What on earth are you talking about Dan, have you finally lost it entirely?
Keep cool, max. Scottjoplin was just starting to write the lyrics of a country song.
Can’t be......there was no mention of Mama,trains,trucks,prison, or gettin drunk!
I used these resistors MP930-100-1% Caddock | Mouser for production and some Vishay 1/2w on my Quads at home. It does usually seem to make a significant difference.
Brilliant, the second one especially, if forgetting you are listening is a sign of accuracy, then it was accurate........and that was on my laptop speakers
Think about how electrons flow in a metal film! On the surface and only to a few microns deep into the metal. This creates thermal hotpots due to manufacturing defects and impurities. People think MF's sound bad in some applications because of the resistor inductance arising from the helical cut in these resistors used to achieve exact resistance, but it not - its the hot spots and that leads to constricted highs and loss of dynamics at HF.
Think I'm talking bs? take a look at this
http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_074_01_0088.pdf where the math proves it.
The correct solution is a Ayrton-Perry wire-wound resistor (see here Ayrton& - Wikipedia ). Mills do the best ones (great resistors for CFA feedback networks BTW - I measured the L on the 1k 10W that I use at 36nH which is about the 3x a straight copper track on a PCB).
Details here Vishay Mills - Vishay Brands - and they are available from mouser and DK.
Now, I'm letting all my techniques for good sound out here, so you should respect me (and that includes you Syn08).
Last edited:
@billshurv,
I know; it's only that I've problems to understand why it is important because Tournesol (as I understood his post and he confirmed) was talking about the possible benefits for the motorcoil speaker - if used with current drive amplification - while he argues the same benefit would not taking place when using current drive amplification for an electrostatic loudspeaker.
At that point it seems, that your argument is, the benefit of current drive amplification will be also present with electrostatic loudspeakers, because of the transformer and the delay line.....
I hope this way it is understandable why it has surprized me?!
@Evenharmonics,
Misunderstandings due to different languages is always possible (methinks I have conceded that quite often in the past), but as you've cited your claims, there still are "snake oil" and "sales pitch" present.
"snake oil" has a meaning and "sales pitch" has too, and therefore you have the obligation to bring evidence for the "snake oil" in my posts (and of course for the sales pitch too).
It should be obvious that it is not sufficient evidence if you find other people sharing your opinion.....
It might be what "krabapple" believes, but as said quite often before, believes are not the same as facts. Therefore I regularly brought to mind Feynman's "punch line" that the easiest to fool are yourself.
Any refusal to learn about propper reasoning and bringing up evidence will just lead to more fooling yourself in the future.
Certain cult sections are, despite Feynman's warning, more interested in "cargo cult science" than in real science; if you still want to belong to this group, I'd say it is unfortunate, but you still have the obligation then to mark your claims as opinion but not state it as fact.
As we both know, you did not ask me to send you the publications about the scientific evidence (although I regularly post the offer to supply interested members with copies - under the fair use rule for educational purposes), and btw krabapple didn't either, but even a layman should be able to finally understand that pointing to flaws in methods and test protocol and analysis will lead to _better_ tests.
Therefore even a layman should be able to understand that pointing to flaws is something different than "discrediting of DBT" , but of course the layman might be more happy to further fooling himself.
It doesn't work that way; it's your opinion based on lack of knowledge about sensory testing (and of course statistical analysis) and refusal to learn.
As said before if you mark it as opinion, that's freedom of speech; if you state it as fact you have to bring up evidence (which you obviously can't).
@scottjoplin,
Which is a funny remark considering that we are talking about the result of a subjective evaluation, isn't it?
I understand that thinking can be sometimes exhausting, but I'm quite confident that you'll be able to understand the meaning (at least part of it) if you try to do some thinking.
Btw, still a great peace (IMO of course):
YouTube
I know; it's only that I've problems to understand why it is important because Tournesol (as I understood his post and he confirmed) was talking about the possible benefits for the motorcoil speaker - if used with current drive amplification - while he argues the same benefit would not taking place when using current drive amplification for an electrostatic loudspeaker.
At that point it seems, that your argument is, the benefit of current drive amplification will be also present with electrostatic loudspeakers, because of the transformer and the delay line.....
I hope this way it is understandable why it has surprized me?!
@Evenharmonics,
Misunderstandings due to different languages is always possible (methinks I have conceded that quite often in the past), but as you've cited your claims, there still are "snake oil" and "sales pitch" present.
"snake oil" has a meaning and "sales pitch" has too, and therefore you have the obligation to bring evidence for the "snake oil" in my posts (and of course for the sales pitch too).
It should be obvious that it is not sufficient evidence if you find other people sharing your opinion.....
It might be what "krabapple" believes, but as said quite often before, believes are not the same as facts. Therefore I regularly brought to mind Feynman's "punch line" that the easiest to fool are yourself.
Any refusal to learn about propper reasoning and bringing up evidence will just lead to more fooling yourself in the future.
Certain cult sections are, despite Feynman's warning, more interested in "cargo cult science" than in real science; if you still want to belong to this group, I'd say it is unfortunate, but you still have the obligation then to mark your claims as opinion but not state it as fact.
As we both know, you did not ask me to send you the publications about the scientific evidence (although I regularly post the offer to supply interested members with copies - under the fair use rule for educational purposes), and btw krabapple didn't either, but even a layman should be able to finally understand that pointing to flaws in methods and test protocol and analysis will lead to _better_ tests.
Therefore even a layman should be able to understand that pointing to flaws is something different than "discrediting of DBT" , but of course the layman might be more happy to further fooling himself.
It doesn't work that way; it's your opinion based on lack of knowledge about sensory testing (and of course statistical analysis) and refusal to learn.
As said before if you mark it as opinion, that's freedom of speech; if you state it as fact you have to bring up evidence (which you obviously can't).
@scottjoplin,
Which is a funny remark considering that we are talking about the result of a subjective evaluation, isn't it?
I understand that thinking can be sometimes exhausting, but I'm quite confident that you'll be able to understand the meaning (at least part of it) if you try to do some thinking.
Btw, still a great peace (IMO of course):
YouTube
If it makes you feel better to be condescending go for it. To clarify, even subjectively, people heard a difference, to say better implies more accurate.
We must respect ALL who are trying to discover or create something with passion and to share it.
But respect seems to me the most basic form of human exchange. Above may come admiration for the talent that some have (in our eyes, differently for each of us, no way for matched levels ;-).
But above it comes the tenderness without which it is hard to bear the pains that are the burden of each human being.
That it seems impossible, on this forum, to set foot on the first rung of this scale adds to mine and is a question.
The bars of the scale descending symmetrically are irreverence, contempt, hatred.
I am often afraid that she will crack under the weight.
Oh, Lord, why ? Do we need this ?
Last edited:
Exacly. Should we look elsewhere for the cause of increased transparency usually attributed to electrostatic transducers (Speakers or headphones) ?
100 watts at 8 ohms is 28.3 volts. 100 watts into 94 ohms is 8.5 watts. As there is no less than 10 dB of headroom two 1/2 watt resistors in series can handle this.
Actually for decent reproduction headroom is more often 20 dB. However there is a bit of surge rating required so a .085 resistor would fail.
The interesting issue is the settling time of the cable and effect on feedback. Some loudspeakers will have very high impedance above 100,000 hertz and that may affect some audio power amplifiers feedback settling time. (Don't forget the output inductor in the amplifier.)
Actually for decent reproduction headroom is more often 20 dB. However there is a bit of surge rating required so a .085 resistor would fail.
The interesting issue is the settling time of the cable and effect on feedback. Some loudspeakers will have very high impedance above 100,000 hertz and that may affect some audio power amplifiers feedback settling time. (Don't forget the output inductor in the amplifier.)
And don't forget the transformers: even though they decrease the transparency, the ESLs still beat the dynamics.
Yes, call it .1W per resistor; they'll survive.
Don't forget the series RC Zobel network in the amplifier; its impedance above 100,000 hertz is less than 20 ohms.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.