Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Ground Busses



Eeyore wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

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


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


ARC is one fine example. Many other makers in China and the US and the
UK qualify
for WOODEN SPOON awards for professional excellence.

Where there are no ethics, there is no professionalism.

Patrick Turner.



The standards in pro-audio are normally first class.

Graham

  #82   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Ground Busses



Andre Jute wrote:

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


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

The standards in pro-audio are normally first class.


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


"Professional audio" standards are definately high in general.

But the way many makers actually ensure their gear can comply with these
standards
over a long time to justify the cost of such gear's prices is often
quite appalling,
and entirely the connivance of non professional minds.

For example, studios once might have used the
"fabulous" EAR509 amps for their monitor amps.
Anyone who did when these awful amps were made will not still be using
them.
Lotsa reasons why.

I wouldn't touch on of these ****ing horrors with a 40 foot pole!!!

Look, and Ye shall see Crap Abundant about thee.

Patrick Turner.



Graham


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

Unsigned out of contempt for a smoke blower

  #83   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Ground Busses



Andre Jute wrote:

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


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

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


Spot on and well explained.

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


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


I have known how to construct a proper grounding system since I was in
my teens.

How else do you think a mixing console's ground system works ? A single
star
point like your idea ?

Graham
  #84   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Unprofessional behaviour on RAT, was Ground Busses

On Mar 4, 1:37*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

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


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


The standards in pro-audio are normally first class.


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


"Professional audio" standards are definately high in general.


I wouldn't know what everyday standards are; I have elite gear, made
by the Walkers and by Lowther and by myself.

But I wasn't talking of the standard of the gear. I was talking about
the appallingly low standards of the people we run into on RAT who
tell us they are "professional electronics engineers" or "professional
audio engineers". Idiots who behave like Porno Pasternack, Poopie
Stevenson, Zero-delivery Pinkerton, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger,
Don Pearce, John Mayberry, and so on, are not professionals, they're
clowns.

Andre Jute
Such very modest standards, and still they disappoint!

But the way many makers actually ensure their gear can comply with these
standards
over a long time to justify the cost of such gear's prices is often
quite appalling,
and entirely the connivance of non professional minds.

For example, studios once might have used the
"fabulous" EAR509 amps for their monitor amps.
Anyone who did when these awful amps were made will not still be using
them.
Lotsa reasons why.

I wouldn't touch on of these ****ing horrors with a 40 foot pole!!! *

Look, and Ye shall see Crap Abundant about thee.

Patrick Turner.



Graham


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


Unsigned out of contempt for a smoke blower


  #85   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Ground Busses

On Mar 4, 1:42*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
robert casey wrote:
Avoiding ground loop issues you need to understand the paths the
currents thru such a ground are taking. *And remember that all real
conductors have resistance, and that "noise" voltages will develop
across those current paths. *Using dedicated wires for each current path
avoids this. *That's what you do in a star ground system. *One important
current path is the one in the power supply. *From the center-tap of the
high voltage secondary to the filter cap is a high current spike every
120th of a second.


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


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


Spot on and well explained.


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


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


I have known how to construct a proper grounding system since I was in
my teens.


So you say now, but we didn't see the evidence when you and that fool
Pasternack claimed there was something wrong with the scheme I
described -- and then couldn't specify a single detail. All I saw was
evidence of total ignorance on your part and Pasternack's.

How else do you think a mixing console's ground system works ? A single
star
point like your idea ?


Of course not, sonny. That is part of what made me conclude that you
are a total ignoramus, as is your bumbuddy Pasternack: that you two
were incapable of distinguishing the grounding requirements of a
simple one-tube SE amp from the grounding requirements of a much more
complicated amp.

Graham


Be reasonable, Poopie. Faced with your and Pasternack's generalities,
you would have concluded the same thing as I did: that you two are
ignorant and probably stupid as well.

Andre Jute
Always ready to explain the finer points to a newbie


  #86   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Unprofessional behaviour by A Joot.



Andre Jute wrote:

But I wasn't talking of the standard of the gear. I was talking about
the appallingly low standards of the people we run into on RAT who
tell us they are "professional electronics engineers" or "professional
audio engineers". Idiots who behave like Porno Pasternack, Poopie
Stevenson, Zero-delivery Pinkerton, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger,
Don Pearce, John Mayberry, and so on, are not professionals, they're
clowns.


All of whom know VASTLY more than you could ever dream of beginning to understand you
posturing embittered idiotic CHARLATAN.

Graham

  #87   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Ground Busses



Patrick Turner wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:

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


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


ARC is one fine example. Many other makers in China and the US and the
UK qualify for WOODEN SPOON awards for professional excellence.


Who is/are ARC ?

They are not a pro-audio manufacturer to my knowledge.

Name some of these US or UK manufacturers you have trouble with.

Graham



  #88   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Unprofessional behaviour by A Joot.

On Mar 4, 2:01*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
But I wasn't talking of the standard of the gear. I was talking about
the appallingly low standards of the people we run into on RAT who
tell us they are "professional electronics engineers" or "professional
audio engineers". Idiots who behave like Porno Pasternack, Poopie
Stevenson, Zero-delivery Pinkerton, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger,
Don Pearce, John Mayberry, and so on, are not professionals, they're
clowns.


All of whom know VASTLY more than you could ever dream of beginning to understand you
posturing embittered idiotic CHARLATAN.

Graham


I think you make my point well, Poopie. You guys all claim to know
more than we do, but when we ask you a straight question with a
definite answer, we get none. All you lot are good for is tenth-rate
abuse.

Andre Jute
I prefer to cuddle up with the RDH4
  #89   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Ground Busses



Patrick Turner wrote:

For example, studios once might have used the
"fabulous" EAR509 amps for their monitor amps.
Anyone who did when these awful amps were made will not still be using
them. Lotsa reasons why.


Very few studios (almost none) use tubed power amps for monitoring. I have actually met
NONE using tubes in their monitoring.

An EAR 509 is most certainly NOT a pro-audio product. I'd classify it as elitist hi-fi.

Graham

  #90   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Henry Pasternack[_2_] Henry Pasternack[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Ground Busses

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
...you two were incapable of distinguishing the grounding requirements
of a simple one-tube SE amp from the grounding requirements of a much
more complicated amp.


The grounding principles are the same for a two-stage SE amplifier as they
are for a multi-stage push-pull amplifier with NFB.

-Henry




  #91   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Unprofessional behaviour by A Joot.



Andre Jute wrote:

On Mar 4, 2:01 am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
But I wasn't talking of the standard of the gear. I was talking about
the appallingly low standards of the people we run into on RAT who
tell us they are "professional electronics engineers" or "professional
audio engineers". Idiots who behave like Porno Pasternack, Poopie
Stevenson, Zero-delivery Pinkerton, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger,
Don Pearce, John Mayberry, and so on, are not professionals, they're
clowns.


All of whom know VASTLY more than you could ever dream of beginning to understand you
posturing embittered idiotic CHARLATAN.

Graham


I think you make my point well, Poopie. You guys all claim to know
more than we do, but when we ask you a straight question with a
definite answer, we get none. All you lot are good for is tenth-rate
abuse.


YAWN !


I prefer to cuddle up with the RDH4


It shows you belong to a bygone age.

Graham


  #92   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Ground Busses



Henry Pasternack wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote

...you two were incapable of distinguishing the grounding requirements
of a simple one-tube SE amp from the grounding requirements of a much
more complicated amp.


The grounding principles are the same for a two-stage SE amplifier as they
are for a multi-stage push-pull amplifier with NFB.


You can hardly expect the Joot CHARLATAN to understand that.

Graham

  #93   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Ground Busses

"Henry "Porno" Pasternack" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

...

...you two were incapable of distinguishing the grounding requirements
of a simple one-tube SE amp from the grounding requirements of a much
more complicated amp.


The grounding principles are the same for a two-stage SE amplifier as they
are for a multi-stage push-pull amplifier with NFB.

-Henry


What part of "No cosy chats with child molesters" do you fail to
understand, Pasternack?
  #94   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default A Joot shows off again !



Andre Jute wrote:

Since I have many times successfully handled the grounding of "two-
stage SE amplifiers"


WOW !

What a HERO you are.

What do you do for your next trick ? Jump though a fiery hoop ?

Graham

  #95   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Poopie Stevenson once more is caught lying

Andre Jute wrote:
On Mar 4, 2:44*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Henry Pasternack wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote


...you two were incapable of distinguishing the grounding requirements
of a simple one-tube SE amp from the grounding requirements of a much
more complicated amp.


The grounding principles are the same for a two-stage SE amplifier as they
are for a multi-stage push-pull amplifier with NFB.


You can hardly expect the Joot CHARLATAN to understand that.

Graham


Actually, Poopie, I was just waiting for you to agree with your team-
leader, the well-known pornographer Henry Pasternack.

Since I have many times successfully handled the grounding of "two-
stage SE amplifiers" and since, as you just agreed with Pompass
Plodnick, "The grounding principles are the same for a two-stage SE
amplifier as they are for a multi-stage push-pull amplifier with NFB",
you have also just agreed that I would have handled the grounding of a
multichannel mixer quite as well as you did (or probably better since
I have a vastly more flexible mind than yours, dear old Poopster).

Thanks, Porno Pas. Do come again; we always enjoy you putting your
foot in your mouth and your other foot in your friend's teeth!

Andre Jute
Friend of orthodontists everywhere

*****
which the wretched Poopie then perjures to read:
*****
Andre Jute wrote:
Since I have many times successfully handled the grounding of "two-
stage SE amplifiers"


WOW !

What *a HERO you are.

What do you do for your next trick ? Jump though a fiery hoop ?

Graham


You're fundamentally dishonest, besides being unprofessional, Poopie,
just like your team leader Henry "Porno" Pasternack.

Unsigned out of contempt


  #96   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
keithr keithr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 182
Default Ground Busses


"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 12:43 am, Eeyore
wrote:

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


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


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


Graham


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


Andre Jute
Calm, reasonable, cool


*all* the great newspapers of the world have lauded you for your research?
Want to post some verifyable clips? New York Times, Herald Tribune, Wall
Street Journal, Times of London, Sydney Morning Herald, Pravda any of these
would do even the News Of The World if that is all you can manage.

Keith

Open minded but cynical


  #97   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
keithr keithr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 182
Default Ground Busses


"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...


"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Andre Jute wrote:

The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress


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

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


Iain

Useless to Andre, it has no pose value.


  #98   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Ground Busses



"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Patrick Turner wrote:

For example, studios once might have used the
"fabulous" EAR509 amps for their monitor amps.
Anyone who did when these awful amps were made will not still be using
them. Lotsa reasons why.


Very few studios (almost none) use tubed power amps for monitoring. I have
actually met
NONE using tubes in their monitoring.



Any studio of worth will set up a monitoring system to suit
the client's requirements. If he asks for Lockwoods and
a tube amp, then they will certainly oblige.

The recording team with which I am associated has a couple
of very good UK built tube amps (Radford - ex BBC)
The STA100 was available for location recording rental
until quite recently (it's too valuable now:-) It was in
constant demand.


An EAR 509 is most certainly NOT a pro-audio product. I'd classify it as
elitist hi-fi.

I would certainly agree with that:-)

Iain





  #99   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Ground Busses



"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 2, 8:33 am, Patrick Turner wrote:

Good Stuff.


Patrick, reducing your and Iain's post to a very few salient points,
am I correct in deriving "best practice" as follows:


a) The chassis must be grounded to the mains ground

Most books seem to stress this, and the amp builders
I have know seem to have always paid particular attention to it.
It is critical for safety.

b) The circuit ground should be separate and isolated from the chassis/
case, connected via the 27ohm@5W resistor.


I have seen boards in a setero amp with the grounds separated
by a 10 Ohm resistor, but this is the first time I recall hearing about
this excellent 27 Ohm 5W solution. I would like to try it.


c) The circuit ground should be as short as possible and loops (such
as connecting signal-shields at both ends) are to be avoided.

A friend of mine in the UK was I was young was a prototype
wireman. He used to make up all sort of interesting circuits for
the studio where he worked. He taught me that the input wirirng
should be grounded at the input connector (connector isolated
from the chassis)

I see safety addresssed by grounding the chassis directly to the mains
ground. I see any excess potentials within the circuit bleeding to the
case. I also see isolating the circuit from the case helping when
other components are connected (and grounded).


There seem to be several ways to build a quiet hum-free amp.
Most people seem to be happy with an amplifier with no hum
or hiss audible from the listening position. With careful work,
it is possible to build an amplifier which is dead silent even with
your ear against the speaker.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...em/C50_002.jpg


Regards to all
Iain




  #100   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Ground Busses



"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Henry Pasternack wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

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


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


Don't you mean more hum than silence?

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


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


In my experience, the layout and ground scheme can make or
break and amp. The schematic only tells half the story. As far
as tube amps go, careful examination of mil spec equipment, or
units built for studio use, can tell you a lot. The bean-counters
had a lot less influence over their design than they would have had
over equipment made for the domestic market.

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


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


ISTM there are two ways to learn about this kind of thing.
You can do it the hard way, and make the same mistake over and
over again, gradually implementing changes which lead to improvement,
or: You can listen to people with experience, and gain info from
books and looking at real-world examples. I have done some of
both. But still I have a lot to learn.

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

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

It took days and weeks of practice.

It's taken me forty years - so far:-)

Iain





  #101   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Ground Busses



Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Patrick Turner wrote:

For example, studios once might have used the
"fabulous" EAR509 amps for their monitor amps.
Anyone who did when these awful amps were made will not still be using
them. Lotsa reasons why.


Very few studios (almost none) use tubed power amps for monitoring. I have
actually met NONE using tubes in their monitoring.


Any studio of worth will set up a monitoring system to suit
the client's requirements. If he asks for Lockwoods and
a tube amp, then they will certainly oblige.


Sure, no argument there. I'm referring to what is standard fit in the studios
I'm familiar with.

I can't imagine amny people asking to monotor on the coffins though !


The recording team with which I am associated has a couple
of very good UK built tube amps (Radford - ex BBC)
The STA100 was available for location recording rental
until quite recently (it's too valuable now:-) It was in
constant demand.


Yes, you've mentioned them before.


An EAR 509 is most certainly NOT a pro-audio product. I'd classify it as
elitist hi-fi.


I would certainly agree with that:-)


Quite.

Graham

  #102   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Ground Busses



Iain Churches wrote:

"Peter Wieck" wrote

Good Stuff.


Patrick, reducing your and Iain's post to a very few salient points,
am I correct in deriving "best practice" as follows:


a) The chassis must be grounded to the mains ground


But it doesn't have to be if your transformer and other mains wiring meets
Class II.

Bear in mind that safety earthing isn't universal even in Europe. I gather
that Denmark ? in particular has many unearthed outlets.

Graham

  #103   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Ground Busses



"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Patrick Turner wrote:

For example, studios once might have used the
"fabulous" EAR509 amps for their monitor amps.
Anyone who did when these awful amps were made will not still be using
them. Lotsa reasons why.

Very few studios (almost none) use tubed power amps for monitoring. I
have
actually met NONE using tubes in their monitoring.


Any studio of worth will set up a monitoring system to suit
the client's requirements. If he asks for Lockwoods and
a tube amp, then they will certainly oblige.


Sure, no argument there. I'm referring to what is standard fit in the
studios
I'm familiar with.


Most have to take a fairly conservative approach.

Someone who was following the tube mixer thread e-mailed
me to say there was a studio with a 24/8/2 tube mixer in Chiswick
W.London which had been bought from a major studio in the 1970s.
EMI, Decca, CBS? I asked him for more detail.

I can't imagine amny people asking to monotor on the coffins though !


A pair of Lockwood Majors were recently sold for UKP 2 000.



The recording team with which I am associated has a couple
of very good UK built tube amps (Radford - ex BBC)
The STA100 was available for location recording rental
until quite recently (it's too valuable now:-) It was in
constant demand.


Yes, you've mentioned them before.


Even though it had a very suibstantial flight case, we decided
not to rent it any more. It has earned its keep many many
times over.

Iain



  #104   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Ground Busses

keithr wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 12:43 am, Eeyore
wrote:

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


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


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


Graham


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


Andre Jute
Calm, reasonable, cool


*all* the great newspapers of the world have lauded you for your research?
Want to post some verifyable clips? New York Times, Herald Tribune, Wall
Street Journal, Times of London, Sydney Morning Herald, Pravda any of these
would do even the News Of The World if that is all you can manage.


Keith

Open minded but cynical


Since you insist, samples are he
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
If you care so much, you can look up the rest for yourself in the
archives of the world's great papers. Happy now?

Andre Jute
"Plenty of good advice...Jute is great...a private godsend" -- Ruth
Rendell /The Times

  #105   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Another ankle-nipper waterbombs RAT Ground Busses

On Mar 4, 10:31*am, "keithr" wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

ti.fi...



"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Andre Jute wrote:


The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress


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


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


Iain


Useless to Andre, it has no pose value.


You're an idiot, Keith. If I wanted to pose, i'd list the names of the
CAD programmes for the MicroShoddy OS that I own and have mastered.
Instead I say modestly that I use a programme from one of my
professions because I am perfectly at ease with it on my Mac, and you
conclude it is a pose. Don't give up your day job to become a
psychologist, sonny; you'll never make even the first cut.

Andre Jute
Truly tired of fools coming to RAT to throw themselves against my
ankles


  #106   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default Ground Busses

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Iain Churches wrote:

"Peter Wieck" wrote

Good Stuff.


Patrick, reducing your and Iain's post to a very few salient points,
am I correct in deriving "best practice" as follows:


a) The chassis must be grounded to the mains ground


But it doesn't have to be if your transformer and other mains wiring meets
Class II.

Bear in mind that safety earthing isn't universal even in Europe. I gather
that Denmark ? in particular has many unearthed outlets.


What does Europe have to do with this issue, I thought that the presence
of "safety earthing", or lack thereof, was mostly an issue of how old
the building is, or are you saying that in Europe there was a directive
that all outlets without "safety earthing" must be upgraded?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #107   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Ground Busses



Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
Iain Churches wrote:

Any studio of worth will set up a monitoring system to suit
the client's requirements. If he asks for Lockwoods and
a tube amp, then they will certainly oblige.


Sure, no argument there. I'm referring to what is standard fit in the
studios I'm familiar with.


Most have to take a fairly conservative approach.


Typically in the UK might mean ATCs.

Graham

  #108   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Ground Busses



John Byrns wrote:

What does Europe have to do with this issue


Most of us live here !

Graham

  #109   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default Ground Busses

On Mar 4, 8:24*am, "Iain Churches" wrote:

With careful work,
it is possible to build an amplifier which is dead silent even with
your ear against the speaker.


Aren't they all supposed to be that way?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
  #110   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Ground Busses



"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 8:24 am, "Iain Churches" wrote:

With careful work,
it is possible to build an amplifier which is dead silent even with
your ear against the speaker.


Aren't they all supposed to be that way


Indeed they are "supposed" to be.
Iain




  #111   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Ground Busses



"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news


"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 8:24 am, "Iain Churches" wrote:

With careful work,
it is possible to build an amplifier which is dead silent even with
your ear against the speaker.


Aren't they all supposed to be that way


Indeed they are "supposed" to be.
Iain


PS I recently saw an "English language manual" for a
Chinese amp. It was a single sheet of folded A4)
At the bottom of the page it said:

"There may be some, but not considerable humble from the
loodspeaker".

There was indeed "considerable humble from the loodspeaker"
at both 50 and 100Hz.

Iain


  #112   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Ian Thompson-Bell Ian Thompson-Bell is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 493
Default Ground Busses

Iain Churches wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 8:24 am, "Iain Churches" wrote:

With careful work,
it is possible to build an amplifier which is dead silent even with
your ear against the speaker.
Aren't they all supposed to be that way

Indeed they are "supposed" to be.
Iain


PS I recently saw an "English language manual" for a
Chinese amp. It was a single sheet of folded A4)
At the bottom of the page it said:

"There may be some, but not considerable humble from the
loodspeaker".

There was indeed "considerable humble from the loodspeaker"
at both 50 and 100Hz.

Iain



I have often wondered if there isn't a lucrative business in there
somewhere, translating pidgin' English into 'proper' English. Even big
companies are as bad - I recently bought an ASUS EEEPC (Taiwanese) and
the Engrish in their manual is at times appalling. I guess you could
sell it to them on the basis of saving face??

Cheers

ian
  #113   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
keithr keithr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 182
Default Jooty baby's ego knows no bounds Ground Busses


"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 10:31 am, "keithr" wrote:

ti.fi...



"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Andre Jute wrote:


The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress


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


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


Iain


Useless to Andre, it has no pose value.


You're an idiot, Keith. If I wanted to pose, i'd list the names of the
CAD programmes for the MicroShoddy OS that I own and have mastered.
Instead I say modestly that I use a programme from one of my
professions because I am perfectly at ease with it on my Mac, and you
conclude it is a pose. Don't give up your day job to become a
psychologist, sonny; you'll never make even the first cut.


The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer
than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to use a
computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the leading
CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best
software doesn't)

Andre Jute
Truly tired of fools coming to RAT to throw themselves against my
ankles


In my life, I have met quite a few peole who were up themselves, but you
would be the first who was up himself so far that he has turned himself into
a klein bottle


  #114   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Jon Yaeger Jon Yaeger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 645
Default Jooty baby's ego knows no bounds Ground Busses




The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer
than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to use a
computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the leading
CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best
software doesn't)


Pardon?

The Mac is used by people who appreciate a simple interface, and don't wish
to spend $$, CPU cycles, and grief fending off viruses and other attacks.

Preference should not be confused with arrogance.

Sure, there are packages not designed for Macs -- there is a particular
shortage of decent accounting programs, for example -- but if an owner of a
current Mac wishes to do so, he can install a virtual Windows machine and
run Mac, Windows, & a flavor of Linux or Unix. In other words, just about
anything.

Can a Windows box match that? No that I know of.

Jon

  #115   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Why the Macs is the computer of choice for intelligent people, was

On Mar 4, 10:39*pm, "keithr" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:


The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress


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


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


Iain


Useless to Andre, it has no pose value.


You're an idiot, Keith. If I wanted to pose, i'd list the names of the
CAD programmes for the MicroShoddy OS that I own and have mastered.
Instead I say modestly that I use a programme from one of my
professions because I am perfectly at ease with it on my Mac, and you
conclude it is a pose. Don't give up your day job to become a
psychologist, sonny; you'll never make even the first cut.


The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer
than the unwashed masses


I'm not a snob. I'm talking to you, as everyone can see, including you
when you wipe the **** from your eyes.

or people unable or unwilling to learn how to use a
computer.


Ugh. I had a computer of my own when they still had tubes and lived
humidity-controlled lives behind air locks. At the time you could
write to all the computer owners in the world because there was a list
of them and it was only a few hundred names.

Besides being an ignoramus, you're an idiot, Keith. You haven't asked
the key question: When did I start using a Mac"

As a typographer, what people like you call a graphic designer, I
started with Macs before the Mac (first there was the Lisa) because
the OS Apple took over from Xerox PARC was the only one which
communicated directly with the reprographics machines I needed to do
film separations for colour printing. Do you actually know how
recently Windoze machines caught on to Postscript? Don't bother
telling me; I already know you don't know, or you wouldn't make these
stupid remarks.

So I'm in Macs because they did something right in the beginning, and
that is as good as reason as any to remain loyal to them despite the
mouth-foaming of little cheapskates like you. In addition, I'm rather
particular about the ergonomics of anything I use, and Bill Gates and
his krowd of krude klowns cannot even spell ergonomics; the Apple OS,
plus Apple physical unit design, are pretty compelling reasons to
stick with what works.

Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the leading
CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best
software doesn't)


Even if true, which it isn't, why should that either influence or
bother me? All the software I want runs on a Mac (I actually have
Windows operating on my Mac but very, very rarely want to use the
clumsy programmes written for it -- I just have it load at startup so
that if, God forbid, I should want it, I don't have to sit around
twiddling my thumbs forever while Windows checks the ur-code left over
by MS-DOS that those incompetent programmers in Redmond didn't
remove). I can draw better schematics in the Mac software I like than
most CAD programmes under any OS can draw. See, sonny, it is about my
rather valuable time, not about what some little IT fashion victim
like you or Poopie has heard on some low-rent street corner.

Andre Jute
Truly tired of fools coming to RAT to throw themselves against my
ankles


In my life, I have met quite a few peole who were up themselves, but you
would be the first who was up himself so far that he has turned himself into
a klein bottle


Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're another little nobody who thinks that tearing
down other people's achievements will stretch his quarter-inch dick.
Let us know if you feel a twinge and we'll make you famous, or at
least notorious.

Yawn.

Are we don yet?

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

PS Yo, Yaeger, that I agree with you about Macs doesn't mean we are
going steady.


  #116   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Jooty baby's ego knows no bounds Ground Busses



Jon Yaeger wrote:

The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer
than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to use a
computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the leading
CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best
software doesn't)


Pardon?

The Mac is used by people who appreciate a simple interface, and don't wish
to spend $$, CPU cycles, and grief fending off viruses and other attacks.


NO.

The Mac simply HIDES the techy bits better. They are most certainly still there
and not unlike Microsoft's offerings.

Trust me, I have had to do tech support on them. Simply thinking about it should
tell you they can be no less complicated than a PC.

Graham

  #117   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Why the Macs is the computer of choice for dimwits and LIARS



Andre Jute wrote:

I had a computer of my own when they still had tubes


LIAR !

You had no such thing whatever. Your extravant pomposity has finally burst the
balloon of your ego.


Graham

  #118   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Jon Yaeger Jon Yaeger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 645
Default Jooty baby's ego knows no bounds Ground Busses

in article , Jon Yaeger at
wrote on 3/4/08 5:49 PM:




The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer
than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to use a
computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the leading
CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best
software doesn't)


Pardon?

The Mac is used by people who appreciate a simple interface, and don't wish
to spend $$, CPU cycles, and grief fending off viruses and other attacks.

Preference should not be confused with arrogance.

Sure, there are packages not designed for Macs -- there is a particular
shortage of decent accounting programs, for example -- but if an owner of a
current Mac wishes to do so, he can install a virtual Windows machine and
run Mac, Windows, & a flavor of Linux or Unix. In other words, just about
anything.

Can a Windows box match that? No that I know of.

Jon




Jon Yaeger wrote:

The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer
than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to use a
computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the leading
CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best
software doesn't)


Pardon?

The Mac is used by people who appreciate a simple interface, and don't wish
to spend $$, CPU cycles, and grief fending off viruses and other attacks.


Graham wrote:

NO.

The Mac simply HIDES the techy bits better. They are most certainly still
there and not unlike Microsoft's offerings.


*** I said INTERFACE. Not programs / programming / etc. By interface I
mean the desktop and what people deal with after they turn their machines
on. And so your point is?


Trust me, I have had to do tech support on them. Simply thinking about it
should tell you they can be no less complicated than a PC.

*** I never said they were less complicated. I've done plenty of support
on both, down to the chip level (and programming in machine language for
PCs). They are simply more elegantly executed, IMHO.


Graham


  #119   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Let's see the stuff(ing?) of which Poopie Stevenson is made

Poopie Stevenson aka Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
I had a computer of my own when they still had tubes


LIAR !


Prove it, Poopie.

You had no such thing whatever.


So you say, Poopie. Prove it, Poopie.

Your extravant pomposity has finally burst the
balloon of your ego.


Not at all, Poopie. We're just demonstrating that the limits of your
parochial mind is set by what happened in your provincial back yard
when you were a teenager, and now in your senility by your riprorting
blood pressure as measured by these fulminations.

Graham


I look forward to your proof of your contentions. When you fail to
provide proof, I shall be here to kick your lazy, slack, ugly, fat
arse over the cathedral for being a liar and a false accuser.

Andre Jute
Not from your tacky street corner
  #120   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default A Mac is an elegant implementation for elegant people, so...

A Mac is an elegant implementation for elegant people, so it isn't
surprising that someone without elegance, like you Poopie, won't
understand; you should try to look beyond the components to the
concept, if you can.

HTH.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of inducing apoplexy in undesirables by merely
existing elegantly


On Mar 5, 1:56*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Jon Yaeger wrote:
The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer
than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to use a
computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the leading
CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best
software doesn't)


Pardon?


The Mac is used by people who appreciate a simple interface, and don't wish
to spend $$, CPU cycles, and grief fending off viruses and other attacks..


NO.

The Mac simply HIDES the techy bits better. They are most certainly still there
and not unlike Microsoft's offerings.

Trust me, I have had to do tech support on them. Simply thinking about it should
tell you they can be no less complicated than a PC.

Graham


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Busses in Adobe Audition 1.5 Rivergoat Pro Audio 5 July 14th 06 04:01 AM
Audio Ground 10 ohms above powersupply ground?? Vacuum Tubes 1 December 12th 05 10:03 PM
Floating ground to common ground question. Lee Wasson Car Audio 0 June 7th 04 05:36 PM
VCAs vs. subs vs. busses vs. groups Luther Bell Pro Audio 16 May 17th 04 07:08 AM
why rca ground isolators just sound better than cleaning ground points Spockie Car Audio 21 May 13th 04 01:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:25 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"