| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Loudspeaker timing
Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in
their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary? Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? When you listen to a live orchestra do you hear the bass drum before you hear a high from a flute? Can someone explain to me the significance of pace, rhythm, and timing in our audio playback systems Sam |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"Sam" wrote in message om... Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary? Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? When you listen to a live orchestra do you hear the bass drum before you hear a high from a flute? No, you don't. That's the point of time alignment. Can someone explain to me the significance of pace, rhythm, and timing in our audio playback systems Sam Preface: A sloping baffle by itself does not provide time alignment. It must be combined with a 1st order crossover. For example, NEAR 50 speakers, with a sloping baffle, are not time aligned. Argument: It is highly debated. The output of a square pulse as rendered by a time aligned speaker looks like a square pulse. Other designs render it as two or three unrecognizable waveforms, mysteriously percieved by most people to be the same. Many studies claim that the ear is insensitive to time delay. Others claim that the last iota of imaging quality is provided by this method. Yet time alignment exists only if the listener positions himself at one spot in space. The Spica TC-50 and TC-60 were perhaps the first speakers to popularize time alignment. But whether the time alignment, or the 1st order crossover, or the felt covering the baffle, or a combination of all these things is responsible for the image clarity, is subject to debate. Time aligned speakers have low power handling capacity, as a consequence of the 1st order crossover. Hence they are not suitable for listening at greater than moderate volume. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"Brian l. McCarty" wrote in message ws.com... On 29/9/03 14:27, in article , "Sam" wrote: Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary? Nope. For the theory to be accurate, you'd have to sit in one very precisely measure location, and never move your head even a millimeter. It makes good marketing copy, however. Not true. According to Blauert (http://www.iis.ee.ic.ac.uk/~frank/su.../sl9/main.html), the ear is able to break up the fine structure of the signal for frequencies between 20 and 1600 Hz. At 1600 Hz, the wavlength is about 8 inches, which means that if a listener positions his head within a lateral plus or minus 4 inch range, his ear will percieve a time-coherent signal. Above 1600 Hz, the ear is believed to rely on intensity, ie., "envelope" information for sound localization. It is this observation which inspires the belief that the ear is insensitive to phase information. However, the ear is sensitive, at least for simple pulses, to intra aural time delays as small as 6 microseconds. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
Brian l. McCarty wrote:
On 29/9/03 14:27, in article , "Sam" wrote: Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary? Nope. For the theory to be accurate, you'd have to sit in one very precisely measure location, and never move your head even a millimeter. It makes good marketing copy, however. Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? Nope. I think you have the answer. Time alignment has long been repudiated as speaker designer snake oil. Sir, I just want to say that you are a *jerk*. ;-) Lionel |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"Lionel" wrote in message ... Brian l. McCarty wrote: On 29/9/03 14:27, in article , "Sam" wrote: Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary? Nope. For the theory to be accurate, you'd have to sit in one very precisely measure location, and never move your head even a millimeter. It makes good marketing copy, however. Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? Nope. I think you have the answer. Time alignment has long been repudiated as speaker designer snake oil. Sir, I just want to say that you are a *jerk*. ;-) Lionel It's a rare opportunity to address Brian personally. I second Lionel's opinion. You are a *jerk*. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
Bob Morein wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message ... Brian l. McCarty wrote: On 29/9/03 14:27, in article , "Sam" wrote: Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary? Nope. For the theory to be accurate, you'd have to sit in one very precisely measure location, and never move your head even a millimeter. It makes good marketing copy, however. Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? Nope. I think you have the answer. Time alignment has long been repudiated as speaker designer snake oil. Sir, I just want to say that you are a *jerk*. ;-) Lionel It's a rare opportunity to address Brian personally. I second Lionel's opinion. You are a *jerk*. I know it's really mesquin and vain but sometime vengeance is as good as a fresh beer. ;-) |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"Lionel" wrote in message ... Bob Morein wrote: "Lionel" wrote in message ... Brian l. McCarty wrote: On 29/9/03 14:27, in article , "Sam" wrote: Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary? Nope. For the theory to be accurate, you'd have to sit in one very precisely measure location, and never move your head even a millimeter. It makes good marketing copy, however. Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? Nope. I think you have the answer. Time alignment has long been repudiated as speaker designer snake oil. Sir, I just want to say that you are a *jerk*. ;-) Lionel It's a rare opportunity to address Brian personally. I second Lionel's opinion. You are a *jerk*. I know it's really mesquin and vain but sometime vengeance is as good as a fresh beer. ;-) You know it, bud! |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty"
wrote: Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? Nope. Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"dave weil" wrote in message
news  On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty" wrote: Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? Nope. Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall. Lovely. Weil re-writes the laws of physics to read that the speed of sound is significantly and perceptibly dependent on frequency. Singh lets Weil pretend to review one of his POS speakers, and now Weil is rewriting physics books! LOL! |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:59:59 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message news On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty" wrote: Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? Nope. Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall. Lovely. Weil re-writes the laws of physics to read that the speed of sound is significantly and perceptibly dependent on frequency. Singh lets Weil pretend to review one of his POS speakers, and now Weil is rewriting physics books! LOL! Obviously, *you* haven't been paying attention in church. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:59:59 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Singh lets Weil pretend to review one of his POS speakers, and now Weil is rewriting physics books! I know I'm going to regret asking this, but why exactly do you think dave would fake a review of Greg's speakers? LOL! Lies Oh Lies. -- td |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
Arny Krueger wrote:
"dave weil" wrote in message news
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty" wrote: Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? Nope. Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall. Lovely. Weil re-writes the laws of physics to read that the speed of sound is significantly and perceptibly dependent on frequency. Singh lets Weil pretend to review one of his POS speakers, and now Weil is rewriting physics books! LOL! I'm laughing too, at your supposed religious beliefs! |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"trotsky" wrote in message ink.net... Arny Krueger wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message news
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty" wrote: Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? Nope. Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall. Lovely. Weil re-writes the laws of physics to read that the speed of sound is significantly and perceptibly dependent on frequency. Singh lets Weil pretend to review one of his POS speakers, and now Weil is rewriting physics books! LOL! I'm laughing too, at your supposed religious beliefs! That's OK, we're all laughing at your claim that YOU designed a speaker system. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"dave weil" wrote in message news On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty" wrote: Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? Nope. Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall. I don't believe that the speed of sound is frequency dependent. If it was, an octave would only be in tune at a specific distance, which we know is not the case. Norm Strong |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"normanstrong" wrote in message . net... "dave weil" wrote in message news On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty" wrote: Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? Nope. Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall. I don't believe that the speed of sound is frequency dependent. If it was, an octave would only be in tune at a specific distance, which we know is not the case. Norm Strong IIRC it's 1130 ft/sec no matter the frequency. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:01:43 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote: "normanstrong" wrote in message .net... "dave weil" wrote in message news On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty" wrote: Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? Nope. Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall. I don't believe that the speed of sound is frequency dependent. If it was, an octave would only be in tune at a specific distance, which we know is not the case. Norm Strong IIRC it's 1130 ft/sec no matter the frequency. It might be, and then again, it might not be. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"dave weil" wrote in message news On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty" wrote: Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? Nope. Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall. He probably has. He plays or played multiple musical instruments. Although he is currently insane, he may have been fairly normal earlier in life. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"dave weil" wrote in message news On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty" wrote: Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? Nope. Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall. You may be confused by the fact that reverberation is frequency dependent. However, the speed of propagation of sound is not: http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~marj...ics/LinPP.html |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"Brian l. McCarty" wrote in message ws.com... On 29/9/03 14:27, in article , "Sam" wrote: Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary? Nope. For the theory to be accurate, you'd have to sit in one very precisely measure location, and never move your head even a millimeter. It makes good marketing copy, however. Bull****. Things like this are SO easy to hear. Just take them to the extreme to understand the concept. Move the tweeter 50 yards back, adjust for level, and then see how it sounds. The only question that remains is not IF it makes a difference - only how much of a difference, and if the rest of your system is so much worse anyway it doesn't matter. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
On 10/3/03 14:01, in article ,
"jeffc" wrote: Move the tweeter 50 yards back, adjust for level, and then see how it sounds. The only question that remains is not IF it makes a difference - only how much of a difference, and if the rest of your system is so much worse anyway it doesn't matter. Hey, you're quite a scientist now aren't you "jeff"? That how science works down below the Mason-Dixon line? -- http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court By L. STUART DITZEN Philadelphia Inquirer PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart. They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge his dismissal. The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw. "It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we do come to a larger issue here." An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly "pleasantly" eccentric. A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed by the media and the public. Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser. But it has been the subject of much attention in academia. Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and computer engineering. Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school! BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it patented. A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life. In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea. An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life. Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition. Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's money to cover up his lack of productivity. That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions. Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the state Superior Court. The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic affairs was reasserted. The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary litigation, that would have been the end of it. But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing. Daddy throws more money down the crapper. His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without compensation. "Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what happened to him is pretty common." It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge, the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are. Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim that his idea was stolen - "preposterous." "I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg. "We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than pursuing self-destructive litigation." No **** sherlock. The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser, Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea. His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes and electronic systems. The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a nuclear plant or a computer. My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of Robert Morein, only sawdust. Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata, through a university lawyer, declined to comment. At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in 1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It related to estimation theory. Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in industrial processes. Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the problem Kalata had presented. Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron. K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors. Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he became alienated from Kalata. As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron. The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the patent to lapse. No one made any money from it. Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein. In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and asked for a new faculty adviser. The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein. He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work. Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to complete his thesis. So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers (a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant! Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him. Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the usenet proves it. Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will." So much for political machine judges. The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only about 100 of them. Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the Pennsylvania courts. Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it. Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on anything. Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS. "I had to seek closure," he said. Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence. Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence". BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a bulletlike stream of water. FAILED STUDENT FAILED MOVIE MAKER FAILED SCREENWRITER FAILED INVESTOR FAILED DRIVER FAILED SON FAILED PARENTS FAILED INVENTOR FAILED PLAINTIFF FAILED HOMOSEXUAL FAILED HUMAN FAILED FAILED But none of it is what he had imagined for himself. "I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very gnawing thing." Doomed to another miserable 10 years or so as a failed member of what is mostly a productive human race. Most of us have successes and failures, but the tough get up and succeed again. And again. And again. But a twisted few are forever failures. Thanks for the kind summary of Robert Morein's failed existence from the Philadelphia Inquirer. A Real Brian McCarty Successful |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"Sam" wrote in message
om Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alignment scheme in their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary? No, because the same goal, which is time-alignment of the drivers at the crossover points, can also be accomplished by means design of the of the crossovers. Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high frequencies and low frequencies? I don't think you are saying what you intended to say. There's no difference in speed between high and low frequencies, but there can be a difference in relative timing of signals. Yes, differences in time alignment can be heard, but at higher frequencies they are mostly heard due to frequency response variations that they cause. If equal-sized signals from the woofer and tweeter aren't time-aligned around the usual crossover point of say, 3 KHz, they won't add up properly to give flat response. When you listen to a live orchestra do you hear the bass drum before you hear a high from a flute? Only if he bass drum plays first! But that's not the problem that stepped or sloped baffles are trying to address. I think you really need to think this through. The bass drum and the flute in an orchestra aren't that well synchronized because the players are usually so far apart. The players are humans and they synchronize to each other based on their hearing, which includes significant delays as sound travels across the stage and as their reflexes take finite amounts of time. The bass drum is usually someplace near the center or left back, while the flute player is closer to the center-right front. The flute player is closer to the listener if the listener is in the center of the room, but if the listener is to the far left, the bass drum player might be closer or at a similar difference. Bottom line, the differences in distance in the concert hall are usually measured in feet, while the differences in distance due to the design of speaker enclosures is probably a foot or less. The speed of sound is basically constant, so the differences in timings due to locations of musicians in the concert hall and the differences in timings due to locations of speaker drivers in enclosures are vastly different. From the standpoint of the microphones that are used to record, there are timing differences measured in many milliseconds among the various instruments in an orchestra. If you look at speaker drivers on a flat baffle board, the timing differences due to mounting the speakers (all within one foot) are probably less than a millisecond. Not to be compared! Can someone explain to me the significance of pace, rhythm, and timing in our audio playback systems Wrong criteria, all of them. See my former comments about smooth, flat frequency response. Ironically sloped and stepped baffles can also add frequency response variations due to effects like diffraction. The idea of time-aligning speakers traces back to sound stages in Hollywood in the 1930s. The monitor speakers of the day were based on horns, and there were path differences between woofers and tweeters, sometimes of many feet. These were due to the differences in the design of the woofers and tweeters. Timing could vary by 3-10 milliseconds or more. Sharp sounds like tap dancing were observed to be undesirably changed and highly colored by those time differences. Because the differences were so gross, they were important concerns. In contrast, consider a modern 2-way speaker with a 8" or smaller woofer and a dome tweeter. The path difference might be 6 inches or less. Timing due to path length differences are less than a millisecond. This is an entirely different kind of perception than those due to timing differences or 5 or 10 milliseconds. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
On 29/9/03 19:36, in article , "Arny
Krueger" wrote: I think you really need to think this through. The bass drum and the flute in an orchestra aren't that well synchronized because the players are usually so far apart I think it's YOU that needs to think this through. The bass drum and flute are perfectly synchronized because the players are professionals that are trained to follow not just audio cues but a conductor. Please don't offer opinions in areas you have no competence. Whatever that might be. Bob Morein -- http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court By L. STUART DITZEN Philadelphia Inquirer PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart. They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge his dismissal. The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw. "It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we do come to a larger issue here." An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly "pleasantly" eccentric. A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed by the media and the public. Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser. But it has been the subject of much attention in academia. Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and computer engineering. Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school! BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it patented. A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life. In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea. An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life. Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition. Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's money to cover up his lack of productivity. That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions. Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the state Superior Court. The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic affairs was reasserted. The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary litigation, that would have been the end of it. But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing. Daddy throws more money down the crapper. His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without compensation. "Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what happened to him is pretty common." It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge, the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are. Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim that his idea was stolen - "preposterous." "I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg. "We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than pursuing self-destructive litigation." No **** sherlock. The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser, Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea. His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes and electronic systems. The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a nuclear plant or a computer. My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of Robert Morein, only sawdust. Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata, through a university lawyer, declined to comment. At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in 1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It related to estimation theory. Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in industrial processes. Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the problem Kalata had presented. Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron. K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors. Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he became alienated from Kalata. As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron. The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the patent to lapse. No one made any money from it. Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein. In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and asked for a new faculty adviser. The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein. He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work. Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to complete his thesis. So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers (a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant! Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him. Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the usenet proves it. Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will." So much for political machine judges. The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only about 100 of them. Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the Pennsylvania courts. Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it. Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on anything. Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS. "I had to seek closure," he said. Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence. Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence". BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a bulletlike stream of water. FAILED STUDENT FAILED MOVIE MAKER FAILED SCREENWRITER FAILED INVESTOR FAILED DRIVER FAILED SON FAILED PARENTS FAILED INVENTOR FAILED PLAINTIFF FAILED HOMOSEXUAL FAILED HUMAN FAILED FAILED But none of it is what he had imagined for himself. "I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very gnawing thing." |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"Bob Morein" wrote in message
ws.com \ This would be a forged post from Brian McCartey. Headers: X-Abuse-Report: Message-ID: om Path: news5.aus1.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nn tp.aus1.giganews.com!borde r1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!in.100 proofnews.com!in.100proofn ews.com!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!chi1.webusenet.com!news. webusenet.com!newsfeed-eas t.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news.sonicnews.com !not-for-mail Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:22:00 GMT Lines: 254 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418 Subject: Loudspeaker timing From: Bob Morein Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion References: Mime-version: 1.0 Organization: Comcast Pennsylvania Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Xref: intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com rec.audio.opinion:683216 Headers from a *real* Bob Morien post: Path: news5.aus1.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nn tp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp. giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POS TED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:58:55 -0500 Reply-To: "Bob Morein" From: "Bob Morein" Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion References: om Subject: Loudspeaker timing Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 02:58:54 -0400 Organization: nowhere.com X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Lines: 33 NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.83.128.158 X-Trace: sv3-dTjC+IUQdKzyFqfXdtq3RwYkLUHKNKRzPYbH/jcpZMCqNsbSaxuCT3WfIMiICyiAsCFljGAh Lk+9ovo!oXQ2oZsE73h8Id8T1xT+Wu5ptqkVlnYjaZOLc1l5+t 80FGhWd9UFyjhd3P5VkQ== X-Complaints-To: X-DMCA-Complaints-To: action: forward to the australian ISP. On 29/9/03 19:36, in article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: I think you really need to think this through. The bass drum and the flute in an orchestra aren't that well synchronized because the players are usually so far apart I think it's YOU that needs to think this through. The bass drum and flute are perfectly synchronized because the players are professionals that are trained to follow not just audio cues but a conductor. Please don't offer opinions in areas you have no competence. Whatever that might be. Bob Morein -- http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court By L. STUART DITZEN Philadelphia Inquirer PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart. They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge his dismissal. The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw. "It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we do come to a larger issue here." An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly "pleasantly" eccentric. A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed by the media and the public. Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser. But it has been the subject of much attention in academia. Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and computer engineering. Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school! BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it patented. A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life. In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea. An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life. Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition. Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's money to cover up his lack of productivity. That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions. Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the state Superior Court. The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic affairs was reasserted. The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary litigation, that would have been the end of it. But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing. Daddy throws more money down the crapper. His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without compensation. "Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what happened to him is pretty common." It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge, the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are. Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim that his idea was stolen - "preposterous." "I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg. "We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than pursuing self-destructive litigation." No **** sherlock. The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser, Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea. His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes and electronic systems. The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a nuclear plant or a computer. My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of Robert Morein, only sawdust. Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata, through a university lawyer, declined to comment. At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in 1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It related to estimation theory. Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in industrial processes. Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the problem Kalata had presented. Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron. K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors. Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he became alienated from Kalata. As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron. The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the patent to lapse. No one made any money from it. Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein. In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and asked for a new faculty adviser. The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein. He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work. Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to complete his thesis. So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers (a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant! Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him. Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the usenet proves it. Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will." So much for political machine judges. The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only about 100 of them. Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the Pennsylvania courts. Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it. Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on anything. Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS. "I had to seek closure," he said. Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence. Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence". BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a bulletlike stream of water. FAILED STUDENT FAILED MOVIE MAKER FAILED SCREENWRITER FAILED INVESTOR FAILED DRIVER FAILED SON FAILED PARENTS FAILED INVENTOR FAILED PLAINTIFF FAILED HOMOSEXUAL FAILED HUMAN FAILED FAILED But none of it is what he had imagined for himself. "I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very gnawing thing." |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Bob Morein" wrote in message ws.com \ This would be a forged post from Brian McCartey. Yes, it would be forged. And you have my rare compliment on a good exposition. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"Bob Morein" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Bob Morein" wrote in message ws.com \ This would be a forged post from Brian McCartey. Yes, it would be forged. And you have my rare compliment on a good exposition. I would recommend that as many people as possible complain to Brian's ISP by forwarding the forged post, including a copy of the headers, . This is not a futile action if enough people get on board. If anybody needs help obtaining the headers, here's they a Headers for Brian McCartey's forged post: X-Abuse-Report: Message-ID: om Path: news5.aus1.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nn tp.aus1.giganews.com!borde r1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!in.100 proofnews.com!in.100proofn ews.com!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!chi1.webusenet.com!news. webusenet.com!newsfeed-eas t.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news.sonicnews.com !not-for-mail Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:22:00 GMT Lines: 254 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418 Subject: Loudspeaker timing From: Bob Morein Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion References: Mime-version: 1.0 Organization: Comcast Pennsylvania Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Xref: intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com rec.audio.opinion:683216 |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"Bob Morein" wrote in message ws.com... On 29/9/03 19:36, in article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: I think you really need to think this through. The bass drum and the flute in an orchestra aren't that well synchronized because the players are usually so far apart I think it's YOU that needs to think this through. The bass drum and flute are perfectly synchronized because the players are professionals that are trained to follow not just audio cues but a conductor. That's false, not to mention beside the point. They're not even an order of magnitude worse than how synchronized the drivers need to be. It's a moot point and a red herring. The point is that even when a single instrument is involved (forget multiple instruments in different locations), time alignment is still important. Part of an instruments sound is coming from one driver, and part from another. In this case, you have a single point source instrument in real life being played back in 2 discrete "sections" on reproduction. If the time misalignment is bad enough, it will sound HORRIBLE. UNLISTENABLE. You're not going to get that kind of misalignment with a normal speaker, so the question is: how bad is it, and can you detect it? Either way, it is most definitely a flaw in the playback system. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
jeffc wrote:
"Bob Morein" wrote in message ews.com... On 29/9/03 19:36, in article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: I think you really need to think this through. The bass drum and the flute in an orchestra aren't that well synchronized because the players are usually so far apart I think it's YOU that needs to think this through. The bass drum and flute are perfectly synchronized because the players are professionals that are trained to follow not just audio cues but a conductor. That's false, not to mention beside the point. They're not even an order of magnitude worse than how synchronized the drivers need to be. It's a moot point and a red herring. The point is that even when a single instrument is involved (forget multiple instruments in different locations), time alignment is still important. Part of an instruments sound is coming from one driver, and part from another. In this case, you have a single point source instrument in real life being played back in 2 discrete "sections" on reproduction. If the time misalignment is bad enough, it will sound HORRIBLE. UNLISTENABLE. You're not going to get that kind of misalignment with a normal speaker, so the question is: how bad is it, and can you detect it? Either way, it is most definitely a flaw in the playback system. Technically speaking, the claim that 2 or more drivers are reproducing the frequencies of one instrument will depend on which instrument, or voice for that matter you are talking about. It will also depend on the frequency range each driver is designed to reproduce. In other words, in some cases, you may well be right, but in other cases, it may require only one driver to reproduce a particular instrument. All that said, time alignment is a claim made by some speaker manufacturers - e.g. Thiel, Dunlavy (prior to its demise), etc., but not too many. Whether there is an audible advantage for these few brands is, I would guess, in the "ears of the beholder". My speakers consist of only one driver (Martin Logan CLS IIs) so their coherence is superb. And I've heard similar claims made for other planar speakers such as some of the Magneplanars, even though they are usually 2- or 3-way systems. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... Technically speaking, the claim that 2 or more drivers are reproducing the frequencies of one instrument will depend on which instrument, or voice for that matter you are talking about. It will also depend on the frequency range each driver is designed to reproduce. In other words, in some cases, you may well be right, but in other cases, it may require only one driver to reproduce a particular instrument. Possible, but when you take harmonics into account, it's almost always true, with most typical speaker designs, at least to a small extent. All that said, time alignment is a claim made by some speaker manufacturers - e.g. Thiel, Dunlavy (prior to its demise), etc., but not too many. Whether there is an audible advantage for these few brands is, I would guess, in the "ears of the beholder". I would say that time alignment is not a "claim", but simply a term meaning an attribute. Time alignment problems definitely exist. The question is can you hear them with various designs? As far as "ears of the beholder", I agree. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"jeffc" wrote in message
"Bob Morein" wrote in message ws.com... On 29/9/03 19:36, in article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: I think you really need to think this through. The bass drum and the flute in an orchestra aren't that well synchronized because the players are usually so far apart I think it's YOU that needs to think this through. The bass drum and flute are perfectly synchronized because the players are professionals that are trained to follow not just audio cues but a conductor. That's false, not to mention beside the point. So far so good. They're not even an order of magnitude worse than how synchronized the drivers need to be. The time delays between musicians in an orchestra easily several order of magnitude worse than those in a typical speaker. Take a flat baffle and put a typical 6-8" woofer and dome tweeter on it. The acoustic center of the woofer is typically less than 4 inches behind the baffle and that of the done tweeter is pretty much right on the baffle. Now let's fictionally presume that all the musicians in a symphony orchestra play with perfect timing so that the conductor hears every instrument in perfect synchronization. Now consider the path length difference between two instruments at the far left and far right of the orchestra, from the standpoint of a person sitting along one of the walls of the concert hall. The path length difference for that listener could be 60 feet! Now consider the fact that listeners everywhere in the room hear music reflected off of all the walls, the floor and the ceiling. It's a moot point and a red herring. You've seemingly forgotten what my point was, which is that we don't typically time-synchronize the drivers in a speaker to equalize delays for musical instruments, we time-synchronize the drivers in a speaker to get flat response when the sound from two drivers in the speaker mix. The point is that even when a single instrument is involved (forget multiple instruments in different locations), time alignment is still important. That was my point, before my post was butchered by a few generations of quoting by people who were addressing other points. For example, My post said: "The idea of time-aligning speakers traces back to sound stages in Hollywood in the 1930s. The monitor speakers of the day were based on horns, and there were path differences between woofers and tweeters, sometimes of many feet. These were due to the differences in the design of the woofers and tweeters. Timing could vary by 3-10 milliseconds or more. Sharp sounds like tap dancing were observed to be undesirably changed and highly colored by those time differences. Because the differences were so gross, they were important concerns." I used an example where time alignment in the speaker was required to reproduce a single sound source (a shoe tapping on the floor) with reasonable fidelity. Part of an instruments sound is coming from one driver, and part from another. In this case, you have a single point source instrument in real life being played back in 2 discrete "sections" on reproduction. Of course! If the time misalignment is bad enough, it will sound HORRIBLE. UNLISTENABLE. Of course! You're not going to get that kind of misalignment with a normal speaker, so the question is: how bad is it, and can you detect it? Either way, it is most definitely a flaw in the playback system. Anticipated when I said: "Yes, differences in time alignment can be heard, but at higher frequencies they are mostly heard due to frequency response variations that they cause. If equal-sized signals from the woofer and tweeter aren't time-aligned around the usual crossover point of say, 3 KHz, they won't add up properly to give flat response." Here's a concept you might want to consider Jeff - read the whole post before you criticize it! |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news  The time delays between musicians in an orchestra easily several order of magnitude worse than those in a typical speaker. There aren't any "time delays" in real music. You're totally missing the point. Real music is real music. The point is to reproduce it as it sounds. In real music, it's not the case that part of the saxophone sound gets to you at one point, and part of it a split second later. THAT is time delay. Take a flat baffle and put a typical 6-8" woofer and dome tweeter on it. The acoustic center of the woofer is typically less than 4 inches behind the baffle and that of the done tweeter is pretty much right on the baffle. Now let's fictionally presume that all the musicians in a symphony orchestra play with perfect timing so that the conductor hears every instrument in perfect synchronization. Moot point. Completely off the subject. Unrelated. You've seemingly forgotten what my point was, which is that we don't typically time-synchronize the drivers in a speaker to equalize delays for musical instruments, we time-synchronize the drivers in a speaker to get flat response when the sound from two drivers in the speaker mix. I never said it's for "instruments" - plural. That's not the issue. At all. "The idea of time-aligning speakers traces back to sound stages in Hollywood in the 1930s. The monitor speakers of the day were based on horns, and there were path differences between woofers and tweeters, sometimes of many feet. These were due to the differences in the design of the woofers and tweeters. Timing could vary by 3-10 milliseconds or more. Sharp sounds like tap dancing were observed to be undesirably changed and highly colored by those time differences. Because the differences were so gross, they were important concerns." Well, flat response is ANOTHER issue then (which I was not aware of before.) If time delay messes with that, then I just learned something. "Yes, differences in time alignment can be heard, but at higher frequencies they are mostly heard due to frequency response variations that they cause. If equal-sized signals from the woofer and tweeter aren't time-aligned around the usual crossover point of say, 3 KHz, they won't add up properly to give flat response." I don't totally understand why, but I'll chew on it for awhile. Here's a concept you might want to consider Jeff - read the whole post before you criticize it! Likewise. Or just reread the parts you didn't get! |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
So you are saying that loudspeaker timing has to do with the audio
signal going to the loudspeakers and not the actual speed of the sounds coming from the drivers. I made the false assumption that different frequencies of sound traveled at different speeds. Why are the signals going to the woofer and tweeter not aligned with one another? Does the crossover network cause a phase shift in the signals that pass through them? Speakers and their design really fascinate me but there is much I need to learn. Do you know of a good website that explains the whole timing issue? Sam |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"Sam" wrote in message om... So you are saying that loudspeaker timing has to do with the audio signal going to the loudspeakers and not the actual speed of the sounds coming from the drivers. I made the false assumption that different frequencies of sound traveled at different speeds. Why are the signals going to the woofer and tweeter not aligned with one another? Does the crossover network cause a phase shift in the signals that pass through them? Speakers and their design really fascinate me but there is much I need to learn. Do you know of a good website that explains the whole timing issue? Sam I don't know of a website, but here's a brief rundown: 1. The woofer weighs more than the tweeter. Hence it responds slower to the driving electrical signal. The part of the problem caused by driver delay can be corrected by sloping the baffle, so as to place the tweeter further away from the listener than the woofer. 2. A typical crossover makes time alignment impossible. At best, a phase alignment at the crossover point can be accomplished. Time alignment is possible only with a "first order crossover", which allows considerable leakage of low frequency input to the tweeter. This stresses the tweeter, with a tendency to promote thermal burnout. Tweeters put into systems with first order crossovers must be specially constructed or used lightly. 3. You may hear the terms "phase alignment" and "time alignment". These are two different criteria. In principle, time alignment is a tighter, more difficult design criteria. For continuous wave signals, the result is the same. For signals which contain non continuous wave components, ie., music, they are different. Auditory research suggests that complex noises are not localized by time delay. However, the ear can distinguish intra-aural time delays as small as 6 microseconds. This suggests that while a time aligned speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of percussive noises or other transients. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:23:45 -0400, "Bob Morein"
wrote: 1. The woofer weighs more than the tweeter. Hence it responds slower to the driving electrical signal. One might take some notice if one wanted to throw them. This must be one of the worst cases of a feral physicist technobabble. You are loosing(tm) it Bob, IMO. Ask Dick to clean your clock. This group is in danger of going to the dogs. . . |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:23:45 -0400, "Bob Morein" wrote: 1. The woofer weighs more than the tweeter. Hence it responds slower to the driving electrical signal. One might take some notice if one wanted to throw them. This must be one of the worst cases of a feral physicist technobabble. You are loosing(tm) it Bob, IMO. The wording is an attempt to avoid confusing the reader with moving mass, resonant frequency, and Q. Why don't you give it a shot? It could be better. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:23:45 -0400, "Bob Morein" wrote: 1. The woofer weighs more than the tweeter. Hence it responds slower to the driving electrical signal. One might take some notice if one wanted to throw them. This must be one of the worst cases of a feral physicist technobabble. You are loosing(tm) it Bob, IMO. Ask Dick to clean your clock. This group is in danger of going to the dogs. . . Only "in danger" ? |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
My loudspeaker had great timing. It showed up on the market exactly
when I needed a new speaker. Norm Strong |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loudspeaker timing
"Sam" wrote in message om... So you are saying that loudspeaker timing has to do with the audio signal going to the loudspeakers No, it has to do with the sound coming out of the speakers. The timing of the sound coming out of a speakers is partially determined by the signal going into the speakers. and not the actual speed of the sounds coming from the drivers. The speed of sound is essentially the same from all of the speakers in the system. I made the false assumption that different frequencies of sound traveled at different speeds. Yes, you did, and thank you for seeing your error. Why are the signals going to the woofer and tweeter not aligned with one another? They may or may not be aligned with each other, depending on the crossover system design. One effect you haven't mentioned is the fact that the time delay between the electrical signal going into the speaker, and the acoustic signal (sound) coming out of the speaker also varies with the speaker type and frequency. Does the crossover network cause a phase shift in the signals that pass through them? Yes. Speakers and their design really fascinate me but there is much I need to learn. Do you know of a good website that explains the whole timing issue? Introduction: http://www.libinst.com/tpfd.htm Very theoretical: http://www.whise.com.au/time_delay.htm More practical: http://www.mlssa.com/mlssa/BROCHUREp2.htm A book on the topic and others: http://www.trueaudio.com/ild_rev1.htm |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| hi-fi+ issue 26 now available online and in store | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
