Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" "Phil Allison" ** Dunno what you are on about - Doppler is a linear phenomenon, not some kind of distortion product. It is simply the result of a moving source creating longer or shorter wavelengths in the air than it would if stationery. Oh, you are so completely and totally wrong! ** Go **** yourself - Arny. You have nothing even faintly sane to say and you are acting like a maniac. Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional frequencies that were not part of the original signal. ** The Doppler effect is however a linear phenomenon. ( snip idiotic, gratuitous insults form a raving maniac ) Doppler is the result of relatively motion between the transmitter and receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received by the receiver. ( snip idiotic, gratuitous insults form a raving maniac ) Shame that dumb spectrum analysers cannot tell the difference between minor amounts of AM and very narrow FM with a high index figure - that fact has cast doubt over practically all the test results that are claimed to show Doppler shift in the sound coming from woofers. It's not the analyzer's fault, its the fault of the people setting up the analyzer and interpreting the results. ** Ridiculous gobbledegook - Arny's fake analogy posted below makes my point for me. Phil, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Take the guns away, you save a fair number of lives because it's harder to kill someone without a gun, but there would still be lots of murder. ** So Arny is now a looney gun freak as well as an all round, manic lunatic these days. Tell me Arny - who had the bad news from the medicos ??? ............. Phil |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" "Phil Allison" ** Dunno what you are on about - Doppler is a linear phenomenon, not some kind of distortion product. It is simply the result of a moving source creating longer or shorter wavelengths in the air than it would if stationery. Oh, you are so completely and totally wrong! ** Go **** yourself - Arny. You have nothing even faintly sane to say and you are acting like a maniac. Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional frequencies that were not part of the original signal. ** The Doppler effect is however a linear phenomenon. ( snip idiotic, gratuitous insults form a raving maniac ) Doppler is the result of relatively motion between the transmitter and receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received by the receiver. ( snip idiotic, gratuitous insults form a raving maniac ) Shame that dumb spectrum analysers cannot tell the difference between minor amounts of AM and very narrow FM with a high index figure - that fact has cast doubt over practically all the test results that are claimed to show Doppler shift in the sound coming from woofers. It's not the analyzer's fault, its the fault of the people setting up the analyzer and interpreting the results. ** Ridiculous gobbledegook - Arny's fake analogy posted below makes my point for me. Phil, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Take the guns away, you save a fair number of lives because it's harder to kill someone without a gun, but there would still be lots of murder. ** So Arny is now a looney gun freak as well as an all round, manic lunatic these days. Tell me Arny - who had the bad news from the medicos ??? ............. Phil |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:56:22 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote: Yeah, I'm hoping for citations that provide a complete theory for the effect from which the result of any driving point velocity or pressure can be predicted. There is no good reason why this doesn't exist except possibly for one. I'm puzzled why you're unconvinced by an argument from Terman, rotating vectors and such like. Doesn't the diaphragm itself contain enough information (for a fixed listener?) Everything is really subjective to this point without the requisite separation of variables. So, ignoring the side arguments of audibility and testing procedures, is your quest located at the diaphragm-air translation? Thanks, Chris Hornbeck |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:56:22 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote: Yeah, I'm hoping for citations that provide a complete theory for the effect from which the result of any driving point velocity or pressure can be predicted. There is no good reason why this doesn't exist except possibly for one. I'm puzzled why you're unconvinced by an argument from Terman, rotating vectors and such like. Doesn't the diaphragm itself contain enough information (for a fixed listener?) Everything is really subjective to this point without the requisite separation of variables. So, ignoring the side arguments of audibility and testing procedures, is your quest located at the diaphragm-air translation? Thanks, Chris Hornbeck |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:13:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional frequencies that were not part of the original signal. Doppler is the result of relatively motion between the transmitter and receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received by the receiver. Exactly right. I think what's confusing about FM is that it *doesn't* require a "non-linear" (in the usual common useage) term. No kinks or bends in the in-vs-out curve. It's constructed completely out of rotating vectors. PFM! Chris Hornbeck |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:13:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional frequencies that were not part of the original signal. Doppler is the result of relatively motion between the transmitter and receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received by the receiver. Exactly right. I think what's confusing about FM is that it *doesn't* require a "non-linear" (in the usual common useage) term. No kinks or bends in the in-vs-out curve. It's constructed completely out of rotating vectors. PFM! Chris Hornbeck |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Hornbeck" "Arny Krueger" Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional frequencies that were not part of the original signal. Doppler is the result of relatively motion between the transmitter and receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received by the receiver. Exactly right. ** The two paras are in direct contradiction. Hornbeck would have done well in Orwell's 1984. ............ Phil |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Hornbeck" "Arny Krueger" Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional frequencies that were not part of the original signal. Doppler is the result of relatively motion between the transmitter and receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received by the receiver. Exactly right. ** The two paras are in direct contradiction. Hornbeck would have done well in Orwell's 1984. ............ Phil |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Depends on the speaker. I think the Hill devices had a sheet of plasma
in a magnetic field, and by shifting the magnetic field you could move the plasma forward and back and thereby move air with it. But I do recall another device that relied on changing ionization. There was no magnetic field. The plasma was produced by RF excitation, and the audio signal AM modulated it. Dr. Hill told me that he had assumed the same as everyone else -- that the plasma varied in volume with the modulation and "pushed" the air. He claimed that a study of the thermodynamics of the system showed otherwise. |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Depends on the speaker. I think the Hill devices had a sheet of plasma
in a magnetic field, and by shifting the magnetic field you could move the plasma forward and back and thereby move air with it. But I do recall another device that relied on changing ionization. There was no magnetic field. The plasma was produced by RF excitation, and the audio signal AM modulated it. Dr. Hill told me that he had assumed the same as everyone else -- that the plasma varied in volume with the modulation and "pushed" the air. He claimed that a study of the thermodynamics of the system showed otherwise. |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
What is it with you two? When I make ad-hominem attacks on Arny, at least
they're global metaphysical/philosophical attacks. |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
What is it with you two? When I make ad-hominem attacks on Arny, at least
they're global metaphysical/philosophical attacks. |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Carey Carlan wrote: Your argument assumes that the microphone diaphragm moves the same extent during recording as the speaker does during playback. Another way of pointing out that it wouldn't be a linear phenomenon. If it were it would scale with everything else. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
Carey Carlan wrote: Your argument assumes that the microphone diaphragm moves the same extent during recording as the speaker does during playback. Another way of pointing out that it wouldn't be a linear phenomenon. If it were it would scale with everything else. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
William Sommerwerck wrote: In the case of lightning, isn't it the thermal expansion of the air that causes the sound of thunder? Yes, but it isn't what makes an ion speaker speak. :-) Yes, it is. Ask Dr. Hill. Don't know him. Did he write the working principle up? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
William Sommerwerck wrote: In the case of lightning, isn't it the thermal expansion of the air that causes the sound of thunder? Yes, but it isn't what makes an ion speaker speak. :-) Yes, it is. Ask Dr. Hill. Don't know him. Did he write the working principle up? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
William Sommerwerck wrote: I, too, dislike appealing to authority. But I've met Dr. Hill, talked with him at length, and he's no dummy. Ionic speakers do NOT work by "pushing" the air in front of them. The sound is a PV = nRT effect, where changes in temperature produce pressure changes. Dr. Hill also developed what he called a "toaster woofer," nichrome wire strung around a heat-resistant form. He claimed that the reason toasters hum could be used to reproduce sound. I never saw a demo, though. The clasic ionic speaker is the "flame speaker" to which a HV signal is placed across the flame. That is an electrostic and not a thermal drive. If he found a way to modulate the temperature of air that rapidly somehow with RF, which is typically just the means of stripping off the electrons to ionize it, then that's really something. I just don't believe it until I see a more in depth justification. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
William Sommerwerck wrote: I, too, dislike appealing to authority. But I've met Dr. Hill, talked with him at length, and he's no dummy. Ionic speakers do NOT work by "pushing" the air in front of them. The sound is a PV = nRT effect, where changes in temperature produce pressure changes. Dr. Hill also developed what he called a "toaster woofer," nichrome wire strung around a heat-resistant form. He claimed that the reason toasters hum could be used to reproduce sound. I never saw a demo, though. The clasic ionic speaker is the "flame speaker" to which a HV signal is placed across the flame. That is an electrostic and not a thermal drive. If he found a way to modulate the temperature of air that rapidly somehow with RF, which is typically just the means of stripping off the electrons to ionize it, then that's really something. I just don't believe it until I see a more in depth justification. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:13:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional frequencies that were not part of the original signal. Doppler is the result of relative motion between the transmitter and receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received by the receiver. Exactly right. Thank you. I think what's confusing about FM is that it *doesn't* require a "non-linear" (in the usual common useage) term. No kinks or bends in the in-vs-out curve. The usual terminology has something to with Doppler not being dependent on component properties (other than location!) that change with changes in the signal. It's constructed completely out of rotating vectors. PFM! And given that relative motion is vector quantity... |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:13:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional frequencies that were not part of the original signal. Doppler is the result of relative motion between the transmitter and receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received by the receiver. Exactly right. Thank you. I think what's confusing about FM is that it *doesn't* require a "non-linear" (in the usual common useage) term. No kinks or bends in the in-vs-out curve. The usual terminology has something to with Doppler not being dependent on component properties (other than location!) that change with changes in the signal. It's constructed completely out of rotating vectors. PFM! And given that relative motion is vector quantity... |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
"Chris Hornbeck" "Arny Krueger" Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional frequencies that were not part of the original signal. Doppler is the result of relative motion between the transmitter and receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received by the receiver. Exactly right. ** The two paras are in direct contradiction. Please explain. |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
"Chris Hornbeck" "Arny Krueger" Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional frequencies that were not part of the original signal. Doppler is the result of relative motion between the transmitter and receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received by the receiver. Exactly right. ** The two paras are in direct contradiction. Please explain. |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
If he [Dr. Hill] found a way to modulate the temperature
of air that rapidly somehow with RF, which is typically just the means of stripping off the electrons to ionize it, then that's really something. He didn't "find" a way to do it. It turns out that that's the way an ionic speaker (such as the Ionovac) works. |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
If he [Dr. Hill] found a way to modulate the temperature
of air that rapidly somehow with RF, which is typically just the means of stripping off the electrons to ionize it, then that's really something. He didn't "find" a way to do it. It turns out that that's the way an ionic speaker (such as the Ionovac) works. |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: [snip] enjoy! ;-) Wish I could, a few of them sound like they could be contenders. Do you have these CD's, Arny. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: [snip] enjoy! ;-) Wish I could, a few of them sound like they could be contenders. Do you have these CD's, Arny. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Phil Allison wrote: "Bob Cain" Ok. The false assumption is that the pressure wave created by a piston is proportional to its acceleration. It isn't; it's proprotional to the piston velocity. ** You have evidence ???? Better than that, I have a proof by the principle of reciprocity (not at all the same as analogy since it only considers the actual system in question.) If you missed it, I'll be happy to repeat it. Didn't I explain what a linear system is in a prior post? ** No interest to me or anyone else what YOU decide the laws of nature are. Ummm, don't know what to say to that. It's not just what I believe, it is the agreed definition within the entire field of linear systems. It's in lotsa books, textbooks. Nothing that produces "frequencies" that aren't in what's driving it is linear. ** Pure gobbledegook. Pure and unadulterated truth, like it or not. Try defining your terms in a consistent and familiar manner. Try doing some study so I don't have to hand feed you the fundamentals and then argue with you about them. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Phil Allison wrote: "Bob Cain" Ok. The false assumption is that the pressure wave created by a piston is proportional to its acceleration. It isn't; it's proprotional to the piston velocity. ** You have evidence ???? Better than that, I have a proof by the principle of reciprocity (not at all the same as analogy since it only considers the actual system in question.) If you missed it, I'll be happy to repeat it. Didn't I explain what a linear system is in a prior post? ** No interest to me or anyone else what YOU decide the laws of nature are. Ummm, don't know what to say to that. It's not just what I believe, it is the agreed definition within the entire field of linear systems. It's in lotsa books, textbooks. Nothing that produces "frequencies" that aren't in what's driving it is linear. ** Pure gobbledegook. Pure and unadulterated truth, like it or not. Try defining your terms in a consistent and familiar manner. Try doing some study so I don't have to hand feed you the fundamentals and then argue with you about them. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Hornbeck wrote: Exactly right. I think what's confusing about FM is that it *doesn't* require a "non-linear" (in the usual common useage) term. No kinks or bends in the in-vs-out curve. It's constructed completely out of rotating vectors. PFM! Chris, you've said this a couple of times. Which of the references, that I haven't yet looked at, analyzes it in those terms? Bo -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Hornbeck wrote: Exactly right. I think what's confusing about FM is that it *doesn't* require a "non-linear" (in the usual common useage) term. No kinks or bends in the in-vs-out curve. It's constructed completely out of rotating vectors. PFM! Chris, you've said this a couple of times. Which of the references, that I haven't yet looked at, analyzes it in those terms? Bo -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Hornbeck wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:56:22 -0700, Bob Cain wrote: Yeah, I'm hoping for citations that provide a complete theory for the effect from which the result of any driving point velocity or pressure can be predicted. There is no good reason why this doesn't exist except possibly for one. I'm puzzled why you're unconvinced by an argument from Terman, rotating vectors and such like. Doesn't the diaphragm itself contain enough information (for a fixed listener?) As I said in another post, I have missed that reference. Could you give it again, please. Everything is really subjective to this point without the requisite separation of variables. So, ignoring the side arguments of audibility and testing procedures, is your quest located at the diaphragm-air translation? Precisely. I seek a general theory of what happens there and how it results in the propegation of a sound wave. I think it's simple and we already have it. I've stated it (again today in response to George Perfect in Mike Rivers' Doppler thread) but it doesn't admit of anything like "Doppler distortion." Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Hornbeck wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:56:22 -0700, Bob Cain wrote: Yeah, I'm hoping for citations that provide a complete theory for the effect from which the result of any driving point velocity or pressure can be predicted. There is no good reason why this doesn't exist except possibly for one. I'm puzzled why you're unconvinced by an argument from Terman, rotating vectors and such like. Doesn't the diaphragm itself contain enough information (for a fixed listener?) As I said in another post, I have missed that reference. Could you give it again, please. Everything is really subjective to this point without the requisite separation of variables. So, ignoring the side arguments of audibility and testing procedures, is your quest located at the diaphragm-air translation? Precisely. I seek a general theory of what happens there and how it results in the propegation of a sound wave. I think it's simple and we already have it. I've stated it (again today in response to George Perfect in Mike Rivers' Doppler thread) but it doesn't admit of anything like "Doppler distortion." Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Cain wrote:
Precisely. I seek a general theory of what happens there and how it results in the propegation of a sound wave. I think it's simple and we already have it. For the most part we have a pretty good notion. There are some boundary areas with the very small objects that are a little doubtful (and Juha Backman's paper on compression-induced distortion effects in microphones is an example), but wave propagation was pretty well-explored by the last turn of the century. I've stated it (again today in response to George Perfect in Mike Rivers' Doppler thread) but it doesn't admit of anything like "Doppler distortion." The Doppler issue isn't one of wave propagation at all, it's an issue that results from the breakdown of reciprocity, where the motion of the speaker to produce a given wave in air is different than the motion of the microphone diaphragm that picked it up. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Cain wrote:
Precisely. I seek a general theory of what happens there and how it results in the propegation of a sound wave. I think it's simple and we already have it. For the most part we have a pretty good notion. There are some boundary areas with the very small objects that are a little doubtful (and Juha Backman's paper on compression-induced distortion effects in microphones is an example), but wave propagation was pretty well-explored by the last turn of the century. I've stated it (again today in response to George Perfect in Mike Rivers' Doppler thread) but it doesn't admit of anything like "Doppler distortion." The Doppler issue isn't one of wave propagation at all, it's an issue that results from the breakdown of reciprocity, where the motion of the speaker to produce a given wave in air is different than the motion of the microphone diaphragm that picked it up. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:13:42 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote: Yes, it is. Ask Dr. Hill. Don't know him. Did he write the working principle up? He means Dr. ** Hill. He's got a daytime TV show that probably gets around to the topic sometimes. Chris Hornbeck |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:13:42 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote: Yes, it is. Ask Dr. Hill. Don't know him. Did he write the working principle up? He means Dr. ** Hill. He's got a daytime TV show that probably gets around to the topic sometimes. Chris Hornbeck |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:30:08 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote: It's constructed completely out of rotating vectors. PFM! Chris, you've said this a couple of times. Which of the references, that I haven't yet looked at, analyzes it in those terms? My Kyper _FM Simplified_ is out on loan, but should be back soon, and I can give you a better pointer. But for a heavy math guy like you, the Terman-level description might be even better. His 1947 3rd ed. of _Radio Engineering_ chapter 9 section 5 has two equations applicable: 9.6 gives a description of instantaneous amplitude of a wave as a function of angular velocities and frequencies, and 9.9 gives the Bessel function of the first kind expansion for the sum of the two angles. Chris Hornbeck |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:30:08 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote: It's constructed completely out of rotating vectors. PFM! Chris, you've said this a couple of times. Which of the references, that I haven't yet looked at, analyzes it in those terms? My Kyper _FM Simplified_ is out on loan, but should be back soon, and I can give you a better pointer. But for a heavy math guy like you, the Terman-level description might be even better. His 1947 3rd ed. of _Radio Engineering_ chapter 9 section 5 has two equations applicable: 9.6 gives a description of instantaneous amplitude of a wave as a function of angular velocities and frequencies, and 9.9 gives the Bessel function of the first kind expansion for the sum of the two angles. Chris Hornbeck |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Cain" Phil Allison wrote: Ok. The false assumption is that the pressure wave created by a piston is proportional to its acceleration. It isn't; it's proprotional to the piston velocity. ** You have evidence ???? Better than that, I have a proof by the principle of reciprocity (not at all the same as analogy since it only considers the actual system in question.) If you missed it, I'll be happy to repeat it. ** You have no proof - only your own a mad ideas. Speaker cones reach their greatest velicities at low frequencies and large excursions while making the same SPL as at higher frequencies with lower velocities. ** Dunno what you are on about - Doppler is a linear phenomenon, not some kind of distortion product. It is simply the result of a moving source creating longer or shorter wavelengths in the air than it would if stationery. Didn't I explain what a linear system is in a prior post? ** No interest to me or anyone else what YOU decide the laws of nature are. Ummm, don't know what to say to that. It's not just what I believe, it is the agreed definition within the entire field of linear systems. It's in lotsa books, textbooks. ** You are seriously misquoting them. Nothing that produces "frequencies" that aren't in what's driving it is linear. ** Pure gobbledegook. Pure and unadulterated truth, like it or not. ** Proof by wild assertion saves much time - shame it is worthess. .............. Phil |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Cain" Phil Allison wrote: Ok. The false assumption is that the pressure wave created by a piston is proportional to its acceleration. It isn't; it's proprotional to the piston velocity. ** You have evidence ???? Better than that, I have a proof by the principle of reciprocity (not at all the same as analogy since it only considers the actual system in question.) If you missed it, I'll be happy to repeat it. ** You have no proof - only your own a mad ideas. Speaker cones reach their greatest velicities at low frequencies and large excursions while making the same SPL as at higher frequencies with lower velocities. ** Dunno what you are on about - Doppler is a linear phenomenon, not some kind of distortion product. It is simply the result of a moving source creating longer or shorter wavelengths in the air than it would if stationery. Didn't I explain what a linear system is in a prior post? ** No interest to me or anyone else what YOU decide the laws of nature are. Ummm, don't know what to say to that. It's not just what I believe, it is the agreed definition within the entire field of linear systems. It's in lotsa books, textbooks. ** You are seriously misquoting them. Nothing that produces "frequencies" that aren't in what's driving it is linear. ** Pure gobbledegook. Pure and unadulterated truth, like it or not. ** Proof by wild assertion saves much time - shame it is worthess. .............. Phil |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Basic Acoustic Derivation/Proof Needed | Tech | |||
Retraction | Audio Opinions | |||
Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
Clean Power? | Car Audio | |||
Pioneer Clipping and Distortion was:DEH-P840MP, infinity kappa 693.5i and kappa 50.5cs component. | Car Audio |