FPGA Central

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that a .wav file can *be*
> an MP3.

I understand this very well. I have actually done this in the Windows
"Sound Recorder" program. Yes. This allow you to make a .wav file that
is actually in MP3 format. I am well aware of this.

If MP3 is exactly the same as PCM, they why can't MP3 be directly
converted to analog audio? Why does MP3 have to be put through some
extremely complicated process before it can be fed to the DAC and
converted to analog? What exactly is this inexplicably-complex process?

What would happen if I forced an MP3 signal into a DAC? What would I
hear on the connected speaker? What would I see on the connected
screen?

Hey. If MP3 is PCM, then lets get rid of those idiotic decompressors.
They are a waste of weight and space. LOL!

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that a .wav file can *be*
> an MP3.

I understand this very well. I have actually done this in the Windows
"Sound Recorder" program. Yes. This allow you to make a .wav file that
is actually in MP3 format. I am well aware of this.

If MP3 is exactly the same as PCM, they why can't MP3 be directly
converted to analog audio? Why does MP3 have to be put through some
extremely complicated process before it can be fed to the DAC and
converted to analog? What exactly is this inexplicably-complex process?

What would happen if I forced an MP3 signal into a DAC? What would I
hear on the connected speaker? What would I see on the connected
screen?

Hey. If MP3 is PCM, then lets get rid of those idiotic decompressors.
They are a waste of weight and space. LOL!

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that a .wav file can *be*
> an MP3.

I understand this very well. I have actually done this in the Windows
"Sound Recorder" program. Yes. This allow you to make a .wav file that
is actually in MP3 format. I am well aware of this.

If MP3 is exactly the same as PCM, they why can't MP3 be directly
converted to analog audio? Why does MP3 have to be put through some
extremely complicated process before it can be fed to the DAC and
converted to analog? What exactly is this inexplicably-complex process?

What would happen if I forced an MP3 signal into a DAC? What would I
hear on the connected speaker? What would I see on the connected
screen?

Hey. If MP3 is PCM, then lets get rid of those idiotic decompressors.
They are a waste of weight and space. LOL!

Sorry for the multiple posts. I don't know how they got here like this.
After I posted, I got a "server error" message. I use Google Groups.

Radium wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that a .wav file can *be*
> > an MP3.
>
> I understand this very well. I have actually done this in the Windows
> "Sound Recorder" program. Yes. This allow you to make a .wav file that
> is actually in MP3 format. I am well aware of this.
>
> If MP3 is exactly the same as PCM, they why can't MP3 be directly
> converted to analog audio? Why does MP3 have to be put through some
> extremely complicated process before it can be fed to the DAC and
> converted to analog? What exactly is this inexplicably-complex process?
>
> What would happen if I forced an MP3 signal into a DAC? What would I
> hear on the connected speaker? What would I see on the connected
> screen?
>
> Hey. If MP3 is PCM, then lets get rid of those idiotic decompressors.
> They are a waste of weight and space. LOL!

On 3 Oct 2005 10:28:54 -0700, Radium wrote:

> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that a .wav file can *be*
>> an MP3.
>
> I understand this very well. I have actually done this in the Windows
> "Sound Recorder" program. Yes. This allow you to make a .wav file that
> is actually in MP3 format. I am well aware of this.
>
> If MP3 is exactly the same as PCM, they why can't MP3 be directly
> converted to analog audio? Why does MP3 have to be put through some
> extremely complicated process before it can be fed to the DAC and
> converted to analog? What exactly is this inexplicably-complex process?
>
> What would happen if I forced an MP3 signal into a DAC? What would I
> hear on the connected speaker? What would I see on the connected
> screen?
>
> Hey. If MP3 is PCM, then lets get rid of those idiotic decompressors.
> They are a waste of weight and space. LOL!

An MP3 file isn't PCM. It is a data file wich is a "description" in
condensed terms of what was in the original PCM data stream. If you put
such a file into a DAC, you would get noise out. The MP3 filke must be
decompressed and converted back to a PCM data stream before it can be sent
to the DAC.

d

Radium wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>
>>Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that a .wav file can *be*
>>an MP3.
>
>
> I understand this very well. I have actually done this in the Windows
> "Sound Recorder" program. Yes. This allow you to make a .wav file that
> is actually in MP3 format. I am well aware of this.
>
> If MP3 is exactly the same as PCM, they why can't MP3 be directly
> converted to analog audio? Why does MP3 have to be put through some
> extremely complicated process before it can be fed to the DAC and
> converted to analog? What exactly is this inexplicably-complex process?
>
> What would happen if I forced an MP3 signal into a DAC? What would I
> hear on the connected speaker? What would I see on the connected
> screen?
>
> Hey. If MP3 is PCM, then lets get rid of those idiotic decompressors.
> They are a waste of weight and space. LOL!

FM radio is VHF. Some TV is VHF, Why can't I get FM on my TV receiver?

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

Radium wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>
>>Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that a .wav file can *be*
>>an MP3.
>
>
> I understand this very well. I have actually done this in the Windows
> "Sound Recorder" program. Yes. This allow you to make a .wav file that
> is actually in MP3 format. I am well aware of this.
>
> If MP3 is exactly the same as PCM, they why can't MP3 be directly
> converted to analog audio? Why does MP3 have to be put through some
> extremely complicated process before it can be fed to the DAC and
> converted to analog? What exactly is this inexplicably-complex process?
>
> What would happen if I forced an MP3 signal into a DAC? What would I
> hear on the connected speaker? What would I see on the connected
> screen?
>
> Hey. If MP3 is PCM, then lets get rid of those idiotic decompressors.
> They are a waste of weight and space. LOL!

You don't have to force it. If the word width is appropriate, it will
fit nicely. What comes out will be conceptually what comes out of a
printer if zipped text is put into it: garbage.

Converting to MP3 is like zipping, only a bit worse. Usually, you can't
get the original back exactly. You seem to be stuck with the idea that
PCM means "uncompressed". It doesn't; it means "pulse code modulation".
You can't feed PCM to a DAC until you demodulate it. Then you can feed
the bits to the DAC, but it's not PCM any more because it's not modulated.

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

On 3 Oct 2005 10:28:54 -0700, "Radium" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that a .wav file can *be*
>> an MP3.
>
>I understand this very well. I have actually done this in the Windows
>"Sound Recorder" program. Yes. This allow you to make a .wav file that
>is actually in MP3 format. I am well aware of this.
>
>If MP3 is exactly the same as PCM, they why can't MP3 be directly
>converted to analog audio?

Jeez, you cretin, who ever said that MP3 was the same as LPCM?

> Why does MP3 have to be put through some
>extremely complicated process before it can be fed to the DAC and
>converted to analog?

Because it's a *compressed* format. Go away and *learn* the basics,
before drivelling on Usenet.

> What exactly is this inexplicably-complex process?

It's called MP3. Sheesh, whatta maroon!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 3 Oct 2005 11:10:27 -0700, "Radium" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Sorry for the multiple posts. I don't know how they got here like this.

We'll add this to the endless list of things you don't know.........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
> An MP3 file isn't PCM. It is a data file wich is a "description" in
> condensed terms of what was in the original PCM data stream. If you put
> such a file into a DAC, you would get noise out. The MP3 filke must be
> decompressed and converted back to a PCM data stream before it can be sent
> to the DAC.

You seem to have a unique notion for the definition of "PCM"

I got ~530,000 hits on Google when I searched for: "pulse code
modulation" -audio

Some of them are pretty revaling and recomended reading.
Including this one...

"Pulse code modulation (PCM) is the technology of transmitting information
from one point to another by means of a pulse train which may be modulated
in amplituede, frequency, or phase. In the most common realization, binary
information is conveyed by a series of pulses which can only take one of two
possible forms."

i.e. what today we call "digital". Note that the "information" isn't
even assumed to be samples of an analog signal.

Use of "PCM" to mean "uncompressed WAV (or WAV-like) file"
is a misundestanding of the term at best, and adds confusion to our
attempts to communicate clearly. I maintain that "PCM" is NOT a
useful term since modern usage is so perverted.

Radium wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that a .wav file
> > can *be* an MP3.
>
> I understand this very well.

No, it is VERY apparent that you do NOT understand this at all,
as is evidenced by all of your following remarks.

> If MP3 is exactly the same as PCM,

Who said that? no one did. You insist on using the term "PCM" as
a specific format, and people have told you time and again that
this is not the case.

What you are talking about is the difference between LINEAR PCM
and perceptually-compressed PCM.

> they why can't MP3 be directly
> converted to analog audio?

Linear PCM is also NOT directly converted into analog audio.
It has to go through a process, much of which is performed
by the DAC.

> Why does MP3 have to be put through some
> extremely complicated process before it can be fed to the DAC and
> converted to analog?

Because most of the DACs used in audio require linear PCM
first.

>What exactly is this inexplicably-complex process?

IT's hardly inexplicable. Whether you understand it is another
things, and your insistance on holding fast to incorrect concepts
makes even more difficult for you to understand.

Basically, MPEG and similar processes perform lossy data reduction
followed by data compression. The idea is to remove information
that is not relevant according to some chosen criteria, and then
take what remains and remove redundant information. Most of the
process of converting it back to listenable audio is to reconstruct
the redundant data that was removed. That's actually quite easy,
and is a process not unlike reconstructing the original data file
from a ZIP-compressed container. There's not much else the end
process has to do before it feeds it to the DAC. All the hard work
is NOT done at the delivery end, like you believe, but at the
compression end, in the original conversion from linear PCM
to MPEG.

> What would happen if I forced an MP3 signal into a DAC?

You can't. But that's not the point, despite your insistance.
The playback process of MPEG is very simple and easy. It's the
front-end side that's hard.

> What would I
> hear on the connected speaker? What would I see on the connected
> screen?

> Hey. If MP3 is PCM,

You just don't get it, do you? DO you not want to get it?

LPCM is PCM. MP3 is PCM, ADPCM is PCM, u-law is PCM, A-law
is PCM. They are ALL PCM.

You insist on failing to distinguish between linear PCM and
non-linear PCM and lossy compressed PCM. And until you do,
you just aren't going to get abywhere, despite the best
efforts of a number of people who have tried to help you.

> then lets get rid of those idiotic decompressors.
> They are a waste of weight and space.

Well, you REALLY don't get it.

In fact, the entire idea of such compression schemes is to
REDUCE space, REDUCE transmission bandwidth requirements. And,
at that, they succeed very well.

You seem to have a problem with the QUALITY of compressors, and
that's fine, but its NOT because one is PCM and one is MP3, it's
because:

1. The compression side used far to high a compression rate and
thus the amount of information loss is too high

2. The compressor used is faulty.

In either case, you're erroneously blaming your disatisfaction
on one or the other or both, and compounding the situation by
making a set of technical assumptions that are just plain wrong.

Radium wrote:

> If MP3 is exactly the same as PCM, they why can't MP3 be directly
> converted to analog audio? Why does MP3 have to be put through some
> extremely complicated process before it can be fed to the DAC and
> converted to analog? What exactly is this inexplicably-complex process?

To expand upon this further, do you understand the fact that
you can't put linear PCM to a DAC and have it work, either.
Mr. Avins [sp?} eplained this succinctly elsewhere, but I fear
that this will be lost on you.

Do you have any idea that the process of obtaining an analog
output from a stream of linear PCM samples itself is pretty
complicated to begin with? Are you aware of concepts such as
imaging artifacts, reconstruction filters or oversampling?
This stuff is sufficiently complex and non-intuitive that people
who actually make some effort of understanding without being
crippled by insisting on their own way of thinking have some
trouble with.

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Radium wrote:
> > If MP3 is exactly the same as PCM, they why can't MP3 be directly
> > converted to analog audio?
> FM radio is VHF. Some TV is VHF, Why can't I get FM on my TV receiver?

Some radio broadcasts are done at 10 kHz. Why can't I hear
them?
:-)

"Radium" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that a .wav
>> file can *be* an MP3.
>
> I understand this very well. I have actually done this in
> the Windows "Sound Recorder" program. Yes. This allow you
> to make a .wav file that is actually in MP3 format. I am
> well aware of this.

The Windows Sound Recorder doesn't make .wav files in MP3
format. Windows Sound Recorder makes .wav files that are in
an uncompressed format.

> If MP3 is exactly the same as PCM,

MP3 is most definately *NOT* the same as PCM.


> What would happen if I forced an MP3 signal into a DAC?

It would sound like noise.

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:40:04 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Radium" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected] oups.com
>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that a .wav
>>> file can *be* an MP3.
>>
>> I understand this very well. I have actually done this in
>> the Windows "Sound Recorder" program. Yes. This allow you
>> to make a .wav file that is actually in MP3 format. I am
>> well aware of this.
>
> The Windows Sound Recorder doesn't make .wav files in MP3
> format. Windows Sound Recorder makes .wav files that are in
> an uncompressed format.
>
>> If MP3 is exactly the same as PCM,
>
> MP3 is most definately *NOT* the same as PCM.
>
>
>> What would happen if I forced an MP3 signal into a DAC?
>
> It would sound like noise.

Indeed if it didn't sound like noise, I would be sending the codec back to
the writer for a better try.

d

Richard Crowley wrote:

> ... I maintain that "PCM" is NOT a
> useful term since modern usage is so perverted.

I agree. Let's see what the thread "What does PCM mean to you?" in
comp.dsp brings out.

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

"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:sp3469gs0hba$.f5ffc0tk2nox$.[email protected]
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:40:04 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Radium" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected] oups.com
>>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that a .wav
>>>> file can *be* an MP3.
>>>
>>> I understand this very well. I have actually done this
>>> in the Windows "Sound Recorder" program. Yes. This
>>> allow you to make a .wav file that is actually in MP3
>>> format. I am well aware of this.
>>
>> The Windows Sound Recorder doesn't make .wav files in MP3
>> format. Windows Sound Recorder makes .wav files that
>> are in an uncompressed format.
>>
>>> If MP3 is exactly the same as PCM,
>>
>> MP3 is most definately *NOT* the same as PCM.
>>
>>
>>> What would happen if I forced an MP3 signal into a DAC?
>>
>> It would sound like noise.
>
> Indeed if it didn't sound like noise, I would be sending
> the codec back to the writer for a better try.

AFAIK MP3 coders are block-oriented, so their output data is
a tiny less than perfectly random.

On 10/3/2005 2:04 PM, Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Don Pearce" wrote ...
>> An MP3 file isn't PCM. It is a data file wich is a "description" in
>> condensed terms of what was in the original PCM data stream. If you put
>> such a file into a DAC, you would get noise out. The MP3 filke must be
>> decompressed and converted back to a PCM data stream before it can be sent
>> to the DAC.
>
> You seem to have a unique notion for the definition of "PCM"
>
> I got ~530,000 hits on Google when I searched for: "pulse code
> modulation" -audio
>
> Some of them are pretty revaling and recomended reading.
> Including this one...
>
> "Pulse code modulation (PCM) is the technology of transmitting information
> from one point to another by means of a pulse train which may be modulated
> in amplituede, frequency, or phase. In the most common realization, binary
> information is conveyed by a series of pulses which can only take one of two
> possible forms."
>
> i.e. what today we call "digital". Note that the "information" isn't
> even assumed to be samples of an analog signal.
>
> Use of "PCM" to mean "uncompressed WAV (or WAV-like) file"
> is a misundestanding of the term at best, and adds confusion to our
> attempts to communicate clearly. I maintain that "PCM" is NOT a
> useful term since modern usage is so perverted.
>
>

So PCM is a tranport protocol where as MP3 is an audio file storage format.

Dan wrote:

...

> So PCM is a tranport protocol where as MP3 is an audio file storage format.

Not specifically storage, but a compression format (and technique).

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote in message

...

>>>It would sound like noise.
>>
>>Indeed if it didn't sound like noise, I would be sending
>>the codec back to the writer for a better try.
>
>
> AFAIK MP3 coders are block-oriented, so their output data is
> a tiny less than perfectly random.

Picky, picky! Did anyone say *random* noise? :-)

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

"Au/SND" is also Linear PCM.

http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/329133.html


Is this different from the "Common" PCM of WAVE files [i.e. "Windows
Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) data (.wav)"]?

If it is different, then I am going to get really angry!

If Linear PCM is diffent from the PCM usually stored in regular .wav
files, then I am going to fry in frustration!


This is so f--king confusing for me.

Sorry if I seem harsh.

Radium wrote:
> "Au/SND" is also Linear PCM.

Yeah, so?

> http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/329133.html
>
> Is this different from the "Common" PCM

What is "common PCM"? Why do you invent these terms and then assign
them meanings that are at variance with the facts? What's wrong
with just understanding what's REALLY going on instead of trying
to shoehorn the world into your mistaken model?

> of WAVE files [i.e. "Windows Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) data
>(.wav)"]?

Radium, why don't you do the research and find out?

> If it is different, then I am going to get really angry!

Define "different." Is 8-bit linear offset binary PCM different
than 16 two's complement linear PCM? Well, it is, and it isn't.

Angry yet?

Is 16 bit linear PCM in little-endian format different than
16 bit linear PCM in big-endian format (the difference, in
at least one dimension, between WAV and AIFF format)?
Well, it is and it isn't.

Angry still?

> If Linear PCM is diffent from the PCM usually stored in
> regular .wav files, then I am going to fry in frustration!

It will be frustration entirely of your own doing, so fry away.

Once again, since you seem to have utterly ignored every prior
attempt to get you to understand.

If you have a WAVE file whose wFormatType word in the fmt header
is 1, then it IS linear PCM.

> This is so f--king confusing for me.

It's confusion entirely of your own fabrication.

> Sorry if I seem harsh.

It's not that you seem harsh, it's that you act like
you are utterly unwilling to learn where you're wrong
and correct it.

dpie...@cartchunk.org wrote:
> Define "different." Is 8-bit linear offset binary PCM different
> than 16 two's complement linear PCM? Well, it is, and it isn't.

The difference is bit-resolution is easy to see. I am okay with that.


> Is 16 bit linear PCM in little-endian format different than
> 16 bit linear PCM in big-endian format (the difference, in
> at least one dimension, between WAV and AIFF format)?
> Well, it is and it isn't.

Again that is easy to differentiate. No problem there. I like WAV PCM.
I don't care for AIFF PCM.


> If you have a WAVE file whose wFormatType word in the fmt header
> is 1, then it IS linear PCM.

I am confused over whether the common WAV format is linear PCM or not.
If it is linear, then why does Adobe Audition seperate the Microsoft
WAV format PCM from linear PCM? Why is there a totally different format
for Linear PCM that for the PCM that is the usual WAV files?

Most of the time I have dealt with .wav files they were Microsoft PCM
WAV format. Nothing else.

I don't know why Adobe Audition seperates the 'regular' PCM from
'linear' PCM. "Regular" meaning the common WAV format w/out any other
names attached to it.

Radium wrote:
> dpie...@cartchunk.org wrote:
> > Define "different." Is 8-bit linear offset binary PCM different
> > than 16 two's complement linear PCM? Well, it is, and it isn't.
>
> The difference is bit-resolution is easy to see. I am okay with that.

But they're different!

> > Is 16 bit linear PCM in little-endian format different than
> > 16 bit linear PCM in big-endian format (the difference, in
> > at least one dimension, between WAV and AIFF format)?
> > Well, it is and it isn't.
>
> Again that is easy to differentiate. No problem there. I like WAV PCM.
> I don't care for AIFF PCM.

But they're different!

> > If you have a WAVE file whose wFormatType word in the fmt header
> > is 1, then it IS linear PCM.
>
> I am confused over whether the common WAV format is linear PCM or not.
> If it is linear, then why does Adobe Audition seperate the Microsoft
> WAV format PCM from linear PCM? Why is there a totally different format
> for Linear PCM that for the PCM that is the usual WAV files?

THEY DO NOT SAY THAT! Why do you insist on this? Nowhere do they say
that the Micorosoft WAV format is ANY different than any other.
Nowhere.

Why do you continually insist on this faslehood?

> Most of the time I have dealt with .wav files they were Microsoft PCM
> WAV format. Nothing else.
>
> I don't know why Adobe Audition seperates the 'regular' PCM from
> 'linear' PCM.

They don't. No where, no how. They do NOT separate it.
They list compatibility with files form a number of vendors.
There is NO statement that the files are intrinsically different.
They are onl;y saying which vendors they support. That's all.

Does the fact that they list two vendors supporting PCM mean that
they MUST be different files? If that's what your conclusions is,
then you are simply wrong.

Stop it.

>"Regular" meaning the common WAV format w/out any other
> names attached to it.

Nonsense.

As long as you insist on such nonsense, you're going to get nowhere.

Look at the fmt chunk of the WAV file. If the first 16 bit int
in the header has a value of 1, it IS linear PCM. It doesn't make
ANY difference where it came from, it's linear PCM.

Thanks for clearing that up

[email protected] wrote:
> Radium wrote:
> > dpie...@cartchunk.org wrote:
> > > Define "different." Is 8-bit linear offset binary PCM different
> > > than 16 two's complement linear PCM? Well, it is, and it isn't.
> >
> > The difference is bit-resolution is easy to see. I am okay with that.
>
> But they're different!
>
> > > Is 16 bit linear PCM in little-endian format different than
> > > 16 bit linear PCM in big-endian format (the difference, in
> > > at least one dimension, between WAV and AIFF format)?
> > > Well, it is and it isn't.
> >
> > Again that is easy to differentiate. No problem there. I like WAV PCM.
> > I don't care for AIFF PCM.
>
> But they're different!
>
> > > If you have a WAVE file whose wFormatType word in the fmt header
> > > is 1, then it IS linear PCM.
> >
> > I am confused over whether the common WAV format is linear PCM or not.
> > If it is linear, then why does Adobe Audition seperate the Microsoft
> > WAV format PCM from linear PCM? Why is there a totally different format
> > for Linear PCM that for the PCM that is the usual WAV files?
>
> THEY DO NOT SAY THAT! Why do you insist on this? Nowhere do they say
> that the Micorosoft WAV format is ANY different than any other.
> Nowhere.
>
> Why do you continually insist on this faslehood?
>
> > Most of the time I have dealt with .wav files they were Microsoft PCM
> > WAV format. Nothing else.
> >
> > I don't know why Adobe Audition seperates the 'regular' PCM from
> > 'linear' PCM.
>
> They don't. No where, no how. They do NOT separate it.
> They list compatibility with files form a number of vendors.
> There is NO statement that the files are intrinsically different.
> They are onl;y saying which vendors they support. That's all.
>
> Does the fact that they list two vendors supporting PCM mean that
> they MUST be different files? If that's what your conclusions is,
> then you are simply wrong.
>
> Stop it.
>
> >"Regular" meaning the common WAV format w/out any other
> > names attached to it.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> As long as you insist on such nonsense, you're going to get nowhere.
>
> Look at the fmt chunk of the WAV file. If the first 16 bit int
> in the header has a value of 1, it IS linear PCM. It doesn't make
> ANY difference where it came from, it's linear PCM.