"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
: John Woodgate wrote:
: I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
: kevindotaylwardEXTR wrote (in
: .net) about 'A little
: feedback worse than none at all?', on Tue, 18 Nov 2003:
:
: As I explained, none of this matters with *large* amounts of
: feedback. Large feedback will clobber all distortion. You wont here
: it if is all below 0.01%, and this is easy to do. End of story.
:
: This is simply not true,
:
: Yes it is.
:
: as has been found time after time by people
: who thought that 60 dB of feedback would cure all ills.
:
: It most certainly does, if it is applied correctly. That means that
: there is 60 db, i.e. if it is slew limiting than the feedback aint 60db,
: it goes to zero, hence violates the assumption of 60db of feedback.
:
: When you look
: at the IM distortion, that 0.01% is a sick joke.
:
: Rubbish. Complete and utter crap. What drugs are you on? For starters,
: consider the FM distortion of speakers. i.e. consider a 1khz signal
: riding on a speaker going back and forth at 100 Hz. 0.05 to 0.1% plus
: dopplar induced distortion is easily achievable.

Well, you don't exactly show clarity of mind here yourself, do you ?
Please rephrase and explain what this has to do with the sentence above..
And since you seem to be a numbers-believer, please tell us how you
arrived at them

And this is really
: nasty stuff. Its a spread right across the spectrum.

Wow! Now, let's see, a large cone excursion, say 10 mm, creates a
doppler-frequency shift of ?? numbers, please..

Adding in the
: standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance
: whatsoever that your claim is supported.
:
: There is no way that one can audiable detect 0.01% THD/IMD levels from
: correctly designed amps. If it was frequncy shifts, maybe, but not
: distortion. Been there done, it, wrote the book.
:
: Kevin Aylward
:
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk
: SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
: Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
: Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
:
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
:
: Understanding, is itself an emotion, i.e. a feeling.
Says who ?

: Emotions or feelings can only be "understood" by
: consciousness.

Sorry, read up on cognitive science and logic and
....a whole lot more...
this is just posing without any apparent insight, Kevin.

"Understanding" consciousness can
: therefore only be understood by consciousness itself,
: therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is
: intrinsically unsolvable.
:
: Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
: understanding of the parts of a system can
: explain all aspects of the whole of such system.

That transposing Goedels findings on mathematical
theory on the domain of physics - your idea ?
:
****ed off by posers,
Rudy