Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
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
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
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
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?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
Also can an purely-analog non-sampling analog chip store in parallel?
This is purely-analog parallel RAM [opposite of serial RAM chip]. Is
this possible?
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?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
Also can an purely-analog non-sampling analog chip store in parallel?
This is purely-analog parallel RAM [opposite of serial RAM chip]. Is
this possible?
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite . com > wrote in message
news:47fb04fe$0$24104$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
> > 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?
> >
> Also can an purely-analog non-sampling analog chip store in parallel?
> This is purely-analog parallel RAM [opposite of serial RAM chip]. Is
> this possible?
> Radium
Radium, proof that brain activity is not necessary to sustain life.
MrT.
"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite . com > wrote in message
news:47fb04fe$0$24104$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
> > 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?
> >
> Also can an purely-analog non-sampling analog chip store in parallel?
> This is purely-analog parallel RAM [opposite of serial RAM chip]. Is
> this possible?
> Radium
Radium, proof that brain activity is not necessary to sustain life.
MrT.
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
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.
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.
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:39:10 -0700, "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?
Ignoring the likeliest case of simple intellectual laziness,
this presupposes a serious misunderstanding of the meaning
of the word "analog".
>Also can an purely-analog non-sampling analog chip store in parallel?
>This is purely-analog parallel RAM [opposite of serial RAM chip]. Is
>this possible?
Parallel _what_? Conventional historical media always stored
all channels in parallel in time.
If you would expend some tiny effort in framing your question,
you'd be a long way towards a better one.
Just my opinion, and, however, all good fortune,
Chris Hornbeck
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:39:10 -0700, "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?
Ignoring the likeliest case of simple intellectual laziness,
this presupposes a serious misunderstanding of the meaning
of the word "analog".
>Also can an purely-analog non-sampling analog chip store in parallel?
>This is purely-analog parallel RAM [opposite of serial RAM chip]. Is
>this possible?
Parallel _what_? Conventional historical media always stored
all channels in parallel in time.
If you would expend some tiny effort in framing your question,
you'd be a long way towards a better one.
Just my opinion, and, however, all good fortune,
Chris Hornbeck
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
>> Also can an purely-analog non-sampling analog chip store in parallel?
>> This is purely-analog parallel RAM [opposite of serial RAM chip]. Is
>> this possible?
> Parallel what ? Conventional historical media always stored
> all channels in parallel in time.
Um, cassettes and LPs store data sequentially. So they are in serial.
Parallel device don't do this.
Parallel RAM chips store information differently from serial RAM chips.
Serial RAM chips store in sequence just like a tape.
AFAIK, there are no parallel analog storage devices. I could be wrong
though but I haven't found any no matter how much research I do.
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
>> Also can an purely-analog non-sampling analog chip store in parallel?
>> This is purely-analog parallel RAM [opposite of serial RAM chip]. Is
>> this possible?
> Parallel what ? Conventional historical media always stored
> all channels in parallel in time.
Um, cassettes and LPs store data sequentially. So they are in serial.
Parallel device don't do this.
Parallel RAM chips store information differently from serial RAM chips.
Serial RAM chips store in sequence just like a tape.
AFAIK, there are no parallel analog storage devices. I could be wrong
though but I haven't found any no matter how much research I do.
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
In article <47fc0557$0$17345$4c368faf@roadrunner . com >,
Green Xenon [Radium] <glucegen1@excite . com > wrote:
>AFAIK, there are no parallel analog storage devices. I could be wrong
>though but I haven't found any no matter how much research I do.
Stereo LPs are analog parallel-storage devices.
The information needed to reconstruct the two channels of audio
information is stored (in a simple sum-and-difference encoding) as the
positions of the two walls of the groove. These walls are
(physically) orthogonal, and (conceptually) in parallel.
The same is true of stereo audio tapes. Two, four, or more channels
of information (often but not necessarily related) are written in
parallel, and can be read out in parallel. They aren't even sum-and-
difference encoded the way an LP is.
Fundamentally, *ALL* of the means of storage device you've referred to
(whether "analog" or "digital") are storing the data in the same
fashion... as a spatial array (one, two, or three-dimensional) of
physically-encoded data values. They all distribute the information
across space... as charges stored within a solid-state chip, as
collections of magnetic domains on a tape, as shapes carved into a
disk of solidified petroleum, as photon waves travelling down a long
piece of fiber optic, etc.
In any such device, *all* of the information for the entire recording
is present in the storage medium simultaneously. In this respect
they're all "parallel".
The distinction you're trying to make of "parallel" vs "serial" has
far more to do with how the data is *accessed* (written in, or read
out) than it has to do with how it's *stored*.
You could even say that an LP is "serial" in one respect and
"parallel" in at least two. When you play it, you're reading out two
audio channels at once (so it's parallel) but each channel is read out
in a strictly sequential order (so it's serial, unless the needle
skips). But, when the actual LP is manufactured, it's made via a
stamping process, with the entire spiral groove being pressed into the
semi-molten vinyl in a single operation, so it's "parallal" once again.
I believe that you are trying to make a hard-and-fast distinction
between "serial" and "parallel" which is not actually meaningful.
--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: * w w w .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!
In article <47fc0557$0$17345$4c368faf@roadrunner . com >,
Green Xenon [Radium] <glucegen1@excite . com > wrote:
>AFAIK, there are no parallel analog storage devices. I could be wrong
>though but I haven't found any no matter how much research I do.
Stereo LPs are analog parallel-storage devices.
The information needed to reconstruct the two channels of audio
information is stored (in a simple sum-and-difference encoding) as the
positions of the two walls of the groove. These walls are
(physically) orthogonal, and (conceptually) in parallel.
The same is true of stereo audio tapes. Two, four, or more channels
of information (often but not necessarily related) are written in
parallel, and can be read out in parallel. They aren't even sum-and-
difference encoded the way an LP is.
Fundamentally, *ALL* of the means of storage device you've referred to
(whether "analog" or "digital") are storing the data in the same
fashion... as a spatial array (one, two, or three-dimensional) of
physically-encoded data values. They all distribute the information
across space... as charges stored within a solid-state chip, as
collections of magnetic domains on a tape, as shapes carved into a
disk of solidified petroleum, as photon waves travelling down a long
piece of fiber optic, etc.
In any such device, *all* of the information for the entire recording
is present in the storage medium simultaneously. In this respect
they're all "parallel".
The distinction you're trying to make of "parallel" vs "serial" has
far more to do with how the data is *accessed* (written in, or read
out) than it has to do with how it's *stored*.
You could even say that an LP is "serial" in one respect and
"parallel" in at least two. When you play it, you're reading out two
audio channels at once (so it's parallel) but each channel is read out
in a strictly sequential order (so it's serial, unless the needle
skips). But, when the actual LP is manufactured, it's made via a
stamping process, with the entire spiral groove being pressed into the
semi-molten vinyl in a single operation, so it's "parallal" once again.
I believe that you are trying to make a hard-and-fast distinction
between "serial" and "parallel" which is not actually meaningful.
--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: * w w w .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!
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
Dave Platt wrote:
> In article <47fc0557$0$17345$4c368faf@roadrunner . com >,
> Green Xenon [Radium] <glucegen1@excite . com > wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, there are no parallel analog storage devices. I could be wrong
>> though but I haven't found any no matter how much research I do.
>
> Stereo LPs are analog parallel-storage devices.
>
> The information needed to reconstruct the two channels of audio
> information is stored (in a simple sum-and-difference encoding) as the
> positions of the two walls of the groove. These walls are
> (physically) orthogonal, and (conceptually) in parallel.
>
> The same is true of stereo audio tapes. Two, four, or more channels
> of information (often but not necessarily related) are written in
> parallel, and can be read out in parallel. They aren't even sum-and-
> difference encoded the way an LP is.
>
> Fundamentally, *ALL* of the means of storage device you've referred to
> (whether "analog" or "digital") are storing the data in the same
> fashion... as a spatial array (one, two, or three-dimensional) of
> physically-encoded data values. They all distribute the information
> across space... as charges stored within a solid-state chip, as
> collections of magnetic domains on a tape, as shapes carved into a
> disk of solidified petroleum, as photon waves travelling down a long
> piece of fiber optic, etc.
>
> In any such device, *all* of the information for the entire recording
> is present in the storage medium simultaneously. In this respect
> they're all "parallel".
>
> The distinction you're trying to make of "parallel" vs "serial" has
> far more to do with how the data is *accessed* (written in, or read
> out) than it has to do with how it's *stored*.
>
> You could even say that an LP is "serial" in one respect and
> "parallel" in at least two. When you play it, you're reading out two
> audio channels at once (so it's parallel) but each channel is read out
> in a strictly sequential order (so it's serial, unless the needle
> skips). But, when the actual LP is manufactured, it's made via a
> stamping process, with the entire spiral groove being pressed into the
> semi-molten vinyl in a single operation, so it's "parallal" once again.
>
> I believe that you are trying to make a hard-and-fast distinction
> between "serial" and "parallel" which is not actually meaningful.
>
What I am talking about is not a stereo or multi-track audio at all.
Analog parallel audio storage involves a monoaural track being written
and read in a parallel manner. In serial monoaural storage there is one
line on the tape for all the information from beginning of the cassette
to the end. In parallel monoaural storage, there would be more than one
line. In this parallel storage, each quantum of the monaural analog
audio signal has its own line.
In digital technology, a serial wire allows more than 1 bit per line
while a parallel line does not. In a serial wire, you can have 8 bits
per wire. In a parallel write, if you want 8 bits, you must have 8
different wires.
I am discussing the analog equivalent of this for storage devices.
Dave Platt wrote:
> In article <47fc0557$0$17345$4c368faf@roadrunner . com >,
> Green Xenon [Radium] <glucegen1@excite . com > wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, there are no parallel analog storage devices. I could be wrong
>> though but I haven't found any no matter how much research I do.
>
> Stereo LPs are analog parallel-storage devices.
>
> The information needed to reconstruct the two channels of audio
> information is stored (in a simple sum-and-difference encoding) as the
> positions of the two walls of the groove. These walls are
> (physically) orthogonal, and (conceptually) in parallel.
>
> The same is true of stereo audio tapes. Two, four, or more channels
> of information (often but not necessarily related) are written in
> parallel, and can be read out in parallel. They aren't even sum-and-
> difference encoded the way an LP is.
>
> Fundamentally, *ALL* of the means of storage device you've referred to
> (whether "analog" or "digital") are storing the data in the same
> fashion... as a spatial array (one, two, or three-dimensional) of
> physically-encoded data values. They all distribute the information
> across space... as charges stored within a solid-state chip, as
> collections of magnetic domains on a tape, as shapes carved into a
> disk of solidified petroleum, as photon waves travelling down a long
> piece of fiber optic, etc.
>
> In any such device, *all* of the information for the entire recording
> is present in the storage medium simultaneously. In this respect
> they're all "parallel".
>
> The distinction you're trying to make of "parallel" vs "serial" has
> far more to do with how the data is *accessed* (written in, or read
> out) than it has to do with how it's *stored*.
>
> You could even say that an LP is "serial" in one respect and
> "parallel" in at least two. When you play it, you're reading out two
> audio channels at once (so it's parallel) but each channel is read out
> in a strictly sequential order (so it's serial, unless the needle
> skips). But, when the actual LP is manufactured, it's made via a
> stamping process, with the entire spiral groove being pressed into the
> semi-molten vinyl in a single operation, so it's "parallal" once again.
>
> I believe that you are trying to make a hard-and-fast distinction
> between "serial" and "parallel" which is not actually meaningful.
>
What I am talking about is not a stereo or multi-track audio at all.
Analog parallel audio storage involves a monoaural track being written
and read in a parallel manner. In serial monoaural storage there is one
line on the tape for all the information from beginning of the cassette
to the end. In parallel monoaural storage, there would be more than one
line. In this parallel storage, each quantum of the monaural analog
audio signal has its own line.
In digital technology, a serial wire allows more than 1 bit per line
while a parallel line does not. In a serial wire, you can have 8 bits
per wire. In a parallel write, if you want 8 bits, you must have 8
different wires.
I am discussing the analog equivalent of this for storage devices.
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite . com > wrote in message
news:47fc56fc$0$6498$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
> What I am talking about is not a stereo or multi-track audio at all.
> Analog parallel audio storage involves a monoaural track being written
> and read in a parallel manner.
As I said, it all depends on YOUR definitions.
The others are all correct, and are not constrained by one, originally
unstated, definition.
>In serial monoaural storage there is one
> line on the tape for all the information from beginning of the cassette
> to the end. In parallel monoaural storage, there would be more than one
> line. In this parallel storage, each quantum of the monaural analog
> audio signal has its own line.
"Quantum", but I thought you claimed analog as NOT quantised :-)
> I am discussing the analog equivalent of this for storage devices.
Why?
MrT.
"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite . com > wrote in message
news:47fc56fc$0$6498$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
> What I am talking about is not a stereo or multi-track audio at all.
> Analog parallel audio storage involves a monoaural track being written
> and read in a parallel manner.
As I said, it all depends on YOUR definitions.
The others are all correct, and are not constrained by one, originally
unstated, definition.
>In serial monoaural storage there is one
> line on the tape for all the information from beginning of the cassette
> to the end. In parallel monoaural storage, there would be more than one
> line. In this parallel storage, each quantum of the monaural analog
> audio signal has its own line.
"Quantum", but I thought you claimed analog as NOT quantised :-)
> I am discussing the analog equivalent of this for storage devices.
Why?
MrT.
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote ...
> Parallel RAM chips store information differently from serial RAM chips.
> Serial RAM chips store in sequence just like a tape.
No. The "RA" in RAM stands for "Random Access".
Perhaps you didn't know that. It is an obscure factoid.
Some RAM devices use a serial interface (like I2C),
but they don't store data any differently inside the chip.
> AFAIK, there are no parallel analog storage devices. I could be wrong
> though but I haven't found any no matter how much research I do.
So stereo (and higher-channel-count) don't count as "parallel"?
Must be nice living in your own universe where you can make
up your definitions for words.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful
tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
OTOH, if you mean something capable of taking a 4-minute
song and recordingitallatonce, then you're correct. That is
not possible here in our known universe. Perhaps things work
differently where you are.
Remember: Time is nature's way of keeping everything
from happeningatonce.
"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote ...
> Parallel RAM chips store information differently from serial RAM chips.
> Serial RAM chips store in sequence just like a tape.
No. The "RA" in RAM stands for "Random Access".
Perhaps you didn't know that. It is an obscure factoid.
Some RAM devices use a serial interface (like I2C),
but they don't store data any differently inside the chip.
> AFAIK, there are no parallel analog storage devices. I could be wrong
> though but I haven't found any no matter how much research I do.
So stereo (and higher-channel-count) don't count as "parallel"?
Must be nice living in your own universe where you can make
up your definitions for words.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful
tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
OTOH, if you mean something capable of taking a 4-minute
song and recordingitallatonce, then you're correct. That is
not possible here in our known universe. Perhaps things work
differently where you are.
Remember: Time is nature's way of keeping everything
from happeningatonce.
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:
> Chris Hornbeck wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Also can an purely-analog non-sampling analog chip store in
>>> parallel? This is purely-analog parallel RAM [opposite of serial
>>> RAM chip]. Is this possible?
>
>
>
>> Parallel _what_? Conventional historical media always stored
>> all channels in parallel in time.
>
>
> Um, cassettes and LPs store data sequentially. So they are in serial.
> Parallel device don't do this.
>
> Parallel RAM chips store information differently from serial RAM
> chips. Serial RAM chips store in sequence just like a tape.
>
> AFAIK, there are no parallel analog storage devices. I could be wrong
> though but I haven't found any no matter how much research I do.
Multi-track tape is a parallel analogue storage device.
Do yourself a favour - obsess over something practical and useful rather
than chasing rainbows.
geoff
Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:
> Chris Hornbeck wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Also can an purely-analog non-sampling analog chip store in
>>> parallel? This is purely-analog parallel RAM [opposite of serial
>>> RAM chip]. Is this possible?
>
>
>
>> Parallel _what_? Conventional historical media always stored
>> all channels in parallel in time.
>
>
> Um, cassettes and LPs store data sequentially. So they are in serial.
> Parallel device don't do this.
>
> Parallel RAM chips store information differently from serial RAM
> chips. Serial RAM chips store in sequence just like a tape.
>
> AFAIK, there are no parallel analog storage devices. I could be wrong
> though but I haven't found any no matter how much research I do.
Multi-track tape is a parallel analogue storage device.
Do yourself a favour - obsess over something practical and useful rather
than chasing rainbows.
geoff
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:52:57 -0700, "Green Xenon [Radium]"
<glucegen1@excite . com > wrote:
>> Parallel _what_? Conventional historical media always stored
>> all channels in parallel in time.
>
>
>Um, cassettes and LPs store data sequentially. So they are in serial.
>Parallel device don't do this.
>
>Parallel RAM chips store information differently from serial RAM chips.
>Serial RAM chips store in sequence just like a tape.
>
>AFAIK, there are no parallel analog storage devices. I could be wrong
>though but I haven't found any no matter how much research I do.
Making the broad assumption that you're really the wide-eyed
innocent that you pretend, let me propose you some better
questions, that may get at whatever you're trying to get at.
1) How is data stored in an antique (historical, "analog", etc.,
medium?
2) What does "analog" mean?
2b) After Nyquist bandlimiting and dither, what is the difference
between the original "analog" signal and the A/D/A reconstructed
replica of that signal? Idealized case, of course.
3) And the only really important one, what does "information"
mean? Surprisingly, the answer to this one is a major mind-fuck.
All the best fortune,
Chris Hornbeck
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:52:57 -0700, "Green Xenon [Radium]"
<glucegen1@excite . com > wrote:
>> Parallel _what_? Conventional historical media always stored
>> all channels in parallel in time.
>
>
>Um, cassettes and LPs store data sequentially. So they are in serial.
>Parallel device don't do this.
>
>Parallel RAM chips store information differently from serial RAM chips.
>Serial RAM chips store in sequence just like a tape.
>
>AFAIK, there are no parallel analog storage devices. I could be wrong
>though but I haven't found any no matter how much research I do.
Making the broad assumption that you're really the wide-eyed
innocent that you pretend, let me propose you some better
questions, that may get at whatever you're trying to get at.
1) How is data stored in an antique (historical, "analog", etc.,
medium?
2) What does "analog" mean?
2b) After Nyquist bandlimiting and dither, what is the difference
between the original "analog" signal and the A/D/A reconstructed
replica of that signal? Idealized case, of course.
3) And the only really important one, what does "information"
mean? Surprisingly, the answer to this one is a major mind-fuck.
All the best fortune,
Chris Hornbeck
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite . com > wrote in message
news:47fc0557$0$17345$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
> AFAIK, there are no parallel analog storage devices. I could be wrong
> though but I haven't found any no matter how much research I do.
What would you call a multi-track tape recorder then? As usual it all
depends on your definitions.
MrT.
"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite . com > wrote in message
news:47fc0557$0$17345$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
> AFAIK, there are no parallel analog storage devices. I could be wrong
> though but I haven't found any no matter how much research I do.
What would you call a multi-track tape recorder then? As usual it all
depends on your definitions.
MrT.
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:
> Chris Hornbeck wrote:
>
> >> Also can an purely-analog non-sampling analog chip store in parallel?
> >> This is purely-analog parallel RAM [opposite of serial RAM chip]. Is
> >> this possible?
>
> > Parallel _what_? Conventional historical media always stored
> > all channels in parallel in time.
>
> Um, cassettes and LPs store data sequentially. So they are in serial.
> Parallel device don't do this.
>
> Parallel RAM chips store information differently from serial RAM chips.
> Serial RAM chips store in sequence just like a tape.
>
> AFAIK, there are no parallel analog storage devices. I could be wrong
> though but I haven't found any no matter how much research I do.
Multi-track (even stereo) tape recorders have several tracks in parallel.
That's as much parallelism you're going to find in analogue though.
Graham
"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:
> Chris Hornbeck wrote:
>
> >> Also can an purely-analog non-sampling analog chip store in parallel?
> >> This is purely-analog parallel RAM [opposite of serial RAM chip]. Is
> >> this possible?
>
> > Parallel _what_? Conventional historical media always stored
> > all channels in parallel in time.
>
> Um, cassettes and LPs store data sequentially. So they are in serial.
> Parallel device don't do this.
>
> Parallel RAM chips store information differently from serial RAM chips.
> Serial RAM chips store in sequence just like a tape.
>
> AFAIK, there are no parallel analog storage devices. I could be wrong
> though but I haven't found any no matter how much research I do.
Multi-track (even stereo) tape recorders have several tracks in parallel.
That's as much parallelism you're going to find in analogue though.
Graham
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Is it possible to have a purely-analog chip that stores audio without
> using any form of sampling?
NO
"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Is it possible to have a purely-analog chip that stores audio without
> using any form of sampling?
NO
Next: My favorite analog audio storage = B&W variable-density optical track of old...
Previous: Cross-over tutorials
