Talk:Eight-to-fourteen modulation

message: I just wanted to clear up something before editing. I could just edit, but there are two ways in which consistency could be achieved, and I don't really know which one is right:
* EFM is an NRZ code - uninverted. ECMA-130 clearly states that ones are encoded as a change from pit to land, and NRZI is the inverse (no change)
* EFM is an NRZI code, but NRZI is wrongly descripted in the corresponding wiki page - I really doubt this one, as I understand NRZI intuitively just as the wiki describes it, making the previous option the best one IMO.
--Klaussfreire 00:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The terms are a bit confusing. NRZI is not NRZ, inverted, and inverted NRZI is not NRZ. Inverted NRZI is still NRZI. Mirror Vax 01:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what your point is, but regardless, it cannot mean that the current state of the wikipedia is correct, as it is clearly indicated in the NRZI page (which is linked in the EFM article and so unambiguously attached to EFM) that state transition represent zeroes, while ECMA-130 clearly states the opposite. The question, thus, is: If NRZI indeed represents zeroes with state transitions, is NRZ the propper classification of EFM? By reading the NRZ page (which I hadn't), the most accurate term seems to be NRZ, inverted (perhaps that's what you were trying to say?). --Klaussfreire 03:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The premise of your question is that inverted NRZI is NRZ (or inverted NRZ). Since that's wrong, your question is illogical. The NRZI article should note that the opposite assignment of '1' and '0' is commonly used. Other than that, there's no problem. Mirror Vax 12:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, prior to May 3 edits, the NRZI article had the assignment the other way ('1' = transition). One is not more correct than the other; the choice is arbitrary. I don't know which way is more commonly used. Mirror Vax 13:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You have a problem with your logic, Vax. if my question was based on that premise, it would only turn out to be irrelevant, but never illogical. In fact, no question is illogical, only reasoning process may. Anyway, my question isn't based on that premise, it just considers it as one of several possible cases. Anyway2, it's clearly confusing the way it is, and since I seemingly can't get a confirmation of what is actually understood by NRZI or NRZ, inverted or whatever, I guess a small clarification phrase may be an acceptable addition. --Klaussfreire 20:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is confusing. Mirror Vax 21:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "If there are 2 zeroes between 2 consecutive ones" -- How can this be? D021317c 07:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AVM2019 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consecutive ones 

message: I just had cause to look this up in the Red Book.  (CD specification).  To prevent anyone else getting confused, this article is talking about runs of zeroes (obviously bounded by 1 bits) whereas the Red Book talks of run lengths including the trailing 1. Number774 (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2,10 RLL or 3,11 RLL