This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Could someone please clarify which values are more sensitive? Is a receiver rated at .22μV @ 12 dB more or less sensitive than a receiver rated at .35μV @ 12 dB? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.166.85 ( talk) 15:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
(A hidden Q&A follows this entry which is visible only if you edit this talk page.) Altaphon ( talk) 21:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the movement/renaming of this page from "SINAD" to "Signal, Noise, and Distortion". There was no consensus for the move. The intro to WP:NAME states that the article should be recognizable, easy to find, precise, concise, and consistent. WP:ABBR states that it "Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form (e.g., NASA and radar). " Which is certainly the case here. Any objections to moving it back? (I ask here, because I don't want to start a move-war) Me Three ( talk to me) 14:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with closing the worm-can above, but we do need to correct the definition of the acronym. I will look for historical backup but from the early 1970s when it was promoted as a more intelligent way to measure radio sensitivity, I have always heard it defined as Signal In Noise And Distortion and I may have some source documents from GE that state this. Altaphon ( talk) 21:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any difference between the two "possible definitions". Basically you first measure your original signal level, and then re-measure the same signal after filtering out the useful signal (which is usually a sine wave). SINAD is the ratio between the two, that's it. I am writing a paper on a subject that makes great use of it : the only source of "official" information on SINAD I found is in standard IEC 60315, which is the reference international standard for testing radio receivers. SINAD is briefly explained in part 4, paragraph 2.2.2.2 (I only have the French edition with me, but it basically translates as I wrote it above). The main difference between SINAD results from different test setups will be from weighing networks and detectors (it can make a huge difference, which is why a SINAD value not stating them is worthless). If no one disagrees with me, I think I might change things.-- Corentinoger ( talk) 16:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the SINAD be defined as
instead of
Makes more sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.27.136.4 ( talk) 13:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
As an electrical engineer i never saw the second definition, the first one makes more sense. see IEEE Standard 1658-2011 it has no practical reasons why i should use the second term as a definition, you have to use fft. for a defintion of sinad use google paper of analog devices or ti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.96.88.68 ( talk) 10:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The article states: "With no signal present on the input, the noise and distortion of the receiver are measured at a convenient level."
This is complete nonsense. How can you measure the distortion of a signal when no signal is present? 82.69.72.163 ( talk) 11:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Could someone please clarify which values are more sensitive? Is a receiver rated at .22μV @ 12 dB more or less sensitive than a receiver rated at .35μV @ 12 dB? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.166.85 ( talk) 15:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
(A hidden Q&A follows this entry which is visible only if you edit this talk page.) Altaphon ( talk) 21:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the movement/renaming of this page from "SINAD" to "Signal, Noise, and Distortion". There was no consensus for the move. The intro to WP:NAME states that the article should be recognizable, easy to find, precise, concise, and consistent. WP:ABBR states that it "Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form (e.g., NASA and radar). " Which is certainly the case here. Any objections to moving it back? (I ask here, because I don't want to start a move-war) Me Three ( talk to me) 14:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with closing the worm-can above, but we do need to correct the definition of the acronym. I will look for historical backup but from the early 1970s when it was promoted as a more intelligent way to measure radio sensitivity, I have always heard it defined as Signal In Noise And Distortion and I may have some source documents from GE that state this. Altaphon ( talk) 21:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any difference between the two "possible definitions". Basically you first measure your original signal level, and then re-measure the same signal after filtering out the useful signal (which is usually a sine wave). SINAD is the ratio between the two, that's it. I am writing a paper on a subject that makes great use of it : the only source of "official" information on SINAD I found is in standard IEC 60315, which is the reference international standard for testing radio receivers. SINAD is briefly explained in part 4, paragraph 2.2.2.2 (I only have the French edition with me, but it basically translates as I wrote it above). The main difference between SINAD results from different test setups will be from weighing networks and detectors (it can make a huge difference, which is why a SINAD value not stating them is worthless). If no one disagrees with me, I think I might change things.-- Corentinoger ( talk) 16:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the SINAD be defined as
instead of
Makes more sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.27.136.4 ( talk) 13:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
As an electrical engineer i never saw the second definition, the first one makes more sense. see IEEE Standard 1658-2011 it has no practical reasons why i should use the second term as a definition, you have to use fft. for a defintion of sinad use google paper of analog devices or ti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.96.88.68 ( talk) 10:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The article states: "With no signal present on the input, the noise and distortion of the receiver are measured at a convenient level."
This is complete nonsense. How can you measure the distortion of a signal when no signal is present? 82.69.72.163 ( talk) 11:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)