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)

"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.

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

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.

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

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

"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.

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!

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."

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.

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."

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."

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

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.

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!

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:26:22 -0500, (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.

You're exactly the type of uneducated consumer that the marketing
types are going for. Of course different CD players have different
frequency responses - the point is, ALL of the various CD players have
frequency responses that cover the ENTIRE RANGE of human hearing. It
literally makes NO difference whether the range is 10Hz-20kHz or 5Hz
to 25kHz - no one can hear the difference.

Likewise with wow & flutter. Every single CD player ever made, from
any manufacturer, has had wow & flutter that was too low to be
measured, even with laboratory equipment. So why do they continue to
list it in their specs? Only because it sound cool to be able to say
that it's "unmeasurable".

Thirty or forty years ago, there were amplifiers that had S/N ratios
down in the 30's. It was entirely possible that you could tell a
difference between a S/N ratio of 30 dB and a S/N ratio of 40 dB, so
if you had a very high S/N ratio, it was worthwhile to advertise that
fact.

But once you get up to 80 dB (or even lower than that), the
differences from increasing the S/N ratio are completely inaudible,
and all components these days are at least up around 80 dB or higher.
There's no way to hear the difference between ratios of 85 dB, 95 dB,
and 105 dB, but the marketing types still insist on listing it in
their specs because they know some mouthbreathing consumer will think
"102 dB is better than 95 dB, so I'll buy amp "A" instead of amp "B".

To use another example from the automotive industry, some car
companies advertise the fact that their cars have a clearcoat over the
paint, even though EVERY CAR made for at least the last 25 years has
had a basecoat/clearcoat paint on it. The marketing types are hoping
that some stupid potential buyer will assume that all of the other
brands therefore DON'T have a clearcoat since they didn't mention it
in THEIR sales brochure, and they'll buy from the company that
advertised it, even though EVERYONE uses clearcoat these days.

The differences in electronics design that could TRULY make one unit
sound/behave differently from another unit are too complicated to
explain to the average consumer using something as simple as a spec
chart on the back of the package, so instead, the manufacturers
continue to publish the same meaningless specs over and over again.


--
Scott Gardner

"After things go from bad to worse, the cycle will repeat itself."

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.

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.



--
Scott Gardner

"When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's sometimes hard to remember that your original mission was to drain the swamp."

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

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.)"

i didnt say it was important...you said there was no difference.from
below 20 to above....

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

is the jumping around part of the music itself? just lower notes????
idiot...

"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.

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.


--
Scott Gardner

"The most fundamental law of wartime negotiations; you negotiate with the enemy with your knee in his chest and your knife at his throat. "

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

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

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

"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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:32:09 GMT, (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?


I typed in a longer reply earlier, but I lost my connection to the
newsgroups server, so I'll make this one shorter.

Whether "Class T" actually deserves to be described as a unique
amplifier topology, or is simply a variation on a digital-switching
amp, neither "Tripath" nor "Class T" are recognized engineering terms.
Tripath is the name of the company that developed their own patented
type of digital-switching amplifer, and "Class T" is a term that
Tripath themselves came up with to describe their amp technology.

So, both "Tripath" and "Class T" are marketing terms used to describe
a particular company and their products, rather than a being
generally-accepted engineering term to describe a unique amplifier
topology.


--
Scott Gardner

"This space intentionally left blank."

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.