Vinyl to Digital
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Peter Ceresole on 14 Mar 2010 15:59 T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > Indeed and that makes me wonder how many other manufacturers will > start pushing this 'solution', a solution to a problem many people may > not have even noticed or questioned? If you're talking about multiple refreshes for each frame, it's been practised for a long time in the movies, and of course in TV. The 24fps of cinema film produces mild flicker, but the perception of flicker increases with brightness and 24fps is on the ragged edge, really. So cinema projectors generally use shutters that show each frame twice before moving to the next- refresh is at 48Hz. It reduces flicker. TV gets round this (at 25fps) by interlacing; crudely put, field (1) has all the odd lines, then field (2) draws in the even lines. Effectively, the picture refresh rate is 50Hz, bringing flicker down to the level experienced when watching cinema film. Reducing it further, by bringing the refresh rate up to 100Hz, is an easy electronic trick that many TVs now incorporate. But there's no more transmitted information. If movement is jerky, it stays jerky. Spending a small amount of extra money, on some frame store and a dedicated chip, means that they can, with tweening, effectively smooth movement even more. At least I think that's what they do; my theory's rusty and derived from my time as a film editor which was a long time ago. But it makes sense. -- Peter
From: Ian McCall on 14 Mar 2010 16:05 On 2010-03-14 19:28:21 +0000, T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> said: > It's funny isn't it ... we are all plodding along with out multi-synch > CRT's, having them transparently switching to the right format all on > their own. Then we upgrade to TFT's and have to adjust the output > resolution to cater for the display and/or suffer the issues seen when > not at the native resolution. Must admit I did find the very early days of TFT monitors a bit confusing and mass-delusiona, until I realised the massive energy savings to had. They looked better in terms of appearance, not picture quality, but they sucked down much less power and that's important to a business. Much less movement there too, so no problem. With early HD TV, I really didn't get it beyond how the machine itself looked. Quality was noticeably worse than the better CRTs and to my mind has only just about reached parity. Of course, the kind of CRTs I'm taking about are the kind I've got - where it takes three people to shift it and takes up a daft amount of space. Specifically, it's one of these: <http://www.audioenz.co.nz/2002/Philips_36PW9527.shtml> (minor model number variance but appearance is identical, and it's a lot bigger at the back than it looks in that picture). HD TV over the last couple of years has seemed better to me, but there's still been the motion problem we were discussing. Only -very- recently do the TVs appear to actually match what I've been used to. Cheers, Ian
From: Peter Ceresole on 14 Mar 2010 16:24 Ian McCall <ian(a)eruvia.org> wrote: > Of course, the kind of CRTs > I'm taking about are the kind I've got - where it takes three people to > shift it and takes up a daft amount of space. Only three? We once had a 28" Sony TV. It was the first TV set I had that I couldn't lift off the floor onto its stand. My son in law the builder/sumo wrestler could just about manage it. We bought a Panasonic 32" flat screen set (which as far as I am concerned produces a better picture) and gave the Sony CRT to him to use in his studio. It's at the top of his house and I still don't know how he got it up there. I think the answer is 'with difficulty'. However, the house is still standing. For Real Life viewing, the family use a flat screen Samsung down stairs. -- Peter
From: Andy Hewitt on 14 Mar 2010 16:50 Larry Stoter <larry(a)666.com> wrote: > Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: [..] > > > Anybody know if this will work, connected to an Airport Express base > > > station, to digitise and wirelessly transfer music from the Hi-Fi to the > > > Mac? > > > > Unlikely, the Airport Express only handles printers (unless later > > versions have changed). The audio is an output only. > > > > Not planning to use the audio connection on the Airport Express. > Planning to connect a Griffin iMic to the USB connection on the Airport > Express ..... I think that's very unlikely to work, they don't even recognise a USB hard drive. > > > I looks as though this should all work but I'd like to hear from anybody > > > who has actually done it ..... > > > > I just take my MacBook to the HiFi, unplug the leads from the pre-amp, > > and bung them into the MacBook (using appropriate adapter leads - e.g. > > RCA-jack) > > > > Don't have a MacBook, I have a desktop iMac ..... I think you only have a couple of options then. Plan to do the job in one go, as a single big task, and move the iMac near to the HiFi - bear in mind it will of course be 'real time'. Or you could take the turntable near to the iMac, but you'll need the phono pre-amp (mine has a separate one), which might mean uprooting the amplifier if that's what you have. Or you could just get a deck off eBay, a cheapish phono pre-amp, and make a fresh set up. Then just sell it on when done. I got a Technics SL1800 off eBay, to which I've fitted a new Pickering cartridge, and that sounds quite good, and not massively expensive. Other cheap decks worth looking at are the old Duals. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: T i m on 14 Mar 2010 17:45
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:05:22 +0000, Ian McCall <ian(a)eruvia.org> wrote: >On 2010-03-14 19:28:21 +0000, T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> said: > >> It's funny isn't it ... we are all plodding along with out multi-synch >> CRT's, having them transparently switching to the right format all on >> their own. Then we upgrade to TFT's and have to adjust the output >> resolution to cater for the display and/or suffer the issues seen when >> not at the native resolution. > >Must admit I did find the very early days of TFT monitors a bit >confusing and mass-delusiona, until I realised the massive energy >savings to had. They looked better in terms of appearance, not picture >quality, but they sucked down much less power and that's important to a >business. Much less movement there too, so no problem. Is that the case though, that they use much less power? I was asking if you have actually measured yours as I don't have a CRT set online any more here. (I have a 42" plasma I was given but haven't used because I don't think I've got a big enough fuse to go in the plug!). > >With early HD TV, I really didn't get it beyond how the machine itself >looked. (I believe our main TV, a UMC 17" is 'HD ready' but as I don't have any HD sources I haven't been able to test it like that. Mind you, I'm not fussed about doing so really, perfectly happy with what we have now (especially at that size and my general lack of interest in TV as a hobby). > Quality was noticeably worse than the better CRTs and to my >mind has only just about reached parity. Of course, the kind of CRTs >I'm taking about are the kind I've got - where it takes three people to >shift it and takes up a daft amount of space. Specifically, it's one of >these: ><http://www.audioenz.co.nz/2002/Philips_36PW9527.shtml> (minor model >number variance but appearance is identical, and it's a lot bigger at >the back than it looks in that picture). That is a big beast! (I note it mentions the pan-jerk thing). > >HD TV over the last couple of years has seemed better to me, but >there's still been the motion problem we were discussing. Only -very- >recently do the TVs appear to actually match what I've been used to. It's funny that you and I see this issue that more people aren't saying 'I'll wait till it works properly' ? Cheers, T i m |