Well, I think what others were saying is that they understand it as the possible peak. That makes sense to me, and is the peak you would be interested in.
best,
S.
On 6 Dec 2014, at 14:36, Sam Potter <sfp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Agreed. The point of the sentence is that it can go as high as two. The fact that it varies based on the freqs involved is not really the point.
The point of the original sentence was that the resultant peak amplitude is always twice the original peak amplitude. I'm not sure how you can misconstrue the meaning of the sentence as anything other than this, unless the meaning of the word "is" is ambiguous to you... :-)
That said, I do agree that the fact that it varies based on the playback and beat frequencies isn't the point -- seeing as there is no mention (or consideration) of that in the original sentence. :-)
_______________________________________________
sc-dev mailing list
info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/
search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/
_______________________________________________
sc-dev mailing list
info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/
search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/