Ah yes analog days. I wore out my vinyl copy of 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Note to self: I need a digital version.

I've heard him talk in the past about wanting to do some experiments that Discovery thought were too mundane, so they never did them, such as testing if analog audio, such as vinyl records and audio cassettes, actually do sound better than digital audio, such as CD and MP3.

In this clip it seemed like he was talking more about big experiments they weren't allowed to do rather than experiments that were too small.

YES I agree 120% about the FPS and FOV limiting in games. WHY oh WHY do they take away or limit those options with such a heavy hand? Whenever I complain about it everyone acts like I'm insane to care about that because you can't see it.

I draw an analogy to a vinyl vs a digital recording, I may not be able to hear the different frequencies produced by the vinyl, but I can feel the difference in the sound. It's because complicated changes (rapidly drumming is most apparent) are based on an approximation of the sound wave in a digital recording (depending on the quality of the recording). Vinyl, meanwhile, is a recording of the actual sound wave grooved into the plastic.

Although it's nearly impossible to hear that difference, people still buy vinyls for some reason. Back to fps and fov though, I may not be able to see higher than 30 fps, but I don't live life (or drive cars) at 30 fps like a flip book. Your eyes don't give you an accurate picture of the world, they only give you a useful one.

Real life runs @ ∞ fps and htz. I'm not asking for anything close to that, just make the choice available or don't ban me for hacking when I go into my config file and try to change my fov and fps limit manually.

"Yes but it gives those players who change those settings an advantage"

.
.
.

Fuck you.

Get it sifted if it's not already on. The mp3 was really hard to find. Couldn't buy it as it was a strictly limited vinyl release. Best torrent I ever got.

I tried this with a vinyl... it didn't work

To those hipster music snobs who think vinyl is better than digital, well, I have news for you...

First I've never said anything about recording straight to vinyl. Second your just plain wrong that no one records to analog anymore. Yes it's cheaper and easier to do digital. But many sound engineers still prefer using analog in the mastering process. Do a simple search...you'll find plenty of articles and videos by sound engineers discussing the still on going debate (yes in 2012) of analog vs digital.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcogbpdNTlY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_mastering

Yes they use a computer while cutting the master...but they clearly say the computer is "monitoring" the process and makes adjustments to the "spacing" between the grooves. Letting the computer make adjustments to the "space" between the grooves has nothing to do with the transfer of the audio to the grooves.

>> ^schlub:

Dude, it's 2012... no one records straight to vinyl or other analogue medium anymore. It's cheaper and easier to use a digital medium. Besides, in the video you can clearly see the master is cut using a computer which is displaying the waveform -- it's basically a CNC lathe. Audio can't be stored on a computer in analogue form. Unless that's one of those new-fangled analogue computers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer

Dude, it's 2012... no one records straight to vinyl or other analogue medium anymore. It's cheaper and easier to use a digital medium. Besides, in the video you can clearly see the master is cut using a computer which is displaying the waveform -- it's basically a CNC lathe. Audio can't be stored on a computer in analogue form. Unless that's one of those new-fangled analogue computers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer
>> ^Grimm:

Didn't I say I must have missed that part?
Now where is the part where they said the source was digital?>> ^schlub:
9:35 - BAM!
>> ^Grimm:
I must have missed where he said "refuse to buy into the digital revolution". What I heard him say was "some say they sound better then digital CDs and MP3s".>> ^schlub:
People "refuse to buy into the digital revolution" by purchasing an analogue medium produced from a digital source. Yeah, good work.

Didn't I say I must have missed that part?

Now where is the part where they said the source was digital?>> ^schlub:

9:35 - BAM!
>> ^Grimm:
I must have missed where he said "refuse to buy into the digital revolution". What I heard him say was "some say they sound better then digital CDs and MP3s".>> ^schlub:
People "refuse to buy into the digital revolution" by purchasing an analogue medium produced from a digital source. Yeah, good work.

9:35 - BAM!
>> ^Grimm:

I must have missed where he said "refuse to buy into the digital revolution". What I heard him say was "some say they sound better then digital CDs and MP3s".>> ^schlub:
People "refuse to buy into the digital revolution" by purchasing an analogue medium produced from a digital source. Yeah, good work.

I understand when converting from digital to analog that quality is lost. But I never said anything about converting digital to analog...just analog vs digital.

I was mainly adressing the comment you made that "they were talking about transferring the recording from PC onto the disc" which is not what they said. It's what you assumed...and you could be right and you could be wrong. You also said "would it be stored somewhere first....say....in a digital format?" that is also an assumption...it could be coming from a digital format, it could be coming from an analog format...we don't know...they didn't say.

Believe it or not but it's not unheard of for an artist to provide master analog tapes when they know they will be putting their music to vinyl. It's also very common for reissues of of older recordings to be done using the orginal master analog tapes.>> ^charliem:

Oh dear...
How do you think the artists voice is transferred to the LP in the first place? Do you believe they do it straight from an analogue circuit through the mic to the LP, or would it be stored somewhere first....say....in a digital format?
If the conversion from analogue to digital is what 'ruins' the quality....then how can the quality be possibly restored by putting the digital signal onto an analogue format? Surely the missing information doesn't just appear out of quantum strangeness.....
Think about it for a minute.....and if your argument doesn't change, then perhaps you need to redress the way in which you consider yourself to think critically.
>> ^Grimm:
I missed that bit...the only thing I heard about a computer was when he said "a computer monitors the cuting and adjusts the spacings between the grooves".
Also don't confuse digital audio as being superior sounding to analog audio. It has taken many years for digital audio to compete the the sound quality of analog audio. Some audiophiles argue that it still isn't as good. But just because it's "digital" doesn't automatically make it sound better then analog. The real advantage that digital has over analog is that it does not degrade over time or from copy to copy.
Personally I think if you have a really good system I don't think you can tell the difference between a really good analog recording and a digital one except that over time the analog recording will degrade. I think the reason vinyl is making a comeback is that people who grew up with it miss the ritual, the touch, the smell, of taking a record out and putting it on the turntable and placing the needle on the record.
>> ^charliem:
>> ^schlub:
People "refuse to buy into the digital revolution" by purchasing an analogue medium produced from a digital source. Yeah, good work.

No kidding!!
I got to the bit where they were talking about transferring the recording from PC onto the disc and was thinking....hang on.......your reducing the information by quite a huge amount of the original recording, by going from digital to analogue....what?
WHAT? I dont get it.

Oh dear...

How do you think the artists voice is transferred to the LP in the first place? Do you believe they do it straight from an analogue circuit through the mic to the LP, or would it be stored somewhere first....say....in a digital format?

If the conversion from analogue to digital is what 'ruins' the quality....then how can the quality be possibly restored by putting the digital signal onto an analogue format? Surely the missing information doesn't just appear out of quantum strangeness.....

Think about it for a minute.....and if your argument doesn't change, then perhaps you need to redress the way in which you consider yourself to think critically.

>> ^Grimm:

I missed that bit...the only thing I heard about a computer was when he said "a computer monitors the cuting and adjusts the spacings between the grooves".
Also don't confuse digital audio as being superior sounding to analog audio. It has taken many years for digital audio to compete the the sound quality of analog audio. Some audiophiles argue that it still isn't as good. But just because it's "digital" doesn't automatically make it sound better then analog. The real advantage that digital has over analog is that it does not degrade over time or from copy to copy.
Personally I think if you have a really good system I don't think you can tell the difference between a really good analog recording and a digital one except that over time the analog recording will degrade. I think the reason vinyl is making a comeback is that people who grew up with it miss the ritual, the touch, the smell, of taking a record out and putting it on the turntable and placing the needle on the record.
>> ^charliem:
>> ^schlub:
People "refuse to buy into the digital revolution" by purchasing an analogue medium produced from a digital source. Yeah, good work.

No kidding!!
I got to the bit where they were talking about transferring the recording from PC onto the disc and was thinking....hang on.......your reducing the information by quite a huge amount of the original recording, by going from digital to analogue....what?
WHAT? I dont get it.

I missed that bit...the only thing I heard about a computer was when he said "a computer monitors the cuting and adjusts the spacings between the grooves".

Also don't confuse digital audio as being superior sounding to analog audio. It has taken many years for digital audio to compete the the sound quality of analog audio. Some audiophiles argue that it still isn't as good. But just because it's "digital" doesn't automatically make it sound better then analog. The real advantage that digital has over analog is that it does not degrade over time or from copy to copy.

Personally I think if you have a really good system I don't think you can tell the difference between a really good analog recording and a digital one except that over time the analog recording will degrade. I think the reason vinyl is making a comeback is that people who grew up with it miss the ritual, the touch, the smell, of taking a record out and putting it on the turntable and placing the needle on the record.
>> ^charliem:

>> ^schlub:
People "refuse to buy into the digital revolution" by purchasing an analogue medium produced from a digital source. Yeah, good work.

No kidding!!
I got to the bit where they were talking about transferring the recording from PC onto the disc and was thinking....hang on.......your reducing the information by quite a huge amount of the original recording, by going from digital to analogue....what?
WHAT? I dont get it.

I must have missed where he said "refuse to buy into the digital revolution". What I heard him say was "some say they sound better then digital CDs and MP3s".>> ^schlub:

People "refuse to buy into the digital revolution" by purchasing an analogue medium produced from a digital source. Yeah, good work.

>> ^Crosswords:

>> ^kceaton1:
It goes beyond evolution though, if I'm getting this right. FOR HELL'S SAKE we can use the speed of light to see things FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR^100 older than 10,000 years!!! It's a fucking joke. If you believe this you are an idiot. Period! = .
It's not just light and carbon dating, we have LOTS of ways to show this place is WAY older...

You're forgetting the Law of God Physics which clearly states God can do anything including making the universe appear much older than it actually is for the purposes of fooling his human creations so he has a way of testing their loyalty when he's not asking them to kill their first born son and saying, JUST KIDDING, at the last minute.


The funny part about this stuff is that they typically say that God "moved the photons" (atleast the semi smarter ones will) and the STILL dumb ones will say that, well light was, you see going a different speed back then so it still all adds up...YOU SEE!!!

BUT THEN!...If you understand relativity correctly like me you understand that you can change the speed of light all the time you want. In fact make it go 1 ft/second! It doesn't MAKE A DAMNED difference in how we will STILL measure the time gone/go/will go by! People never get this at all and it really is the sort of thing were someone mumbles under their breath when they finally understand what I'm saying/going to say: "Is that not amazing!!!". You see mass and energy are the same thing and light is special, it goes the same speed EVERYWHERE, EVERY-TIME, ALL THE TIME--and this thing called "light" are these little tiny particles/waves called photons that as I said before, but not quite as directly, they literally ARE mass and energy, so the relationship between us and light is so fundamental it SHOULD blow your mind. But, so many people went through school and listen to their preachers and have no idea how vitally important that "little" discovery that Einstein made was!!! So, even we at 1 ft/s light speed STILL notice everything moving and everyone we know moving at that same "time" measurement of one second (funny isn't it; but, light is traveling at one second as well, how can this make any sense..!?!?! Well here it comes, it is called relativity and the fact that light is a constant and the other very important fact that our measurement of one second really measures...what?) as we are literally stuck in a cage (this "cage" is called The Universe) that cannot be tampered with. This is all due to that little fact that our perception of time IS relative and our view of one second can be EXTREMELY messed with, but to us it will always seem to be one second--even if 1 Billion years went by. The age of the Universe comes from the SHIFT of energy in the photons present that we can see coming from other places in any direction around us; so God would need to put THAT hologram there nothing else, BUT there is a giant problem in doing this (because due to our friends that want God to actively fuck us over for some reason--the hologram only extends technically 10,000 years out and "hides" the rest--if God put everything the way we see it and it isn't even an illusion--what can I say at that point if God was real I would join the Devil in less than a heart beat to overthrow his LYING, SADIST, and moreover EVIL ass!) If the hologram WAS there then: the hologram, it would need to be different in EVERY single direction you look; every time you move one Planck length (I might be wrong, maybe just the length of a photon) further out into space God would need to fix the energy distribution to make his illusion look correct... YOU HAVE no idea how absurd to the absurd degree this sounds, even GOD would spend his entire existence doing this because the job would require this long to do it: forever (until the UNIVERSE STOPS!). I'm not kidding it would be utterly ridiculous (from Earth his "image" would look right, on Mt. Everest, it would look wrong,; in space it would look wrong--in fact if you have sensitive enough equipment every square foot you took would somehow end up looking incorrect--we're talking about the cosmic background radiation, the little thing that lets us know how old our Universe is and that everything around us is moving away from us...

So that comes to the "putting the photons into place syndrome". For the most part I'm starting to think that these people like to abuse their brain in secret rooms with paint, huffing it until they collapse in a heap. in the morning they slowly scrub the white vinyl paint off their nose and mouth and go start with the blue. The problem with this is God had to of atleast put photons 13.5 Billion years out for this to even work--so in the end it falls so flat on it's face it makes no sense. If he was using a hologram, where is the border? Why do we detect gravitational anomalies when those have been proven to be real locally? It just goes on, and on, and on, and on.

I'd love to hear them explain why space may be full of Dark Matter or better yet why is "nothing" full of something called "The Quantum Foam"--you may have heard of "Vacuum Energy", same thing more or less--look it up it's fascinating and may even be the source OF "The Big Bang". Why can we pull photons (from "nothing") out of the Quantum Foam? According to lots of religious folks you can't create something from nothing, but WHAM, there it is! Sometimes, it just might be a bad idea to hold onto your old per-conceived precepts if they do not allow for change. BTW, the photon coming out of thin air was in a very well-known (now) experiment and is HIGHLY worth looking up; you can find details about it in my Videosift Blog (which is entirely about it).

You could disprove their crap all day. The truth is is that they did bad in their science classes, they just didn't get it and for some archaic left over juvenile resentment, they must have their righteous rite of "The Comeback Minister (or Preacher/Prophet/Father/etc...). So in revenge they are taking the easy way out and saying, "Hah, see I didn't need to learn that stuff from Mr. Scrampton in 12th grade! I'm a Minister now and I can just TELL you what is right, because I know it's right in my gut; especially after five cases of Budweiser!". Now they never tell you the truth. They lie, they tell you it "came" to them, like their a prophet now or something. ...Well if they can be prophets, why can't we? Oh wait, scientists do in fact fill this role and they do a good job at it. they constantly warn us of dangers and things the government should do. But, there are far too many damage control freaks with their own agenda running around and they seem to cling to religion as it satisfies very easily their questions, making it so they don't have to work to find the actual hard ones that exist and that we DO need.

It's not in the Bible that any of these idiots would tell us anything meaningful, nor the Koran, or any other holy book. So I find it strange that so many line up and then sit down and listen to these idiots blather on about the world and how to cure it and what it's ills are. They also as I said do a great deal of "re-education" in THEIR vision satisfying that old juvenile, washed up nothing who couldn't get over the fact that he wasn't good at science off the bat or maybe even when he tried too. This is the bane on America (and I would assume many other places, but America has a lot of this). They are teaching and re-teaching our people ridiculous notions and since they require very little work to understand, just community, people believe it--especially because it's being believed in numbers and that is the important part.

Now this was a longer post than what I wanted it to be and it also went past the scope of my original intentions. BUT, the reason why those statistics exist is due to the nature, the epidemic of how people are being re-taught forcibly (you think like us or you are no longer with us--it can have shocking community affects, especially when it becomes a inter-family problem...I know this EXTREMELY well due to my Mormon upbringing; when I became an atheist I was shunned and cut-off from the community, at first. they slowly let me back in when they realized I was an extremely good person, usually a better person than many of the people in the Church and so my neighbors finally no longer cared--cared what the churches stance was either--who or what I was, they took me for what I was--IT TOOK 20 years to happen!). So many people are started and taught young this is a HUGE problem, I know it's a major one with the Mormon church. You are baptized into the church at eight. You should hear the things they ask you to accept and agree to--they are things that only and adult with experience could properly answer (more like someone that is 25) yet an eight year old surrounded by their family and peers of course can give only ONE answer.

After that, you being to be taught all the incorrect things you could possibly think of. If you are even semi-devout like me (and this goes for many other religions as well) going to public school in Utah, the church has LITERALLY built seminary schools next to every High School and Junior High (and this is true outside of Utah too, as I'm SURE Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nevada--maybe more too, I'm sure they have them locally to attend--I'm sure many of these states have these institutions built right next door or somewhere for kids to attend) you will attend seminary due to the wishes of your parents (my parental situation was beginning to change--and for the better).

Still I attended seminary through grades 7-12 and could have continued in College, but I was agnostic by then...if not basically atheist, just not strong enough to say it. Seminary had it's wonderful parts, but the mis-information was a joke. luckily I was smart, very smart. So I was able to separate the information apart from each other and it allowed me to ask STRONG questions about my one time faith. These questions and their mis-information EASILY killed that religion for eternity, for me--for A LOT of reasons. Many of which, many of you know...easily. It came to ME slow. SO when i talk about helping other people you need to realize what we are up against. facts that do come to us easily usually don't to them and it typically has to do with their past. but, it is HARD to get them to talk about their past openly. For one thing there is no possibility of them being wrong or in danger of it. Somehow we MUST change this.

/Like I said longer, but I hope it was worth it.
/edited for more clarity and a few additions