Jeff Liebermann -- "BIT-rate" and "SAMPLE-rate" are two totally different things.

I reposted yet another time to emphasize the fact that "BIT-rate" and
"SAMPLE-rate" are two totally different things.

In addition, I would like Jeff Liebermann to please answer my
questions in the below post.

On Jul 19, 12:06 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...e614fe3?hl=en&
:

> Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> hath wroth:

> >On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...sg/696d6abf90c...

> >> how would u like to change the cell phone industry?

> >Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
> >start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
> >a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz.

> Very roughly, the current 8Kbits/sec encoding rate,
> compared to your 44Kbit/sec, will only handle about 1/5th the number
> of users.

Who said anything about 44Kbit/sec?

The bit-rate of my WMA CBR is 20Kbit/sec or less.

> >1. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of
> >at least 16-bit

> The encoding resolution is not changed by compression. If you encode
> something with 16 bit resolution, and compress it, you still have 16
> bit data coming out. It's the data rate or thruput that changes with
> compression.

Okay.

> >2. The sample-rate of the compressed and the uncompressed version of
> >the audio must be the same.

> Not possible. If the rate in and rate out are identical, then there's
> no compression happening.

Yes it is possible and it is compression. The uncompressed audio is a
monaural linear PCM at 44.1-KHz-sample-rate with a 16-bit-resolution
-- this audio has a bit-rate of 705.6 kbps. The compressed audio is a
monaural CBR WMA at 44.1-KHz-sample-rate with a bit-rate of 20 kbps or
less.

Where/when is there any change in sample-rate?????????

There is definitely a change in bit-rate. However, that is totally
different from the sample rate. Totally.

BIT-rate and SAMPLE-rate are two completely different things.

In linear PCM audio:

BIT-rate = SAMPLE-rate X bit-resolution X number of channels

Stereo has two channels. Mono has one channel.

44,100 Hz X 16-bit X 1 channel = 705,600 bps

No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.



Radium

On Jul 21, 11:22 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I reposted yet another time to emphasize the fact that "BIT-rate" and
> "SAMPLE-rate" are two totally different things.
>
> In addition, I would like Jeff Liebermann to please answer my
> questions in the below post.
>
> On Jul 19, 12:06 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote inhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basics/msg/4b14d9c79e6...
> :
>
> > Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> hath wroth:
> > >On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...sg/696d6abf90c...
> > >> how would u like to change the cell phone industry?
> > >Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
> > >start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
> > >a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz.
> > Very roughly, the current 8Kbits/sec encoding rate,
> > compared to your 44Kbit/sec, will only handle about 1/5th the number
> > of users.
>
> Who said anything about 44Kbit/sec?
>
> The bit-rate of my WMA CBR is 20Kbit/sec or less.
>
> > >1. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of
> > >at least 16-bit
> > The encoding resolution is not changed by compression. If you encode
> > something with 16 bit resolution, and compress it, you still have 16
> > bit data coming out. It's the data rate or thruput that changes with
> > compression.
>
> Okay.
>
> > >2. The sample-rate of the compressed and the uncompressed version of
> > >the audio must be the same.
> > Not possible. If the rate in and rate out are identical, then there's
> > no compression happening.
>
> Yes it is possible and it is compression. The uncompressed audio is a
> monaural linear PCM at 44.1-KHz-sample-rate with a 16-bit-resolution
> -- this audio has a bit-rate of 705.6 kbps. The compressed audio is a
> monaural CBR WMA at 44.1-KHz-sample-rate with a bit-rate of 20 kbps or
> less.
>
> Where/when is there any change in sample-rate?????????
>
> There is definitely a change in bit-rate. However, that is totally
> different from the sample rate. Totally.
>
> BIT-rate and SAMPLE-rate are two completely different things.
>
> In linear PCM audio:
>
> BIT-rate = SAMPLE-rate X bit-resolution X number of channels
>
> Stereo has two channels. Mono has one channel.
>
> 44,100 Hz X 16-bit X 1 channel = 705,600 bps
>
> No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
> jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
> really interested in this.

I dunno much about WMA but it seems to compress twice as better than
MP3 while retaining the same quality, no seriously, I got 32 kbps
audio samples that MP3 can't preserve below 96, my guess is that it
makes multiple passes (since it takes up more CPU to encode/decode) to
detect repeating, redundant parts of the song (multiple verses etc.)

Also no offense but it doesn't look to me that you know jack shit
about digital audio and compression in general, and neither do I on a
large scale -- so fuck it.

Not sure what you think you discovered though, it's sure as hell
possible to encode at 20 kbps with 44.1 KHz, what's the point of that,
though? The only thing suitable to encode with that preference is a
casual telephone convo.

Who gives a shit.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:22:28 -0000, Radium <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I reposted yet another time to emphasize the fact that "BIT-rate" and
>"SAMPLE-rate" are two totally different things.
>
>In addition, I would like Jeff Liebermann to please answer my
>questions in the below post.
>
>On Jul 19, 12:06 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...e614fe3?hl=en&
>:
>
>> Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> hath wroth:
>
>> >On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...sg/696d6abf90c...
>
>> >> how would u like to change the cell phone industry?
>
>> >Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>> >start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>> >a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz.
>
>> Very roughly, the current 8Kbits/sec encoding rate,
>> compared to your 44Kbit/sec, will only handle about 1/5th the number
>> of users.
>
>Who said anything about 44Kbit/sec?
>
>The bit-rate of my WMA CBR is 20Kbit/sec or less.
>
>> >1. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of
>> >at least 16-bit
>
>> The encoding resolution is not changed by compression. If you encode
>> something with 16 bit resolution, and compress it, you still have 16
>> bit data coming out. It's the data rate or thruput that changes with
>> compression.
>
>Okay.
>
>> >2. The sample-rate of the compressed and the uncompressed version of
>> >the audio must be the same.
>
>> Not possible. If the rate in and rate out are identical, then there's
>> no compression happening.
>
>Yes it is possible and it is compression. The uncompressed audio is a
>monaural linear PCM at 44.1-KHz-sample-rate with a 16-bit-resolution
>-- this audio has a bit-rate of 705.6 kbps. The compressed audio is a
>monaural CBR WMA at 44.1-KHz-sample-rate with a bit-rate of 20 kbps or
>less.
>
>Where/when is there any change in sample-rate?????????
>
>There is definitely a change in bit-rate. However, that is totally
>different from the sample rate. Totally.
>
>BIT-rate and SAMPLE-rate are two completely different things.
>
>In linear PCM audio:
>
>BIT-rate = SAMPLE-rate X bit-resolution X number of channels
>
>Stereo has two channels. Mono has one channel.
>
>44,100 Hz X 16-bit X 1 channel = 705,600 bps
>
>No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
>jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
>really interested in this.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:35:48 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>Also no offense but it doesn't look to me that you know jack shit
>about digital audio and compression in general, and neither do I on a
>large scale -- so fuck it.

Fuck you of you idiots. It's getting hard to tell where his ass ends
and your head begins.

"Radium" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...

>> >Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>> >start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>> >a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz.

I'm too tired to read into any of these long-winded threads, but have to
ask:

Why would you want to use WMA? WMA is proprietary and Microsoft at that.
Why not use an open standard like OGG?

I take it you want better voice clarity over cell phones? Personally, I
think the voice clarity is fine where it is right now. I'd rather have the
bandwidth going towards data right now. The two, voice and data, will
eventually merge together with VoiP, anyway...

On Jul 22, 10:16 am, Tommy Tucker <to...@tucker.no> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:35:48 -0700, industrial_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Also no offense but it doesn't look to me that you know jack shit
> >about digital audio and compression in general, and neither do I on a
> >large scale -- so fuck it.
>
> Fuck you of you idiots. It's getting hard to tell where his ass ends
> and your head begins.

Shut the fuck up, your post makes no sense you cock-ramming sand-
nigger faggot.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Jul 22, 10:16 am, Tommy Tucker <to...@tucker.no> wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:35:48 -0700, industrial_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >Also no offense but it doesn't look to me that you know jack shit
> > >about digital audio and compression in general, and neither do I on a
> > >large scale -- so fuck it.
> >
> > Fuck you of you idiots. It's getting hard to tell where his ass ends
> > and your head begins.
>


THE COMMENT BELOW WAS SPEWED FROM THE ASS OF MICHAEL VIC

> Shut the fuck up, your post makes no sense you cock-ramming sand-
> nigger faggot.

--
-

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:26:04 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>On Jul 22, 10:16 am, Tommy Tucker <to...@tucker.no> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:35:48 -0700, industrial_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >Also no offense but it doesn't look to me that you know jack shit
>> >about digital audio and compression in general, and neither do I on a
>> >large scale -- so fuck it.
>>
>> Fuck you of you idiots. It's getting hard to tell where his ass ends
>> and your head begins.
>
>Shut the fuck up, your post makes no sense you cock-ramming sand-
>nigger faggot.

I'm not your mammy's baby, so get back to jerking yourself off, you
closet queen.

On Jul 23, 3:53 am, Tommy Tucker <to...@tucker.no> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:26:04 -0700, industrial_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >On Jul 22, 10:16 am, Tommy Tucker <to...@tucker.no> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:35:48 -0700, industrial_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >Also no offense but it doesn't look to me that you know jack shit
> >> >about digital audio and compression in general, and neither do I on a
> >> >large scale -- so fuck it.
>
> >> Fuck you of you idiots. It's getting hard to tell where his ass ends
> >> and your head begins.
>
> >Shut the fuck up, your post makes no sense you cock-ramming sand-
> >nigger faggot.
>
> I'm not your mammy's baby, so get back to jerking yourself off, you
> closet queen.

I'm not the one with a name like "Tommy Tucker,"

"FUCK YOU OF YOU IDIOTS!!!"

Lol... Next time, don't drop outta school.