Replacing a hard drive is "modification" the very same way replacing spark plugs is "modification". That's the point I believe omnichad, with whom I typically do not agree, was making; and he's right.
If you replace the hard drive (spark plugs), you lose the warranty on the hard drive (spark plugs); unless the hard drive (spark plugs) you installed are what causes a failure elsewhere in the product, the warranty on the remainder of the product remains in-tact.
Ok, well the person I originally replied to was talking about writing one to an Arduino. How the Atmel microcontroller on an Arduino is made is really irrelevant to how it is programmed.
I was only saying that wasn't possible to have this for 22KHz at a 44.1KHz sample rate. Which was what the thread was on. It might be more correct to call it a sawtooth wave.
That was never in dispute, but thank you for clarifying. You are correct, those would be 11.025KHz square waves.
Which I took them to think meant that there were gradiating values between peak and trough when there can't be. And it seemed like you were agreeing with that.
It does seem you've found the source of the confusion.
Actually, a 22KHz signal at half intensity would have 0 and 33768 (16384 and 49152 if the DC offset were removed). Hell, 0 and 1 could well be the limits, even if the range was 65535, if the amplitude were small enough and the DC offset great enough. I think l4ko was correct, elsewhere in the thread, when he said you don't understand your own point; indeed, it seems you don't understand much of the topic at all, while I've personally been working with audio for 2/3 of my life and understand it quite well.
There's a huge distinction between a value range of 0-1 and a value range of 0-65535, though, which affects all waveforms. Square waves can have a range of different volume levels, as can any other, while RoccamOccam's representation made it seem as though they must be full volume. Your point is congruent to mine, not counter to it, but also completely irrelevant to the conversation that was being had.
You can write to a controller chip... You don't write the chip, itself, into existence, though; nor would a USB 3.2 controller chip be "written" to a generic microcontroller.
If you cannot measure the difference there is no difference. That is the only way to have a rational discussion about any of this.
You can very certainly measure the difference between a CD with excessive dynamic range compression and a vinyl pressing which, due to limitations of the format, cannot have that same level of compression applied.
So, can we have that rational discussion now?
Give me a CD without the "loudness wars" compression and the CD will immediately win in my book. Until I can get that, properly mastered vinyl* wins, hands-down.
* Some vinyl seems to be affected by the "loudness wars", as well; and then it is, it's worse because the medium simply cannot handle it. Any decent audio engineer knows of this limitation, though; so vinyl will, generally, sound better than a CD simply due to how it is mixed. See my point above about CDs without over-compression.
You think that will be able to remove the dynamic range compression (distortion) added to the digital mix? Sorry, but no. The loudness wars are the reason a lot of us think vinyl sounds better; give us that mix on a CD and, for a good number of us, the war is over and the CD wins.
Actually, given that vinyl as a medium simply does not support the dynamic range compression often used on CDs, whether a master is intended for CD or vinyl will, necessarily, affect the choices made by, at least, the mixing and mastering engineers. It's far from meaningless if you're dealing with good engineers.
That said, my equipment can play much louder than I can comfortably listen and the "loudness wars" with CDs are wholly and truly pointless, at least for me. Give me a recording mastered for vinyl (minus the RIAA EQ, as that's only necessary for vinyl) on a CD and we can call it a day.
I imagine the mix adds more character to the music than the vinyl itself.
Indeed it does, and this is what most people who claim the CD vs vinyl "war" is pointless don't understand.
For me, personally, put the vinyl mix on a CD and it'd settle it pretty decisively. Most CD recordings are way overcompressed and I do like me some dynamic range.
It's not about the laws of physics, it's about what that person prefers. Think of it as black coffee vs coffee with cream and sugar; the same laws of physics that allow you to prefer one allow me to prefer the other. To you, one is better; to me, the other is.
No, warmth is a qualitative descriptor for sound. If you start with an original recording and compress the hell out of it so that it loses all warmth, the original sounds warmer; that warmth is not distortion -- the lack of it in the remastered version is.
Slashdot Mirror
Replacing a hard drive is "modification" the very same way replacing spark plugs is "modification". That's the point I believe omnichad, with whom I typically do not agree, was making; and he's right.
If you replace the hard drive (spark plugs), you lose the warranty on the hard drive (spark plugs); unless the hard drive (spark plugs) you installed are what causes a failure elsewhere in the product, the warranty on the remainder of the product remains in-tact.
20c/GB for a 10min video of moderate HD quality is only, oh, $40 per 100 views. Yeah, that seems reasonable compared to other options....... not.
Even hundreds of concurrent viewers can be problematic, and you won't fund a solution to that issue with that level of viewership.
Okay, now tell us how easy it is to support millions of concurrent viewers.
Ok, well the person I originally replied to was talking about writing one to an Arduino. How the Atmel microcontroller on an Arduino is made is really irrelevant to how it is programmed.
Right, but that's not how arduinos work...
Warmth can also be used to describe the distortion that comes frmo tube amplifiers.
Wait, you mean, like... it can be used as a qualitative descriptor for the sound produced by tube amplifiers?
In the end, if a person likes the sound, it's all good.
That's what most people in this discussion seem to be missing!!
You can get enough to say the protocol works (HCI driver). That won't cover the individual quirks of any particular chipset, only the spec itself.
OP was interested in such a particular chipset, probably to test whether said drivers would work in the real world.
I'm waiting for the day... can you imagine?
I was only saying that wasn't possible to have this for 22KHz at a 44.1KHz sample rate. Which was what the thread was on. It might be more correct to call it a sawtooth wave.
That was never in dispute, but thank you for clarifying. You are correct, those would be 11.025KHz square waves.
Which I took them to think meant that there were gradiating values between peak and trough when there can't be. And it seemed like you were agreeing with that.
It does seem you've found the source of the confusion.
Actually, a 22KHz signal at half intensity would have 0 and 33768 (16384 and 49152 if the DC offset were removed). Hell, 0 and 1 could well be the limits, even if the range was 65535, if the amplitude were small enough and the DC offset great enough. I think l4ko was correct, elsewhere in the thread, when he said you don't understand your own point; indeed, it seems you don't understand much of the topic at all, while I've personally been working with audio for 2/3 of my life and understand it quite well.
Actually, you're the one that threw the thread off the original subject.
Actually, go back and read the comment to which I was replying; I was not the one who brought up the value range issue, I was merely replying to it.
The value range is only the amplitude of the wave, not the shape of it, when you have only two samples per peak/trough.
I never claimed otherwise and, in fact, stated that you were correct the first time you made this point.
There's a huge distinction between a value range of 0-1 and a value range of 0-65535, though, which affects all waveforms. Square waves can have a range of different volume levels, as can any other, while RoccamOccam's representation made it seem as though they must be full volume. Your point is congruent to mine, not counter to it, but also completely irrelevant to the conversation that was being had.
Also correct, but my point was that a square wave doesn't just have to be 0 and 1.
You can write to a controller chip... You don't write the chip, itself, into existence, though; nor would a USB 3.2 controller chip be "written" to a generic microcontroller.
You can write a host controller chip?
You are correct, I should have used 0-1-1-0-0-1-1-0 and 0-100-100-0-0-100-100-0.
If you cannot measure the difference there is no difference. That is the only way to have a rational discussion about any of this.
You can very certainly measure the difference between a CD with excessive dynamic range compression and a vinyl pressing which, due to limitations of the format, cannot have that same level of compression applied.
So, can we have that rational discussion now?
Give me a CD without the "loudness wars" compression and the CD will immediately win in my book. Until I can get that, properly mastered vinyl* wins, hands-down.
* Some vinyl seems to be affected by the "loudness wars", as well; and then it is, it's worse because the medium simply cannot handle it. Any decent audio engineer knows of this limitation, though; so vinyl will, generally, sound better than a CD simply due to how it is mixed. See my point above about CDs without over-compression.
You think that will be able to remove the dynamic range compression (distortion) added to the digital mix? Sorry, but no. The loudness wars are the reason a lot of us think vinyl sounds better; give us that mix on a CD and, for a good number of us, the war is over and the CD wins.
Or you could try reading the rest of the reply, where it is explained in adequate detail why you're wrong.
which sounds reasonable, but also meaningless.
Actually, given that vinyl as a medium simply does not support the dynamic range compression often used on CDs, whether a master is intended for CD or vinyl will, necessarily, affect the choices made by, at least, the mixing and mastering engineers. It's far from meaningless if you're dealing with good engineers.
That said, my equipment can play much louder than I can comfortably listen and the "loudness wars" with CDs are wholly and truly pointless, at least for me. Give me a recording mastered for vinyl (minus the RIAA EQ, as that's only necessary for vinyl) on a CD and we can call it a day.
I imagine the mix adds more character to the music than the vinyl itself.
Indeed it does, and this is what most people who claim the CD vs vinyl "war" is pointless don't understand.
For me, personally, put the vinyl mix on a CD and it'd settle it pretty decisively. Most CD recordings are way overcompressed and I do like me some dynamic range.
It's not about the laws of physics, it's about what that person prefers. Think of it as black coffee vs coffee with cream and sugar; the same laws of physics that allow you to prefer one allow me to prefer the other. To you, one is better; to me, the other is.
0-1-0-1 and 0-100-0-100 are both square waves.
"Warmth" is also distortion.
No, warmth is a qualitative descriptor for sound. If you start with an original recording and compress the hell out of it so that it loses all warmth, the original sounds warmer; that warmth is not distortion -- the lack of it in the remastered version is.