tlug: Re: Voice information content.....

[Karl-Max Wagner <karlmax@example.com>]

> I believe OSCAR is amateur satellite.
Exactly. I've been on them since 1984. Equipment is homemade
except the RX ( this is a IC202 ).
>  > since 1984....quite a lot of that in Japanese....and my RX uses
> RX is Receiver.
Yes.
> The actual modem uses 2400Hz as base frequency, then modulates 
> to carry 20 times to 30 times the frequency Bit/Sec. So
> let's say a human modem has 660Hz as base frequency like A
> in the octave and not so efficient to carry one time the
> base frequency Bit/Sec. This results in 660bps.
Actually voice is not so much optimized for high throughput, but
for robust data transmission - and there it is really good.
Actually, it is rather close to the Shannon limit.
> Then Alphabets has letters less than 32 not counting
> cases. So let's say one letter has 5bit. And let's say human 
> can say one word a second and a word consists of 5 letters
> in average. So the text throughput is 25bps. This is less
> than 5% of a human modem. Then what is he using for the rest 
> of 95% channel capability? Part of it is body language that
Error correction. Shannon's law says that transferring a lot of
data in a narrow channel is a lot worse than using a wide
channel. The reason is simple: in a narrow channel you cannot
use a lot of redundancy for error corection and your Eb/N0 curve
gets relatively flat. The more bandwidth you have, the steeper
it can be made. The ideal is an infinitely wide channel with a
rectangular Eb/N0 curve: above the Shannon limit you have zero
error rate and below 100 % error. This is evident from the
operation of error correction systems based on redundance: if
these systems can't handle it any more, they even cause more
errors ===> they make the Eb/N0 function steeper.
> is not well processed by computers and may compensate for
> text language shortcomings. Although there is a lie
Somewhat. There sure ARE subconscious parts in voice, however,
evidently not that many. This is proven by the brutalization
possible with human speech before it becomes inintelligible.
> So in my conclusion, people tend to make argument without
> trying to understand what they are quoting by just seeing
> another aspect of the quotation. This also adds momentum to
> heating-up arguments. 
Hmmmm.....that happens, too. Typical case of reacting
emotionally first, using factual reasoning afterwards. However,
this lies somewhat in the human biological history: the
reasoning part of the brain is rather young and the emotional
one is a lot older and has priority unless the reasoning part
steps in. It's a design feature of humans, so to speak.
> I used to take this personally and become upset. But, now I
I know. However, you were not the first stepping into that trap.
Lots before you did and lots after you will. I keep seeing that
since I started networking 10 years ago.
> see this is universal phenomenum.
Very universal in fact.

There is another fact: You can read as fast as you can speak and
listen. However, the information density of written text tends
to be a lot higher than in speech. Thus by reading you feed
yourself information at a MUCH higher speed that if somebody
talks to you. This puts a serious strain on the brain's data
processing abilities and it tries to feed that into the
emotional part - where it doesn't belong. It MUST be fed into
the reasoning part first. This requires a serious effort on the
part of the reader, aggravating the above problem.

                                Karl-Max Wagner
                                karlmax@example.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Next Nomikai: 17 July, 19:30 Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691
Next Meeting: 8 August, Tokyo Station Yaesu central gate 12:30
*** 20 June: TLUG will be at the Tokyo Linux Fair
http://tlug.linux.or.jp/projects/linux-fair/fair.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor: PHT, makers of TurboLinux http://www.pht.co.jp