again, no kidding. we're talking past each other. the original poster just said that he heard CDs only had 11khz of frequency response, and i showed him how to test that it is not so. That's all. Nothing else to see here.
you were told wrong. use Cooledit or something, remove everything below 11khz on a track and then give it a listen.
16khz is usually a pretty good cutoff for music though - most MP3 encoders cut out everything over 16khz. I can hear up to 22khz test tones, but have a really hard time telling if an actual song was lowpass filtered at 16khz or not.
In double-blind tests, people have been unable to tell the difference between the SACD layer of the new release and the 1992 CD remaster. The cd-layer on the 30th anniversary version is needlessly overcompressed, probably just to make it sound different than the SACD layer. Try it double-blind, you'd be surprised at how much placebo comes into effect.
gah don't start that argument again! I'm pretty sure both versions of the accronym go way back, anyhow. The idea behind "inexpensive" is that you are getting reliability out of several cheap drives rather than 1 really high-quality one, not that the whole array is supposed to be cheap.
WMA9 (the new, variable bit-rate kind) actually has very impressive low-bitrate performance compared to MP3. Actually pretty much all the codecs do. For transparent encoding though it is certainly lacking, as MS hasn't really done any tuning to the encoder past 128kbps or so.
that sounds a lot like Universal Plug and Play, which IS supported by Windows XP and many routers. For example, MSN messenger needs UPnP to open and close random ports within a NAT to send and recieve files... without UPnP this function does not work. There is also a free UPnP implementation for Linux NAT boxes out there as well.
Re:People will keep using it, regardless...
on
Windows 98 Phased Out
·
· Score: 2, Informative
show me a system running the linux kernel without at least most of the following, in alphabetical order: autoconf, automake, bash, binutils, bison, coreutils, diffutils, file, findutils, flex, gawk, gcc, gettext, glibc, grep, groff, grub, gzip, less, m4, make, man, ncurses, patch, sed, shadow, and tar.
This is just for a basic, bootable system. I just don't get you ungrateful RMS haters out there. If you don't like to admit that 90% of the base system is GNU, then don't use it!
well it may have been sarcasm, but sarcasm doesn't translate to written text unless you use that little;) face at the end. If it was actually supposed to be funny, you need to go back to remedial joke school, my friend. Americans sounding ignorant on purpose stopped being funny several years ago.
Technically, LAME is not an encoder but rather a "description" of how to make an encoder (source code). Using it in binary form IS illegal in any country that allows patents on software.
The default encoder isn't well tuned for anything over around 150kbps even. My guess is these ~200kbps oggenc.exe GT3b2 files I am listening to right now sound better than the 500kbps ones this guy is listening to.
no, it was insightful. It may have been funny as well, but the fact is, in order to remove your genes from the genepool you have to do so BEFORE reproducing, otherwise there is no point.
Unfortunately, as he was scammed long after the reproductive age, this is NOT an example of natural selection at work. Too bad he didn't get scammed when he was 20.
Uhm, go to www.hydrogenaudio.com and take a look at their recent double-blind codec comparisons. While close, The current Quicktime AAC beats Vorbis hands down. The fact is, Vorbis is a promising codec that has 1 full-time developer working on it right now, while AAC has probably hundreds. As a result, AAC encoders have improved markedly in even the past 4 months while Vorbis has had one minor bugfix release in the past year.
no, avi is a container (like MP4) while divx is a bitstream codec (like AAC). MPEG2/4 are specifications, not file formats at all. AAC is an MPEG2 and MPEG4 audio bitstream format, while MP4 is a container for said bitstream.
Slashdot Mirror
again, no kidding. we're talking past each other. the original poster just said that he heard CDs only had 11khz of frequency response, and i showed him how to test that it is not so. That's all. Nothing else to see here.
oooh. BURN
yeh, that's all fine. I was just trying to prove to the parent that CDs do have content over 11khz, that's all.
no i meant below, then listen to the resulting file. If you can hear anything, then guess what? CDs have content over 11khz.
completely wrong.
you were told wrong. use Cooledit or something, remove everything below 11khz on a track and then give it a listen.
16khz is usually a pretty good cutoff for music though - most MP3 encoders cut out everything over 16khz. I can hear up to 22khz test tones, but have a really hard time telling if an actual song was lowpass filtered at 16khz or not.
In double-blind tests, people have been unable to tell the difference between the SACD layer of the new release and the 1992 CD remaster. The cd-layer on the 30th anniversary version is needlessly overcompressed, probably just to make it sound different than the SACD layer. Try it double-blind, you'd be surprised at how much placebo comes into effect.
gah don't start that argument again! I'm pretty sure both versions of the accronym go way back, anyhow. The idea behind "inexpensive" is that you are getting reliability out of several cheap drives rather than 1 really high-quality one, not that the whole array is supposed to be cheap.
Jeez man, i was just demonstrating how UPnP works, not pimping MSN messenger.
WMA9 (the new, variable bit-rate kind) actually has very impressive low-bitrate performance compared to MP3. Actually pretty much all the codecs do. For transparent encoding though it is certainly lacking, as MS hasn't really done any tuning to the encoder past 128kbps or so.
Jesus, people! Quit spreading the tinfoil hat "DRM sux" FUD already!
Enabling DRM is optional. As in you don't have to use it to encode your own music. As in don't worry about it. As in shut up!
that sounds a lot like Universal Plug and Play, which IS supported by Windows XP and many routers. For example, MSN messenger needs UPnP to open and close random ports within a NAT to send and recieve files... without UPnP this function does not work. There is also a free UPnP implementation for Linux NAT boxes out there as well.
show me a system running the linux kernel without at least most of the following, in alphabetical order: autoconf, automake, bash, binutils, bison, coreutils, diffutils, file, findutils, flex, gawk, gcc, gettext, glibc, grep, groff, grub, gzip, less, m4, make, man, ncurses, patch, sed, shadow, and tar.
This is just for a basic, bootable system. I just don't get you ungrateful RMS haters out there. If you don't like to admit that 90% of the base system is GNU, then don't use it!
well it may have been sarcasm, but sarcasm doesn't translate to written text unless you use that little ;) face at the end. If it was actually supposed to be funny, you need to go back to remedial joke school, my friend. Americans sounding ignorant on purpose stopped being funny several years ago.
uhm, everyone hates... CANADA??? Everyone LOVES Canada, you freak! We have like no enemies at all!
It's you people down south that the world is pissed at right now. I don't mind most Americans though, just Bush, and perhaps you right now.
that's a good point about inclusive fitness, forgot about that
Technically, LAME is not an encoder but rather a "description" of how to make an encoder (source code). Using it in binary form IS illegal in any country that allows patents on software.
The default encoder isn't well tuned for anything over around 150kbps even. My guess is these ~200kbps oggenc.exe GT3b2 files I am listening to right now sound better than the 500kbps ones this guy is listening to.
yes, you are. we have been out of our last iceage for 12,000 years or so. If anything we should be entering another one soon, so it should be cooling.
no, it was insightful. It may have been funny as well, but the fact is, in order to remove your genes from the genepool you have to do so BEFORE reproducing, otherwise there is no point.
Unfortunately, as he was scammed long after the reproductive age, this is NOT an example of natural selection at work. Too bad he didn't get scammed when he was 20.
Actually, the quake/quack fiasco was ATI, IIRC.
Well, someone check their kernel source to see if SCO is going to flake out... ...we are apparently in possession of their sources, after all :)
Uhm, go to www.hydrogenaudio.com and take a look at their recent double-blind codec comparisons. While close, The current Quicktime AAC beats Vorbis hands down. The fact is, Vorbis is a promising codec that has 1 full-time developer working on it right now, while AAC has probably hundreds. As a result, AAC encoders have improved markedly in even the past 4 months while Vorbis has had one minor bugfix release in the past year.
no, avi is a container (like MP4) while divx is a bitstream codec (like AAC). MPEG2/4 are specifications, not file formats at all. AAC is an MPEG2 and MPEG4 audio bitstream format, while MP4 is a container for said bitstream.