Author: GregSDate: 10:19 08-04-08
|
|
In article <Hb-dnTi12Kwk6mbanZ2dnUVZ_q6mnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Arny Krueger"
<arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
><google@woodall.me.uk> wrote in message
>news:c2de71f0-ba4b-45e5-88fd-d13f742e0bc5@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com
>> On Apr 8, 6:54 am, Eeyore
>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:
>>>> Hi:
>>>
>>>> Is it possible to have a purely-analog chip that stores
>>>> audio without using any form of sampling?
>>>
>>> NO
>>
>> Depends for how long.
>>
>> Wikipedia gives speed of sound in silicon (thin rod) as
>> 8433 m/s.
>>
>> So you ought to be able to store a few microseconds of
>> sound in a resonably sized crystal for a very short
>> period - sort of dynamic RAM for sound :-)
>>
>> (The noise added when you try and "refresh" will drown
>> out any signal in a very short space of time although
>> I've got no idea how many "refreshes" might be possible
>> before the noise drowns out the signal)
>
>Back in the days when people took acoustic delay lines seriously, they
>shaped the medium into forms that provided relatively lengthy unique paths.
>For example, maybe a pentagon. The acoustic wave would bounce around for a
>while, crossing paths many times, and thus have a relatvely long path length
>in a relatively small volume.
>
>Last example of this I ever saw implemented was a device called (I seem to
>recall as) the IBM 2448 display controller. Each display unit was basically
>a TV set without a tuner. The controller had one delay line per display. The
>video for one screen would bounce around a quartz delay line for 1/30th of a
>second, if memory serves.
I worked on at least one terminal that had a delay line memory. Quartz does not
ring a bell. I used to try programming an Ascii terminal display so you could play
video games, like the race track. Some digital logic like from General Dynamics used
dynamic logic. using delay lines, a 1 was a pulse and a 0 was no pulse.
Any non saturating analog line is going to have severe degradation.
greg
|
|
|
|
Author: Gareth MagennisDate: 12:51 08-04-08
|
|
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:EaudnT4Z3Iyg62banZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Pj" <frysning@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:56e1b36d-09f3-4c22-af01-57644ddb023a@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com
>> On Apr 8, 12:15 am, "Green Xenon [Radium]"
>> <gluceg...@excite.com> wrote:
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Is it possible to have a purely-analog chip that stores
>>> audio without using any form of sampling?
>>>
>>> If an audio cassette does not require sampling then why
>>> would an analog audio chip?
>
>>
>> Try the BRAIN. Works good there.
>
>> Take a couple "chip" out of your memory.
>
> Begs the question how do we remember sounds?
>
> I'm thinking that I remember music as a sequence of notes (samples), and
> speech as a sequence of either words or phonemes. In all cases, I remember
> a sequence of samples.
>
>
I dunno, if I try and recall a piece of music, it does feel like I am
actually recalling just certain "landmarks" and filling in the gaps. There
are definately notes or sounds that I know are there and can reproduce
accurately in my head, but I have no idea how the bassline goes, for
example. In trying to remember a piece in totality, I can only really hear
a fractured version of it, though my brain fills in a lot without my
necessarily noticing.
But then isn't that how hearing works normally?
I believe that the brain can only perceive 4 or 5 things at the same time -
some people more, some less than this. You can try this with a simple
experiment:
Imagine yourself sitting in your car at a red traffic light. Then imagine
thinking about youself sitting at this red traffic light. Then imagine
thinking about thinking about yourself at this red light. Then imagine
thinking about thinking about thinking about sitting at the red light. And
so on. You can't get much further than this without losing track
completely, since you need to hold each situation in your conciousness
simultaneously for it all to make sense. In listening to music, you could
only really be hearing a few things at the same time, and maybe certain bits
trigger other emotional memories without us noticing exactly what is
happening.
Other interesting research has suggested that the pleasure of walking
through a beautiful landscape is not that we can see all this beautiful
landscape, because that is not how we see things - we pick and store (very
few) visual landmarks and fill in the rest. The pleasure is all about
knowing that ALL the beautiful visual information is AVAILABLE, should we
choose to look at it properly. Listening to/remembering music I would
guess is quite similar. You can always listen to that bassline next time
around.
Gareth.
|
|
|
|
Author: Dave PlattDate: 14:02 08-04-08
|
|
In article <47faff63$0$24124$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Green Xenon [Radium] <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
>Hi:
>
>Is it possible to have a purely-analog chip that stores audio without
>using any form of sampling?
>
>If an audio cassette does not require sampling then why would an analog
>audio chip?
You asked very much this same question, just over one year ago, in the
sci.electronics.basics newsgroup.
You got a whole bunch of responses, which I believe covered the
issue quite well.
I suggest that you go back and read the previous responses, rather
than asking essentially the same question (in your usual ill-defined
manner) once again.
--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
|
|
|
|
Author: Green Xenon [Radium]Date: 14:18 08-04-08
|
|
Can analog audio chips [that obviously *do* use sampling] store the
information in parallel?
This analog storage would be parallel RAM and thus the opposite of
serial RAM shown below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory#Serial_flash
Is this parallel storage of analog RAM possible or do analog signals
always have to be serial? Cassettes and phonos are serial.
|
|
|
|
Author: jakdedertDate: 15:29 08-04-08
|
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
<snip>
if memory serves.
Was that a pun?
jak
>
>
|
|
|
|
Author: Arny KruegerDate: 15:35 08-04-08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: geoffDate: 19:00 08-04-08
|
|
Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Is it possible to have a purely-analog chip that stores audio without
> using any form of sampling?
>
> If an audio cassette does not require sampling then why would an
> analog audio chip?
There are the old analogue 'bucket-brigade' chips, but that was an analogue
form of sampling.
Time to up the meds again, maybe.
geoff
|
|
|
|
Author: geoffDate: 19:02 08-04-08
|
|
Eeyore wrote:
> Bob Masta wrote:
>
>> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it possible to have a purely-analog chip that stores audio
>>> without using any form of sampling?
>>>
>>> If an audio cassette does not require sampling then why would an
>>> analog audio chip?
>>
>> Actually, that audio cassette *does* use sampling. One sample
>> interval is the width of a magnetic domain on the tape, at the rate
>> it passes by the head gap.
>
> Ah, you beat me to it.
Me too...
geoff
|
|
|
|
Author: Mr.TDate: 23:18 08-04-08
|
|
"Dave Platt" <dplatt@radagast.org> wrote in message
news:tiosc5-n24.ln1@radagast.org...
> In article <47faff63$0$24124$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> Green Xenon [Radium] <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi:
> >
> >Is it possible to have a purely-analog chip that stores audio without
> >using any form of sampling?
> >
> >If an audio cassette does not require sampling then why would an analog
> >audio chip?
>
> You asked very much this same question, just over one year ago, in the
> sci.electronics.basics newsgroup.
>
> You got a whole bunch of responses, which I believe covered the
> issue quite well.
>
> I suggest that you go back and read the previous responses, rather
> than asking essentially the same question (in your usual ill-defined
> manner) once again.
You do know what a troll is, right?
MrT.
|
|
|
|
Author: Mr.TDate: 23:22 08-04-08
|
|
"Stephen J. Rush" <sjrush@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Dtmdnfy_WvomsGbanZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@comcast.com...
> On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:51:34 +1000, Mr.T wrote:
>
> > Radium, proof that brain activity is not necessary to sustain life.
>
> Actually, he's a clever little troll. His output looks reasonable on
> first glance, enough so to draw a big response from people who don't
> realize that he's just jacking off.
I know he is a troll (have said so many times)
But do please tell me how that is "clever"?
A pathological need for attention, regardless of ridicule, is more often
considered an illness.
MrT.
|
|
|
|
Author: iswDate: 23:27 08-04-08
|
|
In article <m2vmv3h3bfoe7ergavefi2qtjua7j481su@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:15:15 -0700, "Green Xenon [Radium]"
> <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi:
> >
> >Is it possible to have a purely-analog chip that stores audio without
> >using any form of sampling?
> >
> >If an audio cassette does not require sampling then why would an analog
> >audio chip?
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Radium
>
> There used to be charge-transfer "bucket brigade" analog delay chips,
> but they still sampled the audio, although they didn't quantize it.
Unless they could store fractions of electrons, then yes, they did.
Isaac
|
|
|
|
Author: iswDate: 23:28 08-04-08
|
|
In article <ftf6kt$ftu$1@serv1.iunet.it>, "LAB" <no@mail.com> wrote:
> An analog Hard Disk? :-)
But of course, that is *precisely* how the original Ampex video disk
slo-mo worked.
Isaac
|
|
|
|
Author: Mr.TDate: 23:29 08-04-08
|
|
"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:47FB7BA7.8CCC8C95@nospam.net...
> >Ah but he never used the word "persistant", nor mention size
contraints.
>
> You're absolutely correct. I was, however, willing to read those into the
> intended question. Do you think I was incorrect.
Who can tell?
But actually it's incorrect to reply to a troll at all.
> >A "chip" can mean anything, including potato ones :-)
>
> That's cute, but I doubt that potato chips were intended to be included
> as part of the question.
>
> >Analog delay lines do exist.
>
> Yes, they do. Do you believe that they embody the storage that was
intended
> in the question?
When talking about Radiums "questions" who can say?
> >> The answer, it seems, is that physics just doesn't provide a mechanism
> >> that can be used to provide direct storage of analog audio on solid
state
> >> media.
> >
> >Nor did Radium use the words "solid state media" :-)
>
> You are, again, absolutely correct. It seems that the OP's questions
> were not asked as precisely as you would like. Perhaps you would do
> well to ignore such questions rather than exposing your inability to
> understand their rather obvious intended meaning.
I'm sorry, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I was being
serious, or even more deluded into thinking Radium is!
Hopefully you will know better next time :-)
MrT.
|
|
|
|
Author: Mr.TDate: 23:34 08-04-08
|
|
"Gareth Magennis" <sound.service@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:LcSdnXQDA6DiP2baRVnyigA@bt.com...
> Imagine yourself sitting in your car at a red traffic light. Then imagine
> thinking about youself sitting at this red traffic light. Then imagine
> thinking about thinking about yourself at this red light. Then imagine
> thinking about thinking about thinking about sitting at the red light.
And
> so on.
Then you rudely awaken when the cars behind start honking because the light
has already turned green :-)
MrT.
|
|
|
|
Author: iswDate: 23:39 08-04-08
|
|
In article <660lrpF2h6plmU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote:
> "LAB" wrote ...
> > An analog Hard Disk? :-)
>
> Hardly the "chip" that Radium was asking about.
>
> But if you could get the head to move linearly
> across the platter (vs. in concentric "cylinders"
> as we use for data storage) then it would be the
> magnetic equivalent of a spiral phonograph disk.
>
> The old original Ampex HS-100 disc recorder
> was the video equivalent of that concept. It was
> the original gadget that allowed "instant replay"
> for sports shows, etc.
Nearly. The Ampex unit didn't use a spiral track. It had "cylinders"
each of which held one frame of videeo. There were four magnetic heads
on arms that advanced in sequence -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
Since each track (frame) could be played repeatedly, or even in reverse,
slow-motion was easy.
It really was a brilliant piece of work, at the time.
Isaac
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael R. KestiDate: 01:29 09-04-08
|
|
"Mr.T" wrote:
<snip>
>I'm sorry, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I was being
>serious, or even more deluded into thinking Radium is!
>Hopefully you will know better next time :-)
You seem willing to put considerable effort into dissing this person.
Have you considered what this says about you?
--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain
|
|
|
|
Author: Mr.TDate: 02:17 09-04-08
|
|
"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:47FC5425.19E8E917@nospam.net...
> "Mr.T" wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >I'm sorry, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I was being
> >serious, or even more deluded into thinking Radium is!
> >Hopefully you will know better next time :-)
>
> You seem willing to put considerable effort into dissing this person.
> Have you considered what this says about you?
Hey, I'm not dissing him, read what I wrote in the original context. Not to
mention you seem to have missed the smiley altogether.
Have a look at other peoples use of language if you want to see real venom
on Usenet.
MrT.
|
|
|
|
Author: Gareth MagennisDate: 05:26 09-04-08
|
|
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:47fc38f2$0$23658$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Gareth Magennis" <sound.service@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> news:LcSdnXQDA6DiP2baRVnyigA@bt.com...
>> Imagine yourself sitting in your car at a red traffic light. Then
>> imagine
>> thinking about youself sitting at this red traffic light. Then imagine
>> thinking about thinking about yourself at this red light. Then imagine
>> thinking about thinking about thinking about sitting at the red light.
> And
>> so on.
>
> Then you rudely awaken when the cars behind start honking because the
> light
> has already turned green :-)
>
> MrT.
>
>
Not necessarily, as the brain may be so busy with its maximum 4 or 5 things
it is dealing with, that the honking is not noticed. This happens a lot -
when you have been deep in thought, or working something out in your head,
you may be able to recall that you weren't seeing anything at all. Untill
someone clicks their fingers in front of your face and the visual processing
starts up again.
Gareth.
|
|
|
|
Author: Gareth MagennisDate: 05:38 09-04-08
|
|
"Gareth Magennis" <sound.service@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:YfednS2SZZhIFmHanZ2dnUVZ8uCdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> news:47fc38f2$0$23658$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Gareth Magennis" <sound.service@btconnect.com> wrote in
message
>> news:LcSdnXQDA6DiP2baRVnyigA@bt.com...
>>> Imagine yourself sitting in your car at a red traffic light. Then
>>> imagine
>>> thinking about youself sitting at this red traffic light. Then imagine
>>> thinking about thinking about yourself at this red light. Then imagine
>>> thinking about thinking about thinking about sitting at the red light.
>> And
>>> so on.
>>
>> Then you rudely awaken when the cars behind start honking because the
>> light
>> has already turned green :-)
>>
>> MrT.
>>
>>
>
>
> Not necessarily, as the brain may be so busy with its maximum 4 or 5
> things it is dealing with, that the honking is not noticed. This happens
> a lot - when you have been deep in thought, or working something out in
> your head, you may be able to recall that you weren't seeing anything at
> all. Untill someone clicks their fingers in front of your face and the
> visual processing starts up again.
>
>
Hey, that's probably why listening to music is so much better with your eyes
closed - not processing visual information means there is one more aspect of
the music you can concentrate on.
Gareth.
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael R. KestiDate: 09:53 09-04-08
|
|
"Mr.T" wrote:
>"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:47FC5425.19E8E917@nospam.net...
>> "Mr.T" wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >I'm sorry, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I was being
>> >serious, or even more deluded into thinking Radium is!
>> >Hopefully you will know better next time :-)
>>
>> You seem willing to put considerable effort into dissing this person.
>> Have you considered what this says about you?
>
>Hey, I'm not dissing him, read what I wrote in the original context. Not to
>mention you seem to have missed the smiley altogether.
I saw your smiley. It might not be quite the get-out-of-jail-free card
you seem to feel it is.
>Have a look at other peoples use of language if you want to see real venom
>on Usenet.
Do you actually intend to say that you should be excused because others
are worse?
--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain
|
|
|
|
|
