Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
A. D'A.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine

I just had a chance to check the specs on the Carver digital amp.
They are a few things I found intriguing: DSP control parametric
control (which is important for my ribbons), x-over, efficiency, heat
production (enclosed HT, would rather not produce too much heat), and
size (it is always nice if you don't consume too much space with
equip). But I have some concerns: When I see the specs for the Evo
digital amps their output impedance increases dramatically as you go
up in frequency (I think it is about 6 ohms at 18 khz). The PS Audio
also has some problems with its specs. Is the Carver ready for prime
time?

Anyone who has input from any perspective on the subject of digital
amps I would appreciate it.

Thanks
  #2   Report Post  
WorldJAZZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine


"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...
I just had a chance to check the specs on the Carver digital amp.
They are a few things I found intriguing: DSP control parametric
control (which is important for my ribbons), x-over, efficiency, heat
production (enclosed HT, would rather not produce too much heat), and
size (it is always nice if you don't consume too much space with
equip). But I have some concerns: When I see the specs for the Evo
digital amps their output impedance increases dramatically as you go
up in frequency (I think it is about 6 ohms at 18 khz). The PS Audio
also has some problems with its specs. Is the Carver ready for prime
time?

Anyone who has input from any perspective on the subject of digital
amps I would appreciate it.

Thanks


I have heard the Carver Sunfire, and found the sound quality to be poor
compared to good amplifiers I have known. The sound was muddy and
unrevealing.

In order to filter out the switching frequency, a large inductance is used
at the output of a digital amp. This means that in the treble range, digital
amps have extremely low damping factors, as you have noted with the Evo amp.

In my opinion, none of these amplifiers is a replacement for a very good
analog amp. The objective of high fidelity is accuracy, not power
efficiency.

If you'd like a reasonably priced amplfier with high bandwidth to compliment
your ribbons, look at a Hafler or a Parasound. A P3000 can be had for around
$500, the build quality is excellent, it can drive any load, and power
consumption is reasonable.





  #3   Report Post  
WorldJAZZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine


"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...
I just had a chance to check the specs on the Carver digital amp.
They are a few things I found intriguing: DSP control parametric
control (which is important for my ribbons), x-over, efficiency, heat
production (enclosed HT, would rather not produce too much heat), and
size (it is always nice if you don't consume too much space with
equip). But I have some concerns: When I see the specs for the Evo
digital amps their output impedance increases dramatically as you go
up in frequency (I think it is about 6 ohms at 18 khz). The PS Audio
also has some problems with its specs. Is the Carver ready for prime
time?

Anyone who has input from any perspective on the subject of digital
amps I would appreciate it.

Thanks


I have heard the Carver Sunfire, and found the sound quality to be poor
compared to good amplifiers I have known. The sound was muddy and
unrevealing.

In order to filter out the switching frequency, a large inductance is used
at the output of a digital amp. This means that in the treble range, digital
amps have extremely low damping factors, as you have noted with the Evo amp.

In my opinion, none of these amplifiers is a replacement for a very good
analog amp. The objective of high fidelity is accuracy, not power
efficiency.

If you'd like a reasonably priced amplfier with high bandwidth to compliment
your ribbons, look at a Hafler or a Parasound. A P3000 can be had for around
$500, the build quality is excellent, it can drive any load, and power
consumption is reasonable.





  #4   Report Post  
WorldJAZZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine


"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...
I just had a chance to check the specs on the Carver digital amp.
They are a few things I found intriguing: DSP control parametric
control (which is important for my ribbons), x-over, efficiency, heat
production (enclosed HT, would rather not produce too much heat), and
size (it is always nice if you don't consume too much space with
equip). But I have some concerns: When I see the specs for the Evo
digital amps their output impedance increases dramatically as you go
up in frequency (I think it is about 6 ohms at 18 khz). The PS Audio
also has some problems with its specs. Is the Carver ready for prime
time?

Anyone who has input from any perspective on the subject of digital
amps I would appreciate it.

Thanks


I have heard the Carver Sunfire, and found the sound quality to be poor
compared to good amplifiers I have known. The sound was muddy and
unrevealing.

In order to filter out the switching frequency, a large inductance is used
at the output of a digital amp. This means that in the treble range, digital
amps have extremely low damping factors, as you have noted with the Evo amp.

In my opinion, none of these amplifiers is a replacement for a very good
analog amp. The objective of high fidelity is accuracy, not power
efficiency.

If you'd like a reasonably priced amplfier with high bandwidth to compliment
your ribbons, look at a Hafler or a Parasound. A P3000 can be had for around
$500, the build quality is excellent, it can drive any load, and power
consumption is reasonable.





  #5   Report Post  
WorldJAZZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine


"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...
I just had a chance to check the specs on the Carver digital amp.
They are a few things I found intriguing: DSP control parametric
control (which is important for my ribbons), x-over, efficiency, heat
production (enclosed HT, would rather not produce too much heat), and
size (it is always nice if you don't consume too much space with
equip). But I have some concerns: When I see the specs for the Evo
digital amps their output impedance increases dramatically as you go
up in frequency (I think it is about 6 ohms at 18 khz). The PS Audio
also has some problems with its specs. Is the Carver ready for prime
time?

Anyone who has input from any perspective on the subject of digital
amps I would appreciate it.

Thanks


I have heard the Carver Sunfire, and found the sound quality to be poor
compared to good amplifiers I have known. The sound was muddy and
unrevealing.

In order to filter out the switching frequency, a large inductance is used
at the output of a digital amp. This means that in the treble range, digital
amps have extremely low damping factors, as you have noted with the Evo amp.

In my opinion, none of these amplifiers is a replacement for a very good
analog amp. The objective of high fidelity is accuracy, not power
efficiency.

If you'd like a reasonably priced amplfier with high bandwidth to compliment
your ribbons, look at a Hafler or a Parasound. A P3000 can be had for around
$500, the build quality is excellent, it can drive any load, and power
consumption is reasonable.







  #6   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine

"A. D'A." wrote in message
om

I just had a chance to check the specs on the Carver digital amp.


For whatever that might be worth!

They are a few things I found intriguing: DSP control parametric
control (which is important for my ribbons),


You want parametric equalization? Get a couple of these!

http://www.behringer.com/PEQ2200/index.cfm?lang=ENG

x-over,


http://www.behringer.com/DCX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG

efficiency, heat production (enclosed HT, would rather not produce too

much heat), and
size (it is always nice if you don't consume too much space with equip).


Just buy a reasonably sized amplifier. IME most modern amps aren't
excessively large.

But I have some concerns: When I see the specs for the Evo
digital amps their output impedance increases dramatically as you go
up in frequency (I think it is about 6 ohms at 18 khz).


They all seem to do that. There has to be a fairly effective low pass filter
because in a switchmode amp the output stage sits there slamming from
positive power supply rail to negative power supply rail at about 200 KHz or
so, and you want to keep that inside the power amplifier's case.

The PS Audio also has some problems with its specs.


Is the Carver ready for prime time?


I know of no switchmode amp that seems attractive to me for home audio,
except perhaps as a subwoofer amp.

Anyone who has input from any perspective on the subject of digital
amps I would appreciate it.


The output impedance of most switchmode amps starts rising within the audio
range, leading to a rising high end with most dynamic tweeters. Ironically,
most ordinary power amps do the same thing, but to a far lesser degree.




  #7   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine

"A. D'A." wrote in message
om

I just had a chance to check the specs on the Carver digital amp.


For whatever that might be worth!

They are a few things I found intriguing: DSP control parametric
control (which is important for my ribbons),


You want parametric equalization? Get a couple of these!

http://www.behringer.com/PEQ2200/index.cfm?lang=ENG

x-over,


http://www.behringer.com/DCX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG

efficiency, heat production (enclosed HT, would rather not produce too

much heat), and
size (it is always nice if you don't consume too much space with equip).


Just buy a reasonably sized amplifier. IME most modern amps aren't
excessively large.

But I have some concerns: When I see the specs for the Evo
digital amps their output impedance increases dramatically as you go
up in frequency (I think it is about 6 ohms at 18 khz).


They all seem to do that. There has to be a fairly effective low pass filter
because in a switchmode amp the output stage sits there slamming from
positive power supply rail to negative power supply rail at about 200 KHz or
so, and you want to keep that inside the power amplifier's case.

The PS Audio also has some problems with its specs.


Is the Carver ready for prime time?


I know of no switchmode amp that seems attractive to me for home audio,
except perhaps as a subwoofer amp.

Anyone who has input from any perspective on the subject of digital
amps I would appreciate it.


The output impedance of most switchmode amps starts rising within the audio
range, leading to a rising high end with most dynamic tweeters. Ironically,
most ordinary power amps do the same thing, but to a far lesser degree.




  #8   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine

"A. D'A." wrote in message
om

I just had a chance to check the specs on the Carver digital amp.


For whatever that might be worth!

They are a few things I found intriguing: DSP control parametric
control (which is important for my ribbons),


You want parametric equalization? Get a couple of these!

http://www.behringer.com/PEQ2200/index.cfm?lang=ENG

x-over,


http://www.behringer.com/DCX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG

efficiency, heat production (enclosed HT, would rather not produce too

much heat), and
size (it is always nice if you don't consume too much space with equip).


Just buy a reasonably sized amplifier. IME most modern amps aren't
excessively large.

But I have some concerns: When I see the specs for the Evo
digital amps their output impedance increases dramatically as you go
up in frequency (I think it is about 6 ohms at 18 khz).


They all seem to do that. There has to be a fairly effective low pass filter
because in a switchmode amp the output stage sits there slamming from
positive power supply rail to negative power supply rail at about 200 KHz or
so, and you want to keep that inside the power amplifier's case.

The PS Audio also has some problems with its specs.


Is the Carver ready for prime time?


I know of no switchmode amp that seems attractive to me for home audio,
except perhaps as a subwoofer amp.

Anyone who has input from any perspective on the subject of digital
amps I would appreciate it.


The output impedance of most switchmode amps starts rising within the audio
range, leading to a rising high end with most dynamic tweeters. Ironically,
most ordinary power amps do the same thing, but to a far lesser degree.




  #9   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine

"A. D'A." wrote in message
om

I just had a chance to check the specs on the Carver digital amp.


For whatever that might be worth!

They are a few things I found intriguing: DSP control parametric
control (which is important for my ribbons),


You want parametric equalization? Get a couple of these!

http://www.behringer.com/PEQ2200/index.cfm?lang=ENG

x-over,


http://www.behringer.com/DCX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG

efficiency, heat production (enclosed HT, would rather not produce too

much heat), and
size (it is always nice if you don't consume too much space with equip).


Just buy a reasonably sized amplifier. IME most modern amps aren't
excessively large.

But I have some concerns: When I see the specs for the Evo
digital amps their output impedance increases dramatically as you go
up in frequency (I think it is about 6 ohms at 18 khz).


They all seem to do that. There has to be a fairly effective low pass filter
because in a switchmode amp the output stage sits there slamming from
positive power supply rail to negative power supply rail at about 200 KHz or
so, and you want to keep that inside the power amplifier's case.

The PS Audio also has some problems with its specs.


Is the Carver ready for prime time?


I know of no switchmode amp that seems attractive to me for home audio,
except perhaps as a subwoofer amp.

Anyone who has input from any perspective on the subject of digital
amps I would appreciate it.


The output impedance of most switchmode amps starts rising within the audio
range, leading to a rising high end with most dynamic tweeters. Ironically,
most ordinary power amps do the same thing, but to a far lesser degree.




  #10   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine

"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message ...
"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...

Anyone who has input from any perspective on the subject of digital
amps I would appreciate it.

Thanks


I have heard the Carver Sunfire, and found the sound quality to be poor
compared to good amplifiers I have known. The sound was muddy and
unrevealing.

In order to filter out the switching frequency, a large inductance is used
at the output of a digital amp. This means that in the treble range, digital
amps have extremely low damping factors,


And if you knew what "damping" was, you'd understand that this statement
basically is nonsensical.

In order for there to be any "damping factor" issues, there has to be
something to damp that mainfests itself in the electrical domain, i.e.,
it has to show up in the impedance curve as a resonant peak. Second,
the electrical LOSSES (not IMPEDANCE, resistive LOSSES) that form the
effective series electrical loop with the tweeter HAVE to dominate all
other losses.

In point of fact, your conjecture fails on several fronts: first, in the
vast majority of tweeters, bay far the most dominant loss mechanism is
mechanical, either through suspensions losses or deliberately through
fluid viscous losses. This is precisely why the mechanical Q, Qms, of
most tweeters is equal to or less than the electrical Q, Qes.

Second, the ONLY place where the amplifier can play ANY role in
"damping" is at any resonance where there is a manifestation in the
electrical domain. If their isn't, then the amplifier can play NO
role in damping that resonance. For the vast majority of tweeters,
again, this is only at the fundamental mechanical resonance, where
in most cases, a) the damping is already dominated by mechanical
losses and changes in electrical losses are insignificant and
b) the resonance is deliberately place BELOW the crossover frequency
and thus damping it more or less is not likely to have the effects
you claim.

Third, unless it can be shown that the first to issues above are not
limiting the veracity of your conjecture, you still have to deal with
the fact that unless the effective series loop resistance is proximal
to the simple DC resistance of the voice coil, then "damping factor"
issues have no effect.

And this comes down, ultimately, to the farsical use of a nonsense
term as "damping factor" as a useful figure of merit for amplifier
performance, as have been adequately demonstrated in the past.

The amplifier in question may or may not have the audible
characteristics you claim, but it is not due your unsupportable
"damping factor" conjecture.


  #11   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine

"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message ...
"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...

Anyone who has input from any perspective on the subject of digital
amps I would appreciate it.

Thanks


I have heard the Carver Sunfire, and found the sound quality to be poor
compared to good amplifiers I have known. The sound was muddy and
unrevealing.

In order to filter out the switching frequency, a large inductance is used
at the output of a digital amp. This means that in the treble range, digital
amps have extremely low damping factors,


And if you knew what "damping" was, you'd understand that this statement
basically is nonsensical.

In order for there to be any "damping factor" issues, there has to be
something to damp that mainfests itself in the electrical domain, i.e.,
it has to show up in the impedance curve as a resonant peak. Second,
the electrical LOSSES (not IMPEDANCE, resistive LOSSES) that form the
effective series electrical loop with the tweeter HAVE to dominate all
other losses.

In point of fact, your conjecture fails on several fronts: first, in the
vast majority of tweeters, bay far the most dominant loss mechanism is
mechanical, either through suspensions losses or deliberately through
fluid viscous losses. This is precisely why the mechanical Q, Qms, of
most tweeters is equal to or less than the electrical Q, Qes.

Second, the ONLY place where the amplifier can play ANY role in
"damping" is at any resonance where there is a manifestation in the
electrical domain. If their isn't, then the amplifier can play NO
role in damping that resonance. For the vast majority of tweeters,
again, this is only at the fundamental mechanical resonance, where
in most cases, a) the damping is already dominated by mechanical
losses and changes in electrical losses are insignificant and
b) the resonance is deliberately place BELOW the crossover frequency
and thus damping it more or less is not likely to have the effects
you claim.

Third, unless it can be shown that the first to issues above are not
limiting the veracity of your conjecture, you still have to deal with
the fact that unless the effective series loop resistance is proximal
to the simple DC resistance of the voice coil, then "damping factor"
issues have no effect.

And this comes down, ultimately, to the farsical use of a nonsense
term as "damping factor" as a useful figure of merit for amplifier
performance, as have been adequately demonstrated in the past.

The amplifier in question may or may not have the audible
characteristics you claim, but it is not due your unsupportable
"damping factor" conjecture.
  #12   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine

"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message ...
"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...

Anyone who has input from any perspective on the subject of digital
amps I would appreciate it.

Thanks


I have heard the Carver Sunfire, and found the sound quality to be poor
compared to good amplifiers I have known. The sound was muddy and
unrevealing.

In order to filter out the switching frequency, a large inductance is used
at the output of a digital amp. This means that in the treble range, digital
amps have extremely low damping factors,


And if you knew what "damping" was, you'd understand that this statement
basically is nonsensical.

In order for there to be any "damping factor" issues, there has to be
something to damp that mainfests itself in the electrical domain, i.e.,
it has to show up in the impedance curve as a resonant peak. Second,
the electrical LOSSES (not IMPEDANCE, resistive LOSSES) that form the
effective series electrical loop with the tweeter HAVE to dominate all
other losses.

In point of fact, your conjecture fails on several fronts: first, in the
vast majority of tweeters, bay far the most dominant loss mechanism is
mechanical, either through suspensions losses or deliberately through
fluid viscous losses. This is precisely why the mechanical Q, Qms, of
most tweeters is equal to or less than the electrical Q, Qes.

Second, the ONLY place where the amplifier can play ANY role in
"damping" is at any resonance where there is a manifestation in the
electrical domain. If their isn't, then the amplifier can play NO
role in damping that resonance. For the vast majority of tweeters,
again, this is only at the fundamental mechanical resonance, where
in most cases, a) the damping is already dominated by mechanical
losses and changes in electrical losses are insignificant and
b) the resonance is deliberately place BELOW the crossover frequency
and thus damping it more or less is not likely to have the effects
you claim.

Third, unless it can be shown that the first to issues above are not
limiting the veracity of your conjecture, you still have to deal with
the fact that unless the effective series loop resistance is proximal
to the simple DC resistance of the voice coil, then "damping factor"
issues have no effect.

And this comes down, ultimately, to the farsical use of a nonsense
term as "damping factor" as a useful figure of merit for amplifier
performance, as have been adequately demonstrated in the past.

The amplifier in question may or may not have the audible
characteristics you claim, but it is not due your unsupportable
"damping factor" conjecture.
  #13   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine

"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message ...
"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...

Anyone who has input from any perspective on the subject of digital
amps I would appreciate it.

Thanks


I have heard the Carver Sunfire, and found the sound quality to be poor
compared to good amplifiers I have known. The sound was muddy and
unrevealing.

In order to filter out the switching frequency, a large inductance is used
at the output of a digital amp. This means that in the treble range, digital
amps have extremely low damping factors,


And if you knew what "damping" was, you'd understand that this statement
basically is nonsensical.

In order for there to be any "damping factor" issues, there has to be
something to damp that mainfests itself in the electrical domain, i.e.,
it has to show up in the impedance curve as a resonant peak. Second,
the electrical LOSSES (not IMPEDANCE, resistive LOSSES) that form the
effective series electrical loop with the tweeter HAVE to dominate all
other losses.

In point of fact, your conjecture fails on several fronts: first, in the
vast majority of tweeters, bay far the most dominant loss mechanism is
mechanical, either through suspensions losses or deliberately through
fluid viscous losses. This is precisely why the mechanical Q, Qms, of
most tweeters is equal to or less than the electrical Q, Qes.

Second, the ONLY place where the amplifier can play ANY role in
"damping" is at any resonance where there is a manifestation in the
electrical domain. If their isn't, then the amplifier can play NO
role in damping that resonance. For the vast majority of tweeters,
again, this is only at the fundamental mechanical resonance, where
in most cases, a) the damping is already dominated by mechanical
losses and changes in electrical losses are insignificant and
b) the resonance is deliberately place BELOW the crossover frequency
and thus damping it more or less is not likely to have the effects
you claim.

Third, unless it can be shown that the first to issues above are not
limiting the veracity of your conjecture, you still have to deal with
the fact that unless the effective series loop resistance is proximal
to the simple DC resistance of the voice coil, then "damping factor"
issues have no effect.

And this comes down, ultimately, to the farsical use of a nonsense
term as "damping factor" as a useful figure of merit for amplifier
performance, as have been adequately demonstrated in the past.

The amplifier in question may or may not have the audible
characteristics you claim, but it is not due your unsupportable
"damping factor" conjecture.
  #14   Report Post  
WorldJAZZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine


"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message

...
"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...

[snip]
And if you knew what "damping" was, you'd understand that this statement
basically is nonsensical.

I object to the rude tone of the above wording. You are a rude man.
[snip]

And this comes down, ultimately, to the farsical use of a nonsense
term as "damping factor" as a useful figure of merit for amplifier
performance, as have been adequately demonstrated in the past.

I don't agree with you. In fact, the small signal damping factor may be an
incorrect parameter to measure, but I've heard enough amplifiers that
exhaust themselves trying to control large woofers, that a related form of
measurement applies. It could be called "large signal damping factor".


The amplifier in question may or may not have the audible
characteristics you claim, but it is not due your unsupportable
"damping factor" conjecture.


Interestingly, I had the above argument with Bill Sommerwick in which we
took the reverse sides of the issue.
I do not know which of you is correct, but I admit it seems plausible that
tweeter damping is primarily mechanical.

In support of that pov, I heard a switching amplifier over at Ralph
Glasgow's Ambiphonics "palace", that drove Acoustats with excellent clarity.

Nevertheless, I stand by my impression of the Sunfire, which is that it is a
muddy sounding amplifier.
It bothers me that A.D'A seems bent on the path of powering his system with
amplifiers of less than stellar quality.










  #15   Report Post  
WorldJAZZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine


"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message

...
"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...

[snip]
And if you knew what "damping" was, you'd understand that this statement
basically is nonsensical.

I object to the rude tone of the above wording. You are a rude man.
[snip]

And this comes down, ultimately, to the farsical use of a nonsense
term as "damping factor" as a useful figure of merit for amplifier
performance, as have been adequately demonstrated in the past.

I don't agree with you. In fact, the small signal damping factor may be an
incorrect parameter to measure, but I've heard enough amplifiers that
exhaust themselves trying to control large woofers, that a related form of
measurement applies. It could be called "large signal damping factor".


The amplifier in question may or may not have the audible
characteristics you claim, but it is not due your unsupportable
"damping factor" conjecture.


Interestingly, I had the above argument with Bill Sommerwick in which we
took the reverse sides of the issue.
I do not know which of you is correct, but I admit it seems plausible that
tweeter damping is primarily mechanical.

In support of that pov, I heard a switching amplifier over at Ralph
Glasgow's Ambiphonics "palace", that drove Acoustats with excellent clarity.

Nevertheless, I stand by my impression of the Sunfire, which is that it is a
muddy sounding amplifier.
It bothers me that A.D'A seems bent on the path of powering his system with
amplifiers of less than stellar quality.












  #16   Report Post  
WorldJAZZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine


"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message

...
"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...

[snip]
And if you knew what "damping" was, you'd understand that this statement
basically is nonsensical.

I object to the rude tone of the above wording. You are a rude man.
[snip]

And this comes down, ultimately, to the farsical use of a nonsense
term as "damping factor" as a useful figure of merit for amplifier
performance, as have been adequately demonstrated in the past.

I don't agree with you. In fact, the small signal damping factor may be an
incorrect parameter to measure, but I've heard enough amplifiers that
exhaust themselves trying to control large woofers, that a related form of
measurement applies. It could be called "large signal damping factor".


The amplifier in question may or may not have the audible
characteristics you claim, but it is not due your unsupportable
"damping factor" conjecture.


Interestingly, I had the above argument with Bill Sommerwick in which we
took the reverse sides of the issue.
I do not know which of you is correct, but I admit it seems plausible that
tweeter damping is primarily mechanical.

In support of that pov, I heard a switching amplifier over at Ralph
Glasgow's Ambiphonics "palace", that drove Acoustats with excellent clarity.

Nevertheless, I stand by my impression of the Sunfire, which is that it is a
muddy sounding amplifier.
It bothers me that A.D'A seems bent on the path of powering his system with
amplifiers of less than stellar quality.










  #17   Report Post  
WorldJAZZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine


"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message

...
"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...

[snip]
And if you knew what "damping" was, you'd understand that this statement
basically is nonsensical.

I object to the rude tone of the above wording. You are a rude man.
[snip]

And this comes down, ultimately, to the farsical use of a nonsense
term as "damping factor" as a useful figure of merit for amplifier
performance, as have been adequately demonstrated in the past.

I don't agree with you. In fact, the small signal damping factor may be an
incorrect parameter to measure, but I've heard enough amplifiers that
exhaust themselves trying to control large woofers, that a related form of
measurement applies. It could be called "large signal damping factor".


The amplifier in question may or may not have the audible
characteristics you claim, but it is not due your unsupportable
"damping factor" conjecture.


Interestingly, I had the above argument with Bill Sommerwick in which we
took the reverse sides of the issue.
I do not know which of you is correct, but I admit it seems plausible that
tweeter damping is primarily mechanical.

In support of that pov, I heard a switching amplifier over at Ralph
Glasgow's Ambiphonics "palace", that drove Acoustats with excellent clarity.

Nevertheless, I stand by my impression of the Sunfire, which is that it is a
muddy sounding amplifier.
It bothers me that A.D'A seems bent on the path of powering his system with
amplifiers of less than stellar quality.










  #18   Report Post  
Thomas A
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine


In order for there to be any "damping factor" issues, there has to be
something to damp that mainfests itself in the electrical domain, i.e.,
it has to show up in the impedance curve as a resonant peak. Second,
the electrical LOSSES (not IMPEDANCE, resistive LOSSES) that form the
effective series electrical loop with the tweeter HAVE to dominate all
other losses.

In point of fact, your conjecture fails on several fronts: first, in the
vast majority of tweeters, bay far the most dominant loss mechanism is
mechanical, either through suspensions losses or deliberately through
fluid viscous losses. This is precisely why the mechanical Q, Qms, of
most tweeters is equal to or less than the electrical Q, Qes.


Dick,

how would a tweeter like the Peerless conetweeter CT62H perform? I
currently use it in an active system, but use a 2.2 ohm resistor in
series with the tweeter. This is said to elevate the highs a little
due to the rise in impedance 10 kHz (which I want), and putting a
resistor in series may also reduce some sort of distorsion (going from
voltage to current drive???). I don't really know how this works (or
the theory behind it) and how it would apply to a tweeter with quite
different electrical/mechanical characteristics than "normal" tweeters
(e.g. QesQms).

The values a

CT 62 H
Thiele Small parameters:
Nominal impedance Zn (ohm) 8
Minimum impedance/at freq. Zmin (ohm/Hz) 6.6/2600
Maximum impedance Zo (ohm) 6.9
DC resistance Re (ohm) 6.1
Voice coil inductance Le (mH) 0.1
Resonance Frequency fs (Hz) 1500
Mechanical Q factor Qms 0.89
Electrical Q factor Qes 7.07
Total Q factor Qts 0.79
Mechanical resistance Rms (Kg/s) 3.01
Moving mass Mms (g) 0.28
Suspension compliance Cms (mm/N) 0.04
Effective cone diameter D (cm) 3.7
Effective piston area Sd (cm²) 10.8
Force factor Bl (N/A) 1.5
Reference voltage sensitivity
Re 2.83V 1m at 2600 Hz (Measured) (dB) 90

Magnet and voice coil parameters:
Voice coil diameter d (mm) 13
Voice coil length h (mm) 1.8
Voice coil layers n 2
Flux density in gap B (T) 1.0
Total useful flux (mWb) 0.1
Height of the gap hg (mm) 2.5
Diameter of magnet dm (mm) 40
Height of magnet hm (mm) 7.5
Weight of magnet (kg) 0.04

Power handling:
Long term Max System Power (IEC) (W) 100
  #19   Report Post  
Thomas A
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine


In order for there to be any "damping factor" issues, there has to be
something to damp that mainfests itself in the electrical domain, i.e.,
it has to show up in the impedance curve as a resonant peak. Second,
the electrical LOSSES (not IMPEDANCE, resistive LOSSES) that form the
effective series electrical loop with the tweeter HAVE to dominate all
other losses.

In point of fact, your conjecture fails on several fronts: first, in the
vast majority of tweeters, bay far the most dominant loss mechanism is
mechanical, either through suspensions losses or deliberately through
fluid viscous losses. This is precisely why the mechanical Q, Qms, of
most tweeters is equal to or less than the electrical Q, Qes.


Dick,

how would a tweeter like the Peerless conetweeter CT62H perform? I
currently use it in an active system, but use a 2.2 ohm resistor in
series with the tweeter. This is said to elevate the highs a little
due to the rise in impedance 10 kHz (which I want), and putting a
resistor in series may also reduce some sort of distorsion (going from
voltage to current drive???). I don't really know how this works (or
the theory behind it) and how it would apply to a tweeter with quite
different electrical/mechanical characteristics than "normal" tweeters
(e.g. QesQms).

The values a

CT 62 H
Thiele Small parameters:
Nominal impedance Zn (ohm) 8
Minimum impedance/at freq. Zmin (ohm/Hz) 6.6/2600
Maximum impedance Zo (ohm) 6.9
DC resistance Re (ohm) 6.1
Voice coil inductance Le (mH) 0.1
Resonance Frequency fs (Hz) 1500
Mechanical Q factor Qms 0.89
Electrical Q factor Qes 7.07
Total Q factor Qts 0.79
Mechanical resistance Rms (Kg/s) 3.01
Moving mass Mms (g) 0.28
Suspension compliance Cms (mm/N) 0.04
Effective cone diameter D (cm) 3.7
Effective piston area Sd (cm²) 10.8
Force factor Bl (N/A) 1.5
Reference voltage sensitivity
Re 2.83V 1m at 2600 Hz (Measured) (dB) 90

Magnet and voice coil parameters:
Voice coil diameter d (mm) 13
Voice coil length h (mm) 1.8
Voice coil layers n 2
Flux density in gap B (T) 1.0
Total useful flux (mWb) 0.1
Height of the gap hg (mm) 2.5
Diameter of magnet dm (mm) 40
Height of magnet hm (mm) 7.5
Weight of magnet (kg) 0.04

Power handling:
Long term Max System Power (IEC) (W) 100
  #20   Report Post  
Thomas A
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine


In order for there to be any "damping factor" issues, there has to be
something to damp that mainfests itself in the electrical domain, i.e.,
it has to show up in the impedance curve as a resonant peak. Second,
the electrical LOSSES (not IMPEDANCE, resistive LOSSES) that form the
effective series electrical loop with the tweeter HAVE to dominate all
other losses.

In point of fact, your conjecture fails on several fronts: first, in the
vast majority of tweeters, bay far the most dominant loss mechanism is
mechanical, either through suspensions losses or deliberately through
fluid viscous losses. This is precisely why the mechanical Q, Qms, of
most tweeters is equal to or less than the electrical Q, Qes.


Dick,

how would a tweeter like the Peerless conetweeter CT62H perform? I
currently use it in an active system, but use a 2.2 ohm resistor in
series with the tweeter. This is said to elevate the highs a little
due to the rise in impedance 10 kHz (which I want), and putting a
resistor in series may also reduce some sort of distorsion (going from
voltage to current drive???). I don't really know how this works (or
the theory behind it) and how it would apply to a tweeter with quite
different electrical/mechanical characteristics than "normal" tweeters
(e.g. QesQms).

The values a

CT 62 H
Thiele Small parameters:
Nominal impedance Zn (ohm) 8
Minimum impedance/at freq. Zmin (ohm/Hz) 6.6/2600
Maximum impedance Zo (ohm) 6.9
DC resistance Re (ohm) 6.1
Voice coil inductance Le (mH) 0.1
Resonance Frequency fs (Hz) 1500
Mechanical Q factor Qms 0.89
Electrical Q factor Qes 7.07
Total Q factor Qts 0.79
Mechanical resistance Rms (Kg/s) 3.01
Moving mass Mms (g) 0.28
Suspension compliance Cms (mm/N) 0.04
Effective cone diameter D (cm) 3.7
Effective piston area Sd (cm²) 10.8
Force factor Bl (N/A) 1.5
Reference voltage sensitivity
Re 2.83V 1m at 2600 Hz (Measured) (dB) 90

Magnet and voice coil parameters:
Voice coil diameter d (mm) 13
Voice coil length h (mm) 1.8
Voice coil layers n 2
Flux density in gap B (T) 1.0
Total useful flux (mWb) 0.1
Height of the gap hg (mm) 2.5
Diameter of magnet dm (mm) 40
Height of magnet hm (mm) 7.5
Weight of magnet (kg) 0.04

Power handling:
Long term Max System Power (IEC) (W) 100


  #21   Report Post  
Thomas A
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine


In order for there to be any "damping factor" issues, there has to be
something to damp that mainfests itself in the electrical domain, i.e.,
it has to show up in the impedance curve as a resonant peak. Second,
the electrical LOSSES (not IMPEDANCE, resistive LOSSES) that form the
effective series electrical loop with the tweeter HAVE to dominate all
other losses.

In point of fact, your conjecture fails on several fronts: first, in the
vast majority of tweeters, bay far the most dominant loss mechanism is
mechanical, either through suspensions losses or deliberately through
fluid viscous losses. This is precisely why the mechanical Q, Qms, of
most tweeters is equal to or less than the electrical Q, Qes.


Dick,

how would a tweeter like the Peerless conetweeter CT62H perform? I
currently use it in an active system, but use a 2.2 ohm resistor in
series with the tweeter. This is said to elevate the highs a little
due to the rise in impedance 10 kHz (which I want), and putting a
resistor in series may also reduce some sort of distorsion (going from
voltage to current drive???). I don't really know how this works (or
the theory behind it) and how it would apply to a tweeter with quite
different electrical/mechanical characteristics than "normal" tweeters
(e.g. QesQms).

The values a

CT 62 H
Thiele Small parameters:
Nominal impedance Zn (ohm) 8
Minimum impedance/at freq. Zmin (ohm/Hz) 6.6/2600
Maximum impedance Zo (ohm) 6.9
DC resistance Re (ohm) 6.1
Voice coil inductance Le (mH) 0.1
Resonance Frequency fs (Hz) 1500
Mechanical Q factor Qms 0.89
Electrical Q factor Qes 7.07
Total Q factor Qts 0.79
Mechanical resistance Rms (Kg/s) 3.01
Moving mass Mms (g) 0.28
Suspension compliance Cms (mm/N) 0.04
Effective cone diameter D (cm) 3.7
Effective piston area Sd (cm²) 10.8
Force factor Bl (N/A) 1.5
Reference voltage sensitivity
Re 2.83V 1m at 2600 Hz (Measured) (dB) 90

Magnet and voice coil parameters:
Voice coil diameter d (mm) 13
Voice coil length h (mm) 1.8
Voice coil layers n 2
Flux density in gap B (T) 1.0
Total useful flux (mWb) 0.1
Height of the gap hg (mm) 2.5
Diameter of magnet dm (mm) 40
Height of magnet hm (mm) 7.5
Weight of magnet (kg) 0.04

Power handling:
Long term Max System Power (IEC) (W) 100
  #22   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine

"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message ...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message

...
"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...

[snip]
And if you knew what "damping" was, you'd understand that this statement
basically is nonsensical.

I object to the rude tone of the above wording. You are a rude man.
[snip]

And this comes down, ultimately, to the farsical use of a nonsense
term as "damping factor" as a useful figure of merit for amplifier
performance, as have been adequately demonstrated in the past.
The amplifier in question may or may not have the audible
characteristics you claim, but it is not due your unsupportable
"damping factor" conjecture.


Interestingly, I had the above argument with Bill Sommerwick in which we
took the reverse sides of the issue.
I do not know which of you is correct, but I admit it seems plausible that
tweeter damping is primarily mechanical.


It's not a case of "plausible." Measure the mechanical damping,
as clearly indicated by Qms bs the electrical damping, indicated
by Qes, of typical tweeter, and plausibility is stringly reinforced
by ohysical reality.

Nevertheless, I stand by my impression of the Sunfire, which is that it is a
muddy sounding amplifier.


You're impression is one thing, but the explanation you proffer
has little basis in physical fact.

Search the archives and look for articles written on "damping factor"
and you will see why it is a nonsense term.
  #23   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine

"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message ...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message

...
"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...

[snip]
And if you knew what "damping" was, you'd understand that this statement
basically is nonsensical.

I object to the rude tone of the above wording. You are a rude man.
[snip]

And this comes down, ultimately, to the farsical use of a nonsense
term as "damping factor" as a useful figure of merit for amplifier
performance, as have been adequately demonstrated in the past.
The amplifier in question may or may not have the audible
characteristics you claim, but it is not due your unsupportable
"damping factor" conjecture.


Interestingly, I had the above argument with Bill Sommerwick in which we
took the reverse sides of the issue.
I do not know which of you is correct, but I admit it seems plausible that
tweeter damping is primarily mechanical.


It's not a case of "plausible." Measure the mechanical damping,
as clearly indicated by Qms bs the electrical damping, indicated
by Qes, of typical tweeter, and plausibility is stringly reinforced
by ohysical reality.

Nevertheless, I stand by my impression of the Sunfire, which is that it is a
muddy sounding amplifier.


You're impression is one thing, but the explanation you proffer
has little basis in physical fact.

Search the archives and look for articles written on "damping factor"
and you will see why it is a nonsense term.
  #24   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine

"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message ...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message

...
"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...

[snip]
And if you knew what "damping" was, you'd understand that this statement
basically is nonsensical.

I object to the rude tone of the above wording. You are a rude man.
[snip]

And this comes down, ultimately, to the farsical use of a nonsense
term as "damping factor" as a useful figure of merit for amplifier
performance, as have been adequately demonstrated in the past.
The amplifier in question may or may not have the audible
characteristics you claim, but it is not due your unsupportable
"damping factor" conjecture.


Interestingly, I had the above argument with Bill Sommerwick in which we
took the reverse sides of the issue.
I do not know which of you is correct, but I admit it seems plausible that
tweeter damping is primarily mechanical.


It's not a case of "plausible." Measure the mechanical damping,
as clearly indicated by Qms bs the electrical damping, indicated
by Qes, of typical tweeter, and plausibility is stringly reinforced
by ohysical reality.

Nevertheless, I stand by my impression of the Sunfire, which is that it is a
muddy sounding amplifier.


You're impression is one thing, but the explanation you proffer
has little basis in physical fact.

Search the archives and look for articles written on "damping factor"
and you will see why it is a nonsense term.
  #25   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carver ZR -- Krueger or Nousaine

"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message ...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message

...
"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...

[snip]
And if you knew what "damping" was, you'd understand that this statement
basically is nonsensical.

I object to the rude tone of the above wording. You are a rude man.
[snip]

And this comes down, ultimately, to the farsical use of a nonsense
term as "damping factor" as a useful figure of merit for amplifier
performance, as have been adequately demonstrated in the past.
The amplifier in question may or may not have the audible
characteristics you claim, but it is not due your unsupportable
"damping factor" conjecture.


Interestingly, I had the above argument with Bill Sommerwick in which we
took the reverse sides of the issue.
I do not know which of you is correct, but I admit it seems plausible that
tweeter damping is primarily mechanical.


It's not a case of "plausible." Measure the mechanical damping,
as clearly indicated by Qms bs the electrical damping, indicated
by Qes, of typical tweeter, and plausibility is stringly reinforced
by ohysical reality.

Nevertheless, I stand by my impression of the Sunfire, which is that it is a
muddy sounding amplifier.


You're impression is one thing, but the explanation you proffer
has little basis in physical fact.

Search the archives and look for articles written on "damping factor"
and you will see why it is a nonsense term.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rockers Unite to Oust Bush clamnebula Audio Opinions 222 December 26th 03 09:15 PM
Google Proof of An Unprovoked Personal Attack from Krueger Bruce J. Richman Audio Opinions 27 December 11th 03 06:21 AM
Krueger - Defendant in RAO Libel Suit - Exhibits His Delusions Bruce J. Richman Audio Opinions 0 December 5th 03 05:49 PM
Fabricated Posts? Robert Morein Audio Opinions 64 August 27th 03 06:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:28 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"