Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:45:48 -0600, John - KD5YI
wrote: On 3/2/2011 10:24 PM, John Larkin wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:06:41 -0600, John - wrote: On 3/2/2011 8:52 PM, John Larkin wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:40:27 -0600, John - 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 Not really. I have a few circuits I could throw out and claim that they are topologies and you would not be able to use them without values. Granted, mine are more complex than the one being discussed, but I'm hoping to make a point. John (not Larkin) I think circuit topologies are fun to play with. Lots of textbooks show, and discuss, circuits without explicit values. Once you have a topology, then you can proceed to specs and component values. If you think all circuits should be posted with values, post some. John You are correct, John. Now you have a topology. Please post the component values. Thanks, John Given i/o specs, the DC analysis is simple. But there are two AC aspects that are sort of interesting: the lf response, and loop stability. I'm sort of disappointed that nobody has commented on either. As I'm disappointed in how many people want to whine and cluck about personalities, and avoid actually discussing electronics. John |
#42
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 19:26:29 -0500, Bitrex wrote: On 3/2/2011 6:30 PM, John Larkin wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:21:23 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: John Larkin wrote: I've always sort of liked the classic "GE" tape head/mic preamp circuit: ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GEcircuit.jpg Here is a couple of very low noise audio circuits for the same purpose: http://www.abvolt.com/misc/inputs_audio.jpg I like BJT and JFET in cascode. The one on the left, with the base and gate connected, is sure cute. John I'm having a little trouble with the operation of that one. The way it's set up, assuming the output sits at 0 volts won't the input BJT be cut off? Jfets usually run at negative gate voltage. Assume the transistor base is at +0.7. The jfet source will be at some more positive voltage, +2.5 maybe. That's enough to run the transistor. Actually, you can cascode a transistor into the source of a fet that has a grounded gate. In that case, the source/collector voltage might be a volt or two. You would have to look at the fet transfer curve, and know the design operating current, to see exactly what that voltage might be. The problem with jfets is the huge part-to-part variation in Idss and transfer curves. A 10:1 datasheet spread in Idss isn't unusual. +10v | | | d gnd---------g s | | +------ Vs | | 10K | | | gnd For a typical vanilla jfet in this circuit, Vs might be +1 to +4 volts maybe. John BF862s are much better--cutoff to full on in half a volt or so. Their transconductance is so high that even with a 2.5:1 range of I_DSS, the spread of V_GS is pretty reasonable. They're also very quiet, go about 700 MHz, and cost 20 cents. Other than that, they stink. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) net http://electrooptical.net |
#43
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
Bitrex wrote:
On 3/2/2011 8:06 PM, John Larkin wrote: Actually, you can cascode a transistor into the source of a fet that has a grounded gate. In that case, the source/collector voltage might be a volt or two. You would have to look at the fet transfer curve, and know the design operating current, to see exactly what that voltage might be. I'm foggy on how such a cascode reduces noise - improved distortion, bandwidth, and PSRR I can understand but how does two transistors end up less noisy than one? I know with tubes a cascode was considered a low noise alternative since two triodes in cascode would have lower noise than a single pentode, with similar gain. As far as I can see, a cascode has the same noise as its bottom transistor, near enough. The virtue of a cascode is that it greatly reduces the effect of the Miller capacitance, so you get more bandwidth and less input capacitance. Jeroen Belleman |
#44
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Mar 3, 3:32*am, 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. Without the component values, it does take a moment's thought, which is wasted on a bizarre (if simple) circuit with few potential applications. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |
#45
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Bitrex wrote: On 3/2/2011 8:06 PM, John Larkin wrote: Actually, you can cascode a transistor into the source of a fet that has a grounded gate. In that case, the source/collector voltage might be a volt or two. You would have to look at the fet transfer curve, and know the design operating current, to see exactly what that voltage might be. I'm foggy on how such a cascode reduces noise - improved distortion, bandwidth, and PSRR I can understand but how does two transistors end up less noisy than one? I know with tubes a cascode was considered a low noise alternative since two triodes in cascode would have lower noise than a single pentode, with similar gain. As far as I can see, a cascode has the same noise as its bottom transistor, near enough. The virtue of a cascode is that it greatly reduces the effect of the Miller capacitance, so you get more bandwidth and less input capacitance. Jeroen Belleman At high frequency, you get noise from the output feeding back via Miller capacitance. Cascoding can help that. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) net http://electrooptical.net |
#46
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
Phil Hobbs wrote:
John Larkin wrote: The problem with jfets is the huge part-to-part variation in Idss and transfer curves. A 10:1 datasheet spread in Idss isn't unusual. +10v | | | d gnd---------g s | | +------ Vs | | 10K | | | gnd For a typical vanilla jfet in this circuit, Vs might be +1 to +4 volts maybe. John BF862s are much better--cutoff to full on in half a volt or so. Their transconductance is so high that even with a 2.5:1 range of I_DSS, the spread of V_GS is pretty reasonable. They're also very quiet, go about 700 MHz, and cost 20 cents. Other than that, they stink. Indeed, when I discovered their existence back in 2001, I could hardly believe the datasheet. I'd never seen a JFET with a ratio of yfs/Cin that high. That, and with only 0.8nV/rtHz input-referred noise. I love it. Jeroen Belleman |
#47
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:14:13 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote: snip of BF862 discussion They're also very quiet, go about 700 MHz, and cost 20 cents. Other than that, they stink. You need to spend some hundreds of dollars in one buy in order to get close to that price/unit, don't you? Jon |
#48
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 23:07:38 -0600, John - KD5YI
wrote: Moer proof of you utter stupidity. I have posted links several times here to photo sites that have all of my library of photos that I feel someone could see. Really? Yes, dumb****. I could post a photo site Yes, if your IQ wasn't that of a circus flea. of anyone I choose No, you cannot. You can only post YOUR site. If you post someone else's site you are posting THEIR site, you dumb whore for a mother *******. and you would not have any idea they were not mine. Can you really be that stupid? I alter my original assessment. Your IQ is only 15. I discard that Good for you. I don't give a fat flying **** what you retain or discard, you pathetic, meaningless piece of ****. claim of your proof of technical abilities unless you can back it up. The posts are already in the group, bitch. Posted way back in the threads they were originally posted in, ya little bitch. Your lame refutation falls short of one main ingredient. That being credibility. My original posts, which you failed to examine, are fine and are still there for all to see. So much for them belonging to someone else. Can you really be that stupid? |
#49
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:11:41 -0800, 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. --- I'm playing, all right, just not the way you find acceptable, which is to heap adulation on you. But there's nothing new there, since you almost always blame the mirror when its reflection doesn't please you. --- Or is that legwork _we're_ supposed to do in order to flesh out your divine revelation? Chickenleg work! John --- Methinks the chicken resides on _your_ roost, since by not doing the legwork he avoids any criticism which could arise from errors he might make. --- JF |
#50
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:32:42 -0800, 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. --- Well, I'd say that the ratio of my technical to non-technical articles is about 10:1, while yours is about 1:10, and over the years I'd be willing to bet that I've posted about 10 times more designs, fully worked out, with component values included and, lately, simulated, than you have. --- You aren't either. Both of you start to cluck and peck when people do design circuits. No surprise. --- Actually, what you like to call "clucking and pecking" is nothing more than criticism, but you try to cast it in a light which mitigates its validity by besmirching the veracity of the criticizer. --- 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 --- If he can't, so what? Why not make it better by helping him out with a few component values and a circuit description instead of making it worse by insulting him for no reason? --- JF |
#51
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:52:53 -0800, John Larkin
wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:40:27 -0600, John - KD5YI wrote: 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 --- Being the grunt work that it is, then, one should be able to take a schematic devoid of component values and then hand it over to a grunt with the expectation of getting back a working circuit some time later? One thing about topologies which is misleading is that if the component values aren't defined, the topology might look fine but the realization of the circuit will be impossible under economic or technical constraints. An example which springs to mind is a circuit which was posted some time back which looked good, but which on closer inspection you said needed a choke with an inductance of near 1 henry, as I recall, and a Q of about 200 somewhere in the audio range. I went looking for one, just for grins, but found only unobtanium so, unless I missed something, (got a source?) your guess was wrong and the topology bogus. --- JF |
#52
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:14:08 -0600, John Fields
wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:52:53 -0800, John Larkin wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:40:27 -0600, John - KD5YI wrote: 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 --- Being the grunt work that it is, then, one should be able to take a schematic devoid of component values and then hand it over to a grunt with the expectation of getting back a working circuit some time later? "One" should? I couldn't say. I usually design all of a circuit myself, but if we brainstorm/whiteboard circuits, we may include values, or one of the people might go off and finish it. Could be me, could be somebody else, whoever is responsible or volunteers. We usually check one anothers' work before we release a board. We have no techs, so everybody does grunt work. But all circuit designs start with ideas and topologies. If someone has never seen a folded cascode, or an opamp's V+ used as a signal output, or a bootstrapped photodiode, all I may need to do is present the concept, and then they can run with it. The laser controller I'm working on now, all the resistors on one sheet are 100 ohms and all the caps are 0.33u. That reduces the grunt work considerably. This scheamtic will run about 25 B-size sheets, and I'll do maybe 18 or so of them, with other people contributing others, like the FPGA, the ARM, and the PCIe interface. This is a rush job, 7 weeks from start to 1st article, so several people are tossing in sheets. One thing about topologies which is misleading is that if the component values aren't defined, the topology might look fine but the realization of the circuit will be impossible under economic or technical constraints. Sure. A complete electrical/thermal/mechanical design ought to be done before something goes into production. Lotta grunt work. Newsgroups are for playing with ideas without consequences. An example which springs to mind is a circuit which was posted some time back which looked good, but which on closer inspection you said needed a choke with an inductance of near 1 henry, as I recall, and a Q of about 200 somewhere in the audio range. I went looking for one, just for grins, but found only unobtanium so, unless I missed something, (got a source?) your guess was wrong and the topology bogus. Bogus? Because you can't order some part? Nothing wrong with playing with a topology if it might work. Whether it's practical or affordable is part of the downstream analysis. If every idea has to be immediately and exhaustively analyzed for cost and parts availability and subtleties, you won't come up with many ideas. As usual, you're just being bitchy. Why are you so hostile to playing with ideas? Why do you refuse to do it yourself? John |
#53
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 00:10:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
wrote: On Mar 3, 3:32*am, 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. Without the component values, it does take a moment's thought, which is wasted on a bizarre (if simple) circuit with few potential applications. Millions of the "GE" circuit have been used for decades. The mosfet hybrid is a very reasonable headphone amp. Post a circuit, doofus. You've forgotten how to do anything but whine. John |
#54
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 06:39:42 -0600, John Fields
wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:32:42 -0800, 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. --- Well, I'd say that the ratio of my technical to non-technical articles is about 10:1, while yours is about 1:10, and over the years I'd be willing to bet that I've posted about 10 times more designs, fully worked out, with component values included and, lately, simulated, than you have. --- You aren't either. Both of you start to cluck and peck when people do design circuits. No surprise. --- Actually, what you like to call "clucking and pecking" is nothing more than criticism, but you try to cast it in a light which mitigates its validity by besmirching the veracity of the criticizer. All you ever criticize is my personality. You said nothing about this circuit. On the rare occasion when you do post a circuit, or critize one, you're usually wrong the first few times. Old hen. John |
#55
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 06:12:05 -0600, John Fields
wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:11:41 -0800, 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. --- I'm playing, all right, just not the way you find acceptable, which is to heap adulation on you. You're whining about everything but the circuit. Diversionary tactic. Old hen. John |
#56
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:10:21 -0800, John Larkin
wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:14:08 -0600, John Fields wrote: An example which springs to mind is a circuit which was posted some time back which looked good, but which on closer inspection you said needed a choke with an inductance of near 1 henry, as I recall, and a Q of about 200 somewhere in the audio range. I went looking for one, just for grins, but found only unobtanium so, unless I missed something, (got a source?) your guess was wrong and the topology bogus. Bogus? Because you can't order some part? --- Because it's unorderable, AFAIK. Find me an inductor with an inductance of 1 henry and a Q of 200 at 1000Hz, OK? After all, it was _your_ call, not mine. --- Nothing wrong with playing with a topology if it might work. Whether it's practical or affordable is part of the downstream analysis. If every idea has to be immediately and exhaustively analyzed for cost and parts availability and subtleties, you won't come up with many ideas. --- The impossibility of an idea not working isn't a barrier to the initial flash, so why would you say something like that? --- As usual, you're just being bitchy. --- No, as usual, I'm being critical, and you don't like it when the finger's being pointed at you. --- Why are you so hostile to playing with ideas? Why do you refuse to do it yourself? --- Straw man. --- John --- JF |
#57
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:54:00 -0600, John Fields
wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:10:21 -0800, John Larkin wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:14:08 -0600, John Fields wrote: An example which springs to mind is a circuit which was posted some time back which looked good, but which on closer inspection you said needed a choke with an inductance of near 1 henry, as I recall, and a Q of about 200 somewhere in the audio range. I went looking for one, just for grins, but found only unobtanium so, unless I missed something, (got a source?) your guess was wrong and the topology bogus. Bogus? Because you can't order some part? --- Because it's unorderable, AFAIK. Find me an inductor with an inductance of 1 henry and a Q of 200 at 1000Hz, OK? After all, it was _your_ call, not mine. --- Nothing wrong with playing with a topology if it might work. Whether it's practical or affordable is part of the downstream analysis. If every idea has to be immediately and exhaustively analyzed for cost and parts availability and subtleties, you won't come up with many ideas. --- The impossibility of an idea not working isn't a barrier to the initial flash, so why would you say something like that? --- As usual, you're just being bitchy. --- No, as usual, I'm being critical, and you don't like it when the finger's being pointed at you. --- Why are you so hostile to playing with ideas? Why do you refuse to do it yourself? --- Straw man. --- John --- JF Stop whining and clucking about personalities and design some electronics. That's not a straw man, that's what this ng is about. Think about what happens to my bizarre headphone amp if the inductor is replaced with a constant-current source. John |
#58
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:15:31 -0800, John Larkin
wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 06:39:42 -0600, John Fields wrote: --- Actually, what you like to call "clucking and pecking" is nothing more than criticism, but you try to cast it in a light which mitigates its validity by besmirching the veracity of the criticizer. All you ever criticize is my personality. --- Not true. I usually criticize some aspect of your work which is flawed and then, when you refuse to acknowledge the flaw, criticize that part of your personality which is scared to death to admit to error. Remember the relays with infinite gain, for example? --- You said nothing about this circuit. --- Nor will I, since I don't care anything about it. --- On the rare occasion when you do post a circuit, or critize one, you're usually wrong the first few times. --- Even if that were true, which it isn't, at least I admit to error and fix the problem, whereas you try to fix the blame. In truth, I post and criticize circuits quite often, and on a rare occasion I'll be wrong with one or the other or both. Of course my record pales next to yours since you never make mistakes, eh? --- Old hen. John --- Ah, yes, the contribution of the banty rooster is so much greater than that of the hens since without his crowing the sun couldn't rise. --- JF |
#59
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:16:33 -0800, John Larkin
wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 06:12:05 -0600, John Fields wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:11:41 -0800, John Larkin wrote: You're not playing the game. You are sitting in the henhouse, clucking about the people who do. --- I'm playing, all right, just not the way you find acceptable, which is to heap adulation on you. You're whining about everything but the circuit. Diversionary tactic. Old hen. John --- I see. Now I'm supposed to be coerced into getting into an argument with you about your crap circuit? Better luck next time, dude. --- JF |
#60
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:42:45 -0800, MakeNoAttemptToAdjustYourSet
wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 23:07:38 -0600, John - KD5YI wrote: Moer proof of you utter stupidity. I have posted links several times here to photo sites that have all of my library of photos that I feel someone could see. Really? Yes, dumb****. I could post a photo site Yes, if your IQ wasn't that of a circus flea. of anyone I choose No, you cannot. You can only post YOUR site. If you post someone else's site you are posting THEIR site, you dumb whore for a mother *******. and you would not have any idea they were not mine. Can you really be that stupid? I alter my original assessment. Your IQ is only 15. What is your IQ, Mr Nymbecile? I discard that Good for you. I don't give a fat flying **** what you retain or discard, you pathetic, meaningless piece of ****. claim of your proof of technical abilities unless you can back it up. The posts are already in the group, bitch. Posted way back in the threads they were originally posted in, ya little bitch. Your lame refutation falls short of one main ingredient. That being credibility. My original posts, which you failed to examine, are fine and are still there for all to see. So much for them belonging to someone else. Can you really be that stupid? |
#61
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:16:36 -0600, John Fields
wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:16:33 -0800, John Larkin wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 06:12:05 -0600, John Fields wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:11:41 -0800, John Larkin wrote: You're not playing the game. You are sitting in the henhouse, clucking about the people who do. --- I'm playing, all right, just not the way you find acceptable, which is to heap adulation on you. You're whining about everything but the circuit. Diversionary tactic. Old hen. John --- I see. Good. I'm glad we finally agree on something. Now I'm supposed to be coerced into getting into an argument with you about your crap circuit? I suppose it would be cruel to trick you into discussing electronics. So, keep on cluckin' !!! John |
#62
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:36:16 -0800, John Larkin
wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:16:36 -0600, John Fields wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:16:33 -0800, John Larkin wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 06:12:05 -0600, John Fields wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:11:41 -0800, John Larkin wrote: You're not playing the game. You are sitting in the henhouse, clucking about the people who do. --- I'm playing, all right, just not the way you find acceptable, which is to heap adulation on you. You're whining about everything but the circuit. Diversionary tactic. Old hen. John --- I see. Good. I'm glad we finally agree on something. Now I'm supposed to be coerced into getting into an argument with you about your crap circuit? I suppose it would be cruel to trick you into discussing electronics. So, keep on cluckin' !!! --- The truth _is_ you have less of an interest in discussing electronics in a give-and-take kind of way than you do in exalting yourself, so I prefer to generally opt out of any threads you infect. --- JF |
#63
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:07:36 -0600, John Fields
wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:36:16 -0800, John Larkin wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:16:36 -0600, John Fields wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:16:33 -0800, John Larkin wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 06:12:05 -0600, John Fields wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:11:41 -0800, John Larkin wrote: You're not playing the game. You are sitting in the henhouse, clucking about the people who do. --- I'm playing, all right, just not the way you find acceptable, which is to heap adulation on you. You're whining about everything but the circuit. Diversionary tactic. Old hen. John --- I see. Good. I'm glad we finally agree on something. Now I'm supposed to be coerced into getting into an argument with you about your crap circuit? I suppose it would be cruel to trick you into discussing electronics. So, keep on cluckin' !!! --- The truth _is_ you have less of an interest in discussing electronics in a give-and-take kind of way than you do in exalting yourself, so I prefer to generally opt out of any threads you infect. --- JF I didn't "infect" this thread, I started it. So why have you posted so much cluckey blather here? You refuse to discuss this circuit, then you attack me personally for not doing give-and-take discussion of this circuit! John |
#64
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:14:13 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote: snip of BF862 discussion They're also very quiet, go about 700 MHz, and cost 20 cents. Other than that, they stink. You need to spend some hundreds of dollars in one buy in order to get close to that price/unit, don't you? Jon I bought myself a reel for $600 or so from Newark. Given that JFET makers have been dropping like flies lately, I'll probably buy a couple more reels over the next few months. That way I can keep designing them in even if they go away. (Crossed fingers.) Cheers Phil Hobbs |
#65
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:22:31 -0800, John Larkin
wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:07:36 -0600, John Fields wrote: --- The truth _is_ you have less of an interest in discussing electronics in a give-and-take kind of way than you do in exalting yourself, so I prefer to generally opt out of any threads you infect. --- JF I didn't "infect" this thread, I started it. --- Then it was diseased from the beginning. --- So why have you posted so much cluckey blather here? --- You call it "cluckey blather" in an attempt to belittle it, I call it what it is: criticism. --- You refuse to discuss this circuit, then you attack me personally for not doing give-and-take discussion of this circuit! --- It's not an attack, it's an observation, and it's not about this circuit in particular, it's about your fanatical need to be in control. --- JF |
#66
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On 2 Mar., 17:40, 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 speaking of bizarre : http://tubetime.us/?p=85 I'm sure someone here will love it -Lasse |
#67
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Mar 3, 4:12*pm, John Larkin
wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 00:10:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: On Mar 3, 3:32 am, 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. Without the component values, it does take a moment's thought, which is wasted on a bizarre (if simple) circuit with few potential applications. Millions of the "GE" circuit have been used for decades. The mosfet hybrid is a very reasonable headphone amp. Post a circuit, doofus. You've forgotten how to do anything but whine. You are the one who complains all the time. You may have personal preferences about the nature of the threads that get started here, and the responses that get posted, but they are only of interest to you. You are welcome to demonstrate your preferences by choosing to get involved with particular threads and in your particular reactions to other responses, but your whining about the nature of those responses doesn't make the group a more attractive or rewarding environment. In the meantime, I'll post a circuit when I've got a circuit worth posting. Posting a example - without comnponent values - of a circuit that has been used in millions, for decades, doesn't strike me as a profitable use of bandwidth, but that is a personal preference. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |
#68
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Mar 3, 4:15*pm, John Larkin
wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 06:39:42 -0600, John Fields wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:32:42 -0800, 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. --- Well, I'd say that the ratio of my technical to non-technical articles is about 10:1, while yours is about 1:10, and over the years I'd be willing to bet that I've posted about 10 times more designs, fully worked out, with component values included and, lately, simulated, than you have. --- You aren't either. Both of you start to cluck and peck when people do design circuits. No surprise. --- Actually, what you like to call "clucking and pecking" is nothing more than criticism, but you try to cast it in a light which mitigates its validity by besmirching the veracity of the criticizer. All you ever criticize is my personality. Waste of time. Unfortunately, it isn't going to change. I largely confine myself to criticising the alleged facts that you post from time to time - you are an uncritical consumer of right-wing propaganda, with a depressing tendency to recycle it here. This isn't a personality defect - though the fact that you keep on doing it does reflect an unfortunate strain of insecure vanity - but rather reflects you failure to learn critical thinking during your tertiary education, presumably because you confined your attention to subjects that you understood to be immediately useful. snip -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |
#69
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 15:21:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
wrote: On Mar 3, 4:12*pm, John Larkin wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 00:10:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: On Mar 3, 3:32 am, 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. Without the component values, it does take a moment's thought, which is wasted on a bizarre (if simple) circuit with few potential applications. Millions of the "GE" circuit have been used for decades. The mosfet hybrid is a very reasonable headphone amp. Post a circuit, doofus. You've forgotten how to do anything but whine. You are the one who complains all the time. You may have personal preferences about the nature of the threads that get started here, and the responses that get posted, but they are only of interest to you. You are welcome to demonstrate your preferences by choosing to get involved with particular threads and in your particular reactions to other responses, but your whining about the nature of those responses doesn't make the group a more attractive or rewarding environment. In the meantime, I'll post a circuit when I've got a circuit worth posting. Posting a example - without comnponent values - of a circuit that has been used in millions, for decades, doesn't strike me as a profitable use of bandwidth, but that is a personal preference. What I did was spin a signal-level bipolar circuit into a bipolar-mosfet power amp of similar topology. The resulting dynamics is very interesting. Well, not to you. John |
#70
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 14:44:58 -0600, John Fields
wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:22:31 -0800, John Larkin wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:07:36 -0600, John Fields wrote: --- The truth _is_ you have less of an interest in discussing electronics in a give-and-take kind of way than you do in exalting yourself, so I prefer to generally opt out of any threads you infect. --- JF I didn't "infect" this thread, I started it. --- Then it was diseased from the beginning. --- So why have you posted so much cluckey blather here? --- You call it "cluckey blather" in an attempt to belittle it, I call it what it is: criticism. Criticism would have some content. You know, something having to do with the circuit. All you've done is whine. --- You refuse to discuss this circuit, then you attack me personally for not doing give-and-take discussion of this circuit! --- It's not an attack, it's an observation, and it's not about this circuit in particular, it's about your fanatical need to be in control. Electronic design is all about control. Of signals. But you probably meant some sort of personal control. How does posting a circuit, and opening it for discussion, suggest control? I thought discussing circuits is what s.e.d. is for. You're just a crabby old git who won't discuss electronics. John |
#71
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:42:40 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On 2 Mar., 17:40, 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 speaking of bizarre : http://tubetime.us/?p=85 I'm sure someone here will love it -Lasse Wild. Sort of a single-slope ADC and a PWM driver. I wonder what the sensitivity is like. I bet you do a similar thing with a single tiny-logic schmitt gate. Vaguely a superregenerative idea, namely triggering along a slowly decaying exponential. John |
#72
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:42:40 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On 2 Mar., 17:40, 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 speaking of bizarre : http://tubetime.us/?p=85 I'm sure someone here will love it -Lasse --- 11 !!! --- JF |
#73
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:59:38 -0800, John Larkin
wrote: Stop whining and clucking about personalities Stop with the retarded colloquialisms (or attempts at them). You stupid ****. That is about as plain as it gets. You show with nearly every post just how little a man you are. If you even get that qualification. Your personality is that of a circus flea. Dance, mother****er. |
#74
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:10:40 -0600, John Fields
wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:15:31 -0800, John Larkin wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 06:39:42 -0600, John Fields wrote: --- Actually, what you like to call "clucking and pecking" is nothing more than criticism, but you try to cast it in a light which mitigates its validity by besmirching the veracity of the criticizer. All you ever criticize is my personality. --- Not true. I usually criticize some aspect of your work which is flawed and then, when you refuse to acknowledge the flaw, criticize that part of your personality which is scared to death to admit to error. Remember the relays with infinite gain, for example? --- You said nothing about this circuit. --- Nor will I, since I don't care anything about it. --- On the rare occasion when you do post a circuit, or critize one, you're usually wrong the first few times. --- Even if that were true, which it isn't, at least I admit to error and fix the problem, whereas you try to fix the blame. In truth, I post and criticize circuits quite often, and on a rare occasion I'll be wrong with one or the other or both. Of course my record pales next to yours since you never make mistakes, eh? --- Old hen. John --- Ah, yes, the contribution of the banty rooster is so much greater than that of the hens since without his crowing the sun couldn't rise. --- JF That's funny. It brought up a memory of work today, we saw that weird food guy and some "chef" somewhere was frying up a whole pan full of rooster mop tops (the little frilly things on their heads). I can't believe some of the stuff that guy eats. |
#75
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Mar 4, 12:49*am, John Larkin
wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 15:21:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: On Mar 3, 4:12 pm, John Larkin wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 00:10:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: On Mar 3, 3:32 am, 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. Without the component values, it does take a moment's thought, which is wasted on a bizarre (if simple) circuit with few potential applications. Millions of the "GE" circuit have been used for decades. The mosfet hybrid is a very reasonable headphone amp. Post a circuit, doofus. You've forgotten how to do anything but whine. You are the one who complains all the time. You may have personal preferences about the nature of the threads that get started here, and the responses that get posted, but they are only of interest to you. You are welcome to demonstrate your preferences by choosing to get involved with particular threads and in your particular reactions to other responses, but your whining about the nature of those responses doesn't make the group a more attractive or rewarding environment. In the meantime, I'll post a circuit when I've got a circuit worth posting. Posting a example - without comnponent values - of a circuit that has been used in millions, for decades, doesn't strike me as a profitable use of bandwidth, but that is a personal preference. What I did was spin a signal-level bipolar circuit into a bipolar-mosfet power amp of similar topology. The resulting dynamics is very interesting. Well, not to you. I haven't got a relevant application at the moment, so of course it isn't interesting to me. The universe is full of potentially interesting things. Some of them are also interesting to other people. If you weren't quite so self- obsessed, you might not expect everybody else to be interested in what happens to have caught your fancy today. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |
#76
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:42:40 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On 2 Mar., 17:40, 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 speaking of bizarre : http://tubetime.us/?p=85 I'm sure someone here will love it -Lasse Pretty good stuff. It will go way over Sloman's head. |
#77
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Mar 4, 3:31*am, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:42:40 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On 2 Mar., 17:40, 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 speaking of bizarre :http://tubetime.us/?p=85 I'm sure someone here will love it -Lasse * Pretty good stuff. * It will go way over Sloman's head. Along with the hundred other things a boy can do with a 555. So someone has used a 555 to make a less than impressive radio- receiver. Why would anybody be interested, if they hadn't fixated on the device early in their career and never moved on? -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |
#78
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Mar 3, 6:49*pm, John Larkin
wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 15:21:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: On Mar 3, 4:12 pm, John Larkin wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 00:10:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: On Mar 3, 3:32 am, 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. Without the component values, it does take a moment's thought, which is wasted on a bizarre (if simple) circuit with few potential applications. Millions of the "GE" circuit have been used for decades. The mosfet hybrid is a very reasonable headphone amp. Post a circuit, doofus. You've forgotten how to do anything but whine. You are the one who complains all the time. You may have personal preferences about the nature of the threads that get started here, and the responses that get posted, but they are only of interest to you. You are welcome to demonstrate your preferences by choosing to get involved with particular threads and in your particular reactions to other responses, but your whining about the nature of those responses doesn't make the group a more attractive or rewarding environment. In the meantime, I'll post a circuit when I've got a circuit worth posting. Posting a example - without comnponent values - of a circuit that has been used in millions, for decades, doesn't strike me as a profitable use of bandwidth, but that is a personal preference. What I did was spin a signal-level bipolar circuit into a bipolar-mosfet power amp of similar topology. The resulting dynamics is very interesting. Well, not to you. John- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah, I didn't get the inductor part. Do I have to spice it? Or does it have to do with head phone dynamics. Say, and what about using the postive rail of an opamp as an output? I never heard of that. George H. |
#79
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Mar 3, 10:08*pm, George Herold wrote:
On Mar 3, 6:49*pm, John Larkin wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 15:21:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: On Mar 3, 4:12 pm, John Larkin wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 00:10:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: On Mar 3, 3:32 am, 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. |
#80
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 18:37:42 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
wrote: On Mar 4, 3:31*am, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:42:40 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On 2 Mar., 17:40, 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 speaking of bizarre :http://tubetime.us/?p=85 I'm sure someone here will love it -Lasse * Pretty good stuff. * It will go way over Sloman's head. Along with the hundred other things a boy can do with a 555. So someone has used a 555 to make a less than impressive radio- receiver. Why would anybody be interested, if they hadn't fixated on the device early in their career and never moved on? Oh, sorry, oh guru. You are right, that is what 90% of the rest of the world has done. Not moved on. Or could it be that it is *you* that has the problem? You are the one that is not impressive. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Separate circuit for audio equipment | High End Audio | |||
bizarre audio problem | Car Audio | |||
Hybrid telephone audio circuit 2 | Pro Audio | |||
Bizarre Duet...your thoughts please | Pro Audio | |||
OP-AMP like circuit in old audio amp (P-P) in old radio | Vacuum Tubes |