Quote:
EVERYTHING that isn't computer generated contains "a wide spectrum". (For a certain value of wide, anyway.) Saying that because a drum hit contains components that are not bass it is not a bass transient is like saying that because an elephant has fleas it isn't a mammal - it goes beyond mere lack of intelligence into bizarro land. To see how stupid this idea is, imagine a very sharp pure bass wave - say a 50Hz sine wave; now impose higher frequencies upon it - has doing so made it any less taxing for a speaker membrane that is bad at low frequency reproduction? Regardless of who is right or wrong, your logic stinks like said elephant after a hard day pulling logs and no bath.
Lets see, we have "lack of intelligence", "stupid", "logic stinks like said elephant"... you aren't mad, are you?
I'm taking exception with "bass transient", because there's more to a drum hit than bass, and the transient part of the hit especially isn't just bass. I also take exception to the separation of transient and frequency response. There can be no separation, you can't have good transient response without good frequency response.
Quote:
Congratulations on a new logical fallacy: the idea that everyone should imagine that anyone they speak to is an expert!
And even if the guy is an "expert", it was a horribly useless answer - because it would mislead the reader into thinking that any transducer that reproduces treble well will produce good bass.. well, what are we going to call drum hits if we do not call them bass transients? This is certainly not the case! Once again, many headphones do well with treble and are poor at bass transients. If this is precluded by some bizarre audio industry definition of transient response, then a reasonable "expert" reply has to make this clear.
Do yourself a favor. Google Ethan Weiner.
Quote:
Yes: I get that you are carrying cross-thread butt-hurt. However, as personally as you seem to take everything, this is not a battle for me (and I had been trying to avoid making you look silly - just because you're incapable of logic doesn't mean you're a bad person afterall!)
I'm doing what now?
I don't take anything personally, I just think your post is mean-spirited, self righteous, contains little sense of humility, and is full of name calling. If you only didi it with me, I might take it personally, but I can see that I'm not the target, it's just a general thing.
Quote:
Anyway, you might want to read
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=72512&st=25
- Someone there makes a similar claim about HF and transients, and AB Krueger (a professional engineer and the inventor of ABX testing, so a pretty reasonable authority) debunks this - its's true that good HF is needed for SOME waveforms, but not all, and HF response will tell you nothing about a transducer's ability to reproduce bass transients without phases errors, as the ear is unlikely to detect them above 1000Hz.
I suspect that you are confused because HF is needed to make a nice 50Hz sq wave. However, it is not needed to make 50Hz sine wave - and, again, if a half cycle of a 50Hz sq wave at maximum volume isn't a bass transient, then I would like to know what it is?
I read the link, and I'm very familiar with Arny, been reading his papers since the early 1980s. I don't see anything in his post that I would disagree with.
What instrument produces a half cycle of a 50Hz square wave? Just kidding, I see where you're going.
So, here's what I did. I digitally generated a signal like you mentioned...50Hz square, half cycle, then ran a spectrum analysis on it. Here it is:
Then, just for grins, I generated a 50Hz sine wave, and took just the leading half cycle, and ran spectrum analysis on it. Here it is:
The waveforms were generated in Audition, 48KHz 24bit, saved as .wav, then opened and analyzed with Audacity's spectrum analysis.
Comments?
