Do the power amps in tube combos cover 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz like home
stereo tube amplifiers +/- 1 dB or are tube guitar amps made
different/cheaper and cover less of a range with less accuracy say 60 Hz
to 15,000 Hz +/- 3dB ??? I've been looking for specs but they don't
seem to list them.

NGS wrote:

Do the power amps in tube combos cover 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz like home
stereo tube amplifiers +/- 1 dB or are tube guitar amps made
different/cheaper and cover less of a range with less accuracy say 60 Hz
to 15,000 Hz +/- 3dB ???

Guitar amplifiers are used to produce rather than to reproduce sound and
accuracy is therefore not a concern. They may or may not cover the entire
audible frequency range and they may or may not be flat within the range
that they cover depending on the intended application. Noise and distortion
performance may similarly vary.

I've been looking for specs but they don't
seem to list them.

That's because those who purchase guitar amplifers choose them based on
the sound they can produce as part of a guitar/amplifier/speaker system
rather than on specs.

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain

"Guitar amplifiers are used to produce rather than to reproduce sound
and
accuracy is therefore not a concern"

I would say this instead. Audio amps and PA systems that are used to
amplify music or any sounds from a source material that is already
produced are very dependant on predictable frequency response. When a
producer mixes an audio CD or a film editor makes the final edits on a
film they use what are known as "studio monitors". The expectation is
that these monitors are going to amplify the sounds with very little to
zero deviance. This is called "flat frequency response".

In home or industrial amplifiers and speakers, the closer the system
comes to the studio monitors, the closer the sound will be to the
producer or director's artistic vision. Also, for sound effects in film
to be highly realistic, the same level of precision is needed.

Contrast that with guitar or bass amps (by the way the ideal acoustic
guitar, keyboard, anyything with a microphone and PA amps are more like
audio gear and SHOULD be reviewed for precision before investing). The
reasons are that guitar amps more than any other are expected to not
only derive character from the distortion, but most importantly are
expected derive their tonal character from the voicing of the amp and
speaker combination. In fact, the term "voicing" means the unique (as
opposed to predictable or flat) frequency response of these systems. If
you want to get an idea on how this works, plug a CD player in to your
guitar's input of your amp. Compare the guitar input with an aux. input
if you have a chance and the difference will indicate how much the
preamp contributes to the voicing of your system. You can also
carefully connect a home audio speaker to your guitar amp and see how
much the speaker contributes to the voice or character. If you do, you
will see just how much brighter the home audio speaker is. That means
that the frequency response of guitar speakers starts to taper off very
dramatically. Wel think about it. Have you ever seen a 12" woofer in a
home audio system that did not have at least one other driver to handle
the higher freqs? Shoot, even with 1 or 2 more drivers it is hard to
build a speaker system for home audio that has a nice flat freq
response. The 8" - 12" speakers that are in virtually all guitar
systems use are more at home in the very lowest range that we call
"subwoofer" range. I have an 8" subwoofer to handle the lowest special
effects for films and I also have a practice amp with an 8" speaker
that sounds if anything a little bright compared to 12" systems.
Anyhow, if you have a chance to use a (audio) spectrum analyzer you
will see what I am talking about.

To wrap it up, the reason you only get to see the power (which is a max
rating BTW) is that none of the other numbers would make sense to most
people, especially of you wanted to compare one to the other! You might
end up heading away from what you really want. That is why modeling
amps are popular, because amp and speaker voices are so unique that the
only way anyone can even hope to get a sense for what it will sound
like is to compare it with something you already know.

Finally, DO look at performance numbers for any amp that I have
indicated as having "clean and flat" as the ideal freq. response. If
you need a PA or keyboard amp, brng a CD player with the right cords to
preview the amp and that the the best indicator other than playing it
as it will be used, including the volume.

There wouldn't be much point in having the 20-20000hz range for a
guitar or bass amplifier. I mean, I have yet to hear a guitar produce
a note approaching the 20000hz range. The same for the bass end. What
is the point in having equipment produce the range of frequencies when
you won't ever be able to produce them? It would be a waste of
engineering and money.

"Ginger" wrote in message
ups.com...
There wouldn't be much point in having the 20-20000hz range for a
guitar or bass amplifier. I mean, I have yet to hear a guitar produce
a note approaching the 20000hz range. The same for the bass end. What
is the point in having equipment produce the range of frequencies when
you won't ever be able to produce them? It would be a waste of
engineering and money.

But a musical tone is much more than just the frequency of the note.
Musical instruments rarely produce pure sine waves. A piano or guitar
hitting, for instance, 880 Hz, will produce a complex waveform with
components at much higher frequencies. From 880 Hz to 14080 Hz is only 4
octaves.

Actually the base note is not the only frequency heard. If what you say
was true, then nobody would ever notice when treble adjustments were
made. Harmonics are always a factor in guitar music and most sounds
have what are called "overtones". A rig with 20 - 20 k *flat* sounds
very bright relative to a typically voiced guitar rig. You *will*
notice if you try. It is preferred for acoustic guitar by the way.

with 20hz being the lowest end of human hearing and 20,000 the highest,
a guitar is not capable of producing those frequencies. You're open A
string is at 440hz, still nowhere near 20kz.

If you are not producing frequencies that low, or high, then you won't
notice it. Perhaps the speaker cones that they use for systems capable
of reproducing sounds between 20-20,000hz are not constructed using the
same materials.

Ginger wrote:
You're open A
string is at 440hz,

You're a couple of octaves to high.
The fundamental of an open A string on a guitar is 110 Hz.
That doesn't mean you don't have to reproduce higher frequencies though.

Most guitar speakers will start to seriously drop off somewhere between
5 and 7 KHz. The amplifiers will usually easily exceed that by quite a
large margin.

Sander

Read my post above.

Actually the base note is not the only frequency heard. If what you say
was true, then nobody would ever notice when treble adjustments were
made. Harmonics are always a factor in guitar music and most sounds
have what are called "overtones". A rig with 20 - 20 k *flat* sounds
very bright relative to a typically voiced guitar rig. You *will*
notice if you try. It is preferred for acoustic guitar by the way.

To that I will repeat and reinforce that though the systems are
dramatically different and yes that includes the speakers, no single
driver ever manufactured has been able to acheive 20 - 20k freq
response with a flat enough (accurate enough) to use with any
satisfaction in even a budget audio system. You can take a 12" speaker
from a typical home audio system (an old one, since for years the
preferred design is to use about 6" woofers with a separate amp and
speaker for what is now called "subwoofer" range) and it will not
dramatically change the voicing of the system. It will probably
brighten it a bit but I bet a lot of people would like it. I did it
once when I got my first head (a crappy Peavey 100 watt head). I made
my own cabinet (2*12) from speakers sold as home audio speaker with a
frequency response designed to handle the "woofer" range. It was
expected that the speakers I used would go in to a system that had 2
crossover frequencies and 2 more speakers to handle the upper range.

OK, the main thing I want to say is that you are absolutely wrong in
stating that 20 - 20k is the range of the human ear. You have to be
joking to post something like that. You know, newsgroups lose their
value when people post statements like that when in reality that is
merely your mistaken impression and yet someone might read that and
take it as a fact. Maybe that is how you got the idea (by reading it
from another article). The human ear is FAR FAR more limited than 20 -
20K!!! There are plenty of excellent speaker systems that do not
approach that response and you will never know because not only can
your ear not hear that low or that high, but no music is ever recorded
that low or high! Until CDs came along, the software mediums were not
even capable of that range! Do a bit of web surfing on a medical sight
or perhaps a hearing aid site and you will get a better idea on what
the ear can detect. I am not aware of any animals that can even hear
that high. I might be wrong but I know for certain humans can't.

Please don't post your (likely erroneous) opinion about something that
is fact. It is misleading and the main reason NGs are considered by
most people to be a joke. At least qualify it by saying "I think" or "I
always thought..." etc.

Right, I missed that one. Not the open A, the 5th fret on the high E is
440!!!

Dang, everything said was false.

"Chris M" wrote in message
oups.com...
Read my post above.

Actually the base note is not the only frequency heard. If what you say
was true, then nobody would ever notice when treble adjustments were
made. Harmonics are always a factor in guitar music and most sounds
have what are called "overtones". A rig with 20 - 20 k *flat* sounds
very bright relative to a typically voiced guitar rig. You *will*
notice if you try. It is preferred for acoustic guitar by the way.

To that I will repeat and reinforce that though the systems are
dramatically different and yes that includes the speakers, no single
driver ever manufactured has been able to acheive 20 - 20k freq
response with a flat enough (accurate enough) to use with any
satisfaction in even a budget audio system. You can take a 12" speaker
from a typical home audio system (an old one, since for years the
preferred design is to use about 6" woofers with a separate amp and
speaker for what is now called "subwoofer" range) and it will not
dramatically change the voicing of the system. It will probably
brighten it a bit but I bet a lot of people would like it. I did it
once when I got my first head (a crappy Peavey 100 watt head). I made
my own cabinet (2*12) from speakers sold as home audio speaker with a
frequency response designed to handle the "woofer" range. It was
expected that the speakers I used would go in to a system that had 2
crossover frequencies and 2 more speakers to handle the upper range.

OK, the main thing I want to say is that you are absolutely wrong in
stating that 20 - 20k is the range of the human ear. You have to be
joking to post something like that. You know, newsgroups lose their
value when people post statements like that when in reality that is
merely your mistaken impression and yet someone might read that and
take it as a fact. Maybe that is how you got the idea (by reading it
from another article). The human ear is FAR FAR more limited than 20 -
20K!!! There are plenty of excellent speaker systems that do not
approach that response and you will never know because not only can
your ear not hear that low or that high, but no music is ever recorded
that low or high! Until CDs came along, the software mediums were not
even capable of that range! Do a bit of web surfing on a medical sight
or perhaps a hearing aid site and you will get a better idea on what
the ear can detect. I am not aware of any animals that can even hear
that high. I might be wrong but I know for certain humans can't.

Please don't post your (likely erroneous) opinion about something that
is fact. It is misleading and the main reason NGs are considered by
most people to be a joke. At least qualify it by saying "I think" or "I
always thought..." etc.

20Hz to 20KHz is the "accepted" range for human hearing, at least in the
hi-fi industry, possibly because if an amplifier has this bandwidth, it will
meet or exceed human hearing. Human hearing is not flat, and it isn't a
rectangular window on the spectrum, either. it is a big hill-shaped curve.
CD players are _capable of_ (but don't usually contain) 2Hz to 20KHz. FM
broadcasting is typically 50Hz to 15KHz. Telephones are typically 300Hz to
3000Hz. So that gives you some points of reference.

Someone might be able to "hear" 20KHz if it's loud enough. I used to be able
to easily hear 18KHz when I was in my 20s. TV flyback transformers running
at 15.734KHz used to drive me crazy. I could tell if a department store
carried TVs as soon as I stepped in the door. I can't hear them anymore.
Similarly, low frequencies can be heard, or even felt, if they're loud
enough. There isn't much music with fundamental tones at 20Hz, but some pipe
organ music gets pretty low. I wanted to say 16Hz, but I can't verify that.

OK, the main thing I want to say is that you are absolutely
wrong in stating that 20 - 20k is the range of the human ear.

Can we assume that since you state this with such conviction
that you are able to back this rather interesting claim up
with some fact?

You have to be joking to post something like that. You know,
newsgroups lose their value when people post statements like
that when in reality that is merely your mistaken impression
and yet someone might read that and take it as a fact.

Yes, you're right. That's why some newsgroups are moderated: to
keep yahoos like you from post the sort of ill-informed claptrap
that you are posting.

Maybe that is how you got the idea (by reading it from another
article). The human ear is FAR FAR more limited than 20 -
20K!!!

Fine, you now stated it, now it's time to back up your claim
with something other than your clearly isinformed opinion, sir.

There are plenty of excellent speaker systems that do not
approach that response and you will never know because not only
can your ear not hear that low or that high, but no music is ever
recorded that low or high!

Not only are your claims here completely wrong, they are utterly
irrelevant.

Until CDs came along, the software mediums were not even capable
of that range!

Wrong, totally, completely utterly wrong. I have a 33 year old
Revox A-77 tape recorder that at 15 IPS measures 16 Hz to 22 kHz
+-2 dB. This was for a machine that was considered an "advanced
amateur" class machine.

Do a bit of web surfing on a medical sight or perhaps a hearing
aid site and you will get a better idea on what the ear can detect.

Clearly, if this is how YOU got YOUR information, this is really
bad advice.

I am not aware of any animals that can even hear that high.
I might be wrong but I know for certain humans can't.

Well, actually, you ARE wrong. Are you aware, for example, that
bats do echo location at frequencies far in excess of 20 kHz?
Or did you treasured medical and hearing aid websites not happen
to have that information.

Please don't post your (likely erroneous) opinion about something
that is fact.

It would very much be in your best interests to listen to your own
advice, kind sir.

As a point of fact, the range of human hearing had been a subject of
fairly intense research dataing back well over 100 years. There is
a tremendous amount of literature on the topic which you clearly
are either unaware of or have ignored, much to your deteriment.

Consider as far back as 1862 with H. Helmholtz's treatise, "The
Sensation of Tone." From there we then find the extensive amount
of quantative resarch performed at Bell Laboratories in the 1920's,
1930's and later, by notables such as Messrs Fletcher, Munson and
others, all easily available in simple literature searches. The
20-20 Khz range is quoted and verifed by any number of authors
and researches on the topic, e.g., Beranek (1954), Hirsch (1952),
and many, many others.

Yet you come by and state, contrary to an enormous volume of
research, that their data is wrong. How convenient it must be
to be able to be so cock cure of your "facts" without putting
in any of the hard work that these many practioners have expended
reach their conclusions.

Yeah, usenet newsgroups are often a joke, filled as they are
with uninformed opinion presented as "fact", and it's posts
just such as yours that make it the wasteland it is.

Go away, learn something real, and then come back, sire.

Ummm, I studied and working in health care for a while and 20-20khz is
the "textbook" range of human hearing. Here is a quick link:
http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/..._3/Topic_3.htm

There is a lot out there on hearing frequencies.

Yes, you lose hearing range as you age, but who didn't know that? How
many jokes are made about it. What is actually funny is that women
tend to lose the lower frequencies first as they age and men lose the
higher frequencies as they age. So, with men's voices having more
bass, and women's having more treble, it's no wonder that old people
argue. They can't hear each other properly.

One of the things that I like about the forums is that everyone can
slap up their own opinions, questions, answers, and experiences. Those
are things that I think that everyone can draw from and better
themselves. If someone is wrong in their facts, it's a lot better to
point them in a direction so that they can correct themself.
.......barring that does not work then ridicule them and give 'em a kick
in pants with a hob-nailed boot

NGS wrote:

Do the power amps in tube combos cover 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz like home
stereo tube amplifiers +/- 1 dB or are tube guitar amps made
different/cheaper and cover less of a range with less accuracy say 60 Hz
to 15,000 Hz +/- 3dB ??? I've been looking for specs but they don't
seem to list them.

It depends. Guitar amps aren't really designed to be flat across the
audible range. Most manufacturers don't give those type of specs, but
my Peavey 60/60 is rated +0/-3dB, 40Hz - 20 kHz.

I see in the text where that is stated (your numbers 20 - 20K) and I
see in their graphs and other statements from what I assume is their
source material that are contradictory. Maybe the statement you are
using for your source is a theoretical range. I have never heard of any
human that can detect sounds in that range. Age and other factors come
in to play, but the human ear can't hear changes above about 14K. I
don't recall if humans can hear an isolated tone above that range but I
think not. It could be that sensitivity drops off acutely 12+ db), I
just don't recall all of the details. In the context of this
discussion (sound reproduction) that means people can't tell the
difference between a sound system that can reproduce music only up to
14K vs. another that can reproduce sound up to 20K. I wish I had web
sources to point to, but my research predates the www popularity.

At least you have used what one can consider to be a legitimate source.
I thought you assumed based on typical audio specs since I have neaver
heard anyone claim what you have. I apologize.

Chris M wrote:

Actually the base note is not the only frequency heard. If what you say
was true, then nobody would ever notice when treble adjustments were
made. Harmonics are always a factor in guitar music and most sounds
have what are called "overtones". A rig with 20 - 20 k *flat* sounds
very bright relative to a typically voiced guitar rig. You *will*
notice if you try. It is preferred for acoustic guitar by the way.

The speaker is generally the deciding factor in high frequency
reproduction, not the amplifier. Most guitar speakers don't do much
above 5 kHz.

Ginger wrote:

with 20hz being the lowest end of human hearing and 20,000 the highest,
a guitar is not capable of producing those frequencies. You're open A
string is at 440hz,

The fundamental frequency of an open low E is around 82Hz, even though
the harmonics are really more important.

still nowhere near 20kz.

If you are not producing frequencies that low, or high, then you won't
notice it. Perhaps the speaker cones that they use for systems capable
of reproducing sounds between 20-20,000hz are not constructed using the
same materials.

It's DESIGN. A driver designed to reproduce 20 Hz (and not many really
do) is usually very inefficient and has a LONG throw with rather loose
suspension. NOT good for guitar, with all of the dynamic range. Guitar
speakers are stiffer and more efficient, and many don't do much below
100 Hz.

Chris M wrote:

Read my post above.


Actually the base note is not the only frequency heard. If what you say
was true, then nobody would ever notice when treble adjustments were
made. Harmonics are always a factor in guitar music and most sounds
have what are called "overtones". A rig with 20 - 20 k *flat* sounds
very bright relative to a typically voiced guitar rig. You *will*
notice if you try. It is preferred for acoustic guitar by the way.


To that I will repeat and reinforce that though the systems are
dramatically different and yes that includes the speakers, no single
driver ever manufactured has been able to acheive 20 - 20k freq
response with a flat enough (accurate enough) to use with any
satisfaction in even a budget audio system. You can take a 12" speaker
from a typical home audio system (an old one, since for years the
preferred design is to use about 6" woofers with a separate amp and
speaker for what is now called "subwoofer" range) and it will not
dramatically change the voicing of the system. It will probably
brighten it a bit but I bet a lot of people would like it. I did it
once when I got my first head (a crappy Peavey 100 watt head). I made
my own cabinet (2*12) from speakers sold as home audio speaker with a
frequency response designed to handle the "woofer" range. It was
expected that the speakers I used would go in to a system that had 2
crossover frequencies and 2 more speakers to handle the upper range.

OK, the main thing I want to say is that you are absolutely wrong in
stating that 20 - 20k is the range of the human ear. You have to be
joking to post something like that. You know, newsgroups lose their
value when people post statements like that when in reality that is
merely your mistaken impression and yet someone might read that and
take it as a fact. Maybe that is how you got the idea (by reading it
from another article). The human ear is FAR FAR more limited than 20 -
20K!!! There are plenty of excellent speaker systems that do not
approach that response and you will never know because not only can
your ear not hear that low or that high, but no music is ever recorded
that low or high!

That's not true. Pipe organs hit some really low notes. They can be
recorded onto tape and vinyl. Harmonics do reach 20k. Although many
adults have a hard time hearing that range, it does add "life" to music.

Until CDs came along, the software mediums were not
even capable of that range! Do a bit of web surfing on a medical sight
or perhaps a hearing aid site and you will get a better idea on what
the ear can detect.

Don't need to. I have good speaker and recorded frequency sweeps. It's
tough to differentiate notes below 30 Hz, but I can hear them (and FEEL
them). My ears start to drop off around 16 kHz, but my dog can hear the
20 kHz EASY. I was able to hear 18 kHz much easier, when I was younger.


I am not aware of any animals that can even hear
that high. I might be wrong but I know for certain humans can't.

Please don't post your (likely erroneous) opinion about something that
is fact. It is misleading and the main reason NGs are considered by
most people to be a joke. At least qualify it by saying "I think" or "I
always thought..." etc.

Karl Uppiano wrote:

"Chris M" wrote in message
oups.com...

Read my post above.


Actually the base note is not the only frequency heard. If what you say
was true, then nobody would ever notice when treble adjustments were
made. Harmonics are always a factor in guitar music and most sounds
have what are called "overtones". A rig with 20 - 20 k *flat* sounds
very bright relative to a typically voiced guitar rig. You *will*
notice if you try. It is preferred for acoustic guitar by the way.

To that I will repeat and reinforce that though the systems are
dramatically different and yes that includes the speakers, no single
driver ever manufactured has been able to acheive 20 - 20k freq
response with a flat enough (accurate enough) to use with any
satisfaction in even a budget audio system. You can take a 12" speaker
from a typical home audio system (an old one, since for years the
preferred design is to use about 6" woofers with a separate amp and
speaker for what is now called "subwoofer" range) and it will not
dramatically change the voicing of the system. It will probably
brighten it a bit but I bet a lot of people would like it. I did it
once when I got my first head (a crappy Peavey 100 watt head). I made
my own cabinet (2*12) from speakers sold as home audio speaker with a
frequency response designed to handle the "woofer" range. It was
expected that the speakers I used would go in to a system that had 2
crossover frequencies and 2 more speakers to handle the upper range.

OK, the main thing I want to say is that you are absolutely wrong in
stating that 20 - 20k is the range of the human ear. You have to be
joking to post something like that. You know, newsgroups lose their
value when people post statements like that when in reality that is
merely your mistaken impression and yet someone might read that and
take it as a fact. Maybe that is how you got the idea (by reading it
from another article). The human ear is FAR FAR more limited than 20 -
20K!!! There are plenty of excellent speaker systems that do not
approach that response and you will never know because not only can
your ear not hear that low or that high, but no music is ever recorded
that low or high! Until CDs came along, the software mediums were not
even capable of that range! Do a bit of web surfing on a medical sight
or perhaps a hearing aid site and you will get a better idea on what
the ear can detect. I am not aware of any animals that can even hear
that high. I might be wrong but I know for certain humans can't.

Please don't post your (likely erroneous) opinion about something that
is fact. It is misleading and the main reason NGs are considered by
most people to be a joke. At least qualify it by saying "I think" or "I
always thought..." etc.


20Hz to 20KHz is the "accepted" range for human hearing, at least in the
hi-fi industry, possibly because if an amplifier has this bandwidth, it will
meet or exceed human hearing. Human hearing is not flat, and it isn't a
rectangular window on the spectrum, either. it is a big hill-shaped curve.
CD players are _capable of_ (but don't usually contain) 2Hz to 20KHz. FM
broadcasting is typically 50Hz to 15KHz. Telephones are typically 300Hz to
3000Hz. So that gives you some points of reference.

Someone might be able to "hear" 20KHz if it's loud enough. I used to be able
to easily hear 18KHz when I was in my 20s. TV flyback transformers running
at 15.734KHz used to drive me crazy.

STILL bothers me on one old portable that I have. Also, some department
stores have a VERY high pitch that bothers me. Something it the
lighting? Alarm systems?

I could tell if a department store
carried TVs as soon as I stepped in the door. I can't hear them anymore.
Similarly, low frequencies can be heard, or even felt, if they're loud
enough. There isn't much music with fundamental tones at 20Hz, but some pipe
organ music gets pretty low. I wanted to say 16Hz, but I can't verify that.

Chris M wrote:
I see in the text where that is stated (your numbers 20 - 20K) and I
see in their graphs and other statements from what I assume is their
source material that are contradictory. Maybe the statement you are
using for your source is a theoretical range. I have never heard of any
human that can detect sounds in that range. Age and other factors come
in to play, but the human ear can't hear changes above about 14K.

I guess I'm not human, then.

I
don't recall if humans can hear an isolated tone above that range but I
think not. It could be that sensitivity drops off acutely 12+ db), I
just don't recall all of the details. In the context of this
discussion (sound reproduction) that means people can't tell the
difference between a sound system that can reproduce music only up to
14K vs. another that can reproduce sound up to 20K. I wish I had web
sources to point to, but my research predates the www popularity.

At least you have used what one can consider to be a legitimate source.
I thought you assumed based on typical audio specs since I have neaver
heard anyone claim what you have. I apologize.

Jim Anable wrote:

Karl Uppiano wrote:

"Chris M" wrote in message
oups.com...

Read my post above.


Actually the base note is not the only frequency heard. If what you say
was true, then nobody would ever notice when treble adjustments were
made. Harmonics are always a factor in guitar music and most sounds
have what are called "overtones". A rig with 20 - 20 k *flat* sounds
very bright relative to a typically voiced guitar rig. You *will*
notice if you try. It is preferred for acoustic guitar by the way.


To that I will repeat and reinforce that though the systems are
dramatically different and yes that includes the speakers, no single
driver ever manufactured has been able to acheive 20 - 20k freq
response with a flat enough (accurate enough) to use with any
satisfaction in even a budget audio system. You can take a 12" speaker
from a typical home audio system (an old one, since for years the
preferred design is to use about 6" woofers with a separate amp and
speaker for what is now called "subwoofer" range) and it will not
dramatically change the voicing of the system. It will probably
brighten it a bit but I bet a lot of people would like it. I did it
once when I got my first head (a crappy Peavey 100 watt head). I made
my own cabinet (2*12) from speakers sold as home audio speaker with a
frequency response designed to handle the "woofer" range. It was
expected that the speakers I used would go in to a system that had 2
crossover frequencies and 2 more speakers to handle the upper range.

OK, the main thing I want to say is that you are absolutely wrong in
stating that 20 - 20k is the range of the human ear. You have to be
joking to post something like that. You know, newsgroups lose their
value when people post statements like that when in reality that is
merely your mistaken impression and yet someone might read that and
take it as a fact. Maybe that is how you got the idea (by reading it
from another article). The human ear is FAR FAR more limited than 20 -
20K!!! There are plenty of excellent speaker systems that do not
approach that response and you will never know because not only can
your ear not hear that low or that high, but no music is ever recorded
that low or high! Until CDs came along, the software mediums were not
even capable of that range! Do a bit of web surfing on a medical sight
or perhaps a hearing aid site and you will get a better idea on what
the ear can detect. I am not aware of any animals that can even hear
that high. I might be wrong but I know for certain humans can't.

Please don't post your (likely erroneous) opinion about something that
is fact. It is misleading and the main reason NGs are considered by
most people to be a joke. At least qualify it by saying "I think" or "I
always thought..." etc.



20Hz to 20KHz is the "accepted" range for human hearing, at least in
the hi-fi industry, possibly because if an amplifier has this
bandwidth, it will meet or exceed human hearing. Human hearing is not
flat, and it isn't a rectangular window on the spectrum, either. it is
a big hill-shaped curve. CD players are _capable of_ (but don't
usually contain) 2Hz to 20KHz. FM broadcasting is typically 50Hz to
15KHz. Telephones are typically 300Hz to 3000Hz. So that gives you
some points of reference.

Someone might be able to "hear" 20KHz if it's loud enough. I used to
be able to easily hear 18KHz when I was in my 20s. TV flyback
transformers running at 15.734KHz used to drive me crazy.


STILL bothers me on one old portable that I have. Also, some department
stores have a VERY high pitch that bothers me. Something it the
lighting? Alarm systems?

I could tell if a department store

carried TVs as soon as I stepped in the door.

The department store that really bothered me didn't sell TV's. I always
wondered what it was, but it was VERY annoying. Nobody else could ever
hear it.


I can't hear them
anymore. Similarly, low frequencies can be heard, or even felt, if
they're loud enough. There isn't much music with fundamental tones at
20Hz, but some pipe organ music gets pretty low. I wanted to say 16Hz,
but I can't verify that.

Chris M further intoned:
I see in the text where that is stated (your numbers 20 - 20K) and
I see in their graphs and other statements from what I assume is
their source material that are contradictory. Maybe the statement
you are using for your source is a theoretical range. I have never
heard of any human that can detect sounds in that range.

Yes, that much is clear, you have NOT heard of such because you
haven't done the research.

Age and
other factors come in to play, but the human ear can't hear changes
above about 14K.

You have made a very specific, unambiguous assertion here, one
which is testable and in fact contradicted by research performed
on a large number of subjects.

I don't recall if humans can hear an isolated tone above that
range but I think not.

So, explain to us then, how is this statement any better than the
ones you criticize? You don't know, you don't recall, but you think
not.

I wish I had web sources to point to, but my research predates the
www popularity.

How about REAL sources, as I pointed out earlier?

You are, in fact, no better than those you would criticize.

At least you have used what one can consider to be a legitimate
source.

What is the "loegitimate source" for YOUR claims, sir?

Sometimes the ballasts used in flourescent lighting can create an
interference frequency with other electrical systems. The typical
store/building ballasts use some weird voltag. I can't remember the
exact voltage, but it has to do with a delta-transformer that they use
to take power off the main grid for the building. In your house they
use a different type of transformer (usually for the neighbourhood or
groups of houses). The voltage comes in off of one of the phases so it
makes it easy to route the power directly.

Because of the higher voltage they can create fields which interfere
with other equipment (like the PA systems in the ceilings). It could
be from that. It's just a guess.

Ginger wrote:
Sometimes the ballasts used in flourescent lighting can create an
interference frequency with other electrical systems. The typical
store/building ballasts use some weird voltag. I can't remember the
exact voltage, but it has to do with a delta-transformer that they use
to take power off the main grid for the building. In your house they
use a different type of transformer (usually for the neighbourhood or
groups of houses). The voltage comes in off of one of the phases so it
makes it easy to route the power directly.

Because of the higher voltage they can create fields which interfere
with other equipment (like the PA systems in the ceilings). It could
be from that. It's just a guess.

Whatever it was, I couldn't stand to be in that store. ...and other
people thought I was nuts, because they could not hear it.

Yes, I should follow my own advice. I unloaded on him or her with
frustration that had come from a lot of other sources. I already
apologized to him or her. You are always a dork though so I don't think
I owe anything to you. When I said "animals" I should have said mammals
but even that is not entirely true. I was just frustrated because of
built up stress. Having said that, I wonder what your range of hearing
is "sire". Do you think you could pass a hearing test above 15K? Care
to wager any money on it? Maybe we are talking about different things
but when I say "hear". When I say "hear", I mean that one can discern a
"pure" sound at that frequency. I have seen test results for audio gear
and I never met any person that could, me included. You can't seriously
think what I have said is false, can you? I think you are just
bluffing.

I have a 33 year old
Revox A-77 tape recorder that at 15 IPS measures 16 Hz to 22 kHz
+-2 dB. This was for a machine that was considered an "advanced
amateur" class machine.

WRT your high end tape machine, good for you blow-hard. I should have
said "consumer" audio gear. "Advanced Amateur Class" huh? Who do you
think you are talking to you blow hard? I know you are a big gear head
and you want to jump all over me because I was careles but I assure you
I am not stupid. You won't be able to bluff me as you tried before
(over a year ago IIRC). Why not just say how much you paid? I am not
even sure I beleive you about your machine (there certainly were reel
to reel machines that could perform at that spec but it seems too
convenient that you have one with the manual handy). I guess I am
calling your bluff.

Let me correct myself then. I said, "Until CDs came along, the
software mediums were not even capable of that range!" When I should
have said, "Until CDs came along the software mediums typically used
were not even capable of that range. You would need a reel to reel tape
deck. Vinyl and virtually all tape cassettes (including 8-track) are
not capable of going that high (except maybe for for Jim's $1000
Luxman. I'll have to dig up the specs). You say "Absolutely etc. wrong?
No, not wrong at all. I should have been a lot more precise if I am
going to jump on someone though. If you can show me a consumer class
machine that can reproduce 20 - 20 within 3 db then lay it on me. Don't
both with your "Amateur Class'! What a joke. The operative word should
be "consumer". Amateurs in some cases spend more money on gear
(depending on what we are talking about) than many professionals. I am
sure a brilliant individual like you know what amateur means so that
should not come as a surprise to you. I think it is pretty safe to say
that the point I was making (should have been a lot nicer to the other
poster) is that the ear can't discern changes at the low and high ends
of what is being quoted here. Anyone who says they can is either
mistaken or a liar. I will pay you $50 if you can provide a certificate
(that I can authenticate) that you were able to pass a hearing test
where you were able to discern test tones above 15K.

The rest of it (****ing match) is not worth it to me. As I said, I was
wrong to a point but definitely not "absolutely" wrong. I should have
been more patient and precise. I have already given more accurate and
relevant info than you but you win just because you are a blow-hard
that bugs the crap out of me. Go suck on one of your Russian power
tubes. You can steer clear of me and I will reciprocate. I hope we have
a deal.

I did QA testing of consumer audio gear (among other stuff). We had
labs where we did hearing tests too, to determine the hearing function
of the people doing QA. You learn lots of things in QA but you can't
always publish it. Normally you can't.

I don't think anyone that has ever had a hearing test would disagree
with me. Has anyone here had a hearing test that determined that they
were able hear tones above 15K? I thought those tests were common but
maybe not. So far everyone seems to either think they can or can't but
nobody aside from me know whether they themselves hear test tones in
this range.

That will settle it for me.

Chris M. pontificated:
I did QA testing of consumer audio gear (among other stuff). We
had labs where we did hearing tests too, to determine the hearing
function of the people doing QA.

So, in other words, you have no data, you did no research, you
possibly had a bottom-of-the-food-chain job doing QA on consumer
audio gear. That hardly qualifies, my friend, as research.

You learn lots of things in QA
but you can't always publish it. Normally you can't.

So, you did secret "research" but your forbidden to talk about it.
What a lame excuse that is.

I don't think anyone that has ever had a hearing test would
disagree with me.

A number of people did: I provided you with the specific references,
e.g., Hrisch, Fletcher, Munson and a number of others.

Has anyone here had a hearing test that determined that they
were able hear tones above 15K?

Yes, numerous people have, including the researchers I pointed out.

I thought those tests were common but maybe not.

You "thought?" I thought you claimed you did "research." Now
you're saying you "thought." This is PRECISELY the arrogant
position you started this whole discussion with.

Most audiometric tests don't have the ability to test above 12kHz
to 15 kHz for a variety of reasons. Hearing above even 8 kHz is not
necessary for basic speech articulation, which is what most of the
tests are designed to measure. No common audimetric tests are designed
to measure high-frequency acuity, so they don't. Further, testing
extended bandwidth takes time and thus costs more, and these tests
are designed to cover as many people in as little time as possible.

So far everyone seems to either think they can or can't but
nobody aside from me know whether they themselves hear test
tones in this range.

So if YOU don't know it, it doesn't exist?

That will settle it for me.

You don't seem to get it. No one gives a rat's ass if it's been
settled for you. The research has been done and in place for
decades that says you're claims are just plain wrong. If you care
to cling to your viewpoint despite volumes of actual research to
the contrary you're certainly entitled to you ill-informed opinion.
But stop passing you drivvle of as fact. More importantly, stop
passing it off as fact and then ccomplaining about other people
passing there (better) informed opinion off as fact.

Face it: like it or not, your opinion about the range of human
auditory acuity is ill-informed and poorly supported. Your
description of what you originally termed as "research" is
laughable anecdote at best. Your reliance on "www resources" is
most telling.

Chris M. droned on:
Yes, I should follow my own advice.

But, clearly, you choose not to. Pity.

When I said "animals" I should have said mammals but even that
is not entirely true.

Bats are mammels. Dogs are mammals. Dolphins are mammals. Whales
are mammals. Elephants are mammals. Giraffes are mammals. Every
single one of those species have hearing that extends at least as
low and or as high as that of humans. In fact, even taking your
correction of your statement, mammals, as a class, have more
extended hearing range than any other class.

I was just frustrated because of built up stress.

Oh, okay. I understand. I though it was because you actually thought
your "data" was valid.

Having said that, I wonder what your range of hearing is "sire".
Do you think you could pass a hearing test above 15K?

Whether any individual can or cannot pass such a test is irrelevant.
You made a blanket statement:

"you are absolutely wrong in stating that 20 - 20k is the
range of the human ear"

You did not qualify it by saying that the range of any specific
individual is such-and-such, or that a particular age group or
demographic is limited, you basically made a false statement
based on bad data. Period.

Care to wager any money on it?

Ah, yes, the last resort of someone who has painted himself into
a corner on a technical assertion: let's not deal with the technical
content of the discussion, let's divert attention into insults and
irrelevancies.

Maybe we are talking about different things

Yes, you are talking about your opinion based on no data and no
research. I'm talking about a number of distinguished researchers
in the field testing many subjects under a number of conditions,
and publishing their results in peer-reviewed technical journals,
for example, JAES or JASA, and even the likes of Bell System Technical
Review.

Yes, you're right, two entirely different things.

I have seen test results for audio gear and I never met any person
that could, me included. You can't seriously think what I have said
is false, can you?

Yes, because you have NO data, you have done NO resarch, you have
IGNORED the VAST amount of resarch done specifically on the topic.

I think you are just bluffing.

Hardly.

WHy not look up FLetcher, Munson, Hirsch, Beranek, Kinsler, Frey
and all the rest, and show them that THEY are bluffing?

How about it?

I have a 33 year old
Revox A-77 tape recorder that at 15 IPS measures 16 Hz to 22 kHz
+-2 dB. This was for a machine that was considered an "advanced
amateur" class machine.

WRT your high end tape machine, good for you blow-hard. I should
have said "consumer" audio gear.

It was consumer audio gear. That's precisly the market it was
targetted to and sold in. DOn't like that? How about a Teac 3300?
It would make the range. So would most 7 1/2 IPS Sony reel-to-reels
of the era.

Who do you think you are talking to you blow hard?

By the evidence thus far presented, I would say I am talking to
someone who has very limited experience in the field of hearing,
audio research and the like, and who is very upset at being
required to back up his rather extraordinary claims with factual
data, that's who.

I know you are a big gear head
and you want to jump all over me because I was careles but I assure you
I am not stupid. You won't be able to bluff me as you tried before
(over a year ago IIRC). Why not just say how much you paid? I am not
even sure I beleive you about your machine

Your "belief" is irrelevant, as it is contradictory to the facts.

(there certainly were reel
to reel machines that could perform at that spec but it seems too
convenient that you have one with the manual handy).

Well, it's convenient, I suppose, that in addition to the machine
(one of three, by the way) I also have about 10 feet away a complete
acoustics and electronics measurement facility that UI use regularily
precisely for just this sort of measurement on a daily basis.

I guess I am calling your bluff.

Call it, my child, if you will.

Let me correct myself then. I said, "Until CDs came along, the
software mediums were not even capable of that range!" When I should
have said, "Until CDs came along the software mediums typically used
were not even capable of that range. You would need a reel to reel tape
deck. Vinyl and virtually all tape cassettes (including 8-track) are

Whoah, 8 track! My, you ARE sophisticated!

I'll have to dig up the specs). You say "Absolutely etc. wrong?
No, not wrong at all. I should have been a lot more precise if I am
going to jump on someone though. If you can show me a consumer class
machine that can reproduce 20 - 20 within 3 db then lay it on me.

Nakamichi 500, measures +-3dB 19.2 Hz to 20.6 kHz with Maxell UD.
3 samples meet or exceed these measurements. Teac 450, 4 samples,
+-3dB 20 Hz to 20 kHz. HK 2000, 18 samples, all make it 20 to 20 kHz
+-2 dB. Every one of these machine is on the order of 30 years old.
Every one was clearly targeted to the consumer market. I have
literally hundreds of more examples.

I think it is pretty safe to say that the point I was making
(should have been a lot nicer to the other poster) is that the
ear can't discern changes at the low and high ends of what is
being quoted here. Anyone who says they can is either
mistaken or a liar.

So, according to you, all of the major auditory researchers are
either mistaken or liars. Do we understand you correctly?

The rest of it (****ing match) is not worth it to me. As I said, I was
wrong to a point but definitely not "absolutely" wrong. I should have
been more patient and precise. I have already given more accurate and
relevant info

No, you have not. You made sweeping, blanket technical assertions that
were unsupported by any relevant data, you ignored an enormous body
of research that contradicts your opinion, and you persisted, now
supstituing sophomoric insults for technical meat.

than you but you win just because you are a blow-hard
that bugs the crap out of me.

My, my, a bit testy, aren't we?

Again, we'd be appreciative if you could illustrate what the content
of this paragraph and those that are similar have to do with the
nature of your technical assertions.

Go suck on one of your Russian power tubes.

Another example, can we assume, of your astute observational skills,
considering I have no Russian power tubes in my possession? And if
I did, please explain the relevance?

You can steer clear of me and I will reciprocate. I hope we have
a deal.

Here's a better deal: How about when YOU post opinions, you state
them as opinions. When you post what you consider testable technical
assertions, you prepare youself that the assertions will be
challenged and tested by myself or anyone else. You steer clear
of making uninformed technical pronouncements and passing them
off as fact, and criticizing ithers who do the same, and you'll
find your life somewhat less stressfull.

That's the only "deal" on which you can reliably depend, my friend.

Chris M wrote:
I see in the text where that is stated (your numbers 20 -
20K) and I
see in their graphs and other statements from what I
assume is their
source material that are contradictory. Maybe the
statement you are
using for your source is a theoretical range. I have never
heard of
any human that can detect sounds in that range. Age and
other factors
come in to play, but the human ear can't hear changes
above about
14K.

Depends on what you mean by "changes". Humans, particularly
younger ones with undamaged hearing, can clearly hear pure
tones all by themselves, at frequencies higher than 14 KHz.
OTOH, hearing the reduction, or an increase in the
proportioning of frequencies above 14 KHz can be
surprisingly difficult for anybody of any age. I would put
the frequency for "can't hear a difference" at more like 15
or 16 Khz but that's splitting hairs a bit.

I don't recall if humans can hear an isolated tone above
that
range but I think not.

I know so.

It could be that sensitivity drops off acutely
12+ db),

That, too.

I just don't recall all of the details. In the context of
this discussion (sound reproduction) that means people
can't tell the
difference between a sound system that can reproduce music
only up to
14K vs. another that can reproduce sound up to 20K.

Change 14K to 16K and then I agree for sure. I now for sure
that in a clean audio system, applying a brick wall filter
at 14,15,16K or so basically makes no difference.

However, there's a lot of ambiguity in human expression, so
some people get confused between putting in a precise brick
wall filter, and a typical analog filter that cuts at
frequencies well below the design frequency.

Holy crap, man! You can actually remember that it was that guy trying
to bluff you on IIRC over a year ago?

Fu*k, get a life. There are more important things to remember and be
obsessive over. Things like, gee, do I have any beer left in the
fridge at home or what that hot girl's phone number was. Don't waste
brain cells on year-old IIRC conversation. Put those old brain cell to
good use. Use them as buffers so the beer doesn't kill the new and
useful braincells and memories.

I would love to know who you werwe doing QA for, so I don't go to
purchase any audio gear from them.

http://www.stolaf.edu/depts/music/el...cs.htm#iiafreq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
http://www.npl.co.uk/publications/ac...coustics5.html

Dude, go do some research of your own and don't just yell up the stairs
from your room in parent's basement and ask Mom.

On 30 May 2005 18:54:20 -0700, "Ginger" wrote:

Sometimes the ballasts used in flourescent lighting can create an
interference frequency with other electrical systems. The typical
store/building ballasts use some weird voltag. I can't remember the
exact voltage, but it has to do with a delta-transformer that they use
to take power off the main grid for the building. In your house they
use a different type of transformer (usually for the neighbourhood or
groups of houses). The voltage comes in off of one of the phases so it
makes it easy to route the power directly.
Its 277V and it is only in buildings with 480V WYE feeds.
These ballasts may incorporate power factor corection, where the net
power factor of the fixture is 0.

, _
, | \ 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

On 30 May 2005 18:54:20 -0700, "Ginger" wrote:

Because of the higher voltage they can create fields which interfere
with other equipment (like the PA systems in the ceilings). It could
be from that. It's just a guess.

Ultrasonic motion detectors, (they were LOUD) for secutity systems.

They were also used at some trafic light turn lanes (oval assembly on
a arm with 2 "eyes". They Pulsed High Freq sound. Beep,Beep,...


, _
, | \ 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

Thanks Steve. I couldn't remember the voltages coming out of the three
phases. It was quite a few years ago that I did some power theory
courses. The courses were interesting, but I never did even get to see
a delta transformer. It's hard to remember details when you only read
them and don't put them into practice. Thanks.

Chris M wrote:

I did QA testing of consumer audio gear (among other stuff). We had
labs where we did hearing tests too, to determine the hearing function
of the people doing QA. You learn lots of things in QA but you can't
always publish it. Normally you can't.

I don't think anyone that has ever had a hearing test would disagree
with me. Has anyone here had a hearing test that determined that they
were able hear tones above 15K? I thought those tests were common but
maybe not. So far everyone seems to either think they can or can't but
nobody aside from me know whether they themselves hear test tones in
this range.

That will settle it for me.

Chris, I STILL get bothered by the flyback on one of my TV's. That's
after playing Marshalls WAY TOO LOUD.

Yes, humans can hear above 15k. As we age, high frequencies get attenuated.

I read one audio-fool test that claimed that when they attenuated
frequencies around 16 to 20k, people perceived a dullness of sound.
Some people claim that ABOVE 20k makes a difference. To them, I say
"maybe to your dog..."

I have a CD that does a full sweep from 20 to 20k. I loose the tone
before the end, but that could be in part due to a roll off on the horn
tweeters that I was using at the time (I'm now using the 360 degree
linaeum type for home theater, at that time, it was my Klipshorn home
brews). But they were reproducing something, because my dog would go
NUTZ in the 18 to 20kHz range! Probably because that is not a very
common frequency in nature, and is mostly faint upper harmonics in music.

Steve Urbach wrote:

On 30 May 2005 18:54:20 -0700, "Ginger" wrote:


Because of the higher voltage they can create fields which interfere
with other equipment (like the PA systems in the ceilings). It could
be from that. It's just a guess.


Ultrasonic motion detectors, (they were LOUD) for secutity systems.

That was my suspicion, also. My sister actually WORKED at the store for
a while. I couldn't stand it. But no other stores at the same mall had
that problem. This was late 70's, early 80's.

Enjoy putting words in my mouth. My mistakes were making an assumption
about Ginger's source and for the unreasonable related attack. I may
deserve to be attacked in turn, but that does not reduce the value of
my knowledge. I think you are confused. Do you have the impression that
all research is published? I never said it was secret, I said that it
was not intended to be published. Therefore, I had no reason to
document it and put it away (aside from where it belongs) nor did
anyone else. Maybe you thought I was talking about medical research. I
thought I was clear that it was sound reproduction. The only reason to
test the humans is to note their hearing function since that is
important when getting their impressions about sound quality. I thought
my information was more closely related to the topics here. I can't see
why anyone would disagree but I do understand that some people will
jump in to a fight when there is a chance to gang up and attack
someone.

At this point the only reason I would not give more information (other
than the details I simply don't remember) is that I behaved badly and
it would not be right for me to use the fine reputation of a company to
defend myself. If you can't understand, then you must have never held
any kind of work related to IP, or research of any kind. IOW, you did
not really think that statement through. I don't give a flying flip
what you laugh at. If you think something is more accurate or important
because it has an URL attached to it, then you must not have much of a
life beyond the keyboard! It is entirely possible that your argument
sounds better to anyone else that has no related experience but anyone
that has ever been involved in the kind of work would certainly agree
with my position.

My opinion about the range of human hearing is (I still believe and I
do not give a crap how many dorks disagree just to jump in to a stupid
NG squabble) is more relevant than the new (to me) information as found
on the URL. Again, it is my fault that instead of looking for common
ground we are now trying to attack one another, the only innocent here
is Ginger. I already apologized for that. The others that jumped in to
criticize me are no better than what I did, except that I know when I
am wrong and when to apologize. I doubt you or Jim have the maturity or
sense to discern when this is the best course for yourself.

LOL, I am sure you already made money for them on licensing. Do I
remember a year ago? I think so. Don't worry, I have a life. If
anything, that is my problem here in trying to pound out a few
statements between everything else. It's funny because people attack
others for spelling errors (not you obviously) and then say "get a
life". Oh well, Usenet has its own culture and I am glad I don't really
belong. I thought I already had apologized to you for what I said.
Maybe if I have more time (and when you have a few beers and forget it
was me that was rude to you) then I can explain what my point was and
and why I said what I did about human ear performance. If it is 20 -
20K then not only was I not aware but I still do not know how that fact
is more relevant that what I was trying to say. Really quickly, I will
say that I wanted to make the point that specs can be misleading and
they can lead to concern about performance at the higher end (above
about 15K) that humans can't discern. Maybe they can hear it at very
high (or much higher) levels, I don't know. I just remember test tones
with headphones and people failed to hear the tones above 15K. I took
the test too with the similar results.

Thanks for the URLs but I really don't even have time or interest to
read those. I think I will just back off this thread since I don't see
it becoming productive again for now (my fault I realize). Funny you
say that about my mom. Of course this was 20 years ago but when I was
growing up (as a teen) I lived in a house on a hill and my brother and
I had bedrooms downstairs from the street level (since the second level
went down the hill). There was a large open area (not a basement
though) where my gear was set up and I played guitar amd jammed with a
few others. I was just telling this to someone that was asking about my
first years playing guitar but I don't think I posted it here? You are
just saying that as a random insult aren't you? Anyway, I am outa here
for now. The sumemr is here and I am not gonna stay inside when I can
have lunch outdoors.

Chris M. not knowing when a sleeping dog is best left, continues:
Enjoy putting words in my mouth. My mistakes were making an
assumption about Ginger's source and for the unreasonable
related attack. I may deserve to be attacked in turn, but that
does not reduce the value of my knowledge.

No, you have already demonstrated that since you are completely
unable to provide ANY independent substantiation for your claims,
thus there value is reduced to that of, well, unsubstantiated
opinion.

I think you are confused. Do you have the impression that
all research is published?

Sir, you have steadfastly IGNORED the numerous references to
research I pointed out.

Why is that?

I never said it was secret, I said that it was not intended to
be published.

Since you refuse to reveal it, it is, for all intents and purposes,
either secret or non-existant.

Maybe you thought I was talking about medical research. I
thought I was clear that it was sound reproduction.

No, I was talking about real data supporting real assertions. Real
data as in the kind provided by Helmholtz, Bell Labs, Leo Beranek,
Hirsch and many others.

Why have you abjectly refused to investigate that research?

I thought my information was more closely related to the topics
here.

You have provided NO such information. You have only stated an
unsubstantiated opinion.

I can't see why anyone would disagree

Because you have stated your unsubstantiated opinion as fact.

but I do understand that some people will jump in to a fight when
there is a chance to gang up and attack someone.

Your paranoia is obvious, but does nothing to change the fact
that you stated an opinion as fact.

At this point the only reason I would not give more information
(other than the details I simply don't remember)

You don't get it, do you? You haven't given the slightest hint of
ANY substantiation for your opinion, you back it up with statements
like "details I simply don't remember" and you expect, indeed, you
DEMAND that people take you seriously? Are you nuts?

it would not be right for me to use the fine reputation of a
company to defend myself.

If you had stated your opinion merely as opinion. there would
have been no need to defend yourself. On the other hand, you
stated an unsubstantiated opinion as fact.

If you can't understand, then you must have never held
any kind of work related to IP, or research of any kind.

What does IP have to do with it? The research by Helmholtz, Bell
Labs, Hirsch and the rest, as well as ALL the research on the
limits of human auditory acuity are in the public domain and
have been for decades AND YOU STILL CHOOSE TO IGNORE THIS RESEARCH.

Why is that? Why do you simply and obviously ignore this massive
body of research?

If you think something is more accurate or important
because it has an URL attached to it, then you must not have much of a
life beyond the keyboard!

YOU are the one who mentioned web resources, not I. I pointed out
over a century of research which directly contradicts your
unsubstantiated opinion, and you have chosen to simply ignore that
research.

Why is that?

My opinion about the range of human hearing is (I still believe and I
do not give a crap how many dorks

So, according to you, Hermann Helmoltz is a dork. The practitioners
Bell Labs are dorks. Messrs Fletcher, Munson, Hirsch, Beranek, the
editors, reviewers and publishers at JAES and JASA are dorks.
Everyone but you are dorks.

disagree just to jump in to a stupid
NG squabble) is more relevant than the new (to me) information as found
on the URL.

What "URL?" Who, but you, said ANYTHING about "URLs"?

I pointed out research, performed by a number of practitioners and
reserarchers in the field, information that you have chosen to ignore.

Why is that?

Again, it is my fault that instead of looking for common
ground

Demaning that your unsubstantiated opinion be taken as absolute
fact is hardly common ground.

How about the common ground of independent, third-party research
that is readily available to abyone who wants to make the effort.
I have on numerous occasions specifically mentioned such research,
and you have quite clearly chosen to ignore it?

Why is that?

Apparently, in the absence of any other reason, you feel that
your unsubstantiated opinion is of more value than hundreds and
thousands of research hours spent actually carefully measuring,
documenting, reporting and submitting to peer review for publishing
and published in scientific and engineering journals.

That's what it comes down to, yes?

On 31 May 2005 10:07:25 -0700, "Ginger" wrote:

Thanks Steve. I couldn't remember the voltages coming out of the three
phases. It was quite a few years ago that I did some power theory
courses. The courses were interesting, but I never did even get to see
a delta transformer.
Draw a triangle of 3 inductors (transformer windings), (Option: center
tap on one, connected to common/ground bus). Variation: Open Delta,
leave one of the non tapped windings out. The last phase phantoms
itself and should only be used for light (percentage of load) 3 phase
loading.

Wye: the windings look like a Y with the junction connected to
common/ground.

It's hard to remember details when you only read
them and don't put them into practice. Thanks.

, _
, | \ 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