Question about WMA with minimum acceptable bit-rate

[Radium]

Hi:

Lets say I have WMA file that is monoaural and 44.1 khz and contains a
song. What would be the minimum bit-rate neccesary in order for the
song to be recognizable to the ear of the average human who has
listened to the song before and knows the song?


Thanks,

Radium

[Radium]

Radium wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Lets say I have WMA file that is monoaural and 44.1 khz and contains a
> song.

Sorry that should be a 44.1 khz sample rate. I hate typos!

[Walt]

Radium wrote:

> Hi:
>
> Lets say I have WMA file that is monoaural and 44.1 khz and contains a
> song. What would be the minimum bit-rate neccesary in order for the
> song to be recognizable to the ear of the average human who has
> listened to the song before and knows the song?

It would probably depend on the song. "Happy Birthday" performed on a
cheap keyboard with no accompanyment would be recognizable at a lower
bit rate than, say, Mahler's 8th Symphony.

Why do you want to do this anyway? It becomes unlistenable long before
it becomes unrecognizable.

//Walt

[Laurence Payne]

On 9 Nov 2006 10:08:11 -0800, "Radium" > wrote:

>Lets say I have WMA file that is monoaural and 44.1 khz and contains a
>song. What would be the minimum bit-rate neccesary in order for the
>song to be recognizable to the ear of the average human who has
>listened to the song before and knows the song?

This isn't really a question about bit-rate. It's about the minimum
information required to recognise a song.

Try
http://www.songtapper.com/s/tappingmain.bin?dotap=1

You might find one bit sufficient.

[Walt]

Laurence Payne wrote:

> On 9 Nov 2006 10:08:11 -0800, "Radium" > wrote:
>
>
>>Lets say I have WMA file that is monoaural and 44.1 khz and contains a
>>song. What would be the minimum bit-rate neccesary in order for the
>>song to be recognizable to the ear of the average human who has
>>listened to the song before and knows the song?
>
>
> This isn't really a question about bit-rate. It's about the minimum
> information required to recognise a song.
>
> Try
> http://www.songtapper.com/s/tappingmain.bin?dotap=1
>
> You might find one bit sufficient.

Interesting site. Did you know that you can tap in a song yourself and
add it to their database? Cool, huh? Sort of like Wikipedia, only for
sound.

Anyway, I tried tapping in "Happy Birthday" to see if it recognized it,
and got these results:

I Am A Transexual
Rod Conners

Happy Birthday
Unknown

I Wanna **** Aaron Carter
Lexi Henning

Aaron Slaney Is Homosexual
Chas N' Dave

Cool, huh?

//Walt

PS Did you know that the population of Elephants has increased by a
factor of three?

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:14:16 -0500, Walt >
wrote:

>Interesting site. Did you know that you can tap in a song yourself and
>add it to their database? Cool, huh? Sort of like Wikipedia, only for
>sound.
>
>Anyway, I tried tapping in "Happy Birthday" to see if it recognized it,
>and got these results:
>
>I Am A Transexual
>Rod Conners
>
>Happy Birthday
>Unknown
>
>I Wanna **** Aaron Carter
>Lexi Henning
>
>Aaron Slaney Is Homosexual
>Chas N' Dave
>
>Cool, huh?


Lucky boy, Aaron. Must be his birthday :-)

[[email protected]]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2006 10:08:11 -0800, "Radium" > wrote:
>
> >Lets say I have WMA file that is monoaural and 44.1 khz and contains a
> >song. What would be the minimum bit-rate neccesary in order for the
> >song to be recognizable to the ear of the average human who has
> >listened to the song before and knows the song?
>
> This isn't really a question about bit-rate. It's about the minimum
> information required to recognise a song.
>
> Try
> http://www.songtapper.com/s/tappingmain.bin?dotap=1
>
> You might find one bit sufficient.

I tried tapping in the following:

J. S. Bach, Tocatta and Fugue in d

J. S. Bach, Inventio #8 in F

Francois Couperin le Grande, La Favorite

Jan Pieterszoon Sweelink, Unter de Linden Grunde,
also Meine Junges Lieben hast ein Ende

and it didn't find a single one of them! So it REALLY
sucks! :-) :-) :-)

(but it will reconize them now :-)

And, the question for our radium: if I were to play you a
completely uncompressed rendition of, oh, Unter de
Linden grunde, would you recognize it?

[Radium]

Walt wrote:
> Why do you want to do this anyway?

Just out of scientific interest.

[Richard Crowley]

"Radium" wrote ...
> Walt wrote:
>> Why do you want to do this anyway?
>
> Just out of scientific interest.

Then act like a "scientist" and conduct some experiments
for yourself. Real scientists don't ask dozens of insane
questions on the interweb. They do their own work.
Windows Media Encoder (and several other resources)
were all suggested to you. They don't even cost anything.
What is your problem?

[Radium]

Richard Crowley wrote:
> What is your problem?

It always helps to get input from those who obviously know a lot more
than me.

[[email protected]]

Radium wrote:
> Richard Crowley wrote:
> > What is your problem?
>
> It always helps to get input from those who obviously know a lot more
> than me.

Which, in the past, you have made a habit out of either
ignoring outright or confabulating into such blithering
nonsense as to render it essentially useless.

Where's the use in that? How "scientific" is that?

You have also made a career out of spatting ill-founded
personal opinions as "fact." Your ongoing declarations
about how FM synthesis is the best or worst or whatever
is notable not only for its frequency and poor factual basis,
but its complete uselessness. No one, absolutely no one
gives a ****.

[RAGHU]

Hello,

20kbps seems to be good.
WMA performs good compared to Mp3 at lower birates.. but, not below
23-20kbps. :)

-Raghu
(www.soundzgood.blogspot.com)
Radium wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Lets say I have WMA file that is monoaural and 44.1 khz and contains a
> song. What would be the minimum bit-rate neccesary in order for the
> song to be recognizable to the ear of the average human who has
> listened to the song before and knows the song?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium

[Radium]

RAGHU wrote:
> 20kbps seems to be good.
> WMA performs good compared to Mp3 at lower birates.. but, not below
> 23-20kbps. :)

I've never found a WMA file that has a 44.1 khz sample-rate but a
bit-rate below 20kbps. I'd like to find such, though.

[Walt]

Radium wrote:
> RAGHU wrote:
>
>> 20kbps seems to be good.
>>WMA performs good compared to Mp3 at lower birates.. but, not below
>>23-20kbps. :)
>
>
> I've never found a WMA file that has a 44.1 khz sample-rate but a
> bit-rate below 20kbps.


Yes, there's a reason for that. Do the math.

>I'd like to find such, though.

Ya like listening to 4 bit encoding?

//Walt

[Radium]

Walt wrote:
> Ya like listening to 4 bit encoding?

If its a WMA file that monoaural and has a sample-rate that is at least
44.1 khz [and whose sample-rate is the same as the audio was when
uncompressed], then yes.

[Richard Crowley]

"Radium" wrote ...
> Walt wrote:
>> Ya like listening to 4 bit encoding?
>
> If its a WMA file that monoaural and has a sample-rate that is at
> least
> 44.1 khz [and whose sample-rate is the same as the audio was when
> uncompressed], then yes.

Then you have clearly wandered off into the field of
magic and have left technology behind. Perhaps you
should move your discussion to a newsgroup where
they discuss magic.

Do you truly not understand why this isn't possible,
or are you trolling us?

[Richard Crowley]

"Radium" wrote ...
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> What is your problem?
>
> It always helps to get input from those who obviously know a lot more
> than me.

Why? Are you collecting input just for fun. All your
questions have been answered multiple times, but you
appear to have learned nothing from them. Consider
how discouraging this to people trying to provide the
input.

[Radium]

Richard Crowley wrote:
> Then you have clearly wandered off into the field of
> magic and have left technology behind.

How so? What is "magical" [or non-technological] about a monoaural WMA
file with a sample-rate of 44.1 khz and whose audio has the same
sample-rate in its compressed and uncompressed form?

> Do you truly not understand why this isn't possible,
> or are you trolling us?

I really don't understand. Sorry if I seem like a troll but I am not.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Richard Crowley" > wrote:

> "Radium" wrote ...
> > Richard Crowley wrote:
> >> What is your problem?
> >
> > It always helps to get input from those who obviously know a lot more
> > than me.
>
> Why? Are you collecting input just for fun. All your
> questions have been answered multiple times, but you
> appear to have learned nothing from them. Consider
> how discouraging this to people trying to provide the
> input.

It's not WMA, but:

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

Stephen

[Radium]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> It's not WMA, but:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsons_code

Huh?

[Ron Capik]

Radium wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > It's not WMA, but:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsons_code
>
> Huh?

Duhhh, he answered your question.

--

[Radium]

Ron Capik wrote:
> Radium wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > It's not WMA, but:
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsons_code
> >
> > Huh?
>
> Duhhh, he answered your question.
>
> --

WMA uses Parsons code?

[MiNe 109]

In article om>,
"Radium" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > It's not WMA, but:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsons_code

It's a way to identify a tune with the least amount of information.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article om>,
"Radium" > wrote:

> Ron Capik wrote:
> > Radium wrote:
> >
> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > It's not WMA, but:
> > > >
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsons_code
> > >
> > > Huh?
> >
> > Duhhh, he answered your question.
> >
> > --
>
> WMA uses Parsons code?

I think I said it wasn't WMA.

Stephen

[Radium]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> I think I said it wasn't WMA.

What made you bring it up then?

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
"Radium" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > I think I said it wasn't WMA.
>
> What made you bring it up then?

Answer to your earlier question about the least amount of information
required to identify a tune.

Stephen

[Radium]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> Answer to your earlier question about the least amount of information
> required to identify a tune.

Thank you

[RAGHU]

I understand that, I missed to mention that details.
Encoding at 20Kbps can happen only with 22 or 32 KHz sampling. Thanks
for asking more info.


Regards,
RAGHU
(www.soundzgood.blogspot.com)


Radium wrote:
> RAGHU wrote:
> > 20kbps seems to be good.
> > WMA performs good compared to Mp3 at lower birates.. but, not below
> > 23-20kbps. :)
>
> I've never found a WMA file that has a 44.1 khz sample-rate but a
> bit-rate below 20kbps. I'd like to find such, though.

[Walt]

Radium wrote:
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>>Then you have clearly wandered off into the field of
>>magic and have left technology behind.
>
> How so? What is "magical" [or non-technological] about a monoaural WMA
> file with a sample-rate of 44.1 khz and whose audio has the same
> sample-rate in its compressed and uncompressed form?

A 44.1khz sample rate in a 20kbps data stream?

Kinda like 44 pounts of **** in a 20 pound bag. Get it?

//Walt

[Radium]

Walt wrote:
> A 44.1khz sample rate in a 20kbps data stream?

Yes.

Adobe Audition 1.5 allows the production of a WMA file that is 44.1 khz
and 20kbps. How it does this is a mystery I'd love to learn about.

[Mr.T]

"Radium" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > A 44.1khz sample rate in a 20kbps data stream?

> Adobe Audition 1.5 allows the production of a WMA file that is 44.1 khz
> and 20kbps. How it does this is a mystery I'd love to learn about.

Where's the mystery? You can clock one bit of data at 44.1kHz (or any other
frequency for that matter) if you really want to.
Obviously some data must be repeated and/or invented, just as with all
compression schemes.

MrT.

[Radium]

Walt wrote:
> Radium wrote:
>
> > Hi:
> >
> > Lets say I have WMA file that is monoaural and 44.1 khz and contains a
> > song. What would be the minimum bit-rate neccesary in order for the
> > song to be recognizable to the ear of the average human who has
> > listened to the song before and knows the song?
>
> It would probably depend on the song. "Happy Birthday" performed on a
> cheap keyboard with no accompanyment would be recognizable at a lower
> bit rate than, say, Mahler's 8th Symphony.
>
> Why do you want to do this anyway? It becomes unlistenable long before
> it becomes unrecognizable.
>
> //Walt

Would the songs be recognizable at 1kbps? How about 500 bps? Whats the
lowest you could go with the song "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" by
Green-Day?

[Radium]

RAGHU wrote:
> Encoding at 20Kbps can happen only with 22 or 32 KHz sampling

Wrong. Adobe Audition 1.5 allows encoding of 44.1 khz at 20kbps.

[Don Pearce]

On 14 Nov 2006 10:22:26 -0800, "Radium" > wrote:

>RAGHU wrote:
>> Encoding at 20Kbps can happen only with 22 or 32 KHz sampling
>
>Wrong. Adobe Audition 1.5 allows encoding of 44.1 khz at 20kbps.

No it doesn't. If you try and save an MP3 at 20kbps it drops the
sampling rate to 11kHz.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Radium]

Don Pearce wrote:
> No it doesn't. If you try and save an MP3 at 20kbps it drops the
> sampling rate to 11kHz.

You're talking about MP3s. I am talking about WMAs -- which clearly do
allow a sample rate of 44.1 khz with a bit-rate of 20kbps . There is a
significant difference between WMAs and MP3s.

[Don Pearce]

On 14 Nov 2006 10:37:57 -0800, "Radium" > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> No it doesn't. If you try and save an MP3 at 20kbps it drops the
>> sampling rate to 11kHz.
>
>You're talking about MP3s. I am talking about WMAs -- which clearly do
>allow a sample rate of 44.1 khz with a bit-rate of 20kbps . There is a
>significant difference between WMAs and MP3s.

It will only do that if it converts to mono; hardly a like-for-like
comparison. 32kbps is the minimum for a true copy.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Radium]

Don Pearce wrote:
> It will only do that if it converts to mono

My WMAs are always mono

[Don Pearce]

On 14 Nov 2006 11:20:12 -0800, "Radium" > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> It will only do that if it converts to mono
>
>My WMAs are always mono

Then you are missing out on much of the point of the recording. Save
stereo always; and don't go for low bit rates - they sound like ****.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Mr.T]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> >My WMAs are always mono
>
> Then you are missing out on much of the point of the recording. Save
> stereo always;

I disagree, low bit rate stereo is a waste of some bits that can be used for
better quality mono instead.

>and don't go for low bit rates - they sound like ****.

Well DUH!
But *IF* you MUST use low bit rates, for non-broadband streaming audio for
example, I would FAR prefer mono.

MrT.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:26:26 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> >My WMAs are always mono
>>
>> Then you are missing out on much of the point of the recording. Save
>> stereo always;
>
>I disagree, low bit rate stereo is a waste of some bits that can be used for
>better quality mono instead.
>
>>and don't go for low bit rates - they sound like ****.
>
>Well DUH!
>But *IF* you MUST use low bit rates, for non-broadband streaming audio for
>example, I would FAR prefer mono.
>
>MrT.
>

So don't stream audio at low bit rates; it is an inappropriate
application of an inappropriate technology.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Mr.T]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> >>and don't go for low bit rates - they sound like ****.
> >
> >Well DUH!
> >But *IF* you MUST use low bit rates, for non-broadband streaming audio
for
> >example, I would FAR prefer mono.

> So don't stream audio at low bit rates; it is an inappropriate
> application of an inappropriate technology.

Nobody is forcing you to listen to them Don, however the point is still
valid for those occasions where there is a need. And I do include anything
less than 128kbs at least.

MrT.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:21:45 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> >>and don't go for low bit rates - they sound like ****.
>> >
>> >Well DUH!
>> >But *IF* you MUST use low bit rates, for non-broadband streaming audio
>for
>> >example, I would FAR prefer mono.
>
>> So don't stream audio at low bit rates; it is an inappropriate
>> application of an inappropriate technology.
>
>Nobody is forcing you to listen to them Don, however the point is still
>valid for those occasions where there is a need. And I do include anything
>less than 128kbs at least.
>
>MrT.
>

What has me listening to them got to do with anything? And no, there
is never a need to stream music - only a wish.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com