Is a purely-analog chip possible without sampling?

[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

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

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?

 

[Don Bowey]

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.

 

[Don Bowey]

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 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.

 

[Don Bowey]

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.

 

[Bob Monsen]

"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:47ff92e7$0$1111$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

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?

Well, my point was that you can think of everything as digital or analog.
Certainly digitized sound seems analog when played. One doesn't hear the
individual samples.

However, assume that you could record some data in a truly analog way. That
would mean that at every point, your recording medium contains exactly the
same information as was present at every instant. Now, consider the
following question. How much information is contained in a particular region
of the media? Suppose you could somehow speed up somebody reading the
library of congress out loud to an incredibly fast rate, so that the time
required to play it would fit within your tape. Could you record that
information, and reliably get it back from that interval of media?

Of course, the answer is no. It is not possible to do that, because the
speeding up would require very high frequencies. In terms of information
theory, those frequencies would require a sampling rate that is twice the
rate of the highest frequency, so the information density would be very
great. For the theoretically perfect analog recording, that information
density is infinite.

What this all implies is that any piece of physical media is going to have a
limited information density, and as a consequence, will not be able to store
ANY analog interval precisely. You always lose something. You can represent
this limit as a sampling rate, or as the rate of iron oxide dots flowing
past on a tape, or as the maximum number of flip-flops you can squeeze onto
a bit of silicon, or as the maximum number of capacitors you can put on an
intersil chip times the ability of the output device to discriminate
different levels of output...

So, sadly, you can't get away from the monster of information theory.

Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Don Bowey]

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.

 

[Michael R. Kesti]

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]

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?

 

[Michael R. Kesti]

geoff wrote:

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...

I cannot speak for the OP's level of satisfaction. Perhaps you can
explain why it is that you feel the OP is responsible for Don Bowey's
name calling.

--
========================================================================
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]

On 4/14/08 1:55 AM, in article
48031bce$0$6277$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C426BB21.B521A%dbowey@comcast.net...
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.


It's obvious you are an argumentative idiot who would like to count angels
on the head of a pin.

Is that your pathetic way of admitting you are wrong then?

No. It's my pathetic way of saying it's utterly ridiculous to discuss the
original question of a 1940s technolgy in terms of quantum mechanics even if
I were to think you were up to it.

Go back to rec.audio.monstercables and pick on someone of your own
inclinations.

(in my opinion there will also be a finite number of angels on the head of a
pin, if any

MrT.

 

[Don Bowey]

On 4/14/08 6:53 AM, in article 480361D7.8164F9F8@nospam.net, "Michael R.
Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:

geoff wrote:

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...

I cannot speak for the OP's level of satisfaction. Perhaps you can
explain why it is that you feel the OP is responsible for Don Bowey's
name calling.

I'm sure he didn't say that; it is, again, you attempting to put a twist to
the thread so you can put your sizable ego and sophomoric psychology to
work.

I wonder why you used vulgar language to describe the OP, Green, who did
nothing wrong except post where you might see it and ply your hobby. You
lose.

 

[Michael R. Kesti]

Don Bowey wrote:

On 4/14/08 6:53 AM, in article 480361D7.8164F...@nospam.net, "Michael R.
Kesti" <michaelke...@nospam.net> wrote:
geoff wrote:

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...

I cannot speak for the OP's level of satisfaction. Perhaps you can
explain why it is that you feel the OP is responsible for Don Bowey's
name calling.

I'm sure he didn't say that;

I agree that geoff didn't say that explicitly, but he did seem to understand
that the reason I said you lost the debate was your name calling but he was
more definate concerning the OP finding that name calling satisfying. Get it?

it is, again, you attempting to put a twist to
the thread

The only twist to this thread that I have attempted is in pointing out how
very childish it is bash those who you feel are trolls.

so you can put your sizable ego

I gave up reacting to ad hominem attacks a very long time ago.

and sophomoric psychology to
work.

Honestly, sophomoric is plenty sufficient int this case!

I wonder why you used vulgar language to describe the OP, Green,

Oh? I'm wondering WHEN I used vulgar language to describe the OP!

who did
nothing wrong except post where you might see it and ply your hobby. You
lose.

I don't feel that I have lost but you go on thinking that if it makes you
feel better about yourself.


--
========================================================================
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 Fields]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:00:26 +1200, "geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz>
wrote:

wrote:
Hi:

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

---
Well... no.
---

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

---
What makes you think that an audio cassette doesn't do sampling?

During recording there's the finite width of the gap in the record
head under which the tape travels and then there's the granularity of
the magnetic particles in the tape which get magnetized as they travel
across the gap, so the sample time is how long it takes for any
particle to traverse the gap and the amplitude of the magnetic field
is what's left as they exit the gap.

JF

 

[Joerg]

John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:00:26 +1200, "geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz
wrote:

Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:
Hi:

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

---
Well... no.
---

Some large Polynesian mussel shells supposedly do that. When you hold
them to your ear you hear the sounds of the sea.

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

---
What makes you think that an audio cassette doesn't do sampling?

During recording there's the finite width of the gap in the record
head under which the tape travels and then there's the granularity of
the magnetic particles in the tape which get magnetized as they travel
across the gap, so the sample time is how long it takes for any
particle to traverse the gap and the amplitude of the magnetic field
is what's left as they exit the gap.

As a SW manager once put it that way: "All you analog dudes think the
real world is analog but since Max Planck it ain't so no more".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:21:15 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message

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. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich