High Definition Radios

"daytripper" > wrote
> Hey, you want to mischaracterize what I said (digital transmission of the
> same
> source data occupies narrower bandwidth) with all your misconceptions on
> the
> topic, fine, knock yourself out.

You said: "Give it more than a moment of thought: digital transmission
invariably
consumes narrower bandwidth than analog, given the same information."

That's not what you're claiming now. And, it is true only if you make
assumptions
about the requirements when rendered for human senses. If you want PRECISE
transmission of analog data, you cannot (in general) depend upon digital
conversions.

FloydR

"Floyd Rogers" > wrote
> "daytripper" > wrote
>> Hey, you want to mischaracterize what I said (digital transmission of the
>> same
>> source data occupies narrower bandwidth) with all your misconceptions on
>> the
>> topic, fine, knock yourself out.
>
> You said: "Give it more than a moment of thought: digital transmission
> invariably
> consumes narrower bandwidth than analog, given the same information."
>
> That's not what you're claiming now. And, it is true only if you make
> assumptions
> about the requirements when rendered for human senses. If you want
> PRECISE
> transmission of analog data, you cannot (in general) depend upon digital
> conversions.

Actually, it's quite amusing to read the whole conversation and see where
both of our posts - all of which are fairly imprecise and subject to
miss-interpretation
by the other side - demonstrate the problem of conversation-at-a-distance.
Which, of course, is analogous to the (necessarily) imprecise
re-construction
of an analog signal after A-D and D-A conversions.

We're both right, but on different points.

FloydR

In article >,
Floyd Rogers > wrote:
> > Oh dear. You seem to think that analogue recording is seamless.
> > Magnetic tape has a series of tiny magnets which have to be aligned to
> > do their job. Vinyl records are made out of particles too. So really
> > rather similar to the sampling rate of digital.

> Not even remotely the same thing, Dave. There is no DAC in a phono
> cartridge or pre-amp input circuit, nor in the analog tape recorder in
> my closet.

No, but in the case of magnetic tape there's no acoustic way of playing it
so some form of conversion is involved.

> Although the *result* is very close, the abstraction of
> digitally-encoded data is a very different animal than analog encoding.

Of course it is, and according to the parameters you choose can give any
results you wish.

--
*He's not dead - he's electroencephalographically challenged

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article >,
says...
> If your statement is true, how do you explain the fact that the digital
> signals
> you claim carry more data than analog signals do, are themselves carried
> on analog signals?
>


It's due to the fact that we've
learned
quite a lot about compression technology, have radio receivers/amps
with far lower noise than tube technology, can use the time dimension
now that we have cheap volatile memory, and other various and sundry
items.



--
Alan LeHun

In article >,
Floyd Rogers > wrote:
> If you want PRECISE
> transmission of analog data, you cannot (in general) depend upon digital
> conversions.

And if you want a precise *recording* of analogue data, only digital can
do this.

--
*Eschew obfuscation *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 09:15:24 -0700, "Floyd Rogers"
> wrote:

>Oh, no. *YOU* are the one with incomplete knowledge of digital and analog
>coding techniques. Do you even know that digital music encoding *NEVER*
>precisely reproduces the original analog music source? Do you know what
>an integral is and how it works? Obviously not.

How ironic. You're showing your ignorance.