On 25/02/15 12:13, Jim GM4DHJ... wrote:

and is facing a grim future- bouncing of
the walls of his Spartan hovel.

that is your best put down yet ! .... kwality

I've no idea who you're responding to, Jim, but whatever is
'future-bouncing'? And what has it got to do with walls?


--
Spike

"Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad
law". Judge Rolfe

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
It is easy to see why he hasn't been successful and is facing a grim
future- bouncing of the walls of his Spartan hovel.


Once again your desperation comes to the fore that others should
be envious of your money and your house.

In your posts to Usenet, you come across as someone who is
deeply unhappy about himself and the environment within
which he finds himself.

You seem to be very insecure with your need to make yourself
feel better by reeling off insults directed at others.

Is there any way in which we, your fellow subscribers to this NG, can
help you to lift yourself out of your mental doldrums and assist you to
assume the mantle
of adulthood?

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
It isn't a 'put down', to interpret as such shows an peculiar mind set on
the part of the reader. It is simply an observation.

No one is fooled by your attempt to minimise that you, once again, resorted
to petty insult.

Shame on you.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Read my response to rickman for a more detailed explanation of the term.
However, as you can see from the stuff he has posted, that was not the
context. He has finally grasped the phasor concept, which is progress, but
given that seems to have taken over 10 years, I can't disagree with his
previous comment re his being a 'slow learner'.

More immature remarks from you; remarks that are riddled with confabulated
untruths in your attempt to make yourself feel better.

Why do you have that need to belittle others?

Shame on you.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
On 25/02/15 11:54, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 00:32:59 +0000 (UTC)
Brian Reay wrote:

If you look in the archives you will see him referring to 'negative
frequency'

Genuine DSP gurus refer to negative frequency too, they simply mean
the opposite phasor in the pair, the one rotating clockwise instead of
anti-clockwise on the Real-Imaginary axis diagram.


Read my response to rickman for a more detailed explanation of the term.
However, as you can see from the stuff he has posted, that was not the
context. He has finally grasped the phasor concept, which is progress, but
given that seems to have taken over 10 years, I can't disagree with his
previous comment re his being a 'slow learner'.

Why make a reference to Rickman if you remove the cross-post to rrae?

Is it to reduce the audience for your abuse?

On 2/25/2015 1:41 AM, rickman wrote:
On 2/24/2015 7:12 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/24/2015 7:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/24/2015 6:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/24/2015 5:47 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/24/2015 12:00 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/24/2015 11:32 AM, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:
"AndyW" wrote in message
...
On 24/02/2015 12:47, gareth wrote:
What is the point of digital voice when there are already AM, SSB
and FM for those who want to appear indistinguishable from CBers?

Perhaps it is cynicism from the manufacturers who introduce such
things
as they see their traditional highly-priced corner of the market
being wiped away by SDR technologies?

Bandwidth reduction for one.
If you can encode and compress speech sufficiently then you can use
less bandwidth in transmission.

That's the bit I have trouble getting my head around. Back in the
1970s
and 1980s digital transmissions used a much greater bandwidth than
their
analogue equivalents. Sampling at 2.2 x max frequency x number of
bits
plus housekeeping bits etc. etc.
A UK standard 625 line PAL video transmission would have used a
bandwidth of over 400MHz!
Times have changed and left me behind, but I've still got me beer
so who
cares?

But you forget compression. For instance, unless there is a scene
change, the vast majority of a television picture does not change
from
frame to frame. Even if the camera moves, the picture shifts but
doesn't change all that much. Why waste all of that bandwidth
resending
information the receiver already has?

And voice isn't continuous; it has lots of pauses. Some are very
noticeable, while others are so short we don't consciously hear them,
but they are there.

And once you've compressed everything you can out of the original
signal, you can do bit compression, similar to zipping a file for
sending.

There are lots of ways to compress a signal before sending it
digitally.
About the only one which can't be compressed is pure white
noise -
which, of course, is only a concept (nothing is "pure").

I think that depends on what you mean by "pure". Sounds very
non-technical to me. Even noise can be compressed since if it is
truly
noise, you don't need to send the data, just send the one bit that
says
there is no signal, just noise. lol


Pure white noise is a random distribution of signal across the entire
spectrum, with an equal distribution of frequencies over time. Like a
pure resistor or capacitor, it doesn't exist. But the noise IS the
signal. To recreate the noise, you have to sample the signal and
transmit it. However, since it is completely random, by definition no
compression is possible.

Why does it not "exist"? That is not at all clear. You don't
understand compression. Compression is a means of removing the part of
a signal that is unimportant and sending only the part that is
important. In most cases of "pure" noise, you can just send a statement
that the signal is "noise" without caring about the exact voltages over
time. So, yes, even noise can be compressed depending on your
requirements.


Pure white noise is a concept only. There is no perfect white noise
source, just as there is no pure resistor or capacitor.

And yes, I do understand compression. One of the things it depends on
is predictability and repeatability of the incoming signal. That does
not exist with white noise. The fact you don't understand that pure
white noise is only a concept and cannot exist in the real world shows
your lack of understanding.

This is not very productive. You make an assertion and the fact that I
don't agree means I am wrong. Ok, you have an idea in your mind and
can't explain it. I get that. The fact that you don't have a white
noise source in your lab doesn't mean it doesn't exist other than in the
same way that 100.1 doesn't exist. No one has ever made anything that
was *exactly* 100.1.

This is a pointless abstraction so I won't continue to debate it.


You obviously again have no idea what you're talking about. By
definition, white noise is a concept only and CAN'T EXIST in the real
world. It's similar to an isotropic source.


Some compression algorithms (i.e. mp3) remove what they consider is
"unimportant". However, the result after decompressing is a poor
recreation of the original signal.

That is a value judgement which most would disagree with not to mention
that your example is not valid. MP3 does not *remove* anything from the
signal. It is a form of compression that simply can't reproduce the
signal exactly. The use of the term "poor" is your value judgement.
Most people would say an MP3 audio sounds very much like the original.


That is a value judgement that all experts agree with - and an area I
have been intimately involved with for the last 13 years. You also
don't understand how mp3 works.

All experts agree that when comparing mp3 to the original, there is a
significant difference.


But for perfect recreation, nothing is "unimportant". Voice/video
compression is no different than file compression on a computer. Can
you imaging what would happen if your favorite program was not perfectly
recreated?


A friend worked in sonar where the data was collected on ships and
transmitted via satellite to shore for signal processing rather than
doing any compression on the data and sending the useful info. As the
signal was nearly all "noise" trying to do any compression on it, even
the aspects that weren't "pure" white noise, would potentially have
masked the signals. Sonar is all about pulling the signal out of the
noise.


You mean the signal can't be compressed? No way. Any non-random signal
can be compressed to some extent. How much depends on the signal and
the amount of processing power required to compress it. However, in
your example, the processing power to compress the signal would
probably
have been greater than that required to process the original
signal. So
if there wasn't enough power to process the signal on the ship, there
wouldn't be enough power to compress the near-white noise signal,
either.

You really like your all encompassing assumptions. No, all signals can
not be compressed, even non-noise signals can't be compressed if the
signal is not appropriate for the compressor. This is really a very
large topic and I think you are used to dealing with the special cases
without understanding the general case.


Which is just the opposite of what you claimed above. Please make up
your mind.

This is the sort of stuff that makes discussions with you unenjoyable.
You clearly don't understand compression or you would understand this
statement. Compression maps a combination of bits into a smaller number
of bits. By the counting theorem it is impossible for any compression
algorithm to compress all possible input sets. Whether it can be
compressed depends on a match between the input bits and the compression
algorithm. Even white noise (which can exist if you define "white
noise" adequately) can be compressed by the appropriate algorithm. That
algorithm won't compress much else though.


I understand compression much better than you do. And not everything
can be compressed - there is a limit. White noise is one of the things
which cannot be compressed.


Try visiting comp.compression and offering them your opinions. There
are many there who are happy to explain the details to you.


I understand the details, thank you. Much better than you do,
obviously. But that's not surprising, either.

Ok, you have reverted into snarky mode. I'm done.


That's good. Trying to educate you is like trying to teach a pig to sing.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Jim GM4DHJ..." wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Jim GM4DHJ..." wrote in message
...
As you say, he is best ignored, although some of his whacky theories
have given me a good laugh from time to time.
laughing at others would appear to be your speciality.......
Another illustration of, "Empty vessels make the most noise"?

no ....

Oh. Well, what about, "Vessels full of **** create the biggest stinks"?


closer .....

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
It isn't a 'put down', to interpret as such shows an peculiar mind set on
the part of the reader. It is simply an observation.

No one is fooled by your attempt to minimise that you, once again,
resorted
to petty insult.

Shame on you.


I don't think brian likes you.....

On 2/25/2015 6:05 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 2/24/2015 7:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/24/2015 6:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/24/2015 5:47 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/24/2015 12:00 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/24/2015 11:32 AM, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:
"AndyW" wrote in message
...
On 24/02/2015 12:47, gareth wrote:
What is the point of digital voice when there are already AM, SSB
and FM for those who want to appear indistinguishable from CBers?

Perhaps it is cynicism from the manufacturers who introduce such
things
as they see their traditional highly-priced corner of the market
being wiped away by SDR technologies?

Bandwidth reduction for one.
If you can encode and compress speech sufficiently then you can use
less bandwidth in transmission.

That's the bit I have trouble getting my head around. Back in the
1970s
and 1980s digital transmissions used a much greater bandwidth than
their
analogue equivalents. Sampling at 2.2 x max frequency x number of bits
plus housekeeping bits etc. etc.
A UK standard 625 line PAL video transmission would have used a
bandwidth of over 400MHz!
Times have changed and left me behind, but I've still got me beer
so who
cares?

But you forget compression. For instance, unless there is a scene
change, the vast majority of a television picture does not change from
frame to frame. Even if the camera moves, the picture shifts but
doesn't change all that much. Why waste all of that bandwidth
resending
information the receiver already has?

And voice isn't continuous; it has lots of pauses. Some are very
noticeable, while others are so short we don't consciously hear them,
but they are there.

And once you've compressed everything you can out of the original
signal, you can do bit compression, similar to zipping a file for
sending.

There are lots of ways to compress a signal before sending it
digitally.
About the only one which can't be compressed is pure white noise -
which, of course, is only a concept (nothing is "pure").

I think that depends on what you mean by "pure". Sounds very
non-technical to me. Even noise can be compressed since if it is truly
noise, you don't need to send the data, just send the one bit that says
there is no signal, just noise. lol


Pure white noise is a random distribution of signal across the entire
spectrum, with an equal distribution of frequencies over time. Like a
pure resistor or capacitor, it doesn't exist. But the noise IS the
signal. To recreate the noise, you have to sample the signal and
transmit it. However, since it is completely random, by definition no
compression is possible.

Why does it not "exist"? That is not at all clear. You don't
understand compression. Compression is a means of removing the part of
a signal that is unimportant and sending only the part that is
important. In most cases of "pure" noise, you can just send a statement
that the signal is "noise" without caring about the exact voltages over
time. So, yes, even noise can be compressed depending on your
requirements.


Pure white noise is a concept only. There is no perfect white noise
source, just as there is no pure resistor or capacitor.

And yes, I do understand compression. One of the things it depends on
is predictability and repeatability of the incoming signal. That does
not exist with white noise. The fact you don't understand that pure
white noise is only a concept and cannot exist in the real world shows
your lack of understanding.

Some compression algorithms (i.e. mp3) remove what they consider is
"unimportant". However, the result after decompressing is a poor
recreation of the original signal.

But for perfect recreation, nothing is "unimportant". Voice/video
compression is no different than file compression on a computer. Can
you imaging what would happen if your favorite program was not perfectly
recreated?


A friend worked in sonar where the data was collected on ships and
transmitted via satellite to shore for signal processing rather than
doing any compression on the data and sending the useful info. As the
signal was nearly all "noise" trying to do any compression on it, even
the aspects that weren't "pure" white noise, would potentially have
masked the signals. Sonar is all about pulling the signal out of the
noise.


You mean the signal can't be compressed? No way. Any non-random signal
can be compressed to some extent. How much depends on the signal and
the amount of processing power required to compress it. However, in
your example, the processing power to compress the signal would probably
have been greater than that required to process the original signal. So
if there wasn't enough power to process the signal on the ship, there
wouldn't be enough power to compress the near-white noise signal, either.

You really like your all encompassing assumptions. No, all signals can
not be compressed, even non-noise signals can't be compressed if the
signal is not appropriate for the compressor. This is really a very
large topic and I think you are used to dealing with the special cases
without understanding the general case.


Which is just the opposite of what you claimed above. Please make up
your mind.

Try visiting comp.compression and offering them your opinions. There
are many there who are happy to explain the details to you.


I understand the details, thank you. Much better than you do,
obviously. But that's not surprising, either.

You are both talking at cross-purposes. One of you is talking of taking
a sample of white noise and storing it as data. Because of its
statistical properties I would not be surprised if it were impossible to
compress. The other is assuming that by definition noise is not data
and compression would only be usefully applied to a hypothetical signal
added to the white noise, when no properties of the noise would be
relevant for the compressed signal.

I can't think why one should want to record and store a sample of white
noise, but that does not prevent it being used as a hypothetical
example.

I doubt you really have any disagreement, just a misunderstanding.

HTH


Roger, no, this is pretty common with rickman. White noise IS a signal,
just like any other signal. But rickman, by saying it is not a
theoretical concept but exists in the real world, shows he has no
understanding of it. And by saying mp3 is a lossless compression
algorithm, he shows he doesn't understand that, either.

Yet rather than try to learn, he continues to argue from a position of
ignorance.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 2/25/2015 1:42 AM, rickman wrote:
On 2/24/2015 7:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/24/2015 7:07 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/24/2015 6:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/24/2015 5:47 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/24/2015 12:00 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/24/2015 11:32 AM, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:
"AndyW" wrote in message
...
On 24/02/2015 12:47, gareth wrote:
What is the point of digital voice when there are already AM, SSB
and FM for those who want to appear indistinguishable from CBers?

Perhaps it is cynicism from the manufacturers who introduce such
things
as they see their traditional highly-priced corner of the market
being wiped away by SDR technologies?

Bandwidth reduction for one.
If you can encode and compress speech sufficiently then you can use
less bandwidth in transmission.

That's the bit I have trouble getting my head around. Back in the
1970s
and 1980s digital transmissions used a much greater bandwidth than
their
analogue equivalents. Sampling at 2.2 x max frequency x number of
bits
plus housekeeping bits etc. etc.
A UK standard 625 line PAL video transmission would have used a
bandwidth of over 400MHz!
Times have changed and left me behind, but I've still got me beer
so who
cares?

But you forget compression. For instance, unless there is a scene
change, the vast majority of a television picture does not change
from
frame to frame. Even if the camera moves, the picture shifts but
doesn't change all that much. Why waste all of that bandwidth
resending
information the receiver already has?

And voice isn't continuous; it has lots of pauses. Some are very
noticeable, while others are so short we don't consciously hear them,
but they are there.

And once you've compressed everything you can out of the original
signal, you can do bit compression, similar to zipping a file for
sending.

There are lots of ways to compress a signal before sending it
digitally.
About the only one which can't be compressed is pure white
noise -
which, of course, is only a concept (nothing is "pure").

I think that depends on what you mean by "pure". Sounds very
non-technical to me. Even noise can be compressed since if it is
truly
noise, you don't need to send the data, just send the one bit that
says
there is no signal, just noise. lol


Pure white noise is a random distribution of signal across the entire
spectrum, with an equal distribution of frequencies over time. Like a
pure resistor or capacitor, it doesn't exist. But the noise IS the
signal. To recreate the noise, you have to sample the signal and
transmit it. However, since it is completely random, by definition no
compression is possible.

Here is a white noise signal... 4. That number was chosen at random,
courtesy of XKCD.com. http://xkcd.com/221/


No, that is not a white noise signal. And the number, by definition,
being computer generated, is only pseudo-random.

You didn't even read the damn reference. The number was *not* computer
generated.


I did read the reference. And it is not a random number.

The mistake I made was giving credence to your stoopid reference.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================