Talk:Ring modulation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ring modulation 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: 12 months

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronic music Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wrong topic?

Shouldn't there be a separate article about the use of effects called 'ring modulation' in modern sound equipment? It seems to me that this article should be about diode ring modulators, not something that takes the name from them.

Agreed. This page should be something like "Ring Modulation (Electronic Music)", linked from a page that just covers the technical aspects of ring modulators from the purely electronic point of view. The current article, being the only one in Wikipedia on the subject, gives a heavily biased view of ring modulation which many readers may not pick up on and thus be falsely lead into believing that ring modulation is only extensively used in electronic music, which it most definitely is not. Nejo17 (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency mixer covers the topic from the purely electronic and mathematical point of view. We are covering Ring Modulation (Electronic music) here but there is no other related article that wants to call itself Ring Modulation so the (Electronic Music) bit is unnecessary. ~Kvng (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

Merge completed 5 June 2017

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.

See discussion at Talk:Ring modulator. yoyo (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: although it is traditional to discuss proposed merges on the talk page of the "merge to" article, thgis is one of those exceptions where there is an existing discussion at the "merge from" article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2016 (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.

John McLaughlin

I added McLaughlin's use on Visions of the Emerald Beyond. Truth be said, I don't know enough to be ABSOLUTELY SURE I'm correct, but my Dad always said the strange effect on the track "On the Way Back Home to Earth" was a ring mod, and I believe him, especially as he said and I've read others who have said "the ring modulator is not very musical", and it seems to me McLaughlin is "trying to tame" the effect in the song. I also thought the best place to put the reference before the reference to Davis's Aghartha, as it is chronologically right b4 it. Not sure having it as a separate paragraph was warranted, but that's what I did.Slarty1 (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search of "ring modualator Visions of the Emerald Beyond" seems to confirm quite adequately that it is a ring modulator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slarty1 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New diagram

newer version: multiplication of the sine waves

predecessor: combination tones of the sine waves

alternative: combination tones of the frequencies of the sine waves

Problems with this diagram are under discussion: [1]. ~Kvng (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion should probably be moved here. Hyacinth (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because many people get confused about audio ring modulation I would encourage everyone involved in this discussion to read what Bob Moog had to say about it:

Bob Moog on Synthesizers: Amplitude And Ring Modulation

Also helpful is this article from The Synthesizer Academy:

Ring Modulator

For those with circuit design experience, this may help:

Ring Modulator schematic

The key feature of ring modulation (also known as balanced modulation) is that the output contains the sum and difference of the two inputs without the original inputs, which are canceled out. Also note that one or both inputs can be above the audio range, in which case only the lower sidebands are heard.

Now here is something quite interesting. Look at this image from The Synthesizer Academy:

http://synthesizeracademy.com/wp-content/uploads/ring-modulator-sidebands-only.jpg

That's an actual ring modulator with inputs at 500 Hz and 1000 Hz. Note how it differs from the images on the right. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"To help visualize all this, let’s run our two sine waves from the previous lesson through a ring modulator and see what the scope tells us about the output waves and frequencies:...[2]@[3]...You can see in the spectrum where the two sidebands are present just like with amplitude modulation, but the big carrier frequency spike that was in the middle is gone!" Hyacinth (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the current images only show one repetition of the frequency on 1, while the image in the Academy article shows 24. Hyacinth (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: Notice the third image. Hyacinth (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The new top image (Ring modulation sine waves 2 and 3.png) is showing a ring modulator. I don't know the purpose of retaining the other (Sum and difference of sine waves 2 and 3.png).

I'm not convinced these time-domain representations are particularly instructive. Perhaps a frequency domain representation along the lines of [4] would be better. ~Kvng (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Double Sentence?

The sentence "Multiplication in the time domain is the dual of convolution in the frequency domain, so the output waveform contains the sum and difference of the input spectral components. For the basic case where […]"appears two times shortly after one another in slightly modified versions. Is this intended, or is this essentially a copy-and-paste-error (a left-over of the merging of pages)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruediger.kupper (talk • contribs) 19:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I find only one occurence of "Multiplication in the time domain" in the article. ~Kvng (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modulator article, and the MC1496

There is a suggestion that there should be an article Modulator instead of a redirect to Modulation. This article seems to include both theory and implementation. Also, it seems to be about doubly-balanced mixers in general, implemented with a diode ring or not. These days, likely implemented as a single IC, such as the MC1496. The actual reason to ask, is that I thought about starting the Modulator article with the ring modulator. Needs to start somewhere! Gah4 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A ring modulator is an electronic device for ring modulation." This is such a fascinating sentence. It is obviously true, but not very helpful. Surely the combined power and intellect of wikipedia can do better. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric