OT Amplifier problem

Austin Shackles wrote:

> digital cannons? bah. proper 1812 is done with real genuine analogue
> cannons and gunpowder.

Digitally RECORDED cannons Austin, to get the sharpest possible rising
edge on the shockwaves...

Steve

steve wrote:

|| Austin Shackles wrote:
||
||| digital cannons? bah. proper 1812 is done with real genuine
||| analogue cannons and gunpowder.
||
|| Digitally RECORDED cannons Austin, to get the sharpest possible
|| rising edge on the shockwaves...
||
|| Steve

I think he meant genuine cannons on stage and fired at the appropriate
moment. You can always tell on a recording - if the cannons fire on the
beat, there is NO WAY they are in "real time" with the music, as it were. I
can just imagine the guy with the match and the big responsibility - well,
we've timed the fuse to burn an average of 4.5 seconds, so that's six
crotchets and a dotted quaver, so when the trumpet hits the sharp A flat,
count to four-and-a-half and BURN, baby! Kadoof.

"Genuine" recordings I have heard seem to get the cannon within half a beat
of where it should be, which I think is pretty good, and they must have
burned a lot of powder to get it even that close.

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.

On or around Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:16:59 +0100, steve
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Austin Shackles wrote:
>
>> digital cannons? bah. proper 1812 is done with real genuine analogue
>> cannons and gunpowder.
>
>Digitally RECORDED cannons Austin, to get the sharpest possible rising
>edge on the shockwaves...

which just proves the point about digital recording... sound is analogue in
nature. You can record sound digitally and use the digital record to
re-create an analogue sound which, if you throw enough money at it, is
extremely close to the original and to be honest, if I listen to a GOOD
digital recording played on decent equipment I can't tell the difference.

however, the process of A-D and D-A can't, in the ultimate analysis, exactly
reproduce an analogue signal. If it's done well you can produce a new
signal which is indistinguishable to the average or even to the trained ear
- however, it's not always done well (and of course, neither is analogue
recording) and especially in the case of music to which compression has been
applied, you can easily spoil the sound.

The compression thing is amply demonstrated in a way that's appreciable to
almost everyone by looking at heavily-compressed jpeg images, or mpeg
movies. The picture is still recognisable, but the detail is lost or
rendered fuzzy. Jpeg is an impressive system, in fact, and does better than
many other compression systems in preserving detail while also making small
file sizes, and I presume that mpeg does similar tricks to audio - jpeg
seems to work by making large-ish areas of nearly-the-same colour actually
the same, while preserving detail by having small areas where there are
high-contrast colour changes. By this method you can get a recognisable
picture in very small file space, but it's not a GOOD picture, and even
quite high resolution uncompressed digital images struggle to approach the
quality of high-definition film.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\
>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!

Austin Shackles wrote:
>
> however, the process of A-D and D-A can't, in the ultimate analysis, exactly
> reproduce an analogue signal.

In the ulitmate analysis nothing can, and no analogue recording method
can offer the dynamic range or SNR of a digital recording.

Steve

On or around Sat, 05 Aug 2006 16:48:50 +0100, steve
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Austin Shackles wrote:
>>
>> however, the process of A-D and D-A can't, in the ultimate analysis, exactly
>> reproduce an analogue signal.
>
>In the ulitmate analysis nothing can, and no analogue recording method
>can offer the dynamic range or SNR of a digital recording.

I'd put it the other way around... in theory, you could get an analogue
recording to exactly replicate the pressure waves that we interpret as
sound. OK, in practice, you can't. However, digital recording can't manage
it even in theory.

again, in practical terms, it might be that digital recording can produce
better results on a limited budget. But there are flaws - there's been much
talk of streaming audio and bitrate - the beeb reduced the bitrate on R3
'cos they wanted some of the bandwidth for something else. Proms listeners
were unamused. This is I assume the equivalent of too much compression
affecting sound quality.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero" (sieze today, and put
as little trust as you can in tomorrow) Horace (65 - 8 BC) Odes, I.xi.8

Austin Shackles wrote:
> However, digital recording can't manage
> it even in theory.

Yes it could, if the signal resolution was below that of the theoretical
SNR. In an analogue system, that SNR sets the miniumum possible - you
can't recover the signal from below the noise floor, unless its encoded.

Steve