Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?

[Green Xenon [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

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

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?

 

[Eeyore]

"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:

Hi:

Is it possible to have a purely-analog chip that stores audio without
using any form of sampling?

NO

 

[Michael R. Kesti]

"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:

Is it possible to have a purely-analog chip that stores audio without
using any form of sampling?

I generally avoid saying things are impossible but it seems nobody has
devices a a way to do what you here propose.

If an audio cassette does not require sampling then why would an analog
audio chip?

Cassettes don't require sampling because audio's electrical wave forms
are converted to magnetism imprinted on iron oxide. In the case of the
phonograph record electrical wave forms are converted to mechanical
variations of a spiral groove. In both cases, the signal is converted
to media that are capable of persistent storage and time is represented
as a length or distance along the media.

In the case of a silicon die (a chip) there is no mechanism for persistent
storage of voltage nor is there much in the way of distance along which
to store the voltage if there were such a mechanism.

The answer, it seems, is that physics just doesn't provide a mechanism
that can be used to provide direct storage of analog audio on solid state
media.

--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

Michael R. Kesti wrote:

" wrote:

Is it possible to have a purely-analog chip that stores audio without
using any form of sampling?

I generally avoid saying things are impossible but it seems nobody has
devices a a way to do what you here propose.

If an audio cassette does not require sampling then why would an analog
audio chip?

Cassettes don't require sampling because audio's electrical wave forms
are converted to magnetism imprinted on iron oxide. In the case of the
phonograph record electrical wave forms are converted to mechanical
variations of a spiral groove. In both cases, the signal is converted
to media that are capable of persistent storage and time is represented
as a length or distance along the media.

In the case of a silicon die (a chip) there is no mechanism for persistent
storage of voltage nor is there much in the way of distance along which
to store the voltage if there were such a mechanism.

The answer, it seems, is that physics just doesn't provide a mechanism
that can be used to provide direct storage of analog audio on solid state
media.

Can analog audio chips [that obviously *do* use sampling] store the
information in parallel?

This is parallel analog RAM and is the opposite of serial RAM shown below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory#Serial_flash

Is this parallel storage of analog RAM possible or do analog signals
always have to be serial? Cassettes and phonos are serial.

 

[Stephen J. Rush]

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.

 

[Eeyore]

Bob Masta wrote:

" <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?

Actually, that audio cassette *does* use sampling. One sample
interval is the width of a magnetic domain on the tape, at the rate it
passes by the head gap.

Ah, you beat me to it.

Graham

 

[Michael R. Kesti]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:47FB0977.E74491DF@nospam.net...
"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:

Is it possible to have a purely-analog chip that stores audio without
using any form of sampling?

I generally avoid saying things are impossible but it seems nobody has
devices a a way to do what you here propose.

If an audio cassette does not require sampling then why would an analog
audio chip?


In the case of a silicon die (a chip) there is no mechanism for persistent
storage of voltage nor is there much in the way of distance along which
to store the voltage if there were such a mechanism.

Ah but he never used the word "persistant", nor mention size contraints.

You're absolutely correct. I was, however, willing to read those into the
intended question. Do you think I was incorrect.

A "chip" can mean anything, including potato ones

That's cute, but I doubt that potato chips were intended to be included
as part of the question.

Analog delay lines do exist.

Yes, they do. Do you believe that they embody the storage that was intended
in the question?

The answer, it seems, is that physics just doesn't provide a mechanism
that can be used to provide direct storage of analog audio on solid state
media.

Nor did Radium use the words "solid state media"

You are, again, absolutely correct. It seems that the OP's questions
were not asked as precisely as you would like. Perhaps you would do
well to ignore such questions rather than exposing your inability to
understand their rather obvious intended meaning.

You did take his bait though :-(

Oh. Dear. I seem to have made the mistake of attempting to seriously
answer a question posed by an individual that I failed to recognize as
being the object of others disdain. Tsk. I hope I haven't completely
ruined the fun. Without knowing the history of those involved and seeing
only the articles in this thread, though, it appears to be easy to reach
conclusions that differ from some concerning who best resemble the last
centimeter of your digestive tract. :-|

--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:15:15 -0700, "Green Xenon [Radium]"
<glucegen1@excite.com> 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

There used to be charge-transfer "bucket brigade" analog delay chips,
but they still sampled the audio, although they didn't quantize it.
The stored charge packets degraded, so they couldn't store for long.

Multievel flash can store analog data for a long time, without
digitizing or quantizing, but it still has to store sequential
samples. I think some cheap voice recorders may use this.

John

 

[Pj]

On Apr 8, 12:15 am, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@excite.com>
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

Hey Radium,

Try the BRAIN. Works good there.

Take a couple "chip" out of your memory.

Pj

 

[google@woodall.me.uk]

On Apr 8, 6:54 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

" wrote:
Hi:

Is it possible to have a purely-analog chip that stores audio without
using any form of sampling?

NO

Depends for how long.

Wikipedia gives speed of sound in silicon (thin rod) as 8433 m/s.

So you ought to be able to store a few microseconds of sound in a
resonably sized crystal for a very short period - sort of dynamic RAM
for sound

(The noise added when you try and "refresh" will drown out any signal
in a very short space of time although I've got no idea how many
"refreshes" might be possible before the noise drowns out the signal)

Tim.

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

Can analog audio chips [that obviously *do* use sampling] store the
information in parallel?

This analog storage would be parallel RAM and thus the opposite of
serial RAM shown below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory#Serial_flash

Is this parallel storage of analog RAM possible or do analog signals
always have to be serial? Cassettes and phonos are serial.

 

[jakdedert]

Arny Krueger wrote:
<snip>
if memory serves.

Was that a pun?

jak

 

[Michael R. Kesti]

"Mr.T" wrote:

<snip>

I'm sorry, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I was being
serious, or even more deluded into thinking Radium is!
Hopefully you will know better next time

You seem willing to put considerable effort into dissing this person.
Have you considered what this says about you?

--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

 

[Michael R. Kesti]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:47FC5425.19E8E917@nospam.net...
"Mr.T" wrote:

snip

I'm sorry, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I was being
serious, or even more deluded into thinking Radium is!
Hopefully you will know better next time

You seem willing to put considerable effort into dissing this person.
Have you considered what this says about you?

Hey, I'm not dissing him, read what I wrote in the original context. Not to
mention you seem to have missed the smiley altogether.

I saw your smiley. It might not be quite the get-out-of-jail-free card
you seem to feel it is.

Have a look at other peoples use of language if you want to see real venom
on Usenet.

Do you actually intend to say that you should be excused because others
are worse?

--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

 

[Wingle]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:53:58 -0700, in sci.electronics.basics,
"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> bloviated:

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:47FC5425.19E8E917@nospam.net...
"Mr.T" wrote:

snip

I'm sorry, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I was being
serious, or even more deluded into thinking Radium is!
Hopefully you will know better next time

You seem willing to put considerable effort into dissing this person.
Have you considered what this says about you?

Hey, I'm not dissing him, read what I wrote in the original context. Not to
mention you seem to have missed the smiley altogether.

I saw your smiley. It might not be quite the get-out-of-jail-free card
you seem to feel it is.

Have a look at other peoples use of language if you want to see real venom
on Usenet.

Do you actually intend to say that you should be excused because others
are worse?

Why not, that is almost the complete justification for a lot of
current US policy.

 

[Michael R. Kesti]

Wingle wrote:

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:53:58 -0700, in sci.electronics.basics,
"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> bloviated:

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:47FC5425.19E8E917@nospam.net...
"Mr.T" wrote:

snip

I'm sorry, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I was being
serious, or even more deluded into thinking Radium is!
Hopefully you will know better next time

You seem willing to put considerable effort into dissing this person.
Have you considered what this says about you?

Hey, I'm not dissing him, read what I wrote in the original context. Not to
mention you seem to have missed the smiley altogether.

I saw your smiley. It might not be quite the get-out-of-jail-free card
you seem to feel it is.

Have a look at other peoples use of language if you want to see real venom
on Usenet.

Do you actually intend to say that you should be excused because others
are worse?

Why not, that is almost the complete justification for a lot of
current US policy.

http://tinyurl.com/6j62xv

or

http://www.theunion.com/article/20080223/OPINION_LETTERS/847720679&SearchID=73314125888496

--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:27:09 -0700, isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:

In article <m2vmv3h3bfoe7ergavefi2qtjua7j481su@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:15:15 -0700, "Green Xenon [Radium]"
glucegen1@excite.com> 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

There used to be charge-transfer "bucket brigade" analog delay chips,
but they still sampled the audio, although they didn't quantize it.

Unless they could store fractions of electrons, then yes, they did.

Isaac

Oh, don't get technical with me. I hate it when people get technical.

(But, technically, one could easily quantize an audio waveform to less
than e-)

John

 

On Apr 9, 7:15 am, "Michael R. Kesti" <michaelke...@nospam.net> wrote:

Wingle wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:53:58 -0700, in sci.electronics.basics,
"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelke...@nospam.net> bloviated:

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:47FC5425.19E8E917@nospam.net...
"Mr.T" wrote:

snip

I'm sorry, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I was being
serious, or even more deluded into thinking Radium is!
Hopefully you will know better next time

You seem willing to put considerable effort into dissing this person.
Have you considered what this says about you?

Hey, I'm not dissing him, read what I wrote in the original context. Not to
mention you seem to have missed the smiley altogether.

I saw your smiley. It might not be quite the get-out-of-jail-free card
you seem to feel it is.

Have a look at other peoples use of language if you want to see real venom
on Usenet.

Do you actually intend to say that you should be excused because others
are worse?

Why not, that is almost the complete justification for a lot of
current US policy.

http://tinyurl.com/6j62xv

or

http://www.theunion.com/article/20080223/OPINION_LETTERS/847720679&Se...

--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

She could have been using her dad's car, which had that sticker on it.

Cigarette in one hand, cell phone in the other? How did she manage to
steer?

Michael

 

[Michael R. Kesti]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

In rec.audio.tech Michael R. Kesti <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:
"Mr.T" wrote:

snip

I'm sorry, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I was being
serious, or even more deluded into thinking Radium is!
Hopefully you will know better next time

You seem willing to put considerable effort into dissing this person.
Have you considered what this says about you?

Maybe if you were more familiar with 'this person's posting history, you'd
know why.

Oh, please. I've participated in Usenet for almost 25 years and I assure
you that I recognize what is going on here.

That history would show you that Mr. Radium is either ill or a troll.

If he is ill then he deserves better treatment. If he is a troll then
he deserves to be ignored. The fact is that the likes of you and Mr. T
enjoy feeding trolls.

Occasionally interesting discussion arises during the course of
correcting his silly preconceptions, but that's not enough reason to
encourage him.

He is encouraged either way.

--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain