"gareth" wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

Maybe I don't understand the issue. Isn't that a valid example of a
negative frequency? There are some DSP experts in comp.dsp who talk about
negative frequency often.

If you, or, indeed, anyone else has any difficulties with the subject matter
and DSP in general, then do ask me, because having worked through
what appeared as a number of anomalies (all resolved 9 years ago
when I was working as a DSP manufacturer, picoChip in Bath, UK)
I feel sure that I'm well positioned to understand the difficulties that
others might encounter in this area.

No. Don't. Trust me on this.

"Custos Custodum" wrote in message
...
"Jim GM4DHJ..." wrote in
:


You been shot down again.

You are hurling abuse, as you always do.

Only you thinks otherwise.

Everyone else is laughing at you.




no we are not...hundreds of us don't give a **** about your one
technical upmanship....

Too preoccupied with your imagined Morse code one-upmanship?


well you have to do what you are best at ... tee hee...imagination is my
speciality....

On 2/25/2015 11:54 AM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
"gareth" wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

Maybe I don't understand the issue. Isn't that a valid example of a
negative frequency? There are some DSP experts in comp.dsp who talk about
negative frequency often.

If you, or, indeed, anyone else has any difficulties with the subject matter
and DSP in general, then do ask me, because having worked through
what appeared as a number of anomalies (all resolved 9 years ago
when I was working as a DSP manufacturer, picoChip in Bath, UK)
I feel sure that I'm well positioned to understand the difficulties that
others might encounter in this area.

WARNING! Make sure to search the archives and read all about his "Big K"
theory before taking seriously anything Gareth says about DSP. It'll
quickly become apparent that he has no understanding whatsoever of the
subject and you'll save yourself from wasting any time talking to him about
it.

Interestingly, the true experts of comp.dsp refer to Gareth Alun Evans
G4SDW as "that idiot from uk.radio.amateur".

LOL! I see this is cross posted to comp.dsp. I don't feel like
researching the "Big K" theory, but I would be interested in hearing a
bit if anyone cares to share the humor.

--

Rick

On 2/25/2015 3:49 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
On 25/02/15 06:43, rickman wrote:
On 2/24/2015 7:32 PM, Brian Reay wrote:
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.


To be more accurate, it has an infinite bandwidth and constant power
density/Hz.

As you say, it doesn't really exist.

In practice, lab noise sources are specified over a bandwidth and to be
within a given limit of power variation across that.

Darn useful devices to have around.

So if I have a string of random numbers they can not represent a white
noise source of infinite bandwidth and constant power density?


Not perfectly. The string would need to be infinitely long and truly
random. That is why the term Pseudo Random is generally used for strings
used in such applications.

Pseudo random applies to finite length sequences. There is nothing to
say the string of numbers doesn't extend to infinity. You are confusing
the existence of such a string with a representation. The digits of
transcendental numbers such as e and pi are expected to be "normal"
which is in essence the same as random. So to say that "it doesn't
really exist" is not demonstrated in reality much less in theory.

I can compress the infinite bit sequence of pi quite easily just by
saying... "pi".

--

Rick

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

Maybe I don't understand the issue. Isn't that a valid example of a
negative frequency? There are some DSP experts in comp.dsp who talk
about
negative frequency often.
If you, or, indeed, anyone else has any difficulties with the subject
matter
and DSP in general, then do ask me, because having worked through
what appeared as a number of anomalies (all resolved 9 years ago
when I was working as a DSP manufacturer, picoChip in Bath, UK)
I feel sure that I'm well positioned to understand the difficulties that
others might encounter in this area.
WARNING! Make sure to search the archives and read all about his "Big K"
theory before taking seriously anything Gareth says about DSP. It'll
quickly become apparent that he has no understanding whatsoever of the
subject and you'll save yourself from wasting any time talking to him
about
it.
Interestingly, the true experts of comp.dsp refer to Gareth Alun Evans
G4SDW as "that idiot from uk.radio.amateur".

You continue to make a fool of yourself by posting nothing but infantile
abuse
and all your posts lack any evidence of comprehension of technical matters.

And your malicious cross-post to comp. dsp is not lost on me; more evidence
of your infantile need to draw attention to yourself by stirring things up.

By referring to, "Big K", you refer to the anomalies of 10 years and more
ago to which I alluded and which were resolved 9 years ago, so what point
are you making, exactly?

As I said, as I had some difficulties which were resolved, that places me in
a good position to
assist others who may also have such difficulties.

As I said, as I had some difficulties which were resolved, that places me
in
a good position to
assist others who may also have such difficulties.



don't worry about it...teechers don't do nuffin wurfwhile at skool ....

"UK Support" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

Maybe I don't understand the issue. Isn't that a valid example of a
negative frequency? There are some DSP experts in comp.dsp who talk
about
negative frequency often.

If you, or, indeed, anyone else has any difficulties with the subject
matter
and DSP in general, then do ask me, because having worked through
what appeared as a number of anomalies (all resolved 9 years ago
when I was working as a DSP manufacturer, picoChip in Bath, UK)
I feel sure that I'm well positioned to understand the difficulties that
others might encounter in this area.

No. Don't. Trust me on this.

If you're intent on making malicious hoaxes, you need to check their
name change from 3 years ago.

Stupid boy.

"gareth" wrote:
"UK Support" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

Maybe I don't understand the issue. Isn't that a valid example of a
negative frequency? There are some DSP experts in comp.dsp who talk
about
negative frequency often.

If you, or, indeed, anyone else has any difficulties with the subject
matter
and DSP in general, then do ask me, because having worked through
what appeared as a number of anomalies (all resolved 9 years ago
when I was working as a DSP manufacturer, picoChip in Bath, UK)
I feel sure that I'm well positioned to understand the difficulties that
others might encounter in this area.

No. Don't. Trust me on this.

If you're intent on making malicious hoaxes, you need to check their
name change from 3 years ago.

Stupid boy.

You caused so much damage to their reputation they had to rebrand? By Jove!

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

rickman wrote:
On 2/25/2015 11:54 AM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
"gareth" wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

Maybe I don't understand the issue. Isn't that a valid example of a
negative frequency? There are some DSP experts in comp.dsp who talk about
negative frequency often.

If you, or, indeed, anyone else has any difficulties with the subject matter
and DSP in general, then do ask me, because having worked through
what appeared as a number of anomalies (all resolved 9 years ago
when I was working as a DSP manufacturer, picoChip in Bath, UK)
I feel sure that I'm well positioned to understand the difficulties that
others might encounter in this area.

WARNING! Make sure to search the archives and read all about his "Big K"
theory before taking seriously anything Gareth says about DSP. It'll
quickly become apparent that he has no understanding whatsoever of the
subject and you'll save yourself from wasting any time talking to him about
it.

Interestingly, the true experts of comp.dsp refer to Gareth Alun Evans
G4SDW as "that idiot from uk.radio.amateur".

LOL! I see this is cross posted to comp.dsp. I don't feel like
researching the "Big K" theory, but I would be interested in hearing a
bit if anyone cares to share the humor.

It all sprang from Gareth being corrected over one of his routine total
misunderstandings and he went off the deep end about it, as per, and cooked
up "Big K", a Time Cube like confabulation and misrepresentation of known
physics. Some time later, after receiving much mocking, he declared that
he'd found some obscure textbook (AIUI, nobody has been able to verify the
contents of this supposed textbook, or even its existence) that proved that
he was correct and that every other person on the planet was wrong and
always had been. Thereafter, he refused to be drawn further on "Big K",
saying that he had settled the matter "to [his] satisfaction".

There's little to be gained from reading Gareth's "Big K" theory, as it's
arm-waving nonsense of the highest order. I did challenge him last year to
produce a fully referenced paper on the subject that I could review and
assess, but he point-blank refused, of course.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...
It all sprang from Gareth being corrected over one of his routine total
misunderstandings and he went off the deep end about it, as per, and
cooked
up "Big K", a Time Cube like confabulation and misrepresentation of known
physics. Some time later, after receiving much mocking, he declared that
he'd found some obscure textbook (AIUI, nobody has been able to verify the
contents of this supposed textbook, or even its existence) that proved
that
he was correct and that every other person on the planet was wrong and
always had been. Thereafter, he refused to be drawn further on "Big K",
saying that he had settled the matter "to [his] satisfaction".
There's little to be gained from reading Gareth's "Big K" theory, as it's
arm-waving nonsense of the highest order. I did challenge him last year to
produce a fully referenced paper on the subject that I could review and
assess, but he point-blank refused, of course.

Once again, your posts are a vehicle for infantile abuse, for, if you
had the slightest comprehension of the matters about which you sneer,
then you would have at least some credibility, but you merely add
weight to the adage that empty vessels make the most noise.

For example, in the above, you make no discussion of the technical
matters involved and try to mask your ignorance by tirades of abuse.

You also lie, for I made no such point-blank refusal., and your continual
whingeing on about a peer-reviewed paper was your device for masking
your ignorance, for when I enquired of you which bits of my theory
that you found fault with, you shuddered to a hallt with your tail between
your legs shouting out childish remarks as you ran (pretty much as
you do above)

Now, Stevie, baby, now that you have widened the circulation to comp.dsp,
why not phrase the exact technical issue with which you found difficulty?

Perhaps you could start off by explaining the correction to which you allude
at the beginning of your rant, above, just to show that you have the merest
inkling
of the matter, to sace face?