This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Here are some things I think need fixing up:
Also there are a few more minor points. I would fix these if the above was fixed.
Keithdunwoody 01:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the second paragraph, but this is the only place I actually changed facts:
original: "so it seems to the [listener] that the sound appears to be emanating from himself/herself."
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. It should only sound like it's coming from oneself if the beam is hitting their body, not if it's hitting another object, in which case it would sound like it's coming from that object.
This is an assumption (sorry). Megatronium 05:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It definitely still needs more general cleanup. More references, and better grammar, fixing things like fragments starting with "like." -- Howdybob 13:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall an article a few years back mentioning the use of "directable audio" in psychological warfare (for instance, making an enemy believe his peers to be plotting his death, or that they are surrounded by a mass armed force, or as a useful interrogation technique - "I'm going crazy"). I can't cite the specific article, but there is definitely a Military use for this technology, especially nowadays. Ugly article though. :=)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.77.211 ( talk) 08:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've placed the NPOV tag on this article. As it stands, the article is extremely poor, and is largely an advertisemant for a product. The fact that the article only uses the trademarked name for American Technology Corporation's process, rather than the generic name (I scarcely think that the US government was doing research under this title) makes the article as it stands an advertisement. Given that the cleanup tag has been on this article for two months now, I would also support deletion. AKAF 07:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I debolded the blatent bolding / advertising of the name. Should have no more point of view problems! I hope this helps. Stovetopcookies 08:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The first instance of the title should be bold though. I stil have other concerns. See below. -- Howdybob 12:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This article has some info that might be relevant but it's still looks like an ad, apparently using a trademark of the American Technology Corporation for the article title. Per above, the military didn't call it "Hypersonic sound" when researching did it? It should either be deleted or re-written in more general terms, with a mention of "Hypersonic Sound". There should be a general name for the method & article, something like "Ultrasonic intermodulation".
It should either be rewritten a bit & renamed, or merged, maybe with Loudspeaker#Converting_ultrasound_to_audible_sound or Directional Sound.
I'm putting back a different NPOV tag because there's more to it than the bold text. It needs to be made clear whether HyperSonic Sound is a trademark, whether the "audio spotlight" is the same thing or another company's implementation, and what other research has been done by others. It should be moved to a more general, neutral title. -- Howdybob 12:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I've edit this heavily and think it should stand as HyperSonic Sound as this is likely to become the name for it , much as hoover/dyson became both the commercial and descriptive name for a vacuum cleaner. There is much to be found that refers to Hypersonic sound - though i cant find a ref of a patent for that name from ATC. i am unsure how to edit the contents bit as i would like to add a criticism section regarding ethics of using hypersound.
-- Sparkymarkx, 21 August 2006
This has since been reedited - once by an anonymous collaborating on my last edit and again by me today to clean sentence structure up a bit and link to ultrasound article. I think NPOV is fixed now. Sparkymark x 10 September 2006.
Sennheiser has a speaker now on the market called Audiobeam. 13:40, 19 April 2007 User:85.235.16.21
I know there were NPOV issues before, but I really like the name "Audio Spotlight". I know it is a brand name now, but was first coined in 1983, which makes it ok to use in my book. And no, I have no links with the current owner of the brand name!
Skinduptruk 13:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thinking it over, it does need to refer to the fact that the sound generated is formed in an extremely narrow beam (15 deg) compared to any conventional loudspeaker (30+ deg), although this varies with frequency - this is what makes it cool in the first place. So "directional sound from ultrasound" or "sound beams from ultrasound" might be a start. Skinduptruk ( talk) 10:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
First time wiki user here - in fact this article drew me in!
I have quite a lot to add to the article as it stands, with a good number of sources.
Any comments before I jump in? I hope to get started tomorrow.
Skinduptruk 15:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a cut down version of a few chapters of my graduate engineering thesis, so forgive any 'anti-wiki' slip ups. I'm keen to discuss any issues, as I still find the effect fascinating. I worked on this technology for about 3 years, in which time I built my own system and heard the effect many times. I'm looking forward to any talk that my first wiki edit may bring!
Skinduptruk 13:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed the inline "bracketed number" references to be wikipedia-style footnotes (which has several advantages, including automatically keeping them in the order they appear in the article, and keeping the text of the cite with the statement it is used as a reference for in the source code), but there are still style issues (talking about the source in the article, e.g. stuff like "can be found at [9]", doesn't flow well.) — Random832 22:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses TeX syntax to format math formulas. Should the equation
p2(t) = K . P^2 . d/dt^2 ( E^2(t) )
appear as
or
—
Random832 22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
To start off, I don't know anything about the subject, but the first form seems like the right form. The second looks wrong to me. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 22:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I anticipate the safety issues will become important so here is a section for them Skinduptruk ( talk) 14:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody correct the section on Modulation? It's incredibly incorrect. You might be able to safely delete the entire thing. The figure is particularly wrong. Here's a passage that makes a little more sense, but could use some peer review. I also have the associated example images, but my account isn't priv'd enough to upload them. They'd be easy enough to replicate.
Here is the passage I had in mind:
The nonlinear interaction results in the mixing of ultrasonic tones in air to produce sum and difference frequencies. A DSB-AM modulation scheme with an appropriately large baseband DC offset, in order to produce the demodulating tone superimposed on the modulated audio spectra, is one method of generating the signal that encodes the desired baseband audio spectra. This technique suffers from extremely heavy distortion as not only the demodulating tone interferes but also every frequency carried on it with each other. The modulated spectra is convolved with itself. This distortion is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the DC offset (demodulation tone) superimposed on the signal. A larger tone results in less distortion. The audio spectra is further distorted by the nature of the nonlinear acoustic effect. The result is filtering of the desired signal by the function -<\omega>^2 in frequency. This distortion may be equalized out with the use of preemphasis filtering.
By the time convolution property of the fourier transform, multiplication in the time domain is a convolution in the frequency domain. Convolution between a baseband signal and a unity gain carrier frequency shifts the baseband spectra in frequency and halves its magnitude, as shown in [Fig] (shows both positive and negative sides of the x-axis).
The modulation depth m is a convenient experimental parameter when assessing the total harmonic distortion in the demodulated signal. It is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the DC offset. THD increases proportionally with the square of m[1].
These distorting effects may be better mitigated by using another modulation scheme that takes advantage of the differential squaring device nature of the nonlinear acoustic effect. Modulation of the second integral of the square root of the desired baseband audio signal, without adding a DC offset, results in convolution in frequency of the modulated spectra with itself due to the nonlinear channel effects. This convolution in frequency is a multiplication in time of the signal by itself, or a squaring. The double integration corrects for the -<\omega>^2 filtering characteristic associated with the nonlinear acoustic effect. This recovers the original spectra and is illustrated in [Fig].
If somebody would be kind enough to fix that, I'd be grateful!
Orac281 ( talk) 06:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This section appears to be poorly-written, barely coherent, unreferenced conspiracy-theory nonsense. In my opinion should be deleted. QuipQuotch ( talk) 20:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Sound from ultrasound. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sound from ultrasound. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sound from ultrasound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Here are some things I think need fixing up:
Also there are a few more minor points. I would fix these if the above was fixed.
Keithdunwoody 01:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the second paragraph, but this is the only place I actually changed facts:
original: "so it seems to the [listener] that the sound appears to be emanating from himself/herself."
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. It should only sound like it's coming from oneself if the beam is hitting their body, not if it's hitting another object, in which case it would sound like it's coming from that object.
This is an assumption (sorry). Megatronium 05:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It definitely still needs more general cleanup. More references, and better grammar, fixing things like fragments starting with "like." -- Howdybob 13:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall an article a few years back mentioning the use of "directable audio" in psychological warfare (for instance, making an enemy believe his peers to be plotting his death, or that they are surrounded by a mass armed force, or as a useful interrogation technique - "I'm going crazy"). I can't cite the specific article, but there is definitely a Military use for this technology, especially nowadays. Ugly article though. :=)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.77.211 ( talk) 08:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've placed the NPOV tag on this article. As it stands, the article is extremely poor, and is largely an advertisemant for a product. The fact that the article only uses the trademarked name for American Technology Corporation's process, rather than the generic name (I scarcely think that the US government was doing research under this title) makes the article as it stands an advertisement. Given that the cleanup tag has been on this article for two months now, I would also support deletion. AKAF 07:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I debolded the blatent bolding / advertising of the name. Should have no more point of view problems! I hope this helps. Stovetopcookies 08:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The first instance of the title should be bold though. I stil have other concerns. See below. -- Howdybob 12:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This article has some info that might be relevant but it's still looks like an ad, apparently using a trademark of the American Technology Corporation for the article title. Per above, the military didn't call it "Hypersonic sound" when researching did it? It should either be deleted or re-written in more general terms, with a mention of "Hypersonic Sound". There should be a general name for the method & article, something like "Ultrasonic intermodulation".
It should either be rewritten a bit & renamed, or merged, maybe with Loudspeaker#Converting_ultrasound_to_audible_sound or Directional Sound.
I'm putting back a different NPOV tag because there's more to it than the bold text. It needs to be made clear whether HyperSonic Sound is a trademark, whether the "audio spotlight" is the same thing or another company's implementation, and what other research has been done by others. It should be moved to a more general, neutral title. -- Howdybob 12:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I've edit this heavily and think it should stand as HyperSonic Sound as this is likely to become the name for it , much as hoover/dyson became both the commercial and descriptive name for a vacuum cleaner. There is much to be found that refers to Hypersonic sound - though i cant find a ref of a patent for that name from ATC. i am unsure how to edit the contents bit as i would like to add a criticism section regarding ethics of using hypersound.
-- Sparkymarkx, 21 August 2006
This has since been reedited - once by an anonymous collaborating on my last edit and again by me today to clean sentence structure up a bit and link to ultrasound article. I think NPOV is fixed now. Sparkymark x 10 September 2006.
Sennheiser has a speaker now on the market called Audiobeam. 13:40, 19 April 2007 User:85.235.16.21
I know there were NPOV issues before, but I really like the name "Audio Spotlight". I know it is a brand name now, but was first coined in 1983, which makes it ok to use in my book. And no, I have no links with the current owner of the brand name!
Skinduptruk 13:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thinking it over, it does need to refer to the fact that the sound generated is formed in an extremely narrow beam (15 deg) compared to any conventional loudspeaker (30+ deg), although this varies with frequency - this is what makes it cool in the first place. So "directional sound from ultrasound" or "sound beams from ultrasound" might be a start. Skinduptruk ( talk) 10:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
First time wiki user here - in fact this article drew me in!
I have quite a lot to add to the article as it stands, with a good number of sources.
Any comments before I jump in? I hope to get started tomorrow.
Skinduptruk 15:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a cut down version of a few chapters of my graduate engineering thesis, so forgive any 'anti-wiki' slip ups. I'm keen to discuss any issues, as I still find the effect fascinating. I worked on this technology for about 3 years, in which time I built my own system and heard the effect many times. I'm looking forward to any talk that my first wiki edit may bring!
Skinduptruk 13:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed the inline "bracketed number" references to be wikipedia-style footnotes (which has several advantages, including automatically keeping them in the order they appear in the article, and keeping the text of the cite with the statement it is used as a reference for in the source code), but there are still style issues (talking about the source in the article, e.g. stuff like "can be found at [9]", doesn't flow well.) — Random832 22:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses TeX syntax to format math formulas. Should the equation
p2(t) = K . P^2 . d/dt^2 ( E^2(t) )
appear as
or
—
Random832 22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
To start off, I don't know anything about the subject, but the first form seems like the right form. The second looks wrong to me. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 22:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I anticipate the safety issues will become important so here is a section for them Skinduptruk ( talk) 14:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody correct the section on Modulation? It's incredibly incorrect. You might be able to safely delete the entire thing. The figure is particularly wrong. Here's a passage that makes a little more sense, but could use some peer review. I also have the associated example images, but my account isn't priv'd enough to upload them. They'd be easy enough to replicate.
Here is the passage I had in mind:
The nonlinear interaction results in the mixing of ultrasonic tones in air to produce sum and difference frequencies. A DSB-AM modulation scheme with an appropriately large baseband DC offset, in order to produce the demodulating tone superimposed on the modulated audio spectra, is one method of generating the signal that encodes the desired baseband audio spectra. This technique suffers from extremely heavy distortion as not only the demodulating tone interferes but also every frequency carried on it with each other. The modulated spectra is convolved with itself. This distortion is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the DC offset (demodulation tone) superimposed on the signal. A larger tone results in less distortion. The audio spectra is further distorted by the nature of the nonlinear acoustic effect. The result is filtering of the desired signal by the function -<\omega>^2 in frequency. This distortion may be equalized out with the use of preemphasis filtering.
By the time convolution property of the fourier transform, multiplication in the time domain is a convolution in the frequency domain. Convolution between a baseband signal and a unity gain carrier frequency shifts the baseband spectra in frequency and halves its magnitude, as shown in [Fig] (shows both positive and negative sides of the x-axis).
The modulation depth m is a convenient experimental parameter when assessing the total harmonic distortion in the demodulated signal. It is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the DC offset. THD increases proportionally with the square of m[1].
These distorting effects may be better mitigated by using another modulation scheme that takes advantage of the differential squaring device nature of the nonlinear acoustic effect. Modulation of the second integral of the square root of the desired baseband audio signal, without adding a DC offset, results in convolution in frequency of the modulated spectra with itself due to the nonlinear channel effects. This convolution in frequency is a multiplication in time of the signal by itself, or a squaring. The double integration corrects for the -<\omega>^2 filtering characteristic associated with the nonlinear acoustic effect. This recovers the original spectra and is illustrated in [Fig].
If somebody would be kind enough to fix that, I'd be grateful!
Orac281 ( talk) 06:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This section appears to be poorly-written, barely coherent, unreferenced conspiracy-theory nonsense. In my opinion should be deleted. QuipQuotch ( talk) 20:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Sound from ultrasound. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sound from ultrasound. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sound from ultrasound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)