 |
Search Sci.Electronics.Basics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Sci.Electronics.Basics -> Questions about equivalents of audio/video and digital/analog.
There are 304 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 220 to 240.
|
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonDate: 23:43 21-08-07
|
|
Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/21/07 12:40 PM, in article 87d4xgad6e.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L.
>Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Do you know of any telco that actually uses them today?
>>>>
>>>>> If a loop is long enough, and there is no pair-gain facility
available, it
>>>>> gets an "E" type repeater. If that isn't an analog
repeater nothing is.
>>>>
>>>> Of course I suppose it is possible they are still being
>>>> used where *you* live. But I don't know of any telco in
>>>> all of Alaska that has used an E repeater in the last 30-40
>>>> years. In particular, in the last 10-20 years that would
>>>> be totally unacceptable.
>>>
>>> I didn't leave my telco job until the end of 94. At which times they were
>>> still in use, but there was talk of using gain within the switching
>>
>> So you don't know of any telco that uses them today.
>>
>> I assume you were also using mechanical switching there
>> too... ;-)
>>
>> It is sort of difficult for me to imagine that sort of
>> environment, as Alaska was fully digital when the rest
>> of the country had only gone 33% digital. By the mid-1980
>> the only mechanical switches left in Alaska were owned by
>> the military, and they were gone by 1990.
>>
>> Still, I don't think anyone *ever* used E type repeaters
>> in Alaska, but I could be wrong on that.
>>
>>> machines. It wouldn't surprise me if that is being done now, being a
simple
>>> process. In any case, there are loops that require gain to meet minimum
>>> requirements. Also, we had a tariff that provided additional gain (for a
>>> price) where feasible.
>>
>> The general design paradigm used now is to put
>> "remotes" at multiple strategic sites and control
>> them all from one digital switch. Of course all of
>> these are trunked together, and the whole idea is to
>> prevent long loops while also requiring administration
>> of only a single digital switch.
>>
>> That was a basic design decision made for telco's by the
>> vendors, back in the late 80's or early 90's. It was
>> enforced with system pricing! Nortel (NTI at the time),
>> for example, simply made the software for a digital
>> switch (actually, the long term use and maintenance of
>> the software) far more expensive than installing
>> remotes. It became uneconomical to have two switches in
>> any jurisdiction where it was possible to deactivate one
>> and replace it and move forward with remotes.
>>
>> By the mid-1990's all of NTI's customer base had moved
>> in that direction.
>>
>>> My concerns were not just for where "I lived." I was on the
Transmission
>>> Engineering staff, and we had 14 states with which to be concerned.
>>
>> My concern was only the State of Alaska... which is
>> of course the size of 20% of the entire Lower-48.
>
>Gosh, after all that I guess I should be impressed.......... But........ I'm
>not. I wonder why.
Because it is *way* over your head.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Don BoweyDate: 00:17 22-08-07
|
|
On 8/21/07 6:29 PM, in article 87hcms73xe.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L.
Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 8/21/07 1:09 PM, in article 878x84abum.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L.
>> Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:87ir79khtk.fld@apaflo.com...
>>>>>> The signal can be reconverted to an
>>>>>> analogue one later by a D to A.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's best to call that a quasi-analog signal...
>>>>
>>>> Why? What does that mean, EXACTLY, that
>>>
>>> I've given you the URL for a glossary of terms, why
>>> don't you use it? Here are some others:
>>>
>>> http://www.atis.org/tg2k/
>>> http://www.itu.int/sancho/index.asp
>>> http://www.carrieraccessbilling.com/telecommunications-glossary-a.asp
>>> http://www.faxswitch.com/Definitions/
>>>
>>>> isn't already conveyed (and conveyed more accurately)
>>>> by other, more appropriate terms? What additional
>>>> information does this "quasi-analog" nonsense bring
>>>> to the party?
>>>
>>> Quasi-Analog Signal -
>>>
>>> A digital signal that has been converted to a form
>>> suitable for transmission over a specified analog
>>> channel.
>>
>> Gobbledegook.
>
> And you claimed to have worked in transmission engineering?
>
> Whooosh...
Don't be such an ass.
A question was asked and I replied. If a signal is passed as analog, then
it's analog; not blue analog or green analog, or sort of analog, or like
analog. Calling something quasi-analog brings nothing to the table but
gobbledegook.
|
|
|
|
Author: Don BoweyDate: 00:51 22-08-07
|
|
On 8/21/07 8:32 PM, in article 878x846y7m.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L.
Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Have you looked at a DSX-1 envelope lately?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I've got the specs right here! :-) Literally, I have
>>>>> had a graph on my web site for several years now that I drew up
>>>>> to illustrate something I wrote once upon a time
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/t1pulse.jpg
>>>>
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>> The pulse for which you provided the link, is not DSX-1, because it
will
>>>> not
>>>> fit within the DSX-1 envelope.
>>>
>>> Really? Has the standard changed?
>>
>> Not that I know of. ANSI T1.403 does good. Want to argue with it?
>
> Why would I argue with it. The link provided shows what
> ANSI T1.403 says it is. It *does* fit within the
> standard DSX-1 pulsemask (which is conveniently
> available from just about every manufacturer of test
> equipment).
>
>>>
>>> Or are you just missing something....
>>
>> I don't believe so. On the other hand, I inquired to you about the DSX-1
>> envelope, and you replied with a link to a waveform you drew, which has only
>> a loose connection to DSX-1. It appears you might be missing something.
>
> You claimed to have worked with transmission
> engineering? Did you sweep floors, or what?
No, but I was a member of ANSI T1 Working Groups T1C1 and T1E1 and helped
write ANSI T1.403 and other Standards.
To phrase it in a technical language you MIGHT understand, your mind is an
abysmal mess, and your behavior sucks. You enjoy the comfort of your
ignorance and I'm certain this is how you will remain.
|
|
|
|
Author: Don BoweyDate: 01:03 22-08-07
|
|
On 8/21/07 8:43 PM, in article 87sl6c5j45.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L.
Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 8/21/07 12:40 PM, in article 87d4xgad6e.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L.
>> Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Do you know of any telco that actually uses them today?
>>>>>
>>>>>> If a loop is long enough, and there is no pair-gain facility
available,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> gets an "E" type repeater. If that isn't an analog
repeater nothing is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course I suppose it is possible they are still being
>>>>> used where *you* live. But I don't know of any telco in
>>>>> all of Alaska that has used an E repeater in the last 30-40
>>>>> years. In particular, in the last 10-20 years that would
>>>>> be totally unacceptable.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't leave my telco job until the end of 94. At which times they
were
>>>> still in use, but there was talk of using gain within the switching
>>>
>>> So you don't know of any telco that uses them today.
>>>
>>> I assume you were also using mechanical switching there
>>> too... ;-)
>>>
>>> It is sort of difficult for me to imagine that sort of
>>> environment, as Alaska was fully digital when the rest
>>> of the country had only gone 33% digital. By the mid-1980
>>> the only mechanical switches left in Alaska were owned by
>>> the military, and they were gone by 1990.
>>>
>>> Still, I don't think anyone *ever* used E type repeaters
>>> in Alaska, but I could be wrong on that.
>>>
>>>> machines. It wouldn't surprise me if that is being done now, being a
>>>> simple
>>>> process. In any case, there are loops that require gain to meet
minimum
>>>> requirements. Also, we had a tariff that provided additional gain (for
a
>>>> price) where feasible.
>>>
>>> The general design paradigm used now is to put
>>> "remotes" at multiple strategic sites and control
>>> them all from one digital switch. Of course all of
>>> these are trunked together, and the whole idea is to
>>> prevent long loops while also requiring administration
>>> of only a single digital switch.
>>>
>>> That was a basic design decision made for telco's by the
>>> vendors, back in the late 80's or early 90's. It was
>>> enforced with system pricing! Nortel (NTI at the time),
>>> for example, simply made the software for a digital
>>> switch (actually, the long term use and maintenance of
>>> the software) far more expensive than installing
>>> remotes. It became uneconomical to have two switches in
>>> any jurisdiction where it was possible to deactivate one
>>> and replace it and move forward with remotes.
>>>
>>> By the mid-1990's all of NTI's customer base had moved
>>> in that direction.
>>>
>>>> My concerns were not just for where "I lived." I was on the
Transmission
>>>> Engineering staff, and we had 14 states with which to be concerned.
>>>
>>> My concern was only the State of Alaska... which is
>>> of course the size of 20% of the entire Lower-48.
>>
>> Gosh, after all that I guess I should be impressed.......... But........ I'm
>> not. I wonder why.
>
> Because it is *way* over your head.
I've changed my mind; I am impressed. You have impressed upon me the
knowledge that you are much less than you would like to be.
|
|
|
|
Author: glen herrmannsfeldtDate: 03:06 22-08-07
|
|
Jerry Avins wrote:
> What kind of chips hold analog signals? How do their
> storage capacities compare to digital storage?
Look at the ISD MicroTAD-16M.
It can store 16 minutes of voice in 3840K memory cells,
and a 4kHz sampling rate.
It claims 100 year retention in the non-volatile memory
cells, with 100,000 record cycles. It sounds like they
use a memory cell similar to flash RAM, but store an analog
voltage in that cell instead of only two states.
-- glen
|
|
|
|
Author: Richard DobsonDate: 07:33 22-08-07
|
|
Don Bowey wrote:
..
>
> A question was asked and I replied. If a signal is passed as analog, then
> it's analog; not blue analog or green analog, or sort of analog, or like
> analog. Calling something quasi-analog brings nothing to the table but
> gobbledegook.
>
I have no idea which of all these posts to reply to (now mainly ad
hominem, which seems sadly inevitable when a bunch of people who don't
know each other go round in digital circles), so I am replying to this
one. With the most profuse apologiees to Marshall McLuhan, the debate
seems to be of this form (multiple-choice):
Digital =
* the medium
* the message
* both the medium and the message
* neither the medium nor the message
(select one - no interpolated choices allowed).
And a question: does time series analysis (e.g. applying the FFT or
wavelet analysis to daily stock price movements etc) employ Digital
Signal Processing, Signal Processing, or Something Else?
Richard Dobson
|
|
|
|
Author: timepixdcDate: 12:06 22-08-07
|
|
In article <fafntl$u99$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>,
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:
> >> It is theoretically impossible for any real-world communications
> >> channel to be noise-free or possessed of infinite bandwidth.
> >> Do you disagree with this statement?
> >
> > It would appear that you disagree with your own statement since further
> > down you write,
>
> What part of "real-world" (as opposed to "imaginary")
> in the above did you fail to comprehend?
Before something can be developed it has to be imagined.
Edison? Great imagination. You? Maybe not so much.
From a recent (London) Daily Telegraph:
"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light -
an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space
and time.
According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it would require
an infinite amount of energy to propel an object at more than 186,000
miles per second.
However, Dr Gunter Nimtz and Dr Alfons Stahlhofen, of the University of
Koblenz, say they may have breached a key tenet of that theory.
The pair say they have conducted an experiment in which microwave
photons - energetic packets of light - travelled "instantaneously"
between a pair of prisms that had been moved up to 3ft apart.
Being able to travel faster than the speed of light would lead to a wide
variety of bizarre consequences."
Your reliance on the "theoretically impossible" would have stopped such
research before it started. You might even be the last person around
that believes in phlogiston. Hard to tell.
X-no archive
|
|
|
|
Author: Jerry AvinsDate: 13:03 22-08-07
|
|
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>> What kind of chips hold analog signals? How do their
> > storage capacities compare to digital storage?
>
> Look at the ISD MicroTAD-16M.
>
> It can store 16 minutes of voice in 3840K memory cells,
> and a 4kHz sampling rate.
>
> It claims 100 year retention in the non-volatile memory
> cells, with 100,000 record cycles. It sounds like they
> use a memory cell similar to flash RAM, but store an analog
> voltage in that cell instead of only two states.
So the audio is sampled but not digitized. Interesting! I'm downloading
the data sheet now.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
|
|
|
|
Author: Rich GriseDate: 15:17 22-08-07
|
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:06:46 -0500, timepixdc wrote:
...
> Being able to travel faster than the speed of light would lead to a wide
> variety of bizarre consequences."
>
> Your reliance on the "theoretically impossible" would have stopped such
> research before it started. You might even be the last person around
> that believes in phlogiston. Hard to tell.
Oh, I definitely believe in phlogiston - you can see tons of it on USENET
any day of the week! ;-)
To communicate faster than light, you have to interface with the Aether,
which most people don't even believe exists! =:-O
Cheers!
Rich
|
|
|
|
Author: Richard DobsonDate: 15:44 22-08-07
|
|
Rich Grise wrote:
..
>
> To communicate faster than light, you have to interface with the Aether,
> which most people don't even believe exists! =:-O
>
Ah but they do! Now called the Higgs field; soon to be evidenced by the
LHC, when they finally detect the God Particle. Until then it is just a
particle of faith.
Richard Dobson
|
|
|
|
Author: Rich the PhilosophizerDate: 21:06 22-08-07
|
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:44:00 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:
> Rich Grise wrote:
>>
>> To communicate faster than light, you have to interface with the Aether,
>> which most people don't even believe exists! =:-O
>
> Ah but they do! Now called the Higgs field; soon to be evidenced by the
> LHC, when they finally detect the God Particle. Until then it is just a
> particle of faith.
Actually, you don't need faith any more, according to God's website:
http://www.godchannel.com
Cheers!
Rich
|
|
|
|
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonDate: 23:43 22-08-07
|
|
Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/21/07 6:29 PM, in article 87hcms73xe.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L.
>Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 8/21/07 1:09 PM, in article 878x84abum.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L.
>>> Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in
message
>>>>> news:87ir79khtk.fld@apaflo.com...
>>>>>>> The signal can be reconverted to an
>>>>>>> analogue one later by a D to A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's best to call that a quasi-analog signal...
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? What does that mean, EXACTLY, that
>>>>
>>>> I've given you the URL for a glossary of terms, why
>>>> don't you use it? Here are some others:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.atis.org/tg2k/
>>>> http://www.itu.int/sancho/index.asp
>>>> http://www.carrieraccessbilling.com/telecommunications-glossary-a.asp
>>>> http://www.faxswitch.com/Definitions/
>>>>
>>>>> isn't already conveyed (and conveyed more accurately)
>>>>> by other, more appropriate terms? What additional
>>>>> information does this "quasi-analog" nonsense bring
>>>>> to the party?
>>>>
>>>> Quasi-Analog Signal -
>>>>
>>>> A digital signal that has been converted to a form
>>>> suitable for transmission over a specified analog
>>>> channel.
>>>
>>> Gobbledegook.
That is being as ass.
>> And you claimed to have worked in transmission engineering?
>>
>> Whooosh...
>
>Don't be such an ass.
What did you expect.
>A question was asked and I replied. If a signal is passed as analog, then
>it's analog; not blue analog or green analog, or sort of analog, or like
>analog. Calling something quasi-analog brings nothing to the table but
>gobbledegook.
If you don't understand the technology, cease the
pretentions of being an expert. You seem to be clueless
about standard terms of the industry, how is anyone
supposed to carry on a conversation with someone like
that?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonDate: 00:19 23-08-07
|
|
Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/21/07 8:32 PM, in article 878x846y7m.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L.
>Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Have you looked at a DSX-1 envelope lately?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. I've got the specs right here! :-) Literally, I have
>>>>>> had a graph on my web site for several years now that I drew up
>>>>>> to illustrate something I wrote once upon a time
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/t1pulse.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>
>>>>> The pulse for which you provided the link, is not DSX-1, because it
will
>>>>> not
>>>>> fit within the DSX-1 envelope.
>>>>
>>>> Really? Has the standard changed?
>>>
>>> Not that I know of. ANSI T1.403 does good. Want to argue with it?
>>
>> Why would I argue with it. The link provided shows what
>> ANSI T1.403 says it is. It *does* fit within the
>> standard DSX-1 pulsemask (which is conveniently
>> available from just about every manufacturer of test
>> equipment).
>>
>>>>
>>>> Or are you just missing something....
>>>
>>> I don't believe so. On the other hand, I inquired to you about the DSX-1
>>> envelope, and you replied with a link to a waveform you drew, which has
only
>>> a loose connection to DSX-1. It appears you might be missing something.
>>
>> You claimed to have worked with transmission
>> engineering? Did you sweep floors, or what?
>
>No, but I was a member of ANSI T1 Working Groups T1C1 and T1E1 and helped
>write ANSI T1.403 and other Standards.
If that were true I would expect you to be able to
compare a pulsemask, a written description of the
specification, and a signal waveform that describes it
for people using test equipment to measure it.
It happens that the drawn image on my web site is one
that I drew, but I did not invent the concept, merely
that particular expression of it. I've seen seen
perhaps as many as four others, in printed media, that
were exactly the same. All I did was transfer the
information to the Internet where someone who did not
have access to test equipment manuals could see what
others were discussing at the time.
Claiming it is does not match the Standard's plusmask is
absurd, because it very clearly does. That particular
drawing was an attempt to duplicate a drawing published
by Phoenix Microsystems. Anyone who has Berd or other
similar T1 test equipment with a display likely has seen
virtually identical waveform pictures in the manuals.
>To phrase it in a technical language you MIGHT understand, your mind is an
>abysmal mess, and your behavior sucks. You enjoy the comfort of your
>ignorance and I'm certain this is how you will remain.
So lacking any technical understanding at all,
gratuitous insults are all you have left to add to the
discussion.
Just like your inaccurate technical statements, your
insults are pathetic and incorrect.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Arny KruegerDate: 07:49 23-08-07
|
|
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87ejhu530t.fld@apaflo.com...
> If you don't understand the technology, cease the
> pretentions of being an expert. You seem to be clueless
> about standard terms of the industry, how is anyone
> supposed to carry on a conversation with someone like
> that?
Indeed. It also applies to people who try to impose telephone system
thinking on high fidelity audio.
|
|
|
|
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonDate: 12:35 23-08-07
|
|
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87ejhu530t.fld@apaflo.com...
>
>> If you don't understand the technology, cease the
>> pretentions of being an expert. You seem to be clueless
>> about standard terms of the industry, how is anyone
>> supposed to carry on a conversation with someone like
>> that?
>
>Indeed. It also applies to people who try to impose telephone system
>thinking on high fidelity audio.
It isn't "telephone system thinking", it's Information
Theory. That applies to a great deal more than high
fidelity audio.
People who don't know the background theory aren't going
to do well in explaining it with experience only with
high fidelity audio.
(Incidentally, you are aware that "telephone system
thinking" would totally encompass "high fidelity audio",
right? It does go from DC all the way to microwave.)
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Bob MyersDate: 14:20 23-08-07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Arny KruegerDate: 14:49 23-08-07
|
|
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87ps1e1a5n.fld@apaflo.com
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>> news:87ejhu530t.fld@apaflo.com...
>>
>>> If you don't understand the technology, cease the
>>> pretentions of being an expert. You seem to be clueless
>>> about standard terms of the industry, how is anyone
>>> supposed to carry on a conversation with someone like
>>> that?
>>
>> Indeed. It also applies to people who try to impose
>> telephone system thinking on high fidelity audio.
> It isn't "telephone system thinking", it's Information
> Theory. That applies to a great deal more than high
> fidelity audio.
If you were as well-informed as you seem to think Floyd, you'd know that
information theory crosses a lot of inter-disciplinary lines, and its
application and terminology changes as well. Yes, it is all the same, but
the words and shadings of meanings change.
> People who don't know the background theory aren't going
> to do well in explaining it with experience only with
> high fidelity audio.
Clearly not my problem. But, what you seem to know about high fidelity
audio, particuarly digital audio as it applies to high fidelity audio, seems
to leave a lot to be desired.
I guess all the giggling by the regulars is not coming through with the
posts? ;-)
|
|
|
|
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonDate: 21:53 23-08-07
|
|
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87ps1e1a5n.fld@apaflo.com
>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:87ejhu530t.fld@apaflo.com...
>>>
>>>> If you don't understand the technology, cease the
>>>> pretentions of being an expert. You seem to be clueless
>>>> about standard terms of the industry, how is anyone
>>>> supposed to carry on a conversation with someone like
>>>> that?
>>>
>>> Indeed. It also applies to people who try to impose
>>> telephone system thinking on high fidelity audio.
>
>> It isn't "telephone system thinking", it's Information
>> Theory. That applies to a great deal more than high
>> fidelity audio.
>
>If you were as well-informed as you seem to think Floyd, you'd know that
>information theory crosses a lot of inter-disciplinary lines, and its
>application and terminology changes as well. Yes, it is all the same, but
>the words and shadings of meanings change.
>
>> People who don't know the background theory aren't going
>> to do well in explaining it with experience only with
>> high fidelity audio.
>
>Clearly not my problem. But, what you seem to know about high fidelity
>audio, particuarly digital audio as it applies to high fidelity audio, seems
>to leave a lot to be desired.
>
> I guess all the giggling by the regulars is not coming through with the
>posts? ;-)
So when will any of you be able to cite credible support
for your claims that the standard definitions of analog
and digital signals/data are not valid. The absolute silence
on that point is extremely indicative.
Clearly your problem *is*, no matter how often you deny
it, a lack of sufficient background.
A couple two or three fools giggling isn't nearly the
same as the number of people who read this thread and
howl with laughter because they do understand what you
don't.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
|
|
|
Author: iswDate: 00:35 24-08-07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Arny KruegerDate: 09:34 24-08-07
|
|
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87zm0hzoiw.fld@apaflo.com
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>> news:87ps1e1a5n.fld@apaflo.com
>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:87ejhu530t.fld@apaflo.com...
>>>>
>>>>> If you don't understand the technology, cease the
>>>>> pretentions of being an expert. You seem to be
>>>>> clueless about standard terms of the industry, how is
>>>>> anyone supposed to carry on a conversation with
>>>>> someone like that?
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. It also applies to people who try to impose
>>>> telephone system thinking on high fidelity audio.
>>
>>> It isn't "telephone system thinking", it's Information
>>> Theory. That applies to a great deal more than high
>>> fidelity audio.
>>
>> If you were as well-informed as you seem to think Floyd,
>> you'd know that information theory crosses a lot of
>> inter-disciplinary lines, and its application and
>> terminology changes as well. Yes, it is all the same,
>> but the words and shadings of meanings change.
>>
>>> People who don't know the background theory aren't going
>>> to do well in explaining it with experience only with
>>> high fidelity audio.
>>
>> Clearly not my problem. But, what you seem to know about
>> high fidelity audio, particuarly digital audio as it
>> applies to high fidelity audio, seems to leave a lot to
>> be desired.
>>
>> I guess all the giggling by the regulars is not coming
>> through with the posts? ;-)
>
> So when will any of you be able to cite credible support
> for your claims that the standard definitions of analog
> and digital signals/data are not valid.
Straw man argument noted and dismissed.
> Clearly your problem *is*, no matter how often you deny
> it, a lack of sufficient background.
Sufficient background for what?
BTW thanks again for publicly admitting that you were intentially torturing
the standard definitions you cited.
> A couple two or three fools giggling isn't nearly the
> same as the number of people who read this thread and
> howl with laughter because they do understand what you
> don't.
Please don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back. The sprain will
last longer than any possible other benefit that you might receive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact | Electronic Portal
|
|
|
