Exactly what errors? Really. Now that just comes across as insincere attempt at deflection. I have very clearly my posts highlighted what 5+ errors
- Speaker electrical model does not match impedance curve shown.
- I will add that as well this is I believe, as there really is not a full standard model, an electroacoustic model, but transmission lines don’t care about mechanical effects
- your model does not include parasitic capacitance or inductance in your elements and transmission lines do care about those
- no scales on oscilloscope plots
- your method that YOU used of measuring characteristic impedance is wrong, and at audio frequencies grossly wrong. You can’t use a transmitted square wave to measure characteristic impedance at audio frequencies
- your simulation is wrong. You have not simulated characteristic impedance at all in your simulation nor transmission line effects. You would need a complex model of transmission line characteristics across audio frequencies and you must include bulk capacitance and inductance and resistance and even skin effects
- you ignored skin effects though this is likely <=1db of error
- Your table of wires and their characteristic values does not correlate to the graph and confuses readers.
- you only showed a rough correlation to impedance not an actual mathematical correlation. Standard line, correlation does NOT equal causation
- you have ignored other relevant variables, namely inductance
- you called a graph the frequency response of the cable when it is clearly not. It is the cable voltage drop versus frequency which is lot the same thing
- you don’t explain or correct for the 2db measurement drop at high frequencies which without knowing why puts unbounded error on the measurements at high frequencies
- the scale of the spectrum graph is not listed, only db and this is a near meaningless term without the required scale.
- the settings for the spectrum analyzer are not listed so we don’t know if it is average, RMS average, peak, etc
I could go on but what would be the point. You fail to acknowledge the obvious and substantial flaws.
- Speaker electrical model does not match impedance curve shown.
- I will add that as well this is I believe, as there really is not a full standard model, an electroacoustic model, but transmission lines don’t care about mechanical effects
- your model does not include parasitic capacitance or inductance in your elements and transmission lines do care about those
- no scales on oscilloscope plots
- your method that YOU used of measuring characteristic impedance is wrong, and at audio frequencies grossly wrong. You can’t use a transmitted square wave to measure characteristic impedance at audio frequencies
- your simulation is wrong. You have not simulated characteristic impedance at all in your simulation nor transmission line effects. You would need a complex model of transmission line characteristics across audio frequencies and you must include bulk capacitance and inductance and resistance and even skin effects
- you ignored skin effects though this is likely <=1db of error
- Your table of wires and their characteristic values does not correlate to the graph and confuses readers.
- you only showed a rough correlation to impedance not an actual mathematical correlation. Standard line, correlation does NOT equal causation
- you have ignored other relevant variables, namely inductance
- you called a graph the frequency response of the cable when it is clearly not. It is the cable voltage drop versus frequency which is lot the same thing
- you don’t explain or correct for the 2db measurement drop at high frequencies which without knowing why puts unbounded error on the measurements at high frequencies
- the scale of the spectrum graph is not listed, only db and this is a near meaningless term without the required scale.
- the settings for the spectrum analyzer are not listed so we don’t know if it is average, RMS average, peak, etc
I could go on but what would be the point. You fail to acknowledge the obvious and substantial flaws.