[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/26/2019 9:31 PM, wrote:
However, the copper voice coil IS a simple resistance hence I squared R applies. You did not read my post.

I probably read your post but I don't remember it.

If you're talking about a DC measurement, you're correct - resistance is
all that's there. But if you're making an AC measurement - and why
wouldn't you since a loudspeaker isn't very useful when fed by DC? -
it's also an inductor, a capacitor, and, unless you remove the magnet so
the voice coil doesn't move, it's a generator, too.

** Not at all, an ideal capacitor has a resistance of zero.

Only when you first apply a steady voltage to it. Once it's fully
charged (which may take close to an infinite amount of time, but you can
get pretty close pretty quickly), it has near infinite resistance. But
when you feed AC to a voice coil, you absolutely can't ignore everything
but resistance when measuring power.


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

[[email protected]]

James Price wrote:





** Straight from Google I bet.

Webster's dictionary.


Exhibit A:

"Mike Rivers reputation as a know nothing, bull**** artist is not
in any danger."



** A simple statement of fact.

Fine, you're an idiot.



** I see you snipped my carefully worded explanation and posted a gratuitous insult and a massive lie as your only reply.

That is a text book "ad homimem " attack.


That's not an ad hominem.

** Fraid it very much is.


It's a simple statement of fact.


** A simple statement of fact would be that " James Price " is a pig ignorant, ASD ****ed troll - as proven by his posts in this thread.




..... Phil

[[email protected]]

Tobiah the troll wrote:




** You must be delusional - there are simply no "ad hominem"
attacks coming from me.


** Well, you must have a strange idea of what constitutes "ad
hominem".

FYI #1

Fair comment is NOT an "ad hominem" attack.


What *was* ad hominem, was what I initially responded to. A person
accused you, rightly or wrongly that you were guilty of using
ad hominem attacks.


** But he did NOT indicate which words he was referring to.

Standard usenet practice is to post UNDER the words you wish to comment on.


You responded with no other defense than that this person was delusional.


** Fair comment, means he must be seeing things that are not there.


You failed to address the point in contention,


** No point was made so noting to address.

An unsupported assertion is NOT a point.


which was the nature of your previous posts.


** Which he had simply misconstrued.



You instead questioned the mental
ability of your opponent which served as your only stance in the argument.


** Do you understand the concept of "no case to answer" ??


This is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack,

** No it is not.

I was simply defending myself from one.


I found great amusing irony there and couldn't help but to point it out.


** You have no idea what constitutes an argument let alone an "ad hominem".



What Tobiah posted WAS very clearly an "ad hominem " attack, on me.

He got back what he deserved.


I have committed no ad hominem attack. When I insulted you the words
served their correct purpose. I was not dodging an argument by attacking
the opponent. I was just pointing out a humorous contradiction in what
you were saying.



** All you in fact pointed out was your own delusions and misconstructions.

Tobiah - the best thing you can do is FOAD.




...... Phil

[geoff]

On 27/04/2019 1:31 PM, wrote:


** However, the copper voice coil IS a simple resistance hence I squared R applies. You did not read my post.


That is apart from some very minor inductance.

geoff

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote:





However, the copper voice coil IS a simple resistance hence
I squared R applies. You did not read my post.

I probably read your post but I don't remember it.


** My post was to Don Pearce - not you.


If you're talking about a DC measurement, you're correct - resistance is
all that's there. But if you're making an AC measurement - and why
wouldn't you since a loudspeaker isn't very useful when fed by DC? -
it's also an inductor, a capacitor, and, unless you remove the magnet so
the voice coil doesn't move, it's a generator, too.


** As far as heat dissipated in the copper voice coil is concerned, I squared R gives the answer. R varies with temperature, but nothing else.


** Not at all, an ideal capacitor has a resistance of zero.


Only when you first apply a steady voltage to it. Once it's fully
charged (which may take close to an infinite amount of time, but you can
get pretty close pretty quickly), it has near infinite resistance.


** Oh dear - an ideal capacitor has ZERO series resistance.

This was clear from the context, which it seems you did not read.


But when you feed AC to a voice coil, you absolutely can't ignore everything
but resistance when measuring power.



** Which I did not - try reading ALL of what I wrote.

Over sniping and shifting contexts like you just have is very bad usenet practice. One might be forgiven for thinking you a troll.



..... Phil

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote:



** However, the copper voice coil IS a simple resistance hence I squared R applies. You did not read my post.


That is apart from some very minor inductance.



** FFS - another over-sniping fool one who cannot follow a thread or stay in context !!!!

Only resistance creates heat from a current flow, inductance and capacitance do not.



..... Phil

[James Price[_5_]]

On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 9:01:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:
James Price wrote:





** Straight from Google I bet.

Webster's dictionary.


Exhibit A:

"Mike Rivers reputation as a know nothing, bull**** artist is not
in any danger."



** A simple statement of fact.

Fine, you're an idiot.



** I see you snipped my

The correct description is drivel. That's not an ad hominem. That's a simple statement of fact.

[[email protected]]

James Price Scumbag Troll wrote:




** Nothing deserving quoting.



A simple statement of fact would be that " James Price " is a pig ignorant, ASD ****ed troll - as proven by his posts in this thread.

FYI to readers:

ASD = Autism Spectrum Disorder

characteristic of all trolls.



..... Phil

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 18:31:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:


Nope. Didn't understand a word of that.



** Really ??

So " I squared R " has no meaning in your world ?

The resistive losses that increase a speaker's mid band,
resistive impedance beyond the DC ohms value are also mysterious
to you ?

A multiplying power meter, using analogue multiplier ICs,
is also a mystery ?

Where have you been hiding Don.

Under a rock?



I squared R has plenty of meaning. Unfortunately a speaker is not an
R. It's an X.


** However, the copper voice coil IS a simple resistance hence I squared R applies. You did not read my post.


Your measurement method, applied to a pure capacitor, would
apparently yield a power level.



** Not at all, an ideal capacitor has a resistance of zero.

Try reading my post, it is very clear.



.... Phil

What has the resistance of the voice coil got to do with this? It is a
parasitic that produces nothing but heat. It is the resistive vector
of the reactive component that is of interest here.

And capacitances have infinite, not zero resistance. However, the
capacitive reactance would still cause current to flow. If you take
the RMS of that current and the driving voltage you get a figure that
looks like a power but isn't.

d

[[email protected]]

Don Pearce wrote:



What has the resistance of the voice coil got to do with this? It is a
parasitic that produces nothing but heat. It is the resistive vector
of the reactive component that is of interest here.



** The topic is measuring *power dissipation* so resistance is everything.

The power dissipation in a loudspeaker is approximately 85% in the voice coil with the remaining 15% in the suspension, eddy currents and radiated sound.


And capacitances have infinite, not zero resistance.


** FFS ideal caps have zero *series* resistance.


However, the
capacitive reactance would still cause current to flow.


** But does not dissipate heat, so no power.


If you take
the RMS of that current and the driving voltage you get a figure that
looks like a power but isn't.


** FYI readers:

Don has now gone full circle, back to his original nonsense assertion.

Don has made no attempt to answer anything in my posts, he is like that wind-up toy that never stops.

Game over.



..... Phil

[geoff]

On 27/04/2019 2:45 PM, wrote:
geoff wrote:



** However, the copper voice coil IS a simple resistance hence I squared R applies. You did not read my post.


That is apart from some very minor inductance.



** FFS - another over-sniping fool one who cannot follow a thread or stay in context !!!!

Only resistance creates heat from a current flow, inductance and capacitance do not.


No, but they do affect the current flow that causes the heat in the
resistance. Admitted incredibly minorly so.

geoff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 23:31:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



What has the resistance of the voice coil got to do with this? It is a
parasitic that produces nothing but heat. It is the resistive vector
of the reactive component that is of interest here.



** The topic is measuring *power dissipation* so resistance is everything.

The power dissipation in a loudspeaker is approximately 85% in the voice coil with the remaining 15% in the suspension, eddy currents and radiated sound.

This is starting to get quite surreal. The current that flows depends
on the impedance, not the resistance. At some frequencies the
impedance is higher, resulting in less current. At others it is lower,
making more current. At the resonant peaks the resistance (not
reactance) of an 8 ohm speaker can approach 50m ohms. Between
resonances at is probably down around 4 ohms.

Take a look at one of my measurements of a speaker - a Mission 774.
There are two plots. One is scalar impedance, and the other is the
full picture on the complex plane. If you can tell me what resistance
I am supposed to multiply the current by on a broadband signal I will
give up.

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/mission_imp.png
http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/Mission_complex.png

d

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote:



** However, the copper voice coil IS a simple resistance hence I squared R applies. You did not read my post.


That is apart from some very minor inductance.



** FFS - another over-sniping fool one who cannot follow a thread or stay in context !!!!

Only resistance creates heat from a current flow, inductance and capacitance do not.


No, but they do affect the current flow that causes the heat in the
resistance. Admitted incredibly minorly so.


** Fully accounted for in my other pots here.

Do try reading them.




...... Phil

[[email protected]]

Don Pearce Bull**** Artist wrote:




What has the resistance of the voice coil got to do with this? It is a
parasitic that produces nothing but heat. It is the resistive vector
of the reactive component that is of interest here.



** The topic is measuring *power dissipation* so resistance is everything.

The power dissipation in a loudspeaker is approximately 85% in
the voice coil with the remaining 15% in the suspension, eddy
currents and radiated sound.


This is starting to get quite surreal.



** FFS sake Don, you are making an utter ASS of yourself.

Hee - haw.....


The current that flows depends
on the impedance, not the resistance. At some frequencies the
impedance is higher, resulting in less current. At others it is lower,
making more current. At the resonant peaks the resistance (not
reactance) of an 8 ohm speaker can approach 50m ohms. Between
resonances at is probably down around 4 ohms.


** The current flow is as read on true RMSs, wide band, current meter.


Take a look at one of my measurements of a speaker - a Mission 774.
There are two plots. One is scalar impedance, and the other is the
full picture on the complex plane. If you can tell me what resistance
I am supposed to multiply the current by on a broadband signal I will
give up.


** I have described just that, in detail, here, several times.

Don has NOT answered any of my points, he ignores them and posts drivel just to keep to argument going.

A old and very worn debating cheat from a congenital cheat.

FYI to all readers:

There is no fool like an old fool and Don is a DAMN FOOL.




..... Phil

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 01:48:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Don Pearce Bull**** Artist wrote:




What has the resistance of the voice coil got to do with this? It is a
parasitic that produces nothing but heat. It is the resistive vector
of the reactive component that is of interest here.



** The topic is measuring *power dissipation* so resistance is everything.

The power dissipation in a loudspeaker is approximately 85% in
the voice coil with the remaining 15% in the suspension, eddy
currents and radiated sound.


This is starting to get quite surreal.



** FFS sake Don, you are making an utter ASS of yourself.

Hee - haw.....


The current that flows depends
on the impedance, not the resistance. At some frequencies the
impedance is higher, resulting in less current. At others it is lower,
making more current. At the resonant peaks the resistance (not
reactance) of an 8 ohm speaker can approach 50m ohms. Between
resonances at is probably down around 4 ohms.


** The current flow is as read on true RMSs, wide band, current meter.


Take a look at one of my measurements of a speaker - a Mission 774.
There are two plots. One is scalar impedance, and the other is the
full picture on the complex plane. If you can tell me what resistance
I am supposed to multiply the current by on a broadband signal I will
give up.


** I have described just that, in detail, here, several times.

Don has NOT answered any of my points, he ignores them and posts drivel just to keep to argument going.

A old and very worn debating cheat from a congenital cheat.

FYI to all readers:

There is no fool like an old fool and Don is a DAMN FOOL.



OK, you aren't prepared to deal with reality. You reach your limit of
electronics ability at DC measurements, and beyond that, into real and
imaginary axis impedance you can't function. I'm not bothering to
explain any further because you won't get it. And of course now your
standard ad hominem has started we know what comes next. What is in
store for me? Is it cancer, or should I just FOAD because I am
autistic, ASD?

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Wow. This is better than watching a hockey game!
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

Don Pearce = lying, pommy ****.


( Snip pile of malicious ad hominem garbage )


** FYI readers,

Don has gone full circle and straight up his own arse.

Don has completely failed comprehend my simple point and refuses to answer it.

Game 100 % over.

It is quite impossible to argue with a lying, senile pommy pig.





..... Phil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/27/2019 2:31 AM, wrote:

** The topic is measuring*power dissipation* so resistance is everything.

Oh, so we've been arguing about something that's a "who cares?" Do you
want to use a speaker to heat your house? Or keep your coffee warm? Or
do you want to know when the glue holding the voice coil together will
melt?

Sorry for misunderstanding the question. Probably you (Phil) are the
only one to take an irrelevant question, answer it literally, and argue
with all who tried to get to what the original question really was about.

Good for you. This newsgroup was pretty loggy until this discussion came
along. Thanks for your help.

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

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

wrote:

** The topic is measuring*power dissipation* so resistance is everything.


Oh, so we've been arguing about something that's a "who cares?" Do you
want to use a speaker to heat your house? Or keep your coffee warm? Or
do you want to know when the glue holding the voice coil together will
melt?


** A simple way to measuring heat dissipation in a loudspeaker seems like a worthwhile task, for one thing it would allow precise power limiting in high powered applications.


Sorry for misunderstanding the question. Probably you (Phil) are the
only one to take an irrelevant question, answer it literally, and argue
with all who tried to get to what the original question really was about.



** One again, it would behove Mr Rivers to actually read a ****ing thread, once in a while, before mindlessly slandering the folk involved.

FYI:

While discussing the meaning of the term "applied watt" - Don Pearce claimed it was impossible to measure the power dissipated in a speaker driven with a random noise test signal. I pointed out it was actually quite easy and explained how using either of two simple means.

OTOH Mr Rivers self serving opinion on the original question was so far out of touch with reality is might as well have come from the man in the moon..

Do have a nice day.


...... Phil

[Trevor]

On 24/04/2019 11:37 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:
On 23/04/2019 11:18 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
This is true. But... I know plenty of guitarists who have several different
amps. They use this amp when they want this tone and that amp when they
want that tone. Just like sax reeds.

Of course, just as they would change guitars for a different tone. And
naturally they often use different combinations of guitar and amp for
certain tones. Changing speakers in one amp is not something usually
done a regular basis though! :-)

That's why you get separate head amp and cabinet, so you can swap different
cabinets around with the same electronics!


Yeah there is that, never seen a musician do it on stage when they swap
their guitar though! :-)


It's crazy the stuff musicians do.


So true. Like most artists you have to be a little bit crazy. :-)

[Trevor]

On 26/04/2019 1:42 pm, Ralph Barone wrote:
wrote:
Tobiah the Troll wrote:

** You must be delusional - there are simply no "ad hominem" attacks coming from me.

The irony is palpable.

** **** off you bran dead troll

.... Phil


I'd have to say that while Phil is very often a source of very good
information on this newsgroup, the above post very definitely looks like an
"ad hominem" attack.


You are kidding right? He has been doing FAR worse for a couple of
decades. Most smart people have him kill-filed long ago. Any rare
snippets of information buried in his vitriol is just not worth the
angst. He does have to be a little more careful about threatening to
kill people now that we have internet laws against it at least!

[[email protected]]

Trevor is a Scumabg wrote:





I'd have to say that while Phil is very often a source of very good
information on this newsgroup, the above post very definitely looks like an
"ad hominem" attack.


You are kidding right? He has been doing FAR worse for a couple of
decades.


** Massive lie and another "ad hominem".


Most smart people have him kill-filed long ago.


** No - only a few really dumb ones have.

Kill-filing the best informed poster on a NG is counter productive.


Any rare
snippets of information buried in his vitriol is just not worth the
angst.

** They are not rare and my criticisms are always thoroughly justified.


He does have to be a little more careful about threatening to
kill people now that we have internet laws against it at least!


** Now that last one I REALLY object to !!!!

That has NEVER happened and I challenge Trevor to post proof.

OTOH threats of violence including death threats have been posted against me, one from that geriatric lunatic Patrick Turner from Canberra.

The NG "alt.audio.pro.live-sound" collapsed following a death threat made by poster Robert Teague - I reported it to his ISP and the whole place fell silent a day or two later.

My best guess is that Teague had a visit from the US police and lost his hand gun licence as a consequence. He and all his psycho pals went elsewhere, thank god.

FYI

Trevor is an incredibly annoying, autistic ****wit of the worst kind.

As you can all see from his recent posts.



..... Phil

[John Williamson]

On 28/04/2019 06:12, wrote:

Kill-filing the best informed poster on a NG is counter productive.

It would be, but almost by definition, every poster offering advice on
usenet or any other social media considers themselves to be the best
informed person, otherwise why post?

In your opinion, you are the best informed poster on here. In the
opinion of others, this is not true.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 28/04/2019 05:38, Trevor wrote:
On 24/04/2019 11:37 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
That's why you get separate head amp and cabinet, so you can swap
different
cabinets around with the same electronics!


Yeah there is that, never seen a musician do it on stage when they swap their guitar though! :-)

They are beginning to use combos which can emulate different speakers
and amps, though, and you might not notice the switch being operated.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 28/04/2019 10:18 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/04/2019 05:38, Trevor wrote:
On 24/04/2019 11:37 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
That's why you get separate head amp and cabinet, so you can swap
different
cabinets around with the same electronics!


Yeah there is that, never seen a musician do it on stage when they
swap their guitar though! :-)

They are beginning to use combos which can emulate different speakers
and amps, though, and you might not notice the switch being operated.


Not 'beginning - have been doing it for at least the last half-decade.

However those who consider themselves to be 'real' guitarists would not
be seen dead using one !

geoff

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote:

wrote:

Kill-filing the best informed poster on a NG is counter productive.


It would be, but almost by definition, every poster offering advice on
usenet or any other social media considers themselves to be the best
informed person, otherwise why post?


** Because nothing stops them - no matter how little they know or how wrong they are.


In your opinion, you are the best informed poster on here.


** No, I was referring to other NGs.

Recording is not my field and if you paid attention you would know I never post on matters that are strictly recording related.


...... Phil

[gray_wolf]

On 4/27/2019 6:41 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/27/2019 2:31 AM, wrote:

** The topic is measuring*power dissipation*Â* so resistance is everything.

Oh, so we've been arguing about something that's a "who cares?" Do you want to
use a speaker to heat your house? Or keep your coffee warm? Or do you want to
know when the glue holding the voice coil together will melt?

Sorry for misunderstanding the question. Probably you (Phil) are the only one to
take an irrelevant question, answer it literally, and argue with all who tried
to get to what the original question really was about.

Good for you. This newsgroup was pretty loggy until this discussion came along.
Thanks for your help.


Dang, is this kman's replacement ;-

[James Price[_5_]]

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 6:25:12 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 28/04/2019 10:18 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/04/2019 05:38, Trevor wrote:
On 24/04/2019 11:37 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
That's why you get separate head amp and cabinet, so you can swap
different
cabinets around with the same electronics!


Yeah there is that, never seen a musician do it on stage when they
swap their guitar though! :-)

They are beginning to use combos which can emulate different speakers
and amps, though, and you might not notice the switch being operated.


Not 'beginning - have been doing it for at least the last half-decade.

However those who consider themselves to be 'real' guitarists would not
be seen dead using one !

Neal Schon and Phil Collin would likely consider themselves real
guitarists, and while they're not using combos per se, they are using
Axe-Fx III's exclusively for live shows now.

[John Williamson]

On 28/04/2019 15:30, James Price wrote:
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 6:25:12 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
However those who consider themselves to be 'real' guitarists would not be seen dead using one !

Neal Schon and Phil Collin would likely consider themselves real
guitarists, and while they're not using combos per se, they are using
Axe-Fx III's exclusively for live shows now.

Yes, I agree. To me a "real" guitarist is one who uses whatever is
needed to get the sound they want for that song. Otherwise, they'd all
still be playing acoustic guitars with catgut strings.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

On 28/04/2019 8:18 pm, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/04/2019 05:38, Trevor wrote:
On 24/04/2019 11:37 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
That's why you get separate head amp and cabinet, so you can swap
different cabinets around with the same electronics!

Yeah there is that, never seen a musician do it on stage when they
swap their guitar though! :-)

They are beginning to use combos which can emulate different speakers
and amps, though, and you might not notice the switch being operated.


Yeah I'm well aware of that, but that's just another effect like so many
others they have been using for decades. It's getting over the top now
though, I've seen digital effects boxes with 999 effects. Think they
stopped there just so they could use a 3 digit display. Next stop 9999 I
guess. :-)

[Trevor]

On 28/04/2019 8:15 pm, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/04/2019 06:12, wrote:

Kill-filing the best informed poster on a NG is counter productive.

It would be, but almost by definition, every poster offering advice on
usenet or any other social media considers themselves to be the best
informed person, otherwise why post?

In your opinion, you are the best informed poster on here. In the
opinion of others, this is not true.

Hardly surprising Phil considers himself the best informed. The only
thing he is "best" at though is blowing his own trumpet, and ad hominem
attacks on others whenever he is losing an argument. Nobody can match
him there!:-(

[[email protected]]

Trevor the Scumbag wrote:


Kill-filing the best informed poster on a NG is counter productive.


Hardly surprising Phil considers himself the best informed. The only
thing he is "best" at though is blowing his own trumpet, and ad hominem
attacks on others whenever he is losing an argument. Nobody can match
him there!:-(



** Trevor - kindly explain to the NG who you are.

Your full name, occupation, approximate age and place of residence.

In 12 years or more of posting complete trash on NGs, you have been extraordinarily careful to NEVER reveal a singe fact about yourself.

If you refuse, I will just make up a pack of lies and post them as fact.

Just like you do about me.



..... Phil

[Mat Nieuwenhoven]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 18:52:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:


Nope. Didn't understand a word of that.



** Really ??

So " I squared R " has no meaning in your world ?

The resistive losses that increase a speaker's mid band, resistive impedance beyond the DC ohms value are also mysterious to you ?

A multiplying power meter, using analogue multiplier ICs, is also a mystery ?

Where have you been hiding Don.

Under a rock?



.... Phil

I squared R has plenty of meaning. Unfortunately a speaker is not an
R. It's an X. And I squared X gives you VA, not Watts. Your
measurement method, applied to a pure capacitor, would apparently
yield a power level. You can't put any power into a capacitor.

d


Oops - let me correct that. A speaker is a whole slew of different R +
jX, with the values being different at every frequency over the
measurement band. No scalar instrument can tell you about power
transfer into that. You can do it with a vector instrument at a single
frequency - and I regularly do that.


But a noise signal with a scalar voltmeter and a scalar ammeter? Nope.
Not on this earth.



** You are making a very basic mistake.

Consider the following:

If you apply a noise voltage to a resistor and measure the current flow with a wide band, true rms meter the formula "I squared R " applies exactly.

If you add an ideal reactance in series with the resistor the formula "I squared R " still applies since the resistor is the only power dissipating item.

A speaker can be accurately modelled as several resistances in series with a lossless reactive component, also in series. snip

Can it? I thought the "Wright emperical model" is the standard model
since 1990.
For interested readers, see
http://www.wavecor.com/Transducer_eq...nt_circuit.pdf for a 1 page
overview
or
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...pirical_Model_
for_Loudspeaker_Motor_Impedance

Wavecor specifically states that the traditional model does not do a
good job at non-low frequencies.

Mat Nieuwenhoven

[[email protected]]

Mat Nieuwenhoven Google Monkey wrote:


wrote:


** You are making a very basic mistake.

Consider the following:

If you apply a noise voltage to a resistor and measure the current
flow with a wide band, true rms meter the formula "I squared R "
applies exactly.

If you add an ideal reactance in series with the resistor the
formula "I squared R " still applies since the resistor is the only power
dissipating item.

A speaker can be accurately modelled as several resistances in series
with a lossless reactive component, also in series. snip


Can it?


** Yep.


thought the "Wright emperical model" is the standard model
since 1990.
For interested readers, see
http://www.wavecor.com/Transducer_eq...nt_circuit.pdf for a 1 page
overview
or
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...pirical_Model_
for_Loudspeaker_Motor_Impedance

Wavecor specifically states that the traditional model does not do a
good job at non-low frequencies.

Mat Nieuwenhoven


** Any damn fool can use Google and find something that appears to differ from any statement of fact you care to mention.

This is no contradiction between the information in my post and what the above Google Monkey has found.

And in any case, he has not to the tiniest ****ing clue.


...... Phil

[James Price[_5_]]

On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 5:07:35 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
If you see a "frequency response" with tolerances, such as 70-5000Hz +/-3dB,
you know the frequency will stay within those tolerances over that range
at full rated power. Outside of that range you probably get output but you
don't know what it will be.

If a frequency range is given without tolerances it is meaningless except
in that it tells you to avoid a vendor who gives fake numbers.

I own a pair of Mackie HR824's, and the listed frequency range is
39-20000Hz with a tolerance of ±1.5 dB. Is such a narrow tolerance
realistic / accurate below 60 Hz / above 12 KHz?

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/27/2019 2:10 PM, James Price wrote:
I own a pair of Mackie HR824's, and the listed frequency range is
39-20000Hz with a tolerance of ±1.5 dB. Is such a narrow tolerance
realistic / accurate below 60 Hz / above 12 KHz?

With a tolerance that small, generally there's some fine print that
stipulates less than the specified range. Mackie used to individually
test each speaker in a relatively small and not completely anechoic
isolation chamber and they included a graph with each speaker. I don't
remember what the frequency range on the graph was, and I don't know if
they still do that with their current line of monitors.

There's (always) some smoothing involved with frequency response plots,
sometimes as broad as a full octave, so while most of the amplitude
response falls within a 3 dB band, there are almost certainly some
frequencies where that range will be exceeded over a small frequency
range. That's why most of us don't use frequency response specifications
for anything but a guide, and make our critical evaluation by listening.


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