What's the use of a 192 kHz sample rate?
in [DSP]
|
Prev: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough to cover the entire human hearingrange?
Next: Newbie to DSP - Phase shift detection
From: rajesh on 7 May 2008 02:44 On May 3, 9:25 pm, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 3, 12:14 pm, nos...(a)nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote: > > I thought we were having a conversation. But I don't appreciate being > called names. Would you speak to me this way if I were standing in > front of you? Either way you come across as being rude. > > Rick There is no two way communication between encoder and decoder... they just repeat the slices marking one as duplicate....this done especially for I slices (other key pictures which are considered important).
From: rajesh on 7 May 2008 02:53 On May 6, 2:54 am, "geoff" <ge...(a)nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote: > rajesh wrote: > > > Mr Pearce please view my profile and read some of my posts. > > What is "view my profile" ? > > Oh, I see, you think you are posting in some Google group. Guess what - you > are not. you are posting out into a newsgroup in the real world, albeit > through a google 'portal'. > > Most of us here are accessing USENET directly, and 'profiles' do not exist. > They area Google Groups things only. > > geoff geoff, how can i access usenet directly? what is the url for that.
From: Jerry Avins on 7 May 2008 13:07 rajesh wrote: ... > There is another context where they duplicate slices and transmit. There are protocols that have little or no error-correction, but retransmit a packet if it's checksum is wrong at the receiver. These can be efficient when the bit-error rate of the channel is very low. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
From: Jerry Avins on 7 May 2008 13:08 Don Pearce wrote: ... > What you don't do is send the packet twice, just in case there might > be an error. How about three times, so the receiver can vote? :-) Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
From: Eric Jacobsen on 7 May 2008 13:24
On Mon, 5 May 2008 05:54:09 -0700 (PDT), dpierce.cartchunk.org(a)gmail.com wrote: >On May 5, 8:34 am, rajesh <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On May 5, 5:26 pm, Randy Yates <ya...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> But yes, just doing a single repeat (transmitting two >>> samples for every one) does not buy you anything. >> >> it does help the signal to get reconstructedl more accurately. > >Not if the waveform is sampled at grater than 2 times the >bandwidth, it does not. Once you sample greater than the >Nyquist limit, NO extra information is gathered, not matter >HOW much more your sample. The resulting output waveform >is the same whether you sampled at 2..01times the bandwidth >or 2000000 times the bandwidth. The output waveform DOES >NOT get any more accurate. > >You've invoked Shannon. How about going and actually >READING and UNDERSTANDING it not? If I understand the argument correctly, there can be an advantage to repeating samples or symbols or whatever you want to call them. Repetition coding isn't very efficient, but it does have gain. Likewise, transmitting something, anything, twice provides time diversity in the receiver or, at a minimum, averaging in order to improve SNR. Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.ericjacobsen.org |