home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!gvgpsa!gold.gvg.tek.com!chrisc
- From: chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen)
- Newsgroups: rec.audio
- Subject: Re: Bi-Amp vs. Bridged Bi-Wire
- Message-ID: <5153@gold.gvg.tek.com>
- Date: 7 Sep 92 18:17:17 GMT
- References: <1992Sep3.235010.4087@tvnews.tv.tek.com> <5151@gold.gvg.tek.com> <Bu3snG.9y5@world.std.com>
- Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
- Lines: 32
-
- Thank's Mr. Pierce!
-
- I knew that I was both right and "wrong" !
-
- I have used networks of this type for input return loss compensation
- of wide band analog video inputs, and other multi decade circuits for
- many years....
-
- I refered to Colloms book (third edition) on the topic and found that
- he doesn't recommend impedance compensation on LF drivers but does for
- mids and tweeters.
-
- I refer others to this book, page 179. Fig 6.25 shows a complex
- netork who's intent is to remove the impedance hump at resonance.
-
- The network is comprised of two sections, the first is R, L and C and
- the second is just R and C.
-
- I intend to utilize impedance compensation on the LF and MF drivers of
- a sound reinforcement system that I am designing. My intent is to
- present a load that is more like the rated output impedance of the
- amplifiers only to minimise the change in impedance and present a load
- that doesn't change. This is because the amplifier may be required
- to drive up to four drivers at a wack.....
-
- Mr. Pierce do you have any words of wisdom for this application of
- the Zobel network?
-
- --
- Chris Christensen The opinions I express are my own,
- chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com and sometimes they are wrong!
- 916-478-3419 FAX 916-478-3887 After all, I *AM* only human.
-