It would certainly help to remeber what was the hypothesis, supposed to be tested, in that study.
This discussion already went far beyond being funny, so for the moment I'll give up. You are free to send your comments to AES, I'm sure they would be more than happy to review and perhaps publish them.
Well it's not a very practical design approach, compared to crossing over to an actually decent bass driver, driven by a low z-out amplifier.
Last edited:
Right. And the reason actually given for using a high z-out amplifier was to loosen up the overly damped bass response of the full-range driver.
How does that still apply once a dedicated LF driver is used for the bass, with the full-range driver as a "midtweeter"?
Last edited:
A hiZ amp can be used for that too... but they have other advantages too. For instance, since the amp (if high enuff Z) does not see the voice coil inductance so doesn't suffer from power compression.
dave
dave
"Doesn't suffer from power compression"? So it's not a matter of degree, just totally eliminated then? How about the disadvantage of having to compensate for the rising driver impedance (with rising frequency) to maintain a flat frequency response? Many audiophiles here are pretty paranoid about passive compensation networks.
Clear reasoning will get you nowhere. To some switching cables will be more dramatic than buying new speakers no matter what you say.
One can use reasoning to get a lot of people hurt, killed, and tortured; done before by many; it's probably not what you're saying, but I'm making a OT here. At the end of the day, compassion wins, clear reasoning loses. OK, let's go back to cables now.
If one wants to oppose reason with morals and values that's your perogative. Eugenics for instance is a scientificaly supportable vehicle for inproving certain aspects of society (in some people's minds).
AFAIK no animals (or people) were harmed in the development of my audio system. Painting with the extreme brush is not very productive.
AFAIK no animals (or people) were harmed in the development of my audio system. Painting with the extreme brush is not very productive.
Productivity may not be the end goal after all. This being said, sure, I did not think that you did harm anyone in developing your audio system. Your comment that "Clear reasoning will get you nowhere." sparked my reaction. It's because I think that one can use very clear reasoning to do a lot of harm. Eugenics is one example, but there are many others. Those pesky axioms that reasoning follows from...
Yes, I know my comment is hardly technical.
Yes, I know my comment is hardly technical.
It’s a moral prerogative to those who advocate it. If, from your perspective, such is connected with “very clear reasoning” and ******** speaker cables then good luck to you.
Talk about an OT B.S. Alert!
Last edited:
A hi-Z in itself is not a flaw. But I would NOT like to consider my amp as part of my system in respect of 'matching'. I don't want to fret over whether THIS amp is a good match for THAT preamp. It's good engineering practise to insulate a component from whatever is connected to it, because you have no control over it. Of course you CAN design amp & speaker to go together, but then you lose the ability to mix and match. People who get a hi-Z output preamp automatically restrict their interlink cable and power amp options. Not wrong in itself but something to be aware of.
jd
Where's the reason in arguing, as point 1 does, that since manufacturers claim the effects are dramatic it must be the only valid test? Point 2 is a simple straw man. As I suggest earlier, the 'party of science' casts any claim of audible differences as sonic homeopathy. Should however a physical and scientific basis be found for a report - say as SY discusses earlier about triboelectric effects on Teflon cables or circuit instability caused by HF reactance - it gets co-opted and you're back to calling the other side names. It's question begging.
Have you seen some of the crossovers people are using?
Its all trade-offs. You use a lowZ amp when you get a better system match. You use a highZ amp when you get a better system match. It is just another tool in the box.
I prefer to avoid components. A rising impedance at the top and bottom of a FR can be used to advantage with a highZ amp to boost a drooping top and bottom (ie Fonkens).
We have a prototype variable Transimpedance amp here, and every speaker likes the dial at a bit different spot.
dave
Mostly we are talking about amp/speaker, but for one, Krell advocate their CAST interconnect.
There is no one amp that works with all speakers and vica-versa... many of the speakers i design are best suited to highZ amps... there is musical magic in the synergy between them and a good single ended amp (whether it be EL84, 2A3 or F2)
Its not like i have just one set of speakers or one amplifier... and then there is the variable Transconductance amp i mentioned above.
dave
Well trade-off are OK if there is something to be gained. The FR drivers are designed to produce a flat frequency response when voltage driven by a low-z amp.
If you want to drive them with a transconductance amp in “midtweeter” service, then you need to add an otherwise unnecessary impedance compensation network.
I don't see the point.
They are all over the map -- every case has to be considered in its own right. Many are happiest with highZ currentish amps (ie tube amps as a generalization). Fostex probably sells more FR drivers than any other company... most of their stuff is happier with hiZ amps.
From here http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...k-eminence-alpha-15a-open-baffle-speaker.html
Did you bother to read what Nelson had to say?
In many ways it is like Norton and Thevenin. Could you live with just 1?
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.