home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: soap.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet
- From: m.hendry@dial.pipex.com (Mathew Hendry)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.audio
- Subject: Re: Paula chip and Amiga audio
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 96 05:13:24
- Organization: Private node.
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <19960226.424EB0.4E16@am177.du.pipex.com>
- References: <wfblanDL5rJB.IK8@netcom.com> <wfblanDLKurL.6rz@netcom.com> <4e05du$4dv@serpens.rhein.de> <judas.0ho5@tomtec.abg.sub.org> <4ekcsm$13p@news.jhu.edu> <4fk2i7$bni@nntp.texas.net> <4g0gv9$aoq@infa.central.susx.ac.uk> <4g1maa$buu@serpens.rhein.de> <4gqn1g$e5n@infa.central.susx.ac.uk>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: am177.du.pipex.com
- X-Newsreader: TIN [AMIGA 1.3 950726BETA PL0]
-
- Peter Beck (peterbe@cogs.susx.ac.uk) wrote:
- : "noise: Random signals unrelated to the input signal of an amplifier."
- :
- : I would say that these definitions are pretty much the definitions I have
- : used, wouldn`t you?
-
- No. You claimed that quantization effects are a form of noise.
-
- These effects are not random, therefore by the above definition they do not
- constitute noise.
-
- These effects are heavily dependent on the input signal, therefore by the
- above definition they do not constitute noise.
-
- Can you spot the problem here?
-
- : Mathew Hendry (m.hendry@dial.pipex.com) has been known to utter the following:
- : : And quantization noise is no less predictable than aliasing - given a signal,
- : : you can predict how it will be quantized, just as you can predict the effects
- : : of aliasing.
- :
- : You can`t predict how it can be quantised.
-
- If that is true, neither can you predict aliasing effects, in which case, by
- your own definitions, aliasing is noise too. Oops, no it isn't, because
- aliasing depends on the input signal. No wait...
-
- -- Mat.
-