You can limit the range of speaker systerm Z variation and affect maybe the back emf... just place a low value R across the speaker terminals (at suitable wattage).
Try it and listen. I have. Does the sound character change?
THx-RNMarsh
Try it and listen. I have. Does the sound character change?
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Zung, thanks for the input. I have tried to remind you that these guys will not easily accept any input outside their 'narrow reality window'. They will go after you, as much as they already go after Joe and me. Mark is just trying to be cute, as he works from home, himself, but N and A, and W are trying to 'compromise' others who actually research audio.
They forget, of course, that the ORIGINAL AES, was formed for people just like you or me, in order to get away from the professorial language that plagued the typical societies like the IRE. You know, real designers trying things and writing up for others what they found that worked. This changed by 1980 when Dr. Lipshitz et al took over and stopped further input, with serious rejection, EVEN IF there was no obvious mistake in the paper. Dr. Otala was stopped, for example, and many others.
Zung, just keep in mind, that these 'critics' may work for a serious, large company, (just like you did until recently) but they are minor cogs in the company structure, and only come here to 'lord over the monkeys' as best they can. It makes them a 'big shot' in a small pond, unlike the cog in the company (educated minion) that they really are.
They forget, of course, that the ORIGINAL AES, was formed for people just like you or me, in order to get away from the professorial language that plagued the typical societies like the IRE. You know, real designers trying things and writing up for others what they found that worked. This changed by 1980 when Dr. Lipshitz et al took over and stopped further input, with serious rejection, EVEN IF there was no obvious mistake in the paper. Dr. Otala was stopped, for example, and many others.
Zung, just keep in mind, that these 'critics' may work for a serious, large company, (just like you did until recently) but they are minor cogs in the company structure, and only come here to 'lord over the monkeys' as best they can. It makes them a 'big shot' in a small pond, unlike the cog in the company (educated minion) that they really are.
Very good. I have made the same suggestion many times. In fact, I can quote actual names of reputable speaker manufacturers who have done just that, inside and out of view of course, but when pointedly asked, they claim it does improve the sound.
If you have an 8 Ohm speaker system with reasonable impedance (it should not drop below 5.6 Ohm IMO) and put a large 8 Ohm resistor in parallel, the current phase angle of the speaker will flatten out noticeably.
Almost anybody can try this and report back here.
Attachments
🙂 Yep. Been there, done that, too.
It works very well especially for speaker systems with medium/high Q Z resonances.
THx-RNMarsh
It works very well especially for speaker systems with medium/high Q Z resonances.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Yes at the expense of 'lost' power and cost.
Also worth a try is to terminate speaker cables with suitable resistance, ie characteristic impedance of speaker cable.
Dan.
Warning -slight thread diversion 😀
I think total current drive would
a/ miss the sweet spot, sonically speaking and
b/ risk premature clipping as Gita speakers can have some massive impedance peaks.
The Valve State are not bad sounding amps for SS.
Interestingly, you will find total current drive in most opamp based Reverb
Tank drivers.
BTW - I forgot this thread is a diversion!
T
Hi Terry. Few are really going down the current drive path. Even when they do, there are serious compromises that you have to make, so 'pure' current drive is not an option. Commercially, only active speakers can do it in a practical way. I think that is OK, but with 'separates' systems, no.
Cheers, Joe
PS: Drop in sometime. There are a bunch of things I would love to pass by you and stuff.
PPS: If you divert a diversion, do you end up on the wrong side of the road? 😕
Cheers, Joe
PS: Drop in sometime. There are a bunch of things I would love to pass by you and stuff.
PPS: If you divert a diversion, do you end up on the wrong side of the road? 😕
Agreed, so the question is open, what does it do, how does it affect the current that goes through the voice coil? Fair question. I admit that.
It has been said here that the 'device' - being a mere parallel resistor in this case - that it has no affect on the current going through the voice coil, only the amplifier. Certainly, the amount of current does not change in the normal sense. But does something else change? Too many have heard this resistor trick to be just easily dismissed.
If there is a change in the sound, and if the source is voltage, the current does not change, but does it change in another way? There is something about the back-EMF as an impedance, that it is not stable (not like the Re part of the impedance is stable), that I am sure will eventually become the explanation. An unstable back-EMF impedance, that will change the current. I mean, should we not try to find out?
I am not the only one now seriously looking at this. I think it should be possible to put this one to bed, just a little patience. So what if I am the eternal optimist? 🙂
yep. thats true and obvious. But listen to the affect .... certainly has affect on damping, I would think.
-RNM
Last edited:
Yes, I have done and still do. I find terminating the speaker cable both ends with suitable resistance (75R and up) removes a layer of noise, current noise. The subjective result is greater clarity and 'ease' in the sound.
Dan.
Dan.
Last edited:
Joe, let's get one thing straight. There is no such thing as back-emf impedance.
Back emf is the voltage delivered by the motion of a coil within a magnetic field.
Impedance is the relationship between voltage and current.
Your use of this term is an abomination for the world's most advanced e/m theorists on the planet, never mind all the very capable people here.
I would be happy to teach you this stuff. However, I suspect you will not be amenable to learning.
From my disclosure of technology that may have been patentable, it is very clear that I do not have any skin in discussion here. I can say with confidence, most here are in the same position.
You would be well served to actually listen, as opposed to what you have been doing.
Of course, if your agenda is not actual understanding or discussion, you can just ignore me again.
Jn
Last edited:
> Interestingly, you will find total current drive
> in most opamp based Reverb Tank drivers.
To compensate for the inductance ........
> in most opamp based Reverb Tank drivers.
To compensate for the inductance ........
Well N, I have about a dozen audio products out there, and several more in prototype form. All are successful. That's just this last 10 years or so. I am famous for the stuff that I did 45-15 years ago, the Blowtorch (this thread name), The Vendetta Research SCP-2 phono preamp, not made for the last 25 years, but here is a quote from TAS last year "Even after ..." Heck, read it yourself! Yep, that's me, buddy.
Attachments
Wonderful. I am involved with every high energy physics project on the planet for the last 25 years, medical synchrotrons, ion delivery system, antimatter confinement bottle, neutrino beam, dark matter detector, MRI (but that is interesting in itself. Some guy wanted me to help with the MRI field coils, and whenI asked him about the tech, he pointed me to a site about mri's that actually included pictures I took of my windings..go figure).
The smallest thing I work on is two million dollars per unit..
The smallest project I work on costs 37 thousand dollars per hour downtime, the largest is one million dollars per day. This side of the pond, over in Geneva, it's more.
You are small potatoes. You have not contributed in at least 25 years.
I've held back as my purpose has not been to put you in your place.
You give me no choice..I would love to believe that you are not a has been. But you give me no choice. I've seen nothing of value from you in decades.
Even the high end audio guys I work with have no idea who you are.
If my legacy were high end audio, I would like at least one person to know who I was.
Me, I prefer anonymity. But, that's just me.
Jn
Last edited:
You know, if we could get a word in here, sometime, we could really discuss improvements in audio quality made in the last few years. Yes, we keep making new audio designs, but often what is asked of me is something more cost-effective, and that is a problem. For example, the Parasound JC-5 was just released at 400W into 8 ohms, 2 channel and at a cost effective $6000 (compared to 2 JC-1's, now at about $9000 or so, and still a bargain) I now use it in my reference system, it is sounds pretty good, if I must say so myself. However I have a NEW JC-1+ on my test bench that has 3 times the power supply of the JC-5, and is also rated at 400W into 8 ohms, but will do much better at 4 and less ohms. I just modified it, but I need a tech with me, for safety reasons, before I turn it back on. Maybe later this week. My latest phono design, which is very close to the Vendetta Research SCP-2, just showed at the NY audio show a week or so ago. Listening tests are being done in Florida, compared the the SCP-2 as of today. It will soon be released to the public. It is all Toshiba jfet, or Supertex. Look for it soon at some thousands of dollars, expensive for mere mortals like most here, but cheap compared to the more expensive Constellation phono preamps that I designed a few years ago, that cost about $35,000 and $80+thousand respectively. Of course, one can buy the Parasound A21,A23,A31,or A51 amps from Parasound that are based on my circuits, or for preamps, the JC-2, the JC-3+, or even the JC-3jr that was just released this year. The JC-3jr is a 'best buy' among good sounding phono preamps, at about $1500. Each design has its challenges, but I must admit, I haven't produced any really NEW topologies for the last 35 years, I am just using what I have already designed, in 2 quadrant or 4 quadrant operation, depending. And so on. What have I done lately? That's proprietary.
Attachments
Last edited:
I am far more interested in what you could do, not what you did 35 years ago.
We have a very significant problem now. I talk e/m theory and everybody goes belly up.
Scott talks noise, everybody goes belly up.
I mention only two contributors, but the theme is the same....
What are you doing to educate the youth?? Google, great. But how do we teach the youth to critically review what they read? How do we get them to look at "near super conductivity" and question that? It's garbage (from experience), but how do we get the youth to look critically?
I am not so much concerned that you've not contributed much in the last 20 or 30 years, I am only concerned about teaching the young how to critically think.
What you and I know is important. We need to pass that along.
Jn
We have a very significant problem now. I talk e/m theory and everybody goes belly up.
Scott talks noise, everybody goes belly up.
I mention only two contributors, but the theme is the same....
What are you doing to educate the youth?? Google, great. But how do we teach the youth to critically review what they read? How do we get them to look at "near super conductivity" and question that? It's garbage (from experience), but how do we get the youth to look critically?
I am not so much concerned that you've not contributed much in the last 20 or 30 years, I am only concerned about teaching the young how to critically think.
What you and I know is important. We need to pass that along.
Jn
Oh BS. You just want to make yourself look important here. By the way, E/M theory seems to be all that you know well. I doubt that you could design a quality audio circuit. The last thing that you referenced was the SW Technical amp that you modified, and that is a 45+ year old design. Show me your new stuff, N!
Last edited:
Hi Zung,
Way back in time, discoveries were made outside the lab environment regularly. But back then, not much was known in the way of circuit design or even components. Today it is a different story entirely. Most things that we can do with known components are well known in scientific circles, but not so well at large in the communities outside of labs. The finer points of low noise circuit operation are regularly employed to create various sensors for looking into space, or even our Earth.
I honestly think that the best a knowledgeable person can hope to accomplish is to learn about this prior art and successfully apply it to some audio problems. Here we have people like Scott Wurcer who has first hand knowledge of audio circuitry down to the scale needed to design amplifier chips. JN knows what noise and many other things are about, and he does help people willingly without hiding behind his ÌP or secret circuit designs. You can always tell when someone is hiding something by their refusal to be open and honest when discussing their products or designs. Even right down to the theory behind what they know about or have developed.
In this thread we have seen some folks who don`t even understand the first thing about what they are building / selling or even just talking about. Often times the way they might deal with a uncomfortable question or observation is to create a stink and side step the discussion.
I don`t think I've been unfair or argumentative with my observations. My thoughts are simply my own opinions from my own experiences over the course of my life. That's all. I have regularly met people with fantastic ideas and future products. One common issue I have noticed is that often these people have got something basic wrong. Very few of them have any sort of formal education. The one common reaction to having the obvious pointed out to them is anger, or claims they are being attacked.
So no. Unless you are a technical person working at the cutting edge of technology, or a staff scientist with a semiconductor firm, you do not have access to the equipment needed to experiment at the head of the pack. And you sure aren't doing this from a home or rental industrial unit. Today you will need to hire some knowledgeable help and at least rent some high end equipment for a while. Otherwise you are going to be unable to experiment at low levels of noise and / or low levels of distortion. If you can`t experiment to the fine levels you need to these days, you cannot work, and by that I mean you will not be discovering anything outside of the lab environment.
Lastly, anything a person discovers away from a lab without that detailed knowledge can only hope to rediscovering the wheel (prior art). That`s best case. The worst case is having gone down the wrong path, shouting your flawed discovery out to the world.
-Chris
As I said before, yes you can have ideas anywhere, including home, basement, garage or industrial unit. However those ideas do not come out of a vacuum. They come from your acquired knowledge and experiences. That acquired knowledge came from labs and legions of very bright people.
Way back in time, discoveries were made outside the lab environment regularly. But back then, not much was known in the way of circuit design or even components. Today it is a different story entirely. Most things that we can do with known components are well known in scientific circles, but not so well at large in the communities outside of labs. The finer points of low noise circuit operation are regularly employed to create various sensors for looking into space, or even our Earth.
I honestly think that the best a knowledgeable person can hope to accomplish is to learn about this prior art and successfully apply it to some audio problems. Here we have people like Scott Wurcer who has first hand knowledge of audio circuitry down to the scale needed to design amplifier chips. JN knows what noise and many other things are about, and he does help people willingly without hiding behind his ÌP or secret circuit designs. You can always tell when someone is hiding something by their refusal to be open and honest when discussing their products or designs. Even right down to the theory behind what they know about or have developed.
In this thread we have seen some folks who don`t even understand the first thing about what they are building / selling or even just talking about. Often times the way they might deal with a uncomfortable question or observation is to create a stink and side step the discussion.
I don`t think I've been unfair or argumentative with my observations. My thoughts are simply my own opinions from my own experiences over the course of my life. That's all. I have regularly met people with fantastic ideas and future products. One common issue I have noticed is that often these people have got something basic wrong. Very few of them have any sort of formal education. The one common reaction to having the obvious pointed out to them is anger, or claims they are being attacked.
So no. Unless you are a technical person working at the cutting edge of technology, or a staff scientist with a semiconductor firm, you do not have access to the equipment needed to experiment at the head of the pack. And you sure aren't doing this from a home or rental industrial unit. Today you will need to hire some knowledgeable help and at least rent some high end equipment for a while. Otherwise you are going to be unable to experiment at low levels of noise and / or low levels of distortion. If you can`t experiment to the fine levels you need to these days, you cannot work, and by that I mean you will not be discovering anything outside of the lab environment.
Lastly, anything a person discovers away from a lab without that detailed knowledge can only hope to rediscovering the wheel (prior art). That`s best case. The worst case is having gone down the wrong path, shouting your flawed discovery out to the world.
-Chris
Regarding the question of how do we teach people how to think, I believe we have gained a lot of insight into that question over the past several years. The answer is, you can't teach people how to think. Colleges don't do it. What they do is filter out people who can't think, and train those who can in professions.
What it means is that the best and the brightest have to want to go into science and engineering fields. All too often they go into investment banking to get rich. Our society doesn't really value scientists and engineers. We take them for granted. They are those nerdy people who make stuff for us.
What it means is that the best and the brightest have to want to go into science and engineering fields. All too often they go into investment banking to get rich. Our society doesn't really value scientists and engineers. We take them for granted. They are those nerdy people who make stuff for us.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.