Talk:Carrier wave

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled

Per

WP:MOS, articles are to avoid containing information in list or bulleted format (or keep such lists to a minimum). This article is almost exclusively in list format. Regards, --Mattisse 12:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

this intro paragraph is ambiguous:

"Frequency modulation (FM) and amplitude modulation (AM) are commonly used methods to modulate the carrier. In the case of single-sideband modulation (SSB) the carrier is suppressed (and in some forms of SSB eliminated). The carrier must be reintroduced at the receiver by a beat frequency oscillator (BFO)."

Does the need to use BFO only apply to SSB or to all FM and AM? I'm gonna go look for that info elsewhere now, but it'd be nice if it was clear here. I'd come back and correct this P myself, but I'm so new to this topic, I wouldn't trust myself.

BTW, I'm also curious about the entropy-information properties of the these waves and what they carry. Would it make sense to add anything about that?

Potamites (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs work

The whole article needs to be reworked.

Why is the carrier wave usually sinusoidal? There should be some discussion of alternative waveforms, and why they were chosen. Is there some history to this? At the very least, a discussion of why sinusoidal waveforms came to be the industrial norm. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sinusoid packs the maximum possible amount of RF energy in the smallest possible amount of spectrum. If the carrier is not sinusoidal, the modulated signal will take up more bandwidth than generally desired, leading to inefficient use of available spectrum under normal working rules for spectrum use, where different RF emissions are not allowed to share the same band. However, your question is not unreasonable: see
direct sequence spread spectrum for how this can be made to work. -- The Anome (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree there needs to be some work done on this article. Specifically what problem is using a Carrier Wave trying to solve? Mmurfin (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the difficulty of transmitting electromagnetic radiation at baseband, and secondly, the fact that even if you could do so usefully, everyone's signals would overlap. -- The Anome (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Carrier wave

This meets both

WP:COMMONNAME
and is also a technically more accurate name.

The carrier wave, of itself, is not a signal and contains no information. Only when it is modulated can it then be said to become a "signal". The purpose of this article is to distinguish this unmodulated carrier from the later forms, and so this distinction is significant and worth emphasising through the article name. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME assertion? ~Kvng (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@Andy Dingley: I'm convinced by the argument above, and have moved it back. In the context of RF transmission, "carrier signal" is also to some extent justifiable on those grounds (the "signal" in this case is "this channel is taken") but I take Andy Dingley's point. -- The Anome (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carrier wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.  Jim.henderson (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should content on carriers in music production be included?

talk) 19:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Votes

Discussion

I'll abstain from voting for now. Maybe someone else can enlighten me, thoughtfully?

talk) 23:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:ANI. As is, this RfC provides no summary of the issue, no discussion of relevant sources, or frankly any other possible background info. I suggest you withdraw this RfC, talk it out with wtshymanski, and go from there. Ping me if you would like me to help moderate a discussion. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Isento I'd be glad to participate too. --ChetvornoTALK 21:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right CaptiainEek. You may strike out that last sentence about their tone and all. But there is already a place for discussion here. Perhaps we should follow through with the RfC then.
talk) 06:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The topic sentence of the article is "In telecommunications, a carrier wave, carrier signal, or just carrier, is a waveform (usually sinusoidal) that is modulated (modified) with an information bearing signal for the purpose of conveying information." Nothing about music production there; that is so far afield that really wants to be a separate topic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source citing that sentence does not say telecommunications.
talk) 04:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree with
WP:due weight. The main use of carriers is in telecommuncations, music synthesis is a small specialized application, so my feeling is it doesn't merit a separate section, just a few sentences. --ChetvornoTALK 04:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carrier_wave&oldid=1195562246"