 |
Search Sci.Electronics.Basics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Sci.Electronics.Basics -> Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
There are 72 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 40 to 60.
|
Author: WingleDate: 10:02 09-04-08
|
|
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:53:58 -0700, in sci.electronics.basics,
"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> bloviated:
>"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?
Why not, that is almost the complete justification for a lot of
current US policy.
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael R. KestiDate: 10:15 09-04-08
|
|
Wingle wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:53:58 -0700, in sci.electronics.basics,
>"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> bloviated:
>
>>"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?
>
>Why not, that is almost the complete justification for a lot of
>current US policy.
http://tinyurl.com/6j62xv
or
http://www.theunion.com/article/20080223/OPINION_LETTERS/847720679&SearchID=73314125
888496
--
========================================================================
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: John LarkinDate: 11:22 09-04-08
|
|
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:27:09 -0700, isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:
>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
Oh, don't get technical with me. I hate it when people get technical.
(But, technically, one could easily quantize an audio waveform to less
than e-)
John
|
|
|
|
Author: Steven SullivanDate: 14:35 10-04-08
|
|
In rec.audio.tech Michael R. Kesti <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:
> "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?
Maybe if you were more familiar with 'this person's posting history, you'd
know why.
That history would show you that Mr. Radium is either ill or a troll.
Occasionally interesting discussion arises during the course of
correcting his silly preconceptions, but that's not enough reason to
encourage him.
___
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to
rock
with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Apr 9, 7:15 am, "Michael R. Kesti" <michaelke...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Wingle wrote:
> >On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:53:58 -0700, in sci.electronics.basics,
> >"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelke...@nospam.net> bloviated:
>
> >>"Mr.T" wrote:
>
> >>>"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelke...@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?
>
> >Why not, that is almost the complete justification for a lot of
> >current US policy.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6j62xv
>
> or
>
> http://www.theunion.com/article/20080223/OPINION_LETTERS/847720679&Se...
>
> --
> ========================================================================
> Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
> | two, one and one make one."
> mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain
She could have been using her dad's car, which had that sticker on it.
Cigarette in one hand, cell phone in the other? How did she manage to
steer?
Michael
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael R. KestiDate: 23:32 10-04-08
|
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
>In rec.audio.tech Michael R. Kesti <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:
>> "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?
>
>Maybe if you were more familiar with 'this person's posting history, you'd
>know why.
Oh, please. I've participated in Usenet for almost 25 years and I assure
you that I recognize what is going on here.
>That history would show you that Mr. Radium is either ill or a troll.
If he is ill then he deserves better treatment. If he is a troll then
he deserves to be ignored. The fact is that the likes of you and Mr. T
enjoy feeding trolls.
>Occasionally interesting discussion arises during the course of
>correcting his silly preconceptions, but that's not enough reason to
>encourage him.
He is encouraged either way.
--
========================================================================
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: Bob MonsenDate: 12:00 11-04-08
|
|
"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:47faff63$0$24124$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> 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
At the basic level, an audio cassette recorder is sampling. There are grains
of magnetic material that are magnetized in the tape. The levels are
remembered by the strength of the field, I believe.
So, this is similar to the scheme used by those intersil voice recording
chips, in which analog levels are stored in tiny capacitors. It is still
'digital', in the sense that discrete samples are obtained, but those
samples can take on an 'analog' value.
Regards,
Bob Monsen
|
|
|
|
Author: Green Xenon [Radium]Date: 12:33 11-04-08
|
|
Bob Monsen wrote:
> At the basic level, an audio cassette recorder is sampling. There are
> grains of magnetic material that are magnetized in the tape. The levels
> are remembered by the strength of the field, I believe.
Really? Analog cassette uses sampling? Then, is there any electronic
audio storage device [analog or digital] that does *not* use sampling?
Or is sampling an inescapable monster of everything?
|
|
|
|
Author: Dave PlattDate: 16:26 11-04-08
|
|
>Really? Analog cassette uses sampling?
Basically, yes. See the page at
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/ferro.html
for a description of how ferromagnetic materials (such as are used in
cassette tape) work.
> Then, is there any electronic
>audio storage device [analog or digital] that does *not* use sampling?
>Or is sampling an inescapable monster of everything?
Quantization and uncertainty/noise are pretty much inescapable in this
universe.
Even your beloved variable-density optical sound recording technology
is sampled/quantized, in a way somewhat analogous to the way in which
cassette recordings are.
The film consists of a clear carrier layer, with an impregnated data
layer consisting of discrete particles of metallic silver. The
original film stock was made using particles of silver iodide, which
is photosensitive. When the film is exposed to light and then
developed, those particles of silver iodide which were exposed to
light turn into metallic silver; those which were not exposed, wash
away.
The darkness or optical density of the film strip depends on the
number and size of the silver particles. The apparently-continuous
voltage that creates the sound you hear, is actually related to the
total number of silver particles blocking the light flowing through
the readout mechanism at any given moment of time.
--
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: Don BoweyDate: 18:06 11-04-08
|
|
On 4/11/08 9:33 AM, in article 47ff92e7$0$1111$4c368faf@roadrunner.com,
"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
> Bob Monsen wrote:
>
>
>> At the basic level, an audio cassette recorder is sampling. There are
>> grains of magnetic material that are magnetized in the tape. The levels
>> are remembered by the strength of the field, I believe.
>
>
> Really? Analog cassette uses sampling? Then, is there any electronic
> audio storage device [analog or digital] that does *not* use sampling?
> Or is sampling an inescapable monster of everything?
You *could* sample sufficient points along a analog tape recording to
reconstruct the audio digitally, but that is *not* how audio tape recorders
work.
The recorder creates a varying magnetic field on the moving tape, that is
passing over the recording head. Considering the pre-equalization of the
audio signal, the field is analogous to that audio signal at any moment.
In playback, the magnetic pickup responds to the varying field on the moving
tape by outputting a voltage that is analogous to the changing field. It is
then equalized by a circuit complementing the pre-equalizer.
No "sampling" takes place and nothing digital occurred.
|
|
|
|
Author: Dave PlattDate: 18:15 11-04-08
|
|
In article <C4252EDC.B4F6C%dbowey@comcast.net>,
Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>You *could* sample sufficient points along a analog tape recording to
>reconstruct the audio digitally, but that is *not* how audio tape recorders
>work.
>
>The recorder creates a varying magnetic field on the moving tape, that is
>passing over the recording head. Considering the pre-equalization of the
>audio signal, the field is analogous to that audio signal at any moment.
>
>In playback, the magnetic pickup responds to the varying field on the moving
>tape by outputting a voltage that is analogous to the changing field. It is
>then equalized by a circuit complementing the pre-equalizer.
>
>No "sampling" takes place and nothing digital occurred.
Well, it's "sampled" to the extent that the varying magnetic field,
sensed by the pickup head, consists of the sum of the individual
magnetic fields (vector and magnitude) of the large number of
individual magnetic domains within the ferromagnetic recording layer.
It's not digital, and it's not sampled at regular intervals the way
that a digital-audio or bucket-brigade-chip signal is.
--
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: Don BoweyDate: 19:46 11-04-08
|
|
On 4/11/08 3:15 PM, in article lh45d5-tt5.ln1@radagast.org, "Dave Platt"
<dplatt@radagast.org> wrote:
> In article <C4252EDC.B4F6C%dbowey@comcast.net>,
> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> You *could* sample sufficient points along a analog tape recording to
>> reconstruct the audio digitally, but that is *not* how audio tape recorders
>> work.
>>
>> The recorder creates a varying magnetic field on the moving tape, that is
>> passing over the recording head. Considering the pre-equalization of the
>> audio signal, the field is analogous to that audio signal at any moment.
>>
>> In playback, the magnetic pickup responds to the varying field on the moving
>> tape by outputting a voltage that is analogous to the changing field. It is
>> then equalized by a circuit complementing the pre-equalizer.
>>
>> No "sampling" takes place and nothing digital occurred.
>
> Well, it's "sampled" to the extent that the varying magnetic field,
> sensed by the pickup head, consists of the sum of the individual
> magnetic fields (vector and magnitude) of the large number of
> individual magnetic domains within the ferromagnetic recording layer.
Using the same logic, you would argue that a microphone samples the sound
that reaches it. That's a stretch beyond common usage.
>
> It's not digital, and it's not sampled at regular intervals the way
> that a digital-audio or bucket-brigade-chip signal is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Apr 11, 7:46 pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/11/08 3:15 PM, in article lh45d5-tt5....@radagast.org, "Dave Platt"
> >> No "sampling" takes place and nothing digital occurred.
>
> > Well, it's "sampled" to the extent that the varying magnetic field,
> > sensed by the pickup head, consists of the sum of the individual
> > magnetic fields (vector and magnitude) of the large number of
> > individual magnetic domains within the ferromagnetic recording layer.
>
> Using the same logic, you would argue that a microphone samples the sound
> that reaches it. That's a stretch beyond common usage.
If, by "sampling" you mean "quantized, then, yes indeed,
that's precisely what happens in a microphone, and yes,
it is a stretch beyond common usage because it's
common usage that's wrong.
The total force on any surface, inluding the diaphragm of
a microphone and your ear drum is the net result of individual
discrete collisions of air molucules with that surface. Each
collision is most assuredly discrete. The net force looks
continuous only because we whoose to integrate it over
sufficiently long averaging time, but it is discrete whether
your common usage embraces it or not.
And even disregarding that level of quantization, the fact
that one might make the statement that a medium is
"continuous," it does not then follow that the medium
has the properties of infinite resolution as if there were
no quantization going on.
|
|
|
|
Author: Don BoweyDate: 11:18 12-04-08
|
|
On 4/11/08 6:23 PM, in article
70fb42ae-4253-4427-9d78-95180652e8de@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
"dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com" <dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:46 pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 4/11/08 3:15 PM, in article lh45d5-tt5....@radagast.org, "Dave
Platt"
>
>>>> No "sampling" takes place and nothing digital occurred.
>>
>>> Well, it's "sampled" to the extent that the varying magnetic
field,
>>> sensed by the pickup head, consists of the sum of the individual
>>> magnetic fields (vector and magnitude) of the large number of
>>> individual magnetic domains within the ferromagnetic recording layer.
>>
>> Using the same logic, you would argue that a microphone samples the sound
>> that reaches it. That's a stretch beyond common usage.
>
> If, by "sampling" you mean "quantized, then, yes indeed,
> that's precisely what happens in a microphone, and yes,
> it is a stretch beyond common usage because it's
> common usage that's wrong.
No, I did not mean quantize, and that is not what happens in a microphone.
A microphone "converts" sound pressure to a voltage, or to a change in
capacitance, or into a change in inductance, etc.
The pickup head in an audio tape recorder converts a moving magnetic field
to a voltage.
>
> The total force on any surface, inluding the diaphragm of
> a microphone and your ear drum is the net result of individual
> discrete collisions of air molucules with that surface. Each
> collision is most assuredly discrete. The net force looks
> continuous only because we whoose to integrate it over
> sufficiently long averaging time, but it is discrete whether
> your common usage embraces it or not.
The microphone responds to the combined effects of all the input forces.
I suspect your set of lexicons includes a belief there is no such thing as a
Direct Current Voltage.
>
> And even disregarding that level of quantization, the fact
> that one might make the statement that a medium is
> "continuous," it does not then follow that the medium
> has the properties of infinite resolution as if there were
> no quantization going on.
My ear may quantize the result, but the microphone doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Author: Bob MonsenDate: 15:58 12-04-08
|
|
"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:47ff92e7$0$1111$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Bob Monsen wrote:
>
>
>> At the basic level, an audio cassette recorder is sampling. There are
>> grains of magnetic material that are magnetized in the tape. The levels
>> are remembered by the strength of the field, I believe.
>
>
> Really? Analog cassette uses sampling? Then, is there any electronic audio
> storage device [analog or digital] that does *not* use sampling? Or is
> sampling an inescapable monster of everything?
Well, my point was that you can think of everything as digital or analog.
Certainly digitized sound seems analog when played. One doesn't hear the
individual samples.
However, assume that you could record some data in a truly analog way. That
would mean that at every point, your recording medium contains exactly the
same information as was present at every instant. Now, consider the
following question. How much information is contained in a particular region
of the media? Suppose you could somehow speed up somebody reading the
library of congress out loud to an incredibly fast rate, so that the time
required to play it would fit within your tape. Could you record that
information, and reliably get it back from that interval of media?
Of course, the answer is no. It is not possible to do that, because the
speeding up would require very high frequencies. In terms of information
theory, those frequencies would require a sampling rate that is twice the
rate of the highest frequency, so the information density would be very
great. For the theoretically perfect analog recording, that information
density is infinite.
What this all implies is that any piece of physical media is going to have a
limited information density, and as a consequence, will not be able to store
ANY analog interval precisely. You always lose something. You can represent
this limit as a sampling rate, or as the rate of iron oxide dots flowing
past on a tape, or as the maximum number of flip-flops you can squeeze onto
a bit of silicon, or as the maximum number of capacitors you can put on an
intersil chip times the ability of the output device to discriminate
different levels of output...
So, sadly, you can't get away from the monster of information theory.
Regards,
Bob Monsen
|
|
|
|
Author: Mr.TDate: 22:11 12-04-08
|
|
"Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C42620BC.B505A%dbowey@comcast.net...
> On 4/11/08 6:23 PM, in article
> 70fb42ae-4253-4427-9d78-95180652e8de@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
> "dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com" <dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 7:46 pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/11/08 3:15 PM, in article lh45d5-tt5....@radagast.org, "Dave
Platt"
> >
> >>>> No "sampling" takes place and nothing digital occurred.
> >>
> >>> Well, it's "sampled" to the extent that the varying magnetic
field,
> >>> sensed by the pickup head, consists of the sum of the individual
> >>> magnetic fields (vector and magnitude) of the large number of
> >>> individual magnetic domains within the ferromagnetic recording layer.
> >>
> >> Using the same logic, you would argue that a microphone samples the
sound
> >> that reaches it. That's a stretch beyond common usage.
> >
> > If, by "sampling" you mean "quantized, then, yes indeed,
> > that's precisely what happens in a microphone, and yes,
> > it is a stretch beyond common usage because it's
> > common usage that's wrong.
>
> No, I did not mean quantize, and that is not what happens in a microphone.
Of course it does.
> A microphone "converts" sound pressure to a voltage, or to a change in
> capacitance, or into a change in inductance, etc.
>
> The pickup head in an audio tape recorder converts a moving magnetic field
> to a voltage.
>
> >
> > The total force on any surface, inluding the diaphragm of
> > a microphone and your ear drum is the net result of individual
> > discrete collisions of air molucules with that surface. Each
> > collision is most assuredly discrete. The net force looks
> > continuous only because we whoose to integrate it over
> > sufficiently long averaging time, but it is discrete whether
> > your common usage embraces it or not.
>
> The microphone responds to the combined effects of all the input forces.
Of course, but do you believe electricity is linear below the single
electron level, assuming we could even record or measure to that level?
Do you believe thermal and other noise does not exist in a microphone
signal?
Do you not believe there are finite limits to the linearity of any
electrical device?
> I suspect your set of lexicons includes a belief there is no such thing as
a
> Direct Current Voltage.
Your right, only a voltage at any given instant, which may be fairly
constant for a given period of time.
> > And even disregarding that level of quantization, the fact
> > that one might make the statement that a medium is
> > "continuous," it does not then follow that the medium
> > has the properties of infinite resolution as if there were
> > no quantization going on.
>
> My ear may quantize the result, but the microphone doesn't.
It's obvious you have no idea what "quantise" means in a technical sense. In
this universe everything has finite limits. Analog recordings are no
different, nor the signal from a microphone, or even the variations in air
pressure we call sound.
MrT.
|
|
|
|
Author: Don BoweyDate: 22:16 12-04-08
|
|
On 4/12/08 7:11 PM, in article
48016ba1$0$3063$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>
> "Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:C42620BC.B505A%dbowey@comcast.net...
>> On 4/11/08 6:23 PM, in article
>> 70fb42ae-4253-4427-9d78-95180652e8de@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
>> "dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com"
<dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 11, 7:46 pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/08 3:15 PM, in article lh45d5-tt5....@radagast.org, "Dave
> Platt"
>>>
>>>>>> No "sampling" takes place and nothing digital
occurred.
>>>>
>>>>> Well, it's "sampled" to the extent that the varying
magnetic field,
>>>>> sensed by the pickup head, consists of the sum of the individual
>>>>> magnetic fields (vector and magnitude) of the large number of
>>>>> individual magnetic domains within the ferromagnetic recording
layer.
>>>>
>>>> Using the same logic, you would argue that a microphone samples the
> sound
>>>> that reaches it. That's a stretch beyond common usage.
>>>
>>> If, by "sampling" you mean "quantized, then, yes indeed,
>>> that's precisely what happens in a microphone, and yes,
>>> it is a stretch beyond common usage because it's
>>> common usage that's wrong.
>>
>> No, I did not mean quantize, and that is not what happens in a microphone.
>
> Of course it does.
>
>
>> A microphone "converts" sound pressure to a voltage, or to a change
in
>> capacitance, or into a change in inductance, etc.
>>
>> The pickup head in an audio tape recorder converts a moving magnetic field
>> to a voltage.
>>
>>>
>>> The total force on any surface, inluding the diaphragm of
>>> a microphone and your ear drum is the net result of individual
>>> discrete collisions of air molucules with that surface. Each
>>> collision is most assuredly discrete. The net force looks
>>> continuous only because we whoose to integrate it over
>>> sufficiently long averaging time, but it is discrete whether
>>> your common usage embraces it or not.
>>
>> The microphone responds to the combined effects of all the input forces.
>
> Of course, but do you believe electricity is linear below the single
> electron level, assuming we could even record or measure to that level?
> Do you believe thermal and other noise does not exist in a microphone
> signal?
> Do you not believe there are finite limits to the linearity of any
> electrical device?
>
>
>> I suspect your set of lexicons includes a belief there is no such thing as
> a
>> Direct Current Voltage.
>
> Your right, only a voltage at any given instant, which may be fairly
> constant for a given period of time.
>
>
>>> And even disregarding that level of quantization, the fact
>>> that one might make the statement that a medium is
>>> "continuous," it does not then follow that the medium
>>> has the properties of infinite resolution as if there were
>>> no quantization going on.
>>
>> My ear may quantize the result, but the microphone doesn't.
>
>
>
> It's obvious you have no idea what "quantise" means in a technical sense.
In
> this universe everything has finite limits. Analog recordings are no
> different, nor the signal from a microphone, or even the variations in air
> pressure we call sound.
>
> MrT.
>
>
It's obvious you are an argumentative idiot who would like to count angels
on the head of a pin.
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael R. KestiDate: 22:48 12-04-08
|
|
Don Bowey wrote:
>It's obvious you are an argumentative idiot who would like to count angels
>on the head of a pin.
Regardless of the topic of discussion or the correctness of your position,
Don, you just lost the debate.
--
========================================================================
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: iswDate: 00:02 13-04-08
|
|
In article <C42620BC.B505A%dbowey@comcast.net>,
Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/11/08 6:23 PM, in article
> 70fb42ae-4253-4427-9d78-95180652e8de@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
> "dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com" <dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 7:46 pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/11/08 3:15 PM, in article lh45d5-tt5....@radagast.org, "Dave
Platt"
> >
> >>>> No "sampling" takes place and nothing digital occurred.
> >>
> >>> Well, it's "sampled" to the extent that the varying magnetic
field,
> >>> sensed by the pickup head, consists of the sum of the individual
> >>> magnetic fields (vector and magnitude) of the large number of
> >>> individual magnetic domains within the ferromagnetic recording layer.
> >>
> >> Using the same logic, you would argue that a microphone samples the sound
> >> that reaches it. That's a stretch beyond common usage.
> >
> > If, by "sampling" you mean "quantized, then, yes indeed,
> > that's precisely what happens in a microphone, and yes,
> > it is a stretch beyond common usage because it's
> > common usage that's wrong.
>
> No, I did not mean quantize, and that is not what happens in a microphone.
>
> A microphone "converts" sound pressure to a voltage, or to a change in
> capacitance, or into a change in inductance, etc.
>
> The pickup head in an audio tape recorder converts a moving magnetic field
> to a voltage.
>
> >
> > The total force on any surface, inluding the diaphragm of
> > a microphone and your ear drum is the net result of individual
> > discrete collisions of air molucules with that surface. Each
> > collision is most assuredly discrete. The net force looks
> > continuous only because we whoose to integrate it over
> > sufficiently long averaging time, but it is discrete whether
> > your common usage embraces it or not.
>
> The microphone responds to the combined effects of all the input forces.
>
> I suspect your set of lexicons includes a belief there is no such thing as a
> Direct Current Voltage.
There isn't -- unless you measure it for an infinite time.
And a related question: What is the low-frequency response limit of a DC
amplifier?
Isaac
|
|
|
|
Author: Don BoweyDate: 01:02 13-04-08
|
|
On 4/12/08 7:48 PM, in article 48017476.89CFFBD3@nospam.net, "Michael R.
Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:
> Don Bowey wrote:
>
>> It's obvious you are an argumentative idiot who would like to count angels
>> on the head of a pin.
>
> Regardless of the topic of discussion or the correctness of your position,
> Don, you just lost the debate.
Yes! Isn't it neat?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact | Electronic Portal
|
|
|
