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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : DGIV-A-HOLICS...FAMILY CHIT CHAT ONLY!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Craig K who wrote (16483)	6/30/1998 10:33:00 PM
From: Silver__7	Respond to of 50264

'bout time you shared some of your knowledge with everyone. You know, compared to some of the stuff you have done at work, this internet stuff sounds pretty simple. thanks for the explanation... Silver

To: Craig K who wrote (16483)	6/30/1998 11:47:00 PM
From: TheLineMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50264

You pretty much have it Juanita except for one thing,,,"make it soundbetter"...Encoded voice sounds good a best and unacceptable at the worst...it is impossible to convert already encoded voice to another code and make it sound better...the quality loss was taken with the first encode, but a loss should not occur in the conversion. because it is performed in the digital arena...what I mean by that is that bits are shuffled around into new positions without any getting lost or misplaced as opposed to getting converted to analog and then re-sampled which would result in additional loss....Hope that make sense.... One word entropy!!!! The original data is lost once the the voice data has been quantized. So DGIV will put together an algorithm to convert encoded voice from one format to another without loss of quality. Will they have it working within the next 5 years?