My point was that Ohm's law ( used in a generic manner ) is applicable at very specific points. Obviously, one can measure and calculate what is taking place electrically at any given point in the operating curve and break it down mathematically. However, the measurements at any given point may have nothing to do with what is taking place elsewhere within the parameters of operation. This is what makes a loudspeaker a "complex" load. Even if one were to try to break the speaker / amplifier interface down using Thevenin's theory, which is far more complex, those parameters would still vary somewhat with frequency and amplitude.
With the above outlook taken into consideration, the amplifier / speaker interface is one of a dynamic nature that changes with amplitude, frequency and impedance. One can't model a "simplistic" speaker / amplifier interface based on just a few measurements that would otherwise work fine in a circuit with set parameters and limited variables. As such, trying to break the entire amp / speaker interface down to something as simplistic as Ohm's Law would be next to impossible unless the speaker maintained a constant impedance across the entire frequency spectrum at any given amplitude and the amplifier acted as a true "voltage source". Does anyone know of such a speaker ?
The parallels that one can draw using a resistor as a load and that of an actual speaker are far and few between. For each "benign" speaker load that you show me, i can show ten that are not quite so simplistic. As such, how an individual amplifier and the corresponding circuitry will respond to each load that it sees with varied frequency and amplitude becomes completely unpredictable. Hell, some amps even change frequency response aka "tonal balance" as the drive level increases on a dummy load ( non-reactive "perfect" speaker ) on the bench. Who could predict how such an amp would respond with the variables encountered with different speakers and their associated reactances during real world operation??? If you think i'm making this up, John Atkinson noted this in a recent review of a Rotel amplifer in Stereophile and Moncrieff had covered this 20+ years ago in IAR.
While some of the variables can be minimized by having a true "voltage source" as an amplifier and a speaker that was linear in impedance, this still does not take into account how this combo would actually "sound". As i've tried to stress, there are just TOO many variables to try and sum things up "simply". While many folks don't have the technical background to know why such things take place, they have enough experience to know that you will never know exactly how various components will mesh until you try them out within the confines of your system. We can call it system synergy, complimentary colourations, etc... but it still boils down to the fact that there is NO set formula other than the old "trial & error" method that most of us have had to do to get where we are today. If things could be summed up easily using a simple formula, i think that there would be no need for forums such as this. Sean
>
PS... I'm not trying to be argumentative or step on toes, so please don't take it that way. I'm simply trying to say that you don't know what to expect until you try it. I've been "confounded" way too many times before to know that things that should work sometimes don't and vice-versa.
With the above outlook taken into consideration, the amplifier / speaker interface is one of a dynamic nature that changes with amplitude, frequency and impedance. One can't model a "simplistic" speaker / amplifier interface based on just a few measurements that would otherwise work fine in a circuit with set parameters and limited variables. As such, trying to break the entire amp / speaker interface down to something as simplistic as Ohm's Law would be next to impossible unless the speaker maintained a constant impedance across the entire frequency spectrum at any given amplitude and the amplifier acted as a true "voltage source". Does anyone know of such a speaker ?
The parallels that one can draw using a resistor as a load and that of an actual speaker are far and few between. For each "benign" speaker load that you show me, i can show ten that are not quite so simplistic. As such, how an individual amplifier and the corresponding circuitry will respond to each load that it sees with varied frequency and amplitude becomes completely unpredictable. Hell, some amps even change frequency response aka "tonal balance" as the drive level increases on a dummy load ( non-reactive "perfect" speaker ) on the bench. Who could predict how such an amp would respond with the variables encountered with different speakers and their associated reactances during real world operation??? If you think i'm making this up, John Atkinson noted this in a recent review of a Rotel amplifer in Stereophile and Moncrieff had covered this 20+ years ago in IAR.
While some of the variables can be minimized by having a true "voltage source" as an amplifier and a speaker that was linear in impedance, this still does not take into account how this combo would actually "sound". As i've tried to stress, there are just TOO many variables to try and sum things up "simply". While many folks don't have the technical background to know why such things take place, they have enough experience to know that you will never know exactly how various components will mesh until you try them out within the confines of your system. We can call it system synergy, complimentary colourations, etc... but it still boils down to the fact that there is NO set formula other than the old "trial & error" method that most of us have had to do to get where we are today. If things could be summed up easily using a simple formula, i think that there would be no need for forums such as this. Sean
>
PS... I'm not trying to be argumentative or step on toes, so please don't take it that way. I'm simply trying to say that you don't know what to expect until you try it. I've been "confounded" way too many times before to know that things that should work sometimes don't and vice-versa.