On Tue, 2 May 2000, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 02 May 2000
> | ATRAC is an algorithm. GSM is an algorithm. MPEG is an algorithm.
>
> Algorithmic transformation. ATRAC is not a transformation (strictest
> definition). What you get out is the same as what you put in, just less of
> it. MP3 is actually two algorithms, a bitwise reduction and Huffman
> coding; the Huffman coding is a transformation.
Now you seem to be trying to argue detailed semantics. It would perhaps
be a good idea if you were to define these terms precisely, since it seems
that you are in the habit of redefining terms frequently...
> | ...reducing data so as to require less digital bits to transmit. The
> | increase in carrier capacity or decrease in storage space are just side
> | effects; the critical reason it's considered compression is because there
> | are less bits needed to transmit the signal.
>
> Less bits needed to transmit the signal = effectively increasing carrier
> capacity.
Of course. But my point is that it's called compression not because it
increases carrier capacity, but because it decreases the bits.
Compression refers to a specific type process rather than an effect.
> | You are making the same mistake over and over. You are trying to
> look at | analog and digital signals and claiming that because some
> particular way | of encoding analog signals may take up more space
> than another particular | way of encoding digital signals, therefore
> it's a form of compression.
> You are making the same mistake over and over. You are trying to look at
> audio sampling under the very strict definitions of communications rather
> than the more generalized definitions used by the layman.
Just because laypeople such as yourself choose to use an incorrect
definition is not an excuse. You also have failed to produce anybody
anywhere other than yourself who believes in this definition. I know many
people who fit the definition of laypeople in the digital audio field and
they have all been astonished that DAC and ADC could be called
"compression".
I'm also not using the "communications" definition. I'm using the
only definition I have ever heard expressed by any person other than
yourself. Actually, I am unfamiliar with "laymen" who talk about data
compression...maybe the laypeople over where you live are different? :)
> | Analog to digital covnersion is NOT compression. CITE A SOURCE if you are
> | going to continue to assert this.
>
> CD-Video.
Perhaps you're confused about what "citing a source" means. Find an
authoritative and reliable source that backs up your claim. I've done that
for my claims, now it's your turn. Find a standards document to back up
your claim. Specifically, something that says that it's compression.
> | Sadly, I haven't found a source that stated that ADC was not compression;
> | most people in the field would never even consider that as a possibility.
>
> I'm not talking about what "people in the field" think. I am talking about
> what everybody else thinks.
"everybody else" seems to disagree with you so far. I'm not an expert in
digital audio, signal processing, data compression, or any other related
field. I'm a computer science major. My compression experience is
limited to writing some Huffman compression code awhile back, and porting
some wavelet compression source to the Newton MessagePad. NO formal
training. I'm not "in the field". Please cite a source, find somebody
else who agrees with you?
gopi.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
