Bill Fitzpatrick
It isn't when it occurs in nature because the wave is created from the point(s) of origin omnidirectionally in a natural space but it definitely is related to frequency when it is recreated by speaker drivers. There are spatial differences in the point of the source sound as opposed to the speaker recreation of the sound which do relate it to frequency.
Well, you could do a lot better in explaining what on earth you are talking about.
<i>Nevertheless, the speed of sound is constant for all frequencies regardless of the origin of the sound.</i>
If you want to believe otherwise, that's your business but I would like to point out that hanging on to erroneous beliefs will do you no good in the long run.
Personally, I think you should be asking questions rather than answering them.
<i>Nevertheless, the speed of sound is constant for all frequencies regardless of the origin of the sound.</i>
If you want to believe otherwise, that's your business but I would like to point out that hanging on to erroneous beliefs will do you no good in the long run.
Personally, I think you should be asking questions rather than answering them.
Well, I seemed to have gotten under your skin. For that I am sorry because we do agree that the speed of sound in nature is not frequency dependent. What I am trying to say is that the speed of sound is related to frequency when reproduced in an audio system. One of the reasons Linkweitz developed his dipole speakers was an attempt to deal with the omnidirectionality of sound and to get around the spatial limitations of reproducing sound within a foreign environment. Speakers introduce their own frequency distortions so you cannot say that the speed of sound created through them is not related to frequency. Neither can you remove the amplifier and its power component representation of those frequencies as being unrelated to the speed of sound. If it were unrelated, a fast amp or speaker would not be an understood adjective to audiophiles
If I have not explained myself properly, please tell me where you believe my beliefs are erroneous?
nania,
you have me confused... the speed of sound is different at different frequencies if reproduced by a speaker, but not in nature? Strange, very strange. Scotty, beam me up, i think i'm on the wrong planet.
dave
you have me confused... the speed of sound is different at different frequencies if reproduced by a speaker, but not in nature? Strange, very strange. Scotty, beam me up, i think i'm on the wrong planet.
dave
Only gro got under my skin and only because he's a nut bag.
I really can't be of further help to you until you get rid of the notion that the speed of sound varies with frequency.
The source of the sound is not relevant. Whether it's an owl hooting, a wine glass clinking, your lover whispering sweet nothings in your ear or a speaker system speaking does not matter a single iota.
When you come to terms with this basic fundamental truth we can go on. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but you don't know as much as you think you do.
I really can't be of further help to you until you get rid of the notion that the speed of sound varies with frequency.
The source of the sound is not relevant. Whether it's an owl hooting, a wine glass clinking, your lover whispering sweet nothings in your ear or a speaker system speaking does not matter a single iota.
When you come to terms with this basic fundamental truth we can go on. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but you don't know as much as you think you do.
Okay, I see the source of the confusion. If we accept the speaker as the originating source of the sound, then all the constituent frequencies within the waves created by the speaker travel at the same speed. The point that I evidently failed to bring across is that the recorded sound has speed differences to the original and they are frequency related. This ties into the Nania Audio Power Theory which I have recently edited and restated.
The recording media has nothing to do with the resultant speed of sound sorry nania; The recording process records frequency and amplitude not the speed of sound. It can vary the frequency and the time domain relationship between the various frequencies but once the electrical wave is tranformed into sound at the speaker, all sound travels at the same speed so this arguement is void.
It's not the recording media, its the recorded representation . There is a distinction so don't be so quick to apologize for me.
AudioFreak
When you compare the original to the recorded representation through a speaker, I believe there is a soundspeed differential that is frequency related and furthermore, I believe it also causes soundspace degradation.
When you compare the original to the recorded representation through a speaker, I believe there is a soundspeed differential that is frequency related and furthermore, I believe it also causes soundspace degradation.
There are frequency dependant phase / time domain and amplitude differences. However, all sounds travels at the speed of sound regardless of the frequency or how it was created. Furthermore, the speed of sound is determined by the temperature, humidity, air density and so on. Therefore, any differential in the speed of sound relative to the original can be attributed to the environmental conditions but for the sake of repeating myself one more time, all the frequencies still travel at the speed of sound ... it's just that the specific speed of sound is variable.
Sound waves cannot travel through a vacuum and need some type of matter as a carrier. Their speed is affected by the density of the substance through which they pass, as well by its temperature. In air the speed of sound is 343m/s and in water it's 1,469m/s, while in steel it's 5,121m/s.
Frequency is the number of complete waves (or oscillations) that occur over a given time period. Frequency is measured in cycles per second.😉 For example, if 10 wave crests pass a point in 1 second, the frequency would be 10 cycles per second. Frequency is not dependant on a matter in which it occurs because it is only a describtion of a pattern.
The frequency, wavelength and velocity of waves are all interrelated, and these relationships can be expressed by equation:
v = l x f
where v is the wave velocity measured in meters per second, l is the wavelength measured in meters, and f is the frequency of the wave in cycles per second.
From that short physics lesson we can conclude that we could not talk about frequncies if they would have different speed in a particular matter.😉
Frequency is the number of complete waves (or oscillations) that occur over a given time period. Frequency is measured in cycles per second.😉 For example, if 10 wave crests pass a point in 1 second, the frequency would be 10 cycles per second. Frequency is not dependant on a matter in which it occurs because it is only a describtion of a pattern.
The frequency, wavelength and velocity of waves are all interrelated, and these relationships can be expressed by equation:
v = l x f
where v is the wave velocity measured in meters per second, l is the wavelength measured in meters, and f is the frequency of the wave in cycles per second.
From that short physics lesson we can conclude that we could not talk about frequncies if they would have different speed in a particular matter.😉
Thoughts about phase, time, amplitude
Though I believe Bill and phase_accurate gave excellent response to the initial question of phishead, I feel there is still a lot of confusion about phase, time etc. and therefore I try to add something which might (hopefully) contribute to better understanding of what has been said so far (or maybe at least one or the other part of it).
I think the hole issue of misunderstanding about the term phase mostly comes from being applied in the wrong context.
Phase applies to steady periodic signals only, which are related in that way to each other (or themselves) in respect of their max. peak amplitude (respectively zero crossing) in relation to their wavelength.
Phase relationships do only apply correctly and senseful to different periodic and steady signals being of or containing the same frequency. For example think about phase response of an amplifier or a speaker or whatever. What is to be compared? The phase versus frequency of the input signal in relation to the output - but of the same frequency at a time.
Phase is interesting until that point where two or more steady state signals containing the same frequency are going to be mixed together and they form a new signal. The mixing may happen electronically (summing amplifier) as well acoustically (multiway speaker).
Also what concerns the amplitude of the created "composite" wave, phase does only matter for signals containing the same frequency. Regarding amplitude, while summing a 1V/100Hz sinus with another sinus 1V/10kHz phase obviously does not matter at all.
After the mixing process there is no thuch thing as relative phase anymore because it is only one signal now and we should refer to time, respectively (group) delay and amplitude instead (guess that`s what Bill have meant with his oscilloscope hint - on a scope there is only time and amplitude).
For music which is a row of unsteady, nonperiodic pulses (unless that techno stuff which to a great extend is steady, periodic and boring exclusively.. hehe..) of mixed signals, the same apply - there is only time and amplitude -
and the term phase is already integrated in the terms time and amplitude.
Though I believe Bill and phase_accurate gave excellent response to the initial question of phishead, I feel there is still a lot of confusion about phase, time etc. and therefore I try to add something which might (hopefully) contribute to better understanding of what has been said so far (or maybe at least one or the other part of it).
I think the hole issue of misunderstanding about the term phase mostly comes from being applied in the wrong context.
Phase applies to steady periodic signals only, which are related in that way to each other (or themselves) in respect of their max. peak amplitude (respectively zero crossing) in relation to their wavelength.
Phase relationships do only apply correctly and senseful to different periodic and steady signals being of or containing the same frequency. For example think about phase response of an amplifier or a speaker or whatever. What is to be compared? The phase versus frequency of the input signal in relation to the output - but of the same frequency at a time.
Phase is interesting until that point where two or more steady state signals containing the same frequency are going to be mixed together and they form a new signal. The mixing may happen electronically (summing amplifier) as well acoustically (multiway speaker).
Also what concerns the amplitude of the created "composite" wave, phase does only matter for signals containing the same frequency. Regarding amplitude, while summing a 1V/100Hz sinus with another sinus 1V/10kHz phase obviously does not matter at all.
After the mixing process there is no thuch thing as relative phase anymore because it is only one signal now and we should refer to time, respectively (group) delay and amplitude instead (guess that`s what Bill have meant with his oscilloscope hint - on a scope there is only time and amplitude).
For music which is a row of unsteady, nonperiodic pulses (unless that techno stuff which to a great extend is steady, periodic and boring exclusively.. hehe..) of mixed signals, the same apply - there is only time and amplitude -
and the term phase is already integrated in the terms time and amplitude.
Christoph,
You used that "phase" word a lot.
You're a "Big Man" now, just wait 'till Bill gets back.😱
Keep Smiling😀 ,
Rodd Yamas***a
You used that "phase" word a lot.
You're a "Big Man" now, just wait 'till Bill gets back.😱
Keep Smiling😀 ,
Rodd Yamas***a
🙁 🙁 🙂 😉
Rodd,
I didn´t intend to answer THE question because Bill already did it and I think he is right about what he said. Indeed I have to admit that his answer made me a lot (the hole last night) of thinking again about this things. Refreshing and over- or rethinking all that stuff what once was assumed to has been understood already by oneself, isn`t a bad thing.
I think he didn`t come out with his answer because that is what he wanted - to think about it - and all that stuff isn`t so easy to understand as it may appear at the first glance - at least not for me because I`m a little slow in matters of comprehension.
Tough the word phase appears quite often, I can see nothing what is in contrary to what Bill said .
But as per one of our great Bavarian philosophers always used to say:
"let`s looking and we`ll see" (Franz Beckenbauer)😀
Rodd,
I didn´t intend to answer THE question because Bill already did it and I think he is right about what he said. Indeed I have to admit that his answer made me a lot (the hole last night) of thinking again about this things. Refreshing and over- or rethinking all that stuff what once was assumed to has been understood already by oneself, isn`t a bad thing.
I think he didn`t come out with his answer because that is what he wanted - to think about it - and all that stuff isn`t so easy to understand as it may appear at the first glance - at least not for me because I`m a little slow in matters of comprehension.
Tough the word phase appears quite often, I can see nothing what is in contrary to what Bill said .
But as per one of our great Bavarian philosophers always used to say:
"let`s looking and we`ll see" (Franz Beckenbauer)😀
- Status
- Not open for further replies.