(Dick Pierce) wrote in message


BTW, have *you* EVER bothered to see if your "theory" results
in predictions that you have then compared with ACTUAL
measurements?


Thank you for again giving me credit for creating established
transmsission line theory (by your calling it "your theory").

I don't feel it is necessary for me to reprove basic transmission line
theory. The basic theory could be wrong of course, but I'll leave that
up to you to prove by measurements.



I'm curious to see what you used as a lumped
constant model. Please show us a model of 100 ft of standard (Home
Depot), 12 gage cable (terminated by an ideal 8 Ohm load).

Please show us who is using 100 ft of standard (Home Depot)
12 gauge cable in a typical home listening situation.

Please show us ANYONE whose speaker cables are terminated by
an ideal 8 ohm load.


I was just trying to keep the problem as simple as possible. The
termination value is irrelevent since it doesn't change the
transmission line itself.

So Dick, since no one has put forth a lumped element, transmission
line model, perhaps you would like to show us one.



Mr. Stanton, your model is **** NOT because its a transmission
line or any other model, it's **** becuase of your grossly incorrect
assumptions and the fact that these assumptions simply don't exist
in actual situations.



Any real-world cable and any real-world speaker-impedance can be
*easily modeled*.


And that is yet more evidence of how far from physical reality
your "model" is. I have presented a NUMBER of lumped parameter
(not "lumped constant") models, as each and every speaker system
presents a significantluy different load.


That is correct, even if it is rather obvious.



So, let's review your assumptions behind your "model" once again:

1. You assume that people are using 100 feet of cable.
But people VERY RARELY use 100 feet of cable, it's more
typically 1/10th that distance, making the necessity of
a transmission line model even more irrelevant and
unnecessary.



10 ft is fine. One can model a transmission line for X number of ft.


2. You assume that the cable is terminated by an ideal
8 ohm load.
But NO speaker is anything approaching an ideal 8 ohm
load.


One should use an ideal load when measuring any cable's
characteristics. By making the computer model with an 8 Ohm load, the
computer's results can be compared to actual measurements.


3. You have looked at ONE example of a non-ideal load.
But, apparently, you have never incorporated such a non-
ideal load in ANY of your models.
Further, you have apparently ignored the fact that one
lumped parameter model simlpy is not representative
of the enormous variations in actual speaker loads.



Any real-world speaker-impedance can be modeled with a one-port (data)
device.


And, finally:

4. You have never once presented a single shred of physical
evidence in support of your "theory" that demonstrates
its superiority or even its very efficacy. You insist
your "theory" is right, but are unable or, more likely,
simply unwilling to do ANY of the work YOU need to do
to support it.

YOUR theory, based on your gross missapplication of transmission
line principles, your preposterous assumptions of operating
conditions, and your long-demonstrated inability to relate it to
any real-world performance issues indeed makes YOUR theory useless.


Any cable, driving any speaker, can be modeled using "one-port" and
"two-port devices". One simply measures the S-parameters (or the
Y-parameters) of the speaker-cable and then creates a two-port (cable)
device. One then measures the impedance of a speaker and creates a
one-port device. Put the two devices together, and you'll get an
accurate model of real-world performance. If you doubt this, maybe you
should go back to school. Perhaps your knowledge of circuit analysis
is a little out of date?

Bob Stanton

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message


Indeed, I've only been a professional electronics engineer and
precision analogue specialist for about thirty years, so my knowledge
is certainly limited,

Perhaps your knowledge more *limited* then you know.



Not without a good model of the load impedance, they can't!


If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

He also stated that his equivalent circuits have some simplifing
assumptions, that lead to inaccuracys. For example, Re and Le are both
frequency dependent. These accuracy problems can be obviated by using
a better method:


First: measure the impedance at a (large) number of frequencies.

Second: Transform the measured impedance into S11. (There are programs
that will do that for you, or you can do it by hand).

Third: Write a two-port data device using S11 and dummy values for
S12, S21, and S22. The two-port data device will have an exact
impedance that was measured for the speaker.

Fourth: Use the two-port as the speaker load.


Hence they are of course not practical for use between audio
components, which have neither.

Wrong!



You are of course simply ducking and diving here, in order to avoid
answering the question.


I didn't duck anything. I answered the question in previous posts, but
you didn't understand the answers. :-)


Regardless of which tool you use, you *must*
have a good model of the load impedance - which you don't have.


I have shown you twice now, how to make a good model of *any*
impedance.


Now,
tell us how you optimise a transmission line between the sub-ohm
source impedance of the amplifier, and the wildly varying multi-ohm
load impedance of the speaker.


Even some freeware circuit analysis prograns can do that kind of
simple analysis. Don't you in all your thirty years of experience as a
profession engineer, have *any* understanding of the capabiliy of
circuit analysis programs?


Sheesh, whatta maroon!

Maroons shouldn't point fingers at other maroons. :-)

Bob Stanton

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message


Indeed, I've only been a professional electronics engineer and
precision analogue specialist for about thirty years, so my knowledge
is certainly limited,

Perhaps your knowledge more *limited* then you know.



Not without a good model of the load impedance, they can't!


If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

He also stated that his equivalent circuits have some simplifing
assumptions, that lead to inaccuracys. For example, Re and Le are both
frequency dependent. These accuracy problems can be obviated by using
a better method:


First: measure the impedance at a (large) number of frequencies.

Second: Transform the measured impedance into S11. (There are programs
that will do that for you, or you can do it by hand).

Third: Write a two-port data device using S11 and dummy values for
S12, S21, and S22. The two-port data device will have an exact
impedance that was measured for the speaker.

Fourth: Use the two-port as the speaker load.


Hence they are of course not practical for use between audio
components, which have neither.

Wrong!



You are of course simply ducking and diving here, in order to avoid
answering the question.


I didn't duck anything. I answered the question in previous posts, but
you didn't understand the answers. :-)


Regardless of which tool you use, you *must*
have a good model of the load impedance - which you don't have.


I have shown you twice now, how to make a good model of *any*
impedance.


Now,
tell us how you optimise a transmission line between the sub-ohm
source impedance of the amplifier, and the wildly varying multi-ohm
load impedance of the speaker.


Even some freeware circuit analysis prograns can do that kind of
simple analysis. Don't you in all your thirty years of experience as a
profession engineer, have *any* understanding of the capabiliy of
circuit analysis programs?


Sheesh, whatta maroon!

Maroons shouldn't point fingers at other maroons. :-)

Bob Stanton

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message


Indeed, I've only been a professional electronics engineer and
precision analogue specialist for about thirty years, so my knowledge
is certainly limited,

Perhaps your knowledge more *limited* then you know.



Not without a good model of the load impedance, they can't!


If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

He also stated that his equivalent circuits have some simplifing
assumptions, that lead to inaccuracys. For example, Re and Le are both
frequency dependent. These accuracy problems can be obviated by using
a better method:


First: measure the impedance at a (large) number of frequencies.

Second: Transform the measured impedance into S11. (There are programs
that will do that for you, or you can do it by hand).

Third: Write a two-port data device using S11 and dummy values for
S12, S21, and S22. The two-port data device will have an exact
impedance that was measured for the speaker.

Fourth: Use the two-port as the speaker load.


Hence they are of course not practical for use between audio
components, which have neither.

Wrong!



You are of course simply ducking and diving here, in order to avoid
answering the question.


I didn't duck anything. I answered the question in previous posts, but
you didn't understand the answers. :-)


Regardless of which tool you use, you *must*
have a good model of the load impedance - which you don't have.


I have shown you twice now, how to make a good model of *any*
impedance.


Now,
tell us how you optimise a transmission line between the sub-ohm
source impedance of the amplifier, and the wildly varying multi-ohm
load impedance of the speaker.


Even some freeware circuit analysis prograns can do that kind of
simple analysis. Don't you in all your thirty years of experience as a
profession engineer, have *any* understanding of the capabiliy of
circuit analysis programs?


Sheesh, whatta maroon!

Maroons shouldn't point fingers at other maroons. :-)

Bob Stanton

On 5 Jan 2004 06:39:35 -0800, (Bob-Stanton)
wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message

Indeed, I've only been a professional electronics engineer and
precision analogue specialist for about thirty years, so my knowledge
is certainly limited,

Perhaps your knowledge more *limited* then you know.

History suggests that it's less limited than I think it is..........

Not without a good model of the load impedance, they can't!

If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.

He also stated that his equivalent circuits have some simplifing
assumptions, that lead to inaccuracys. For example, Re and Le are both
frequency dependent. These accuracy problems can be obviated by using
a better method:

First: measure the impedance at a (large) number of frequencies.

Second: Transform the measured impedance into S11. (There are programs
that will do that for you, or you can do it by hand).

Third: Write a two-port data device using S11 and dummy values for
S12, S21, and S22. The two-port data device will have an exact
impedance that was measured for the speaker.

Fourth: Use the two-port as the speaker load.

And you have done *none* of this.

Hence they are of course not practical for use between audio
components, which have neither.

Wrong!

The brilliance of your argument stuns me....................

You are of course simply ducking and diving here, in order to avoid
answering the question.

I didn't duck anything. I answered the question in previous posts, but
you didn't understand the answers. :-)

Sure I did, but you utterly failed to demonstrate that a transmission
line model has *any* value in an audio context.

Regardless of which tool you use, you *must*
have a good model of the load impedance - which you don't have.

I have shown you twice now, how to make a good model of *any*
impedance.

You do not however *have* any such models, so you are, as always, just
blowing smoke.

Now,
tell us how you optimise a transmission line between the sub-ohm
source impedance of the amplifier, and the wildly varying multi-ohm
load impedance of the speaker.

Even some freeware circuit analysis prograns can do that kind of
simple analysis. Don't you in all your thirty years of experience as a
profession engineer, have *any* understanding of the capabiliy of
circuit analysis programs?

Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless. And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous. In short, you are talking out of your ass, since the *only*
thing which matters in a loudspeaker cable is its resistance, and to a
much lesser extent in particular and pretty extreme circumstances, its
inductance.

Sheesh, whatta maroon!

Maroons shouldn't point fingers at other maroons. :-)

The sure sign of stupidity is not realising how ignorant you
are..............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 5 Jan 2004 06:39:35 -0800, (Bob-Stanton)
wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message

Indeed, I've only been a professional electronics engineer and
precision analogue specialist for about thirty years, so my knowledge
is certainly limited,

Perhaps your knowledge more *limited* then you know.

History suggests that it's less limited than I think it is..........

Not without a good model of the load impedance, they can't!

If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.

He also stated that his equivalent circuits have some simplifing
assumptions, that lead to inaccuracys. For example, Re and Le are both
frequency dependent. These accuracy problems can be obviated by using
a better method:

First: measure the impedance at a (large) number of frequencies.

Second: Transform the measured impedance into S11. (There are programs
that will do that for you, or you can do it by hand).

Third: Write a two-port data device using S11 and dummy values for
S12, S21, and S22. The two-port data device will have an exact
impedance that was measured for the speaker.

Fourth: Use the two-port as the speaker load.

And you have done *none* of this.

Hence they are of course not practical for use between audio
components, which have neither.

Wrong!

The brilliance of your argument stuns me....................

You are of course simply ducking and diving here, in order to avoid
answering the question.

I didn't duck anything. I answered the question in previous posts, but
you didn't understand the answers. :-)

Sure I did, but you utterly failed to demonstrate that a transmission
line model has *any* value in an audio context.

Regardless of which tool you use, you *must*
have a good model of the load impedance - which you don't have.

I have shown you twice now, how to make a good model of *any*
impedance.

You do not however *have* any such models, so you are, as always, just
blowing smoke.

Now,
tell us how you optimise a transmission line between the sub-ohm
source impedance of the amplifier, and the wildly varying multi-ohm
load impedance of the speaker.

Even some freeware circuit analysis prograns can do that kind of
simple analysis. Don't you in all your thirty years of experience as a
profession engineer, have *any* understanding of the capabiliy of
circuit analysis programs?

Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless. And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous. In short, you are talking out of your ass, since the *only*
thing which matters in a loudspeaker cable is its resistance, and to a
much lesser extent in particular and pretty extreme circumstances, its
inductance.

Sheesh, whatta maroon!

Maroons shouldn't point fingers at other maroons. :-)

The sure sign of stupidity is not realising how ignorant you
are..............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 5 Jan 2004 06:39:35 -0800, (Bob-Stanton)
wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message

Indeed, I've only been a professional electronics engineer and
precision analogue specialist for about thirty years, so my knowledge
is certainly limited,

Perhaps your knowledge more *limited* then you know.

History suggests that it's less limited than I think it is..........

Not without a good model of the load impedance, they can't!

If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.

He also stated that his equivalent circuits have some simplifing
assumptions, that lead to inaccuracys. For example, Re and Le are both
frequency dependent. These accuracy problems can be obviated by using
a better method:

First: measure the impedance at a (large) number of frequencies.

Second: Transform the measured impedance into S11. (There are programs
that will do that for you, or you can do it by hand).

Third: Write a two-port data device using S11 and dummy values for
S12, S21, and S22. The two-port data device will have an exact
impedance that was measured for the speaker.

Fourth: Use the two-port as the speaker load.

And you have done *none* of this.

Hence they are of course not practical for use between audio
components, which have neither.

Wrong!

The brilliance of your argument stuns me....................

You are of course simply ducking and diving here, in order to avoid
answering the question.

I didn't duck anything. I answered the question in previous posts, but
you didn't understand the answers. :-)

Sure I did, but you utterly failed to demonstrate that a transmission
line model has *any* value in an audio context.

Regardless of which tool you use, you *must*
have a good model of the load impedance - which you don't have.

I have shown you twice now, how to make a good model of *any*
impedance.

You do not however *have* any such models, so you are, as always, just
blowing smoke.

Now,
tell us how you optimise a transmission line between the sub-ohm
source impedance of the amplifier, and the wildly varying multi-ohm
load impedance of the speaker.

Even some freeware circuit analysis prograns can do that kind of
simple analysis. Don't you in all your thirty years of experience as a
profession engineer, have *any* understanding of the capabiliy of
circuit analysis programs?

Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless. And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous. In short, you are talking out of your ass, since the *only*
thing which matters in a loudspeaker cable is its resistance, and to a
much lesser extent in particular and pretty extreme circumstances, its
inductance.

Sheesh, whatta maroon!

Maroons shouldn't point fingers at other maroons. :-)

The sure sign of stupidity is not realising how ignorant you
are..............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Ian" wrote in message


Or measure it.

Been there, done that.

Please see http://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/ , lower 2/3 of page.

Really, if you measure it someone might learn what is significant, and
what is not.

In general, we already know.

Because audio frequencies are relatively low and the amp-speaker interface
is by design not impedance-matched, the most important thing about
real-world speaker cable is resistance, and to a far lesser degree in almost
every case, inductance.

"Ian" wrote in message


Or measure it.

Been there, done that.

Please see http://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/ , lower 2/3 of page.

Really, if you measure it someone might learn what is significant, and
what is not.

In general, we already know.

Because audio frequencies are relatively low and the amp-speaker interface
is by design not impedance-matched, the most important thing about
real-world speaker cable is resistance, and to a far lesser degree in almost
every case, inductance.

"Ian" wrote in message


Or measure it.

Been there, done that.

Please see http://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/ , lower 2/3 of page.

Really, if you measure it someone might learn what is significant, and
what is not.

In general, we already know.

Because audio frequencies are relatively low and the amp-speaker interface
is by design not impedance-matched, the most important thing about
real-world speaker cable is resistance, and to a far lesser degree in almost
every case, inductance.

"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
om
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message



While true, this is irrelevant to the fact that lumped theory is
perfectly adequate for audio frequencies in domestic situations.


Yes, I agree that lumped constant models are perfectly adaquate for
audio frequencies, if one doesn't have the software necessary for
modeling a true transmission line.

BTW, have *you* ever tried modeling a *real* speaker cable using
lumped constants? I'm curious to see what you used as a lumped
constant model. Please show us a model of 100 ft of standard (Home
Depot), 12 gage cable (terminated by an ideal 8 Ohm load).

Please see http://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/, lower 2/3 of the page.

"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
om
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message



While true, this is irrelevant to the fact that lumped theory is
perfectly adequate for audio frequencies in domestic situations.


Yes, I agree that lumped constant models are perfectly adaquate for
audio frequencies, if one doesn't have the software necessary for
modeling a true transmission line.

BTW, have *you* ever tried modeling a *real* speaker cable using
lumped constants? I'm curious to see what you used as a lumped
constant model. Please show us a model of 100 ft of standard (Home
Depot), 12 gage cable (terminated by an ideal 8 Ohm load).

Please see http://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/, lower 2/3 of the page.

"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
om
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message



While true, this is irrelevant to the fact that lumped theory is
perfectly adequate for audio frequencies in domestic situations.


Yes, I agree that lumped constant models are perfectly adaquate for
audio frequencies, if one doesn't have the software necessary for
modeling a true transmission line.

BTW, have *you* ever tried modeling a *real* speaker cable using
lumped constants? I'm curious to see what you used as a lumped
constant model. Please show us a model of 100 ft of standard (Home
Depot), 12 gage cable (terminated by an ideal 8 Ohm load).

Please see http://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/, lower 2/3 of the page.

"dangling entity" wrote in message
m
Kevin McMurtrie wrote in message
...

It's all irrelevant for audio frequencies and normal lengths of wire.
Having the two conductors side by side is perfectly good. Just don't
split the wires and route them to the speaker along opposite walls.

Just curious, but what *would* happen if you did that?

Higher series inductance.

"dangling entity" wrote in message
m
Kevin McMurtrie wrote in message
...

It's all irrelevant for audio frequencies and normal lengths of wire.
Having the two conductors side by side is perfectly good. Just don't
split the wires and route them to the speaker along opposite walls.

Just curious, but what *would* happen if you did that?

Higher series inductance.

"dangling entity" wrote in message
m
Kevin McMurtrie wrote in message
...

It's all irrelevant for audio frequencies and normal lengths of wire.
Having the two conductors side by side is perfectly good. Just don't
split the wires and route them to the speaker along opposite walls.

Just curious, but what *would* happen if you did that?

Higher series inductance.

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message


History suggests that it's less limited than I think it is..........


You mean that you know more than you think you do?


If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.


Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.


He also stated that his equivalent circuits have some simplifing
assumptions, that lead to inaccuracys. For example, Re and Le are both
frequency dependent. These accuracy problems can be obviated by using
a better method:

First: measure the impedance at a (large) number of frequencies.

Second: Transform the measured impedance into S11. (There are programs
that will do that for you, or you can do it by hand).

Third: Write a two-port data device using S11 and dummy values for
S12, S21, and S22. The two-port data device will have an exact
impedance that was measured for the speaker.

Fourth: Use the two-port as the speaker load.

And you have done *none* of this.




Dick Pierce published a speaker (input impedance) model in this forum
on 1999/06/25. I took that model and calculated the input impedance
(from 10 Hz to 52 Hz.) The following is the input impedance, from
Dick's model. It agrees closely with what speaker books say is typical
for many loudspeakers. I believe Dick's model is accurate, so I'm
using his model to come up with the *dummy values* of impedance, to be
converted into Scattering Parameters. (S11), for the perpose of making
a One-port device.

Below are the input impedance values from Dick's model, and those
values converted into the (S11) Scattering Parameters (6 Ohm).

Freq in Hz Z(in) S11(dB) Deg
R +/- J

10.00 6.92 +j 6.97 -6.40 54.1
11.16 7.27 +j 8.14 -5.52 49.6
12.46 7.79 +j 9.64 -4.69 44.5
13.90 8.63 +j 11.62 -3.91 38.8
15.52 10.13 +j 14.34 -3.21 32.3
17.32 13.08 +j 18.21 -2.61 25.1
19.33 19.87 +j 23.56 -2.14 17.2
21.58 37.45 +j 26.47 -1.85 8.7
24.08 59.47 -j 0.29 -1.76 -0.1
26.88 36.84 -j 26.20 -1.88 -8.9
30.00 19.56 -j 23.00 -2.20 -17.5
33.48 12.91 -j 17.62 -2.71 -25.6
37.37 10.03 -j 13.73 -3.37 -33.1
41.71 8.57 -j 10.99 -4.17 -39.8
46.56 7.75 -j 8.99 -5.08 -45.8
51.96 7.25 -j 7.45 -6.07 -51.2


A One-Port devive was written using the S11 values above. The One-port
ascii file was put into an audio frequeny circuit analysis program and
the impedance of the "speaker" was run. I choose *differnent
frequenies* to show that a one-port device is not limited to the
frequencies in the ascii file. A circuit analysis program will
accurately interpolate values between the frequencies.
The follow is the impedance, of the one-port, as calculated by an
*audio* circuit analysis program.

Freq. One-port (speaker) impedance
(in Hz) R +/- J

10 6.92 +j 6.97
12 7.59 +j 9.08
14 8.70 +j 11.76
16 10.77 +j 15.22
18 14.82 +j 19.80
20 23.60 +j 25.05
22 42.10 +j 24.87
24 59.31 +j 0.92
26 45.30 -j 22.66
28 28.79 -j 25.82
30 19.56 -j 22.97
32 15.13 -j 19.64
34 12.43 -j 16.99
36 10.85 -j 14.93
38 9.76 -j 13.28
40 9.07 -j 11.97
42 8.51 -j 10.86
44 8.15 -j 9.98
46 7.83 -j 9.19
48 7.60 -j 8.54
50 7.41 -j 7.97


Note that the values are all close to the original values that were
convertred to S11. At the same frequencies, (10 Hz and 30 Hz) they are
exactly the same values.

This shows that the One-port can make an exellent load in a audio
circuit anslysis program. The impedance can vary as "wildly" as you
like, it makes no difference.



Hence they are of course not practical for use between audio
components, which have neither.

Wrong!

The brilliance of your argument stuns me....................

Well look above and see the pracrtical use in an audio circuit
analysis program. You were WRONG, weren't you?



You are of course simply ducking and diving here, in order to avoid
answering the question.

I didn't duck anything. I answered the question in previous posts, but
you didn't understand the answers. :-)

Sure I did, but you utterly failed to demonstrate that a transmission
line model has *any* value in an audio context.

Of course it has value. It demonstrates that a cable can carry the
signal from the amplifier, to the speaker, without any degradation.
(That is something many people won't accept.)


Regardless of which tool you use, you *must*
have a good model of the load impedance - which you don't have.


Look above and see a very good model of load impedance!



You do not however *have* any such models, so you are, as always, just
blowing smoke.



Anyone with a good circuit analysis program an repeat the results I
showed above.

If you don't understand something you assume the person is "blowing
smoke".



Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless.

Source impedance model? How about a voltage source, the easiest thing
in the world to model.

Load Impedance model. (See above demonstrantion.)

Transmission line model? Easy. Want me to show you how to model one?



And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous.

Your ignorance is ludicrous.




In short, you are talking out of your ass, since the *only*
thing which matters in a loudspeaker cable is its resistance, and to a
much lesser extent in particular and pretty extreme circumstances, its
inductance.

Sheesh, whatta maroon!

Maroons shouldn't point fingers at other maroons. :-)

The sure sign of stupidity is not realising how ignorant you
are..............


Who is the MAROON now, Pinkerton?

Bob Stanton

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message


History suggests that it's less limited than I think it is..........


You mean that you know more than you think you do?


If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.


Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.


He also stated that his equivalent circuits have some simplifing
assumptions, that lead to inaccuracys. For example, Re and Le are both
frequency dependent. These accuracy problems can be obviated by using
a better method:

First: measure the impedance at a (large) number of frequencies.

Second: Transform the measured impedance into S11. (There are programs
that will do that for you, or you can do it by hand).

Third: Write a two-port data device using S11 and dummy values for
S12, S21, and S22. The two-port data device will have an exact
impedance that was measured for the speaker.

Fourth: Use the two-port as the speaker load.

And you have done *none* of this.




Dick Pierce published a speaker (input impedance) model in this forum
on 1999/06/25. I took that model and calculated the input impedance
(from 10 Hz to 52 Hz.) The following is the input impedance, from
Dick's model. It agrees closely with what speaker books say is typical
for many loudspeakers. I believe Dick's model is accurate, so I'm
using his model to come up with the *dummy values* of impedance, to be
converted into Scattering Parameters. (S11), for the perpose of making
a One-port device.

Below are the input impedance values from Dick's model, and those
values converted into the (S11) Scattering Parameters (6 Ohm).

Freq in Hz Z(in) S11(dB) Deg
R +/- J

10.00 6.92 +j 6.97 -6.40 54.1
11.16 7.27 +j 8.14 -5.52 49.6
12.46 7.79 +j 9.64 -4.69 44.5
13.90 8.63 +j 11.62 -3.91 38.8
15.52 10.13 +j 14.34 -3.21 32.3
17.32 13.08 +j 18.21 -2.61 25.1
19.33 19.87 +j 23.56 -2.14 17.2
21.58 37.45 +j 26.47 -1.85 8.7
24.08 59.47 -j 0.29 -1.76 -0.1
26.88 36.84 -j 26.20 -1.88 -8.9
30.00 19.56 -j 23.00 -2.20 -17.5
33.48 12.91 -j 17.62 -2.71 -25.6
37.37 10.03 -j 13.73 -3.37 -33.1
41.71 8.57 -j 10.99 -4.17 -39.8
46.56 7.75 -j 8.99 -5.08 -45.8
51.96 7.25 -j 7.45 -6.07 -51.2


A One-Port devive was written using the S11 values above. The One-port
ascii file was put into an audio frequeny circuit analysis program and
the impedance of the "speaker" was run. I choose *differnent
frequenies* to show that a one-port device is not limited to the
frequencies in the ascii file. A circuit analysis program will
accurately interpolate values between the frequencies.
The follow is the impedance, of the one-port, as calculated by an
*audio* circuit analysis program.

Freq. One-port (speaker) impedance
(in Hz) R +/- J

10 6.92 +j 6.97
12 7.59 +j 9.08
14 8.70 +j 11.76
16 10.77 +j 15.22
18 14.82 +j 19.80
20 23.60 +j 25.05
22 42.10 +j 24.87
24 59.31 +j 0.92
26 45.30 -j 22.66
28 28.79 -j 25.82
30 19.56 -j 22.97
32 15.13 -j 19.64
34 12.43 -j 16.99
36 10.85 -j 14.93
38 9.76 -j 13.28
40 9.07 -j 11.97
42 8.51 -j 10.86
44 8.15 -j 9.98
46 7.83 -j 9.19
48 7.60 -j 8.54
50 7.41 -j 7.97


Note that the values are all close to the original values that were
convertred to S11. At the same frequencies, (10 Hz and 30 Hz) they are
exactly the same values.

This shows that the One-port can make an exellent load in a audio
circuit anslysis program. The impedance can vary as "wildly" as you
like, it makes no difference.



Hence they are of course not practical for use between audio
components, which have neither.

Wrong!

The brilliance of your argument stuns me....................

Well look above and see the pracrtical use in an audio circuit
analysis program. You were WRONG, weren't you?



You are of course simply ducking and diving here, in order to avoid
answering the question.

I didn't duck anything. I answered the question in previous posts, but
you didn't understand the answers. :-)

Sure I did, but you utterly failed to demonstrate that a transmission
line model has *any* value in an audio context.

Of course it has value. It demonstrates that a cable can carry the
signal from the amplifier, to the speaker, without any degradation.
(That is something many people won't accept.)


Regardless of which tool you use, you *must*
have a good model of the load impedance - which you don't have.


Look above and see a very good model of load impedance!



You do not however *have* any such models, so you are, as always, just
blowing smoke.



Anyone with a good circuit analysis program an repeat the results I
showed above.

If you don't understand something you assume the person is "blowing
smoke".



Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless.

Source impedance model? How about a voltage source, the easiest thing
in the world to model.

Load Impedance model. (See above demonstrantion.)

Transmission line model? Easy. Want me to show you how to model one?



And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous.

Your ignorance is ludicrous.




In short, you are talking out of your ass, since the *only*
thing which matters in a loudspeaker cable is its resistance, and to a
much lesser extent in particular and pretty extreme circumstances, its
inductance.

Sheesh, whatta maroon!

Maroons shouldn't point fingers at other maroons. :-)

The sure sign of stupidity is not realising how ignorant you
are..............


Who is the MAROON now, Pinkerton?

Bob Stanton

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message


History suggests that it's less limited than I think it is..........


You mean that you know more than you think you do?


If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.


Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.


He also stated that his equivalent circuits have some simplifing
assumptions, that lead to inaccuracys. For example, Re and Le are both
frequency dependent. These accuracy problems can be obviated by using
a better method:

First: measure the impedance at a (large) number of frequencies.

Second: Transform the measured impedance into S11. (There are programs
that will do that for you, or you can do it by hand).

Third: Write a two-port data device using S11 and dummy values for
S12, S21, and S22. The two-port data device will have an exact
impedance that was measured for the speaker.

Fourth: Use the two-port as the speaker load.

And you have done *none* of this.




Dick Pierce published a speaker (input impedance) model in this forum
on 1999/06/25. I took that model and calculated the input impedance
(from 10 Hz to 52 Hz.) The following is the input impedance, from
Dick's model. It agrees closely with what speaker books say is typical
for many loudspeakers. I believe Dick's model is accurate, so I'm
using his model to come up with the *dummy values* of impedance, to be
converted into Scattering Parameters. (S11), for the perpose of making
a One-port device.

Below are the input impedance values from Dick's model, and those
values converted into the (S11) Scattering Parameters (6 Ohm).

Freq in Hz Z(in) S11(dB) Deg
R +/- J

10.00 6.92 +j 6.97 -6.40 54.1
11.16 7.27 +j 8.14 -5.52 49.6
12.46 7.79 +j 9.64 -4.69 44.5
13.90 8.63 +j 11.62 -3.91 38.8
15.52 10.13 +j 14.34 -3.21 32.3
17.32 13.08 +j 18.21 -2.61 25.1
19.33 19.87 +j 23.56 -2.14 17.2
21.58 37.45 +j 26.47 -1.85 8.7
24.08 59.47 -j 0.29 -1.76 -0.1
26.88 36.84 -j 26.20 -1.88 -8.9
30.00 19.56 -j 23.00 -2.20 -17.5
33.48 12.91 -j 17.62 -2.71 -25.6
37.37 10.03 -j 13.73 -3.37 -33.1
41.71 8.57 -j 10.99 -4.17 -39.8
46.56 7.75 -j 8.99 -5.08 -45.8
51.96 7.25 -j 7.45 -6.07 -51.2


A One-Port devive was written using the S11 values above. The One-port
ascii file was put into an audio frequeny circuit analysis program and
the impedance of the "speaker" was run. I choose *differnent
frequenies* to show that a one-port device is not limited to the
frequencies in the ascii file. A circuit analysis program will
accurately interpolate values between the frequencies.
The follow is the impedance, of the one-port, as calculated by an
*audio* circuit analysis program.

Freq. One-port (speaker) impedance
(in Hz) R +/- J

10 6.92 +j 6.97
12 7.59 +j 9.08
14 8.70 +j 11.76
16 10.77 +j 15.22
18 14.82 +j 19.80
20 23.60 +j 25.05
22 42.10 +j 24.87
24 59.31 +j 0.92
26 45.30 -j 22.66
28 28.79 -j 25.82
30 19.56 -j 22.97
32 15.13 -j 19.64
34 12.43 -j 16.99
36 10.85 -j 14.93
38 9.76 -j 13.28
40 9.07 -j 11.97
42 8.51 -j 10.86
44 8.15 -j 9.98
46 7.83 -j 9.19
48 7.60 -j 8.54
50 7.41 -j 7.97


Note that the values are all close to the original values that were
convertred to S11. At the same frequencies, (10 Hz and 30 Hz) they are
exactly the same values.

This shows that the One-port can make an exellent load in a audio
circuit anslysis program. The impedance can vary as "wildly" as you
like, it makes no difference.



Hence they are of course not practical for use between audio
components, which have neither.

Wrong!

The brilliance of your argument stuns me....................

Well look above and see the pracrtical use in an audio circuit
analysis program. You were WRONG, weren't you?



You are of course simply ducking and diving here, in order to avoid
answering the question.

I didn't duck anything. I answered the question in previous posts, but
you didn't understand the answers. :-)

Sure I did, but you utterly failed to demonstrate that a transmission
line model has *any* value in an audio context.

Of course it has value. It demonstrates that a cable can carry the
signal from the amplifier, to the speaker, without any degradation.
(That is something many people won't accept.)


Regardless of which tool you use, you *must*
have a good model of the load impedance - which you don't have.


Look above and see a very good model of load impedance!



You do not however *have* any such models, so you are, as always, just
blowing smoke.



Anyone with a good circuit analysis program an repeat the results I
showed above.

If you don't understand something you assume the person is "blowing
smoke".



Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless.

Source impedance model? How about a voltage source, the easiest thing
in the world to model.

Load Impedance model. (See above demonstrantion.)

Transmission line model? Easy. Want me to show you how to model one?



And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous.

Your ignorance is ludicrous.




In short, you are talking out of your ass, since the *only*
thing which matters in a loudspeaker cable is its resistance, and to a
much lesser extent in particular and pretty extreme circumstances, its
inductance.

Sheesh, whatta maroon!

Maroons shouldn't point fingers at other maroons. :-)

The sure sign of stupidity is not realising how ignorant you
are..............


Who is the MAROON now, Pinkerton?

Bob Stanton

On 6 Jan 2004 08:12:02 -0800, (Bob-Stanton)
wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message


History suggests that it's less limited than I think it is..........

You mean that you know more than you think you do?

Frequently works out that way!

If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.

Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.

He castigated you for using far too few models, as you well know. As
ever, you're trying to weasel out of your ignorance.

Dick Pierce published a speaker (input impedance) model in this forum
on 1999/06/25. I took that model and calculated the input impedance
(from 10 Hz to 52 Hz.) The following is the input impedance, from
Dick's model. It agrees closely with what speaker books say is typical
for many loudspeakers. I believe Dick's model is accurate, so I'm
using his model to come up with the *dummy values* of impedance, to be
converted into Scattering Parameters. (S11), for the perpose of making
a One-port device.

Pathetic. As Dick already pointed out, that's of no use whatever in a
practical situyation, where you need the model of the actual speaker
*you* are going to use, not Dick's. He already told you this, so
you're just squirming on the hook.

snip lots of irrelevant numbers

Well look above and see the pracrtical use in an audio circuit
analysis program. You were WRONG, weren't you?

No, since this applies to one single speaker, it has *no* general
applicability. Just how stupid/bullheaded *are* you?

You are of course simply ducking and diving here, in order to avoid
answering the question.

I didn't duck anything. I answered the question in previous posts, but
you didn't understand the answers. :-)

Sure I did, but you utterly failed to demonstrate that a transmission
line model has *any* value in an audio context.

Of course it has value. It demonstrates that a cable can carry the
signal from the amplifier, to the speaker, without any degradation.
(That is something many people won't accept.)

We knew that before, and it has *nothing* to do with your idiotic
transmission-line modelling, which is utterly inappropriate in this
situation.

Regardless of which tool you use, you *must*
have a good model of the load impedance - which you don't have.

Look above and see a very good model of load impedance!

Not for *your* speakers, it's not!

You do not however *have* any such models, so you are, as always, just
blowing smoke.


Anyone with a good circuit analysis program an repeat the results I
showed above.

If you don't understand something you assume the person is "blowing
smoke".

I understand that you are pushing a lost situation, since you are
trying to apply a single model to all speakers. This is *terminally*
stupid.

Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless.

Source impedance model? How about a voltage source, the easiest thing
in the world to model.

Load Impedance model. (See above demonstrantion.)

Transmission line model? Easy. Want me to show you how to model one?

Stanton, you're pathetic. Are you stupid, or just desperate to win at
any cost?

And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous.

Your ignorance is ludicrous.

Please explain what is 'ludicrous' about my statement above. You are
just plain *wrong*, so admit it and move on.

In short, you are talking out of your ass, since the *only*
thing which matters in a loudspeaker cable is its resistance, and to a
much lesser extent in particular and pretty extreme circumstances, its
inductance.

Sheesh, whatta maroon!

Maroons shouldn't point fingers at other maroons. :-)

The sure sign of stupidity is not realising how ignorant you
are..............

Who is the MAROON now, Pinkerton?

You are, as has been amply demonstrated.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 6 Jan 2004 08:12:02 -0800, (Bob-Stanton)
wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message


History suggests that it's less limited than I think it is..........

You mean that you know more than you think you do?

Frequently works out that way!

If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.

Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.

He castigated you for using far too few models, as you well know. As
ever, you're trying to weasel out of your ignorance.

Dick Pierce published a speaker (input impedance) model in this forum
on 1999/06/25. I took that model and calculated the input impedance
(from 10 Hz to 52 Hz.) The following is the input impedance, from
Dick's model. It agrees closely with what speaker books say is typical
for many loudspeakers. I believe Dick's model is accurate, so I'm
using his model to come up with the *dummy values* of impedance, to be
converted into Scattering Parameters. (S11), for the perpose of making
a One-port device.

Pathetic. As Dick already pointed out, that's of no use whatever in a
practical situyation, where you need the model of the actual speaker
*you* are going to use, not Dick's. He already told you this, so
you're just squirming on the hook.

snip lots of irrelevant numbers

Well look above and see the pracrtical use in an audio circuit
analysis program. You were WRONG, weren't you?

No, since this applies to one single speaker, it has *no* general
applicability. Just how stupid/bullheaded *are* you?

You are of course simply ducking and diving here, in order to avoid
answering the question.

I didn't duck anything. I answered the question in previous posts, but
you didn't understand the answers. :-)

Sure I did, but you utterly failed to demonstrate that a transmission
line model has *any* value in an audio context.

Of course it has value. It demonstrates that a cable can carry the
signal from the amplifier, to the speaker, without any degradation.
(That is something many people won't accept.)

We knew that before, and it has *nothing* to do with your idiotic
transmission-line modelling, which is utterly inappropriate in this
situation.

Regardless of which tool you use, you *must*
have a good model of the load impedance - which you don't have.

Look above and see a very good model of load impedance!

Not for *your* speakers, it's not!

You do not however *have* any such models, so you are, as always, just
blowing smoke.


Anyone with a good circuit analysis program an repeat the results I
showed above.

If you don't understand something you assume the person is "blowing
smoke".

I understand that you are pushing a lost situation, since you are
trying to apply a single model to all speakers. This is *terminally*
stupid.

Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless.

Source impedance model? How about a voltage source, the easiest thing
in the world to model.

Load Impedance model. (See above demonstrantion.)

Transmission line model? Easy. Want me to show you how to model one?

Stanton, you're pathetic. Are you stupid, or just desperate to win at
any cost?

And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous.

Your ignorance is ludicrous.

Please explain what is 'ludicrous' about my statement above. You are
just plain *wrong*, so admit it and move on.

In short, you are talking out of your ass, since the *only*
thing which matters in a loudspeaker cable is its resistance, and to a
much lesser extent in particular and pretty extreme circumstances, its
inductance.

Sheesh, whatta maroon!

Maroons shouldn't point fingers at other maroons. :-)

The sure sign of stupidity is not realising how ignorant you
are..............

Who is the MAROON now, Pinkerton?

You are, as has been amply demonstrated.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 6 Jan 2004 08:12:02 -0800, (Bob-Stanton)
wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message


History suggests that it's less limited than I think it is..........

You mean that you know more than you think you do?

Frequently works out that way!

If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.

Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.

He castigated you for using far too few models, as you well know. As
ever, you're trying to weasel out of your ignorance.

Dick Pierce published a speaker (input impedance) model in this forum
on 1999/06/25. I took that model and calculated the input impedance
(from 10 Hz to 52 Hz.) The following is the input impedance, from
Dick's model. It agrees closely with what speaker books say is typical
for many loudspeakers. I believe Dick's model is accurate, so I'm
using his model to come up with the *dummy values* of impedance, to be
converted into Scattering Parameters. (S11), for the perpose of making
a One-port device.

Pathetic. As Dick already pointed out, that's of no use whatever in a
practical situyation, where you need the model of the actual speaker
*you* are going to use, not Dick's. He already told you this, so
you're just squirming on the hook.

snip lots of irrelevant numbers

Well look above and see the pracrtical use in an audio circuit
analysis program. You were WRONG, weren't you?

No, since this applies to one single speaker, it has *no* general
applicability. Just how stupid/bullheaded *are* you?

You are of course simply ducking and diving here, in order to avoid
answering the question.

I didn't duck anything. I answered the question in previous posts, but
you didn't understand the answers. :-)

Sure I did, but you utterly failed to demonstrate that a transmission
line model has *any* value in an audio context.

Of course it has value. It demonstrates that a cable can carry the
signal from the amplifier, to the speaker, without any degradation.
(That is something many people won't accept.)

We knew that before, and it has *nothing* to do with your idiotic
transmission-line modelling, which is utterly inappropriate in this
situation.

Regardless of which tool you use, you *must*
have a good model of the load impedance - which you don't have.

Look above and see a very good model of load impedance!

Not for *your* speakers, it's not!

You do not however *have* any such models, so you are, as always, just
blowing smoke.


Anyone with a good circuit analysis program an repeat the results I
showed above.

If you don't understand something you assume the person is "blowing
smoke".

I understand that you are pushing a lost situation, since you are
trying to apply a single model to all speakers. This is *terminally*
stupid.

Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless.

Source impedance model? How about a voltage source, the easiest thing
in the world to model.

Load Impedance model. (See above demonstrantion.)

Transmission line model? Easy. Want me to show you how to model one?

Stanton, you're pathetic. Are you stupid, or just desperate to win at
any cost?

And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous.

Your ignorance is ludicrous.

Please explain what is 'ludicrous' about my statement above. You are
just plain *wrong*, so admit it and move on.

In short, you are talking out of your ass, since the *only*
thing which matters in a loudspeaker cable is its resistance, and to a
much lesser extent in particular and pretty extreme circumstances, its
inductance.

Sheesh, whatta maroon!

Maroons shouldn't point fingers at other maroons. :-)

The sure sign of stupidity is not realising how ignorant you
are..............

Who is the MAROON now, Pinkerton?

You are, as has been amply demonstrated.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

For the record, Bob Stanton has engaged in out-and-out
dishonesty and misinformation, examples of which are
pointed out below.

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.

Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.

He castigated you for using far too few models, as you well know. As
ever, you're trying to weasel out of your ignorance.

That's correct: I criticized Mr. Stanton because he used NO
realistic models of load impedance AT ALL.

Further, Mr. Stanton is either too dishonest or too stupid to
acknowledge the fact that the models I posted that he's talking
about are electrical models for single DRIVERS, NOT for speakers.

Dick Pierce published a speaker (input impedance) model in this forum
on 1999/06/25. I took that model and calculated the input impedance
(from 10 Hz to 52 Hz.) The following is the input impedance, from
Dick's model. It agrees closely with what speaker books say is typical
for many loudspeakers. I believe Dick's model is accurate, so I'm
using his model to come up with the *dummy values* of impedance, to be
converted into Scattering Parameters. (S11), for the perpose of making
a One-port device.

Well, you lose again, because it is a DRIVER model.

More to the point is merely a model for ONE particular driver,
and is hardly a universal model, which is the entire point that
your are ineptly avoiding with your dishonesty.

Well look above and see the pracrtical use in an audio circuit
analysis program. You were WRONG, weren't you?

No, since this applies to one single speaker, it has *no* general
applicability. Just how stupid/bullheaded *are* you?

Mr. Stanton, bnased on several moths of you abject dishonesty,
your misrepresentation, your deflection, I am going to state
that it is now apparent that you have done absolutely NO analysis
of ANY kind with ANY model, transmissions line or otherwise, that
bears any relation whatsoever to the topic at hand.

Look above and see a very good model of load impedance!

Not for *your* speakers, it's not!

Wrong, you're either too styupid or too pigheaded to admit that it
is nothing more than a model for a single isolated driver.

Anyone with a good circuit analysis program an repeat the results I
showed above.

You have never once posted ANY results whatsoever, thus the conclusions
that such results don't exist.

If you don't understand something you assume the person is "blowing
smoke".

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER once posted ANY results.

Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless.

Source impedance model? How about a voltage source, the easiest thing
in the world to model.

Mr. Stanton, you have already admitted that NONE of your analysis bears
ANY relation to ANY real-world data, and this is further admission of
gross incompetency.

And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous.

Your ignorance is ludicrous.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER posted ANY results. Thus, your claims
are nonsense, and your defense is simply a pack of dishonesty and
misrepresentation.

For the record, Bob Stanton has engaged in out-and-out
dishonesty and misinformation, examples of which are
pointed out below.

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.

Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.

He castigated you for using far too few models, as you well know. As
ever, you're trying to weasel out of your ignorance.

That's correct: I criticized Mr. Stanton because he used NO
realistic models of load impedance AT ALL.

Further, Mr. Stanton is either too dishonest or too stupid to
acknowledge the fact that the models I posted that he's talking
about are electrical models for single DRIVERS, NOT for speakers.

Dick Pierce published a speaker (input impedance) model in this forum
on 1999/06/25. I took that model and calculated the input impedance
(from 10 Hz to 52 Hz.) The following is the input impedance, from
Dick's model. It agrees closely with what speaker books say is typical
for many loudspeakers. I believe Dick's model is accurate, so I'm
using his model to come up with the *dummy values* of impedance, to be
converted into Scattering Parameters. (S11), for the perpose of making
a One-port device.

Well, you lose again, because it is a DRIVER model.

More to the point is merely a model for ONE particular driver,
and is hardly a universal model, which is the entire point that
your are ineptly avoiding with your dishonesty.

Well look above and see the pracrtical use in an audio circuit
analysis program. You were WRONG, weren't you?

No, since this applies to one single speaker, it has *no* general
applicability. Just how stupid/bullheaded *are* you?

Mr. Stanton, bnased on several moths of you abject dishonesty,
your misrepresentation, your deflection, I am going to state
that it is now apparent that you have done absolutely NO analysis
of ANY kind with ANY model, transmissions line or otherwise, that
bears any relation whatsoever to the topic at hand.

Look above and see a very good model of load impedance!

Not for *your* speakers, it's not!

Wrong, you're either too styupid or too pigheaded to admit that it
is nothing more than a model for a single isolated driver.

Anyone with a good circuit analysis program an repeat the results I
showed above.

You have never once posted ANY results whatsoever, thus the conclusions
that such results don't exist.

If you don't understand something you assume the person is "blowing
smoke".

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER once posted ANY results.

Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless.

Source impedance model? How about a voltage source, the easiest thing
in the world to model.

Mr. Stanton, you have already admitted that NONE of your analysis bears
ANY relation to ANY real-world data, and this is further admission of
gross incompetency.

And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous.

Your ignorance is ludicrous.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER posted ANY results. Thus, your claims
are nonsense, and your defense is simply a pack of dishonesty and
misrepresentation.

For the record, Bob Stanton has engaged in out-and-out
dishonesty and misinformation, examples of which are
pointed out below.

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.

Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.

He castigated you for using far too few models, as you well know. As
ever, you're trying to weasel out of your ignorance.

That's correct: I criticized Mr. Stanton because he used NO
realistic models of load impedance AT ALL.

Further, Mr. Stanton is either too dishonest or too stupid to
acknowledge the fact that the models I posted that he's talking
about are electrical models for single DRIVERS, NOT for speakers.

Dick Pierce published a speaker (input impedance) model in this forum
on 1999/06/25. I took that model and calculated the input impedance
(from 10 Hz to 52 Hz.) The following is the input impedance, from
Dick's model. It agrees closely with what speaker books say is typical
for many loudspeakers. I believe Dick's model is accurate, so I'm
using his model to come up with the *dummy values* of impedance, to be
converted into Scattering Parameters. (S11), for the perpose of making
a One-port device.

Well, you lose again, because it is a DRIVER model.

More to the point is merely a model for ONE particular driver,
and is hardly a universal model, which is the entire point that
your are ineptly avoiding with your dishonesty.

Well look above and see the pracrtical use in an audio circuit
analysis program. You were WRONG, weren't you?

No, since this applies to one single speaker, it has *no* general
applicability. Just how stupid/bullheaded *are* you?

Mr. Stanton, bnased on several moths of you abject dishonesty,
your misrepresentation, your deflection, I am going to state
that it is now apparent that you have done absolutely NO analysis
of ANY kind with ANY model, transmissions line or otherwise, that
bears any relation whatsoever to the topic at hand.

Look above and see a very good model of load impedance!

Not for *your* speakers, it's not!

Wrong, you're either too styupid or too pigheaded to admit that it
is nothing more than a model for a single isolated driver.

Anyone with a good circuit analysis program an repeat the results I
showed above.

You have never once posted ANY results whatsoever, thus the conclusions
that such results don't exist.

If you don't understand something you assume the person is "blowing
smoke".

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER once posted ANY results.

Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless.

Source impedance model? How about a voltage source, the easiest thing
in the world to model.

Mr. Stanton, you have already admitted that NONE of your analysis bears
ANY relation to ANY real-world data, and this is further admission of
gross incompetency.

And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous.

Your ignorance is ludicrous.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER posted ANY results. Thus, your claims
are nonsense, and your defense is simply a pack of dishonesty and
misrepresentation.

For the record, Bob Stanton has engaged in out-and-out
dishonesty and misinformation, examples of which are
pointed out below.

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.

Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.

He castigated you for using far too few models, as you well know. As
ever, you're trying to weasel out of your ignorance.

That's correct: I criticized Mr. Stanton because he used NO
realistic models of load impedance AT ALL.

Further, Mr. Stanton is either too dishonest or too stupid to
acknowledge the fact that the models I posted that he's talking
about are electrical models for single DRIVERS, NOT for speakers.

Dick Pierce published a speaker (input impedance) model in this forum
on 1999/06/25. I took that model and calculated the input impedance
(from 10 Hz to 52 Hz.) The following is the input impedance, from
Dick's model. It agrees closely with what speaker books say is typical
for many loudspeakers. I believe Dick's model is accurate, so I'm
using his model to come up with the *dummy values* of impedance, to be
converted into Scattering Parameters. (S11), for the perpose of making
a One-port device.

Well, you lose again, because it is a DRIVER model.

More to the point is merely a model for ONE particular driver,
and is hardly a universal model, which is the entire point that
your are ineptly avoiding with your dishonesty.

Well look above and see the pracrtical use in an audio circuit
analysis program. You were WRONG, weren't you?

No, since this applies to one single speaker, it has *no* general
applicability. Just how stupid/bullheaded *are* you?

Mr. Stanton, bnased on several moths of you abject dishonesty,
your misrepresentation, your deflection, I am going to state
that it is now apparent that you have done absolutely NO analysis
of ANY kind with ANY model, transmissions line or otherwise, that
bears any relation whatsoever to the topic at hand.

Look above and see a very good model of load impedance!

Not for *your* speakers, it's not!

Wrong, you're either too styupid or too pigheaded to admit that it
is nothing more than a model for a single isolated driver.

Anyone with a good circuit analysis program an repeat the results I
showed above.

You have never once posted ANY results whatsoever, thus the conclusions
that such results don't exist.

If you don't understand something you assume the person is "blowing
smoke".

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER once posted ANY results.

Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless.

Source impedance model? How about a voltage source, the easiest thing
in the world to model.

Mr. Stanton, you have already admitted that NONE of your analysis bears
ANY relation to ANY real-world data, and this is further admission of
gross incompetency.

And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous.

Your ignorance is ludicrous.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER posted ANY results. Thus, your claims
are nonsense, and your defense is simply a pack of dishonesty and
misrepresentation.

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message


Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.

He castigated you for using far too few models, as you well know. As
ever, you're trying to weasel out of your ignorance.


You and Dick contine to *not understand* what I said. How can you be
so dense? I never said use one computer model of all speakers. I
proposed a model that can be used for any speaker impedance. Model a
million different speakers if you want to. Sheesh.

Dick Pierce published a speaker (input impedance) model in this forum
on 1999/06/25. I took that model and calculated the input impedance
(from 10 Hz to 52 Hz.) The following is the input impedance, from
Dick's model. It agrees closely with what speaker books say is typical
for many loudspeakers. I believe Dick's model is accurate, so I'm
using his model to come up with the *dummy values* of impedance, to be
converted into Scattering Parameters. (S11), for the perpose of making
a One-port device.

Pathetic. As Dick already pointed out, that's of no use whatever in a
practical situyation, where you need the model of the actual speaker
*you* are going to use, not Dick's. He already told you this, so
you're just squirming on the hook.


One can make an *actual model* of any speaker impedance. (Keep reading
the previous sentence over and over, until it sinks into your head.)


snip lots of irrelevant numbers

Well look above and see the pracrtical use in an audio circuit
analysis program. You were WRONG, weren't you?

No, since this applies to one single speaker, it has *no* general
applicability. Just how stupid/bullheaded *are* you?


You keep saying "single speaker" like some kind of mindless drone.



You are of course simply ducking and diving here, in order to avoid
answering the question.

I didn't duck anything. I answered the question in previous posts, but
you didn't understand the answers. :-)

Sure I did, but you utterly failed to demonstrate that a transmission
line model has *any* value in an audio context.

Of course it has value. It demonstrates that a cable can carry the
signal from the amplifier, to the speaker, without any degradation.
(That is something many people won't accept.)

We knew that before, and it has *nothing* to do with your idiotic
transmission-line modelling, which is utterly inappropriate in this
situation.


You push using the component model, but you seem incapable of
presenting us with one.


Regardless of which tool you use, you *must*
have a good model of the load impedance - which you don't have.

Look above and see a very good model of load impedance!

Not for *your* speakers, it's not!


I showed you how to make a good model any speaker impedance, *not*
just "my speaker".


You do not however *have* any such models, so you are, as always, just
blowing smoke.


Anyone with a good circuit analysis program an repeat the results I
showed above.

If you don't understand something you assume the person is "blowing
smoke".

I understand that you are pushing a lost situation, since you are
trying to apply a single model to all speakers.


You don't understand that the MODELING TECHNIQUE I presented, can
apply to *any speakers*. I feel like I'm talking to a wall.


Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless.

Source impedance model? How about a voltage source, the easiest thing
in the world to model.

Load Impedance model. (See above demonstrantion.)

Transmission line model? Easy. Want me to show you how to model one?

Stanton, you're pathetic. Are you stupid, or just desperate to win at
any cost?

When your technical arguements fail, you pull out insults. I notice
that your posts contain less and less technical discussion, and more
and more insults.


And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous.

Please explain what is 'ludicrous' about my statement above. You are
just plain *wrong*, so admit it and move on.


The modeling technique I demonstrated, can model any "wildly varying"
impedance of *any* speakers. To say that they can't, makes your
statement seem ludicrous.

It is clear to me that you don't understand technically what I
presented. If you did understand, you would either agree, or come up
with a technical reason why you disagree. But all you can do is huff,
and puff, and bluster, and throw insults, and repeat the same stupid
words over and over again.

Bob Stanton

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message


Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.

He castigated you for using far too few models, as you well know. As
ever, you're trying to weasel out of your ignorance.


You and Dick contine to *not understand* what I said. How can you be
so dense? I never said use one computer model of all speakers. I
proposed a model that can be used for any speaker impedance. Model a
million different speakers if you want to. Sheesh.

Dick Pierce published a speaker (input impedance) model in this forum
on 1999/06/25. I took that model and calculated the input impedance
(from 10 Hz to 52 Hz.) The following is the input impedance, from
Dick's model. It agrees closely with what speaker books say is typical
for many loudspeakers. I believe Dick's model is accurate, so I'm
using his model to come up with the *dummy values* of impedance, to be
converted into Scattering Parameters. (S11), for the perpose of making
a One-port device.

Pathetic. As Dick already pointed out, that's of no use whatever in a
practical situyation, where you need the model of the actual speaker
*you* are going to use, not Dick's. He already told you this, so
you're just squirming on the hook.


One can make an *actual model* of any speaker impedance. (Keep reading
the previous sentence over and over, until it sinks into your head.)


snip lots of irrelevant numbers

Well look above and see the pracrtical use in an audio circuit
analysis program. You were WRONG, weren't you?

No, since this applies to one single speaker, it has *no* general
applicability. Just how stupid/bullheaded *are* you?


You keep saying "single speaker" like some kind of mindless drone.



You are of course simply ducking and diving here, in order to avoid
answering the question.

I didn't duck anything. I answered the question in previous posts, but
you didn't understand the answers. :-)

Sure I did, but you utterly failed to demonstrate that a transmission
line model has *any* value in an audio context.

Of course it has value. It demonstrates that a cable can carry the
signal from the amplifier, to the speaker, without any degradation.
(That is something many people won't accept.)

We knew that before, and it has *nothing* to do with your idiotic
transmission-line modelling, which is utterly inappropriate in this
situation.


You push using the component model, but you seem incapable of
presenting us with one.


Regardless of which tool you use, you *must*
have a good model of the load impedance - which you don't have.

Look above and see a very good model of load impedance!

Not for *your* speakers, it's not!


I showed you how to make a good model any speaker impedance, *not*
just "my speaker".


You do not however *have* any such models, so you are, as always, just
blowing smoke.


Anyone with a good circuit analysis program an repeat the results I
showed above.

If you don't understand something you assume the person is "blowing
smoke".

I understand that you are pushing a lost situation, since you are
trying to apply a single model to all speakers.


You don't understand that the MODELING TECHNIQUE I presented, can
apply to *any speakers*. I feel like I'm talking to a wall.


Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless.

Source impedance model? How about a voltage source, the easiest thing
in the world to model.

Load Impedance model. (See above demonstrantion.)

Transmission line model? Easy. Want me to show you how to model one?

Stanton, you're pathetic. Are you stupid, or just desperate to win at
any cost?

When your technical arguements fail, you pull out insults. I notice
that your posts contain less and less technical discussion, and more
and more insults.


And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous.

Please explain what is 'ludicrous' about my statement above. You are
just plain *wrong*, so admit it and move on.


The modeling technique I demonstrated, can model any "wildly varying"
impedance of *any* speakers. To say that they can't, makes your
statement seem ludicrous.

It is clear to me that you don't understand technically what I
presented. If you did understand, you would either agree, or come up
with a technical reason why you disagree. But all you can do is huff,
and puff, and bluster, and throw insults, and repeat the same stupid
words over and over again.

Bob Stanton

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message


Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.

He castigated you for using far too few models, as you well know. As
ever, you're trying to weasel out of your ignorance.


You and Dick contine to *not understand* what I said. How can you be
so dense? I never said use one computer model of all speakers. I
proposed a model that can be used for any speaker impedance. Model a
million different speakers if you want to. Sheesh.

Dick Pierce published a speaker (input impedance) model in this forum
on 1999/06/25. I took that model and calculated the input impedance
(from 10 Hz to 52 Hz.) The following is the input impedance, from
Dick's model. It agrees closely with what speaker books say is typical
for many loudspeakers. I believe Dick's model is accurate, so I'm
using his model to come up with the *dummy values* of impedance, to be
converted into Scattering Parameters. (S11), for the perpose of making
a One-port device.

Pathetic. As Dick already pointed out, that's of no use whatever in a
practical situyation, where you need the model of the actual speaker
*you* are going to use, not Dick's. He already told you this, so
you're just squirming on the hook.


One can make an *actual model* of any speaker impedance. (Keep reading
the previous sentence over and over, until it sinks into your head.)


snip lots of irrelevant numbers

Well look above and see the pracrtical use in an audio circuit
analysis program. You were WRONG, weren't you?

No, since this applies to one single speaker, it has *no* general
applicability. Just how stupid/bullheaded *are* you?


You keep saying "single speaker" like some kind of mindless drone.



You are of course simply ducking and diving here, in order to avoid
answering the question.

I didn't duck anything. I answered the question in previous posts, but
you didn't understand the answers. :-)

Sure I did, but you utterly failed to demonstrate that a transmission
line model has *any* value in an audio context.

Of course it has value. It demonstrates that a cable can carry the
signal from the amplifier, to the speaker, without any degradation.
(That is something many people won't accept.)

We knew that before, and it has *nothing* to do with your idiotic
transmission-line modelling, which is utterly inappropriate in this
situation.


You push using the component model, but you seem incapable of
presenting us with one.


Regardless of which tool you use, you *must*
have a good model of the load impedance - which you don't have.

Look above and see a very good model of load impedance!

Not for *your* speakers, it's not!


I showed you how to make a good model any speaker impedance, *not*
just "my speaker".


You do not however *have* any such models, so you are, as always, just
blowing smoke.


Anyone with a good circuit analysis program an repeat the results I
showed above.

If you don't understand something you assume the person is "blowing
smoke".

I understand that you are pushing a lost situation, since you are
trying to apply a single model to all speakers.


You don't understand that the MODELING TECHNIQUE I presented, can
apply to *any speakers*. I feel like I'm talking to a wall.


Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless.

Source impedance model? How about a voltage source, the easiest thing
in the world to model.

Load Impedance model. (See above demonstrantion.)

Transmission line model? Easy. Want me to show you how to model one?

Stanton, you're pathetic. Are you stupid, or just desperate to win at
any cost?

When your technical arguements fail, you pull out insults. I notice
that your posts contain less and less technical discussion, and more
and more insults.


And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous.

Please explain what is 'ludicrous' about my statement above. You are
just plain *wrong*, so admit it and move on.


The modeling technique I demonstrated, can model any "wildly varying"
impedance of *any* speakers. To say that they can't, makes your
statement seem ludicrous.

It is clear to me that you don't understand technically what I
presented. If you did understand, you would either agree, or come up
with a technical reason why you disagree. But all you can do is huff,
and puff, and bluster, and throw insults, and repeat the same stupid
words over and over again.

Bob Stanton

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message


Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.

He castigated you for using far too few models, as you well know. As
ever, you're trying to weasel out of your ignorance.


You and Dick contine to *not understand* what I said. How can you be
so dense? I never said use one computer model of all speakers. I
proposed a model that can be used for any speaker impedance. Model a
million different speakers if you want to. Sheesh.

Dick Pierce published a speaker (input impedance) model in this forum
on 1999/06/25. I took that model and calculated the input impedance
(from 10 Hz to 52 Hz.) The following is the input impedance, from
Dick's model. It agrees closely with what speaker books say is typical
for many loudspeakers. I believe Dick's model is accurate, so I'm
using his model to come up with the *dummy values* of impedance, to be
converted into Scattering Parameters. (S11), for the perpose of making
a One-port device.

Pathetic. As Dick already pointed out, that's of no use whatever in a
practical situyation, where you need the model of the actual speaker
*you* are going to use, not Dick's. He already told you this, so
you're just squirming on the hook.


One can make an *actual model* of any speaker impedance. (Keep reading
the previous sentence over and over, until it sinks into your head.)


snip lots of irrelevant numbers

Well look above and see the pracrtical use in an audio circuit
analysis program. You were WRONG, weren't you?

No, since this applies to one single speaker, it has *no* general
applicability. Just how stupid/bullheaded *are* you?


You keep saying "single speaker" like some kind of mindless drone.



You are of course simply ducking and diving here, in order to avoid
answering the question.

I didn't duck anything. I answered the question in previous posts, but
you didn't understand the answers. :-)

Sure I did, but you utterly failed to demonstrate that a transmission
line model has *any* value in an audio context.

Of course it has value. It demonstrates that a cable can carry the
signal from the amplifier, to the speaker, without any degradation.
(That is something many people won't accept.)

We knew that before, and it has *nothing* to do with your idiotic
transmission-line modelling, which is utterly inappropriate in this
situation.


You push using the component model, but you seem incapable of
presenting us with one.


Regardless of which tool you use, you *must*
have a good model of the load impedance - which you don't have.

Look above and see a very good model of load impedance!

Not for *your* speakers, it's not!


I showed you how to make a good model any speaker impedance, *not*
just "my speaker".


You do not however *have* any such models, so you are, as always, just
blowing smoke.


Anyone with a good circuit analysis program an repeat the results I
showed above.

If you don't understand something you assume the person is "blowing
smoke".

I understand that you are pushing a lost situation, since you are
trying to apply a single model to all speakers.


You don't understand that the MODELING TECHNIQUE I presented, can
apply to *any speakers*. I feel like I'm talking to a wall.


Certainly I do, and you are as ever ducking the issue. Without a fully
accurate model of source and load impedances, a transmission line
model of the intervenihng cable is useless.

Source impedance model? How about a voltage source, the easiest thing
in the world to model.

Load Impedance model. (See above demonstrantion.)

Transmission line model? Easy. Want me to show you how to model one?

Stanton, you're pathetic. Are you stupid, or just desperate to win at
any cost?

When your technical arguements fail, you pull out insults. I notice
that your posts contain less and less technical discussion, and more
and more insults.


And, since the load
impedance will be wildly varying, the notion of any kind of 'match' is
ludicrous.

Please explain what is 'ludicrous' about my statement above. You are
just plain *wrong*, so admit it and move on.


The modeling technique I demonstrated, can model any "wildly varying"
impedance of *any* speakers. To say that they can't, makes your
statement seem ludicrous.

It is clear to me that you don't understand technically what I
presented. If you did understand, you would either agree, or come up
with a technical reason why you disagree. But all you can do is huff,
and puff, and bluster, and throw insults, and repeat the same stupid
words over and over again.

Bob Stanton

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message


That's correct: I criticized Mr. Stanton because he used NO
realistic models of load impedance AT ALL.

Further, Mr. Stanton is either too dishonest or too stupid to
acknowledge the fact that the models I posted that he's talking
about are electrical models for single DRIVERS, NOT for speakers.





It doesn't matter whether it's of a single driver or a five-way
speaker system. I showed how one can model any complex input
impedance, of any driver, or any speaker system.



Well, you lose again, because it is a DRIVER model.

More to the point is merely a model for ONE particular driver,
and is hardly a universal model, which is the entire point that
your are ineptly avoiding with your dishonesty.


The modeling method I demonstrated is universal. Because I
demonstrated only one model, you assumed that it was the only model I
could make. A silly assumption.



Mr. Stanton, bnased on several moths of you abject dishonesty,
your misrepresentation, your deflection, I am going to state
that it is now apparent that you have done absolutely NO analysis
of ANY kind with ANY model, transmissions line or otherwise, that
bears any relation whatsoever to the topic at hand.



The topic at hand is: how to model a complex impedance. At least that
is the topic I'm writing about here.


Wrong, you're either too styupid or too pigheaded to admit that it
is nothing more than a model for a single isolated driver.


Each driver should have it's own model. We all know that, come on.


You have never once posted ANY results whatsoever, thus the conclusions
that such results don't exist.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER once posted ANY results.




That data I posted were the *results*. It is apparent that you do not
understand the data posted. If you did, you would know that it showed
the *results* of a computer analysis of a one-port data device, with
a complex input impedance. Since you didn't even know what you were
looking at, I'd say you don't have a clue about this whole subject.


Mr. Stanton, you have already admitted that NONE of your analysis bears
ANY relation to ANY real-world data, and this is further admission of
gross incompetency.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER posted ANY results. Thus, your claims
are nonsense, and your defense is simply a pack of dishonesty and
misrepresentation.



Normally I might ask someone to either agree with me, or disagree. To
give some technical reason of why he thinks I was wrong. But, to you
it is just incomprehensible technical gibberish. Because you don't
understand what you saw, you jumped to the false conclusion that it
was dishonest, nonsense, and misrepresentation.

Quite frankly, you don't seem to know enough about this subject, that
we can even have a discusion.

Bob Stanton

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message


That's correct: I criticized Mr. Stanton because he used NO
realistic models of load impedance AT ALL.

Further, Mr. Stanton is either too dishonest or too stupid to
acknowledge the fact that the models I posted that he's talking
about are electrical models for single DRIVERS, NOT for speakers.





It doesn't matter whether it's of a single driver or a five-way
speaker system. I showed how one can model any complex input
impedance, of any driver, or any speaker system.



Well, you lose again, because it is a DRIVER model.

More to the point is merely a model for ONE particular driver,
and is hardly a universal model, which is the entire point that
your are ineptly avoiding with your dishonesty.


The modeling method I demonstrated is universal. Because I
demonstrated only one model, you assumed that it was the only model I
could make. A silly assumption.



Mr. Stanton, bnased on several moths of you abject dishonesty,
your misrepresentation, your deflection, I am going to state
that it is now apparent that you have done absolutely NO analysis
of ANY kind with ANY model, transmissions line or otherwise, that
bears any relation whatsoever to the topic at hand.



The topic at hand is: how to model a complex impedance. At least that
is the topic I'm writing about here.


Wrong, you're either too styupid or too pigheaded to admit that it
is nothing more than a model for a single isolated driver.


Each driver should have it's own model. We all know that, come on.


You have never once posted ANY results whatsoever, thus the conclusions
that such results don't exist.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER once posted ANY results.




That data I posted were the *results*. It is apparent that you do not
understand the data posted. If you did, you would know that it showed
the *results* of a computer analysis of a one-port data device, with
a complex input impedance. Since you didn't even know what you were
looking at, I'd say you don't have a clue about this whole subject.


Mr. Stanton, you have already admitted that NONE of your analysis bears
ANY relation to ANY real-world data, and this is further admission of
gross incompetency.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER posted ANY results. Thus, your claims
are nonsense, and your defense is simply a pack of dishonesty and
misrepresentation.



Normally I might ask someone to either agree with me, or disagree. To
give some technical reason of why he thinks I was wrong. But, to you
it is just incomprehensible technical gibberish. Because you don't
understand what you saw, you jumped to the false conclusion that it
was dishonest, nonsense, and misrepresentation.

Quite frankly, you don't seem to know enough about this subject, that
we can even have a discusion.

Bob Stanton

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message


That's correct: I criticized Mr. Stanton because he used NO
realistic models of load impedance AT ALL.

Further, Mr. Stanton is either too dishonest or too stupid to
acknowledge the fact that the models I posted that he's talking
about are electrical models for single DRIVERS, NOT for speakers.





It doesn't matter whether it's of a single driver or a five-way
speaker system. I showed how one can model any complex input
impedance, of any driver, or any speaker system.



Well, you lose again, because it is a DRIVER model.

More to the point is merely a model for ONE particular driver,
and is hardly a universal model, which is the entire point that
your are ineptly avoiding with your dishonesty.


The modeling method I demonstrated is universal. Because I
demonstrated only one model, you assumed that it was the only model I
could make. A silly assumption.



Mr. Stanton, bnased on several moths of you abject dishonesty,
your misrepresentation, your deflection, I am going to state
that it is now apparent that you have done absolutely NO analysis
of ANY kind with ANY model, transmissions line or otherwise, that
bears any relation whatsoever to the topic at hand.



The topic at hand is: how to model a complex impedance. At least that
is the topic I'm writing about here.


Wrong, you're either too styupid or too pigheaded to admit that it
is nothing more than a model for a single isolated driver.


Each driver should have it's own model. We all know that, come on.


You have never once posted ANY results whatsoever, thus the conclusions
that such results don't exist.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER once posted ANY results.




That data I posted were the *results*. It is apparent that you do not
understand the data posted. If you did, you would know that it showed
the *results* of a computer analysis of a one-port data device, with
a complex input impedance. Since you didn't even know what you were
looking at, I'd say you don't have a clue about this whole subject.


Mr. Stanton, you have already admitted that NONE of your analysis bears
ANY relation to ANY real-world data, and this is further admission of
gross incompetency.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER posted ANY results. Thus, your claims
are nonsense, and your defense is simply a pack of dishonesty and
misrepresentation.



Normally I might ask someone to either agree with me, or disagree. To
give some technical reason of why he thinks I was wrong. But, to you
it is just incomprehensible technical gibberish. Because you don't
understand what you saw, you jumped to the false conclusion that it
was dishonest, nonsense, and misrepresentation.

Quite frankly, you don't seem to know enough about this subject, that
we can even have a discusion.

Bob Stanton

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message


That's correct: I criticized Mr. Stanton because he used NO
realistic models of load impedance AT ALL.

Further, Mr. Stanton is either too dishonest or too stupid to
acknowledge the fact that the models I posted that he's talking
about are electrical models for single DRIVERS, NOT for speakers.





It doesn't matter whether it's of a single driver or a five-way
speaker system. I showed how one can model any complex input
impedance, of any driver, or any speaker system.



Well, you lose again, because it is a DRIVER model.

More to the point is merely a model for ONE particular driver,
and is hardly a universal model, which is the entire point that
your are ineptly avoiding with your dishonesty.


The modeling method I demonstrated is universal. Because I
demonstrated only one model, you assumed that it was the only model I
could make. A silly assumption.



Mr. Stanton, bnased on several moths of you abject dishonesty,
your misrepresentation, your deflection, I am going to state
that it is now apparent that you have done absolutely NO analysis
of ANY kind with ANY model, transmissions line or otherwise, that
bears any relation whatsoever to the topic at hand.



The topic at hand is: how to model a complex impedance. At least that
is the topic I'm writing about here.


Wrong, you're either too styupid or too pigheaded to admit that it
is nothing more than a model for a single isolated driver.


Each driver should have it's own model. We all know that, come on.


You have never once posted ANY results whatsoever, thus the conclusions
that such results don't exist.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER once posted ANY results.




That data I posted were the *results*. It is apparent that you do not
understand the data posted. If you did, you would know that it showed
the *results* of a computer analysis of a one-port data device, with
a complex input impedance. Since you didn't even know what you were
looking at, I'd say you don't have a clue about this whole subject.


Mr. Stanton, you have already admitted that NONE of your analysis bears
ANY relation to ANY real-world data, and this is further admission of
gross incompetency.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER posted ANY results. Thus, your claims
are nonsense, and your defense is simply a pack of dishonesty and
misrepresentation.



Normally I might ask someone to either agree with me, or disagree. To
give some technical reason of why he thinks I was wrong. But, to you
it is just incomprehensible technical gibberish. Because you don't
understand what you saw, you jumped to the false conclusion that it
was dishonest, nonsense, and misrepresentation.

Quite frankly, you don't seem to know enough about this subject, that
we can even have a discusion.

Bob Stanton

On 6 Jan 2004 14:28:36 -0800, (Dick Pierce)
wrote:

For the record, Bob Stanton has engaged in out-and-out
dishonesty and misinformation, examples of which are
pointed out below.

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.

Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.

He castigated you for using far too few models, as you well know. As
ever, you're trying to weasel out of your ignorance.

That's correct: I criticized Mr. Stanton because he used NO
realistic models of load impedance AT ALL.

Further, Mr. Stanton is either too dishonest or too stupid to
acknowledge the fact that the models I posted that he's talking
about are electrical models for single DRIVERS, NOT for speakers.

Really? In that case, his argument is even more inept than I first
thought. I'm out of here, as I will *not* engage in debate with
someone who is fundamentally dishonest.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER posted ANY results. Thus, your claims
are nonsense, and your defense is simply a pack of dishonesty and
misrepresentation.

That seems to pretty well cover the situation.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 6 Jan 2004 14:28:36 -0800, (Dick Pierce)
wrote:

For the record, Bob Stanton has engaged in out-and-out
dishonesty and misinformation, examples of which are
pointed out below.

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.

Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.

He castigated you for using far too few models, as you well know. As
ever, you're trying to weasel out of your ignorance.

That's correct: I criticized Mr. Stanton because he used NO
realistic models of load impedance AT ALL.

Further, Mr. Stanton is either too dishonest or too stupid to
acknowledge the fact that the models I posted that he's talking
about are electrical models for single DRIVERS, NOT for speakers.

Really? In that case, his argument is even more inept than I first
thought. I'm out of here, as I will *not* engage in debate with
someone who is fundamentally dishonest.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER posted ANY results. Thus, your claims
are nonsense, and your defense is simply a pack of dishonesty and
misrepresentation.

That seems to pretty well cover the situation.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 6 Jan 2004 14:28:36 -0800, (Dick Pierce)
wrote:

For the record, Bob Stanton has engaged in out-and-out
dishonesty and misinformation, examples of which are
pointed out below.

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.

Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.

He castigated you for using far too few models, as you well know. As
ever, you're trying to weasel out of your ignorance.

That's correct: I criticized Mr. Stanton because he used NO
realistic models of load impedance AT ALL.

Further, Mr. Stanton is either too dishonest or too stupid to
acknowledge the fact that the models I posted that he's talking
about are electrical models for single DRIVERS, NOT for speakers.

Really? In that case, his argument is even more inept than I first
thought. I'm out of here, as I will *not* engage in debate with
someone who is fundamentally dishonest.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER posted ANY results. Thus, your claims
are nonsense, and your defense is simply a pack of dishonesty and
misrepresentation.

That seems to pretty well cover the situation.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 6 Jan 2004 14:28:36 -0800, (Dick Pierce)
wrote:

For the record, Bob Stanton has engaged in out-and-out
dishonesty and misinformation, examples of which are
pointed out below.

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
If you do a search using "Dick Pierce" "equivalent circuit" , you will
see a number of posts that Dick Pierce has made of speaker (impedance)
equvalent circuits. He has stated that his equivalent circuits match
the real speaker impedance within a couple %.

Dick has already castigated you for your inept approach to this
subject.

Dick Pierce never castigate me for saying his (Dick's) models were
accurate! You don't even make sense sometimes.

He castigated you for using far too few models, as you well know. As
ever, you're trying to weasel out of your ignorance.

That's correct: I criticized Mr. Stanton because he used NO
realistic models of load impedance AT ALL.

Further, Mr. Stanton is either too dishonest or too stupid to
acknowledge the fact that the models I posted that he's talking
about are electrical models for single DRIVERS, NOT for speakers.

Really? In that case, his argument is even more inept than I first
thought. I'm out of here, as I will *not* engage in debate with
someone who is fundamentally dishonest.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER posted ANY results. Thus, your claims
are nonsense, and your defense is simply a pack of dishonesty and
misrepresentation.

That seems to pretty well cover the situation.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message


Further, Mr. Stanton is either too dishonest or too stupid to
acknowledge the fact that the models I posted that he's talking
about are electrical models for single DRIVERS, NOT for speakers.

Really? In that case, his argument is even more inept than I first
thought. I'm out of here, as I will *not* engage in debate with
someone who is fundamentally dishonest.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER posted ANY results. Thus, your claims
are nonsense, and your defense is simply a pack of dishonesty and
misrepresentation.

That seems to pretty well cover the situation.


That seems like a good idea! Never debate with someone who is
fundamentally dishonest. :-)

May I make another suggestion? Perhaps you should also refrain from
debating on subjects you don't fully understand.

Bob Stanton

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message


Further, Mr. Stanton is either too dishonest or too stupid to
acknowledge the fact that the models I posted that he's talking
about are electrical models for single DRIVERS, NOT for speakers.

Really? In that case, his argument is even more inept than I first
thought. I'm out of here, as I will *not* engage in debate with
someone who is fundamentally dishonest.

Mr. Stanton, you have NEVER posted ANY results. Thus, your claims
are nonsense, and your defense is simply a pack of dishonesty and
misrepresentation.

That seems to pretty well cover the situation.


That seems like a good idea! Never debate with someone who is
fundamentally dishonest. :-)

May I make another suggestion? Perhaps you should also refrain from
debating on subjects you don't fully understand.

Bob Stanton