HPF
in [Live Sound]
|
From: Eeyore on 15 Jul 2008 11:13 Arny Krueger wrote: > "Eeyore" wrote > > "Ron(UK)" wrote: > >> Arny Krueger wrote: > > >>> Proximity effect is an example of an acoustical filter. > > >> How can an effect that boosts frequencies be described > >> as a filter? > > >> Filters remove > > > Sorry Ron, totally wrong. Filters can either cut or boost > > by design. Never heard of a 'peaking filter' for example ? > > Just a friendly reminder about all-pass filters, which may neither cut nor > boost, but just change phase or timing. > > Note that Steve Maki just posted: > > www.national.com/an/AN/AN-779.pdf > > From section 1.1: > > "In circuit theory, a filter is an electrical network that alters the > amplitude and/or phase characteristics of a signal with respect to > frequency" > > My definition, that I was repeatedly flamed at for posting: > > "...anything that changes the frequency response is some kind of a filter." > > I guess my problem is that I read too much. > > I've also been working with audio filters for over 50 years. So that must be > my other problem - too much real-world experience. Yes, filters may do multiple and various things. Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Jul 2008 11:15 liquidator wrote: > I suppose someone will now suggest a microphone is an electrical network... You bet is is ! That's why some are are a heck of a lot better than others ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Jul 2008 11:18 George's ProSound Company wrote: > "liquidator" <mikeh(a)mad.scientist.com> wrot > > > > I suppose someone will now suggest a microphone is an electrical > > network... > > we beat this dead horse a few months ago with arnii and eyesore claiming > that everyfucking thing is a filter Everything *IS* a filter. Even your car's suspension. You have to be scientifically incompetent to think otherwise. Graham
From: bob urz on 15 Jul 2008 12:24 Eeyore wrote: > > George's ProSound Company wrote: > > >>"liquidator" <mikeh(a)mad.scientist.com> wrot >> >>>I suppose someone will now suggest a microphone is an electrical >>>network... >> >>we beat this dead horse a few months ago with arnii and eyesore claiming >>that everyfucking thing is a filter > > > Everything *IS* a filter. Even your car's suspension. > > You have to be scientifically incompetent to think otherwise. > > Graham > Of course you are technical correct. A loud speaker can be modeled (as theile and small told us and set the standard) So can a microphone. kind of boarders on more control systems theory with mechanical limits and resonances involved. BUT, i think most of us think of a filter as something that acts on a source. Translation: Most of us don't think of a transducer as a filter in the true sense. Technically, it is. Rather than think of a transducer as a filter, i think the generally thinking is the treat it as a imperfect voltage or current source. Its sort of stupid to argue ad nauseum about if it is, or is not.... What you or i think won't change the laws of Physics. Arny, there are much better things to waist hours of bandwidth arguing over.... bob ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
From: Eeyore on 15 Jul 2008 13:09
bob urz wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > George's ProSound Company wrote: > >>"liquidator" <mikeh(a)mad.scientist.com> wrot > >> > >>>I suppose someone will now suggest a microphone is an electrical > >>>network... > >> > >>we beat this dead horse a few months ago with arnii and eyesore claiming > >>that everyfucking thing is a filter > > > > > > Everything *IS* a filter. Even your car's suspension. > > > > You have to be scientifically incompetent to think otherwise. > > > > Graham > > Of course you are technical correct. A loud speaker can be modeled > (as theile and small told us and set the standard) Damn right ! > So can a microphone. kind of boarders on more control systems > theory with mechanical limits and resonances involved. > > BUT, i think most of us think of a filter as something that acts > on a source. Translation: Most of us don't think of a transducer > as a filter in the true sense. Technically, it is. Rather than think > of a transducer as a filter, i think the generally thinking is the > treat it as a imperfect voltage or current source. Yes, this is the generalty more accepted practical understanding, yet it may be positive as well as negative. > Its sort of stupid to argue ad nauseum about if it is, or is not.... > What you or i think won't change the laws of Physics. > > Arny, there are much better things to waist hours of bandwidth arguing > over.... I think there are vastly better issues worth discussing, never mind arguing about. Graham |