>We're supposed to be measuring amplifier distortion.
I ( and the author ) have been talking about system distortion. Perhaps that's the reason for the head bumping. We've been talking about 2 differant things, thinking we're talking about the same thing............Not unusual actually......Part of the human condition. I'll let you off with 1 beer. I'm having a special on knowledge this week 🙂
Mega Regards .............. mike
I ( and the author ) have been talking about system distortion. Perhaps that's the reason for the head bumping. We've been talking about 2 differant things, thinking we're talking about the same thing............Not unusual actually......Part of the human condition. I'll let you off with 1 beer. I'm having a special on knowledge this week 🙂
Mega Regards .............. mike
hitsware said:
What he's talking about is amplifier behavior while driving a reactive load as opposed to a purely resistive load. And to that end, he says that we should measure the distortion of the current waveform rather than the voltage waveform.
By the way, I tried EMailing the author but the EMail address he has on his website is no longer active and my EMail was bounced back.
se
We understood it 2 differant ways. Groovy if you can communicate with him, but that's an old article so ?
mm
mm
hitsware said:
The EMail address I tried was from the author's web page at:
http://www.omegav.ntnu.no/~dunker/horns.html
se
Are you sure about the electrical model of a driver being parralell resonant. I really agree from an empirical standpoint, since impedance goes up at Fs, but seems I've read (more than one place) and been told by a 'guru' that it is considered series?
.........??????
.........??????
hitsware said:
Why would something that behaves as a parallel RLC circuit and whose behavior can be modeled with a parallel RLC circuit be considered a series RLC circuit? This has been verified over and over again.
Here's the basic model of an electrodynamic loudspeaker:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Re is the voice coil's DC resistance, Lvc is the voice coil's inductance, Lces is the electrical equivalent of the cone's compliance, Cmes is the electrical equivalent of the cone's mass, and Res is the cone's losses.
se
jam said:
Seems to me, further reading indicates that the "negistor", or "negative differential resistor" is really a voltage cotrolled resistor, such that the impressed voltage changes the resistance characteristic. The "negative" comes from the slope of differential of the current vs voltage (di/dv) curve changing to a negative value at some region. Simply stated more V gives you less I, therefore R increses with V for any operating point along the "negative differential region". For each operating point, I = E / R still holds true, it's just that R = f(E) modifies the equation.
Ohms law still applies....
dkemppai said:
DON'T BELIEVE HIM! HE WAS PAID TO SAY THIS! He's one of... them.
FREE YOURSELVES FROM THE VAST CONSPIRACY! IT'S ALL A LIE! FREE ENERGY FOR EVERYONE!
se
Sounds good to me.
Only possibility I can see is if the top inductor dominates over the bottom one then it (the whole network) becomes series ..... right ?
Only possibility I can see is if the top inductor dominates over the bottom one then it (the whole network) becomes series ..... right ?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.