| Author |
Message |
Scott Gardner
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:31 pm Post subject:
Specs that I'd like to see manufacturers STOP advertising. |
|
|
The other day, I was looking at the specs for a new Alpine in-dash CD
player, and one of the specifications listed was "Wow & Flutter". Of
course, the W & F rating was "below measurable limits", just like
*every single* CD player that's hit the market since they became
commercially available. Why the hell are manufacturers still listing
it? Wow & Flutter was a useful measurement for record players and
tape decks, but it's worthless for a CD player. If *any* CD player
has measurable wow or flutter, it's broken.
That's almost like if Ford or Chevy were to advertise that their cars
"use radial tires". That might have been a neat marketing point
thirty-five years ago, when not everyone used them, but it's downright
silly now.
Along the same lines as wow & flutter, I'd like to see amplifier
manufacturers quit listing "damping factor" in their amps'
specifications. Because of the negative feedback used in ALL
solid-state car amplifiers, the damping factors will always be huge.
Whether it's 200, 500, or 1000, you're not going to be able to tell
the difference. Back in the days of tube amplifiers that used little
(if any) negative feedback, it was common to have damping factors that
were less than 20. That *could* cause problems with the sound if you
tried to use low-impedance speakers, but with a damping factor of 500
for an amp when connected to a 4-ohm load, it doesn't matter if you
use a 2-ohm load instead and the damping factor drops to 250 - the
difference is inaudible.
And speaking of "inaudible", why are manufacturers still hung up on
signal-to-noise ratio? When was the last time you saw any piece of
car audio gear that had a SNR of less than 85 dB? 85 dB is one part
noise per 316 million parts signal, which makes the noise completely
inaudible. But I've actually had a salesdroid try to tell me that a
head unit with a SNR of 102 dB will "sound better" than one with a SNR
of 99 dB. Why did he think that? Because manufacturers still list
SNR on the box, and "more must be better,right"?
Anyone else have any pet peeves when it comes to specifications? I
can think of a few others (like magnet weight for subwoofers), but
this post is long enough already.
--
Scott Gardner
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
joe.ker
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:16 pm Post subject:
Re: Specs that I'd like to see manufacturers STOP advertisin |
|
|
"Scott Gardner" <gardners14@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ek5ik1hg3qa3kfed7cjaevps5te11erejm@4ax.com...
| Quote: | The other day, I was looking at the specs for a new Alpine in-dash CD
player, and one of the specifications listed was "Wow & Flutter". Of
course, the W & F rating was "below measurable limits", just like
*every single* CD player that's hit the market since they became
commercially available. Why the hell are manufacturers still listing
it? Wow & Flutter was a useful measurement for record players and
tape decks, but it's worthless for a CD player. If *any* CD player
has measurable wow or flutter, it's broken.
That's almost like if Ford or Chevy were to advertise that their cars
"use radial tires". That might have been a neat marketing point
thirty-five years ago, when not everyone used them, but it's downright
silly now.
Along the same lines as wow & flutter, I'd like to see amplifier
manufacturers quit listing "damping factor" in their amps'
specifications. Because of the negative feedback used in ALL
solid-state car amplifiers, the damping factors will always be huge.
Whether it's 200, 500, or 1000, you're not going to be able to tell
the difference. Back in the days of tube amplifiers that used little
(if any) negative feedback, it was common to have damping factors that
were less than 20. That *could* cause problems with the sound if you
tried to use low-impedance speakers, but with a damping factor of 500
for an amp when connected to a 4-ohm load, it doesn't matter if you
use a 2-ohm load instead and the damping factor drops to 250 - the
difference is inaudible.
And speaking of "inaudible", why are manufacturers still hung up on
signal-to-noise ratio? When was the last time you saw any piece of
car audio gear that had a SNR of less than 85 dB? 85 dB is one part
noise per 316 million parts signal, which makes the noise completely
inaudible. But I've actually had a salesdroid try to tell me that a
head unit with a SNR of 102 dB will "sound better" than one with a SNR
of 99 dB. Why did he think that? Because manufacturers still list
SNR on the box, and "more must be better,right"?
Anyone else have any pet peeves when it comes to specifications? I
can think of a few others (like magnet weight for subwoofers), but
this post is long enough already.
--
Scott Gardner
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support
of Paul." (George Bernard Shaw)
|
I think they keep using them because it makes the unit look more impressive
to the average buyer. There are very few buyers who know what any of the
specs mean. the only one they look at is Watts. And Watts are very over
inflated on most units, because that one of the main selling points. Alpine
even started over stating the wattage for awhile and I think they went back
to more realistic power ratings in recent models. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony F
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:53 pm Post subject:
Re: Specs that I'd like to see manufacturers STOP advertisin |
|
|
Okay...how about CD player frequency response. I can't recall the last time
it wasn't anything other than 5-20kHz or 10-20kHz, etc. Like wow and
flutter, if the frequency response isn't in the 20-20kHz ballpark, then it's
broken.
And my personal favorite is frequency reponse for a tweeter that can play up
to 50kHz! Just imagine the detail and nuances you could hear with that
baby!!
Tony
--
2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
Clarion DRZ9255 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and Xenon X1200.1
Amplifiers, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear
Fill, Image Dynamics IDMAX10 D4 v.3 Sub
2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
Pioneer DEH-P9600MP Head Unit, Phoenix Gold Ti500.4 Amp, Focal 165HC
Speakers & Image Dynamics ID8 D4 v.3 Sub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MZ
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:35 am Post subject:
Re: Specs that I'd like to see manufacturers STOP advertisin |
|
|
| Quote: | The other day, I was looking at the specs for a new Alpine in-dash CD
player, and one of the specifications listed was "Wow & Flutter". Of
course, the W & F rating was "below measurable limits", just like
*every single* CD player that's hit the market since they became
commercially available. Why the hell are manufacturers still listing
it? Wow & Flutter was a useful measurement for record players and
tape decks, but it's worthless for a CD player. If *any* CD player
has measurable wow or flutter, it's broken.
That's almost like if Ford or Chevy were to advertise that their cars
"use radial tires". That might have been a neat marketing point
thirty-five years ago, when not everyone used them, but it's downright
silly now.
Along the same lines as wow & flutter, I'd like to see amplifier
manufacturers quit listing "damping factor" in their amps'
specifications. Because of the negative feedback used in ALL
solid-state car amplifiers, the damping factors will always be huge.
Whether it's 200, 500, or 1000, you're not going to be able to tell
the difference. Back in the days of tube amplifiers that used little
(if any) negative feedback, it was common to have damping factors that
were less than 20. That *could* cause problems with the sound if you
tried to use low-impedance speakers, but with a damping factor of 500
for an amp when connected to a 4-ohm load, it doesn't matter if you
use a 2-ohm load instead and the damping factor drops to 250 - the
difference is inaudible.
And speaking of "inaudible", why are manufacturers still hung up on
signal-to-noise ratio? When was the last time you saw any piece of
car audio gear that had a SNR of less than 85 dB? 85 dB is one part
noise per 316 million parts signal, which makes the noise completely
inaudible. But I've actually had a salesdroid try to tell me that a
head unit with a SNR of 102 dB will "sound better" than one with a SNR
of 99 dB. Why did he think that? Because manufacturers still list
SNR on the box, and "more must be better,right"?
Anyone else have any pet peeves when it comes to specifications? I
can think of a few others (like magnet weight for subwoofers), but
this post is long enough already.
|
Just about all of them are useless. S/N is particularly dumb, because
noise levels are dominated by other factors aside from the inherent S/N.
The funniest thing is that distortion levels are featured in amplifiers
where it's minimal, but virtually ignored in speaker specs, where it's
typically on the order of 100 to 1000 times greater than that in amps.
Useful specs for amps:
- output power into various loads, adopting some sort of standardization
- efficiency
- frequency response
What else do we need to know? The class? Ok, they're all Class B if
they're not D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MZ
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Specs that I'd like to see manufacturers STOP advertisin |
|
|
| Quote: | Regardless, I agree with your original post that it's not worth
mentioning in the specs, whether it's truly class A or AB.
|
You might be able to guess that it's a class A topology anyway based on the
efficiency number.
| Quote: | I can understand a manufacturer advertising a digital-switching
configuration, since they're not the norm, and they do have some
concrete benefits over traditional designs.
I also don't think amp manufacturers need to list input and output
impedences for their amps (although I realized I I've already
indirectly addressed output impedance in my rant about damping
factor).
|
Yeah, I agree with what you said about an output impedance of an output
stage in a global negative feedback setting. It should be miniscule,
probably dominated solely by the linearizing resistors at the output
(typically less than 0.1 ohm) and the DCR of the output coil if there even
is one, and whatever wiring there is to the connector. Probably not enough
to quibble over differences of tenths or even hundredths of an ohm.
However, there's the matter of the power reduction associated with
decreasing the impedance of the load. If this information is provided in
the power specs as it should be, then there's no reason to duplicate it with
an output Z spec. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Gardner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Specs that I'd like to see manufacturers STOP advertisin |
|
|
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 23:02:02 -0400, "MZ"
<myfirstname@mdz.remove.no-ip.removethistoo.org> wrote:
| Quote: | I believe Class AB was started as a marketing gimmick. Despite being used
often to describe a Class B design with a heavily biased output stage,
there
is really no such thing. Like so many terms generated by marketing
departments it has become common and accepted.
Like class T? :)
I wouldn't go so far as to say A/B doesn't exist. I think if you define
class A, A/B, B, and C strictly on the proportion of the cycle the output
stages conduct, it has a very real meaning. If instead it's defined based
on the difference between the bias and the Vbe drops between the VAS and
OPS, then it becomes more ambiguous. I think the first method is the more
accepted one though. At least that's what's in Horowitz and Hill!
|
Regardless, I agree with your original post that it's not worth
mentioning in the specs, whether it's truly class A or AB.
I can understand a manufacturer advertising a digital-switching
configuration, since they're not the norm, and they do have some
concrete benefits over traditional designs.
I also don't think amp manufacturers need to list input and output
impedences for their amps (although I realized I I've already
indirectly addressed output impedance in my rant about damping
factor).
--
Scott Gardner
"Discordianism: Where reality is a figment of your imagination." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MZ
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Specs that I'd like to see manufacturers STOP advertisin |
|
|
| Quote: | I believe Class AB was started as a marketing gimmick. Despite being used
often to describe a Class B design with a heavily biased output stage,
there
is really no such thing. Like so many terms generated by marketing
departments it has become common and accepted.
|
Like class T? :)
I wouldn't go so far as to say A/B doesn't exist. I think if you define
class A, A/B, B, and C strictly on the proportion of the cycle the output
stages conduct, it has a very real meaning. If instead it's defined based
on the difference between the bias and the Vbe drops between the VAS and
OPS, then it becomes more ambiguous. I think the first method is the more
accepted one though. At least that's what's in Horowitz and Hill! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MZ
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Specs that I'd like to see manufacturers STOP advertisin |
|
|
"Scott Gardner" <gardners14@cox.net> wrote in message
news:23fjk1983d58g30acnljbcmkhe6prb9v03@4ax.com...
| Quote: | Good points, except I think most all of the solid-state amps are class
AB, not B.
|
It's a matter of semantics. Technically speaking, it's class B because the
output devices are each conducting half the time. That's why you need the
global negative feedback loop. A lot of times people look at the fact that
there's a bias voltage present in front of the drivers and assume it's class
A/B because of it. But if you didn't put a bias there, you'd be operating
in class C.
But I'm willing to concede that most manufacturers call it class A/B. But
that doesn't make them right. Just like when they call it "RMS power" when
it's really average power. :) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Gardner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Specs that I'd like to see manufacturers STOP advertisin |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:35:33 GMT, MZ <mark@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
| Quote: | The other day, I was looking at the specs for a new Alpine in-dash CD
player, and one of the specifications listed was "Wow & Flutter". Of
course, the W & F rating was "below measurable limits", just like
*every single* CD player that's hit the market since they became
commercially available. Why the hell are manufacturers still listing
it? Wow & Flutter was a useful measurement for record players and
tape decks, but it's worthless for a CD player. If *any* CD player
has measurable wow or flutter, it's broken.
That's almost like if Ford or Chevy were to advertise that their cars
"use radial tires". That might have been a neat marketing point
thirty-five years ago, when not everyone used them, but it's downright
silly now.
Along the same lines as wow & flutter, I'd like to see amplifier
manufacturers quit listing "damping factor" in their amps'
specifications. Because of the negative feedback used in ALL
solid-state car amplifiers, the damping factors will always be huge.
Whether it's 200, 500, or 1000, you're not going to be able to tell
the difference. Back in the days of tube amplifiers that used little
(if any) negative feedback, it was common to have damping factors that
were less than 20. That *could* cause problems with the sound if you
tried to use low-impedance speakers, but with a damping factor of 500
for an amp when connected to a 4-ohm load, it doesn't matter if you
use a 2-ohm load instead and the damping factor drops to 250 - the
difference is inaudible.
And speaking of "inaudible", why are manufacturers still hung up on
signal-to-noise ratio? When was the last time you saw any piece of
car audio gear that had a SNR of less than 85 dB? 85 dB is one part
noise per 316 million parts signal, which makes the noise completely
inaudible. But I've actually had a salesdroid try to tell me that a
head unit with a SNR of 102 dB will "sound better" than one with a SNR
of 99 dB. Why did he think that? Because manufacturers still list
SNR on the box, and "more must be better,right"?
Anyone else have any pet peeves when it comes to specifications? I
can think of a few others (like magnet weight for subwoofers), but
this post is long enough already.
Just about all of them are useless. S/N is particularly dumb, because
noise levels are dominated by other factors aside from the inherent S/N.
The funniest thing is that distortion levels are featured in amplifiers
where it's minimal, but virtually ignored in speaker specs, where it's
typically on the order of 100 to 1000 times greater than that in amps.
Useful specs for amps:
- output power into various loads, adopting some sort of standardization
- efficiency
- frequency response
What else do we need to know? The class? Ok, they're all Class B if
they're not D.
|
Good points, except I think most all of the solid-state amps are class
AB, not B.
--
Scott Gardner
"I don't deserve this award, but I have arthritis and I don't deserve that either". - Jack Benny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin Murray
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Specs that I'd like to see manufacturers STOP advertisin |
|
|
I believe Class AB was started as a marketing gimmick. Despite being used
often to describe a Class B design with a heavily biased output stage, there
is really no such thing. Like so many terms generated by marketing
departments it has become common and accepted.
Kevin Murray
"Scott Gardner" <gardners14@cox.net> wrote in message
news:23fjk1983d58g30acnljbcmkhe6prb9v03@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:35:33 GMT, MZ <mark@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
The other day, I was looking at the specs for a new Alpine in-dash CD
player, and one of the specifications listed was "Wow & Flutter". Of
course, the W & F rating was "below measurable limits", just like
*every single* CD player that's hit the market since they became
commercially available. Why the hell are manufacturers still listing
it? Wow & Flutter was a useful measurement for record players and
tape decks, but it's worthless for a CD player. If *any* CD player
has measurable wow or flutter, it's broken.
That's almost like if Ford or Chevy were to advertise that their cars
"use radial tires". That might have been a neatClass AB marketing point
thirty-five years ago, when not everyone used them, but it's downright
silly now.
Along the same lines as wow & flutter, I'd like to see amplifier
manufacturers quit listing "damping factor" in their amps'
specifications. Because of the negative feedback used in ALL
solid-state car amplifiers, the damping factors will always be huge.
Whether it's 200, 500, or 1000, you're not going to be able to tell
the difference. Back in the days of tube amplifiers that used little
(if any) negative feedback, it was common to have damping factors that
were less than 20. That *could* cause problems with the sound if you
tried to use low-impedance speakers, but with a damping factor of 500
for an amp when connected to a 4-ohm load, it doesn't matter if you
use a 2-ohm load instead and the damping factor drops to 250 - the
difference is inaudible.
And speaking of "inaudible", why are manufacturers still hung up on
signal-to-noise ratio? When was the last time you saw any piece of
car audio gear that had a SNR of less than 85 dB? 85 dB is one part
noise per 316 million parts signal, which makes the noise completely
inaudible. But I've actually had a salesdroid try to tell me that a
head unit with a SNR of 102 dB will "sound better" than one with a SNR
of 99 dB. Why did he think that? Because manufacturers still list
SNR on the box, and "more must be better,right"?
Anyone else have any pet peeves when it comes to specifications? I
can think of a few others (like magnet weight for subwoofers), but
this post is long enough already.
Just about all of them are useless. S/N is particularly dumb, because
noise levels are dominated by other factors aside from the inherent S/N.
The funniest thing is that distortion levels are featured in amplifiers
where it's minimal, but virtually ignored in speaker specs, where it's
typically on the order of 100 to 1000 times greater than that in amps.
Useful specs for amps:
- output power into various loads, adopting some sort of standardization
- efficiency
- frequency response
What else do we need to know? The class? Ok, they're all Class B if
they're not D.
Good points, except I think most all of the solid-state amps are class
AB, not B.
--
Scott Gardner
"I don't deserve this award, but I have arthritis and I don't deserve that
either". - Jack Benny
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Gardner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:39 am Post subject:
Re: Specs that I'd like to see manufacturers STOP advertisin |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:39:20 -0400, "MZ"
<myfirstname@mdz.remove.no-ip.removethistoo.org> wrote:
| Quote: | Regardless, I agree with your original post that it's not worth
mentioning in the specs, whether it's truly class A or AB.
You might be able to guess that it's a class A topology anyway based on the
efficiency number.
|
Ack - I meant to say "whether it's truly class AB or B", meaning that
it doesn't matter if the topology is technically AB or B - it's still
the norm for car amps, and doesn't need to be specified. Now, if a
car amp really operated with a class A topology throughout its rated
power, that probably WOULD be worth mentioning. Not that the
difference between A and AB/B would be noticeable in a car, but they'd
probably want to list it, if for no other reason than to explain the
low efficiency and Watts/dollar ratio.
| Quote: | I can understand a manufacturer advertising a digital-switching
configuration, since they're not the norm, and they do have some
concrete benefits over traditional designs.
I also don't think amp manufacturers need to list input and output
impedences for their amps (although I realized I I've already
indirectly addressed output impedance in my rant about damping
factor).
Yeah, I agree with what you said about an output impedance of an output
stage in a global negative feedback setting. It should be miniscule,
probably dominated solely by the linearizing resistors at the output
(typically less than 0.1 ohm) and the DCR of the output coil if there even
is one, and whatever wiring there is to the connector. Probably not enough
to quibble over differences of tenths or even hundredths of an ohm.
However, there's the matter of the power reduction associated with
decreasing the impedance of the load. If this information is provided in
the power specs as it should be, then there's no reason to duplicate it with
an output Z spec.
|
I just wish that the manufacturers and magazines would have the guts
to say "You know, we're just going to stop talking about
specifications X, Y, and Z, because they're just not relevant any
longer", but I know the marketing guys would pitch a walleyed
hissy-fit.
--
Scott Gardner
"Wit levels low. Attempting to compensate." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MZ
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:48 am Post subject:
Re: Specs that I'd like to see manufacturers STOP advertisin |
|
|
| Quote: | You might be able to guess that it's a class A topology anyway based on
the
efficiency number.
Ack - I meant to say "whether it's truly class AB or B", meaning that
it doesn't matter if the topology is technically AB or B - it's still
the norm for car amps, and doesn't need to be specified. Now, if a
car amp really operated with a class A topology throughout its rated
power, that probably WOULD be worth mentioning. Not that the
difference between A and AB/B would be noticeable in a car, but they'd
probably want to list it, if for no other reason than to explain the
low efficiency and Watts/dollar ratio.
|
Yeah, it'd be worthwhile to mention, but it's something we'd probably be
able to deduce. I don't think you'd ever be able to notice a difference
between a properly-designed class A and class B amp anyway, regardless of
the listening conditions. In fact, you may be surprised to know that
there's quite a bit of literature out there that has actually demonstrated
that a properly-designed class B amp can actually eliminate crossover
distortion to a greater extent than class A can eliminate distortions
inherent to its design and can therefore provide better distortion
characteristics than class A. So much for the old adage that class A is
cleaner.
| Quote: | Yeah, I agree with what you said about an output impedance of an output
stage in a global negative feedback setting. It should be miniscule,
probably dominated solely by the linearizing resistors at the output
(typically less than 0.1 ohm) and the DCR of the output coil if there
even
is one, and whatever wiring there is to the connector. Probably not
enough
to quibble over differences of tenths or even hundredths of an ohm.
However, there's the matter of the power reduction associated with
decreasing the impedance of the load. If this information is provided in
the power specs as it should be, then there's no reason to duplicate it
with
an output Z spec.
I just wish that the manufacturers and magazines would have the guts
to say "You know, we're just going to stop talking about
specifications X, Y, and Z, because they're just not relevant any
longer", but I know the marketing guys would pitch a walleyed
hissy-fit.
|
Then I think a lot of the blame rests with those who actually tout these
specs. This includes the ignorant consumer who only knows to compare
numbers between two amps, and also the magazine writers and reviewers who
continue to refer to these specs or even go out of their way to define them
using any terms that don't include the word "meaningless." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt Ion
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:28 pm Post subject:
Re: Specs that I'd like to see manufacturers STOP advertisin |
|
|
Scott Gardner wrote:
| Quote: | I just wish that the manufacturers and magazines would have the guts
to say "You know, we're just going to stop talking about
specifications X, Y, and Z, because they're just not relevant any
longer", but I know the marketing guys would pitch a walleyed
hissy-fit.
|
Nah, they'd just make up some other felgercarb to fill up ad space...
Like a couple ads I particularly remember from a Car Audio mag, years
and years ago...
One was for a CD deck, touting the fact that they used optical data
transfer between the CD transport and the DACs. Fine, there are some
valid reasons for doing so... but according to the print, this was done
because it "transfers data at the speed of light (that's fast!)" Uh...
last I checked, electricity moves through wire pretty close to the speed
of light... certainly close enough to make no discernable difference
over the maximum few centimeters it has to travel from the transport the
DACs...
Another was for an amp, and their big buzzword was SCAT - Solid Core
Acoustic Technology. A few vague claims of the benefits of this
wunderkind were made, and a wordy but equally vague description of SCAT
revealed the term to essentially mean that all internal connections used
solid rather than stranded wire...
Remember, these are the same kinds of minds that can make a Big Mac
sound like health food... take away one avenue, they'll invent another.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0540-8, 10/07/2005
Tested on: 10/10/2005 12:28:40 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bob wald
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:26 pm Post subject:
Re: Specs that I'd like to see manufacturers STOP advertisin |
|
|
all i can say is this post is stupid....the reason all those listed
details are very good is because if they were bad they wouldnt be
listed.i never buy a amp/stereo without knowing s/n, wow/flutter
etc.....
cd responses are different thats why they list them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jethro
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:54 pm Post subject:
Re: Specs that I'd like to see manufacturers STOP advertisin |
|
|
bob wald Wrote:
| Quote: | all i can say is this post is stupid....the reason all those listed
details are very good is because if they were bad they wouldnt be
listed.i never buy a amp/stereo without knowing s/n, wow/flutter
etc.....
cd responses are different thats why they list them.
|
For bob:
inaudible
A adjective
1 inaudible, unhearable
impossible to hear; imperceptible by the ear; "an inaudibl
conversation"
It's kind of like THD specs... the difference between .5% THD and .05
THD is inaudible..
--
Jethr
[(Vas/Vbox)+1]^.5 * Qts or F
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jethro's Profile: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/member.php?userid=1866
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/showthread.php?t=22769
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in