or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

 Fascinating thought process you have going there. Currently, content does not need to be deemed lawful or unlawful in order to discriminate. But you see this proposal as bad because, under it, even though it would prevent ISPs from discriminating against lawful traffic, they might be able to lobby for content to be declared unlawful for their own benefit. Good catch - definitely a threat to the future of internet freedom.
None of the analysis techniques that I tried showed the splices. I think that the main problem from an analytic point of view is that the bit rates and depth on your original samples are being obscured by converting it back to the high resolution format of the composite file. Interpolation is hiding the lower bit depth, and there is enough information present that the entire file appears to have a similar bandwidth, with components present all the way up to 22 kHz.
I predict some group chanting of Mark Twain's favorite line on the subject.
I think you are confusing several different concepts, at least by name. Bit rate is bits per second, not bits per sample. 16 bit describes bits per sample, and is bit depth, not bit rate. Bit rate is samples per second multiplied by bits per sample. Your description of sample rate is correct, and it is often quoted as a frequency (in kHz) although it is technically more accurate to use samples per second.
Come on - you know perfectly well what the issue is. The principle of net neutrality is that the ISPs and Tier 1 networks cannot discriminate traffic (different priority and speed) according to its source or content. Presumably, if, for example, as a customer you pay for a 100 Mb/s download connection, you would prefer that your ISP did not vary its actual allowed data rate to you according to the source, prioritizing those companies that were willing to pay them a...
The point is not to prevent throttling, but to prevent source-dependent throttling. 
Which issue?
I was not doubting your test - just observing that the variations must be rather subtle. It's easy (FFT or just listening) to tell a lower bitrate MP3 from a lossless version, but neither method showed up the variations in your sample. I'll try a couple of other techniques and see if I can pull anything out.
Certainly more familiar than you are, based on the large fraction of your posts these days that are simply ignorant rants against government in general, and the current one in particular. Where do you get this nonsense from? "Reality dictates..."? Really? And which "promises" are you referring to here? Unless you have some actual arguments to make then the only thing dictating around here is your inability to see past your own ideological dogma. And you still didn't answer...
 That's a tough one. I'm not sure the track is very well suited to that exercise, since it has so many transitions of its own. I transferred it to CD and played it on my reference system, and I was unable to hear any significant changes. A time-resolved FFT of the data does not show much variation in bandwidth of the kind that is obvious when comparing lower bitrate music samples, so I the compression artifacts are not very apparent.
New Posts  All Forums: