I honestly don't see anything wrong with any of these games. I regard them as exceptionally good for the time.
Thanks! (Curses, Old Age! You haven't defeated me yet!)
Yes...ish.
In your case of a 22kHz sine wave, the two points might be measured at any point along the wave, which means you can't tell where you are along the wave. Assuming the signal varies between +/-1, there will be two possible locations on the wave (other than at the peak and trough) which will give the same numeric values. That will play merry hell with phase. You can get infinitely close to 2 samples per wave, because you only need to establish one further point somewhere along that wave that doesn't correspond to those two samples, otherwise you're guaranteed an alias. Usually, if you're mucking with controlled signals, v(t=0)=0 for a sine wave. That's a perfectly valid extra point and from there, only two samples per wave are needed. You can even use this technique in audio, so that there's a hard-coded third point, although you are likely to get artifacts in the sound as a result. Mind you, at a 44KHz sampling rate, only freaks like myself will actually hear them.
When it comes to very complex signals, it's a mess. You can certainly decompose everything into sine waves (Fourier analysis), albeit an infinite number of them. However, that is exceedingly difficult to do. One popular method is to sample a godawful number of points and then linearly interpolate. This works because you can approximate very very tiny portions of any sine curve with a straight line segment. But then you are going from having to sample three points to uniquely define a sine wave to having to sample hundreds. It is popular because it is easy, not because it is any good. At two points, you will get a straight line. At 3, you get a triangle.
Well, in those cases, you'd get breaks (gaps in the data where the error-correction couldn't figure out the values so dumped them) rather than noise.
I have taken up making my own cables. In part, this is because finding cables for some of my sound systems is.... difficult. (I am the proud hardware hacker of a functional Marconi R1155 - not the one shown there, but the same model). Not exactly a digital system, but the reception is amazing. Well, for the vintage.
Excellent points. Yes, a good room is definitely the preferred (and ultimately easier) solution.
Yeah, my system went a little beyond controlling amplitude, in that if you know that some wave W reaches the listener and is not wanted then you start by saying that you need a wave W' (a wave that cancels out W) that also reaches the listener. By tracing that wave backwards through the acoustics of the room to the speaker, you can figure out what additional waves are needed to be generated by the speaker to produce the desired effect. You then have to trace forward again to determine the consequences of doing this, going back and forth until the distortions at every measured point are minimized.
If you wanted to take into account early reflections, then it would get a LOT worse. You're then not only adding in extra waves, but you can delay any of them and/or delay any of the original signal to any of the speakers. The maths for minimizing that - even for a single person - would take a LOT of computer power. It also starts adding up in terms of memory resources needed. Every speaker would need a buffer capable of storing actual composite waveforms for the required length of time.
Yes, reverberation etc might well not be uniform across the audio spectrum. You'd have to split the spectrum up and process each block of frequencies independently, in the hopes that a block was relatively uniform in behavior.
I can see this working for any room, provided you had a powerful-enough computer and enough speakers in enough directions. It would be extremely difficult to do, though, and would not work at all if there are any time-variant components to the system. (i.e.: something changes acoustic properties over time, a person moves from one place to another, etc.)
Your solution of the better room IS a far easier solution and a far better solution. Mine is of interest almost solely to me because I am fascinated by the problems involved in auto-correcting wave-based systems. It's a complicated field, to the point that most of the experts seem to have given up doing anything more than the basics.
Again, more of your twisting and writhing to make "connections" that never existed in the post.
The earthquakes and tsunamis are indeed well-documented.
The cost/benefit calculation of doing something retroactively to the facility to bring it in line with this documentation has NEVER BEEN DONE and therefore we are indeed completely in the dark as to what that calculation would show.
No they do not. They rely heavily on an earthquake probability map which is entirely based off a simple count of earthquakes in the past century. They do NOT use IAEA risk evaluation methods, NOR do they use standard geological earthquake risk calculations -- calculations every other nuclear reactor in the world DOES use.
You don't bother looking, which is very different from not buying it. You don't want to know and don't care to know, which is not the same thing as nobody else knowing.
The earthquake+tsunami occur once every 500 years.
I stated categorically that the probability of it occurring within any given interval of time is going to depend on whether you look at this being a one-in-five-hundred-year event or a one-in-fifty-year event on a 500 year cycle -- a point you quite casually ignored in your effort to "prove" me wrong. And, no, I didn't raise your hackles, you managed that quite well on your own. As has been repeatedly shown, you don't read my posts, you merely react to them.
The data showed a cyclic event, which fits with more modern theories on earthquakes. Can't help it if you're ignorant of seismology.
No, I did not make conflicting statements about the "right course of action". I stated that it was exceedingly likely that at SOME POINT in the lifetime of the reactor that an earthquake plus tsunami was exceedingly likely. It is also exceedingly likely that at SOME POINT in the lifetime of a commercial airline company that they will suffer the loss of an aircraft.
I said NOTHING about them having to do anything about it. First, the failures within the reactor were due to a whole series of errors, of which the flooding was only one. Had ANY of those errors not taken place, there would have been no disaster. Second, it STILL has not been shown that the cost of cleanup plus financial loss due to the evacuation (after subtracting those costs purely due to the earthquake and tsunami with NO contribution from Fukushima) would have exceeded the cost of fixing the engineering problems. The cost of building a new reactor somewhere else and totally decontaminating the Fukushima site on a short enough time scale that industry would be unaffected AND eliminate the tsunami risk would certainly have exceeded the cost of cleanup.
I am highly hostile against deceptive arguments, but I am not bigoted. I reason, I explain, I step through my arguments. You do none of those. You bluster, you fluster and you attempt to confuse by throwing up phony arguments. Your arguments remain highly bigoted, as do you. You are a fraud, a crook, a swindler of those who are confused by your bluster. You substitute knowledge for volume, a point you yourself concede. You know NOTHING of me, but draw conclusions about what I do or do not know. You ADMIT you have read nothing, but draw conclusions from your ignorance.
Frankly, you are a disgusting puke of a creature.
Everything on its own track would be good (you can sound-trace to cancel out the acoustics of the room, for example). An improvement on that would have one track for the primary sound and a second track the codified the nature of the harmonics at any given time. Reason for that is that harmonics outside of the audible range will nonetheless interfere with sound in the audible range. It becomes rapidly harder to store that information by sampling alone, but the characteristics of an instrument can be described in a very compact manner. You need then state only WHAT harmonics are active (a bitmap) to be able to define however many harmonics you want to compute.
Yes, the setting the music is played in matters, but you can sound-trace to take that out of the data you are sampling then sound-trace it back in when playing it. That's one dedicated data track that needs be loaded into the DSPs before the music can be played.
You could add on as many such extras to the sound source as you like, building closer and closer to the sound as it was originally played. Something like the above would require a highly specialized system and so would probably be of more interest to IMAX theaters than home theaters, but that's also a setting where ultra-realism is key to the illusion and they might well pay for the compute power needed to record and play back at that depth.
You're not going to be able to fit that kind of computer into an MPx player or any other ultra-light compute device. Because of the latency inherent in analyzing the room at both ends, nobody is going to want to fit that kind of computer into any mobile compute device. Home computers - maybe, but even there these aren't the days when the LAPC-1 was popular. You can't have large external boxes for sound processing, or a card the size of a modern tower unit. Again, people want low latency and this is not a low latency idea.
Absolutely true on (1), though one of the other conditions how good your hearing is. I can hear just fine up to 24KHz, whereas many adults my age would have trouble hearing past 18KHz. That makes a vast difference in sound perception. The sound source and the speaker have to support the best hearing of those listening, but for cost reasons it's usually "better" for a record label to only support the worst hearing of those listening.
(For those observing that CDs started at 44KHz, it is important to note that that is a sampling rate. You cannot describe a waveform of a given frequency with one or two samples spread out over one wavelength. The 44KHz rate assumes nobody has better hearing than the average middle-aged male. The 96KHz of higher-end audio recordings these days is better - 4 data points for a 24 KHz wave - but you only actually get that if the playback system is aware that some of us aren't deaf AND the speaker system has accurate-enough response at the higher end.)
You are correct on (2), but there is nothing to stop a sound system from emitting a controlled set of sounds, recording them with mikes, and calculating
For cables, it's a bit iffy but you're largely correct. Higher impedance in the cables means loss of power, assuming the signal is analogue. If the signal is digital, then yes you still lose power but your loss of data is essentially zero unless you have cables from hell. A lack of proper shielding means you've got a brilliant dipole aerial connected up. It'll play the sound ok, but it might also pick up the local taxi cab, the neighbor's Nintendo game, or any other RFI that happens to be around. This is just as true for digital, only you won't hear them, you'll just get clutter. The connectors only matter insofar as to whether you have a sustained connection or an intermittent one. No matter how expensive the rest of the cable is, an intermittent connection won't work when there is no connection taking place.
And that last point is why it is not price that matters but the quality of the product. The two may have no relationship to one another. We know that from fashion and computer software. In both cases, the price tag tells you nothing about the usefulness of what you get, all it tells you is the usefulness of what the vendor gets in return.
Most people with even a modicum of experience with electronics could (if there was any incentive to do so) build high-end sound systems for a fraction of what a similar system would cost from an online or bricks-and-mortar store, where (with a recording of sufficient quality) they could absolutely blow the cynics through the wall. But why bother? No CD comes at that kind of quality (DVDs don't count because you're splitting your attention between sound and video), so there's nothing to play on such a system that you could get any benefit from, and those capable of such a thing would want to spend their time elsewhere. It's not even as if you could build such systems to sell, because again there's nothing to play on it.
No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.