"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

(1) Bret doesn't seem to know how to set up a scope that views the output
of
a distortion analyzer
(2) Bret doesn't seem to know what to expect to see on a scope that views
the output of a distortion analyzer
(3) Bret doesn't seem to know how to analyze what one sees on a scope
that
views the output of a distortion analyzer.

How clear does it have to be?

Silly me.

No, inexperienced you, Bret.

BTW, watching skilled techs run a THD analyzer, or reading magazine ads
which is all you've provided evidence of Bret, isn't what Graham and I are
talking about.

Here I thought you hooked a BNC cable from the residual out of the
distortion box to a channel input of the scope and set the time/div
knob so each bump took a graticule or so and the volts/div to where the
height was about right. GOD, how STUPID could I have been?!

Arny, please educate us on your SUPERIOR method!

BTW, it's not my method. It's how it is done by everybody with a clue.

Two words: X/Y mode.

BTW, X/Y mode does not change the vertical calibration of the 'scope, so you
can still estimate the peak distortion from the 'scope.

What X/Y mode does do is cause the 'scope's display to remain stable without
further adjustment as you change the test frequency. Just another little
convenience that anybody who actually has significant hands-on time with a
THD analyzer knows.

Wow Bret, when you expose yourself to be a poser, you really do a bang-up
job!

Thanks.

Bret/Arnie:

This place has been relatively peaceful without the personal bickering.
If you were to take it private rather than initiating entire threads on
the subject, things would be even more peaceful. Soon enough Mr. McCoy
& the Fulminating Dung Beetle will join in, and the cycle will start
all over again, God help us!

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote in message
oups.com...
Bret/Arnie:

This place has been relatively peaceful without the personal bickering.

Huh?

Interesting. The Krueger method of building up his self-image is by
comparison to anyone he can denigrate.

After his recent reverses -- being publicly manipulated by the oldest
trick in the book, being forced to admit publicly that he spoke in
ignorance, and so on -- Krueger is now pulling himself up by the
bootstraps of the thief Bret Ludwig. Considering that the thief Ludwig
is himself considered lower than snake**** by almost everyone in audio,
Krueger must be at the bottom of the slimepit.

Who would have thought Krueger could fall that low, just for trying to
**** with me?

Hands up those who feel sorry for Arny so I can put them on my
****list.

Andre Jute


Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

(1) Bret doesn't seem to know how to set up a scope that views the output
of
a distortion analyzer
(2) Bret doesn't seem to know what to expect to see on a scope that views
the output of a distortion analyzer
(3) Bret doesn't seem to know how to analyze what one sees on a scope
that
views the output of a distortion analyzer.

How clear does it have to be?

Silly me.

No, inexperienced you, Bret.

BTW, watching skilled techs run a THD analyzer, or reading magazine ads
which is all you've provided evidence of Bret, isn't what Graham and I are
talking about.

Here I thought you hooked a BNC cable from the residual out of the
distortion box to a channel input of the scope and set the time/div
knob so each bump took a graticule or so and the volts/div to where the
height was about right. GOD, how STUPID could I have been?!

Arny, please educate us on your SUPERIOR method!

BTW, it's not my method. It's how it is done by everybody with a clue.

Two words: X/Y mode.

BTW, X/Y mode does not change the vertical calibration of the 'scope, so you
can still estimate the peak distortion from the 'scope.

What X/Y mode does do is cause the 'scope's display to remain stable without
further adjustment as you change the test frequency. Just another little
convenience that anybody who actually has significant hands-on time with a
THD analyzer knows.

Wow Bret, when you expose yourself to be a poser, you really do a bang-up
job!

Thanks.

Why are you adding to the body count in this thread, Vicky Baby? Do you
have something again the Krooborg or the thief Bret Ludwig? Or do you
merely want to let us know your little rosebud mouth is petulantly
pursed?

BTW, after you report Arny to his pastor for un-Christian activities,
will you still be claiming it was your duty to do so?

Andre Jute
Bring on the Real McCoy!

wrote:
Bret/Arnie:

This place has been relatively peaceful without the personal bickering.
If you were to take it private rather than initiating entire threads on
the subject, things would be even more peaceful. Soon enough Mr. McCoy
& the Fulminating Dung Beetle will join in, and the cycle will start
all over again, God help us!

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

In rec.audio.tech wrote:
Bret/Arnie:

This place has been relatively peaceful without the personal bickering.
If you were to take it private rather than initiating entire threads on
the subject, things would be even more peaceful. Soon enough Mr. McCoy
& the Fulminating Dung Beetle will join in, and the cycle will start
all over again, God help us!

Peaceful? rec.audio.tech? Hmm. I guess I've been reading a different group.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Interesting. The Krueger method of building up his self-image is by
comparison to anyone he can denigrate.

As if this doesn't exactly describe your behavior, sockpuppet Jute.

After his recent reverses -- being publicly manipulated by the oldest
trick in the book, being forced to admit publicly that he spoke in
ignorance, and so on -- Krueger is now pulling himself up by the
bootstraps of the thief Bret Ludwig.

Unlike you Jute, I don't consider occasionally making mistakes to be a
personal threat. As someone just posted in another forum, if you don't make
an occasional mistake, you're obviously not trying hard enough.

Considering that the thief Ludwig
is himself considered lower than snake**** by almost everyone in audio,
Krueger must be at the bottom of the slimepit.

No, just really taken aback by Ludwig's piling of error on error and lie
upon lie.

Who would have thought Krueger could fall that low, just for trying to
**** with me?

Huh?

Hands up those who feel sorry for Arny so I can put them on my
****list.

Jute, you're really twisted and weird.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

(1) Bret doesn't seem to know how to set up a scope that views the output
of
a distortion analyzer
(2) Bret doesn't seem to know what to expect to see on a scope that views
the output of a distortion analyzer
(3) Bret doesn't seem to know how to analyze what one sees on a scope
that
views the output of a distortion analyzer.

How clear does it have to be?

Silly me.

No, inexperienced you, Bret.

BTW, watching skilled techs run a THD analyzer, or reading magazine ads
which is all you've provided evidence of Bret, isn't what Graham and I are
talking about.

Here I thought you hooked a BNC cable from the residual out of the
distortion box to a channel input of the scope and set the time/div
knob so each bump took a graticule or so and the volts/div to where the
height was about right. GOD, how STUPID could I have been?!

Arny, please educate us on your SUPERIOR method!

BTW, it's not my method. It's how it is done by everybody with a clue.

Two words: X/Y mode.

BTW, X/Y mode does not change the vertical calibration of the 'scope, so you
can still estimate the peak distortion from the 'scope.

What X/Y mode does do is cause the 'scope's display to remain stable without
further adjustment as you change the test frequency. Just another little
convenience that anybody who actually has significant hands-on time with a
THD analyzer knows.

Wow Bret, when you expose yourself to be a poser, you really do a bang-up
job!

Bull****. If there is any amplitude to the signal at all the scope
will trigger properly, although you will have to adjust to keep the
display size of the waveform to a sensible figure.

Andre Jute wrote:
Why are you adding to the body count in this thread, Vicky Baby? Do you
have something again the Krooborg or the thief Bret Ludwig? Or do you
merely want to let us know your little rosebud mouth is petulantly
pursed?


You are a moron and a charlatan, Jute. Arny is merely a disillusioned
college kid of 1962 who still lusts after a Marantz 9 pair , a 7C, a
10B and a pro Ampex deck but can't admit it.

Bret Ludwig wrote:

Bull****. If there is any amplitude to the signal at all the scope
will trigger properly, although you will have to adjust to keep the
display size of the waveform to a sensible figure.

Actually, the correct method is to sync the timebase to the oscillator output ! No
triggering issues at all.

Graham

Bret Ludwig wrote:
If there is any amplitude to the signal at all the scope will
trigger properly, although you will have to adjust to keep the
display size of the waveform to a sensible figure.

An old trick, that I can't remember when I was first told about,
is to trigger the scope from the clean sinewave. You thus
get consistent triggering and can view the THD+N residual
without it jumping about. This is most useful with storage
'scopes, and is how I produce the traces that you can
see, for example, in figs.9 & 10 at
http://www.stereophile.com/tubepower...tl/index4.html

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Andre Jute wrote:
Why are you adding to the body count in this thread, Vicky Baby? Do you
have something again the Krooborg or the thief Bret Ludwig? Or do you
merely want to let us know your little rosebud mouth is petulantly
pursed?

You are a moron and a charlatan, Jute. Arny is merely a disillusioned
college kid of 1962 who still lusts after a Marantz 9 pair , a 7C, a
10B and a pro Ampex deck but can't admit it.

Bret is outdoing himself today.

Every fact about me in this post is wrong!

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

(1) Bret doesn't seem to know how to set up a scope that views the
output
of
a distortion analyzer
(2) Bret doesn't seem to know what to expect to see on a scope that
views
the output of a distortion analyzer
(3) Bret doesn't seem to know how to analyze what one sees on a scope
that
views the output of a distortion analyzer.

How clear does it have to be?

Silly me.

No, inexperienced you, Bret.

BTW, watching skilled techs run a THD analyzer, or reading magazine ads
which is all you've provided evidence of Bret, isn't what Graham and I
are
talking about.

Here I thought you hooked a BNC cable from the residual out of the
distortion box to a channel input of the scope and set the time/div
knob so each bump took a graticule or so and the volts/div to where the
height was about right. GOD, how STUPID could I have been?!

Arny, please educate us on your SUPERIOR method!

BTW, it's not my method. It's how it is done by everybody with a clue.

Two words: X/Y mode.

BTW, X/Y mode does not change the vertical calibration of the 'scope, so
you
can still estimate the peak distortion from the 'scope.

What X/Y mode does do is cause the 'scope's display to remain stable
without
further adjustment as you change the test frequency. Just another little
convenience that anybody who actually has significant hands-on time with
a
THD analyzer knows.

Wow Bret, when you expose yourself to be a poser, you really do a bang-up
job!

Bull****. If there is any amplitude to the signal at all the scope
will trigger properly,

Of course but that isn't the same as "no further adjustment as you change
the test frequency", is it?

although you will have to adjust to keep the
display size of the waveform to a sensible figure.

Bret, thanks for conceding that your alternative is on the face of it,
highly suboptimal.

One other benefit if the X/Y approach is that it can be used to determine
the order of the predominant distortion. The magic word is "Lissajou".

Here's a simulation:

http://galeb.etf.bg.ac.yu/~milosr/ja...u/Lissajou.htm

Hands up those who feel sorry for Arny so I can put them on my
****list.

Mr. McCoy:

I will not write for Arny, but I do formally request a place on your
list. Given your hypocrisy, general whining and severly limited though
painfully repetitive repertoire, one must conclude that you, as was
Dickens, were originally paid by the word. However, and unlike Dickens,
you have yet to find something to write about. As predicted, you did
join it.... can't resist, can you? So, where is the Dung Beetle to make
the trio complete?

Go someplace and chase your "utility".

Oh, and as a bit of historical aside: The "REAL McCoy" was an oiling
device, one of the few that really worked, cf:
______________________________________
When you buy a collectable item, you always want to know that your
oiler is authentic, in other words, "the real McCoy".

The man most often credited for inventing the drip oiler was the
original "real McCoy", that is Elijah McCoy born in Canada (1843-1929)
and educated in Scotland. He is credited with over 50 patented
inventions. An early drip oiler patent U.S. 129,843 was issued to him
July 12, 1872 and at least one other oiler patent is credited to him in
1898.

He observed a need for lubrication of machinery in operation while
working in railroads. His oilers became a standard of the day, a
desired thing to have and the expression "real McCoy" was American
slang for a genuine item of quality and this expression is still in
common usage.
___________________________________

Mr. "Andrew Jute McCoy", you don't come near this standard of quality.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Bret Ludwig said:

Arny is merely a disillusioned

I'm sure this is a typo. The correct term is "delusional", or, more to
the point, "insane".

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
An old trick, that I can't remember when I was first told about,
is to trigger the scope from the clean sinewave.

Hardly a "trick", that is WHY the external trigger input is provided in the
first place, (for similar measurements at least).
It is more correct to say that people who don't understand how to use a CRO
have yet to learn such things.

MrT.

John Atkinson wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:
If there is any amplitude to the signal at all the scope will
trigger properly, although you will have to adjust to keep the
display size of the waveform to a sensible figure.

An old trick, that I can't remember when I was first told about,
is to trigger the scope from the clean sinewave. You thus
get consistent triggering and can view the THD+N residual
without it jumping about. This is most useful with storage
'scopes, and is how I produce the traces that you can
see, for example, in figs.9 & 10 at
http://www.stereophile.com/tubepower...tl/index4.html


When John Atkinson posts technical information that is concise,
helpful, and practical and usable and Arny can only crow emotionally
about how I haven't spent YEARS, unkike himself, doing something that
was incidental in the first place, you know the world is not as it
first seems!

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

John Atkinson wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:
If there is any amplitude to the signal at all the scope will
trigger properly, although you will have to adjust to keep the
display size of the waveform to a sensible figure.

An old trick, that I can't remember when I was first told about,
is to trigger the scope from the clean sinewave. You thus
get consistent triggering and can view the THD+N residual
without it jumping about. This is most useful with storage
'scopes, and is how I produce the traces that you can
see, for example, in figs.9 & 10 at
http://www.stereophile.com/tubepower...tl/index4.html


When John Atkinson posts technical information that is concise,
helpful, and practical and usable and Arny can only crow emotionally
about how I haven't spent YEARS, unkike himself, doing something that
was incidental in the first place, you know the world is not as it
first seems!

John, IIRC is also a recording engineer of considerable talent.
He is also, polite, friendly and helpful.
Quite a contrast to Mr.K:-)

Iain

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

John Atkinson wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:
If there is any amplitude to the signal at all the scope will
trigger properly, although you will have to adjust to keep the
display size of the waveform to a sensible figure.

An old trick, that I can't remember when I was first told about,
is to trigger the scope from the clean sinewave. You thus
get consistent triggering and can view the THD+N residual
without it jumping about. This is most useful with storage
'scopes, and is how I produce the traces that you can
see, for example, in figs.9 & 10 at
http://www.stereophile.com/tubepower...tl/index4.html


When John Atkinson posts technical information that is concise,
helpful, and practical and usable and Arny can only crow emotionally
about how I haven't spent YEARS, unkike himself, doing something that
was incidental in the first place, you know the world is not as it
first seems!

I find Atkinson's unfamiliarity with the process of looking at Lissajou
patterns at the output of a THD analyzer to be quite revealing. I'll admit
it, I learned quite a bit about using THD analyzers at MacIntosh clinics
during the late 1950s. It worked well for me until the late 1990s when I
switched over to primarily using FFT analyzers.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

John, IIRC is also a recording engineer of considerable talent.
He is also, polite, friendly and helpful.
Quite a contrast to Mr.K:-)

You made your own bed Iain, when you started trying to bury me in snot.
There's nothing wrong with your posts that can't be corrected with a manure
shovel.

Iain Churches wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
When John Atkinson posts technical information that is concise,
helpful, and practical and usable and Arny can only crow
emotionally about how I haven't spent YEARS, unlike himself,
doing something that was incidental in the first place, you know
the world is not as it first seems!

John, IIRC is also a recording engineer of considerable talent.
He is also, polite, friendly and helpful.

Thank you Iain.

Quite a contrast to Mr.K:-)

Now you've done it :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

John, IIRC is also a recording engineer of considerable talent.
He is also, polite, friendly and helpful.
Quite a contrast to Mr.K:-)

You made your own bed Iain, when you started trying to bury me in snot.
There's nothing wrong with your posts that can't be corrected with a
manure shovel.
Arny. Your coarse manner seems rather incongruous in the light of
your claims to be a born-again Christian. Are you a typical example?

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

John, IIRC is also a recording engineer of considerable talent.
He is also, polite, friendly and helpful.
Quite a contrast to Mr.K:-)

You made your own bed Iain, when you started trying to bury me in snot.
There's nothing wrong with your posts that can't be corrected with a
manure shovel.

Arny. Your coarse manner seems rather incongruous in the light of
your claims to be a born-again Christian.

Surely you jest! If you think my posts are coarse Iain, I can't imagine what
you think of those very many profanity-filled missives that fill Usenet.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Bwwwaaaah, Bwaaaaah, Mommo\ie, Mommie!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Arny Krueger wrote:
I find Atkinson's unfamiliarity with the process of looking at Lissajou
patterns at the output of a THD analyzer to be quite revealing.

Frankly, I find it astonishing given the fact that I have not discussed
Lissajou figures at all. Your mindreading abilities continue to amaze
me, Mr. Krueger :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

John Atkinson wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:
If there is any amplitude to the signal at all the scope will
trigger properly, although you will have to adjust to keep the
display size of the waveform to a sensible figure.

An old trick, that I can't remember when I was first told about,
is to trigger the scope from the clean sinewave. You thus
get consistent triggering and can view the THD+N residual
without it jumping about. This is most useful with storage
'scopes, and is how I produce the traces that you can
see, for example, in figs.9 & 10 at
http://www.stereophile.com/tubepower...tl/index4.html


When John Atkinson posts technical information that is concise,
helpful, and practical and usable and Arny can only crow emotionally
about how I haven't spent YEARS, unkike himself, doing something that
was incidental in the first place, you know the world is not as it
first seems!

I find Atkinson's unfamiliarity with the process of looking at Lissajou
patterns at the output of a THD analyzer to be quite revealing. I'll admit
it, I learned quite a bit about using THD analyzers at MacIntosh clinics
during the late 1950s. It worked well for me until the late 1990s when I
switched over to primarily using FFT analyzers.

I've never seen THD examined as a Lissajous.

What do you use to drive the timebase input ( assuming it's even available ).

Graham

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



Surely you jest! If you think my posts are coarse Iain, I can't imagine
what you think of those very many profanity-filled missives that fill
Usenet.



just like the ones in which you falsely accused numerous individuals of
sending you kiddie porn
via email.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...


When John Atkinson posts technical information that is concise,
helpful, and practical and usable and Arny can only crow emotionally
about how I haven't spent YEARS, unkike himself, doing something that
was incidental in the first place, you know the world is not as it
first seems!

John, IIRC is also a recording engineer of considerable talent.
He is also, polite, friendly and helpful.
Quite a contrast to Mr.K:-)



JA happens to be one of the persons Arny falsely accused of having sent him
kiddie pron
in the email.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hands up those who feel sorry for Arny so I can put them on my
****list.

Andre Jute

I feel sorry for him. A man who makes such "diabolical
recordings in the name of the Lord" deserves sympathy:-)

Iain

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

John, IIRC is also a recording engineer of considerable talent.
He is also, polite, friendly and helpful.
Quite a contrast to Mr.K:-)

You made your own bed Iain, when you started trying to bury me in snot.
There's nothing wrong with your posts that can't be corrected with a
manure shovel.

Arny. Your coarse manner seems rather incongruous in the light of
your claims to be a born-again Christian.

Surely you jest! If you think my posts are coarse Iain, I can't imagine
what you think of those very many profanity-filled missives that fill
Usenet.

Are these people also born-again Christians, Arny?
Surely you should be setting a higher standard:-)

Iain

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

John Atkinson wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:
If there is any amplitude to the signal at all the scope will
trigger properly, although you will have to adjust to keep the
display size of the waveform to a sensible figure.

An old trick, that I can't remember when I was first told about,
is to trigger the scope from the clean sinewave. You thus
get consistent triggering and can view the THD+N residual
without it jumping about. This is most useful with storage
'scopes, and is how I produce the traces that you can
see, for example, in figs.9 & 10 at
http://www.stereophile.com/tubepower...tl/index4.html


When John Atkinson posts technical information that is concise,
helpful, and practical and usable and Arny can only crow emotionally
about how I haven't spent YEARS, unkike himself, doing something that
was incidental in the first place, you know the world is not as it
first seems!

I find Atkinson's unfamiliarity with the process of looking at Lissajou
patterns at the output of a THD analyzer to be quite revealing. I'll
admit
it, I learned quite a bit about using THD analyzers at MacIntosh clinics
during the late 1950s. It worked well for me until the late 1990s when I
switched over to primarily using FFT analyzers.

I've never seen THD examined as a Lissajous.

What do you use to drive the timebase input ( assuming it's even
available ).

Graham

This interest me greatly too. Would someone care to start a new thread
on the subject?

Iain

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Surely you jest! If you think my posts are coarse Iain, I can't imagine
what you think of those very many profanity-filled missives that fill
Usenet.

just like the ones in which you falsely accused numerous individuals of
sending you kiddie porn via email.

Prove that the accusations were false, if you can.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

John, IIRC is also a recording engineer of considerable talent.
He is also, polite, friendly and helpful.
Quite a contrast to Mr.K:-)

You made your own bed Iain, when you started trying to bury me in snot.
There's nothing wrong with your posts that can't be corrected with a
manure shovel.

Arny. Your coarse manner seems rather incongruous in the light of
your claims to be a born-again Christian.

Surely you jest! If you think my posts are coarse Iain, I can't imagine
what you think of those very many profanity-filled missives that fill
Usenet.

Are these people also born-again Christians, Arny?

It's not up to me to judge.

Surely you should be setting a higher standard:-)

I am. For one thing unlike your posts Iain, my posts are truthful and
sincere unless presented as humor.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

John Atkinson wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:
If there is any amplitude to the signal at all the scope will
trigger properly, although you will have to adjust to keep the
display size of the waveform to a sensible figure.

An old trick, that I can't remember when I was first told about,
is to trigger the scope from the clean sinewave. You thus
get consistent triggering and can view the THD+N residual
without it jumping about. This is most useful with storage
'scopes, and is how I produce the traces that you can
see, for example, in figs.9 & 10 at
http://www.stereophile.com/tubepower...tl/index4.html


When John Atkinson posts technical information that is concise,
helpful, and practical and usable and Arny can only crow emotionally
about how I haven't spent YEARS, unkike himself, doing something that
was incidental in the first place, you know the world is not as it
first seems!

I find Atkinson's unfamiliarity with the process of looking at Lissajou
patterns at the output of a THD analyzer to be quite revealing. I'll
admit
it, I learned quite a bit about using THD analyzers at MacIntosh clinics
during the late 1950s. It worked well for me until the late 1990s when I
switched over to primarily using FFT analyzers.

I've never seen THD examined as a Lissajous.

It's one of the oldest tricks around.

Lissajous patterns also facilitate manually balancing the THD analyzer's
bridge. The frequency dial reduces the display in the vertical direction,
and the balance control reduces the loopiness. The hand-and-eye coordination
comes pretty quick.

AFAIK I learned the trick at a Mac Clinic in the late 1950s. The learning
curve was pretty quick - I looked over the tech's shoulder, saw the
Lissajous pattern on the scope and how well it worked, and thought "Oh!".
;-)

What do you use to drive the timebase input ( assuming it's even
available ).

Lissajous = X/Y

IOW you don't use a time base, you use the output of the oscillator for X
and the output of the bridge for Y.

That's one of the other advantages - you never need to diddle with the sweep
controls on the scope, unless you really want to look at the display with a
time base. Since the Lissajous pattern brings out the order the predominate
distortion so well, you may never want to go back to using the time base in
this application again.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
I find Atkinson's unfamiliarity with the process of looking at Lissajou
patterns at the output of a THD analyzer to be quite revealing.

Frankly, I find it astonishing given the fact that I have not discussed
Lissajou figures at all. Your mindreading abilities continue to amaze
me, Mr. Krueger :-)

Actually, it takes no mind reading at all. If someone has every used a THD
analyzer with a scope running in X/Ymode, or as one might say in Lissajou
mode, they'd have a hard time keeping quiet about it unless they were really
just plain really afraid to post. Since your posting patterns are shall I
say known, the rest is simple logic.

Letsee if I can explain the logic to you John, in words that you can
understand.

If the kitty-cat knows that you always serve it cream in a blue bowl, then
it will come to you when you place a blue bowl before it. If the you place a
blue bowl in front the kitty-cat and it does not come, then it must not know
that you always serve it cream in a blue bowl.

Get it now? ;-)

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

John Atkinson wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:
If there is any amplitude to the signal at all the scope will
trigger properly, although you will have to adjust to keep the
display size of the waveform to a sensible figure.

An old trick, that I can't remember when I was first told about,
is to trigger the scope from the clean sinewave. You thus
get consistent triggering and can view the THD+N residual
without it jumping about. This is most useful with storage
'scopes, and is how I produce the traces that you can
see, for example, in figs.9 & 10 at
http://www.stereophile.com/tubepower...tl/index4.html


When John Atkinson posts technical information that is concise,
helpful, and practical and usable and Arny can only crow emotionally
about how I haven't spent YEARS, unkike himself, doing something that
was incidental in the first place, you know the world is not as it
first seems!

I find Atkinson's unfamiliarity with the process of looking at Lissajou
patterns at the output of a THD analyzer to be quite revealing. I'll
admit
it, I learned quite a bit about using THD analyzers at MacIntosh clinics
during the late 1950s. It worked well for me until the late 1990s when I
switched over to primarily using FFT analyzers.

I've never seen THD examined as a Lissajous.

It's one of the oldest tricks around.

Lissajous patterns also facilitate manually balancing the THD analyzer's
bridge. The frequency dial reduces the display in the vertical direction,
and the balance control reduces the loopiness. The hand-and-eye coordination
comes pretty quick.

AFAIK I learned the trick at a Mac Clinic in the late 1950s. The learning
curve was pretty quick - I looked over the tech's shoulder, saw the
Lissajous pattern on the scope and how well it worked, and thought "Oh!".
;-)

What do you use to drive the timebase input ( assuming it's even
available ).

Lissajous = X/Y

IOW you don't use a time base, you use the output of the oscillator for X
and the output of the bridge for Y.

Ok. I see.

I think the advent of auto-nulling circuits has probably been responsible for
this method falling out of practice.

Not all scopes have an Ext X input of course too.

That's one of the other advantages - you never need to diddle with the sweep
controls on the scope, unless you really want to look at the display with a
time base. Since the Lissajous pattern brings out the order the predominate
distortion so well, you may never want to go back to using the time base in
this application again.

I'l have to take a look sometime, although much of the analyser output I look at
is predominated by noise these days ! ;-)

Graham

Arny Krueger wrote:

If the kitty-cat knows that you always serve it cream in a blue bowl, then
it will come to you when you place a blue bowl before it. If the you place a
blue bowl in front the kitty-cat and it does not come, then it must not know
that you always serve it cream in a blue bowl.

Do cats have colour vision ? Maybe they can smell the cream from way off ?

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

If the kitty-cat knows that you always serve it cream in a blue bowl,
then
it will come to you when you place a blue bowl before it. If the you
place a
blue bowl in front the kitty-cat and it does not come, then it must not
know
that you always serve it cream in a blue bowl.

Do cats have colour vision ?

Probably better than humans.

Maybe they can smell the cream from way off ?

That, too,

And like humans they respond to body language.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

Lissajous patterns also facilitate manually balancing the THD analyzer's
bridge. The frequency dial reduces the display in the vertical
direction,
and the balance control reduces the loopiness. The hand-and-eye
coordination
comes pretty quick.

AFAIK I learned the trick at a Mac Clinic in the late 1950s. The
learning
curve was pretty quick - I looked over the tech's shoulder, saw the
Lissajous pattern on the scope and how well it worked, and thought "Oh!".
;-)

What do you use to drive the timebase input ( assuming it's even
available ).

Lissajous = X/Y

IOW you don't use a time base, you use the output of the oscillator for X
and the output of the bridge for Y.

Ok. I see.

I think the advent of auto-nulling circuits has probably been responsible
for
this method falling out of practice.

Not all scopes have an Ext X input of course too.

I can't imagine a well-informed person buying a scope for doing audio that
didn't do X/Y, at least on some limited basis. And with the trick of driving
X from the output of the generator, only limited support for the X channel
is needed.

That's one of the other advantages - you never need to diddle with the
sweep
controls on the scope, unless you really want to look at the display with
a
time base. Since the Lissajous pattern brings out the order the
predominate
distortion so well, you may never want to go back to using the time base
in
this application again.

I'l have to take a look sometime, although much of the analyser output I
look at
is predominated by noise these days ! ;-)

I completely stopped using my THD analyzer about 5 years ago when
readily-available sound cards got "good enough".

Arny Krueger wrote:

snip

If the kitty-cat knows that you always serve it cream in a blue bowl, then
it will come to you when you place a blue bowl before it. If the you place a
blue bowl in front the kitty-cat and it does not come, then it must not know
that you always serve it cream in a blue bowl.


I think cats are colorblind.