Search results

My point was, I saw it at CEDIA and didn't care for it, you saw it at CEDIA and thought otherwise. Same demo, same results, different opinions. If it requires a light-controlled environment to work well, the demo didn't emphasize that point well at all, showing it in all its glory on an LCD...

Not sure what you are trying to customize, math is math... So long as you know the Fluke, even at the 250uS setting, is quasi-peak, not true peak. Program stimulated measurements are interesting, but precision measurements require known, and controlled stimulus. For program stimulus, take a...

...or you could have used this, and just plugged in the numbers: Peak SPL Calculator Perhaps a bit of conversion: the speaker sensitivity spec is given at 2.83 at 1M, and the nominal impedance of the speaker is 8 ohms, so that's the same as 1W@1meter. In your measurements, the RS meter is...

Agreed, nothing exists that you can just "roll out" or place the sub on. The entire floor system acts as a huge diaphragm passing bass through it. Traps may help tune the room, but won't help with transmission. Best solution I've heard for reducing irritated neighbors is to invite them over...

I saw the demo at CEDIA too, and had a different impression. I thought it did too much, and wanted to somehow "turn it down". It looked like a conventional sharpening tool, perhaps with a little better edge control with less ringing and overshoot, but I was not favorably impressed...

Apologies, I stand corrected. The schematics cover several models on the same prints...it's a bit confusing...the AVR version isn't fully balanced, the AVP version is. My mistake.

You can wait a very long time for something that doesn't actually exist. Unfortunately, the concept of "properly" is not binary. It's not on or off, it's very much a question of degree. If a balanced input has 40dB of common mode rejection, and another has 80dB, which one is done "properly"...

You inspire me, man! Fully balanced systems, or just balanced interface, the real question is what advantage balancing provides. We both know common-mode noise rejection. You've said lower distortion...still waiting for backup on that one...sorry! I don't disagree that there are benefits...

Nice name drop! Sure wish I could do that. Hmm...perhaps I can: Deane Jensen...we used to have long conversations about the benefits of multi-filar transformer windings and electrostatic shielding, and his modeling transformers on an early HP computer. Sadly, we all lost a Deane, a dear...

I'm not sure why you say things like this. If it's an attempt to discredit me, so be it. Or, it might be an attempt at baiting me to revealing more about my careers or education, which you would then diminish and again use to discredit me. Not sure why you'd mention working in the Telecom...

Nope, you've got that one right. Even with precision beta match in transistors, you can't match noise, only noise level. Two transistors (matched) are two uncorrelated noise sources which will add as differential signals. Yup...that's exactly what I'm saying. Nope, you've got it. I'm...

No, I'm not confused at all. If you could (an you really can't) compare the single-ended version of an amplifier with a fully balanced, gain compensated version, there are more than twice the uncorrelated noise sources. The problem is, you can't make that comparison because you can't just...

Thanks for the suggestions, Gene. I haven't characterized distortion performance of a device or system with a single tone at a single frequency once in my life, not since my first THD measurement in 1974. Even doing the old broadcast "audio proof" required many tones and many levels. In...

Ok, it's now very clear that I haven't been very clear. I'm NOT talking about internal circuit topology. I'm talking about the balanced interface itself. I do understand the math. Again, the fact that INTERNALLY, a so-called balanced topology has the potential to reduced certain types of...

You did see the smiley-face, right? Seriously, I'm not going to be your competition.

Gene, I don't believe I've ever claimed to hold a EE degree. But that degree is not always an indicator of knowledge, is it? I once stood next to a EE while he put a scope probe on the inverting input of an opamp and thought it was broken because he saw almost no signal there. I do know what...

The original statement from Gene said, "With all things being equal, I would take a fully complimentary design from input to output ANY day over its single ended equivalent. It's not just for noise immunity but for the distortion reducing benefits of the topology." All I said was, "I'd be...

I'd be interested in knowing how balanced topology reduces distortion. Care to share your wisdom on this?

Thanks, Gene. I'm only giving constructive criticism. If it's not welcome, then perhaps it at least informs other readers in some way. This would be the second time you've suggested I start my own AV publication, though. Do you really want that competition? ;)

I agree, fairly low interest. Doubt anyone would buy this just for the phono pre. But rather than publish test results that don't relate to reality, just don't publish them. Or, do a noise test with a cartridge as the input termination. How hard is that?