Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Tim Perry
 
Posts: n/a
Default mixer measurements

i decided to run some measurements on the Behringer mixer i just got then
compare it to some other mixers. here's what i got:

Behringer MX 2642A

% THD
50 Hz .048
100 Hz .05
1000 Hz .05
10 kHz .058
15 kHz .064

IM distortion (60 & 7kHz) .06 %
noise* .0355 mv

Soundcraft F1-16

%THD
50 Hz .048
100 Hz .05
1000 Hz .052
10 kHz .06
15 kHz .068

IM .052 %
noise* .035 mv

Mackie 32-8

%THD
50 Hz .052
100 Hz .058
1000 Hz .05
10 kHz .064
15 kHz .072

IM .06 %
noise* .09 mv

no mixer: straight from sig gen to analyzer

%THD
50 Hz .046
100 Hz .048
1000 Hz .05
10 kHz .056
15 kHz .062

IM .052 %
noise* .014 mv

*methodology:
noise measurements made referenced to -40 dB input and 0 dB output with sig
gen muted and one ch open all others down.
all other measurement made with 150 ohm source at -40 dB into mic input.
mixer output set to 0 dB into active balanced (transformerless) meter. tone
controls all at neutral.
in "straight through" measurements the sig gen output was increased by 20
dB.


conclusion: i was rather surprised at how well the 2642 tested relative to
the other units.
the online spec sheet claims a THD of .007% @ +4 dB
i wonder if its an actual measurement or is derived in some fashion.
my equipment seems to be functioning within its specified tolerances.
http://www.pi-usa.com/ag51/ag51g.htm#SPECIFICATIONS


  #2   Report Post  
Phil Allison
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tim Perry" wrote in message
...
i decided to run some measurements on the Behringer mixer i just got then
compare it to some other mixers. here's what i got:

Behringer MX 2642A

% THD
50 Hz .048
100 Hz .05
1000 Hz .05
10 kHz .058
15 kHz .064

IM distortion (60 & 7kHz) .06 %
noise* .0355 mv

Soundcraft F1-16

%THD
50 Hz .048
100 Hz .05
1000 Hz .052
10 kHz .06
15 kHz .068

IM .052 %
noise* .035 mv

Mackie 32-8

%THD
50 Hz .052
100 Hz .058
1000 Hz .05
10 kHz .064
15 kHz .072

IM .06 %
noise* .09 mv

no mixer: straight from sig gen to analyzer

%THD
50 Hz .046
100 Hz .048
1000 Hz .05
10 kHz .056
15 kHz .062

IM .052 %
noise* .014 mv

*methodology:
noise measurements made referenced to -40 dB input and 0 dB output with

sig
gen muted and one ch open all others down.
all other measurement made with 150 ohm source at -40 dB into mic input.
mixer output set to 0 dB into active balanced (transformerless) meter.

tone
controls all at neutral.
in "straight through" measurements the sig gen output was increased by 20
dB.


conclusion: i was rather surprised at how well the 2642 tested relative to
the other units.
the online spec sheet claims a THD of .007% @ +4 dB
i wonder if its an actual measurement or is derived in some fashion.




** Most likely just measued the usual way.


my equipment seems to be functioning within its specified tolerances.
http://www.pi-usa.com/ag51/ag51g.htm#SPECIFICATIONS


** But is not up to modern standards.

Decent audio generators have less than 0.001% THD at 1kHz nowadays.





........... Phil




  #3   Report Post  
Pooh Bear
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tim Perry wrote:

i decided to run some measurements on the Behringer mixer i just got then
compare it to some other mixers. here's what i got:


snip near identical figures

*methodology:
noise measurements made referenced to -40 dB input and 0 dB output with sig
gen muted and one ch open all others down.
all other measurement made with 150 ohm source at -40 dB into mic input.
mixer output set to 0 dB into active balanced (transformerless) meter. tone
controls all at neutral.
in "straight through" measurements the sig gen output was increased by 20
dB.

conclusion: i was rather surprised at how well the 2642 tested relative to
the other units.
the online spec sheet claims a THD of .007% @ +4 dB
i wonder if its an actual measurement or is derived in some fashion.
my equipment seems to be functioning within its specified tolerances.
http://www.pi-usa.com/ag51/ag51g.htm#SPECIFICATIONS


Your measurement gear is rubbish.

With residual figures like that - you'll never be able to measure anything
meaningful. You're simply measuring the test equipment.

Audio Precision kit for example, typically measures 0.0007% THD ( 7 parts per
million ) that's -104dB SINAD if you prefer a dB version, with output looped
back to input ( certainly at 1 kHz ).


Graham




  #4   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message


Tim Perry wrote:


i decided to run some measurements on the Behringer mixer i just got
then compare it to some other mixers. here's what i got:


snip near identical figures


Agreed, the test results are very similar, thus raising the possibility that
these are not actually tests of the UUTs, but instead tests of the residuals
of the test equipment.

*methodology:
noise measurements made referenced to -40 dB input and 0 dB output
with sig gen muted and one ch open all others down.
all other measurement made with 150 ohm source at -40 dB into mic
input. mixer output set to 0 dB into active balanced
(transformerless) meter. tone controls all at neutral.
in "straight through" measurements the sig gen output was increased
by 20 dB.


http://www.pi-usa.com/ag51/ag51g.htm#SPECIFICATIONS

The INTRINSIC DISTORTION *
Harmonic Low Distortion Fast Response
20 Hz to 10 kHz less than 0.05% less than 1%
10 kHz to 20 kHz less than 0.08% less than 1%
Intermodulation less than 0.03%
Incidental FM(3.15 kHz) less than 0.01%

This would be pretty hot stuff in 1965, but by modern standards it's pretty
grim.

I'll give you modern farily mninmal standards in a nutshell:

All spurious responses and noise 100 dB or down (0.001%) or better.
Frequency response (I don't see it on the web page) within 0.1 dB or better
with phase response to match per minimum phase.

And here's SOTA:

All spurious responses and noise 120 dB or down (0.0001%) or better.
Frequency response within 0.02 dB or better with phase response to match
per minimum phase.

I think that test equipment that met minimum standards would tell a
different story.

You can emlulate really pretty good modern test equipment with a good
computer audio interface and software such as the Audio Rightmark analyzer.

conclusion: i was rather surprised at how well the 2642 tested
relative to the other units.


In fact, you seem to have published tests of essentially the residuals of
your test gear, twice.

the online spec sheet claims a THD of .007% @ +4 dB
i wonder if its an actual measurement or is derived in some fashion.
my equipment seems to be functioning within its specified tolerances.


http://www.pi-usa.com/ag51/ag51g.htm#SPECIFICATIONS


Your measurement gear is rubbish.


Agreed. Looks nice, though. It's really a historic artifact from the 1960s.
I built stuff that was better from modified Heathkits in the 1970s.

With residual figures like that - you'll never be able to measure
anything meaningful. You're simply measuring the test equipment.


Agreed. First step in any measuement paradigm is know your geat. As you
suggest, that means looping it and seeing what the numbers are.

Audio Precision kit for example, typically measures 0.0007% THD ( 7
parts per million ) that's -104dB SINAD if you prefer a dB version,
with output looped back to input ( certainly at 1 kHz ).


I think that's the old stuff or maybe APs somewhat conservative specs. I'm
told that the new stuff is of the same order of a LynxTWO, whose test
results I published at http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/LynxTWO/index.htm
.. It shows up to 115 SNAD with a 20-20K measurement bandwidth, and 107 dB at
comparable bandwidths to an AP S2.


  #5   Report Post  
Michael R. Kesti
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tim Perry wrote:

the online spec sheet claims a THD of .007% @ +4 dB
i wonder if its an actual measurement or is derived in some fashion.


Specifications are never measurments. Instead, specifications are chosen
values of parameters that, when measured, are promised to be no worse than
the values specified. When chosing those values, manufacturers are walking
a line between how good they want their gear to appear on paper and how
many manufacturing rejects and/or customer returns they are willing to
tolerate.

snip

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
| - The Who, Bargain


  #6   Report Post  
Tim Perry
 
Posts: n/a
Default

thanks for you comments gentelman.

my gear works fine for my normal aplications (level setting and
troubleshooting, often in high RF envirnments).

i was able to get a much better reading using a DAW and soundcard as a
source (.01% THD on the Behringer), however this is through the line input.
i think iwill have to build a input pad if i want to continue.

i was mostly curious as to noise mesurments.
is the procedure i described sufficienty accurate to compare the results
with published specs?
with 15 uv of self noise is this equipment sufficient to measure noise in
modern gear? http://www.pi-usa.com/aa51a/aa51ag.htm#SPECIFICATIONS



  #7   Report Post  
Eric K. Weber
 
Posts: n/a
Default

For the noise measurement what did you terminate the input with, a short or
a metal film resistor?

Rgds:

Eric


"Tim Perry" wrote in message
...
thanks for you comments gentelman.

my gear works fine for my normal aplications (level setting and
troubleshooting, often in high RF envirnments).

i was able to get a much better reading using a DAW and soundcard as a
source (.01% THD on the Behringer), however this is through the line

input.
i think iwill have to build a input pad if i want to continue.

i was mostly curious as to noise mesurments.
is the procedure i described sufficienty accurate to compare the results
with published specs?
with 15 uv of self noise is this equipment sufficient to measure noise in
modern gear? http://www.pi-usa.com/aa51a/aa51ag.htm#SPECIFICATIONS





  #8   Report Post  
Tim Perry
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Eric K. Weber" wrote in message
...
For the noise measurement what did you terminate the input with, a short

or
a metal film resistor?

Rgds:

Eric


sig gen switched from operate to test, which mutes the osc .... 150 ohm
output.


  #9   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tim Perry" wrote in message


my gear works fine for my normal aplications (level setting and
troubleshooting, often in high RF envirnments).


That's fine.

i was able to get a much better reading using a DAW and soundcard as a
source (.01% THD on the Behringer), however this is through the line
input. i think iwill have to build a input pad if i want to continue.


Agreed. If one uses an audio interface as test equipment, one quickly finds
out that the input sensitivity of the interface is not ideal or even usuable
in every reasonable and common application. My approach is to use a 5 K ohm
"AB" type 2 watt potentiometer to set input sensitivity as desired. in
combination with a good RMS DVM for measuring actual operational levels.

I was mostly curious as to noise mesurements.


Noise measurements only make sense when the measurement bandwidth is
defined. This includes flat (really 20-20 KHz @ -3 dB), A and C weighting.

Noise measurements only make sense when they can be related a standard
signal level, such as 0 dB Vu.

You can find a detailed set of guidelines for making technical measurements
of audio gear at

http://www.aes.org/standards/b_pub/aes-6id-2000.pdf

is the procedure i described sufficienty accurate to compare the
results with published specs?


No.

(Teset equipment spec web page)

http://www.pi-usa.com/aa51a/aa51ag.htm#SPECIFICATIONS


with 15 uv of self noise is this equipment sufficient to measure
noise in modern gear?


That's about 95 dB below 0 dBu, which is too close to the performance of
modern audio equipment for accurate measurements. As a general rule
measuring equipment should perform at least 10 dB better than the standards
that you seek to confirm or deny compliance with.




  #10   Report Post  
Pooh Bear
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message


Audio Precision kit for example, typically measures 0.0007% THD ( 7
parts per million ) that's -104dB SINAD if you prefer a dB version,
with output looped back to input ( certainly at 1 kHz ).


I think that's the old stuff or maybe APs somewhat conservative specs. I'm
told that the new stuff is of the same order of a LynxTWO, whose test
results I published at http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/LynxTWO/index.htm
. It shows up to 115 SNAD with a 20-20K measurement bandwidth, and 107 dB at
comparable bandwidths to an AP S2.


Yup, it's typical figures for System One or Portable One. It's seems remarkable
now just how long they've been around.


Graham




  #11   Report Post  
Phil Allison
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Michael R. Kesti"
Tim Perry wrote:

the online spec sheet claims a THD of .007% @ +4 dB
i wonder if its an actual measurement or is derived in some fashion.


Specifications are never measurments.



** Rubbish.


Instead, specifications are chosen
values of parameters that, when measured, are promised to be no worse than
the values specified.



** Shame about all those "min", "typical" and "max" figures in data
sheets then.


When chosing those values, manufacturers are walking
a line between how good they want their gear to appear on paper and how
many manufacturing rejects and/or customer returns they are willing to
tolerate.


** Most equipment specs represent typical figures found by measurement on
samples - unless otherwise specified.



............ Phil



  #12   Report Post  
Michael R. Kesti
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Phil Allison wrote:

"Michael R. Kesti"

Specifications are never measurments.


** Rubbish.


How CAN one argue with logic such as that?

Instead, specifications are chosen
values of parameters that, when measured, are promised to be no worse than
the values specified.


** Shame about all those "min", "typical" and "max" figures in data
sheets then.


I downloaded the specifications of the three mixers referenced in this
thread's base note, and not one of them provided "min", "typical", and
"max" parameter values. There were plenty of occasions of "greater than"
and "less than" for values of distortion, noise, and such parameters, and
untoleranced values of impedance, max levels, and the like. Perhaps you
would be so kind as to supply a link to a spec of a pro audio product that
includes min, typical, and max parameter values.

When chosing those values, manufacturers are walking
a line between how good they want their gear to appear on paper and how
many manufacturing rejects and/or customer returns they are willing to
tolerate.


** Most equipment specs represent typical figures found by measurement on
samples - unless otherwise specified.


If this is true, then about half of the delivered units are going to
perform worse than those figures. Would you find it acceptible to
discover that you had purchased a unit that measured worse than its
published specs?

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
| - The Who, Bargain
  #13   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Michael R. Kesti" wrote in message

Tim Perry wrote:

the online spec sheet claims a THD of .007% @ +4 dB
i wonder if its an actual measurement or is derived in some fashion.


Specifications are never measurments. Instead, specifications are
chosen values of parameters that, when measured, are promised to be
no worse than the values specified. When chosing those values,
manufacturers are walking a line between how good they want their
gear to appear on paper and how many manufacturing rejects and/or
customer returns they are willing to tolerate.


FWIW, totally agreed.


  #14   Report Post  
Phil Allison
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Michael R. Kesti"
Phil Allison wrote:

"Michael R. Kesti"

Specifications are never measurments.


** Rubbish.


How CAN one argue with logic such as that?


** You posted no proof of an wild claim.

I should have said **BULL****** !!!


Instead, specifications are chosen
values of parameters that, when measured, are promised to be no worse

than
the values specified.


** Shame about all those "min", "typical" and "max" figures in data
sheets then.


Perhaps you
would be so kind as to supply a link to a spec of a pro audio product that
includes min, typical, and max parameter values.



** You said: " Specifications are never measurments."



** Most equipment specs represent typical figures found by measurement

on
samples - unless otherwise specified.


If this is true, then about half of the delivered units are going to
perform worse than those figures.



** But only by trivial amounts.


Would you find it acceptible to
discover that you had purchased a unit that measured worse than its
published specs?



** Yep - when the specs are all **way above* what is needed to do the job.

But this has nothing to do with what maker's specs tell you.



............ Phil




  #15   Report Post  
Phil Allison
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Arny Krueger"
"Michael R. Kesti"
Tim Perry wrote:

the online spec sheet claims a THD of .007% @ +4 dB
i wonder if its an actual measurement or is derived in some fashion.


Specifications are never measurments. Instead, specifications are
chosen values of parameters that, when measured, are promised to be
no worse than the values specified. When chosing those values,
manufacturers are walking a line between how good they want their
gear to appear on paper and how many manufacturing rejects and/or
customer returns they are willing to tolerate.


FWIW, totally agreed.



** Not worth a pinch of ****.




............... Phil








  #18   Report Post  
Phil Allison
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Rivers" = professional Parrott and snipping maniac.

** Replacing the missing ***CONTEXT ** yet again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Instead, specifications are chosen
values of parameters that, when measured, are promised to be no worse than
the values specified.


** Shame about all those "min", "typical" and "max" figures in data
sheets then.


I downloaded the specifications of the three mixers referenced in this
thread's base note, and not one of them provided "min", "typical", and

"max" parameter values.

In typical Phool style, the subject has been changed from "mixers"
(the final product) to "components" (the little things inside the
product).



** Mr Kesti made a **totally wrong** claim - so I posted the facts.

" ** Most equipment specs represent typical figures found by measurement
on
samples - unless otherwise specified. "

Mr Kesti then showed us that he **cannot read** by quoting specs with "
better than " and "greater than" in the wording.

The OP's example had no such words - nor do the vast majority of
technical specs.

It therefore comes under my " ..... unless otherwise specified ".


Go choke on that you vile smelling NG Parrott.



............. Phil



  #19   Report Post  
Mike Rivers
 
Posts: n/a
Default


In article writes:

** Mr Kesti made a **totally wrong** claim - so I posted the facts.


I don't remember his claim, but I don't see any relevance of your
"facts" to the subject of "mixers." Anyway ....

" ** Most equipment specs represent typical figures found by measurement
on
samples - unless otherwise specified. "

Mr Kesti then showed us that he **cannot read** by quoting specs with "
better than " and "greater than" in the wording.


If you hang around the industry and perhaps have worked for a
manufacturer or two, you might be shocked to discover that the
published specifications - those that you see in advertising copy and
instruction manuals - usually start with specifications given to the
Engineering department by the Marketing department. The engineering
department tries to build something to meet those specifications, and
measures their engineering builds and early production units to
confirm that they aren't arguably too far from those specifications.
Those which cannot be met by any of the units tested, under any
conditions (rarely specified) and by any measurement methods (ditto)
are usually changed for the final published copy.

You might also be shocked to find that if there are any production
tests done to specification, that the production specification is not
the same as the design specification.

Now you may consider a couple of early units "samples" but that's not
what I call samples. It's rare that a company will take, say, every
50th mixer off the production line, put it through a battery of tests,
and confirm that it meets design specs. They do this by assumption
based on their parts suppliers' testing where they actually do sample
some ICs from a production run, test them, and if they don't meed
specifications, scrap the lot and figure out why.

Go get a real job and you'll see how it's actually done.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
  #20   Report Post  
Willie K.Yee, M.D.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 23 Aug 2004 13:08:34 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

Go get a real job and you'll see how it's actually done.


Uhhhh, Mike, do you seriously think anyone on this newsgroup would
hire this, er, _disturbed_, fellow?

Willie K. Yee, M.D.
http://users.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org



  #21   Report Post  
Tim Perry
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger"
"Michael R. Kesti"
Tim Perry wrote:

the online spec sheet claims a THD of .007% @ +4 dB
i wonder if its an actual measurement or is derived in some fashion.

Specifications are never measurments.


after 30 years of bench and field repair i figure i have a glimmering of how
to interpret most electronic specs.

i have been telling people that it just not that hard to build a good
amplifier anymore yet i was still taken by surprise by the excellent specs
on a unit that i got for only $170.

having lived through an era where 125 W/ch car stereo amps were often sold
with 2 amp fuses to the 13.8 volt inputs i sometimes get a bit skeptical
when specs seem too good to be true.

so if i had it to phrase over again i think i would say: i wonder if there
is some way to derive or extrapolate a resonably accurate measurement of THD
with such poor and substandard test gear as i have managed to aquire. (i
suspect the answer is no way in heck, but one can hope)

i guess its back to subjective evaluation for now

thanks for your input folks


  #22   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tim Perry wrote:

having lived through an era where 125 W/ch car stereo amps were often sold
with 2 amp fuses to the 13.8 volt inputs i sometimes get a bit skeptical
when specs seem too good to be true.


Through it? I don't think that era is over yet. Except perhaps in that
they are now sold as 500 W/ch amps....

so if i had it to phrase over again i think i would say: i wonder if there
is some way to derive or extrapolate a resonably accurate measurement of THD
with such poor and substandard test gear as i have managed to aquire. (i
suspect the answer is no way in heck, but one can hope)


It is easy to measure THD at high levels. And at low levels, measuring THD
isn't very useful.

And if you want to buy an HP 334B distortion test set, I have one in need
of some repair work that I am considering putting up on Ebay.

i guess its back to subjective evaluation for now


That's what it all comes down to in the long run to some extent. THD
is handy for comparing similar systems, though. The distortion meter
is great for finding maximum output levels on tapes, for instance.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #23   Report Post  
Phil Allison
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Rivers"
Phil Allison

** Mr Kesti made a **totally wrong** claim - so I posted the facts.


I don't remember his claim,



** Go read the thread you lazy, stinking prick !!!!!



" ** Most equipment specs represent typical figures found by

measurement
on samples - unless otherwise specified. "

Mr Kesti then showed us that he **cannot read** by quoting specs with "
better than " and "greater than" in the wording.



( snip piles of mindless Parrot brained ****e )



Now you may consider a couple of early units "samples" but that's not
what I call samples.



** Who gives a rats arse what Mike Rivers calls anything ????

The turd has never worked in the electronics industry and has no clue.



Go get a real job and you'll see how it's actually done.




** The Rivers parrot should take his own advice - only no-one would
employ the useless idiot.




............. Phil


  #24   Report Post  
Phil Allison
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Willie K.Yee, M.D


Uhhhh, Mike, do you seriously think anyone on this newsgroup would
hire this, er, _disturbed_, fellow?



** Arse licker.




........... Phil


  #25   Report Post  
Tim Perry
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Tim Perry wrote:

having lived through an era where 125 W/ch car stereo amps were often

sold
with 2 amp fuses to the 13.8 volt inputs i sometimes get a bit skeptical
when specs seem too good to be true.


Through it? I don't think that era is over yet. Except perhaps in that
they are now sold as 500 W/ch amps....

so if i had it to phrase over again i think i would say: i wonder if

there
is some way to derive or extrapolate a resonably accurate measurement of

THD
with such poor and substandard test gear as i have managed to aquire.

(i
suspect the answer is no way in heck, but one can hope)


It is easy to measure THD at high levels. And at low levels, measuring

THD
isn't very useful.

And if you want to buy an HP 334B distortion test set, I have one in need
of some repair work that I am considering putting up on Ebay.


i used to have a tube type HP. cant remember the model. used it as a noch
filter one time to null a buzz out of a phone line.

had a HP333 at another place. i sure like the autonull in my Potomac. it
has a handy freq counter built in too!








  #26   Report Post  
Paul Stamler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tim Perry" wrote in message
...

so if i had it to phrase over again i think i would say: i wonder if there
is some way to derive or extrapolate a resonably accurate measurement of

THD
with such poor and substandard test gear as i have managed to aquire. (i
suspect the answer is no way in heck, but one can hope)


The good news is that it's possible to derive quite a good measurement of
THD using a relatively affordable computer soundcard such as an M-Audio
Delta or a CardDeluxe (look on e-bay; they show up all the time). The bad
news is that, once you've done the THD measurement, you still don't know
squat about how good the amplifier might or might not sound, because THD
correlates damned poorly with the latter unless you use it to find grossly
defective amplifiers. But the further good news is that you can use the
soundcard to make some tests that are actually relevant, looking at the
actual harmonic spectrum of the distortion produced by a single frequency,
or doing intermodulation distortion measurements of various sorts.

Peace,
Paul


  #27   Report Post  
Mike Rivers
 
Posts: n/a
Default


In article wkyeeATbestwebDOTnet writes:

Go get a real job and you'll see how it's actually done.


Uhhhh, Mike, do you seriously think anyone on this newsgroup would
hire this, er, _disturbed_, fellow?


It was a rhetorical comment.

Phil may be very competent in the real world (assuming he's old enough
to drink, vote, and get shot at) and just be an asshole where people
can't get to his real throat.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
  #28   Report Post  
Phil Allison
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Rivers"


** Mike is a total incompetent in the real world (assuming he's real
enough
to drink, vote, and get shot at) and is simply an asswipe in usenet where
people
can't get to his throat.




........... Phil




Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA: Mackie CR-1604 16-channel Mic/Line Mixer MARK S MICHEL Marketplace 0 November 16th 04 08:30 PM
FA: Mackie CR-1604 16-channel Mic/Line Mixer MARK S MICHEL Marketplace 0 September 28th 04 08:25 PM
Doppler Distortion - Fact or Fiction Bob Cain Pro Audio 266 August 17th 04 06:50 AM
Regarding: 6 speakers 1 powered mixer Tom Deflumere Pro Audio 0 April 2nd 04 06:23 AM
Mixing/Summing in DAW or Digital Mixer for best quality? (long) Synth80s Pro Audio 6 March 4th 04 12:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:15 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"