This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
check out that repair section, I'm pretty sure all those "$FIX_ME"s are ad-libbed and I don't know how to revert a page... Filter1987 03:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Clipping happens with signals that are not audio, too, but I don't see an article for it. Move to clipping (signal) or something instead? — Omegatron 18:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"In the frequency domain, clipping produces strong harmonics in the high-frequency range. Extra high-frequency weighting of a signal is more likely to damage tweeters than a signal that was not clipped as higher high frequency power levels are delivered to the tweeter. However most loudspeakers are designed to handle signals with abundant high frequencies, like cymbal crashes, which have a greater high-pitch frequency weighting than amplifier clipping could produce.[citation needed] Therefore damage attributable to this characteristic is rare."
When you do calculate the fourier series for a square sine wave, you find the corners of the square correspond to extremely high frequencies. As far as I'm aware this causes significant damage to most loudspeakers at the amplitude required to produce clipping.
I reverted a nonsense edit in the lead paragraph:
Problems with this include several grammar ones, the ridiculous idea that an amplifier is attempting something, and the idea that an amplifier's maximum capacity is somehow connected to a clean sine wave signal. No and no: an amplifier's maximum output is greater than its maximum 'clean' output. The amplifier does not 'attempt' anything, it does something or it does not do something. Here is the correct sentence:
"Because the clipped waveform has more area underneath it than the smaller unclipped waveform" -- How is this possible? Looking at the clipped PCM signal it's obvious that the unclipped signal has a greater area underneath it, because substracting the clipped from the orignal gives a residual area (that tiny triangle like peak). Anyone care to explain this to me? Thanks. PAStheLoD ( talk) 11:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Binksternet has removed the discussion of this matter from the article on a technicality because there was no citation. The text removed on March 19 2010 at 14:37 came after:
In the frequency domain, clipping produces harmonics at higher frequencies than the unclipped signal. This additional high frequency energy has the potential to damage a loudspeaker's tweeter via overheating
The removed text was:
However, these higher frequency harmonics have less energy than the lower frequency unclipped signal. Well designed loudspeakers usually do not overheat playing white noise (which has the same energy at all frequencies) near their maximum specified power level. Therefore damage attributable to clipping-induced harmonics is rare. citation needed
I wrote that text and I think it's important to include because it addresses a common controversy that causes many people to look for information about clipping. It seems to me to be common sense info; nobody would argue that loudspeakers normally overheat playing white noise near their maximum specified power level, and I've backed up the first sentence with the Rane white paper posted in the talk section. But I don't have compliant citations that meet wiki's standards. I came up with that example as the most concise way to clearly express the idea that it's the power not the frequency that causes damage with clipping. Can anyone else figure out a way to convey that idea in a way that conforms to wikipedia's guidelines? Sprexumn ( talk) 23:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
check out that repair section, I'm pretty sure all those "$FIX_ME"s are ad-libbed and I don't know how to revert a page... Filter1987 03:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Clipping happens with signals that are not audio, too, but I don't see an article for it. Move to clipping (signal) or something instead? — Omegatron 18:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"In the frequency domain, clipping produces strong harmonics in the high-frequency range. Extra high-frequency weighting of a signal is more likely to damage tweeters than a signal that was not clipped as higher high frequency power levels are delivered to the tweeter. However most loudspeakers are designed to handle signals with abundant high frequencies, like cymbal crashes, which have a greater high-pitch frequency weighting than amplifier clipping could produce.[citation needed] Therefore damage attributable to this characteristic is rare."
When you do calculate the fourier series for a square sine wave, you find the corners of the square correspond to extremely high frequencies. As far as I'm aware this causes significant damage to most loudspeakers at the amplitude required to produce clipping.
I reverted a nonsense edit in the lead paragraph:
Problems with this include several grammar ones, the ridiculous idea that an amplifier is attempting something, and the idea that an amplifier's maximum capacity is somehow connected to a clean sine wave signal. No and no: an amplifier's maximum output is greater than its maximum 'clean' output. The amplifier does not 'attempt' anything, it does something or it does not do something. Here is the correct sentence:
"Because the clipped waveform has more area underneath it than the smaller unclipped waveform" -- How is this possible? Looking at the clipped PCM signal it's obvious that the unclipped signal has a greater area underneath it, because substracting the clipped from the orignal gives a residual area (that tiny triangle like peak). Anyone care to explain this to me? Thanks. PAStheLoD ( talk) 11:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Binksternet has removed the discussion of this matter from the article on a technicality because there was no citation. The text removed on March 19 2010 at 14:37 came after:
In the frequency domain, clipping produces harmonics at higher frequencies than the unclipped signal. This additional high frequency energy has the potential to damage a loudspeaker's tweeter via overheating
The removed text was:
However, these higher frequency harmonics have less energy than the lower frequency unclipped signal. Well designed loudspeakers usually do not overheat playing white noise (which has the same energy at all frequencies) near their maximum specified power level. Therefore damage attributable to clipping-induced harmonics is rare. citation needed
I wrote that text and I think it's important to include because it addresses a common controversy that causes many people to look for information about clipping. It seems to me to be common sense info; nobody would argue that loudspeakers normally overheat playing white noise near their maximum specified power level, and I've backed up the first sentence with the Rane white paper posted in the talk section. But I don't have compliant citations that meet wiki's standards. I came up with that example as the most concise way to clearly express the idea that it's the power not the frequency that causes damage with clipping. Can anyone else figure out a way to convey that idea in a way that conforms to wikipedia's guidelines? Sprexumn ( talk) 23:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)