| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
snip Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of speakers. The Pioneer is neither. Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam steering than is possible with physical movement. snip Very interesting and I just learned something. Do you think the technique can be applied to the frequencies of audio and still be valid and effective? |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Robert Gault wrote:
: Ross Matheson wrote: : : : Ultrasonics. : : It's obvious to me that it's a development of the ultrasonic beaming : technology that's been around for a little while. A quick Google ... : : http://www.atcsd.com/tl_hss.html : http://www.holosonics.com/technology.html : : They obviously put several channels in one box and steer the beams as : required. Obviously the technology works. I'm sure we'll see more of it. : : Ross M : Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is : either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of : speakers. The Pioneer is neither. I meant that the basic ultrasonic/difference tone/demodulation in non-linear medium etc beaming technology works and is in use. The preceding (and following:-) sentence was an extrapolated guess. : The US patent office too often issue patents for ideas that don't work. Yeah, and the really exciting ones sort of quietly disappear, eh?;-) joke |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Robert Gault wrote:
: Ross Matheson wrote: : : : Ultrasonics. : : It's obvious to me that it's a development of the ultrasonic beaming : technology that's been around for a little while. A quick Google ... : : http://www.atcsd.com/tl_hss.html : http://www.holosonics.com/technology.html : : They obviously put several channels in one box and steer the beams as : required. Obviously the technology works. I'm sure we'll see more of it. : : Ross M : Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is : either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of : speakers. The Pioneer is neither. I meant that the basic ultrasonic/difference tone/demodulation in non-linear medium etc beaming technology works and is in use. The preceding (and following:-) sentence was an extrapolated guess. : The US patent office too often issue patents for ideas that don't work. Yeah, and the really exciting ones sort of quietly disappear, eh?;-) joke |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Robert Gault wrote:
: Ross Matheson wrote: : : : Ultrasonics. : : It's obvious to me that it's a development of the ultrasonic beaming : technology that's been around for a little while. A quick Google ... : : http://www.atcsd.com/tl_hss.html : http://www.holosonics.com/technology.html : : They obviously put several channels in one box and steer the beams as : required. Obviously the technology works. I'm sure we'll see more of it. : : Ross M : Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is : either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of : speakers. The Pioneer is neither. I meant that the basic ultrasonic/difference tone/demodulation in non-linear medium etc beaming technology works and is in use. The preceding (and following:-) sentence was an extrapolated guess. : The US patent office too often issue patents for ideas that don't work. Yeah, and the really exciting ones sort of quietly disappear, eh?;-) joke |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Robert Gault wrote:
: Ross Matheson wrote: : : : Ultrasonics. : : It's obvious to me that it's a development of the ultrasonic beaming : technology that's been around for a little while. A quick Google ... : : http://www.atcsd.com/tl_hss.html : http://www.holosonics.com/technology.html : : They obviously put several channels in one box and steer the beams as : required. Obviously the technology works. I'm sure we'll see more of it. : : Ross M : Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is : either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of : speakers. The Pioneer is neither. I meant that the basic ultrasonic/difference tone/demodulation in non-linear medium etc beaming technology works and is in use. The preceding (and following:-) sentence was an extrapolated guess. : The US patent office too often issue patents for ideas that don't work. Yeah, and the really exciting ones sort of quietly disappear, eh?;-) joke |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
|
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
|
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
|
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
|
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
: Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard : in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam : steering than is possible with physical movement. From the linked partner site in another posters reference http://www.1limited.com/news/2003.12.24.html "The Beam Forming Processor Chip, TAC8256, is a digital processor that controls the output of the speaker array to form and steer sound beams. The processor is fully compatibility with Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital EX, DTS, and DTS-ES ensuring that Sound Projectors are ‘future proofed’. The Amplifier Chip, TAD108, is a digital Class-D amplifier that drives large segments of the speaker array in conjunction with the TAC8256. The two chips are fully compatible with a wide variety of Sound Projector array configurations providing licensees with great design flexibility. These options enable products to be tailored for specific market segments and provide great scope for product differentiation." |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
: Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard : in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam : steering than is possible with physical movement. From the linked partner site in another posters reference http://www.1limited.com/news/2003.12.24.html "The Beam Forming Processor Chip, TAC8256, is a digital processor that controls the output of the speaker array to form and steer sound beams. The processor is fully compatibility with Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital EX, DTS, and DTS-ES ensuring that Sound Projectors are ‘future proofed’. The Amplifier Chip, TAD108, is a digital Class-D amplifier that drives large segments of the speaker array in conjunction with the TAC8256. The two chips are fully compatible with a wide variety of Sound Projector array configurations providing licensees with great design flexibility. These options enable products to be tailored for specific market segments and provide great scope for product differentiation." |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
: Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard : in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam : steering than is possible with physical movement. From the linked partner site in another posters reference http://www.1limited.com/news/2003.12.24.html "The Beam Forming Processor Chip, TAC8256, is a digital processor that controls the output of the speaker array to form and steer sound beams. The processor is fully compatibility with Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital EX, DTS, and DTS-ES ensuring that Sound Projectors are ‘future proofed’. The Amplifier Chip, TAD108, is a digital Class-D amplifier that drives large segments of the speaker array in conjunction with the TAC8256. The two chips are fully compatible with a wide variety of Sound Projector array configurations providing licensees with great design flexibility. These options enable products to be tailored for specific market segments and provide great scope for product differentiation." |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
: Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard : in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam : steering than is possible with physical movement. From the linked partner site in another posters reference http://www.1limited.com/news/2003.12.24.html "The Beam Forming Processor Chip, TAC8256, is a digital processor that controls the output of the speaker array to form and steer sound beams. The processor is fully compatibility with Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital EX, DTS, and DTS-ES ensuring that Sound Projectors are ‘future proofed’. The Amplifier Chip, TAD108, is a digital Class-D amplifier that drives large segments of the speaker array in conjunction with the TAC8256. The two chips are fully compatible with a wide variety of Sound Projector array configurations providing licensees with great design flexibility. These options enable products to be tailored for specific market segments and provide great scope for product differentiation." |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Robert Gault wrote:
: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: : : snip : Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is : either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of : speakers. The Pioneer is neither. : : : Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard : in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam : steering than is possible with physical movement. : : snip : : Very interesting and I just learned something. Do you think the : technique can be applied to the frequencies of audio and still be valid : and effective? What I find interesting about the Pioneer 'concept' vs the current applications (spot museum/art gallery virtual docent, etc) found on the web easily as already in use is the implied frequency range extension. Evidently the technique is reasonably easy to implement for voice frequencies (and it works). HF extension I imagine is inherently no problem, but I wonder what sort of power law comes into play getting results down to say 20Hz? The Pioneer unit quoted 500W IIRC. They wouldn't quote compatibility with the various formats if they hadn't already proofed applicable LF extension spec. frequencies, I imagine. OTOH, the Pioneer device hasn't come to market yet ... While AFAIU it from earlier skim reading on the principle the ultrasonic beams break up quickly, "leaving behind" the audio (I may be hopelessly, foolishly, wrong here, and thinking more of the sonar applications- after all, they have to be good enough to reach and even bounce off room walls) I can't help wondering what effect there is on a human organism standing say right in front of the device emitting all this ultrasonic power ... OTOH I'm no expert, and am in post hearty meal-and glass-of-wine mode;-) Ah, here's a snippet I found browsing elsewhere a few months ago: "Oddly, if we take the difference frequencies between any two real signals, that difference frequency propagates through a nonlinear homogeneous medium as if it were a sine wave in a linear medium -- even though the two waves we took the difference between, individually break up and spread all over. " - T.E.Bearden |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Robert Gault wrote:
: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: : : snip : Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is : either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of : speakers. The Pioneer is neither. : : : Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard : in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam : steering than is possible with physical movement. : : snip : : Very interesting and I just learned something. Do you think the : technique can be applied to the frequencies of audio and still be valid : and effective? What I find interesting about the Pioneer 'concept' vs the current applications (spot museum/art gallery virtual docent, etc) found on the web easily as already in use is the implied frequency range extension. Evidently the technique is reasonably easy to implement for voice frequencies (and it works). HF extension I imagine is inherently no problem, but I wonder what sort of power law comes into play getting results down to say 20Hz? The Pioneer unit quoted 500W IIRC. They wouldn't quote compatibility with the various formats if they hadn't already proofed applicable LF extension spec. frequencies, I imagine. OTOH, the Pioneer device hasn't come to market yet ... While AFAIU it from earlier skim reading on the principle the ultrasonic beams break up quickly, "leaving behind" the audio (I may be hopelessly, foolishly, wrong here, and thinking more of the sonar applications- after all, they have to be good enough to reach and even bounce off room walls) I can't help wondering what effect there is on a human organism standing say right in front of the device emitting all this ultrasonic power ... OTOH I'm no expert, and am in post hearty meal-and glass-of-wine mode;-) Ah, here's a snippet I found browsing elsewhere a few months ago: "Oddly, if we take the difference frequencies between any two real signals, that difference frequency propagates through a nonlinear homogeneous medium as if it were a sine wave in a linear medium -- even though the two waves we took the difference between, individually break up and spread all over. " - T.E.Bearden |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Robert Gault wrote:
: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: : : snip : Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is : either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of : speakers. The Pioneer is neither. : : : Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard : in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam : steering than is possible with physical movement. : : snip : : Very interesting and I just learned something. Do you think the : technique can be applied to the frequencies of audio and still be valid : and effective? What I find interesting about the Pioneer 'concept' vs the current applications (spot museum/art gallery virtual docent, etc) found on the web easily as already in use is the implied frequency range extension. Evidently the technique is reasonably easy to implement for voice frequencies (and it works). HF extension I imagine is inherently no problem, but I wonder what sort of power law comes into play getting results down to say 20Hz? The Pioneer unit quoted 500W IIRC. They wouldn't quote compatibility with the various formats if they hadn't already proofed applicable LF extension spec. frequencies, I imagine. OTOH, the Pioneer device hasn't come to market yet ... While AFAIU it from earlier skim reading on the principle the ultrasonic beams break up quickly, "leaving behind" the audio (I may be hopelessly, foolishly, wrong here, and thinking more of the sonar applications- after all, they have to be good enough to reach and even bounce off room walls) I can't help wondering what effect there is on a human organism standing say right in front of the device emitting all this ultrasonic power ... OTOH I'm no expert, and am in post hearty meal-and glass-of-wine mode;-) Ah, here's a snippet I found browsing elsewhere a few months ago: "Oddly, if we take the difference frequencies between any two real signals, that difference frequency propagates through a nonlinear homogeneous medium as if it were a sine wave in a linear medium -- even though the two waves we took the difference between, individually break up and spread all over. " - T.E.Bearden |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Robert Gault wrote:
: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: : : snip : Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is : either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of : speakers. The Pioneer is neither. : : : Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard : in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam : steering than is possible with physical movement. : : snip : : Very interesting and I just learned something. Do you think the : technique can be applied to the frequencies of audio and still be valid : and effective? What I find interesting about the Pioneer 'concept' vs the current applications (spot museum/art gallery virtual docent, etc) found on the web easily as already in use is the implied frequency range extension. Evidently the technique is reasonably easy to implement for voice frequencies (and it works). HF extension I imagine is inherently no problem, but I wonder what sort of power law comes into play getting results down to say 20Hz? The Pioneer unit quoted 500W IIRC. They wouldn't quote compatibility with the various formats if they hadn't already proofed applicable LF extension spec. frequencies, I imagine. OTOH, the Pioneer device hasn't come to market yet ... While AFAIU it from earlier skim reading on the principle the ultrasonic beams break up quickly, "leaving behind" the audio (I may be hopelessly, foolishly, wrong here, and thinking more of the sonar applications- after all, they have to be good enough to reach and even bounce off room walls) I can't help wondering what effect there is on a human organism standing say right in front of the device emitting all this ultrasonic power ... OTOH I'm no expert, and am in post hearty meal-and glass-of-wine mode;-) Ah, here's a snippet I found browsing elsewhere a few months ago: "Oddly, if we take the difference frequencies between any two real signals, that difference frequency propagates through a nonlinear homogeneous medium as if it were a sine wave in a linear medium -- even though the two waves we took the difference between, individually break up and spread all over. " - T.E.Bearden |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:10:17 GMT, Robert Gault
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: snip Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of speakers. The Pioneer is neither. Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam steering than is possible with physical movement. snip Very interesting and I just learned something. Do you think the technique can be applied to the frequencies of audio and still be valid and effective? I don't know, but it seems to be how it's claimed to work. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:10:17 GMT, Robert Gault
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: snip Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of speakers. The Pioneer is neither. Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam steering than is possible with physical movement. snip Very interesting and I just learned something. Do you think the technique can be applied to the frequencies of audio and still be valid and effective? I don't know, but it seems to be how it's claimed to work. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:10:17 GMT, Robert Gault
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: snip Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of speakers. The Pioneer is neither. Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam steering than is possible with physical movement. snip Very interesting and I just learned something. Do you think the technique can be applied to the frequencies of audio and still be valid and effective? I don't know, but it seems to be how it's claimed to work. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:10:17 GMT, Robert Gault
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: snip Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of speakers. The Pioneer is neither. Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam steering than is possible with physical movement. snip Very interesting and I just learned something. Do you think the technique can be applied to the frequencies of audio and still be valid and effective? I don't know, but it seems to be how it's claimed to work. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Ross Matheson wrote:
Robert Gault wrote: : Stewart Pinkerton wrote: : : snip : Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is : either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of : speakers. The Pioneer is neither. : : : Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard : in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam : steering than is possible with physical movement. : : snip : : Very interesting and I just learned something. Do you think the : technique can be applied to the frequencies of audio and still be valid : and effective? What I find interesting about the Pioneer 'concept' vs the current applications (spot museum/art gallery virtual docent, etc) found on the web easily as already in use is the implied frequency range extension. Evidently the technique is reasonably easy to implement for voice frequencies (and it works). HF extension I imagine is inherently no problem, but I wonder what sort of power law comes into play getting results down to say 20Hz? The Pioneer unit quoted 500W IIRC. They wouldn't quote compatibility with the various formats if they hadn't already proofed applicable LF extension spec. frequencies, I imagine. OTOH, the Pioneer device hasn't come to market yet ... While AFAIU it from earlier skim reading on the principle the ultrasonic beams break up quickly, "leaving behind" the audio (I may be hopelessly, foolishly, wrong here, and thinking more of the sonar applications- after all, they have to be good enough to reach and even bounce off room walls) I can't help wondering what effect there is on a human organism standing say right in front of the device emitting all this ultrasonic power ... OTOH I'm no expert, and am in post hearty meal-and glass-of-wine mode;-) Ah, here's a snippet I found browsing elsewhere a few months ago: "Oddly, if we take the difference frequencies between any two real signals, that difference frequency propagates through a nonlinear homogeneous medium as if it were a sine wave in a linear medium -- even though the two waves we took the difference between, individually break up and spread all over. " - T.E.Bearden As long as we are quoting references, here is a site that presents the difficulties of this approach. http://www.meyersound.com/support/papers/steering/ |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Ross Matheson wrote:
Robert Gault wrote: : Stewart Pinkerton wrote: : : snip : Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is : either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of : speakers. The Pioneer is neither. : : : Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard : in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam : steering than is possible with physical movement. : : snip : : Very interesting and I just learned something. Do you think the : technique can be applied to the frequencies of audio and still be valid : and effective? What I find interesting about the Pioneer 'concept' vs the current applications (spot museum/art gallery virtual docent, etc) found on the web easily as already in use is the implied frequency range extension. Evidently the technique is reasonably easy to implement for voice frequencies (and it works). HF extension I imagine is inherently no problem, but I wonder what sort of power law comes into play getting results down to say 20Hz? The Pioneer unit quoted 500W IIRC. They wouldn't quote compatibility with the various formats if they hadn't already proofed applicable LF extension spec. frequencies, I imagine. OTOH, the Pioneer device hasn't come to market yet ... While AFAIU it from earlier skim reading on the principle the ultrasonic beams break up quickly, "leaving behind" the audio (I may be hopelessly, foolishly, wrong here, and thinking more of the sonar applications- after all, they have to be good enough to reach and even bounce off room walls) I can't help wondering what effect there is on a human organism standing say right in front of the device emitting all this ultrasonic power ... OTOH I'm no expert, and am in post hearty meal-and glass-of-wine mode;-) Ah, here's a snippet I found browsing elsewhere a few months ago: "Oddly, if we take the difference frequencies between any two real signals, that difference frequency propagates through a nonlinear homogeneous medium as if it were a sine wave in a linear medium -- even though the two waves we took the difference between, individually break up and spread all over. " - T.E.Bearden As long as we are quoting references, here is a site that presents the difficulties of this approach. http://www.meyersound.com/support/papers/steering/ |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Ross Matheson wrote:
Robert Gault wrote: : Stewart Pinkerton wrote: : : snip : Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is : either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of : speakers. The Pioneer is neither. : : : Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard : in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam : steering than is possible with physical movement. : : snip : : Very interesting and I just learned something. Do you think the : technique can be applied to the frequencies of audio and still be valid : and effective? What I find interesting about the Pioneer 'concept' vs the current applications (spot museum/art gallery virtual docent, etc) found on the web easily as already in use is the implied frequency range extension. Evidently the technique is reasonably easy to implement for voice frequencies (and it works). HF extension I imagine is inherently no problem, but I wonder what sort of power law comes into play getting results down to say 20Hz? The Pioneer unit quoted 500W IIRC. They wouldn't quote compatibility with the various formats if they hadn't already proofed applicable LF extension spec. frequencies, I imagine. OTOH, the Pioneer device hasn't come to market yet ... While AFAIU it from earlier skim reading on the principle the ultrasonic beams break up quickly, "leaving behind" the audio (I may be hopelessly, foolishly, wrong here, and thinking more of the sonar applications- after all, they have to be good enough to reach and even bounce off room walls) I can't help wondering what effect there is on a human organism standing say right in front of the device emitting all this ultrasonic power ... OTOH I'm no expert, and am in post hearty meal-and glass-of-wine mode;-) Ah, here's a snippet I found browsing elsewhere a few months ago: "Oddly, if we take the difference frequencies between any two real signals, that difference frequency propagates through a nonlinear homogeneous medium as if it were a sine wave in a linear medium -- even though the two waves we took the difference between, individually break up and spread all over. " - T.E.Bearden As long as we are quoting references, here is a site that presents the difficulties of this approach. http://www.meyersound.com/support/papers/steering/ |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Ross Matheson wrote:
Robert Gault wrote: : Stewart Pinkerton wrote: : : snip : Nothing obvious here to me or even proof that it works. Any beaming is : either going to require a moving speaker or a cylindrical array of : speakers. The Pioneer is neither. : : : Not required. It can be a phased array, which is pretty much standard : in modern military radar antennae, and allows much faster beam : steering than is possible with physical movement. : : snip : : Very interesting and I just learned something. Do you think the : technique can be applied to the frequencies of audio and still be valid : and effective? What I find interesting about the Pioneer 'concept' vs the current applications (spot museum/art gallery virtual docent, etc) found on the web easily as already in use is the implied frequency range extension. Evidently the technique is reasonably easy to implement for voice frequencies (and it works). HF extension I imagine is inherently no problem, but I wonder what sort of power law comes into play getting results down to say 20Hz? The Pioneer unit quoted 500W IIRC. They wouldn't quote compatibility with the various formats if they hadn't already proofed applicable LF extension spec. frequencies, I imagine. OTOH, the Pioneer device hasn't come to market yet ... While AFAIU it from earlier skim reading on the principle the ultrasonic beams break up quickly, "leaving behind" the audio (I may be hopelessly, foolishly, wrong here, and thinking more of the sonar applications- after all, they have to be good enough to reach and even bounce off room walls) I can't help wondering what effect there is on a human organism standing say right in front of the device emitting all this ultrasonic power ... OTOH I'm no expert, and am in post hearty meal-and glass-of-wine mode;-) Ah, here's a snippet I found browsing elsewhere a few months ago: "Oddly, if we take the difference frequencies between any two real signals, that difference frequency propagates through a nonlinear homogeneous medium as if it were a sine wave in a linear medium -- even though the two waves we took the difference between, individually break up and spread all over. " - T.E.Bearden As long as we are quoting references, here is a site that presents the difficulties of this approach. http://www.meyersound.com/support/papers/steering/ |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Robert Gault noted:
: As long as we are quoting references, here is a site that presents the : difficulties of this approach. : http://www.meyersound.com/support/papers/steering/ Thanks. Interesting. But those are conventional audio transducers. My understanding - and hey, I'm no expert - just an interested amateur - is that these are ultrasonic transducers - much easier to beam, and one might assume, to steer said beams - and the difference freqencies are demodulated by the air itself, in the beam - i.e 60KHz with 61KHz = 1kHz. A little more browsing found some more references. This technology (of the air itself demodulating the difference tones from the ultrasonic "carrier" waves) is fairly recent, although it was proven to work in water earlier. Perhaps there are still some headaches left for Pioneer before market ... (I see elsewhere too that the technology is being weaponised ... ) http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/t2/messages/387.html (2003) [interestingly, concerns over health raised in one or two of the replies.] Wired article from 2002 http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,50483,00.html Also a few notes from someone's collection of ultrasonics links, 2001. == "In the audio spotlight: a sonar technique allows loudspeakers to deliver focused sound beams" article by David Schneider in _Scientific American_ 1998-10 Just as a loudspeaker distorts music if driven too hard ... water will also distort high-intensity sound waves. Rather than being a problem, this nonlinearity offered sonar engineers a way to make the water itself generate low-frequency sound waves from high-frequency ones. ... And because of its small wavelength, an ultrasonic carrier can be sent from a physically small source in a tight beam. ... experts debated whether such parametric arrays would also work in air ... [until] Mary Beth Bennet and David T. Blackstock, both at the University of Texas at Austin, ... created an audible tone in air using ultrasonic waves. ... F. Joseph Pompei ... [at] the Media Lab in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ... Unlike earlier arrays built with piezoelectric elements, his apparatus employs wide-bandwidth electrostatic transducers ... he is able to project a three-degree-wide beam for some 200 meters. Elwood G. Norris, an inventor at American Technology Corporation in San Diego ... [has] also been pursuing the prospect of using parametric arrays in air. == from http://www.rdrop.com/~cary/html/ultrasonic.html (very eclectic site) == Anyway, that's about all I have to note on the topic. (I wonder what Arny's own thoughts are, since he brought this up? ;-) RdM |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Robert Gault noted:
: As long as we are quoting references, here is a site that presents the : difficulties of this approach. : http://www.meyersound.com/support/papers/steering/ Thanks. Interesting. But those are conventional audio transducers. My understanding - and hey, I'm no expert - just an interested amateur - is that these are ultrasonic transducers - much easier to beam, and one might assume, to steer said beams - and the difference freqencies are demodulated by the air itself, in the beam - i.e 60KHz with 61KHz = 1kHz. A little more browsing found some more references. This technology (of the air itself demodulating the difference tones from the ultrasonic "carrier" waves) is fairly recent, although it was proven to work in water earlier. Perhaps there are still some headaches left for Pioneer before market ... (I see elsewhere too that the technology is being weaponised ... ) http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/t2/messages/387.html (2003) [interestingly, concerns over health raised in one or two of the replies.] Wired article from 2002 http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,50483,00.html Also a few notes from someone's collection of ultrasonics links, 2001. == "In the audio spotlight: a sonar technique allows loudspeakers to deliver focused sound beams" article by David Schneider in _Scientific American_ 1998-10 Just as a loudspeaker distorts music if driven too hard ... water will also distort high-intensity sound waves. Rather than being a problem, this nonlinearity offered sonar engineers a way to make the water itself generate low-frequency sound waves from high-frequency ones. ... And because of its small wavelength, an ultrasonic carrier can be sent from a physically small source in a tight beam. ... experts debated whether such parametric arrays would also work in air ... [until] Mary Beth Bennet and David T. Blackstock, both at the University of Texas at Austin, ... created an audible tone in air using ultrasonic waves. ... F. Joseph Pompei ... [at] the Media Lab in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ... Unlike earlier arrays built with piezoelectric elements, his apparatus employs wide-bandwidth electrostatic transducers ... he is able to project a three-degree-wide beam for some 200 meters. Elwood G. Norris, an inventor at American Technology Corporation in San Diego ... [has] also been pursuing the prospect of using parametric arrays in air. == from http://www.rdrop.com/~cary/html/ultrasonic.html (very eclectic site) == Anyway, that's about all I have to note on the topic. (I wonder what Arny's own thoughts are, since he brought this up? ;-) RdM |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Robert Gault noted:
: As long as we are quoting references, here is a site that presents the : difficulties of this approach. : http://www.meyersound.com/support/papers/steering/ Thanks. Interesting. But those are conventional audio transducers. My understanding - and hey, I'm no expert - just an interested amateur - is that these are ultrasonic transducers - much easier to beam, and one might assume, to steer said beams - and the difference freqencies are demodulated by the air itself, in the beam - i.e 60KHz with 61KHz = 1kHz. A little more browsing found some more references. This technology (of the air itself demodulating the difference tones from the ultrasonic "carrier" waves) is fairly recent, although it was proven to work in water earlier. Perhaps there are still some headaches left for Pioneer before market ... (I see elsewhere too that the technology is being weaponised ... ) http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/t2/messages/387.html (2003) [interestingly, concerns over health raised in one or two of the replies.] Wired article from 2002 http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,50483,00.html Also a few notes from someone's collection of ultrasonics links, 2001. == "In the audio spotlight: a sonar technique allows loudspeakers to deliver focused sound beams" article by David Schneider in _Scientific American_ 1998-10 Just as a loudspeaker distorts music if driven too hard ... water will also distort high-intensity sound waves. Rather than being a problem, this nonlinearity offered sonar engineers a way to make the water itself generate low-frequency sound waves from high-frequency ones. ... And because of its small wavelength, an ultrasonic carrier can be sent from a physically small source in a tight beam. ... experts debated whether such parametric arrays would also work in air ... [until] Mary Beth Bennet and David T. Blackstock, both at the University of Texas at Austin, ... created an audible tone in air using ultrasonic waves. ... F. Joseph Pompei ... [at] the Media Lab in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ... Unlike earlier arrays built with piezoelectric elements, his apparatus employs wide-bandwidth electrostatic transducers ... he is able to project a three-degree-wide beam for some 200 meters. Elwood G. Norris, an inventor at American Technology Corporation in San Diego ... [has] also been pursuing the prospect of using parametric arrays in air. == from http://www.rdrop.com/~cary/html/ultrasonic.html (very eclectic site) == Anyway, that's about all I have to note on the topic. (I wonder what Arny's own thoughts are, since he brought this up? ;-) RdM |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Robert Gault noted:
: As long as we are quoting references, here is a site that presents the : difficulties of this approach. : http://www.meyersound.com/support/papers/steering/ Thanks. Interesting. But those are conventional audio transducers. My understanding - and hey, I'm no expert - just an interested amateur - is that these are ultrasonic transducers - much easier to beam, and one might assume, to steer said beams - and the difference freqencies are demodulated by the air itself, in the beam - i.e 60KHz with 61KHz = 1kHz. A little more browsing found some more references. This technology (of the air itself demodulating the difference tones from the ultrasonic "carrier" waves) is fairly recent, although it was proven to work in water earlier. Perhaps there are still some headaches left for Pioneer before market ... (I see elsewhere too that the technology is being weaponised ... ) http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/t2/messages/387.html (2003) [interestingly, concerns over health raised in one or two of the replies.] Wired article from 2002 http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,50483,00.html Also a few notes from someone's collection of ultrasonics links, 2001. == "In the audio spotlight: a sonar technique allows loudspeakers to deliver focused sound beams" article by David Schneider in _Scientific American_ 1998-10 Just as a loudspeaker distorts music if driven too hard ... water will also distort high-intensity sound waves. Rather than being a problem, this nonlinearity offered sonar engineers a way to make the water itself generate low-frequency sound waves from high-frequency ones. ... And because of its small wavelength, an ultrasonic carrier can be sent from a physically small source in a tight beam. ... experts debated whether such parametric arrays would also work in air ... [until] Mary Beth Bennet and David T. Blackstock, both at the University of Texas at Austin, ... created an audible tone in air using ultrasonic waves. ... F. Joseph Pompei ... [at] the Media Lab in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ... Unlike earlier arrays built with piezoelectric elements, his apparatus employs wide-bandwidth electrostatic transducers ... he is able to project a three-degree-wide beam for some 200 meters. Elwood G. Norris, an inventor at American Technology Corporation in San Diego ... [has] also been pursuing the prospect of using parametric arrays in air. == from http://www.rdrop.com/~cary/html/ultrasonic.html (very eclectic site) == Anyway, that's about all I have to note on the topic. (I wonder what Arny's own thoughts are, since he brought this up? ;-) RdM |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Ross Matheson wrote:
The paranoiac mind-control conspiracy folk are of course already freaked about the technology to make one person in a loose group hear voices ... Thing is that 99.9999999 % of occurrences of this phenomenon can be accurately put down to schizophrenia ! If a speaker used the principal of beamed soundwaves and resultant interference patterns, it would be F.A. use for discos, going out to the fridge for a new beer, talking, or for that matter doing anything but sitting in a headbrace, for the effects to be anything other than 'variable' .. I would think ..... geoff |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Ross Matheson wrote:
The paranoiac mind-control conspiracy folk are of course already freaked about the technology to make one person in a loose group hear voices ... Thing is that 99.9999999 % of occurrences of this phenomenon can be accurately put down to schizophrenia ! If a speaker used the principal of beamed soundwaves and resultant interference patterns, it would be F.A. use for discos, going out to the fridge for a new beer, talking, or for that matter doing anything but sitting in a headbrace, for the effects to be anything other than 'variable' .. I would think ..... geoff |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Ross Matheson wrote:
The paranoiac mind-control conspiracy folk are of course already freaked about the technology to make one person in a loose group hear voices ... Thing is that 99.9999999 % of occurrences of this phenomenon can be accurately put down to schizophrenia ! If a speaker used the principal of beamed soundwaves and resultant interference patterns, it would be F.A. use for discos, going out to the fridge for a new beer, talking, or for that matter doing anything but sitting in a headbrace, for the effects to be anything other than 'variable' .. I would think ..... geoff |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Ross Matheson wrote:
The paranoiac mind-control conspiracy folk are of course already freaked about the technology to make one person in a loose group hear voices ... Thing is that 99.9999999 % of occurrences of this phenomenon can be accurately put down to schizophrenia ! If a speaker used the principal of beamed soundwaves and resultant interference patterns, it would be F.A. use for discos, going out to the fridge for a new beer, talking, or for that matter doing anything but sitting in a headbrace, for the effects to be anything other than 'variable' .. I would think ..... geoff |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Ross Matheson wrote:
: results down to say 20Hz? The Pioneer unit quoted 500W IIRC. I see the pdf at www.1limited.com gives these specs. Obviously intended for use with a subwoofer. Makes sense. == Number of audio channels 8 supporting 5.1, 6.1 & 7.1 formats Frequency response (+/- 3dB)80 Hz - 20 kHz SPL @ 1m 110 dB SPL Power supply rating 420 W (rms), 600 W (peak) Multi-channel audio formats Dolby Digital (AC3) / DTS / MPEG PCM: Dolby Prologic / 6 channel (discrete) Audio inputs 4 x optical S/P-DIF 1x stereo analogue Subwoofer output Coaxial S/P-DIF + analogue Adjustable crossover 80 - 150 Hz Tone controls +/-12 dB shelving 20 - 300 Hz (per channel + global) +/-12 dB shelving 6 - 20 kHz User interface On-screen display IR remote control RS-232 remote control/dealer setup interface == |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Ross Matheson wrote:
: results down to say 20Hz? The Pioneer unit quoted 500W IIRC. I see the pdf at www.1limited.com gives these specs. Obviously intended for use with a subwoofer. Makes sense. == Number of audio channels 8 supporting 5.1, 6.1 & 7.1 formats Frequency response (+/- 3dB)80 Hz - 20 kHz SPL @ 1m 110 dB SPL Power supply rating 420 W (rms), 600 W (peak) Multi-channel audio formats Dolby Digital (AC3) / DTS / MPEG PCM: Dolby Prologic / 6 channel (discrete) Audio inputs 4 x optical S/P-DIF 1x stereo analogue Subwoofer output Coaxial S/P-DIF + analogue Adjustable crossover 80 - 150 Hz Tone controls +/-12 dB shelving 20 - 300 Hz (per channel + global) +/-12 dB shelving 6 - 20 kHz User interface On-screen display IR remote control RS-232 remote control/dealer setup interface == |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Ross Matheson wrote:
: results down to say 20Hz? The Pioneer unit quoted 500W IIRC. I see the pdf at www.1limited.com gives these specs. Obviously intended for use with a subwoofer. Makes sense. == Number of audio channels 8 supporting 5.1, 6.1 & 7.1 formats Frequency response (+/- 3dB)80 Hz - 20 kHz SPL @ 1m 110 dB SPL Power supply rating 420 W (rms), 600 W (peak) Multi-channel audio formats Dolby Digital (AC3) / DTS / MPEG PCM: Dolby Prologic / 6 channel (discrete) Audio inputs 4 x optical S/P-DIF 1x stereo analogue Subwoofer output Coaxial S/P-DIF + analogue Adjustable crossover 80 - 150 Hz Tone controls +/-12 dB shelving 20 - 300 Hz (per channel + global) +/-12 dB shelving 6 - 20 kHz User interface On-screen display IR remote control RS-232 remote control/dealer setup interface == |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you think about this loudspeaker, ladiies and germs?
Ross Matheson wrote:
: results down to say 20Hz? The Pioneer unit quoted 500W IIRC. I see the pdf at www.1limited.com gives these specs. Obviously intended for use with a subwoofer. Makes sense. == Number of audio channels 8 supporting 5.1, 6.1 & 7.1 formats Frequency response (+/- 3dB)80 Hz - 20 kHz SPL @ 1m 110 dB SPL Power supply rating 420 W (rms), 600 W (peak) Multi-channel audio formats Dolby Digital (AC3) / DTS / MPEG PCM: Dolby Prologic / 6 channel (discrete) Audio inputs 4 x optical S/P-DIF 1x stereo analogue Subwoofer output Coaxial S/P-DIF + analogue Adjustable crossover 80 - 150 Hz Tone controls +/-12 dB shelving 20 - 300 Hz (per channel + global) +/-12 dB shelving 6 - 20 kHz User interface On-screen display IR remote control RS-232 remote control/dealer setup interface == |
Linear Mode
