I’m saying you are flat wrong. Apparently spending a lifetime in data acquisition doesn’t require an understanding of the very basic principles, that’s the only new and correct information you are providing.
No big mistake being on forums were people don't try to communicate properly and think they know it all.
Yawn, reading is not your strong point is it?
The term perfect is relative ad non-existing by itself.
All depends on order of magnitude.
When certain parts are not significant anymore, they can be considered as being "perfect".
Some people like to get silly about it, do your thing.
But you won't make anything with it.
Fine, than I won't help you with your obvious lack of any practical experience either.Today I’m not in the mood to educate you about Shannon and Fourier, carry on please.
Have a great day, do a nice hike or something!
I will do the same.
Much better than be annoyed by this (for all of us)
Cheers! 🙂
Last edited:
Slim pickens....
The AETD15m I have now measures like it will eventually have a Qes/Qtc .6ish, 34hzFs, 17tm, 66Mmd, 49Mms, 12.5Re...312vas....
I don't know enough about woofer design but if we Do something to raise Tm to 23-24 where it should be....How does it change everything else? The only thing that could save me is if my woofer magnet wasn't charged properly? How do I check the magnet charge lol...
There some other woofers I looked at that offer 16ohm versions....They don't sell them anywhere....but the manufacturer has it listed as an option....but its not sold anywhere....see the pattern.
Attachments
Last edited:
The term perfect is an absolute and cannot be substituted for anything at all ... Conceptually it very much exists and can be used as a reference to describe just about everything. Using it in a sentence the way you did? is conceptually and factually incorrect. its non-existence in the real world (at least in a way we know of and can understand) is very much on topic, since the physical world and our perception of it is bandlimited. There is no way for anything at all in the physical world to change states from one thing to another instantaneously as in the case of a triangle, or square wave, or a light switch on/off. I'm not familiar with particle physics to say if something with no mass could, but anything with mass would require infinite energy, to change instantaneously.
Last edited:
The ever lasting debate between a mathematician and a physicist.
Since one can never investigate or measure all possible options, we have to work with statistics.
Meaning we will never prove something will work 100% perfect according to the theory we "made up" and have to prove.
Second, there is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
So no, a lot of scientist don't agree with the idea that term perfect is absolute.
It is non existing. (made up by humans maybe even?)
Everything is and will always be some kind of compromise.
According to Heisenberg even per definition.
Al that being said, from a order of magnitude point of view, one can perfectly see certain things as "perfect".
As long as its significance is (many) orders of magnitudes away from the thing you're interested in.
Last edited:
Good. Hopefully it will help you understand that complaining about 2x fundamental frequency sampling, not helping reconstruct a square wave (or anything more than a sine wave) from samples, is absurd and only shows your lack of understanding of the very basics.
uggh, I started talking about schrodinger's cat and that dear friends is a sign it's time for bed.
Here is an interesting table from Doug J. Button, Design Parameters and Trade-Offs in Large Diameter Transducers 😉
Last edited:
Obviously you didn't.
But since you obviously are so extremely smart it most be a an absolute piece of cake for you to explain us and share all your knowledge how one can construct a square wave with only two 2 points from a direct signal (so no averaging, or random sampling techniques).
Talking about reading comprehension, did I say anywhere it's possible?
Introducing an obvious and well known (for any competent individual) fact as a limitation is an, ahem...
Claiming that music is more than a collection of sine waves is an, ahem...
Last edited:
Camplo,
This is the packet on the Nyquist sampling theorem one of my best ever instructors (formerly of Texas Instruments; now retired) made to explain the concept. It’s an incredibly straight-forward document for first-year digital circuits students. The moment I grasped the engineering elegance of the concept in this paper was probably the single greatest highlight of my education. Though getting an A in the class, it’s easy to forget these concepts if you don’t review them.
The Nyquist Sampling Theorem
This is the packet on the Nyquist sampling theorem one of my best ever instructors (formerly of Texas Instruments; now retired) made to explain the concept. It’s an incredibly straight-forward document for first-year digital circuits students. The moment I grasped the engineering elegance of the concept in this paper was probably the single greatest highlight of my education. Though getting an A in the class, it’s easy to forget these concepts if you don’t review them.
The Nyquist Sampling Theorem
Last edited:
Excellent prime indeed.
Other members, including some of those with "a lifetime in data acquisition" may find it useful, too.
Other members, including some of those with "a lifetime in data acquisition" may find it useful, too.
I can't follow your complaint. From what I can tell, b_force has not said anything that is incorrect - worse case a bit of over simplification, but that's inherent in these kinds of discussions.
Earl, far be it from me to question you directly, but are you sure?
So you are saying that a transducer, or anything in the real world for that matter, can describe a square wave, or a triangle wave? and that those phenomena are NOT more correctly described instead by superimposing many sinewaves over one another, up to—but still limited by—the bandwidth available?
He picked out the 2 times example, which was a mistake in consistency and oversimplification (a terrible one) on my part in my example and needed bringing inline with the rest, but which was corrected long before he started using it as a strawman/red herring? . to say that a switch turning on and off is equivalent to a square-wave is not an oversimplification, its incorrect and just as limited by the same things; just maybe not as obviously. look close enough and its not square, nor will it ever be, unless the technology is perfect and unhindered by losses (or bandwidth limitations) in the real world, which will likely never happen. Add in the mass of a speaker membrane and not a chance in hell. We will have broken a whole bunch of laws, the speed of light, etc. The very subject was math vs the limitations imposed by reality and the 2 were conflated. Yes, close enough to be called one, in a fit of laziness, but anyone who has ever seen a step response measurement can tell you that a squarewave described by a transducer is ... not a square wave. The same can be said of looking at anything changing states. to change direction/state of anything at all, instantly (using the definition of the word, not 'close enough to be called instant'), regardless of how low the power, the mass, anything, would require infinite power and any construction subjected to that, would break apart, because infinity/anything at all = infinity, so infinite forces would be exerted and that tends to break things ...
So you are saying that a transducer, or anything in the real world for that matter, can describe a square wave, or a triangle wave? and that those phenomena are NOT more correctly described instead by superimposing many sinewaves over one another, up to—but still limited by—the bandwidth available?
He picked out the 2 times example, which was a mistake in consistency and oversimplification (a terrible one) on my part in my example and needed bringing inline with the rest, but which was corrected long before he started using it as a strawman/red herring? . to say that a switch turning on and off is equivalent to a square-wave is not an oversimplification, its incorrect and just as limited by the same things; just maybe not as obviously. look close enough and its not square, nor will it ever be, unless the technology is perfect and unhindered by losses (or bandwidth limitations) in the real world, which will likely never happen. Add in the mass of a speaker membrane and not a chance in hell. We will have broken a whole bunch of laws, the speed of light, etc. The very subject was math vs the limitations imposed by reality and the 2 were conflated. Yes, close enough to be called one, in a fit of laziness, but anyone who has ever seen a step response measurement can tell you that a squarewave described by a transducer is ... not a square wave. The same can be said of looking at anything changing states. to change direction/state of anything at all, instantly (using the definition of the word, not 'close enough to be called instant'), regardless of how low the power, the mass, anything, would require infinite power and any construction subjected to that, would break apart, because infinity/anything at all = infinity, so infinite forces would be exerted and that tends to break things ...
Last edited:
lol, yes, like sands through the hourglass ... these are the days ... yeah i'm done. Its all been said before, even by myself.