Talk:Analog signal/Archive 1

Page move: Analog signal
To conform with digital signal and discrete signal (not digital (signal) and discrete (signal)). The fundamental difference between "analog signal" and "analog (signal)" is that the latter is a disambiguation of "analog" but "analog signal" is a perfectly acceptable usage.

Support

 * 1) Cburnett 16:29, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) James F. (talk) 20:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-06-17 04:47 Z 
 * 4) taestell 01:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) I've been doing link disambiguation for Analog, and the two topics are virtually identical. Nihiltres 22:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Please put discussion here instead of in the voting section.

"Analog (signal)" swapped with "Analog signal" (preserve history of "Analog signal") after uncontested support of 4 to 0. Cburnett 05:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

False assertion?
Currently, the text claims that a digital may be distiguished from an analog signal by the meaningfulness of small fluctuations in the signal amplitude the latter and meaninglessness of them in the former. That doesn't sound right: I'm not aware of a natural law that says one can't make use of small differences in the signal amplitude in encoding and decoding digital data. Can anyone defend the current text's claim? Terry Oldberg 18:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think what's being referred to here is an effect called quantization, which limits the minimum possible capturable per cent difference between two volumes in a digital recording to the inverse of the number of bits in its sample resolution times 100. In a 16-bit audio recording, for instance, the minimum recordable difference in volume will be a 100/16, or 6.25, per cent difference in volume. The greater the sample resolution, the smaller the difference in volume can be recorded in a digital capture. This is an inherent physical limitation of digital recording, whereas in analog recording, which is produced by a continuous rather than a discrete process, this doesn't happen (although you get noise related to the medium &mdash; for example, line hum or tape hiss &mdash; creeping in).

A similar effect known as aliasing happens in the sampling rate: digital audio files cannot record a frequency higher than the Nyquist frequency, defined as half the sampling rate of the recording: e.g., a digital recording with a sampling rate of 44 KHz cannot record a frequency greater than 22 KHz.

Having said all this, the article's description is vague, almost to the point of inaccuracy. It should say that analog recording is a continuous wave function resulting from the impression of a fluctuation in the voltage of a current, caused by sound pressure, on a medium, whereas digital recording is a discrete (i.e. stepwise) series of snapshots of amplitude, with a maximum sampling frequency and sample resolution, and that these characteristics impose predictable limits on the maximum frequency and minimum difference in volume a digital recording can capture. HarmonicSphere 03:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts
I don't have citations for these ideas, and I don't quite know how to work them into the relevant articles, but I'd like to throw them out there:

1) "Analog" and "Digital" describe two different kinds of computing machinery. The word, "analog" did not come into common use until after digital computers were invented.

2) "Signal Processing" machinery is computing machinery. A physical signal is a measurable quantity that contains information about some other quantity of interest, and signal processing machinery is machinery that transforms a signal in some useful way that typically can be described by a mathematical law.

3) "Analog" originally was a noun. An analog used to be a thing that somehow represented or stood for some other thing.  When the "information" contained in a signal was simply the value of some other measured quantity, then it was acceptable to say, "the signal is an analog of the original quantity."

4) The word "electronic" describes electric circuits that process signals.

5) A "logical signal" can be imposed on a "physical signal" by means of modulation. In fact, there can be multiple levels of modulation.  (e.g., subcarriers on a FM broadcast radio station.)

6) All "physical signals" are analog signals. All "digital signals" are logical signals.

7) "Noise" is the difference between the signal that you receive, and the signal that you wished to receive.

8) One reason for modulation is to provide immunity from noise. Digital signalling is often used for this purpose, but all-analog solutions can also provide significant noise immunity (e.g., FM broadcasting vs. AM broadcasting.)

Drondent 01:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect definition?
Although I haven't found any other (clear) definition of an analogue signal, I think the very first line of this article is not correct. Unless I'm very much mistaken, a signal is analogue as long as it is continuous in amplitude, and is not related to continuity in time. For instance, a Compact Cassette is considered an analogue medium. However, a compact cassette has a finite number of magnets, and is thus not continuous in time. Cassandra B 18:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

But we pretend that it is continuous. Any difference between the signal we expected to read off the tape and the signal that we actually read off of the tape is called "noise." If we want to analyze the noise, then it may be useful to know that part of it is due to the granularity of the medium. Drondent 00:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The introductory definition was very poor. It completely missed what an analogue signal really is.  It suggested that any time continuous signal of constant amplitude is an analogue signal.  But it isn't.  To be analogue it has to be an analogue of some other quantity.  I still don't think the definition is perfect (in that it isn't quite vague enough). I B Wright 10:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Unrefenced Material
Some kind Administrator has added an Unreferenced tag to the article. The subject matter of the article is such that any reasonably competant engineer could write such an article without reference to any other material. In practice such an article is likely to peer reviewed and edited by (hopefully) equally competant engineers, and as such, the article really doesn't require much in the way of references or citations. I B Wright 10:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Infinite Resolution Myth
This article makes the false assertion that an analog signal has theoretically infinite resolution, then contrasts this with limitations of digital systems:

Since an analogue signal has a theoretically infinite resolution, it will always have a higher resolution than any digital system where the resolution is in discrete steps.

First, the wording is imprecise. I think what is meant is "[...] it will always have a higher resolution than can be represented by a digital system [...]"

More importantly, the statement itself is a persistent myth that is the opposite to truth. Any analog signal will theoretically always have noise, and any analog transducer will have a finite response to changes in the signal. This places limitations on the resolution and bandwidth of analog systems. This is a consequence of the laws of physics and not just the imperfection of real-world implementation. Since any analog system will have a finite resolution and bandwidth, a digital system with a finite bit width and sampling rate can be built with the same fidelity as any analog system. There is therefore no point in specifically pointing out the limitations of digital systems.

63.81.178.62 (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Good work. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Face clocks are not digital
Just because a clock uses a digital signal at some point doesn't make it a "digital clock." All this does is confuse elementary school kids. What designates a clock as "digital" is changing digits, not a digital signal. See the English dictionary. This is in contrast to the dictionary definition of analog clock. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * From the opening paragraph of the article: To be an analog device, 3 criteria have to be met.
 * 1. The time varying signal has to be continuous.
 * Correct. I B Wright (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. It has to represent some other time varying quantity.
 * Correct. I B Wright (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. That other time varying quantity also has to be continuous.
 * Not Correct. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. I B Wright (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Most types of clock fail on the first criterion in that they do not move in a continuous movement but move in discrete steps. This makes the movement digital.
 * Technically correct. Though there are plenty of examples of true analog clocks.  Examples: the water clock; the candle clock etc. However all clocks that depend on some type of escapement or electronic frequency source are not technically analog. I B Wright (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A note was added that for almost all practical purposes such clock can be considered analogue even though they are not in reality. The term 'analog' is commonly used to describe the presentation of the time in that thge clock has hands, but the use is technically inorrect. 86.133.11.175 (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is probably fair to say that the term 'analog' in the clock context is used to describe the type of display rather than the modus operandi (which is resolutely digital) in order to distinguish it from the type of display that most people would recognise as being 'digital'. As has been noted: this is for all practical purposes, true and a dictionary of language would pick up on the common usage.  But this article is a technical article not an article on language and word usage.
 * Personally, I don't believe the concept of the analog display is out of place, but as a technical encyclopeadic article, the technical innacuracy must be pointed out.
 * As a footnote: the term 'digital' does not necessarily mean that the output consists of displayed digits, though can include it. Many years ago a constructional project appeared in an electronic magazine that presented the opposite connundrum.  It was a clock with a digital display but the modus operandi was in fact analog.  I B Wright (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is also an article about signals, not equipment nomenclature. It's inappropriate for this article to define the entire piece of equipment as "digital" just because it contains digital signals. Almost every piece of modern electronic equipment contains digital signals, but we don't call them digital, especially without sources. See WP:DICT Oicumayberight (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't introduce the subject into the article. Perhaps you should read WP:DICT. It make prescisely the point that this isn't a discussion on language useage.  And, yes, a piece of equipment that solely uses digital signals is described as digital device regardless of any display presentation, just as a device that uses purely analog signals is described as an analog device.  Any device using both is a hybrid device.  Most mechanical clocks contains no analog signal whatsoever whether you like it or not.  86.133.11.175 (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about whether or not I like it. It's about whether or not it's sourced. Where's your sources for these claims? Oicumayberight (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From the Sci-Tech Dictionary: A continuous electrical signal that varies in amplitude or frequency in response to changes in sound, light, heat, position, or pressure. Actually not quite as good a definition as at the top of the article in question but as it is in the electrical section, I can forgive it.  Note the use of the word "continuous". 86.133.11.175 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's defining types of signals, not equipment nomenclature or types of display. Every piece of equipment has multiple an various signal types. That's why it's erroneous to oversimplify them as either analog or digital based on signal types. The only signal that matters as far as a clock is concerned is the signal that designates the type of display signal. A digital display has changing digits. Analog displays do not. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe you are replacing sourced material with unsourced material. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Virtually any reference work on the subject of analog signals makes the point that they must be continuously varying. Why do you have so much dificulty grasping the fundamental principle that something that moves in discrete steps does not meet this criterion?  Your references were not sources as they referenced the language usage of the term 'analog' in connection with the subject and did not address any technical issue whatsoever. 86.133.11.175 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * At least I had references. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant references (for the issue in point). 86.133.11.175 (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very relevant, especially when you are using a article to define equipment nomenclature. It's in violation of WP:DICT. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you read what has been written in the light of the comments on both this and your own talk page. You just want to describe a handed clock face as analog (a language derived use of the term not a technical one - in violation of the very policy you cite to try and bolster your failed argument).  As has been pointed out, this is a technical article not an article on language use and to describe a mechanical clock as analog without any qualification that it really isn't would be to provide a misleading article.  The article describes the technical aspect, but notes the language usage as it would be incomplete without it, bearing in mind, that I don't believe that you are by any means alone in misunderstanding the usage. 86.133.11.175 (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's technical without sources. It's basically defining what it means to be analog or digital in a unique way, in violation of WP:DICT and then using itself as a reference for designating equipment as analog or digital. It's circular. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's that you have decided that a mechanical clock is an analog device when it fails to meet the criterion - but you won't admit you are wrong. A canter around your posting history reveals a pattern here. 86.133.11.175 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The criterion is circular. You say that it's about the signal, but then you define the whole equipment as digital. There is no reference for that. It's contrary to what is stated in the dictionary. And if you want to get technical, nothing is purely digital as far as "raw data" is concerned. Even digital signals contain microscopic transitions, voltage fluctuation, and noise. So it's not how something moves that makes it analog or digital. It's how the information is read. It's the difference between raw data and information. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading the above and looking at the editing history, it seems to me that the whole issue turns on whether Oicumayberight accepts the concept of the analogue signal requirement of being continuous or not. Since I am an engineer in the Aerospace industry, I though I would draw an analogy from that industry, that illustrated the point. I was surprised to find that the analogy was turned on its head as will be revealed. Every reference book I checked made the point that the analog signal had to be continuous (It was even in my Uni notes). But to the analogy.

The Harrier aircraft uses mechanical wire linkages from the joystick to the control surfaces (elevator, ailerons & rudder). This is, of course unarguably an analogue signalling system. The wire linkage forms a continuous signal, and the control surfaces move in smooth continuous steps.

The Typhoon aircraft, in contrast, uses a digital system. The position of the pilot's joystick is digitised into a number which gets mashed around a bit by a computer. The resultant digital signal is then fed to the control surface via what is essentially a stepper hydraulic system. Both the signals and the movement of the control surfaces are described in all the manuals as digital, in spite of the bit size of the numbers being large enough that the movement may appear to be smooth to the pilot.

The surprise was that in the preamble notes (the part of the manual given to new starters as part of their training), the operation of the digital control contained an explanetary analogy where the system was likened to "... a clock with analogue hands where the movement of the hands is in fact discontinuous and hence, not really analogue at all."

In the subject context, the movement of the hands on a clock that has discontinuous movement (i.e. the majority of clocks) is not analogue and Oicumayberight is wrong to continue to insist that it is. I B Wright (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If I'm wrong than the well accepted dictionary definitions are wrong. But that's beside the point. Aircraft are not display devices, they are transportation vehicles. And you don't call them "digital aircraft". Their movement through the air is continuous. Movement through the air is the main function of aircraft regardless of what other technologies they utilize to achieve that goal. Likewise, a clocks main function is to display information. That display is either a "digital display" or and "analog display." The only digital displays are displays in which numerical digits change. . If not, it's called an analog display regardless of what type of signals are used. You both aren't just arguing against me. You both are arguing against common definitions, including IEEE definitions. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okies, so, this was reported at 3RR. I won't block anyone, but I'll warn you two who are arguing for; please don't change the accepted definition unless you have reputable sources who agree with yours. Otherwise, your content is original research. Again, please do not re-insert it again or I'll have to temporarily protect the page. Thank you, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  00:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Compromise?
I have sources for edits that are not circular. They are clear and concise definitions of what digital an analog mean as they pertain to clocks. But this doesn't even need to be in the article. The only source offered to support the claim that analog clocks are actually digital were circular references to www.wikianswers.com which cites this article as a source for defining analog and digital, and doesn't even mention clocks. I'm suggesting a compromise of removing the mention of clocks from this article altogether so that wikipedia is not adding to the confusion. Clocks are not the best examples to contrast the difference between analog and digital signals simply because of the widely accepted and well sourced alternate definitions of analog and digital as they pertain to clocks. Even IEEE agrees with those definitions. But they don't need to be in this article because they are about types of displays, not types of signals. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to have beaten me to it, in that I had mulled this over for a day or so and come to the conclusion that the whole issue is well outside the scope of the article which is about analogue signals and not clocks. The contributor who originally included the clock face, did so, I believe in good faith.  I have modified the article to retain, what I believe to be the intent, but to use a different example to remove the contention. I B Wright (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This issue is beyond clocks
I added the section "Display devices" because I realized that any display device (including clocks) are commonly referred to as "analog" or "digital" based on the final output which is visual information being displayed. Most pieces of electronic equipment deal with multiple signals. Those signals may vary from analog to digital within the same piece of equipment. It's a mistake to call the equipment analog or digital based on any one of those signals if the signal is merely another stage in the signal processing and not the final output. An analog television set may converts signals from analog to digital and then back to analog. I used electronic test equipment as an example in this section because it's all about displaying signals with minimal conversion or modulation.

I went back on my suggestion to compromise by not mentioning clocks and used them as an example in this section just to show a wider variety of examples than electronic test equipment and because clocks are a more common example. If someone feels strongly that the clock examples hurt more than they help understanding, feel free to remove them. However, I think it would be a mistake not to show at least one example of display equipment in which a signal is converted from digital to analog or analog to digital. Anyone familiar with electronic signal processing should also be familiar with electronic test equipment. The important thing to know is that signal types aren't necessary the same thing as display types. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not only beyond clocks, it's beyond analog signal. Ihis is an article about analog signals.  It is not an article about display systems analoge, digital or any other variety.  In any event your 'new' information was as erroneous as the original.


 * Measuring or displaying an analog quantity on a digital instrument or display does not make that instrument or display, analog no matter how much you may care to believe that it does. You keep churning out a citation that although comes from an apparently reputable source is, nevertheless, clearly using the generally held usage of that term.  Once you digitise an analog quantity, it is digital in nature, even if you convert it back to what appears to be an analog signal, it retians its digitised characteristics, no matter how much you try to hide it.


 * The material has already been declared controversial and yet you continue to insist on reintroducing it and enhancing it with even more erroneous material to try and justify your obviously incorrectly held views. If you had any kind of technical background (which you obviously don't) you would understand the fundamental concepts which have been explained to you several times. 86.143.182.140 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your removal of the section is acceptable. In a roundabout way, your point that display terminology is not relevant to signals was my original goal in editing this article. So I will forgive your seemingly hostile tone and unfounded incorrect assumptions about my background. To the contrary, it was my technical background combined with my career change to a communication background that made me see both the technical and communication problem being inserted into this article with the mention of clocks. Hopefully, because of this record of this (now resolved) dispute, no other users will attempt to bring back "analog" and "digital" display equipment nomenclature into this article, because it is about all signals within the equipment, and not just the final output. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case we will consider the matter resolved. 86.140.81.183 (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)