Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pallison49@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

Don Pearce wrote:



A true RMS current meter doesn't help, unfortunately. A speaker's
impedance is very reactive so multiplying RMS current and voltage
doesn't give you power.



** Of course, but what you actually do is multiply the rms noise current SQUARED by the voice coil resistance to get the heat dissipation in the copper wire in watts.

If you find the minimum impedance of the driver with a sine wave test in the mid band, then that number can be used instead of the copper resistance to give an accurate power dissipation figure, including suspension and eddy current losses.



That would need some sort of measurement
system that could provide vector products. As for doing that with a
noise source, forget it.



** A wind band power meter will do the job, analogue multiplying or digital sampling.



So no, you can't measure pink noise power into a speaker.



** Of course you can.



..... Phil



  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pallison49@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

Scott Dorsey wrote:


** That is complete bull****.

I have spent a great deal of time in my so far 46 year career
testing and verifying makers specs for audio equipment
( including speakers ) and find very little to complain about.



Then why do we keep seeing frequency ranges without tolerances? And why
will you never see a distortion spec on a loudspeaker?


** Here is the context that Mr Dorsey mischievously snipped:

" As I said, published specifications for loudspeakers, and in fact, for
most audio products, aren't worth the paper they're printed on "

My comment was clearly about *published specs* !!

If specs are simply not supplied, that is another matter.

FYI:

The term "frequency range" means what is says, the range of frequencies a speaker is capable of producing. Frequency response is a different spec, requiring a graph.

Distortion specs are non simple, as the amount varies widely with frequency and level. Reviews sometimes cover THD with a series of graphs.



..... Phil
  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pallison49@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote:


If the SPL
is measured at 2.84 Volts, then the sensitivity will be less for the
16 Ohm version.


** The spec is for so many dBs *per applied watt* at 1 metre.
For an 8ohm speaker this equates to 2.83V rms and for a 16 ohm
model 4.0V rms.

Sometimes the makers will use 100mW for their tests as SPLs
of 98dB and over are *very* loud.




Technically, you are correct. The 1998 book "Testing loudspeakers"
from D'Appolito gives the formula in chapter 2.8.3.


** Ya don't say.

However, amplifiers don't amplify watts. They amplify voltages, and
have a limitation on the current they can supply: that determines
their wattage.


** No fooling.


For practical use with given amp, a speaker with a higher SPL at
2.83V will sound louder than one with a lower SPL, even though the
latter one might be more efficient when looking at SPL/Watt.


** Sorry, that makes no sense at all.

Statements of the bleeding obvious followed by a complete non-sequitur do you no credit at all.


.... Phil
  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pallison49@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote:




Technically, you are correct. The 1998 book "Testing loudspeakers"
from D'Appolito gives the formula in chapter 2.8.3.

** Ya don't say.


I like to provide references if possible.


** A tedious pretension to non existent expertise - I'd say.




For practical use with given amp, a speaker with a higher SPL at
2.83V will sound louder than one with a lower SPL, even though the
latter one might be more efficient when looking at SPL/Watt.


** Sorry, that makes no sense at all.



Say if I were to replace the small speakers of my home stereo by ones
that can provide a decent SPL at much lower frequencies, and I have
the choice of two, one with an SPL of 80 dB and the other with 85 dB
(both measured with 2.83 V), then the one with 85 dB will be
noticably louder with the same volume settings. That is obvious.
Now if these speakers are 6 ohm, and there is a 12 ohm version also,
then driven with the same amp the 12 ohm version will be less loud
(its SPL at 2.83 V). Yet if one measures both speaker units with
regards to efficiency (sound per watt), the 12 ohm one could be more
efficient.


** Complete ********.

Try actually reading my earlier post directed to YOU and see that the spec is for an *applied watt*" so the rms noise voltage used *DEPENDS* on the speaker's nominal impedance.

2.83V for 8 ohms, 4V for 16 ohms and 3.46 for 12 ohms.

BTW Learn not to over snip.




...... Phil
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mat Nieuwenhoven Mat Nieuwenhoven is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 46
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:20:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote:




Technically, you are correct. The 1998 book "Testing loudspeakers"
from D'Appolito gives the formula in chapter 2.8.3.

** Ya don't say.


I like to provide references if possible.


** A tedious pretension to non existent expertise - I'd say.


I do not doubt your decades of experience in this field, but I prefer
verifiable references.



For practical use with given amp, a speaker with a higher SPL at
2.83V will sound louder than one with a lower SPL, even though the
latter one might be more efficient when looking at SPL/Watt.


** Sorry, that makes no sense at all.



Say if I were to replace the small speakers of my home stereo by ones
that can provide a decent SPL at much lower frequencies, and I have
the choice of two, one with an SPL of 80 dB and the other with 85 dB
(both measured with 2.83 V), then the one with 85 dB will be
noticably louder with the same volume settings. That is obvious.
Now if these speakers are 6 ohm, and there is a 12 ohm version also,
then driven with the same amp the 12 ohm version will be less loud
(its SPL at 2.83 V). Yet if one measures both speaker units with
regards to efficiency (sound per watt), the 12 ohm one could be more
efficient.


** Complete ********.

Try actually reading my earlier post directed to YOU and see that the spec is for an *applied watt*" so the rms noise voltage used *DEPENDS* on the speaker's nominal impedance.

2.83V for 8 ohms, 4V for 16 ohms and 3.46 for 12 ohms.


I did read your posts, and it is exactly what I wanted to point out.
The _efficiency_ is defined per applied watt. A given amp gives out
voltage. If the amp is capable of say 40 Vrms output, then a lower
impedance speaker will get more watts than a higher impedance one,
provided the amp can supply enough current. An 8 ohm speaker will
then take 200W, a 16 ohm speaker 100W. The 16 ohm one would have to
have twice the efficiency per watt as the 8 ohm one in order to
produce the same SPL. And unless you're power-constrained, achievable
SPL will likely be preferred over internal speaker efficiency,
especially with guitar speakers.

Mat Nieuwenhoven


  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

On 22/04/2019 10:31 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:

Yep, and I said *I* DON'T consider the speaker part of the "guitar
itself" or cables and pedals, that's all.


Why not? The amplifier is clipping, the speaker is breaking up, the cabinet
is deliberately designed to limit bandwidth. Not only that, the output of
the amp at high levels is looping back into the guitar pickups, causing
the system to ring. The amplifier/speaker is half the system and is likely
more a source of "tone" than the instrument itself.


You misunderstand, read my original post in full. The sound will
definitely depend on the speaker and everything else as you say. BUT *I*
wouldn't design a guitar amp around *ONE* guitar, and change the speaker
for a different guitar. Would you? So the actual guitar and pedals etc
is NOT something I'd take into account when designing a guitar
amp/speaker combo. (well I would for a bass guitar Vs 6 string of
course) But hey I'm sure there are some who might, can't think of any
commercial manufacturers that do though.




  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range


On 22/04/2019 10:31 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The amplifier is clipping, the speaker is breaking up, the
cabinet
is deliberately designed to limit bandwidth.Â* Not only that, the
output of
the amp at high levels is looping back into the guitar pickups, causing
the system to ring.Â* The amplifier/speaker is half the system and is
likely
more a source of "tone" than the instrument itself.


On 4/23/2019 7:21 AM, Trevor wrote:
You misunderstand, read my original post in full. The sound will
definitely depend on the speaker and everything else as you say. BUT *I*
wouldn't design a guitar amp around *ONE* guitar, and change the speaker
for a different guitar. Would you?


I think that what Scott was trying to get across is not that you would
design the guitar, processors, amplifier, cabinet, and speaker as a
unit, but rather, that a speaker intended for use with an electric
guitar would have different design parameters than one that was intended
to be used in a home bookshelf speaker, which would have different
design parameters than one intended for use in a PA line-array system, etc.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #50   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

** That is complete bull****.

I have spent a great deal of time in my so far 46 year career
testing and verifying makers specs for audio equipment
( including speakers ) and find very little to complain about.



Then why do we keep seeing frequency ranges without tolerances? And why
will you never see a distortion spec on a loudspeaker?


** Here is the context that Mr Dorsey mischievously snipped:

" As I said, published specifications for loudspeakers, and in fact, for
most audio products, aren't worth the paper they're printed on "

My comment was clearly about *published specs* !!

If specs are simply not supplied, that is another matter.


I get the spec sheet. Important stuff is missing. Enough to frequently
make the spec sheet worthless.

It's getting worse too. I have three microphones from China with the same
frequency response plots. The measured frequency response of all three
bears no connection to the supplied plot. The manufacturer bought a capsule
from someplace and put the capsule manufacturer's plot on the microphone
datasheet, totally ignoring the contribution of the rest of the microphone.


The term "frequency range" means what is says, the range of frequencies a speaker is capable of producing. Frequency response is a different spec, requiring a graph.


You put enough power into anything and it'll move. Maybe not for very long
before it fails, but it'll move.

Distortion specs are non simple, as the amount varies widely with frequency and level. Reviews sometimes cover THD with a series of graphs.


Yes. Be really nice to see distortion spectra too, but you won't see one on
a datasheet.
--scott

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


  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 22/04/2019 10:31 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The amplifier is clipping, the speaker is breaking up, the
cabinet
is deliberately designed to limit bandwidth.Â* Not only that, the
output of
the amp at high levels is looping back into the guitar pickups, causing
the system to ring.Â* The amplifier/speaker is half the system and is
likely
more a source of "tone" than the instrument itself.


On 4/23/2019 7:21 AM, Trevor wrote:
You misunderstand, read my original post in full. The sound will
definitely depend on the speaker and everything else as you say. BUT *I*
wouldn't design a guitar amp around *ONE* guitar, and change the speaker
for a different guitar. Would you?


I think that what Scott was trying to get across is not that you would
design the guitar, processors, amplifier, cabinet, and speaker as a
unit, but rather, that a speaker intended for use with an electric
guitar would have different design parameters than one that was intended
to be used in a home bookshelf speaker, which would have different
design parameters than one intended for use in a PA line-array system, etc.


This is true. But... I know plenty of guitarists who have several different
amps. They use this amp when they want this tone and that amp when they
want that tone. Just like sax reeds.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range


Distortion specs are non simple, as the amount varies widely with frequency and level. Reviews sometimes cover THD with a series of graphs.



On 4/23/2019 9:16 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Yes. Be really nice to see distortion spectra too, but you won't see one on
a datasheet.


The specifications define the design

The data sheet tells you how close you came to your design choices

The numbers that you see in the ads and web sites is neither of the
above. It's what the manufacturer wants you to compare with their
competitors' publications. It's a very glossed-over view of reality.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pallison49@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote:




Technically, you are correct. The 1998 book "Testing loudspeakers"
from D'Appolito gives the formula in chapter 2.8.3.

** Ya don't say.

I like to provide references if possible.


** A tedious pretension to non existent expertise - I'd say.


I do not doubt your decades of experience in this field, but I prefer
verifiable references.


** What a pretentious prat you are.




For practical use with given amp, a speaker with a higher SPL at
2.83V will sound louder than one with a lower SPL, even though the
latter one might be more efficient when looking at SPL/Watt.


** Sorry, that makes no sense at all.


Say if I were to replace the small speakers of my home stereo by ones
that can provide a decent SPL at much lower frequencies, and I have
the choice of two, one with an SPL of 80 dB and the other with 85 dB
(both measured with 2.83 V), then the one with 85 dB will be
noticably louder with the same volume settings. That is obvious.
Now if these speakers are 6 ohm, and there is a 12 ohm version also,
then driven with the same amp the 12 ohm version will be less loud
(its SPL at 2.83 V). Yet if one measures both speaker units with
regards to efficiency (sound per watt), the 12 ohm one could be more
efficient.


** Complete ********.

Try actually reading my earlier post directed to YOU and see that the spec is for an *applied watt*" so the rms noise voltage used *DEPENDS* on the speaker's nominal impedance.

2.83V for 8 ohms, 4V for 16 ohms and 3.46 for 12 ohms.



I did read your posts, and it is exactly what I wanted to point out.



** Unfortunately you are totally WRONG.


The _efficiency_ is defined per applied watt. A given amp gives out
voltage. If the amp is capable of say 40 Vrms output, then a lower
impedance speaker will get more watts than a higher impedance one,
provided the amp can supply enough current. An 8 ohm speaker will
then take 200W, a 16 ohm speaker 100W.

The 16 ohm one would have to
have twice the efficiency per watt as the 8 ohm one in order to
produce the same SPL.



** You are merely repeating the same complete ********.

Because the power level is 1 watt, the dB/watt/metre test uses different noise voltages for different impedance speakers.

You have no point.



....... Phil



  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pallison49@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

Scott Dorsey wrote:


** That is complete bull****.

I have spent a great deal of time in my so far 46 year career
testing and verifying makers specs for audio equipment
( including speakers ) and find very little to complain about.


Then why do we keep seeing frequency ranges without tolerances? And why
will you never see a distortion spec on a loudspeaker?


** Here is the context that Mr Dorsey mischievously snipped:

" As I said, published specifications for loudspeakers, and in fact, for
most audio products, aren't worth the paper they're printed on "

My comment was clearly about *published specs* !!

If specs are simply not supplied, that is another matter.



I get the spec sheet. Important stuff is missing. Enough to frequently
make the spec sheet worthless.


** Really ? You are bull****ting wildly.


It's getting worse too. I have three microphones from China with the same
frequency response plots. The measured frequency response of all three
bears no connection to the supplied plot. The manufacturer bought a capsule
from someplace and put the capsule manufacturer's plot on the microphone
datasheet, totally ignoring the contribution of the rest of the microphone.



** Really - that is enough for you to condemn the entire audio industry for publishing false specs ? How absurd.


The term "frequency range" means what is says, the range of frequencies
a speaker is capable of producing. Frequency response is a different spec, requiring a graph.



You put enough power into anything and it'll move. Maybe not for very long
before it fails, but it'll move.



** Really - is that the best you can do?


Distortion specs are non simple, as the amount varies widely with
frequency and level. Reviews sometimes cover THD with a series of graphs.



Yes. Be really nice to see distortion spectra too, but you won't see one on
a datasheet.



** Still not an example of publishing false specs.

Get real.


...... Phil
  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pallison49@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

Mike Rivers wrote:

Distortion specs are non simple, as the amount varies widely

with frequency and level. Reviews sometimes cover THD with a
series of graphs.



Yes. Be really nice to see distortion spectra too, but you won't see one on
a datasheet.


The specifications define the design



** No, they characterise the performance of a given design.


The data sheet tells you how close you came to your design choices


** Huh ? Makes no sense at all.


The numbers that you see in the ads and web sites is neither of the
above.



** Of course, since they are not what you have claimed.


It's what the manufacturer wants you to compare with their
competitors' publications.



** Good specs help to sell products, nothing new there.


It's a very glossed-over view of reality.



** That is your barking mad opinion.

Slandering the entire audio industry because particular specs are simply not published is a gross absurdity.

Mike Rivers reputation as a know nothing, bull**** artist is not in any danger.



..... Phil






  #56   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
James Price[_5_] James Price[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 3:39:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:


** That is complete bull****.

I have spent a great deal of time in my so far 46 year career
testing and verifying makers specs for audio equipment
( including speakers ) and find very little to complain about.


Then why do we keep seeing frequency ranges without tolerances? And why
will you never see a distortion spec on a loudspeaker?


** Here is the context that Mr Dorsey mischievously snipped:

" As I said, published specifications for loudspeakers, and in fact, for
most audio products, aren't worth the paper they're printed on "

My comment was clearly about *published specs* !!

If specs are simply not supplied, that is another matter.



I get the spec sheet. Important stuff is missing. Enough to frequently
make the spec sheet worthless.


** Really ? You are bull****ting wildly.


It's getting worse too. I have three microphones from China with the same
frequency response plots. The measured frequency response of all three
bears no connection to the supplied plot. The manufacturer bought a capsule
from someplace and put the capsule manufacturer's plot on the microphone
datasheet, totally ignoring the contribution of the rest of the microphone.



** Really - that is enough for you to condemn the entire audio industry for publishing false specs ? How absurd.


The term "frequency range" means what is says, the range of frequencies
a speaker is capable of producing. Frequency response is a different spec, requiring a graph.



You put enough power into anything and it'll move. Maybe not for very long
before it fails, but it'll move.



** Really - is that the best you can do?


Distortion specs are non simple, as the amount varies widely with
frequency and level. Reviews sometimes cover THD with a series of graphs.



Yes. Be really nice to see distortion spectra too, but you won't see one on
a datasheet.



** Still not an example of publishing false specs.

Get real.


..... Phil


I took you seriously until you started engaging in ad hominem attacks.
  #57   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pallison49@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

James Price wrote:




** Still not an example of publishing false specs.

Get real.



I took you seriously until you started engaging in ad hominem attacks.



** You must be delusional - there are simply no "ad hominem" attacks coming from me.

FYI #1

All your posts here look like trolls, based on garbage posted on some unidentified forum.


FYI #2

The internet exists so that fools can misinform each other.

FYI

You have no idea *at all* who is right and who is not -
making it impossible to correctly judge the posted replies.

So you get it wrong.


..... Phil

  #58   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

On 23/04/2019 11:03 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:

On 22/04/2019 10:31 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The amplifier is clipping, the speaker is breaking up, the cabinet
is deliberately designed to limit bandwidth.Â* Not only that, the
output of
the amp at high levels is looping back into the guitar pickups, causing
the system to ring.Â* The amplifier/speaker is half the system and is
likely
more a source of "tone" than the instrument itself.


On 4/23/2019 7:21 AM, Trevor wrote:
You misunderstand, read my original post in full. The sound will
definitely depend on the speaker and everything else as you say. BUT
*I* wouldn't design a guitar amp around *ONE* guitar, and change the
speaker for a different guitar. Would you?


I think that what Scott was trying to get across is not that you would
design the guitar, processors, amplifier, cabinet, and speaker as a
unit, but rather, that a speaker intended for use with an electric
guitar would have different design parameters than one that was intended
to be used in a home bookshelf speaker, which would have different
design parameters than one intended for use in a PA line-array system, etc.



Well duh! Did anybody say otherwise?




  #59   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

On 23/04/2019 11:18 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
This is true. But... I know plenty of guitarists who have several different
amps. They use this amp when they want this tone and that amp when they
want that tone. Just like sax reeds.


Of course, just as they would change guitars for a different tone. And
naturally they often use different combinations of guitar and amp for
certain tones. Changing speakers in one amp is not something usually
done a regular basis though! :-)




  #60   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

James Price wrote:

..... Phil


I took you seriously until you started engaging in ad hominem attacks.


He does that. For the most part he knows what he's talking about but
sometimes he just goes off his nut like this.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

In article , Trevor wrote:
On 23/04/2019 11:18 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
This is true. But... I know plenty of guitarists who have several different
amps. They use this amp when they want this tone and that amp when they
want that tone. Just like sax reeds.


Of course, just as they would change guitars for a different tone. And
naturally they often use different combinations of guitar and amp for
certain tones. Changing speakers in one amp is not something usually
done a regular basis though! :-)


That's why you get separate head amp and cabinet, so you can swap different
cabinets around with the same electronics!

It's crazy the stuff musicians do.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #62   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pallison49@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

Scott Dorsey wrote:




** Some troll posted:


I took you seriously until you started engaging in ad hominem attacks.



He does that. For the most part he knows what he's talking about but
sometimes he just goes off his nut like this.



** That would be an "ad hominem" attack on me - would it not?

Abusive, non specific and complete bull****.




..... Phil





  #63   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
James Price[_5_] James Price[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:36:37 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
James Price wrote:

I took you seriously until you started engaging in ad hominem attacks.


He does that. For the most part he knows what he's talking about but
sometimes he just goes off his nut like this.


Noted.
  #64   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah Tobiah is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 666
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

** You must be delusional - there are simply no "ad hominem" attacks coming from me.

The irony is palpable.



  #65   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pallison49@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

Tobiah the Troll wrote:



** You must be delusional - there are simply no "ad hominem" attacks coming from me.


The irony is palpable.



** **** off you bran dead troll



..... Phil



  #66   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ralph Barone[_3_] Ralph Barone[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

wrote:
Tobiah the Troll wrote:



** You must be delusional - there are simply no "ad hominem" attacks coming from me.


The irony is palpable.



** **** off you bran dead troll



.... Phil



I'd have to say that while Phil is very often a source of very good
information on this newsgroup, the above post very definitely looks like an
"ad hominem" attack.

  #67   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pallison49@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

Ralph Barone wrote:


Tobiah the Troll wrote:



** You must be delusional - there are simply no "ad hominem"

attacks coming from me.

The irony is palpable.



** **** off you bran dead troll



.... Phil



I'd have to say that while Phil is very often a source of very good
information on this newsgroup, the above post very definitely looks like an
"ad hominem" attack.





** Well, you must have a strange idea of what constitutes "ad hominem".

FYI #1

Fair comment is NOT an "ad hominem" attack.

Advising a poster who uses an offensive, smart arse remark as his only post to go away quickly is not an "ad hominem attack".

Using an offensive, smart are remark as one's only post is the act of a troll.

To also call such a person "brain dead" is fair comment.

What Tobiah posted WAS very clearly an "ad hominem " attack, on me.

He got back what he deserved.


FYI #2

An "ad hominem " attack is typically a mixture of verbal abuse and downright lies posted in place of a proper answer to fair criticism and/or factual information.

Try reading more carefully and thinking a bit harder next time.

If you can.



..... Phil

  #68   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
James Price[_5_] James Price[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 11:40:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:

An "ad hominem " attack is typically a mixture of verbal abuse and downright lies posted in place of a proper answer to fair criticism and/or factual information.

Try reading more carefully and thinking a bit harder next time.

If you can.


Ad hominem: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character
rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

Exhibit A:

"Mike Rivers reputation as a know nothing, bull**** artist is not
in any danger."
  #69   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pallison49@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

James Price wrote:



An "ad hominem " attack is typically a mixture of verbal abuse and
downright lies posted in place of a proper answer to fair criticism
and/or factual information.

Try reading more carefully and thinking a bit harder next time.

If you can.



Ad hominem: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character
rather than by an answer to the contentions made.



** Straight from Google I bet.

Question:

Is that not EXACTY what you posted a day or so ago ??

No answer required.


Exhibit A:

"Mike Rivers reputation as a know nothing, bull**** artist is not
in any danger."



** A simple statement of fact.

Mike Rivers makes and has long made his living from folk who mindlessly
believe his nonsense claim he made re published specs being worthless.

There is no answer to his words, since he provided no proof and has
never made any attempt to.

That you have no clue as to the truth, or not, of any of this is
your problem. See my other posts re YOUR character, which you have posted no answer to either.

BTW:

Did you notice that I was the ONLY person to ACTUALLY answer you question ?

Do you have a clue what the word " ingrate " means ?

No answer required.



...... Phil
  #70   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pallison49@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

Don Pearce wrote:



A true RMS current meter doesn't help, unfortunately. A speaker's
impedance is very reactive so multiplying RMS current and voltage
doesn't give you power.



** Of course, but what you actually do is multiply the rms noise current SQUARED by the voice coil resistance to get the heat dissipation in the copper wire in watts.

If you find the minimum impedance of the driver with a sine wave test in the mid band, then that number can be used instead of the copper resistance to give an accurate power dissipation figure, including suspension and eddy current losses.



That would need some sort of measurement
system that could provide vector products. As for doing that with a
noise source, forget it.



** A wind band power meter will do the job, analogue multiplying or digital sampling.



So no, you can't measure pink noise power into a speaker.



** Of course you can.



.... Phil



Nope. Didn't understand a word of that.



** Really ??

So " I squared R " has no meaning in your world ?

The resistive losses that increase a speaker's mid band, resistive impedance beyond the DC ohms value are also mysterious to you ?

A multiplying power meter, using analogue multiplier ICs, is also a mystery ?

Where have you been hiding Don.

Under a rock?



..... Phil


  #71   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 05:01:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:



A true RMS current meter doesn't help, unfortunately. A speaker's
impedance is very reactive so multiplying RMS current and voltage
doesn't give you power.



** Of course, but what you actually do is multiply the rms noise current SQUARED by the voice coil resistance to get the heat dissipation in the copper wire in watts.

If you find the minimum impedance of the driver with a sine wave test in the mid band, then that number can be used instead of the copper resistance to give an accurate power dissipation figure, including suspension and eddy current losses.



That would need some sort of measurement
system that could provide vector products. As for doing that with a
noise source, forget it.


** A wind band power meter will do the job, analogue multiplying or digital sampling.



So no, you can't measure pink noise power into a speaker.


** Of course you can.



.... Phil



Nope. Didn't understand a word of that.



** Really ??

So " I squared R " has no meaning in your world ?

The resistive losses that increase a speaker's mid band, resistive impedance beyond the DC ohms value are also mysterious to you ?

A multiplying power meter, using analogue multiplier ICs, is also a mystery ?

Where have you been hiding Don.

Under a rock?



.... Phil


I squared R has plenty of meaning. Unfortunately a speaker is not an
R. It's an X. And I squared X gives you VA, not Watts. Your
measurement method, applied to a pure capacitor, would apparently
yield a power level. You can't put any power into a capacitor.

d
  #72   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 12:15:14 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 05:01:41 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:



A true RMS current meter doesn't help, unfortunately. A speaker's
impedance is very reactive so multiplying RMS current and voltage
doesn't give you power.



** Of course, but what you actually do is multiply the rms noise current SQUARED by the voice coil resistance to get the heat dissipation in the copper wire in watts.

If you find the minimum impedance of the driver with a sine wave test in the mid band, then that number can be used instead of the copper resistance to give an accurate power dissipation figure, including suspension and eddy current losses.



That would need some sort of measurement
system that could provide vector products. As for doing that with a
noise source, forget it.


** A wind band power meter will do the job, analogue multiplying or digital sampling.



So no, you can't measure pink noise power into a speaker.


** Of course you can.



.... Phil



Nope. Didn't understand a word of that.



** Really ??

So " I squared R " has no meaning in your world ?

The resistive losses that increase a speaker's mid band, resistive impedance beyond the DC ohms value are also mysterious to you ?

A multiplying power meter, using analogue multiplier ICs, is also a mystery ?

Where have you been hiding Don.

Under a rock?



.... Phil


I squared R has plenty of meaning. Unfortunately a speaker is not an
R. It's an X. And I squared X gives you VA, not Watts. Your
measurement method, applied to a pure capacitor, would apparently
yield a power level. You can't put any power into a capacitor.

d


Oops - let me correct that. A speaker is a whole slew of different R +
jX, with the values being different at every frequency over the
measurement band. No scalar instrument can tell you about power
transfer into that. You can do it with a vector instrument at a single
frequency - and I regularly do that.

But a noise signal with a scalar voltmeter and a scalar ammeter? Nope.
Not on this earth.

And just so you understand, I used to design measuring equipment for
Marconi Instruments. I hold patents for measurement methods and used
to have a NAMAS accreditation on an individual basis.

d
  #73   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

On 26/04/2019 11:21 PM, James Price wrote:
On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 11:40:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:

An "ad hominem " attack is typically a mixture of verbal abuse and downright lies posted in place of a proper answer to fair criticism and/or factual information.

Try reading more carefully and thinking a bit harder next time.

If you can.


Ad hominem: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character
rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

Exhibit A:

"Mike Rivers reputation as a know nothing, bull**** artist is not
in any danger."


Not a thread worth pursuing. Phil is more often than not spot on
technically. It's just when he goes of his meds that things get a little
out of proportion.

geoff
  #74   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
James Price[_5_] James Price[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 6:43:37 AM UTC-5, wrote:
James Price wrote:



An "ad hominem " attack is typically a mixture of verbal abuse and
downright lies posted in place of a proper answer to fair criticism
and/or factual information.

Try reading more carefully and thinking a bit harder next time.

If you can.



Ad hominem: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character
rather than by an answer to the contentions made.



** Straight from Google I bet.


Webster's dictionary.


Exhibit A:

"Mike Rivers reputation as a know nothing, bull**** artist is not
in any danger."



** A simple statement of fact.


Fine, you're an idiot. That's not an ad hominem. It's a simple statement of fact.
  #75   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
James Price[_5_] James Price[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 7:43:19 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 26/04/2019 11:21 PM, James Price wrote:
On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 11:40:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:

An "ad hominem " attack is typically a mixture of verbal abuse and downright lies posted in place of a proper answer to fair criticism and/or factual information.

Try reading more carefully and thinking a bit harder next time.

If you can.


Ad hominem: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character
rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

Exhibit A:

"Mike Rivers reputation as a know nothing, bull**** artist is not
in any danger."


Not a thread worth pursuing. Phil is more often than not spot on
technically. It's just when he goes of his meds that things get a little
out of proportion.

geoff


Kind of an idiot savant.


  #76   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah Tobiah is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 666
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

On 4/25/19 3:13 PM, wrote:
Tobiah the Troll wrote:



** You must be delusional - there are simply no "ad hominem" attacks coming from me.


The irony is palpable.



** **** off you bran dead troll


I see that I've met my match with your adroit scathing wit.




  #77   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah Tobiah is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 666
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

On 4/25/19 9:40 PM, wrote:
Ralph Barone wrote:


Tobiah the Troll wrote:



** You must be delusional - there are simply no "ad hominem"
attacks coming from me.


** Well, you must have a strange idea of what constitutes "ad
hominem".

FYI #1

Fair comment is NOT an "ad hominem" attack.


What *was* ad hominem, was what I initially responded to. A person
accused you, rightly or wrongly that you were guilty of using
ad hominem attacks. You responded with no other defense than that
this person was delusional. You failed to address the point in contention, which was
the nature of your previous posts. You instead questioned the mental
ability of your opponent which served as your only stance in the argument.
This is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack, which you were using
to defend yourself against the accusation that you had used the same.

I found great amusing irony there and couldn't help but to point it out.
Not knowing you, I might have done it with a less biting style so as not
to offend. Temptation bested me, however and I apologize for the perceived
insult.

Advising a poster who uses an offensive, smart arse remark as his
only post to go away quickly is not an "ad hominem attack".

Using an offensive, smart are remark as one's only post is the act of
a troll.

To also call such a person "brain dead" is fair comment.

What Tobiah posted WAS very clearly an "ad hominem " attack, on me.

He got back what he deserved.


I have committed no ad hominem attack. When I insulted you the words
served their correct purpose. I was not dodging an argument by attacking
the opponent. I was just pointing out a humorous contradiction in what
you were saying.



Tobiah
  #78   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pallison49@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

Don Pearce wrote:


Nope. Didn't understand a word of that.



** Really ??

So " I squared R " has no meaning in your world ?

The resistive losses that increase a speaker's mid band,
resistive impedance beyond the DC ohms value are also mysterious
to you ?

A multiplying power meter, using analogue multiplier ICs,
is also a mystery ?

Where have you been hiding Don.

Under a rock?



I squared R has plenty of meaning. Unfortunately a speaker is not an
R. It's an X.



** However, the copper voice coil IS a simple resistance hence I squared R applies. You did not read my post.


Your measurement method, applied to a pure capacitor, would
apparently yield a power level.



** Not at all, an ideal capacitor has a resistance of zero.

Try reading my post, it is very clear.



..... Phil

  #79   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pallison49@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

Don Pearce wrote:


Nope. Didn't understand a word of that.



** Really ??

So " I squared R " has no meaning in your world ?

The resistive losses that increase a speaker's mid band, resistive impedance beyond the DC ohms value are also mysterious to you ?

A multiplying power meter, using analogue multiplier ICs, is also a mystery ?

Where have you been hiding Don.

Under a rock?



.... Phil


I squared R has plenty of meaning. Unfortunately a speaker is not an
R. It's an X. And I squared X gives you VA, not Watts. Your
measurement method, applied to a pure capacitor, would apparently
yield a power level. You can't put any power into a capacitor.

d



Oops - let me correct that. A speaker is a whole slew of different R +
jX, with the values being different at every frequency over the
measurement band. No scalar instrument can tell you about power
transfer into that. You can do it with a vector instrument at a single
frequency - and I regularly do that.


But a noise signal with a scalar voltmeter and a scalar ammeter? Nope.
Not on this earth.



** You are making a very basic mistake.

Consider the following:

If you apply a noise voltage to a resistor and measure the current flow with a wide band, true rms meter the formula "I squared R " applies exactly.

If you add an ideal reactance in series with the resistor the formula "I squared R " still applies since the resistor is the only power dissipating item.

A speaker can be accurately modelled as several resistances in series with a lossless reactive component, also in series. My earlier post outlines how to quantify the additional resistances due to suspension losses etc - works out to be about 20% more then the DCR value of the voice coil.

So, power dissipation IS "I squared R " where I = the rms current flow and R = the resistive, mid band impedance minimum.

BTW:

You really need to check out how multiplying power meters work.



..... Phil


  #80   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pallison49@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Listed Specifications for Guitar Speaker Frequency Range

geoff wrote:



Not a thread worth pursuing. Phil is more often than not spot on
technically.



** A lot more often than you think - cos you are not in a position to tell.


It's just when he goes of his meds that things get a little
out of proportion.


** That is a blatant and completely false "ad hominem" attack.


..... Phil

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
Frequency range of the voice Julien Bernier Pro Audio 37 September 28th 06 11:10 PM
select frequency range Bob Pit Pro Audio 2 May 10th 05 03:16 AM
select frequency range Bob Pit General 2 May 7th 05 10:50 PM
Monitor Frequency Range Peter Larsen Pro Audio 24 May 28th 04 02:19 AM
Monitor Frequency Range Peter Larsen Pro Audio 0 May 25th 04 08:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:36 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"