Steve Eddy
Member of the Trade: The Audio Guild
Aka: TempAccount555
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 6,609
- Likes
- 554
Quote:
All I'm doing is simply stating things as I see them. Ultimately that's what we all do. And we state things as we see them with the assumption that they are correct until such time as evidence is presented to show otherwise.
I see no reason whatsoever why that should cause any sort of consternation on anyone's part.
Quote:
All I've done is disagree with certain claims made. That's not any sort of attack nor should it be taken as one.
Quote:
That's certainly possible, though up to this point, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that.
There's no shortage of apocryphal information in audio (or in other pursuits for that matter), and often times claims are made that are accepted as fact without ever bothering to question or analyze them to see if they're in fact true and they just get perpetuated.
Perhaps that's the case here. I don't know.
Quote:
With regard to the claim that with the active ground the load current doesn't go to ground, there's no need to build anything. It would be trivially easy to show it in a sim. Or even a sketch on the back of a napkin for that matter.
I've presented my argument that it does (indeed that it must according to Kirchhoff) go through the ground node. I've given my reasons why and even provided illustration of the current path.
If I'm incorrect, it should be a simple matter to show where I am in error and show where the load current does go if not through the ground node. I even provided a blank slate for someone to use for that purpose.
k
Originally Posted by n_maher /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think it's because some of your posts read as if you are convinced that you are 100% correct and have no interest in seeing another side of the debate but rather are simply here to prove that you know more/better and are correcting other's false assumptions? |
All I'm doing is simply stating things as I see them. Ultimately that's what we all do. And we state things as we see them with the assumption that they are correct until such time as evidence is presented to show otherwise.
I see no reason whatsoever why that should cause any sort of consternation on anyone's part.
Quote:
But what you're attacking (and it does come across that way, Steve)... |
All I've done is disagree with certain claims made. That's not any sort of attack nor should it be taken as one.
Quote:
...is not something that was happened upon or decided without a great deal of thought or by people without a well formed understanding of the principles in play (amb, tangent, morsel, and a few others). |
That's certainly possible, though up to this point, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that.
There's no shortage of apocryphal information in audio (or in other pursuits for that matter), and often times claims are made that are accepted as fact without ever bothering to question or analyze them to see if they're in fact true and they just get perpetuated.
Perhaps that's the case here. I don't know.
Quote:
But it would seem to me that it should be a simple experiment to show the benefits or lack thereof. Would it not stand to reason that someone could build a 3ch version, test it as such and then simply disconnect the active ground channel from both the power and output and properly connect it to be a 2ch setup and retest? |
With regard to the claim that with the active ground the load current doesn't go to ground, there's no need to build anything. It would be trivially easy to show it in a sim. Or even a sketch on the back of a napkin for that matter.
I've presented my argument that it does (indeed that it must according to Kirchhoff) go through the ground node. I've given my reasons why and even provided illustration of the current path.
If I'm incorrect, it should be a simple matter to show where I am in error and show where the load current does go if not through the ground node. I even provided a blank slate for someone to use for that purpose.
k