+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Mind gymnastics

  1. #21
    Join Date: Apr 2015

    Location: Central Virginia

    Posts: 1,736
    I'm Russell.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by walpurgis View Post
    Didn't Philips (was it Philips?) have a similar idea with laser discs? A stylus tracking the groove but not reading it and laser reflections collecting the signal info. That was non-digital if I recall. This may have been a video system, I don't recollect.
    Yes it was I think. I recall that machine, everyone thought it was amazing when it came out.

    But my idea has no moving parts. That was the concept. The cathode Ray is the only thing moving, and it is electrically motivated, and an electron beam, not a moving part. It seemed to me back then, that most playback devices were plagued by vibrations, motor noise, tape wobble, wow and flutter, whatever, some moving part was interfering with the accuracy of the playback.

    So this was the only way I could dream of to make a playback system with no moving parts out of only analog devices. I’m sure it would have sounded like crap, the audio on the edge of old movies wasn’t all that to write home about. But as with many things, it could have been refined. The electron beam should be able to narrow down the size of the playback point, from the regular lightbulbs that powered the playback in old projectors. And in doing so provide many more shades of gray to the recording scale. I suppose you’d need a similar device to make the recordings? By exposing a sheet of film with an electron beam that would vary in intensity to the music. Develop the film, and you’ve got a tough music storage medium that won’t get scratched up from playing. Fingerprints would probably be the biggest issue. Hey, I was only 15 years old at the time. Or I’d have built one.

    Russell

  2. #22
    Join Date: Oct 2017

    Location: Rugeley

    Posts: 300
    I'm Steve.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    Digitally, according to the o/p.

    Which begs some questions...
    A lot of questions. Like, why bother? when we already have more than enough perfectly good digital storage systems for musical recordings such as CD, DAT, hard disc etc etc. The whole point of the 'record deck' is that it is purely analogue, and people like that. They like the sound (not sure everyone who claims to can hear a difference, but that's another story!) the equipment, the technology, the 'vibe', the looks and so on.

  3. #23
    Join Date: May 2010

    Location: Vancouver, Canada

    Posts: 2,166
    I'm Alex.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vintagesteve View Post
    A lot of questions. Like, why bother? when we already have more than enough perfectly good digital storage systems for musical recordings such as CD, DAT, hard disc etc etc. The whole point of the 'record deck' is that it is purely analogue, and people like that. They like the sound (not sure everyone who claims to can hear a difference, but that's another story!) the equipment, the technology, the 'vibe', the looks and so on.
    Current state of digital audio is based on the deductive approach. Meaning, it is based on the mathematical equation. It is a pure top-down model, where a sampling rate is chosen upfront and then the continuous signal is chopped up in little discrete particles/pieces.

    The reason we like this approach is because it simplifies many things (but introduces a few complications in the process as well). However, technology progress never sleeps, and today, 40 years later, we have access to much more sophisticated technology that is becoming mainstream. This is due to the commoditization of the computing power (i.e. the 'cloud').

    To cut the long story short, enter Machine Learning (ML). What ML specializes in is the ability to learn inductively, without being given any blueprint upfront. It's a bottom-up approach, the exact opposite from the old school top-down (deductive) approach.

    I won't bore you with technical details here, but wanted to point out the ability to let machines observe some phenomenon (such as microscopic movement of a stylus/cantilever combo mounted on a well tempered turntable). After observing that phenomenon, machines could learn how to emulate such phenomenon. Sort of like observing skilled calligrapher do his craft, and learning how to produce similarly beautiful calligraphy.

    If you think that is outlandish, not so fast -- three years ago I've worked on a project where we were teaching machines to learn our handwriting, and they learned quickly and were capable of perfectly emulating anyone's handwriting.
    Don't you just hate it when you cannot detect where the post ends and a signature line begins?

    Alex.

  4. #24
    Join Date: Apr 2015

    Location: Central Virginia

    Posts: 1,736
    I'm Russell.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magiccarpetride View Post
    If you think that is outlandish, not so fast -- three years ago I've worked on a project where we were teaching machines to learn our handwriting, and they learned quickly and were capable of perfectly emulating anyone's handwriting.
    The world is changing at the quickest pace ever. In college I missed out on a course on nano robotics, and had to settle for the regular robotics class. back then it was the science of the future. New quantum computers, machine learning, A.I., Nano robots, the next big thing could be truly huge! Imagination is the limit.

    Russell

  5. #25
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,773
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Primalsea View Post
    I also like the other idea of an algorithm to look at the digital signal before and after the actual point to be converted and to try to learn how to fill in the gaps between samples. (if I have understood correctly). The current solution to do this a brute force increase in bit depth and sampling rate.

    .
    Sampling rate determines the highest frequency you can capture and replay. Bit depth determines the maximum dynamic range. Neither has anything to do with the 'gaps between samples'. So called 'hi resolution' digital increases dynamic range and increases the highest frequency that can be captured. So a rate of 96Khz will reproduce up to 48khz frequency. Since no-one can hear over 21Khz, the vast majority of people over 40 will struggle to hear 16KHz, and only vey special studio mics will pick up anything above 22 KHz it is a pointless exercise except for impressing people who think bigger numbers must be better. At that it has been really successful.

    Digital systems do not guess at what lies 'between the samples'. In terms of recreating the wave form they are orders of magnitude more accurate in doing so than any analogue source.
    Last edited by Macca; 16-04-2018 at 08:25.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •