[Patrick Turner]

Iain Churches wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

No mystery Patrick. I stated clearly that it is an active load
cathode
follower, which was chosen after comparison with a mu-follower and
a cascode.

I have no schematic drawn. It can be found in any one of a dozen
books

The cathode follower part sounds straight forward enough, but the
"active load" part could be anyone of a number of things. Is the
circuit what I think is called a "White" cathode follower?

The White CF is similar, except that the anode of the bottom
triode and the cathode of the upper triode are usually at the
same potential. The grid of the top triode is biased by a pair
of resistors from the B+ to ground, with the junction of these two
Rs connected to the grid.

On the ALCF the grid of the lower tube is biased in this
way. The anode of the lower tube and the cathode of the
upper tube are separated by a resistor of about 1k2 to
give a differential of about 2V between them.
1M is then connected from anode 1 to grid 2 for bias
(rather like the mu-follower)

OK, Thanks, I think I understand. The bias sounds like it is done the
same way as the circuit at the link I posted. It is not clear from your
description if the bottom triode serves simply as a passive load for the
cathode follower, or if a signal is applied to the grid of the lower
triode making it an active load?


Just as in the White topology, the input to the ALCF is taken to
the grid of the upper tube. The lower triode is a CCS.

Iain

So why didn't you just say so, a standard CF with CCS triode as the
cathode dc load?

But unless the unbypased cathode resistor of the CCS "lower" triode
is of a large value, the actual value of the "CCS" isn't a very high
dynamic resistance.
So a pentode makes a better CCS.

A single transistor makes an effective CCS, and is a passive type of
active load because
the collector resistance, Rc, is so high; it has nothing but a passive
effect on the signal,
so the only ac load the follower sees is the load of the amp to which it
is connected.
If the load is say 220k, and CF is 12AU7, THD of the follower at 0.5Vrms
is difficult to measure, and a lot less than if the dc load was the
standard 47k.


Patrick Turner.

[bassett[_2_]]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

I must be the exception. I have access to a bunch of little secret
groups
and won't take part in any of them.

I think you are mistaken Patrick.The groups to which you refer
are moderated but not closed groups. That's a totally different
thing altogether.

OK, you make a further important distinction.
The "little" groups I refer to are the ones the public is free to read,
but you have to subscribe, use a pass word, and obey rules or
get banned. I have nothing against all these things,
its just that I find most of the groups are clumsy to use and read and
there simply isn't enough content for me to become involved with.

**and strangly enough they manage quite well without YOU.

Closed groups, for example the broadcast and recording group
to which I have access, are used by professionals. If they are not
members of the university, institute or company which runs the
group, they are there strictly by invitation only.

They wouldn't like me being around then.

**O' I don't know, they might find your Psychotic dribble quite
entertaining


Your are correct in saying that people do keep an eye on RAT.
Recruiting to closed groups is not uncommon, and I have never
met anyone who has refused the invitation:-)

I recall I have subscribed to a few, been accepted, made one post,
and never returned. I read a dozen posts later and not feel I could say
much that wasn't already being said about the trivial / beginner issue
being discussed.

** in other words you had bugger all to offer the discussion.

Some weeks I get serveral private queries from around the world, and
some
guys are building things and need the help, and deserve it, because
rather
than just sit typing BS, they are soldering and measuring and calculating
their way through a project.

** And the weeks you don't get any inquiries, you write crap about
nothing on here.

You bump into lot of familiar and respected names. Have
you ever wondered why, with the exception of yourself, no
other professional audio designer or manufacturer has a
presence here?

** you don't know that.,

Because they are thin skinned, and when skinned alive here
they die fast after shrivelling up.

** if there not here in the first place , how do they shrivel up and
die, ????


Their high profile name rests on a delicate ego.

** but you have just said, there not here,

***AND this is where the rant about nothing starts, enjoy it folks

bassett.

They are very choosy about who they sit next to in
the railway carriage of discussions, and as you know, r.a.t
.is a bit like a Bombay train full of noisy smelly
workers going home for the day after sundown.
If they don't like Hindu morons, they better keep quiet.
If they can afford it, they go in the 1st Class carriage,
and talk about the weather, politics, and the economy.
There is no kudos to be gained when talking to the masses,
unless you want them to vote for you,
and then you tell them what they want to hear, even in
the 1st class carriage. If you start asking questions,
making criticisms, they might throw you off the train.

Many "well respected" ppl's ideas can certainly be challenged,
questioned,
ridiculed, parodied, and their elete status can be reduced to being
fairly ordinary. Here there are NO SACRED COWS!!
Everything and anything is fair game for comment.
If someone survives here, they are fit, agile, and
durable indeed, and truly one who belongs to all manner of people, at
home in a pub,
or in court of a king.

I once tried rec.audio.hi-end, and found it had the the most
stultifying atmosphere. To be someone of influence there
I should have become far wealthier from audio, after starting 40 years
ago.
I felt I was very much a johnny come lately there.
And they didn't like tube gear much, let alone boutique DIY.
So after a few weeks I found I just didn't enjoy r.a.h-e

My ego fell off the back of a truck 20 years ago, and
being from a building worker background, I got use to spending all day
working hard down some hell hole with mud up to my knees, until the job
is done.
When confronted with unruly people around me I wasted no time dealing
with them.
I don't have to be too rugged too long, and they get the drift.

I don't have a "high profile" worth keeping mud free.
I'm just a bloke who enjoys audio and making gear and I have some ideas
about it worth
sharing. So I have written a website to make sure everyone knows what i
know
if they want to read something.
So I save having to repeat what is mainly common sense.

If people follow my reasoning, they will find good music.

When I was about 25, I was working as a sub-foreman on a
large multi-storey building at NSW University. I'd begun there
after being drawn from ranks of my peers as being worth being trained
for such large complex works.
I had a tendency to waffle on, and not compose language properly.
A seriously no-nonsense project general foreman once told me
"Look here mate, say only what you mean, and mean what you say, OK!"
The othe boss in charge was the project manager, and once had me run to
the
17th floor with messages for people or to find something, or find out
about something
4 times before morning tea one day. I just tried to obey,
and he must have been impressed, because I was quick and efficient, and
showed no strain.
But he told me plainly, "Spit it out man!, which do you mean? don't
speak
to me in riddles!", after I'd given a contradictory answer to his
questions.
In the trades, there can only be one answer.
I was somewhat overwhelmed at first by the size of the job, and could
easily be distracted,
and it took me a month to stop bull****ting, and make each word count
especially when addressing my superiors,
so I had to start each day commanding myself to be a Better Builder
Today!, OK.
I needed to ask more questions, and observe more thouroughly.
I became a better builder indeed, and years later I could thank the
hardened task masters for their
NO BS approach to all they did. When others were sacked, I was retained.
Apprentices sent to me for training
didn't have a picnic either, they actually had to work,
and sometimes motivation meant some very heated discussions
with a deal of acrimony about the sloppy, untidy, un-timely,
incompetent efforts they presented while they still expected to be paid
the same wages. Luckily this didn't happen often, and I had a good
reputation for
running peaceful productive sites with a low panic level and good safety
record.
I could see trouble coming, and didn't provoke it.
One foreman the company had who'd been an Olympic rower in '56 and who
was
the most rugged and powerful person once hung an apprentice over a
balcony
of a 14 storey building by holding onto only one ankle to impress upon
the lad
that misbehaviour was not going to occur again, and if it did, another
session
over the balcony would occur, only he would let go. "Big Dennis" as we
called him
was otherwise a very fine foreman we all liked.

I don't plan to enforce learning here like Dennis tried then. Too
over-the-top!

In other areas of my life, such as personal relationships, I've tried to
have the same
NO BS approach, and I've always preferred to back truth, even if it
embarrassed mates, or a succession of females. I was damn honest, and
although some office managers
and shielas sometimes didn't like it during disputes, they could respect
it.

When I come here, I naturally expect competent standards, and will try
to help anyone get there who isn't there yet.

Many in other groups are not very prolific, and just want to sit around
and
chat without any great goal in mind, and that's all fine,
but I like to see things achieved after a day's efforts.

Patrick Turner





Regards
Iain

[Patrick Turner]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


To measure noise below 300uV, you need a low noise amplifier
to raise its level to work a meter or display it on a CRO or both.

So you need to make a wide band amp, at least 10Hz to 20kHz with gain of
up to 1,000
for noise measurements, but gain able to be varied between say 10 and
1,000.
So if noise = 3uV, it is amplified to 3mV after the amp, and able to be
measured/displayed
by gear you have already.

Ok. Understood. Thanks for that. I have a good selection of op-amps
used in prof recording consoles. I can get something put together without
too much trouble. A "lurker" on RAT sent me an e-mail with the same
info as you supplied, and offered to make such a measurement amp, so
that is also an option.

Its so darn easy, but takes time and understanding, and you are short of
both.

For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able.
Don't be too pretentious about "understanding" You are a professional
amp builder, one would expect you to know the detail. My skillset
and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big
band recording from a full score. Would you know where to start,
Patrick? :-)

Quite possibly. twiddle all the knobs until its sounded just right
without any gear clipping.

Judging from what i have heard from various recording
engineers, editing can't be that difficult.

Placing the mics and doing the actual production of the
tracks you are editing would be much more difficult to optimise IMHO.

I'd be happier doing a live to air FM broadcast though using just a pair
of two crossed
over mics. They even got automatic level setting, just switch on, and
away you go.
For a solist, place a mic, ditto...

I once heard a friends recording made in 1974 where they have about 8
tracks for an
american jazz ensemble, and they take you through the steps of the
recording
process and post recording process.
After a listen I felt like sacking all the post processors.
They equ'd signal up, down, sideways, all over the place.
It ends up being an interpretation, not a recording.
And beyond this they so often compress it, maybe add reverb, and this
makes it go fizzy,
so they de-ess it, bah, knob twiddling!

You end up with fatty sausage instead of real meat.

Mankind isn't at ease with what has been naturally created.

Patrick Turner.








The remainder of your post contains much interesting info.
Thanks. I have printed it out for careful study.

Best regards
Iain

[Patrick Turner]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

Tremaine 4th edition dates from 1975.

No mystery Patrick. I stated clearly that it is an active load cathode
follower, which was chosen after comparison with a mu-follower and
a cascode.

I have no schematic drawn. It can be found in any one of a dozen
books

Hardly any of us have a copy of Tremaine's 4th Edition, Audio
Encyclopedia.

That's probably because its name is Audio Cyclopedia:-))

There IS a MYSTERY.

How can we talk about your amp details without a schematic????????

It will be just bull****ting into the wind without one.

You may indeed have a nice device, but here you have to proove it.

No Patrick. I don't have to *proove* (sic) anything to anyone, here.
This is not the Spanish Inquisition. Neither is it a professional group
(if it were, you would be the sole member:-) As I understand it,
RAT is a recreational (hobby) group.

Against the wished of my pal with whom I shared this project, I
started this thread on RAT to relieve the monotony of Arny's
OT drivel and Phil's cut-and-paste invective.

Here is where when someone says something, it better be right,
and reasons given, or its deemed to be wrong.
When you show something, its prudent to offer the full story
with a schematic.

Few hobbyists can meet your expectations. That is probably
why so few project threads appear. If you set the threshold too
high you will end up with a pleasant but fast-shrinking band of
tubeheads, plus one autistic Australian toaster repairer, and a
Born Again tambourine basher from Michigan:-)

My standards are the most basic ones.

People coming here as hobbyists wanting to argue BS points of view
as being truth will be challenged as far as i am concerned.

Sure i take in the fact that recreational non experts lurk
here, and sure nobody is perfect, me included.
And they lurk in greater abundance in their little cliques where nobody
says boo.

Hobbyists often post with such seriousness that you'd think they might
be pros
but you find the greatest errors in their thinking, and they need
exposure to criticism.
Some have found great error in my thinking, and for me to live longer
amoung error
is regretable.

All my best friends don't let me make misconceptions about many things.

Much of what i have learnt well has come from ppl saying

"Hey, shut up, you are wrong because X and because Y etc.."

I grew up in an argumentative family, and dinner time discussions were
sometimes hectic. We challenged each other's BS.

This was a healthy state of affairs IMHO.

At least we spoke to each other about many things, and
sometimes laughed our sides off.
Better than watching ****ing TV.

Patrick Turner.





Iain

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"bassett" wrote:

If you where happy, you would complain about the cost of breathing, and
the time it took out of your day.

I don't get your meaning here, can you elaborate? Breathing is a
parallel process and doesn't take time away from being happy.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Patrick Turner]

John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
"bassett" wrote:

If you where happy, you would complain about the cost of breathing, and
the time it took out of your day.

I don't get your meaning here, can you elaborate? Breathing is a
parallel process and doesn't take time away from being happy.

Regards,

John Byrns

Don't worry about Bassett.

He's depressed far more than he says I am and he transfers his
mindset to others humourlessly all the time.
No wonder things are crook at aus.hi-fi.
Bassett droppings all over the yard.

Happiness isn't something Bassett is quite capable of AFAIK.

Notice how he posted a picture of four very depressed bassett dogs
at r.a.t ?

naughty naughty doggies, the organizers of Usernet shall not be pleased.

one doggie picture was enough, but we get 4!

It says of bassett how strongly he identifies with such sad looking
deprived dogs.

Patrick Turner





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

[Iain Churches]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

So why didn't you just say so, a standard CF with CCS triode as the
cathode dc load?

I didn't say so because the textbooks call it an ALCF (Active load
cathode follower)

You may recall that I e-mailed this very schematic to you, about
18 months ago, Patrick, and asked for your opinion. You could
find no fault with it at that time.

But unless the unbypased cathode resistor of the CCS "lower" triode
is of a large value, the actual value of the "CCS" isn't a very high
dynamic resistance.

Rc is 62k.
So a pentode makes a better CCS.

Yes. I considered a 6U8A, but the 6SN7 sounds very good
indeed.


A single transistor makes an effective CCS, and is a passive type of
active load because
the collector resistance, Rc, is so high; it has nothing but a passive
effect on the signal,
so the only ac load the follower sees is the load of the amp to which it
is connected.

Thanks. That may be something to try in the future.


Best regards
Iain

[Iain Churches]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:


For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able.
Don't be too pretentious about "understanding" You are a professional
amp builder, one would expect you to know the detail. My skillset
and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big
band recording from a full score. Would you know where to start,
Patrick? :-)

Quite possibly. twiddle all the knobs until its sounded just right
without any gear clipping.

LOL. We are talking about editing here, that means cutting from
take to take across 24 tracks! It looks as if you don't even grasp
the basic concept!

Judging from what i have heard from various recording
engineers, editing can't be that difficult.

Try it some time:-) You need to be able to read the
score as well as the conductor, and interpret the notes
he has written "for your guidance" That puts 99%
of people out of the running right away (and
would probably include you also?)

We used to edit 24 track 2" inch analogue masters
at Decca. It takes a bold heart and a steady hand
to mark up the edit point with a chinagraph pencil
and takes a razor blade to the one and only session
multitrack master, chop it into little bits, and then
cut it back together in a different order. It is quite
easy to leave the bits you need on the floor, and
insert the bits you don't, especially if your score
reading skills are not fully developed.

Things are much much easier now in digital as
editing workstations have unlimited levels of
undo. A skilled editor rarely needs to undo
anything. You are expected to work fast and
with extreme accuracy. A classical five-CD
boxed set may have many hundreds
of edits if the music is complex. Each has to
be a perfect cut, in and out, and level matched.

Placing the mics and doing the actual production of the
tracks you are editing would be much more difficult to optimise IMHO.

I do that also. Recording. mixing, dubbing
(instrumental and voice overs) editing and
also post production/mastering are all part
of the job. Each phase of the production
required a separate set of skills, and all the time you
are pushing hard against the clock. Big sessions are
incredibly expensive. You may also be recording music
to picture working with LTC to an accuracy of one sub
frame (1/100th part of a frame, at 25 fps) You have to be
familiar with the major brands of console, and their automation.
They are all different.



I'd be happier doing a live to air FM broadcast though using just a pair
of two crossed
over mics. They even got automatic level setting, just switch on, and
away you go.
For a solist, place a mic, ditto...

:-) You would not get much work! Two gigs on the same day, -
your first and last:-))

Working with a crossed-pair is one of the basic techniques. It is
a lot more difficult than you might think to get just the right mix of
direct sound and acoustic from the hall. There is nothing you can do
to correct mis-balance within the orchestra, and very little you
can do afterwards to change the wet/dry ratio.

You need to be extremely versatile, and skilled in all the varied
techniques ranging from two mics close (vocal and acoustic gtr)
and co-incidental or crossed pairs, to 40 mic multitrack sessions.

I once heard a friends recording made in 1974 where they have about 8
tracks for an
american jazz ensemble, and they take you through the steps of the
recording
process and post recording process.
After a listen I felt like sacking all the post processors.
They equ'd signal up, down, sideways, all over the place.
It ends up being an interpretation, not a recording.
And beyond this they so often compress it, maybe add reverb, and this
makes it go fizzy,
so they de-ess it, bah, knob twiddling!

You end up with fatty sausage instead of real meat.

The kind of recording you mention above, and also many of the
jazz recordings that I do, just don't work with a co-incidental
or crossed pair. The sections of the band, and even the
individual instruments within those sections have to be close
mic if you want a the hard-hitting dynamic of which a big-band
is capable. Your choice of mics is crucial. In addition to the
three trumpets and three trombones, piano, guitar bass,
drums and percussion, there are five saxes in a standard
big band set up. Sometimes they play alto, and then switch
to baritone, or clarinet or flute or even cor Anglais.
How would you handle all that with your crossed-pair? :-)
How are you going to keep the drums off your woodwinds
mics? Think about it.

For other than acoustic recording(orchestra, small ensemble etc)
you need to have good separation, that is a basic requirement,
and yet every musician has to be able to hear every other.
Sometimes the pianist wants to hear more of the acoustic guitar
and much less of the bass and drums. You have to be pretty
skilled in simultaneous foldback mixing also to give everyone
what they need.

Then often you need to place a vocal on the top of all this.
The clock ticks in multiples of the Euro, not in seconds.
Think about that too.

Regards
Iain

[Iain Churches]

"robert casey" wrote in message
link.net...


Comments were interesting. Most people were averse to
the ubiquitous silver anodised equipment that seems to
adorn every hi fi shop. Most preferred filament indicator
lamps to LEDs (when someone bothered to show them
the difference)

That's just styling decoration, which has no effect on the sound (unless
someone does something that removes shielding to a sensitive part of the
circuit, or such).

Agreed. But those are exactly the kind of points people bring up
in discussion.

But I do admit to not liking the current fashion that has the tubes
sticking outside the "cabinet" without any metal cage or such to enclose
them. Tubes get hot, and I don't like burning myself on them... But a
cage should have lots of holes for ventilation, so you still get to see the
cool looking heater glow!

Here in the EU, a power amplifier must have a protective cage to
meet the Class II safety regs. In addition, this cage must be attached in
such a way that it needs to tool to remove it.

The regulations are quite strict. Equipment built for sale must conform
to safety regs and have the CE mark. Here in Scandinavia, although
it is no longer a legal requirement, most audio equipment also has the
SWE, FIN or N(orway) safety test mark also.

Most preferred engraved panels to silk screen.
All preferred our laser etched dials to either of the
other two possibilities.

I prefer the silver box over a black box, if for the only reason that I
can actually see the black markings on the silver panel a lot better than
white (or gray) markings on a black panel. I have a few black boxes, and
I always have to look closely at the markings to see which button to
press. PITA!

Yep.We thought so too, that's why the dials are stainless steel
with dark grey markings.
Iain

[robert casey]

Most preferred filament indicator
lamps to LEDs (when someone bothered to show them
the difference)


If the device uses miniature 7 or 9 pin tubes with a big heater and
cathode in the center, you could use molded tube sockets that have the
cylinder shaped shield placed in the center of the tube pins. Mount the
tubes sideways, with the base pointing to the front panel, near the
front panel. The shield becomes a tunnel to pass the heater glow to the
front panel. Use a glass pilot light bead to let the stray orange
heater glow light up that glass bead. The user gets to see the heater
heat up when he turns it on...

[Andre Jute]

Iain Churches wrote:
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

So why didn't you just say so, a standard CF with CCS triode as the
cathode dc load?

I didn't say so because the textbooks call it an ALCF (Active load
cathode follower)

You may recall that I e-mailed this very schematic to you, about
18 months ago, Patrick, and asked for your opinion. You could
find no fault with it at that time.

At that time you weren't selling preamps and thus competing with
Patrick. What has caused the change in Patrick's attitude is that you
are offering to take orders. I do sincerely hope that Patrick won't go
the way of several predecessors who came to believe that their
services to RAT entitled them to consider it their own exclusive
promotional channel. What happened to them is no secret.

All this business about any poster proving himself is the utmost crap.
It was tried by the Magnequest Scum as a way of grabbing an exlusive
marketing channel for Creepy Mike Lafevre and his mates; they got
stomped into the ground, and Patrick can't have forgotten that the
same thing was tried by a bunch of hangers-on on behalf of Patrick,
whose relict is the sad Jon Yaeger. I can't even remember the names of
the others who tried it and came short. Neddie whatsisface from
Chicago was one, and Vinnie the Nodding Dog Man. and scads of others.

RAT isn't the Fourth Reich, electricity to the testicles if your
project doesn't conform in triplicate to some grumpy old man's wet
dream that all information should be accessible to him for no better
reason than that he wants it. And when there is even the whiff of a
commercial motive in blowing up a big pseudo-storm about someone's
project, the hackles of the RATs who lived through it all so often
before start rising. It's a bad sign; we may be dinosaurs but we're
carnivorous until our final half-ton snack taken on our dying breath.

What's even worse -- since Patrick will soon come to his senses -- is
that his present behaviour gives aid and comfort to malicious slime
like Poopie and Worthless who, without the tiniest fraction of
Patrick's knowledge of tubes and with none of Patrick's normal
goodwill to all men, are trying to set themselves up as arbiters on
RAT. The only worse thing I can think of that can happen to RAT is the
return of Chernofsky, the infamous BobC, Creepy Mike LaFevre's
rotweiler.

This is just a case of midlife crisis. Patrick will live through it,
we'll live through it.

Andre Jute
Electromonter

[Patrick Turner]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

So why didn't you just say so, a standard CF with CCS triode as the
cathode dc load?

I didn't say so because the textbooks call it an ALCF (Active load
cathode follower)

You may recall that I e-mailed this very schematic to you, about
18 months ago, Patrick, and asked for your opinion. You could
find no fault with it at that time.

Indeed, perhaps its on my older PC, but now I remember,
under a title " triode project anyone? " presumably
from a thread here at r.a.t.

None of my textbooks refer to it as ALCF.

Such a thing isn't even in RDH4, maybe they thought it was a wank of an
idea.

But in fact the ALCF is a good idea, because of the increase in AC load
ohms
by replacing the normal R with a CCS. It reduces THD, and
enhances the sound quality by removing artifacts.




But unless the unbypased cathode resistor of the CCS "lower" triode
is of a large value, the actual value of the "CCS" isn't a very high
dynamic resistance.

Rc is 62k.
So a pentode makes a better CCS.

Yes. I considered a 6U8A, but the 6SN7 sounds very good
indeed.

Nobody could/would suggest otherwise.

The schematic you sent me has 6CG7, with the bottom triode
with Rk = 62k, so the effective Ra load to the top triode
at its cathode = approx 1.3M, a load way above any load likely
to be connected and near enough to a CCS.

The problem if any is that you have a 420V B+ supply just for a preamp.

There is about 130V across the 62k, so idle current in the two series
tubes is only 2mA, so
the best linear operation giving high gm and low Ra is not possible with
6CG7/6SN7. Having 5mA of current would be better.

So, starting with + and - rails of +/- 150V, you can direct couple a pot
wiper to the
CF grid.

Then have a CCS using a BJT for the bottom active load, taken to -150V.

A full implementation of the what I mean which you are
cordially invited to try is at

http://www.turneraudio.com.au/line-preamp-2003.html

The schematic and all facts figures are at the page.

Patrick Turner.




A single transistor makes an effective CCS, and is a passive type of
active load because
the collector resistance, Rc, is so high; it has nothing but a passive
effect on the signal,
so the only ac load the follower sees is the load of the amp to which it
is connected.

Thanks. That may be something to try in the future.



Best regards
Iain

[Patrick Turner]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:


For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able.
Don't be too pretentious about "understanding" You are a professional
amp builder, one would expect you to know the detail. My skillset
and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big
band recording from a full score. Would you know where to start,
Patrick? :-)

Quite possibly. twiddle all the knobs until its sounded just right
without any gear clipping.

LOL. We are talking about editing here, that means cutting from
take to take across 24 tracks! It looks as if you don't even grasp
the basic concept!

Judging from what i have heard from various recording
engineers, editing can't be that difficult.

Try it some time:-) You need to be able to read the
score as well as the conductor, and interpret the notes
he has written "for your guidance" That puts 99%
of people out of the running right away (and
would probably include you also?)

I'm not even interested in editing recordings.

What you say ppl need, ie, musical training isn't
what most of the industry needs at all.



We used to edit 24 track 2" inch analogue masters
at Decca. It takes a bold heart and a steady hand
to mark up the edit point with a chinagraph pencil
and takes a razor blade to the one and only session
multitrack master, chop it into little bits, and then
cut it back together in a different order. It is quite
easy to leave the bits you need on the floor, and
insert the bits you don't, especially if your score
reading skills are not fully developed.

Things are much much easier now in digital as
editing workstations have unlimited levels of
undo. A skilled editor rarely needs to undo
anything. You are expected to work fast and
with extreme accuracy. A classical five-CD
boxed set may have many hundreds
of edits if the music is complex. Each has to
be a perfect cut, in and out, and level matched.

And you think they get all the edits right?



Placing the mics and doing the actual production of the
tracks you are editing would be much more difficult to optimise IMHO.

I do that also. Recording. mixing, dubbing
(instrumental and voice overs) editing and
also post production/mastering are all part
of the job. Each phase of the production
required a separate set of skills, and all the time you
are pushing hard against the clock. Big sessions are
incredibly expensive. You may also be recording music
to picture working with LTC to an accuracy of one sub
frame (1/100th part of a frame, at 25 fps) You have to be
familiar with the major brands of console, and their automation.
They are all different.

People come to me to have me do things which take time to do.
I don't wear a watch.
OK, what you do is highly technical, no doubt about that, and btter you
do than me,
I have never trained for it.

But it is a marvel that recorded music escapes alive
from all thar processing.

Probably I could have been a merchant banker or brain surgeon,
just learn to count money, or wield a scalpel, and she'll be right mate.
The mistakes you make can send a nation broke while you sip champagne,
or a patient just dies, and he cannot complain. More champagne.
Naturally you need to learn for awhile, many years in fact,
to be good at anything that is complex.
If we keep things simple, anyone can be good at it with little training.
Members of the audio club in Sydney did some
two track recordings, all valve gear fully restored, analog tape,
and no post processing. Just marvellous, all without musical training
or any complexities.



I'd be happier doing a live to air FM broadcast though using just a pair
of two crossed
over mics. They even got automatic level setting, just switch on, and
away you go.
For a solist, place a mic, ditto...

:-) You would not get much work! Two gigs on the same day, -
your first and last:-))

I have seen what hap[pens when the ABC come to Llewellen Hall here in
Canberra
to record live to air broadcasts. Its just as simple as I said.
No post processing. Marvellous sound!!!

I'm not lookong for work, or saying that I know all about the recording
industry.
I am saying post recording processes are largely questionable.
Why, for pete's sake?


Working with a crossed-pair is one of the basic techniques. It is
a lot more difficult than you might think to get just the right mix of
direct sound and acoustic from the hall. There is nothing you can do
to correct mis-balance within the orchestra, and very little you
can do afterwards to change the wet/dry ratio.

And nothing I can do about the seat position in the hall I attend.
But if I can get a system to reproduce what I hear at the seat I do
choose,
I am quite happy. Its the best sound possible, because its real.
The reality is well captured by the simple live to air broadcast,
anything from a full 40 strong orchestra or a solo seems fine
from my radio set, and visitors cannot tell the FM from a CD.



You need to be extremely versatile, and skilled in all the varied
techniques ranging from two mics close (vocal and acoustic gtr)
and co-incidental or crossed pairs, to 40 mic multitrack sessions.

Indeed you would have to be extremely gifted to work with so much
gadgetry.

COWPAT = 1 / N squared,

where COWPAT is Chance Of Working Perfectly Any Time,
and N is the number of things you need to get right.



I once heard a friends recording made in 1974 where they have about 8
tracks for an
american jazz ensemble, and they take you through the steps of the
recording
process and post recording process.
After a listen I felt like sacking all the post processors.
They equ'd signal up, down, sideways, all over the place.
It ends up being an interpretation, not a recording.
And beyond this they so often compress it, maybe add reverb, and this
makes it go fizzy,
so they de-ess it, bah, knob twiddling!

You end up with fatty sausage instead of real meat.

The kind of recording you mention above, and also many of the
jazz recordings that I do, just don't work with a co-incidental
or crossed pair. The sections of the band, and even the
individual instruments within those sections have to be close
mic if you want a the hard-hitting dynamic of which a big-band
is capable. Your choice of mics is crucial. In addition to the
three trumpets and three trombones, piano, guitar bass,
drums and percussion, there are five saxes in a standard
big band set up. Sometimes they play alto, and then switch
to baritone, or clarinet or flute or even cor Anglais.
How would you handle all that with your crossed-pair? :-)
How are you going to keep the drums off your woodwinds
mics? Think about it.

I just go for whatever it sounds like at 30 feet away.
Two mics do it.

They hear what I hear.

When you close mic 101 things, it all makes the HF unaturally huge;
Even one violin is a screachy thing up close, better to be a bit away
from it.

The natural experience of music is never to have your head stuck down a
tuba
to hear its real sound. We don't need to stand in front of the
french horn soloist to get it. We don't need to move over in front of
the grand piano
to hear that.

A band or orchestra playing acoustic instrments should be able to make a
pleasant
sound worth recording as is without processing.


For other than acoustic recording(orchestra, small ensemble etc)
you need to have good separation, that is a basic requirement,
and yet every musician has to be able to hear every other.
Sometimes the pianist wants to hear more of the acoustic guitar
and much less of the bass and drums. You have to be pretty
skilled in simultaneous foldback mixing also to give everyone
what they need.

So how come orchestras and bands have been well able to play together
for hundreds of years WITHOUT any amps or ****ing fold back speakers
onstage?

Each trained musician hears enough of each other, but never can he hear
just one out of many, but the miracle of human ability is they can all
interact subconsciously as a team, with accurtae timing and keeping in
tune.

We have a number of renowned local bands here playing all mainly
acoustic instruments. Not a single foldback anywhere.
Sometimes we get concerts where electric guitars are used,
and they always seem to sound wrong in the context.
But one lady with an electric Harp last year performed magic,
and had such skills you rarely ever see, she used both hands and both
feet to work
the darn thing, and the darn thing included digital delay interfaces and
effects
that were nothing but enchanting.
Her tech had a fine ear so that the speaker unit used to produce the
delayed sound
was something that sounded OK in its own right.

In the world of pop and rock its all different.
All the things you cherish are total BS.
Players have very poor musical ability, and ****ed hearing.
Levels must be loud and with severe beat to make up for
nil talent, and all to please vacuum packed brains of the punters
attending concert
who'd fall asleep at Motzart, and they want/need something to give them
a simple buzz.
I have only been to very few rock concerts, and wore earplugs.
But rock and pop is the vast majority of music sold.
The live gigs are all amplified way above levels I was ever happy with,
so I avoid them all.

Then they try to record this ****e and its process, process, process.

Its sausages made with all the mainly otherwise unedible parts of the
animal.


Then often you need to place a vocal on the top of all this.
The clock ticks in multiples of the Euro, not in seconds.
Think about that too.

I don't think about it.

I just spend as long as it takes to get things right.

I make no money, but there is no other way for the dedicated craftsman.

Much of what the world makes is screwed by the clock.

The clock ticks, sure, but trained ppl just turn up and do their thing,
and
good stuff results. The purpose of training is so this can happen
without mistakes, and within budgets.

The craftsman is never within budget, but so highly trained and fussy,
so budgets simply poison quality.

Was Leonardo thinking of the time when he painted the Mona Lisa?


Patrick Turner.



Regards
Iain

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

Speaking of perfection, did you ever consider building a matching
equalizer to go with the preamp?


Gosh, John. You must have a crystal ball:-)
But first comes the matching RIAA stage, a grounded
grid cascode which will run from the same psu.

What exactly do you mean by a "grounded grid cascode"?

Then I thought about an equaliser, a subtle three-band
-3dB, 0, +3dB at LF MF and HF.

Being a barbarian I would prefer something a little less subtle, I was
thinking of maybe -6dB through +6dB max at LF MF and HF, with the
frequencies adjustable in addition to the amount of boost/cut. What
sort of knobs to tweak were you thinking of providing?

Plus of course an ME (eye tube) to indicate level:-))

I could do without the "ME", a nice peak reading meter would be more to
my taste.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:


For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able.
Don't be too pretentious about "understanding" You are a professional
amp builder, one would expect you to know the detail. My skillset
and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big
band recording from a full score. Would you know where to start,
Patrick? :-)

"A 24 track big band recording", Ugh! I'm a huge fan of big band music
and I much prefer recordings made with the sort of minimalist microphone
technique that was used back in the day. I suppose being on the
consumer side of the business my opinion doesn't count for much with
today's record companies though. Back in the early 1960's I was on the
other side of the microphone, and did some live to FM stereo orchestral
broadcasts. Large condenser microphones in a minimalist setup were used
for this. As this was a regular series of broadcasts the same
microphone setup was used every time which was a good thing as
microphone setup, beyond simple spoken word, was not one of my skill
sets, the microphone setup, with an X marks the spot, was determined by
someone far more skilled than me.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[robert casey]

Gosh, John. You must have a crystal ball:-)
But first comes the matching RIAA stage, a grounded
grid cascode which will run from the same psu.


What exactly do you mean by a "grounded grid cascode"?



I think it's a circuit that has a triode with the signal feeding its
grid, and that its plate feeds directly into the cathode of another
triode. And that 2nd triode's grid is biased, but bypassed to ground.
Done to avoid Miller capacitance, but usually done in RF work.

[John Byrns]

In article et,
robert casey wrote:


Gosh, John. You must have a crystal ball:-)
But first comes the matching RIAA stage, a grounded
grid cascode which will run from the same psu.

What exactly do you mean by a "grounded grid cascode"?

I think it's a circuit that has a triode with the signal feeding its
grid, and that its plate feeds directly into the cathode of another
triode. And that 2nd triode's grid is biased, but bypassed to ground.
Done to avoid Miller capacitance, but usually done in RF work.

What you are describing is the standard cascode, if that is what Iain
was talking about why did he have to add the "grounded grid" bit which
we would assume for a standard cascode? I assume Iain's circuit has
another twist.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Patrick Turner]

robert casey wrote:


Gosh, John. You must have a crystal ball:-)
But first comes the matching RIAA stage, a grounded
grid cascode which will run from the same psu.


What exactly do you mean by a "grounded grid cascode"?



I think it's a circuit that has a triode with the signal feeding its
grid, and that its plate feeds directly into the cathode of another
triode. And that 2nd triode's grid is biased, but bypassed to ground.
Done to avoid Miller capacitance, but usually done in RF work.

See the schematic of the Rocket at

http://www.turneraudio.com.au/preamp...hono-2005.html

Go about 20% down the page.

The input stage for MC has 2SK369 "in casode with" 6DJ8 with both halves
paralleled.

The triode has its grid taken to a fixed bias voltage, and the signal is
grounded.
Input to the triode is to the cathode.

Full notes about the amp are at the site.

A pair of tubes can be used for a cascode circuit but you'll never
get the low noise and high gain that you get with the Rocket circuit.

Patrick Turner.

[Iain Churches]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:


For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able.
Don't be too pretentious about "understanding" You are a professional
amp builder, one would expect you to know the detail. My skillset
and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big
band recording from a full score. Would you know where to start,
Patrick? :-)

"A 24 track big band recording", Ugh! I'm a huge fan of big band music
and I much prefer recordings made with the sort of minimalist microphone
technique that was used back in the day. I suppose being on the
consumer side of the business my opinion doesn't count for much with
today's record companies though.

No, sadly it probably doesn't. Nor with today's audiences either.
People expect a big band to be drivin' hard. Most big band
recordings have been multi-mic (but not necessarily multitrack)
since the mid 50s. There were multi-mic recordings made right
at the beginning of the elelectrical recording era.

If you listen carefully at a concert, however good the band, there are
very few titles played without errors in intonation (I hesitate to say
"wrong notes:-) or balance. For a concert, or even a broadcast
this is OK. The visual reference does a lot to compensate. But
a recording may remain in catalogue for 30 years, and so must be
as close to blemish-free as possible. Once you notice a tiny fault,
or one is pointed out to you, it tends to grow bigger and bigger
every time you hear the recording, until you reach the point when
your are not listening to the music at all, but waiting for the wrong
note.

The first take (the one you would hear in concert) is rarely the
best, and "play it till you get it right" is not an option either. So
if the 2nd trumpet forgets to take out his mute for a tutti passage
you can run back and drop him in for four bars without the whole
band having to repeat an otherwise good performance.

Back in the early 1960's I was on the
other side of the microphone, and did some live to FM stereo orchestral
broadcasts. Large condenser microphones in a minimalist setup were used
for this. As this was a regular series of broadcasts the same
microphone setup was used every time which was a good thing as
microphone setup, beyond simple spoken word, was not one of my skill
sets, the microphone setup, with an X marks the spot, was determined by
someone far more skilled than me.

That's something you learn by working as a 2E with
someone who has been doing it a long long time. You get to
rig the studio under this person's beady eye, and gradually
you start to hear what he can hear, and know why he has
taken the decisions he has. There are no shortcuts to this
kind of experience.

Classical recording and choirs are now almost the only genre
in which crossed pairs or co-incidental pairs are used. If,
as a freelance engineer that was all you knew how to do, you
would be lean and hungry:-)

Cheers

Iain

[Iain Churches]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

Speaking of perfection, did you ever consider building a matching
equalizer to go with the preamp?


Gosh, John. You must have a crystal ball:-)
But first comes the matching RIAA stage, a grounded
grid cascode which will run from the same psu.

What exactly do you mean by a "grounded grid cascode"?

Then I thought about an equaliser, a subtle three-band
-3dB, 0, +3dB at LF MF and HF.

Being a barbarian I would prefer something a little less subtle, I was
thinking of maybe -6dB through +6dB max at LF MF and HF, with the
frequencies adjustable in addition to the amount of boost/cut.

If you need 6dB there is something wrong either with the recording,
the system, the room or all three.

What
sort of knobs to tweak were you thinking of providing?

A three position toggle switch Centre off.

Plus of course an ME (eye tube) to indicate level:-))

I could do without the "ME", a nice peak reading meter would be more to
my taste.

OK. What about an analogue BBC type PPM.
Not a lot of people have those:-)

Iain

[Iain Churches]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able.
Don't be too pretentious about "understanding" You are a professional
amp builder, one would expect you to know the detail. My skillset
and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track
big
band recording from a full score. Would you know where to start,
Patrick? :-)

Quite possibly. twiddle all the knobs until its sounded just right
without any gear clipping.

LOL. That equates in the language of RAT to "Building a tube
amp is easy. Just connect all the wires together in different
combinations until it sounds just right!"

I'm not even interested in editing recordings.

I am pleased to hear it:-)


What you say ppl need, ie, musical training isn't
what most of the industry needs at all.

Musical training is only one small part of what is
required. The full score is to me what the amp
schematic is to you. In addition every classical
engineer is expected to have a knowledge of
the major classical works. There are a great
many of them.

And you think they get all the edits right?

Generally speaking, yes I do. The production
team are a pretty unforgiving bunch:-)

Are you interested to take part in an experiment
Patrick? I have some teaching material, audio
files which I can transfer to .mp3. The first of
these is a short baroque passage with about
ten edits in it. The first is made fairly obvious,
being a cut between two takes, one recorded
at 0900 hrs and one the following day at 1700
hrs. Vocal quality varies considerable during
the day. (Despite being obvious, many people
find even the first splice) I would place a friendly
wager that even if I help you with the first,
you cannot find a single one of the others.
Like to try?

In addition I have some big band material
recorded simultaneously on digital and
analogue, and mixed down to digital.
It was an interesting exercise to cut between
the two. Once again, the first splice is obvious.
Few people can distinguish the digital from the
analogue sections. One musician who faired
quite well in this test, told me, "The trumpets
with harmon mutes in the second movement
sounded better from the analogue tape!"

COWPAT = 1 / N squared,

where COWPAT is Chance Of Working Perfectly Any Time,
and N is the number of things you need to get right.

But you said before how easy it was! Now you are
contradicting yourself. If it is as easy as you seem to
think, how can anyone *not* get it right? :-)

Despite the fact that it is far more difficult than
you think, prof editors still get it right, most of the time,
in much the same way as your amplifiers work when
they leave your bench. Please don't get the idea
you are the only competent person on this earth:-)
I work for clients who first booked me thirty years
ago. I must be doing something right:-)
There is no sentiment in business.

I just go for whatever it sounds like at 30 feet away.
Two mics do it.

You have to be joking Patrick!

So how come orchestras and bands have been well able to play together
for hundreds of years WITHOUT any amps or ****ing fold back speakers
onstage?

I am the first to agree with you that a symphony
orchestra, or any other classical ensemble,
choir etc, needs no PA system. (You are, by the
way using the term foldback incorrectly:
When I used it, it was to describe the "internal mix"
sent to members of the band via headphones.
That is the correct definition of foldback, for the
rest of the world excluding Arny, that is:-))

Few other concerts can work without PA/sound
reinforcement or stage mixing. Our team does a
lot of that. It's highly paid. They would not have
us there if it were not deemed necessary:-)


Each trained musician hears enough of each other, but never can he hear
just one out of many, but the miracle of human ability is they can all
interact subconsciously as a team, with accurate timing and keeping in
tune.

I can see from the above that you have never played in an
orchestra or a band. Sit in the 2nd tenor sax seat. You will
probably have the 2nd Trombone blowing down your neck.
Sometimes you can hear little else.

In the world of pop and rock its all different.
All the things you cherish are total BS.
Players have very poor musical ability, and ****ed hearing.
Levels must be loud and with severe beat to make up for
nil talent, and all to please vacuum packed brains of the punters
attending concert
who'd fall asleep at Motzart, and they want/need something to give them
a simple buzz.
I have only been to very few rock concerts, and wore earplugs.
But rock and pop is the vast majority of music sold.
The live gigs are all amplified way above levels I was ever happy with,
so I avoid them all.

That's a sad appraisal You grew up in the 60s, the greatest pop era
of them all:-) Pop and rock both have a lot to recommend them, Be
selective, listen carefully without pre-judgement.

Was Leonardo thinking of the time when he painted the Mona Lisa?

No. But he was not painting 70 musicians being paid at
Euro 150/hour was he? :-)


Best regards

Iain

[Patrick Turner]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able.
Don't be too pretentious about "understanding" You are a professional
amp builder, one would expect you to know the detail. My skillset
and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track
big
band recording from a full score. Would you know where to start,
Patrick? :-)

Quite possibly. twiddle all the knobs until its sounded just right
without any gear clipping.

LOL. That equates in the language of RAT to "Building a tube
amp is easy. Just connect all the wires together in different
combinations until it sounds just right!"

I'm not even interested in editing recordings.

I am pleased to hear it:-)

What you say ppl need, ie, musical training isn't
what most of the industry needs at all.

Musical training is only one small part of what is
required. The full score is to me what the amp
schematic is to you. In addition every classical
engineer is expected to have a knowledge of
the major classical works. There are a great
many of them.

And you think they get all the edits right?

Generally speaking, yes I do. The production
team are a pretty unforgiving bunch:-)

Are you interested to take part in an experiment
Patrick? I have some teaching material, audio
files which I can transfer to .mp3. The first of
these is a short baroque passage with about
ten edits in it. The first is made fairly obvious,
being a cut between two takes, one recorded
at 0900 hrs and one the following day at 1700
hrs. Vocal quality varies considerable during
the day. (Despite being obvious, many people
find even the first splice) I would place a friendly
wager that even if I help you with the first,
you cannot find a single one of the others.
Like to try?

Not really, I am time challenged.

In addition I have some big band material
recorded simultaneously on digital and
analogue, and mixed down to digital.
It was an interesting exercise to cut between
the two. Once again, the first splice is obvious.
Few people can distinguish the digital from the
analogue sections. One musician who faired
quite well in this test, told me, "The trumpets
with harmon mutes in the second movement
sounded better from the analogue tape!"

COWPAT = 1 / N squared,

where COWPAT is Chance Of Working Perfectly Any Time,
and N is the number of things you need to get right.

But you said before how easy it was! Now you are
contradicting yourself. If it is as easy as you seem to
think, how can anyone *not* get it right? :-)


Depends on too many darn things.

Just use two mikes.

Give the band plenty of time to practice,
but tell them they only have one chance to make themselves famous.
Otherwise they'll all be shot.

Tell the conductor to hold his mouth right, or else.

Tell them "Make good music, OK".

Press the start button.

Wait until they are finished.

Press the stop button.

Go around and tell the CD and vinyl guys to print off copies.

That should be that :-))



Despite the fact that it is far more difficult than
you think, prof editors still get it right, most of the time,
in much the same way as your amplifiers work when
they leave your bench. Please don't get the idea
you are the only competent person on this earth:-)
I work for clients who first booked me thirty years
ago. I must be doing something right:-)
There is no sentiment in business.

I just go for whatever it sounds like at 30 feet away.
Two mics do it.

You have to be joking Patrick!

Last time I went to a concert, I was not joking.

At one concert, 6 concert harpists played either all together
on in duets, triplets, quads etc, and I came away thinking
"I MUST NOT SIN AGAIN!!!!"

I figured I'd had two hours of music from heaven,
and that's were I would like to go, where such music is played all day,
so no more sinning.
No more arguments with recording studio ppl on news groups,
no more ridiculous assertions about BS or complexity.

Nothing,

NO MORE.Good.




So how come orchestras and bands have been well able to play together
for hundreds of years WITHOUT any amps or ****ing fold back speakers
onstage?

I am the first to agree with you that a symphony
orchestra, or any other classical ensemble,
choir etc, needs no PA system. (You are, by the
way using the term foldback incorrectly:
When I used it, it was to describe the "internal mix"
sent to members of the band via headphones.
That is the correct definition of foldback, for the
rest of the world excluding Arny, that is:-))

Few other concerts can work without PA/sound
reinforcement or stage mixing. Our team does a
lot of that. It's highly paid. They would not have
us there if it were not deemed necessary:-)

Each trained musician hears enough of each other, but never can he hear
just one out of many, but the miracle of human ability is they can all
interact subconsciously as a team, with accurate timing and keeping in
tune.

I can see from the above that you have never played in an
orchestra or a band.

yep, I used to play in a band for 6mths.

But I really didn't like being poor.
The girls I met after they'd been staring at us all night
were wanting of the rodger a lot but
even that got boring.

Then I got busy with studies, and work, so no more band.


Sit in the 2nd tenor sax seat. You will
probably have the 2nd Trombone blowing down your neck.
Sometimes you can hear little else.

They all manage somehow though.....

Have done for centuries.



In the world of pop and rock its all different.
All the things you cherish are total BS.
Players have very poor musical ability, and ****ed hearing.
Levels must be loud and with severe beat to make up for
nil talent, and all to please vacuum packed brains of the punters
attending concert
who'd fall asleep at Motzart, and they want/need something to give them
a simple buzz.
I have only been to very few rock concerts, and wore earplugs.
But rock and pop is the vast majority of music sold.
The live gigs are all amplified way above levels I was ever happy with,
so I avoid them all.

That's a sad appraisal You grew up in the 60s, the greatest pop era
of them all:-) Pop and rock both have a lot to recommend them, Be
selective, listen carefully without pre-judgement.

My collection of 60s and 70s music is very very tiny.
That stuff is still played on commercial radio all the time and is the
reason I can't listen to it.
One more tune about puerile lerv and i'll scream.

The message was BS. The medium OK,and somethings i didn't mind, but the
vast
majority of pop musicians wasted all their time artistically.
They did it for the money.


Was Leonardo thinking of the time when he painted the Mona Lisa?

No. But he was not painting 70 musicians being paid at
Euro 150/hour was he? :-)

Best regards

Iain

Supermarket checkout counter girls at my local give me Mona's smile
when they ask me how I am.
I answer,
"Much better, now that i've seen you."

Now there, I get a Mona Smile for nothing.

Cheaper than the groceries.

Who needs to go to France, and to that Gallery, and to That Painting?

I like to keep life simple.

Patrick Turner.

[Iain Churches]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

LOL. That equates in the language of RAT to "Building a tube
amp is easy. Just connect all the wires together in different
combinations until it sounds just right!"

Are you interested to take part in an experiment
Patrick? I have some teaching material, audio
files which I can transfer to .mp3. The first of
these is a short baroque passage with about
ten edits in it. The first is made fairly obvious,
being a cut between two takes, one recorded
at 0900 hrs and one the following day at 1700
hrs. Vocal quality varies considerable during
the day. (Despite being obvious, many people
find even the first splice) I would place a friendly
wager that even if I help you with the first,
you cannot find a single one of the others.
Like to try?

Not really, I am time challenged.

OK. I will let you bow out gracefully, to spend
the time fixing up those 60s stereos that the
owners will never collect:-))

Depends on too many darn things.
Just use two mikes.

If only it was that easy:-)

Give the band plenty of time to practice,
but tell them they only have one chance to make themselves famous.
Otherwise they'll all be shot.

Tell the conductor to hold his mouth right, or else.

Tell them "Make good music, OK".

Press the start button.

Wait until they are finished.

Press the stop button.

Go around and tell the CD and vinyl guys to print off copies.

That should be that :-))

You could start your own label "Reich Records"

Last time I went to a concert, I was not joking.

At one concert, 6 concert harpists played either all together
on in duets, triplets, quads etc, and I came away thinking
"I MUST NOT SIN AGAIN!!!!"

I figured I'd had two hours of music from heaven,
and that's were I would like to go, where such music is played all day,
so no more sinning.

That sounds like an amazing experience. Most harpists are ladies.
Where they pretty as well as talented?

No more arguments with recording studio ppl on news groups,
no more ridiculous assertions about BS or complexity.

Not arguments - discussions:-)

Nothing,

NO MORE.Good.

Please make sure they you do qualify to get past the Pearly Gates.
The alternative is too frightening to think about. I have reliable
inside information that once Lucifer's supply of kerosene or
natural gas or whatever he uses to feed the fires of Hades is
exhausted, he has a new surprise in store for those who are
condemmed to eternal damnation. He plans to play all of
Arny's 1000 recordings, in a non stop loop at SPL140 on
Bose speakers via an SS amp!!

yep, I used to play in a band for 6mths.

But I really didn't like being poor.

Both my father ane my brother were professional
classical musicians, I could have followed in their
footsteps, but I preferred three square meals a day
so I decided to take a position on the other side
of the control room glass.

The girls I met after they'd been staring at us all night
were wanting of the rodger a lot but
even that got boring.

So it was a rock band? That's fun, with good basic
bonking at the end of the gig.
The girls who follow jazz outfits are really weird!

Supermarket checkout counter girls at my local give me Mona's smile
when they ask me how I am.
I answer,
"Much better, now that i've seen you."

Now there, I get a Mona Smile for nothing.


Hmm. Here they smile (just as sweetly) and ask "MasterCard or
Visa?"

Cheers
Iain

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:


For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able.
Don't be too pretentious about "understanding" You are a professional
amp builder, one would expect you to know the detail. My skillset
and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big
band recording from a full score. Would you know where to start,
Patrick? :-)

"A 24 track big band recording", Ugh! I'm a huge fan of big band music
and I much prefer recordings made with the sort of minimalist microphone
technique that was used back in the day. I suppose being on the
consumer side of the business my opinion doesn't count for much with
today's record companies though.

No, sadly it probably doesn't.

Perhaps the current sorry state of the music business relates to this.

Nor with today's audiences either.

That might be true, but it isn't obvious, it could simply be recording
industry talking points.

People expect a big band to be drivin' hard.

What does "drivin' hard" have to do with multi track
recording/michrophone techniques? One relates to the music, and the
other relates to the technicalities of the recording process.

Most big band
recordings have been multi-mic (but not necessarily multitrack)
since the mid 50s.

Sure, but that doesn't make it right or even best, it is simply a
convenience for the recording engineer, to make his life easier.

There were multi-mic recordings made right
at the beginning of the elelectrical recording era.

"multi-mic" can mean as few as two, how many mics are you saying were
used at the beginning of the electrical recording era? Of course there
is going to be an accent mic or two, but 24?

If you listen carefully at a concert, however good the band, there are
very few titles played without errors in intonation (I hesitate to say
"wrong notes:-) or balance. For a concert, or even a broadcast
this is OK.

For "pop" recordings where the tracks are short, simply do several takes
and pick the best.

The visual reference does a lot to compensate. But
a recording may remain in catalogue for 30 years, and so must be
as close to blemish-free as possible. Once you notice a tiny fault,
or one is pointed out to you, it tends to grow bigger and bigger
every time you hear the recording, until you reach the point when
your are not listening to the music at all, but waiting for the wrong
note.

This is an interesting point, although I suspect that its effect depends
on the psychological makeup of the individual listener, it would make an
interesting psychological study. Tiny faults don't seem like a big deal
to me, it's mor4e realistic.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

Speaking of perfection, did you ever consider building a matching
equalizer to go with the preamp?

Gosh, John. You must have a crystal ball:-)

Then I thought about an equaliser, a subtle three-band
-3dB, 0, +3dB at LF MF and HF.

Being a barbarian I would prefer something a little less subtle, I was
thinking of maybe -6dB through +6dB max at LF MF and HF, with the
frequencies adjustable in addition to the amount of boost/cut.

If you need 6dB there is something wrong either with the recording,
the system, the room or all three.

I'm assuming the system and room have already been dealt with, and the
purpose of the equalizer is to correct faulty recordings, and to allow
the tonal balance to be adjusted to accommodate the listeners personal
taste.

What
sort of knobs to tweak were you thinking of providing?

A three position toggle switch Centre off.

Have you been able to locate suitable toggle switches for this
application? I have not been able to find easily available toggle
switches that will work in this type of circuit. I think there are two
forms of commonly available toggle switches, one where both circuits are
off in the center position, and one where both are on in the center
position, neither very useful for equalizer circuits like we are talking
about. You are probably more willing to search out unusual switches
than I am, and hopefully will find the required type.

For my purposes I would probably go with -6, -4, -2, 0, +2, +4, +6 dB
using rotary switches.

It sounds like you plan on using fixed corner frequencies, what
frequencies would you use? What about the MF band where you need to
choose not only a center frequency, but also the "Q"? What does the
response of your equalizer look like when all three switches are in the
+3 dB positions, and when all three are in the -3 dB position?

Plus of course an ME (eye tube) to indicate level:-))

I could do without the "ME", a nice peak reading meter would be more to
my taste.

OK. What about an analogue BBC type PPM.
Not a lot of people have those:-)

That would be ideal, but you also need more toggle switches, I figure at
least six 3 position toggle switches would be the minimum, and eight or
more would be better. Using rotary switches would reduce the required
number of switches. A combination of rotary and toggle switches might
be the most sensible.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Patrick Turner]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

LOL. That equates in the language of RAT to "Building a tube
amp is easy. Just connect all the wires together in different
combinations until it sounds just right!"

Are you interested to take part in an experiment
Patrick? I have some teaching material, audio
files which I can transfer to .mp3. The first of
these is a short baroque passage with about
ten edits in it. The first is made fairly obvious,
being a cut between two takes, one recorded
at 0900 hrs and one the following day at 1700
hrs. Vocal quality varies considerable during
the day. (Despite being obvious, many people
find even the first splice) I would place a friendly
wager that even if I help you with the first,
you cannot find a single one of the others.
Like to try?

Not really, I am time challenged.

OK. I will let you bow out gracefully, to spend
the time fixing up those 60s stereos that the
owners will never collect:-))

Depends on too many darn things.
Just use two mikes.

If only it was that easy:-)

Give the band plenty of time to practice,
but tell them they only have one chance to make themselves famous.
Otherwise they'll all be shot.

Tell the conductor to hold his mouth right, or else.

Tell them "Make good music, OK".

Press the start button.

Wait until they are finished.

Press the stop button.

Go around and tell the CD and vinyl guys to print off copies.

That should be that :-))

You could start your own label "Reich Records"

Last time I went to a concert, I was not joking.

At one concert, 6 concert harpists played either all together
on in duets, triplets, quads etc, and I came away thinking
"I MUST NOT SIN AGAIN!!!!"

I figured I'd had two hours of music from heaven,
and that's were I would like to go, where such music is played all day,
so no more sinning.

That sounds like an amazing experience. Most harpists are ladies.
Where they pretty as well as talented?

No more arguments with recording studio ppl on news groups,
no more ridiculous assertions about BS or complexity.

Not arguments - discussions:-)

Nothing,

NO MORE.Good.

Please make sure they you do qualify to get past the Pearly Gates.
The alternative is too frightening to think about. I have reliable
inside information that once Lucifer's supply of kerosene or
natural gas or whatever he uses to feed the fires of Hades is
exhausted, he has a new surprise in store for those who are
condemmed to eternal damnation. He plans to play all of
Arny's 1000 recordings, in a non stop loop at SPL140 on
Bose speakers via an SS amp!!

yep, I used to play in a band for 6mths.

But I really didn't like being poor.

Both my father ane my brother were professional
classical musicians, I could have followed in their
footsteps, but I preferred three square meals a day
so I decided to take a position on the other side
of the control room glass.

The girls I met after they'd been staring at us all night
were wanting of the rodger a lot but
even that got boring.

So it was a rock band? That's fun, with good basic
bonking at the end of the gig.
The girls who follow jazz outfits are really weird!

Supermarket checkout counter girls at my local give me Mona's smile
when they ask me how I am.
I answer,
"Much better, now that i've seen you."

Now there, I get a Mona Smile for nothing.


Hmm. Here they smile (just as sweetly) and ask "MasterCard or
Visa?"

Cheers
Iain

Well wadaya reckon Mona was telling Leo?

"That'll be 15 duckets please"

Maybe at Leo's age, it'd have cheaper to paint the girl's picture
than root her, and painting her would have taken much more of her time
than a bonk, so maybe the cost was the same.

Either way, she looks pleased with the deal Leo must have offered.

And maybe in reality she didn't look as well as Leo painted.

Its a bit like Vogue magazine, they remove all the blemishes.

I guess you remove all the bum notes.

Patrick Turner.

[Iain Churches]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

If you need 6dB there is something wrong either with the recording,
the system, the room or all three.

I'm assuming the system and room have already been dealt with, and the
purpose of the equalizer is to correct faulty recordings, and to allow
the tonal balance to be adjusted to accommodate the listeners personal
taste.

Understood. I know a lot of people who would find +/- 3dB
too brutal.

Have you been able to locate suitable toggle switches for this
application? I have not been able to find easily available toggle
switches that will work in this type of circuit. I think there are two
forms of commonly available toggle switches, one where both circuits are
off in the center position, and one where both are on in the center
position, neither very useful for equalizer circuits like we are talking
about. You are probably more willing to search out unusual switches
than I am, and hopefully will find the required type.

They are used in audio consoles.


For my purposes I would probably go with -6, -4, -2, 0, +2, +4, +6 dB
using rotary switches.

That is an easy way round it. One could lift this idea to any
level sophistication one chooses. If it makes good sense to do
so is a different matter:-)

I have seen an EQ unit with three push buttons which step up to +6dB
and then down through 0dB to -6dB. The level of equalisation is indicated
by a Nixie tube. That's fun, but a bridge too far in my book.

It sounds like you plan on using fixed corner frequencies, what
frequencies would you use? What about the MF band where you need to
choose not only a center frequency, but also the "Q"? What does the
response of your equalizer look like when all three switches are in the
+3 dB positions, and when all three are in the -3 dB position?

I don't think most people need that level of EQ. If I ever need to
sweep any f or have variable Q, I use a digital processor.

But going back to your suggestion, it could be implemented also
with rotary stepped attenuators, or with toggle switches controlling
relays or FETs. The possibilities are endless.

That would be ideal, but you also need more toggle switches, I figure at
least six 3 position toggle switches would be the minimum, and eight or
more would be better. Using rotary switches would reduce the required
number of switches. A combination of rotary and toggle switches might
be the most sensible.

The BBC analogue meter is no longer in production, though I do know
a source from which they can probably be obtained NOS.

There are a large number of tone control designs, some of them pretty
radical which are not even flat when all controls are set to zero, but
them of course this kind of design can always be switched out of
circuit.

I would probably use the Peter Baxandall topology with an SRPP
in front and a cathode follower to follow:-)

John, please give some more thought to this idea. It might be
interesting to have a group project on RAT, as many
closed groups do. There are enough clever people here to
come up with a very good design (but on the other hand there
are also enough lunatics to destroy such a thread very early on,
as we have seen before)

Cordially
Iain

[Iain Churches]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...

Iain Churches wrote:
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

So why didn't you just say so, a standard CF with CCS triode as the
cathode dc load?

I didn't say so because the textbooks call it an ALCF (Active load
cathode follower)

You may recall that I e-mailed this very schematic to you, about
18 months ago, Patrick, and asked for your opinion. You could
find no fault with it at that time.

At that time you weren't selling preamps and thus competing with
Patrick. What has caused the change in Patrick's attitude is that you
are offering to take orders.

Hello Andre

It was not my intention to give that impression. At this
moment, I have nothing to sell. In fact we have one
2 channel preamp between two people. So I guess I own a
mono channel and half a psu:-) I am certainly not offering to
take orders.

I seem for some reason, to have put Patrick's nose out of
joint. I don't know how or why, and this was certainly not
my intention. I hold him in very high esteem.

Perhaps the reason is that a couple of hobbyists
have built (but not designed) an amp of quality
to match his own work?

Given the limited spare time I have, if I were to spend the
next fifty years studying tube audio theory I would not reach
Patrick's level, so I do not compete with him in any way.

But there again, he doesn't compete with me either. It
would be fun to have him as a member of a recording team
and there would certainly be no shortage of topics of
conversation in-flight, or while driving in the truck to the
gig. But what could he actually *do* Probably nothing!
Perhaps technical support? Knowing how a Quad II works
is of small consolation. Most tech support staff have
a degree in digital technology. There is no shortage of
such people. Patrick's age exceeds by 8dB the maximum
for basic-level employment, and from what he writes about
"twiddling all the knobs till it sounds right" his knowledge
of recording techniques and music is probably 60dB below
what is expected at entry level:-)

This "just twiddle all the knobs until you get it right" is
something you hear quite often, but not from an intelligent
person such as Patrick. In RAT language, it translates as
"Building tube amps is easy. You just connect all the wires
up in different combinations till it sounds right"

Translating further for the musicians amongst us (and I know
there are many who read but do not post) who play a brass
or woodwind instruments, this comes out as "Press all the keys
or valves one by one or in combination until you get the right note."

This makes two further assumptions. One, that you can read
the "dots" to determine what the right note might be, and two,
that you have the skill to produce the embouchure required to
produce a basic note in the first place:-)

Something about Shakespeare, typewriters and monkeys
comes to mind:-)

This whole preamp project started off as an exercise to find out
what people (thought they) would like from a preamp. Deciding
the topology was not difficult. Most seemed to prefer the ALCF
compared with a cascode or a mu-follower (probably because
most listen from CD so no additional gain is required)

The cathode follower sounded good (and most could not tell it
from the sound produced when the CD player was plugged
straight into the power amp with stepped attenuators). The
cathode follower preamp has the advantage of four or more
switched inputs.

Then came the question of functions, and the question of whether
or not to have a separate psu. Most liked the idea. The discussion
proceeded through front and rear panel facilities and design to
footprint and general shape. We built a preamp that pleased
everyone consulted in the matter, and many that were not.

I was interested to get the reactions of a wider range of people
and so took some pics, and made some brief notes on two identical
web pages each with an embedded counter and its own address.
I then posted one to RAT and the other to a Scandi closed group.
The post to RAT attracted 84 hits in 48hrs, and posts from three
people, plus four e-mails. The post to the Scandi group attracted
50 hits, and nearly 40 replies, with 12 e-mails.

On the Scandi group, most replied. "Looks very good.
Would be interested to hear it" A couple of people wrote.
"Clearly there is an error in your noise measurement
methodology. Please proceed as follows ..........."
Another sent a list of suitable OP amps to make a 60dB
measuring amp. A fourth offered to build me such a device
for cost of parts and postage.

The timbre of replies on RAT was somewhat different:-)


Regards to all
Iain

[Patrick Turner]

Andre Jute wrote:

Iain Churches wrote:
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

So why didn't you just say so, a standard CF with CCS triode as the
cathode dc load?

I didn't say so because the textbooks call it an ALCF (Active load
cathode follower)

You may recall that I e-mailed this very schematic to you, about
18 months ago, Patrick, and asked for your opinion. You could
find no fault with it at that time.

At that time you weren't selling preamps and thus competing with
Patrick. What has caused the change in Patrick's attitude is that you
are offering to take orders. I do sincerely hope that Patrick won't go
the way of several predecessors who came to believe that their
services to RAT entitled them to consider it their own exclusive
promotional channel. What happened to them is no secret.

I rarely sell anything, and I never ever contemplated I should
change attitude because of competion.
Good luck to all who compete with me.
I hope you all laugh all the way to the bank.

My criticism this time has been resolved. 18mths ago I did indeed
endorse the design Iain was using, and i endorse it now, but I have now
tendered some simple recomendations and brough his attention to circuits
at my website
allowing a very similar basic topology to operate from much lower supply
rails seen in
the schematic at
http://www.turneraudio.com.au/line-preamp-2003.html

All this business about any poster proving himself is the utmost crap.
It was tried by the Magnequest Scum as a way of grabbing an exlusive
marketing channel for Creepy Mike Lafevre and his mates; they got
stomped into the ground, and Patrick can't have forgotten that the
same thing was tried by a bunch of hangers-on on behalf of Patrick,
whose relict is the sad Jon Yaeger. I can't even remember the names of
the others who tried it and came short. Neddie whatsisface from
Chicago was one, and Vinnie the Nodding Dog Man. and scads of others.

I expect an absense of BS and freedom to say the truth just like you
expect.
I think such humble expectations are not "utmost crap".

I have never made a sale of anything to any regular poster at r.a.t,
and have never expected to. I never came here to dominate what I could
have
seen as a supply of possible customers. I came here to talk about tube
craft
and I have had a fair amount to say because I have become so experienced
at
tube craft from which I make part of my living.

The past belongs in the past, I'm not like Le Fevre.
I forgive all who have wronged me, so please pardon me for bruising
what ever egos asked to be bruised, and let's move along soon.



RAT isn't the Fourth Reich, electricity to the testicles if your
project doesn't conform in triplicate to some grumpy old man's wet
dream that all information should be accessible to him for no better
reason than that he wants it.

yes, but its easier if ppl give the full bootful of info.

Nobody will really think this is the 4th Reich.

We all know why you have a website; its to make yourself known, make
your ideas clear,
and make them available, just a few clicks away.
Our perceptions are now dependant on which clicks we make,
and perhaps which cliques we hang out with.

I have a website where its hard to find a price on anything.
Since having a website hasn't made a miraculous increase in my earnings,
the vast
majority of content are ideas freely given and able to be tried by
anyone,
spamming diyers just makes them puke...



And when there is even the whiff of a
commercial motive in blowing up a big pseudo-storm about someone's
project, the hackles of the RATs who lived through it all so often
before start rising. It's a bad sign; we may be dinosaurs but we're
carnivorous until our final half-ton snack taken on our dying breath.

What's even worse -- since Patrick will soon come to his senses -- is
that his present behaviour gives aid and comfort to malicious slime
like Poopie and Worthless who, without the tiniest fraction of
Patrick's knowledge of tubes and with none of Patrick's normal
goodwill to all men, are trying to set themselves up as arbiters on
RAT. The only worse thing I can think of that can happen to RAT is the
return of Chernofsky, the infamous BobC, Creepy Mike LaFevre's
rotweiler.

This is just a case of midlife crisis. Patrick will live through it,
we'll live through it.

I must of had several life crisies along the way, dunno if this is
another.

Winston Churchill summed up politics as being "just one damn thing after
another"
He had black dog depression, and wouldn't anyone, trying to save
Britain?
He laid bricks for therapy; his garden walls remain standing somewhere I
think
for folks to admire.

Seems perhaps I had to resort to some bricklaying for the mind at times
to feel
complete during my time as a builder. But unlike Winston,
I became master tradesman of all things to do with construction;
there wasn't anything I wouldn't or couldn't do.
But way above my efforts, Winston went on laying the bricks of his
nation to build a better Britain,
and despite his faults, he wasn't such a bad grumpy old statesman.

Jesus was a carpenter, so we should not criticise tradesmen too
unkindly.

Patrick Turner, who may have once voted for Jesus if he'd stood for
election as Roman Emperor, had I been around at the time.

Patrick Turner.




Andre Jute
Electromonter

[Iain Churches]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


I rarely sell anything, and I never ever contemplated I should
change attitude because of competion.
Good luck to all who compete with me.
I hope you all laugh all the way to the bank.

Patrick. I was surprised to read the above paragraph.
I got the impression that you had an order book as thick
as the London telephone directory.

My criticism this time has been resolved. 18mths ago I did indeed
endorse the design Iain was using, and i endorse it now, but I have now
tendered some simple recomendations and brough his attention to circuits
at my website
allowing a very similar basic topology to operate from much lower supply
rails seen in
the schematic at
http://www.turneraudio.com.au/line-preamp-2003.html

Hmm. The B+ on the ALCF is 285V. is it marked as something higher
on your copy?

I have never made a sale of anything to any regular poster at r.a.t,
and have never expected to. I never came here to dominate what I could
have
seen as a supply of possible customers. I came here to talk about tube
craft
and I have had a fair amount to say because I have become so experienced
at
tube craft from which I make part of my living.

I doubt that anyone could sell anything to the members of what
is essentially a DIY fettlers group:-)

Nobody will really think this is the 4th Reich.

A lot of people seem to think it is.
I received an e-mail from a non.English speaker just an hour
or so ago. I am thinking whether or not I should post it here,
without his name.

We all know why you have a website; its to make yourself known, make
your ideas clear,
and make them available, just a few clicks away.
Our perceptions are now dependant on which clicks we make,
and perhaps which cliques we hang out with.

:-)) I have my website because I still keep contact with a huge
number of old friends and colleagues, even kids that I went to
boarding school with. They often asked "What's life like in
Finland?" So I posted a few pics to show 'em how grim it is:-)
and it all started from there.


I must of had several life crisies along the way, dunno if this is
another.

Winston Churchill summed up politics as being "just one damn thing after
another"
He had black dog depression, and wouldn't anyone, trying to save
Britain?
He laid bricks for therapy; his garden walls remain standing somewhere I
think
for folks to admire.

Yes indeed. It is called Chartwell, in Westerham Kent
It has fine but unpretentious gardens and a huge collection
of his painting. The wall to which you refer it also still there.

You probably know that Adolf Hitler was something of an
amateur painter. Churchill blamed the selection committee for
the Vienna Academy of Art ( who turned AH down) for WW2.

Best regards
Iain

[Arny Krueger]

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


My skillset
and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big
band recording from a full score.

Using tubed electronics exclusively?

[Iain Churches]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

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


My skillset
and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big
band recording from a full score.

Using tubed electronics exclusively?

Byfåne :-))

[Arny Krueger]

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

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


My skillset
and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track
big
band recording from a full score.

Using tubed electronics exclusively?

Byfåne :-))


Meaning exactly what, Iain?

[Patrick Turner]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


I rarely sell anything, and I never ever contemplated I should
change attitude because of competion.
Good luck to all who compete with me.
I hope you all laugh all the way to the bank.

Patrick. I was surprised to read the above paragraph.
I got the impression that you had an order book as thick
as the London telephone directory.

I have had to refuse several clients because I have six months work in
front of me.
I do a lot of repairs and re-engineering jobs and a pair of amps might
take 2 weeks to get right. This is how long a pair of Manley Labs are
now taking.

You only need a dozen jobs, and it all adds up.
The ESL job was siupposed to make a month, but problems with the kits
have delayed it,
I have to complet a pair of new 845s, and get a cash flow, so I have to
do a lot of different things.
one thing delays the other.

I don't have any assistant, except for all the solid state gear.

Nobody wants to train to be a tube amp technician so they can earn low
wages.
Nobody wants to pay me prper tradesmans rates for the work I do.
So I couldn't ever find an assistant.


My criticism this time has been resolved. 18mths ago I did indeed
endorse the design Iain was using, and i endorse it now, but I have now
tendered some simple recomendations and brough his attention to circuits
at my website
allowing a very similar basic topology to operate from much lower supply
rails seen in
the schematic at
http://www.turneraudio.com.au/line-preamp-2003.html

Hmm. The B+ on the ALCF is 285V. is it marked as something higher
on your copy?

seemed to be 400V.
If you have only 285V, then idle current would be very low indeed.
It will still work fine, but in a preamp the more idle current there is
the greater
the voltage able to be swing into a load without THD and that makes for
the better amp.


I have never made a sale of anything to any regular poster at r.a.t,
and have never expected to. I never came here to dominate what I could
have
seen as a supply of possible customers. I came here to talk about tube
craft
and I have had a fair amount to say because I have become so experienced
at
tube craft from which I make part of my living.

I doubt that anyone could sell anything to the members of what
is essentially a DIY fettlers group:-)

Nobody will really think this is the 4th Reich.

A lot of people seem to think it is.
I received an e-mail from a non.English speaker just an hour
or so ago. I am thinking whether or not I should post it here,
without his name.

r.a.t is just a discussion group. So are the national Parliaments
of countries where democracy is a feature.

Big arguments happen with democracies, just like big arguments
happen between family members.

By way of argument and discussion the truth encouraged to
surface in the presence of Bull****, Muck, Spurious Ideologies,
Crap Behaviours, Incalcitrant poo Rakers, Idiots Masquerading
Professors,
Experts who are Drips Turned Off, Off Topic Distractions etc.

Almost every facet of human behaviour is to be found here.

Its more like a Circus, surely, than the 4th Reich.

There are many people who would like things more civilised, controlled,
respectful, BS free, acrimony free, but these poor misguided souls
do not understand the nature of mankind whenever men gather to discuss
anything any time.

Even before humans evolved from monkeys, they argued over everything,
and they still do.
arguement is instinctual, and it also smells. Its never ever going to
cease.

So post what you like here and risk being ridiculed.

Just remember, if someone wants to call me pork chop,
I'll have them looking like a rotten old bit of sausage in no time.

So don't anyone call me a pork chop. Its easier that way.
People forget though, they backslide into BS and insult, and
their emotions cloud up any attempt to fly amoung the technical issues.

In democracies, the minorities are given voice to argue for their own
rights and protection.
Not in the 4th Reich, guys are sent around at 2am to cart away the noise
makers.

We all know why you have a website; its to make yourself known, make
your ideas clear,
and make them available, just a few clicks away.
Our perceptions are now dependant on which clicks we make,
and perhaps which cliques we hang out with.

:-)) I have my website because I still keep contact with a huge
number of old friends and colleagues, even kids that I went to
boarding school with. They often asked "What's life like in
Finland?" So I posted a few pics to show 'em how grim it is:-)
and it all started from there.

Mine is for information, not friends.
My ISP said I had 118,000 hits in February alone.
I emailed him back to say he must be kidding me, hell, how come not one
email
about a sale?

My site is about information.




I must of had several life crisies along the way, dunno if this is
another.

Winston Churchill summed up politics as being "just one damn thing after
another"
He had black dog depression, and wouldn't anyone, trying to save
Britain?
He laid bricks for therapy; his garden walls remain standing somewhere I
think
for folks to admire.

Yes indeed. It is called Chartwell, in Westerham Kent
It has fine but unpretentious gardens and a huge collection
of his painting. The wall to which you refer it also still there.

You probably know that Adolf Hitler was something of an
amateur painter. Churchill blamed the selection committee for
the Vienna Academy of Art ( who turned AH down) for WW2.

Artists do so often have tempestuous tempers.

Basically, many artists have not yet grown up,
and have a childlike intuitive way of interpreting their world.

These days there are many misfits who become artists because they are
useless at
doing anything else. And most have zero talent and just make
more mess in the world than both artists and non artists have already
made.
They get very terse when you tell then your dog could paint a better
mess than they did.
Its so hard to be unique and original that they resort to all manner of
mess making. They want their hideous art to be well galeried, displayed
at public expense
in the town square, but most modern "art" is an eyesore.
Same goes for most music composed yesterday. Its crap. Just noise,
peurile canned rebellion.

Why can't artists get a decent wage? nobody really likes what they
produce.
Non artists, ie 99% of us might like to say we like art, and artists,
and that makes
us feel we are not dull and boring, and in fact we are unique, eclectic,
broad minded et all.
Reality is that we really hate artists and thier art, we won't pay them
a cent to
portray us, especially not if the portrayal is one big lie, and warped
by the artistic
expressionism. Much art though is just messageless, colour for colours
sake,
like visual jazz, and it rests on the eye a bit easier.
Artists sometimes have the brains to provoke us and we cannot ignore
them, and sending their wok
to the tip is like demolishing our wisdom. But most artists haven't the
brains for this.
Being at all logical is being anti-artistic.
I've never known an artist who could remotely understand Ohm's Law.

In 3 days time people will have forgotten all about bad art because it
was so bad.

Yes, there is BAD ART.

There are awful looking buildings. Woeful city landscapes. We must not
leave out the architects and town planners
when we desire to place people in the stocks so we may throw rotten
vegetables at them.
Trouble is that last time ppl here tried to take an offending artist to
the town stocks for
poetic justice, the stocks were crammed with politicians begging for
mercy.

Patrick Turner.



Best regards
Iain

[bassett[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able.
.. My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a
24 track
big band recording from a full score.
In addition I have some big band material recorded simultaneously on
digital and analogue, and mixed down to digital. It was an
interesting exercise to cut between
the two. Once again, the first splice is obvious. Few people can distinguish
the digital from the analogue sections. One musician who faired quite well
in this test, told me, "The trumpets with harmon mutes in the second
movement sounded better from the analogue tape!"


Speaking only as a consumer, or buyer, I find this interesting, not
from a perspective of doing it, but as to the intricacies of the
work involved.
A while ago I started converting Vinyl to C.D. using "sound forge"
anyway after buggering round for a couple of day's , attempting to
remove bings and bongs, I gave the thing away, make a list of the
vinyls I wanted to copy, throw all the vinyl's in the garbage bin,
and took my list down to my local CD shop, and bought the CD's.
End of project.

But there does not seem to be a lot of demand for big band music
in Australia. my local music store might keep the very basic's of
classical, while our "lone'' hi-end store tells me he can get
anything in with-in a couple of days.
but they simply don't stock it, simply because there is little or
no one buying that type of music.
You would even be hard pushed to find anything in Sydney, with
possably only a couple of places stocking a small selection .
Establishments like "Fish" and the Vinyl specialist [ or whatever there
called] might stock some , but the list would be short.
So are the production numbers high, and is it a viable proposition to
record and market this type of music in the first place. perhaps
the European music scene is different in there requirements.
I know that some of the stuff I like to buy does come with a high
price, and I would be looking at $40 for a Classical Guitarists CD,
while a "Doof Doof brigade" thing, comes at $9.95. or 4 bucks on
special.

I had this strange woman in Madrid or somewhere used to send me
Flamenco stuff, she also collected stray cats, and husbands,
preferable de-sexed and wealthy.
The husbands not the cats, so she got the elbow, when the CD's stopped
arriving, Someone said she travelled the world visiting people she met
on Forums.
Another lucky escape, I did hear she was also into whips and
chains.

I have also found that quite a bit of stuff comes out of the
studio, completely un-edited, if that is the word. Classical Guitarists
of the vain of Armik, Ottmar Liebert, and Govi, all produce stuff that
comes straight of the recording floor, with little or no editing.
And people like Rodrigo and Gabriela, also come with passages with
loud scrapes, clicks and dings. They even advertise there stuff as
completely un-edited. then you get people like John Williams, who
produce sterile, super clean recordings, and really compared to the
un-edited stuff it just does not sound right.
So are recording enginners a dieing breed , or will the small market big
band // classicial stuff still be produced even if in small numbers, and
reduced to a couple of sound studio's.
bassett

[Patrick Turner]

Arny Krueger wrote:

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

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


My skillset
and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track
big
band recording from a full score.

Using tubed electronics exclusively?

Byfåne :-))


Meaning exactly what, Iain?

"By phone", you idiot.

Patrick Turner.

[Iain Churches]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi...


My skillset
and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track
big
band recording from a full score.

Using tubed electronics exclusively?

Byfåne :-))


Meaning exactly what, Iain?

"By phone", you idiot.

Patrick Turner.

Nice try Patrick. But no cigar:-)

Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi...


My skillset
and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track
big
band recording from a full score.

Using tubed electronics exclusively?

Byfåne :-))


Meaning exactly what, Iain?

"By phone", you idiot.

Actually Patrick, you just acted like a Byfåne. ;-)

[Patrick Turner]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi...


My skillset
and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track
big
band recording from a full score.

Using tubed electronics exclusively?

Byfåne :-))


Meaning exactly what, Iain?

"By phone", you idiot.

Actually Patrick, you just acted like a Byfåne. ;-)

Arnoldius, you have no zence of hoomer.

Patrick Turner.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

If you need 6dB there is something wrong either with the recording,
the system, the room or all three.

I'm assuming the system and room have already been dealt with, and the
purpose of the equalizer is to correct faulty recordings, and to allow
the tonal balance to be adjusted to accommodate the listeners personal
taste.

Understood. I know a lot of people who would find +/- 3dB
too brutal.

Have you been able to locate suitable toggle switches for this
application? I have not been able to find easily available toggle
switches that will work in this type of circuit. I think there are two
forms of commonly available toggle switches, one where both circuits are
off in the center position, and one where both are on in the center
position, neither very useful for equalizer circuits like we are talking
about. You are probably more willing to search out unusual switches
than I am, and hopefully will find the required type.

They are used in audio consoles.

Are you talking about real toggle switches, or lever switches? If you
can provide a link to specifications/sources for real toggle switches,
in other than the two standard configurations I mentioned, I would
appreciate it greatly.

I have now realized however that the standard toggle switch
configurations are adequate for the equalizer you are talking about,
although not for a project I have been contemplating.

For my purposes I would probably go with -6, -4, -2, 0, +2, +4, +6 dB
using rotary switches.

That is an easy way round it. One could lift this idea to any
level sophistication one chooses. If it makes good sense to do
so is a different matter:-)

I have seen an EQ unit with three push buttons which step up to +6dB
and then down through 0dB to -6dB. The level of equalisation is indicated
by a Nixie tube. That's fun, but a bridge too far in my book.

It sounds like you plan on using fixed corner frequencies, what
frequencies would you use? What about the MF band where you need to
choose not only a center frequency, but also the "Q"? What does the
response of your equalizer look like when all three switches are in the
+3 dB positions, and when all three are in the -3 dB position?

I don't think most people need that level of EQ. If I ever need to
sweep any f or have variable Q, I use a digital processor.

The LF and HF ranges of your proposed +/- 3 dB equalizer are obvious
enough, but it is not so obvious what you are talking about for the MF
range?

But going back to your suggestion, it could be implemented also
with rotary stepped attenuators, or with toggle switches controlling
relays or FETs. The possibilities are endless.

That would be ideal, but you also need more toggle switches, I figure at
least six 3 position toggle switches would be the minimum, and eight or
more would be better. Using rotary switches would reduce the required
number of switches. A combination of rotary and toggle switches might
be the most sensible.

The BBC analogue meter is no longer in production, though I do know
a source from which they can probably be obtained NOS.

I did not mean to imply and actual BBC meter should be used, I assumed a
peak reading meter circuit designed specifically for this project, or a
clone of the BBC circuit if desired. I assume that analog meter
movements are still manufactured, or am I wrong about this?

There are a large number of tone control designs, some of them pretty
radical which are not even flat when all controls are set to zero, but
them of course this kind of design can always be switched out of
circuit.

I would probably use the Peter Baxandall topology with an SRPP
in front and a cathode follower to follow:-)

What do you mean by the "Peter Baxandall topology"? When I think of a
"Peter Baxandall topology" I always think of his feedback tone control
circuit, but today many people, at least here on this usenet group, seem
to consider the "Baxandall" tone control circuit to be the standard
passive tone control circuit. I would like to see some evidence of who
actually developed the common passive tone control circuit, it is not
obvious to me that it was "Peter Baxandall" was responsible for it as
many today claim, although it is possible, I don't know and would like
to see some evidence to settle the issue once and for all.

Unfortunately I don't think the passive topology, whoever may have
designed it, easily accommodates the addition of a "MF" band.

John, please give some more thought to this idea. It might be
interesting to have a group project on RAT, as many
closed groups do. There are enough clever people here to
come up with a very good design (but on the other hand there
are also enough lunatics to destroy such a thread very early on,
as we have seen before)

I have been giving this idea quite a bit of thought. There are a lot of
alternatives, but I have picked one as a starting point, although it is
difficult to proceed very far without having a better idea what you want
the "MF" equalizer to do? Could you provide some input on the
specifications desired for the "MF" equalizer? Once I have had a chance
to think a bit about the requirements for the "MF" equalizer, I will
write up my thoughts and post them here.


Regards,

John Byrns

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