[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:22:17 +1200, "Geoff"
wrote:

INRI wrote:

Its the same as I stated, POWER is not PRESSURE these are two
distinct quantities and show two different ratiometric levels.

And he is not doubling the pressure, he is doubling the power. So 3dB


Why do you assume constant conversion efficiency?

[Eeyore]

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

"Geoff" wrote:
INRI wrote:

Its the same as I stated, POWER is not PRESSURE these are two
distinct quantities and show two different ratiometric levels.

And he is not doubling the pressure, he is doubling the power. So 3dB

Why do you assume constant conversion efficiency?

What drivel are you spouting now ?

Graham

[[email protected]]

On Jul 3, 2:38 pm, Salmon Egg wrote:
On 7/3/07 7:34 AM, in article
. com,
What problem did you hope to solve by ignoring the
lingua franca of the domain in which you were
speaking?

I want to break the mold. There is nothing wrong with
using bels as units rather than decibels!

Let's try this again: exactly what problem did you hope to
solve by doing this? Or did you merely want to illustrate
you are not fluent in the domain?

[Salmon Egg]

On 7/3/07 4:38 PM, in article
,
" wrote:

Let's try this again: exactly what problem did you hope to
solve by doing this? Or did you merely want to illustrate
you are not fluent in the domain?

I want to do it my way. I am not trying to make a living. My goal is to not
be wrong!

Bill
--
Iraq: About three Virginia Techs a month

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 22:55:17 GMT, Eeyore
wrote:



Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

"Geoff" wrote:
INRI wrote:

Its the same as I stated, POWER is not PRESSURE these are two
distinct quantities and show two different ratiometric levels.

And he is not doubling the pressure, he is doubling the power. So 3dB

Why do you assume constant conversion efficiency?

What drivel are you spouting now ?


Why do you always get the wrong answer. I am all at sea this week.

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:56:42 -0700, Salmon Egg
wrote:

On 7/3/07 4:38 PM, in article
.com,
" wrote:

Let's try this again: exactly what problem did you hope to
solve by doing this? Or did you merely want to illustrate
you are not fluent in the domain?

I want to do it my way. I am not trying to make a living. My goal is to not
be wrong!


Really? Then you need to improve your aim.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Greg Locock]

wrote in news:1183380159.876865.98580
@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

On Jul 2, 7:23 am, Greg Locock wrote:
Nobody seems to have considered the -infinity dB option.
Why not?

Because it's a nonsensical consideration because
it would require the two speakers to physically occupy
the same position and have an extent that would have
to be exactly 0 in size, and they would have to absolutely
identical? Because then original poster already sufficiently
constrained the question so as to eliminate such a possibility
by stating: "two identical speakers with identical drive signal,
placed side by side" and thus could not be driven out-of-
phase?



While -infinity is not achievable, nonetheless /some/ destructive
interference is, within the constraints of the original question. My point
was that everybody is assuming an increases in sound (pressure) level,
which is not true for all frequencies and combinations of geometry.

Cheers

Greg Locock

[Greg Locock]

Eeyore wrote in
:

Greg Locock wrote:


Nobody seems to have considered the -infinity dB option.

Why not?


Because it's stupid.

Graham



All those thistles have gone to your brain. While -infinity is not
achievable, destructive interference will occur for some geometries and
some frequencies. The OP did not specify a measurement location.

Now go and ask Christopher Robin to read you a bedtime story.

Cheers

Greg Locock







..

[Eeyore]

Greg Locock wrote:

Eeyore wrote
Greg Locock wrote:

Nobody seems to have considered the -infinity dB option.

Why not?

Because it's stupid.

All those thistles have gone to your brain. While -infinity is not
achievable

You see !

Graham

[[email protected]]

On Jul 4, 4:38 pm, Greg Locock wrote:
wrote in news:1183380159.876865.98580
@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

On Jul 2, 7:23 am, Greg Locock wrote:
Nobody seems to have considered the -infinity dB option.
Why not?

Because it's a nonsensical consideration because
it would require the two speakers to physically occupy
the same position and have an extent that would have
to be exactly 0 in size, and they would have to absolutely
identical? Because then original poster already sufficiently
constrained the question so as to eliminate such a possibility
by stating: "two identical speakers with identical drive signal,
placed side by side" and thus could not be driven out-of-
phase?

While -infinity is not achievable, nonetheless /some/ destructive
interference is, within the constraints of the original question. My point
was that everybody is assuming an increases in sound (pressure) level,
which is not true for all frequencies and combinations of geometry.

No, everyone is NOT assuming an increase in
sound pressure level, which is why a number of
respondents pointed out issues regarding frequency
and such.

[DaveC]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:12:32 GMT, DaveC wrote:

OP here...

f ~ 25-30 KHz.

Is that 25kHz to 30kHz or 25Hz to 30kHz?

d

~25KHz-30KHz.
--
DaveC

This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 16:28:12 GMT, DaveC wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:12:32 GMT, DaveC wrote:

OP here...

f ~ 25-30 KHz.

Is that 25kHz to 30kHz or 25Hz to 30kHz?

d

~25KHz-30KHz.

OK, in that case what you will get is a sort of fan of fingers of
loud, with almost no sound between. The signal level in the fingers
will be roughly 6dB higher than it was in the single speaker.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com