Heavy gauge speaker wire versus ACD technology

inspiredsports

megasat16 wrote: »

Sorry! My previous observation was wrong coz I assumed the Dimensional driver is sitting idle till the L-R or R-L effect kicks in.

I found the SDA diagrams, schema and looked through it. The Dimensional Driver is always connected to the signal regardless of the SDA interconnect. It will play and not sitting idle. :eek:

When the R-L or L-R effects kick in, the overall SPL change (bumps or dips) in either Right or Left speaker will happen based on the frequency and the phase shift.

No I think you were correct that the SDA (outer) driver is not energized (not fully grounded) when the SDA Interconnect cable is absent. I believe it does come into play in a minor way passively, but not actively with the IC missing.

steveinaz

Living in the box is good. It's not great, but it's good. You're warm, dry, safe, you know every corner intimately, and your surroundings never change...

It's a hell of a lot more exciting outside though....:biggrin:

heiney9

inspiredsports wrote: »

No I think you were correct that the SDA (outer) driver is not energized (not fully grounded) when the SDA Interconnect cable is absent. I believe it does come into play in a minor way passively, but not actively with the IC missing.

Depends on what generation SDA you are talking about specifically. Later SDA's had all drivers energized just at different freq. even if the cable wasn't used. Earlier SDA's if you disconnect the cable you'd lose sound to the dimensional drivers.

H9

inspiredsports

edited

heiney9

inspiredsports wrote: »

I should qualify this to 1987 P/B and B/B SDA 2B's which is the model to which jcandy has access. Maybe I'm reading it wrong?

Those would fall into the later SDA category, except we all know about the "transitional" models Polk had. The dim driver should play even if the cable is disconnected in 2B's. It's extremely hard to isolate the driver without messing with the x-over connections to actually test this.

One would be better off testing it electrically with a meter than to try and measure or do it by ear.

H9

jcandy

heiney9 wrote: »

Now if one reads the review done by Stereo Review, they pretty much say the exact opposite of the above.

Meaning the horizontal dispersion both on-axis and off-axis was excellent so that sort of puts a few holes in your theory about SDA's having severe lobing.

Of course feel free to provide some solid measurements of your own to prove Stereo Review and the rest of us are full of it.

Are you PMSing or something? I've posted piles of measurements, of both the SDA2B as well as the ZMV5, and all that got me was a unanimous thumbs-down from the extremely rude "ears only" gang here. Now you want me to take more measurements? What for?

Moreover, you are cherry-picking your comments from the review -- a review that was written (for a different SDA model) in 1987. This was a time when major manufacturers were making errors that nobody makes now (driver spacing errors, for example). The famous Vanderkooy paper on cabinet diffraction came 4 years after this article. And, if you read the last column of the review (did you get that far?), it points out that the SDA actually lacks the "sharply defined imaging" of "some conventional speakers". Now, why do you suppose that is? What is the subjective term for a wide soundstage with mediocre imaging?

heiney9

jcandy wrote: »

Moreover, you are cherry-picking your comments from the review -- a review that was written (for a different SDA model) in 1987. This was a time when major manufacturers were making errors that nobody makes now (driver spacing errors, for example). The famous Vanderkooy paper on cabinet diffraction came 4 years after this article. And, if you read the last column of the review (did you get that far?), it points out that the SDA actually lacks the "sharply defined imaging" of "some conventional speakers". Now, why do you suppose that is? What is the subjective term for a wide soundstage with mediocre imaging?

I knew you'd come up with some sort of excuse. Now it's the manufacturer's and reviewrs fault because they were making errors :rolleyes::rolleyes:Off to the bozo list. I bet you stand in the mirror everyday and argue with yourself just to hear your own voice.

You obviously have it all figured out far, far beyond anyone else, including MP and all the engineers that spent and continue to spend time with SDA technology for the past almost 30 years. Enjoy that little space you've carved out for yourself in the delusional world you live in.

H9

cstmar01

I guess I see nothing wrong with the point of view that we like to use our ears.

What is this hobby about? Listening to music, guess if I knew coming in the only way to ever enjoy this hobby was to measure everything I would have never done it.

I like music, its what drives me to get better sound out of the music I listen to.

I don't really care to measure and sit there and blah blah blah, why? because I like to hear a sound the way I want to hear it, not because a measurement told me that it was the "correct" one.

Are there people here who do like to measure, yes, and if your a DIY I can understand why the measurements are important, but for most here, we just like to listen, measurements take away from that, and frankly its annoying as hell and makes me feel like I'm in math class all over again.

ben62670

Just curious Dr J. What are your reasons for carrying on like this? What is your goal?

heiney9

ben62670 wrote: »

Just curious Dr J. What are your reasons for carrying on like this? What is your goal?

Assimilation.

H9

inspiredsports

I believe the opinions expressed always gave kudos to testing as an important indicator, just not the holy grail you and your ilk (jcandy) make it out to be. That's OK. There are probably people out there who've never gotten laid, but think they know all about that too because they studied a diagram or two.

jcandy

ben62670 wrote: »

Just curious Dr J. What are your reasons for carrying on like this? What is your goal?

Carrying on? Do you mean continuing to post even after you've all gotten tired of calling me names? I continue to post here because my mind is focused on the issues. I love to think about audio. Remember, while most of you have been posting nothing but insults, I've been taking measurements, thinking about stuff, and responding to those posts which are constructive. I think I made a few friends, too, and I know there are a select few people who apparently enjoy reading what I write on this otherwise subjectivism-heavy forum.

ben62670

What is your goal without side stepping the issue. Simple question asking for a simple answer.

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

I knew you'd come up with some sort of excuse. Now it's the manufacturer's and reviewrs fault because they were making errors :rolleyes::rolleyes:Off to the bozo list. I bet you stand in the mirror everyday and argue with yourself just to hear your own voice.

You obviously have it all figured out far, far beyond anyone else, including MP and all the engineers that spent and continue to spend time with SDA technology for the past almost 30 years. Enjoy that little space you've carved out for yourself in the delusional world you live in.

H9

This is ridiculous. He's only giving you quotes from the very same article YOU posted. And are you really going to argue that things haven't changed since 1987? That better understanding of engineering practices hasn't occured in the last 23 years? If this is the case why was there an SDA 1b, or 1c? why didnt they stop with 1a? and 2a? and the original SRS. Most of know the answers to that, and I know you well enough to know that you could rattle off all the changes that were made and why. Your stubbornness is no better than anyone elses here. The fact remains that anytime someone puts up a thread that you disagree with, you come in and trash it, then you call THEM the trolls. I'm not so sure what you're afraid of. Do you feel like your some kind of audio savior, here to keep us the lowly mortals safe from differing opinion? Dude, you push your opinions down peoples throats with as much force as anyone. Look at your "you don't need 200 watts" thread. You posted articles and sites etc. to back your opinion, and you defended your comments to the hilt. And I participated and agreed with you on multiple fronts, but how can try to tear someone apart for doing the exact soem theng you did, is beyond me. If you want to disagree with someone, thats awesome. I think debate is healthy ad gets everything on the table for everyone to make they're own conclusions. But debates are not won by who stomps their feet the hardest.

inspiredsports

"Focused on the issues" . . . . in a thread you started about wire gauge and soda cans . . . . yeah, right!

inspiredsports

newrival wrote: »

This is ridiculous. He's only giving you quotes from the very same article YOU posted. And are you really going to argue that things haven't changed since 1987? That better understanding of engineering practices hasn't occured in the last 23 years? If this is the case why was there an SDA 1b, or 1c? why didnt they stop with 1a? and 2a? and the original SRS. Most of know the answers to that, and I know you well enough to know that you could rattle off all the changes that were made and why. Your stubbornness is no better than anyone elses here. The fact remains that anytime someone puts up a thread that you disagree with, you come in and trash it, then you call THEM the trolls. I'm not so sure what you're afraid of. Do you feel like your some kind of audio savior, here to keep us the lowly mortals safe from differing opinion? Dude, you push your opinions down peoples throats with as much force as anyone. Look at your "you don't need 200 watts" thread. You posted articles and sites etc. to back your opinion, and you defended your comments to the hilt. And I participated and agreed with you on multiple fronts, but how can try to tear someone apart for doing the exact soem theng you did, is beyond me. If you want to disagree with someone, thats awesome. I think debate is healthy ad gets everything on the table for everyone to make they're own conclusions. But debates are not won by who stomps their feet the hardest.

The difference is H9 was correct that you don't need 200W RMS X 2 for great sound. But you do need more than just SPL readings to determine great sound.

bikezappa

jcandy wrote: »

Carrying on? Do you mean continuing to post even after you've all gotten tired of calling me names? I continue to post here because my mind is focused on the issues. I love to think about audio. Remember, while most of you have been posting nothing but insults, I've been taking measurements, thinking about stuff, and responding to those posts which are constructive. I think I made a few friends, too, and I know there are a select few people who apparently enjoy reading what I write on this otherwise subjectivism-heavy forum.

jcandy I just found this thread a hour ago and read all of your posts but skipped many of the name calling insults.

Good lord you have more patience than I have. I have tried to explain and expose to this group the bad science that thrives in audio equipment. I have failed because the constant insults get to me personnally and lack of critical thinking here. I have been insulted for using Ohms Law in my discussions and my many spelling errors. I also have had good support from PMs.

Bottom line: be glad we are not in Salem MA a 100 years ago and you can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Nature is such that E=IR.

Good Luck

Peter

newrival

ben62670 wrote: »

What is your goal without side stepping the issue. Simple question asking for a simple answer.

With all due respect, Ben, there are a few of us enjoying the debate on the subject when it hasn't been mudslinging. The discussions that have arisen have brushed across many topics and have inspired me to read further into engineering theories. Additionally, I think that some of the themes brought up here are poignant ones, and are results of similar and differing opinions alike. I don't understand why there are those who think they should decide when the thread should end if it is civil. It's like someone having an open house and someone dropping in only to tell them how crappy the food is every 10 minutes. If you (generally speaking, not you, specifically) don't like the party than why stay? There are dozens of other ones going on.

jcandy

inspiredsports wrote: »

"Focused on the issues" . . . . in a thread you started about wire gauge and soda cans . . . . yeah, right!

And I think the thread accomplished something very concrete and useful; namely, it demonstrated (not claimed, demonstrated) that a soda can atop your speaker changes what you will hear more than upgrading speaker wire (provided the wire meets the well-known length-gauge requirements).

This demonstration required real work on my part. If I hadn't been sick I would have tested the effect of a 22oz beer bottle -- that would have generated an even stronger diffraction effect.

bikezappa

newrival wrote: »

But debates are not won by who stomps their feet the hardest.

Yes the stompers can win and they can kill you.

I wish it wasn't true.

bikezappa

jcandy wrote: »

If I hadn't been sick I would have tested the effect of a 22oz beer bottle -- that would have generated an even stronger diffraction effect.

How about those 1 gallon jugs of Ripple wine we would drink in college.

heiney9

newrival wrote: »

This is ridiculous. He's only giving you quotes from the very same article YOU posted. And are you really going to argue that things haven't changed since 1987? That better understanding of engineering practices hasn't occured in the last 23 years? If this is the case why was there an SDA 1b, or 1c? why didnt they stop with 1a? and 2a? and the original SRS. Most of know the answers to that, and I know you well enough to know that you could rattle off all the changes that were made and why. Your stubbornness is no better than anyone elses here. The fact remains that anytime someone puts up a thread that you disagree with, you come in and trash it, then you call THEM the trolls. I'm not so sure what you're afraid of. Do you feel like your some kind of audio savior, here to keep us the lowly mortals safe from differing opinion? Dude, you push your opinions down peoples throats with as much force as anyone. Look at your "you don't need 200 watts" thread. You posted articles and sites etc. to back your opinion, and you defended your comments to the hilt. And I participated and agreed with you on multiple fronts, but how can try to tear someone apart for doing the exact soem theng you did, is beyond me. If you want to disagree with someone, thats awesome. I think debate is healthy ad gets everything on the table for everyone to make they're own conclusions. But debates are not won by who stomps their feet the hardest.

He has side stepped every issue here. I backed up my opinion in the 200wpc thread with other well respected designers and keep it all very precisely on point.

JCandy is all over the place, contradicting his own posts and side stepping the issues.

I point out to him that lobing is not an issue based on the measurements in the review and he comes back with the soundstage and imaging in the end of the article. That's not what I asked?

When I pointed this out to him, he never even responded. I asked twice for him to explain this...............if he can't make an excuse to counter he just simply passes by

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1532845&postcount=80

H9

Don't bother to respond for my benefit because you are now on the IL.

newrival

inspiredsports wrote: »

The difference is H9 was correct that you don't need 200W RMS X 2 for great sound. But you do need more than just SPL readings to determine great sound.

But thats my point! I agree with much of that thread too, but so what? There were lots of people that disagreed with that thread, and There are people that agree with this thread. It proves nothing. jcandy is more than capable of refuting your last comment, but you're putting words into his mouth, he never said an SPL reading is the only measure of good sound. I don't take sides on issues except when someone is being intellectually dishonest, and there is a lot of that coming from the opposing side of this debate.

FTGV

jcandy wrote: »

and I know there are a select few people who apparently enjoy reading what I write on this otherwise subjectivism-heavy forum.

Sure and while my post count is to small to expect me to present anything of substance I do enjoy discussing all things audio as long as the tone is kept civil.

newrival

bikezappa wrote: »

Yes the stompers can win and they can kill you.

I wish it wasn't true.

While it's their loss, it's also to the detriment of a great forum. People like H9 have a lot to offer by way of experience and knowledge, but for some reason or another they have to violently oppose any differing view points. As if saying "I think something different" is an attack on their credibility or intelligence.

It's not uncommon, unfortunately. One only has to look at politics, religion, sports, etc, and one can see analogous situations. There are those that have built themselves up in their own minds and weave their identities into their ideals and beliefs such that when one is opposed it feels like an attack to their entire being. It's much easier to demand someone have an open mind than to exercise one, and for that reason, we all end up losing to varying degrees.

heiney9

newrival wrote: »

While it's their loss, it's also to the detriment of a great forum. People like H9 have a lot to offer by way of experience and knowledge, but for some reason or another they have to violently oppose any differing view points. As if saying "I think something different" is an attack on their credibility or intelligence.

Except that is NOT what is going on here. Not even close. I will concede JCandy seems to have a lot of knowledge, it's all in how he presents his case. While his "facts" may be correct, to generalize he's trying to make it specific to everything and it's not working.

He is entitled to HIS own opinion but rather than stating it as opinion he states it as fact. He then states the rest of the opinions are basically laughable.

That doesn't fly too well, espcially since he seemed to come out of nowhere with his attitude.

H9

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

Except that is NOT what is going on here. Not even close. I will concede JCandy seems to have a lot of knowledge, it's all in how he presents his case. While his "facts" may be correct, to generalize he's trying to make it specific to everything and it's not working.

He is entitled to HIS own opinion but rather than stating it as opinion he states it as fact. He then states the rest of the opinions are basically laughable.

That doesn't fly too well, espcially since he seemed to come out of nowhere with his attitude.

H9

That wasn't directed squarely at you. Look at the comments made by others on the first and second pages.

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

Except that is NOT what is going on here. Not even close. I will concede JCandy seems to have a lot of knowledge, it's all in how he presents his case. While his "facts" may be correct, to generalize he's trying to make it specific to everything and it's not working.

He is entitled to HIS own opinion but rather than stating it as opinion he states it as fact. He then states the rest of the opinions are basically laughable.

That doesn't fly too well, espcially since he seemed to come out of nowhere with his attitude.

H9

I can appreciate your response, but as you know, this was somewhat of a continuance from another thread. The same sort of thing was happening there, and then this thread started off as a humorous way to reinforce a theory. You have to concede that more than a couple posts in here were just people being pissed off, and not on issue at all. They were combative for no other reason than to be combative.

bikezappa

newrival wrote: »

.You have to concede that more than a couple posts in here were just people being pissed off, and not on issue at all. They were combative for no other reason than to be combative.

I think they were combative because they don't undertsand or distrust scientific data and science in general.

I want the test repeated with a gallon of Ripple emply.

FTGV

inspiredsports wrote: »

I believe the opinions expressed always gave kudos to testing as an important indicator, just not the holy grail you and your ilk (jcandy) make it out to be.

In regards to loudspeakers accurate measurements can have a much stronger correlation to how they sound vs measurements of amps and preamps etc.Even the best sounding speakers can have variances in their responses of several db whereas most modern amplifiers will exhibit ruler flat response.I think most on this forum believe that significant audible differences can exist between amplifers even if they perform equally well on the test bench.So there is nothing in the measuements can pin point why they should sound different.With speakers assuming accurate measurements there is usually strong indicators in it's response that can point to the reason for some of it's sonic character.