[Don Bowey]

On 8/21/07 2:16 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
On 8/20/07 11:30 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
On 8/20/07 10:19 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
On 8/20/07 8:14 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

Of course if you then run that digital PAM signal through virtually
any analog channel, it no longer has a limited set of values...

Including a two foot piece of cable, or two inches with a small cap.

Nope. It would take a fair sized cap.

Keep in mind that that is *exactly* what a V.90 modem puts on a
regular twisted pair telephone cable, and it works just fine for
a couple miles at least, sometimes even much farther.

And that signal is digital, and is processed as a digital signal
by the receiving modem.

Digital data CSUs and T1 transmitter line signals are digital and look
similar to distorted square waves. An all 1's signal looks like a
distorted
sinewave .

Your point is? (Besides the poor description? They
don't look like distorted square waves. The look like
only slightly distorted sine waves!)

Have you looked at a DSX-1 envelope lately?

Yes. I've got the specs right here! :-) Literally, I have
had a graph on my web site for several years now that I drew up
to illustrate something I wrote once upon a time

http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/t1pulse.jpg

(snip)

The pulse for which you provided the link, is not DSX-1, because it will not
fit within the DSX-1 envelope.

Really? Has the standard changed?

Not that I know of. ANSI T1.403 does good. Want to argue with it?

Or are you just missing something....

I don't believe so. On the other hand, I inquired to you about the DSX-1
envelope, and you replied with a link to a waveform you drew, which has only
a loose connection to DSX-1. It appears you might be missing something.

I posted the DSX-1 template, and a representative pulse within it (MS Word),
on a.b.s.e. The pulse shown was from equipment that generated the pulse
using an analog method. As you can see from the envelope, other pulses,
specifically, those generated digitally, could be much more "square" if
given enough processing time.

Numeric points for plotting the template to a spreadsheet are available if
anyone wants them, but I will be away until next Saturday.

[Don Bowey]

On 8/21/07 2:33 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

(snip)

Sure I can. If I look at a line between two V-90
modems, I can immediately see that it is an analog
line. It may be carrying audio or video, but thats
about the data that is being carried, not the signal
that I'm looking at.

I don't believe V.90 works that way. That is, you can't
connect two V.90 modems together that way.

You cannot connect two subscriber modems end to end and
use v.90 protocols.

But you can use to provider end modems and get v.90
protocols running in both direction, and in fact if the
line is good enough it can be made to run a 64 Kbps.

The answer end of a V.90 connection must be an ISDN line, usually a

It must be digital. ISDN is one possibility, but not the only
one.

primary rate line with 24 channels. The result is that there is only
one A/D and D/A conversion between the two end points.

Exactly. The "A" part of that is a digital PAM signal.
If it goes through and extra CODEC, the data is
scrambled.

You may say that an ISDN line is an analog line since you can measure
the voltage on the wire as a function of time. I won't try to argue
either way on that one.

That would be an absurd claim.

ISDN is Integrated Services Digital Network. It is a
digital signal in all respects, using what is called
2B1Q encoding on a customer Basic Rate Interface loop.
That is 2 Binary 1 Quaternary meaning there are two
binary bits encoded in each symbol using 4 possible
voltage levels.

Your reply is incomplete.

* "ISDN is Integrated Services Digital Network." Right

* "It is a digital signal in all respects...." Right

* "...using what is called 2B1Q encoding on a customer Basic Rate Interface
loop. That is 2 Binary 1 Quaternary meaning there are two binary bits
encoded in each symbol using 4 possible voltage levels." Incomplete,
therefore wrong.

There is also a Primary Rate ISDN, which is a DS1 rate and which uses the
AMI line code, modified by B8ZS. One end of a Primary Rate channel may be in
a Central Office or both ends may be at a customer premises.

[AnthonyR.]

"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 19, 7:47 pm, Jerry Avins wrote:

Radium wrote:

Other than the microphone [obviously], why does there need to be any
moving parts? If a digital audio device can play audio back without
any moving parts, why can't an analog audio device be designed to do
the same?

Describe a motion-free process of recording and playing back. Cutting
grooves on a disk or magnetizing a moving tape both involve motion.

The iPod is motion-free yet it's still able to record and playback.

Those Nintendo Entertainment System cartridges were able to playback
without any motion.

The device below is *not* analog. It uses sampling so its digital:

http://www.winbond-usa.com/mambo/content/view/36/140/

I'm curious to why there are no purely-analog devices which can
record, store, and playback electric audio signals [AC currents at
least 20 Hz but no more than 20,000 Hz] without having moving parts.
Most of those voice recorders that use chips [i.e. solid-state] are
digital. Analog voice recorders, OTOH, use cassettes [an example of
"moving parts"].

It's this simple: nobody has invented a way. I doubt than anyone ever
will. If you know how, communicate with me privately.

I don't know how but I guessing that it involves the analog equivalent
of Flash RAM [if re-writing is desired] or the analog equivalent of
Masked-ROM [if permanent storage is desired].


I suspect the simple answer is space required. For example you needed a
large reel to reel tape to fit a song, but an iPod uses digital audio
(compressed) so it can fit so many more 1's and 0's onto the same size
magnetic tape that would have only held a little actual analog signal. See?
So if someone did make a solid state analog recorder it probably require too
many memory chips to be practical.
I don't know specs but 8mb that hold tons of music on an iPod probably only
hold a few seconds of actual analog frequency data.
IMHO
AnthonyR.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Don Bowey wrote:
On 8/21/07 1:09 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

"Bob Myers" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
The signal can be reconverted to an
analogue one later by a D to A.

It's best to call that a quasi-analog signal...

Why? What does that mean, EXACTLY, that

I've given you the URL for a glossary of terms, why
don't you use it? Here are some others:

http://www.atis.org/tg2k/
http://www.itu.int/sancho/index.asp
http://www.carrieraccessbilling.com/...glossary-a.asp
http://www.faxswitch.com/Definitions/

isn't already conveyed (and conveyed more accurately)
by other, more appropriate terms? What additional
information does this "quasi-analog" nonsense bring
to the party?

Quasi-Analog Signal -

A digital signal that has been converted to a form
suitable for transmission over a specified analog
channel.

Gobbledegook.

And you claimed to have worked in transmission engineering?

Whooosh...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Don Bowey wrote:

(snip)

Your reply is incomplete.

* "ISDN is Integrated Services Digital Network." Right

* "It is a digital signal in all respects...." Right

* "...using what is called 2B1Q encoding on a customer Basic Rate Interface
loop. That is 2 Binary 1 Quaternary meaning there are two binary bits
encoded in each symbol using 4 possible voltage levels." Incomplete,
therefore wrong.

Those voltage levels go through analog electronics on the way
to the other end. Hopefully the other end detects the appropriate
voltage levels at the right time. It is voltage and current, not
bits, that travel down the wire.

There is also a Primary Rate ISDN, which is a DS1 rate and which uses the
AMI line code, modified by B8ZS. One end of a Primary Rate channel may be in
a Central Office or both ends may be at a customer premises.

On its way to a V.90 modem the signal originates on an ISDN channel,
goes through one D/A converter, and then on to the V.90 modem.
The modem can synchronously decode the voltages and figure out which
bits went into the ISDN line. That process doesn't work if there are
more than one D/A conversions on the line.

-- glen

[Jerry Avins]

AnthonyR. wrote:

...

So if someone did make a solid state analog recorder it probably require
too many memory chips ...

What kind of chips hold analog signals? How do their storage capacities
compare to digital storage?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Bob Myers" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...

video system, mentioned earlier. The levels of the video
signal are ANALOGOUS to the desired luminance level,
and that's all it takes to be "analog."

That is not true. See the definition of analog data and
digital data.

The definitions according to yourself and your
selected "authorities"? Yet again? How about some
reasoning, instead, for a change?

Every authority uses the same definitions. I've shown
you a list of URL's where, if you had looked, you would
have found exactly the same definition from each
different source.

I note that even though you deny it and claim there are
other definitions, you can't find even one that is
different.

See Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication,"
section V (27). Have someone help you with the big words,
as needed. When you're finished, find us an example of
a noiseless channel, and demonstrate to us what you're
saying.

You clearly need some help understanding it...

Shannon discussed the theory of digital channels with
and without noise.

Shannon never used the word "digital," though, and used
the term "bits" simply because that is the commonly-used
unit of information (in ANY system), per information and

Wrong. Shannon didn't use the word "digital" because
it was not a popular term for what he was working with
until *after* he published his work and the study of
digital signals became popular. Nobody except Shannon
was, at that time, thinking in terms of digitizing data,
signals, channels, and everything else. (Okay, not totally
true, as people like Alec Reeves certainly was too...)

Shannon didn't use the work "bit" because of any common
useage! John Tukey, a co-worker of Shannon's at Bell
labs had coined the term "bit" as a short form for
"binary digit", only the year before Shannon first used
it in a 1948 paper. It fit their needs, and later
became popular with others too.

In fact, as the "commonly-used unit of information (in
ANY system)", Claude Shannon was the very *first* person
to use the term! He certainly did not use it because
any common useage, given it had been used only by one
other person and then with a slightly different meaning.

communications theory as it was established at the time

The theory had not been established at the time. It was
Shannon's work that started "Information Theory". While
Hartley and Nyquist had theorized about various things,
and demonstrated certain effects, Claude Shannon was the
one who mathematically *proved* them, thus providing
various theorums for future research.

(and is still in use today). Given that you've admitted to
not being an authority in the field, I wouldn't expect that

One thing that is quit obvious Bob is that I am
significantly more authoritative in the field of
communications than you are. Not that that is saying
much...

you understood that before, so I'm more than happy to
give you this chance to learn. You're welcome.

It would have been nice if you had known what you
were talking about before you again spouted nonsense.

He defined it as "a discrete channel
will mean a system whereby a sequence of choices from a
finite set ... can be transmitted ..."

Right - he defined a DISCRETE channel. The only

Yes. You'll remember that the definition of a digital
signal is that it has discrete values. Guess what
Shannon discussed... a channel for transmission of
discrete values. The way we describe that today is
"digital", and Shannon's "discrete channel" is exactly
what a digital channel is.

tie between "discrete" and "digital" appears to exist solely
in your own mind, since your cherished definitions of

That is one of the most hilarious things you've said
in all of this. You flat deny the very reason that
these terms exist, ignore all of their history, and
proclaim yourself an expert. Astounding.

"quantized" also unfortunately neglect to use the word
"digital" at any time. Shannon did NOT refer to either
"digital" or "analog" channels at all.

Of course he didn't. And in 1948 nobody at all was
using those terms to describe a communications channel,
of any kind.

That useage did not become popular until after Shannon's
papers were published. And it should be obvious to
anyone who can read English that the standard
definitions of "digital" an "analog" (as applied to
communications, transmission systems, signals, data,
etc. etc) was selected to precisely match what Shannon's
paper analyzed, and was taken directly from those
papers. (Heh, you wanted evidence and reasoning, well,
there you are. The evidence and the reason.

He then discussed the theory of analog channels, which
began with, "We now consider the case where the
signals or the messages or both are continuously
variable, in contrast with the discrete nature assumed
heretofore."

Wrong again. He discussed the theory of CONTINUOUS
channels, which is how they are consistently referenced in
his paper. In fact, the term "analog/analogue" does not appear
even once in Shannon's paper.

Exactly. The terms digital and analog only became
popular *after* Shannon's paper was published, and as
noted above the standardized definitions are
specifically intended to reference the papers that
Shannon published.

"Analogous" appears a grand
total of six times, each time with the clearly-accepted meaning
of "similar to," as opposed to refering to any specific class of
signals. Similarly, "digital" does not appear at all. Shannon
correctly did not make any distinction between "analog" and
"digital" encoding in terms of information capacity or content,
as his theorems apply to any and all systems.

Nobody else was using those term in that way at the time. It
was *because* of Shannon's work that such terms came into
existance *after* Information Theory became a popular topic
for research.

Clearly his definitions were consistent with those that
have been cited. Of course that again is just another
horrible appeal to authority... ;-)

Or it would have been, had Shannon actually provided
any such definitions. Too bad he didn't.

Too bad you didn't realize the direct connection!

Are you actually so brass as to claim that the "discrete
channel" term that Shannon used is not precisely
describing what we call a "digital channel" today? Or
that his "continuous channel" is not what we call an
"analog channel"? I don't mean something about the
same, close, or relatively... I mean the terms are
*exactly* identical, in all respects.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Don Bowey wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
Have you looked at a DSX-1 envelope lately?

Yes. I've got the specs right here! :-) Literally, I have
had a graph on my web site for several years now that I drew up
to illustrate something I wrote once upon a time

http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/t1pulse.jpg

(snip)

The pulse for which you provided the link, is not DSX-1, because it will not
fit within the DSX-1 envelope.

Really? Has the standard changed?

Not that I know of. ANSI T1.403 does good. Want to argue with it?

Why would I argue with it. The link provided shows what
ANSI T1.403 says it is. It *does* fit within the
standard DSX-1 pulsemask (which is conveniently
available from just about every manufacturer of test
equipment).


Or are you just missing something....

I don't believe so. On the other hand, I inquired to you about the DSX-1
envelope, and you replied with a link to a waveform you drew, which has only
a loose connection to DSX-1. It appears you might be missing something.

You claimed to have worked with transmission
engineering? Did you sweep floors, or what?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Don Bowey wrote:
On 8/21/07 2:33 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

(snip)

Sure I can. If I look at a line between two V-90
modems, I can immediately see that it is an analog
line. It may be carrying audio or video, but thats
about the data that is being carried, not the signal
that I'm looking at.

I don't believe V.90 works that way. That is, you can't
connect two V.90 modems together that way.

You cannot connect two subscriber modems end to end and
use v.90 protocols.

But you can use to provider end modems and get v.90
protocols running in both direction, and in fact if the
line is good enough it can be made to run a 64 Kbps.

The answer end of a V.90 connection must be an ISDN line, usually a

It must be digital. ISDN is one possibility, but not the only
one.

primary rate line with 24 channels. The result is that there is only
one A/D and D/A conversion between the two end points.

Exactly. The "A" part of that is a digital PAM signal.
If it goes through and extra CODEC, the data is
scrambled.

You may say that an ISDN line is an analog line since you can measure
the voltage on the wire as a function of time. I won't try to argue
either way on that one.

That would be an absurd claim.

ISDN is Integrated Services Digital Network. It is a
digital signal in all respects, using what is called
2B1Q encoding on a customer Basic Rate Interface loop.
That is 2 Binary 1 Quaternary meaning there are two
binary bits encoded in each symbol using 4 possible
voltage levels.

Your reply is incomplete.

Your reply is incomplete too. There are *many* things
about ISDN that neither of us have mentioned. Of course
neither of us had or have any intention of writing a
book about ISDN.


* "ISDN is Integrated Services Digital Network." Right

* "It is a digital signal in all respects...." Right

* "...using what is called 2B1Q encoding on a customer Basic Rate Interface
loop. That is 2 Binary 1 Quaternary meaning there are two binary bits
encoded in each symbol using 4 possible voltage levels." Incomplete,
therefore wrong.

It isn't wrong. I specifically said that I was describing
BRI, and that is because it is the *only* digital format
defined by ISDN.

There is also a Primary Rate ISDN, which is a DS1 rate and which uses the
AMI line code, modified by B8ZS. One end of a Primary Rate channel may be in
a Central Office or both ends may be at a customer premises.

You just described a DS1, which is *not* defined by
ISDN. Why don't you also describe DS0's, DS2's, DS3's
and what you have for breakfast? They are just as
related to ISDN as is a DS1.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:

(snip)

Your reply is incomplete.

* "ISDN is Integrated Services Digital Network." Right

* "It is a digital signal in all respects...." Right

* "...using what is called 2B1Q encoding on a customer Basic Rate Interface
loop. That is 2 Binary 1 Quaternary meaning there are two binary bits
encoded in each symbol using 4 possible voltage levels." Incomplete,
therefore wrong.

Those voltage levels go through analog electronics on the way
to the other end. Hopefully the other end detects the appropriate
voltage levels at the right time. It is voltage and current, not
bits, that travel down the wire.

It is a digital signal, it provides a digital channel,
and it is a digital service.

Voltage is analog, but there is no analog communications
channel involved, no analog data, and no analog service.

There is also a Primary Rate ISDN, which is a DS1 rate and which uses the
AMI line code, modified by B8ZS. One end of a Primary Rate channel may be in
a Central Office or both ends may be at a customer premises.

On its way to a V.90 modem the signal originates on an ISDN channel,

It might. It might not.

goes through one D/A converter, and then on to the V.90 modem.

Note that the "D/A converter" is a CODEC, and in fact is
used as a digital encoder. Input is digital, an do so
is the output (in the direction of the subscriber).

The modem can synchronously decode the voltages and figure out which
bits went into the ISDN line. That process doesn't work if there are
more than one D/A conversions on the line.

Because of the fact that it is digital, not analog. In
the uplink direction it is an analog signal (v.34
protocol), and can pass through additional codecs.


--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Don Bowey wrote:
On 8/21/07 12:40 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:
Do you know of any telco that actually uses them today?

If a loop is long enough, and there is no pair-gain facility available, it
gets an "E" type repeater. If that isn't an analog repeater nothing is.

Of course I suppose it is possible they are still being
used where *you* live. But I don't know of any telco in
all of Alaska that has used an E repeater in the last 30-40
years. In particular, in the last 10-20 years that would
be totally unacceptable.

I didn't leave my telco job until the end of 94. At which times they were
still in use, but there was talk of using gain within the switching

So you don't know of any telco that uses them today.

I assume you were also using mechanical switching there
too... ;-)

It is sort of difficult for me to imagine that sort of
environment, as Alaska was fully digital when the rest
of the country had only gone 33% digital. By the mid-1980
the only mechanical switches left in Alaska were owned by
the military, and they were gone by 1990.

Still, I don't think anyone *ever* used E type repeaters
in Alaska, but I could be wrong on that.

machines. It wouldn't surprise me if that is being done now, being a simple
process. In any case, there are loops that require gain to meet minimum
requirements. Also, we had a tariff that provided additional gain (for a
price) where feasible.

The general design paradigm used now is to put
"remotes" at multiple strategic sites and control
them all from one digital switch. Of course all of
these are trunked together, and the whole idea is to
prevent long loops while also requiring administration
of only a single digital switch.

That was a basic design decision made for telco's by the
vendors, back in the late 80's or early 90's. It was
enforced with system pricing! Nortel (NTI at the time),
for example, simply made the software for a digital
switch (actually, the long term use and maintenance of
the software) far more expensive than installing
remotes. It became uneconomical to have two switches in
any jurisdiction where it was possible to deactivate one
and replace it and move forward with remotes.

By the mid-1990's all of NTI's customer base had moved
in that direction.

My concerns were not just for where "I lived." I was on the Transmission
Engineering staff, and we had 14 states with which to be concerned.

My concern was only the State of Alaska... which is
of course the size of 20% of the entire Lower-48.

Gosh, after all that I guess I should be impressed.......... But........ I'm
not. I wonder why.

Because it is *way* over your head.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Don Bowey wrote:
On 8/21/07 1:47 PM, in article ,
"glen herrmannsfeldt" wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

(snip)

Sure I can. If I look at a line between two V-90 modems, I can immediately
see that it is an analog line. It may be carrying audio or video, but thats
about the data that is being carried, not the signal that I'm looking at.

I don't believe V.90 works that way. That is, you can't connect two
V.90 modems together that way.

The answer end of a V.90 connection must be an ISDN line, usually a
primary rate line with 24 channels.

That is nonsense. ISDN has nothing to do with it. Any modern digital
message trunk provides an identical channelizing process.

True. (Aren't you the one who just tried to require a
discription of ISDN to include specs for a DS1 though?
Double standard?)

The result is that there is only
one A/D and D/A conversion between the two end points.

Same as the Message Network.

Wrong. Nothing restricts anything else in the network
to *only* one set of A-D/D-A conversions. Everything
else has a minimum of one, assuming a digital switch based
line.

You may say that an ISDN line is an analog line since you can measure
the voltage on the wire as a function of time.

What are you calling an ISDN line? The ds1 rate cable pairs? DS3
transport, Sonet, the analog channel that pops out of the terminal
multiplexer?

Good points all!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Don Bowey]

On 8/21/07 6:29 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
On 8/21/07 1:09 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

"Bob Myers" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
The signal can be reconverted to an
analogue one later by a D to A.

It's best to call that a quasi-analog signal...

Why? What does that mean, EXACTLY, that

I've given you the URL for a glossary of terms, why
don't you use it? Here are some others:

http://www.atis.org/tg2k/
http://www.itu.int/sancho/index.asp
http://www.carrieraccessbilling.com/...glossary-a.asp
http://www.faxswitch.com/Definitions/

isn't already conveyed (and conveyed more accurately)
by other, more appropriate terms? What additional
information does this "quasi-analog" nonsense bring
to the party?

Quasi-Analog Signal -

A digital signal that has been converted to a form
suitable for transmission over a specified analog
channel.

Gobbledegook.

And you claimed to have worked in transmission engineering?

Whooosh...

Don't be such an ass.

A question was asked and I replied. If a signal is passed as analog, then
it's analog; not blue analog or green analog, or sort of analog, or like
analog. Calling something quasi-analog brings nothing to the table but
gobbledegook.

[Don Bowey]

On 8/21/07 6:31 PM, in article ,
"glen herrmannsfeldt" wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:

(snip)

Your reply is incomplete.

* "ISDN is Integrated Services Digital Network." Right

* "It is a digital signal in all respects...." Right

* "...using what is called 2B1Q encoding on a customer Basic Rate Interface
loop. That is 2 Binary 1 Quaternary meaning there are two binary bits
encoded in each symbol using 4 possible voltage levels." Incomplete,
therefore wrong.

Those voltage levels go through analog electronics on the way
to the other end.

Analog electronics? Where? The 2B1Q line signals are transported on a cable
pair or higher level multiplexer.

Hopefully the other end detects the appropriate
voltage levels at the right time.

Hopefully my foot. That is the function of the NT1. And what has this got
to do with anything anyhow?

It is voltage and current, not
bits, that travel down the wire.

The signal voltage is in the form of the 2B1Q line code, which just happens
to have some bits with none left over.


There is also a Primary Rate ISDN, which is a DS1 rate and which uses the
AMI line code, modified by B8ZS. One end of a Primary Rate channel may be in
a Central Office or both ends may be at a customer premises.

On its way to a V.90 modem the signal originates on an ISDN channel,
goes through one D/A converter,

The NT2 and/or the TA. But so what? Where's the point of your drivel?

and then on to the V.90 modem.
The modem can synchronously decode the voltages and figure out which
bits went into the ISDN line. That process doesn't work if there are
more than one D/A conversions on the line.

Why do you feel it necessary to repeat what is obvious?

-- glen

Sheesh

[Bob Myers]

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...

....a lot more argument by vigorous assertion, the repetitive,
monotonous bulk of which has been deleted. However,
a couple of gems that just can't pass by unanswered:

(and is still in use today). Given that you've admitted to
not being an authority in the field, I wouldn't expect that

One thing that is quit obvious Bob is that I am
significantly more authoritative in the field of
communications than you are.

It would not appear to be all that obvious, in that
you seem to be the only one here arguing your particular
definitions - against fair number of people, including more
than one person who IS clearly a recognized expert in
the field.

Right - he defined a DISCRETE channel. The only

Yes. You'll remember that the definition of a digital
signal is that it has discrete values.

Wrong - YOU have asserted this repeatedly, and
yet you continue to offer as "evidence" for this a
definition that simply says that "quantized" signals
have "discrete values," with no mention of the word
digital at all outside of your own continued assertions.
Well, to coin a phrase...DUH.

That is one of the most hilarious things you've said
in all of this. You flat deny the very reason that
these terms exist, ignore all of their history, and
proclaim yourself an expert. Astounding.

Having to resort to out-and-out falsehoods, now? Please
show any point in this discussion where I have "proclaimed
myself an expert." I would hardly refer to your behavior
here as "astounding," though. Pitiful, perhaps.

Bob M.

[Don Bowey]

On 8/21/07 8:32 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
Have you looked at a DSX-1 envelope lately?

Yes. I've got the specs right here! :-) Literally, I have
had a graph on my web site for several years now that I drew up
to illustrate something I wrote once upon a time

http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/t1pulse.jpg

(snip)

The pulse for which you provided the link, is not DSX-1, because it will
not
fit within the DSX-1 envelope.

Really? Has the standard changed?

Not that I know of. ANSI T1.403 does good. Want to argue with it?

Why would I argue with it. The link provided shows what
ANSI T1.403 says it is. It *does* fit within the
standard DSX-1 pulsemask (which is conveniently
available from just about every manufacturer of test
equipment).


Or are you just missing something....

I don't believe so. On the other hand, I inquired to you about the DSX-1
envelope, and you replied with a link to a waveform you drew, which has only
a loose connection to DSX-1. It appears you might be missing something.

You claimed to have worked with transmission
engineering? Did you sweep floors, or what?

No, but I was a member of ANSI T1 Working Groups T1C1 and T1E1 and helped
write ANSI T1.403 and other Standards.

To phrase it in a technical language you MIGHT understand, your mind is an
abysmal mess, and your behavior sucks. You enjoy the comfort of your
ignorance and I'm certain this is how you will remain.

[Don Bowey]

On 8/21/07 8:38 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
On 8/21/07 2:33 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

(snip)

Sure I can. If I look at a line between two V-90
modems, I can immediately see that it is an analog
line. It may be carrying audio or video, but thats
about the data that is being carried, not the signal
that I'm looking at.

I don't believe V.90 works that way. That is, you can't
connect two V.90 modems together that way.

You cannot connect two subscriber modems end to end and
use v.90 protocols.

But you can use to provider end modems and get v.90
protocols running in both direction, and in fact if the
line is good enough it can be made to run a 64 Kbps.

The answer end of a V.90 connection must be an ISDN line, usually a

It must be digital. ISDN is one possibility, but not the only
one.

primary rate line with 24 channels. The result is that there is only
one A/D and D/A conversion between the two end points.

Exactly. The "A" part of that is a digital PAM signal.
If it goes through and extra CODEC, the data is
scrambled.

You may say that an ISDN line is an analog line since you can measure
the voltage on the wire as a function of time. I won't try to argue
either way on that one.

That would be an absurd claim.

ISDN is Integrated Services Digital Network. It is a
digital signal in all respects, using what is called
2B1Q encoding on a customer Basic Rate Interface loop.
That is 2 Binary 1 Quaternary meaning there are two
binary bits encoded in each symbol using 4 possible
voltage levels.

Your reply is incomplete.

Your reply is incomplete too. There are *many* things
about ISDN that neither of us have mentioned. Of course
neither of us had or have any intention of writing a
book about ISDN.


* "ISDN is Integrated Services Digital Network." Right

* "It is a digital signal in all respects...." Right

* "...using what is called 2B1Q encoding on a customer Basic Rate Interface
loop. That is 2 Binary 1 Quaternary meaning there are two binary bits
encoded in each symbol using 4 possible voltage levels." Incomplete,
therefore wrong.

It isn't wrong. I specifically said that I was describing
BRI, and that is because it is the *only* digital format
defined by ISDN.

There is also a Primary Rate ISDN, which is a DS1 rate and which uses the
AMI line code, modified by B8ZS. One end of a Primary Rate channel may be in
a Central Office or both ends may be at a customer premises.

You just described a DS1, which is *not* defined by
ISDN. Why don't you also describe DS0's, DS2's, DS3's
and what you have for breakfast? They are just as
related to ISDN as is a DS1.

As I said before, but using different terms, you are an ignorant boob, and
what's worse is, you're smug about it.

I won't explain the many errors of your post this time, as I know it's a
waste of time.

[Don Bowey]

On 8/21/07 8:43 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
On 8/21/07 12:40 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:
Do you know of any telco that actually uses them today?

If a loop is long enough, and there is no pair-gain facility available,
it
gets an "E" type repeater. If that isn't an analog repeater nothing is.

Of course I suppose it is possible they are still being
used where *you* live. But I don't know of any telco in
all of Alaska that has used an E repeater in the last 30-40
years. In particular, in the last 10-20 years that would
be totally unacceptable.

I didn't leave my telco job until the end of 94. At which times they were
still in use, but there was talk of using gain within the switching

So you don't know of any telco that uses them today.

I assume you were also using mechanical switching there
too... ;-)

It is sort of difficult for me to imagine that sort of
environment, as Alaska was fully digital when the rest
of the country had only gone 33% digital. By the mid-1980
the only mechanical switches left in Alaska were owned by
the military, and they were gone by 1990.

Still, I don't think anyone *ever* used E type repeaters
in Alaska, but I could be wrong on that.

machines. It wouldn't surprise me if that is being done now, being a
simple
process. In any case, there are loops that require gain to meet minimum
requirements. Also, we had a tariff that provided additional gain (for a
price) where feasible.

The general design paradigm used now is to put
"remotes" at multiple strategic sites and control
them all from one digital switch. Of course all of
these are trunked together, and the whole idea is to
prevent long loops while also requiring administration
of only a single digital switch.

That was a basic design decision made for telco's by the
vendors, back in the late 80's or early 90's. It was
enforced with system pricing! Nortel (NTI at the time),
for example, simply made the software for a digital
switch (actually, the long term use and maintenance of
the software) far more expensive than installing
remotes. It became uneconomical to have two switches in
any jurisdiction where it was possible to deactivate one
and replace it and move forward with remotes.

By the mid-1990's all of NTI's customer base had moved
in that direction.

My concerns were not just for where "I lived." I was on the Transmission
Engineering staff, and we had 14 states with which to be concerned.

My concern was only the State of Alaska... which is
of course the size of 20% of the entire Lower-48.

Gosh, after all that I guess I should be impressed.......... But........ I'm
not. I wonder why.

Because it is *way* over your head.

I've changed my mind; I am impressed. You have impressed upon me the
knowledge that you are much less than you would like to be.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Jerry Avins wrote:

What kind of chips hold analog signals? How do their
storage capacities compare to digital storage?

Look at the ISD MicroTAD-16M.

It can store 16 minutes of voice in 3840K memory cells,
and a 4kHz sampling rate.

It claims 100 year retention in the non-volatile memory
cells, with 100,000 record cycles. It sounds like they
use a memory cell similar to flash RAM, but store an analog
voltage in that cell instead of only two states.

-- glen

[Richard Dobson]

Don Bowey wrote:
...

A question was asked and I replied. If a signal is passed as analog, then
it's analog; not blue analog or green analog, or sort of analog, or like
analog. Calling something quasi-analog brings nothing to the table but
gobbledegook.


I have no idea which of all these posts to reply to (now mainly ad
hominem, which seems sadly inevitable when a bunch of people who don't
know each other go round in digital circles), so I am replying to this
one. With the most profuse apologiees to Marshall McLuhan, the debate
seems to be of this form (multiple-choice):

Digital =

* the medium
* the message
* both the medium and the message
* neither the medium nor the message

(select one - no interpolated choices allowed).

And a question: does time series analysis (e.g. applying the FFT or
wavelet analysis to daily stock price movements etc) employ Digital
Signal Processing, Signal Processing, or Something Else?

Richard Dobson

[Frank]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:33:33 GMT, in 'rec.video.desktop',
in article Questions about equivalents of audio/video and
digital/analog.,
Richard Dobson wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
..

A question was asked and I replied. If a signal is passed as analog, then
it's analog; not blue analog or green analog, or sort of analog, or like
analog. Calling something quasi-analog brings nothing to the table but
gobbledegook.


I have no idea which of all these posts to reply to (now mainly ad
hominem, which seems sadly inevitable when a bunch of people who don't
know each other go round in digital circles),

Digital circles??? Now we're really going off the deep end.

Digital is a series of square waves. I know because I can see them on
my 'scope. Think of TTL.

"Digital circles" is a contradiction in terms. We can't communicate
effectively if we don't all use the same lingo - with the same
meanings attached to each key term.

It is a well-known and well-documented fact that a digitally sampled
circle, regardless of the sampling rate, *cannot* be converted back
into a perfect analog circle. The mathematical proof of this was
presented at a meeting of the Royal Society in 1681. Look it up.

What's needed in this thread is less science fiction fantasy and more
real hard science.

so I am replying to this
one. With the most profuse apologiees to Marshall McLuhan, the debate
seems to be of this form (multiple-choice):

Digital =

* the medium
* the message
* both the medium and the message
* neither the medium nor the message

(select one - no interpolated choices allowed).

And a question: does time series analysis (e.g. applying the FFT or
wavelet analysis to daily stock price movements etc) employ Digital
Signal Processing, Signal Processing, or Something Else?

Richard Dobson

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/

[timepixdc]

In article ,
"Bob Myers" wrote:

It is theoretically impossible for any real-world communications
channel to be noise-free or possessed of infinite bandwidth.
Do you disagree with this statement?

It would appear that you disagree with your own statement since further
down you write,

What part of "real-world" (as opposed to "imaginary")
in the above did you fail to comprehend?

Before something can be developed it has to be imagined.

Edison? Great imagination. You? Maybe not so much.

From a recent (London) Daily Telegraph:

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light -
an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space
and time.

According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it would require
an infinite amount of energy to propel an object at more than 186,000
miles per second.

However, Dr Gunter Nimtz and Dr Alfons Stahlhofen, of the University of
Koblenz, say they may have breached a key tenet of that theory.

The pair say they have conducted an experiment in which microwave
photons - energetic packets of light - travelled "instantaneously"
between a pair of prisms that had been moved up to 3ft apart.

Being able to travel faster than the speed of light would lead to a wide
variety of bizarre consequences."

Your reliance on the "theoretically impossible" would have stopped such
research before it started. You might even be the last person around
that believes in phlogiston. Hard to tell.

X-no archive

[Jerry Avins]

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
Jerry Avins wrote:

What kind of chips hold analog signals? How do their
storage capacities compare to digital storage?

Look at the ISD MicroTAD-16M.

It can store 16 minutes of voice in 3840K memory cells,
and a 4kHz sampling rate.

It claims 100 year retention in the non-volatile memory
cells, with 100,000 record cycles. It sounds like they
use a memory cell similar to flash RAM, but store an analog
voltage in that cell instead of only two states.

So the audio is sampled but not digitized. Interesting! I'm downloading
the data sheet now.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[Richard Dobson]

Frank wrote:
...

Digital circles??? Now we're really going off the deep end.


A hit already! Ah the power of words. Metaphors-r-us. Clearly I should
have said "digital people going round in analogue circles". When
~everyone~ has lost all sense of perspective, the sense of humour is the
first casualty.

How about a "quantized circle" then - an octagon?


Digital is a series of square waves. I know because I can see them on
my 'scope. Think of TTL.


Oh gosh, one of the standard waveforms on an analogue synth is the
square wave. I think people were doing that before TTL was actually
invented. Moog had PCM (meaning, variable duty-cycle) square waves
coming out of his VCO in 1966, if not earlier. What about a sawtooth
wave? That's a series of straight lines too.

It is a well-known and well-documented fact that a digitally sampled
circle, regardless of the sampling rate, *cannot* be converted back
into a perfect analog circle. The mathematical proof of this was
presented at a meeting of the Royal Society in 1681. Look it up.


Interesting! In 1681 too! The first use of the word "digital" not
connoting fingers. Exactly how does one sample a circle with ones fingers?

This is fun!

Richard Dobson

[Bob Myers]

"Richard Dobson" wrote in message
k...
Frank wrote:
..

Digital circles??? Now we're really going off the deep end.


A hit already! Ah the power of words. Metaphors-r-us. Clearly I should
have said "digital people going round in analogue circles". When
~everyone~ has lost all sense of perspective, the sense of humour is the
first casualty.

Hmmmm...so could a person with no fingers still be
considered a "digital person"? :-)

Bob M.

[Jerry Avins]

Richard Dobson wrote:
Frank wrote:
..

Digital circles??? Now we're really going off the deep end.


A hit already! Ah the power of words. Metaphors-r-us. Clearly I should
have said "digital people going round in analogue circles". When
~everyone~ has lost all sense of perspective, the sense of humour is the
first casualty.

How about a "quantized circle" then - an octagon?


Digital is a series of square waves. I know because I can see them on
my 'scope. Think of TTL.


Oh gosh, one of the standard waveforms on an analogue synth is the
square wave. I think people were doing that before TTL was actually
invented. Moog had PCM (meaning, variable duty-cycle) square waves
coming out of his VCO in 1966, if not earlier. What about a sawtooth
wave? That's a series of straight lines too.

It is a well-known and well-documented fact that a digitally sampled
circle, regardless of the sampling rate, *cannot* be converted back
into a perfect analog circle. The mathematical proof of this was
presented at a meeting of the Royal Society in 1681. Look it up.


Interesting! In 1681 too! The first use of the word "digital" not
connoting fingers. Exactly how does one sample a circle with ones fingers?

This is fun!

Oh Richard! I saw it as an excellent spoof. As you wrote, "the sense of
humour [sic] is the first casualty. Speak for yourself! :-)

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[Jerry Avins]

Bob Myers wrote:
"Richard Dobson" wrote in message
k...
Frank wrote:
..

Digital circles??? Now we're really going off the deep end.

A hit already! Ah the power of words. Metaphors-r-us. Clearly I should
have said "digital people going round in analogue circles". When
~everyone~ has lost all sense of perspective, the sense of humour is the
first casualty.

Hmmmm...so could a person with no fingers still be
considered a "digital person"? :-)

Toes, my friend, toes. OT. Words to a Mozart horn concerto:

Moses suppose his toeses are roses
But Moses supposes erroneously ...

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[Don Bowey]

On 8/22/07 10:26 AM, in article
, "Richard Dobson"
wrote:

Frank wrote:
..

Digital circles??? Now we're really going off the deep end.


A hit already! Ah the power of words. Metaphors-r-us. Clearly I should
have said "digital people going round in analogue circles". When
~everyone~ has lost all sense of perspective, the sense of humour is the
first casualty.

How about a "quantized circle" then - an octagon?


Digital is a series of square waves. I know because I can see them on
my 'scope. Think of TTL.


Oh gosh, one of the standard waveforms on an analogue synth is the
square wave. I think people were doing that before TTL was actually
invented. Moog had PCM (meaning, variable duty-cycle) square waves
coming out of his VCO in 1966, if not earlier. What about a sawtooth
wave? That's a series of straight lines too.

It is a well-known and well-documented fact that a digitally sampled
circle, regardless of the sampling rate, *cannot* be converted back
into a perfect analog circle. The mathematical proof of this was
presented at a meeting of the Royal Society in 1681. Look it up.


Interesting! In 1681 too! The first use of the word "digital" not
connoting fingers. Exactly how does one sample a circle with ones fingers?

While eating some Pi?


This is fun!

Richard Dobson

[Don Bowey]

On 8/22/07 10:31 AM, in article , "Bob
Myers" wrote:


"Richard Dobson" wrote in message
k...
Frank wrote:
..

Digital circles??? Now we're really going off the deep end.


A hit already! Ah the power of words. Metaphors-r-us. Clearly I should
have said "digital people going round in analogue circles". When
~everyone~ has lost all sense of perspective, the sense of humour is the
first casualty.

Hmmmm...so could a person with no fingers still be
considered a "digital person"? :-)

Quasi-digital?


Bob M.

[Richard Dobson]

Don Bowey wrote:
...
Interesting! In 1681 too! The first use of the word "digital" not
connoting fingers. Exactly how does one sample a circle with ones fingers?


While eating some Pi?

Cool. Or: delivering it through a letter-box one piece at a time. The
question is then - how does the receiver know they have got the whole pi?

Richard Dobson

[Bob Myers]

"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 8/22/07 10:31 AM, in article , "Bob
Myers" wrote:


"Richard Dobson" wrote in message
k...
casualty.

Hmmmm...so could a person with no fingers still be
considered a "digital person"? :-)

Quasi-digital?

No, he had fingers - wasn't that the guy who rang
the bells at Notre Dame?

Bob M.

[Dave Platt]

In article ,
Bob Myers wrote:

Hmmmm...so could a person with no fingers still be
considered a "digital person"? :-)

Quasi-digital?

No, he had fingers - wasn't that the guy who rang
the bells at Notre Dame?

Oh - you're thinking of the guy who developed the innovative feature
in the Apple Macintosh windowing system... a little mini-window which
would pop up, *mostly* block what was behind it, but let you move it
out of the way if you really needed to. "Quasi-modal" dialog boxes...
quite a coup for Apple, back in the Day.

I understand that something similar has just shown up in Vista.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

[Don Bowey]

On 8/22/07 11:37 AM, in article , "Richard
Dobson" wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
..
Interesting! In 1681 too! The first use of the word "digital" not
connoting fingers. Exactly how does one sample a circle with ones fingers?


While eating some Pi?

Cool. Or: delivering it through a letter-box one piece at a time. The
question is then - how does the receiver know they have got the whole pi?

Richard Dobson

They will never know, because Pi is endless.

[Don Bowey]

On 8/22/07 11:41 AM, in article , "Bob
Myers" wrote:


"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 8/22/07 10:31 AM, in article , "Bob
Myers" wrote:


"Richard Dobson" wrote in message
k...
casualty.

Hmmmm...so could a person with no fingers still be
considered a "digital person"? :-)

Quasi-digital?

No, he had fingers - wasn't that the guy who rang
the bells at Notre Dame?

Bob M.





I think might have been his brother, Quasi-analog.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Frank wrote:
(snip)

Digital is a series of square waves. I know because I can see them on
my 'scope. Think of TTL.

I was thinking about this yesterday. In the easy cases digital
signals can be NRZ coded. (That is, some voltage for a zero,
a different voltage for a one.) The logic can be implemented
simply with transistors that are either off or on.

As distances get longer or frequencies get higher, analog
techniques are needed in processing signals. Modulation methods
are used to make it easier to separate out the signal from
the noise, and to recover the clock that would otherwise be lost.
At that point, it gets confusing whether the signal is "digital"
or "analog."

-- glen

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:06:46 -0500, timepixdc wrote:
....
Being able to travel faster than the speed of light would lead to a wide
variety of bizarre consequences."

Your reliance on the "theoretically impossible" would have stopped such
research before it started. You might even be the last person around
that believes in phlogiston. Hard to tell.


Oh, I definitely believe in phlogiston - you can see tons of it on USENET
any day of the week! ;-)

To communicate faster than light, you have to interface with the Aether,
which most people don't even believe exists! =:-O

Cheers!
Rich

[Richard Dobson]

Rich Grise wrote:
...

To communicate faster than light, you have to interface with the Aether,
which most people don't even believe exists! =:-O


Ah but they do! Now called the Higgs field; soon to be evidenced by the
LHC, when they finally detect the God Particle. Until then it is just a
particle of faith.

Richard Dobson

[Bob Myers]

"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...

They will never know, because Pi is endless.


It is? Then how come they always are out of Pi
when I want more?

Bob M.

[Don Bowey]

On 8/22/07 2:22 PM, in article , "Bob Myers"
wrote:


"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...

They will never know, because Pi is endless.


It is? Then how come they always are out of Pi
when I want more?

Bob M.



Your market is using the wrong pi recipe/formulation?

[Bob Myers]

"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...

It is? Then how come they always are out of Pi
when I want more?

Bob M.



Your market is using the wrong pi recipe/formulation?

Must be. People keep telling me pi are square, but
all I see are the round ones...

Bob M.