[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore the Criminal Lunatic "


The classic QSC arrangement with grounded collectors has no qiescent
current in the output devices.

** Massive BLATANT LIE !!

FACT.

** But it is not fact.

And you have no proof.

Cos it is simply not true.

It can improve the THD performance

**Another blatant LIE !!

Stevenson is completely INSANE with:

1. Congenital autism.

2. Massive narcissism.

3. Manic personality disorder.

He tells massive lies, thousands of them.




...... Phil

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

** The audio is funking MP3 "perceptually compressed " ****e.

We were talking about mp2. Did you not read this bit in Jan's file ?

AUDIO: 48000 Hz, 2 ch, and several more instances.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

** Five QSC MX series amps I have here RIGHT NOW prove you WRONG.

All have about 20 mA per output BJT at idle - more when hot.

I suppose you set them that way.

** That is they are - from the factory.

The factory no longer makes them and hasn't for about 10 ? years.

Graham

[Phil Allison]

"Eeyore" = Graham Stevenson = a RABID NUT CASE


Phil Allison wrote:

** The audio is funking MP3 "perceptually compressed " ****e.

We were talking about mp2.


** The sub topic was DTV audio

- you LYING ASD ****ED PILE of POMMY **** !!





...... Phil

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore the Criminal Lunatic "

The classic QSC arrangement with grounded collectors has no qiescent
current in the output devices.

** Massive BLATANT LIE !!

FACT.

** But it is not fact.

And you have no proof.

Cos it is simply not true.

It can improve the THD performance

**Another blatant LIE !!

Clearly you know nothing about amplifier design and the role of rapidly
changing gm in the output stage in the crossover area. Correctly configured,
the above technique helps enormously.

All you have to do is measure one of my D or E series amps. Or an AX series
even.

Inidentally, the 700D had a full power 1kHz THD of 0.008%. Better than many
hi-fi amps. In the AX I got it down to about 0.005%.

Graham

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:51:01 +1000) it happened "Phil Allison"
wrote in :

** Nonsense - DTV is all MP3 encoded.

There is no defined sampling rate.



First it is mp2 encoded, and second most is 48KHz sampled.


** ROTFLMFAO !!

WOT COMPLETE ******** !!!!!!!!!!


MP2 is a ****ing VIDEO format - you MORON !!!!!!!!!!!

Oh really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP2
More specific:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1_Audio_Layer_II



Wot a pathetic, ridiculous ASD ****ed, wog IMBECILE !!!

The next nuthouse (psychiatric help) is quite close to
where you live, according to google maps.

Go DROP ****ING DEAD

- NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why, because you are wrong?
Go listen to ants in the outback :-)




.... Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Eeyore = Graham Stevenson = CRIMINAL SCUM



** Five QSC MX series amps I have here RIGHT NOW prove you WRONG.

All have about 20 mA per output BJT at idle - more when hot.

I suppose you set them that way.

** That is as they are - from the factory.

The factory no longer makes them


** YOU raised the issue of the QSC USA and MX models.

" Anyone that can't hear the distortion of QSC USA or MX series must have
severely damaged hearing.

The classic QSC arrangement with grounded collectors has no quiescent
current in the output devices. "


So now you admit you have never even seen one !!!

YOU ****ING LIAR !!

Get cancer and DIE you vile scumbag.

ASAP.



...... Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Jan Panteltje"



** Hey you WOG **** HEAD .

DTV = broadcast digital TV

It is all ****ing MPEG encoded.

The BROADCAST digital audio signal has no defined bit rate.

YOU COLOSSAL ****ING MORON !!!




...... Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore the Criminal Lunatic "

The classic QSC arrangement with grounded collectors has no qiescent
current in the output devices.

** Massive BLATANT LIE !!

FACT.

** But it is not fact.

And you have no proof.

Cos it is simply not true.

It can improve the THD performance


**Another blatant LIE !!

YOU just told everyone how these QSC amps have audible crossover distortion.


Stevenson is a completely INSANE LIAR with:

1. Congenital autism.

2. Massive narcissism.

3. Manic personality disorder.


He tells MASSIVE lies, thousands of them.

He is telling MORE right now.





...... Phil

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 26 Sep 2008 02:29:05 +1000) it happened "Phil Allison"
wrote in :


"Jan Panteltje"



** Hey you WOG **** HEAD .

DTV = broadcast digital TV

It is all ****ing MPEG encoded.

The BROADCAST digital audio signal has no defined bit rate.

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1_Audio_Layer_II

quote
Technical Specifications

MPEG-1 Layer II is defined in ISO/IEC 11172-3

* Sampling rates: 32, 44.1 and 48 kHz
* Bitrates: 32, 48, 56, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 160, 192, 224, 256, 320 and 384 kbit/s

An extension has been provided in MPEG-2 Layer II and is defined in ISO/IEC 13818-3

* Additional sampling rates: 16, 22.05 and 24 kHz
* Additional bitrates: 8, 16, 24, 40 and 144 kbit/s

The format is based on successive digital frames of 1152 sampling intervals with four possible formats:

* mono format
* stereo format
* joint stereo format (stereo irrelevance)
* dual channel (uncorrelated) format
end quote



YOU COLOSSAL ****ING MORON !!!

You really do not understand digital audio I think :-)




..... Phil

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore the Criminal Lunatic "

It can improve the THD performance

**Another blatant LIE !!

YOU just told everyone how these QSC amps have audible crossover distortion.

CAN do. It requires good design too. Certainly never been a problem for me. If
it's true that the MXs do have an idle current and I know the RMXs don't, that
could help explain why the RMXs have better specs.

Graham

[Phil Allison]

"Jan Panteltje"



** Hey, you STUPID WOG **** HEAD .

DTV = broadcast digital TV !!!

It is all ****ing MPEG encoded.

The ** BROADCAST digital audio signal ** has no defined bit rate.



YOU COLOSSAL ****ING ILLITERATE MORON !!!




...... Phil

[Phil Allison]

Eeysore the Criminal Lunatic "


The classic QSC arrangement with grounded collectors has no qiescent
current in the output devices.

** Massive BLATANT LIE !!

FACT.

** But it is not fact.

And you have no proof.

Cos it is simply not true.

It can improve the THD performance


** Another blatant LIE !!

YOU just told everyone how these QSC amps have audible crossover distortion
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Stevenson is a completely INSANE LIAR with:

1. Congenital autism.

2. Massive narcissism.

3. Manic personality disorder.



He tells MASSIVE lies, thousands of them.

He is telling MORE LIES right now.





...... Phil

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

Eeysore the Criminal Lunatic "

The classic QSC arrangement with grounded collectors has no qiescent
current in the output devices.

** Massive BLATANT LIE !!

FACT.

** But it is not fact.

And you have no proof.

Cos it is simply not true.

It can improve the THD performance

** Another blatant LIE !!

YOU just told everyone how these QSC amps have audible crossover distortion
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which may simply be bad design unrelated to the biasing factor.

I can beat QSC's figures with zero large device quiescent.

Graham

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

BobW wrote:

Phil,

You have a mental illness. You probably don't realize it, but it's obvious
to others. If you're not already doing so, for your own sake, you should
seek professional help.

So what. Anyone who participates in the newsgroups has a mental
disorder. Normal people have no interest for that; they have sex, pray
God, take precarious mortgages and watch TV. This is what they call
"having a life".

VLV

[Jorden Verwer]

JosephKK wrote:
Don't you at least agree there are many similarities between 1/f
noise and offset?


Actually, I do. By and large, they amount to the same thing. Its all low
frequency variations. For example, if one designs a chopper amp to get
low
offset, it also kills/corrects for 1/f noise as well. If one has 1/f
problems in an system, one immediately thinks about using a chopper..well
I
do any way...


Kevin Aylward
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice


I am less sure about it killing 1/f (flicker) noise rather than band
shifting it to a place where is can be filtered out.
The 1/f noise ends up in a part of the spectrum that you were going to
filter out anyway, given that you're using a chopper amp.

It is not offset, though the chopper amplifiers can mask it out.
No, it's not the same, but it is related. It has many of the same
properties.

[Eeyore]

BobW wrote:

Phil,

You have a mental illness. You probably don't realize it, but it's obvious
to others. If you're not already doing so, for your own sake, you should
seek professional help.

I agree with you but of course now he'll call you a lunatic too !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

BobW wrote:
Phil,

You have a mental illness. You probably don't realize it, but it's obvious
to others. If you're not already doing so, for your own sake, you should
seek professional help.

So what. Anyone who participates in the newsgroups has a mental
disorder. Normal people have no interest for that; they have sex, pray
God, take precarious mortgages and watch TV. This is what they call
"having a life".

Doesn't sound like much of a life to me except the sex bit.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

Short answer - Graham has no immediate practical
experience with measuring QSC amps, just like I said.

What's 'immediate' got to do with it ? I've measured
plenty of QSCs and the MX1500 I had was shocking.

OK, but was it representative or just broken?

The RMXs are a bit better but still nothing to write home
about. I refined the RMX design for a semi-cloner of the
output stage btw and knocked the THD down significantly
with some of my little tricks like pole-zero
compensation and also made the input to the amp 'module'
quasi balanced to reduce 50/100 etc hum pickup..

Neither of which relate to claims about crossover distortion.

I've also measured the Powerlights but I don't exactly
recall their THD now mainly because my enduring memory of
them is that the short circuit protection doesn't work if
you short out a 'live signal'. Thankfully it was under
guarantee. It probably works if powered up with a short
on the output. It's easy to see why. Their protection
method is ****. Read the patent. There's too much stored
charged in those 2 electrolytic caps.

Which again does not relate to claims about crossover distortion.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

If you had a group of 30 well-chosen, well-trained
listeners, then there would be no such thing as "...30
listeners and 3 were consistently about to determine A
from B and the other 27 couldn't..."

And how exactly do you determine that ?

By using well-trained, well-chosen listeners. They tend to perform near the
limits of human perception, which is to say that they are consistent with
each other. Reality might be be that 27 out of 30, when evaluated
individually, consistently distinguish A from B at the 99 percent confidence
level, and maybe 3 others are off that pace, but not enough to ruin the
results of the group taken as a whole. When you sum up the results of 30
people, far fewer correct results are required for a high-confidence result,
than would be required for just one person with the same number of trials.

You just proved that ABX testing ignores those with the
most sensitive or highly trained hearing and is therefore
merely a lowest common denominator test.

No such thing.

I don't think you really understand what proof or good experimental design
and analysis is, Graham.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

However I WILL NOT engage in futile discussion about
things *I* know I *can* hear.

All the audiophool golden ears say *exactly* the same
thing.

And as I said it was chalk and cheese.


And as I said, all the audiophool golden ears say *exactly* the same
thing.


Not stupid liquid nitrogen dipped speaker cables or that
kind of garbage.


No possible audible difference is the same whether the test is ludicrous or
close enough to be interesting.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

I have more highly sensitive audio test gear by accident
then most people have on purpose. I probably shouldn't
admit this because it shows a certain kind of
carelessness.

Not more sensitive than Audio Precision or Prism Sound.

Better than a Prism Sound ADA-8 or an AP System One.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:

Short answer - Graham has no immediate practical
experience with measuring QSC amps, just like I said.

What's 'immediate' got to do with it ? I've measured
plenty of QSCs and the MX1500 I had was shocking.

OK, but was it representative or just broken?

Brand new out of the box as I recall. It met its miserable specs. It
sounded like a gravel machine.

Why are so against low distortion ? You're sounding like a tubie.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:

If you had a group of 30 well-chosen, well-trained
listeners, then there would be no such thing as "...30
listeners and 3 were consistently about to determine A
from B and the other 27 couldn't..."

And how exactly do you determine that ?

By using well-trained, well-chosen listeners.

Chosen by whom ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

I don't think you really understand what proof or good experimental design
and analysis is, Graham.

I don't think you understand that ultra low distortion is a GOOD THING.

You're merely an apologist for the mediocre.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:

However I WILL NOT engage in futile discussion about
things *I* know I *can* hear.

All the audiophool golden ears say *exactly* the same
thing.

And as I said it was chalk and cheese.

And as I said, all the audiophool golden ears say *exactly* the same
thing.

But I don't claim to be an "audiophool golden ear", just someone with decent
hearing.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
Arny Krueger wrote:

I have more highly sensitive audio test gear by accident
then most people have on purpose. I probably shouldn't
admit this because it shows a certain kind of
carelessness.

Not more sensitive than Audio Precision or Prism Sound.

Better than a Prism Sound ADA-8

Which isn't test equipment anyway.


or an AP System One.

Better than a brilliant 20+ year old design ? No longer in production
btw. It's System 2 now. I'd like to know by how much to be honest.

Graham

[Jorden Verwer]

JosephKK wrote:
Noise-like phenomena, in increasing order of bandwith:
Offset == 1/f noise == white noise


OK alligator, where does shot noise fall in the spectrum?
I never claimed that the list was exhausistive, but to answer your question:
I would put it between 1/f noise and white noise.

[Don Pearce]

Jorden Verwer wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
Noise-like phenomena, in increasing order of bandwith:
Offset == 1/f noise == white noise

OK alligator, where does shot noise fall in the spectrum?
I never claimed that the list was exhausistive, but to answer your question:
I would put it between 1/f noise and white noise.



The spectrum of shot noise is white - why would it be otherwise?

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:

Short answer - Graham has no immediate practical
experience with measuring QSC amps, just like I said.

What's 'immediate' got to do with it ? I've measured
plenty of QSCs and the MX1500 I had was shocking.

OK, but was it representative or just broken?

Brand new out of the box as I recall. It met its
miserable specs. It sounded like a gravel machine.

The specs are such that the machine could have a pretty serious fault, and
still meet specs.

Why are so against low distortion ?

Me, against low distortion?

However, there's plenty of evidence that THD below 0.02% in actual use is a
nit.

You're sounding like a tubie.

Not at all.

[Randy Yates]

"Phil Allison" writes:

"Jan Panteltje"



** Hey, you STUPID WOG **** HEAD .

DTV = broadcast digital TV !!!

It is all ****ing MPEG encoded.

The ** BROADCAST digital audio signal ** has no defined bit rate.



YOU COLOSSAL ****ING ILLITERATE MORON !!!

Proof by derision?
--
% Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% % 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Jorden Verwer]

Don Pearce wrote:
Jorden Verwer wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
Noise-like phenomena, in increasing order of bandwith:
Offset == 1/f noise == white noise

OK alligator, where does shot noise fall in the spectrum?
I never claimed that the list was exhausistive, but to answer your
question:
I would put it between 1/f noise and white noise.



The spectrum of shot noise is white - why would it be otherwise?
Shot noise will always be band limited because electrons have a nonzero
transit time. Its bandwith is very high, but not infinite.

[Randy Yates]

"Jorden Verwer" writes:

Don Pearce wrote:
Jorden Verwer wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
Noise-like phenomena, in increasing order of bandwith:
Offset == 1/f noise == white noise

OK alligator, where does shot noise fall in the spectrum?
I never claimed that the list was exhausistive, but to answer your
question:
I would put it between 1/f noise and white noise.



The spectrum of shot noise is white - why would it be otherwise?
Shot noise will always be band limited because electrons have a nonzero
transit time. Its bandwith is very high, but not infinite.

Not that it's related, but it may be interesting to note that
thermal noise is also bandlimited. See

http://www.claysturner.com/dsp/Johns...st%20Noise.pdf

--
% Randy Yates % "Remember the good old 1980's, when
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % things were so uncomplicated?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Phil Allison]

"Bob******"


** Drop dead you ****ing tenth witted ass.




...... Phil

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:

However I WILL NOT engage in futile discussion about
things *I* know I *can* hear.

All the audiophool golden ears say *exactly* the same
thing.

And as I said it was chalk and cheese.

And as I said, all the audiophool golden ears say
*exactly* the same thing.

But I don't claim to be an "audiophool golden ear", just
someone with decent hearing.

Again, that is exactly we hear from virtually all of the audiophiles who
believe in weird cables and all the rest.

There is a pervasive natural tendency to underestimate the effects of bias
on what we perceive. Most people are shocked by what they hear the first
time they participate in a bias-controlled listening test involving even
subtle, but audible differences. They find out that they have been living in
a glass house.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
in
Arny Krueger wrote:

I have more highly sensitive audio test gear by
accident then most people have on purpose. I probably
shouldn't admit this because it shows a certain kind of
carelessness.

Not more sensitive than Audio Precision or Prism Sound.

Better than a Prism Sound ADA-8

Which isn't test equipment anyway.

Well, yes and no. With computer testing software, any ADC-DAC can perform as
some kind of audio test equipment.

Besides, I'm not the one who brought Prism up.

or an AP System One.

Better than a brilliant 20+ year old design ? No longer
in production btw. It's System 2 now. I'd like to know by
how much to be honest.

The LynxTwo runs neck-and-neck with an AP System 2, according to its
designer who of course has one.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:

Short answer - Graham has no immediate practical
experience with measuring QSC amps, just like I said.

What's 'immediate' got to do with it ? I've measured
plenty of QSCs and the MX1500 I had was shocking.

OK, but was it representative or just broken?

Brand new out of the box as I recall. It met its
miserable specs. It sounded like a gravel machine.

The specs are such that the machine could have a pretty serious fault, and
still meet specs.

Why are so against low distortion ?

Me, against low distortion?

However, there's plenty of evidence that THD below 0.02% in actual use is a
nit.

You're sounding like a tubie.

Not at all.

0.02% is at least more reasonable than 0.1% which is all even some modern
transistor amps can deliver.

I'm happier with 0.01% myself (that's why I designed for 0.008% on my 700D
model) although as I've stated before, full power THD is only a small part of
the whole story.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:

However I WILL NOT engage in futile discussion about
things *I* know I *can* hear.

All the audiophool golden ears say *exactly* the same
thing.

And as I said it was chalk and cheese.

And as I said, all the audiophool golden ears say
*exactly* the same thing.

But I don't claim to be an "audiophool golden ear", just
someone with decent hearing.

Again, that is exactly we hear from virtually all of the audiophiles who
believe in weird cables and all the rest.

There is a pervasive natural tendency to underestimate the effects of bias
on what we perceive. Most people are shocked by what they hear the first
time they participate in a bias-controlled listening test involving even
subtle, but audible differences. They find out that they have been living in
a glass house.

Well, you're wrong about this one. Remember it was a comparison between a 0.1%
rated THD amp and one with 0.01%. You yourself have set a benchmark in your
previous post of 0.02%.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

I have more highly sensitive audio test gear by
accident then most people have on purpose. I probably
shouldn't admit this because it shows a certain kind of
carelessness.

Not more sensitive than Audio Precision or Prism Sound.

Better than a Prism Sound ADA-8

Which isn't test equipment anyway.

Well, yes and no. With computer testing software, any ADC-DAC can perform as
some kind of audio test equipment.

Besides, I'm not the one who brought Prism up.

or an AP System One.

Better than a brilliant 20+ year old design ? No longer
in production btw. It's System 2 now. I'd like to know by
how much to be honest.

The LynxTwo runs neck-and-neck with an AP System 2, according to its
designer who of course has one.

So not actually 'better' then ?

Graham

[Chris Hornbeck]

headers trimmed to my newsgroup of interest - recommended


On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:25:06 -0000, "Jorden Verwer"
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
Noise-like phenomena, in increasing order of bandwith:
Offset == 1/f noise == white noise


OK alligator, where does shot noise fall in the spectrum?
I never claimed that the list was exhausistive, but to answer your question:
I would put it between 1/f noise and white noise.

Although this thread is drifting way beyond topic, it's
maybe interesting that 1/f falls into the realm of "excess"
noise, inherently non-"white", that is (properly) non-Gaussian.

"Shot noise" has taken several meanings over the decades,
sometimes mutually contradictory.

Originally the term meant a fuzzy version of thermal or
Johnson or whatever one calls the simple excitation of
matter with temperature. This was back in the dark ages
before last week.

Lately, it seems to have acquired a grad-school meaning
associated with the tranfer of finite numbers of electrons.

Goes without saying, these two meanings are contradictory, so
everybody needs to specify whether (s)he is or isn't a grad
student.

All good fortune,
Chris Hornbeck