"Where does it say speakers have to be in the
human hearing range ?"
It's common knowledge that a device designed to convert electronic signals to speech and music for humans to hear would have frequency response in the human hearing range. If you tthink about the name "Loudspeaker" , the "loud" part is a reference
to volume is it not ? If it were designed to be
ultrasonic it would be called a "Silentspeaker"
would it not ? If it's obvious is there any
point in stating it ? You need only look as far
as the name given to the device : "Speaker",
which, as stated is derived from the verb
"to speak".
If that's not enough for you, you could look
at the "Frequency Response" in the "Specificatiins"
If it were designed to be above the human
hearing range I suppose you could call it a
"DogSpeaker" , or "BatSpeaker" , for
rich people who want to buy Stereo systems
for their pet dogs or bats, although admitedly,
it's probably a small market niche.
"But most speakers do not reach as low as 20 Hz and many lower quality speakers do not reach as high as 20Khz. You do have loudspeakers that go way beyond 20 Khz and a few that can respond as low as 20Hz. ... The Frequency Response specification describes the range of frequencies or musical tones a speaker can reproduce."
I have yet to find a speaker with a frequency
response that starts above the human hearing
range and goes past 40kHz.
Maybe that's because everyone who bought
one would return it saying it doesn't work
because no sound comes out and eventually
the manufacturer would go out of business.
Who would invest in such a company ?
Maybe you should start a company that makes
"DogSpeakers". But then wouldn't you need
to hire a think tank to find out what kind of music
dogs like ?
I suspect your next question is:
"Where does it say that speakers are made
for humans ?"
Get a proper dictionary or read the first paragrapgs of these links:
Words can have a long history and don't always (exclusively) mean what they sound like. E.g.: inflammable, irregardless, pineapple and let's not forget MICROphone. Blowjob is another good one.
Besides that I clearly said "ultrasonic speaker". So even if a speaker could only generate sounds in the human range of hearing (which is not in its defitition), the term "ultrasonic speaker" would have a different definition. I mean you can talk about "a blue banana" or "a flying pig" without a problem, even if bananas are by definition yellow and pigs can't fly by definition. That's how language works.
Still waiting for your evidence on the common usage of words like transducer. And while you're on it attach your full definition of speaker including your source, as you claimed "by definition, it's not a speaker, since speakers are made to be heard.".
If it's ultrasonic , by definition it isn't a speaker, it's a transducer because as everyone ELSE already
knows, speakers were made for humans, not bats or dogs. You might wonder, "Why don't they just
call it a transducer ?" I submit that when they made the first 'speaker' they wanted to give it a name
that clearly indicates it is a transducer designed specifically for audible audio range (human hearing
range). As technology advanced they were able to extend the frequency response above 20kHz to
for a higher quality audio application. In short, the name speaker , means a transducer for the human
hearing range. (hence the name), which is why the term "ultrasonic speaker" is a contradiction in
terms because the second word contradicts the first. Have you asked yourself why it is called that ? (I think not, because then you would have to admit that you were wrong.
Here's your evidence:
Regardless of their design, the purpose of speakers is to produce audio output that can be heard by the listener. Speakers are transducers that convert electromagnetic waves into sound waves. The speakers receive audio input from a device such as a computer or an audio receive
Are you now going to suggest "the listener" is a bat or are you going to concede that there is a
pretty good chance 'the listener' is human ?
What is the function of a speaker ?
But you know what ? You obviously are more interested in protecting your ego than learning electronics
so call it anything you like. Just know that when you do, you are showing your ignorance because
everyone else on the forum or anywhere else, knows to call an ultrasonic device a 'transducer', not a
speaker.
I'm done. I'm not wasting my time with you any more.
Have a nice life.
You don't have to be a human to be a listener. Listener is a term that's being used for all sorts of receiving devices (like microphones) and even for certain programming constructs (event listeners) and I'm sure the usage of this word goes far beyond that.
So your "evidence" just supports what I already said.
Ultrasonic speaker is a perfectly valid term.
Since you have failed to provide evidence on your weird claims about the "common usage" of words like transducer, I'm going to conclude that you can't because it's not true. I mean seriously? "A transducer is exactly the opposite of a speaker." That's probably the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while.
"I'm done."
I have a hard time beliving that, but I really hope you are, I mean you are the one who insisted on having this discussion in the first place. I hope you see that it has been pointless from the very beginning because evidently everyone understood me and no one but you complained about my terminology.
Well, have fun acusing other people of their ignorance and their ego. I hope you'll find a mirror one day.
