Luke, you've made a mistake : Sampling rate is measured in KHz , not kbps (like the bitrate which is is the maximum amount of bytes a digital machine can pull out from the file in a second) . The sampling rate represent the frequency of measuring the amplitude and position in time of a analog signal , and it's prefered to be double as big as the maximum value we can observe (for example the human ear can hear maximum of 22Khz , and this is why majority of songs have a 44.1Khz sample rate...computers can output 48Khz "just to be sure" that no quality is lost)
@CHARITY DAZLEY bit rate refers to the audio quality of the stream. It is measured in Kilobitspersec (kbps or k). Bit rate is # of bits (data) encoded per second or the # of bits transmitted or received per second. Sample rate is the number of samples per unit time. A sample is a measurement of signal amplitude and it contains the information of the amplitude value of the signal waveform over a period of time. The sample rate is also called as sample frequency, higher the sample frequency obtains a signal which is similar to original analog signal for good audio quality.
3:22 Sampling rate is *not* measured in Kbps. It is measured in (kilo)hertz. Common sampling rates are 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz. This means that the audio is sampled 48,000 times per second, where 1 sample is one "point" in the audio signal.
@@ismireghal68 It measures the value of an amplitude or a value of a function so to speak at a given point. The higher the frequency the more measurements are made and higher the quality.
@@ismireghal68 Just to put what Boris said another way - You're storing discrete measurements of that wavelength at a finite number of points - you aren't saving all the data from a wave. Computers are able to recreate that wave given all the individual measurements at each of those individual points. The measurement frequency here determines how many times each second we sample the wave, to get its value at each of those points. Typical sound rates like 44,100hz save the wave's amplitude at those 44,100 points each second. That's enough for our machines to fit a curve to those points and recreate the original analog waveform pretty accurately, despite not knowing _exactly_ what happened in between sampling points. longbyte's original point was that kbps (showed in the video while the presenter was talking about sampling rate) is a measurement of the amount of data stored each second - not the frequency of recording the wave's amplitude - the sampling rate. The bitrate (typically kbps, or kilobits/bytes per second) can fluctuate independently of the sampling rate (hz, or hertz), as we're able to record the wave's amplitude with a greater degree of accuracy at each of those sampling points, if we're willing to use more data (bits/bytes) to store it. Then there are fancy algorithms to compress digital audio beyond this naive approach, so that we can squeeze more audio fidelity out of those precious kbps.
3:24 Sampling rate should be referred to as 11khz, 22khz, 44.1khz, 48khz, etc... NOT 128, 192, 256, or 320 kbps. That's the bitrate for the compression algorithm.
My favorite "hype" is so called "Digital" antennas. an antenna is a specially tuned hunk of metal. It responds to an electromagnetic frequency It doesn't "care" if the modulation is pulse,CW,analog or any thing else. Same with "digital" headphones/speakers. All headphones and speakers are in the end "analog"!
Is a digital antenna, at least in the TV world, not just an antenna tuned to the carrier frequency of digital TV broadcasts? AFAIK they are transmitted on a different frequency range than old analog TV broadcasts, so the antenna tuning would need to change for optimal reception of the new digital broadcast. I don't think they are trying to imply the antenna itself is digital, but rather it's tuned for the reception of the DTV signal's frequency range. Of course, with the way marketers understand tech, they probably don't know the difference and just say it's a digital antenna because it is for receiving digital TV, but hey, there is at least a reason for the change.
CalcProgrammer1 Some channels did change from their old frequencies, but all of the digital channels fall within the old bandwidth (mostly moving some old VHF channels to UHF) so a VHF/UHF antenna from 1976 will work the same as a "digital" antenna from 2016. The method of modulation is the only difference. A TV antenna is a TV antenna. They only changed the styling on some expensive models. The rest (like the usual RCA models in discount stores) are electrically and stylistically the same as 30 years ago. The "free TV stick" (as seen on TV.LOL) is just a UHF antenna and it's not amplified. An cheap set of rabbit ears would be as good (or better.).
+dimmddr1 Yeah, it should've been represented with Hz. He didn't even need to say higher, either, since the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem has proved that a sample rate basically double the original frequency response is needed to reproduce the signal. Therefore 44100 Hz is more than sufficient for human hearing, but audiophools love claiming otherwise.
+dimmddr1 Typically one encoding of an audio waveform such as CD-DA (standard CD encoding) will use a fixed level of detail (or depth) per sample e.g. 16 bits per sample, with this knowledge you can calculate the frequency samples were taken at by dividing the bitrate by the sample depth. In the case of CD audio the sample rate is 44.1kHz with a 16 bit depth and 2 channels giving a bitrate of 1,411.2 kbps, totaling 847 MB per 80 minutes of recording.
+Flac Or Gtfo Nyquist theorem is the MINIMUM sampling frequency . i.e. if you are sampling audio 20 to 20,000Hz then the minimum sampeling rate is 40,000Hz. But as DJHenjin said below the number of bits you are sampling with also has a huge impact on the accuracy of the samples . it is why pro gear goes to 24 bit and higher AD/DA converters .
+spud4242 Nyquist isn't the "bottom limit", it's the threshold at which point a digital signal can perfectly recreate an anaolgue signal. A 20 kHz signal can be perfectly recreated from a CD at 44,1 kHz, with the extra headroom needed for low-pass filtering. And at 16 bits a CD can blast a 20 kHz signal out at ear-splitting levels. People selling you 96/24 or 192/24 are snake-oil salesmen, since the only thing those things will improve is your ability to annoy your dog and how easily you can get yourself deaf.
i've always preferred analog audio recordings not because of the quality of the recording but that since the audio files cant be changed very much post processing the artists need to be really tight giving a more live/soulful performance.
FYI, 128,192,256 and 320kbps aren't sampling rates, they are bit rates, which can be used to describe any data streams. Sampling rates are in the form of samples per seconds, or hertz. Typical sampling rates for music range from 44.1khz(cd quality) to 192 kHz or even higher.
I was always a Linus fanboy, but since Luke got so present on the channel I really started to like his videos. Keep up doing your awesome content guys =)
UXXV I know what it is. I was talking about what hes doing with it not what it was. And the fact that it looks ridiculous even trying to hide it in his pocket if he has no skills at hiding what hes doing with it.
Because they used terrible and awful analogies. I don’t think anyone really knew how either worked and the writers just did a quick “first page on Google”analysis. Just ran with it.
Digital is based on numbers (1 and 0/yes and no) that are used to command stuff (i think?) and analog is more of logic based where like this gear is this tuning that gear and therefore it blah blah blah
Digital would be using code to say yes or no, 1 or 0. Analog is using things such as transistors, tubes, and physical components as gates such as diodes (a one way road) to say yes or no, 1 or 0, on or off.
Digital was always frowned upon in the audio world and Analog looked at in superiority, for a long time that was true, but now Analog is a marketing tool to get you to spend 10x the price when Digital is not only matching in quality, but surpassing in some cases and comes with benefits that Analog could never do.
analog will never not be needed but selling you something in digital form can only garner such a limited profit and interest, it is a lot easier to convince you to buy something in physical form and the buyer convincing himself that its worth it to buy. With that said, digital sales are increasing like crazy, but there will always be some unnecessary analog device attached to it to mark up cost for profit and justification of the cost to the buyer.
Tcll5850 You are correct. There are differences between a perfect analog original and its digital copy. In fact, the differences are even audible... ... in the form of background noise. Something vinyl and tape listeners are very much used to. And you are also correct when you say that those differences (causing the background noise) become more silent with the increasing bit depth of the digital audio recording. At the standard bit depth of 16 bit the background noise is not audible until the volume is increased to the point where the loudest parts of the audio go beyond 96 dB, which gives us a dynamic range of 96 dB. (In comparison, Metal Type IV tapes with Dolby noise reduction have a dynamic range of 80 dB) With 24-bit audio, we get to the point where it is impossible to hear the background noise, until the volume is increased to the point where the loudest parts of the audio exceed 144 dB. Exposure to 140 dB noise leads to instant hearing damage and needs to be avoided under any circumstances. Audio latency is usually in sync with video latency and on computers and modern TVs that's usually far below 100 ms, which the brain perceives as no latency. Otherwise everything runs at the standard speed.
@Tcll5850 In practice, digital is better in pretty much every way these days unless the recording has been badly mastered to begin with. Analog storage formats are limited in practice to how good their quality can be by the physical properties of the material they are recorded on, hence the famous hissing, popping and distortion commonly seen on vinyl. Digital has a much higher dynamic range potential, and that's a measurable fact that is backed by double blinded scientific study and we know why it's the case too. In fact no audiophile has picked vinyl as superior to equivalent CDs in blind tests, only in tests where they knew which was which beforehand. Often online you see audiophiles making comparisons between old vinyl recordings and bad CD remasters, then invalidly using that to argue that vinyl are better as a format.
Chris Ayers A lot of people, even in the broadcasting industry, don't understand that "copying" an MP3 file by opening it in an audio editor and saving it as another MP3 degrades the quality.
+vwestlife true, however, ctrl-c then ctrl-v does not degrade the audio file. This is what he is referring too. He is talking about duplicating the file not transcoding.
Chris Ayers No, he was specifically talking about *generational* losses, a problem which affects both analog and digital media. On the other hand, the *distribution* loss for either is negligible -- regardless if a thousand people download an MP3 made from a digital master tape or a thousand LPs are made from an analog master tape, there is no appreciable loss of quality for either.
+vwestlife Depends on the encoding process but simply decoding and encoding some file multiple times does not necessarily lead to any loss of data. The process is exactly the same every time and repeatable, that's the whole principle of digital representations, whereas this is impossible for analog regardless of the process.
my issue is he called bitrate sample rate. sample rate is the frequency at which an audio file stores the data of the sound and is measured in KHz common ones being 44.1Khz, 48KHz and 192KHz. Bitrate is how much space those samples are aloud to take up, or how compressed it makes them.
+Machina Yes, you also need to know quantization to determine required uncompressed bit rate for sampling a channel. (Like 16 bit, 24 bit ADC or storing it as 32 bit float) But I don't know anyone who measures uncompressed PCM in bit rate. Bit rate mostly describes compression (audio or video) in this context.
Simply explained, Information is the physical presence of a state. Data is a recording of that state. Analog is the physical recording of information, which translates to data, and digital is the encoding of that information, which also translates to data.
3:25 128kb/s-320kb/s in the background of the illustration does not represent the sampling rate, but the data transfer rate. The sampling rate is much higher, and is usually in the range of 44,100 samples per second or more.
+Matthew Kinney I'm sure that was obvious to electrical engineers or hardware enthusiasts, but I, as a Computer Science major, also didn't know VGA is analog. It blew my mind too
You dont really get it :(. While digital signals are not capable of storing an unlimited bandwidth signal (analog) perfectly, they are capable of perfectly storing a bandlimited analog signal. By sampling at a rate that is twice the highest frequency in the signal, you can perfectly reconstruct the waveform in its infinitesimal details from that finite sized digital form. This is the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem. Now there is the problem of doing the conversions either way, but there is nothing inherently lossy about digital.
I was just half listening since as an Electric Engineer I kinda know these things, so I had to re-watch a couple of parts to be sure I heard it right: 1/ So logic signals are described as Up or Down and not High and Low... weird, but I guess who cares about proper terminology. (Up and Down reminds me of quarks for some reason.) 2/ Someone apparently also measures Sampling rate in kilo bits per second (bit-rate) and not frequency (like 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 96kHz or 192kHz for most audio), which is also weird... I hope this video wins the Most Inaccurate FAP reward.
Maybe it's only me, but I find this "grab to the hip" very distracting. Please get another team member who scrolls the telepromter or do it with the feet or smth...
Now with powerful gpu and some stope res display I can finally turn those postprocess to max and enjoy a clear and crisp imitation of analogue distortion. Thanks, technological progress
One shall not confuse a "sampling rate" with a "bitrate" where a 320kbps MP3 at 22.05 KHz of sampling rate would actually be terrible in term of audio quality compared to its lower bitrate counterpart; a 128kbps at 44.1 KHz...
digital broadcasting is not always better here in australia analog TV was much more reliable than the new digital TV system we have now a bit of static on your TV screen is much better than pixellation, squawks and drop outs there are few things worse than when your favorite movie or TV show gets to the best part and is interrupted by pixellation or wose still a big NO SIGNAL message on your screen for a few seconds causing you to miss your favorite scene because of a lightning storm, variations in the ionosphere, mobile phones and other transmitters operating on the same band or some other obstruction analog TV signals would need to drop below around 45% (strength and quality taken into account) before the image is too fuzzy to watch and below 30% before the sound starts to fade out analog TV signals are more resistant to momentary interference (lightning puts a tiny white line on the screen for a fraction of a second and nothing more) digital TV signals usually start to pixellate if the signal drops below 85% will usually drop out completely at 75% (as measured by my TV) digital signals are much more susceptible to interference (lightning almost always causes the NO SIGNAL message to show up for 2-3 seconds every time it strikes anywhere between the transmitter and my house) even something as simple as turning on a fluorescent light causes it to pixellate it is even affected by my inverter and solar regulator to the point that i cant watch TV during the day unless i turn off the circuit breaker for the solar input and stop charging the batteries (i use off grid solar so thats not an option) whereas my TV was completely unnaffected when i could use it in analog mode digital is the best option for storage, playback and short range data transmission (WI-FI, 3G/LTE, bluetooth.etc) but analog still takes home the gold medal for medium to long range over the air broadcasting (TV/radio signals.etc)
if only more people understood that the analog TV system was superior analog and digital both have their advantages and drawbacks but you cant solely use one for everything there are things that analog does better there are things that digital does better
My argument exactly, with a slightly different example. The mandated switch to APCO P25 digital radio systems was a massive step backwards for public safety communications. When our deputies are in the more remote areas of our county, their radio transmissions tend to "squawk out" and we (in dispatch) cannot understand what they are saying, and vice-versa. Worse, many times we won't hear the transmission at all. The old analog radios had a bit of static in those areas, but we could still communicate.
just like using a mobile phone with 1 bar of signal good luck even getting the call to connect let alone having a reliable conversation with the person on the other end the main reason they are switching to digital is for money with TV they have more channels for the same amount of spectrum including a few that run 24/7 informercials thus more money with 2 way radio less bandwidth is needed allowing more radios to use the same ammount of spectrum but at the expense of not working at long range thus more money from not needing to license more spectrum from the government its all about the money and its a habit we need to stop
I came across this video because of a friend who put this vid on a test im taking tomorrow to advance and work. btw, luke you were kind of a stud here. ;)
First we convert from analog to digital, when we convert from digital to analog back. Sounds very stupid if we put this way but is the capability of storing digital data and the human limitation of perceiving the whole original analog data is that makes digital systems so superior to pure analog ones.
There is quite a mistake at 3:20 confusing sampling rate representing the number of digital sample per second during the conversion counted in hertz (hz) , tipically 44khz or 96 khz. And the bitrate of an mp3 file reprensenting after lossy compression the number of bits per seconds remaining tipically 128kbps - 320kbps. I don't get why this second one is displayed in the video and not the first one while lossy compression is a whole different topic.
nice video, but keep in mind that digital transmissions are also subject to interference like Digital TV , visible as pixelizing or complete image freezes with garbled images (some times sound manages to keep going) , and as the DAC , there are the ADC that converts analog to digital :3
+Graham Wellington Uugh, where to start?! The guy isn't involved in the subject so his articulation of it is dwarfed by a need to look 'cool'. This is compounded by his digital generation view of analogue. The length of your speaker wires doesn't matter so long as they are the same length and are not next to an inductive source such as mains or power transformers - this is a low voltage, high current situation so interference would be inductive and frankly, unlikely. Digital doesn't suffer from interference?!? Hahaha!!! Sure, I'll just throw out that £30,000 CD transport and use a £10 DVD player from the supermarket then. No. Even people with 'cloth ears' can hear the collosal difference. Digital is measured on the bit's wavefront rise so shitty cables, solder and connectors with semi-conducting junctions coupled to poorly implemented op-amps will cause jitter and errors. I'd rather listen to original data put there by a £2m studio then error correction put in by a 2p chip! "We live to a great extent in an analogue world" - Err, what, are you in Tron some of the time then? To his credit, he did say that higher bit rates *usually* mean higher quality - Maybe he has heard of Nyquist Theorem? Also he does state that digital cannot capture all the infintesimal subtleties of analogue. This is true and digital only captures the voltage changes, not current. Further to this, I live in line of sight of the largest TV transmitter in Europe and we always had crystal clear TV. Since the move to digital its just terrible. With analogue you always got a picture, with digital, if the signal isn't 100% perfect then its glitchzilla! So I don't hate the guy but he's a little fly and uncohesive in his presentation. In a nutshell, I can only quote a hifi designer friend "Digital is the realm of man, analogue is the realm of God."
+Prince Westerburg Ha! Pretty good! I am an admitted ignoramus to this stuff, but while he sounded to me to know his stuff, you sounded like you know even more! Thanks Much for taking the time, and have a Great day!!:-)
+Usaid Khan I can't remember his area of study specifically, but I'm pretty sure Luke was actually an engineering student at UBC. Doesn't mean Wikipedia wasn't used, but it also doesn't mean it was!
1:28 There is not such thing as VGA cables; VGA represents the 640x480 resolution. Those are D-sub cables that carry an analog RGBHV signal. 3:22 Sampling rates are not the same as bitrates!
what? aint nobody gona say "analog is better" or "i remember when -" or "analog for life" or a link to some analog related kickstarter? weird... usually the nostalgia vultures would be here by now...
If they’re here, the anti-analog clan will arrive as well. SMH at how both side can’t accept each other’s opinions. They’re acting like preteen Kpop fans.
This shows that the broadcasts must go through one more process to become a digital signal as opposed to an analog signal, one which compresses what is sent into a narrower bandwidth so that the number of analog channels can be reduced and sold off to other interested parties and subsequently reducing the bands available for this country's Emergency Broadcast System on which to function!
staop that POP! sound... its sucks so much even derek smart uses it.... btw linus tech group should get a "next text clicker for hand"looks way beter then touching under the table or in this case on Lukes belt....
Analog satellite and terrestrial tv were much better... It was perfectly watchable during a storm or heavy rain with a bit of snow in the picture. This digital crap offers me 500 channels I don't need and lags when the signal is weak, making it unwatchable.
+Jo TUWE Also "hdtv" is just an upscaled 720x404 resolution. Like dumb asses who buy 4K televisions for cable, you're looking at around a 480p image being upscaled several times. It just looks like complete shit.
Last year the fam got a new TV for the living room, and I was so surprised to see it didn’t go Grey and fuzzy, because my whole life we had an analogue TV
@@LEMMYLEMON well you'll need a set top box now to use an old analog TV as all modern day televisions broadcast digital/freeview You should throw away your old TV and get a more up to date one as old day televisions use way more electricity than modern televisions
"As fast as possible": The explanation present in this video was not technical enough because of the length of the video being 00:05:30. An explanation about the such topic of this video would more likely be at least 1 hour long. Technical information needs to be explained, and the longer length will make the further explanation practical. Furthermore, too many people have been relying on digital technology nowadays. Their non-digital counterparts can be more advanced and not abandoned.
On our News helicopters we still have to use that old analog TV signal inside because of the latency, So the delay when talking live to the reporter on heli is pretty much reduced comparing to DTVs
I bought a video capturing device that turns analog RCA audio and video to digital via USB... I captured video and I see a horizontal desynchronisation between the horizontal lines...which makes edges look like zig zag...mostly when the movement of people or objects is greater...how can I get rid of that? Can I use a software to correct that after I captured the video? Or is there a software that corrects that while capturing the video? thanks!
I really miss analog television. I used to be able to watch over 40 channels, and even if the signal was weak, I was at least able to see something over the static. Nowadays with digital over the air, I'm only able to receive 10 channels. Also if you have bad signal, you would either see a black screen on a pixelated image. Also, it takes forever to scan to find channels compared to analog where you don't even need to scan. Good thing that CTV Ottawa still broadcast in analog
That is pretty much the only valid argument in favor of analog broadcasts, but I have to admit, it's a pretty strong one. Thankfully you can usually get your channels back by spending 500 bucks on a actually good roof mounted antenna (which is not that much in the grand scheme of things, considering how many people spend over 100 bucks a month on cable TV which has worse video quality in many cases).
@@awesomeferret Man I forgot I sent this comment years ago. I am definitively looking into antennas these days and I hope I find something suitable soon!
@@awesomeferret Unfortunately I don't live alone and I have no chance convincing anyone to install an outdoor antenna. Not even an indoor antenna in the living room because that is "outdated" according to my parents. The only place I can install an antenna would be in my room where I can use a digital tuner to display video on a 5.5" black and white CRT. Currently with a telescopic antenna intended for FM radio I can receive only 2 channels despite living very close to the broadcasting tower. Basically an indoor antenna is my only option (which is what I'm looking into). I have heard of the Antenna Man before, I guess I should watch some of his antenna recommendations.
@@DoughnutMasterStudios That's some sad irony right there. Your parents are probably watching the olympics at a lower bitrate than the OTA broadcasts (OTA TV is known for broadcasting at higher bitrates than cable, at least one ones that broadcast in 1080i). Surround sound is a thing for every major OTA channel too. Maybe figure out a way to force them to watch a few Antenna Man videos? Another sad irony is that cable is itself about 50 years old now.
The message from digital is crystal clear even to someone as profoundly deaf as I am. You get what you pay for . You buy a top of the line cd player with an option of improving the sound further still and you'd have to be deaf as a door nail to not hear the difference . In fact I,d say the sound i,m getting now as just as good as ,if not better,than I could ever hope to get from my vinyl records. Of course that's not what you guys want to hear but it's the truth! And I know because I have a big vinyl collection but an enermous cd collection! LOL And now,at long last ,they sound brilliant! LOL
The most beautiful sounding recordings were made in the 80's before digital ever hit the market. Analogue Tape Saturation produces Even-Order Harmonics and is very musical sounding and pleasing to the ear. Tube Compressors and Pre-Amps also produce Even-Order harmonics which is musical. Then came Pro-Tools. The noise floor was touted as being Zero, but what they did not tell you is that any Hi-Hat recorded in Pro Tools sounds like a trash can lid. Harsh Odd Order Harmonics sound very unpleasant to the human ear. 96k Recording means that the sound is sliced up into 96 Thousand times Per Second. Then re-assembled to hear it. There have been countless Plug Ins that try to achieve the Effect of Tape Saturation, but I have never heard a convincing one.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
I store my dank memes on vinyl records.
DAMN NIIIIIIIIIIIIIICEEEEEEEEEEEEE
LMAO
I store mine on stone tablets so they'll last forever
@@tjl2836 I store mine on sky art so everyone can see it
@@tjl2836 there is no such thing as stone tablets
Luke, you've made a mistake : Sampling rate is measured in KHz , not kbps (like the bitrate which is is the maximum amount of bytes a digital machine can pull out from the file in a second) . The sampling rate represent the frequency of measuring the amplitude and position in time of a analog signal , and it's prefered to be double as big as the maximum value we can observe (for example the human ear can hear maximum of 22Khz , and this is why majority of songs have a 44.1Khz sample rate...computers can output 48Khz "just to be sure" that no quality is lost)
This was such a good explanation
He was correct but I’m too tired to explain
Or should he calls it bit rate?
@CHARITY DAZLEY bit rate refers to the audio quality of the stream. It is measured in Kilobitspersec (kbps or k). Bit rate is # of bits (data) encoded per second or the # of bits transmitted or received per second. Sample rate is the number of samples per unit time. A sample is a measurement of signal amplitude and it contains the information of the amplitude value of the signal waveform over a period of time. The sample rate is also called as sample frequency, higher the sample frequency obtains a signal which is similar to original analog signal for good audio quality.
@@wuli_bottle it's spelt bitrate
4:05 Hey, thats me!
Haha
+TinchoX aplis
+DylonxD dope ass memes
+TinchoX yes it is his
+DylonxD 69th like!
3:22 Sampling rate is *not* measured in Kbps. It is measured in (kilo)hertz. Common sampling rates are 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz. This means that the audio is sampled 48,000 times per second, where 1 sample is one "point" in the audio signal.
longbyte1 thank you for the clarification. He propably was referring to the storage of the samples in the mp3file wich would be in bytes...
longbyte1 and one question: wouldn‘t one sample rather be one wavelength than one ‚point‘ ... because hertz is measuring frequency ? :)
@@ismireghal68 It measures the value of an amplitude or a value of a function so to speak at a given point. The higher the frequency the more measurements are made and higher the quality.
@@ismireghal68 Just to put what Boris said another way - You're storing discrete measurements of that wavelength at a finite number of points - you aren't saving all the data from a wave. Computers are able to recreate that wave given all the individual measurements at each of those individual points. The measurement frequency here determines how many times each second we sample the wave, to get its value at each of those points. Typical sound rates like 44,100hz save the wave's amplitude at those 44,100 points each second. That's enough for our machines to fit a curve to those points and recreate the original analog waveform pretty accurately, despite not knowing _exactly_ what happened in between sampling points.
longbyte's original point was that kbps (showed in the video while the presenter was talking about sampling rate) is a measurement of the amount of data stored each second - not the frequency of recording the wave's amplitude - the sampling rate. The bitrate (typically kbps, or kilobits/bytes per second) can fluctuate independently of the sampling rate (hz, or hertz), as we're able to record the wave's amplitude with a greater degree of accuracy at each of those sampling points, if we're willing to use more data (bits/bytes) to store it.
Then there are fancy algorithms to compress digital audio beyond this naive approach, so that we can squeeze more audio fidelity out of those precious kbps.
@@ismireghal68 Hz is used to denote the no. Of times the ADC takes the sample. Hz means 'per second'.
I'm not a fan anymore, i'm your water cooler
lol
i guess you eavesdrop alot then
+Sir Loudmouth that is one glorious avatar fine sir...
+Sir Loudmouth
dat banner though
Still need a fan.
1:02 The diodes you showed are capacitors.
3:24 Sampling rate should be referred to as 11khz, 22khz, 44.1khz, 48khz, etc... NOT 128, 192, 256, or 320 kbps. That's the bitrate for the compression algorithm.
I still use VGA for most of my monitors!
y?
darwin miller Because the main display is a 24 inch 1080p HDMI touch screen. And all the secondary displays run on VGA 1024x768 res.
+#01DF01Seba Abdur-Rehmaan peasant
+Jake Sinden TUVM.
+Joe Mills Is that because your GPU doesn't have more digital outputs?
Fun Fact: The 3.5 mm headphone jack that we are all very familiar with is a form of analog technology! The more you know!
don't be like Apple
Courage
@vtkin omg it's been 7 years
3:25 That's not sampling rate, that's bit rate. Sampling rate is in kHz, bit rate is in kbps/Mbps.
tardistardis8 yeah, sample rate is analog and bit rate is digital.
Flashlight We still use Sample Rates, because if you want to capture a waveform, you need to *_sample_* it.
I do know that because i do audio related things a lot
Flashlight So do i
"possibility of interference"
You mean..
*THE INEVITABILITY OF INTERFERENCE*
The struggle is real
Mason Bulot If you grew up analog then you know for sure how garbage image quality looked. Especially during inclimate weather.
Dread Naught i lived in Louisiana... When it rained... You weren't watching I love Lucy.
Mason Bulot Well, you could still watch the static and the in and out sound. Not very entertaining though. :(
+Dread Naught XLR master race
My favorite "hype" is so called "Digital" antennas. an antenna is a specially tuned hunk of metal. It responds to an electromagnetic frequency
It doesn't "care" if the modulation is pulse,CW,analog or any thing else. Same with "digital" headphones/speakers. All headphones and speakers are in the end "analog"!
Is a digital antenna, at least in the TV world, not just an antenna tuned to the carrier frequency of digital TV broadcasts? AFAIK they are transmitted on a different frequency range than old analog TV broadcasts, so the antenna tuning would need to change for optimal reception of the new digital broadcast. I don't think they are trying to imply the antenna itself is digital, but rather it's tuned for the reception of the DTV signal's frequency range. Of course, with the way marketers understand tech, they probably don't know the difference and just say it's a digital antenna because it is for receiving digital TV, but hey, there is at least a reason for the change.
CalcProgrammer1 Some channels did change from their old frequencies, but all of the digital channels fall within the old bandwidth (mostly moving some old VHF channels to UHF) so a VHF/UHF antenna from 1976 will work the same as a "digital" antenna from 2016. The method of modulation is the only difference. A TV antenna is a TV antenna. They only changed the styling on some expensive models. The rest (like the usual RCA models in discount stores) are electrically and stylistically the same as 30 years ago. The "free TV stick" (as seen on TV.LOL) is just a UHF antenna and it's not amplified. An cheap set of rabbit ears would be as good (or better.).
Hang on, you said "sampling rates" but the screen showed bitrates. I'm no audio engineer but the sample rate is measured in Hz, not kbps.
+dimmddr1 Yeah, it should've been represented with Hz. He didn't even need to say higher, either, since the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem has proved that a sample rate basically double the original frequency response is needed to reproduce the signal. Therefore 44100 Hz is more than sufficient for human hearing, but audiophools love claiming otherwise.
+dimmddr1 Typically one encoding of an audio waveform such as CD-DA (standard CD encoding) will use a fixed level of detail (or depth) per sample e.g. 16 bits per sample, with this knowledge you can calculate the frequency samples were taken at by dividing the bitrate by the sample depth. In the case of CD audio the sample rate is 44.1kHz with a 16 bit depth and 2 channels giving a bitrate of 1,411.2 kbps, totaling 847 MB per 80 minutes of recording.
Sample rate is measure in Kbps and transmit rates in hz
+Flac Or Gtfo Nyquist theorem is the MINIMUM sampling frequency . i.e. if you are sampling audio 20 to 20,000Hz then the minimum sampeling rate is 40,000Hz. But as DJHenjin said below the number of bits you are sampling with also has a huge impact on the accuracy of the samples . it is why pro gear goes to 24 bit and higher AD/DA converters .
+spud4242 Nyquist isn't the "bottom limit", it's the threshold at which point a digital signal can perfectly recreate an anaolgue signal. A 20 kHz signal can be perfectly recreated from a CD at 44,1 kHz, with the extra headroom needed for low-pass filtering.
And at 16 bits a CD can blast a 20 kHz signal out at ear-splitting levels.
People selling you 96/24 or 192/24 are snake-oil salesmen, since the only thing those things will improve is your ability to annoy your dog and how easily you can get yourself deaf.
i've always preferred analog audio recordings not because of the quality of the recording but that since the audio files cant be changed very much post processing the artists need to be really tight giving a more live/soulful performance.
FYI, 128,192,256 and 320kbps aren't sampling rates, they are bit rates, which can be used to describe any data streams. Sampling rates are in the form of samples per seconds, or hertz. Typical sampling rates for music range from 44.1khz(cd quality) to 192 kHz or even higher.
You showed compression bitrates when you were talking about sampling rate.
Typical sample rate for audio would be 44.1k or 48k
I was always a Linus fanboy, but since Luke got so present on the channel I really started to like his videos. Keep up doing your awesome content guys =)
If your going to hold your pocket so much why even try and hide the controller just hold it in your hand.
+Zed orda My thoughts exactly.
What is he controlling with it?
+JairajSingh Patil Teleprompter I assume.
+Zed orda its the wireless mic pack
UXXV I know what it is. I was talking about what hes doing with it not what it was. And the fact that it looks ridiculous even trying to hide it in his pocket if he has no skills at hiding what hes doing with it.
1:00 "decoded / demodulated fairly easily with diodes" *shows capacitors, transistors etc etc* WHERE ARE THE DIODES AT BRUH
I was looking for this comment. I was like, "none of those are diodes".
Am I the only one that understood none of this? I watched this whole video and still don’t know what analog is
Waste of our time
Because they used terrible and awful analogies. I don’t think anyone really knew how either worked and the writers just did a quick “first page on Google”analysis. Just ran with it.
Digital is based on numbers (1 and 0/yes and no) that are used to command stuff (i think?) and analog is more of logic based where like this gear is this tuning that gear and therefore it blah blah blah
Its like i know how it works but i cant explain it well
Digital would be using code to say yes or no, 1 or 0. Analog is using things such as transistors, tubes, and physical components as gates such as diodes (a one way road) to say yes or no, 1 or 0, on or off.
Digital music impact our mind
Analog music feels throught our heart
Simple like that
Peace
There's no detectable difference.
and dank memes unite us as brothers
I'd never thought I'd have to watch a Techquickie video for school
"Higher sampling rate" Shows bitrates.
+Alexander Rex Evensen glad someone else noticed too, was probably a mistake by the video editor though not really Luke himself
+Alexander Rex Evensen DANG IT DENNIS!!!
but its the same
He means bitrates because sampling rate is in bitrates.
This is the first video in a long time where you have actually gone deeper into how it works and explain it. thanks
And mess it up so many times
Digital was always frowned upon in the audio world and Analog looked at in superiority, for a long time that was true, but now Analog is a marketing tool to get you to spend 10x the price when Digital is not only matching in quality, but surpassing in some cases and comes with benefits that Analog could never do.
But it all has to be converted to analog before you can hear it.
analog will never not be needed but selling you something in digital form can only garner such a limited profit and interest, it is a lot easier to convince you to buy something in physical form and the buyer convincing himself that its worth it to buy. With that said, digital sales are increasing like crazy, but there will always be some unnecessary analog device attached to it to mark up cost for profit and justification of the cost to the buyer.
Absolute History so what your saying is an headphone jack is an unnecessary analog device attached to the phone?
Tcll5850
You are correct. There are differences between a perfect analog original and its digital copy.
In fact, the differences are even audible...
... in the form of background noise. Something vinyl and tape listeners are very much used to.
And you are also correct when you say that those differences (causing the background noise) become more silent with the increasing bit depth of the digital audio recording.
At the standard bit depth of 16 bit the background noise is not audible until the volume is increased to the point where the loudest parts of the audio go beyond 96 dB, which gives us a dynamic range of 96 dB. (In comparison, Metal Type IV tapes with Dolby noise reduction have a dynamic range of 80 dB)
With 24-bit audio, we get to the point where it is impossible to hear the background noise, until the volume is increased to the point where the loudest parts of the audio exceed 144 dB.
Exposure to 140 dB noise leads to instant hearing damage and needs to be avoided under any circumstances.
Audio latency is usually in sync with video latency and on computers and modern TVs that's usually far below 100 ms, which the brain perceives as no latency. Otherwise everything runs at the standard speed.
@Tcll5850 In practice, digital is better in pretty much every way these days unless the recording has been badly mastered to begin with. Analog storage formats are limited in practice to how good their quality can be by the physical properties of the material they are recorded on, hence the famous hissing, popping and distortion commonly seen on vinyl. Digital has a much higher dynamic range potential, and that's a measurable fact that is backed by double blinded scientific study and we know why it's the case too. In fact no audiophile has picked vinyl as superior to equivalent CDs in blind tests, only in tests where they knew which was which beforehand. Often online you see audiophiles making comparisons between old vinyl recordings and bad CD remasters, then invalidly using that to argue that vinyl are better as a format.
Well, the audio now is much better than the previous one. Keep up the good work!
Sampling rate ≠ bit rate... and if you transcoded an MP3 file multiple times, its quality would degrade even faster than analog dubbing.
+vwestlife and transcoding is not the same as duplicating
Chris Ayers A lot of people, even in the broadcasting industry, don't understand that "copying" an MP3 file by opening it in an audio editor and saving it as another MP3 degrades the quality.
+vwestlife true, however, ctrl-c then ctrl-v does not degrade the audio file. This is what he is referring too. He is talking about duplicating the file not transcoding.
Chris Ayers No, he was specifically talking about *generational* losses, a problem which affects both analog and digital media. On the other hand, the *distribution* loss for either is negligible -- regardless if a thousand people download an MP3 made from a digital master tape or a thousand LPs are made from an analog master tape, there is no appreciable loss of quality for either.
+vwestlife Depends on the encoding process but simply decoding and encoding some file multiple times does not necessarily lead to any loss of data. The process is exactly the same every time and repeatable, that's the whole principle of digital representations, whereas this is impossible for analog regardless of the process.
1 of the best explanations of how digital-analog-digital, transforms. :)
Very informative. Gives me a bigger perspective of the electronic world around me. Thank you!
When you watch techquikie on free time and your teacher use it for online classes.
bitrate and sample rate are not the same thing..... (3:24)
my issue is he called bitrate sample rate. sample rate is the frequency at which an audio file stores the data of the sound and is measured in KHz common ones being 44.1Khz, 48KHz and 192KHz. Bitrate is how much space those samples are aloud to take up, or how compressed it makes them.
+Machina Yes, you also need to know quantization to determine required uncompressed bit rate for sampling a channel. (Like 16 bit, 24 bit ADC or storing it as 32 bit float) But I don't know anyone who measures uncompressed PCM in bit rate. Bit rate mostly describes compression (audio or video) in this context.
@@szirsp you guys are physics teachers
Simply explained, Information is the physical presence of a state. Data is a recording of that state.
Analog is the physical recording of information, which translates to data, and digital is the encoding of that information, which also translates to data.
4:06 RuneScape memes everywhere! :3
I never knew I would see a techquickie video in a school assignment
3:23 that's bitrate and has to do with data compression, not sampling rate.
3:25
128kb/s-320kb/s in the background of the illustration does not represent the sampling rate, but the data transfer rate.
The sampling rate is much higher, and is usually in the range of 44,100 samples per second or more.
3:44 hahah, i'm using that same exact creative sound blaster external sound card now.
wht r u doing with the switch on your right pocket ? feels a bit disturbing at times for us to watch
VGA is analog?!
(Facepalms)
+Matthew Kinney I'm sure that was obvious to electrical engineers or hardware enthusiasts, but I, as a Computer Science major, also didn't know VGA is analog. It blew my mind too
+Ming Luo I just assumed it was, because of how easily it can be interfered
+Joe shade How do you infer it? To me the VGA cable is just a cable, I know almost nothing of what goes on within it.
+Ming Luo stuff like the quality or length of the cable can weaken or disrupt the signal
You dont really get it :(. While digital signals are not capable of storing an unlimited bandwidth signal (analog) perfectly, they are capable of perfectly storing a bandlimited analog signal. By sampling at a rate that is twice the highest frequency in the signal, you can perfectly reconstruct the waveform in its infinitesimal details from that finite sized digital form. This is the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem. Now there is the problem of doing the conversions either way, but there is nothing inherently lossy about digital.
Dat runescape dank meme
+God Gabe support
I pray to you every day Gaben pls gibe teh halflifes
+God Gabe If Leo can get an oscar, we can get half life 3
Conastel Lanos Amen brother
I was just half listening since as an Electric Engineer I kinda know these things, so I had to re-watch a couple of parts to be sure I heard it right:
1/ So logic signals are described as Up or Down and not High and Low... weird, but I guess who cares about proper terminology. (Up and Down reminds me of quarks for some reason.)
2/ Someone apparently also measures Sampling rate in kilo bits per second (bit-rate) and not frequency (like 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 96kHz or 192kHz for most audio), which is also weird...
I hope this video wins the Most Inaccurate FAP reward.
Maybe it's only me, but I find this "grab to the hip" very distracting. Please get another team member who scrolls the telepromter or do it with the feet or smth...
Luke just turned into my favorite "of tweets, netflix, and DANK MEMES"
wow much early, very surprise
+HighFructoseFun are you talking about finding the video shortly after it gets uploaded?, because i think this is a personal record for me
This meme is dead, stop forcing it, thank you
Forced memes xd
this is fucking 3 years old. stop it.
+HighFructoseFun wowowowowow
I love the way you guys explain things. makes me feel less dumb
My computer, tv, and toaster are all still analog. :'(
you have a vacuum tube computer?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
well then
+TheGreeny3003 Pretty sure your PC is not analog, but the monitor attached to it may be.
+Ken Kalajdžič Analog PC LMAO
Analog - data stored in purely electric signals/waves.
Digital - data stored in binary (Ones and Zeros)
There’s way more to it..
Isn't digital just a very complex analog system?
No it is nothing compared to Analog,neither are the same at all
Thanks for the vid!! Very interesting comparison. I'll steal my merch digitally next time
That touching of the remote is pissing me off...
@3:22 sorry luke, but 128 256 320 KBPS is Bit Rate, not Sample Rate, Sample Rate would be 44Khz 48Khz etc.
Now with powerful gpu and some stope res display I can finally turn those postprocess
to max and enjoy a clear and crisp imitation of analogue distortion. Thanks, technological progress
Such funny so laughing!!!
+Peter Hindes WAT
One shall not confuse a "sampling rate" with a "bitrate" where a 320kbps MP3 at 22.05 KHz of sampling rate would actually be terrible in term of audio quality compared to its lower bitrate counterpart; a 128kbps at 44.1 KHz...
digital broadcasting is not always better
here in australia analog TV was much more reliable than the new digital TV system we have now
a bit of static on your TV screen is much better than pixellation, squawks and drop outs
there are few things worse than when your favorite movie or TV show gets to the best part and is interrupted by pixellation or wose still a big NO SIGNAL message on your screen for a few seconds causing you to miss your favorite scene because of a lightning storm, variations in the ionosphere, mobile phones and other transmitters operating on the same band or some other obstruction
analog TV signals would need to drop below around 45% (strength and quality taken into account) before the image is too fuzzy to watch and below 30% before the sound starts to fade out
analog TV signals are more resistant to momentary interference (lightning puts a tiny white line on the screen for a fraction of a second and nothing more)
digital TV signals usually start to pixellate if the signal drops below 85% will usually drop out completely at 75% (as measured by my TV)
digital signals are much more susceptible to interference (lightning almost always causes the NO SIGNAL message to show up for 2-3 seconds every time it strikes anywhere between the transmitter and my house)
even something as simple as turning on a fluorescent light causes it to pixellate
it is even affected by my inverter and solar regulator to the point that i cant watch TV during the day unless i turn off the circuit breaker for the solar input and stop charging the batteries (i use off grid solar so thats not an option) whereas my TV was completely unnaffected when i could use it in analog mode
digital is the best option for storage, playback and short range data transmission (WI-FI, 3G/LTE, bluetooth.etc)
but analog still takes home the gold medal for medium to long range over the air broadcasting (TV/radio signals.etc)
you are correct
if only more people understood that the analog TV system was superior
analog and digital both have their advantages and drawbacks but you cant solely use one for everything
there are things that analog does better
there are things that digital does better
My argument exactly, with a slightly different example. The mandated switch to APCO P25 digital radio systems was a massive step backwards for public safety communications. When our deputies are in the more remote areas of our county, their radio transmissions tend to "squawk out" and we (in dispatch) cannot understand what they are saying, and vice-versa. Worse, many times we won't hear the transmission at all. The old analog radios had a bit of static in those areas, but we could still communicate.
just like using a mobile phone with 1 bar of signal
good luck even getting the call to connect let alone having a reliable conversation with the person on the other end
the main reason they are switching to digital is for money
with TV they have more channels for the same amount of spectrum including a few that run 24/7 informercials thus more money
with 2 way radio less bandwidth is needed allowing more radios to use the same ammount of spectrum but at the expense of not working at long range thus more money from not needing to license more spectrum from the government
its all about the money and its a habit we need to stop
I came across this video because of a friend who put this vid on a test im taking tomorrow to advance and work. btw, luke you were kind of a stud here. ;)
What's he keep playing with on his waist?
First we convert from analog to digital, when we convert from digital to analog back. Sounds very stupid if we put this way but is the capability of storing digital data and the human limitation of perceiving the whole original analog data is that makes digital systems so superior to pure analog ones.
Does it look like he has no idea what to do with his other hand through this video?
hes using it to click a teleprompter remote on his belt
3:28 pretty close fidelity? is Luke talking about lossy formats or just digital audio recording?
+elpidiovaldez4ever Pretty sure he's talking about just the recording.
Is anyone else distracted by Luke's right hand?
There is quite a mistake at 3:20 confusing sampling rate representing the number of digital sample per second during the conversion counted in hertz (hz) , tipically 44khz or 96 khz. And the bitrate of an mp3 file reprensenting after lossy compression the number of bits per seconds remaining tipically 128kbps - 320kbps.
I don't get why this second one is displayed in the video and not the first one while lossy compression is a whole different topic.
You fool
The video is all correct and there aren't no mistakes at all
I must be stupid because this concept still confused the shit out of me.
Confuses
i dont understand it 100% either
but all im getting is that digital has advantages
Bluesocks 11 considering that you are even bothering to look this up i would venture that you are not stupid at all.
nice video, but keep in mind that digital transmissions are also subject to interference like Digital TV , visible as pixelizing or complete image freezes with garbled images (some times sound manages to keep going) , and as the DAC , there are the ADC that converts analog to digital :3
I see Dank Memes mentioned - I upvote
We are not on reddit.
Helped me understand what a modem does, thank you
D A N K M E M E S
Amazing ...brother
I'm glad that I have found ur video first.... And I got it
Hey kids, lots of errors in this video!
+Prince Westerburg Hmm he sounded to me like he knew his stuff. Please be a sport and tell us about some of the errors, thanks!
+Graham Wellington Uugh, where to start?! The guy isn't involved in the subject so his articulation of it is dwarfed by a need to look 'cool'. This is compounded by his digital generation view of analogue.
The length of your speaker wires doesn't matter so long as they are the same length and are not next to an inductive source such as mains or power transformers - this is a low voltage, high current situation so interference would be inductive and frankly, unlikely.
Digital doesn't suffer from interference?!? Hahaha!!! Sure, I'll just throw out that £30,000 CD transport and use a £10 DVD player from the supermarket then. No. Even people with 'cloth ears' can hear the collosal difference.
Digital is measured on the bit's wavefront rise so shitty cables, solder and connectors with semi-conducting junctions coupled to poorly implemented op-amps will cause jitter and errors. I'd rather listen to original data put there by a £2m studio then error correction put in by a 2p chip!
"We live to a great extent in an analogue world" - Err, what, are you in Tron some of the time then?
To his credit, he did say that higher bit rates *usually* mean higher quality - Maybe he has heard of Nyquist Theorem? Also he does state that digital cannot capture all the infintesimal subtleties of analogue. This is true and digital only captures the voltage changes, not current.
Further to this, I live in line of sight of the largest TV transmitter in Europe and we always had crystal clear TV. Since the move to digital its just terrible. With analogue you always got a picture, with digital, if the signal isn't 100% perfect then its glitchzilla!
So I don't hate the guy but he's a little fly and uncohesive in his presentation.
In a nutshell, I can only quote a hifi designer friend "Digital is the realm of man, analogue is the realm of God."
+Prince Westerburg Ha! Pretty good! I am an admitted ignoramus to this stuff, but while he sounded to me to know his stuff, you sounded like you know even more! Thanks Much for taking the time, and have a Great day!!:-)
Thanks for helping me with my radio work
Analog is like Diet Coke while Digital is like Cool Ranch Doritos
- Stephen Hawking
THANKS A MILLION MANN!!... this helped me a lot
keep up the great work!!
It is hard to watch a video when he keeps putting his hand to a remote in his pocket.
What was/is that all about?!
I always liked this series but I would have never thought it would help me with exams lol
Great video!
and here im in the future studying for the IT matura exam out of this xd
Do you electrical engineer bro? Or just reading off wikipedia
+Usaid Khan They teach this in CS and IT too...
+Usaid Khan
I was taught this stuff in highschool
+Laffen47 #nobodycares
+Usaid Khan I can't remember his area of study specifically, but I'm pretty sure Luke was actually an engineering student at UBC. Doesn't mean Wikipedia wasn't used, but it also doesn't mean it was!
***** I heard you like some processors in your processors
1:28 There is not such thing as VGA cables; VGA represents the 640x480 resolution. Those are D-sub cables that carry an analog RGBHV signal.
3:22 Sampling rates are not the same as bitrates!
I think he was trying to make a distinction between sampling rate and bit depth
what? aint nobody gona say "analog is better" or "i remember when -" or "analog for life" or a link to some analog related kickstarter?
weird... usually the nostalgia vultures would be here by now...
Dying of laughter right now.
+Joe Mills Wrong. Analog is *necessary* for playback. All speakers are inherently analog in nature.
If they’re here, the anti-analog clan will arrive as well. SMH at how both side can’t accept each other’s opinions. They’re acting like preteen Kpop fans.
I still have my tapes from the late 80s and they sound Great!!!
I have tapes from the early 80s playing on an early 70s deck and they sound great, too! and they’re home radio recordings.
Subscribe to my channel! I will do my tapes on video if you do.@@19seventy97
What's in your pocket luke?
He's using their teleprompter for the script
This shows that the broadcasts must go through one more process to become a digital signal as opposed to an analog signal, one which compresses what is sent into a narrower bandwidth so that the number of analog channels can be reduced and sold off to other interested parties and subsequently reducing the bands available for this country's Emergency Broadcast System on which to function!
pas fou
@3:26 those are common bitrates for lossy file formats, completely different from sampling rates.
staop that POP! sound... its sucks so much even derek smart uses it.... btw linus tech group should get a "next text clicker for hand"looks way beter then touching under the table or in this case on Lukes belt....
3:23 sampling rate is completely different from the bit rate. Please add annotation to fix that..
Analog satellite and terrestrial tv were much better... It was perfectly watchable during a storm or heavy rain with a bit of snow in the picture. This digital crap offers me 500 channels I don't need and lags when the signal is weak, making it unwatchable.
+Jo TUWE Also "hdtv" is just an upscaled 720x404 resolution. Like dumb asses who buy 4K televisions for cable, you're looking at around a 480p image being upscaled several times. It just looks like complete shit.
+Walnut Spice TV is broadcast in 720P or 1080i to my knowledge.
+JJ Warner Depends on where you live
Jo TUWE Any "HDTV" signal would be 720P or 1080i, though, with some stations just starting which offer 2160P broadcasts.
JJ Warner Where I live there is no HD cable at least. It's around 480p and upscaled to 720 by a cable box
Last year the fam got a new TV for the living room, and I was so surprised to see it didn’t go Grey and fuzzy, because my whole life we had an analogue TV
Well it won't work at all in the modern world as analogue television was phased out in the year 2009
@@stephensnell5707 actually I think it was my grandfathers tv when I was really young. (I was born in 2007)
@@LEMMYLEMON well you'll need a set top box now to use an old analog TV as all modern day televisions broadcast digital/freeview
You should throw away your old TV and get a more up to date one as old day televisions use way more electricity than modern televisions
@@stephensnell5707 ok, cool
dankest of gnomes. such scape. very rune.
"As fast as possible": The explanation present in this video was not technical enough because of the length of the video being 00:05:30. An explanation about the such topic of this video would more likely be at least 1 hour long. Technical information needs to be explained, and the longer length will make the further explanation practical. Furthermore, too many people have been relying on digital technology nowadays. Their non-digital counterparts can be more advanced and not abandoned.
Helpful video Luke & LMG
Great video.. I learned a lot. Thanks Techquickie for the free knowledge.
On our News helicopters we still have to use that old analog TV signal inside because of the latency, So the delay when talking live to the reporter on heli is pretty much reduced comparing to DTVs
I bought a video capturing device that turns analog RCA audio and video to digital via USB...
I captured video and I see a horizontal desynchronisation between the horizontal lines...which makes edges look like zig zag...mostly when the movement of people or objects is greater...how can I get rid of that? Can I use a software to correct that after I captured the video? Or is there a software that corrects that while capturing the video?
thanks!
I really miss analog television. I used to be able to watch over 40 channels, and even if the signal was weak, I was at least able to see something over the static. Nowadays with digital over the air, I'm only able to receive 10 channels. Also if you have bad signal, you would either see a black screen on a pixelated image. Also, it takes forever to scan to find channels compared to analog where you don't even need to scan. Good thing that CTV Ottawa still broadcast in analog
That is pretty much the only valid argument in favor of analog broadcasts, but I have to admit, it's a pretty strong one. Thankfully you can usually get your channels back by spending 500 bucks on a actually good roof mounted antenna (which is not that much in the grand scheme of things, considering how many people spend over 100 bucks a month on cable TV which has worse video quality in many cases).
@@awesomeferret Man I forgot I sent this comment years ago. I am definitively looking into antennas these days and I hope I find something suitable soon!
@@DoughnutMasterStudios Check out a channel called Antenna Man. If you are serious about OTA TV, I wouldn't even consider an indoor antenna.
@@awesomeferret Unfortunately I don't live alone and I have no chance convincing anyone to install an outdoor antenna. Not even an indoor antenna in the living room because that is "outdated" according to my parents. The only place I can install an antenna would be in my room where I can use a digital tuner to display video on a 5.5" black and white CRT. Currently with a telescopic antenna intended for FM radio I can receive only 2 channels despite living very close to the broadcasting tower. Basically an indoor antenna is my only option (which is what I'm looking into). I have heard of the Antenna Man before, I guess I should watch some of his antenna recommendations.
@@DoughnutMasterStudios That's some sad irony right there. Your parents are probably watching the olympics at a lower bitrate than the OTA broadcasts (OTA TV is known for broadcasting at higher bitrates than cable, at least one ones that broadcast in 1080i). Surround sound is a thing for every major OTA channel too. Maybe figure out a way to force them to watch a few Antenna Man videos? Another sad irony is that cable is itself about 50 years old now.
You can still watch digital (ATSC) television with "rabbit ears" today. Also in old school analog TV (NTSC) the audio was FM and the Video was AM.
I hate to be that guy, but at 3:25 you list various bit rates which describe the amount of compression and not sampling rate
Hey... very nice video.... thanks for making it so simple
Hey, I have that DAC that he shows at 3:45. Wonderful little device.
The message from digital is crystal clear even to someone as profoundly deaf as I am.
You get what you pay for .
You buy a top of the line cd player with an option of improving the sound further still and you'd have to be deaf as a door nail to not hear the difference .
In fact I,d say the sound i,m getting now as just as good as ,if not better,than I could ever hope to get from my vinyl records.
Of course that's not what you guys want to hear but it's the truth!
And I know because I have a big vinyl collection but an enermous cd collection! LOL
And now,at long last ,they sound brilliant! LOL
Very educational video. not the most in depth but a good place to gain a basic understanding
The most beautiful sounding recordings were made in the 80's before digital ever hit the market. Analogue Tape Saturation produces Even-Order Harmonics and is very musical sounding and pleasing to the ear. Tube Compressors and Pre-Amps also produce Even-Order harmonics which is musical. Then came Pro-Tools. The noise floor was touted as being Zero, but what they did not tell you is that any Hi-Hat recorded in Pro Tools sounds like a trash can lid. Harsh Odd Order Harmonics sound very unpleasant to the human ear. 96k Recording means that the sound is sliced up into 96 Thousand times Per Second. Then re-assembled to hear it. There have been countless Plug Ins that try to achieve the Effect of Tape Saturation, but I have never heard a convincing one.