What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...

Paradoxes abound in Gareth's world.

You continue to post messages that are merely a vehicle for abuse.

Why not prove me wrong and make a contribution relevant to the
technical matters about which you sneer, lest you be perceived
as an empty vessel making much noise?

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"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?

Brian?

Hullo?

Are you there?

Here is your big chance to prove your superiority of knowledge about
the super-regrenerative method, but you've gone strangely silent, which
is a bit bizarre when you consider how many times you have oft
repeated your childish sneer?

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in
:


"robert bristow-johnson" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/15 12:46 PM, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
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
....


yoos to b i cudn't even spel injunear, now i arr won.

--

r b-j

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."


fenestrating.....



Defenestration would be a better option as far as some here are
concerned.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Bernie" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:56:42 -0500, rickman wrote:
I see what you guys mean. He doesn't even understand what e^jwt is. He
sees it as no different from e^wt.

He's a polyidiot - there really is no boundary to his idiocy.

Q: What's the difference between intelligence and stupidity?

A: Intelligence is limited.
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 25/02/15 18:24, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
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".


To clarify:


His 'problem' was that he insisted that the use of the Dirac Delta
(which is 'infinite in amplitude and infinitely narrow') needed to be
compensated for by 1/K , his Big K. According to his theory, K need to
by 'Big' to compensate for the amplitude of the Dirac Delta.

Eventually, he claimed that he hadn't noticed (in the mystery book) the
1/T term (which appears in the standard formula) served the same
purpose, and thus his theory was correct and all he had done was to have
'missed' the 1/T term. This was 'dubious' for the simple reason he had
missed it for years alone. It would be in ANY book on the topic.
However, it was technically flawed, as he thought the T referred the
width of the sampling pulse. Not only wasn't that 'large' (or Big as in
his Big K) but it doesn't refer to the width of the pulse, it is the
spacing or of the pulses. This was explained at the time, it is all in
the archive, as is his abusive responses

He did vary his 'problem' from time to time (as he usually does) but the
above was the general theme.

As you say, he insisted everyone was wrong and simply 'followed the text
books' without understanding them.

Even today he denied the mention of angle yet posted a post with a
cosine identity in it. Whether he doesn't know math(s) to even that
level or it was a blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts, I leave for
others to decide. Hint: In the UK, even a KS3 pupil (about 13) knows
that sines, cosines, etc. refer to angles.

This is just one of his many bogus theories. Of course, everyone has to
learn but the thing with him is that he spends his time being abusive to
newcomers etc. when it is clear that his own technical abilities are, at
best, somewhat limited. Plus, of course, his habit of being abusive is
hardly conducive to people treating him as someone who is deserving of
help and assistance. Especially, when he starts taking his abuse to
extremes.

He seems to fill his days by trying to stir up rows and upset people. He
hasn't realised he has the 'village idiot', a malicious one, but still
the village idiot who people laugh at. He has a fan club of similar
village idiots who seem to have similar backgrounds (unhappy careers
etc.) and it is quite amusing to watch their antics and mutual back
slapping at times. They remind me of the 'bad guy' in the Cartoon series
called 'Whacky Races', whose plans always went wrong. The only
difference is, there is a pack of 'Multy the Dogs'.

Anyway, I'm going to see if I can work a few more stations then turn in.
Busy day tomorrow.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
To clarify:
His 'problem' was that he insisted that the use of the Dirac Delta (which
is 'infinite in amplitude and infinitely narrow') needed to be compensated
for by 1/K , his Big K. According to his theory, K need to by 'Big' to
compensate for the amplitude of the Dirac Delta.
Eventually, he claimed that he hadn't noticed (in the mystery book) the
1/T term (which appears in the standard formula) served the same purpose,
and thus his theory was correct and all he had done was to have 'missed'
the 1/T term. This was 'dubious' for the simple reason he had missed it
for years alone. It would be in ANY book on the topic. However, it was
technically flawed, as he thought the T referred the width of the sampling
pulse. Not only wasn't that 'large' (or Big as in his Big K) but it
doesn't refer to the width of the pulse, it is the spacing or of the
pulses. This was explained at the time, it is all in the archive, as is
his abusive responses
He did vary his 'problem' from time to time (as he usually does) but the
above was the general theme.
As you say, he insisted everyone was wrong and simply 'followed the text
books' without understanding them.
Even today he denied the mention of angle yet posted a post with a cosine
identity in it. Whether he doesn't know math(s) to even that level or it
was a blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts, I leave for others to
decide. Hint: In the UK, even a KS3 pupil (about 13) knows that sines,
cosines, etc. refer to angles.
This is just one of his many bogus theories. Of course, everyone has to
learn but the thing with him is that he spends his time being abusive to
newcomers etc. when it is clear that his own technical abilities are, at
best, somewhat limited. Plus, of course, his habit of being abusive is
hardly conducive to people treating him as someone who is deserving of
help and assistance. Especially, when he starts taking his abuse to
extremes.
He seems to fill his days by trying to stir up rows and upset people. He
hasn't realised he has the 'village idiot', a malicious one, but still the
village idiot who people laugh at. He has a fan club of similar village
idiots who seem to have similar backgrounds (unhappy careers etc.) and it
is quite amusing to watch their antics and mutual back slapping at times.
They remind me of the 'bad guy' in the Cartoon series called 'Whacky
Races', whose plans always went wrong. The only difference is, there is a
pack of 'Multy the Dogs'.
Anyway, I'm going to see if I can work a few more stations then turn in.
Busy day tomorrow.

Once more brian you turn your hand to tirades of completely false personal
abusive remarks
in the manner of a 5-year-old.

Shame on you.

And a bit rich for you to accuse another of, "He seems to fill his days by
trying to stir up rows and upset people"!

Physician, heal thyself.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 2/25/2015 5:21 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/2015 4:43 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
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.

Yeah, well, that isn't so good. But it is interesting that so many are so
happy to pile on and give the guy grief.

The reason that it isn't so good is that it is untrue.

Huh? Are you still here? I thought you would have gone home long ago...

--

Rick

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 2/25/2015 8:53 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/25/2015 5:21 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/2015 4:43 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
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.

Yeah, well, that isn't so good. But it is interesting that so many
are so
happy to pile on and give the guy grief.

The reason that it isn't so good is that it is untrue.

Huh? Are you still here? I thought you would have gone home long ago...


Pot - kettle - black.

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

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

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 2/25/2015 10:52 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/25/2015 8:53 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/25/2015 5:21 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/2015 4:43 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
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.

Yeah, well, that isn't so good. But it is interesting that so many
are so
happy to pile on and give the guy grief.

The reason that it isn't so good is that it is untrue.

Huh? Are you still here? I thought you would have gone home long ago...


Pot - kettle - black.

I've got my very own personal troll... lol

--

Rick

What is the point of digital voice?
 

Yeah, well, that isn't so good. But it is interesting that so many are
so happy to pile on and give the guy grief.


the voice of reason.....amazing

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Even today he denied the mention of angle yet posted a post with a cosine
identity in it. Whether he doesn't know math(s) to even that level or it
was a blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts, I leave for others to
decide. Hint: In the UK, even a KS3 pupil (about 13) knows that sines,
cosines, etc. refer to angles.

The only sine Beanie knows anything about is the "double dickhead" sign to
be waved to other road users.
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message ...

Even today he denied the mention of angle yet posted a post with a
cosine identity in it. Whether he doesn't know math(s) to even that
level or it was a blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts, I leave
for others to decide. Hint: In the UK, even a KS3 pupil (about 13)
knows that sines, cosines, etc. refer to angles.

The only sine Beanie knows anything about is the "double dickhead" sign
to be waved to other road users.

Whatever happened to that Notice of Intended Prosecution he was issued for
that incident? Most unlike Gareth to clam up had he got one over on the
plods.

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

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 25/02/2015 13:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/25/2015 1:41 AM, rickman wrote:

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.

I think that there is a semantics issue here.

MP3 is lossy, it cannot be used to reproduce the original but it does
not 'remove' signal, they get lost.

IIRC some sound encoding deliberately removes some frequencies if the
are low amplitude and are close to a higher amplitude frequency.

Loses is passive, the data just gets lost. Remove implies some active
removal of data.

Andy

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 25/02/2015 13:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Not really true, at least in the United States. All TV's here use the
same (proprietary) chipsets to decompress the digital signal. However,
it makes a huge difference on the resolution being used, i.e. 720P,
1080P, 1080I, UHD... The difference is in what happens after the signal
is decompressed.

I am unsure of US TV. In the UK terrestrial TV is all digital.
Analog(ue) was switched off a few years ago.
I am referring to the whole box from antenna to screen, most of our TVs
come with built-in 'Freeview'.

I have a digital set about 6 years old that struggles to handle complex
images but my new toy handles it perfectly. My newer TV uses a newer
chipset and more efficient decoding algorithm that is made possible
because of the higher power chipset.

The older chipsets are still in production and still being sold,
presumably the TV manufacturers can buy them cheaply, stick them in the
TV and rely on marketing buzz over technical demonstration to sell then
for a larger markup. Most people I know buy on screen size anyway.

My understanding - which may be incorrect - is that the TV has a fixed
time based upon the framerate in which to decode the image and display
it before it has to start on the next frame.
Better quality TVs are capable of fully decompressing the image and
displaying it between frames but the cheaper and older ones cannot
handle a new image every frame and so, when it runs out of time decoding
the image it just gets sent to the screen, tesselations and all.
Standing ready to be corrected.

Andy

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 25/02/2015 19:08, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:

But ... if EVERYONE else was wrong that included the author of the booK
he was quoting from.
Time for a drinK

Thanks very much. Kind of you to offer. Mine's a nice bitter, maybe a
Harviestoun Bitter and Twisted if they have it.

Andy

What is the point of digital voice?
 

En el artículo , FranK Turner-Smith
G3VKI escribió:

The only sine Beanie knows anything about is the "double dickhead" sign to
be waved to other road users.

LOL!

--
:: je suis Charlie :: yo soy Charlie :: ik ben Charlie ::

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:49:37 +0000, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:


The only sine Beanie knows anything about is the "double dickhead" sign
to be waved to other road users.

A double dickhead? Zaphod Beanie-box?

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:23:14 +0000, gareth wrote:

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...

Sadly, Michael, your efforts were wasted on Gareth. He wouldn't have
understood a single word you said.

You continue to post messages which are nothing but abuse.

You continue to post messages which are nothing but accusations of abuse.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"robert bristow-johnson" wrote in message
...

..another of his rather silly and childish outbursts ...

Robert, you still exhibit the infantile fixation that you exhibited 10 years
ago.

Shame on you.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...

Whatever happened to that Notice of Intended Prosecution he was issued for
that incident? Most unlike Gareth to clam up had he got one over on the
plods.

It remains that 100% of your postings consist of rather silly and infantile
personal remarks.

As amateur radio is a technical pursuit, and you yourself elected to
cross post to comp.dsp which is even more technical, why not make
your first technical post ever, since you first arrived to pollute Usenet
just over 2 years ago with your tirades of abuse?

I think that you lack any technical acumen and your bluster
is your attempt to cover up.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"rickman" wrote in message
...

Huh? Are you still here? I thought you would have gone home long ago...

With a childish comment such as that, I presume that you have thrown your
cap in with the other denizens of the kindergarten school's playground?

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"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?
Brian?
Hullo?
Are you there?
Here is your big chance to prove your superiority of knowledge about
the super-regrenerative method, but you've gone strangely silent, which
is a bit bizarre when you consider how many times you have oft
repeated your childish sneer?

Well, another confabulated sneer from reay bites the dust having been
shown up to be Freudian Projection of his low self-esteem because
he himself didn't know that answer after 40 years!

What is the point of digital voice?
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
His 'problem' was that he insisted that the use of the Dirac Delta (which
is 'infinite in amplitude and infinitely narrow') needed to be compensated
for by 1/K , his Big K. According to his theory, K need to by 'Big' to
compensate for the amplitude of the Dirac Delta.
Eventually, he claimed that he hadn't noticed (in the mystery book) the
1/T term (which appears in the standard formula) served the same purpose,
and thus his theory was correct and all he had done was to have 'missed'
the 1/T term. This was 'dubious' for the simple reason he had missed it
for years alone. It would be in ANY book on the topic. However, it was
technically flawed, as he thought the T referred the width of the sampling
pulse. Not only wasn't that 'large' (or Big as in his Big K) but it
doesn't refer to the width of the pulse, it is the spacing or of the
pulses. This was explained at the time, it is all in the archive, as is
his abusive responses

Brian, M3OSN, Old Chum, get a grip, for you are picking up and
resuming an argument from 10 years ago on a matter that was resolved
satisfactorily 9 years ago.

Is your life _REALLY_ that shallow and lacking in substance?

Can you really be the same brian reay who in almost the
same breath talked about others with nothing to do bouncing
off the walls in their spartan hovels?

Ye gods and little fishes!

What is the point of digital voice?
 

En el artículo , Bernie
escribió:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:23:14 +0000, gareth wrote:

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...

Sadly, Michael, your efforts were wasted on Gareth. He wouldn't have
understood a single word you said.

You continue to post messages which are nothing but abuse.

You continue to post messages which are nothing but accusations of abuse.

You mean _false_ accusations of abuse. Much like the _false_
insinuations of paedophilia that he sends to people's employers in
poison pen emails.

--
:: je suis Charlie :: yo soy Charlie :: ik ben Charlie ::

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 2/26/2015 3:55 AM, AndyW wrote:
On 25/02/2015 13:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/25/2015 1:41 AM, rickman wrote:

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.

I think that there is a semantics issue here.

MP3 is lossy, it cannot be used to reproduce the original but it does
not 'remove' signal, they get lost.

IIRC some sound encoding deliberately removes some frequencies if the
are low amplitude and are close to a higher amplitude frequency.

Loses is passive, the data just gets lost. Remove implies some active
removal of data.

Andy


Andy,

You are really trying to split hairs here. The data are lost because
they are "removed" during compression. It is an active decision as to
what is compressed and what is ignored.

And yes, the term "removed" is used when describing the technical
aspects of MP3 compression.

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

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

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 2/26/2015 3:58 AM, AndyW wrote:
On 25/02/2015 13:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Not really true, at least in the United States. All TV's here use the
same (proprietary) chipsets to decompress the digital signal. However,
it makes a huge difference on the resolution being used, i.e. 720P,
1080P, 1080I, UHD... The difference is in what happens after the signal
is decompressed.

I am unsure of US TV. In the UK terrestrial TV is all digital.
Analog(ue) was switched off a few years ago.
I am referring to the whole box from antenna to screen, most of our TVs
come with built-in 'Freeview'.

I have a digital set about 6 years old that struggles to handle complex
images but my new toy handles it perfectly. My newer TV uses a newer
chipset and more efficient decoding algorithm that is made possible
because of the higher power chipset.

The older chipsets are still in production and still being sold,
presumably the TV manufacturers can buy them cheaply, stick them in the
TV and rely on marketing buzz over technical demonstration to sell then
for a larger markup. Most people I know buy on screen size anyway.

My understanding - which may be incorrect - is that the TV has a fixed
time based upon the framerate in which to decode the image and display
it before it has to start on the next frame.
Better quality TVs are capable of fully decompressing the image and
displaying it between frames but the cheaper and older ones cannot
handle a new image every frame and so, when it runs out of time decoding
the image it just gets sent to the screen, tesselations and all.
Standing ready to be corrected.

Andy



Andy,

I don't know what the Europeans use, so I can't speak for you guys. But
here in the United States, everything is digital also, and has been for
years (here come the trolls).

Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But
in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The
chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company,
so all TV's have similar decoding.

There is a limit to how much information can be transferred in the
allotted bandwidth, so a complete change in picture can't be compressed
perfectly. But at the 30 fps used here, even a scene change is picked
up within a few frames and isn't noticeable to the eye unless you know
what you're looking for.

However, what happens after the decoding can cause more problems. The
lower quality resolutions such as 720p and 1080i typically use less
expensive circuitry when taking the decoded signal and processing it for
the display. They may or may not have the speed required to change all
of the elements in the display before the next image comes along.

Higher resolution displays such as 1080p and UHD (4K) have more
expensive circuitry to prepare the signal for the display. This
circuitry is better able to keep up with the decoded signal and a
complete scenery change is less noticeable. You may see the difference
when you have a 720p resolution set and a 1080p resolution set running
in 720p mode sitting next to each other and displaying the same information.

Of course, this is a generalization, and each set needs to be evaluated
on its own. Some lower resolution sets do quite well, while
occasionally you'll find a higher resolution set which doesn't do so
well. But it's not very common any more.

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

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

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 2/26/2015 12:36 AM, rickman wrote:
On 2/25/2015 10:52 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/25/2015 8:53 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/25/2015 5:21 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/2015 4:43 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
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.

Yeah, well, that isn't so good. But it is interesting that so many
are so
happy to pile on and give the guy grief.

The reason that it isn't so good is that it is untrue.

Huh? Are you still here? I thought you would have gone home long
ago...


Pot - kettle - black.

I've got my very own personal troll... lol


ROFLMAO! So now I'm a troll for pointing out the truth!

Why don't you discuss technical issues? Is it because I've proven you
wrong so many times? Like with mp3 compression and white noise in this
thread?

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

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

What is the point of digital voice?
 

AndyW wrote in news:54eee0a5$0$17091$862e30e2
@ngroups.net:

On 25/02/2015 19:08, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:

But ... if EVERYONE else was wrong that included the author of the booK
he was quoting from.
Time for a drinK

Thanks very much. Kind of you to offer. Mine's a nice bitter, maybe a
Harviestoun Bitter and Twisted if they have it.

Good call! Deuchars IPA is also very popular "apud Custodum".

Tomlinson's ongoing infantile obsession
 

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
You mean _false_ accusations of abuse. Much like the _false_
insinuations of paedophilia that he sends to people's employers in
poison pen emails.

Untrue, as described previously.

Arthur C Clarke decamped to Ceylon to escape attention
from his obsession with paedophilia.

You are similarly obsessed and have escaped to the Canary Islands.

Strange, indeed.

Tomlinson's ongoing infantile obsession
 

"gareth" wrote:
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
You mean _false_ accusations of abuse. Much like the _false_
insinuations of paedophilia that he sends to people's employers in
poison pen emails.

Untrue, as described previously.

Arthur C Clarke decamped to Ceylon to escape attention
from his obsession with paedophilia.

You are similarly obsessed and have escaped to the Canary Islands.

Strange, indeed.

Quote-trapped potential actionable comment for Mike's attention.

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

Tomlinson's ongoing infantile obsession
 

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote:
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
You mean _false_ accusations of abuse. Much like the _false_
insinuations of paedophilia that he sends to people's employers in
poison pen emails.
Untrue, as described previously.
Arthur C Clarke decamped to Ceylon to escape attention
from his obsession with paedophilia.
You are similarly obsessed and have escaped to the Canary Islands.
Strange, indeed.

Quote-trapped potential actionable comment for Mike's attention.

If you think it to be actionable then you are an even bigger fool than you
make out to be, for you have repeated the comment in public.

Tomlinson's ongoing infantile obsession
 

En el artículo , Stephen Thomas Cole
escribió:
"gareth" wrote:
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
You mean _false_ accusations of abuse. Much like the _false_
insinuations of paedophilia that he sends to people's employers in
poison pen emails.

Untrue, as described previously.

Arthur C Clarke decamped to Ceylon to escape attention
from his obsession with paedophilia.

You are similarly obsessed and have escaped to the Canary Islands.

Strange, indeed.

Quote-trapped potential actionable comment for Mike's attention.

Thanks Steve. Forwarded to Wiltshire Police.

--
:: je suis Charlie :: yo soy Charlie :: ik ben Charlie ::

Tomlinson's ongoing infantile obsession
 

Mike Tomlinson wrote:.

Quote-trapped potential actionable comment for Mike's attention.

Thanks Steve. Forwarded to Wiltshire Police.

No problem, Mike. That file they're building on him must be massive by now!
Evans has been flailing around and lashing out at all and sundry for the
last few days, he's probably suffered another self-inflicted calamity in
his personal life.

How's life in the sun treating you this week? Dreadful weather in Kent
today, ****ing it down non-stop. Have a piña collada for me!

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

Tomlinson's ongoing infantile obsession
 

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...
No problem, Mike. That file they're building on him must be massive by
now!
Evans has been flailing around and lashing out at all and sundry for the
last few days, he's probably suffered another self-inflicted calamity in
his personal life.

It remains that 100% of your postings consist of rather silly and infantile
personal remarks.

As amateur radio is a technical pursuit, and you yourself elected to
cross post to comp.dsp which is even more technical, why not make
your first technical post ever, since you first arrived to pollute Usenet
just over 2 years ago with your tirades of abuse?

I think that you lack any technical acumen and your bluster
is your attempt to cover up.

Tomlinson's ongoing infantile obsession
 

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo , Stephen Thomas Cole
escribió:
"gareth" wrote:
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
You mean _false_ accusations of abuse. Much like the _false_
insinuations of paedophilia that he sends to people's employers in
poison pen emails.
Untrue, as described previously.
Arthur C Clarke decamped to Ceylon to escape attention
from his obsession with paedophilia.
You are similarly obsessed and have escaped to the Canary Islands.
Strange, indeed.
Quote-trapped potential actionable comment for Mike's attention.
Thanks Steve. Forwarded to Wiltshire Police.

Really? For your recent posts have been full of your obsession that the
badge of paedophilia was attached to you, but it was not put there by me,
nor by any real person.

Therefore, it is a truism that you are obsessed by paedophilia, as, indeed,
you quote yourself abive.

What is the point of digital voice?
 

In rec.radio.amateur.equipment Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

I don't know what the Europeans use, so I can't speak for you guys. But
here in the United States, everything is digital also, and has been for
years (here come the trolls).

trolls trolls trolls trolls



--
Jim Pennino

Tomlinson's ongoing infantile obsession
 

"gareth" wrote:
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artÃ*culo , Stephen Thomas Cole
escribió:
"gareth" wrote:
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
You mean _false_ accusations of abuse. Much like the _false_
insinuations of paedophilia that he sends to people's employers in
poison pen emails.
Untrue, as described previously.
Arthur C Clarke decamped to Ceylon to escape attention
from his obsession with paedophilia.
You are similarly obsessed and have escaped to the Canary Islands.
Strange, indeed.
Quote-trapped potential actionable comment for Mike's attention.
Thanks Steve. Forwarded to Wiltshire Police.

Really? For your recent posts have been full of your obsession that the
badge of paedophilia was attached to you, but it was not put there by me,
nor by any real person.

Therefore, it is a truism that you are obsessed by paedophilia, as, indeed,
you quote yourself abive.

Quote-trapped further potentially actionable comments for Mike's attention.


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

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:58 AM, AndyW wrote:
On 25/02/2015 13:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Not really true, at least in the United States. All TV's here use the
same (proprietary) chipsets to decompress the digital signal. However,
it makes a huge difference on the resolution being used, i.e. 720P,
1080P, 1080I, UHD... The difference is in what happens after the signal
is decompressed.

I am unsure of US TV. In the UK terrestrial TV is all digital.
Analog(ue) was switched off a few years ago.
I am referring to the whole box from antenna to screen, most of our TVs
come with built-in 'Freeview'.

I have a digital set about 6 years old that struggles to handle complex
images but my new toy handles it perfectly. My newer TV uses a newer
chipset and more efficient decoding algorithm that is made possible
because of the higher power chipset.

The older chipsets are still in production and still being sold,
presumably the TV manufacturers can buy them cheaply, stick them in the
TV and rely on marketing buzz over technical demonstration to sell then
for a larger markup. Most people I know buy on screen size anyway.

My understanding - which may be incorrect - is that the TV has a fixed
time based upon the framerate in which to decode the image and display
it before it has to start on the next frame.
Better quality TVs are capable of fully decompressing the image and
displaying it between frames but the cheaper and older ones cannot
handle a new image every frame and so, when it runs out of time decoding
the image it just gets sent to the screen, tesselations and all.
Standing ready to be corrected.

Andy



Andy,

I don't know what the Europeans use, so I can't speak for you guys. But
here in the United States, everything is digital also, and has been for
years (here come the trolls).

Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But
in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The
chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company,
so all TV's have similar decoding.

I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with
all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker.

http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf

http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560

http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html

Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one
company's products?

The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There is a
consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder alone...

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf

--

Rick

What is the point of digital voice?
 

On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:58 AM, AndyW wrote:
On 25/02/2015 13:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Not really true, at least in the United States. All TV's here use the
same (proprietary) chipsets to decompress the digital signal. However,
it makes a huge difference on the resolution being used, i.e. 720P,
1080P, 1080I, UHD... The difference is in what happens after the
signal
is decompressed.

I am unsure of US TV. In the UK terrestrial TV is all digital.
Analog(ue) was switched off a few years ago.
I am referring to the whole box from antenna to screen, most of our TVs
come with built-in 'Freeview'.

I have a digital set about 6 years old that struggles to handle complex
images but my new toy handles it perfectly. My newer TV uses a newer
chipset and more efficient decoding algorithm that is made possible
because of the higher power chipset.

The older chipsets are still in production and still being sold,
presumably the TV manufacturers can buy them cheaply, stick them in the
TV and rely on marketing buzz over technical demonstration to sell then
for a larger markup. Most people I know buy on screen size anyway.

My understanding - which may be incorrect - is that the TV has a fixed
time based upon the framerate in which to decode the image and display
it before it has to start on the next frame.
Better quality TVs are capable of fully decompressing the image and
displaying it between frames but the cheaper and older ones cannot
handle a new image every frame and so, when it runs out of time decoding
the image it just gets sent to the screen, tesselations and all.
Standing ready to be corrected.

Andy



Andy,

I don't know what the Europeans use, so I can't speak for you guys. But
here in the United States, everything is digital also, and has been for
years (here come the trolls).

Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But
in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The
chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company,
so all TV's have similar decoding.

I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with
all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker.

http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf


http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560

http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html

Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one
company's products?


If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these
chipsets are hi-def (1080).

And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company
providing the chipsets.

The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There is a
consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder alone...

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf


Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to
argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264.

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

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

What is the point of digital voice?
 

In rec.radio.amateur.equipment Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:58 AM, AndyW wrote:
On 25/02/2015 13:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Not really true, at least in the United States. All TV's here use the
same (proprietary) chipsets to decompress the digital signal. However,
it makes a huge difference on the resolution being used, i.e. 720P,
1080P, 1080I, UHD... The difference is in what happens after the
signal
is decompressed.

I am unsure of US TV. In the UK terrestrial TV is all digital.
Analog(ue) was switched off a few years ago.
I am referring to the whole box from antenna to screen, most of our TVs
come with built-in 'Freeview'.

I have a digital set about 6 years old that struggles to handle complex
images but my new toy handles it perfectly. My newer TV uses a newer
chipset and more efficient decoding algorithm that is made possible
because of the higher power chipset.

The older chipsets are still in production and still being sold,
presumably the TV manufacturers can buy them cheaply, stick them in the
TV and rely on marketing buzz over technical demonstration to sell then
for a larger markup. Most people I know buy on screen size anyway.

My understanding - which may be incorrect - is that the TV has a fixed
time based upon the framerate in which to decode the image and display
it before it has to start on the next frame.
Better quality TVs are capable of fully decompressing the image and
displaying it between frames but the cheaper and older ones cannot
handle a new image every frame and so, when it runs out of time decoding
the image it just gets sent to the screen, tesselations and all.
Standing ready to be corrected.

Andy



Andy,

I don't know what the Europeans use, so I can't speak for you guys. But
here in the United States, everything is digital also, and has been for
years (here come the trolls).

Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But
in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The
chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company,
so all TV's have similar decoding.

I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with
all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker.

http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf


http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560

http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html

Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one
company's products?


If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these
chipsets are hi-def (1080).

And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company
providing the chipsets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC

begin quote
A hardware H.264 encoder can be an ASIC or an FPGA.

ASIC encoders with H.264 encoder functionality are available from many
different semiconductor companies, but the core design used in the ASIC
is typically licensed from one of a few companies such as Chips&Media,
Allegro DVT, On2 (formerly Hantro, acquired by Google), Imagination
Technologies, NGCodec. Some companies have both FPGA and ASIC product
offerings.[56]

Texas Instruments manufactures a line of ARM + DSP cores that perform
DSP H.264 BP encoding 1080p at 30fps.[57] This permits flexibility
with respect to codecs (which are implemented as highly optimized DSP
code) while being more efficient than software on a generic CPU.
end quote

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/M...mplementations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA


--
Jim Pennino