Talk:Digital-to-analog converter

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

Unbalanced article[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: These issues appear to have been addressed ~Kvng (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The article is focussed way too much on audio DACs. It should contain more balanced information about other important types of DACs, mostly high speed (100MSPS to 1GSPS) DACs: flash DAC, pipeline DACs, switched capacitor DAC, dual DACs used for I/Q upconversion etc. see Analog Devices AD9777A for example.

And technically, the chip pictured at the beginning of the article is an audio CODEC, not an audio DAC. difference: DAC chip = only contains a DAC; CODEC = contains several DACs, several ADCs, muxers, gain controls, interpolators (to support multiple sampling rates), and so on, providing a complete bidirectional analog <==> digital interface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.120.254 (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. DACs are vital in communications. Faster DACs are being developed every year. There is no mention of DDS!!!--B. Srinivasa Sasidhar 18:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bssasidhar (talkcontribs)

External links[edit]

An edit war prompted me to review the Further reading and External links sections. I did not change Further reading. The ADI handbook appears be a valuable and accessible resource - lets not remove it. There were some things in External links that might be useful as references but the glssary link was the only thing that struck me as potentially valuable. Here are the links I removed. --Kvng (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kvng,
I agree on removing:
- Controlling the X79000 FlexDAC with a Rotary Encoder
- Audio Hi-Fi DAC build
- Resistor/PWM Hybrid DAC
- INL/DNL Measurements for High-Speed ADCs
- How to build a Digital to Analog converter
But the other links are very useful, especially to practicing engineers.
Please consider reinstating them.
Thank You. 65.51.198.50 (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing this. I have restored the following as requested. ~Kvng (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentioned…[edit]

FWIW, this article is mentioned very-slightly critically in this video. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd paragraph in the introduction[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This appears to have been addressed ~Kvng (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Does the long paragraph in the introduction mentioning a digital revolution really belong in this article?18.62.28.75 (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should summarize the content of the article. This is something different. I have reverted the recent changes by CPES. ~KvnG 13:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should have reverted my changes, as the statement about complexity was not factual. However my broader point is that the introduction is very strange given the context of the article. IMO it should be rewritten to focus more on the actual technology and less on someone's opinions about digital technology. The language is also probably not appropriate for a technical article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.62.17.224 (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typical long distance telephone call[edit]

The text in the application section in no way describes a typical long distance telephone call. The voice public switched telephone network is not a packetized network. Phone calls over land lines have dedicated bandwidth from one end to the other. This section describes a voip system, which typical long distance calls are not. 73.177.133.8 (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. VoIP techniques are definitely in use by telephone carriers for long-distance calls. I'm not sure what's considered typical at this point. Long-distance calling is a bit dated and doesn't say much about this. ~Kvng (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the listwise form (criticized) of the article[edit]

I think the article is nice and functions properly for anyone really interested. Thanks for the author(s)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.205.8 (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]