Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
|
#122
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Mar 4, 11:18*pm, John Larkin
wrote: On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:23:17 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs wrote: On Mar 4, 12:54 pm, John Larkin wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 19:53:58 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs wrote: On Mar 2, 5:58 pm, John Larkin wrote: On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:55:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs wrote: On Mar 2, 4:33 pm, John Larkin wrote: On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:03:38 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs wrote: On Mar 2, 11:40 am, 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. |
#123
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:22:16 +1300, Judges 13:18
wrote: John Larkin wrote: ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Chokes.JPG John What is the book? Ghirardi, Radio Physics Course, 1932. I have a heap of old electronics books, going back to 1921. People *did* use a lot of transformers and inductors in signal paths, as the RF boys still do. Gain-bandwidth used to be expensive. John |
#124
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On 04/03/11 01:21, Pomegranate ******* wrote:
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? One can tell that it's new moon just by reading this. |
#125
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 03:55:14 +0800, Werner wrote:
One can tell that it's new moon just by reading this. Yeah, idiot,mouthy ****s like you come out of the woodwork, further proving that so many mothers needed to be put in prison for failure-to-flush offenses. It can still be rectified, but public stonings have not yet become in vogue again yet. |
#126
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Mar 5, 4:42*am, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote: On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 19:35:32 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: and too low in the pecking order *Sorry cast boy, but if we are declaring levels of attainment and awareness here, you would certainly be the loser against me. Dream on. You don't even know what a 555 timer IC is for, much less the fact that it is still used. Far more than you are willing to believe, since it proves you wrong. I know what Hans Camenzind claims that he though he was designing it to do, and I've seen lots of exampled of the ways in which it is used. I'm well aware that it still sells in large number, for use in legacy designs, and that "legacy designers" still design it into new circuits, because it is easier and quicker to adapt an old circuit than to redesign around mre modern parts. None of this falsifies the point I make - that the 555 stopped being a widely applicable circuit back around 1980. Since you half-baqked arguments don't address this particualr point, they don't "prove me wrong". They do prove that you can't think straight, which makes you* "both wrong AND the loser. *Bye." -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |
#127
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
wrote: for use in legacy designs, You're a goddamned idiot. If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply because it uses an old established part. Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222 transistors used every day in new designs too. In your idiot-without-a-clue mindset, those too would be "legacy designs". You lose, again. As usual. |
#128
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
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? -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen For the same reason people build ships in bottles, when you can build a far more durable working model much more easily by heaving out the bottle. And the same reason people compose sonnets, and even sometimes fail to cheat at solitaire. 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 |
#129
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Mar 6, 11:51*am, Phil Hobbs
wrote: 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? -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen For the same reason people build ships in bottles, when you can build a far more durable working model much more easily by heaving out the bottle.. And the same reason people compose sonnets, and even sometimes fail to cheat at solitaire. 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) nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So you'll know what to do when, You're stuck on a desert island with three cocanut shells, some wire and a 555 timer..... Seriously I don't use the 555 anymore, but we have several old circuits still using it. And I hope it and the 741 have only reached middle age. George H. George H. |
#130
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
George Herold wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:51 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: 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? -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen For the same reason people build ships in bottles, when you can build a far more durable working model much more easily by heaving out the bottle.. And the same reason people compose sonnets, and even sometimes fail to cheat at solitaire. 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) nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So you'll know what to do when, You're stuck on a desert island with three cocanut shells, some wire and a 555 timer..... Seriously I don't use the 555 anymore, but we have several old circuits still using it. And I hope it and the 741 have only reached middle age. George H. George H. I don't either, at least not in real circuits, but I could imagine situations where I might, e.g. in a missing pulse detector for a laser interlock. It could look for a 'sanity' pulse from a micro, and turn off a relay to open the interlock. I've used programmable unijunctions for that in the past, but that was mostly for fun. Either way, that job shouldn't be done by a PIC, because it's processor or firmware failures it's designed to detect. I just get tired of the chronological snobbery of 'legacy' this and 'obsolete' that. As one of my daughters' friends said, "I get really sick of being told by aging baby boomers that I'm out of date because I don't subscribe to their 1968 worldview." Cheers Phil "mine's more 1168" 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 |
#131
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 13:34:13 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote: George Herold wrote: On Mar 6, 11:51 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: 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? -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen For the same reason people build ships in bottles, when you can build a far more durable working model much more easily by heaving out the bottle.. And the same reason people compose sonnets, and even sometimes fail to cheat at solitaire. 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) nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So you'll know what to do when, You're stuck on a desert island with three cocanut shells, some wire and a 555 timer..... Seriously I don't use the 555 anymore, but we have several old circuits still using it. And I hope it and the 741 have only reached middle age. George H. George H. I don't either, at least not in real circuits, but I could imagine situations where I might, e.g. in a missing pulse detector for a laser interlock. It could look for a 'sanity' pulse from a micro, and turn off a relay to open the interlock. I've used programmable unijunctions for that in the past, but that was mostly for fun. Either way, that job shouldn't be done by a PIC, because it's processor or firmware failures it's designed to detect. I just get tired of the chronological snobbery of 'legacy' this and 'obsolete' that. As one of my daughters' friends said, "I get really sick of being told by aging baby boomers that I'm out of date because I don't subscribe to their 1968 worldview." Cheers Phil "mine's more 1168" Hobbs Folks used the i80186 in the motion control industry for years, and it was never a consumer PC product. They went straight to the already also "done" i80286 when they replaced the XT (8088). The '186' is still used, but there are more efficient microcontrollers with more 'features' out there so it rarely gets used any more. It actually IS all but obsolete. The 555 doesn't exactly follow that track as being a simpler device, it does still get used in many instances. |
#132
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Mar 6, 3:56*pm, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote: On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: for use in legacy designs, * You're a goddamned idiot. * If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply because it uses an old established part. If it uses the 555, the odds are heavily in favour of it being a legacy design. Nowadays rhere are better ways of doing what the 555 can do. * Your logic is as flawed as it gets. *There are still millions of 2n222 transistors used every day in new designs too. *In your idiot-without-a-clue mindset, those too would be "legacy designs". The 2N2222 a simpler part. The strength of the 555 was that it combined a monostable with a relatively high current switch. These turn out to be functions that don't really work well together. The 2N2222 is just a good saturating switch. * You lose, again. *As usual. You'd like to think so. It's a pity that you can't think straight. but it does the advantage that it leads you to spectacularly comic pratfalls. This is one of them. -- Bill Sloman,Nijmegen |
#133
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote: On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: for use in legacy designs, You're a goddamned idiot. If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply because it uses an old established part. Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222 Where can I buy some of those 2N222's? John |
#134
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 17:49:23 -0800, John Larkin
wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote: On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: for use in legacy designs, You're a goddamned idiot. If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply because it uses an old established part. Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222 Where can I buy some of those 2N222's? They only come in packs of ~10. |
#135
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
|
#136
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote: On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: for use in legacy designs, You're a goddamned idiot. If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply because it uses an old established part. Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222 Where can I buy some of those 2N222's? http://store.americanmicrosemiconduc.../jan2n222.html Better hurry. There are only four left, at $14.94 each -- You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's Teflon coated. |
#137
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:42:32 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote: On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: for use in legacy designs, You're a goddamned idiot. If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply because it uses an old established part. Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222 Where can I buy some of those 2N222's? http://store.americanmicrosemiconduc.../jan2n222.html Better hurry. There are only four left, at $14.94 each You do know the difference between a normal 2n2222 and a 'jan' prefix part, right? That's the reason it is at $15. |
#138
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:13:44 -0800, I AM THAT I AM
wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:42:32 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote: On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: for use in legacy designs, You're a goddamned idiot. If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply because it uses an old established part. Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222 Where can I buy some of those 2N222's? http://store.americanmicrosemiconduc.../jan2n222.html Better hurry. There are only four left, at $14.94 each You do know the difference between a normal 2n2222 and a 'jan' prefix part, right? That's the reason it is at $15. The transistor in the link above is a 2N222, not a 2N2222. It's expensive because it's a rare antique PNP germanium no longer in production. John |
#139
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On 3/10/2011 5:13 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:13:44 -0800, I AM THAT I AM wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:42:32 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote: On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: for use in legacy designs, You're a goddamned idiot. If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply because it uses an old established part. Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222 Where can I buy some of those 2N222's? http://store.americanmicrosemiconduc.../jan2n222.html Better hurry. There are only four left, at $14.94 each You do know the difference between a normal 2n2222 and a 'jan' prefix part, right? That's the reason it is at $15. The transistor in the link above is a 2N222, not a 2N2222. It's expensive because it's a rare antique PNP germanium no longer in production. John John - You can count on AlwaysWrong to be, well, AlwaysWrong. John |
#140
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:26:05 -0600, John - KD5YI wrote:
On 3/10/2011 5:13 PM, John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:13:44 -0800, I AM THAT I AM wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:42:32 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote: On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: for use in legacy designs, You're a goddamned idiot. If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply because it uses an old established part. Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222 Where can I buy some of those 2N222's? http://store.americanmicrosemiconduc.../jan2n222.html Better hurry. There are only four left, at $14.94 each You do know the difference between a normal 2n2222 and a 'jan' prefix part, right? That's the reason it is at $15. The transistor in the link above is a 2N222, not a 2N2222. It's expensive because it's a rare antique PNP germanium no longer in production. John John - You can count on AlwaysWrong to be, well, AlwaysWrong. Larkin gave him the name. |
#141
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:13:44 -0800, John Larkin
wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:13:44 -0800, I AM THAT I AM wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:42:32 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote: On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: for use in legacy designs, You're a goddamned idiot. If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply because it uses an old established part. Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222 Where can I buy some of those 2N222's? http://store.americanmicrosemiconduc.../jan2n222.html Better hurry. There are only four left, at $14.94 each You do know the difference between a normal 2n2222 and a 'jan' prefix part, right? That's the reason it is at $15. The transistor in the link above is a 2N222, not a 2N2222. It's expensive because it's a rare antique PNP germanium no longer in production. John So, you really are in the dark about jan mil parts. Interesting. My error was simply a typo. Yours are always far worse. Very few jan series parts are still 'in production'. It does occur, and they are not cheap, and one must buy like a million of them to get a production run going. The only lines left these days are the radiation hardened class. |
#143
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
another bizarre audio circuit
On 3/10/2011 6:59 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:26:05 -0600, John - wrote: On 3/10/2011 5:13 PM, John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:13:44 -0800, I AM THAT I AM wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:42:32 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote: On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote: for use in legacy designs, You're a goddamned idiot. If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply because it uses an old established part. Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222 Where can I buy some of those 2N222's? http://store.americanmicrosemiconduc.../jan2n222.html Better hurry. There are only four left, at $14.94 each You do know the difference between a normal 2n2222 and a 'jan' prefix part, right? That's the reason it is at $15. The transistor in the link above is a 2N222, not a 2N2222. It's expensive because it's a rare antique PNP germanium no longer in production. John John - You can count on AlwaysWrong to be, well, AlwaysWrong. Larkin gave him the name. BTW - have you noticed that he thinks he is God? (I AM THAT I AM nym) |
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 |