This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Intermediate frequency article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From an email to Wikimedia:
"While no factual errors, the omission of the most common IF (Intermediate Frequency) for FM radios, 10.7 MHz, used since the 1940s when FM first came about is glaring. Virtually any FM broadcast radio you pick up today will have a 10.7 MHz IF in it. Many will also often have a second IF at 455 kHz.
True, the listed 455 kHz is also the most common IF in AM and single conversion radios, but the other two IFs listed are brand-specific random choices of frequencies. 10.7 MHz has been a staple of nearly every brand of modern FM radio ever produced, tube or certainly solid state, since FM's inception in the 1930s. So much so, NOT using 10.7 MHz specifically identifies some brands (e.g., 10.8 MHz was 'unique' by patent to Electra Bearcat scanner radios)."
Can someone review and make any edits neeed? This isn't my area. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
`Other common intermediate frequencies are 2400MHz (WLAN), 2000MHz (Cellular/WLAN), 850/900/1800/1900MHz (Cellular)'
Um, wouldn't these be the actual frequencies used by these applications, rather than intermediate frequencies? dougmc 22:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Please note that these are the actual RF frequencies and not the IF frequencies. Make correction kindly.
Cleaned it up a little bit since the sentences were repetitious. -- SamMichaels 15:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You changed the IMF of television from 30mhz to 41mhz. How can you explain this when common TV modules which use varying frequencies in 30mhz:
-- SamMichaels 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I added the intermediate frequencies of the international system B (G.H etc.) Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 18:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see a link to the article on "Zero Intermediate Frequency". Also, it would be good to see an explanation of why IFs different from zero are used. If I had to design one of these systems, f=0 comes to mind as the first candidate for an IF. So the question is: why is IF=0 not used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avalcarce ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Intermediate frequency. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The article says With all known filtering techniques the filter's bandwidth increases proportionately with the frequency. I believe this is reasonably obvious with analog RLC filters. I am not so sure about SAW filters. For digital filters, you have to say what is constant, and that isn't always so obvious. Gah4 ( talk) 20:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The information "The bandwidth of a filter is proportional to its center frequency" should really be explained properly. Do considerations need to be made about any constraints, such as a fixed value of C, or fixed value of L, and fixed value of R? KorgBoy ( talk) 01:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Wondering (but not complaining) about the notation Mc/s. Since superheterodyne was developed before the Hz unit, it makes sense to use the older units when discussing it. (At least I believe so.) Though, as well as I know, the common unit was Mc with the /s implied. (No-one measured frequencies per minute, hour, or day.) In paragraphs actually referencing older citations, it does make some sense to for the units to be consistent with that in the reference. Is there a WP:MOS on this? Gah4 ( talk) 23:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Matthiaspaul: Do we really need these massive quotations in the references? They really are cluttering the ref section. Also, why link so many pdfs in one reference? Just link to the main page, readers are quite capable of clicking through pages themselves. Spinning Spark 07:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
|quote=
parameter for this and it is even considered good style to list specific page numbers and quote relevant sections from the original source as accurate as possible - after all, not everyone might have the source readily available, and even if they have, always having to look up the specific bits of information is inconvenient when it is distributed over multiple places in a publication.@ Matthiaspaul: Yeah, I don't see a need for a lot of the quotes. You have 3 or 4 quotes just saying that 455 kHz is a popular IF. "The intermediate frequency in general use is 455 Kc/s.", "A frequency of 455 Kc/s. is receiving universal acceptance as a stanard frequency...". Totally unnecessary. Another issue is that your citations are so disorganized they are almost impossible to read. It looks like you are trying to cram a lot of separate references to a single source (such as the Langford-Smith book) into a single inline citation. It is less confusing to use separate citations for separate pages of a single source. One way is to use {{rp}} or {{r}} templates after a cite of the source document to list the pages. A better way is to go to Harvard or shortened citation templates ( WP:OPCIT). -- Chetvorno TALK 06:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Intermediate frequency article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From an email to Wikimedia:
"While no factual errors, the omission of the most common IF (Intermediate Frequency) for FM radios, 10.7 MHz, used since the 1940s when FM first came about is glaring. Virtually any FM broadcast radio you pick up today will have a 10.7 MHz IF in it. Many will also often have a second IF at 455 kHz.
True, the listed 455 kHz is also the most common IF in AM and single conversion radios, but the other two IFs listed are brand-specific random choices of frequencies. 10.7 MHz has been a staple of nearly every brand of modern FM radio ever produced, tube or certainly solid state, since FM's inception in the 1930s. So much so, NOT using 10.7 MHz specifically identifies some brands (e.g., 10.8 MHz was 'unique' by patent to Electra Bearcat scanner radios)."
Can someone review and make any edits neeed? This isn't my area. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
`Other common intermediate frequencies are 2400MHz (WLAN), 2000MHz (Cellular/WLAN), 850/900/1800/1900MHz (Cellular)'
Um, wouldn't these be the actual frequencies used by these applications, rather than intermediate frequencies? dougmc 22:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Please note that these are the actual RF frequencies and not the IF frequencies. Make correction kindly.
Cleaned it up a little bit since the sentences were repetitious. -- SamMichaels 15:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You changed the IMF of television from 30mhz to 41mhz. How can you explain this when common TV modules which use varying frequencies in 30mhz:
-- SamMichaels 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I added the intermediate frequencies of the international system B (G.H etc.) Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 18:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see a link to the article on "Zero Intermediate Frequency". Also, it would be good to see an explanation of why IFs different from zero are used. If I had to design one of these systems, f=0 comes to mind as the first candidate for an IF. So the question is: why is IF=0 not used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avalcarce ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Intermediate frequency. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The article says With all known filtering techniques the filter's bandwidth increases proportionately with the frequency. I believe this is reasonably obvious with analog RLC filters. I am not so sure about SAW filters. For digital filters, you have to say what is constant, and that isn't always so obvious. Gah4 ( talk) 20:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The information "The bandwidth of a filter is proportional to its center frequency" should really be explained properly. Do considerations need to be made about any constraints, such as a fixed value of C, or fixed value of L, and fixed value of R? KorgBoy ( talk) 01:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Wondering (but not complaining) about the notation Mc/s. Since superheterodyne was developed before the Hz unit, it makes sense to use the older units when discussing it. (At least I believe so.) Though, as well as I know, the common unit was Mc with the /s implied. (No-one measured frequencies per minute, hour, or day.) In paragraphs actually referencing older citations, it does make some sense to for the units to be consistent with that in the reference. Is there a WP:MOS on this? Gah4 ( talk) 23:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Matthiaspaul: Do we really need these massive quotations in the references? They really are cluttering the ref section. Also, why link so many pdfs in one reference? Just link to the main page, readers are quite capable of clicking through pages themselves. Spinning Spark 07:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
|quote=
parameter for this and it is even considered good style to list specific page numbers and quote relevant sections from the original source as accurate as possible - after all, not everyone might have the source readily available, and even if they have, always having to look up the specific bits of information is inconvenient when it is distributed over multiple places in a publication.@ Matthiaspaul: Yeah, I don't see a need for a lot of the quotes. You have 3 or 4 quotes just saying that 455 kHz is a popular IF. "The intermediate frequency in general use is 455 Kc/s.", "A frequency of 455 Kc/s. is receiving universal acceptance as a stanard frequency...". Totally unnecessary. Another issue is that your citations are so disorganized they are almost impossible to read. It looks like you are trying to cram a lot of separate references to a single source (such as the Langford-Smith book) into a single inline citation. It is less confusing to use separate citations for separate pages of a single source. One way is to use {{rp}} or {{r}} templates after a cite of the source document to list the pages. A better way is to go to Harvard or shortened citation templates ( WP:OPCIT). -- Chetvorno TALK 06:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)