In Reply to: Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim posted by Wayne Parham on July 4, 2002 at 17:49:49:
Wayne wrote:
>>>>That's the key here. "Temporarily" That's the point of all this. Moving the offset forward or back, either one is still a compromise. Your defense of the time alignment technique you've used only makes my case even more clear. There is no way to truly time align two different point sources at every frequency and at different positions with techniques as simple as position offset or the use of single-node filters. You can make them aligned at one frequency, and at one position and that is all.<<<<When the drivers are within 1/4 wavelength of each other you can. Keep in mind that the Unity has limited dispersion and a coaxial arrangement. Together with the carefully chosen spacing and an appropriately designed crossover, this makes off-axis lobing problems a non-issue in the Unity. The ONLY way in which a Unity does not act as a point source is due to the reflections you get from edges of the horn. This is a minor issue and, of course, not unique to the Unity. In fact reflection issues are probably less of an issue in the Unity than in discrete horn systems simply because you have fewer edges. I am sorry you are having trouble accepting that the Unity acts as a point source, but it is the truth.
Wayne wrote:
>>>>I think Davies says it well, "It is one of the fundamental laws of linear systems that if their output depends only on previous input - that is, if they cannot see into the future - then the phase response is completely determined by the amplitude response."<<<<This is true for linear "minimum phase" systems--phase is related to magnitude by a Hilbert transform, so if you know phase you can calculate magnitude and vice versa. This means that if a minimum phase system has a flat magnitude, it also doesn't have phase shift. I have heard this analogy between minimum phase systems and systems that don't "look into the future" before. It is a simplification that helps people intuitively understand what is required for a system to be minimum phase. However, it only works when talking about linear filters applied in series to a signal, not filters applied in parallel. Crossovers are, of course, filters that are applied in parallel and their output is summed.
First order crossovers are minimum phase--a flat on-axis magnitude response will also not exhibit phase shift. However, higher order crossovers are not minimum phase--they may have flat magnitudes, but they also have phase shift. Systems with flat magnitude and with phase shift are called all-pass systems. They are not minimum phase (phase is not unitquely determined by magnitude), but I wouldn't say that they "look into the future".
John
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 03:20:37 07/05/02 (29)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 11:38:48 07/05/02 (28)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 13:39:56 07/05/02 (5)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 14:07:08 07/05/02 (4)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 14:19:15 07/05/02 (3)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 17:47:03 07/05/02 (2)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 13:28:59 07/06/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 14:09:45 07/06/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 13:35:47 07/05/02 (21)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:49:15 07/05/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Magnetar 14:14:09 07/05/02 (19)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:55:31 07/05/02 (18)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Magnetar 09:18:20 07/06/02 (8)
- Change your mind again? - Wayne Parham 23:10:09 07/14/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 15:05:37 07/06/02 (6)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Magnetar 08:42:59 07/07/02 (5)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 02:01:00 07/08/02 (4)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 04:28:53 07/08/02 (3)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 12:45:35 07/08/02 (2)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 14:28:22 07/08/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:37:21 07/08/02 (0)
- hard not to remember "the king of comb filtering"(nt) - Sam P. 07:10:54 07/06/02 (8)
- Re: LOL - Magnetar 09:21:07 07/06/02 (7)