Possible to make an error-free digital recording?

[muzician21]

I've started reading the Bob Katz mastering book and am encountering
some eye-opening things. I wasn't previously aware of the error-
correction aspect of digital recording that apparently goes on
constantly. Apparently there's even a designation - BLER - regarding
acceptable/unacceptable error rates.

I guess I had this notion that digital recordings were some kind of
robotically flawless realm, but apparently not. Is there any such
thing as an error-free recording?

[Scott Dorsey]

muzician21 > wrote:
>I've started reading the Bob Katz mastering book and am encountering
>some eye-opening things. I wasn't previously aware of the error-
>correction aspect of digital recording that apparently goes on
>constantly. Apparently there's even a designation - BLER - regarding
>acceptable/unacceptable error rates.

That's what makes the CD practical. A typical CD will have thousands
of errors, which are all corrected when everything goes right. Sometimes
there will be a couple uncorrectable errors which are interpolated around.

>I guess I had this notion that digital recordings were some kind of
>robotically flawless realm, but apparently not. Is there any such
>thing as an error-free recording?

They all are, because they all use error correction. CRC codes let you
get robotically flawless data on a flawed medium, AS LONG as the error
rate stays below a certain level. So knowing your error rates is critical.

When you press a CD, you can have an outrageously high error rate without
any data loss... but then you can have just one tiny bit more and then
everything falls apart.

This is the whole nightmare with CD-Rs.... some combinations of blanks
and speeds will give you orders of magnitudes lower error rates, but
since all the errors are corrected the end user never notices it. It
doesn't become a problem until the disks get worn or faded and a few
more errors get added, and then the differences become painfully obvious
but by then it's too late.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

muzician21 wrote:
> I've started reading the Bob Katz mastering book and am encountering
> some eye-opening things. I wasn't previously aware of the error-
> correction aspect of digital recording that apparently goes on
> constantly. Apparently there's even a designation - BLER - regarding
> acceptable/unacceptable error rates.
>
> I guess I had this notion that digital recordings were some kind of
> robotically flawless realm, but apparently not. Is there any such
> thing as an error-free recording?

By the time you get access to the data, unless badly damaged media, they are
error-free.

geoff

[Anahata]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:04:28 -0700, muzician21 wrote:

> I guess I had this notion that digital recordings were some kind of
> robotically flawless realm, but apparently not. Is there any such thing
> as an error-free recording?

The key point with error correction systems, if done properly, is that
EITHER the data is 100% error-free (after correction where necessary)
OR the system knows it isn't and can tell you so.

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

[William Sommerwerck]

"anahata" > wrote in message
...

> The key point with error correction systems, if done properly,
> is that EITHER the data are 100% error-free (after correction
> where necessary) OR the system knows it isn't and can tell
> you so.

This is /almost/ correct. It's possible for multiple errors to look like a
correctable error when they aren't. This appears to be extremely uncommon.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

> "anahata" > wrote in message
> ...

>> The key point with error correction systems, if done properly,
>> is that EITHER the data are 100% error-free (after correction
>> where necessary) OR the system knows it isn't and can tell
>> you so.

> This is /almost/ correct. It's possible for multiple errors to look like a
> correctable error when they aren't. This appears to be extremely uncommon.

Right.

If uncorrectiable errors were anything but uncommon, our computers would
probably always crash before they even finished booting.

At this point the CD audio format, which is probably the context of the OP
should be viewed as being a legacy data storage format.

The CD audio format differs from virtually all of its succesors in that it
has some built-in tolerance for data errors, and has formal mechanisms for
presenting erroneous data as if it were correct.

These days, most audio-related data is stored on newer media such as hard
drives, DVDs, and flash, which are equally tolerant of errors to programs
and user data, as they are tolerant of errors in audio data. In all cases
they are totally intolerant of errors, and highly effective at detecting
them.

If you want the most error-free data possible from audio CDs, you use a
ripping program, you don't just play them.

[Neil Gould]

muzician21 wrote:
> I've started reading the Bob Katz mastering book and am encountering
> some eye-opening things. I wasn't previously aware of the error-
> correction aspect of digital recording that apparently goes on
> constantly. Apparently there's even a designation - BLER - regarding
> acceptable/unacceptable error rates.
>
> I guess I had this notion that digital recordings were some kind of
> robotically flawless realm, but apparently not. Is there any such
> thing as an error-free recording?
>
The Block Error Rate (BLER) is actually the result of mechanical problems
that occur while burning the CD media rather than an error that occurs
during the recording of the music. Testing a disc for errors after burning
is routine, and some BLER is typical, especially as CD burning speeds
increase.

There are also errors that occur during the music recording, and why they
happen and how well they are handled depends on the application or system.
Stand-alone recorders may often correct recording errors better than
computer-based applications because they have more control over the system
operations and can predict potential problems better.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Jun 12, 9:04 pm, muzician21 > wrote:
> I guess I had this notion that digital recordings were some kind of
> robotically flawless realm, but apparently not. Is there any such
> thing as an error-free recording?

You got the right answers, but just to clarify: What you describe
affects audio CDs only. It does not affect data CDs that contain Wave
files, and it does not affect digital recording generally as recorded
to RAM and saved to hard drives etc. And 99.99% of the time (a
statistic I made up on the spot) it doesn't affect audio CDs either.
Data CDs have 100 percent redundancy, so for every 16 bits of data the
same 16 bits are stored a second time in a different part of the CD in
case of scratches etc. Better, if data is not read 100 percent
accurately, you get an error message and know of the problem. But
audio CDs have only 14 bits of redundancy for every 16 bits of data.
This is good too, but it's a streaming medium so the end user isn't
informed about errors.

--Ethan

[[email protected]]

On 2011-06-13 said:
>muzician21 wrote:
>> I've started reading the Bob Katz mastering book and am
>>encountering some eye-opening things. I wasn't previously aware
>>of the error- correction aspect of digital recording that
>>apparently goes on constantly. Apparently there's even a
>>designation - BLER - regarding acceptable/unacceptable error
>rates. >

FOlks have made some good comments to you musician21. A
better thing for you to take away from Bob's writings is his
discussion of listening levels at your working position,
etc. I might be thinking about an older book, but I've read
some of his discussions of this from his web site years ago,
and I"m betting it's discussed in the book you're reading.


Regards,



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Ethan Winer > wrote:
>On Jun 12, 9:04 pm, muzician21 > wrote:
>> I guess I had this notion that digital recordings were some kind of
>> robotically flawless realm, but apparently not. Is there any such
>> thing as an error-free recording?
>
>You got the right answers, but just to clarify: What you describe
>affects audio CDs only. It does not affect data CDs that contain Wave
>files, and it does not affect digital recording generally as recorded
>to RAM and saved to hard drives etc. And 99.99% of the time (a
>statistic I made up on the spot) it doesn't affect audio CDs either.

It does too, just in a different way. There's still error correction that
goes on, it's just heavier-duty error correction. And there isn't any
interpolation, because you don't need it with the heavier-duty error
correction.

>Data CDs have 100 percent redundancy, so for every 16 bits of data the
>same 16 bits are stored a second time in a different part of the CD in
>case of scratches etc. Better, if data is not read 100 percent
>accurately, you get an error message and know of the problem.

ALSO, with a CD-ROM you can go back and play the same section of the disc
over and over again until you get a good read. With audio CD playback,
the system is streaming in realtime and you cannot stop and go back.

>audio CDs have only 14 bits of redundancy for every 16 bits of data.
>This is good too, but it's a streaming medium so the end user isn't
>informed about errors.

However, if you get a Meridian player or add instrumentation to an existing
Philips transport, you can see the error counts on a display. This is very
handy if you're trying to decide that brand of CD-R to use with your drive.
Some older Plextor computer drives would also do error analysis.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ethan Winer" > wrote in message
...

> Audio CDs have only 14 bits of redundancy for
> every 16 bits of data.

Actually, this isn't redundancy. It's ETF ("eight to fourteen") encoding,
which maps each data byte into fourteen bits, as part of the
error-correction system. One way of looking at it is that each byte is now
in a "data space" 64 times as large, which makes data corruption more
difficult.

> This is good too, but it's a streaming medium so the
> end user isn't informed about errors.

There's nothing to prevent a CD (or DVD, or BD) player from reporting
errors. It just isn't done, probably because it would frighten the average
technically ignorant user.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:


> However, if you get a Meridian player or add instrumentation to an existing
> Philips transport, you can see the error counts on a display. This is very
> handy if you're trying to decide that brand of CD-R to use with your drive.
> Some older Plextor computer drives would also do error analysis.

If you conect an oscilloscope to the output signal from the CD player
reading head, you can see the analogue signal recovered from the disc
before it is digitised. With a bit of extra instrumentation, this is a
good predictor of how error-prone a particular brand of CDR is likely to
be.

After having to replace CDRs that appeared fine but wouldn't play on
customers' equipment, I built a meter which gives me a 'factor of
goodness' for audio CDs. Diazo-based ones give the strongest signal
when new, but they don't last very long. Many of the well-known brands
give low signals that may not work on all audio players but HHB seem to
be the best of all.

http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/images/CDtestcircuit.gif



--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[William Sommerwerck]

"Adrian Tuddenham" >
wrote in message
valid.invalid...

> If you conect an oscilloscope to the output signal from the
> CD player reading head, you can see the analogue signal
> recovered from the disc before it is digitised.

There is no such thing as an analog or digital "signal". Data are either
analog or digital, and what comes from the reading head is a stream of
digital data.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "Adrian Tuddenham" >
> wrote in message
> valid.invalid...
>
> > If you conect an oscilloscope to the output signal from the
> > CD player reading head, you can see the analogue signal
> > recovered from the disc before it is digitised.
>
> There is no such thing as an analog or digital "signal". Data are either
> analog or digital, and what comes from the reading head is a stream of
> digital data.

Try connecting an oscilloscope to the output of the head amplifier and
see what waveform you get. It's definitely an analogue waveform (which
I consider to be a signal) but it has the digital data encoded in the
form of zero-crossing points. This is quite separate from the audio
signals which the digital data represent.

By examining the analogue signal before it is converted to digital by a
threshold detector or crossing detector, you can see how much 'headroom'
you have and how close it is to giving a corrupt digital signal. CDRs
with low analogue signal output will give more reading errors or may
even fail to play at all on some equipment.



--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:14:28 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Adrian Tuddenham" >
>wrote in message
valid.invalid...
>
>> If you conect an oscilloscope to the output signal from the
>> CD player reading head, you can see the analogue signal
>> recovered from the disc before it is digitised.
>
>There is no such thing as an analog or digital "signal". Data are either
>analog or digital, and what comes from the reading head is a stream of
>digital data.
>

No it isn't. It is a pure analogue signal. Digital data is what it
carries, not what it is.

d

[muzician21]

On Jun 12, 9:25*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> When you press a CD, you can have an outrageously high error rate without
> any data loss... but then you can have just one tiny bit more and then
> everything falls apart.


What I wonder is where the errors come from? What kind of errors are
they? How do the errors get there?

[Neil Gould]

muzician21 wrote:
> On Jun 12, 9:25 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> When you press a CD, you can have an outrageously high error rate
>> without any data loss... but then you can have just one tiny bit
>> more and then everything falls apart.
>
>
> What I wonder is where the errors come from? What kind of errors are
> they? How do the errors get there?
>
There are plenty of hints in the replies, associated discussion on this
topic, etc. and Google is your friend. Seriously, the subject is pretty
involved, depending on what kind of errors you're interested in. For
example, block errors are usually due to ambiguous readings of blocks of
data, often caused by problems with the dye on a disc or burning at a speed
that is not optimal for the combination of disc and CD burner. If you are
interested in BLER tolerances, look into the Red Book audio specifications
and go from there.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

muzician21 > wrote:
>On Jun 12, 9:25=A0pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> When you press a CD, you can have an outrageously high error rate without
>> any data loss... but then you can have just one tiny bit more and then
>> everything falls apart.
>
>What I wonder is where the errors come from? What kind of errors are
>they? How do the errors get there?

The surface isn't 100% reflective. The pits aren't perfectly shaped.

Every medium is going to have errors; books sometimes have smeary letters
and splotches, but your brain provides error correction so it's okay.

With digital media, we have such good error correction now that we can
crank the density way, way up, and rely on the error correction. Back
in the 9-track tape days, we could get 6250 bits per inch on a reel of
digital tape. Today they get tens of megabytes per inch on a similar
tape format. The tape coating is better than it used to be, the heads
are better than they used to be, but the real difference is that in
the days of 6250 format, we had no error correction, just error detection,
and now we can live with high error rates and still get good data.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

I've learned over the past decade that even people with PhDs don't
understand the difference between analog and digital. So I will say nothing
else, except to quote Lex Luthor... "Think people, think!".

[William Sommerwerck]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...

>> There is no such thing as an analog or digital "signal". Data are
>> either analog or digital, and what comes from the reading head
>> is a stream of digital data.

> Close enough, William. There aren't any "volts" either, in real
> life. We made 'em up and everything.

I disagree, but I won't argue.

What bothers me -- frightens me -- is that people are absolutely incapable
of thinking things through, which includes asking the question "What is the
principle involved?". They believe what they want to believe, and never
question it.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

muzician21 wrote:
> On Jun 12, 9:25 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> When you press a CD, you can have an outrageously high error rate without
>> any data loss... but then you can have just one tiny bit more and then
>> everything falls apart.
>
>
> What I wonder is where the errors come from? What kind of errors are
> they? How do the errors get there?

That question has a rather long general answer.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-050j-information-and-entropy-spring-2008/

There are prerequisites.

Specific to CDRs, a bit changes state when dye is activated by a laser.
Sometimes it doesn't take properly. For other media, there are other
answers. But in general, entropy happens.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Adrian >
> wrote in message
> valid.invalid...
>
>> If you conect an oscilloscope to the output signal from the
>> CD player reading head, you can see the analogue signal
>> recovered from the disc before it is digitised.
>
> There is no such thing as an analog or digital "signal". Data are either
> analog or digital, and what comes from the reading head is a stream of
> digital data.
>
>


Close enough, William. There aren't any "volts" either, in real
life. We made 'em up and everything.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Les > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> There is no such thing as an analog or digital "signal". Data are
>>> either analog or digital, and what comes from the reading head
>>> is a stream of digital data.
>
>> Close enough, William. There aren't any "volts" either, in real
>> life. We made 'em up and everything.
>
> I disagree, but I won't argue.
>

I simply mean that a volt is a convention - and nothing more. It
has a very limited referent to daily experience. I have siblings
that have never encountered the concept, much less used it beyond
"9 volt" vs "120 volt A/C" or other thing necessary to not
set things on fire.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

> What bothers me -- frightens me -- is that people are absolutely incapable
> of thinking things through, which includes asking the question "What is the
> principle involved?". They believe what they want to believe, and never
> question it.
>
>

it's another convention that people may or may not need to be
proficient in. Good on 'em if they don't need it. The world
is headed more that way tan the other.

--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

muzician21 wrote:
> On Jun 12, 9:25 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> When you press a CD, you can have an outrageously high error rate
>> without any data loss... but then you can have just one tiny bit
>> more and then everything falls apart.
>
>
> What I wonder is where the errors come from? What kind of errors are
> they? How do the errors get there?

The errors are in the writing and/or reading of the media. It is not a
problem. Do not think about it too much. They are not there when you listen
to your CD, and they are not there when you read your CD-ROM, or when you
read data off your computer's hard disk, etc.

Just like you don;'t need to obsess about the 0.5% of impurities in your car
engine oil. Things are designed to cope.

geoff

[Neil Gould]

geoff wrote:
> muzician21 wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 9:25 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>> When you press a CD, you can have an outrageously high error rate
>>> without any data loss... but then you can have just one tiny bit
>>> more and then everything falls apart.
>>
>>
>> What I wonder is where the errors come from? What kind of errors are
>> they? How do the errors get there?
>
> The errors are in the writing and/or reading of the media. It is not
> a problem. Do not think about it too much. They are not there when
> you listen to your CD, and they are not there when you read your
> CD-ROM, or when you read data off your computer's hard disk, etc.
>
> Just like you don;'t need to obsess about the 0.5% of impurities in
> your car engine oil. Things are designed to cope.
>
Although your advice is acceptable for the typical consumer, I can't agree
with it for someone, like muzician21, who is reading a book on mastering
CDs. Being aware of such things as BLER and choosing equipment, media and
production practices that minimize them is pretty important.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Arny Krueger]

"muzician21" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 12, 9:25 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> When you press a CD, you can have an outrageously high error rate without
> any data loss... but then you can have just one tiny bit more and then
> everything falls apart.


What I wonder is where the errors come from? What kind of errors are
they? How do the errors get there?

It's all about production.

Errors can get into the mastering process, and the spiral of pits that are
created in the die can be imperfect. Yes, CDs are literally stamped out on
presses. Very nice presses, but presses nevertheless.

The essence of CD production is injection molding of polycarbonate. Pretty
easy when the goal is to make the shell of a motorcycle helmet, not so easy
when the goal is to squeeze gigabytes of data onto a few square inches.

Trust me, there is often a lot of scrap when they make helmets, so guess
what happens when things need to be *really* precise.

IME most problems with plastic injection molding relate to things like
contamination of the molding material particularly with moisture and dust,
the temperature of the molding material throughout the process, and the
precision and cleanliness of the die and how it is clamped together. Of
course they are trying to make a lot of parts fast, so the cycle times are
pushed as far as they can go, and maybe then a little.

Once molded, as others have pointed out the piece of plastic gets coated
with a metal film, usually aluminum, coated again with something we loosely
call lacquer, and printed with a label.

The metal film is applied by means of evaporation of the metal in a vacuum
chamber. The quality of the vacuum, the cleanliness of the work pieces, and
the temperature that the work pieces and the source metal are at are
critical. Cycle times need to be short, so time is not on our side.

The lacquering is *just* painting and any of us who have worked with these
materials and desired a high finish know how to screw that up. Ditto for
printing, especially when multiple colors are involved.

Any of these steps have the potential to screw up the data and push error
rates through the ceiling. For example the aluminum film has to go on fast,
but it has to be thick enough to be highly reflective and last.

Aluminum is far from being corrosion proof, and any flaws in the
aluminization can cause massive data errors. If the lacquer is not
chemically pure, it will eat holes in the thin film of aluminum. If it is
not adequately protective, there goes archival life. If the labelling is not
done right, the ink can contaminate the lacquer and thus impact the
aluminization.

Ever done silk screen printing? That is just about the simplest part of the
process, and the opportunities to screw up abound.

By now, every mistake that could be made has probably been made and someone
has a story to tell about it. ;-)

BTW one of my best friends built the first working independent (non Sony,
non-Philips) CD production facility in the world without licensing any
production technology, and another friend who worked for him on that job
moved on to one of the largest CD production facilities in the world. I've
been hearing about the screw ups in this process over beer and pizza for
about 30 years! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:

> Close enough, William. There aren't any "volts" either, in real
> life. We made 'em up and everything.

True someone made them all up, but they have been very helpful fictions over
the years since. It takes a total hopeless pedant who lacks even a whisp of
practical experience to complain about them, or try to turn them into mere
debating tools.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

> I've learned over the past decade that even people with PhDs don't
> understand the difference between analog and digital. So I will say
> nothing
> else, except to quote Lex Luthor... "Think people, think!".

My wife and I managed to spawn two PhDs who proabably don't understand that
difference, but instead foolishly devoted their lives to trying to cure
cancer. They think, just not about volts so much. They instead think about
proteins and the like, and if someone in your family or among your friends
ever gets breast cancer, you might be happy that they didn't think so much
about volts.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> What bothers me -- frightens me -- is that people are absolutely
>> incapable of thinking things through, which includes asking the
>> question "What is the principle involved?". They believe what
>> they want to believe, and never question it.

> it's another convention that people may or may not need to be
> proficient in. Good on 'em if they don't need it. The world
> is headed more that way tan the other.

Everyone needs it. And it's not a "convention".

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about -- it /does/ matter
whether you merely "know" something, or truly "understand" it -- but I won't
press the point.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> IME most problems with plastic injection molding relate to things like
> contamination of the molding material particularly with moisture and dust,
> the temperature of the molding material throughout the process, and the
> precision and cleanliness of the die and how it is clamped together. Of
> course they are trying to make a lot of parts fast, so the cycle times are
> pushed as far as they can go, and maybe then a little.

Let's be grateful there's no "Dynaflex" equivalent of CD pressing.


> Any of these steps have the potential to screw up the data and push error
> rates through the ceiling. For example the aluminum film has to go on
fast,
> but it has to be thick enough to be highly reflective and last.

I'm not sure it has to be "highly" reflective. Most CDs will pass light.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Les Cargill" > wrote in message
> ...
> > William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Close enough, William. There aren't any "volts" either, in real
>> life. We made 'em up and everything.

> True, someone made them all up, but they have been very helpful
> fictions over the years since. It takes a total hopeless pedant who
> lacks even a wisp of practical experience to complain about them,
> or try to turn them into mere debating tools.

This is another form of human foolishness.

People are not interested in the truth. That is, they believe what they've
been told -- whether from a book or an "expert" -- and reject -- in the
crudest sort of passive-aggressive fashion -- any attempts to get them to
think.

You will never find the truth until you start questioning what you believe.
You have to go from "knowing" to "understanding".

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...

>> I've learned over the past decade that even people with PhDs don't
>> understand the difference between analog and digital. So I will say
>> nothing else, except to quote Lex Luthor... "Think people, think!".

> My wife and I managed to spawn two PhDs who proabably don't
> understand that difference, but instead foolishly devoted their lives
> to trying to cure cancer.

Hmmm... In all their education, did they ever read the New Testament? And,
perhaps, think about what it says?

[William Sommerwerck]

One other point...

Once in a great while in sci.electronics.repair I absolutely nail someone's
problem. This isn't because I "know" the answer -- my repair experience is
relatively limited -- but because I know how to ask good questions.

You will never understand anything without working at understanding it. This
includes asking good questions. That's why the following quote is my e-mail
signature:

"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
questions." -- Edwin Land

[John Williamson]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> IME most problems with plastic injection molding relate to things like
>> contamination of the molding material particularly with moisture and dust,
>> the temperature of the molding material throughout the process, and the
>> precision and cleanliness of the die and how it is clamped together. Of
>> course they are trying to make a lot of parts fast, so the cycle times are
>> pushed as far as they can go, and maybe then a little.
>
> Let's be grateful there's no "Dynaflex" equivalent of CD pressing.
>
I have seen fairly flexible "Eco" DVDs on magazine covers recently, but
they were apparently dropped quite quickly due to the number returned as
unreadable.
>
>> Any of these steps have the potential to screw up the data and push error
>> rates through the ceiling. For example the aluminum film has to go on
> fast,
>> but it has to be thick enough to be highly reflective and last.
>
> I'm not sure it has to be "highly" reflective. Most CDs will pass light.
>
Minimum reflectivity is laid down in the Red Book spec. Most CD-Rs do
not comply with this minimum, even when newly burnt, which is why some
(mainly older) drives won't read them.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
>> ...

>>> I've learned over the past decade that even people with PhDs don't
>>> understand the difference between analog and digital. So I will say
>>> nothing else, except to quote Lex Luthor... "Think people, think!".

>> My wife and I managed to spawn two PhDs who proabably don't
>> understand that difference, but instead foolishly devoted their lives
>> to trying to cure cancer.

> Hmmm... In all their education, did they ever read the New Testament?

They studied both Testaments extensively, even memorized parts of them. Won
the higest available awards in that field.

> And, perhaps, think about what it says?

Hence their involvement in health care. That, and the lengthy painful death
by cancer of their cousin right on the heels of the death of their youngest
brother.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> One other point...
>
> Once in a great while in sci.electronics.repair I absolutely nail
> someone's
> problem. This isn't because I "know" the answer -- my repair experience is
> relatively limited -- but because I know how to ask good questions.
>
> You will never understand anything without working at understanding it.
> This
> includes asking good questions.

You think that is somehow exceptional?

Try doing it for a living, on someone else's dime.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Les Cargill" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> Close enough, William. There aren't any "volts" either, in real
>>> life. We made 'em up and everything.
>
>> True, someone made them all up, but they have been very helpful
>> fictions over the years since. It takes a total hopeless pedant who
>> lacks even a wisp of practical experience to complain about them,
>> or try to turn them into mere debating tools.

> This is another form of human foolishness.

Meaning what?

> People are not interested in the truth.

Sure they are. They are interested in a truth that they can relate to. In
the real world, there is not just one truth. Even in math there can be
multiple, different truths. In one case we call them the various roots of an
equation or set of equations.

> That is, they believe what they've been told -- whether from a book or an
> "expert" -- and reject -- in the
> crudest sort of passive-aggressive fashion -- any attempts to get them to
> think.

That may be true of the people you know. My regrets.

ABX is probably my most famous and widely adhered-to attempts to get people
to question what they were told and think about it. It took about 30 years,
but its getting to be downright pervasive.

> You will never find the truth until you start questioning what you
> believe.

And you are telling me this why?

> You have to go from "knowing" to "understanding".

You forgot the third step, which is hands-on doing.

I don't think you forgot it.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "Les Cargill" > wrote in message
> ...
> > William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> >> What bothers me -- frightens me -- is that people are absolutely
> >> incapable of thinking things through, which includes asking the
> >> question "What is the principle involved?". They believe what
> >> they want to believe, and never question it.
>
> > it's another convention that people may or may not need to be
> > proficient in. Good on 'em if they don't need it. The world
> > is headed more that way tan the other.
>
> Everyone needs it. And it's not a "convention".
>
> I don't think you understand what I'm talking about -- it /does/ matter
> whether you merely "know" something, or truly "understand" it -- but I won't
> press the point.

I'll add that thinking one understands or knows something may be an
incorrect assumption.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> You will never understand anything without working at understanding it.

Yet merely by working at it one cannot understand a hook shot the way
Magic Johnson undstood it.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Sean Conolly]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Adrian Tuddenham" >
> wrote in message
> valid.invalid...
>
>> If you conect an oscilloscope to the output signal from the
>> CD player reading head, you can see the analogue signal
>> recovered from the disc before it is digitised.
>
> There is no such thing as an analog or digital "signal". Data are either
> analog or digital, and what comes from the reading head is a stream of
> digital data.

Going back to your point about understanding vs. knowing, your statement is
a good example.

Digital lives in an analog world - everything related to digital electronis,
transmission, and storage is handled by analog means, somewhere under the
covers. Below a certain threshold it's a zero, above another threshold it's
a one, and anything between the two thresholds is an error.

Most people don't need to understand it to that level, they can just think
of it as ones and zeros and assume that the people who designed the
underlying systems did their job right. Just like the people who listen to
the music we make don't need to understand how it's produced to enjoy it.

Sean

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Once in a great while in sci.electronics.repair I absolutely nail
>> someone's
>> problem. This isn't because I "know" the answer -- my repair experience
is
>> relatively limited -- but because I know how to ask good questions.

> > You will never understand anything without working at understanding it.
>> This includes asking good questions.

> You think that is somehow exceptional?

It is for most human beings.


> Try doing it for a living, on someone else's dime.

Asking the right questions is how you /save/ time and money.

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> You will never understand anything without working at understanding it.

> Yet merely by working at it one cannot understand a hook shot the way
> Magic Johnson undstood it.

That isn't the kind of "understanding" I'm talking about.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...

>>> My wife and I managed to spawn two PhDs who proabably don't
>>> understand that difference, but instead foolishly devoted their lives
>>> to trying to cure cancer.

>> Hmmm... In all their education, did they ever read the New Testament?

> They studied both Testaments extensively, even memorized parts of them.
> Won the higest available awards in that field.

>> And, perhaps, think about what it says?

> Hence their involvement in health care. That, and the lengthy painful
> death by cancer of their cousin right on the heels of the death of their
> youngest brother.

Then, obviously, they never studied the New Testament.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Sean Conolly" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Adrian Tuddenham" >
> > wrote in message
> > valid.invalid...

>>> If you conect an oscilloscope to the output signal from the
>>> CD player reading head, you can see the analogue signal
>>> recovered from the disc before it is digitised.

>> There is no such thing as an analog or digital "signal". Data are either
>> analog or digital, and what comes from the reading head is a stream of
>> digital data.

> Going back to your point about understanding vs. knowing, your statement
is
> a good example.

> Digital lives in an analog world - everything related to digital
electronis,
> transmission, and storage is handled by analog means, somewhere under
> the covers. Below a certain threshold it's a zero, above another threshold
> it's a one, and anything between the two thresholds is an error.

> Most people don't need to understand it to that level, they can just think
> of it as ones and zeros and assume that the people who designed the
> underlying systems did their job right. Just like the people who listen to
> the music we make don't need to understand how it's produced to enjoy it.

You only prove my point.

Here are the "good questions". (Some of them, anyway.) Think about them. I'm
not going to respond.

Is a sine wave, in any sense, "analog"?

Are pulses, in any sense, "digital"?

[Steve King]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> IME most problems with plastic injection molding relate to things like
>>> contamination of the molding material particularly with moisture and
>>> dust,
>>> the temperature of the molding material throughout the process, and the
>>> precision and cleanliness of the die and how it is clamped together. Of
>>> course they are trying to make a lot of parts fast, so the cycle times
>>> are
>>> pushed as far as they can go, and maybe then a little.
>>
>> Let's be grateful there's no "Dynaflex" equivalent of CD pressing.
>>
> I have seen fairly flexible "Eco" DVDs on magazine covers recently, but
> they were apparently dropped quite quickly due to the number returned as
> unreadable.
>>
>>> Any of these steps have the potential to screw up the data and push
>>> error
>>> rates through the ceiling. For example the aluminum film has to go on
>> fast,
>>> but it has to be thick enough to be highly reflective and last.
>>
>> I'm not sure it has to be "highly" reflective. Most CDs will pass light.
>>
> Minimum reflectivity is laid down in the Red Book spec. Most CD-Rs do not
> comply with this minimum, even when newly burnt, which is why some (mainly
> older) drives won't read them.
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

Does anybody remember Evatone discs, which were analogue LP (or more
precisely, EPs) on flexible vinyl that were bound into magazines? When they
first came out, it kept our mastering/laquer channel room busy for a year or
two.

Steve King

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Here are the "good questions". (Some of them, anyway.) Think about
> them. I'm not going to respond.
>
> Is a sine wave, in any sense, "analog"?
>
That obviously depends on what your use of the term "any sense" is,
considering that "analog" has usages beyond audio...

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Steve King" >
wrote in message ...

> Does anybody remember Evatone discs, which were analogue LP
> (or more precisely, EPs) on flexible vinyl that were bound into
> magazines? When they first came out, it kept our mastering/laquer
> channel room busy for a year or two.

Who can forget them? I remember the circle... "Put a coin here if the disk
slips".

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Here are the "good questions". (Some of them, anyway.) Think about
>> them. I'm not going to respond.

>> Is a sine wave, in any sense, "analog"?

> That obviously depends on what your use of the term "any sense" is,
> considering that "analog" has usages beyond audio...

See what I mean?

Although the question does have an answer, its purpose is to get you
thinking about what "analog" means -- not to argue with the person who asked
the question.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve King" >
> wrote in message ...
>
>> Does anybody remember Evatone discs, which were analogue LP
>> (or more precisely, EPs) on flexible vinyl that were bound into
>> magazines? When they first came out, it kept our mastering/laquer
>> channel room busy for a year or two.

I'm glad that someone benefitted from them. Their fidelity was not much
benefit to the listener. It was often marginal if the criteria was even set
as low as recognizine the source of the voice.

> Who can forget them? I remember the circle... "Put a coin here if the disk
> slips".

....and put another one on the live end of the tone arm if your stylus
mistracks.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>>> My wife and I managed to spawn two PhDs who proabably don't
>>>> understand that difference, but instead foolishly devoted their lives
>>>> to trying to cure cancer.
>
>>> Hmmm... In all their education, did they ever read the New Testament?
>
>> They studied both Testaments extensively, even memorized parts of them.
>> Won the higest available awards in that field.
>
>>> And, perhaps, think about what it says?
>
>> Hence their involvement in health care. That, and the lengthy painful
>> death by cancer of their cousin right on the heels of the death of their
>> youngest brother.
>
> Then, obviously, they never studied the New Testament.

I'm dying to read how you can justify that statement since it is absolutely
false, as a practical matter.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:14:30 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> Here are the "good questions". (Some of them, anyway.) Think about
>>> them. I'm not going to respond.
>
>>> Is a sine wave, in any sense, "analog"?
>
>> That obviously depends on what your use of the term "any sense" is,
>> considering that "analog" has usages beyond audio...
>
>See what I mean?
>
>Although the question does have an answer, its purpose is to get you
>thinking about what "analog" means -- not to argue with the person who asked
>the question.
>

There is only one person here who does not understand the meaning of
the word analogue (sp), or digital for that matter. That person is
you.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:14:30 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:

> There is only one person here who does not understand
> the meaning of the word analog, or digital, for that matter.
> That person is you.

My phone number is 425 891 7082. Some morning, when you're lying in bed, and
the light suddenly comes on, you can call me and say "Yeah! NOW I get it!".

I hope that will be soon.

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger > wrote:

> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Steve King" >
> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >> Does anybody remember Evatone discs, which were analogue LP
> >> (or more precisely, EPs) on flexible vinyl that were bound into
> >> magazines? When they first came out, it kept our mastering/laquer
> >> channel room busy for a year or two.
>
> I'm glad that someone benefitted from them. Their fidelity was not much
> benefit to the listener. It was often marginal if the criteria was even set
> as low as recognizine the source of the voice.
>
> > Who can forget them? I remember the circle... "Put a coin here if the disk
> > slips".
>
> ...and put another one on the live end of the tone arm if your stylus
> mistracks.

"Playing With Change"

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote
> in message ...

>>> Hence their involvement in health care. That, and the lengthy painful
>>> death by cancer of their cousin right on the heels of the death of their
>>> youngest brother.

>> Then, obviously, they never studied the New Testament.

> I'm dying to read how you can justify that statement since
> it is absolutely false, as a practical matter.

Point taken. Let me rephrase.

They either did not read it carefully, or think about what it actually said.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:56:14 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:14:30 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:
>
>>"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
>>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>
>>>> Here are the "good questions". (Some of them, anyway.) Think about
>>>> them. I'm not going to respond.
>>
>>>> Is a sine wave, in any sense, "analog"?
>>
>>> That obviously depends on what your use of the term "any sense" is,
>>> considering that "analog" has usages beyond audio...
>>
>>See what I mean?
>>
>>Although the question does have an answer, its purpose is to get you
>>thinking about what "analog" means -- not to argue with the person who asked
>>the question.
>>
>
>There is only one person here who does not understand the meaning of
>the word analogue (sp), or digital for that matter. That person is
>you.
>
>d

No, I take that back. Your problem is actually an inability to
distinguish a signal from its payload. It has been explained to you
umpteen times, but you don't get it. You probably never will now.

You remind me of a chap I used to work with (Martin). Part of our
contract bidding process was an estimate of the likelihood of winning
the contract. We would put in our best guesses, normally between 10%
and 90% if we were being honest. Not Martin, though. He understood
what none of the rest of us did. We either win the contract or we
don't, so it always has to be 50/50. That's you, that is.

d

[[email protected]]

On 2011-06-14 said:
>Does anybody remember Evatone discs, which were analogue LP (or more
>precisely, EPs) on flexible vinyl that were bound into magazines?
>When they first came out, it kept our mastering/laquer channel room
>busy for a year or two.

YEs, remember seeing them. The same sorts of disks were
used in the NLS talking book program, spun at 8 1/3 rpm on
those special machines. At first they did periodicals only
on those flexible disks, then they went to the fd's for
everything they did.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...

>> There is only one person here who does not understand
>> the meaning of the word analogue (sp), or digital for that matter.
>> That person is you.

> No, I take that back. Your problem is actually an inability to
> distinguish a signal from its payload. It has been explained to you
> umpteen times, but you don't get it. You probably never will now.

BINGO! That is EXACTLY the point. And I'm the one who gets it.

[Bill Graham]

Les Cargill wrote:

> Close enough, William. There aren't any "volts" either, in real
> life. We made 'em up and everything.

Of course there are volts. Electrical potential was there for billions of
years before we came along and quanticfized it and gave a name to a certain
quantity of it. The fact that that quantity was arbitrary doesn't mean that
the physical entity doesn't exist.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:46:19 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> There is only one person here who does not understand
>>> the meaning of the word analogue (sp), or digital for that matter.
>>> That person is you.
>
>> No, I take that back. Your problem is actually an inability to
>> distinguish a signal from its payload. It has been explained to you
>> umpteen times, but you don't get it. You probably never will now.
>
>BINGO! That is EXACTLY the point. And I'm the one who gets it.
>
No, you are the one who thinks they are the same thing.

d

[geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote
>> in message ...
>
>>>> Hence their involvement in health care. That, and the lengthy
>>>> painful death by cancer of their cousin right on the heels of the
>>>> death of their youngest brother.
>
>>> Then, obviously, they never studied the New Testament.
>
>> I'm dying to read how you can justify that statement since
>> it is absolutely false, as a practical matter.
>
> Point taken. Let me rephrase.
>
> They either did not read it carefully, or think about what it
> actually said.

Or recognised that it was a fairy story ....


geoff

[geoff]

Neil Gould wrote:
>>
> Although your advice is acceptable for the typical consumer, I can't
> agree with it for someone, like muzician21, who is reading a book on
> mastering CDs. Being aware of such things as BLER and choosing
> equipment, media and production practices that minimize them is
> pretty important.

Although muziian21 is possibly getting hung up on it to the deteriment of
deeper understanding of things more in their control. Maybe a deeper
understanding *is* nercessary in order to get over it and reconcnetrate ;-)

geoff

[Neil Gould]

geoff wrote:
> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>
>> Although your advice is acceptable for the typical consumer, I can't
>> agree with it for someone, like muzician21, who is reading a book on
>> mastering CDs. Being aware of such things as BLER and choosing
>> equipment, media and production practices that minimize them is
>> pretty important.
>
> Although muziian21 is possibly getting hung up on it to the
> deteriment of deeper understanding of things more in their control.
> Maybe a deeper understanding *is* nercessary in order to get over it
> and reconcnetrate ;-)
>
BLER is one of the more controllable elements of music CD production, but to
do so, one needs a good understanding of the factors that cause it, and that
happens to be exactly the question that muzician21 posed. So, how it would
be better to *not* know about those things if one is interested in mastering
CDs?

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:46:19 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> ...

> >>> There is only one person here who does not understand
> >>> the meaning of the word analogue (sp), or digital for that matter.
> >>> That person is you.

> >> No, I take that back. Your problem is actually an inability to
> >> distinguish a signal from its payload. It has been explained to you
> >> umpteen times, but you don't get it. You probably never will now.

> >BINGO! That is EXACTLY the point. And I'm the one who gets it.

> No, you are the one who thinks they are the same thing.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. It is that they ARE NOT the same thing. That's
the point. That is (at least one of the things) people don't get.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:18:03 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:46:19 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>> >>> There is only one person here who does not understand
>> >>> the meaning of the word analogue (sp), or digital for that matter.
>> >>> That person is you.
>
>> >> No, I take that back. Your problem is actually an inability to
>> >> distinguish a signal from its payload. It has been explained to you
>> >> umpteen times, but you don't get it. You probably never will now.
>
>> >BINGO! That is EXACTLY the point. And I'm the one who gets it.
>
>> No, you are the one who thinks they are the same thing.
>
>No, no, no, no, no, no, no. It is that they ARE NOT the same thing. That's
>the point. That is (at least one of the things) people don't get.
>
Then why do you insist that the signal that comes off the read head of
a CD player is digital? That is your confusion - it is an analogue
carrier of digital information.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> geoff wrote:
> > Neil Gould wrote:

>>> Although your advice is acceptable for the typical consumer, I can't
>>> agree with it for someone, like muzician21, who is reading a book on
>>> mastering CDs. Being aware of such things as BLER and choosing
>>> equipment, media and production practices that minimize them is
>>> pretty important.

>> Although muziian21 is possibly getting hung up on it to the
>> deteriment of deeper understanding of things more in their control.
>> Maybe a deeper understanding *is* nercessary in order to get over it
>> and reconcnetrate ;-)

> BLER is one of the more controllable elements of music CD production, but
to
> do so, one needs a good understanding of the factors that cause it, and
that
> happens to be exactly the question that muzician21 posed. So, how it would
> be better to *not* know about those things if one is interested in
mastering
> CDs?

I don't believe you have much control over it. CDs (and all optical media)
have specific formats, which you can't modify.

I believe CDs scramble the data, so that a block error that obliterates a
big chunk o' data, takes out only one or two bits in particular sections of
the original data stream.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:18:03 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"

>> No, no, no, no, no, no, no. It is that they ARE NOT the same thing.
>> That's the point. That is (at least one of the things) people don't get.

> Then why do you insist that the signal that comes off the read head
> of a CD player is digital? That is your confusion -- it is an analogue
> carrier of digital information.

As the Aztec rain god says in "The Unchained Goddess" -- "There's no such
thing as water vapor."

There's no such thing as an "analog carrier of digital information", any
more than there's...
an analog carrier of analog information;
a digital carrier of digital information;
a digital carrier of analog information.

A carrier is neither analog nor digital, any more than a sine wave is
analog, or pulses are digital. It is the modulation -- the representation of
the information being conveyed -- that is analog or digital.

Let this soak in for a bit. (pun intended?)

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> geoff wrote:
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>
>>>> Although your advice is acceptable for the typical consumer, I
>>>> can't agree with it for someone, like muzician21, who is reading a
>>>> book on mastering CDs. Being aware of such things as BLER and
>>>> choosing equipment, media and production practices that minimize
>>>> them is pretty important.
>
>>> Although muziian21 is possibly getting hung up on it to the
>>> deteriment of deeper understanding of things more in their control.
>>> Maybe a deeper understanding *is* nercessary in order to get over it
>>> and reconcnetrate ;-)
>
>> BLER is one of the more controllable elements of music CD
>> production, but to do so, one needs a good understanding of the
>> factors that cause it, and that happens to be exactly the question
>> that muzician21 posed. So, how it would be better to *not* know
>> about those things if one is interested in mastering CDs?
>
> I don't believe you have much control over it. CDs (and all optical
> media) have specific formats, which you can't modify.
>
One can affect the amount of BLER by:
* Changing disc media used with a particular recorder. Some products will
produce fewer BLERs with a particular recorder.

* changing the recorder that is used with a particular brand or type of disc
media. Some recorders will do better with some media than others.

* changing the speed of burning, used with a particular disc media and
recorder. There is an optimal speed for a particular combination of these
two.

> I believe CDs scramble the data, so that a block error that
> obliterates a big chunk o' data, takes out only one or two bits in
> particular sections of the original data stream.
>
You believe incorrectly about how audio CDs are recorded.

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...

>> I believe CDs scramble the data, so that a block error that
>> obliterates a big chunk o' data, takes out only one or two bits in
>> particular sections of the original data stream.

> You believe incorrectly about how audio CDs are recorded.

Perhaps. But I seem to remember reading that.

[William Sommerwerck]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...

>>> I believe CDs scramble the data, so that a block error that
>>> obliterates a big chunk o' data, takes out only one or two bits in
>>> particular sections of the original data stream.

>> You believe incorrectly about how audio CDs are recorded.

> Perhaps. But I seem to remember reading that.

I checked the Wikipedia article, and it says nothing about such an
arraangement. So, for the time being, it appears I was wrong.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Bill Graham wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> Close enough, William. There aren't any "volts" either, in real
>> life. We made 'em up and everything.
>
> Of course there are volts. Electrical potential was there for billions
> of years before we came along and quanticfized it and gave a name to a
> certain quantity of it. The fact that that quantity was arbitrary
> doesn't mean that the physical entity doesn't exist.

The map is not the territory.

--
Les Cargill

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:33:29 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:18:03 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
>
>>> No, no, no, no, no, no, no. It is that they ARE NOT the same thing.
>>> That's the point. That is (at least one of the things) people don't get.
>
>> Then why do you insist that the signal that comes off the read head
>> of a CD player is digital? That is your confusion -- it is an analogue
>> carrier of digital information.
>
>As the Aztec rain god says in "The Unchained Goddess" -- "There's no such
>thing as water vapor."
>
>There's no such thing as an "analog carrier of digital information", any
>more than there's...
> an analog carrier of analog information;
> a digital carrier of digital information;
> a digital carrier of analog information.
>
>A carrier is neither analog nor digital, any more than a sine wave is
>analog, or pulses are digital. It is the modulation -- the representation of
>the information being conveyed -- that is analog or digital.
>
>Let this soak in for a bit. (pun intended?)
>

I told you that you were beyond getting this.

d

[John Williamson]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>>> I believe CDs scramble the data, so that a block error that
>>>> obliterates a big chunk o' data, takes out only one or two bits in
>>>> particular sections of the original data stream.
>
>>> You believe incorrectly about how audio CDs are recorded.
>
>> Perhaps. But I seem to remember reading that.
>
> I checked the Wikipedia article, and it says nothing about such an
> arraangement. So, for the time being, it appears I was wrong.
>
>
You could view the way the data is encoded as scrambling, as each 16 bit
sample is split and spread round the CD within limits. The 16 bit sample
is split in half, and each half is encoded with 6 check bits, giving a
total of 28 bits per sample, then decoded by the player electronics. The
data is then interleaved, and is serially read in a chunk (My technical
term for a biggish amount) at a time and sent out to the DAC in the
right order at the right time from the buffer.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

Neil Gould wrote:
> geoff wrote:
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>>
>>> Although your advice is acceptable for the typical consumer, I can't
>>> agree with it for someone, like muzician21, who is reading a book on
>>> mastering CDs. Being aware of such things as BLER and choosing
>>> equipment, media and production practices that minimize them is
>>> pretty important.
>>
>> Although muziian21 is possibly getting hung up on it to the
>> deteriment of deeper understanding of things more in their control.
>> Maybe a deeper understanding *is* nercessary in order to get over it
>> and reconcnetrate ;-)
>>
> BLER is one of the more controllable elements of music CD production,
> but to do so, one needs a good understanding of the factors that
> cause it, and that happens to be exactly the question that muzician21
> posed. So, how it would be better to *not* know about those things if
> one is interested in mastering CDs?

Maybe splitting hairs, but the subject was Mastering and 'digital', not CD
production.

Certainly useful background info, especially if mastering to an audio CD
rather than DDP image.

geoff

[geoff]

Neil Gould wrote:
> geoff wrote:
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>>
>>> Although your advice is acceptable for the typical consumer, I can't
>>> agree with it for someone, like muzician21, who is reading a book on
>>> mastering CDs. Being aware of such things as BLER and choosing
>>> equipment, media and production practices that minimize them is
>>> pretty important.
>>
>> Although muziian21 is possibly getting hung up on it to the
>> deteriment of deeper understanding of things more in their control.
>> Maybe a deeper understanding *is* nercessary in order to get over it
>> and reconcnetrate ;-)
>>
> BLER is one of the more controllable elements of music CD production,
> but to do so, one needs a good understanding of the factors that
> cause it, and that happens to be exactly the question that muzician21
> posed. So, how it would be better to *not* know about those things if
> one is interested in mastering CDs?

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> I've learned over the past decade that even people with PhDs don't
> understand the difference between analog and digital. So I will say nothing
> else, except to quote Lex Luthor... "Think people, think!".

If you know something we don't, could you please convey it with a better
S/N ratio.



--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Neil Gould]

geoff wrote:
> Neil Gould wrote:
>> geoff wrote:
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Although your advice is acceptable for the typical consumer, I
>>>> can't agree with it for someone, like muzician21, who is reading a
>>>> book on mastering CDs. Being aware of such things as BLER and
>>>> choosing equipment, media and production practices that minimize
>>>> them is pretty important.
>>>
>>> Although muziian21 is possibly getting hung up on it to the
>>> deteriment of deeper understanding of things more in their control.
>>> Maybe a deeper understanding *is* nercessary in order to get over it
>>> and reconcnetrate ;-)
>>>
>> BLER is one of the more controllable elements of music CD production,
>> but to do so, one needs a good understanding of the factors that
>> cause it, and that happens to be exactly the question that muzician21
>> posed. So, how it would be better to *not* know about those things if
>> one is interested in mastering CDs?
>
> Maybe splitting hairs, but the subject was Mastering and 'digital',
> not CD production.
>
Specifically, s/he said:

On 6/12/2011, muzician21 wrote:
"I've started reading the Bob Katz mastering book and am encountering
some eye-opening things. I wasn't previously aware of the error-
correction aspect of digital recording that apparently goes on
constantly. Apparently there's even a designation - BLER - regarding
acceptable/unacceptable error rates."

--
best,

Neil

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote
>> in message ...
>
>>>> Hence their involvement in health care. That, and the lengthy painful
>>>> death by cancer of their cousin right on the heels of the death of
>>>> their
>>>> youngest brother.
>
>>> Then, obviously, they never studied the New Testament.
>
>> I'm dying to read how you can justify that statement since
>> it is absolutely false, as a practical matter.

> Point taken. Let me rephrase.

> They either did not read it carefully, or think about what it actually
> said.

IOW, they are completely wrong because somehow you perceive something
different.

Please explain further!

[Arny Krueger]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote
>>> in message ...
>>
>>>>> Hence their involvement in health care. That, and the lengthy
>>>>> painful death by cancer of their cousin right on the heels of the
>>>>> death of their youngest brother.

>>>> Then, obviously, they never studied the New Testament.

>>> I'm dying to read how you can justify that statement since
>>> it is absolutely false, as a practical matter.

>> Point taken. Let me rephrase.

>> They either did not read it carefully, or think about what it
>> actually said.

> Or recognised that it was a fairy story ....

If it is, then it is a fairy story that is surprisingly well supported by
historic documents. Please provide evidence of just one other fairy story
that is documented as well with origional documents from say 1600-1800 years
ago.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>>> I believe CDs scramble the data, so that a block error that
>>>> obliterates a big chunk o' data, takes out only one or two bits in
>>>> particular sections of the original data stream.
>
>>> You believe incorrectly about how audio CDs are recorded.
>
>> Perhaps. But I seem to remember reading that.
>
>I checked the Wikipedia article, and it says nothing about such an
>arraangement. So, for the time being, it appears I was wrong.

There is in fact an arrangement where the data is split into blocks
and separated across a rotation, so that if there are a bunch of errors
in one physical location on the disc, the chance that the data will
be lost is greatly reduced.

Still, if you drill a 1/8" hole in a CD, it will go into interpolation
as you go over the hole.

There is a discussion of this in the Red Book. It makes for a bit
more robustness.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

>>> I'm dying to read how you can justify that statement since
>>> it is absolutely false, as a practical matter.

>> Point taken. Let me rephrase.
>> They either did not read it carefully, or think about what it actually
>> said.

> IOW, they are completely wrong because somehow you perceive
> something different.

Yes.

> Please explain further!

We are both treading on sensitive ground. (In case you're wondering, I am
neither agnostic nor atheist.)

I ask, respectfully, that at some future date (whenever the mood strikes
you), that you read through the four gospels, paying close attention to what
Jesus actually said. * I ask that you put out of mind any interpretations
you currently accept, anything your church says, anything from infidels or
atheists. Just look at the words, and take them literally.

You will discover that some things you believe or have been told are
directly or implicitly contradicted. (I've been meaning to make up a list of
these for a long time. Perhaps I should do so.) When you come to the passage
related to breast-cancer treatment, let me know, and we can discuss it in
private. (I'd be curious to know what other discrepancies you find.)

I will not point to particular verses, or give you my views, because I want
you to think about this for yourself. No one ever truly learned anything by
having it poured into their head.

Religious beliefs stir mighty emotions. Should we stop at this point?

* The gospels we know were written about 100 years after Jesus's ascension.
Though I have doubts about a few passages, I'm reasonably certain they're
accurately reported.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...

> I told you that you were beyond getting this.

How is one supposed to understand something that isn't true?

Let me turn this around... Am I the ONLY ignorant person in the world? Am I
the ONLY person who doesn't understand things that millions of others accept
as "truth"? I doubt that.

I find that I am almost always in agreement with the consensus view of most
issues. If I were constantly disagreeing with this, that, and everything, I
might very well believe that I suffered from some mental disturbance.

The only "mental disturbance" I suffer from is that I actually think, a
facility most people have, but rarely use.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Adrian Tuddenham" > wrote in message
valid.invalid...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> I've learned over the past decade that even people with PhDs don't
>> understand the difference between analog and digital. So I will say
>> nothing else, except to quote Lex Luthor... "Think people, think!".

> If you know something we don't, could you please convey it with
> a better S/N ratio.

From my perspective, I'm not the one generating the noise. But I'll try
again.

How many times do I have to explain that "analog" and "digital" refer to the
way data are represented/transmitted -- as either continuous variation, or
quantized variation? Waveform has nothing to do with it. Sine waves are not
analog, pulses are not digital.

It is particularly offensive to hear people talk about "analog" carriers
conveying "digital" information. If a carrier is, in and of itself, analog,
what exactly is it the analog OF?

If I showed you a series of sine waves, or a pulse train, could you tell me,
just by looking, whether they were conveying analog or digital information?
(Hint: You can't. If you don't understand why you can't, you need to.)

I'll repeat this in a slightly different way... INFORMATION can be
represented in analog or digital form. The CARRIER of that information is
not analog or digital, because it is not information. What part of this is
so hard to follow?

Books are often wrong. You'd be amazed at how often books state (directly or
indirectly) that time-sampling continuous data converts it into digital
form. (Shall I give you an example?)

The reason my "rants" get your underwear tied up in a knot is that YOU DON'T
THINK. You've decided the truth or falsehood of everything, and you shake in
your boots any time someone threatens those beliefs. This shows a
fundamental lack of curiosity, a refusal to ask "Why?", because it might
upset the mental applecart.

---------------

I assume most of you have read books about Famous Scientists and Famous
Engineers. You've learned that even the brightest minds often wander down
the wrong paths in the process of trying to figure things out. Are any of us
different? Newton's grasp of the concept of Universal Gravitation might have
come in a flash, * but he'd been mentally preparing himself for it. Einstein
famously altered one of the General Relativity equations because it
predicted the expansion of the universe, which he "knew" wasn't true.

With regard to engineering... RCA's original color-TV system was
dot-sequential, and had all sorts of practical problems -- until someone at
Hazeltine pointed out that base-band sampling was a lot like having a
continuous carrier at the sampling rate. Howard Rogers at Polaroid spent a
decade trying to duplicate conventional color processing, until he realized
it was much easier to attach the dye molecule to the developer molecule. I
can see him banging his head against the wall.

Dr Land was emphatic that making mistakes is a fundamental part of science
and engineering. It is also part of understanding anything. Do "you people"
really believe that you correctly understand what you think you know?

Of course, if I were Albert Einstein or Richard Feynman, you would grovel in
front of me and blindly swallow everything I said. Which make no sense,
either.

I am not asking you to BELIEVE me. I am asking you to THINK. Is that too
much?

* I believe Newton really was hit on the head by an apple. It made him
recognize that the same force that pulled the apple to the Earth also held
the Moon in its orbit.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> >"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> >> ...

>>>>> I believe CDs scramble the data, so that a block error that
>>>>> obliterates a big chunk o' data, takes out only one or two bits in
>>>>> particular sections of the original data stream.

>>>> You believe incorrectly about how audio CDs are recorded.

>>> Perhaps. But I seem to remember reading that.

>> I checked the Wikipedia article, and it says nothing about such an
>> arraangement. So, for the time being, it appears I was wrong.

> There is in fact an arrangement where the data are split into blocks
> and separated across a rotation, so that if there are a bunch of errors
> in one physical location on the disc, the chance that the data will
> be lost is greatly reduced.

> Still, if you drill a 1/8" hole in a CD, it will go into interpolation
> as you go over the hole.

Actually, errors can extend over a longer distance without the player
muting. But I don't remember where I read that. It might be in the manual
for that French test disk, which has "blank" sections of varying length, to
see how well the player handles them.


> There is a discussion of this in the Red Book. It makes for a bit
> more robustness.

Good to know I was at least partly right. I wonder why it's not mentioned in
Wikipedia. Oh, wait... Wikipedia is always wrong about everything!

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>>> I believe CDs scramble the data, so that a block error that
>>>>> obliterates a big chunk o' data, takes out only one or two bits in
>>>>> particular sections of the original data stream.
>>
>>>> You believe incorrectly about how audio CDs are recorded.
>>
>>> Perhaps. But I seem to remember reading that.
>>
>> I checked the Wikipedia article, and it says nothing about such an
>> arraangement. So, for the time being, it appears I was wrong.
>
> There is in fact an arrangement where the data is split into blocks
> and separated across a rotation, so that if there are a bunch of
> errors in one physical location on the disc, the chance that the data
> will be lost is greatly reduced.
>
You are referring to CIRC, but that is NOT "scrambling" the data. The
difference is important to codecs (if an aspiring chef attending a class on
preparing a food that required folding the ingredients, not knowing the
difference between interleaving and scrambling might result in a slap in the
head with a spatula). ;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> I ask, respectfully, that at some future date (whenever the mood
> strikes you), that you read through the four gospels, paying close
> attention to what Jesus actually said. * I ask that you put out of
> mind any interpretations you currently accept, anything your church
> says, anything from infidels or atheists. Just look at the words, and
> take them literally.
>
I ask respectfully that you leave this topic alone, William. You take for
granted that the _interpretation_ that you have access to *can* be taken
literally, yet it is a translation from languages that are more figurative
than literal (if you haven't spent any time in that part of the world, it
may be a difficult concept to grasp), and it was translated by folks with an
agenda during the compilation. So, by your own criteria, taking the context
literally to gain an understanding of the original intent of its messages is
not possible.

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:

> > I ask, respectfully, that at some future date (whenever the mood
> > strikes you), that you read through the four gospels, paying close
> > attention to what Jesus actually said. * I ask that you put out of
> > mind any interpretations you currently accept, anything your church
> > says, anything from infidels or atheists. Just look at the words, and
> > take them literally.

> I ask respectfully that you leave this topic alone, William. You take for
> granted that the _interpretation_ that you have access to *can* be taken
> literally, yet it is a translation from languages that are more figurative
> than literal (if you haven't spent any time in that part of the world, it
> may be a difficult concept to grasp), and it was translated by folks with
an
> agenda during the compilation. So, by your own criteria, taking the
context
> literally to gain an understanding of the original intent of its messages
is
> not possible.

Many churches (not all) insist that the Bible is literally true. I was
asking Arny to read the four gospels in that context, which is perfectly
reasonable.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "Adrian Tuddenham" > wrote in message
> valid.invalid...
> > William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
> >> I've learned over the past decade that even people with PhDs don't
> >> understand the difference between analog and digital. So I will say
> >> nothing else, except to quote Lex Luthor... "Think people, think!".
>
> > If you know something we don't, could you please convey it with
> > a better S/N ratio.
>
> From my perspective, I'm not the one generating the noise. But I'll try
> again.
>
> How many times do I have to explain that "analog" and "digital" refer to the
> way data are represented/transmitted -- as either continuous variation, or
> quantized variation? Waveform has nothing to do with it. Sine waves are not
> analog, pulses are not digital.
>
> It is particularly offensive to hear people talk about "analog" carriers
> conveying "digital" information. If a carrier is, in and of itself, analog,
> what exactly is it the analog OF?

In the case of the output of a CD player head, the waveform is an
analogue (in the time domain) of time increments which indirectly
represent the digital data. The representation is continuous (any value
of time between zero-axis crossings, within quite wide limits, is
posible), so by your definition the information at that point is
definitely analogue.

The waveform is then quantised by a circuit which decides on which side
of a time threshold the zero axis crossing lies, so then the information
becomes digital by your definition. You may have disagreed with my
'shorthand' way of describing the waveforms by the way they carry
information, but I don't think we are in any doubt about how the
information is being carried at various points in the chain.

It is a little more difficult to decide what happens when the digital
signal is used to reconstitute an electrical analogue of the original
sound wave. As the output waveform of a DAC can only take cetain
specified levels, the information at that point is still digital by your
definition. However, once it has been through a low-pass filter, it can
have intermediate values -so presumably the filter on the output of the
DAC is where the true conversion from digital to analogue takes place?

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[William Sommerwerck]

"Adrian Tuddenham" > wrote in message
valid.invalid...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> > How many times do I have to explain that "analog" and "digital" refer to
the
> > way data are represented/transmitted -- as either continuous variation,
or
> > quantized variation? Waveform has nothing to do with it. Sine waves are
not
> > analog, pulses are not digital.
> >
> > It is particularly offensive to hear people talk about "analog" carriers
> > conveying "digital" information. If a carrier is, in and of itself,
analog,
> > what exactly is it the analog OF?
>
> In the case of the output of a CD player head, the waveform is an
> analogue (in the time domain) of time increments which indirectly
> represent the digital data. The representation is continuous (any value
> of time between zero-axis crossings, within quite wide limits, is
> posible), so by your definition the information at that point is
> definitely analogue.

1. Locate concrete wall.
2. Bang head against it repeatedly.
3. Stop.
4. Say "Gee, it feels so good".

Adding noise to digital information does not make it analog.


> The waveform is then quantised by a circuit which decides on which side
> of a time threshold the zero axis crossing lies, so then the information
> becomes digital by your definition. You may have disagreed with my
> 'shorthand' way of describing the waveforms by the way they carry
> information, but I don't think we are in any doubt about how the
> information is being carried at various points in the chain.

> It is a little more difficult to decide what happens when the digital
> signal is used to reconstitute an electrical analogue of the original
> sound wave. As the output waveform of a DAC can only take cetain
> specified levels, the information at that point is still digital by your
> definition. However, once it has been through a low-pass filter, it can
> have intermediate values -so presumably the filter on the output of the
> DAC is where the true conversion from digital to analogue takes place?

The answer is "no".

Running the output of a DAC through a low-pass filter does not make the
signal analog. You're believing something without thinking it through.

We discussed several months ago. In the process of discussion, and my
reading a very interesting doctoral thesis, I learned the "truth" about
this. Which I will repeat, if begged.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 06:43:26 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I told you that you were beyond getting this.
>
>How is one supposed to understand something that isn't true?
>
>Let me turn this around... Am I the ONLY ignorant person in the world? Am I
>the ONLY person who doesn't understand things that millions of others accept
>as "truth"? I doubt that.
>
>I find that I am almost always in agreement with the consensus view of most
>issues. If I were constantly disagreeing with this, that, and everything, I
>might very well believe that I suffered from some mental disturbance.
>
>The only "mental disturbance" I suffer from is that I actually think, a
>facility most people have, but rarely use.
>
It is quite possibly this very arrogance that is at the heart of your
problem.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:51:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"geoff" > wrote in message
...
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote
>>>> in message ...
>>>
>>>>>> Hence their involvement in health care. That, and the lengthy
>>>>>> painful death by cancer of their cousin right on the heels of the
>>>>>> death of their youngest brother.
>
>>>>> Then, obviously, they never studied the New Testament.
>
>>>> I'm dying to read how you can justify that statement since
>>>> it is absolutely false, as a practical matter.
>
>>> Point taken. Let me rephrase.
>
>>> They either did not read it carefully, or think about what it
>>> actually said.
>
>> Or recognised that it was a fairy story ....
>
>If it is, then it is a fairy story that is surprisingly well supported by
>historic documents. Please provide evidence of just one other fairy story
>that is documented as well with origional documents from say 1600-1800 years
>ago.
>

There is not one historic document - and I mean not even a single one
- that supports the fairy story of Christianity. Every existing
document concerning it was written by a member of the cult.

d

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "Adrian Tuddenham" > wrote in message
> valid.invalid...
> > William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
> > > How many times do I have to explain that "analog" and "digital" refer to
> the
> > > way data are represented/transmitted -- as either continuous variation,
> or
> > > quantized variation? Waveform has nothing to do with it. Sine waves are
> not
> > > analog, pulses are not digital.
> > >
> > > It is particularly offensive to hear people talk about "analog" carriers
> > > conveying "digital" information. If a carrier is, in and of itself,
> analog,
> > > what exactly is it the analog OF?
> >
> > In the case of the output of a CD player head, the waveform is an
> > analogue (in the time domain) of time increments which indirectly
> > represent the digital data. The representation is continuous (any value
> > of time between zero-axis crossings, within quite wide limits, is
> > posible), so by your definition the information at that point is
> > definitely analogue.
>
> 1. Locate concrete wall.
> 2. Bang head against it repeatedly.
> 3. Stop.
> 4. Say "Gee, it feels so good".
>
> Adding noise to digital information does not make it analog.

If I make an acoustic wax cylinder recording of my voice saying, "One -
Zero - One - Zero...", or reading out a list of telephone numbers; is
the recording carrying digital or analogue information? I think the
answer is 'both' - or more accurately, an analogue representation of
digital information

I don't see that there can be any more objection to the concept of an
analogue representation of digital information than there is to a
digital representation of analogue information.

The engineer dealing with one stage of an information transmission
system is primarily interested in how the information is impressed on
the carrier at that stage, not what that information is. In the case of
the CD player, the carrier is a waveform with a continuously-variable
time interval between zero-axis crossings, so it makes sense to treat
the information at that stage as analogue even though it may later be
resolved so as to yield digital data.

By measuring certain paramaters of the analogy (the waveform amplitude),
I am able to predict how likely it is that the digital data will contain
errors when recovered from the carrier by certain methods (my customers'
playback machines). I can then alter the analogue process to reduce the
likely error rate (by choosing better-quality blank CDRs).


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[William Sommerwerck]

"Adrian Tuddenham" >
wrote in message
valid.invalid...

>> Adding noise to digital information does not make it analog.

> If I make an acoustic wax cylinder recording of my voice saying, "One -
> Zero - One - Zero...", or reading out a list of telephone numbers; is
> the recording carrying digital or analogue information? I think the
> answer is 'both' - or more accurately, an analogue representation of
> digital information
>
> I don't see that there can be any more objection to the concept of an
> analogue representation of digital information than there is to a
> digital representation of analogue information.

I really feel you're playing with language.


> The engineer dealing with one stage of an information transmission
> system is primarily interested in how the information is impressed on
> the carrier at that stage, not what that information is. In the case of
> the CD player, the carrier is a waveform with a continuously-variable
> time interval between zero-axis crossings, so it makes sense to treat
> the information at that stage as analogue even though it may later be
> resolved so as to yield digital data.

> By measuring certain paramaters of the analogy (the waveform amplitude),
> I am able to predict how likely it is that the digital data will contain
> errors when recovered from the carrier by certain methods (my customers'
> playback machines). I can then alter the analogue process to reduce the
> likely error rate (by choosing better-quality blank CDRs).

I feel this is a serious misunderstanding of the nature of information, how
it is presented, and how it is transmitted/interpreted.

I am, at the moment, tired and exasperated, partly over this arguing, but
mostly about things in my life I have no control over. I'm going to stop
replying for today, and get back with a longish explanation tomorrow. Please
bear with me.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:08:47 +0100,
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

>William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>> "Adrian Tuddenham" > wrote in message
>> valid.invalid...
>> > William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>
>> > > How many times do I have to explain that "analog" and "digital" refer to
>> the
>> > > way data are represented/transmitted -- as either continuous variation,
>> or
>> > > quantized variation? Waveform has nothing to do with it. Sine waves are
>> not
>> > > analog, pulses are not digital.
>> > >
>> > > It is particularly offensive to hear people talk about "analog" carriers
>> > > conveying "digital" information. If a carrier is, in and of itself,
>> analog,
>> > > what exactly is it the analog OF?
>> >
>> > In the case of the output of a CD player head, the waveform is an
>> > analogue (in the time domain) of time increments which indirectly
>> > represent the digital data. The representation is continuous (any value
>> > of time between zero-axis crossings, within quite wide limits, is
>> > posible), so by your definition the information at that point is
>> > definitely analogue.
>>
>> 1. Locate concrete wall.
>> 2. Bang head against it repeatedly.
>> 3. Stop.
>> 4. Say "Gee, it feels so good".
>>
>> Adding noise to digital information does not make it analog.
>
>If I make an acoustic wax cylinder recording of my voice saying, "One -
>Zero - One - Zero...", or reading out a list of telephone numbers; is
>the recording carrying digital or analogue information? I think the
>answer is 'both' - or more accurately, an analogue representation of
>digital information
>
>I don't see that there can be any more objection to the concept of an
>analogue representation of digital information than there is to a
>digital representation of analogue information.
>
>The engineer dealing with one stage of an information transmission
>system is primarily interested in how the information is impressed on
>the carrier at that stage, not what that information is. In the case of
>the CD player, the carrier is a waveform with a continuously-variable
>time interval between zero-axis crossings, so it makes sense to treat
>the information at that stage as analogue even though it may later be
>resolved so as to yield digital data.
>
>By measuring certain paramaters of the analogy (the waveform amplitude),
>I am able to predict how likely it is that the digital data will contain
>errors when recovered from the carrier by certain methods (my customers'
>playback machines). I can then alter the analogue process to reduce the
>likely error rate (by choosing better-quality blank CDRs).

Adrian, I'd suggest you leave it right there if you don't want to end
up kicking the cat. He has no understanding of the difference between
the nature of the signal and its payload, and appears inordinately
proud of the fact. He is, unfortunately, ineducable.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:08:47 +0100,
> (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

>> By measuring certain paramaters of the analogy (the waveform
>> amplitude), I am able to predict how likely it is that the digital data
>> will contain errors when recovered from the carrier by certain methods
>> (my customers' playback machines). I can then alter the analogue
>> process to reduce the likely error rate (by choosing better-quality
>> blank CDRs).

This is a perverse mis-reading of the mathematical analysis of data recovery
in a noisy environment.


> Adrian, I'd suggest you leave it right there if you don't want to end
> up kicking the cat. He has no understanding of the difference between
> the nature of the signal and its payload, and appears inordinately
> proud of the fact. He is, unfortunately, ineducable.

Just the sort of remark I'd expect from someone who knows even less than I
do...

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:41:00 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:08:47 +0100,
>> (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:
>
>>> By measuring certain paramaters of the analogy (the waveform
>>> amplitude), I am able to predict how likely it is that the digital data
>>> will contain errors when recovered from the carrier by certain methods
>>> (my customers' playback machines). I can then alter the analogue
>>> process to reduce the likely error rate (by choosing better-quality
>>> blank CDRs).
>
>This is a perverse mis-reading of the mathematical analysis of data recovery
>in a noisy environment.
>
>
>> Adrian, I'd suggest you leave it right there if you don't want to end
>> up kicking the cat. He has no understanding of the difference between
>> the nature of the signal and its payload, and appears inordinately
>> proud of the fact. He is, unfortunately, ineducable.
>
>Just the sort of remark I'd expect from someone who knows even less than I
>do...
>

William, you have no idea what I know.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould > wrote:
>>
>You are referring to CIRC, but that is NOT "scrambling" the data. The
>difference is important to codecs (if an aspiring chef attending a class on
>preparing a food that required folding the ingredients, not knowing the
>difference between interleaving and scrambling might result in a slap in the
>head with a spatula). ;-)

No, I'm referring to interleaving.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...

> William, you have no idea what I know.

I have a very clear grasp of your not knowing what you're talking about. For
example, you confuse waveform with modulation type. You think that "rounding
off" quantized pulses makes them "analog".

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:08:11 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>
>> William, you have no idea what I know.
>
>I have a very clear grasp of your not knowing what you're talking about. For
>example, you confuse waveform with modulation type. You think that "rounding
>off" quantized pulses makes them "analog".
>

As I said, you have no idea - apparently either of what I know or what
everybody else knows.

d

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

On 6/15/2011 4:08 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Don > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> William, you have no idea what I know.
>
> I have a very clear grasp of your not knowing what you're talking about. For
> example, you confuse waveform with modulation type. You think that "rounding
> off" quantized pulses makes them "analog".
>
>
I dare say, you have an odd way of not posting
until tomorrow.


Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>>
>> You are referring to CIRC, but that is NOT "scrambling" the data. The
>> difference is important to codecs (if an aspiring chef attending a
>> class on preparing a food that required folding the ingredients, not
>> knowing the difference between interleaving and scrambling might
>> result in a slap in the head with a spatula). ;-)
>
> No, I'm referring to interleaving.
>
CIRC stands for cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon coding, so it _is_ the
interleaving that you're referring to, and it is not "scrambling" the data.

--
Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>>>
>>> You are referring to CIRC, but that is NOT "scrambling" the data. The
>>> difference is important to codecs (if an aspiring chef attending a
>>> class on preparing a food that required folding the ingredients, not
>>> knowing the difference between interleaving and scrambling might
>>> result in a slap in the head with a spatula). ;-)
>>
>> No, I'm referring to interleaving.
>>
>CIRC stands for cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon coding, so it _is_ the
>interleaving that you're referring to, and it is not "scrambling" the data.

Yes, CIRC is a specific kind of CRC code which is interleaved. But it's
not just the CRC which is interleaved, it's the data as well.

Interleaving is the process of putting the data out on the spiral so that
it is not sequential; if consecutive bits are damaged, the damage is
effectively to widely spaced bits in the source stream.

This, COMBINED with CRC, allows the system to deal well with consecutive
errors, which is the most common kind. Pinholes in the metallization are
the most common source, but scratches and the like cause similar effects.

You can call it "scrambling" or "rarranging" or whatever you like.

The CIRC is in fact an interleaved CRC code, but it's the interleaving
that the original poster was referring to.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> You are referring to CIRC, but that is NOT "scrambling" the data.
>>>> The difference is important to codecs (if an aspiring chef
>>>> attending a class on preparing a food that required folding the
>>>> ingredients, not knowing the difference between interleaving and
>>>> scrambling might result in a slap in the head with a spatula). ;-)
>>>
>>> No, I'm referring to interleaving.
>>>
>> CIRC stands for cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon coding, so it _is_ the
>> interleaving that you're referring to, and it is not "scrambling"
>> the data.
>
> Yes, CIRC is a specific kind of CRC code which is interleaved. But
> it's not just the CRC which is interleaved, it's the data as well.
>
Who said anything about the Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC)?

> Interleaving is the process of putting the data out on the spiral so
> that it is not sequential; if consecutive bits are damaged, the
> damage is effectively to widely spaced bits in the source stream.
>
I know what interleaving is, and I know what scrambling data is. Please read
more closely, Scott!

> You can call it "scrambling" or "rarranging" or whatever you like.
>
Well, I prefer to be more precise than that so as not to confuse people that
don't know the difference, or that scrambling has a meaning w/r/t data that
is very different from interleaving.

--
Neil

[John Williamson]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Adrian Tuddenham" > wrote in message
> valid.invalid...
>> In the case of the output of a CD player head, the waveform is an
>> analogue (in the time domain) of time increments which indirectly
>> represent the digital data. The representation is continuous (any value
>> of time between zero-axis crossings, within quite wide limits, is
>> posible), so by your definition the information at that point is
>> definitely analogue.
>
> 1. Locate concrete wall.
> 2. Bang head against it repeatedly.
> 3. Stop.
> 4. Say "Gee, it feels so good".
>
> Adding noise to digital information does not make it analog.
>
It just degrades the quality of the data, in a way which may or may not
be able to be corrected depending on the transmission medium and the
error correction protocols used.

In the case of an audio CD, the instantaneous output from the read head
is determined by whether the light returning from the CD is below a
threshhold level or above that threshold as it comes into the photocell.
This is a digital value, as it is either above or below the set
threshold, ignoring hysteresis. In the time domain, however, it is an
analogue value, as the length of the pulse varies randomly, although
normally within certain, defined, limits. The amount of light is also in
reality not either "there" or "not there", although, again in theory, on
a Red Book compliant CD, it is either the reflected light from the
bottom of the pit plus the reflected light from the area between the
pits, or the land light minus the pit light, due to the fact that the
depth of the pits is designated as being a quarter of wavelength of the
laser light, giving destructive interference. The output from the DAC,
data buffer and data decoding system following the comparator circuit
triggered by the read head varies in discrete steps, based on the time
between the "steps" on the input. This is a digital signal. Yes or no?

So we have (In theory) a digital signal coming into the read head ("full
light" or "no light") changing from one to the other at a variable rate,
which can, in theory, only vary in approximate time steps, being
converted into a stream of high and low voltages which is fed into a
decoder and buffer and DAC system, which outputs a voltage which is (in
theory, again) constrained to being one of a number of discrete values.
These discretely varying values (Still digital?) are fed into a low pass
filter network which gives a continuously varying output voltage.
Analogue or digital?

At which point do *you* consider that the digital data represented by
the stream of pits and lands on the CD become a continuously varying
analogue signal, as perceived by the listener's ear? It can't be a
gradual process, becoming more analogue as it goes along the chain,
surely? Maybe you have digital ears?

Actually, in a sort of analogue, wetware, way, you do.....
>
>> The waveform is then quantised by a circuit which decides on which side
>> of a time threshold the zero axis crossing lies, so then the information
>> becomes digital by your definition. You may have disagreed with my
>> 'shorthand' way of describing the waveforms by the way they carry
>> information, but I don't think we are in any doubt about how the
>> information is being carried at various points in the chain.
>
>> It is a little more difficult to decide what happens when the digital
>> signal is used to reconstitute an electrical analogue of the original
>> sound wave. As the output waveform of a DAC can only take cetain
>> specified levels, the information at that point is still digital by your
>> definition. However, once it has been through a low-pass filter, it can
>> have intermediate values -so presumably the filter on the output of the
>> DAC is where the true conversion from digital to analogue takes place?
>
> The answer is "no".
>
> Running the output of a DAC through a low-pass filter does not make the
> signal analog. You're believing something without thinking it through.
>
If I connect an oscilloscope across a microphone next to my ears, I see
a stepless (But with added noise) signal. If I connect it across the
speaker output of an amplifier, I also see a stepless signal. If I
connect it across the output of the low pass filter after the DAC, I see
more or less the same waveform. If I connect it across the output of the
DAC, before the low pass filter, I see steps, albeit small ones, in the
waveform. If I put it across the output of the read head, I get a stream
of relatively high (1) and relatively low (0) voltages, with randomly
varying times (within limits) between threshold crossings. Depending on
the times between threshold crossings compared with the data word
length, the output value from the serial to parallel converter varies in
discrete steps, which are defined by a 16 bit representation of the
required output voltage.

So where would *you* say the conversion from digital data (on the CD) to
analogue representation (At the listener's eardrum) takes place?

By my reckoning, the overall chain starts (In the case of a live
recording from a microphone) as an analogue voltage. This is then
converted into a digital signal and processed (Not necessarily in that
order). This data stream is then transmitted by an undetermined means
(Modulating a voltage or light level, modulating the amplitude or
frequency of a carrier wave, altering the relative polarities of a
series of magnets, and so on) and recovered by the playback mechanism.
This digital stream is then converted back to analogue, in such a way
that in theory, the pressure waves generated by the output device are a
perfect reproduction of the pressure variations at the microphone diaphgram.

Please feel free to explain at what points in this chain the signal
(data) changes from being analogue to digital and back again.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[William Sommerwerck]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...

> So we have (In theory) a digital signal coming into the read head ("full
> light" or "no light") changing from one to the other at a variable rate,
> which can, in theory, only vary in approximate time steps, being
> converted into a stream of high and low voltages which is fed into a
> decoder and buffer and DAC system, which outputs a voltage which is (in
> theory, again) constrained to being one of a number of discrete values.
> These discretely varying values (Still digital?) are fed into a low pass
> filter network which gives a continuously varying output voltage.
> Analogue or digital?
>
> At which point do *you* consider that the digital data represented by
> the stream of pits and lands on the CD become a continuously varying
> analogue signal, as perceived by the listener's ear? It can't be a
> gradual process, becoming more analogue as it goes along the chain,
> surely? Maybe you have digital ears?
>
> Actually, in a sort of analogue, wetware, way, you do.....
> >
> >> The waveform is then quantised by a circuit which decides on which side
> >> of a time threshold the zero axis crossing lies, so then the
information
> >> becomes digital by your definition. You may have disagreed with my
> >> 'shorthand' way of describing the waveforms by the way they carry
> >> information, but I don't think we are in any doubt about how the
> >> information is being carried at various points in the chain.
> >
> >> It is a little more difficult to decide what happens when the digital
> >> signal is used to reconstitute an electrical analogue of the original
> >> sound wave. As the output waveform of a DAC can only take cetain
> >> specified levels, the information at that point is still digital by
your
> >> definition. However, once it has been through a low-pass filter, it
can
> >> have intermediate values -so presumably the filter on the output of the
> >> DAC is where the true conversion from digital to analogue takes place?
> >
> > The answer is "no".
> >
> > Running the output of a DAC through a low-pass filter does not make the
> > signal analog. You're believing something without thinking it through.
> >
> If I connect an oscilloscope across a microphone next to my ears, I see
> a stepless (But with added noise) signal. If I connect it across the
> speaker output of an amplifier, I also see a stepless signal. If I
> connect it across the output of the low pass filter after the DAC, I see
> more or less the same waveform. If I connect it across the output of the
> DAC, before the low pass filter, I see steps, albeit small ones, in the
> waveform. If I put it across the output of the read head, I get a stream
> of relatively high (1) and relatively low (0) voltages, with randomly
> varying times (within limits) between threshold crossings. Depending on
> the times between threshold crossings compared with the data word
> length, the output value from the serial to parallel converter varies in
> discrete steps, which are defined by a 16 bit representation of the
> required output voltage.
>
> So where would *you* say the conversion from digital data (on the CD) to
> analogue representation (At the listener's eardrum) takes place?
>
> By my reckoning, the overall chain starts (In the case of a live
> recording from a microphone) as an analogue voltage. This is then
> converted into a digital signal and processed (Not necessarily in that
> order). This data stream is then transmitted by an undetermined means
> (Modulating a voltage or light level, modulating the amplitude or
> frequency of a carrier wave, altering the relative polarities of a
> series of magnets, and so on) and recovered by the playback mechanism.
> This digital stream is then converted back to analogue, in such a way
> that in theory, the pressure waves generated by the output device are a
> perfect reproduction of the pressure variations at the microphone
diaphgram.
>
> Please feel free to explain at what points in this chain the signal
> (data) changes from being analogue to digital and back again.

I will answer this tomorrow. If I'm in the mood.

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

On 6/15/2011 6:00 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "John > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> So we have (In theory) a digital signal coming into the read head ("full
>> light" or "no light") changing from one to the other at a variable rate,
>> which can, in theory, only vary in approximate time steps, being
>> converted into a stream of high and low voltages which is fed into a
>> decoder and buffer and DAC system, which outputs a voltage which is (in
>> theory, again) constrained to being one of a number of discrete values.
>> These discretely varying values (Still digital?) are fed into a low pass
>> filter network which gives a continuously varying output voltage.
>> Analogue or digital?
>>
>> At which point do *you* consider that the digital data represented by
>> the stream of pits and lands on the CD become a continuously varying
>> analogue signal, as perceived by the listener's ear? It can't be a
>> gradual process, becoming more analogue as it goes along the chain,
>> surely? Maybe you have digital ears?
>>
>> Actually, in a sort of analogue, wetware, way, you do.....
>>>
>>>> The waveform is then quantised by a circuit which decides on which side
>>>> of a time threshold the zero axis crossing lies, so then the
> information
>>>> becomes digital by your definition. You may have disagreed with my
>>>> 'shorthand' way of describing the waveforms by the way they carry
>>>> information, but I don't think we are in any doubt about how the
>>>> information is being carried at various points in the chain.
>>>
>>>> It is a little more difficult to decide what happens when the digital
>>>> signal is used to reconstitute an electrical analogue of the original
>>>> sound wave. As the output waveform of a DAC can only take cetain
>>>> specified levels, the information at that point is still digital by
> your
>>>> definition. However, once it has been through a low-pass filter, it
> can
>>>> have intermediate values -so presumably the filter on the output of the
>>>> DAC is where the true conversion from digital to analogue takes place?
>>>
>>> The answer is "no".
>>>
>>> Running the output of a DAC through a low-pass filter does not make the
>>> signal analog. You're believing something without thinking it through.
>>>
>> If I connect an oscilloscope across a microphone next to my ears, I see
>> a stepless (But with added noise) signal. If I connect it across the
>> speaker output of an amplifier, I also see a stepless signal. If I
>> connect it across the output of the low pass filter after the DAC, I see
>> more or less the same waveform. If I connect it across the output of the
>> DAC, before the low pass filter, I see steps, albeit small ones, in the
>> waveform. If I put it across the output of the read head, I get a stream
>> of relatively high (1) and relatively low (0) voltages, with randomly
>> varying times (within limits) between threshold crossings. Depending on
>> the times between threshold crossings compared with the data word
>> length, the output value from the serial to parallel converter varies in
>> discrete steps, which are defined by a 16 bit representation of the
>> required output voltage.
>>
>> So where would *you* say the conversion from digital data (on the CD) to
>> analogue representation (At the listener's eardrum) takes place?
>>
>> By my reckoning, the overall chain starts (In the case of a live
>> recording from a microphone) as an analogue voltage. This is then
>> converted into a digital signal and processed (Not necessarily in that
>> order). This data stream is then transmitted by an undetermined means
>> (Modulating a voltage or light level, modulating the amplitude or
>> frequency of a carrier wave, altering the relative polarities of a
>> series of magnets, and so on) and recovered by the playback mechanism.
>> This digital stream is then converted back to analogue, in such a way
>> that in theory, the pressure waves generated by the output device are a
>> perfect reproduction of the pressure variations at the microphone
> diaphgram.
>>
>> Please feel free to explain at what points in this chain the signal
>> (data) changes from being analogue to digital and back again.
>
> I will answer this tomorrow. If I'm in the mood.
>
>
Cue Henhouse Five + Two,
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF8vPLAF9tY >

Later...
Ron Capik
--

[William Sommerwerck]

> So let S be an "analog" signal for which there exists
> transform T. The output of transform T is a digital signal D.\
> D = T(S), in other words.

Ptui.

There's no such thing as an analog signal. Not in the way you're using the
term.

A carrier is neither analog nor digital. How can you not understand that?

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Adrian > wrote in message
> valid.invalid...
>> William > wrote:
>
>>> I've learned over the past decade that even people with PhDs don't
>>> understand the difference between analog and digital. So I will say
>>> nothing else, except to quote Lex Luthor... "Think people, think!".
>
>> If you know something we don't, could you please convey it with
>> a better S/N ratio.
>
> From my perspective, I'm not the one generating the noise. But I'll try
> again.
>
> How many times do I have to explain that "analog" and "digital" refer to the
> way data are represented/transmitted -- as either continuous variation, or
> quantized variation? Waveform has nothing to do with it. Sine waves are not
> analog, pulses are not digital.
>
> It is particularly offensive to hear people talk about "analog" carriers
> conveying "digital" information. If a carrier is, in and of itself, analog,
> what exactly is it the analog OF?
>


So let S be an "analog" signal for which there exists transform T. The
output of transform T is a digital signal D.

D = T(S), in other words.

T could then be an ADC, a CDMA decoder, a QSPK decoder, yadda. But the
signal input is, for lack of a better term, "analog". It's expected to
be transmitted from one node to another in an analog fashion - the
receiving node has an analog plus noise and distortion of what was
transmitted. Amplifiers, equalizers and other things may be applied to
signal S.

'Taint rockit surg'ry. :) Not usually...

--
Les Cargill

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:37:59 -0400, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> You are referring to CIRC, but that is NOT "scrambling" the data.
>>>>> The difference is important to codecs (if an aspiring chef
>>>>> attending a class on preparing a food that required folding the
>>>>> ingredients, not knowing the difference between interleaving and
>>>>> scrambling might result in a slap in the head with a spatula). ;-)
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm referring to interleaving.
>>>>
>>> CIRC stands for cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon coding, so it _is_ the
>>> interleaving that you're referring to, and it is not "scrambling"
>>> the data.
>>
>> Yes, CIRC is a specific kind of CRC code which is interleaved. But
>> it's not just the CRC which is interleaved, it's the data as well.
>>
>Who said anything about the Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC)?
>
>> Interleaving is the process of putting the data out on the spiral so
>> that it is not sequential; if consecutive bits are damaged, the
>> damage is effectively to widely spaced bits in the source stream.
>>
>I know what interleaving is, and I know what scrambling data is. Please read
>more closely, Scott!
>
>> You can call it "scrambling" or "rarranging" or whatever you like.
>>
>Well, I prefer to be more precise than that so as not to confuse people that
>don't know the difference, or that scrambling has a meaning w/r/t data that
>is very different from interleaving.

Scrambling means making the data impossible to recover by anyone who
does not have the key. It is a form of encryption.

d

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> So let S be an "analog" signal for which there exists
>> transform T. The output of transform T is a digital signal D.\
>> D = T(S), in other words.
>
> Ptui.
>
> There's no such thing as an analog signal. Not in the way you're using the
> term.
>
> A carrier is neither analog nor digital. How can you not understand that?
>
>

I really don't know what you mean then. I'm out.

--
Les Cargill

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
: A carrier is neither analog nor digital. How can you not understand that?

Because if I type in "analog carrier signal" into Google I get 97,000 hits,
and if I type in "digital carrier signal", I get 36,000 hits. Something
tells me that you guys are arguing from completely different semantic points
of reference.

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:51:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"geoff" > wrote in message
...
>>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote
>>>>> in message ...
>>>>
>>>>>>> Hence their involvement in health care. That, and the lengthy
>>>>>>> painful death by cancer of their cousin right on the heels of the
>>>>>>> death of their youngest brother.
>>
>>>>>> Then, obviously, they never studied the New Testament.
>>
>>>>> I'm dying to read how you can justify that statement since
>>>>> it is absolutely false, as a practical matter.
>>
>>>> Point taken. Let me rephrase.
>>
>>>> They either did not read it carefully, or think about what it
>>>> actually said.
>>
>>> Or recognised that it was a fairy story ....
>>
>>If it is, then it is a fairy story that is surprisingly well supported by
>>historic documents. Please provide evidence of just one other fairy story
>>that is documented as well with origional documents from say 1600-1800
>>years
>>ago.

> There is not one historic document - and I mean not even a single one
> - that supports the fairy story of Christianity.

Really?

> Every existing
> document concerning it was written by a member of the cult.

Then you admit that the documents exist, and have changed the argument to
haggling over authorship?

I guess you've purpounded a new truth, and that is that history should never
ever be based on the writings of people who were involved with making it.

Sic transit Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisnehower, John Kennedy, Thomas
Jefferson, John Adams...

Interesting new rule you just made up, friend! ;-)

[Scott Dorsey]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:37:59 -0400, "Neil Gould"
>
>Who said anything about the Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC)?

I did, because it's important. It's the reason why interleaving is useful.
Interleaving spreads error distributions out so CRCs can deal with them
effectively.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

> I ask, respectfully, that at some future date (whenever the mood strikes
> you), that you read through the four gospels, paying close attention to
> what
> Jesus actually said. * I ask that you put out of mind any interpretations
> you currently accept, anything your church says, anything from infidels or
> atheists. Just look at the words, and take them literally.

That is intellectually suboptimal - one never reads and interprets documents
only perfectly literally.

But if your point is that reading the Bible does not always have the same
outcome, then of course I agree with you. That's been true of everything of
significance I can ever recall reading.

William, there is a little Bible school down in Florida named Pensecola
Bible Institute (See Wikipedia) whose faculty you seem to want to join. ;-)

As soon as you demand literal interpretation, you are implicitly demanding
that only one translation or original language version of the document ever
be used. I believe that PBI chose the King James version.

Hey, if it the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it should be good
enough for you! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> > I ask, respectfully, that at some future date (whenever the mood
>> > strikes you), that you read through the four gospels, paying close
>> > attention to what Jesus actually said. * I ask that you put out of
>> > mind any interpretations you currently accept, anything your church
>> > says, anything from infidels or atheists. Just look at the words, and
>> > take them literally.
>
>> I ask respectfully that you leave this topic alone, William. You take for
>> granted that the _interpretation_ that you have access to *can* be taken
>> literally, yet it is a translation from languages that are more
>> figurative
>> than literal (if you haven't spent any time in that part of the world, it
>> may be a difficult concept to grasp), and it was translated by folks with
> an
>> agenda during the compilation. So, by your own criteria, taking the
> context literally to gain an understanding of the original intent of its
> messages
> is not possible.

> Many churches (not all) insist that the Bible is literally true.

OK, but many churches insist that their female members deliver their babies
at home and avoid the use of secular hospitals. The point being that "many
churches" even self-proclaimed Christian churches, can and do believe
everything from soup to nuts.

William, you failed to take a logical step that your last statement above
demands - and that is that you must frist query my beliefs in any
controversal matter. By failing to do that, you presumed to read my mind.

I propose that at your great distance from Christianity, all Christians
believe the same. Obviously, not logical if you think about it for more than
a second.

> I was asking Arny to read the four gospels in that context, which is
> perfectly
> reasonable.

No, its not.

If you want an intersting afternoon, you might want to read the book "Pagan
Christianity". Pretty accurate.

[William Sommerwerck]

> wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> : A carrier is neither analog nor digital. How can you not understand
that?

> Because if I type in "analog carrier signal" into Google I get 97,000
hits,
> and if I type in "digital carrier signal", I get 36,000 hits. Something
> tells me that you guys are arguing from completely different semantic
> points of reference.

That's partly the case. But it's also true that the appearance of a
particular sequence of words in a Google search proves nothing. "Ma and Pa
Kettle" shows up 240,000 times, but they're not real people.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...

>> I ask, respectfully, that at some future date (whenever the mood strikes
>> you), that you read through the four gospels, paying close attention to
>> what
>> Jesus actually said. * I ask that you put out of mind any interpretations
>> you currently accept, anything your church says, anything from infidels
or
>> atheists. Just look at the words, and take them literally.

> That is intellectually suboptimal - one never reads and interprets
documents
> only perfectly literally.

> But if your point is that reading the Bible does not always have the same
> outcome, then of course I agree with you. That's been true of everything
of
> significance I can ever recall reading.

> William, there is a little Bible school down in Florida named Pensecola
> Bible Institute (see Wikipedia) whose faculty you seem to want to join.
;-)

I didn't advocate a strictly literal reading of the Bible. See below.


> As soon as you demand literal interpretation, you are implicitly demanding
> that only one translation or original language version of the document
ever
> be used. I believe that PBI chose the King James version.

I did nothing of the sort.

> Hey, if it the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it should be
good
> enough for you! ;-)

I hope that's a joke, because the KJV postdates Paul by about 1600 years.

I was raised in a church (which I no longer belong to -- I am a member of no
church) which insisted that the Bible's spiritual meaning was what truly
mattered. I have no problem with that.

The point I was trying to make is that there are things in the NT that
/explicitly/ contradict common doctrinal points, and do so in a clear,
unambiguous manner. If one is trying to understand a document, it makes
sense to /start/ with the literal meaning.

For example... Some churches believe that Jesus was the physical incarnation
of God -- which is ludicrously self-contradictory. Yet Jesus said at least
twice that he wasn't.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...

> OK, but many churches insist that their female members deliver their
babies
> at home and avoid the use of secular hospitals. The point being that
"many
> churches" even self-proclaimed Christian churches, can and do believe
> everything from soup to nuts.

> William, you failed to take a logical step that your last statement above
> demands - and that is that you must frist query my beliefs in any
> controversal matter. By failing to do that, you presumed to read my mind.

> I propose that at your great distance from Christianity, all Christians
> believe the same. Obviously, not logical if you think about it for more
than
> a second.

>> I was asking Arny to read the four gospels in that context, which is
>> perfectly reasonable.

> No, its not.

> If you want an intersting afternoon, you might want to read the book
"Pagan
> Christianity". Pretty accurate.

You were the one who raised the point about your sons wanting to cure
cancer. I wanted you to read the gospels carefully to see what Jesus said
about such things. Since you refuse to, I will ask a leading question...

If a woman with breast cancer came to Jesus, what course of therapy --
drugs, radiation, surgery -- would he prescribe for her?

He gave an unambiguous answer to that question. It's right there, in plain
language. You would do well to read it.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> I ask, respectfully, that at some future date (whenever the mood strikes
>>> you), that you read through the four gospels, paying close attention to
>>> what
>>> Jesus actually said. * I ask that you put out of mind any
>>> interpretations
>>> you currently accept, anything your church says, anything from infidels
> or
>>> atheists. Just look at the words, and take them literally.
>
>> That is intellectually suboptimal - one never reads and interprets
> documents
>> only perfectly literally.
>
>> But if your point is that reading the Bible does not always have the same
>> outcome, then of course I agree with you. That's been true of everything
> of
>> significance I can ever recall reading.
>
>> William, there is a little Bible school down in Florida named Pensecola
>> Bible Institute (see Wikipedia) whose faculty you seem to want to join.
> ;-)
>
> I didn't advocate a strictly literal reading of the Bible. See below.



>> As soon as you demand literal interpretation, you are implicitly
>> demanding
>> that only one translation or original language version of the document
>> ever
>> be used. I believe that PBI chose the King James version.

> I did nothing of the sort.

Then you missed the point that you have to choose a very specific source if
you are going to interpret at all literally.

>> Hey, if it the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it should be
> good> enough for you! ;-)
>
> I hope that's a joke, because the KJV postdates Paul by about 1600 years.

Notice the smiley? Yes William, its a joke.

> I was raised in a church (which I no longer belong to -- I am a member of
> no
> church) which insisted that the Bible's spiritual meaning was what truly
> mattered. I have no problem with that.

Seems reasonable enough to me.

> The point I was trying to make is that there are things in the NT that
> /explicitly/ contradict common doctrinal points, and do so in a clear,
> unambiguous manner. If one is trying to understand a document, it makes
> sense to /start/ with the literal meaning.

Your mistake here is the implicit presumption that I've swallowed your list
of common doctrinal points. Of course there are statements of doctrine in
any field that need to be criticized. Note that the word doctrine is widely
used outside of the study of religion.

> For example... Some churches believe that Jesus was the physical
> incarnation
> of God -- which is ludicrously self-contradictory. Yet Jesus said at least
> twice that he wasn't.

I'm not sure what you mean by "physical incarnation of God". On the face of
it, it could be a ludicrous statement if God is infinite and the incarnation
is finite.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

> You were the one who raised the point about your sons wanting to cure
> cancer.

True statement.

>I wanted you to read the gospels carefully to see what Jesus said
> about such things. Since you refuse to, I will ask a leading question...

> If a woman with breast cancer came to Jesus, what course of therapy --
> drugs, radiation, surgery -- would he prescribe for her?

Jesus seems to be enough of an unpredictable character that even just the
list of choices is not reasonable. Too limited.

> He gave an unambiguous answer to that question. It's right there, in plain
> language. You would do well to read it.

Actually, there is no biblical record of any woman with breast cancer ever
came to Jesus for healing. So the question is merely hypothetical and thus
need not have any right or wrong answer.

A woman with a vaginal discharge did come to Jesus, and since none of the
elements of your list were readily available at the time, he cured her by
other essentially undisclosed means.

To me, tThe more signficiant point was that this simple act of mercy
cemented the religious authorities of the day's plans to kill him.

What I take away from that story is to not be overly impressed with
religious authorities. YMMV. ;-)

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You were the one who raised the point about your sons wanting to cure
> > cancer.
>
> True statement.
>
> >I wanted you to read the gospels carefully to see what Jesus said
> > about such things. Since you refuse to, I will ask a leading question...
>
> > If a woman with breast cancer came to Jesus, what course of therapy --
> > drugs, radiation, surgery -- would he prescribe for her?
>
> Jesus seems to be enough of an unpredictable character that even just the
> list of choices is not reasonable. Too limited.
>
> > He gave an unambiguous answer to that question. It's right there, in
plain
> > language. You would do well to read it.
>
> Actually, there is no biblical record of any woman with breast cancer ever
> came to Jesus for healing. So the question is merely hypothetical and thus
> need not have any right or wrong answer.

Very well, then. See John 14:12.

I will not discuss this any further.


> A woman with a vaginal discharge did come to Jesus, and since none of the
> elements of your list were readily available at the time, he cured her by
> other essentially undisclosed means.
>
> To me, the more signficiant point was that this simple act of mercy
> cemented the religious authorities of the day's plans to kill him.
>
> What I take away from that story is to not be overly impressed with
> religious authorities. YMMV. ;-)

I have no disagreement there.

This discussion has permanently cemented my point of view that, once people
accept a particular idea or belief system, it is almost always impossible to
get them to even consider looking at something from a different
perspective -- even a simple, obvious one.

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
: > wrote in message
: > William Sommerwerck > wrote:
: > : A carrier is neither analog nor digital. How can you not understand that?
: > Because if I type in "analog carrier signal" into Google I get 97,000 hits
: > and if I type in "digital carrier signal", I get 36,000 hits.
: the appearance of a particular sequence of words in a Google search proves
: nothing.

I never said it was proof. I was responding specifically to your question
of how could anyone not understand your claim. Look up and see what I was
responding to. Because, simply reiterating that you are right isn't proof
either. You haven't offered a single technical bit of support for your
side, whereas everyone else has. You might be more convincing if you
didn't stop at just saying that you're right, and instead explained why.

[William Sommerwerck]

> wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> : > wrote in message
> : > William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> : > : A carrier is neither analog nor digital. How can you not understand
that?

> : > Because if I type in "analog carrier signal" into Google I get 97,000
hits
> : > and if I type in "digital carrier signal", I get 36,000 hits.
> : the appearance of a particular sequence of words in a Google search
proves
> : nothing.

> I never said it was proof.

All right, then -- you offered it as overwhelming evidence.


> I was responding specifically to your question
> of how could anyone not understand your claim. Look up and see what I was
> responding to. Because, simply reiterating that you are right isn't proof
> either. You haven't offered a single technical bit of support for your
> side, whereas everyone else has. You might be more convincing if you
> didn't stop at just saying that you're right, and instead explained why.

I've explained it (I think) repeatedly...

"Analog" and "digital" are ways of representing data (as continuous
variation and quantized values, respectively). The carrier of that
representation is no more analog or digital than a piece of writing paper is
the information printed on it.

The confusion occurs because we use the word "signal" in two senses -- the
information being conveyed, or the "package" of the carrier modulated by
that information -- just as a "letter" can be paper with writing on it, or
the contents of that writing.

Before you go into a huff over the latter statement -- If you read a
biography with "John Doe sent the following letter to Jane Doe...", you
would never object by saying "That's not the letter. Where's the paper it
was written on?"

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:08:58 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> There is not one historic document - and I mean not even a single one
>> - that supports the fairy story of Christianity.
>
>Really?
>
>> Every existing
>> document concerning it was written by a member of the cult.
>
>Then you admit that the documents exist, and have changed the argument to
>haggling over authorship?
>
>I guess you've purpounded a new truth, and that is that history should never
>ever be based on the writings of people who were involved with making it.
>
>Sic transit Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisnehower, John Kennedy, Thomas
>Jefferson, John Adams...
>
>Interesting new rule you just made up, friend! ;-)
>

You misapprehend. None of those documents by the fanboys is historic.
The earliest of them was written at least two generations after the
events it purports to describe - thus it has no historicity.

If there were any description of any of the purported events and
people in the historic records of the cities - unrelated to the
fanbase - then the story would be different. As it is, you have zilch.

d

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
: > wrote in message
: > I never said it was proof.
: All right, then -- you offered it as overwhelming evidence.

Absolutely not, I never even offered it as evidence against your claim.
Read again what I was responding to... I offered it as evidence as to
*why some people would not find your claim obvious*. That is very
different from evidence on the truth of the original claim. In an sort
of analogous (no pun intended) way, you made the same mistake that you you
are claiming others are making... confusing the medium versus the message.

: "Analog" and "digital" are ways of representing data (as continuous
: variation and quantized values, respectively). The carrier of that
: representation is no more analog or digital than a piece of writing paper is
: the information printed on it.
: The confusion occurs because we use the word "signal" in two senses -- the
: information being conveyed, or the "package" of the carrier modulated by
: that information -- just as a "letter" can be paper with writing on it, or
: the contents of that writing.

I think the real source of the confusion here is that the term "analog"
has many different meanings in the English language. You are using it
strictly to define the nature of stored information. But many consider
all naturally produced waves to be analog, because under the limits of
existing measuring devices they are themselves, for all practical purposes,
continuous as opposed to discrete. Under that interpretation, such a
transmitted wave (in this case a carrier wave) is analog and can thus be
measured or processed as an analog wave without regard to the information
it contains, be that analog or digital. I could be wrong, but if I
understood correctly, that is the sort of method that was originally proposed.

[William Sommerwerck]

> wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> : > wrote in message

> : "Analog" and "digital" are ways of representing data (as continuous
> : variation and quantized values, respectively). The carrier of that
> : representation is no more analog or digital than a piece of writing
paper is
> : the information printed on it.
> : The confusion occurs because we use the word "signal" in two senses --
the
> : information being conveyed, or the "package" of the carrier modulated by
> : that information -- just as a "letter" can be paper with writing on it,
or
> : the contents of that writing.
>
> I think the real source of the confusion here is that the term "analog"
> has many different meanings in the English language. You are using it
> strictly to define the nature of stored information. But many consider
> all naturally produced waves to be analog, because under the limits of
> existing measuring devices they are themselves, for all practical
purposes,
> continuous as opposed to discrete. Under that interpretation, such a
> transmitted wave (in this case a carrier wave) is analog and can thus be
> measured or processed as an analog wave without regard to the information
> it contains, be that analog or digital.

Nothing personal, but if people can use words in any way they like, then the
words' meanings become meaningless.


> I could be wrong, but if I
> understood correctly, that is the sort of method that was originally
proposed.

I'm not sure what you mean.

A carrier wave, in and of itself, conveys no information -- other than that
some generator is producing it. Measuring or processing it -- by itself --
tells us nothing.

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:08:58 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>> There is not one historic document - and I mean not even a single one
>>> - that supports the fairy story of Christianity.
>>
>>Really?
>>
>>> Every existing
>>> document concerning it was written by a member of the cult.
>>
>>Then you admit that the documents exist, and have changed the argument to
>>haggling over authorship?
>>
>>I guess you've purpounded a new truth, and that is that history should
>>never
>>ever be based on the writings of people who were involved with making it.
>>
>>Sic transit Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisnehower, John Kennedy, Thomas
>>Jefferson, John Adams...

>>Interesting new rule you just made up, friend! ;-)

> You misapprehend.

No, I caught you making a up a rule for the bible that is untenable in
many other situations.

> None of those documents by the fanboys is historic.

Says who?

> The earliest of them was written at least two generations after the
> events it purports to describe - thus it has no historicity.

Yet another made up rule - no document written at other than the exact time
when the event happened has any historicity.

You reiterated a slightly different form of your earlier bogus rule by
excluding all writings by people who had any kind of vested interest in the
topic being discussed.

I'd mention Flavius Josephus, but you probably have an equally self-serving
deconstruction for him.

BTW, congratulations, you just destroyed the relevance of the vast majority
of all extant historical documents.

> If there were any description of any of the purported events and
> people in the historic records of the cities - unrelated to the
> fanbase - then the story would be different. As it is, you have zilch.

As it is, you keep making up new rules that if applied broadly, would
destroy the study of history as we know it.

If you want a real thrill, look up the actual dates when the oldest extant
documents describing the Greek and Roman empires before 1 AD were actually
written. The majority of them were written a number of centuries later than
they purport to happen. And you want to complain about a mere generation or
two!

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
: Nothing personal, but if people can use words in any way they like, then
: the words' meanings become meaningless.

There must be at least a dozen valid definitions of "analog" within the
scientific/technical world.

: A carrier wave, in and of itself, conveys no information -- other than that
: some generator is producing it. Measuring or processing it -- by itself --
: tells us nothing.

Couldn't you determine the reliability/stability of the carrier wave itself?

[geoff]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message news:ita0c8
>>
> Specifically, s/he said:
>
> On 6/12/2011, muzician21 wrote:
> "I've started reading the Bob Katz mastering book and am encountering
> some eye-opening things. I wasn't previously aware of the error-
> correction aspect of digital recording that apparently goes on
> constantly. Apparently there's even a designation - BLER - regarding
> acceptable/unacceptable error rates."

Yep - said nothing in that about CD - seemed more worried about BLER in
relation to digital recording, and in that context I maintain that error
correction is irrelevant, unless your HDD is faulty..

geoff

[geoff]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> If it is, then it is a fairy story that is surprisingly well supported by
> historic documents. Please provide evidence of just one other fairy story
> that is documented as well with origional documents from say 1600-1800
> years ago.
>

Applies to many mutually-exclusive religons. Which one would you like ?

geoff

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

On 6/16/2011 4:04 PM, wrote:
> William > wrote:
> : Nothing personal, but if people can use words in any way they like, then
> : the words' meanings become meaningless.
>
> There must be at least a dozen valid definitions of "analog" within the
> scientific/technical world.
>
> : A carrier wave, in and of itself, conveys no information -- other than that
> : some generator is producing it. Measuring or processing it -- by itself --
> : tells us nothing.
>
> Couldn't you determine the reliability/stability of the carrier wave itself?
>
Hmmm, I notice the word "wave" has crept in here. Must a carrier
have a wave? I believe part of the problem in this discussion is
that we're missing a proper definition of carrier.

Later...
Ron Capik
--

[hank alrich]

geoff > wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > If it is, then it is a fairy story that is surprisingly well supported by
> > historic documents. Please provide evidence of just one other fairy story
> > that is documented as well with origional documents from say 1600-1800
> > years ago.
> >
>
> Applies to many mutually-exclusive religons. Which one would you like ?
>
> geoff

How can documents be "original" in terms of documenting events if they
were written at least two hundred years or more after the alleged
events? We believe what we want to believe and disregard the rest.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:26:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:08:58 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> There is not one historic document - and I mean not even a single one
>>>> - that supports the fairy story of Christianity.
>>>
>>>Really?
>>>
>>>> Every existing
>>>> document concerning it was written by a member of the cult.
>>>
>>>Then you admit that the documents exist, and have changed the argument to
>>>haggling over authorship?
>>>
>>>I guess you've purpounded a new truth, and that is that history should
>>>never
>>>ever be based on the writings of people who were involved with making it.
>>>
>>>Sic transit Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisnehower, John Kennedy, Thomas
>>>Jefferson, John Adams...
>
>>>Interesting new rule you just made up, friend! ;-)
>
>> You misapprehend.
>
>No, I caught you making a up a rule for the bible that is untenable in
>many other situations.
>
>> None of those documents by the fanboys is historic.
>
>Says who?
>
Says anyone who understands the difference between history and myth.

>> The earliest of them was written at least two generations after the
>> events it purports to describe - thus it has no historicity.
>
>Yet another made up rule - no document written at other than the exact time
>when the event happened has any historicity.
>
Exactly. If you tried to write about someone who lived two generations
ago, and about whom there existed no original source material,
everything you wrote would be garbage. Particularly so if you decided
to claim supernatural powers for him.; You would rightly be laughed
out of town.

>You reiterated a slightly different form of your earlier bogus rule by
>excluding all writings by people who had any kind of vested interest in the
>topic being discussed.
>
No, I said they were the sole source. It would be ok if they were
simply backup, but they aren't.

>I'd mention Flavius Josephus, but you probably have an equally self-serving
>deconstruction for him.
>
Josephus - why do Christians always trot him out? First he was no more
contemporary than any of the other sources. Second, most of the
writings attributed to him were exposed as fakes as long ago as the
18th Century. And lastly the only relevant part of his writing is an
indirect reference to somebody called Chrestus - not an uncommon name
back than. Don't bother trying him as ammo again, please.

>BTW, congratulations, you just destroyed the relevance of the vast majority
>of all extant historical documents.
>
Not at all. Most historical documents are backed by actual evidence -
writings by disinterested, even opposing parties that confirm the
broad sway of the argument.

>> If there were any description of any of the purported events and
>> people in the historic records of the cities - unrelated to the
>> fanbase - then the story would be different. As it is, you have zilch.
>
>As it is, you keep making up new rules that if applied broadly, would
>destroy the study of history as we know it.
>

Stories written by members of a cult are not history. You are just
going to have to get used to the fact.

>If you want a real thrill, look up the actual dates when the oldest extant
>documents describing the Greek and Roman empires before 1 AD were actually
>written. The majority of them were written a number of centuries later than
>they purport to happen. And you want to complain about a mere generation or
>two!
>
What? There is archaeology to support the histories of Greece and
Rome. You will find coins with the heads of emperors on. How do you
think up this garbage? Name me a single archaeological find that shows
evidence (I won't be so mean as to ask for proof) of the existence of
a supernatural being living on Earth in the first century AD.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...

> What? There is archaeology to support the histories of Greece and
> Rome. You will find coins with the heads of emperors on.

A quick check shows that there are coins that show pictures for only about
1/3 of all of the emporers that are believed by some to have existed.

A coin with someone's name and picture on it is not the lofty level of proof
that you have been asking for related to Christ.

> How do you think up this garbage?

Garbage? I'm watching you do the double standard thing very nicely, thank
you

> Name me a single archaeological find that shows evidence (I won't be so
> mean as to ask for proof) of
> the existence of a supernatural being living on Earth in the first century
> AD.

Again, you seem to be satisfied with a far lower level of proof for the
existence of Roman Emperors. A name and an image suffices for you there, but
there is no proof that all of these coins are exactly contemporaneous with
the person pictured.

Many emporor's names are nicknames or aliases, both of which are a kind of
fiction. You seem to be willing to accept fictional accounts here...

[Arny Krueger]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> If it is, then it is a fairy story that is surprisingly well supported
>> by historic documents. Please provide evidence of just one other fairy
>> story that is documented as well with origional documents from say
>> 1600-1800 years ago.

> Applies to many mutually-exclusive religons. Which one would you like ?

No facts, again!

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:42:31 -0500, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>geoff > wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > If it is, then it is a fairy story that is surprisingly well supported by
>> > historic documents. Please provide evidence of just one other fairy story
>> > that is documented as well with origional documents from say 1600-1800
>> > years ago.
>> >
>>
>> Applies to many mutually-exclusive religons. Which one would you like ?
>>
>> geoff
>
>How can documents be "original" in terms of documenting events if they
>were written at least two hundred years or more after the alleged
>events? We believe what we want to believe and disregard the rest.

I'll only believe what there is convincing evidence for - everything
else is for the peasants.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:54:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>
>> What? There is archaeology to support the histories of Greece and
>> Rome. You will find coins with the heads of emperors on.
>
>A quick check shows that there are coins that show pictures for only about
>1/3 of all of the emporers that are believed by some to have existed.
>
>A coin with someone's name and picture on it is not the lofty level of proof
>that you have been asking for related to Christ.
>
>> How do you think up this garbage?
>
>Garbage? I'm watching you do the double standard thing very nicely, thank
>you
>
>> Name me a single archaeological find that shows evidence (I won't be so
>> mean as to ask for proof) of
>> the existence of a supernatural being living on Earth in the first century
>> AD.
>
>Again, you seem to be satisfied with a far lower level of proof for the
>existence of Roman Emperors. A name and an image suffices for you there, but
>there is no proof that all of these coins are exactly contemporaneous with
>the person pictured.
>
>Many emporor's names are nicknames or aliases, both of which are a kind of
>fiction. You seem to be willing to accept fictional accounts here...
>

There is no hope for you. You are determined to believe in garbage
fairy stories.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:54:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> What? There is archaeology to support the histories of Greece and
>>> Rome. You will find coins with the heads of emperors on.
>>
>>A quick check shows that there are coins that show pictures for only about
>>1/3 of all of the emporers that are believed by some to have existed.
>>
>>A coin with someone's name and picture on it is not the lofty level of
>>proof
>>that you have been asking for related to Christ.
>>
>>> How do you think up this garbage?
>>
>>Garbage? I'm watching you do the double standard thing very nicely, thank
>>you
>>
>>> Name me a single archaeological find that shows evidence (I won't be so
>>> mean as to ask for proof) of
>>> the existence of a supernatural being living on Earth in the first
>>> century
>>> AD.
>>
>>Again, you seem to be satisfied with a far lower level of proof for the
>>existence of Roman Emperors. A name and an image suffices for you there,
>>but
>>there is no proof that all of these coins are exactly contemporaneous with
>>the person pictured.
>>
>>Many emporor's names are nicknames or aliases, both of which are a kind of
>>fiction. You seem to be willing to accept fictional accounts here...
>>
>
> There is no hope for you. You are determined to believe in garbage
> fairy stories.

Your choice of words shows your prejudices which fatally wounds your
arguments.

[Neil Gould]

geoff wrote:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message news:ita0c8
>>>
>> Specifically, s/he said:
>>
>> On 6/12/2011, muzician21 wrote:
>> "I've started reading the Bob Katz mastering book and am encountering
>> some eye-opening things. I wasn't previously aware of the error-
>> correction aspect of digital recording that apparently goes on
>> constantly. Apparently there's even a designation - BLER - regarding
>> acceptable/unacceptable error rates."
>
> Yep - said nothing in that about CD - seemed more worried about BLER
> in relation to digital recording, and in that context I maintain that
> error correction is irrelevant, unless your HDD is faulty..
>
Well, you can maintain whatever you like, but the facts regarding BLER are
otherwise.

Perhaps a good place to start is with "...the Bob Katz MASTERING book..."

--
Neil

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger > wrote:

> "geoff" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> If it is, then it is a fairy story that is surprisingly well supported
> >> by historic documents. Please provide evidence of just one other fairy
> >> story that is documented as well with origional documents from say
> >> 1600-1800 years ago.
>
> > Applies to many mutually-exclusive religons. Which one would you like ?
>
> No facts, again!

His statement is one of fact, completely.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[geoff]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> geoff wrote:
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message news:ita0c8
>>>>
>>> Specifically, s/he said:
>>>
>>> On 6/12/2011, muzician21 wrote:
>>> "I've started reading the Bob Katz mastering book and am encountering
>>> some eye-opening things. I wasn't previously aware of the error-
>>> correction aspect of digital recording that apparently goes on
>>> constantly. Apparently there's even a designation - BLER - regarding
>>> acceptable/unacceptable error rates."
>>
>> Yep - said nothing in that about CD - seemed more worried about BLER
>> in relation to digital recording, and in that context I maintain that
>> error correction is irrelevant, unless your HDD is faulty..
>>
> Well, you can maintain whatever you like, but the facts regarding BLER are
> otherwise.
>
> Perhaps a good place to start is with "...the Bob Katz MASTERING book..."
>


I've had and studied that book for 5 (?) years.

Still don't see where BLER and 'digital errors' relate to recording. Do you
get a BLER or digital errors off your A-D (unless a huge jitter problem) ?
Off your HDD ? In your digital processing ?

If there are errors in those areas, then something is BROKEN.

Yes, there are BLERs than can be important in CD, DVD, and DAT, but the OP
appeared to be getting fraught about the thought of 'digital errors'
throughout the whole process, starting at recording.

geoff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

geoff wrote:

[someone quoted}

>> Well, you can maintain whatever you like, but the facts regarding
>> BLER are otherwise.

>> Perhaps a good place to start is with "...the Bob Katz MASTERING
>> book..."

> I've had and studied that book for 5 (?) years.

> Still don't see where BLER and 'digital errors' relate to recording.
> Do you get a BLER or digital errors off your A-D (unless a huge
> jitter problem) ? Off your HDD ? In your digital processing ?

> If there are errors in those areas, then something is BROKEN.

> Yes, there are BLERs than can be important in CD, DVD, and DAT, but
> the OP appeared to be getting fraught about the thought of 'digital
> errors' throughout the whole process, starting at recording.

The original question was about whether it is possible to make an error free
recording and the answer is "yes, provided data over- or underflow does not
take place". The methods for storing perfect data on imperfect media is
another question.

> geoff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Neil Gould]

geoff wrote:
>
> Still don't see where BLER and 'digital errors' relate to recording.
> Do you get a BLER or digital errors off your A-D (unless a huge
> jitter problem) ? Off your HDD ? In your digital processing ?
>
Do you not know that BLER is an issue when creating a MASTER CD?

--
Neil

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/17/2011 4:25 AM, geoff wrote:

> Still don't see where BLER and 'digital errors' relate to recording.

They aren't. Those are errors in the storage medium. Digital
tape has the errors of the same nature. So does recording to
a hard drive, and probably flash memory, though those errors
have different names than BLER. The point about knowing this
error rate, however, is that up to a certain limit, when the
recording is played back properly, the errors are completely
correctable. So, in practice, unless you analyze it bit by
bit, you can't tell the difference between an error-free
recording and a recording with correctable (and corrected)
errors.

> Do you
> get a BLER or digital errors off your A-D (unless a huge jitter problem) ?
> Off your HDD ? In your digital processing ?

No. You get them when you try to store the data on a
physical medium and something doesn't stick correctly. It's
similar to dropouts on analog tape or surface noise on a
phonograph record, only those "errors" usually occur some
time after the recording and are not correctable.

> Yes, there are BLERs than can be important in CD, DVD, and DAT, but the OP
> appeared to be getting fraught about the thought of 'digital errors'
> throughout the whole process, starting at recording.

Like many newsgroup inqueries, it was a bad question.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[geoff]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> geoff wrote:
>>
>> Still don't see where BLER and 'digital errors' relate to recording.
>> Do you get a BLER or digital errors off your A-D (unless a huge
>> jitter problem) ? Off your HDD ? In your digital processing ?
>>
> Do you not know that BLER is an issue when creating a MASTER CD?
>
>

Again, that was not the context implied. The implied context was fretting
about 'digital errors' and BLER in respect of (all) digital recording
processes.

And BLER is not an issue wrt to DDP files that are what mastered CDs should
be presented to pressing plants on.

geoff?

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>I've had and studied that book for 5 (?) years.
>
>Still don't see where BLER and 'digital errors' relate to recording. Do you
>get a BLER or digital errors off your A-D (unless a huge jitter problem) ?
>Off your HDD ? In your digital processing ?

Huge numbers of them come off your HDD. Huge numbers of them come off a CD.
Unless you're designing hard drives, or you are burning CD-Rs, it doesn't
matter, because the error correction takes care of it.

If you're designing hard drives or burning CD-Rs, you need to know about error
rates so you can make good judgements about how close to the edge of being
broken you are.

I don't design hard drives, but I sure burn a lot of CD-Rs.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil Gould]

geoff wrote:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> geoff wrote:
>>>
>>> Still don't see where BLER and 'digital errors' relate to
>>> recording. Do you get a BLER or digital errors off your A-D (unless
>>> a huge jitter problem) ? Off your HDD ? In your digital processing ?
>>>
>> Do you not know that BLER is an issue when creating a MASTER CD?
>>
>
> Again, that was not the context implied. The implied context was
> fretting about 'digital errors' and BLER in respect of (all) digital
> recording processes.
>
I disagree with your interpretation of "the context implied". There *is* a
context in which "mastering" and "BLER" is a perfectly legitimate matter,
and little reason to extend the context to areas where it is not an issue.
So, the question becomes, should a respondent introduce irrelevant areas
into the discussion when the likely result will be to confuse the OP or
obfuscate the question? I think not, YMMV.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Mike Rivers writes:
> No. You get them when you try to store the data on a
> physical medium and something doesn't stick correctly. It's similar
> to dropouts on analog tape or surface noise on a
> phonograph record, only those "errors" usually occur some
> time after the recording and are not correctable.

Indeed, which means when first working with new media it's a concern, but then if one finds that there are too many
errors not to buy that brand of writeable media again, or
burn at 1x <g>.

>> Yes, there are BLERs than can be important in CD, DVD, and DAT, but the OP
>> appeared to be getting fraught about the thought of 'digital errors'
>> throughout the whole process, starting at recording.

> Like many newsgroup inqueries, it was a bad question.

INdeed, and we all do it. WHat I think musician21 really
wanted to know is what steps he should take to avoid
unacceptable error rates, and how much he should concern
himself with it. IT's good to know about these things, but
the cure is often as I stated above, and earlier in this
thread. As I pointed out also earlier, there are lots of
good things to take away from reading Bob Katz however.
WHen I first got on the net I started reading some of his
writings on the web re calibrated monitoring levels, and
it's changed the way I work in some very positive ways.

As William noted also earlier in this thread, and I've
borrowed his quotation for use myself "we already know the
answers we just haven't asked the right questions."

wHich is why sometimes I will make two or three stabs at
asking a question on a newsgroup or mailing list until I
finally get to the point where I'm comfortable sending it.
How I formulate my question will often determine whether I
get any usable responses <g>.



Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[geoff]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> I disagree with your interpretation of "the context implied". There *is* a
> context in which "mastering" and "BLER" is a perfectly legitimate matter,
> and little reason to extend the context to areas where it is not an issue.
> So, the question becomes, should a respondent introduce irrelevant areas
> into the discussion when the likely result will be to confuse the OP or
> obfuscate the question? I think not, YMMV.


OK so we can agree to disagree on the deeper internals being relevant to the
OP's worries, Ind I agree that BLER is something to be aware of for critical
users when making CD-Rs if inferior or incompatible drives and media and
speeds are employed.

But can we agree that as a general user that the OP needn't fret about
'digital errors' in most of the other processes involved in digital
recording ?

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>
>OK so we can agree to disagree on the deeper internals being relevant to the
>OP's worries, Ind I agree that BLER is something to be aware of for critical
>users when making CD-Rs if inferior or incompatible drives and media and
>speeds are employed.

Or if you care about sending a PMCD to the pressing plant. Or if you care
about long-term aging. As the discs get older, the error rates go up. If
you start with a lower error rate to begin with, your chances are better.

>But can we agree that as a general user that the OP needn't fret about
>'digital errors' in most of the other processes involved in digital
>recording ?

Depends what 'general user' means. If you're burning CD-Rs on a regular
basis as a mastering engineer you sure as hell need to know.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> geoff > wrote:
>>
>>OK so we can agree to disagree on the deeper internals being relevant to
>>the
>>OP's worries, Ind I agree that BLER is something to be aware of for
>>critical
>>users when making CD-Rs if inferior or incompatible drives and media and
>>speeds are employed.
>
> Or if you care about sending a PMCD to the pressing plant. Or if you care
> about long-term aging. As the discs get older, the error rates go up. If
> you start with a lower error rate to begin with, your chances are better.
>
>>But can we agree that as a general user that the OP needn't fret about
>>'digital errors' in most of the other processes involved in digital
>>recording ?
>
> Depends what 'general user' means. If you're burning CD-Rs on a regular
> basis as a mastering engineer you sure as hell need to know.


I'm not talkilng about CDs at all here.

I'm talking about fretting about 'digital errors' in HDDs, audio interfaces,
DAW processing, etc. At the HDD internal subsystem there are errors (all
corrected of course), but for users if there is one bit error , then
something is broken.

geoff

[John Williamson]

geoff wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> geoff > wrote:
>>> OK so we can agree to disagree on the deeper internals being relevant to
>>> the
>>> OP's worries, Ind I agree that BLER is something to be aware of for
>>> critical
>>> users when making CD-Rs if inferior or incompatible drives and media and
>>> speeds are employed.
>> Or if you care about sending a PMCD to the pressing plant. Or if you care
>> about long-term aging. As the discs get older, the error rates go up. If
>> you start with a lower error rate to begin with, your chances are better.
>>
>>> But can we agree that as a general user that the OP needn't fret about
>>> 'digital errors' in most of the other processes involved in digital
>>> recording ?
>> Depends what 'general user' means. If you're burning CD-Rs on a regular
>> basis as a mastering engineer you sure as hell need to know.
>
>
> I'm not talkilng about CDs at all here.
>
> I'm talking about fretting about 'digital errors' in HDDs, audio interfaces,
> DAW processing, etc. At the HDD internal subsystem there are errors (all
> corrected of course), but for users if there is one bit error , then
> something is broken.
>
Very, very rarely what you put into a RAM location isn't what you get
back out, sometimes due to hardware problems, sometimes due to cosmic
rays. Not all RAM has parity checking. If you go into HDD specs deeply
enough, they quote an expected error rate of one bit $verybignumber,
which, last time I looked it up, meant that in a day of intensive video
editing, you might get a couple of uncorrected HDD errors.

Over the whole chain, though, you're right. Error checking should fix
any errors. Digital's a *lot* less error prone than analogue.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mark]

On Jun 18, 1:20*am, John Williamson >
wrote:
> geoff wrote:
> > "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> geoff > wrote:
> >>> OK so we can agree to disagree on the deeper internals being relevant to
> >>> the
> >>> OP's worries, Ind I agree that BLER is something to be aware of for
> >>> critical
> >>> users when making CD-Rs if inferior or incompatible drives and media and
> >>> speeds are employed.
> >> Or if you care about sending a PMCD to the pressing plant. *Or if you care
> >> about long-term aging. *As the discs get older, the error rates go up. *If
> >> you start with a lower error rate to begin with, your chances are better.
>
> >>> But can we agree that as a general user that the OP needn't fret about
> >>> 'digital errors' in most of the other processes involved in digital
> >>> recording ?
> >> Depends what 'general user' means. *If you're burning CD-Rs on a regular
> >> basis as a mastering engineer you sure as hell need to know.
>
> > I'm not talkilng about CDs at all here.
>
> > I'm talking about fretting about 'digital errors' in HDDs, audio interfaces,
> > DAW processing, etc. *At the HDD internal subsystem there are errors (all
> > corrected of course), but for users if there is one bit error , then
> > something is broken.
>
> Very, very rarely what you put into a RAM location isn't what you get
> back out, sometimes due to hardware problems, sometimes due to cosmic
> rays. Not all RAM has parity checking. If you go into HDD specs deeply
> enough, they quote an expected error rate of one bit $verybignumber,
> which, last time I looked it up, meant that in a day of intensive video
> editing, you might get a couple of uncorrected HDD errors.
>
> Over the whole chain, though, you're right. Error checking should fix
> any errors. Digital's a *lot* less error prone than analogue.
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

right

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

Mark