Template talk:Modulation techniques

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Telecommunications (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Spread spectrum and Pulse modulation[edit]

What about Spread spectrum, isn't that also modulation ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R U Bn (talkcontribs).

I added those. --HappyCamper 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Direct-sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) is based on pulse-amplitude modulation. Frequency-hopping spread spectrum (FHSS) could be based on any modulation scheme.
Should the various Pulse modulation methods be included here? Mange01 12:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the latest revisions to the Modulation template. For example, OFDM should be considered as a modulation technique![edit]

Topics in Modulation techniques
Analog modulation

AM | SSB | FM | PM | QAM

Digital modulation


Digital multiplexing


Spread spectrum


Regarding the latest revisions to the template: (See the 7 June 2007 version to the right)

  • OFDM should be considered as a modulation technique rather than a multiplex technique, because that is how it is utilized (for transferring one bit-stream of useful data from one user to another), and that is how it is presented in the literature. Don't confuse OFDM with OFDMA, which is a multiple access technique. "OFDM modulation" gives 100.000 hits in google, while "OFDM multiplexing" gives 198 hits. For further arguments, see the OFDM and modulation articles.
  • Multiplexing is a huge topic, and if we keep this, several cathegories should be added, for example statistical multiplexing, FDM, etc. And why only digital?
  • CDMA is a multiple access technique, and not only a multiplexing technique, and should therefor be removed. It is however based on the DSSS multiplex technique. Multiplexing is carried out by the physical layer, and should not be mixed up with multiple access protocols = media access control. The latter is based on a multiplexing technique, but also by a protocol at the MAC sublayer of the data link layer.

Mange01 13:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OFDM is a tricky one. While it really isn't a different modulation from QAM (from performance analysis point of view), but more like an especially nice implementation, it is not a multiplexing or medium access technuque either. But of these categories, it should be in the digital modulation section (or could there be use also for discrete-time analog OFDM??).
If the template contained only pure modulation schemes, it would be a bit a bit small and that's why I think there is room for more. On the other hand, multiplexing and medium access are wide topics and not always even related to modulation (although sometimes they are). So I think we shouldn't include them. Spread-spectrum could be related enough to keep here. Alinja 07:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I have affectuated your suggestions! Mange01 08:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

New Template[edit]

I think we should think of creating another template to complement this one. Thoughts? --HappyCamper 05:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actally I have alread created {{Multiplex techniques}}:
Feel free to improve it.
Perhaps there should also be a {{Channel access techniques}} or {{Multiple access protocols}}. However, that would be really large. See channel access method for a list. Mange01 07:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Has some kind of error been made in this template's category? For one thing, I don't think this template talk page is supposed to show in the template category and more important surely nobody intended that all the articles with a modulation template be automatically categorized as being about templates. Anybody understand the formatting involved? Something about a noinclude anchor or something? Jim.henderson 14:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is fixed - noinclude was required. Thnx for pointing it out. Mange01 14:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the Analog/Digital/Hierarchal split the right way to organize this template?[edit]

I don't claim to be any sort of expert in modulation techniques. But from an organization-of-information perspective, I can't help but notice:

  • Wavelet modulation as a term never appears directly, but linked as WDM it appears in both Digital and Hierarchal. It appeared a third time as WOFDM in the See Alsos until I removed that redundancy.
  • QAM is listed in all three subdivisions.
  • AnM, PoM, PAM, PCM, PWM, and ΔΣM are all relegated to the See Alsos, despite (according to their titles) being articles about modulation techniques. Is there a subdivision/heading that could be added to the main template listing that would cover them, instead of just being See Alsos?
  • I've seen the arguments for OFDM being included here. But should FDM be, when that article doesn't include this template? Or is linking to Multiplexing sufficient? (Leaving FDM to be covered by Template:Multiplex techniques, which is transcluded in the Multiplexing article.)

Merely looking to spark discussion, and as I said I'm no expert. The redundancy gives me pause, and makes me wonder if there isn't a better way to organize things so that those articles are represented singly in a way that covers all relevant bases. ("Hybrid modulation"?) But I'm happy to be told "it's fine the way it is" if, indeed, it is. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)