Amazon hawking obsolete TVs at top dollar prices?
DC
7th)
This TV is 16:9 720p (1366 x 768) A typical PC resolution
(WXGA); also used by many HD ready TV displays based on LCD
technology.
Today's TVs are 1080p Full HD resolution 1920 x 1080p This
is standard HDTV resolution, used by Full HD and HD ready
1080p TV displays such as high-end LCD TVs.
Trying to show your blu-ray DVDs on this TV is a waste of
your time. This is not a Deal of the Day (unless you are
Amazon and then it is a very good deal of the day!)
More comments: http://xrl.us/SonyBravia32
Ken
> Trying to show your blu-ray DVDs on this TV is a waste of your time.
Wes Newell
The blu-ray format is a DVD (Digital Video Disc) format no matter what
the Sony hype tries telling the public. So calling it a blu-ray DVD, is
just that, a DVD in blu-ray format. Blu-ray spoken by itself could mean
anything from a blu-ray disc, player, recorder, laser pen, etc.
--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
RickMerrill
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:16:18 +0100, Ken wrote:
>
>> On 7 Nov 2009 15:29:28 -0000, DC <rema...@reece.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Trying to show your blu-ray DVDs on this TV is a waste of your time.
>>
>> DVD is not blu-ray.
>
> The blu-ray format is a DVD (Digital Video Disc) format no matter what
> the Sony hype tries telling the public. So calling it a blu-ray DVD, is
> just that, a DVD in blu-ray format. Blu-ray spoken by itself could mean
> anything from a blu-ray disc, player, recorder, laser pen, etc.
>
Please, Alice, what does the Sony hype call it?
What is BD (my guess: Blu-ray Disk)?
GMAN
considered full HD.
QN
the price. Interstate shipping of a TV set ain't cheap.
Jim
and by your logic its a DVD so its also a HD DVD.
UCLAN
>>DVD is not blu-ray.
>
> The blu-ray format is a DVD (Digital Video Disc) format no matter what
> the Sony hype tries telling the public. So calling it a blu-ray DVD, is
> just that, a DVD in blu-ray format. Blu-ray spoken by itself could mean
> anything from a blu-ray disc, player, recorder, laser pen, etc.
You lost this argument months ago. Both DVDs and BDs are *optical* discs. So
are compact discs. The fact that a CDV contains digital video doesn't make
it a DVD. The fact that a BD contains digital video doesn't make it a DVD,
either. Give it up, already.
Wes Newell
Bad Dog.
Big D*ck. * = i, o, u. Take your pick.
Or a thousand other meanings. If one says blu-ray DVD, I don't think
there can be much doubt what is meant.
Wes Newell
You're an idiot, or just too damn stubborn to except the definition of
DVD as defined by all dictionaries of the english language. Come to my
house and ask for a BD and see what you get.:-)
Wes Newell
> Its also a video compact disc but you didn't call it a BD DVD VCD. Its
> HD and by your logic its a DVD so its also a HD DVD.
Yes, generically speaking, a blu-ray dvd is an HD DVD. Not to be confused
with the Toshiba HD-DVD format.
Mike Ruskai
<w.ne...@invalid.invalid> dribble thusly:
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:02:20 -0800, UCLAN wrote:
>
>> Wes Newell wrote:
>>
>>>>DVD is not blu-ray.
>>>
>>> The blu-ray format is a DVD (Digital Video Disc) format no matter what
>>> the Sony hype tries telling the public. So calling it a blu-ray DVD, is
>>> just that, a DVD in blu-ray format. Blu-ray spoken by itself could mean
>>> anything from a blu-ray disc, player, recorder, laser pen, etc.
>>
>> You lost this argument months ago. Both DVDs and BDs are *optical*
>> discs. So are compact discs. The fact that a CDV contains digital video
>> doesn't make it a DVD. The fact that a BD contains digital video doesn't
>> make it a DVD, either. Give it up, already.
>
>You're an idiot, or just too damn stubborn to except the definition of
>DVD as defined by all dictionaries of the english language. Come to my
>house and ask for a BD and see what you get.:-)
DVD does not stand for Digital Video Disc. It doesn't really stand for
anything at all. Some have tried to stick it with Digital Versatile Disc, but
the acronym was never officially expanded.
So calling a Blu-ray disc a Blu-ray DVD is completely incorrect. BD is what a
typical player shows on the menu (to differentiate Blu-ray discs from DVD
discs), while in common parlance, I expect "Blu-ray disc" and simply "Blu-ray"
to be about equally represented. My guess is that the latter usage will
prevail in general, as in "I have that movie on Blu-ray," or "I have a Blu-ray
of that movie."
Stewart
"Wes Newell" <w.ne...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hd48n6$guo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:16:18 +0100, Ken wrote:
>
>> On 7 Nov 2009 15:29:28 -0000, DC <rema...@reece.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Trying to show your blu-ray DVDs on this TV is a waste of your
>>> time.
>>
>> DVD is not blu-ray.
>
> The blu-ray format is a DVD (Digital Video Disc) format no matter
> what
> the Sony hype tries telling the public. So calling it a blu-ray DVD,
> is
> just that, a DVD in blu-ray format. Blu-ray spoken by itself could
> mean
> anything from a blu-ray disc, player, recorder, laser pen, etc.
Here we go again...
Stewart
"UCLAN" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:7lm5icF...@mid.individual.net...
The argument wasn't lost. All that happened is that no one agreed.
Kimba W Lion
>Today's TVs are 1080p Full HD resolution 1920 x 1080p This
>is standard HDTV resolution, used by Full HD and HD ready
>1080p TV displays such as high-end LCD TVs.
There are plenty of 1366x768 HD TVs out there. They are entitled to be called
HD. Just like 720p broadcasts are really HD.
--
Intelligent Life Is All Around Us
http://intelligentlife.info/
Kimba W Lion
>The blu-ray format is a DVD (Digital Video Disc)
Oh, geez, not again... Blu-Ray is a trademark. It refers to video discs that
have nothing whatsoever to do with the DVD standards. DVD is a specific term
with specific standards that are nothing like Blu-Ray discs.
Give it up already. Blu-Ray is not DVD. If it was, you wouldn't need a new
player for Blu-Ray.
Sheesh.
Daniel Who Wants to Know
"Mike Ruskai" <BUTth...@DONTearthlinkLIKE.netSPAM> wrote in message
news:716cf5t8b13ss8dr8...@4ax.com...
>
> DVD does not stand for Digital Video Disc. It doesn't really stand for
> anything at all. Some have tried to stick it with Digital Versatile Disc,
> but
> the acronym was never officially expanded.
>
Here is how I think of it: In the beginning it was digital video disk
because video was all it was used for. Once DVD-ROM and DVD-Audio came out
it became digital versatile disk.
Daniel Who Wants to Know
news:ok9cf55fdr1k7etkl...@4ax.com...
And unless it is a POS plasma that is only 1024x768 it doesn't really matter
what the physical panel resolution is anyway because no consumer TVs use 1:1
pixel mapping anyway. Your basic flat panel of any resolution scales the
image up to roughly 10% more than the panel resolution then crops the outer
pixels to create virtual overscan.
What I want is a 1920x1080 set that has 1:1 mapping for 1080i/p and scales
all lower resolutions directly to 1080.
BTW what nutjob came up with 1024x768 plasmas anyway? How was simultaneously
scaling the image resolution down horizontally and up vertically ever
thought of as a good idea?
UCLAN
>>>>DVD is not blu-ray.
>>>
>>>The blu-ray format is a DVD (Digital Video Disc) format no matter what
>>>the Sony hype tries telling the public. So calling it a blu-ray DVD, is
>>>just that, a DVD in blu-ray format. Blu-ray spoken by itself could mean
>>>anything from a blu-ray disc, player, recorder, laser pen, etc.
>>
>>You lost this argument months ago. Both DVDs and BDs are *optical*
>>discs. So are compact discs. The fact that a CDV contains digital video
>>doesn't make it a DVD. The fact that a BD contains digital video doesn't
>>make it a DVD, either. Give it up, already.
>
> You're an idiot, or just too damn stubborn to except the definition of
> DVD as defined by all dictionaries of the english language. Come to my
> house and ask for a BD and see what you get.:-)
You've referenced NO dictionaries that call Blu-ray discs DVDs. NONE!
Wishing doesn't make it so. Troll...
Wes Newell
Bisides being an idiot, you must have a short memory too. I listed a ton
of definitions for DVD including every damn dictionary from American
Heritage to Websters the last time this was brought up. And every one of
them said DVD was either a Digital Video Disc or Digital Versatile Disc.
My definition of BD is Big Dumbass. And you fit that perfectly.
UCLAN
>>>You're an idiot, or just too damn stubborn to except the definition of
>>>DVD as defined by all dictionaries of the english language. Come to my
>>>house and ask for a BD and see what you get.:-)
>>
>>You've referenced NO dictionaries that call Blu-ray discs DVDs. NONE!
>>
>>Wishing doesn't make it so. Troll...
>
> Bisides being an idiot, you must have a short memory too. I listed a ton
> of definitions for DVD including every damn dictionary from American
> Heritage to Websters the last time this was brought up. And every one of
> them said DVD was either a Digital Video Disc or Digital Versatile Disc.
> My definition of BD is Big Dumbass. And you fit that perfectly.
Still haven't solved that reading comprehension problem, eh? The definition
in question is for *Blu-ray Discs (or BD.)* I state that you have not
referenced ANY dictionaries that define BDs as DVDs. You counter that you
have listed "a ton of definitions for DVD." Well, that wasn't the question.
Still waiting for those BD definitions. Dumb troll...
Wes Newell
> DVD does not stand for Digital Video Disc. It doesn't really stand for
> anything at all. Some have tried to stick it with Digital Versatile
> Disc, but the acronym was never officially expanded.
>
It was defined in every english dictionary around. Wtf do you speak,
piglatin. Just one of many definitions of dvd.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dvd
> So calling a Blu-ray disc a Blu-ray DVD is completely incorrect.
You are more than welcome to stay in your benighted state.
Wes Newell
> Wes Newell <w.ne...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>The blu-ray format is a DVD (Digital Video Disc)
>
> Oh, geez, not again... Blu-Ray is a trademark. It refers to video discs
> that have nothing whatsoever to do with the DVD standards. DVD is a
> specific term with specific standards that are nothing like Blu-Ray
> discs.
>
> Give it up already. Blu-Ray is not DVD. If it was, you wouldn't need a
> new player for Blu-Ray.
Blu-ray by itself is nothing other than a specification. A blu-ray movie
would indicate you wanted a Digital Video Disc in blu-ray format that you
could play in your blu-ray player. Since the accromyn for Digital Video
Disc is DVD, that's exactly what you want A blu-ray DVD.:-)
I challenge you to go to a store and ask for a blu-ray (and nothing
else). There is no such animal(that you can buy). Years after, they now
want you to refer to it as BD, which I assume stands for Blu-ray Disc.
Just a shortened version of blu-ray DVD. The reason for this should be
obvious.
Personally, I'd use blu-ray disc if I was shopping for them. It's just
easier to say, with less syllables than blu-ray DVD.
Wes Newell
Yes, that was the question. The term blu-ray DVD was used. To understand
if a blu-ray disc fits into the DVD category, one must first know the
definition of the DVD acronym. Since by all definitions that is" Digital
Versatile Disc" when dealing with data, or "Digital Video Disc" when the
data is a video, movie, etc., it clearly falls within the category. So,
by definition a blu-ray disc, BD if you prefer, is also a DVD. It's
really that simple. You, OTOH, want everyone to follow the Sony
nomenclature. You might as well be arguing that the HD acronym can't
stand for anything except High Definition when it it has been used for
years as Hard Disk also.
So, unless you can prove that there are no blu-ray digital video disc (an
optical disc containing digital video or data) in existence, which is
obviously as ridiculous as you are, you don't have a leg to stand on. Fin.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:06:49 -0500, Kimba W Lion wrote:
>
>> Wes Newell <w.ne...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>The blu-ray format is a DVD (Digital Video Disc)
>>
>> Oh, geez, not again... Blu-Ray is a trademark. It refers to video discs
>> that have nothing whatsoever to do with the DVD standards. DVD is a
>> specific term with specific standards that are nothing like Blu-Ray
>> discs.
>>
>> Give it up already. Blu-Ray is not DVD. If it was, you wouldn't need a
>> new player for Blu-Ray.
>
> Blu-ray by itself is nothing other than a specification. A blu-ray movie
> would indicate you wanted a Digital Video Disc in blu-ray format that you
> could play in your blu-ray player. Since the accromyn for Digital Video
> Disc is DVD, that's exactly what you want A blu-ray DVD.:-)
>
be another form of DVD. That's usually the standard argument anyway.
Seriously though, Blu-ray has the potential to be so much more than just
movies on disc, but for now, they are only being used as a higher resolution
form of movies already previously released on DVD (then padded with
so-called value-added extras and Java-based interactive content). Yes,
Blu-ray writers do exist for the PC platform, no I don't see mainstream
availability of media such as BD-R or whatever they want to call the
recordable Blu-ray discs.
So while it is not technically correct to call a Blu-ray disc a DVD (must
obey marketing department terminology always!), it is also understandable
for a Blu-ray to also be considered a type of DVD (same size, and it has
movies on it). To me, it is more important that the discussion continues
(because when someone writes Blu-ray DVD it's obvious they mean Blu-ray)
rather than stopping just because (gasp) someone dared to call Blu-ray a DVD
(oh no)!
> I challenge you to go to a store and ask for a blu-ray (and nothing
> else). There is no such animal(that you can buy). Years after, they now
> want you to refer to it as BD, which I assume stands for Blu-ray Disc.
> Just a shortened version of blu-ray DVD. The reason for this should be
> obvious.
>
If you go to a store and ask for Blu-ray, they'll either point to the discs
or the players.
> Personally, I'd use blu-ray disc if I was shopping for them. It's just
> easier to say, with less syllables than blu-ray DVD.
>
I'd just ask where the movies were, and find the DVD's and Blu-ray discs for
myself. (Personally, I have zero interest in Blu-ray, because DVD is more
than good enough and I don't plan on rebuying movies again when I already
repurchased the DVD's to replace the VHS versions of those movies plus I
definitely do not plan to rebuy a home theater receiver because of a
so-called "True-HD" codec on Blu-ray.)
UCLAN
> I challenge you to go to a store and ask for a blu-ray (and nothing
> else). There is no such animal(that you can buy). Years after, they now
> want you to refer to it as BD, which I assume stands for Blu-ray Disc.
> Just a shortened version of blu-ray DVD. The reason for this should be
> obvious.
Years after...??
BD has been the acronym for Blu-ray disc since day one. It obviously
comes *NOT* from "blu-ray DVD" (there ya go wishing again), but simply
from Blu-ray disc. Even someone intellectually challenged such as
yourself should be able to see that. Like CD is from "Compact disc",
not from "Compact DVD."
Robert Peirce
> Sony 32-inch BRAVIA $399.99 (Deal of the Day for November
> 7th)
>
> This TV is 16:9 720p (1366 x 768) A typical PC resolution
> (WXGA); also used by many HD ready TV displays based on LCD
> technology.
>
> Today's TVs are 1080p Full HD resolution 1920 x 1080p This
> is standard HDTV resolution, used by Full HD and HD ready
> 1080p TV displays such as high-end LCD TVs.
>
> Trying to show your blu-ray DVDs on this TV is a waste of
> your time. This is not a Deal of the Day (unless you are
> Amazon and then it is a very good deal of the day!)
>
> More comments: http://xrl.us/SonyBravia32
There were 26 other comments on my list today but none of them mentioned
that 1080p probably wouldn't even be noticeable on a 32" TV from normal
viewing distances. Blu-ray ought to be fine. Hell, 480p looks great on
my 32".
I'm not sure how big a screen you need (or the best viewing distance) to
be able to take advantage of 1080p, but I am guessing it is probably on
the order of 45" or more. Even then, you would probably have to be
sitting only a few feet from the screen. If you are 8-10' away, you
probably need something huge, like 60".
--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]
UCLAN
>>Still haven't solved that reading comprehension problem, eh? The
>>definition in question is for *Blu-ray Discs (or BD.)* I state that you
>>have not referenced ANY dictionaries that define BDs as DVDs. You
>>counter that you have listed "a ton of definitions for DVD." Well, that
>>wasn't the question.
>
> Yes, that was the question. The term blu-ray DVD was used. To understand
> if a blu-ray disc fits into the DVD category, one must first know the
> definition of the DVD acronym. Since by all definitions that is" Digital
> Versatile Disc" when dealing with data, or "Digital Video Disc" when the
> data is a video, movie, etc., it clearly falls within the category. So,
> by definition a blu-ray disc, BD if you prefer, is also a DVD.
Why? What poor reasoning.
The definition of poodle is: one of a breed of very active dogs. By your
logic, my terrier - also a very active dog - must be a poodle.
Here are some actual Blu-ray disc definitions, not illogical conclusions:
http://www.techterms.com/definition/bluray -
"Blu-ray is an optical disc format such as CD and DVD. It was developed for
recording and playing back high-definition (HD) video and for storing large
amounts of data."
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci810790,00.html -
"Blu-ray is an optical disc format designed to display high definition video
and store large amounts of data. Blu-ray is the successor to DVD."
http://www.blu-ray.com/info/ -
"Blu-ray, also known as Blu-ray Disc (BD), is the name of a next-generation
optical disc format jointly developed by the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA), a
group of the world's leading consumer electronics, personal computer and media
manufacturers (including Apple, Dell, Hitachi, HP, JVC, LG, Mitsubishi,
Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, TDK and Thomson)."
"While current optical disc technologies such as DVD, DVD±R, DVD±RW, and
DVD-RAM rely on a red laser to read and write data, the new format uses a
blue-violet laser instead, hence the name Blu-ray."
http://www.afterdawn.com/glossary/terms/blu-ray.cfm -
"Blu-ray is a name for a optical disc standard which uses blue-violet laser
instead of red laser used in CDs and in DVDs. This allows manufacturers to
store more data using the same amount of disc surface."
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-6MbgjZvgpUW/Learn/learningcenter/home/dvd_glossary.html
"Blu-ray Disc is a high-definition disc format designed specifically for
HDTVs. It offers a much greater storage capacity than DVD for more a full
high-def pictureup to 1080p and more detailed sound. In February 2008, Blu-ray
won a format war with a competing high-def disc format, HD DVD. See our
article on Blu-ray for more information."
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=Blu-ray&i=38782,00.asp
"A high-capacity optical disc for high-definition (HD) movies. Developed
primarily by Sony, Blu-ray and DVD discs have the same diameter and look
similar, but Blu-ray's blue-violet laser reads pits a third the size of a DVD
on tracks packed much tighter together. Blu-ray players support DVDs and CDs,
plus resolutions up to 1080p and advanced video formats (see H.264 and VC-1).
In addition, they support high-definition audio, including Dolby Digital Plus,
TrueHD and DTS-HD (see Dolby Digital and DTS)."
and finally...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_disc -
"In computing and optical recording, an optical disc or
optical disk is a flat, usually circular disc which
can contain audio, video or data encoded in microscopic pits (or bumps) on a
special material (often aluminium[citation needed]) on one of its flat
surfaces."
First-generation
Initially, optical discs were used to store music and computer software. The
laser disc format stored analog video signals, but, commercially, lost to the
VHS videotape cassette, due mainly to its high cost and non-re-recordability;
other first-generation disc formats were designed only to store digital data
and were not initially capable of use as a video medium.
Most first-generation disc devices had an infrared laser reading head. The
minimum size of the laser spot is proportional to its wavelength, thus
wavelength is a limiting factor against great information density, too little
data can be stored so. The infrared range is beyond the long-wavelength end of
the visible light spectrum, so, supports less density than any visible light
colour. One example of high-density data storage capacity, achieved with an
infrared laser, is 700MB of net user data for a 12 cm compact disc.
NOTE: other factors affecting data storage density are, for example, a
multi-layered infrared disc would hold more data than an identical
single-layer disc; whether CAV, CLV, or zoned-CAV; how the data are encoded;
how much clear margin at the center and the edge
* Compact Disc (CD)
* Laser disc
* Magneto-optical disc
* mini disc
* DVD
Second-generation
Second-generation optical discs were for storing great amounts of data,
including broadcast-quality digital video. Such discs usually are read with a
visible-light laser (usually red); the shorter wavelength and greater
numerical aperture[2] allow a narrower light beam, permitting smaller pits and
lands in the disc. In the DVD format, this allows 4.7GB storage on a standard
12 cm, single-sided, single-layer disc; alternately, smaller media, such as
the MiniDisc and the DataPlay formats, can have capacity comparable to that of
the larger, standard compact 12 cm disc.
* Hi-MD
* DVD and derivatives
o DVD-Audio
o DualDisc
o Digital Video Express (DIVX)
* Super Audio CD
* Video CD
* Super Video CD
* Enhanced Versatile Disc
* GD-ROM
* DataPlay
* Phase-change Dual
* Universal Media Disc
* Ultra Density Optical
Third-generation
Third-generation optical discs are in development, meant for distributing
high-definition video and support greater data storage capacities,
accomplished with short-wavelength visible-light lasers and greater numerical
apertures. The Blu-ray disc uses blue-violet lasers of greater aperture, for
use with discs with smaller pits and lands, thereby greater data storage
capacity per layer.[2] In practice, the effective multimedia presentation
capacity is improved with enhanced video data compression codecs such as
H.264, and VC-1.
* Currently shipping:
o Blu-ray Disc
o HD VMD Disc
o CBHD Disc
* In development:
o Forward Versatile Disc
o Digital Multilayer Disk or Fluorescent Multilayer Disc
* Abandoned:
o HD DVD
Well, there's more if you need it. Both DVDs and BDs are optical discs. DVDs
are second generation optical discs. BDs are third generation optical discs.
BDs are NOT DVDs. That much is plainly evident.
> So, unless you can prove that there are no blu-ray digital video disc (an
> optical disc containing digital video or data) in existence, which is
> obviously as ridiculous as you are, you don't have a leg to stand on. Fin.
[...on which to stand.]
I think above spells it out quite well.
My terrier is not a poodle.
Mike Ruskai
<w.ne...@invalid.invalid> dribble thusly:
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:06:23 -0500, Mike Ruskai wrote:
>
>> DVD does not stand for Digital Video Disc. It doesn't really stand for
>> anything at all. Some have tried to stick it with Digital Versatile
>> Disc, but the acronym was never officially expanded.
>>
>It was defined in every english dictionary around. Wtf do you speak,
>piglatin. Just one of many definitions of dvd.
Dictionaries do not define words. They describe them.
DVD is a specific disc format, not a generic acronym.
>
>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dvd
>
>> So calling a Blu-ray disc a Blu-ray DVD is completely incorrect.
>
>You are more than welcome to stay in your benighted state.
You're more than welcome to sojourn into my twit filter, where you clearly
belong.
Howard Brazee
<w.ne...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Or a thousand other meanings. If one says blu-ray DVD, I don't think
>there can be much doubt what is meant.
And if they say blu-ray CD, I don't think there can be much doubt what
is meant.
If something is used incorrectly long enough, it becomes part of the
language. This could happen in this case, but until it does, I'd
rather not be on the side of ignorance.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>The argument wasn't lost. All that happened is that no one agreed.
Everybody except one person agreed.
UCLAN
>>Or a thousand other meanings. If one says blu-ray DVD, I don't think
>>there can be much doubt what is meant.
>
> And if they say blu-ray CD, I don't think there can be much doubt what
> is meant.
>
> If something is used incorrectly long enough, it becomes part of the
> language. This could happen in this case, but until it does, I'd
> rather not be on the side of ignorance.
I hesitate to even mention it, but there *are* "Blu-spec CDs." These
are currently Japanese manufactured/distributed CDs, but are becoming
available in the US. I own the original CD and the Blu-spec version of
Chick Corea's "Romantic Warrior." Yeah, a *little* improvement, I suppose.
But not enough to justify the higher price. I won't be purchasing more.
http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/popular_formats/Blu-spec-CD/index.html?gclid=CJH_qszO_p0CFQ4hDQodNxrOpw
Wes Newell
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:50:55 +0000 (UTC), Wes Newell
> <w.ne...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Or a thousand other meanings. If one says blu-ray DVD, I don't think
>>there can be much doubt what is meant.
>
> And if they say blu-ray CD, I don't think there can be much doubt what
> is meant.
>
> If something is used incorrectly long enough, it becomes part of the
> language. This could happen in this case, but until it does, I'd
> rather not be on the side of ignorance.
If you think a blu-ray disc isn't a DVD, then you're already on that
side. The acronym DVD (not the DVD format) stands for Digital Video Disc.
Now if a blu-ray video disc wasn't a digital video disc you would have a
point, but since it is, you have nothing other than your own ignorance.
That the preferred nomenclature by Sony is Blu-ray Disc (BD) means
nothing.
UCLAN
>>If something is used incorrectly long enough, it becomes part of the
>>language. This could happen in this case, but until it does, I'd
>>rather not be on the side of ignorance.
>
> If you think a blu-ray disc isn't a DVD, then you're already on that
> side. The acronym DVD (not the DVD format) stands for Digital Video Disc.
> Now if a blu-ray video disc wasn't a digital video disc you would have a
> point,
It's not. It's an optical disc that can do video. A CD is also an optical
disc that can do video. Do you call it a DVD, too?
> but since it is, you have nothing other than your own ignorance.
Hmmm...ATV is the acronym for "All terrain vehicle." My bicycle is all
terrain, so it must be an ATV. Again, I use it in sports. So it must be
a SUV, too. You are the poster child for ignorance.
Wes Newell
> Wes Newell wrote:
>
>>>If something is used incorrectly long enough, it becomes part of the
>>>language. This could happen in this case, but until it does, I'd
>>>rather not be on the side of ignorance.
>>
>> If you think a blu-ray disc isn't a DVD, then you're already on that
>> side. The acronym DVD (not the DVD format) stands for Digital Video
>> Disc. Now if a blu-ray video disc wasn't a digital video disc you would
>> have a point,
>
> It's not. It's an optical disc that can do video. A CD is also an
> optical disc that can do video. Do you call it a DVD, too?
>
No, but technically speaking it is. It's a disc, and it has digital video
on it. Personally I'd call it a VCD to be more precise.
>> but since it is, you have nothing other than your own ignorance.
>
> Hmmm...ATV is the acronym for "All terrain vehicle." My bicycle is all
> terrain, so it must be an ATV. Again, I use it in sports. So it must be
> a SUV, too. You are the poster child for ignorance.
Yes, your bicycle is an ATV. SUV is a little far fetched as SUV's usually
have a places for cargo/sports equipment. But I guess you could add some
saddle bags and technically refer to it as an SUV.
One of my girlfriends had 3 pussys, while another only had one. And like
pussy, DVD can have more than one meaning. A pussy is a cat. A cat be
small or large, just like a video file. And the size and color doesn't
matter. It's still a cat. Same applies to most things, including a DVD.
Stewart
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:s0agf51jth8ght6ng...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:21:32 -0800, "Stewart" <gorta...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The argument wasn't lost. All that happened is that no one agreed.
>
> Everybody except one person agreed.
Two
UCLAN
>>It's not. It's an optical disc that can do video. A CD is also an
>>optical disc that can do video. Do you call it a DVD, too?
>
> No, but technically speaking it is. It's a disc, and it has digital video
> on it. Personally I'd call it a VCD to be more precise.
So you finally admit that just because an optical disc has digital video,
it is not necessarily a DVD. It could be a CD (CDV or VCD) or a BD. Progress!
> One of my girlfriends had 3 pussys, while another only had one. And like
> pussy, DVD can have more than one meaning. A pussy is a cat. A cat be
> small or large, just like a video file. And the size and color doesn't
> matter. It's still a cat. Same applies to most things, including a DVD.
You're one confused dude.
Wes Newell
> Wes Newell wrote:
>
>>>It's not. It's an optical disc that can do video. A CD is also an
>>>optical disc that can do video. Do you call it a DVD, too?
>>
>> No, but technically speaking it is. It's a disc, and it has digital
>> video on it. Personally I'd call it a VCD to be more precise.
>
> So you finally admit that just because an optical disc has digital
> video, it is not necessarily a DVD. It could be a CD (CDV or VCD) or a
> BD. Progress!
>
I see you have a major comprehension problem. Read my response again and
see if you can determine what I wrote. *I* wouldn't call a blu-ray disc a
dvd either, but it is none the less. And I sure wouldn't tell someone
they're incorrect simply because they chose to call it a "blu-ray DVD".
>> One of my girlfriends had 3 pussys, while another only had one. And
>> like pussy, DVD can have more than one meaning. A pussy is a cat. A cat
>> be small or large, just like a video file. And the size and color
>> doesn't matter. It's still a cat. Same applies to most things,
>> including a DVD.
>
> You're one confused dude.
I'm neither.
cjdayton...@cox.net
When are BOTH of you going to grow up
and STFU? You are BOTH incredible bores.
Chip
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Howard Brazee
<w.ne...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> It's not. It's an optical disc that can do video. A CD is also an
>> optical disc that can do video. Do you call it a DVD, too?
>>
>No, but technically speaking it is. It's a disc, and it has digital video
>on it. Personally I'd call it a VCD to be more precise.
There is a significant advantage in being precise. For instance,
when I order something, I can ask for a CD, a DvD, or a Blu-ray, and
be understood.
Or I can buy _Up_ understanding what they mean when they say it
includes a DvD, a Blu-ray disk, and a digital copy.
Sure, they can say that it includes a disk, and a disk, and a disk,
but that's not effective communication.
GMAN
>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:31:13 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:50:55 +0000 (UTC), Wes Newell
>> <w.ne...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Or a thousand other meanings. If one says blu-ray DVD, I don't think
>>>there can be much doubt what is meant.
>>
>> And if they say blu-ray CD, I don't think there can be much doubt what
>> is meant.
>>
>> If something is used incorrectly long enough, it becomes part of the
>> language. This could happen in this case, but until it does, I'd
>> rather not be on the side of ignorance.
>
>If you think a blu-ray disc isn't a DVD, then you're already on that
>side. The acronym DVD (not the DVD format) stands for Digital Video Disc.
>Now if a blu-ray video disc wasn't a digital video disc you would have a
>point, but since it is, you have nothing other than your own ignorance.
>That the preferred nomenclature by Sony is Blu-ray Disc (BD) means
>nothing.
>
>
>
>
http://www.dvdforum.org/tech-dvdprimer.htm#1
"What does DVD mean?
The keyword is "versatile." Digital Versatile discs provide superb video,
audio and data storage and access -- all on one disc."
Wes Newell
No one owns the DVD acronym. They might own the DVD logo (don't know and
don't care). And you are way behind the times. It's already been
established that the V in DVD can mean versatile. There are two
definitions, one using versatile and one using video in most, if not all
published definitions. That was established months ago. Want to know what
else DVD can mean? There are 219 meanings here.
http://www.acronymattic.com/DVD.html
In this discussion it means Digital Video Disc.
UCLAN
>>So you finally admit that just because an optical disc has digital
>>video, it is not necessarily a DVD. It could be a CD (CDV or VCD) or a
>>BD. Progress!
>
> I see you have a major comprehension problem. Read my response again and
> see if you can determine what I wrote. *I* wouldn't call a blu-ray disc a
> dvd either, but it is none the less. And I sure wouldn't tell someone
> they're incorrect simply because they chose to call it a "blu-ray DVD".
Neither would I (nor did I.) But when one uses faulty logic to bolster
his opinion that a BD *is* a DVD, I disagree and post evidence to the
contrary.
UCLAN
> To Wes Newell and UCLAN
>
> When are BOTH of you going to grow up
> and STFU? You are BOTH incredible bores.
>
> Chip
To Chip:
Simply skip the thread. It's easier than posting a lame reply.
UCLAN
>>If you think a blu-ray disc isn't a DVD, then you're already on that
>>side. The acronym DVD (not the DVD format) stands for Digital Video Disc.
>>Now if a blu-ray video disc wasn't a digital video disc you would have a
>>point, but since it is, you have nothing other than your own ignorance.
>>That the preferred nomenclature by Sony is Blu-ray Disc (BD) means
>>nothing.
>
> Wrong, read it here , straight from the people who own the DVD moniker
>
> http://www.dvdforum.org/tech-dvdprimer.htm#1
>
> "What does DVD mean?
>
> The keyword is "versatile." Digital Versatile discs provide superb video,
> audio and data storage and access -- all on one disc."
And Wes will use faulty logic and argue "Since that's what a Blu-ray
disc does, BDs must be DVDs. His terrier is a poodle.
AZ Nomad
>And Wes will use faulty logic and argue "Since that's what a Blu-ray
>disc does, BDs must be DVDs. His terrier is a poodle.
give it a fucking rest.
cjdayton...@cox.net
You two have hijacked another thread to beat your chests
and be assholes, and I am posting a lame reply? Grow up.
UCLAN
>>Simply skip the thread. It's easier than posting a lame reply.
>
> You two have hijacked another thread to beat your chests
> and be assholes, and I am posting a lame reply? Grow up.
At least *our* posts have something to do with HDTV. Your post? Nope.
Wes Newell
When are you ever going to learn that the acronym DVD, standing for
Digital Video Disc for this discussion, can apply to ANY disc that has
Digital Video on it. And you've offered no proof of your claim
whatsoever. Just that the blu-ray format is not the same as the DVD
format. Something that is not in dispute. Why someone calling a blu-ray
disc a blu-ray dvd offends you so much makes me wonder about your mental
health.
cjdayton...@cox.net
Correct. My post has to do with a couple of jerks
that can't act like grown ups.
Bruce.
news:hddpt1$ame$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> When are you ever going to learn that the acronym DVD, standing for
> Digital Video Disc for this discussion, can apply to ANY disc that has
> Digital Video on it.
So a DVD with a software package on it and no video is not a DVD?
Bruce.
GMAN
website and Wes calls me out on it?
AZ Nomad
take it to alt.english.acronym.bickering
Nobody but a blithering idiot has the slightest difficulty knowing what
is meant by the phrase "blue ray dvd".
He meant "blue ray disk"; get over it.
Christ; don't you jackasses have anything better to do than bicker of
something this small?
Howard Brazee
<w.ne...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>When are you ever going to learn that the acronym DVD, standing for
>Digital Video Disc for this discussion, can apply to ANY disc that has
>Digital Video on it.
So can CD. But the utility in being so broad is non-existant.
UCLAN
> When are you ever going to learn that the acronym DVD, standing for
> Digital Video Disc for this discussion, can apply to ANY disc that has
> Digital Video on it.
Cop-out on your part. You've never used the term DVD for CDs containing
video. The term DVD is a term registered by the DVD Forum. Neither CD or
BD discs contain the DVD logo, because they're not DVDs.
> And you've offered no proof of your claim
> whatsoever.
I guess you've once again decided to ignore the URLs that I've posted.
That's OK. Just yesterday, I received my first rental on a Netflix gift
certificate. With it was the following:
WHAT IS BLU-RAY?
"Blu-ray is the next generation optical disc format..."
Gee, not even a mention of DVD.
> Why someone calling a blu-ray
> disc a blu-ray dvd offends you so much makes me wonder about your mental
> health.
Oh, it doesn't. It's the use of faulty logic on your part in defending the
above that gets *my* attention.
Let's call BDs, DVDs, and CDs ETCs (Expensive Table Coasters) which they will
be when flash drive technology gets a little cheaper.
UCLAN
>>At least *our* posts have something to do with HDTV. Your post? Nope.
>
> That does not change that fact that you are a low-grade moron, as well
> as a coward and a liar.
Ah, I see that your boyfriend has untied you, Roger. Don't hurt yourself
by trying to type something intelligent.
UCLAN
>>And Wes will use faulty logic and argue "Since that's what a Blu-ray
>>disc does, BDs must be DVDs. His terrier is a poodle.
>
> All i did was post the DVD forums official definition straight from their
> website and Wes calls me out on it?
For Wes, any port in a storm...
UCLAN
> Nobody but a blithering idiot has the slightest difficulty knowing what
> is meant by the phrase "blue ray dvd".
> He meant "blue ray disk"; get over it.
...disc
> Christ; don't you jackasses have anything better to do than bicker of
> something this small?
Since we have to be here to correct your spelling anyway...
UCLAN
>>At least *our* posts have something to do with HDTV. Your post? Nope.
>
> Correct. My post has to do with a couple of jerks
> that can't act like grown ups.
Then take it to the appropriate newsgroup. (alt.newsgroupnetcop.wannabe ??)
Alan
>When are you ever going to learn that the acronym DVD, standing for
>Digital Video Disc for this discussion, can apply to ANY disc that has
>Digital Video on it.
Similarly, FORTRAN is an acronym for FORmula TRANSlator. Thus any
computer language that can do such translation is FORTRAN.
Nope. Doesn't fly.
> And you've offered no proof of your claim
>whatsoever. Just that the blu-ray format is not the same as the DVD
>format. Something that is not in dispute. Why someone calling a blu-ray
>disc a blu-ray dvd offends you so much makes me wonder about your mental
>health.
People call things by incorrect names all the time. That doesn't make
them correct.
BD != DVD, even if they both store video (in different forms). Nor is
BD a subset of DVD.
Alan
Andy from Dover
"Alan" <nos...@w6yx.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:hdgha8$hfi$1...@usenet.stanford.edu...
Check this out
http://www.afterdawn.com/glossary/terms/vhs.cfm
"VHS stands for Vertical Helix Scan or Video Home System. The video cassette
format and technology was introduced by JVC in 1976."
So Betamax, being a Video Home System (and IIRC utilizing vertical helix
scan) can be a VHS, Beta VHS. And if VHS is Video Home System then DVDs are
also VHSs or DVD VHS.
OTOH as an acronym can be trademarked Philips developed their own tape
format and called it VCR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vcr#Philips_.22VCR.22_format
Because of this VHS and Beta could not be called VCRs (where Philips's
format was sold) as VCR was a trademarked name. Thus in the UK these
machines were called "videos" .
So calling any disk format that carries digital video a DVD is as silly as
calling these same disks VHS as they are Video Home Systems.
However, those who do will never accept this simple logic. To pursue the
argument is as futile as trying to teach Stevie Wonder with sign language.
;-)
P.S.: I'm still figuring out how an Apple Macintosh isn't a personal
computer.
AZ Nomad
>So calling any disk format that carries digital video a DVD is as silly as
>calling these same disks VHS as they are Video Home Systems.
>However, those who do will never accept this simple logic. To pursue the
>argument is as futile as trying to teach Stevie Wonder with sign language.
>;-)
>P.S.: I'm still figuring out how an Apple Macintosh isn't a personal
>computer.
I can't believe you're still beating this dead horse.
Kent
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:16:18 +0100, Ken wrote:
> > On 7 Nov 2009 15:29:28 -0000, DC <remai...@reece.net.au> wrote:
>
> >> Trying to show your blu-ray DVDs on this TV is a waste of your time.
>
> > DVD is not blu-ray.
>
> The blu-ray format is a DVD (Digital Video Disc) format no matter what
> the Sony hype tries telling the public. So calling it a blu-ray DVD, is
> just that, a DVD in blu-ray format. Blu-ray spoken by itself could mean
> anything from a blu-ray disc, player, recorder, laser pen, etc.
>
> --
> Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder?http://mythtv.org
> My Tivo Experiencehttp://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
> Tivo HD/S3 comparedhttp://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
> AMD cpu helphttp://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
Actually to stir up further the history of the DVD acronym I have a
1996 Scientific American in front of me with a cover boldly
proclaiming "A New Compact Disc Is Coming: Digitial Versatile Discs
are due out this fall".
Thus when did the DVD acronym begin being referred to as Digitial
Video Disc? It doesn't really
matter in that people like myself I still refer to the newest
remastered Beatles CD's as "records" and probably always will. The
industry actually refers to "Blu-Ray DVD's" as BD's or Blu-Ray Discs
but who knows
what the general public will refer to them as in a few years. In any
case the Internet will probably
make all media formats obsolete except for memory sticks and hard
drives in the very near future.
Kent
Stewart
"Kent" <kjohn...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:962de804-2432-4290...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
They still call new releases albums and record, though none of them
will ever really make it to vinyl.
Stewart
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-A926B9....@nothing.attdns.com...
> In article <hf748q$f03$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Stewart" <gorta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> They still call new releases albums and record, though none of them
>> will ever really make it to vinyl.
>
> do
> with the medium the collection is stored on or even the format of
> the
> art itself.
>
> A CD is an album.
>
> Those photos in little plastic sleeves on the shelf in your house?
> Albums.
True, but for many of us, when speaking of music, album has a certain
connotation.
Stewart
> In article
> <962de804-2432-4290...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> Kent <kjohn...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> The
>> industry actually refers to "Blu-Ray DVD's" as BD's or Blu-Ray
>> Discs
>> but who knows
>> what the general public will refer to them as in a few years.
>
>
> BVDs?
>
> Sounds like a winner to me.
Maybe it can me copyrighted!
UCLAN
> They still call new releases albums and record, though none of them
> will ever really make it to vinyl.
New vinyl releases are growing at a pace faster than CDs.
TJ
candidate, or even "record." Some uses of words and phrases last far
beyond their usefulness.
Personally, the "albums" you speak of never were "albums." To me, they
are "LP's," as opposed to "45's." For me, an album is closer to Elmo's
example, except that the pages are black paper, not plastic - and the
photos are held in with little paper corners that are glued to the album
pages. They were my mother's, the ones I grew up with. I have some of
the ones with the plastic pockets, and I even have a couple with the
"magnetic" pages, but to me they never had quite the same meaning.
And to me, a "DVD" is simply a name for a storage medium with a larger
capacity than a "CD." I think anything else is just being picky, but as
always, YMMV.
TJ
GMAN
>In article
><962de804-2432-4290...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> Kent <kjohn...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> industry actually refers to "Blu-Ray DVD's" as BD's or Blu-Ray Discs
>> but who knows
>> what the general public will refer to them as in a few years.
>
>
>BVDs?
>
>Sounds like a winner to me.
Richard C.
news:hf748q$f03$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
:
:
: They still call new releases albums and record, though none of them
: will ever really make it to vinyl.
===========================
None of them?
Not true.
MANY new releases are in vinyl as well as CD.
Vinyl is alive and well.
AZ Nomad
That must be some new definition of 'well' I've never heard before.
Leonard Caillouet
news:slrnhj5io8.m...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
Actually, the sales of vinyl grew over 30% from 2006 to 2007, while CD sales
dropped. They only represent about 1% of the market, and I have not seen
more recent statistics, but there definitely is a market for it.
Leonard
G-squared
> "AZ Nomad" <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
>
> news:slrnhj5io8.m...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:34:09 -0800, Richard C.
> > wrote:
> >>"Stewart" <gortamu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:hf748q$f03$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>:
> >>:
> >>: They still call new releases albums and record, though none of
them
> >>: will ever really make it to vinyl.
> >>:
> >>===========================
> >>None of them?
> >>Not true.
> >>MANY new releases are in vinyl as well as CD.
> >>Vinyl is alive and well.
>
> > That must be some new definition of 'well' I've never heard
before.
>
> Actually, the sales of vinyl grew over 30% from 2006 to 2007, while
CD sales
> dropped. They only represent about 1% of the market, and I have
not seen
> more recent statistics, but there definitely is a market for it.
>
> Leonard
When you're less than 1% of a market, it doesn't take a lot of change
to go up (or down) some big number. My question is, how many of those
vinyl releases were actually mastered from analog sources? If there is
a digital recorder/editor in the chain, doesn't that negate the vinyl
'advantage' ? Next thing someone will try to get me to use is a
typewriter.
Happy Holidays
G²
UCLAN
>> Actually, the sales of vinyl grew over 30% from 2006 to 2007, while
> CD sales
>> dropped. They only represent about 1% of the market, and I have
> not seen
>> more recent statistics, but there definitely is a market for it.
>>
>> Leonard
>
> When you're less than 1% of a market, it doesn't take a lot of change to go
> up (or down) some big number.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-9906397-47.html
http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/cd_sales_down_lp_sales_up
http://wiredset.com/blogs/markghuneim/2009/04/vinyl-lp-sales-graph.html
http://blogs.laweekly.com/westcoastsound/news/neilson-soundscan-2008-sales-f/
> My question is, how many of those vinyl
> releases were actually mastered from analog sources?
The original master tape in most cases.
that negate the vinyl 'advantage' ?
I've got a NEC Pinwriter typewriter for sale. Extra ribbon cartridges
and print heads included.
Andy from Dover
"Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:myzYm.68029$3d1....@newsfe12.ams2...
see Sony or RCA pressing in the volumes they used to so the copy you get
will be from a relitively fresh presser. Also I can see all pressings being
half-speed on quality vinyl (CD-4 quality) and not the high volume pressings
of old.
Oh well, I can hope. ;-)
LightByrd
news:ulKYm.119182$gg6.1...@newsfe25.iad...
So Leonard...
My professional audio experience was in the 60s-70s
I still have an amazing analog setup. (turntable, reel2reel, etc.)
Am I correct in assuming that many audiophiles are gravitating to analog
recordings because they are not subject to digital sampling and therefore
are a more accurate representation of the original material?
I do know that watching world class electric guitarists usually reveals that
many/most of them are plugged into old Fender (& others) tube amps.
Ironically, Fender amps have very high distortion specs and passive tone
controls. Put a vocal mic through one and it sounds AWFUL!
But they make Telecasters, Les Pauls, and Rickenbackers sing!
--
Regards,
Richard Harison
G-squared
<snip>
> So Leonard...
> My professional audio experience was in the 60s-70s
> I still have an amazing analog setup. (turntable, reel2reel, etc.)
> Am I correct in assuming that many audiophiles are gravitating to
analog
> recordings because they are not subject to digital sampling and
therefore
> are a more accurate representation of the original material?
>
> I do know that watching world class electric guitarists usually
reveals that
> many/most of them are plugged into old Fender (& others) tube amps.
> Ironically, Fender amps have very high distortion specs and passive
tone
> controls. Put a vocal mic through one and it sounds AWFUL!
> But they make Telecasters, Les Pauls, and Rickenbackers sing!
>
> --
> Regards,
> Richard Harison
Analog is more accurate? In what universe? There is SO much that can
get screwed up in analog recording, some of which can be 'tweaked' out
IF you know what you're doing. Some simply cannot be fixed. Period. I
do not deny that some forms of distortion can be what you like but as
a capture / reproduce medium, I'll take digital any day of the week.
Wow, flutter, dropouts, noise, interchannel phase shifts (tape
wandering in the path) and continuous deterioration with each play, oh
yeah, that's what _I_ want in my recordings. No thank you and Happy
Holidays to you all.
G²
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
news:4726643b-612f-461c...@q2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
*** I think analog is being considered as more "accurate" because the entire
sound is captured on the vinyl or tape, even with whatever noise may be
present.
With digital, the sampling rate used does not capture _all_ of the sound, so
there is always some amount of sound not being captured when compared to the
analog recording, even at sampling rates as high as 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz.
Think about harmonics and overtones of various orders, there's always part
of the sound missing with a digital sample of the sound, interpolation has
to be used to calculate the points in between, and that may or may not
recreate the same sound as the analog recording.
That said, I don't miss clicking and popping inherent to playing vinyl when
the record and needle are not absolutely free of dust or dirt of any kind,
nor do I miss the tape hiss inherent to analog tape. I'm also not sure that
a digital-to-audio converter is that much inferior to a tube amp, when
playing material that has been digitally mastered from the start instead of
mastered using analog equipment.
LightByrd
news:4726643b-612f-461c...@q2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
G�
Wasn't talking about recording...only listening
Only talking about final fidelity of sound to many ears.
I defy you to hear any flutter in a 30 ips 2" master tape
I love digital, but I can still hear warmth in many analog recordings that
don't come across in digital.
True you have to have a system that can translate it.
Boom boxes and MOR stereos are not in that category.
--
Regards,
Richard Harison
Alan
>*** I think analog is being considered as more "accurate" because the entire
>sound is captured on the vinyl or tape, even with whatever noise may be
>present.
But it isn't. The analog recording systems all have non-linear distortion
inherent in the recording process. One of the particular advantages of digital
recording on tape is that the non-linearities of tape cease to be a problem.
When you copy the recording with analog, further distortions are added.
More of the sound is lost. With digital, the copies can be exact.
>With digital, the sampling rate used does not capture _all_ of the sound, so
>there is always some amount of sound not being captured when compared to the
>analog recording, even at sampling rates as high as 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz.
Huh? No recording system captures ALL the sound. That is why they list
frequency response ranges.
Within the frequency range of the system, digital does way better than
analog. Done properly, it is an exact copy.
>Think about harmonics and overtones of various orders, there's always part
>of the sound missing with a digital sample of the sound, interpolation has
>to be used to calculate the points in between, and that may or may not
>recreate the same sound as the analog recording.
Huh? The harmonics are part of the waveform of the signal. They are
sampled just as the fundamental. The reconstruction filter generates a
perfectly smooth copy of the original signal, with no missing points to
interpolate.
>That said, I don't miss clicking and popping inherent to playing vinyl when
>the record and needle are not absolutely free of dust or dirt of any kind,
>nor do I miss the tape hiss inherent to analog tape. I'm also not sure that
>a digital-to-audio converter is that much inferior to a tube amp, when
>playing material that has been digitally mastered from the start instead of
>mastered using analog equipment.
Tube amps are great at adding distortion that happens to be pleasing
to some folks ears. Of course, as the tubes age, that distortion will
change somewhat.
Alan
Alan
>Wasn't talking about recording...only listening
>Only talking about final fidelity of sound to many ears.
>I defy you to hear any flutter in a 30 ips 2" master tape
But, how many recordings do you have in that format? Can you
play that at home?
>I love digital, but I can still hear warmth in many analog recordings that
>don't come across in digital.
You are more likely hearing the limited frequency response, or added
distortion from analog equipment.
It sounds nice, and in some cases I like the sound, but I recognize
that it is not "fidelity", but it is adding distortion to make me happy.
I can do the same thing with an all-digital source, and adding the effects
at the end.
Alan
AZ Nomad
>Wasn't talking about recording...only listening
>Only talking about final fidelity of sound to many ears.
>I defy you to hear any flutter in a 30 ips 2" master tape
>I love digital, but I can still hear warmth in many analog recordings that
>don't come across in digital.
Warmth is just an euphemism for attenuated high frequency response.
Toss a comforter over your speakers if you want warmth when listening to
digital recordings.
What is really impressive is when audiophile cables achieve "warmth"
-- cables so incredibly mediocre that they fail to have a flat frequency
response for high audio frequencies.
UCLAN
> When you copy the recording with analog, further distortions are added.
> More of the sound is lost. With digital, the copies can be exact.
Oh, bull. Your "1's" and "0's" may closely duplicate the analog waveform,
but it won't duplicate it *perfectly.* Not at sampling rates used in
consumer gear.
Leonard Caillouet
news:7psgfs...@mid.individual.net...
You are both full of bull. Analog and Digital techniques have problems. No
system is perfect. It is pretty clear that for most people, the advantages
of digital are far more useful than those of analog.
It is pointless to debate which is better or worse without a context of the
application, priorities, and desires of the user.
Leonard
Steve Fenwick
UCLAN <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
Uh, I suspect he means that the digital duplicate of a digital source
can be exact, at least as far as reproducing the 0s and 1s of the
source. Timing jitter and other A-to-D and D-to-A errors relative to the
analog source (if the source was analog, and not digital) are still
likely. I'm not getting into a discussion of how all electronic digital
signals are really made of many analog signals superimposed...
Steve
--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
Gordon Burditt
Not at *any* sampling rate, if the waveform has higher-frequency
components. But there are limits to human hearing, and above certain
frequencies, the errors won't be heard. There is no sharp cutoff
frequency, on human hearing, though. As the frequency gets higher,
you gradually need more and more power in the signal to notice it.
If you've got the equipment (I imagine the speakers would be really,
really expensive to handle these outrageously high frequencies),
try testing if anyone can tell the difference between a sampling
rate of 44*M*Hz vs. 44*G*Hz.
Hearing differs between individuals, and even for an individual
with the passage of time. This is one reason why "teenager repellant"
high-pitched noisemakers do bother many teenagers and don't bother
most adults.
On the other hand, the choice of sampling rate is an economic
compromise, especially on consumer equipment, and it wouldn't
surprise me much if *some* people can detect a missing 50kHz
component. I tend to agree, though, that a lot of it is distortion
introduced by analog amps that people have learned to like and
expect.
UCLAN
> "UCLAN" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:7psgfs...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> Alan wrote:
>>
>>> When you copy the recording with analog, further distortions are added.
>>> More of the sound is lost. With digital, the copies can be exact.
>>
>> Oh, bull. Your "1's" and "0's" may closely duplicate the analog waveform,
>> but it won't duplicate it *perfectly.* Not at sampling rates used in
>> consumer gear.
>
> You are both full of bull. Analog and Digital techniques have problems.
> No system is perfect. It is pretty clear that for most people, the
> advantages of digital are far more useful than those of analog.
Please quote back where I made *any* comment about analog being perfect.
I only stated that Alan's comment "...With digital, the copies can be
exact" was bull. Digital copies of digital? Yes. Digital copies of
analog? No.
UCLAN
>>> When you copy the recording with analog, further distortions are added.
>>>More of the sound is lost. With digital, the copies can be exact.
>>
>>Oh, bull. Your "1's" and "0's" may closely duplicate the analog waveform,
>>but it won't duplicate it *perfectly.* Not at sampling rates used in
>>consumer gear.
>
> Uh, I suspect he means that the digital duplicate of a digital source
> can be exact, at least as far as reproducing the 0s and 1s of the
> source.
Reading the entire thread, I don't think so.
Alan
Read the paragraph again. It was discussing copying a recording
("When you copy the recording with analog... With digital, the copies
can be exact.")
You don't need to read the entire thread. You simply need to read what
I wrote. Copying a digital source can be exact.
Alan
Alan
I was talking about producing copies of the digital recording. Copying
a tape adds more hiss, flutter, and all of the flaws of tape recording.
Pressing vinyl is never perfect.
As for duplicating the analog waveform, no recording system gets it
perfectly. However, digital systems can be engineered to copy to a
desired level of accuracy, and to maintain that accuracy through the
entire process to final conversion to analog for presentation.
16 bit linear audio produces a bit over 96 dB signal/noise in the
digital process. This exceeds the peak of professional magnetic tape
recording by about 16 dB in typical broadband applications. Neither
analog or digital is perfect, but it is fairly straightforward for
digital to be better than analog.
Note, the sampling rates are not the prime issue, either. They
simply determine the upper frequency limit, and the complexity of
the filters needed. The s/n is a result of the resolution of the
samples.
Alan
G-squared
<dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>
> *** I think analog is being considered as more "accurate" because
the entire
> sound is captured on the vinyl or tape, even with whatever noise
may be
> present.
>
> With digital, the sampling rate used does not capture _all_ of the
sound, so
> there is always some amount of sound not being captured when
compared to the
> analog recording, even at sampling rates as high as 44.1 kHz or 48
kHz.
It's like calculus - for every epsilon there is a delta...
Up the bit level and sample rate to whatever you can afford. 24 bits
at 192KHz WILL capture EVERYTHING fit to capture and do it far better
than analog.
> Think about harmonics and overtones of various orders, there's always part
> of the sound missing with a digital sample of the sound,
interpolation has
> to be used to calculate the points in between, and that may or may
not
> recreate the same sound as the analog recording.
I remember a long time ago some young pup commented on how bad the
1KHz squarewave looked coming off a test CD. What he was seeng was
exactly what the theory predicted it would look like given a 22KH
system bandwidth. I asked him if he ever saw a square wave from an LP
and he said no. I told him it wouldn't even be recognizable.
> That said, I don't miss clicking and popping inherent to playing
vinyl when
> the record and needle are not absolutely free of dust or dirt of
any kind,
> nor do I miss the tape hiss inherent to analog tape. I'm also not
sure that
> a digital-to-audio converter is that much inferior to a tube amp,
when
> playing material that has been digitally mastered from the start
instead of
> mastered using analog equipment.
Does anybody even use analog mastering for anything besides a niche
market? A big problem with analog is you need to align to every tape
if you want it best. The guys who can do that are expensive. The ones
that aren't as good sometimes make it worse. With digital, turn it on
and start recording to a hard disc and skip that pesky tape. My 4th
grader can get excellent results. I surely don't miss analog
recordings, RIP.
G²
RickMerrill
An analog recording NEVER EVER exactly matches the source.
A digital recording that comes from outside your equipment will be
pretty darn close, but not truly exact: notice that all digital
transmissions have "error correction" of one kind or another built into
it. This is because transmissions get blasted from one source or
another killing some bits. Some errors cannot be corrected, while others
can.
In other words, any recording will have "errors". Whether or not you are
bothered by it depends on you and the type of error.
Steve Fenwick
<03cc84c2-5317-46ec...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
G-squared <stra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That said, I don't miss clicking and popping inherent to playing
> vinyl when
> > the record and needle are not absolutely free of dust or dirt of
> any kind,
> > nor do I miss the tape hiss inherent to analog tape. I'm also not
> sure that
> > a digital-to-audio converter is that much inferior to a tube amp,
> when
> > playing material that has been digitally mastered from the start
> instead of
> > mastered using analog equipment.
>
> Does anybody even use analog mastering for anything besides a niche
> market? A big problem with analog is you need to align to every tape
> if you want it best. The guys who can do that are expensive. The ones
> that aren't as good sometimes make it worse. With digital, turn it on
> and start recording to a hard disc and skip that pesky tape. My 4th
> grader can get excellent results. I surely don't miss analog
> recordings, RIP.
>
> G�
While I still use analog for some material that subjectively sounds
better (that "warm" vinyl hiss and rumble), digital is far, far more
convenient.
One error that is often ignored is clock jitter; if the source clock is
not recovered at the playback device, then the jitter of the clocks is
cumulative, which can net out really bad or really good (depends on the
crystals used in each). It's usually in the range of 20ppm to 50ppm for
newer equipment, so not noticeable.
Others have complained about jitter in recovered clock schemes (e.g.,
S/PDIF) due to slow or asymmetrical edges in the transport medium
causing problems for the downstream PLL. Most of this has gone the way
of green magic markers on CD edges, but it's possible that older gear
still suffers from this.
This all pales in comparison to what's happening with source
material--lossy compression in the transmission channels by the vendors,
to transfer audio over narrow channels--is pushing the VHSization of
audio. Hope that the CD doesn't disappear, because if all we're left
with is online transfer, until we all have 100Mbps+ pipes to our ISPs,
it will be grim for audio quality.
UCLAN
>>>>Oh, bull. Your "1's" and "0's" may closely duplicate the analog waveform,
>>>>but it won't duplicate it *perfectly.* Not at sampling rates used in
>>>>consumer gear.
>>>
>>>Uh, I suspect he means that the digital duplicate of a digital source
>>>can be exact, at least as far as reproducing the 0s and 1s of the
>>>source.
>>
>>Reading the entire thread, I don't think so.
>
> Read the paragraph again. It was discussing copying a recording
> ("When you copy the recording with analog... With digital, the copies
> can be exact.")
>
> You don't need to read the entire thread. You simply need to read what
> I wrote. Copying a digital source can be exact.
And I *still* say you don't specify whether the recording being copied is an
analog or digital copy. Where do you specify a digital source? You don't.
Copying an analog recording digitally DOES NOT produce an exact copy.
Digital copy of a CD? Exact copy. Digital copy of a vinyl LP? No.
UCLAN
> In article <7psgfs...@mid.individual.net> UCLAN <inv...@invalid.com> writes:
>
>>Alan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> When you copy the recording with analog, further distortions are added.
>>>More of the sound is lost. With digital, the copies can be exact.
>>
>>Oh, bull. Your "1's" and "0's" may closely duplicate the analog waveform,
>>but it won't duplicate it *perfectly.* Not at sampling rates used in
>>consumer gear.
>
> I was talking about producing copies of the digital recording.
To WHAT digital recording are you referring? No mention of whether the
source recording was analog or digital has been made in this thread.
G-squared
Dude, you're being a bit obtuse. What part of digital copy of a
digital source do you not understand?
Happy New Year
G²