[Phil Allison[_4_]]

wrote:

-------------------------


I've heard of clockwise, counter-clockwise,
but never heard of "anti-clockwise". What
the heck is that?



** What the rest of the planet uses instead of the mad Yank way.



..... Phil

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

-----------------------


The only thing most people understand is the angle the volume control
is at when it starts to get loud. The further anti-clockwise, the more
powerful the amp. Face palms all round, but that is the way it is.



** Using a linear volume pot on an amp totally amazes most folk. Not too common on hi-fi gear but very much so on guitar amps and many power amps.

IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.

One born every minute.



..... Phil

[[email protected]]

I equate volume controls with
faucets.

But what goes on at the speaker
end has stymied me since birth!
I always just assumed that the
lower the impedance# on the back,
the louder it would play.
Apparently that number is what
kind of load the speaker EXPECTS.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/15/2017 6:56 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.

Why do you think that? The whole "loudness" thing is so that listeners
will never have to adjust their volume control. To use a car analogy,
it's more like putting the automatic transmission shift level in D and
leaving it there regardless of the terrain.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Chuck[_12_]]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 05:09:45 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

I equate volume controls with
faucets.

But what goes on at the speaker
end has stymied me since birth!
I always just assumed that the
lower the impedance# on the back,
the louder it would play.
Apparently that number is what
kind of load the speaker EXPECTS.
Loudness per watt depends on speaker efficiency not impedance.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:

I've heard of clockwise, counter-clockwise,
but never heard of "anti-clockwise". What
the heck is that?

Widdershins.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
I equate volume controls with
faucets.

But what goes on at the speaker
end has stymied me since birth!
I always just assumed that the
lower the impedance# on the back,
the louder it would play.
Apparently that number is what
kind of load the speaker EXPECTS.

No. I explained this to you a couple weeks ago. Please go back and read
the description of how impedance is a thing that varies with frequency.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 15/06/2017 13:58, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

I've heard of clockwise, counter-clockwise,
but never heard of "anti-clockwise". What
the heck is that?

Widdershins.

As`against Turnwise?


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Tobiah]

** Using a linear volume pot on an amp totally amazes most folk. Not too common on hi-fi gear but very much so on guitar amps and many power amps.

IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.


Would that make the volume jump more quickly in the beginning?

[geoff]

On 16/06/2017 12:09 AM, wrote:
I equate volume controls with
faucets.

But what goes on at the speaker
end has stymied me since birth!
I always just assumed that the
lower the impedance# on the back,
the louder it would play.
Apparently that number is what
kind of load the speaker EXPECTS.


A speaker doesn't expect a load at all - it expects a source, and put
simplistically the impedance specification denotes what current the
speaker will demand for a given output voltage.

Conversely the amplifier (minimum) output impedance relates to the
maximum current the amplifier can source at a given output voltage. This
relates to multiple factors such as power supply capability, current
capability of the output devices, and thermal dissipation to keep those
out devices in their SOA. With Valve (a.k.a. 'tube' in the USA) there
are frequency-related factors involved as well.

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "A speaker doesn't expect a load at all - it expects a source,
and put simplistically the impedance specification denotes what current the
speaker will demand for a given output voltage.

Conversely the amplifier (minimum) output impedance relates to the
maximum current the amplifier can source at a given output voltage. This
relates to multiple factors such as power supply capability, current
capability of the output devices, and thermal dissipation to keep those
out devices in their SOA. With Valve (a.k.a. 'tube' in the USA) there
are frequency-related factors involved as well.

geoff"

____
So, my receiver specifies speaker impedance
of 8-16ohms. I was told never to go under the
minimum impedance when buying speakers.
I was told: "You can run 8ohms or higher, but
never below that minimum, or the amp would
overheat".

So what really is going on?

[geoff]

On 16/06/2017 9:57 AM, wrote:
geoff wrote: "A speaker doesn't expect a load at all - it expects a source,
and put simplistically the impedance specification denotes what current the
speaker will demand for a given output voltage.

Conversely the amplifier (minimum) output impedance relates to the
maximum current the amplifier can source at a given output voltage. This
relates to multiple factors such as power supply capability, current
capability of the output devices, and thermal dissipation to keep those
out devices in their SOA. With Valve (a.k.a. 'tube' in the USA) there
are frequency-related factors involved as well.

geoff"

____
So, my receiver specifies speaker impedance
of 8-16ohms. I was told never to go under the
minimum impedance when buying speakers.
I was told: "You can run 8ohms or higher, but
never below that minimum, or the amp would
overheat".

So what really is going on?


Really ? It's not that hard. Simply do what is says, else you are
demanding more from the amp than it is designed to supply.

Similarly don't attempt to run a 4kW heating appliance off a mains
circuit with wiring for a max 2kW load, or the circuit may melt.

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 5:57:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
geoff wrote: "A speaker doesn't expect a load at all - it expects a source,
and put simplistically the impedance specification denotes what current the
speaker will demand for a given output voltage.

Conversely the amplifier (minimum) output impedance relates to the
maximum current the amplifier can source at a given output voltage. This
relates to multiple factors such as power supply capability, current
capability of the output devices, and thermal dissipation to keep those
out devices in their SOA. With Valve (a.k.a. 'tube' in the USA) there
are frequency-related factors involved as well.

geoff"

____
So, my receiver specifies speaker impedance
of 8-16ohms. I was told never to go under the
minimum impedance when buying speakers.
I was told: "You can run 8ohms or higher, but
never below that minimum, or the amp would
overheat".

So what really is going on?

First of all, no one ever pushes their amp to max.
Second, you probably can use 2 ohm speakers on a 8 ohm minimum amp, if all you listen to is violins.

Jack

[[email protected]]

geoff:

Succinctly - if I could have two pairs of
the exact same make & model of loud
speaker, exact same specs except one
pair were 8ohm, and the other, 4ohm
impedance, which pair, when connected
to my 8-16ohm receiver would, if at all,
play louder given the same exact volume
setting and musical source? Or would
there be a difference at all?

I'm not desiring speakers that play louder,
just trying to discern if lower impedance
speakers given the above test conditions
would play louder.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 11:08:42 AM UTC-4, Tobiah wrote:
** Using a linear volume pot on an amp totally amazes most folk. Not too common on hi-fi gear but very much so on guitar amps and many power amps.

IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.


Would that make the volume jump more quickly in the beginning?

Using a linear taper potentiometer rather than a logarithmic taper potentiometer.

Jack

[geoff]

On 16/06/2017 11:41 AM, wrote:
geoff:

Succinctly - if I could have two pairs of
the exact same make & model of loud
speaker, exact same specs except one
pair were 8ohm, and the other, 4ohm
impedance, which pair, when connected
to my 8-16ohm receiver would, if at all,
play louder given the same exact volume
setting and musical source? Or would
there be a difference at all?

I'm not desiring speakers that play louder,
just trying to discern if lower impedance
speakers given the above test conditions
would play louder.



Loudness-versus-impedence is not usually a factor that is considered to
be particularly significant.

If speaker efficiency specs, frequency, and dynamic linearity were the
same, the 4 ohm pair would be ~ 3dB louder on an amplifier that had a
consistent output voltage independent of load.

But a 4 ohm speaker connected to your amplifier with that specified 8
ohm minimum is not predictable. It might end up being the same volume up
to 50% of it's power capability, before it blew up or some over-current
protection kicked in.

If your amp says 8 ohms minimum, then that is the lowest Z you should
connect. And even then a particular 8 ohm speaker may have nodes where
the Z is lower that the nominal 8 ohms, and may or may not play nice on
a particular amplifier.

geoff

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

-------------------

Phil Allison wrote:

IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.

Why do you think that?



** Cos they assume it is a calibrated much like an accelerator pedal.

Half setting = half power, full setting = full power and so on.

IOW they have no clue it is quite arbitrary depending on input level.


...... Phil

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Tobiah wrote:

--------------------


** Using a linear volume pot on an amp totally amazes most folk. Not too common on hi-fi gear but very much so on guitar amps and many power amps.

IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.



Would that make the volume jump more quickly in the beginning?



** Yep - linear volume pots are subjectively very sudden making the amp feel *hot*.


....... Phil

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 8:51:13 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
Tobiah wrote:

--------------------


** Using a linear volume pot on an amp totally amazes most folk. Not too common on hi-fi gear but very much so on guitar amps and many power amps.

IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.



Would that make the volume jump more quickly in the beginning?



** Yep - linear volume pots are subjectively very sudden making the amp feel *hot*.


...... Phil

Heck, toss one on audio equipment, tell customer you added a lot of output power (with a linear taper pot)!! Say, watch, before "1", on Volume control, it's already blasting!!

Jack

[Gray_Wolf]

On 6/15/2017 5:56 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

-----------------------


The only thing most people understand is the angle the volume control
is at when it starts to get loud. The further anti-clockwise, the more
powerful the amp. Face palms all round, but that is the way it is.



** Using a linear volume pot on an amp totally amazes most folk. Not too common on hi-fi gear but very much so on guitar amps and many power amps.

IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.

One born every minute.



.... Phil

I was thinking of that very thing. In the '70s I was heavy into the guitar
scene. Linear pots would get some of players really excited. I remember some
company built a few amps that had volume control knobs that went from 0-12
instead of the usual 0-10. IIRC they didn't get much mileage out off that. It
seemed to me, at the time, that the volume control was the least understood
thing in the universe. Did any of you ever have a guitar player ask you what his
volume control should be set at?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Gray_Wolf]

On 6/15/2017 10:08 AM, Tobiah wrote:

** Using a linear volume pot on an amp totally amazes most folk. Not too common on hi-fi gear but very much so on guitar amps and many power amps.

IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.


Would that make the volume jump more quickly in the beginning?

Yes it would. Set it at #3 and that's about a loud as it's gonna get


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[[email protected]]

Geoff wrote: "If your amp says 8 ohms minimum, then that is the lowest Z you should "

That's what I always thought, and was instructed to
by dealers and other audio people. I guess if 8ohm
speakers become almost impossible to find in say,
10-20 years, I can always connect resistors in-line
to make up for the difference. IE: 4ohm speakrs,
just add minimum 4ohm resistor to the plus side
going to each speaker, to double load to 8ohm per
channel.

[geoff]

On 16/06/2017 1:36 PM, wrote:
Geoff wrote: "If your amp says 8 ohms minimum, then that is the lowest Z you should "

That's what I always thought, and was instructed to
by dealers and other audio people. I guess if 8ohm
speakers become almost impossible to find in say,
10-20 years, I can always connect resistors in-line
to make up for the difference. IE: 4ohm speakrs,
just add minimum 4ohm resistor to the plus side
going to each speaker, to double load to 8ohm per
channel.


No. Just time to replace your amplifier. But whoever suggested 8 ohm
speakers were likely to disappear ?!!

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 9:36:06 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Geoff wrote: "If your amp says 8 ohms minimum, then that is the lowest Z you should "

That's what I always thought, and was instructed to
by dealers and other audio people. I guess if 8ohm
speakers become almost impossible to find in say,
10-20 years, I can always connect resistors in-line
to make up for the difference. IE: 4ohm speakrs,
just add minimum 4ohm resistor to the plus side
going to each speaker, to double load to 8ohm per
channel.

Why not just connect them with 150 ft. of 22 AWG wire? :-)

Now, we want to use lamp cord (some may call it zip wire) when connecting speakers, not coax. You want to have the wires parallel to help cancel inductance.

Jack

[Trevor]

On 16/06/2017 7:09 AM, Geoff wrote:
A speaker doesn't expect a load at all

Not true, the speaker load is the air it is driving. Hence why a horn
that matches the driver to it's load more effectively increases the
driver efficiency.


- it expects a source, and put
simplistically the impedance specification denotes what current the
speaker will demand for a given output voltage.

And frequency, since the impedance usually changes with frequency.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 16/06/2017 8:09 AM, Geoff wrote:
Similarly don't attempt to run a 4kW heating appliance off a mains
circuit with wiring for a max 2kW load, or the circuit may melt.

I would hope you use fuses or circuit breakers in your mains wiring to
stop that! Your amplifier may also be protected against over current,
but many aren't.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 16/06/2017 11:46 AM, Geoff wrote:
On 16/06/2017 1:36 PM, wrote:
Geoff wrote: "If your amp says 8 ohms minimum, then that is the lowest
Z you should "

That's what I always thought, and was instructed to
by dealers and other audio people. I guess if 8ohm
speakers become almost impossible to find in say,
10-20 years, I can always connect resistors in-line
to make up for the difference. IE: 4ohm speakrs,
just add minimum 4ohm resistor to the plus side
going to each speaker, to double load to 8ohm per
channel.

FAR better to simply connect two 4ohm speakers in series on each channel
if absolutely necessary. Can't imagine why you wouldn't want (or need)
to replace your (already old) amplifier in 10 or 20 years as well though.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "No. Just time to replace your amplifier. But whoever suggested 8 ohm
speakers were likely to disappear ?!!

geoff"

Geoff, I'm an empiricist - I'm the one
who suspects they will become scarce
based on the amount of 6, 5, 4, and
even 3ohm speakers I'm seeing in
retailers.

And like that guy from the NRA, they'll
have to pry my perfectly well functioning
1995 JVC receiver from my COLD, DEAD
HANDS!

[geoff]

On 16/06/2017 5:34 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 16/06/2017 7:09 AM, Geoff wrote:
A speaker doesn't expect a load at all

Not true, the speaker load is the air it is driving. Hence why a horn
that matches the driver to it's load more effectively increases the
driver efficiency.


- it expects a source, and put simplistically the impedance
specification denotes what current the speaker will demand for a given
output voltage.

And frequency, since the impedance usually changes with frequency.

Trevor.


That's getting away from 'simplistically' for current company.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
On 16/06/2017 11:46 AM, Geoff wrote:
On 16/06/2017 1:36 PM, wrote:
Geoff wrote: "If your amp says 8 ohms minimum, then that is the lowest
Z you should "

That's what I always thought, and was instructed to
by dealers and other audio people. I guess if 8ohm
speakers become almost impossible to find in say,
10-20 years, I can always connect resistors in-line
to make up for the difference. IE: 4ohm speakrs,
just add minimum 4ohm resistor to the plus side
going to each speaker, to double load to 8ohm per
channel.

This is a terrible idea, because the impedance of the speaker varies a lot
with frequency, and the impedance of that series resistor does not. So now
you have a resistive divider whose ratio changes with frequency, and you will
find that the frequencies where the speaker impedance is low are suddenly
accentuated.

FAR better to simply connect two 4ohm speakers in series on each channel
if absolutely necessary.

This is even worse, because now you have a weird impedance in series with your
speaker. If the two speakers are identical and have identical impedance
curves, then their peaks and dips match to exaggerate one another. Since on
the whole you'll tend to have level dips corresponding with impedance peaks
(admittedly a generalization) this will tend to exaggerate any response
aberrations in the speaker.

The Bose 901 is the finest example of how series drivers can go terribly wrong.

Can't imagine why you wouldn't want (or need)
to replace your (already old) amplifier in 10 or 20 years as well though.

I'm still running the 1961 vintage Citation II as the studio monitor amp.
It sounds good and it's paid for. Occasionally I'll swap it out for something
more modern just to make sure I'm not missing something.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[UnsteadyKen[_7_]]

In article ,
says...
I'm an empiricist - I'm the one
who suspects they will become scarce
based on the amount of 6, 5, 4, and
even 3ohm speakers I'm seeing in
retailers.

Have you ever seen a 16 ohm loudspeaker?
I've been interested in and following audio reproduction and equipment
since the 60's.
Apart from oddities such as panels, ionophones and electrostatics, the
only consumer loudspeakers I've been aware of with an impedance much
above 8ohms were certain models of the LS3/5A which were available as 11
and 15 ohm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A

A Google search for any current product only turns up some specialist
drivers.

[[email protected]]

UnsteadyKen:

So I'm really on the edge of
speaker availability for my
old receiver. Better take
care of my big ol' dB Plus
880s.


BTW this is my
receiver so you all have an
idea just what vintage it is,
and what I like so much about
it(look at input area!!):

https://www.hifiengine.com/files/ima....prev iew.jpg

[Peter Irwin]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

This is even worse, because now you have a weird impedance in series with your
speaker. If the two speakers are identical and have identical impedance
curves, then their peaks and dips match to exaggerate one another.

I'm pretty sure that in the identical speaker case, you will get
half the voltage across each speaker since you have the same impedance
on each half of the voltage divider at every frequency.

Peter.

[Scott Dorsey]

UnsteadyKen wrote:
Have you ever seen a 16 ohm loudspeaker?
I've been interested in and following audio reproduction and equipment
since the 60's.

A lot of theatre speakers were designed for 16 ohms, in order to reduce the
substantial cable losses between the booth and the speakers. You could order
the Altec 288 horn driver, for instance, in anything from 8 to 24 ohms.

Apart from oddities such as panels, ionophones and electrostatics, the
only consumer loudspeakers I've been aware of with an impedance much
above 8ohms were certain models of the LS3/5A which were available as 11
and 15 ohm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A

It's not a win for consumer speakers since you're never going to see a very
long cable run in that application, and making the higher impedance windings
is more difficult. Consumer speakers are designed to be cheap.

The LS3/5A was never designed as a consumer speaker, but in the end it sure
wound up being successful in that market.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Peter Irwin wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

This is even worse, because now you have a weird impedance in series with your
speaker. If the two speakers are identical and have identical impedance
curves, then their peaks and dips match to exaggerate one another.

I'm pretty sure that in the identical speaker case, you will get
half the voltage across each speaker since you have the same impedance
on each half of the voltage divider at every frequency.

Yes, precisely.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[UnsteadyKen[_7_]]

In article ,
says...
So I'm really on the edge of
speaker availability for my
old receiver. Better take
care of my big ol' dB Plus
880s.

Not really, I was pointing out that JVC recommends using speakers that
don't appear to exist:-)



As others hqve pointed out the only consequence of note if using 6
instead of 8 ohm speakers and playing at a sensible volume level is that
the speakers will play 1-3 Db louder for the same volume setting, the
output stage will be under a bit more stress, the power supply will
require more from the AC line and distortion might rise.
Any competent amplifer would shrug this off.
On the other hand; if you were to run it for hours at max power then
problems might begin to emerge.

Marketing also has a say in this.
As a rule when power increases so does distortion. if you were to
connect some 2 ohm speakers to your JVC and measure distortion at the
wattage specified in the user manual then it is possible it would exceed
the advertised levels.
You could then sue JVC's goddammed ass off. It's the American way you
know.


BTW this is my
receiver so you all have an
idea just what vintage it is,
and what I like so much about
it(look at input area!!):

Hmmm Looks to be rather lacking in the HDMI input department;-(

JVC kit is OK stuff, I liked the built in graphic equaliser on their
amps. I used one of these for years:
https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_li...jvc/a-x3.shtml

This is my bottom of the Yamaha range current DAB+ receiver.
https://goo.gl/mLWWSW
I use it with... (Shock horror)... 5x 6ohm speakers, it aint exploded
yet.
Despite giving it regular stress tests with the 5.1 SACD mix of Dark
Side Of The Moon.

[[email protected]]

UnsteadyKen wrote: "
As others hqve pointed out the only consequence of note if using 6
instead of 8 ohm speakers and playing at a sensible volume level is that
the speakers will play 1-3 Db louder for the same volume setting, the
output stage will be under"

THANK YOU!!! Finally!!

That's all I wanted to know.

"Lacking in the HDMI department"

F- HDMI.

It didn't exist in 1995, and anyways I
have a full suite of perfectly functional
analog-output audio components,
and plenty of video gear with RCA
outs, and HDMI out to the TV. This
receiver does all I need it to, with flying
colors. Only thing I would have
designed into it was an even 100W
per channel, vs its 80.

My only concern was availability of
8ohm speakers in the next decade,
just in case one of mine decides to
ehem - retire! I do have occasion
to play at high volume, for movies
and such, so I don't want to take
chances by not following the
instructions on the receiver or
its manual.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/16/2017 10:18 AM, wrote:
UnsteadyKen wrote: "
As others hqve pointed out the only consequence of note if using 6
instead of 8 ohm speakers and playing at a sensible volume level is that
the speakers will play 1-3 Db louder for the same volume setting, the
output stage will be under"

THANK YOU!!! Finally!!

That's all I wanted to know.

Gosh, you're easy to please. It might not be accurate. It also depends
on the efficiency of the speaker, and it's unlikely that two random
speakers with a difference in factory-specified impedance will have the
same efficiency.

What's accurate, and important is that you won't blow anything up unless
you do something stupid with the system, and do it for a long time.




--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivera wrote: "What's accurate, and important is that you won't blow
anything up unless you do something stupid with the system, and do it for
a long time. "


#1. So, is it ok to use 6ohm speakers
on a regular basis?

#2. Define "something stupid".

[[email protected]]

On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 1:39:59 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Mike Rivera wrote: "What's accurate, and important is that you won't blow
anything up unless you do something stupid with the system, and do it for
a long time. "


#1. So, is it ok to use 6ohm speakers
on a regular basis?

#2. Define "something stupid".

#2!!....
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...gstupid-fs.mp3

Jack