So Crown is now top of the heap in Pro Audio ?
What i dont get is why pro amps are so cheap compared to quality home audio. I can get some weird Rotel though for about 400 bucks cash. I wish i could remember the model. Those i understand are pretty good amps. Thursday is payday ....so
What i dont get is why pro amps are so cheap compared to quality home audio. I can get some weird Rotel though for about 400 bucks cash. I wish i could remember the model. Those i understand are pretty good amps. Thursday is payday ....so
rnrss said:
Scratch this my brain farted lol
I was thinking something else so I will correct me before you guys do 🙂
It is a class I amp tho but has nothing to do with what carlos said...
Madmike2 said:
well the important thing is that you get the model so you can know what your specs are before you buy... I would stay away from their RA series as they are not to impressive but the RB series would work fine for you if you like rotel products...
http://www.rotel.com/products/stereo-power-amplifiers.htm
I would not get anything under a 500 damping though that old sae I bought before I realized the importance of amplifier damping and it is well under 500 lol...
Pretty much any amp will sound good if the specs are good...
then if your speakers are both 10ft from your amp or closer using number 10 zip cord will give you damping a little over 200 so that would work well for you and optimize your damping as well...
Your speakers will put out the way the manufacturer heard them....
Tell us about it when you get it 🙂
LOL i just got the best e-mail. I wont say from who but needless to say this person has been wanting to vent for awhile it seems. Said things you cant say on this forum.
Dude i hear ya 😀 I will trash this &*^%$(#* pioneer and buy something else then worry about the &**^%& wire and &*))( interconnects. ( i entered the widgets there no swearing from me)
I hope you feel better now 😀 Pent up Anti Pioneer aggression can cause cancer
😉
Dude i hear ya 😀 I will trash this &*^%$(#* pioneer and buy something else then worry about the &**^%& wire and &*))( interconnects. ( i entered the widgets there no swearing from me)
I hope you feel better now 😀 Pent up Anti Pioneer aggression can cause cancer
😉Madmike2 said:
Oh here is the answer to your why is pro so cheap... They arent cheap... Only on ebay you know?
http://www.samash.com/catalog/showitem.asp?SKU=CK2
Madmike2 said:LOL i just got the best e-mail. I wont say from who but needless to say this person has been wanting to vent for awhile it seems. Said things you cant say on this forum.
Dude i hear ya 😀 I will trash this &*^%$(#* pioneer and buy something else then worry about the &**^%& wire and &*))( interconnects. ( i entered the widgets there no swearing from me)
I hope you feel better now 😀 Pent up Anti Pioneer aggression can cause cancer
LOL
Why not keep your pioneer? You can use it for a preamp no?
Nah i will pass it on to someone. I want to keep as little in the chain as possible. HD to Sound card to DAC to amp to speakers. Its bad enough that i hear the computers fan between songs 😛 last thing i want to hear is an annoying hiss which is inevitable once your peice count goes up. Right now its dead silent so i figure just swapping an amp will keep it that way.
That Rotel is older series. Does not look remotely like those ones from your link. So far in the paper in T.O i see A hafler a couple QSC some Macintosh SS amps and B + O ( which i know is BS) all under 1000 dollars. SLim pickings but at least there is something. I might wander the pawn shops again come Saturday Long weekend and see if there is anything freshly brought in. My cable needs a new friend.
That Rotel is older series. Does not look remotely like those ones from your link. So far in the paper in T.O i see A hafler a couple QSC some Macintosh SS amps and B + O ( which i know is BS) all under 1000 dollars. SLim pickings but at least there is something. I might wander the pawn shops again come Saturday Long weekend and see if there is anything freshly brought in. My cable needs a new friend.
Reply re damping factor, to rnrss (post # 279):
I am saving time/space by not blocking/repeating your entry; also apology for belated reply. Because of practical reasons I cannot go into this very interesting site regularly.
Your calculations are taken; sorry if I confused you. I was hoping that I illustrated that the usual definition of
Damping factor = (load impedance)/(source impedance)
is the problem. It is not an indication of anything of practical value, for the simple reason that it does not represent the actual damping on a loudspeaker, which is the purpose of d.f. You illustrated that where you (correctly) calculated two very different d.f.s, while the actual situation as I tried to illustrate, was a negligible effect on actual driver "braking".
To take it step by step, I think we agree that
(1) damping takes place as a result of current flowing caused by the "back" e.m.f. generated by cone movement, and is
(2) proportional to that current.
(3) The magnitude of that current is limited by the TOTAL resistance (impedance) in the circuit, whatever entities contribute to such resistance.
And that is all that it is!
It is similar to saying that if I connect a smaller and smaller resistor across a battery, a higher and higher current will flow. It will not; the current will eventually be limited by the battery's internal resistance even if you short it. One cannot get 50 amp from a penlight battery.
You correctly reached a stage where you were forced to divide by zero, which as you pointed out cannot be, apart from the fact that this would give a d.f. (per classic definition) of infinity. But this can happen in practice with the amplifier reaching the right amount of negative impedance (this was explained some time ago). By classic definition this should freeze loudspeaker motion instantly, yet simple measurement will show that it does not.
Any set-up that can show cone stoppage after a pulse, will indicate that there is almost unnoticable difference between a d.f. (per above definition) of say 30 and 300 (or more), if one would care to do that. Surely then it means that the classic definition of d.f. is not a meaningful concept, however widely it is used.
(I am afraid we have several such boo-boos in electronic parlance: Just take the r.m.s watt. One can have the r.m.s. value of an alternating voltage, but a watt is a watt. Yet, how often is this used . . . .)
I hope I have made myself clearer this time; thanks for your patience and contribution.
Johan
I am saving time/space by not blocking/repeating your entry; also apology for belated reply. Because of practical reasons I cannot go into this very interesting site regularly.
Your calculations are taken; sorry if I confused you. I was hoping that I illustrated that the usual definition of
Damping factor = (load impedance)/(source impedance)
is the problem. It is not an indication of anything of practical value, for the simple reason that it does not represent the actual damping on a loudspeaker, which is the purpose of d.f. You illustrated that where you (correctly) calculated two very different d.f.s, while the actual situation as I tried to illustrate, was a negligible effect on actual driver "braking".
To take it step by step, I think we agree that
(1) damping takes place as a result of current flowing caused by the "back" e.m.f. generated by cone movement, and is
(2) proportional to that current.
(3) The magnitude of that current is limited by the TOTAL resistance (impedance) in the circuit, whatever entities contribute to such resistance.
And that is all that it is!
It is similar to saying that if I connect a smaller and smaller resistor across a battery, a higher and higher current will flow. It will not; the current will eventually be limited by the battery's internal resistance even if you short it. One cannot get 50 amp from a penlight battery.
You correctly reached a stage where you were forced to divide by zero, which as you pointed out cannot be, apart from the fact that this would give a d.f. (per classic definition) of infinity. But this can happen in practice with the amplifier reaching the right amount of negative impedance (this was explained some time ago). By classic definition this should freeze loudspeaker motion instantly, yet simple measurement will show that it does not.
Any set-up that can show cone stoppage after a pulse, will indicate that there is almost unnoticable difference between a d.f. (per above definition) of say 30 and 300 (or more), if one would care to do that. Surely then it means that the classic definition of d.f. is not a meaningful concept, however widely it is used.
(I am afraid we have several such boo-boos in electronic parlance: Just take the r.m.s watt. One can have the r.m.s. value of an alternating voltage, but a watt is a watt. Yet, how often is this used . . . .)
I hope I have made myself clearer this time; thanks for your patience and contribution.
Johan
Member
Joined 2004
While re-reading the tnt-audio site I came across this curious reference:
"And no, no voodoo-science at work here: this cable configuration has been used even by Pioneer in the early days of HiFi cables (early eighties)."
Looks like these were the perfect match for that old amp.
"And no, no voodoo-science at work here: this cable configuration has been used even by Pioneer in the early days of HiFi cables (early eighties)."
Looks like these were the perfect match for that old amp.
Member
Joined 2004
Johan Potgieter said:
For a damping factor of 30 that comes to an internal Z of .27ohms into an 8ohm load
For a nominal 8ohm driver circuit current is:
2.37amps = sqrt{45watts/8ohms}
Then Uncontrolled back EMF power is:
1.52 Watts = {2.37}sq * .27ohms
Therefore 1.52watts is being generated across the source as a result of EMF with a source damping factor of 30.
Then with a damping factor of 300 it comes to:
.152 watts
Lets skip negative impedance for the moment as we do not need it cluttering up this discussion and lets just stick to simple and easily understandable low Z amps, wire and speakers...
In the example I just illustrated using 45watts to the driver will allow a speaker to produce 1.52 watts of garbage output with a damping factor of only 30...
The speaker will also be soft sounding and will not reach the proper position it should be in with 45watts applied, thus 1.52 watts less punch too...
The majority of modern drivers when driven with 1 watt will produce over 90 db at 1 meter...
Consider that we now have 1.52 watts, 90+db of garbage this driver can produce and introduce into our music...
Since we agree that it is current flow then you must also agree that a factor of 10 better by increasing the damping from 30 to 300 which changes garbage wattage from 1.52 watts to a mere .15 watts of garbage that the speaker can produce...
How can you possibly say traditional damping formulas are worthless or dont work or whatever?
I conclude that a 10 times better damping factor gives 10 times better results and takes the drivers garbage output well below the threshold of hearing and I fail to see where you have a problem and do not see that?
Few very high quality systems out there today even come close to the point of diminishing returns on damping much less approach the point of being concerned with the maximum possible damping due to internal driver impedance... and even less dealing with negative impedance...
Johan I dont have a problem with you going head to head up against the status quo ok.., I say go get em!!! But if you are going to tell us that the formulas that we have all been accustomed to using for whatever reason you wish to believe that they are incorrect, misrepresentative, misleading or otherwise inaccurate or useless I feel you also owe it to this forum to show us definitave proof by posting the results of any work "you" have done in this area and frankly if you are correct and have found a new or better way then you should also do a thesis on it and file it with the AES and go down in history with the credit that is due to you for your discovery...
Johan Potgieter said:
I cannot find and I do not know anyone else with exception to you who can find any problems what so ever with the traditional method of calculating damping and until you can show us real proof by means of a formula or other tests that are acceptable also to the AES then I will stick with the accepted standard of Dft= sum(Zl)/sumZs.
I cannot find a problem with the rms watt either.
re damping
I think it was Art Ludwig who pointed out the fallacy in the concern about damping factor and cabling when for the most part you are connecting it to a crossover inductor that has .2-1 Ohm series resistance.
I think it was Art Ludwig who pointed out the fallacy in the concern about damping factor and cabling when for the most part you are connecting it to a crossover inductor that has .2-1 Ohm series resistance.
Re: re damping
Yes but that is not really a fallacy but it does help to diminish the returns quickly... That is why if you look at the pic i posted a few posts ago you will see a coil wound with number 4 square wire to replace the original coil...
But that is a very good point and I agree that it significantly reduces the amount of reasonable damping one can achieve...
I have to admit that I was surprized at how much volume from back emf is produced by a .27ohm coil for instance... wow
I never really sat down and did the math on it before I just went with what my ears told me... lol
I can imagine what the believers in air core inductors are thinking now lol
rcw said:
Yes but that is not really a fallacy but it does help to diminish the returns quickly... That is why if you look at the pic i posted a few posts ago you will see a coil wound with number 4 square wire to replace the original coil...
But that is a very good point and I agree that it significantly reduces the amount of reasonable damping one can achieve...
I have to admit that I was surprized at how much volume from back emf is produced by a .27ohm coil for instance... wow
I never really sat down and did the math on it before I just went with what my ears told me... lol
I can imagine what the believers in air core inductors are thinking now lol
Re: re damping
Back EMF is generated from the inertia of the cone and natural response of the suspension bringing the cone back to neutral position. So it cannot be derived from the 45 Watts used to drive the driver, but must be caluculated based on the speed at which the cone is travelling and the magnetic field density.
rnrss said:
Back EMF is generated from the inertia of the cone and natural response of the suspension bringing the cone back to neutral position. So it cannot be derived from the 45 Watts used to drive the driver, but must be caluculated based on the speed at which the cone is travelling and the magnetic field density.
rnrss wrote..
Johan I dont have a problem with you going head to head up against the status quo ok.., I say go get em!!! But if you are going to tell us that the formulas that we have all been accustomed to using for whatever reason you wish to believe that they are incorrect, misrepresentative, misleading or otherwise inaccurate or useless I feel you also owe it to this forum to show us definitave proof by posting the results of any work "you" have done in this area and frankly if you are correct and have found a new or better way then you should also do a thesis on it and file it with the AES and go down in history with the credit that is due to you for your discovery...
________________
I agree with Johann... traditional damping factor is pretty much useless.
I'd stick to using your ears, I think,... your math seems a bit suspect...and your argumentation a bit patronizing Not much definitive proof offered supporting the opposite thesis has yet been presented.... nor any concerning "wire" sound...
rnrss wrote...
Have you ever heard a good horn setup? I am not sure how to describe it exactly but I will give it my best shot...
________________
Yup... they all have ... how shall I say it... a horn-ey character that makes the music and image sound not quite right... don't get me wrong.. they are efficient, big and dog-ugly... not to my taste... reminds me of the sound from the old Victrolas etc... I even built a dozen or so folded horns 30 years ago using big EV drivers for concert halls and frat parties.... old technology that to my taste hasn't withstood the test of time...(i know.. SET amps and horns are all the rage in certain circles, so caveat emptor, ymmv, etc.)
rnrss wrote...
For the wire in the plating industry... The results they came up with in their wire tests is about what I would have expected frankly... but then comparing a plating source to a stereo amplifier is like comparing apples to trucks in as much as how the internal resistance affects the outcome...
_________________
Excuse me?? The results from the 4 ought wires (which were OFHC precision wound for aerospace manufacturing, we just "borrowed them" for a few weekends) much larger and higher quality than any 00 wire you might find commercially) compared to many other wire types and amps showed using real science (including unbiased ears) no discernable difference that was of any significance. Your un-scientific 15 person test had no statistical power.
Who compared plating sources to amplifiers? Not me. Only thing the 2 have in common is they both utilize electricity. Pointless argument and irrelevant.
Johan I dont have a problem with you going head to head up against the status quo ok.., I say go get em!!! But if you are going to tell us that the formulas that we have all been accustomed to using for whatever reason you wish to believe that they are incorrect, misrepresentative, misleading or otherwise inaccurate or useless I feel you also owe it to this forum to show us definitave proof by posting the results of any work "you" have done in this area and frankly if you are correct and have found a new or better way then you should also do a thesis on it and file it with the AES and go down in history with the credit that is due to you for your discovery...
________________
I agree with Johann... traditional damping factor is pretty much useless.
I'd stick to using your ears, I think,... your math seems a bit suspect...and your argumentation a bit patronizing Not much definitive proof offered supporting the opposite thesis has yet been presented.... nor any concerning "wire" sound...
rnrss wrote...
Have you ever heard a good horn setup? I am not sure how to describe it exactly but I will give it my best shot...
________________
Yup... they all have ... how shall I say it... a horn-ey character that makes the music and image sound not quite right... don't get me wrong.. they are efficient, big and dog-ugly... not to my taste... reminds me of the sound from the old Victrolas etc... I even built a dozen or so folded horns 30 years ago using big EV drivers for concert halls and frat parties.... old technology that to my taste hasn't withstood the test of time...(i know.. SET amps and horns are all the rage in certain circles, so caveat emptor, ymmv, etc.)
rnrss wrote...
For the wire in the plating industry... The results they came up with in their wire tests is about what I would have expected frankly... but then comparing a plating source to a stereo amplifier is like comparing apples to trucks in as much as how the internal resistance affects the outcome...
_________________
Excuse me?? The results from the 4 ought wires (which were OFHC precision wound for aerospace manufacturing, we just "borrowed them" for a few weekends) much larger and higher quality than any 00 wire you might find commercially) compared to many other wire types and amps showed using real science (including unbiased ears) no discernable difference that was of any significance. Your un-scientific 15 person test had no statistical power.
Who compared plating sources to amplifiers? Not me. Only thing the 2 have in common is they both utilize electricity. Pointless argument and irrelevant.
auplater said:
rnrss said:
I specifically said "For the wire in the plating industry" so my above comment was directed at the differences between the different 4ought, (Awg#0000 wires), as my understanding was that you were testing them using 12 volts in the plating industry, and then you went on to compare the purity of copper between cables....
As you can see I did not make a reference or a comparison between 00 and 0000 wire in my statement... of course 0000 has lower resistance and thus would be higher quality than 00...
Now in reading it again and comparing it to your coments, if you were talking about testing it on some speaker system well that is another story...
auplater said:
So if you are saying that you did an experiment where you tested awg0000 wire in a DBT and compared it to an awg14 for instance and did not hear any difference there are several design dependant legitimate reasons you may not have heard a difference...
Well from the information we have received from you so far my test has 15 times more value than your 1 person, personal opinion however.
If you do not post the backgound, nature and circumstances of your DBT, what you tested it on, source impedance, crossover resistance etc etc etc, your comments on this matter are meaningless.
Without knowing the properties of what you did this test on and the cicumstances surrounding it, it would be anyones guess of any number of possible legitimate reasons why you heard no difference even to the point of questioning your ability to hear it if it was there to begin with... But then you have not made this clear at this point....
BTW I worked in the plating industry for a while too
This is a useless, one sided conversation... you get to make unsubstantiated claims without any rigor other than some "15 people didn't know what you were doing while switching," and state them as fact... if I do likewise, I'm misleading and open to all sorts of mysterious unknowns and anyone's guess as to why no difference... I offered this for others perusal.. the fact that a group of audio hobbyists attempted to apply some science and found that the results were consistent with engineering principals and the VAST majority of thinking on the subject speaks for itself...
read some texts on statistical analysis, confidence intervals, statistical power (it has a real meaning from calculations btw) You might learn something
absolutely mindless... I'm outa this thread...
read some texts on statistical analysis, confidence intervals, statistical power (it has a real meaning from calculations btw) You might learn something
absolutely mindless... I'm outa this thread...
Jesus!
Do people still argue about cable? Clearly so.
I don't know why people still bite. Some hear differences and some don't. I for one use basic but good silver in telfon, its cheap and sounds exactly the same (to me) as some the best I wasted money on when I was daft and spent around £30+ per metre on speaker cable.
I've actually still got the Nordost Blue Heaven speaker cable that I bought at the height of this daftness and their really is ****** all difference according to my ears.
A good cable with sound electrical properties is really all that's needed. When they start to mention in the blurb that the propagation of the cable is 92% of the speed of light (Nordost again) You know there's some bull in that.
I'd have thought most DIY'ers would be immune to all this nonsense.
Do people still argue about cable? Clearly so.
I don't know why people still bite. Some hear differences and some don't. I for one use basic but good silver in telfon, its cheap and sounds exactly the same (to me) as some the best I wasted money on when I was daft and spent around £30+ per metre on speaker cable.
I've actually still got the Nordost Blue Heaven speaker cable that I bought at the height of this daftness and their really is ****** all difference according to my ears.
A good cable with sound electrical properties is really all that's needed. When they start to mention in the blurb that the propagation of the cable is 92% of the speed of light (Nordost again) You know there's some bull in that.
I'd have thought most DIY'ers would be immune to all this nonsense.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.