or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple promises an unforgettable iTunes announcement coming Tuesday
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple promises an unforgettable iTunes announcement coming Tuesday - Page 7

post #241 of 262
I'm also curious wether or not you're talking about sound that was captured using digital recording (i.e. any recent song or movie) or are you expressing your dissatisfaction over older analog recordings that seem different to you being presented digitally? I've very curious.
post #242 of 262
Item from oh, about two years ago... http://gizmodo.com/365630/paul-mccar...eatles-catalog
post #243 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeolian View Post

You guys are cracking me up on this topic. I went to school for this. Everyone who thinks they can hear the difference between analog and digital is completely correct. Now, I implore you, please go listen to say 'Muddy Waters' singing the "Good morning blues" which was recorded in analog, and then listen to "The sky is crying" from Stevie Ray Vaughn. I don't care what medium you even listen to it is. Lossless comes down to recording. Every mic has its limitations. I can understand audiophiles, but analog vs. digital... please go to school and learn about recording before you start talking about real "Lossless" audio.

Huh? You think you know something about audio and you're asking us to compare two different recordings by two different artists recorded in different studios, recorded, mixed and mastered by different engineers 30 years apart? The Muddy recordings were probably recorded mono or three track (at most) and the Vaughn recordings were probably recorded 24 track. The Muddy recordings were pretty much recorded live and the Vaughn recordings were recorded multitrack - a few instruments at a time and vocals separately. The Muddy recordings were mixed simply with little or no EQ and possibly a little limiting and the Vaughn recordings were probably mixed with tons of outboard equipment. This might be a way to compare 1950s vs. 1980s recording techniques, but it's most definitely not a way to compare analog vs. digital recording. You can't possibly be serious. The Stones recorded some songs at Chess Studios. How come those records don't sound like Muddy's?

I'm sure the Muddy Waters recording does sound aesthetically better. But not necessarily because it was recorded in analog. The fact that it was recorded on tube equipment as opposed to solid state electronics probably has more to do with the difference in the recording as well as the difference in recording and mixing techniques noted above.

Every mic has its limitations? So what? Analog mics are used in both analog and digital recordings. Lossless or lossy is besides the point. There is no file compression used in CD Redbook recordings.

Believe me, if I play back a vinyl album recorded in analog and a CD-R copy of that album on the same playback system, in sync, you will not be able to tell the difference. The audiophiles who claim they can always refuse to take a blind A-B test. And if you listen to the original releases of Chess albums on vinyl and listen to any of the quality remasters on CD, the remasters sound far better.

I don't know what school you went to, but you should ask for your money back.
post #244 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Huh? You think you know something about audio and you're asking us to compare two different recordings by two different artists recorded in different studios, recorded, mixed and mastered by different engineers 30 years apart? The Muddy recordings were probably recorded mono or three track (at most) and the Vaughn recordings were probably recorded 24 track. The Muddy recordings were pretty much recorded live and the Vaughn recordings were recorded multitrack - a few instruments at a time and vocals separately. The Muddy recordings were mixed simply with little or no EQ and possibly a little limiting and the Vaughn recordings were probably mixed with tons of outboard equipment. This might be a way to compare 1950s vs. 1980s recording techniques, but it's most definitely not a way to compare analog vs. digital recording. You can't possibly be serious. The Stones recorded some songs at Chess Studios. How come those records don't sound like Muddy's?

I'm sure the Muddy Waters recording does sound aesthetically better. But not necessarily because it was recorded in analog. The fact that it was recorded on tube equipment as opposed to solid state electronics probably has more to do with the difference in the recording as well as the difference in recording and mixing techniques noted above.

Every mic has its limitations? So what? Analog mics are used in both analog and digital recordings. Lossless or lossy is besides the point. There is no file compression used in CD Redbook recordings.

Believe me, if I play back a vinyl album recorded in analog and a CD-R copy of that album on the same playback system, in sync, you will not be able to tell the difference. The audiophiles who claim they can always refuse to take a blind A-B test. And if you listen to the original releases of Chess albums on vinyl and listen to any of the quality remasters on CD, the remasters sound far better.

I don't know what school you went to, but you should ask for your money back.

I was drawing as stark a contrast as i could...
post #245 of 262
[QUOTE=zoetmb;1753000]

Every mic has its limitations? So what? Analog mics are used in both analog and digital recordings. Lossless or lossy is besides the point. There is no file compression used in CD Redbook recordings.

Crap in, crap out. It's the basics.
post #246 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeolian View Post

I was drawing as stark a contrast as i could...

OK..I didn't mean to be harsh...you just "pushed one of my buttons."
post #247 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


Believe me, if I play back a vinyl album recorded in analog and a CD-R copy of that album on the same playback system, in sync, you will not be able to tell the difference. The audiophiles who claim they can always refuse to take a blind A-B test. And if you listen to the original releases of Chess albums on vinyl and listen to any of the quality remasters on CD, the remasters sound far better.

You're right. I was implying you were right. It all comes down to a recording level. On a presentation level, it's the quality of the media and the device delivering the reproduction.
post #248 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

That's partially correct. Digital (CD digital anyway), records at 44,100 samples per second. People like you claim that's not enough and that's why analog is better. The Nyquist theorem states that the sampling rate has to be (a minimum of) twice the highest frequency you wish to record. Since human hearing (of an infant) extends to 22KHz, 44.1 KHz was chosen (for commercial CDs) as the sampling rate. In part, this was a compromise so that at least 70 minutes of stereo music could fit on a CD.

Analog does not "record" the entire wave any more than a Xerox machine makes an exact copy of a document. Analog reinterprets and reformulates the entire wave through electro-mechanical means. That's why each time you make a copy, you have severe generational loss. You also have errors that aren't generational. For example, how well does the stylus track an LP groove? If the stylus can't accurately track it, you get distortion of the original wave form. If the stamper used to press that waveform into the vinyl is worn, you get distortion. If the vinyl itself has flaws, you get distortion. (And by distortion, I don't just mean harmonic distortion, like when you turn the volume up too loud --- I mean any variant of the original wave form.) In analog recording, if the level is set too high, you get tape saturation - a distortion which some engineers will use for creative purposes, but distortion nonetheless.

There are digital systems with higher sampling rates. Some systems sample at 96,000 times per second instead of 44,100. For an original live recording, especially an acoustic recording, it can sometimes make a difference that can be perceived. I have a CD-recorder that is capable of recording 96/24, but frankly, when making copies from LPs, even LPs that were recorded in analog, I can't hear any difference whatsoever.

However, digital does interpolate in the Y axis of your diagram. CD digital is a 16 bit system. In a 16 bit system, there can be 65,535 different values of "level" (actually voltage). When an analog signal is converted to digital, one of those 65,535 levels must be chosen even if the actual level falls in-between. This process is called quantization. When the exact level isn't "chosen", there is what is called quantization error. If the process is upgraded from 16 bit to 24 bits, there is much higher resolution in the voltage domain - 1.67 million different values or 256x the voltage resolution as compared to a 16 bit system.

(There are other factors, such as what happens when not enough bits of the system is used and noise is generated. "Dither noise" is introduced to compensate, but I won't get into those issues for purposes of this discussion. Analog has its counterparts, such as Dolby noise reduction.)

There are plenty of people who swear that analog is a better recording process, but at least insofar as recorded content is concerned, if I playback a vinyl LP recorded by analog means and a CD-R of that same album in sync and switch between them, you will not be able to tell which is which, especially in a double-blind test. Now there are those "subjectivists" who don't believe in double-blind testing, but I don't want to get into that argument here.

I am a vinyl fan and still have several hundred vinyl LPs in my living room, but those who claim that analog is always superior to digital are fooling themselves, IMO. All I remember back in the 70s, before the advent of the CD, is how much we used to bitch about poor pressing quality and the lousy sound of LPs, especially in the U.S. Every time I hear a CD that to my mind, sounds inferior to the way I remember the vinyl, I go back to the vinyl and listen and inevitably, the vinyl sounds far worse. There are those who swear that the original British pressings of Beatles LPs, for example, sound far superior to the recent remasters on CD. I don't happen to think the remasters are as much as an improvement as was claimed, but I also don't think they sound worse than the original LPs.

Yes, under absolutely perfect conditions ($20,000 turntables, $50,000 speaker systems, perfect pressings), vinyl can sound terrific, but we have to deal with the real world.

I think what we're remembering when we think analog sounds better are those terrific tube-based amplifiers and original model loudspeakers from the peak of the hi-fi era, from such manufacturers as AR, Advent, McIntosh, Dynaco, etc. as well as our emotional response to hearing that music for the first time. There's nothing wrong with digital audio recording, except for the way it is used. Because every group wants to be the "loudest", the dynamic range of most CDs is far less than it was in the vinyl days, even though CD is capable of 96db dynamic range. We're usually using only about 25 to 35db of it.

Truly informative! Thanks. I actually learned something useful and nuanced on an Apple Insider forum post.

There was one more issue you didn't deal with, though, and perhaps you (or someone) can enlighten us on this: For string instruments at least I know the sound is not only the frequency of the note, but also includes harmonics (lesser wave forms at multiples of the frequency? I forget.) at frequencies far beyond the range of what we think of as hearing. I was taught that these harmonics - at least live - interact with the listening environment and the primary frequency and influence how we perceive timbre, ambiance, warmth and space - I guess not by being heard, but by subtly altering the overall sound we hear.

The sound produced by instruments (and every other kind of sound) is, after all, much more than a simple frequency (or even a frequency plus its harmonics). Otherwise a sustained "A" on a violin, clarinet or oscilloscope would be indistinguishable.

This accounts for (part) of a few things: For one, I believe it's the explanation of why if you take two identical looking violins fitted with the same strings and the same bow, one violin will be worth $1,000 and the other a $100,000. Because of the subtle differences in the harmonic hyper-frequencies (and other sonic factors?) generated by the truly master crafted instrument give it a timbre and fullness the other cannot achieve.

For another, and back to the topic, it helps explain the fact that even 20 years after "Is it live or is it Memorex" commercials, we can still almost always tell live sound from recorded. Even if the live sound was all fed to the room through amps and speakers, as it propagates into the hall, very complex wave interactions are occurring (e.g., not all the sound of a singer's voice is being sucked into a microphone - it's live and projecting at different angles, and the live voice is probably a millisecond ahead of what's coming out of the speakers, etc., etc., etc.) Whatever, there's still something "missing" in the recording that makes it sound "flatter," less vibrant than "being there," and turning up the volume doesn't add that quality, and adding more recorded channels still doesn't recreate the entire sense.

Some of that is also the difference between the acoustics of the performance space and the space where the listener has his stereo gear, but not all music is made in great acoustical spaces. Some is also the cumulative effects of the other kinds of distortions you've described - and that fact that our amps and speakers are actually designed to drop off above and below the 20-20 sweet spot of hearing whether or not the media source is limited to those frequencies - because the wider the frequency range to be accurately produced, the more expensive the engineering and production. Still there is some generation beyond 20-20. And frequencies above 20K Hz (and below 20?) may also play a role.

I do remember reading that the missing upper harmonics beyond our ability to accurately record account for a good part of this. And further that we were, however, able to record and reproduce many first harmonics under optimal conditions and with the best equipment at least (and, e.g., some turntable cartridges claimed to be able to whip out 45,000 Hz).

Lastly I was told that we in fact DO lose those "inaudible" waves present on vinyl when we go 16 bit, 44.1K, 20-20K HZ with a CD - meaning that the "warmer" sound claimed for vinyl actually exists in the hyper-frequencies as "metadata." And this is objectively true even if most can't distinguish it and even if they could, not enough to get them (or me) to abandon their iTunes juke boxes.

So I'd really like to know if this is true or all just another vinylphile urban tech myth if anyone has really studied this.

PS: If we went over the shift from tubes (analog) to transistors (digital) in the amplification of sound instead of the diff in the media and files, we could have all of these same arguments again from a hardware point of view, with a few die-hard tubists hanging on to their firm belief their sound was more continuous and not "chopped up into approximated bits."

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #249 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

OK..I didn't mean to be harsh...you just "pushed one of my buttons."

I agree with you. I can't stand it when someone on the "listener" end starts screaming about "lossless" audio. Most of it is lost at the recording level.
post #250 of 262
[QUOTE=bigpics;1753007]

For another, and back to the topic, it helps explain the fact that even 20 years after "Is it live or is it Memorex" commercials, we can still almost always tell live sound from recorded. Even if the live sound was all fed to the room through amps and speakers, as it propagates into the hall, very complex wave interactions are occurring (e.g., not all the sound of a singer's voice is being sucked into a microphone - it's live and projecting at different angles, and the live voice is probably a millisecond ahead of what's coming out of the speakers, etc., etc., etc.) Whatever, there's still something "missing" in the recording that makes it sound "flatter," less vibrant than "being there," and turning up the volume doesn't add that quality, and adding more recorded channels still doesn't recreate the entire sense.

I think you're talking about environmental acoustics... Engineers try to duplicate them, in a small part, with reverb and delay.
post #251 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post


This accounts for (part) of a few things: For one, I believe it's the explanation of why if you take two identical looking violins fitted with the same strings and the same bow, one violin will be worth $1,000 and the other a $100,000. Because of the subtle differences in the harmonic hyper-frequencies (and other sonic factors?) generated by the truly master crafted instrument give it a timbre and fullness the other cannot achieve.
"

I have seen heard $100 instruments sound ten times better then 10,000 instruments. I have not gotten to the $100,000 level yet. I can tell you that two exact instruments made by the same person under the same controlled environment with the same materials will sound different. That is an area that should be studied, but sadly is not. I've heard Mahogany made instruments sound as bright as Maple and vise versa. My best guess is that it's all in how it's played and who is playing the instrument.
post #252 of 262
"...it's just another day" is a lyric from a popular McCartney song, "Another Day". A Beatle, but not THE Beatles…

Maybe it's a Beatles reference, so maybe Beatles on iTunes. I think it would be cool if their complete catalog was available. Would be even better completely remastered using the original tape (like they did with the "Love" album, which sounds amazing)…

Is that big enough for a top page announcement? Maybe….
post #253 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

Truly informative! Thanks. I actually learned something useful and nuanced on an Apple Insider forum post.

There was one more issue you didn't deal with, though, and perhaps you (or someone) can enlighten us on this: For string instruments at least I know the sound is not only the frequency of the note, but also includes harmonics (lesser wave forms at multiples of the frequency? I forget.) at frequencies far beyond the range of what we think of as hearing. I was taught that these harmonics - at least live - interact with the listening environment and the primary frequency and influence how we perceive timbre, ambiance, warmth and space - I guess not by being heard, but by subtly altering the overall sound we hear.

I do remember reading that the missing upper harmonics beyond our ability to accurately record account for a good part of this. And further that we were, however, able to record and reproduce many first harmonics under optimal conditions and with the best equipment at least (and, e.g., some turntable cartridges claimed to be able to whip out 45,000 Hz).

Lastly I was told that we in fact DO lose those "inaudible" waves present on vinyl when we go 16 bit, 44.1K, 20-20K HZ with a CD - meaning that the "warmer" sound claimed for vinyl actually exists in the hyper-frequencies as "metadata." And this is objectively true even if most can't distinguish it and even if they could, not enough to get them (or me) to abandon their iTunes juke boxes.

So I'd really like to know if this is true or all just another vinylphile urban tech myth if anyone has really studied this.

PS: If we went over the shift from tubes (analog) to transistors (digital) in the amplification of sound instead of the diff in the media and files, we could have all of these same arguments again from a hardware point of view, with a few die-hard tubists hanging on to their firm belief their sound was more continuous and not "chopped up into approximated bits."

It is very hard to study any claims made by or involving 'philes', particularly those of the audio variety. They tend to run a mile from any attempt to put their assertions to a real world test.

In the late 80's or early 90' there was a TV program in Australia called 'Beyond 2000', it reported on technology.

In one show, they assembled a panel of listeners in their studio which included a professor of music - to prove they were not all tone deaf I suppose.

They had a stage with an acoustically transparent curtain hanging in front. On the stage were a pair of Duntech Prince speakers and a violinist. The violinist stood between the speakers and played live and they played back a recording that had been made of the violinist standing in the same position. They then asked the panel which was the live performance.

They couldn't tell. They admitted to having to resort to guessing and even the professor of music guessed wrong.

All that harmonics mumbo jumbo seems to ignore that harmonics tend to be at far lower volume levels than the original signal, and the results of their possible interactions would be even lower still. There is a basic psychoacoustic effect that pertains to human hearing called masking. Basically, loud sounds tend to drown out quieter ones to the point the quieter ones can not be perceived. So harmonics and their offspring are probably masked to the point of inaudibility.

Masking is the basis for audio compression systems like Mp3 and AAC and is why they can sound so good.
post #254 of 262
Disclaimer:
***
I'm no analog purist and don't have a set of those mythical golden ears. I can only sometimes tell the difference between 128 and 256 aac files. I don't even own any analog recordings.
***


It is so tempting to post a link to this thread over at the AVS forums and then watch mocking commence. Digital sound doesn't involve interpolation? Buaaa haaa haa ahaaaa.

Analog waveforms are never perfect and digital music is merely a collection of measurements at a given interval. What falls between those intervals can be guessed at fairly well. But it is still a guess. The higher the sample rate, the more accurate the guess.

Please note that this isn't making any claims about human perception or the relative merits of analog and digital recordings.
post #255 of 262
So, if you go search right now in iTunes there are a TON of Beatles songs/albums which come up. Maybe it WILL be the Beatles.
post #256 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeolian View Post

I have seen heard $100 instruments sound ten times better then 10,000 instruments. I have not gotten to the $100,000 level yet. I can tell you that two exact instruments made by the same person under the same controlled environment with the same materials will sound different. That is an area that should be studied, but sadly is not. I've heard Mahogany made instruments sound as bright as Maple and vise versa. My best guess is that it's all in how it's played and who is playing the instrument.

I both agree and disagree just a bit. My violin from the 1880's appraises around $3,000 and I've learned it was the "mass" version of a master German violin maker's studio - made by his apprentices, not by him - and maybe with some parts that didn't quite pass muster with the stricter standards of the studio's "higher mark" instruments.

It's taken some abuse over the years (by kid me, mostly), and when I began having it restored, I rented a cheap, modern violin and was surprised how much I could tell the difference in the richness of the sound. The playing experience - how it felt and responded - was not as good either. I also found that the major restoration work - not done yet - will take up to six months to do properly as there are many exacting steps involved.

Fascinatingly I've also learned the sound of a violin evolves over time - more rapidly at first, and then through the instrument's life - depending on factors including how it's played (this is called "playing in"), cared for, stored, environmental conditions, etc. The wood is actually effected by the sounds (primary and overtones) it generates over time, becoming more resonant with some frequencies and less with others. So a good violin becomes better when played by a good violinist, whereas if sawed on by amateurs may even become slightly "sour." (Maybe I need to move the appraisal down thinking back on my learning days!)

On the other hand, at a certain point I'm sure price differences begin to depend more on rarity, prestige and aesthetic details of the make than on any meaningful differences in the sound. We are powerfully effected psychologically by what we're led to expect. If you put a decent $10-15 wine in a $50 wine bottle and serve it (I've done this as a test), most will be primed to enjoy it more than if it came out of the Yellow Tail bottle because they believe it's "the good stuff." So likely the same if a good violin player with decent pitch sense is considering spending $15 K vs $5. "Oooo. It's a Varistradius. I want it, I want it!"

(This is also likely true of perceptions of notebook computers - e.g., an MB pro vs. a half-the-price PC with the same basic specs - processor, mobo, graphics chipset, screen res, contrast, latency, etc - the value add's in the ergonomics, design, make - and endlessly arguably in the OS - whose UI essentially disappears when you're in Photoshop or Word. Leaving the question of whether it's "really" that much worth more - and part of the answer lies in the user's needs, skill set and support required, but part also lies in the Mac's carefully cultivated perception of greater prestige.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeolian View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post


For another, and back to the topic, it helps explain the fact that even 20 years after "Is it live or is it Memorex" commercials, we can still almost always tell live sound from recorded. Even if the live sound was all fed to the room through amps and speakers, as it propagates into the hall, very complex wave interactions are occurring (e.g., not all the sound of a singer's voice is being sucked into a microphone - it's live and projecting at different angles, and the live voice is probably a millisecond ahead of what's coming out of the speakers, etc., etc., etc.) Whatever, there's still something "missing" in the recording that makes it sound "flatter," less vibrant than "being there," and turning up the volume doesn't add that quality, and adding more recorded channels still doesn't recreate the entire sense.

I think you're talking about environmental acoustics... Engineers try to duplicate them, in a small part, with reverb and delay.

There are endless variables at work here, aren't there? My stereo receiver has about 30 acoustical "environments" with names like "Viennese Concert Hall," "Nightclub" and "Spectacle," and they do vary markedly. On some, e.g., you can scarcely hear actor's voices above the sound effects and music and on others the voices are front and center. The wonders of wave form engineering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

It is very hard to study any claims made by or involving 'philes', particularly those of the audio variety. They tend to run a mile from any attempt to put their assertions to a real world test.

In the late 80's or early 90' there was a TV program in Australia called 'Beyond 2000', it reported on technology.

In one show, they assembled a panel of listeners in their studio which included a professor of music - to prove they were not all tone deaf I suppose.

They had a stage with an acoustically transparent curtain hanging in front. On the stage were a pair of Duntech Prince speakers and a violinist. The violinist stood between the speakers and played live and they played back a recording that had been made of the violinist standing in the same position. They then asked the panel which was the live performance.

They couldn't tell. They admitted to having to resort to guessing and even the professor of music guessed wrong.

All that harmonics mumbo jumbo seems to ignore that harmonics tend to be at far lower volume levels than the original signal, and the results of their possible interactions would be even lower still. There is a basic psychoacoustic effect that pertains to human hearing called masking. Basically, loud sounds tend to drown out quieter ones to the point the quieter ones can not be perceived. So harmonics and their offspring are probably masked to the point of inaudibility.

Masking is the basis for audio compression systems like Mp3 and AAC and is why they can sound so good.

More good stuff, even if I'm not quite sure all harmonics and overtones effects can be entirely called "mumbo-jumbo."

I used to watch that show as well, btw. Not deep, but fun. And don't doubt those results. Think the more instruments and voices you add, though, the easier it would be to tell as the effects of all the sounds and sources interact to the point that the sum of the subtle effects is perceivable if only as a sense of "live."

And while I don't know that much about masking, I'm not sure exactly how or why it would make things "sound so good." I'm not doubting the claim, but again this is yet a further alteration of the original sound wave. Still, you've sent me back to the books. So here's a primer on psychoacoustics and another on Auditory masking for the interested.

Another thing that radically alters the sound we hear in our homes, cars, ear buds, etc. which I do know a little about is dynamic compression, e.g., as practiced - sometimes to an extreme degree - by every (?) FM pop/rock/rap music station to avoid any sound volume valleys or extreme peaks that might call attention to themselves. Noticeable and it sucks. I don't know how much broadcast, cable or streamed TV use these techniques, nor how much compression's typically applied to different kinds of music and movies BEFORE the media's finalized and released.

Anyway, what I've learned here (again) is that given all the variables (including our ears and tastes) there is no such thing as completely "accurate" sound recording and reproduction, never has been and in all probability never will be. And that within limits, all the tricks and device/media chains we use to get sound from point A to a later point B, that may in some ways be a good thing as long as we can hear what we want when we want as a reasonable facsimile of the source.

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #257 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

Anyway, what I've learned here (again) is that given all the variables (including our ears and tastes) there is no such thing as completely "accurate" sound recording and reproduction, never has been and in all probability never will be. And that within limits, all the tricks and device/media chains we use to get sound from point A to a later point B, that may in some ways be a good thing as long as we can hear what we want when we want as a reasonable facsimile of the source.

Just wait until an uber-physicist unifies forces by discovering the universal unit, perhaps even the underlying "bit" of the universe.

Would that make everything digital?
post #258 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Just wait until an uber-physicist unifies forces by discovering the universal unit, perhaps even the underlying "bit" of the universe.

Would that make everything digital?

In fact, tho you L0L, it might....

"In physics and cosmology, digital physics is a collection of theoretical perspectives based on the premise that the universe is, at heart, describable by information, and is therefore computable. Therefore, the universe can be conceived as either the output of a computer program or as a vast, digital computation device (or, at least, mathematically isomorphic to such a device)."



Talk about high-level languages. We are stardust, we are numbers.....

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #259 of 262
If you really want to get technical. At the most basic level, the universe appears to be digital due to being comprised of discrete quanta.

Digital electronics, however, are actually a convenient myth. There is no 'digital', it's all actually analogue, being used in a way that simulates digital.

So, what we though was an analogue universe is really digital at it's most basic level and the electronics we think of as digital are really analogue at their most basic level.

Isn't that perverse?
post #260 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

"Huge" and "a lot of money" are relative terms. Relative to anything I'll ever see in a lifetime, you are undeniably correct. But relative to the amount of revenue and profits that Apple makes already from current products, serving up Beatles on iTunes will be "in the noise" as far as Apple is concerned.

Now, would it make headline news? Certainly, as does everything Apple announces these days, whether it deserves it or not.

Would it be "unforgettable"? Unclear. If others here are correct, the Beatles actually have a following even with youngsters. Prior to hearing that my hunch would have suggested that if this event was about the Beatles becoming available on iTunes and you took a poll to get folks opinions, there would be two distinct reactions:

(1) holy cow, finally the Beatles on iTunes! This is an unforgettable day!

(2) what's so unforgettable about THAT!?!?!? You've got to be kidding me.

And I thought that the second reaction would outnumber the first by a significant factor. (FWIW, I would be in the first category.) But now, I'm not so sure.

Thompson

And it would appear that my hunch was correct. Look at this poll from MacDailyNews...

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/we...omments/27540/

If you were to turn this into a histogram, the top four responses are 0, 1, 2, and 10. It is bimodal, but just barely. The "10"'s are overwhelmed by the people that really just don't care.

Thompson
post #261 of 262
This would've been a day we wouldn't have forgotten. Alas.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #262 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

If you really want to get technical. At the most basic level, the universe appears to be digital due to being comprised of discrete quanta.

Digital electronics, however, are actually a convenient myth. There is no 'digital', it's all actually analogue, being used in a way that simulates digital.

So, what we though was an analogue universe is really digital at it's most basic level and the electronics we think of as digital are really analogue at their most basic level.

Isn't that perverse?

nice!!

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple promises an unforgettable iTunes announcement coming Tuesday