>>
>>- Mass affects transient response. Please investigate the
>>works of Tom Danley, Dr. Floyd Toole, Dr. Wolfgang Klippel,
>>Thiele, Small, Benson, Bullock, Geddes, and several others.
>>They all make the complete conclusion that inductance is the
>>primary limiter of frequency response, NOT mass. Mass can
>>have a very small second-order effect (due to the way mass
>>shows up as an inductive reactance in the electromechanical
>>model), but it is often two orders of magnitude below that
>>of the voice coil. Voice coil inductance is the limiter.
>
>You could be correct, it does not matter. Does a drag racer seek
>only to gain engine power and not seek to lighten the car? I think
>not. Therefore, it is wise to consider both parameters. In terms of
>acceleration I use this analogy only, not to imply some how the
>operation of a speaker is similar to that of a car.

He is correct, and the reason not to lighten both is because mass ALSO effects Fs! lower the mass, and you raise the Fs. So therefore, you want ENOUGH mass to reach a given FS, and then lower the inductance as much as possible. You dont want much or too little mass, just enough for your design goal.

 

>>IF you could
>>slew the current at an infinite rate, then you would have
>>infinite transient response. obviously you can't do that (I
>>assume a certain level of education in the reader), but the
>>point is still valid; what limits transient response is how
>>fast you can change the current.
>
>Let me add to that mass and inductance

inductance determines how fast current can change, so, obviously, we could write the sentance two ways, and it would mean the same thing.

What limits transient response is how fast you can change the current.
OR
What limits transient response is inductance.

Both sentances mean the same thing. And we never ignored mass, we simply stated that mass isnt the limiting factor.

 

>>With the equation of BLi=ma, BL and m are both constants
>>(when doing the time-based derivative).
>
>We have shown that m is not always constant, even though the change
>is small. Just to point that out.

When using time-based calculations, m is ALWAYS constant.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-13-03 AT 04:34 PM (EST)]>>They will scale
>>your results, but are not changing things in a
>>time-dependent manner. That leaves i ~= (proportional) to
>>a, so that to change a one must change i. That is, changes
>>in acceleration - transient response - are proportional to
>>changes in current.
>
>So where does that leave mass??? Can you then conceive of a 10 ton
>cone and coil and send googles of current thru it and expect it to
>perform like any other driver? (of similar proportionality of course)

Yes, given enough current, a 10 ton cone could have exactly the same transient response as a 10gram cone, inductance being equal.

 

>>>I am here because you made an attempt at discrediting me.
>>>You just didn't expect me to find out which is
>>>understandable. I showed up and you went on the defensive.
>>>Unfortunately, you didn't allow yourself to learn and
>>>instead just reacted in whatever way you could.
>>
>>I prudent man will always pass on an argument when he knows
>>he is right. He doesn't seek to change the minds of others
>>but is comfortable of his own. You could have just let it
>>go. You didn't have to come challenge me. I tried to shy
>>from the challenge by stating I did not want to get into
>>this pissing contest with you. I don't care to change your
>>mind. However, this does seem to be important to you.
>
>You are in a position of power because of your past
>experiences. I thought we went through this? If we were
>able to show you the light, the results would compound
>exponentially.
>

But so far you have only contradicted yourselves. How can you be further believed? I am only doing this willingly. I could disappear and be perfectly comfortable. That is what I mean about being an island.


>>
>>>>I guess you have an inferiority
>>>>complex or something.
>>>
>>>I am inferior to some of those on this thread in regards to
>>>audio knowledge. I would never attempt to go toe to toe
>>>against the likes of Dan Wiggins, DN, RC, Tracy, Geo and
>>>others. I'm not afraid to challenge them to explain
>>>something they say, but I'm not afraid to learn from them.
>>
>>All men are create equal, none should feel inferior that
>>they need a flashy system to be respected, or be the editor
>>of a flashy magazine. Names mean nothing to me. I don't
>>care about Wiggins, RC, DN, or who...just sound logic and
>>experience.
>
>I am inferior only in terms of the level of knowledge in
>audio and I hope that through the years, I will increasingly
>come closer to their level. I feel no inferiority complex
>in any other respect.
>
Step back and examine the reason you are here.
>
>>
>>
>>>> You must need the support of others
>>>>you look up to.
>>>
>>>It's not really a matter of needing their support. I was
>>>merely trying to help others understand and hoping we could
>>>sway you from your stance, for the sake of the people
>>>reading your posts.
>>
>>Why do you care so much about what they believe, can't you
>>find peace in yourself? If they aren't smart enough to
>>catch on now, they will eventually.
>
>Are you referring to others spreading misinformation? If
>so, I feel that I have to at least make an attempt to
>educate those who are lacking in knowledge.
>
What engenders this feeling you have?
>>
>>>
>>>> But fact is, they and you, do not have a
>>>>single standard. You all contradict yourselves and cannot
>>>>produce relevant analogies.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I believe that we have had a common front. Underpowering
>>>will not kill a subwoofer. All of the posts about DF, Mms,
>>>fast vs slow, etc were attempts at explaining that they were
>>>not relevant to the conversation.
>>>
>>
>>Buying an underpowered amp will increase the likelihood of
>>destroying subs. Therefore it should be RC's, DN's and your
>>recommendation to always buy a larger amp, which it is not
>>currently, because that would mean you had been previously
>>wrong.
>
>This is the core of the problem. Clipping is an issue of
>user error which we can never count on eliminating.

Not so, you can eliminate it if you buy a big enough amp and sufficiently turn the gain down.

>What
>makes you think that a user who doesn't know how to set the
>gain on a small amp will know how to do it on larger amp?

Nothing, that should be in the paper work that comes with it. If I were in charge, I'd put a sticker on the top describing the process a bit.

>You can't which makes the larger amp more dangerous.

Nope.

>Providing they understand all the aspects of power handling,
>both thermally and mechanically, I could safely recommend a
>larger amp, but on the same token I can just as easily
>recommend the smaller amp without increasing the risk of
>blowing a sub.

No you can't. How could you, you will have to say either turn the gain up and risk damage or settle for less sound.

>
>>
>>
>>>>You are well versed in PR, but that don't matter to me, I am
>>>>an island. I do not seek the approval of others. I could
>>>>not care less.
>>>
>>>I'm surprised that you have succeeded in your endeavors.
>>>Did you disagree with your professors in college and dismiss
>>>their teachings like you have here? Or was there a time
>>>during your maturation where you had an open mind and were
>>>willing to learn?
>>
>>If it did not make sense, I would challenge them, yes. That
>>was very rare, however, I did take a course in logic and one
>>in philosophy, were it was the point of the class to
>>challenge concepts.
>>
>
>Logic and Philosophy were my favorite subjects. I am glad
>that you have also taken them.



>
>>>
>>>BTW, why haven't you changed that password on that email?
>>
>>No one said to. No one said anything was there, I thought
>>you gave up.
>
>In my response right after you questioned me posting the
>password, I stated that you could change the password if you
>felt more comfortable and left that decision up to you.

I'm not sure what that means?

>>
>>>Afraid to read irrefutable proof that you are wrong?
>>
>>Why would I be? Of course, if I came back and said I didn't
>>agree, then what would you say? I bet I know already. So,
>>why does it even matter now.
>>
>
>I have no idea, I don't know how others think. If you still
>didn't agree, I would have to assume you are a lost cause
>and move on with my life at least knowing that I made an
>attempt to help.

I don't know either why it would matter now. I do enjoy the reading and thinking, but it's also a big hassle posting here all the time. I don't know what you do for a living, but this is costing me money in terms of time. Therefore, I cannot decide to tell you to get lost or not.

>
>>>there just no way to retrieve email on the Island?
>>
>>Don't read much do you?
>
>I read quite often. You made the comment that you were an
>island, I was attempting to add a little humor.

Sorry, I was refering to, "No man is an island" the book.

 

>>Therefore, you have made my point. You guys have said
>>clipping will produce considerable power indeed, even from a
>>small amp. If you instead buy a larger amp and turn down
>>the gain a bit, you effectively safeguard against clipping.
>>Thus, the larger amp is safer to run the the smaller. Don't
>>go down the path of changing your mind again, like geolemon
>>and David Navone.
>
RANDAWG-
And this power added from clipping... Would that
underpowered amp now be considered overpowered or not?

You have yet to prove that if you send an actual 200w to a
300w sub it will blow. (If you are clipping, then you
aren't actually sending 200w to the sub)

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-13-03 AT 04:34 PM (EST)]>>>They will scale
>>>your results, but are not changing things in a
>>>time-dependent manner. That leaves i ~= (proportional) to
>>>a, so that to change a one must change i. That is, changes
>>>in acceleration - transient response - are proportional to
>>>changes in current.
>>
>>So where does that leave mass??? Can you then conceive of a 10 ton
>>cone and coil and send googles of current thru it and expect it to
>>perform like any other driver? (of similar proportionality of course)
>
>Yes, given enough current, a 10 ton cone could have exactly
>the same transient response as a 10gram cone.


Not sure I buy that. I'd like to hear it from Mr. Wiggins please.

 

>RANDAWG-
>And this power added from clipping... Would that
>underpowered amp now be considered overpowered or not?
>
>You have yet to prove that if you send an actual 200w to a
>300w sub it will blow. (If you are clipping, then you
>aren't actually sending 200w to the sub)


Doesn't matter, the issue is whether to recommend a bigger amp. A smaller amp increases the chances for damage.

 

>>>With the equation of BLi=ma, BL and m are both constants
>>>(when doing the time-based derivative).
>>
>>We have shown that m is not always constant, even though the change
>>is small. Just to point that out.
>
>When using time-based calculations, m is ALWAYS constant.

Isn't velocity a function of time? As velocity increases, so does mass.

 

>>RANDAWG-
>>And this power added from clipping... Would that
>>underpowered amp now be considered overpowered or not?
>>
>>You have yet to prove that if you send an actual 200w to a
>>300w sub it will blow. (If you are clipping, then you
>>aren't actually sending 200w to the sub)
>
>
>Doesn't matter, the issue is whether to recommend a bigger
>amp. A smaller amp increases the chances for damage.

Oh it doesn't matter? I believe one of your reasons for recommending a bigger amp is because a underpowered amp could blow a speaker easier.. so once again..

How will an underpowered amp sending an actual 200w to a 300w driver blow it?

 

BTW Dan, nice to have some backup. Thanks for stopping by.

 

>How will an underpowered amp sending an actual 200w to a
>300w driver blow it?


We have covered this over n over again, go read thru all 300+ post and dig out the answer.



Well, That's all folks,
Tune in tomorrow (same place, some time) for the next exciting episode of the RanDawg show!

 

>>>>With the equation of BLi=ma, BL and m are both constants
>>>>(when doing the time-based derivative).
>>>
>>>We have shown that m is not always constant, even though the change
>>>is small. Just to point that out.
>>
>>When using time-based calculations, m is ALWAYS constant.
>
>Isn't velocity a function of time? As velocity increases,
>so does mass.

Because the change is so small, it will not effect the result. OK, so the mass might change .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000001 grams, boy did that ever change the result! Nothing we build moves fast enough for mass to change signifigantly, so we always assume M is constant.

 

>>How will an underpowered amp sending an actual 200w to a
>>300w driver blow it?
>
>
>We have covered this over n over again, go read thru all
>300+ post and dig out the answer.
>
>
The only conclusive answer you have come up with so far, if that underrated amp is actually only putting out 200w, is that it will make the driver sound bad by making flapping noises.. Riiiight..
Im off to work

 

>You must love the taste of your foot:
>
>geolemon said post#59, "Large amounts of clippnig, that's
>another story."
>
>then, after hearing David Navone say:
>
>David Navone said, "Not only do we recommend "clipping" the
>amp, we recommend that it be super clipped"
>
>he says:
>
>geolemon said post#153, "Clipping does not destroy
>speakers.... and clipping extremely underpowered speakers
>does abosolutely nothing."
>
>and now bach again:
>
>geolemon said post#220, "Clipping is never "good"... no one
>has said that."

Once again, you are proving to us that your ability to repeat things that you heard is great...
And your ability to actually comprehend and think intelligently is very small...

Your replies - running off in a direction only navigated to by a complete lack of reading comprehension - are laughable and amusing! :+


Let's clarify for YOU...

"Clipping is never good"... I thought you said were an audio enthusiast?
Of course clipping isn't "good"... it is detrimental to sound quality! You wouldn't choose to clip an amp just because.

That doesn't mean clipping is necessarily HARMFUL. You could be clipping your signal to the point that your music sounded like it was recorded in a dark closet, and NOT HARM your speakers, GIVEN A SMALL ENOUGH AMPLIFIER...

Something can be not good, but also not harmful, right?
Sort of like anchovies on a pizza.. most of us think they don't taste good, but they won't hurt you if you eat them.

Does that put it in simple, easy to understand terms for you?

Nothing misguided about what I said...

I can summarize very concisely:
Clipping is never a GOOD thing (it sounds bad!).
Clipping MAY NOT BE HARMFUL, IF you have a small enough amplifier, where the clipped output remains less than the RMS powerhandling of the subwoofer.
Clipping MAY BE HARMFUL, IF you have a large amplifier, where the clipped output exceeds the RMS powerhandling of the subwoofer.

I haven't strayed an inch from these statements.
(I believe everyone's comments about your "quoting out of context" are valid for sure, here)


Really REALLY amusing and ironic, btw, that someone with your level of braggadocio about intellect and education would publicly reply as you have. :