Open fbruetting opened 6 years ago
Well, Wikipedia still can’t redefine something wrong to be correct – that’s the reason why quoting Wikipedia always is bad practice (and banned in German schools, by the way). As already the name suggests, the term specifies the “width” of a “band” – and both words in turn require existing lower and an upper boundaries for having a “band” with a “width” in the first place. A number which describes a certain speed in contrast doesn’t have a lower limit – and in most cases not even a higher limit. The cause of this just lies in marketing and politics mixing these terms without having technical understanding at all. In [1] you find a correct in-depth description of these terms from a reliable source (electronics department of a university).
German Wikipedia by the way handles this correct [2, 3] – both pages clarify this at the very top and forward you to the correct page.
[1] http://mason.gmu.edu/~rmorika2/Noise__Data_Rate_and_Frequency_Bandwidth.htm [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandbreite [3] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daten%C3%BCbertragungsrate
What the hell @tgraf ? How am I supposed to understand your tool now?
Sorry to inform you, but what your program displays, is called data rate – and not bandwidth by any means. Bandwidth has the unit Hz (Hertz) and specifies a frequency range. It doesn’t even correlate, because a higher data rate doesn’t necessarily depend on a higher bandwidth, as there are quite a number of factors which influence transmission speed and quality. So even as the bandwidth increases, depending on the circumstances, the data rate could even decline.
I know that this is a common misunderstanding and even self-declared “experts” write about bandwidth while actually they’re writing about data rates – but that still remains wrong.