Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
In article ,
Pooh Bear wrote: As a long time audio professional, I can assure you that it's unlikely that any of Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound amplifiers would be used in a true professional situation. Alesis make toy amplifiers btw, suitable ( questionably ) perhaps for home hobby studios not professional ones. Graham In the case of Parasound, the late Denny Purcell of Georgetown Masters in Nashville had one in his surround room, and I know of several in use at Universal in Los Angeles as well. The Halo series has balanced I/O and John Curl is an experienced designer. Though not exceedingly common in pro sound, I'd say they fit the bill. Other "hi-fi" amps like Pass Labs and Classe certainly also find their way into high-level professional use, though these aren't exactly budget solutions. -- Jay Frigoletto Mastersuite www.promastering.com |
#122
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Jay-atldigi wrote:
In article , Pooh Bear wrote: As a long time audio professional, I can assure you that it's unlikely that any of Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound amplifiers would be used in a true professional situation. Alesis make toy amplifiers btw, suitable ( questionably ) perhaps for home hobby studios not professional ones. Graham In the case of Parasound, the late Denny Purcell of Georgetown Masters in Nashville had one in his surround room, and I know of several in use at Universal in Los Angeles as well. The Halo series has balanced I/O and John Curl is an experienced designer. Though not exceedingly common in pro sound, I'd say they fit the bill. Other "hi-fi" amps like Pass Labs and Classe certainly also find their way into high-level professional use, though these aren't exactly budget solutions. As you say, these aren't common at all. You'll note that I never said serious high end audio was inferior to pro-audio. They certainly aren't typical of what's more routinely used though. Graham |
#123
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
On Sun, 28 May 2006 16:31:16 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote: Please clarify; do you mean *all* amplifiers, or only (presumably) lower-quality home hi-fi ones? Mikey is saying that "they" (meaning guys like you, I guess) design home hi-fi equipment using resistive loads, while "pro" equipment (studio amps) get the royal treatment with reactive loads. What say you to this? I think the point was that published power ratings referred to resistive loads, not that either weren't designed to cope with reactive loads. It wasn't much of a point. |
#124
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
On Mon, 29 May 2006 02:57:58 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote: It would in fact be somewhat smarter to spec amplifers in terms of *voltage* output Into what load? :-) |
#125
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
On Sun, 28 May 2006 19:10:28 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote: You mean to tell us that there's no way to design a dummy load that 1) has the same effective reactance as a real load (like a speaker) and 2) can dissipate the amp's power? I find this hard to believe. I couldn't do it, but I'm sure some smart guy somewhere has figured this out. Well, you could use a speaker, I suppose :-) I expect amps ARE tested into such loads. What's your point? |
#126
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Laurence Payne wrote: On Mon, 29 May 2006 02:57:58 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: It would in fact be somewhat smarter to spec amplifers in terms of *voltage* output Into what load? :-) The same loads as currently. Graham |
#127
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
On Mon, 29 May 2006 10:38:22 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote: would in fact be somewhat smarter to spec amplifers in terms of *voltage* output Into what load? :-) The same loads as currently. So how different to wattage? |
#128
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Laurence Payne wrote: On Mon, 29 May 2006 10:38:22 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: would in fact be somewhat smarter to spec amplifers in terms of *voltage* output Into what load? :-) The same loads as currently. So how different to wattage? No difference but you'd specify volts not watts. Same for speakers too. Graham |
#129
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Pooh Bear wrote: "Dr. Dolittle" wrote: Pooh Bear wrote: Tascam is *semi-pro*. It's also ****e. You mean like this one? http://fr.audiofanzine.com/img/produ.../1/5/15911.jpg Never seen one in the real world. Proper pros don't use Tascam. Tascam is the 'poor relation' in the pro world. Well then, since YOU have never seen one, the only proper conclusion is that it is a piece of ****. As I said... I've seen plenty of Ampex, Studer, Otari and Sony though. Well la de ****ing da. How about the Stevens? The Scully? The MCI? They have their issues to be sure. But since YOU have never seen one, I'm sure no proper pro would ever use one. You're an idiot. You don't have a clue about real pro audio. You also don't work in pro-audio. I do. How the hell do YOU know what I do? |
#130
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Pooh Bear wrote: Who do you think would be likely to specify one ? Specify one? Hint. If it's not rack mountable it's already less likely to be selected. Were not talking about likelyhood. Your claim is that no pro studio would use one. If it doesn't have reliable XLR inputs even less so. Do you seriously think any slf respecting pro would rely on an unbalanced RCA phono connector for his critical monitoring signal ? Uhh, yeah. I suppose now you are going to tell me that and XLR makes an amp sound better? |
#131
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Dr. Dolittle wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote: Who do you think would be likely to specify one ? Specify one? Hint. If it's not rack mountable it's already less likely to be selected. Were not talking about likelyhood. Your claim is that no pro studio would use one. If it doesn't have reliable XLR inputs even less so. Do you seriously think any slf respecting pro would rely on an unbalanced RCA phono connector for his critical monitoring signal ? Uhh, yeah. I suppose now you are going to tell me that and XLR makes an amp sound better? An XLR isn't gonna vibrate out of socket and dump a bunch of *GROOOOOONK* hum on the customers. And given that XLR connections are, more or less, gas-tight, RCA's are much more likely to oxidize badly. That has every potential to change the sound. RCA connectors are a consumer adaptation, no doubt to cut cost. They're not Bad, but they cannot be trusted. -- Les Cargill |
#132
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Les Cargill wrote: An XLR isn't gonna vibrate out of socket and dump a bunch of *GROOOOOONK* hum on the customers. And given that XLR connections are, more or less, gas-tight, RCA's are much more likely to oxidize badly. That has every potential to change the sound. RCA connectors are a consumer adaptation, no doubt to cut cost. They're not Bad, but they cannot be trusted. Sure an XLR is *better*, but that isn't the point. And I have been using amps and receivers connected with RCA's for over 40 years and have NEVER had one "vibrate" out (your amp is vibrating?) or oxidize. NEVER! |
#133
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Dr. Dolittle spake thus:
Les Cargill wrote: An XLR isn't gonna vibrate out of socket and dump a bunch of *GROOOOOONK* hum on the customers. And given that XLR connections are, more or less, gas-tight, RCA's are much more likely to oxidize badly. That has every potential to change the sound. RCA connectors are a consumer adaptation, no doubt to cut cost. They're not Bad, but they cannot be trusted. Sure an XLR is *better*, but that isn't the point. And I have been using amps and receivers connected with RCA's for over 40 years and have NEVER had one "vibrate" out (your amp is vibrating?) or oxidize. NEVER! Same here. Never had *any* problems with phono connectors. I suspect this is a case of "Ohhhh, RCA plugs, ick!" audiophool-itis. Sure, they're cheap and ugly, but the suckers work. And I agree about the oxidation. Unless the equipment is inside a sailing ship, or in a corrosive industrial environment, corrosion isn't going to be a problem. -- I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html) |
#134
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"Dr. Dolittle" wrote: If it doesn't have reliable XLR inputs even less so. Do you seriously think any slf respecting pro would rely on an unbalanced RCA phono connector for his critical monitoring signal ? Uhh, yeah. I suppose now you are going to tell me that and XLR makes an amp sound better? If you don't understand how balanced can help, never mind a decent connector, you shouldn't be posting in a pro newsgroup. Graham |
#135
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
David Nebenzahl wrote And I agree about the oxidation. Unless the equipment is inside a sailing ship, or in a corrosive industrial environment, corrosion isn't going to be a problem. You should see what a studio control room atmosphere can do to stuff ! Graham |
#136
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Pooh Bear spake thus:
David Nebenzahl wrote And I agree about the oxidation. Unless the equipment is inside a sailing ship, or in a corrosive industrial environment, corrosion isn't going to be a problem. You should see what a studio control room atmosphere can do to stuff ! So I take it you guys over there on the other side of the pond still smoke in your control rooms? -- I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html) |
#137
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Pooh Bear spake thus:
"Dr. Dolittle" wrote: If it doesn't have reliable XLR inputs even less so. Do you seriously think any slf respecting pro would rely on an unbalanced RCA phono connector for his critical monitoring signal ? Uhh, yeah. I suppose now you are going to tell me that and XLR makes an amp sound better? If you don't understand how balanced can help, never mind a decent connector, you shouldn't be posting in a pro newsgroup. Really, how much difference could this make? We're talking about a line-level signal, after all, which is pretty robust, and (presumably) a short cable run. Yeah, yeah, I know all about common-mode rejection and all that. My guess is it wouldn't make any discernable difference in this situation. (In other words, no noise or hum pickup.) Low-level inputs, like microphones, yes: balanced is essential there. -- I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html) |
#138
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
David Nebenzahl wrote: Pooh Bear spake thus: David Nebenzahl wrote And I agree about the oxidation. Unless the equipment is inside a sailing ship, or in a corrosive industrial environment, corrosion isn't going to be a problem. You should see what a studio control room atmosphere can do to stuff ! So I take it you guys over there on the other side of the pond still smoke in your control rooms? I certainly don't but yes you've got the picture. Graham |
#139
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
David Nebenzahl wrote: Pooh Bear spake thus: "Dr. Dolittle" wrote: If it doesn't have reliable XLR inputs even less so. Do you seriously think any slf respecting pro would rely on an unbalanced RCA phono connector for his critical monitoring signal ? Uhh, yeah. I suppose now you are going to tell me that and XLR makes an amp sound better? If you don't understand how balanced can help, never mind a decent connector, you shouldn't be posting in a pro newsgroup. Really, how much difference could this make? We're talking about a line-level signal, after all, which is pretty robust, and (presumably) a short cable run. Yeah, yeah, I know all about common-mode rejection and all that. My guess is it wouldn't make any discernable difference in this situation. (In other words, no noise or hum pickup.) Low-level inputs, like microphones, yes: balanced is essential there. Stop to think for a sec and consider if it's essential for mics why isn't it essential for your monitor amp ? Graham |
#140
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Pooh Bear spake thus:
David Nebenzahl wrote: Pooh Bear spake thus: "Dr. Dolittle" wrote: If it doesn't have reliable XLR inputs even less so. Do you seriously think any slf respecting pro would rely on an unbalanced RCA phono connector for his critical monitoring signal ? Uhh, yeah. I suppose now you are going to tell me that and XLR makes an amp sound better? If you don't understand how balanced can help, never mind a decent connector, you shouldn't be posting in a pro newsgroup. Really, how much difference could this make? We're talking about a line-level signal, after all, which is pretty robust, and (presumably) a short cable run. Yeah, yeah, I know all about common-mode rejection and all that. My guess is it wouldn't make any discernable difference in this situation. (In other words, no noise or hum pickup.) Low-level inputs, like microphones, yes: balanced is essential there. Stop to think for a sec and consider if it's essential for mics why isn't it essential for your monitor amp ? Because the monitor amp uses a signal at least two orders of magnitude higher in voltage, therefore much less susceptible to hum and noise. -- I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html) |
#141
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
David Nebenzahl wrote: Pooh Bear spake thus: David Nebenzahl wrote: Pooh Bear spake thus: "Dr. Dolittle" wrote: If it doesn't have reliable XLR inputs even less so. Do you seriously think any slf respecting pro would rely on an unbalanced RCA phono connector for his critical monitoring signal ? Uhh, yeah. I suppose now you are going to tell me that and XLR makes an amp sound better? If you don't understand how balanced can help, never mind a decent connector, you shouldn't be posting in a pro newsgroup. Really, how much difference could this make? We're talking about a line-level signal, after all, which is pretty robust, and (presumably) a short cable run. Yeah, yeah, I know all about common-mode rejection and all that. My guess is it wouldn't make any discernable difference in this situation. (In other words, no noise or hum pickup.) Low-level inputs, like microphones, yes: balanced is essential there. Stop to think for a sec and consider if it's essential for mics why isn't it essential for your monitor amp ? Because the monitor amp uses a signal at least two orders of magnitude higher in voltage, therefore much less susceptible to hum and noise. As you say, it's *less* susceptible but not immune. Graham |
#142
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Pooh Bear wrote: If you don't understand how balanced can help, never mind a decent connector, you shouldn't be posting in a pro newsgroup. For short distances there is often NO advantage to a balanced connection. And in fact balancing involves a more involved signal path, FURTHER from a straight wire circuit. Yeah, aren't you the "pro" expert. (..) |
#143
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Dr. Dolittle wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: An XLR isn't gonna vibrate out of socket and dump a bunch of *GROOOOOONK* hum on the customers. And given that XLR connections are, more or less, gas-tight, RCA's are much more likely to oxidize badly. That has every potential to change the sound. RCA connectors are a consumer adaptation, no doubt to cut cost. They're not Bad, but they cannot be trusted. Sure an XLR is *better*, Really, RCA connectors are awful. Just awful. but that isn't the point. And I have been using amps and receivers connected with RCA's for over 40 years and have NEVER had one "vibrate" out (your amp is vibrating?) Sure. Everything in the room is vibrating, unless you just buy the stuff and admire it visually. You mean to tell me you've never had problems with equipment vibrating? Much less moving stuff around. Seems like I can never just set a computer up and leave it. And my primary recorder is a portable harddisk unit. or oxidize. NEVER! I've had multiple problems with RCA connectors, and I'm not even doing heavy duty stuff. I even bought some RCA patch cables that didn't fit/weren't standard size - you hadda crimp them to get good contact. There for a while, all the RCA molded cable assemblies I bought went bad in a short amount of time. I really did have a set that oxidized, and changed the sound. I think they were actually zinc plated. But to be sure, that's taking a bad connector way too far. And yes, you'll have oxidation on any metal you don't touch for a couple years, even in an air conditioned space. Although DeOxit sure seems to have made that better. These days, I mostly use XLR and 1/4". 1/4" is bad enough, although I managed to buy about a dozen good little 6' 1/4" unbalanced patch cables before MARS went under. Great little cables. -- Les Cargill |
#144
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
On Mon, 29 May 2006 18:14:19 GMT, Les Cargill
wrote: An XLR isn't gonna vibrate out of socket and dump a bunch of *GROOOOOONK* hum on the customers. Have you experienced this much with phonos? And given that XLR connections are, more or less, gas-tight, RCA's are much more likely to oxidize badly. That has every potential to change the sound. Yes, remaking the connection every few yeas is good practice. But it's not a big practical issue. RCA connectors are a consumer adaptation, no doubt to cut cost. They're not Bad, but they cannot be trusted. I've probably had to mend more XLR cables than RCA cables. But RCA connections tend to be round the back of static equipment. XLRs are often mic cables that get yanked and trodden on. |
#145
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
On Mon, 29 May 2006 22:37:30 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote: You should see what a studio control room atmosphere can do to stuff ! Why? No-one smokes over the board these days, do they? |
#146
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
On Tue, 30 May 2006 00:15:04 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote: Low-level inputs, like microphones, yes: balanced is essential there. Stop to think for a sec and consider if it's essential for mics why isn't it essential for your monitor amp ? Do your monitors need a mic-level feed? |
#147
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Laurence Payne wrote: On Mon, 29 May 2006 22:37:30 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: You should see what a studio control room atmosphere can do to stuff ! Why? No-one smokes over the board these days, do they? You reckon ? Graham |
#148
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Laurence Payne wrote: On Tue, 30 May 2006 00:15:04 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: Low-level inputs, like microphones, yes: balanced is essential there. Stop to think for a sec and consider if it's essential for mics why isn't it essential for your monitor amp ? Do your monitors need a mic-level feed? You're incorrectly assuming that a higher level means there's absolutely no problem at all. A touch unwise for the *monitor* path. In even quite a modest studio a monitor amp may be on a different ac circuit from the console too which makes unbalanced very unwise. Graham |
#149
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
On Tue, 30 May 2006 15:32:13 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote: Do your monitors need a mic-level feed? You're incorrectly assuming that a higher level means there's absolutely no problem at all. No, you are :-) Noise pick-up will always be measurable. But it may well be at a level that makes it no problem. |
#150
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
David Nebenzahl wrote:
You mean to tell us that there's no way to design a dummy load that 1) has the same effective reactance as a real load (like a speaker) and 2) can dissipate the amp's power? No, he's saying that the reactive part doesn't dissipate the power. Real speakers are a combination of resistances and reactances. And, in fact, REAL speakers often have additional nonlinearities which prevent them from being possible to accurately model as lumped-sum devices. But not all of them do. I find this hard to believe. I couldn't do it, but I'm sure some smart guy somewhere has figured this out. There are thousands of different lumped-sum speaker models out there. It's because there are thousands of different speaker designs, each which present different loads. As for me, I'm still using the Magnapans, which are just frighteningly close to a 6 ohm resistive load. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#151
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Scott Dorsey spake thus:
David Nebenzahl wrote: You mean to tell us that there's no way to design a dummy load that 1) has the same effective reactance as a real load (like a speaker) and 2) can dissipate the amp's power? No, he's saying that the reactive part doesn't dissipate the power. Real speakers are a combination of resistances and reactances. Fine; then design a load that is a combination of resistances and reactances. Is that so hard to do? And, in fact, REAL speakers often have additional nonlinearities which prevent them from being possible to accurately model as lumped-sum devices. But not all of them do. Of course. But couldn't you take an average of real speakers' values, and use this for the dummy load? It wouldn't *exactly* match any particular speaker design, but it should be a hell of a lot better than using a purely resistive load, no? -- I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html) |
#152
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Laurence Payne spake thus:
On Tue, 30 May 2006 15:32:13 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: Do your monitors need a mic-level feed? You're incorrectly assuming that a higher level means there's absolutely no problem at all. No, you are :-) Noise pick-up will always be measurable. But it may well be at a level that makes it no problem. Yes. I'm thinking specifically of monitor *speakers* (not headhpones) in a studio. The monitors are some distance from the engineer's head; they're not slap up against his or her ears. So let's say there is some measurable hum and noise. Even if there is, my guess is that if the monitors are set to anything but an earsplitting volume, at that distance, any measurable hum and noise are going to be inaudible to the engineer anyhow, and won't interfere with this vaunted "accuracy" in the sound we've been hearing so much about in this thread. -- I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html) |
#153
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Scott Dorsey spake thus: David Nebenzahl wrote: You mean to tell us that there's no way to design a dummy load that 1) has the same effective reactance as a real load (like a speaker) and 2) can dissipate the amp's power? No, he's saying that the reactive part doesn't dissipate the power. Real speakers are a combination of resistances and reactances. Fine; then design a load that is a combination of resistances and reactances. Is that so hard to do? It's easy to do. But which speaker does it represent? There are a couple ISO standards that are out there for testing purposes, but neither one of them represent any particular speaker. Look at the impedance curves of an Apogee Scintilla, a Bose 901, and a Quad ESL57. They all look totally different from one another. They all present totally different loads to the amp and move the poles and zeros around to different places. Which one do you use? And, in fact, REAL speakers often have additional nonlinearities which prevent them from being possible to accurately model as lumped-sum devices. But not all of them do. Of course. But couldn't you take an average of real speakers' values, and use this for the dummy load? It wouldn't *exactly* match any particular speaker design, but it should be a hell of a lot better than using a purely resistive load, no? Real speakers are all over the place. That's the problem. A purely resistive load tells you something useful. It doesn't tell you everything, but it tells you something useful. A reactive load that doesn't represent the one you're using very well tells you nothing. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#154
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Pooh Bear wrote: Laurence Payne wrote: On Tue, 30 May 2006 00:15:04 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: Low-level inputs, like microphones, yes: balanced is essential there. Stop to think for a sec and consider if it's essential for mics why isn't it essential for your monitor amp ? Do your monitors need a mic-level feed? You're incorrectly assuming that a higher level means there's absolutely no problem at all. A touch unwise for the *monitor* path. In even quite a modest studio a monitor amp may be on a different ac circuit from the console too which makes unbalanced very unwise. Graham For crying out loud Graham, why don't you just be a man and admit you are wrong? |
#155
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2006 18:14:19 GMT, Les Cargill wrote: An XLR isn't gonna vibrate out of socket and dump a bunch of *GROOOOOONK* hum on the customers. Have you experienced this much with phonos? I had a home stereo that lost a channel because of it once. Somebody stepped on a cable... snip -- Les Cargill |
#156
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... David Nebenzahl wrote: You mean to tell us that there's no way to design a dummy load that 1) has the same effective reactance as a real load (like a speaker) and 2) can dissipate the amp's power? No, he's saying that the reactive part doesn't dissipate the power. Real speakers are a combination of resistances and reactances. And, in fact, REAL speakers often have additional nonlinearities which prevent them from being possible to accurately model as lumped-sum devices. But not all of them do. I find this hard to believe. I couldn't do it, but I'm sure some smart guy somewhere has figured this out. There are thousands of different lumped-sum speaker models out there. It's because there are thousands of different speaker designs, each which present different loads. As for me, I'm still using the Magnapans, which are just frighteningly close to a 6 ohm resistive load. Magnepans can deliver great sonic realism in the right room with the right source material, but they just aren't very good studio monitor speakers. :-) |
#157
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message .com... Scott Dorsey spake thus: David Nebenzahl wrote: You mean to tell us that there's no way to design a dummy load that 1) has the same effective reactance as a real load (like a speaker) and 2) can dissipate the amp's power? No, he's saying that the reactive part doesn't dissipate the power. Real speakers are a combination of resistances and reactances. Fine; then design a load that is a combination of resistances and reactances. Is that so hard to do? And, in fact, REAL speakers often have additional nonlinearities which prevent them from being possible to accurately model as lumped-sum devices. But not all of them do. Of course. But couldn't you take an average of real speakers' values, and use this for the dummy load? It wouldn't *exactly* match any particular speaker design, but it should be a hell of a lot better than using a purely resistive load, no? Go back and study electronics, speaker design, and acoustics, then you'll realize that your isn't really valid. The answer is, No, it would not be any better than a purely resistive load. Why? Because: 1. speaker reactance varies so much from speaker to speaker that there is no "average" value that would give data that would be meaningful from speaker to speaker. 2. since reactance goes both ways frequency-wise, a resistive load is somewhere in the middle of the range, amking it something of an average value for testing speakers.. 3. speaker reactance actually changes according to its sonic environment, so how is one to know the reactance of his speakers in his room?. |
#158
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
David Nebenzahl wrote: Scott Dorsey spake thus: David Nebenzahl wrote: You mean to tell us that there's no way to design a dummy load that 1) has the same effective reactance as a real load (like a speaker) and 2) can dissipate the amp's power? No, he's saying that the reactive part doesn't dissipate the power. Real speakers are a combination of resistances and reactances. Fine; then design a load that is a combination of resistances and reactances. Is that so hard to do? The thing is that *a* load like you suggest will only at best be representative of one or two speaker models ! And, in fact, REAL speakers often have additional nonlinearities which prevent them from being possible to accurately model as lumped-sum devices. But not all of them do. Of course. But couldn't you take an average of real speakers' values, and use this for the dummy load? It wouldn't *exactly* match any particular speaker design, but it should be a hell of a lot better than using a purely resistive load, no? The variation is truly so huge as to make any compromise load meaningless. It would be a harsh test compared to some speakers that are near resistive ( and it's possible to design speakers to be near resistive knowing that they may well sound better by providing a 'nicer load to the amp ) whilst not modelling the truly awful ones. Graham |
#159
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
David Nebenzahl wrote: Laurence Payne spake thus: On Tue, 30 May 2006 15:32:13 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: Do your monitors need a mic-level feed? You're incorrectly assuming that a higher level means there's absolutely no problem at all. No, you are :-) Noise pick-up will always be measurable. But it may well be at a level that makes it no problem. Yes. I'm thinking specifically of monitor *speakers* (not headhpones) in a studio. The monitors are some distance from the engineer's head; they're not slap up against his or her ears. You can hear a noisy ( 80dB s/n ) signal from 2 metres easily. The 'mini speakers' wil be closer anyway -typically about ametre. So let's say there is some measurable hum and noise. Even if there is, my guess is that if the monitors are set to anything but an earsplitting volume, at that distance, any measurable hum and noise are going to be inaudible to the engineer anyhow, and won't interfere with this vaunted "accuracy" in the sound we've been hearing so much about in this thread. The *whole point* of a monitor system is to make it as accurate as possible not some TV quality thing. Graham |
#160
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"Dr. Dolittle" wrote: Pooh Bear wrote: Laurence Payne wrote: On Tue, 30 May 2006 00:15:04 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: Low-level inputs, like microphones, yes: balanced is essential there. Stop to think for a sec and consider if it's essential for mics why isn't it essential for your monitor amp ? Do your monitors need a mic-level feed? You're incorrectly assuming that a higher level means there's absolutely no problem at all. A touch unwise for the *monitor* path. In even quite a modest studio a monitor amp may be on a different ac circuit from the console too which makes unbalanced very unwise. Graham For crying out loud Graham, why don't you just be a man and admit you are wrong? Decent studios don't use monitor amps with unbalanced inputs. In fact they don't take chances anywhere with the signal chain. Period. Graham |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Hickok 580 - Question about using tube specs instead of roll chart. | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Linkwitz' Orion design | High End Audio | |||
Need specs for drivers inside Technics SB-3130 bookshelf speakers please... | Tech | |||
WANTED: Info or Specs for KLH model Thirty-One Speakers ? | Marketplace | |||
WANTED: Info or Specs for KLH model Thirty-One Speakers ? | Marketplace |