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

Discussion in 'Wireless Internet' started by Radium, Jul 22, 2007.

  1. Radium

    Radium Guest

    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.

    Who said anything about 44Kbit/sec?

    The bit-rate of my WMA CBR is 20Kbit/sec or less.
    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, Jul 22, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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 **** 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.
     
    industrial_one, Jul 22, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Radium

    Tommy Tucker Guest

    Who gives a shit.

     
    Tommy Tucker, Jul 22, 2007
    #3
  4. Radium

    Tommy Tucker Guest

    **** you of you idiots. It's getting hard to tell where his ass ends
    and your head begins.
     
    Tommy Tucker, Jul 22, 2007
    #4
  5. Radium

    Eric Guest

    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...
     
    Eric, Jul 22, 2007
    #5
  6. Shut the **** up, your post makes no sense you cock-ramming sand-
    nigger faggot.
     
    industrial_one, Jul 22, 2007
    #6
  7. Radium

    ®©® Guest

    THE COMMENT BELOW WAS SPEWED FROM THE ASS OF MICHAEL VIC
     
    ®©®, Jul 22, 2007
    #7
  8. Radium

    Tommy Tucker Guest

    I'm not your mammy's baby, so get back to jerking yourself off, you
    closet queen.
     
    Tommy Tucker, Jul 23, 2007
    #8
  9. I'm not the one with a name like "Tommy Tucker,"

    "**** YOU OF YOU IDIOTS!!!"

    Lol... Next time, don't drop outta school.
     
    industrial_one, Jul 23, 2007
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.