3 ms·

If that's addressed to me, I don't know what you mean.

bee_rider 4y ago
>> You know, because CD's are digital, which limits their dynamic range and frequency, whereas analog can be "perfect" in theory if you don't think too hard about it. > No. In fact, some CD players used to come with discs intended to demonstrate the huge dynamic range of discs. They appear to be mocking the belief that vinyls have more dynamic range based on the italic text.
- ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
  Ha, well fair enough. I wasn't sure if the whole thing was sarcastic either. I guess we'll never know unless he comes back to elaborate.
  - oofbey 4y ago
    It's not exactly sarcasm. From a purely theoretical perspective vinyl actually does have a higher dynamic range and wider frequency response than CD. The dynamic range of CD is fixed by its 16-bit format to ### decibels (I'm not going to bother looking it up). Whereas _in theory_ there is no limit to the dynamic range of vinyl except for the size of the atoms in the needle, which is much higher than a CD. In theory. Similarly, CD's are physically incapable of producing sounds with a frequency higher than 22kHz, whereas a vinyl record can in theory wiggle that needle much faster than that with atom-sized variations. But in reality this is absurd. So I'm mocking the die-hards who think the old technology is better. Because even though the vinyl-lovers have a point in theory, in practice they're just wrong. I assert the same is true here. I assert that most people prefer interpolation in both space and time to "preserving the original content". If you play a DVD on your 4k television, do you really want big perfectly rectangular blocks where the pixel boundaries are? And do you want those staying exactly the same for 33ms and then jumping to the next set of square blocks? Cuz that's the original content. I think most people would prefer to have something intelligently try to infer what the original content likely was before it got sampled (in space and time). Then you get smooth edges and smooth motion. Feel free to disagree with me. Important people do - I know there are big names in cinema who think 24fps is the best for some reason and it hurts their extremely well trained eyes to see smoother motion. But any gamer will tell you that higher frame rates look more realistic and natural and just better. I like my tv's frame interpolation because it looks smooth and buttery to me. But I assert my opinion (that having software interpolate both space and time) is what most people in the world prefer, which is why the tv makers do it.

>> You know, because CD's are digital, which limits their dynamic range and frequency, whereas analog can be "perfect" in theory if you don't think too hard about it. > No. In fact, some CD players used to come with discs intended to demonstrate the huge dynamic range of discs. They appear to be mocking the belief that vinyls have more dynamic range based on the italic text.

ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
Ha, well fair enough. I wasn't sure if the whole thing was sarcastic either. I guess we'll never know unless he comes back to elaborate.
- oofbey 4y ago
  It's not exactly sarcasm. From a purely theoretical perspective vinyl actually does have a higher dynamic range and wider frequency response than CD. The dynamic range of CD is fixed by its 16-bit format to ### decibels (I'm not going to bother looking it up). Whereas _in theory_ there is no limit to the dynamic range of vinyl except for the size of the atoms in the needle, which is much higher than a CD. In theory. Similarly, CD's are physically incapable of producing sounds with a frequency higher than 22kHz, whereas a vinyl record can in theory wiggle that needle much faster than that with atom-sized variations. But in reality this is absurd. So I'm mocking the die-hards who think the old technology is better. Because even though the vinyl-lovers have a point in theory, in practice they're just wrong. I assert the same is true here. I assert that most people prefer interpolation in both space and time to "preserving the original content". If you play a DVD on your 4k television, do you really want big perfectly rectangular blocks where the pixel boundaries are? And do you want those staying exactly the same for 33ms and then jumping to the next set of square blocks? Cuz that's the original content. I think most people would prefer to have something intelligently try to infer what the original content likely was before it got sampled (in space and time). Then you get smooth edges and smooth motion. Feel free to disagree with me. Important people do - I know there are big names in cinema who think 24fps is the best for some reason and it hurts their extremely well trained eyes to see smoother motion. But any gamer will tell you that higher frame rates look more realistic and natural and just better. I like my tv's frame interpolation because it looks smooth and buttery to me. But I assert my opinion (that having software interpolate both space and time) is what most people in the world prefer, which is why the tv makers do it.