I understand your point. Actually that's the main point of Fourier transform or series. It tells us that if we add up all the sinusoids with right frequencies and amplitudes then we can construct a signal under consideration.steveB said:
Actually I would say stating the theorem as >= is a little wrong because if it is stated as > then it will be more comprehensive and accurate in all applicable cases. Thanks.steveB said:
Depends on what you mean by interfere. Interference of similar frequency waves is possible and you would hear beat frequencies in these cases. But this does not typically happen with voice unless two singers deliberately try to sing the same note and one person is slightly off pitch. With talking, there is a broad spectrum and the signals combine without interference.
I'll have to try to understand this description with some careful thought. It sounds interesting, but I don't follow it yet. I will say that if it helps you and you feel more comfortable after thinking in this way, it is a good thing.
I don't like to say one is more than the other when two things are important. It's like saying the heart is more important than the liver for a person to live. Both are important for living, and both must work sufficiently well for good quality of life. Likewise, you need sufficient bitrate and sufficient quantization resolution. I think you understand the importance of both.
The MPEG format is a compressed format, so it's not possible to extract quantization just from the bitrate.
Yes and no. You are correct that quantization errors can be viewed as noise. But, my point was that you need to compare this quantization noise to other noise sources in your system. Thermal noise, shot noise and 1/f noise are examples of noise in a system. If these noise sources are creating variations much larger than the quantization resolution, it will be hard to hear (or see or measure) the quantization noise. That's all. Just make a common sense comparison. Why improve quantization resolution from 100 μV down to 10 μV, if you have a system with 100 mV of thermal noise?
You can hear yourself back for more than one reason, but clearly I'm talking about when you hear your voice from the microphone go onto the line and hear it back through the earpiece. Did you ever have a microphone on your side break? You hear the other person, but something doesn't sound right because your voice does not come through the speaker in your ear. Obviously, you hear your voice through the air and through the bones of your skull, but still the phone sounds not quite right. Then you hear the other person say, "hello? ... hello? ... are you there? .... ".
Yes of course. Signals can cancel or reinforce. You can also make two laser beams cancel out or reinforce with phase shifting. Still, two light bulbs don't usually create darkness.
Your guess is as good or better than mine. I really don't know too much about this. But, it seems reasonable that the human brain might very well be doing many approximate calculations that emulate real mathematical calculations. When we catch a ball, or throw one, we are mentally calculating trajectories as if our brains know Newton's laws and calculus. But, the details of what is actually being calculated is not something I can talk about with confidence.
First, I don't consider a copper wire to be a waveguide. I consider any transmission line to be one example of a waveguide. In special cases, a wire might make a reasonable transmission line, but it would need something else (a ground plane for example) to make it a transmission line. Two wires used in a highly controlled geometry makes a better transmission line.
Actually, didn't you already do calculations related to this before? At low frequency, the wire would need to be very very long, but that's ok. The same physics is at work, so it can act like a good antenna, with the right geometry.
Yes, absolutely correct. But, I would tend to say that alloys are not the real issue. Consistency of geometry is more likely to be the issue nowadays.
Yes, I do. I was actually thinking of my old 300 Ohm TV twin cable that was popular for attaching to antennas before coax cable became more popular. But, that's exactly what it used to look like.
Any, large area, flat conducting surface. It could be the earth ground itself, water, a large copper area on a circuit board, a wide area of chassis etc.
That last sentence is correct, but that is an example of coupling losses. Basically, guided modes become coupled to backward guided modes for reflections, or to forward radiating modes for scattering loss. Don't worry about this terminology as it would not make much sense until you get into detailed design/analysis of waveguides/transmission lines. Then, you would get into mode-coupling theory.
t=0:0.01:1;
y=4*sin(4*pi*t);
T=0:0.25:1;
Y=4*sin(4*pi*T);
subplot(211);
plot(y);
subplot(212);
stem(Y);
