 Solution

Take the wind to blow toward positive $x$, so $U_0\ge 0$. In subsonic flow, both stationary observers record the source angular frequency $\omega$ and, for the imposed density boundary data, the same acoustic density perturbation amplitude ${\rho }_0|A|$. Their spatial records distinguish the wavelengths and directions:The downstream pattern moves at $c_0+U_0$ and the upstream pattern at signed velocity $U_0-c_0$. Thus the downstream observer sees longer wavelengths while the upstream observer sees shorter ones. The interval containing multiple wavelengths lets each measure the spatial spacing and its direction of travel. The arrival delays at $\pm L$ are $L/(c_0+U_0)$ and $L/(c_0-U_0)$ respectively; after arrival their temporal traces differ by these propagation phases, not by temporal frequency.

In supersonic flow, both characteristic curves have positive slopes $dx/dt=U_0\pm c_0$. With an initially undisturbed upstream region, the observer at $-L$ sees no source-generated disturbance. The observer at $+L$ can see two downstream travelling waves, withThe faster signal arrives first, at $L/(U_0+c_0)$; the slower one arrives at $L/(U_0-c_0)$. Once both are present, their different wavenumbers can produce spatial modulation, while the time dependence at a fixed position remains harmonic with angular frequency $\omega$.

There is a qualification to the source data: the single prescribed value of ${\rho }_1(0^{+},t)$ fixes only $A_{+}+A_{-}=A$. It does not determine the two complex amplitudes separately. A second source condition, such as its downstream acoustic particle velocity with amplitude $c_0(A_{+}-A_{-})$, or a specified mass/force source model, is needed. Consequently two downstream branches are allowed; the stated density data alone do not require both to have nonzero amplitude. Extending a formally upstream-going subsonic formula into $x<0$ when $U_0>c_0$ would impose a signal arriving from upstream infinity and violate the causal source interpretation.

As $U_0\to c_0$, one laboratory phase velocity tends to zero. Its wavelength tends to zero, its wavenumber diverges, and its arrival time diverges; a finite-time experiment never attains the assumed established upstream field at fixed $L$. Finite source size, viscosity, thermal losses and eventually molecular scales invalidate this singular inviscid flow limit. With effective acoustic diffusivity ${\nu }_a$, a loss estimate is ${\nu }_a{k}^2/\omega \sim {\nu }_a\omega /(U_0-c_0{)}^2$, which diverges. Moreover the finite-amplitude change in the characteristic speed is of order $c_0|A|$, so uniform linearization requires $|U_0-c_0|\gg c_0|A|$. At exactly sonic background speed, the zero-speed branch cannot support a nonzero-$\omega$ harmonic solution. Nonlinear acoustics and losses must resolve the near-sonic regime; an unlimited spatial compression of the ideal wave is not physical.