Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
Unofficially released.
Harry Belafonte - Mama Look A Boo Boo, (title varies) 1957. Audio restoration... http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/bubu-s.mp3 Jack |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On 19-10-2015 03:13, JackA wrote:
Unofficially released. Harry Belafonte - Mama Look A Boo Boo, (title varies) 1957. Audio restoration... http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/bubu-s.mp3 Jack Left Right Min Sample Value: -32768 -32768 Max Sample Value: 32767 32767 Peak Amplitude: 0 dB 0 dB Possibly Clipped: 12 4 DC Offset: 0 0 Minimum RMS Power: -81.67 dB -83.41 dB Maximum RMS Power: -4.76 dB -4.3 dB Average RMS Power: -9.83 dB -10.02 dB Total RMS Power: -9.33 dB -9.54 dB Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits Using RMS Window of 300 ms - Peter Larsen |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 12:41:31 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
On 19-10-2015 03:13, JackA wrote: Unofficially released. Harry Belafonte - Mama Look A Boo Boo, (title varies) 1957. Audio restoration... http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/bubu-s.mp3 Jack Left Right Min Sample Value: -32768 -32768 Max Sample Value: 32767 32767 Peak Amplitude: 0 dB 0 dB Possibly Clipped: 12 4 DC Offset: 0 0 Minimum RMS Power: -81.67 dB -83.41 dB Maximum RMS Power: -4.76 dB -4.3 dB Average RMS Power: -9.83 dB -10.02 dB Total RMS Power: -9.33 dB -9.54 dB Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits Using RMS Window of 300 ms - Peter Larsen Is that a F- grade??? Like the DC offset score; always check that! :-) Thanks, Peter!!! Jack |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
news:56251d35$0$23209 Left Right Min Sample Value: -32768 -32768 Max Sample Value: 32767 32767 Peak Amplitude: 0 dB 0 dB Possibly Clipped: 12 4 DC Offset: 0 0 Minimum RMS Power: -81.67 dB -83.41 dB Maximum RMS Power: -4.76 dB -4.3 dB Average RMS Power: -9.83 dB -10.02 dB Total RMS Power: -9.33 dB -9.54 dB Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits Using RMS Window of 300 ms - Peter Larsen Four lines, at least, of meaningless nonsense. "RMS Power" = meaningless nonsense. The "DC Offset" figure is probably as meaningless as the RMS Power gibberish. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 5:57:55 PM UTC-4, None wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message news:56251d35$0$23209 Left Right Min Sample Value: -32768 -32768 Max Sample Value: 32767 32767 Peak Amplitude: 0 dB 0 dB Possibly Clipped: 12 4 DC Offset: 0 0 Minimum RMS Power: -81.67 dB -83.41 dB Maximum RMS Power: -4.76 dB -4.3 dB Average RMS Power: -9.83 dB -10.02 dB Total RMS Power: -9.33 dB -9.54 dB Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits Using RMS Window of 300 ms - Peter Larsen Four lines, at least, of meaningless nonsense. "RMS Power" = meaningless nonsense. The "DC Offset" figure is probably as meaningless as the RMS Power gibberish. The DC offset, hard to believe. Saving and opening MP3s always has some DC offset (at least for me). Thanks. Jack |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
None wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message news:56251d35$0$23209 Left Right Min Sample Value: -32768 -32768 Max Sample Value: 32767 32767 Peak Amplitude: 0 dB 0 dB Possibly Clipped: 12 4 DC Offset: 0 0 Minimum RMS Power: -81.67 dB -83.41 dB Maximum RMS Power: -4.76 dB -4.3 dB Average RMS Power: -9.83 dB -10.02 dB Total RMS Power: -9.33 dB -9.54 dB Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits Using RMS Window of 300 ms - Peter Larsen Four lines, at least, of meaningless nonsense. "RMS Power" = meaningless nonsense. The "DC Offset" figure is probably as meaningless as the RMS Power gibberish. The "RMS power" is referenced to 0dBFS. It's not all that useful but it certainly isn't meaningless. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
None wrote: "Four lines, at least, of meaningless nonsense. "RMS Power" =
meaningless nonsense. The "DC Offset" figure is probably as meaningless as the RMS Power gibberish. " Meaningless to someone who doesn't have a ****ING CLUE as to what those terms mean, dumbass GW BUSH-face. Go to another elementary school and read "My Pet Goat" to a room full of 1-4th graders or bomb another country that had nothing to do with 9/11! |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
thekma @ goatboycom wrote in message
... None wrote: "Four lines, at least, of meaningless nonsense. "RMS Power" = meaningless nonsense. The "DC Offset" figure is probably as meaningless as the RMS Power gibberish. " Meaningless to someone who doesn't have a ****ING CLUE as to what those terms mean, dumbass GW BUSH-face. Go to another elementary school and read "My Pet Goat" to a room full of 1-4th graders or bomb another country that had nothing to do with 9/11! Which newsgroup do you imagine you're posting to? |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
None wrote: " thekma @ goatboycom wrote in message
... - show quoted text - Which newsgroup do you imagine you're posting to? " rec.audio.pro, ****-FOR-BRAINS. Enjoying your own medicine? |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
thekma @gmail.com wrote in message
... None wrote: " thekma @ goatboycom wrote in message ... - show quoted text - Which newsgroup do you imagine you're posting to? " rec.audio.pro, ****-FOR-BRAINS. Enjoying your own medicine? Is that my medicine, li'l buddy? So what was all that side-step about W. and 9/11 and some suitcase in your face with a goat? Is that just stream-of-semiconsciousness beat poetry? Pretty unfocused, but maybe that was the intent. You're probably having yet another bad day. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On 19-10-2015 22:57, None wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message news:56251d35$0$23209 Left Right Min Sample Value: -32768 -32768 Max Sample Value: 32767 32767 Peak Amplitude: 0 dB 0 dB Possibly Clipped: 12 4 DC Offset: 0 0 Minimum RMS Power: -81.67 dB -83.41 dB Maximum RMS Power: -4.76 dB -4.3 dB Average RMS Power: -9.83 dB -10.02 dB Total RMS Power: -9.33 dB -9.54 dB Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits Using RMS Window of 300 ms - Peter Larsen Four lines, at least, of meaningless nonsense. "RMS Power" = meaningless nonsense. The "DC Offset" figure is probably as meaningless as the RMS Power gibberish. You actually only wrote three lines of meaningless nonsense. A crest factor of 10 dB is not a sign of quality. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On 19-10-2015 18:13, JackA wrote:
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 12:41:31 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote: On 19-10-2015 03:13, JackA wrote: Unofficially released. Harry Belafonte - Mama Look A Boo Boo, (title varies) 1957. Audio restoration... http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/bubu-s.mp3 Jack Left Right Min Sample Value: -32768 -32768 Max Sample Value: 32767 32767 Peak Amplitude: 0 dB 0 dB Possibly Clipped: 12 4 DC Offset: 0 0 Minimum RMS Power: -81.67 dB -83.41 dB Maximum RMS Power: -4.76 dB -4.3 dB Average RMS Power: -9.83 dB -10.02 dB Total RMS Power: -9.33 dB -9.54 dB Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits Using RMS Window of 300 ms - Peter Larsen Is that a F- grade??? Yes, F-. Expected Crest factor for content considering that it is vox intensive is 25 dB, not 10 dB. Also why is it clipped? - mp3 decoding can cause overruns but as long time participant here you know that. And where is the record noise? Like the DC offset score; always check that! :-) That is also bad. There is a lot of vox. Vox is naturally asymmetric. It should probably be slightly positive. - Peter Larsen Thanks, Peter!!! Jack |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 11:08:42 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 20/10/2015 2:08 p.m., t wrote: None wrote: " wrote in message news:f8d307a8-d36a-46db-9ead-90alegroups.com... - show quoted text - Which newsgroup do you imagine you're posting to? " rec.audio.pro, ****-FOR-BRAINS. Enjoying your own medicine? Stop. Sit down . Take some deep breaths, then take your medication. geoff Geoff: Just WHO are YOU telling to take medication?! That N-putz deserves back what he dishes out! Like I said to others he You don't know me from a hole in the wall - so leave the medical advice to those in that field. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
thekma @gmail.com wrote in message
... Geoff: Just WHO are YOU telling to take medication?! That N-putz deserves back what he dishes out! Like I said to others he You don't know me from a hole in the wall - so leave the medical advice to those in that field. You're doing a heck of a job, Crisko. A heck of a job ignoring me. Hehe. And Goeff's right, you should get back on your meds. Blinding rage isn't good for your tiny little flea-brain. You may be pumping up your chest, feeling unusually manly, for having supposedly turned the tables on me. But you're still in a clueless gibbering rage, and I'm laughing at you. So that much hasn't changed! |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
RMS Voltage combined with RMS Current = Average power.
120 V RMS and 1 Amp RMS in phase yields 120 Watts average power. There is no mathematical meaning to RMS power. RMS power is often mis-used to mean average power. Mark |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
wrote:
RMS Voltage combined with RMS Current = Average power. 120 V RMS and 1 Amp RMS in phase yields 120 Watts average power. There is no mathematical meaning to RMS power. RMS power is often mis-used to mean average power. This is true but we have given up fighting that battle 40 years ago. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 3:48:55 AM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
On 19-10-2015 18:13, JackA wrote: On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 12:41:31 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote: On 19-10-2015 03:13, JackA wrote: Unofficially released. Harry Belafonte - Mama Look A Boo Boo, (title varies) 1957. Audio restoration... http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/bubu-s.mp3 Jack Left Right Min Sample Value: -32768 -32768 Max Sample Value: 32767 32767 Peak Amplitude: 0 dB 0 dB Possibly Clipped: 12 4 DC Offset: 0 0 Minimum RMS Power: -81.67 dB -83.41 dB Maximum RMS Power: -4.76 dB -4.3 dB Average RMS Power: -9.83 dB -10.02 dB Total RMS Power: -9.33 dB -9.54 dB Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits Using RMS Window of 300 ms - Peter Larsen Is that a F- grade??? Yes, F-. You people are cruel!! :-) Consider what I had to work with. It's from a bootleg CD, first time stereo, never published by RCA (Victor)/BMG etc. (this is Take #6, tape condition unknown). It started out decent, but the the fidelity and volume went south, until the ending. So, I had to trim (or as you call it, clipped) to TRY to keep constant volume and enhance key frequencies. I feel it turned out pretty good. Take this fine song from the MCA boxset. Lynyrd Skynyrd - Saturday Night Special. Just sounded washed out, lead vocals too low - that was common with many early (re)mastered CDs. I enhanced some frequencies (caused spikes), then watched the VU meters. Sure, I trimmed (clipped) some, but it didn't harm the recording!!... http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...satspecial.mp3 Thanks. Jack Expected Crest factor for content considering that it is vox intensive is 25 dB, not 10 dB. Also why is it clipped? - mp3 decoding can cause overruns but as long time participant here you know that. And where is the record noise? Like the DC offset score; always check that! :-) That is also bad. There is a lot of vox. Vox is naturally asymmetric. It should probably be slightly positive. - Peter Larsen Thanks, Peter!!! Jack |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... wrote: RMS power is often mis-used to mean average power. This is true but we have given up fighting that battle 40 years ago. --scott I don't know whether that's a "royal we" or you have a mouse in your pocket, but in my day job, I'm not very tolerant of sloppy terminology or sloppy dimensional analysis. It very frequently makes a difference. RMS power, "cycles" or "centigrade" as units, "phase" for polarity, and the like, don't appear on any document to which I contribute or provide approval. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
None wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... wrote: RMS power is often mis-used to mean average power. This is true but we have given up fighting that battle 40 years ago. I don't know whether that's a "royal we" or you have a mouse in your pocket, but in my day job, I'm not very tolerant of sloppy terminology or sloppy dimensional analysis. It very frequently makes a difference. RMS power, "cycles" or "centigrade" as units, "phase" for polarity, and the like, don't appear on any document to which I contribute or provide approval. I'm too busy yelling at people for using "wire" to mean cable, using "comping" to mean compression, calling plug-in power "phantom" or speaking of "filming" when they are shooting video to worry about "RMS Power." --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 3:22:14 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
None wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... wrote: RMS power is often mis-used to mean average power. This is true but we have given up fighting that battle 40 years ago. I don't know whether that's a "royal we" or you have a mouse in your pocket, but in my day job, I'm not very tolerant of sloppy terminology or sloppy dimensional analysis. It very frequently makes a difference. RMS power, "cycles" or "centigrade" as units, "phase" for polarity, and the like, don't appear on any document to which I contribute or provide approval. I'm too busy yelling at people for using "wire" to mean cable, using "comping" to mean compression, calling plug-in power "phantom" or speaking of "filming" when they are shooting video to worry about "RMS Power." --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." I thought it was the medication G doctor who was only in error, but even you use K when it should be k! Ok! Jack |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
None wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... wrote: RMS power is often mis-used to mean average power. This is true but we have given up fighting that battle 40 years ago. --scott I don't know whether that's a "royal we" or you have a mouse in your pocket, but in my day job, I'm not very tolerant of sloppy terminology or sloppy dimensional analysis. It very frequently makes a difference. RMS power, "cycles" or "centigrade" as units, "phase" for polarity, and the like, don't appear on any document to which I contribute or provide approval. It's generally known that the standard test for power in amplifiers is to run a 1kHz sine wave thru the DUT and increase the gain until some distortion limit is reached. This provides a reasonably standard means of classifying the power capability of the amplifier. When someone calls an amp "100W RMS", that's what that means. All thing being equal,it's 3dB more power than a 50W RMS amp. If people use that to mean something else then that's too bad. But the term is one which is not only meaningful but useful as well. -- Les Cargill |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 6:54:39 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote:
None wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... wrote: RMS power is often mis-used to mean average power. This is true but we have given up fighting that battle 40 years ago. --scott I don't know whether that's a "royal we" or you have a mouse in your pocket, but in my day job, I'm not very tolerant of sloppy terminology or sloppy dimensional analysis. It very frequently makes a difference. RMS power, "cycles" or "centigrade" as units, "phase" for polarity, and the like, don't appear on any document to which I contribute or provide approval. It's generally known that the standard test for power in amplifiers is to run a 1kHz sine wave thru the DUT and increase the gain until some distortion limit is reached. This provides a reasonably standard means of classifying the power capability of the amplifier. When someone calls an amp "100W RMS", that's what that means. All thing being equal,it's 3dB more power than a 50W RMS amp. If people use that to mean something else then that's too bad. But the term is one which is not only meaningful but useful as well. Remember in the 70's manufacturers used Peak values to help sell power, not RMS. Not sure what the Institute for High Fidelity (IHF) came up with, that was another figure!! Jack -- Les Cargill |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 6:38:40 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 11:08:42 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote: On 20/10/2015 2:08 p.m., t wrote: None wrote: " wrote in message news:f8d307a8-d36a-46db-9ead-90alegroups.com... - show quoted text - Which newsgroup do you imagine you're posting to? " rec.audio.pro, ****-FOR-BRAINS. Enjoying your own medicine? Stop. Sit down . Take some deep breaths, then take your medication. geoff Geoff: Just WHO are YOU Great Who song!!! Jack telling to take medication?! That N-putz deserves back what he dishes out! Like I said to others he You don't know me from a hole in the wall - so leave the medical advice to those in that field. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
понедељак, 19. октобар 2015. 23.57.55 UTC+2, None је напиÑао/ла:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message news:56251d35$0$23209 Left Right Min Sample Value: -32768 -32768 Max Sample Value: 32767 32767 Peak Amplitude: 0 dB 0 dB Possibly Clipped: 12 4 DC Offset: 0 0 Minimum RMS Power: -81.67 dB -83.41 dB Maximum RMS Power: -4.76 dB -4.3 dB Average RMS Power: -9.83 dB -10.02 dB Total RMS Power: -9.33 dB -9.54 dB Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits Using RMS Window of 300 ms - Peter Larsen Four lines, at least, of meaningless nonsense. "RMS Power" = meaningless nonsense. The "DC Offset" figure is probably as meaningless as the RMS Power gibberish. I think we should ease a bit on this. I also think (RMS) POWER in this context is meaaningless, but I also think most people arround here have good idea about what it's supposed to mean here. Why did makers of that software choose to use word "power" at "powerless" place, well ... |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 7:49:54 PM UTC-4, Luxey wrote:
понедељак, 19. октобар 2015. 23.57.55 UTC+2, None је напиÑао/ла: "Peter Larsen" wrote in message news:56251d35$0$23209 Left Right Min Sample Value: -32768 -32768 Max Sample Value: 32767 32767 Peak Amplitude: 0 dB 0 dB Possibly Clipped: 12 4 DC Offset: 0 0 Minimum RMS Power: -81.67 dB -83.41 dB Maximum RMS Power: -4.76 dB -4.3 dB Average RMS Power: -9.83 dB -10.02 dB Total RMS Power: -9.33 dB -9.54 dB Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits Using RMS Window of 300 ms - Peter Larsen Four lines, at least, of meaningless nonsense. "RMS Power" = meaningless nonsense. The "DC Offset" figure is probably as meaningless as the RMS Power gibberish. I think we should ease a bit on this. I also think (RMS) POWER in this context is meaaningless, but I also think most people arround here have good idea about what it's supposed to mean here. Why did makers of that software choose to use word "power" at "powerless" place, well ... I'm guessing Rap music has much more RMS than a violin solo. Jack |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On 21/10/2015 12:08 p.m., JackA wrote:
Remember in the 70's manufacturers used Peak values to help sell power, not RMS. Not sure what the Institute for High Fidelity (IHF) came up with, that was another figure!! Jack "In the 70s" ?!!! How about SINCE the 70s ? But now not just 'peak' - all sorts including PMPO and totally imaginary unrealistically meaningless large numbers. geoff |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
I can't believe people are calling RMS specs "meaningless" -
this really IS the 21st century! 😟 |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
Les Cargill wrote:
None wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... wrote: RMS power is often mis-used to mean average power. This is true but we have given up fighting that battle 40 years ago. I don't know whether that's a "royal we" or you have a mouse in your pocket, but in my day job, I'm not very tolerant of sloppy terminology or sloppy dimensional analysis. It very frequently makes a difference. RMS power, "cycles" or "centigrade" as units, "phase" for polarity, and the like, don't appear on any document to which I contribute or provide approval. It's generally known that the standard test for power in amplifiers is to run a 1kHz sine wave thru the DUT and increase the gain until some distortion limit is reached. This provides a reasonably standard means of classifying the power capability of the amplifier. When someone calls an amp "100W RMS", that's what that means. All thing being equal,it's 3dB more power than a 50W RMS amp. It's true, though, that this _is_ a total misuse of the term. You hear it all the time, and it's written into the FTC standard, but it _is_ incorrect. I've given up fighting it, but that doesn't make it right. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On 21/10/2015 02:35, geoff wrote:
On 21/10/2015 12:08 p.m., JackA wrote: Remember in the 70's manufacturers used Peak values to help sell power, not RMS. Not sure what the Institute for High Fidelity (IHF) came up with, that was another figure!! Jack "In the 70s" ?!!! How about SINCE the 70s ? But now not just 'peak' - all sorts including PMPO and totally imaginary unrealistically meaningless large numbers. Ah, yes, I remember PMPO. Over 100 watts from a few D cell batteries in a ghetto blaster... -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
thekma @gmail.com wrote in message
... I can't believe people are calling RMS specs "meaningless" - this really IS the 21st century! 😟 And you're a 21st century dumb**** if you think "RMS power" exists. The reason involves mathematics, so it's beyond your comprehension. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On 21/10/2015 6:26 PM, None wrote:
thekma @gmail.com wrote in message ... I can't believe people are calling RMS specs "meaningless" - this really IS the 21st century! 😟 And you're a 21st century dumb**** if you think "RMS power" exists. The reason involves mathematics, so it's beyond your comprehension. Well to be fair, the incorrect terminology is actually written into the standards for amplifiers etc. as most of us know. :-( It's just not worth arguing this one. Trevor. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
Trevor wrote: "- show quoted text -
Well to be fair, the incorrect terminology is actually written into the standards for amplifiers etc. as most of us know. :-( It's just not worth arguing this one. Trevor. " The nice thing for you(or Scott, et al) to do is explain WHY RMS isn't relevant. I know that RMS doesn't take into consideration the frequency range of what's being measured, but that's as much as I know so far. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 9:46:02 AM UTC+2, Trevor wrote:
On 21/10/2015 6:26 PM, None wrote: thekma @gmail.com wrote in message ... I can't believe people are calling RMS specs "meaningless" - this really IS the 21st century! 😟 And you're a 21st century dumb**** if you think "RMS power" exists. The reason involves mathematics, so it's beyond your comprehension. Well to be fair, the incorrect terminology is actually written into the standards for amplifiers etc. as most of us know. :-( It's just not worth arguing this one. Trevor. IMO ... "RMS Power" from above measurement, taken from some software, as presented by Peter, has nothing to do with Amplifier ratings. In Amp ratings the term is related to power, but power is not RMS, although some RMS values were used in calculation. In above measurement, value is RMS of something, but has nothing to do with power. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
wrote:
Trevor wrote: "- show quoted text - Well to be fair, the incorrect terminology is actually written into the standards for amplifiers etc. as most of us know. :-( It's just not worth arguing this one. Trevor. " The nice thing for you(or Scott, et al) to do is explain WHY RMS isn't relevant. I know that RMS doesn't take into consideration the frequency range of what's being measured, but that's as much as I know so far. None already did that. What is being measured is average power. If you take RMS current and RMS voltage and multiply, you get average power, not RMS power. People call it "RMS power" but it isn't. The math is not worth posting here but I believe it is due to Oliver Heaviside. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
What is being measured is average power. If you take RMS current and RMS voltage and multiply, you get average power, not RMS power. People call it "RMS power" but it isn't. +1 exactly correct Mark |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 11:23:03 AM UTC-4, wrote:
What is being measured is average power. If you take RMS current and RMS voltage and multiply, you get average power, not RMS power. People call it "RMS power" but it isn't. +1 exactly correct Mark I say it's "apparent" power, since it is AC, reactive. Jack |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Audio Restoration
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 12:09:17 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 11:23:03 AM UTC-4, wrote: What is being measured is average power. If you take RMS current and RMS voltage and multiply, you get average power, not RMS power. People call it "RMS power" but it isn't. +1 exactly correct Mark I say it's "apparent" power, since it is AC, reactive. Jack If the phase angle between the voltage and current is 0 deg, (resistive load) then it is REAL power measured in Watts. It the phase angle is 90 deg, then it is apparent power measured in VARs. In between is a combination of both. Mark |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Audio restoration | Audio Opinions | |||
Best Software for Audio Restoration | Pro Audio | |||
Audio Restoration | Tech | |||
CEDAR audio restoration... | Pro Audio | |||
CEDAR audio restoration... | Marketplace |