Hi Marie,
In a similar vein, when I do the odd PQQ for a tender the institution sending may ask questions and ask us to provide details that seem obscure, but on further investigation, you will inevitably find that the people preparing the questions ask the same questions of paper and books as audio, with the terminology definitely NOT overlapping.
You will be dealing with a generic programme one size fits all!!!
Snowed here yesterday....it's freezzzzzzzzing!
Paul Turney
SIRENSOUND DIGITAL UK
-----Original Message-----
From: Marie O'Connell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 09:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Bit Rate
We have a new database and have been testing it out so it makes sense whenwe are putting in technical details and actual content. This was in the BitRate field and as a drop-down showed Rectangular, Square and Oblong. I sawit and went>>>HUH???? and decided to ask the knowledgeable people here.Loved some of your answers anyway!CheersMarieOn Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:11 PM, George Brock-Nannestad wrote:> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad>> Hello Marie,>> you wrote:>>> > SORRY!!! All has been revealed at this end that Rectangular, Square and> > Oblong have no business being in the Bit Rate field of our database, but> > thanks for the answers!!>> ----- ouch, that smarted! Now that I have stuck my neck out (and possibly> carried off Tom) to try to make some sense out of your expressions, I think> that we are entitled to a little more gory detail. How did the expressions> get there in the first place?>> But thanks anyway to the unknown for the expressions that appealed to me as> imagery. Context, context, context!>> Kind regards,>> George>> >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:29 PM, George Brock-Nannestad> > wrote:> >> > > From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad> > >> > > Hi Tom,> > >> > > you asked> > >> > >> > > > Hi George:> > > >> > > > Can you explain what you mean by trade higher sample rate for> > bit-depth?> > >> > > ----- bit depth times sample rate is the area of the rectangle of> > > information> > > and it tells us how much space a given sound clip will take up when> > those> > > two> > > are given. But with a given available space we might choose more or> less> > > wisely: if you think you have too few bits you may interpolate, and any> > > distortion products quickly end up where you cannot hear them. However,> > the> > > damage done by too low a bandwidth in your anti-aliasing filter is> > > frightful:> > > the time delay distortion (or phase, dependent on how you express it)> > > created> > > at quite low frequencies is very severe. If you combine a higher sample> > > rate> > > with a gentler filter, then you have minimised that distortion. That is> > why> > > it is no good using an 88.2 kHz sample rate and make a filter that will> > let> > > you reproduce up to 40 kHz; you will merely have shifted the problem> > > frequencies one octave up.> > >> > >> > > Do> > > > you mean you'd select a> > > > 1-bit stream over a many-bit "Nyquist faithful" (ie 2x or slightly> > higher> > > > than 2x the frequency of> > > > the highest desired frequency) sampling rate? Or do you mean, for> > > instance> > > > if you had the choice of> > > > 96khz/16-bit or 48khz/24-bit you'd chose the former? Or something> > else?> > >> > > ----- in terms of the above I would say that 96 kHz/16 bit and a gentle> > > rolloff from 0dB at 96 kHz to -90dB at 20.05 kHz would be my> preference.> > > The> > > 1-bit stream puts a terrible strain on the power supply, and I think> > that> > > this may account for the problems that have been reported (not directly> > to> > > me, but it seems to be in the air)> > >> > > > Please explain.> > >> > > ----- I hope it made sense!> > >> > > Kind regards,> > >> > >> > > George> > >> > > >> > > > Thanks!> > > >> > > > -- Tom Fine> > > >> > > > ----- Original Message -----> > > > From: "George Brock-Nannestad" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 7:20 PM> > > > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Bit Rate> > > >> > > >> > > > > From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad> > > > >> > > > > Hi Marie,> > > > >> > > > > you wrote:> > > > >> > > > >> Could someone please explain to me what Square, Oblong and> > Rectangular> > > > >> mean in relation to Bit Rate?> > > > >> > > > > ----- I have never heard the expressions before, but it is imagery> > that> > > > I> > > > > would use myself when discussing the information content of a> > sampled> > > > signal.> > > > >> > > > > If I were to use it, the bit depth would be the height of a> > Rectangle,> > > > and> > > > > the number of samples per second the width. Dependent on tradition,> > I> > > > suppose> > > > > that you could say that 16 bit, 44.1 kSamples/second could be> called> > > > Square,> > > > > because everybody for a time was convinced that this was what you> > > needed.> > > > I> > > > > would rather say historically it was 12 bit and 50 kHz, because> that> > is> > > > what> > > > > was used in measurement technology before someone started mixing> > audio> > > > and> > > > > video frame rate requirements.> > > > >> > > > > Now, using that language, I would say that Oblong would be having a> > > > higher> > > > > sample rate but the same bit depth. In acutal fact, any bits above> > 16> > > is> > > > > different today from what it was yesterday or in an hour: the> > > resolution> > > > is> > > > > not at all absulute at such a high sample rate. Agilent (used to be> > > > Hewlett-> > > > > Packard) make some fine multi (decimal)-digit voltmeters, and their> > > > sample> > > > > rate to obtain the high measurement precision cannot go above a few> > > tenths> > > > of> > > > > Hertz. And I would say that a flash A/D converter (1-bit converter)> > > would> > > > be> > > > > the most oblong of them all.> > > > >> > > > > If there is to be a trade-off, I would go for higher sample rate,> if> > > you> > > > can> > > > > contain your jitter.> > > > >> > > > > ----- this is, as Tom Fine usually says, one man's opinion, but I> > would> > > > > defend it as being logical.> > > > >> > > > > Kind regards,> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > George> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> Cheers> > > > >> Marie> > > > >> > >>
|