Driver to drive?

[BobW]

Phil,

You have a mental illness. You probably don't realize it, but it's obvious
to others. If you're not already doing so, for your own sake, you should
seek professional help.

Bob
--
== All google group posts are automatically deleted due to spam ==

 

[Jorden Verwer]

JosephKK wrote:

Don't you at least agree there are many similarities between 1/f
noise and offset?


Actually, I do. By and large, they amount to the same thing. Its all low
frequency variations. For example, if one designs a chopper amp to get
low
offset, it also kills/corrects for 1/f noise as well. If one has 1/f
problems in an system, one immediately thinks about using a chopper..well
I
do any way...


Kevin Aylward
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice


I am less sure about it killing 1/f (flicker) noise rather than band
shifting it to a place where is can be filtered out.
The 1/f noise ends up in a part of the spectrum that you were going to

filter out anyway, given that you're using a chopper amp.

It is not offset, though the chopper amplifiers can mask it out.
No, it's not the same, but it is related. It has many of the same

properties.

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"default" <default@defaulter.net> wrote in message
news:sqcnd4de0l5dtuq5o2q23t373n2cnhg8qe@4ax.com...

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:26:07 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote:

What do you expect when you put con artists, thugs, and morons in office?
The only ones to blame are the voters and they deserve what happens. If
your
going to vote for someone based on party, looks, personality, etc then you
deserve the consequences. You don't let a crack head run the pharmacy and
if
your too stupid to understand that then thats your problem. (unfortunately
it makes it everyone's problem but I guess thats life. Rome didn't last
forever but much longer than the US will)

You're right, of course. The problem is ingrained now and
irreversible as long as corporations decide (indirectly) who we are
allowed to vote for.

I was watching the Libertarian convention on CSPAN. Looked to me like
everyone who spoke, conceding their own bid for the nomination, agreed
that Mike Gravel would respect the libertarian point of view most
accurately, but when push comes to shove, Bob Barr gets the nomination
because he stands a better chance of winning (not like ANY libertarian
has a chance realistically speaking).

So in effect they just told me that winning the election is more
important than accurate representation.

People are idiots.
--

What I'm afraid of if all this is somehow a conspiracy. If forgein
governments are involved and trying to bring down the US or if it is the
government itself trying to setup the people. (for example, to somehow
influence the election or rape the country of it's economic wealth)

Although I guess in either case it doesn't matter because the end result is
the same.

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:48DBACB8.645F2593@hotmail.com

Arny Krueger wrote:

Short answer - Graham has no immediate practical
experience with measuring QSC amps, just like I said.

What's 'immediate' got to do with it ? I've measured
plenty of QSCs and the MX1500 I had was shocking.

OK, but was it representative or just broken?

The RMXs are a bit better but still nothing to write home
about. I refined the RMX design for a semi-cloner of the
output stage btw and knocked the THD down significantly
with some of my little tricks like pole-zero
compensation and also made the input to the amp 'module'
quasi balanced to reduce 50/100 etc hum pickup..

Neither of which relate to claims about crossover distortion.

I've also measured the Powerlights but I don't exactly
recall their THD now mainly because my enduring memory of
them is that the short circuit protection doesn't work if
you short out a 'live signal'. Thankfully it was under
guarantee. It probably works if powered up with a short
on the output. It's easy to see why. Their protection
method is shit. Read the patent. There's too much stored
charged in those 2 electrolytic caps.

Which again does not relate to claims about crossover distortion.

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:48DBAD3A.7C4C7E3A@hotmail.com

Arny Krueger wrote:

If you had a group of 30 well-chosen, well-trained
listeners, then there would be no such thing as "...30
listeners and 3 were consistently about to determine A
from B and the other 27 couldn't..."

And how exactly do you determine that ?

By using well-trained, well-chosen listeners. They tend to perform near the
limits of human perception, which is to say that they are consistent with
each other. Reality might be be that 27 out of 30, when evaluated
individually, consistently distinguish A from B at the 99 percent confidence
level, and maybe 3 others are off that pace, but not enough to ruin the
results of the group taken as a whole. When you sum up the results of 30
people, far fewer correct results are required for a high-confidence result,
than would be required for just one person with the same number of trials.

You just proved that ABX testing ignores those with the
most sensitive or highly trained hearing and is therefore
merely a lowest common denominator test.

No such thing.

I don't think you really understand what proof or good experimental design
and analysis is, Graham.

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:48DBAD9A.BAD7741@hotmail.com

Arny Krueger wrote:

However I WILL NOT engage in futile discussion about
things *I* know I *can* hear.

All the audiophool golden ears say *exactly* the same
thing.

And as I said it was chalk and cheese.

And as I said, all the audiophool golden ears say *exactly* the same
thing.

Not stupid liquid nitrogen dipped speaker cables or that
kind of garbage.

No possible audible difference is the same whether the test is ludicrous or
close enough to be interesting.

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:48DBADE5.71EFCACD@hotmail.com

Arny Krueger wrote:

I have more highly sensitive audio test gear by accident
then most people have on purpose. I probably shouldn't
admit this because it shows a certain kind of
carelessness.

Not more sensitive than Audio Precision or Prism Sound.

Better than a Prism Sound ADA-8 or an AP System One.

 

[Jorden Verwer]

JosephKK wrote:

Noise-like phenomena, in increasing order of bandwith:
Offset ==> 1/f noise ==> white noise


OK alligator, where does shot noise fall in the spectrum?
I never claimed that the list was exhausistive, but to answer your question:

I would put it between 1/f noise and white noise.

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:48DBD49A.89520121@hotmail.com

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:

Short answer - Graham has no immediate practical
experience with measuring QSC amps, just like I said.

What's 'immediate' got to do with it ? I've measured
plenty of QSCs and the MX1500 I had was shocking.

OK, but was it representative or just broken?

Brand new out of the box as I recall. It met its
miserable specs. It sounded like a gravel machine.

The specs are such that the machine could have a pretty serious fault, and
still meet specs.

Why are so against low distortion ?

Me, against low distortion?

However, there's plenty of evidence that THD below 0.02% in actual use is a
nit.

You're sounding like a tubie.

Not at all.

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:hVACk.1362$Ws1.1079@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...

What's the jelly-bean level shifter du jour, the most popular?

Need to shift three sigs 3.3V to 5V and another three 5V to 3.3V. Stuff us
analog dudes normally don't do. The TXB0104 looks ok, so does the
74LVC4245. But the specs for both are horrible, incomplete at best. Not
much in drive levels mentioned, or just for one direction.

The topper is a comment in the TXB spec, "OE should be tied to GND through
a pulldown resistor; the minimum value of the resistor is determined by
the current-sourcing capability of the driver" That driver is obviously on
the chip. Duh! Of course they also forgot what to do if not needed. Pull
up? Leave open? Who knows. Well, maybe they had a kegger the night before
...

Here's what seems to qualify as a datasheet these days:
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/txb0104.pdf

VOH and VOL at 20uA. Microamperes! Couldn't believe it.

Look at the I2C spec, they do this using mosfets and is bidir.

 

[Jorden Verwer]

Don Pearce wrote:

Jorden Verwer wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
Noise-like phenomena, in increasing order of bandwith:
Offset ==> 1/f noise ==> white noise

OK alligator, where does shot noise fall in the spectrum?
I never claimed that the list was exhausistive, but to answer your
question:
I would put it between 1/f noise and white noise.



The spectrum of shot noise is white - why would it be otherwise?
Shot noise will always be band limited because electrons have a nonzero

transit time. Its bandwith is very high, but not infinite.

 

[Bob Eld]

"panfilero" <panfilero@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dd8b1dd-a4ff-42c9-87fe-8192bb028dec@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Hello,

I've been having a hard time locating this and was wondering if anyone
knew where I might find one....

I need a connector that can accept 72 30AWG wires. Most connectors
that I have been finding don't take wires that are this small, and the
ones that do can't handle 72 of them.... does anyone know of any place
that makes connectors that can do this? I wanted circular but am
willing to take whatever, d-sub or whatever.... some kind of circular
one would be preferred

much thanks
J.

In my organ, I use two 37 pin sub-D connectors for a total of 74 connection
on each rank. They are cheap and readily available and can handle several
amps per connection. I use the solder cup versions, not crimp, gold plated.
Most wires are 24 gauge some are 26 and some are 30 gauge. Being soldered
they will accept any wire size to 22 gauge. These connectors are available
in all sorts of configurations, chassis mount, cable mount, locking, right
angle, etc. etc.

 

[Phil Allison]

"BobWanker"


** Drop dead you fucking tenth witted ass.




...... Phil

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:48DBD591.452A567A@hotmail.com

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:

However I WILL NOT engage in futile discussion about
things *I* know I *can* hear.

All the audiophool golden ears say *exactly* the same
thing.

And as I said it was chalk and cheese.

And as I said, all the audiophool golden ears say
*exactly* the same thing.

But I don't claim to be an "audiophool golden ear", just
someone with decent hearing.

Again, that is exactly we hear from virtually all of the audiophiles who
believe in weird cables and all the rest.

There is a pervasive natural tendency to underestimate the effects of bias
on what we perceive. Most people are shocked by what they hear the first
time they participate in a bias-controlled listening test involving even
subtle, but audible differences. They find out that they have been living in
a glass house.

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:48DBD611.23FCDBA3@hotmail.com

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
in
Arny Krueger wrote:

I have more highly sensitive audio test gear by
accident then most people have on purpose. I probably
shouldn't admit this because it shows a certain kind of
carelessness.

Not more sensitive than Audio Precision or Prism Sound.

Better than a Prism Sound ADA-8

Which isn't test equipment anyway.

Well, yes and no. With computer testing software, any ADC-DAC can perform as
some kind of audio test equipment.

Besides, I'm not the one who brought Prism up.

or an AP System One.

Better than a brilliant 20+ year old design ? No longer
in production btw. It's System 2 now. I'd like to know by
how much to be honest.

The LynxTwo runs neck-and-neck with an AP System 2, according to its
designer who of course has one.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

JosephKK wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:26:25 -0000, "Jorden Verwer"
J.Verwer@inter.NL.net> wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
given that you've apparently never heard of the term
offset.

Offset is IRRELEVANT to output devices you complete MORON !
I know that, and I never claimed otherwise. Offset is a form of
noise, in a sense. And like noise, it is caused almost completely by
the input transistors. I'm well aware of all that.

Do do you know what a 'closed loop' means ?
Yes.


Offset is a form of noise???? This is the first time i have ever
heard that.

Not for me. Its very common interpretation.

There is no engineering reason to look at it that way.

There is to me, and to many others.

is fundamentally a different property with different physics.

Offset is an error. Noise is an error. For example, the standard method of
analysing Sigma-Delta converters is to treat what is, technically, an error
in coding a signal from its actual value, as an additional *noise* source,
that is considered to be unrelated to the signal, when in fact, it is!

I don't see that it matters much where the error comes from, it can be
handled in the same general way.

Kevin Aylward
kevin@kevinaylward.co.uk
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

JosephKK wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:21:19 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

it.

Not at all in any remote way shape or form.
Don't you at least agree there are many similarities between 1/f
noise and offset?


Actually, I do. By and large, they amount to the same thing. Its all
low frequency variations. For example, if one designs a chopper amp
to get low offset, it also kills/corrects for 1/f noise as well. If
one has 1/f problems in an system, one immediately thinks about
using a chopper..well I do any way...


Kevin Aylward
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice


I am less sure about it killing 1/f (flicker) noise rather than band
shifting it to a place where is can be filtered out. It is not
offset, though the chopper amplifiers can mask it out.

I don't see who its physical possible to distinguish between a random dc
offset, and random noise. If offset is completely fixed, never moves with
time, we can ignore it as we can just subtract it with certainty. Its only
if it moves that it concerns us, well, except for having 1A continuous
through a speaker coil....

Ah, yes, noise
shaping; making some undesired near band interfering signal content
terms go where they are easier to separate from the desired signal.

already addressed by the other fellows post.

Kevin Aylward

www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[GregS]

In article <pan.2008.09.24.17.41.04.166946@example.net>, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:33:17 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
I expect the phone would be good enough for you ?

Depends on the phone. If I make a phone up out of a good vocal mic and some
studio monitors, it will be pretty good. These days really good electret
mics cost pennies, while good earphone elements are relatively small and
cheap compared to speakers. Most of the inherent losses in modern phones are
in the communications channel, which is wildly bandwidth-reduced. As
bandwidth becomes cheaper, there is a possibility that good-sounding
telephones will become commonplace.


If NASA can send broadcast quality video down from the shuttle or ISS,
howcome their audio still sounds like a fast food clown?

Thanks,
Rich

I don't know whats used today, but the Apollo stuff used Motorola communications

units much the same as standard variety sets. Those were also on a separate antenna
system from the unified S Band. Those bandwidths also were much the same as standard
communication links inside the tracking sites and links to mission control.

greg

 

[TheM]

"Boris Mohar" <borism_void_@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:24kpd492ap2onm7q5kp167n6hu57ueob0k@4ax.com...

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:25:38 -0700, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com
wrote:

David L. Jones wrote:

Have fun...

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html

http://emdrive.com/principle.html

Dave.
An antenna / waveguide can be thought of as a method of launching
energy in (roughly) one direction.
Not quite an ion engine, but...

This thing is RF sealed.
--

Boris Mohar

Check the site in more detail, looks legit. But I don't get the underlying principle.

It this thing really working? The force is microscopic, though, but that might not
matter much for the intended purpose.

M

 

[Anthony Fremont]

chetan.getfriday@gmail.com wrote:

Hi,

I want to learn how to design RFID antenna. Do any one could help me
out with this.

Here is an application note with good detail:
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/AppNotes/00710c.pdf