G
Guy Macon
Guest
Don Bowey wrote:
Don, you owe an opology to weasels for the above.
P
Pooh Bear
Guest
John Fields wrote:
I think you meant XLR or TRS connector btw. And for sure the AES 'comments' on
those for standards purposes.
There are however certain standards that *only* the AES could establish on account
of their specific interest in the subject in question.
The AES-3 standard for digital audio transmission comes to mind for one !
Also see PLASA.
http://www.plasa.org/standards/
The standards bodies can't exist in pure academic isolation, no matter how much
they might like to !
Graham
You are !
I think you meant XLR or TRS connector btw. And for sure the AES 'comments' on
those for standards purposes.
There are however certain standards that *only* the AES could establish on account
of their specific interest in the subject in question.
The AES-3 standard for digital audio transmission comes to mind for one !
Also see PLASA.
http://www.plasa.org/standards/
The standards bodies can't exist in pure academic isolation, no matter how much
they might like to !
Graham
P
Pooh Bear
Guest
Ban wrote:
Every spec I write normally has dBus in it ! Indeed, it's the proverbial 'best
thing since sliced bread' in measurement terms.
Graham
Did I ever say *otherwise* ?
Every spec I write normally has dBus in it ! Indeed, it's the proverbial 'best
thing since sliced bread' in measurement terms.
Graham
D
Don Bowey
Guest
On 6/29/05 7:53 PM, in article 42C35E96.64DDAEA8@hotmail.com, "Pooh Bear"
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
weasels.
Now to Pooh...... The truth is you are being dishonest and skirting every
issue you can to hide it. What's YOUR problem?
Don
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
First, permit me to apologize to the weasels for my comment. I'm sorry
weasels.
Now to Pooh...... The truth is you are being dishonest and skirting every
issue you can to hide it. What's YOUR problem?
Don
P
Pooh Bear
Guest
Don Bowey wrote:
< Cue scary music from the Twilight Zone >
I am astounded by the number of posters here who don't understand the basics of a
unit of measurement as fundamental as the dB !
What's your damn problem ?
Accepted industry practice agrees with what I say.
The IEC agrees with what I say .
The AES ( the professional body most involved with audio measurements ) agrees with
what I say !
Even another professional body ( PLASA ) agrees with what I say .
And all you dimwits have to offer as a clover leaf is a 1929 paper by Bell Labs who
had a pole stuck up their arse !
My tolerance *does* know bounds !
If you want to live in ignorance - please be my guest ! Now eff off !
Graham
Clearly you don't live on the same planet as me !
< Cue scary music from the Twilight Zone >
I am astounded by the number of posters here who don't understand the basics of a
unit of measurement as fundamental as the dB !
What's your damn problem ?
Accepted industry practice agrees with what I say.
The IEC agrees with what I say .
The AES ( the professional body most involved with audio measurements ) agrees with
what I say !
Even another professional body ( PLASA ) agrees with what I say .
And all you dimwits have to offer as a clover leaf is a 1929 paper by Bell Labs who
had a pole stuck up their arse !
My tolerance *does* know bounds !
If you want to live in ignorance - please be my guest ! Now eff off !
Graham
M
Mac
Guest
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 06:23:08 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:
down so many dB at so many Hz from the center frequency.
And the max power output of an amplifier is usually specified in terms of
the 1 or 2 dB compression point, I think it is. The idea is that if you
plot gain as a function of output power, the gain will typically be flat
over a wide range, but then start to drop off. The point where the gain
has dropped off by 1dB is the 1 dB compression point.
The reason that antenna gain is a useful concept is that you can quickly
draw out a power budget if the link distance is known, and you can then
determine whether what you are trying to do is feasible.
For example, you could have a transmitter of 10 dBm, 2dB of cable loss,
an antenna, 1km of free space, then another antenna, then another 2dB of
cable loss, then a receiver. The free space loss is, say, 100 dB. So
now you can add it all up:
10dBm (amp power)
-2dB (cable loss)
ndB (antenna gain)
-100dB (free space loss)
ndB (antenna gain)
-2dB (cable loss)
====================
2n - 94 dBm (power at receiver)
Now let's say you know you need -60 dBm at the receiver.
2n - 94 = -60
2n = 34
n = 17
So you will need antennas with at least 17 dB of directional gain. Or you
could have one higher and one lower, but the total must be 34 dB. And
apart from calculating the -100dB of free space loss, there was nothing
but arithmetic.
Hope that was at least somewhat interesting. ;-)
Note that I'm not REALLY an RF engineer, but I think this is mostly right. ;-)
--Mac
I think dBc means dB referenced to the center or primary frequency.
Well, amplifier gain, of course. And phase noise may be specified as being
down so many dB at so many Hz from the center frequency.
And the max power output of an amplifier is usually specified in terms of
the 1 or 2 dB compression point, I think it is. The idea is that if you
plot gain as a function of output power, the gain will typically be flat
over a wide range, but then start to drop off. The point where the gain
has dropped off by 1dB is the 1 dB compression point.
The reason that antenna gain is a useful concept is that you can quickly
draw out a power budget if the link distance is known, and you can then
determine whether what you are trying to do is feasible.
For example, you could have a transmitter of 10 dBm, 2dB of cable loss,
an antenna, 1km of free space, then another antenna, then another 2dB of
cable loss, then a receiver. The free space loss is, say, 100 dB. So
now you can add it all up:
10dBm (amp power)
-2dB (cable loss)
ndB (antenna gain)
-100dB (free space loss)
ndB (antenna gain)
-2dB (cable loss)
====================
2n - 94 dBm (power at receiver)
Now let's say you know you need -60 dBm at the receiver.
2n - 94 = -60
2n = 34
n = 17
So you will need antennas with at least 17 dB of directional gain. Or you
could have one higher and one lower, but the total must be 34 dB. And
apart from calculating the -100dB of free space loss, there was nothing
but arithmetic.
Hope that was at least somewhat interesting. ;-)
Note that I'm not REALLY an RF engineer, but I think this is mostly right. ;-)
--Mac
P
Pooh Bear
Guest
Kevin Aylward wrote:
< snip >
Graham
< snip >
Apparently the trolls are incapable of understanding such a concept !
Graham
G
Guy Macon
Guest
Don Bowey wrote:
He posted two flames to a newsgroup that I moderate today, not
realizing that they would reach me as SMTP email messages instead
of NNTP newsgroup messages. Email headers are a *lot* easier to
trace... Alas, I have a moral and ethical problem with "outing"
him. Tempting though it might be, That Would Be Wrong.
I will pass that on to marketing. <grin>
He has all sorts of problems.
He posted two flames to a newsgroup that I moderate today, not
realizing that they would reach me as SMTP email messages instead
of NNTP newsgroup messages. Email headers are a *lot* easier to
trace... Alas, I have a moral and ethical problem with "outing"
him. Tempting though it might be, That Would Be Wrong.
A
Adrian Tuddenham
Guest
Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
was the decibel.
The AES did not develop the decibel standard, Bell Labs did.
The AES has not rewritten the decibel standard as you claimed elsewhere.
The original 1929 definition of the decibel is still the correct one.
recommendations for the pin-out of an XLR plug and re-defining the
concept on which advanced electronics calculations have been based for
over half a century? I think you should consider resigning from the
AES as quickly as possible if you want to avoid the ignominy of being
thrown out.
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
The standard we were discussing (which forms the title of this thread)
was the decibel.
The AES did not develop the decibel standard, Bell Labs did.
The AES has not rewritten the decibel standard as you claimed elsewhere.
The original 1929 definition of the decibel is still the correct one.
Are you seriously saying you can't see a difference between publishing
recommendations for the pin-out of an XLR plug and re-defining the
concept on which advanced electronics calculations have been based for
over half a century? I think you should consider resigning from the
AES as quickly as possible if you want to avoid the ignominy of being
thrown out.
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
A
Adrian Tuddenham
Guest
Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
complete ignorance of it and of its significance.
To bolster your case you have made untrue statements about researchers
and designs about which you have no real knowledge. Many of these
researchers had brilliant minds and spent their lives working under
difficult conditions to lay down the foundations of the industry which
you now claim to represent and from which you draw an income - and yet
you couldn't even be bothered to check who they were or what they did,
or why.
Worse still you have made assertions about standards institutions which
have proved to be completely untrue. Then you have repeatedly thrown up
a smoke-screen of irrelevancies in an attempt to cover your dishonesty.
Finally you have abused and insulted many well-intentioned people who
have taken the trouble to contribute real knowledge to this thread in a
friendly and helpful spirit.
You have a problem.
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
So far one poster has shown contempt for it, but only you have shown
complete ignorance of it and of its significance.
To bolster your case you have made untrue statements about researchers
and designs about which you have no real knowledge. Many of these
researchers had brilliant minds and spent their lives working under
difficult conditions to lay down the foundations of the industry which
you now claim to represent and from which you draw an income - and yet
you couldn't even be bothered to check who they were or what they did,
or why.
Worse still you have made assertions about standards institutions which
have proved to be completely untrue. Then you have repeatedly thrown up
a smoke-screen of irrelevancies in an attempt to cover your dishonesty.
Finally you have abused and insulted many well-intentioned people who
have taken the trouble to contribute real knowledge to this thread in a
friendly and helpful spirit.
You have a problem.
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
P
Pooh Bear
Guest
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
camp'.
Some ppl are a POS regardless of whatever. Clearly you're one ! You're both out of
touch with established practice and are in denial about the damn simple equations
!
Fine... go believe your nonsence - see if I actually care ! Pls just don't post
your monumental ignorance here !
Graham
And you're full of crap ! Like the other no-hopers in your 'deciBel Jihadist
camp'.
Some ppl are a POS regardless of whatever. Clearly you're one ! You're both out of
touch with established practice and are in denial about the damn simple equations
!
Fine... go believe your nonsence - see if I actually care ! Pls just don't post
your monumental ignorance here !
Graham
P
Pooh Bear
Guest
Guy Macon wrote:
personal playground ? I gather no-one else goes there.
have you ?
Did anyone not tell you that was a twat schoolboy trick ?
I do hope you're *so pleased* !
Fuckwit !
Graham
You have the temerity to call that a *newsgroup* ! ? Surely just your
personal playground ? I gather no-one else goes there.
Ohhh - you've been buggering about with headers and follow-ups again
have you ?
Did anyone not tell you that was a twat schoolboy trick ?
I do hope you're *so pleased* !
Fuckwit !
Graham
D
Don Bowey
Guest
On 6/29/05 9:07 PM, in article 42C36FFD.F62616F5@hotmail.com, "Pooh Bear"
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
with them for about 50 years.
other way around.
counter productive. The Labs made considerable progress after 1929.
Remember that you posted this?
"Bell Labs definition is *not* the standard. Trading Standards would laugh
at an attempt to refer to it.
The standard is set by the AES. They even introduced the dBu ( voltage
reference unit = 0.775 V ) to replace the dBm ( 600ohms ) so that modern
voltage matched audio circuits could be correctly specified without having
to refer to a trashy old power-impedance related unit."
You later provided the ID of the AES "standard," aes-r2-2004-c.pdf.
That is not a standard, but only a report providing guidelines. You
intentionally misled people, which makes you dishonest.
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Childish!
More trash tossed in to misdirect!
So be astounded, who gives a damn. FWIW I DO understand them, having worked
with them for about 50 years.
You are dishonest and intentionally mislead the group.
You may agree with the IEC, but only an egomaniac would believe it's the
other way around.
Hmmm!
Hmm! again
Your constant reflections and redirects on an early Bell Labs paper is
counter productive. The Labs made considerable progress after 1929.
So what? Have a tantrum if you must.
Remember that you posted this?
"Bell Labs definition is *not* the standard. Trading Standards would laugh
at an attempt to refer to it.
The standard is set by the AES. They even introduced the dBu ( voltage
reference unit = 0.775 V ) to replace the dBm ( 600ohms ) so that modern
voltage matched audio circuits could be correctly specified without having
to refer to a trashy old power-impedance related unit."
You later provided the ID of the AES "standard," aes-r2-2004-c.pdf.
That is not a standard, but only a report providing guidelines. You
intentionally misled people, which makes you dishonest.
K
Kevin Aylward
Guest
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
If we always had to rely on legacy definitions by old geasers with
walking sticks of the past we wouldnt be able to find our way home.
Hint: Satellite GPS. "time" as previouly defined was a constant.
Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
And your point would be?
No it isnt. Get over it.
If we always had to rely on legacy definitions by old geasers with
walking sticks of the past we wouldnt be able to find our way home.
Hint: Satellite GPS. "time" as previouly defined was a constant.
Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
G
Guy Macon
Guest
Don Bowey wrote:
AES would *NEVER* try to set a standard that diverges from that of
other standards bodies. They are a wonderful organization that sets
the kind of standards that insure interoperability; how hard to hit
an analog tape, what polarity is on pin 1 of an XLR, what digital
format lets data move between boxes made by different manufacturers,
that sort of thing. The AES simply isn't in the business of defining
fundamental units of measurement that other standards bodies have
already defined.
What we have here is, in my opinion, a liar. I don't believe that
he has ever designed any audio equipment. I believe he hooks boxes
together to make recording studios or possibly PA systems. That's
an honorable profession, but its a lot like being a really good
electrician trying to hold his own with Edison, Tesla, or Joule, and
becoming abusive when confronted with his lack of real understanding.
He is, of course, free to prove me wrong by naming something he designed
that went into production.
So the question becomes, when does one stop giving him the attention
he so desperately craves? I no longer see his posts, and I am
considering setting up a filter to reject answers posted to him.
It also besmirches the fine name of the Audio Engineering Society.
AES would *NEVER* try to set a standard that diverges from that of
other standards bodies. They are a wonderful organization that sets
the kind of standards that insure interoperability; how hard to hit
an analog tape, what polarity is on pin 1 of an XLR, what digital
format lets data move between boxes made by different manufacturers,
that sort of thing. The AES simply isn't in the business of defining
fundamental units of measurement that other standards bodies have
already defined.
What we have here is, in my opinion, a liar. I don't believe that
he has ever designed any audio equipment. I believe he hooks boxes
together to make recording studios or possibly PA systems. That's
an honorable profession, but its a lot like being a really good
electrician trying to hold his own with Edison, Tesla, or Joule, and
becoming abusive when confronted with his lack of real understanding.
He is, of course, free to prove me wrong by naming something he designed
that went into production.
So the question becomes, when does one stop giving him the attention
he so desperately craves? I no longer see his posts, and I am
considering setting up a filter to reject answers posted to him.
K
Kevin Aylward
Guest
Guy Macon wrote:
its time to move on.
Graham has designed more pro audio gear that has been used by world
famous musicians then you have had hot dinners, mate.
Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
The dB is a mathematical definition, not a physical measurement. Again,
its time to move on.
Your kidding right?
Graham has designed more pro audio gear that has been used by world
famous musicians then you have had hot dinners, mate.
Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
P
Pooh Bear
Guest
Kevin Aylward wrote:
I have *never ever* in my entire working life found myself the recipient of
a trail of abuse so witless and uninformed as that created by Guy Macon and
his cronies !
It is *astonishingly disturbing*. It's like the ppl who think if that they
simply repeat their lies often enough - other ppl will believe them ! I'm
truly staggered.
Cheers, Graham
Thank you for that clarification Kevin !
I have *never ever* in my entire working life found myself the recipient of
a trail of abuse so witless and uninformed as that created by Guy Macon and
his cronies !
It is *astonishingly disturbing*. It's like the ppl who think if that they
simply repeat their lies often enough - other ppl will believe them ! I'm
truly staggered.
Cheers, Graham
P
Pooh Bear
Guest
Guy Macon wrote:
"studiomaster" into the search facility ! Oh and Kevin designed some of them too
!
Graham
Look on eBay ! Too many items I designed to mention individually but put
"studiomaster" into the search facility ! Oh and Kevin designed some of them too
!
Graham
A
Adrian Tuddenham
Guest
Kevin Aylward <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
That "Pooh Bear" has repeatedly and knowingly lied to this group.
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
P
Pooh Bear
Guest
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
driven compulsive liar in this group.
Graham
Bollocks ! Grow up man ! Ghee Massonne is the *only* sad, pathologically
driven compulsive liar in this group.
Graham