"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
You can probably get away with low sampling rates if you bandwidth
limit the hi frequency end to cut off at 4 Khz, and that way you can
use 8khz as the sampling rate (Niequest theorem 2x audio rate).
16bps is also satisfactory as a bit rate with these low fidelity audio
chips.

That's what I do with my voice grade recordings. It reduces file size
(and streaming bandwidth) considerably.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Hi Dave!

I tried going to 8KHz and went down to about 6Kbps using the ACELP codec
from VoiceAge Corp. It produced that under water quality. When streaming 11
meters, I already have the poor quality of the band to contend with. Adding
my own noise was just horrid. Do you have any suggestions on better codecs
to use for this? I'd like to get just above adding that noise but not so
high that only 5 listeners would choke it up.

I have not tried 16bps. When my friend Bill gets back into town, I'll give
it a shot. I live in an apartment building so I can't set up an antenna
here. I have to live vicariously via his Antron. (****... that sounds gay)

Thanks.
-Dr.X

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:25:41 -0500, "Dr.X" wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
You can probably get away with low sampling rates if you bandwidth
limit the hi frequency end to cut off at 4 Khz, and that way you can
use 8khz as the sampling rate (Niequest theorem 2x audio rate).
16bps is also satisfactory as a bit rate with these low fidelity audio
chips.

That's what I do with my voice grade recordings. It reduces file size
(and streaming bandwidth) considerably.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Hi Dave!

I tried going to 8KHz and went down to about 6Kbps using the ACELP codec
from VoiceAge Corp. It produced that under water quality. When streaming 11
meters, I already have the poor quality of the band to contend with. Adding
my own noise was just horrid. Do you have any suggestions on better codecs
to use for this? I'd like to get just above adding that noise but not so
high that only 5 listeners would choke it up.

I have not tried 16bps. When my friend Bill gets back into town, I'll give
it a shot. I live in an apartment building so I can't set up an antenna
here. I have to live vicariously via his Antron. (****... that sounds gay)

I agree that 8Kbps is a bit "muddy" sounding. 16 Kbps is usually
better and considering the typically poor fidelity on the CB Band,
you really can't tell much of a difference. I use LAME codecs
exclusively to make MP3 files from WAV's and it seems to work ok for
my use.

The bottom line is bandwidth and I/O speed. Once you hit those limits,
there's no more to be had. Have you looked into the WMA format?
Supposedly it offers some streming advantages, although I haven't
tried them myself yet.

Dave
"Sandbagger"



Thanks.
-Dr.X

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
....
I agree that 8Kbps is a bit "muddy" sounding. 16 Kbps is usually
better and considering the typically poor fidelity on the CB Band,
you really can't tell much of a difference. I use LAME codecs
exclusively to make MP3 files from WAV's and it seems to work ok for
my use.

Yeah, I use lame to make MP3's too. I think it's great.

The bottom line is bandwidth and I/O speed. Once you hit those limits,
there's no more to be had. Have you looked into the WMA format?
Supposedly it offers some streming advantages, although I haven't
tried them myself yet.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

For the last few tests we have been using WME with WMA codecs. It works
really well. There are several advantages to it but a few disadvantages as
well. I'm going to post the instructions and see what others come up with.

Thanks,
-Dr.X