This is rather unfortunate and shows that it's all about marketing and not technological capability. Hawksford has some papers in the journal of the Audio Engineering Society showing the horrible HF noise spectrum of Sony's DSD, on which SACD is based. Though this is above the audio band, it causes intermodulation with the signal in the analog stages after the DAC. It's a shame that Sony got the upper hand in marketing.
As for something sounding better, that is purely subjective, so when someone says vinyl sounds better to them, that's a personal preference. My guess as to what vinyl-preferring people have against the sound from a digital system is due to the poor filtering that most players have. There is a tradeoff with a digital system running at CD rates, in that you either need high oversampling, or a very steep anti-image analog filter after the DAC. The problem with the former is increased sensitivity of the D/A conversion to jitter in the incoming digital stream (resulting in amplitude errors in the analog output, and humans are sensitive to as little as a few picoseconds of signal-correlated jitter), and the problem with the latter is that it's complex, requires multiple opamps to be added each contributing some small distortion, and rarely implemented.
Xvid is not nearly the best codec now. H.264 gives significantly better compression for the same quality, and is available in a free implementation ias x264 (you can download torrent episodes of 24 in 720p HD resolution in the format, for example).
There is a serious error in your post. By selecting random candidates instead of ones that would be likely to have sharper senses, you will fail to decrease the possibility that you will miss sampling the potentially small part of the population that will be able to perceive a difference. This matters since as long as even a very tiny part of the population can find a difference in blind testing, then there _is_ a difference!
There are a number of things wrong with your post. First of all, no one has in blind testing been able to distinguish 256 kb/s mp3 from the original CD version, even with very high end equipment. For most people 192 is also indistinguishable. So the answer is simple, just don't use lower than 192 bitrate. Second, playback and re-recording, besides the distortion of the analog stages, results in increased distortion from jitter effects in the A/D and D/A conversions (jitter in the digital stream going into the converter results in amplitude errors in the analog signal, and humans can hear less than 5 picoseconds of signal-correlated jitter).
Is it that hard to read the article, you cretinous imbecile? The judge ADMITTED WRITING THE MOLESTATION DIARY. Next time count to ten before exercising your itchy 'Submit'-clicking finger!
I'm in Vancouver, so there's almost no sunlight at least four months of the year, so I like having an artificial approximation, especially since I read and spend much time _not_ looking at a computer screen.
Well, since a monitor is a source, ambient lighting doesn't matter to it. I do read books, and look at other things than my monitor, however, and there's very little sunlight in four months of the year in Vancouver, so I'm pleased with the artificial approximation. Now if they'd only make a 120 V version.
No shilling; I've just been so happy with the result, and disappointed by the marketing of the CFLs when in practice I don't like their colors. Personally, I've a tendency do get affected by the lack of sunlight in the Vancouver winter. Also, it can be found for between $7 and $8 if you check froogle. Of course, there are problems with this light as well, the main being that it only goes up to 50 W, and that it runs on 12 V (WTF were they thinking) so lamps usually use switching supplies and I already get enough RF from my PC.
The problem is simple: color rendering of CFLs is crap, because they use narrowband phosphors resulting in a very spiky spectrum, which, even if white balanced to daylight, will still result in colored objects appearing completely different from what they would when illuminated by sunlight. Compare the ease, on the other hand, with which a filtering reflector can make the continuous spectrum of an incandescent bulb match that of daylight: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif I turn off the disgusting fluorescents off in the office and use my desk lamp with one of those incandescent bulbs. 50 W seem like a waste compared to the dozen of a comparable-brightness CFL? Not when you have proper color rendering.
Complex color matching? There's not the remotest similarity between the spiky spectrum of even a good CFL to the continuous spectrum of an incandescent which can be easily filtered to match that of actual daylight: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif Looking at the color rendering difference, there is nothing subtle about it.
Niche? So you think making colors look the same as in actual daylight is a niche market? Only a continuous spectrum such as of an incandescent bulb can be (with filtering) matched to that of actual daylight. See how even a good CFL compares with its narrowband phosphors in this diagram: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif
That is only reasonable if you can force the CFLs to have a color rendering ability matching that of incandescents. That is, of course, impossible, since CFLs generate light with narrowband phosphors, whereas incandescents have a continuous spectrum, which can be easily filtered to match almost exactly the spectrum of sunlight: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif Higher taxation on incandescents would mean that those of us that actually like colors to look the same as they do in daylight will suffer because we'd be forced to switch to the CFLs with their crappy color rendering.
How is this the "right" decision? That's very presumptuous of you to say. Why should I trade a continuous spectrum that with proper filtering, can match daylight, to a CFL which uses narrowband phosphors and, even if white balanced to daylight, can never approach the color rendering ability of the former? Compare the spectrum of a high-end CFL to a filtered incandescent and daylight: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif
Enough about incentives. How about deterrents to using CFLs? All of them use narrowband phospors and so even when matched to the same white balance as daylight, you cannot get comparable color rendition; for that you need a source with a continuous spectrum, which you then tweak with a filter -- an incandescent bulb with a filtering reflector: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif I'm using such at work in my desklamp so I can turn off the fluorescents in the office whose color rendering makes me wanna puke.
Color temperature is just an average and doesn't tell you how well it will render colors. The narrowband phosphors of a CFL don't have nearly the color rendering capability of the continuous spectrum of even a crappy incandescent. With proper filtering, an incandescent can actually match the spectrum of daylight, as in this example: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif So only an incandescent in a proper configuration can give you color reproduction that actually mimics that of sunlight.
There's more to this than coldness and warmth, as that is just looking at a spectrum as one dimensional; it is not. The averaging is inappropriate as you're just matching white balance. But two light sources with different spectra can still have the same white balance and average color temperature. Though white and grey objects will look the same, colored objects will still look different. You have to match the sunlight spectrum very well to get great color rendering. That means no narrowband phosphors as in CFLs, but the continuous spectrum of an incandescent bulb, with appropriate filtering (which is most efficiently done with a filtering reflector rather than a blocking translucent one). Compare a good CFL spectrum with a filtered incandescent and actual daylight: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif
Color balance is not sufficient. Just because two lights with different actual spectra have the same white balance does not mean colored objects will appear the same with each. If you want something to appear as if lit by sunlight, unless you're only looking at whites or greys, you need a source with a spectrum that fully matches the solar one in the visible light range. That means no narrowband phosphors in CFLs, but a blackbody radiator = incandescent bulb, with an appropriate filter to approximate the effects of temperature differences between the sun and bulb, and atmospheric filtering. To avoid heating the filter, usually manufacturers use reflecting filters. Here are some spectrum comparisons between filtered incandescent, solar, and 'quality' CFL spectra: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif
Another is the horrible color rendering of the narrowband phosphors that even the best CFLs rely on. Even if one source appears as white as others when illuminating neutral colors (white, greys) -- same white balance, if it's spectrum is different (possible since the human eye is only trichromatic), when colored objects are illuminated they will look different under each of those sources, because the product of the source spectrum with the object color reflectance will vary. So you can only get colors rendition that matches daylight if you actually use a daylight spectrum. No CFL can approach that. An incandescent bulb can because it is a blackbody radiator with a continuous spectrum, so one only needs a good filtering reflector. Here's an example: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif
Cut the crap. A good incandescent with filtered reflector is the only thing that can approach a solar spectrum. Compare to the junk you get even from a 'quality' CFL: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif
Slashdot Mirror
Stereo mp3s are indistinguishable from uncompressed CD source at 192 kb/s for most people, and 256 kb/s for essentially everyone.
This is rather unfortunate and shows that it's all about marketing and not technological capability. Hawksford has some papers in the journal of the Audio Engineering Society showing the horrible HF noise spectrum of Sony's DSD, on which SACD is based. Though this is above the audio band, it causes intermodulation with the signal in the analog stages after the DAC. It's a shame that Sony got the upper hand in marketing.
As for something sounding better, that is purely subjective, so when someone says vinyl sounds better to them, that's a personal preference. My guess as to what vinyl-preferring people have against the sound from a digital system is due to the poor filtering that most players have. There is a tradeoff with a digital system running at CD rates, in that you either need high oversampling, or a very steep anti-image analog filter after the DAC. The problem with the former is increased sensitivity of the D/A conversion to jitter in the incoming digital stream (resulting in amplitude errors in the analog output, and humans are sensitive to as little as a few picoseconds of signal-correlated jitter), and the problem with the latter is that it's complex, requires multiple opamps to be added each contributing some small distortion, and rarely implemented.
Xvid is not nearly the best codec now. H.264 gives significantly better compression for the same quality, and is available in a free implementation ias x264 (you can download torrent episodes of 24 in 720p HD resolution in the format, for example).
There is a serious error in your post. By selecting random candidates instead of ones that would be likely to have sharper senses, you will fail to decrease the possibility that you will miss sampling the potentially small part of the population that will be able to perceive a difference. This matters since as long as even a very tiny part of the population can find a difference in blind testing, then there _is_ a difference!
Why are you not citing the source for the quote of your signature? That's intellectually dishonest.
There are a number of things wrong with your post. First of all, no one has in blind testing been able to distinguish 256 kb/s mp3 from the original CD version, even with very high end equipment. For most people 192 is also indistinguishable. So the answer is simple, just don't use lower than 192 bitrate. Second, playback and re-recording, besides the distortion of the analog stages, results in increased distortion from jitter effects in the A/D and D/A conversions (jitter in the digital stream going into the converter results in amplitude errors in the analog signal, and humans can hear less than 5 picoseconds of signal-correlated jitter).
Is it that hard to read the article, you cretinous imbecile? The judge ADMITTED WRITING THE MOLESTATION DIARY. Next time count to ten before exercising your itchy 'Submit'-clicking finger!
prosecute the hacker through the DCMCA
Not only did you not read the article, you didn't even read the summary!! The hacker is in Canada, and the DMCA does not apply.
Read the fucking article, dipshit, the judge admitted that he authored the molestation diary. That is the primary evidence.
I'm in Vancouver, so there's almost no sunlight at least four months of the year, so I like having an artificial approximation, especially since I read and spend much time _not_ looking at a computer screen.
Well, since a monitor is a source, ambient lighting doesn't matter to it. I do read books, and look at other things than my monitor, however, and there's very little sunlight in four months of the year in Vancouver, so I'm pleased with the artificial approximation. Now if they'd only make a 120 V version.
No shilling; I've just been so happy with the result, and disappointed by the marketing of the CFLs when in practice I don't like their colors. Personally, I've a tendency do get affected by the lack of sunlight in the Vancouver winter. Also, it can be found for between $7 and $8 if you check froogle. Of course, there are problems with this light as well, the main being that it only goes up to 50 W, and that it runs on 12 V (WTF were they thinking) so lamps usually use switching supplies and I already get enough RF from my PC.
The problem is simple: color rendering of CFLs is crap, because they use narrowband phosphors resulting in a very spiky spectrum, which, even if white balanced to daylight, will still result in colored objects appearing completely different from what they would when illuminated by sunlight. Compare the ease, on the other hand, with which a filtering reflector can make the continuous spectrum of an incandescent bulb match that of daylight: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif I turn off the disgusting fluorescents off in the office and use my desk lamp with one of those incandescent bulbs. 50 W seem like a waste compared to the dozen of a comparable-brightness CFL? Not when you have proper color rendering.
Complex color matching? There's not the remotest similarity between the spiky spectrum of even a good CFL to the continuous spectrum of an incandescent which can be easily filtered to match that of actual daylight: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif Looking at the color rendering difference, there is nothing subtle about it.
Solux is way better than a GE Reveal: http://www.soluxtli.com/images/Reveal_Chrom_vs_Day light_and_SoLux.jpg
Niche? So you think making colors look the same as in actual daylight is a niche market? Only a continuous spectrum such as of an incandescent bulb can be (with filtering) matched to that of actual daylight. See how even a good CFL compares with its narrowband phosphors in this diagram: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif
That is only reasonable if you can force the CFLs to have a color rendering ability matching that of incandescents. That is, of course, impossible, since CFLs generate light with narrowband phosphors, whereas incandescents have a continuous spectrum, which can be easily filtered to match almost exactly the spectrum of sunlight: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif Higher taxation on incandescents would mean that those of us that actually like colors to look the same as they do in daylight will suffer because we'd be forced to switch to the CFLs with their crappy color rendering.
How is this the "right" decision? That's very presumptuous of you to say. Why should I trade a continuous spectrum that with proper filtering, can match daylight, to a CFL which uses narrowband phosphors and, even if white balanced to daylight, can never approach the color rendering ability of the former? Compare the spectrum of a high-end CFL to a filtered incandescent and daylight: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif
Enough about incentives. How about deterrents to using CFLs? All of them use narrowband phospors and so even when matched to the same white balance as daylight, you cannot get comparable color rendition; for that you need a source with a continuous spectrum, which you then tweak with a filter -- an incandescent bulb with a filtering reflector: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif I'm using such at work in my desklamp so I can turn off the fluorescents in the office whose color rendering makes me wanna puke.
Color temperature is just an average and doesn't tell you how well it will render colors. The narrowband phosphors of a CFL don't have nearly the color rendering capability of the continuous spectrum of even a crappy incandescent. With proper filtering, an incandescent can actually match the spectrum of daylight, as in this example: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif So only an incandescent in a proper configuration can give you color reproduction that actually mimics that of sunlight.
There's more to this than coldness and warmth, as that is just looking at a spectrum as one dimensional; it is not. The averaging is inappropriate as you're just matching white balance. But two light sources with different spectra can still have the same white balance and average color temperature. Though white and grey objects will look the same, colored objects will still look different. You have to match the sunlight spectrum very well to get great color rendering. That means no narrowband phosphors as in CFLs, but the continuous spectrum of an incandescent bulb, with appropriate filtering (which is most efficiently done with a filtering reflector rather than a blocking translucent one). Compare a good CFL spectrum with a filtered incandescent and actual daylight: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif
Color balance is not sufficient. Just because two lights with different actual spectra have the same white balance does not mean colored objects will appear the same with each. If you want something to appear as if lit by sunlight, unless you're only looking at whites or greys, you need a source with a spectrum that fully matches the solar one in the visible light range. That means no narrowband phosphors in CFLs, but a blackbody radiator = incandescent bulb, with an appropriate filter to approximate the effects of temperature differences between the sun and bulb, and atmospheric filtering. To avoid heating the filter, usually manufacturers use reflecting filters. Here are some spectrum comparisons between filtered incandescent, solar, and 'quality' CFL spectra: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif
Another is the horrible color rendering of the narrowband phosphors that even the best CFLs rely on. Even if one source appears as white as others when illuminating neutral colors (white, greys) -- same white balance, if it's spectrum is different (possible since the human eye is only trichromatic), when colored objects are illuminated they will look different under each of those sources, because the product of the source spectrum with the object color reflectance will vary. So you can only get colors rendition that matches daylight if you actually use a daylight spectrum. No CFL can approach that. An incandescent bulb can because it is a blackbody radiator with a continuous spectrum, so one only needs a good filtering reflector. Here's an example: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif
Cut the crap. A good incandescent with filtered reflector is the only thing that can approach a solar spectrum. Compare to the junk you get even from a 'quality' CFL: http://solux.net/images/ultral1.gif