[ChrisCoaster]

Thanks first of all to those of you who helped me understand bitrate
as it relates to fidelity on my first post.

Next Q:
When a specific MP3 Player is advertised as having a capacity of
1000(or 2000) songs, how can I determine the highest bitrate those
songs can be to fit a thousand of them on the player?

I presently have a collection of about 430 songs, 2/3 of which are
128k, and of the remaining 1/3 half of those are 200k or higher, and
the remainder are 112k or 96kbps.

-ChrisCoaster

[Richard Crowley]

"ChrisCoaster" wrote ...
When a specific MP3 Player is advertised as having a capacity of
1000(or 2000) songs, how can I determine the highest bitrate those
songs can be to fit a thousand of them on the player?

Seems like simple math unless we're not understanding your
question. Of course, that assumes that you know the actual
capacity (in MB or GB), rather than the "number of songs"
which is some imaginary number created by the marketing
gerbs.

I presently have a collection of about 430 songs, 2/3 of which are
128k, and of the remaining 1/3 half of those are 200k or higher, and
the remainder are 112k or 96kbps.

So run the numbers and establish the average size of your songs
(in MB). From that, it should be trivial to estimate the capacity
of any device you are contemplating.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Jun 16, 6:43*pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"ChrisCoaster" wrote ...

When a specific MP3 Player is advertised as having a capacity of
1000(or 2000) songs, how can I determine the highest bitrate those
songs can be to fit a thousand of them on the player?

Seems like simple math unless we're not understanding your
question. *Of course, that assumes that you know the actual
capacity (in MB or GB), rather than the "number of songs"
which is some imaginary number created by the marketing
gerbs.

I presently have a collection of about 430 songs, 2/3 of which are
128k, and of the remaining 1/3 half of those are 200k or higher, and
the remainder are 112k or 96kbps.

So run the numbers and establish the average size of your songs
(in MB). From that, it should be trivial to estimate the capacity
of any device you are contemplating.
________________
That's exactly the info I'm looking for Rich. And you understood what
I asked fine.

The only help I need now is how many Zeros are in one gigabyte, one
megabyte. I don't even know which - mega, giga, tera - equals one
million! Math makes less sense to me than Russian(and I never took
Russian!), so if you or someone could lay it out I'd be able to
perform the calculations.

Thanks,

-CC

[[email protected]]

On Jun 17, 7:06 am, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Jun 16, 6:43 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
I presently have a collection of about 430 songs, 2/3 of which are
128k, and of the remaining 1/3 half of those are 200k or higher, and
the remainder are 112k or 96kbps.

So run the numbers and establish the average size of your songs
(in MB). From that, it should be trivial to estimate the capacity
of any device you are contemplating.

________________
That's exactly the info I'm looking for Rich. And you understood what
I asked fine.

The only help I need now is how many Zeros are in one gigabyte, one
megabyte. I don't even know which - mega, giga, tera - equals one
million!

You're kidding, right?

DId you try doing a google search on "giga" or "mega"?
I just did and the very first hit is the answer.

Let's say your average "song" is 5 minutes long. And let's
say you've compressed it at a rate of 128 kbits/sec. That's
128kbits/sec* 60 sec/min or 7680 kbits/min. One byte
(by convention) is 8 bytes, so 7680 kbits/min / 8bits/byte
is 960 kBytes per minute. a 5 minute song would thus
take up 960 kytes/min &* 5 min or 4800 kbyte. Call it
5 Megabytes.

That's 20 songs every 100 Megatbytes, 100 songs in 500
megabytes, 200 songs per gigabyte (1000 megabytes), or
200,000 songs per terabyte (1000 gigabytes, or 1,000,000
megabytes or 1,000,000,000 kilobytes).

Another way to look at it is that at 128 kBits/sec, you
use about 1 megabyte per minute. Thus a gigabyte
is 1000 minutes (about 2/3 of a day), 1 terabyte is a
million minutes or about 1 year, 10 months, 24 days,
11 hours, 6 minutes, and 7.93 seconds. Give or take.

And if you consider that some conventions assume,
in data storage terms, that kilo=1024, mega = 1024*1024,
etc., you get a little more room.

[Richard Crowley]

"ChrisCoaster" wrote ...
The only help I need now is how many Zeros are in one gigabyte,
one megabyte. I don't even know which - mega, giga, tera -
equals one million!

Mega = 1,000,000
Giga = 1,000,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

[[email protected]]

On Jun 17, 10:36*am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"ChrisCoaster" wrote ...

The only help I need now is how many Zeros are in one gigabyte,
one megabyte. * I don't even know which - mega, giga, tera -
equals one million! *

Mega = 1,000,000
Giga = 1,000,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

Actually mega is 1024x1024 and giga is 1024x1024x1024.

[Andrew Barss]

wrote:


One byte
: (by convention) is 8 bytes

one byte = 8 bits (and the rest of your text avoids the typo).


-- Andy Barss

[Richard Crowley]

wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:
"ChrisCoaster" wrote ...

The only help I need now is how many Zeros are in one gigabyte,
one megabyte. I don't even know which - mega, giga, tera -
equals one million!

Mega = 1,000,000
Giga = 1,000,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

Actually mega is 1024x1024 and giga is 1024x1024x1024.

That is the chronic confusion (and marketing loophole).
The words "mega", "giga", et.al. were invented centuries
before the binary number scheme came to be of any
practical use. Wikipedia features a running battle over that
very topic, even suggesting different names for the binary
versions. to wit...

"When referring to computing information units, such as
gigabit or gigabyte, giga- can sometimes mean
1,073,741,824 (2^30), (Though such use is incorrect)
and is better used only to denote strictly 1,000,000,000
(10^9). Any ambiguity is best resolved from context.
The binary prefix gibi- has been standardized for 2^30,
while reserving giga- exclusively for 10^9, to resolve this
ambiguity, but has yet to achieve widespread usage.
See binary prefix."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giga

[[email protected]]

On Jun 17, 10:45 am, wrote:
On Jun 17, 10:36 am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

"ChrisCoaster" wrote ...

The only help I need now is how many Zeros are in one gigabyte,
one megabyte. I don't even know which - mega, giga, tera -
equals one million!

Mega = 1,000,000
Giga = 1,000,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

Actually mega is 1024x1024 and giga is 1024x1024x1024.

In the general context of things, no it is not. And even if one
insisted on moving amongst the two representations,
the difference is relatively insignificant: the difference between
1000 and 1024 is about 2%, the difference between
1000*1000 and 1024*1024 is 5%. So what?

But the statement "actually mega is 1024*1024"
and the rest ignores the fact that there is an entire
body of international standards that states that it
is not, e.g.:

http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec04.html

If you want to dispute this, I might suggest you
take it up with those organization, e.g., SI or
local represenatives such as th US NIST.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 17, 11:49*am, wrote:
On Jun 17, 10:45 am, wrote:

On Jun 17, 10:36 am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

"ChrisCoaster" wrote ...

The only help I need now is how many Zeros are in one gigabyte,
one megabyte. * I don't even know which - mega, giga, tera -
equals one million!

Mega = 1,000,000
Giga = 1,000,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

Actually mega is 1024x1024 and giga is 1024x1024x1024.

In the general context of things, no it is not. And even if one
insisted on moving amongst the two representations,
the difference is relatively insignificant: the difference between
1000 and 1024 is about 2%, the difference between
1000*1000 and 1024*1024 is 5%. So what?

But the statement "actually mega is 1024*1024"
and the rest ignores the fact that there is an entire
body of international standards that states that it
is not, e.g.:

* *http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec04.html

If you want to dispute this, I might suggest you
take it up with those organization, e.g., SI or
local represenatives such as th US NIST.

Point taken. I should have said megabyte and gigabyte. If you are
looking at space used by a file or collection of files in something
like windows explorer then 5 megabytes will be 5,242,880 bytes, not
5,000,000 bytes.

[nobody]

On 2008-06-17, wrote:
On Jun 17, 11:49*am, wrote:
On Jun 17, 10:45 am, wrote:

On Jun 17, 10:36 am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

"ChrisCoaster" wrote ...

The only help I need now is how many Zeros are in one gigabyte,
one megabyte. * I don't even know which - mega, giga, tera -
equals one million!

Mega = 1,000,000
Giga = 1,000,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

Actually mega is 1024x1024 and giga is 1024x1024x1024.

In the general context of things, no it is not. And even if one
insisted on moving amongst the two representations,
the difference is relatively insignificant: the difference between
1000 and 1024 is about 2%, the difference between
1000*1000 and 1024*1024 is 5%. So what?

But the statement "actually mega is 1024*1024"
and the rest ignores the fact that there is an entire
body of international standards that states that it
is not, e.g.:

* *http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec04.html

If you want to dispute this, I might suggest you
take it up with those organization, e.g., SI or
local represenatives such as th US NIST.

Point taken. I should have said megabyte and gigabyte. If you are
looking at space used by a file or collection of files in something
like windows explorer then 5 megabytes will be 5,242,880 bytes, not
5,000,000 bytes.

Don't think that there is a "real" standard as it all depends on what
numeric base reference one is using; i.e. 1024, base 2; 1000, base 10, don't
know what it is for the base 8, octal, which was also used; etc.

[jamesgangnc]

"nobody" wrote in message
. ..
On 2008-06-17, wrote:
On Jun 17, 11:49 am, wrote:
On Jun 17, 10:45 am, wrote:

On Jun 17, 10:36 am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

"ChrisCoaster" wrote ...

The only help I need now is how many Zeros are in one gigabyte,
one megabyte. I don't even know which - mega, giga, tera -
equals one million!

Mega = 1,000,000
Giga = 1,000,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

Actually mega is 1024x1024 and giga is 1024x1024x1024.

In the general context of things, no it is not. And even if one
insisted on moving amongst the two representations,
the difference is relatively insignificant: the difference between
1000 and 1024 is about 2%, the difference between
1000*1000 and 1024*1024 is 5%. So what?

But the statement "actually mega is 1024*1024"
and the rest ignores the fact that there is an entire
body of international standards that states that it
is not, e.g.:

http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec04.html

If you want to dispute this, I might suggest you
take it up with those organization, e.g., SI or
local represenatives such as th US NIST.

Point taken. I should have said megabyte and gigabyte. If you are
looking at space used by a file or collection of files in something
like windows explorer then 5 megabytes will be 5,242,880 bytes, not
5,000,000 bytes.

Don't think that there is a "real" standard as it all depends on what
numeric base reference one is using; i.e. 1024, base 2; 1000, base 10,
don't
know what it is for the base 8, octal, which was also used; etc.

It is all started with the amount of space that can be addressed by a single
byte. 32 bit and 64 bit addressing still refers to the possible number of
addresses addressable with 4 bytes and 8 bytes.

[Randy Yates]

"jamesgangnc" writes:
[...]
It is all started with the amount of space that can be addressed by a single
byte. 32 bit and 64 bit addressing still refers to the possible number of
addresses addressable with 4 bytes and 8 bytes.

Not to be a pedant, but byte doesn't even necessarily mean 8 bits. I was
really suprised to learn this a few years back, and I think it's pretty
much an ancient usage now, but nonetheless...
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
...
Point taken. I should have said megabyte and gigabyte. If you are
looking at space used by a file or collection of files in something
like windows explorer then 5 megabytes will be 5,242,880 bytes, not
5,000,000 bytes.

Which helps you NOT at all when calculating storage requirements, since all
hard drive manufacturers and memory card manufacturers use 1MB=1,000,000
bytes , and 1GB=1,000,000,000 bytes.
But yes, Windows does stick with the binary definition.

MrT.

[jamesgangnc]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"jamesgangnc" writes:
[...]
It is all started with the amount of space that can be addressed by a
single
byte. 32 bit and 64 bit addressing still refers to the possible number
of
addresses addressable with 4 bytes and 8 bytes.

Not to be a pedant, but byte doesn't even necessarily mean 8 bits. I was
really suprised to learn this a few years back, and I think it's pretty
much an ancient usage now, but nonetheless...
--
Pretty much universally 8 bits these days. A nibble is 4 bits, a byte is 8
bits, a word is 16 bits, a double word is 32 bits.

[Randy Yates]

"jamesgangnc" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"jamesgangnc" writes:
[...]
It is all started with the amount of space that can be addressed by a
single
byte. 32 bit and 64 bit addressing still refers to the possible number
of
addresses addressable with 4 bytes and 8 bytes.

Not to be a pedant, but byte doesn't even necessarily mean 8 bits. I was
really suprised to learn this a few years back, and I think it's pretty
much an ancient usage now, but nonetheless...
--
Pretty much universally 8 bits these days. A nibble is 4 bits, a byte is 8
bits, a word is 16 bits, a double word is 32 bits.

Not so much universally these days. See note 2 in section 3.6 of the ISO/IEC 9899
specification (1999-12-01 revision) - commonly known as the C99 spec.

3.6
1 byte
addressable unit of data storage large enough to hold any member of the basic character
set of the execution environment
2 NOTE 1 It is possible to express the address of each individual byte of an object uniquely.
3 NOTE 2 A byte is composed of a contiguous sequence of bits, the number of which is implementationdefined.
The least significant bit is called the low-order bit; the most significant bit is called the high-order
bit

It may be hard to find an implementation that doesn't define a byte as 8
bits, but I guess the point is that a byte is not defined to be 8 bits.
--
% Randy Yates % "So now it's getting late,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and those who hesitate
%%% 919-577-9882 % got no one..."
%%%% % 'Waterfall', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[jamesgangnc]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"jamesgangnc" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"jamesgangnc" writes:
[...]
It is all started with the amount of space that can be addressed by a
single
byte. 32 bit and 64 bit addressing still refers to the possible number
of
addresses addressable with 4 bytes and 8 bytes.

Not to be a pedant, but byte doesn't even necessarily mean 8 bits. I was
really suprised to learn this a few years back, and I think it's pretty
much an ancient usage now, but nonetheless...
--
Pretty much universally 8 bits these days. A nibble is 4 bits, a byte is
8
bits, a word is 16 bits, a double word is 32 bits.

Not so much universally these days. See note 2 in section 3.6 of the
ISO/IEC 9899
specification (1999-12-01 revision) - commonly known as the C99 spec.

3.6
1 byte
addressable unit of data storage large enough to hold any member of the
basic character
set of the execution environment
2 NOTE 1 It is possible to express the address of each individual byte of
an object uniquely.
3 NOTE 2 A byte is composed of a contiguous sequence of bits, the number
of which is implementationdefined.
The least significant bit is called the low-order bit; the most
significant bit is called the high-order
bit

It may be hard to find an implementation that doesn't define a byte as 8
bits, but I guess the point is that a byte is not defined to be 8 bits.
--

So you found a definition that does not specify a byte as 8 bits. So what.
A byte has been as few as 4 bits and as many as 12 in the past. But you ask
100 information techs how many bits are in a byte and you'll only get two
answers. "I don't know" and "8 bits". Today character sets like chinese
that do not fit into 8 bits are called multi-byte character sets. There's
way more definitions out there on the net that say 8 bits Many of the ansi
standards for data types consider a byte as 8 bits only. Who gets to say
which defintion is right when they don't agree? In those cases I default to
the most prevalent usage and we all know what that is. I mean seriously if
someone asked you how many bits in a byte what would you say? Would you
give them some long winded nonsense about iec or tell them 8 bits. Cause
I'm thinking they won't ask you questions again if you give them the long
winded one. They asked because they need a number.

"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
m...
"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"jamesgangnc" writes:
[...]
It is all started with the amount of space that can be addressed by a
single
byte. 32 bit and 64 bit addressing still refers to the possible number
of
addresses addressable with 4 bytes and 8 bytes.

Not to be a pedant, but byte doesn't even necessarily mean 8 bits. I was
really suprised to learn this a few years back, and I think it's pretty
much an ancient usage now, but nonetheless...
--
Pretty much universally 8 bits these days. A nibble is 4 bits, a byte is
8 bits, a word is 16 bits, a double word is 32 bits.

I thought a "word" was simply the bus size, and could be anything from 8 to
64 bits in length. Not true?

Norm

[[email protected]]

On Jun 18, 11:04*am, wrote:
"jamesgangnc" wrote in message

m...





"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"jamesgangnc" writes:
[...]
It is all started with the amount of space that can be addressed by a
single
byte. *32 bit and 64 bit addressing still refers to the possible number
of
addresses addressable with 4 bytes and 8 bytes.

Not to be a pedant, but byte doesn't even necessarily mean 8 bits. I was
really suprised to learn this a few years back, and I think it's pretty
much an ancient usage now, but nonetheless...
--
Pretty much universally 8 bits these days. *A nibble is 4 bits, a byte is
8 bits, a word is 16 bits, a double word is 32 bits.

I thought a "word" was simply the bus size, and could be anything from 8 to
64 bits in length. *Not true?

Norm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

True enough, a word is also often used to mean the size of the bus.
Or the number of bits that the cpu can work on internally. And people
do still use it that way. When someone says word it is best to
confirm how they are using it.

[Richard Crowley]

wrote ...
Point taken. I should have said megabyte and gigabyte. If you are
looking at space used by a file or collection of files in something
like windows explorer then 5 megabytes will be 5,242,880 bytes, not
5,000,000 bytes.

But if you are looking at the capacity of a storage gadget
(such as a hard drive), they use the 5,000,000 version.
It makes their hard drives look "bigger" to people who
aren't paying attention. Just annother example of sleazy
marketing practices.

[Randy Yates]

"Richard Crowley" writes:

wrote ...
Point taken. I should have said megabyte and gigabyte. If you are
looking at space used by a file or collection of files in something
like windows explorer then 5 megabytes will be 5,242,880 bytes, not
5,000,000 bytes.

But if you are looking at the capacity of a storage gadget
(such as a hard drive), they use the 5,000,000 version.
It makes their hard drives look "bigger" to people who
aren't paying attention. Just annother example of sleazy
marketing practices.

Did you see the lawsuit against Seagate on this very topic?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=850

--
% Randy Yates % "She has an IQ of 1001, she has a jumpsuit
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % on, and she's also a telephone."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Richard Crowley]

"Randy Yates" wrote...
"Richard Crowley" writes:
wrote ...
Point taken. I should have said megabyte and gigabyte. If you are
looking at space used by a file or collection of files in something
like windows explorer then 5 megabytes will be 5,242,880 bytes, not
5,000,000 bytes.

But if you are looking at the capacity of a storage gadget
(such as a hard drive), they use the 5,000,000 version.
It makes their hard drives look "bigger" to people who
aren't paying attention. Just annother example of sleazy
marketing practices.

Did you see the lawsuit against Seagate on this very topic?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=850

'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean,
neither more nor less.'" - Humpty Dumpty
And we all know what happened to him.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 18, 11:48*am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
wrote ...

Point taken. *I should have said megabyte and gigabyte. *If you are
looking at space used by a file or collection of files in something
like windows explorer then 5 megabytes will be 5,242,880 bytes, not
5,000,000 bytes.

But if you are looking at the capacity of a storage gadget
(such as a hard drive), they use the 5,000,000 version.
It makes their hard drives look "bigger" to people who
aren't paying attention. *Just annother example of sleazy
marketing practices.

Plus drives list raw capacity and once formatted the available space
will always be lower. There will be space taken up by the fat plus
other possible structures depending on the system.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Jun 18, 12:29*pm, wrote:
On Jun 18, 11:48*am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

wrote ...

Point taken. *I should have said megabyte and gigabyte. *If you are
looking at space used by a file or collection of files in something
like windows explorer then 5 megabytes will be 5,242,880 bytes, not
5,000,000 bytes.

But if you are looking at the capacity of a storage gadget
(such as a hard drive), they use the 5,000,000 version.
It makes their hard drives look "bigger" to people who
aren't paying attention. *Just annother example of sleazy
marketing practices.

Plus drives list raw capacity and once formatted the available space
will always be lower. *There will be space taken up by the fat plus
other possible structures depending on the system.
________________________
WHAT HATH I WROUGHT?!?!

I feel TERRIBLE, I feel like Colonel Paul Tibbetts!!!

I just asked for help understanding megas & gigas, and I've started an
episode of Meet the Press!

btw thanks for helping me.

-ChrisCoaster

[Mr.T]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Did you see the lawsuit against Seagate on this very topic?

Only Seagate? They all do the same.
To do otherwise these days would actually cause more confusion.
And they have all spelled it out for years, so I can't see a law suit being
successful.

MrT.