Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#361
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"chung" wrote in message rvers.com... See above. The objection is, of course, your saying that the drop is proportional to the resistance of the conductor. And since you have not admitted that mistake, we can go on . Look, the only physical property that a wire has with relation to current and voltage, is it's resistance. Voltage is not a property of wire. Current is not a property of wire. To say the voltage drop on a wire is proportional to it's resistance is just plain not wrong. It's a simple case of a analysis with a dependant variable and an dependent variable. You tell me the current, I'll apply the proportion of the resistance and calculate the voltage drop. This is exactly like an analogy of the length of a building's shadow. It's a function of it's height and the sun's angle. Nothing I do to the building can impact the sun angle. The only parameter of the building I can adjust is it's height. Therefore, the length of a building's shadow is indeed proportional to it's height. When the sun angle changes, so does the shadow length, but sun angle is not a property of the building. It is perfectly valid syntax to state that the length of a building's shadow is proportional to it's height. In much the same way it's perfectly valid to state that the voltage drop on a conductor is proportional to it's resistance -- that being the only physical property the wire possesses that can change the voltage drop. -afh3 I'll try not to mention, over and over, as has been your style so far, that in your last sentence above you claimed I have "not" admitted a mistake. Turns out, I didn't have to. |
#362
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:32:40 GMT, "afh3" wrote:
I'll try not to mention, over and over, as has been your style so far, that in your last sentence above you claimed I have "not" admitted a mistake. Turns out, I didn't have to. Since the EE is clear, maybe we should all agree that English isn't your first language, and move on.................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#363
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:32:40 GMT, "afh3" wrote:
I'll try not to mention, over and over, as has been your style so far, that in your last sentence above you claimed I have "not" admitted a mistake. Turns out, I didn't have to. Since the EE is clear, maybe we should all agree that English isn't your first language, and move on.................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#364
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:32:40 GMT, "afh3" wrote:
I'll try not to mention, over and over, as has been your style so far, that in your last sentence above you claimed I have "not" admitted a mistake. Turns out, I didn't have to. Since the EE is clear, maybe we should all agree that English isn't your first language, and move on.................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#365
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:32:40 GMT, "afh3" wrote:
I'll try not to mention, over and over, as has been your style so far, that in your last sentence above you claimed I have "not" admitted a mistake. Turns out, I didn't have to. Since the EE is clear, maybe we should all agree that English isn't your first language, and move on.................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#366
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"afh3" wrote in
news:fNp1c.35731$PR3.677741@attbi_s03: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in message news:5mo1c.450966$I06.5065611@attbi_s01 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in message news:IOn1c.450824$I06.5064681@attbi_s01 Is it not true that the voltage drop across the conductors is only proportional to the resistance of the conductor itself, and not impacted by the load presented at the output end? Nope, its a voltage divider and the impedance of he wire and the load are relevant. The statement I made was an assertion that the voltage drop across the conductor is proportional to the resistance of the conductor. The voltage at the end of one of the conductor pairs will be exactly the same as the voltage at end of the other conductor pair, minus the difference in the voltage drop across each pair of conductors REGARDLESS of what passive or reactive component is connected to each end. Read Kirchoff's laws if this is unclear. However, the voltage drop will depend on whatever passive or reactive component is connected to each end. No it won't. Put whatever you want at either end of the conductor pair, and Kirchoff's Laws GUARANTEE that the voltage at both ends will be identical -- minus the difference of the voltage drop in each conductor pair. This is patently not isolation. My ASCII art probably sucks but I'll try anyway. ---------(+)-------- Z1 Z2 ---------(-)-------- The generator(power supply) impedance isn't infinity. Actually, it's nearly a short circuit at the + and - point....so.... Z1 and Z2 are the loads presented by the two separate speaker driver circuits in a biwired arrangement. No values for Z1 or Z2 will ever result in the voltages across Z1 or Z2 varying by more than the difference of the voltage drop of the conductors to the (in this case) left of the power-supply (in the middle) and those on the right. (+)------------------- Z1 Z2 (-)------------------- The bi-wiring proponents look at z1 and z2 as also being generators, therefore, with the amplifier impedance in between them as in the top pictoral, you get more isolation from Z1 to Z2 than in the lower one, because you're used the amplifier and wiring scheme to form a Tee network. |
#367
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"afh3" wrote in
news:fNp1c.35731$PR3.677741@attbi_s03: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in message news:5mo1c.450966$I06.5065611@attbi_s01 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in message news:IOn1c.450824$I06.5064681@attbi_s01 Is it not true that the voltage drop across the conductors is only proportional to the resistance of the conductor itself, and not impacted by the load presented at the output end? Nope, its a voltage divider and the impedance of he wire and the load are relevant. The statement I made was an assertion that the voltage drop across the conductor is proportional to the resistance of the conductor. The voltage at the end of one of the conductor pairs will be exactly the same as the voltage at end of the other conductor pair, minus the difference in the voltage drop across each pair of conductors REGARDLESS of what passive or reactive component is connected to each end. Read Kirchoff's laws if this is unclear. However, the voltage drop will depend on whatever passive or reactive component is connected to each end. No it won't. Put whatever you want at either end of the conductor pair, and Kirchoff's Laws GUARANTEE that the voltage at both ends will be identical -- minus the difference of the voltage drop in each conductor pair. This is patently not isolation. My ASCII art probably sucks but I'll try anyway. ---------(+)-------- Z1 Z2 ---------(-)-------- The generator(power supply) impedance isn't infinity. Actually, it's nearly a short circuit at the + and - point....so.... Z1 and Z2 are the loads presented by the two separate speaker driver circuits in a biwired arrangement. No values for Z1 or Z2 will ever result in the voltages across Z1 or Z2 varying by more than the difference of the voltage drop of the conductors to the (in this case) left of the power-supply (in the middle) and those on the right. (+)------------------- Z1 Z2 (-)------------------- The bi-wiring proponents look at z1 and z2 as also being generators, therefore, with the amplifier impedance in between them as in the top pictoral, you get more isolation from Z1 to Z2 than in the lower one, because you're used the amplifier and wiring scheme to form a Tee network. |
#368
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"afh3" wrote in
news:fNp1c.35731$PR3.677741@attbi_s03: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in message news:5mo1c.450966$I06.5065611@attbi_s01 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in message news:IOn1c.450824$I06.5064681@attbi_s01 Is it not true that the voltage drop across the conductors is only proportional to the resistance of the conductor itself, and not impacted by the load presented at the output end? Nope, its a voltage divider and the impedance of he wire and the load are relevant. The statement I made was an assertion that the voltage drop across the conductor is proportional to the resistance of the conductor. The voltage at the end of one of the conductor pairs will be exactly the same as the voltage at end of the other conductor pair, minus the difference in the voltage drop across each pair of conductors REGARDLESS of what passive or reactive component is connected to each end. Read Kirchoff's laws if this is unclear. However, the voltage drop will depend on whatever passive or reactive component is connected to each end. No it won't. Put whatever you want at either end of the conductor pair, and Kirchoff's Laws GUARANTEE that the voltage at both ends will be identical -- minus the difference of the voltage drop in each conductor pair. This is patently not isolation. My ASCII art probably sucks but I'll try anyway. ---------(+)-------- Z1 Z2 ---------(-)-------- The generator(power supply) impedance isn't infinity. Actually, it's nearly a short circuit at the + and - point....so.... Z1 and Z2 are the loads presented by the two separate speaker driver circuits in a biwired arrangement. No values for Z1 or Z2 will ever result in the voltages across Z1 or Z2 varying by more than the difference of the voltage drop of the conductors to the (in this case) left of the power-supply (in the middle) and those on the right. (+)------------------- Z1 Z2 (-)------------------- The bi-wiring proponents look at z1 and z2 as also being generators, therefore, with the amplifier impedance in between them as in the top pictoral, you get more isolation from Z1 to Z2 than in the lower one, because you're used the amplifier and wiring scheme to form a Tee network. |
#369
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"afh3" wrote in
news:fNp1c.35731$PR3.677741@attbi_s03: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in message news:5mo1c.450966$I06.5065611@attbi_s01 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in message news:IOn1c.450824$I06.5064681@attbi_s01 Is it not true that the voltage drop across the conductors is only proportional to the resistance of the conductor itself, and not impacted by the load presented at the output end? Nope, its a voltage divider and the impedance of he wire and the load are relevant. The statement I made was an assertion that the voltage drop across the conductor is proportional to the resistance of the conductor. The voltage at the end of one of the conductor pairs will be exactly the same as the voltage at end of the other conductor pair, minus the difference in the voltage drop across each pair of conductors REGARDLESS of what passive or reactive component is connected to each end. Read Kirchoff's laws if this is unclear. However, the voltage drop will depend on whatever passive or reactive component is connected to each end. No it won't. Put whatever you want at either end of the conductor pair, and Kirchoff's Laws GUARANTEE that the voltage at both ends will be identical -- minus the difference of the voltage drop in each conductor pair. This is patently not isolation. My ASCII art probably sucks but I'll try anyway. ---------(+)-------- Z1 Z2 ---------(-)-------- The generator(power supply) impedance isn't infinity. Actually, it's nearly a short circuit at the + and - point....so.... Z1 and Z2 are the loads presented by the two separate speaker driver circuits in a biwired arrangement. No values for Z1 or Z2 will ever result in the voltages across Z1 or Z2 varying by more than the difference of the voltage drop of the conductors to the (in this case) left of the power-supply (in the middle) and those on the right. (+)------------------- Z1 Z2 (-)------------------- The bi-wiring proponents look at z1 and z2 as also being generators, therefore, with the amplifier impedance in between them as in the top pictoral, you get more isolation from Z1 to Z2 than in the lower one, because you're used the amplifier and wiring scheme to form a Tee network. |
#370
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Bruce" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in news:fNp1c.35731$PR3.677741@attbi_s03: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in message news:5mo1c.450966$I06.5065611@attbi_s01 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in message news:IOn1c.450824$I06.5064681@attbi_s01 Is it not true that the voltage drop across the conductors is only proportional to the resistance of the conductor itself, and not impacted by the load presented at the output end? Nope, its a voltage divider and the impedance of he wire and the load are relevant. The statement I made was an assertion that the voltage drop across the conductor is proportional to the resistance of the conductor. The voltage at the end of one of the conductor pairs will be exactly the same as the voltage at end of the other conductor pair, minus the difference in the voltage drop across each pair of conductors REGARDLESS of what passive or reactive component is connected to each end. Read Kirchoff's laws if this is unclear. However, the voltage drop will depend on whatever passive or reactive component is connected to each end. No it won't. Put whatever you want at either end of the conductor pair, and Kirchoff's Laws GUARANTEE that the voltage at both ends will be identical -- minus the difference of the voltage drop in each conductor pair. This is patently not isolation. My ASCII art probably sucks but I'll try anyway. ---------(+)-------- Z1 Z2 ---------(-)-------- The generator(power supply) impedance isn't infinity. Actually, it's nearly a short circuit at the + and - point....so.... Z1 and Z2 are the loads presented by the two separate speaker driver circuits in a biwired arrangement. No values for Z1 or Z2 will ever result in the voltages across Z1 or Z2 varying by more than the difference of the voltage drop of the conductors to the (in this case) left of the power-supply (in the middle) and those on the right. (+)------------------- Z1 Z2 (-)------------------- The bi-wiring proponents look at z1 and z2 as also being generators, therefore, with the amplifier impedance in between them as in the top pictoral, you get more isolation from Z1 to Z2 than in the lower one, because you're used the amplifier and wiring scheme to form a Tee network. I suppose that has some merit when considering the back-emf generation of the woofer as it fails to precisely track the applied signal. Has anyone done any modeling or measurements to see what level of output impedance as a shunt would be neccesary to create even the slightest benefit? It seems to me that even if there were appreciable back-emf in the woofer driver circuit, the high-pass filter section of the tweeter driver cross-over network would block it anyway in the single-wire configuration. I'm thinking that a green pen on the CD would probably make more audible difference ;-) -afh3 |
#371
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Bruce" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in news:fNp1c.35731$PR3.677741@attbi_s03: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in message news:5mo1c.450966$I06.5065611@attbi_s01 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in message news:IOn1c.450824$I06.5064681@attbi_s01 Is it not true that the voltage drop across the conductors is only proportional to the resistance of the conductor itself, and not impacted by the load presented at the output end? Nope, its a voltage divider and the impedance of he wire and the load are relevant. The statement I made was an assertion that the voltage drop across the conductor is proportional to the resistance of the conductor. The voltage at the end of one of the conductor pairs will be exactly the same as the voltage at end of the other conductor pair, minus the difference in the voltage drop across each pair of conductors REGARDLESS of what passive or reactive component is connected to each end. Read Kirchoff's laws if this is unclear. However, the voltage drop will depend on whatever passive or reactive component is connected to each end. No it won't. Put whatever you want at either end of the conductor pair, and Kirchoff's Laws GUARANTEE that the voltage at both ends will be identical -- minus the difference of the voltage drop in each conductor pair. This is patently not isolation. My ASCII art probably sucks but I'll try anyway. ---------(+)-------- Z1 Z2 ---------(-)-------- The generator(power supply) impedance isn't infinity. Actually, it's nearly a short circuit at the + and - point....so.... Z1 and Z2 are the loads presented by the two separate speaker driver circuits in a biwired arrangement. No values for Z1 or Z2 will ever result in the voltages across Z1 or Z2 varying by more than the difference of the voltage drop of the conductors to the (in this case) left of the power-supply (in the middle) and those on the right. (+)------------------- Z1 Z2 (-)------------------- The bi-wiring proponents look at z1 and z2 as also being generators, therefore, with the amplifier impedance in between them as in the top pictoral, you get more isolation from Z1 to Z2 than in the lower one, because you're used the amplifier and wiring scheme to form a Tee network. I suppose that has some merit when considering the back-emf generation of the woofer as it fails to precisely track the applied signal. Has anyone done any modeling or measurements to see what level of output impedance as a shunt would be neccesary to create even the slightest benefit? It seems to me that even if there were appreciable back-emf in the woofer driver circuit, the high-pass filter section of the tweeter driver cross-over network would block it anyway in the single-wire configuration. I'm thinking that a green pen on the CD would probably make more audible difference ;-) -afh3 |
#372
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Bruce" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in news:fNp1c.35731$PR3.677741@attbi_s03: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in message news:5mo1c.450966$I06.5065611@attbi_s01 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in message news:IOn1c.450824$I06.5064681@attbi_s01 Is it not true that the voltage drop across the conductors is only proportional to the resistance of the conductor itself, and not impacted by the load presented at the output end? Nope, its a voltage divider and the impedance of he wire and the load are relevant. The statement I made was an assertion that the voltage drop across the conductor is proportional to the resistance of the conductor. The voltage at the end of one of the conductor pairs will be exactly the same as the voltage at end of the other conductor pair, minus the difference in the voltage drop across each pair of conductors REGARDLESS of what passive or reactive component is connected to each end. Read Kirchoff's laws if this is unclear. However, the voltage drop will depend on whatever passive or reactive component is connected to each end. No it won't. Put whatever you want at either end of the conductor pair, and Kirchoff's Laws GUARANTEE that the voltage at both ends will be identical -- minus the difference of the voltage drop in each conductor pair. This is patently not isolation. My ASCII art probably sucks but I'll try anyway. ---------(+)-------- Z1 Z2 ---------(-)-------- The generator(power supply) impedance isn't infinity. Actually, it's nearly a short circuit at the + and - point....so.... Z1 and Z2 are the loads presented by the two separate speaker driver circuits in a biwired arrangement. No values for Z1 or Z2 will ever result in the voltages across Z1 or Z2 varying by more than the difference of the voltage drop of the conductors to the (in this case) left of the power-supply (in the middle) and those on the right. (+)------------------- Z1 Z2 (-)------------------- The bi-wiring proponents look at z1 and z2 as also being generators, therefore, with the amplifier impedance in between them as in the top pictoral, you get more isolation from Z1 to Z2 than in the lower one, because you're used the amplifier and wiring scheme to form a Tee network. I suppose that has some merit when considering the back-emf generation of the woofer as it fails to precisely track the applied signal. Has anyone done any modeling or measurements to see what level of output impedance as a shunt would be neccesary to create even the slightest benefit? It seems to me that even if there were appreciable back-emf in the woofer driver circuit, the high-pass filter section of the tweeter driver cross-over network would block it anyway in the single-wire configuration. I'm thinking that a green pen on the CD would probably make more audible difference ;-) -afh3 |
#373
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Bruce" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in news:fNp1c.35731$PR3.677741@attbi_s03: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in message news:5mo1c.450966$I06.5065611@attbi_s01 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in message news:IOn1c.450824$I06.5064681@attbi_s01 Is it not true that the voltage drop across the conductors is only proportional to the resistance of the conductor itself, and not impacted by the load presented at the output end? Nope, its a voltage divider and the impedance of he wire and the load are relevant. The statement I made was an assertion that the voltage drop across the conductor is proportional to the resistance of the conductor. The voltage at the end of one of the conductor pairs will be exactly the same as the voltage at end of the other conductor pair, minus the difference in the voltage drop across each pair of conductors REGARDLESS of what passive or reactive component is connected to each end. Read Kirchoff's laws if this is unclear. However, the voltage drop will depend on whatever passive or reactive component is connected to each end. No it won't. Put whatever you want at either end of the conductor pair, and Kirchoff's Laws GUARANTEE that the voltage at both ends will be identical -- minus the difference of the voltage drop in each conductor pair. This is patently not isolation. My ASCII art probably sucks but I'll try anyway. ---------(+)-------- Z1 Z2 ---------(-)-------- The generator(power supply) impedance isn't infinity. Actually, it's nearly a short circuit at the + and - point....so.... Z1 and Z2 are the loads presented by the two separate speaker driver circuits in a biwired arrangement. No values for Z1 or Z2 will ever result in the voltages across Z1 or Z2 varying by more than the difference of the voltage drop of the conductors to the (in this case) left of the power-supply (in the middle) and those on the right. (+)------------------- Z1 Z2 (-)------------------- The bi-wiring proponents look at z1 and z2 as also being generators, therefore, with the amplifier impedance in between them as in the top pictoral, you get more isolation from Z1 to Z2 than in the lower one, because you're used the amplifier and wiring scheme to form a Tee network. I suppose that has some merit when considering the back-emf generation of the woofer as it fails to precisely track the applied signal. Has anyone done any modeling or measurements to see what level of output impedance as a shunt would be neccesary to create even the slightest benefit? It seems to me that even if there were appreciable back-emf in the woofer driver circuit, the high-pass filter section of the tweeter driver cross-over network would block it anyway in the single-wire configuration. I'm thinking that a green pen on the CD would probably make more audible difference ;-) -afh3 |
#374
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:32:40 GMT, "afh3" wrote: I'll try not to mention, over and over, as has been your style so far, that in your last sentence above you claimed I have "not" admitted a mistake. Turns out, I didn't have to. Since the EE is clear, maybe we should all agree that English isn't your first language, and move on.................. Cute. Nice dodge. |
#375
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:32:40 GMT, "afh3" wrote: I'll try not to mention, over and over, as has been your style so far, that in your last sentence above you claimed I have "not" admitted a mistake. Turns out, I didn't have to. Since the EE is clear, maybe we should all agree that English isn't your first language, and move on.................. Cute. Nice dodge. |
#376
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:32:40 GMT, "afh3" wrote: I'll try not to mention, over and over, as has been your style so far, that in your last sentence above you claimed I have "not" admitted a mistake. Turns out, I didn't have to. Since the EE is clear, maybe we should all agree that English isn't your first language, and move on.................. Cute. Nice dodge. |
#377
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:32:40 GMT, "afh3" wrote: I'll try not to mention, over and over, as has been your style so far, that in your last sentence above you claimed I have "not" admitted a mistake. Turns out, I didn't have to. Since the EE is clear, maybe we should all agree that English isn't your first language, and move on.................. Cute. Nice dodge. |
#378
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Bruce" wrote in message
The bi-wiring proponents look at z1 and z2 as also being generators, therefore, with the amplifier impedance in between them as in the top pictoral, you get more isolation from Z1 to Z2 than in the lower one, because you're used the amplifier and wiring scheme to form a Tee network. Yes, I've noticed that most bi-wiring proponents are weak on the concept of networks with passive versus active components. |
#379
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Bruce" wrote in message
The bi-wiring proponents look at z1 and z2 as also being generators, therefore, with the amplifier impedance in between them as in the top pictoral, you get more isolation from Z1 to Z2 than in the lower one, because you're used the amplifier and wiring scheme to form a Tee network. Yes, I've noticed that most bi-wiring proponents are weak on the concept of networks with passive versus active components. |
#380
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Bruce" wrote in message
The bi-wiring proponents look at z1 and z2 as also being generators, therefore, with the amplifier impedance in between them as in the top pictoral, you get more isolation from Z1 to Z2 than in the lower one, because you're used the amplifier and wiring scheme to form a Tee network. Yes, I've noticed that most bi-wiring proponents are weak on the concept of networks with passive versus active components. |
#381
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Bruce" wrote in message
The bi-wiring proponents look at z1 and z2 as also being generators, therefore, with the amplifier impedance in between them as in the top pictoral, you get more isolation from Z1 to Z2 than in the lower one, because you're used the amplifier and wiring scheme to form a Tee network. Yes, I've noticed that most bi-wiring proponents are weak on the concept of networks with passive versus active components. |
#382
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"afh3" wrote in message
news:wlR1c.45144$PR3.910451@attbi_s03 I suppose that has some merit when considering the back-emf generation of the woofer as it fails to precisely track the applied signal. The so-called "back emf" is well-modelled as an increase in the impedance of the driver. |
#383
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"afh3" wrote in message
news:wlR1c.45144$PR3.910451@attbi_s03 I suppose that has some merit when considering the back-emf generation of the woofer as it fails to precisely track the applied signal. The so-called "back emf" is well-modelled as an increase in the impedance of the driver. |
#384
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"afh3" wrote in message
news:wlR1c.45144$PR3.910451@attbi_s03 I suppose that has some merit when considering the back-emf generation of the woofer as it fails to precisely track the applied signal. The so-called "back emf" is well-modelled as an increase in the impedance of the driver. |
#385
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"afh3" wrote in message
news:wlR1c.45144$PR3.910451@attbi_s03 I suppose that has some merit when considering the back-emf generation of the woofer as it fails to precisely track the applied signal. The so-called "back emf" is well-modelled as an increase in the impedance of the driver. |
#386
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"afh3" wrote in
news:wlR1c.45144$PR3.910451@attbi_s03: I suppose that has some merit when considering the back-emf generation of the woofer as it fails to precisely track the applied signal. Has anyone done any modeling or measurements to see what level of output impedance as a shunt would be neccesary to create even the slightest benefit? It seems to me that even if there were appreciable back-emf in the woofer driver circuit, the high-pass filter section of the tweeter driver cross-over network would block it anyway in the single-wire configuration. I'm thinking that a green pen on the CD would probably make more audible difference ;-) -afh3 This answer won't be very comprehensive. The flu has bitten me big time.... So far, I've only seen static calculations at the crossover frequencies, which is where I believe the effect will be maximum. The real problem is that there are so many variables. The individual speaker impedances, the amplifer impedance, the effects of the crossover sections, the impedances of the wires used. The solution is set-up specific. I have seen calculations that show some theoretical improvement, but the calculated stock cofiguration was something like 40dB already at the crossover frequency, so the extra few dB come out to give you what(?)...we don't really know as far as audiblity is concerned, personally, I agree that it wouldn't be audible in the vast majority of cases. In those cases where it is, I doubt any audiophile would own that sort of speaker system. (Although they still believe they are making some wonderful improvement to their gold-plated rumpty-thunp speaker system, since they know better than the manufacturer's engineers) |
#387
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"afh3" wrote in
news:wlR1c.45144$PR3.910451@attbi_s03: I suppose that has some merit when considering the back-emf generation of the woofer as it fails to precisely track the applied signal. Has anyone done any modeling or measurements to see what level of output impedance as a shunt would be neccesary to create even the slightest benefit? It seems to me that even if there were appreciable back-emf in the woofer driver circuit, the high-pass filter section of the tweeter driver cross-over network would block it anyway in the single-wire configuration. I'm thinking that a green pen on the CD would probably make more audible difference ;-) -afh3 This answer won't be very comprehensive. The flu has bitten me big time.... So far, I've only seen static calculations at the crossover frequencies, which is where I believe the effect will be maximum. The real problem is that there are so many variables. The individual speaker impedances, the amplifer impedance, the effects of the crossover sections, the impedances of the wires used. The solution is set-up specific. I have seen calculations that show some theoretical improvement, but the calculated stock cofiguration was something like 40dB already at the crossover frequency, so the extra few dB come out to give you what(?)...we don't really know as far as audiblity is concerned, personally, I agree that it wouldn't be audible in the vast majority of cases. In those cases where it is, I doubt any audiophile would own that sort of speaker system. (Although they still believe they are making some wonderful improvement to their gold-plated rumpty-thunp speaker system, since they know better than the manufacturer's engineers) |
#388
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"afh3" wrote in
news:wlR1c.45144$PR3.910451@attbi_s03: I suppose that has some merit when considering the back-emf generation of the woofer as it fails to precisely track the applied signal. Has anyone done any modeling or measurements to see what level of output impedance as a shunt would be neccesary to create even the slightest benefit? It seems to me that even if there were appreciable back-emf in the woofer driver circuit, the high-pass filter section of the tweeter driver cross-over network would block it anyway in the single-wire configuration. I'm thinking that a green pen on the CD would probably make more audible difference ;-) -afh3 This answer won't be very comprehensive. The flu has bitten me big time.... So far, I've only seen static calculations at the crossover frequencies, which is where I believe the effect will be maximum. The real problem is that there are so many variables. The individual speaker impedances, the amplifer impedance, the effects of the crossover sections, the impedances of the wires used. The solution is set-up specific. I have seen calculations that show some theoretical improvement, but the calculated stock cofiguration was something like 40dB already at the crossover frequency, so the extra few dB come out to give you what(?)...we don't really know as far as audiblity is concerned, personally, I agree that it wouldn't be audible in the vast majority of cases. In those cases where it is, I doubt any audiophile would own that sort of speaker system. (Although they still believe they are making some wonderful improvement to their gold-plated rumpty-thunp speaker system, since they know better than the manufacturer's engineers) |
#389
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"afh3" wrote in
news:wlR1c.45144$PR3.910451@attbi_s03: I suppose that has some merit when considering the back-emf generation of the woofer as it fails to precisely track the applied signal. Has anyone done any modeling or measurements to see what level of output impedance as a shunt would be neccesary to create even the slightest benefit? It seems to me that even if there were appreciable back-emf in the woofer driver circuit, the high-pass filter section of the tweeter driver cross-over network would block it anyway in the single-wire configuration. I'm thinking that a green pen on the CD would probably make more audible difference ;-) -afh3 This answer won't be very comprehensive. The flu has bitten me big time.... So far, I've only seen static calculations at the crossover frequencies, which is where I believe the effect will be maximum. The real problem is that there are so many variables. The individual speaker impedances, the amplifer impedance, the effects of the crossover sections, the impedances of the wires used. The solution is set-up specific. I have seen calculations that show some theoretical improvement, but the calculated stock cofiguration was something like 40dB already at the crossover frequency, so the extra few dB come out to give you what(?)...we don't really know as far as audiblity is concerned, personally, I agree that it wouldn't be audible in the vast majority of cases. In those cases where it is, I doubt any audiophile would own that sort of speaker system. (Although they still believe they are making some wonderful improvement to their gold-plated rumpty-thunp speaker system, since they know better than the manufacturer's engineers) |
#390
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Bruce" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in news:wlR1c.45144$PR3.910451@attbi_s03: I suppose that has some merit when considering the back-emf generation of the woofer as it fails to precisely track the applied signal. Has anyone done any modeling or measurements to see what level of output impedance as a shunt would be necessary to create even the slightest benefit? It seems to me that even if there were appreciable back-emf in the woofer driver circuit, the high-pass filter section of the tweeter driver cross-over network would block it anyway in the single-wire configuration. I'm thinking that a green pen on the CD would probably make more audible difference ;-) -afh3 This answer won't be very comprehensive. The flu has bitten me big time.... So far, I've only seen static calculations at the crossover frequencies, which is where I believe the effect will be maximum. The real problem is that there are so many variables. The individual speaker impedances, the amplifier impedance, the effects of the crossover sections, the impedances of the wires used. The solution is set-up specific. Yeah, this is why I was asking about measurements. Adding the amp's variable output impedance over frequency to the mix of the impulse response of the cross-over networks, it's starts to get to be a bit much. I wasn't even going to suggest modeling, but I thought maybe somebody had been crazy enough to try it -- like I was once with a related question. In the early 80's, right after EE school, when I thought I pretty much knew everything about this stuff, I brought an RLC bridge, HP sweep generator, one of the first digital o'scopes made, and some other sundry equipment home from work and completely modeled every part of my speakers -- drivers, cross-over networks (even the individual specific components) and then threw them into a SPICE model that I ran on their TI thermal printing terminal (with acoustic coupler!) that I brought home and connected surreptitiously to the (company that I worked for's) big mainframe (a way-high-end MULTICS machine that cost about as much money as God had at that time.) Since the lab was a classified area, it was easier to get all this equipment *home*, than it would have been to get a pocket full of capacitors and coils *in*. (I could just imagine the face on the guard if I had tried to explain why I was bringing my woofers into the lab, heh.) My goal was to try to develop cross-over networks for *my* specific drivers that would minimize the phase shift at the cross-over point, and (yup, I wanted the world) present a nearly constant 8 ohm non-reactive load across the entire 20-20k frequency range. I had originally started the project doing the entire calculation by hand -- and still have the 20+ pages of complex-number-space math where I tried to solve about 20 simultaneous equations with about as many variables. I went to visit one of my old profs too see if he could give me any tips for simplifying it, and he seemed pretty impressed that I was even trying it -- but I'm real sure I heard him laughing as I walked down the hall when I left. So, back the TI Silent 700. Took me quite a while to get it all punched in, and then, oh yeah, she cranked for a while. Even thought the department I was working for at the time didn't pay for processing time (we were doing MMW RF patch antenna R&D at the time for a DOD contract -- Ron Reagan and all, you know) the job still submitted the stats at the end of it's nearly full-day run -- about $20,000 if I recall correctly. Seems it used a bit o' CPU. Anyway, I remember finding out (I still have the output around here somewhere, although the thermal paper had faded to the point of near-unreadability last time I dug it up) that all I needed were some capacitors with negative values in the uF range and some coils that couldn't be physically represented too. Disappointed, I then let the design program create it's own network, rather than vary the values in the existing one. This time, it ran for a day and a half, and I recall coming up with about a 16th order filter -- the specific type of which I no longer remember -- that only partially met my criterial (and spending another $25k worth of computer time in the process.) So, I humbly reassembled my speakers and decided they sounded just fine as they were. -afh3 |
#391
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Bruce" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in news:wlR1c.45144$PR3.910451@attbi_s03: I suppose that has some merit when considering the back-emf generation of the woofer as it fails to precisely track the applied signal. Has anyone done any modeling or measurements to see what level of output impedance as a shunt would be necessary to create even the slightest benefit? It seems to me that even if there were appreciable back-emf in the woofer driver circuit, the high-pass filter section of the tweeter driver cross-over network would block it anyway in the single-wire configuration. I'm thinking that a green pen on the CD would probably make more audible difference ;-) -afh3 This answer won't be very comprehensive. The flu has bitten me big time.... So far, I've only seen static calculations at the crossover frequencies, which is where I believe the effect will be maximum. The real problem is that there are so many variables. The individual speaker impedances, the amplifier impedance, the effects of the crossover sections, the impedances of the wires used. The solution is set-up specific. Yeah, this is why I was asking about measurements. Adding the amp's variable output impedance over frequency to the mix of the impulse response of the cross-over networks, it's starts to get to be a bit much. I wasn't even going to suggest modeling, but I thought maybe somebody had been crazy enough to try it -- like I was once with a related question. In the early 80's, right after EE school, when I thought I pretty much knew everything about this stuff, I brought an RLC bridge, HP sweep generator, one of the first digital o'scopes made, and some other sundry equipment home from work and completely modeled every part of my speakers -- drivers, cross-over networks (even the individual specific components) and then threw them into a SPICE model that I ran on their TI thermal printing terminal (with acoustic coupler!) that I brought home and connected surreptitiously to the (company that I worked for's) big mainframe (a way-high-end MULTICS machine that cost about as much money as God had at that time.) Since the lab was a classified area, it was easier to get all this equipment *home*, than it would have been to get a pocket full of capacitors and coils *in*. (I could just imagine the face on the guard if I had tried to explain why I was bringing my woofers into the lab, heh.) My goal was to try to develop cross-over networks for *my* specific drivers that would minimize the phase shift at the cross-over point, and (yup, I wanted the world) present a nearly constant 8 ohm non-reactive load across the entire 20-20k frequency range. I had originally started the project doing the entire calculation by hand -- and still have the 20+ pages of complex-number-space math where I tried to solve about 20 simultaneous equations with about as many variables. I went to visit one of my old profs too see if he could give me any tips for simplifying it, and he seemed pretty impressed that I was even trying it -- but I'm real sure I heard him laughing as I walked down the hall when I left. So, back the TI Silent 700. Took me quite a while to get it all punched in, and then, oh yeah, she cranked for a while. Even thought the department I was working for at the time didn't pay for processing time (we were doing MMW RF patch antenna R&D at the time for a DOD contract -- Ron Reagan and all, you know) the job still submitted the stats at the end of it's nearly full-day run -- about $20,000 if I recall correctly. Seems it used a bit o' CPU. Anyway, I remember finding out (I still have the output around here somewhere, although the thermal paper had faded to the point of near-unreadability last time I dug it up) that all I needed were some capacitors with negative values in the uF range and some coils that couldn't be physically represented too. Disappointed, I then let the design program create it's own network, rather than vary the values in the existing one. This time, it ran for a day and a half, and I recall coming up with about a 16th order filter -- the specific type of which I no longer remember -- that only partially met my criterial (and spending another $25k worth of computer time in the process.) So, I humbly reassembled my speakers and decided they sounded just fine as they were. -afh3 |
#392
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Bruce" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in news:wlR1c.45144$PR3.910451@attbi_s03: I suppose that has some merit when considering the back-emf generation of the woofer as it fails to precisely track the applied signal. Has anyone done any modeling or measurements to see what level of output impedance as a shunt would be necessary to create even the slightest benefit? It seems to me that even if there were appreciable back-emf in the woofer driver circuit, the high-pass filter section of the tweeter driver cross-over network would block it anyway in the single-wire configuration. I'm thinking that a green pen on the CD would probably make more audible difference ;-) -afh3 This answer won't be very comprehensive. The flu has bitten me big time.... So far, I've only seen static calculations at the crossover frequencies, which is where I believe the effect will be maximum. The real problem is that there are so many variables. The individual speaker impedances, the amplifier impedance, the effects of the crossover sections, the impedances of the wires used. The solution is set-up specific. Yeah, this is why I was asking about measurements. Adding the amp's variable output impedance over frequency to the mix of the impulse response of the cross-over networks, it's starts to get to be a bit much. I wasn't even going to suggest modeling, but I thought maybe somebody had been crazy enough to try it -- like I was once with a related question. In the early 80's, right after EE school, when I thought I pretty much knew everything about this stuff, I brought an RLC bridge, HP sweep generator, one of the first digital o'scopes made, and some other sundry equipment home from work and completely modeled every part of my speakers -- drivers, cross-over networks (even the individual specific components) and then threw them into a SPICE model that I ran on their TI thermal printing terminal (with acoustic coupler!) that I brought home and connected surreptitiously to the (company that I worked for's) big mainframe (a way-high-end MULTICS machine that cost about as much money as God had at that time.) Since the lab was a classified area, it was easier to get all this equipment *home*, than it would have been to get a pocket full of capacitors and coils *in*. (I could just imagine the face on the guard if I had tried to explain why I was bringing my woofers into the lab, heh.) My goal was to try to develop cross-over networks for *my* specific drivers that would minimize the phase shift at the cross-over point, and (yup, I wanted the world) present a nearly constant 8 ohm non-reactive load across the entire 20-20k frequency range. I had originally started the project doing the entire calculation by hand -- and still have the 20+ pages of complex-number-space math where I tried to solve about 20 simultaneous equations with about as many variables. I went to visit one of my old profs too see if he could give me any tips for simplifying it, and he seemed pretty impressed that I was even trying it -- but I'm real sure I heard him laughing as I walked down the hall when I left. So, back the TI Silent 700. Took me quite a while to get it all punched in, and then, oh yeah, she cranked for a while. Even thought the department I was working for at the time didn't pay for processing time (we were doing MMW RF patch antenna R&D at the time for a DOD contract -- Ron Reagan and all, you know) the job still submitted the stats at the end of it's nearly full-day run -- about $20,000 if I recall correctly. Seems it used a bit o' CPU. Anyway, I remember finding out (I still have the output around here somewhere, although the thermal paper had faded to the point of near-unreadability last time I dug it up) that all I needed were some capacitors with negative values in the uF range and some coils that couldn't be physically represented too. Disappointed, I then let the design program create it's own network, rather than vary the values in the existing one. This time, it ran for a day and a half, and I recall coming up with about a 16th order filter -- the specific type of which I no longer remember -- that only partially met my criterial (and spending another $25k worth of computer time in the process.) So, I humbly reassembled my speakers and decided they sounded just fine as they were. -afh3 |
#393
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Bruce" wrote in message ... "afh3" wrote in news:wlR1c.45144$PR3.910451@attbi_s03: I suppose that has some merit when considering the back-emf generation of the woofer as it fails to precisely track the applied signal. Has anyone done any modeling or measurements to see what level of output impedance as a shunt would be necessary to create even the slightest benefit? It seems to me that even if there were appreciable back-emf in the woofer driver circuit, the high-pass filter section of the tweeter driver cross-over network would block it anyway in the single-wire configuration. I'm thinking that a green pen on the CD would probably make more audible difference ;-) -afh3 This answer won't be very comprehensive. The flu has bitten me big time.... So far, I've only seen static calculations at the crossover frequencies, which is where I believe the effect will be maximum. The real problem is that there are so many variables. The individual speaker impedances, the amplifier impedance, the effects of the crossover sections, the impedances of the wires used. The solution is set-up specific. Yeah, this is why I was asking about measurements. Adding the amp's variable output impedance over frequency to the mix of the impulse response of the cross-over networks, it's starts to get to be a bit much. I wasn't even going to suggest modeling, but I thought maybe somebody had been crazy enough to try it -- like I was once with a related question. In the early 80's, right after EE school, when I thought I pretty much knew everything about this stuff, I brought an RLC bridge, HP sweep generator, one of the first digital o'scopes made, and some other sundry equipment home from work and completely modeled every part of my speakers -- drivers, cross-over networks (even the individual specific components) and then threw them into a SPICE model that I ran on their TI thermal printing terminal (with acoustic coupler!) that I brought home and connected surreptitiously to the (company that I worked for's) big mainframe (a way-high-end MULTICS machine that cost about as much money as God had at that time.) Since the lab was a classified area, it was easier to get all this equipment *home*, than it would have been to get a pocket full of capacitors and coils *in*. (I could just imagine the face on the guard if I had tried to explain why I was bringing my woofers into the lab, heh.) My goal was to try to develop cross-over networks for *my* specific drivers that would minimize the phase shift at the cross-over point, and (yup, I wanted the world) present a nearly constant 8 ohm non-reactive load across the entire 20-20k frequency range. I had originally started the project doing the entire calculation by hand -- and still have the 20+ pages of complex-number-space math where I tried to solve about 20 simultaneous equations with about as many variables. I went to visit one of my old profs too see if he could give me any tips for simplifying it, and he seemed pretty impressed that I was even trying it -- but I'm real sure I heard him laughing as I walked down the hall when I left. So, back the TI Silent 700. Took me quite a while to get it all punched in, and then, oh yeah, she cranked for a while. Even thought the department I was working for at the time didn't pay for processing time (we were doing MMW RF patch antenna R&D at the time for a DOD contract -- Ron Reagan and all, you know) the job still submitted the stats at the end of it's nearly full-day run -- about $20,000 if I recall correctly. Seems it used a bit o' CPU. Anyway, I remember finding out (I still have the output around here somewhere, although the thermal paper had faded to the point of near-unreadability last time I dug it up) that all I needed were some capacitors with negative values in the uF range and some coils that couldn't be physically represented too. Disappointed, I then let the design program create it's own network, rather than vary the values in the existing one. This time, it ran for a day and a half, and I recall coming up with about a 16th order filter -- the specific type of which I no longer remember -- that only partially met my criterial (and spending another $25k worth of computer time in the process.) So, I humbly reassembled my speakers and decided they sounded just fine as they were. -afh3 |
#394
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
Wow, what a great trip down memory lane. Brings back memories of the room
full of ADM-3s running a whopping 110 baud on the college campus I went to that could access the mainframe there, although the main input was still punch cards. That was in the late 70s. We sure have come a long way. |
#395
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
Wow, what a great trip down memory lane. Brings back memories of the room
full of ADM-3s running a whopping 110 baud on the college campus I went to that could access the mainframe there, although the main input was still punch cards. That was in the late 70s. We sure have come a long way. |
#396
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
Wow, what a great trip down memory lane. Brings back memories of the room
full of ADM-3s running a whopping 110 baud on the college campus I went to that could access the mainframe there, although the main input was still punch cards. That was in the late 70s. We sure have come a long way. |
#397
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
Wow, what a great trip down memory lane. Brings back memories of the room
full of ADM-3s running a whopping 110 baud on the college campus I went to that could access the mainframe there, although the main input was still punch cards. That was in the late 70s. We sure have come a long way. |
#398
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
Oh don't I hear you. In college I once saw a kid drop down to his knees and
start sobbing as the person in front of him using the card reader (standard issue of course for computer science class back then) turned around more quickly than he was ready for and caused the several-hundred-card deck in his hands to fly out if his grasp and flutter to the floor like so much confetti -- apparently just hours before the project was due. I remember trying to help him pick them up, and he just kept sobbing "No, no, go away, I can do it, I can do it." God I felt sorry for him. "Bruce" wrote in message ... Wow, what a great trip down memory lane. Brings back memories of the room full of ADM-3s running a whopping 110 baud on the college campus I went to that could access the mainframe there, although the main input was still punch cards. That was in the late 70s. We sure have come a long way. |
#399
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
Oh don't I hear you. In college I once saw a kid drop down to his knees and
start sobbing as the person in front of him using the card reader (standard issue of course for computer science class back then) turned around more quickly than he was ready for and caused the several-hundred-card deck in his hands to fly out if his grasp and flutter to the floor like so much confetti -- apparently just hours before the project was due. I remember trying to help him pick them up, and he just kept sobbing "No, no, go away, I can do it, I can do it." God I felt sorry for him. "Bruce" wrote in message ... Wow, what a great trip down memory lane. Brings back memories of the room full of ADM-3s running a whopping 110 baud on the college campus I went to that could access the mainframe there, although the main input was still punch cards. That was in the late 70s. We sure have come a long way. |
#400
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
Oh don't I hear you. In college I once saw a kid drop down to his knees and
start sobbing as the person in front of him using the card reader (standard issue of course for computer science class back then) turned around more quickly than he was ready for and caused the several-hundred-card deck in his hands to fly out if his grasp and flutter to the floor like so much confetti -- apparently just hours before the project was due. I remember trying to help him pick them up, and he just kept sobbing "No, no, go away, I can do it, I can do it." God I felt sorry for him. "Bruce" wrote in message ... Wow, what a great trip down memory lane. Brings back memories of the room full of ADM-3s running a whopping 110 baud on the college campus I went to that could access the mainframe there, although the main input was still punch cards. That was in the late 70s. We sure have come a long way. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Help - wiring identity Pioneer OEM CD changer | Car Audio | |||
VW Factory CD Changer - Wiring Diagram? | Car Audio | |||
Wiring for component "drawers"? | General | |||
Honda Acura external amp wiring (repost) | Car Audio | |||
Acura/Bose Amp wiring | Car Audio |