[Peter Wieck]

On May 14, 9:34 pm, Eeyore
wrote:

You've lost your edge you know.

Never had one. Sometimes "bitter" may be ineptly described as "sharp",
but the commander is a one-note instrument badly played by Mr. McCoy.
There is nothing there of independent mien.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
"George M. Middius" wrote:

Don Pearce said:

Where bodge would be a makeshift attempt at repair,
kludge has more the flavour of the way the thing is
actually made, but looks like a bodge.

Have you Brits adopted "Krooge" yet? ;-)

You've lost your edge you know.

The Middiot never had an edge. The Middiot started out here ranting and
raving about coneheads, and went downhill rapidly from there. Now, he can
take credit for completely destroying a once-vibrant Usenet audio group with
his endless spew of cryptic mutterings.

[Andre Jute]

robert casey wrote:
Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric
system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term
and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on.
"There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but
current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065
amps. ...... :-(

Ha! The one I liked was mhos, made by spelling ohms backwards, now
renamed siemens presumably because the measurement is sponsored by the
German electronics Gmbh.

Andre Jute
Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the
Borg. -- Robert Casey, a great Irishman

[Eeyore]

robert casey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
robert casey wrote:

And how many pints in a gallon, this gets to be a PITA.

How many fl oz in a pint ? It's different if it's a US or Imperial pint.

Then again.....

A pint of beer in Australia or New Zealand is 570 mL, except in South Australia
where a pint is 425 mL and 570 mL is called an imperial pint.

A 375 mL bottle of liquor in the US and the Canadian maritime provinces is
referred to as a “pint”, hearkening back to the days when liquor came in actual
US pints, quarts, and half-gallons.

United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations (Imperial)
1 pint = 20 fluid ounces = 568.26125 mL ? 568 mL

United States
1 pint (wet) = 16 fluid ounces = 2 cups ? 473 mL


Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric
system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term
and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on.
"There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but
current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065
amps. ...... :-(

Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla.

Graham

[Peter Wieck]

I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player,

Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about
5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of
29.9. Obese is 30.

If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount
their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case,
using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth.

No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height (but
only while riding).

Rugby player...

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:24:35 GMT, Eeyore
wrote:



robert casey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
robert casey wrote:

And how many pints in a gallon, this gets to be a PITA.

How many fl oz in a pint ? It's different if it's a US or Imperial pint.

Then again.....

A pint of beer in Australia or New Zealand is 570 mL, except in South Australia
where a pint is 425 mL and 570 mL is called an imperial pint.

A 375 mL bottle of liquor in the US and the Canadian maritime provinces is
referred to as a “pint”, hearkening back to the days when liquor came in actual
US pints, quarts, and half-gallons.

United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations (Imperial)
1 pint = 20 fluid ounces = 568.26125 mL ? 568 mL

United States
1 pint (wet) = 16 fluid ounces = 2 cups ? 473 mL


Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric
system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term
and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on.
"There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but
current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065
amps. ...... :-(

Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla.

Graham


Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Eeyore]

Gerry wrote:

On May 14, 4:42 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Gerry said:

RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge.
What the hell is "bodge"????
It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but
the meaning is plain.
My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in
school and ask the child to clue you in.
It was not 'obvious' at all.

Yes it was.

No - it was not. It's an archaic word not used on a regular basis in
America. Webster's 1956 Dictionary describes bodge as an obsolete
version of the word botch.

Well yes.

A bodge is a kind of half-botched fix-up.

Graham

[Sander deWaal]

(Don Pearce) said:


Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla.


Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though?


Hah! Did you know the average snail travels 3 furlongs per fortnight?

Bet you didn't! ;-)

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

[John Phillips]

On 2007-05-15, Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:24:35 GMT, Eeyore
wrote:



robert casey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
robert casey wrote:

And how many pints in a gallon, this gets to be a PITA.

How many fl oz in a pint ? It's different if it's a US or Imperial pint.

Then again.....

A pint of beer in Australia or New Zealand is 570 mL, except in South Australia
where a pint is 425 mL and 570 mL is called an imperial pint.

A 375 mL bottle of liquor in the US and the Canadian maritime provinces is
referred to as a “pint”, hearkening back to the days when liquor came in actual
US pints, quarts, and half-gallons.

United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations (Imperial)
1 pint = 20 fluid ounces = 568.26125 mL ? 568 mL

United States
1 pint (wet) = 16 fluid ounces = 2 cups ? 473 mL

Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric
system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term
and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on.
"There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but
current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065
amps. ...... :-(

Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla.

Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though?

I have a friend who quotes integrated circuit die areas in nanoacres.
Another quotes speed in milli-furlongs per micro-fortnight.

Is this normal or do I have some unusual friends?
--
John Phillips

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 14:53:44 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:


Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla.


Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though?


Hah! Did you know the average snail travels 3 furlongs per fortnight?

Bet you didn't! ;-)

Well, I just looked it up, and they do 0.03mph - which is about 80
furlongs per fortnight. You have slow snails!

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

robert casey wrote:
Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric
system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term
and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on.
"There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but
current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065
amps. ...... :-(

Ha! The one I liked was mhos, made by spelling ohms backwards, now
renamed siemens presumably because the measurement is sponsored by the
German electronics Gmbh.

No sunshine. It's in recognition of the work of Ernst Werner von Siemens.

You knew that of course didn't you but felt compelled to make an anti-German
remark ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Werner_von_Siemens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_(unit)

It's pronouncded zeemens not seamens btw.

Graham

[Don Pearce]

On 15 May 2007 12:57:18 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

On 2007-05-15, Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:24:35 GMT, Eeyore
wrote:



robert casey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
robert casey wrote:

And how many pints in a gallon, this gets to be a PITA.

How many fl oz in a pint ? It's different if it's a US or Imperial pint.

Then again.....

A pint of beer in Australia or New Zealand is 570 mL, except in South Australia
where a pint is 425 mL and 570 mL is called an imperial pint.

A 375 mL bottle of liquor in the US and the Canadian maritime provinces is
referred to as a “pint”, hearkening back to the days when liquor came in actual
US pints, quarts, and half-gallons.

United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations (Imperial)
1 pint = 20 fluid ounces = 568.26125 mL ? 568 mL

United States
1 pint (wet) = 16 fluid ounces = 2 cups ? 473 mL

Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric
system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term
and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on.
"There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but
current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065
amps. ...... :-(

Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla.

Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though?

I have a friend who quotes integrated circuit die areas in nanoacres.
Another quotes speed in milli-furlongs per micro-fortnight.

Is this normal or do I have some unusual friends?

I am perfectly normal; every one of my friends is unusual. I suspect
I'm not alone in this.


d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Sander deWaal]

(Don Pearce) said:


Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though?


Hah! Did you know the average snail travels 3 furlongs per fortnight?

Bet you didn't! ;-)


Well, I just looked it up, and they do 0.03mph - which is about 80
furlongs per fortnight. You have slow snails!


We feed 'em beer, so they're mostly running around in circles.

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

[Andre Jute]

Gerry wrote:
On May 14, 4:42 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Gerry said:

Actually Gerry didn't, and wouldn't want to, say:
RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge.

I said it.

What Gerry said was
What the hell is "bodge"????

And then George replied:
It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but
the meaning is plain.
My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in
school and ask the child to clue you in.

And Gerry stubbornly insisted:
It was not 'obvious' at all.

George:
Yes it was.

Gerry:
No - it was not. It's an archaic word not used on a regular basis in
America. Webster's 1956 Dictionary describes bodge as an obsolete
version of the word botch.

Some snips of childishness for bandwidth, then George asks, reasonably
in the circumstances:
Sort of, but not precisely. Is English not your first language?

Gerry:
American English is.
but the meaning was not at all clear in the original post.

George:
Was too. Blazingly obvious.

Gerry:
The whole initial post is rather muddled and unclear because of such
uncommon verbiage as bodge.

Lovely.

Yo, Gerry, I'm a professional communicator. I say exactly what I mean,
no more, no less. If you do not follow, it is because either a) I
intended for you not to understand or b) you are a thicko below my
horizon. You might consider that everyone else understood what I
meant. The only acceptable excuse for not understanding me when I
speak that plainly is that you are unfamiliar with the technicalities
underlying RIAA emphasis and de-emphasis, in which case you should,
rather than attack my language, say you don't understand, and you will
receive a courteous explanation from the few remaining on RAT who
still honour the open-door principles of the ARRL.

Andre Jute
The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what
they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain

[John Phillips]

On 2007-05-15, Don Pearce wrote:
On 15 May 2007 12:57:18 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:
I have a friend who quotes integrated circuit die areas in nanoacres.
Another quotes speed in milli-furlongs per micro-fortnight.

Is this normal or do I have some unusual friends?

I am perfectly normal; every one of my friends is unusual. I suspect
I'm not alone in this.

To conjugate the irregular verb:
- I have an independent mind
- You're eccentric
- He's round the bend

--
John Phillips

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Yo, Gerry, I'm a professional communicator.

You mean windbag.

Graham

[Don Pearce]

On 15 May 2007 13:17:26 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

On 2007-05-15, Don Pearce wrote:
On 15 May 2007 12:57:18 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:
I have a friend who quotes integrated circuit die areas in nanoacres.
Another quotes speed in milli-furlongs per micro-fortnight.

Is this normal or do I have some unusual friends?

I am perfectly normal; every one of my friends is unusual. I suspect
I'm not alone in this.

To conjugate the irregular verb:
- I have an independent mind
- You're eccentric
- He's round the bend

Or in the northern idiom." All folks is queer 'cept thee and me. And
I'm not so sure about thee!".

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[George M. Middius]

Andre Jute said:

Gerry said:

Actually Gerry didn't, and wouldn't want to, say:

Running short of nits to pick?

but the meaning was not at all clear in the original post.

Was too. Blazingly obvious.

The whole initial post is rather muddled and unclear because of such
uncommon verbiage as bodge.

Lovely.

Gerry is one of those clods who blunders around wearing a "Kick Me"
sign, then complains whenever somebody kicks him.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eiron]

John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
Eiron wrote:


John Byrns wrote:


In article ,
Eiron wrote:

You have that graph upside down. HF is boosted for disc cutting
and reduced on playback to reduce noise (among other reasons).


No, I have the graph exactly the correct way around. The RIAA disk
cutting curve reduces the high frequency groove amplitude by roughly 12
dB using a shelving equalizer with time constants of 318.3 usec. and 75
usec. You are the one that has his RIAA groove amplitude graph upside
down, I suggest doing a little homework before making further comment so
as not to embarrass yourself in public.

I suggest doing a little homework before making further comment
so as not to embarrass yourself even more in public.
And just to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization



It is always best to read the Wikipedia with a jaundiced eye. In this
case they have omitted an explanation of some of their unstated
assumptions. The first two paragraphs are OK, but the graph and the
following paragraphs can't be correctly interpreted without
understanding the assumptions made by the Wikipedia article. The
primary problem is that the article fails to mention that they are
assuming a velocity responsive pickup that gives an output that rises at
6 dB/octave with increasing frequency, for a constant recorded groove
amplitude. If you compensate the playback curve graph shown in the
Wikipedia article for this effect you will end up with a playback curve
that is exactly the complement of the recording curve I described, where
in playback the groove amplitude must be compensated by boosting the
high frequencies by approximately 12 dB.

I know from past discussions here that the nature of the groove
amplitude cut on an RIAA equalized LP is a difficult concept for most in
this group to get their minds around, but if you drop your prejudices,
and take some time to do your homework as I suggested, understanding can
be achieved.

Your previous answer to Serge Auckland explains your confusion.
The rest of the world is not wrong and understands perfectly that
the signal is represented by the stylus velocity, not its displacement.

--
Eiron.

May contain traces of irony.

[John Byrns]

In article .com,
Andre Jute wrote:

I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player,
and officially certified to have "the heart of an ox". The heartrate
monitor is to keep my heart beating in the aerobic regions; when the
HRM beeps those who cycle with me know to slow down.

Did the wife also give up the car, or does she still use it?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Eiron]

Sander deWaal wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:

Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though?

Hah! Did you know the average snail travels 3 furlongs per fortnight?

A furlong per fortnight is very nearly 1cm/minute, so a useful measure.

--
Eiron.

May contain traces of irony.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

What are a few of the reasons? I assume the main reason the RIAA
recording curve shelves down the high frequency groove amplitude is
because if the high frequencies weren't reduced while cutting the record
the groove velocity, and acceleration, at high frequencies would be too
much for the playback pickup to cope with. Cutting the high frequency
amplitude during recording also would reduce the "pinch" effect. Maybe
an expert can tell us the reasons why the high frequency amplitude is
shelved down when cutting a record following the RIAA recording curve?
The down side is that a "bodge" in the form of a complementary high
frequency amplitude boost must be applied during playback, which
accentuates the high frequency noise.

John. You seem to have got your RIAA curves confused.
The recording curve actually shelves at LF because this is generally only
lateral modulation which would otherwise take up too much physical
room on the surface of the disc.

Iain, you are the one that seem to have got your RIAA curves confused.
Perhaps your confusion derives from your phobia of equalizers. Read
again what I wrote, notice the phrase "groove amplitude", I was speaking
of the amplitude that is cut into the groove. What I said is correct,
and since you mention the "physical room on the surface of the disc", it
is worth mentioning that it is the "amplitude" that determines how much
physical room is required to accommodate a given recording on the
surface of the disc. The curves you referenced are relative to recorded
velocity, not recorded amplitude. I am surprised that you, a recording
industry professional, are as confused by this issue as is the average
"RAT".


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Patrick Turner]

Peter Wieck wrote:

I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player,

Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about
5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of
29.9. Obese is 30.

I'm 1.872M x 77Kg, which gives bmi = 21.948, and about the same as i was
when 25.
but last year in July I was 95Kg, and bmi = 27, and I considered myself
overweight.

Between last July and January, I rode about 200km a week, or about
5,000km,
and my weight reduced from 95Kg to 77Kg and probably I lost 20Kg of fat,
about the weight of a seriously good monoblok tube amp,
or the equivalent of at least 5 x 4Litre cans of olive oil, and put on
about 2 Kg of muscle
which keeps me riding as fast as guys 30 years younger.
At one stage my daily weight records showed I lost Kgm a week.
I amused myself when I stalled trying to ride up some hills last July.
The riding is not a leisurely activity just to take in the sights and
sounds of nature,
but a form of self inflicted pain which is excruciatingly enjoyable,
especially when riding up steep long hills with elevated heart rates,
or pushing hard along a flat stretch to catch some dude way out in the
distance,
or to hang on behind the 30 year old.

If you ride real slow, say no faster than you'd jog, you get a sore arse
and get bored, and the energy consumption
is less than walking, good for you, but not nearly as good if you
elevate the heart rate
for 3 hours straight and could barely talk to anyone if they were
present.
But not all the time, not while going down hill.
At a sweat inducing level, especially on a freezing cold day, one can
burn huge amounts of fats.
So best value from cycling is in the winter time, and because snow is so
very rare here,
the cold cloudless skies of about now to September seem to have been
designed by God for cyclist
pleasure.

Even at my age perhaps i burn 600cals per hour and so a 4 hr ride uses
2,400 cals,
or about the same amount as I use in a 24hr day of sedentary life.
This equals about 200gms of fat, so 8 hrs a week uses 400gms of fat
if you still eat the same as when sedentary.

So the bicycle can create a calorie deficit.
The only way I could lose weight easily without feeling hungry all the
time
was to cycle, and switch my diet to a big salad each day and a reduction
of meat and fat and carbohydrates to a minimum.
I completely gave up bread for the 6mths after July.
Processed food is the very worst crap you can ever eat, so i don't, and
if everyone was like me
and couldn't be fooled easily, the whole food producing industry of the
world
would go stone motherless broke.
The excess food that would then be available as natural
produce from US and Oz farmers could then feed the rest of the hungry
world
with ease.

When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from
a common 64BPM down to
say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. A young bloke of 25 who did the
exercize I take would
benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45.
When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM.
Of course when you exercize, the body rebels to the torture, and becomes
more efficient about
processing the food, so a little food goes a long way, so you won't lose
weight if you exercize and
eat a pile of crappy fat rich garbage afterwards.
I like cabage based salads, 4 apples a day, maybe two bananas and an
orange,
a large serve of cooked oats and yogurt for breakfast; forget about ham,
bacon, sausages,
soft drinks, cheeses, white breads, butter margerine, and all that crap
in plastic packets
with lots of numbers on the label which mean its riddled with dangerous
chemicals to make you feel hungry, and eat more.
protein comes from eggs, and lean meat and fish, which I cannot get
enough of
because what is now beiong sold as fish is often not fish, or its really
crappy,
because mankind has cleaned out the world's oceans of fish.
So I feel guilty eating fish from the sea, not to mention its 5 times
the price
of lean bargain meats selling for $7 a Kg, enough to last me a week.
I do use some olive oil. Its good for anyone, and better than the fats
which I won't eat, and trim off the meat
before I cook it. Animal fat is also where a lot of pesticide and
hormone residues end up,
so don't eat fats. You don't need them and we didn't evolve to survive
off fats.
I never buy deep fried chips, or drink coka cola, its all crap.

Nathan Pritikin said in his book about nutrition for runners that all
you need is
to eat so that 80% of the energy comes from complex carbohydrates,
10% from proteins, and 10% from fats.

Since most UNREFINED grains or breads made with real wholemeal flour has
the whole goodness kept in, not pulled out to get greed driven sales
elsewhere,
then it has the 20% of protien and fat you need, and the CH slow burning
energy.
But even most wholemeal wheat breads are now using rapid yeasts and
chemicals and
I don't eat that anymore, and buy rye natural breads instead, and only
need a
couple of slices a day.


People in the US, UK and Oz are rapidly assuming pig like proportions.


When I am at the supermarket, I am appalled at the fat arse queus lining
up with
trolleys full of crap.
Probably they suffer affluenza, the dysfunctional syndrome of living too
high
and being anxious about everything, so they ain't fit, don't relate
well, and don't ****,
and feed their mouth instead.


I continue to ride about 150km a week and weight has stabilised,
and bmi appears to be a lot better in the mirror.
I treat myself to the occasional 100gm bar of Lindt 70% cocoa choclate.
Its ****ing divine this stuff.
Its much better than buying a 600gram milk chocolate bar with less cocoa
and piled high with fats and sugar,
and chemicals to make you buy more, along with hydrogenated fats to give
long shelf life,
but which are really terrible for your heart.
There are attempts to ban what they are putting into foods now, and as
fast as the banners get stuff
banned, the chemists with no conscience dream up new chemicals.

If I have done 100km on a saturday, I will treat myself to a large serve
of Bavarian Apple from Pancake Parlour, with ice cream and cream,
and unlike a couple of fat guys who play chess while I am there, I don't
have diabetes, and
have earned the treat, which won't hurt me.
These fatsos don't do anything except sit around, and they are paying
the price.

Too much sitting on me arse chatting on news groups and typing up
website
pages and doing electronics had made me heavy.
Now when i have to go into a computer shop there are all these young
dudes and they all look a bit crook,
a bit overweight, and kinda grey, like their PCs have sucked the very
life out of them.

I played Rugby Union when at school, and frankly it was guys just
tumbling over each other,
and I went home sore and sorry after most games. Lord knows how many
unseen injuries meant trouble later in life. Cycling is much better,
unless you fall off, but even if you do, you recover so fast it matters
not.
Cycling has speed, exhilaration, changing scenery, weather, varied
circumstances,
and needs alertness, rapid reflexes, careful judgements, and you learn
lessons
about life.

I am really lucky that there are hundreds of Km of cycling paths here to
ride on,
and that don't include the mountain trails through the bush for which a
mountain bike becomes sensible.
Mountain biking is about getting hot riding up steep climbs slowly, and
descending
with care and putting up with a far rougher ride than on the road.
Modern bikes have suspension and are useable by folks like me over 50
without
enduring injuries.

And even though Canberra has 330,000 people I only have to ride 4Km and
I am
in the middle of sheep paddocks and horse paddocks, and big wide country
areas.
It ain't like London or NY, or Sydney.


If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount
their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case,
using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth.

No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height (but
only while riding).

Rugby player...

Peter Wieck

So how do you stay fit Peter?

Patrick Turner.


Wyncote, PA

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from
a common 64BPM down to
say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. A young bloke of 25 who did the
exercize I take would
benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45.
When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM.

But how do you tell time properly if your resting heart rate isn't a
nice 60 BPM? Also notice that 60 neatly factors into 2*2*3*5.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Peter Wieck]

On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns wrote:

No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces
the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high
frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface
noise.

From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records
By: Don Hoglund

http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html

However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude
swings of the original signal into velocity - the rate at which the
stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be
recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the
same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much
wider than the grooves on an equalized disk. Wider grooves take up
more room which reduces the available recording time. They are also
much harder for the cartridge to track which increases distortion.
***The solution is to reduce the amplitude of low frequencies during
disk cutting and then boost them with a reverse curve during playback.
***

Another problem is distortion and signal-to-noise ratios in the high
frequencies. Early disc recording equipment did not have the extended
high frequency capabilities of today's modern equipment. However, as
disk cutters improved during the 1940's through the 1960's the need to
address the high frequencies increased.*** The solution was to boost
the high frequencies during cutting and then reduce them during
playback.*** Now there was a high and low curve with a "knee"
frequency.

Asterisks are mine.

The two curves superimposed at the end of the article are interesting.
*Boosted* on recording. *Reduced* on playback.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

John Byrns wrote:
In article .com,
Andre Jute wrote:

I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player,
and officially certified to have "the heart of an ox". The heartrate
monitor is to keep my heart beating in the aerobic regions; when the
HRM beeps those who cycle with me know to slow down.

Did the wife also give up the car, or does she still use it?

My wife is one of those people who resist driving. I bought her a nice
new Volvo estate when our son was born but, since I work at home, I
was always available to drive her. When we came to Ireland over a
quarter-century ago, we could bring only one car taxfree. I would have
had to pay an enormous amount of import duty for my Citroen SM (a
grand tourer with a Maserati engine and hydraulic suspension, both
impossible to service here back then) and so chose to bring the new,
virtually unused Volvo; I breathed on the Volvo engine and suspension
to make it suitable for enthusiastic driving. But we live in a village
because I wanted my son to have the same sort of country upbringing I
had. We walk to the shops and the shopkeepers deliver and carry the
parcels into the kitchen; our son walked to a school less than five
minutes away. People tend to come to me when they want me, or to pick
me up and drive me to social occasions, because otherwise I don't go,
so in about fifteen years the Volvo was used about 30k miles, mainly
for going to the UK or the Continent or driving visitors around
Ireland; every time I wanted to use it, I had to fit a new battery
because it was used so infrequently. It was like new when I sold it.
It's probably amazing to you but I don't miss the car; I just don't
lead a car-based life.

Andre Jute
Greener than thou

[Keith G]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Peter Wieck wrote:

I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player,

Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about
5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of
29.9. Obese is 30.

I'm 1.872M x 77Kg, which gives bmi = 21.948, and about the same as i was
when 25.
but last year in July I was 95Kg, and bmi = 27, and I considered myself
overweight.

Between last July and January, I rode about 200km a week, or about
5,000km,
and my weight reduced from 95Kg to 77Kg and probably I lost 20Kg of fat,
about the weight of a seriously good monoblok tube amp,
or the equivalent of at least 5 x 4Litre cans of olive oil, and put on
about 2 Kg of muscle
which keeps me riding as fast as guys 30 years younger.
At one stage my daily weight records showed I lost Kgm a week.
I amused myself when I stalled trying to ride up some hills last July.
The riding is not a leisurely activity just to take in the sights and
sounds of nature,
but a form of self inflicted pain which is excruciatingly enjoyable,
especially when riding up steep long hills with elevated heart rates,
or pushing hard along a flat stretch to catch some dude way out in the
distance,
or to hang on behind the 30 year old.

If you ride real slow, say no faster than you'd jog, you get a sore arse
and get bored, and the energy consumption
is less than walking, good for you, but not nearly as good if you
elevate the heart rate
for 3 hours straight and could barely talk to anyone if they were
present.
But not all the time, not while going down hill.
At a sweat inducing level, especially on a freezing cold day, one can
burn huge amounts of fats.
So best value from cycling is in the winter time, and because snow is so
very rare here,
the cold cloudless skies of about now to September seem to have been
designed by God for cyclist
pleasure.

Even at my age perhaps i burn 600cals per hour and so a 4 hr ride uses
2,400 cals,
or about the same amount as I use in a 24hr day of sedentary life.
This equals about 200gms of fat, so 8 hrs a week uses 400gms of fat
if you still eat the same as when sedentary.

So the bicycle can create a calorie deficit.
The only way I could lose weight easily without feeling hungry all the
time
was to cycle, and switch my diet to a big salad each day and a reduction
of meat and fat and carbohydrates to a minimum.
I completely gave up bread for the 6mths after July.
Processed food is the very worst crap you can ever eat, so i don't, and
if everyone was like me
and couldn't be fooled easily, the whole food producing industry of the
world
would go stone motherless broke.
The excess food that would then be available as natural
produce from US and Oz farmers could then feed the rest of the hungry
world
with ease.

When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from
a common 64BPM down to
say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me.



60 eh? - I'm 60 *tomorrow*!! :-)



A young bloke of 25 who did the
exercize I take would
benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45.
When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM.
Of course when you exercize, the body rebels to the torture, and becomes
more efficient about
processing the food, so a little food goes a long way, so you won't lose
weight if you exercize and
eat a pile of crappy fat rich garbage afterwards.
I like cabage based salads, 4 apples a day, maybe two bananas and an
orange,
a large serve of cooked oats and yogurt for breakfast; forget about ham,
bacon, sausages,
soft drinks, cheeses, white breads, butter margerine, and all that crap
in plastic packets
with lots of numbers on the label which mean its riddled with dangerous
chemicals to make you feel hungry, and eat more.
protein comes from eggs, and lean meat and fish, which I cannot get
enough of
because what is now beiong sold as fish is often not fish, or its really
crappy,
because mankind has cleaned out the world's oceans of fish.
So I feel guilty eating fish from the sea, not to mention its 5 times
the price
of lean bargain meats selling for $7 a Kg, enough to last me a week.
I do use some olive oil. Its good for anyone, and better than the fats
which I won't eat, and trim off the meat
before I cook it. Animal fat is also where a lot of pesticide and
hormone residues end up,
so don't eat fats. You don't need them and we didn't evolve to survive
off fats.
I never buy deep fried chips, or drink coka cola, its all crap.

Nathan Pritikin said in his book about nutrition for runners that all
you need is
to eat so that 80% of the energy comes from complex carbohydrates,
10% from proteins, and 10% from fats.

Since most UNREFINED grains or breads made with real wholemeal flour has
the whole goodness kept in, not pulled out to get greed driven sales
elsewhere,
then it has the 20% of protien and fat you need, and the CH slow burning
energy.
But even most wholemeal wheat breads are now using rapid yeasts and
chemicals and
I don't eat that anymore, and buy rye natural breads instead, and only
need a
couple of slices a day.


People in the US, UK and Oz are rapidly assuming pig like proportions.


When I am at the supermarket, I am appalled at the fat arse queus lining
up with
trolleys full of crap.
Probably they suffer affluenza, the dysfunctional syndrome of living too
high
and being anxious about everything, so they ain't fit, don't relate
well, and don't ****,
and feed their mouth instead.


I continue to ride about 150km a week and weight has stabilised,
and bmi appears to be a lot better in the mirror.
I treat myself to the occasional 100gm bar of Lindt 70% cocoa choclate.
Its ****ing divine this stuff.
Its much better than buying a 600gram milk chocolate bar with less cocoa
and piled high with fats and sugar,
and chemicals to make you buy more, along with hydrogenated fats to give
long shelf life,
but which are really terrible for your heart.
There are attempts to ban what they are putting into foods now, and as
fast as the banners get stuff
banned, the chemists with no conscience dream up new chemicals.

If I have done 100km on a saturday, I will treat myself to a large serve
of Bavarian Apple from Pancake Parlour, with ice cream and cream,
and unlike a couple of fat guys who play chess while I am there, I don't
have diabetes, and
have earned the treat, which won't hurt me.
These fatsos don't do anything except sit around, and they are paying
the price.

Too much sitting on me arse chatting on news groups and typing up
website
pages and doing electronics had made me heavy.
Now when i have to go into a computer shop there are all these young
dudes and they all look a bit crook,
a bit overweight, and kinda grey, like their PCs have sucked the very
life out of them.

I played Rugby Union when at school, and frankly it was guys just
tumbling over each other,
and I went home sore and sorry after most games. Lord knows how many
unseen injuries meant trouble later in life. Cycling is much better,
unless you fall off, but even if you do, you recover so fast it matters
not.
Cycling has speed, exhilaration, changing scenery, weather, varied
circumstances,
and needs alertness, rapid reflexes, careful judgements, and you learn
lessons
about life.

I am really lucky that there are hundreds of Km of cycling paths here to
ride on,
and that don't include the mountain trails through the bush for which a
mountain bike becomes sensible.
Mountain biking is about getting hot riding up steep climbs slowly, and
descending
with care and putting up with a far rougher ride than on the road.
Modern bikes have suspension and are useable by folks like me over 50
without
enduring injuries.

And even though Canberra has 330,000 people I only have to ride 4Km and
I am
in the middle of sheep paddocks and horse paddocks, and big wide country
areas.
It ain't like London or NY, or Sydney.


If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount
their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case,
using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth.

No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height (but
only while riding).

Rugby player...

Peter Wieck

So how do you stay fit Peter?



He probably lost a couple of hundred calories scrolling through this post!!
:-)

[Peter Wieck]

On May 15, 11:17 am, Andre Jute wrote:

People tend to come to me when they want me,

That explains a great deal of your behavior here.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Ian Bell]

Gerry wrote:

On May 14, 4:42 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Gerry said:

RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge.
What the hell is "bodge"????
It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but
the meaning is plain.
My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in
school and ask the child to clue you in.
It was not 'obvious' at all.

Yes it was.

No - it was not. It's an archaic word not used on a regular basis in
America. Webster's 1956 Dictionary describes bodge as an obsolete
version of the word botch.


You American's keep forgetting that the USA is only a small part of the
world. The word 'bodge' is in common parlance throughout the British
Commonwealth which is just a tad bigger than the USA.

IAn

[John Byrns]

In article . com,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns wrote:

No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces
the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high
frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface
noise.

From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records
By: Don Hoglund

http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html

Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear
what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement
which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and
tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong?

However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude
swings of the original signal into velocity -

This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of
electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the
"turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover"
frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances
which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc
cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a
resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were
velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation
in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of
the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in
here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near
the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the
electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks
nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites,
as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head.

You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were
used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment.
Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant
velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal.

the rate at which the
stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be
recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the
same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much
wider than the grooves on an equalized disk.


This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric
perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you
would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high
frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency
grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA
curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from
occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are
difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive
distortion.

The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording
curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be
incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during
playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing
the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB.

Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself
for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of
your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it
is that you take issue with?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[John Byrns]

In article . com,
Andre Jute wrote:

John Byrns wrote:
In article .com,
Andre Jute wrote:

I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player,
and officially certified to have "the heart of an ox". The heartrate
monitor is to keep my heart beating in the aerobic regions; when the
HRM beeps those who cycle with me know to slow down.

Did the wife also give up the car, or does she still use it?

My wife is one of those people who resist driving. I bought her a nice
new Volvo estate when our son was born but, since I work at home, I
was always available to drive her. When we came to Ireland over a
quarter-century ago, we could bring only one car taxfree. I would have
had to pay an enormous amount of import duty for my Citroen SM (a
grand tourer with a Maserati engine and hydraulic suspension, both
impossible to service here back then) and so chose to bring the new,
virtually unused Volvo; I breathed on the Volvo engine and suspension
to make it suitable for enthusiastic driving. But we live in a village
because I wanted my son to have the same sort of country upbringing I
had. We walk to the shops and the shopkeepers deliver and carry the
parcels into the kitchen; our son walked to a school less than five
minutes away. People tend to come to me when they want me, or to pick
me up and drive me to social occasions, because otherwise I don't go,
so in about fifteen years the Volvo was used about 30k miles, mainly
for going to the UK or the Continent or driving visitors around
Ireland; every time I wanted to use it, I had to fit a new battery
because it was used so infrequently. It was like new when I sold it.
It's probably amazing to you but I don't miss the car; I just don't
lead a car-based life.

Not amazing at all, in my ideal world cars would not be necessary for
day to day transportation, cars would essentially be toys reserved for
sport and pleasure, sort of like the horses that preceded them into
transportation history. Unfortunately we still have a very lot of work
to do before we will have a workable mass transit system here in the US.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:52:53 GMT, John Byrns
wrote:

In article . com,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns wrote:

No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces
the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high
frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface
noise.

From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records
By: Don Hoglund

http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html

Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear
what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement
which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and
tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong?

However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude
swings of the original signal into velocity -

This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of
electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the
"turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover"
frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances
which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc
cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a
resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were
velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation
in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of
the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in
here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near
the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the
electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks
nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites,
as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head.

You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were
used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment.
Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant
velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal.

the rate at which the
stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be
recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the
same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much
wider than the grooves on an equalized disk.


This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric
perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you
would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high
frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency
grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA
curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from
occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are
difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive
distortion.

The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording
curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be
incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during
playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing
the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB.

Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself
for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of
your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it
is that you take issue with?


Regards,

John Byrns

John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high
frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback
mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several
myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and
every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the
time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are
not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a
white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis
before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about
1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz.

*Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from
this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[George M. Middius]

Time for Poopie's p.m. feeding.

You mean windbag.

High-class donkeys don't bray in public, you filthy equine monstrosity.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:02:56 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:52:53 GMT, John Byrns
wrote:

In article . com,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns wrote:

No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces
the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high
frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface
noise.

From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records
By: Don Hoglund

http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html

Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear
what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement
which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and
tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong?

However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude
swings of the original signal into velocity -

This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of
electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the
"turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover"
frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances
which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc
cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a
resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were
velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation
in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of
the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in
here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near
the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the
electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks
nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites,
as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head.

You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were
used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment.
Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant
velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal.

the rate at which the
stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be
recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the
same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much
wider than the grooves on an equalized disk.


This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric
perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you
would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high
frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency
grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA
curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from
occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are
difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive
distortion.

The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording
curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be
incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during
playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing
the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB.

Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself
for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of
your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it
is that you take issue with?


Regards,

John Byrns

John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high
frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback
mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several
myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and
every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the
time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are
not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a
white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis
before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about
1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz.

*Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from
this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in.

d

John, my apologies. I have only just noticed that you are posting from
rec.audio.tubes as your prime group. Ignore everything I wrote above -
you are right and I am wrong. Just as Alice found when she stepped
through the mirror into looking glass land, everything there works
backwards from the real world.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Peter Wieck]

On May 15, 12:52 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article . com,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns wrote:

No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces
the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high
frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface
noise.

From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records
By: Don Hoglund

http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html

Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear
what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement
which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and
tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong?

However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude
swings of the original signal into velocity -

This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of
electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the
"turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover"
frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances
which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc
cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a
resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were
velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation
in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of
the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in
here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near
the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the
electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks
nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites,
as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head.

You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were
used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment.
Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant
velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal.

the rate at which the
stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be
recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the
same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much
wider than the grooves on an equalized disk.

This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric
perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you
would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high
frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency
grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA
curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from
occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are
difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive
distortion.

The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording
curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be
incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during
playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing
the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB.

Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself
for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of
your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it
is that you take issue with?

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

John:

Whoops: http://www.graniteaudio.com/phono/page5.html

should get you there.

For the record: Whatever positions and suppositions you may take, and
from whatever point of view, whichever cutting head and system, the
actual subject-at-hand is the *present* RIAA Curve as practiced each
day. This is presumably a fixed value both on recording and playback.

That curve is at the bottom of the article. The Bass Boost and the
Treble Cut on playback cross the Bass Cut and Treble Boost on
recording at ~1.2Khz.... not quite what you are writing.

References are at the bottom of the article.

Some interesting stuff also on cartridge loading (impedance and
capacitance), something that I have kept in mind for now over 30
years, and something that few of the more recent converts to vinyl do
not understand. Back in the day, better components would list input
capacitance at a given impedance. Some even had adjustments, and ways
to vary both to a fixed value as needed. Most good TTs listed the
capacitance of their cables as well. So it is not just the phono-stage
but what feeds it as well that has effects on the overall results.

John, sometimes your experience and history vastly overcomplicate what
is a pretty simple issue. What 'should be' in the best of all possible
worlds simply ain't necessarily so.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Ian Bell wrote:

Gerry wrote:

On May 14, 4:42 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Gerry said:

RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge.
What the hell is "bodge"????
It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but
the meaning is plain.
My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in
school and ask the child to clue you in.
It was not 'obvious' at all.

Yes it was.

No - it was not. It's an archaic word not used on a regular basis in
America. Webster's 1956 Dictionary describes bodge as an obsolete
version of the word botch.

You American's keep forgetting that the USA is only a small part of the
world. The word 'bodge' is in common parlance throughout the British
Commonwealth which is just a tad bigger than the USA.

Although I knew what bodge means, it seems like you Brits suffer from
the same problem, perhaps we learned if from you. Exactly what
territory does today's British Commonwealth include?


Regards

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Peter Wieck]

On May 15, 1:08 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

John, my apologies. I have only just noticed that you are posting from
rec.audio.tubes as your prime group. Ignore everything I wrote above -
you are right and I am wrong. Just as Alice found when she stepped
through the mirror into looking glass land, everything there works
backwards from the real world.


Don:

Be careful. John is a literalist.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[John Byrns]

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:02:56 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:52:53 GMT, John Byrns
wrote:

In article . com,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns wrote:

No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces
the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high
frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface
noise.

From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records
By: Don Hoglund

http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html

Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear
what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement
which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and
tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong?

However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude
swings of the original signal into velocity -

This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of
electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the
"turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover"
frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances
which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc
cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a
resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were
velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation
in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of
the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in
here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near
the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the
electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks
nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites,
as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head.

You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were
used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment.
Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant
velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal.

the rate at which the
stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be
recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the
same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much
wider than the grooves on an equalized disk.

This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric
perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you
would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high
frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency
grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA
curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from
occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are
difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive
distortion.

The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording
curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be
incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during
playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing
the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB.

Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself
for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of
your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it
is that you take issue with?

John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high
frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback
mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several
myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and
every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the
time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are
not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a
white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis
before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about
1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz.

*Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from
this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in.

John, my apologies. I have only just noticed that you are posting from
rec.audio.tubes as your prime group. Ignore everything I wrote above -
you are right and I am wrong. Just as Alice found when she stepped
through the mirror into looking glass land, everything there works
backwards from the real world.

Don, I don't understand what the prime group I am posting from has to do
with this issue and your sudden understanding? Could you please explain?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Gerry[_2_]]

On May 15, 9:08 am, Andre Jute wrote:

Yo, Gerry, I'm a professional communicator. I say exactly what I mean,
no more, no less. If you do not follow, it is because either a) I
intended for you not to understand or b) you are a thicko below my
horizon. You might consider that everyone else understood what I
meant. The only acceptable excuse for not understanding me when I
speak that plainly is that you are unfamiliar with the technicalities
underlying RIAA emphasis and de-emphasis, in which case you should,
rather than attack my language, say you don't understand, and you will
receive a courteous explanation from the few remaining on RAT who
still honour the open-door principles of the ARRL.

Andre Jute

Oh, I see. You would rather show off how edjumicated you are rather
than be kind enough to share information and write in laymen's terms
so EVERYone can understand. You are a Professional elitist snob,
apparently. Rude son-of-a-bitch, too.

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:56:32 GMT, John Byrns
wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:02:56 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:52:53 GMT, John Byrns
wrote:

In article . com,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns wrote:

No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces
the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high
frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface
noise.

From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records
By: Don Hoglund

http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html

Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear
what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement
which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and
tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong?

However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude
swings of the original signal into velocity -

This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of
electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the
"turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover"
frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances
which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc
cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a
resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were
velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation
in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of
the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in
here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near
the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the
electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks
nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites,
as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head.

You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were
used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment.
Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant
velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal.

the rate at which the
stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be
recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the
same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much
wider than the grooves on an equalized disk.

This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric
perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you
would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high
frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency
grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA
curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from
occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are
difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive
distortion.

The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording
curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be
incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during
playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing
the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB.

Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself
for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of
your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it
is that you take issue with?

John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high
frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback
mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several
myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and
every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the
time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are
not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a
white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis
before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about
1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz.

*Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from
this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in.

John, my apologies. I have only just noticed that you are posting from
rec.audio.tubes as your prime group. Ignore everything I wrote above -
you are right and I am wrong. Just as Alice found when she stepped
through the mirror into looking glass land, everything there works
backwards from the real world.

Don, I don't understand what the prime group I am posting from has to do
with this issue and your sudden understanding? Could you please explain?


Regards,

John Byrns

Don't worry, John. Peter just put me straight.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com