←back to thread

259 points zdw | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.424s | source
Show context
matrix2003 ◴[] No.41832921[source]
Someone gave me an analogy some time ago that made a lot of sense.

If you shine a flashlight through a tree blowing in the wind and vary the brightness to convey information, the signal can get distorted pretty easily.

However, if you have a constant brightness source and vary the color, it’s a lot easier to figure out what the source is trying to convey.

replies(10): >>41832935 #>>41832942 #>>41832971 #>>41832984 #>>41833031 #>>41833220 #>>41833256 #>>41834625 #>>41835757 #>>41839320 #
tejohnso ◴[] No.41833256[source]
This seems great at first, but more so as an explanation of how AM and FM differ; one being by amplitude (brightness), and the other by frequency (color).

What I don't see is how it explains why one would work better than the other.

If the tree is blowing in the wind, and a leaf obstructs the entire signal, it doesn't matter whether it's a change in brightness, or a change in color. Either way, that information is lost by the blocked leaf. And if the entire signal is not lost, perhaps many leaves may have blocked the signal but some signal managed to get through, it doesn't matter whether the signal change was a change in brightness, or a change in color. Either way you're going to notice the change. So I don't see how this clarifies why FM is better. What am I missing?

I see from the article that "noise tends to be a an unwanted amplitude modulation, not a frequency modulation." In other words, the tree is providing an unwanted change in brightness. It never provides an unwanted change in color.

I guess the tree is able to dim the signal so much that it appears to be a deliberate signal change? Couldn't this be dealt with if you know the details of the tree's dimming ability?

replies(10): >>41833292 #>>41833298 #>>41833305 #>>41833309 #>>41833323 #>>41833352 #>>41833395 #>>41833412 #>>41833487 #>>41834152 #
evoke4908 ◴[] No.41833487[source]
The analogy is getting a bit tortured, so I'll try a more practical explanation.

An AM receiver is a machine that senses the amplitude at a specific em frequency. In this situation, noise and interference become random additions or subtractions to that amplitude. Draw a sine wave, then go over the line with vertical ticks or scribbles. Now imagine taking a random sampling of points and reconstructing the original wave perfectly (without a computer). Most of the information is just gone and you end up with a noisy output wave.

Now an FM receiver is one that measures frequency changes above and below a 'carrier' frequency. The amount of deviation away from center represents the amplitude of the sound signal being transmitted. In this setup, noise and interference are also random additions to the amplitude, but also at random frequencies. On average, interference happens evenly over the entire range of frequencies you're looking at. That means that the highest amplitude is still the same frequency away from center, it just has a slightly different amplitude.

Go back to that sine wave. You can't see the original signal behind all the noise, but you can still see how far apart the peaks are. You can still easily extract its frequency content.

FM uses the frequency dimension to transmit data because random noise can't really affect frequency. Noise mostly happens in the amplitude dimension across all frequencies at the same time.

FM is more robust because it uses two dimensions to encode information vs AM's single dimension. That's also why FM is in stereo!

replies(2): >>41834706 #>>41835015 #
bonzini ◴[] No.41834706[source]
> That's also why FM is in stereo!

Stereo FM is essentially two waves transmitted at the same time (it's common and difference instead of left and right, but that's math). Stereo AM would be possible, it was never done because two different AM transmissions have to be spaced further away than FM.

replies(3): >>41836397 #>>41836538 #>>41837277 #
1. wkjagt ◴[] No.41836397[source]
Could you make AM stereo by somehow using the two sidebands (on each side of the carrier) for left and right?
replies(1): >>41837298 #
2. Johnythree ◴[] No.41837298[source]
Yes, this is one of the proposed methods. It's known as "Independent Sideband".

It works, but it is a fairly expensive method to implement.