| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#121
|
|||
|
|||
John Byrns wrote: In article , Patrick Turner wrote: OK, I have taken a closer look at the analysis on the web page at this URL: http://www.amwindow.org/tech/htm/diodedistortion.htm and it is more screwed up than I thought. snip a vastly complex and incomprehensible disputation of the largely incomprehensible text and formulae at http://www.amwindow.org/tech/htm/diodedistortion.htm About all we want is low distortion detection, and it matters noe that we cannot follow all this mathematical analysis. Indeed, my original point was simply that the analysis on that web page, which had been mentioned in this thread as being somehow relevant, was actually totally irrelevant because it dealt with a square law detector, not a linear diode peak envelope detector as is commonly used in High-Fidelity AM receivers. It was then pointed out in this thread that the conclusion of the web page did not agree with Treman's calculations for the square law detector. My "incomprehensible disputation" was simply to tie up the loose ends and show where the web page went wrong on its square law detector analysis, which would still have been irrelevant to High-Fidelity designs even if it had been done correctly. As soon as my eyes see pages full of calculations, my mind goes into a fog.... I only like the test results of practical circuits. I am only interested in what is proven to work, or not work. There is no mention of the output voltages measured with respect to the % of modulation. I pointed out that very fact in my first post about this web page, that no details were given of the operational under which the experimental results were measured. With respect to the square law detector analysis, the voltage level doesn't matter, square law is square law irrespective of the carrier level, so the distortion doesn't change with signal level in an ideal square law detector, it only changes with the modulation percentage. From the test circuit shown, there is no bias current flow in the diode to keep it turned on even without an RF signal to demodulate. This would also reduce thd. You have still haven't enlightened us with some concrete information about how much, if at all, your biased diode detector really helps reduce the distortion of the diode peak envelope detector. It should be *obvious* from the circuit! A germanium diode once turned on with a bias current has a low variation in its "on" voltage, and is a far lower impedance rectifier than any tube rectifier which has a varying plate resistance with Ia. The Ge rectifier has the same "on voltage" during the charge peaks into the cap or the RC time constant circuit. Its possible to arrange a tube rectifier with a virtually constant current bias from a suitable CF driver tube, but why? a Ge diode is easier and better. I haven't looked at biased diodes as AM detectors myself, although I am given to understand that the proper bias can reduce the distortion of a diode peak envelope detector, but I am also given to understand that the proper bias is dependent on signal level, which requires a complex circuit to cause the bias to maintain the proper relationship to the signal level. My circuit is as simple as it gets. Hve the cathode of the CF at +50v, and have a 1M R to drain 0.05mA through the diode. Much more current could be used. This method means that detection of weak signal lower than the forward voltage of the Ge diode of 0.27v peak approx are not subject to the non linear turn on of the diode, ie, there is no clipping by the diode. Although I haven't seen it mentioned, I would assume that a very tight AGC circuit would also serve to allow a fixed bias to be applied to the diode. I would think that if a simple bias scheme such as yours really significantly helped lower the detector distortion, we would have seen more implementations of this idea in high quality receivers over the years. My methods have not been seen in 99% of old domestic tube radios because they employ an extra tube or two, and two germanium diodes. I would have been hanged by management in 1955 if I had insisted that any extravagant use of tubes were to be employed. The industry was dominated by lowest common denominator ideas. There have certainly been plenty of expensive AM receivers built over the years, that didn't skimp on the parts count, where an extra resistor or two, to bias the diode wouldn't break the bank. That is not to say that I haven't seen cheap transistor radios that had biased detectors, but it never seemed to be actively pursued in the better AM receivers of the tube era. Transistor AM radios were a major step backwards for audio quality in 99% of cases. It went from bad to plain ****ehouse. Quantity not quality was what dominated radios in old days. If you wanted better sound, you bought a Quad AM tuner, which only rich folks could afford. 95% of radio manufacturing was to produce lo-fi junk, where 5% thd and 150 Hz to 2 kHz of bw was very very common, at a 1/2 watt of output. People just were not concerned about fidelity, it didn't help the cricket or football scores, or make the news about the Suez Canal crisis any better. You could better make your point if you posted a couple of graphs for distortion vs. signal level for a diode detector, with and without bias, and for several modulation levels, maybe 80% and 100%. My biased SS diode has lowest thd at high levels of signal. But if you have a normally gronded last IF coil feeding a diode to 100pF with a typical 1M discharge R to ground, then with low signals on weak stations, the thd is appalling, and I thought such issues would be obvious to anyone familiar with diode operation. No need for me to copy out the wave form analysis I did, build a detector like I have and you won't be dissapointed! Nobody needs to know math involved with diode detectors to get much lower thd than is realised in most old fashioned and attrocious tube detector stages in conventional AM radios. Well you are probably right about that, but for a completely different reason than you have in mind. I try to stick with what works well in practice, and discard all BS..... I am too busy to be intellectual about bloomin diode detectors. Patrick Turner. Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ |
|
#122
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Patrick Turner
wrote: John Byrns wrote: You have still haven't enlightened us with some concrete information about how much, if at all, your biased diode detector really helps reduce the distortion of the diode peak envelope detector. It should be *obvious* from the circuit! It's not, at least not to those among us, such as myself, who are not so clever. My circuit is as simple as it gets. Hve the cathode of the CF at +50v, and have a 1M R to drain 0.05mA through the diode. Much more current could be used. This method means that detection of weak signal lower than the forward voltage of the Ge diode of 0.27v peak approx are not subject to the non linear turn on of the diode, ie, there is no clipping by the diode. Is what you are saying is that the diode in your circuit is always "turned on"? Quantity not quality was what dominated radios in old days. If you wanted better sound, you bought a Quad AM tuner, which only rich folks could afford. I have one of those "rich folks" Quads right here next to my computer, and I guess those "rich folks" got taken as the Quad uses a common vacuum diode detector, like a common kitchen radio, nothing special, the only special care taken in the detector design seems to be that the audio output is tapped way down on the diode load resistor to minimize negative peak clipping. You could better make your point if you posted a couple of graphs for distortion vs. signal level for a diode detector, with and without bias, and for several modulation levels, maybe 80% and 100%. My biased SS diode has lowest thd at high levels of signal. One would expect you to be an advocate of your on circuit, but how low is the thd at high modulation levels? But if you have a normally gronded last IF coil feeding a diode to 100pF with a typical 1M discharge R to ground, then with low signals on weak stations, the thd is appalling, and I thought such issues would be obvious to anyone familiar with diode operation. No need for me to copy out the wave form analysis I did, build a detector like I have and you won't be dissapointed! Actually your wave form analysis would be very interesting to see indeed. The impedance of the IFT is quite low at the harmonic frequencies in the diode current wave form so the diode sees a low impedance drive at those frequencies even without a cathode follower, and the filtering effect of the IFT prevents the harmonics in the current pulses from reaching the plate of the IF amplifier. See the discussion on page 1077 of the RDH4 relative to loading of the IFT secondary by the diode,although much more comprehensive discussions can be found elsewhere. Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ |
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Byrns wrote: In article , Patrick Turner wrote: John Byrns wrote: You have still haven't enlightened us with some concrete information about how much, if at all, your biased diode detector really helps reduce the distortion of the diode peak envelope detector. It should be *obvious* from the circuit! It's not, at least not to those among us, such as myself, who are not so clever. My circuit is as simple as it gets. See where the DC flows in my circuit, even without any IF signal present. Hve the cathode of the CF at +50v, and have a 1M R to drain 0.05mA through the diode. Much more current could be used. This method means that detection of weak signal lower than the forward voltage of the Ge diode of 0.27v peak approx are not subject to the non linear turn on of the diode, ie, there is no clipping by the diode. Is what you are saying is that the diode in your circuit is always "turned on"? Indeed it is turned on all the time, and this stops the huge variation in 455 kHz ripple voltage with low level signals when the IF signal is very low, and the R of the RC detector circuit is just taken to ground from a C which has a very low charge in it when the signal is very low, as it is in a conventional circuit. Quantity not quality was what dominated radios in old days. If you wanted better sound, you bought a Quad AM tuner, which only rich folks could afford. I have one of those "rich folks" Quads right here next to my computer, and I guess those "rich folks" got taken as the Quad uses a common vacuum diode detector, like a common kitchen radio, nothing special, the only special care taken in the detector design seems to be that the audio output is tapped way down on the diode load resistor to minimize negative peak clipping. I don't recall what Quad have in their box, but on strong reception, but the mainly conventional circuit within does work fairly well enough for many people. I like things to work better than "conventional", because this stands for lowest common denominator, which is plain substandard, imho. You could better make your point if you posted a couple of graphs for distortion vs. signal level for a diode detector, with and without bias, and for several modulation levels, maybe 80% and 100%. My biased SS diode has lowest thd at high levels of signal. One would expect you to be an advocate of your on circuit, but how low is the thd at high modulation levels? Very low, compared to many other circuits. Its difficult to measure because other thd effects swamp the thd of the detector. To measure the accuracy of the detector, you need an AM signal from a generator that itself has less than 0.01 % of thd in the envelope shape. If an AM signal at say 1 MHz is applied to the RF input of a set, then the mixer and IF tubes will impose some thd, and finally the detector then adds its thd. But from tests using a dual trace CRO with an input signal from a 455 kHz source, so that the recovered audio is overlaid onto the wave form of the envelope, I found it was impossible to see any thd with my detector idea up to several volts, with any level of % modulation. This method of inspecting the detector performance removes the need to have a low distortion enevelope shape to begin with. I might add that the CF buffer used for the detector was a 12AU7, and its thd would be around 0.1% at 10 vrms output, simply because of the thd of such a tube arranged the way it is. If a 12AT7 were used, the open loop gain is higher, and the gain reduction much more than 12AU7, so the thd would be perhaps 0.03% at 10v output. But if you have a normally gronded last IF coil feeding a diode to 100pF with a typical 1M discharge R to ground, then with low signals on weak stations, the thd is appalling, and I thought such issues would be obvious to anyone familiar with diode operation. No need for me to copy out the wave form analysis I did, build a detector like I have and you won't be dissapointed! Actually your wave form analysis would be very interesting to see indeed. I drew up the wave forms I thought would appear, and sure enough they did appear when I tested a typical circuit. At very low signal levels, or where the % modulation approaches 100%, the 455 kHz ripple voltage is very low, and when the 455 kHz signal is stringer, the ripple voltage becomes much higher. There is distortion in these goings on if the diodes Ra changes a lot, which is does, so a germanium diode which is turned on at all times by a DC flow prevents the variations one sees with a tube diode. The impedance of the IFT is quite low at the harmonic frequencies in the diode current wave form so the diode sees a low impedance drive at those frequencies even without a cathode follower, and the filtering effect of the IFT prevents the harmonics in the current pulses from reaching the plate of the IF amplifier. And if a CF buffer is used, the low impedance caused by diode current flows are not seen by the IFT and IF pentode amp, so no distortion occurs. The CF removes the thd caused by the diodes. See the discussion on page 1077 of the RDH4 relative to loading of the IFT secondary by the diode,although much more comprehensive discussions can be found elsewhere. Indeed more exists elsewhere, but after thought about the problems, I went my own way. Patrick Turner. Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ |
|
#125
|
|||
|
|||
|
Telamon wrote: In article , (John Byrns) wrote: In article , Patrick Turner wrote: John Byrns wrote: You have still haven't enlightened us with some concrete information about how much, if at all, your biased diode detector really helps reduce the distortion of the diode peak envelope detector. It should be *obvious* from the circuit! It's not, at least not to those among us, such as myself, who are not so clever. My circuit is as simple as it gets. Hve the cathode of the CF at +50v, and have a 1M R to drain 0.05mA through the diode. Much more current could be used. This method means that detection of weak signal lower than the forward voltage of the Ge diode of 0.27v peak approx are not subject to the non linear turn on of the diode, ie, there is no clipping by the diode. Is what you are saying is that the diode in your circuit is always "turned on"? Snip Congratulations for the continuation of one of the most retarded threads I've yet read. Never heard of biasing a diode or being unable to understand doing so is pretty pathetic. Electronics does not get any simpler than this. Why don't you cross post this to more news groups so more people can have a laugh. Are you implying that those involved in this thread are retarded? or mentally deficient? I don't care that you have a good laugh. I know that many ppl in the groups to whom this thread is being posted don't have much of a clue about how AM radios work, let alone an FM set, or its MPX stereo decoder, or let alone a TV set, or VCR, or CD player. Hell, I damn well can't understand the schematic for the Space Shuttle, and I knows the laughter over this must be deafening, but heck, I don't care. To many folks the simplest of concepts are difficult to understand, and they restore their radios and amps using age old circuits which perform woefully most of the time. I am happy if I bring some simple alternative techniques for them to apply if they want, but most won't, because the idea of drilling more tube socket holes in an existing set is butchery. I care for more fidelity, and to get it, serious butchery is required, sometimes totally banishing the original old fashioned ideas altogether, removing all vestige of the old maker's design, and placing my own label on the chassis. The old maker may have been delighted that he got the thd down to 5%, audio bandwidth from 150 Hz to 2 kHz, with some hum, but I wasn't. Patrick Turner. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
|
#127
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , (John Byrns) wrote: In article , Patrick Turner wrote: John Byrns wrote: You have still haven't enlightened us with some concrete information about how much, if at all, your biased diode detector really helps reduce the distortion of the diode peak envelope detector. It should be *obvious* from the circuit! It's not, at least not to those among us, such as myself, who are not so clever. My circuit is as simple as it gets. Hve the cathode of the CF at +50v, and have a 1M R to drain 0.05mA through the diode. Much more current could be used. This method means that detection of weak signal lower than the forward voltage of the Ge diode of 0.27v peak approx are not subject to the non linear turn on of the diode, ie, there is no clipping by the diode. Is what you are saying is that the diode in your circuit is always "turned on"? Snip Congratulations for the continuation of one of the most retarded threads I've yet read. Never heard of biasing a diode or being unable to understand doing so is pretty pathetic. Electronics does not get any simpler than this. Why don't you cross post this to more news groups so more people can have a laugh. Are you implying that those involved in this thread are retarded? or mentally deficient? I don't care that you have a good laugh. .... and I don't care if you and Byrns look like idiots. The threads at 100 now and I'll check back in when it hits 500. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
|
Telamon wrote:
Congratulations for the continuation of one of the most retarded threads I've yet read. Never heard of biasing a diode or being unable to understand doing so is pretty pathetic. Electronics does not get any simpler than this. John understands this stuff extremely well: I've argued detector issues with him on rec.antiques.radio+phono in the past. John obviously doesn't believe Patrick really understands what he's advocating. Biased diode envelope detectors are *not* simple: I've used them for x-ray spectroscopy with scintillation counters, and they are tricky beasts. A biased diode is far from an ideal switch: its dynamic resistance varies with instantaneous signal level, making the circuit bandwidth vary rapidly. The mathematics of this are rather difficult. I also think an emphasis on detector distortion under idealized test conditions misses the real issues. The most annoying distortion on AM signals doesn't come from the detector. Multipath, steep IF skirts, and AGC all distort the modulation envelope. Perfect reproduction of such distorted envelopes yields bad sound. I suspect that the great sound of the old tube diode detectors actually results from their poor reproduction of these sorts of envelope distortion (but this is a difficult hypothesis to test). In any case, my 1934 Stromberg-Carlson 58-T, with its weak AGC, poor skirt selectivity, and a classic diode detector has the best sound of any of my AM radios, both to my ears and my wife's. One receiver it beats is my Drake R-8, which uses a very low distortion (active full wave rectifier) envelope detector. Of course, the R-8 is a much better DX machine, but that's a different issue. -jpd |
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are you implying that those involved in this thread are retarded? or mentally deficient? Yes, are you having trouble comprehending that? I think you have a problem with basic human communication skills, and the ability to define personal attributes in an appropriate manner. I suspect nearly everyone here would agree. It does not worry me in the least about whatever conclusions you have come to over the issues I have just raised, or how you propose to remedy your shortcomings. But one thing seems certain, and its that you have not contributed much of worth which is relevant, helpful, interesting, informative or cheerful in the recent discussions in this thread. Patrick Turner. |
|
#130
|
|||
|
|||
|
Telamon wrote:
In article , Patrick Turner wrote: Telamon wrote: Are you implying that those involved in this thread are retarded? or mentally deficient? Yes, are you having trouble comprehending that? Well yeah. Some ideas simply don't float well in the face of r.r.s |
|
#131
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Doty wrote: Telamon wrote: Congratulations for the continuation of one of the most retarded threads I've yet read. Never heard of biasing a diode or being unable to understand doing so is pretty pathetic. Electronics does not get any simpler than this. John understands this stuff extremely well: I've argued detector issues with him on rec.antiques.radio+phono in the past. John obviously doesn't believe Patrick really understands what he's advocating. I am not a university trained electronics engineer with a sound backgound of mathematical ability. But one doesn't need to understand a simple AM radio at the post graduate level, complete with all the maths, to be able to build a set that works better than nearly all the old junk I occasionally get to service or repair. John has ofrten tested my ideas expressed here on the group, and I have never minded that, bearing in mind that one quick explanation to *all* readers may not be enough to provoke them into forming a clear mental picture of how they could build a radio from scratch if they had to. Biased diode envelope detectors are *not* simple: I've used them for x-ray spectroscopy with scintillation counters, and they are tricky beasts. A biased diode is far from an ideal switch: its dynamic resistance varies with instantaneous signal level, making the circuit bandwidth vary rapidly. The mathematics of this are rather difficult. But your applications in X-ray spectroscopy and scintilation counting, whatever that involves, may be somewhat different to an RF diode detector circuit where afaik diode detection is one heck of a simple concept, with very much in common with a diode power rectifier. The crystal diode detector works fine as a switch at 10.7 MHz in an FM receiver discriminator circuit, and 455 kHz is a doddle. The math don't have to be known. As I pointed out in another recent post, a comparison between the AM envelope shape and the recovered audio can and should be made using a dual trace oscilloscope, at low and high levels of signals, and at high and low levels of AM%, and at 20 Hz, 1 kHz, and 20 kHz of audio F modulation. If the detector is then seen to be low thd with all tests, and no tube or diode is anywhere near an overloaded or over rated condition, then you have the circuit working propoerly without having had to use university standard maths. I also think an emphasis on detector distortion under idealized test conditions misses the real issues. The most annoying distortion on AM signals doesn't come from the detector. Multipath, steep IF skirts, and AGC all distort the modulation envelope. Perfect reproduction of such distorted envelopes yields bad sound. I suspect that the great sound of the old tube diode detectors actually results from their poor reproduction of these sorts of envelope distortion (but this is a difficult hypothesis to test). I have built many tube amps and a few radios, and the better they measure, the better they sound. A wide bandwidth for the IF allows less critical tuning, so the distortion effects of an IFT or the front end being slightly off tune are negligible. In any case, my 1934 Stromberg-Carlson 58-T, with its weak AGC, poor skirt selectivity, and a classic diode detector has the best sound of any of my AM radios, both to my ears and my wife's. One receiver it beats is my Drake R-8, which uses a very low distortion (active full wave rectifier) envelope detector. Of course, the R-8 is a much better DX machine, but that's a different issue. I have serviced dozens of old radios which came the the workshop much loved, but some sounded quite dreadful for a variety of reasons in the RF, mixer, IF detector and audio amps, not to mention the speaker. I sometimes just repair these horrors, rather than modify them. One spectaculary displeasing radio I was given is a 1957 Radiola with 7 bands including the BCB, and it included a tuning cap with 3 gangs, because an RF stage was included. It was the deluxe radio model from that company, and even had a PP audio amp with two 6V6 with FB, and a better than average 12" speaker. It has proper active tone controls. The tuner section gave a lousy 2 kHz of audio BW. Turning up the treble boost did nothing; there is no treble to boost. It was said that such radios sounded "mellow", and I dislike them intensly. I have completely revised the circuit to my own, and now it sounds far better, with about 8 kHz of AF bw. The SW performance isn't too good, and the alignments and tracking are all very inaccurate, but I rarely if ever listen to SW. One of these days I will build a cabinet for the Radiola chassis I have, and build a speaker box. Unlike the big Radiola, most old AM radios were designed to be cheap to make, with a minimum of parts, and thus were slightly too simple for my way of thinking, or my ears. When one extends the audio BW and reduces the thd from 5% to 1%, then a good AM set sounds almost as good as thre same material being broadcast on FM. My kitchen radio has a full range speaker in a 60 litre reflexed box separate from the cabinet for the radio tuner and SET audio amp with NFB using one EL34. I don't like the sound of a 6V6 with no FB powering a speaker with 6 kHz of unflat bandwidth, with the speaker mounted in a resonant cabinet with an open back and resonant sides. I don't like listening to distance AM stations, because the vast majority transmit programme material almost identical to what is available locally since networked stations have universally spread around the country, and the distance listening can never be without noises. Patrick Turner. |
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
|
I un-retarded this technical thread as a favor to rrs's Twains of Today, the
Modern Menckens and our Real Time Roykos. Others are invited to follow along. However, I may miss much of it. To paraphrase General Stonewall Jackson, I've killfiled 'em. Killfiled 'em all. Frank Dresser |
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote: John Doty wrote: Telamon wrote: Congratulations for the continuation of one of the most retarded threads I've yet read. Never heard of biasing a diode or being unable to understand doing so is pretty pathetic. Electronics does not get any simpler than this. John understands this stuff extremely well: I've argued detector issues with him on rec.antiques.radio+phono in the past. John obviously doesn't believe Patrick really understands what he's advocating. I am not a university trained electronics engineer with a sound backgound of mathematical ability. Yeah, what a great pronouncement for a hobbyist news group after one hundred posts of gobble de goop. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
|
#134
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
John Doty wrote: Telamon wrote: Congratulations for the continuation of one of the most retarded threads I've yet read. Never heard of biasing a diode or being unable to understand doing so is pretty pathetic. Electronics does not get any simpler than this. John understands this stuff extremely well: I've argued detector issues with him on rec.antiques.radio+phono in the past. John obviously doesn't believe Patrick really understands what he's advocating. Snip All parties involved in this thread are being extremely thick in the head. You can read into the discussion what you want but I see a disregard of basic concepts. If John knows better and is stringing a Patrick along don't you think a better medium would be email? Such discussions are endless and worthless in my opinion but if you feel them entertaining have at it. I'd rather read a text book with a better chance I'm not being misled in some way. Like I said I'll comment again when the thread hits 500 which at the rate its going should not be a problem. By all means have fun at three news groups expense. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
|
Telamon wrote: In article , John Doty wrote: Telamon wrote: Congratulations for the continuation of one of the most retarded threads I've yet read. Never heard of biasing a diode or being unable to understand doing so is pretty pathetic. Electronics does not get any simpler than this. John understands this stuff extremely well: I've argued detector issues with him on rec.antiques.radio+phono in the past. John obviously doesn't believe Patrick really understands what he's advocating. Snip All parties involved in this thread are being extremely thick in the head. You can read into the discussion what you want but I see a disregard of basic concepts. If John knows better and is stringing a Patrick along don't you think a better medium would be email? Such discussions are endless and worthless in my opinion but if you feel them entertaining have at it. I'd rather read a text book with a better chance I'm not being misled in some way. Like I said I'll comment again when the thread hits 500 which at the rate its going should not be a problem. By all means have fun at three news groups expense. -- Telamon Ventura, California Again you prattle on like a miffed school girl about us and our interest in tubed radios. Neither John or myself have any intention of quitting our efforts. We shall not be intimidated. Let me know when you have something of substance to say about AM radio. Patrick Turner. |
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ...
I un-retarded this technical thread as a favor to rrs's Twains of Today, the Modern Menckens and our Real Time Roykos. Others are invited to follow along. However, I may miss much of it. To paraphrase General Stonewall Jackson, I've killfiled 'em. Killfiled 'em all. Frank Dresser Musta killfiled 'em all. Good work! (I think?) |
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote: Snip Again you prattle on like a miffed school girl about us and our interest in tubed radios. Yeah I'm miffed about the cross posting not about you or your interests but you are to thick in the head to get that. Neither John or myself have any intention of quitting our efforts. Well that's just the way Trolls are, they don't care about anybody. We shall not be intimidated. Sure thing. Have another Fosters and post away. Let me know when you have something of substance to say about AM radio. Why? You don't care what I think. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
|
Telamon wrote:
Yeah I'm miffed about the cross posting not about you or your interests but you are to thick in the head to get that. There's nothing wrong with cross posting of messages that are on topic: the designers of USENET intended it to be used in this way. Of course, you could perhaps argue that this thread is only superficially on topic in rec.radio.shortwave, since it's not about brain dead political ideology, the real focus of the group. I suppose you could make a similar objection to its presence in rec.antiques.radio+phono since greed does not appear to motivate the participants. Personally, I find this thread interesting: envelope detectors are fascinatingly subtle. How to make one that sounds good for real signals remains poorly understood. To me it's more on topic than 95% of the messages in these groups. -jpd |
|
#140
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
John Doty wrote: Telamon wrote: Yeah I'm miffed about the cross posting not about you or your interests but you are to thick in the head to get that. There's nothing wrong with cross posting of messages that are on topic: the designers of USENET intended it to be used in this way. Of course, you could perhaps argue that this thread is only superficially on topic in rec.radio.shortwave, since it's not about brain dead political ideology, the real focus of the group. I suppose you could make a similar objection to its presence in rec.antiques.radio+phono since greed does not appear to motivate the participants. Personally, I find this thread interesting: envelope detectors are fascinatingly subtle. How to make one that sounds good for real signals remains poorly understood. To me it's more on topic than 95% of the messages in these groups. And two wrongs make a right? I used to think more of you. Guess I was wrong. Very considerate of you to post your justification. Hope it makes you feel better about yourself. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
|
#141
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Doty"
There's nothing wrong with cross posting of messages that are on topic: the designers of USENET intended it to be used in this way. ** There is *plenty* wrong with crossposting - as a Google search on the term will inform you. That some message may be superficially "on topic" for several NGs is not the point - different NGs have different agendas so their respective readers will see the same matter in vastly different ways. These differing views, brought about by differing levels of factual knowledge, life experience and mindsets are incomprehensible to some posters and often a flame war is the result. ............ Phil |
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
|
Telamon wrote: In article , John Doty wrote: Telamon wrote: Yeah I'm miffed about the cross posting not about you or your interests but you are to thick in the head to get that. There's nothing wrong with cross posting of messages that are on topic: the designers of USENET intended it to be used in this way. Of course, you could perhaps argue that this thread is only superficially on topic in rec.radio.shortwave, since it's not about brain dead political ideology, the real focus of the group. I suppose you could make a similar objection to its presence in rec.antiques.radio+phono since greed does not appear to motivate the participants. Personally, I find this thread interesting: envelope detectors are fascinatingly subtle. How to make one that sounds good for real signals remains poorly understood. To me it's more on topic than 95% of the messages in these groups. And two wrongs make a right? I used to think more of you. Guess I was wrong. Huh? Where did I say two wrongs make a right? Cross-posting of on-topic material to a small number of groups is simply right, an appropriate use of a USENET capability put in the sytem by design. See: http://kb.indiana.edu/data/affn.html Cross-posting can be abused, but this is not a case of abuse here. Perhaps the original poster should have designated a followup group to make the picky folks happy, but I'm not so picky. Perhaps my sarcasm about the dominance of off-topic posts in a couple of these groups confused you. In any case, the discussion of diode detectors was interesting and on-topic in all of these groups. Can we return there, please? -jpd |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| on topic: we need a rec.audio.pro.ot newsgroup! | Pro Audio | |||
| Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
