I think parent is referring to quantization in the amplitude/y-axis (bitdepth), whereas you are referring to quantization in time/x-axis (sampling rate).
Yes I think you used the terms correctly — it should be referring to the amplitude. “Discrete sampling” or just sampling rate is the preferred way to refer to time, you’re right.
I was trying to use consistent language in response to the reply claiming you were misunderstanding the sampling theorem. I think that poster was confusing discrete/quantized steps in time with discrete/quantized steps in amplitude.
Quantisation is a potential factor but the graph does not show its effects and their comment describes the supposed effects sampling, not quantisation.
Also, when we come to discussing SNR, you’ll have to consider the SNR of analog systems too.
I should have been more clear: The negative effects of quantisation. Obviously sampling into discrete values is shown but not the negative consequences that can have.
A DAC interpreting the blue trace will output something extremely close to the red one. There might be a slight bit of error in it due to the quantisation before but the graph does not show that and it probably couldn’t since it’d be so tiny. A good way to show quantisation noise would be a histogram with a signal in the middle and some quantisation noise around it.
The DAC would not output the jaggy line. It couldn’t, that’s not a valid analog signal. Painting the steps between the points can be done if your audience knows what that means but can be extremely misleading if it doesn’t. Those lines between the points with 90 degree angles don’t exist in the real world, they’re just interpolated between the points in the visualisation.
A much better way to represent digital samples in such a chart is the way it’s done in the wikipedia article on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(signal_processing). They’re just discrete points. If you did the same interpolation between the points as a DAC would do (which is not nearest-neighbour interpolation), you’d get the analog trace shown.
“Didn’t understand the sampling theorem” for $2 please.
As long as the frequency of the measured signal is <1/2 the sample rate, you can reconstruct the original signal perfectly.
If you plugged this jaggy-looking graph into a digital to analog converter with perfect analog circuitry, you’d get exactly the sine shown.
I think parent is referring to quantization in the amplitude/y-axis (bitdepth), whereas you are referring to quantization in time/x-axis (sampling rate).
Removed by mod
Yes I think you used the terms correctly — it should be referring to the amplitude. “Discrete sampling” or just sampling rate is the preferred way to refer to time, you’re right.
I was trying to use consistent language in response to the reply claiming you were misunderstanding the sampling theorem. I think that poster was confusing discrete/quantized steps in time with discrete/quantized steps in amplitude.
Their comment about SNR is certainly true though.
Quantisation is a potential factor but the graph does not show its effects and their comment describes the supposed effects sampling, not quantisation.
Also, when we come to discussing SNR, you’ll have to consider the SNR of analog systems too.
Removed by mod
The graph posted absolutely exhibits both quantization and discrete sampling. The blue trace on the Y-axis shows steps of 1 — that’s quantization.
I should have been more clear: The negative effects of quantisation. Obviously sampling into discrete values is shown but not the negative consequences that can have.
A DAC interpreting the blue trace will output something extremely close to the red one. There might be a slight bit of error in it due to the quantisation before but the graph does not show that and it probably couldn’t since it’d be so tiny. A good way to show quantisation noise would be a histogram with a signal in the middle and some quantisation noise around it.
The DAC would not output the jaggy line. It couldn’t, that’s not a valid analog signal. Painting the steps between the points can be done if your audience knows what that means but can be extremely misleading if it doesn’t. Those lines between the points with 90 degree angles don’t exist in the real world, they’re just interpolated between the points in the visualisation.
A much better way to represent digital samples in such a chart is the way it’s done in the wikipedia article on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(signal_processing). They’re just discrete points. If you did the same interpolation between the points as a DAC would do (which is not nearest-neighbour interpolation), you’d get the analog trace shown.