Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DC634B7.C303BC8E@scazon.com>
Subject: Re: Bullshit wins v. science
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-Inktomi-Trace: public1-pete2-5-cust19.pete.broadband.ntl.com 1036677935 18973 126.96.36.199 (7 Nov 2002 14:05:35 GMT)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:05:35 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 14:05:35 GMT
"N. Thornton" wrote in message
> John Woodgate wrote in message
> > I read in sci.electronics.design that N. Thornton
> > wrote about 'Bullshit wins v. science', on Wed, 6 Nov 2002:
> > This applies whatever the nature of the system - closed-
> > box, vented box ('reflex'), ABR ('drone cone'), double-chamber ....
> I would say there are equally a lot of speakers it doesn't apply to.
> > The resonances (one or more) of these systems do not involve any
> > linearity at all, so no non-linearity distortion is produced.
> It is still distortion, since the audio output does not accurately
> follow the electrical input.
Ho humm. No it isnt, as used by *any* *pro* ee in standard techical
Yes, it could be argued that technically, distortion means any departure
from v0(t)=C+ A.vin(t) equals. However, no one does this. *Unqualified*,
distortion *means* non-linear distortion, i.e. THD, or IMD.
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.