|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
Register / Login
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
Register / Login
|
In Reply to: Re: Correct, although posted by Steve Eddy on March 3, 2007 at 09:45:11:
Well yeah, but still, to get compression at the ear, the lousdpeaker cone or diaprhagm must be moving outward. And the question at hand concerned the ideal and which direction the lousspeaker cone or diaphragm must be moving relative to the microphone diaphragm.Well, yeah, but still, what about the speaker that because of its crossover design has its tweeter out-of-phase to its woofer? Or, I should say, it's out-of-phase at some frequencies but not others. Quite a mess, phasically speaking, so I rely on the "at the ear" formulation. Gets awfully messy awfully fast otherwise. ;-)
Wasn't intending to reduce the whole polarity issue to those terms. Was just looking at it in a simplified, ideal sense is all.
Understood. Didn't mean to imply that it was you doing the reducing. On the basis of the things you quote (haven't seen it myself) I'd say it's a good bet you have a clearer understanding of the issue than Mikey.
I don't think MF goofed. He seemed to be getting the dope straight from the designer.
To me this becomes a trust issue. If said designer is exercised enough to include a switch to solve a non-existent problem, do I trust him to handle the more mundane design chores well? Kinda sorta like, given our experience with the post office, do we really want the gummint in charge of health care? ;-)
You have my sympathies. :)
Thanks, don't need 'em. Audioquest makes extremely nice yet affordable banana plugs. ;-)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Correct, although - markrohr 15:13:19 03/03/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
