Talk:Ring modulation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Electronics (Rated Start-class)
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Electronic music (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Chick Corea usage[edit]

It said in the article that Chick Corea used a ring modulator on an electric Fender Rhodes piano during Miles Davis's performance at the isle of white festival, however if you watch the footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JlO_xXEBhY) he is clearly playing an acoustic upright piano. He can be seen to alter the ring modulator's setting while playing the piano. I just changed this detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.242.227 (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

The article says 'It is referred to as "ring" modulation because the analog circuit of diodes originally used to implement this effect took the shape of a ring.'

I've never heard that said before - surely the "ring" comes from the clangorous types of sounds which the effect can generate - in those days, it was one of the only ways to get bell-like sounds.--feline1 12:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

-- it is indeed a ring of diodes, they all go "Clockwise" or "Counter clockwise", as opposed to in a Bridge Rectifier, in which all diodes face "left" or "right". Loscha 21:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ring of diodes or ringing bell? A citation for the origin of the name is needed --Kvng (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation from OED supplied.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you've cited the definition of "ring". Is that a formatting error? --Kvng (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
No, not a formatting error. I have cited sense 19.a under the first of two noun classifications of the word "ring", a list of "Special combs", under which you will find (amongst many others: "ring armature", "ring-armour", "ring-mail", "ring-bayonet", "ring beam", etc.) the quoted definition of "ring modulator".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Another, possibly better, reference: The New Grove dictionary of music and musicians, by George Grove, Stanley Sadie (1980), page 45. "The ring modulator takes its name from the characteristic ring formation..." Binksternet (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Yup (although "page 45" seems awfully close to the beginning of the alphabet for an article beginning with R). And the current edition of New Grove is even better. I'll add it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
That's what Google book search said. Page 45, then 46 for the footnotes... out of 18,000 pages in the book. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess it's a classic example of "don't believe everything you read on the web". The 1980 New Grove was issued in twenty volumes, each of which had a "page 45", since the volumes are paginated separately. Without walking over to the library and looking on the shelf, I cannot be certain, but I think this would probably be in vol. 16. The OCLC identifies this volume as "Riegel–Schusterfleck", so the article "Ring modulator" would indeed fall near the beginning of that volume. Still, it's better to cite the most up-to-date edition. Plus, for dictionary and encyclopedia citations it is not usually necessary to cite the page number, except for particularly long and complicated articles (e.g., "Mode" in the New Grove).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I have a hard copy here; the referenced quote appears on page 429 of Volume 21 in the Second (2001) edition. Reve (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Two frequencies?[edit]

Citation from the article

"Thus, in the basic case where two sine waves of frequencies f1 and f2 (f2>f1) are multiplied, two new sine waves are created, with one at f1+f2 and the other at f2-f1."

Is the "f1+f2" and the "f2-f1" thing what convolution is all about?

It's weird that two frequencies are created, although only one should be given as output.

Thanks, --Abdull 19:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Both frequencies are given as output, though often one of them falls below the audible range. And no, this isn't really a convolution. In convolution you may multiply the frequency spectrums of the signal, but in this case we multiply the signals directly. - Rainwarrior 17:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What's weird is that these circuits are commonly called mixers. I think of a mixer doing an addition. But it is also apparently common to refer to a multiplier as a mixer. Here are a couple articles that helped clear things up for me: Electronic mixer, Frequency mixer. --Kvng (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Convolutions procedure provides the convolution of two signals/function, you can think about it as all possible sums of frequencies from both inputs. Because if we have sine waves, we have only on frequency in each input, then output have two frequencies. If input waves are more complex (for example first have 3 frequencies, and second have 5 frequencies), then output is even more complex (have something like 30 frequencies, unless some of them are actually the same, with different amplitudes). Often, sum frequency falls above 20kHz, (or below -20kHz), and are not audible.

As of Mixer, I personally think mixer performs linear combination (master_gain*(gain_x*x + gain_y*y + gain_z*z + ...)), so it does multiplication and addition. Signal addition is done relativly easily in hardware, multiplication is harder. Hover, normally we are thinking about mixing as just adding two signals with constant multipliers, or multipliers which varies very slowly compared to signal (like moving mixer slider by hand, which is 1000 slower than actually sine wave changes). Ring modulation works with both signals having similar frequencies and variability, but in mixing only one is fast, second is slow, thus a distinction.

If you do not underst still what we mean by "multiplie frequencies" in signal, you should read about Frequency domain, Fourier transformation, Fourier series. --91.213.255.7 (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Contradition?[edit]

This article contradicts itself. In the first paragraph it states that the signals are multiplied, in the second it says that the sum is produced. --82.18.177.65 01:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The multiplication of the two voltages occours, but the Harmonic Spectrums are sum and differenced. Loscha 21:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not a contradiction, due to a trigonometric identity that is something like: 2 * sinA * sinB = sin((A+B)/2) + sin((A-B)/2) - Rainwarrior 17:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong topic?[edit]

Shouldn't there be a separate article about the use of effects called 'ring modulation' in modern sound equipment? It seems to me that this article should be about diode ring modulators, not something that takes the name from them.

Double-balanced mixer[edit]

Right, double-balanced mixers are not obsolete. This is the same 4-diode circuit, in current use at microwave frequencies, but under a different name.

AJim 06:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources[edit]

At Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles it says there are a number of citation styles, varying in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, etc. Further down at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_templates and tools, it says "editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus."

This article did not have a "distinctive citation style" until I put all of the cites into template form. Its first reference came from me, with no author or date stated; no access date or anything of the sort expected from GA and FA articles. The second reference added to the article was by User:Jerome Kohl who brought in this Stockhausen CD booklet reference, without using a cite template but with page numbers and publisher. Immediately after this ref, User:Redrose64 added one with a standard cite book template.

I see no reason why the whole article could not use cite templates. However, Jerome Kohl has been taking out the cite templates, first the one added by Redrose64 and then subsequent ones added by me. To me, this looks like a violation of the above-quoted sentence in bold. Once the article was given a distinctive reference format, one with access dates and so on, it should be settled into its path. Binksternet (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Two points. First, your summary of the edit history is perfectly correct, except for the assertion of lack of an existing "distinctive citation style". The CD booklet reference I inserted indeed has a distinctive style: the traditional footnote-reference format, with the author's name in normal order, and publication information enclosed in parentheses, in the order [place]:[publisher], [year]. The external link you had placed previously was formatted in the same way, but with incomplete publication data. This is often difficult for online sources, but in this case could be filled out as: "Buchla & Associates, "Historical: Model 100. 111 Dual Ring Modulator" (N.p.: Buchla & Associates Website, n.d.)". The inconsistent (template-driven) format added by Redrose should have been corrected earlier, but has now been rendered uniform with the other refs, including two subsequent ones added by me on June 2009 and June 2010. Second, the citation template you have tried subsequently to impose on the references produces a different format entirely, one originally devised for alphabetical reference lists when using author-date citations. In this format class (the specific format here appears to be a variant of APA reference-list style), the author's name appears in inverted order for the purpose of alphabetization, and the year of publication immediately following the author's name, either enclosed in parentheses (APA style) or not (Chicago style). This reference-list format is sometimes used incorrectly in footnote references, especially on the internet but sometimes in print media as well, where it serves no purpose except to expose the ignorance of an author or editor who believes it is "more scholarly", since it has appeared routinely in alphabetical reference lists and bibliographies since first being codified by the British Standards Institution in 1978 (though less formally it had been in use for nearly a century by then). ISTR a remark in one of your edit summaries invoking "progress" as a reason for replacing the established reference format in this article with citation templates. I respectfully submit that, if planting weeds and allowing them to take over a garden constitutes "progress", then it is progress of a sort we can do very nicely without, thank you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You have your work cut out for you if you intend to push back against the mass and movement of Wikipedia's chosen style. I have learned from trips to the beach that defending a line in the sand may result in being bowled over by larger forces. Good luck! Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Which citation format is the one "chosen style" of Wikipedia? The last I checked, "How to present citations" outlines five broad ways of presenting references, three of which are mutually exclusive format categories (not even specific formats), and Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style still states "There is currently no consensus on a preferred citation style or system for Wikipedia".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The "currently no consensus" wording is irrespective of the disproportionate numbers of GA- and FA-class articles with rubber-stamp template citation style. The difference between theory and practice? In theory, they are both the same... Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
That reminds me: how does the FA nomination process work? And what is the "rubber-stamp citation style"? I don't believe this is discussed in the relevant Wikipedia citation articles. The only GA and FA articles I have seen use the most diverse reference style formats.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

1963 Buchla[edit]

It appears that this interview establishes Buchla as having a ring modulator included with his first Model 100 design, the project completed in 1963. Binksternet (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

C64 Ring Modulation[edit]

A Ring modulator with a square wave in and a Triangle would produce a triangle out. Hence I doubt the entry. I have looked for a reference and can't find one. Perhaps the author should provide a reference.Nerak99 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure, it all depends on phase as well, because of inperfections of both triangle generator, squere generator, as well non-linear characteristics of modulator, it make sound much more complex that just triangle. --91.213.255.7 (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)