User talk:Scoofy
Welcome!
Hello, Scoofy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Slgrandson 13:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Butterworth flat summing in Audio crossover...
[edit]Hello,
I saw that you have mentioned in the article that crossing over the Butterworth filters at -6dB gives flat summing...how is that? I haven't tried it but would be interested to know. Also if they can sum flat then why is it not used in audio? There has to be a compelling reason for it, after all a maximally flat amplitude response is desirable, isn't it? I will do some investigation of my own in the meanwhile...however as a note to both of us, personal research is deemed inappropriate for inclusion in wikipedia articles. Rohitbd 08:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was trying to experiment with making a crossover using Butterwort filters, and I realized that if I put the filters further away from each other, the sum will become nearly flat. Here the lowpass filter's -3dB frequency is 1000 Hz, the highpass filters's -3dB freq is 1700 Hz, so this makes a crossover with a crossover freq of 1350 Hz. You can see on the graph that the filter have a -6dB gain at that point. The sum of them gives a nearly flat line, with less than 1dB ripple. If we consider Bessel filter's summed output nearly flat, then this should be considered flat, too. However, this is just an estimation, correct normalisation values could be calculated by solving the Butterworth filter's magnitude equation for -6dB. However, this is probably not used because there isn't big difference between this and the LR2 filter, both have 12dB/oct slopes, the LR2 having a bit softer knee, but the LR2 has the advantage of a completely flat response, with no coloration. Also LR2 has a constant group delay, and linear phase response, whereas the Butterworth does not, which is generally unwanted. All this makes us prefer the LR2. (comparison) Remember, in the world of crossovers it is not maximally flat amplitude that is preferred regarding the individual filters, but the flat summed output, linear phase response and constant group delay. I don't know if this has ever been published anywhere, or anyone uses this technique. The sentence we cannot cross Butterworth filters over at -6dB was not true, so I could either #1 remove the sentence completely #2 add a correction remark. I did the latter one. If you feel that this counts as personal research, or not appropriate for mentioning in the article, feel free to remove it.scoofy 09:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Personal research is when you write something based on something done by you - of course I have no problem with it but wikipedia norms require that articles are based purely on published material - that too belonging to someone other than the one who's writing the article (I also have been "reprimanded" - so to speak - a couple of times). Regarding why butterworth is not used, I have made the change in the article - and non-linear phase variable group delay, etc. seems to be the only plausible reason for not using butterworth if what you say about flat summing of butterworth is taken into account. Rohitbd 15:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think it is a pretty straightforward method to construct Butterworth crossovers like that, similar techinque (normalization) is often used for Bessel filters. I think it is possibly that someone has already published this somewhere, for example, there's a mention in this article from 1980 (do a text search for 6 dB of attenuation in the article). I suppose when Linkwitz-Riley and Bessel crossovers became more common, they did not use that anymore, because the latter ones are simply better (better phase response or flatter summing). I think the Audio crossover aritle is much better now that it is shortened and lots of text was removed that is not relevant from a practical point of view.
- Personal research is when you write something based on something done by you - of course I have no problem with it but wikipedia norms require that articles are based purely on published material - that too belonging to someone other than the one who's writing the article (I also have been "reprimanded" - so to speak - a couple of times). Regarding why butterworth is not used, I have made the change in the article - and non-linear phase variable group delay, etc. seems to be the only plausible reason for not using butterworth if what you say about flat summing of butterworth is taken into account. Rohitbd 15:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was trying to experiment with making a crossover using Butterwort filters, and I realized that if I put the filters further away from each other, the sum will become nearly flat. Here the lowpass filter's -3dB frequency is 1000 Hz, the highpass filters's -3dB freq is 1700 Hz, so this makes a crossover with a crossover freq of 1350 Hz. You can see on the graph that the filter have a -6dB gain at that point. The sum of them gives a nearly flat line, with less than 1dB ripple. If we consider Bessel filter's summed output nearly flat, then this should be considered flat, too. However, this is just an estimation, correct normalisation values could be calculated by solving the Butterworth filter's magnitude equation for -6dB. However, this is probably not used because there isn't big difference between this and the LR2 filter, both have 12dB/oct slopes, the LR2 having a bit softer knee, but the LR2 has the advantage of a completely flat response, with no coloration. Also LR2 has a constant group delay, and linear phase response, whereas the Butterworth does not, which is generally unwanted. All this makes us prefer the LR2. (comparison) Remember, in the world of crossovers it is not maximally flat amplitude that is preferred regarding the individual filters, but the flat summed output, linear phase response and constant group delay. I don't know if this has ever been published anywhere, or anyone uses this technique. The sentence we cannot cross Butterworth filters over at -6dB was not true, so I could either #1 remove the sentence completely #2 add a correction remark. I did the latter one. If you feel that this counts as personal research, or not appropriate for mentioning in the article, feel free to remove it.scoofy 09:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:HyperPhase.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:HyperPhase.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Phaser.png listed for deletion
[edit]An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Phaser.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Selket Talk 14:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Phaser_feedback.png listed for deletion
[edit]An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Phaser_feedback.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Selket Talk 14:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
File:Biquad direct form1.png listed for discussion
[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Biquad direct form1.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
