DaveC wrote:
I think I understand everything except why a file that is not streamed
has a bit rate spec. Digitized content should be described by the
sample rate and, in some cases, sample size. But only streamed content
should be described by a bit rate. Any other use of these terms is
misleading.

you're still streaming a file when you play it from a disk.

to playback uncompressed stereo 16bit/44.1kHz PCM, the disk (hard drive,
redbook CD, compactflash card, etc) needs a nominal sustained transfer
rate of 1411.2kbit/s (2*16*44.1).

likewise, when you play back a 128kbit/s MP3 from your local device, the
nominal sustained transfer rate from that device is 128kbit/s.

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able
to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown

On Mon, 24 May 2004 06:23:38 -0700, DaveC wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 00:08:54 -0700, Aaron J. Grier wrote
(in article ):

you're still streaming a file when you play it from a disk.

True enough, apparently.

But misleading, nonetheless. "Bit rate" implies, traditionally, data
communications over a network or such. "Resolution" is a more-appropriate
term regarding files possessed on your local media.

I guess 'resolution' would be clearer to some people... But to say an MP3
has a resolution of 128kbps would make it more confusing in the long run,
as the meaning is lost in the abstraction.

Sometimes it's not a good idea to try and make a parallel of a computing
term in what appears to be clearer language.

The 'Campaign for Clear English' came across this in the UK when they
tried to find a simpler term for 'modem'.
There really isn't one, as there is no 'real life' alternative explanation
that can be used.


To take a parallel example, you don't describe image files in "rate"
terms. They have been scanned at a set bits-per-inch resolution and are
of a certain file size. These two terms describe the image's "quality"
but do not require a description of how quickly (over time) the file
will be displayed.

That's because static image files are not shown over a defined period
of time.

If it's a film (AVI,MPG etc) then the kbps or Mbps is used. Ie, 784 Kbps,
2.5Mbps.

There is no rule for how fast a static jpeg image whould be decoded, or
a zip file extracted, but if you are decoding an MP3 or AVI, then you had
better do it at the defined bit rate, or it would be
unwatchable/unlistenable!


to playback uncompressed stereo 16bit/44.1kHz PCM, the disk (hard drive,
redbook CD, compactflash card, etc) needs a nominal sustained transfer
rate of 1411.2kbit/s (2*16*44.1).

That's like telling the owner of a new car in the owner's manual that in
order to maintain a safe driving speed, he/she should depress the accelerator
pedal until the engine is operating at a sustained rate of 275.4 cfm (cubic
feet per minute). It is a technical description of the engine's mode of
operation that is totally inappropriate to discuss outside of engineering
circles. It leads to confusion in those to whom the term has no relevance.
More appropriately, an owner's manual typically discusses safe limitations in
terms that, generally, relate to the everyday use of the product ("at a safe
speed", "observe local speed laws", etc.). Only when the terminology is
necessary for a particular task (ie, towing) is such language appropriate
(weights, speeds, etc.).

Again, you can create a simpler alternative, but the useful meaning is
lost.


likewise, when you play back a 128kbit/s MP3 from your local device, the
nominal sustained transfer rate from that device is 128kbit/s.

Understood. But an inappropriate terminology for general description to the
public.

What would you suggest?

On Mon, 24 May 2004 06:23:38 -0700, DaveC wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 00:08:54 -0700, Aaron J. Grier wrote
(in article ):

you're still streaming a file when you play it from a disk.

True enough, apparently.

But misleading, nonetheless. "Bit rate" implies, traditionally, data
communications over a network or such. "Resolution" is a more-appropriate
term regarding files possessed on your local media.

I guess 'resolution' would be clearer to some people... But to say an MP3
has a resolution of 128kbps would make it more confusing in the long run,
as the meaning is lost in the abstraction.

Sometimes it's not a good idea to try and make a parallel of a computing
term in what appears to be clearer language.

The 'Campaign for Clear English' came across this in the UK when they
tried to find a simpler term for 'modem'.
There really isn't one, as there is no 'real life' alternative explanation
that can be used.


To take a parallel example, you don't describe image files in "rate"
terms. They have been scanned at a set bits-per-inch resolution and are
of a certain file size. These two terms describe the image's "quality"
but do not require a description of how quickly (over time) the file
will be displayed.

That's because static image files are not shown over a defined period
of time.

If it's a film (AVI,MPG etc) then the kbps or Mbps is used. Ie, 784 Kbps,
2.5Mbps.

There is no rule for how fast a static jpeg image whould be decoded, or
a zip file extracted, but if you are decoding an MP3 or AVI, then you had
better do it at the defined bit rate, or it would be
unwatchable/unlistenable!


to playback uncompressed stereo 16bit/44.1kHz PCM, the disk (hard drive,
redbook CD, compactflash card, etc) needs a nominal sustained transfer
rate of 1411.2kbit/s (2*16*44.1).

That's like telling the owner of a new car in the owner's manual that in
order to maintain a safe driving speed, he/she should depress the accelerator
pedal until the engine is operating at a sustained rate of 275.4 cfm (cubic
feet per minute). It is a technical description of the engine's mode of
operation that is totally inappropriate to discuss outside of engineering
circles. It leads to confusion in those to whom the term has no relevance.
More appropriately, an owner's manual typically discusses safe limitations in
terms that, generally, relate to the everyday use of the product ("at a safe
speed", "observe local speed laws", etc.). Only when the terminology is
necessary for a particular task (ie, towing) is such language appropriate
(weights, speeds, etc.).

Again, you can create a simpler alternative, but the useful meaning is
lost.


likewise, when you play back a 128kbit/s MP3 from your local device, the
nominal sustained transfer rate from that device is 128kbit/s.

Understood. But an inappropriate terminology for general description to the
public.

What would you suggest?

On Mon, 24 May 2004 06:23:38 -0700, DaveC wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 00:08:54 -0700, Aaron J. Grier wrote
(in article ):

you're still streaming a file when you play it from a disk.

True enough, apparently.

But misleading, nonetheless. "Bit rate" implies, traditionally, data
communications over a network or such. "Resolution" is a more-appropriate
term regarding files possessed on your local media.

I guess 'resolution' would be clearer to some people... But to say an MP3
has a resolution of 128kbps would make it more confusing in the long run,
as the meaning is lost in the abstraction.

Sometimes it's not a good idea to try and make a parallel of a computing
term in what appears to be clearer language.

The 'Campaign for Clear English' came across this in the UK when they
tried to find a simpler term for 'modem'.
There really isn't one, as there is no 'real life' alternative explanation
that can be used.


To take a parallel example, you don't describe image files in "rate"
terms. They have been scanned at a set bits-per-inch resolution and are
of a certain file size. These two terms describe the image's "quality"
but do not require a description of how quickly (over time) the file
will be displayed.

That's because static image files are not shown over a defined period
of time.

If it's a film (AVI,MPG etc) then the kbps or Mbps is used. Ie, 784 Kbps,
2.5Mbps.

There is no rule for how fast a static jpeg image whould be decoded, or
a zip file extracted, but if you are decoding an MP3 or AVI, then you had
better do it at the defined bit rate, or it would be
unwatchable/unlistenable!


to playback uncompressed stereo 16bit/44.1kHz PCM, the disk (hard drive,
redbook CD, compactflash card, etc) needs a nominal sustained transfer
rate of 1411.2kbit/s (2*16*44.1).

That's like telling the owner of a new car in the owner's manual that in
order to maintain a safe driving speed, he/she should depress the accelerator
pedal until the engine is operating at a sustained rate of 275.4 cfm (cubic
feet per minute). It is a technical description of the engine's mode of
operation that is totally inappropriate to discuss outside of engineering
circles. It leads to confusion in those to whom the term has no relevance.
More appropriately, an owner's manual typically discusses safe limitations in
terms that, generally, relate to the everyday use of the product ("at a safe
speed", "observe local speed laws", etc.). Only when the terminology is
necessary for a particular task (ie, towing) is such language appropriate
(weights, speeds, etc.).

Again, you can create a simpler alternative, but the useful meaning is
lost.


likewise, when you play back a 128kbit/s MP3 from your local device, the
nominal sustained transfer rate from that device is 128kbit/s.

Understood. But an inappropriate terminology for general description to the
public.

What would you suggest?

On Mon, 24 May 2004 06:23:38 -0700, DaveC wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 00:08:54 -0700, Aaron J. Grier wrote
(in article ):

you're still streaming a file when you play it from a disk.

True enough, apparently.

But misleading, nonetheless. "Bit rate" implies, traditionally, data
communications over a network or such. "Resolution" is a more-appropriate
term regarding files possessed on your local media.

I guess 'resolution' would be clearer to some people... But to say an MP3
has a resolution of 128kbps would make it more confusing in the long run,
as the meaning is lost in the abstraction.

Sometimes it's not a good idea to try and make a parallel of a computing
term in what appears to be clearer language.

The 'Campaign for Clear English' came across this in the UK when they
tried to find a simpler term for 'modem'.
There really isn't one, as there is no 'real life' alternative explanation
that can be used.


To take a parallel example, you don't describe image files in "rate"
terms. They have been scanned at a set bits-per-inch resolution and are
of a certain file size. These two terms describe the image's "quality"
but do not require a description of how quickly (over time) the file
will be displayed.

That's because static image files are not shown over a defined period
of time.

If it's a film (AVI,MPG etc) then the kbps or Mbps is used. Ie, 784 Kbps,
2.5Mbps.

There is no rule for how fast a static jpeg image whould be decoded, or
a zip file extracted, but if you are decoding an MP3 or AVI, then you had
better do it at the defined bit rate, or it would be
unwatchable/unlistenable!


to playback uncompressed stereo 16bit/44.1kHz PCM, the disk (hard drive,
redbook CD, compactflash card, etc) needs a nominal sustained transfer
rate of 1411.2kbit/s (2*16*44.1).

That's like telling the owner of a new car in the owner's manual that in
order to maintain a safe driving speed, he/she should depress the accelerator
pedal until the engine is operating at a sustained rate of 275.4 cfm (cubic
feet per minute). It is a technical description of the engine's mode of
operation that is totally inappropriate to discuss outside of engineering
circles. It leads to confusion in those to whom the term has no relevance.
More appropriately, an owner's manual typically discusses safe limitations in
terms that, generally, relate to the everyday use of the product ("at a safe
speed", "observe local speed laws", etc.). Only when the terminology is
necessary for a particular task (ie, towing) is such language appropriate
(weights, speeds, etc.).

Again, you can create a simpler alternative, but the useful meaning is
lost.


likewise, when you play back a 128kbit/s MP3 from your local device, the
nominal sustained transfer rate from that device is 128kbit/s.

Understood. But an inappropriate terminology for general description to the
public.

What would you suggest?