I think one of the claims, that may actually have some merit, is that vacuum tubes have a "softer" distortion. This is likely the result of slower switching speed on fast transients, tensing to round off the sharp corners. However, I that still leaves the question of which sound is more "accurate".
Ben Miller
The amp to speaker interface is not one designed with impedance matching in mind. Typical speaker impedance is 4- 8 ohms. Typical amp output impedance is in the mili-ohm range. The amplifier damping factor can attest to this. DF is the speaker impedance over the amps impedance and (excluding speaker wire resistance) is anywhere from 20 to somewhere in the thousands.
Also the acoustical power transferred to the air around a loudspeaker will be measured in single digit watts even with electrical input power of hundreds of watts.
peace dawg
In article , snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net says...>
The intent is not to match impedances at all, nor is "maximum power transfer" (another highly misunderstood concept). The maximum power to a load occurs when the amplifier's output impedance is zero, which is what the idea is here. There is no question that more energy goes into heating the voice coil than into acoustic energy (low acoustic efficiency). 100W of accoustic enerty is quite a bit. ;-)
If you overdrive a vacuum tube you do get some distortion because of curvature in the characteristic curves. Overdriving a semiconductor is likely to produce hard saturation. Modern amplifiers with lots of feedback does not depend upon straight line characteristic curves. Semiconductor amplifiers are underpowered or poorly designed if you go into saturation.
Bill
There are many advantages to listening to a reproduction t home rather than a live concert. You can adjust volume. All coughs are fro m you and your guests. Other noise like that from aircraft and lawnmowers are not that easily controlled.
I find that when I listen to a Beethoven piano trio, once decent sound is achieved, better sound quality does not increase my pleasure.
Bill
The point to impedance matching to get maximum power transfer is a bit confusing to some people. Given a source of impedance Z, maximum power transfers when the load impedance is Z*.That matching condition says nothing about whether the source can supply such power for long.
According to a biography of Edison I read a long time ago, Edison understood this matching concept while some academically trained people did not. In some cases, generator armature resistance was purposely increased to satisfy the matching condition!
Bill
In article , snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net says...>
Correct, but it does not mean that given a load impedance of Z, an output impedance of Z will provide the maximum power to the load.
I don't buy that one, at least as stated. The added resistance simply burns power in the armature.
That was the point of my post. And also the reason the Edison had disdain for academics.
Bill
Sorry, I read your post as being in agreement with Edison.
I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH EDISON on this point. He understood what i pedance matching, as we no call it was all bout. The usual way this showed up was: Given a battery with an internal resistance R, what load should you use to get maximum power transfer? The question did not ask for maximum efficiency. Not so smart mathematical types would conclude that the the generator's internal resistance should be increased to the load resistance.
I do not know how prevalent that view was. Given some of the posts on this newsgroup, I would not be surprised if this erroneous view is still widespread. I think I recall seeing a generator at the Perham collection while it was still at New Almaden that was a generator with added internal resistance. I cannot imagine that Lord Kelvin did not understand impedance matching. There is no shortage of quacks selling things like magnetic water conditioners and crazy cables. I expect they will continue to find fools willing to buy such items. What I do not understand is how people dumb enough to buy such items accumulate gthe money to do so.
Bill
You forgot Ormes stickers you place them inside your electrical panel to reduce harmful emf's they claim it can actually reduce your bill too }:-o I stopped believing in them when they required I wear a tin foil hat };-)
RQT
Again, I misread your paragraph to say that *Edison* increased the armature resistance. I infered from "Edison understood... people did not" then "armature reistance was purposely increased" that Edison was the one increasing the armature resistance.
It is surprisingly prevalent. I've had this argument with "professionals" any number of times.
Wanna buy a whole house PF corrector?
After your remarks, I have concluded that you're just another total retard.
Take your trollery elsewhere, loser.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.