OK... I will try again, and in no particular order.

No, "moving air" is not taking a chunk of air and moving it across the
room. Using your analogy of ripples on a pond, a 7.5 Richter underwater
earthquake can cause a tsunami. Not that the water at the location of
the quake is the water that floods 4 miles inland. But the energy
applied at one end does reach the other end, the medium being the
water. Air is much the same way. The energy applied in the concert hall
wants to be delivered to the ear in the listening room, suitably scaled
for the desire of the listener. AND------- AND----- the listener should
have several degrees-of-freedom as to position when listening.

Yes, I do want to "hear the room". Otherwise, fer crissakes, we may as
well record all our music in the high-school gym using multiple
point-source microphones and electronics to remove the undesireable
artifacts. So, I want my speakers (and electronics) to be capable of
reproducing the sound appropriately, and, if anything overcome as much
as possible the inherent limitations of putting Carnegie Hall inside a
Wyncote living room... and a smallish one at that.

I can blow out a candle at 20Hz with the woofer. I can make interesting
patterns in that candle at 15kHz with the tweeter... I KNOW it is a
wave-front causing both. But the amplitude of the wave is what is at
issue. Isolated Conditions: Guy, when the bombard pipes kick in, there
is very little 'isolated' in my listening room. And that capacity of my
speakers is exactly as important and valuable as its ability to reach
up to the 6" pipe as well. And _all_ the air in the _entire_ room is
affected. That the higher notes are more directional is a
psycho-acoustic phenomenon, but not the physics involved. Visceral
effects are as much part of the music as anything else, and had better
be there if a system is to be credited as a valid *reproducer*.

A microphone, however designed has as its basic purpose to take the air
that hits it and translate that impact into electrical impulses... And
at the other end of many steps, the speakers are to kick out what the
microphone heard, warts and all. Any artifacts added or removed during
the recording and reproduction process are actually reductions in the
total fidelity of what the microphone heard. Back in the day, when
Horns were the ONLY sort of speaker, they worked both ways. Recording
was mechanical, as was reproduction. Horns concentrated the energy into
the recording stylus, and amplified it on the playback. Fidelity was a
matter of degree... We are better than that now...

As to 2006 vs. the 70s, of course it is. And look what it has brought
us. The typical listener today believes that what comes out of his/her
computer speakers is 'high-fidelity' because the speakers say "Bose" or
some such on them. The actually believe that a Bose wave radio is
capable of 'full fidelity sound reproduction'. So damned-near anything
will sound good with that as a measure. We have trained almost an
entire generation to "Television" sound... it ain't necessarily so. As
to electronic amplification, not much has changed in the last 60 years
for tubes and 35 years for solid-state excepting around the edges. So,
a solid, reliable, 'flat' amplifier made in 1963, or 1971, or 2006
remains a solid, reliable, 'flat' amplifier today. Speakers will use
better materials (sometimes) and tighter tolerances (sometimes), but
their essential function is unchanged. That the better materials and
tighter tolerances make them more efficient is a very good thing. But
we should never be fooled into believing that efficiency is the
sole-and-only driving force in speaker design. What should be the
driving force, then, now and into the future is a given speakers's
ability to RE-produce sound as closely as possible to the
live-and-on-site experience.

Oh, Arny... you haven't revealed what you use as a test-source for
speakers. That would be fascinating to know.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

On 12 Jan 2006 11:02:42 -0800, " wrote:

As to 2006 vs. the 70s, of course it is. And look what it has brought
us. The typical listener today believes that what comes out of his/her
computer speakers is 'high-fidelity' because the speakers say "Bose" or
some such on them. The actually believe that a Bose wave radio is
capable of 'full fidelity sound reproduction'. So damned-near anything
will sound good with that as a measure. We have trained almost an
entire generation to "Television" sound... it ain't necessarily so.

The previous generation was trained to open-back tubed radios with
nothing below 100Hz or so, receiving 5kHz bandwidth AM transmissions.
Did you have a point to make?

As
to electronic amplification, not much has changed in the last 60 years
for tubes and 35 years for solid-state excepting around the edges. So,
a solid, reliable, 'flat' amplifier made in 1963, or 1971, or 2006
remains a solid, reliable, 'flat' amplifier today.

True, and pretty much a done deal above the most basic cost-stripped
units.

Speakers will use
better materials (sometimes) and tighter tolerances (sometimes), but
their essential function is unchanged. That the better materials and
tighter tolerances make them more efficient is a very good thing.

Actually, it doesn't necessarily make them more efficient, but it
makes them a heck of a lot more accurate!

But
we should never be fooled into believing that efficiency is the
sole-and-only driving force in speaker design.

Since when did *anyone* believe that?

What should be the
driving force, then, now and into the future is a given speakers's
ability to RE-produce sound as closely as possible to the
live-and-on-site experience.

Since when did anyone argue against that?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Since when did anyone argue against that?

There is a context going on here, Stewart. More-or-less that horns
(may) have inherent problems due to their nature and design. The
question under discussion is how much/well can these (potential)
problems be overcome with modern means-and-methods. And whether the
results so-achieved are worth the effort as compared to other options.

And, from what I understand, one of the major virtues of horns is their
relative efficiency as compared to (more) conventional designs. So,
that is where efficiency became a point of discussion, along with
accuracy.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

" wrote:

not much has changed in the last.... 35 years for solid-state excepting
around the edges.

You are JOKING !

You can't understand much about modern solid state design.

Even the true complementary pair was essentially unknown 35 yrs ago. And
that's for starters !

Speakers will use
better materials (sometimes) and tighter tolerances (sometimes), but
their essential function is unchanged. That the better materials and
tighter tolerances make them more efficient is a very good thing.

What about the use of modern materials to reduce cone break up ?

Not to mention in all aspects of engineering - the use of CAD / somputer
modelling to optimise designs.

Your knowledge is very weak.

Graham

What about the use of modern materials to reduce cone break up ?

Not to mention in all aspects of engineering - the use of CAD / somputer
modelling to optimise designs


Yikes.... I have a 1969-executed-in-1971 design sitting on my bench
with "true complementary pair" outputs. That it also used interstage
transformers and other Jurassic-vintage throwbacks is not relevant to
your statement.

Cones that break up under any amplifier power below clipping are poorly
designed whether in 1951 or 2021. Why even suggest otherwise?

CAD is a method, not a design. Computers model where previously actual
experiments had to take place. Admittedly many blind alleys are avoided
this way, but perhaps/maybe a risky-but-successful design as well.
However, I do know -one- speaker designer who believes that computer
modeling allows him to go down some experimental paths that he could
not have afforded otherwise... so it is a mixed blessing that I agree
has done more good than harm overall. That it is my opinion that he has
a tin ear and his products are useful only for announcing train
arrivals at the local commuter rail station is not relevant either.

Now, cutting directly to the chase... if an amplifier will produce a
flat response at say.... 60 watts/rms from say.... 5hz - 50khz, at less
than say.... 0.25THD, with a S/N ratio of 90dB-or-better, it is a
pretty good design... maybe?? Even if it uses a steam engine and burns
coal? This was done in 1969.... as a mass-produced product, yet.
Improvements on that design would be "around the edges" perhaps?
Graham, with all due respect, you need to read for content and separate
your emotions from the discussion at hand.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

" wrote:

What about the use of modern materials to reduce cone break up ?

Not to mention in all aspects of engineering - the use of CAD / somputer
modelling to optimise designs

Yikes.... I have a 1969-executed-in-1971 design sitting on my bench
with "true complementary pair" outputs.

That would be a very early example indeed. Sadly not of much help given the
following info.

That it also used interstage
transformers and other Jurassic-vintage throwbacks is not relevant to
your statement.

Actually it is. It shows that such Jurassic designs were still being
implemented in 1971 ! Kinda blows that 'no advances in the last 35 yrs' claim
out the window nicely !

Cones that break up under any amplifier power below clipping are poorly
designed whether in 1951 or 2021. Why even suggest otherwise?

Cones break up *way* below clipping power. Just look at typical HF
performance.

CAD is a method, not a design. Computers model where previously actual
experiments had to take place.

And so fast that many possible iterations can be tried where previously it
was totally impractical. It *has* revolutionised design in every single
branch of engineering.

Admittedly many blind alleys are avoided
this way, but perhaps/maybe a risky-but-successful design as well.
However, I do know -one- speaker designer who believes that computer
modeling allows him to go down some experimental paths that he could
not have afforded otherwise... so it is a mixed blessing that I agree
has done more good than harm overall.

I'm pleased to see you recognise that. I fail to see how it's 'mixed
blessings' though.

That it is my opinion that he has
a tin ear and his products are useful only for announcing train
arrivals at the local commuter rail station is not relevant either.

Now, cutting directly to the chase... if an amplifier will produce a
flat response at say.... 60 watts/rms from say.... 5hz - 50khz, at less
than say.... 0.25THD, with a S/N ratio of 90dB-or-better, it is a
pretty good design... maybe??

0.25% THD hardly qualifies as a pretty good design these days. It's hard for
a competent designer to exceed 0.025% today even when cutting costs.

Even if it uses a steam engine and burns
coal? This was done in 1969.... as a mass-produced product, yet.
Improvements on that design would be "around the edges" perhaps?
Graham, with all due respect, you need to read for content and separate
your emotions from the discussion at hand.

Emotions don't come into the above. Merely modern design engineering
principles.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


" wrote:

What about the use of modern materials to reduce cone break up ?

Not to mention in all aspects of engineering - the use of CAD / somputer
modelling to optimise designs

Yikes.... I have a 1969-executed-in-1971 design sitting on my bench
with "true complementary pair" outputs.

That would be a very early example indeed. Sadly not of much help given
the
following info.

That it also used interstage
transformers and other Jurassic-vintage throwbacks is not relevant to
your statement.

Actually it is. It shows that such Jurassic designs were still being
implemented in 1971 ! Kinda blows that 'no advances in the last 35 yrs'
claim
out the window nicely !

Check this one out:

http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~mleach/.../tcir/tcir.pdf

Cones that break up under any amplifier power below clipping are poorly
designed whether in 1951 or 2021. Why even suggest otherwise?

Cones break up *way* below clipping power. Just look at typical HF
performance.

Cone break up is a linear process. It happens at all power levels.

CAD is a method, not a design. Computers model where previously actual
experiments had to take place.

And so fast that many possible iterations can be tried where previously it
was totally impractical. It *has* revolutionised design in every single
branch of engineering.

Now, cutting directly to the chase... if an amplifier will produce a
flat response at say.... 60 watts/rms from say.... 5hz - 50khz, at less
than say.... 0.25THD, with a S/N ratio of 90dB-or-better, it is a
pretty good design... maybe??

It's pretty dated. Modern PA amps do far better.

0.25% THD hardly qualifies as a pretty good design these days. It's hard
for
a competent designer to exceed 0.025% today even when cutting costs.

Agreed. Then there is the matter of costs. Amps like the Berhinger A500 at
under $200 provide clean power and tremendous value.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


" wrote:

not much has changed in the last.... 35 years for solid-state excepting
around the edges.

You are JOKING !

You can't understand much about modern solid state design.

Even the true complementary pair was essentially unknown 35 yrs ago. And
that's for starters !

35 years ago was 1971, and I had been building and repairing SS amps for
about 8 years at the time.

The true complementary pair was well-known and widely used in 1971. For
example, they were widely used as drivers for quasi-complementary output
stages. Common part numbers were 2N3053 and 2N4037 if memory serves.

There were some issues with the costs of high powered complementary pairs,
but their use was well-known. Bart Locanthi is well-known for his design of
the full complementary "T circuit" which appeared in a JBL power amp in the
mid - 1960s. Please see this 1967 article
http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~mleach/.../tcir/tcir.pdf My recollection
is that the amp was new on the market at the time this article was
published.


Speakers will use
better materials (sometimes) and tighter tolerances (sometimes), but
their essential function is unchanged. That the better materials and
tighter tolerances make them more efficient is a very good thing.

Also better materials for magnets.

What about the use of modern materials to reduce cone break up ?

Or at least control it.

Not to mention in all aspects of engineering - the use of CAD / somputer
modelling to optimise designs.

Agreed. Circuit modeling has greatly assisted the design of low distortion
circuits.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


" wrote:

not much has changed in the last.... 35 years for solid-state excepting
around the edges.

You are JOKING !

You can't understand much about modern solid state design.

Even the true complementary pair was essentially unknown 35 yrs ago. And
that's for starters !

35 years ago was 1971, and I had been building and repairing SS amps for
about 8 years at the time.

The true complementary pair was well-known and widely used in 1971. For
example, they were widely used as drivers for quasi-complementary output
stages. Common part numbers were 2N3053 and 2N4037 if memory serves.

As *drivers* !!!!!!!!!!!

Please pay attention Arny !

I said ' complementary output ' - NOT - ' quasi-complementary output' ! There's
a HUGE difference.Not least in the sound.


There were some issues with the costs of high powered complementary pairs,
but their use was well-known. Bart Locanthi is well-known for his design of
the full complementary "T circuit" which appeared in a JBL power amp in the
mid - 1960s. Please see this 1967 article
http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~mleach/.../tcir/tcir.pdf My recollection
is that the amp was new on the market at the time this article was
published.

I may get round to reading that since you recommend it.

The simple truth however is that it was device technology advances that made
proper fully-complementary outputs viable only in the mid 70s.


Speakers will use
better materials (sometimes) and tighter tolerances (sometimes), but
their essential function is unchanged. That the better materials and
tighter tolerances make them more efficient is a very good thing.

Also better materials for magnets.

What about the use of modern materials to reduce cone break up ?

Or at least control it.

Not to mention in all aspects of engineering - the use of CAD / somputer
modelling to optimise designs.

Agreed. Circuit modeling has greatly assisted the design of low distortion
circuits.

It's actually a fascinating area. As long ago as 1989 I was using Mathcad to
create my own models for amplifier gain/phase/stability calculations. Today's
off the shelf packages make it so much easier but the user may not fully
understand the underlying principles any more though.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


" wrote:

not much has changed in the last.... 35 years for solid-state
excepting
around the edges.

You are JOKING !

You can't understand much about modern solid state design.

Even the true complementary pair was essentially unknown 35 yrs ago.
And
that's for starters !

35 years ago was 1971, and I had been building and repairing SS amps for
about 8 years at the time.

The true complementary pair was well-known and widely used in 1971. For
example, they were widely used as drivers for quasi-complementary output
stages. Common part numbers were 2N3053 and 2N4037 if memory serves.

As *drivers* !!!!!!!!!!!

You never said complementary pair of what. However below, I show a amp
design from 1967 below that had complementary pre-drivers, drviers, and
outputs.

Please pay attention Arny !

Say what you mean.

I said ' complementary output ' - NOT - ' quasi-complementary output' !
There's
a HUGE difference.Not least in the sound.

Actually, the post I responded to does not contain the word "output" or any
synonyms.

There were some issues with the costs of high powered complementary
pairs,
but their use was well-known. Bart Locanthi is well-known for his design
of
the full complementary "T circuit" which appeared in a JBL power amp in
the
mid - 1960s. Please see this 1967 article
http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~mleach/.../tcir/tcir.pdf My
recollection
is that the amp was new on the market at the time this article was
published.

I may get round to reading that since you recommend it.

It proves my point, including outputs.

The simple truth however is that it was device technology advances that
made
proper fully-complementary outputs viable only in the mid 70s.

Check my reference which is clearly dated 1967.

Speakers will use
better materials (sometimes) and tighter tolerances (sometimes), but
their essential function is unchanged. That the better materials and
tighter tolerances make them more efficient is a very good thing.

Also better materials for magnets.

What about the use of modern materials to reduce cone break up ?

Or at least control it.

Not to mention in all aspects of engineering - the use of CAD /
somputer
modelling to optimise designs.

Agreed. Circuit modeling has greatly assisted the design of low
distortion
circuits.

It's actually a fascinating area. As long ago as 1989 I was using Mathcad
to
create my own models for amplifier gain/phase/stability calculations.
Today's
off the shelf packages make it so much easier but the user may not fully
understand the underlying principles any more though.

In 1965 I was writing Fortran programs that simulated the nonlinear
performance of transistors. I accurately predicted the distortion of an
emitter follower for example.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


" wrote:

not much has changed in the last.... 35 years for solid-state
excepting
around the edges.

You are JOKING !

You can't understand much about modern solid state design.

Even the true complementary pair was essentially unknown 35 yrs ago.
And
that's for starters !

35 years ago was 1971, and I had been building and repairing SS amps for
about 8 years at the time.

The true complementary pair was well-known and widely used in 1971. For
example, they were widely used as drivers for quasi-complementary output
stages. Common part numbers were 2N3053 and 2N4037 if memory serves.

As *drivers* !!!!!!!!!!!

You never said complementary pair of what.

" complementary output " has a *very* clear definition as far as I'm concerned.
That's why your example is called a " quasi-complementary output ". No
possibility of misunderstanding at all.


However below, I show a amp
design from 1967 below that had complementary pre-drivers, drviers, and
outputs.

Please pay attention Arny !

Say what you mean.

Pay attention to detail.


I said ' complementary output ' - NOT - ' quasi-complementary output' !
There's
a HUGE difference.Not least in the sound.

Actually, the post I responded to does not contain the word "output" or any
synonyms.

Now you're being obtuse.

Anyone with any relevant knowledge would understand full well what I was
referring to !

Graham

Poopie said to the Krooborg:

Now you're being obtuse.

I can't believe it, Poopie -- you actually said something accurate.

Anyone with any relevant knowledge would understand full well what I was
referring to !

Maybe, but you've now entered the "debating trade" zone. In this
peculiar dimension, your human values of communication are meaningless.
Clarity of language is subordinate to Krooglish. Logic is supplanted by
reflexive contradiction. Argumentation replaces facts, knowledge is
subsumed by lying, and religion takes supreamacy over science.

Don't go too far without a guide, Poopie. Even a lesser 'borg has
something to lose in the "debating trade" zone.

wrote in message
oups.com...


Yes, I do want to "hear the room". Otherwise, fer crissakes, we may as
well record all our music in the high-school gym using multiple
point-source microphones and electronics to remove the undesireable
artifacts.

You're again confusing hearing the listening room with hearing the room
where the recording took place.

Until you figure out the difference, your posts are going to be confused
messes.