3 ms·
Assuming most of this is dead air, don't you think this would be a highly compressible data set (even lossless)?
by x1798DE 10y ago
Assuming most of this is dead air, don't you think this would be a highly compressible data set (even lossless)?
- niftich 10y agoHighly is perhaps an overstatement, but compressible like most clear signal data, behaving similar to PCM audio. I compressed '20090922_950_GLFS_outdoor.wav' (150 kHz - 1750 kHz) from the Perseus site [1] with some lossless compressors. In each case, I independently round-tripped the de/compression and the results were confirmed to be lossless. The compression ratios are in line or slightly (but not overwhelmingly) better than what you'd expect [2] from audio: original: 1.000 7zip-lzma2-xz-ultra: 0.820 (not a signal compressor) wavpack-normal: 0.724 wavpack-high: 0.691 wavpack-hhx6: 0.593 I would've liked to test additional compressors. In addition to WavPack, FLAC, TAK, ALAC, OptimFROG, TTA, WMA Lossless all purport to have some level of high-resolution support, but I'm not sure how many kHz they go up to. FLAC wouldn't take the file, and the rest I don't have access to right this moment. [1] http://www.myradiobase.de/perseus/ http://www.myradiobase.de/perseus/ [2] http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Lossless_comparis...
- kastnerkyle 10y agoAt least in HF, this "dead air" is anything but dead (lightning, channels with lots of fading, things you only catch due to ionospheric effects, etc). Noise is basically any signal you don't care about in lower frequency bands. Also many transmissions look like wideband noise at higher frequency due to direct sequence spreadspectrum type techniques.