"RG" wrote in message
news:cYnRf.12354$Uc2.5761@fed1read04...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

~~ snicker ~~

So will we be calling you Bruceth tomorrow?

Seriously good luck on the test - your a better man than I.


What's worse, is I just found out that tomorrow's "inspector" is a
female.

Youch. Maybe you can get her to talk dirty to you or sumthin' to set the
mood. Probably not.

Been there a couple of times myself. My "guy" is a short, bespectacled
Jewish guy. He's completely devoid of a sense of humor. In the 4 or 5
times I've seen this guy over the years, I've never even been able to get
so much as a smile out of him. Maybe that's what a career in proctology
does to you. I don't know. Then again, he's probably heard all the jokes
a zillion times. The last time I was on the table I tried to lighten
things up a bit. I mentioned that I've been missing the remote control to
my DVD player, and to let me know if he found it. The nurse was doing her
best to try and suppress laughter, but the doc wasn't fazed one bit.
World's best straight man.

Probably one of the more interesting aspects of the "procedure" is the
juice the anesthesiologist is likely to use. Don't recall the technical
name for it, but it's essentially an amnesia drug. You will be awake and
conscious during the entire procedure, possibly telling stupid remote
control jokes, yet you will remember absolutely none of it. I remember
watching the juice being shot into the IV, and unlike other anesthetics
where you feel it hitting your veins and you instantly go out like a
light, I felt no effect from this stuff at all. A few of minutes go by,
and I figure I'll just watch the show on the TV monitor. I remember
telling the nurse that the drug doesn't seem to be having any effect, and
then I remember her nodding her head and smiling at me. Next thing I
remember I'm in the recovery room. Wild stuff.


I think Richard is *preoccupied* at this time..........perhaps all night.
;-)

Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.........but well worth it.

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:50:28 -0500, "RCE" wrote:

I wonder, for the Ipod fans, what the
file size becomes if sampled at these higher rates.

File size is more or less linear with sampling rate, i.e., 256 is
about twice as large as 128.

There is also a MP3 format with variable sampling rates which works on
the assumption that not everything needs a high rate. Usually sounds
OK, at least for casual listening.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:50:28 -0500, RCE wrote:


Nice job and good information. I admit I haven't followed the
progression
of mp3 technology based on the early low sampling rates that were used
and
the resultant losses. I was unaware that sampling rates of 256kbps were
even possible. Maybe there's hope. I wonder, for the Ipod fans, what
the
file size becomes if sampled at these higher rates.

Uncompressed CDs have a bit rate of 1411.2 kbps. So, a 256kbps sampling
rate will give a compression ration of @ 6:1.

Not necessarily. there is a compression algorithm, not just taking every
6th bit.

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:14:13 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
om...


In reality though.........you lose.

MP3's rock. ;-)



To tell the truth, right now I am in the middle of the pre-inspection
prep
process and it's becoming increasingly difficult to stay focused on this
discussion ..... oh, man ......

BBBBAAAAAAAAAWWWWWAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA!!!

Oh - right - I'm sorry - that was uncalled for.

~~ snicker ~~

Look at it this way - gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "loosey
goosey".

~~ snicker ~~

So will we be calling you Bruceth tomorrow?

Seriously good luck on the test - your a better man than I.

Smart ass pansy ...

oh ..... man ..... not again ...

RCE


Just tell the doc, to be careful. Going where no man has gone before.
(Assumption)

JimH wrote:



So why did you clip my entire message then?

Not a nice thing to do Richard..........so I reinserted my full original
message with this reply.

JimH,
Richard followed SOP when he clipped your post. He only left the
appropriate part based upon his addition. Why are you concerned that
your message must be left in all posts?

--
Reggie

"That's my story and I am sticking to it."

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:01:10 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:

The bottom line is that I don't think that *many* folks can distinguish the
difference in sound quality between an MP3 and a CD on/in the average home,
boat or car stereo syste

Probably not, but in a home? I think so.

Of course the other problem is that I have abnormally acute hearing
even at my middle age - I can hear things others "normal" can't.

So I suppose that enters into it somehow.
Tom,
Can you see things other normal people can't see?

--
Reggie

"That's my story and I am sticking to it."

JimH wrote:
"RCE" wrote in message
...
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

So why did you clip my entire message then?

Not a nice thing to do Richard..........so I reinserted my full original
message with this reply.

Good luck on the test tomorrow. Tonight will not be too fun for you.

My reply was meant to be humorous.

RCE


Fair enough but I obviously missed the humor. But it does not explain away
you editing my original reply.

NP though as my point has been made.

Regardless......good luck tonight...........have plenty of reading material
available.

Tomorrow will be a breeze. ;-)


JimH,
You worry me. What was the problem with RCE editing the long post to
make a joke? He did not edit your post to change the meaning of your
post, he just removed what was not pertinent to his joke.

--
Reggie

"That's my story and I am sticking to it."

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:33:52 +0000, CalifBill wrote:


Uncompressed CDs have a bit rate of 1411.2 kbps. So, a 256kbps
sampling rate will give a compression ration of @ 6:1.

Not necessarily. there is a compression algorithm, not just taking every
6th bit.

Well, I did misuse the term "sampling rate". I should have used bit rate,
but a bit rate of 256kbps is still around 1/6 of a bit rate of 1411.2kbps.
It's my understanding that the compression algorithms vary the sample
frequency and the sample size, in bits, to get the bit rate.

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

Interior bank alarms are my "thing" - I can hear them in the
background every time I have to go into the lobby for something.
Drives me nuts.

I had the same problem, but they used the same alarms in package stores
and 7/11 stores. I would always hear the high pitched squeal.
Unfortunately, I haven't heard them in years


"That's my story and I am sticking to it."

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:33:21 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

I wonder what sampling rate Telarc used for the 1812? Seems like they had
a
pamphlet out in the late 70's that came with the CD's giving that
information. I just looked at my 1812, but the sampling rate isn't
mentioned anywhere.
--
'Til next time,

John H


There have been a few versions of it released by Telarc. The most recent,
in SACD, is described here, but no sampling rates are given:

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200..._pops_new.html

RCE


Is that the CD you bought? It sounds like a good one Makes me wonder if I
should update my 1978 version. How do you like the vocals?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************