I intend to do it without such 'secret sauce' that I plan in advance to keep secret. But then there are things I don't talk about simply because people aren't smart enough to ask about them 😀
Its important to understand - and I don't think that's been digested here - that copying really is dumb. Dumb in the sense that not knowing what the important parts to copy are means it has to be very, very painstaking. I learned this when I first tried copying some Chinese text out of a book.....
I agree, always raises a chuckle for me this hypocrisy 😀
dvv earlier mentioned the quote of MLK - interesting that he's remembered in USA by having a whole day dedicated to him (coming up soon). But is his teaching honoured?🙄
Lol... 🙂
Hyprocracy , the one invented by the british and spread around the empire , Americans have raised the bar on it a bit ...
Hyprocracy , the one invented by the british and spread around the empire , Americans have raised the bar on it a bit ...
I'm certainly not going to spend anything on a 'marketing budget'. The proof's in the pudding as they say.
I'm not focussing on home so outside my brief really. The audible superiority of what I have in my demo hasn't been missed by any of the listeners so far. And they haven't called for ABX or DBT either 😀
Another old one is , nothing like poontang to break down all barriers , cant wait to hear your Banter when you move to kama Sutra territory ...
😀
Naw - British didn't invent hypocrisy, they ripped if off of some other chaps. Goes back to the Pharisees and Sadducees at the very least....
I think ultimately it is important to understand that the audio in question must be perceived to to be accurate when compared to an original source. (It is also equally important to know that the original microphones used to record the source are part of your system whether you like it or not.)
This can be accomplished by one of the following techniques.
Subjectively: Record a sample, play the sample back with the speaker in place of the original sound source.
Does it sound the same? Probably not, but there is the ideal benchmark to strive for.
Objectively: The test is done the same except a 3D spectrogram is used instead of the human.
Do the two 3D spectrograms look the same? Probably not, but there is the ideal benchmark to strive for.
It quickly becomes evident that the second option is more impractical then the first.
The first option only requires one "perfect" recording setup.
Objectively measuring would require two of these fantasy systems.
That being said, it is obvious that the current technology is not being utilized to it's potential.
Either of my testing techniques can be used to measure and therefore improve audio even with the shortcomings of less then "ideal" equipment.
Subjectively evaluating audio against an original source is a means to an end.
Judge it the same way you would a photograph for fidelity, subjectively.
If it doesn't satisfy subjective testing, then objective tests are irrelevant.
OK then, I think that about wraps up this whole "Sound Quality vs Measurements" thing, I'm sorry I was not here sooner to clear this up for you fellows.
Cheers.
This can be accomplished by one of the following techniques.
Subjectively: Record a sample, play the sample back with the speaker in place of the original sound source.
Does it sound the same? Probably not, but there is the ideal benchmark to strive for.
Objectively: The test is done the same except a 3D spectrogram is used instead of the human.
Do the two 3D spectrograms look the same? Probably not, but there is the ideal benchmark to strive for.
It quickly becomes evident that the second option is more impractical then the first.
The first option only requires one "perfect" recording setup.
Objectively measuring would require two of these fantasy systems.
That being said, it is obvious that the current technology is not being utilized to it's potential.
Either of my testing techniques can be used to measure and therefore improve audio even with the shortcomings of less then "ideal" equipment.
Subjectively evaluating audio against an original source is a means to an end.
Judge it the same way you would a photograph for fidelity, subjectively.
If it doesn't satisfy subjective testing, then objective tests are irrelevant.
OK then, I think that about wraps up this whole "Sound Quality vs Measurements" thing, I'm sorry I was not here sooner to clear this up for you fellows.
Cheers.
Perhaps it would be useful to look at someone other peoples problems with recording and reproduction. I find this useful in day to day problem solving.
DailyTech - Japanese Device Records and Replicates Smell
HowStuffWorks "Smell Ya Later...Literally"
Now, is what they are doing "high fidelity"? (No pun intended)
Is 96 chemicals enough to faithfully reproduce the smell spectrum?(Yes, this exists, Science Blog -- Creating a standard spectrum of smell)
What in your opinions are some of the techniques used? Do you see any similarities?
Don't think I forgot about the detractors. Olfaction is a chemical sense, not a spectral sense
You can't put odor (or sound) on paper, at the end of the day you are just going to have to smell some farts and compare them, subjectively.
Cheers.
DailyTech - Japanese Device Records and Replicates Smell
HowStuffWorks "Smell Ya Later...Literally"
Now, is what they are doing "high fidelity"? (No pun intended)
Is 96 chemicals enough to faithfully reproduce the smell spectrum?(Yes, this exists, Science Blog -- Creating a standard spectrum of smell)
What in your opinions are some of the techniques used? Do you see any similarities?
Don't think I forgot about the detractors. Olfaction is a chemical sense, not a spectral sense
You can't put odor (or sound) on paper, at the end of the day you are just going to have to smell some farts and compare them, subjectively.
Cheers.
So we're talking about the fuse in the amplifier, then ... why so small?Whatever you got .....🙂
Small , thats a 10A speaker line fuse on this particular amp to protect it , i dont want it exceeding that amt RMS ...
I'm left pondering my vocabulary gap in describing this stuff. What's the olfactory equivalent of 'golden eared boys' - cosmic nostrilled dudes?
So, for the 1 ohm speaker you don't want the amp to deliver more than 100W. Which translates into a peak voltage swing of 14V - a couple of LM38xx chips would eat it for breakfast ...Small , thats a 10A speaker line fuse on this particular amp to protect it , i dont want it exceeding that amt RMS ...
And you're complaining about 1,000W amps not being good enough ...
Last edited:
Sigh.... 🙄
As before , some reason you cant hear me , no matter how loud
The 10amp is rms , its there to protect the amp not the speaker , swing is as high as 17 volts(amps) , i told you 1k is more than enuff power, dynamic peaks will eat a lot , your dinky toy chipamp , will smoke it self after 2-3 mins of playing ...
Read slowly this time Frankie ...
I can see there is a world of difference between 14V, and 17V, 🙂 ... and what this "volts(amps)" thing?
A LM38xx could do +-35V swings, and push out a transient 8A - 4 in parallel could do 32A peak ... enough to cook a few speakers ...
Are you aware that at least one highly regarded Marshall guitar amp uses nothing more than 4 chip amps to deafen the crowd ...?
A LM38xx could do +-35V swings, and push out a transient 8A - 4 in parallel could do 32A peak ... enough to cook a few speakers ...
Are you aware that at least one highly regarded Marshall guitar amp uses nothing more than 4 chip amps to deafen the crowd ...?
I also fear we're talking about a very limited speaker in terms of SPLs, my suspicion is that no matter the quality of the amp it will be lucky to attain 90dB before some of it starts frying ...
My take on this is still the same - 7 pairs of 200W devices will do best, producing an amp capable of delivering up to 24A. Exactly at what rate of exchange (current slew rate) will be determined by the speed of the capacitors, as they will be the limiting factor.
If I were building such an amp, I'd look for Siemens Sikorel series only, they guarantee a speed of 100 V/uS and 15A/uS.
With all due respect, Frank, I think you are showing too much faith in your chip amps. They might do well with friendlier loads, but here in my view they are out of their depth.
If I were building such an amp, I'd look for Siemens Sikorel series only, they guarantee a speed of 100 V/uS and 15A/uS.
With all due respect, Frank, I think you are showing too much faith in your chip amps. They might do well with friendlier loads, but here in my view they are out of their depth.
The end goal defines the requirements, dvv, and I'm having a hard time extracting that from our good panel enthusiast, 🙂. Once I know what these speakers can take before self-destructing then I will know whether a super-amp is needed, or just a chip amp setup with enough current grunt will do the job.
A big advantage of the chip amps is that they do look after themselves when abused - the downside is that they need to be very carefully nurtured to get the best out of them.
A big advantage of the chip amps is that they do look after themselves when abused - the downside is that they need to be very carefully nurtured to get the best out of them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.