SACD is a different focal length, so there are no commercially available disc drives that can even read them. It doesn't mean they don't make them for some people. Also, for broadcast, you would need to resample it down to CD quality.

dnewhous wrote on 2020-07-23, 18:01:

SACD is a different focal length, so there are no commercially available disc drives that can even read them. It doesn't mean they don't make them for some people. Also, for broadcast, you would need to resample it down to CD quality.

I have heard about modified players being used to extract the the DSD datastream in its native format . This is probably not legal in most jurisdictions .

EDIT: I stumbled on that info when I was looking for a compatible loader mechanism to fix my Salvation Army purchased BDP-S6200 . I have since replaced the loader and have a functional unit . As far as I am concerned, SACD is more trouble than it's worth considering the availability of DRM free, lossless and fully legal alternatives .

SACD is essentially the same physical media as DVD. The logical layout is completely different though and regular PC drives can't read them.

SACD playback never getting to computers is why I was hoping for more 96 kHz options at 7digital.

Also, AC-4 is stereo at 96 kbps according to the wikipedia.

I decided to go back to my original post and add Denon is back as #14 of things going right. They are back, with phono inputs, and are better than Onkyo.

DTS Neural X is upmixing. Not virtualized surround sound.

Since we don't have out ducks in a technological row, I see how multicasting in stereo seams like a good idea. It looks like DVD-Audio had to survive to do surround sound radio. Then you could have one surround sound broadcast per station and then virtualize the surround sound on your car stereo. But virtualized surround sound is not there.

It looks like they've modified the wikipedia so all the diagrams blown up in size when you click on them.

Now that I think about it, I think the essential argument with DD Live is it is more important for a game console than a soundcard.

dnewhous wrote on 2020-07-22, 00:05:

7) Soundblaster MIDI synthesis is no longer emulated in DOSBox.
😎 Microsoft Office supporting the Mathtype plugin. Sorry Adobe.
9) The MathType plugin supporting teX characters. Sorry Unix.

The decision all internet forum software made to parse "8)" as an emoticon.

dnewhous wrote on 2020-07-22, 00:05:

not a good idea ideas:

A lot of your points sound like half-jokes, but this one takes the crown:

dnewhous wrote on 2020-07-22, 00:05:

invention of C sharp
C++ is the obvious choice for video games and even TCP/IP is doable in C++. It looks like a child's version of MFC.

I'm not even going to comment on that.

Everyone knows that COBOL is the only language with a future.

schmatzler wrote on 2020-07-25, 13:09:

Everyone knows that COBOL is the only language with a future.

That's not too far from the truth:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/04/i … to-help-states/

I know, that's the joke! 😀
Banks have money, banks still need COBOL.

So it will probably never die because of software that's not easy to replace.

dr_st wrote on 2020-07-25, 11:25:

I'm not even going to comment on that.

I just downloaded Visual Studio 2019 and ... the desktop applications in C# are called Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF). I don't see any option for an MFC desktop application.

VS 2019 doesn't come with everything installed by default because most developers don't need everything.
You actually need to set a tick at "Desktop Development with C++" -> "C++ MFC for latest[...]" in the Visual studio Installer.

There are also good reasons to prefer C# over C++ and vice versa.

Marentis wrote on 2020-07-26, 04:12:

VS 2019 doesn't come with everything installed by default because most developers don't need everything.
You actually need to set a tick at "Desktop Development with C++" -> "C++ MFC for latest[...]" in the Visual studio Installer.

There are also good reasons to prefer C# over C++ and vice versa.

Yeah, if you're a web "programmer".

C# for the web? I must have missed that JavaScript and Node.JS went out of fashion.
Or do you mean for services which are basically only connected? Then yes, C# is strong there but so is Java, Node.JS and
a ton of other languages and frameworks.
But no, I'm a Computer Scientist who actually started out with C and then C++ for his first programming languages
but I've worked with C#, Python, Go, Rust and Java. So yes, I still have a soft spot for C++ but clinging to it won't
gain me anything. Especially as I've nowadays become a Software Architect so I actually *HAVE* to deal with
emerging languages all the time.
And yes, learning new programming languages or throwing out old concepts is hard because suddenly you're a newbie
even when you had over 10+ years experience in "the old ways".
And I see that issue every day at work, when we have to form new teams and people feel like they're being pushed aside
because their expertise is suddenly quite low. But that's only in their perception, if they're willing to catch up there's
nothing I worry about. Especially as many more abstract concepts carry over just fine.

In addition C++ will probably stay relevant for the next decades and so will be C or C#.
But it is highly likely that they're getting replaced for new applications as is happening already.
Microsoft is openly discussing replacing parts of Windows with components written in Rust
and many applications are actually progressive web apps.
Do I think that everything new is better or great? Not really. There are many new programming
languages every year and only a very small minority of these programming languages
will become and stay relevant. But that doesn't mean that old is always better either.

At the end of the day you will always see a trade-off between safety, developer productivity and
performance of the application.

> C# for the web? I must have missed that JavaScript and Node.JS went out of fashion.

I'm not sure they ever came into fashion in big enterprise computing.

Ok, I think we're basically just talking about different things.
Are we talking about backends or frontends?
I mean "web" can mean a whole lot of things and I probably wrongly
jumped to the conclusion that you meant frontends.

Marentis wrote on 2020-07-26, 05:50:

Ok, I think we're basically just talking about different things. Are we talking about backends or frontends? I mean "web" can m […]
Show full quote

Ok, I think we're basically just talking about different things.
Are we talking about backends or frontends?
I mean "web" can mean a whole lot of things and I probably wrongly
jumped to the conclusion that you meant frontends.

A lot of enterprise Corps still do server side web rendering in .NET and J2EE. C#/. NET failed pretty badly on the desktop, just like Java. They rule enterprise web dev though.

Yeah ok, I can get behind that statement.
My bad for misinterpreting your statement, sorry.

darry wrote on 2020-07-23, 15:57:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote on 2020-07-23, 15:38:

To be fair, many audiophiles would rather have dedicated phono preamp than supposedly mediocre phono preamp in an AV receiver.

From what I have seen of some mass market, modern and inexpensive turntables, they tend to have an integrated pre-amp, uneven platters and are bundled with extremely crappy cartridges that require something like 9g of VTF .

Ew, I knew. Yuck.

I don't mind integrated gears as long as a) they are of high quality; b) they have the option to use separates. My Sansui AU-7900 is an integrated, but it has great sound, and it also has pre-outs just in case I'd like to use separate power amp with the Sansui's preamp section (or vice versa).

darry wrote on 2020-07-23, 15:57:

Full disclosure: I am not a vinyl lover in the sense that I have no nostalgia or affection for the format's limits/flaws . I prefer my sound to be as close as possible to the studio masters . That said, I will use vinyl if something I want is unavailable on a lossless digital medium (theoretical scenario so far, but I do have a Technics SL-Q2 ready for that eventuality).

Share the same sentiments. People are complaining about CDs and their "brittle, digital sound." Little do they know that it's all about mastering. Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms was appropriately mastered to take advantage of CD format, and I like the CD version much, much better than the vinyl version.

Speaking of vinyl, what annoys me is those hipsters who adopt the format not because of its sonic quality, but because it's 'retro' and 'cool'; those who believes that pops and hisses are part of the vinyl's 'analog sound quality', while completely ignorant to the fact that properly cleaned and well-maintained vinyl should not make those noises.

All I can say about vinyl vs CD is that when I'm playing FLACs on my PC, I find I often prefer the way music sounds when I push the high end of the equalizer way down. Those frequencies tend to be grating, but I guess it may depend on the recording.
Vinyl "conveniently" makes the same adjustment due to it's practical limitations.

shamino wrote on 2020-07-26, 14:28:

All I can say about vinyl vs CD is that when I'm playing FLACs on my PC, I find I often prefer the way music sounds when I push the high end of the equalizer way down. Those frequencies tend to be grating, but I guess it may depend on the recording.
Vinyl "conveniently" makes the same adjustment due to it's practical limitations.

That’s not true. Vinyl is flat up to 50 kHz after RIAA equalization and this was used in the 70s for quadraphonic sound (the additional two channels were encoded in frequencies above 20 kHz).

Of course, if you’re using a cheap conical stylus, then it’s not capable of tracing high frequency modulations.