🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:34:45 -0400, Howard Ferstler
<ferstle@attglobal.net> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> 
>> On 19 Jul 2005 09:49:34 -0700, "ScottW" <ScottW48@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:00:48 -0400, Howard Ferstler
>> >> <ferstle@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT
>> >> >> ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny, not Dick
>> >> >> Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your gourd.
>> >> >
>> >> >It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem.
>> >> >However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a
>> >> >speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the
>> >> >protection circuits are doing.
>> >>
>> >> Well, you're just plain wrong.
>> >
>> >Define near short and define mute.
>> >
>> >It will probably put most amps into current limit.
>> 
>> But not all................. :-)
>> 
>> >> >In any case, a super-expensive amp (like that Krell) is an
>> >> >overpriced item that appeals to suckers.
>> >
>> > A Krell KSA will blow that short like a fuse :)  Instant repair.
>> 
>> Quite so! :-)
>> 
>> Even if the near short is current-capable, the Krell will still
>> provide enough current to drive both the short and the speaker. Since
>> they're in parallel, there won't be any reduction of voltage (and
>> hence volume) to the speaker. Shame that Howard doesn't understand
>> this.
>
>How can any current be flowing through the speaker? All of
>it will be passing through the short in parallel.

That's an absolutely shameful statement to be made by someone who
calls himself an audio reviewer. Read up on Thevenin and Norton.
-- 

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering