How do you personally shop for Hi-Fi speakers?

[brassplyer]

I'm not referring to just general principals of what to look for, I mean specifically what do *you* personally do when looking for speakers for recreational listening? Do you regard the listening rooms at Best Buy to be useless or do you think they're good enough to evaluate speakers/amps? Or is there nothing at Best Buy you feel is worth having?

Or do you just use studio monitors?

[Scott Dorsey]

Brassplyer > wrote:
>I'm not referring to just general principals of what to look for, I mean sp=
>ecifically what do *you* personally do when looking for speakers for recrea=
>tional listening? Do you regard the listening rooms at Best Buy to be usele=
>ss or do you think they're good enough to evaluate speakers/amps? Or is the=
>re nothing at Best Buy you feel is worth having?=20

I would go to an actual stereo store, not Best Buy or Radio Shack or the
supermarket, but a place that sells stereo equipment with employees who know
what they are selling, and I would sit down with recordings that I know and
listen to them.

I might start out thinking about a particular speaker manufacturer, then go
look for a dealer that handles that line. But once I got there I would also
listen to whatever other lines they had.

And I would consider going to a stereo show, like the Stereophile show or
the Rocky Mountain Audio Festival or the Capitol Audiofest in order to listen
to a whole lot of different systems at different price ranges in a small
time period. You can walk down the hall and see twenty rooms set up by
twenty different dealers with twenty totally different philosophies.

And then... whatever I am interested in, I would get on evaluation to try in
my own room before buying anything.

>Or do you just use studio monitors?

I might... but then it comes back to the same question, how do you choose
them over all the studio monitors out there?
--scott

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

[geoff]

On 10/06/2017 5:16 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

>
>> Or do you just use studio monitors?
>
> I might... but then it comes back to the same question, how do you choose
> them over all the studio monitors out there?
> --scott
>

And how exactly does one define what speaker is a 'studio monitor'. The
main speakers in one of the world's most famous recording studios are
equally domestic hi-fi speakers, albeit a little on the expensive side.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/9/2017 7:23 PM, geoff wrote:
> And how exactly does one define what speaker is a 'studio monitor'.

Easy. The marketing department tells you.

> The
> main speakers in one of the world's most famous recording studios are
> equally domestic hi-fi speakers, albeit a little on the expensive side.

Several mastering studios use really expensive "domestic" speakers like
Wilsons, though some have moved on to "pro audio" mastering speakers,
some more expensive, some less expensive, most just as big and heavy.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 10/06/2017 5:16 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>> Or do you just use studio monitors?
>>
>> I might... but then it comes back to the same question, how do you choose
>> them over all the studio monitors out there?
>
>And how exactly does one define what speaker is a 'studio monitor'. The
>main speakers in one of the world's most famous recording studios are
>equally domestic hi-fi speakers, albeit a little on the expensive side.

Exactly. Although one can make some generalizations, that studio monitors
tend to be designed to be analytic rather than to hide faults with recordings
like some home speakers. And they tend to be designed to be difficult to
damage, as they are more apt to be abused by someone mispatching lines or
sending blasts of feedback in the studio than they would be at home.

Also, these days, studio monitors tend to be powered more often than not,
and home speakers tend not to be, although there are plenty of exceptions
to that rule too.

I'm mixing on speakers intended for home listening and I have a pair of
speakers sold for studio monitoring in my bedroom at home.
--scott

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

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Brassplyer wrote:

-----------------

> I'm not referring to just general principals of what to look for,
> I mean specifically what do *you* personally do when looking for
> speakers for recreational listening?
>

** First off, learn something about domestic hi-fi and loudspeakers made for that purpose.


> Do you regard the listening
> rooms at Best Buy to be useless or do you think they're good enough
> to evaluate speakers/amps? Or is there nothing at Best Buy you feel
> is worth having?
>

** Listen to demos in a shop is the WORST way to chose any hi-fi component.

Many high quality speakers for home use exist, but none are cheap.

There are also any number of genuinely famous or "classis" examples that can be bought on the used market - via Ebay etc.

All depends of your budget and what you expect and need.

..... Phil

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

geoff wrote:

--------------

>
>
> And how exactly does one define what speaker is a 'studio monitor'.
>


** Long as the speaker is suitable for the purpose of studio monitoring - which is quite different to home hi-fi listening.

Some requirements are that the speaker be fairly compact, suit being placed against a wall, accommodate a close listening position, be very rugged plus able to produce high SPLs when needed. This generally means having a good dB per watt rating.

Studio monitors have to cope with uncompressed, live signals coming from microphones plus all manner of mishaps that create momentary huge levels.

None of these necessarily apply to domestic hi-fi listening, so hi-fi speaker makers have a much freer hand their designs. The maker can trade off ruggedness and high SPL for higher accuracy and wider response range. The speaker may not suit wall mounting or close sitting positions.

The only high quality speaker I am familiar with that is suited to home and studio monitoring use is the now classic Yamaha NS1000.

For around US$2000 or so for a pair in good condition, it's the biggest bargain you will find.


...... Phil

[brassplyer]

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:51:48 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

> ** Listen to demos in a shop is the WORST way to chose any hi-fi component.


So back to the original question - how do *you* demo speakers you haven't bought yet?

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Brassplyer wrote:

-----------------

> Phil Allison wrote:
>
> > ** Listen to demos in a shop is the WORST way to chose any hi-fi component.
>
>
> So back to the original question - how do *you* demo speakers you
> haven't bought yet?
>

** I don't - there is no need to.

FYI: The only commercially made speaker I ever bought were purchased without a demo.

There is not need to PERSONALLY to "demo" amplifiers, CD players or any piece of modern hi-fi electronics. And no point.

The idea that a novice ( or anyone) can TELL with a quick, uncontrolled listen which audio item is best is 100% ABSURD.

However, if you would like to own a *very* good pair of hi-fi AND monitor speakers - search out some Yamaha NS1000s.

If you say you cannot afford them, you are not really serious.

Go buy some ****-box, powered monitors made in China.



..... Phil

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Brassplyer
> wrote:

>On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:51:48 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
>
>> ** Listen to demos in a shop is the WORST way to chose any hi-fi component.
>
>
>So back to the original question - how do *you* demo speakers you haven't bought yet?

I do at least have a foolproof method of rejecting a speaker. If, on
first listen, it makes me go "wow", then I rule it out. Wow implies
that there is something going on that is going to get irritating very
quickly.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Brassplyer > wrote:
>On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:51:48 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
>
>> ** Listen to demos in a shop is the WORST way to chose any hi-fi component.
>
>So back to the original question - how do *you* demo speakers you haven't bought yet?

I sort-of agree with Phil about this, in that you can certainly not make a
final decision that way. But I think you have to listen to demos in the
shop in order to get a sense of what is out there and just how wide the
range of different sounding speakers is.

And I do think that letting the salesguy take control of the demo is a bad
thing. Bring your own material, make them play it on as many speakers as
possible with everything else controlled as much as you can get them to do it.

But in the end auditioning them in your own room is still needed.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Don Pearce > wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Brassplyer
> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:51:48 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>>> ** Listen to demos in a shop is the WORST way to chose any hi-fi component.
>>
>>
>>So back to the original question - how do *you* demo speakers you haven't bought yet?
>
>I do at least have a foolproof method of rejecting a speaker. If, on
>first listen, it makes me go "wow", then I rule it out. Wow implies
>that there is something going on that is going to get irritating very
>quickly.

Absolutely. Especially if your first thought is "Wow, that sounds so clear!"
--scott

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

[brassplyer]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 10:05:19 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

> > So back to the original question - how do *you* demo speakers you
> > haven't bought yet?
> >
>
> ** I don't - there is no need to.
>
> FYI: The only commercially made speaker I ever bought were purchased without a
> demo.


How did you decide you wanted them?

[Gray_Wolf]

On 6/10/2017 9:25 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Brassplyer
> > wrote:
>
>> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:51:48 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>>> ** Listen to demos in a shop is the WORST way to chose any hi-fi component.
>>
>>
>> So back to the original question - how do *you* demo speakers you haven't bought yet?
>
> I do at least have a foolproof method of rejecting a speaker. If, on
> first listen, it makes me go "wow", then I rule it out. Wow implies
> that there is something going on that is going to get irritating very
> quickly.
>
> d

That's good point about the "wow" factor. I was in a high end electronics store
in the
mid '60s and they had a JBL Paragon on display. I had seen the magazine ads and
assumed
it would be an outstanding sounding speaker. Well it was, but not in the way I
expected.
I suppose I had expected it to dazzle me with an outstanding sonic wow quality
of some sort.
After the first few moments, what really impressed me was the fact that, it
seemed like the speaker had disappeared and all I heard was the music. An
orchestra piece, as I recall, very neutral and uncolored.









---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[geoff]

On 11/06/2017 1:52 AM, Brassplyer wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:51:48 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
>
>> ** Listen to demos in a shop is the WORST way to chose any hi-fi component.
>
>
> So back to the original question - how do *you* demo speakers you haven't bought yet?
>

Some hi-fi mags might be a place to get some hints.

There are hi-fi mags around that offer practical and sensible advice,
rather than just the esoterica and audiophool variety.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 11/06/2017 9:09 AM, gray_wolf wrote:
> That's good point about the "wow" factor. I was in a high end
> electronics store in the
> mid '60s and they had a JBL Paragon on display. I had seen the magazine
> ads and assumed
> it would be an outstanding sounding speaker. Well it was, but not in the
> way I expected.
> I suppose I had expected it to dazzle me with an outstanding sonic wow
> quality of some sort.
> After the first few moments, what really impressed me was the fact that,
> it seemed like the speaker had disappeared and all I heard was the
> music. An orchestra piece, as I recall, very neutral and uncolored.

Interesting comment. I heard the Paragon many times in the 70's and
loved it. BUT "neutral and uncolored" is not something I'd call it. It
had plenty of bass ripple, and the mid horns had plenty of resonances
too. A waterfall plot would be very revealing I imagine. In fact I would
have said that was a good example of the "wow factor". So effortless in
producing a huge dynamic range, but far from "uncolored". OTOH I've
heard many "uncolored" speakers that had no dynamic range and no bass
that I wouldn't want to own.

Trevor.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:

----------------

>
> I heard the Paragon many times in the 70's and
> loved it. BUT "neutral and uncolored" is not something I'd call it. It
> had plenty of bass ripple, and the mid horns had plenty of resonances
> too. A waterfall plot would be very revealing I imagine. In fact I would
> have said that was a good example of the "wow factor". So effortless in
> producing a huge dynamic range, but far from "uncolored".
>

** I also heard the famous JBL Paragon in about 1971, at "Instrol Hi-Fi" in York Street, Sydney. Fraid I was singularly unimpressed.

Sounded like an oversize stereo-gram to me.

At the time, contraptions like the Bose 901 and Sonab's "omni" speakers were all the rage.

I disliked them cos they were all *sound effect* producers, not hi-fi speakers.

The marketing puke that backed them up was an insult to one's intelligence.



..... Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 11/06/2017 9:09 AM, gray_wolf wrote:
>> That's good point about the "wow" factor. I was in a high end
>> electronics store in the
>> mid '60s and they had a JBL Paragon on display. I had seen the magazine
>> ads and assumed
>> it would be an outstanding sounding speaker. Well it was, but not in the
>> way I expected.
>> I suppose I had expected it to dazzle me with an outstanding sonic wow
>> quality of some sort.
>> After the first few moments, what really impressed me was the fact that,
>> it seemed like the speaker had disappeared and all I heard was the
>> music. An orchestra piece, as I recall, very neutral and uncolored.
>
>Interesting comment. I heard the Paragon many times in the 70's and
>loved it. BUT "neutral and uncolored" is not something I'd call it. It
>had plenty of bass ripple, and the mid horns had plenty of resonances
>too. A waterfall plot would be very revealing I imagine. In fact I would
>have said that was a good example of the "wow factor". So effortless in
>producing a huge dynamic range, but far from "uncolored". OTOH I've
>heard many "uncolored" speakers that had no dynamic range and no bass
>that I wouldn't want to own.

Compared with what else was available in the mid-sixties, and especially
compared with most of the monkey box speakers designed in the era before
the thiele-small paper, the Paragon, honky as it was, was much more neutral.
It is amazing seeing how far we have come in the loudspeaker world.

Now, by the seventies people were starting to power those things with solid
state amps and discovering that when you put incredibly efficient speakers
on early solid state amps that were biased way down into class B, that the
crossover distortion swamped almost every other character of sound, and that
gave a lot of these high-efficiency speakers a bad reputation.

But... the Paragons were one of those speakers that got used as home speakers,
as studio monitors, and even in small PA rigs. The narrow angle of radiation
reduced room reflection issues in bad rooms. The honk, though, was pretty bad.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil[_9_]]

On 6/9/2017 1:00 PM, Brassplyer wrote:
> I'm not referring to just general principals of what to look for, I mean specifically what do *you* personally do when looking for speakers for recreational listening? Do you regard the listening rooms at Best Buy to be useless or do you think they're good enough to evaluate speakers/amps? Or is there nothing at Best Buy you feel is worth having?
>
> Or do you just use studio monitors?
>
Although certainly not the way most folks do things, the last thing I
would do is go to a "listening room" that I'm not completely familiar
with. Since I don't hang out in listening rooms, there are none that I
could trust enough to evaluate a speaker's characteristics. Put another
way, how a speaker sounds is interdependent on the room's
characteristics, atmospheric conditions such as humidity and pressure,
and the equipment used to play whatever you're listening to.

So, my approach would be pretty unorthodox; I first would use my eyes! I
want to see a white noise plot and sine wave sweep that was done in an
anechoic chamber of the particular speaker. I could then match the plots
up with my room's characteristics and choose the best fit.

So, I may never listen to them before buying them.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/9/2017 1:00 PM, Brassplyer wrote:
> I'm not referring to just general principals of what to look for, I mean specifically what do *you* personally do when looking for speakers for recreational listening?

OK, I'll bite. First I decide how much I want to spend. Then I look over
the literature for speakers in that price range, see what's been
reviewed in a magazine or two that I trust, decide on two or three
possibilities, and then try to find a store that has at least one of
those available for listening. I'll bring in a couple of CDs, take a
listen, and if it sounds OK, buy it.

It's really not important to me to try to compare a few speakers.
Recreational listening isn't critical for me.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

On 11/06/2017 9:11 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 11/06/2017 9:09 AM, gray_wolf wrote:
>>> That's good point about the "wow" factor. I was in a high end
>>> electronics store in the
>>> mid '60s and they had a JBL Paragon on display. I had seen the magazine
>>> ads and assumed
>>> it would be an outstanding sounding speaker. Well it was, but not in the
>>> way I expected.
>>> I suppose I had expected it to dazzle me with an outstanding sonic wow
>>> quality of some sort.
>>> After the first few moments, what really impressed me was the fact that,
>>> it seemed like the speaker had disappeared and all I heard was the
>>> music. An orchestra piece, as I recall, very neutral and uncolored.
>>
>> Interesting comment. I heard the Paragon many times in the 70's and
>> loved it. BUT "neutral and uncolored" is not something I'd call it. It
>> had plenty of bass ripple, and the mid horns had plenty of resonances
>> too. A waterfall plot would be very revealing I imagine. In fact I would
>> have said that was a good example of the "wow factor". So effortless in
>> producing a huge dynamic range, but far from "uncolored". OTOH I've
>> heard many "uncolored" speakers that had no dynamic range and no bass
>> that I wouldn't want to own.
>
> Compared with what else was available in the mid-sixties, and especially
> compared with most of the monkey box speakers designed in the era before
> the thiele-small paper, the Paragon, honky as it was, was much more neutral.
> It is amazing seeing how far we have come in the loudspeaker world.

Frankly I don't think we've come any where near as far with speaker
design as with most other areas of audio, excepting perhaps microphones.
As you say the Paragon was pretty good, as was the Hartsfeild before it.
Mid horn design and horn drivers have definitely improved since though.


> Now, by the seventies people were starting to power those things with solid
> state amps and discovering that when you put incredibly efficient speakers
> on early solid state amps that were biased way down into class B, that the
> crossover distortion swamped almost every other character of sound, and that
> gave a lot of these high-efficiency speakers a bad reputation.

Listened to the Paragon *many* times, always powered by the JBL SA660,
which was pretty good for it's day.


> But... the Paragons were one of those speakers that got used as home speakers,
> as studio monitors, and even in small PA rigs. The narrow angle of radiation
> reduced room reflection issues in bad rooms.

However any corner horn relies on the rooms walls to complete the horn
mouth. Unless your room was <9' wide, the Paragon had a far too small
horn mouth for anything like flat bass response, nor even a steady roll
off unfortunately. Still impressive however, but at a fairly substantial
price for the day. Most new cars were cheaper here than the Paragon at
the time. Hard to imagine it was more expensive to build.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 12/06/2017 5:34 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> Recreational listening isn't critical for me.

Many of my non musical friends say that too. Listening to music has been
the main thing in my life since before I was a teenager! Recreational as
much as professional even in later years.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

When you knock on a speaker cabinet,
does it knock back? Move on!

[geoff]

On 12/06/2017 11:17 PM, wrote:
> When you knock on a speaker cabinet,
> does it knock back? Move on!
>

No corn-flake-packet cabinets - that's for sure.

geoff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Neil wrote:
> On 6/9/2017 1:00 PM, Brassplyer wrote:
>> I'm not referring to just general principals of what to look for,
>> I mean specifically what do *you* personally do when looking for
>> speakers for recreational listening? Do you regard the listening
>> rooms at Best Buy to be useless or do you think they're good enough
>> to evaluate speakers/amps? Or is there nothing at Best Buy you feel
>> is worth having?
>>
>> Or do you just use studio monitors?
>>
> Although certainly not the way most folks do things, the last thing
> I would do is go to a "listening room" that I'm not completely
> familiar with. Since I don't hang out in listening rooms, there are
> none that I could trust enough to evaluate a speaker's
> characteristics. Put another way, how a speaker sounds is
> interdependent on the room's characteristics, atmospheric conditions
> such as humidity and pressure, and the equipment used to play
> whatever you're listening to.
>
> So, my approach would be pretty unorthodox; I first would use my
> eyes! I want to see a white noise plot and sine wave sweep that was
> done in an anechoic chamber of the particular speaker. I could then
> match the plots up with my room's characteristics and choose the best
> fit.
>
> So, I may never listen to them before buying them.
>


When I last bought monitors, they were as close as I could get
to something I was somewhat familiar with. At the time, they were
for sale at MARS which had a listening room. I brought some of my own
stuff with known problems. I heard those about right and bought
them.

I'd have rather had a nice 2.1 Blue Sky setup, but this was 1/10th
the price and good enough.

The only thing I don't like about them is that I am guessing what
many car systems will make the material sound like in the mid
bass. But I can work around that. Ideally, I'd put a sub on but
I can't quite get to adding a sub just to simulate bad car audio.

--
Les Cargill

[[email protected]]

Les Cargill:

Mid-bass is the BANE of factory car
sound systems. LOL!

[Nate Najar]

My McIntosh 3 ways were gifted to me, so the price was right and they sound great in my living room!

And Scott, we don't need to picture anything in your bedroom!

[geoff]

On 10/06/2017 5:00 AM, Brassplyer wrote:
> I'm not referring to just general principals of what to look for, I mean specifically what do *you* personally do when looking for speakers for recreational listening? Do you regard the listening rooms at Best Buy to be useless or do you think they're good enough to evaluate speakers/amps? Or is there nothing at Best Buy you feel is worth having?
>
> Or do you just use studio monitors?
>


Extrapolating from that stupid ultra-fi article , check here:

https://www.whathifi.com/best-buys/hi-fi/best-budget-hi-fi-speakers

and

https://www.whathifi.com/best-buys/hi-fi/best-hi-fi-speakers


geoff

[[email protected]]

Looked at the whathifi links. Not a fan
of this trend toward lower impedance
in home speakers these days. A couple
8s in their listings, but mostly 6ohm or
lower. My 1995 JVC receiver specifies
8-16ohm, but it sounds alright to me,
has Pro Logic surround, and is likely
the last main listening room receiver
I will ever own! I just hope down the
road - knock on particle board! - I will
still be able to find 8-12ohm speakers
for it.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/14/2017 7:49 AM, wrote:
> Not a fan
> of this trend toward lower impedance
> in home speakers these days. A couple
> 8s in their listings, but mostly 6ohm or
> lower. My 1995 JVC receiver specifies
> 8-16ohm, but it sounds alright to me

People who love their 20+ year old gear manage to find ways to keep it
providing the kind of sound they bought it for. But you're not just
dealing with a loudspeaker or an amplifier here, you're dealing with a
_system_. Loudspeaker manufacturers who either came into the business in
recent years or are managing to stay in business for 30+ years are
making products in 2017 designed for people who will be buying power
amplifiers in 2017.

If you want to take advantage of the progress in loudspeaker design, you
may have to adapt and get an amplifier that's designed to drive that
kind of speaker. Otherwise, accept the compromise that a modern speaker
won't play as loud as your old speaker since your amplifier may not be
able to deliver the current that the new speaker is expecting.

> I just hope down the
> road - knock on particle board! - I will
> still be able to find 8-12ohm speakers
> for it.

You probably will, but you will probably be able to get better sound
from a modern speaker if you drive it with a modern amplifier - unless,
of course, you've lost enough of your hearing, or you don't listen to
contemporary music, so that a new speaker performing at a lower level
than it's capable won't matter to you.

Even, I, who has a house full of computers running Windows XP and using
parallel IDE disk drives, am beginning to replace (or rather add to the
junk pile) them with slightly newer computers running Windows 7 and
using SATA drives. And I'm hot on the search for a new smart phone to
replace my 5 year old one that's losing apps by the week as host
programs want an updated version of their app that won't run on my
phone. Some call this progress.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "kind of speaker. Otherwise, accept the compromise that a
modern speaker won't play as loud as your old speaker since your amplifier
may not be able to deliver the current that the new speaker is expecting. "


Isn't that the other way round -
that a lower-impedance speaker
hooked up to the same amp
will play louder, given same
volume setting?


As far as phones/updates go,
I just don't do them - until a
specific app no longer works
on the device - which for me
has been an almost nonexistent
occurence.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: " or you don't listen to contemporary music,"


Contemporary POPULAR(top-40, Hip-Hop,
Country) music is so heavily processed it will
sound like mush, whether played on a nice
new pair of floor-standings, or my 26-yr old dB
Plus 880 mains still in factory condition. And
contemporary releases in niche genres, like
acoustic, jazz, or classical, are exhibiting the
same symptoms, more subtle, of such abuse,
so, thanks but no thanks.


If something sounds good, and everyone
you have over the house says it sounds good,
y'don't F with it, right ol pal? ;) ;)

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/14/2017 9:11 AM, wrote:
> Isn't that the other way round -
> that a lower-impedance speaker
> hooked up to the same amp
> will play louder, given same
> volume setting?

There's a law about that - Ohm's Law. A given amplifier can put out only
a specific maximum amount of voltage. This is limited by the power
supply. A given amplifier can supply only a specific maximum amount of
current. This is limited by the output transistors or (if it has one)
the output transformer.

For a given voltage, the current is a function of the impedance. Power
is voltage times current (or voltage squared divided by impedance), and
for a given speaker efficiency, power is what determines loudness.
Efficiency can cover a pretty wide range. A 1940s Altec Voice of the
Theater speaker can fill a movie theater with only 25 watts of power. A
modern, highly damped, closed baffle speaker might require 100 watts to
achieve the same SPL.

The "lower impedance plays louder" alternative fact comes from the world
of low power mobile devices. Your 1995 amplifier likely has a maximum
output voltage of 30 to 50 volts, but your phone, which is powered by a
2.5 volt battery, has a maximum output of 2.5 volts.

If you have a 100 ohm earphone, the maximum power you can get into that
earphone is a bit over 60 milliwatts. If that earphone is loud enough
for you at that power level, fine. But you'll probably want it louder
than that. But if you have a 16 ohm earphone, you can deliver 400
milliwatts to it.

In practice, you may not actually be able to do that because the output
current of the phone's headphone amplifier is likely to be limited, both
to preserve battery life and protect your hearing (and your earphones).
However, there's a happy medium in there somewhere and, in practice,
with a modern low power device, a low impedance earphone will play
louder than one with a significantly higher impedance.

> As far as phones/updates go,
> I just don't do them - until a
> specific app no longer works
> on the device - which for me
> has been an almost nonexistent
> occurence.

How old is your phone? I think the reason why most people don't have the
problem that I'm having is that they're on a wireless plan that gets
them a new phone every year or two, and they happily take advantage of
that opportunity. I'm on the AT&T GoPhone (pay as you go) plan and my
last "upgrade" about 2 years ago was a refurbished low-end Android smart
phone phone for $35 that was already 2 years out of date. It worked
great for a couple of years, but now there are many apps that, when I
open them, give me a pop-up saying "There's a newer version of this app.
Do you want to update it now?" When I say yes, more often now I get the
message "this version is not compatible with your phone."

I suspect that it's looking for a newer version of the operating system
(like some Windows programs require Windows 7 at minimum and won't run
on XP), and phone manufacturers rarely bother issuing OS updates other
than security patches, because they expect their customers to get a new
phone before they really need a newer OS.

At least amplifiers and speakers don't constantly nag you to upgrade.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

On 14/06/2017 11:57 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> Efficiency can cover a pretty wide range. A 1940s Altec Voice of the
> Theater speaker can fill a movie theater with only 25 watts of power. A
> modern, highly damped, closed baffle speaker might require 100 watts to
> achieve the same SPL.

I think you might have missed a zero there. Altec VOT a *lot* more than
6dB more efficient than any small "highly damped, closed baffle
speaker". 100W ain't gonna do it.

Trevor.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:

-------------

>
> I think you might have missed a zero there. Altec VOT a *lot* more than
> 6dB more efficient than any small "highly damped, closed baffle
> speaker". 100W ain't gonna do it.
>
>

** Yep - VOT systems regular;y exceeded 106dB/watt.

Small AR style sealed box speakers rarely exceeded 86dB/watt.

20dB = a power ratio of 100:1.



...... Phil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/14/2017 10:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
> I think you might have missed a zero there. Altec VOT a *lot* more than
> 6dB more efficient than any small "highly damped, closed baffle
> speaker". 100W ain't gonna do it.

Whatever. My post was just an illustration of one reason why the
"general rule" is too general.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 14/06/2017 11:49 PM, wrote:
> Looked at the whathifi links. Not a fan
> of this trend toward lower impedance
> in home speakers these days. A couple
> 8s in their listings, but mostly 6ohm or
> lower. My 1995 JVC receiver specifies
> 8-16ohm, but it sounds alright to me,
> has Pro Logic surround, and is likely
> the last main listening room receiver
> I will ever own! I just hope down the
> road - knock on particle board! - I will
> still be able to find 8-12ohm speakers
> for it.
>


Lower impedence of speakers is hardly a criteria in itself (be it pro or
anti) , but may be a *constraint* due to the output capability of
existing an owned amp, or the spec of an amp that has been decided to
use in a system.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 15/06/2017 1:51 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/14/2017 10:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> I think you might have missed a zero there. Altec VOT a *lot* more
>> than 6dB more efficient than any small "highly damped, closed baffle
>> speaker". 100W ain't gonna do it.
>
> Whatever. My post was just an illustration of one reason why the
> "general rule" is too general.

But a good example of what many people do think regarding wattage
requirements. They do not understand one speaker can put out less SPL
with over ten times the input power. Or that it may not even be able to
handle that power anyway, so can never match the 25W speaker.

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 19:36:31 +1000, Trevor > wrote:

>On 15/06/2017 1:51 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 6/14/2017 10:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
>>> I think you might have missed a zero there. Altec VOT a *lot* more
>>> than 6dB more efficient than any small "highly damped, closed baffle
>>> speaker". 100W ain't gonna do it.
>>
>> Whatever. My post was just an illustration of one reason why the
>> "general rule" is too general.
>
>But a good example of what many people do think regarding wattage
>requirements. They do not understand one speaker can put out less SPL
>with over ten times the input power. Or that it may not even be able to
>handle that power anyway, so can never match the 25W speaker.
>
>Trevor.

The only thing most people understand is the angle the volume control
is at when it starts to get loud. The further anti-clockwise, the more
powerful the amp. Face palms all round, but that is the way it is.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[[email protected]]

Don Pearce:

I've heard of clockwise, counter-clockwise,
but never heard of "anti-clockwise". What
the heck is that?

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

wrote:

-------------------------

>
> I've heard of clockwise, counter-clockwise,
> but never heard of "anti-clockwise". What
> the heck is that?
>


** What the rest of the planet uses instead of the mad Yank way.



..... Phil

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

-----------------------
>
>
> The only thing most people understand is the angle the volume control
> is at when it starts to get loud. The further anti-clockwise, the more
> powerful the amp. Face palms all round, but that is the way it is.
>
>

** Using a linear volume pot on an amp totally amazes most folk. Not too common on hi-fi gear but very much so on guitar amps and many power amps.

IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.

One born every minute.



..... Phil

[[email protected]]

I equate volume controls with
faucets.

But what goes on at the speaker
end has stymied me since birth!
I always just assumed that the
lower the impedance# on the back,
the louder it would play.
Apparently that number is what
kind of load the speaker EXPECTS.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/15/2017 6:56 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
> IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.

Why do you think that? The whole "loudness" thing is so that listeners
will never have to adjust their volume control. To use a car analogy,
it's more like putting the automatic transmission shift level in D and
leaving it there regardless of the terrain.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Chuck[_12_]]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 05:09:45 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>I equate volume controls with
>faucets.
>
>But what goes on at the speaker
>end has stymied me since birth!
>I always just assumed that the
>lower the impedance# on the back,
>the louder it would play.
>Apparently that number is what
>kind of load the speaker EXPECTS.
Loudness per watt depends on speaker efficiency not impedance.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
> wrote:
>
>I've heard of clockwise, counter-clockwise,
>but never heard of "anti-clockwise". What
>the heck is that?

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
> wrote:
>I equate volume controls with
>faucets.
>
>But what goes on at the speaker
>end has stymied me since birth!
>I always just assumed that the
>lower the impedance# on the back,
>the louder it would play.
>Apparently that number is what
>kind of load the speaker EXPECTS.

No. I explained this to you a couple weeks ago. Please go back and read
the description of how impedance is a thing that varies with frequency.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 15/06/2017 13:58, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>>
>> I've heard of clockwise, counter-clockwise,
>> but never heard of "anti-clockwise". What
>> the heck is that?
>
> Widdershins.
>
As`against Turnwise?


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Tobiah]

> ** Using a linear volume pot on an amp totally amazes most folk. Not too common on hi-fi gear but very much so on guitar amps and many power amps.
>
> IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.
>

Would that make the volume jump more quickly in the beginning?

[geoff]

On 16/06/2017 12:09 AM, wrote:
> I equate volume controls with
> faucets.
>
> But what goes on at the speaker
> end has stymied me since birth!
> I always just assumed that the
> lower the impedance# on the back,
> the louder it would play.
> Apparently that number is what
> kind of load the speaker EXPECTS.
>

A speaker doesn't expect a load at all - it expects a source, and put
simplistically the impedance specification denotes what current the
speaker will demand for a given output voltage.

Conversely the amplifier (minimum) output impedance relates to the
maximum current the amplifier can source at a given output voltage. This
relates to multiple factors such as power supply capability, current
capability of the output devices, and thermal dissipation to keep those
out devices in their SOA. With Valve (a.k.a. 'tube' in the USA) there
are frequency-related factors involved as well.

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "A speaker doesn't expect a load at all - it expects a source,
and put simplistically the impedance specification denotes what current the
speaker will demand for a given output voltage.

Conversely the amplifier (minimum) output impedance relates to the
maximum current the amplifier can source at a given output voltage. This
relates to multiple factors such as power supply capability, current
capability of the output devices, and thermal dissipation to keep those
out devices in their SOA. With Valve (a.k.a. 'tube' in the USA) there
are frequency-related factors involved as well.

geoff"

____
So, my receiver specifies speaker impedance
of 8-16ohms. I was told never to go under the
minimum impedance when buying speakers.
I was told: "You can run 8ohms or higher, but
never below that minimum, or the amp would
overheat".

So what really is going on?

[geoff]

On 16/06/2017 9:57 AM, wrote:
> geoff wrote: "A speaker doesn't expect a load at all - it expects a source,
> and put simplistically the impedance specification denotes what current the
> speaker will demand for a given output voltage.
>
> Conversely the amplifier (minimum) output impedance relates to the
> maximum current the amplifier can source at a given output voltage. This
> relates to multiple factors such as power supply capability, current
> capability of the output devices, and thermal dissipation to keep those
> out devices in their SOA. With Valve (a.k.a. 'tube' in the USA) there
> are frequency-related factors involved as well.
>
> geoff"
>
> ____
> So, my receiver specifies speaker impedance
> of 8-16ohms. I was told never to go under the
> minimum impedance when buying speakers.
> I was told: "You can run 8ohms or higher, but
> never below that minimum, or the amp would
> overheat".
>
> So what really is going on?
>

Really ? It's not that hard. Simply do what is says, else you are
demanding more from the amp than it is designed to supply.

Similarly don't attempt to run a 4kW heating appliance off a mains
circuit with wiring for a max 2kW load, or the circuit may melt.

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 5:57:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> geoff wrote: "A speaker doesn't expect a load at all - it expects a source,
> and put simplistically the impedance specification denotes what current the
> speaker will demand for a given output voltage.
>
> Conversely the amplifier (minimum) output impedance relates to the
> maximum current the amplifier can source at a given output voltage. This
> relates to multiple factors such as power supply capability, current
> capability of the output devices, and thermal dissipation to keep those
> out devices in their SOA. With Valve (a.k.a. 'tube' in the USA) there
> are frequency-related factors involved as well.
>
> geoff"
>
> ____
> So, my receiver specifies speaker impedance
> of 8-16ohms. I was told never to go under the
> minimum impedance when buying speakers.
> I was told: "You can run 8ohms or higher, but
> never below that minimum, or the amp would
> overheat".
>
> So what really is going on?

First of all, no one ever pushes their amp to max.
Second, you probably can use 2 ohm speakers on a 8 ohm minimum amp, if all you listen to is violins.

Jack

[[email protected]]

geoff:

Succinctly - if I could have two pairs of
the exact same make & model of loud
speaker, exact same specs except one
pair were 8ohm, and the other, 4ohm
impedance, which pair, when connected
to my 8-16ohm receiver would, if at all,
play louder given the same exact volume
setting and musical source? Or would
there be a difference at all?

I'm not desiring speakers that play louder,
just trying to discern if lower impedance
speakers given the above test conditions
would play louder.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 11:08:42 AM UTC-4, Tobiah wrote:
> > ** Using a linear volume pot on an amp totally amazes most folk. Not too common on hi-fi gear but very much so on guitar amps and many power amps.
> >
> > IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.
> >
>
> Would that make the volume jump more quickly in the beginning?

Using a linear taper potentiometer rather than a logarithmic taper potentiometer.

Jack

[geoff]

On 16/06/2017 11:41 AM, wrote:
> geoff:
>
> Succinctly - if I could have two pairs of
> the exact same make & model of loud
> speaker, exact same specs except one
> pair were 8ohm, and the other, 4ohm
> impedance, which pair, when connected
> to my 8-16ohm receiver would, if at all,
> play louder given the same exact volume
> setting and musical source? Or would
> there be a difference at all?
>
> I'm not desiring speakers that play louder,
> just trying to discern if lower impedance
> speakers given the above test conditions
> would play louder.
>


Loudness-versus-impedence is not usually a factor that is considered to
be particularly significant.

If speaker efficiency specs, frequency, and dynamic linearity were the
same, the 4 ohm pair would be ~ 3dB louder on an amplifier that had a
consistent output voltage independent of load.

But a 4 ohm speaker connected to your amplifier with that specified 8
ohm minimum is not predictable. It might end up being the same volume up
to 50% of it's power capability, before it blew up or some over-current
protection kicked in.

If your amp says 8 ohms minimum, then that is the lowest Z you should
connect. And even then a particular 8 ohm speaker may have nodes where
the Z is lower that the nominal 8 ohms, and may or may not play nice on
a particular amplifier.

geoff

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

-------------------

> Phil Allison wrote:
>
> > IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.
>
> Why do you think that?
>


** Cos they assume it is a calibrated much like an accelerator pedal.

Half setting = half power, full setting = full power and so on.

IOW they have no clue it is quite arbitrary depending on input level.


...... Phil

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Tobiah wrote:

--------------------
>

> > ** Using a linear volume pot on an amp totally amazes most folk. Not too common on hi-fi gear but very much so on guitar amps and many power amps.
> >
> > IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.
> >
>
>
> Would that make the volume jump more quickly in the beginning?
>


** Yep - linear volume pots are subjectively very sudden making the amp feel *hot*.


....... Phil

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 8:51:13 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
> Tobiah wrote:
>
> --------------------
> >
>
> > > ** Using a linear volume pot on an amp totally amazes most folk. Not too common on hi-fi gear but very much so on guitar amps and many power amps.
> > >
> > > IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Would that make the volume jump more quickly in the beginning?
> >
>
>
> ** Yep - linear volume pots are subjectively very sudden making the amp feel *hot*.
>
>
> ...... Phil

Heck, toss one on audio equipment, tell customer you added a lot of output power (with a linear taper pot)!! Say, watch, before "1", on Volume control, it's already blasting!!

Jack

[Gray_Wolf]

On 6/15/2017 5:56 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
> Don Pearce wrote:
>
> -----------------------
>>
>>
>> The only thing most people understand is the angle the volume control
>> is at when it starts to get loud. The further anti-clockwise, the more
>> powerful the amp. Face palms all round, but that is the way it is.
>>
>>
>
> ** Using a linear volume pot on an amp totally amazes most folk. Not too common on hi-fi gear but very much so on guitar amps and many power amps.
>
> IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.
>
> One born every minute.
>
>
>
> .... Phil

I was thinking of that very thing. In the '70s I was heavy into the guitar
scene. Linear pots would get some of players really excited. I remember some
company built a few amps that had volume control knobs that went from 0-12
instead of the usual 0-10. IIRC they didn't get much mileage out off that. It
seemed to me, at the time, that the volume control was the least understood
thing in the universe. Did any of you ever have a guitar player ask you what his
volume control should be set at?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Gray_Wolf]

On 6/15/2017 10:08 AM, Tobiah wrote:
>
>> ** Using a linear volume pot on an amp totally amazes most folk. Not too common on hi-fi gear but very much so on guitar amps and many power amps.
>>
>> IMO, users are equating volume pots with accelerator pedals.
>>
>
> Would that make the volume jump more quickly in the beginning?
>
> Yes it would. Set it at #3 and that's about a loud as it's gonna get


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[[email protected]]

Geoff wrote: "If your amp says 8 ohms minimum, then that is the lowest Z you should "

That's what I always thought, and was instructed to
by dealers and other audio people. I guess if 8ohm
speakers become almost impossible to find in say,
10-20 years, I can always connect resistors in-line
to make up for the difference. IE: 4ohm speakrs,
just add minimum 4ohm resistor to the plus side
going to each speaker, to double load to 8ohm per
channel.

[geoff]

On 16/06/2017 1:36 PM, wrote:
> Geoff wrote: "If your amp says 8 ohms minimum, then that is the lowest Z you should "
>
> That's what I always thought, and was instructed to
> by dealers and other audio people. I guess if 8ohm
> speakers become almost impossible to find in say,
> 10-20 years, I can always connect resistors in-line
> to make up for the difference. IE: 4ohm speakrs,
> just add minimum 4ohm resistor to the plus side
> going to each speaker, to double load to 8ohm per
> channel.
>

No. Just time to replace your amplifier. But whoever suggested 8 ohm
speakers were likely to disappear ?!!

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 9:36:06 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Geoff wrote: "If your amp says 8 ohms minimum, then that is the lowest Z you should "
>
> That's what I always thought, and was instructed to
> by dealers and other audio people. I guess if 8ohm
> speakers become almost impossible to find in say,
> 10-20 years, I can always connect resistors in-line
> to make up for the difference. IE: 4ohm speakrs,
> just add minimum 4ohm resistor to the plus side
> going to each speaker, to double load to 8ohm per
> channel.

Why not just connect them with 150 ft. of 22 AWG wire? :-)

Now, we want to use lamp cord (some may call it zip wire) when connecting speakers, not coax. You want to have the wires parallel to help cancel inductance.

Jack

[Trevor]

On 16/06/2017 7:09 AM, Geoff wrote:
> A speaker doesn't expect a load at all

Not true, the speaker load is the air it is driving. Hence why a horn
that matches the driver to it's load more effectively increases the
driver efficiency.


> - it expects a source, and put
> simplistically the impedance specification denotes what current the
> speaker will demand for a given output voltage.

And frequency, since the impedance usually changes with frequency.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 16/06/2017 8:09 AM, Geoff wrote:
> Similarly don't attempt to run a 4kW heating appliance off a mains
> circuit with wiring for a max 2kW load, or the circuit may melt.

I would hope you use fuses or circuit breakers in your mains wiring to
stop that! Your amplifier may also be protected against over current,
but many aren't.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 16/06/2017 11:46 AM, Geoff wrote:
> On 16/06/2017 1:36 PM, wrote:
>> Geoff wrote: "If your amp says 8 ohms minimum, then that is the lowest
>> Z you should "
>>
>> That's what I always thought, and was instructed to
>> by dealers and other audio people. I guess if 8ohm
>> speakers become almost impossible to find in say,
>> 10-20 years, I can always connect resistors in-line
>> to make up for the difference. IE: 4ohm speakrs,
>> just add minimum 4ohm resistor to the plus side
>> going to each speaker, to double load to 8ohm per
>> channel.

FAR better to simply connect two 4ohm speakers in series on each channel
if absolutely necessary. Can't imagine why you wouldn't want (or need)
to replace your (already old) amplifier in 10 or 20 years as well though.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "No. Just time to replace your amplifier. But whoever suggested 8 ohm
speakers were likely to disappear ?!!

geoff"

Geoff, I'm an empiricist - I'm the one
who suspects they will become scarce
based on the amount of 6, 5, 4, and
even 3ohm speakers I'm seeing in
retailers.

And like that guy from the NRA, they'll
have to pry my perfectly well functioning
1995 JVC receiver from my COLD, DEAD
HANDS! ;)

[geoff]

On 16/06/2017 5:34 PM, Trevor wrote:
> On 16/06/2017 7:09 AM, Geoff wrote:
>> A speaker doesn't expect a load at all
>
> Not true, the speaker load is the air it is driving. Hence why a horn
> that matches the driver to it's load more effectively increases the
> driver efficiency.
>
>
>> - it expects a source, and put simplistically the impedance
>> specification denotes what current the speaker will demand for a given
>> output voltage.
>
> And frequency, since the impedance usually changes with frequency.
>
> Trevor.


That's getting away from 'simplistically' for current company.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 16/06/2017 11:46 AM, Geoff wrote:
>> On 16/06/2017 1:36 PM, wrote:
>>> Geoff wrote: "If your amp says 8 ohms minimum, then that is the lowest
>>> Z you should "
>>>
>>> That's what I always thought, and was instructed to
>>> by dealers and other audio people. I guess if 8ohm
>>> speakers become almost impossible to find in say,
>>> 10-20 years, I can always connect resistors in-line
>>> to make up for the difference. IE: 4ohm speakrs,
>>> just add minimum 4ohm resistor to the plus side
>>> going to each speaker, to double load to 8ohm per
>>> channel.

This is a terrible idea, because the impedance of the speaker varies a lot
with frequency, and the impedance of that series resistor does not. So now
you have a resistive divider whose ratio changes with frequency, and you will
find that the frequencies where the speaker impedance is low are suddenly
accentuated.

>FAR better to simply connect two 4ohm speakers in series on each channel
>if absolutely necessary.

This is even worse, because now you have a weird impedance in series with your
speaker. If the two speakers are identical and have identical impedance
curves, then their peaks and dips match to exaggerate one another. Since on
the whole you'll tend to have level dips corresponding with impedance peaks
(admittedly a generalization) this will tend to exaggerate any response
aberrations in the speaker.

The Bose 901 is the finest example of how series drivers can go terribly wrong.

>Can't imagine why you wouldn't want (or need)
>to replace your (already old) amplifier in 10 or 20 years as well though.

I'm still running the 1961 vintage Citation II as the studio monitor amp.
It sounds good and it's paid for. Occasionally I'll swap it out for something
more modern just to make sure I'm not missing something.
--scott

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

[UnsteadyKen[_7_]]

In article >,
says...
> I'm an empiricist - I'm the one
> who suspects they will become scarce
> based on the amount of 6, 5, 4, and
> even 3ohm speakers I'm seeing in
> retailers.
>
Have you ever seen a 16 ohm loudspeaker?
I've been interested in and following audio reproduction and equipment
since the 60's.
Apart from oddities such as panels, ionophones and electrostatics, the
only consumer loudspeakers I've been aware of with an impedance much
above 8ohms were certain models of the LS3/5A which were available as 11
and 15 ohm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A

A Google search for any current product only turns up some specialist
drivers.

[[email protected]]

UnsteadyKen:

So I'm really on the edge of
speaker availability for my
old receiver. Better take
care of my big ol' dB Plus
880s.


BTW this is my
receiver so you all have an
idea just what vintage it is,
and what I like so much about
it(look at input area!!):

https://www.hifiengine.com/files/images/JVC%20RX-515V%20Digital%20Surround%20System%20Receiver.prev iew.jpg

[Peter Irwin]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>
> This is even worse, because now you have a weird impedance in series with your
> speaker. If the two speakers are identical and have identical impedance
> curves, then their peaks and dips match to exaggerate one another.

I'm pretty sure that in the identical speaker case, you will get
half the voltage across each speaker since you have the same impedance
on each half of the voltage divider at every frequency.

Peter.

[Scott Dorsey]

UnsteadyKen > wrote:
>Have you ever seen a 16 ohm loudspeaker?
>I've been interested in and following audio reproduction and equipment
>since the 60's.

A lot of theatre speakers were designed for 16 ohms, in order to reduce the
substantial cable losses between the booth and the speakers. You could order
the Altec 288 horn driver, for instance, in anything from 8 to 24 ohms.

>Apart from oddities such as panels, ionophones and electrostatics, the
>only consumer loudspeakers I've been aware of with an impedance much
>above 8ohms were certain models of the LS3/5A which were available as 11
>and 15 ohm:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A

It's not a win for consumer speakers since you're never going to see a very
long cable run in that application, and making the higher impedance windings
is more difficult. Consumer speakers are designed to be cheap.

The LS3/5A was never designed as a consumer speaker, but in the end it sure
wound up being successful in that market.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Peter Irwin > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>>
>> This is even worse, because now you have a weird impedance in series with your
>> speaker. If the two speakers are identical and have identical impedance
>> curves, then their peaks and dips match to exaggerate one another.
>
>I'm pretty sure that in the identical speaker case, you will get
>half the voltage across each speaker since you have the same impedance
>on each half of the voltage divider at every frequency.

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

[UnsteadyKen[_7_]]

In article >,
says...
> So I'm really on the edge of
> speaker availability for my
> old receiver. Better take
> care of my big ol' dB Plus
> 880s.
>
Not really, I was pointing out that JVC recommends using speakers that
don't appear to exist:-)



As others hqve pointed out the only consequence of note if using 6
instead of 8 ohm speakers and playing at a sensible volume level is that
the speakers will play 1-3 Db louder for the same volume setting, the
output stage will be under a bit more stress, the power supply will
require more from the AC line and distortion might rise.
Any competent amplifer would shrug this off.
On the other hand; if you were to run it for hours at max power then
problems might begin to emerge.

Marketing also has a say in this.
As a rule when power increases so does distortion. if you were to
connect some 2 ohm speakers to your JVC and measure distortion at the
wattage specified in the user manual then it is possible it would exceed
the advertised levels.
You could then sue JVC's goddammed ass off. It's the American way you
know.

>
> BTW this is my
> receiver so you all have an
> idea just what vintage it is,
> and what I like so much about
> it(look at input area!!):
>
Hmmm Looks to be rather lacking in the HDMI input department;-(

JVC kit is OK stuff, I liked the built in graphic equaliser on their
amps. I used one of these for years:
https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/jvc/a-x3.shtml

This is my bottom of the Yamaha range current DAB+ receiver.
https://goo.gl/mLWWSW
I use it with... (Shock horror)... 5x 6ohm speakers, it aint exploded
yet.
Despite giving it regular stress tests with the 5.1 SACD mix of Dark
Side Of The Moon.

[[email protected]]

UnsteadyKen wrote: "
As others hqve pointed out the only consequence of note if using 6
instead of 8 ohm speakers and playing at a sensible volume level is that
the speakers will play 1-3 Db louder for the same volume setting, the
output stage will be under"

THANK YOU!!! Finally!!

That's all I wanted to know.

Re: "Lacking in the HDMI department"

F- HDMI.

It didn't exist in 1995, and anyways I
have a full suite of perfectly functional
analog-output audio components,
and plenty of video gear with RCA
outs, and HDMI out to the TV. This
receiver does all I need it to, with flying
colors. Only thing I would have
designed into it was an even 100W
per channel, vs its 80.

My only concern was availability of
8ohm speakers in the next decade,
just in case one of mine decides to
ehem - retire! I do have occasion
to play at high volume, for movies
and such, so I don't want to take
chances by not following the
instructions on the receiver or
its manual.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/16/2017 10:18 AM, wrote:
> UnsteadyKen wrote: "
> As others hqve pointed out the only consequence of note if using 6
> instead of 8 ohm speakers and playing at a sensible volume level is that
> the speakers will play 1-3 Db louder for the same volume setting, the
> output stage will be under"
>
> THANK YOU!!! Finally!!
>
> That's all I wanted to know.

Gosh, you're easy to please. It might not be accurate. It also depends
on the efficiency of the speaker, and it's unlikely that two random
speakers with a difference in factory-specified impedance will have the
same efficiency.

What's accurate, and important is that you won't blow anything up unless
you do something stupid with the system, and do it for a long time.




--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivera wrote: "What's accurate, and important is that you won't blow
anything up unless you do something stupid with the system, and do it for
a long time. "


#1. So, is it ok to use 6ohm speakers
on a regular basis?

#2. Define "something stupid".

[[email protected]]

On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 1:39:59 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Mike Rivera wrote: "What's accurate, and important is that you won't blow
> anything up unless you do something stupid with the system, and do it for
> a long time. "
>
>
> #1. So, is it ok to use 6ohm speakers
> on a regular basis?
>
> #2. Define "something stupid".

#2!!....
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/somethingstupid-fs.mp3

Jack

[Gray_Wolf]

On 6/16/2017 8:07 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> UnsteadyKen > wrote:
>> Have you ever seen a 16 ohm loudspeaker?
>> I've been interested in and following audio reproduction and equipment
>> since the 60's.
>
> A lot of theatre speakers were designed for 16 ohms, in order to reduce the
> substantial cable losses between the booth and the speakers. You could order
> the Altec 288 horn driver, for instance, in anything from 8 to 24 ohms.
>
>> Apart from oddities such as panels, ionophones and electrostatics, the
>> only consumer loudspeakers I've been aware of with an impedance much
>> above 8ohms were certain models of the LS3/5A which were available as 11
>> and 15 ohm:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A
>
> It's not a win for consumer speakers since you're never going to see a very
> long cable run in that application, and making the higher impedance windings
> is more difficult. Consumer speakers are designed to be cheap.
>
> The LS3/5A was never designed as a consumer speaker, but in the end it sure
> wound up being successful in that market.
> --scott
>

IIRC there were some JBL D130 speakers that were 16 ohm in the early years.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[John Williamson]

On 16/06/2017 18:39, wrote:
> Mike Rivera wrote: "What's accurate, and important is that you won't blow
> anything up unless you do something stupid with the system, and do it for
> a long time. "
>
>
> #1. So, is it ok to use 6ohm speakers
> on a regular basis?
>
Maybe.

It depends on the output power you are using, the margins built into the
amplifier output stage design and build, and whether the protection
circuitry works well enough.

> #2. Define "something stupid".
>
Among other things, listening to dynamically compressed material at high
volumes for a long continuous period. Up to a couple of minutes should
be okay, an hour may count as being really stupid, leading to the magic
smoke that all power amps contain escaping.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/16/2017 1:39 PM, wrote:
> #1. So, is it ok to use 6ohm speakers
> on a regular basis?

Sure

> #2. Define "something stupid".

Anything that causes damage to your speakers or amplifier. You can hear
when something is clipping, so when you hear it, turn the volume down a
notch.

But I can't stress the importance of the efficiency of the speakers.
You're going to want to listen at a volume that you enjoy, and maybe a
little louder now and then. If a new set of speakers OF ANY IMPEDANCE is
substantially lower than your present speakers, you may try to push too
much power into them to get the volume you want, and that's going to put
a strain on the speaker, the amplifier, or both, resulting in a strain
on your wallet.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote:
> #2. Define "something stupid".
>
"Among other things, listening to dynamically compressed material at high
volumes for a long continuous period. Up to a couple of minutes should
be okay, an hour may count as being really stupid, leading to the magic
smoke that all power amps contain escaping.

--
Tciao for Now!

John. "

John W:
SHHHHHH!! You're not supposed to use
the term 'dyn_______y com_____ed'on
here! You trigger the nun-bot!


You mean: material with high average
levels and low peak:avg ratio. ;)

[None]

< THECKKKKMAAAH! @ tardsRkozicki.net > took a huge **** in his diaper
....
> SHHHHHH!! You're not supposed to use
> the term 'dyn_______y com_____ed'on
> here! You trigger the nun-bot!

As you know, the best way to get me to respond to you is to mention me
in your post. Or maybe you don't know. I've explained it to you many
times, in words even a retarded dumb**** can understand, but you're a
very extra-specially retarded cretin, not any ordinary dumb****. I
like how you keep calling me a "bot". I guess you just like to prove
that you don't know what the word means. Another way of proudly waving
your retard flag, maybe. Or maybe you've just got a pup-tent for
me--what a revolting thought! But whatever blows your skirt up, li'l
buddy.

I like it how you're afraid to spell out my user name, as if changing
the spelling somehow changes the magic words that you're so afraid of.
Like when you drop F-bombs, but avoid the taboo by altering the
spelling. It's retarded, but that's who you are!

As for dynamic range compression (another phrase that seems to terrify
your poor little imbecilic self), I have nothing against discussing
it. But you can't discuss it, because you don't even underhand it.
When you get in the saddle of that dead hobby horse, and start
smearing your own **** all over your face, about something that you
still don't (and never will) understand, you'll be called a retarded
dumb****. You should know that by now, but nothing can get through
that block of granite and into your little prune of a brain.

It's also been entertaining watching you prove to anyone that cares
that you're just too stupid to understand speaker impedance. That's
another thing that's been explained to you over and over again, but
you're just not equipped to understand it. you're just too stupid.
Watching the village idiot can be entertaining, and you're the village
idiot around here.

HTH. DSKFHI. FCKWAFA!

[None]

< stupid > gibbered and drooled ...
> #2. Define "something stupid".

It's that retard with the blank look on his face, the one you see in
the mirror. That's the shiny thing on the bathroom wall, not the thing
you **** in and drink from, where you also like to look. FSKH. ESAD.
FCKWAFRDFA.

[geoff]

On 17/06/2017 12:20 AM, UnsteadyKen wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> I'm an empiricist - I'm the one
>> who suspects they will become scarce
>> based on the amount of 6, 5, 4, and
>> even 3ohm speakers I'm seeing in
>> retailers.
>>
> Have you ever seen a 16 ohm loudspeaker?
> I've been interested in and following audio reproduction and equipment
> since the 60's.
> Apart from oddities such as panels, ionophones and electrostatics, the
> only consumer loudspeakers I've been aware of with an impedance much
> above 8ohms were certain models of the LS3/5A which were available as 11
> and 15 ohm:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A
>
> A Google search for any current product only turns up some specialist
> drivers.
>
>
>
>

I have an old elliptical speaker out of a valve radio that is 16 Ohms.

geoff

[geoff]

On 17/06/2017 12:28 AM, wrote:
> UnsteadyKen:
>
> So I'm really on the edge of
> speaker availability for my
> old receiver. Better take
> care of my big ol' dB Plus
> 880s.
>

For **** sake - why don't you get it ? 8 Ohm speakers remain the
'standard' and don't look like going away.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 16/06/2017 10:14 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 16/06/2017 11:46 AM, Geoff wrote:
>>> On 16/06/2017 1:36 PM, wrote:
>>>> Geoff wrote: "If your amp says 8 ohms minimum, then that is the lowest
>>>> Z you should "
>>>>
>>>> That's what I always thought, and was instructed to
>>>> by dealers and other audio people. I guess if 8ohm
>>>> speakers become almost impossible to find in say,
>>>> 10-20 years, I can always connect resistors in-line
>>>> to make up for the difference. IE: 4ohm speakrs,
>>>> just add minimum 4ohm resistor to the plus side
>>>> going to each speaker, to double load to 8ohm per
>>>> channel.
>
> This is a terrible idea,

Right, in more ways than one!

> because the impedance of the speaker varies a lot
> with frequency, and the impedance of that series resistor does not. So now
> you have a resistive divider whose ratio changes with frequency, and you will
> find that the frequencies where the speaker impedance is low are suddenly
> accentuated.

Actually where the speaker impedance is low, the series resistor will
attenuate more than when the speaker impedance is high. (more voltage
dropped across the larger impedance in a series network) Therefore the
frequencies where the speaker impedance is *high* are accentuated Vs
where it is low since the resistor remains constant.


>
>> FAR better to simply connect two 4ohm speakers in series on each channel
>> if absolutely necessary.
>
> This is even worse, because now you have a weird impedance in series with your
> speaker. If the two speakers are identical and have identical impedance
> curves, then their peaks and dips match to exaggerate one another.

Rubbish, as long as they are identical the response will be the same as
for one, neglecting any *acoustic* comb filtering that may occur
afterwards. All peaks and dips in the impedance curve should be close
enough so the voltage will share equally. And obviously the current is
identical.

However you are right, I did forget to add *identical* speakers in
series. Not some stupid mismatched combination.


> Since on
> the whole you'll tend to have level dips corresponding with impedance peaks
> (admittedly a generalization) this will tend to exaggerate any response
> aberrations in the speaker.

A speaker may have a perfectly flat response despite a large variation
in impedance when driven from a low impedance source, such as any modern
amplifier.


>
> The Bose 901 is the finest example of how series drivers can go terribly wrong.

Right, but not for the reason you suggest.


>
>> Can't imagine why you wouldn't want (or need)
>> to replace your (already old) amplifier in 10 or 20 years as well though.
>
> I'm still running the 1961 vintage Citation II as the studio monitor amp.
> It sounds good and it's paid for. Occasionally I'll swap it out for something
> more modern just to make sure I'm not missing something.

I doubt any JVC amplifier is in the same league however.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 16/06/2017 10:20 PM, UnsteadyKen wrote:
> Have you ever seen a 16 ohm loudspeaker?
> I've been interested in and following audio reproduction and equipment
> since the 60's.
> Apart from oddities such as panels, ionophones and electrostatics, the
> only consumer loudspeakers I've been aware of with an impedance much
> above 8ohms were certain models of the LS3/5A which were available as 11
> and 15 ohm:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A
>
> A Google search for any current product only turns up some specialist
> drivers.

JBL once made all their pro drivers available in 8 or 16 ohm versions,
as did a few other companies.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "On 16/06/2017 10:20 PM, UnsteadyKen wrote:
> Have you ever seen a 16 ohm loudspeaker?
> I've been interested in and following audio reproduction and equipment
> since the 60's.
> Apart from oddities such as panels, ionophones and electrostatics, the
> only consumer loudspeakers I've been aware of with an impedance much
> above 8ohms were certain models of the LS3/5A which were available as 11
> and 15 ohm:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A
>
> A Google search for any current product only turns up some specialist
> drivers.

JBL once made all their pro drivers available in 8 or 16 ohm versions,
as did a few other companies.

Trevor. "

So the average speaker impedance IS
dropping over time. (Memo to geoff!)
It is conceivable, that if one would look
beyond their own nose in terms of time,
that in a decade or two most, if not all,
consumer speakers will have impedances
between 3-6ohms. And 8ohm speakers
will be looked at in the same way 16ohms
are, today.

[Trevor]

On 17/06/2017 5:02 AM, gray_wolf wrote:
> IIRC there were some JBL D130 speakers that were 16 ohm in the early years.

Many JBL pro drivers up to the 70's/80's were available in both 8 and 16
ohms according to my many catalogues from the era.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/17/2017 5:49 AM, wrote:
> Have you ever seen a 16 ohm loudspeaker?

How long must this go on? STOP, ALREADY!!!!!!!!



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:

-----------------

>
>
> >
> > The Bose 901 is the finest example of how series drivers can go terribly wrong.
>
> Right, but not for the reason you suggest.
>


** Heads up required here.

The 9 Bose 4 inch drivers are wired either in 3 groups of 3 OR all nine in series - depend on when manufactued.

I have had some dealings with the contraptions and never ahd reson to think power sharing was an issue.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "> Have you ever seen a 16 ohm loudspeaker?

How long must this go on? STOP, ALREADY!!!!!!!! "


Mike: I'm NOT the one who posed that
question. Scroll back upward - I believe
you'll find it was UnsteadyKen who asked
it. And meanwhile, take a chill pill. ;)

[John Williamson]

On 17/06/2017 10:49, wrote:

>
> So the average speaker impedance IS
> dropping over time. (Memo to geoff!)
> It is conceivable, that if one would look
> beyond their own nose in terms of time,
> that in a decade or two most, if not all,
> consumer speakers will have impedances
> between 3-6ohms. And 8ohm speakers
> will be looked at in the same way 16ohms
> are, today.
>
There have been different speaker impedances for different purposes for
a very long time.

When I was young, radio speakers tended to be 15 Ohms, as there were
problems getting enough current our of a single triode to run anything
lower without larger and more expensive transformers than the budget
allowed. Some top end systems used 3 ohm speakers, as they could afford
larger transformers and push pull triode output stages. At this time, 8
ohm speakers were almost unknown.

Then battery powered transistor radios used 3 ohm speakers to get enough
power out of a 9 volt battery and germanium transistors without using
output transformers. Usually, they had a complementary push pull pair
and a drive transformer to spilt the drive signal. Many used a pair of
identical output transistors with a transformer before and after to turn
them into a push pull pair by inverting the signal on one of them. They
tended to have 15 ohm speakers to reduce the weight of the output
transformer core by reducing the current. If you got half a watt of
power at full volume, you were lucky.

Nowadays, some in car entertainment systems parallel 8 ohm speakers to
make 2 Ohm or less speaker systems to get ridiculous powers out of a 12
volt supply where current is effectively unlimited, using two push-pull
pairs, bridged in antiphase to each other.

Some current makers of huge numbers of small, unexpandable, home systems
use other impedances if it will save them a few cents on the system
cost. If you are making many thousands, a specially wound speaker coil
may be cheaper than a bigger heat sink or power supply.

Then there are and were specialist units which accept 100 volt inputs,
usually via a tapped transformer to vary the power, for wide area
distribution, or 25 volt inputs for use in hazardous areas such as coal
mines and oil refineries.

However, almost all professional PA and monitor speakers are 8 ohm
impedance and have been for a long time, though at the bottom end of the
market, the impedances are checked by the same team that check the rated
output power, and may vary from 15 ohms to 3 ohms depending on the
frequency. In professional gear, the 8 ohm standard is so deeply in
grained it won't be changing in my lifetime. In the same way at the
other end of the chain, I reckon that 600 ohm microphone and signal line
impedances for balanced line professional use will be with us until the
heat death of the universe. Barring guitars, but hey, they are special.
;-)

Now, can we drop this? Thanks in advance.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "There have been different speaker impedances for different purposes for
a very long time".

Anyone should know that. My
concern specifically is with a
trend I perceive, real or not,
in impedances among
CONSUMER speakers, not
professional ones, PA, etc.

I'd be willing to bet money that
in 10-20 years the average
CONSUMER speaker, for use
in the HOME, will have a much
lower impedance than they
do presently. I already see it,
in how many 6, 5, 4, 3, and even
2!-ohm speakers I see where
I work.

[None]

< thekma @ retards.com > took his morning dump on usenet ...
> John Williamson wrote: "There have been different speaker impedances
> for different purposes for
> a very long time".
>
> Anyone should know that. My concern specifically is

Your "concern" is the fact that you have no idea what you're talking
about. Posters with some knowledge keep trying to school you, but you
are impervious to schooling. You're just too ****ing stupid. You keep
gibbering about your obsessions, and one of your obsessions is to put
your learning disabilities on display, and to make them the main
subject of discussion in a newsgroup originally intended for
discussions of audio production. Yes, everyone knows that you have an
IQ that you can count on your fingers and toes, and your personality
is even more revolting than that. Everyone knows that you will never,
ever, understand how speaker impedance works. You won't shut the ****
up about it, because your head is jammed so tightly into your rectal
sphincter.

> I already see it, in how many 6, 5, 4, 3, and even 2!-ohm speakers I
> see where I work.

Yes, that confirms that you don't get it. It's as if you haven't read
a single word from the poor deluded souls that think you can
understand. Besides, cast-off **** speakers at the used junk store
where they hire mental defectives like you to do busy-work are hardly
representative of the real world.

FCKWAFR. EDFYT!

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/17/2017 9:54 AM, wrote:

> My concern specifically is with a trend I
> perceive, real or not

It's not real. Your perception is just your imagination going wild. Have
a cup of tea, or pet your dog.

> I'd be willing to bet money that in 10-20 years the average CONSUMER
> speaker, for use in the HOME, will have a much lower impedance than
> they do presently.

I'll trade bets with you. In 10-20 years, nobody at the consumer level
will care about impedance or even know what it means. Loudspeakers will
have evolved so that all of them will have integrated power amplifiers.
Furthermore, analog audio inputs will disappear like the headphone jack
on an iPhone. If your JVC amplifier is still working then (and it
probably will be, if you don't connect 3 ohm speakers and run it at
house-filling volume) you will have difficulty finding a loudspeaker as
we know it today. You may be able to find drivers and you can design and
build your own enclosure, however.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[None]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> you can design and build your own enclosure, however.

No, theckhhhmaaah cannot design and build his own enclosure. He's too
stupid.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "On 6/17/2017 9:54 AM, wrote:

"> My concern specifically is with a trend I
> perceive, real or not

It's not real. Your perception is just your imagination going wild. Have
a cup of tea, or pet your dog. "

So I'm just imagining that all those bookshelf,
and some floorstanding, speakers say '6ohm'
or lower on the backs. Thank you for that
therapy session, helped me a lot!


"I'll trade bets with you. In 10-20 years, nobody at the consumer level
will care about impedance or even know what it means. "

They don't know or care now! Which is pretty
sad, given that it's basic info, like knowing
how many cylinders are under the hood of
ones daily driver.


"Loudspeakers will have evolved so that all of them will have integrated
power amplifiers."

Another trend I don't like. I'druther
central amplification with passive
speakers.


"Furthermore, analog audio inputs will disappear like the
headphone jack on an iPhone. "

Reinventing the wheel. Dumb.


"If your JVC amplifier is still working then (and it probably will
be, if you don't connect 3 ohm speakers and run it at house-filling
volume) you will have difficulty finding a loudspeaker as we know
it today. You may be able to find drivers and you can design and
build your own enclosure, however. "

Or install replacement drivers into
the existing cabinets.

[None]

< Thekma the Retard @ ****tard.com > shat in message
...
> Mike Rivers wrote: "On 6/17/2017 9:54 AM, wrote:
>
> "> My concern specifically is with a trend I
>> perceive, real or not
>
> It's not real. Your perception is just your imagination going wild.
> Have
> a cup of tea, or pet your dog. "
>
> So I'm just imagining that all those bookshelf,
> and some floorstanding, speakers say '6ohm'
> or lower on the backs. Thank you for that
> therapy session, helped me a lot!

No, it obviously went right over your basaltic head, and you didn't
understand at all. Your abject stupidy did not succumb to any imagined
"therapy".

People that understand audio keep trying to explain to you, but you
steadfastly maintain that you, the retarded village idiot, know better
than people who actually know what they're talking about. You just
have to wave your retard flag, which seems to consist of a wad of used
bumf.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

None wrote:

-----------------

>
>
> Your "concern" is the fact that you have no idea what you're talking
> about. Posters with some knowledge keep trying to school you, but you
> are impervious to schooling. You're just too ****ing stupid. You keep
> gibbering about your obsessions, and one of your obsessions is to put
> your learning disabilities on display, and to make them the main
> subject of discussion in a newsgroup originally intended for
> discussions of audio production. Yes, everyone knows that you have an
> IQ that you can count on your fingers and toes, and your personality
> is even more revolting than that. Everyone knows that you will never,
> ever, understand how speaker impedance works. You won't shut the ****
> up about it, because your head is jammed so tightly into your rectal
> sphincter.
>
>


** Very eloquently put, even better than I usually manage myself.

How sad such valid insights are doomed to be pearls wasted on swine.

Now that usenet is nothing but a pig sty.




..... Phil

[John Williamson]

On 17/06/2017 14:54, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "There have been different speaker impedances for different purposes for
> a very long time".
>
> Anyone should know that. My
> concern specifically is with a
> trend I perceive, real or not,
> in impedances among
> CONSUMER speakers, not
> professional ones, PA, etc.
>
You seem not to know the difference between professional and consumer
audio, or you wouldn't be posting in a professinal group about home audio.


> I'd be willing to bet money that
> in 10-20 years the average
> CONSUMER speaker, for use
> in the HOME, will have a much
> lower impedance than they
> do presently. I already see it,
> in how many 6, 5, 4, 3, and even
> 2!-ohm speakers I see where
> I work.
>
If you want to talk about consumer speakers, you'll find
rec.audio.opinion over there somewhere, next to rec.audio.misc . <Waves
vaguely>

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "
You seem not to know the difference between professional and consumer
audio, or you wouldn't be posting in a professinal group about home audio. "


With all due respect, I'm not the one
who started this thread about 'Hi-Fi
speakers.' I'm just weighing in.

So do not ASSume what I do or do
not know the difference between.

Thank you.

[None]

< thekma @ dumb****.org > spewed in message
...
> So do not ASSume what I do or do
> not know the difference between.

Everyone knows that you're an ass, and you've proven that you don't
know a damn thing.

> Thank you.

**** you, retard. IFSKN. FCLWAD. FJKS.

[John Williamson]

On 18/06/2017 01:36, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "
> You seem not to know the difference between professional and consumer
> audio, or you wouldn't be posting in a professinal group about home audio. "
>
>
> With all due respect, I'm not the one
> who started this thread about 'Hi-Fi
> speakers.' I'm just weighing in.
>
No, but you are the one who is repeatedly posting about an allegeed
change in speaker impedances over time which does not, in fact, exist
outside your tiny little mind.

> So do not ASSume what I do or do
> not know the difference between.
>
I assume nothing that you don't prove every time you post here. Have a
nice day....


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Gray_Wolf]

On 6/17/2017 4:40 AM, Trevor wrote:
> On 16/06/2017 10:20 PM, UnsteadyKen wrote:
>> Have you ever seen a 16 ohm loudspeaker?
>> I've been interested in and following audio reproduction and equipment
>> since the 60's.
>> Apart from oddities such as panels, ionophones and electrostatics, the
>> only consumer loudspeakers I've been aware of with an impedance much
>> above 8ohms were certain models of the LS3/5A which were available as 11
>> and 15 ohm:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A
>>
>> A Google search for any current product only turns up some specialist
>> drivers.
>
> JBL once made all their pro drivers available in 8 or 16 ohm versions, as did a
> few other companies.
>
> Trevor.
>
>
I was browsing some old JBL vintage sites and I noticed they had a number of 32
ohm speakers available way back when.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Trevor]

On 18/06/2017 12:44 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/17/2017 9:54 AM, wrote:
>> My concern specifically is with a trend I
>> perceive, real or not
>
> It's not real. Your perception is just your imagination going wild. Have
> a cup of tea, or pet your dog.
>
>> I'd be willing to bet money that in 10-20 years the average CONSUMER
>> speaker, for use in the HOME, will have a much lower impedance than
>> they do presently.
>
> I'll trade bets with you. In 10-20 years, nobody at the consumer level
> will care about impedance or even know what it means. Loudspeakers will
> have evolved so that all of them will have integrated power amplifiers.
> Furthermore, analog audio inputs will disappear like the headphone jack
> on an iPhone. If your JVC amplifier is still working then (and it
> probably will be, if you don't connect 3 ohm speakers and run it at
> house-filling volume) you will have difficulty finding a loudspeaker as
> we know it today. You may be able to find drivers and you can design and
> build your own enclosure, however.

Thekma being able to "design and build" his own enclosure, now that's a
laugh! :-)
And I'm not so sure his JVC will last that long anyway. He wouldn't be
able to fix it, and he'll find out it is not economic to get someone
else to fix it for him when caps, pots etc finally need replacing, even
if he doesn't blow it up first.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 18/06/2017 7:40 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
> On 6/17/2017 4:40 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> On 16/06/2017 10:20 PM, UnsteadyKen wrote:
>>> Have you ever seen a 16 ohm loudspeaker?
>>> I've been interested in and following audio reproduction and equipment
>>> since the 60's.
>>> Apart from oddities such as panels, ionophones and electrostatics, the
>>> only consumer loudspeakers I've been aware of with an impedance much
>>> above 8ohms were certain models of the LS3/5A which were available as 11
>>> and 15 ohm:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A
>>>
>>> A Google search for any current product only turns up some specialist
>>> drivers.
>>
>> JBL once made all their pro drivers available in 8 or 16 ohm versions,
>> as did a few other companies.
>>
>>
> I was browsing some old JBL vintage sites and I noticed they had a
> number of 32 ohm speakers available way back when.

Yes, I think they were aimed specifically at the theatre sound market to
reduce cable losses. JBL and Altec being major players in that market.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "On 18/06/2017 7:40 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
> I was browsing some old JBL vintage sites and I noticed they had a
> number of 32 ohm speakers available way back when.

Yes, I think they were aimed specifically at the theatre sound market to
reduce cable losses. JBL and Altec being major players in that market.

Trevor. "

There: That's another thing I don't get.
HOW does a HIGH-impedance speaker
"reduce cable losses" in long runs like
in a movie theatre?? I'd think you'd want
efficient, low impedance speakers in
a huge space like that.

[John Williamson]

On 19/06/2017 11:25, wrote:
> Trevor wrote: "On 18/06/2017 7:40 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
>> I was browsing some old JBL vintage sites and I noticed they had a
>> number of 32 ohm speakers available way back when.
>
> Yes, I think they were aimed specifically at the theatre sound market to
> reduce cable losses. JBL and Altec being major players in that market.
>
> Trevor. "
>
> There: That's another thing I don't get.
> HOW does a HIGH-impedance speaker
> "reduce cable losses" in long runs like
> in a movie theatre?? I'd think you'd want
> efficient, low impedance speakers in
> a huge space like that.
>
Again, you prove your almost complete lack of knowledge. The lower the
speaker impedance, the higher the drive current for a given power, and
the more power you lose in the speaker cables, which can be calculated
by using Ohm's law.

Also, speaker efficiency has very little connection to speaker impedance
in any case, and in cinemas, the main control over efficiency is the way
the drive unit is acoustically coupled and matched to the horn.

The alternative is to make the speaker cables *much* heavier, which
costs a fortune on long runs. The technology at the time did not permit
the amplifiers to be located behind the screen with the speakers, and
the alternative of using 100 volt line amplifiers and transformers to
match the speakers to the line is inefficient and is not good for audio
quality.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 19/06/2017 10:25 PM, wrote:
> Trevor wrote: "On 18/06/2017 7:40 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
>> I was browsing some old JBL vintage sites and I noticed they had a
>> number of 32 ohm speakers available way back when.
>
> Yes, I think they were aimed specifically at the theatre sound market to
> reduce cable losses. JBL and Altec being major players in that market.
>
> Trevor. "
>
> There: That's another thing I don't get.
> HOW does a HIGH-impedance speaker
> "reduce cable losses" in long runs like
> in a movie theatre?? I'd think you'd want
> efficient, low impedance speakers in
> a huge space like that.
>

There is less current necessary in the cable to produced sound level,
and less effect of voltage drop.

Google '100V line' and you will get the ultimate (common usage)
extension of this principle.

geoff

[None]

< thekma @ ****ing-idiot.net > wrote in message
...
> There: That's another thing I don't get.

The list of things you "don't get" is endless. As usual, as the
village idiot, you want the topic of discussion to be your utter
failure to understand. Your inability to learn, your brain damage, and
the fact that you have your head deep in your rectum, are the only
things you want to discuss. You're a retarded dumb****, and you are
incapable of understanding how speaker impedance works. You're simply
too stupid. JSFH. TFS FCKWAFA!

[None]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> On 19/06/2017 11:25, wrote:
>>
>> There: That's another thing I don't get.
> Again, you prove your almost complete lack of knowledge.

Yes, Theckmaaah proves that he's a retarded dumb****, and a ****ing
asshole, too. Nothing more than a skidmark.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "Again, you prove your almost complete lack of knowledge. The lower the
speaker impedance, the higher the drive current for a given power, and
the more power you lose in the speaker cables, which can be calculated
by using Ohm's law. "

So if I'm reading you right, the principle is that
lower impedance speakers 'draw more current'
from an amp, and potentially, more current than
a given amp can provide? Would this be akin
to a bicyclist pedaling a bicycle with the rear
wheels jacked off the ground?


"Also, speaker efficiency has very little connection to speaker impedance
in any case, and in cinemas, the main control over efficiency is the way
the drive unit is acoustically coupled and matched to the horn. "

Ok, so "efficiency" was a bad choice of words
on my part. My mind just logically assumed
that lower impedance speakers were more
efficient to drive. That's where I was going with
that.


"The alternative is to make the speaker cables *much* heavier, which
costs a fortune on long runs. The technology at the time did not permit
the amplifiers to be located behind the screen with the speakers, and
the alternative of using 100 volt line amplifiers and transformers to
match the speakers to the line is inefficient and is not good for audio
quality. "

[[email protected]]

>
> This is a terrible idea, because the impedance of the speaker varies a lot
> with frequency, and the impedance of that series resistor does not. So now
> you have a resistive divider whose ratio changes with frequency, and you will
> find that the frequencies where the speaker impedance is low are suddenly
> accentuated.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


I think that should be attenuated.

m

[John Williamson]

On 19/06/2017 13:29, wrote:
<A load` of rubbish>
Snipping a load of twaddle from you, basically, you need to go back to
school and learn about Ohm's law and how it relates to cable sizes.

I have explained things in terms I would have understood when I was
eleven years old, and just starting to study physics. There is no
simpler way to explain the situation than the differing ways I have put
it many times, trying to get through your stubbornly sticky ignorance.

I'm almost tempted to believe you actually understand what I am talking
abut and you are trolling for a reaction.

If you really want to understand, I'd suggest you find a basic
electronics curse either at a local evening college or on line and
follow that

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "I have explained things in terms I would have understood when I was eleven years old, and just starting to study physics. There is no
simpler way to explain the situation than the differing ways I have put
it many times, trying to get through your stubbornly sticky ignorance. "

I never had the capacity to understand
speaker resistance, at eleven or now.

"I'm almost tempted to believe you actually understand what I am talking
abut and you are trolling for a reaction. "

Not at all. With a straight face I'm telling
you John: I DON'T get it. I have no gain
nor the patience to "troll" you or anybody.

So I will just continue to go by
the impedance numbers listed
on the backs of amps/receivers
and speakers, read the manuals,
and just follow the rules. Not do
anything stupid, like hook up
4 ohm speakers to an amp that
says "4-8ohms" on the back.

[[email protected]]

Meant to say "8-16ohms" on the back.

F'king NUMBERS!!!

[[email protected]]

>
> If you really want to understand, I'd suggest you find a basic
> electronics curse ...

like crapacitor?

[None]

< theckmaaah @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> My mind ...

You're mindless.

> ... just logically ...

You have no idea what "logically" means.

> ... assumed

Hehe.

> ... that lower impedance speakers were more efficient to drive.
> That's where I was going with that.

So you were just trolling, by yet again hammering home the point that
you're in imbecile. That's the main point you keep proving.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, 9 June 2017 18:00:29 UTC+1, Brassplyer wrote:
> I'm not referring to just general principals of what to look for,
> I mean specifically what do *you* personally do when looking for
> speakers for recreational listening?

I confess I bought the ones that were in the charity shop for a tenner.

29 years later and still using them I think I got my money's worth.

Owain

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 13:23:12 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Friday, 9 June 2017 18:00:29 UTC+1, Brassplyer wrote:
>> I'm not referring to just general principals of what to look for,
>> I mean specifically what do *you* personally do when looking for
>> speakers for recreational listening?
>
>I confess I bought the ones that were in the charity shop for a tenner.
>
>29 years later and still using them I think I got my money's worth.
>
>Owain

Does anyone shop for Hi Fi any more? I know I haven't since the
electronics reached effective perfection many years ago. And I expect
speakers to sound speakerish so I just pretend I can't hear them.

Keep your money in your pocket and spend it on useful stuff instead.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Trevor]

On 13/08/2017 7:03 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> Does anyone shop for Hi Fi any more? I know I haven't since the
> electronics reached effective perfection many years ago. And I expect
> speakers to sound speakerish so I just pretend I can't hear them.
>
> Keep your money in your pocket and spend it on useful stuff instead.

Not something I'd expect from someone on rec.audio.pro. Sure most decent
electronics have reached near perfection years ago, but the quality of
speakers still varies from total rubbish only someone completely deaf
could possibly listen to, up to high priced quality from the likes of
Dynaudio, B&W etc. While it's always possible to buy crap at a high
price, it's not possible to buy actual quality speakers on the cheap.
So pretend all you like, but frankly you are far better off using
headphones if you do want to save money.

Trevor.