Talk:DC bias

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Electronics Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

DC = Direct Current, DCT = Discrete Cosine Transform.. the reference suggests a link stronger than that which exists. 70.74.25.133 (talk) at 05:44, 17 March 2007‎

Far as I know, it wasn't an analogy but an original purpose. Around 1950 when engineers invented digital line codes they got help from mathematicians, who later applied the math answers to other fields. I don't mind the math folks running off with a useful idea, but they shouldn't steal its origin as well. Alas, I have no reference for either the analogy theory, or my own. Jim.henderson 23:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone clarify the difference between DC bias and DC offset? I know nothing about electronics, but from the articles, they both seemed to be defined as the mean amplitude of a waveform. Google suggests that they are different things, but it's very unclear. It seems like DC offset should at least be mentioned/linked somewhere in this article (the offset article just has DC coefficient linked under "See Also" without any explanation). Propaniac (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DC offset is a property of a waveform, an abstract mathematical concept, while DC bias is a property of an electrical circuit, a concrete physical property. Less rigourously, DC offset is generally something you want to eliminate or at least ignore, while DC bias is generally something you need to add in order for a circuit to work properly. The current articles reflect this difference, although I'm sure it could be made clearer (and perhaps given citations). I would oppose the proposed merger. Tevildo (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this in more detail, I would propose that we move the non-electrical meanings of the term from DC bias to DC offset (including the redirects from DC component and DC coefficient). "Bias" is the concrete as opposed to the abstract meaning. Tevildo (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement is circular: "DC-balanced waveforms are useful in communications systems, since they can be used on AC-coupled electrical connections to avoid voltage imbalance problems between connected systems or components." It is essentially saying that DC-balanced waveforms are useful because they avoid voltage imbalance, which is obvious from the term "DC-balanced" itself. The article does not say why DC-balance is important: i.e.: what the consequences are of voltage imbalance in an AC-coupled circuit. These problems include bit errors when a (relatively) long series of 1's create a DC level that charges the capacitor of the high-pass filter used as the AC coupler, bringing the signal input down to a 0-level. I have added this sentence and invite anyone to re-write it more elegantly.--Jelsova (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that a DC tape bias was ever used for reducing distortion. It might have been used by accident. Does anyone have a reference for this claim? DC offset in the recording head can only increase distortion, by lowering how much headroom there is before the core saturates. 24.85.131.247 (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of references in the tape bias article, in the tape bias#DC bias section. Should we copy those references into this article? --DavidCary (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text there (and presumably the references too) support the use of DC bias to reduce distortion. I personally won't copy refs from one place to another without first reading what these refs say. ~Kvng (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DC bias. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213154835/http://www.aikenamps.com/WhatIsBiasing.htm to http://www.aikenamps.com/WhatIsBiasing.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This fact is important enough to be added. It's an easy mathematical proof. Can I place a mathematical proof into a Wikipedia page without having to find a citation for it? MathInclined (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can add uncited information if it is not expected to be challenged. If it is an easy proof then I assume someone else has already published it and so someone could find a citation if/when necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]