Damping factor is a perverted function of amplifier output impedance... for any loudspeaker there is an optimum value ofoutputimpedance, to a large extent dependent on how well mechanically damped the loudspeaker is, but there are other factors.
dave
Call it 'dumping factor' if you wish, I'm good with that. ...In reply to Johan, post #80.
Anyway, it's only Friday today. ...The thirteenth.
Anyway, it's only Friday today. ...The thirteenth.
An amplifier's linear output impedance to go with a constant speaker's load (impedance)?
FYI: There are plenty of Audio Engineers that don't think that it's very important at all. (Some Audio Engineers probably believe the Moon is made of Cheese!)
Interesting point: Why are we talking about it anyway?
I think it because someone read something from years ago and thinks it may actually still be relevant.
Best Regards,
TerryO
It's been over fourty years I believe, since the first criticism of Damping Factor as a serious spec was mentioned. I must be pretty bored to even get into all this...again!
Correction, it was in the 1940's when the first real criticism about Damping Factor was published.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Last edited:
I can see how some may consider the "control" of higher dampening as beneficial, but they IMO it is not as high fidelity as a lower dampening factor.
This "braking" effectively removes texture and timbre from the signal.
It is not equal and opposite to the signal, it is there whenever the signal is not.
I would consider "flabby bass" to be a product of the combined system's limitations rather then putting it all on dampening factor.
I can understand why some prefer to let the signal through and let the cone's surround etc do the dampening, mechanically. It's a lesser evil.
This would sound better under reasonable circumstances, assuming your goals are entertainment and not purely high volume levels.
This "braking" effectively removes texture and timbre from the signal.
It is not equal and opposite to the signal, it is there whenever the signal is not.
I would consider "flabby bass" to be a product of the combined system's limitations rather then putting it all on dampening factor.
I can understand why some prefer to let the signal through and let the cone's surround etc do the dampening, mechanically. It's a lesser evil.
This would sound better under reasonable circumstances, assuming your goals are entertainment and not purely high volume levels.
Last edited:
You also get up to an whole octave lower bass, hard hitting solid bass with far greater impact and it sounds much more realistic. I can understand that many haven't done these experiments, certainly not the same sort as we've performed or they might very well be singing a different song.
Best Regards,
TerryO
I would not be surprised. Technical folks were rather more level-headed then. But before the time of most of us.
We are talking about it because the OP asked a question. And sadly because far too many people (even engineers as you said) still don't get it. The fact that a subject has been discussed in the past does not render it taboo; in fact the exact opposite - otherwise how are new folks to learn about it? 🙂
SNR said:
True (if I left that impression I apologise). It is equal and opposite to any motion of a cone not in line with the signal. But I sense a deviation from the argument: The main point (at least mine) was not criticism of damping per se, but the definition of the current term damping factor - there is a difference.
i said this when we first started this discussion. DF is a holdover from tube amplifier design. back then if you had a DF of 5 you doing pretty good. in another post i stated if DF is so important then why do tube amps sound so good. i can and prove that any DF over 20 is a waste and not effective.
Yes, very good point; why is it that most smart people prefer the sound of tubes over SS?
And why is it that analog sounds so sweet and analog over digital?
And how come we don't all listen to what sounds best?
Is it because we are still too young to comprehend the sweet technology behind tubes, open-reel tapes, and turntables with vinyls spinning on them?
Are we afraid to live in a physical world? Are we afraid to roll tubes? Are we afraid of the light?
Are we dampening our lives somehow? ...Is that a factor? ...Or a fact?
northstar, i'm an engineer but i'm also a musician. what you say is very true. 65 to 70% of all guitar amplifiers sold today are still tube. I have also done alot of studio work and most studios are using tube preamps for mics and most other devices. theres also a big market for recording studios to buy tube conditioners to run all mastering through. I know engineers that have resurected old reel to reel tape machines and run digital tracks through them to warm up the tracks. do you notice anything in common with musicians and recording engineers, i do.
I am glad you posed it as a question.
I believe many smart people will not agree.
Tubes are more linear than transistors. Just compare the transfer and linear operating region of say ECC83 triode with any transistor. 🙂
expensive, fragile, and low power efficiency though....🙄
expensive, fragile, and low power efficiency though....🙄
AndrewT, my earlier post is the truth, here it is.
northstar, i'm an engineer but i'm also a musician. what you say is very true. 65 to 70% of all guitar amplifiers sold today are still tube. I have also done alot of studio work and most studios are using tube preamps for mics and most other devices. theres also a big market for recording studios to buy tube conditioners to run all mastering through. I know engineers that have resurected old reel to reel tape machines and run digital tracks through them to warm up the tracks. do you notice anything in common with musicians and recording engineers, i do.
northstar, i'm an engineer but i'm also a musician. what you say is very true. 65 to 70% of all guitar amplifiers sold today are still tube. I have also done alot of studio work and most studios are using tube preamps for mics and most other devices. theres also a big market for recording studios to buy tube conditioners to run all mastering through. I know engineers that have resurected old reel to reel tape machines and run digital tracks through them to warm up the tracks. do you notice anything in common with musicians and recording engineers, i do.
Talking of valves for guitar amps, and valves for audio reproduction, as though they are related issues is a category error. A common category error, but a category error nonetheless. The circuits are only superficially similar; one is designed (deliberately or by accident) to distort, the other to not distort.
Wadest,
As you said, already asked in your post #32 and answered in my #42 a week ago and others.
Northstar said:
Also explained in my post #42. But from that explanation, CBS240, I fear this has not to do with the linearity of tubes but the non-linearity, in this instance of a triode. The mentioned 'distortion' - perhaps better referred to as addition to a signal - giving the warmth/musicality (sic), can only arise through non-linearity.
As to the statement of linearity of tubes vs. transistors, this is largely dependent on the circuit. (It is rather like triodes vs. pentodes.)
(Apology for somewhat off-topic.)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.