[LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant.

Charles Henry czhenry at gmail.com
Mon Dec 31 20:57:28 UTC 2012

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Neil <djdualcore at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
> <nando at ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > Just a thought: a speaker with an extended frequency response (ie: able
> to
> > reproduce ultrasound) could sound "better" because the high frequency
> driver
> > is more linear and better behaved in the _audible_ range, and not
> because it
> > is able to reproduce sound above our hearing limit...
> Good point.  I don't doubt at all that the speakers in question sound
> great.
> Neil

It's a simple reason if you have the math background:  signals with compact
support in the time domain have infinitely long tails in the frequency
domain.  By having more high frequency range, you improve the temporal
response of the transducer.
At the ends of the frequency range, the group delay becomes significant and
shifts some components of the signal more than others.  A wide-band
transducer with high damping is better able to reproduce the signals that
you feed it, but also loses some of its capability to deliver power.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/attachments/20121231/cd5fd35d/attachment.html>

More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list