i think the suggestion was positive and negative polarity from a single wire = one speaker per wire.
this can work.. but usually the slew rate is worse and the voltage from the amp needs to be higher.
when two wires are used, one for push and one for pull, then the changing of push or pull for the cone is faster.
you might design one that works really good, but then the industry leaders would come along and show you that there is also an improvement when using two wires.
you could spend $2,000 on parts to build your own amplifier that uses one wire.. then a 2 wire option will come along and totally embarass the one wire amp.
there are time constraints in the cord when you switch from a positive signal to a negative signal.
a cord could be specially made for switching between polarity.. but it wont sound as good when used as a positive or negative only.
the time domain can be said to be a factor of 4 times worse when using only one cord, because the whole scheme is quantified.
we talked about cords the other day.. and you can clearly understand, when the cord molecules push forward on the molecules in front of it.. if you ask the molecules to 'walk backwards' they would have to be connected to eachother.
that being connected can transfer more transients.. but if the polarity switched, it would be like a car pile up going forwards that needs to be stopped and done again in reverse.
the time it takes for the cars to switch gears is one slur.
the different times the vehicles start to actually move is another slur.
then, there is the voice coil and the crossover itself that has to tend to the change.
professional drivers could say 'all of our bumpers are already touching for the forward collsion.. and all of them will be touching for the reverse collision'
and that certainly helps.. but sometimes different vehicles are used and the whole line of cars has to wait until each car has switched gears.
some take longer to engage into gear than others.
and if all of the cars are the same.. the pressure on the bumpers would still cause a time delay.
they would have to have their frames welded together to be as tight as possible.
the crossover wouldnt get upset much.. because it has to deal with the polarity changes anyways.
but the component piece doing all of the flipping of polarity would draw all the way back to something as simple as having an output pin for each polarity, or a single output pin for both polarities.
some would say the component doing all of the polarity flipping would actually be faster if it only had one pin.. because it wouldnt have to wiggle its way to the second pin.
others would say the chip would have ghost traces of positive and negative, and if they mix together on the same pin.. then the output is mudded.
getting the positive ghosts on the one side for that pin.. and the negative ghosts on the other side for the other pin.. that can really remove clarity.
for a person to design one of these chips.. it all depends on the materials they have available.
if you have ghosting for both positive and negative.. then maybe you can shove all of the excess to one side and hear only half of the remnants.
we all know good and well that a DAC has more pins than four.
so it would be advised that each portion of the dac is actually doing its own part of the frequency response.
it would be good to see the DAC layed out like an real time analyzer response.
with the bass on the left, the midrange in the middle and the treble on the right.
and then something to seperate all of the digital data into the three categories.
that helps remove the problematic requests from portions of the DAC that absolutely refuse to work correctly with those requests.
and it means a possible less production cost of the DAC when the material used can be inferior for other octaves and used only for its intended purpose.
wouldnt it be weird if the DAC chip could be picked up and soldered on upside down because all of its efforts are backwards and the real quality is hidden because the DAC is upside down?
i would say that the data voltage would probably be higher at the left and lower at the right.. so if you put it in upside down the DAC is going to overheat.
and electronics people know how hard it is too cut or boost electricity without affecting its integrity.
you take the chance of ruining the DAC because it was never upside down to begin with.
and i cant solder something that small.. so i wouldnt dare try it.
and the data sheets for the DACs all say that the pins are much more detailed than simply data in and analog audio out.
meaning.. things like sync would have to be moved.
but finding this to be true.. then the quality of the DAC is that of how rectangle it is and how much quality the material is.
cutting the octaves into more pieces should help improve the materials reactive response more and more.
and if the materials are inferior to perfect, it would allow the design to at least form a template for when the higher quality materials are used.
but then again..
all of those octaves would have to feed into the same feed.. and if those feeds touch eachother, it could drown out one or more octaves.. meaning the amplifier would need to be setup for each octave seperately.. and then a stage would have to be made that allows the different octaves to finally touch eachother.
probably easier to do it with the amplifier section than the DAC.
i think the cost of the wires would inevitably go up if all of the molecules where welded to eachother AND ment for a full 180 degree of polarity flip.
certainly a fun hobby to change things around.. but consider how some amplifier components are designed for negative and some are designed for positive.
if you combine those, it will cost more for each piece and the quality would need to be re-worked again.
or if that is backwards.. it would need re-worked again anyways.
but
it should always be cheaper to ask a single piece to do half the job.
to pay the same price is to have the quality improved since it is only doing half the polarity.
my life must receive improvements.. that much i do know.
and i wouldnt be all that upset to help other people get some improvements too.
because i would love to see how society changes with all of the improvements to be had.
people should generally be happier = nicer to other people.
a more relaxed atmosphere outside from all of the ambient energy.
and a more violent atmosphere from those who simply cannot afford to participate at all?
one for all of the philosophers and psychologists of the world.
)
Facebook
Twitter