Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt,net > wrote in message
news:6e480hF53dqtU1@mid.individual,net ...
>"Rich Grise" wrote ...
>> Mr.T wrote:
>>> "Joerg" wrote
> >>> Some large Polynesian mussel shells supposedly do that. When you hold
> >>> them to your ear you hear the sounds of the sea.
> >>
> >> Or the sound of your blood flow being acoustically amplified and
> >> reflected back to your ear, at least.
> >
> > I'm sure the ambient noise swamps the sound of your blood by a few
orders
> > of magnitude. ;-)
Similar to GWB being sure Iraq had nuclear weapons capability no doubt :-)
You actually believe a sea shell stores sounds? Why only sea sounds then
after it has been far removed for years?
I think at least Joerg was joking... surely?
> The sound of your heartbeat can seem deafening if you spend
> much time in a good anechoic chamber. I tried it in ElectroVoice's
> chamber in Buchannan many years ago.
Yep, and I can hear my blood pulsing in an isolation booth, doesn't even
require a good anechoic chamber.
Of course it's the blood flow in your head you hear, not your "heartbeat".
MrT.
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt,net > wrote in message
news:6e480hF53dqtU1@mid.individual,net ...
>"Rich Grise" wrote ...
>> Mr.T wrote:
>>> "Joerg" wrote
> >>> Some large Polynesian mussel shells supposedly do that. When you hold
> >>> them to your ear you hear the sounds of the sea.
> >>
> >> Or the sound of your blood flow being acoustically amplified and
> >> reflected back to your ear, at least.
> >
> > I'm sure the ambient noise swamps the sound of your blood by a few
orders
> > of magnitude. ;-)
Similar to GWB being sure Iraq had nuclear weapons capability no doubt :-)
You actually believe a sea shell stores sounds? Why only sea sounds then
after it has been far removed for years?
I think at least Joerg was joking... surely?
> The sound of your heartbeat can seem deafening if you spend
> much time in a good anechoic chamber. I tried it in ElectroVoice's
> chamber in Buchannan many years ago.
Yep, and I can hear my blood pulsing in an isolation booth, doesn't even
require a good anechoic chamber.
Of course it's the blood flow in your head you hear, not your "heartbeat".
MrT.
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
"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
"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
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
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?
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?
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
>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!
>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!
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
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.
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.
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
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!
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!
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
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 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.
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:46:14 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast,net >
wrote:
>On 4/11/08 3:15 PM, in article lh45d5-tt5.ln1@radagast.org, "Dave Platt"
><dplatt@radagast.org> wrote:
>> 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 certainly quantized, a somewhat different critter, but
then the whole universe is if examined very closely.
For that matter, all electronics is quantized to integer
numbers of electrons. This approaches being interesting
in our world for the BJT hole or electron signal current
injected into the base at a very small signal level.
DC base current may be in nanoAmps, but that number is,
by definition, much much larger than any possible Class-A
input signal. Factor down by 130dB or so for a small signal
level and the integer quantization approaches interesting.
Field effect devices are quantized by integer drain/
plate/anode, etc. currents, larger in relation to signal
by a factor of the current gain of the device, but still
finite and integer.
All good fortune,
Chris Hornbeck
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:46:14 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast,net >
wrote:
>On 4/11/08 3:15 PM, in article lh45d5-tt5.ln1@radagast.org, "Dave Platt"
><dplatt@radagast.org> wrote:
>> 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 certainly quantized, a somewhat different critter, but
then the whole universe is if examined very closely.
For that matter, all electronics is quantized to integer
numbers of electrons. This approaches being interesting
in our world for the BJT hole or electron signal current
injected into the base at a very small signal level.
DC base current may be in nanoAmps, but that number is,
by definition, much much larger than any possible Class-A
input signal. Factor down by 130dB or so for a small signal
level and the integer quantization approaches interesting.
Field effect devices are quantized by integer drain/
plate/anode, etc. currents, larger in relation to signal
by a factor of the current gain of the device, but still
finite and integer.
All good fortune,
Chris Hornbeck
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
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.
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.
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
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.
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.
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
"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.
"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.
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
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.
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.
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
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
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
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
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?
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?
Re: Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?
Michael R. Kesti 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.
Must be very satisfying for the sad fuck who started this thread to see his
profound achievement...
geoff
Michael R. Kesti 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.
Must be very satisfying for the sad fuck who started this thread to see his
profound achievement...
geoff
Next: My favorite analog audio storage = B&W variable-density optical track of old...
Previous: Cross-over tutorials
