Speakers...HTF do they work yo?

[Pepper Jack]

Originally Posted by axeman2008

you can shup aswell douchebag.

that's it, you're NEVER getting your name changed now!!!! NEVER!!!

[Blasterpez]

rabbit, i understand what you are saying, i think. here is my summation: If someone posts something misleading, there is a chance that other people will post an abundance of proper and true information on a subject, at least in relation to what we are discussing here, and somehow balance itself out. Or at least that is how i would see it applied to wikipedia. the 'butterfly effect' of bad information releases a hurricane of correct info?

there are definite cases/examples that can be explained using this theory. but like some other theories, like gravity, can you prove it, or does it just exist, you can see its effects, and is accepted?

so is chaos theory something that you decided was interesting and you researched on your own, or did you do some paper on it for a class, or something similar? just wondering, as you seem to know quit a bit about it.

anyway, my point is, wikipedia, in and of itself, shouldn't be used as fact. but like you said, "Why not? If anything, Wikipedia serves as an excellent portal to identify cited sources for information. Why spend hours sifting the 'Net' for information when Wikipedia can point you in the right direction instantly? It may not be the be-all, end-all - but it's a bloody good start." And i guess i wanted to say, but didn't, was it is a good starting place, as well, and you can start your research with wikipedia and following the cites referenced therein, as you stated.

thanks for the opportunity to do some independent research.

[Pepper Jack]

burnz!

[Scotracer]

Wikipedia is a great resource and you lot should be thankful it exists (in my day at high school when internet wasn't so prevalent I couldn't just jump on Wiki or howstuffworks to get an easy answer. Damn kids.

As rabbitc has clearly demonstrated, all wikipedia is, is a culmination of sources to back up a subject and it is then stated in a clear fashion that anyone can follow (obviously dependant on subject matter). If that isn't one of the greatest things ever created I don't know what is. For stuff like engineering and sciences (thank you GOD) it is filled with juicy data and concise explanations of topics relevant to me.

ALL HAIL WIKIPEDIA

Anyway, back on topic you bastards! Speakers!

[bevo1981]

there's a cone, a voice coil, a magnet, and it converts electrical signal into sound. viola. that's a speaker. and i just uploaded that to Wikipedia.

[Blasterpez]

Originally Posted by bevo1981

there's a cone, a voice coil, a magnet, and it converts electrical signal into sound. viola. that's a speaker. and i just uploaded that to Wikipedia.

bevo, we're talking speakers here, not violas. that is an entirely different subject.

[Pepper Jack]

Originally Posted by Blasterpez

bevo, we're talking speakers here, not violas. that is an entirely different subject.

hahaha, that was pretty ****ing funny lol

[Spartan1127]

Originally Posted by Pepper Jack

hahaha, that was pretty ****ing funny lol

I lOL'd too! That was hilarious!

[rabbitc]

Originally Posted by Blasterpez

rabbit, i understand what you are saying, i think. here is my summation: If someone posts something misleading, there is a chance that other people will post an abundance of proper and true information on a subject, at least in relation to what we are discussing here, and somehow balance itself out. Or at least that is how i would see it applied to wikipedia. the 'butterfly effect' of bad information releases a hurricane of correct info?

Blaster, thanks for redeeming my faith in humanity. It was truly great to see your response after glancing over the rectal exhaust posted by some of the mentally-challenged minions here. (they know who they are) I'd recommend 'Brain Training' for them but then they might have difficulty switching the box on in the first place and accidentally poke their fingers in an electrical outlet - I can't have blood on my hands like that.

At any rate - on to the answer. You have the correct interpretation - just the wrong part of the theory. Chaos theory also tells us (which is actually proven by simple observation) that there is order in chaos. The 'leaf' which I posted earlier demonstrates that despite the seemingly random outcome of the fractal equation, in quantity it produces an extremely ordered and conformed product. You'll see this in many things such as a spider's web, stratus cloud formations, galactic formations, etc... So while it is - as you say - just a theory - It is a fairly robust theory defeated only by the fact that we are mortal and would never have the infinite time required to test the hypothesis on everything and anything.

there are definite cases/examples that can be explained using this theory. but like some other theories, like gravity, can you prove it, or does it just exist, you can see its effects, and is accepted?

You had to pick gravity - didn't you? I assume you're referring to multi-dimensional string theory that was recently highlighted by Stephen Hawking. I think that's far more elusive that chaos theory, personally. I do happen to think it's plausible (from my limited understanding of quantum physics) but I'll leave it to the eggheads to iron out once this gi-normous 16km nuclear accelerator on the border of Switzerland goes live next year.

As far as chaos theory goes - I don't think it's really that complex at the end of the day. Unlike String theory, chaos theory does have a lot going for it as far as observation. The existance of ordered molecules like water (for example) are perfect examples of how things like the repeated bonding of hydrogen and oxygen demonstrate that chaos theory has a solid grounding. Is it true? Who knows - perhaps it is microscopic leprechauns running about the place manipulating our universe. Personally, chaos theory seems more plausible.

so is chaos theory something that you decided was interesting and you researched on your own, or did you do some paper on it for a class, or something similar? just wondering, as you seem to know quit a bit about it.

Personal interest. I suppose I am somewhat astounded by the forces of nature and what they can do. I also take a great interest in meteorlogy particulary where aviation is concerned. Finally, I consider myself an observer/student of human behaviour and have found many patterns that exist in people and societies to such an extent that I can sometimes predict past events in someone's life based on little knowledge.

anyway, my point is, wikipedia, in and of itself, shouldn't be used as fact. but like you said, "Why not? If anything, Wikipedia serves as an excellent portal to identify cited sources for information. Why spend hours sifting the 'Net' for information when Wikipedia can point you in the right direction instantly? It may not be the be-all, end-all - but it's a bloody good start." And i guess i wanted to say, but didn't, was it is a good starting place, as well, and you can start your research with wikipedia and following the cites referenced therein, as you stated.

100% agreed - and you're quite right in saying that wikipedia itself shouldn't be taken as fact without proper backup. Having said that, I do find it to be extremely reliable for the most part although one must always use common sense when digesting information. The golden rule is - of course - always check your facts with a second source whenever possible.

thanks for the opportunity to do some independent research.

Thanks for taking it seriously

[rabbitc]

The war has begun.

The war was over before it started.

Here I am - sitting ready with my proverbial assault rifle only to watch the minions running towards me, trip over their spears and accidentally stick each other through the neck.

Can one die from laughing?
Perhaps that is how I will meet my end.

[axeman2008]

Originally Posted by Pepper Jack

that's it, you're NEVER getting your name changed now!!!! NEVER!!!

I'm so hurt, lol.

[rabbitc]

Anyways - speakers as I understand them work on the premise that a sound pressure wave can be translated to an electrical vibration using a microphone which is a 'reverse speaker' that captures sound vibrations and generates an elecrical signal by moving back and forth through a magnetic coil. The signal is then recorded either through digital sampling or directly to physical medium such as vinyl. (Electronic instruments such as synthesisers skip the recording step and record the sound pressure signal directly.)

Once the signal is in electrical state - it can then be 'sampled' by making tiny multiple recordings of the signal at any given moment. For a compact disc, this amounts to 44,000 samples per channel (left and right). Because sampling actually introduces 'gaps' in a recording, many studios will recording multiple versions of the signal to create a 'backup' data set - this is known as 'oversampling' and is most recognisable in new technologies such as Dolby True HD (lossless sound)

When the signal is played back - it is reconstituted back into an analog electrical signal and set to the amplifier. The amplier increase the amplitude of the signal many times which is then passed to the speaker. On a standard 3-way speaker (tweeter, midrange and woofer) The speaker then 'splits' the signal into 3 segments depending on the frequency range. Low frequencies goto a woofer (anything below 120 Hz approx), middle frequencies to a midrange (120 - 3/4kHz) and anything above to the tweeter (up to 20kHz) which is the highest the human ear can hear.

Each component then takes the signal and drives it across a magnetic coil - as the signal increases and decreases, it pulls the cone backward and pushes forward to translate the signal into an air vibration. The frequency of this vibration is heard as a tone and a series of tones creates the music or sound that we're meant to hear.

For instance - a eigth-of-a-second pressure burst at a frequency of 20Hz generates the sound of a 'bass kick' while a sustained pressure vibration at a range of 12,000Hz (12kHz) is heard as a female voice singing or perhaps a violin note.

[bevo1981]

good lord. am i the only one on here that doesn't want to read rabbit's essays? are we being punished for something? as little as we care about each other's opinions, why would someone care enough about your's to waste that much of our lives reading it?

[rabbitc]

it's ok, Bevo - i realise that things like reading, learning and other intellectual activities probably cause you physical pain - and I couldn't possibly expect you to endure such torture.

You are exempted from this exercise - on you go, now.
Here's a wollwypop and a copy of 'Hello' magazine.

[bevo1981]

rabbitc disguising himself as a teacher? now that should be in the joke thread.

[IIJoshIII]

Mods, pleas change the thread title to "Bash the **** out of Wiki." I think I have enough info on speakers, thanks to all.

[oli]

Or just the ***gots reunited.

[rabbitc]

Did you pass your presentation?

How about it gets closed altogether, your project must have been finished and handed in by now anyway?