Damping factor thread and Negative feedback
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15002 Registered: Jan-08 | I create this thread for continued the debate on this thread: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/644131.html Assuming that this thread was not for the damping factor but for the bi-wiring, you post your comment here! |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 15430 Registered: Dec-04 | How many decades has it been since damping factor (the value) became meaningless? When first introduced (forget whom), the value was based on hundredths, and a factor of 60 was considered high (although foreign). When fators gained on 1000, it's value became thoroughly meaningless, even moreso than THD, which was quite useless already. Negative feedback (with all it's mushy usefulness) cured any THD data forever, defeated Zero-feedback to all but the elite techies, and made damping a useless number. Ever hear a zer0-feedback amp, Plymouth? No lack of bass driver control or grip in any that I have (briefly) listened to. Of course, the speaker at the other end of the circuit (which includes the conductors, just ask Naim), is a partner in crime and passion. |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15004 Registered: Jan-08 | Nuck You are for the damping or not? |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1652 Registered: Oct-07 | Extremely hi damping factor is a waste on some speakers.....which are perfectly happy with a DF of 1 or sometimes even less. A speaker with a very high 'q' won't be helped by even a high DF. So, No, above a certain level it is meaningless while many speakers simply have no need. If it sounds good, I wouldn't throw it out if the DF was too low or simply wrong. To concentrate on a spec is not the way to go. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15310 Registered: May-04 | . "Extremely hi damping factor is a waste on some speakers.....which are perfectly happy with a DF of 1 or sometimes even less." Uh, ... ? As you typed it, leo, you've just stated that some unknown 8 Ohm (for example) speaker would be content with an amplifier output impedance of 8 Ohms or even higher! Heavens to Betsy if you connected a 16 Ohm system. That's not going to work well, leo. Even for a transformer coupled amplifier the output impedance should be around a nominal value of 1 Ohm or less. Above that and Ohm's Law will introduce obvious frequency response errors even on a single driver full range system. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15311 Registered: May-04 | . "Nuck You are for the damping or not?" It's a trick question, Nuck! Run! Run for the hills!!! . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15312 Registered: May-04 | . "Ever hear a zer0-feedback amp, Plymouth?" There are no such creatures, Nuck, they are a marketing myth akin to the unicorn. All amplifiers will require some amount of feedback to operate in the real world. "Zero feedback" is typically marketing speak for no global feedback. This sort of amp would be using localized feedback within specific circuits. Most especially if it is a solid state amplifier it will require some amount of feedback to remain stable, though it could be using feedforward. I can't think of any current amps on the market that use feedforward though. NFB all the way! . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15313 Registered: May-04 | . Plymouth, maybe it would be helpful if you stated just exactly what you are trying to prove with this thread. As we left off on the biwire thread, I had no idea what you were trying to promote. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15005 Registered: Jan-08 | Nuck My point of view is that a zero feedback sound better if the power supply is perfect and very strong then the output section can drain high amperage used with very low impedance cable, which make that the control of the speaker is also better and does not need a negative feedback. note that I was a tube guy before I modified this amplifier! If you read the other thread Bi-wiring where I explain my point of view, you will see that I strongly modified a Adcom amplifier which sound like or better than a tube amplifier which cost 15 000$, the greatest improve was the Zero feedback. The finish of the amp not seem to please to Jan but I listen the music then when I want to see the music, I just go to the show. Jan I promote the Hi-fidelity nothing more! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15314 Registered: May-04 | . "The finish of the amp not seem to please to Jan ... " Two things, Plymouth; first, I wouldn't have said anything about the Litz cabling running to your speakers from your grafted on automobile battery terminals if you hadn't been a little p00p about the picture of a speaker in a mathemathics article. The link was there to provide a formula for calculating DF, not for you to criticize and dismiss the article because that guy's speakers didn't meet your standards of quality as judged by a picture. You were reaching for some reason to dismiss the article and what it proved because you didn't like what it proved - that NFB is not in the calculation for DF and that there is no direct relationship between a made up, inocnsequential number like DF and the amount of NFB designed into the circuits of an amplifier. Second, given that you were trying to dismiss proof based upon your impressions of a picture, I think it's more than fair to point out that your approved modifications to your amplifier leaves high voltage capacitors hangin' out in the breeze from an open amplifier chassis (https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1905888#POST1905888 Here's what I promote, Plymouth, safety above all else. What you've created is an amplifier with lethal voltages exposed to someone who might not have any idea what they are going to find should they reach behind your amplifier. I'm sure you'll have a rationalization for why this presents no problem, but safety is what you should always strive for when dealing with AC voltages. To ignore that most basic of all rules for any reason is beyond foolishness and into the realm of insanity IMO. OK? So let's drop this confrontation crap and get onto what it is you want to discuss in this thread. You spent several posts in the previous thread reprinting and linking to articles about DF - as did I. You never in my opinion made a point other than you can find articles about DF and that you too can ingore information at will when it does not coincide with your preferred beliefs. I promote the Hi-fidelity nothing more!" And what do you think we promote, Plymouth? To ask Nuck whether he is "for damping" is condescending and pointless and also shows how little you actually understand about audio. IMO you actually have no point. Looking at the DF spec does not inform you how much NFB is employed in the amplifier. If you are judging an amplifier based on specs - and in this case one specific made up spec with zero relevance to real world conditions, then you are standing outside the ballpark without a ticket in your hand IMO. If you're here to suggest everyone should rip their amplifiers apart to expose their PS caps, then you are a dangerous individual who, at best, has found the wrong forum for your preachings. If you came just to make proclamations that you possess some ability to know what is "better" and that your capacity to deem a product acceptable or unacceptable based upon what you see on paper or in a picture is beyond reproach, you are, sorry to say, a fool. " ... I listen the music then when I want to see the music, I just go to the show." Yes, if you want to hear the best music, go to the show. Hear live music and learn from the experience. There is nothing better you can do sitting alone in a room with your power supply caps. Buy a ticket and go listen to live music. Hopefully you will learn something. As far as I can see, Plymouth, there is nothing to discuss in this thread if you came here only to "promote The Hi-fidelity" and to inform us poor slobs what is "better". . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15007 Registered: Jan-08 | Jan My cap are exposed since 14 years with none problem, then LOL! My cap run on 45 volts DC, I can see your knowledge, tell me where in a amplifier we use a not polarised electrolytic cap in AC power supply? I think that you want win only to win, if this thread does not please to you why started your idiot comment like security or the look of my amplifier as well that my english? I will remember you that on the other thread you always repeted that it is not the subject, now that I created the good subject, you come with idioties and off subject! Why you can put off subject then not me? Now I know your thought about it please let the others comment on it!!!! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15315 Registered: May-04 | . "I will remember you that on the other thread you always repeted that it is not the subject, now that I created the good subject, you come with idioties and off subject!" Why you can put off subject then not me? Now I know your thought about it please let the others comment on it!!!! Amazing! You not only know what's "better" in audio, now you know what I'm thinking. I didn't mention your broken English - which, if you were on this side of the post, you would have to admit is very difficult to comprehend - until you began with the pictures of speakers on a math site not suiting your standards and the simple math of calculating DF taken from a car stereo article not being up to your remarkably high standards which you seem to think no one else could possibly reach. https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1905919#POST1905919 Early on you claimed you did not wish to become confrontational and then you did just that, Plymouth. You took the thread into the ditch with your nonsense and then you blamed me for your actions. Possibly, if there a were a stated goal for this thread or even a clear topic other than, "Damping factor thread and Negative feedback", there might be a reasonable discussion. But there's nothing. What exactly are you looking for, Plymouth? You seem to have started this thread just to continue telling me how you built a "better" amplifier and to bash me a bit more. OK, you've said all that and no one here has agreed with your conclusions. Now what do you want? There can be no conversation unless there is a topic to dicuss. IMO, DF and NFB have been well covered in the previous thread and nothing more needs to be said unless a particular aspect of either issue can be pointed to for further analysis. So far you haven't done that. "I promote the Hi-fidelity nothing more!", is not a topic. Everyone on this forum does the same in their own way. No one has the ability to tell someone else their system is not "promoting" Hi-fidelity or that one person has the singular answer to all that afflicts consumer audio. That you went from a tube amplifier to a highly modified transistor amplifier in no way makes tubes bad any more than it should infer that everyone must own a copy of your amplifier, cables and speakers. So, without injecting any further criticism of me, Plymouth, just what is it you want to discuss in this thread? If you cannot state in a clear and concise manner why you created this thread and what you intend to discuss in a non-confrontational manner with others, then I have to conclude this is not a "good subject". . |
|
Gold Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 1025 Registered: Jul-07 | Others aren't likely to chime in Plymouth. For the life of me I have no idea what you are asking to have commented on. Are you making a case for something ? Is there a point you are trying to make ? Are you looking for agreement on a particular point of view ? |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15009 Registered: Jan-08 | Jan The thruth is that you don't know what you are talking about then you are not able to answer as faster than me, you search your answers on google with Crown link which I like but for show, then you misinterprete thing like damping then the action with negative feedback, AC on output of power supply. What I'm talking was tested then my amplifier was hooked on a pair of BW Matrix 801 then a high cost Hi-fidelity Preamp in a room planned for Hi-fidelity listening in the more reputy store in Québec city. Who bash who????? I can understand that poeples with knowledge are not welcome, I just remember how you treated Glasswolf for his comment to see how you are! I discussed with him in the ''Car audio'' amps forum then he is a good guy able to talk and take other opinions without sending back the others in their respective forum! Are you able to do it? This is a forum for discussion!!! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15317 Registered: May-04 | . A discussion of what, Plymouth?! That's what we've been asking. You've attacked me once again. Nothing new there. I will say I'm tired of your insults and confrontations and I'm especially tired of your "I know more than you" attitude on threads where no one can determine what it is you are even talking about. I have no idea what started you down this path of attack towards me other than I disagreed with you about DF and NFB being linked one to one. Well, as I mentioned to GW, you're not the first and probably will not be the last to go ballistic and begin attacking me when I disagree with some unsupported claim you've made. I am not trying to answer "faster" than you and I have no idea how I would go about doing so on an online forum such as this. You have a substantially inflated opinion of yourself and a highly belittling opinion of all others. Other than that you have yet to present so much as a topic for this thread let alone provide any proofs for your theories or your attacks. Am I to suppose you did not have to go anywhere to find your linked articles in the last thread? Is that what you are trying to tell us now? What? you actually wrote the Elliott article? Plymouth, you come across as a true nutjob with a very bad attitude. I can see no misinterpretation of anything on my part in the Crown article. There is no mention of NFB being determined by DF. I can only assume that is still what you are going on about as, otherwise, the purpose of this thread continues to elude me. I've seen no proof from you that is what we are still discussing. Actually, the only thing I've seen from you are personal attacks direct towards me. You've provided no proof beyond a few articles about DF which I think we all found to be same ol'same old but not in support of anything you have claimed. "What I'm talking was tested then my amplifier was hooked on a pair of BW Matrix 801 then a high cost Hi-fidelity Preamp in a room planned for Hi-fidelity listening in the more reputy store in Québec city. Who bash who?????" What the He11 does that mean, Plymouth, and what does it prove about anything? I certainly do not know. " just remember how you treated Glasswolf for his comment to see how you are! I discussed with him in the ''Car audio'' amps forum ... " What now? Am I to conclude from that statement that you are the sort of little creep who talks behind people's back? GW was not sent anywhere. I don't have the power to do that on this forum. If GW chose not to respond to my posts when I asked him for proof of his position, that is not my fault. You have, however, as have many before you, found a lot of fault with me for things about which I have no control. You are becoming more and more delusional with every post and every sentence. As someone who has just wandered onto this side of the forums to tell us all how smart you are and how wonderful your system is and to attack me without reason, Plymouth, you're going to have to do better than that. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15010 Registered: Jan-08 |  |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15011 Registered: Jan-08 |   For the nostalgic of Dynaco like me, it was my first good amp but the bass was not the strong point of this amplifier! Link: http://homepage.mac.com/tlinespeakers/vaughn/downloads/Damping-Factor.pdf |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1654 Registered: Oct-07 | Plym. What is the role of speaker 'Q' in all this? Even with a pretty hi DF, can you get good bass out of a speaker with Q>1.25? |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15013 Registered: Jan-08 | Leo From what I know, Q is something like the spherical coverage angle of your speaker, lower it is, best it is, I imagine you talk about you plan speaker? So usualy the bass has a low Q then higher for high frequencies! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15318 Registered: May-04 | . Link: http://homepage.mac.com/tlinespeakers/vaughn/downloads/Damping-Factor.pdf Uh-huh, I posted that article yesterday. As I said it has no proof of anything you've claimed - that is, as far as I can tell what it is you have claimed. "Also this site come from Car audio which is not a reference!" https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1905907#POST1905907 " just remember how you treated Glasswolf for his comment to see how you are! I discussed with him in the ''Car audio'' amps forum ... " https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1906065#POST1906065 Do I have this right? You reject my one link due to its originating on a car audio site. Yet you have the majority of your 15,000 posts to this forum on the Car Audio forums?! And you're a little creep who talks about people behind their back. You claim, "The second lind look like amateur with those cheap speaker!" You claim, " ... you search your answers on google with Crown link which I like but for show, then you misinterprete thing like damping then the action with negative feedback ... " Yet the Crown article doesn't mention NFB - at all! http://crownaudio.com/pdf/amps/damping_factor.pdf Not a single article introduced so far has mentioned NFB in relation to DF in any fashion other that what I had previously described in the biwire thread. You post cartoons rather than debating. You have not proven anything on this or the other thread. It is clearly impossible for you to state the topic or purpose of this thread. I have no choice other than to conclude ... ... you are a MAJOR LEAGUE N-U-T-C-A-S-E!!! And I am ROTFLMAO at you, Plymouth. You are a goof! Until you come up with a topic for this thread, Plymouth, I see no reason to continue on with someone who appears only to be capable of attacking without reason or provocation. Good luck, leo. See if you can get a topic out of him. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15014 Registered: Jan-08 | Jan How many time this joke is going to last? |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1656 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, I may try later with a link to speaker 'Q' to see if that elicits a response, but otherwise, I gotta go with you on this. We'll continue OUR argument later, perhaps. plym, speaker 'Q' is important in the bass. http://www.bcae1.com/spboxad2.htm The parameter I am reff'ing is Qtc. Some speakers apparently use a higher value in the design phase to produce a bass bump. Some people like this 'flabby' sound in extreme cases. NO amount of DF will effect this. Their are also what are called 'critically damped' enclosures of Qtc=.707 which have the flattest response and respond well to even minimal DF....say anything over 20 or 30......... Overdamped of Q<0.7 may actually benefit from low DF.......That would be subject to test / listening. |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15015 Registered: Jan-08 | Leo OK you talk about the resistance vs frequencies, it is not to much important to my eyes, like I say my amp can drive as well on 2 ohms that 8 ohms with a Unimportant difference. I suggest that a strong amplifier can easily control the speaker from my experience. I tried my amp on many speakers then the sound is great on all, many things like the room play on sound result. Now I assume that all speakers doesn't sound similar as well that for amplifiers. My IMF are not too flabby but very analytic. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15319 Registered: May-04 | . (Sound of crickets chirping) You're the joke, Plymouth, and your time has run out. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15017 Registered: Jan-08 | I can see how you are M. Vigne C/P from stereophile forum Jan Vigne Reged: 03/18/06 Posts: 4886 Re: 20 amp vs. 15 amp power cords [Re: rgibran] #96137 - 09/24/10 04:34 PM Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply Quick Reply Why the hell should I bother to inform you of anything after, "Indeed it does but it would seem you were unable to provide it in the above haughty blather"? Stay stupid, you wouldn't know what do to with information if I gave it to you. Now, if you want to apologize for all the times you've been a dickheaded azzhole to me, then I'll answer your question. Otherwise, you'll just remain a dickheaded azzhole for all eternity because it doesn't appear there's anyone else in this thread who knows the answer. You cannot address me in a civil tone but you can for all I care remain as ignorant as ever until you decide it's you that has a problem. There was nothing in my post that would have prompted a reaction from anyone other than a complete sociopathic azzhole who cannot let go of a grudge that is completely of his own making. If you can't get along on this forum, leave and find another more suited to your rotten personality. dup is gone, he's been gone for years and he's not coming back. I had nothing to do with the decision. So grow the fock up. I know what you've been saying about me in your PM's to other members and it just proves you are an complete sociopath. And, no, I'm not going to meet you in some bar to see who is the toughest. You're stupid and you're going to stay stupid. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- Jan Vigne Reged: 03/18/06 Posts: 4886 Re: 20 amp vs. 15 amp power cords [Re: Rubber Duck] #96267 - 09/26/10 02:28 PM Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply Quick Reply Quote: Again, we think differently Yes, I see we do not think alike. I am reminded that asking a question of someone on this forum will not garner a response to the question which had been asked and that logic is as rare as a sense of humor here. Quote: My only question was the difference between an advertised "20A" power cord or a 15A. Are we talking only the physical difference between a 15 amp and a 20 amp cable from the same manufacturer? According to the above, yes, that is all we are considering. And, yes, at this point we are going to have to limit the possibilities to just that one condition because we need to establish whether a single manufacturer's product could be expected to vary in any significant manner between two such selections of essentially the same product. IMO the most logial answer to that qualification is, no, it is highly unlikely a manufacturer would change their products' construction or materials just to accomodate the difference between 15 and 20 amp cables. And that is the issue here, Freako, that was the original question posed in the op. We do not have a specific cable to judge, just the question of whether a 15 amp and a 20 amp cable might be different. What you would prefer to argue is, if we take an unknown and unspecified 15 amp cable, "might" it be "possible" another manufacturer's 20 amp cable "MAY" "somehow" be "better" in some vague, non-specific manner related to subjective sound quality? And you want me to agree that some unknown something about which we know nothing other than a single spec might be inferior/superior in some unknown and unspecified way to another unknown and imaginary cable about which we know nothing more other than the same unrelated to sonic performance spec. There is no logical answer to that question, Freako. Therefore, we need to establish some guidelines so we can proceed in a logical manner. Establishing that two cables identical in every way other than amperage capacity is where we must begin. So, yes, we must first talk only about that one physical difference to establish a base for comparison. Quote: You can't just say another cable manufacturer "might somehow" have a "better sounding" cable, Why not? I believe I can. Yes, and you have. But it makes no sense and it makes no difference to the discussion because you are discussing dancing on pinheads. You can say if we know nothing about a product we can argue that another product about which we also know nothing might be better in some unspecified way which might or might not be of importance to someone in a system that doesn't exist. Good for you, where does that take the discussion? Into NeverNever Land I'd say. Quote: I am obviously thinking differently than you. Sufficient isn't good enough in my world. Again, we think differently. I don't see a small amount of overkill harming anything or anybody. It may easily account for better overall sound. You are of course right in your statements, but IMO you think too narrow, no offense. The hunt for better power cables may prove to be a learning experience, and a very exciting one at that. We have all been through that, haven't we? Besides, with a system at the level of quality that Mark has, sufficient doesn't serve the components in his system. He's got a potential to lift the performance with better power cables (IMO), and I honestly believe he should go for a little overkill here. I'm right but you disagree. I was trying to prod you into thinking logically - which has obviously failed. You have no technical reason for one manufacturer's product to vary between a 15 and a 20 amp cable - just the idea that somewhere there might be a "better" cable than the one we have yet to select and about which we know nothing. IMO you first must understand what priorities you are trying to accomplish - not just saying I want something better than the thing I haven't got and know nothing about - to actually accomplish the end result you wish to have. We wouldn't have even accomplished Tang if all we had was a vague feeling we wished we weren't where we are without first knowing even where it is we actually exist. If you have no idea what you are trying to accomplish - other than wishing for something better than what you do not have and know little to nothing about - then you cannot understand how to go about achieving any realistic goal let alone reaching the point where you have achieved overkill of that goal. Is "sufficient" sufficient? Yes, particularly if you have nothing more than a vague idea you want something else and you have no idea what would even be sufficient for that something. Quote: Sufficient isn't good enough in my world. Then I assume you strive for overkill in everything, such as when you damp a component or add absorptive room treatments. You do not settle for "sufficient" when you torque the headshell bolts on your cartridge, speaker connectors, ic's or AC products. I assume you do not consider "sufficient" to be the stopping point when you shave the tip of your cantilever, add lubricant to a main bearing or sharpen the spikes which support your speakers. I could go on, Freako, but I hope you are seeing my point. "Sufficient" is exactly what you should strive to achieve lest you actually do damage to either your components, the music or both. I can think of little so unexciting as a system of overdamped, overly fussed with components performing in an overly damped room. Overkill is just that and IMO is almost always bad for a system and, as I have said previously, does not represent the most rational approach to achieving the desired results. Quote: I assumed the amp was connected to the wall outlet, not the power conditioner. Why would you assume that? It is one of the few things we actually know about the system. This entire "thing" you've constructed is a fabrication that has absolutely no anchor in reality. But you want me to agree that this illlusionary cable "MAY" be "better" than something we know nothing about because none of it really exists? Quote: As far as I understand, he has a dedicated 20A power line to his wall outlets. Why not make use of them? Well, for several reasons. First, by your logic - if I can call it that - he should continue the run from the outlet to the power conditioner - which has been specified as being in the system - with 20 amp Romex. I seriously doubt there will be a performance upgrade using Romex. Secondly, and far more importantly, the existence of a 20 amp circuit does not indicate any change in the requirements of the system. I provided the information on the speakers to suggest there is not a difficult load on the amplifier. An easy load would indicate the amplifier will not be drawing high current at any time regardless of the signal. Indeed, with that particular speaker load, the amplifier will mostly be responding as a voltage device and current demand will be minimal. I will repeat, the amplifier will draw current based upon the load it must face and not just because there is a 20 amp circuit or cable in the neighborhood. With the current amplifier and speakers in place, the op cannot "make use" of a 20 amp power cable any more than a 15 amp power cable. You understand that, correct? Here are the specs for the power conditioner being used at this time; http://www.audioprism.com/foundation.html. The current rating is 15 amps at 120VAC. The OEM power cable supplied is rated at 15 amps. The breaker capacity is spec'd at 10 amps. I'm going to ask another question of you, Freako, that I hope you will answer and not ignore and not create another mythical unknown syetm or situation which is not based in the reality of the op's question. You now know the amplifier, the speakers and the power conditioner being used. With that amount of information, how would a 15 amp power cable between the wall outlet and the power conditioner not be "sufficient" or even slightly a bit of "overkill"? What degree of "overkill" would a 20 amp cable represent in a system which has a bottle kneck at the power conditioner of 10 amps? Ignore the possibility components might change - at that time a cable can also change if need be - and please answer that question as logically as you can. If you prefer to go off into what might be about things completely unknown, give specifics of the technical reasons for the change so as to guide the op in his decision. Speaking vaguely about the "journey" might be interesting but it doesn't help the op make a decision. I can't find a two outlet Isoclean pc on this site; http://www.aaudioimports.com/ShowBrand.asp?hBrand=7. The power cables listed only provide the gauge of the conductor (6mm) used in mm's which I don't know how to relate to amperage capacity. I would, however, say the best thing to do, should Mark purchase a new coniditioner, would be to ask that manufactuer for a recommendation. I suspect their advise will be based more on their perception of sonic performance rather than current capacity since all of their cables shown use the same conductor diameter. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Jan Vigne Reged: 03/18/06 Posts: 4886 Re: 20 amp vs. 15 amp power cords [Re: Rubber Duck] #96285 - 09/26/10 06:17 PM Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply Quick Reply What is it about this forum that asking someone to justify their position makes it impossible for people to answer questions? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- Jan Vigne Reged: 03/18/06 Posts: 4886 Re: What's your explanation? [Re: dbowker] #93621 - 08/08/10 10:50 PM Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply Quick Reply Certainly, I can prove you wrong - again. You are the person who introduced "atheism" to this thread. You are the person who introduced irrational, uninformed stereotypes into this thread. You are also the person who introduced "narrow minded" to this thread. Now you not only want to blame me for what you did (and poorly at that) but you are getting your blood pressure up over the fact you did it and it took you a five paragraph rant to get it done. While you have no clue what I have done, I am absolutely positive about what you have done - again. Nah-Nah, I know something you don't. Nah-Nah-Nah, I have something you don't. "99% of social interaction is being able to read what [sic] the tone and flow of what's happening in a conversation ... " You cannot expect me to continue holding up both ends of this conversation. Don't make stereotyped statements regarding things you know nothing about. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- Jan Vigne Reged: 03/18/06 Posts: 4886 Re: "Controversial discussions" [Re: Rubber Duck] #92487 - 07/14/10 12:21 PM Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply Quick Reply Quote: Either you're more stubborn than me, or you're acting like a child. I don't know which. Niether, Freako, I'm whole heartedly agreeing with your earlier statement ... Quote: ... when there's nowhere in my mind where I can buy it, I stick to what I know and can hear with my ears. Assuming that little bowls, cream, holographic foils, clocks, telephone calls etc do more for the music/room/listener than a good cup of coffee, is just beyond what I can buy as being sensible. I know turntables are, with very few exceptions, going to operate at their peak when rigidity is maintained and I know speakers require a rigid mounting surface. I know that is true and I've found references to the validity of that concept in the writings of numerous audio reviewers whom I respect for their opinions. I know what I know and what I know is this; rigidity is the first rule to success in a table. Look, here you say ... Quote: First, it would depend on how much trust I have in the reviewer, and secondly, how well the test was done and presented. OK, I know I trust those people who have told me rigidity is the path to take. Have I not been agreeing with you there also? I know I trust the reviewers and I know I trust their tests. More agreement on my part, right? I know what I know. And I have two ears! Why tell me I am wrong when what I am doing is agreeing with what you have said? Does that make you wrong too? And I am agreeing with your previous statement about knowing what works and what doesn't. Now you want me to do something I know cannot work just to prove to myself it cannot work. I am also agreeing with the rest of what you said earlier, " ... when there's nowhere in my mind where I can buy it, I stick to what I know". So I'm sticking to what I know, just like you. And I know rigidity works in turntables and speaker stands. Your claims are preposterous and "beyond what I can buy as being sensible". So why should I be expected to accept what you say on the one hand but ignore what you say on the other? You are contradicting yourself, Freako. Between the two of us I would say you are the one who is being stubborn. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- that's your usual attitude? |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1657 Registered: Oct-07 | Plym, Never mentioned resistance. I don't think. speaker 'Qtc' is one of those not-talked about parameters since people are essentially pretty simple about most technical things. Like impedance being the be-all, tell-all of speaker 'difficulty' as a load. 95% of everybody ignores the real killer, which is phase angle and low impedance at similar frequencies. Look at the link I provided for a better explanation of Qtc. Just my opinion and it may be simple semantics, but amps don't 'control' speakers. When given an impulse, let's just say 1 negative pulse at a frequency within which the speaker is comfortable. What happens? The amp won't command the speaker return to 'neutral', but rather the air spring in an acoustic suspension or the surround in acoustic suspension and ported speakers. How can an amp with NEARLY zero resistance to this back EMF provide a sink for it? Can't. Refer to your thump test. Are those caps in your photo all for the power supply? How big a current spike do you draw at turnon? how big in VA is the transformer and at what voltage? |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15021 Registered: Jan-08 | Leo In the perfect world, the Bi-amps is the best solution, lower frequencies with High NFB then none or lower NFB for the high frequencies, a little like new home theater except they usualy use too much NFB. Usualy a pulse is a pulse with a positive wave then a négative wave, the speed of both can be very different like a bass drum punch which is faster in one way then slower on the return but the amp control the speaker, a simple neg pulse without a positive pulse is not natural then can only be create by a pulse generator. The high power influences the return of the voice coil with less inertial error. >Are those caps in your photo all for the power supply? How big a current spike do you draw at turnon? how big in VA is the transformer and at what voltage?< Yes I use 2 stages of capacitors, the first use four 6800uf directly hooked on the output of a 50 amps bridge then a #8 speaker wire to the amp board, the 2 big Mallory are directly hooked on print board near of the power transistors, the print was reinforced with a solid #12 wire completely soldered for lower impedance and less loss(all for one channel), the 2 transformers produce 500 watts each one, much more than I need, the output of the power supply furnish 92 volts(+46/-46). I will make a reading on the power up and post it for you later. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15322 Registered: May-04 | . "speaker 'Qtc' is one of those not-talked about parameters since people are essentially pretty simple about most technical things" Take a look at your own link, leo. The article describes several types of "Q". To get a grip on "Q" you first have to separate out those individual parts and what they are telling you. For most speaker builders the majority of "Q" values are not of great importance as they are fixed in the driver's electrical and mechanical systems and therefore cannot be altered by the builder. There are individual specs provided for each low frequency driver - the only one which really requires damping from the enclosure system and/or the amplifier - and as the enclosure is being designed or calculated there is a system "Q" which is the target most builders are looking at. Speaking of this "system 'Q'" or "Qtc" can be a bit misleading as will be explained later. If you look at, say, this driver; http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=295-464 you'll see these specs; "V/1m, 86 dB 1W/1m * Vas: 3.00 cu. ft. * Qms: 3.12 * Qes: .58 * Qts: .49 * Xmax: 14.3mm *" Of those only the Qts of the driver is pertinent to 95% of the builders who will be using this driver. The Qts of a driver will inform the builder as to the type of enclosure the driver is best suited to and its overall character in terms of flat response and transient response character. The first probable consideration for a builder will be what sort of enclosure is suitable for the selected driver, whether a vented or sealed cabinet. These are the starting points and all other enclosure types follow from there. Also, the trend in placing woofers as downfiring is determined by the spring action of the entire electrical/mechanical system of the driver - this value is also reflected in the single Qts spec. You'll also notice these "Q" specs are missing from midrange and high frequency drivers as they are inconsequential to the builder (and the amplifier); http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=287-020 & http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=297-416 Now, if you go back to your article, you'll see another "Q" mentioned; "Qtc". This is the total box-speaker "Q" and this defines the overall character of the bass response in terms of the system being "fast" or "tight" or "bloomy". The "Q" of the system also defines any deviation from flat response introduced by the enclosure working in tandem with the selected driver. Therefore a high system "Q" will tend toward a less flat response and with some degree of "bloom". A low system Q will result in the possibility of a dip or too early roll off of the system response and a subjectively poor delay. The sound character of a low Q system will be "dry" and, as some would describe it, "analytical" or, as others would say, "overly damped". A "critically damped" sealed enclosure is the theoretical ideal and it will be in the 0.5 range which, in reality, most listeners feel is not suitable for home use. Dickason, in his "The Loudspeaker CookBook", has several descriptions of the to-be-expected character of various system Q values along with the filter type most commonly associated with that character. "Critically damped" systems at 0.5 are considered "transient perfect" while the Bessel response of 0.577 equates to maximum flat system delay. As the system Q reaches 1.0 the character of a speaker intended for home use can be expected to sound somewhat degraded in transient response unless other adjustments are made to the system. Car speaker systems can have slightly different Qtc values which would seem logical when you consider the environmental difference between a car's interior and the typical home. That same 1.0 value in a home speaker will, however, provide maximum efficiency and power handling in the system which are to be considered desirable traits in most cases. You can expect most consumer speakers to fall around that 0.9-1.0 Qtc value as this is considered a very "sellable" sound on the showroom floor. The shoe boxed sized LS3/5a was a unique system in that it was designed with a high Qtc value of 1.2 which provided the well known and often copied slightly exagerated bass response through the midbass region. This gave the tiny speaker a virtual bass response as perceived by the listener which seemed to extend an octave lower than the speaker could actually reach in measurements alone. The article you linked to, however, does not, IMO, go far enough in explaining Qtc. The total system Q is only really useful to a sealed enclosure or one with similar chracteristics to a sealed enclosure where the internal air mass is acting as the most important spring for the driver's soft suspension. Vented or similar systems are more commonly referred to as falling into a specifc "alignment type". You cannot adjust a vented system to obtain values such as a Qtc of 0.7. You would speak of a vented system as being in alignment or being misaligned. Therefore, selecting a driver with a Qts value 20% different than another driver will provide SPL deviations of +/- 2 to 4dB at F3 (these figures are taken from Dickason). While the overall character of the sound can be similar to the less experienced buyer's ear when comparing the Qtc damping of a sealed system and the misalignment of a vented box, a severly misalinged vented system will have that bass boom sound we normally associate with the old cut and try school of speaker design. This is largely the result of the less good tansient response of the typical vented system where the driver's electrical/mechanical systems and the amplifer (to some extent) are totally responsible for the performance of the speaker system. "Just my opinion and it may be simple semantics, but amps don't 'control' speakers." Well, yes and no. Obviously in a sealed enclosure the Qtc of the total speaker-box system plays a significant role in this job. However, a driver well suited to a sealed enclosure also would have as a first requirement a "heavy" diaphragm and a lossy suspension. Therefore, the requirements fall mainly on the enclosed air volume to control the resonance of the driver system and then on the amplifier. Looking at the impedance curves for a typical vented and sealed system you will see the identifiable one or two humps at system resonance and system alignment. These bumps in impedance are what the amplifier must deal with and they are, when either enclosure type is properly designed (aligned), common to all speaker systems of that same generic type. Many "how to" articles will instruct the builder to test the speaker for correct impedance response and adjust the system values (damping material, vent volume and placement, etc.) to arrive at the "ideal" impedance hump configuration for the chosen system type. It is, therefore, the drastically increasing impedance value of these humps which calls for less current (and less damping in effect) and higher voltage supply. Here's the single impedance hump of a typical sealed enclosure; http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/harbeth_p3esr_loudspeaker/index4.html and the twin humps of a typical vented enclosure; http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/klipsch_palladium_p-17b_loudspeaker/index5.html And, yes, electrical phase angle plays a very large part in the amplifier's control of the system in this region of rapidly increasing impedance values where high voltage and high current will be required. Looking at the measurements and then the comments from Stereophile for the Klipsch you would expect the need for a fairly stout amplifier despite the high electrical sensitivity of the system. This is confirmed in JA's comments regarding the amplifier requirements for this speaker. Going back to the Elliott articles introduced in the biwiring thread (and I can't remember exactly which article to point you towards), he describes a simple experiment of tapping the low frequency driver with no connections to the terminals, next with a single wire across the terminals to "short" the motor of the driver and then finally with the system connected to a functioning amplifier. Tapping with no connections allows the driver to respond without any "brake" on its motion or resonances other than those built into the driver's mechanics. Tapping with the terminals shorted provides the strongest brake action as the motor cannot overcome the damping of the shorted voice coil while the connection to the functioning amplifier falls somewhere in between. The extent to which the amplifier can act as a brake on the driver will depend on the resistive value at the '-' return leg of the connection (which does not and probably is not the same as the output impedance of the amplifier since this is where NFB inputs are typically taken). So, the functioning amplifier acts as a "virtual short circuit" and this is the control it exerts over the driver's movement and resonances. Try the experiment yourself. Does all that help? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15026 Registered: Jan-08 | Jan Why you ask me to experiment one thing that I already experimented with the result that I try to explain on all of my posts? I'm a specialist in motor drive then we use the NFB in a regenerative drive to control the motor, but I know that a powerfull drive has best result with less NFB, the inertial movement of a motor is much more signicant that a voice coil. The power vs coil cancel the error, less power>greater error then much more NFB. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1658 Registered: Oct-07 | For your consideration. http://www.passdiy.com/pdf/cs-amps-speakers.pdf Article looks at a bunch of single driver speakers with current source amp. Very, Very low DF and superb results. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15323 Registered: May-04 | . True, but NP's current source amplifiers do not respond well to numerous commercial speaker systems. The amplifiers are quite unusual in their current sourcing abilities, very much like the original Quad 22 tube amp of Peter Walker design back in the 1950's. The amp was intentionally designed to drive the Quad '57 electrostatic panels. They were a notoriously difficult load for the typical amplifier of the day. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1659 Registered: Oct-07 | The NP article was of interest to me for several reasons. He is not 'stuck' in a paradigm. He publishes LOTS of stuff, makes schematics available and overall seems to be a regular person. His passion is obvious. He continues to grow, both professionally and as a person. He will occasionally pop up on a board to answer a question or pose one or just chime in. The odd 'curve ball' this article seems to represent is a perfect pot-stirrer. It is true. While you or I could buy or find many of these drivers, the rest of the circuit is quite 'custom' to each driver. This is beyond the ability of all but the MOST advanced DIY type. I haven't looked at the inductor values, but I'll bet some are either non-standard values or simply tough to source. Than, who do you know who owns or even has room for a pair of Klein Horns? If the entire living space of my house were hollow, I'd probably have room for 'em...if built in place. I presented the article as the 'opposite' of Plym's philosophical approach, to the extent one exists. |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15029 Registered: Jan-08 | Leo >I presented the article as the 'opposite' of Plym's philosophical approach, to the extent one exists.< He perform it with a tube amplifier, I can't see where it is opposed to me! |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15031 Registered: Jan-08 | A tube amp can drop 4 to 15(rare) amperes, mine is good for 75! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15324 Registered: May-04 | . Pass's current sourcing designs have created quite a buzz, particularly in the DIY world where he does, as you say, contribute massive amounts of assistance to those unable to think beyond the parallelogram. I remember he gave away several "kits" to his current sourcing amplifer only to find many of the winners didn't have a clue how to proceed when it came to actually building the product. Even with his help they were unable to complete the project. Here's a good example of his current sourcing amplifier designs; "A key difference between the F1 and F2 is that the latter uses a single-ended topology. In each channel, the music is amplified with only three active devices: a MOSFET configured as a constant-current source, a bipolar transistor used to regulate it, and another MOSFET used as a current-gain transistor. That's it. One gain stage and just 35 parts per channel, not counting the power supply--and that, too, is simple. http://www.stereophile.com/artdudleylistening/1205listening/index.html Definitely not tubes. And not a really big power supply, just enough to have everything fit inside the chassis and still get the job done. That's the work of a genius! Very, very, very low DF (0.5) and no NFB to speak of. Indeed! quite the opposite of what you will usually hear as the only way to build an amplifier as pronounced by the know-nothings. I even guess if you weren't paying attention or just didn't want to read contrary thoughts to what you spout without knowing anything, you might have read the opening of the article and assumed he built tube amplifiers rather than just mentioned they are often a perfect match for the SDFR systems and therefore the target for the sound of his solid state designs. If you didn't want to accept any new, conflicting information, you probably would conclude he built tubed amplifiers. Obviously, he does not and never claimed he did in the article. Pass says in a TAS interview he hasn't built a tube amplifier since he was in college, despite his obvious affection for their superior sonic qualities. And just a handful of watts, I think the F1 was rated at ten watts. He continues to show you don't need mega-amperage from an amplifier, just a well thought out design with current that works when called upon. "He is not 'stuck' in a paradigm." Yep, very easy to reach the point where you think you know it all and never realize you don't really know jackshit. You may not even know how a speaker operates. "I presented the article as the 'opposite' of Plym's philosophical approach, to the extent one exists." What?! you think you've identified a "philosophy" in this mumbo jumbo? Well, so do I, but what I see posted has nothing to do with audio. Given there still is no actual topic for this thread I have to question your assumption there is a "philosophy" involved here. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15033 Registered: Jan-08 | LOL! The thing is you know nothing about amplifier, you just read what you see on internet to give your comment then I kicked your EGO, the only way you found to reply is >bashing me!  |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15034 Registered: Jan-08 | Plymouth Platinum Member Username: Plymouth Canada Post Number: 15009 Registered: Jan-08 Posted on Friday, October 08, 2010 - 12:29 pm: Jan The thruth is that you don't know what you are talking about then you are not able to answer as faster than me, you search your answers on google with Crown link which I like but for show, then you misinterprete thing like damping then the action with negative feedback, AC on output of power supply. Jan said >your time has run out. < After google search on you, poeples can tell that you are a big mouth with to much bla bla but nothing good in your google comment. Same result on many guitar forums |
|
Diamond Member Username: WingmanaliveWww.stainles... .ecrater.com Post Number: 23594 Registered: Jun-06 | Forgive me but am I not the only one tired of reading this thread that just seems to keep beating the living shit out of my sense of normalcy? I mean I was just about to feed my cat (who I hate BTW) and settle down into a nice slumber for the evening. Now I'm forced to put in a Rambo or Terminator movie to fit the mood lol.  |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15038 Registered: Jan-08 | Paul It give good trafic to Brian then he make much money with guggle add! LOL! So good beer! |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1664 Registered: Oct-07 | Plym. Read the article. Look at the schematics. Pass uses SS for his testing, and makes a RCL network to 'simulate' a current source amp..... Read more anything by Pass. |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 15435 Registered: Dec-04 | Keep it up, Leo. I am reading your posts and links a quickly as I can. Plymouth, you are # 1846257 to go through this with JV. Every forum has an opinionated know-it-all. the difference here is that Jan damnnear does know it all, and will share. Paulie...sublime, as usual. So..I am all for damping...does that help? But not for global feedback. |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15044 Registered: Jan-08 | Ok Just read the article: http://www.stereophile.com/artdudleylistening/1205listening/index.html Also read this one: http://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/prod_f2_man.pdf First thing, this amp is very fast>200khz, Like I mentionned the Damping>NFB take the output which is send in the input to correct the stability of voltage to the output. I also present in my post Post Number: 15011 the result of the damping on sound, the fastest speed to correct the output with NFB make that you will not hear the NFB. Now this amp is only 5 watts then the THD is over 4% but sound great, I also mentionned that it is better to have a greater THD that a high NFB with low THD, nothing new for me! If you look here: http://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/prod_f2_man.pdf We can read that he do mention that this amp does not work properly on every speakers, under ''setup-read this'' of the pdf. Nothing in this link convince me that a high amperage is not the way to go. My philosophy still tested by me then a reputy hi-fi house to confirm my point of vue! |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15046 Registered: Jan-08 | Imagine that we replace the lack of bass control by a strong output amperage, we will be able to put less negative feedback due to better control, the high frequencies will be more detailed then the depht of sound will be returned with less coloration for a better listening. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15328 Registered: May-04 | . Dudley's reference system; Preamplification: Tamura TKS-83, VAS MC-One, Auditorium 23 step-up transformers; Fi, Shindo Aurieges, Shindo Masseto preamplifiers. Power Amplifiers: Lamm ML2.1, Quad II monoblocks; Fi 2A3 Stereo, Shindo Montille. Loudspeakers: Audio Note AN-E Lexus Signature, Quad ESL. Lots of tubes and low power, low amperage components with non-reactive speakers. Your link to Stereophile doesn't lead anywhere, Plymouth. Everyone should read the First Watt article, it's an interesting examination of the entire concept of THD and why one single number tells you nothing about an amplifier's sound quality when reproducing music. Otherwise, here are the specs for the most recent and the current Pass designs; http://www.firstwatt.com/prod.html Click on "Products". "I also mentionned that it is better to have a greater THD that a high NFB with low THD, nothing new for me!" Nothing new for us either. The audio industry began discussing this in the 1970's. No high end manufacturer I can think of prefers high NFB values. Can you name one who does, Plymouth? You have yet to make a real point. "Nothing in this link convince me that a high amperage is not the way to go." If you had the humility to, for one tiny moment, not think you were better than Nelson Pass, I think we'd all have been surprised. "My philosophy still tested by me ... " Anyone surprised here? Nope, me neither. Plymouth, what does personally attacking and insulting me prove about your "philosophy"? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15050 Registered: Jan-08 | Read this from Nelson Pass: http://www.passdiy.com/pdf/distortion_feedback.pdf And the philosophy of Threshold, the company sold by Pass: S/5000e Stereo Power Amplifier Front View The S/5000e represents a return to one of Threshold's most well-regarded traditional values: prodigious power at an affordable price. The S/5000e is the heir to Threshold's legacy of high-current designs that effortlessly command and control demanding loudspeaker loads, delivering the power needed for full revelation of dynamic contrasts and bass extension. But power is only part of the S/5000e story. The amplifier employs minimal feedback, attesting to its inherent stability and excellent open-loop performance, and is direct coupled input to output, with no capacitors in the signal path. Like all Threshold amplifiers, it utilizes close-tolerance metal film resistors, and matched JFETs. The result is superb open and airy resolution of low-level detail -- the subtle shadings that differentiate musical performances. The ability of the S/5000e to reproduce transient attack, and to explicate complex musical passages, confirms its heritage -- flowing not only from the famous Threshold designs of the past, but from today's remarkable flagship power amplifier, the STASIS 8.0. The highly affordable S/5000e brings Threshold's acclaimed designs within easy reach -- it's state-of-the-art that takes into account the state of your budget. http://www.threshold-audio.com/products/s5000e.html Note that his power supply is less strong that mine then look at the output current! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15333 Registered: May-04 | . No one here is denying there are high wattage, high current amplifiers on the market - and speakers which require them. Pass designed many of them back in the 1980's and 90's. You could almost say he was a pioneer in pushing the consumer market towards such amplifiers. Now he builds amplifiers in the exact opposite style; low watts, low amperage designs which still rely on low NFB values. His F1 was really a four watt amplifier with THD below 0.1% whose THD rose to 4% at five watts. The F2 was spec'd at 0.1% THD and the current Aleph at 0.05%. Pass is hardly a one trick pony when it comes to exploring the variables of amplifier design. As he says in his web article, the F1 and F2 are a tinkerer's amplifier, they work well with the speakers he now enjoys, SDFR's. He builds amplifiers which are suitable to virutally any speaker on the market - just not those two "kitchen table" projects as he calls them. They were produced in limited numbers as experiments for Pass and not what you would call a "commercial" product. I have the sense you had no idea who Nelson Pass is or what he is about until his name was introduced here. Maybe you need a wider exposure to different ideas in hifi, Plymouth. As leo pointed out, Pass is probably the least "stuck in a box" designer working in audio today. No one here is denying low to minimal NFB is not a generally good thing and I doubt anyne can name a high end manufacturer who would disagree with that going well back into the 1970's. Your "philosophy" is hardly your invention, Plymouth. Certainly no one here is looking at any number on paper to judge the quality of music they expect might result from any audio product - no one other than you apparently. OK, now you've Googled Threshold - a company Pass sold in order to do things other than large wattage, high current, voltage source amplifiers. If you use Google, why do you insult me for using a search engine? You're being dishonest. "Note that his power supply is less strong that mine then look at the output current!" Why? I don't give a sh1t about your amplifier's current. 10 amps, 50 amps or 75 amps means nothing to how the amplifier reproduces music. You can't seem to get beyond the idea that a number means nothing. If your "philosophy" is to look at numbers on paper, you won't find any fans here. Maybe the car stereo guys will be impressed but that's why we don't do car stereo - we enjoy music instead of numbers. Tell you what, Plymouth, you're going nowhere here. You haven't said anything worth noting and you haven't made sense of what you have posted here. Answer this, Plymouth, what does personally attacking and insulting me prove about your "philosophy"? Why did you decide you had to do that? Until you care to answer that, look around at the number of people who have responded to you on this forum. They don't care about you or your "philosophy". Even those with only a few years experience in audio seem to have more sense about how to construct a system and how to allow others to construct their system than you appear to have. Answer my question, and then, why don't you slither on back to the car stereo folks who want to hear about amperage and all that on paper sh1t? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15052 Registered: Jan-08 | Jan You started to insult me! You repeated many time that I'm not in the good thread, so I started this thread for peoples which does not know what is Damping then the Negative Feedback then to give information about my amplifier. On both threads you was wrong many times then the only answers from you was that my amplifier is dangerous or my english was bad or a ton of Bla Bla like you do on many other sites without answering to the good question. Now Nelson Pass made a 5 watts amplifier without négative Feedbact or dampimg for DIY forum easy to made for beginner, he also said that this amplifier was not good with all speakers. I posted the Threshold philosophy which confirm that High current is better, the Nelson Pass confirm also my philosophy in the pdf in my post above. They also listed that this amplifier can drive all kind of speaker easily. N. Pass talk about harmonic create by damping or NFB. So the new amplifiers use voltage regulator in the power supply, the Nakamishi was the first to drive with it, it was a great improvment, the transformer use 2 outputs voltage then use the higher if needed. The cost of Mallory capacitors which is N. Pass prefered, make that manufacturer use more damping or NFB for the cost of one little resistor to make the feedback loop. Now you had reply with so many things proving that you are wrong with link which deserve you, tell me why I can't post link which prove that you are wrong? I readed your posts on many sites to know what kind of guy you are, I can tell that you are a very good helper much better that me for new hardware but you can't accept to be wrong then I posted few of this posts on my above post. You also posted it ''You're the joke, Plymouth, and your time has run out.'' I think that it was a great error from you because I'm always here to prove that you are wrong on this subject, we don't know what kind of amplifier you use, maybe because it was not as good that mine! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15336 Registered: May-04 | . Ill ask you one more time, what does personally attacking and insulting me prove about your "philosophy"? (The Nakamichi Stasis amplifiers were Nelson Pass designs, created similar to but not identical to his Threshold amplifiers. Google it, Plymouth. They sounded quite bad for the money spent.) |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15057 Registered: Jan-08 | Jan The big problem of Nakamichi was its power supply, not much capacity(too low capacitors) then the NFB too high, only 2 capacitors with bad conception to eleminate the noise. According to my philosophy, another way to save the manufacturing cost! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15341 Registered: May-04 | . OK, Plymouth and James, your entertainment value has sunk well into the negative numbers now. You have no proof for anything you say and facts are irrelevant to you. You're wasting everyone's time. You two deserve each other. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15070 Registered: Jan-08 | LOL! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15344 Registered: May-04 | . Indeed - deserves crazy. I just can't decide which of you is the crazier one. |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15073 Registered: Jan-08 | Again the insult as usual! Poor guy! |
|
Gold Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 1030 Registered: Jul-07 | You can't put water in a glass which is already full Jan. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15346 Registered: May-04 | . Gotta admit, the vessel's creaky and leaky. The more you try to put in, the less you get back. ROTFLMAO! We're not insulting you, P. What's the matter? Don't you get the joke? You must have some sort of complex or something. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15078 Registered: Jan-08 | I'm ready to make joke! Can you? |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15079 Registered: Jan-08 | ''You must have some sort of complex or something. '' You are as usual too much polite again Jan! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15347 Registered: May-04 | . I was trying to be polite when I responded to you ... "I'm not here to make war with anyone either, I just prefer facts when someone states flatly this or that is or isn't "better" than something else. You're welcome to your opinion but that doesn't get us anywhere in understanding what is happening in a subject such as biwiring." But you said I was insulting you. I was trying to be polite when I posted ... "As a rule we also tend to dismiss those cables with impedance values (or other oddities) which would render them out of the ordinary and which would therefore obviously affect the system performance. Cables as tone controls or cables which send an amplifier into oscillation are not the issue here though a few people still believe this is the major benefit of biwiring." But then you showed a picture of your high capacitance Litz speaker wire and you assumed I was insulting you. I was not being insulting when I posted ... "Plymouth, in the grand scheme I think you have the overall idea of biwiring more or less figured out. However, you have many of the facts regarding negative feedback backwards or incorrect." But you took it otherwise and said I was insulting you. I was stating a fact of audio and looking for an honest discussion when I posted ... No matter the load impedance or characteristics of the speaker, the amplifier's output impedance remains constant at any one frequency and only varies as frequency rises and falls. At best, output impedance has no direct correlation to NFB. Damping factor is a completely made up number as your Wiki link suggests. You cannot look at the damping factor specification and come up with a realistic guess at how much NFB is in use." But rather than discuss the issue, you decided I was insulting you by disagreeing with you. Then you posted ... "I will repeat again>>> a very strong power supply, high power transistors then the lower impedence between the amp and the speaker does not need or only few damping according with the quality of amplifier." And when I responded with ... "You're welcome to believe that - but you're wrong. And none of that has anything to do with NFB, damping factor or biwiring. Nothing in your links mentions NFB as being calculated from damping factor specs. NFB and damping factor are linked due to the NFB reducing the output impedance of the amplifier. But there is no one ot one realtionship between DF and the amount of NFB employed. To the best of my knowledge, that is how we started this BS. You stated, 'When you read the damping factor, it tell you the amount of this negative feedback act on the output.' That is incorrect." However, rather than clarify what you were saying you decided I was once again insulting you and you refused to look at the calculations for DF sites I had entered claiming they were not up to your standards - this after you had posted a Wiki link. And from there you started a new thread without a clear topic or discussion point. When I asked you to explain what was to be discussed you launched into your personal attacks and insults towards me. So, when I ask you a question, you tell me I am insulting you. When I introduce new information, you tell me I am insulting you. When I ask for clarification, you tell me I am insulting you. If I do anything other than accept that you are right and you have some "philosphy" which is unique in the audio world (which it is not), you tell me I am insulting you. No matter what I do, you tell me I am insulting you and then you insult and attack me. You've decided I am your enemy rather than some who also enjoys audio and music. No matter how polite I am to you, you insult and attack me. When I ask you for facts, you insult me. When I ask you how your experience with motors informs you of the far more complex structure of an audio amplifier and speaker, you insult me. Whatever I do, you attack and insult me. Now, if that's not a joke, I don't know what is. "I'm not here to make war with anyone either, I just prefer facts when someone states flatly this or that is or isn't "better" than something else. That's how I work on this forum, P. Why you decided I am your enemy, I have no idea. I was only looking for facts to support your claim DF and NFB are inextricably linked one to one. What your amplifer modifications had to do with this, I still don't know. But that I didn't know, you took as an insult and you turned around and insulted and attacked me rather than provide facts which supported your claim. You even came over the the "enough power" thread and began insulting me without cause on that thread. That, P, is what I call an absolute joke. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15084 Registered: Jan-08 | LOL! You was trying to be polite to tell me that I'm wrong then I'm dangerous then I'm ignorant then my subject has nothing to do with bi-wirings and Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla like a old tart! To much Bla Bla Bla for nothing, you jump like a grasshopper, you post link which help you but not the realty. Be nice and tell us that you was wrong on many thing!! |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15085 Registered: Jan-08 | For your info my cable are the great Ed Meitner MUSEATEX CRYOGENICS CABLE with its originals Golden Plate Terminals, not battery terminals! Those cable has 48 x #24 for each single cable, for 20 feets the total impedance is 0.0106 ohms,(always the low impedance that I was talking which help the control of speaker). You are wrong again about the capacitance of those cable since I use 2 cables for each channels, one positive then one negative, the capacitance will be active if positive then negative were in same conductor! I suggest that you close your mouth because you not help your cause! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15348 Registered: May-04 | . "I suggest that you close your mouth because you not help your cause!" The bigger "joke" is you whining about being insulted with every post. "Ol' tart"1 vs, whiney, crybaby??? Or is that just another tactic you picked up on the playground?2 ("Shut up! Just shut up! Or I'll punch you.") Look, Plymouth, I disagreed with you. If you take disagreement,("Plymouth, in the grand scheme I think you have the overall idea of biwiring more or less figured out. However, you have many of the facts regarding negative feedback backwards or incorrect"), as the lynchpin to launching an attack, then, P, you have a screw loose. Grow up and face the adult realization that we can disagree without attacking. If you have such a high opinion of yourself that no one can say, "I think you are incorrect", then you are a sad little, weakling crybaby who cannot defend their own words without resorting to insults - just as you are now when you complain about every post I make or that I was the first to throw an insult(2a). It's an old ploy, P, I've played it plenty of times with those far brighter than you and much better at the game than you. Let me tell you that your tactics are those of an unschooled child.3 If I say I disagree with you, you become determined not to rationally discuss the disagreement but to destroy the person who disagrees with you.4 You talk about me on other forums where I cannot defend myself5, you do Google searches on me(5a) to find quotes which you have taken out of context6 and post on this forum, you literally make up crap just to be making up crap7, you insult my amplifier because what I own is none of your business8. I suppose if I told you I had a dog, you'd insult my dog too! And then you complain that disagreement is an insult to you?!9 P, I have tried to talk about audio, I've asked you on numerous occasions to state a specific topic for this thread and to stay on topic in the biwire thread. All the while you've spent every post either telling us about your system(10) or attacking and insulting me(11). You haven't tried to prove your words or disprove mine(12), you've only tried to take me down to eliminate any possible disagreement(13). That is not debating*, that is being a fearful, childish, crybaby. Are you dangerous? IMO anyone who disregards the basic tenets of safety when dealing with electrical components is dangerous.(14) Otherwise, your danger is your approach to life. An adult does not seek to destroy the person with whom they disagree. To understand that is simply to be an adult. Maybe this attack thing has worked for you in the past, maybe this is how you feel you've managed to get ahead so far. If so, then you are a fool and it will catch up to you with every enemy you make. Eventually, the adults win against the children. Are you ignorant? Well, you haven't proven you have the essential qualities it takes to act as an adult or to defend your own words.(15) I don't call that being intelligent. You close your eyes to information which conflicts with your opinions.(16) I certainly don't see that as being smart. You cannot support your opinions other than to claim you are right and everyone else is wrong.(17) Those are the actions of a spoiled brat of a child. "For your info my cable are the great Ed Meitner MUSEATEX CRYOGENICS CABLE with its originals Golden Plate Terminals(18), not battery terminals!" "My amp and my speaker can accept #0 wire with a copper terminal for battery of car!"(19) https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1905864#POST1905864 Fine, but then, as I pointed out earlier (https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1905843#POST1905843, when you made you cable comparisons you had to change far more than one component of the connection/amplifier/cable/speaker circuit. Doing so is not a successful comparison and any conclusions you have drawn from an uncontrolled experiment are worthless. That tells us you are unable to recognize the faults in your own logic. "you post link which help you but not the realty." ROTFLMAO AT YOU, P! Yes, I posted links which proved my points. Something you are unable to accomplish(20) and therefore you resort to insulting me and the information I provide from outside authorities(21), claiming it is not up to your standards.(22) But here's what you don't do, you do not disprove the information I have introduced.(23) Insults are sufficient in the childish world of "P".(24) You are right and everyone else is wrong.(25) "You are wrong again about the capacitance of those cable since I use 2 cables for each channels, one positive then one negative, the capacitance will be active if positive then negative were in same conductor!" I'll put this down to your inability to write in English as not being very understandable. Of course, we all create circuits by using "+" and "-" legs of a cable. And placing them in the same conductor is impossible. OK, so what you posted isn't as clear as it should be, I'm not going to insult you for not writing well in a second language. I haven't had to deal with the French language since high school so you are ahead of me in simply being bi-lingual to some extent. Cables are impossible to discuss as for every positive in a given cable design/construction there are an equal number of negatives, or as we call them, tradeoffs.(#) There are well regarded Litz cables and there are poorly regarded Litz cables, much depends on the application of the cable to a specific use. In general, when inductance goes down, capacitance rises. Litz cables are well known for low inductance due to their unique braiding. However, when you twist or braid a cable, you tend to increase its capacitance while lowering its inductance. Twisting/braiding contributes to high RF rejection and typically high EMF rejection also. However, twisting and braiding also tends toward increasing both the cable resonance and its dielectric absorption which will affect the cable's "phase" and its relative timing contributing to a subjectively "hazy" effect. Certainly, those manufacturers who build Litz cables will promote Litz cables. That alone is not proof of their value. Those who see Litz cables as problematic will not build Litz cables. If you believe the Museatex cables color your system in a pleasing manner, then you are welcome to use them. But replacing them with "a 0 gauge copper wire used for electric installation to see what can be the difference in tone" (https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1905843#POST1905843 while using grafted on battery terminals will provide you with no insight into which component change among the many you have accomplished is creating the "comparison" you believe has occurred. If you stubbornly refuse to see the weakness in that experiment, then I see no reason to accept your "philosophy" as anything more than you hearing what you want to hear and deciding all who disagree with you are to be attacked and insulted. You are attacking simply out of your inability to defend what you have done and what you have concluded. And the joke is you then complain I am insulting you when all I am doing is disagreeing with your methods and your conclusions. Time to grow up and grow a pair, P. Finally, "To much Bla Bla Bla for nothing ... " I am constantly amazed at those who claim to be so brilliant yet cannot retain their attention span for more than three sentences. * List of logical fallacies employed by Plymouth: 1 Ad hominem 2 Appeal to ridicule (2a) Two wrongs make a right 3 Appeal to emotion 4 Poisoning the well 5 Circumstantial ad hominem, Appeal to spite, Special Pleading and Bandwagon (5a) Just downright creepy 6 Appeal to common practice, Appeal to spite and Biased sample 7 Misleading Vividness and False dilema 8 Personal attack, Red herring and Straw man 9 Appeal to pity (10) Appeal to authority (11) Ad hominem (12) Appeal to belief, Division and Appeal to novelty (13) Gambler's fallacy and Circumstantial ad hominem (14) Relativist fallacy (15) Burden of proof (16) There is no "fallacy" here, just personal arrogance and blindness to fact (17) Personal attack, Strawman, Misleading vividness and Appeal to ridicule (18) Appeal to authority (19) Confusing cause and effect (20) Burden of proof (21) Ad hominem (22) Red herring and Special pleading (23,24,25) See any and all of the above http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ As a debater, P, you suck! (#) http://www.hifiportal.co.uk/Articles/Article0028-CableConstructionGuide.pdf "As long as you don't choose very high capacitance cables, such as Litz designs ... " http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-47190.html "Audio cable became a visible subject in the US in 1976 when Polk Audio introduced a Japanese sourced cable under the name Cobra Cable. This high capacitance/low inductance litz cable encouraged some amplifiers into self-destruction, but it usually made systems sound better." http://www.castlehillhifi.com.au/?main=%2FCatalogue%2FDABCABFA-A17D-4FED-9C14-A8 FE0D9B35DA%2FAudioquest%2520-%2520Cables%2F Actually it did make many transistor based systems sound subjectively "better" by rolling off (due to the high capacitance of the Litz construction) the high frequency nasties which the average electronics of the day produced in abundance. It also blew up a fair share of amplifiers. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15092 Registered: Jan-08 | LOL! Crying is your way! Again you are wrong and take things to your advantage! http://www.hifiportal.co.uk/Articles/Article0028-CableConstructionGuide.pdf  They talk about emboded which is the best then they talk also about the ''Magnet Wire'' which is ''Resonant'' not the pure copper! If it does well on RF then run with low impedence, tell why those cable are not the best? Then if my english not please you, quite this thread which is for members searching good info not idioties posted like you do! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15350 Registered: May-04 | . "Again you are wrong and take thing to your advantage! http://www.hifiportal.co.uk/Articles/Article0028-CableConstructionGuide.pdf" Oh, my! You do miss the point - and the words on a page. "Certainly, those manufacturers who build Litz cables will promote Litz cables. That alone is not proof of their value. Those who see Litz cables as problematic will not build Litz cables. If you believe the Museatex cables color your system in a pleasing manner, then you are welcome to use them. But replacing them with "a 0 gauge copper wire used for electric installation to see what can be the difference in tone" (https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1905843#POST1905843 while using grafted on battery terminals will provide you with no insight into which component change among the many you have accomplished is creating the "comparison" you believe has occurred." Please read the last sentence of the link I originally provided to Cardas, Litz type wiring is " ... too resonant for present day audio standards". The description sites low inductance. As I said, low inductance in a cable will almost always equate to higher capacitance. Once again you have proven nothing other than exactly what I had said. Cable "resonance" has nothing to do with the purity of the conductor. Understanding cable design involves understanding both antenna theory and filter theory/construction - among other things such as metalurgy and the values of various dielectric materials so you must be a plastics expert in most cases. Do you have any concept of how an antenna operates, P? Why an AM antenna doesn't pick up FM and why neither works with microwave frequencies for your cell phone or infrared for your remote control? An antenna is trimmed to a certain "resonant" frequency range and operates because of its system resonance. Very much the same applies to filters of the LCR variety. No? Do you know? Speaking of filters, do you know how the Qtc of a speaker system is like a filter? Have you been paying any attention along the way here? And, for the last decade or so, most wire has been close enough to "pure" to be all but six 9's OFC. Brush up on your cable knowldege, P, it is lacking. Don't they teach you this when you become a motor "expert"? "If it does well on RF then run with low impedence, tell why those cable are not the best?" RF rejection has nothing to do specifically with low impedance. Actually, quite the opposite is typically true. First, "impedance" is an unclear term which has no certain specification. A high inductance a cable will have a high impedance and a high capacitance cable will have high impedance. If you can find one, a high resistance cable will also have a high overall impedance. "Impedance" defines no single value in a cable. The three types of "high impedance" cables will not reject RF in a similar fashion to one another nor will they "sound" alike in a high end audio system. If you shield a cable from RFI by adding a foil or braided shield above all the other conductors, the capacitance will increase. Just as if you had a larger capacitor with more layers of dielectric. There is no direct correlation, however, between cable "impedance" and RF rejection. It is dependent upon the construction of the cable and the materials chosen for the dielectric. Teflon as a lower dielectric constant than does PVC. Just as there is no one to one relationship between DF and the amount of NFB is being used in the various stages of a high end amplifier. Do some reading, get some new information and learn something for a change. "Then if my english not please you, quite this thread which is for members searching good info not idioties posted like you do!" I did not insult your English. However, the additional insults you've thrown at me should be sufficient to convince everyone here you have no proof for anything you claim and you can only insult to divert attention from your complete lack of knowledge and your arrogance. My opinion hasn't change in all this time. You, P, are a joke! I have put more technical information into any one paragraph I've posted here than you have in over 100 posts. And you claim I am insulting you?!!! You insult my intelligence and my respect for civility, P. Calling you a joke is giving you too much credit. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15351 Registered: May-04 | . "And, for the last decade or so, most wire has been close enough to "pure" to be all but six 9's OFC." I probably should qualify this to say most wire "intended for audio use" has been ... That would include magnet wire but exclude 0 AWG cables meant for industrial installations. Since the inductance and capacitance of a cable are largely determined by the positioning and the distance between conductors, a magnet wire with its very thin enamelled coating will likely be far more suited to a "low capacitance" Litz construction that would a conductor with a PVC dielectric. Or even a Teflon - though Teflon scores quite well in this regard. A Teflon dielectric - or a dozen or more Teflon dielectrics as found in a Litz type speaker cable, however, increases the stiffness of the final cable construction along with raising cost significantly over lacquer or PVC. A dielectric with a low DA cannot make up for the close proximity of the conductors in a twisted, braided or Litz type construction - it can only make the values "better" than had a PVC dielectric been selected. Tradeoffs. http://members.gcronline.com/cbrauda/0007.htm Cable resonance; http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=47&pagestring=Cable+R esonance+(video) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LC_circuit (Excuse the Wiki link) http://www.daycounter.com/Calculators/Whip-Antenna-Design-Calculator.phtml ,sid183_gci548179,00.html,http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid183_gci548179,00.html http://webphysics.davidson.edu/physlet_resources/bu_semester2/c08_dielectric_constant.html http://www.clippercontrols.com/pages/dielectric-values#L . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15094 Registered: Jan-08 | Blah Blah Blah, BLAH , Blah Blah Blah Blah!!!!!!!!!! ''Cable "resonance" has nothing to do with the purity of the conductor'' My answer is LOL! Plym said: "If it does well on RF then run with low impedence, tell why those cable are not the best?" Jan said:RF rejection has nothing to do specifically with low impedance My answer on it: the cable is able to drive on a large scale of frequencies! Jan said Blah Blah Blah on inductance then HF which is not the subject as usual but it's good for him then not good for me!! What I can tell again?????????? The thing is that you open your mouth too fast then you don't ask why!!!! We tested those cable with 2 mono high cost amps, first test with the amp on back of the speaker with 4 inch of good cable then with the MUSEATEX CRYOGENICS CABLE(20 feets) in exactly the same condition then we voted for those cable that you never tried but Bla Bla Bla again without know. We were surprise by the Quality which mean exactly same sound that the 4 inch cable! I repeat that those cable are 20 feets! Are you able to found as good cable for this lenght? What I spoke are tested! What you spoke are taken on Guggle! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15352 Registered: May-04 | . "What I spoke are tested!" Yes, I've read about your "tests". There's not one I would trust to provide anything you hadn't already decided you were going to hear. I'm sorry, did I say "hear"? That would infer you were going to listen to music. Do you ever mention "music", P? "What you spoke are taken on Guggle!" You continually down play Google, might I remind you; https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1905910#POST1905910 where you posted ... "http://sound.westhost.com/impedanc.htm This link explain well also the damping: http://www.amplifier.cd/Tutorial/Innenwiderstand/output_resistance.htm" Since you wrote neither of those artciles, you are your old dishonest self. Or here ... https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1905861#POST1905861 Where you placed your Wiki link - which I know you did not write since it actually contains a few facts. Or here https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1906441#POST1906441 When you aren't using Google you are copying the pdf's to which I've linked. That is as close to a "fact" as you can get and you do not understand what is being said in either case. What a POS you are, P! What a POS! "What I can tell again??????????" Apparently you cannnot tell a fact. I however can tell you are a liar and a https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1906071#POST1906071 I'm sorry, did I say you were a liar? I meant you are a https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1906343#POST1906343 You're still a liar - and a hypocrite to boot. https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1906142#POST1906142 ROTFLMAO!!! . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15353 Registered: May-04 | . You're wasting everyone's time again, P. Post a fact that has to do with something useful, like I did here https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1907311#POST1907311 or here https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1907237#POST1907237 Otherwise, I have no more time for someone who has nothing to offer me but more wasted time. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15099 Registered: Jan-08 | Poor Jan You're wasting everyone's time with your idiot links! Found one bad comment on Ed Meitner MUSEATEX CRYOGENICS CABLE with the same spec >48 x #24. You posted link of manufacturer which will certainly tell that his cable is better! Then he talk about ''magnet wire'' which is resonnant, when everybody no that copper is much better and less resonnant. He don't talk about the thickness of the envelope of each wire which cause the capacitance, his picture show a varnish wire. You don't know what found to argue and win your point! If you like corrosive cables good for one year buy it and let me with my reliable cable good for over 30 years! You make me laught! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15354 Registered: May-04 | . *BIG YAAAWWWNNNNN* That you still have no idea what cable resonance is or that magnet wire is copper is hysterical. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15101 Registered: Jan-08 |  |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15355 Registered: May-04 | . Hey, P! I got a question for you. I'm hopin' you'll answer it. You're a self proclaimed motor "expert", right? If you've got a motor with "windings", what kind of windings are in a motor? What are they made from? Then, since you think motors and voice coils are the same except motors are bigger, what sort of windings are in the voice coil? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15102 Registered: Jan-08 | You are not tired of your childish replies? |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15242 Registered: Jan-08 | Damping factor The output impedance of an amp should be extremely low. If it's .8 Ohms, then an 8-Ohm speaker has a damping factor of 10. If it's .08, then the amplifier provides a damping factor of 100, etc. Don't confuse the actual output (source) impedance with the load impedance that is recommended for the amp (4-Ohms, 8-Ohms, etc). The idea is that if the speaker is 8 Ohms, and the amplifier has a source impedance of .08 Ohms, then the amplifier "damps" the motion of the cone by a "factor" of 100. In reality, the true damping that the cone "sees" is determined by many things, part of which is the damping limitation imposed by the resistance of the voice coil, usually around 5 Ohms or so for an 8-Ohm speaker. You can see that if the speaker has 5 Ohms of resistance, the internal (source) impedance of the amplifier (.08 Ohms for a damping factor of only 100) doesn't add much to the total resistance in the voice coil circuit, hence has very little effect on total damping. So any modest change in the amplifier damping factor correlates to virtually no change in total damping. A speaker designer shoots for a certain damping (same as 1/Q) to achieve a certain desired type of low-frequency rolloff. The assumption is that the source impedance of the amplifier is 0 Ohms. If the source impedance is .08 Ohms (damping factor of 100), very little error is introduced into the system. Higher damping factors are getting into diminishing returns in terms of the total damping. In practice we want a certain, relatively low damping figure for the whole speaker system, (1.414 for a maximally flat bass response). http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/amplifier_power.html |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15410 Registered: May-04 | . More "guugle information not good"? Nothing in there about NFB and DF. Just as I said there wouldn't be anything because there is no one to one relationship between them. I gave you calculations for DF weeks ago, you idiot. You were wrong then, you are still wrong about cable resonance and magnet wire and you're about to be proven wrong again on the oher thread. Then you leave. This thread is over, p-head. Take the challenge or just get out now and you take stupid with you. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15243 Registered: Jan-08 | Damping factor The output impedance of an amp should be extremely low. If it's .8 Ohms, then an 8-Ohm speaker has a damping factor of 10. If it's .08, then the amplifier provides a damping factor of 100, etc. Don't confuse the actual output (source) impedance with the load impedance that is recommended for the amp (4-Ohms, 8-Ohms, etc). The idea is that if the speaker is 8 Ohms, and the amplifier has a source impedance of .08 Ohms, then the amplifier "damps" the motion of the cone by a "factor" of 100. In reality, the true damping that the cone "sees" is determined by many things, part of which is the damping limitation imposed by the resistance of the voice coil, usually around 5 Ohms or so for an 8-Ohm speaker. You can see that if the speaker has 5 Ohms of resistance, the internal (source) impedance of the amplifier (.08 Ohms for a damping factor of only 100) doesn't add much to the total resistance in the voice coil circuit, hence has very little effect on total damping. So any modest change in the amplifier damping factor correlates to virtually no change in total damping. A speaker designer shoots for a certain damping (same as 1/Q) to achieve a certain desired type of low-frequency rolloff. The assumption is that the source impedance of the amplifier is 0 Ohms. If the source impedance is .08 Ohms (damping factor of 100), very little error is introduced into the system. Higher damping factors are getting into diminishing returns in terms of the total damping. In practice we want a certain, relatively low damping figure for the whole speaker system, (1.414 for a maximally flat bass response). http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/amplifier_power.html |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1715 Registered: Oct-07 | Plym, Are we back to AMP101? EVERY article / study i've ever read would say that critically damped speaker is Q=.707 and that 1.414 (your 1/Q?) produces huge, flabby bass with even gigantic damping factor amps. Where does 1/Q come in? Now, what do you do with somebody like Carver who has both current and voltage source outputs on his TG amps? He seemingly arbitrarily inserts a 1 ohm resistor in series with the current source outputs. That would seem to drop the DF to very low levels and even worse with some low impedance loads. Nobody here has confused source impedance with load impedance in quite a while. Just my opinion, but from the link Plym provided, I'd say THIS is even more important to speaker / amp performance as a system. http://www.microconsultants.com/tips/pwrfact/pfarticl.htm |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15247 Registered: Jan-08 | Leo Are we back to AMP101? It seem that Yes! Carver is not a reference for me! There is no depht in his amplifiers but a great power! A test we made many years ago is hooked the output to the imput through a resistor to reduce the gain power, a 10 ohms was used to replace the speaker , we made it with 4 amplifiers, the sound result was horrible on high dampered amplifier, we made the same test with 4 tube amplifiers without damping, then we got a excellent sound lightly different but nothing serious! That proves the fatal use of the dampimg! Your link talk also about motor drive! |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1716 Registered: Oct-07 | Plym, Make one of these and dump the resistor as your test load. http://www.stereophile.com/reference/60/ |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15257 Registered: Jan-08 | Leo I don't have anymore my spectrum analyser to provide a graphic then I'm happy with my sound. This test come from Jensen which use very low grade power supply! Why you don't try a powerfull power supply to see what happen? You can add few powerfull capacitor on a low end amplifier to see the difference. If you decide to try it give me few info like power output, transformer power and actual cpacitor then I will help you to found the good componant to improve your amp. Not to bash you but you argue without trying what I'm trying to explain you. Like a amplifier conceptor, I made a ton of test to see what help then what is wrong, the power supply is the most expensive part of a amplifier, the board with its composants cost not much, that's why they try to correct the default with costless solution. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1717 Registered: Oct-07 | My amp has a very efficient SMPS and is 500x2 @4 and 250x2 @8. Each channel has its own supply. Each amp has both a 50 and 80 volt rail. Other amps without power supply can be powered from these amps, for use in bi / tri amped systems. Manufacturer claims something like 40 amps per channel. I'll never use a 5th of that. The hi-frequency transformers are a fraction the size you'd expect of a conventional linear supply with similar output. Plug to speaker efficiency runs in the 80s at higher powers. My first run in with a tri-amped speaker? The Braun Tri-amps which had 55/30/15 watts for lo/mid/hi drivers. I don't know how well they'd compare with new stuff, but the idea was wild and I thought they were pretty darn good. Model LV-1020. Now, about those 75 amps! What is the SOR of your output devices? Can they sustain 75amps at any meaningful voltage? What is the wire gauge size of your voice coils? At what current do the wires fuse? Magnepan is considered a current hog speaker. Everyone says it so it must be true (not). On the panel is glued over 100 feet of aluminum wire. It is going to be mid-20 gauge somewhere....certainly not thicker than 22 or so...given that the panels DCR is about 4 ohms. Fuse current? in the 20 amp range. My point in above link is that many amps do well into resistors. Your amp may well be one. But given the extra inductance and the extra series resistance you've added, I suspect you have compromised performance into a real world load. Wacky (loco or nutty) current claims are one of the red-herrings of audio. If I wanted to weld, I'd go for Miller or Lincoln. Want to make a real contribution to HiFi? Invent a pure resistive driver. I don't know if one exists or is even possible, but if anyone can do it, you can. |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15267 Registered: Jan-08 | OK you have a regulated supply > very good point! Explain why 50 and 80 volt? Is your amp run on 2 voltage supply or the real output supply is 50 volts then the regulator use the 80 volts for its regulation? 40 amps by channels is very good, check with a clamp ammeter with peak option under 50 hertz frequency on border line of clipping then you will see that 40 is not too much. SOR???? 15 amps continue voltage peak over 100 amps. Gauge size of the voice coil??? Here is the link of the speakers but lightly modified due to resonnance from the event: http://www.imf-electronics.com/Home/imf/speaker-range/reference-speakers/rspm#TO C-IMF-RSPM-Mk.-IV "But given the extra inductance and the extra series resistance you've added" Where I added Inductance and serie resistance? Never say it! No comments for the rest! |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1720 Registered: Oct-07 | Plym, You must certainly know there is No Such Thing as a 'pure' component. The huge amount of extra capacitance you added not only adds the intended value, but more series resistance which expresses itself as higher power supply impedance and inductance as well. You don't 'have to say it'........The fact of your additional components makes it necessary by the 'law'. I heartily endorse the purchase of a Kill-A-Watt meter. You will be able to measure the power factor of your amp....though I doubt you can insert it into your speaker circuit! You will maybe see that you have a substantial phase angle, which to the extent it exists, negates your use of whatever size transformer you've got. My panels have a DCR of about 4 ohms per section. The woofer section for example, has an inductor of about 0.4 ohms DCR and the panel is about 4 ohms. (4.1 on schematic?) Anyway, by physical measure that section has 100 feet+ of aluminum wire. Consulting an aluminum wire chart for where 4 ohms crosses 100 feet results in a crossing point of 24 gauge. I hope you agree that this is good for a 'First Pass' estimate. This size has a fusing current of a tick over 21 amps. From this, and the 4 amp fuse of the mid/tweet section I can only conclude I simply DO NOT need anything approaching 75 amps. Here is link to my amp module.... http://www.icepower.bang-olufsen.com/files/solutions/icepower500aspdata.pdf I linked the full published specs....you seem to like that sort of thing: Aluminum wire data:: http://www.interfacebus.com/Aluminum_Wire_AWG_Size.html SOR is the Safe Operating Range of your output devices. Please consult the datasheet for absolute ratings, the temp derate and just how much voltage / power they will dissipate at 75 amps....even given the number you are surely running in parallel. Also please consider that the FTC spec calls for 60 minutes at 1/3 power as preheat.....This should cut in to your alledged 75 amps in a quick hurry. About 45 minutes. |
|
Bronze Member Username: SuperjazzyjamesPost Number: 92 Registered: Oct-10 | Now if EVERYONE could make their points like Leo does, in a respectful manner, clear and concise. There are no insults, double, talk, talking in circles, long winded nonsense disguised as technical info, etc. ecoustics would be a better place. This is not to say whether or not I agree with his points, I just like how he makes them. Nicely done Leo. |
|
Bronze Member Username: SuperjazzyjamesPost Number: 96 Registered: Oct-10 | Hey all you supporters of Jan Vigne, better known as Vangina, listen to this. In the same thread where Peter Henderson asks if he should replace his rotel receiver with an integrated amp, Vangina calls me coward, then asks how to say coward in french? Like that's sophisticated or something. Then after calling me a coward, Vangina tucks his tail between his legs and runs away! Who's the coward? VANGINA IS! Aka, in any language as a spineless worm! |
|
Gold Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 1055 Registered: Jul-07 | Grow up James. Soon. |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 15490 Registered: Dec-04 | Leo, you need a really funky meter! |
|
Silver Member Username: SuperjazzyjamesPost Number: 101 Registered: Oct-10 | Oh Chris? You need to tell your friend to grow up and grow a spine SOON! |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15272 Registered: Jan-08 | Leo Explain me why add capacitors give more serie resistance? I don't need a Kill-A-Watt meter to give you the wattage consumption, with my AC ammeter clamp I can read it that I multiply by the voltage. Here is the Data sheet: http://www.nteinc.com/specs/10to99/pdf/nte36.pdf |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1723 Registered: Oct-07 | Plym, This will be my last post to you. The Kill-a-watt meter will give you a handle on power factor. Wattage and VA are 2 different things....related by the phase angle of your load. Capacitors are resistive.....remember ESR? And they have an inductive aspect, as well. Tossing more into the powersupply may or may not help as much as you hope. How are the caps wired relative to the output devices is the clue. I think you mentioned it in an earlier post. SOR is the area of Safe Operating Range for your semiconductor devices. Somewhere on the datasheet will also be a derate based on temperature. Hotter=worser. You can't simply cram more and more 'amps' down the devices throats. If you manage a high enough voltage you will eventually fuse an output device. Did you look at the wire size / resistance of my panels? Your speakers will be similar and of course, up against the same 'wall of physics' which governs the rest of the universe. Now, I don't expect you to unwind the voicecoil bobbin, but get real about how much wire of what size it contains. Even if the magnetic field were a couple tesla, and you had enough 16ga wire to get to 5 or so ohms, you would probably need 75 amps. The rest of the motor would have to be equally robust. I think the cone breakup patterns of a non-round woofer may work against you, too. For 16ga, you'd need nearly 1000 feet of wire, which would weigh nearly 8 pounds. Not much of a voice coil candidate. It'd take the current, though. maybe until it got warm....derate, again. And than there's the BACK EMF....... |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1724 Registered: Oct-07 | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_operating_area I'm sure the 150c specified in the datasheet is the MAXIMUM value allowed. Electromigration of the metalization layer at that temp and under high current, not to mention other 2ndary effects will destroy the device. The data sheet is incomplete, since it DOES NOT specify a temperature derate.... I spent YEARS building semiconductors. BUT, I am NOT a parametrics / probe guy at all. I have no idea what % derate to apply based on temp. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1725 Registered: Oct-07 | Nuck? You there, fella? Funky Meter? I had some funky Chicken a few nites ago from the Colonel, but survived. I'm done with those 2 goof balls. Plym can have his 'Rinkon amp. |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15274 Registered: Jan-08 | "This will be my last post to you." Is it the request of Master Jan? For the wattage: IxVx0.6= watts I have very low ESR Mallory CGO series capacitor! Here is the model: CGO753U070X8L My IMF work fine with this modified Adcom since 13 years, the only problem was 4 tweeters blowed with a microphone passing in front of them then a wire broked between the membrane and the connecting support of one woofer Woofer are from KEF, do a search for their spec. This total system has runned 3 years with very high level under 2 ohms without any problems with always a great sound. |
|
Silver Member Username: SuperjazzyjamesPost Number: 105 Registered: Oct-10 | My advice Plymouth, you should run test on your system to see if any of Leo's concerns are present. If any of them are, take the necessary steps to correct the issues. Even if none of these issues are present when you test, you should recheck periodically just to be on the safe side. Also, you may want to connect your power supply caps in series with each other, NOT in series with the amp, but connect the positive side of one to the positive power, its negative side to the positive side of the next cap and the negative side of that cap to the negative power. |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15276 Registered: Jan-08 | superjazzyJa(me)s I wil make the test he asked me but like I said the system is not hooked now. The Icepower 500 of Leo is good for only 90 watts in continusly power under 4 ohms, then my Adcon is originaly rated for continusly 100 watts under 4 ohms with both channels working, this module is not what I call Hi-fi because to much parts in sound road. I will repeat again that higher is the current amp output, better is the speaker control. When my kids was young, I runned this system with 70's disco every friday night on the clipping border, to dance with them, I'm very satisfy with it, sometimes I listen new system that I like but the price is over 20 000$, switched for a new only to switched! No way! I have also a high gain system for disco in the garage that I use in party which use 2 modified mono block amps then 2 speakers with 15" woofers made by me. This system sound very detailed the I use it for vocal for my daughter which is a very good signer. She is on youtube but because of bashing from many troublemakers, I can't give the link! We have Bass guitar with 300 watts amp, electrique guitar with 100 watts amp then 2 classic guitars. For those who believe to know the music, I think that I'm well positionned to know what sound best and real! |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1737 Registered: Oct-07 | http://www.icepower.bang-olufsen.com/files/solutions/icepower500asp.pdf B&O ASP500 module sales specs. Data sheet is MUCH longer and has more detail. From perusal of the specs the limits of 'd' are apparent. Max power of 500 watts is 60 second time limited. This and the FTC power of 200 watts are because of the frequency shaping Zobel on the output. Virtually everyone who puts ANY of the 'd' amps on the bench notes the special measurement treatment needed. Also, the amps frequency response drops off more quickly at higher impedances...again, the Zobel. Phase shift is part of the deal, too. EACH module in this series has its own power supply, negating one of Plym's objections as well as taps of 50 and 80 volts to run other modules which don't have built in power supplies. The power to the entire system is limited. However, typical bi/tri amped speakers have about 1/2 the lower in the low end, this is not a big deal. Current is 30 or 40 amps.....but that IMO is irrelevant, or nearly so. |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15301 Registered: Jan-08 | Leo The spec give 500 watts for 60 secs under 1 khz not under 20-20 000 hz! This module use a high frequency swiched mode power supply directly on same module which is not too much good and can generate noise in listening frequency. This module is not what we can call Hi-fi conception for purist! >2000 damping also affraid me, usualy it demonstrate a lack of power from power supply! We can't see square pulses graphics usualy used to see the defaults of amplifiers! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15443 Registered: May-04 | . "this module is not what I call Hi-fi because to much parts in sound road." "I will repeat again that higher is the current amp output, better is the speaker control." "I think that I'm well positionned to know what sound best and real!" "This module is not what we can call Hi-fi conception for purist!" , and till we reach ROTFLMAO!!! . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15307 Registered: Jan-08 | Leo The spec give 500 watts for 60 secs under 1 khz not under 20-20 000 hz! This module use a high frequency swiched mode power supply directly on same module which is not too much good and can generate noise in listening frequency. This module is not what we can call Hi-fi conception for purist! >2000 damping also affraid me, usualy it demonstrate a lack of power from power supply! We can't see square pulses graphics usualy used to see the defaults of amplifiers! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15446 Registered: May-04 | . "this module is not what I call Hi-fi because to much parts in sound road." "I will repeat again that higher is the current amp output, better is the speaker control." "I think that I'm well positionned to know what sound best and real!" "This module is not what we can call Hi-fi conception for purist!" Very , Doubly Unbelievably until we reach ROTFLMAO!!! If it was a ridiculous the first time, repeating it doesn't change that fact. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15311 Registered: Jan-08 | Jan Why are you so stupid? Let Leo answer to my reply then if you are able of speaking like a adult, I will reply to you! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15448 Registered: May-04 | . . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1739 Registered: Oct-07 | I'm sure the owners of 'd' moduled amps will be glad for Plyms input. Please keep an eye on everything from Audiogon to Craig's list for the rush to sell 'd' amps. Time limit/power spec has NO frequency band specified. http://stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/bel_canto_ref1000m_monoblock_power_amplifi er/index2.html Stereophile test of the ASP moduled BelCanto, certainly NOT hi-fi by any stretch of the imagination. Amp also passed the 1/3 power for 60 minutes preconditioning heat-soak specified in the FTC rule. Also, www.icepower.bang,http://www.icepower.bang-olufsen.com/files/solutions/icepower5 00aspdata.pdf Full data sheet. current capacity on page #5. Now, what to make of all this nonsense? Put it all in the shredder and listen. 100 watts? 500 watts? 60 seconds? hours? Who cares? In the real world of music listening, none of that make much difference. Sure, you can get clues about suitability of some combinations. Plym, enjoy your 75 amp sine waves. |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15312 Registered: Jan-08 | Leo Your two links does not work! |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15313 Registered: Jan-08 | Good link: http://stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/bel_canto_ref1000m_monoblock_power_amplifi er/index2.html http://www.icepower.bang-olufsen.com/files/solutions/icepower500aspdata.pdf |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15314 Registered: Jan-08 | OK Leo! Those measures include square pulses are taken under 1khz! Music is not only 1khz frequence! "This latest version of Bel Canto's e.One Ref1000M monoblock offers very high power from its diminutive chassis. It does work best with higher-impedance loudspeakers, however, and at lower frequencies. Fortunately, music rarely includes enough high top-octave energy to reveal the amplifier's unhappiness in this region.--John Atkinson" Leo if you like this amplifier, good for you but I can't list that like a reference and surely not as good as mine. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15449 Registered: May-04 | . Neither is a square wave; http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=what%20is%20a%20square%2 0wave&type= Stereophile seldom tests amplifiers for square wave performance above 1kHz since most amplifiers tend towards poor performance with 10kHz squarewaves. Not all amplifier designers will embrace 100kHz power bandwidth, those that do build for it and show good to excellent performance on high frequency square wave tests. My recollection is your Adcom has terrible 10kHz square wave response even when compared to my forty year old, 40 watt HK receiver which has a power bandwidth from 4Hz to 100kHz. Sticking too large for the chassis caps in the amp won't change that level of performance. From that standpoint, your amp simply isn't "high fidelity" and can be bettered by inexpensive equipment four decades old. Even my tube amps are better at 10kHz response than your amp. Besides, how an amplifier performs with a 100 Khz square wave can oftentimes be far more informative about the amp's potential. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1741 Registered: Oct-07 | And no speaker in the world will tolerate 75 amps! Besides, read what you posted, Plym, "Fortunately, music rarely includes enough high top-octave energy to reveal the amplifier's unhappiness in this region.--John Atkinson" Back in the 70's I saw Braun LV-1020 'Tri Amp' speakers. ( I had to look up model #!) They had 100 watts per speaker divided up, if I remember correctly 50:35:15, for Lo:Mid:Hi adjusting for crossover, I'll go with similar numbers today. Happy Bench Test, Plym......enjoy your specs....I'm going to put on a few tunes.....even XM's 'maurice chevalier' channel is better than arguing this stuff....... |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15316 Registered: Jan-08 | Jan You are right for the not modified GFA-535! We has also see how is your lack of knowledge about what can doing a stronger power supply and the damping factor! A 20 hz, 1khz, 10 khz and 20 khz satisfy me but are not available today! LOL! You talk about those worse things sold today! My understanding is that good old tube amplifiers without damping are back! Why? According to you! I will give you again a lesson why those tube amplifier sound better! Tube work on high voltage with low current, I'm right to tell that vue the low current they need less powerfull capacitor, you follow me for now?, according that a transformer reduce the voltage then increase the current, You follows me again?, like I explained many times, the tube amps can drive a speaker with less lost of gain due to the transformer then can used less damping or none because of better control of the transducer. To make it possible with a stand alone amplifier you need to use a very strong power supply and power output stage. The cost of the power supply is the major reason why the new amps use this sh1t of Damping Are you able to follow me again????? That's what I made that with my Adcom and the result is fantastic and confirmed by the more reputable sound Home Rotac here in Quebec city!!!!!!!!! |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15317 Registered: Jan-08 | Leo For sure you forget the omhs law! 75 amps is the capacity of the power outputs not what is send to speakers, the current increase with the voltage of the output, I don't know why you jam on my 75 amps which is for reproduce the exact wave received in the input without lost of resistance through the amp and the tranducers, and this for all frequencies! The capacitors are there to reduce the lost of voltage resulting in lost of gain on lower frequencies which result necessesarily in lost of gain in high frequencies in the use of one amp system. I'm very patient with you two but I can't let propagated bad informations on amplifiers to the members of eCoustics! |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15318 Registered: Jan-08 | I can added that if the totality of the amp from the input and the output use the same voltage like my Adcom, the lost of gain will be much higher than a multi-voltage amps, the quality of simple voltage for the totalty of the amplifier is a better reproduction of the sound on the audible range of frequencies. The lost of gain(voltage) due to the bad power supply applied to the power output stage will interferred with the rest of the transistors then will decupled the lost of gain to much more that the voltage lost! My comments are not a C/P but my understanding of amplification. |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 15524 Registered: Dec-04 | The flat rail voltage of your Adcom, general purpose PA quality is impressive, Plymouth. Get a 5555 for a good unit as well. That's a Pass unit. I see you are booted from Canuck audio mart, as well. Hmmm |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15319 Registered: Jan-08 | Hi Nuck! Thanks for your good comment about me in Car audio forum: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/car-audio/658421.html LOL! I have no link with Canuck audio mart! I posted a example of available receiver taken on Yahoo! Nothing more! You are so simple in your charge about me! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15450 Registered: May-04 | . "A 20 hz, 1khz, 10 khz and 20 khz satisfy me but are not available today!" No idea what that means other than you listen to test tones. "My recollection is your Adcom has terrible 10kHz square wave response even when compared to my forty year old, 40 watt HK receiver which has a power bandwidth from 4Hz to 100kHz. Sticking too large for the chassis caps in the amp won't change that level of performance. From that standpoint, your amp simply isn't "high fidelity" and can be bettered by inexpensive equipment four decades old. Even my tube amps are better at 10kHz response than your amp." "As I said, it is difficult to believe from its measured performance that the McIntosh MC275 was designed almost half a century ago (by a team led by company cofounder Sidney Corderman, footnote 1). Good audio engineering is timeless." -- John Atkinson; http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/mcintosh_mc275_power_amplifier/index5.html "Besides, how an amplifier performs with a 100 Khz square wave can oftentimes be far more informative about the amp's potential." Too many k's, "Besides, how an amplifier performs with a 100 Hz square wave can oftentimes be far more informative about the amp's potential." . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15451 Registered: May-04 | . "Personally, I felt the '555's high frequencies to be somewhat emphasized, perhaps even grainy, which for me somewhat offset its superbly defined, massively weighty low frequencies, its excellent dynamics, and its wide, deep, and well-focused soundstage." "The first track I played was Drew Minter singing Handel's "Va Tacito," from the Harmonia Mundi USA CD Arias for Senesino (HMC 905183). While I felt the older amplifier's high frequencies to be still a little grainy ... " "The new amplifier again threw a better sense of depth than the old. Anna's Steinway was set further behind the plane of the loudspeakers, despite its now having a more robust, more forward midrange tonality." JA: http://stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/678/index4.html Adding power supply capacitance doesn't get rid of 'grain" and it doesn't change 1kHz and above square wave performance for the better. Class "C" rating. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15452 Registered: May-04 | . "I see you are booted from Canuck audio mart, as well. Hmmm" Well, knock me down with a magnet wire! (P still doesn't know what that is. ) . |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15321 Registered: Jan-08 | Jan You are right for the not modified GFA-535! We has also see how is your lack of knowledge about what can doing a stronger power supply and the damping factor! A 20 hz, 1khz, 10 khz and 20 khz satisfy me but are not available today! LOL! You talk about those worse things sold today! My understanding is that good old tube amplifiers without damping are back! Why? According to you! I will give you again a lesson why those tube amplifier sound better! Tube work on high voltage with low current, I'm right to tell that vue the low current they need less powerfull capacitor, you follow me for now?, according that a transformer reduce the voltage then increase the current, You follows me again?, like I explained many times, the tube amps can drive a speaker with less lost of gain due to the transformer then can used less damping or none because of better control of the transducer. To make it possible with a stand alone amplifier you need to use a very strong power supply and power output stage. The cost of the power supply is the major reason why the new amps use this sh1t of Damping Are you able to follow me again????? That's what I made that with my Adcom and the result is fantastic and confirmed by the more reputable sound Home Rotac here in Quebec city!!!!!!!!! |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15322 Registered: Jan-08 | For sure you forget the omhs law! 75 amps is the capacity of the power outputs not what is send to speakers, the current increase with the voltage of the output, I don't know why you jam on my 75 amps which is for reproduce the exact wave received in the input without lost of resistance through the amp and the tranducers, and this for all frequencies! The capacitors are there to reduce the lost of voltage resulting in lost of gain on lower frequencies which result necessesarily in lost of gain in high frequencies in the use of one amp system. I'm very patient with you two but I can't let propagated bad informations on amplifiers to the members of eCoustics! |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15323 Registered: Jan-08 | I can added that if the totality of the amp from the input and the output use the same voltage like my Adcom, the lost of gain will be much higher than a multi-voltage amps, the quality of simple voltage for the totalty of the amplifier is a better reproduction of the sound on the audible range of frequencies. The lost of gain(voltage) due to the bad power supply applied to the power output stage will interferred with the rest of the transistors then will decupled the lost of gain to much more that the voltage lost! My comments are not a C/P like Jan Vigne but my understanding of amplification through experiments. |
|
Silver Member Username: SuperjazzyjamesPost Number: 180 Registered: Oct-10 | Hey Plymouth! Check this out! Know it all Jan tried to tell me I was wrong when I said that the voice coil in a subwoofer has a larger diameter than that of a woofer. He posted a link saying that he found a WOOFER, Not a subwoofer with a 5.1" diameter voice coil. So I looked at the link and guess what I saw! A driver with 5.1" voice coil alright, but NOT a woofer. It was a SUBWOOFER! What a stupe! What a worthless stupe! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!}} |
|
Silver Member Username: SuperjazzyjamesPost Number: 181 Registered: Oct-10 | https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=8822 Here's Jan's link! Check it out for yourself! |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics