In Reply to: Re: Tom Danley at AES Chicago posted by tomservo on February 24, 2007 at 13:13:20:
Ok, so I don't get through, I won't repeat my theoretical arguments. They are there in my previous posts if you or anyone else would want them. So let's talk measurements.I won't go outdoors to do the measurement, there is to much snow here, but if I did, and if I dug down the speaker in the ground in order to get rid of the baffle diffraction effects, I am convinced that I would get a square wave good enough to convince me.
If that was not the case, how can software that measure the impulse response show a near impulse as the impulse response? I have written such software myself, down to the very last multiplication inside the FFTs, and this software is not using the Hilbert transform or assuming minimum phase at all, and room effects can easily be neglected as you probaly know; they just show up as late impulses in the impulse response.
If the loudspeaker was actually introducing a 90 degree phase shift for all frequencies (ie a Hilbert transform), that would for sure show up in the impulse response, right?
As I understand it this was a presentation at an AES meeting in Chicago? Did you write a conference paper on this, if so maybe this could shed some light on things I might have missed. Have you published anything about your theory?
I teach at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm among other things the course in electro acoustics. You will probably even be able to a photo of me if you search the web for a while. I admit to being terribly poor at namedropping, but I think my understanding of the topic is good enough anyway.
Who is V?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Tom Danley at AES Chicago - Svante 14:26:05 02/24/07 (2)
- Re: Tom Danley at AES Chicago - tomservo 17:58:22 02/24/07 (1)
- Re: Tom Danley at AES Chicago - Svante 02:47:19 02/25/07 (0)