What is the point of digital voice?
 

rickman wrote:
On 2/24/2015 6:35 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 2/24/2015 12:37 PM, gareth wrote:
"Spike" wrote in message
...
Get a CW signal peaked on the 20 c/s nose of the HRO crystal filter,
with
the phasing notching out any nearby signal, and you realise that DSP
just
isn't necessary due to the quality of the 80-year-old technology
employed.

WHS.

The Eddystone EA12 does not have a phasing control as that part of the
cct
is fixed-tuned, but it does have a tunable notch in the 100kHz IF to
achieve the same effect.

Mind you, there seems to be a diminishing band of people who know how to
do this, so the simplistic approach of using someone else's
ever-upgraded
software to do something less effective is about as far as the tick-box
Amateur seems to go. Heavens - they even buy ready-made wire aerials!

And going from previous threads, there are even fewer who understand that
setting up for single-signal reception means that the notional carrier
frequency has
to lie half-way between the peak of the Xtal and the notch of the phasing
control.

We should not forget that he who sneers loud and long about others' grasp
of
the mathematics of DSP maintains that changing the direction of a
rotating
vector
(A Phasor, and not related to the weapons of Star Trek!) causes it to
decrease in sixe.

What is "sixe"???

Typo - adjacent key - size

I thought it might be that, but it still makes no sense to me. Who or
how does changing the direction of rotation of a rotating vector change
its "size". Are you defining size as the rotation so that going from a +
to a - is like reversing the direction of a vector? I think most people
would consider the "size" of a vector to be the magnitude which is
independent of phase angle and so rotation, no?

Perhaps you can explain this with a little math?

Sadly, Gareth absolutely cannot explain it. He doesn't remotely understand
anything he's talking about, as per.

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

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 25/02/15 06:45, rickman wrote:
On 2/24/2015 7:32 PM, Brian Reay wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 2/24/2015 6:35 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 2/24/2015 12:37 PM, gareth wrote:
"Spike" wrote in message
...
Get a CW signal peaked on the 20 c/s nose of the HRO crystal filter,
with
the phasing notching out any nearby signal, and you realise that DSP
just
isn't necessary due to the quality of the 80-year-old technology
employed.

WHS.

The Eddystone EA12 does not have a phasing control as that part of
the
cct
is fixed-tuned, but it does have a tunable notch in the 100kHz IF to
achieve the same effect.

Mind you, there seems to be a diminishing band of people who know
how to
do this, so the simplistic approach of using someone else's
ever-upgraded
software to do something less effective is about as far as the
tick-box
Amateur seems to go. Heavens - they even buy ready-made wire
aerials!

And going from previous threads, there are even fewer who
understand that
setting up for single-signal reception means that the notional
carrier
frequency has
to lie half-way between the peak of the Xtal and the notch of the
phasing
control.

We should not forget that he who sneers loud and long about
others' grasp
of
the mathematics of DSP maintains that changing the direction of a
rotating
vector
(A Phasor, and not related to the weapons of Star Trek!) causes it to
decrease in sixe.

What is "sixe"???

Typo - adjacent key - size

I thought it might be that, but it still makes no sense to me. Who or
how does changing the direction of rotation of a rotating vector change
its "size". Are you defining size as the rotation so that going from
a +
to a - is like reversing the direction of a vector? I think most people
would consider the "size" of a vector to be the magnitude which is
independent of phase angle and so rotation, no?

Perhaps you can explain this with a little math?


He is (deliberately) misrepresenting the discussion. The point was made
that the phasor was rotating clockwise, thus the angle decreasing, ie
becoming negative.

This has been repeatedly explained to him but he continues to churn
out his
bilge.

His maths (or math) isn't up to it, it is too complex for him (pun
intended).

If you look in the archives you will see him referring to 'negative
frequency', not to mention questioning basic DSP theory, the use of the
Dirac Delta, .....

Best just to ignore him, he is simply trying to start a row.

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.


I went over this at the time, although in connection with another of his
wild claims (he claimed that you couldn't divide complex numbers).

Basically, the mathematical concept, which wasn't Evans' point, of
negative frequency arises from Euler's Identities for sin (theta) and
cos (theta) which leads to the result that a simple, real, sinusoid, is
the sum (using Euler's Identities) of positive and negative terms. In
DSP circles, the negative terms, are generally referred to the 'negative
frequency terms' (or some variation, depending on local usage). These
are generally removed, or filtered (numerically) to simplify the overall
processing task.


If you dig into the archive to the time when Evans first raised this,
you will see he was clearly not referring to 'negative frequency' in
terms of the above. I pointed out his error, although I did under
estimate his lack of understanding and/or ability to twist facts. This
is one of the topics he drags up after a drubbing and he promptly gets
another one.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 25/02/15 08:53, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
rickman wrote:


Perhaps you can explain this with a little math?

Sadly, Gareth absolutely cannot explain it. He doesn't remotely understand
anything he's talking about, as per.


That is a major part of his problem. He just isn't up to the level of
technical stuff he aspires to, in fact he has glaring gaps in even the
basics.

Rather than try and learn, he tries to bluff that he knows far more than
he does. When he is shown to be a charlatan, he turns to abuse. Even
that is predictable in the path it will take, including his most extreme
steps.



As you say, he is best ignored, although some of his whacky theories
have given me a good laugh from time to time.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"rickman" wrote in message
...

I thought it might be that, but it still makes no sense to me. Who or how
does changing the direction of rotation of a rotating vector change its
"size". Are you defining size as the rotation so that going from a + to
a - is like reversing the direction of a vector? I think most people
would consider the "size" of a vector to be the magnitude which is
independent of phase angle and so rotation, no?

Perhaps you can explain this with a little math?

Not my gibberish, refer to the original posting ...

-----ooooo-----

From: "Brian Reay"
Newsgroups: alt.engineering.electrical,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Phase noise
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:21:54 -0000
Message-ID:


The term e^(-jwt) isn't some magical time machine relating to "minus
time", e^(-jwt) is simply another way of writing 1/(e^jwt) which
is a value that decreases as t increasing.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...


He is (deliberately) misrepresenting the discussion. The point was made
that the phasor was rotating clockwise, thus the angle decreasing, ie
becoming negative.

Untrue, no mention of the angle, as below ...

-----ooooo-----

From: "Brian Reay"
Newsgroups: alt.engineering.electrical,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Phase noise
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:21:54 -0000
Message-ID:

Equally, it is easy to mis-interpret the maths as Gareth has done in:

cos(wt) = 1/2 * ( e^(jwt) +e^(-jwt) )

The term e^(-jwt) isn't some magical time machine relating to "minus
time", e^(-jwt) is simply another way of writing 1/(e^jwt) which
is a value that decreases as t increasing.

-----ooooo-----



This has been repeatedly explained to him but he continues to churn out
his
bilge.
His maths (or math) isn't up to it, it is too complex for him (pun
intended).
If you look in the archives you will see him referring to 'negative
frequency', not to mention questioning basic DSP theory, the use of the
Dirac Delta, .....

Well, that just looke like a desperate attempt to save face by resorting
to rather silly and infantile abuse, not deserving of a reply.

Best just to ignore him, he is simply trying to start a row.

Do you think, perhaps, that your repeated-ad-nauseam sneers about
DSP mathematics capability over the past week has that characteristic?

Really, Brian, in that respect it is a case both of, "Physician, heal
thyself!"
and also of, "Hoist by your own petard".

Let me give you a bit of advice, which is to concentrate on behaving
as a grown-up in the international forum which is Usenet, because
if you **** into the wind, as you seem intent on doing every day, every
hour even, then you _WILL_ get your own back.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

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 Hayter

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

I went over this at the time, although in connection with another of his
wild claims (he claimed that you couldn't divide complex numbers).
Basically, the mathematical concept, which wasn't Evans' point, of
negative frequency arises from Euler's Identities for sin (theta) and cos
(theta) which leads to the result that a simple, real, sinusoid, is the
sum (using Euler's Identities) of positive and negative terms. In DSP
circles, the negative terms, are generally referred to the 'negative
frequency terms' (or some variation, depending on local usage). These are
generally removed, or filtered (numerically) to simplify the overall
processing task.
If you dig into the archive to the time when Evans first raised this, you
will see he was clearly not referring to 'negative frequency' in terms of
the above. I pointed out his error, although I did under estimate his
lack of understanding and/or ability to twist facts. This is one of the
topics he drags up after a drubbing and he promptly gets another one.

Well, brian, that's another attempt by you to save face by resorting to
rather silly and infantile abusive remarks.

When you grow up, you will realise that there are many different viewpoints
about the phenomena that you discuss that are not wrong just because you
disagree with them (or fail to understand them), and grownups can
disambiguate
the situation by mature and reasonable debate, and not by the nasty
sneering that you adopt for years on end.

How can you ever justify your claim to be assisting newcomers when you
always
sneer at attempts to resolove misunderstandings or promote technical
discussion?

You are your own worse enemy.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Michael Black" wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1502242300280.13977@darkstar. example.org...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, 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?

Because it's something new, at least to amateur radio.

For the developers, yes, but for the Mongolain Hordes
of CBers-masquerading-as-radio-amateurs, then, no.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...

You do realise that you're responding to a troll post, right?

There speaks the voice of someone who took 18 years from
first studying for the radio amateur's exam to just getting the
licence targetted at-the-5-year-old.

Is it any wonder that he regards anything that he does not
grasp (ie, anything technical at all) as a troll?

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...

Sadly, Gareth absolutely cannot explain it. He doesn't remotely understand
anything he's talking about, as per.

If you had but the remorest inkling of the technical matters about which
you sneer then you might have some credibility, (although I doubt that
anyone has failed to notice that _ALL_ of your posts are nasty personal
remarks), but as it is, you add weight to the old adage that empty vessels
make the most noise.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 25/02/15 10:39, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

I thought it might be that, but it still makes no sense to me. Who or how
does changing the direction of rotation of a rotating vector change its
"size". Are you defining size as the rotation so that going from a + to
a - is like reversing the direction of a vector? I think most people
would consider the "size" of a vector to be the magnitude which is
independent of phase angle and so rotation, no?

Perhaps you can explain this with a little math?

Not my gibberish, refer to the original posting ...

-----ooooo-----

From: "Brian Reay"
Newsgroups: alt.engineering.electrical,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Phase noise
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:21:54 -0000
Message-ID:


The term e^(-jwt) isn't some magical time machine relating to "minus
time", e^(-jwt) is simply another way of writing 1/(e^jwt) which
is a value that decreases as t increasing.



See, he has trimmed his part, which clearly didn't refer to the true
usage of negative frequency. I simply over estimated is ability to grasp
the meaning of what I'd said without more detail. This was obvious as he
also claimed claimed that division was impossible with complex numbers.

He will attempt to drag this out, as he always does, but a look in the
archive will show his claims to be nonsense. He drags this up from time
to time, generally after a drubbing, He really doesn't like being proven
wrong. Look at the date, he has been dragging this up with boring
regularity since then. I've lost count of the times it has been
explained to him. He has finally got the idea of the clockwise rotating
phasor. He struggled with the idea that, as the phasor rotated, the
angle became more negative, and thus decreased. eg -20 -10

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

That is a major part of his problem. He just isn't up to the level of
technical stuff he aspires to, in fact he has glaring gaps in even the
basics.
Rather than try and learn, he tries to bluff that he knows far more than
he does. When he is shown to be a charlatan, he turns to abuse. Even that
is predictable in the path it will take, including his most extreme steps.
As you say, he is best ignored, although some of his whacky theories have
given me a good laugh from time to time.

Well, Brian, it is actually you above who is resorting to abuse as your
contribution
to what was a technical discussion.

What is it that makes you want to come across as a complete fool by
blurting out silly infantile remarks in an international forum?

Shame on you.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
On 25/02/15 10:39, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

I thought it might be that, but it still makes no sense to me. Who or
how
does changing the direction of rotation of a rotating vector change its
"size". Are you defining size as the rotation so that going from a + to
a - is like reversing the direction of a vector? I think most people
would consider the "size" of a vector to be the magnitude which is
independent of phase angle and so rotation, no?
Perhaps you can explain this with a little math?
Not my gibberish, refer to the original posting ...
-----ooooo-----
From: "Brian Reay"
Newsgroups: alt.engineering.electrical,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Phase noise
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:21:54 -0000
Message-ID:
The term e^(-jwt) isn't some magical time machine relating to "minus
time", e^(-jwt) is simply another way of writing 1/(e^jwt)
which
is a value that decreases as t increasing.
See, he has trimmed his part, which clearly didn't refer to the true usage
of negative frequency. I simply over estimated is ability to grasp the
meaning of what I'd said without more detail. This was obvious as he also
claimed claimed that division was impossible with complex numbers.
He will attempt to drag this out, as he always does, but a look in the
archive will show his claims to be nonsense. He drags this up from time to
time, generally after a drubbing, He really doesn't like being proven
wrong. Look at the date, he has been dragging this up with boring
regularity since then. I've lost count of the times it has been explained
to him. He has finally got the idea of the clockwise rotating phasor. He
struggled with the idea that, as the phasor rotated, the angle became more
negative, and thus decreased. eg -20 -10

Well, brian, once again you resort to personal abuse which is not
recommended
for giving the impression that you are a competent engineering grownup
engaging
in an international debate.

You are correct in that you point out that I trimmed the post, and I did so
to limit
it to answer the question that was posed by Rickman

There was nothing in Rickman's query about negative frequency so I do not
see what it is that you are setting out to achieve by introducing that
non-sequitur
of a red herring?

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 25/02/15 11:24, gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
On 25/02/15 10:39, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

I thought it might be that, but it still makes no sense to me. Who or
how
does changing the direction of rotation of a rotating vector change its
"size". Are you defining size as the rotation so that going from a + to
a - is like reversing the direction of a vector? I think most people
would consider the "size" of a vector to be the magnitude which is
independent of phase angle and so rotation, no?
Perhaps you can explain this with a little math?
Not my gibberish, refer to the original posting ...
-----ooooo-----
From: "Brian Reay"
Newsgroups: alt.engineering.electrical,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Phase noise
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:21:54 -0000
Message-ID:
The term e^(-jwt) isn't some magical time machine relating to "minus
time", e^(-jwt) is simply another way of writing 1/(e^jwt)
which
is a value that decreases as t increasing.
See, he has trimmed his part, which clearly didn't refer to the true usage
of negative frequency. I simply over estimated is ability to grasp the
meaning of what I'd said without more detail. This was obvious as he also
claimed claimed that division was impossible with complex numbers.
He will attempt to drag this out, as he always does, but a look in the
archive will show his claims to be nonsense. He drags this up from time to
time, generally after a drubbing, He really doesn't like being proven
wrong. Look at the date, he has been dragging this up with boring
regularity since then. I've lost count of the times it has been explained
to him. He has finally got the idea of the clockwise rotating phasor. He
struggled with the idea that, as the phasor rotated, the angle became more
negative, and thus decreased. eg -20 -10

Well, brian, once again you resort to personal abuse which is not
recommended
for giving the impression that you are a competent engineering grownup
engaging
in an international debate.

You are correct in that you point out that I trimmed the post, and I did so
to limit
it to answer the question that was posed by Rickman

There was nothing in Rickman's query about negative frequency so I do not
see what it is that you are setting out to achieve by introducing that
non-sequitur
of a red herring?



You been shot down again.

You are hurling abuse, as you always do.

Only you thinks otherwise.

Everyone else is laughing at you.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
He struggled with the idea that, as the phasor rotated, the angle became
more negative, and thus decreased. eg -20 -10

Brian, is there some truth in G7FUJ, Cum's assertion that you were
dismissed without references from your job as a mathematics teacher,
for your confusion about a change in direction of a phasor as you
express above would be very worrying?

When you say "more", in "more negative" above, you are saying
that the magnitude of the angle is increasing

There seems to be a fundamental problem in your grasp of the direction
of vectors, because there is nothing beween clockwise and anti-clockwise,
left and right, up and down, or, in this case, negative and positive, for
they
are merely words used to disnmbiguate the direction of the vector.

Brian, why don't you just give up whilst you are still behind?

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

You been shot down again.
You are hurling abuse, as you always do.
Only you thinks otherwise.
Everyone else is laughing at you.

Well, brian, once again I re-iterate that it is only you who
is hurling abuse, just as you do above.

Shame on you.

Why do you behave like that when it is you who has repeatedly-ad-nauseam
raised the spectre of DSP mathematics over the past week; why resort to
rather
silly and infantile abuse; why not discuss the technical matter that you
have
raised over and over again?

Why resort to abuse when you have been challenged, for despite what you
say, I do not?

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"gareth" wrote in message
...

We should not forget that he who sneers loud and long about others' grasp
of
the mathematics of DSP maintains that changing the direction of a rotating
vector
(A Phasor, and not related to the weapons of Star Trek!) causes it to
decrease in sixe.

Interesting that I mentioned no names but someone appeared in the NG to
sneer long and loud!

What is the point of digital voice?
 

Brian Reay wrote:
On 25/02/15 10:39, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

I thought it might be that, but it still makes no sense to me. Who or how
does changing the direction of rotation of a rotating vector change its
"size". Are you defining size as the rotation so that going from a + to
a - is like reversing the direction of a vector? I think most people
would consider the "size" of a vector to be the magnitude which is
independent of phase angle and so rotation, no?

Perhaps you can explain this with a little math?

Not my gibberish, refer to the original posting ...

-----ooooo-----

From: "Brian Reay"
Newsgroups: alt.engineering.electrical,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Phase noise
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:21:54 -0000
Message-ID:


The term e^(-jwt) isn't some magical time machine relating to "minus
time", e^(-jwt) is simply another way of writing 1/(e^jwt) which
is a value that decreases as t increasing.



See, he has trimmed his part, which clearly didn't refer to the true
usage of negative frequency. I simply over estimated is ability to grasp
the meaning of what I'd said without more detail. This was obvious as he
also claimed claimed that division was impossible with complex numbers.

He will attempt to drag this out, as he always does, but a look in the
archive will show his claims to be nonsense. He drags this up from time
to time, generally after a drubbing, He really doesn't like being proven
wrong. Look at the date, he has been dragging this up with boring
regularity since then. I've lost count of the times it has been explained
to him. He has finally got the idea of the clockwise rotating phasor. He
struggled with the idea that, as the phasor rotated, the angle became
more negative, and thus decreased. eg -20 -10

That Gareth is still stewing over the correction you gave him 11 years ago
underlines his mental instability.

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

What is the point of digital voice?
 

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.......

Brian Reay's abusive blustering?
 

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
After all, if they haven't understood say, super regeneration, after 40
years, what hope is there for their understanding, say, DSP?

Put your money where your (big) mouth is and explain to all why a
super-regenerative receiver will not resolve CW or SSB, when the
oscilation, although quenched, is effectively amplitude modulated
by the quenching?

For those who might have missed it, quoted above is reay's attempt
"to stir up trouble and create a row" by being the first to discuss DSP.

However, the point of my challenge above was to lay to rest (yet another???)
of reay's infantile sneers when it seems that he has no answer and is hoist
by
his own petard because he hasn't "understood say, super regeneration, after
40
years"

(And he has had more than enough time to google for the answer and get it
wrong, just as he did with the BC221 frequency meter)

What is the point of digital voice?
 

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....

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...

That Gareth is still stewing over the correction you gave him 11 years ago
underlines his mental instability.

Once again your only contribution is rather silly and infantile abuse,
which,
unfortunately for you, fails to mask your complete ignorance about
any matter technical.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"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"?

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
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.


And also the negative X-Axis on the Laplacian complex plane.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 25/02/15 11:38, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:
On 25/02/15 10:39, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

I thought it might be that, but it still makes no sense to me. Who or how
does changing the direction of rotation of a rotating vector change its
"size". Are you defining size as the rotation so that going from a + to
a - is like reversing the direction of a vector? I think most people
would consider the "size" of a vector to be the magnitude which is
independent of phase angle and so rotation, no?

Perhaps you can explain this with a little math?

Not my gibberish, refer to the original posting ...

-----ooooo-----

From: "Brian Reay"
Newsgroups: alt.engineering.electrical,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Phase noise
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:21:54 -0000
Message-ID:


The term e^(-jwt) isn't some magical time machine relating to "minus
time", e^(-jwt) is simply another way of writing 1/(e^jwt) which
is a value that decreases as t increasing.



See, he has trimmed his part, which clearly didn't refer to the true
usage of negative frequency. I simply over estimated is ability to grasp
the meaning of what I'd said without more detail. This was obvious as he
also claimed claimed that division was impossible with complex numbers.

He will attempt to drag this out, as he always does, but a look in the
archive will show his claims to be nonsense. He drags this up from time
to time, generally after a drubbing, He really doesn't like being proven
wrong. Look at the date, he has been dragging this up with boring
regularity since then. I've lost count of the times it has been explained
to him. He has finally got the idea of the clockwise rotating phasor. He
struggled with the idea that, as the phasor rotated, the angle became
more negative, and thus decreased. eg -20 -10

That Gareth is still stewing over the correction you gave him 11 years ago
underlines his mental instability.



It is his way of trying to cope with is own failings. If you read his
Westinghouse rant, you will see in his own words, a summary of how he
conducts himself. He has repeated it for other places. 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.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"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 ....

What is the point of digital voice?
 

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



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

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
It is his way of trying to cope with is own failings. If you read his
Westinghouse rant, you will see in his own words, a summary of how he
conducts himself. He has repeated it for other places. 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.

What's up this morning, brian, that has you blurting out childish remarks
at every turn? Why are you so sad and bitter?

It does nothing for your reputation as a technical aficionado when you
decline to discuss technical issues and resort to personal abuse at every
turn.

Shame on you.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"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"?

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Some who refuse to embrace new technologies and are constantly playing
with old techniques etc. simply lack the ability to move on.

I find it difficult to correlate your childish remark above with your
oft-repeated
mantra that although there are many aspects of amateur radio in which you
do not indulge, that you do not criticise those who do so indulge.

Are you, perchance, changing your viewpoint to suit the direction from which
the wind is blowing?

What is the point of digital voice?
 

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

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"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?

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"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.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"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.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"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?

What is the point of digital voice?
 

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

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

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"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 .....

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"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.....

What is the point of digital voice?
 

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

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

What is the point of digital voice?
 

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

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