Don't get me wrong, records do deteriorate, and the sampling rate of CD's is adequate for most high-fidelity reproduction. Sampling rates above 40000 Hz fulfill the Shannon/Nyquist sampling criterion (based on the assumption that human hearing is limited to 20000 Hz sound). However, it is useful to know that (reference):
since all frequencies interact acoustically and work together to create a waveform, it seems believable and practical that capturing a broader frequency range and a more accurate resolution is justifiable. We don't yet realize the impact and result of high-frequency content above 20kHz on the emotional and physical perception of sound.[...]
The concern regarding sample rate isn't simply frequency-related. Since no one, not even the newest born baby, can hear above 25 or 26kHz anyway, the implied ideal sample rate might be 50 to 55kHz. However, there's more involved in our hearing and perception than frequency. Much of our perception comes from our stereo perception of localization and positioning on a three-dimensional plane. The messages that our brain responds to are based on a triangulation process involving both ears and the sound source. The brain calculates the time delay difference between the arrival of a sound at either ear. The time and EQ variations, as a sound moves around the head, are translated into left-right and front-back positioning cues. As the high frequencies are affected by the physical part of the outer ear, called the pinna, changes of equalization cue the brain about front-to-back positioning. Perception of left-right positioning is a product of the brain's interpretation of timing differences between the arrival time of a sound at each ear. To complete the system, combined with level changes, the human hearing and localization systems are amazingly complex and efficient.
And this is exactly what one perceives when comparing records to cd's on high-quality equipment. It's no coincidence (barring commercial purposes) that some new audio standards encode at rates higher than 90000 hZ
I have encountered mp3's made from cd audio at very high bit rates, using excellent encoders, and still presenting clear artefacts. One particular example I remember well was a Portishead cd that was awful at any encoding rate. I'd be very glad if someone could point me to an encoding process where I can't hear the difference on that one, even on everyday equipment.
Maybe you can explain why high-end audio fanatics often prefer records to cd's. Analog recordings are simply more faithful, warmer and brighter than digital ones. A record that is kept in good shape and played on a decent turntable will probably not wear out in the time it takes a cd to completely disintegrate.
You can prove me wrong if a cd you buy now still plays in 2084. Those 78's from the 20's sure do so now and will probably still play then.
As for compressed audio files, anyone who has tried to listen to an mp3 through a decent hi-fi system, soon notices the deficiencies in the lossy encoding process, especially if the original contains a wide spectrum of sound. Mp3 and other lossy encodings are just based on assumptions about the human perceptual system. They try to throw away as much imperceptible information as possible, but in that process some perceptible sounds are inevitably lost as well.
Tell your mom to go to amazon -or the like- and order cd's. Then teach her to rip the cd's. You'll always have the original in superior quality, not just crappy mp3, aac, wma or even ogg. You also get a nice case for your cd and arty little booklets. Also consider that most of the music people want is available on low cost compilations.
Even better, why don't you take your mom shopping in a local record store? Chat to some nice people with real stores instead of staying inside.
And when you come home with your cd, why don't you try that wonderful stereo system your mom surely has instead of listening to lossy recordings through tiny computer speakers or the earbuds of an mp3 player.
And if you want real luxury, buy your mom a decent record player and listen to the unsurpassed warm analog sound of all those vintage records you can buy second hand at one tenth of the price of a cd.
SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products.
SCO has had their ''unix intellectual property" for many years, and they haven't raised an issue about it until very recently.
It's not about not being able to take a joke, but about you not being able to make one.
By resorting to that kind of crap to make yourself popular and funny you're only paying lip service to a bunch of extremists and extending the lifetime of stereotypes.
The only devilish AND unnatural creatures on this planet belong to the human race - and genetics is certainly not the only component in its behaviour. The reason why humans are unnatural has nothing do with genetics, but with information that is passed on from generation to generation and is not stored in genes. Besides, humans constitute just a very small fraction compared to the 'natural' creatures. Bacteria, insects, and platypuses to name a few greatly outnumber us.
Slashdot Mirror
MS Word was free? When?
Don't get me wrong, records do deteriorate, and the sampling rate of CD's is adequate for most high-fidelity reproduction. Sampling rates above 40000 Hz fulfill the Shannon/Nyquist sampling criterion (based on the assumption that human hearing is limited to 20000 Hz sound). However, it is useful to know that (reference) :
since all frequencies interact acoustically and work together to create a waveform, it seems believable and practical that capturing a broader frequency range and a more accurate resolution is justifiable. We don't yet realize the impact and result of high-frequency content above 20kHz on the emotional and physical perception of sound.[...]
The concern regarding sample rate isn't simply frequency-related. Since no one, not even the newest born baby, can hear above 25 or 26kHz anyway, the implied ideal sample rate might be 50 to 55kHz. However, there's more involved in our hearing and perception than frequency. Much of our perception comes from our stereo perception of localization and positioning on a three-dimensional plane. The messages that our brain responds to are based on a triangulation process involving both ears and the sound source. The brain calculates the time delay difference between the arrival of a sound at either ear. The time and EQ variations, as a sound moves around the head, are translated into left-right and front-back positioning cues. As the high frequencies are affected by the physical part of the outer ear, called the pinna, changes of equalization cue the brain about front-to-back positioning. Perception of left-right positioning is a product of the brain's interpretation of timing differences between the arrival time of a sound at each ear. To complete the system, combined with level changes, the human hearing and localization systems are amazingly complex and efficient.
And this is exactly what one perceives when comparing records to cd's on high-quality equipment. It's no coincidence (barring commercial purposes) that some new audio standards encode at rates higher than 90000 hZ
I have encountered mp3's made from cd audio at very high bit rates, using excellent encoders, and still presenting clear artefacts. One particular example I remember well was a Portishead cd that was awful at any encoding rate. I'd be very glad if someone could point me to an encoding process where I can't hear the difference on that one, even on everyday equipment.
Maybe you can explain why high-end audio fanatics often prefer records to cd's. Analog recordings are simply more faithful, warmer and brighter than digital ones. A record that is kept in good shape and played on a decent turntable will probably not wear out in the time it takes a cd to completely disintegrate.
You can prove me wrong if a cd you buy now still plays in 2084. Those 78's from the 20's sure do so now and will probably still play then.
As for compressed audio files, anyone who has tried to listen to an mp3 through a decent hi-fi system, soon notices the deficiencies in the lossy encoding process, especially if the original contains a wide spectrum of sound.
Mp3 and other lossy encodings are just based on assumptions about the human perceptual system. They try to throw away as much imperceptible information as possible, but in that process some perceptible sounds are inevitably lost as well.
Tell your mom to go to amazon -or the like- and order cd's. Then teach her to rip the cd's. You'll always have the original in superior quality, not just crappy mp3, aac, wma or even ogg. You also get a nice case for your cd and arty little booklets. Also consider that most of the music people want is available on low cost compilations.
Even better, why don't you take your mom shopping in a local record store? Chat to some nice people with real stores instead of staying inside.
And when you come home with your cd, why don't you try that wonderful stereo system your mom surely has instead of listening to lossy recordings through tiny computer speakers or the earbuds of an mp3 player.
And if you want real luxury, buy your mom a decent record player and listen to the unsurpassed warm analog sound of all those vintage records you can buy second hand at one tenth of the price of a cd .
Evidently, any of the Qatsi trilogy films are beyond comparison as background visuals.
Derek Jarman's In the Shadow of the Sun is absolutely great.
I misread the title as it indeed made perfect sense to me that the US -not unlike Switzerland- would anonymize funds for Iranians.
SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products.
SCO has had their ''unix intellectual property" for many years, and they haven't raised an issue about it until very recently.
It's not about not being able to take a joke, but about you not being able to make one.
By resorting to that kind of crap to make yourself popular and funny you're only paying lip service to a bunch of extremists and extending the lifetime of stereotypes.
Now why would John say such a thing? Numbers and algorithms, especially if they deal with trees, belong in the old testament.
The only devilish AND unnatural creatures on this planet belong to the human race - and genetics is certainly not the only component in its behaviour. The reason why humans are unnatural has nothing do with genetics, but with information that is passed on from generation to generation and is not stored in genes. Besides, humans constitute just a very small fraction compared to the 'natural' creatures. Bacteria, insects, and platypuses to name a few greatly outnumber us.