 |
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 240 to 260.
|
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonDate: 10:47 24-08-07
|
|
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
So it is a straw man to ask you to cite some authoritative
reference when you claim the standard definitions are not
valid???
You aren't making rational statements, and that is a
wonderful indication of your credibility as far as the
use of logic goes! You have *no* credibility, yet the
claim has been that logic and reason should be used
to define the terms. The paradox is hilarous.
Lets be clear... The definitions I cited are standard.
I posted 5 or 6 varied references to the same definitions.
You say they are invalid, bu that is because *you* can't
understand them. And that is the only evidence that has
been brought forth yet.
>> Clearly your problem *is*, no matter how often you deny
>> it, a lack of sufficient background.
>
>Sufficient background for what?
To understand the standard terms involved.
>BTW thanks again for publicly admitting that you were intentially torturing
>the standard definitions you cited.
Thanks again for demonstrating your lack of logical
ability.
>> 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.
Yeah, guys who have experience in "high fidelity audio"
couldn't be wrong, right? What a hoot. Can you explain
one characteristic of that particular field that makes
it unique or that provides some experience or exposure
that isn't commonly available elsewhere? High
bandwidth? Low noise? High resolution? Low
distortion? High bitrates? Low errors?
You do understand that it is a vary narrow field with
very narrow exposure to the topic of digital/analog
signaling. Experts (even if they actually were experts)
in that field just don't get much to deal with.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Arny KruegerDate: 11:47 24-08-07
|
|
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87abshyoo2.fld@apaflo.com
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
> So it is a straw man to ask you to cite some authoritative
> reference when you claim the standard definitions are not
> valid???
I never claimed that the standard definitions were invalid. I did say that
some of your uses of them was tortured, and you agreed. So, since we are in
agreement that your use of some of these definitions was tortured, where's
the beef?
> You aren't making rational statements, and that is a
> wonderful indication of your credibility as far as the
> use of logic goes!
Just another one of your straw man arguments.
> You have *no* credibility,
Actually, I have quite a bit of crediblity. Just not with you!
> yet the
> claim has been that logic and reason should be used
> to define the terms. The paradox is hilarous.
The paradox is a creation of your own mind, Floyd.
> Lets be clear... The definitions I cited are standard.
> I posted 5 or 6 varied references to the same definitions.
And I never objected to the definitions, no matter how many times you claim
otherwise, Floyd. Talk about declining crediblity!
> You say they are invalid,
Never happened.
> bu that is because *you* can't
> understand them.
In fact they seem clear enough to me.
> And that is the only evidence that has
> been brought forth yet.
I don't need any supporting evidence to agree with your reference, do I?
>>> Clearly your problem *is*, no matter how often you deny
>>> it, a lack of sufficient background.
>>
>> Sufficient background for what?
>
> To understand the standard terms involved.
Say what?
>> BTW thanks again for publicly admitting that you were
>> intentially torturing the standard definitions you cited.
> Thanks again for demonstrating your lack of logical
> ability.
OK I get it. I *wasn't* supposed to agree with the evidence you presented,
is that it Floyd?
>>> 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.
> Yeah, guys who have experience in "high fidelity audio"
> couldn't be wrong, right?
We're wrong all the time. That's one reason why we can talk about so many
things so long.
> What a hoot. Can you explain
> one characteristic of that particular field that makes
> it unique or that provides some experience or exposure
> that isn't commonly available elsewhere?
Where did I say that audio is unique?
Audio does provide some fairly unique experiences, like working with say,
high end audiophiles. But I don't know if they are totally unique
experiences.
> High bandwidth?
Not audio. Audio is about a relatively narrow bandwidth, but one that is
reproduced rather precisely.
>Low noise?
Probably. I don't know of any other analog medium that is as dynamic range
conscious as high fidelity audio. Got any in mind?
> High resolution?
The fact that Floyd seems unaware of the relationship between low noise and
high resolution might be suspected, based on the last two comments.
> Low distortion?
Make that the last three comments.
> High bitrates?
Definately not. High quality video wins over audio, all the time.
> Low errors?
No comparison between the error rate tolerance of audio and general computer
data. The latter demands basically total perfection, while a modest BER is
tolerable with audio.
> You do understand that it is a vary narrow field with
> very narrow exposure to the topic of digital/analog
> signaling.
True, but as I explained before, it has its moments, and it has its points
where people with little hands-on experience with it expose themselves.
> Experts (even if they actually were experts)
> in that field just don't get much to deal with.
Our mills might not grind a lot of grain, but they grind exceedingly fine.
|
|
|
|
Author: Bob MyersDate: 12:39 24-08-07
|
|
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87abshyoo2.fld@apaflo.com...
> Lets be clear... The definitions I cited are standard.
> I posted 5 or 6 varied references to the same definitions.
And everyone knows, ""standards" are holy. They are,
each and every one of them, created by a group of very
wise men who were hand-picked by God to do this work,
are infallible, and who may always be counted on to produce
proclamations which should be treated as Holy Writ,
preferably to be engraved in 10-foot-tall letters of flame and
memorized by all schoolchildren starting from the age of 5.
Any arguments based in reason or evidence which even
APPEAR to contradict the Holy Standards are prima
facie in error, and should be ignored. Pay no attention to
the man behind the curtain. Never listen to anyone who
suggests that "standards" are actually things created by
committees of ordinary mortals gathered in very ordinary
conference rooms, and more often than not represent the
lowest-common-demoninator thinking of those who
happened to be in that particular room at that particular
time, because they are clearly wrong and not to be trusted.
In short, if reality says one thing, and the standard says
another, the standard wins, and reality will just have to
change to accomodate it. Thus is it written, thus it must
be.
Bob M.
|
|
|
|
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonDate: 12:50 24-08-07
|
|
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>> So it is a straw man to ask you to cite some authoritative
>> reference when you claim the standard definitions are not
>> valid???
>
>I never claimed that the standard definitions were invalid.
Yes you did. And everyone who has disagreed with me in
this thread did. That is what this thread has been
about. Why do you deny what you have argued?
>I did say that
>some of your uses of them was tortured, and you agreed. So, since we are in
You said that, I did not agree. Why do you repeatedly
claim somebody else make *your* statements?
>agreement that your use of some of these definitions was tortured, where's
>the beef?
The beef is that you are dishonest. I've been using
standard definitions, and I have extensive background in
the application of those definitions over an extremely
wide range of practical applications. (One hell of a
lot more experience that can be obtain in the "high
fidelity audio" field.)
You have claimed that people who do high fidelity audio
are different than the telephone industry and have their
own definitions. In fact PCM, and virtually every other
major technical aspect of high fidelity audio, came from
the telephone industry. Your background is meager if
you are unaware of the origination of the technologies,
and certainly those who've only been exposed to high
fidelity audio do have limited exposure.
>> You aren't making rational statements, and that is a
>> wonderful indication of your credibility as far as the
>> use of logic goes!
>
>Just another one of your straw man arguments.
What kind of credibility are you gaining by making the
irrational statement that you do? You say, boo, and
then two articles later claim I said it.
That isn't logical, and you've peppered all of your
recent responses with that sort of nonsense.
>> You have *no* credibility,
>
>Actually, I have quite a bit of crediblity. Just not with you!
Not with me and not with anyone who can follow a logical
thread and understand it!
>> yet the
>> claim has been that logic and reason should be used
>> to define the terms. The paradox is hilarous.
>
>The paradox is a creation of your own mind, Floyd.
That was *exactly* what was claimed, and you have said
those people are experts and are correct. Hilarious is
a very good description. (Particularly given the total
lack of logical reasoning demonstrated by you and the
others who don't like standard definitions.)
>> Lets be clear... The definitions I cited are standard.
>> I posted 5 or 6 varied references to the same definitions.
>
>And I never objected to the definitions, no matter how many times you claim
>otherwise, Floyd. Talk about declining crediblity!
Read what you wrote. You have claimed I tortured the
definitions. You have claimed they don't apply outside
the telephone industry, you have claimed that everyone
who told me they are invalid was correct.
Do you know what you are saying?
>> You say they are invalid,
>
>Never happened.
Read what you wrote (heh, and look up the definition of
"invalid").
>> bu that is because *you* can't
>> understand them.
>
>In fact they seem clear enough to me.
Then you'd know that I've been spot on right from the
start, and that all of this bullshit about there being
other definitions is dead wrong. But you've said
otherwise, so apparently it is not clear to you at all.
And now you refuse to even discuss the terms and want to
post nothing but fabricated personal insults.
>> And that is the only evidence that has
>> been brought forth yet.
>
>I don't need any supporting evidence to agree with your reference, do I?
Exactly what I have been arguing from the start. The
references I provided are correct, they are
authoritative, and the definitions are valid.
If you agree to that, then you must agree to virtually
everything I've been saying from the start.
If not, you are confused. Exceedingly confused.
>> Yeah, guys who have experience in "high fidelity audio"
>> couldn't be wrong, right?
>
>We're wrong all the time. That's one reason why we can talk about so many
>things so long.
Funny how you can't show even one major technical part
of this discussion that I was wrong about. You are now
claiming to agree with me totally, yet you post piles of
personal insults that have nothing to do with the
technical issues, and claim that I am wrong.
Wrong about what? I posted the standard definitions for
digital and analog! They *are* correct. First you
claim they aren't, now you say you don't disagree with
me.
Do you have any idea what you are saying?
>> What a hoot. Can you explain
>> one characteristic of that particular field that makes
>> it unique or that provides some experience or exposure
>> that isn't commonly available elsewhere?
>
>Where did I say that audio is unique?
>
>Audio does provide some fairly unique experiences, like working with say,
>high end audiophiles. But I don't know if they are totally unique
>experiences.
>
>> High bandwidth?
>
>Not audio. Audio is about a relatively narrow bandwidth, but one that is
>reproduced rather precisely.
>
>>Low noise?
>
>Probably. I don't know of any other analog medium that is as dynamic range
>conscious as high fidelity audio. Got any in mind?
>
>> High resolution?
>
>The fact that Floyd seems unaware of the relationship between low noise and
>high resolution might be suspected, based on the last two comments.
>
>> Low distortion?
>
>Make that the last three comments.
>
>> High bitrates?
>
>Definately not. High quality video wins over audio, all the time.
>
>> Low errors?
>
>No comparison between the error rate tolerance of audio and general computer
>data. The latter demands basically total perfection, while a modest BER is
>tolerable with audio.
>
>> You do understand that it is a vary narrow field with
>> very narrow exposure to the topic of digital/analog
>> signaling.
>
>True, but as I explained before, it has its moments, and it has its points
>where people with little hands-on experience with it expose themselves.
So your statements about people who work with high
fidelity audio were crapola. They don't have any
experience that is unique. In fact the requirements for
the telephone industry span virtually every technical
aspect that is used in high fidelity audio, and then
goes farther.
A person with extensive hands on experience in all parts
of the telephone industry has so much more depth that is
is silly for you to make such comparisons, because what
is exposed is *your* lack of technical understanding.
>> Experts (even if they actually were experts)
>> in that field just don't get much to deal with.
>
>Our mills might not grind a lot of grain, but they grind exceedingly fine.
Stick with baking bread if you don't have enough
background to discuss the technology that is on topic.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonDate: 13:02 24-08-07
|
|
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87abshyoo2.fld@apaflo.com...
>
>> Lets be clear... The definitions I cited are standard.
>> I posted 5 or 6 varied references to the same definitions.
>
>And everyone knows, ""standards" are holy. They are,
If you don't use standard term definitions, you simply
cannot make sense in a forum as broad as this one.
And you haven't been making any sense at all.
If you don't like the definitions cited, why is it that
you cannot find *any* credible reference to something
else?
We've heard this nonsense from you multiple times, and
you still cannot provide *anything* to support your personal
opinion. And your opinion, from the perspective of anyone
with even a small level of technical expertize, is obviously
nothing but homespun bullshit spawning in abject igrnorance.
>In short, if reality says one thing, and the standard says
>another, the standard wins, and reality will just have to
>change to accomodate it. Thus is it written, thus it must
>be.
The facts are though, that the standard in this case meats
up very precisely with reality, and theory. You don't though,
so what does that tell us?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Randy YatesDate: 14:01 24-08-07
|
|
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> writes:
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
> news:87abshyoo2.fld@apaflo.com...
>
>> Lets be clear... The definitions I cited are standard.
>> I posted 5 or 6 varied references to the same definitions.
>
> And everyone knows, ""standards" are holy.
Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with Floyd's original point,
but citing a written reference holds more water than a post from an
individual on a usenet newsgroup, in my opinion.
--
% Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
|
|
|
|
Author: Jim KelleyDate: 16:55 24-08-07
|
|
>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
Here are some valid standard defintions:
"quantize - to subdivide into small but measurable increments."
(Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition)
Note that in the definition, there appears no mention of assigning a
value. Assigning a value would then be considered a part of a
separate and distinct process of converting to digital form, as in
"digital - of, or relating to data in the form of numerical digits",
and as opposed to
"analog - of, relating to, or being a mechanism in which data is
represented by continuously variable physical quantities."
jk
|
|
|
|
Author: Don BoweyDate: 17:37 24-08-07
|
|
On 8/24/07 1:55 PM, in article fanh40$njv$1@news.service.uci.edu, "Jim
Kelley" <jwkelley@uci.edu> wrote:
>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> Here are some valid standard defintions:
>
> "quantize - to subdivide into small but measurable increments."
> (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition)
>
> Note that in the definition, there appears no mention of assigning a
> value. Assigning a value would then be considered a part of a
> separate and distinct process of converting to digital form, as in
>
> "digital - of, or relating to data in the form of numerical digits",
>
> and as opposed to
>
> "analog - of, relating to, or being a mechanism in which data is
> represented by continuously variable physical quantities."
>
> jk
>
The Working Groups of ANSI accredited Committee T1. Telecommunications, used
the IEEE definitions. Occasionally there were questions, which were
amicably resolved.
|
|
|
|
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonDate: 22:23 24-08-07
|
|
Jim Kelley <jwkelley@uci.edu> wrote:
>>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>
>Here are some valid standard defintions:
Actually, they are good definitions, but they are *not*
"valid standard definitions" for this discussion. You
are citing a dictionary of _common_ English, as spoken
by the general population. But we are discussing what
is called a "term of art".
Term of Art:
technical word: a word or phrase with a special
meaning, used in a specific field of knowledge
In other words, it may or may not be the same, when used
in the information or communications industry as it is
used by the general population of English speakers.
It does happen that in this case there is no significant
difference, and your definitions are useful
illustrations, but they are not very precise, while the
term of art definitions are *very* precise.
>"quantize - to subdivide into small but measurable increments."
>(Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition)
>
>Note that in the definition, there appears no mention of
>assigning a value.
It says "into small but *measurable* increments". That
is assigning a value, no more and no less. (Indeed,
it would be worthless otherwise.)
Whatever, here is what Wordnet says,
quantize
v 1: telecommunications: approximate (a signal varying
continuously in amplitude) by one whose amplitude is
restricted to a prescribed set of discrete values [syn:
quantise]
2: apply quantum theory to; restrict the number of possible
values of (a quantity) or states of (a physical entity or
system) so that certain variables can assume only certain
discrete magnitudes that are integral multiples of a
common factor; "Quantize gravity" [syn: quantise]
They provide both a term of art definition and a common
usage definition. Both make if very clear that the
result is digital. They both use the word "discrete",
and *that* is indeed the key to defining "digital".
>Assigning a value would then be
>considered a part of a separate and distinct process of
>converting to digital form, as in
Well, except that it is clearly an intrinsic part of
quantization you are right. Of course that also clearly
negates your point.
Indeed, if we do look at a "valid standard definition"
for the term of art,
quantization:
A process in which the continuous range of values
of an analog signal is sampled and divided into
nonoverlapping (but not necessarily equal)
subranges, and a discrete, unique value is assigned
to each subrange.
From Federal Standard 1037C.
We can see that it *clearly* does mean to make it digital.
That is the *only* purpose for quantization.
>"digital - of, or relating to data in the form of numerical digits",
That is one of the several common English definitions.
It is rather poorly stated if one is thinking of the
term of art used in the communications/information
industries simply because it will confuse people (just as
you were above by the "measurable increment" as opposed
to stating a "value").
Not all things that are in the *form* of numerical
digits are obviously so. For example, it might be a
difference between flags.... round, square and
triangular. That would in fact be a digital signaling
system, and those are in fact "in the form of numerical
digits", but it might not be immediately obvious either.
>and as opposed to
>
>"analog - of, relating to, or being a mechanism in
>which data is represented by continuously variable
>physical quantities."
Again, that is close, but it is an imprecise common
usage definition. It does not make if clear that the
*value* of the data is continuous, and that merely being
represented using some physical characteristic that is
continuously varying is *not* what it means. It could
easily be misconstrued (and commonly is), for example,
to mean that because a binary digital system using
voltage to encode data does not have *instant* rise and
fall times, that it is in fact an analog system, which
it is not.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonDate: 22:24 24-08-07
|
|
Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>
>The Working Groups of ANSI accredited Committee T1. Telecommunications, used
>the IEEE definitions. Occasionally there were questions, which were
>amicably resolved.
Is there some reason you can never be specific about anything?
Why not provide us with those definitions?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Bob MyersDate: 23:45 24-08-07
|
|
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87sl68wduk.fld@apaflo.com...
> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>The Working Groups of ANSI accredited Committee T1. Telecommunications,
>>used
>>the IEEE definitions. Occasionally there were questions, which were
>>amicably resolved.
>
> Is there some reason you can never be specific about anything?
>
> Why not provide us with those definitions?
Ummm...Floyd, I hate to point this out, but I believe they've
already been provided. You simply didn't recognize them without
someone hanging a big "these are the IEEE definitions" sign
on them.
Bob M.
|
|
|
|
Author: Bob MyersDate: 23:46 24-08-07
|
|
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87wsvkwdwc.fld@apaflo.com...
> Term of Art:
> technical word: a word or phrase with a special
> meaning, used in a specific field of knowledge
What, you're not going to cite the source of that
definition? Then how could anyone POSSIBLY
consider it to be correct or "authoritative"?
Bob M.
|
|
|
|
Author: Don BoweyDate: 00:48 25-08-07
|
|
On 8/24/07 8:45 PM, in article fao8kd$l7f$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com, "Bob Myers"
<nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:
>
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
> news:87sl68wduk.fld@apaflo.com...
>> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Working Groups of ANSI accredited Committee T1. Telecommunications,
>>> used
>>> the IEEE definitions. Occasionally there were questions, which were
>>> amicably resolved.
>>
>> Is there some reason you can never be specific about anything?
>>
>> Why not provide us with those definitions?
>
> Ummm...Floyd, I hate to point this out, but I believe they've
> already been provided. You simply didn't recognize them without
> someone hanging a big "these are the IEEE definitions" sign
> on them.
>
> Bob M.
>
>
I see Floyd continues to be an ass, in this and other ways. I don't read
his posts any longer, because, having questionable veracity, he is not
relevant.
|
|
|
|
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonDate: 00:57 25-08-07
|
|
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87sl68wduk.fld@apaflo.com...
>> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>The Working Groups of ANSI accredited Committee T1. Telecommunications,
>>>used
>>>the IEEE definitions. Occasionally there were questions, which were
>>>amicably resolved.
>>
>> Is there some reason you can never be specific about anything?
>>
>> Why not provide us with those definitions?
>
>Ummm...Floyd, I hate to point this out, but I believe they've
>already been provided. You simply didn't recognize them without
>someone hanging a big "these are the IEEE definitions" sign
>on them.
That is correct. If you don't cite the source, it has very
little meaning.
Incidentally, the ANSI T1 committee was involved in the
process of developing the glossary that I've cited.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonDate: 01:12 25-08-07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonDate: 01:21 25-08-07
|
|
Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/24/07 8:45 PM, in article fao8kd$l7f$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com, "Bob
Myers"
><nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>> news:87sl68wduk.fld@apaflo.com...
>>> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Working Groups of ANSI accredited Committee T1. Telecommunications,
>>>> used
>>>> the IEEE definitions. Occasionally there were questions, which were
>>>> amicably resolved.
>>>
>>> Is there some reason you can never be specific about anything?
>>>
>>> Why not provide us with those definitions?
>>
>> Ummm...Floyd, I hate to point this out, but I believe they've
>> already been provided. You simply didn't recognize them without
>> someone hanging a big "these are the IEEE definitions" sign
>> on them.
>>
>> Bob M.
>>
>>
>
>I see Floyd continues to be an ass, in this and other ways. I don't read
>his posts any longer, because, having questionable veracity, he is not
>relevant.
It's just exceedingly difficult argue someone who has
facts and understands to topic, isn't it.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Richard DobsonDate: 06:12 25-08-07
|
|
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
..
..
> Indeed, if we do look at a "valid standard definition"
> for the term of art,
>
> quantization:
>
> A process in which the continuous range of values
> of an analog signal is sampled and divided into
> nonoverlapping (but not necessarily equal)
> subranges, and a discrete, unique value is assigned
> to each subrange.
>
> From Federal Standard 1037C.
>
> We can see that it *clearly* does mean to make it digital.
> That is the *only* purpose for quantization.
>
This only addresses values, it does not address time. So how would you
classify this signal:
the output of a standard 1V/oct (voltage control) music keyboard - a
monophonic (= non-overlapping) series of stepped voltages corresponding
precisely to the 12-tone equal-termperament subdivisions of the octave.
This control signal is typically applied to the frequency control input
of an analogue voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO; think MiniMoog), in
order to synthesise tones at the specified frequency. Thus, values are
quantized. There is no time quantization (no clock) - the notes can be
played at any time, and changed at any speed (presumably within the
limits of the human player).
I would call this an analogue signal; it meets exactly the definition
above, it is only you who extrapolates from it the notion of "digital".
And manifestly, making a digital signal is ~not~ the only purpose for
quantization!
And if the Federal Standard had meant to make it mean "digital" surely,
given its importance, they would have said so.
Richard Dobson
|
|
|
|
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonDate: 10:30 25-08-07
|
|
Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>..
>..
>> Indeed, if we do look at a "valid standard definition"
>> for the term of art,
>> quantization:
>> A process in which the continuous range of values
>> of an analog signal is sampled and divided into
>> nonoverlapping (but not necessarily equal)
>> subranges, and a discrete, unique value is assigned
>> to each subrange.
>> From Federal Standard 1037C.
>> We can see that it *clearly* does mean to make it
>> digital.
>> That is the *only* purpose for quantization.
>>
>
>This only addresses values, it does not address time. So
>how would you classify this signal:
>
>the output of a standard 1V/oct (voltage control) music
>keyboard - a monophonic (= non-overlapping) series of
Monophonic measn one channel. The output could be
monophonic and still be overlapping.
>stepped voltages corresponding precisely to the 12-tone
>equal-termperament subdivisions of the octave. This
It is a digital output if there are precisely 12 voltages
per octave.
>control signal is typically applied to the frequency
>control input of an analogue voltage-controlled
>oscillator (VCO; think MiniMoog), in order to synthesise
>tones at the specified frequency.
An analog output device, that has a digital control circuit.
>Thus, values are
>quantized.
The DC control voltage is quantized. It is digital.
The tone output from the VCO is not quantized and is
analog.
>from it the notion of "digital". And manifestly, making
>a digital signal is ~not~ the only purpose for
>quantization!
>
>And if the Federal Standard had meant to make it mean
>"digital" surely, given its importance, they would have
>said so.
I believe that what you had to say there demonstrates
why you are so utterly confused on the topic of analog
and digital.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Richard DobsonDate: 13:20 25-08-07
|
|
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
..
>
> It is a digital output if there are precisely 12 voltages
> per octave.
>
Users may insert a simple control (may be called "Key Follow" but is
basically just an analogue level control) that can reduce/expand the
size of the steps so that 24 notes, say, cover one octave; or 11 notes
cover an octave and a fifth. This is of course an analogue control, as
the amount of key follow (and hence the division of the octave achieved
by each step) is continuously variable. Which is another way of saying
that the quantization itself is infinitely variable. The VCO is
calibrated such that a change of one octave results in a pitch change of
one octave. Users may well subvert that calibration (and the whole
12-note octave convention) for creative purposes.
>
>>control signal is typically applied to the frequency
>>control input of an analogue voltage-controlled
>>oscillator (VCO; think MiniMoog), in order to synthesise
>>tones at the specified frequency.
>
>
> An analog output device, that has a digital control circuit.
>
>
The key aspect of Voltage Control (as designed by Robert Moog) is that
any module can control (and be controlled by) any other. Inputs are
content-agnostic - the VCO does not have a "digital control circuit" -
just a control circuit to which can be connected any analogue input. In
short - the VCO's control inputs are all analogue; so that, for example,
by inserting a filter (slew-rate limiter) between the keyboard output
and the VCO input, you get a portamento from one note to the next, not a
straight jump. You can equally connect the output of one VCO to the
frequency input of another one, to do FM (Vibrato etc). These are ~all~
analogue signals, being handled by analogue electronics. The
electronics, indeed, on many early synths was notorious for being
somewhat unstable, so that oscillator frequencies adn voltage ranges
could drift as the machine warmed up or cooled down. Later technology
brought in the DCO - the Digitally-Controlled analogue Oscillator, to
eliminate such instabilities.
You might find this company's products interesting:
http://www.analoguesystems.co.uk/modules.htm
See for example the "Voltage Quantiser" and "Voltage controlled slew
limiter" modules.
Richard Dobson
|
|
|
|
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonDate: 15:08 25-08-07
|
|
Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>..
>> It is a digital output if there are precisely 12
>> voltages
>> per octave.
>>
>
>Users may insert a simple control (may be called "Key
>Follow" but is basically just an analogue level control)
>that can reduce/expand the size of the steps so that 24
So there are not precisely 12 voltages per octave, but
rather there are now ever many you choose, and the
adjustment is continuously variable.
You described one device before, and now describe
a different device...
How do you expect a valid answer if you purposely
distort the question with false information?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact | Electronic Portal
|
|
|
