IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP


God god at almighty.com
Sun Jun 8 17:03:50 EST 1997

The original fallacy:

>Consider an amplifier with an 8 ohm output impedance feeding 8 volts into 
>a speaker with an 8 ohm impedance.  The speaker will be dissipating 8 
>watts of power and will generate a specific sound pressure level.
>Next, consider the same amplifier putting 8 volts into a 16 ohm load.
>Since P = E^2 / R, the power being pumped into the load is 8^2 / 16, or 4 
>watts, which will yield a lower sound pressure level.
>The assumption, of course, is that both speakers have the same efficiency 
>and are, in fact, identical except for their impedances.
1) An amp driving 8 volts into 8 ohms will dissipate 8 W of power and
an SPL of  A.
2) An amp driving 8 volts into a 16 ohm load will dissipate 4W of
power and an SPL of  >A.
3) We assume that both "speakers" in 1) and 2) have the same
efficiency (and identical except for their impedances.)
4) Ergo, a 16 ohm speaker is less sensitive than an 8 ohm because at
the same WATTAGE, the former produces a lower SPL ** from 1) and 2)

He did prove his
point that the higher impedance speaker would produce lower SPL at a
given voltage. However, when he translated this to lower SPL at a
given wattage, he committed the fallacy of four terms, a non sequitur
fallacy of ambiguity. 

If you still insist that the fallacy is petitio principii, please tell
us DIRECTLY where this occurs.

>>Apparently, you are a little disgruntled because you incorrectly
>>identified a petitio principii.
>Being a god, you' know that of course, even if I deny both your
>assumption and your critique.

Well, if you don't want people to infer that, make it less obvious.
And I never claimed to be god.

> Just becuase you know the Latin name for
>something does not mean that you could see one if it bit you. 

Well, if  little flees bit your glutei maximi, you wouldn't be able to
see it either.

>article in question assumed sensitivity was inversely related to
>impedance and then proved it from the same starting point. That 'begs
>the question',without doubt.

He never made that assumption. Read the post again.

>>But let me quote you:
>>"If the reference efficiency, ho, is unknown, it can be accurately
>>calculated from the sensitivity if the sensitivity is referenced to 1
>>watt." -- JBL Speaker Shop help file
>Not that alone, you need the directivity index as well. Maybe that was
>an inadvertent omission by JBL?

Then how on earth can the software ACCURATELY calculate the reference
efficiency from the sensitivity referenced to 1 watt. As far as I
know, JBL speaker shop does not have a random number generator for its
speaker parameters.

>Quoting manufacturer's literature as a technical authority shows extreme
>naivety. The 'sensitivity' quantities that have been mentioned are all
>dimensioned quantities. Efficiency is a pure ratio, and dimensionless.

Christ, not for practical purposes. Force is a vector quantity, but we
don't say "this object has 450N, in the direction of the center of the

> You call making unjustified assumptions about people's
>motives for posting 'courtesy'?

What other motive can you offer for why your response was so rude? Is
it in your nature? 

More information about the Audiolog mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net