In Reply to: Re: Playing the devil's advocate posted by Ted Smith on June 19, 2006 at 16:28:52:
I am not familiar with this particular model or design but my initial reaction is one of extreme skepticism. It seems to me it is full of pitfalls and drawbacks not the least of which is that it responds to ambient sounds which are not indicative of the cone's position. The correct design goal is to correct for the difference between where the electrical signal driving the cone/voice coil combination would put it and where it actually is at any given instant and that is all. Anything which introduces extraneous variables will inevitably compromise performance probably to a degree where it often degrades, not improves performance. Unless I saw convincing evidence to the contrary, I would choose a non feedback model instead. Did you say this design was offered by Velodyne? As I recall, their usual design incorporated accelerometers as sensors. Ideally, a feedback element would look at instantaneous position directly but the next best sensor is a velocimeter and following that an accelerometer. This is because the signal from a true position indicator requires no further correction than proportioning while a velocimeter requrires an integrator and an accelerometer requires double integraton. This can introduce further errors in determining position compromising the accuracy of the correction signal. With a name like "Velodyne" you'd think they'd use velocimeters wouldn't you?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Playing the devil's advocate - Soundmind 02:43:23 06/20/06 (3)
- Re: Playing the devil's advocate - Ted Smith 09:38:20 06/20/06 (2)
- Re: Playing the devil's advocate - Soundmind 10:36:50 06/20/06 (1)
- Re: Playing the devil's advocate - Ted Smith 14:57:18 06/20/06 (0)