|
On October 19 2016 08:10 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Your argument is like the people who hear something a bit less than 100% PC, and their sirens go off, and start shouting racist/bigot. You get that a lot? If so, maybe time to start asking why.
No, I don't get it a lot. I observe the world around me, it's not secret I'm not fond of the current liberal movement in its entirety. Truthfully, I've been really disappointed with your posting over the last few pages, completely different person.
On October 19 2016 08:13 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 07:41 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Also sounds like my childhood arguments, "you just don't understand, bye." Isn't that exactly what you want to do with people that you don't judge worthy from their personal data? Your young white straight male profile you gave us all kindof makes you not an authority on discrimination, don't you think?
Like I mentioned, it'd be in a heavily moderated environment, also as I mentioned, if I had a site following these rules, you would have been banned for your posts that you've been trying to shit post in order to try and prove your argument of why my idea is dumb and inconsiderate.
Look, when I see someone in the real world I'd rather not talk to, say a homeless drunk, if he talks to me, I won't say, "hey, you're a homeless drunk, I wont talk to you"... But it'd might make the difference between me asking him a question due to me being lost, or asking the lady 10 meters ahead of me. One is a clear example of me being an asshole, the other is an example of me picking my battles wisely. My ideas aren't fleshed out, and hence it might be easy for them attack them in your shoes, but you I hope you'd agree with me that you're just trying to nitpick them for the sake of it.
|
On October 19 2016 08:16 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 08:10 Cascade wrote:On October 19 2016 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Your argument is like the people who hear something a bit less than 100% PC, and their sirens go off, and start shouting racist/bigot. You get that a lot? If so, maybe time to start asking why. No, I don't get it a lot. I observe the world around me, it's not secret I'm not fond of the current liberal movement in its entirety. Truthfully, I've been really disappointed with your posting over the last few pages, completely different person.
I'm happy to have shown you that your preconditions of people can be wrong then.
|
If you guys can't just explain in a decent way why Fiwi isn't "getting it", I suggest we all drop the subject at hand, because it's just some tedious back and forth that's not making any strides whatsoever.
How have gramophone records (vinyls), which are just physical etches being translated into frequencies, been the highest quality sound producing things? Sound is complex, so how did they know perfectly how to etch the record?
|
On October 19 2016 08:22 Uldridge wrote:
If you guys can't just explain in a decent way why Fiwi isn't "getting it", I suggest we all drop the subject at hand, because it's just some tedious back and forth that's not making any strides whatsoever.
How have gramophone records (vinyls), which are just physical etches being translated into frequencies, been the highest quality sound producing things? Sound is complex, so how did they know perfectly how to etch the record?
It's not really that it's the highest quality sound, it's just that a vinyl is vector quantity (well scalar once you reach the molecular size, or well dependent on manufacturing quality), while mp3's (all digital) are a scalar quantity, so they break down the pressure wave into ones and zeroes, you'll lose precision regardless of how many ones and zeros you break them into. It's like trying to break down a continuous function into a certain number of points, take the value at all those points, and connect the dots, some loss will be had.
Examples usually work best, so a monitor is a scalar quantity, because as you zoom in more and more (bring your eyes closer and closer), the quality will get worse and worse, meanwhile a drawn line on a piece of paper is a vector quantity because as you look closer and closer, there's no loss of resolution, until well you reach a point on the paper that the fibers sticking out start to act like pixels, but I was talking about a more idealized perfect paper that is perfectly flat and smooth.
The grove of the vinyl record is in the perfect shape of the wave it's trying to create, so there is no loss, because the groove is created by etching with an object on a smooth surface, similar to drawing a zig-zag with a pencil on paper. In theory however, with a high enough bitrate you could make sound better than vinyl sound.
Vinyls are made of PVC, so that's 2~ angstroms of length that you remove at once when etching (with a perfect manufacturing process), so as an approximation of magnitude, at a digital music bitrate of around 5Gb/s~ would create higher quality sound than a vinyl record. We're still a ways away from that, since current I believe the most common is 128Kb/s
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On October 19 2016 08:32 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 08:22 Uldridge wrote:
If you guys can't just explain in a decent way why Fiwi isn't "getting it", I suggest we all drop the subject at hand, because it's just some tedious back and forth that's not making any strides whatsoever.
How have gramophone records (vinyls), which are just physical etches being translated into frequencies, been the highest quality sound producing things? Sound is complex, so how did they know perfectly how to etch the record? It's not really that it's the highest quality sound, it's just that a vinyl is vector quantity (well scalar once you reach the molecular size, or well dependent on manufacturing quality), while mp3's (all digital) are a scalar quantity, so they break down the pressure wave into ones and zeroes, you'll lose precision regardless of how many ones and zeros you break them into. It's like trying to break down a continuous function into a certain number of points, take the value at all those points, and connect the dots, some loss will be had. Examples usually work best, so a monitor is a scalar quantity, because as you zoom in more and more (bring your eyes closer and closer), the quality will get worse and worse, meanwhile a drawn line on a piece of paper is a vector quantity because as you look closer and closer, there's no loss of resolution, until well you reach a point on the paper that the fibers sticking out start to act like pixels, but I was talking about a more idealized perfect paper that is perfectly flat and smooth. The grove of the vinyl record is in the perfect shape of the wave it's trying to create, so there is no loss.
Umm... what? That's completely wrong. Being lossless relates to how the music is compressed, it doesn't have anything to do with analog vs digital. Yes, mp3 is a lossy format, but there's a bunch of lossless compression formats like FLAC, and a WAV is uncompressed and therefore by definition lossless.
A CD can give sound that is as "high quality" as vinyl (though in many cases it doesn't due to people manipulating the audio levels or whatever). In fact vinyl distorts over time which is why it sounds warmer (which some people like more than the more faithful reproduction of a CD).
|
On October 19 2016 08:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 08:32 FiWiFaKi wrote:On October 19 2016 08:22 Uldridge wrote:
If you guys can't just explain in a decent way why Fiwi isn't "getting it", I suggest we all drop the subject at hand, because it's just some tedious back and forth that's not making any strides whatsoever.
How have gramophone records (vinyls), which are just physical etches being translated into frequencies, been the highest quality sound producing things? Sound is complex, so how did they know perfectly how to etch the record? It's not really that it's the highest quality sound, it's just that a vinyl is vector quantity (well scalar once you reach the molecular size, or well dependent on manufacturing quality), while mp3's (all digital) are a scalar quantity, so they break down the pressure wave into ones and zeroes, you'll lose precision regardless of how many ones and zeros you break them into. It's like trying to break down a continuous function into a certain number of points, take the value at all those points, and connect the dots, some loss will be had. Examples usually work best, so a monitor is a scalar quantity, because as you zoom in more and more (bring your eyes closer and closer), the quality will get worse and worse, meanwhile a drawn line on a piece of paper is a vector quantity because as you look closer and closer, there's no loss of resolution, until well you reach a point on the paper that the fibers sticking out start to act like pixels, but I was talking about a more idealized perfect paper that is perfectly flat and smooth. The grove of the vinyl record is in the perfect shape of the wave it's trying to create, so there is no loss. Umm... what? That's completely wrong. Being lossless relates to how the music is compressed, it doesn't have anything to do with analog vs digital. Yes, mp3 is a lossy format, but there's a bunch of lossless compression formats like FLAC, and a WAV is uncompressed and therefore by definition lossless.
Sorry, MP3 was a bad example, I was just referring a generic lossless format, saying MP3 was poor on my part. You're talking about codecs, which isn't what I'm trying to get at.
When you record audio with whatever device and convert it into digital, there is going to be losses... ie a difference between what you hear in reality, and what you hear in the real world. Same thing, when you look at an image with your eyes, its resolution will be infinity (okay, number of cones and rods in your eyes, but work with me here), meanwhile if you take a picture, it will break this infinite color range and infinite resolution into an image with say 20,000,000 pixels, each being one of 2^16 colors (not sure in how many bits its stored).
This code would be saved in a long code of 0 and 1's, and this file would be huge, so there's some tricks, like if there's 5 zeroes in a row, instead of writing zero 5 times, it might make a shortcut out of it by having a different code for certain sequences.
So it's the same thing with sound, sound has infinite quality in the real world (up to the mean free molecular path from an engineering perspective)... So what we're trying to do is "code" this perfect continuous pressure wave into something else. We can draw a line on a piece of paper as a vector quantity, or at every 0.01 increment, we can measure the amplitude, assign it a value, and give a bit value to that numerical value, and connect the dots, which is what digital sound does.
edit: Oh, I was more along the lines of giving an explanation for why analog > digital, which I thought was the initial answer desired. As for what analog signal is the best, I'm not best qualified to give an answer to that, but it'd be whatever manufacturing methods allows the smallest increments to be made. Like if you made a vinyl 10x larger in diameter, and increased the physical size of the wave you're generating appropriately (so you'd still save the same amount of songs of a regular vinyl), then your music quality would be better as well. This is all idealized though, since you have to take into account vibration, thermal expansion coefficient, etc.
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On October 19 2016 08:54 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 08:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 19 2016 08:32 FiWiFaKi wrote:On October 19 2016 08:22 Uldridge wrote:
If you guys can't just explain in a decent way why Fiwi isn't "getting it", I suggest we all drop the subject at hand, because it's just some tedious back and forth that's not making any strides whatsoever.
How have gramophone records (vinyls), which are just physical etches being translated into frequencies, been the highest quality sound producing things? Sound is complex, so how did they know perfectly how to etch the record? It's not really that it's the highest quality sound, it's just that a vinyl is vector quantity (well scalar once you reach the molecular size, or well dependent on manufacturing quality), while mp3's (all digital) are a scalar quantity, so they break down the pressure wave into ones and zeroes, you'll lose precision regardless of how many ones and zeros you break them into. It's like trying to break down a continuous function into a certain number of points, take the value at all those points, and connect the dots, some loss will be had. Examples usually work best, so a monitor is a scalar quantity, because as you zoom in more and more (bring your eyes closer and closer), the quality will get worse and worse, meanwhile a drawn line on a piece of paper is a vector quantity because as you look closer and closer, there's no loss of resolution, until well you reach a point on the paper that the fibers sticking out start to act like pixels, but I was talking about a more idealized perfect paper that is perfectly flat and smooth. The grove of the vinyl record is in the perfect shape of the wave it's trying to create, so there is no loss. Umm... what? That's completely wrong. Being lossless relates to how the music is compressed, it doesn't have anything to do with analog vs digital. Yes, mp3 is a lossy format, but there's a bunch of lossless compression formats like FLAC, and a WAV is uncompressed and therefore by definition lossless. Sorry, MP3 was a bad example, I was just referring a generic lossless format, saying MP3 was poor on my part. You're talking about codecs, which isn't what I'm trying to get at. When you record audio with whatever device and convert it into digital, there is going to be losses... ie a difference between what you hear in reality, and what you hear in the real world. Same thing, when you look at an image with your eyes, its resolution will be infinity (okay, number of cones and rods in your eyes, but work with me here), meanwhile if you take a picture, it will break this infinite color range and infinite resolution into an image with say 20,000,000 pixels, each being one of 2^16 colors (not sure in how many bits its stored). This code would be saved in a long code of 0 and 1's, and this file would be huge, so there's some tricks, like if there's 5 zeroes in a row, instead of writing zero 5 times, it might make a shortcut out of it by having a different code for certain sequences. So it's the same thing with sound, sound has infinite quality in the real world (up to the mean free molecular path from an engineering perspective)... So what we're trying to do is "code" this perfect continuous pressure wave into something else. We can draw a line on a piece of paper as a vector quantity, or at every 0.01 increment, we can measure the amplitude, assign it a value, and give a bit value to that numerical value, and connect the dots, which is what digital sound does. edit: Oh, I was more along the lines of giving an explanation for why analog > digital, which I thought was the initial answer desired. As for what analog signal is the best, I'm not best qualified to give an answer to that, but it'd be whatever manufacturing methods allows the smallest increments to be made. Like if you made a vinyl 10x larger in diameter, and increased the physical size of the wave you're generating appropriately (so you'd still save the same amount of songs of a regular vinyl), then your music quality would be better as well. This is all idealized though, since you have to take into account vibration, thermal expansion coefficient, etc.
Humans can only hear in a finite band (roughly 20 to 20000 kHz) so the analog signal can be recorded perfectly in a digital format (see Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem). There is no foundation to the argument that analog > digital.
|
On October 19 2016 09:07 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 08:54 FiWiFaKi wrote:On October 19 2016 08:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 19 2016 08:32 FiWiFaKi wrote:On October 19 2016 08:22 Uldridge wrote:
If you guys can't just explain in a decent way why Fiwi isn't "getting it", I suggest we all drop the subject at hand, because it's just some tedious back and forth that's not making any strides whatsoever.
How have gramophone records (vinyls), which are just physical etches being translated into frequencies, been the highest quality sound producing things? Sound is complex, so how did they know perfectly how to etch the record? It's not really that it's the highest quality sound, it's just that a vinyl is vector quantity (well scalar once you reach the molecular size, or well dependent on manufacturing quality), while mp3's (all digital) are a scalar quantity, so they break down the pressure wave into ones and zeroes, you'll lose precision regardless of how many ones and zeros you break them into. It's like trying to break down a continuous function into a certain number of points, take the value at all those points, and connect the dots, some loss will be had. Examples usually work best, so a monitor is a scalar quantity, because as you zoom in more and more (bring your eyes closer and closer), the quality will get worse and worse, meanwhile a drawn line on a piece of paper is a vector quantity because as you look closer and closer, there's no loss of resolution, until well you reach a point on the paper that the fibers sticking out start to act like pixels, but I was talking about a more idealized perfect paper that is perfectly flat and smooth. The grove of the vinyl record is in the perfect shape of the wave it's trying to create, so there is no loss. Umm... what? That's completely wrong. Being lossless relates to how the music is compressed, it doesn't have anything to do with analog vs digital. Yes, mp3 is a lossy format, but there's a bunch of lossless compression formats like FLAC, and a WAV is uncompressed and therefore by definition lossless. Sorry, MP3 was a bad example, I was just referring a generic lossless format, saying MP3 was poor on my part. You're talking about codecs, which isn't what I'm trying to get at. When you record audio with whatever device and convert it into digital, there is going to be losses... ie a difference between what you hear in reality, and what you hear in the real world. Same thing, when you look at an image with your eyes, its resolution will be infinity (okay, number of cones and rods in your eyes, but work with me here), meanwhile if you take a picture, it will break this infinite color range and infinite resolution into an image with say 20,000,000 pixels, each being one of 2^16 colors (not sure in how many bits its stored). This code would be saved in a long code of 0 and 1's, and this file would be huge, so there's some tricks, like if there's 5 zeroes in a row, instead of writing zero 5 times, it might make a shortcut out of it by having a different code for certain sequences. So it's the same thing with sound, sound has infinite quality in the real world (up to the mean free molecular path from an engineering perspective)... So what we're trying to do is "code" this perfect continuous pressure wave into something else. We can draw a line on a piece of paper as a vector quantity, or at every 0.01 increment, we can measure the amplitude, assign it a value, and give a bit value to that numerical value, and connect the dots, which is what digital sound does. edit: Oh, I was more along the lines of giving an explanation for why analog > digital, which I thought was the initial answer desired. As for what analog signal is the best, I'm not best qualified to give an answer to that, but it'd be whatever manufacturing methods allows the smallest increments to be made. Like if you made a vinyl 10x larger in diameter, and increased the physical size of the wave you're generating appropriately (so you'd still save the same amount of songs of a regular vinyl), then your music quality would be better as well. This is all idealized though, since you have to take into account vibration, thermal expansion coefficient, etc. Humans can only hear in a finite band (roughly 20 to 20000 kHz) so the analog signal can be recorded perfectly in a digital format (see Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem). There is no foundation to the argument that analog > digital.
Oh, that's neat, I didn't think about that aspect, but yeah, makes sense. For sound and for images you can also record a signal perfectly simply by going so close that atoms become discrete points, but yeah... This puts the limit at a far more reasonable level.
Thanks for the info.
So how does it work then... It seems like 44.1kHz is the standard sampling rate, or 44.1Kb/s if the amplitude of the sound was a one or zero. Let's say 16-bit audio signal, so that's 705.6Kb/s for music streaming without any compression. What's roughly the most you can compress a typical music signal that's 705.6Kb/s without any loss? Because for a 4 minute song I get a 21MB song file, doesn't seem that much different from the typical MP3 file I'm used to that's 4-10MB.
The beauty of electrical engineering, and damn my desire to know everything, instead of specializing in something.
|
A bit more parameters to that question than can really be explored.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz
[The 44.1kHz is the sampling rate because the] Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem says the sampling frequency must be greater than twice the maximum frequency one wishes to reproduce. Since human hearing range is roughly 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz, the sampling rate had to be greater than 40 kHz.
In addition, signals must be low-pass filtered before sampling to avoid aliasing. While an ideal low-pass filter would perfectly pass frequencies below 20 kHz (without attenuating them) and perfectly cut off frequencies above 20 kHz, in practice a transition band is necessary, where frequencies are partly attenuated. The wider this transition band is, the easier and more economical it is to make an anti-aliasing filter. The 44.1 kHz sampling frequency allows for a 2.05 kHz transition band.
So everything that is recorded is necessary. The audio formats simply store the recorded data differently. Any lossy compression is lossy. So you're just looking at lossless algorithms here. I have no clue about that.
more
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
Some quick googling suggests that typical lossless compression schemes can obtain 30% to 70% reductions in size for pop music and can do a bit better for music with greater dynamic range.
For your calculation you have to consider that music usually has two channels which makes your 4 minute raw audio file twice as big, so 41 MB. Mp3 conversions are traditionally done at 128kbit/sec which is a 10.75-fold reduction in size.
|
|
|
On October 20 2016 03:07 JimmiC wrote:
I have a idea for a app (two actually) they are both for existing businesses in retail. How do I monetize them. Do I first build the app then try to sell it to them. Can a patent/copy write the idea then sell them that? How can I show it to them without them simply creating their own?
Patent laws exist specifically for this...
|
|
|
On October 20 2016 03:07 JimmiC wrote:
I have a idea for a app (two actually) they are both for existing businesses in retail. How do I monetize them. Do I first build the app then try to sell it to them. Can a patent/copy write the idea then sell them that? How can I show it to them without them simply creating their own?
If you go the patent route, you should expect to spend $200,000-$500,000 over the course of the patent lifetime defending it. Also, you'll have to file the patent in other countries, and have resources to defend it.
If you're serious about it, hire a patent attorney, there are so many little specifics to worry about. If you don't have a lot of money, I don't recommend going down the patent route. Depends on what it is, you might want to look for investors, and build the business based on brand recognition (or entering the market first and having chance to build up) rather than a concept other people aren't using.
edit: I mean start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_patent_law
But I took a course on professional ethics, and we had 2-3 presentations from a patent attorney, and there's a lot in there... A lot of loopholes and whatnot that might be tough to find by putting all the knowledge you find on the internet together. It's kind of the same reason why people will still tell you to go to a doctor, even though you can quite easily find all the information that a general practitioner would know online.
|
On October 20 2016 03:07 JimmiC wrote:
I have a idea for a app (two actually) they are both for existing businesses in retail. How do I monetize them. Do I first build the app then try to sell it to them. Can a patent/copy write the idea then sell them that? How can I show it to them without them simply creating their own?
Not to shoot down your idea but without having more context, I really believe that your idea isn't that valuable. If it was uniquely valuable it's probably already been thought of already. In a vacuum it's really unlikely that your idea is unique enough that you'd have sole claim over it. Ideas, especially app ideas, are a dime a dozen. Having a real working product that users actually use are infinitely more valuable than an idea.
In terms of monetization, you can pitch the idea to them (CEO, upper management) and say that you can build and maintain it for less than it would cost them to get someone else to do it. Or you build it and get enough of their users on it and to get paid off by the company, or get acquired by the company to continue working on it.
https://creator.wework.com/personal-profiles/will-i-really-steal-your-idea-nda/
Given that there are a great many people coming up with ideas for things all the time, there’s a tiny chance that something you come up with is globally unique. To declare that you’re in that tiny bracket of utterly novel invention could be a sign that you’re probably in an invention bubble, and have an inability to consider that others have had a similar idea to yours.
Not trying to bring you down or anything but this is the industry.
|
On October 20 2016 08:39 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 03:07 JimmiC wrote:
I have a idea for a app (two actually) they are both for existing businesses in retail. How do I monetize them. Do I first build the app then try to sell it to them. Can a patent/copy write the idea then sell them that? How can I show it to them without them simply creating their own? Not to shoot down your idea but without having more context, I really believe that your idea isn't that valuable. If it was uniquely valuable it's probably already been thought of already. In a vacuum it's really unlikely that your idea is unique enough that you'd have sole claim over it. Ideas, especially app ideas, are a dime a dozen. Having a real working product that users actually use are infinitely more valuable than an idea. In terms of monetization, you can pitch the idea to them (CEO, upper management) and say that you can build and maintain it for less than it would cost them to get someone else to do it. Or you build it and get enough of their users on it and to get paid off by the company, or get acquired by the company to continue working on it. https://creator.wework.com/personal-profiles/will-i-really-steal-your-idea-nda/Show nested quote +Given that there are a great many people coming up with ideas for things all the time, there’s a tiny chance that something you come up with is globally unique. To declare that you’re in that tiny bracket of utterly novel invention could be a sign that you’re probably in an invention bubble, and have an inability to consider that others have had a similar idea to yours. Not trying to bring you down or anything but this is the industry.
There's also option C of getting hiring into their Product team and then "think up" the idea.
|
|
|
On October 20 2016 09:33 JimmiC wrote:
Not shooting me down, I figured there was no way to monetize it. I just figured I'd throw out the thought to the brilliant people of TL just in case.
There are many ways to make money off of it. But it will take a large amount of energy and money to do it. Essentially, the question to ask yourself is "Will this make enough money so that all the legal fees and time spent over the next few years is worth it?"
|
On October 20 2016 09:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 09:33 JimmiC wrote:
Not shooting me down, I figured there was no way to monetize it. I just figured I'd throw out the thought to the brilliant people of TL just in case. There are many ways to make money off of it. But it will take a large amount of energy and money to do it. Essentially, the question to ask yourself is "Will this make enough money so that all the legal fees and time spent over the next few years is worth it?"
If you have a vision, and see potential, go for it. Think it through, but it's what separates the cowards who fell into other people's success (usually the 9-5 worker), and those who truly started their own thing, made massive sacrifice, took lots of calculated risks, they're truly the saviors of the economy.
A lot of people really suck at going all the way with anything, and from my experience, especially the internet forum crowd (myself included).
|
On October 20 2016 09:57 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 09:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 20 2016 09:33 JimmiC wrote:
Not shooting me down, I figured there was no way to monetize it. I just figured I'd throw out the thought to the brilliant people of TL just in case. There are many ways to make money off of it. But it will take a large amount of energy and money to do it. Essentially, the question to ask yourself is "Will this make enough money so that all the legal fees and time spent over the next few years is worth it?" If you have a vision, and see potential, go for it. Think it through, but it's what separates the cowards who fell into other people's success (usually the 9-5 worker), and those who truly started their own thing, made massive sacrifice, took lots of calculated risks, they're truly the saviors of the economy. A lot of people really suck at going all the way with anything, and from my experience, especially the internet forum crowd (myself included).
Honestly, even if you don't have a vision. If you're truly driven, you can find someone else to have the vision for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
