Miguel Cruz wrote:

> root/administrator <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> Miguel Cruz wrote:

>>> root/administrator <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>>>>>> Any A/D (Analog->Digital) conversion is lossy regardless how high the

>>>>>> signal is sampled.

>>>>>

>>>>> Depends entirely on the frequency content of the signal, and whether

>>>>> you're sampling at a fast enough rate (nyquist rate). Trust me, I

>>>>> work in the acoustics field.

>>>>

>>>> Regardless what your nyquist rate is and your work in the acoustics

>>>> field, the sampling is always an approximation and therefore it is

>>>> lossy.

>>>

>>> I think his point is that if, at the end of the day, you are trying to

>>> carry digital data (which is after all the point of this thread) then

>>> you can go to analog and back without necessarily losing data.

>>>

>>> Given a sufficient sampling rate, the information that does get lost in

>>> the A/D process was incidentally added as a side effect of the earlier

>>> D/A process and is therefore spurious.

>>>

>>> A simple proof of this is the fact that modems work.

>>

>> Modem works mainly because the origin is already a discrete data then it

>> gets converted to analog (D/A) -> stream through a media between two or

>> more points -> A/D (back to discrete data at the destination point).

>

> Congratulations, you have successfully paraphrased what I said.

>
What you did say was the fact modems work and that was necessary as a proof.

What I wrote was to proof what you said does not necessary proof the

matter. So, your congratulation was not appropriate as well as not needed

in this matter and please save it for some other occasions.

>> The discrete data that gets converted to an analog form is only as an

>> approxination and will never (not almost) be faithfully identical to its

>> analog origination. Thus, it is a lossy conversion.

>

> The OP wants to transmit digital data. It does not have an analog

> origination, only intermediate analog representation.

>

> miguel
That I understood clearly. The point I was trying to proof is that any A->D

conversion is lossy that some of you who has experience of being an

engineer working in the field of acoustic claimed A->D conversion is

lossless. Perhaps, that particular individual should refresh himself with

an A->D conversion knowledge.

--

root/administrator