See this now and wake up. . . . MOON LANDING CUT SCENES FILMED IN NEVADA DESERT. . .now you know it's fake!

Prove it.

Are YOU the best can do?

Analogue Stereo Fm is a multiplex signal. Analogue TV is a multiplex signal.

Other than that you are repeating what I said in different words.

One of them threatened to put radioactive contamination in my home and to "burn my whole tribe with radiation".

It ended up getting the NRC involved

Ive been threatened so many times I have just learned to ignore it.

Multiplex != Digital. For fuck sakes the phone you're shitposting on is an FM digital multiplexer that outputs in ANALOG.

You're battin a thousand, winner

Holy fuckballs you're retarded! WTF is a Compact Disc? What's a Digital/Analog Converter? How hairy are your palms?

You CANNOT create analogue from digital. You can fake it.


Like record a CD player with a tape recorder

You're listening to an analogue recording of a digital rendered sound

You can create a digital copy of an analogue source but not the other way around

So, your ears interpret digital data directly do they?

Jesus cryste these fuckers are thick

I guess it's good enough for government work

You're not making sense. You haven't been

I havent been able to isolate a single point from your word salads.

Digital sound recordings are easily detected and distinguished from analogue by any audiophile. While a digital synthesizer can produce a sound from digital data, it will never be the same as an analogue recording of the same sound and side by side oscilloscope analysis proves it.

Just like a digital photograph is not "real".

Look at big brain genius here with his digital ears!

Must drive you batty hearing all those cell phone calls simultaneously without any way to turn it off! Might explain a few things!

Not as thick as saying thomas baron's testimony does not exist when it a matter of record.

Also saying his testimony was about moon landing not being possible.

[link to catalog.libraries.psu.edu (secure)]

[link to winningisforme.com (secure)]

[link to www.clavius.org]

The reason why analogue takes more bandwidth is simple, because it is carrying much more information. This is why an old person will tell you a flat-screen tv looks fake but they are comfortable with the warm glow of a CRT tube, while the digital recording has a much better signal to noise ratio and resolution, it is still missing "information" and nuances that IS on the old CRT tube. I dont know if this will make sense to a simpleton.

.

Put simply, a quality analogue recording has realism that digital recordings do not, and may never.

I'm not wasting any more time on you. As far as I am concerned I have exposed you as a no nothing poser trying to play off NASA as a legitimate witness to it's own NOT committing crimes


. You cant just learn what it takes years to understand by clicking on links as I mention something you know nothing about. What happens is you tend to post irrelevant information or not understand what you are reading

Please stop


I am feeling sorry for you.

Please explain how your post responds logically or even sanely to the post you quoted.
Where did I give you the impression if could use my ears to "interpret digital directly"?

You have pigshit oozing from all seven holes of your tiny skull IMO

Astro bails and minutes later you show up

HMMM


I told you I would make a baying jackass out of you.

No amount of education and no search engine is a replacement for intelligence, and 10 minutes of independent thought is worth more than ten years of thoughtless indoctrination.

You're full of shit! That's the same person!

44.1khz 16bit waveforms dynamically exceed the capabilities of human hearing.

If you're talking about MP3 or similar compression, yes there is psychoacoustic loss that is within the human range of hearing that is perceptible but not audible.

The effective dynamic range of an FM radio broadcast is roughly similar to an LP 33RPM album or about a 96kbps MP3 compressed recording.

Tell us more about the digital ears you have out there in tartaria.

SO what is the material you copy pasted saying, digital sound recordings are as realistic as analogue ones?



No, they are not

I can tell the difference instantly.

Hard to say, there is so much bullshit out there. But one thing is for sure, this video has undergone some voodoo over the years on the net, now you see it now you dont, then someone else posts it again. AT any rate it neither proves or disproves Kubrick directed the moonlanding films


I believe he did simply because techniques were used in the Apollo production that he was at the leading edge of developing at the time and he was known to be one of the best sci fi directors in film.

No doubt. CD audio aka uncompressed waveform is substantially better than anything analog.

Perhaps you ought to have a look at the Franhoeffer Institute studies on psychoacoustic modeling they used to develop the MP3 codec in the early 90s.

In case you are unaware and I am sure you are, what this is saying is the human hearing is not capable of telling the difference between a 44.1khz 16 bit sound and an analogue recording of the same sound and I am telling you that you are FULL OS SHIT

HORSESHIT

7 1/2 IPS reel to reel is magnitude more realistic, and so is vinyl on a good turntable.



I dont have to. I have both state of the art analogue and digital playback and I can hear the difference, quite clearly.

Oh, fuck off shill!! Of course you are fully aware of the fact that the time between shooting and actually RELEASING a movie is several YEARS, you just want to mislead people!!!

As a matter of fact, principal photography for "Eyes wide shut" (when the photos you provided as "proof" that the person in the interview is not Kubrick were taken) began in 1996!!!

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Also, @3:24 in the video, the interviewer even notes that he looks "worn" and Kubrick admits he hasn't taken care of himself and he has been drinking a lot.

So, your "proof" is a FAIL!!!

*Yawn* are you done yet with your temper tantrum?

You have a reading comprehension problem. PERIOD.

Back in the 70's I bought a Japanese audio receiver that was not digital in any way, all transistor technology

It had harmonic distortion rating of 0.03 percent THD at rated RMS output.

Compare that you your digital receiver, which will typically be rated at 1 percent THD at rated output and typically is not rated in RMS but peak output to fool the suckers.

.



The ONE thing that is superior about digital is a higher signal to noise ratio and effective dynamic range (Decibel range of sound at a given volume setting), but when the signal is the noise it doesn't help

ANyone who says that is betraying their ignorance

Of course by that you mean, completely inaccurate audio.

Do you know what the RIAA sound curve is?