The Last Audio Cassette Factory [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
The Last Audio Cassette Factory [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMTpvr9HXeI
6 comments
Old games console + CRT TV is objectively better than almost everything modern by at least one measure: control latency. Punch-Out!! for NES is literally impossible to complete on a lot of modern hardware, because it doesn't take much additional latency to push the reaction time requirements beyond human ability. And even with less demanding games the feeling of responsiveness you get with original hardware is very noticeable.
Little odd to read "a manual transmission" listed amongst other retro things. It is the most popular style of transmission in the world. Even in the US most vehicles larger than a minivan are manual transmission.
Most people drive that way, it isn't odd, retro, or hipster. It is the norm, the US is the oddity. CVTs might change that a little as we go more hybrid/electric, but as of 2015, manual remains the norm.
Most people drive that way, it isn't odd, retro, or hipster. It is the norm, the US is the oddity. CVTs might change that a little as we go more hybrid/electric, but as of 2015, manual remains the norm.
I drove a manual through high school (1978 Chevy (327 engine), classic "3 on a tree" manual transmission) and my freshman year of college.
Then I broke my ankle playing pick up soccer and had to drive myself to the hospital, with a broken left ankle no less. Since then, I swore to myself, never again would I own a manual transmission. Now that my playing days are over, I've been thinking of going back to a manual.
You are correct though, the US is a total oddity. Most of the guys I play hockey with are Scandinavian or European and thought it was weird I drove an automatic. It as if I was the weird one.
Then I broke my ankle playing pick up soccer and had to drive myself to the hospital, with a broken left ankle no less. Since then, I swore to myself, never again would I own a manual transmission. Now that my playing days are over, I've been thinking of going back to a manual.
You are correct though, the US is a total oddity. Most of the guys I play hockey with are Scandinavian or European and thought it was weird I drove an automatic. It as if I was the weird one.
True on this one as I am a manual driver myself, though I've had this debate recently with several members of the generation after mine. :) Being from North America myself (Canada) the percentage of people who can use a manual transmission is plummeting.
In general many couldn't understand why you would manage your own gears when you have traction control, highly efficient automatics, and tiptronic options in most cars now. Agreed, probably not a solid part of that list yet, but not far from it with electric vehicles on the rise as well.
In general many couldn't understand why you would manage your own gears when you have traction control, highly efficient automatics, and tiptronic options in most cars now. Agreed, probably not a solid part of that list yet, but not far from it with electric vehicles on the rise as well.
>Even in the US most vehicles larger than a minivan are manual transmission.
I beg to differ, the best selling automobile is an F-150. Which hasn't offered a manual since ~2009 and only in a v6 (v8 trucks are more popular in this class anyway).
The top 3 autos in the US are all trucks.[1] The next up is the Camry which doesn't offer a manual.
Not to mention many car manufacturers are switching to CVT transmissions for their base models. Audi even uses them along with GM, Honda, Nissan etc.
Its hard to even find new BMWs with manuals. Have a friend with a manual x3 and the dealer said its one of the only ones in the US.
These Quora responses indicate it's more of a price issue in Europe than a preference. Most auto's are about $2000 more with a manual.[2]
[1]http://autocontentexp.com/20-best-selling-vehicles-in-americ...
[2]http://www.quora.com/Why-do-the-majority-of-cars-in-Europe-h...
I beg to differ, the best selling automobile is an F-150. Which hasn't offered a manual since ~2009 and only in a v6 (v8 trucks are more popular in this class anyway).
The top 3 autos in the US are all trucks.[1] The next up is the Camry which doesn't offer a manual.
Not to mention many car manufacturers are switching to CVT transmissions for their base models. Audi even uses them along with GM, Honda, Nissan etc.
Its hard to even find new BMWs with manuals. Have a friend with a manual x3 and the dealer said its one of the only ones in the US.
These Quora responses indicate it's more of a price issue in Europe than a preference. Most auto's are about $2000 more with a manual.[2]
[1]http://autocontentexp.com/20-best-selling-vehicles-in-americ...
[2]http://www.quora.com/Why-do-the-majority-of-cars-in-Europe-h...
I am one of the "few" people in Europe with an automatic (Toyota/Lexus hybrids only come with automatic) and I actually dislike it.
True, it's great in traffic and highway, but on mountain or even moderately hilly roads I drive much worse with it. The brake pedal is too sensitive, so I end up being always either too slow or too fast. I drive on these roads only a few times a year, but I wouldn't recommend it at all to someone who does not live in an absolutely flat area.
True, it's great in traffic and highway, but on mountain or even moderately hilly roads I drive much worse with it. The brake pedal is too sensitive, so I end up being always either too slow or too fast. I drive on these roads only a few times a year, but I wouldn't recommend it at all to someone who does not live in an absolutely flat area.
>> Even in the US most vehicles larger than a minivan are manual transmission.
> I beg to differ, the best selling automobile is an F-150.
That doesn't really differ from what I said. There are much bigger things on US roads than the F-150, and most of them are manual. I'm talking big rigs, delivery vans, buses/coaches, etc.
The F-150 started out as a small commercial vehicle aimed at contractors, builders, and other similar jobs. It has since morphed into a consumer truck that starts at only $26K. As you say it is one of the best selling vehicles in the US, and it only reached that milestone by being a consumer vehicle.
All reminding us that the F-150 is automatic and takes regular unleaded (as opposed to diesel like most commercial and or bigger vehicles) does is remind us of how consumer-focused it is, rather than disproving that most commercial vehicles are manual in the US.
PS - Quora is a source now? And you're ignoring eight out of nine answers and citing the one answer that you like.
> I beg to differ, the best selling automobile is an F-150.
That doesn't really differ from what I said. There are much bigger things on US roads than the F-150, and most of them are manual. I'm talking big rigs, delivery vans, buses/coaches, etc.
The F-150 started out as a small commercial vehicle aimed at contractors, builders, and other similar jobs. It has since morphed into a consumer truck that starts at only $26K. As you say it is one of the best selling vehicles in the US, and it only reached that milestone by being a consumer vehicle.
All reminding us that the F-150 is automatic and takes regular unleaded (as opposed to diesel like most commercial and or bigger vehicles) does is remind us of how consumer-focused it is, rather than disproving that most commercial vehicles are manual in the US.
PS - Quora is a source now? And you're ignoring eight out of nine answers and citing the one answer that you like.
>Even in the US most vehicles larger than a minivan are manual transmission.
You didn't say anything about commercial vehicles. If you said commercial vehicles I would've agreed. Regardless, most vehicles bigger than minivans do not have manuals.
If you look at Audi, BMW and Benz, then you are going to be hard to find manuals with most models in the US (I'm assuming its similar in EU with the pricier models, who drives a manual 5 series or E class?).
Quroa...I did cherry pick but I was looking for real people in Europe thoughts on the subject. So, I thought it was appropriate (and I was busy at work). If you really looked at what some people were saying about car manufacturing in Europe in the 70s it did make some sense.
You didn't say anything about commercial vehicles. If you said commercial vehicles I would've agreed. Regardless, most vehicles bigger than minivans do not have manuals.
If you look at Audi, BMW and Benz, then you are going to be hard to find manuals with most models in the US (I'm assuming its similar in EU with the pricier models, who drives a manual 5 series or E class?).
Quroa...I did cherry pick but I was looking for real people in Europe thoughts on the subject. So, I thought it was appropriate (and I was busy at work). If you really looked at what some people were saying about car manufacturing in Europe in the 70s it did make some sense.
> Regardless, most vehicles bigger than minivans do not have manuals. If you look at Audi, BMW and Benz, then you are going to be hard to find manuals with most models in the US
Just to be clear: When I say bigger I mean literally, not figuratively. I am talking about commercial vehicles and other large things like trucks, vans, and coaches.
Audi, BMW and Benz, aren't typically physically larger than a minivan. A F-150 might be (but considering Ford's minivan uses the same base as the F-150, I'd argue they're similarly sized).
Just to be clear: When I say bigger I mean literally, not figuratively. I am talking about commercial vehicles and other large things like trucks, vans, and coaches.
Audi, BMW and Benz, aren't typically physically larger than a minivan. A F-150 might be (but considering Ford's minivan uses the same base as the F-150, I'd argue they're similarly sized).
The Audi, Bmw comment was seperate from the f150 one. Just trying to state that even some European manufacturers are moving away from manuals.
I'll agree with you on most commercial vehicles larger than minivans have manuals.
I'll agree with you on most commercial vehicles larger than minivans have manuals.
> (I'm assuming its similar in EU with the pricier models, who drives a manual 5 series or E class?)
True, but I think we'd value (and use) semi-automatic shifting much more than the average US buyer. I definitely would have loved it if all hybrids had the software semi-automatic shift of the Lexus RX450h.
True, but I think we'd value (and use) semi-automatic shifting much more than the average US buyer. I definitely would have loved it if all hybrids had the software semi-automatic shift of the Lexus RX450h.
I don't think it's just nostalgia. I think there is certain craving for touching physical things, moving them around, giving as gifts, and even breaking them. Digital takes over because it's more practical, but the physical stuff no matter how impractical even, is here to stay unless evolution takes our brains to the next levels and makes touching/sensing unnecessary.
I sort of get the appeal of the audio cassette.
You can throw it directly into your backpack or pocket, no delicate fiddliness like a CD.
It has enough physical substance to be meaningfully comparable to its contents, in contrast to a USB thumb drive, plus it has a finite amount of storage.
The limited storage is important in the context of mixtapes. That was a currency back in the 80's and 90's, a very meaningful and thoughtful gift to give or receive. Like a love letter.
You only got 20 or so songs, and that's it. Giving someone a subset of your torrent library is not the same.
You can throw it directly into your backpack or pocket, no delicate fiddliness like a CD.
It has enough physical substance to be meaningfully comparable to its contents, in contrast to a USB thumb drive, plus it has a finite amount of storage.
The limited storage is important in the context of mixtapes. That was a currency back in the 80's and 90's, a very meaningful and thoughtful gift to give or receive. Like a love letter.
You only got 20 or so songs, and that's it. Giving someone a subset of your torrent library is not the same.
[deleted]
Not sure I agree with the "warm analog sound of tape". I do agree vinyl has a nice sound. As someone who grew up with high end cassette decks (denon iirc and Ohm speakers) (with dolby which always muted the highs for me) there is really (in my opinion) nothing nice about the sound of a cassette to my ears.
I go to one or two shows a month with smaller touring bands, generally shows with less than 100 people. Almost all of them have at least one tape now, some are tape only. I think it's kind of silly, like no one remembers what a pain rewinding is. I even have a friend who runs an all tape label.
Edit: I bet that's what people older than me thought when I was buying vinyl in 1999.
Edit: I bet that's what people older than me thought when I was buying vinyl in 1999.
Vinyl makes more sense to me. I monkeyed around with cassettes for a little while but type II always sounded muted. Never played with type IV. Also, my older cassettes seemed to degrade. Even older commercial tapes sounded bad with time.
I was told they demagnetize over time, not sure if that's BS or not though.
Is there some advantage to it, or are they just being weirdly retro?
I have a 1988 BMW 325i with the original stereo + cassette deck. I don't want to replace the stereo because I'd like to keep it in original condition, so I've been in the market for cassettes! There are a surprising number of older cars -- and some not that old -- where cassette decks were the base model option unless you paid for a CD changer.
Those fake cassette tapes that have a headphone plug work pretty well, though. Then you can use the audio source of your choice.
The real problem is cars made in the few years after CDs completely took over but before the iPod did. A lot of those only do CD and radio and there's nothing good to hook in to for other audio sources, besides using an FM transmitter, or jacking directly into the FM antenna. I owned a car like this and I wished it had tape player!
The real problem is cars made in the few years after CDs completely took over but before the iPod did. A lot of those only do CD and radio and there's nothing good to hook in to for other audio sources, besides using an FM transmitter, or jacking directly into the FM antenna. I owned a car like this and I wished it had tape player!
A lot of those cars have a changer option on the factory stereo which means an emulator can provide an aux input. There are some adapters on the commercial market for this and lots of arduino-style projects published on the web. So far this year I built two such adapters for family and friends.
If your car has a stereo with just CD and radio, but with a CD changer option, you can get aftermarket kits that let you hook up your ipod/phone/mp3 and play music. Some can even pass the steering wheel next/back/pause etc. commands to your device.
I think you are smart to not have hacked one of those aftermarket stereos that kids buy into such an awesome car. You aren't stuck with cassettes - you can upgrade without looking like a retard. The radios that came in e32 and e34 match the colors and legend typefaces. Then you can make or buy an aux input adapter that emulates alpine mbus.
I ended up buying a cassette adapter from Rite Aid and the sound quality is good enough that I don't see the need right now for something more elaborate!
One time I was ranting to a guy selling tapes about how I hate tapes, and he said yeah me too, but the kids love it.
The previous generation talks about how vinyl sounds better ("warmer") than CDs. Tape is our generation's vinyl.
Eventually when CDs are no longer widely produced (44.1kHz sample rate isn't ideal for the high end) and everyone has switched over to 96kHz or 192kHz at 24 or 32 bits or whatever the 4K TV equivalent in audio is, the next generation will wax nostalgic over CDs and the horrendous loudness wars that made everything sound "better" through dynamic range compression.
I mean, I wouldn't bet THAT much money on it. But it definitely seems like the next cycle of the trend.
Eventually when CDs are no longer widely produced (44.1kHz sample rate isn't ideal for the high end) and everyone has switched over to 96kHz or 192kHz at 24 or 32 bits or whatever the 4K TV equivalent in audio is, the next generation will wax nostalgic over CDs and the horrendous loudness wars that made everything sound "better" through dynamic range compression.
I mean, I wouldn't bet THAT much money on it. But it definitely seems like the next cycle of the trend.
CDs are digital though.. I mean, sure there is the mastering, but you don't get the same analog subtleties that everyone pines for, be it tape or vinyl. I don't think CDs will ever be regarded as a "better format" for listening.
I'm surprised tape is, since it's more limited than vinyl. Vinyl can theoretically encode higher quality audio than CDs in it's own analog way.. of course, it'll all vary with the actual precision it was cut with as well as the precision of the turntable needle. On top of this, some inherit restrictions in Vinyl actually made the loudness wars impossible. I don't recall the exact thing that causes it, but apparently if the signal is poorly mastered for vinyl (ie, too loud), the needle can literally jump out of the groove of the record.
I'm surprised tape is, since it's more limited than vinyl. Vinyl can theoretically encode higher quality audio than CDs in it's own analog way.. of course, it'll all vary with the actual precision it was cut with as well as the precision of the turntable needle. On top of this, some inherit restrictions in Vinyl actually made the loudness wars impossible. I don't recall the exact thing that causes it, but apparently if the signal is poorly mastered for vinyl (ie, too loud), the needle can literally jump out of the groove of the record.
I believe the driving force of this phenomena is nostalgia and envy of the experiences that those older than you had. I don't think actual superiority makes any sense at all, because during the early days of CDs they were mastered well and sounded amazing; The Dark Side of the Moon is an album that hasn't embraced the loudness wars and it's clearly superior to tape or vinyl.
But if you really like some "historic" band that your elders got to listen to on the radio and go to their shows as they were coming up, and listen to their albums as they were released, you're never going to be able to have those experiences. But you can listen to them on the same format that they originally released their work. It might be argued that the band, producer, studio, mastering guys, etc would have optimized the album for the media it was originally released on, but I suspect that the differences are fairly small. As your ability to reproduce sound gets better, no information is lost. It's lost during mastering for a lower fidelity medium, not in the transfer from a lower fidelity medium to a higher one.
This is a psychological phenomena not a technical one.
But if you really like some "historic" band that your elders got to listen to on the radio and go to their shows as they were coming up, and listen to their albums as they were released, you're never going to be able to have those experiences. But you can listen to them on the same format that they originally released their work. It might be argued that the band, producer, studio, mastering guys, etc would have optimized the album for the media it was originally released on, but I suspect that the differences are fairly small. As your ability to reproduce sound gets better, no information is lost. It's lost during mastering for a lower fidelity medium, not in the transfer from a lower fidelity medium to a higher one.
This is a psychological phenomena not a technical one.
Can vinyl really encode higher quality audio even in theory? I seem to recall that the noise floor for vinyl is around 60dB, while the quantization noise imposed by a CD is 96dB.
It looks like the grooves on a record are a few tens of micrometers tall. If we say they have 65µm of potential variation, then you'd need to be able to resolve features down to a single nanometer to match a 16-bit digital source. I don't think a needle can get anywhere close to that, and I don't even know if the molecules would be that small.
It looks like the grooves on a record are a few tens of micrometers tall. If we say they have 65µm of potential variation, then you'd need to be able to resolve features down to a single nanometer to match a 16-bit digital source. I don't think a needle can get anywhere close to that, and I don't even know if the molecules would be that small.
If you played it with a laser, maybe. But I suspect that as soon as the needle's been over it a few times it's polished any of the really fine details right off.
These machines exist, but they are NOT cheap. http://elpj.com/ltfeaturesandspecs/
These machines exist, but they are NOT cheap. http://elpj.com/ltfeaturesandspecs/
~44kHz is actually pretty ideal, anything significantly higher can actually be harmful to the audio quality: http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
> All signals with content entirely below the Nyquist frequency (half the sampling rate) are captured perfectly and completely by sampling.
Not even close to the truth. It captures the presence of the signal, but only through blind luck does it capture the correct amplitude of the signal. Why? The phase angle of the signal versus the phase angle of the sampler actually matter as you approach the Nyquist frequency.
Why is this? You have a sine wave. You sample it once at the top, and once at the bottom, which is just in line with Nyquist. Perfect. This is because your sampling phase angle and your signal phase angle are aligned so that you get accurate amplitude. But what if you then shift the relative phase angles by 90 degrees? Suddenly your signal is gone completely! Because you happen to be sampling when the sine wave is crossing zero. This is the inaccurate amplitude I talked about earlier. The range of amplitudes is between 0 and the real amplitude.
But if you 2x oversample instead of using the Nyquist frequency, what's the worst-case scenario? You sample at 45, 135, 215 and 305 degrees and don't quite capture the full amplitude of the signal. But at this point you're off by at most 30% or so. And of course it might be spot on, but the max error is 30%.
Now what happens when you 4x oversample? The max possible error goes down again.
People who suggest that 192kHz audio is worse than 44.1kHz or 48kHz need further education in actual signal processing. Also using equipment that was designed to properly low-pass the 192kHz DAC output properly (you don't really need to do this with 44.1!) would eliminate the theoretical problems that are outlined in the article.
Not even close to the truth. It captures the presence of the signal, but only through blind luck does it capture the correct amplitude of the signal. Why? The phase angle of the signal versus the phase angle of the sampler actually matter as you approach the Nyquist frequency.
Why is this? You have a sine wave. You sample it once at the top, and once at the bottom, which is just in line with Nyquist. Perfect. This is because your sampling phase angle and your signal phase angle are aligned so that you get accurate amplitude. But what if you then shift the relative phase angles by 90 degrees? Suddenly your signal is gone completely! Because you happen to be sampling when the sine wave is crossing zero. This is the inaccurate amplitude I talked about earlier. The range of amplitudes is between 0 and the real amplitude.
But if you 2x oversample instead of using the Nyquist frequency, what's the worst-case scenario? You sample at 45, 135, 215 and 305 degrees and don't quite capture the full amplitude of the signal. But at this point you're off by at most 30% or so. And of course it might be spot on, but the max error is 30%.
Now what happens when you 4x oversample? The max possible error goes down again.
People who suggest that 192kHz audio is worse than 44.1kHz or 48kHz need further education in actual signal processing. Also using equipment that was designed to properly low-pass the 192kHz DAC output properly (you don't really need to do this with 44.1!) would eliminate the theoretical problems that are outlined in the article.
I don't know enough about DSP to get into a debate about this, but I'm going to trust that Monty, who is one of the foremost experts on digital audio, is correct with what he's talking about. Plus the wikipedia article on the nyquist-shannon sampling theorem [0] suggests the same.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampli...
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampli...
http://parlos.tamu.edu/MEEN651/E4.pdf
Read page 3. It completely validates what I'm saying. Monty might be a really smart guy, and he might be worthy of lots of praise for a great many things. But in this particular very limited instance, he is not as correct as he could be.
If all you can do is link me to the Wikipedia page about this, you're way out of your depth. I took multiple classes on this in college and I raised exactly this issue with my professors. They said that technically I was right, but in practice nobody samples at exactly the Nyquist rate (or even that close to it!) and it's really more of a guideline for the slowest sample rate you could possibly get away with, not the sample rate you should pick once you know your frequency content. Both Shannon and Nyquist were very smart and they've made a gigantic contribution to DSP. But knowing the phrases "Nyquist rate" and "2x the highest frequency" doesn't a signal processing expert make.
You can read plenty more here too if you'd like to get more educated. http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf
Here's a snippet: "The theme of this paper can be summed up to this: the Nyquist rate isn’t a line in the sand that you can toe up to with complete safety. It is more like an electric fence or a hot poker; something that won’t hurt you if you keep your distance, but never something you want to saunter up to and lean against."
I totally understand if you just want to argue on the internet and given that I don't have the same credentials or reputation that Monty does, feel free to disregard what I'm saying. But that doesn't make me wrong one iota. The truth isn't dictated with the folks with the proper credentials, the truth is and you have to try and figure out what it is.
Read page 3. It completely validates what I'm saying. Monty might be a really smart guy, and he might be worthy of lots of praise for a great many things. But in this particular very limited instance, he is not as correct as he could be.
If all you can do is link me to the Wikipedia page about this, you're way out of your depth. I took multiple classes on this in college and I raised exactly this issue with my professors. They said that technically I was right, but in practice nobody samples at exactly the Nyquist rate (or even that close to it!) and it's really more of a guideline for the slowest sample rate you could possibly get away with, not the sample rate you should pick once you know your frequency content. Both Shannon and Nyquist were very smart and they've made a gigantic contribution to DSP. But knowing the phrases "Nyquist rate" and "2x the highest frequency" doesn't a signal processing expert make.
You can read plenty more here too if you'd like to get more educated. http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf
Here's a snippet: "The theme of this paper can be summed up to this: the Nyquist rate isn’t a line in the sand that you can toe up to with complete safety. It is more like an electric fence or a hot poker; something that won’t hurt you if you keep your distance, but never something you want to saunter up to and lean against."
I totally understand if you just want to argue on the internet and given that I don't have the same credentials or reputation that Monty does, feel free to disregard what I'm saying. But that doesn't make me wrong one iota. The truth isn't dictated with the folks with the proper credentials, the truth is and you have to try and figure out what it is.
From the Wikipedia page that you linked to:
The symbol T = 1/fs is customarily used to represent the interval between samples and is called the sample period or sampling interval. And the samples of function x(t) are commonly denoted by x[n] = x(nT) (alternatively "xn" in older signal processing literature), for all integer values of n. The mathematically ideal way to interpolate the sequence involves the use of sinc functions, like those shown in Fig 2. Each sample in the sequence is replaced by a sinc function, centered on the time axis at the original location of the sample, nT, with the amplitude of the sinc function scaled to the sample value, x[n]. Subsequently, the sinc functions are summed into a continuous function. A mathematically equivalent method is to convolve one sinc function with a series of Dirac delta pulses, weighted by the sample values. Neither method is numerically practical. Instead, some type of approximation of the sinc functions, finite in length, is used. The imperfections attributable to the approximation are known as interpolation error.
You'll notice that it says "imperfections" and "interpolation error" both of which should lead you to recognize that this is an approximation, not perfection. Why? Because truly perfect reconstruction requires a sinc function, which is infinite in time. Want to play a CD back? OK, but first just wait forever for the sound to be reconstructed. Or instead you could build a non-causal system (causality means that it honors the arrow of time, non-causal systems do not) which has infinite, perfect knowledge of the future. With this handy device, you can then perfectly reconstruct the sampled signal. Oh, you don't have one? Bummer.
Another snippet:
Practical digital-to-analog converters produce neither scaled and delayed sinc functions, nor ideal Dirac pulses. Instead they produce a piecewise-constant sequence of scaled and delayed rectangular pulses (the zero-order hold), usually followed by an "anti-imaging filter" to clean up spurious high-frequency content.
And there you go! Real life is approximations of theoretical perfection, not the equivalent. This is why people who do real work on real signals like to oversample.
The symbol T = 1/fs is customarily used to represent the interval between samples and is called the sample period or sampling interval. And the samples of function x(t) are commonly denoted by x[n] = x(nT) (alternatively "xn" in older signal processing literature), for all integer values of n. The mathematically ideal way to interpolate the sequence involves the use of sinc functions, like those shown in Fig 2. Each sample in the sequence is replaced by a sinc function, centered on the time axis at the original location of the sample, nT, with the amplitude of the sinc function scaled to the sample value, x[n]. Subsequently, the sinc functions are summed into a continuous function. A mathematically equivalent method is to convolve one sinc function with a series of Dirac delta pulses, weighted by the sample values. Neither method is numerically practical. Instead, some type of approximation of the sinc functions, finite in length, is used. The imperfections attributable to the approximation are known as interpolation error.
You'll notice that it says "imperfections" and "interpolation error" both of which should lead you to recognize that this is an approximation, not perfection. Why? Because truly perfect reconstruction requires a sinc function, which is infinite in time. Want to play a CD back? OK, but first just wait forever for the sound to be reconstructed. Or instead you could build a non-causal system (causality means that it honors the arrow of time, non-causal systems do not) which has infinite, perfect knowledge of the future. With this handy device, you can then perfectly reconstruct the sampled signal. Oh, you don't have one? Bummer.
Another snippet:
Practical digital-to-analog converters produce neither scaled and delayed sinc functions, nor ideal Dirac pulses. Instead they produce a piecewise-constant sequence of scaled and delayed rectangular pulses (the zero-order hold), usually followed by an "anti-imaging filter" to clean up spurious high-frequency content.
And there you go! Real life is approximations of theoretical perfection, not the equivalent. This is why people who do real work on real signals like to oversample.
[deleted]
They should release it on wax cylinders with a bonus bowler hat.
I don't get it. Wouldn't it be easier/cheaper for them to produce CDs? Or is it an "indie cred" type thing?
Consider that tapes require more materials and that the production capacity is near non-existent there is no way they are cheaper than CD's they are probably several times more expensive than CD's these days.
Early on CD's were more expensive but you have completely different fabrication process and royalties to deal with, but today nope. So it is nothing more than an "indie" thing and like many comments on YT said thank the hipsters and they are kinda right.
I also wonder if there are any bands that do analogue recording since i don't think a single studio exists that isn't digital these days and if it does then considering the price of that rare gear and the expertise needed to operate it it would also be much much more expensive than traditional recording.
Early on CD's were more expensive but you have completely different fabrication process and royalties to deal with, but today nope. So it is nothing more than an "indie" thing and like many comments on YT said thank the hipsters and they are kinda right.
I also wonder if there are any bands that do analogue recording since i don't think a single studio exists that isn't digital these days and if it does then considering the price of that rare gear and the expertise needed to operate it it would also be much much more expensive than traditional recording.
I also wonder if there are any bands that do analogue recording since i don't think a single studio exists that isn't digital these days and if it does then considering the price of that rare gear and the expertise needed to operate it it would also be much much more expensive than traditional recording.
I played drums on a record in 2010 that was partially analog. The drums, and the initial guitar and bass were analog, The additional guitars, and vocals were digital.
Then the whole mix was bounced down to tape, and was mastered via analog.
The only way we could afford it was that our guitar player was a tattoo artist, and traded.
The guy at the studio was super excited that he got to use his reel to reel.
I played drums on a record in 2010 that was partially analog. The drums, and the initial guitar and bass were analog, The additional guitars, and vocals were digital.
Then the whole mix was bounced down to tape, and was mastered via analog.
The only way we could afford it was that our guitar player was a tattoo artist, and traded.
The guy at the studio was super excited that he got to use his reel to reel.
What the price compared to digital? I mean anyone with auto-tune and a half decent mic can do digital mastering (yes I understand that won't be studio quality ;)) but analogue requires quite a bit of skill even basic things like channel mixing and gain control is much more complicated.
I think there is the general feeling that CDs are the same thing as a download, and if you're going to buy something physical it should be different than the download. Along that line of thinking tapes are much cheaper than vinyl, at least in short runs.
I follow that logic, but I don't necessarily agree with it. If they want to give an album a little more umpf, maybe include some stickers, exclusive tracks, etc. with the CD? If I went to a concert and they only had cassette copies of their albums, I wouldn't be walking out of there with a copy of their album because I don't own anything capable of playing it anymore.
edit: spelling
edit: spelling
Wont surprise me if most people buy it as a collectible doo-dad to display rather than actually listen too, pretty much anyone i know that bought the Guardians of the Galaxy tape thing just has it on their display wall of geekdom heck I'm not sure most of them even thought that it would actually play.
[deleted]
Retro has its own appeal... for a game, a vintage automobile, a manual transmission, a paper photograph, 35mm film, a watch without a microprocessor, a softer audio sound, or the scrape of a needle over vinyl. Someone will love it on nostalgia alone even if the world has "moved on".