Forums

Questions about equivalents of audio/video and digital/analog.

Started by Radium August 19, 2007
On Aug 19, 5:55 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Radium wrote:
> > Okay. So a digital video device with greater bit-resolution can allow > > for more levels of luminance?
> Ir color differentiation. Or both.
Huh?
> > The above device inputs the electrical signals generated by an > > attached microphone. These electric signals are AC and represent the > > sound in "electronic" form. Sound with a higher-frequency will > > generate a faster-alternating current than sound with a lower- > > frequency. A louder sound will generate an alternating-current with a > > bigger peak-to-peak wattage than a softer soft.
> All true. How to you record it with no moving parts?
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? 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"].
On Aug 19, 5:55 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Radium wrote:
> > Okay. So a digital video device with greater bit-resolution can allow > > for more levels of luminance?
> Ir color differentiation. Or both.
Huh?
> > The above device inputs the electrical signals generated by an > > attached microphone. These electric signals are AC and represent the > > sound in "electronic" form. Sound with a higher-frequency will > > generate a faster-alternating current than sound with a lower- > > frequency. A louder sound will generate an alternating-current with a > > bigger peak-to-peak wattage than a softer soft.
> All true. How to you record it with no moving parts?
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? 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"].
On Aug 19, 5:55 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Radium wrote:
> > Okay. So a digital video device with greater bit-resolution can allow > > for more levels of luminance?
> Ir color differentiation. Or both.
Huh?
> > The above device inputs the electrical signals generated by an > > attached microphone. These electric signals are AC and represent the > > sound in "electronic" form. Sound with a higher-frequency will > > generate a faster-alternating current than sound with a lower- > > frequency. A louder sound will generate an alternating-current with a > > bigger peak-to-peak wattage than a softer soft.
> All true. How to you record it with no moving parts?
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? 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"].
On Aug 19, 5:55 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Radium wrote:
> > Okay. So a digital video device with greater bit-resolution can allow > > for more levels of luminance?
> Ir color differentiation. Or both.
Huh?
> > The above device inputs the electrical signals generated by an > > attached microphone. These electric signals are AC and represent the > > sound in "electronic" form. Sound with a higher-frequency will > > generate a faster-alternating current than sound with a lower- > > frequency. A louder sound will generate an alternating-current with a > > bigger peak-to-peak wattage than a softer soft.
> All true. How to you record it with no moving parts?
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? 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"].
On Aug 19, 5:55 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Radium wrote:
> > Okay. So a digital video device with greater bit-resolution can allow > > for more levels of luminance?
> Ir color differentiation. Or both.
Huh?
> > The above device inputs the electrical signals generated by an > > attached microphone. These electric signals are AC and represent the > > sound in "electronic" form. Sound with a higher-frequency will > > generate a faster-alternating current than sound with a lower- > > frequency. A louder sound will generate an alternating-current with a > > bigger peak-to-peak wattage than a softer soft.
> All true. How to you record it with no moving parts?
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? 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"].
On Aug 19, 5:55 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Radium wrote:
> > Okay. So a digital video device with greater bit-resolution can allow > > for more levels of luminance?
> Ir color differentiation. Or both.
Huh?
> > The above device inputs the electrical signals generated by an > > attached microphone. These electric signals are AC and represent the > > sound in "electronic" form. Sound with a higher-frequency will > > generate a faster-alternating current than sound with a lower- > > frequency. A louder sound will generate an alternating-current with a > > bigger peak-to-peak wattage than a softer soft.
> All true. How to you record it with no moving parts?
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? 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"].
On Aug 19, 5:55 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Radium wrote:
> > Okay. So a digital video device with greater bit-resolution can allow > > for more levels of luminance?
> Ir color differentiation. Or both.
Huh?
> > The above device inputs the electrical signals generated by an > > attached microphone. These electric signals are AC and represent the > > sound in "electronic" form. Sound with a higher-frequency will > > generate a faster-alternating current than sound with a lower- > > frequency. A louder sound will generate an alternating-current with a > > bigger peak-to-peak wattage than a softer soft.
> All true. How to you record it with no moving parts?
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? 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"].
On Aug 19, 5:55 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Radium wrote:
> > Okay. So a digital video device with greater bit-resolution can allow > > for more levels of luminance?
> Ir color differentiation. Or both.
Huh?
> > The above device inputs the electrical signals generated by an > > attached microphone. These electric signals are AC and represent the > > sound in "electronic" form. Sound with a higher-frequency will > > generate a faster-alternating current than sound with a lower- > > frequency. A louder sound will generate an alternating-current with a > > bigger peak-to-peak wattage than a softer soft.
> All true. How to you record it with no moving parts?
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? 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"].
On Aug 19, 5:55 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Radium wrote:
> > Okay. So a digital video device with greater bit-resolution can allow > > for more levels of luminance?
> Ir color differentiation. Or both.
Huh?
> > The above device inputs the electrical signals generated by an > > attached microphone. These electric signals are AC and represent the > > sound in "electronic" form. Sound with a higher-frequency will > > generate a faster-alternating current than sound with a lower- > > frequency. A louder sound will generate an alternating-current with a > > bigger peak-to-peak wattage than a softer soft.
> All true. How to you record it with no moving parts?
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? 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"].
On Aug 19, 5:55 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Radium wrote:
> > Okay. So a digital video device with greater bit-resolution can allow > > for more levels of luminance?
> Ir color differentiation. Or both.
Huh?
> > The above device inputs the electrical signals generated by an > > attached microphone. These electric signals are AC and represent the > > sound in "electronic" form. Sound with a higher-frequency will > > generate a faster-alternating current than sound with a lower- > > frequency. A louder sound will generate an alternating-current with a > > bigger peak-to-peak wattage than a softer soft.
> All true. How to you record it with no moving parts?
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? 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"].