Questions about equivalents of audio/video and digital/analog.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Arny Krueger wrote:
(snip)

The reason I say that they are analog at the most fundamental level is the
fact that every line receiver I've ever seen makes some kind of
analog-domain judgement about the state of the line. Like, 0 is less than
0.5 volts and 1 is greater than 2.7 volts.

If you want to see how strange it can get, gigabit ethernet
(1000baseT) has echo cancellation and other signal processing
that is done on the signal before decoding it. Also, the
coding is much more complicated than two voltage levels to
reduce the bandwidth and so reduce EMI.

-- glen

 

[isw]

No, he had fingers - wasn't that the guy who rang
the bells at Notre Dame?

Oh - you're thinking of the guy who developed the innovative feature
in the Apple Macintosh windowing system... a little mini-window which
would pop up, *mostly* block what was behind it, but let you move it
out of the way if you really needed to. "Quasi-modal" dialog boxes...
quite a coup for Apple, back in the Day.

I understand that something similar has just shown up in Vista.[/QUOTE]

If so, and if the "borrowing" is handled with M$'s usual skill, it'll
look just fine, but you won't be able to move it out of the way. For
example, check out the dialog box in Vista that demands a mandatory
reboot, when you're not logged in as admin...

Isaac

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

That is being as ass.

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?

 

[Jerry Avins]

Arny Krueger wrote:
(snip)


If you want to see how strange it can get, gigabit ethernet
(1000baseT) has echo cancellation and other signal processing
that is done on the signal before decoding it. Also, the
coding is much more complicated than two voltage levels to
reduce the bandwidth and so reduce EMI.

When most people talk about a digital signal on a wire, they mean a
signal that is digitally encoded or used in a digital system. The signal
itself, insofar as it consists of a varying voltage or current, or light
intensity. In principle, it could consist of varying tension in a rope
or many other ways, but at bottom, they are all analog. The makers of
transistors label them analog or digital according to the use they're
optimized for (remember gold doping?), but a label doesn't make it so.

I bought some AA cells the other day, and had a large variety to choose
from. Nobody makes photoflash cells any more, but there were (among
others) flashlight cells and digital cells. Floyd is adamant that
whatever is quantized in amplitude is digital. I'm just as adamant that
a varying voltage on a wire is analog, no matter what it ultimately
represents. It's pretty silly to insist on that usage, though, because
even though we recognize that, it's also convenient to classify signals
by their intended use. Trouble begins, as always, when somebody insists
on sharp-edged fundamentalist-style classifications.

I call a pickled cucumber a "pickle". Picklers call them "cucumbers"
because they also pickle tomatoes. Farmers call some cucumbers on the
vine "pickles" because they're destined for the pickle factory. It's all
a matter of where one stands.

Jerry

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

...a lot more argument by vigorous assertion, the repetitive,
monotonous bulk of which has been deleted. However,
a couple of gems that just can't pass by unanswered:

You are the one who cannot support a thing you say with
external references. I have. You haven't.

....

Wrong - YOU have asserted this repeatedly, and

It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the industry
standard definition is exactly that. I've provided
a number of impeccable and authoritative references to
those definitions.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

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.

 

[Randy Yates]

It's all a matter of where one stands.

Some folks are out standing in their field.
--
% Randy Yates % "So now it's getting late,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and those who hesitate
%%% 919-577-9882 % got no one..."
%%%% <[email protected]> % 'Waterfall', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

As I said before, but using different terms, you are an ignorant boob, and
what's worse is, you're smug about it.

I won't explain the many errors of your post this time, as I know it's a
waste of time.

Your personal insults are just as inaccurate and invalid as your
technical discussions. Shame on you.

 

[Steve Underwood]

Some folks are out standing in their field.

I think some folks are way out of their field. :-\

Steve

 

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Jerry Avins wrote:

(snip)

When most people talk about a digital signal on a wire, they mean a
signal that is digitally encoded or used in a digital system. The signal
itself, insofar as it consists of a varying voltage or current, or light
intensity. In principle, it could consist of varying tension in a rope
or many other ways, but at bottom, they are all analog. The makers of
transistors label them analog or digital according to the use they're
optimized for (remember gold doping?), but a label doesn't make it so.

I have a tape deck that has "digital transistors". It seems that they
have a built in base resistor so that they can be directly connected to
a voltage source.

(snip)

I'm just as adamant that
a varying voltage on a wire is analog, no matter what it ultimately
represents. It's pretty silly to insist on that usage, though, because
even though we recognize that, it's also convenient to classify signals
by their intended use. Trouble begins, as always, when somebody insists
on sharp-edged fundamentalist-style classifications.

I suppose I am just slightly less strict. I am willing to call a two
level signal where the two levels directly represent the digital levels
digital. Everything else is analog. Well, that comes from the modem/
not modem discussions. A modem allows one to convert a digital signal
to a modulated carrier that can pass through an analog medium. When
analog circuitry is needed to process the signal, it might as well be
an analog signal.

I call a pickled cucumber a "pickle". Picklers call them "cucumbers"
because they also pickle tomatoes. Farmers call some cucumbers on the
vine "pickles" because they're destined for the pickle factory. It's all
a matter of where one stands.

I agree.

-- glen

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

I think some folks are way out of their field. :-\

Or are out standing in the wrong field.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

I suppose I am just slightly less strict. I am willing to call a two
level signal where the two levels directly represent the digital levels
digital. Everything else is analog. Well, that comes from the modem/

So your fingers are analog, because there are 10 of them?

But your hands are digital, because you have only two...

Great definitions you use...

Of course it means that all of those digital switching
systems used in the Public Switched Telephone System are
still just analog, and not digital like everyone says.
They consistently use m-ary systems (with different
values of m) rather than binary two state systems that
you define as digital. ISDN's BRI is one example, with
4 levels rather than 2.

not modem discussions. A modem allows one to convert a digital signal
to a modulated carrier that can pass through an analog medium. When
analog circuitry is needed to process the signal, it might as well be
an analog signal.

That's almost exactly right. It would be better to say
that when analog circuitry is needed to process the
*data* in the signal...

 

[Arny Krueger]

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.

 

[Arny Krueger]

You are the one who cannot support a thing you say with
external references. I have. You haven't.

Torturing definitions and standards doesn't win you any arguments.

 

[Arny Krueger]

When most people talk about a digital signal on a wire, they mean a signal
that is digitally encoded or used in a digital system. The signal itself,
insofar as it consists of a varying voltage or current, or light
intensity. In principle, it could consist of varying tension in a rope or
many other ways, but at bottom, they are all analog.

That's the point I was trying to make. Thank you.

The makers of transistors label them analog or digital according to the
use they're optimized for (remember gold doping?), but a label doesn't
make it so.

Case in point being a pretty high quality phono preamp I built in an
engineering class in the 1960s, using 2N404 "switching transistors".

I bought some AA cells the other day, and had a large variety to choose
from. Nobody makes photoflash cells any more, but there were (among
others) flashlight cells and digital cells. Floyd is adamant that whatever
is quantized in amplitude is digital.

Quantization is just a state of mind. ;-)

I'm just as adamant that a varying voltage on a wire is analog, no matter
what it ultimately represents.
Agreed.

It's pretty silly to insist on that usage, though, because even though we
recognize that, it's also convenient to classify signals by their intended
use. Trouble begins, as always, when somebody insists on sharp-edged
fundamentalist-style classifications.

i.e, Floyd's habit of torturing defintions and standards.

I call a pickled cucumber a "pickle". Picklers call them "cucumbers"
because they also pickle tomatoes. Farmers call some cucumbers on the vine
"pickles" because they're destined for the pickle factory. It's all a
matter of where one stands.

As the art of electronic communications bifurcates again and again...

 

[Arny Krueger]

Or are out standing in the wrong field.

Sort of like a guy who may know telephones, but is trying to teach a bunch
of high fidelity audio guys their business?

 

[Don Bowey]

On 8/22/07 9:23 PM, in article [email protected], "Floyd L.

(snip)

Your personal insults are just as inaccurate and invalid as your
technical discussions. Shame on you.

I thought I mentioned that I have no further interest in your useless posts.

If I didn't then I apologize for you having wasted your time.

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 8/22/07 9:23 PM, in article [email protected], "Floyd L.

(snip)


I thought I mentioned that I have no further interest in your useless posts.

If I didn't then I apologize for you having wasted your time.

Floyd just can't grasp the idea that a specialist knows more and more
about less and less until as an expert he knows almost everything about
nearly nothing. There may be a corner somewhere where his technical
claims are absolutely correct, but I know few who have any desire to go
there. And those few know it's only a small part of what's interesting.

Jerry

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Sort of like a guy who may know telephones, but is trying to teach a bunch
of high fidelity audio guys their business?

How about guys who don't know anything about the theory
of something trying to use their empirical observations
to explain how it works, without ever having read up on
any of the available research.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

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.)