[Andre Jute]

On Mar 3, 12:25*am, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
I meant originally, I assume this is one of the many
copies on the web
that you said existed?

I found the posting today on the Web.

Are you saying it wasn't originally posted on usenet?

Guys, please, this is the most futile, petty and puerile
bout of bickering I've ever seen. Truly. I even feel stupid
for reading it.

You're undermining the quality of rat squabbling. People
expect better than flyweight finger-poking.

Ian

I don't know, Ian. I was rather enjoying it as light relief from the
serious business of putting down a child molester.

Andre Jute
Between a month of seasickness and a month of Pasternack, I choose
seasick

[Andre Jute]

Poopie Stevenson (who would rather be known as a braying ass) wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Here we go with the old Magnequest Scum methods again. What happens is
that Porno Pas, unable technically to fault what I write, rephrases
what I say in a slightly different manner and then pretends that what
I say is wrong.

It's nothing like what you wrote you bloody idiot.

Well then, sonny, explain in detail what is wrong with what I do.
Meanwhile we'll note that what I do is pretty much accepted practice,
is what everyone does, is what is recommended in trusted textbooks, is
legal, is approved by my local hams (who surely all have more hands-on
HT experience than you and Pasternack together). Let's hear a wrong
detail, not just an inane overage fat schoolboy called Poopie
screeching "bloody idiot" in a squeaky voice.

There may be better ways than what I do, and what Patrick and Iain do,
but it'll be a cold day in hell when we hear them from you or Porno
Pas.

Henry actually understands the fine detail of what he's talking about instead
of posting 'design by rote' guides.

Your sainted child molester Porno Pas has just posted a "design by
rote" guide, which we suspect got its author fired from Bell Northern.

Graham

What do you say to that, Poopie? Don't you think you're being just a
wee bit hypocritical, dear old Poopster?

Andre Jute
Always happy to entertain the lower classes

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress

And if you were s serious audio practioner you'd use a proper CAD schematic program.

Just typical of your amatuerism to use the wrong tools for the job.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Poopie Stevenson (who would rather be known as a braying ass) wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Here we go with the old Magnequest Scum methods again. What happens is
that Porno Pas, unable technically to fault what I write, rephrases
what I say in a slightly different manner and then pretends that what
I say is wrong.

It's nothing like what you wrote you bloody idiot.

Well then, sonny,

OK Grandad.


explain in detail what is wrong with what I do.

For starters, you missed the importance of multiple star pointing. It is rarely
practical to use a single one for everything from the power supply to a phono
catridge input stage.

Also, you clealry don't understand why it's important. You produced a 'recipe'
without being able to explain it.


Meanwhile we'll note that what I do is pretty much accepted practice,

And a heck of a lot of 'accepted practice' over the years has been shown to be
plain wrong, or less than optimal.

As Henry very correctly says, it's important to UNDERSTAND why one uses these
techniques.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

There may be better ways than what I do, and what Patrick and Iain do,
but it'll be a cold day in hell when we hear them from you or Porno
Pas.

So all those tens of thousands of pieces of pro-audio equipment out there in the
big wide world could have been better designed by you or Patrick could they ? What
a damn cretin you are ! You're a rank amateur and Patrick's way out of his depth
when it comes to pro-audio.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Your sainted child molester Porno Pas

What drivel is this my bum bandit chum ?


has just posted a "design by rote" guide, which we suspect got its author fired
from Bell Northern.

What a totally ridiculous suggestion. Why on earth would that be ?

Graham

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 2, 7:42*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Andre Jute
Thumbs well clear of the bricks

Poltroon (Andre):

You are not getting much mileage out of your posts. Perhaps you should
confine yourself to "Bicycles" - Oops, you are not getting much
mileage there either. Perhaps you should confine yourself to some of
the "Opinions" NGs - Oops, you are not getting much mileage there
either.

Writing entirely for myself, this NG is not big enough for your ego.
We are so focused on the 'actually' and the 'realities' of day-to-day
tube lore that we are unable to recognize your flights of fantasy and
never-never-land expectations. With all due respect, you would be a
much happier cretin were you to form your own discussion group and
confine it to the likes of those who do recognize your godhead and
would then post nothing but affirming praises of your blathering...
uh, sorry, great wisdom.

You can do it for "free" on any of several venues. You would never,
ever have to answer to anyone other than your own personal gods,
either. And you would have a ready audience in the likes of pillock,
Byrns and your own carefully crafted stable of sockpuppets.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 3, 1:05*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress

And if you were s serious audio practioner you'd use a proper CAD schematic program.

It's always the little sucker-fish who rant on about how "serious" and
"professional" they are. I just use what is to hand, and my great
skill makes the tool fit the job at hand. Yo, Poopie, where
appropriate, of course I use a CAD programme -- for instance when
precise measurements in the design of my bicor horn were the point, I
sent out drawings in CAD formats to those RATs who asked for them. But
you really want to be less rigid, Poopie, if you want us to take you
seriously; lateral thinking, even a little of it, is a sign of human
intelligence.

Just typical of your amatuerism to use the wrong tools for the job.

The fastest tool that does the job right, is what I say. Why bother
with slow, obstructive tools for a simple job when I've already bent
another professional tool to my will? Especially when the result
always draws compliments.

Graham

Always nice to hear from you, Poopie. Let's hope that this time your
provide evidence that you're human, rather than a chimpanzee with
typing skills.

Andre Jute
My chimp as called MiniAndre. Who is missing a chimp called Poopie?

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 3, 1:15*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Poopie Stevenson (who would rather be known as a braying ass) wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Here we go with the old Magnequest Scum methods again. What happens is
that Porno Pas, unable technically to fault what I write, rephrases
what I say in a slightly different manner and then pretends that what
I say is wrong.

It's nothing like what you wrote you bloody idiot.

Well then, sonny,

OK Grandad.

explain in detail what is wrong with what I do.

For starters, you missed the importance of multiple star pointing.

Nope, I didn't. It simply isn't necessary in the simple one and two
tube amps I'm showing how to ground.

It is rarely
practical to use a single one for everything from the power supply to a phono
catridge input stage.

Okay, if you say so, I believe that you don't have the brains or the
attention span to work out a proper grounding scheme. But where is the
phone cartridge in the integrated linestage one- and two-tube SE amps
I showed? I see absolutely no practical problem -- in fact there is
none because I built those amps already, many times. with single star
grounds.

As usual, Poopie, you're talking in generalities through the back of
your neck.

Also, you clealry don't understand why it's important. You produced a 'recipe'
without being able to explain it.

Meanwhile we'll note that what I do is pretty much accepted practice,

And a heck of a lot of 'accepted practice' over the years has been shown to be
plain wrong, or less than optimal.

Perhaps. So, when I invite you to prove a single error in my scheme,
surely this is your chance to prove "accepted practice" wrong. Instead
you give us another childish generality.

As Henry very correctly says, it's important to UNDERSTAND why one uses these
techniques.

Yes, yes, yes, I often say the same thing when I'm too lazy to provide
useful information. it is just another generality.

You, Poopie Stevenson, and that moron Henry Pasternack, tried to say
there is something wrong with the scheme I put up. You've had several
chances now to specify a single error, and you have failed.

All we hear from you two jerkoffs is idle generalities, pompous tenth-
rate wittering.

Graham

Unsigned out of contempt

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress

And if you were s serious audio practioner you'd use a proper CAD schematic program.

It's always the little sucker-fish who rant on about how "serious" and
"professional" they are. I just use what is to hand

It's THIS easily to hand for free ....
http://www.expresspcb.com/ExpressPCB...d_software.htm

To give just ONE example.

I wonder if you're actually capable of using it.

Graham

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 3, 1:17*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
There may be better ways than what I do, and what Patrick and Iain do,
but it'll be a cold day in hell when we hear them from you or Porno
Pas.

So all those tens of thousands of pieces of pro-audio equipment out there in the
big wide world could have been better designed by you or Patrick could they ?

I didn't say that. What I said was, in numbered soundbites so even you
can understand, dear Poopie:

1. What Patrick and Iain and I do is legal and it works.

2. There may be better ways.

3. Someone knows those better ways.

4. Poopie Stevenson and Henry "Porno" Pasternack do not know those
better ways.

5. Poopie Stevenson and Henry "Porno" Pasternack are merely rephrasing
what more knowledgeable posters say, and adding abuse, in the hope of
being taken as contributors.

6. No one is fooled.

What
a damn cretin you are !

Hey, fat boy, yes you, Poopie. Don't let your blood pressure run away
with you. You'll throw a thrombie and who shall we feel superior to
then after Pasternack runs away again?

You're a rank amateur and Patrick's way out of his depth
when it comes to pro-audio.

But I'm not a rank amateur, Graham. I'm a very well-bathed, anointed
(custom-made bath oil) and scented (Yves St Laurent's Eau Sauvage)
amateur who has built more tube amps in any month in the last thirteen
years than you and Pasternack together built in your entire lives.

and Patrick's way out of his depth
when it comes to pro-audio.

I wasn't aware that Patrick paddled in the pro-audio pool, but I
designed and built a banksaKT88 for a rocker's studio down the road
here to all-round satisfaction, so I don't see that Patrick would be
baulked by a little "pro" job. As far as I can tell, a pro job is just
an expert amateur job with a higher fee. Since I gouge with the best
of them... Hey, Patrick, the only thing that keeps you from being
invited into Graham's club (presuming you'd want to belong, of course)
is that you don't charge as much as I do!

Graham

I have no difficulty in believing you rank, Poopie, but we're still
waiting for the specifics of what is wrong with my grounding scheme,
so we'll withhold judgement on whether you're a professional until we
hear specific details from you, rather than generalities, deliberate
misdirections and misunderstandings, and poor-quality abuse.

Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 3, 1:18*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Your sainted child molester Porno Pas

What drivel is this my bum bandit chum ?

Nah, Poopie, I'm heterosexual; even if I were not, could you really
see me being queer for a fat boy called Poopie?

has just posted a "design by rote" guide, which we suspect got its author fired
from Bell Northern.

What a totally ridiculous suggestion. Why on earth would that be ?

That's what we're trying to find out, Poopie. We thought, since you're
such bumbuddies with Porno Pas, that you might know. Awfully
suspicious that the original of the article cannot be found, what?

Graham

You really should try harder, Poopie. You're not funny, you're not
making an impression, and you haven't got a technical point to make.
So what use are you?

Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 3, 2:33*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress

And if you were s serious audio practioner you'd use a proper CAD schematic program.

It's always the little sucker-fish who rant on about how "serious" and
"professional" they are. I just use what is to hand

It's THIS easily to hand for free ....http://www.expresspcb.com/ExpressPCB...d_software.htm

Ugh. Whatever makes you think I use free software, Poopie? And that
crap you recommend is Microshoddy operating systems. I'm not a sado-
masochist -- I use a Mac.

To give just ONE example.

Keep it and all your other examples. I already have good CAD software
that was worth every penny of the price.

I wonder if you're actually capable of using it.

We're never going to find out, are we, because I'm not even wasting my
time looking at free software suggested by a self-declared internet
"professional" called Poopie.

Graham

We're still waiting for you to give us a specific of what is wrong
with the grounding scheme I put up earlier, which you tried to claim
could be bettered. You're twisting in the wind of your ineffectual
farting, Poopie, but you haven't delivered any goods yet. When can we
expect a "professional" response from you?

Andre Jute
Charisma is the talent for inducing apoplexy in losers by merely
existing elegantly

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Awfully suspicious that the original of the article cannot be found, what?

What the HELL are you drivelling on about ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress

And if you were s serious audio practioner you'd use a proper CAD schematic program.

It's always the little sucker-fish who rant on about how "serious" and
"professional" they are. I just use what is to hand

It's THIS easily to hand for free ....http://www.expresspcb.com/ExpressPCB...d_software.htm

Ugh. Whatever makes you think I use free software, Poopie?

And what's WRONG with free software you pompous ass ?


And that crap you recommend is Microshoddy operating systems. I'm not a sado-
masochist -- I use a Mac.

Trust you to use an art-farty computer instead of one with decent support for technical applications.


To give just ONE example.

Keep it and all your other examples. I already have good CAD software
that was worth every penny of the price.

But NOT electronic CAD.

Graham

[Patrick Turner]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

Patrick posted some interesting facts about ground buss
connections, which I have extracted from another thread
and pasted here, because I think the subject is important
enough to warrant its own thread.

He wrote:

The 0V rail of the preamp should be a short buss wire about 100mm long
with ends connected to the RCA plug 0V bodies at inputs and outputs.
ALL parts with OV connections should be made to this buss,
and the CHASSIS or CASE connected via a 5 watt 27 ohm R, and the case
taken to the green/yellow wire to the wall socket so the case can't
become live to mains or the B+. There should be NO direct connection of
the OV buss to the case.
--

I ask:

In other words the mains supply case should be bonded to the case,
and the 0V (signal grounds) taken to the ground point via a 27 Ohm
5W resistor?

Why is this?

Because chassis can have magnetically induced voltages in them,
they should never be used for the 0V rail.

And why 25W?

I said 5W, but 25W would be OK.

Because you don't want that R to go open, ever, or the whole audio
circuit
IS NOT REFERENCED TO THE CHASSIS AND EARTH, something I feel is
important.

If the B+ becomes shorted to the chassis, you want the fuse to blow
because of that short.
You DON'T want a 27 ohm x 1/4 watt R to fuse open in an instant, leaving
the 0V rail at +500V,
including the OV rail and the speaker wires....

Hope for the best with your amps, but ALWAYS prepare for the worst!

Patrick Turner.




Iain

[Patrick Turner]

Andre Jute wrote:
snip for brevity,

Most schematics don't tell you enough about earthing.

This is a very true statement if ever there was one.

A schematic is just how things are connected, and sure, worth a thousand
words.

But they are often utterly useless in telling folks how to layout
the circuit and placement of parts and wiring for
best operation, freedom from micro power supply rectifying noise
voltages in 0V wiring,
magnetically induced mirco voltages, and return current effects in load
current carying wiring
etc etc etc.

A lot is left for the maker to get right.

Countless times diyers construct something with the exact and right
schematic
but are left with deafening hum and noise problems, and with
maybe RF oscilations as well, all because of very poor understanding
of most basic aspects of electronics. When told to spend weeks doing
some real learning,
they just cannot do it because they don't have a questioning mind.

In a recent case a guy with an old tubes CJ preamp had me instal
a fet cascode circuit for the MC input to suit his MC cart because the
CJ
had a rather poor tubed phono rendition fit only for high output MM.
I finally got the 0V pathing adjusted after several hours to give
negligible
hum when the preamp gain was set to normal operation level
with an average power amp connected with a speaker.
He appreciated the revaltion the MC cart gave him.
Then he wanted all the crummy old 1960s RCA sockets replaced to stop the
intermittent noises he was getting.

My time is valuable, and too valuable to do the donkey work
of replaceing RCA sockets, so I insisted he learn to use a drill and
make a new panel and
pay for some Cardas sockets and do it himself.
Of course he insisted on remaining a practical klutz, and talked his dad
into
doing this highly skilled but tedious task for nothing of course.
His dad wanted to keep the exact positions of the existing RCAs the same
so as not to
disturb what 0V rails I had arranged initially.
But the guy had his dad change the positions to suit two different sizes
of new RCAs,
so that phono input wiring was 150mm longer, and woe, he used untwisted
1mm thick house wire type wires.

When he tried te amp, its hum was quite deafening, and ther amp
was unusable, so he comes across town to me for a fix, cheaper than
learning anything.

I re-route the cabling internally to where it was, but get him to agree
there was no difference
in quality the two sizes of RCA sockets, so no need to make the
compromise in positioning
just because of some wacky idea about the RCA socket quality.

He went away after $50 worth of work which stuffed my afternoon on a
saturday
but he had a Turnerized Conrad Johnson that wasn't noisy any more,
and he had some real understanding of how bleeding important
it is to consider everything about all aspects of what you're doing
when making any changes to circuits.




Here, for
instance:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/Jute-EL34-SEntry.jpg
I've shown the star earth being implemented but have not said anything
about connecting the case to earth. Mind you, on some of the Lundahl
Modular Series 300B schemos I showed all the 0V connections in order,
with a note saying "mind the order of the grounding connections", and
two people wrote me letters saying that DIYers are not idiots who need
their hands held. (I was, when I started, and I'm very grateful to
people who made 90 mile round trips to come check over my
constructions before I fired them up.)

The schema above is fine, but has no chassis shown,
so I suggest 27ohms x 5W from star 0V point to chassis point near the
RCA inputs and well away from the PT.

The mains green / yellow earth wire sould also be taken to a chassis
point away from the
PT, and not necessarily to where the 27ohm is anchored, to reduce
induced chassis voltages.....

I might add that 0V rails layout is even MORE critical in high powered
SS amps...

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

Henry Pasternack wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

A star ground is just a circular bus or a very short bus.

Not really, ANDRE. A star ground is the abstract notion of a purely
equipotential (equal voltage) single point connection that eliminates
ground loops by reducing the resistance of the common ground bus to
zero. It's impossible to achieve in practice, though, and trying to
take the approach too literally is likely to cause more harm than
good.

Don't you mean more hum than silence?

Grounding is is tricky and tiresome in inverse proportion to the
amount of thought you give it.

I would say the opposite is true. The less you think about grounding,
the less tricky it seems.

It depends on what knowledge is in the thinker's mind and how good at
thinking they are.

With no thought at all, it becomes as simple
as pie. Or fruit tart, for that matter. Just connect all the ground
connections together any way you like, and don't worry. It's only
when you start to think about it that it truly becomes tricky.

Oh my Gord, while your at it, just connect all components up to randomly
chosen circuit points and tube socket pins.
Avoid all thought, and never check what you are doing.

Turn it on with bravado, and cheer as the smoke rises and parts fry to
death.
But maybe it doesn't hum, so mission accomplished.

That other re-posted advice does ahve lots of good stuff people should
realise
and practice automatically while thinking about how to make their amp.

So we won't take you seriously always and we will keep smiling...

Here you can see my star point [URL deleted].

You may be able to see it, but to my eyes the picture is impossibly
tiny to reveal any useful details. But, you know I have this problem
with photographs.

Most schematics don't tell you enough about earthing. Here, for
instance: [URL deleted]. I've shown the star earth being implemented
but have not said anything about connecting the case to earth.

Attempting to connect all the grounds together like that, willy-nilly,
is not the right approach. That's because in practice it's nearly
impossible to achieve a true equipotential connection for all those
wires. Also, there are other performance issues having to do with
all those long ground connections running about the amplifier.

... I showed all the 0V connections in order, with a note saying
"mind the order of the grounding connections", and two people wrote
me letters saying that DIYers are not idiots who need their hands
held.

Then the DIYers were idiots, because the subject is quite worthy of
elaboration. The problem I see with everything you say here is that
you fail to address the most important meat of the problem, which is
precisely how to determine the "order of the grounding connections"
and how this translates into a practical wiring and ground layout.

That does take practised skills which are best learnt by trial and error
by diyers in their own shed. All the discussions in the world
about grounding on new groups won't stop diyers getting things wrong a
few times unless they learn,
and some cannot, or simply will not, because its cheaper to go to a tech
person to sort their mistakes.

Even when I point out they ARE ABLE to work it out and learn, and that
they DO HAVE
the time, they won't learn, and won't use the time, and prefer to
do such dumb**** things as attend pubs and watch TV and have reams of
useless small talk with
others around them.

So urging Andre, or myself, or to give a diagram of how-to-do yourself
will have almost zero effect on the hum found in diyer first attempts.

I had to teach myself. And I built test gear for measuring low mV level
signal volts and currents so I needed to know how to make circuits
quiet.
At first they were hopelessly too noisy, but gradually I got really good
at
eliminating noise.

It took days and weeks of practice.





My opinion on this subject is there are many ways to wire an amplifier
to minimize hum and noise. Star grounding (and its variants) and
bus wiring are two common solutions.

Well, starring is the most predictable. It usually gives a fair result.
But you end up using more hook up wire than you'd like to so
avoiding lengthy wires from PS cap 0V terminals to a point near the
input is investigated.
Finally, the idea of referencing is formed in the diyer's mind, and
ideas about never
allowing a PS supply wire carrying heavy ac or dc to appear commom to
other 0V wires
which may produce some noise at the input.


Pictures and vague generalities, if you would like to help your
readers, you should teach them the principles involved (you do
know them, right?) so they can work out the optimum grounding
scheme for each project by themselves.

Well, for any given amp, very few variations of the 0V path
will give noise free operation.
determined diyers will find them through their own efforts at
educating themselves on the basics about circuit currents flowing around
the bloody
circuits they are building. But its a big expectation to expect people
to
prove anything to themselves; many people prefer chocolate to apples,
and bull**** to truth....


Of course, being a lying psychopath pornographic scumbag, I may
not really know what I'm talking about! Feel free to ignore
everything I say. In fact, I strongly urge you to do so! :-)

I have never found you to be a clueless scumbag full of porno
and don't have the time to determine if its true or not.
Porno is art to many folks, unless its porking 1 year olds,
and thankfully we don't have images allowed at r.a.t, where no doubt a
small
minority would make use of the binaries ability to post
inappropriate images which may be distracting to tube craft.

I find it difficult to think about sex and +700 V at the same time.

If you sent me an image of yourself or even myself porking Queen
Elizabeth II,
I'd be mildly amused, and know there was no accounting for taste, eh.

I have Nicole K and Kylie M here this minute to mow my lawns
because they get so tired of the work they do.

I also want them to clip the hedges, and they are having a little argy
bargy
about who gets up the ladder, and who holds the ladder steady...

I'll bring them a nice cup of tea when they finish and we'll have a nice
swim in the pool
after. About 50 laps should tire them out naturally.

r.a.t is democracy without regulation, and its a lot better than
elsewhere....

Patrick Turner.




-Henry

[Patrick Turner]

Andre Jute wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:17 am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
There may be better ways than what I do, and what Patrick and Iain do,
but it'll be a cold day in hell when we hear them from you or Porno
Pas.

So all those tens of thousands of pieces of pro-audio equipment out there in the
big wide world could have been better designed by you or Patrick could they ?

I didn't say that. What I said was, in numbered soundbites so even you
can understand, dear Poopie:

1. What Patrick and Iain and I do is legal and it works.

2. There may be better ways.

3. Someone knows those better ways.

4. Poopie Stevenson and Henry "Porno" Pasternack do not know those
better ways.

5. Poopie Stevenson and Henry "Porno" Pasternack are merely rephrasing
what more knowledgeable posters say, and adding abuse, in the hope of
being taken as contributors.

6. No one is fooled.

What
a damn cretin you are !

Hey, fat boy, yes you, Poopie. Don't let your blood pressure run away
with you. You'll throw a thrombie and who shall we feel superior to
then after Pasternack runs away again?

You're a rank amateur and Patrick's way out of his depth
when it comes to pro-audio.

But I'm not a rank amateur, Graham. I'm a very well-bathed, anointed
(custom-made bath oil) and scented (Yves St Laurent's Eau Sauvage)
amateur who has built more tube amps in any month in the last thirteen
years than you and Pasternack together built in your entire lives.

and Patrick's way out of his depth
when it comes to pro-audio.

I wasn't aware that Patrick paddled in the pro-audio pool, but I
designed and built a banksaKT88 for a rocker's studio down the road
here to all-round satisfaction, so I don't see that Patrick would be
baulked by a little "pro" job. As far as I can tell, a pro job is just
an expert amateur job with a higher fee. Since I gouge with the best
of them... Hey, Patrick, the only thing that keeps you from being
invited into Graham's club (presuming you'd want to belong, of course)
is that you don't charge as much as I do!

Graham

I have no difficulty in believing you rank, Poopie, but we're still
waiting for the specifics of what is wrong with my grounding scheme,
so we'll withhold judgement on whether you're a professional until we
hear specific details from you, rather than generalities, deliberate
misdirections and misunderstandings, and poor-quality abuse.

Andre Jute

Gee, I don't have time to read and reply to all comments
in this thread.

Basically, all amps must be SAFE.

They must be quiet mechanically.

The must be quiet electronically.

It takes awhile for anyone, whether thay are "professional" or not
to make gear where the 3 conditions above are met.

I am not really in what is considered to be the
"professional" audio industry, one which is infested with amateurs and
cowboys
who make crap that I sometimes have to modify and re-engineer or repair
to
high standards of tradesmanship and craftmanship to stop noise and smoke
from their ****ing "professional" efforts.

When somebody talks about "professional" people involved in audio,
or candle making, or even **** carting, I am always a cycnic until their
activities
proove otherwise. They must first proove they know their trade and
craft.

The doctors who regard themselves as professionals took a whole year to
correctly
diagnose the ovarian cancer my sister got.
They thought she had indigestion, a stomach bug.....

By the time she got diagnosed properly, she
had incurable cancer that had spread to her lungs and stomach and bowel
and she died 15 months later after huge amounts of treatments
which didn't work.
They first told her she had an 80% chance of being alive in 5 years.
But my search in Google said she had 67% chance of dying within 5 years
even if they'd
diganosed correctly 12 months earlier than when thy did find outabout.
So when she was diagnosed, she had NO chance whatsoever of surviving.
But we got bull**** about 80%.

"Professionals" tell lies and bull****.

They charge outrageous prices for this crap.

Sure some are what we need, but some have no clue.

Patrick Turner.



"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco

[Eeyore]

Patrick Turner wrote:

I am not really in what is considered to be the
"professional" audio industry, one which is infested with amateurs and
cowboys who make crap that I sometimes have to modify and re-engineer or repair
to high standards of tradesmanship and craftmanship to stop noise and smoke
from their ****ing "professional" efforts.

And who the hell are these 'professionals' you refer to ?

The standards in pro-audio are normally first class.

Graham

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

Iain Churches wrote:

And why 25W?

I said 5W, but 25W would be OK.

Because you don't want that R to go open, ever, or the whole audio
circuit
IS NOT REFERENCED TO THE CHASSIS AND EARTH, something I feel is
important.

If the B+ becomes shorted to the chassis, you want the fuse to blow
because of that short.
You DON'T want a 27 ohm x 1/4 watt R to fuse open in an instant, leaving
the 0V rail at +500V,
including the OV rail and the speaker wires....

I am having trouble getting my mind around this. I am standing on my
head trying to get a good perspective on the question. Wouldn't it be
-500V on the "OV rail and the speaker wires" if the B+ shorted to the
chassis, or does it just look that way to me because I am standing on my
head?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:
Iain Churches wrote:

And why 25W?

I said 5W, but 25W would be OK.

Because you don't want that R to go open, ever, or the whole audio
circuit
IS NOT REFERENCED TO THE CHASSIS AND EARTH, something I feel is
important.

If the B+ becomes shorted to the chassis, you want the fuse to blow
because of that short.
You DON'T want a 27 ohm x 1/4 watt R to fuse open in an instant, leaving
the 0V rail at +500V,
including the OV rail and the speaker wires....

I am having trouble getting my mind around this. I am standing on my
head trying to get a good perspective on the question. Wouldn't it be
-500V on the "OV rail and the speaker wires" if the B+ shorted to the
chassis, or does it just look that way to me because I am standing on my
head?

You are correct.

Graham

[robert casey]

Avoiding ground loop issues you need to understand the paths the
currents thru such a ground are taking. And remember that all real
conductors have resistance, and that "noise" voltages will develop
across those current paths. Using dedicated wires for each current path
avoids this. That's what you do in a star ground system. One important
current path is the one in the power supply. From the center-tap of the
high voltage secondary to the filter cap is a high current spike every
120th of a second. SO to keep that out of the rest of the amp, you
connect the secondary center-tap directly to the negative side of the
filter caps, and then what becomes the B- (at the filter cap negative)
then becomes a wire leading to the star ground. I've connected my
output stage cathode resistors to this B- point, and then use the star
ground for low current low signal level work.

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 3, 4:49*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Awfully suspicious that the original of the article cannot be found, what?

What the HELL are you drivelling on about ?

Graham

We were all hoping you knew, Poopie, since you're such bumbuddies with
Porno Pas. What we want to know is how come this fellow can't find his
own article on the net if he didn't withdraw it when Bell Northern
fired him for it? Look at the evidence, man! Pasternack claims he
found the article on someone else's netsite. Now why should he have to
find his own article on someone else's netsite, answer us that! Smells
decidedly fishy, hmm?

HTH.

Andre Jute
Obfuskator primus

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 3, 4:51*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress

And if you were s serious audio practioner you'd use a proper CAD schematic program.

It's always the little sucker-fish who rant on about how "serious" and
"professional" they are. I just use what is to hand

It's THIS easily to hand for free ....http://www.expresspcb.com/ExpressPCB...d_software.htm

Ugh. Whatever makes you think I use free software, Poopie?

And what's WRONG with free software you pompous ass ?

I don't know, Poopie. You're the one claiming there is something wrong
with free software. So why don't you tell us what is "WRONG" with free
software if you feel so strongly about it that you must shout.

And that crap you recommend is Microshoddy operating systems. I'm not a sado-
masochist -- I use a Mac.

Trust you to use an art-farty computer instead of one with decent support for technical applications.

Why should I ever choose a computer whose makers know nothing of
ergonomics, and could care less? A Mac does what I want it to do, in
the way I want it to do it, and unobtrusively; it just works faster
and better than the MicroShoddy competition. You, dear Poopie, remind
me of people who drive little British sports cars and pretend that
their manhood is enhanced by their self-inflicted suffering.

To give just ONE example.

Keep it and all your other examples. I already have good CAD software
that was worth every penny of the price.

But NOT electronic CAD.

As a matter of fact, I have electronic CAD for both my Mac and for the
MicroShoddy machine I keep in the cupboard for testing Mac-created
software and presentations that I send to the unenlightened.

Graham

You're not very well informed, are you, Poopie?

Unsigned out of contempt for a clown.

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 3, 10:19*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

*snip for brevity,

Most schematics don't tell you enough about earthing.

This is a very true statement if ever there was one.

A schematic is just how things are connected, and sure, worth a thousand
words.

But they are often utterly useless in telling folks how to layout
the circuit and placement of parts and wiring for
best operation, freedom from micro power supply rectifying noise
voltages in 0V wiring,
magnetically induced mirco voltages, and return current effects in load
current carying wiring
etc etc etc.

A lot is left for the maker to get right.

Frankly, Patrick, my opinion after nearly twenty years in DIY tube
audio is that, were you and I to collaborate on a book on grounding,
ti would uneconomically thick, it would still be incomplete, and the
little hotheads and know-alls, as in your example below, would still
screw it up. And the self-declared "professionals" like Poopie and
Plodnick would still screech down from their ivory towers without
adding anything of any practical use to the discussion.

BTW, I use and appreciate Carda connectors. They're nice to handle and
the gold plating is done over the proper underlayers, unlike so much
American plating which is shoddy.

I have left the rest of Patrick's post because it bears on what I say,
and is funny besides.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Countless times diyers construct something with the exact and right
schematic
but are left with deafening hum and noise problems, and with
maybe RF oscilations as well, all because of very poor understanding
of most basic aspects of electronics. When told to spend weeks doing
some real learning,
they just cannot do it because they don't have a questioning mind.

In a recent case a guy with an old tubes CJ preamp had me instal
a fet cascode circuit for the MC input to suit his MC cart because the
CJ
had a rather poor tubed phono rendition fit only for high output MM.
I finally got the 0V pathing adjusted after several hours to give
negligible
hum when the preamp gain was set to normal operation level
with an average power amp connected with a speaker.
He appreciated the revaltion the MC cart gave him.
Then he wanted all the crummy old 1960s RCA sockets replaced to stop the
intermittent noises he was getting.

My time is valuable, and too valuable to do the donkey work
of replaceing RCA sockets, so I insisted he learn to use a drill and
make a new panel and
pay for some Cardas sockets and do it himself.
Of course he insisted on remaining a practical klutz, and talked his dad
into
doing this highly skilled but tedious task for nothing of course.
His dad wanted to keep the exact positions of the existing RCAs the same
so as not to
disturb what 0V rails I had arranged initially.
But the guy had his dad change the positions to suit two different sizes
of new RCAs,
so that phono input wiring was 150mm longer, and woe, he used untwisted
1mm thick house wire type wires.

When he tried te amp, its hum was quite deafening, and ther amp
was unusable, so he comes across town to me for a fix, cheaper than
learning anything.

I re-route the cabling internally to where it was, but get him to agree
there was no difference
in quality the two sizes of RCA sockets, so no need to make the
compromise in positioning
just because of some wacky idea about the RCA socket quality.

He went away after $50 worth of work which stuffed my afternoon on a
saturday
but he had a Turnerized Conrad Johnson that wasn't noisy any more,
and he had some real understanding of how bleeding important
it is to consider everything about all aspects of what you're doing
when making any changes to circuits.

Here, for

instance:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/Jute-EL34-SEntry.jpg
I've shown the star earth being implemented but have not said anything
about connecting the case to earth. Mind you, on some of the Lundahl
Modular Series 300B schemos I showed all the 0V connections in order,
with a note saying "mind the order of the grounding connections", and
two people wrote me letters saying that DIYers are not idiots who need
their hands held. (I was, when I started, and I'm very grateful to
people who made 90 mile round trips to come check over my
constructions before I fired them up.)

The schema above is fine, but has no chassis shown,
so I suggest 27ohms x 5W from star 0V point to chassis point near the
RCA inputs and well away from the PT.

The mains green / yellow earth wire sould also be taken to a chassis
point away from the
PT, and not necessarily to where the 27ohm is anchored, to reduce
induced chassis voltages.....

I might add that 0V rails layout is even MORE critical in high powered
SS amps...

Patrick Turner.

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 3, 10:57*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Henry Pasternack wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

A star ground is just a circular bus or a very short bus.

Not really, ANDRE. *A star ground is the abstract notion of a purely
equipotential (equal voltage) single point connection that eliminates
ground loops by reducing the resistance of the common ground bus to
zero. *It's impossible to achieve in practice, though, and trying to
take the approach too literally is likely to cause more harm than
good.

Don't you mean more hum than silence?

Porno Pas has built two or three tube amps in his entire life, total,
max, final count. What he says is hardly ever specific enough to be
useful, and my experience is that he tailors the truth about
electronics according to who he speaks to. In short, Henry Pasternack
is unreliable, often dangerous.

I have no problem believing that a Pasternack amp produces "more hum
than silence". Why, even Jon Yaeger, hardly the most discriminating
tubie, broke up one of Pasternack's amps, presumably because it was
too noisy to use or sell on.

Pasternack can't even keep his story straight in a single letter. He
contradicts himself repeatedly in the letter you're replying to.

Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco


Grounding is is tricky and tiresome in inverse proportion to the
amount of thought you give it.

I would say the opposite is true. *The less you think about grounding,
the less tricky it seems.

It depends on what knowledge is in the thinker's mind and how good at
thinking they are.

With no thought at all, it becomes as simple
as pie. *Or fruit tart, for that matter. *Just connect all the ground
connections together any way you like, and don't worry. *It's only
when you start to think about it that it truly becomes tricky.

Oh my Gord, while your at it, just connect all components up to randomly
chosen circuit points and tube socket pins.
Avoid all thought, and never check what you are doing.

Turn it on with bravado, and cheer as the smoke rises and parts fry to
death.
But maybe it doesn't hum, so mission accomplished.

That other re-posted advice does ahve lots of good stuff people should
realise
and practice automatically while thinking about how to make their amp.

So we won't take you seriously always and we will keep smiling...





Here you can see my star point [URL deleted].

You may be able to see it, but to my eyes the picture is impossibly
tiny to reveal any useful details. *But, you know I have this problem
with photographs.

Most schematics don't tell you enough about earthing. Here, for
instance: [URL deleted]. *I've shown the star earth being implemented
but have not said anything about connecting the case to earth.

Attempting to connect all the grounds together like that, willy-nilly,
is not the right approach. *That's because in practice it's nearly
impossible to achieve a true equipotential connection for all those
wires. *Also, there are other performance issues having to do with
all those long ground connections running about the amplifier.

... I showed all the 0V connections in order, with a note saying
"mind the order of the grounding connections", and *two people wrote
me letters saying that DIYers are not idiots who need their hands
held.

Then the DIYers were idiots, because the subject is quite worthy of
elaboration. *The problem I see with everything you say here is that
you fail to address the most important meat of the problem, which is
precisely how to determine the "order of the grounding connections"
and how this translates into a practical wiring and ground layout.

That does take practised skills which are best learnt by trial and error
by diyers in their own shed. All the discussions in the world
about grounding on new groups won't stop diyers getting things wrong a
few times unless they learn,
and some cannot, or simply will not, because its cheaper to go to a tech
person to sort their mistakes.

Even when I point out they ARE ABLE to work it out and learn, and that
they DO HAVE
the time, they won't learn, and won't use the time, and prefer to
do such dumb**** things as attend pubs and watch TV and have reams of
useless small talk with
others around them.

So urging Andre, or myself, or to give a diagram of how-to-do yourself
will have almost zero effect on the hum found in diyer first attempts.

I had to teach myself. And I built test gear for measuring low mV level
signal volts and currents so I needed to know how to make circuits
quiet.
At first they were hopelessly too noisy, but gradually I got really good
at
eliminating noise.

It took days and weeks of practice.

My opinion on this subject is there are many ways to wire an amplifier
to minimize hum and noise. *Star grounding (and its variants) and
bus wiring are two common solutions.

Well, starring is the most predictable. It usually gives a fair result.
But you end up using more hook up wire than you'd like to so
avoiding lengthy wires from PS cap 0V terminals to a point near the
input is investigated.
Finally, the idea of referencing is formed in the diyer's mind, and
ideas about never
allowing a PS supply wire carrying heavy ac or dc to appear commom to
other 0V wires
which may produce some noise at the input.

Pictures and vague generalities, if you would like to help your
readers, you should teach them the principles involved (you do
know them, right?) so they can work out the optimum grounding
scheme for each project by themselves.

Well, for any given amp, very few variations of the 0V path
will give noise free operation.
determined diyers will find them through their own efforts at
educating themselves on the basics about circuit currents flowing around
the bloody
circuits they are building. But its a big expectation to expect people
to
prove anything to themselves; many people prefer chocolate to apples,
and bull**** to truth....



Of course, being a lying psychopath pornographic scumbag, I may
not really know what I'm talking about! *Feel free to ignore
everything I say. *In fact, I strongly urge you to do so! *:-)

I have never found you to be a clueless scumbag full of porno
and don't have the time to determine if its true or not.
Porno is art to many folks, unless its porking 1 year olds,
and thankfully we don't have images allowed at r.a.t, where no doubt a
small
minority would make use of the binaries ability to post
inappropriate images which may be distracting to tube craft.

I find it difficult to think about sex and +700 V at the same time.

If you sent me an image of yourself or even myself porking Queen
Elizabeth II,
I'd be mildly amused, and know there was no accounting for taste, eh.

I have Nicole K and Kylie M here this minute to mow my lawns
because they get so tired of the work they do.

I also want them to clip the hedges, and they are having a little argy
bargy
about who gets up the ladder, and who holds the ladder steady...

I'll bring them a nice cup of tea when they finish and we'll have a nice
swim in the pool
after. About 50 laps should tire them out naturally.

r.a.t is democracy without regulation, and its a lot better than
elsewhere....

Patrick Turner.



-Henry

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 3, 1:13*pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:
I am not really in what is considered to be the
"professional" audio industry, one which is infested with amateurs and
cowboys who make crap that I sometimes have to modify and re-engineer or repair
to high standards of tradesmanship and craftmanship to stop noise and smoke
from their ****ing "professional" efforts.

And who the hell are these 'professionals' you refer to ?

The standards in pro-audio are normally first class.

Huh? Are you an example of what you consider a "professional in pro-
audio", Poopie? If you are, the standards must be deplorably low.

Graham

And doesn't Krueger call him self a "professional" of audio too? LOL.

Unsigned out of contempt for a smoke blower

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Andre Jute wrote:

The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress

There is an excellent programme called sPlan available
at very low cost. It even has a tube/valve library.
You can download a demo version from

http://www.abacom-online.de/uk/html/demoversionen.html


Iain

[Patrick Turner]

John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

Iain Churches wrote:

And why 25W?

I said 5W, but 25W would be OK.

Because you don't want that R to go open, ever, or the whole audio
circuit
IS NOT REFERENCED TO THE CHASSIS AND EARTH, something I feel is
important.

If the B+ becomes shorted to the chassis, you want the fuse to blow
because of that short.
You DON'T want a 27 ohm x 1/4 watt R to fuse open in an instant, leaving
the 0V rail at +500V,
including the OV rail and the speaker wires....

I am having trouble getting my mind around this. I am standing on my
head trying to get a good perspective on the question. Wouldn't it be
-500V on the "OV rail and the speaker wires" if the B+ shorted to the
chassis, or does it just look that way to me because I am standing on my
head?

Regards,

John Byrns

Indeed you are right, but if the 27R went open, and B+ shorted to the
chassis, then the chassis would try to go +ve, and 0V rail and speakers
etc would try to go
very negative. BUT, if you had a preamp attatched, with coaxial RCA
cable connecting the power amp 0V to preamp 0V, and there was a similar
27 ohms in the preamp
to its chassis and Earth, then the preamp's "ground lifting resistance"
of 27ohms
might also fuse open, and you'd get a high -Ve voltage at the RCA 0V
terminal and speakers
so if you touched this or speakers and the chassis which IS at earth
potential,
you'd get a bad shock.

So hence the need for the ground lift R to be rugged enough so when such
a B+ to ground short
occurs, a mains fuse will blow because of the low load on the power
supply.

Its very unlikely you'd ever get the B+ shorting to the chassis.
Its much more likely that a B+ short to 0V would occur, through a
stuffed output tube,
or from P to S on the OPT, or from an arc across from pin 3 to pin 2 on
octal sockets.
So its likely that the 27R isn't ever exposed to a sudden amount of high
current.

But **** happens, so prepare for it.

The point I was making is that all chassis should be well connected to
EARTH,
and then if ground lift between chassis and 0V rail is the standard way
to lower noise,
then for safety use a high wattage low value
ground lift R which still has MUCH more resistance than the coax outer
shield of an interconnect
to some other component such as preamp or cd player, tuner etc.

Patrick Turner.


--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Eeyore]

robert casey wrote:

Avoiding ground loop issues you need to understand the paths the
currents thru such a ground are taking. And remember that all real
conductors have resistance, and that "noise" voltages will develop
across those current paths. Using dedicated wires for each current path
avoids this. That's what you do in a star ground system. One important
current path is the one in the power supply. From the center-tap of the
high voltage secondary to the filter cap is a high current spike every
120th of a second.

100th of a second in most of the world actually.


SO to keep that out of the rest of the amp, you
connect the secondary center-tap directly to the negative side of the
filter caps, and then what becomes the B- (at the filter cap negative)
then becomes a wire leading to the star ground. I've connected my
output stage cathode resistors to this B- point, and then use the star
ground for low current low signal level work.

Spot on and well explained.

And Andre Jute wonders why I criticised his 'design by rote' post !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Awfully suspicious that the original of the article cannot be found, what?

What the HELL are you drivelling on about ?

Graham

We were all hoping you knew, Poopie, since you're such bumbuddies with
Porno Pas.

Can it with the nasty personal abuse will you ?


What we want to know is how come this fellow can't find his
own article on the net if he didn't withdraw it when Bell Northern
fired him for it?

Why would anyone be fired for an article on audio grounding that's entirely
uncontentious ? Where's your proof any such thing happened ?

You really are one ignorant old embittered fool.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Ugh. Whatever makes you think I use free software, Poopie?

And what's WRONG with free software you pompous ass ?

I don't know, Poopie. You're the one claiming there is something wrong
with free software.

No I'm not, you're the one saying "UGH" about free software - see above - stop making up a load of nonsense
you vile piece of ****.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Frankly, Patrick, my opinion after nearly twenty years in DIY tube
audio is that, were you and I to collaborate on a book on grounding,
ti would uneconomically thick, it would still be incomplete

POMPOUS **** !

**** off out of here, preferably with your tail between your legs.

Graham

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 4, 12:37*am, Eeyore
wrote:
robert casey wrote:
Avoiding ground loop issues you need to understand the paths the
currents thru such a ground are taking. *And remember that all real
conductors have resistance, and that "noise" voltages will develop
across those current paths. *Using dedicated wires for each current path
avoids this. *That's what you do in a star ground system. *One important
current path is the one in the power supply. *From the center-tap of the
high voltage secondary to the filter cap is a high current spike every
120th of a second.

100th of a second in most of the world actually.

SO to keep that out of the rest of the amp, you
connect the secondary center-tap directly to the negative side of the
filter caps, and then what becomes the B- (at the filter cap negative)
then becomes a wire leading to the star ground. *I've connected my
output stage cathode resistors to this B- point, and then use the star
ground for low current low signal level work.

Spot on and well explained.

And Andre Jute wonders why I criticised his 'design by rote' post !

Ignorance? I published a scheme like Robert Casey's, among other
grounding schemes, about ten or twelve years ago. You have some
catching up to do, Poopie.


Graham

Unsigned out of contempt

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:
I am not really in what is considered to be the
"professional" audio industry, one which is infested with amateurs and
cowboys who make crap that I sometimes have to modify and re-engineer or repair
to high standards of tradesmanship and craftmanship to stop noise and smoke
from their ****ing "professional" efforts.

And who the hell are these 'professionals' you refer to ?

The standards in pro-audio are normally first class.

Huh? Are you an example of what you consider a "professional in pro-
audio", Poopie? If you are, the standards must be deplorably low.

A typically ignorant statement from you.

Since when have you ever examined any equipment designed by me ?

Graham

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 4, 12:39*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Awfully suspicious that the original of the article cannot be found, what?

What the HELL are you drivelling on about ?

Graham

We were all hoping you knew, Poopie, since you're such bumbuddies with
Porno Pas.

Can it with the nasty personal abuse will you ?

You mean like:
What drivel is this my bum bandit chum ?
Those are you own words, Poopie, not mine.

What we want to know is how come this fellow can't find his
own article on the net if he didn't withdraw it when Bell Northern
fired him for it?

Why would anyone be fired for an article on audio grounding that's entirely
uncontentious ?

That's what we're wondering, why should anyone be fired for such a
useless bit of waffle. Pasternack, if memory serves, was fired about
the same time. Were the events connected? You can tell us, Poopie.

Where's your proof any such thing happened ?

If we knew the answer, do you really think we would ask an ignoramus
like you? We were hoping that Pasternack in one his beery, self-
pitying private letters to you, like he used to write to Pinkerton,
told the story.

You really are one ignorant old embittered fool.

Getting any information out of you is like pulling teeth, Poopie. Why
couldn't you just say at the beginning that you don't know anything
about why Porno Pas was fired, the same way you don't know anything
about grounding. Why waste our time with a smokescreen?

Graham

UOOC

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 4, 12:41*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Ugh. Whatever makes you think I use free software, Poopie?

And what's WRONG with free software you pompous ass ?

I don't know, Poopie. You're the one claiming there is something wrong
with free software.

No I'm not, you're the one saying "UGH" about free software - see above - stop making up a load of nonsense
you vile piece of ****.

Is that what you mean by "professionalism", Poopie, calling someone
"you vile piece of ****" every time you lose an argument?

Graham

In any event, CAD software is your smokescreen over your failure, and
over your bumbuddy Pasternack's failure, to provide specifics about
what you found wrong in my description of a commonplace grounding
procedure in tube amps. You two clown claimed there was something
wrong, and we're still waiting to hear what it is.

So stop blowing smoke from your slack fat arse, Poopie, and tell us,
or get that other clown Pasternack to tell us, what you two jokers
meant when you attacked my piece. Specifics, Poopie, not smoke and
waffle.

Andre Jute
Precision engineering and linguistics

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 4, 12:42*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Frankly, Patrick, my opinion after nearly twenty years in DIY tube
audio is that, were you and I to collaborate on a book on grounding,
ti would uneconomically thick, it would still be incomplete

POMPOUS **** !

Very "professional", Poopie.

**** off out of here, preferably with your tail between your legs.

Ever the "professional", eh Poopie?

Graham

LOL.

Andre Jute
Our legislators managed to criminalize fox-hunting and smoking; when
will they get off their collective fat backside and criminalize
negative feedback? It is clearly consumed only by thickoes.

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 4, 12:43*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:
I am not really in what is considered to be the
"professional" audio industry, one which is infested with amateurs and
cowboys who make crap that I sometimes have to modify and re-engineer or repair
to high standards of tradesmanship and craftmanship to stop noise and smoke
from their ****ing "professional" efforts.

And who the hell are these 'professionals' you refer to ?

The standards in pro-audio are normally first class.

Huh? Are you an example of what you consider a "professional in pro-
audio", Poopie? If you are, the standards must be deplorably low.

A typically ignorant statement from you.

How can *any* statement from me be ignorant after all the great
newspapers of the world have lauded me for my research, never mind
"typically ignorant". Get a grip, Poopie.

Since when have you ever examined any equipment designed by me ?

Why, have you sent me some? It never arrived.

Graham

Calm down, Poopie. Get your blood pressure under control. This can't
be good for you.

Andre Jute
Calm, reasonable, cool