Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<3fddecd4$0$4751$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...> Ben Pope wrote: > > > Jerry Avins wrote: > > > >>Ben Pope wrote: > > ... > > >>What do you make of the statement that every > >>bit added to a storage unit doubles its capacity. > > > > > > Yeah, I'll go with that. > > > > > >>If a five-bit word > >>holds 32 items and a four-bit word only 16, isn't it true that the fifth > >>bit is "worth" 16 items all by itself? :-) > > > > > > No, all by itself would mean that it is not the 5th bit, but the first, and > > therefore only worth one bit with the ability to classify 2 states. > > ... > > >>"Bit" is also used as a measure of capacity. Not all > >>capacities are powers of two. > > > > Not much of what you say is relevant to this argument. > > I thought the scope had broadened. We can just stop if it hasn't. > > >>>A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions. It is used to > >>>display a "1" (or nothing) in the most significant digit, this also must > >>>be an integer since x.5 digit meters do not have the possiblity of point > >>>(decimal or otherwise) to the left of the � digit. > >> > >>Not so. I once had a meter that could display one, zero, or blank in the > >>MSD place. Zero was used when the decimal point was to the left of it on > >>the lowest range. > > > > > > If it can display a zero in the MSD, it's not an x.5 digit display, is it? > > I call a display with three digits than can have any value and one that > can be blank, zero, or one a 3�-digit display by convention. (For true > 3� digits, the MSD should range up to 3.) The lowest range of that meter > went from .0001 to .1999, so more the MSD had to display than a 1 or > blank. > > ... > > > Fine but since when were we talking about capacity? > > > > If we do wish to talk about capacity, then lets make it relevant: > > "What is the capacity of of half of one bit?". > > We already agreed that adding a bit multiplies capacity by 2. Adding > half a bit multiplies capacity by sqrt(2). > > > Or possibly more to the point, "What is the capacity of 1/88200 of a bit?" > > What is the capacity of a nitwit like Radium to be guided? Let's see: > 2^-88200 = 1.00000786, for what it's worth. > > > I suggest your answers should be (to 5 sig. fig.): > > 2^� = 1.4142 states > > Right on! > > > 2^(1/88200) = 1.0000 states1/88200 = .0000113378684807256235827664399092971> To five significant figures, yes. (See above.) Except, of course, that > "states" is a relatively loose measure of capacity. As always, we must > either round down the capacity or round up the number of bits to the > next integer. > > > Can you use 1.41 states to classify something? What's a fraction of a state? > > That depends on what you mean by classify. I can certainly use it to > categorize something. > > ... > > >>I'm not claiming that fractional bits are physically possible. I'm > >>trying to establish their usefulness as a measure of capacity. > > > > Did you even read the original post? We're arguing the use of a fraction of > > a bit as a storage mechanism. > > I thought we moved on from that drivel to something a bit more > interesting. Even that's been used up. > > >>>You're not even talking about the same thing as me, thats why. It's an > >>>example of something completely different. > >> > >>Yes. I'm sorry. > >> > >>The moral of this story is, never say "never" Above all, never give > >>advice. Well, no. What I was really getting at, even if obliquely, is > >>that there are often oblique ways to look at things things that open > >>many categorical statements to question. > > > > > > As I was progressing down the thread I was assuming prior knowledge of the > > previous posts, they give context. > > > > Well done for ignoring the context and arguing a different point. > > > > Perhaps the moral of the story is not to bother arguing with somebody who > > either cannot or does not maintain a train of thought. > > OK. I keep responding out of a sense of obligation. I'm as tired if this > as you seem to be. Let's stop. I could feel churlish not to answer your > points except by prior agreement. Be assured that you can ignore this > without offending me. > > Jerry
Bit-resolution decrease for internet
Started by ●December 3, 2003
Reply by ●December 15, 20032003-12-15
Reply by ●December 15, 20032003-12-15
Radium wrote:> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message > news:<3fddecd4$0$4751$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>... >> Ben Pope wrote: >>> 2^(1/88200) = 1.0000 states > > 1/88200 = .0000113378684807256235827664399092971Radium, please keep up. And please trim the stuff that is not relevant... posting 80 lines of stuff, just to reply with a buried one-line answer demonstrating your complete ignorance is hardly appropriate. Ben -- A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups. I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Reply by ●December 16, 20032003-12-16
Radium wrote: ...> 1/88200 = .0000113378684807256235827664399092971Bully for you! To eight significant figures, 2^.0000113378684807256235827664399092971 rounds to 1.00000786. So? ... Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●December 16, 20032003-12-16
"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<brjptb$3ujgf$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...> Radium wrote: > > Transistor can only be "on" or "off". However, regions on a magnetic > > disc do not need to be, > > So along with your CoDec you're suggesting an > analogue storage medium?Magnetic discs aren't always analog. There are many examples of digital magnetic disc such as floppies and hard drives.
Reply by ●December 16, 20032003-12-16
Radium wrote:> "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<brjptb$3ujgf$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>... > >>Radium wrote: >> >>>Transistor can only be "on" or "off". However, regions on a magnetic >>>disc do not need to be, >> >>So along with your CoDec you're suggesting an >>analogue storage medium? > > > Magnetic discs aren't always analog. There are many examples of > digital magnetic disc such as floppies and hard drives.Craphead! digital magnetic media are effectively on or off. It can't be both ways. I give up. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●December 20, 20032003-12-20
Radium wrote:> Wrong. 1 Hz sampling rate would equate to .5 Hz. Sampling rate must be > at least 2x the maximum frequency.OK, so whats the maximum frequency you would like to capture? (More to the point, what sampling rate do you propose)> 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.Only if you could represent the samples in fractions of a bit.> 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.And how do you propose to represent such fractional bits?> Bit-rate = sample-rate X bit-resolution X numbers of channelsFine, but you can't have less than one bit per sample.> Multiply the 44100 X 2 X 1/88200 and you get 1!Well done.> 44100 Hz X 1/88200-bit X 2 channels = 1 bit per secondFine.> 1 minute of this file would comsume 60 bits of disk space.Yes, but even if it was possible, it would not really be classed as sound, would it? The reason the "bit resolution" is 16bits in CD Audio is because then you can represent the varying wave with some degree of precision. If you took that down to one bit, you would be turning sinusoids into square waves, which would introduce just a tiny bit of odd-harmonic distortion. That would result in bps = sampling rate * channels. Ben -- A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups. I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Reply by ●December 20, 20032003-12-20
"Radium" <glucegen@excite.com> wrote in message news:yvivfonmgeb.fsf@jpff.cs.bath.ac.uk...>> > 44100 Hz X 1/88200-bit X 2 channels = 1 bit per second > > 1 minute of this file would comsume 60 bits of disk space.Hello Radium, At this rate, a 700MB CD will hold 177 years' worth of music!! Why don't you compress some music to be just 1 bit per second and see if anyone would be willing to listen to it more than once. I think you need to check how you are handling your units. The Hz times 1/Hz units cancel out. Clay
Reply by ●December 20, 20032003-12-20
"Radium" <glucegen@excite.com> wrote in message news:yvivfonmgeb.fsf@jpff.cs.bath.ac.uk...> Wrong. 1 Hz sampling rate would equate to .5 Hz. Sampling rate must be > at least 2x the maximum frequency. > > 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 60 bits of disk space.Consider this logically for a second... The lowest possible bit depth for a single sample is 1 bit, hence you must have at least 1bit per sample. If you want 400kHz sample rate then you must have a minimum of 400kbps data rate. 1 minute of this data would consume 2400kb.
Reply by ●December 20, 20032003-12-20
glucegen@excite.com (Radium) wrote in message news:<yvivfonmgeb.fsf@jpff.cs.bath.ac.uk>...> Wrong. 1 Hz sampling rate would equate to .5 Hz. Sampling rate must be > at least 2x the maximum frequency. > > 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 60 bits of disk space.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? Regards, Paavo Jumppanen Author of AtSpec : A 2 channel PC based FFT spectrum analyzer http://www.taquis.com
Reply by ●December 20, 20032003-12-20
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. 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
