New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Give me ultimate proof...
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Welcome to the Graham Slee Audio Products Owners Forum

 

Open to all owners plus those contemplating the purchase of a Graham Slee HiFi System Components audio product and wishing to use this forum's loaner program: join here (Rules on posting can be found here)

This website along with trade marks Graham Slee and HiFi System Components are owned by Cadman Enterprises Ltd


Give me ultimate proof...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Graham Slee View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Retired

Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Location: South Yorkshire
Status: Offline
Points: 16298
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Graham Slee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Give me ultimate proof...
    Posted: 12 May 2008 at 6:38pm
@dvv, or anybody else professing a knowledge, this is my challenge: Give me ultimate proof beyond all doubt that;

1] there is such a thing as damping factor (I never heard about it in broadcast audio!)

2] and therefore prove the case that headphone amp output impedance must be some fraction of headphone impedance.

I will expect a proper mathematical argument that is not subjective in any way.

I have thrown down the gauntlet.
That none should be able to buy or sell without a smartphone and the knowledge in how to use apps
Back to Top
Graham Slee View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Retired

Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Location: South Yorkshire
Status: Offline
Points: 16298
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Graham Slee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2008 at 8:29am
Ah well, 14 hours have passed by so I guess there must be other pressing issues affecting the technical minds of this community, so I'll start us off...

What is the impedance of the load?

Is it pure resistance?

If it were pure resistance then there would be no need for this imaginary thing called damping factor?

If it is not pure resistance then how do we express the load's impedance?

If we don't know the thing that isn't pure resistance how do we express this other thing?

Maybe we don't know what this other thing is?

What does the mathematician call something that is an unknown, or something that in itself is unsolvable?

An example of an unknown or unsolvable number is the square root of minus eleven!

Try working that out! It is however, a number.

So how does the mathematician account for numbers like that?

Imaginary numbers!

Have you ever seen the notation j in a mathematical formula?

Therefore, if the load isn't pure resistance, and this other part of the impedance is not known we call it j.

And so the load resistance can be expressed as jx Ohms. (x being the real part)

Somebody willing to take it from here?
That none should be able to buy or sell without a smartphone and the knowledge in how to use apps
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2008 at 9:31am
It's a lorra, lorra  years since I took GCE "O" Level maths and physics Confused so I'll leave this to others Smile.
 
Meanwhile I will continue my search for a pesticide that I can legally use to control red ants in customers lawns. Strange that nothing is cleared for such use!
 
Graham, you have your concerns with the good ole EU, but they are are making my job a misery tooCry
 
Adrian. 
Back to Top
Dave Millier View Drop Down
Regular
Regular


Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 67
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dave Millier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2008 at 9:59am
Graham
 
Are you mis-representing imaginary numbers and complex mathematics on purpose to suit your thesis?  I'm sure you know perfectly well that the square root of -1 (i) is *defined* in mathematics and there is nothing dodgy about complex maths.
 
As to how this related to "damping factor", I haven't a clue.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Graham Slee Graham Slee wrote:

Ah well, 14 hours have passed by so I guess there must be other pressing issues affecting the technical minds of this community, so I'll start us off...

What is the impedance of the load?

Is it pure resistance?

If it were pure resistance then there would be no need for this imaginary thing called damping factor?

If it is not pure resistance then how do we express the load's impedance?

If we don't know the thing that isn't pure resistance how do we express this other thing?

Maybe we don't know what this other thing is?

What does the mathematician call something that is an unknown, or something that in itself is unsolvable?

An example of an unknown or unsolvable number is the square root of minus eleven!

Try working that out! It is however, a number.

So how does the mathematician account for numbers like that?

Imaginary numbers!

Have you ever seen the notation j in a mathematical formula?

Therefore, if the load isn't pure resistance, and this other part of the impedance is not known we call it j.

And so the load resistance can be expressed as jx Ohms. (x being the real part)

Somebody willing to take it from here?
Back to Top
Graham Slee View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Retired

Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Location: South Yorkshire
Status: Offline
Points: 16298
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Graham Slee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2008 at 3:38pm
Read it again David, "square root of minus 11"

Damping factor is expressed as load impedance over output impedance, Zload/Zout.

Assuming Z = resistance, we are given glib results based on nominal loudspeaker impedance.

But the loudspeaker is far from a constant Z, more like jZ, and inside the audible spectrum.

Therefore damping factor is one of those terms invented by hi-fi, which serves no purpose other than showing off.

It was probably conceived to explain to the average man how output impedance compares with load impedance, but it hasn't worked, going on the number of inquiries I get about cartridge matching and matching one piece of equipment to another.

The result is most people think that the higher damping factor can stop the mechanical forces of a loudspeaker dead. Not the case in my observations.

And if it can't do it for a speaker it can't do it for anything.
That none should be able to buy or sell without a smartphone and the knowledge in how to use apps
Back to Top
Graham Slee View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Retired

Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Location: South Yorkshire
Status: Offline
Points: 16298
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Graham Slee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2008 at 3:47pm
PS. My error, I was educated using j instead of i

(perhaps j was too Jehovan?... )  Embarrassed


Edited by Graham Slee - 13 May 2008 at 3:49pm
That none should be able to buy or sell without a smartphone and the knowledge in how to use apps
Back to Top
Dave Millier View Drop Down
Regular
Regular


Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 67
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dave Millier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2008 at 5:21pm
I'm afraid "load impedence" and "output impedence" are as much of a mystery to me as damping factor as I know nothing about electronics!
 
But I take your point about loudspeaker impedence. I've seen graphs from the old days of Hifi Choice when they cared about such things that showed loudspeaker impedence going all over the place.  One reason for claiming that power amps needed 50amps of peak current output I seem remember - why was the NAD 3020 better than 200W behemoths? Current delivery. Or so they said. Must have been right then ;-)
 
 
Originally posted by Graham Slee Graham Slee wrote:

Read it again David, "square root of minus 11"

Damping factor is expressed as load impedance over output impedance, Zload/Zout.

Assuming Z = resistance, we are given glib results based on nominal loudspeaker impedance.

But the loudspeaker is far from a constant Z, more like jZ, and inside the audible spectrum.

Therefore damping factor is one of those terms invented by hi-fi, which serves no purpose other than showing off.

It was probably conceived to explain to the average man how output impedance compares with load impedance, but it hasn't worked, going on the number of inquiries I get about cartridge matching and matching one piece of equipment to another.

The result is most people think that the higher damping factor can stop the mechanical forces of a loudspeaker dead. Not the case in my observations.

And if it can't do it for a speaker it can't do it for anything.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.