Is an electric guitar "analog"?

[joe h]

Kind of an odd question, I suppose.

I'm not sure if the magnetic pickups in a typical electric guitar
qualify as being analog the same way that a magnetic tape recorder
does.

[John Williamson]

joe h wrote:
> Kind of an odd question, I suppose.
>
> I'm not sure if the magnetic pickups in a typical electric guitar
> qualify as being analog the same way that a magnetic tape recorder
> does.

Yes. They produce an analogue signal which varies with the movement of
the strings.

The only vaguely non-analogue thing about them is the way that the
output frequencies vary in more or less discrete steps, unless you've
bent the pitch......

You *can* buy an electric guitar with a built in ADC connected to the
pickup, which will then plug into a USB port directly.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Bill Graham]

joe h wrote:
> Kind of an odd question, I suppose.
>
> I'm not sure if the magnetic pickups in a typical electric guitar
> qualify as being analog the same way that a magnetic tape recorder
> does.

Yes, they have to be analog. Now, they could digitize the signal right
there, on the spot, with an on board A to D converter. but the original
source, and magnetic pickup has to be analog.

[PStamler]

On Apr 12, 2:24*pm, John Williamson >
wrote:
> joe h wrote:
> > Kind of an odd question, I suppose.
>
> > I'm not sure if the magnetic pickups in a typical electric guitar
> > qualify as being analog the same way that a magnetic tape recorder
> > does.

They produce signal in exactly the same way a tape head does; changing
magnetic fields induce a current into the coil of wire. Nothing
quantized, no numbers, no samples. What could be more analog?

(Unless you're reading notes, of course. Those are quantized. But
then, the best way to get a guitar player to quit playing is to put
sheet music in front of him.)

Peace,
Paul

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

PStamler > wrote in news:679e5379-5a29-4ad4-a533-
:

> On Apr 12, 2:24*pm, John Williamson >
> wrote:
>> joe h wrote:
>> > Kind of an odd question, I suppose.
>>
>> > I'm not sure if the magnetic pickups in a typical electric guitar
>> > qualify as being analog the same way that a magnetic tape recorder
>> > does.
>
> They produce signal in exactly the same way a tape head does; changing
> magnetic fields induce a current into the coil of wire. Nothing
> quantized, no numbers, no samples. What could be more analog?
>
> (Unless you're reading notes, of course. Those are quantized. But
> then, the best way to get a guitar player to quit playing is to put
> sheet music in front of him.)
>
> Peace,
> Paul

Hey! I resemble that remoark!!! That's why we're guitar players, not
musicians.

Steve Hawwkins

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

Steve Hawkins > wrote in
5.250:

> PStamler > wrote in news:679e5379-5a29-4ad4-a533-
> :
>
>> On Apr 12, 2:24*pm, John Williamson >
>> wrote:
>>> joe h wrote:
>>> > Kind of an odd question, I suppose.
>>>
>>> > I'm not sure if the magnetic pickups in a typical electric guitar
>>> > qualify as being analog the same way that a magnetic tape recorder
>>> > does.
>>
>> They produce signal in exactly the same way a tape head does; changing
>> magnetic fields induce a current into the coil of wire. Nothing
>> quantized, no numbers, no samples. What could be more analog?
>>
>> (Unless you're reading notes, of course. Those are quantized. But
>> then, the best way to get a guitar player to quit playing is to put
>> sheet music in front of him.)
>>
>> Peace,
>> Paul
>
> Hey! I resemble that remoark!!! That's why we're guitar players, not
> musicians.
>
> Steve Hawwkins

<sigh> remark

Steve "Typo" Hawkins

[Scott Dorsey]

joe h > wrote:
>Kind of an odd question, I suppose.
>
>I'm not sure if the magnetic pickups in a typical electric guitar
>qualify as being analog the same way that a magnetic tape recorder
>does.

1. It's not digital because nothing is being quantized in time, therefore
it must be analogue.

2. It's not analogue because the signals are quantized in amplitude (because
they are represented as integer numbers of individual electrons with
fixed charge), therefore it must be digital.

3. You play it with your digits, therefore it's digital.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

On 4/12/2011 4:55 PM, Steve Hawkins wrote:
> Steve > wrote in
> 5.250:
>
>> > wrote in news:679e5379-5a29-4ad4-a533-
>> :
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2:24 pm, John >
>>> wrote:
>>>> joe h wrote:
>>>>> Kind of an odd question, I suppose.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure if the magnetic pickups in a typical electric guitar
>>>>> qualify as being analog the same way that a magnetic tape recorder
>>>>> does.
>>>
>>> They produce signal in exactly the same way a tape head does; changing
>>> magnetic fields induce a current into the coil of wire. Nothing
>>> quantized, no numbers, no samples. What could be more analog?
>>>
>>> (Unless you're reading notes, of course. Those are quantized. But
>>> then, the best way to get a guitar player to quit playing is to put
>>> sheet music in front of him.)
>>>
>>> Peace,
>>> Paul
>>
>> Hey! I resemble that remoark!!! That's why we're guitar players, not
>> musicians.
>>
>> Steve Hawwkins
>
> <sigh> remark
>
> Steve "Typo" Hawkins
>
Damn, and I was thinkin' you was
like a Jersey guy, or some such.

Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/12/2011 3:17 PM, joe h wrote:

> I'm not sure if the magnetic pickups in a typical electric guitar
> qualify as being analog the same way that a magnetic tape recorder
> does.

Absolutely.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Ben Bradley[_2_]]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:17:10 -0700 (PDT), joe h >
wrote:

>Kind of an odd question, I suppose.
>
>I'm not sure if the magnetic pickups in a typical electric guitar
>qualify as being analog the same way that a magnetic tape recorder
>does.

It's analog, but too often the signal is sent through excessively
high gain resulting in hard clipping, effectively making it 1-bit
amplitude sampled.

[chris-]

On Apr 13, 4:25*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> joe h > wrote:
>
> >Kind of an odd question, I suppose.
>
> >I'm not sure if the magnetic pickups in a typical electric guitar
> >qualify as being analog the same way that a magnetic tape recorder
> >does.
>
> 1. It's not digital because nothing is being quantized in time, therefore
> * *it must be analogue.
>
> 2. It's not analogue because the signals are quantized in amplitude (because
> * *they are represented as integer numbers of individual electrons with
> * *fixed charge), therefore it must be digital.
>
> 3. You play it with your digits, therefore it's digital.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Interesting point :)

I'd add that the physical universe itself is entirely digital. It has
been disovered that the speed of light is not a constant, but a
variable, and also not a continual variable, but one which changes in
steps. Time has also been discovered to have a frequency, so is a
series of still versions, essentially. So I guess everything's digital
really :)

CM
Why not turn your interest in guitar playing into an additional
income?
flippa.com/133540

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:35:18 -0700 (PDT), chris-
> wrote:

>On Apr 13, 4:25*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> joe h > wrote:
>>
>> >Kind of an odd question, I suppose.
>>
>> >I'm not sure if the magnetic pickups in a typical electric guitar
>> >qualify as being analog the same way that a magnetic tape recorder
>> >does.
>>
>> 1. It's not digital because nothing is being quantized in time, therefore
>> * *it must be analogue.
>>
>> 2. It's not analogue because the signals are quantized in amplitude (because
>> * *they are represented as integer numbers of individual electrons with
>> * *fixed charge), therefore it must be digital.
>>
>> 3. You play it with your digits, therefore it's digital.
>> --scott
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
>Interesting point :)
>
>I'd add that the physical universe itself is entirely digital. It has
>been disovered that the speed of light is not a constant, but a
>variable, and also not a continual variable, but one which changes in
>steps. Time has also been discovered to have a frequency, so is a
>series of still versions, essentially. So I guess everything's digital
>really :)

Quantized, not digital. Digital means "represented by numbers", while
quantized means having a discrete set of possible states.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...

>> I'd add that the physical universe itself is entirely digital. It has
>> been disovered that the speed of light is not a constant, but a
>> variable, and also not a continual variable, but one which changes in
>> steps. Time has also been discovered to have a frequency, so is a
>> series of still versions, essentially. So I guess everything's digital
>> really :)

> Quantized, not digital. Digital means "represented by numbers",
> while quantized means having a discrete set of possible states.

And what is the difference? There is none.

We've been through this before. Once data are quantized, they are digital.
This is correct, regardless of what any book might say. If you don't
understand it, you need to think it through.

If you believe something without understanding it... what can I say?

By the way, I have never heard of evidence for the speed of light being
quantized.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 05:11:04 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> I'd add that the physical universe itself is entirely digital. It has
>>> been disovered that the speed of light is not a constant, but a
>>> variable, and also not a continual variable, but one which changes in
>>> steps. Time has also been discovered to have a frequency, so is a
>>> series of still versions, essentially. So I guess everything's digital
>>> really :)
>
>> Quantized, not digital. Digital means "represented by numbers",
>> while quantized means having a discrete set of possible states.
>
>And what is the difference? There is none.
>
>We've been through this before. Once data are quantized, they are digital.
>This is correct, regardless of what any book might say. If you don't
>understand it, you need to think it through.
>
>If you believe something without understanding it... what can I say?
>
>By the way, I have never heard of evidence for the speed of light being
>quantized.
>

Please don't ride your hobby horse yet again William. Nobody was
impressed last time, and neither will they be this.

As for the speed of light - go and theorize to your heart's content.
Then when you have experimental evidence one way or another, you can
come back and amaze us.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>We've been through this before. Once data are quantized, they are digital.
>This is correct, regardless of what any book might say. If you don't
>understand it, you need to think it through.

Once they are quantized by _amplitude_ or by time?

Because you can have an analogue level quantized by time (PWM for instance)...

>By the way, I have never heard of evidence for the speed of light being
>quantized.

As far as I know it's continuous and depends on the medium the light is
passing through. But my knowledge of physics stops around special relativity.
--Scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

> William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> >We've been through this before. Once data are quantized, they are
digital.
> >This is correct, regardless of what any book might say. If you don't
> >understand it, you need to think it through.

> Once they are quantized by _amplitude_ or by time?

Amplitude.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 05:11:04 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:

> >"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> ...

>>>> I'd add that the physical universe itself is entirely digital. It has
>>>> been disovered that the speed of light is not a constant, but a
>>>> variable, and also not a continual variable, but one which changes in
>>>> steps. Time has also been discovered to have a frequency, so is a
>>>> series of still versions, essentially. So I guess everything's digital
>>>> really :)

> >> Quantized, not digital. Digital means "represented by numbers",
> >> while quantized means having a discrete set of possible states.

> >And what is the difference? There is none.

> >We've been through this before. Once data are quantized, they are
digital.
> >This is correct, regardless of what any book might say. If you don't
> >understand it, you need to think it through.

> >If you believe something without understanding it... what can I say?

> >By the way, I have never heard of evidence for the speed of light being
> >quantized.


> Please don't ride your hobby horse yet again William. Nobody was
> impressed last time, and neither will they be this.

I can't help it that people are stupid for not being able to see what is
patent.


> As for the speed of light - go and theorize to your heart's content.
> Then when you have experimental evidence one way or another, you can
> come back and amaze us.

I only asked for the evidence. Where is it?

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> I'd add that the physical universe itself is entirely
>>> digital. It has been disovered that the speed of light
>>> is not a constant, but a variable, and also not a
>>> continual variable, but one which changes in steps.
>>> Time has also been discovered to have a frequency, so
>>> is a series of still versions, essentially. So I guess
>>> everything's digital really :)
>
>> Quantized, not digital. Digital means "represented by
>> numbers", while quantized means having a discrete set of
>> possible states.
>
> And what is the difference? There is none.

The number of different numbers within any finite range goes to infinity as
their precision increases. Having a discrete number of possible states
implies a finite and bounded number of possible values in any finite range.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message

>> As for the speed of light - go and theorize to your
>> heart's content. Then when you have experimental
>> evidence one way or another, you can come back and amaze
>> us.

> I only asked for the evidence. Where is it?

Google is your friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

[PStamler]

On Apr 25, 6:51*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
>
>
> >> As for the speed of light - go and theorize to your
> >> heart's content. Then when you have experimental
> >> evidence one way or another, you can come back and amaze
> >> us.
> > I only asked for the evidence. Where is it?
>
> Google is your friend.

The article presents several theoretical speculations about a possible
variation in the speed of light, but only one piece of very tentative
and disputed evidence, based on observations of quasars which were not
replicated.

Peace,
Paul

[Arny Krueger]

"PStamler" > wrote in message

> On Apr 25, 6:51 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote
>> in
>>
>>>> As for the speed of light - go and theorize to your
>>>> heart's content. Then when you have experimental
>>>> evidence one way or another, you can come back and
>>>> amaze us.
>>> I only asked for the evidence. Where is it?

>> Google is your friend.

> The article presents several theoretical speculations
> about a possible variation in the speed of light, but
> only one piece of very tentative and disputed evidence,
> based on observations of quasars which were not
> replicated.

That's what I saw! I completely agree with your analysis, Paul.

[Scott Dorsey]

PStamler > wrote:
>On Apr 25, 6:51=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
>>
>>
>> >> As for the speed of light - go and theorize to your
>> >> heart's content. Then when you have experimental
>> >> evidence one way or another, you can come back and amaze
>> >> us.
>> > I only asked for the evidence. Where is it?
>>
>> Google is your friend.
>
>The article presents several theoretical speculations about a possible
>variation in the speed of light, but only one piece of very tentative
>and disputed evidence, based on observations of quasars which were not
>replicated.

C isn't the speed of light, per se.

The speed of light changes all the time, it's what makes lenses work. It
is different in different media.

The constant C changing is different than the speed of light changing.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ben Bradley[_2_]]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 08:07:45 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>> >We've been through this before. Once data are quantized, they are
>digital.
>> >This is correct, regardless of what any book might say. If you don't
>> >understand it, you need to think it through.
>
>> Once they are quantized by _amplitude_ or by time?
>
>Amplitude.
>

So an LM3916-based LED "vu" display is digital, but a
Bucket-Brigade Device reverb/flanger (which needs anti-alias and
reconstruction filters) is analog?

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ben Bradley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 08:07:45 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:
>
> >> William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> >> >We've been through this before. Once data are quantized, they are
> >digital.
> >> >This is correct, regardless of what any book might say. If you don't
> >> >understand it, you need to think it through.

> >> Once they are quantized by _amplitude_ or by time?

> >Amplitude.


> So an LM3916-based LED "VU" display is digital, but a
> bucket-brigade device reverb/flanger (which needs anti-
> alias and reconstruction filters) is analog?

BINGO! Absolutely correct. You get it.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> So an LM3916-based LED "VU" display is digital, but a
>> bucket-brigade device reverb/flanger (which needs anti-
>> alias and reconstruction filters) is analog?

> BINGO! Absolutely correct. You get it.

Just to clarify a point peripherally raised by Mr Bradley's response...

You can find books and magazine articles which state (or imply) that
time-sampling a signal makes it digital. This is, of course, INCORRECT. All
digital systems require some form of time-sampling (how can you set a
specific value for wiggling Jell-O?), but one can have a sampled-data system
that isn't digital. "Digital" means that sampled data are quantized -- and
that's all.

[Ben Bradley[_2_]]

On Tue, 3 May 2011 03:23:27 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>>> So an LM3916-based LED "VU" display is digital, but a
>>> bucket-brigade device reverb/flanger (which needs anti-
>>> alias and reconstruction filters) is analog?
>
>> BINGO! Absolutely correct. You get it.
>
>Just to clarify a point peripherally raised by Mr Bradley's response...
>
>You can find books and magazine articles which state (or imply) that
>time-sampling a signal makes it digital. This is, of course, INCORRECT. All
>digital systems require some form of time-sampling (how can you set a
>specific value for wiggling Jell-O?), but one can have a sampled-data system
>that isn't digital. "Digital" means that sampled data are quantized -- and
>that's all.
>

It does explain the name change over editions of the original
Oppenheim et. al. book from "Digital Signal Processing" to the more
accurate "Discrete-Time Signal Processing."