Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: Start with the dictionary definition of "digital"

Posted by Ralph on March 20, 2017 at 09:49:51:
Clearly the line between what is an analog process is what is considered 'not' is a bit dubious. Your point is well taken, and not germane to where this thread started, although once that got debunked it drifted pretty wildly afterwards...

I look at things from an engineering standpoint as that is my training. And having built class D amps, know that they are an entirely analog process. As I mentioned earlier on in this train wreck, class D lends itself nicely to hybridization with a DAC for a more direct-conversion process, but its wholly inaccurate to say that such an amplifier it truly digital when an obviously analog process is employed. The guy that started this was insisting that class D was digital all the way to the output, which really isn't true at all- otherwise dead time circuits and other aspects of class D operation simply would not be needed.