[Les Cargill]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote:

On Feb 25, 1:12 pm, Roy W. Rising wrote:


The relationship you mention is "Let the product of the LF and HF -3dB
frequencies equal 600,000". Familiar examples are 30-20,000Hz;

Oh, well, there goes 50 years of "20 to 20,000 cycles" shot to hell.


There's not much music below 30 Hz, only a few pipe organs.


That is not true. There are kick drums and electric bass
guitars, electronic synthesizers and all manner of stuff between say,
100 Hz and 30 Hz.

snip

--
Les Cargill

[Jenn]

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

Roy W. Rising wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote:

On Feb 25, 1:12 pm, Roy W. Rising wrote:


The relationship you mention is "Let the product of the LF and HF -3dB
frequencies equal 600,000". Familiar examples are 30-20,000Hz;

Oh, well, there goes 50 years of "20 to 20,000 cycles" shot to hell.


There's not much music below 30 Hz, only a few pipe organs.


That is not true. There are kick drums and electric bass
guitars, electronic synthesizers and all manner of stuff between say,
100 Hz and 30 Hz.

snip

--
Les Cargill

The low E string on string bass and bass guitar is, IIRC tuned to 41 Hz
(in standard tuning), and the famous bass drum on Fred Fennell's first
Telarc recording was just about 40 Hz, again IIRC.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:36:45 GMT, "Henry Kolesnik"
wrote:

Ok, I think I understand the math but what is a practical application of
a sound decade?

One practical thing I don't think has been mentioned
is that 20db per decade per pole is *exact*, unlike
the commoner 6dB per octave per pole, which ain't.

So you see it in textbooks where the author doesn't
want to endlessly explain...

And, yeah, the graph paper thingy, too.
All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck

[Roy W. Rising]

wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote:

On Feb 25, 1:12 pm, Roy W. Rising wrote:


The relationship you mention is "Let the product of the LF and HF -3dB
frequencies equal 600,000". Familiar examples are 30-20,000Hz;

Oh, well, there goes 50 years of "20 to 20,000 cycles" shot to hell.


There's not much music below 30 Hz, only a few pipe organs.

That is not true. There are kick drums and electric bass
guitars, electronic synthesizers and all manner of stuff between say,
100 Hz and 30 Hz.

snip

Your point being ... ? I said BELOW 30 Hz.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Les Cargill]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

wrote:

Roy W. Rising wrote:


"Mike Rivers" wrote:


On Feb 25, 1:12 pm, Roy W. Rising wrote:



The relationship you mention is "Let the product of the LF and HF -3dB
frequencies equal 600,000". Familiar examples are 30-20,000Hz;

Oh, well, there goes 50 years of "20 to 20,000 cycles" shot to hell.


There's not much music below 30 Hz, only a few pipe organs.

That is not true. There are kick drums and electric bass
guitars, electronic synthesizers and all manner of stuff between say,
100 Hz and 30 Hz.

snip


Your point being ... ? I said BELOW 30 Hz.


I meant *below* 30 Hz as well. I did not type that, but I should have.
All we need to know is that when somebody removes it on the
right program material thru the right playback, its absence is
apparent. Doesn't happen often.

--
Les Cargill

--
Les Cargill

[Roy W. Rising]

wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:

wrote:

Roy W. Rising wrote:


"Mike Rivers" wrote:


On Feb 25, 1:12 pm, Roy W. Rising wrote:



The relationship you mention is "Let the product of the LF and HF
-3dB frequencies equal 600,000". Familiar examples are 30-20,000Hz;

Oh, well, there goes 50 years of "20 to 20,000 cycles" shot to hell.


There's not much music below 30 Hz, only a few pipe organs.

That is not true. There are kick drums and electric bass
guitars, electronic synthesizers and all manner of stuff between say,
100 Hz and 30 Hz.

snip


Your point being ... ? I said BELOW 30 Hz.


I meant *below* 30 Hz as well. I did not type that, but I should have.
All we need to know is that when somebody removes it on the
right program material thru the right playback, its absence is
apparent. Doesn't happen often.

I understand your "oops". I once had an editor who would change "increase"
to "decrease" and such. His boss took care of that problem!

All things considered, 15-40,000 is a realistic range for electronics, and
meets the 600,000 rule.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Mr.T]

"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
...
All things considered, 15-40,000 is a realistic range for electronics, and
meets the 600,000 rule.

And what is so important about the 600,000 "rule"?
Most people seem quite happy with 20-20k IMO.

MrT.

[Roy W. Rising]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
...
All things considered, 15-40,000 is a realistic range for electronics,
and meets the 600,000 rule.

And what is so important about the 600,000 "rule"?
Most people seem quite happy with 20-20k IMO.

MrT.

Perhaps you've missed the earlier discussion of the 600,000 rule. It is
important when bandwidth must be limited to somewhere within the audible
spectrum. It preserves a satisfactory bass-treble balance under restricted
conditions.

The logical extension outside the "audible spectrum" is simply ... well,
.... logical!

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Mr.T]

"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
...
The logical extension outside the "audible spectrum" is simply ... well,
... logical!

Illogical is the word you are looking for :-)

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Roy W. Rising" wrote in
message ...
All things considered, 15-40,000 is a realistic range
for electronics, and meets the 600,000 rule.

And what is so important about the 600,000 "rule"?
Most people seem quite happy with 20-20k IMO.

MrT.

Perhaps you've missed the earlier discussion of the
600,000 rule. It is important when bandwidth must be
limited to somewhere within the audible spectrum. It
preserves a satisfactory bass-treble balance under
restricted conditions.

The logical extension outside the "audible spectrum" is
simply ... well, ... logical!

Not necessarily. In fact not at all. Outside the audible spectrum means
inaudible, which means that it is sonically moot.

IME rules like the 600,000 rule only make sense for restricted bandwidth
systems, systems where the high and low frequency extensions are
significantly less than the usual 20-20,000 range. Extending a system's
response from 4 KHz to 8 KHz has far more sonic significance than extending
a system's response from 16 KHz to 32 KHz. In fact, extending a system's
response from 16 KHz to 32 KHz is almost sonically moot.

The opposite is true on the bottom end, only with a twist. Extending a
system's bass response from 160 Hz to 80 Hz is highly audibly significant,
and can affect the perceived musical balance of a system. Extending response
from 40 Hz to 20 Hz can also be clearly audible or at least felt, but IME it
does not change the musical balance.

The 600,000 rule is IMO too simplistic to be a rule that fits every
occasion. IMO, it's an artifact of the days when we were struggling to have
clean response at both ends of the spectrum. Those days are long gone -
building systems with clean smooth on-axis response from 20-20 KHz is
readily doable using current technology. The only problem is that clean
smooth on-axis response from 20-20 KHz is not all that is required for
realistic recreation of musical events.

[JBorg, Jr.]

Arny Krueger burble:








The only problem is that clean smooth on-axis response from 20-20 KHz is
not all that is required for realistic recreation of musical events.



Thats right and convincingly so. You actually need to listen to the sound
using both your ears.

[Mogens V.]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Arny Krueger burble:

The only problem is that clean smooth on-axis response from 20-20 KHz is
not all that is required for realistic recreation of musical events.


Thats right and convincingly so. You actually need to listen to the sound
using both your ears.

Ehh? you lost me there.. half/twice nof ears has little impact to the
topic at hand. Ahh, you're speaking metaphorically in-between-lines...

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[JBorg, Jr.]

Mogens V. wrote
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Arny Krueger burble:



The only problem is that clean smooth on-axis response from 20-20 KHz is
not all that is required for realistic recreation of musical events.


Thats right and convincingly so. You actually need to listen to the sound
using both your ears.


Ehh? you lost me there.. half/twice nof ears has little impact to the topic
at hand. Ahh, you're speaking metaphorically in-between-lines...



I was specifically refering to what was required when listening to musical
events.
Hence, I snipped the rest.

Well, if you're still lost just tell me a little more how you've gone
wayward.







--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mogens V." wrote in message
...
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Arny Krueger burble:

The only problem is that clean smooth on-axis response from 20-20 KHz is
not all that is required for realistic recreation of musical events.


Thats right and convincingly so. You actually need to listen to the
sound
using both your ears.

Ehh? you lost me there.. half/twice nof ears has little impact to the
topic at hand. Ahh, you're speaking metaphorically in-between-lines...

JBorg has this long history of accusing people of not listening to music,
and trying to pass trivial truisms off as deep wisdom. It makes him feel
like he is quite a bit smarter than other people.

[JBorg, Jr.]

Arny Krueger wrote
Mogens V. wrote
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Arny Krueger burble:



The only problem is that clean smooth on-axis response from 20-20 KHz is
not all that is required for realistic recreation of musical events.


Thats right and convincingly so. You actually need to listen to the sound
using both your ears.

Ehh? you lost me there.. half/twice nof ears has little impact to the
topic at hand. Ahh, you're speaking metaphorically in-between-lines...


JBorg has this long history of accusing people of not listening to music,
and trying to pass trivial truisms off as deep wisdom. It makes him feel
like he is quite a bit smarter than other people.


I have only one ****ing question for you: Have you been behaving yourself
lately, mother****er ?

[paul packer]

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:09:39 GMT, "JBorg, Jr."
wrote:


Arny Krueger wrote
Mogens V. wrote
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Arny Krueger burble:



The only problem is that clean smooth on-axis response from 20-20 KHz is
not all that is required for realistic recreation of musical events.


Thats right and convincingly so. You actually need to listen to the sound
using both your ears.

Ehh? you lost me there.. half/twice nof ears has little impact to the
topic at hand. Ahh, you're speaking metaphorically in-between-lines...


JBorg has this long history of accusing people of not listening to music,
and trying to pass trivial truisms off as deep wisdom. It makes him feel
like he is quite a bit smarter than other people.


I have only one ****ing question for you: Have you been behaving yourself
lately, mother****er ?

Am I mistaken, or is JBorg lowering the tone of RAO?

[Roy W. Rising]

(paul packer) wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:09:39 GMT, "JBorg, Jr."
wrote:

I have only one ****ing question for you: Have you been behaving
yourself lately, mother****er ?

Am I mistaken, or is JBorg lowering the tone of RAO?

I'm not sure about "lowering the tone" but there are definite indications
of JBorg's limited bandwidth!

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Mr.T]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
Am I mistaken, or is JBorg lowering the tone of RAO?

Is that possible :-)

MrT.

[Diane S]

paul packer wrote
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote
Mogens V. wrote
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Arny Krueger burble:



The only problem is that clean smooth on-axis response from 20-20 KHz
is
not all that is required for realistic recreation of musical events.


Thats right and convincingly so. You actually need to listen to the
sound
using both your ears.

Ehh? you lost me there.. half/twice nof ears has little impact to the
topic at hand. Ahh, you're speaking metaphorically in-between-lines...


JBorg has this long history of accusing people of not listening to music,
and trying to pass trivial truisms off as deep wisdom. It makes him feel
like he is quite a bit smarter than other people.






Am I mistaken, or is JBorg lowering the tone of RAO?


It did cross to mind way back how interesting it would be to have a fresh
new poster at Rao but the likes of Krooger are more than just pest, they're
malignant disease. Cowards with no shame.

[Diane S]

That's me in reply to Paul from down-under.


I'm using someone else computer right now.
I'm still in process of changing and moving....

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

"paul packer" wrote in message
...

Am I mistaken, or is JBorg lowering the tone of RAO?

Is that possible :-)

Not as long as we have to suffer with the Middiot and his current sidekick.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 5, 6:33 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message



"paul packer" wrote in message
...
Am I mistaken, or is JBorg lowering the tone of RAO?
Is that possible :-)

Not as long as we have to suffer with the Middiot and his current sidekick.

Did somebody leave poop on your yard or something?

[Ben Bradley]

In rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.tech, On Sun, 25 Feb
2007 16:13:03 GMT, "Henry Kolesnik"
wrote:

...

I accept and agree that it is easier and much more convenient to plot on
log-log paper any values that have a wide range and log base 10 is fine.
I also find it very practical to say some pitch or frequency depending
on whether we're talking about sound or electrical signals that the
range is 2 or 3 octaves. If we're discussing audio and I say starting

...

It should be noted that the plots are on semilog paper but the filter
rolloff is specd at 6dB per octave.
In the Audio Engineering Handbook by Benson plots are on semilog paper
and rolloff in dB per octave.
Neither of the above books cover decades. I'm starting to think that
decades are only used because we plot on log rule graph paper and that's
because we don't have octave ruled graph paper.

This is historically true, and likely the origin of "sound decade"
that you were first asking about.

FWIW, and you surely know this already, a 6dB per octave slope is
the same (approximately, but close enough) as a 20dB per decade slope,
and likewise for 12, 18 and 24 per octave being 40, 60 and 80 per
decade. I have no trouble translating between these and recognizing
them as the slopes for first, second, third and fourth order filters.

As one more "data point," Don Lancaster's Active Filter Cookbook
uses decade plots, but he describes filters using rolloff figures of
6, 12, 18 and 24 dB per octave. There's no index entry for decade or
octave. He has many graphs centered on a normalized turnover frequency
of 1 extending logarithmically from 0.25 to 4, a 16-to-1 range. But
that could just as easily be a portion of a two-decade log graph.

Their practical use is
limited.

If you know the math and how to operate most any computer drawing
program, you can quickly create graph paper with any scale you like,
such as octave ruled paper. This wasn't as easy several decades
(sorry) ago, but certainly possible for any competent high school
graduate (an important keyword here is competent).
An inportant point, log plots look the same whether the lines are
for octaves or decades. IMHO, it's not that big a deal.

Out of curiosity and because I've been shook up by sub woofers in
theaters and now some cars can vibrate mine, what is the frequwncy range
for these sub woofers and what is the rolloff, octaves or decades,
however they are specd.
tnx

Most car woofers are resonant and have most of their output within
one octave (perhaps 40 to 80 Hz) and thus don't sound good musically.
That's probably all you want to know about them. I imagine theater
sound systems would be much better.

If you want a really powerful subwoofer, look into this one, it's
been discussed here befo
http://www.rotarywoofer.com/

[[email protected]]

On Mar 7, 4:05 pm, Ben Bradley
wrote:
Most car woofers are resonant and have most of their output within
one octave (perhaps 40 to 80 Hz) and thus don't sound good musically.

Uhm, beyond whether they sound good or bad, ALL
car woofers, like ALL woofers, like ALL tweeters like,
well, ALL drivers, are resonant. No exceptions.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
On Mar 7, 4:05 pm, Ben Bradley
wrote:
Most car woofers are resonant and have most of their output within
one octave (perhaps 40 to 80 Hz) and thus don't sound good musically.

Uhm, beyond whether they sound good or bad, ALL
car woofers, like ALL woofers, like ALL tweeters like,
well, ALL drivers, are resonant. No exceptions.

Yes, but just like being equal... some are more resonant than others.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg]

This is a joke......right?

peace
dawg

"Ben Bradley"
wrote in message
...

: If you want a really powerful subwoofer, look into
this one, it's
: been discussed here befo
: http://www.rotarywoofer.com/
:

[Serge Auckland]

"Deputy Dumbya Dawg" wrote in
message thlink.net...
This is a joke......right?

peace
dawg

"Ben Bradley"
wrote in message
...

: If you want a really powerful subwoofer, look into
this one, it's
: been discussed here befo
: http://www.rotarywoofer.com/
:

No joke, it's based on perfectly sound technology. To get low frequencies at
high volume, you need to shift a lot of air. This is one way of doing just
that. I haven't yet heard one, and at the price they're selling at, it's
unlikely I shall, but neverthless, technically it looks sound to me. The
trick is to keep the tip velocity of the blades low so they don't make much
noise themselves, but high enough so they shift plenty of air with only
small blade movements, or it will be difficult to keep distortion low.

S.

[Clyde Slick]

Serge Auckland a scris:
"Deputy Dumbya Dawg" wrote in
message thlink.net...
This is a joke......right?

peace
dawg

"Ben Bradley"
wrote in message
...

: If you want a really powerful subwoofer, look into
this one, it's
: been discussed here befo
: http://www.rotarywoofer.com/
:

No joke, it's based on perfectly sound technology. To get low frequencies at
high volume, you need to shift a lot of air. This is one way of doing just
that. I haven't yet heard one, and at the price they're selling at, it's
unlikely I shall, but neverthless, technically it looks sound to me. The
trick is to keep the tip velocity of the blades low so they don't make much
noise themselves, but high enough so they shift plenty of air with only
small blade movements, or it will be difficult to keep distortion low.

S.

tommy can trade in his corvette for one

[Roy W. Rising]

It never ceases to amaze and amuse me to see how far off topic a thread can
go!

Does anyone remember what this thread really was about? No cheating now,
don't look back to find out. Just try to remember. Hint: It had nothing
to do with RT60 = 10 years. ;-p

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"