Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Specs that I'd like to see manufacturers STOP advertising.
The other day, I was looking at the specs for a new Alpine in-dash CD
player, and one of the specifications listed was "Wow & Flutter". Of course, the W & F rating was "below measurable limits", just like *every single* CD player that's hit the market since they became commercially available. Why the hell are manufacturers still listing it? Wow & Flutter was a useful measurement for record players and tape decks, but it's worthless for a CD player. If *any* CD player has measurable wow or flutter, it's broken. That's almost like if Ford or Chevy were to advertise that their cars "use radial tires". That might have been a neat marketing point thirty-five years ago, when not everyone used them, but it's downright silly now. Along the same lines as wow & flutter, I'd like to see amplifier manufacturers quit listing "damping factor" in their amps' specifications. Because of the negative feedback used in ALL solid-state car amplifiers, the damping factors will always be huge. Whether it's 200, 500, or 1000, you're not going to be able to tell the difference. Back in the days of tube amplifiers that used little (if any) negative feedback, it was common to have damping factors that were less than 20. That *could* cause problems with the sound if you tried to use low-impedance speakers, but with a damping factor of 500 for an amp when connected to a 4-ohm load, it doesn't matter if you use a 2-ohm load instead and the damping factor drops to 250 - the difference is inaudible. And speaking of "inaudible", why are manufacturers still hung up on signal-to-noise ratio? When was the last time you saw any piece of car audio gear that had a SNR of less than 85 dB? 85 dB is one part noise per 316 million parts signal, which makes the noise completely inaudible. But I've actually had a salesdroid try to tell me that a head unit with a SNR of 102 dB will "sound better" than one with a SNR of 99 dB. Why did he think that? Because manufacturers still list SNR on the box, and "more must be better,right"? Anyone else have any pet peeves when it comes to specifications? I can think of a few others (like magnet weight for subwoofers), but this post is long enough already. -- Scott Gardner "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." (George Bernard Shaw) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Gardner" wrote in message ... The other day, I was looking at the specs for a new Alpine in-dash CD player, and one of the specifications listed was "Wow & Flutter". Of course, the W & F rating was "below measurable limits", just like *every single* CD player that's hit the market since they became commercially available. Why the hell are manufacturers still listing it? Wow & Flutter was a useful measurement for record players and tape decks, but it's worthless for a CD player. If *any* CD player has measurable wow or flutter, it's broken. That's almost like if Ford or Chevy were to advertise that their cars "use radial tires". That might have been a neat marketing point thirty-five years ago, when not everyone used them, but it's downright silly now. Along the same lines as wow & flutter, I'd like to see amplifier manufacturers quit listing "damping factor" in their amps' specifications. Because of the negative feedback used in ALL solid-state car amplifiers, the damping factors will always be huge. Whether it's 200, 500, or 1000, you're not going to be able to tell the difference. Back in the days of tube amplifiers that used little (if any) negative feedback, it was common to have damping factors that were less than 20. That *could* cause problems with the sound if you tried to use low-impedance speakers, but with a damping factor of 500 for an amp when connected to a 4-ohm load, it doesn't matter if you use a 2-ohm load instead and the damping factor drops to 250 - the difference is inaudible. And speaking of "inaudible", why are manufacturers still hung up on signal-to-noise ratio? When was the last time you saw any piece of car audio gear that had a SNR of less than 85 dB? 85 dB is one part noise per 316 million parts signal, which makes the noise completely inaudible. But I've actually had a salesdroid try to tell me that a head unit with a SNR of 102 dB will "sound better" than one with a SNR of 99 dB. Why did he think that? Because manufacturers still list SNR on the box, and "more must be better,right"? Anyone else have any pet peeves when it comes to specifications? I can think of a few others (like magnet weight for subwoofers), but this post is long enough already. -- Scott Gardner "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." (George Bernard Shaw) I think they keep using them because it makes the unit look more impressive to the average buyer. There are very few buyers who know what any of the specs mean. the only one they look at is Watts. And Watts are very over inflated on most units, because that one of the main selling points. Alpine even started over stating the wattage for awhile and I think they went back to more realistic power ratings in recent models. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Okay...how about CD player frequency response. I can't recall the last time
it wasn't anything other than 5-20kHz or 10-20kHz, etc. Like wow and flutter, if the frequency response isn't in the 20-20kHz ballpark, then it's broken. And my personal favorite is frequency reponse for a tweeter that can play up to 50kHz! Just imagine the detail and nuances you could hear with that baby!! Tony -- 2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition Clarion DRZ9255 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and Xenon X1200.1 Amplifiers, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, Image Dynamics IDMAX10 D4 v.3 Sub 2001 Chevy S10 ZR2 Pioneer DEH-P9600MP Head Unit, Phoenix Gold Ti500.4 Amp, Focal 165HC Speakers & Image Dynamics ID8 D4 v.3 Sub |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The other day, I was looking at the specs for a new Alpine in-dash CD
player, and one of the specifications listed was "Wow & Flutter". Of course, the W & F rating was "below measurable limits", just like *every single* CD player that's hit the market since they became commercially available. Why the hell are manufacturers still listing it? Wow & Flutter was a useful measurement for record players and tape decks, but it's worthless for a CD player. If *any* CD player has measurable wow or flutter, it's broken. That's almost like if Ford or Chevy were to advertise that their cars "use radial tires". That might have been a neat marketing point thirty-five years ago, when not everyone used them, but it's downright silly now. Along the same lines as wow & flutter, I'd like to see amplifier manufacturers quit listing "damping factor" in their amps' specifications. Because of the negative feedback used in ALL solid-state car amplifiers, the damping factors will always be huge. Whether it's 200, 500, or 1000, you're not going to be able to tell the difference. Back in the days of tube amplifiers that used little (if any) negative feedback, it was common to have damping factors that were less than 20. That *could* cause problems with the sound if you tried to use low-impedance speakers, but with a damping factor of 500 for an amp when connected to a 4-ohm load, it doesn't matter if you use a 2-ohm load instead and the damping factor drops to 250 - the difference is inaudible. And speaking of "inaudible", why are manufacturers still hung up on signal-to-noise ratio? When was the last time you saw any piece of car audio gear that had a SNR of less than 85 dB? 85 dB is one part noise per 316 million parts signal, which makes the noise completely inaudible. But I've actually had a salesdroid try to tell me that a head unit with a SNR of 102 dB will "sound better" than one with a SNR of 99 dB. Why did he think that? Because manufacturers still list SNR on the box, and "more must be better,right"? Anyone else have any pet peeves when it comes to specifications? I can think of a few others (like magnet weight for subwoofers), but this post is long enough already. Just about all of them are useless. S/N is particularly dumb, because noise levels are dominated by other factors aside from the inherent S/N. The funniest thing is that distortion levels are featured in amplifiers where it's minimal, but virtually ignored in speaker specs, where it's typically on the order of 100 to 1000 times greater than that in amps. Useful specs for amps: - output power into various loads, adopting some sort of standardization - efficiency - frequency response What else do we need to know? The class? Ok, they're all Class B if they're not D. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:35:33 GMT, MZ wrote:
The other day, I was looking at the specs for a new Alpine in-dash CD player, and one of the specifications listed was "Wow & Flutter". Of course, the W & F rating was "below measurable limits", just like *every single* CD player that's hit the market since they became commercially available. Why the hell are manufacturers still listing it? Wow & Flutter was a useful measurement for record players and tape decks, but it's worthless for a CD player. If *any* CD player has measurable wow or flutter, it's broken. That's almost like if Ford or Chevy were to advertise that their cars "use radial tires". That might have been a neat marketing point thirty-five years ago, when not everyone used them, but it's downright silly now. Along the same lines as wow & flutter, I'd like to see amplifier manufacturers quit listing "damping factor" in their amps' specifications. Because of the negative feedback used in ALL solid-state car amplifiers, the damping factors will always be huge. Whether it's 200, 500, or 1000, you're not going to be able to tell the difference. Back in the days of tube amplifiers that used little (if any) negative feedback, it was common to have damping factors that were less than 20. That *could* cause problems with the sound if you tried to use low-impedance speakers, but with a damping factor of 500 for an amp when connected to a 4-ohm load, it doesn't matter if you use a 2-ohm load instead and the damping factor drops to 250 - the difference is inaudible. And speaking of "inaudible", why are manufacturers still hung up on signal-to-noise ratio? When was the last time you saw any piece of car audio gear that had a SNR of less than 85 dB? 85 dB is one part noise per 316 million parts signal, which makes the noise completely inaudible. But I've actually had a salesdroid try to tell me that a head unit with a SNR of 102 dB will "sound better" than one with a SNR of 99 dB. Why did he think that? Because manufacturers still list SNR on the box, and "more must be better,right"? Anyone else have any pet peeves when it comes to specifications? I can think of a few others (like magnet weight for subwoofers), but this post is long enough already. Just about all of them are useless. S/N is particularly dumb, because noise levels are dominated by other factors aside from the inherent S/N. The funniest thing is that distortion levels are featured in amplifiers where it's minimal, but virtually ignored in speaker specs, where it's typically on the order of 100 to 1000 times greater than that in amps. Useful specs for amps: - output power into various loads, adopting some sort of standardization - efficiency - frequency response What else do we need to know? The class? Ok, they're all Class B if they're not D. Good points, except I think most all of the solid-state amps are class AB, not B. -- Scott Gardner "I don't deserve this award, but I have arthritis and I don't deserve that either". - Jack Benny |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I believe Class AB was started as a marketing gimmick. Despite being used
often to describe a Class B design with a heavily biased output stage, there is really no such thing. Like so many terms generated by marketing departments it has become common and accepted. Kevin Murray "Scott Gardner" wrote in message ... On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:35:33 GMT, MZ wrote: The other day, I was looking at the specs for a new Alpine in-dash CD player, and one of the specifications listed was "Wow & Flutter". Of course, the W & F rating was "below measurable limits", just like *every single* CD player that's hit the market since they became commercially available. Why the hell are manufacturers still listing it? Wow & Flutter was a useful measurement for record players and tape decks, but it's worthless for a CD player. If *any* CD player has measurable wow or flutter, it's broken. That's almost like if Ford or Chevy were to advertise that their cars "use radial tires". That might have been a neatClass AB marketing point thirty-five years ago, when not everyone used them, but it's downright silly now. Along the same lines as wow & flutter, I'd like to see amplifier manufacturers quit listing "damping factor" in their amps' specifications. Because of the negative feedback used in ALL solid-state car amplifiers, the damping factors will always be huge. Whether it's 200, 500, or 1000, you're not going to be able to tell the difference. Back in the days of tube amplifiers that used little (if any) negative feedback, it was common to have damping factors that were less than 20. That *could* cause problems with the sound if you tried to use low-impedance speakers, but with a damping factor of 500 for an amp when connected to a 4-ohm load, it doesn't matter if you use a 2-ohm load instead and the damping factor drops to 250 - the difference is inaudible. And speaking of "inaudible", why are manufacturers still hung up on signal-to-noise ratio? When was the last time you saw any piece of car audio gear that had a SNR of less than 85 dB? 85 dB is one part noise per 316 million parts signal, which makes the noise completely inaudible. But I've actually had a salesdroid try to tell me that a head unit with a SNR of 102 dB will "sound better" than one with a SNR of 99 dB. Why did he think that? Because manufacturers still list SNR on the box, and "more must be better,right"? Anyone else have any pet peeves when it comes to specifications? I can think of a few others (like magnet weight for subwoofers), but this post is long enough already. Just about all of them are useless. S/N is particularly dumb, because noise levels are dominated by other factors aside from the inherent S/N. The funniest thing is that distortion levels are featured in amplifiers where it's minimal, but virtually ignored in speaker specs, where it's typically on the order of 100 to 1000 times greater than that in amps. Useful specs for amps: - output power into various loads, adopting some sort of standardization - efficiency - frequency response What else do we need to know? The class? Ok, they're all Class B if they're not D. Good points, except I think most all of the solid-state amps are class AB, not B. -- Scott Gardner "I don't deserve this award, but I have arthritis and I don't deserve that either". - Jack Benny |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
... Good points, except I think most all of the solid-state amps are class AB, not B. It's a matter of semantics. Technically speaking, it's class B because the output devices are each conducting half the time. That's why you need the global negative feedback loop. A lot of times people look at the fact that there's a bias voltage present in front of the drivers and assume it's class A/B because of it. But if you didn't put a bias there, you'd be operating in class C. But I'm willing to concede that most manufacturers call it class A/B. But that doesn't make them right. Just like when they call it "RMS power" when it's really average power. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I believe Class AB was started as a marketing gimmick. Despite being used
often to describe a Class B design with a heavily biased output stage, there is really no such thing. Like so many terms generated by marketing departments it has become common and accepted. Like class T? I wouldn't go so far as to say A/B doesn't exist. I think if you define class A, A/B, B, and C strictly on the proportion of the cycle the output stages conduct, it has a very real meaning. If instead it's defined based on the difference between the bias and the Vbe drops between the VAS and OPS, then it becomes more ambiguous. I think the first method is the more accepted one though. At least that's what's in Horowitz and Hill! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 23:02:02 -0400, "MZ"
wrote: I believe Class AB was started as a marketing gimmick. Despite being used often to describe a Class B design with a heavily biased output stage, there is really no such thing. Like so many terms generated by marketing departments it has become common and accepted. Like class T? I wouldn't go so far as to say A/B doesn't exist. I think if you define class A, A/B, B, and C strictly on the proportion of the cycle the output stages conduct, it has a very real meaning. If instead it's defined based on the difference between the bias and the Vbe drops between the VAS and OPS, then it becomes more ambiguous. I think the first method is the more accepted one though. At least that's what's in Horowitz and Hill! Regardless, I agree with your original post that it's not worth mentioning in the specs, whether it's truly class A or AB. I can understand a manufacturer advertising a digital-switching configuration, since they're not the norm, and they do have some concrete benefits over traditional designs. I also don't think amp manufacturers need to list input and output impedences for their amps (although I realized I I've already indirectly addressed output impedance in my rant about damping factor). -- Scott Gardner "Discordianism: Where reality is a figment of your imagination." |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Regardless, I agree with your original post that it's not worth
mentioning in the specs, whether it's truly class A or AB. You might be able to guess that it's a class A topology anyway based on the efficiency number. I can understand a manufacturer advertising a digital-switching configuration, since they're not the norm, and they do have some concrete benefits over traditional designs. I also don't think amp manufacturers need to list input and output impedences for their amps (although I realized I I've already indirectly addressed output impedance in my rant about damping factor). Yeah, I agree with what you said about an output impedance of an output stage in a global negative feedback setting. It should be miniscule, probably dominated solely by the linearizing resistors at the output (typically less than 0.1 ohm) and the DCR of the output coil if there even is one, and whatever wiring there is to the connector. Probably not enough to quibble over differences of tenths or even hundredths of an ohm. However, there's the matter of the power reduction associated with decreasing the impedance of the load. If this information is provided in the power specs as it should be, then there's no reason to duplicate it with an output Z spec. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:39:20 -0400, "MZ"
wrote: Regardless, I agree with your original post that it's not worth mentioning in the specs, whether it's truly class A or AB. You might be able to guess that it's a class A topology anyway based on the efficiency number. Ack - I meant to say "whether it's truly class AB or B", meaning that it doesn't matter if the topology is technically AB or B - it's still the norm for car amps, and doesn't need to be specified. Now, if a car amp really operated with a class A topology throughout its rated power, that probably WOULD be worth mentioning. Not that the difference between A and AB/B would be noticeable in a car, but they'd probably want to list it, if for no other reason than to explain the low efficiency and Watts/dollar ratio. I can understand a manufacturer advertising a digital-switching configuration, since they're not the norm, and they do have some concrete benefits over traditional designs. I also don't think amp manufacturers need to list input and output impedences for their amps (although I realized I I've already indirectly addressed output impedance in my rant about damping factor). Yeah, I agree with what you said about an output impedance of an output stage in a global negative feedback setting. It should be miniscule, probably dominated solely by the linearizing resistors at the output (typically less than 0.1 ohm) and the DCR of the output coil if there even is one, and whatever wiring there is to the connector. Probably not enough to quibble over differences of tenths or even hundredths of an ohm. However, there's the matter of the power reduction associated with decreasing the impedance of the load. If this information is provided in the power specs as it should be, then there's no reason to duplicate it with an output Z spec. I just wish that the manufacturers and magazines would have the guts to say "You know, we're just going to stop talking about specifications X, Y, and Z, because they're just not relevant any longer", but I know the marketing guys would pitch a walleyed hissy-fit. -- Scott Gardner "Wit levels low. Attempting to compensate." |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
You might be able to guess that it's a class A topology anyway based on
the efficiency number. Ack - I meant to say "whether it's truly class AB or B", meaning that it doesn't matter if the topology is technically AB or B - it's still the norm for car amps, and doesn't need to be specified. Now, if a car amp really operated with a class A topology throughout its rated power, that probably WOULD be worth mentioning. Not that the difference between A and AB/B would be noticeable in a car, but they'd probably want to list it, if for no other reason than to explain the low efficiency and Watts/dollar ratio. Yeah, it'd be worthwhile to mention, but it's something we'd probably be able to deduce. I don't think you'd ever be able to notice a difference between a properly-designed class A and class B amp anyway, regardless of the listening conditions. In fact, you may be surprised to know that there's quite a bit of literature out there that has actually demonstrated that a properly-designed class B amp can actually eliminate crossover distortion to a greater extent than class A can eliminate distortions inherent to its design and can therefore provide better distortion characteristics than class A. So much for the old adage that class A is cleaner. Yeah, I agree with what you said about an output impedance of an output stage in a global negative feedback setting. It should be miniscule, probably dominated solely by the linearizing resistors at the output (typically less than 0.1 ohm) and the DCR of the output coil if there even is one, and whatever wiring there is to the connector. Probably not enough to quibble over differences of tenths or even hundredths of an ohm. However, there's the matter of the power reduction associated with decreasing the impedance of the load. If this information is provided in the power specs as it should be, then there's no reason to duplicate it with an output Z spec. I just wish that the manufacturers and magazines would have the guts to say "You know, we're just going to stop talking about specifications X, Y, and Z, because they're just not relevant any longer", but I know the marketing guys would pitch a walleyed hissy-fit. Then I think a lot of the blame rests with those who actually tout these specs. This includes the ignorant consumer who only knows to compare numbers between two amps, and also the magazine writers and reviewers who continue to refer to these specs or even go out of their way to define them using any terms that don't include the word "meaningless." |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Gardner wrote:
I just wish that the manufacturers and magazines would have the guts to say "You know, we're just going to stop talking about specifications X, Y, and Z, because they're just not relevant any longer", but I know the marketing guys would pitch a walleyed hissy-fit. Nah, they'd just make up some other felgercarb to fill up ad space... Like a couple ads I particularly remember from a Car Audio mag, years and years ago... One was for a CD deck, touting the fact that they used optical data transfer between the CD transport and the DACs. Fine, there are some valid reasons for doing so... but according to the print, this was done because it "transfers data at the speed of light (that's fast!)" Uh... last I checked, electricity moves through wire pretty close to the speed of light... certainly close enough to make no discernable difference over the maximum few centimeters it has to travel from the transport the DACs... Another was for an amp, and their big buzzword was SCAT - Solid Core Acoustic Technology. A few vague claims of the benefits of this wunderkind were made, and a wordy but equally vague description of SCAT revealed the term to essentially mean that all internal connections used solid rather than stranded wire... Remember, these are the same kinds of minds that can make a Big Mac sound like health food... take away one avenue, they'll invent another. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0540-8, 10/07/2005 Tested on: 10/10/2005 12:28:40 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
all i can say is this post is stupid....the reason all those listed
details are very good is because if they were bad they wouldnt be listed.i never buy a amp/stereo without knowing s/n, wow/flutter etc..... cd responses are different thats why they list them. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
bob wald Wrote: all i can say is this post is stupid....the reason all those listed details are very good is because if they were bad they wouldnt be listed.i never buy a amp/stereo without knowing s/n, wow/flutter etc..... cd responses are different thats why they list them. For bob: inaudible A adjective 1 inaudible, unhearable impossible to hear; imperceptible by the ear; "an inaudible conversation" It's kind of like THD specs... the difference between .5% THD and .05% THD is inaudible... -- Jethro [(Vas/Vbox)+1]^.5 * Qts or Fs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jethro's Profile: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/me...p?userid=18662 View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/sh...d.php?t=227690 CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
first, do you know you not only hear bass you feel it....lol
dohhh... i cant keep correcting you on each thing you say.itll take me too long. sorry. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:53:53 GMT, Matt Ion
wrote: Scott Gardner wrote: On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:12:53 -0500, (bob wald) wrote: first, do you know you not only hear bass you feel it....lol dohhh... i cant keep correcting you on each thing you say.itll take me too long. sorry. I know that you hear bass as well as feel it, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't tell the difference between a CD player with a frequency response that "only" extends down to 20 Hz and one that goes down to 5 Hz. First of all, a CD player that "only" goes down to 10 or 20 Hz will still play a 5 Hz "note" - it will just be attenuated more by the frequency roll-off. Second, you have to look at the entire response specification, not just the frequency range. A CD player with a range of 20Hz-20kHz **plus or minus 1 dB** will probably have a wider overall frequency response than another player that has a spec of 5Hz-30kHz **plus or minus 3 dB**. You could probably truthfully advertise ANY CD player as having a frequency response of 1 Hz to 30 kHz, if you increased the allowable attenuation limit to 30 dB or so. Lastly, there's no *musical* content in any song that goes down to 5 or 10 Hz. Even if the musicians were able to play a note that low, it's going to be lost anyway because of the low-end roll-off of the microphones and the mastering equipment. So, unless you spend your time in your car masturbating to low-frequency computer-generated test tones, we're back to that whole "inaudible differences" point. Not to mention, most speaker systems wouldn't reproduce notes that low even if they were recorded (you'd need about a 30" sub to crank out 20Hz at any decent efficiency). Plus, the GOBS of amplifier power it takes to accurately reproduce extremely low (20 HZ and below) frequencies at a loud volume. I think it's hilarious that Bob is claiming it's so important for CD players to have a frequency response that goes down to 20 Hz or below, when for years, audio engineers have included subsonic filters in their equipment for the sole purpose of keeping those frequencies OUT of the signal. After all, when it comes to music, the very lowest note on a bass guitar is about 41Hz, and a pipe organ with a 32-foot pedal stop *might* get down to 17Hz or so. Almost no music uses those notes, and anything lower than that is just for the weenies and their computer-synthesized "bass discs" to show off with - they're not music. -- Scott Gardner "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session." (Judge Gideon J. Tucker, 1866.)" |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
i didnt say it was important...you said there was no difference.from
below 20 to above.... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Scott Gardner wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:12:53 -0500, (bob wald) wrote: first, do you know you not only hear bass you feel it....lol dohhh... i cant keep correcting you on each thing you say.itll take me too long. sorry. I know that you hear bass as well as feel it, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't tell the difference between a CD player with a frequency response that "only" extends down to 20 Hz and one that goes down to 5 Hz. First of all, a CD player that "only" goes down to 10 or 20 Hz will still play a 5 Hz "note" - it will just be attenuated more by the frequency roll-off. Second, you have to look at the entire response specification, not just the frequency range. A CD player with a range of 20Hz-20kHz **plus or minus 1 dB** will probably have a wider overall frequency response than another player that has a spec of 5Hz-30kHz **plus or minus 3 dB**. You could probably truthfully advertise ANY CD player as having a frequency response of 1 Hz to 30 kHz, if you increased the allowable attenuation limit to 30 dB or so. Lastly, there's no *musical* content in any song that goes down to 5 or 10 Hz. Even if the musicians were able to play a note that low, it's going to be lost anyway because of the low-end roll-off of the microphones and the mastering equipment. So, unless you spend your time in your car masturbating to low-frequency computer-generated test tones, we're back to that whole "inaudible differences" point. Well I guess in a live performance, the musicians can be jumping around creating floor movements felt, so its really part of the musical experiance, 5 Hz. greg |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
is the jumping around part of the music itself? just lower notes????
idiot... |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"bob wald" wrote in message
... all i can say is this post is stupid....the reason all those listed details are very good is because if they were bad they wouldnt be listed. Profound. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
i hear the new LMT sub from i think...soundsplinter will go quite low,
everyone is amazed with the prototype last time i heard. but i'm still on your side. i know they recommend like a 17hz tuning or something like that, the response curve is unreal but i'd like to actually hear it to see if its as good as they claim. "Matt Ion" wrote in message news:RUx2f.150980$tl2.35719@pd7tw3no... Scott Gardner wrote: On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:12:53 -0500, (bob wald) wrote: first, do you know you not only hear bass you feel it....lol dohhh... i cant keep correcting you on each thing you say.itll take me too long. sorry. I know that you hear bass as well as feel it, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't tell the difference between a CD player with a frequency response that "only" extends down to 20 Hz and one that goes down to 5 Hz. First of all, a CD player that "only" goes down to 10 or 20 Hz will still play a 5 Hz "note" - it will just be attenuated more by the frequency roll-off. Second, you have to look at the entire response specification, not just the frequency range. A CD player with a range of 20Hz-20kHz **plus or minus 1 dB** will probably have a wider overall frequency response than another player that has a spec of 5Hz-30kHz **plus or minus 3 dB**. You could probably truthfully advertise ANY CD player as having a frequency response of 1 Hz to 30 kHz, if you increased the allowable attenuation limit to 30 dB or so. Lastly, there's no *musical* content in any song that goes down to 5 or 10 Hz. Even if the musicians were able to play a note that low, it's going to be lost anyway because of the low-end roll-off of the microphones and the mastering equipment. So, unless you spend your time in your car masturbating to low-frequency computer-generated test tones, we're back to that whole "inaudible differences" point. Not to mention, most speaker systems wouldn't reproduce notes that low even if they were recorded (you'd need about a 30" sub to crank out 20Hz at any decent efficiency). --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0540-8, 10/07/2005 Tested on: 10/10/2005 10:53:50 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Gardner wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:34:05 -0500, (bob wald) wrote: i didnt say it was important...you said there was no difference.from below 20 to above.... No audible difference, no. If you want to base your component choices on differences that you can only detect with an oscilloscope, you go right ahead. Bahahahaahah! Funny, this reminds me of an article on a similar subject in some stereo mag years ago... the author coined the term, "DC-to-light frequency response". I always liked that one.... --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0541-0, 10/10/2005 Tested on: 10/10/2005 10:10:10 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
MZ wrote:
"bob wald" wrote in message ... all i can say is this post is stupid....the reason all those listed details are very good is because if they were bad they wouldnt be listed. Profound. Confound. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0541-0, 10/10/2005 Tested on: 10/10/2005 10:11:07 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Ion" wrote in message news:PPH2f.156457$tl2.1750@pd7tw3no... MZ wrote: "bob wald" wrote in message ... all i can say is this post is stupid....the reason all those listed details are very good is because if they were bad they wouldnt be listed. Profound. Confound. No, no. He must be right. They wouldn't let him post on the Internet if he wasn't right. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
In article , MZ wrote:
What else do we need to know? The class? Ok, they're all Class B if they're not D. Really? and how about class A,E,T,X |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
There is no class T or X... don't confuse marketing BS with engineering
designations. You did however skip over G & H which are real audio amp classes... JD JD No-one wrote: In article , MZ wrote: What else do we need to know? The class? Ok, they're all Class B if they're not D. Really? and how about class A,E,T,X |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
John Durbin wrote:
There is no class T or X... don't confuse marketing BS with engineering designations. You did however skip over G & H which are real audio amp classes... JD JD No-one wrote: In article , MZ wrote: What else do we need to know? The class? Ok, they're all Class B if they're not D. Really? and how about class A,E,T,X How about BS-class? :-D --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0541-2, 10/13/2005 Tested on: 10/13/2005 7:57:59 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
KaeZoo wrote:
"Matt Ion" wrote in message news:PPH2f.156457$tl2.1750@pd7tw3no... MZ wrote: "bob wald" wrote in message ... all i can say is this post is stupid....the reason all those listed details are very good is because if they were bad they wouldnt be listed. Profound. Confound. No, no. He must be right. They wouldn't let him post on the Internet if he wasn't right. I don't know why, but this just strikes me as unbelievably hilarious... --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0541-2, 10/13/2005 Tested on: 10/13/2005 7:59:04 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
What else do we need to know? The class? Ok, they're all Class B if
they're not D. Really? and how about class A,E,T,X Ok, so you've got one or two class A designs floating around. Completely useless in car audio, but yeah they're there. If they're gonna build such a creature and suffer all the problems associated with it, you can be sure that they'll list "Class A" all over the place - on the box, on the amp itself, on the brochures. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
There might not be class T technology within the walls of Directed, but rest
assured that Tripath technology has been around for a few years. Didn't you get the memo? In article , John Durbin wrote: There is no class T or X... don't confuse marketing BS with engineering designations. You did however skip over G & H which are real audio amp classes... JD JD No-one wrote: In article , MZ wrote: What else do we need to know? The class? Ok, they're all Class B if they're not D. Really? and how about class A,E,T,X |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Directed as a few class BS amplifiers with built in car alarms. In article 6Cu3f.172835$oW2.42204@pd7tw1no, Matt Ion wrote: John Durbin wrote: There is no class T or X... don't confuse marketing BS with engineering designations. You did however skip over G & H which are real audio amp classes... JD JD No-one wrote: In article , MZ wrote: What else do we need to know? The class? Ok, they're all Class B if they're not D. Really? and how about class A,E,T,X How about BS-class? :-D --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0541-2, 10/13/2005 Tested on: 10/13/2005 7:57:59 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, No-one wrote:
There might not be class T technology within the walls of Directed, but rest assured that Tripath technology has been around for a few years. Didn't you get the memo? The technology is there, but a marketing department can't bestow a new amplifier class on the field. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Hickok 580 - Question about using tube specs instead of roll chart. | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Linkwitz' Orion design | High End Audio | |||
Comments about CES Show "fixes" | High End Audio | |||
Specs for Blaupunkt ODWA1200 12" old model subs??? | Car Audio | |||
MTX Woofer Specs | Car Audio |