Seriously, PLEASE get a good book on sampling theory. To anyone who actually understands it you sound like the guy who said the internet is a series of tubes.
Digital and analog both have limitations on the high and low end of what frequencies are recorded. But there is nothing cut out "in between". The notion that analog is continuous and digital somehow isn't shows that you haven't the foggiest idea how digital recording works. You basically are assuming that digital recording/playback is just spitting out the graph of the waveform to the speakers when in reality it is putting out a signal that is just as continuous as what went in (and just as "continuous" as an analog signal).
And I DID explain why DVD audio uses a higher sampling rate - it is to record higher frequencies (96k can record up to 48 instead of 22). That is the only advantage to higher sampling rates. It does NOT improve the quality of how the lower frequencies sound. At all. You won't hear a difference, you won't see a difference if you compare the two on a scope. Because at the lower frequencies there is no difference - sampling more often does nothing more than give you redundant information and makes no difference in the actual sound.
I am NOT talking about the frequencies that sound is on - the 20-20k stuff (the "low end" and "high end"). I'm talking about how often digital makes a sample of said sound. The sampling frequency is NOT the same thing as sound frequency.
Digital INTERPOLATES what is in between the samples. But it's not the actual signal.
DVDAudio has a higher sampling frequency, which gives it a MUCH better idea of what is in between those samples - better interpolation.
Say for instance, digital had a 2 sample rate per second. It makes a recording at the 1/2 second mark and the 1 second mark. So what does digital do about 1/4 and 3/4? It INTERPOLATES. If it had a 4 sample rate, it could sample at 1/4 second, 1/2 second, 3/4 second and 1 second. That gives it a MUCH better idea of what is at, say, 3/16 seconds.
Analog does not interpolate. It has everything between 0 and 1 second.
Oh and thanks... I figured it was only a matter of time before someone had to resort to personal attacks.
Seriously, PLEASE get a good book on sampling theory...
I don't know anything about sampling (or, maybe, now, not much) but the sampling article on Wikipedia, assuming it's pretty much correct, should help clear this up for most everyone. This is the important part, I think:
Quote:
We can now ask: under what circumstances is it possible to reconstruct the original signal completely and exactly (perfect reconstruction)?
A partial answer is provided by the Nyquist?Shannon sampling theorem, which provides a sufficient (but not always necessary) condition under which perfect reconstruction is possible. The sampling theorem guarantees that bandlimited signals (i.e., signals which have a maximum frequency) can be reconstructed perfectly from their sampled version, if the sampling rate is more than twice the maximum frequency. Reconstruction in this case can be achieved using the Whittaker?Shannon interpolation formula.
I hadn't ever really seriously thought about this before, but had always assumed that analog to digital conversion results in loss. Now I'm convinced that it doesn't necessarily. (Which isn't the same as a perfect recording, but analog recordings aren't perfect either.)
why would they make big deal about the release of 4.2 when they release every other iOS update subtly (at most on the bottom of the homepage). And with the second Gold Master candidate out, I don't think we will see any surprises.
The billboard article is funny, it looks like they just read forums like this and MR and turned the anonymous speculation into an article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr
"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.
Apple is one of the most profitable companies in the world, so relative to that, any one thing they do is going to be relatively tiny. But in terms of sales compared to other artists on iTunes (or really any music sales in general, let's not forget that iTunes is the biggest music seller), it will be a big one.
The billboard article is funny, it looks like they just read forums like this and MR and turned the anonymous speculation into an article.
Apple is one of the most profitable companies in the world, so relative to that, any one thing they do is going to be relatively tiny. But in terms of sales compared to other artists on iTunes (or really any music sales in general, let's not forget that iTunes is the biggest music seller), it will be a big one.
Gruber is a pretty smart dude and he is doing some Beatles speculation. He is calling it a guess
I am NOT talking about the frequencies that sound is on - the 20-20k stuff (the "low end" and "high end"). I'm talking about how often digital makes a sample of said sound. The sampling frequency is NOT the same thing as sound frequency.
Well, you're not disagreeing with anything I've said yet so I don't know why you keep repeating that. But in the case of digital the sampling frequency tells us what frequencies can be recorded so any discussion of it is going to include both (specifically, digital sampling allows recording up to half the sampling frequency, so a sample rate of 48k allows recording up to the frequency 24k).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobycat
Digital INTERPOLATES what is in between the samples.
No it doesn't. That's the armchair assumption of what happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobycat
DVDAudio has a higher sampling frequency, which gives it a MUCH better idea of what is in between those samples
Wrong. It gives a recording of HIGHER FREQUENCIES. And nothing more. What is "in between the samples" is just frequencies higher than what can be recorded by a given sample rate. And those higher frequencies aren't recorded by analog recordings either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobycat
- better interpolation.
Again, wrong and ignorant of how sampling works. Any frequency that can be recorded by a given sample rate (half the sampling frequency) will be captured accurately by a digital recording. No "interpolation" is going on, and sampling more often isn't going to give a better picture of that frequency. It is only going to allow recording HIGHER frequencies if they are present (and if they are not present it will just be redundant data and make ZERO difference in sound quality).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobycat
Say for instance, digital had a 2 sample rate per second. It makes a recording at the 1/2 second mark and the 1 second mark. So what does digital do about 1/4 and 3/4?
What you are talking about is higher frequencies versus lower frequencies. If a signal is unable to be captured accurately by a given sample rate, then it it is one of the higher frequencies that isn't recorded. But if a signal falls within the range that can be recorded, you don't need more data points. The frequency can be recorded and played back completely accurately and sampling more often is going to give the exact same result.
I know it's not intuitive and I know since you're completely uninformed about how sampling works that you're not going to believe it, but that's how it is. Digital audio isn't like digital graphics where you can put your nose to the screen and see the little dots (yet people constantly wrongly assume it is).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobycat
Analog does not interpolate. It has everything between 0 and 1 second.
Well, I'll agree that it doesn't "interpolate" but since it has limitations on the high and low end of what frequencies it can record, it doesn't have "everything" that the vibration in the air and the electrical signal coming from the mic have. To be more specific, if an analog recording device records up to 20k, if there is an input waveform that goes up to 30k, it will lose that high frequency information (which is what happens with digital). And since people generally can't hear much over 20k, that's not a big deal.
Maybe Apple will finally start using true lossless on ITunes (like Flac) instead of this MP3 nonsense that has ruined the hearing of a generation - not to mention being inconsistent with their high standards. I have never understood why they have not killed the MP3 when download speeds/storage are a non issue. The difference is day and night when you listen to an MP3/Apple Lossless vs. Flac/Wave.
I know this is a pipe dream but I thought it would be a good time to mention it.
I see what you're trying to say here.
That is the reason iTunes store can't be my main source of music unless Apple offers lossless format.
Interesting stuff about the digital vs analog recording in this discussion, but as someone who has had stereos the size of dorm refrigerators in the past, i happily went to digital for these two reasons alone:
1. LP's crackle after repeated use.
2. Tapes hiss after repeated use.
Both 1 and 2 eventually sound much worse than sampling problems from digital recordings.
I hadn't ever really seriously thought about this before, but had always assumed that analog to digital conversion results in loss. Now I'm convinced that it doesn't necessarily. (Which isn't the same as a perfect recording, but analog recordings aren't perfect either.)
The part you quoted is exactly what is relevant here. There is going to be loss when recording or when transferring from one medium to another simply because no recording technology is perfect. But the notion that one is "continuous" while the other is pictured as stairsteps or connect-the-dots is simply false (and sadly reinforced by crappy "explanations" that use those sort of graphs).
If someone has trouble understanding it conceptually and needs a mental comparison, better off not thinking of it like pixels on a screen, more like a vector drawing. Once you've specified a straight line between two points, adding more points on the middle of it isn't going to make that line any more accurate, it's just redundant data, same for a curve with defined endpoints and a mathematical formula between - neither is "leaving out/skipping over" just because there aren't tons of data points along the line. Probably not the best analogy, but the best I can come up with without doing a whole tutorial on digital sampling.
No, most would agree that it should have been "Think differently".
I think the "Just another day" reference has something to do with Paul McCartney. McCartney recently released new remasters of "Band On The Run" in various special editions and this is supposed to be the first of a series. This announcement may be that all of the upcoming McCartney remasters will be available on iTunes. And this would also be something for which a press conference would be unnecessary.
And I agree with those who feel that a Beatles announcement, if that's what it is, will not have the impact that it would have had ten years ago, since anyone who wanted the Beatles music has purchased it on CD and transferred it. Especially since there are so many great tracks on most Beatles' albums, it's generally less expensive to purchase on CD than it would have been on iTunes anyway.
One thing in favor of a Beatles or Beatles solo announcement is that November is a critical date for many of their releases. "With the Beatles" was released in the UK on 11/27/63. "Beatles For Sale" was released in the UK 11/27/64. "Magical Mystery Tour" was released in the US on 11/27/67. "The White Album" ("The Beatles") was released in the UK on 11/22 and in the US on 11/25/68. Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" was released 11/27/70. Lennon's "Double Fantasy" was released 11/21/80. McCartney's "Band On the Run" was released 11/12/73 in the UK and 12/7/73 in the U.S. Or, it could all be coincidence. There's so many releases between them all that some of them had to fall in November.
Personally, I couldn't care less. More than 95% of my iTunes music is transferred from CDs. Better quality, less expensive, better packaging, liner notes and automatic backup copy.
... Any frequency that can be recorded by a given sample rate (half the sampling frequency) will be captured accurately by a digital recording. No "interpolation" is going on...
Again, I'm not an expert on, or even all that knowledgeable about, this topic, however, from my brief reading, it seems that there is interpolation, but, because of the nature of sound and the sampling process, the reconstruction process is able to precisely and correctly interpolate the missing pieces of the sound wave -- i.e., there is "loss", but the lost parts can be perfectly recreated.
Aha. It does work as a two-bar animation. So now I have to agree that I like it better than my alternative, which was too literary anyway. Apple PR redeemed!
Pembroke? What say you?
Tomorrow is just another day.
That you'll never forget.
Yes, I've seen the animation at apple.com
There have been numerous comments on this. I understand points about Apple attempting another catch-phrase like 'Think Different'. But 'That you'll never forget.' is in a League of Awfulness all on its own.
I offered some alternatives earlier, here's another one:
Quote:
Tomorrow is just another day.
That, you'll never forget.
I think someone offered this earlier, stating that the 'That' in the second line refers to 'tomorrow' - so 'That' becomes the required subject for the sentence rather than just a conjunction. But, this doesn't really work unless there is a comma after the 'That'.
That you'll never forget.
That, you'll never forget.
You see that the second example reads more like:
"That tomorrow, which is just another day, is one you'll never forget.
But even that is still uncomfortable. I'd prefer the animation to show:
Apple is one of the most profitable companies in the world...
True.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
... so relative to that, any one thing they do is going to be relatively tiny.
Beatles on iTunes will not only be tiny relative to the whole enchilada, as you correctly point out, but it will probably be tiny even relative to the individual contributors, completely overshadowed by iPhone, or iPad, or iPod, or Mac, or the App store, etc. In other words, from an earnings standpoint, I expect the availability of Beatles on iTunes to be inconsequential for Apple. It would at best be a symbolic victory. (Which I probably should not under-appreciate.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
But in terms of sales compared to other artists on iTunes (or really any music sales in general, let's not forget that iTunes is the biggest music seller), it will be a big one.
Well, relative to any other given artist on iTunes, making the Beatles available would instantly take them to number one for some amount of time. How long that would last is anybody's guess. But even if it went on indefinitely, I don't think that the Beatles' contribution would amount to much relative to the entire combined catalogue of the other artists (and movies, and apps, etc). So on a percentage basis, it would barely move the needle for iTunes, and that is already a small player in Apple's quarterly profit.
I suspect that a Beatles announcement would originally make a big splash, but then ultimately reveal itself as not that big of a deal in the long run.
Comments
Seriously, PLEASE get a good book on sampling theory. To anyone who actually understands it you sound like the guy who said the internet is a series of tubes.
Digital and analog both have limitations on the high and low end of what frequencies are recorded. But there is nothing cut out "in between". The notion that analog is continuous and digital somehow isn't shows that you haven't the foggiest idea how digital recording works. You basically are assuming that digital recording/playback is just spitting out the graph of the waveform to the speakers when in reality it is putting out a signal that is just as continuous as what went in (and just as "continuous" as an analog signal).
And I DID explain why DVD audio uses a higher sampling rate - it is to record higher frequencies (96k can record up to 48 instead of 22). That is the only advantage to higher sampling rates. It does NOT improve the quality of how the lower frequencies sound. At all. You won't hear a difference, you won't see a difference if you compare the two on a scope. Because at the lower frequencies there is no difference - sampling more often does nothing more than give you redundant information and makes no difference in the actual sound.
I am NOT talking about the frequencies that sound is on - the 20-20k stuff (the "low end" and "high end"). I'm talking about how often digital makes a sample of said sound. The sampling frequency is NOT the same thing as sound frequency.
Digital INTERPOLATES what is in between the samples. But it's not the actual signal.
DVDAudio has a higher sampling frequency, which gives it a MUCH better idea of what is in between those samples - better interpolation.
Say for instance, digital had a 2 sample rate per second. It makes a recording at the 1/2 second mark and the 1 second mark. So what does digital do about 1/4 and 3/4? It INTERPOLATES. If it had a 4 sample rate, it could sample at 1/4 second, 1/2 second, 3/4 second and 1 second. That gives it a MUCH better idea of what is at, say, 3/16 seconds.
Analog does not interpolate. It has everything between 0 and 1 second.
Oh and thanks... I figured it was only a matter of time before someone had to resort to personal attacks.
Seriously, PLEASE get a good book on sampling theory...
I don't know anything about sampling (or, maybe, now, not much) but the sampling article on Wikipedia, assuming it's pretty much correct, should help clear this up for most everyone. This is the important part, I think:
We can now ask: under what circumstances is it possible to reconstruct the original signal completely and exactly (perfect reconstruction)?
A partial answer is provided by the Nyquist?Shannon sampling theorem, which provides a sufficient (but not always necessary) condition under which perfect reconstruction is possible. The sampling theorem guarantees that bandlimited signals (i.e., signals which have a maximum frequency) can be reconstructed perfectly from their sampled version, if the sampling rate is more than twice the maximum frequency. Reconstruction in this case can be achieved using the Whittaker?Shannon interpolation formula.
I hadn't ever really seriously thought about this before, but had always assumed that analog to digital conversion results in loss. Now I'm convinced that it doesn't necessarily. (Which isn't the same as a perfect recording, but analog recordings aren't perfect either.)
"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.
Apple is one of the most profitable companies in the world, so relative to that, any one thing they do is going to be relatively tiny. But in terms of sales compared to other artists on iTunes (or really any music sales in general, let's not forget that iTunes is the biggest music seller), it will be a big one.
The billboard article is funny, it looks like they just read forums like this and MR and turned the anonymous speculation into an article.
Apple is one of the most profitable companies in the world, so relative to that, any one thing they do is going to be relatively tiny. But in terms of sales compared to other artists on iTunes (or really any music sales in general, let's not forget that iTunes is the biggest music seller), it will be a big one.
Gruber is a pretty smart dude and he is doing some Beatles speculation. He is calling it a guess
The Beatles were taped on November 16, 1963 for the first US television appearance which aired on November 21.
Also on November 16...
In 1974 John Lennon released his only solo #1 "Whatever gets you through the night"
In 1979 Paul McCartney released "Wonderful Christmas"
In 1984 John Lennon released "Every man has a woman who loves him"
In 1987 Paul McCartney released "Once upon a long ago"
Coincidentally, Beatles Ltd. and Apple Music Ltd. swapped names on November 17, 1967.
About time.
I am NOT talking about the frequencies that sound is on - the 20-20k stuff (the "low end" and "high end"). I'm talking about how often digital makes a sample of said sound. The sampling frequency is NOT the same thing as sound frequency.
Well, you're not disagreeing with anything I've said yet so I don't know why you keep repeating that. But in the case of digital the sampling frequency tells us what frequencies can be recorded so any discussion of it is going to include both (specifically, digital sampling allows recording up to half the sampling frequency, so a sample rate of 48k allows recording up to the frequency 24k).
Digital INTERPOLATES what is in between the samples.
No it doesn't. That's the armchair assumption of what happens.
DVDAudio has a higher sampling frequency, which gives it a MUCH better idea of what is in between those samples
Wrong. It gives a recording of HIGHER FREQUENCIES. And nothing more. What is "in between the samples" is just frequencies higher than what can be recorded by a given sample rate. And those higher frequencies aren't recorded by analog recordings either.
- better interpolation.
Again, wrong and ignorant of how sampling works. Any frequency that can be recorded by a given sample rate (half the sampling frequency) will be captured accurately by a digital recording. No "interpolation" is going on, and sampling more often isn't going to give a better picture of that frequency. It is only going to allow recording HIGHER frequencies if they are present (and if they are not present it will just be redundant data and make ZERO difference in sound quality).
Say for instance, digital had a 2 sample rate per second. It makes a recording at the 1/2 second mark and the 1 second mark. So what does digital do about 1/4 and 3/4?
What you are talking about is higher frequencies versus lower frequencies. If a signal is unable to be captured accurately by a given sample rate, then it it is one of the higher frequencies that isn't recorded. But if a signal falls within the range that can be recorded, you don't need more data points. The frequency can be recorded and played back completely accurately and sampling more often is going to give the exact same result.
I know it's not intuitive and I know since you're completely uninformed about how sampling works that you're not going to believe it, but that's how it is. Digital audio isn't like digital graphics where you can put your nose to the screen and see the little dots (yet people constantly wrongly assume it is).
Analog does not interpolate. It has everything between 0 and 1 second.
Well, I'll agree that it doesn't "interpolate" but since it has limitations on the high and low end of what frequencies it can record, it doesn't have "everything" that the vibration in the air and the electrical signal coming from the mic have. To be more specific, if an analog recording device records up to 20k, if there is an input waveform that goes up to 30k, it will lose that high frequency information (which is what happens with digital). And since people generally can't hear much over 20k, that's not a big deal.
Maybe Apple will finally start using true lossless on ITunes (like Flac) instead of this MP3 nonsense that has ruined the hearing of a generation - not to mention being inconsistent with their high standards. I have never understood why they have not killed the MP3 when download speeds/storage are a non issue. The difference is day and night when you listen to an MP3/Apple Lossless vs. Flac/Wave.
I know this is a pipe dream but I thought it would be a good time to mention it.
I see what you're trying to say here.
That is the reason iTunes store can't be my main source of music unless Apple offers lossless format.
1. LP's crackle after repeated use.
2. Tapes hiss after repeated use.
Both 1 and 2 eventually sound much worse than sampling problems from digital recordings.
Mindbender, please explain this:
Those vertical lines are where digital samples. Between those lines, digital does NOT record. It interpolates what is there.
Analog does not interpolate that. It records the entire wave.
I hadn't ever really seriously thought about this before, but had always assumed that analog to digital conversion results in loss. Now I'm convinced that it doesn't necessarily. (Which isn't the same as a perfect recording, but analog recordings aren't perfect either.)
The part you quoted is exactly what is relevant here. There is going to be loss when recording or when transferring from one medium to another simply because no recording technology is perfect. But the notion that one is "continuous" while the other is pictured as stairsteps or connect-the-dots is simply false (and sadly reinforced by crappy "explanations" that use those sort of graphs).
If someone has trouble understanding it conceptually and needs a mental comparison, better off not thinking of it like pixels on a screen, more like a vector drawing. Once you've specified a straight line between two points, adding more points on the middle of it isn't going to make that line any more accurate, it's just redundant data, same for a curve with defined endpoints and a mathematical formula between - neither is "leaving out/skipping over" just because there aren't tons of data points along the line. Probably not the best analogy, but the best I can come up with without doing a whole tutorial on digital sampling.
The grammar of, "Think different," was fine.
No, most would agree that it should have been "Think differently".
I think the "Just another day" reference has something to do with Paul McCartney. McCartney recently released new remasters of "Band On The Run" in various special editions and this is supposed to be the first of a series. This announcement may be that all of the upcoming McCartney remasters will be available on iTunes. And this would also be something for which a press conference would be unnecessary.
And I agree with those who feel that a Beatles announcement, if that's what it is, will not have the impact that it would have had ten years ago, since anyone who wanted the Beatles music has purchased it on CD and transferred it. Especially since there are so many great tracks on most Beatles' albums, it's generally less expensive to purchase on CD than it would have been on iTunes anyway.
One thing in favor of a Beatles or Beatles solo announcement is that November is a critical date for many of their releases. "With the Beatles" was released in the UK on 11/27/63. "Beatles For Sale" was released in the UK 11/27/64. "Magical Mystery Tour" was released in the US on 11/27/67. "The White Album" ("The Beatles") was released in the UK on 11/22 and in the US on 11/25/68. Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" was released 11/27/70. Lennon's "Double Fantasy" was released 11/21/80. McCartney's "Band On the Run" was released 11/12/73 in the UK and 12/7/73 in the U.S. Or, it could all be coincidence. There's so many releases between them all that some of them had to fall in November.
Personally, I couldn't care less. More than 95% of my iTunes music is transferred from CDs. Better quality, less expensive, better packaging, liner notes and automatic backup copy.
... Any frequency that can be recorded by a given sample rate (half the sampling frequency) will be captured accurately by a digital recording. No "interpolation" is going on...
Again, I'm not an expert on, or even all that knowledgeable about, this topic, however, from my brief reading, it seems that there is interpolation, but, because of the nature of sound and the sampling process, the reconstruction process is able to precisely and correctly interpolate the missing pieces of the sound wave -- i.e., there is "loss", but the lost parts can be perfectly recreated.
Aha. It does work as a two-bar animation. So now I have to agree that I like it better than my alternative, which was too literary anyway. Apple PR redeemed!
Pembroke? What say you?
Tomorrow is just another day.
That you'll never forget.
Yes, I've seen the animation at apple.com
There have been numerous comments on this. I understand points about Apple attempting another catch-phrase like 'Think Different'. But 'That you'll never forget.' is in a League of Awfulness all on its own.
I offered some alternatives earlier, here's another one:
Tomorrow is just another day.
That, you'll never forget.
I think someone offered this earlier, stating that the 'That' in the second line refers to 'tomorrow' - so 'That' becomes the required subject for the sentence rather than just a conjunction. But, this doesn't really work unless there is a comma after the 'That'.
That you'll never forget.
That, you'll never forget.
You see that the second example reads more like:
"That tomorrow, which is just another day, is one you'll never forget.
But even that is still uncomfortable. I'd prefer the animation to show:
Tomorrow is just another day...
that you'll never forget!
Apple is one of the most profitable companies in the world...
True.
... so relative to that, any one thing they do is going to be relatively tiny.
Beatles on iTunes will not only be tiny relative to the whole enchilada, as you correctly point out, but it will probably be tiny even relative to the individual contributors, completely overshadowed by iPhone, or iPad, or iPod, or Mac, or the App store, etc. In other words, from an earnings standpoint, I expect the availability of Beatles on iTunes to be inconsequential for Apple. It would at best be a symbolic victory. (Which I probably should not under-appreciate.)
But in terms of sales compared to other artists on iTunes (or really any music sales in general, let's not forget that iTunes is the biggest music seller), it will be a big one.
Well, relative to any other given artist on iTunes, making the Beatles available would instantly take them to number one for some amount of time. How long that would last is anybody's guess. But even if it went on indefinitely, I don't think that the Beatles' contribution would amount to much relative to the entire combined catalogue of the other artists (and movies, and apps, etc). So on a percentage basis, it would barely move the needle for iTunes, and that is already a small player in Apple's quarterly profit.
I suspect that a Beatles announcement would originally make a big splash, but then ultimately reveal itself as not that big of a deal in the long run.
Thompson
No, most would agree that it should have been "Think differently".
You still haven't seen the explanation for why use of "different" is fine in the context that Apple intended?
Thompson