I must concur with you
on the vinyl front. It does sound better, mainly for its broadness of register. And its massiveness :D
But, I do like these new small TV screen thingys :D
( ,
Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:24,
archived)
But, I do like these new small TV screen thingys :D
oh pish.
I'm an audio snob and love vinyl but no amount of nostalgia is going to make it sound better than a FLAC lossless digital recording from the source. I know all about how less of the waveform is captured but if there is a human being on the planet that can tell that audibly then he is an evolutionary freak.
It's much the same with geeks who talk about how many super frames per second their latest water-cooled video card can run the latest version of twat monkey 3 with full spec. Here's the deal muppets, the human eye can not register beyond 25 frames per second, that's why PAL is 50hz interleaved.
( ,
Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:31,
archived)
It's much the same with geeks who talk about how many super frames per second their latest water-cooled video card can run the latest version of twat monkey 3 with full spec. Here's the deal muppets, the human eye can not register beyond 25 frames per second, that's why PAL is 50hz interleaved.
ou can still know it is happenening
which helps you feel smug.
plus twat monkey 3 is a wonderful game.
( ,
Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:37,
archived)
plus twat monkey 3 is a wonderful game.
You talking about yourself again? ;)
I do agree, modern stuff should stick with what it is.
However, the majority of what I listen to is pre1980. So, Vinyl was what it was made to be played on. For me, it said it all with the digital remaster of The Who Live at Leeds. They whacked it onto CD, spent years on it, but it had none of the quality or charm of the original.
( ,
Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:41,
archived)
However, the majority of what I listen to is pre1980. So, Vinyl was what it was made to be played on. For me, it said it all with the digital remaster of The Who Live at Leeds. They whacked it onto CD, spent years on it, but it had none of the quality or charm of the original.
You've never actually tested this, have you?
Just this second loaded up a game. Capped its frame rate to 25 (75htz progressive scan monitor), and verified that it is indeed 25fps by several sources. What do I see? It's very jerky. Very very jerky. Ignoring taring it's still jerky up to 50fps, but 70fps is pretty much smooth as silk.
Easiliy varifiable.
PAL TV looks shite.
( ,
Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:58,
archived)
Easiliy varifiable.
PAL TV looks shite.
Never tested it?
I did TV and audio electronics engineering at Salford University and regardless of your 'test' it is clinical fact that the brain can not process more than 25 frames a second which is why 50hz is used in PAL anything less you see flicker and anything higher you perceive a still picture.
You might think PAL is bad and sure there are better but you can bet your arse that NTSC is not it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon-wheel_effect
( ,
Mon 23 Feb 2009, 2:08,
archived)
You might think PAL is bad and sure there are better but you can bet your arse that NTSC is not it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon-wheel_effect
Still picture?
How many games or TV shows involve still pictures? Try it with a moving image, in this little test it was a rotating radar dish if you must know. Honestly guv'. Try it. I'm not bullshitting you.
( ,
Mon 23 Feb 2009, 2:11,
archived)
what I mean by 'still picture'
is that you do not see the flicker of the frames being drawn above 25fps ( it's actually around 24 point something )
As for your test see the wiki link above as this has been industry standard knowledge since the movies started. Screen frame rates and film speeds are not chosen at random but because of this effect that we can't register the image any faster than 25fps.
( ,
Mon 23 Feb 2009, 2:15,
archived)
As for your test see the wiki link above as this has been industry standard knowledge since the movies started. Screen frame rates and film speeds are not chosen at random but because of this effect that we can't register the image any faster than 25fps.
There's a difference
between being able to see a single individual frame at higher than 25fps and being unable to tell between 25 and higher frames a second. www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
Even Wikipedia says so on the FPS article.
( ,
Mon 23 Feb 2009, 2:21,
archived)
Even Wikipedia says so on the FPS article.
"TV and Audio Electronics" has fuck all to do with knowing anything about "clinical facts".
The wagon wheel effect is also irrelevant here.
Wow, you prove your ignorance of just about everything more and more each day.
( ,
Mon 23 Feb 2009, 2:46,
archived)
Wow, you prove your ignorance of just about everything more and more each day.
Well, we've all had some cunt try to show us a DVD
on his massive new telly.
And been so underwhelmed, and so pissed off for being asked round in the first place, that we've ended up shooting his fucking dog and all kinds of unpleasantness has erupted.
Yes?
Analogue, me. For as long as possible.
( ,
Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:31,
archived)
And been so underwhelmed, and so pissed off for being asked round in the first place, that we've ended up shooting his fucking dog and all kinds of unpleasantness has erupted.
Yes?
Analogue, me. For as long as possible.