Utter nonsense that proves you do not understand basics of electrical circuits and that you are an amateur creating his own views of electronics and electrical circuits, same as for Joe. That's fine, but makes no sense to discuss with both of you on audio amplifiers and reactive loads.
Yet another BS guy, lot of nonsense there.
It looks that whole audio is infected with BS.
Last edited:
This statement sure is wrong. What you meant is: it will cancel the *effect* of the output impedance on frequency response (because the amp sees an ohmic load now), which is obviously something completely different.
Also, "equalise the current of the amplifier in relation to the speaker load" is a very foggy description, why not just correctly state that you've applied a tailored compensation impedance (the conjugate complex network to the measured speaker impedance) parallel to the speaker so that the whole thing looks like a resistor to the amplifier. Which is something allmost all good speaker designers do when creating a speaker that is intended to work well on tube amps with very high output impedance.
We should not forget that a lot more of this DAC was modified by using an (allegedly) EMC enhancing compound material.
Is it useful to talk about amplifiers as ideal voltage sources if no real amplifier is an ideal voltage source and a lot quite far away from such a realisation?
Turmaline powder, anyone? ;-)We should not forget that a lot more of this DAC was modified by using an (allegedly) EMC enhancing compound material.
Yet another BS guy, lot of nonsense there.
It looks that whole audio is infected with BS.
It's inevitable when, for all intents and purposes, it's job done.
We will probably get the usual analogies with cars, which personally I can't see any relevance to
We should not forget that a lot more of this DAC was modified by using an (allegedly) EMC enhancing compound material.
Is it useful to talk about amplifiers as ideal voltage sources if no real amplifier is an ideal voltage source and a lot quite far away from such a realisation?
If that guy was anything other than a charlatan he would use legitimate products and provide before / after measurements. At work I have seen a lot of products designed by several different firms go through compliance testing for various standards, including intentional radiators. None were gooped with driveway sealant and duct tape.
What do you think is best? Tinfoil hat nutjob guy and his asphalt repair coating, or products made and characterized for the purpose?
Noise Suppressing / Magnetic Sheet Product Map | Noise Suppressing / Magnetic Sheet | TDK Product Center
EMI/RFI Absorbers - 3M™ | DigiKey
Just a small example of the range of available products.
As far as Joe... are you really going to choose this as a point to try to defend him on given the entirety of the discussion that’s already been completely hashed out at least 3 times this year? Syn08 is right, your only purpose here seems to be to plant seeds of doubt to confuse those who don’t have the knowledge or experience to distinguish BS from reality.
Wow, have to chew on this one, the depth of this insight has caused such cerebral vertigo that I will have to lay low for a while.
Driveway sealant?
Did I miss something or is it a new piece of information based on chemical analysis or an equivalent measure?
Feynman reminded us long time ago that the easiest one to fool is oneself and talked about cargo cult science.
I think that marks mainly the difference between truth seeking and believing to know the "TRUTH" .
Btw, as syn08 insisted that he was only jestering I did let it go.
Did I miss something or is it a new piece of information based on chemical analysis or an equivalent measure?
Feynman reminded us long time ago that the easiest one to fool is oneself and talked about cargo cult science.
I think that marks mainly the difference between truth seeking and believing to know the "TRUTH" .
Btw, as syn08 insisted that he was only jestering I did let it go.
Driveway sealant?
Did I miss something or is it a new piece of information based on chemical analysis or an equivalent measure?
Feynman reminded us long time ago that the easiest one to fool is oneself and talked about cargo cult science.
I think that marks mainly the difference between truth seeking and believing to know the "TRUTH" .
Btw, as syn08 insisted that he was only jestering I did let it go.
Driveway sealant was a joke. I have no idea what his conformal coating is, but I don’t have high hopes for efficacy given that his other weapon of choice is actually duct tape placed in what appear to be random locations.
Cargo cult? Pot, meet kettle.
I have to admit, I didn’t think of driveway sealant until mountainman bob called it that in a post. I thought it was funny, anyway
. I wouldn’t even be that shocked to find out it was. I could have a friend run a sample through an ICP-MS but even if it was just silicone with Carbon Black there would still be insistence that it “works”.
Last edited:
Pavel,
I don't know why you are confused about the term "sound floor."
Clearly although English is not your native language you seem to be completely fluent
In my case to once get a sound floor I had to replace the floor, subfloor and the joists. A previous remodel caused rain to flow in and rot the old floor. The previous owner had just tried propping it up with one steel column in the middle.
I hope this clears up any confusion as to what a "sound floor" actually is.
Max,
You might try examining the limits on resolution of a recording and playback process
Scott et al,
I have all the ingrediants to make my versions of goop. I took my carbon and ground it up, turned it into a slurry and seperated the more weighty bit expecting to have increased the C13 percentage.
I will make up samples consisting of:
Heavy Carbon only,
Iron only,
Iron and Heavy Carbon,
Light Carbon,
Top soil,
Sawdust,
Flour,
Nothing!
I will have the guys try the mixes out, probably on an electric guitar cable near the amplifier end.
Should be interesting to see if they hear any differences.
I don't know why you are confused about the term "sound floor."
Clearly although English is not your native language you seem to be completely fluent
In my case to once get a sound floor I had to replace the floor, subfloor and the joists. A previous remodel caused rain to flow in and rot the old floor. The previous owner had just tried propping it up with one steel column in the middle.
I hope this clears up any confusion as to what a "sound floor" actually is.
Max,
You might try examining the limits on resolution of a recording and playback process
Scott et al,
I have all the ingrediants to make my versions of goop. I took my carbon and ground it up, turned it into a slurry and seperated the more weighty bit expecting to have increased the C13 percentage.
I will make up samples consisting of:
Heavy Carbon only,
Iron only,
Iron and Heavy Carbon,
Light Carbon,
Top soil,
Sawdust,
Flour,
Nothing!
I will have the guys try the mixes out, probably on an electric guitar cable near the amplifier end.
Should be interesting to see if they hear any differences.
Last edited:
This is the internet. No one knows for sure who anyone is in here, it's all taken on trust. Alluding to violence is a very low place to go.
That includes a level of trust that your goop actually exists, despite there being not one shred of evidence that you've not made the whole thing up. Despite that, albeit with a bit of ribbing, folk in here have persisted with trying to get good measurement data from you to see if there is something real going on, trusting that you are serious in what you believe.
Dadod, if a system is completely 'noiseless*' then there is no 'noise floor' or 'sound floor' to be concerned about. You have made great strides in your amplifier designs and are achieving fantastic performance numbers so the descriptions and discussion in the page I quoted do not really apply in your case, bravo
. However, most of us do not have such quality amplifiers and it is then that system noise behaviours do become a problem by obscuring low level details, the detail and clarity and transparent gain that we all strive for. IMO Arthur Salvatore has much sensible stuff to say particularly about low level detail and in the Readers Letters section Steve Kaiser has especially interesting stuff to say. I would not know Mr Salvatore from a bar of soap if I met him, but I take my hat off to him for going to the trouble of compiling quite a website of interesting and useful information and experience in the 'audio trade'. Dadod, have you measured you amp at mW levels and also listened to the residual and if so what did you find ?.Dan.
(noiseless* - no static white, pink or 1/f noise, no excess noise, no THD, no IMD, no nothing)
Yes, this is what I am saying but it seems everybody is in some kind of The Sims world and have perfecto audio systems.We should not forget that a lot more of this DAC was modified by using an (allegedly) EMC enhancing compound material.
Is it useful to talk about amplifiers as ideal voltage sources if no real amplifier is an ideal voltage source and a lot quite far away from such a realisation?
That will be coloured sounding and slightly noisy, maybe nice sounding, give it a try.
It depends, a lot of audiophile amps would be quite far away, this helps give them their sound signature etc......
Clearly you are not aware of earlier posts. It doesn't matter how I state things, or how creative I get to help understanding the subject, that just gets them to see more RED!
Nothing foggy about eq as you clearly know what that meant. Yes, conjugates, did you think that was kept secret. Sigh.
Yes, the amplifier still "sees" an Ohmic load, that was never denied. In fact, with a less than perfect voltage source (they all are) the amp sees its own output impedance plus that of the speaker. Indeed I have said earlier that an amplifier can only see a single load value at any single frequency. That is also why the idea of 'damping factor' is a myth, because it implies that the amplifier can see two impedances in series, it cannot and hence dividing one by the other serves no purpose. It does however define the Qes of the driver where the equation asks for Re as a single value, so damping is affected in that sense, that is not denied (I am preempting that criticism as well).
BTW, I know some speaker designers that are more than "almost all good" - that was a joke, lighten up, OK?
You may actually find that we have more things in common than things we don't have in common.
BTW, know a few (actually not just a few) world-class speaker designers. Perhaps more than you do? Sigh.
PS: Clearly when I said "cancel out the affect of the output impedance of the amplifier" I was referring to and in relation to the frequency response. And more than that, it cancels out the affect it has on the Qt of the alignment.
Imagine designing a box alignment with a 2nd order Butterworth Qt = 0.707 and now drive it from any output impedance, or series cable resistance etc, and it will always stay a Butterworth alignment.
I have done and YOU can do it too.
Last edited:
Yes, Joe's is trying to say that such loudspeakers become amplifier invariant, something like Self's load invariant amplifier.
Bravo thank you, this is exactly what I have tried to communicate to Joe, and I have actually stated this here some pages back for the benefit of all.
It seems that many here do not understand this point and that's when the bun fights start.
Yes of course but it is significant cost at factory level and is not done in 99% of consumer speakers and do not expect it until paying mega buck prices for low production specialist 'audiophile' loudspeakers.
DIY is of course a totally different deal and this is really what Joe is trying to communicate, albeit in confusing terms.
Dan.
I find that program embedded noise + upstream stage noise is the driver of excess noise behaviours in mediocre/consumer/AVR gear.
Think back, a really good source can make a relatively 'lousy' amp sound good, but a good amp does not 'fix' a bad source, ie a good amp does not 'react' to a bad source but reveals a bad source as such plainly and without 'embellishment'.
A bad source on a bad amp....we all know the results.
Ed, you left out ground up shellac record or ground up vinyl record in the mix.
.Guitar is a good test, try at source end or load end or both ends of the cable, do not reverse the cable as this is a confounder.
.Dan.
Yup! I understand.
But it is one thing to use EQ for termination of a filter, and it is another thing to EQ the current of the amplifier. That latter is before the filter (high or low pass) and that is what makes the amplifier's output impedance cancel out with respect to frequency response, the crossover and the box alignment. I chose my words very precisely here and they are EE accurate.
Even the crossover will work with any source impedance, IF the current of the amplifier is EQ'd flat. Anybody can do this and prove it to themselves.
The fact that no fully commercial speaker is doing this is amazing, but that day will come!
But isn't it a good thing that we are speaking about loudspeakers?
JC said a while back that anybody can make a functioning loudspeaker system, well almost. Just follow the stock rules and you will get a nice loudspeaker, but not a great loudspeaker. That takes a lot of doing. Lot's of average speakers out there, most of them 2-Way and LR2 or LR4. Don't others here agree that is the case?
Yes, some of your fans need to calm down; your critics are already calm. "Arguing over semantics" is what people say when they want to continue with private meanings of words or are exposed as saying nonsense or nothing at all.Joe Rasmussen said:
Interesting to see that you play the same tricks with non-technical language. "Shifting the goalposts" does not mean 'advancing the subject' or 'moving attention to what really matters'. It means 'diverting the subject just when people thought they had properly dealt with it'. It may be used by people who have changed their minds about which problem they actually need to be solved (and often don't realise that they have done this), or people who wish to escape from a refutation of their position.
Yes, advances in ideas may need new technical terms. They do not need refusal to use old technical terms or misuse of old terms. Anyway, I have yet to see anything new emerge from this particular fog.
No, you are talking about equalising impedance so the current of the amplifier remains strictly proportional to voltage at all frequencies, with the same coefficient of proportionality. See, once again you seem incapable of expressing your ideas in straightforward simple technical language.
No it does not. Any nonlinearity in the output impedance of the amplifier, or any variation with frequency, will still have an effect. You still need the amplifier to have a constant and linear output impedance; you just don't need it to be low.
This is not a bus, it is simply a foolish (and quite small) bandwagon.
That is only half the story. Joe is also demonstrating over and over again that he does not understand basic electricity. It is just that by using the wrong terms he manages to hide for a while just how profound is his confusion; while we are trying to understand what he is saying we cannot correct his thinking, and by the time we do that he has picked up another fan.Max Headroom said:
What fans? I don't think I have any, nor desire any. Please, can we just all grow up?
I am not going to respond to your caustic reply. If you don't know what that word means, try sarcasm.
I caught Bob's joke too, funny.I have to admit, I didn’t think of driveway sealant until mountainman bob called it that in a post. I thought it was funny, anyway
Chris, if you are able to get that analysis done that might be very interesting and I am sure Richard could spare a bit......Richard do it now !.
Whatever is in the 'sealant' in question has effect according to Richard (and others evidently) and Mark stated that he preferred his unmodified DAC-3 but there is question of DAC-3 versions/revisions and unfortunately Richard was not able to run before/after measurements.
I have no doubt that Richard's Driveway Goop™ has effect carbon black or no carbon black......does the analysis differentiate C12/C13 ?.
ScottW: Do you recall the aluminium/sealant tape make/model/type # please ?.
Dan.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.