Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
I've got $25 that says no one in this group knows what they're talking about.
61 views
Skip to first unread message
William Sommerwerck
Jun 15, 2013, 1:33:11 PM6/15/13
to
A few years back, Newnes published a terrible book, "Electronics Explained --
The New Systems Approach to Learning Electronics". I reviewed it for Amazon,
grudgingly giving it two stars (when it deserved zero), simply because someone
knowing nothing whatever about electronics might get a few useful things from
it.
The author, Louis E Frenzel Jr, a Technology Editor for Electronic Design,
should have his BS revoked. Like virtually everyone else writing about the
subject, he doesn't understand the difference between "analog" and "digital".
I direct you to pages 89 and 118, specifically "Introduction" on p89, and the
"Data Conversion" section starting on p118. (You can read these at Amazon, for
free.)
I invite anyone in this group to briefly and clearly explain why these
explanations are wrong, and what the correct explanation is. Rewriting the
material should be enough.
The first person to submit a clear, complete explanation (of which I will be
the judge of clarity and completeness) will get $25 in their PayPal account.
Fortunately, I won't have to pay a penny, because no one in this group can do
it.
"'We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right questions."
-- Edwin Land
The New Systems Approach to Learning Electronics". I reviewed it for Amazon,
grudgingly giving it two stars (when it deserved zero), simply because someone
knowing nothing whatever about electronics might get a few useful things from
it.
The author, Louis E Frenzel Jr, a Technology Editor for Electronic Design,
should have his BS revoked. Like virtually everyone else writing about the
subject, he doesn't understand the difference between "analog" and "digital".
I direct you to pages 89 and 118, specifically "Introduction" on p89, and the
"Data Conversion" section starting on p118. (You can read these at Amazon, for
free.)
I invite anyone in this group to briefly and clearly explain why these
explanations are wrong, and what the correct explanation is. Rewriting the
material should be enough.
The first person to submit a clear, complete explanation (of which I will be
the judge of clarity and completeness) will get $25 in their PayPal account.
Fortunately, I won't have to pay a penny, because no one in this group can do
it.
"'We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right questions."
-- Edwin Land
S. King
Jun 15, 2013, 1:42:41 PM6/15/13
to
Steve King
William Sommerwerck
Jun 15, 2013, 1:53:47 PM6/15/13
to
"S. King" wrote in message news:kpi92h$cut$1...@dont-email.me...
"...no one in this group..." So, I guess that would include you.
"A barber shaves everyone in town who does not shave himself. Does he shave
himself?"
"...no one in this group..." So, I guess that would include you.
himself?"
None
Jun 15, 2013, 2:05:04 PM6/15/13
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kpi87j$9f2$1...@dont-email.me...
> <Flush Willie's tirade>
obsessions or your bloated opinion of yourself. I think everyone knows
that in your own mind, you're the smartest person in the whole wide
room.
You forgot to mention how much you were paid for that review you wrote
"for Amazon." It might be an indication of the actual value of your
writing.
news:kpi87j$9f2$1...@dont-email.me...
> <Flush Willie's tirade>
> Fortunately, I won't have to pay a penny, because no one in this
> group can do it.
No, it's probably because nobody really gives a shit about your
> group can do it.
obsessions or your bloated opinion of yourself. I think everyone knows
that in your own mind, you're the smartest person in the whole wide
room.
You forgot to mention how much you were paid for that review you wrote
"for Amazon." It might be an indication of the actual value of your
writing.
PStamler
Jun 15, 2013, 4:14:40 PM6/15/13
to
Here's a first take:
The word "analog" is typically used to describe electrical signals that represent some physical quantity, such as momentary variations in air pressure (sound), using variations in electrical voltage or current. In a typical analog signal, the variations are continuous in both time and level.
Sometimes these analog voltage or current variations are represented numerically. The resulting number series is called "digital". The numbers are typically coded using binary digits, using various coding systems (e.g. PCM, DSD), and are typically quantized in time and level, using a process whereby the analog signal is sampled at a given interval, and the detected voltage levels converted to fixed numbers. Digital information may be transmitted from one piece of equipment to another, or stored using various physical processes (e.g., a compact disc, or magnetic patterns on a hard drive). A digital signal may be converted back to analog (voltage or current varying with time) using a converter designed for that purpose.
One of many places the definitions get tricky is that a digital bitstream, which is a voltage waveform representing digital data, transmitting those data from one circuit to another, is also an analog signal (a voltage varying with time), and as such it's subject to various forms of corruption, such as jitter (variations in the time the waveforms representing digits arrive at the receiving circuit). It's also worth noting that many analog-to-digital conversion systems do not measure the voltage or current level directly, but rather measure *changes* in level. The data representing these changes may be stored directly (e.g. DSD recording), or may be used to compute the absolute level (most contemporary PCM analog-to-digital converters).
I think that covers the fundamentals, though as the previous paragraph suggests, there are subtleties which make the crafting of definitions tedious.
Peace,
Paul
The word "analog" is typically used to describe electrical signals that represent some physical quantity, such as momentary variations in air pressure (sound), using variations in electrical voltage or current. In a typical analog signal, the variations are continuous in both time and level.
Sometimes these analog voltage or current variations are represented numerically. The resulting number series is called "digital". The numbers are typically coded using binary digits, using various coding systems (e.g. PCM, DSD), and are typically quantized in time and level, using a process whereby the analog signal is sampled at a given interval, and the detected voltage levels converted to fixed numbers. Digital information may be transmitted from one piece of equipment to another, or stored using various physical processes (e.g., a compact disc, or magnetic patterns on a hard drive). A digital signal may be converted back to analog (voltage or current varying with time) using a converter designed for that purpose.
One of many places the definitions get tricky is that a digital bitstream, which is a voltage waveform representing digital data, transmitting those data from one circuit to another, is also an analog signal (a voltage varying with time), and as such it's subject to various forms of corruption, such as jitter (variations in the time the waveforms representing digits arrive at the receiving circuit). It's also worth noting that many analog-to-digital conversion systems do not measure the voltage or current level directly, but rather measure *changes* in level. The data representing these changes may be stored directly (e.g. DSD recording), or may be used to compute the absolute level (most contemporary PCM analog-to-digital converters).
I think that covers the fundamentals, though as the previous paragraph suggests, there are subtleties which make the crafting of definitions tedious.
Peace,
Paul
William Sommerwerck
Jun 15, 2013, 4:21:37 PM6/15/13
to
"None" wrote in message
news:5uKdnZ6WDaFTMSHM...@earthlink.com...
themselves -- seem fundamental.
> You forgot to mention how much you were paid for that review
> you wrote "for Amazon." It might be an indication of the actual
> value of your writing.
If you are suggesting that not being paid for it indicates it was
worth-less -- what can I say?
The offer stands.
news:5uKdnZ6WDaFTMSHM...@earthlink.com...
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kpi87j$9f2$1...@dont-email.me...
> ...it's probably because nobody really gives a shit about your obsessions or
news:kpi87j$9f2$1...@dont-email.me...
> your bloated opinion of yourself.
My obsessions -- which largely deal with people's refusal to think for
themselves -- seem fundamental.
> You forgot to mention how much you were paid for that review
> you wrote "for Amazon." It might be an indication of the actual
> value of your writing.
worth-less -- what can I say?
The offer stands.
Mike Rivers
Jun 15, 2013, 4:35:31 PM6/15/13
to
On 6/15/2013 1:33 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Fortunately, I won't have to pay a penny, because no one in this group
> can do it.
You won't have to pay me, because I don't have a PayPal account. Also,
> Fortunately, I won't have to pay a penny, because no one in this group
> can do it.
you didn't post a link for reading the section containing your
challenge, so I didn't feel like hunting down the book. I'll do that for
$25. You can send me a check.
However, not having any idea of what the author wrote, but using what
Paul S wrote, I'd suggest approaching the topic (remember - I don't
really know for sure what the topic is) by starting off by talking about
signals. A signal is what flows from the input to the output, and can be
passed through by either an analog or a digital representation of
thesignal source.
Hey, that's pretty good. I'll have to remember that for when I know that
this is what I'm talking about. It might come in handy.
--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
None
Jun 15, 2013, 4:48:26 PM6/15/13
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kpii3d$u9a$1...@dont-email.me...
> "None" wrote in message
> news:5uKdnZ6WDaFTMSHM...@earthlink.com...
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:kpi87j$9f2$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> ...it's probably because nobody really gives a shit about your
>> obsessions or your bloated opinion of yourself.
>
> My obsessions -- which largely deal with people's refusal to think
> for themselves
There might be some newbies that swallow that, but your history
> news:5uKdnZ6WDaFTMSHM...@earthlink.com...
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:kpi87j$9f2$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> ...it's probably because nobody really gives a shit about your
>> obsessions or your bloated opinion of yourself.
>
> My obsessions -- which largely deal with people's refusal to think
> for themselves
shows that you're obsessed with people's refusal to think exactly
the way you think, which is pretty much everyone. ANd that you're
obsessed with the fantasy that you're so much smarter than
everyone else. There's a clue there, but you seem to be immune
to clues.
> If you are suggesting that not being paid for it indicates it was
> worth-less -- what can I say?
but they declined. That's your resume, isn't it?
> The offer stands.
Sure it does.
Mark
Jun 15, 2013, 4:52:28 PM6/15/13
to
its really simple
analog signals are continuous (in the math sense) , meaning the value
can be any real number in the range...
digital signals are quantized and can take on only discrete values
that's it....nothing more nothing less
actually the interesting question is.....is the world analog or
digital... quantum theory indicates the world is actually digital,
the length of the piece of paper is an integer number of molecules
i.e. it is quantized. you can't add 1/2 molecule to it's length
Mark
Paul
Jun 15, 2013, 4:56:41 PM6/15/13
to
If you are such an incredible teacher, why don't YOU
write a clear, complete explanation?
In fact, if you are so brilliant, why don't you write a book
and publish it, so we can all give it a bad review on Amazon?
I predict I'd give your book a negative 4 stars...
Peter Larsen
Jun 15, 2013, 4:59:35 PM6/15/13
to
None wrote:
> There might be some newbies that swallow that, but your history
> shows that you're obsessed with people's refusal to think exactly
> the way you think, which is pretty much everyone. ANd that you're
> obsessed with the fantasy that you're so much smarter than
> everyone else. There's a clue there, but you seem to be immune
> to clues.
You make Phil Allison appear likeable, also because he quite possibly is and
> There might be some newbies that swallow that, but your history
> shows that you're obsessed with people's refusal to think exactly
> the way you think, which is pretty much everyone. ANd that you're
> obsessed with the fantasy that you're so much smarter than
> everyone else. There's a clue there, but you seem to be immune
> to clues.
he is indisputably well qualified.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Paul
Jun 15, 2013, 5:10:14 PM6/15/13
to
is digital, and we'll soon be storing data on DNA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_digital_data_storage
Message has been deleted
None
Jun 15, 2013, 6:15:15 PM6/15/13
to
"Jeff Henig" <yom...@yomama.com> wrote in message
news:1357347757393026775.4...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ouch.
>
> --
> ---Jeff
Allison's attacks appear to be random; anyone and everything
can be subject to scattershot blasts of profanity. Me, I tend to
save my contempt for those who have earned it, by incessant
trolling, belligerent ignorance, delusions of grandeur, or prior
personal attacks against me; or the like. I leave it to the reader
to figure out my motives this time, although you'd best think
outside the NG if you want to guess correctly.
Regardless, comparing me thus rolls off my back like water
off a duck. Quack!
I look forward to Willie's insistence that he and he alone knows
the One True Definition, and his willyweazeling out of making
good on his pathetic little "challenge." Usenet is nothing if not
entertaining!
news:1357347757393026775.4...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> --
> ---Jeff
Allison's attacks appear to be random; anyone and everything
can be subject to scattershot blasts of profanity. Me, I tend to
save my contempt for those who have earned it, by incessant
trolling, belligerent ignorance, delusions of grandeur, or prior
personal attacks against me; or the like. I leave it to the reader
to figure out my motives this time, although you'd best think
outside the NG if you want to guess correctly.
Regardless, comparing me thus rolls off my back like water
off a duck. Quack!
I look forward to Willie's insistence that he and he alone knows
the One True Definition, and his willyweazeling out of making
good on his pathetic little "challenge." Usenet is nothing if not
entertaining!
William Sommerwerck
Jun 15, 2013, 7:01:02 PM6/15/13
to
>> My obsessions -- which largely deal with people's refusal to think for
>> themselves
> There might be some newbies that swallow that, but your history
> shows that you're obsessed with people's refusal to think exactly
> the way you think, which is pretty much everyone.
Totally wrong. People fight light animals to avoid questioning their beliefs.
>> themselves
> There might be some newbies that swallow that, but your history
> shows that you're obsessed with people's refusal to think exactly
> the way you think, which is pretty much everyone.
> And that you're obsessed with the fantasy that you're so much
> smarter than everyone else. There's a clue there, but you seem
> to be immune to clues.
It's not my fault people fail to use their native intelligence.
> to be immune to clues.
>> If you are suggesting that not being paid for it indicates it was
>> worth-less -- what can I say?
> You can say that you offered to write something for someone,
Unfortunately, yes (though with respect to Amazon, there is no connection, as
this was an Amazon Vine review).
It's not just me. Businesses are not interested in good user documentation.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 15, 2013, 7:03:21 PM6/15/13
to
> I look forward to Willie's insistence that he and he alone knows
> the One True Definition, and his willyweazeling out of making
> good on his pathetic little "challenge." Usenet is nothing if not
> entertaining!
Tell ya what. This group has until July 15th to meet my challenge of rewriting
> the One True Definition, and his willyweazeling out of making
> good on his pathetic little "challenge." Usenet is nothing if not
> entertaining!
the pages I referenced in "Electronics Explained". Whether or not it does, I
will post the correct explanation.
Luxey
Jun 15, 2013, 7:04:49 PM6/15/13
to
> Fortunately, I won't have to pay a penny, because no one in this group can do
>
> it.
Unfortunatelly, I don't have PayPal account. Bummer. Enjoy your money.
>
> it.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 15, 2013, 7:06:15 PM6/15/13
to
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:kpiit4$2so$1...@dont-email.me...
> You won't have to pay me, because I don't have a PayPal account.
I'll be happy to send you a check.
> Also, you didn't post a link for reading the section containing your
> challenge, so I didn't feel like hunting down the book. I'll do that for
> $25. You can send me a check.
All you have to do is go to the Amazon page for "Electronics Explained", then
search the book for "89" and "118" to view the pages. It's free.
> However, not having any idea of what the author wrote, but using what Paul
> S wrote, I'd suggest approaching the topic (remember - I don't really know
> for sure what the topic is) by starting off by talking about signals. A
> signal is what flows from the input to the output, and can be passed through
> by either an analog or a digital representation of the signal source.
That's a good starting point. But start thinking about information, rather
than signals.
> You won't have to pay me, because I don't have a PayPal account.
> Also, you didn't post a link for reading the section containing your
> challenge, so I didn't feel like hunting down the book. I'll do that for
> $25. You can send me a check.
search the book for "89" and "118" to view the pages. It's free.
> However, not having any idea of what the author wrote, but using what Paul
> S wrote, I'd suggest approaching the topic (remember - I don't really know
> for sure what the topic is) by starting off by talking about signals. A
> signal is what flows from the input to the output, and can be passed through
> by either an analog or a digital representation of the signal source.
than signals.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 15, 2013, 7:07:30 PM6/15/13
to
"Mark" wrote in message
news:c977269d-7d61-4743...@c3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> its really simple
> analog signals are continuous (in the math sense) , meaning the value
> can be any real number in the range...
> digital signals are quantized and can take on only discrete values
> that's it....nothing more nothing less
You're almost correct. But think of data, rather than signals.
news:c977269d-7d61-4743...@c3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> its really simple
> analog signals are continuous (in the math sense) , meaning the value
> can be any real number in the range...
> digital signals are quantized and can take on only discrete values
> that's it....nothing more nothing less
William Sommerwerck
Jun 15, 2013, 7:09:03 PM6/15/13
to
"Paul" wrote in message news:kpik5t$95p$1...@dont-email.me...
> You don't know what you're talking about.
Actually, I do.
> If you are such an incredible teacher, why don't YOU
> write a clear, complete explanation?
In another post, I promise one on July 15th.
> You don't know what you're talking about.
> If you are such an incredible teacher, why don't YOU
> write a clear, complete explanation?
William Sommerwerck
Jun 15, 2013, 7:20:24 PM6/15/13
to
> Unfortunately, I don't have PayPal account. Bummer.
> Enjoy your money.
I'll be glad to send a check.
> Enjoy your money.
I'll be glad to send a check.
Gareth Magennis
Jun 15, 2013, 7:26:47 PM6/15/13
to
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message news:kpi87j$9f2$1...@dont-email.me...
William, I've said this before, and unfortunately feel compelled to say it
again.
You're an utter Knob, sometimes.
Gareth.
Paul
Jun 15, 2013, 7:31:45 PM6/15/13
to
On 6/15/2013 4:09 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Paul" wrote in message news:kpik5t$95p$1...@dont-email.me...
>> You don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Actually, I do.
>
You don't know shit. You're an underachiever
> "Paul" wrote in message news:kpik5t$95p$1...@dont-email.me...
>> You don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Actually, I do.
>
looking for some attention by telling everyone here
how stupid they are!
I'm not impressed.
>> If you are such an incredible teacher, why don't YOU
>> write a clear, complete explanation?
>
> In another post, I promise one on July 15th.
enlighten everyone here, right?
I ain't holding my breath....
None
Jun 15, 2013, 7:41:14 PM6/15/13
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kpirik$dvs$1...@dont-email.me...
willyweazelout out in other posts on this thread.
You're nothing if not predictable.
None
Jun 15, 2013, 7:43:19 PM6/15/13
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kpirea$dd4$1...@dont-email.me...
>> You can say that you offered to write something for someone,
>> but they declined. That's your résumé, isn't it?
>
> Unfortunately, yes (though with respect to Amazon, there is no
> connection, as this was an Amazon Vine review).
>
> It's not just me. Businesses are not interested in good user
> documentation.
Maybe they don't think user documentation should consist
>> but they declined. That's your résumé, isn't it?
>
> Unfortunately, yes (though with respect to Amazon, there is no
> connection, as this was an Amazon Vine review).
>
> It's not just me. Businesses are not interested in good user
> documentation.
of a failed attempt by the writer to prove that he's smarter
than everyone else. I guess nobody wants to pay for that.
Ron C
Jun 15, 2013, 8:18:05 PM6/15/13
to
On 6/15/2013 1:33 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
Wondering what "tome from Bell Labs" you're referring to
in your book review?
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--
PStamler
Jun 15, 2013, 8:19:32 PM6/15/13
to
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:52:28 PM UTC-5, Mark wrote:
> its really simple
>
>
>
> analog signals are continuous (in the math sense) , meaning the value
>
> can be any real number in the range...
>
>
>
> digital signals are quantized and can take on only discrete values
>
>
>
> that's it....nothing more nothing less
Mark, that's not quite correct. There are analog signals which are sampled, which means they are quantized in the time sense, though not in amplitude. An example would be the sampled analog values fed through bucket-brigade analog delay units, found mostly in guitar effects pedals these days. That's typical of the reasons I used so many weasel words in the definition I gave.
> its really simple
>
>
>
> analog signals are continuous (in the math sense) , meaning the value
>
> can be any real number in the range...
>
>
>
> digital signals are quantized and can take on only discrete values
>
>
>
> that's it....nothing more nothing less
Definitions are difficult; among other things, they require that people agree on prior terms first (like, in this case, "continuous"). This is why dictionary makers and standards committees go bonkers.
Peace,
Paul
Paul
Jun 15, 2013, 8:22:37 PM6/15/13
to
Mark
Jun 15, 2013, 9:35:59 PM6/15/13
to
On Jun 15, 8:19 pm, PStamler <pstam...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:52:28 PM UTC-5, Mark wrote:
> > its really simple
>
> > analog signals are continuous (in the math sense) , meaning the value
>
> > can be any real number in the range...
>
> > digital signals are quantized and can take on only discrete values
>
> > that's it....nothing more nothing less
>
> Mark, that's not quite correct. There are analog signals which are sampled, which means they are quantized in the time sense, though not in amplitude. An example would be the sampled analog values fed through bucket-brigade analog delay units, found mostly in guitar effects pedals these days. That's typical of the reasons I used so many weasel words in the definition I gave.
Yes and these ARE ANALOG signals, not Digital.
> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:52:28 PM UTC-5, Mark wrote:
> > its really simple
>
> > analog signals are continuous (in the math sense) , meaning the value
>
> > can be any real number in the range...
>
> > digital signals are quantized and can take on only discrete values
>
> > that's it....nothing more nothing less
>
> Mark, that's not quite correct. There are analog signals which are sampled, which means they are quantized in the time sense, though not in amplitude. An example would be the sampled analog values fed through bucket-brigade analog delay units, found mostly in guitar effects pedals these days. That's typical of the reasons I used so many weasel words in the definition I gave.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
Hi Paul,
I am aware of analog sampled signals. Stereo MPX FM is another
example of sampled analog signals. These signals as you say are
SAMPLED in time. However the are not QUANTIZED in amplitude. The
SAMPLE values can be ANY value. These signals are clearly NOT digital
despite the fact that the ARE sampled.
The quantization in amplitude is the key distinction of Digital
signals.
mark
William Sommerwerck
Jun 15, 2013, 9:44:30 PM6/15/13
to
"Ron C" wrote in message
news:u4CdndVjw7OhmSDM...@giganews.com...
> Odd, I can't seem to access page 89.
Click on the image of the book, then enter the page number in the "Search
Inside This Book" text box. One of the responses will be page 89.
> Wondering what "tome from Bell Labs" you're referring to
> in your book review?
It was a huge book in a binder. It was some years ago. I was startled that it
had a clear, correct explanation.
news:u4CdndVjw7OhmSDM...@giganews.com...
> Odd, I can't seem to access page 89.
Inside This Book" text box. One of the responses will be page 89.
> Wondering what "tome from Bell Labs" you're referring to
> in your book review?
had a clear, correct explanation.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 15, 2013, 9:46:05 PM6/15/13
to
"> Mark, that's not quite correct. There are analog signals which are sampled,
which means they are quantized in the time sense, though not in amplitude. An
example would be the sampled analog values fed through bucket-brigade analog
delay units, found mostly in guitar effects pedals these days. That's typical
of the reasons I used so many weasel words in the definition I gave.
Yes and these ARE ANALOG signals, not Digital.
which means they are quantized in the time sense, though not in amplitude. An
example would be the sampled analog values fed through bucket-brigade analog
delay units, found mostly in guitar effects pedals these days. That's typical
of the reasons I used so many weasel words in the definition I gave.
Yes and these ARE ANALOG signals, not Digital.
I am aware of analog sampled signals. Stereo MPX FM is another
example of sampled analog signals. These signals as you say are
SAMPLED in time. However the are not QUANTIZED in amplitude. The
SAMPLE values can be ANY value. These signals are clearly NOT digital
despite the fact that the ARE sampled.
The quantization in amplitude is the key distinction of Digital
signals.
correct, correct, correct.
example of sampled analog signals. These signals as you say are
SAMPLED in time. However the are not QUANTIZED in amplitude. The
SAMPLE values can be ANY value. These signals are clearly NOT digital
despite the fact that the ARE sampled.
The quantization in amplitude is the key distinction of Digital
signals.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 15, 2013, 9:48:40 PM6/15/13
to
> Maybe they don't think user documentation should consist
> of a failed attempt by the writer to prove that he's smarter
> than everyone else. I guess nobody wants to pay for that.
In those rare cases where I've been allowed to write documentation, the
> of a failed attempt by the writer to prove that he's smarter
> than everyone else. I guess nobody wants to pay for that.
customers have been very happy.
Most user documentation is terrible, and it is wholly the manufacturer's or
publisher's fault. There are plenty of good technical writers who'd be happy
to write solid documentation, but businesses don't give a damn.
Frank Stearns
Jun 15, 2013, 9:58:33 PM6/15/13
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> writes:
>I direct you to pages 89 and 118, specifically "Introduction" on p89, and the
>"Data Conversion" section starting on p118. (You can read these at Amazon, for
>free.)
Er, no, you can't. Had you selected the "surprise" option for browsing the book and
>I direct you to pages 89 and 118, specifically "Introduction" on p89, and the
>"Data Conversion" section starting on p118. (You can read these at Amazon, for
>free.)
simply landed on these pages? (My "surprise" was a list of figures, the first few
pages, and the index. The TOC or index did NOT link to these specific pages.)
It would appear Amazon wants to sell the book, not give it away. So unless you can
provide explicit links to these particular "free" pages, not so sure how this
proposal of yours is going to work.
Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.
Ron C
Jun 15, 2013, 10:00:39 PM6/15/13
to
On 6/15/2013 9:44 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Ron C" wrote in message
> news:u4CdndVjw7OhmSDM...@giganews.com...
>
>> Odd, I can't seem to access page 89.
>
> Click on the image of the book, then enter the page number in the
> "Search Inside This Book" text box. One of the responses will be page 89.
Been there done that, several times. It didn't work for me.
> "Ron C" wrote in message
> news:u4CdndVjw7OhmSDM...@giganews.com...
>
>> Odd, I can't seem to access page 89.
>
> Click on the image of the book, then enter the page number in the
> "Search Inside This Book" text box. One of the responses will be page 89.
>
>> Wondering what "tome from Bell Labs" you're referring to
>> in your book review?
>
> It was a huge book in a binder. It was some years ago. I was startled
> that it had a clear, correct explanation.
Interesting but not helpful. Anyway, it seems much of the
>> Wondering what "tome from Bell Labs" you're referring to
>> in your book review?
>
> It was a huge book in a binder. It was some years ago. I was startled
> that it had a clear, correct explanation.
Bell Labs library has been moved to storage.
Frank Stearns
Jun 15, 2013, 10:04:10 PM6/15/13
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> writes:
>"Ron C" wrote in message
>news:u4CdndVjw7OhmSDM...@giganews.com...
>> Odd, I can't seem to access page 89.
>Click on the image of the book, then enter the page number in the "Search
>Inside This Book" text box. One of the responses will be page 89.
Six results from that search. The "meat" result, the actual page 89 (and not just
>"Ron C" wrote in message
>news:u4CdndVjw7OhmSDM...@giganews.com...
>> Odd, I can't seem to access page 89.
>Click on the image of the book, then enter the page number in the "Search
>Inside This Book" text box. One of the responses will be page 89.
an entry in the TOC or index), is NOT LINKED. The result is grayed out, in fact.
Please post a working link.
None
Jun 15, 2013, 10:07:30 PM6/15/13
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kpj58j$mud$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Maybe they don't think user documentation should consist
>> of a failed attempt by the writer to prove that he's smarter
>> than everyone else. I guess nobody wants to pay for that.
>
> In those rare cases where I've been allowed to write documentation,
> the customers have been very happy.
>
> Most user documentation is terrible,
Like your "documentation" on how to find a few pages
>> of a failed attempt by the writer to prove that he's smarter
>> than everyone else. I guess nobody wants to pay for that.
>
> In those rare cases where I've been allowed to write documentation,
> the customers have been very happy.
>
> Most user documentation is terrible,
on Amazon? The "customers" have not been satisfied.
Your "superiority" is, as always, a fantasy. Priceless!
PStamler
Jun 15, 2013, 10:09:53 PM6/15/13
to
Remember a few years ago when people went ballistic over an OSHA document that took many pages (I forget how many) to describe what constitutes a safe ladder. This discussion illustrates just how tricky and nitpicky definitions can be.
Besides, going back to Sommerwerck's original question, I believe that rather than asking for a simple delineator of the difference between analog and digital, he was asking for *definitions* of both terms. Which I tried to provide.
Peace,
Paul
None
Jun 15, 2013, 10:15:42 PM6/15/13
to
"PStamler" <psta...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:a72ee55d-a612-4535...@googlegroups.com...
the past. If anyone really gives a fuck, with a simple
search they could feed him his own definitions. That
would ruin his big buildup to his much ado about nothing,
and he'd have to find some other way of failing to prove
his own superiority.
But I doubt anybody really gives a fuck. Those of us
who actually use analog and digital audio are well aware
of the definitions that are actually useful in the real
world, where self-serving pedantry isn't helpful.
news:a72ee55d-a612-4535...@googlegroups.com...
> Besides, going back to Sommerwerck's original question, I believe
> that rather than asking for a simple delineator of the difference
> between analog and digital, he was asking for *definitions* of both
> terms. Which I tried to provide.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
Willie has waxed narcissistic on this exact subject in
> that rather than asking for a simple delineator of the difference
> between analog and digital, he was asking for *definitions* of both
> terms. Which I tried to provide.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
the past. If anyone really gives a fuck, with a simple
search they could feed him his own definitions. That
would ruin his big buildup to his much ado about nothing,
and he'd have to find some other way of failing to prove
his own superiority.
But I doubt anybody really gives a fuck. Those of us
who actually use analog and digital audio are well aware
of the definitions that are actually useful in the real
world, where self-serving pedantry isn't helpful.
Ron C
Jun 15, 2013, 10:35:37 PM6/15/13
to
and pictures? [Not that I really care.]
Scott Dorsey
Jun 15, 2013, 10:37:14 PM6/15/13
to
Ron C <r.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Wondering what "tome from Bell Labs" you're referring to
>>> in your book review?
>>
>> It was a huge book in a binder. It was some years ago. I was startled
>> that it had a clear, correct explanation.
>
>Interesting but not helpful. Anyway, it seems much of the
>Bell Labs library has been moved to storage.
Odds are good he's referring to either Rabiner and Gold or Oppenheim
>>
>>> Wondering what "tome from Bell Labs" you're referring to
>>> in your book review?
>>
>> It was a huge book in a binder. It was some years ago. I was startled
>> that it had a clear, correct explanation.
>
>Interesting but not helpful. Anyway, it seems much of the
>Bell Labs library has been moved to storage.
and Schafer, the two classic DSP texts to come out of Bell labs in the
seventies.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Sean Conolly
Jun 16, 2013, 2:05:09 AM6/16/13
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kpj58j$mud$1...@dont-email.me...
The effect is undeniable (crappy documentation) but I find the cause is
ignorance on the part of management. Not just documentation, the same is
true for the user interface of the product, and the user interaction with
the companies sales and support channels. Corporate management doesn't seem
to understand the importance of these interactions with the user base, and
simply delegate this stuff to however was unlucky enough to tasked with it.
Well, that's the good end of the spectrum. At the bad end are the companies
that have the hubris to think 'we'll tell our customers what they want',
which is what you've been dealing with from the sound of it.
We used to have technical writers on staff, so engineers could focus on
engineering and let the writers do what they do best. Now the documentation
chores are given to the engieneers, usually to the ones with the least
seniority, knowledge, and experience. And the results are predictable.
I'm stopping now before I go on a rant - sorry.
Sean
Mike Rivers
Jun 16, 2013, 7:04:03 AM6/16/13
to
On 6/15/2013 9:48 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Most user documentation is terrible, and it is wholly the manufacturer's
> or publisher's fault. There are plenty of good technical writers who'd
> be happy to write solid documentation, but businesses don't give a damn.
Mostly, they don't give a dollar. George Peterson once told me (when
> Most user documentation is terrible, and it is wholly the manufacturer's
> or publisher's fault. There are plenty of good technical writers who'd
> be happy to write solid documentation, but businesses don't give a damn.
explaining why he couldn't publish my reviews in Mix) that if you write
more than a three page review, you're just re-writing the manual. I
realized that this was true, thinking about some of the reviews that
I've written. I tell the reader how it really works.
--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
Mike Rivers
Jun 16, 2013, 7:07:37 AM6/16/13
to
On 6/15/2013 9:44 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> Odd, I can't seem to access page 89.
>
> Click on the image of the book, then enter the page number in the
> "Search Inside This Book" text box. One of the responses will be page 89.
You should be writing instruction manuals instead of wasting your time
>
> Click on the image of the book, then enter the page number in the
> "Search Inside This Book" text box. One of the responses will be page 89.
here. I hear the pay is about the same.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 16, 2013, 7:48:09 AM6/16/13
to
> Like your "documentation" on how to find a few pages
> on Amazon? The "customers" have not been satisfied.
> Your "superiority" is, as always, a fantasy. Priceless!
I checked it again, and it worked.
> on Amazon? The "customers" have not been satisfied.
> Your "superiority" is, as always, a fantasy. Priceless!
William Sommerwerck
Jun 16, 2013, 7:54:28 AM6/16/13
to
>> Most user documentation is terrible, and it is wholly the manufacturer's or
>> publisher's fault. There are plenty of good technical writers who'd be
>> happy to write solid documentation, but businesses don't give a damn.
> Following this sidebar discussion, I haven't found this to be entirely true.
> The effect is undeniable (crappy documentation) but I find the cause is
> ignorance on the part of management. Not just documentation, the same is
> true for the user interface of the product, and the user interaction with
> the companies sales and support channels. Corporate management doesn't seem
> to understand the importance of these interactions with the user base, and
> simply delegate this stuff to however was unlucky enough to tasked with it.
> Well, that's the good end of the spectrum. At the bad end are the companies
> that have the hubris to think 'we'll tell our customers what they want',
> which is what you've been dealing with from the sound of it.
I don't see much difference between "ignorance" and "not caring", but I won't
>> publisher's fault. There are plenty of good technical writers who'd be
>> happy to write solid documentation, but businesses don't give a damn.
> Following this sidebar discussion, I haven't found this to be entirely true.
> The effect is undeniable (crappy documentation) but I find the cause is
> ignorance on the part of management. Not just documentation, the same is
> true for the user interface of the product, and the user interaction with
> the companies sales and support channels. Corporate management doesn't seem
> to understand the importance of these interactions with the user base, and
> simply delegate this stuff to however was unlucky enough to tasked with it.
> Well, that's the good end of the spectrum. At the bad end are the companies
> that have the hubris to think 'we'll tell our customers what they want',
> which is what you've been dealing with from the sound of it.
deny the results of either.
> We used to have technical writers on staff, so engineers could focus on
> engineering and let the writers do what they do best. Now the documentation
> chores are given to the engieneers, usually to the ones with the least
> seniority, knowledge, and experience. And the results are predictable.
software. The result has been the deterioration of products (such as Visio)
and the failure to fix problems with others (Word).
> I'm stopping now before I go on a rant - sorry.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 16, 2013, 8:02:17 AM6/16/13
to
I'm sorry people are having trouble, but I double-checked everything /before/
posting, and it worked.
The following steps work with Internet Exploder (as a friend used to call it).
1. Go to the Amazon page for "Electronics Explained".
http://www.amazon.com/Electronics-Explained-Systems-Approach-Learning/dp/1856177009/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
2. Hover the mouse cursor over the image of the book.
A dialog box with a Search Inside This Book text box should appear.
3. Click within the text box, and enter the page number you want.
4. Click Go.
5. After Amazon does a bit of searching, you should see a list titled "6
results for 89". One of them is labeled "Page 89". Click on it, and page 89
will pop up.
posting, and it worked.
The following steps work with Internet Exploder (as a friend used to call it).
1. Go to the Amazon page for "Electronics Explained".
http://www.amazon.com/Electronics-Explained-Systems-Approach-Learning/dp/1856177009/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
2. Hover the mouse cursor over the image of the book.
A dialog box with a Search Inside This Book text box should appear.
3. Click within the text box, and enter the page number you want.
4. Click Go.
5. After Amazon does a bit of searching, you should see a list titled "6
results for 89". One of them is labeled "Page 89". Click on it, and page 89
will pop up.
John Williamson
Jun 16, 2013, 10:51:30 AM6/16/13
to
the amazon.com site.
I don't fancy paying out 23 bucks to buy it or eight bucks to rent it on
my Kindle.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
hank alrich
Jun 16, 2013, 11:23:52 AM6/16/13
to
--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
None
Jun 16, 2013, 11:46:32 AM6/16/13
to
"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:1l4jtxq.1ctq3rb1ozd96oN%walk...@nv.net...
who is always right (on Willie Bizarro planet). It's obvious
why nobody wants "documentation" written by the clueless.
news:1l4jtxq.1ctq3rb1ozd96oN%walk...@nv.net...
> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Click on it, and page
>> 89 will pop up.
>
> Nope. Pg. 89 is greyed-out in the results sidebar.
Classic Willie! As always, everyone is wrong except Willie,
> Click on it, and page
>> 89 will pop up.
>
> Nope. Pg. 89 is greyed-out in the results sidebar.
who is always right (on Willie Bizarro planet). It's obvious
why nobody wants "documentation" written by the clueless.
Mike Rivers
Jun 16, 2013, 11:49:11 AM6/16/13
to
On 6/16/2013 8:02 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> The following steps work with Internet Exploder (as a friend used to
> call it).
>
> 1. Go to the Amazon page for "Electronics Explained".
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Electronics-Explained-Systems-Approach-Learning/dp/1856177009/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
>
>
> 2. Hover the mouse cursor over the image of the book.
>
> A dialog box with a Search Inside This Book text box should appear.
>
> 3. Click within the text box, and enter the page number you want.
>
> 4. Click Go.
>
> 5. After Amazon does a bit of searching, you should see a list titled "6
> results for 89". One of them is labeled "Page 89". Click on it, and page
> 89 will pop up.
Maybe it only works with Explorer (of the correct version). If you relly
> The following steps work with Internet Exploder (as a friend used to
> call it).
>
> 1. Go to the Amazon page for "Electronics Explained".
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Electronics-Explained-Systems-Approach-Learning/dp/1856177009/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
>
>
> 2. Hover the mouse cursor over the image of the book.
>
> A dialog box with a Search Inside This Book text box should appear.
>
> 3. Click within the text box, and enter the page number you want.
>
> 4. Click Go.
>
> 5. After Amazon does a bit of searching, you should see a list titled "6
> results for 89". One of them is labeled "Page 89". Click on it, and page
> 89 will pop up.
want people to look at this, why not just copy the text to a message
here? You might get nicked for copyright violation, but they won't send
you to jail.
Your challenge doesn't seem to be interesting enough to go through all
of those steps to maybe get to the page you're complaining about, but at
least if we couid all see it, whether we have a better answer or not, we
could see what upsets you so.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 16, 2013, 12:30:29 PM6/16/13
to
"John Williamson" wrote in message news:b261ni...@mid.individual.net...
I can apparently access any page of this one, which is most unusual.
> I don't fancy paying out 23 bucks to buy it or eight bucks
> to rent it on my Kindle.
And I don't want you to.
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> I checked it again, and it worked.
> "Pages 78-302 are not available in this preview" here
> from the UK, on the amazon.com site.
Someone else remarked "Amazon isn't in the business of giving books away." But
>> I checked it again, and it worked.
> "Pages 78-302 are not available in this preview" here
> from the UK, on the amazon.com site.
I can apparently access any page of this one, which is most unusual.
> I don't fancy paying out 23 bucks to buy it or eight bucks
> to rent it on my Kindle.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 16, 2013, 12:31:10 PM6/16/13
to
>> 5. After Amazon does a bit of searching, you should see a list titled "6
>> results for 89". One of them is labeled "Page 89". Click on it, and page
>> 89 will pop up.
> Nope. Pg. 89 is greyed-out in the results sidebar.
It is on mine, too -- but it works.
>> results for 89". One of them is labeled "Page 89". Click on it, and page
>> 89 will pop up.
> Nope. Pg. 89 is greyed-out in the results sidebar.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 16, 2013, 12:33:41 PM6/16/13
to
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:kpkmg5$6s1$1...@dont-email.me...
> Maybe it only works with Explorer (of the correct version). If you
> really want people to look at this, why not just copy the text to a
I could certainly defend the copying as "fair use" for review purposes.
> Your challenge doesn't seem to be interesting enough to go through all
> of those steps to maybe get to the page you're complaining about, but at
> least if we couid all see it, whether we have a better answer or not, we
> could see what upsets you so.
Thanks for understanding. Give me a day or two to transcribe and post it.
> Maybe it only works with Explorer (of the correct version). If you
> message here? You might get nicked for copyright violation, but
> they won't send you to jail.
Agreed. It looks like that's what I'll have to do.
> they won't send you to jail.
I could certainly defend the copying as "fair use" for review purposes.
> Your challenge doesn't seem to be interesting enough to go through all
> of those steps to maybe get to the page you're complaining about, but at
> least if we couid all see it, whether we have a better answer or not, we
> could see what upsets you so.
hank alrich
Jun 16, 2013, 2:07:52 PM6/16/13
to
William Sommerwerck
Jun 16, 2013, 3:27:37 PM6/16/13
to
"hank alrich" wrote in message
news:1l4jysv.1l89gs61dwjtkwN%walk...@nv.net...
With any luck, I'll have the excerpts posted by tomorrow afternoon. I'll work
on them tonight during "North America".
news:1l4jysv.1l89gs61dwjtkwN%walk...@nv.net...
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> 5. After Amazon does a bit of searching, you should see a list titled "6
> >> results for 89". One of them is labeled "Page 89". Click on it, and page
> >> 89 will pop up.
> > Nope. Pg. 89 is greyed-out in the results sidebar.
>
> It is on mine, too -- but it works.
I click = nada.
It's reversed. Usually things work for me, but for no one else.
> >> 5. After Amazon does a bit of searching, you should see a list titled "6
> >> results for 89". One of them is labeled "Page 89". Click on it, and page
> >> 89 will pop up.
> > Nope. Pg. 89 is greyed-out in the results sidebar.
>
> It is on mine, too -- but it works.
I click = nada.
With any luck, I'll have the excerpts posted by tomorrow afternoon. I'll work
on them tonight during "North America".
Luxey
Jun 16, 2013, 6:52:03 PM6/16/13
to
> I can apparently access any page of this one, which is most unusual.
That's because you 've already bought it, or something, so you have cookie on your PC which enables you to read it. Not that I tried, or have an itention to.
Ron C
Jun 16, 2013, 7:04:49 PM6/16/13
to
On 6/16/2013 6:52 PM, Luxey wrote:
>> I can apparently access any page of this one, which is most unusual.
>
> That's because you 've already bought it, or something, so you have cookie on your PC which enables you to read it. Not that I tried, or have an itention to.
>
Sounds logical and I too had that thought. I tried the experiment on
>> I can apparently access any page of this one, which is most unusual.
>
> That's because you 've already bought it, or something, so you have cookie on your PC which enables you to read it. Not that I tried, or have an itention to.
>
books I'd
purchased and found the preview content still limited. Seems there are other
(unknown) factors in the preview limitations.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 16, 2013, 8:11:40 PM6/16/13
to
"Ron C" wrote in message
news:youdnZLLUd0N2SPM...@giganews.com...
On 6/16/2013 6:52 PM, Luxey wrote:
>>> I can apparently access any page of this one, which is most unusual.
>> That's because you 've already bought it, or something, so you
>> have a cookie on your PC which enables you to read it. Not that
>>> I can apparently access any page of this one, which is most unusual.
>> That's because you 've already bought it, or something, so you
>> I tried, or have an intention to.
> Sounds logical and I too had that thought. I tried the experiment on books
> I'd purchased and found the preview content still limited.
> Seems there are other (unknown) factors in the preview limitations.
bad technical book obtained the same way, and there were plenty of blocked
pages -- including one I wanted to view.
Ron C
Jun 16, 2013, 8:27:59 PM6/16/13
to
limitations."
mako...@yahoo.com
Jun 16, 2013, 10:08:57 PM6/16/13
to
Well good so we all agree ,even William..
Peace
Mark
Peace
Mark
0 new messages