Complex numbers are needed to understand and calculate what is happening in a reactive load. Anyone can find out this stuff for themselves, thankfully they don't have to believe what they read on this forum, heaven help us if that was the case
Can you please help me understand what the imaginary bit is that will allow me to determine what the complex numbers you refer to are please?
"A complex number is a number that can be expressed in the form a + bi, where a and b are real numbers, and i is a solution of the equation x2 = −1. Because no real number satisfies this equation, i is called an imaginary number. "
Regards
Grant
If you assign i=root(-1)=the imaginary number to phase, it becomes possible to deal with both phase (imaginary) and the math becomes simplier (if you understand it). One can do the same stuff without ever going near complex numbers but it is harder to get were you want. Basically instead of working in a plane you have to work thru 2 related linear problems.
Using complex numbers is more elegant and ove rmany people’s heads. But once you get your head around the concepts — and know where th etraps are — it is not that difficult.
dave
I have been there and discussed it there, because I do believe in the Devil's Advocate principle. But there are two kinds, the constructive kind and the destructive kind. I have both and the discussion has survived both.
It led to an interesting challenge from the other Scott, and if those two challenges are answered, there are people on blowtorch that are going to have egg on face.
So now he wants complex numbers? So that tells me two things: 1) He never tried to comprehend the topic and 2) the proportionality of dB-SPL to current is defined entirely according to Ohm's Law and the I (current) is the result, so maybe he needs complex numbers to explain Ohm's Law? That's nonsense! All you need is one of these below at 1 Metre, change the current and watch the dB-SPL change. Is it accurate to 0.1dB is one of the challenges, the other is a distortion measurement, and that will shortcircuit all the nonsense on blowtorch.
Besides, he shouldn't be trying to bring blowtorch into it. I have already thanked them there for their service.
Neither. We don't hear electricity.
The physical answer is that voltage makes speed and current makes force, but a speaker has MASS and lags behind both.
I'll go back to my pinhead and count dancing angels.
Excellent Dave, understood.
Now where are those valves that I need to control voltage for my electrostatic headphones?
Cheers
Grant
It is always strange when people consider themselves so superior to others online, what is it about social media. Is it an inferiority complex masquarading as a superiority complex.
I wonder, face to face, they would have the courage to do that? Do it to my face!!! Is it cowardice? I can only imagine.
Now can we get away from the personal stuff, or else that is just another way of hijacking the thread, something I certainly never had in mind.
What I really wanted was to raise questions re the reasons that many feel that tube amplifiers sound different from SS and suggest we may find reasons to explain why, and that answers may not be too far away. Who then becomes the loser? I for one would say nobody, because that is not what this is about.
Address the fact that an amplifier, into a reactive load (and we can have endless discussions about what a reactive load is or is not, and it will still be a reactive load), that the amplifier simultaneously produces TWO sine waves (and proof was given), one that is voltage and the other is current. Which of the two sine waves do we listen to? That question is 100% legitimate and the answer is: The current sine wave.
If you disagree, come up with a coherent and logical argument against it. If you get personal and troll, then you have lost the argument. Plain as that!
I wonder, face to face, they would have the courage to do that? Do it to my face!!! Is it cowardice? I can only imagine.
Now can we get away from the personal stuff, or else that is just another way of hijacking the thread, something I certainly never had in mind.
What I really wanted was to raise questions re the reasons that many feel that tube amplifiers sound different from SS and suggest we may find reasons to explain why, and that answers may not be too far away. Who then becomes the loser? I for one would say nobody, because that is not what this is about.
Address the fact that an amplifier, into a reactive load (and we can have endless discussions about what a reactive load is or is not, and it will still be a reactive load), that the amplifier simultaneously produces TWO sine waves (and proof was given), one that is voltage and the other is current. Which of the two sine waves do we listen to? That question is 100% legitimate and the answer is: The current sine wave.
If you disagree, come up with a coherent and logical argument against it. If you get personal and troll, then you have lost the argument. Plain as that!
Hi Chris
I don't even know what model you are talking about. But he who laughs last laughs best. But this kind of nonsense is what is so bad about social media. It is all about egos and not about the science. It reminds me of another subject, but one we are not allowed to speak about. Know what I mean?
But what I don't see is any coherent and logical reply, what kind of laziness is at work, I wonder?
Cheers, Joe
PS: What do YOU imagine that model is - I am very curious because you must know if you refute it. Or how else can you refute it? Over to you.
Last edited:
Joe,
I am far away from an expert, or valve guru (whatever the appropriate term is)
Instinctively I would say that the Voice Coil motor force is due to current - the BL units display this clearly, Newton Amperes.
But this is always a semantic arguement, I feel, because there can be no current without voltage.
Hence I would agree with PRR response also.
I am far away from an expert, or valve guru (whatever the appropriate term is)
Instinctively I would say that the Voice Coil motor force is due to current - the BL units display this clearly, Newton Amperes.
But this is always a semantic arguement, I feel, because there can be no current without voltage.
Hence I would agree with PRR response also.
Joe I think you are accusing people of being trolls a bit too prematurely.
In any case I don't understand what is so special about the dual sinewave thing, electromagnetic drivers are always moved by current so shouldn't it be obvious that the driver will be driven by the current sinewave? I don't understand the novelty here.
This is why I much prefer the concept of current drive, it will do what is needed to ensure X current is flowing into the load at X time regardless of what the load is, and kirchoff's law ensures that there is no need to worry about what voltage or distortion there is on the other end of the load.
In any case I don't understand what is so special about the dual sinewave thing, electromagnetic drivers are always moved by current so shouldn't it be obvious that the driver will be driven by the current sinewave? I don't understand the novelty here.
This is why I much prefer the concept of current drive, it will do what is needed to ensure X current is flowing into the load at X time regardless of what the load is, and kirchoff's law ensures that there is no need to worry about what voltage or distortion there is on the other end of the load.
Last edited:
His concern over this means he advocates using a zobel network to make the speaker appear as a resistive load to the amplifier. This is a good idea from the amplifier's perspective and means the speaker can be used successfully with a large range of output impedances. On the other side of the zobel the drivers will operate in the same way as they always have, nothing has changed, there is nothing special going on.
Agree by all means with PRR, but what has that got to do with me? I have no idea what you are agreeing with?
Also, please go back and read what I posted again, because it seems you have missed something. OK?
Yes, I am very well versed with motor force, I have only been in this business for fourty years and actually know quite a few of some of the world's best driver designer, so please don't assume to teach me, please, please please.
So I ask, do you understand the subject that I am discussing? If you do and disagree, I can live with that. But if not, then why are you disagreeing? I just don't get why you would do that? Just asking
At least know what it is you are disagreeing to. Is that not fair to point that out.
All the best.
Cheers, Joe
This may be a continuation of some old argument, i wouldn't know, but in the context of the present discussion your claim is unjustified and insulting.
Yep, that pretty much sums it up. But you should know the full story, so I shall give it to you.
What claim is that?
Please explain what I am claiming?
Please read post #152. All I asked for, make a comment on the substance. I would like to leave personalities out of it, right?
I am NOT doing the insulting! I am being literally attacked wherever I appear on diyaudio.com, on just about any thread where I may make a comment on a topic I just happen to find interesting.
Just ask Moderator Dave, he knows about it very well and that this has being going on for a long time. Here it started straight away in post #158 by Scott Joplin, did you read it? No attempt to address the substance, go straight to personalise the issue. Attack the person! "He is confused about Ohm's Law" he says. He says this to ME, a professional technician and designer for over fourty years and I am supposed to be confused about Ohm's Law? I have teached this stuff to students. If that is not personal abuse, then what is? Then I was accused on not supplying measurements after I had submitted dozens of them plus mathematical equations, but all for nothing. Just ignored. But not ignored in the circles I move in.
I am being stalked and abused and used as a whipping boy by the usual suspects. Scott J is one of them. He knows it. But I am also gotten many PMs from people who knows what's really going on and I have many friends and I am not an insecure person who can easily be intimidated. In the end, people that abuse are really hurting themselves. I don't join in with that practice.
Here in Australia, and Europe, alas not in the US, we are doing research into aspects of current versus voltage in what is the most complex interface, right at the end when amplifier meets speaker, there are several physicists and scientists involved and it is very much taken seriously. We are building up a brains trust. But here, the subject is almost being censored by shouting it down in noise. Yet in the end it could suggest that there is a very good reason why some prefer tubes over solid state amplifiers, low and zero feedback amplifiers versus high feedback amplifiers. Would that not be a good thing to resolve? I made a comment based on the subject of this thread because somebody brought it to my attention.
All I ask for is that the substance be addressed. May I please suggest that you don't follow their example?
How you may have a better picture. Soon I will no longer be on this thread and at a later stage, it will start all over again on another thread on a topic they will shout me down again..
Maybe time to say something about this to Jason Donald, it is just becoming a bit too much.
So yes, the first part you got right. May I ask that you reconsider the second part of it?
Thank you.
Never have I ever in my wildest imagination thought I would hear a response from PRR referred to as troll behavior. 2020 is already shaping up to be wild.
What a time to be alive.
Him and GoatGuy put out some of the most practical, logical, and scientifically sound advice/explanation of anyone on this forum, and are shining examples of skilled, down-to-earth folks just helping everyone else along.
I am sorry if it comes across as me letting both barrels go. But I am tired of this and just about to go to bed at 1.30AM and right now there are people I couldn't care give a toss about and they very well know who they are. I just want to go to sleep.
Dave, back me up on this, you know all along what has being going on.
Buona notte.
Dave, back me up on this, you know all along what has being going on.
Buona notte.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.