Which knob do you adjust to increase the dynamic range and re-add the lost information?
Oh that's right, you can't. You're right, it's not a tough choice is it?
Wrong, you can. Nothing is lost, only compressed, as in, packed together tightly. What a compressor does, an expander can undo.
Look at the first graph on that wikipedia article. That's a mathematical function, one that allows you to get the original sound back from its result. Let's say that originally, you compressed your sound by lowering every sample above the threshold level by a fourth of its level above the threshold level, as shown in the aforementionned graph.
How do you undo that, I ask you? By changing every sample above that same threshold level to twice its level above the threshold level. Effect undone, you get your original dynamic range back, and you can actually have such a knob.
So, if your problem is that the average level of some song is about -6 dBFS, why not reverse the process of compression (easy to do) until that same track has an average level that you like better (say -15 dBFS) ? We could easily have an audio player that would analyze tracks for their average level, then when playing them process them so that they have an average level matching to the user set setting. Tada, problem solved!
Now I'd like to clear something up about dynamic range as talked about in the article. It says that a rock concert has a dynamic range of 120 dB, and that a CD only has a range of 96 dB. This is correct, but misleading, as we could think that the CD is unfit for fully reproducing the sounds heard during a concert.
While this is technically true, here's what it all means. They say a rock concert has a dynamic range of 120 dB, they say so because the dimmest sounds we can possibly hear are said to be at 0 dB, and the loudest sounds heard in that convert are at about 120 dB. Thus, the dynamic range is max_level - min_level = 120 dB - 0 dB = 120 dB.
But here's the catch. While CDs can only retain the upper 96 dB of that 120 dB dynamic range, it means that what's on the CD goes from the sounds at 120 dB to the sounds at 24 dB (120 dB - 96 dB). And here's what it all means, that means that on the CD, you can hear everything you heard during the concert, you can even play it at the original volume if you wish (and if you want to kill your ears), but that means that you won't hear sounds as soft as 24 dB. Now you must be wondering, how loud is a 24 dB sound? That's softer than a whisper (not a whisper to your ear, a whisper a few feet away from you), softer than a completely quiet atmosphere at 2 am in the middle of a desert, as soft as leaves rustling. Could you hear such a soft sound in the middle of a concert?
No? That's why the 96 dB dynamic range of a CD is not a problem.
Word, but it's still available, and you can still run it on Mac OS X.
Re:Impenetrable mathematics and terminology
on
YouTube for Science?
·
· Score: 1
I always find it interesting that some really simple concepts that could probably be understood by a child become completely unfathomable when presented in mathematical form.
Ditto. The simplest algorithms look so complicated once written as a mathematical formula, it's getting quite problematic when you're trying to implement something not so complicated but that the documentation about it requires a BA of some sort to be deciphered, my point being that the formal way algorithms are described in papers and patents reminds me of the use of Latin in 17th century scientifical papers. It'd be simpler if we did without it, but we keep doing with it as some sort of coonvention, which is arguably not that bad, except maybe for people like me into algorithms and not into maths.
Oh noes, Google is so big it's having a tough time getting bigger! Oh noes, it's having more competition than Photoshop, although the alternatives can't really catch up, how will they manage to stay number 1!?
That's right, I don't believe I exist because I don't have to. There's a sufficient body of evidence to back my existence, like the numerous evidences of actual interaction with other entities similar to me, such as this very conversation.
This is why I don't need any faith to know that I exist (oh, and kudos for managing to place a variant of wannabe-philosophers' favourite question which is "How do you know you exist?". Note how these always only ask the question and usually prefer to avoid providing their answer to it, as some chinese saying goes, it only takes a fool to ask a question that would take the wisest man decades to find an answer to), therefore I do not believe I exist. You don't need to believe in facts.
This seems like a good opportunity to challenge those candidates who say they do not believe in evolution.
It would be nice if people stopped saying "believing in evolution". I do not believe in evolution, because I do not believe in anything. I am however convinced, due to various solid evidences, that evolution is a perfectly valid theory.
Please, put it any way you want, but don't use that verb, we don't have faith in evolution, we are convinced that it's true because it's reasonable, and therefore, don't ask anyone if they believe in evolution, cause anyone in their right mind should tell you that they don't believe in evolution, no matter what their opinion is.
"Really?! Appleworks? Do people still buy that, and if they do, are they really pissed off when they figure out how out-of-date it is?"
I wouldn't think so. It's not because it hasn't be updated in 8 years that it's inferior to the latest Microsoft Office. Actually, a lot of people consider that Office 97 was superior to Office 2007. Hence people being fine with buying a AppleWorks 6 from 1999, which is superior to all versions of MS Office.
The vast majority of people are idiots. The problem is they're too stupid to realize it.
The vast majority of people who think that the vast majority of people are idiots, are idiots. Mostly the ones who think they're being smart by including their own self in that majority of idiots;-)
I know I'm a little late in the thread, but I just thought about it, couldn't the technology be adapted for, instead of patching holes, patching graphical elements in an image into elements found in the database, thus allowing you to turn drawings and such into photograph-like pictures?
And if you "repaired" a fully-clothed original of someone underage, would it still count as child porn?
Well I'm afraid if you did that even on a child in bathsuit, you'd get a naked child with an adult vagina, so the question should be, would a normal picture of a child edited into giving them adult genitals make it child pornography? Could it be the advent of a new kind of sick fetish?
Am I the only one out there who thinks that the iMac's design has never been better than in its 1998-2001 (or so) version, before it started involving flat screens? I think it has never looked better than that, but that they couldn't keep it cause:
-They had to move on to a different design for the sake that it was a few years old because people don't like "old" stuff -They had to put a flat screen in it because that's what people want -They had to make it increasingly slimer and such because that's what people expect from futuristic computers -Later they couldn't go back to it anyways so they have to move on into the forced design futurism
That's a pretty interesting question too, and while I guess we can't tell for sure, you brought the only answer we can give to that question. However, it doesn't help us in our quest for extraterrestrial civilization, considered they must be far from our galaxy, and thus, from us. I believe we know of exoplanets around such wandering stars by the way.
If the universie in infinite, then there are an infinite number of galaxies that are even bigger.
Well the universe is not believed to be infinite but more like 150 Gly in diameter. And even then, there may be a limit to how big a galaxy can possibly be.
That was only a way to show that this is a threat we can't afford to ignore. Having the life of a large part of mankind to have 1 chance out of 45000 to die is important, even if unlikely. That's as if you calculate how much in average lottery can make you win compared to how much you pay, or how much in average accidents will cost you, compare to insurance price.
Then, if you decide that being sure to get $10 is better to have one chance out of 10 to get $100, your problem, it's a matter of philosophy I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Which knob do you adjust to increase the dynamic range and re-add the lost information?
Oh that's right, you can't. You're right, it's not a tough choice is it?
Wrong, you can. Nothing is lost, only compressed, as in, packed together tightly. What a compressor does, an expander can undo.
Look at the first graph on that wikipedia article. That's a mathematical function, one that allows you to get the original sound back from its result. Let's say that originally, you compressed your sound by lowering every sample above the threshold level by a fourth of its level above the threshold level, as shown in the aforementionned graph.
How do you undo that, I ask you? By changing every sample above that same threshold level to twice its level above the threshold level. Effect undone, you get your original dynamic range back, and you can actually have such a knob.
So, if your problem is that the average level of some song is about -6 dBFS, why not reverse the process of compression (easy to do) until that same track has an average level that you like better (say -15 dBFS) ? We could easily have an audio player that would analyze tracks for their average level, then when playing them process them so that they have an average level matching to the user set setting. Tada, problem solved!
Now I'd like to clear something up about dynamic range as talked about in the article. It says that a rock concert has a dynamic range of 120 dB, and that a CD only has a range of 96 dB. This is correct, but misleading, as we could think that the CD is unfit for fully reproducing the sounds heard during a concert.
While this is technically true, here's what it all means. They say a rock concert has a dynamic range of 120 dB, they say so because the dimmest sounds we can possibly hear are said to be at 0 dB, and the loudest sounds heard in that convert are at about 120 dB. Thus, the dynamic range is max_level - min_level = 120 dB - 0 dB = 120 dB.
But here's the catch. While CDs can only retain the upper 96 dB of that 120 dB dynamic range, it means that what's on the CD goes from the sounds at 120 dB to the sounds at 24 dB (120 dB - 96 dB). And here's what it all means, that means that on the CD, you can hear everything you heard during the concert, you can even play it at the original volume if you wish (and if you want to kill your ears), but that means that you won't hear sounds as soft as 24 dB. Now you must be wondering, how loud is a 24 dB sound? That's softer than a whisper (not a whisper to your ear, a whisper a few feet away from you), softer than a completely quiet atmosphere at 2 am in the middle of a desert, as soft as leaves rustling. Could you hear such a soft sound in the middle of a concert?
No? That's why the 96 dB dynamic range of a CD is not a problem.
Mac IE is far more standards-compliant. If a web app depends on Windows IE's non-standard implementation of a tag....
So in the end, what on Earth did Mac IE have in common with Windows IE besides the logo and name?
But its only similarity to Windows IE is the name.
True, and it was a hell of a lot better than the Windows version, a lot. But I'd expect that what only runs on Windows IE to work on Mac IE..
LOL, AIDS for commuting with hospitalized people, here, have this imaginary +1 Funny point :-)
IE was discontinued for the Mac
Word, but it's still available, and you can still run it on Mac OS X.
I always find it interesting that some really simple concepts that could probably be understood by a child become completely unfathomable when presented in mathematical form.
Ditto. The simplest algorithms look so complicated once written as a mathematical formula, it's getting quite problematic when you're trying to implement something not so complicated but that the documentation about it requires a BA of some sort to be deciphered, my point being that the formal way algorithms are described in papers and patents reminds me of the use of Latin in 17th century scientifical papers. It'd be simpler if we did without it, but we keep doing with it as some sort of coonvention, which is arguably not that bad, except maybe for people like me into algorithms and not into maths.
This being said, I hope videos will help.
Oh noes, Google is so big it's having a tough time getting bigger! Oh noes, it's having more competition than Photoshop, although the alternatives can't really catch up, how will they manage to stay number 1!?
Oh boy, what will be the outcome!
I take it you don't believe you exist either?
That's right, I don't believe I exist because I don't have to. There's a sufficient body of evidence to back my existence, like the numerous evidences of actual interaction with other entities similar to me, such as this very conversation.
This is why I don't need any faith to know that I exist (oh, and kudos for managing to place a variant of wannabe-philosophers' favourite question which is "How do you know you exist?". Note how these always only ask the question and usually prefer to avoid providing their answer to it, as some chinese saying goes, it only takes a fool to ask a question that would take the wisest man decades to find an answer to), therefore I do not believe I exist. You don't need to believe in facts.
Evolution does not need defended
It doesn't matter, it's all about semantics and such.
Are you even replying to my comment? Cause it sounds like a generic Evolution vs. Creationism comment to me..
This seems like a good opportunity to challenge those candidates who say they do not believe in evolution.
It would be nice if people stopped saying "believing in evolution". I do not believe in evolution, because I do not believe in anything. I am however convinced, due to various solid evidences, that evolution is a perfectly valid theory.
Please, put it any way you want, but don't use that verb, we don't have faith in evolution, we are convinced that it's true because it's reasonable, and therefore, don't ask anyone if they believe in evolution, cause anyone in their right mind should tell you that they don't believe in evolution, no matter what their opinion is.
"Really?! Appleworks? Do people still buy that, and if they do, are they really pissed off when they figure out how out-of-date it is?"
I wouldn't think so. It's not because it hasn't be updated in 8 years that it's inferior to the latest Microsoft Office. Actually, a lot of people consider that Office 97 was superior to Office 2007. Hence people being fine with buying a AppleWorks 6 from 1999, which is superior to all versions of MS Office.
sorry you are in the majority.
Ouch. So much subtleness and wit concentrated in this single line. Touché!
The vast majority of people are idiots. The problem is they're too stupid to realize it.
The vast majority of people who think that the vast majority of people are idiots, are idiots. Mostly the ones who think they're being smart by including their own self in that majority of idiots ;-)
When Ken Thompson's 1969 Space Travel's source code is found.
You'll be missed
I know I'm a little late in the thread, but I just thought about it, couldn't the technology be adapted for, instead of patching holes, patching graphical elements in an image into elements found in the database, thus allowing you to turn drawings and such into photograph-like pictures?
And if you "repaired" a fully-clothed original of someone underage, would it still count as child porn?
Well I'm afraid if you did that even on a child in bathsuit, you'd get a naked child with an adult vagina, so the question should be, would a normal picture of a child edited into giving them adult genitals make it child pornography? Could it be the advent of a new kind of sick fetish?
Does the current trend towards less DRM means the end of motherboards with built-in TPM chips in the future?
Sorry but I don't get your point and I hardly see what it does with the style of the iMac..
It's all about style, and you can fit a TFT screen inside those old iMacs to replace the CRT's.. there, problem solved, nice style kept.
Am I the only one out there who thinks that the iMac's design has never been better than in its 1998-2001 (or so) version, before it started involving flat screens? I think it has never looked better than that, but that they couldn't keep it cause :
-They had to move on to a different design for the sake that it was a few years old because people don't like "old" stuff
-They had to put a flat screen in it because that's what people want
-They had to make it increasingly slimer and such because that's what people expect from futuristic computers
-Later they couldn't go back to it anyways so they have to move on into the forced design futurism
?
That's a pretty interesting question too, and while I guess we can't tell for sure, you brought the only answer we can give to that question. However, it doesn't help us in our quest for extraterrestrial civilization, considered they must be far from our galaxy, and thus, from us. I believe we know of exoplanets around such wandering stars by the way.
If the universie in infinite, then there are an infinite number of galaxies that are even bigger.
Well the universe is not believed to be infinite but more like 150 Gly in diameter. And even then, there may be a limit to how big a galaxy can possibly be.
That was only a way to show that this is a threat we can't afford to ignore. Having the life of a large part of mankind to have 1 chance out of 45000 to die is important, even if unlikely. That's as if you calculate how much in average lottery can make you win compared to how much you pay, or how much in average accidents will cost you, compare to insurance price.
Then, if you decide that being sure to get $10 is better to have one chance out of 10 to get $100, your problem, it's a matter of philosophy I guess.