President Jackson Uniden TX noise...

[Frank Gilliland]

in <[email protected]>:

I stated how could one detect it without a scope? please reread my
post and comprehend better.

I reread the original post as well. It's pretty obvious, even to the
most casual observer, that you meant to say "subsonic".

100 Hz is hearable or percieved. As I stated before there is a subtle
difference bwetween audible and hearable. Yes you can "hear" 100Hz if
increase the signal power compared to a 1000Hz tone. But at equal
power desity, a 100 Hz tone by most people is not "hearable" or
audible.

I didn't see anything in his post about the loudness of this 100 Hz
noise. Whether it was "hearable" or "audible", it was detected
nonetheless. And apparently it was loud enough to cause a problem, so
it's safe to assume that this "noise" (his word) was detected without
a scope. Your damage-control explanation about subtle differences in
definitions just doesn't resonate.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

That depends on how much you bump up the boom on those 24" JBLs inside
your sub-compact riceburner. The sad thing is that when those kids go
deaf they will collect welfare for their self-inflicted disability.

Not if their application is over the phone. ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[james]

+++in <[email protected]>:
+++
+++<snip>
+++>I stated how could one detect it without a scope? please reread my
+++>post and comprehend better.
+++
+++
+++I reread the original post as well. It's pretty obvious, even to the
+++most casual observer, that you meant to say "subsonic".
+++
+++
+++>100 Hz is hearable or percieved. As I stated before there is a subtle
+++>difference bwetween audible and hearable. Yes you can "hear" 100Hz if
+++>increase the signal power compared to a 1000Hz tone. But at equal
+++>power desity, a 100 Hz tone by most people is not "hearable" or
+++>audible.
+++
+++
+++I didn't see anything in his post about the loudness of this 100 Hz
+++noise. Whether it was "hearable" or "audible", it was detected
+++nonetheless. And apparently it was loud enough to cause a problem, so
+++it's safe to assume that this "noise" (his word) was detected without
+++a scope. Your damage-control explanation about subtle differences in
+++definitions just doesn't resonate.
+++
+++

***********

That maybe true in your perception. Still my first statement is not
all that wrong. With communication receivers that I deal with have
high pass filters centered near 300Hz along with low pass filters to
filter above about 3000Hz. So if a 100Hz signal is causing
interference, it should not be heard if it is passing through the
audio block. I did forget that there is means for a low
frequency(below 300Hz) signals can bypass the audio block and get to a
speaker. Even still the quality of speakers in low tier CB radios
probably do not have that great of a frequency response. Then also a
harmonic of the 100Hz signal if large enough could pass through the
audio block.

LIke I said I never intended to get off on a tangent on audible or
hearable signal levels and human hearing response. I still thought
that I was in part correct with my first statement that a 100Hz signal
is at the low end of "hearable" and is best detected with a scope.
What I did forget is that the third harmonic and greater would be very
audible. I findeed that were the case.

If I am at fault of anything it is not taking enough to to be more
explicit and to general in my comments.

james

 

[Frank Gilliland]

***********

That maybe true in your perception. Still my first statement is not
all that wrong. With communication receivers that I deal with have
high pass filters centered near 300Hz along with low pass filters to
filter above about 3000Hz. So if a 100Hz signal is causing
interference, it should not be heard if it is passing through the
audio block.

You are assuming that the source of the noise is a signal that's
passing through the filter, and a secondary assumption that the
amplitude of that noise is low enough as to be attenuated by the
filter to 'subaudible' levels.

I did forget that there is means for a low
frequency(below 300Hz) signals can bypass the audio block and get to a
speaker. Even still the quality of speakers in low tier CB radios
probably do not have that great of a frequency response. Then also a
harmonic of the 100Hz signal if large enough could pass through the
audio block.

LIke I said I never intended to get off on a tangent on audible or
hearable signal levels and human hearing response. I still thought
that I was in part correct with my first statement that a 100Hz signal
is at the low end of "hearable" and is best detected with a scope.
What I did forget is that the third harmonic and greater would be very
audible. I findeed that were the case.

If I am at fault of anything it is not taking enough to to be more
explicit and to general in my comments.

Your first mistake was jumping to a conclusion before you had the
facts. The second was trying to obfuscate your first mistake with BS.
Have you ever thought about working at the White House?

 

[Steveo]

I have chest waders so I'm qualified I guess. May need a bullshit snorkel
too?