Ed's back.
We did cover the last one at length (so to speak) and there was an amazing amount of disagreement from all sides.
Thanks,
I have been following the thread and opinions here are of course fixed. It is a shame I actually make mistakes and even on rare occasions learn something new from them. ( I recall you might have had a bit with the term non-ohmic.)
I did sign an NDA. It covers quite a bit of what was discussed, of course I can't even tell you what part. It came out of someone visiting one of my projects for the first time and understanding the scope and scale.
But I have said before RLC is an incomplete model.
Now who is the better artist Rembrandt or Picasso?
That was a point I tried to make earlier, KHM. 
Even if we state that we want constant dB output (in home listening, not prosound with HF loss) across the audio spectrum, our amp requirements up top are *usually* much lower given the higher sensitivity of tweeters and no need for them to baffle compensate to boot.
Edit: good luck on your new endeavor, Ed.
Even if we state that we want constant dB output (in home listening, not prosound with HF loss) across the audio spectrum, our amp requirements up top are *usually* much lower given the higher sensitivity of tweeters and no need for them to baffle compensate to boot.Edit: good luck on your new endeavor, Ed.
Of course, there is a difference when reproducing a square wave accurately if we are measuring at the output of an amplifier, or air pressure out of a speaker. When the amplifier and speaker are integrated together into a single composite system, then the transfer function from line level input to air pressure output would seem to be more applicable. If all we know about is an amplifier and there is sufficient uncertainty about whatever transducers may be used, then it may make more sense to talk about the transfer function of the amplifier in isolation.
I didn't say I was doing anything!
I am unfamiliar with any Fourier series of a real tone that has a sharper rise time of a square wave. That would seem to limit the harmonic structure. However the issue becomes what is the highest fundamental of a tone we wish to reproduce. I would suspect that would limit the F1 of such a tone to either 6,600 or 10,000 hertz and probably needs to be much lower to have any desirable timbre.
Having spent a bit of time on the spectra of musical energy being reproduced under extreme conditions, there are folks who perform with less than 10 dB dynamic range. (Disregarding mine and others opinions as to what is music.) So it is possible to require the same amplitude from a high frequency driver up to 10,000 hertz as the rest of the system. I am unfamiliar with high frequency drivers that are less efficient that the other drivers. However the bandwidth of the high frequency drivers is often much wider than the other drivers. This would indicate that under some near field listening conditions the high frequency section could require more power than the rest of the system!
As I normally listen to music the model is that the energy peaks between 50 - 350 hertz and decreases at 3 dB per octave above that. This model has done very well for warranty purposes. (The newer the recording the lower the peak frequency.)
So what I consider good engineering practice would allow the use of smaller amplifiers for the higher frequency section based on roll off and bandwidth.
Last edited:
It was weird though that they seemed so intent on sending me money. In fact they even sent me more than I asked for, and I doubt that it was out of the goodness of their hearts.
I supposed that the NDA issue related to the better-known rule that contracts have to be to the benefit of both parties to have legal force, but perhaps not.
I guess I'll have to ask a lawyer and hope that she tells me the truth.
The compensation needed to make the contract valid is the information to be revealed. Normally, that is explicitly stated in the NDA. "... in return for valuable information, the recipient hereby agrees..."
What matters is that the parties have agreed in writing that the information is deemed to be valuable by them.
Anyone in JC's rarefied customer base would be doing Subzero's and they don't stick.
Did I say that?wahab said:
Regarding UK NDAs, the Goverment says that it is a contract. It must be a somewhat strange sort of contract, because normally a contract requires you to do something in exchange for consideration. An NDA requires you not to do something, but there is no consideration - unless the information itself is the consideration?
This says that the law of equity applies to an NDA, rather than contract law. Or at least, equity gives better compensation for disclosure.
Yes you need G. The assumption was that all energy lost is due to heat, we were talking no external fields and shielded cables.
Clearly a preference issue neither pretends to be a perfect representation of life. What sounds better a Wavac or Cary SET or a Bryston?
Last edited:
Double checked with our legal department. "You may notice that our company enters into thousands of NDAs each month and that none of them involve payment."
Many NDA forms have caveats that will say unless the information is already known to the signor before the discussion or disclosure or something about public knowledge, so there is usually some wiggle room in them. They are basically a way to protect trade secrets more than to block you from using some knowledge you already posses.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.