or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › New Article Debunking Some Speaker/Amp Myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Article Debunking Some Speaker/Amp Myths - Page 3

post #61 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post

It only takes one instance to the contrary to dispel a statement of absolute.

The error here JN is your dogged insistence that the question addressed by the article cited in the OP involved absolutes. Like Amir you've tried to change the question until proper answers for it became wrong.
post #62 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The error here JN is your dogged insistence that the question addressed by the article cited in the OP involved absolutes. Like Amir you've tried to change the question until proper answers for it became wrong.

I was waiting for you to try to divert, you did not let me down..

Rod says:qoute:

Introduction
A vexing question, regularly asked and rarely answered properly - Why Do Tweeters Blow When Amplifiers Distort? The answers are actually quite simple, but the common misconception is that the distortion creates harmonics, and the additional harmonic content destroys the tweeter.

Not really - woofers and midrange drivers can also blow from a distorted amp, and this is unlikely to have anything to do with harmonics. Certainly, there are additional harmonics generated, and they will be at relatively high levels, but rarely high enough to cause more than relatively minor stress to the tweeters (in particular).""

I provided an example which dispels that statement. There are indeed cases where the harmonic content can destroy the tweeter. Which is what I've been saying all along.


jnjn

ps..have a nice weekend..think about the offer..let me know.
Edited by jneutron - 6/15/12 at 2:23pm
post #63 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post

I was waiting for you to try to divert, you did not let me down..
Rod says:qoute:
Introduction
A vexing question, regularly asked and rarely answered properly - Why Do Tweeters Blow When Amplifiers Distort? The answers are actually quite simple, but the common misconception is that the distortion creates harmonics, and the additional harmonic content destroys the tweeter.
Not really - woofers and midrange drivers can also blow from a distorted amp, and this is unlikely to have anything to do with harmonics. Certainly, there are additional harmonics generated, and they will be at relatively high levels, but rarely high enough to cause more than relatively minor stress to the tweeters (in particular).""

I provided an example which dispels that statement.

Really?

Please quote what you said that allegedly disproves what he said.
Quote:
There are indeed cases where the harmonic content can destroy the tweeter. Which is what I've been saying all along.

I see only proof by assertion on your part.
post #64 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Please quote what you said that allegedly disproves what he said.

You already did. What part did you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I see only proof by assertion on your part.

As opposed to his unasserted proof of this statement?
Quote:
The answers are actually quite simple, but the common misconception is that the distortion creates harmonics, and the additional harmonic content destroys the tweeter.
Not really ...

Really Arny, if you're going to bring such stuff into the forum and support it as gospel, you are going to have support it with proof.

So far, this statement is entirely unsupported by any factual data..nothing. And you haven't done anything to prove it's validity.

It's an old wives tale..

jn
post #65 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post

You already did. What part did you not understand?
As opposed to his unasserted proof of this statement?
Quote:
The answers are actually quite simple, but the common misconception is that the distortion creates harmonics, and the additional harmonic content destroys the tweeter.
Not really ...
Really Arny, if you're going to bring such stuff into the forum and support it as gospel, you are going to have support it with proof.
So far, this statement is entirely unsupported by any factual data..nothing. And you haven't done anything to prove it's validity.

So this means nothing?

531
post #66 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quoted of me..
Really Arny, if you're going to bring such stuff into the forum and support it as gospel, you are going to have support it with proof.
So far, this statement is entirely unsupported by any factual data..nothing. And you haven't done anything to prove it's validity.( end of quote of me..)

So this means nothing?
531

What in that graph proves this unsubstantiated statement:
Quote:
The answers are actually quite simple, but the common misconception is that the distortion creates harmonics, and the additional harmonic content destroys the tweeter.
Not really

You have brought us a diatribe, a tome as it were, written by somebody else, where he has made several assertions. One in particular is unsupported.

Now you provide a graph which does not show in any way, shape or form, why his assertion would be true.

You are going around in circles.

jn
Edited by jneutron - 6/18/12 at 12:59pm
post #67 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post

What in that graph proves this unsubstantiated statement:
You have brought us a diatribe, a tome as it were, written by somebody else, where he has made several assertions. One in particular is unsupported.
Now you provide a graph which does not show in any way, shape or form, why his assertion would be true.
You are going around in circles.
jn

The support for my statement m should be obvious by inspection. I will entertain reasonable questions, but I won't start up a free class in audio 101.
post #68 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The support for my statement m should be obvious by inspection. I will entertain reasonable questions, but I won't start up a free class in audio 101.

Runaround, runaround.

As I've stated before, I'll state again.Look up high cycle fatigue.

Until you understand, you will miss the boat and try to fit everything into dissipation. It ain't..

Bringing in unsupported statements from some arbitrary web page from a supposed expert in the field, then expecting a bunch of lemmings to believe it all is not how it works. You may be so gullible, but I require proof.

Prove to us that ultrasonics cannot possibly resonate an unsupported lead wire within the magnetic field of the gap.

Don't wave your hands..don't divert, don't build another strawman...prove it.

Better yet, have the author you are so enamored of prove it.

Oh, btw..your spectra? Please....if you had any experience in the field pushing a system hard for 7 hours a night, you'd know better.

And, you said "where's the force" earlier?? It's a electrodynamic speaker..orthogonal force on a current carrying conductor is by design. I would have thought you knew that..
post #69 of 78
sigh...sometimes, it's embarrasing to cash the check..but I hadta....

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

but I won't start up a free class in audio 101.

Given how you've missed the boat...free would be too expensive..

Sorry... too easy..my apologie:)s

jn..
post #70 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post

Runaround, runaround.

Yes, JN that is your approach here.
Quote:
As I've stated before, I'll state again.Look up high cycle fatigue.

Been there, done that.

Wire fatigue is relevant to voice coil wire breakage, but it is irrelevant to this thread which is about thermal damage to voice coils.

If you can't grasp that simple point, then complex issues like spectral shifting due to nonlinear distortion is way beyond your abilities to understand.

Now I understand why you keep going around in circles JN, you have no concept of relevance.
post #71 of 78
Circles, circles arny..

To refresh your memory:I'll make the font larger to aid you..

Here's the unsupported statement.

""The answers are actually quite simple, but the common misconception is that the distortion creates harmonics, and the additional harmonic content destroys the tweeter.
Not really
.""



Prove it. Otherwise, it's an old, over-reaching wives tale..


You've no nightclub experience? who'da guessed.

edit;
Quote:
this thread which is about thermal damage to voice coils.

OH?? Tell that to the person who wrote the article. It's his quote. If he had stated the additional dissipation of the harmonics can't destroy the tweeter, but the ultrasonics may cause resonance of an unsupported tweeter wire within the gap field causing fatigue breakage...""

then he would have been correct...alas, he didn't..

jn

ps..this editor is terrible
Edited by jneutron - 6/19/12 at 12:16pm
post #72 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post

Circles, circles arny..
To refresh your memory:I'll make the font larger to aid you..
Here's the unsupported statement.
""The answers are actually quite simple, but the common misconception is that the distortion creates harmonics, and the additional harmonic content destroys the tweeter.
Not really
.""


Prove it.

I did. Got any questions about the proof other than your continual denial of a pretty simple set of evidence?
post #73 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I did. Got any questions about the proof other than your continual denial of a pretty simple set of evidence?

Clearly you've no idea how to prove or disprove it. A graph made from some arbitrary music is not " evidence", as much as you'd like it to be.

Go back and read the posts. I've autopsied tweets with vc wire resonance failures as well as dissipation failures. That you do not understand the distinction is your problem, not mine.

To others...if the wire breaks, look at where it broke. If it breaks at an end, it generally is a fundamental resonance. If it breaks in the middle, it resonated at twice the frequency. In both cases, only the floating wire will show evidence of any heat generation, and that will be very close to the break..just before failure, the necking really dissipates..even when the wire is immersed in ferrofluid.

Pay no attention to self appointed experts when they provide absolutes which are in contradiction to experience...especially when the experience is from a major speaker manufacturer..

jn
post #74 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post

A graph made from some arbitrary music is not " evidence", as much as you'd like it to be.

Fair enough. This time the choice of music is up to you. Please show a similar graph of the musical selection of your choice, clipped in comparable ways as mine.
post #75 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Fair enough. This time the choice of music is up to you. Please show a similar graph of the musical selection of your choice, clipped in comparable ways as mine.
A graph doesn't prove squat. Your's isn't proof of a darn thing when it comes to resonance. Nor would any contrived graph of mine.

So stop floobying and diverting..

My application was nightclub, dance. Small, mobile rig.

RMX 1450 main amp.300 or so WPC

Eminence sigma pro 15's bottoms, bass reflex cabs. LP 300 hz single order.
Emenence delta pro 12's mids LP 3000 hz 2nd order
Selenium D205TI tweets. HP 5Khz, 3rd order.

EQ the system big time, big ole smiley face.

The app was 7 hours continuous with the amps clip lights keeping time to the music, beating from 114 to 134 beats per minute.

Heavy suppression of 5K, 2.5K, 1.25k, 625. The reason is listener fatigue at the spl, even though everybody's drinking it still takes a toll.

Despite truly pushing the system at the max, never ever had a tweeter fail from dissipation. EVER. Despite 3 days per week of use.

Had many vc wires fail in the middle of the unsupported span. Didn't know what was going on until I took the corpses to work and looked under the metallurgical scope and the SEM.

jnjn
post #76 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post

A graph doesn't prove squat.
Quote:

If it is your claim that a graph can't prove anything, then what about this graph:

253

It is offered as proof of the existance of nuclei in atoms.

I guess that means that according to you JN, atoms don't have nuclei since the proof of them involves graphs.

You are obviously way off the deep end, so I have no further responses to you since you don't seem be able to follow reason and science.
post #77 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post

A graph doesn't prove squat.

If it is your claim that a graph can't prove anything, then what about this graph:
253
It is offered as proof of the existance of nuclei in atoms.
I guess that means that according to you JN, atoms don't have nuclei since the proof of them involves graphs.
You are obviously way off the deep end, so I have no further responses to you since you don't seem be able to follow reason and science.

It is just sooo cool watching your gyrations.

What an interesting example you provided however. (I suspect you provided this one for a reason??)

Bremsstrahlung radiation is actually quite familiar to me. For low mass particles like electrons and positrons, the synchrotron fan emitted is heavy in X-rays..for higher mass Ions, the losses are not so great.

Because of it, I have extreme problems finding tray rated UL listed low smoke zero halogen insulationwhich is also radiation resistant. Turns out polyester is one of the better materials in terms of dosage capability.

In the International Linear Collider, this is one possibility for measuring the beam to beam distance for final focus/steering feedback. (since the machine is TeV level, signals forward would arrive too late for the first bunch.) Granted, the effect is not exactly linear,(also the magfields at the interaction are in the megatesla range) but the algorithms to do this have been considered for a few years now. It's very tough getting a 3 to 5 nanometer thick beam of electrons to hit a beam of positrons from the other direction of the same thickness at a TeV or so. The final focus magnet requires superfluid helium cooling to avoid turbulence generated by the cooling flow. The active vibration damping is also fun as well given nanometer movement of 2 to 50 ton hunks of material in a 3 tesla background field at 4.5 Kelvin..

So much for the easy day to day stuff, back to your world..

Your audio graph has proven nothing with respect to the discussion we are having...other than confirmation that you have a hammer, therefore everything must be a nail.

jn
post #78 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

If it is your claim that a graph can't prove anything, then what about this graph:
253
It is offered as proof of the existance of nuclei in atoms.
I guess that means that according to you JN, atoms don't have nuclei since the proof of them involves graphs.
You are obviously way off the deep end, so I have no further responses to you since you don't seem be able to follow reason and science.
The error in this thinking is quite significant, so it needs to be addressed.

This depiction (not a graph, not a picture) is a hypothetical model of the interaction between a charged particle and a nucleus. It details the trajectory a particle is predicted to take if the depicted model is correct. At the testable level, it is still (in modern times)rather impossible to maintain the nucleus position such that the impact parameter "b" can be controlled to any degree sufficient to guarantee a specific deflection angle. Diffraction analysis can of course, provide data consistent with the lattice arrangement of a crystalline structure and the angle of incidence to the lattice, but individual nucleus positional control and charged particle path accuracy are not yet possible.

As such, these statements are entierly incorrect.

1. ""It is offered as proof of the existance of nuclei in atoms"".

NO, it is not. It is a depiction of a hypothetical relationship. It details a model which can be used to generate testable hypothesis'.

2. "" that means that according to you JN, atoms don't have nuclei since the proof of them involves graphs.""

NO. First, it's a drawing. It's not a graph. And it is not data presented, but rather, a model.

You have not presented data. You have not presented proof. You have presented an analysis output which is sufficiently strong for proof that your audio file clipped may not provide sufficient energy to cause dissipative failure of a tweeter voice coil. It does not however, provide any proof whatsoever that the resonance mechanism of an unsupported current carrying conductor within a 1.2 Tesla field cannot happen.

As I have stated, I have autopsied multiple tweeter failures which presented NO evidence of over dissipation, but did indeed have necking, slip plane dislocation surface texture evidence, and breakage of the vc wire CENTER SPAN of the unsupported wire. As discussed within the Raytheon verbage, this is consistent with the second mode resonance frequency of the wire. I have also autopsied failures with first mode failures as well. (perhaps hip-hop vs techno/house/dubstep).

Selenium, when approached, found the evidence, the analysis, and the corrective action I presented sufficiently strong that they modified both in process product as well as changed their manufacturing procedures to encompass my recommended fix.



3. ""since you don't seem be able to follow reason and science"".

It is quite clear that you have not presented an understanding of the the scientific method, nor have you been able to apply it to actual hardware in the field.

That's not a fault, btw. Most cannot.

The only problem I see here is an attempt to discredit the actual field experience I have in running mobile rigs to their extreme, forcing failures, finding failures, fully analyzing the failures and the underlying mechanism, being able to actually fix the failures via expertise in soldering and epoxies (sans coffee of course), then subsequently running the repairs at the limit to verify the robustness of the fix.

I can only guess as to what your motivations are in this respect..


jn
Edited by jneutron - 6/21/12 at 6:25am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › New Article Debunking Some Speaker/Amp Myths