11 ms·
“Lossless” analogue transmission isn’t lossless. It’s just less lossy than the lossy forms of analogue transmission. As a very simplified example it’s really ea
by setquk 8y ago
“Lossless” analogue transmission isn’t lossless. It’s just less lossy than the lossy forms of analogue transmission. As a very simplified example it’s really easy to modulate an analogue value in the frequency domain and maintain accuracy and dynamic range. Hence why FM stereo usually sounds pretty amazing still. It’s not terribly sensitive to environmental factors. However conversely AM sounds like crap.
Now we have digital protocols which are still sent on top of analogue signals (everything is analogue down at the bottom, even your CPU). We lose a tiny bit of dynamic range through compression in some circumstances but gain error correction, speed and the ability to recover signals from below the noise floor which means less power and more distance for the same power.
So no, digital is definitely the way.
As an amateur radio operator, some of us at least tend to play with very low powers. You can have a two way conversation 3000km+ with no more more than a watt but only if you use digital modes. One reason why Morse/CW is still popular; it’s a digital encoding.
- eesmith 8y agoTo add to that, some amateur radio operators bounce their signal off the Moon. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%E2%80%93Moon%E2%80%93Earth_communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%E2%80%93Moon%E2%80%93Ear... : > Recent advances in digital signal processing have allowed EME contacts, admittedly with low data rate, to take place with powers in the order of 100 Watts and a single Yagi antenna.
- setquk 8y agoThat's on my bucket list :)
- JanisL 8y agoThanks for sharing this, fascinating.
- alex_hitchins 8y agoA single, quite long and skinny Yagi! Guy in my radio club is attempting this. Very cool stuff.