|
|
本帖最后由 karrigan 于 2010-1-16 01:44 编辑 : L1 W; Y1 L2 E; n+ K
% v$ F# f$ e8 ?' y7 J/ s4 q6 H达斯一个链接,搞得人心惶惶,真是够折腾,我来做个贡献,5.0之后的文章,我来全文翻译,信息全部透明..说起来就方便多了嘛
( c2 q9 j' ~! Q7 k5 G
x# m8 \4 A4 v) I# B' A, h5.0 频域相应4 p4 C. ?- ~, b5 P
/ w" j; @) ~0 W- ]3 E7 s为了公平起见,因为不看频响来分析咸菜实在是不能行,所以咱们一定要做频域相应测试。每个单独的测试里,在far end端(就是扬声器的输入口)以分贝为单位绘制曲线,红色的是只算咸菜的电阻时候的曲线,绿色的是啥子电阻,感抗,容抗都算进去的结果。频响曲线的频段选取10hz-100khz,很明显还是有些区别滴。每个测试都用得是同一个功放,所以功放的影响也反映在幅频曲线里了(?此处留意?)。再罗嗦一遍,所有的线都是4米长...- q' y# `! |; A2 f4 z$ g. \* y
B4 G9 v, m3 T* L
甚至是最烂的线(8号),在低频段的响应也是完全由电阻决定的,在电感和电容的影响下,12 gauge zip cord(就是那个627nh的牛线)和8号(随便买的那个)的频响都有了一些改善(注,原文为improved,也就是相对于原来不考虑电感电容的时候),输出端的zobel网络,连个鸟的影响也没有‘原文为make no difference’(所有测试中均包括,由100nf的电容和100欧的电阻串联组成)9 B$ j3 T/ r7 e0 \: B; A4 J
. q# j+ S, a5 T: y# B* M% f" z原文
1 \# |, I' \4 q( z0 p! A+ R$ R/ s6 F, {! E
5.0 Frequency Response
3 ~3 n+ V4 G; `! D. ~8 U
! m( S9 I8 Z* R1 @. s- ATo be fair, it is unreasonable to investigate these cables without looking at the frequency response, so the following tests were done. In each case, response at the far end (loudspeaker) was plotted in dB, with only the cables resistive component (red graph) and with inductance and capacitance included (green graph). Response plots were done from 10Hz to 100kHz, and it is obvious that there are some differences. The same simulated amplifier was used for all tests, so its influence on the response is included. Again, all cables were measured using a 4 metre length." d2 N) Z7 o" f, `5 _
& Q) ?3 Q, W, d/ C2 H; L. ]: i
Even with the very worst cable (the Aussie "Figure 8" lamp cable), response is dominated by resistance at low frequencies. The addition of inductance and capacitance actually improved matters for the 12 gauge zip cord and Figure-8, and the far-end Zobel makes no difference (it was included for all tests, and was 100nF in series with 100Ω).
: x8 ]3 w. l1 Z7 s& [/ t# c; p1 s9 [. h. M5 `5 O
0 r, n1 \" a$ M) n: a以下是我先随便说的两句,既然作者都说zobel网络没用,那么是不是我们也可以名正言顺的把前面一堆波特图拿来看了呢?反正对0-20khz的咸菜毫无影响 |
|