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

  • Thread starter please_post_to_groups
  • Start date
"John Fields"
"Phil Allison"
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.


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

** As usual, all YOU post are ignorant and unsupported ASSERTIONS

- aka Utter Drivel !!

There being NO CASE WHATEVER to answer

- no answer is needed.

Fuck off.



....... Phil
 
John Fields wrote:

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.
Click to expand...
WTF are you talking about ?
 
"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.
Click to expand...

** 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.
Click to expand...

** 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 wrote:

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.
Click to expand...
That's the way *I* do it. Although in fact, it IS measured that way, simply not
stated by that clot P.B. else the power into 2 ohms x 2 wouldn't be identical to
the bridged power into 4 ohms. Which it is.

Don't know much about audio do you ?

Graham
 
John Fields wrote:

As usual, all you want to do is fight, instead of engaging in reasoned
discourse, so I'll disengage.
Click to expand...
You're one to talk since you have misinterpreted every single power figure in
those specs.

Graham
 
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:12:16 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

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.

That's the way *I* do it. Although in fact, it IS measured that way, simply not
stated by that clot P.B. else the power into 2 ohms x 2 wouldn't be identical to
the bridged power into 4 ohms. Which it is.

Don't know much about audio do you ?
Click to expand...
---
I cut my teeth on audio, and decided there were better things to do than
to follow it blindly for the rest of my life.

You, obviously, decided differently.

The point, which you seem to keep missing, is that THD was measured
under conditions which were optimum instead of, as I'd have done,
measured it with one channel operating fully loaded, both channels fully
loaded, and bridged, fully loaded, and published the results.

JF
 
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:14:41 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

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

You're one to talk since you have misinterpreted every single power figure in
those specs.
Click to expand...
---
That has nothing to do with wanting to fight.

All I did was misread a sentence or two and admit to the error when it
was brought up by Phil.

Interestingly, you both seem to think that admitting to an error is an
Achilles' heel of some kind and are loath to do it because you think it
puts you in a position of weakness.

Even more interesting is that you don't seem to realize that refusing to
acknowledge an error, when it's as plain as the nose on your face, makes
you look disingenuous and sullies your credibility.

JF
 
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:23:47 +1100, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"John Fields"
"Phil Allison"

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.


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


** As usual, all YOU post are ignorant and unsupported ASSERTIONS

- aka Utter Drivel !!
Click to expand...
---
Geez, I guess, then, since you say "all", that you've missed my
excellent technical posts, some replete with drawings and circuit
descriptions.

Or else you just want to fight.
---

There being NO CASE WHATEVER to answer

- no answer is needed.
Click to expand...
---
And yet you chose to answer?

I guess you just want to fight.
---

Fuck off.
Click to expand...
---
Yup, I was right; you just want to fight.


POME

Our Phil was a sad little blighter,
who reckoned himself quite a fighter.
With four letter words
he dropped just like turds
He left the ring thinking: "Me smiter!"

JF
 
John Fields wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

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. :)
Click to expand...

That's easy, if you already know how to do it 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 wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

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

You're one to talk since you have misinterpreted every single power figure in
those specs.

---
That has nothing to do with wanting to fight.

All I did was misread a sentence or two and admit to the error when it
was brought up by Phil.

Interestingly, you both seem to think that admitting to an error is an
Achilles' heel of some kind and are loath to do it because you think it
puts you in a position of weakness.

Even more interesting is that you don't seem to realize that refusing to
acknowledge an error, when it's as plain as the nose on your face, makes
you look disingenuous and sullies your credibility.
Click to expand...
What error ?

Graham
 
John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

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.

That's the way *I* do it. Although in fact, it IS measured that way, simply not
stated by that clot P.B. else the power into 2 ohms x 2 wouldn't be identical to
the bridged power into 4 ohms. Which it is.

Don't know much about audio do you ?

---
I cut my teeth on audio, and decided there were better things to do than
to follow it blindly for the rest of my life.

You, obviously, decided differently.

The point, which you seem to keep missing, is that THD was measured
under conditions which were optimum instead of,
Click to expand...
No, the very reverse.


as I'd have done,
measured it with one channel operating fully loaded, both channels fully
loaded, and bridged, fully loaded, and published the results.
Click to expand...
We only bother with both channels fully loaded. It's the pro-audio industry norm.

How long do you want the data sheet to be ? Users aren't interested in THAT much
gubbins. Suggest you read a few equivalent data sheets from other manufacturers in
the same business.

Graham
 
John Fields wrote:

I cut my teeth on audio, and decided there were better things to do than
to follow it blindly for the rest of my life.
Click to expand...
Me neither.

I have innovated in audio.

Graham
 
"John Fields"
There being NO CASE WHATEVER to answer

- no answer is needed.

---
And yet you chose to answer?
Click to expand...

** I posted a reply.

You stupid autistic cretin.



....... Phil
 
"John Fields"
All I did was misread a sentence or two and admit to the error when it
was brought up by Phil.
Click to expand...

** Fucking LIAR.



...... Phil
 
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:25:30 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

I cut my teeth on audio, and decided there were better things to do than
to follow it blindly for the rest of my life.

Me neither.

I have innovated in audio.
Click to expand...
---
Got any patents?

JF
 
please_post_to_groups wrote:
Does anyone know a way to take an audio signal and output it multiple times
with different amplitude and phases tia sal2
Click to expand...
It's been too long since I have done a ny digital design, but, as delay
lines work, one needs to send an analog waveform, digitized in amplitude
to a sing-around circuit with 8 taps at the selected phase points, each
tap being the appropriate output. The sine wave remains conntained in
the sing-sround circuit. The frequency is determined by the clock speed
of the sing-around circuit.

Angelo Campanella
 
John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

I cut my teeth on audio, and decided there were better things to do than
to follow it blindly for the rest of my life.

Me neither.

I have innovated in audio.

---
Got any patents?
Click to expand...
The companies I've worked for have generally preferred commercial
confidentiality plus you know how difficult it is to patent a circuit under the
'obvious use' or 'derivative' clauses.

I do have several patentable ideas in mind though. Both totally unrelated to
audio. Was thinking about one of them earlier today. Oh and (nearly forgot) one
audio one related to louspeakers.

Graham
 
Angelo Campanella wrote:

please_post_to_groups wrote:
Does anyone know a way to take an audio signal and output it multiple times
with different amplitude and phases tia sal2

It's been too long since I have done a ny digital design, but, as delay
lines work, one needs to send an analog waveform, digitized in amplitude
to a sing-around circuit with 8 taps at the selected phase points, each
tap being the appropriate output. The sine wave remains conntained in
the sing-sround circuit. The frequency is determined by the clock speed
of the sing-around circuit.
Click to expand...
Which would therefore still only work at a unique single frequency at any one time.

Graham
 
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

John Fields wrote:


I cut my teeth on audio, and decided there were better things to do than
to follow it blindly for the rest of my life.

Me neither.

I have innovated in audio.

---
Got any patents?


The companies I've worked for have generally preferred commercial
confidentiality plus you know how difficult it is to patent a circuit under the
'obvious use' or 'derivative' clauses.

I do have several patentable ideas in mind though. Both totally unrelated to
audio. Was thinking about one of them earlier today. Oh and (nearly forgot) one
audio one related to louspeakers.

Graham

I thought I smelt something from over the pond.
Click to expand...


http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top