"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?

"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!

"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!

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 ::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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".

"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.

"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