We live in a sad numeric world
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Tech Talk
Forum Description: Discuss musical instruments, equipment, hi-fi, speakers, vinyl, gadgets,etc.
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5471
Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 00:59
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: We live in a sad numeric world
Posted By: oliverstoned
Subject: We live in a sad numeric world
Date Posted: April 25 2005 at 03:09
|
These days, we are living a sad time...
We are witness of the end of analogic era to enter into the horrible numeric era. I was reading an article about the numerization of Radio. They tell we will have a better sound quality. That's false!!! We gonna have a worst sound quality... (it's the same when CD arrived, they told it was the perfect musical format, and now they try to sell SACD or DVD audio (which are both rotten) and they tell it's really perfcet, and that CD was not, after having lie to people.) On the radio, they already broadcast numeric, but they broacast by the analogic way, which has the effect to soften the sound, the same than when you record a CD on a good tape deck. But soon, they will broadcast numeric, which means you will not have noise between two frequences, but the sound will be more harsher and sharp. Karnevil, you're welcome on this thread. Let's forget the divisions of the past and let's unite our forces to fight the numeric devil! Perfect for the beach and summer games, the most beautiful fresbee never done! 
|
Replies:
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 25 2005 at 03:19
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: April 25 2005 at 10:50
| Here's my theory Oliver: if music is not quantized, why should its playback be quantized. The answer is: IT SHOULDN'T. I think vinyl will make a comeback. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 25 2005 at 11:23
|
I'm not sure to understand well the term: "Quantized"
Do you mean "coverted into numeric"? If it's that, i understand. The fact to numerize sound makes that you loose some informations. It's a simplification of the sound that make it sound sharp, harsh, dynamic-less, boring, it breaks your ears... The Cd format is unable to reproduce sound and music with an acceptable quality. That's what so much people return to vynil, as you say. 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: April 25 2005 at 11:58
|
oliverstoned wrote:Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 25 2005 at 12:05
|
Never precise enough!
You're right and that's numeric's problem. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: April 25 2005 at 12:17
|
I wonder if there is a way that a laser could be guided along the groove of a vinyl record, and the vibration of the laser could produce the sound. This way, there would be no friction from a stylus, so the vinyl wouldn't wear out, yet the technology would still technically be analog. We might have to make the record out of some refective material , but it sounds possible to me. What do you think? Then some mirrors on the arm could pick up the vibrations of the laser and they would somehow be converted to signal and put through an amp and speakers. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 25 2005 at 12:39
|
Actually, there has been already a attempt(by the japanese)to make a machine which reads the vynil with a laser beam.
But, unfortunatly, for some reason, it doesn't works at all, it's not musical... Vynil (with K7 and tuner) stays the best source available... 
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: April 25 2005 at 12:59
There is some laser disc sort of thing, smaller than vinyl I think but basically working in the way you outline. |
Posted By: Metropolis
Date Posted: April 25 2005 at 15:50
|
Um yeah,there all already vinyl players that work in this way, but (i think) they cost an unbelievable amount of money Looky http://www.elpj.com/ - here ------------- We Lost the Skyline............ 
|
Posted By: Metropolis
Date Posted: April 25 2005 at 15:55
|
http://www.laser-vinyl.com/Turntables/Laser/TheLaserTurntable.htm - Here you go, they cost between £8,500 and £10,500, depending on what you want (and yes it is pounds) ------------- We Lost the Skyline............
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 26 2005 at 02:09
|
Yes, but it's not good.
stay "classic" 
|
Posted By: pakish
Date Posted: May 01 2005 at 04:47
|
Some firms like McIntosh (not mac like apple compurers mac) still work on bulbs. They're the best. And I worry more about being numeric in every aspect of our lives, people don't value life for happines but for the dollars they earn, they don't measure time for the plesure you have but for the minutes you're late, they don't dont measure love for the intensity of the moments with their couple or family, but for how many people they f**k. That really sucks! read marx don't read parsons or something ------------- TOEFL in latin america = neolanguage |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 01 2005 at 05:14
|
Yes, but mac intosh lonly kept the "look" of their legendary 70's devices, but the inside is crap.
For Amp, better choose a Jolida 
Here are guenuine good mac tuners: 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 08 2005 at 20:24
|
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 12 2005 at 12:58
|
So you eventually discovered that Jolida is the best quality/price of all HIFI?
That's good. It's not too late! Jolida 302, QUITE AS GOOD AS A 10 000 € CONRAD JOHNSON AMP BUT 5 TIMES LESS EXPENSIVE 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 12 2005 at 13:03
|
JOLIDA 1000
TWO IS BETTER 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 12 2005 at 13:04
lITTLE CONFUSION 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 18 2005 at 20:10
|
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 23 2005 at 08:23
| Nice looking, but average sounding... |