Of course it can. However, not everything can be measured with an AP in a form where humans can easily understand how measurement results relate to SQ.
For those that only think in terms of what they read in some amplifier measurement book or website, suppose you have a power amp that displays different distortion numbers depending on signal amplitude and depending on frequency. Further suppose another amplifier measures similarly, but people say one sounds good and the other one not so good. Are the measurements fully informing us as to what is going on? Are we safe jumping to a conclusion that any reported listening differences are imaginary? I don't think so. Outside of the forum I have discussed some possible reasons by which that could happen and how the effects might be more sensibly measured. In fact, people who design analog and or digital audio signal processors for recording and mastering of music know how to measure a lot more than most amplifier designers do. While nonlinear, time-variant signal processing is not supposed to be going on in power amps, it possibly could be an unintended side effect occurring at a rather low level. Another thing nobody bothers to measure for is intermodulation of noise with signal. Why not? Its measurable and it can affect sound.
So you see, when people carry on about other people imagining things that can't be measured, I see it as being possibly ill-informed opinion.
Last edited:
Sometimes they have the support of a scientician of the highest qualification with an oddly unique view of how things work.
Hi Eddie,
I'm not sure when that material was published, it could be searched but I don't care to. I do know that I also began be measuring the drivers myself to generate the T-S parameters, and by calculating everything the math actually agreed with what I could measure. I thought that was astounding and so I followed that same recipe until I stopped designing in the early 90's or late 80's.
I was in my final year of high school when i was designing systems as a paid job. Probably grade 13.
I'm not sure when that material was published, it could be searched but I don't care to. I do know that I also began be measuring the drivers myself to generate the T-S parameters, and by calculating everything the math actually agreed with what I could measure. I thought that was astounding and so I followed that same recipe until I stopped designing in the early 90's or late 80's.
I was in my final year of high school when i was designing systems as a paid job. Probably grade 13.
T-S parameters as used today were presented in a 1981 paper by Richard Small. Thiele/Small parameters - Wikipedia It was based on work going back to the 1950s.
In the 1970s, people talked about free air resonance and efficiency. Obviously the procedure I used took an indirect measurement of Q, but I didn't learn about all that until much later. I just knew a stiffer speaker needs a bigger enclosure. Measuring the impedance curve of the finished product told me everything I needed to know. And even though I've used online calculators to design boxes, that impedance curve still tells me a lot.
In the 1970s, people talked about free air resonance and efficiency. Obviously the procedure I used took an indirect measurement of Q, but I didn't learn about all that until much later. I just knew a stiffer speaker needs a bigger enclosure. Measuring the impedance curve of the finished product told me everything I needed to know. And even though I've used online calculators to design boxes, that impedance curve still tells me a lot.
Hi Eddie,
Never did it that way. I used the added weight to the cone method, as well as the free air vs a known box volume. Always correcting for cone volume and air density.
Yes, the stiffer the cone suspension, the larger box is needed. Some speakers are just simply unhappy no matter what. The speaker determines whether it "wants" a sealed or ported box.
Never did it that way. I used the added weight to the cone method, as well as the free air vs a known box volume. Always correcting for cone volume and air density.
Yes, the stiffer the cone suspension, the larger box is needed. Some speakers are just simply unhappy no matter what. The speaker determines whether it "wants" a sealed or ported box.
When I was young, we had a wall phone rotary dial in the kitchen.
That was IT.... until to 1970's and my parents put an extension phone in their bedroom.
I can understand feeling out of place in today's society.
Not just because we're older, but because we see the shallowness of the younger generation, grabbed by the nuts with their cellphone technology.
It's true though, we're living among zombies in a never-ending episode of The Twilight Zone.
The gap may have been the same but perhaps it's becoming more noticeable due to more people having access to express their opinion publicly.
In your opinion, of course.
If you have to ask, you won't understand the explanations. Given that you have a specific reason for registering on this forum, you aren't really seeking explanations for the above circumstance.
Another FUD post.
Didn't everyone have a rotary phone in the kitchen? Just for reference, that phone is called a 2554 (at least the touch tone version is). The desk phone is a 2500 set, and is the standard used by Bell to check lines. I still spec it as the standard phone in industrial applications. They just work - every time.
Phone calls were not that common, and long distance was a big deal.
-Chris
Phone calls were not that common, and long distance was a big deal.
-Chris
They said the same thing about us, with our loud music and bell bottoms.
Of course, I don't remember people in our generation talking about flat earth, a 6000 year old earth, or gravity being a hoax either. That stuff has come on strong since about 1980 or so. Now in the US about a third of the people think the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and flat earth and the gravity "hoax" are gaining by leaps and bounds. This is made possible by relentless misinformation; there's evidently big bucks in spreading this crap, because there's huge political lobbies (like the so-called "Discovery"
Institute Discovery Institute | Public policy think tank advancing a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation.) that spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Washington and harassing school boards to teach this $### to our precious children. They also flood social media with relentless lying trolls. There's way more money evidently in lies than there is in reality. Science is now Public Enemy #1.The stupid hurts.
People tend to believe in a deity, too. Same BS to me and it comes with that 6000 year thing mentioned...
Basically, most people are stupid and gullible IMHO.
My favourite is t he picture of an outlet with "key cleaner" written above it. I wonder how many people found out the hard way that it isn't?
"You do not have the right to spread misinformation" sounds a lot like making lying illegal. Not a bad idea, but how do you enforce it?
Now if there was a Borg Collective style shared mind, lying would be impossible.
Basically, most people are stupid and gullible IMHO.
My favourite is t he picture of an outlet with "key cleaner" written above it. I wonder how many people found out the hard way that it isn't?
"You do not have the right to spread misinformation" sounds a lot like making lying illegal. Not a bad idea, but how do you enforce it?
Now if there was a Borg Collective style shared mind, lying would be impossible.
They said the same thing about us, with our loud music and bell bottoms.
Of course, I don't remember people in our generation talking about flat earth, a 6000 year old earth, or gravity being a hoax either. That stuff has come on strong since about 1980 or so. Now in the US about a third of the people think the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and flat earth and the gravity "hoax" are gaining by leaps and bounds. This is made possible by relentless misinformation; there's evidently big bucks in spreading this crap, because there's huge political lobbies (like the so-called "Discovery"
The stupid hurts.
I agree with you on that stuff.
Being Old School, with old school values isn't trendy or socially acceptable these days.
And don't get me started on how schools are run these days!
When "I" went to school, we LEARNED things.... we learned a trade, how to read, write, and 'rithmatic.
And history...
Today.....?
Bunch of garbage, obscene teachings, propoganda, to indoctrinate young minds early.
This is a dilemma we face. Is it child abuse to teach a child, in science class, that the earth is 6000 years old? I think it is.
Look at that website I linked to. Notice that they have dozens, maybe hundreds, of credentialed academics quacking their agenda. Why in the world would a PhD astrophysicist devote their lives to such a blatant quack institution? MONEY. They get paid way more to prostitute their credentials than they would doing honest work. And that is a problem.
Exactly.
Enforcing the truth starts with teaching children right and wrong, respect, and how to think for themselves. But you are right, difficult to enforce.
It would be nice to warn people officially about a fact, then charge or label them if they continue. Eventually being stuck with the label of "liar".
Enforcing the truth starts with teaching children right and wrong, respect, and how to think for themselves. But you are right, difficult to enforce.
It would be nice to warn people officially about a fact, then charge or label them if they continue. Eventually being stuck with the label of "liar".
- Status
- Not open for further replies.