will mp3 players be as outdated as 8 tracks someday?

[e144539]

more than likely

Looks like Microsoft is beating Nullsoft in that race to world domination thing.

They're about to release their next version of .wma (v8) Friday.

I was relly hoping that the format that makes mp3 obselete would be a non-proprietary one like .ogg Vorbis

I don't know, I guess I'll have to wait 7 or 8 years to find out.

------------------
Life- [{lîf} plaural lives {lîvz}] n. sexually transmitted, always fatal

[Jstalilwyrd]

I agree with you sawg... that and like Microsoft will likely attempt to do, it'll add more "user-friendly" features and blah and be more bloated than it already is.

------------------
I need a sig.

[e144539]

no, wyrd.
its just the format that is getting an update not a new windows media player
come on follow the links, read the story man.

[AlieXai]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by e144539:
I was relly hoping that the format makes mp3 obselete would be a non-proprietary one like .ogg Vorbis
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's just too bad that CMGI (Correct Name?) has filled for bankruptcy protections. Ya, their the company bought the team developing Vorbis, and was providing most of their funds. It's a good thing the developers still had intellectual rights to .ogg technology, because they can still push it for development.

[Winsane]

I don't remember Windows Media versions 3 through 6 coming out. Did they skip over any of those, or was I just completely oblivious to them?

[John M]

would yall recommend using .ogg's or do they not sound as good?

------------------
Merry F***in' Christmas!!!

[spanky]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John M:
would yall recommend using .ogg's or do they not sound as good?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yuck. The difference in quality is definately noticable on a high quality audio system. I would not bother with these file types.

[Bilbo Baggins]

I think that version 5 or 6 (6 i think) was the version that shipped with Windows 98.
In this case, then it is likely that 5 shipped with 95.


------------------
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
MP3 Resource Centre

[JMPZ]

I believe that mp3 will be as obsolete as 8-track some day, and here's why:
In the future, we will have the ability to store and transfer uncompressed audio very easily. Ever seen Star Trek (Next generation, of course)? They have those crazy isolinear rods that can store insane ammounts of info by our standards. These are coming. They are working on 3d-holographic storage. Someday compression will not be necessary.

My thoughts.

[rm']

ANd hopefully, they'll find a way to store analog data without loss or degradation, so we can all enjoy as much frequency response as we'll ever need.

------------------
Go me!

[Somebody]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Radioactive Man:
ANd hopefully, they'll find a way to store analog data without loss or degradation, so we can all enjoy as much frequency response as we'll ever need.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No clue how the hell it will be done (if ever...)
But let's hope for it



------------------
O.o

[Winsane]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bilbo Baggins:
I think that version 5 or 6 (6 i think) was the version that shipped with Windows 98.
In this case, then it is likely that 5 shipped with 95.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, version 1 wasn't released until after the first edition of Windows 98.

[penguin22]

as long as you are taking from an analog signal and converting it to digital, you will have quality loss. It is inevitable, no way around it, but eventually you encode (take samples of) the analog signal that can almost perfectly decode into an exact replica of the original. They can do this encoding, but it takes longer to encode, increases file size and as of now is not practical being that CD's do not encode from the masters past a certain point. Does anybody know what CD's are encoded at? I would imagine that it isn't past 320Kbps

------------------
Dave - penguin22

Beware The Penguin

[Reverend Ike]

penguin -

Approximately 1411 Kbps, if I'm not mistaken.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Winsane:
No, version 1 wasn't released until after the first edition of Windows 98.[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm fairly certain I had Windows Media Player back on NT 4.0 when it first came out, and on Windows95. Couldn't play MP3 files back then (just WAV, MID and AVI) but it was around.

[penguin22]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Reverend Ike:
penguin -

Approximately 1411 Kbps, if I'm not mistaken.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a lot more than I would have guessed. Thanks for the info. On a side note, do you remember when T1 lines were considered to be blazing fast? 1.54Mbps. Now we have cable modems or DSL that can go up to 6.5 times faster than that! Just me feeling old...

------------------
Dave - penguin22

Beware The Penguin

[Comp-U-Comp]

History of Windows Media
Players:
ActiveMovie/NetShow/Media Player(Mplayer)
Windows Media Player 6 (Mplayer2)
Windows Media Player 7 (WMPlayer)

Codecs:
Netshow ASF (Windows Media 1)
Windows Media 2-5
Windows Media 6
Windows Media 7
Windows Media 8

The jump in player versions was to sync player with codec version wise

[rm']

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by penguin22:
as long as you are taking from an analog signal and converting it to digital, you will have quality loss.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But what of you kept the signal all the way through, and managed to record it on a medium that allowed no loss in quality over time? No need for ADC's (or DAC's, for that matter) when you think of it. You know, have it like a turntable, which is analog all the way. There's no conversion to digital, thus, no loss in information. However, that means that you won't be able to use the stuff as computer files, without loss a conversion to digital. I'm talking more of a physical thing, rather than a file format.

------------------
Go me!

[penguin22]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Radioactive Man:
But what of you kept the signal all the way through, and managed to record it on a medium that allowed no loss in quality over time? No need for ADC's (or DAC's, for that matter) when you think of it. You know, have it like a turntable, which is analog all the way. There's no conversion to digital, thus, no loss in information. However, that means that you won't be able to use the stuff as computer files, without loss a conversion to digital. I'm talking more of a physical thing, rather than a file format.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this case you would basically just be making a copy of the masters. No conversion would be needed at all. This is perfection at it's best

But the only thing is, as you said, this would not be a format at all. You would need to have a pure analog medium and could not transfer over a modem at all. Modems send digital only signals. Hehehe, you see why digital is used everywhere. Soon enough, mp3's or some other format will be used that is very close to the original that no noticeable difference can be heard by the human ear. This is similar to how TV's broadcast (in the US at least) at 60fps interlaced. I know I left out most of the technical aspects, but it gets long and very complex when numbers and reasons come into play.

------------------
Dave - penguin22

Beware The Penguin

[rm']

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by penguin22:
Modems send digital only signals.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's where telephony comes in. Just send it as an audio signal, and have the recieving computer save it. Sure, it would be slow, but it would work. The only problem is, telephone quality has to improve to decent levels. But, fiberoptics are coiming to the forefront

btw, tv is at 30fps

[e144539]

hello!!
mo-dem
modulator demodulator
turn digital signals into analog ... analog into digital
modems are definitely not all digital

metal (wires) resist (interference) electricity (analog signal of varying voltage) and picks up (like an antena) radio waves (interferance).
analog recordings degrade over time, however degital can not (a "1" can't become a "0.08", and a "0" can't become a "0.08")
fiber optics are digital. They use lasers that flash. Its not pure digital in the sense "laser on" equals "1", "laser off" equals "0", but you can think of it that way. they use codes, and some systems use diffrent colors, so they can transmit more data in the same amount of time. If fiberoptics were like a telephone line the lasers would be on all the time, changing brightness. Brilliance would be lost because the glass isn't totaly transparent, it would still be better than wires because they wouldn't pick up light from other sources though. That makes me think though, oh nevermind. I really need to shut up and go to bed.

Amen to that.

------------------
Life- [{lîf} plaural lives {lîvz}] n. sexually transmitted, always fatal

[e144539]

and rev that 1411 kb/s is just for cd quality

samplerate=44100 times bitdepth=16 times channeles=2(stereo)equals 1411200

dvd would be

48000*24*2= 2304000

you could even do better quality
you don't need to increase the samplerate any, using the Nyquist Theorem
48000/2=24kHz, the highest audiable frequency of humans.
the bitdepth and channels can be improved though.
for every bit you add you double the bitdepth
2bit=2^2nd=4 possible amplitudes
16bit=2^16=65536
24bit=2^24=16,777,216
64bit=2^64=1.845*10^19
quadraphonic=4
5 point=5
lets say 64bit is enough

48000*64*5= 15.36Mb/sec

think of that, a 4 minute song would be about 3.5 GB!

Oh yeah, you could keep on adding more channels too, but I think 6 would be enough, like the sides of a cube, one above, one below, one left, one right, front and back.

anyways, you can go all the way to infinity

I think it woud be simpler, if in the future, to have sound waves represented in trigonomic equations like

y=[sin(A*xsub1-B)]/C+[sin(D*xsub2-E)]/F+[sin(G*xsub3-H)]/J ect., ect.

------------------
Life- [{lîf} plaural lives {lîvz}] n. sexually transmitted, always fatal

[This message has been edited by e144539 (edited December 14, 2000).]

[penguin22]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Radioactive Man:
That's where telephony comes in. Just send it as an audio signal, and have the recieving computer save it. Sure, it would be slow, but it would work. The only problem is, telephone quality has to improve to decent levels. But, fiberoptics are coiming to the forefront

btw, tv is at 30fps<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In theory this all sounds good, but telephone signals are limited as you said. Maybe when we all are on fiber optic lines it would be better frequency alloting, but until then, we do not have much room to work with. Also, fiber lines send data pulse modulated (light pulses), which in effect represent a digital representation of an analog signal yet again. Copper lines do transmit pure analog signal, but it is first filtered through a bandpass filter and if it runs over a T1 line (yes, they were originally only for phone companies), it is also a digital representation. So even telephony would not work if you want to be perfect about it. But to be honest, we could use this method as long as the sampling frequency of the line is greater by 2 times than that of the recorded media's frequency.

As for the TV being 30fps, that is why I said interlaced. It is 30fps for half of the screen because only half of the screen changes at a time. This was done for a whole lot of good reasons. If you want to read up on it, here is a great site:
Conventional Analog Television - An Introduction

Blame my schooling, I did reports and intensive work in some of these areas.

------------------
Dave - penguin22

Beware The Penguin

[Nawhead]

MP3's will be outdated in the same way my 200 MB hard drive was considered HUGE just 5 years ago. There's already lossless compression like Monkey's Audio around. As soon as drive spaces and bandwidth increases to accomodate it, we won't need lossy compression anymore. Then the audio industry will move to DVD-Audio or SACD, then we'll need another lossy compression format for that as the data requirements are far more than today's regular audio CD's. Then another lossless scheme will take over, and then we'll have to wait for 1 GB/s lines in our homes, then another audio format will come out....etc. etc. etc. etc. It never really ends.

[JMPZ]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by e144539:
I think it woud be simpler, if in the future, to have sound waves represented in trigonomic equations like

y=[sin(A*xsub1-B)]/C+[sin(D*xsub2-E)]/F+[sin(G*xsub3-H)]/J ect., ect.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear that. Shouldn't we be doing this already? I mean, a waveform of any shape can be created by a trigonometric function, and trig functions can be stored digitally. And since the function itself loses nothing in conversion to digital, an analog circuit of some sort could re-create the waveform *exactly* without any information loss.

Whoo; what an idea!

[penguin22]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JMPZ:
I hear that. Shouldn't we be doing this already? I mean, a waveform of any shape can be created by a trigonometric function, and trig functions can be stored digitally. And since the function itself loses nothing in conversion to digital, an analog circuit of some sort could re-create the waveform *exactly* without any information loss.

Whoo; what an idea!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has to be the best idea I have heard yet. Math solves everything. You are right, using trig and even LaPlace encoding/decoding, this idea is highly feasable. An exact representation that can be transmitted digitally and then taken and decoded. The only problem is that the entire song would have to be decoded at once, or broken into sections so the decoding could be done quicker. The entire song could theoretically be represented by one formula! By breaking it into smaller subformula's, you would have a still perfect signal, but more manageable (this using the impluse function). I never thought that calc and Transform circuit analysis would ever come in this handy


------------------
Dave - penguin22

Beware The Penguin

[JMPZ]

Have you ever seen the fourier formula's they're frickin huge. I saw them in the front of this science dictionary my physics teacher had. My Goodness! I tried to make sense of them, but they were rather dauntingly big and complex.

Which reminds me. You know how Winamps EQ has the smooth eq thing? where if you move one point up, it curves the line to intersect all the points?

Well, I tried to figure out how to do this efficiently, but all I came up with was math function that took a FREAKING long time to find, and graph (I was trying to do this on my calculator). How on earth do you do this so quickly? It there a way of faking it without calculating the formula for the equation that intersects all five points? That formula comes out to be pretty darn huge!! Any idea?

Thanks!

[rm']

A fiber optic signal could increase in intensity (as opposed to on/off), to signify an analog signal. Plus, repeater stations do wonders to get around the not-quite-near-perfect physical clarity of a fiber optic cable.

Another thing about digital is if one 0 out of 1 million is lost, it would be inaudible (and completely irrelavant to the wholeness of the audio), whereas if even a fraction of a second of an analog signal were lost, the loss would be noticeable.

------------------
Go me!

[e144539]

thats why packets in tcp/ip use headers that contain the size of the packet. If the size that is recived is even one bit (a "0") smaller than the packet sent then the packet is sent agin

------------------
Life- [{lîf} plaural lives {lîvz}] n. sexually transmitted, always fatal

[This message has been edited by e144539 (edited December 14, 2000).]

[rm']

Error correction? Ain't it a beautiful thing? Same dealie goes for serial connections, et al.

------------------
Go me!

[rm']

Oh! I just had a brainstorm

What if, instead of saving an analog signal as audio, it were digitized in a sense, by extracting the waveform, and converting it to a vectored drawing? Since it's vectored, it would be based on mathematical formulas (i.e. resolution independant, no aliasing, therefore interpolation and resultant loss of info), and since it is a graphics file, it could easily be sent digitally? Makes sense?

------------------
Go me!

[penguin22]

RM, that does make sense, but I believe that it still induces some guesswork by the encoder side. Even an image is a representation, but as we keep going to with that idea, it would be so near perfect that not even a machine made to detect differences could. Back to the LaPlace systems, yes those formula's are huge, and can be very difficult (especially when you are me and are made by my Control Systems course to memorize them), but they would give you 100% exact replica of the original analog signal even while transmitting in digital formulas. If I were a bit better at programming, I'd actually start working on methods of doing this. As for now, I'm gonna see if I can build an input port on my computer that will retain the signal as pure analog up until it is formulated by software. This sounds like it could be done, and is very practical too.

------------------
Dave - penguin22

Beware The Penguin

[mattjsimps]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by penguin22:
as long as you are taking from an analog signal and converting it to digital, you will have quality loss. It is inevitable, no way around it, but eventually you encode (take samples of) the analog signal that can almost perfectly decode into an exact replica of the original. They can do this encoding, but it takes longer to encode, increases file size and as of now is not practical being that CD's do not encode from the masters past a certain point. Does anybody know what CD's are encoded at? I would imagine that it isn't past 320Kbps

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not if you sample at a seriously high rate. If you sample at twice the highest frequency in the analogue signal( which ya gotta else you get aliasing, which sucks) youi should be all right. Crank it up to 5 or 6 times, and you are laughing

------------------
smoke me a kipper, ill be back for breakfast

[mattjsimps]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Reverend Ike:
penguin -

Approximately 1411 Kbps, if I'm not mistaken.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ithougt it was 1.4 kps or 1411BPS

[mattjsimps]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Radioactive Man:
That's where telephony comes in. Just send it as an audio signal, and have the recieving computer save it. Sure, it would be slow, but it would work. The only problem is, telephone quality has to improve to decent levels. But, fiberoptics are coiming to the forefront

btw, tv is at 30fps<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


sending an anologue music signal over telephone line is not a good idea cos they are opitmised for voice. to reconstruct voice, you only need to a frequency range of about 4 khz, but for an music signal you need a lot more.

eg highest frequensy in telephone voice signal about 16khz....sample it at 32 kps, and you can reconstruct perfectly...can you imagine music sampled at that rate??? it would suck

[penguin22]

I know that 2xFmax = Fs (minumum sampling rate to replicate signal), but you are still sampling, not the exact original.. IE, if you sample a wave and it becomes a triangle. The higher the sampling rate it, the closer to the original it will be, but never will it be the same. Also, when you increase the Fs based off of the Fmax, the size will become astronomical. It's not really worth it yet.

------------------
Dave - penguin22

Beware The Penguin

[e144539]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mattjsimps:
ithougt it was 1.4 kps or 1411BPS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by e144539:
samplerate=44100 times bitdepth=16 times channeles=2(stereo)equals 1411200
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

which is to say 1411.2 kb/sec


------------------
Life- [{lîf} plaural lives {lîvz}] n. sexually transmitted, always fatal

[penguin22]

1.4Kbps, not KBps, also not Bps, there are 8 bits in a byte, so it would be 175Bps, unless it were 1400Kbps = 1.4Mbps, then it'd be 175KBps.

[Winsane]

And the correct answer is: 1411.2 kilobits per second (1411200 bits ber second).

[This message has been edited by Winsane (edited December 15, 2000).]

[penguin22]

thanks for the verification, now we all know and will never forget! Doh, I have a long way to becoming a swinger now. At least I made swinger in the two weeks that I have been posting here.