General Asylum

Re: Interesting on two fronts

141.154.231.223

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ General Asylum ]

Dan Banquer

(M)

In Reply to: Interesting on two fronts posted by kerr on December 28, 2005 at 04:48:19:

"I appreciate seeing positive results that confirm (sort of) what I've been hearing. "
If the DBT is done correctly, than it should affirm what most people are hearing.
d.b.
P.S. This thread really belongs in Prophead.

Follow Ups:

Re: Interesting on two fronts - jneutron 07:43:55 12/28/05 (10)
Dan B: ""P.S. This thread really belongs in Prophead. ""
Oh that would be productive..
Cheers, John
- Re: I thought Cables had that (dubious) distinction * - Guy 12:27:04 12/28/05 (0)
  ...
- Re: Interesting on two fronts - Dan Banquer 10:06:11 12/28/05 (8)
  Point taken and understood all too well.
  d.b.
  - Boy, ain't that the truth? - Silver Eared John 11:39:30 12/28/05 (1)
    It's pretty clear to me that Prophead exists only for a place to put people who know, so that the people who don't know can find them and call them names.
    - Not totally - kerr 12:33:01 12/28/05 (0)
      > It's pretty clear to me that Prophead exists only for a place to put people who know, so that the people who don't know can find them and call them names. <
      Some of us are looking for answers and evidence - and found both at Prophead. Your point overall is pretty accurate, though.
  - Re: Interesting on two fronts - jneutron 10:31:11 12/28/05 (5)
    Hey, did you get my e-mail?
    You should see the biwire analysis I'm working on..
    Holy mackeral is it ever counter-intuitive....if it's right..
    Cheers, John
    - Re: Interesting on two fronts - Dan Banquer 11:14:30 12/28/05 (4)
      Send it!
      d.b.
      - Re: Interesting on two fronts - Jim Austin 19:10:47 12/28/05 (3)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Interesting on two fronts posted by Dan Banquer on December 28, 2005 at 11:14:30:
        
        Hey, can I see it?
        Jim
        
        Re: Interesting on two fronts - jneutron 13:21:07 12/29/05 (2)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Interesting on two fronts posted by Jim Austin on December 28, 2005 at 19:10:47:
        
        Jim Austin: ""Hey, can I see it?""
        What? You mean, a "technical discussion??" Gee, isn't that the domain of prophead?
        Two signals A and B, one cable with resistance R _c .
        The disipation in a monowire setup is:
        P _d = (A + B) ² R _c . = A ² R _c . + B ² R _c . + 2 ABR _c ..
        Separate the signals into two wires, and the dissipation in each becomes:
        P _d = A ² R _c (cable 1) plus B ² R _c (cable 2).
        The difference being of course, 2AB..
        A difference..hmmmm..
        Cheers, John
        
        Re: Interesting on two fronts - Jim Austin 04:37:52 12/30/05 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Interesting on two fronts posted by jneutron on December 29, 2005 at 13:21:07:
        
        A and B are currents, right? Otherwise your formulas are wrong.
        Don't you also need to take into account differences in the load? I'm not sure; just wondering.
        Jim
        
        Re: Interesting on two fronts - jneutron 05:59:23 12/30/05 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Interesting on two fronts posted by Jim Austin on December 30, 2005 at 04:37:52:
        
        Jim: ""A and B are currents, right? Otherwise your formulas are wrong. ""
        Yes, they are currents.
        Jim: ""
        Don't you also need to take into account differences in the load? I'm not sure; just wondering.""
        The branch loads are both pure 8 ohm resistance. The high frequency is arbitrary, so the capacitive reactance can be suitably low, and Dc was chosen so that the inductive reactance can also be suitably low.
        The issue is one of dissipation..since the two signals of interest are mutually orthogonal, the 2AB component integrates to zero, meaning the RMS value remains the same. However, the instantaneous power dissipation within the cable(s) is different for the two wiring cases.
        The discussion thread is located on diyaudio.
        Cheers, John
DBT isn't an obsure, technical topic anymore - Feanor 06:19:01 12/28/05 (3)
Unfortunately maybe, but the controversy surrounding the topic has elevated to general interest. And is particularly important the myths surround the approach and it results should be dispelled.

Bill Bailey
_______________
Beauty? Or Truth?
- Re: DBT isn't an obsure, technical topic anymore - soulfood 08:33:35 12/28/05 (2)
  ["DBT isn't an obsure, technical topic anymore."]
  Would monotonous be more accurate?
  ["Unfortunately maybe, but the controversy surrounding the topic has elevated to general interest."]
  Unfortunately for the GA, right? The only thing elevated is wishful thinking.
  ["And is particularly important the myths surround the approach and it results should be dispelled."]
  Pure noble silliness.
  - Sorry to bother you with a few facts ~nt - Feanor 09:06:49 12/28/05 (1)
    nt
    
    Bill Bailey
    _______________
    Beauty? Or Truth?
    - My opinions are facts. ;^) (nt) - soulfood 10:09:00 12/28/05 (0)
      nt

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

VH Audio

You can not post to an archived thread.