 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I am new to this forum for about a month, trying to glean all the info i can before i upgrade my stystem. I have noticed that apparent insiders jump on certain people pretty hard. LIke mr. eddy´s comments below. they strike me as reasonable and he gets hit pretty hard. I also notice that certain product lines seem sacred and one better not disagree. My view is that there is a double standard apparent. This is disappointing to me. It certainly would be intimidating to me. I also sense that manufacturers are using other people to attack those who post less than fav. experience of their products. To me this is pretty obvious. I would wish that the moderators who stop hitting what seem honest opinions.
thank you for your time. karen
Follow Ups:
HowdyEven tho I mostly lurk here I feel like a member of the family and I'm not sure we've made the best impression with these responses to Karen's question :)
I can see what might have lead Karen to her conclusions, but I interpret things a little differently.
I feel confident that I'd get polite and reasonable responses to any question I might ask here, as I do on other fora at the asylum. Each forum has a unique personality, but that said, I'm still amazed at the depth of knowledge and the quality of the responses on this forum. I don't know how some of the regulars have enough time to respond so often and with such detail.
Karen I hope that you come find this forum as valuable and friendly as I do.
-Ted
I believe the moderators are doing an excellent job. They are just trying to keep the tone civil and eliminate the personal attacks etc... They just want to prevent folks from becoming overly confrontational. This will happen if some people are given the chance - just read Audioreview cable forum some time.Engineers have the habit of sometimes letting their egos get out of control. I had to retrain myself for the last 10 years to stop doing this. This can become tiresome. This forum is about having fun, learning and sharing experiences.
There the ones who have seen the burning bush and those who have not. And as any religious argument this will spark emotions to a high level. What is even worse in this case, that there is a very strong atheist scientific foundation laid by Maxwell a long time ago upon which the religion of audio cables is built. So if you happen to be a non believer entering the church single stranded small gauge silver, better have your armor freshly polished because you will get your non faith tried :-)Now it is not to say that it will not happen in a friendly discourse, for the most part, but it will happen. Unfortunately even the most distinguished members of this panel have no exact answers why a particular cable will sound different in one system and different yet in an other system. But this is the name of the cable fun. It is like wine, everybody will recognize the good ones, but any one of the good ones can ruin or complement you diner. So relax sit back choose wisely and enjoy the ride.
dee
;-D
...
karen,Any message board is bound to develop a culture, some regulars who visit frequently, and some who have strong opinions. People are sharing a common background, and in many cases, a common experience.
On this particular board, it is audio, and specifically, audio cables.Audio cables are one of the most controversial and disputed aspects of an audio system. In many cases, the mere presence of postings on audio cables is enough to wreck a board, this has occured in several cases, and their are some boards that either do no exist anymore, or have become something other than what they started out as because of postings about audio cables. Witness the wasteland that AR and some of the newsgroups have become, much of which is due to such postings or the attitudes behind and POV's inherent in the stances of certain groups and individuals that argue about audio cables and other audio components in a similar manner.
At this board, we have a rule that forbids discussion of DBT listening tests, and related subjects, so that instead of hundreds and thousands of posts going round and round without reaching any conclusion or resolution of the issues, folks can post in relative freedom from hassle and flaming about thier cable experiences. See:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/dbt.html
This is in additon to the regular rules for the Audio Asyulum board in general, see:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/cgi/d.pl?audio/rules.htmlA lot of the people who post here have experienced that using better cables in their system, makes their system sound better. They post about their experiences on the matter, and get feedback from other's who have done the same things, perhaps they have the same brand or model of cables, or similar components, and find a common point of reference. After posting here awhile, they are a 'regular', other 'regulars' have come to know their POV, what they have for a system, what changes they have gone through with their system and cables, and so on. This makes for a familiarity and understanding that is more casual than some message boards.
I think one of the reasons that this occurs here, is that without the flames and death spirals of DBT to deal with, folks can be more relaxed and enjoy posting and reading things more, discussions are more likely to lead to an exchange of information and opinions, it is just an easier place to go to for opinions, and information and experiences with cables.
I also think that many of the regulars or 'insiders' have come to value and cherish this atmosphere and culture. It is quite an oasis of friendly exchange compared to many message boards. These folks are understandably anxious to keep things this way, and can sometimes become a little zealous in responding to posts that either seem to, or are clearly posting statements that are in opposition to the basic premise that audio cables do make a sonic difference. They may be defensive or antagonistic towards such posts, and since a very large number of regular posters feel this way, it is not an easy thing to get past or overcome at times.
I think that one thing is clear: if you firmly believe that cables do not have any sonic effects on a home playback system's sound, then I would suggest that there is very little reason to post here, or to try and 'convert' anyone via some sort of post concerning such belief's. This is going to be seen as counter productive and a waste of bandwidth. One can go to rec.audio.opinion or rec.audio.high-end for affirmation of such beliefs or over to AR and do some subjectivist bashing if that is your bag. Not here.
As for the moderators, I am the primary moderator for this AA board section. The secondary moderator is in the way of a backup to me, and typically does not intrude unless there is a violent breaking of the rules that I do not see as soon as he does. I try to moderate the board with a very light hand, and sometimes this leads to a thread that may get past the bounds of civil behavior or of reasonable taste. Trolls, flaming, defamation, and the more obvious rules violations of DBT, slander, cuss words, etc. will all be dealt with summarily, hopefully in an appropriate manner.
I am not a machine, or an artificial intelligence program, I am a human being, and like all humans, I have emotions, I have feelings, and I make mistakes. I will be the first to admit that I make mistakes, and that this can sometimes lead to a less than perfect situation with posts or threads. I do feel that I do an adequate job, and that considering that the entire AA board is run by, and moderated by volunteers, that the place does pretty good overall.
RE Mr. Eddy's recent posts, there is more going on than meets a casual look perhaps, and perhaps this is one instance where I should just have turned the other cheek and refused to answer, and closed the thread. There certainly is very little purpose being served by allowing it to continue at this point. We can not seem to agree to disagree.
RE manufacturer's, there are no favorites played or allowed, and if someone is acting as a shill for a manufacturer, it is usually going to be noticed pretty quickly, and denounced. At the bottom of each post, there is a "Comment" option that will send an e-mail to the moderator and certain other AA bored members, to alert them to possible violations, flames, personal attacks, etc. Believe me, folks do not hesitiate to use this feature!
If you are that new to the AA Cables section, or to intense audio discussion on any audio message boards, then I propose that what goes on here is WAY toned down compared to other sites, and that it is not that bad. Perhaps unfamiliarity with some of the situations is leading to such perceptions, or the fact that audiophiles and music lovers are passionate about their hobby. Give it some time, perhaps read through the archives (down at the bottom of the page, they go back to 1999, you just have to keep clicking on the oldest one, and then scroll down to the oldest one in that archive) and get a better feel for the place.
Jon Risch
(also Cable Asylum Moderator)
Jon Risch
I have to disagree with the assesment of AR being a wasteland. Especially the cable forum. It appears to have far more postings than the other forums, maybe with the exception the general forum. There appears to be several engineers that frequent there.However, I have noticed that the moderators have once again allowed open posting, which has brought an increase to those who just seek to troll by posting messages with no other intent other than to degrade an individual. That is truely sad.
But, I can see why you would call AR a wasteland since you seem to often be on the short end of the stick there. Especially when it is your peers asking rather digging questions.
As one poster put it, this is more a religion than anything else. I know that personally and professionally, I find some of the things said to be absolutely daffy. However, because it would probably just ignite a flame-war, I say nothing, unless it looks like someone is suggesting an idea that would be potentially hazardous.
RE Mr. Eddy's recent posts, there is more going on than meets a casual look perhaps, and perhaps this is one instance where I should just have turned the other cheek and refused to answer, and closed the thread. There certainly is very little purpose being served by allowing it to continue at this point. We can not seem to agree to disagree.And perhaps you're reading more into things than there is.
What does meet a casual look however is your obvious intolerence of having any of your objective claims so much as questioned, let alone refuted or otherwise. So intolerant that you'll go so far as to wholly and unfairly mischaracterize someone simply questioning your claims as someone who has some nefarious, ulterior motive and is simply out to get you and stirr up trouble.
This is the same sort of tactic used by totalitarian dictatorships against dissenters and in my opinion has no place here. Particularly by those with the power to confiscate the printing presses.
se
Do you know what Godwin's law is? It says that any time a poster in desperation, raises the sordid history of a recent series of atrocities committed in Germany, he automatically loses the argument.Interesting, huh?
I do wonder, however, who these 'totalitarians' you might be talking about are?
Do you know what Godwin's law is? It says that any time a poster in desperation, raises the sordid history of a recent series of atrocities committed in Germany, he automatically loses the argument.Interesting, huh?
Yes, very. Thankfully I'm not desparate and did not raise the sordid history of a recent series of atrocities committed in Germany. Was alluding to the former Soviet Union.
Thanks for the link. T'was a good laugh.
I do wonder, however, who these 'totalitarians' you might be talking about are?
Wasn't saying they were totalitarians. Just that the techniques used in attempts to deflect any questioning or criticism are similar to those of totalitarian dictatorships. The one who has most consistently done this, even going beyond mischaracterization to complete fabrication, is John Curl. Suffice to say I've absolutely no respect for the man which is why things can get a bit ugly between us.
While Jon Risch and I haven't alway seen eye to eye, I'd always respected him. Though with this most recent go 'round, I may have to reassess this.
se
In your reply you state that if a person does not think that cables make a difference, then there is little reason for them to post here. To me, that is a very uninviting statement to those that are new to this board. It could be interpreted as a veiled "If you don't believe, go away!" sort of statement.
I have frequented this board for advice other than cables themselves, such as, the availability of different terminations, their quality, where to buy, price advice, etc.. I have also enjoyed reading about people with the time and talent who like to make their own interconnects. Where did they get the parts? How much did it cost them? And on and on. None of these had to do with my belief or disbelief in the "big question" of cable differences.
I will say to the person that started this thread, you may feel unwelcome if you are not a believer, but is more to be gained from this board than just that one debate.
If someone was utterly convinced that audio cables did not make any sonic differences, then why would they want to post such a belief here? To try and convince all the regulars that they were right? To convince all those people who in many cases feel quite strongly that they DO make a sonic difference?What purpose would such a post serve? I seriously doubt that it would convince anyone to change their minds, and anyone who reads this board for more than a day would soon know that sonic differences for cables is taken quite seriously here as being real. It would seem that the only real purpose would be that such a post was a troll.
By the same token, if they did not believe that they needed anything but zip cords and OEM interconnects, why seek advice here? There would be no need to ask any questions of anyone, they already 'know' the answers.
That leaves us with the classic "I am saving you from yourself" scenario. Again, this will not 'save' anyone who is already convinced that cables are sonically different and worth dealing with.
That leaves the subset of the above, the ostensibly benevolent concept of "save the newbies from the misguided cable nuts". This has the same inherent problem as the larger set stated above, that someone has judged that someone else needs saving. A rather large and assuming role to take upon one's self.
With all of that said, on the whole, I am generally rather tolerant of posts in these various categories, even though they do not help many folks, but rather can cause folks to get unruly and generate flaming and personal attacks.
Once we reach this point, then some sort of action must be taken, or we no longer have a moderated board, just anarchy.
As for my posting on AR, there are a few folks who lean toward the objectivist stance, and a straggling of new comers who might only see posts that are completely one-sided: just forget about anything but lamp cords and the cheapest IC's. The hard core naysayers there will not have their minds changed anymore than hard core believers here. I know that. But some of the other folks might begin to get the idea, and try something out for themselves. Many who do so with an open mind end up finding that they DO respond positively to high performance audio cables.
I think that this is one of the fundamental differences between the so-called subjectivists and so-called objectivists: in many cases, the objectivists tend toward recommending NOT getting or trying anything beyond lamp cords and freebie/OEM IC's, while most all subjectivists will tend to tell folks to check it out for themselves.
With that in mind, just about everyone here has 'tried' lamp cord as speaker cable, and they went on from there. So many of those who insist lamp cords are enough refuse to even try aftermarket cables, and if they do, the bias factor is so high, they are very unlikely to hear anything if they did try them.
I once had a hard core cable objectivist fail to differentiate between correct L-R relative polarity, and one of the channels reversed polarity (with the resulting Out Of Phase condition) in a blind test.
He was so convinced that "there weren't any sonic differences" he couldn't even pick out such a gross change in the system! He denied the reality of what was presented strongly enough to be unable to notice even such a major change in the sound.
Jon Risch
Part 2You also say in your post that AR has become a "wasteland".
If that is the case, if that board is a total waste - then why do you post there so often? I would think you would tire of sparring with some of the posters there (mtyrcrafts in particular), but you seem, based on your continued participation, to enjoy the combat. I have tended to visit there time to time to catch up on the humor of the "Pogue and Bone" crowd, but have not posted there for eons now.
Thanks
;-D
`
... to Byzantium! Nothing is perfect and AA is no different. Are ALL Inmates and opinions offered reasonable and fair? No. Are all members treated the same? No. I would like to think we are treated according to the manner we choose to represent ourselves. And regardless of this, not everyone will have the same opinion of one's behavior or POV. Yes, some are slighted due to various associations, and The Bored at times is a bit uneasy re-adjusting to difficult partiscipation, but in this respect they are human, not Rodney's Robots.Regarding the Individual in question. I'm not familiar with his presence or his associations, but I'm of the opinion that ALL information offered on Forums such as AA, are opinion and should be viewed cautiously, not accepted as FACT! Unless you are a professional, one needs not provide evidence and - IMO - owes anyone nothing, but the respect to be truthful with their disclosures. I understand the apprehension you have feel, but save for the few crack pots, most of the regulars are the nicest people you would like to met. So former lurker and now reluctant Inmate, Welcome Aboard!
MikE
Hi Karen,
Welcome to the Asylum. Some of the inmates aren't fully housebroken; but much of what you see is the sort of differences that crop up most anywhere people get passionate. I wouldn't worry too much
about it. Is there something we might be able to help you with? Btw, the archvies store a couple years of posts, and there is a wealth of information in there.
Steve and others of us have been on this and other websites for a long time. The reason for this forum is to talk about different cables and how they effect an audio system.
Jon Risch is an engineer, who shares his interest in cables for free to any interested audiophile. I personally don't make or sell cables, but I work with people who do.
We find that criticism of even trying different cables and their various configurations is counterproductive to open discussion. If someone (anyone) refuses to allow another person's input without destructive criticism of the person, ideas, etc., then some of us are going to go to the aid of the person being attacked. Recently, one of Jon Risch's pet ideas, bi-wiring, was attacked on this website. In looking at the evidence, including the work of others that can be found from this website, I decided to add my input. I can't use bi-wiring with my loudspeakers, but the idea still looks encouraging, even helpful in some other audio systems.
I realize that from an first glance, we seem pretty rude, and it may be a correct impression, but we have been at this for years, including arguing the same subject matter. We might not see it as the strong criticism, that you might take it for.
Recently, one of Jon Risch's pet ideas, bi-wiring, was attacked on this website.Nothing was attacked, John. This is your typical response whenever anyone dares so much as question or challenge someone's claims. Label it as an attack and mischaracterize the one questioning as some sort of trouble maker.
Yes, it did get ugly at the end because I let my emotions get the better of me. And while I don't believe you deserve any greater respect than I gave you in that confrontation, those reading these posts deserve better and to them I apologize.
The reason my emotions got fired up was because of your continual habit of impugning people who don't share your opinions by accusing them of lacking knowledge, and insulting them with terms such as "tech" or "sophomore" while never actually offering any enlightenment or demonstrating that you even know what you're talking about. Instead you just whip out your "credentials" and tell them how many textbooks you have on your shelves. In other words, "You don't know what you're talking about. I am the Great John Curl. I have hundreds of textbooks on my shelves."
So when you made a claim in the bi-wiring thread that was so demonstrably false that even a "tech" or a "sophomore" should have known better, I couldn't resist the urge to give you a taste of your own medicine. Particularly as it directly related to a subject for which you are most renowned for; amplifiers.
Jon shut down the thread at that point because of it so I'd like to clear it up here and will do so in a much more civil way. I'll also do it in simple enough terms that most anyone can understand it and even demonstrate it for themselves. And instead of making the issue more complex and less intuitive by relating it to loudspeakers as I did originally, I'll just stick to the amplifier.
Your claim was this:
Jon R. , this shows that Steve doesn't understand the underpinnings of negative feedback. Of course, negative feedback generates the correction voltage to counter the EMF of the loudspeaker, etc. Read a book, Steve.
What is the purpose of negative feedback? In this context it is to make sure that the amplifier's output voltage is an accurate reflection of its input voltage, other than simple voltage gain (which is typically also established by the negative feedback network). If the input voltage is 1 volt, and the voltage gain factor is 10 (20dB), then the output voltage must be 10 volts. Any deviation from 10 volts will produce an error signal which will cause the amplifier to increase or decrease its output voltage.
For simplicity's sake, assume the amplifer's input voltage is zero. Which means its output voltage will also be zero.
Now we just need some EMF. In this case a simple 1.5 volt flashlight battery will suffice. Connect the battery across the amplifier's output to simulate some back EMF coming off a loudspeaker.
The claim is that the amplifier will generate a voltage to counter this back EMF. To counter this 1.5 volts, the amplifier would have to output 1.5 volts of the same polarity as the battery.
In other words, it would be like taking a second battery and connecting it in parallel with the first battery and connecting it in the same polarity. Positive terminal to positive terminal and negative terminal to negative terminal. In this way the 1.5 volts of the second battery counters the 1.5 volts of the first battery and no current will flow.
Similarly, if the amplifier is outputting 1.5 volts and at the same polarity as the battery, it too will counter the 1.5 volts of the battery and no current will flow.
But there's a problem here. If the amplifier were producing the 1.5 volts to counter the 1.5 volts of the battery as claimed, then the amplifier would have to have 1.5 volts across its output. But if the input voltage is zero, then output voltage must also be zero.
The claim that the amplifier produces a counter voltage is patently incorrect. The way in which voltage source amplifiers deal with voltages across their outputs greater than what the output of the amplifier would be otherwise is by virtue of their low output impedance, which in a "perfect" voltage source amplifier would be zero. In other words, looking from the load into the output of a voltage source amplifier is looking into a short circuit.
So when you take your battery and place it across the output of a realworld voltage source amplifier, you are effectively shorting the battery's terminals and maximum current will flow. But because the current is flowing through what is in effect a short circuit, the voltage across the battery will be zero, and consequently the voltage across the amplifier's output will be zero, meeting the requirement due to the input voltage being zero.
This comes from basic Ohm's Law. E = I x R. If R is zero, then any amount of I will result in an E of zero. Anyone with a volt meter and a flashlight battery can demonstrate this for themself. First measure the voltage aross the battery. Then use a reasonably large gauge wire (say 18 gauge) and short the battery terminals. While it's shorted, measure the voltage across the battery again.
Of course realworld voltage source amplifiers will always have some small amount of output impedance, so in the realworld, there would always be some small amount of voltage across it.
Also, while negative feedback can help reduce the output impedance of an amplifier, amplifiers not using negative feedback behave the same way. Even a simple emitter/source follower. Or a wholly passive transformer for that matter. The principle is the same. Any voltage across them greater than what the output voltage would be otherwise will see the output impedance of the amplifier/follower/transformer and current will flow accordingly.
As for voltages less than the output voltage, the amplifier/follower/transformer simply sees an increased impedance and less current flows. The output voltage remains the same as voltages in parallel do not add. And relating this to loudspeakers and back EMF, unless the back EMF is greater than the voltage applied by the amplifier, the voltage across the amplifier will not change and nothing else connected across the amplifier's output will see anything different.
se
Your apology, Steve, is well taken and received. I, for one, feel that if there is point of contention, disagreement, or whatever, that gets to the point of strong criticisms of personality, taste, etc., that it is certainly more appropriate to try to come to some agreement (or lack thereof)off the forum in a more private fashion. So, in short, I appreciate your acknowledgement of some of the unpleasant nature of recent postings.Erik
Steve, you are arguing with two well experienced design engineers, who have actually contributed technical papers in the audio field. Together, Jon R and I have multiple decades of experience with speakers, amps, mathematical calculations, etc. It is unwise to attack us, unless you can actually find some real fault in our arguments. You claim that a loudspeaker is NOT a generator, but I have proven by experiment that it is! A microphone is a generator! A speaker will behave as a microphone when it is moved by an outside force, or even its own inertia or resonances. How do you get an inductor to be a generator? Is it represented by your model? No, you left it out in your simplified model of a loudspeaker.
You attacked my model of negative feedback, yet there is nothing wrong with my model. How else can an output impedance be reduced by global feedback, except by a correction current that offsets the losses in the output stage? How else can an amplifier output act a a virtual null to any random currents, either out of time with the original signal, or generated externally, and even by RFI ?ps. You want the amp to act like a virtual short on a battery, not to stop current from flowing. Where did you get any other idea? Without negative feedback, most output stages would act like a finite resistive impedance and part of the current would flow. Negative feedback would then make even more current flow by ofsetting the losses in the output stage to get the output close to 0 Volts. You could see this 'adjustment' in the feedback loop of the amp, if you looked hard enough for it.
Steve, you are arguing with two well experienced design engineers, who have actually contributed technical papers in the audio field. Together, Jon R and I have multiple decades of experience with speakers, amps, mathematical calculations, etc.So? How many times do you have to be told that one's claims do not stand or fall based on how many papers they've published or how many books they have on the shelves, but rather on the validity of their claims? Why has this fundamental concept still not sunk in with you?
It is unwise to attack us, unless you can actually find some real fault in our arguments.
Which I did. And you have completely ignored it in this post, instead you dance around it by bringing up a bunch of things which have absolutely no relevance to the argument I made which proved your claim to be false. Why don't you address the argument which proved your claim false?
Once again, your claim:
Jon R. , this shows that Steve doesn't understand the underpinnings of negative feedback. Of course, negative feedback generates the correction voltage to counter the EMF of the loudspeaker, etc. Read a book, Steve.
FACT: To counter a voltage requires the application of an equal voltage of the same magnitude and polarity as the voltage you wish to counter.
FACT: Two voltages in parallel, each of the same magnitude and polarity results in a voltage of that same magnitude and polarity across them.
FACT: If an amplifier applies a voltage of the same magnitude and polarity as a voltage imposed across its output, the voltage across the amplifier's output will be of that same magnitude and polarity.
That's it, John. QED. Game, set, match. If as you claim an amplifier is applying a counter voltage equal to and of the same polarity as the voltage imposed across its output, then the output voltage of the amplifier MUST be equal to that voltage. But if the amplifier's input voltage is zero, it's output voltage MUST also be zero.
You can't have it both ways, John. The amplifier cannot simultaneously have BOTH zero volts AND some other voltage across it equal to and of the same polarity as a voltage imposed across it.
I'm sorry, but in spite of whatever papers you have written, or how much experience you've got, or how many books you have on your shelves, your claim is patently and provably incorrect. Any two voltages in parallel of equal magnitude and the same polarity will result in a voltage across them of that same magnitude and polarity.
This is BASIC ELECTRONICS, John. And anyone with two flashlight batteries, a couple of pieces of wire and a volt meter can prove this beyond any doubt.
You claim that a loudspeaker is NOT a generator, but I have proven by experiment that it is!
I claimed no such thing. I said that a loudspeaker being able to double as a microphone was irrelevant to Jon's claims as his claims were regarding only that energy input to the loudspeaker by the amplifier.
A microphone is a generator!
Congratulations on your new discovery. Better late than never I suppose. I discovered this when I was 9 years old with my Radio Shack 101 Electronics Experiments kit whose 2" speaker doubled as a microphone depending on the circuit.
A speaker will behave as a microphone when it is moved by an outside force, or even its own inertia or resonances.
The issue was regarding how much of the energy from any cone resonances ultimately made it back into the electrical portion of the driver (i.e. the voice coil). Not whether or not it was even possible.
How do you get an inductor to be a generator?
Uh... er... um... Gee, I dunno, Wally. Maybe wiggle it back and forth between Mary Ellen's thighs, er, I mean a magnetic field? Just a wild guess seeing as I don't know much about these things.
Is it represented by your model? No, you left it out in your simplified model of a loudspeaker.
Yes. Because it's irrelevant as Jon's claims had nothing to do with energy being input to the system from external sources other than the amplifier. And in that respect, it does model the "generator" effect of the voice coil. Except that in this context, it's not actually generating energy, but rather storing it. Which is why it's modeled using energy storage elements; inductors and capacitors.
You attacked my model of negative feedback, yet there is nothing wrong with my model.
I don't recall your presenting a model. But if your model has the amplifier outputting a voltage of the same magnitude and polarity as any voltage imposed on its output above the voltage the amplifier would normally be outputting, then I'm afraid there's plenty wrong with your model, at least as it relates to typical voltage source amplifiers.
Look, just test it yourself. Take one of your preamps and with the inputs grounded, put a 1.5 volt flashlight battery across its output (er, assuming it's not capacitively coupled). If your model is correct, then you should measure 1.5 volts across the battery. You'd have to. Since if your preamp's outputting 1.5 volts if the same polarity to counter the 1.5 volts from the battery, it would be ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT than if you'd simply taken another 1.5 volt battery and tied it across the first. In which case you MUST end up with 1.5 volts across them.
ps. You want the amp to act like a virtual short on a battery, not to stop current from flowing. Where did you get any other idea?
From your claim of course. Once again, you said:
Of course, negative feedback generates the correction voltage to counter the EMF of the loudspeaker, etc.
The only way to COUNTER a voltage is to apply a voltage of the same magnitude and polarity. So if the amplifier is generating a COUNTER voltage to the EMF, then it MUST be generating a voltage of the same magnitude and polarity. In which case no current would flow.
That's why "back EMF" is also called "counter EMF." Because it's of the same polarity as whatever voltage is across it. And that's why back EMF appears to the amplifier as an increased impedance. The counter voltage of the EMF causes less current to flow.
Now, if you want to amend your claim and use some term other than "counter" then that's a different matter. But your claim as it stands is simply incorrect. And I have only been addressing your claim as you stated it. If you stated it incorrectly, then don't blame me for "attacking" it.
se
With all due respect, I would think that with such experience as you both obviously have, you might, instead of publically yelling back and forth at one another about who is right and isn't, you might consider setting a more appropriate model and example of proper forum etiquette by taking this discussion somewhere else. I readily admit I am not the moderator here, and moreover don't care. Your outright and open criticism of one another has absolutely nothing (any longer) to do with audio cables -- and nor does this post!!! like I do sometimes with some of my middle school students, you both could use a bit of 'time out.'Please understand I have great respect and admiration for what you know and have learned about audio electronics, but I can't say the same, at least at this point, for your conduct in front of others on this forum. I suspect that in your moods, you're going to post another blasting thread about me and minding my own business...that's ok, it won't change what I think; you made this ALL of our business!
Erik
Well folks, Steve's latest criticism of me is my use of the word "counter" as in:"... the correction voltage to COUNTER the EMF of the loudspeaker " A dictionary definition is:
" hinder or defeat by an opposing action " What I was referring to was that negative feedback will create an opposing or opposite voltage to effectively short out any extraneous voltages from the loudspeaker. Steve apparently thought that I was attempting to block any extraneous current flow from the loudspeaker. I believe that this is called current feedback.
Now current feedback is important in some applications. For example, DC servo-motors like to be current driven, and analog tape recorder record head drive circuits work well also with current drive. However, almost all power amps used in audio use negative voltage feedback to create a low impedance in order to 'damp' the back EMF from a loudspeaker.
Well folks, Steve's latest criticism of me is my use of the word "counter" as in:"... the correction voltage to COUNTER the EMF of the loudspeaker " A dictionary definition is:
" hinder or defeat by an opposing action "Yes. And in terms of voltage, an OPPOSING voltage is a voltage of the SAME polarity. Voltage is FORCE (that's what the F in EMF stands for). When you want to "hinder or defeat" a particular force, you apply an OPPOSING force. Since voltage is force, if you want to "hinder or defeat" a particular voltage, you apply an opposing voltage. Which must be a voltage of the same polarity as the voltage you wish to oppose.
Consider two identical cars, each facing front bumper to front bumper. Both cars are in Drive. One car hits the accelerator, applying a force in the direction of the second car. If the second car wants to oppose that force, the driver must hit his accelerator. If the second car exerts an opposing force equal to the force the first car is applying, then neither car will move.
It's the same thing with voltage which is demonstrated in the two batteries tied together in the same polarity. Each battery is applying an opposing force against the other battery.
What I was referring to was that negative feedback will create an opposing or opposite voltage to effectively short out any extraneous voltages from the loudspeaker.
Er, can't have it both ways. An opposing voltage is an opposite voltage. Just as an opposing force is an opposite force. And two opposing/opposite voltages will be voltages of the same polarity.
Here, perhaps this will help:
The arrows indicate the direction of force. And as you can see here, the forces/voltages are opposing/opposite/counter to each other.
Now if you want to "short out" a voltage, you can do that. Just flip one of the batteries around. Like this:
This will achieve the shorting you want, but it's not by way of any opposing/opposite/counter voltages. But rather COMPLIMENTARY voltages. Complimentary voltages do not oppose/counter one another.
Steve apparently thought that I was attempting to block any extraneous current flow from the loudspeaker.
What I thought was what you claimed (Jon was the one who brought up "counter current" by the way). You claimed a voltage is generated to COUNTER EMF. Now whether you call it a counter voltage, or an opposing voltage, or an opposite voltage, they all mean the same thing. And that is a voltage of the same polarity as the voltage you're wanting to counter/oppose.
Had you said a complimentary voltage is generated, or a voltage of an opposite polarity (which is not synonymous with an opposing/opposite voltage, which would be of the same polarity), that would have been another matter. Not that I would have entirely agreed (the amplifier isn't really generating any voltage), but I wouldn't have taken issue with the main thrust of your claim.
se
Steve, without even addressing your rebutal, I must say this:
I have been designing amps for 35 years, and they seem to work as I would expect them to. My first servo amp designed in '68 was current output, rather than voltage output and it worked successfully in Ampex tape machines for many years. I do know the difference between current output and voltage output. I also know know the difference between positive and negative feedback and was using both in a current output power amp as early as 1969 at Ampex Research in a 50V-50A power amp to drive motors. Your criticisms are trivial, and only serve to confuse others.
Steve, without even addressing your rebutal, I must say this:Why would you not want to address my rebuttal? Oh, that's right. You're of the belief that one's claims stand or fall not on whether or not they are valid, but on the "credentials" of the person making the claims.
And right on cue, here come the "credentials."
I have been designing amps for 35 years, and they seem to work as I would expect them to. My first servo amp designed in '68 was current output, rather than voltage output and it worked successfully in Ampex tape machines for many years. I do know the difference between current output and voltage output. I also know know the difference between positive and negative feedback and was using both in a current output power amp as early as 1969 at Ampex Research in a 50V-50A power amp to drive motors.
Great. I'm sure everyone's amply impressed. But unfortunately it has nothing to do with your actual claim, nor its validity as you stated it.
Your criticisms are trivial, and only serve to confuse others.
I'm sorry, John, but you're the one confusing others. When someone uses words which mean the opposite of what they intend, it confuses people. If someone went around using "voltage" when what they meant was "current," it confuses people. Similarly, when you go around using terms like "counter voltage" and "opposing voltage" when what you may have intended to mean was "complimentary voltage" it confuses people.
I addressed your claim as you stated it . And as you repeatedly stated it even after it had been addressed several times. And as you repeatedly stated it, your claim was patently false. And addressing a patently false claim is not just a trivial criticism as you'd like to portray it here.
I'm sure you have had a long history designing amplifiers and whatnot and that you even have a good intuitive sense for how they work. But in this case it's quite clear that along the way you've failed to understand the commonly understood meanings of some commonly used terms in the engineering field.
You're the one always strutting around taking every opportunity to tell everyone you're an engineer and trotting out your "credentials" and sneering at others, demeaning them by calling them "techs" and "sophomores." So don't try and blame ME for assuming you actually understand the meanings of the words you use when discussing engineering topics and addressing what you actually say.
And don't try and detract from your failure to communicate at a level short even of that of a "tech" or "sophomore" by trying to claim that I am being trivial and confusing.
When you made your claim initially, you told me to go read a book. I suggest you go look (long and hard) in the mirror and say that same thing, John.
se
You are a great writer Steve, but you discredit your self by beating on John. It seems that all you want to do is pick apart every statement with your bold font re-printing of other peoples posts. What makes a man want to do this, what are you gaining?
You are a great writer Steve, but you discredit your self by beating on John.Er, thank you. For the first part anyway. :)
As for beating on John, you seem to be making it sound like I'm kicking some poor defenseless puppy or something.
It seems that all you want to do is pick apart every statement with your bold font re-printing of other peoples posts.
Uh, that's called quoting. It's a useful device so that the reader can see exactly what it is you're responding to so they don't have to keep bouncing back and forth between two or more posts. It also helps to keep one's replies in their proper context. I quote from original messages in bold italic to distinguish it from my replies. When I quote from other posts or texts, I just use italics.
I know quoting isn't very commonly used on web-based message boards but I cut my teeth many years ago on old pre-public Internet dialup computer BBS systems and Usenet newsgroups where extensive quoting is standard procedure. I've just continued that practice here.
As for "picking apart every statement", why not? Every statement was made originally so they must have been intended to have some relevance. Otherwise why were the statements made in the first place? And on forums where quoting is common practice, not addressing a statement can lead to accusations of ignoring or avoiding pertinent information. So I just try and be thorough. I'll even quote statements in which I'm in full agreement. Not just those I disagree with.
What makes a man want to do this, what are you gaining?
Thoroughness.
se
So you are gaining "Thoroughness" by replying to an exactly reproduced quote in your new reply.Why do you want to be so thorough? Do you feel it is required of you, that you will be thought less of if you do not live up to your self set standard? What does this do for you, to answer words so carefully? How does this make you feel? If no one read your reply would you feel the same way?I feel that your answer of "Thoroughness" is not the whole story and there is a much larger issue under the surface that you do not feel comfortable talking about. To see you answer a quote with one word is a very rare event!
So you are gaining "Thoroughness" by replying to an exactly reproduced quote in your new reply.Yes. You'd rather I use inexactly reproduced quotes in my replies instead?
Why do you want to be so thorough? Do you feel it is required of you, that you will be thought less of if you do not live up to your self set standard?
Because it's so trivially easy to do so? Because I'd prefer not to use inexact quotes or paraphrasing? Because it makes it easier for the reader to follow?
What does this do for you, to answer words so carefully?
It gives me a big throbbing hard-on.
If no one read your reply would you feel the same way?
I don't know. Don't read this reply and I'll let you know.
I feel that your answer of "Thoroughness" is not the whole story and there is a much larger issue under the surface that you do not feel comfortable talking about. To see you answer a quote with one word is a very rare event!
What, are you a psychoanalyst or something? Gee, Doc, what issue under the surface causes one to obsess over the use of quotes in message replies? You wanna really do some obsessing? Head over to the newsgroups. rec.audio.high-end is a good place to start. You'll find nearly everyone participating in the newsgroups *HORRORS!* quoting messages in their replies.
se
zipzap
At this point in time you are too uncomfortable with questions about your real reasons for replying to other people the way you do. You use humor to deflect, when serious questions are asked, this is not unusual for someone who writes with the style that you use. You have talent, but it is not used in a constructive way. Perhaps with work, this will change. You really could contribute in a positive way and it would be OK.Signing off.
I perhaps shouldn't have recommended you check out the Usenet newsgroups. Not only do they use quotes there, they use NESTED quotes as well (quotes of replies to replies, to replies...). Might be too much for you to handle all at once. I take no responsibility for any consequences you may suffer from such an overwhelming experience. Just be sure to wear baggy pants.se
Steve, it appears to be virtually impossible to explain anything to you, once you have your mind made up. The heart of this latest series of 'criticisms' of me was a short comment that I made to Jon Risch about you regarding your apparent lack of understanding of negative feedback. Here is the whole statement:
"Jon R , this shows that Steve doesn't understand the underpinnings of negative feedback. Of course Negative feedback generates the correction voltage to counter the EMF of the loudspeaker, etc. Read a book, Steve." Nov 19, Cable Asylum.Steve strongly objects to the word 'counter'. Perhaps 'negate' or 'null' would have been more appropriate. My original comment still works for me, but then I know what I am trying to say. I can understand how it can be taken wrongly, but I have done my best to clarify my original statement, to no avail. Personally, I find it difficult if not nearly impossible to convey mathematically based technical info on this website. It just does not support the symbols that make it practical. I have looked up 'negative feedback' in three of the best textbooks that I have available. I can't find a simple explanation in any of them that can be conveyed on this website. Perhaps someone reading this thread has found a resource that will explain the subject most clearly.
Steve, it appears to be virtually impossible to explain anything to you, once you have your mind made up.It's not my mind that's made up. It's the minds of everyone else which establish the commonly understood meanings of the words we use. Unless we share a common understanding of the meanings of the words we use to communicate, then communication becomes difficult or impossible.
The heart of this latest series of 'criticisms' of me was a short comment that I made to Jon Risch about you regarding your apparent lack of understanding of negative feedback.
No, the heart of it wasn't what you said about me, the heart of it is the primary claim you made.
Here is the whole statement:
"Jon R , this shows that Steve doesn't understand the underpinnings of negative feedback. Of course Negative feedback generates the correction voltage to counter the EMF of the loudspeaker, etc. Read a book, Steve." Nov 19, Cable Asylum.Right. So now take out everything you said about me and we're left with this:
Of course Negative feedback generates the correction voltage to counter the EMF of the loudspeaker, etc.
That's the heart of it right there.
Steve strongly objects to the word 'counter'.
I don't object to the word "counter." It's a perfectly good word. Just that when you use that word to make your claim, it makes your claim erroneous based on the common undertanding of the meaning of that word in the context of voltage.
Perhaps 'negate' or 'null' would have been more appropriate.
But the context is voltage. And voltage is force. To negate or null one force by another requires an opposing force. Which in the case of voltage would be a voltage of the same polarity as the voltage you're trying to oppose.
As I said in my previous post, "complimentary voltage" would have been an ideal term to use.
My original comment still works for me, but then I know what I am trying to say.
That's all well and good, but when you're trying to say it on a public forum, you need to use words according to their commonly understood meaning. If you intend them to mean something other than their commonly understood meaning, then expect those words to confuse and to prompt disagreement. And don't try and blame anyone else for any confusion or disagreement that may follow.
I can understand how it can be taken wrongly, but I have done my best to clarify my original statement, to no avail.
It was to no avail because the alternate word you chose (oppose) was synonymous with the first one you used (counter).
Personally, I find it difficult if not nearly impossible to convey mathematically based technical info on this website. It just does not support the symbols that make it practical. I have looked up 'negative feedback' in three of the best textbooks that I have available. I can't find a simple explanation in any of them that can be conveyed on this website. Perhaps someone reading this thread has found a resource that will explain the subject most clearly.
You're making this much more complicated than it is. You don't have to resort to mathematics or textbooks or anything like that. Just have to use words that actually mean what you intend. Here:
Complimentary voltage.
Simple as that.
se
The best reference that I can find at the moment is:
'The Art of Electronics' by Horowitz and Hill. 2'nd Ed. pp 233-238. It still has some algebra, but is pretty darn clear... better than most textbooks. This book is one of the best reference texts for engineers and technicians, and should be available. Their amp example is very good.
A fact of life is that people have strong feelings/passions about audio and audio equipment. There's just no getting around it.You will find strong opinions about equipment, speaker placement, etc. and people will kick up some dust when their view of the world is challenged. To me this is natural, expected and is factored into the way I use this board. If you are looking for totally calm and objective posts I just don't think you'll be happy here!
As far as personal conflicts go - yes, they sometimes happen. The moderators are pretty good at giving some slack but cutting things off when they get out of hand.
As to your example about Mr, Eddy, if you read his later posts you will see that he has made some pretty personal remarks. I have no desire to make any judgements on this. I'm simply saying that you need to look at all the information in order to form a complete opinion.
To be clear, I am a simple member and have no authority here. I'm just pitching in to say that it seems to me the bored (as they are affectionately known) does a pretty good job of allowing some activities "outside the lines" while also allowing the game to be played "in-bounds".
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
