I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[Steve Eddy]

Originally Posted by planet10

That doesn't make sense. EMF is caused by a wire & a magnetic field in relative motion.... a fixed inductor is not moving in a magnetic field, it is the whole basis of how a dynamic loudspeaker works.

EMF is caused by a changing magnetic field impinging on the coil of wire, whether it's due to the coil moving within a magnetic field (such as with a moving coil cartridge), a magnetic field moving within the coil (such as a moving magnet cartridge), or by a change in current flowing through the coil of wire (such as an inductor).

In a dynamic loudspeaker, the cone's mass, the compliance of the surround and spyder, and the frictional losses of the two combine to form a damped resonant system which models electrically as inductance, capacitance and resistance.

And the EMF of a loudspeaker is the same as the EMF of an inductor.

Jeeez, just look at the most basic physics of an inductor. EMF = -L (delta I/delta t).

se

[BudP]

It is this lack of moving parts that causes most folks to think that designing transformers is a Black Art, and what attracted me to them in the first place. The no moving parts bit, though, considering the land wars I am responsible for starting on this site, I suppose the Black Art bit could also be relevant....

Bud

[destroyer X]

I will, by myself unsubscribe:


C'mon guys, let's stop with this delirium..let’s try to
set our foot on earth, have the good sense to realize that
we represent the elite of DIY, this is the best wide world forum and we have a lot of people that deserves respect ... these fantasies, delusions, they are going too long and it just cooperates to our discredit, to humiliate us before the international audio communitty..already read and heard that audio lovers, also passionated people, professionals and musicians think we are pseudo scientists, arrogant and pretentious and fans of myths, the creators, the transmitters, propagators and perpetuators of myths and absurd ideas.. they say we complicate everything not referenced into the science, the physics and common sense.. that we use to looking for lice into bald man heads.

Give us a break friends, and keep with yourselves all those dreams of deep imagination..all that stuff is a shame for us, so many opinions without any scientific basis and support..without having a comparison testing… based on “I feel”..or “I believe”… egocentric and individual ideas beeing spread into a communitary international forum… ideas alike (I can hear better than others) are ridiculous..we are all the same folks..our genetics are 99 percent the same around the world..we all came from Africa.

This is turning too much .. stressing all maximum levels of tolerance to people that is reading all those absurdities that are showing us ridiculous in front of the world.


We are not we the only ones who read these posts and
threads .... everyone reads ... and lower the level that way reduces our importance as respectable members of the audio international community.. not only that but also rave those who tolerate the continuation of threads containing material so unscientific and unreasonable.

My vote is to end this discussion, or to be moved to a less important forum part as “everything else” or “crazy imaginative things”

regards,

Carlos

[Andre Visser]

[Curly Woods]

Originally Posted by SY

Yes. Conscious ones, too. I remember the early days of The Audio Critic- if a speaker didn't use a KEF T27 tweeter, the highs were no good.

Peter Aczel was never an advocate for anyone that seriously listens to anything but his prose about how smart he is and how dumb everyone else is. That is why he publication is the smallest circulation of all the audio rags that I am aware of. No one reads him that I am aware of anymore.

[doug20]

meant to suggest that a cable thread will interest "purists" more, if that doesn't interest you why bother in a cable thread.

Any Cable discussion shouldn't be exclusionary. I live in that exclusionary world (gated communities, private clubs, etc) I defy them all the time and I will defy any exclusions anywhere else.

People that like audio science and do not consider themselves purests are more then welcome to post opinion (I would hope since this is an open and free forum). Their opinions if backed up has more substance then anyone that posting based on subjective experience only.

Also "purists" would only represent one side of the debate...what is the point in that sort of discussion other then to stroke each others subjective opinons?

[doug20]

Originally Posted by Curly Woods

Peter Aczel was never an advocate for anyone that seriously listens to anything but his prose about how smart he is and how dumb everyone else is. That is why he publication is the smallest circulation of all the audio rags that I am aware of. No one reads him that I am aware of anymore.

Geddes papers on waveguides, etc are not in major circulation but they are extremely accurate and have changed the way people are designing horns.

Circulation numbers really are not a good barometer of accuracy. Tabloids sell the most compared to something like the Havard Review (Yes I have a subscription to that) so based on your logic we should all believe what is printed in them.

Audio rags in general are useless, they have to make money and so they look at the market who is buying them....Guys like you buy them so they know accuracy and science need not be included to make a profit



You amuse me daily with every post. Im scared to think what kind of audio sales guy you were.

[Curly Woods]

Originally Posted by doug20

Geddes papers on waveguides, etc are not in major circulation but they are extremely accurate and have changed the way people are designing horns.

Circulation numbers really are not a good barometer of accuracy. Tabloids sell the most compared to something like the Havard Review (Yes I have a subscription to that) so based on your logic we should all believe what is printed in them.

Audio rags in general are useless, they have to make money and so they look at the market who is buying them....Guys like you buy them so they know accuracy and science need not be included to make a profit



You amuse me daily with every post. Im scared to think what kind of audio sales guy you were.

Thank you Doug.

[SY]

The tweeter stuff from TAC was back in the days when they heard all sorts of magical things that their later testing showed to be... questionable. These days, they aren't publishing anymore- audio as audio is a graying and contracting field, and being a niche guy in that field is pretty much impossible. Too bad, I was never impressed with Aczel, but guys like Rich, Nousaine, Keele, Berger were terrific. And the occasional tech article (like the jitter one from Bob Adams) stood head and shoulders above the rather sad pack of audio mags like post-JGH Stereophile, Fi, TAS, and the like.

[Curly Woods]

Originally Posted by doug20

Geddes papers on waveguides, etc are not in major circulation but they are extremely accurate and have changed the way people are designing horns.

Never said anything was wrong with Earl's work, did I :-)

Circulation numbers really are not a good barometer of accuracy. Tabloids sell the most compared to something like the Havard Review (Yes I have a subscription to that) so based on your logic we should all believe what is printed in them.

Well it is a good indication that it must not offer much as no one reads it, except maybe those that believe what he thinks. Which thankfully are few.

You amuse me daily with every post. Im scared to think what kind of audio sales guy you were.

Doug this is the internet. Why not ask the question! I am sure that some of my customers are out here somewhere. Any other insults that you feel neccessary to make about me today