Talk:Digital-to-analog converter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Professional sound production (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Electronics (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Unbalanced article[edit]

The article is focussed way too much on audio DACs. It should contain more balanced information about other important types of DACs, mostly high speed (100MSPS to 1GSPS) DACs: flash DAC, pipeline DACs, switched capacitor DAC, dual DACs used for I/Q upconversion etc. see Analog Devices AD9777A for example.

And technically, the chip pictured at the beginning of the article is an audio CODEC, not an audio DAC. difference: DAC chip = only contains a DAC; CODEC = contains several DACs, several ADCs, muxers, gain controls, interpolators (to support multiple sampling rates), and so on, providing a complete bidirectional analog <==> digital interface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.120.254 (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. DACs are vital in communications. Faster DACs are being developed every year. There is no mention of DDS!!!--B. Srinivasa Sasidhar 18:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bssasidhar (talkcontribs)

Intial discussion[edit]

Why are switching capacitor style DACs such as those implemented for VGA and TV signal generation left out? This article seems to concentrate entirely on DACs for the purpose of audio signal generation.

DACs are used in analogue signal processing circuits to replace potentiometers

I know what the writer is getting at, but these circuit elements are not really DACs, they are digitally controlled potentiometers ;-) In other words they do not create an analogue signal from a digital one, asa DAC does, but controls a purely analogue signal under digital control. Such devices are interesting and deserve an article, but they do not belong under DAC. Graham 05:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I've now made a start on this article based on the text copied from here. Graham 06:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I miss a history section..[edit]

Could someone with knowledge write one? Electron9 01:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that practical DACs output a sequence of piecewise constant values or rectangular pulses[edit]

Rectangular pulse output was used to avoid the sinc roll-off of zero-order hold circuits. That is, rectangular pulse was used as an approximation of a dirac pulse. See for example this discussion: [1] So the use of the term "rectangular pulse" in the context of Nyquest-rate zero-order hold circuits is confusing: rectangular pulse DAC circuits are not Nyquest-rate zero-order hold circuits.150.101.166.15 (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ring DAC[edit]

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

Is the "ring DAC" [2] significant enough to mention in this article? Or is it merely a minor variation of the "thermometer coded DAC" combined with a "oversampling DAC"? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Modem[edit]

There is an obvious problem on Modem that most people think a Modem converts digital signals to analog signals. The modem article is already too long to include a tutorial on the difference between analog and digital signals, and there isn't any good place to reference -- so any suggestions would be welcome.203.206.162.148 (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You say "there is an obvious problem" but it is far from clear what you think the problem is. It is also unclear why you are posting on this page, which is for discussion improvements to the D/A article. Why are you not discussion this at Talk:Modem which is the "obvious" place to get the Modem article improved. SpinningSpark 14:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Superfluous section?[edit]

Is the section "Some vocabulary" really needed? --Mortense (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

External links[edit]

An edit war prompted me to review the Further reading and External links sections. I did not change Further reading. The ADI handbook appears be a valuable and accessible resource - lets not remove it. There were some things in External links that might be useful as references but the glssary link was the only thing that struck me as potentially valuable. Here are the links I removed. --Kvng (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This article mentioned…[edit]

FWIW, this article is mentioned very-slightly critically in this video. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Odd paragraph in the introduction[edit]

Does the long paragraph in the introduction mentioning a digital revolution really belong in this article?18.62.28.75 (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the content of the article. This is something different. I have reverted the recent changes by CPES. ~KvnG 13:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you should have reverted my changes, as the statement about complexity was not factual. However my broader point is that the introduction is very strange given the context of the article. IMO it should be rewritten to focus more on the actual technology and less on someone's opinions about digital technology. The language is also probably not appropriate for a technical article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.62.17.224 (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)