra" bits are created literally by expansion at playback to counter intentional compression in the mastering phase, though the HDCD is a completely different farce) is old news to me.
That noise-shaping is definitely measurably useful, and the tradeoff is measurably increased spurious noise at frequencies and amplitudes you can't hear, also means that the dynamic range of a CD was fine to begin with:
If the least-significant bit doesn't matter enough that it's fine if we reduce it to essentially white noise ("noise shaping,"), then we were fine with 96dB of dynamic range to begin with.
And yeah, I grossly over-simplified that last paragraph. I recognize that noise shaping allows things to extend to down below -96dB, and still be audible, as noise shaping is literally doing PWM of the LSB. It's inherently low-passed in the frequency domain, and the low-pass gets lower as the amplitude decreases, but substantial improvements can be had in very low-level audible sound given sufficient playback gain*.
*: But it doesn't matter, because there are very few mixtures of ears, systems, and environments which can actually discern that level of quiet without the listener's ears being rather immediately damaged by the 0dBFS which is also available from the same 16-bit PCM CD.
**: Which gets into mastering techniques. It's fine for a digital recording to be on the quiet side, but there's no excuse for any digital recording to not use the MSB for at least singular sample. We have more to gain from proper normalization (note: not loudness-war compression), than we do of noise-shaping, when it comes to lively and dynamic recordings.
***: And we don't need both.
****: Sign me the fuck up for 24-bit in the recording process, because quantization errors can be cumulative and they're always ugly.
*****: And then mixing it down to 16-bit PCM is still fine, because people can't survive intact well enough to hear the dynamic range with musical material -- even if the environment/equipment can measurably support it (most can't, but some can).
******: Dude, these are 30-year-old arguments. Are we done yet?
This happened on my WoW server with wool cloth as well. Some asshole keeps going by the local auction house and buying all the wool cloth and every time i go by they're completely sold out. They've got silk cloth, felcloth, and even sumptuous fur, but no fucking wool cloth!
Of all the shit to run out of.
(-- When I still played WoW, I owned the wool cloth market. This is where my gold came from. I bought all of the wool cloth, all of the time, and then marked it up to a price that I saw fit. I politely called this sub-game "arbitrage," but better names include "fuckery," "scalping, and "I'm going to burn your house down, scumbag".)
I do hope that you aren't trying to suggest that multicast is somehow less efficient than the current random unicast noise that is Netflix and YouTube and Prime.
First, a square wave doesn't exist in reality. Everything, analog and digital, that actually exists in this world has bandwidth limitations, and this in and of itself means that a waveform cannot be square.
The maximum frequency of a CD is 22.5KHz, according to Nyquist.
But LPs have plenty of bandwidth, and in fact many LPs have been sold with about twice (!) the bandwidth of a CD. CD-4 is a quad audio format wherein the front channels were recorded normally, and the rear channels were recorded at twice the frequency. It only existed on vinyl.
Cutting vinyl is part art, part science. The machine is a vinyl lathe, and it's very analog. Feeds and speeds, like any other automatic lathe. It's important to have the grooves far apart enough that they don't interact, but it's also important that they be close together so you can fit the entire work onto one disc. And this colludes with amplitude, as lower amplitudes require less space (but tend to have a higher SNR).
A skilled vinyl lathe operator will/has/does increase the feet speed during the loud parts, and decrease it for the quiet parts.
Please don't go all Bob Carver / Sunfire with the "easily recreated" bit.
That's like saying I can take an impulse response plot from a cathedral, and thereafter accurately apply its reverberation to a signal both digitally and off-site.
And yes, there are tools which can do something like this. Can they work? Sure. Are they perfect? No. Is it easy? Sure: I just set up a speaker and a microphone, push a few buttons, and existing software takes care of generating a model for me.
I bought a Line:6 guitar amp for my then-wife several years ago. It models things with DSP, and was at the time very close to the best of its type. It can make some very interesting and useful sounds, and it is very flexible in the manner in which those sounds are created, but none of the sounds it makes are exactly like a Marshal half-stack or a Fender Twin.
I think we've reached parity with lossy compression, and have been there for years, and that -V0 (or 320 CBR) is good enough for anyone. I'm astounded and impressed that the very best MP3 compressor is both open-source, and widely used by for-profit industry.
But don't tell me that the nonlinearities of an amp, or any other non-linear analog thing are easily recreated, unless you also want me to tell you that I can model a speaker in such a way that any speaker can sound identical to any other speaker. (It's technically true, aside from things like dispersion characteristics: I can "easily" make my freebie Altec-Lansing crap-shit computer speakers sound like a $15k pair of Martin Logans, albeit at very low volumes. And if I do, it's a fucking lie. See also: Synthesized musical instruments: It may be a very good and aurally pleasant trombone-like sound, but it's not a trombone and it cannot be.)
I understand tipping people who are in service jobs (and Uber is definitely a service job, from my perspective as a guy who needs a ride).
I tip absurdly excellently for excellent service, I tip well for good service, I tip almost nothing for mediocre service, and I tip absolutely nothing for lousy service.
Period.
I've tipped people who don't expect it, I've tipped people who can't accept it, and I've withheld tips from people who did expect it but didn't deserve it based on their quality of service.
If more people used tips as a reward for excellence instead of as an obligation, then the people who are lousy at service would either starve or find other lines of work, and the people who are excellent at it would be well-rewarded for it.
Just...saying. It's no different for a waitress or bartender or Uber or the guy who delivers my new TV: All in the same boat.
To be fair to both, I use them both interchangeably for most things. Same plugins/extensions/whatever. They both render the same, and both seem about as speedy as one another.
But Firefox (Palemoon) has been failing to handle streaming porn properly for me lately, so I tend to stay in Chrome.
Slashdot Mirror
Because during the mixing process, gains are adjusted. Dynamic range is fucked with. Things change, a lot, and an unintentional side effect is that it can be easy to end up with 8 or 10 bits worth of dynamic range from what was originally 16-bit source material, making it much easier to hear quantization errors.
Of course, much of this can be alleviated by doing the maths in 24- or 32-bit space instead of 16-bit space, but if you're already doing all of the the math you might as well use real data instead of filler data.
Sorry dude, but I learned that merging early is the only correct and civil way of doing things. And not only did I learn that way, but millions of others did as well.
Many of us were even taught that was *exceptionally rude* to pass the line of slowed, merged cars, only to duck into line at the last moment, whereby grown adults would shout "Oh, look at that asshole, who does he think he is?" at the offending party.
It might be a great concept and all, but it's going to take a lot of re-educating drivers. Which is almost fucking impossible in a country where a license renewal generally just consists of a photo, a vision test, and a rubber stamp.
Smart phones do not use NTP, although perhaps they should: It's computationally almost free, and can be very data-efficient, and works great even in free-running mode.
Cellular network time isn't always accurate. I can put a few devices together from different carriers, and they're within a minute or two. But right now, in fact, I have two Verizon devices in front of me: One is 16 seconds fast, and the other is 1 second slow, compared to NIST -- even though they have the same exact time source.
Maybe a minute or two is good enough, but it's not anything approaching high-accuracy. If I cared about time enough to have a high-quality wristwatch, I would not set it from the time displayed on my phone.
Meanwhile, IIRC, CID time did not include seconds in the timestamp. So it was only accurate within a minute, too.
I have this mental image of the trains actually running on time, but nobody knows what time it actually is so they all miss them anyway.
Google used to do this, in fact, though with SMS. They killed the service several years ago.
There was also a free (and toll-free) service called Tell Me, which was voice-operated and worked well for lots of things.
***********: We're talking ants on a twig, vs a rock band with a moderate PA.
************: nobody cares about the ants, and we wouldn't hear them anyway without amplification (as in, literal gain).
I maintain that dynamic range was never an issue for CDs.
Noise-shaping (or Sony's incarnation called "Super Bit-Mapping," or even the HDCD debacle where the "extra" bits are created literally by expansion at playback to counter intentional compression in the mastering phase, though the HDCD is a completely different farce) is old news to me.
That noise-shaping is definitely measurably useful, and the tradeoff is measurably increased spurious noise at frequencies and amplitudes you can't hear, also means that the dynamic range of a CD was fine to begin with:
If the least-significant bit doesn't matter enough that it's fine if we reduce it to essentially white noise ("noise shaping,"), then we were fine with 96dB of dynamic range to begin with.
And yeah, I grossly over-simplified that last paragraph. I recognize that noise shaping allows things to extend to down below -96dB, and still be audible, as noise shaping is literally doing PWM of the LSB. It's inherently low-passed in the frequency domain, and the low-pass gets lower as the amplitude decreases, but substantial improvements can be had in very low-level audible sound given sufficient playback gain*.
*: But it doesn't matter, because there are very few mixtures of ears, systems, and environments which can actually discern that level of quiet without the listener's ears being rather immediately damaged by the 0dBFS which is also available from the same 16-bit PCM CD.
**: Which gets into mastering techniques. It's fine for a digital recording to be on the quiet side, but there's no excuse for any digital recording to not use the MSB for at least singular sample. We have more to gain from proper normalization (note: not loudness-war compression), than we do of noise-shaping, when it comes to lively and dynamic recordings.
***: And we don't need both.
****: Sign me the fuck up for 24-bit in the recording process, because quantization errors can be cumulative and they're always ugly.
*****: And then mixing it down to 16-bit PCM is still fine, because people can't survive intact well enough to hear the dynamic range with musical material -- even if the environment/equipment can measurably support it (most can't, but some can).
******: Dude, these are 30-year-old arguments. Are we done yet?
"gotcha" articles are better than the insufferable ones about workplace demographics that used to litter these pages.
Dynamic range, contrary to what you say, has never been a limiting factor in the audio quality compact disc.
Pro displays sound exactly like the higher-margin, lower-volume, more-specialized stuff that TFS says they'll continue to be doing.
That the bottom has fallen out of the television market doesn't mean that there isn't any profit left in making other LCDs.
I pressed the Windows key on my keyboard, typed "print" and the first things that showed up said "Printer Management."
So I pressed Enter.
*shrug*
Works fine.
Please show me an example of a UL or CSA certified Bluetooth headset.
I'll wait.
It's not new. It is an implementation of the same stuff we were doing with EAX almost 20 years ago, before OpenAL arrived essentially stillborn.
Psychoacoustics is not a new science, though it may be a largely forgotten one.
Your meme is 15 years late.
Every map has an intentional error. --Every cartographer, ever.
This happened on my WoW server with wool cloth as well. Some asshole keeps going by the local auction house and buying all the wool cloth and every time i go by they're completely sold out. They've got silk cloth, felcloth, and even sumptuous fur, but no fucking wool cloth!
Of all the shit to run out of.
(-- When I still played WoW, I owned the wool cloth market. This is where my gold came from. I bought all of the wool cloth, all of the time, and then marked it up to a price that I saw fit. I politely called this sub-game "arbitrage," but better names include "fuckery," "scalping, and "I'm going to burn your house down, scumbag".)
Casio already does.
So does Milwaukee (the company known for their tradesman-oriented power tools), IIRC.
Marketing is not so simple, or you yourself would've already known these two things.
I'm not buying one until it's over 9k.
I do hope that you aren't trying to suggest that multicast is somehow less efficient than the current random unicast noise that is Netflix and YouTube and Prime.
That's...not exactly accurate.
First, a square wave doesn't exist in reality. Everything, analog and digital, that actually exists in this world has bandwidth limitations, and this in and of itself means that a waveform cannot be square.
The maximum frequency of a CD is 22.5KHz, according to Nyquist.
But LPs have plenty of bandwidth, and in fact many LPs have been sold with about twice (!) the bandwidth of a CD. CD-4 is a quad audio format wherein the front channels were recorded normally, and the rear channels were recorded at twice the frequency. It only existed on vinyl.
Cutting vinyl is part art, part science. The machine is a vinyl lathe, and it's very analog. Feeds and speeds, like any other automatic lathe. It's important to have the grooves far apart enough that they don't interact, but it's also important that they be close together so you can fit the entire work onto one disc. And this colludes with amplitude, as lower amplitudes require less space (but tend to have a higher SNR).
A skilled vinyl lathe operator will/has/does increase the feet speed during the loud parts, and decrease it for the quiet parts.
Please don't go all Bob Carver / Sunfire with the "easily recreated" bit.
That's like saying I can take an impulse response plot from a cathedral, and thereafter accurately apply its reverberation to a signal both digitally and off-site.
And yes, there are tools which can do something like this. Can they work? Sure. Are they perfect? No. Is it easy? Sure: I just set up a speaker and a microphone, push a few buttons, and existing software takes care of generating a model for me.
I bought a Line:6 guitar amp for my then-wife several years ago. It models things with DSP, and was at the time very close to the best of its type. It can make some very interesting and useful sounds, and it is very flexible in the manner in which those sounds are created, but none of the sounds it makes are exactly like a Marshal half-stack or a Fender Twin.
I think we've reached parity with lossy compression, and have been there for years, and that -V0 (or 320 CBR) is good enough for anyone. I'm astounded and impressed that the very best MP3 compressor is both open-source, and widely used by for-profit industry.
But don't tell me that the nonlinearities of an amp, or any other non-linear analog thing are easily recreated, unless you also want me to tell you that I can model a speaker in such a way that any speaker can sound identical to any other speaker. (It's technically true, aside from things like dispersion characteristics: I can "easily" make my freebie Altec-Lansing crap-shit computer speakers sound like a $15k pair of Martin Logans, albeit at very low volumes. And if I do, it's a fucking lie. See also: Synthesized musical instruments: It may be a very good and aurally pleasant trombone-like sound, but it's not a trombone and it cannot be.)
ABX, or go away.
It's easy to measure an MP3 and to visualize its faults. It's much, much harder to hear them.
Go ahead. Use your ears, your gear, and your most-familiar and/or challenging music. Let us know what you find.
I understand tipping people who are in service jobs (and Uber is definitely a service job, from my perspective as a guy who needs a ride).
I tip absurdly excellently for excellent service, I tip well for good service, I tip almost nothing for mediocre service, and I tip absolutely nothing for lousy service.
Period.
I've tipped people who don't expect it, I've tipped people who can't accept it, and I've withheld tips from people who did expect it but didn't deserve it based on their quality of service.
If more people used tips as a reward for excellence instead of as an obligation, then the people who are lousy at service would either starve or find other lines of work, and the people who are excellent at it would be well-rewarded for it.
Just...saying. It's no different for a waitress or bartender or Uber or the guy who delivers my new TV: All in the same boat.
I never see people riding on a bus or a train while playing a video game.
But then, I don't see people on busses or trains, ever.
(This is the problem with anecdotes.)
*poop*
To be fair to both, I use them both interchangeably for most things. Same plugins/extensions/whatever. They both render the same, and both seem about as speedy as one another.
But Firefox (Palemoon) has been failing to handle streaming porn properly for me lately, so I tend to stay in Chrome.
*shrug*