Reply by Verified by Kerberos●January 12, 20042004-01-12
Tom wrote:
>
> Radium wrote:
>
>
>>Okay. Now I see where I went wrong. One-bit can either be on or off.
>>Nothing in between. Sorry.
>>
>>PaavoJumppanen@iname.com (Paavo Jumppanen) wrote in message news:<yvi8yl77hlo.fsf@jpff.cs.bath.ac.uk>...
>>
>>>Simple question: What is or how do you make a fractional bit? Digital
>>>systems are quantized. One bit implies quantising to two levels On or
>>>Off. What are the quantization levels of a fractional bit and how
>>>would you represent it?
>
>
> If you want in between bits then why not try analogue?!
>
> Tom
Is this silly season? It's hard to send analog signals over the
internet without digitizing them first.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Verified by Kerberos●January 8, 20042004-01-08
Radium wrote:
> Okay. Now I see where I went wrong. One-bit can either be on or off.
> Nothing in between. Sorry.
>
> PaavoJumppanen@iname.com (Paavo Jumppanen) wrote in message news:<yvi8yl77hlo.fsf@jpff.cs.bath.ac.uk>...
> > Simple question: What is or how do you make a fractional bit? Digital
> > systems are quantized. One bit implies quantising to two levels On or
> > Off. What are the quantization levels of a fractional bit and how
> > would you represent it?
If you want in between bits then why not try analogue?!
Tom
Reply by Jerry Avins●January 6, 20042004-01-06
Rune Allnor wrote:
...
> I'm sure you understood that my slightly ironic twist was directed at
> the reverend Mr Hieronymus and not at you.
That was obvious.
...
> Was that Hieronymus patent really granted? ...
Patented Sept. 27, 1949
2,482,773
UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE
2,482,773
DETECTION OF EMANATIONS FROM MATERIALS
AND MEASUREMENT OF THE VOLUMES THEREOF
Thomas G. Hieronymus, Kansas City, Mo.
Application October 23, 1946, Serial No. 705,028
13 Claims. (Cl. 250-372)
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Rune Allnor●January 6, 20042004-01-06
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<3ff9c617$0$6761$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
> Rune Allnor wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > In a brilliant and equilibristic discourse, no doubt. As I understand,
> > you used to work as a techinician? Today, any carreer-oriented engineer
> > would better make sure to display such a momentuous conribution to
> > technology and humankind on the front sheet of his CV... there you missed
> > a wide open opportunity for an academic carreer, Jerry...
>
> To set the record straight,
I'm sure you understood that my slightly ironic twist was directed at
the reverend Mr Hieronymus and not at you.
Still, I know of people who would have made sure to publish and use
results such as yours for all their worth and not care to point out
the "obvious" spoof. Just relax, I will restrain myself from embarking
on yet another rant rage.
Was that Hieronymus patent really granted? If so, that makes anything
Monty Python ever had to offer fall straight to the ground as completely
uninteresting plain mainstream everyday life in the middle of Suburbia.
Rune
Reply by Jerry Avins●January 5, 20042004-01-05
Rune Allnor wrote:
...
> In a brilliant and equilibristic discourse, no doubt. As I understand,
> you used to work as a techinician? Today, any carreer-oriented engineer
> would better make sure to display such a momentuous conribution to
> technology and humankind on the front sheet of his CV... there you missed
> a wide open opportunity for an academic carreer, Jerry...
To set the record straight, I h the service manager of a HiFi boutique
then, living by my wits at first, getting eight hours of work done in 18
hours of effort. Eventually, I learned my trade. Then I indeed became a
technician after taking RCA Institutes T3 course along with my Eskimo
friend. After, I worked for Andrea Radio (FADA* emerged from bankruptcy
in the depression) in the development lab. Eventually my boss kicked me
out, saying that as I was doing the work of an engineer, I ought to get
a degree and be paid like one. I did what he said, and in a few years my
annual salary went from $5,720 as a technician to $7,920 as a Member of
the Technical Staff of a prestigious laboratory. Those were the days!
Jerry
______________________
FADA had stood for Frank A. DeAndrea.
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Rune Allnor●January 5, 20042004-01-05
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<yvi1xqe1r9y.fsf@jpff.cs.bath.ac.uk>...
> Radium wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > 44100 Hz X 1/88200-bit X 2 channels = 1 bit per second
>
> 1/88200 bit is such a small part of a whole bit that it's hard to tell
> it's there; you might as well leave it out. Then you could transmit your
> file with no bits at all and reconstitute the music with a Hieronymus
> Machine�. The patent�, granted
You must be joking?!
> in 1949, has expired by now. Note that,
> shortly after Hieronymus patented his machine, it was discovered that it
> worked just as well when most of it was replaced by a mere schematic of
> the relevant parts. I myself showed that a schematic of a transistor
> amplifier gave precisely the same results as the schematic of the
> original tube amplifier.
In a brilliant and equilibristic discourse, no doubt. As I understand,
you used to work as a techinician? Today, any carreer-oriented engineer
would better make sure to display such a momentuous conribution to
technology and humankind on the front sheet of his CV... there you missed
a wide open opportunity for an academic carreer, Jerry...
From the bottom of the page of your reference 1:
The Hieronymus machine has been built by many persons, and it
works for those who are not negative. [...] This is what psychotronics
is all about.
It's the a template for the most concise summary of Matched Field
Processing for Source Localization I have ever seen. Perhaps the current
use of the term "psychoacoustics" should be abandoned, and the term
(or better, the term "psycho acoustics") be reserved for MFP/SL...
Rune
Reply by Verified by Kerberos●January 5, 20042004-01-05
Radium wrote:
> 1 Hz sampling rate would equate to .5 Hz. 1-bit/sec, however would
> not. Bit/time is the bit-rate. Sample rate is different from bit-rate.
> It is also important to know the difference between *bit-resolution*
> and *bit-rate*.
>
> If in a wave file, the bit-resolution is made to equal 1 /(sampling
> rate X number of channels), then the bit-rate will definitely be
> 1-bit/second. If the sample rate is 44,100 Hz in a stereo (2-channel)
> wave file of this type, the bit-resolution would be 1/(44100 x 2)-bit
> or 1/88200-bit.
>
> Bit-rate = sample-rate X bit-resolution X numbers of channels
>
> Multiply the 44100 X 2 X 1/88200 and you get 1!
>
> 44100 Hz X 1/88200-bit X 2 channels = 1 bit per second
>
> 1 minute of this file would comsume only 60 bits of disk space. It
> would definitely work for the internet. Unlike conventional MP3s and
> WMAs, the high-frequency content of the PCM music will be restored due
> to the high sample rate.
>
Excellent. Just to complete the analysis though, would you care to
calculate (approximately) what the SNR would be for such an encoding ?
Paul
Reply by Verified by Kerberos●January 5, 20042004-01-05
Okay. Now I see where I went wrong. One-bit can either be on or off.
Nothing in between. Sorry.
PaavoJumppanen@iname.com (Paavo Jumppanen) wrote in message news:<yvi8yl77hlo.fsf@jpff.cs.bath.ac.uk>...
> Simple question: What is or how do you make a fractional bit? Digital
> systems are quantized. One bit implies quantising to two levels On or
> Off. What are the quantization levels of a fractional bit and how
> would you represent it?
Reply by Verified by Kerberos●January 5, 20042004-01-05
Radium wrote:
...
> 44100 Hz X 1/88200-bit X 2 channels = 1 bit per second
1/88200 bit is such a small part of a whole bit that it's hard to tell
it's there; you might as well leave it out. Then you could transmit your
file with no bits at all and reconstitute the music with a Hieronymus
Machine�. The patent�, granted in 1949, has expired by now. Note that,
shortly after Hieronymus patented his machine, it was discovered that it
worked just as well when most of it was replaced by a mere schematic of
the relevant parts. I myself showed that a schematic of a transistor
amplifier gave precisely the same results as the schematic of the
original tube amplifier.
Jerry
_____________________________
1 http://www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/typical_hieronymus_detector.htm
2 http://www.algonet.se/~johnnyfg/freenrg/hieronym/hieronym.htm
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Verified by Kerberos●January 5, 20042004-01-05
glucegen@excite.com (Radium) wrote in
news:yvi65gb7hl0.fsf@jpff.cs.bath.ac.uk:
> 1 Hz sampling rate would equate to .5 Hz. 1-bit/sec, however would
> not. Bit/time is the bit-rate. Sample rate is different from bit-rate.
> It is also important to know the difference between *bit-resolution*
> and *bit-rate*.
>
> If in a wave file, the bit-resolution is made to equal 1 /(sampling
> rate X number of channels), then the bit-rate will definitely be
> 1-bit/second. If the sample rate is 44,100 Hz in a stereo (2-channel)
> wave file of this type, the bit-resolution would be 1/(44100 x 2)-bit
> or 1/88200-bit.
>
> Bit-rate = sample-rate X bit-resolution X numbers of channels
>
> Multiply the 44100 X 2 X 1/88200 and you get 1!
>
> 44100 Hz X 1/88200-bit X 2 channels = 1 bit per second
>
> 1 minute of this file would comsume only 60 bits of disk space. It
> would definitely work for the internet. Unlike conventional MP3s and
> WMAs, the high-frequency content of the PCM music will be restored due
> to the high sample rate.
Methinks something is wrong with the math and/or definitions.
The way I understand it, if one samples at 44.1kc that means that 44
thousand times per second you have a 16 bit word. Thus, in one second,
you have 44,100 16 bit words of data. Put another way, in one second you
have 44,100*16*2(for stereo) or 1,411,200 bits of data.
1,411,200 / 8 = 176400 8 bit bytes per second.
Now if you are wanting to change the sampling resolution or depth from 16
bits to something like 8 or even 4, the result would not be very good. I
believe that there are examples of 4 amd 8 bit on the net.
r
>
>
> Rich Andrews <n0way@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
<yvi1xrcobq0.fsf@jpff.cs.bath.ac.uk>...
>> glucegen@excite.com (Radium) wrote in
>> news:yvik75eq9k7.fsf@jpff.cs.bath.ac.uk:
>>
>> > I would like to use an audio codec based on WAVE PCM. It should be a
>> > little different though. The bit-resolution should be set to equal
>> > 1/(sampling rate X # of channels). The bit-rate should be set to
equal
>> > 1 bit per second. I would like to use this codec to transport audio
>> > files though the internet via email.
>> >
>> > I am looking for frequency response. In digital audio the sampling
>> > rate must be at least twice the highest frequency in the signal. It
>> > would like a highest frequency of at least 200 KHz. This would
require
>> > a sample rate of at least 400 KHz.
>> >
>> > In this codec the bit-resolution is decreased to maintain a low bit
>> > rate of 1 bit/sec. The bit-resolution is divided by the sampling rate
>> > and the # of channels to acheive this.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> 1 bit per second? Wouldn't that equate to .5 hz or did I miss
something?
>>
>> r
>
>
>
--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.