WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions.
Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
I don’t know, it seems a bit magical… but it has to do with magnetic flux or whatever it is called as the current generate magnetic fields.
And a few of people I respect a lot, and many that I do not respect as much, claim it is important.
Whether it makes a difference of not, Danny was spruiking them as something to fix, and the Sointuva already has them.
…
It also better 2 better drivers, than the SF speakers… and it has 2 passive radiators versus the port of the SF.
So looking at a $2500 speaker with $500 upgrade (plus time), still does not seem to be an improvement unless one wants a tower and lower frequency extension.
And the Sointuva have shockingly good bass, down to ~40Hz.
Or one wants a painted black speaker, or an 100 other non musical factors.
What proof do we have of that?
It would e really take some measurements with high current to evaluate whether it makes a difference or not.
But a transformer core has hysteresis, so a metal binding post could have hysteresis. It is not out of the realm of possibility.
Nice! What are you using to interface the accelerometer to your pc? Just a voltage out looking at the spec sheet.
And what application is generating your graphs? Thanks.
Also the super thin double sided tape for attachment without ruining the speaker finish?
Anyone have any opinions on FR not particularly mattering anymore and that sins of FR can be corrected with EQ?
First the ach01 specIal amp and then to M-Audio Transit USB ADC connected to MacBook laptop and FuzzMeasure. Double sided tape is just Scotch branded but it works. Thin enough.
I owned Olympica and yes,are a bit narrow in terms of response high.
Now add that my side walls are > 3.5 meters away from the speakers and you can understand that the image on the LP (2.8 meters away) was rock solid with the speakers angeled mostly towards it but in in a narrow spot,thing that it didn't bother me since it's only me listening and it's only for stereo listening,no HC.
They where not bad at all,I just needed something else for my big room.
I maybe find my measurements with REW to post.
I think that hysterysis is happening in the core, which if it is iron or steel, is different than air.
And a magnetic field interaction with a steel wire might be different than with copper.
In your issue of April 2, in referring to certain remarks made by me at the recent meeting of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers on the subject of hysteresis you make the statement: “It is...
Brief answer to Electrical Engineering Question on Why Core Saturation happens in Transformer and What are its Effects with explanatory answer and circuit diagrams.
Nope.
It is the core that causes the hysterysis.
The coil only generates a magnetic field.
For a post the speaker wire generate a magnetic field.
Whether is matters or is heard we can debate.
But the physics of air being excited by a magnetic field is different than for iron.
An inductor on it own has no hysterysis to speak of.
“Thetes” in this case points to an iron core being a lower class way to increase the inductance without having to make an air core inductor massive.
And most transformers doing significant work also use iron cores… they do not use copper cores.
I posted some links earlier, and the first one was in the 1800s.
Do say that the core does not exist with a coil is a bit of a circular argument. And more so in a toroidal coil.
What proof do we have of that?
It would e really take some measurements with high current to evaluate whether it makes a difference or not.
But a transformer core has hysteresis, so a metal binding post could have hysteresis. It is not out of the realm of possibility.
I purposely sidestep the hysteresis discussion that follows, I think it is off on a tangent. If somebody disagrees, please draw the equivalent circuit so we can discuss. To be clear, I think it is not physical or relevant. But, yes a steel nut on a binding post will induce a small additional parasitic inductance to the circuit which will be measurable with the correct equipment.
And we do have proof, @ctrl measured this phenomenon across different binding posts and showed with incredible detail the inaudibility of binding-posts which is directly relevant to this discussion:
The influence of BP on the sound of loudspeakers has often been controversially discussed. It even goes so far that individual voices describe the influence of binding posts as immense and recommend only very high-quality BPs - That made me curious. The full mini series...
www.audiosciencereview.com
No they don't, binding post upgrades are a ripoff.
One of the legs of the experiment is binding-posts made of old steel construction nails. Nails will have a bigger potential impact than the steel nuts used to mount the binding posts on the Sonus Faber that Danny so condescendingly shook his head at. The steel posts will create a small inductive component to the impedance of the wires, that impedance will be frequency-dependent and will potentially change the frequency response. @ctrl measured that parasitic inductance and the nails indeed have the highest inductance which leads to the largest corresponding frequency response change. The really good news is this is on the order of a 0.1dB at 20kHz for the nails, which is just not detectable, and is lower than (for instance) day to day variations in temperature, pressure and humidity. Here is the frequency response data that @ctrl provided (normalized to wire-only), I added the arrow and text to show the response of the nails.
The nuts will have less impact than the nails, and 0.1 dB is already so small, I do want to acknowledge the careful data collection here by @ctrl. If human ear was used for this experiment, no chance on detecting these differences, you would start hallucinating. Speaking of hallucinations, this is good news for people who don't use cable risers; imagine if you accidentally ran a cable over a nail in your floor or near some metal conduit or pipes in your wall, or maybe an ancient iron sarcophagus. Everybody would need special cable risers to prevent all of these parasitic issues from distorting the signal.
@ctrl also has investigated fancy capacitors and resistors, since Danny does his condescending monolog about how crap the Sonus Faber crossover components are. Funny thing is, when Danny replaces all those components, the new film capacitors and air-core inductors will have different DC-resistance that will actually induce a change in frequency response that might be audible! It may even sound better, or more revealing, or just different. If Danny replaces a ferrite core inductor or an electrolytic cap he's not giving you better capacitance, he's giving you new DC-resistances which to first-order is like playing with the resistive padding and changing the Q of the filters. He is a random part-swapper. I haven't heard any of Danny's work, but listening to him butcher physics is making Ohm roll in the grave. People did lots of hard work to get us to our understanding of the physics of circuits, some of them actually had horrible life experiences doing it, and to hear this YouTube flat-earth garbage is beyond irritating.
I purposely sidestep the hysteresis discussion that follows, I think it is off on a tangent. If somebody disagrees, please draw the equivalent circuit so we can discuss.
…
I haven't heard any of Danny's work, but listening to him butcher physics is making Ohm roll in the grave. People did lots of hard work to get us to our understanding of the physics of circuits, some of them actually had horrible life experiences doing it, and to hear this YouTube flat-earth garbage is beyond irritating.
Thanks for the props. It really helps when someone else on this forum has already done the work, and I am able to stumble across it! Plus your question got me to carefully read what @ctrl had done.
I'm not sure I'd want any of them. It still surprises how bad the measurements of some expensive speakers are. I guess you can't be too cynical about the audio marketplace...
It does not surprise me. I went pro audio for this reason.
When I bought my first expensive speaker (with a loan) I realized a few things.
Firstly I was paying mostly for the furniture value.
Secondly all components are off the shelf.
Even though the designer is well qualified and worked for multiple companies even respected mass market ones the design is perfect in only one place. His listening room and to his tastes.
The math is probably accurate and the crossover design and all the mathematical aspects may be be correct for the drive units in that size box.
The final tweaks are done through listening. What does that mean?
If you place the speakers in his room and sit in the position he was sitting at to tune them they will sound like he wants them to sound. This may or may not be accurate even in his space - it’s simply a matter of taste.
Now this was a clever designer who considered what kind of room the owner would use these in and whether they should be close to the wall or away.
So perhaps his listening space was meant to emulate the average customer’s listening room.
At the end of the day there are just so many subjective factors at play.
I don’t think (correct me if i’m wrong) most designers have access to an anechoic chamber or now a Klippel to check their designs.
Most of them are focused on little tweaks like capacitor/inductor value and type. Something little like putting a felt pad in front of the tweeter mount. Or they may time align the drivers by slanting the front baffle.
Mostly they are a mathematical exercise is getting those chosen drivers to perform as designed in that box. With special consideration to one or 2 normally overlooked factors for example time alignment.
The game has certainly changed in last decade but most of those old audiophile companies are still making products which consider perhaps one or two factors and pushing to optimize just those 2 and marketing the product based on those strengths.
Today the technology is so far advanced that almost everything can be considered directivity, diffraction, power handling, distortion, radiation pattern, frequency response and then made into a circumspectly optimized design.
I sort of laugh when I see designs in this day and age which are results of the old school loudspeaker cookbooks.
That’s why they had so many designs in them. You first chose which constraint you wanted to optimize for and then went with the design that best addressed that constraint.
Each customer also has one or 2 constraints in their listening spaces that most benefit from being addressed. But ideally all would be considered and addressed.
I wish manufacturers would be more clear about which aspect their product is optimized for rather than trying to target the entire market. However I can understand that the designer wants the entire marketplace to be the potential market for their design to sell as many as possible.
These are all compromised it just matters which compromises you will accept.
. People did lots of hard work to get us to our understanding of the physics of circuits, some of them actually had horrible life experiences doing it, and to hear this YouTube flat-earth garbage is beyond irritating.
