Does anyone know a way to take an audio signal and output it

[John Fields]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:35:27 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

My designs of amplifiers have sold tens of thousands
to satisfied customers.

---
Your "designs", I'm sure, were nothing new.

Lifted straight out of the GE transistor manual most likely, or
"borrowed" from some other handy source.

You haven't a fucking clue you ignorant winder-up. Show me a GE design that delivered 0.0008% THD.

---
How about if you post a schematic of one of "your" designs that does?

Oh, wait a minute... you could post _anything_ and claim it was yours,
so never mind.
---

Never had a GE manual anyway.

---
It shows.
---

Plus most app note designs have obvious flaws that wouldn't survive in the pro-audio world.

---
You know that because the ones you "borrowed" from would?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:36:57 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

BFD; just another audio amp.
---

How many 3.5kW low distortion audio power amps have you designed ?

---
None; that's not what I do.

How many 2kW 40kHz ceramic beamforming transducers have you designed?

BTW, while that AX3500 might be a nice amp, it's not rated for 3500
watts, it's rated for 2600 watts, bridged, into a 4 ohm load.

Also, its THD is 0.02% with only a single channel driven to rated power
at 1kHz, hardly the 0.0008% you seemed to be implying it could get in an
earlier post.

That power would be 355 watts into 8 ohms, 550 watts into 4 ohms or 725
watts into 2 ohms, so it seems there's a little specsmanship going on
there by not rating it with both channels running at the same time and
bridged.

http://www.studiomaster.com/brochures/axb.pdf


JF

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Fields

BTW, while that AX3500 might be a nice amp, it's not rated for 3500
watts, it's rated for 2600 watts, bridged, into a 4 ohm load.

** Errr - its 2900 watts actually.

Also, its THD is 0.02% with only a single channel driven to rated power
at 1kHz, hardly the 0.0008% you seemed to be implying it could get in an
earlier post.

** That was in relation to a bygone lateral mosfet amp

- ie not this one.

That power would be 355 watts into 8 ohms, 550 watts into 4 ohms or 725
watts into 2 ohms,

** Huh ????

The single channel figures are 710, 1100 and 1450 watts " per channel" .

These numbers simply double in bridge mode and with twice the load Z
applied.

so it seems there's a little specsmanship going on
there by not rating it with both channels running at the same time and
bridged.

** The specs say the direct opposite to that.

http://www.studiomaster.com/brochures/axb.pdf

** Not familiar with reading stereo power amp specs - are we ??



.... Phil

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:30:44 +1100, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"John Fields

BTW, while that AX3500 might be a nice amp, it's not rated for 3500
watts, it's rated for 2600 watts, bridged, into a 4 ohm load.

** Errr - its 2900 watts actually.
---

Yup.
---

Also, its THD is 0.02% with only a single channel driven to rated power
at 1kHz, hardly the 0.0008% you seemed to be implying it could get in an
earlier post.


** That was in relation to a bygone lateral mosfet amp

- ie not this one.
---

OK
---

That power would be 355 watts into 8 ohms, 550 watts into 4 ohms or 725
watts into 2 ohms,

** Huh ????

The single channel figures are 710, 1100 and 1450 watts " per channel" .

These numbers simply double in bridge mode and with twice the load Z
applied.


so it seems there's a little specsmanship going on
there by not rating it with both channels running at the same time and
bridged.

** The specs say the direct opposite to that.

---
You missed the point, which was that they didn't spec THD in bridge mode
or with both channels running full bore, because it was, no doubt,
higher than 0.02%
---

http://www.studiomaster.com/brochures/axb.pdf


** Not familiar with reading stereo power amp specs - are we ??

---
Not very, but with your kind help I'm more familiar than I was.

JF

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

My designs of amplifiers have sold tens of thousands
to satisfied customers.

---
Your "designs", I'm sure, were nothing new.

Lifted straight out of the GE transistor manual most likely, or
"borrowed" from some other handy source.

You haven't a fucking clue you ignorant winder-up. Show me a GE design that delivered 0.0008% THD.

---
How about if you post a schematic of one of "your" designs that does?

Oh, wait a minute... you could post _anything_ and claim it was yours,
so never mind.
---

Never had a GE manual anyway.

---
It shows.
---

Plus most app note designs have obvious flaws that wouldn't survive in the pro-audio world.

---
You know that because the ones you "borrowed" from would?

Whta's the fucking matter with you ? I can design from 'scratch'. That's the only way to get the above
results.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

BFD; just another audio amp.
---

How many 3.5kW low distortion audio power amps have you designed ?
---
None; that's not what I do.

How many 2kW 40kHz ceramic beamforming transducers have you designed?

BTW, while that AX3500 might be a nice amp, it's not rated for 3500
watts, it's rated for 2600 watts, bridged, into a 4 ohm load.

P.B. fucked up the specs again by the sound of it.

Also, its THD is 0.02% with only a single channel driven to rated power
at 1kHz, hardly the 0.0008% you seemed to be implying it could get in an
earlier post.

That was an entirely different MOSFET amplifier I designed nearly 20 years
ago.

0.02 % is fine for SR/PA use which is its intended application.

That power would be 355 watts into 8 ohms, 550 watts into 4 ohms or 725
watts into 2 ohms, so it seems there's a little specsmanship going on
there by not rating it with both channels running at the same time and
bridged.

710W, 1100W and 1450W per channel. Those figures are per channel with both
channels driven ! That's P.B.'s lousy spec writing again not making it
obvious.

CLOT.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:32:17 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

My designs of amplifiers have sold tens of thousands
to satisfied customers.

---
Your "designs", I'm sure, were nothing new.

Lifted straight out of the GE transistor manual most likely, or
"borrowed" from some other handy source.

You haven't a fucking clue you ignorant winder-up. Show me a GE design that delivered 0.0008% THD.

---
How about if you post a schematic of one of "your" designs that does?

Oh, wait a minute... you could post _anything_ and claim it was yours,
so never mind.
---

Never had a GE manual anyway.

---
It shows.
---

Plus most app note designs have obvious flaws that wouldn't survive in the pro-audio world.

---
You know that because the ones you "borrowed" from would?

Whta's the fucking matter with you ? I can design from 'scratch'.

---
Show us something, then and explain it.

I post schematics, JT posts schematics, Larkin posts schematics, Ed
posts schematics, Jamie posts schematics, and so do a few other folks
whom I can't bring to mind right now.

You, on the other hand, talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.
---

That's the only way to get the above results.

---
Well, it's _one_ way...

JF

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

My designs of amplifiers have sold tens of thousands
to satisfied customers.

---
Your "designs", I'm sure, were nothing new.

Lifted straight out of the GE transistor manual most likely, or
"borrowed" from some other handy source.

You haven't a fucking clue you ignorant winder-up. Show me a GE design that delivered 0.0008% THD.

---
How about if you post a schematic of one of "your" designs that does?

Oh, wait a minute... you could post _anything_ and claim it was yours,
so never mind.
---

Never had a GE manual anyway.

---
It shows.
---

Plus most app note designs have obvious flaws that wouldn't survive in the pro-audio world.

---
You know that because the ones you "borrowed" from would?

What's the fucking matter with you ? I can design from 'scratch'.

---
Show us something, then and explain it.

I post schematics, JT posts schematics, Larkin posts schematics, Ed
posts schematics, Jamie posts schematics, and so do a few other folks
whom I can't bring to mind right now.

I've told you before. The copyright belongs to my client. I intend to talk to them about this point
actually very soon and at least some of the schematics may become re-available for free download. I don't
think the company is doing themselves any favours by referring interested parties to a pay site to get
them.

You, on the other hand, talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.
---

That's the only way to get the above results.

---
Well, it's _one_ way...

No, it's the ONLY way. With what I've learned in the past few decades I wonder what figures I could get
now. I used MathCad to help model that design btw. Running under DOS !

Graham

 

[Jamie]

Eeyore wrote:

John Fields wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:


My designs of amplifiers have sold tens of thousands
to satisfied customers.

---
Your "designs", I'm sure, were nothing new.

Lifted straight out of the GE transistor manual most likely, or
"borrowed" from some other handy source.

You haven't a fucking clue you ignorant winder-up. Show me a GE design that delivered 0.0008% THD.

---
How about if you post a schematic of one of "your" designs that does?

Oh, wait a minute... you could post _anything_ and claim it was yours,
so never mind.
---


Never had a GE manual anyway.

---
It shows.
---


Plus most app note designs have obvious flaws that wouldn't survive in the pro-audio world.

---
You know that because the ones you "borrowed" from would?

What's the fucking matter with you ? I can design from 'scratch'.

---
Show us something, then and explain it.

I post schematics, JT posts schematics, Larkin posts schematics, Ed
posts schematics, Jamie posts schematics, and so do a few other folks
whom I can't bring to mind right now.


I've told you before. The copyright belongs to my client. I intend to talk to them about this point
actually very soon and at least some of the schematics may become re-available for free download. I don't
think the company is doing themselves any favours by referring interested parties to a pay site to get
them.



You, on the other hand, talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.
---


That's the only way to get the above results.

---
Well, it's _one_ way...


No, it's the ONLY way. With what I've learned in the past few decades I wonder what figures I could get
now. I used MathCad to help model that design btw. Running under DOS !

Graham

Ha, Ancient software. Much like the ancient designs from an ancient

proclaimed, engineer.


http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Fields"
"Phil Allison"

BTW, while that AX3500 might be a nice amp, it's not rated for 3500
watts, it's rated for 2600 watts, bridged, into a 4 ohm load.

** Errr - its 2900 watts actually.
---
Yup.
---

Also, its THD is 0.02% with only a single channel driven to rated power
at 1kHz, hardly the 0.0008% you seemed to be implying it could get in an
earlier post.


** That was in relation to a bygone lateral mosfet amp

- ie not this one.
---
OK
---

That power would be 355 watts into 8 ohms, 550 watts into 4 ohms or 725
watts into 2 ohms,

** Huh ????

The single channel figures are 710, 1100 and 1450 watts " per channel" .

These numbers simply double in bridge mode and with twice the load Z
applied.

** No reply noted - wanker.

so it seems there's a little specsmanship going on
there by not rating it with both channels running at the same time and
bridged.

** The specs say the direct opposite to that.

---
You missed the point,

** There was none to miss - asshole.

You entirely mis-interpreted the power specs.




...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore"
John Fields wrote:

I post schematics, JT posts schematics, Larkin posts schematics, Ed
posts schematics, Jamie posts schematics, and so do a few other folks
whom I can't bring to mind right now.

I've told you before. The copyright belongs to my client.

** And I and others have told YOU before -

There is ** NO ** copyright infringement in posting an amplifier schem on
ABSE for folk to peruse and analyse.

No-one is asking you to " publish " it on a website.

Comes under the " fair usage" exclusion rules which includes private study,
writing reviews and criticism and other non profit uses.

Put up or shut up - you whining bullshit artist.


...... Phil

 

[Eeyore]

Jamie wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I used MathCad to help model that design btw. Running under DOS !

Ha, Ancient software. Much like the ancient designs from an ancient
proclaimed, engineer.

It was totally state of the art then. It proved invaluable on another project too. That shows how far ahead of
the pack I was. Of course I have a windows version now.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore"
John Fields wrote:

I post schematics, JT posts schematics, Larkin posts schematics, Ed
posts schematics, Jamie posts schematics, and so do a few other folks
whom I can't bring to mind right now.

I've told you before. The copyright belongs to my client.

** And I and others have told YOU before -

There is ** NO ** copyright infringement in posting an amplifier schem on
ABSE for folk to peruse and analyse.

I prefer to clear it with the client first, not least because I believe the info
SHOULD be freely available to all who need it like their customers wishing to
service their kit, not just those on Usenet.

And a.b.s.e is no longer available to many US users of Usenet too. It hardly
addresses the issue adequately.

Graham

 

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore Illiterate WANKER"

John Fields wrote:

I post schematics, JT posts schematics, Larkin posts schematics, Ed
posts schematics, Jamie posts schematics, and so do a few other folks
whom I can't bring to mind right now.

I've told you before. The copyright belongs to my client.

** And I and others have told YOU before -

There is ** NO ** copyright infringement in posting an amplifier schem on
ABSE for folk to peruse and analyse.

I prefer to clear it with the client first, not least because I believe
the info
SHOULD be freely available to all who need it like their customers wishing
to
service their kit, not just those on Usenet.

** Putting back the bits that were maliciously snipped:

*** No-one is asking you to " publish " it on a website. ****

There is NOTHING to " clear" - you whining bullshit artist.

And a.b.s.e is no longer available to many US users of Usenet too. It
hardly
addresses the issue adequately.

** As I have pointed out many times -

all ABSE pics are available here a day or so after appearing on the group.

http://www.usenet-replayer.com/groups/alt.binaries.schematics.electronic.html


** Put up or shut up - you whining bullshit artist.



....... Phil

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:42:01 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

My designs of amplifiers have sold tens of thousands
to satisfied customers.

---
Your "designs", I'm sure, were nothing new.

Lifted straight out of the GE transistor manual most likely, or
"borrowed" from some other handy source.

You haven't a fucking clue you ignorant winder-up. Show me a GE design that delivered 0.0008% THD.

---
How about if you post a schematic of one of "your" designs that does?

Oh, wait a minute... you could post _anything_ and claim it was yours,
so never mind.
---

Never had a GE manual anyway.

---
It shows.
---

Plus most app note designs have obvious flaws that wouldn't survive in the pro-audio world.

---
You know that because the ones you "borrowed" from would?

What's the fucking matter with you ? I can design from 'scratch'.

---
Show us something, then and explain it.

I post schematics, JT posts schematics, Larkin posts schematics, Ed
posts schematics, Jamie posts schematics, and so do a few other folks
whom I can't bring to mind right now.

I've told you before. The copyright belongs to my client.

---
Yes, of course. A handy wall to hide behind, but that's not what I'm
talking about.

Most of us have more than one field of interest and those of who do, and
who post schematics, put our ideas on the line and welcome constructive
criticism.

You, however, never post anything of the kind and, instead, rely on
nebulous statements which can easily be reversed to make it seem like
you know what you're talking about when you're called to task, while
never producing anything solid for which you can be held accountable.
---

I intend to talk to them about this point actually very soon and at
least some of the schematics may become re-available for free download.
I don't think the company is doing themselves any favours by referring
interested parties to a pay site to get them.

---
I wish...

If only...

I intend...

Blah, blah, blah...
---

You, on the other hand, talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.
---

That's the only way to get the above results.

---
Well, it's _one_ way...

No, it's the ONLY way.

---
Nope, it's just _one_ way.

One of the others is cheating, by using others' designs without
recompense to the original designer which, as I recall, both you and
Aylward endorsed as admirable. Kevin, at least, acknowledged the
source.

You, OTOH seem to be an avaricious puppy intent on using what came
before him as if it was his own.
---

With what I've learned in the past few decades
I wonder what figures I could get now.

---
Who knows?

Design something, build it in the real world, and let us know how it
turns out, OK?
---

I used MathCad to help model that design btw. Running under DOS !

---
Whoop-de-doo...

JF

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:42:01 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

My designs of amplifiers have sold tens of thousands
to satisfied customers.

---
Your "designs", I'm sure, were nothing new.

Lifted straight out of the GE transistor manual most likely, or
"borrowed" from some other handy source.

You haven't a fucking clue you ignorant winder-up. Show me a GE design that delivered 0.0008% THD.

---
How about if you post a schematic of one of "your" designs that does?

Oh, wait a minute... you could post _anything_ and claim it was yours,
so never mind.
---

Never had a GE manual anyway.

---
It shows.
---

Plus most app note designs have obvious flaws that wouldn't survive in the pro-audio world.

---
You know that because the ones you "borrowed" from would?

What's the fucking matter with you ? I can design from 'scratch'.

---
Show us something, then and explain it.

I post schematics, JT posts schematics, Larkin posts schematics, Ed
posts schematics, Jamie posts schematics, and so do a few other folks
whom I can't bring to mind right now.

I've told you before. The copyright belongs to my client.

---
Yes, of course. A handy wall to hide behind, but that's not what I'm
talking about.

Most of us have more than one field of interest and those of who do, and
who post schematics, put our ideas on the line and welcome constructive
criticism.

You, however, never post anything of the kind and, instead, rely on
nebulous statements which can easily be reversed to make it seem like
you know what you're talking about when you're called to task, while
never producing anything solid for which you can be held accountable.
---

I intend to talk to them about this point actually very soon and at
least some of the schematics may become re-available for free download.
I don't think the company is doing themselves any favours by referring
interested parties to a pay site to get them.

---
I wish...

If only...

I intend...

Blah, blah, blah...
---

You, on the other hand, talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.
---

That's the only way to get the above results.

---
Well, it's _one_ way...

No, it's the ONLY way.

---
Nope, it's just _one_ way.

One of the others is cheating, by using others' designs without
recompense to the original designer which, as I recall, both you and
Aylward endorsed as admirable. Kevin, at least, acknowledged the
source.

You, OTOH seem to be an avaricious puppy intent on using what came
before him as if it was his own.
---

With what I've learned in the past few decades
I wonder what figures I could get now.

---
Who knows?

Design something, build it in the real world, and let us know how it
turns out, OK?
---

I used MathCad to help model that design btw. Running under DOS !

---
Whoop-de-doo...

Not much of an engineer, if he couldn't do the math with a pencil &
paper.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:56:53 +1100, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"John Fields"
"Phil Allison"

BTW, while that AX3500 might be a nice amp, it's not rated for 3500
watts, it's rated for 2600 watts, bridged, into a 4 ohm load.

** Errr - its 2900 watts actually.
---
Yup.
---

Also, its THD is 0.02% with only a single channel driven to rated power
at 1kHz, hardly the 0.0008% you seemed to be implying it could get in an
earlier post.


** That was in relation to a bygone lateral mosfet amp

- ie not this one.
---
OK
---

That power would be 355 watts into 8 ohms, 550 watts into 4 ohms or 725
watts into 2 ohms,

** Huh ????

The single channel figures are 710, 1100 and 1450 watts " per channel" .

These numbers simply double in bridge mode and with twice the load Z
applied.


** No reply noted - wanker.

---
Geez, I didn't think a reply to the obvious was required, but since you
insist on it, OK. You're right.

But, there's still the matter of specifying THD under various operating
conditions.

They chose to specify it with only one channel operating at rated load,
when a more revealing spec would reflect what would happen with both
channels operating, full bore, into their rated loads, or bridged.

IMO, that's cheating since those modes of operation are available but
not accounted for, especially since their THD will certainly be worse
than that specified for the single channel case.

JF

 

[Phil Allison]

John Fields"

"Phil Allison"

That power would be 355 watts into 8 ohms, 550 watts into 4 ohms or
725
watts into 2 ohms,

** Huh ????

The single channel figures are 710, 1100 and 1450 watts " per channel"
.

These numbers simply double in bridge mode and with twice the load Z
applied.


** No reply noted - wanker.

---
Geez, I didn't think a reply to the obvious was required, but since you
insist on it, OK. You're right.

** LOL - anything instead of saying " I was wrong and dumb".

But, there's still the matter of specifying THD under various operating
conditions.

** Wot a ridiculous beat up.

They chose to specify it with only one channel operating at rated load,
when a more revealing spec would reflect what would happen with both
channels operating, full bore, into their rated loads, or bridged.

** Complete bollocks.

IMO, that's cheating since those modes of operation are available but
not accounted for, especially since their THD will certainly be worse
than that specified for the single channel case.

** Utter drivel.

Proves you know SFA about audio amplifiers.


...... Phil

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:48:35 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:42:01 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

My designs of amplifiers have sold tens of thousands
to satisfied customers.

---
Your "designs", I'm sure, were nothing new.

Lifted straight out of the GE transistor manual most likely, or
"borrowed" from some other handy source.

You haven't a fucking clue you ignorant winder-up. Show me a GE design that delivered 0.0008% THD.

---
How about if you post a schematic of one of "your" designs that does?

Oh, wait a minute... you could post _anything_ and claim it was yours,
so never mind.
---

Never had a GE manual anyway.

---
It shows.
---

Plus most app note designs have obvious flaws that wouldn't survive in the pro-audio world.

---
You know that because the ones you "borrowed" from would?

What's the fucking matter with you ? I can design from 'scratch'.

---
Show us something, then and explain it.

I post schematics, JT posts schematics, Larkin posts schematics, Ed
posts schematics, Jamie posts schematics, and so do a few other folks
whom I can't bring to mind right now.

I've told you before. The copyright belongs to my client.

---
Yes, of course. A handy wall to hide behind, but that's not what I'm
talking about.

Most of us have more than one field of interest and those of who do, and
who post schematics, put our ideas on the line and welcome constructive
criticism.

You, however, never post anything of the kind and, instead, rely on
nebulous statements which can easily be reversed to make it seem like
you know what you're talking about when you're called to task, while
never producing anything solid for which you can be held accountable.
---

I intend to talk to them about this point actually very soon and at
least some of the schematics may become re-available for free download.
I don't think the company is doing themselves any favours by referring
interested parties to a pay site to get them.

---
I wish...

If only...

I intend...

Blah, blah, blah...
---

You, on the other hand, talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.
---

That's the only way to get the above results.

---
Well, it's _one_ way...

No, it's the ONLY way.

---
Nope, it's just _one_ way.

One of the others is cheating, by using others' designs without
recompense to the original designer which, as I recall, both you and
Aylward endorsed as admirable. Kevin, at least, acknowledged the
source.

You, OTOH seem to be an avaricious puppy intent on using what came
before him as if it was his own.
---

With what I've learned in the past few decades
I wonder what figures I could get now.

---
Who knows?

Design something, build it in the real world, and let us know how it
turns out, OK?
---

I used MathCad to help model that design btw. Running under DOS !

---
Whoop-de-doo...


Not much of an engineer, if he couldn't do the math with a pencil &
paper.

---
Be fair.

Sometimes, a year's worth of pencil and paper work can be done in a few
minutes (seconds?) if you can tell your computer how to do it.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:22:48 +1100, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

John Fields"
"Phil Allison"

That power would be 355 watts into 8 ohms, 550 watts into 4 ohms or
725
watts into 2 ohms,

** Huh ????

The single channel figures are 710, 1100 and 1450 watts " per channel"
.

These numbers simply double in bridge mode and with twice the load Z
applied.


** No reply noted - wanker.

---
Geez, I didn't think a reply to the obvious was required, but since you
insist on it, OK. You're right.


** LOL - anything instead of saying " I was wrong and dumb".


But, there's still the matter of specifying THD under various operating
conditions.


** Wot a ridiculous beat up.


They chose to specify it with only one channel operating at rated load,
when a more revealing spec would reflect what would happen with both
channels operating, full bore, into their rated loads, or bridged.

** Complete bollocks.


IMO, that's cheating since those modes of operation are available but
not accounted for, especially since their THD will certainly be worse
than that specified for the single channel case.


** Utter drivel.

Proves you know SFA about audio amplifiers.


..... Phil

---
As usual, all you want to do is fight, instead of engaging in reasoned
discourse, so I'll disengage.

Goodbye until next time,

JF