Surround sound with only 1 speaker
- Thread starter K.I.L.E.R
- Start date
multiple speaker in one unit. 
later,
epic
later,
epic
Of course I am interested in these products since my room is very small. However, it has to give better performance than my headphone.
Another problem with this product is, it has only stereo audio input. So I can't connect my soundcard (which output multiple channels) to this speaker. So it is mostly useless for me
I am interested in these products since my room is very small. However, it has to give better performance than my headphone.Another problem with this product is, it has only stereo audio input. So I can't connect my soundcard (which output multiple channels) to this speaker. So it is mostly useless for me
Captain Chickenpants
Regular
I have wondered if anyone will every try and do a system using constructive interference, so it will be genuine surround sound.
CC
CC
Captain Chickenpants
Regular
Simon F said:
Kind of.
As a first step they could simply simulate a standard set of surround speakers by having fixed locations that they project the sound to.
The next step would be to make the locations that the sound is emenating from move around. This would of course require the sound to be recorded and stored in a whole new way, but would could make for some groovy soundtracks.
CC
any links that describe this better?Captain Chickenpants said:
thanks
epic
Captain Chickenpants
Regular
Hmm, can't seem to find any at the moment.
Basically (as I understand it) if you use two high frequency beams of sound then you can modulate them such that where the beams intersect the constuctive and destructive interference causes sound to be produced at the point of intersection.
A similar technique has been used to develop a device for riot contol. They focus the beams on the person and produce a low freqency nausea inducing sound . Because it is caused by two intsecting beams it can be targeted at just the one person.
I beleive that to produce sounds in an audible range that the carrier signals have to be very high frequency, which is probably one of the main drawbacks of such a system.
CC
Basically (as I understand it) if you use two high frequency beams of sound then you can modulate them such that where the beams intersect the constuctive and destructive interference causes sound to be produced at the point of intersection.
A similar technique has been used to develop a device for riot contol. They focus the beams on the person and produce a low freqency nausea inducing sound . Because it is caused by two intsecting beams it can be targeted at just the one person.
I beleive that to produce sounds in an audible range that the carrier signals have to be very high frequency, which is probably one of the main drawbacks of such a system.
CC
wouldnt it be cooler to have a lightsaber thats 20 feet long.zsouthboy said:Captain Chickenpants said:
This is also how theoretically a lightsaber could be made. Two different wavelenghts, that intersect and cancel each other out after so many feet.
later,
epic
horvendile
Regular
zsouthboy said:This is also how theoretically a lightsaber could be made. Two different wavelenghts, that intersect and cancel each other out after so many feet.
That could possibly cause some ruckus when the two beams start to interfere constructively again...
I wouls like to hear one of these and compare it with my seperates home theater speakers imaging to see if it is realistic in its goal.
One issue a small 8 inch subwoofer is too small for people with larger size rooms. It will be missing out on the deeper bass regions that movies and music exhibit.
I doubt the system will be able to reach full Dolby Digital reference levels without major distortion or damage.
It is an very intersting idea but I could see some very difficult issues to overcome first.
Room dimentions and speaker loacations automaticly have huge frequency, phase and timing altering effects.
All rooms exibit nodes (constructive to SPL "boosted frequencies") and nulls (distructive to SPL "canceled frequencies") differing across the whole frequency range (20,000hz to 20 hz).
Tring trying to project a sound wave in a certian place in the room and predict its phase and timing delays would be difficult.
Also added problem low frequency sound information in films and music are very long in wave length.
For example.
Length of sound wave = Speed of sound/Frequency.
For a 20 hz sound wave you take 342 divided it by 20 hz = 17.1 meters
That is a very long wave to be mixed (constructivly or distructivly) in room so we are getting into areas of cancelation at 1/2 and 1/4 wave lengths.
One issue a small 8 inch subwoofer is too small for people with larger size rooms. It will be missing out on the deeper bass regions that movies and music exhibit.
I doubt the system will be able to reach full Dolby Digital reference levels without major distortion or damage.
Captain Chickenpants said:
It is an very intersting idea but I could see some very difficult issues to overcome first.
Room dimentions and speaker loacations automaticly have huge frequency, phase and timing altering effects.
All rooms exibit nodes (constructive to SPL "boosted frequencies") and nulls (distructive to SPL "canceled frequencies") differing across the whole frequency range (20,000hz to 20 hz).
Tring trying to project a sound wave in a certian place in the room and predict its phase and timing delays would be difficult.
Also added problem low frequency sound information in films and music are very long in wave length.
For example.
Length of sound wave = Speed of sound/Frequency.
For a 20 hz sound wave you take 342 divided it by 20 hz = 17.1 meters
That is a very long wave to be mixed (constructivly or distructivly) in room so we are getting into areas of cancelation at 1/2 and 1/4 wave lengths.
Captain Chickenpants
Regular
micb said:
The idea isn't that you transmit two 20Hz signals and have them interact with each other, as you say the wavelength will be too long to work with and will be affected by the room dynamics.
They are using two very high wavelength signals, and modulating one of them such that the waveform generated by their interference is a much lower frequency audible frequency.
I agree that their would still be quite a few difficulties, but I think most of them are solvable (although I have practically no knowledge to back up that belief! ), and the underlying concept seems so straighforward when you understand it.
CC[/quote]
Captain Chickenpants said:
Can you explane what you mean by "High wave length signal" it is not clear what that is.
Do you mean something like High frequency or high amplitude? or are you talking about wave length?
Even so, this does not map to how sound travels, sound is a "longitudinal wave" the most people image a sound wave as a sinusoidal pressure time representation but this is not really how it is.
"Do not conclude that sound is a transverse wave which has crests and troughs"
Have a read......
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/sound/u11l1c.html
horvendile
Regular
micb said:
As you write, he probably means high frequency signal.
When you mix two signals of nearly but not quite the same frequency the audible result is a tone with frequency = the difference between the two original waves. The phenomenon has a name, but I only know what it's called in Swedish.
So, anyway, mix a 40000 Hz wave and a 40100 Hz wave and they interfere to a 100 Hz wave. IIRC.
Unless I miss some nuance in the English language: Yes it is. The pressure varies sinusoidally in time. (Er... if you split it up in harmonics (or whatever that's called in English), that is.)
horvendile said:micb said:
As you write, he probably means high frequency signal.
When you mix two signals of nearly but not quite the same frequency the audible result is a tone with frequency = the difference between the two original waves. The phenomenon has a name, but I only know what it's called in Swedish.
So, anyway, mix a 40000 Hz wave and a 40100 Hz wave and they interfere to a 100 Hz wave. IIRC.
Really?, I have never heard of that before, have you got links explaning how this works.
micb said:
I realised I made a mistake in my original post, should have said,
Even so, this does not map to how sound travels, sound is a "longitudinal wave" the most people image a sound wave as a sinusoidal pressure time representation but this is not really how it is.
I'm quite sure sound travels like a slinky spring being compressed horizontally (longitudinal) rather than a slinky wiggeled up and down vertically.
Captain Chickenpants
Regular
Sorry, yes I meant high frequency.
Some links which mention the idea (as used in acoustic weapons)
http://www.mahlers.com/womp13.htm
http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/9_3altmann.pdf
Can't recall where I read the article originally.
CC
Some links which mention the idea (as used in acoustic weapons)
http://www.mahlers.com/womp13.htm
http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/9_3altmann.pdf
Can't recall where I read the article originally.
CC
Similar threads
