Ruud Broens wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
:
: When you look
: at the IM distortion, that 0.01% is a sick joke.
:
: Rubbish. Complete and utter crap. What drugs are you on? For
: starters, consider the FM distortion of speakers. i.e. consider a
: 1khz signal riding on a speaker going back and forth at 100 Hz. 0.05
: to 0.1% plus dopplar induced distortion is easily achievable.
:
: Well, you don't exactly show clarity of mind here yourself, do you ?
:
: You mean, you don't have the capability to work out the details for
: yourself?
:
: I was posting to John, he is well aware of how to calculate Doppler
: frequency shifts. For the most part, John is a very good engineer. He
: just makes some mistakes like we all do.
:
Well, if you must refrain to personal remarks (allways a sign of weakness,
lack of 'quality arguments') , John is a very good engineer at least sounds
a lot nicer than What drugs are you on ?..
:
: Wow! Now, let's see, a large cone excursion, say 10 mm, creates a
: doppler-frequency shift of ?? numbers, please..
:
: And you have the cheek to criticize my ideas below, with this
: demonstration of your lack of knowledge here. ????
:
: velocity = f.x = 100 x 0.01 = 1 m/s
:
: Sound travels at 330 m/s
:
: df/f = v/330 = 1/330 = 0.3%
:
:
: (technically the velocity don't change, but the effect is the same via
: wavelength)
very technical...just a small question the how does the sine wave
driving the cone translate to a constant cone velocity, please tell us..
: Adding in the
: standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance
: whatsoever that your claim is supported.
standard 1 to 10 % - what a wild, sweeping, unqualified and therefore
utterly
nonsensical statement. hope you're not responsible for 'upcoming'
spice speaker models at the company there...
: There is no way that one can audiable detect 0.01% THD/IMD levels
: from correctly designed amps. If it was frequncy shifts, maybe, but
: not distortion. Been there done, it, wrote the book.
The book title and ISBN # being ? 
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
:
: Understanding, is itself an emotion, i.e. a feeling.
: Says who ?
:
: Your serious dude? Its trvial. See below.
:
:
: Emotions or feelings can only be "understood" by
: consciousness.
:
: Sorry, read up on cognitive science and logic and
: ...a whole lot more...
:
: Clearly, I know a lot more than you about this subject.
Wow, stating that clearly makes it so...
:
: If you think that you can experience an emotion without consciousness,
: please explain, in detail.
:
:
: this is just posing without any apparent insight, Kevin.
:
: Nonsense. The fact that you don't have the insight to understand this,
: is your problem, not mine. This is something I actually know quite a bit
: about, as will be clear from the following in this post.
:
: Please explain to me how you actually *perceive* an emotion *without*
: consciousness? Its a tautology. Its that simple. Consciousness is *how*
: feelings are recognised, i.e. how emotions are recognised. Emotions are
: feelings, i.e. we are consciously aware of them.
Hm, well, this is leading a bit astray, but if you want to discuss such
matters, let's start with definitions: so what is perception, Kevin ?
snipped some mo i'm clever, you don't understand "arguments"
: That transposing Goedels findings on mathematical
: theory on the domain of physics - your idea ?
:
: Goedel is a *general* existence proof. It does not allow one to actually
: show that a *specific* relation is non derivable, only that such
: relations exist. My argument proves an actual example. I have shown that
: an understanding of consciousness *cannot* be derived from inanimate
: processes. Its a new axiom. This is indeed already *accepted* by the
: likes of Roger Penrose as a basic new axiom. I have simple *proved* that
: this *is* the case.
Say it is so = formal prove of an argument ....boy, the 'new' science is
getting easy
these days..
(It think the subject of consciousness is just a bit to important to handle
in one-liners, but must confess it's interesting to see a 'numbers-man'
like yourself doubting a materialistic-mechanistic worldview)
::
: ****ed off by posers,
:
: You mean, ****ed off by people who understand much, much, more than you.
you don't seriously think that people are inclined to take up a discussion
if you *have* to refrain to these little smug remarks all the time, do u ?
: If you do have any *valid* objections to
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html, let us here them.
:
: Kevin Aylward
:
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk
: SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
: Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
: Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Have a spicy day, Kevin,
Rudy
Gee, what a tortuous thread, about doppler effects, distortions, Geodels,
existance, poseurs, and a whole bunch of subjectives, and it seems
the question of " A little feedback worse than none at all? "
has been chucked out the window.
But let's consider the doppler distortion.
If we have a bass-midrange driver, and we have a nice fat 100 Hz tone
applied, and we have a lower amplitude 1 kHz tone, then we must be getting
doppler distortion, ie, the percieved frequency
of the 1 kHz varies higher and lower depending on the
bass note making the cone travel to or away from us, respectively.
If we picked up the signal with a microphone close to the cone,
and used this signal as a feedback signal, how would the amp
respond to eliminate the doppler distortion?
My guess is that the amp would be steered by the FB
to make the 1 kHz change down or up to then make the 1 kHz from the speaker
have less variation in its F.
I could see that phase effects could lead to instabilities.
Meanwhile, someone playing a cello low note has the harmonics coming from the
sound
board which is wobbling at lower F, so doppler effects are inherent in
musical instruments.
But not in amplifiers.
Patrick Turner.