Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #450905 > unrolled thread

why analog electronics

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-08 17:11 -0800
    Re: why analog electronics Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-09 10:35 +0200
      Re: why analog electronics Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-03-09 07:00 -0700
      Re: why analog electronics bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-09 09:30 -0500
      Re: why analog electronics gregz <zekor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-10 08:23 +0000
    Re: why analog electronics bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-09 09:25 -0500
    Re: why analog electronics Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-03-09 18:29 +0000
    Re: why analog electronics doh@yipee.com - 2017-03-09 13:42 -0800
      Re: why analog electronics Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-09 22:29 +0000
        Re: why analog electronics pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-09 14:59 -0800
          Re: why analog electronics Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-10 08:27 +0000
            Re: why analog electronics Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2017-03-10 15:07 +0100
          Re: why analog electronics bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-10 12:17 -0500
            Re: why analog electronics bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-10 12:18 -0500
        Re: why analog electronics Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2017-03-10 13:30 +0100
        Re: why analog electronics bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-13 04:06 -0700
      Re: why analog electronics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-10 12:50 +1100
        Re: why analog electronics "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-09 20:07 -0600
        Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-09 19:28 -0800
          Re: why analog electronics "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-10 19:05 -0600
        Re: why analog electronics Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-03-10 04:49 -0800
          Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-10 08:08 -0800
            Re: why analog electronics Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-03-12 02:30 +0000
              Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-13 10:18 -0700
                Re: why analog electronics Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-03-13 22:56 +0000
        Re: why analog electronics Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2017-03-11 00:02 +0100
    Re: why analog electronics jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-03-09 20:50 -0800
      Re: why analog electronics boB@everett.wa - 2017-03-09 22:33 -0800
        Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-10 13:16 -0500
          Re: why analog electronics boB <boB@theresnoplacelikehome.com> - 2017-03-10 12:24 -0800
            Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-10 20:04 -0500
              Re: why analog electronics boB K7IQ <boB@everett.wa> - 2017-03-10 19:41 -0800
    Re: why analog electronics djlocher56@gmail.com - 2017-03-09 22:27 -0800
      Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-10 13:17 -0500
        Re: why analog electronics bulegoge@columbus.rr.com - 2017-03-10 10:51 -0800
          Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-10 20:06 -0500
          Re: why analog electronics "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-10 19:09 -0600
            Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-10 22:15 -0500
      Re: why analog electronics tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-10 14:12 -0800
        Re: why analog electronics Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-03-10 15:30 -0700
          Re: why analog electronics tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-10 15:04 -0800
    Re: why analog electronics Anthony Stewart <tony.sunnysky@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 09:38 -0800
      Re: why analog electronics boB@everett.wa - 2017-03-10 11:03 -0800
        Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-10 20:09 -0500
          Re: why analog electronics boB K7IQ <boB@everett.wa> - 2017-03-10 19:50 -0800
    Re: why analog electronics Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-10 12:50 -0800
      Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-10 13:18 -0800
        Re: why analog electronics Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-10 13:36 -0800
      Re: why analog electronics George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-10 17:01 -0800
        Re: why analog electronics Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-11 16:04 -0800
    Re: why analog electronics "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-10 19:08 -0600
      Re: why analog electronics George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-10 18:54 -0800
        Re: why analog electronics "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-11 11:45 -0600
          Re: why analog electronics "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-03-17 22:02 -0400
            Re: why analog electronics "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-18 03:55 -0500
      Re: why analog electronics boB K7IQ <boB@everett.wa> - 2017-03-10 19:56 -0800
    Re: why analog electronics Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-03-11 12:42 -0600
      Re: why analog electronics Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-03-11 13:20 -0800
      Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-11 14:51 -0800
        Re: why analog electronics Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-03-12 13:28 +0000
          Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-12 10:49 -0700
            Re: why analog electronics Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-03-12 21:10 +0000
              Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-12 19:29 -0400
              Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-12 16:49 -0700
                Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-12 21:18 -0400
                  Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-12 19:07 -0700
                    Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-12 22:43 -0400
                      Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-12 19:53 -0700
                        Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-12 23:01 -0400
                      Re: why analog electronics pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-13 07:19 -0700
                        Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-13 20:39 -0400
                          Re: why analog electronics pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-14 04:28 -0700
                            Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-14 12:42 -0400
                              Re: why analog electronics Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-15 09:56 -0400
    Re: why analog electronics George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-13 19:59 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#451152

Sylvia Else wrote...
>
>On 10/03/2017 8:42 AM, doh@yipee.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 17:11:04 -0800, John Larkin
>> <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
>>> his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.
>>> He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
>>> does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not
>>> being a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
>>>
>>> So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
>>> maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
>>
>> The universe is analog. Man invented digital.
>>
>
> Neurons either fire or they don't - there's no analog in-between.

 Firing rate and other aspects carry critical
 neural 'analog' information.


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451165

On 10 Mar 2017 04:49:45 -0800, Winfield Hill
<hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

>Sylvia Else wrote...
>>
>>On 10/03/2017 8:42 AM, doh@yipee.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 17:11:04 -0800, John Larkin
>>> <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
>>>> his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.
>>>> He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
>>>> does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not
>>>> being a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
>>>>
>>>> So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
>>>> maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
>>>
>>> The universe is analog. Man invented digital.
>>>
>>
>> Neurons either fire or they don't - there's no analog in-between.
>
> Firing rate and other aspects carry critical
> neural 'analog' information.

I suspect that a neuron firing is like UPS delivering a set of
encyclopedias.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451429

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> On 10 Mar 2017 04:49:45 -0800, Winfield Hill
> <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>>Sylvia Else wrote...
>>>
>>>On 10/03/2017 8:42 AM, doh@yipee.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 17:11:04 -0800, John Larkin
>>>> <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
>>>>> his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.
>>>>> He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
>>>>> does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not
>>>>> being a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
>>>>> maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
>>>>
>>>> The universe is analog. Man invented digital.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Neurons either fire or they don't - there's no analog in-between.
>>
>> Firing rate and other aspects carry critical
>> neural 'analog' information.
>
> I suspect that a neuron firing is like UPS delivering a set of
> encyclopedias.

It's more like flatulence delivering stink. A neuron "fires" when the
permeability properties of the cell change to allow sodium to diffuse
through the cell membrane.

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451636

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 02:30:50 -0000 (UTC), Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net>
wrote:

>
>John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>> On 10 Mar 2017 04:49:45 -0800, Winfield Hill
>> <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>Sylvia Else wrote...
>>>>
>>>>On 10/03/2017 8:42 AM, doh@yipee.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 17:11:04 -0800, John Larkin
>>>>> <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
>>>>>> his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.
>>>>>> He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
>>>>>> does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not
>>>>>> being a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
>>>>>> maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
>>>>>
>>>>> The universe is analog. Man invented digital.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Neurons either fire or they don't - there's no analog in-between.
>>>
>>> Firing rate and other aspects carry critical
>>> neural 'analog' information.
>>
>> I suspect that a neuron firing is like UPS delivering a set of
>> encyclopedias.
>
>It's more like flatulence delivering stink. A neuron "fires" when the
>permeability properties of the cell change to allow sodium to diffuse
>through the cell membrane.


Cool, that explains everything.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451691

John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 02:30:50 -0000 (UTC), Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>> On 10 Mar 2017 04:49:45 -0800, Winfield Hill
>>> <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sylvia Else wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>>On 10/03/2017 8:42 AM, doh@yipee.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 17:11:04 -0800, John Larkin
>>>>>> <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
>>>>>>> his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.
>>>>>>> He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
>>>>>>> does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not
>>>>>>> being a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
>>>>>>> his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.
>>>>>>> He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
>>>>>>> does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not
>>>>>>> being a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
>>>>>>> maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The universe is analog. Man invented digital.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Neurons either fire or they don't - there's no analog in-between.
>>>>
>>>> Firing rate and other aspects carry critical
>>>> neural 'analog' information.
>>>
>>> I suspect that a neuron firing is like UPS delivering a set of
>>> encyclopedias.
>>
>>It's more like flatulence delivering stink. A neuron "fires" when the
>>permeability properties of the cell change to allow sodium to diffuse
>>through the cell membrane.
>
>
> Cool, that explains everything.

That analogy actually stinks. A better analogy is to picture the neuron
as a dry wick from an alcohol burner. Take the wick out and fill the
burner with alcohol. The alcohol represents a reservoir of sodium ions.
Place one end of the wick into the alcohol in the burner. Notice how
the alcohol moves up the dry wick.  It's similar to how sodium diffuses
into a neuron when it fires. It's a sort of peristaltic movement, which
begins at one end and works its way to the opposite end.

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451226

On 10.03.17 2:50, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10/03/2017 8:42 AM, doh@yipee.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 17:11:04 -0800, John Larkin
>> <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
>>> his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.
>>> He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
>>> does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not
>>> being a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
>>>
>>> So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
>>> maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
>>
>> The universe is analog. Man invented digital.
>>
>
> Neurons either fire or they don't - there's no analog in-between.
>
> Sylvia.
>
They fire fast and they fire slowly.
Plenty of analog in the time domain.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451121

Digital pictures have pixels. Digital audio has been chopped up in one way or the other. Analog is actually real. That is the reason audiophiles are buying turntables and old vinyl. Even to my shit ears is sounds better. 

Not that I do not appreciate digital, don't get me wrong. Plus I know that even analog is all cut up. When that music was cut on a lathe to make the master recording for the beloved vinyl, it was cut up by the bias on the tape machine. People say that is not quantized because the level is not, but that does not change the fact that it has been cut into little pieces. 

Actual digitizing has a problem with quiescence. They had to add dither, which is pure noise, to the all digital recordings. Analog recordings converted to digital did not need it because of tape hiss or whatever. The distortion in a digital recording is actually worse at low levels, the opposite of what we were used to. 

But the Brat does have a point, and never having hear the sweet sound of analog, or zoomed in (with a lens) on a picture taken on a real camera might not appreciate that. Digital means you got pixels, and a very similar prospect applies to audio as well. 

But we are going into a world where there will be no more analog, it is practically inevitable. Is this good or bad ? I cannot really answer that. That is apparently progress, which has made me obsolete. The milleniums don't seem to really care, and the rest of us are dying off. It will be their world and they mostly will not enjoy a picture taken on a real camera or a song played on a totally analog stereo, like off a turntable. No class D or any of that shit, and they will not care. 

So what ? They do not care. Most of their car stereos are better than what we had in the old days, and car stereos might become a thing of the past as they wear those earbuds n shit. 

Truth is I enjoy the hell out of getting out my Dual turntable and spinning some vinyl on it, feed my Phase Linear but the fact is that is a total PITA. I would rather just play it off my PC, and I got better copies than they give you on youtube. 

You don't have to handle the vinyl, or load a tape which is vulnerable to magnetic field and whatever else. 

But the sound is great. Most of the young today have never heard a turntable. Those who have have said "Damn that sounds great". I have read that more than once on audio fora. 

One of the things people do not get is that a CD, most of the soundcards in your PCs and whatever are strictly limited to 20 KHz. Vinyl and tape is not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451126

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 20:50:31 -0800 (PST), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

>Digital pictures have pixels. Digital audio has been chopped up in one way or the other. Analog is actually real. That is the reason audiophiles are buying turntables and old vinyl. Even to my shit ears is sounds better. 
>
>Not that I do not appreciate digital, don't get me wrong. Plus I know that even analog is all cut up. When that music was cut on a lathe to make the master recording for the beloved vinyl, it was cut up by the bias on the tape machine. People say that is not quantized because the level is not, but that does not change the fact that it has been cut into little pieces. 
>
>Actual digitizing has a problem with quiescence. They had to add dither, which is pure noise, to the all digital recordings. Analog recordings converted to digital did not need it because of tape hiss or whatever. The distortion in a digital recording is actually worse at low levels, the opposite of what we were used to. 
>
>But the Brat does have a point, and never having hear the sweet sound of analog, or zoomed in (with a lens) on a picture taken on a real camera might not appreciate that. Digital means you got pixels, and a very similar prospect applies to audio as well. 
>
>But we are going into a world where there will be no more analog, it is practically inevitable. Is this good or bad ? I cannot really answer that. That is apparently progress, which has made me obsolete. The milleniums don't seem to really care, and the rest of us are dying off. It will be their world and they mostly will not enjoy a picture taken on a real camera or a song played on a totally analog stereo, like off a turntable. No class D or any of that shit, and they will not care. 
>
>So what ? They do not care. Most of their car stereos are better than what we had in the old days, and car stereos might become a thing of the past as they wear those earbuds n shit. 
>
>Truth is I enjoy the hell out of getting out my Dual turntable and spinning some vinyl on it, feed my Phase Linear but the fact is that is a total PITA. I would rather just play it off my PC, and I got better copies than they give you on youtube. 
>
>You don't have to handle the vinyl, or load a tape which is vulnerable to magnetic field and whatever else. 
>
>But the sound is great. Most of the young today have never heard a turntable. Those who have have said "Damn that sounds great". I have read that more than once on audio fora. 
>
>One of the things people do not get is that a CD, most of the soundcards in your PCs and whatever are strictly limited to 20 KHz. Vinyl and tape is not.


Analog or digital are both electronic so both will eventually fail.

boB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451189

On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 22:33:21 -0800, boB@everett.wa wrote:

>On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 20:50:31 -0800 (PST), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Digital pictures have pixels. Digital audio has been chopped up in one way or the other. Analog is actually real. That is the reason audiophiles are buying turntables and old vinyl. Even to my shit ears is sounds better. 
>>
>>Not that I do not appreciate digital, don't get me wrong. Plus I know that even analog is all cut up. When that music was cut on a lathe to make the master recording for the beloved vinyl, it was cut up by the bias on the tape machine. People say that is not quantized because the level is not, but that does not change the fact that it has been cut into little pieces. 
>>
>>Actual digitizing has a problem with quiescence. They had to add dither, which is pure noise, to the all digital recordings. Analog recordings converted to digital did not need it because of tape hiss or whatever. The distortion in a digital recording is actually worse at low levels, the opposite of what we were used to. 
>>
>>But the Brat does have a point, and never having hear the sweet sound of analog, or zoomed in (with a lens) on a picture taken on a real camera might not appreciate that. Digital means you got pixels, and a very similar prospect applies to audio as well. 
>>
>>But we are going into a world where there will be no more analog, it is practically inevitable. Is this good or bad ? I cannot really answer that. That is apparently progress, which has made me obsolete. The milleniums don't seem to really care, and the rest of us are dying off. It will be their world and they mostly will not enjoy a picture taken on a real camera or a song played on a totally analog stereo, like off a turntable. No class D or any of that shit, and they will not care. 
>>
>>So what ? They do not care. Most of their car stereos are better than what we had in the old days, and car stereos might become a thing of the past as they wear those earbuds n shit. 
>>
>>Truth is I enjoy the hell out of getting out my Dual turntable and spinning some vinyl on it, feed my Phase Linear but the fact is that is a total PITA. I would rather just play it off my PC, and I got better copies than they give you on youtube. 
>>
>>You don't have to handle the vinyl, or load a tape which is vulnerable to magnetic field and whatever else. 
>>
>>But the sound is great. Most of the young today have never heard a turntable. Those who have have said "Damn that sounds great". I have read that more than once on audio fora. 
>>
>>One of the things people do not get is that a CD, most of the soundcards in your PCs and whatever are strictly limited to 20 KHz. Vinyl and tape is not.
>
>
>Analog or digital are both electronic so both will eventually fail.

Or not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451208

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:16:15 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 22:33:21 -0800, boB@everett.wa wrote:
>>
>>Analog or digital are both electronic so both will eventually fail.
>
>Or not.

Depend on your definition of "eventually" I suppose.

ever heard of electromigration ?

boB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451245

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:24:34 -0800, boB
<boB@theresnoplacelikehome.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:16:15 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 22:33:21 -0800, boB@everett.wa wrote:
>>>
>>>Analog or digital are both electronic so both will eventually fail.
>>
>>Or not.
>
>Depend on your definition of "eventually" I suppose.
>
>ever heard of electromigration ?
>
wwwWWWWWOOOOOOOSSSSHHhhhhhhhh....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451269

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:04:11 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:24:34 -0800, boB
><boB@theresnoplacelikehome.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:16:15 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 22:33:21 -0800, boB@everett.wa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Analog or digital are both electronic so both will eventually fail.
>>>
>>>Or not.
>>
>>Depend on your definition of "eventually" I suppose.
>>
>>ever heard of electromigration ?
>>
>wwwWWWWWOOOOOOOSSSSHHhhhhhhhh....


Yeah !  Like that !

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451124

On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 8:11:13 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
> his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.
> He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
> does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not
> being a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
> 
> So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
> maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
> picosecond timing   precision measurement 
> 
> jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
> http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Electronics can roughly be divided into two areas.  The transfer of power/energy and the transfer and processing of information.  Digital has completely won in the transfer of information but it is still analog in the transfer of power/energy.  Power and energy include power supply design (need an inductor/ transformer or linear device) and RF which transfers power over long distances and also the whole power grid is essentially analog.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451191

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 22:27:14 -0800 (PST), djlocher56@gmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 8:11:13 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>> The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
>> his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.
>> He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
>> does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not
>> being a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
>> 
>> So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
>> maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
>> picosecond timing   precision measurement 
>> 
>> jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
>> http://www.highlandtechnology.com
>
>Electronics can roughly be divided into two areas.  The transfer of power/energy and the transfer and processing of information.  Digital has completely won in the transfer of information but it is still analog in the transfer of power/energy.  Power and energy include power supply design (need an inductor/ transformer or linear device) and RF which transfers power over long distances and also the whole power grid is essentially analog.

On that scale, where do you put a class-D audio amplifier?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451197

I would say analog. It is transferring power to your ears. The information is processed in your own head after that

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451247

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 10:51:40 -0800 (PST), bulegoge@columbus.rr.com
wrote:

>I would say analog. It is transferring power to your ears. The information is processed in your own head after that

I suppose you'd put a buck regulator in the analog bin, too?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451249

<bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:a6336954-4b52-4966-bc29-cc7e1607e24f@googlegroups.com...
>I would say analog. It is transferring power to your ears. The information 
>is processed in your own head after that
>

There is such a thing as "mixed signal" design...

Also, if the amplifier has a DSP in it, that kind of screws things up.

But, why make a silly binary distinction when a continuous division is 
possible? ;-)

Tim

-- 
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451267

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 19:09:29 -0600, "Tim Williams"
<tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:

><bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message 
>news:a6336954-4b52-4966-bc29-cc7e1607e24f@googlegroups.com...
>>I would say analog. It is transferring power to your ears. The information 
>>is processed in your own head after that
>>
>
>There is such a thing as "mixed signal" design...

Spoilsport.

>Also, if the amplifier has a DSP in it, that kind of screws things up.
>
>But, why make a silly binary distinction when a continuous division is 
>possible? ;-)

So the whole analog vs. digital argument is really analog?  ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451219

On Friday, 10 March 2017 06:27:19 UTC, djloc...@gmail.com  wrote:

> Electronics can roughly be divided into two areas.  The transfer of power/energy and the transfer and processing of information.  Digital has completely won in the transfer of information

I think it's a bit early to say that. Computer evolution has a very long way to go, and there's a valid point to reintroducing some analogue into that. Some jobs are best/quickest/easiest/cheapest done digital, and some analogue. A small amount of analogue processing could improve total performance.


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451220

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:12:35 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, 10 March 2017 06:27:19 UTC, djloc...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>> Electronics can roughly be divided into two areas.  The transfer of power/energy and the transfer and processing of information.  Digital has completely won in the transfer of information
>
>I think it's a bit early to say that. Computer evolution has a very long way to go, and there's a valid point to reintroducing some analogue into that. Some jobs are best/quickest/easiest/cheapest done digital, and some analogue. A small amount of analogue processing could improve total performance.
>
>
>NT

Those who spout that there's now only digital forget the fact that
virtually all I/O on a consumer product chip is analog.
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

     Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web