Damping factor or watts?

These comments from recent audio shows are about rooms that used an amplifier having a damping factor of about 1.2 (that's "one point two"):

"Bass was excellent. I think I was told [the speakers] went down only to the mid 30s (I could be wrong) - sounded lower than that." - Paul Folbrecht on AudioCircle, RMAF '06

"The bass was powerful and tight while the overall presentation was wall to wall and incredibly precise." - Josh Ray, Sonic Flare RMAF '07 coverage

"Of all the rooms at the show, big or small, this room... [was] the finest thing I heard." - Thomas Portney, reader comment on Stereophile RMAF '07 blog

Duke
dealer/manufacturer

I'd bet the farm that those rooms utilized speakers of high efficiency and extremely low mass. Can you be more specific(amps/speakers)? There are a lot of designs out there that cater to the SET lovers for instance. Speakers that(by design) don't require a lot of power or damping factor.

Rodman99999, in the thread wherein I mentioned speaker cable length, I also mentioned 'characteristic impedance'.

As to your earlier question, the answer is 'yes'. I can point to a number of other examples wherein we find that a mythology has been created- where a mistake was made, something was considered negligible that later turned out not to be, or where something was said because a lot of money was involved.

Reread may statements about how the speaker works. Anytime a speaker is reproducing a signal, there is a cone position that corresponds to the amount of power in the voice coil. There are no musical signals that require full excursion and then have the amplifier 'let go' of the speaker. At any time when a speaker is making sound, the amplifier is **powering** the speaker to do that, whether it is full excursion or very nearly rest.

There is a story about the Emperor's new clothes. It is there to allow you to understand when something is being made up, and to see through it, even when the entirety of the culture is saying that the made up thing is real. Yet, the fact that an amplifier puts power through a speaker cannot be denied. So- you can go ahead believing the 'damping factor' story and that will not hurt you, but OTOH if you tend to look at these things closely, you will see after a while that that story can generate more questions than answers.

Atmasphere- I've based my belief in my understanding of electro-magnetic fuction and Newtonian physics. Inertia= When a body is in motion, it tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Yes- the music signal from the amp is driving the speaker(electro-magnetically). While this speaker is going through the motions of reproducing sound, it's mass is also trying to continue to move in the last direction(large transient) it was told to go by the amp(inertia). Of course- the higher the mass, the greater the inertia. The amp's ability to counteract this tendancy determines how faithfully the signal is reproduced. The effects of back EMF(and, perhaps, quantum physics) not withstanding- Is there something flawed, or mythological to this? If I am wrong(unlike some), I like to be corrected. Truth is more important to me than holding stubbornly on to a misconception. Please- enlighten me.

Rodman99999, I'll take you up on your bet. My house up against your farm. Here goes:

The speakers used were 92 dB efficient two-ways.

The woofer in the RMAF '06 room had a moving mass of 79 grams; Fs = 40 Hz; Qes = .35; Qms = 11.69, and Vas = 77 liters.

The speaker in the RMAF '07 room had two woofers, each with a moving mass of 41 grams [combined moving mass of 82 grams]; Fs = 31 Hz; Qes = .32; Qms = 4.35; and Vas = 121 liters [combined Vas of 242 liters]. This speaker is a bipolar, so the efficiency is 3 dB lower than the combined T/S parameters would indicate.

I am the speaker designer (thanks for asking!). The amplifier was an Atma-Sphere S-30.

So tell me.... just where is my new farm located??

;o)

Duke