[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sade So could I use the amount of ringing as an INDIRECT measurement transient response?

What is the ringing caused by?

Something with an onset and a cessation.

Transient response would be measured by the time lag of onset of source of ringing and driver reproduction of this, and again by cessation and driver lag of this.

 

[Dr.Sade]

skip.

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sade My point is much simpler; if slower and slower transient response time results in more and more ringing and faster and faster transient response time results in less and less ringing and instantaneous transient response time would result in zero ringing, then why not just forget about measuring transient response time altogether and just create a standardized way of measuring ringing and measure it? You could just ASSUME that the headphone system (headphone + amplifier) that had the least ringing had the best transient response time. That's what I meant by the amount of ringing might be used as an INDIRECT measurement of transient response.

If there is no source to the ringing but the driver itself, then the ringing represents a complete loss of driver control and thus a loss of transient reponse. Must be driver resonance. At this point of resonance there is a loss of driver control and thus a loss of transient response - but it could occur at an isolated frequency in a driver that otherwise had excellent transient reponse. So ringing would have no relation to the general transient response of a driver cone. Metal tweeters sometimes ring at certain frequencies but otherwise can have great transient response.

 

[Dr.Sade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells If there is no source to the ringing but the driver itself, then the ringing represents a complete loss of driver control and thus a loss of transient reponse. Must be driver resonance. At this point of resonance there is a loss of driver control and thus a loss of transient response - but it could occur at an isolated frequency in a driver that otherwise had excellent transient reponse. So ringing would have no relation to the general transient response of a driver cone. Metal tweeters sometimes ring at certain frequencies but otherwise can have great transient response.

From the information I've gathered so far:

Diaphragm: the moving object that vibrates the air causing sound waves.

Ringing: sounds (signals) emitted by a diaphragm that are not part of the original input signal.

Ringing at a specific (isolated) frequency: sound (signals) at a specific frequency emitted by a diaphragm that are not part of the original input signal.

Driver: (1) the assembly comprised of the permanent magnet + coil. (2) the assembly comprised
of the permanent magnet + coil + diaphragm.

Driver enclosure resonance: spurious sounds emitted by the driver enclosure that are caused by sound waves bouncing off the enclosure and making it sympathetically vibrate.

Diaphragm material resonance: spurious sounds emitted by the diaphragm caused by the sympathetic vibrations within the diaphragm material itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_vibration

Sources of ringing: (1) imperfect control of driver movement by amplifier (wrong amount of damping or current), (2) imperfect control of diaphragm movement by amplifier + driver (permanent magnet/coil assembly), (3) inertia of diaphragm mass, (4) tendency of the diaphragm material itself to resonate, (5) feedback from the resonance of the driver enclosure, and (6) aerodynamic drag.

Electromagnetic induction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_motor



Driver controlled by: (1) amplifier with high (sufficient) current, high (sufficient) slew rate, and sufficient damping (not too much or too little) (2) amount of induction.

Aerodynamic drag:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag

Transient response: (1) how quickly the diaphragm responds to the orignal input signal and COMES TO REST after the original signal stops; (2) how quickly a diaphragm can change POSITION (accelerate/decelerate from point to point); (3) how quickly the diaphragm responds to the original signal
and comes to rest after the original signal stops at a SPECIFIC FREQUENCY; (4) how quickly a DRIVER (the permanent magnet + coil assembly) can respond to a signal as it relates to induction; (5) the amount of driver "control" over the diaphragm; (6) a time measurement which tracks the movement of a diaphragm to a signal start/stop at a specific frequency and has by definition zero "driver" caused ringing; and (?) ...there are probably even more definitions of "transient response" out there!


************************************************** ***************************
************************************************** ***************************
General transient response: ???? perhaps the average of the transient responses for all the frequencies
measured?

Relation of ringing to "general transient response": ???? perhaps "general transient response" +
the additional time caused by the average time of ringing at each frequency.

Great/excellent transient response: ???? perhaps a general transient response that is close to the fastest available general transient response.
************************************************** ***************************
************************************************** ***************************

 

[Dr.Sade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramer5150 ... add a third axis "Z" coming out of the page and you designate that axis as "TIME - in milliseconds". Now with this 3D plot you can quantify how quickly the driver diaphragm reacts to input signal in milliseconds. Here's a really nice illustration of a MLSSA "waterfall plot"... http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/image/11618/# What youre looking at is a 3 dimensional plot of frequency(Hz) / time(milliseconds) / amplitude (db). The loudspeaker is fed with a stream of pink noise from 20-20khz, that is the smooth plot curve you see in the back at 0 seconds. The pink noise is shut off at 0.0 seconds... Now things get interesting... in a perfect world, at 0 ms the plot would just look like a flat "wall", meaning the driver would cease to produce sound and oscillate at any frequency once the input signal is cut off. In reality you see a gradually cascading mountain range. Basically the driver is continuing to oscillate and produce sounds after the pink noise is shut off at 0 seconds. See those little cascading "mountain ranges" at 1800Hz and 7000 Hz? Those are driver resonances. Basically the driver continues to produce sound for about 9-10 milliseconds after the pink noise stops. Bass response of that speaker looks really good. Bass frequencies typically continue to resonate well past ~12 ms, in many cases. That driver stops oscillating after ~4 ms, from 20-200 Hz. I dont want to go off on too much of a tangent, but unfortunately there is no standardized way to measure headphone transient response (IE response over time) in this manner. I'm willing to bet that if we could measure headphones for transient response across the audible spectrum it would shed a TON of light on the whole burn-in phenom we're always debating, and settle a lot of arguments. Garrett

By "driver" do you mean (1) the assembly comprised of permanent magnet + coil + diaphragm, or (2) the assembly comprised of permanent magnet + coil, or (3) diaphragm? What exactly is "continuing to oscillate"/vibrate after the pink noise signal is shut off and why? Is the "gradually cascading mountain range" you point to called "ringing"? You call them "driver resonances" What are "driver resonances"? Are you talking about a type of ringing? Is there some sort of proportional connection between these "driver resonances" and "transient response"? Is the "speed" of the "transient response" in any way increased or decreased by these "driver resonances'?

In an earler post you defined transient response as how quickly the DIAPHRAGM responds to an input signal start and comes to REST after signal stop.

If the DIAPHRAGM is TOTALLY at REST, by definition there are no diaphragm vibrations, oscillations, ringing, resonances, etc.. This is the basis for my speculation that there WAS a connection between
transient "speed"/response and ringing, since the DIAPHRAGM is not TOTALLY at REST until ALL the
ringing has subsided. Hence, the more and longer the ringing was, the slower the overall measurement of pseudo transient speed (transient response + ringing) must be. Or to put it another way, the pseudo (non-true) transient response hasn't completed it's start/stop cycle untill all the vibrations and ALL the ringing has stopped. This is why I thought the amount and duration of ringing might indirectly measure transient response. Perhaps the ringing (vibration not from the input signal) just increases the true transient response (the last vibration from the input signal) by a SMALL amount and can be ignored.

 

[Dr.Sade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells If there is no source to the ringing but the driver itself, then the ringing represents a complete loss of driver control and thus a loss of transient reponse. Must be driver resonance. At this point of resonance there is a loss of driver control and thus a loss of transient response - but it could occur at an isolated frequency in a driver that otherwise had excellent transient reponse. So ringing would have no relation to the general transient response of a driver cone. Metal tweeters sometimes ring at certain frequencies but otherwise can have great transient response.

Now, I'm beginning to think that you don't have to focus on true ringing measurements or true transient response measurements. All things being relative, when comparing headphones in a standardized test set up just measure the time it takes for a diaphragm to come to a full rest after a standardized signal start and stop. The headphone whose diaphragm comes to a full rest the quickest will PROBABLY have the fastest true transient response time, even though you aren't actually measuring true transient response time but are in fact measuring a "contaminated" (has additional vibrations caused by ringing etc.) transient reponse time. The additional increase of the true transient response time caused by the ringing etc. is too small to worry about. Perhaps this could be done for all frequencies of interest and then an AVERAGE of these individual frequency transient response measurements could be used to create a "general transient response" measurement.

The definition of true transient response that I am using in this case is:

the measure of how quickly the DIAPHRAGM responds to an input signal and comes to FULL REST after signal stop (got it from KRAMER5150) excluding all vibrations not caused by the original input signal.

The definition of an INDIRECT measure of transient response is:

the duration of time it takes for ALL the diaphragm vibrations (due to the original signal and ringing) to come to a FULL REST between signal start and signal stop.

The definition of ringing that I am using in this case is:

spurious sounds emitted by the diaphragm that are not part of the original input signal that last for a specified duration of time (partially got it from Crown amplifier site).

When INDIRECTLY measuring transient response, in this case, the DIAPHRAGM does not come to FULL REST until ALL DIAPHRAGM vibrations have stopped including ALL RINGING. Hence, the more ringing there is, the longer the INDIRECT transient response time measurement will be, and the less ringing there is the shorter the INDIRECT transient response time measurement will be.

The case of ringing only at a specific frequency for some duration and no other frequencies, would be an example of a low amount of ringing which INDIRECTLY implies a fast transient response.

In this model, ringing is just a part of all the diaphragm vibrating going on between the time the diaphragm starts to vibrate (signal start) and the time the diaphragm completly stops vibrating (signal stop). From this point of view, IT DOESN'T MATTER if the last vibration was due to the original input signal or the last ring.

When comparing headphones (under test conditions), the headphone diaphragm that totally stops vibrating the quickest (for a given standard test signal) will also likely have the fastest true transient response time even though the last vibration may not have been generated by the original input signal.

If standards were created for all this, it might work. Hmmm what was that about MLSSA?

www.mlssa.com

 

[Dr.Sade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells He is talking about measuring transient response and frequency response simultaneously. This is a false issue. We measure transient response at a given frequency - there is no uncertainty here because we don't measure FR and transient response simultaneously. We set a tone at say 1000 Hz or CPS, turn it on then off, and look at its square wave measure at points of turn on and off - checking the rate of delay of either case.

http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handb..._Response.html

http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handb...certainty.html

This theoretical issue may affect what you meant by "general transient response". By "general transient response" did you mean the AVERAGE of all the individual measurements taken at all frequencies of interest? Because of this "LAW of Uncertainty" he's refering to, perhaps the only way to get a "general transient response" measurement would be to create an "average transient response" of all the frequencies of interest.

 

[Dr.Sade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells These vibrations of pure energy pulse in regular and constant quantum leaps - a measure of universal time. With each such pulse a new universe spits out in being constructed as a present configuration in time and space. Each succesive pulsation or blink is an unfolding of classical (material) events.

Berkely Lab Lecture:

http://stardrive.org/25/

http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/mmq.html#hspace

http://www.thinkingallowed.com/4jsarfatti.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sarfatti

http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/quantum-brain.html

http://destinymatrix.blogspot.com/

http://www.whale.to/b/sarfatti.html

http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/...8_weapons.html

 

[Dr.Sade]

Links to synchronicity:

http://www.fluidice.com/The%20Cause%...acer-Story.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

http://www.largocanyon.org/pi/synchronicity/sylist.htm

http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~dy656/ea...chronicity.htm

http://www.strangemag.com/mysteryofchance.html

http://www.schuelers.com/ChaosPsyche/part_1_28.htm

http://occult-advances.org/nc-spi-Sy...nspiracy.shtml

http://www.fluidice.com/new_page_6.htm

http://www.flowpower.com/What%20is%20Synchronicity.htm

 

[Dr.Sade]

Caught the end of Part 1 of the PBS series "The Elegant Universe".

... at which point Brian Green says a small change to any of the 20 +
Universal Constants would cause the world as we know it to "disappear"...
[ Part 1 ends to be continued] ...hmmm so all I have to do is...

http://www.theevidence.org/media/e115.pdf

Hmmm...any one of these should do it...

http://www.bioinfo.rpi.edu/~zukerm/constants.pdf

http://www.equationsheet.com/sheets/...nts-14/10.html

But...

http://www.theoryofeverything.org/TO...A_New_Look.pdf

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publ....html?20122005

http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/foru...rent&msg=64960

...foiled again...now what?...

Ah ha!

This guy says the "OBSCENE" Hilbert Space of Amplitudes of Probability is the actual realm of the world
(not "spacetime")....Hmmm..."OBSCENE"...yes...this could be what I'm looking for...

http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/foru...rent&msg=64960

...and Jack Sarfatti says...

http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/hilberts.html

http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/mmq.html#hspace

...a definite maybe...

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sade Caught the end of Part 1 of the PBS series "The Elegant Universe". ... at which point Brian Green says a small change to any of the 20 + Universal Constants would cause the world as we know it to "disappear"... [ Part 1 ends to be continued] ....

Yes, but events are pulled toward certain goals (teleological causality) - the future causes the present (as well as the past causing the present) - to maintain the equilibrium - so a change in one constant would produce a balancing change in another.

C, the speed of light, is not constant. It varies in certain conditions. It is different now than it was millions of years ago. It is 300 times faster in a cesium medium - some of the light arrives at an end point before it all leaves the starting point.

 

[Dr.Sade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells Yes, but events are pulled toward certain goals (teleological causality) - the future causes the present (as well as the past causing the present) - to maintain the equilibrium - so a change in one constant would produce a balancing change in another. C, the speed of light, is not constant. It varies in certain conditions. It is different now than it was millions of years ago. It is 300 times faster in a cesium medium - some of the light arrives at an end point before it all leaves the starting point.

Links to Teleogical Causality:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/content-teleological/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-causation/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ca...probabilistic/

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Cau...nition_95.html

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso...85306/toc.html

http://www.dactyl.org/directors/vna/Pasadena_Talk.htm

http://www.religion-online.org/showa...asp?title=2858

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/content-externalism/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/content-narrow/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/co...nonconceptual/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-process/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ca...ounterfactual/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-mani/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-medieval/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/te...cal-arguments/

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/AAVSO7...-argument.html

https://www.ascensionhealth.org/ethi.../teleology.asp

http://www.ecotao.com/holism/gem_kant.htm

 

[Dr.Sade]

Will the dark matter theory (another illusion?) "vanish"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Will the Milgrom-Berkenstein Te(tensor)Ve(vector)S(scalar) theory replace it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor-...scalar_gravity

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/19/6/5/1

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=535302

http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue18/Physics_18.htm

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/litsub.html

http://open-encyclopedia.com/Modifie...onian_dynamics

http://www.americanscientist.org/tem.../assetid/16363

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.c...D7809EC588EEDF

http://fixedreference.org/en/2004042...onian_dynamics

http://www.questionz.net/Physics/Mod...Newtonian.html

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/cgi-...?entry_id=1643

 

[drarthurwells]

Originally Posted by drarthurwells:

Yes, but events are pulled toward certain goals (teleological causality) - the future causes the present (as well as the past causing the present) - to maintain the equilibrium - so a change in one constant would produce a balancing change in another.

C, the speed of light, is not constant. It varies in certain conditions. It is different now than it was millions of years ago. It is 300 times faster in a cesium medium - some of the light arrives at an end point before it all leaves the starting point.





Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sade Links to Teleogical Causality:

I see teleological causality best exemplified in the action of strange attractors in organizing an imbalanced or chaotic system - something pulling events toward a purpose instead of pushing them blindly - again represented mathematically as a strange attractor - strange because it is an unknown mechanism.

This is what keeps the universe from falling about.

 

[Dr.Sade]

This article says that if the universe had an infinite amount of energy it
would be very unstable (chaotic; blow up?); does this bode ill for free (zero-point) energy seekers?

http://experts.about.com/q/Physics-1...e-universe.htm

Or is there an infinite amount of positive and negative energy which cancel each other out and
so the universe really has "zero" (point) energy DOH? Where does dark energy fit in?

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mer...2/nothing.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Where does anti-energy fit in? Double DOH?

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=125111

http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matp...s/newcosmo.pdf