Vinyl to Digital [UK Mac]

Prev: iPad battery lunacy
Next: Can't download waypoints to eTrexH GPSR

From: T i m on 14 Mar 2010 10:05

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:32:00 +0000, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter
Ceresole) wrote:

>T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Is it just me or are nearly all fast panned video shots juddery?
>
>I have a Panasonic TV, with a Freeview aerial feed, and I don't see any
>of that at all.

I wonder if everyone can? I'm not saying you couldn't if it were
present etc but I bet there are loads of people who wouldn't notice
even a bad example?

> On the contrary, I think the flat panel image quality is
>considerably superior to any CRT I have see, except possibly for the
>video monitors we used at the BBC.

I'm not talking of quality here, I'm talking of the 'quirks' that may
arise from having to create 25 fps using a string of 1's and 0's. I'm
pretty sure it isn't just down to me having some VFM kit, I've seen
such issues on a few grand's worth of plasma. With analogue data /
sets you simply can't get that sort of thing as it's all displayed
*instantly* (you can see the processing delays on all this digital
stuff when you turn two sets on within earshot of each other).
>
>> p.s. Daughter recently commented on how slow her digital camera was
>> between shots.
>
>As you expect, it depends a great deal on which camera.

She 'noticed it' recently when using her b/fs camera. We popped into
our local camera shop and played with a few different models
(particularly looking for speed) and it was obvious her Fuji was quite
a bit slower than even later models from the same range. The slowness
wasn't helped by the 2G Micro SD card in an adapter (apparently).

> I used to use a
>Kodak DC290, which I bought maybe 11 years ago. Splendid low noise CCD,
>but took ages between shots- or to start up. I got some lovely pictures
>with it, especially in low light, but the delays drove me nuts.

Well the delays aren't that bad and are typically consumed by the
generally good results of the camera, both in picture quality and
battery life etc.
>
>I now have a Lumix DMC FZ7, about 4 years old. The CCD is noisier and
>you can see that in low light, but picture quality is pretty good.
>Delays are infinitely shorter, and although it wouldn't have been worth
>the upgrade for the picture quality, the general handling and speed of
>response make it much nicer to use.

And again I guess it depends on what you 'typically' use the camera
for. It wouldn't bother me if it was 'slow' as I generally take
pictures for reference (engineering jobs etc). She tends to do more of
the 'fly on the wall' type stuff so needs the speed to be able to
catch those moments.

> I think it's probably down to having
>a much faster processor. I read that the newer versions have improved
>CCDs and I'd like one, but not enough to pay the price...

And I wonder if that would also 'cost' in battery life? Than and ever
increasing display sizes we are going the same way as the car ... just
about keeping up with the mpg we had 30 years ago in spite of the cars
weighing twice what they did.
>
>But everything is a compromise. I mean I'd love a Hasselblad, but at 2
>grand... Never.

It's funny though, what people will pay for stuff (well, not here
maybe). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

From: Ian McCall on 14 Mar 2010 10:34

On 2010-03-14 14:05:50 +0000, T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> said:

> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:32:00 +0000, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter
> Ceresole) wrote:
>
>> T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Is it just me or are nearly all fast panned video shots juddery?
>>
>> I have a Panasonic TV, with a Freeview aerial feed, and I don't see any
>> of that at all.
>
> I wonder if everyone can? I'm not saying you couldn't if it were
> present etc but I bet there are loads of people who wouldn't notice
> even a bad example?

Subject dear to my heart at the moment. By total co-incidence, this is
exactly what caused us to pick the TV we went for on Sunday. I've
avoided HD TV for years, and one of the reasons has been that I've just
not found its picture to be superior to CRT. Clearly its form factor
is, and still images may well be too, but motion? Scaling artefacts?
Naah.

The thing that finally sold us on this Sony KDL-52V4500 was its motion
handling. I've no idea what its technical response time is in millis or
what have you, just that there was a clear difference between it and
almost any other TV there. The comparable ones were �3k+ (very + in
some cases...). I do know that the Sony has 200Hz scan which should
help in theory - opinions round the web differ as to whether it
actually is doing, but -something- is helping that particular set look
better and most of the others we saw were 100Hz (acceptable) and 50Hz
(utterly acceptable to me - your mileage may vary). I notice such
things a lot, and have always distrusted a lot of HD stuff because
whilst it looks fabulous with not much going on, it all fell apart when
things started to move with any pace.

>> On the contrary, I think the flat panel image quality is
>> considerably superior to any CRT I have see, except possibly for the
>> video monitors we used at the BBC.
>
> I'm not talking of quality here, I'm talking of the 'quirks' that may
> arise from having to create 25 fps using a string of 1's and 0's. I'm
> pretty sure it isn't just down to me having some VFM kit, I've seen
> such issues on a few grand's worth of plasma. With analogue data /
> sets you simply can't get that sort of thing as it's all displayed
> *instantly* (you can see the processing delays on all this digital
> stuff when you turn two sets on within earshot of each other).

Well....ish. We currently have a 36" CRT Philips and to make broadcast
images acceptable it has to do some digital trickery, which it calls
Pixels Plus. When it does so, you get the jerking problems there as
well. Without it, well it's vaguely smooth but everything is hideously
blocky. So a large-szed CRT has to compromise here as well.

That said, I have a 28" CRT upstairs with none of these problems, and a
20" CRT in the arcade machine that also has none of these problems.
Indeed, the multisync nature of the 20" arcade monitor is a revelation,
making even 320x128 graphics look superb at that size.

Cheers,
Ian

From: Peter Ashby on 14 Mar 2010 10:48

Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Peter Ashby <pashby(a)blueyonder.co.ruk> wrote:
>
> > Well, haven't tried them but isn't there a company that makes LP decks
> > that use lasers instead of a pickup to read them?
>
> Yes there is. Which at least gets round one of the major problems with
> analogue reproduction. But it involves digitising anyway, to read the
> laser output. So except in the very special case of copying vinyl to
> digital, why not just cut out the middle stage and go direct to digital
> in the recording?

Because I suppose an LP becomes like a large CD, able to be read many,
many times without loss of quality. Not all LPs are available on CD or
digitally. I have for eg a number of EPs from the heyday of The Dunedin
Sound in the '80s, a pivotal moment in New Zealand music that have not
and possibly never will, be released in any other form.

Turning my collection into digital has been on my to do list for some
time, but funds do not allow at the moment sadly. Some of the tracks are
available on Youtube though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm3UGftvCRo

Dammit a whole lot of them are no longer available. Grumble, grumble
grump.
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

From: Andy Hewitt on 14 Mar 2010 10:51

Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > AFAIK it's only in the storage, duplication, reproduction (as in
> > magnetic coils and pickups) or manipulation that digital has any
> > advantages. ;-)
>
> Mainly, it's in robustness. Analogue takes a hell of a lot of mechanical
> and electronic care to reproduce properly. For instance the engineering
> nightmare of gramophone pickups is the kind of thing you'd only get into
> if there was no alternative. And the entire chain is only as good as its
> crappiest component.

For sure. However, I feel that *any* system is not straight forward if
you want the best sound you can get.

For one thing, most domestic kit will be a compromise in many areas. Not
many will have a perfect room for acoustics and layout, budget will be a
factor, and available space will too, and as such much of these systems
will not be optimal.

> Digital, on the other hand, is robust, self-correcting and can give good
> results with only average component quality. It doesn't fail very
> gracefully, although even that can be managed if you're prepared to put
> in the money. But it's not usually necessary, beyond what's built in to
> the commercial circuitry.

Indeed, but as I said, budget in domestic systems is nearly always going
to be a factor.

> Of course, you do finish up with analogue speakers and final stages.
> That's where the weakness and the still high costs come in. But in every
> other aspect, digital, properly done (meaning with less or the same
> effort than goes into analogue) is much superior.

You omitted to mention that just about all of the source material will
be analogue too (as in vocals and musical instruments), and of course
microphones are analogue, and the final pickup device, the human ear, is
analogue. The whole process is at least an analogue to digital to
analogue chain (assuming using modern technology).

I have done side by side tests between a CD and LP, and the difference
is stunning. A few clicks aside, the 'sound' from the LP source is very
often superior as a listening experience.

This also can be difficult to gauge as well, as many cheaper LPs were
compressed heavily, and 12" LPs often lost some dynamic range against a
7" single. Some of my better sounding CDs are some of my oldest too,
where they were exploiting the greater dynamic range at the time.

There's no doubt that digital audio is 'cleaner', and cheaper, for a
given cost level, but it'll be very hard to reproduce the entire
spectrum of audio that can be captured in a good analogue system.

Whatever you do, digital will have parts of the 'sound' missing, it may
be data that you could say the human ear can't detect, but neverethless
such differences can be detected while listening.

As an example, we can't hear much above 18KHz, yet many sound systems
are designed to reproduce audio well above this. We can't hear it, but
you listen to music reproduced with or without the extra headroom, and
you'll hear a difference.

Listening to music is so hard to quantify, people have different
preferences, and one system may sound different/better to different
people. And there are so many factors in the whole chain that can affect
what we hear, regardless of whether it's digital or analogue.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>

From: Adrian Tuddenham on 14 Mar 2010 10:54

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: iPad battery lunacy
Next: Can't download waypoints to eTrexH GPSR