Page 3 of 3

Re: How Science Got Sound Wrong

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2021 10:33 am
by Geoff.R.G
karatestu wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 9:45 am There are very few internal photo's printed these days. Is there something to hide ??
Draw your own conclusions from that.

Re: How Science Got Sound Wrong

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:51 pm
by Colin Wonfor
Just tested a WB one of my toys into 0.5R got 90A Pk-Pk 10Hz - 800KHz flat, ok the two 750VA transformers complained a bit.
Would this type of spec help Geoff?

Re: How Science Got Sound Wrong

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:55 pm
by Colin Wonfor
Image

One channel

Re: How Science Got Sound Wrong

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:57 pm
by Colin Wonfor
Image

S.E.C.A.

Re: How Science Got Sound Wrong

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2021 7:49 pm
by Geoff.R.G
Colin Wonfor wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:51 pm Just tested a WB one of my toys into 0.5R got 90A Pk-Pk 10Hz - 800KHz flat, ok the two 750VA transformers complained a bit.
Would this type of spec help Geoff?
It is more useful than saying 400W into 0.5Ω! It tells me I would need hefty cables for a start.

Re: How Science Got Sound Wrong

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2021 9:25 pm
by Wonfor14
Geoff.R.G wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 7:49 pm
Colin Wonfor wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:51 pm Just tested a WB one of my toys into 0.5R got 90A Pk-Pk 10Hz - 800KHz flat, ok the two 750VA transformers complained a bit.
Would this type of spec help Geoff?
It is more useful than saying 400W into 0.5Ω! It tells me I would need hefty cables for a start.
Yep and a loving wife that love copper pipe speaker wires, but since it is dynamic we are interested.
Like a Jag plenty of zip but a Smart Car still goes to B from A.
I have had both, loved the Smart Car did 49Kml in first year.