Speaker Cable lifters or stands?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#981
simon7000 said:
Tom

The weenians used to have several hundred feet of cable in their test setup until someone made measurements using a resistor. They found out with that the setup had issues. So they made changes.

The improved measurement system did change the voicing of their products. The old ones worked better in large venues.

Now on one of my projects the EC sub changed the brand of wire used without mentioning it. (WPW to Gepco). As I use zobels this did have an effect. The wire specd was built for me initially and became a catalog item.

Es
Click to expand...

Hey Ed, how's it going?

They found out the setup had issues? That's it?? Issues?

What were the issues?? Pluheeeeze, tell me more..😀

I would suspect you've had your share of cable problems. Long runs of figure 8 (zip) or twisted pairs, high proximity losses, and inductance due to tray and conduit, and capacitance to tray and conduit (I noted the zobels).

jn
 
#982
jneutron said:
I've always know that limiting bw makes them equiv, I've been saying that since before 2011.

I get it, I get it.. your mad because I got you to do the analysis for free..
Click to expand...
Confused yoda is...... you've been 'playing' yourself all along so as to obtain a set of fairly trivial simulations from me........?

I take it then you don't actually know what it physically means for a speaker driver to have an impedance |Z| below DC resistance of voice coil, but are happy to use 1R because Davis says so and it happens to drag your assumptions toward the maybe audible.......see DF96 comments on Davis treatment of impedance. See also Davis plots of |Z| for two real speakers which show no support.
 
#983
luckythedog said:
Confused yoda is...... you've been 'playing' yourself all along so as to obtain a set of fairly trivial simulations from me........?
Click to expand...
As I stated up front, you needed to do it yourself. You did, thanks.

Despite your claiming that 5uSec was geologic, you now affirm the number as easy enough to do without a calculator.


luckythedog said:
I take it then you don't actually know what it physically means for a speaker driver to have an impedance |Z| below DC resistance of voice coil,
Click to expand...
Let's see...pointing out the information in the source YOU were using for cable numbers is the same thing as "don't actually know".

Yah, that'll work...

But you are very happy to ignore content within the same paper which trashes your wild assertions.


luckythedog said:
...see DF96 comments on Davis treatment of impedance.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry...did you say "comments", as it opinion??

Or did you say, actual data, as in Davis, Otala, Huttumen, and Bateman?

luckythedog said:
See also Davis plots of |Z| for two real speakers which show no support.
Click to expand...
Wow, you are really flailing here. You want everybody to believe that two speaker measurements reflect all speakers in the universe...

Read Otala and Hutumen, Davis referred to them.

Your attempts are rather laughable.

Try again..

jn
 
#984
jneutron said:
As I stated up front, you needed to do it yourself. You did, thanks.
Click to expand...
I need to do it because you can't, even though it's trivial ?

jneutron said:
Despite your claiming that 5uSec was geologic
Click to expand...
'Geological era' in the context of being easy to measure if it's there, to be strict.

jneutron said:
Let's see...pointing out the information in the source YOU were using for cable numbers
Click to expand...
Yup, Davis numbers for cable params look fine to me and we need a common reference so why not?You're saying they are wrong, so point out where.......

jneutron said:
But you are very happy to ignore content within the same paper
Click to expand...
Not ignore, interpret correctly.
 
#986
luckythedog said:
I need to do it because you can't, even though it's trivial ?
Click to expand...
Yup. Sometimes, ya gotta stick their nose in it..
luckythedog said:
'Geological era' in the context of being easy to measure if it's there, to be strict.
Click to expand...
Hmmm..So, first you claim it isn't there, as in geologic.

Then, you model it, show it's there.

Then, you say that it's so easy to calculate that you do not need a calculator...

Now, you're hedging it with "if it's there"..

Yet, you've provided calculations and model results to show it's there..

Again, you are consistently arguing with yourself..
luckythedog said:
Yup, Davis numbers for cable params look fine to me and we need a common reference so why not?
Click to expand...

Ah, another strawman argument. YOu first used 1 uH and a wild capacitance to prove a point, which was exactly what I was saying, then you used actual cable numbers which again proved my assertions, then you pretend that Otala and Huttunen were not referenced.

You must be getting dizzy.

luckythedog said:
You're saying they are wrong, so point out where.......
Click to expand...

You remind me of a dog chasing it's tail..

luckythedog said:
Not ignore, interpret correctly.
Click to expand...
Ah, like Davis talking about distrubuted capacitance extending the high freq response?? You interpret that by ignoring it..

He points to other authors who state 1.2 ohms min with an 8 ohm speaker, you interpret that by ignoring it.

Thanks for bumping the thread. This is actually fun.

jn
 
#999
Just found all the cable articles on a hard drive.. I had archived it a while go, unfortunately about 4 computers back...

2 hours and 50 minutes to transfer 5 gig to an 8 gig stick..almost 3 freakin hours!!

Sigh..

I hate technology...it just passed me by so fast...😉

jn
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom