 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I love the way that if you say something with enough conviction, people
> will *assume* that you know what you're on about, and that what you say
> is correct. ;-)
Most definitely. It's a highly useful skill.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shay [mailto:sha### [at] none none]
> In short, analog signals are a necessary evil and digital signals
offer
> some attractive benefits (e.g. robust manipulation, compact storage,
> accurate duplication).
Yes, but analog sounds better, and you CAN hear the difference!
;)
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Did you know I've got a l33t motherf---ing geek in the family? He's
> finishing up his Masters and will get a Doctorate in EE. I've always
> believed that if not for the efforts of a tiny percentage of the
> population humanity would still be living in grass huts.
Having gone down that road myself (not yet finished), let me assure you
a doctorate is more or less neutral. I, for one, have always objected to
their having a title. But that's because I'm against virtually all
honorifics... Some people will do good things with a PhD, and I hope
your brother is one of them. And obviously, for some, getting a
doctorate will prevent them from doing great things.
As I recently started to tell people: There are no noble professions
(e.g. as people like to think regarding doctors). There are only noble
professionals.
--
The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I find myself questioning whether "smarter jobs" actually exist. I mean, I
> guess *somebody* must design DSP algorithms for a living... but it doesn't
> sound like a very large field.
I would imagine there is a large team within most mobile telecoms companies
working solely on DSP, that's a huge market.
Oh and don't think, "oh they have a working solution so why would anyone
need to work on it", companies wouldn't survive if they had that mentality.
They are always working for better DSP algorithms, eg lower power usage,
higher sound quality, lower bitrate, new features etc.
A quick google brought up several jobs at Nokia which seem to fit:
"Your main responsibilities will be within the following categories: *
Implementation and integration of advanced transceiver algorithms, e.g. in
the area of channel, timing and frequency estimation, bit detection and
coding/decoding"
"You will be developing new DSP SW features, whilst also verifying and
debugging existing features. Reporting to the Team Leader on deliverables
and maintaining ownership for personal planning and prioritization. On
occasions you may also be guiding other team members."
"In Enhancements R&D, a part of Nokia's Devices / Focused Businesses
organization, we are looking for an independent-minded professional to join
our R&D team as a DSP specialist"
So certainly those jobs are out there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Shay [mailto:sha### [at] nonenone]
>> In short, analog signals are a necessary evil and digital signals
> offer
>> some attractive benefits (e.g. robust manipulation, compact storage,
>> accurate duplication).
>
> Yes, but analog sounds better, and you CAN hear the difference!
>
> ;)
Not with consumer-grade equipment you can't. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yes, but analog sounds better, and you CAN hear the difference!
>>
>> ;)
>
> Not with consumer-grade equipment you can't. :-P
Of course you can hear the difference, usually the (perhaps superior) analog
recording is accompanied by lots of crackles and hiss ;-)
Seriously though, perhaps not with your 25.99 record deck+amp+speakers from
Argos, but if you spend a few hundred quid on each component (deck, amp,
speakers) you will be *really* surprised how different it sounds to CD. I
did just this a few months back when my dad got down his old deck and tidied
it up, we had a few records that we also had on CD. Whilst it was hard to
say which was "better" or "worse", there was definitely a very noticeable
difference in the sound "feeling". Maybe the CDs just had more compression
(of the dynamic range variety) I don't know.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
492671b0@news.povray.org...
> Maybe the CDs just had more compression (of the dynamic range variety) I
> don't know.
>
I don't see why one would compress dynamics more on a CD with a 90+ dB
signal to noise ratio available than on a LP with a mere 60dB :-)
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> Yes, but analog sounds better, and you CAN hear the difference!
>>>
>>> ;)
>>
>> Not with consumer-grade equipment you can't. :-P
>
> Of course you can hear the difference, usually the (perhaps superior)
> analog recording is accompanied by lots of crackles and hiss ;-)
Indeed. The CD itself is *highly* unlikely to be the weakest point in
the chain. Maybe the recording was done with cheap microphones, maybe
the sound engineer wasn't the best, and maybe your speakers suck. But
the CD itself is far from being the weakest link.
> Seriously though, perhaps not with your 25.99 record deck+amp+speakers
> from Argos, but if you spend a few hundred quid on each component (deck,
> amp, speakers) you will be *really* surprised how different it sounds to
> CD.
still waiting to hear a difference. ;-) (And I'm a musician, remember?)
> I did just this a few months back when my dad got down his old deck
> and tidied it up, we had a few records that we also had on CD. Whilst
> it was hard to say which was "better" or "worse", there was definitely a
> very noticeable difference in the sound "feeling".
Which probably just means they were mastered differently. Hey, maybe the
LPs date to the valve era? It's widely reported that valve amps sound
quite different to transistor amps...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Maybe the CDs just had more compression (of the dynamic range variety) I
>> don't know.
>>
> I don't see why one would compress dynamics more on a CD with a 90+ dB
> signal to noise ratio available than on a LP with a mere 60dB :-)
Because usually CDs are played on way cheaper and lower quality equipment
than LPs?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> waiting to hear a difference. ;-) (And I'm a musician, remember?)
Do you have a decent record deck and preamp, and a comparable LP/CD to test
though?
> Which probably just means they were mastered differently.
Probably, damn why do they have to mess about with stuff like this!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
