Questions for Rich L
me@home
harmonics in a power calculation. While I agree with that in principle, I
am curious if in practice there is any significant amount of power in the
higher harmonics produced by a bass guitar. It seems to me that if a
musical instrument is going to sound at all musical, the bulk of the
energy/power would need to be in the fundamental. As a followup, the
equations that you gave apply only to the short-term steady state during
which the waveform of current can be described approximately by a Fourier
series. However, it seems to me that there is considerable peak energy
during the transient onset of the waveform and, as a result, the waveform
would need to be defined by a current density and that the power would need
to be calculated by a Fourier integral. And, unless the current density
can be expressed analytically, and unless when it is multiplied by the
impedance function, the result has a closed form integral solution, a
numerical integral computation would be required. Your comments?
RichL
Judging from the wave form, there are plenty of higher harmonics in a
bass guitar. The signals don't look much like sine waves at all. I've
even seen it argued that, depending on the actual amplification scheme,
the lowest notes produced by a bass contain more harmonics than
fundamental, and our ears actually infer the fundamental from the
presence of all the harmonics. I don't have independent verification of
that, however.
As for your comments on the approximate nature of a Fourier series, you
are right on target. The context of the discussion was a perfectly
repeating periodic signal, and as you know, in reality each harmonic
decays with its own time constant, so they are really not single
frequencies. The fundamental and each harmonic is more properly
represented as a peak in the spectrum with a non-zero width that is
inversely proportional to the decay time of that harmonic. And yes,
that means that a Fourier integral is, strictly speaking, the correct
representation of such a signal, rather than a Fourier series.
The power is then expressed as an integral over frequencies, but if the
widths of the peaks are small compared with the spacings of harmonics,
then the overall integral can be broken up into approximately
independent pieces and the expression for the power then starts to "look
like" what you get for a strictly periodic signal.
Interestingly, the representation of the signal as a superposition of
harmonic-like terms, each with a finite width, can be viewed in the
complex frequency plane as a series of poles where each pole is
displaced from the real axis by an amount that's inversely proportional
to the corresponding harmonic's decay time.
Les Cargill
Open low E on an electric bass is 41ish cycles/sec.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
RichL
And even the low B on a five stringer (~31 Hz) is technically within the
range of human hearing, but especially in a recording the bass is often
EQ'd to reduce response in that low range to make room for the kick
drum, which can make the amplitudes of the harmonics larger than that of
the fundamental.
Les Cargill
This is precisely why Leo Fender put four (and no more) on the bass.
--
Les Cargill
Mike Rieves
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uq2dnWByDZ0nyjrU...@supernews.com...
I've used Cool Edit 96 to do a spectral analysis of all three of my basses
and on the lowest notes, the second harmonic is almost as big as the
fundamental on all three, on the bridge pickup I added to my Bronco bass,
the second harmonic is actually a few dB higher than the fundamental, and
the third harmonic is only a few dB below the fundamental. That was feeding
the bass signal directly into my Lexicon Omega. I'd guess that on some bass
amp/speaker rigs, the second order harmonic will be considerably higher than
the fiundamental.
Six String Stu
Stu_______________pid :)
Nick Delonas
@nccray.net says...
> Well thanks bunches for that discourse fellas. Now I'm feeling even more
> Stu_______________pid :)
>
>
All you really need are your own ears. A lesson that I'm still
learning.
--Nick
Nick Delonas
lcar...@cfl.rr.com says...
> This is precisely why Leo Fender put four (and no more) on the bass.
Interesting. I did not know that.
--Nick
me@home
news:uq2dnWByDZ0nyjrU...@supernews.com:
That's interesting, because to the best of my knowledge there is no set
of initial coniditions for a trasversely vibrating string, which is
constrained at the ends, that produce vibration amplitudes that do not
decrease with increasing harmonic number. If what you say is so, then
perhaps the pickup transducer is not accurately reflecting the spectral
characteristics of the actual vibration of the string and is responsible
for attenuating the fundamental and emphasizing the harmonics
> As for your comments on the approximate nature of a Fourier series, you
> are right on target. The context of the discussion was a perfectly
> repeating periodic signal, and as you know, in reality each harmonic
> decays with its own time constant, so they are really not single
> frequencies. The fundamental and each harmonic is more properly
> represented as a peak in the spectrum with a non-zero width that is
> inversely proportional to the decay time of that harmonic.
Agreed, and, not surprisingly, that is the very same representation that
is used to describe the complex vibration of structures. However, in
structural modal analysis, that representation works only if the
vibration modes are uncoupled.
.
> And yes,
> that means that a Fourier integral is, strictly speaking, the correct
> representation of such a signal, rather than a Fourier series.
> The power is then expressed as an integral over frequencies, but if the
> widths of the peaks are small compared with the spacings of harmonics,
> then the overall integral can be broken up into approximately
> independent pieces and the expression for the power then starts to
>"look like" what you get for a strictly periodic signal.
Agreed, but I was referring to the brief onset transients that would need
to be described by a continuous broadband spectral density function.
> Interestingly, the representation of the signal as a superposition of
> harmonic-like terms, each with a finite width, can be viewed in the
> complex frequency plane as a series of poles where each pole is
> displaced from the real axis by an amount that's inversely proportional
> to the corresponding harmonic's decay time.
Actually, each harmonic-like term is represented in the complex s-plane
as a pair of complex conjugate poles, so your statement regarding poles
actually pertains to complex conjugate pole pairs.
RichL
That's right. It's not in the string itself. There's no reason to
expect that ratios of fundamentals to harmonics would be any different
for the lowest bass notes. It's everything else along the route from
the pickup to the speaker output.
>> As for your comments on the approximate nature of a Fourier series,
>> you are right on target. The context of the discussion was a
>> perfectly repeating periodic signal, and as you know, in reality
>> each harmonic decays with its own time constant, so they are really
>> not single frequencies. The fundamental and each harmonic is more
>> properly represented as a peak in the spectrum with a non-zero width
>> that is inversely proportional to the decay time of that harmonic.
>
> Agreed, and, not surprisingly, that is the very same representation
> that is used to describe the complex vibration of structures.
> However, in structural modal analysis, that representation works only
> if the vibration modes are uncoupled.
Right. As to how strongly the modes are coupled in a bass, I really
can't say.
>> And yes,
>> that means that a Fourier integral is, strictly speaking, the correct
>> representation of such a signal, rather than a Fourier series.
>> The power is then expressed as an integral over frequencies, but if
>> the widths of the peaks are small compared with the spacings of
>> harmonics, then the overall integral can be broken up into
>> approximately independent pieces and the expression for the power
>> then starts to "look like" what you get for a strictly periodic
>> signal.
>
>
> Agreed, but I was referring to the brief onset transients that would
> need to be described by a continuous broadband spectral density
> function.
The more so the faster those transients decay.
>> Interestingly, the representation of the signal as a superposition of
>> harmonic-like terms, each with a finite width, can be viewed in the
>> complex frequency plane as a series of poles where each pole is
>> displaced from the real axis by an amount that's inversely
>> proportional to the corresponding harmonic's decay time.
>
>
> Actually, each harmonic-like term is represented in the complex
> s-plane as a pair of complex conjugate poles, so your statement
> regarding poles actually pertains to complex conjugate pole pairs.
But the s-plane pertains to Laplace transforms rather than Fourier
transforms. Granted, they are related although causality enters in
different ways. In the Fourier transform, having poles on either side
of the real axis results in a portion of the response having *growing*
exponential time dependence rather than decaying time dependence.
m...@home.com
FzXUnZ2dnU...@supernews.com:
Agreed, but that how fast the transients decay has nothing to do with
what the peak transient current is.
>>> Interestingly, the representation of the signal as a superposition of
>>> harmonic-like terms, each with a finite width, can be viewed in the
>>> complex frequency plane as a series of poles where each pole is
>>> displaced from the real axis by an amount that's inversely
>>> proportional to the corresponding harmonic's decay time.
>>
>>
>> Actually, each harmonic-like term is represented in the complex
>> s-plane as a pair of complex conjugate poles, so your statement
>> regarding poles actually pertains to complex conjugate pole pairs.
>
> But the s-plane pertains to Laplace transforms rather than Fourier
> transforms. Granted, they are related although causality enters in
> different ways. In the Fourier transform, having poles on either side
> of the real axis results in a portion of the response having *growing*
> exponential time dependence rather than decaying time dependence.
Fourier analysis, by definition, deals only with the sinusoidal steady
state. If you are going to talk about exponentially decaying sinusoids,
you can not do so in the context of either a Fourier series or a Fourier
transform. The only difference between them is that one pertains to
discrete frequency wherease the other pertiains to continuous frequency.
I disagree, but I am open to being corrected. As far as the complex s-
plane is concerned, it is non-specific with regard to either the LaPlace
transform or the Fourier transform. The complex s-plane is simply a
representation of the poles and zeros of a (linear) system function H(s),
where s=sigma+jw. If one is interested in the transient time-domain
response, one needs to use Laplace transforms invoiving the complex
variable s. If one is interested in the sinusoidal steady-response, one
simply sets sigma=0, and uses the steady-state system function H(jw).
RichL
Perhaps in physics things are approached differently. We often describe
the behavior of response functions, or system functions, in the complex
frequency plane. That allows one to convert the standard integral that
appears in the inverse Fourier transform to a contour integral in the
complex w (omega) plane, which is especially convenient if the
singularities of F(w) in the complex plane are all poles.
Fourier transforms are certainly useful outside of the regime of
steady-state solutions, as I thought we had agreed when discussing the
necessity of treating a decaying guitar or bass string using Fourier
transforms rather than Fourier series.
The inverse Fourier integral includes, of course, the term exp(jwt)
where w can now be complex. Using the complex properties to complete
the inverse Fourier integral requires constructing a contour defined by
the real axis and an arc of very large radius to complete the contour in
either the upper or the lower half plane. Letting w = w1 + j w2, you
can see that if t > 0 closing the countour in the lower half plane
(corresponding to w2 < 0) results in the increasing exponential exp(-w2
t), so in this case the contour must be closed in the upper half plane,
and the converse is true when t < 0. In the case of a function whose
real-time representation is zero for t < 0 and nonzero only for t > 0,
the inverse Fourier integral must by definition be zero for t < 0.
Since the lower half plane must be used for t < 0, it can be concluded
that F(w) must contain no poles in the lower half plane.
Here's an example where a simple decaying exponential in the time domain
is analzyed:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/reh10/lectures/nst-mmii-handout21.pdf
(of course in this example they're using position as the variable rather
than time, and k instead of w, but the principle still applies.)
Mike Rieves
seeing one tiny section of the string, and exactly where the pickup is
located have anything to do with all this? If it were possible to locate the
pickup in the exact center of the string would that make for a stronger
fundamental?
RichL
Oh, sure! Ratios of harmonics to fundamentals depend very strongly on
where the pickup is located, which is why different pickup positions
*sound* different. Right in the center of the string would make the
fundamental strongest for an open string, but you'd have to move it a
bit to maximize fundamental content for fretted strings.
Jim Carr
> Oh, sure! Ratios of harmonics to fundamentals depend very strongly on
> where the pickup is located, which is why different pickup positions
> *sound* different. Right in the center of the string would make the
> fundamental strongest for an open string, but you'd have to move it a
> bit to maximize fundamental content for fretted strings.
And when somebody invents a sliding pickup that moves with fret
position, watch out!
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
RichL
> RichL wrote:
>> Oh, sure! Ratios of harmonics to fundamentals depend very strongly
>> on where the pickup is located, which is why different pickup
>> positions *sound* different. Right in the center of the string
>> would make the fundamental strongest for an open string, but you'd
>> have to move it a bit to maximize fundamental content for fretted
>> strings.
>
> And when somebody invents a sliding pickup that moves with fret
> position, watch out!
Hey, that may be something I could while away my retirement years on.
Thanks for the heads up! ;-)
me@home
news:FJGdnQ5w6v5iJDXU...@supernews.com:
I think that things in physics are approached differently. In your
example of approximating the response of a plucked string as a
superposition of outputs of independt damped second-order systems, each
system is described by a second order differential equation relating
input to output. If one goes back to basics, one way of analyzing this
situation is to calculate the forced response (output) to the input e^st,
where s is complex. If one starts with the differenial equation relating
a system input x(t) to a system output y(t) and assumes an input x(t)
=e^st, and an output of the form y(t)=H(s)e^st, after substituting the
assumed inputs and outputs into the differential equation, all of the
e^st terms drop out and one gets a system function H(s). If one applies
this to a damped second-order system and then factors the denominator of
H(s), one gets a pair of complex congugate poles in the left half of the
s-plane. These poles correspond to a time-domain solution that is a
decaying sinusoid. In a feedback-control system, where loop gain is
available, as loop gain increases the pair of conjugate poles moves in a
semicircle toward the jw axis. As this happens, the damped frequency
increases and the amount of damping decreases. When the pole pair lands
on the jw axis, you have constant amplitude oscillator. When the pole
pair cross the jw axis the system becomes unstable and the amplitude of
oscillation increases exponentially. This perspective pertains to system
behavior and does not directly have anything to do with either LaPlace or
Fourier transforms.
me@home
news:As2dnZaLeZuL9TTU...@supernews.com:
The fundamental would be strongest at the center only if the response of
the pickup were flat with respect to string displacement, as opposed to
string velocity. The advantage of the pickup being far off-center is
that it is less likely to be in a low-frequency vibration node, which
would be a benefit if harmonic content is musically desirable.
RichL
OK, gotcha now.
Left-half plane in "s" space is basically equivalent to lower half-plane
in "w" space. The same thing happens in the w plane if the poles
approach and finally land on the (real) w-axis. Oscillation can be
achieved without any driving force.
Mike Rieves
I've added pickups to a few guitars and basses, and I built a little rig
that allowed me to position the inverted pickup over the strings and slide
it back and forth until I found the "sweet" spots. It's amazing how much the
sound changes with even a very small movement of the pickup.
Has anybody tried out those basses with the optical pickups? I've noticed
that they have a piezo pickup to help with the harmonics.
me@home
Wn...@supernews.com:
I had a suspicion that we were not both referring to the same complex
plane. However, I think I always made specific reference to the complex
s-plane. If not, I apologize for the confusion.
RichL
Yes, you did make specific reference to that, I just got confused in
terms of mapping poles from what I was working with to what you were.
Your last post clarified things in my mind.
Mike Rieves
"Jim Carr" <newsg...@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:bMgql.28624$FI5....@newsfe07.iad...
> RichL wrote:
>> Oh, sure! Ratios of harmonics to fundamentals depend very strongly on
>> where the pickup is located, which is why different pickup positions
>> *sound* different. Right in the center of the string would make the
>> fundamental strongest for an open string, but you'd have to move it a
>> bit to maximize fundamental content for fretted strings.
>
> And when somebody invents a sliding pickup that moves with fret position,
> watch out!
>
Actually, there have been several guitars that used sliding pickups, all
you'd need to do is get one of them and rig up something that hooked to the
player's fretting hand to make the pickup move as his hand moved up and down
the neck. :-)
I suppose one could come up with a pickup that was mounted above the
strings and moved on rails or something. That way it could move across the
neck. It would need to be rigged to move half the distance the fretting hand
moved so it would always be over the halfway point on the strings.
me@home
news:Xsydnbl5Zvp2ljfU...@supernews.com:
.....irrelevant material snipped....
> Yes, you did make specific reference to that, I just got confused in
> terms of mapping poles from what I was working with to what you were.
> Your last post clarified things in my mind.
Great. Now that we are on the same track with regard to that issue, since
you were not around at the time, I'd be interested in your professional
opinion, as a physicist, of the following post that started the feud
between myself and others here who will remain nameless.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.home-studio/msg/a8515f98b39dd7ed?
dmode=source
Mike Rieves
<me@home.> wrote in message
news:g_6dnZaJS6NDpzbU...@giganews.com...
Ah, I thought so, you've used this alias before. I realize that you're
only doing this to stir up old arguments, but at least you're posting
something that might be considered as at least somewhat relating to the
group's topic.
The subject was Doppler distortion in speakers:
My position was that a speaker could be considered as the electronic
equivalent of a hole in a wall between the live music source and the
listener. If the hole in the wall didn't generate Doppler distortion, a
speaker wouldn't either. As I understand it, there is still disagreement
among experts as to whether a speaker does generate Doppler distortion when
driven with a musical waveform. My argument was that Gary's example was
flawed because the high frequnecy signal source and the moving arm it was
attached to were driven by two different signals, a sort of
whistle-on-a-train analogy, and a speaker was driven by a single complex
signal containing all frequencies, a hole-in-the-wall analogy. I still think
that they are two different animals and it's an apples and oranges
comparison.
Rich, I'm not about to get into this argument again, but I'd be
interested to see what you think about it and if you can explain to me why
the two analogies are not two different things, if indeed thay aren't
RichL
I trust that Gary will lead me through the reasoning that bridges the
gap between what he just posted and what he had concluded previously.
Until then, I will remain unbiased as I have all along (even though I've
known that it was Gary from the start).
RichL
OK, so this is what this is all about! I actually came into amh-s at a
time where there was still some residual discussion of this issue. I
didn't realize that it was this issue that resulted in your discontent.
I won't make any judgements on where you ultimately wound up, because I
didn't have the advantage of seeing any detailed discussion of that.
Let's just stick with what you have so far.
What you've told me so far seems to me to be a straightforward
demonstration of the Doppler effect. However, it would be helpful to
have some details that were not included in the post that you
referenced.
The obvious question is, what is the velocity of the motor element
that's holding the piezo, and what Doppler shift do you calculate from
that? Having had only a few minutes to think about this, I would expect
that, unless you have coincidentally chosen the velocity in such a way
that the Doppler shift is the same as your modulation frequency (20 Hz =
1/50 ms), it would be fairly easy to distinguish intermodulation
distortion from the Doppler shift).
For the Doppler shift, I would expect a single sideband on either side
of the driving frequency, with the spacing of the sideband frequency
relative to the driving frequency being given approximately by:
Delta f = +/- f0 vs/v
with vs being the velocity of the transducer and v being the velocity of
sound.
On the other hand, intermodulation distortion should result in
frequencies appearing in the spectrum that are separated by integer
multiples of the frequency at which the motor is driven, in this case 20
Hz.
I'm a little bit bothered by the observation of "numerous sidebands".
As I said, I'd expect only two if it were purely a Doppler effect.
Can (or did) you change the velocity of the transducer motion while
changing the maximum amplitude as well to maintain the same 50 ms
period? If you did, I'd expect Doppler-related sidebands to move while
sidebands associated with intermodulation distortion would remain at the
same frequencies.
If you observed numerous sidebands, perhaps you're seeing both IM
distortion and Doppler-related features? If so, perhaps changing the
parameters of the experiment as above would help to distinguish which is
which.
Also, if the transducer is moving at constant velocity most of the time
(as opposed to decelerating, changing direction, and accelerating), I
would expect that any peak at the actual driving frequency would be
small compared with the two Doppler side bands.
Comments?
RichL
p.s...I believe that Gary is "stirring up old arguments" specifically
because I've asked him on numerous occasions what the fuss is all about.
Mike Rieves
If it helps things in any way, I'll readily concede that Gary's
experimental example will produce Doppler distortion, I did so in the
original argument. A sound source mounted on a moving object will result in
Doppler distortion The whistle on a train analogy is the classic example of
Doppler distortion.
What I question is whether a single diaphragm driven by a complex
waveform containing both low and high frequencies will result in Doppler
distortion being introduced as a result of the complex motion. I don't think
it does, and I used the hole-in-the-wall analogy as an example showing why.
I simply don't think the whistle-on-a-train analogy is applicable to a
single diaphragm being driven by a complex signal.
I think that the final agreement was that it doesn't matter because any
Doppler distortion that might possibly be generated wouldn't be audible or
discernable among the other forms of distortion that everyone agrees are
produced by speakers.
As I remember, the discussion dragged on for months and got very heated at
times. However, I maintain that the animosity between Gary, and Jim and me
resulted because we spoke up in defense of Bob Cain when Gary attacked him.
Gary disagrees and claims that Jim and I attacked him for no reason. This
was in spite of the fact that Gary followed Bob to AMHS because of a long
standing feud between them.
me@home
news:iLCdneJIqMbMxzbU...@supernews.com:
> p.s...I believe that Gary is "stirring up old arguments" specifically
> because I've asked him on numerous occasions what the fuss is all
> about.
If you believe that, you are wrong and you are going to be disappointed for
two reasons. One is because I really am interested in your technical
comments. The other is because my original post on the doppler distortion
issue has nothing to do with what the so-called "fuss" is all about. My
original post is analogous to a woman who steps into a train not knowing
that there is a serial rapist aboard who would ultimately follow her home
and rape and murder her. The "fuss" is not about my original post. The
"fuss" is about the rape and murder that occurred much later.
Mike Rieves
<me@home.> wrote in message
news:1M6dnda7A4SXFzHU...@giganews.com...
Oh, yeah, and when the woman screams while on the moving train, onlookers
will hear the Doppler shift as the train passes them.
He couldn't be talking about me, because I never followed him anywhere, he's
the one who has been following me here and in AGB.
He has to be talking about the self-inflicted "rape and murder" of his image
on Usenet. He may not yet realize it, but he's done more to "rape and
murder" his own reputation on Usenet than all his detractors together could
possibly have done.
People may think I'm a clueless, bigmouthed old fool, but they think Gary's
a seriously deranged, mentally ill nutcase, and it's all his own doing.
me@home
news:5gJql.10346$9a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
> However, I maintain that the animosity between Gary, and Jim
> and me resulted because we spoke up in defense of Bob Cain when Gary
> attacked him. Gary disagrees and claims that Jim and I attacked him
> for no reason. This was in spite of the fact that Gary followed Bob to
> AMHS because of a long standing feud between them.
Hey asswipe, I don't know if you are just having another Alzheimer's
moment, or if you have been lying for so long that you actually believe
your own lies. Based on your past posting record, all evidence indicates
that you are a pathological liar. Regardless, it's time for you to get a
reality check aginst the Google record.
On August 4, 2004, Bob Cain posted the following inquiry, entitled "Does
Doppler Distortion exist?" to alt.sci.physics.acoustics. In that post, Bob
Cain stated:
"I don't think it does unless one can't linearly transform
the force applied to a piston into sound pressure and I
can't see any reason why not in the linear regime of air.
What do people here know about that?"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.acoustics/msg/e55aec0804e450
bb?dmode=source
All of the people in alt.sci.physics.acoustics who had advanced engineering
degrees knew that Bob Cain was full of crap, and many told him so. However,
rather than get involved in a verbal pissing contest with Bob Cain, I
decided to perform an experiment that would conclusively demonstrate that
he was either right or wrong. On August 14, 2004, I posted a description
of my experiment and the results to alt.sci.physics.acoustics and cross-
posted to rec.audio.pro.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.acoustics/msg/72a37f8be695ed
46?dmode=source
Later that day, after doing a Google search on doppler distortion, I
learned that there were ongoing discussions in several other newsgroups
that were also instigated by Bob Cain. Because there seemed to be so much
interest in this issue, I reposted a description of my experiment and the
results to alt.music.home-stuido and cross-posted it to rec.audio.tech.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.home-studio/msg/a8515f98b39dd7ed?
dmode=source
Whether you are willing to accept it or not, that's the history that is
documented in the Google record. The fact of the matter is that my post to
alt.music.home-studio was nothing other than a response to Bob Cain's post
to alt.sci.physics.acoustics, and an attempt on my part to share my
experimental results with as many people as possible who were interested in
the issue of doppler distortion. Your continued attempt to misrepresent
the truth by falsely asserting that I followed Bob Cain to alt.music.home-
studio is nothing more than a reflection of your own twisted and mentally
retarded perspective of reality.
RichL
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:iLCdneJIqMbMxzbU...@supernews.com:
>
>
>> p.s...I believe that Gary is "stirring up old arguments" specifically
>> because I've asked him on numerous occasions what the fuss is all
>> about.
>
>
> If you believe that, you are wrong and you are going to be
> disappointed for two reasons. One is because I really am interested
> in your technical comments.
I don't mean to imply that you're not.
> The other is because my original post on
> the doppler distortion issue has nothing to do with what the
> so-called "fuss" is all about.
I simply meant that your original post is what led to the "fuss". As I
said, I wasn't around for the bulk of what transpired, and I'll be
interested in going step-by-step through your arguments.
RichL
permanently. For the first time since I've been posting to amh-s, Gary
and I are having a constructive dialog. Maybe it will lead to a
productive outcome, and maybe it won't. It may be that he convinces me
of the validity of his view, and it may be that he realizes after I get
a chance to think in detail about what he's proposing and come back with
constructive comments that he realizes he's wrong. At this point, I
don't know what the outcome will be, but I'm going to keep an open mind
until I have a chance to consider everything.
Your interjections at this point serve no constructive purpose
whatsoever. They remind me of Carr's yapping dog analogy.
<PLONK>
Mike Rieves
<me@home.> wrote in message
news:5vudnX5uqZZrPjHU...@giganews.com...
Bob Cain posted in AMHS, you followed with a reply, therefore, you followed
Bob to AMHS, just like I said. Your history with Bob Cain goes 'way back,
long before you came to AMHS. It's in the record for all to see.
Mike Rieves
about the subject. I'll also note that Gary started his "rape and murder"
bullshit again, and when I replied in kind, you chose to go after me for my
response instead of him for his slur of me. You'll soon find that Gary is
only looking for allies in his war with me, and he really couldn't care less
about what you think about anything else.
me@home
news:hO2dnTsXkPuuOTHU...@supernews.com:
> me@home. wrote:
>> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:iLCdneJIqMbMxzbU...@supernews.com:
>>
>>
>>> p.s...I believe that Gary is "stirring up old arguments" specifically
>>> because I've asked him on numerous occasions what the fuss is all
>>> about.
>>
>>
>> If you believe that, you are wrong and you are going to be
>> disappointed for two reasons. One is because I really am interested
>> in your technical comments.
>
> I don't mean to imply that you're not.
>
>> The other is because my original post on
>> the doppler distortion issue has nothing to do with what the
>> so-called "fuss" is all about.
>
> I simply meant that your original post is what led to the "fuss".
Then you were correct, and I apologize for misinterpreting what you said.
> As I
> said, I wasn't around for the bulk of what transpired, and I'll be
> interested in going step-by-step through your arguments.
I will reply to your technical comments tomorrow. Unfortunately, I had
to waste my available time today searching the Google record in order to
to set the record straight regarding false assertions that were made by
our resident pathological liar. Hopefully, he will stick his head up his
ass where it belongs and let us pursue our technical discussion without
interrupting it with his defamatory lies and nonsensical commentary.
Mentalguy2k8
I've kept out of this shit up until now, as have others. But you may have
noticed that the quantity and quality of on-topic posts have declined over
the last couple of months. There are several posters who aren't posting like
they used to, maybe, like me, they're not interested in getting involved in
the crap. And before anyone says it, if it's posted as a message, then we're
involved. It's difficult to ignore prolific posters when they keep changing
their names.
For what it's worth, my experience of this particular group over the last 3
months would suggest that you've plonked the wrong person. Maybe "Gary" has
what he thinks is a legitimate excuse to act the way he does, but there are
ways, and there are ways. He made his point months ago here, anything since
is merely overkill and unwanted by the vast majority of the users of this
group, as demonstrated by the (relative) lack of posts.
I would suggest that this group also isn't the relevant place for you and
Gary's "look how knowledgeable I am about acoustics" mutual intellectual
exhibitionism. Anyone who has seen the personal attacks on Mike and has any
kind of disappontment over the deterioration of this group wouldn't give
"Gary" the time of day anyway. Some of us just want to discuss home studio
topics and critique each others' work (strangely enough, stuff that would be
considered on-topic for a home studio group!).
RichL
Consider the possibility that what I'm trying to do here is to get at
the root of Gary's discontent in the hope that we can move out of the
rut that we've been stuck in for months.
Maybe I'm naive, I don't know. But I do know that I'm tired of he and
Mike going back and forth on this in endless circles. I've suggested to
Mike on more than one occasion that he simply ignore Gary's taunts, but
Mike appears to be constitutionally unable to do so. I had Gary
killfiled for a long time but it didn't matter because I saw every one
of his posts reflected in Mike's replies.
There are also reasons for plonking Mike that have nothing to do with
what has gone on in this group, which I don't want to go into here. I
do it with mixed feelings because Mike has been helpful to me on
occasion.
If you consider what I'm engaging in "mutual intellectual
exhibitionism", you're missing the point. With the current stalemate
being what it is, Gary will not alter his behavior, and neither will
Mike. I for one am not satisfied with that situation. Besides, if the
dialog between Gary and me on a technical subject related to the
performance and characteristics of audio systems is off topic in amh-s,
this is a much different group than I thought it was.
And if it happens to resolve the underlying issues between Gary and
Mike, isn't that a good thing?
I'll be the first to concede that I may be wasting my time. I simply
thought that there was a sufficiently bright ray of hope that it was
worth pursuing. But if a sufficient number of posters disagree, I'll
stop the dialog.
me@home
news:w92dnc5Cyab4FDDU...@supernews.com:
If that's your position, then the technical dialog between us serves no
purpose and is over. Your objective, while admirable, is unachievable
beacuse there is nothing that either you or anyone else can do that will
end my grievance against the resident pathological liar and sociopath. On
the bright side, Mentalguy2k8 and others who share his perspective need to
realize that there is a very simple solution, which is that if Mike Rieves
disappears, I too will disappear. The downside is that Mike Rieves will
then have only one outlet where he can pursue his insatiable need for
attention, and we both know what outlet that is. Since he's already turned
discussion there into a ongoing three-ring circus, it's hard to imagine how
the situation there can possibly get any worse. Chances are that all of
the regulars will leave and the group will literally shut down. At that
point, the only people left will be Mike Rieves, Porky and Captain Midnight
arguing with one another.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.home-studio/msg/3c3dd3bc1344fd60?
dmode=source
Nick Delonas
rple...@yahoo.com says...
> I've suggested to
> Mike on more than one occasion that he simply ignore Gary's taunts
And excellent suggestions they were.
RichL
That makes things easy. Too bad, I thought for a moment there that you
might have some touch of humanity. I agree that if you're unwilling to
budge then my continued participation has no constructive value and is a
distraction to the rest of the group.
me@home
news:baadnRZM4MFTXDDU...@supernews.com:
> I thought for a moment there that you
> might have some touch of humanity.
My momemtary thought about you as well. On the bright side, you can now
unplonk Rieves and go and enjoy the ongoing three-ring circus in agb
without any interference from me.
Jim Carr
Lost in all the mess around that time are a few issues I'd like for you
and Rich to comment on.
First, I readily acknowledge that your experiment demonstrations the
Doppler effect as I understand it. Doppler distortion, as I understand
it, says that the oscillating movement of the material creating the
sound waves affects the higher frequencies.
For example, suppose I have two speakers. One is reproducing a 100Hz
sine wave, the other a 500Hz sine wave. Doppler distortion says that if
I have *one* speaker reproducing both of those sine waves, that the
500Hz sine wave will experience the Doppler effect because it is
"riding" the 100Hz sine wave in and out.
If I had a listening device analyzing the frequencies at one location,
the frequencies recorded would be different in each of the above two
scenarios, and those differences could be predicted.
Is that a fair assessment from this layman?
Assuming it is, I don't understand how your experiment is an analog for
the above described conditions. I say this because the movement of
transducer relative to the base is not creating any sound waves. I don't
know if that even matters or not, but absent a test otherwise, how would
I know for sure? Note: I am saying I don't understand how it's an analog
- I'm not saying I know that it's not.
This leads me to my second issue, which is more general. Doesn't pretty
much everything we ever hear suffer from Doppler distortion. After all,
we rarely hear pure sine waves in our daily lives.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
Mike Rieves
"Nick Delonas" <del...@cultv.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2417836e8...@news.optonline.net...
This has been going on for over five years. I've tried ignoring him, more
than once, for months at a time. It never did any good, he was still
constantly changing aliases and constantly attacking me. Just look at all
the derogatory threads with my name in the subject line that Gary started
here, all under different aliases. Any of you really think you could take
that constantly without replying?
Rich, if you ever really thought that you could reason with him, you're
sadly deluded. There is no way to reason with someone like him. He's even
lauded the deaths of two people that he's fueded with on Usenet, Bob Cain
being one of them. His claim was along the line of, because they disagreed
with him, their moral fiber was such that they deserved to die.
He's beyond reasoning with, and I sincerely hope that none of you ever
piss him off, he never gets over it.
Mike Rieves
That's it Jim, kiss up to Gary, and maybe he'll take you back. You two
really deserve each other.
It really doesn't matter whether speakers generate Doppler distortion or
not, even if they do, all the other forms of distortion generated in
speakers swamp it to the point that no one has been able to isolate and
measure it to prove anything one way or the other.
Jim Carr
> This has been going on for over five years. I've tried ignoring him, more
> than once, for months at a time. It never did any good,
Yes, it did. It at *least* cut the number of posts in half.
Mike Rieves
> Mike Rieves wrote:
>
>> This has been going on for over five years. I've tried ignoring him,
>> more than once, for months at a time. It never did any good,
>
> Yes, it did. It at *least* cut the number of posts in half.
>
No, it didn't. Whether I've ignored him or not, he's gone away a number of
times, sometimes for as long as a couple of months, but he always came back.
Jim Carr
> That's it Jim, kiss up to Gary, and maybe he'll take you back. You two
> really deserve each other.
Right, Mike, asking a question in a civil manner is "kissing up" to
someone. What or how I ask Gary won't change his opinion of me. How he
responds won't change my opinion of him. And our opinions of each other
are irrelevant to my understanding of something that right now I clearly
do not understand.
Besides, Rich wasn't around at the time, so he might chime in with an
answer.
> It really doesn't matter whether speakers generate Doppler distortion or
> not, even if they do, all the other forms of distortion generated in
> speakers swamp it to the point that no one has been able to isolate and
> measure it to prove anything one way or the other.
What makes you think that I would even consider the reliability of any
technical assertions you make?
BTW, I just realized I forgot to set up my killfile for this newsgroup.
Thanks for reminding me. No offense, but I have wasted WAY too much time
on you in the past.
Mike Rieves
> Mike Rieves wrote:
>
>> That's it Jim, kiss up to Gary, and maybe he'll take you back. You two
>> really deserve each other.
>
> Right, Mike, asking a question in a civil manner is "kissing up" to
> someone. What or how I ask Gary won't change his opinion of me. How he
> responds won't change my opinion of him. And our opinions of each other
> are irrelevant to my understanding of something that right now I clearly
> do not understand.
There are many, many things that you clearly do not understand, even though
you think you do.
Judging from the general animosity toward me, apparently the same is true
for me.
> Besides, Rich wasn't around at the time, so he might chime in with an
> answer.
He didn't bother to answer me, what makes you think he might answer you?
>> It really doesn't matter whether speakers generate Doppler distortion or
>> not, even if they do, all the other forms of distortion generated in
>> speakers swamp it to the point that no one has been able to isolate and
>> measure it to prove anything one way or the other.
>
> What makes you think that I would even consider the reliability of any
> technical assertions you make?
That particular technical assertion didn't come from me, it was the general
consensus at the end of the big debate, and it was the general consensus of
several experts on the issue.
> BTW, I just realized I forgot to set up my killfile for this newsgroup.
> Thanks for reminding me. No offense, but I have wasted WAY too much time
> on you in the past.
>
And I have apparently wasted way too much of the folks' time here and at
AGB. Maybe the Alzheimers is worse than I thought and I really don't know
anything anymore. Both here and there, I thought I was trying to be helpful,
apparently, I was wrong.
One thing I won't forget, you're an asshole, and nothing will ever change
that.
Everyone else here has my sincere apology for being a nuisance.
I'm leaving now.
Nick Delonas
mr...@hotspam.com says...
> This has been going on for over five years. I've tried ignoring him, more
> than once, for months at a time. It never did any good, he was still
> constantly changing aliases and constantly attacking me. Just look at all
> the derogatory threads with my name in the subject line that Gary started
> here, all under different aliases. Any of you really think you could take
> that constantly without replying?
Well, replying certainly hasn't helped much. Unless you intend to take
legal action for harrassment (and you do have a case), my honest opinion
is that ignoring him is, by far, the best course of action for both you
and the community.
I suggest discussing this matter with your local police even if you
don't know who this person is.
--Nick
Six String Stu
And if you should need depositions from fellow readers of this newsgroup,
just ask us. I'm sure there are plenty of us who would enjoy the troll's
dissappearance.
Easter Bunny
> This has been going on for over five years. I've tried ignoring
> him, more
> than once, for months at a time. It never did any good, he was still
> constantly changing aliases and constantly attacking me. Just look at
> all the derogatory threads with my name in the subject line that Gary
> started here, all under different aliases. Any of you really think you
> could take that constantly without replying?
Congratulations, Mr. Mike Rieves (aka Porky). In additioin to being the
resident sociopath and pathological liar in alt.music.home-studio, Mike
Rieves has just established himself as the new world record holder for
stating the most number of lies in a single short paragraph, and has
therefore been awarded the tital of Undisputed World Champion of
Pahtological Liars. .
Should anyone doubt for an instant that Mike Rieves rightfully deserves
this title, all they need to do is to review is posting record in
alt.guitar.bass and compare his behavior with the following characteristics
of a pathological liar:
Pathological liars:
1. Exaggerate things that are ridiculous.
2. Engage in one-upping. Whatever you do, this person can do it better.
3. Act very defensively when you question their statements.
4. Say ugly things when backed into a corner
5. Contradict what they say.
6. Add exaggerations to every sentence.
7. Change their story all the time
8. Believe what they say is true, when everyone else knows it isn't.
9. Have been caught in lies repeatedly
10. Never fess up to the lies
11. Are a legend in their own mind.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_tell_if_someone_is_a_pathological_lia
r
> Rich, if you ever really thought that you could reason with him,
> you're
> sadly deluded. There is no way to reason with someone like him. He's
> even lauded the deaths of two people that he's fueded with on Usenet,
> Bob Cain being one of them. His claim was along the line of, because
> they disagreed with him, their moral fiber was such that they deserved
> to die.
Yet another litany of false assertions by the resident sociopath and
pathological liar who simply pulls out of his ass whatever he feels is
necessary at the time to support his delusional perspective of reality.
> He's beyond reasoning with, and I sincerely hope that none of you
> ever
> piss him off, he never gets over it.
Didn't your mother ever tell you that it's not a good idea to piss off the
Easter Bunny?
Easter Bunny
Mike Rieves
"Easter Bunny" <easter_bunny@swinepen.> wrote in message
news:BbidnbcSNY8jbDPU...@giganews.com...
>> the
Wow, that one was so important that you had to post it twice! BTW, I
added the line you left off in the copy.
Well, you can go away and leave these good folks alone now, because I'm
leaving both AGB and AMHS. However, I want you to know that you had very
little to do with it, though I did feel a bit guilty that you were annoying
these good folk because I posted here. I'm unsubscribing from both news
groups, so I won't see anything you post, which means that you can finally
stop your trolling in these groups. Lurk for a while, if you like, to make
sure I don't come back under another alias, but while you're doing that, you
just need to SHUT THE FUCK UP!
I simply need time to do a little soul searching. And I have some unpleasant
personal business to take care of.
Apparently your mother never told you that you'd eventually regret it if you
kept pushing people too far.
Hasta la vista, Gary...
Easter Bunny
>> l_lia r
Apparently your mother never told you that either. Also, your implicit
threat is duely noted and appropriately forwarded.
Gary Sokolich Address Service
Easter Bunny <easter_bunny@swinepen.>
"The Ghost" <the_gho...@netzero.com>
me@home.
m...@home.com
Trashman <tras...@amh-s.com>
someone looking back <someone@.>
po...@swinepen.com
"Another Ph.D." <som...@somewhere.com>
"Another_Ph.D" <sp...@spam.com>
"OId_School" <it...@hotspam.com>
"Porky=MikeRieves" <realitycheck@home>
"observer"
"obvserver"
"ovserver"
"porky_fan@swinepen." <porky_fan@swinepen.>
"truth--teller" <t...@home.c0`om>
Ga...@cesspool.com
MRfan@swinepen.
MikeRievesBottomDweller@swinepen
MikeRievesFailed@School
Mike_Rieves_Failed@School
Mike_Rieves_Failed@School.
Mike_Rieves_Failed@school
Old School <it's...@hotspam.com>
Old School <it...@hotmail.com>
Old School <it...@hotspam.com.>
Old School <it...@hotspam.com>
Old School <itsme@hotspam>
Porky'sBullshit@swinepen
Your Troll <troll@troll.>
atruthteller@cesspool.
cabl...@a.g.b..
cableguy@swinepen.
cableguy@swinepen..
ghostie <ghostie@swinepen.>
ghostie <ghostie@swinepen.>
ghostie@swinepen.
historian
kiss...@alt.guitar.bass.cesspool
lur...@a.g.b.
me2@rieves_swinepen.
me3@rieves_swinepen.
me@rieves_hellhole.
me_wondering@home
monkeyfan@zoo.
my2cents@swinepen.
porky_fan@swinepen.
porkyfan <p...@home.com>
porkyfan@cesspool.
porkyfan@charcoal_pit
reality <reality@check.>
realit...@help.you
recollections <recollections@swinepen>
repo...@alt.guitar.bass.
repo...@alt.guitar.bass.
scorekeeper@agbsideline.
someone looking back <someone@.>
still@rieves_swinepen.
stringless@home.
tipseter@amhs.
tipster@amh-s
tipster@wherever.
trashman <tras...@ahm-s.com>
truthteller <truthteller@swinepen.>
truthteller@cesspool
truthteller@cesspool.
uno...@inyourface.dirtbag
uno...@inyourface.dirtbag
waiting_for_you@the_gates_of_hell
you_tell_me" <utellme!@cesspool.com>
youknowwho <m...@home.com>
youknowwho <m...@home.com>
Google provides search-by-author functionality at
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search
Posting and web browsing IP addresses are not inconsistent with this
public listing from manta.com for Gary Sokolich:
W Gary Sokolich (Custom Sound Systems)
801 Kings Rd, Newport Beach, CA 92663-5715
what's@next?
news:843ad...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Keep it up, asswipe, and you could wind up spending what's left of your
pathetic existence either living in a dumpster or being bubba's
girlfriend in a jail cell. Here's a list of the criminal charges so far:
1) Defamation
2) Impersonation.
3) Posting using a web site that you do not own.
4) Making false statements about information provided by manta.com.
Mike Rieves
<what's@next?> wrote in message
news:dLqdnUeSoZvkNizU...@giganews.com...
If the first place, I did not post that, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if
it was you who posted it, trying to make it look like it was me. If it
wasn't you, then my next guess would be Jim Carr, he's clever that way.
Personally, I think it's funny, and those aren't half of the aliases you've
used.
As for your "charges", you'd better find out who really posted the list
before you attempt to prosecute anyone, because filing false charges is a
crime, and I would counter-prosecute you in a heartbeat. As I said, I'm
leaving both this group and AMHS, but that doesn't mean that I won't check
back now and then, just on the off chance that I might catch you pulling
something that I can use in criminal or civil court against you. When you
slandered my grandson, you went too far, and I'll be watching you for
anything that I can use against you. The best thing you can do for yourself
is to stop posting here and in AGB before you step in something that you
can't scrape off your feet.
what's@next
In the first place, given your posting record and your reputation as a
pahological liar, your denial has ZERO crecibility. Over the years, you
have denied virtually eveything ranging from your real identity, to the
aliases that you have used, to defamatory lies that you have posted, to
your current address that is on record with local utility companies.
> As for your "charges", you'd better find out who really posted the
> list before you attempt to prosecute anyone, because filing false
> charges is a crime, and I would counter-prosecute you in a heartbeat.
> As I said, I'm leaving both this group and AMHS, but that doesn't mean
> that I won't check back now and then, just on the off chance that I
> might catch you pulling something that I can use in criminal or civil
> court against you.
In other words, you haven't really left either group and you will be
checking both groups on a daily basis.
> When you slandered my grandson, you went too far,
> and I'll be watching you for anything that I can use against you.
Statements of fact/truth do not constitute slander. Furthermore, when it
comes to accusing others of slander, you are hardly in a position to either
point fingers or throw stones.
> The
> best thing you can do for yourself is to stop posting here and in AGB
> before you step in something that you can't scrape off your feet.
Anything can be screped off. That's not the problem. The problem is
getting rid of the left-over residual stench. In that regard, getting rid
of the residual stench of pig shit from the Mike Porky Rieves swinepen is
particularly difficult if not impossible.
Mike Rieves
<what's@next> wrote in message
news:OtudnfimsoqOayzU...@giganews.com...
Nope, all I need to do is check back every month or so, and I won't even
need to post.
>> When you slandered my grandson, you went too far,
>> and I'll be watching you for anything that I can use against you.
>
> Statements of fact/truth do not constitute slander. Furthermore, when it
> comes to accusing others of slander, you are hardly in a position to
> either
> point fingers or throw stones.
What you said/implied about my grandson was *not* truthful in any way shape
or form. I need neither point fingers nor throw stones.
>> The
>> best thing you can do for yourself is to stop posting here and in AGB
>> before you step in something that you can't scrape off your feet.
>
>
> Anything can be screped off. That's not the problem. The problem is
> getting rid of the left-over residual stench. In that regard, getting rid
> of the residual stench of pig shit from the Mike Porky Rieves swinepen is
> particularly difficult if not impossible.
>
That's right, you're the one who stepped in the shit and now you've got to
deal with the stench.
As for who posted the post in question, all you have to do is look at the
header information of that post and compare it to any of my posts. You'll
immediately see that it didn't come from me. Comparing it to the headers of
other posters here and at AGB might shed some light.
what's@next
The header information shows only that the article in question wasn't
posted through bellsouth. The fact that it was not posted through
bellsouth does not prove that you did not post it.
Mike Rieves
<what's@next.> wrote in message
news:wLidnYXmIJFYYSzU...@giganews.com...
through news.bellsouth.net. The fact that I'm not, nor have I ever been a
member of news.glorb.net or any of the other services in the header of that
post proves that I didn't post that message.
Another fact is that more than one person here and/or at AGB posts through
news.glorb.com on a regular basis.
I've wasted enough time on you today Gary, I'll check back in a few days to
see if you've regained any sanity.
what's@next
No it doesn't.