Re: analog summing vs. digital summing
- From: "Joseph Ashwood" <ashwood@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:23:29 GMT
"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dtsh0q$b5$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Joseph Ashwood" <ashwood@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
modems actually work orders
of magnitude under what Shannon's work states.
I'm not sure what you're saying. If you're saying that modems can operate
at rates higher than Shannon's theorem states, that's wrong. I'd like to
see a cite on where you heard that.
I have never seen a modem that can operate anywhere NEAR the theoretical
limit.
Within an order of magnitude. Trellis encoding gets us a little closer to
using the whole channel, but we're still very, very far away.
That's why I said "under" the limit. Although I did later state that in rare
(exceeding rare, rare as hens teeth) cases Shannon's lay can actually be
exceeded by a small amount.
Even spread spectrum methods still all follow Shannon's theorem.
I'm only aware of one narrow case where Shannon's law has been exceeded, and
only then by an epsilon and it required physics that were just being learned
about when Shannon died, and are still very much in the lab. With a small
tweaking of a couple of Shannon's definitions to cover the physics Shannon's
proofs will almost certainly still hold.
Joe
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: analog summing vs. digital summing
- From: Scott Dorsey
- Re: analog summing vs. digital summing
- References:
- analog summing vs. digital summing
- From: leutholl
- Re: analog summing vs. digital summing
- From: Ed Anson
- Re: analog summing vs. digital summing
- From: Joseph Ashwood
- analog summing vs. digital summing
- Prev by Date: Re: Old Lux Amp
- Next by Date: Re: Old Lux Amp
- Previous by thread: Re: analog summing vs. digital summing
- Next by thread: Re: analog summing vs. digital summing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|