Talk:Signal generator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I added a sentence on and link to synthesizers. I think it's important to link to this page as it contains information about the generation of waves that mightn't be found otherwise. I first came to this page looking for a program that could generator arbitrary waveforms, and more generally to find out about creating arbitrary waveforms on a computer, but couldn't find the appropriate information (much of which was contained inside the synthesizer page). I wouldn't have thought to look at the synthesizer page for this sort of information, as it seems to refer more to instruments, and this page seemed more appropriate for what I was looking for.

The 'or slightly more intricate methods' refers to the more complicated methods of waveform generatorion used by synthesizers, and is intended to say that the synthesiser page tells you about these. Thus one might like to add synthesizers as a 'See also' if they change this phrasing, but I didn't want to do this because it went against the ordering of the rest of the article.

I know information about synthesisers was removed before, but I feel a link is necessary.

(Alexwright 22:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

---

"The mathematical description of an oscillator involves a description of a continuous function that varies cyclically above and below a mean or other reference, extending from -infinity to +infinity, never fading, never diverging. This can be represented as a series:

"For example the series 1, -1, 1, -1, 1, -1,... is an oscillation"

The fact that the author of these words uses the word "series" incorrectly when "sequence" should have been used probably explains why I have problems with the earlier parts of the first paragraph quoted above. What does "varies cyclically" mean? Does it mean "varies periodically", so that, for example, Besocovich's "almost periodic functions" would be excluded? What does "extending from -infinity to infinity" mean? My first guess was that it meant the domain is the whole real line, but that would exclude the sequence that the author incorrectly calls a "series". My next guess is that it means the domain is a subset of the real line that has neither an upper bound nor a lower bound. But why doesn't the author say so, instead of phrasing it in a way that cannot be understood except by surmises based on his proposed example? "Extending from -infinity to infinity" could be construed by reasonable readers as referring to the range rather than to the domain! This is horribly sloppy writing, to say the least. I will not try to correct it myself, since I don't know the conventions of this area. -- Mike Hardy

---

Much of this material is duplicated under oscillation. I suggest:

• Rename most of (1) "Signal generator";
• Delete (2) as it is covered in oscillation; and
• Rename (3) "Oscillation (mathematics)" and hope somebody can sort it out. I agree with Michael Hardy that I don't really understand the intention here.

Cutler 14:15, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps (3) could find a home under convergence which could do with some work in any case. Cutler 14:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In fact (3) is covered more succinctly under periodic function so I suggest that it is deleted unless somebody wants to merge it there. Cutler 15:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Proposal -

1. Delete (2) as it's all covered in oscillation.
2. Move (3) to a new page periodic function/temp and alert Talk:periodic function.
3. Rename Oscillator > Signal generator
4. Redirect oscillator > oscillation.

I shall post a note on Talk:periodic function Cutler 18:49, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Part 3 -> oscillation (mathematics) was a good idea; I've implemented it. Charles Matthews 21:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

It has been suggested that this article be merged with Function generator.

I believe this would be a mistake. "Function generators" are a very specialized portion of the vastly-larger world of generic signal generators. Besides function generators, signal generators include such beasts as low distortion audio generators, noise generators, microwave generators, sweepers, synthesized signal generators, and so on.

I believe that the articles are correctly factored as they stand.

Atlant 14:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This article isn't about signal generators, then, by your definition. It's about function generators, and should be merged into function generator. If you want to create an article about signal generators in general after the merge, feel free. — Omegatron 17:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I've rewritten much of the article, and added lots of information on other types of generators. As a result, I've removed the start-merge-end tag.

One paragraph that I didn't know what to do with was this one:

In musical sound synthesis, oscillators conventionally form the most fundamental synthesis building block. With analog synthesizers, they are realized with voltage-controlled oscillators and with digital or software synthesizers they are generated algorithmically. Modern software synthesis environments such as Csound have generalized the oscillator as a type of unit generator (UG), where UGs are primitive modules that produce, modify or acquire audio or control signals.

This is interesting, but use of oscillators in applications besides test equipment is really irrelevant to this article.

--EngineerScotty 01:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right to remove the information... It should go in some article about general electronic oscillators or synthesizers, not here. -- uberpenguin 03:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do you like the Requestion's pro-Keithley Instruments correction?

The agent replaces links to SW tone generators by his link on Keithley Instruments. He explains his bias as 'wikipedia is not a link farm'. Should we conclude that wikipedia is a Keithley Instruments' private advertising space or links are 'soft'? Tell us which companies are allowed to advertised on Wiki? --Javalenok 14:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He replaced an external link with a preferred internal link. That's totally in line with WP:EL and various other policies. I'm not sure what you're taking issue with. -- mattb @ 2006-11-10T16:18Z

No companies are allowed to advertise on Wikipedia. However, some folks have taken the time to write appropriate, encylopaedic, WP:NPOV areticles on companies, and internal "Wikilinks" to those articles are certainly allowed. Some "redlinks" are also posted in the hopes of prompting editors to write an article, and Keithley Instruments is certainly notable enough to merit an article. But the policy on external (weblinks) is much more strict, however. Consult WP:SPAM for more details.

Atlant 17:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

External links are not advertisements. If a company is a notable manufacturer of a product, they should be externally linked to until an article about them is created. — Omegatron 05:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal and replacement are mutually exclusive activities. As well as advertisment/promotion vs. information [1]. --Javalenok 18:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the links to the software generators because they are not notable. I changed the external Keithley link to an internal one. My personal goal is to fight linkspam on Wikipedia. If this, in your mind, makes me a pro-Keithley schill then there really isn't much hope for you. Requestion 18:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Who decides what is notable and what is not? Wannt to be Rupert Murdoch? --Javalenok 10:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We (all of us) decide. Note that your accusing tone won't get you very far, so please drop the "everybody has an agenda" attitude. -- mattb @ 2006-11-11T18:05Z

Is 'accusing tone' a disproportionate retaliation on cathegorical action? --Javalenok 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the Signal Generator history page. On Novemember 8th Javalenok added an external link to a homepage named javalenok/ for a software oscillator program. This explains the heated emotional responses that followed when I removed all of the external software links. On the topic of notability; what makes a software oscillator program notable when there are literally thousands of similar programs out there on the Internet? An application index, such as Tucows, is a much better place for this sort of link. Requestion 20:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

At first, the HW generators are not rivals for the removed SW ones -- their niches are different. It was not my idea to expose implementations. I beleive, all should be presented equally. Secondly, there are much less SW generators than HW ones. Particularily, there are only three at Tucows and due to the lack of special "tone generator" cathegory they are intermixed with a myriad of irrelevant programs in search result. Will it suffice to point you to the HW catalogue as more appropriate place for linking to HW manufacturars when I will remove them from the article? So, leave your speculations alone and look up for a better excuse. BTW, this is thanks to marketing, people still do not have adequate, informative catalogues of goods. --Javalenok 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What is advertizing if not promoting links to some while removing links to alternatives? --Javalenok 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)