@PulpFictionsounds Theorems aren't good "in theory", theorems are considered true until experience demonstrates they're wrong. So who can show an experience demonstrating this theorem is wrong ? Nobody can, because this theorem has been constantly verified for decades.
@veltmore1 no, not really because the theorem is good in theory but in practise, computers are unable to compute the infinite number of samples required for a perfect quantization of a pure analog signal, meaning that unless you have a computer that can sum up to infinity, and your sample sizes are infinitely small, you can never exactly replicate an analog signal with a digital one for these reasons.
I wasn't attempting to. Someone said old music didn't require as much dynamic range as new music. This is blatantly false and asking for clarification isn't stupid, it's an attempt to understand where they are coming from. It's common to misuse terminology so I thought maybe that's what happened.
you see, that's where the problem lies. how do you quantify differences in hearing? isn't that subjective? so to have somebody back it up with empirical data is downright stupid don't you think? here's my hypothetical question to you. what sounds better digital drums or real drums?
Look, i like turntables, have owned several decent ones (2 oracle delphis, a nak dragon CT, thorens TD-124, technics SP-10, SP-25, various reks, make a DIY table, etc. There is nothing wrong with vinyl as a medium if that is what you prefer, but if someone is going to make ridiculous statements, they should be able to back them up with more than "because i said so" or resort to petty insults like "you must be deaf dude!"
@PulpFictionsounds Theorems aren't good "in theory", theorems are considered true until experience demonstrates they're wrong. So who can show an experience demonstrating this theorem is wrong ? Nobody can, because this theorem has been constantly verified for decades.
veltmore1 2 months ago
@veltmore1 no, not really because the theorem is good in theory but in practise, computers are unable to compute the infinite number of samples required for a perfect quantization of a pure analog signal, meaning that unless you have a computer that can sum up to infinity, and your sample sizes are infinitely small, you can never exactly replicate an analog signal with a digital one for these reasons.
PulpFictionsounds 2 months ago
@superbibola God safe the simon
superbibola 10 months ago
the best record player in the world.....Good save the simon
superbibola 10 months ago
Long Live Shellac and Vinyl!!!!!!
rudiherold84 1 year ago
I'm no expert, but I believe that the Nyquist-Shannon theorem contradicts his whole idea that quantization is about "throwing information out".
veltmore1 1 year ago
It's definitely simple minded.
dnewma04 2 years ago
I wasn't attempting to. Someone said old music didn't require as much dynamic range as new music. This is blatantly false and asking for clarification isn't stupid, it's an attempt to understand where they are coming from. It's common to misuse terminology so I thought maybe that's what happened.
dnewma04 2 years ago 2
you see, that's where the problem lies. how do you quantify differences in hearing? isn't that subjective? so to have somebody back it up with empirical data is downright stupid don't you think? here's my hypothetical question to you. what sounds better digital drums or real drums?
pangtuli 2 years ago
Look, i like turntables, have owned several decent ones (2 oracle delphis, a nak dragon CT, thorens TD-124, technics SP-10, SP-25, various reks, make a DIY table, etc. There is nothing wrong with vinyl as a medium if that is what you prefer, but if someone is going to make ridiculous statements, they should be able to back them up with more than "because i said so" or resort to petty insults like "you must be deaf dude!"
dnewma04 2 years ago