Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
You have no idea what you are talking about
But a 30 IPS properly aligned Studer multitrack will have frequency response up through 80Khz and dynamic range greater than what can realistically be achieved on most DAWs
A DAW at 88.2k samples and 24 bits can record up to 44khz, well above the ceiling of human hearing (20khz) with a dynamic range of 144 decibels (the difference between more-or-less absolute silence and putting your ear next to a 747's jet engine, which would kill you). You can purchase a converter capable of recording at this bitrate/depth for $500. I think the grandparent seems to know what they are talking about.
Now you can say that you might only get a bit depth of 20 reasonably out of a $500 converter but even if it's only 16 bits (an audio cd) you still have 96 db of dynamic range. Analog tape using Dolby-A noise reduction can have a dynamic range of around 80-90 decibels, at very best 6 decibels less than a mere CD (or even MP3!).
$250,000 is a LOT of money to spend in the audio production world. Personally I would much rather spend that on a huge mic locker, top of the line preamps, acoustic treatment etc. Tape is a royal pain - back in the day there might be a room full of people just to operate the tape decks. Now, I can plug my laptop in to my interface, launch pro tools and be up and running within a couple minutes without worrying about alignment, expensive analog tape etc.
magic is magic, though. If it helps your creative process then by all means, enjoy it! however, it seems clear now that digital is superior on a strictly technological basis
With a fossil fuel based car, you HAVE to burn those fossil fuels. With an electric car, you have a choice. This article seems a bit black-and-white to me when there are many shades of grey. Yes, cars take up a lot of space and have a host of other problems however improving one problem DOES help, even if it is only one piece of the puzzle.
Additionally, all of the subsidies the author writes about are a carrot for investing in the future. Sure, solar panels and cars and whatever other example may take fossil fuels to make now but 1. petroleum burning cars require fossil fuels to make as well and 2. if we are learning to build a machine to use an alternate energy source eventually that technology, when it is cheaper, will reach the manufacturing process.
It's like saying a computer uses more energy to print out a letter that you then need to mail via snail mail. We eventually realized we could bypass printing entirely. Clearly different batteries, charging processes, manufacturing processes etc would need to be and will be developed. While I appreciate calling attention to the defects in electric car manufacturing and quality this article lacks vision and cannot see the potential in the future.
once those electrons hit the wire, they mix in with all the other electrons, so you're actually using power from all the sources, dirty and clean(er), just paying extra for the privilege of bragging about it here.
not quite -- while the electrons are mixed together you get to choose who gets your money.
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source