Driver to drive?

[JeffM]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
I cannot understand why anyone would buy MS products when this is free.

Joel Koltner wrote:
[. . .]
3) Cost of change. For individual use, OO can make a very strong [case].

Amen. With the economy imploding,

corps also will be watching every penny.

For commercial usage, you're looking at
spending (potentially a lot of) time re-training and changing over.

This ignores M$'s new "Ribbon" default interface

which will have to be adapted to by old users "upgrading".
The question becomes: If someone has to learn a new interface anyway,
why would he PAY for the imposition?

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"Anthony Fremont" <nobody@noplace.net> wrote in message
news:kq2dndgYvMV_BWHVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@supernews.com...

Jon Slaughter wrote:
"Anthony Fremont" wrote:
Frank Buss wrote:
James Waldby wrote:

movf mask,w ; (Only if mask is not in w already)
iorwf IND,r ; set bit
btfss updbyte, 5 ; check for set or reset
xorwf IND,r ; reset bit
continue nop

This is dangerous, if an interrupt is generated after the iorwf.

How so?

If an interrupt occurs before the reset then the state might not be
properly defined if the interrupt depends on the data.

Well duh, but that would be a logic error and that goes beyond the scope
of this discussion; we could make up scenarios like that all day. I was
thinking (well hoping) Frank had something special for us pertaining to
the PIC architecture.

haha... logic error? It's a bug either way and your program could have some
serious flaws. If it was for medical use and that flaw had the result of
killing somebody you should be counting your lucky stars because no one
would look at your code to see your "logic error". (which would be called
involuntary manslaughter)

Turning off interrupts for the modification will help but writing the bit
in one
go is best.

With all due respect, that's more a matter of opinion than one of fact as
it depends upon the specific application. If the ISR is dependant upon
the data that is currently being modified, then disabling INTs for a few
instructions [atomizing the update] is probably the best thing to do to,
unless your ISR can't handle the entry jitter. In that case, you need to
rethink the design. Otherwise, I don't see how an INT occuring at that
location can cause any harm if the ISR is properly saving and restoring
the program context before returning. Please elaborate Frank.

Obviously if the int's are not using that data they can't cause any problems
but thats a weak assumption. You never know when or how it might happen
unless you explicitly state it... but only in highly optimized code would it
be worth doing that way. The general practice is to disable interrupts.

But I can give several examples. Program context has nothing to do with it.
You are not saving the stream. In fact many serious flaws have resulted
because of such things(and they take various forms).

The general idea is

partially Modify data
interrupt
completely modify data

if the interrupt depends on the data, then since it interrupted it before it
was completely modified the data of the data might be invalid(and usually
is) and the code will not function as predicted.

A simple real example

global int x = 4

---
x = x + 3
int
x = x*9


Now suppose that the two assignements for x were suppose to operate as one
logical unit. Say that x = 7 is actually a state that is suppose to be
forbidden... Or suppose it's an error code and 7 is a different code than
63.

Then if int uses x, which has nothing to do with program context, it will
see x as 7 and not as 63

i.e., if it as

x = x + 3
x = x*9
int

But since you didn't think about the interrupt ocurring inbetween the
statements you never realized how x = 7 was comming about.

It's a big deal and though you might want to be a hard head about it maybe
one day it will bite you in the ass and you'll spend weeks trying to figure
out why your code is crashing.

If you were smart you would say "Thanks, I'll need to remember that for next
time" or something like that. Else your just being ignorant.

I'll agree that in 99.9% of the cases it won't matter but lets hope you are
writing code for anything serious then.

 

[Eeyore]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Yeah... if it says "Pro", it aint!.

Oh so true and I have someone I need to teach that.

Note the number of cheap Chinese 'pro' amps that expire simply at the sight of
a large signal and a low impedance load. They may not even need that !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Nor have i disagreed when those points were expressed. They are
quite true. In the long run i think i might use a valve
preamplifier to get the sound and a highly derated very linear post
amp.
Several people have done this in the past. The name Phoenix comes to
mind which was funded by (I think by then) ex-members of the band
Argent. That's the first I know of.

I suspect Marshall is doing something like this now

As I noted, the AVT range use an ECC83 as a dual preamp, after the
op-amp input one. The distortion is done by a diode-opamp thing
though. The tubes run basically clean, as far as I can tell, anyway.
I have the schematic if you want.

If you're going to run it clean, why bother with a tube? So your
marketing department can say it gives 'tube audio'?

The idea being that a class A tube preamp gives a fair amount of 2nd
harmonic distortion, say 5%. This is claimed give a nice sound.

All I will say here, is that I quite like the sound of the amp/combo. Its
quite full sounding. This is no doubt due to the tube, the speakers, the
tone controls etc. etc...as to which...I could care less.

Get an original Mullard (I think) data sheet on the ECC83 and it it actually
gives THD values under various operating conditions.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rich Grise wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
[context snipped ;-) ]
I will post the schematic of an original, probably unique, practical,
just-invented audio amp output stage topology if both of you will
agree to do the same.

Why? If there's something on the shelf that gets the job done, why
reinvent the wheel?

As I said earlier sometimes for FUN. Also sometimes for economy or ease of
manufacture.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

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

You're a babe in arms in this discipline.
---
You wish.

I cut my teeth on audio and was designing and building bridge
amplifiers in the early '60's, even before RCA came out with them,
as I recall.

The world has moved on John.

---
As have I, while you guys keep struggling to lower THD to limits which
are so far beyond the threshold of audibility that the point of the
exercise becomes ludicrous.

My take on this is more of what is the limits one can achieve in terms of
accuracy and speed, irrespective of anything audio. Extremely high
performance, obviously has no intrinsic value when applied to audio, but I
can think of a few things where the techniques might be applied elsewhere.

So, in terms of THD, s/n ratio and response flatness where would you draw the
line where it becomes overkill ?

Graham

 

[Anthony Fremont]

Jon Slaughter wrote:

But since you didn't think about the interrupt ocurring inbetween the
statements you never realized how x = 7 was comming about.

You presume allot. You can build all the straw men you want, JW's code was
fine.

It's a big deal and though you might want to be a hard head about it
maybe one day it will bite you in the ass and you'll spend weeks
trying to figure out why your code is crashing.

You really don't know what you are talking about here. I have fixed scores
of obscure bugs in programs that the author couldn't fix. How much
programming experience do you have?

If you were smart you would say "Thanks, I'll need to remember that
for next time" or something like that. Else your just being ignorant.

Who was it that thought the OP didn't know how to solve his problem and was
wanting a C solution?

I'll agree that in 99.9% of the cases it won't matter but lets hope
you are writing code for anything serious then.

I didn't want to be rude, but since you aparently won't have it any other
way..... I've been writing code for more than 30 years on a wide variety
of platforms from 8-bit micros to 36-bit mainframes, literally. I've used
PICs extensively for something like seven years, now I do the ARM thing for
fun. I think I know a thing or two about using a PIC chip including pretty
much all the internal peripherals, using multiple and even nested
interrupts. But if you'd like to compare code some time.... You are way
over your head here bud, too bad you aren't smart enough to realize it. You
are also way too quick to jump to conclusions about other people's abilities
while trying to stand on your own shoulders.

Don't get me wrong, I like your ambition to learn and your outgoing nature
most of the time. You need to do a little more careful reading and a little
less "telling" people how smart you [and how dumb they] are while arguing
petty, moot points with them.

 

[Eeyore]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

I point out two circuits

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/circuits/VeryLowDistortionAmp1.jpg
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/circuits/VeryLowDistortionAmp2.jpg

They are similar, but one has a local feedback loop around the output
devices, one doesn't.

I'm a great believer in local feedback. Linearises stages nicely and
improves HF and phase response.

But it does have limited value if such local feedback is in an overall loop.
In which case, it may well make no practical difference at all. Its a
topological thing, and the free lunch issue.

It still makes me feel more comfortable anmd maybe the was something to TIM
after all ?

The above circuit with a dual
loop cannot be stabilised at the same BW as the one with no local loop. The
local loop does not improve UG phase response, it makes it worse.

For example. Consider inserting emitter resistors in the input differential
pair of a power amp. The argument goes that well, "linearises stages
nicely...", unfortunately, it usually doesn't achieve much.

Inserting the resisters, reduces the loop gain. That is, consider that the
other stages have been *optimally* designed, such that they produce all the
gain that is practically achievable for that topology. In this case,
irespective that the input satge might be deemed to have lower distortion,
due to the local feedback, the resisters reduce the overall loop gain. This
reduction in gain, is less gain to reduce distortion. I have performed
experiments on this, and simulations, and by and large, I have found that
the net distortion is always lower or the same, without the resisters, all
things being equal

It's still a nice selling point.

Regarding, the "HF and phase response." bit, it often doesn't.

It did one my models by an arm and a leg. Exactly where I wanted it.

If the local
BW improvement is being achieved by feedback, when you actually do the full
sums of stability, you get back to where you were. I have already given the
2 stage, loop within a loop example, and the same analysis usually applies
here.

What emitter resistors can buy you is slew rate, i.e some speed. This is,
by arguments I have already given, at the expense of accuracy.

Speed is good.

An issue here, is that one has to make sure apples are being compared with
apples. Its all too easy to not actually do a proper AB examination of the
circuit topologies.

For no overal loop feedback, local feedback is great. e.g the input stage of
the earlier studiomaster mixers, and does what you say.

If you need to, you can make up some
lost overall gain with jellybean transistors (or ICs) at the front
end.

If you are *optimally* designing an amplifier. That is, it is as fast as
possible with the devices available, then you can't add any extra gain
without having a detrimental effect on stability.

Who said it had to be in the same overall loop ?

If you find that you can,
then you haven't designed the amp as best as could have been done in the
first place. Again, the issue with additional i.cs to make up the gain, is
that they have another fundamental roll off to deal with, and fundamentally,
the goal is to have at most, only two major poles at most. Another stage,
just moves the stability problem to another place, it don't away.

When one is designing an i.c amplifier, one is generally (often?), always
trying to get the maximum BW possible, ie at whatever the Ft limits of the
process will allow. This means that one is always running out of steam for
that process. There is therefore simply no way to add any extra gain,
without the phase penalty of that gain.

If you use an amp inside the loop of an amp, if it is not the main dominant
roll off, or have a BW exceding the UGB that the amp is being designed to
achive, it will just cause more stabilty grief.

Well, I made a QSC-lokalike design perform far better by applying those
techniques of mine.

Including 2 stages of pole zero compensation.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I've made one decision though. If one outfit wants me it'll be Group
Technical Director.

My advice would be to take the one where you're likely to do the least
damage.

You would think they already have a know it all janitor.

That's a bit low Michael.

its nt as low as the crap you've been spreading in these audio
threads.

I don't do crap, especially not in audio. Do you want some references btw - one
would be from a guy with a PhD and a Chartered Phsysicist, the other from the
Directors of the company who make the best audio to digital and back converters in
the world.

That's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. The 'crap' is
the low comments you make about everyone else on the group about their
abilites.

Not true. Have I ever seriously claimed anything bad about JL or JT's abilities for
example. I have very considerable regard for JL's circuit skills in fact. There are some
real dummies here too unfortunately.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Oh, my mistake. I somehow imagined that this thread had "audio"
somewhere in its title.

How about this?

http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/T860DS.html

Next rev I'll fix that little undershoot.

Fortunately, I design Bicmos/cmos chips, and there aint alot of
inductance to cause that type of blemish.

Yeah, I made a trace about a quarter of an inch too long. I'll fix it
next rev.

For me, 1 mm is absolutely gigantic. The current chip I am working on is
only about 1mm X 1mm. My last one was huge, about 9mm X 4mm.

How the heck do they separate them when they're 1 x 1 mm ? What's the wafer
thickness ? Is testing done at the die level ?

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:53:04 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:22:12 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:34:52 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 02:33:36 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Not if the "additional" pole is at a much higher frequency than the
previous pole inherent to the capacitances of a heap of fets driven
by some wimpy resistive source. Increasing the bandwidth of the
output stage - the serious speed problem - by, say, 20:1 has got to
help the overall loop.

Just buffering Ciss helps a ton.


There's no free lunch here: we're adding GBW, and paying for it. But
not much, since opamps are cheap.

I confess I do that kind of thing. Just not put op-amps round the
actual output devices myself so far but it sounds interesting.
They'd have to be damn fast though.

---
Hey, Mr. Expert, here's a circuit I designed about 30 years ago, but
in bipolar, that does what Larkin's talking about.

No it doesn't, not unless Larkin's taking about something completely
different other than what I am talking about.

What you have here is a simple amplifier driving mosfets. This is totally
standard, and not at issue in this discussion. It is not one amplifier
driving another amplifier, where the 2nd amp encloses the output devices and
forces a closed loop UG buffer,

---
What I was responding to was Graham's:

"I confess I do that kind of thing. Just not put op-amps round the
actual output devices myself so far but it sounds interesting. They'd
have to be damn fast though."

The way I see it is that the MOSFETs are one amplifier comprising
complementary emitter followers surrounded by another amplifier (the
opamp) which sets the closed loop voltage gain at 5.

Setting it at unity would only require R2 and R3 to be equal in
resistance.

JF

Both of those fets are running about 5 volts on their gates with no
signal. That will probably fry them. And you're throwing away over
half of the available swing.

---
Oh well...
It's just to make a point.
---

The FDS6699S conducts over 100 amps with +5 on its gate. Of course it
works in simulation... 100 amps is no sweat for Spice.

---
Great, isn't it?

You can have your cake and eat it, too.

JF

 

[john jardine]

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:d3ff949c-047f-4bbb-bc36-c14307115bf0@31g2000prz.googlegroups.com...

JeffM wrote:
This ignores M$'s new "Ribbon" default interface
which will have to be adapted to by old users "upgrading".

Joel Koltner wrote:
The ribbon isn't difficult to use -- and long term may even be a win --,

As I have no intent to ever again contribute to the M$ coffers,
I'll have to take your word for it.

although it certainly causes some amount of lost time initially
as each user ploddingly figures out where their feature menu items
have been moved to.

Yup. You have underscored the point I tried to make.

[...]I was surprised that even in the tiny land of southern Oregon
here, the community college has already switched over to MSO 2007
(and Vista too).

Many (smart, IMO) companies have decided to avoid both.
The new Apple ads (Don't use the "V" word) made me laugh.

It was recently noted here that journals are rejecting
items submitted with M$O2007 formatting (not just the file format
--more significantly, the way it does *text* formatting--
again, M$ not even compatible with itself). 8-(

Yes. M$ shot themselves in the foot with their compatibility problem. Last
week the accountant for a company of 40 people was weeping blood about the
potential update costs to (yet again) keep the company computers in peace
and harmony. Friday (with great trepidation!), he moved to OO.
Customers can be abused only to a point and it looks like M$ overweened
itself.
Last known use of Word may well be to write their own epitaph.

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

john jardine wrote:

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:d3ff949c-047f-4bbb-bc36-c14307115bf0@31g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
JeffM wrote:
This ignores M$'s new "Ribbon" default interface
which will have to be adapted to by old users "upgrading".

Joel Koltner wrote:
The ribbon isn't difficult to use -- and long term may even be a win --,

As I have no intent to ever again contribute to the M$ coffers,
I'll have to take your word for it.

although it certainly causes some amount of lost time initially
as each user ploddingly figures out where their feature menu items
have been moved to.

Yup. You have underscored the point I tried to make.

[...]I was surprised that even in the tiny land of southern Oregon
here, the community college has already switched over to MSO 2007
(and Vista too).
Many (smart, IMO) companies have decided to avoid both.
The new Apple ads (Don't use the "V" word) made me laugh.

It was recently noted here that journals are rejecting
items submitted with M$O2007 formatting (not just the file format
--more significantly, the way it does *text* formatting--
again, M$ not even compatible with itself). 8-(

Yes. M$ shot themselves in the foot with their compatibility problem. Last
week the accountant for a company of 40 people was weeping blood about the
potential update costs to (yet again) keep the company computers in peace
and harmony. Friday (with great trepidation!), he moved to OO.
Customers can be abused only to a point and it looks like M$ overweened
itself.
Last known use of Word may well be to write their own epitaph.

99% of my use of OOo is word processing.
As far as I can tell, it does everything MS does.
Or at least, I have not found anything I cannot do that I want to do
(except import PDFs).

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[Eeyore]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I am a true audio expert Michael, John Fields is not. Each to their own.

You say you are, and so do thousands of others. Have you seen the
state of the art Harris broadcast audio consoles?

Probably only bought in the USA btw.

Digitize every input, do everything in the CPU,

'the' CPU ? LMAO !

and convert back to analog. Factory service of the boards only.

They're hardly the first. The Neve company I was with for 3 years as a project
leader over 20 years ago was the first and I worked on a couple of their
digital projects, one of only 2 of the conventional analogue team to be
'allowed' to. The digital team was mostly run almost as a separate company
within a company.

So, your 'state of the art' is a bit ancient for me.
http://www.ams-neve.com/Home/Home.aspx

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Mostly hand built in a
modular design, and extremely low failure rate.

Well, one of my designs (for a lower end company) saw over 100,000 units of
the family (various channel numbers) built and we hardly ever saw one back.

Here's an example. That was the largest in that family btw.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Studiomaster-Club-2000-18-channel-mixing-desk-excellent_W0QQitemZ220296706076QQihZ012QQcategoryZ23785QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

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

Where would you place the threshold (and what harmonic structure) of audible
THD ?

---
It depends:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GFRC,GFRC:2006-50,GFRC:en&q=harmonic+distortion+threshold+of+audibility

I was interested in YOUR opinion though.
---
No, you weren't.

Yes I absolutely was.
---
No, you absolutely weren't, liar.

As a matter of principle I don't lie. This has presented me with a conundrum that I'd hate ever to have to face if I ever get asked a certain
question by an old friend. Because the truth might hurt someone else and a relationship.

The proof lies in that you'd only ask me that if you thought my opinion
was important.

I wanted to hear your opinion. After several attempts to drag it out of you, I can only assume you don't have one.

Please don't bother replying.

Graham

 

[Jamie]

Eeyore wrote:

Jamie wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

John Fields wrote:


As it is, all you seem to be intent on doing is promoting yourself as
some sort of audio Guru who claims to greatness but who refuses to
submit proof.

Suit yourself. Everything I claim does what it does. All you have to do is
buy one and test it yourself.

---
Why buy when I can build?
---

It would cost you LOTS more to build one yourself and you wouldn't replicate the
pcb pattern which can be critical for top performance.

LOL!!
the crap is getting deep!


You clearly haven't the tiniest clue about the economics of high-volume manufacturing.
Or the importance of pcb layout. Not to mention the cost savings of offshore
manufacturing too.

One product of mine (in its various channel sizes) sold over 100,000 units.

Graham

If you really had that much involvement in projects as you speak of,

I'll wager the majority of them are off of some one else's back.!

The only think I see you good at is BS>.

I know the out come of what I just posted will send you off on one
of your child kicking tangents.

So spread your putrid vile all over as you normally do on this
fine establishment, called the USE-NET!

Have a good day you crony..

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

 

[Eeyore]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Not if the "additional" pole is at a much higher frequency than the
previous pole inherent to the capacitances of a heap of fets driven
by some wimpy resistive source. Increasing the bandwidth of the
output stage - the serious speed problem - by, say, 20:1 has got to
help the overall loop.

Just buffering Ciss helps a ton.

There's no free lunch here: we're adding GBW, and paying for it. But
not much, since opamps are cheap.

I confess I do that kind of thing. Just not put op-amps round the
actual output devices myself so far but it sounds interesting.
They'd have to be damn fast though.

---
Hey, Mr. Expert, here's a circuit I designed about 30 years ago, but
in bipolar, that does what Larkin's talking about.

No it doesn't, not unless Larkin's taking about something completely
different other than what I am talking about.

What you have here is a simple amplifier driving mosfets. This is totally
standard, and not at issue in this discussion. It is not one amplifier
driving another amplifier, where the 2nd amp encloses the output devices and
forces a closed loop UG buffer, for example, like *my* circuit here.

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/circuits/VeryLowDistortionAmp2.jpg

Note, the zener diode fed, (single transistor) buffer-in-the-loop around the
output mosfets.

The point I am making is that this type of loop within a loop, does not
allow the overall speed of the complete amplifier to be made faster, if the
amplifier would otherwise already be optimumally designed for speed, despite
the allegation that it increases the net response of the output devices. It
doesn't, as a simple calculation will show. What it does buy is better LF
*accuracy* at the expense of speed.

I don't disagree with you overall Kevin. I keep a little trick up my sleeve with
power amps that changes the game somewhat and eliminates any such 'expenses'.
However it's absurdly obvious (when you think about it) and consequently
couldn't be patented I'm sure and the moment the 'secret' gets out everyone will
be doing it. It's insanely simple too. You just have to have the wits to think
of it.

Graham

 

[Anthony Fremont]

Frank Buss wrote:

Anthony Fremont wrote:

With all due respect, that's more a matter of opinion than one of
fact as it depends upon the specific application. If the ISR is
dependant upon the data that is currently being modified, then
disabling INTs for a few instructions [atomizing the update] is
probably the best thing to do to, unless your ISR can't handle the
entry jitter.

Yes, this might be a solution. And you are right, it depends on the
application.

But I prefer to write code that can't break,

LOL, don't we all.... ;-)

e.g. you
use this nice small code, because you don't use interrupts. Then some
years later someone adds interrupts and forgets to check the rest of
the program and it could cause a bug.

Aw, I thought you were going to whip out some cool PIC secret I hadn't heard
yet. Not only does the solution that James provided take less instructions,
it doesn't break the pipeline either. That makes it roughly twice as fast
to execute than the "safe" version. If we're counting cycles then JW wins
by a mile. Assuming it's an issue, worrying about the atomicity of an
update and how it impacts an ISR is something the coder should be doing
every step of the way, that's why I see it as a non-issue here. Only the OP
can decide which is "better".

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:47:36 -0700, Robert Baer wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
The free spaces between US digital TV stations can now be used for wireless services.
In spite of failed tests ;-)

In German:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/US-Regulierer-will-den-Weissen-Raum-oeffnen--/meldung/117556
Well, it is bad enough that the loco dictatorship forced this on us,
and worse that digital TV cannot fail gracefully like analog TV does,
but now everyone and their pet goldfish wants to pollute the spectrum
and further destroy what little TV one can get.

I'm eagerly looking forward to the riots in the streets when they cut off
our free TV. Like David Letterman says, TV should be free, the way God
intended it!

Cheers!
Rich