Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey said this
Mikey said,
"A damping factor of 1 is not going to be significantly better than a dmaping factor of 500." Mikey, do you think it would "a little" better? A teeny bit better? Just how do you feel a damping factor of 1 would affect sound quality, Mikey? Comments on Mikey's intelligence are welcome. Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx 01.iad01.newshosting.com!n ewshosting.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthl in k.net!newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!9108 5e73!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion References: t .net t Subject: why it isn't so important, but still has meaning (long!). Lines: 32 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Message-ID: et Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:36:54 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.233.17.227 X-Complaints-To: X-Trace: newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net 1130297814 4.233.17.227 (Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:36:54 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:36:54 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.opinion:784731 "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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey said this
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey said, "A damping factor of 1 is not going to be significantly better than a dmaping factor of 500." Mikey, do you think it would "a little" better? A teeny bit better? Just how do you feel a damping factor of 1 would affect sound quality, Mikey? Comments on Mikey's intelligence are welcome. 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. As a means of comparison, let's reexamine the effects of non-zero source resistance on a typical speaker whose impedance varies from a low of 6W to a high of 40W . Damping factor RG GdB(MIN) GdB(MAX) GdB(ERROR) ¥ 0 W 0 dB 0 dB 0 dB 2000 0.004 -0.006 -0.001 ±0.003 1000 0.008 -0.012 -0.002 ±0.005 500 0.016 -0.023 -0.003 ±0.01 200 0.04 -0.058 -0.009 ±0.025 100 0.08 -0.115 -0.017 ±0.049 50 0.16 -0.229 -0.035 ±0.098 20 0.4 -0.561 -0.086 ±0.23 10 0.8 -1.087 -0.172 ±0.46 5 1.6 -2.053 -0.341 ±0.86 2 4 -4.437 -0.828 ±1.8 1 8 -7.360 -1.584 ±2.9 As before, the first column shows the nominal 8W damping factor, the second shows the corresponding output resistance of the amplifier. The second and third columns show the minimum and maximum attenuation due to the amplifier's source resistance, and the last column illustrates the resulting deviation in the frequency response caused by the output resistance. Wouldn't it have been easier to just admit you are clueless? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey said this
wrote in message k.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey said, "A damping factor of 1 is not going to be significantly better than a dmaping factor of 500." Mikey, do you think it would "a little" better? A teeny bit better? Just how do you feel a damping factor of 1 would affect sound quality, Mikey? Comments on Mikey's intelligence are welcome. 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. As a means of comparison, let's reexamine the effects of non-zero source resistance on a typical speaker whose impedance varies from a low of 6W to a high of 40W . Gosh, Mikey, this is the first time I've ever seen impedance measured in watts. Congratulations on the innovation. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey said this
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message k.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey said, "A damping factor of 1 is not going to be significantly better than a dmaping factor of 500." Mikey, do you think it would "a little" better? A teeny bit better? Just how do you feel a damping factor of 1 would affect sound quality, Mikey? Comments on Mikey's intelligence are welcome. 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. As a means of comparison, let's reexamine the effects of non-zero source resistance on a typical speaker whose impedance varies from a low of 6W to a high of 40W . Gosh, Mikey, this is the first time I've ever seen impedance measured in watts. Congratulations on the innovation. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey said this
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message k.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey said, "A damping factor of 1 is not going to be significantly better than a dmaping factor of 500." Mikey, do you think it would "a little" better? A teeny bit better? Just how do you feel a damping factor of 1 would affect sound quality, Mikey? Comments on Mikey's intelligence are welcome. 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. As a means of comparison, let's reexamine the effects of non-zero source resistance on a typical speaker whose impedance varies from a low of 6W to a high of 40W . Gosh, Mikey, this is the first time I've ever seen impedance measured in watts. Congratulations on the innovation. In my haste I copied the wrong piece,thinking it was the same chart as from the the first web link I posted:http://www.diyspeakers.net/Articles/...G%20FACTOR.pdf The excerpt your having a problem with is from this one: http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...ingfactor2.php In any case take it up with Mr. Pierce. I'm sure he'd love to wipe thge floor with you again. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey said this because he's dumb
wrote in message nk.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message k.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey said, "A damping factor of 1 is not going to be significantly better than a dmaping factor of 500." Mikey, do you think it would "a little" better? A teeny bit better? Just how do you feel a damping factor of 1 would affect sound quality, Mikey? Comments on Mikey's intelligence are welcome. 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. As a means of comparison, let's reexamine the effects of non-zero source resistance on a typical speaker whose impedance varies from a low of 6W to a high of 40W . Gosh, Mikey, this is the first time I've ever seen impedance measured in watts. Congratulations on the innovation. In my haste I copied the wrong piece,thinking it was the same chart as from the the first web link I posted:http://www.diyspeakers.net/Articles/...DAMPING%20FACT OR.pdf The excerpt your having a problem with is from this one: http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...ingfactor2.php In any case take it up with Mr. Pierce. Thanks for admitting you cannot defend your stupidity. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey said this because he's dumb
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message nk.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message k.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey said, "A damping factor of 1 is not going to be significantly better than a dmaping factor of 500." Mikey, do you think it would "a little" better? A teeny bit better? Just how do you feel a damping factor of 1 would affect sound quality, Mikey? Comments on Mikey's intelligence are welcome. 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. As a means of comparison, let's reexamine the effects of non-zero source resistance on a typical speaker whose impedance varies from a low of 6W to a high of 40W . Gosh, Mikey, this is the first time I've ever seen impedance measured in watts. Congratulations on the innovation. In my haste I copied the wrong piece,thinking it was the same chart as from the the first web link I posted:http://www.diyspeakers.net/Articles/...DAMPING%20FACT OR.pdf The excerpt your having a problem with is from this one: http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...ingfactor2.php In any case take it up with Mr. Pierce. Thanks for admitting you cannot defend your stupidity. I notice you never defend yours. You wallow in it. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Mikey contradicts himself | Audio Opinions | |||
The continuing saga of Mikey the Bug Eater, lover of abx/dbt. | Audio Opinions | |||
Mikey "IQ=103" speaks | Audio Opinions | |||
Question for Mikey the Bug Eater | Audio Opinions | |||
PING: Mikey - Nova Music | Pro Audio |