Re: Tweak, stupid or not.
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 34
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 34 |
|
|
|
Re: Tweak, stupid or not.
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,602
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,602 |
Ever join one of those CD clubs and compare the heft and thickness of one of their CDs versus a pressing from the label? My KISS Greatest Hits is nearly half again as thick as my fiancee's from CDHQ... and hers skips in a few places on my H-K 5 disc changer.
10 really thin CDs for a penny... yes PLEASE!
Never underestimate the corporate will to squeeze a nickel 'til it flatulates pennies. Or for consumer laziness to ruin a good concept (ie: DVDs are mostly single sided (4.7 GB) now... the image quality on a double sided DVD (9.4 GB) was a lot better... but you had to read the hub imprint to find out what DVD you had in)... so now we're stuck with pretty inking on one side and picture quality with crawling blacks and noticable MPEG compression.
Starting to wonder if I could find a place that rents movies on DigiBeta. *sigh*
Bren R.
|
|
|
Re: Tweak, stupid or not.
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441 |
BrenR,
A corporation's drive to give Joe Average Consumer what he wants will always leave those of us who notice what is left out disappointed. Our perception is a curse, I tell you!
|
|
|
Re: Tweak, stupid or not.
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,602
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,602 |
In reply to:
A corporation's drive to give Joe Average Consumer what he wants will always leave those of us who notice what is left out disappointed. Our perception is a curse, I tell you!
Crunched some numbers here...
We know that CD Audio is uncompressed (1:1)... 747MB or so for 74 mins:
44100 x 2 channels x 2 (16 bit) x 60 secs/min x 74 mins) = 783,216,000 bytes
783,216,000 bytes / 1024 = 764859 KB
712,828 KB / 1024 = 747 MB
Whereas if a DVD of the same length was to be uncompressed, it would require (for the video bitstream only):
720 w x 486 h x 3 channels (YUV) x 29.97 fps x 60 x 74 = 139,688,203,968 bytes (130GB)... add a multichannel audio track in, and assume that there are VERY few 74 minute movies, and you see just HOW much video has been compressed to fit on a 4.7GB DVD, over 30:1...
I will admit that very few video formats are 4:4:4 colour space (DV is 4:1:1, BetaSX is 4:2:2) but for illustration purposes - this is the "high-quality" format we're buying $10,000 televisions to watch?
Bren R.
|
|
|
Re: Tweak, stupid or not.
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 170
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 170 |
Not only that, but a significant amount of space on optical media is set aside for read error correction-- which is all to the good, but some of that space is counted by DVD manufacturers as data space.
(I'm not sure if the hard drive manufacturer practice of counting a gigabyte as 1000000000 bytes rather than 1073741824 bytes is followed by DVD folks, but it's possible, which would add up as well)
So... it might be a bit worse than that.
|
|
|
Re: Tweak, stupid or not.
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 41
buff
|
buff
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 41 |
Arent there instruments for detecting changes in frequency/sonic qualities besides the human ear? I would
think these would be more unbiased than an ear. Also sense of touch , sight and hearing are all working at the same time. Heck, even emotions can affect the way you are hearing things.YOu cannot turn off your other senses while listening, so this immediately biases a test from a human ear.
Why cant they just measure changes with test instruments and see if they come in the audible range of the human ear.
This seems the only way to settle the "tweaking" discussion.
If listening to sounds or music is more than just an "ear" thing, well then I wouldnt know. Who knows, maybe our skin picks up up certain information when listening to music which adds to the whole experience. How about some flower scented Hendrix?
Last edited by Stbean; 02/19/04 11:53 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Tweak, stupid or not.
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044 |
You really like stirring the pot, don't you? Go ahead, dig up a break-in thread next. ;-)
I am the Doctor, and THIS... is my SPOON!
|
|
|
Re: Tweak, stupid or not.
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 41
buff
|
buff
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 41 |
Well my highschool English teacher, Mrs. Hale I believe, did refer to me as "the stick that stirs the manure".
|
|
|
Re: Tweak, stupid or not.
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,602
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,602 |
In reply to:
Why cant they just measure changes with test instruments and see if they come in the audible range of the human ear.
Much the same reason you couldn't write a computer program to evaluate art.
Though a meter with a FUBAR-like scale from "Suck" to "Good" would be worth the laugh.
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics24,945
Posts442,486
Members15,617
|
Most Online2,082 Jan 22nd, 2020
|
|
0 members (),
1,217
guests, and
4
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|