Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pcstel who wrote (6106)	1/27/2007 1:42:06 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 8420

I can tell you that my experience with data compression is also quite rudimentary.. Although probably somewhat more detailed than yours. As I have told you. I worked in the "Broadcast Industry' for most of my life.. Since I was 14. In the early-eighties I worked for a short period of time for a small Redwood City Company that developed Digital processing equipment for broadcast and government. Our research led to the issuance of several patents for the basis of the technology which commonly became known as Run-Length-Encoding. RLE has been around for many, many years (being nearly trivial in its essential form), and is quite a bit more "rudimentary" than any of the Huffman variants. But neither of these methods is close to the complexity of the lossy methods employed in these modern codecs. I won't pretend to be knowledgeable about these, and you shouldn't, either. I understand only the basics. I'll accept your claim that you do. The argument began when we were discussing PAC versus AACPlus. As I have stated, it is self-evident that PAC is inferior, and vastly so -- so much that Ibiquity abandoned it for its OWN project. So much so that not one other significant player is using PAC, while almost EVERYONE is using AACPlus. These are facts. Not opinions. If you disagree that these are FACTS, please show me some evidence that some other significant player is using PAC. But we need not be reliant on my word about this, and not on the rational conclusion that is clear from the committee's abandonment of PAC for IBOC, either. The Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) consortium has specified it as the standard for both terrestrial SW and MW AM broadcasting in Europe. CT-aacPlus (used by XM) was tested heavily against other algorithms. Double-blind tests were performed, and AAC (plain-old AAC) was 33% more efficient compared to previous generations of competing algorithms (including PAC). If you'll do a little looking you should find a reference to further double-blind tests conducted by BBC and DT in which CTaacPlus was determined to be 1/3 more efficient than plain-old AAC. You can do the arithmetic. PAC is dead. Nobody is using it except Sirius. And there is a damned good reason for it. To get equivalent sound quality to aacPlus you have to have use 30% more bandwidth. (Nevermind the benefit of XM's use of a special low-bitrate voice encoder for its talk channels, which provides additional efficiencies). You can argue with the facts all day long, and shout louder than me, but you are not right and are unable to make yourself admit you are wrong. As a result, this subject is at a dead end. You have been proven wrong. Beyond wrong. Disingenuous (no person who had spent 10 minutes reading on the subject would take your position, other than Siriots who have an agenda). The only other people who would agree with you on this are the likes of Sirius Rich, who doesn't have the gumption to slap his ass with both hands. If you can't accept it, that is a personal problem and perhaps you should seek counseling over it.