"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message ...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message
...
"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...

[snip]
And if you knew what "damping" was, you'd understand that this statement
basically is nonsensical.
I object to the rude tone of the above wording. You are a rude man.
[snip]

And this comes down, ultimately, to the farsical use of a nonsense
term as "damping factor" as a useful figure of merit for amplifier
performance, as have been adequately demonstrated in the past.
The amplifier in question may or may not have the audible
characteristics you claim, but it is not due your unsupportable
"damping factor" conjecture.

Interestingly, I had the above argument with Bill Sommerwick in which we
took the reverse sides of the issue.
I do not know which of you is correct, but I admit it seems plausible that
tweeter damping is primarily mechanical.

It's not a case of "plausible." Measure the mechanical damping,
as clearly indicated by Qms bs the electrical damping, indicated
by Qes, of typical tweeter, and plausibility is stringly reinforced
by ohysical reality.

Nevertheless, I stand by my impression of the Sunfire, which is that it is a
muddy sounding amplifier.

You're impression is one thing, but the explanation you proffer
has little basis in physical fact.

Search the archives and look for articles written on "damping factor"
and you will see why it is a nonsense term.