The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "Phil Allison"
References: <96dU9.21919$jM5.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1pvIMwAJ$rI+EwVe@jmwa.demon.co.uk> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Feedback reduction
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:47:10 +1100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:36:38 EST
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 19:18:10 +0000, John Woodgate
> Don't think I actually named Chiselhurst. I was simply using the cave
> scenario to point out that standing waves rely on smooth surfaces -
> they are if you like a subset of reverberant spaces. Good studios
> break up flat walls in order to minimise the problem of standing
> waves. There is nothing inherent in a reverberant space that forces it
> to produce standing waves.
** Even if true - 99.9 % of rooms and auditoriums have a response
spectrum characterised by thousands evenly spaced peaks and dips related to
the dimensions of the space. The techniques you refer to may reduce the Qs
of the standing waves but do not eliminate them.
PA systems set up in heavily treated rooms benefit least from use of
a frequency shifter - except at low frequencies where normal room treatments
The most common application for frequency shifters is in churches and
multi purpose public halls which have virtually no sound treatment and are
built with parallel walls.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup