On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:58 AM, AndyW wrote:
On 25/02/2015 13:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Not really true, at least in the United States. All TV's here use the
same (proprietary) chipsets to decompress the digital signal. However,
it makes a huge difference on the resolution being used, i.e. 720P,
1080P, 1080I, UHD... The difference is in what happens after the
signal
is decompressed.

I am unsure of US TV. In the UK terrestrial TV is all digital.
Analog(ue) was switched off a few years ago.
I am referring to the whole box from antenna to screen, most of our TVs
come with built-in 'Freeview'.

I have a digital set about 6 years old that struggles to handle complex
images but my new toy handles it perfectly. My newer TV uses a newer
chipset and more efficient decoding algorithm that is made possible
because of the higher power chipset.

The older chipsets are still in production and still being sold,
presumably the TV manufacturers can buy them cheaply, stick them in the
TV and rely on marketing buzz over technical demonstration to sell then
for a larger markup. Most people I know buy on screen size anyway.

My understanding - which may be incorrect - is that the TV has a fixed
time based upon the framerate in which to decode the image and display
it before it has to start on the next frame.
Better quality TVs are capable of fully decompressing the image and
displaying it between frames but the cheaper and older ones cannot
handle a new image every frame and so, when it runs out of time decoding
the image it just gets sent to the screen, tesselations and all.
Standing ready to be corrected.

Andy



Andy,

I don't know what the Europeans use, so I can't speak for you guys. But
here in the United States, everything is digital also, and has been for
years (here come the trolls).

Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But
in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The
chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company,
so all TV's have similar decoding.

I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with
all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker.

http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf


http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560

http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html

Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one
company's products?


If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these
chipsets are hi-def (1080).

And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company
providing the chipsets.

The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There is a
consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder alone...

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf


Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to
argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

In rec.radio.amateur.equipment Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:58 AM, AndyW wrote:
On 25/02/2015 13:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Not really true, at least in the United States. All TV's here use the
same (proprietary) chipsets to decompress the digital signal. However,
it makes a huge difference on the resolution being used, i.e. 720P,
1080P, 1080I, UHD... The difference is in what happens after the
signal
is decompressed.

I am unsure of US TV. In the UK terrestrial TV is all digital.
Analog(ue) was switched off a few years ago.
I am referring to the whole box from antenna to screen, most of our TVs
come with built-in 'Freeview'.

I have a digital set about 6 years old that struggles to handle complex
images but my new toy handles it perfectly. My newer TV uses a newer
chipset and more efficient decoding algorithm that is made possible
because of the higher power chipset.

The older chipsets are still in production and still being sold,
presumably the TV manufacturers can buy them cheaply, stick them in the
TV and rely on marketing buzz over technical demonstration to sell then
for a larger markup. Most people I know buy on screen size anyway.

My understanding - which may be incorrect - is that the TV has a fixed
time based upon the framerate in which to decode the image and display
it before it has to start on the next frame.
Better quality TVs are capable of fully decompressing the image and
displaying it between frames but the cheaper and older ones cannot
handle a new image every frame and so, when it runs out of time decoding
the image it just gets sent to the screen, tesselations and all.
Standing ready to be corrected.

Andy



Andy,

I don't know what the Europeans use, so I can't speak for you guys. But
here in the United States, everything is digital also, and has been for
years (here come the trolls).

Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But
in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The
chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company,
so all TV's have similar decoding.

I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with
all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker.

http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf


http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560

http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html

Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one
company's products?


If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these
chipsets are hi-def (1080).

And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company
providing the chipsets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC

begin quote
A hardware H.264 encoder can be an ASIC or an FPGA.

ASIC encoders with H.264 encoder functionality are available from many
different semiconductor companies, but the core design used in the ASIC
is typically licensed from one of a few companies such as Chips&Media,
Allegro DVT, On2 (formerly Hantro, acquired by Google), Imagination
Technologies, NGCodec. Some companies have both FPGA and ASIC product
offerings.[56]

Texas Instruments manufactures a line of ARM + DSP cores that perform
DSP H.264 BP encoding 1080p at 30fps.[57] This permits flexibility
with respect to codecs (which are implemented as highly optimized DSP
code) while being more efficient than software on a generic CPU.
end quote

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/M...mplementations

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


--
Jim Pennino

On 2/26/2015 5:04 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But
in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The
chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company,
so all TV's have similar decoding.

I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with
all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker.

http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf


http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560

http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html

Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one
company's products?


If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these
chipsets are hi-def (1080).

And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company
providing the chipsets.

The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There is a
consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder alone...

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf


Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to
argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264.

"The BCM3560 combines a cable/terrestrial 4/1024 QAM and 8/16-VSB
receiver, an out-of-band QPSK receiver, NTSC demodulator, DVI/HDMI
receiver, a transport processor, a digital audio processor, a
high-definition (HD) MPEG video decoder, 2D graphics processing, digital
processing of analog video and audio, analog video digitizer and DAC
functions, stereo high-fidelity audio DACs, a 250-MHz MIPS processor,
and a peripheral control unit providing a variety of television control
functions."

I am happy to admit I don't know everything about digital TV. But I do
know a ridiculous statement when I see it. "But in the U.S., the method
used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the
signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar
decoding." qualifies as a ridiculous statement. No one in the industry
would have allowed the FCC to entrench one company as the sole
manufacturer of decoder chips for digital TV.

BTW, you are right that MPEG-2 is not H.264. It's just not relevant.
They are both used for digital TV.

--

Rick

On 2/26/2015 8:41 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 5:04 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal.
But
in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The
chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this
company,
so all TV's have similar decoding.

I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with
all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker.

http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf



http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560


http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html

Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one
company's products?


If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these
chipsets are hi-def (1080).

And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company
providing the chipsets.

The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There is a
consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder alone...

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf


Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to
argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264.

"The BCM3560 combines a cable/terrestrial 4/1024 QAM and 8/16-VSB
receiver, an out-of-band QPSK receiver, NTSC demodulator, DVI/HDMI
receiver, a transport processor, a digital audio processor, a
high-definition (HD) MPEG video decoder, 2D graphics processing, digital
processing of analog video and audio, analog video digitizer and DAC
functions, stereo high-fidelity audio DACs, a 250-MHz MIPS processor,
and a peripheral control unit providing a variety of television control
functions."

I am happy to admit I don't know everything about digital TV. But I do
know a ridiculous statement when I see it. "But in the U.S., the method
used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the
signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar
decoding." qualifies as a ridiculous statement. No one in the industry
would have allowed the FCC to entrench one company as the sole
manufacturer of decoder chips for digital TV.

BTW, you are right that MPEG-2 is not H.264. It's just not relevant.
They are both used for digital TV.


No, you don't know a "ridiculous statement when you see it". You have
proven multiple times you don't even know your arse from a hole in the
ground.

You really should stick with things you know something about. Maybe
eventually you can figure out what those things are.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 2/26/2015 8:55 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 8:41 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 5:04 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal.
But
in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The
chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this
company,
so all TV's have similar decoding.

I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with
all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker.

http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf



http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560


http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html

Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one
company's products?


If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these
chipsets are hi-def (1080).

And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company
providing the chipsets.

The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There is a
consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder alone...

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf


Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to
argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264.

"The BCM3560 combines a cable/terrestrial 4/1024 QAM and 8/16-VSB
receiver, an out-of-band QPSK receiver, NTSC demodulator, DVI/HDMI
receiver, a transport processor, a digital audio processor, a
high-definition (HD) MPEG video decoder, 2D graphics processing, digital
processing of analog video and audio, analog video digitizer and DAC
functions, stereo high-fidelity audio DACs, a 250-MHz MIPS processor,
and a peripheral control unit providing a variety of television control
functions."

I am happy to admit I don't know everything about digital TV. But I do
know a ridiculous statement when I see it. "But in the U.S., the method
used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the
signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar
decoding." qualifies as a ridiculous statement. No one in the industry
would have allowed the FCC to entrench one company as the sole
manufacturer of decoder chips for digital TV.

BTW, you are right that MPEG-2 is not H.264. It's just not relevant.
They are both used for digital TV.


No, you don't know a "ridiculous statement when you see it". You have
proven multiple times you don't even know your arse from a hole in the
ground.

You really should stick with things you know something about. Maybe
eventually you can figure out what those things are.

This is why it is so much fun discussing things with you, your
professional demeanor, your courteous style and you all around good
nature. Thanks for helping me learn.

--

Rick

On 2/26/2015 9:42 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 8:55 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 8:41 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 5:04 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal.
But
in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The
chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this
company,
so all TV's have similar decoding.

I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm
with
all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker.

http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf




http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560



http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html

Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one
company's products?


If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these
chipsets are hi-def (1080).

And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company
providing the chipsets.

The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There
is a
consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder
alone...

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf


Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to
argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264.

"The BCM3560 combines a cable/terrestrial 4/1024 QAM and 8/16-VSB
receiver, an out-of-band QPSK receiver, NTSC demodulator, DVI/HDMI
receiver, a transport processor, a digital audio processor, a
high-definition (HD) MPEG video decoder, 2D graphics processing, digital
processing of analog video and audio, analog video digitizer and DAC
functions, stereo high-fidelity audio DACs, a 250-MHz MIPS processor,
and a peripheral control unit providing a variety of television control
functions."

I am happy to admit I don't know everything about digital TV. But I do
know a ridiculous statement when I see it. "But in the U.S., the method
used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the
signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar
decoding." qualifies as a ridiculous statement. No one in the industry
would have allowed the FCC to entrench one company as the sole
manufacturer of decoder chips for digital TV.

BTW, you are right that MPEG-2 is not H.264. It's just not relevant.
They are both used for digital TV.


No, you don't know a "ridiculous statement when you see it". You have
proven multiple times you don't even know your arse from a hole in the
ground.

You really should stick with things you know something about. Maybe
eventually you can figure out what those things are.

This is why it is so much fun discussing things with you, your
professional demeanor, your courteous style and you all around good
nature. Thanks for helping me learn.


No, you repeatedly argue about things you know nothing about. Your
claims that mp3 is not a lossy format and white noise exists in this
thread are perfect examples. And you never admit you were wrong.

Trying to educate you is like trying to teach a pig to sing. And I'm
not wasting more of my time on you.

And BTW - "pi" is not a compression. It is a representation used by
agreement. Someone who does not know the meaning of "pi" cannot discern
the number. OTOH, the person need know nothing about a compressed file
or signal other than the means required to expand it to recover the
contents.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 2/27/2015 8:26 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 9:42 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 8:55 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 8:41 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 5:04 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal.
But
in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The
chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this
company,
so all TV's have similar decoding.

I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm
with
all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker.

http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf




http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560



http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html

Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one
company's products?


If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these
chipsets are hi-def (1080).

And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company
providing the chipsets.

The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There
is a
consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder
alone...

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf


Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to
argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264.

"The BCM3560 combines a cable/terrestrial 4/1024 QAM and 8/16-VSB
receiver, an out-of-band QPSK receiver, NTSC demodulator, DVI/HDMI
receiver, a transport processor, a digital audio processor, a
high-definition (HD) MPEG video decoder, 2D graphics processing, digital
processing of analog video and audio, analog video digitizer and DAC
functions, stereo high-fidelity audio DACs, a 250-MHz MIPS processor,
and a peripheral control unit providing a variety of television control
functions."

I am happy to admit I don't know everything about digital TV. But I do
know a ridiculous statement when I see it. "But in the U.S., the method
used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the
signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar
decoding." qualifies as a ridiculous statement. No one in the industry
would have allowed the FCC to entrench one company as the sole
manufacturer of decoder chips for digital TV.

BTW, you are right that MPEG-2 is not H.264. It's just not relevant.
They are both used for digital TV.


No, you don't know a "ridiculous statement when you see it". You have
proven multiple times you don't even know your arse from a hole in the
ground.

You really should stick with things you know something about. Maybe
eventually you can figure out what those things are.

This is why it is so much fun discussing things with you, your
professional demeanor, your courteous style and you all around good
nature. Thanks for helping me learn.


No, you repeatedly argue about things you know nothing about. Your
claims that mp3 is not a lossy format and white noise exists in this
thread are perfect examples. And you never admit you were wrong.

Trying to educate you is like trying to teach a pig to sing. And I'm
not wasting more of my time on you.

And BTW - "pi" is not a compression. It is a representation used by
agreement. Someone who does not know the meaning of "pi" cannot discern
the number. OTOH, the person need know nothing about a compressed file
or signal other than the means required to expand it to recover the
contents.

I never said MP3 is not lossy. I can't be wrong about something I
didn't say.

Actually, pi is the word for a number which has unique properties which
define its value. You only need to convey the concept using a finite
amount of data and it can produce an infinite string of digits (or bits)
that have no repeating pattern and have the properties of randomness.
So sure, "pi" is not compression, but the algorithm for producing the
digits is.

One sure sign that you are having trouble with these concepts is the way
you attack me on a personal level. You can say my ideas are wrong, or
even silly, but you insist in being rude. I would be only too happy if
you didn't respond to any of my posts... but you do.

--

Rick

On 2/27/2015 3:35 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/27/2015 8:26 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 9:42 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 8:55 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 8:41 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 5:04 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal.
But
in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The
chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this
company,
so all TV's have similar decoding.

I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm
with
all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker.

http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf





http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560




http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html

Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one
company's products?


If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these
chipsets are hi-def (1080).

And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company
providing the chipsets.

The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There
is a
consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder
alone...

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf


Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to
argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264.

"The BCM3560 combines a cable/terrestrial 4/1024 QAM and 8/16-VSB
receiver, an out-of-band QPSK receiver, NTSC demodulator, DVI/HDMI
receiver, a transport processor, a digital audio processor, a
high-definition (HD) MPEG video decoder, 2D graphics processing,
digital
processing of analog video and audio, analog video digitizer and DAC
functions, stereo high-fidelity audio DACs, a 250-MHz MIPS processor,
and a peripheral control unit providing a variety of television
control
functions."

I am happy to admit I don't know everything about digital TV. But
I do
know a ridiculous statement when I see it. "But in the U.S., the
method
used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to
decode the
signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar
decoding." qualifies as a ridiculous statement. No one in the
industry
would have allowed the FCC to entrench one company as the sole
manufacturer of decoder chips for digital TV.

BTW, you are right that MPEG-2 is not H.264. It's just not relevant.
They are both used for digital TV.


No, you don't know a "ridiculous statement when you see it". You have
proven multiple times you don't even know your arse from a hole in the
ground.

You really should stick with things you know something about. Maybe
eventually you can figure out what those things are.

This is why it is so much fun discussing things with you, your
professional demeanor, your courteous style and you all around good
nature. Thanks for helping me learn.


No, you repeatedly argue about things you know nothing about. Your
claims that mp3 is not a lossy format and white noise exists in this
thread are perfect examples. And you never admit you were wrong.

Trying to educate you is like trying to teach a pig to sing. And I'm
not wasting more of my time on you.

And BTW - "pi" is not a compression. It is a representation used by
agreement. Someone who does not know the meaning of "pi" cannot discern
the number. OTOH, the person need know nothing about a compressed file
or signal other than the means required to expand it to recover the
contents.

I never said MP3 is not lossy. I can't be wrong about something I
didn't say.

Actually, pi is the word for a number which has unique properties which
define its value. You only need to convey the concept using a finite
amount of data and it can produce an infinite string of digits (or bits)
that have no repeating pattern and have the properties of randomness. So
sure, "pi" is not compression, but the algorithm for producing the
digits is.

One sure sign that you are having trouble with these concepts is the way
you attack me on a personal level. You can say my ideas are wrong, or
even silly, but you insist in being rude. I would be only too happy if
you didn't respond to any of my posts... but you do.


I'm just correcting you where you're wrong. It's not for your benefit -
it's so the rest of the people in the newsgroup don't get the wrong
ideas. Whether YOU accept them or not is of no matter to me.

But I have to once again correct you on what you said.

Me:

Some compression algorithms (i.e. mp3) remove what they consider is
"unimportant". However, the result after decompressing is a poor
recreation of the original signal.

You:
That is a value judgement which most would disagree with not to
mention that your example is not valid. MP3 does not *remove*
anything from the signal. It is a form of compression that simply
can't reproduce the signal exactly. The use of the term "poor" is
your value judgement. Most people would say an MP3 audio sounds very
much like the original.

The compression removes data from the signal during the compression.
That is why the signal cannot be recreated exactly. And the term "poor"
is used by all experts in the field. Did you even bother to read the
reference where no less than Neil Young and (the late) Steve Jobs talked
about how bad it is?

But no - you won't admit you're wrong here, either.

I'm not having any problems with any of the concepts. But you sure do.
And you refuse to admit you're wrong.

As for the "personal attacks" - just calling a spade a spade. Nothing
more, nothing less. And I really don't care if the truth hurts you or not.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

PI is irrational number ie it cannot be expressed as one integer divided
by
another and give either a terminating or recurring decimal.

It's major property is that it is transcendental