FPGA Central

Hi Usenet:

I am back. If you remember, I am the dude who likes SB16 FM synthesis,
and is interested in many digital terms [bit-resolution, sample-rate,
etc.]. In addition, I prefer PCM video over compressed video.

I ain't no troll this time!

Best Regards,

Radium

In a crosspose involving:
comp.dsp,
rec.audio.tech,
sci.optics,
rec.music.makers.synth and
alt.os,
On 29 Sep 2005 15:09:25 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:

>Hi Usenet:

This isn't Usenet. You missed a few newsgroups.

>I am back. If you remember, I am the dude who likes SB16 FM synthesis,
>and is interested in many digital terms [bit-resolution, sample-rate,
>etc.]. In addition, I prefer PCM video over compressed video.
>
>I ain't no troll this time!
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Radium

Ben Bradley wrote:
> In a crosspose involving:
> comp.dsp,
> rec.audio.tech,
> sci.optics,
> rec.music.makers.synth and
> alt.os,
> On 29 Sep 2005 15:09:25 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi Usenet:
>
> This isn't Usenet. You missed a few newsgroups.

LOL Ben!

Radium wrote:
> Hi Usenet:
>
> I am back. If you remember, I am the dude who likes SB16 FM synthesis,
> and is interested in many digital terms [bit-resolution, sample-rate,
> etc.]. In addition, I prefer PCM video over compressed video.

When the difference is apparent, an uncompressed signal looks better
than an uncompressed one. Most compressed signals are sent as PCM*.

> I ain't no troll this time!

Thank God for small favors!

Jerry
__________________________________________
* Pulse Code Modulation, the most common digital format.
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

radium, the soft synth cracker
wooohoooo

> * Pulse Code Modulation, the most common digital format.

PCM is not a "format" it is just a $3 phrase that means "digital".

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1128031765.003362.230980@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi Usenet:
>
> I am back. If you remember, I am the dude who likes SB16 FM synthesis,
> and is interested in many digital terms [bit-resolution, sample-rate,
> etc.]. In addition, I prefer PCM video over compressed video.
>
> I ain't no troll this time!


Well, **** off again.

geoff

"zzzxtreme" <zzzxtreme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128078860.444889.13230@g43g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> radium, the soft synth cracker
> wooohoooo

Yeah, the cracks were much better than Paradox's flakey buggy ones. Where's
the ftp ?

geoff

Richard Crowley wrote:
>> * Pulse Code Modulation, the most common digital format.
>
>
> PCM is not a "format" it is just a $3 phrase that means "digital".

PWM is also digital.

jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:32:09 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>Richard Crowley wrote:
>>> * Pulse Code Modulation, the most common digital format.
>>
>>
>> PCM is not a "format" it is just a $3 phrase that means "digital".
>
>PWM is also digital.

Ahem, PWM isn't necessarily digital - remember the wonderful Sinclair
X-10 amplifier from the mid '60s?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:32:09 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Richard Crowley wrote:
>>
>>>>* Pulse Code Modulation, the most common digital format.
>>>
>>>
>>>PCM is not a "format" it is just a $3 phrase that means "digital".
>>
>>PWM is also digital.
>
>
> Ahem, PWM isn't necessarily digital - remember the wonderful Sinclair
> X-10 amplifier from the mid '60s?

No. please describe it.

jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:24:43 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:32:09 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Richard Crowley wrote:
>>>
>>>>>* Pulse Code Modulation, the most common digital format.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>PCM is not a "format" it is just a $3 phrase that means "digital".
>>>
>>>PWM is also digital.
>>
>>
>> Ahem, PWM isn't necessarily digital - remember the wonderful Sinclair
>> X-10 amplifier from the mid '60s?
>
>No. please describe it.

Class D amp using germanium small-signal transistors, rated at 10
watts, actualy produced about 3 watts, rated at 0.1% THD at full power
- unfortunately, those were switching artifacts which stayed at the
same level regardless of output, so the whole thing sounded absolutely
dreadful! Lasted for about a year on the market, and was followed by a
whole slew of highly novel but ultimately trashy Sinclair products.

Clive Sinclair (who didn't actually design the X-10) is a true
innovative genius - who couldn't nail together two pieces of wood,
never mind produce reliable electronic gear.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:24:43 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>>>Ahem, PWM isn't necessarily digital - remember the wonderful Sinclair
>>>X-10 amplifier from the mid '60s?
>>
>>No. please describe it.
>
>
> Class D amp using germanium small-signal transistors, rated at 10
> watts, actualy produced about 3 watts, rated at 0.1% THD at full power
> - unfortunately, those were switching artifacts which stayed at the
> same level regardless of output, so the whole thing sounded absolutely
> dreadful! Lasted for about a year on the market, and was followed by a
> whole slew of highly novel but ultimately trashy Sinclair products.
>
> Clive Sinclair (who didn't actually design the X-10) is a true
> innovative genius - who couldn't nail together two pieces of wood,
> never mind produce reliable electronic gear.

Was Uncle Clive based on Max Bialystock or vice-versa?

You can almost make out the X-10 circuit diagram here:
http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/audio/x-10.htm

--
Eiron

I have no spirit to play with you; your dearth of judgment renders you
tedious - Ben Jonson.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:24:43 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

...

>>>Ahem, PWM isn't necessarily digital - remember the wonderful Sinclair
>>>X-10 amplifier from the mid '60s?
>>
>>No. please describe it.
>
>
> Class D amp using germanium small-signal transistors, rated at 10
> watts, actualy produced about 3 watts, rated at 0.1% THD at full power
> - unfortunately, those were switching artifacts which stayed at the
> same level regardless of output, so the whole thing sounded absolutely
> dreadful! Lasted for about a year on the market, and was followed by a
> whole slew of highly novel but ultimately trashy Sinclair products.
>
> Clive Sinclair (who didn't actually design the X-10) is a true
> innovative genius - who couldn't nail together two pieces of wood,
> never mind produce reliable electronic gear.

I'm glad I never had first-hand experience with it! Still, one could
make a case that a class-D amplifier is digital at least in some
respects. The amplitude at the switch is certainly quantized, and pulse
width also in many modern implementations. I will assert unconditionally
that *some* PWM applications are fully digital, and that it is a useful
digital encoding for some applications.

All that aside, the OP's assumption that compressed signals aren't (or
can't) be encoded as PCM is nonsense.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Jerry Avins wrote:

> I'm glad I never had first-hand experience with it! Still, one could
> make a case that a class-D amplifier is digital at least in some
> respects. The amplitude at the switch is certainly quantized, and pulse
> width also in many modern implementations. I will assert unconditionally
> that *some* PWM applications are fully digital, and that it is a useful
> digital encoding for some applications.

PWM is not digital. PWM is in pulses but that does not make it digital.

> All that aside, the OP's assumption that compressed signals aren't (or
> can't) be encoded as PCM is nonsense.

Sorry. I was stating that PCM is better than MPEG. Compressed signals
can be in PCM. I was comparing WAVE files to MP3 files. In my
experience WAVs are better than MP3s.

Makes me wonder what PCM video would look like if compared to the
crappy MPEG stored on DVDs. DVD video is certianly better than the
video you get in those VHS cassettes. However, if only DVD used the
visual equivalent of .WAV audio, it would be much better in picture and
color resolution. DVDs do use PCM audio, which is fine, but it is time
they start implenting their video in PCM and stop their useless MPEG
video.

Radium wrote:

> < ...snip.. >
>
> Makes me wonder what PCM video would look like if compared to the
> crappy MPEG stored on DVDs. DVD video is certianly better than the
> video you get in those VHS cassettes. However, if only DVD used the
> visual equivalent of .WAV audio, it would be much better in picture and
> color resolution. DVDs do use PCM audio, which is fine, but it is time
> they start implenting their video in PCM and stop their useless MPEG
> video.

Wrong newsgroup. Try rec.video.production.

Later...

Ron Capik
--

Radium wrote:

> Sorry. I was stating that PCM is better than MPEG. Compressed signals
> can be in PCM. I was comparing WAVE files to MP3 files. In my
> experience WAVs are better than MP3s.

Somewhat true, as they are uncompressed and have the edge. OTOH, MP3s
I make from my AIFFs are so close to the original, I'd need a dolphin to
tell the difference, since I have been to so many rock concerts, I lost
about 20 points from each end of my hearing range by the time I had the
money for a synth that damaged it further. Which I ENJOYED, of course.

--

HellPope Huey
No explanation possible.
None that you'd sit still for
past the 3-minute point, anyway
and good for you!

Everybody hates me because
I'm so universally liked.
~ Peter De Vries, "The Vale of Laughter"

"Brown admitted he was too overskilled
to deal with all the retards around him."
~ "The Daily Show"

http://www.beat-factory.net/hellpope/

Radium wrote:
> Makes me wonder what PCM video would look like if
> compared to the crappy MPEG stored on DVDs.

"PCM" means digital. MPEG is digital. MPEG *IS* "PCM".

Where on earth did this notion of some magical "format" called
"PCM" come from anyway? If we call digital "PCM", then
should we start calling analog "ACM" or something? Makes
as much sense to me.

> DVD video is certianly better than the video you get in those
> VHS cassettes. However, if only DVD used the visual equivalent
> of .WAV audio, it would be much better in picture and color
> resolution.

And the digital equivalent of WAV would hold about 5 minutes
of video on a 4.7GB DVD disc. It takes extensive compression to
fit a Hollywood movie onto one of those discs. There people that
are paid to sit in front of computers to hand-tune the amount of
compression from shot to shot in order to keep the visual quality
reasonably good while living within the bandwidth budget and
media capacity.

> DVDs do use PCM audio, which is fine, but it is time they
> start implenting their video in PCM and stop their useless
> MPEG video.

DVDs use several different ways of storing the audio track.
Most of them are compressed (MPEG).

Review: "PCM" means digital. MPEG is digital. Everything
on a CD or DVD disc is digital, ie. "PCM".

Radium wrote:


> ... I was stating that PCM is better than MPEG. Compressed signals
> can be in PCM. I was comparing WAVE files to MP3 files. In my
> experience WAVs are better than MP3s.

MPEG is PCM. Most, but not all, digital signals are PCM. You probably
mean something real, but at the moment, you're just tossing around terms
you don't seem to understand.

> Makes me wonder what PCM video would look like if compared to the
> crappy MPEG stored on DVDs. DVD video is certianly better than the
> video you get in those VHS cassettes. However, if only DVD used the
> visual equivalent of .WAV audio, it would be much better in picture and
> color resolution. DVDs do use PCM audio, which is fine, but it is time
> they start implenting their video in PCM and stop their useless MPEG
> video.

That would take an order of magnitude more bandwidth. Engineering is
about making do with what's available, not holding out for some absolute
ideal that you can't get and probably don't need.

You don't know what you're talking about. HDTV is MPEG-2. I had hopes,
but you haven't changed much.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Richard Crowley wrote:
> MPEG *IS* "PCM".

Thats like saying MP3 is the same as WAV. Which is wrong. No offense.

Radium wrote:
> Richard Crowley wrote:
> > MPEG *IS* "PCM".
>
> Thats like saying MP3 is the same as WAV.

No, it's not. It's saying that both are pulse code modulation.
WAV is simply a specific container format for audio information.
WAV files can hold linear PCM, non-linear PCM such as A-law or
u-law, encodings such as MPEG, AC-3 and such.

Thus, if you simply specify that something is in WAV format, you're
only saying that it's a RIFF-format file and that it's internal
format is unspecified. It could be linear PCM (wave format type 1),
it could be MPEG (wave format type 80).

Both linear PCM and MPEG ARE pulse-code modulations, meaning that
at certain instants, the instantaneous amplitude of the is sampled
and encoded. One of them simply has gone through some additional
lossy encoding procedure.

> Which is wrong.

No, it is not. You are most definitely out of touch on this.

> No offense.

Well, it's clear that you're back, with the same misinformation
as always, and we see you didn't waste any of your time during
your absence to learn any of this stuff.

Ho hum...

Radium wrote:
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>>MPEG *IS* "PCM".
>
>
> Thats like saying MP3 is the same as WAV. Which is wrong. No offense.

Not only don't you know what you're talking about, you don't want to
learn. Your concepts are garbage, but you won't give them up. It seems
that you like to wallow in them. Oink.

Good bye.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

dpierce@cartchunk.org wrote:

> It could be linear PCM (wave format type 1),
> it could be MPEG (wave format type 80).

I am sorry. I didn't know that. Is there a linear PCM format for video?

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1128184768.397578.96570@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
> Makes me wonder what PCM video would look like if compared to the
> crappy MPEG stored on DVDs. DVD video is certianly better than the
> video you get in those VHS cassettes. However, if only DVD used the
> visual equivalent of .WAV audio, it would be much better in picture and
> color resolution. DVDs do use PCM audio, which is fine, but it is time
> they start implenting their video in PCM and stop their useless MPEG
> video.

It would probably look slightly better under some conditions, but you would only
get to see the previews since the DVD would only hold minutes instead of hours!

Radium wrote:
> dpierce@cartchunk.org wrote:
>
> > It could be linear PCM (wave format type 1),
> > it could be MPEG (wave format type 80).
>
> I am sorry. I didn't know that.

Indeed.

> Is there a linear PCM format for video?

Linear PCM is simply a format for representing signals. Those
signals could be audio, they could be video, they could be
telemetry data from a distant planet.

As such, there most certainly could be and indeed are linear
PCM video streams. Consider the data rate. Typical NTSC TV
images, 30 frames/second, 525 lines per frame of which 35
are blanked. Assume 400 lines horizontal resolution, that
means a data rate of 30*490*400 about 6 Mhz. Assume 12 bits
per pixel, that's a data rate of 9 Mhz.

Not a lot of storage can sustain that rate forever without a
hiccup and, who cars, because there's no need to. Unlike audio,
it's actually pretty easy to get gross nearly lossless compression
of video. FOr example, unlike audio, video comes packaged in
convenient frames, so its possible to compare one frame to the next
and send only what's different per frame. One can also do things
like run-length encoding of otherwise identical pixels and the like.

As a result, video is, to save bandwidth and stroage, very often
compressed. I'm not talking MPEG, I'm talking simple reduction
of highly redundant data.