You do know that DVD has higher picture and sound quality than a lasersidc right?
DVD does have better sound quality.
But video is debatable. While a DVD has more scan lines, the video on a laser disc is uncompressed. It has fewer lines, but looks more natural since the video has not gone through a compression algorithm.
So maybe my analogy of the laserdisc was off on the audio part, but I was trying to emphasize the impact compression algorithms have on the end product.
so,
laserdisc = uncompressed
DVD = MPEG compression
VCD = crap
and,
SACD = high sampling, uncompressed
CD = low sampling, uncompressed
MP3 = MPEG compression.
What sound tests? Sponsored by who? Played on what equipment? What kind of music?
I'm sick of people saying that the quality MP3's are just as good as the original CD. When you play an MP3 on a high quality sound system (I'm not talking about your $200 sony shelf system that you plugged your computer into) there is a very peceivable difference in quality. The MP3 sounds hollow, and the CD, while not perfect, sounds much more rich.
Talk to anyone who listens to classical music (symphonic, not classic rock) and see how many of them listen to their music on MP3's. 99.9% of those people shun MP3's because of the poor sound quality
People *can* hear the difference. That is why there is now Super Audio CD's, that have a sampling frequency of 2.8MHz. Thats up from CD's sampling freq. of 44khz.
I will compare this in terms of video encoding. the mp3 is a vcd, while the CD is a DVD, and the SACD is a laserdisc.
There are differences in quality. Whether or not you care about that quality is your own business.
Please. You obviously have no concept of what goes in to a high quality car stereo setup. By the end, the cabin is almost entirely sound proofed.
And plus, when you turn up the volume on the stereo, it masks the already muffled noise of the engine. But if its an MP3 coming through, you are *also* amplifying the *WHITE NOISE*.
Any audiophile who is willing to spend $2000 on a car stereo will NOT go the mp3 route, because they sound like CRAP. Yea, they sound fine coming out of your $10 headphones, but amplify that signal by 800watts/channel, and pump that through some JL or Infinity speakers, and it doesn't sound nearly as good as a cd would.
It doesn't surprise me that they are EOL'ing it, because it tried to serve a niche market in a niche market (rich tech-savvy people with no ear)
You will never see powerful 3D apps that are open source. There is too much money in the development, plus the licensing of codecs would make the most useful parts inaccessible.
If you want one, write it yourself. Oh you can't? Well theres your answer.
Slashdot Mirror
You do know that DVD has higher picture and sound quality than a lasersidc right?
DVD does have better sound quality.
But video is debatable. While a DVD has more scan lines, the video on a laser disc is uncompressed. It has fewer lines, but looks more natural since the video has not gone through a compression algorithm.
So maybe my analogy of the laserdisc was off on the audio part, but I was trying to emphasize the impact compression algorithms have on the end product.
so,
laserdisc = uncompressed
DVD = MPEG compression
VCD = crap
and,
SACD = high sampling, uncompressed
CD = low sampling, uncompressed
MP3 = MPEG compression.
What sound tests? Sponsored by who? Played on what equipment? What kind of music?
I'm sick of people saying that the quality MP3's are just as good as the original CD. When you play an MP3 on a high quality sound system (I'm not talking about your $200 sony shelf system that you plugged your computer into) there is a very peceivable difference in quality. The MP3 sounds hollow, and the CD, while not perfect, sounds much more rich.
Talk to anyone who listens to classical music (symphonic, not classic rock) and see how many of them listen to their music on MP3's. 99.9% of those people shun MP3's because of the poor sound quality
People *can* hear the difference. That is why there is now Super Audio CD's, that have a sampling frequency of 2.8MHz. Thats up from CD's sampling freq. of 44khz.
I will compare this in terms of video encoding. the mp3 is a vcd, while the CD is a DVD, and the SACD is a laserdisc.
There are differences in quality. Whether or not you care about that quality is your own business.
Please. You obviously have no concept of what goes in to a high quality car stereo setup. By the end, the cabin is almost entirely sound proofed.
And plus, when you turn up the volume on the stereo, it masks the already muffled noise of the engine. But if its an MP3 coming through, you are *also* amplifying the *WHITE NOISE*.
Any audiophile who is willing to spend $2000 on a car stereo will NOT go the mp3 route, because they sound like CRAP. Yea, they sound fine coming out of your $10 headphones, but amplify that signal by 800watts/channel, and pump that through some JL or Infinity speakers, and it doesn't sound nearly as good as a cd would.
It doesn't surprise me that they are EOL'ing it, because it tried to serve a niche market in a niche market (rich tech-savvy people with no ear)
If you want one, write it yourself. Oh you can't?
Well theres your answer.
Why not call it "MacroHard"? and we could develop and market an opensource OS called "Doors" that would come preloaded with InternetExploiter.
Add a monitor to that 1000.00 and you've got a similar price......