A thin wire strand may have 0.1 ohm resistance to an amplifier with
0.1 ohm output impedance (this would be a damping factor of 80 into an
8-ohm speaker, a reasonably good value - well, maybe an excellent
value for a consumer amplifier), you'll get a halving of voltage to
the speaker, or a 3 dB drop in volume, certainly noticable, but the
speaker signal will not have disappeared at lower volume. When the
volume control is turned up, the signal WILL disappear (either the
protection circuitry cuts in, or...).

I just realized that the original poster was talking about a 0.1-ohm short
(i.e., a short through a thin strand with appreciable resistance), not a
0.1-ohm series resistance in the wire. So the mathematical analysis I
posted was not to the point.

However, the amplifier would have *other* serious problems if it were
working into a total load of 0.2 ohm! I think this, too, is what he had in
mind (inability to deliver high volume).

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Generally, if there is a direct short between the leads the
ENTIRE signal will pass through that short, even at the very
lowest levels. Consequently, he would have problems at all
levels, even low ones, and the speakers would remain silent,
period.

**Wrong! You have neglected to allow for cable resistance. ALL wire has
some
resistance. Long wires have more resistance.

A short is a short.

**Not always. Hardly ever, in fact.

If a speaker is in parallel with a short
just about all the signal (99.99%, or more) will pass
through the short and not through the speaker.

**99.99%? That would depend on a number of factors:
* The ACTUAL resistance of the S/C.
* The output resistance of the source.

Personally, I would never state, categorically, that 99.99% of the signal
was flowing through any given S/C. Particularly without the benefit of
actually seeing/measuring that said S/C.

The amp will
act up and while this happens the speaker will probably be
silent. It has to be silent, because no significant amount
of juice is flowing through it.

**You've seen the actual problem the poster is referring to? Or are you now
engaged in wild speculation?


But you have a point. If he were cranking things all the way
up he might clip things, but a moderate turn should not clip
the amp. My guess is that he has some weird shorts possibly
between channels.

**That is what I and other posters have suggested.

The guy just needs to use a simple wire hookup and see what
transpires. Then he can dismiss wire artifacts if the
problem persists and move on to finding another solution.

**Indeed.


A splice may also
be shorting together, although if that were happening you
would not be getting sound even at low levels, let alone at
moderate levels.

**Wrong! The protection systems in many amps rely on the current flow
through the output devices. At low levels, little current will flow
and
the
amp will not shut down.

The level would have to be very, very low, and under this
condition there would be no sound coming from the speaker at
all.

**WRONG! (again). Depending on the type of protection system employed, the
loop resistance could be in the order of (say) 1 Ohm or more. At that level,
several Volts of output signal may be required to trip the protection relay
(if fitted) or whatever is used to shut down the amp. Again, I have seen
precisely this condition many times.

Virtually all the electricity would be flowing through
the short. He said that at low levels the speakers were
emitting signals.

**Not quite. Read what he wrote again.


**After you spend several years studying electronics and after you spend
most of your lifetime servicing domestic audio equipment, you will be
qualified to argue with me.

Give me a break, you pompous windbag.

**_I_ am a pompus windbag? Tell me YOUR qualifications as they pertain to
circuit analysis. Tell me what you understand by Thevenin's Theorem. How
long did you spend studying it? I spent quite some time doing just that.
Doing so allows me to point out just how utterly wrong you are. If being
correct makes me a pompus windbag, then so be it.


While the amp might not shut down, he certainly
would not be getting sound from his speakers, even at low
levels.

**That would depend on the type of short. A short on one channel only,
would
allow the other channel/s to work.

He never said anything about this. He was talking about the
sound of the offending channel.

**Was he? He wasn't overly clear in his initial post on this matter.


A short would shunt virtually all the juice through
the shorted sections, and the speakers would make no sound
at all, because no current would be flowing through them.

**Yep. Unless it was a high resistnace short. Say 0.5 Ohms. And yes,
I've
seen that happen many times.

High resistance short?

**Yes.

What the heck is that?

**Exactly what it is.

If it has
resistance then it is not a short.

**Then there is, by your definition, no such thing as a short circuit.
Everything has resistance.

Two wires making contact
are going to generate a short.

**Not a perfect short circuit. There is no such thing.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

It's odd that there's been so much dispute here... Shorts with appreciably
nonzero resistance (a few ohms) are common. They occur whenever the shorted
wires are not firmly pressed together, just barely making contact, and
there's a layer of oxidation or some kind of resistive material on the
surface.

They also vary with vibration and even with voltage.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:20:13 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

A short is a short.
The derivative of a "Shortened Circuit".

A un-desired connection that allows current to take a -shortened- path
(back to the source). See Kirkoffs law about sum of the currents....

No where is there a defined resistance or percentage of current, only
that *some* current took a un-desired short cut :O

That, my friends, is why we have "shorts" in all sizes and flavors.
, _
, | \ MKA: Steve Urbach
, | )erek No JUNK in my email please
, ____|_/ragonsclaw
, / / / Running United Devices "Cure For Cancer" Project 24/7 Have you helped? http://www.grid.org

Howard Ferstler wrote:

**Wrong! You have neglected to allow for cable resistance. ALL wire has some
resistance. Long wires have more resistance.

A short is a short. If a speaker is in parallel with a short
just about all the signal (99.99%, or more) will pass
through the short and not through the speaker. The amp will
act up and while this happens the speaker will probably be
silent. It has to be silent, because no significant amount
of juice is flowing through it.

A single strand of a multi-strand cable "shorting" to the opposite
polarity can either be a low impedance or a real short, depending
on its coupling to the rest of the cable. It *can* appear as a low
impedance load on the amplifier, resulting in the OP's symptoms.
Or it *can* appear as a direct short, causing problems immediately.
I have experienced both scenarios.




But you have a point. If he were cranking things all the way
up he might clip things, but a moderate turn should not clip
the amp. My guess is that he has some weird shorts possibly
between channels.

**That is what I and other posters have suggested.

The guy just needs to use a simple wire hookup and see what
transpires. Then he can dismiss wire artifacts if the
problem persists and move on to finding another solution.

A splice may also
be shorting together, although if that were happening you
would not be getting sound even at low levels, let alone at
moderate levels.

**Wrong! The protection systems in many amps rely on the current flow
through the output devices. At low levels, little current will flow and
the
amp will not shut down.

The level would have to be very, very low, and under this
condition there would be no sound coming from the speaker at
all. Virtually all the electricity would be flowing through
the short. He said that at low levels the speakers were
emitting signals.

**After you spend several years studying electronics and after you spend
most of your lifetime servicing domestic audio equipment, you will be
qualified to argue with me.

Give me a break, you pompous windbag.

While the amp might not shut down, he certainly
would not be getting sound from his speakers, even at low
levels.

**That would depend on the type of short. A short on one channel only, would
allow the other channel/s to work.

He never said anything about this. He was talking about the
sound of the offending channel.

A short would shunt virtually all the juice through
the shorted sections, and the speakers would make no sound
at all, because no current would be flowing through them.

**Yep. Unless it was a high resistnace short. Say 0.5 Ohms. And yes, I've
seen that happen many times.

High resistance short? What the heck is that? If it has
resistance then it is not a short. Two wires making contact
are going to generate a short.

Howard Ferstler

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:13:18 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:


"dizzy" wrote in message
.. .
On 6 Jun 2005 05:28:50 -0700, "glw82664" wrote:

Now, when I turn
up the volume to even a moderate level the receiver stops transmiting
the signal and starts clicking. I presume the extra wire I added is
the problem.

You must have a short or an "almost short" that arcs-over at higher
voltages.

Where do you live that typical speaker voltages can "arc-over"
in an atmosphere that supports human life?

You're probably right about that. But it's still not as dumb as the
"skin effect" wierdos. 8)

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:26:24 -0700, ric wrote:

Richard Crowley wrote:

Didn't you just "plonk" him two minutes earlier?

g

A ceremonial "plonk" is rarely ever an indication of kill file usage.
Those of us who actually *use* newsgroup filters don't feel the need
to announce such usage with a "plonk."

Furthermore, news articles don't necessarily appear to all of us in the
same order.

No, but they have the same NNTP posting time/date. Two minutes is
two minutes.

In Mr Crowly's defence, some kill-filters don't do anything until you
re-load headers.

"mc" wrote in message
...
It's odd that there's been so much dispute here...

**The only dispute is between a person formally educated in the area of
electronics and electrical theory, backed up by more than 30 years of
practical experience and a librarian.

Shorts with appreciably
nonzero resistance (a few ohms) are common.

**VERY common.

They occur whenever the shorted
wires are not firmly pressed together, just barely making contact, and
there's a layer of oxidation or some kind of resistive material on the
surface.

They also vary with vibration and even with voltage.

**And temperature, weather conditions and a host of other factors.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

ric wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:

A short is a short. If a speaker is in parallel with a short
just about all the signal (99.99%, or more) will pass
through the short and not through the speaker. The amp will
act up and while this happens the speaker will probably be
silent. It has to be silent, because no significant amount
of juice is flowing through it.

A single strand of a multi-strand cable "shorting" to the opposite
polarity can either be a low impedance or a real short, depending
on its coupling to the rest of the cable. It *can* appear as a low
impedance load on the amplifier, resulting in the OP's symptoms.
Or it *can* appear as a direct short, causing problems immediately.
I have experienced both scenarios.

I got the impression from the guy's original post that the
effect was the same in both channels. It seems preposterous
to assume that identical partial shorts of the kind you
indicated would happen the same way in both channels.

Howard Ferstler

mc wrote:

A thin wire strand may have 0.1 ohm resistance to an amplifier with
0.1 ohm output impedance (this would be a damping factor of 80 into an
8-ohm speaker, a reasonably good value - well, maybe an excellent
value for a consumer amplifier), you'll get a halving of voltage to
the speaker, or a 3 dB drop in volume, certainly noticable, but the
speaker signal will not have disappeared at lower volume. When the
volume control is turned up, the signal WILL disappear (either the
protection circuitry cuts in, or...).

I just realized that the original poster was talking about a 0.1-ohm short
(i.e., a short through a thin strand with appreciable resistance), not a
0.1-ohm series resistance in the wire. So the mathematical analysis I
posted was not to the point.

However, the amplifier would have *other* serious problems if it were
working into a total load of 0.2 ohm! I think this, too, is what he had in
mind (inability to deliver high volume).

It would have to be identical with both channels, if what I
read of his original post is correct. While we might get a
partial short in one channel, the chance of an identical
partial short in the other channel is limited, to say the
least.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
ric wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:

A short is a short. If a speaker is in parallel with a short
just about all the signal (99.99%, or more) will pass
through the short and not through the speaker. The amp will
act up and while this happens the speaker will probably be
silent. It has to be silent, because no significant amount
of juice is flowing through it.

A single strand of a multi-strand cable "shorting" to the opposite
polarity can either be a low impedance or a real short, depending
on its coupling to the rest of the cable. It *can* appear as a low
impedance load on the amplifier, resulting in the OP's symptoms.
Or it *can* appear as a direct short, causing problems immediately.
I have experienced both scenarios.

I got the impression from the guy's original post that the
effect was the same in both channels. It seems preposterous
to assume that identical partial shorts of the kind you
indicated would happen the same way in both channels.

**It's actually far more preposterous to argue with people who ACTUALLY know
what they're talking about, when it comes to electrical theory and
amplifiers, speakers and speaker cables in the real world. You need to read
the original post, BEFORE arguing with people.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
ric wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:

A short is a short. If a speaker is in parallel with a short
just about all the signal (99.99%, or more) will pass
through the short and not through the speaker. The amp will
act up and while this happens the speaker will probably be
silent. It has to be silent, because no significant amount
of juice is flowing through it.

A single strand of a multi-strand cable "shorting" to the opposite
polarity can either be a low impedance or a real short, depending
on its coupling to the rest of the cable. It *can* appear as a low
impedance load on the amplifier, resulting in the OP's symptoms.
Or it *can* appear as a direct short, causing problems immediately.
I have experienced both scenarios.

I got the impression from the guy's original post that the
effect was the same in both channels. It seems preposterous
to assume that identical partial shorts of the kind you
indicated would happen the same way in both channels.

**It's actually far more preposterous to argue with people who ACTUALLY know
what they're talking about,

Like you, tweako?

I remember some time ago when you were going to send me a
very special "sounds better than anything else" amp to
review. That went nowhere, probably because you realized
that I would DBT the thing and say that it sounded just like
any other good amp.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
ric wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:

A short is a short. If a speaker is in parallel with a short
just about all the signal (99.99%, or more) will pass
through the short and not through the speaker. The amp will
act up and while this happens the speaker will probably be
silent. It has to be silent, because no significant amount
of juice is flowing through it.

A single strand of a multi-strand cable "shorting" to the opposite
polarity can either be a low impedance or a real short, depending
on its coupling to the rest of the cable. It *can* appear as a low
impedance load on the amplifier, resulting in the OP's symptoms.
Or it *can* appear as a direct short, causing problems immediately.
I have experienced both scenarios.

I got the impression from the guy's original post that the
effect was the same in both channels. It seems preposterous
to assume that identical partial shorts of the kind you
indicated would happen the same way in both channels.

**It's actually far more preposterous to argue with people who ACTUALLY
know
what they're talking about,

Like you, tweako?

**Indeed. I know considerably more than you about electrical theory,
electronics and what happens to amplifiers when you connect them to low
impedance loads.


I remember some time ago when you were going to send me a
very special "sounds better than anything else" amp to
review. That went nowhere, probably because you realized
that I would DBT the thing and say that it sounded just like
any other good amp.

**You wrote me (on RAO, I recall) back and said (to paraphrase):

"I wouldn't test your amplifier, if it was the last amplifier on the
planet." I'll try to find your exact quote.

At that point, I decided that you were a waste of time. A waste of time with
no ability to approach a product with an open mind.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Howard Ferstler wrote:
However, the amplifier would have *other* serious problems if it were
working into a total load of 0.2 ohm! I think this, too, is what he had in
mind (inability to deliver high volume).

It would have to be identical with both channels, if what I
read of his original post is correct. While we might get a
partial short in one channel, the chance of an identical
partial short in the other channel is limited, to say the
least.

No it is not. Consider if the short results in the power supply
going into current limiting, for example. Both channels would be
heavily affected. Or consider a protection circuit that yanks the
supply rail down to a level that prevent damage.

Any number of mechanisms that, quite apparently, you haven't
even thought of could easily cause the effects observed.

Please, Howard, stick to what you know and stay out of trouble.

Pierced Dick said:

Please, Howard, stick to what you know and stay out of trouble.

So you're telling him to shut up and sit in the corner?

Howard Ferstler wrote:

A single strand of a multi-strand cable "shorting" to the opposite
polarity can either be a low impedance or a real short, depending
on its coupling to the rest of the cable. It *can* appear as a low
impedance load on the amplifier, resulting in the OP's symptoms.
Or it *can* appear as a direct short, causing problems immediately.
I have experienced both scenarios.

I got the impression from the guy's original post that the
effect was the same in both channels. It seems preposterous
to assume that identical partial shorts of the kind you
indicated would happen the same way in both channels.

Indeed, but would not an activated protection circuit cause *both*
channels to cut out, even though the "short" only occurred on one?

Howard Ferstler wrote:

It would have to be identical with both channels, if what I
read of his original post is correct. While we might get a
partial short in one channel, the chance of an identical
partial short in the other channel is limited, to say the
least.

Again, would not a fault on one channel cause the protection circuit
to cut in on both channels?

"ric" wrote in message ...
Howard Ferstler wrote:

It would have to be identical with both channels, if what I
read of his original post is correct. While we might get a
partial short in one channel, the chance of an identical
partial short in the other channel is limited, to say the
least.

Again, would not a fault on one channel cause the protection circuit
to cut in on both channels?

**It depends on how the amplifier is configured. There would be literally
several dozen, quite different systems in use to protect amplifiers. Some
amplifiers use more than one. It is impossible to know, without measuring
the actual product, or at least examining the schematic diagrams. However,
to answer your question: Yes, it is possible.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"ric" wrote in message ...
Howard Ferstler wrote:

It would have to be identical with both channels, if what I
read of his original post is correct. While we might get a
partial short in one channel, the chance of an identical
partial short in the other channel is limited, to say the
least.

Again, would not a fault on one channel cause the protection circuit
to cut in on both channels?

**There's little point in asking Mr Ferstler. He doesn't know.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

George M. Middius wrote:

Richard Pierce said:

Please, Howard, stick to what you know and stay out of
trouble.

So you're telling him to shut up and sit in the corner?

Middius, telling you to shut up and sit in the corner never
works, so why would you expect it to work with Howard? Oh, I
get it, this is consistent with your policy of unending
hypocrisy.

ric wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:

It would have to be identical with both channels, if what
I
read of his original post is correct. While we might get
a
partial short in one channel, the chance of an identical
partial short in the other channel is limited, to say the
least.

Again, would not a fault on one channel cause the
protection circuit
to cut in on both channels?

It may or may not, depending on the design of the protection
circuit.

I've seen amps were a fault in one channel only affected
that channel, and others where a fault in either channel
would shut the whole amp down.

I've seen amps where one kind of fault would shut down just
the affected channel and another kind of fault would shut
the whole amp down.

Arny said:

Middius, telling you to shut up and sit in the corner never
works, so why would you expect it to work with Howard? Oh, I
get it, this is consistent with your policy of unending
hypocrisy.

Notice the fact that George has yet to answer a technical question of
any kind, yet feels it's OK to crtiticise answers that somebody else
tells him are wrong.

The Bug Eater scrabbles for dead bugs on the Krooborg's boots.

Notice the fact that George has yet to answer a technical question of
any kind, yet feels it's OK to crtiticise answers that somebody else
tells him are wrong.

Technically, you are more vegetable than animal. I recommend you donate yourself
to the nearest recycling center. In my opinions, 100 lbs of processed fertilizer
would be more valuable than 200 lbs of live Mickey.

I can't believe you people are still going on with this.

Have you considered getting a life?

Arny Krueger wrote:

ric wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:

It would have to be identical with both channels, if what I
read of his original post is correct. While we might get a
partial short in one channel, the chance of an identical
partial short in the other channel is limited, to say the
least.

Again, would not a fault on one channel cause the protection circuit
to cut in on both channels?

It may or may not, depending on the design of the protection
circuit.

So, it is a possible solution to Mr. Ferstler's objection. He didn't
allow for such a scenario, allowing only that an identical short
"would have to" appear in both channels. One possible explanation
was my above protection circuit question.

ric wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

ric wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:

It would have to be identical with both channels, if
what I
read of his original post is correct. While we might
get a
partial short in one channel, the chance of an
identical
partial short in the other channel is limited, to say
the
least.

Again, would not a fault on one channel cause the
protection circuit
to cut in on both channels?

It may or may not, depending on the design of the
protection
circuit.

So, it is a possible solution to Mr. Ferstler's objection.
He didn't
allow for such a scenario, allowing only that an identical
short
"would have to" appear in both channels. One possible
explanation
was my above protection circuit question.

Nobody knows as much as Howard Ferstler, not even Howard
Ferstler. ;-)

George Middius wrote:
The Bug Eater scrabbles for dead bugs on the Krooborg's boots.

Notice the fact that George has yet to answer a technical question of
any kind, yet feels it's OK to crtiticise answers that somebody else
tells him are wrong.

Technically, you are more vegetable than animal. I recommend you donate yourself
to the nearest recycling center. In my opinions, 100 lbs of processed fertilizer
would be more valuable than 200 lbs of live Mickey.


Clinically, are you more bi-polar or more obsessive/compulsive? What is
the overwhelming consensus of the various mental health professionals
who have treated you during your court mandated confinements?

George Middius spewed:

Technically, you are more vegetable than animal. I recommend you donate yourself
to the nearest recycling center. In my opinions, 100 lbs of processed fertilizer
would be more valuable than 200 lbs of live Mickey.

Nice evasion of the issue, as usual.

Technically, you are a non-entity. I recomend youshut up and listen.

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
mc wrote:

A thin wire strand may have 0.1 ohm resistance to an amplifier with
0.1 ohm output impedance (this would be a damping factor of 80 into an
8-ohm speaker, a reasonably good value - well, maybe an excellent
value for a consumer amplifier), you'll get a halving of voltage to
the speaker, or a 3 dB drop in volume, certainly noticable, but the
speaker signal will not have disappeared at lower volume. When the
volume control is turned up, the signal WILL disappear (either the
protection circuitry cuts in, or...).

I just realized that the original poster was talking about a 0.1-ohm
short
(i.e., a short through a thin strand with appreciable resistance), not a
0.1-ohm series resistance in the wire. So the mathematical analysis I
posted was not to the point.

However, the amplifier would have *other* serious problems if it were
working into a total load of 0.2 ohm! I think this, too, is what he had
in
mind (inability to deliver high volume).

It would have to be identical with both channels, if what I
read of his original post is correct. While we might get a
partial short in one channel, the chance of an identical
partial short in the other channel is limited, to say the
least.

**Your education begins he

There are a number of different protection systems in amplifiers. Some
amplifiers use more than one. If the OP's amp was shorted on one channel,
the overcurrent detection system would come into effect at modest volume
levels. This may be somewhere around a few Volts RMS output. Some (cheap)
amplifiers use a common current limit system, whereby if one channel is
attempting to deliver dangerous (to the output devices) current levels, all
output stages are shut down. I have seen such systems on surround sound and
stereo amplifiers. Better quality products tend to employ current limit
systems which operate only on the affected channel. I have seen one product
which employs a proper, fully adjustable Voltage/Current (VI) limiting
system. AFAIK, such a system is extremely rare. It was employed in the
Marantz Model 500 power amp (ca. 1973). Modern IC power amps are very
different. They employ VERY comprehensive protection mechanisms of great
sophistication.

But you have been told this before, yet you still profess to make the same
mistakes over and over again.

The really scary thing is that you write books for beginners, when you lack
some of the most fundamental understanding of what can occur in a system,
during fault conditions. I suggest that, rather than deride those who know
far more than you do, you should listen and learn.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**It's actually far more preposterous to argue with people who ACTUALLY
know
what they're talking about,

Like you, tweako?

**Indeed. I know considerably more than you about electrical theory,
electronics and what happens to amplifiers when you connect them to low
impedance loads.

I'll bet you do, tweako.

I remember some time ago when you were going to send me a
very special "sounds better than anything else" amp to
review. That went nowhere, probably because you realized
that I would DBT the thing and say that it sounded just like
any other good amp.

**You wrote me (on RAO, I recall) back and said (to paraphrase):

"I wouldn't test your amplifier, if it was the last amplifier on the
planet." I'll try to find your exact quote.

I believe that was after a series of rather nasty (deja vu
all over again) give-and-take altercations. Prior to that,
you were eager to ship me an amp and I was kind of
interested in reviewing it. (I have since become utterly
uninterested in reviewing amps, but it has taken me time to
reach this plateau.) I think you ran into some shipment
snags, but you probably also realized that I would DBT the
unit with some cheap version I would happen to have on hand
and then say that they both sounded the same. Not a good
review for a megabuck amp, I think.

Incidentally, The Sensible Sound will soon have a review of
another upscale amp by me (designed by one of the most
notable designers in the business) that pretty much does the
same thing that I would have done with your amp.

At that point, I decided that you were a waste of time. A waste of time with
no ability to approach a product with an open mind.

For guys like you, an "open minded" attitude from a reviewer
results in a poetical writeup of an amp's performance
(dealing with superior soundstaging, imaging, depth, detail,
focus, etc., and other poppycock) that causes readers to
spend big bucks on qualities that do not exist.

Many high-end writers are pimps for companies who market
overpriced and overkill products. Guys like you do not want
a reviewer; you want a pimp.

Howard Ferstler

ric wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:

A single strand of a multi-strand cable "shorting" to the opposite
polarity can either be a low impedance or a real short, depending
on its coupling to the rest of the cable. It *can* appear as a low
impedance load on the amplifier, resulting in the OP's symptoms.
Or it *can* appear as a direct short, causing problems immediately.
I have experienced both scenarios.

I got the impression from the guy's original post that the
effect was the same in both channels. It seems preposterous
to assume that identical partial shorts of the kind you
indicated would happen the same way in both channels.

Indeed, but would not an activated protection circuit cause *both*
channels to cut out, even though the "short" only occurred on one?

Beats me. It probably varies from design to design.

Howard Ferstler

wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:
However, the amplifier would have *other* serious problems if it were
working into a total load of 0.2 ohm! I think this, too, is what he had in
mind (inability to deliver high volume).

It would have to be identical with both channels, if what I
read of his original post is correct. While we might get a
partial short in one channel, the chance of an identical
partial short in the other channel is limited, to say the
least.

No it is not. Consider if the short results in the power supply
going into current limiting, for example. Both channels would be
heavily affected. Or consider a protection circuit that yanks the
supply rail down to a level that prevent damage.

Any number of mechanisms that, quite apparently, you haven't
even thought of could easily cause the effects observed.

Please, Howard, stick to what you know and stay out of trouble.

Looks like you have me at a disadvantage. Actually, without
a hands-on analysis we are all (well, all but you)
speculating.

As for that suggestion about staying "out of trouble," you
sound like my wife.

Howard Ferstler

Arny Krueger wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:

Richard Pierce said:

Please, Howard, stick to what you know and stay out of
trouble.

So you're telling him to shut up and sit in the corner?

Middius, telling you to shut up and sit in the corner never
works, so why would you expect it to work with Howard? Oh, I
get it, this is consistent with your policy of unending
hypocrisy.

We are in a war, Arny. In a war there are going to be some
misfires - even from me.

Howard Ferstler

ric wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:

It would have to be identical with both channels, if what I
read of his original post is correct. While we might get a
partial short in one channel, the chance of an identical
partial short in the other channel is limited, to say the
least.

Again, would not a fault on one channel cause the protection circuit
to cut in on both channels?

Apparently, it could. As I noted in another part of the
thread, without a hands-on analysis we are all pretty much
speculating.

Howard Ferstler

Arny Krueger wrote:

ric wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:

It would have to be identical with both channels, if what
I
read of his original post is correct. While we might get
a
partial short in one channel, the chance of an identical
partial short in the other channel is limited, to say the
least.

Again, would not a fault on one channel cause the
protection circuit
to cut in on both channels?

It may or may not, depending on the design of the protection
circuit.

I've seen amps were a fault in one channel only affected
that channel, and others where a fault in either channel
would shut the whole amp down.

But this guy was getting odd noises out of both channels.
Would a short in one channel cause that kind of artifact in
both channels but only at moderate and high levels, with no
audible problems at all at lower levels?

The situation is so odd that I think that we are all kind of
just speculating about what is going on with this guy's set
up.

Howard Ferstler

Arny Krueger wrote:

ric wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

ric wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:

It would have to be identical with both channels, if
what I
read of his original post is correct. While we might
get a
partial short in one channel, the chance of an
identical
partial short in the other channel is limited, to say
the
least.

Again, would not a fault on one channel cause the
protection circuit
to cut in on both channels?

It may or may not, depending on the design of the
protection
circuit.

So, it is a possible solution to Mr. Ferstler's objection.
He didn't
allow for such a scenario, allowing only that an identical
short
"would have to" appear in both channels. One possible
explanation
was my above protection circuit question.

Nobody knows as much as Howard Ferstler, not even Howard
Ferstler. ;-)

Good point. My wife would agree.

Howard Ferstler

Trevor Wilson wrote:

The really scary thing is that you write books for beginners, when you lack
some of the most fundamental understanding of what can occur in a system,
during fault conditions. I suggest that, rather than deride those who know
far more than you do, you should listen and learn.

Beginners do not require information about amp design, and a
book on basic audio would not ordinarily deal with topics
such as what we have been dealing with in this thread.
Actually, the number of posts and the variety of answers
shows that we have a rather esoteric situation.

Regarding those books of mine, what newcomers (and even some
old timers who have a tendency to be easily suckered) do
require is information that will protect them from con
artists who want them to purchase overpriced wires and
electronics.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Many high-end writers are pimps for companies who market
overpriced and overkill products. Guys like you do not want
a reviewer; you want a pimp.


Which particular high end reviewers would you
publicly proclaim as pimps?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
was my above protection circuit question.

Nobody knows as much as Howard Ferstler, not even Howard
Ferstler. ;-)

Good point. My wife would agree.


"At least" there is one person in the world stupider than you.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

We are in a war, Arny. In a war there are going to be some
misfires - even from me.



I know a good plastic surgeon. He specializes in toes.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----