Why does it take everyone so long to understand that Jan made a typo and @ItsAllInMyHead is completely correct? Is it some neurotypical thing, people without autism reading what they expect to see instead of what it actually there?
I misread it a few times but you are absolutely correct. It should be: the higher the damping factor, the more the speaker resonances are supressed.Much appreciated! That part seems logical. However, my core concern is that I may have this totally backwards from what I'm interpreting from the chart vs. the statement. What you're describing seems important, but more subtle.
Let me try one more time... since don't think it's a subtlety. Either Jan or I (more likely the latter, I think) have something reversed.
Perhaps I am not asking relevant questions and/or my questions are ridiculous. I am not sure.
Step by step...
We are discussing this graph from the article.
View attachment 1256179
Jan says this about the graph above quoted from the article.
Ian Hegglun [1] did some work on the effects of amplifier output impedance (and thus DF), which shows that the lower the DF, the more the speaker resonances are suppressed
I had asked if my interpretation of speaker resonances being suppressed was correct. It seems to be. The "flatter" the response, the more resonances are suppressed. If I have this wrong, please let me know.
I had asked if my interpretation of the relation of DF to Rout was correct. It seems to be. The higher the DF, the lower the Rout. They have a direct inverse relationship. If I have this wrong, please let me know.
For now, what I really want to know is how can the statement be true from the graph depicted above and the article.
Ian Hegglun [1] did some work on the effects of amplifier output impedance (and thus DF), which shows that the lower the DF, the more the speaker resonances are suppressed
To me, the HIGHER the DF (lower Rout) results in more speaker resonances being suppressed.
However... I fully concede once again, that I am learning. I would simply like to know what I have wrong in my interpretation. I want to cross the main chunk of learning off the list before I try to dig deeper. If I have this backwards (and it seems I do)... I don't need to progress to 201. I'm stuck in remedial.
So... if anyone could simply let me know where I went wrong and/or if there is a typo related to that one sentence describing that one graph, I'd be very, very grateful.
Good catch, my face is red ...
Jan
Hi Jan -
Not a worry in the world as far as I'm concerned. In some ways, it's helped me to learn it and remember it much better. As a novice, trying to explain a point / 'defend' (in terms of like a thesis defense) a position and explain it logically helped me out. Clearly I need to work on my communication / presentation skills. I was getting incredibly frustrated ... and may have muttered to myself a few times, "WHAT AM I NOT EXPLAINING PROPERLY"!?
The good news is that I can remove the dunce cap and proceed to trying to understand a little more of the "why and how" vs. just memorizing that Higher DF (lower Rout) is generally better up to a point.... but it only goes so far.
Your willingness to teach even the thick-headed among us is admirable.
With gratitude,
Patrick
Just a good catch! 👍
It's one of those kinda confusing concepts, similar like load vs impedance -> an high/heavy load will be a low impedance.
To understand damping factor better, I personally find it much easier to think in concepts of output series resistance of a system (amplifier).
In fact ,that's where the term damping factor comes from.
Unfortunately, people like to make it confusing again, since the damping factor from an amplifier is calculated as;
While the electrical damping factor is calculated as;
Source; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping_factor
Or in other words, the DF is nothing more than the inverse of the transfer function of two impedances (resistors);
see; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage_divider
The name is is also rather confusing, since a lower damping factor (higher internal resistance) will give a peaking result with an loudspeaker impedance.
Giving the impression that it's the opposite.
I personally prefer just to speak about the amplifier's (or system in more general terms) internal output resistance/impedance and rarely use the word damping factor.
Mostly because it always confuses people, even people who have been into this stuff for a long time 😉 🙂
That's kind... but perhaps giving me a bit more credit than due.
I didn't catch anything. I admit I was confused as #$!@, and I hate not understanding things. I go a bit batty. So... I persisted.
People more skilled may be able to catch errors. I was simply trying to understand what was being said. I probably used (just a few) 🙂 more words than necessary to describe my confusion, but in fairness... @MarcelvdG deserves credit for the "catch".
Had I any knowledge of the subject whatsoever, I may have been able to say with some confidence back in post #440 that there was an error... but alas...
Either way... this (to me) is a fantastic example of a group of people that continue to teach.
I still have a BUNCH of things to read going back to the article that Jan kindly posted along with the additional information from you @PMA and @Markw4 ...
I paste a bunch of things into my "archives".... so once again...
Thank you!
Don't forget that damping factor is as much an advertising thing as a tech term. In advertising, it's good if higher numbers are better!
Or lower numbers (distortion), but not some convoluted equation!
Jan
Or lower numbers (distortion), but not some convoluted equation!
Jan
I come from a completely different background than electronics, which won't shock anyone. It shouldn't surprise me in electronics that the marketing folks latched on to terms that at some point in time were likely just in test reports. It certainly happened in my field. I had thought electronics (because of the nature of the products themselves) might be more immune to the dilution of and (sometimes) intentional obfuscation of published specifications .... but live and learn...
I'm wrong every day, just ask my wife.
Audio is easy prey for the advertisers and snake oil crowd because it is almost impossible to verify claims.
The only 'instrument' you have is listening, and perception is so easily manipulated it's a freeway to the bank for the peddlers.
If someone can't hear the difference between a 100 $ cable and a 5k $ cable it is because he/she/it is deaf and/or can't appreciate quality.
Even here, where people should think before typing, those peddlers are suppported.
Talk about shitting in your own bed.
The only other industry that comes close is quack medicine.
Jan
The only 'instrument' you have is listening, and perception is so easily manipulated it's a freeway to the bank for the peddlers.
If someone can't hear the difference between a 100 $ cable and a 5k $ cable it is because he/she/it is deaf and/or can't appreciate quality.
Even here, where people should think before typing, those peddlers are suppported.
Talk about shitting in your own bed.
The only other industry that comes close is quack medicine.
Jan
Last edited:
"The only other industry that comes close is quack medicine."
Well, this inspired me to a new term: "quack audio"😉
Well, this inspired me to a new term: "quack audio"😉
I don't agree at all with the idea that it's impossible to verify claims.
The fact is very simple I think, there are no standards and/or no one wants to comply to them.
It's not difficult to come up with a list that already explains about 90% of the performance of any audio product. (if not more). This data is at least more than nothing at all.
The ever counter strawman argument that the proof is in eating the pudding is totally irrelevant.
Or in other words, you can still provide objective data, but still decide after eating the pudding to go for something else.
Just go have have a browse through speakers that are being tested and measured at Erin's Audio Corner.
The vast majority of problems can be measured and the correlation between listening seems to be adequate.
But we can all guess what's gonna happen with sales of certain products or brands.
Providing vague claims has only one purpose in any industry, not just for audio.
I also don't agree with the idea that this is so unique to audio.
Plethora of examples that work exactly like snake oil.
^ 
For those that haven't seen it - I am thrilled by the general discussion that @Bonsai has started... over here...
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...sessment-of-overall-amplifier-quality.407222/
In a 'former life' I sat on our claims committee from a QA / testing / validation perspective for a sizeable retailer. We reviewed packaging and/or advertising claims for any product carrying our brand(s). We covered everything from objective claims around performance to things as goofy as "smells like teen spirit". We created a claims protocol for our partner laboratories to use that (my guess) was over 100 pages with thousands of test lines to determine if traditional testing could/should be used for validation around particular claims. Each new claim would be reviewed, we'd determine how to validate (if necessary) or whether that claim could be made at all. "Soft" claims were more tricky. Was it a "claim" or was it "ad copy"?
We spent 100's of man-hours and set up a specific sub-committee for environmental claims alone. We worked with the federal government on "greenswashing" guidelines.
My long-winded point is... Verification (to a reasonable extent) can be done.... for almost any product type... for almost any type of claim, and I agree that garbage claims are not confined to any particular industry.
"Makes your system sound like a choir of angels" would be ad copy.
But... comparative claims... oh boy... let me loose. Any time someone notes an "improvement", they'd better be able to provide substantiating documents (if I were in enforcement).
The key, to me, was always the intent to do our best to never deceive the guest while allowing marketing a level of room to differentiate the characteristics of the product from competitors in a meaningful way. One thing that never, ever stood up was "our competitor says it, so we should be able to also". That's when my friends in legal would take a swing. The FTC (in the USA) is pretty toothless, and preserving a reputation was often the main motivator, but one of my favorite attorneys would look at people and just calmly say... "How much budget do you have for fines and legal fees?". That usually shut people up pretty quick.
IMO... the audio industry "gets away with it" not because the claims can't be validated, but because the FTC (and many consumers) just couldn't care less.
For those that haven't seen it - I am thrilled by the general discussion that @Bonsai has started... over here...
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...sessment-of-overall-amplifier-quality.407222/
In a 'former life' I sat on our claims committee from a QA / testing / validation perspective for a sizeable retailer. We reviewed packaging and/or advertising claims for any product carrying our brand(s). We covered everything from objective claims around performance to things as goofy as "smells like teen spirit". We created a claims protocol for our partner laboratories to use that (my guess) was over 100 pages with thousands of test lines to determine if traditional testing could/should be used for validation around particular claims. Each new claim would be reviewed, we'd determine how to validate (if necessary) or whether that claim could be made at all. "Soft" claims were more tricky. Was it a "claim" or was it "ad copy"?
We spent 100's of man-hours and set up a specific sub-committee for environmental claims alone. We worked with the federal government on "greenswashing" guidelines.
My long-winded point is... Verification (to a reasonable extent) can be done.... for almost any product type... for almost any type of claim, and I agree that garbage claims are not confined to any particular industry.
"Makes your system sound like a choir of angels" would be ad copy.
But... comparative claims... oh boy... let me loose. Any time someone notes an "improvement", they'd better be able to provide substantiating documents (if I were in enforcement).
The key, to me, was always the intent to do our best to never deceive the guest while allowing marketing a level of room to differentiate the characteristics of the product from competitors in a meaningful way. One thing that never, ever stood up was "our competitor says it, so we should be able to also". That's when my friends in legal would take a swing. The FTC (in the USA) is pretty toothless, and preserving a reputation was often the main motivator, but one of my favorite attorneys would look at people and just calmly say... "How much budget do you have for fines and legal fees?". That usually shut people up pretty quick.
IMO... the audio industry "gets away with it" not because the claims can't be validated, but because the FTC (and many consumers) just couldn't care less.
I was just about to say this as well.
I know people who work as engineers in the food industry as well as people who work in other technical electronics industries.
The lack of the information we have in audio would be a 100% no-no.
Companies still try (and unfortunately succeed), just on different ways.
The reason why is always the same and it's never a technical or objective one.
@ItsAllInMyHead
This is one of the ideas that would just never work. To pass through regulations, any company has to provide actual reports and studies on this.
Obviously that's also biased, but it has to be fully transparent how these companies concluded certain claims.
Just saying that you simply can hear the difference between cables with some quasi science would simply not be excepted.
Not to talk about many audio companies who don't even comply to very basic UL, FCC and PFC regulations.
Last edited:
Most people have nothing but their ears to analyze audio equipment. Even if they had test equipment they would have no idea how to use it. Plus, there are so many misconceptions about audio equipment that have perpetuated through the decades that the public is pretty clueless about how it even works.
Years ago I measures several models of speakers from a major manufacturer of audio equipment. This is a brand that the average consumer probably considers top tier equipment. They do not publish any specifications but their marketing appeals to the "Lifestyle" (of morons with too much money). Anyway, the results were predictable; very narrow bandwidth, very uneven frequency response, terrible impulse response with more hangover than primary note, terrible dynamic response (it's baked into the design!), and subjectively garbled dialog and vocals, very, very high distortion, etc. Expensive and awful. I published my results on the Web and was summarily threatened by lawyers to take it down and STFU so I did. This company doesn't even have the cajones to publish their specs beyond recommended power.
Nothing but junk- but the brand is held in very high esteem in the eyes of consumers, Because Marketing.
Most people don't have the equipment to test the performance from cars.
Or how their charger performs.
Yet, these manufacturers have the obligation to make sure they provide adequate data.
Even though the consumer probably still doesn't (really) understand what it means.
^ 
@b_force - From Post #475 - I do want to try and learn more about how other parts of the world handle it. It's interesting (to me) that it's similar around the world. I used to have a pretty good handle on the USA and Canada. I'm completely unfamiliar with how the EU (as an example) or the individual countries within handle it. I just thought that we were particularly inept. I've read some of the EU electrical standards, and they'd seem to help prevent some of the nonsense around power claims (as an example), but it seems it still persists.
From post #476. Even in the USA, that's SUPPOSED to be how it would work at a federal level... by statute. There is simply no enforcement. I can tell you for a fact that if a supplier of audio cables for my previous employer ever tried to go to one of our buyers and said... "OH YEAH!!!! Look at the margins you can get on this cable. Just say... Blah, blah, blah". That supplier would have been required to provide stacks of documentation to substantiate the claim. Of course, they'd never be able to, and it would never get through.
I think we all wished that there was some level of enforcement at a government level of some "sanity" or industry standard... but sadly... it's not a big enough deal for the FTC to get involved, and I doubt any single consumer or consumer group would care enough to bring suit.
My cynical side also thinks that every manufacturer in audio is complicit. Heck... I've read enough from people I trust to think that (within reason) every manufacturer / brand should be able to have a line of amplifiers at various power levels that no one should be able to audibly discern between ... However, if that were the case... the industry would evaporate. It would be the fastest race to the bottom on price. I think I said it somewhere before... they NEED consumers to think that there is something magical contained within that black box. Otherwise... what have they got?
Edited to correct user name... 🙂
@b_force - From Post #475 - I do want to try and learn more about how other parts of the world handle it. It's interesting (to me) that it's similar around the world. I used to have a pretty good handle on the USA and Canada. I'm completely unfamiliar with how the EU (as an example) or the individual countries within handle it. I just thought that we were particularly inept. I've read some of the EU electrical standards, and they'd seem to help prevent some of the nonsense around power claims (as an example), but it seems it still persists.
From post #476. Even in the USA, that's SUPPOSED to be how it would work at a federal level... by statute. There is simply no enforcement. I can tell you for a fact that if a supplier of audio cables for my previous employer ever tried to go to one of our buyers and said... "OH YEAH!!!! Look at the margins you can get on this cable. Just say... Blah, blah, blah". That supplier would have been required to provide stacks of documentation to substantiate the claim. Of course, they'd never be able to, and it would never get through.
I think we all wished that there was some level of enforcement at a government level of some "sanity" or industry standard... but sadly... it's not a big enough deal for the FTC to get involved, and I doubt any single consumer or consumer group would care enough to bring suit.
My cynical side also thinks that every manufacturer in audio is complicit. Heck... I've read enough from people I trust to think that (within reason) every manufacturer / brand should be able to have a line of amplifiers at various power levels that no one should be able to audibly discern between ... However, if that were the case... the industry would evaporate. It would be the fastest race to the bottom on price. I think I said it somewhere before... they NEED consumers to think that there is something magical contained within that black box. Otherwise... what have they got?
Edited to correct user name... 🙂