 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/07/2015 11:22 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 27.07.2015 um 19:54 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>
>> This latter type of shenanigans is mostly used in cryptography and
>> number theory, but does also pop up in places like error-correcting
>> codes. (If you've ever tried to scan a bar code or play a CD, you care
>> about error-correcting codes.)
>
> Nobody cares about error-correcting codes when playing an audio CD.
> Unlike DVD or even data CDs (aka CD-ROMs), Sony's audio CD format
> doesn't waste any data capacity on bit error recovery.
In fact, the audio CD format uses cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon codes
for error recovery.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.08.2015 um 11:24 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> On 31/07/2015 11:22 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 27.07.2015 um 19:54 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>
>>> This latter type of shenanigans is mostly used in cryptography and
>>> number theory, but does also pop up in places like error-correcting
>>> codes. (If you've ever tried to scan a bar code or play a CD, you care
>>> about error-correcting codes.)
>>
>> Nobody cares about error-correcting codes when playing an audio CD.
>> Unlike DVD or even data CDs (aka CD-ROMs), Sony's audio CD format
>> doesn't waste any data capacity on bit error recovery.
>
> In fact, the audio CD format uses cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon codes
> for error recovery.
Damn, I hate to stand corrected.
But there was /something/ with regards to error recovery that CD-ROMs
have but CD-DAs don't.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/1/2015 4:36 PM, clipka wrote:
>> In fact, the audio CD format uses cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon codes
>> for error recovery.
>
> Damn, I hate to stand corrected.
Write this Date in our calenders.
On the first of August two thousand and fourteen. Clipka admitted he was
wrong. :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/08/2015 04:36 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.08.2015 um 11:24 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>> In fact, the audio CD format uses cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon codes
>> for error recovery.
>
> Damn, I hate to stand corrected.
>
> But there was /something/ with regards to error recovery that CD-ROMs
> have but CD-DAs don't.
Yes, I have that vague recollection as well. I should think ISO-9660
probably has block-level checksums or similar, to allow corruption to be
detected. For audio CDs, the player is supposed to just fill in any
unreadable chunks with silence.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.08.2015 um 17:49 schrieb Stephen:
> On 8/1/2015 4:36 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> In fact, the audio CD format uses cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon codes
>>> for error recovery.
>>
>> Damn, I hate to stand corrected.
>
> Write this Date in our calenders.
> On the first of August two thousand and fourteen. Clipka admitted he was
> wrong. :-P
No I didn't. Not back /then/. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/08/2015 08:25 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.08.2015 um 17:49 schrieb Stephen:
>> Write this Date in our calenders.
>> On the first of August two thousand and fourteen. Clipka admitted he was
>> wrong. :-P
>
> No I didn't. Not back /then/. :-P
Haha, 0wn3d!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/1/2015 8:25 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.08.2015 um 17:49 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 8/1/2015 4:36 PM, clipka wrote:
>>>> In fact, the audio CD format uses cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon codes
>>>> for error recovery.
>>>
>>> Damn, I hate to stand corrected.
>>
>> Write this Date in our calenders.
>> On the first of August two thousand and fourteen. Clipka admitted he was
>> wrong. :-P
>
> No I didn't. Not back /then/. :-P
>
Bugrit!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/1/2015 8:47 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 01/08/2015 08:25 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 01.08.2015 um 17:49 schrieb Stephen:
>>> Write this Date in our calenders.
>>> On the first of August two thousand and fourteen. Clipka admitted he was
>>> wrong. :-P
>>
>> No I didn't. Not back /then/. :-P
>
> Haha, 0wn3d!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'something 1.wav.dat' (217 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/1/2015 9:07 PM, Stephen wrote:
> ""
A prize if anyone recognises the voice of the actor.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> There's no grouping like you did in the original proof. Which part of
> the original proof assumes the length of the summation is anything other
> than infinite?
This part of the proof is grouping elements in pairs and summing them up:
(s-4s) = 1+2+3+4+5+ 6+...
-4 -8 -12-...
-3s = 1-2+3-4+5-6+...
> Welcome back BTW :-)
I had some problems with the dreaded "can't get fully qualified domain
name" error (which was incidentally solved by ticking one checkbox in
an obscure system setting. But damned it was hard to figure that out.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
