Not good enough, Buckaroo.

Your contribution to this thread seems to be telling everyone how crap they
are without offering any pointers as to why.

While I'm quite happy to be told I'm wrong (when I am, which is often), I
think it's only fair to state why. There are plenty of people other than me
who are equally misguided and can benefit from your huge wisdom.

So come on, enlighten us.

"Gareth Hardy" <gareth@sentientsolutions.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:bdcd33$ssb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk
What higher sampling rates do is allow recording and playing back of waves
at higher frequencies. That's different than benefiting high frequency waves
that are recorded by a given sample rate.


Wrong. Since you admit you don't know what you are talking about, let me
tell you the basics.

A properly-designed and operating digital system provides essentially
perfect reproduction of all waves (subject to sample size and format
considerations) up to a frequency equal to about half the sample rate, AKA
the Nyquist frequency. For audio CDs that's about 22 KHz. For a variety of
practical reasons, Nyquist is hard to approach exactly , but a 44.1 KHz CD
can reasonably be expected to work up to about 20 KHz.

IOW on an audio CD, 20 Hz and 20 KHz are reproduced with equal accuracy.
There are more samples in the 20 Hz wave, but believe it or not that makes
no practical difference at all.

That comes from being human and not a bat or a dog.

"FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KEkKa.112009$zm1.12024@twister.nyroc.rr.com
OK we've got another jerk-off who can't tell the difference between what I
said which was:

"As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the
reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect."

and

"Tell me what you get when any sine wave looks like when it's sampled at
twice it's
frequency."

At Nyquist and higher the digitized waveform is undefined. It can literally
be anything.


Wrong, its undefined because sampling a wave at Nyquist is improper. I
suppose you never heard of anti-aliasing filters either?

The purpose of an anti-aliasing filter is to prevent the conundrum you
presented. Every good digital system has at least one.

If you want to waste your time worrying about improperly-designed systems,
be my guest, but not on my time or my post!

It makes no difference, even in the real world. You need to spend some lab
time before you shoot of your mouth with tripe like this.

Hence anti-aliasing filters.

Nope, you're grotesquely wrong. Nobody even tries.

You're using words you obviously don't know the meaning of.

Nope.

Irrelevant metaphor.

Actually that happens when the recording is digitized, not when it is
reconstructed in the CD player.

The fact that your system is out of balance and needs some spectral
contouring is not my problem, and its not the fault of the digital recording
process.

Needless to say, we've got another internet troll who won't actually sully
himself by coming face-to-face with the relevant facts.

Yawn!

If you do not own a stand-alone DVD player, I guess that going for the DVD
recorder is a good choice when it comes to quality, price however is a
different issue (still).
If however, you already have a stand-alone DVD player, I would personally
buy a DVD recorder for the PC (that burns the format supported by the
stand-alone player). Then I would record the 'party tapes' etc to DVD +/-
R/RW using the PC.
The price of a DVD recorder for the PC is (at least in Sweden) less than
half the price of a stand-alone DVD-recorder.

Should you on the other hand already have a stand-alone DVD player, then
you could always try CDVD (Compact DVD) since a CD recorder is much less
expensive than the other devices mentioned (around 600 SEK or approx 80
US$). What you do is that you burn an AUDIO_TS and a VIDEO_TS directory
structure on the CD just as you would on a DVD with the .IFO, .BUP and
..IFO files. Many DVD players actually play CDVDs.
The drawback of course the length of movie that fits on a CD, but the
quality is the same as for any other DVD (resolution, frame rate and
desired compression level)

Regards, Peter

Golitely wrote:

"FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cepKa.112536$zm1.51345@twister.nyroc.rr.com

The points aren't missing if they aren't necessary.

"David" <robbins1940@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ebcbce06.0306251237.44e16cd9@posting.google.c om

Debating trade crap logic. So, the cheapest DVD recorder only costs a bit
more than the most expensive CD recorder. Do you realize how erroneous this
logic is or are you really that bloody stupid?

Tell me about how you can a 6-channel 24/96 audio recording or a 2-channel
24/192 recording with Ulead DVD Movie Factory.

It can't.

That's because this cheap software doesn't fully exploit the potential of
the DVD format, particularly for audio. It's for putting pictures and movies
on DVDs, not high quality sound!

Could you learn to read the specs before you waste my time with crap like
this?


Last time I looked a cheap CD recorder can write at 52x. 52x > 36x. end of
story.

Look I have before me two PC's on a 2-channel KVM switch. If I take my hands
off the keyboard I put one hand on top of each one. One has a Pioneer DVR
104 DVD recorder and one has a Liteon 52x CD-R burner. They both have EZ CD
5 as well as other popular burning software on them.

Do you have any questions?

;-)

"FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote

Thanks everyone for all the comments and info, and lively discussion,
so far. What about the issue of *recording* the digital information?
Wouldn't differences between sampling rates, number of bits and DACs
used have some impact on how precise or detailed the recording will
be? Also, concerning the audio portion of DVD recording/playback, are
there any unresolved issues surroundng competing formats, just in the
area of *stereo* playback, leaving off matters involving 5.1 and so
forth? Thanks again.

Thanks, Arny. That's all I needed. The silence from buckaroo is deafening
(or is that a sampling rate problem).

I still don't really understand, but thanks for trying. My understanding now
is that if decoded properly, the same WAV file (say a tuba) will sound the
same at 32KHz, 48Khz and 96KHz because having extra samples at low frequency
will only smooth out to what the DAC would have done with fewer samples
anyway (I think).

"Golitely" <IProtest4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44f7cfd1.0306260243.1d53d36f@posting.google.c om
Number of bits per sample, yes.

The interesting challenge is to make a 2-channel 24/96 or 24/192 DVD
recording with a reasonable outlay for recording software, i.e., less than
$100.

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:9hKdnTtXTeKRVmejXTWJjA@comcast.com...

I don't remember saying that I don't know the subject...

That horsecrap is basic fundation of digital recording...

Yes, slightly more than two. And higher it goes, less it becomes. I just
concluded, and brought new thought.
Nice, call your fellowgroupmembers crapheads. Agression comes from fear. Yo
do not have to be affraid, sometimes people makes mistakes, even you...

Yeah yeah...

Listen, not everybody can afford expensive digital stuff. However, I use
Echoaudio mia 24/96 which is more than a good soundcard.
And no, I dont use vinyl. Tube as a preamp yes.
So you only gave one page, maybe you just learned everything from there?
Let's not make stupid conclusions okay?

It is false that 96kHz is better sounding than 44.1kHz?!
Man, this is going to my archive to laugh occasionally...

No, actually you can't hear it. You can feel it. As you can feel supersonic
sounds. I don't have time to explain it to you now, read some books...

Maybe you should think of you additude first, and then try to speak. Sound
better, like 96k...

Not here in the UK. Cheapest CDR i have seen is about 20p. The cost of
importing CD-R from the states would cancell out any saving I would
have made.

Prices taken from www.blankshop.co.uk

Datawrite Yellow 4x DVD-R pack of 25 = £24.75
Datawrite Red 4x DVD-R pack of 25 = £19.74
Pioneer 4x DVD-R in slim jewel case = £4.00
Ice branded 4x DVD-R in packs of 25 = £19.99
Ice branded 4x DVD-R in a tub of 100 = £79.00
unbranded Ritek 4x DVD-R in pack of 25 = £31.24
unbranded Ritek 4x DVD-R in pack of 100 = £124.98
Datawrite Ritek 4x DVD-R in pack of 25 = £32.25
Memorex 4.7gb 4x DVD-R in a jewel case = £1.49
Memorex 4.7gb 4x DVD-R in pack of 10 = £13.90

Could go on but i won't.

David

"Gareth Hardy" <gareth@sentientsolutions.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:bdem2b$646$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk
The understanding I want you to have is that a 96 KHz WAV file (say of a
tuba) will sound the same at 32KHz, 44 Khz and 96KHz, as long as the extra
high frequency extension afforded by the higher sample rate doesn't have any
audible consequences.

For example, a 96 KHz .WAV file won't sound the same if properly downsampled
to 22 KHz because chopping off all information above 11 KHz often DOES have
audible consequences.

OTOH, a 96 KHz wave file will sound the same if properly downsampled to 44.1
KHz because chopping off all information above 22 KHz generally DOESN'T have
audible consequences.

Anybody who doesn't believe me need only listen for themselves to the files
freely downloadable at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm
.. Be sure to use one of the DBT test coordinators freely downloadable from
http://www.pcabx.com/program/index.htm , and follow the instructions posted
at http://www.pcabx.com/training/getting_started.htm .

"Sasa [Sason] Miocic" <sasa.miocic@zd.hinet.hr> wrote in message
news:bdesl8$8vf0$1@as201.hinet.hr
No it's not.

Wrong, you added nothing but errors.

Sasa, you were pretending to be an expert and continue to do so.

Listen 24/96 sound cards aren't all that expensive any more.

Agreed. The Mia is entirely suitable for your education in this matter.

Now hitch that Mia to the files and programs you can download from
www.pcabx.com and get started for some basic lessons in audio audibility.

You obviously didn't read that page.

Yes.

Come back when you have had your ears opened at www.pcabx.com .

Sasa, you've already shown what your attitude is with your claim that
www.pcabx.com is just a single page. It's a whole freakin' web site that
would educate you well, were you to actually lower yourself to spend some
time with it.

But Sasa, you obviously know it all. Who am I to try to dispel your
erroneous thinking?

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:22:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

In the analog to digital conversion, a Fourier transform is used, and
an inverse Fourier transform for digital to analog, right?

What exactly does it do (briefly)?

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:jDWdnRJhqK9sgmajXTWJgA@comcast.com...

This says it all about that PAGE:

"This Page created 9/22/1999

This Page last updated 06/02/2003

(c) Copyright 1999, 2000, 2001 Arnold B. Krueger, All rights reserved."


It's your PAGE and you even say it's a PAGE.

If you can't even remember what you wrote or what you have on the web then
what use are you?

I'm wondering - why does DAT use a 68KHz sampling rate if it doesn't
do any good to go that high?

"Jan Philips" <judmccrNOSPAMM@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:amamfvgi8poc10i5lr4t86usvp8oqtgdgq@4ax.com...
No, generally a A/D samples a signal and then depending on the voltage
level, it determines what the corresponding binary would be. It's not that
complicated. The check is sometimes done against a decaying time constant
or a step voltage. The analog voltage input has limits (say 0 to 4 volts)
and the binary has limits (say 0 to 2^16).

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:36:29 GMT, "FDR"
<_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ok, and the Fourier transform isn't involved? I thought that it
probably was, since the process seems so similar to what a Fourier
transform and inverse Fourier transform does.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:13:17 GMT, "FDR"
<_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes, I realized that later, only the D/A is like a Fourier transform.

And a simple D/A doesn't use Fourier transform? The FT would take the
data obtained form A/D and tell you which set of sine waves -
frequency and phase - (or any set of orthogonal functions) would
reproduce the original signal as closely as possible with the data you
have (subject to the Nyquist limit).

From what I've been told, the D/A conversion interpolates a smooth
curve through the data points, not simply a stair-step. If it doesn't
use the FT then what does it do - a cubic interpolation or something
like that?

"Jan Philips" <judmccrNOSPAMM@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news0emfv8p2g5d1oihvk6p4f0f8u73gq1mta@4ax.com
DAT uses 48 KHz and 44.1 Khz.

48 KHz was chosen to provide similar bandpass characteristics as 15 ips
analog tape. It was known at the time that 24 KHz was somewhat overkill, but
the difference between and 44.1 and 48 isn't really worth arguing about.