Talk:Bandwidth (signal processing)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bandwidth (signal processing) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

Telecommunications High‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Professional sound production Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Networking Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Essential bandwidth was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 August 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Bandwidth (signal processing). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

old question[edit]

Aren't bps-type bandwidths and frequency bandwidths really the same thing? A coax cable can only carry a certain frequency range, or a certain number of bits per second. how do you convert between them? - Omegatron 21:59, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

This is given by the Shannon-Hartley theorem. - Omegatron 18:27, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Simple English[edit]

The article linked on "Simple English" is not just simple; it's completely wrong. Does anyone here who understands anything have an account there to fix it? Dicklyon 15:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the simple English version is well maintained but I don't see where it is wrong. ~Kvng (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig[edit]

I support, for bandwidth can also mean how much a server can take. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -Slash- (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I was looking for info on the Bandwidth Theorem; i think a disabiguation page would be a good idea, as clearly the term bandwidth means something different to network anylists and physicists (although they describe related phenomena).

There used to be a link at the very top of each of the articles to the disambiguation page Bandwidth. What happened to it? CosineKitty (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a hatnote here. I've added a complementary one to Bandwidth (computing) ~Kvng (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External link[edit]

Hi! I would add the following link to the additional resources section: [1] It contains some very nice and detailed tutorials on telecommunication basics

Not done This link is now dead ~Kvng (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

computer network bandwidth should be split[edit]

Bandwidth (computing) was apparently created ~Kvng (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The sections of this current page about computer network bandwidth belong in their own separate article. They should be split out, and a disambig. link put at the top of this article. --jacobolus (t) 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. You mean moving one short paragraph to a separate article about Digital bandwidth in bit/s? It is important that people from analogue electronics, traditional telecommunications and physics become aware about today's widespread usage of the digital definition. It is also important that computer science people are aware of the original analogue definition in Herz, and are encouraged to use less ambiguous terms such as gross bit rate, throughput or channel capacity. Mange01 00:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's a lot more than that to split out; we should definitely have the articles cross reference each others to achieve the clarity that you speak of. Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with jackobolus that they should be split into:
Analog Bandwidth being a range of frequencies utilized in an application such as an RF communications channel
Digital Bandwidth being the data rate witch differs from throughput (witch should account for transmission overhead) --Douglasmwilliams (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support These are different concepts and should be split Lbgrowl (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I believe there is room on this page to support all the meanings of bandwidth. Like Mange01, I think the reader should be able to see the various meanings side by side and so become aware of the similarities. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Analogue bandwidth is a complex topic, with links to control theory. It needs exposition of some analogue concepts totaly irrelevant to someone looking for digital bandiwdth. Digital bandwidth does not deal with similar topics anymore. With multiple digital lines and transmission media, analogue bandwidth in terms information theory and digital technology is not relevant. Where it is (i.e. chanel coding?), a link would be appropriate. 134.225.216.197 (talk)

Support – the modern proliferation of things called bandwidth (the digital stuff) is pretty much distracting in an article that wants to try to communicate the traditional meaning. Make a new article to split off the digital stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The digital use of "bandwidth" is definitely an error that has crept into common speech. It is also not correct to say that information rate (digital bw) is proportional to bandwidth (analog) and this should be removed from the entry. Shannon's equation gives C=B*log₂(S/N+1), C in bps and B in Hz which appears linear. However for the common case where ultimate noise, N, is thermally rather than interference limited, this is equal to KTB, thus B shows up inside the logged argument and the relationship is no longer linear (proportional). The maximum information capacity situation, the so called Shannon limit, represents this case; where the bandwidth (actual/analog) has been increased greatly and the signal plus noise power is very nearly identical to the noise power; (S/N+1) approximately unity. N6gn (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and started the bandwidth (computers) article (the title suggested in the merge tag we were discussing). If someone wants to work on it, or move it, feel free. I'll start pulling those bits out of bandwidth now. Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They should be summarized here, shouldn't they? Richard001 (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.