On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:40:27 -0600, John - KD5YI
wrote:
On 3/2/2011 8:32 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:59:58 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:11 am, John Larkin
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:36:25 -0600, John Fields
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 08:40:42 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:
I've always sort of liked the classic "GE" tape head/mic preamp
circuit:
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GEcircuit.jpg
but it occurred to me that it might also make a nice headphone amp...
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GE_headphone_amp.JPG
Audio tends to be nonsense, but at least the audio guys have fun
playing with circuits, whether they make a lot of sense or not.
John
---
Even though you scorn and ridicule audio, there's nothing wrong with
anyone seeking perfection there, just as there's nothing wrong with
your search for perfection in the genre which pleases _you_ to pursue.
So, speaking of fun, why don't you do a complete design and assign
values to the circuit components and identify the semiconductors?
You're not playing the game. You are sitting in the henhouse, clucking
about the people who do.
He's not playing your game, which involves telling John Larkin how
cute his circuits are.
He's not designing circuits, which is what this newsgroup is about.
You aren't either. Both of you start to cluck and peck when people do
design circuits. No surprise.
Or is that legwork _we're_ supposed to do in order to flesh out your
divine revelation?
Chickenleg work!
It's half the story - a few component values make it a lot easier to
work out what a circuit is doing.
You can't look at a circuit this simple and see what it's doing? OK,
no surprise.
John
Well, I thought designing a circuit included supplying component values.
No?
I posted topologies. Values can be scaled to the application, but you
need a topology first. If I were actually going to build this, for
money, of course I'd have to define specs and then compute values.
That's just grunt work.
John