One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Le Artiste" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

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is typically very out of date, and based on early driver releases.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.

Most of the sound cards on your website are obsolete. In fact, the
whole site is looking pretty close to obsolete.

And Dormer, the URL of your up-to-date web site is????

LOL!

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

Le Artiste wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :


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.


9 times out of 10 the person means exactly 44.1Khz, 16bit PCM.

Well they should say that, or people will think they mean what they
write, and respond appropriately.

--
Now playing: something else

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

Le Artiste wrote:

"Nick J." emitted :


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.

9 times out of 10 the person means exactly 44.1Khz, 16bit PCM.

Well they should say that, or people will think they mean what they
write, and respond appropriately.

90% of the population can't be wrong!! :-)

Yes they can. :)

--
Now playing: something else

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Le Artiste" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

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.

The information I provided at the time was very accurate (within
100ths of dB). I performed several before and after tests, and was
meticulous about it.

Dormer, did you document the changes in Spectra that happened between my
last Live! measurements, and yours?

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.

That is a lie.

Anything I say that you disagree with is lie, Dormer.

I did not get shouted down by the group at all.

Yeah, sure.

One or
two CreativeLabs haters persisted in denegrating the Live! and
promoting another soundcard to the group

Step one, dismiss the people who disagreed with you as being hopelessly
biased.

others were interested in
the results, some posted to the group, and several friendly and
productive email exchanges took place.

Step two, glorify the people who agreed with you, and cite private
communcations that your critics can't possibly see.

One person mailed to say he had
similar results to mine, but couldn't understand why Krueger refused
to keep his website in tune with reality.

Step three, focus on someone who decided to ally themselves with you.

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.

Here we go again (sigh).

The problems with the Live! are well documented, I shall not
regurgitate them again.

Finally, we get Dormer to admit that there were in fact problems with the
Live!

That they were audible is apparent from the files anybody can download from

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

However, it was shown that a driver revision
corrected anomalies that affected a previously attrocious sample rate
conversion.

Dormer ignores the fact that I was told this once before, retested the card,
and found no evidence that supported the claim.

Please compare and contrast the frequency response curve I posted for my
last SBLive! test first posted on 2/2/ 2002
as

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/c...ndex.htm#FR_LB

and this one

http://audio.rightmark.org/test/crea...!5.1-1644.html

Which had to be done some years later, as the software used was not relesed
until 4 Sept. 2002 per:

http://audio.rightmark.org/lukin/rmaa/

I believe this was somewhat after Dormer's big *revelations*.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Le Artiste" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

Interesting...

Non-factual.

Is he right or isn't 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.

"Different analytical software"?

Bleugh!!

We both used SpectraLab.

As I've explained to you many times, to no avail, the vendor changed how
some critical parts of this software worked about the same time Dormer
started flogging this problem. The relevant area is SNR, and the differences
for the same data can be as much as 6 or more dB.

Arny, I used the most current version.. did you not use a current
version?

As I've explained to you many times, to no avail, there are solid reasons to
use software that provides comparable results over a period of time.

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.

JPG's work fine.

It's all about using the best tools in a relevant way. I'm sorry Dormer that
you lack the tools to work effectively with common file formats that are
more appropriate for the application. JPEGs of high resolution,
limited-palette screen shots either fuzz up the detail or involve files that
are way too large.

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.

This is absolute tosh, and a load of old blather.

Thanks for dismissing relevant facts, again Dormer. Earlier, I claimed that
you are a blithering idiot who dismisses relevant evidence that exposes your
ignorance, and you performed on cue.

You say you will
stick by data, continuing to perpetuate tired arguments based on that
tired old data, even when you are notified that the situation has
changed.

I've presented my case.

Heck, I got 88dB SN/R in tests you got 82dB. A deviation of that size
is in no way caused by a minor software revision, particularly
something of the calibre of SpectraLab.

Except it is.

Stop blaming your tools!

Thanks for dismissing relevant facts, again Dormer. Earlier, I claimed that
you are a blithering idiot who dismisses relevant evidence that exposes your
ignorance, and you performed on cue.


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.

This is an example of Krueger accusing somebody of doing something
("libel"), then acting out the scenario himself. It's quite weird. He
litters his commentary with bitterness and hate, as exemplified by the
words "incompetently", "cheap-ass" and "ate", in this example. None of
it is true.

Dormer is so afraid of taking responsibility for what he says that he is now
habitually posting with the no-archive flag turned on. Nevertheless, here's
a quote of one of his recent posts where he tries to lie his way out of a
discussion of this very situation:

http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=t...3%40fed1read01
Follow the thread for other quotes from Dormer as he spins his way out of
control.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:50:32 +0000
"Nick J." wrote:

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

I deal with them on a daily basis.

Out of interest, what is in yours?

--
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 in message

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.

Agreed.

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.

One day I ran into a MP3 coder that created .wav files. The source of the
software was a little organization that had a name that started with a "F"
and ended up with "hofer".

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Nick J." wrote in message

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.

Yep, and the contents could easily be MP3s.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Le Artiste" wrote in message

"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.

I know of *nobody* who captures audio at 13bit.

4... 8... 12... 16... sure!

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.

So how long is a piece of string? I capture vinyl at 48Khz/20bit.

Let me guess - with SBLive! and APS drivers? Or are you so fond of
downsampling that you do this with your old Gina?

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:44:21 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

The information I provided at the time was very accurate (within
100ths of dB). I performed several before and after tests, and was
meticulous about it.

Dormer, did you document the changes in Spectra that happened between
my last Live! measurements, and yours?

Just a thought here, but unless spectra was *innacurate* before or after
whatever changes you cite, the results should be comparable...

mind you, 100ths of a dB seems a bit 'off' also.

--
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.