but is that not the same as 'once you are past the cochlea everything can be steered' (paraphrase of JJ from the audio myths workshop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ)
Depends how you divide detection and decoding.
No, thanks.
But, on your side, if you could stop this boring crusade and this endless harassment against Richard ?
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PPf-GwRBZ8Y/maxresdefault.jpg
Last edited:
No it was the classic of current flow producing small voltage drops that were not properly routed after the fix. Before the issue was that even a large through plated hole was not a good low value ohmic resistor.
Brad,
How often when you look does a speaker rated at 4 ohms drop much lower than that, it seems fairly common to see some extremely low impedance curves. I've been thinking about this for some time.
I've built two identical speakers with the only differences being the impedance of the coil, one 4 and the other 8 ohms. The actual efficiency ended up being practically identical, the 8 ohm coil being heavier but with a long winding length in the gap. The cost for the inductors for the passive xo on the 4 ohm version was much lower, 4th order, and this was some advantage in cost but otherwise I always questioned my decision.
After reading and comprehending some of the information in the book Current Drive for loudspeakers I am again questioning the use of low impedance voice-coils. Given the use of electronic xo's and some form of passive impedance compensation at the speaker what would you choose if given that choice when selecting the basic impedance of the device? Let's leave out upper frequency response for now controlled by mass.
How often when you look does a speaker rated at 4 ohms drop much lower than that, it seems fairly common to see some extremely low impedance curves. I've been thinking about this for some time.
I've built two identical speakers with the only differences being the impedance of the coil, one 4 and the other 8 ohms. The actual efficiency ended up being practically identical, the 8 ohm coil being heavier but with a long winding length in the gap. The cost for the inductors for the passive xo on the 4 ohm version was much lower, 4th order, and this was some advantage in cost but otherwise I always questioned my decision.
After reading and comprehending some of the information in the book Current Drive for loudspeakers I am again questioning the use of low impedance voice-coils. Given the use of electronic xo's and some form of passive impedance compensation at the speaker what would you choose if given that choice when selecting the basic impedance of the device? Let's leave out upper frequency response for now controlled by mass.
If the cable has sufficient impedance (probably mainly series resistance) to become a "significant factor in the sound produced" then it is a poor cable. If it is combined with a poor amp (with unusually low damping factor e.g. many SE) then things get worse, as the two impedances add.dvv said:
I can't quite decide if this was said tongue in cheek, or is intended to be taken seriously.Bonsai said:
So do-y.
An attempt to can sell them for cars with little amps directly powered by the 12V battery ?
Not to spoil it, but methinks Bonsai is keeping April 1st alive. Given his otherwise cogent posts, and the fact that he started this satire directly in the middle of the most recent silver cable hurrah.
That is the fokelore I heard. Apogee effectively created the market for Krell. I am sure JC or Nelson know if that was really the case.
Luckily my apogees are a bit higher at 3 Ohms from 1KHz up.
The discerning old one can opt to compensate the loss of hearing by supporting it with measurements.
Ironically, the exact opposite appears to be more often the case.
+1His shepherding everyone thru the CFA discussion was masterful.
The guy had put-me in his ignore list because i "claimed" ;-) a pole in the feedback loop with the capacitances of the input stage feedback input.
Little by little, we discover all the members of the twins club.
"Azinus azinum fricat".
Last edited:
I offered to do his PCB and that's how he treated me. Yeah, he loves you if you do a load of free work for him that he thinks he's too good to dirty his hands with.
If his board works it'll only be as a result of the input of other people such as AlexMM.
His schematic was full of errata. Some circuits did not turn on. Numerous components had no designators. There was no functional circuit description. He was dependent on others to draw schematics. His BOM was incomplete. Components without datasheets with footprints were employed. No directions as regards layout were given. He has no skills with a simulator.
He was lazy. They say genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. No worries there then, because Esperado wasn't going to break a sweat.
Just the kind of useless jerk you learn not to get paired up with in a big office.
What is wrong with you guys? Each of us has our developed skills, and nobody that I know has them all 90% or more. For example, I use a layout expert for my best designs, and I have been working with him, for more than 30 years. I would not do a good job with a board layout, even though I have had to do it on occasion. My associate comes to me for designs when he needs them. The combination works optimally.
Unfortunately, my layout expert HAS to deal with me when it comes to schematics and BOMs. Heck, I make HIM do it, I always have, and he gets some 'hen scratchings' and a phone call from me for the basic design. Then once he develops the early schematic, I am constantly asked to 'fill in the blanks' so that a prototype can be made. It is a slow, untidy process, but it works! We have done dozens of world class award winning designs this way over the last 30 years.
Many of you are part of a corporate structure. I have been there and done that, but I am not happy doing it. Your expectations from others may be different, but they are not 'paved in stone'. You could be more tolerant, especially at an amateur (unpaid) level.
Unfortunately, my layout expert HAS to deal with me when it comes to schematics and BOMs. Heck, I make HIM do it, I always have, and he gets some 'hen scratchings' and a phone call from me for the basic design. Then once he develops the early schematic, I am constantly asked to 'fill in the blanks' so that a prototype can be made. It is a slow, untidy process, but it works! We have done dozens of world class award winning designs this way over the last 30 years.
Many of you are part of a corporate structure. I have been there and done that, but I am not happy doing it. Your expectations from others may be different, but they are not 'paved in stone'. You could be more tolerant, especially at an amateur (unpaid) level.
I sometimes spend a lot of time writing instructions, component types and measurements for Alex. I figure there's no way he could, or should have to, guess at which exact components I would be using. I always include measurements of the heat sinks I plan to use, and always include the data sheets of the transistors I am using. I know he probably has them anyway, but I like to eliminate guesswork which turns into gambling.
The Wilson WATT1 does have a resonant dip to .3 ohm or so at 2KHz. It is a design oversight, BUT with tubes (interestingly enough) or very high current power amps like KRELL, which it was developed with, there is little audible problem. Dave knows better, today, but I brought this problem out 1.5 years ago at a Wilson Audio interview that Dave had made this mistake in the WATT1. However, I have used a WATT1 since 1989 or so, happily, (with the right power amps) up until Dave gave me a pair of SASHA 1's that I use today for serious listening.
John,
Your so correct that many times we do cooperate with someone else who has an expertise we don't or is just better at something than we are. I see nothing wrong with that, in fact I think it is often an advantage to have a second set of eyes to look at a design. Some people can work well with others and some just don't work well in a group.
Your so correct that many times we do cooperate with someone else who has an expertise we don't or is just better at something than we are. I see nothing wrong with that, in fact I think it is often an advantage to have a second set of eyes to look at a design. Some people can work well with others and some just don't work well in a group.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.