One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:23:51 +0000
Le Artiste wrote:

I have noted mportant sound quality
enhancements incurred in the implementation of new driver iterations
on several sound cards, but, note, the information Mr Krueger
presents on his website and relies on in informal argument is
typically very out of date, and based on early driver releases.

Interesting...

Non-factual.

Dormer's complaint with me is based on the SBLive! sound card which is now
totally obsolete.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:43:14 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Interesting...

Non-factual.

Is he right or isnt he?

Dormer's complaint with me is based on the SBLive! sound card which is now
totally obsolete.

Yet still on sale. Hrm.


--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:00:50 +0000, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:02:02 +0000, Le Artiste
wrote:

That's not strictly true, because the side effects of the compression
format can have in some circumstances.

I should say, I thought the context was compression using acoustic
masking techniques.. MP3, AAC, ATRAC etc


So which compression system do you recommend, in what circumstances,
and why?

I use .wav, or .mp3 if you want them smaller.

Yeah. But which one has "beneficial consequences", and in what
circumstances?

For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

Wrong.

..wav is a container format, just like .avi for "Video for Windows" and
..ogg for some types of open-source multimedia files (eg. audio encoded
with Vorbis, Speex, FLAC, and video encoded with Theora).

..wav can contain PCM data, but it could just as easily contain MP3 audio
data, ADPCM audio data, etc.

--
Now playing: something else

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:51:11 +0000, Le Artiste
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :

Good point. The 'signal in' is, of course, analogue. SoundForge saves WAVs
as 16/44.1 so I guess that's answered my question ain't it?

If you have a soundcard that offers other bit-rates and sample
frequencies, SoundForge will happily record and save at higher (or,
indeed, lower) resolutions.

It's questionable whether a higher sample frequency is worth it. 24
bits certainly are, if recording music with any dynamic range. Maybe
not from vinyl though? What's the practical dynamic range off vinyl?

About 13 bits, from unplayed perfectly clean top-class vinyl.

Of course, for capturing 13bits of information into a computer, 16bit
recording is de rigeur.

No, it's simply convenient. You can certainly use 13-bit to reduce
storage requirements.

Also, I would argue that beyond the technical
13bit dynamic range limitation that you state, there's a whole bunch
of euphonic stuff going on in bits 14, and below.

You can argue that if you like, it will still be irrelevant........

You should be aware that in a properly dithered 13-bit A/D conversion,
information well below the noise floor will be captured, just as it is
with analogue recording. It is trivially easy to record and replay say
a 3kHz tone at -105dB on a 16-bit recorder, and have it be perfectly
audible.

Of course, the ubiquitous nature of 16-bit recording, and the wide
availabilty of CD-R, does suggest that anyone transcribing their
precious and fragile LPs would use 16/44, which is much more than
adequate to capture everything on any commercial LP.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:54:43 +0000, "Nick J."
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

Wrong.

.wav is a container format, just like .avi for "Video for Windows" and
.ogg for some types of open-source multimedia files (eg. audio encoded
with Vorbis, Speex, FLAC, and video encoded with Theora).

.wav can contain PCM data, but it could just as easily contain MP3 audio
data, ADPCM audio data, etc.

OK, I'll give you that one! OTOH, when people refer to .wav files for
audio, I have never seen anyone suggest that these were anything other
than uncompressed PCM.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:54:43 +0000
"Nick J." wrote:

For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

Wrong.

.wav is a container format,

Correct, but I havent seen a compressed one, ever.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

Ian Molton wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:54:43 +0000
"Nick J." wrote:


For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

Wrong.

.wav is a container format,

Correct, but I havent seen a compressed one, ever.

I deal with them on a daily basis.

--
Now playing: something else

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:54:43 +0000, "Nick J."
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

Wrong.

.wav is a container format, just like .avi for "Video for Windows" and
.ogg for some types of open-source multimedia files (eg. audio encoded
with Vorbis, Speex, FLAC, and video encoded with Theora).

.wav can contain PCM data, but it could just as easily contain MP3 audio
data, ADPCM audio data, etc.

OK, I'll give you that one! OTOH, when people refer to .wav files for
audio, I have never seen anyone suggest that these were anything other
than uncompressed PCM.

That's because people haven't lived! ;)

--
Now playing: something else

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message


On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:43:14 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Interesting...

Non-factual.

Is he right or isn't he?

He's mostly wrong with a tiny grain of truth someplace in all the noise.

He debated this with me over in comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech maybe a year or two ago
when it was more relevant. He got shouted down by the group.

Dormer's complaint with me is based on the SBLive! sound card which
is now totally obsolete.

Yet still on sale. Hrm.

So is the first sequel - Audigy.

So is the second sequel - Audigy 2

The Live! is the third generation going backwards.

Let's put it this way, the Audigy pretty much corrected the problems I found
with the Live! that Dormer would like to pretend were non-existent.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Le Artiste" wrote in message

"Ian Molton" emitted :

Interesting...

Non-factual.

Is he right or isnt he?

I'll upload the JPG's of my FFT results somewhere, if I can locate them.

The JPGs were made using different analytical software than that which I
used for my two sets of earlier tests which yielded similar results for
vastly different driver releases.

BTW, the use of JPGs is typical of Dormer's technical incompetence on the
web. The screen shots are high contrast with a limited palette. JPG is far
from being the ideal format for portraying them.

The vendor made some significant changes to how his software worked just
before Dormer started using it. There were substantial differences in the
numbers the analytical software used would generate for the same data before
and after the vendor changed his software. Dormer faulted me for sticking
with the same analysis that I'd used with dozens of other cards. I justified
sticking with the same analysis so that the data would be comparable.

Dormer has a long and regrettably track record for libeling me. For example
he faulted me when his incompetently overclocked cheap-ass computer ate its
hard drive. He claims that an alpha copy of my software was on it, which is
why it crashed. This was a multi-gigbyte hard drive and my software ran a
few hundred kilobytes. Furthermore my software was a straight-up Visual
Basic application that did no bit-twiddling with the guts of Windows. I
think Dormer was telling a made-up story to impress his peer group on RAO,
which includes well-known idiots like Middius.

Of course I was right, but that is something Krueger himself wouldn't
admit to.

Check the google archives. you'll find me admitting to errors on numerous
occasions. Has Dormer ever admitted to an error? I don't think so.

Dormer's complaint with me is based on the SBLive! sound card which
is now totally obsolete.

Yet still on sale. Hrm.

.. and still in use on probably tens if not hundreds of thousands of
computers.

So are SB 16s. Your point?