Beli

a ova je samo za Crnog: Srpska Majka Marija Terezija [emoji23]

ja bih da nekako pomognemo da Oni odu, pa da im puškom zabranimo da se vrate
imam nekog Betovena u planu krajem januara i Kremera u aprilu..

A bre kume, brate, Wolande, imaš li koga tamo da me udomi ? Kuvam, perem, čistim, pušim ... ovaj, khm, khm, ovo poslednje ne radim ... mislim na pušenje. 

Pošto se u temi pominje 4P1L, evo zanimlivog štiva od velikog poznavalaca lampi(tj. lampadina, kako bio on rekao) sstrsat-a, koji nažalost nije više sa nama :
All DHT amp
Full DHT amp, klasika ili nešto treće? (od 8. strane počinju da se bave sa 4P1L)
 
Izvinjavam se Alexu na ovom off-u, nadam se da mi neće zameriti. Mislio sam da bi ovo bilo interesantno nekom ko se zanima za ovu cevku, a nije video pomenute teme i savete  šjor sstrsat-a.

jebo gramofon koji nema idler
 

Pozdrav svima. Posle dužeg vremena, reših da se i ja pomalo uključim i pokušam da dam konstruktivan doprinos u diskusijama na forumu.
Evo stoga jednog zanimljivog razmišljanja, koje će možda dopreneti da se ova tema sagleda iz nekog drugog ugla:
Originally Posted by Lynn Olson  
Tonality and resolution at low levels was one of the big differences between the JBL 2226 and the GPA 416-Alnico. The JBL sounded flat and dull, while the 416-Alnico had the trademark Alnico sparkle to the sound, and most noticeably at low levels. If you want to hear the difference between magnet materials, and overhung vs underhung voice coils, low-level listening is where it is most apparent. IslandPink, please tell us more about the sound of the Supravox 285GMF, especially how it compares to prosound drivers.
That's what I found in general too when comparing more 'old school' (or the very few modern but 'hi-fi oriented') high efficiency woofers to their 'pro sound' siblings.
The way I rationalize the difference is as follows:
At (very) low levels, the woofer is barely moving at all, and having a highly compliant spider and outer suspension (high Cms) and especially low overall mechanical resistance (low Rms) become critical in allowing the low-level detail to come through unhindered.
Coming to Lynn's example, both the GPA 416 and JBL 2226 are about as efficient at ~ 97dB/W(1m). 
However, the GPA woofer has Cms = 0.78 [mm/N] and Rms = 1.3 [N*s/m], while the JBL has Cms = 0.16 [mm/N] and Rms = 4.9 [N*s/m].
Of course, there's a manufacturing reason for these differences. The JBL woofer, with its comparatively 'stiff' suspensions is quite a bit sturdier if driven hard in PA applications.
Unfortunately, the flip side of this is impaired low-level detail retrieval, and fewer and fewer modern high-efficiency woofers seem to be produced with the latter goal in mind.
Interestingly, as far as low-level detail retrieval is concerned, I have found that controlling these two parameters may possibly be even more important than achieving the ultimate in actual efficiency.
For instance, the Fostex FW405N 15" woofer (~94 dB/W(1m)) has Cms = 0.34 [mm/N] and Rms = 2.5 [N*s/m]. Not quite GPA-like, but still much 'better' than the JBL 2226. And guess what? It sounds much more detailed than the latter (in spite of being 3dB less efficient - it has approximately the same moving mass at ~100 g but a 'weaker' magnet: BL^2/Re = 36 [N^2/W] vs. 75 [N^2/W] for the JBL).
In general, I set for myself the following 'rule of thumb': Rms < 3 (approx.).
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100392-beyond-ariel-887.html#post3509072
 

Pozdrav svima. Posle dužeg vremena, reših da se i ja pomalo uključim i pokušam da dam konstruktivan doprinos u diskusijama na forumu.
Evo stoga jednog zanimljivog razmišljanja, koje će možda dopreneti da se ova tema sagleda iz nekog drugog ugla:
Originally Posted by Lynn Olson  
Tonality and resolution at low levels was one of the big differences between the JBL 2226 and the GPA 416-Alnico. The JBL sounded flat and dull, while the 416-Alnico had the trademark Alnico sparkle to the sound, and most noticeably at low levels. If you want to hear the difference between magnet materials, and overhung vs underhung voice coils, low-level listening is where it is most apparent. IslandPink, please tell us more about the sound of the Supravox 285GMF, especially how it compares to prosound drivers.
That's what I found in general too when comparing more 'old school' (or the very few modern but 'hi-fi oriented') high efficiency woofers to their 'pro sound' siblings.
The way I rationalize the difference is as follows:
At (very) low levels, the woofer is barely moving at all, and having a highly compliant spider and outer suspension (high Cms) and especially low overall mechanical resistance (low Rms) become critical in allowing the low-level detail to come through unhindered.
Coming to Lynn's example, both the GPA 416 and JBL 2226 are about as efficient at ~ 97dB/W(1m). 
However, the GPA woofer has Cms = 0.78 [mm/N] and Rms = 1.3 [N*s/m], while the JBL has Cms = 0.16 [mm/N] and Rms = 4.9 [N*s/m].
Of course, there's a manufacturing reason for these differences. The JBL woofer, with its comparatively 'stiff' suspensions is quite a bit sturdier if driven hard in PA applications.
Unfortunately, the flip side of this is impaired low-level detail retrieval, and fewer and fewer modern high-efficiency woofers seem to be produced with the latter goal in mind.
Interestingly, as far as low-level detail retrieval is concerned, I have found that controlling these two parameters may possibly be even more important than achieving the ultimate in actual efficiency.
For instance, the Fostex FW405N 15" woofer (~94 dB/W(1m)) has Cms = 0.34 [mm/N] and Rms = 2.5 [N*s/m]. Not quite GPA-like, but still much 'better' than the JBL 2226. And guess what? It sounds much more detailed than the latter (in spite of being 3dB less efficient - it has approximately the same moving mass at ~100 g but a 'weaker' magnet: BL^2/Re = 36 [N^2/W] vs. 75 [N^2/W] for the JBL).
In general, I set for myself the following 'rule of thumb': Rms < 3 (approx.).
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100392-beyond-ariel-887.html#post3509072