[sdiy] Is everything digital?

[Glen]

At 12:46 PM 5/14/2005 , Scott Gravenhorst wrote:

>Glen <mclilith at charter.net> wrote:
>>At 12:23 PM 5/14/2005 , Scott Gravenhorst wrote:
>>
>>>Except that digital systems react in a predictable manner to the well
defined
>>>discrete states.  I see no such dependance in analog systems, regardless of
>>>whether the quantum states are real or theoretical.
>>
>>In another post, I explain that I was implying the *signal* is digital, not
>>manner in which the circuitry processed the signal at a macro level.
>
>Perhaps this is a difference without a distinction?  Or as Spock put it: "A
>difference that makes no difference, is no difference."
>
>If the states are not recognized nor reacted to, why then call it "digital"? 
>That is, it's digitalness is not an attribute that matters.

Even if you are correct, though it might not matter at this point in time,
it might matter at a later date, under different circumstances. Being aware
of the discrete states in the signal might not be important to audio
circuit design, but to someone else in different circumstances, working
with a different level of technology, it might become an important
distinction. Even for our little circle of synth designers, I think it's
still an interesting concept to speculate about -- just for the fun of
trying to understand the "true nature" of things. (That phrase in quotes
opens another can of worms.)  :)

Keep in mind, I never said that this was crucial knowledge required to
design a better Moog filter or anything.  :)


take care,
Glen