Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
MiNE 109 wrote: In article z, The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109 wrote: I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne... LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter! http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...on_991029.html Just remember the 'th' is silent! Sounds like a job for Frank Sinatra. Here's the site with animations of the orbit: http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~wiegert/3753/3753.html Ah. Corkscrewy horseshoes. Nexus 6 |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:31:11 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message news On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:14:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: The good news is that you are violently hated on most of the Usenet audio groups, and you don't bother them very much. So life there is relatively gentle and sweet for me. Except for RAHE apparently. The RAHE moderators apparently decided to get rid of me to solve their problems with anti-DBT trollers. Didn't work. Sorry, but they didn't "get rid of you". *You* got rid of you. Let me put it this way, I shed no tears. The place has been ruined by the brain-dead anti-DBTers and even the moderators know it. Funny how it used to be: "That would work a real hardship on guys like Middius and Gruvmyster. My idea of real torment for them would be to require them to get 20 posts approved on RAHE... ;-)" Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the moment. Of course, there's this as well: "That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is very weak. If you were more knowlegable you would probably not be so snowed by him". Looks like you've been "forced to clean up your act". Something that you are unwilling to do. Yep, I remember a day when it was considered a sin by you not to post at RAHE. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:32:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . Yep, this is the very thing I'm talking about. The quicker you get the chip off of your shoulder, the better you will be. Show us all how to do it, David "Gratuitous Attack" Weil. I did, when I gave you some friendly advice about how to stay out of the '"virtual hospital". |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:33:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:12:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he works. And we know why *that* is, don't we? Weil, I believe your answer has always indicated absolute, paralyzing, unthinking fear. Actually, I think that my answer has included respect for my co-workers. Oh, you don't want them to become jealous when you get flowers? No, since I actually BRING flowers from my garden, it would be no surprise for me to be linked with flowers. I don't expect *you*of all people to understand why I wouldn't want my co-workers dragged into RAO. After all, you posted your wife's work telephone number just so you could try and win "debating trade points" about a non-audio issue. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
In article sGbmb.3887$d87.2541@okepread05,
Nexus 6 wrote: The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109 wrote: I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne... LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter! http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...on_991029.html I'm not sure I like the name, but that orbit is craaaazeeeee... Could've Pict a better name, eh? |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
It's interesting Middius that there's a common thread through you and all of
your brainless parasites. None of you will say anything specific about their jobs. The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he works. Yet you yammer and whine about the fact that I'm self-employed. I say put up or shut up. If jobs are an issue, why haven't the whole rotten lot of you come clean about YOUR jobs? Let's start with your job Middius. Who is your employer and what is your job title? Really. It's very simple Arny. You are clearly not interested in our jobs, you are interested in new material for personal attacks. Most people are simply not interested in feeding personal information to someone who's interests are purely malliceous. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
"dave weil" wrote in message news On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:32:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . Yep, this is the very thing I'm talking about. The quicker you get the chip off of your shoulder, the better you will be. Show us all how to do it, David "Gratuitous Attack" Weil. I did, when I gave you some friendly advice about how to stay out of the '"virtual hospital". That? It just shows how perverted your idea of getting the chip off YOUR shoulder is, Weil. Oh well, so much for getting advice about how to treat people right from an admitted dominatrix. BTW Weil, do you wear a leather apron and carry handcuffs at work? |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
"dave weil" wrote in message ... Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the moment. Of course, there's this as well: "That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is very weak. If you were more knowledgeable you would probably not be so snowed by him". Interesting that you had to reach back more than 5 years to find that quote: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...o.gtegsc.co m Bottom line, the quote is irrelevant because of how old it is, and how you're trying to abuse it. To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But thanks for showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way, Weil. I don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more ago. Looks like you've been "forced to clean up your act". Something that you are unwilling to do. Weil, how does this relate you cleaning up your dominatrix act here on RAO, at this time? Yep, I remember a day when it was considered a sin by you not to post at RAHE. More delusional postings from Weil. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... It's interesting Middius that there's a common thread through you and all of your brainless parasites. None of you will say anything specific about their jobs. The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he works. Yet you yammer and whine about the fact that I'm self-employed. I say put up or shut up. If jobs are an issue, why haven't the whole rotten lot of you come clean about YOUR jobs? Let's start with your job Middius. Who is your employer and what is your job title? Really. It's very simple Arny. You are clearly not interested in our jobs, you are interested in new material for personal attacks. Thanks for admitting that you would be embarrassed if we were to know what your job is, sockpuppet wheel. Most people are simply not interested in feeding personal information to someone who's interests are purely malliceous. Actually, one of my interests would be educating you to write like a literate person, sockpuppet wheel. But I'll take your final acquiescence to using a standard posting style as a sign of your desire for personal improvement. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
Arny said
It's interesting Middius that there's a common thread through you and all of your brainless parasites. None of you will say anything specific about their jobs. The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he works. Yet you yammer and whine about the fact that I'm self-employed. I say put up or shut up. If jobs are an issue, why haven't the whole rotten lot of you come clean about YOUR jobs? Let's start with your job Middius. Who is your employer and what is your job title? Really. I said It's very simple Arny. You are clearly not interested in our jobs, you are interested in new material for personal attacks. Arny said Thanks for admitting that you would be embarrassed if we were to know what your job is, sockpuppet wheel. I made no such admission. I am very proud of my work. But it is this sort of tactic of yours, taking something and misrepresenting it that I am talking about. I said Most people are simply not interested in feeding personal information to someone who's interests are purely malliceous. Arny said Actually, one of my interests would be educating you to write like a literate person, sockpuppet wheel. But I'll take your final acquiescence to using a standard posting style as a sign of your desire for personal improvement. Yet another fine example of the fact that your intnetions on RAO are purely malliceous. |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:14:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message news On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:32:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . Yep, this is the very thing I'm talking about. The quicker you get the chip off of your shoulder, the better you will be. Show us all how to do it, David "Gratuitous Attack" Weil. I did, when I gave you some friendly advice about how to stay out of the '"virtual hospital". That? It just shows how perverted your idea of getting the chip off YOUR shoulder is, Weil. Oh well, so much for getting advice about how to treat people right from an admitted dominatrix. The last statement is of course a blad-faced lie. It's your m.o., right? That's why you're going to court. shrug BTW Weil, do you wear a leather apron and carry handcuffs at work? Nope. A cloth apron, a corkscrew, a crumber, and some pens, any of the last three are probably giving you some wet thoughts right about now. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:20:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the moment. Of course, there's this as well: "That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is very weak. If you were more knowledgeable you would probably not be so snowed by him". Interesting that you had to reach back more than 5 years to find that quote: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...o.gtegsc.co m Bottom line, the quote is irrelevant because of how old it is, and how you're trying to abuse it. To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But thanks for showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way, Weil. I don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more ago. "How about 5 months ago? Ironically, Richman wrote this 4 years ago. History shows that in the past 4 years RAO has continued to founder worse and worse, and RAHE has thrived. Moderation of RAO poses no particular threat to me because I have proven that I do well under moderation. Google finds about 2,500 RAHE posts that I've authored, an average of over one a day for about six years. I also do well in the 10 other unmoderated audio groups I currently contribute to". Google is a bitch, ain't it, Mr. Krueger? Looks like you've been "forced to clean up your act". Something that you are unwilling to do. Weil, how does this relate you cleaning up your dominatrix act here on RAO, at this time? What "dominatrix act"? Some projection on your part? Yep, I remember a day when it was considered a sin by you not to post at RAHE. More delusional postings from Weil. "Face it North, you've been afraid to post in RAHE because you can't keep a civil mouth". " Responding to assorted attacks with my own brand of counterattacks? For the most part, I try to stick to topic and offer up helpful advice to people. And unlike you, I do post on RAHE and RAT, and I have no problems with the RAHE moderators at all. Of course you don't. You fit right in. Notice that Mr. Weil is acting like a low-conflict environment is a cancer ward. The real truth is that "fitting in" at RAHE means accepting a neutral authority and the accountability that involves. See what I mean by Mr. Weil's double standard when it comes to accountability? Apparently accountability that does not favor his preferences for freely making personal attacks is a bad thing". Oooohhhh, looks like Arnold has exposed his *own* double standard... OUCH! |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
dave weil said: To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But thanks for showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way, Weil. I don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more ago. Oh Mr. ****, if you please: Didn't you recently claim you had "deconstructed" something I said in a "debate" snicker about tubes? How long ago was that? Back in '96, you used to claim that I had a "secret agenda" of "tubes uber alles" or something like that. Of course you fabricated that gibberish, but even so, you are basing today's lies on posts that are 7+ years old. Are you being hypocritical again, you dirty little 'borg puke? Google is a bitch, ain't it, Mr. Krueger? Arnii can't really answer that honestly because he doesn't know how to use search engines. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
S888Wheel wrote:
It's interesting Middius that there's a common thread through you and all of your brainless parasites. None of you will say anything specific about their jobs. The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he works. Yet you yammer and whine about the fact that I'm self-employed. I say put up or shut up. If jobs are an issue, why haven't the whole rotten lot of you come clean about YOUR jobs? Let's start with your job Middius. Who is your employer and what is your job title? Really. It's very simple Arny. You are clearly not interested in our jobs, you are interested in new material for personal attacks. Most people are simply not interested in feeding personal information to someone who's interests are purely malliceous. It's time for S888Wheel to demand his today ration of insults. What a moron you are Mr. Exhibitionist. If you try again to play piano on me, please remember that I love Rachmaninoff. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
Arny Krueger ) wrote in message
: "John Atkinson" wrote in message .com two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife, presented at the recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at how the spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation between the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its spuriae. Geddes' specialty is loudspeaker design and evaluation. Therefore he's concerned with relatively high levels of distortion by the standards of modern audio power amplifiers. Yes, the two Geddes-Lee AES papers -- Auditory Perception of Nonlinear Distortion -- were based on work intended to model loudspeaker nonlinearity, but were intended to present the general case. From the second of the two papers: "While the primary focus of this study is to understand the perception of loudspeaker distortion, a wide variety of nonlinear transfer functions was applied to yield data that may be applicable to a broad array of systems...The intention of this study was to sample a broad spectrum of nonlinearities that could represent virtually any system, and not be limited to just a loudspeaker, or an amplifier." I thought it clearly appropriate, therefore, to examine the Geddes-Lee proposal in the context of amplifier transfer functions. If you feel differently, Mr. Krueger, then that is your prerogative, of course. (I assume you have read the papers.) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
MiNE 109 wrote in message
... In article z, The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109 wrote: I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne... LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter! http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...on_991029.html Just remember the 'th' is silent! Here's the site with animations of the orbit: http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~wiegert/3753/3753.html Extraordinary! Looks like something form the world of Terry Pratchett. (Next you'll be telling us it's "turtles all the way down.") John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
MiNE 109 wrote: In article sGbmb.3887$d87.2541@okepread05, Nexus 6 wrote: The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109 wrote: I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne... LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter! http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...on_991029.html I'm not sure I like the name, but that orbit is craaaazeeeee... Could've Pict a better name, eh? Groan. Split my skull. Nexus 6 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
"Nousaine" wrote in message ... (John Atkinson) wrote: "normanstrong" wrote in message news:lmVlb.3955$mZ5.23026@attbi_s54... Certainly more than half of the requirements you placed on your amplifier design detailed in your first reply to this header disappear if the designer knows the characteristics of the source and load ahead of time. It is for this reason that I forever wonder at how few speakers come with their own amplifier--at least in the home hi-fi industry. Hi Norm, I believe that the apparent restriction of customer choice that this represents is a major impediment to successful marketing of an active speaker. Even if the customer buys exactly the amplifier that the speaker designer feels works best with his loudspeaker, and would therefore be the one that could be supplied in an integrated package, it appears to be important to customers to have the widest amplifier choice available. I have a different take on this. An average "high-end" enthusiast may already have a stack of amplifiers or at least a single expensive 2-channel amplifier at his/her disposal. Anybody else has purchased a modrn receiver with 5 amplifier channels already built into the chassis. People just don't see the reason to buy power again. The neo-phytes don't get it. The high-enders never WILL get it; it's too apparent. So the best way to better sounding loudspeakers will remain foreign to the market UNTIL the current generation of computer users (who expect their speakers to be powered) are in the loop. Probably only Meridian has made much headway in the audiophile market selling integrated loudspeaker/amplifier packages. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile PS: Your letter on the purported advantages of hi-rez audio media appears in the ne (November) issue of Stereophile. That take is likely a fair statement of the current market. Paradigm stopped offering their Active series which was one of the better performing speaker systems ever to reach the market. Yet few would buy them. Both of you guys are right. Audiophiles simply want to choose their own amplifiers, and that's that. Also the practicality of the active speaker diminishes as the number of speakers in the system increases. The limit is apparently 2. As long as it's a stereo system, the active approach is good. Above that it gradually becomes less desirable. With 5 speakers, a receiver is much more practical. The subwoofer is an isolated case. They're amplified because they were introduced to the market as an add-on and the market was already mature. (Another reason has to do with the fact that the FTC does not enforce rules for advertising on amplifiers in active speakers. All the neat lies that used to be the shame of amplifier marketing are once again available for use.) The Home-theater-in-a-box is another interesting case, offering the benefits of active speakers and receivers at the same time. Think of the possibilities: All 6 power amps are in the subwoofer box, each one tailored to its speaker. The decoding and preamp functions will be united with the source components in a single box containing a 12cm optical drive that will play any disc, an FM-AM tuner, and a couple of aux inputs. For those who demand absolutely everything, a model also including a video tuner and hard drive will be available adding Tivo-like capabilities along with mp3 and AAC music. The optical drive will be capable of burning CDs or DVDs from the HD. Such a unit could be on the market right now, but I'm sure the entertainment industry will think of a way to screw it up before it arrives. Norm Strong |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Krooger recently blamed me for the waves of disdain and torrents of loathing that envelop him on RAO. No doubt he has a similar bugbear for the other Usenet groups. And somebody else for the other sites where they have his number. As usual, you're lying Middius. Or maybe you're so stupid you actually believe this. You've tried to dominate RAO for years and force me off by various means. The good news is that you are violently hated on most of the Usenet audio groups, and you don't bother them very much. So life there is relatively gentle and sweet for me. I mostly just come here to futiley check for intelligent life, lead newbies away to the promised lands, and feed the animals. It's ironic Middius that the groups where you don't go are mostly relatively healthy places were on-topic discussions dominate. In contrast RAO, which is your own personal turf. is widely despised and hated. Almost as widely despised and hated as you! Newbies frequently run away screaming. Experienced hands warn people away. You've done a great job with RAO, Middius. Your mother should be proud. Oh, the denail! Oh, the self deception! Arny, get help, please! ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he works. And we know why *that* is, don't we? Weil, I believe your answer has always indicated absolute, paralyzing, unthinking fear. ...........that a stark raving mad, vindicitve lunatic will try to disrupt his personal life. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... Yep, this is the very thing I'm talking about. The quicker you get the chip off of your shoulder, the better you will be. Show us all how to do it, David "Gratuitous Attack" Weil. Duck!!! There was one right there! ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Borganoia on display
Sockpuppet Yustabe said to ****-for-Brains: Krooger recently blamed me for the waves of disdain and torrents of loathing that envelop him on RAO. No doubt he has a similar bugbear for the other Usenet groups. And somebody else for the other sites where they have his number. As usual, you're lying Middius. I guess your body was taken over by a pod when you posted this: "Let's hear about how you are totally innocent of exposing me to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, and which causing me to be shunned or avoided." --- A. Krooger, professed paranoid lunatic Oh, the denail! Oh, the self deception! Don't forget the paranoia. Arny, get help, please! Arnii can't do that because he can't afford it, and the Kroobitch's insurance will be canceled if he files another claim. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the moment. Of course, there's this as well: "That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is very weak. If you were more knowledgeable you would probably not be so snowed by him". Interesting that you had to reach back more than 5 years to find that quote: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...o.gtegsc.co m Bottom line, the quote is irrelevant because of how old it is, and how you're trying to abuse it. To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But thanks for showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way, Weil. I don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more ago. This is noted, for the next time Arny drags up someone elses old posts. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the moment. Of course, there's this as well: "That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is very weak. If you were more knowledgeable you would probably not be so snowed by him". Interesting that you had to reach back more than 5 years to find that quote: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...o.gtegsc.co m Bottom line, the quote is irrelevant because of how old it is, and how you're trying to abuse it. To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But thanks for showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way, Weil. I don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more ago. This is noted, for the next time Arny drags up someone elses old posts. Depending on the topic, the age of the post may or may not be important. But nice try at trying to give yourself a pass for more posturing and irrelevant claims. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
"John Atkinson" wrote in message m... Arny Krueger ) wrote in message : "John Atkinson" wrote in message .com two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife, presented at the recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at how the spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation between the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its spuriae. Geddes' specialty is loudspeaker design and evaluation. Therefore he's concerned with relatively high levels of distortion by the standards of modern audio power amplifiers. Yes, the two Geddes-Lee AES papers -- Auditory Perception of Nonlinear Distortion -- were based on work intended to model loudspeaker nonlinearity, but were intended to present the general case. The general case with modern high-quality amplifiers is inaudible distortion. The Geddes paper is about audible distortion. Therefore, in general the Geddes papers are irrelevant to modern high-quality amplifiers amplifiers. From the second of the two papers: "While the primary focus of this study is to understand the perception of loudspeaker distortion, a wide variety of nonlinear transfer functions was applied to yield data that may be applicable to a broad array of systems...The intention of this study was to sample a broad spectrum of nonlinearities that could represent virtually any system, and not be limited to just a loudspeaker, or an amplifier." The word amplifier covers a lot of territory. A small, somewhat obscure part of that territory includes amplifiers that are designed to produce audible non linear distortion and other colorations, such as guitar amplifiers and SETs. It's possible that the Geddes-Lee papers would be of benefit to those few designers of guitar amplifiers and SETs. I thought it clearly appropriate, therefore, to examine the Geddes-Lee proposal in the context of amplifier transfer functions. I notice that your magazine tests loudspeakers and phono cartridges, Mr. Atkinson. Both are well-known sources of audible distortion. I marvel at your inability to see the application of the Geddes-Lee papers to this part of your work. This is especially curious given that the papers are as you have now admitted, mostly addressed toward speakers. As I finally got you to admit, the recent Geddes-Lee papers are addressed toward speakers, and only relevant for equipment that has audible distortion. I find it curious that you started out characterizing the Geddes-Lee paper solely in terms of the study of amplifiers. If you feel differently, Mr. Krueger, then that is your prerogative, of course. That's such an obvious statement I wonder why you feel obliged to make it, I guess it lends balance to the fact that you tried to obscure the main point of the recent Geddes-Lee AES papers by only mentioning their application to amplifiers which is in general an area that they don't apply to. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
"Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote: nousaine wrote: Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with their own amplifiers and application specific EQ. I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard. What speaker do you refer to? I meant to use the plural "best-performing speakerS" Just guessing here, but I suspect that Nousaine is referring to speakers like the Paradigm Monitors that have built-in power amps and certain powered subwoofers. Self-powered subwoofers are very common. Self-powered speakers are very common in audio production studios. If someone told me that more than half of all current sales in this product category were self-powered, I wouldn't be surprised. This is a market composed of very critical listeners that have unparalleled experience with live music. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Bad scientist ALERT!!!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the moment. Of course, there's this as well: "That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is very weak. If you were more knowledgeable you would probably not be so snowed by him". Interesting that you had to reach back more than 5 years to find that quote: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...o.gtegsc.co m Bottom line, the quote is irrelevant because of how old it is, and how you're trying to abuse it. To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But thanks for showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way, Weil. I don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more ago. This is noted, for the next time Arny drags up someone elses old posts. Depending on the topic, the age of the post may or may not be important. But nice try at trying to give yourself a pass for more posturing and irrelevant claims. Translated from Krooglish: If you bting up one of my old posts it is not alright, but if I bring up one of your old posts it is ok. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote: nousaine wrote: Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with their own amplifiers and application specific EQ. I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard. What speaker do you refer to? I meant to use the plural "best-performing speakerS" Just guessing here, but I suspect that Nousaine is referring to speakers like the Paradigm Monitors that have built-in power amps and certain powered subwoofers. Self-powered subwoofers are very common. Self-powered speakers are very common in audio production studios. If someone told me that more than half of all current sales in this product category were self-powered, I wouldn't be surprised. This is a market composed of very critical listeners that have unparalleled experience with live music. The divergence of requirement of studio monitors vs. audiophile applications is well known. While self powered speakers are optimal from the engineering point of view, they do not allow the user to optimize the sound to his liking by appropriate combination of speaker and amplifier. Audiophiles have justifiable desire to modify the tonality of the system to their liking, while audio engineers have an obligation to a much larger audience to produce mixes which are acceptable to a much larger group. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
Robert Morein wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote: nousaine wrote: Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with their own amplifiers and application specific EQ. I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard. What speaker do you refer to? I meant to use the plural "best-performing speakerS" Just guessing here, but I suspect that Nousaine is referring to speakers like the Paradigm Monitors that have built-in power amps and certain powered subwoofers. Self-powered subwoofers are very common. Self-powered speakers are very common in audio production studios. If someone told me that more than half of all current sales in this product category were self-powered, I wouldn't be surprised. This is a market composed of very critical listeners that have unparalleled experience with live music. The divergence of requirement of studio monitors vs. audiophile applications is well known. While self powered speakers are optimal from the engineering point of view, they do not allow the user to optimize the sound to his liking by appropriate combination of speaker and amplifier. Audiophiles have justifiable desire to modify the tonality of the system to their liking, while audio engineers have an obligation to a much larger audience to produce mixes which are acceptable to a much larger group. That's a nice try, Bob Morion, but it's bunk. Audiophiles are extremely critical of the equipment, and studio guys are extremely critical of the sound on a recording. For them the equipment is a means to an end, and hence they don't give it the same scrutiny that audiophiles do. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote: nousaine wrote: Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with their own amplifiers and application specific EQ. I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard. What speaker do you refer to? I meant to use the plural "best-performing speakerS" Just guessing here, but I suspect that Nousaine is referring to speakers like the Paradigm Monitors that have built-in power amps and certain powered subwoofers. Self-powered subwoofers are very common. Self-powered speakers are very common in audio production studios. If someone told me that more than half of all current sales in this product category were self-powered, I wouldn't be surprised. This is a market composed of very critical listeners that have unparalleled experience with live music. The divergence of requirement of studio monitors vs. audiophile applications is well known. The divergence has been closing for a long time. There are lots of consumer speakers that have the word "Monitor" in their names. Self-powered consumer speakers are becoming more popular. While self powered speakers are optimal from the engineering point of view, they do not allow the user to optimize the sound to his liking by appropriate combination of speaker and amplifier. Sure you can optimize sound with powered speakers, you just buy a powered speaker that suits your preferences. Besides, there are effective means other than playing "Musical Chairs" with speakers, to get speakers that provide sound to one's liking. I could mention the e-word but I hate to get too many people upset. Audiophiles have justifiable desire to modify the tonality of the system to their liking, while audio engineers have an obligation to a much larger audience to produce mixes which are acceptable to a much larger group. Engineers also express their personal preferences when they chose speakers. They have a lot more experience than audiophiles with comparing live versus recorded sound. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
"trotsky" wrote in message
Audiophiles are extremely critical of the equipment, and studio guys are extremely critical of the sound on a recording. One would hope that audiophiles are extremely critical of sound quality, and that studio guys are also extremely critical of sound quality. For them the equipment is a means to an end, and hence they don't give it the same scrutiny that audiophiles do. One differences is that engineers have a lot more at stake when they audition recordings. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:13:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: One would hope that audiophiles are extremely critical of sound quality, and that studio guys are also extremely critical of sound quality. But not in the same way. The "sound quality" that studio guys are concered with is often times at odds with the "best reproduction" of music. This is because they have more pressing issues, i.e. - how is this going to sound on radio, in the clubs, in the car, etc. And sometimes it's about keeping the artist happy. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:13:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: One would hope that audiophiles are extremely critical of sound quality, and that studio guys are also extremely critical of sound quality. But not in the same way. The "sound quality" that studio guys are concerned with is often times at odds with the "best reproduction" of music. This may or may not be true. This is because they have more pressing issues, i.e. - how is this going to sound on radio, in the clubs, in the car, etc. And sometimes it's about keeping the artist happy. One flaw in this thinking is that both the engineer and the artist listen to the same recording through the same speakers in the studio. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:38:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:13:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: One would hope that audiophiles are extremely critical of sound quality, and that studio guys are also extremely critical of sound quality. But not in the same way. The "sound quality" that studio guys are concerned with is often times at odds with the "best reproduction" of music. This may or may not be true. No, it *is* true that *often times* the "best reproduction" of music is at odds with the commercial realities. This is because they have more pressing issues, i.e. - how is this going to sound on radio, in the clubs, in the car, etc. And sometimes it's about keeping the artist happy. One flaw in this thinking is that both the engineer and the artist listen to the same recording through the same speakers in the studio. But it's not a flaw since they don't always have the same perception about sound quality. As I pointed out, the engineer has other exterior concerns that the producer and record company wants him or her to take care of. Plus, the musician comes to the plate from "behind" the music, so to speak, while the engineer is "in front" of the music. Sometimes, the musician gets only a slice of the whole. And sometimes, they don't even really have final approval either. No, it's a mistake to equate the very artifical listening environment of the studio control room with the home environment. What's good for one is not always good for the other. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:57:04 -0500, dave weil
wrote: But it's not a flaw since they don't always have the same perception about sound quality. As I pointed out, the engineer has other exterior concerns that the producer and record company wants him or her to take care of. Plus, the musician comes to the plate from "behind" the music, so to speak, while the engineer is "in front" of the music. Sometimes, the musician gets only a slice of the whole. And sometimes, they don't even really have final approval either. No, it's a mistake to equate the very artifical listening environment of the studio control room with the home environment. What's good for one is not always good for the other. I should have added that there is one area where Mr. Krueger might be correct and that would be in mixing for movie surround sound and/or surround sound live DVD performances. That's because, for a change, they are actually mixing for the intended home use instead of intermediary delivery systems such as radio, dance clubs or car audio. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Audio amplifier design trivial?
Dave said
But not in the same way. The "sound quality" that studio guys are concered with is often times at odds with the "best reproduction" of music. This is because they have more pressing issues, i.e. - how is this going to sound on radio, in the clubs, in the car, etc. And sometimes it's about keeping the artist happy. All too often the real underlying preasure is how to get something in the can by the end of the day. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Car audio amplifier with digital audio inputs | Car Audio | |||
Amplifier recommendations / MtX vs. JL Audio vs. other? | Car Audio | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 2/5) | Car Audio | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 1/5) | Car Audio | |||
FS: SOUNDSTREAM CLOSEOUTS AND MORE!! | Car Audio |