where the conflict is between the deaf and those who can hear.

Robert Morein wrote:
where the conflict is between the deaf and those who can hear.

Even when you go deaf, you will still hear the voices in your head.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
where the conflict is between the deaf and those who can hear.


When will you be fitted for your implant?

" wrote in message
. net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
where the conflict is between the deaf and those who can hear.


When will you be fitted for your implant?

I've got all the inches I can handle.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
. net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
where the conflict is between the deaf and those who can hear.


When will you be fitted for your implant?

I've got all the inches I can handle.


Then take it out of your ear, that way people will think you're not such a
dickbrain.

" wrote in message
news

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
. net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
where the conflict is between the deaf and those who can hear.


When will you be fitted for your implant?

I've got all the inches I can handle.


Then take it out of your ear, that way people will think you're not such a
dickbrain.

Mikey, it's not surprising that you would be vulgar. People of low
intelligence frequently have this failing.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news

" wrote in message
news

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
. net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
where the conflict is between the deaf and those who can hear.


When will you be fitted for your implant?

I've got all the inches I can handle.


Then take it out of your ear, that way people will think you're not such
a
dickbrain.

Mikey, it's not surprising that you would be vulgar. People of low
intelligence frequently have this failing.

You are the expert on low intelligence.
Tell us why damping factor is an important specification.

" said:

Tell us why damping factor is an important specification.


Do you want an answer from Robert per se or can I give it? :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
" said:

Tell us why damping factor is an important specification.


Do you want an answer from Robert per se or can I give it? :-)

I want it from Robert, since he obviously doesn't really know.

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
" said:

Tell us why damping factor is an important specification.


Do you want an answer from Robert per se or can I give it? :-)

Tell him, Sander. Perhaps Mikey will accept enlightenment if it comes from
another source.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
" said:

Tell us why damping factor is an important specification.


Do you want an answer from Robert per se or can I give it? :-)

Tell him, Sander. Perhaps Mikey will accept enlightenment if it comes from
another source.

I knew you couldn't do it.

"Robert Morein" said:


Tell us why damping factor is an important specification.


Do you want an answer from Robert per se or can I give it? :-)

Tell him, Sander. Perhaps Mikey will accept enlightenment if it comes from
another source.


I'll try to explain this in as simple terms as possible.
( I'm sure Mike knows most of this already).

Damping factor, as the single number that is usually provided, is in
itself pretty meaningless.
Only when it is measured at different frequencies and with varying
loads and signal levels, we can draw some conclusions from it.

DF is always explained as the quotient of Rload/Ri of an amplifier's
output.
In general, the number is 1 even with modest tube amps, and with
modern solid state amps, the number may well be above 100 or more.

What does this tell us? That with a load of 8 ohms and a DF of 100,
the Ri seems to be 0.08 ohms.
Following the usual Kirchhoff notation, we have an ideal voltage
source with a Ri in series, to which we connect the load.
The voltage divider that is created thusly, only loses 1/100th part of
the actual source EMF over Ri.
Nothing to worry about, one would think, so what are those silly
audiophiles acting so neurotical about?

This: such a low Ri is physically impossible without using large
amounts of negative loop feedback.
That is not a bad thing per se, but depending on the design of the
amp, it may in some cases lead to problems, of which some are outlined
below.

Let's assume an amplifier stage with BJTs in class AB such as we find
in most common products of today.
We remove the feedback loop for a moment, thereby creating an amp with
open loop amplification factor "Aol".
What are the consequences?
When we drive the input with a sine sweep signal, and connect an 8
ohms dummyload at the output, we can observe that not all frequencies
are equally amplified, and that the distortion of the signal is pretty
significant.
Due to the push-pull topology of the output stage, even order
harmonics are supressed, so the remainder of the distortion will have
an odd harmonics character.
The frequency response looks a bit like an inverted bath tub, meaning
the lowest and highest frequencies are lower in amplitude than the
middle frequencies. Such is the nature of non-ideal components.

Suppose we have an amplification factor "Aol" for 1 kHz (which
happens to be the, usually unspecified, frequency at which the DF of
commercial products is measured).
At say 10 Hz and 10 kHz, the factor "Aol" is then a lower number.
Because the feedback loop provides an equalizing and lowering function
on the amplification, distortion and Ri , one will observe that the
frequency range is extended and has become nearly flat over the entire
range, be it at a lower amplification factor that we'll call simply
"A".
The distortion is lowered by the same factor of feedback, as is the Ri
at the output of the amp.

Good, negative loop feedback linearizes the amplifier's properties, so
applying ever more and more of it should make for an even better
amplifier, no?

No.

First of all, we must realize that negative loop feedback can't be
increased indefinitely.
Why not? Well, because we must then start off with an amplifier with
huge amounts of Aol, since we want to keep a reasonable amplification
factor.
With opamps, we can get away with it because as a rule, they don't
have to supply as much current (= power) as an output stage in an
audio amplifier.
The other side of the coin is that in an amp stage with high gain, the
bandwidth goes down.
So, high gain equals low bandwidth.

The second reason why we can't increase negative feedback indefinitely
is that, because of inevitable physical effects like phase shifting
inside one or more stage(s), self-oscillation may and will probably
occur.
We want an amplifier, not an oscillator.

OK, so we settle for a reasonable amount of negative loop feedback.
(I'll use the acronym GNFB from now on, I'm having blue fingers
already!)
But there's no gain without pain (pun intended).
At the frequency extremes, Aol was lower than at 1 kHz.
This means, the loop feedback factor is decreased there.
This means that, compared to 1 kHz, at the frequency extremes, the
distortion and Ri are higher than at 1 kHz.

Again no problem, as long as we keep the GNFB factor as high as
possible without getting into problems with oscillation, our
distortion will still be well under the audible threshold at those
frequency extremes.

That's partly right.
Now we're getting at the interesting part of DF: until now, the
speaker load was presumed to be constant and resistive.
Sadly, with almost all speakers, it isn't
The impedance (AC- "resistance") isn't constant over the audio range,
it varies, sometimes wildly, from e.g. 4 to 40 ohms for a speaker that
is said to have "8 ohms" .
Even worse, since a speaker+crossover filter is actually a
combination of coils, capacitors and resistors, it will show phase
shifts as well.
This means that, where in a resistor current and voltage are in phase,
with a speaker they are not.
At one moment the voltage can be at a maximum, while the current can
be at minimum, and vice versa and all possibilities inbetween.
That means that an amplifier not only delivers current into a speaker
load, it has to sink current as well.
(This is one of the reasons why I prefer class A amps, they're better
able to cope with phase-shifting loads, ie. current sinking. Also, the
output impedance in OL is more constant. Enough).

Then we have the physical limitations of the power supply.
An amplifier is just a modulated power supply.
When the supply voltages are say plus and minus 40 V, we can't get an
output signal that is 100 V (top-to-top).
The theoretical maximum output swing would then be 80 Vtt ,
practically it is lower since output devices and other components take
some for themselves.

Since power is described as V^2/R (for DC), there is a relation
between supply voltage and speaker load.
For AC, the average output power is Vtt^2/8R.
In this example, for 8 ohms, the max. avg. output power would be 100
watts.
However, at the resonance frequency of the speaker, at say 40 ohms,
the avg. power is only 20 watts, and at the lowest impedance dip, say
4 ohms, avg. power is 200 watts.

And this is where the debate is all about: at half the load, the
output power (meaning current, the voltage stays the same) is doubled.
THIS IS ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN THE POWER SUPPLY CAN DELIVER ENOUGH CURRENT
WHILE THE VOLTAGE DOESN'T DROP.

So why the long story about GNFB, and what is the relationship with
DF?
Well, GNFB seems to make the Ri of an amp lower, but when the power
supply reaches its limits, the amp will clip at either the nominal
supply voltage, or it will "current-clip" at a lower supply voltage
because the supply voltage drops due to the demanded current.
The latter term isn't entirely correct, because the clipping is still
voltage-clipping, but it is caused by a weak power supply, not able to
deliver the current.

The GNFB will try to correct the error signals that occur because of
the (near) clipping, but the amp can't follow because the power supply
has run out of steam.
At that moment, THD reaches incredibly high levels.
To make things worse, the output devices can enter a condition called
"saturation", in which they keep passing their maximum current,
despite the fact that the driving signal has already disappeared.
With power BJTs, this effect can hold on for several hundreds of
microseconds.
In that condition, the GNFB loop doesn't work, so the amp is
essentially working under open loop conditions, which aren't that
good, as we saw earlier.
As soon as the output devices are turned off, they slowly return to
their normal operating conditions, thereby forcing the feedback loop
to still send error signals into the input stage, * where no reason
for correction exists anymore*, let alone that said error signals have
any relationship to the actual input signal at that moment.
Clipping can also occur under far more unlikely conditions, like in
the input- or driver stages, and that can also happen way under the
max. output voltages of the power stage.
Then there is thermal distortion, which I have discussed many times
here in the past.

I should write a book (in fact, I'm busy doing so, but it will be in
Dutch).

And all this can, to a degree, be determined from the damping factor,
provided that figures are given at various frequencies, with various
loads, and preferably, at various levels.

The only way to obtain those figures, is to measure them yourself.
Manufacturers never provide such detailed information.


And for those of you who know better: I know that there are ways to
design around these problems, and I know that there are amplifiers on
the market that are correctly designed, but I also happen to know that
many are not.
The reason they still sell is because most people never reach the
limits of their amp, and therefor won't notice, or they don't care
about it, as long as it plays LOUD.

PMPO is around for a reason.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" said:


Tell us why damping factor is an important specification.


Do you want an answer from Robert per se or can I give it? :-)

Tell him, Sander. Perhaps Mikey will accept enlightenment if it comes from
another source.


I'll try to explain this in as simple terms as possible.
( I'm sure Mike knows most of this already).

Damping factor, as the single number that is usually provided, is in
itself pretty meaningless.
Only when it is measured at different frequencies and with varying
loads and signal levels, we can draw some conclusions from it.

DF is always explained as the quotient of Rload/Ri of an amplifier's
output.
In general, the number is 1 even with modest tube amps, and with
modern solid state amps, the number may well be above 100 or more.

What does this tell us? That with a load of 8 ohms and a DF of 100,
the Ri seems to be 0.08 ohms.
Following the usual Kirchhoff notation, we have an ideal voltage
source with a Ri in series, to which we connect the load.
The voltage divider that is created thusly, only loses 1/100th part of
the actual source EMF over Ri.
Nothing to worry about, one would think, so what are those silly
audiophiles acting so neurotical about?

This: such a low Ri is physically impossible without using large
amounts of negative loop feedback.
That is not a bad thing per se, but depending on the design of the
amp, it may in some cases lead to problems, of which some are outlined
below.

Let's assume an amplifier stage with BJTs in class AB such as we find
in most common products of today.
We remove the feedback loop for a moment, thereby creating an amp with
open loop amplification factor "Aol".
What are the consequences?
When we drive the input with a sine sweep signal, and connect an 8
ohms dummyload at the output, we can observe that not all frequencies
are equally amplified, and that the distortion of the signal is pretty
significant.
Due to the push-pull topology of the output stage, even order
harmonics are supressed, so the remainder of the distortion will have
an odd harmonics character.
The frequency response looks a bit like an inverted bath tub, meaning
the lowest and highest frequencies are lower in amplitude than the
middle frequencies. Such is the nature of non-ideal components.

Suppose we have an amplification factor "Aol" for 1 kHz (which
happens to be the, usually unspecified, frequency at which the DF of
commercial products is measured).
At say 10 Hz and 10 kHz, the factor "Aol" is then a lower number.
Because the feedback loop provides an equalizing and lowering function
on the amplification, distortion and Ri , one will observe that the
frequency range is extended and has become nearly flat over the entire
range, be it at a lower amplification factor that we'll call simply
"A".
The distortion is lowered by the same factor of feedback, as is the Ri
at the output of the amp.

Good, negative loop feedback linearizes the amplifier's properties, so
applying ever more and more of it should make for an even better
amplifier, no?

No.

First of all, we must realize that negative loop feedback can't be
increased indefinitely.
Why not? Well, because we must then start off with an amplifier with
huge amounts of Aol, since we want to keep a reasonable amplification
factor.
With opamps, we can get away with it because as a rule, they don't
have to supply as much current (= power) as an output stage in an
audio amplifier.
The other side of the coin is that in an amp stage with high gain, the
bandwidth goes down.
So, high gain equals low bandwidth.

The second reason why we can't increase negative feedback indefinitely
is that, because of inevitable physical effects like phase shifting
inside one or more stage(s), self-oscillation may and will probably
occur.
We want an amplifier, not an oscillator.

OK, so we settle for a reasonable amount of negative loop feedback.
(I'll use the acronym GNFB from now on, I'm having blue fingers
already!)
But there's no gain without pain (pun intended).
At the frequency extremes, Aol was lower than at 1 kHz.
This means, the loop feedback factor is decreased there.
This means that, compared to 1 kHz, at the frequency extremes, the
distortion and Ri are higher than at 1 kHz.

Again no problem, as long as we keep the GNFB factor as high as
possible without getting into problems with oscillation, our
distortion will still be well under the audible threshold at those
frequency extremes.

That's partly right.
Now we're getting at the interesting part of DF: until now, the
speaker load was presumed to be constant and resistive.
Sadly, with almost all speakers, it isn't
The impedance (AC- "resistance") isn't constant over the audio range,
it varies, sometimes wildly, from e.g. 4 to 40 ohms for a speaker that
is said to have "8 ohms" .
Even worse, since a speaker+crossover filter is actually a
combination of coils, capacitors and resistors, it will show phase
shifts as well.
This means that, where in a resistor current and voltage are in phase,
with a speaker they are not.
At one moment the voltage can be at a maximum, while the current can
be at minimum, and vice versa and all possibilities inbetween.
That means that an amplifier not only delivers current into a speaker
load, it has to sink current as well.
(This is one of the reasons why I prefer class A amps, they're better
able to cope with phase-shifting loads, ie. current sinking. Also, the
output impedance in OL is more constant. Enough).

Then we have the physical limitations of the power supply.
An amplifier is just a modulated power supply.
When the supply voltages are say plus and minus 40 V, we can't get an
output signal that is 100 V (top-to-top).
The theoretical maximum output swing would then be 80 Vtt ,
practically it is lower since output devices and other components take
some for themselves.

Since power is described as V^2/R (for DC), there is a relation
between supply voltage and speaker load.
For AC, the average output power is Vtt^2/8R.
In this example, for 8 ohms, the max. avg. output power would be 100
watts.
However, at the resonance frequency of the speaker, at say 40 ohms,
the avg. power is only 20 watts, and at the lowest impedance dip, say
4 ohms, avg. power is 200 watts.

And this is where the debate is all about: at half the load, the
output power (meaning current, the voltage stays the same) is doubled.
THIS IS ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN THE POWER SUPPLY CAN DELIVER ENOUGH CURRENT
WHILE THE VOLTAGE DOESN'T DROP.

So why the long story about GNFB, and what is the relationship with
DF?
Well, GNFB seems to make the Ri of an amp lower, but when the power
supply reaches its limits, the amp will clip at either the nominal
supply voltage, or it will "current-clip" at a lower supply voltage
because the supply voltage drops due to the demanded current.
The latter term isn't entirely correct, because the clipping is still
voltage-clipping, but it is caused by a weak power supply, not able to
deliver the current.

The GNFB will try to correct the error signals that occur because of
the (near) clipping, but the amp can't follow because the power supply
has run out of steam.
At that moment, THD reaches incredibly high levels.
To make things worse, the output devices can enter a condition called
"saturation", in which they keep passing their maximum current,
despite the fact that the driving signal has already disappeared.
With power BJTs, this effect can hold on for several hundreds of
microseconds.
In that condition, the GNFB loop doesn't work, so the amp is
essentially working under open loop conditions, which aren't that
good, as we saw earlier.
As soon as the output devices are turned off, they slowly return to
their normal operating conditions, thereby forcing the feedback loop
to still send error signals into the input stage, * where no reason
for correction exists anymore*, let alone that said error signals have
any relationship to the actual input signal at that moment.
Clipping can also occur under far more unlikely conditions, like in
the input- or driver stages, and that can also happen way under the
max. output voltages of the power stage.
Then there is thermal distortion, which I have discussed many times
here in the past.

I should write a book (in fact, I'm busy doing so, but it will be in
Dutch).

And all this can, to a degree, be determined from the damping factor,
provided that figures are given at various frequencies, with various
loads, and preferably, at various levels.

The only way to obtain those figures, is to measure them yourself.
Manufacturers never provide such detailed information.


And for those of you who know better: I know that there are ways to
design around these problems, and I know that there are amplifiers on
the market that are correctly designed, but I also happen to know that
many are not.
The reason they still sell is because most people never reach the
limits of their amp, and therefor won't notice, or they don't care
about it, as long as it plays LOUD.

PMPO is around for a reason.

Does this mean you didn't read the article by Dick Pierce on Damping factor?

Even assuming Robert has any understanding of damping factor, (it would seem
clear that he knows nothing about it or he would have not handed it off to
you) then he must also think that a damping factor of 500 is a good number,
even though in actual fact it is of little importance. The PLX amp has a
damping factor rated at greater than 500, so for all intents and puproses it
is more than adequate.

For an expalnation of why damping factor is a pretty meaningless
specification, I refer you to:
http://www.diyspeakers.net/Articles/...G%20FACTOR.pdf

The complete list of specs for the PLX line of amps from QSC is available
at: http://www.qscaudio.com/products/amps/plx/plx.htm

They are among the more thourough lists you can find for amplifiers, and as
good as or better than any amp approved for home audio listening.

wrote in message
et...

[snip]
For an expalnation of why damping factor is a pretty meaningless
specification, I refer you to:

http://www.diyspeakers.net/Articles/...G%20FACTOR.pdf

The article is erroneous, for the reasons Sander gives.
In particular, very high damping factors are measured under small signal
conditions. However, when there is a large bass note, small signal
conditions do not apply.
Aside from intentional low frequency rolloff, this accounts for why some
amplifiers have much stronger bass than others.
Damping factor is an extremely important measurement, but it varies with
load and frequency, something not understood by the little mckelviphibians
of the world.

Thank you, Sander, for adding your voice to the discussion.

Mikey Bug-Eater gets up on his hind legs and brays at the Krooborg.

Even assuming Robert has any understanding of damping factor, (it would seem
clear that he knows nothing about it or he would have not handed it off to
you) then he must also think that a damping factor of 500 is a good number,
even though in actual fact it is of little importance.

Geez, Mickey, it almost sounds like you consider yourself a Real Audio
Enjuhnear. I kind of doubt that's the case, though, based on the fact that you
are an idiot. Of course you could prove me wrong by listing a few of your own
amplifier designs:

1. ______________
2. ______________
3. ______________

Not anticipating any such evidence, I'll go out on a limb ;-) and reiterate my
"claim" that you're mentally defective and therefore unemployable.
Coincidentally, this makes you no worse than the Krooborg.

BTW, you still haven't anwered my question: Do you really adore Mr. ****, or is
it just some kind of twisted hero-worship? Also, as a follow-up, do you not
realize that Arnii Krooger is crazy? As in cuckoo, bonkers, nutty, and bananas?


..
..
..
..

said:

Does this mean you didn't read the article by Dick Pierce on Damping factor?


Afraid not, I haven't got the time to read much these days.


Even assuming Robert has any understanding of damping factor, (it would seem
clear that he knows nothing about it or he would have not handed it off to
you) then he must also think that a damping factor of 500 is a good number,
even though in actual fact it is of little importance. The PLX amp has a
damping factor rated at greater than 500, so for all intents and puproses it
is more than adequate.

For an expalnation of why damping factor is a pretty meaningless
specification, I refer you to:
http://www.diyspeakers.net/Articles/...G%20FACTOR.pdf


Thanks for the link, I'll print it out and read it in bed tonight.

If you read my post carefully, you'll notice that it is my opinion
that DF as a number isn't all that important, but the conclusions one
can draw from it, as well as the methods for obtaining such high DF
factors, *is*.

Most of the observations in my post above are from personal
experience, BTW.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

" wrote in
message
k.net

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news

Mikey, it's not surprising that you would be vulgar.
People of low intelligence frequently have this failing.

You are the expert on low intelligence.

Agreed, Morein has to slough the question on damping factor
to DeWall.

Tell us why damping factor is an important specification.

Short answer: It's a completely superfluious specification.

Longer answer: A proper answer has been posted on
rec.audio.tech many times.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
et...

[snip]
For an expalnation of why damping factor is a pretty
meaningless specification, I refer you to:

http://www.diyspeakers.net/Articles/...G%20FACTOR.pdf

The article is erroneous, for the reasons Sander gives.

LOL!

said:

Does this mean you didn't read the article by Dick Pierce on Damping factor?

For an expalnation of why damping factor is a pretty meaningless
specification, I refer you to:
http://www.diyspeakers.net/Articles/...G%20FACTOR.pdf


I just glanced over the article, and it seems that what Richard Pierce
writes about isn't in contradiction with what I wrote.
He discusses the effect (or seemingly, lack thereof) of damping factor
on loudspeaker behaviour, something I don't disagree with.

My post was about the mechanism in an amplifier behind obtaining high
damping factors, and what can be learned about the amp design by
measuring it at various frequencies, with various loads and with
various signal levels.

I'll have to read it more carefully, but it seems that mr. Pierce and
I are not disagreeing, we're merely discussing different things.

When a thorough read of the above article would cause me to revise my
opinion about what I wrote earlier, I'll post it here.

Thanks again for this link!

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
said:

Does this mean you didn't read the article by Dick Pierce on Damping
factor?

For an expalnation of why damping factor is a pretty meaningless
specification, I refer you to:
http://www.diyspeakers.net/Articles/...G%20FACTOR.pdf


I just glanced over the article, and it seems that what Richard Pierce
writes about isn't in contradiction with what I wrote.

No, he just said it with fewer words. :-)

He discusses the effect (or seemingly, lack thereof) of damping factor
on loudspeaker behaviour, something I don't disagree with.

My post was about the mechanism in an amplifier behind obtaining high
damping factors, and what can be learned about the amp design by
measuring it at various frequencies, with various loads and with
various signal levels.

I'll have to read it more carefully, but it seems that mr. Pierce and
I are not disagreeing, we're merely discussing different things.

When a thorough read of the above article would cause me to revise my
opinion about what I wrote earlier, I'll post it here.

Thanks again for this link!

Always glad to be of service.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
et...

[snip]
For an expalnation of why damping factor is a pretty
meaningless specification, I refer you to:


http://www.diyspeakers.net/Articles/...G%20FACTOR.pdf

The article is erroneous, for the reasons Sander gives.

LOL!

Why don't you be thorough and add a ROTFL to that. It would be so much more
entertaining.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
et...

[snip]
For an expalnation of why damping factor is a pretty meaningless
specification, I refer you to:

http://www.diyspeakers.net/Articles/...G%20FACTOR.pdf

The article is erroneous, for the reasons Sander gives.
In particular, very high damping factors are measured under small signal
conditions. However, when there is a large bass note, small signal
conditions do not apply.
Aside from intentional low frequency rolloff, this accounts for why some
amplifiers have much stronger bass than others.
Damping factor is an extremely important measurement, but it varies with
load and frequency, something not understood by the little mckelviphibians
of the world.

Thank you, Sander, for adding your voice to the discussion.


He didn't agree with you, idiot.
He said essentiazlly the same thing I said, it's over minor importance.
A damping factor of 1 is not going to be significantly better than a dmaping
factor of 500.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



Mikey Bug-Eater gets up on his hind legs and brays at the Krooborg.

Even assuming Robert has any understanding of damping factor, (it would
seem
clear that he knows nothing about it or he would have not handed it off
to
you) then he must also think that a damping factor of 500 is a good
number,
even though in actual fact it is of little importance.

Geez, Mickey, it almost sounds like you consider yourself a Real Audio
Enjuhnear. I kind of doubt that's the case, though, based on the fact that
you
are an idiot. Of course you could prove me wrong by listing a few of your
own
amplifier designs:

1. ______________
2. ______________
3. ______________

Not anticipating any such evidence, I'll go out on a limb ;-) and
reiterate my
"claim" that you're mentally defective and therefore unemployable.
Coincidentally, this makes you no worse than the Krooborg.

BTW, you still haven't anwered my question: Do you really adore Mr. ****,
or is
it just some kind of twisted hero-worship? Also, as a follow-up, do you
not
realize that Arnii Krooger is crazy? As in cuckoo, bonkers, nutty, and
bananas?

Up till now, I have pursued the hypothesis that Mikey is a coprophagic
mckelviphibian, an ancient species with a talent for mimicry. Alternatively,
it is a consequence of a defective implementation of Asimov's Three Laws of
Robotics; Mikey's creator was out of positronium, so he substituted Jello.

Your explanation conjures visions of a guy in a straight-jacket proclaiming
"I am Napoleon", who is idolized by an attendant.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message
k.net

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news

Mikey, it's not surprising that you would be vulgar.
People of low intelligence frequently have this failing.

You are the expert on low intelligence.

Agreed, Morein has to slough the question on damping factor
to DeWall.

Thanks for admitting you haven't a clue as to what I know.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:44:06 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message
k.net

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news

Mikey, it's not surprising that you would be vulgar.
People of low intelligence frequently have this failing.

You are the expert on low intelligence.

Agreed, Morein has to slough the question on damping factor
to DeWall.

Thanks for admitting you haven't a clue as to what I know.

Or even how to spell deWaal.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message
k.net

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news

Mikey, it's not surprising that you would be vulgar.
People of low intelligence frequently have this
failing.

You are the expert on low intelligence.

Agreed, Morein has to slough the question on damping
factor to DeWall.

Thanks for admitting you haven't a clue as to what I know.

Just goes to show that you can't read very well, Morein. For
some reason this post I said nothing about what you know or
don't know. I simply observed that you never directly
answered Mike's question about damping.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
et...

[snip]
For an expalnation of why damping factor is a pretty
meaningless specification, I refer you to:


http://www.diyspeakers.net/Articles/...G%20FACTOR.pdf

The article is erroneous, for the reasons Sander gives.

LOL!

Why don't you be thorough and add a ROTFL to that. It would be so much
more
entertaining.


More entertaining than you demonstrating for the umteenth time, you have no
idea what you are talking about?

Nah.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



Mikey Bug-Eater gets up on his hind legs and brays at the Krooborg.

Even assuming Robert has any understanding of damping factor, (it would
seem
clear that he knows nothing about it or he would have not handed it off to
you) then he must also think that a damping factor of 500 is a good
number,
even though in actual fact it is of little importance.

Geez, Mickey, it almost sounds like you consider yourself a Real Audio
Enjuhnear. I kind of doubt that's the case, though, based on the fact that
you
are an idiot. Of course you could prove me wrong by listing a few of your
own
amplifier designs:

1. ______________
2. ______________
3. ______________

Not anticipating any such evidence, I'll go out on a limb ;-) and
reiterate my
"claim" that you're mentally defective and therefore unemployable.
Coincidentally, this makes you no worse than the Krooborg.

How do you get anybdoy to talk to you in real life if all your statements
are either vulgar or straw man arguements?

How many reliable listening protocols have you designed so that you could
criticize one you disagree with?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message
k.net

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news

Mikey, it's not surprising that you would be vulgar.
People of low intelligence frequently have this failing.

You are the expert on low intelligence.

Agreed, Morein has to slough the question on damping factor
to DeWall.

Thanks for admitting you haven't a clue as to what I know.

Thanks for proving you don't know anything.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message
k.net

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news
Mikey, it's not surprising that you would be vulgar.
People of low intelligence frequently have this
failing.

You are the expert on low intelligence.

Agreed, Morein has to slough the question on damping
factor to DeWall.

Thanks for admitting you haven't a clue as to what I know.

Just goes to show that you can't read very well, Morein. For some reason
this post I said nothing about what you know or don't know. I simply
observed that you never directly answered Mike's question about damping.
He hadn't had time to go look it up yet.

The Bug Eater still hasn't triumphed over his multitudinous demons.

Not anticipating any such evidence, I'll go out on a limb ;-) and
reiterate my "claim" that you're mentally defective and therefore unemployable.
Coincidentally, this makes you no worse than the Krooborg.

How do you get anybdoy[sic] to talk to you in real life if all your statements
are either vulgar or straw man arguements[sic]?

Have you tried dunking your bugs in syrup? It might help with that crunchiness
that seems to be eating away at your tenuous grip on reality.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
et...

[snip]
For an expalnation of why damping factor is a pretty meaningless
specification, I refer you to:


http://www.diyspeakers.net/Articles/...G%20FACTOR.pdf

The article is erroneous, for the reasons Sander gives.
In particular, very high damping factors are measured under small signal
conditions. However, when there is a large bass note, small signal
conditions do not apply.
Aside from intentional low frequency rolloff, this accounts for why some
amplifiers have much stronger bass than others.
Damping factor is an extremely important measurement, but it varies with
load and frequency, something not understood by the little
mckelviphibians
of the world.

Thank you, Sander, for adding your voice to the discussion.


He didn't agree with you, idiot.
He said essentiazlly the same thing I said, it's over minor importance.
A damping factor of 1 is not going to be significantly better than a
dmaping
factor of 500.

You would be happy with a damping factor of one?

If you do the math it turns out that a damping factor of ~8 causes a
frequency response deviation of 1dB max (if speaker impedance varied
from the nominal value to infinity), which is barely audible. That's
absolutely worst case. So any damping factor of 16 at all frequencies
and levels is almost certainly inaudible. Dick Pierce's article shows
that with a reasonable dynamic speaker a DF of 5 is quite adequate.

TB

said:



Does this mean you didn't read the article by Dick Pierce on Damping
factor?

For an expalnation of why damping factor is a pretty meaningless
specification, I refer you to:
http://www.diyspeakers.net/Articles/...G%20FACTOR.pdf


I just glanced over the article, and it seems that what Richard Pierce
writes about isn't in contradiction with what I wrote.

No, he just said it with fewer words. :-)


Umm......unless I'm missing some secret message in the above article,
we're discussing different things.

Meanwhile, I've read the article thoroughly, and I agree entirely with
the analysis made by Richard Pierce.
However, the article is about (the influence of an amp's output
impedance on) speaker behaviour.
My post was about the methods of obtaining (high) damping factors in
an amplifier.

I still think my and mr. Pierce's thoughts aren't contradictory, as
we're speaking about different things, while both using the common
term "damping factor" .

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005