I vote for the peanut shortage . Their moms must have sent them out for more . After they return from the store go down the stairs in to the basement the show will continue . This is just intermission .
I have just had a quick look at two textbooks. I can't see anything in the maths of skin effect which involves either squares of field quantities or squares of square roots. The geometric field distribution is a function of just frequency, then multiplied by the field strength at the surface. So if you double the surface field, you get exactly the same pattern but everywhere the field is doubled. The linearity of Maxwell's equations require this to be true.scott wurcer said:
As proximity effect is just the mutual version of skin effect I would expect the same there.
Now if the Lorenz force is moving conductors around then 2nd harmonic is quite possible. That may be what is happening.
Certainly the energy lost from heat from the (very) slight change in resistive loss at twice per cycle is always positive. In fact the change in real part of the resistance is the only thing that could matter in this case.
No, I did not say that. It is important you be clear on that.
The effect is slew rate dependent. The current density modification is directly proportional to the currents induced within the conductive material. The currents are directly proportional to the induced voltage ala Faraday's law of induction.
The resistance increase is a function of the absolute value of the rate of change of the current within the wire which is creating the magnetic field. That is why Ed sees the second harmonic.
jn
Yes from the amplifier point of view when driven by step.
But for sine wave, slew rate (derivative at zero) is amplitude times frequency times 2pi.
John, on another thread you recommended, TRUST YOUR EARS. Well, 25 years ago my ears told me there was absolutely nothing wrong with digital, and they also told me that every conventional implementation of digital playback sounded crap. So, no matter what theoretical "explanations" of why digital is bad are brought forth, my ears tell me that those ideas are just hokum ...
Frank
Last edited:
Meaning, when I optimised my highly simplified setup I got excellent quality of sound, from recordings that to this day are judged as examples of "bad" digital mastering. Yet, when I took these and other recordings to play on all and sundry other systems at the time, no matter how expensive, the sound was uniformly quite dreadful, even atrocious. Harsh, flat, lacking in detail, or so smoothed by discarding high frequency information that at times the recording was almost unrecognisable ...
Frank
Thanks for the explanation. I agree the first consumer CD players were not all very good sounding. At least, the first digital recordings were mixed while the digital recorder was monitored. So, whatever its ADC/DAC quality, the mix was done as the sound engineer and artist (or producer) wanted it to be (at least good sounding across the big studio monitors).
Interestingly, that's not the only case. Current pop music is one of the hardest to unravel, because of the level of compression, and processing applied. At a moderate level of playback performance these recordings are often quite intolerable, the level of clutter is the mix is quite extreme and everything has to be on its tippiest toes to resolve what's going on. I mentioned recently albums of Foo Fighters as a good test case, try one of tracks where everyone goes into a frenzy of garage thrash at a solid volume level, and see how clearly that can be unscrambled. It is possible to lay such a mix bare, to separate all the strands, but absolutely best behaviour by all and sundry is required ...compressed bad music usually sound good on compressed bad systems ....
Frank
Interestingly, that's not the only case. Current pop music is one of the hardest to unravel, because of the level of compression, and processing applied. At a moderate level of playback performance these recordings are often quite intolerable, the level of clutter is the mix is quite extreme and everything has to be on its tippiest toes to resolve what's going on. I mentioned recently albums of Foo Fighters as a good test case, try one of tracks where everyone goes into a frenzy of garage thrash at a solid volume level, and see how clearly that can be unscrambled. It is possible to lay such a mix bare, to separate all the strands, but absolutely best behaviour by all and sundry is required ...
Frank
This one ?
Foo Fighters - The Pretender - YouTube
Sounds good with Bose ! .......
Nice try ... I was thinking about a more challenging one: Foo Fighters - White Limo - YouTube ...
Frank
Foo Fighters - White Limo (Live on Letterman) - YouTubeNice try ... I was thinking about a more challenging one: Foo Fighters - White Limo - YouTube ...
Frank
Pretender one was more " separated "
The "trick" is to get separation in the "poorer" track, and using the live version of White Limo just makes things easier: e.g. very heavy processing of the screamed vocals on the album means it's quite a bit harder to pull them out of the mix.
But thanks for pointing me to the live version ....
Frank
But thanks for pointing me to the live version ....
Frank
- Status
- Not open for further replies.