Studer 169 preamp

[cvsound]

Hi, I will be recording a symphony orchestra w/ the program of
symphonies by Beethovwn and Mahler. The orchestra has a Studer 169
mixing console. I now have the choice of using the micpre on the
Studer or bring my own (Millennia Media. And I will be using Neumann
KM83, 86 and KM130). What would your opinion be? Are the micpre on the
Studer Class A, quiet enough (The console was built years ago), Give
me an idea how they compare to the Millennia. Thanks!

Eric Chang

[Paul Stamler]

"cvsound" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi, I will be recording a symphony orchestra w/ the program of
> symphonies by Beethovwn and Mahler. The orchestra has a Studer 169
> mixing console. I now have the choice of using the micpre on the
> Studer or bring my own (Millennia Media. And I will be using Neumann
> KM83, 86 and KM130). What would your opinion be? Are the micpre on the
> Studer Class A, quiet enough (The console was built years ago), Give
> me an idea how they compare to the Millennia. Thanks!

Use the Millennia. You won't be sorry. Studers of that vintage were better'n
some, but nowhere near what a Millennia can do.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

cvsound > wrote:
>Hi, I will be recording a symphony orchestra w/ the program of
>symphonies by Beethovwn and Mahler. The orchestra has a Studer 169
>mixing console. I now have the choice of using the micpre on the
>Studer or bring my own (Millennia Media. And I will be using Neumann
>KM83, 86 and KM130). What would your opinion be? Are the micpre on the
>Studer Class A, quiet enough (The console was built years ago), Give
>me an idea how they compare to the Millennia. Thanks!

The console is just brimming over with nasty 301 op-amps. Studer did
a pretty brilliant job of making it sound as good as possible given the
technology they had to work with and the size limitations, but it's not
a Millennia Media by any stretch of the imagination.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"

>
> The console is just brimming over with nasty 301 op-amps.


" .... and I have noticed that you seem
very reluctant to give actual proof of anything at all. "


** How about you prove of the "nasty" bit ???

Or is it that you merely have an aversion to LM 301s ?

Read something slanderous on some ****wit's web page maybe ???




.......... Phil

[Mike T.]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:20:46 +1000, "Phil Allison"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Dorsey"

>> The console is just brimming over with nasty 301 op-amps.

> Or is it that you merely have an aversion to LM 301s ?

They have a crossover distortion that is both clearly audible and
visible on a 'scope. You can trick them into running a higher bias
current through their class B output stage, but then their dissipation
goes up and their input offsets start to drift.

Their low slew rate causes HF distortion if they are used as output
drivers.

They won't win any prizes for low noise, either.

If you had ever worked with them yourself, you would either agree with
"nasty" or be deaf. Fortunately, they are no longer used for audio.

Phil, I'll be disappointed if you don't come back with an answer that
is obscene, rude, and wrong. Get on it, boy! You have a reputation to
uphold.

Mike T.

[Phil Allison]

"Mike T."
"Phil Allison"
> >
> >"Scott Dorsey"

> >> The console is just brimming over with nasty 301 op-amps.

** Replacing the snipped bit:

> > ** How about you prove of the "nasty" bit ???

> > Or is it that you merely have an aversion to LM 301s ?
>
> They have a crossover distortion that is both clearly audible and
> visible on a 'scope.


** Big lie - I asked for proof not idiot assertions.


>
> Their low slew rate causes HF distortion if they are used as output
> drivers.
>

** More lies - the SR is up to 10 V/uS


> They won't win any prizes for low noise, either.


** Similar to a TL071.


> If you had ever worked with them yourself,


** Certainly have - since 1971.


> you would either agree with
> "nasty" or be deaf.


** Typical asinine comment from an ass.


> Fortunately, they are no longer used for audio.
>

** Nonsense.


> Phil, I'll be disappointed if you don't come back with an answer that
> is obscene, rude, and wrong.


** So I should write one just like yours ??




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

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey"
>
>>
>> The console is just brimming over with nasty 301 op-amps.
>
>
> " .... and I have noticed that you seem
>very reluctant to give actual proof of anything at all. "
>
>
> ** How about you prove of the "nasty" bit ???
>
> Or is it that you merely have an aversion to LM 301s ?

The 301 is not exactly the most linear or stable thing around. Ever looked
at the distortion plot on one of them? The 301 is only a small step up from
the 741, and is one of the devices that originally gave op-amps such a bad
reputation for sound quality.

The Studer folks, though, deserve a huge amount of congratulations for taking
something as bad as the 301 and making a console that really sounds quite
good. They are very careful to keep gains on each stage pretty low, and they
use discrete front-ends on just about everything as well as discrete output
drive stages. And they use some discrete amps on the buss driver as well in
order to get a lot more current than the 301 will provide. No gyrators in the
EQ, since that would be utter murder with a 301.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey"
>
>>
>> The console is just brimming over with nasty 301 op-amps.
>
>
> " .... and I have noticed that you seem
>very reluctant to give actual proof of anything at all. "
>
>
> ** How about you prove of the "nasty" bit ???
>
> Or is it that you merely have an aversion to LM 301s ?

The 301 is not exactly the most linear or stable thing around. Ever looked
at the distortion plot on one of them? The 301 is only a small step up from
the 741, and is one of the devices that originally gave op-amps such a bad
reputation for sound quality.

The Studer folks, though, deserve a huge amount of congratulations for taking
something as bad as the 301 and making a console that really sounds quite
good. They are very careful to keep gains on each stage pretty low, and they
use discrete front-ends on just about everything as well as discrete output
drive stages. And they use some discrete amps on the buss driver as well in
order to get a lot more current than the 301 will provide. No gyrators in the
EQ, since that would be utter murder with a 301.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Fill X]

I find the 169 pre's to be really good for a lot of things.But as usual the
rest of the signal path is important. They don't suffer a lot of stuff in
between the mic and the pre very well and one should certainly bypass the fader
and eq. But I don't think they are soft. They have a sound that I find I like
for many things, rock especially. Not transparent, but then neither is an API.

You know the orignal post I think was for a classicalnthing, and no, certainly
not if you have a choice.


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

[Fill X]

I find the 169 pre's to be really good for a lot of things.But as usual the
rest of the signal path is important. They don't suffer a lot of stuff in
between the mic and the pre very well and one should certainly bypass the fader
and eq. But I don't think they are soft. They have a sound that I find I like
for many things, rock especially. Not transparent, but then neither is an API.

You know the orignal post I think was for a classicalnthing, and no, certainly
not if you have a choice.


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> Phil Allison <
> > >> The console is just brimming over with nasty 301 op-amps.
> >
> > " .... and I have noticed that you seem
> >very reluctant to give actual proof of anything at all. "
> >
> >
> > ** How about you prove of the "nasty" bit ???
> >
> > Or is it that you merely have an aversion to LM 301s ?
>
> The 301 is not exactly the most linear or stable thing around.


** The word was "nasty".


> Ever looked at the distortion plot on one of them?


** Quote: " .... and I have noticed that you seem
very reluctant to give actual proof of anything at all. "

How about you provide some figures to back your claim up ?

I already know how 301s perform.


> The 301 is only a small step up from the 741,


** Is that like saying blacks are only a small step up from apes ?


> and is one of the devices that originally gave op-amps such a bad
> reputation for sound quality.


** Quote: " .... and I have noticed that you seem
very reluctant to give actual proof of anything at all. "

I can see I am talking with an op- amp racist here.


>
> The Studer folks, though, deserve a huge amount of congratulations for
taking
> something as bad as the 301


** Is that like saying it is amazing what some blacks have done ?



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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> Phil Allison <
> > >> The console is just brimming over with nasty 301 op-amps.
> >
> > " .... and I have noticed that you seem
> >very reluctant to give actual proof of anything at all. "
> >
> >
> > ** How about you prove of the "nasty" bit ???
> >
> > Or is it that you merely have an aversion to LM 301s ?
>
> The 301 is not exactly the most linear or stable thing around.


** The word was "nasty".


> Ever looked at the distortion plot on one of them?


** Quote: " .... and I have noticed that you seem
very reluctant to give actual proof of anything at all. "

How about you provide some figures to back your claim up ?

I already know how 301s perform.


> The 301 is only a small step up from the 741,


** Is that like saying blacks are only a small step up from apes ?


> and is one of the devices that originally gave op-amps such a bad
> reputation for sound quality.


** Quote: " .... and I have noticed that you seem
very reluctant to give actual proof of anything at all. "

I can see I am talking with an op- amp racist here.


>
> The Studer folks, though, deserve a huge amount of congratulations for
taking
> something as bad as the 301


** Is that like saying it is amazing what some blacks have done ?



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

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey"
>>
>> The 301 is not exactly the most linear or stable thing around.
>
> ** The word was "nasty".

Yes, nasty. Look at the LM301 data sheet. Look at the crossover distortion
numbers. Nasty. Look at the Bode plot. Nasty.

> ** Quote: " .... and I have noticed that you seem
>very reluctant to give actual proof of anything at all. "
>
> How about you provide some figures to back your claim up ?

Motorola Linear Devices Databook DL-128, page 2-47. You'll note that the
chip is not even specified for Ft or slew rate and there isn't even any
distortion figure on the data sheet. But you can see one of the worst
open-loop response plots you'll ever seen on an op-amp and some pulse
response plots that will make you laugh.

Much like the 741, the reason the dynamic numbers aren't on the data sheet
is because they aren't intended for use in applications where they are
important. If you measure the Ft, you'll find it actually varies a lot
from unit to unit, with most of them being a little bit above 500 KHz,
at least according to Leach in the JAES.

>** Quote: " .... and I have noticed that you seem
> very reluctant to give actual proof of anything at all. "
>
> I can see I am talking with an op- amp racist here.

Well, how do you want me to put a residual scalar value on nastiness? I
mean, you won't even accept TIMD numbers as being useful, so what sort of
values do you want to define nastiness with. I'd say anything that has a
crossover error that is visible by eye on a scope with a 1 KHz sine wave
at 0.05V in with a gain of 100 is nasty. Give me an address and I will
mail you some polaroids off the Tektronix.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey"
>>
>> The 301 is not exactly the most linear or stable thing around.
>
> ** The word was "nasty".

Yes, nasty. Look at the LM301 data sheet. Look at the crossover distortion
numbers. Nasty. Look at the Bode plot. Nasty.

> ** Quote: " .... and I have noticed that you seem
>very reluctant to give actual proof of anything at all. "
>
> How about you provide some figures to back your claim up ?

Motorola Linear Devices Databook DL-128, page 2-47. You'll note that the
chip is not even specified for Ft or slew rate and there isn't even any
distortion figure on the data sheet. But you can see one of the worst
open-loop response plots you'll ever seen on an op-amp and some pulse
response plots that will make you laugh.

Much like the 741, the reason the dynamic numbers aren't on the data sheet
is because they aren't intended for use in applications where they are
important. If you measure the Ft, you'll find it actually varies a lot
from unit to unit, with most of them being a little bit above 500 KHz,
at least according to Leach in the JAES.

>** Quote: " .... and I have noticed that you seem
> very reluctant to give actual proof of anything at all. "
>
> I can see I am talking with an op- amp racist here.

Well, how do you want me to put a residual scalar value on nastiness? I
mean, you won't even accept TIMD numbers as being useful, so what sort of
values do you want to define nastiness with. I'd say anything that has a
crossover error that is visible by eye on a scope with a 1 KHz sine wave
at 0.05V in with a gain of 100 is nasty. Give me an address and I will
mail you some polaroids off the Tektronix.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> Phil Allison
> >"Scott Dorsey"
> >>
> >> The 301 is not exactly the most linear or stable thing around.
> >
> > ** The word was "nasty".
>
> Yes, nasty. Look at the LM301 data sheet.


** Produce your facts - asshole.

> Look at the crossover distortion
> numbers.


** Produce them !!!


> Look at the Bode plot.


** Excellent.


>
> > ** Quote: " .... and I have noticed that you seem
> >very reluctant to give actual proof of anything at all. "
> >
> > How about you provide some figures to back your claim up ?
>
> Motorola Linear Devices Databook DL-128, page 2-47. You'll note that the
> chip is not even specified for Ft or slew rate and there isn't even any
> distortion figure on the data sheet.


** ROTFLMAO - so you have no relevant data !!!!

Then you assume the very worst .

What a colossal ****WIT you are !!


** FYI - the max SR is specified as 10 V/uS and the unity gain bandwidth
(your Ft ) is up to 10 MHz.

This corresponds to full output swings at over 100 kHz.


> Much like the 741, the reason the dynamic numbers aren't on the data sheet
> is because they aren't intended for use in applications where they are
> important.


** All the relevant data is in the Natsemi book.

> >
> > I can see I am talking with an op- amp racist here.

> I mean, you won't even accept TIMD numbers as being useful,


** And neither should anyone.


> so what sort of
> values do you want to define nastiness with.


** It is YOUR chosen word - so YOU get to define it.

It is already clear what it means:

" Nasty " = Scott Dorsey, a pig ignorant op-amp racist, hates it.



> I'd say anything that has a
> crossover error that is visible by eye on a scope with a 1 KHz sine wave
> at 0.05V in with a gain of 100 is nasty. Give me an address and I will
> mail you some polaroids off the Tektronix.


** Such a pic could be faked in any number of ways.





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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> Phil Allison
> >"Scott Dorsey"
> >>
> >> The 301 is not exactly the most linear or stable thing around.
> >
> > ** The word was "nasty".
>
> Yes, nasty. Look at the LM301 data sheet.


** Produce your facts - asshole.

> Look at the crossover distortion
> numbers.


** Produce them !!!


> Look at the Bode plot.


** Excellent.


>
> > ** Quote: " .... and I have noticed that you seem
> >very reluctant to give actual proof of anything at all. "
> >
> > How about you provide some figures to back your claim up ?
>
> Motorola Linear Devices Databook DL-128, page 2-47. You'll note that the
> chip is not even specified for Ft or slew rate and there isn't even any
> distortion figure on the data sheet.


** ROTFLMAO - so you have no relevant data !!!!

Then you assume the very worst .

What a colossal ****WIT you are !!


** FYI - the max SR is specified as 10 V/uS and the unity gain bandwidth
(your Ft ) is up to 10 MHz.

This corresponds to full output swings at over 100 kHz.


> Much like the 741, the reason the dynamic numbers aren't on the data sheet
> is because they aren't intended for use in applications where they are
> important.


** All the relevant data is in the Natsemi book.

> >
> > I can see I am talking with an op- amp racist here.

> I mean, you won't even accept TIMD numbers as being useful,


** And neither should anyone.


> so what sort of
> values do you want to define nastiness with.


** It is YOUR chosen word - so YOU get to define it.

It is already clear what it means:

" Nasty " = Scott Dorsey, a pig ignorant op-amp racist, hates it.



> I'd say anything that has a
> crossover error that is visible by eye on a scope with a 1 KHz sine wave
> at 0.05V in with a gain of 100 is nasty. Give me an address and I will
> mail you some polaroids off the Tektronix.


** Such a pic could be faked in any number of ways.





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

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>
>
>** Produce your facts - asshole.
>
>> Look at the crossover distortion
>> numbers.
>
>
>** Produce them !!!

Give me a fax number and I'll send you a copy of the Leach measurements.

>
>** FYI - the max SR is specified as 10 V/uS and the unity gain bandwidth
>(your Ft ) is up to 10 MHz.

Where? Where does this number come from? Doesn't come from the Motorola
book, that's for sure.

> This corresponds to full output swings at over 100 kHz.

Oh yes, I forgot that you didn't believe in slew rate limiting.

>> Much like the 741, the reason the dynamic numbers aren't on the data sheet
>> is because they aren't intended for use in applications where they are
>> important.
>
>** All the relevant data is in the Natsemi book.

It's not in my 1979 one here. Once again, the relevant dynamic numbers
are missing from the data book (but there IS a really nasty pulse response
plot). Which book do you have?

>> I'd say anything that has a
>> crossover error that is visible by eye on a scope with a 1 KHz sine wave
>> at 0.05V in with a gain of 100 is nasty. Give me an address and I will
>> mail you some polaroids off the Tektronix.
>
>
>** Such a pic could be faked in any number of ways.

As I said, you basically won't accept anyone else's measurements, you won't
accept anything in the published literature, and you don't admit that there
is any validity in any subjective measure.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>
>
>** Produce your facts - asshole.
>
>> Look at the crossover distortion
>> numbers.
>
>
>** Produce them !!!

Give me a fax number and I'll send you a copy of the Leach measurements.

>
>** FYI - the max SR is specified as 10 V/uS and the unity gain bandwidth
>(your Ft ) is up to 10 MHz.

Where? Where does this number come from? Doesn't come from the Motorola
book, that's for sure.

> This corresponds to full output swings at over 100 kHz.

Oh yes, I forgot that you didn't believe in slew rate limiting.

>> Much like the 741, the reason the dynamic numbers aren't on the data sheet
>> is because they aren't intended for use in applications where they are
>> important.
>
>** All the relevant data is in the Natsemi book.

It's not in my 1979 one here. Once again, the relevant dynamic numbers
are missing from the data book (but there IS a really nasty pulse response
plot). Which book do you have?

>> I'd say anything that has a
>> crossover error that is visible by eye on a scope with a 1 KHz sine wave
>> at 0.05V in with a gain of 100 is nasty. Give me an address and I will
>> mail you some polaroids off the Tektronix.
>
>
>** Such a pic could be faked in any number of ways.

As I said, you basically won't accept anyone else's measurements, you won't
accept anything in the published literature, and you don't admit that there
is any validity in any subjective measure.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chris Hornbeck]

Scott,

You're justly famous for your even-handed generosity and good spirits
with newcomers to the group. I actually hope to learn a real life
lesson from your manner in handling this negative vibe.

I'm possibly/ probably older than you, but haven't learned it yet.
Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
" ** this NG is chock full of metal midgets"

[Chris Hornbeck]

Scott,

You're justly famous for your even-handed generosity and good spirits
with newcomers to the group. I actually hope to learn a real life
lesson from your manner in handling this negative vibe.

I'm possibly/ probably older than you, but haven't learned it yet.
Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
" ** this NG is chock full of metal midgets"

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> Phil Allison
> >
> >> Look at the crossover distortion
> >> numbers.
> >
> >** Produce them !!!

> Give me a fax number and I'll send you a copy of the Leach measurements.


** Obviously they do not apply to normal usage conditions.

So another of Scott Dorsey's stinking lies.


> >
> >** FYI - the max SR is specified as 10 V/uS and the unity gain
bandwidth
> >(your Ft ) is up to 10 MHz.
>
> Where? Where does this number come from?


** The National Semi data book.

Also reprinted the the " IC Op-amp Cook Book ".



> > This corresponds to full output swings at over 100 kHz.
>
> Oh yes, I forgot that you didn't believe in slew rate limiting.


** ****wit's logic noted.

>
> >> Much like the 741, the reason the dynamic numbers aren't on the data
sheet
> >> is because they aren't intended for use in applications where they are
> >> important.
> >
> >** All the relevant data is in the Natsemi book.
>
>
> It's not in my 1979 one here.


** Look harder you dickhead - the SR figure is in the general
description.

The unity gain BW figures are evident from the open loop gain plots.


>
> >> I'd say anything that has a
> >> crossover error that is visible by eye on a scope with a 1 KHz sine
wave
> >> at 0.05V in with a gain of 100 is nasty. Give me an address and I will
> >> mail you some polaroids off the Tektronix.
> >
> >
> >** Such a pic could be faked in any number of ways.
>
>
> As I said, you basically won't accept anyone else's measurements,


** Massive lie - I will simply not accept your screen pics.

Because you are proven liar and deceiver.

A know nothing charlatan.


> you won't
> accept anything in the published literature,


** Strange that I am using the maker's data then.

Strange that specs for famous items using the LM 301 are so good.


> and you don't admit that there
> is any validity in any subjective measure.


** Not when know nothing, looney, op-amp racist, ****head's like Scott
Dorsey are doing the listening.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> Phil Allison
> >
> >> Look at the crossover distortion
> >> numbers.
> >
> >** Produce them !!!

> Give me a fax number and I'll send you a copy of the Leach measurements.


** Obviously they do not apply to normal usage conditions.

So another of Scott Dorsey's stinking lies.


> >
> >** FYI - the max SR is specified as 10 V/uS and the unity gain
bandwidth
> >(your Ft ) is up to 10 MHz.
>
> Where? Where does this number come from?


** The National Semi data book.

Also reprinted the the " IC Op-amp Cook Book ".



> > This corresponds to full output swings at over 100 kHz.
>
> Oh yes, I forgot that you didn't believe in slew rate limiting.


** ****wit's logic noted.

>
> >> Much like the 741, the reason the dynamic numbers aren't on the data
sheet
> >> is because they aren't intended for use in applications where they are
> >> important.
> >
> >** All the relevant data is in the Natsemi book.
>
>
> It's not in my 1979 one here.


** Look harder you dickhead - the SR figure is in the general
description.

The unity gain BW figures are evident from the open loop gain plots.


>
> >> I'd say anything that has a
> >> crossover error that is visible by eye on a scope with a 1 KHz sine
wave
> >> at 0.05V in with a gain of 100 is nasty. Give me an address and I will
> >> mail you some polaroids off the Tektronix.
> >
> >
> >** Such a pic could be faked in any number of ways.
>
>
> As I said, you basically won't accept anyone else's measurements,


** Massive lie - I will simply not accept your screen pics.

Because you are proven liar and deceiver.

A know nothing charlatan.


> you won't
> accept anything in the published literature,


** Strange that I am using the maker's data then.

Strange that specs for famous items using the LM 301 are so good.


> and you don't admit that there
> is any validity in any subjective measure.


** Not when know nothing, looney, op-amp racist, ****head's like Scott
Dorsey are doing the listening.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Chris Hornbeck"

> Scott,
>
> You're justly famous for your even-handed generosity and good spirits
> with newcomers to the group.


** Scott Dorsey is infamous for horribly misleading people and posting
massive lies.

He is such a fool he believes his own lies.



> I actually hope to learn a real life
> lesson from your manner in handling this negative vibe.


** OTOH - Mr Hornbeck is living on some far away planet inhabited by
fairies and goblins.


>
> I'm possibly/ probably older than you, but haven't learned it yet.


** Brain defects do prevent learning.





.......... Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Chris Hornbeck"

> Scott,
>
> You're justly famous for your even-handed generosity and good spirits
> with newcomers to the group.


** Scott Dorsey is infamous for horribly misleading people and posting
massive lies.

He is such a fool he believes his own lies.



> I actually hope to learn a real life
> lesson from your manner in handling this negative vibe.


** OTOH - Mr Hornbeck is living on some far away planet inhabited by
fairies and goblins.


>
> I'm possibly/ probably older than you, but haven't learned it yet.


** Brain defects do prevent learning.





.......... Phil

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> pulse response plots that will make you laugh.

He hasn't pulse, only response and he doesn't laugh. I do say, though,
that if I had your patinece I'd be a surgeon.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> pulse response plots that will make you laugh.

He hasn't pulse, only response and he doesn't laugh. I do say, though,
that if I had your patinece I'd be a surgeon.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey is famous for giving people polite, correct and often
in-depth information in rec.audio.pro and elsewhere.

Phoney Phil, on the other hand, is someone whose "abuse" addy we should
get at and deluge with copies of his abusive posts here. Clearly he
hasn't a life worth living so he might as well try his luck elsewhere.

If Phil had a brain and Internet access he'd be able to learn in a few
seconds what Scott does for a living. No wonder Phil can't figure it
out.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey is famous for giving people polite, correct and often
in-depth information in rec.audio.pro and elsewhere.

Phoney Phil, on the other hand, is someone whose "abuse" addy we should
get at and deluge with copies of his abusive posts here. Clearly he
hasn't a life worth living so he might as well try his luck elsewhere.

If Phil had a brain and Internet access he'd be able to learn in a few
seconds what Scott does for a living. No wonder Phil can't figure it
out.

--
ha

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:59:20 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>> pulse response plots that will make you laugh.
>
>He hasn't pulse, only response and he doesn't laugh. I do say, though,
>that if I had your patinece I'd be a surgeon.

I really do think Ty's right. AI's walk among us.

Or is it "amongst us"?

Chris Hornbeck
" ** this NG is chock full of metal midgets"

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:59:20 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>> pulse response plots that will make you laugh.
>
>He hasn't pulse, only response and he doesn't laugh. I do say, though,
>that if I had your patinece I'd be a surgeon.

I really do think Ty's right. AI's walk among us.

Or is it "amongst us"?

Chris Hornbeck
" ** this NG is chock full of metal midgets"

[hank alrich]

I wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:

> > pulse response plots that will make you laugh.

> He hasn't pulse, only response and he doesn't laugh. I do say, though,
> that if I had your patinece I'd be a surgeon.

Who knows, maybe I did mean "patinece" instead of patience.

--
hank alrich * secret__mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[hank alrich]

I wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:

> > pulse response plots that will make you laugh.

> He hasn't pulse, only response and he doesn't laugh. I do say, though,
> that if I had your patinece I'd be a surgeon.

Who knows, maybe I did mean "patinece" instead of patience.

--
hank alrich * secret__mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Phil Allison]

"hank alrich"
>
> Scott Dorsey is famous for giving people polite, correct and often
> in-depth information in rec.audio.pro and elsewhere.
>

** No possible way for a mindless, abuse posting moron like Hank to tell.


> Phoney Phil, on the other hand, is someone whose "abuse" addy we should
> get at and deluge with copies of his abusive posts here. Clearly he
> hasn't a life worth living so he might as well try his luck elsewhere.


** What NG Nazi.


>
> If Phil had a brain and Internet access he'd be able to learn in a few
> seconds what Scott does for a living.


** It sure as hell is not electronics engineering.




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

[Phil Allison]

"hank alrich"
>
> Scott Dorsey is famous for giving people polite, correct and often
> in-depth information in rec.audio.pro and elsewhere.
>

** No possible way for a mindless, abuse posting moron like Hank to tell.


> Phoney Phil, on the other hand, is someone whose "abuse" addy we should
> get at and deluge with copies of his abusive posts here. Clearly he
> hasn't a life worth living so he might as well try his luck elsewhere.


** What NG Nazi.


>
> If Phil had a brain and Internet access he'd be able to learn in a few
> seconds what Scott does for a living.


** It sure as hell is not electronics engineering.




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

[Paul Stamler]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > pulse response plots that will make you laugh.
>
> He hasn't pulse, only response and he doesn't laugh. I do say, though,
> that if I had your patinece I'd be a surgeon.

Patience? Surgeon? Don't you know the medical classification system:

An internist knows everything and does nothing.

A surgeon knows nothing and does everything.

A pathologist knows everything and does everything, but too late.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > pulse response plots that will make you laugh.
>
> He hasn't pulse, only response and he doesn't laugh. I do say, though,
> that if I had your patinece I'd be a surgeon.

Patience? Surgeon? Don't you know the medical classification system:

An internist knows everything and does nothing.

A surgeon knows nothing and does everything.

A pathologist knows everything and does everything, but too late.

Peace,
Paul

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"

" I'd say anything that has a crossover error that is visible by eye on a
scope with a 1 KHz sine wave
at 0.05V in with a gain of 100 is nasty. "


** I agree - but no way does an LM 301 do that. Not even at 100 kHz.

At 100 times gain @ 1 KHz with 50 mV input and a 600 ohm load - THD
measures a mere 0.01 %.

No crossover notching at all.

Scott Dorsey just plucks any figures he needs out of his fat arse.




.......... Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"

" I'd say anything that has a crossover error that is visible by eye on a
scope with a 1 KHz sine wave
at 0.05V in with a gain of 100 is nasty. "


** I agree - but no way does an LM 301 do that. Not even at 100 kHz.

At 100 times gain @ 1 KHz with 50 mV input and a 600 ohm load - THD
measures a mere 0.01 %.

No crossover notching at all.

Scott Dorsey just plucks any figures he needs out of his fat arse.




.......... Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>
> Strange that specs for famous items using the LM 301 are so good.

Name some.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>
> Strange that specs for famous items using the LM 301 are so good.

Name some.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

(hank alrich) wrote in message >...
> Scott Dorsey is famous for giving people polite, correct and often
> in-depth information in rec.audio.pro and elsewhere.
>
> Phoney Phil, on the other hand, is someone whose "abuse" addy we should
> get at and deluge with copies of his abusive posts here. Clearly he
> hasn't a life worth living so he might as well try his luck elsewhere.
>
> If Phil had a brain and Internet access he'd be able to learn in a few
> seconds what Scott does for a living. No wonder Phil can't figure it
> out.

Too bad Phil's abusive BS is met with such fanning. The only way to
**** the fire out is to ignore him completely. Something I
(fortunately) find extremely easy to do.

[[email protected]]

(hank alrich) wrote in message >...
> Scott Dorsey is famous for giving people polite, correct and often
> in-depth information in rec.audio.pro and elsewhere.
>
> Phoney Phil, on the other hand, is someone whose "abuse" addy we should
> get at and deluge with copies of his abusive posts here. Clearly he
> hasn't a life worth living so he might as well try his luck elsewhere.
>
> If Phil had a brain and Internet access he'd be able to learn in a few
> seconds what Scott does for a living. No wonder Phil can't figure it
> out.

Too bad Phil's abusive BS is met with such fanning. The only way to
**** the fire out is to ignore him completely. Something I
(fortunately) find extremely easy to do.

[Scott Dorsey]

JP Gerard <jpgerard@skynet> wrote:
>Do we HAVE to keep answering Phil's posts???

I personally think Phil is hilarious. I'm not sure that he is actually
a human being. He might just be some sort of software that automatically
posts insulting replies. Either that or he is someone who actually knows
better, who posts deliberate and random insults in an attempt to be funny.
His obsession with anonymity makes it obvious that he's not taking any of
this seriously, so why should we take it seriously?
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

JP Gerard <jpgerard@skynet> wrote:
>Do we HAVE to keep answering Phil's posts???

I personally think Phil is hilarious. I'm not sure that he is actually
a human being. He might just be some sort of software that automatically
posts insulting replies. Either that or he is someone who actually knows
better, who posts deliberate and random insults in an attempt to be funny.
His obsession with anonymity makes it obvious that he's not taking any of
this seriously, so why should we take it seriously?
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Stu Venable]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> JP Gerard <jpgerard@skynet> wrote:
> >Do we HAVE to keep answering Phil's posts???
>
> I personally think Phil is hilarious. I'm not sure that he is actually
> a human being. He might just be some sort of software that automatically
> posts insulting replies. Either that or he is someone who actually knows
> better, who posts deliberate and random insults in an attempt to be funny.
> His obsession with anonymity makes it obvious that he's not taking any of
> this seriously, so why should we take it seriously?
> --scott

I second that. I loves me a good troll. (that's probably why I listen to
Phil Hendrie)

Stu Venable

[Stu Venable]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> JP Gerard <jpgerard@skynet> wrote:
> >Do we HAVE to keep answering Phil's posts???
>
> I personally think Phil is hilarious. I'm not sure that he is actually
> a human being. He might just be some sort of software that automatically
> posts insulting replies. Either that or he is someone who actually knows
> better, who posts deliberate and random insults in an attempt to be funny.
> His obsession with anonymity makes it obvious that he's not taking any of
> this seriously, so why should we take it seriously?
> --scott

I second that. I loves me a good troll. (that's probably why I listen to
Phil Hendrie)

Stu Venable

[Kurt Albershardt]

JP Gerard wrote:
> Do we HAVE to keep answering Phil's posts???

No.

[Kurt Albershardt]

JP Gerard wrote:
> Do we HAVE to keep answering Phil's posts???

No.

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> Phil Allison <
> >
> > Strange that specs for famous items using the LM 301 are so good.
>


** The Crown IC150 uses an LM301 as a 20 dB gain the line stage :

Quote: " Distortion THD: essentially immeasurable; IM less than 0.01%
at rated output with IHF measurement (typically under 0.002%) "


When are you gonna stop posting ** LIES ** Scott ???



BTW I expect you to comeback with a load of ridiculous garbage about the
IC150 sounding bad.



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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> Phil Allison <
> >
> > Strange that specs for famous items using the LM 301 are so good.
>


** The Crown IC150 uses an LM301 as a 20 dB gain the line stage :

Quote: " Distortion THD: essentially immeasurable; IM less than 0.01%
at rated output with IHF measurement (typically under 0.002%) "


When are you gonna stop posting ** LIES ** Scott ???



BTW I expect you to comeback with a load of ridiculous garbage about the
IC150 sounding bad.



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

[Phil Allison]

"JP Gerard"
> Do we HAVE to keep answering Phil's posts???
>

** Cos he keeps poking holes in a lot of puffed up bags of smelly gas.




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

[Phil Allison]

"JP Gerard"
> Do we HAVE to keep answering Phil's posts???
>

** Cos he keeps poking holes in a lot of puffed up bags of smelly gas.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey" ...
> JP Gerard <
> >Do we HAVE to keep answering Phil's posts???
>
> I personally think Phil is hilarious.


** Proves what an idiot your are.


> I'm not sure that he is actually a human being.

** Proves you are off your head.


> He might just be some sort of software that automatically
> posts insulting replies.


** One insult gets another - still cannot figure it ??


> Either that or he is someone who actually knows
> better, who posts deliberate and random insults in an attempt to be funny.


** Nothing random about them - as you well know.


> His obsession with anonymity makes it obvious that he's not taking any of
> this seriously, so why should we take it seriously?


** More idiotic lies from a professional ass.


My real name is Phil Allison, I live in Sydney Australia and have been an
audio tech/designer all my life.

I operate my own business.

I must be one of the LEAST anonymous persons on Usenet.





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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey" ...
> JP Gerard <
> >Do we HAVE to keep answering Phil's posts???
>
> I personally think Phil is hilarious.


** Proves what an idiot your are.


> I'm not sure that he is actually a human being.

** Proves you are off your head.


> He might just be some sort of software that automatically
> posts insulting replies.


** One insult gets another - still cannot figure it ??


> Either that or he is someone who actually knows
> better, who posts deliberate and random insults in an attempt to be funny.


** Nothing random about them - as you well know.


> His obsession with anonymity makes it obvious that he's not taking any of
> this seriously, so why should we take it seriously?


** More idiotic lies from a professional ass.


My real name is Phil Allison, I live in Sydney Australia and have been an
audio tech/designer all my life.

I operate my own business.

I must be one of the LEAST anonymous persons on Usenet.





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

[S O'Neill]

Phil Allison wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" ...
>
>>JP Gerard <


Eliza program. Simple responses based on text found in the previous and
earlier posts.

[S O'Neill]

Phil Allison wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" ...
>
>>JP Gerard <


Eliza program. Simple responses based on text found in the previous and
earlier posts.

[Scott Dorsey]

JP Gerard <jpgerard@skynet> wrote:
>Sure; but its *tone* is really bugging me.
>
>I do think he's got some kind of knowledge about audio in general; but then
>he gets the weirdest opinion about something, and doesn't want to let go,
>even if you calmly explain to him that he is... and becomes arrogant and
>insulting in no time...

Hey, I just got him to hold up the Crown IC150 as being an example of quality
sound. And a couple other people have him nearly foaming at the mouth over
consoles having seperate mike and line inputs. You gotta admit there is
some humor value in these.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

JP Gerard <jpgerard@skynet> wrote:
>Sure; but its *tone* is really bugging me.
>
>I do think he's got some kind of knowledge about audio in general; but then
>he gets the weirdest opinion about something, and doesn't want to let go,
>even if you calmly explain to him that he is... and becomes arrogant and
>insulting in no time...

Hey, I just got him to hold up the Crown IC150 as being an example of quality
sound. And a couple other people have him nearly foaming at the mouth over
consoles having seperate mike and line inputs. You gotta admit there is
some humor value in these.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Hey, I just got him to hold up the Crown IC150 as being an example of quality
> sound.

Oh, dear. Software bots don't really have actual ears. You realize that.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Hey, I just got him to hold up the Crown IC150 as being an example of quality
> sound.

Oh, dear. Software bots don't really have actual ears. You realize that.

--
ha

[TonyP]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > Hey, I just got him to hold up the Crown IC150 as being an example of
quality
> > sound.
>
> Oh, dear. Software bots don't really have actual ears. You realize that.

Far be it for me to stick up for Phil, but what he said was the measured
distortion is low whilst using an LM301. I've measured one of these, and he
is right. Now if there are audible faults, you should tell us why. And no I
don't think the LM301 is the greatest op-amp ever made! I also don't believe
anyone when they say any amplifier/pre-amp etc is crap, and don't say why.

TonyP.

[TonyP]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > Hey, I just got him to hold up the Crown IC150 as being an example of
quality
> > sound.
>
> Oh, dear. Software bots don't really have actual ears. You realize that.

Far be it for me to stick up for Phil, but what he said was the measured
distortion is low whilst using an LM301. I've measured one of these, and he
is right. Now if there are audible faults, you should tell us why. And no I
don't think the LM301 is the greatest op-amp ever made! I also don't believe
anyone when they say any amplifier/pre-amp etc is crap, and don't say why.

TonyP.

[Scott Dorsey]

TonyP > wrote:
>
>Far be it for me to stick up for Phil, but what he said was the measured
>distortion is low whilst using an LM301. I've measured one of these, and he
>is right. Now if there are audible faults, you should tell us why. And no I
>don't think the LM301 is the greatest op-amp ever made! I also don't believe
>anyone when they say any amplifier/pre-amp etc is crap, and don't say why.

It's _possible_ to make low distortion circuits with the LM301, and the
guys at Studer have done so. B&K also used the 301 in some instrumentation
stuff, and took care to use it only in applications where it would perform
well. But you can easily build other cookbook circuits with the 301 that
demonstrate enormous crossover distortion (and I think most of that problem
is on the front end, since running it at high gains to keep the output level
as high as possible just makes the problem worse).

There are audible faults, which are both the result of crossover distortion
and of the poor impulse response (witness the square wave response on the data
sheet). It is possible to work around both of these problems by using the
301 only in high feedback applications with fairly high input levels and/or
by fiddling with the input offset (as Sennheiser did in their field mixers).

The 301 is also VERY touchy about supply decoupling, more so than most newer
op-amps. It throws a lot of trash on the power supply rails and good solid
decoupling will help distortion a lot. But by the same token, because of the
low Ft, the 301 will seem to be stable and not oscillate even without proper
supply decoupling. This lead a lot of designers to skimp on decoupling
and resulted in far worse sound quality than was possible (and the B&K 7004
recorder is a good example of this).

If Phil came out and described the ways to deal with the deficiencies in the
301 and talked about some of the good gear that has used the 301 and what
they did to make it good, I'd be happy to have him here. But rather than
present a valid defense, he comes out in praise of the IC150 which is, well,
not exactly a good example of good design with 301s.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

TonyP > wrote:
>
>Far be it for me to stick up for Phil, but what he said was the measured
>distortion is low whilst using an LM301. I've measured one of these, and he
>is right. Now if there are audible faults, you should tell us why. And no I
>don't think the LM301 is the greatest op-amp ever made! I also don't believe
>anyone when they say any amplifier/pre-amp etc is crap, and don't say why.

It's _possible_ to make low distortion circuits with the LM301, and the
guys at Studer have done so. B&K also used the 301 in some instrumentation
stuff, and took care to use it only in applications where it would perform
well. But you can easily build other cookbook circuits with the 301 that
demonstrate enormous crossover distortion (and I think most of that problem
is on the front end, since running it at high gains to keep the output level
as high as possible just makes the problem worse).

There are audible faults, which are both the result of crossover distortion
and of the poor impulse response (witness the square wave response on the data
sheet). It is possible to work around both of these problems by using the
301 only in high feedback applications with fairly high input levels and/or
by fiddling with the input offset (as Sennheiser did in their field mixers).

The 301 is also VERY touchy about supply decoupling, more so than most newer
op-amps. It throws a lot of trash on the power supply rails and good solid
decoupling will help distortion a lot. But by the same token, because of the
low Ft, the 301 will seem to be stable and not oscillate even without proper
supply decoupling. This lead a lot of designers to skimp on decoupling
and resulted in far worse sound quality than was possible (and the B&K 7004
recorder is a good example of this).

If Phil came out and described the ways to deal with the deficiencies in the
301 and talked about some of the good gear that has used the 301 and what
they did to make it good, I'd be happy to have him here. But rather than
present a valid defense, he comes out in praise of the IC150 which is, well,
not exactly a good example of good design with 301s.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> It's _possible_ to make low distortion circuits with the LM301, and the
> guys at Studer have done so. B&K also used the 301 in some instrumentation
> stuff, and took care to use it only in applications where it would perform
> well.

> There are audible faults, which are both the result of crossover distortion
> and of the poor impulse response (witness the square wave response on the data
> sheet). It is possible to work around both of these problems by using the
> 301 only in high feedback applications with fairly high input levels and/or
> by fiddling with the input offset (as Sennheiser did in their field mixers).
>
> The 301 is also VERY touchy about supply decoupling, more so than most newer
> op-amps.

So it's possible to achieve usable performance from an outdated part
if the rest of the design accommodates it. But it sounds like it
wouldn't be the optimum choice for any low-distortion small signal
amplifier project today. The Studio console we're talking about here
is how old? And I seem to remember the Crown IC150 from my college
days.

But I guess to answer the question, the Studer console in question
isn't bad. Maybe you should have left it at that rather than bring up
what could have been worse about it if Studer hadn't done a careful
design using an IC which at the time was a reasonable choice.

> But rather than
> present a valid defense, he comes out in praise of the IC150 which is, well,
> not exactly a good example of good design with 301s.

Well, he DOES have some history with rec.audio.opinion.

--
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> It's _possible_ to make low distortion circuits with the LM301, and the
> guys at Studer have done so. B&K also used the 301 in some instrumentation
> stuff, and took care to use it only in applications where it would perform
> well.

> There are audible faults, which are both the result of crossover distortion
> and of the poor impulse response (witness the square wave response on the data
> sheet). It is possible to work around both of these problems by using the
> 301 only in high feedback applications with fairly high input levels and/or
> by fiddling with the input offset (as Sennheiser did in their field mixers).
>
> The 301 is also VERY touchy about supply decoupling, more so than most newer
> op-amps.

So it's possible to achieve usable performance from an outdated part
if the rest of the design accommodates it. But it sounds like it
wouldn't be the optimum choice for any low-distortion small signal
amplifier project today. The Studio console we're talking about here
is how old? And I seem to remember the Crown IC150 from my college
days.

But I guess to answer the question, the Studer console in question
isn't bad. Maybe you should have left it at that rather than bring up
what could have been worse about it if Studer hadn't done a careful
design using an IC which at the time was a reasonable choice.

> But rather than
> present a valid defense, he comes out in praise of the IC150 which is, well,
> not exactly a good example of good design with 301s.

Well, he DOES have some history with rec.audio.opinion.

--
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Bob]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:26:30 +1000, "Phil Allison" >
wrote:

>
>"Scott Dorsey"
>
> " I'd say anything that has a crossover error that is visible by eye on a
>scope with a 1 KHz sine wave
> at 0.05V in with a gain of 100 is nasty. "
>
>
>** I agree - but no way does an LM 301 do that. Not even at 100 kHz.
>
> At 100 times gain @ 1 KHz with 50 mV input and a 600 ohm load - THD
>measures a mere 0.01 %.
>
> No crossover notching at all.
>
> Scott Dorsey just plucks any figures he needs out of his fat arse.
>
>
>
>
>......... Phil
>

Don't you have to load it to get a crossover notch? What load did Scott use I
wonder...

[Bob]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:26:30 +1000, "Phil Allison" >
wrote:

>
>"Scott Dorsey"
>
> " I'd say anything that has a crossover error that is visible by eye on a
>scope with a 1 KHz sine wave
> at 0.05V in with a gain of 100 is nasty. "
>
>
>** I agree - but no way does an LM 301 do that. Not even at 100 kHz.
>
> At 100 times gain @ 1 KHz with 50 mV input and a 600 ohm load - THD
>measures a mere 0.01 %.
>
> No crossover notching at all.
>
> Scott Dorsey just plucks any figures he needs out of his fat arse.
>
>
>
>
>......... Phil
>

Don't you have to load it to get a crossover notch? What load did Scott use I
wonder...

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"

> >
> >I do think he's got some kind of knowledge about audio in general; but
then
> >he gets the weirdest opinion about something, and doesn't want to let go,
> >even if you calmly explain to him that he is... and becomes arrogant and
> >insulting in no time...
>
> Hey, I just got him to hold up the Crown IC150 as being an example of
quality
> sound.


** Nothing wrong with the specs - and makes you a blatant liar once
again.


> And a couple other people have him nearly foaming at the mouth over
> consoles having seperate mike and line inputs.


** The only mouth foaming round here is coming from Scott Dorsey as he
desperately tries to lie his way out of blunders.

All he ever does is dig the holes he gets in deeper and deeper.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"

> >
> >I do think he's got some kind of knowledge about audio in general; but
then
> >he gets the weirdest opinion about something, and doesn't want to let go,
> >even if you calmly explain to him that he is... and becomes arrogant and
> >insulting in no time...
>
> Hey, I just got him to hold up the Crown IC150 as being an example of
quality
> sound.


** Nothing wrong with the specs - and makes you a blatant liar once
again.


> And a couple other people have him nearly foaming at the mouth over
> consoles having seperate mike and line inputs.


** The only mouth foaming round here is coming from Scott Dorsey as he
desperately tries to lie his way out of blunders.

All he ever does is dig the holes he gets in deeper and deeper.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> TonyP <:
> >
> >Far be it for me to stick up for Phil, but what he said was the measured
> >distortion is low whilst using an LM301. I've measured one of these, and
he
> >is right. Now if there are audible faults, you should tell us why. And no
I
> >don't think the LM301 is the greatest op-amp ever made! I also don't
believe
> >anyone when they say any amplifier/pre-amp etc is crap, and don't say
why.
>
> It's _possible_ to make low distortion circuits with the LM301, and the
> guys at Studer have done so.


** Bull**** - the LM301 has low THD inherently.

No tricks needed - just the standard circuits.


> But you can easily build other cookbook circuits with the 301 that
> demonstrate enormous crossover distortion...


** Shame that this Congenital Liar can not supply proof of this absurd
claim.


> There are audible faults, which are both the result of crossover
distortion


** There simply is none.


> and of the poor impulse response (witness the square wave response on the
data
> sheet).


** Square waves are excellent - far better than a TL071.

>
> The 301 is also VERY touchy about supply decoupling,


** Wrong - it is very stable and unfussy.


more so than most newer
> op-amps. It throws a lot of trash on the power supply rails and good
solid
> decoupling will help distortion a lot.


** Pig ignorant drivel - as is the norm for Dorsey .


> But by the same token, because of the
> low Ft,


** The unity gain bandwidth is ***way better** than a TL071 at 3 Mhz.

Depending on the frequency compensation used - an LM301 has up to 30
MHz.


> If Phil came out and described the ways to deal with the deficiencies in
the
> 301 ...


** The ones that do not exist ????

Hard to fix them.



> and talked about some of the good gear that has used the 301 and what
> they did to make it good, I'd be happy to have him here.


** What posturing asshole - a ****wit without a clue.


> But rather than present a valid defense,


** The simple facts are defence enough.


> he comes out in praise of the IC150 which is, well,
> not exactly a good example of good design with 301s.


** More of Dorsey's asinine pseudo-technical prejudices.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> TonyP <:
> >
> >Far be it for me to stick up for Phil, but what he said was the measured
> >distortion is low whilst using an LM301. I've measured one of these, and
he
> >is right. Now if there are audible faults, you should tell us why. And no
I
> >don't think the LM301 is the greatest op-amp ever made! I also don't
believe
> >anyone when they say any amplifier/pre-amp etc is crap, and don't say
why.
>
> It's _possible_ to make low distortion circuits with the LM301, and the
> guys at Studer have done so.


** Bull**** - the LM301 has low THD inherently.

No tricks needed - just the standard circuits.


> But you can easily build other cookbook circuits with the 301 that
> demonstrate enormous crossover distortion...


** Shame that this Congenital Liar can not supply proof of this absurd
claim.


> There are audible faults, which are both the result of crossover
distortion


** There simply is none.


> and of the poor impulse response (witness the square wave response on the
data
> sheet).


** Square waves are excellent - far better than a TL071.

>
> The 301 is also VERY touchy about supply decoupling,


** Wrong - it is very stable and unfussy.


more so than most newer
> op-amps. It throws a lot of trash on the power supply rails and good
solid
> decoupling will help distortion a lot.


** Pig ignorant drivel - as is the norm for Dorsey .


> But by the same token, because of the
> low Ft,


** The unity gain bandwidth is ***way better** than a TL071 at 3 Mhz.

Depending on the frequency compensation used - an LM301 has up to 30
MHz.


> If Phil came out and described the ways to deal with the deficiencies in
the
> 301 ...


** The ones that do not exist ????

Hard to fix them.



> and talked about some of the good gear that has used the 301 and what
> they did to make it good, I'd be happy to have him here.


** What posturing asshole - a ****wit without a clue.


> But rather than present a valid defense,


** The simple facts are defence enough.


> he comes out in praise of the IC150 which is, well,
> not exactly a good example of good design with 301s.


** More of Dorsey's asinine pseudo-technical prejudices.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers"

>
> Well, he DOES have some history with rec.audio.opinion.
>


** More parrot lies.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers"

>
> Well, he DOES have some history with rec.audio.opinion.
>


** More parrot lies.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Bob" ...
"Phil Allison"
> >
> >"Scott Dorsey"
> >
> > " I'd say anything that has a crossover error that is visible by eye
on a
> >scope with a 1 KHz sine wave
> > at 0.05V in with a gain of 100 is nasty. "
> >
> >
> >** I agree - but no way does an LM 301 do that. Not even at 100 kHz.
> >
> > At 100 times gain @ 1 KHz with 50 mV input and a 600 ohm load - THD
> >measures a mere 0.01 %.
> >
> > No crossover notching at all.
> >
> > Scott Dorsey just plucks any figures he needs out of his fat arse.
> >

> >
>
> Don't you have to load it to get a crossover notch? What load did Scott
use I
> wonder...


** Probably a bunch of Scottky diodes.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Bob" ...
"Phil Allison"
> >
> >"Scott Dorsey"
> >
> > " I'd say anything that has a crossover error that is visible by eye
on a
> >scope with a 1 KHz sine wave
> > at 0.05V in with a gain of 100 is nasty. "
> >
> >
> >** I agree - but no way does an LM 301 do that. Not even at 100 kHz.
> >
> > At 100 times gain @ 1 KHz with 50 mV input and a 600 ohm load - THD
> >measures a mere 0.01 %.
> >
> > No crossover notching at all.
> >
> > Scott Dorsey just plucks any figures he needs out of his fat arse.
> >

> >
>
> Don't you have to load it to get a crossover notch? What load did Scott
use I
> wonder...


** Probably a bunch of Scottky diodes.




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

[Scott Dorsey]

Bob > wrote:
>
>Don't you have to load it to get a crossover notch? What load did Scott use I
>wonder...
>

I don't think you do, since the crossover problem is on the input side
rather than the output side where it is on most op-amps. But I used
the standard 1 Kohm test fixture load.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Bob > wrote:
>
>Don't you have to load it to get a crossover notch? What load did Scott use I
>wonder...
>

I don't think you do, since the crossover problem is on the input side
rather than the output side where it is on most op-amps. But I used
the standard 1 Kohm test fixture load.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Bob]

On 16 Sep 2004 22:04:08 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Bob > wrote:
>>
>>Don't you have to load it to get a crossover notch? What load did Scott use I
>>wonder...
>>
>
>I don't think you do, since the crossover problem is on the input side
>rather than the output side where it is on most op-amps.

I don't get this - notch on the input? What kind of circuit?

>But I used
>the standard 1 Kohm test fixture load.
>--scott

[Bob]

On 16 Sep 2004 22:04:08 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Bob > wrote:
>>
>>Don't you have to load it to get a crossover notch? What load did Scott use I
>>wonder...
>>
>
>I don't think you do, since the crossover problem is on the input side
>rather than the output side where it is on most op-amps.

I don't get this - notch on the input? What kind of circuit?

>But I used
>the standard 1 Kohm test fixture load.
>--scott

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> Bob
> >
> >Don't you have to load it to get a crossover notch? What load did Scott
use I
> >wonder...
> >
>
> I don't think you do, since the crossover problem is on the input side
> rather than the output side where it is on most op-amps.


** THERE IS NO CROSSOVER DISTORTION PROBLEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dorsey never gets a single fact right !!!!





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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> Bob
> >
> >Don't you have to load it to get a crossover notch? What load did Scott
use I
> >wonder...
> >
>
> I don't think you do, since the crossover problem is on the input side
> rather than the output side where it is on most op-amps.


** THERE IS NO CROSSOVER DISTORTION PROBLEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dorsey never gets a single fact right !!!!





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

[Phil Allison]

"Bob"
>
> I don't get this - notch on the input? What kind of circuit?



** Ever head the saying "ask no questions - get no lies"

That should be Mr Dorsey's epitaph.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Bob"
>
> I don't get this - notch on the input? What kind of circuit?



** Ever head the saying "ask no questions - get no lies"

That should be Mr Dorsey's epitaph.




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

[Bryson]

"Phil Allison" > wrote in message >...
> "Scott Dorsey"
>
> " I'd say anything that has a crossover error that is visible by eye on a
> scope with a 1 KHz sine wave
> at 0.05V in with a gain of 100 is nasty. "
>
>
> ** I agree - but no way does an LM 301 do that. Not even at 100 kHz.
>
> At 100 times gain @ 1 KHz with 50 mV input and a 600 ohm load - THD
> measures a mere 0.01 %.
>
> No crossover notching at all.
>
> Scott Dorsey just plucks any figures he needs out of his fat arse.


Well maybe you could too, Phil, if your head wasn't stuck up there.


>
>
>
>
> ......... Phil

[Bryson]

"Phil Allison" > wrote in message >...
> "Scott Dorsey"
>
> " I'd say anything that has a crossover error that is visible by eye on a
> scope with a 1 KHz sine wave
> at 0.05V in with a gain of 100 is nasty. "
>
>
> ** I agree - but no way does an LM 301 do that. Not even at 100 kHz.
>
> At 100 times gain @ 1 KHz with 50 mV input and a 600 ohm load - THD
> measures a mere 0.01 %.
>
> No crossover notching at all.
>
> Scott Dorsey just plucks any figures he needs out of his fat arse.


Well maybe you could too, Phil, if your head wasn't stuck up there.


>
>
>
>
> ......... Phil

[Bob]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:33:59 +1000, "Phil Allison" >
wrote:

>
>"Bob"
>>
>> I don't get this - notch on the input? What kind of circuit?
>
>
>
>** Ever head the saying "ask no questions - get no lies"
>
> That should be Mr Dorsey's epitaph.
>
>
>
>
>............ Phil
>
>

OH well...

I'll have to see if I have a 301 around here and breadboard it... but I have to
say I never saw crossover distortion on any of the op amps I've used, either
725, 739, TL074, TL084... but I'm not an OP amp expert.

[Bob]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:33:59 +1000, "Phil Allison" >
wrote:

>
>"Bob"
>>
>> I don't get this - notch on the input? What kind of circuit?
>
>
>
>** Ever head the saying "ask no questions - get no lies"
>
> That should be Mr Dorsey's epitaph.
>
>
>
>
>............ Phil
>
>

OH well...

I'll have to see if I have a 301 around here and breadboard it... but I have to
say I never saw crossover distortion on any of the op amps I've used, either
725, 739, TL074, TL084... but I'm not an OP amp expert.

[Natalie Drest]

"Phil Allison" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott Dorsey"
> > Bob
> > >
> > >Don't you have to load it to get a crossover notch? What load did
Scott
> use I
> > >wonder...
> > >
> >
> > I don't think you do, since the crossover problem is on the input side
> > rather than the output side where it is on most op-amps.
>
>
> ** THERE IS NO CROSSOVER DISTORTION PROBLEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Dorsey never gets a single fact right !!!!
>
> ............. Phil


& what has your contribution been to the edification of the audio community,
apart from silly errors & abusing decent people?

Mr. Dorsey is kind enough to share his extensive experience with us all.
What is more, he frequently does it while he's WORKING- actually recording
stuff, or dubbing, or whatever.
What do you do? Do you actually produce anything of value?
Seriously, why are you so angry with the world?
If you don't know why you're so cranky, maybe some therapy would benefit
you.
And i'm not just saying that to insult you, but as someone who cares about
others- even you, though you might find that hard to believe. You really
seem to need help, man. Go hug someone & say you're sorry.


--
"I won't go into binary counting here. For further information you can
search the Internet, or cut off all but one of your fingers."
-Roger Nichols

[Natalie Drest]

"Phil Allison" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott Dorsey"
> > Bob
> > >
> > >Don't you have to load it to get a crossover notch? What load did
Scott
> use I
> > >wonder...
> > >
> >
> > I don't think you do, since the crossover problem is on the input side
> > rather than the output side where it is on most op-amps.
>
>
> ** THERE IS NO CROSSOVER DISTORTION PROBLEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Dorsey never gets a single fact right !!!!
>
> ............. Phil


& what has your contribution been to the edification of the audio community,
apart from silly errors & abusing decent people?

Mr. Dorsey is kind enough to share his extensive experience with us all.
What is more, he frequently does it while he's WORKING- actually recording
stuff, or dubbing, or whatever.
What do you do? Do you actually produce anything of value?
Seriously, why are you so angry with the world?
If you don't know why you're so cranky, maybe some therapy would benefit
you.
And i'm not just saying that to insult you, but as someone who cares about
others- even you, though you might find that hard to believe. You really
seem to need help, man. Go hug someone & say you're sorry.


--
"I won't go into binary counting here. For further information you can
search the Internet, or cut off all but one of your fingers."
-Roger Nichols

[Phil Allison]

"Natalie Drest"
> "Phil Allison"
> > >
> > > I don't think you do, since the crossover problem is on the input side
> > > rather than the output side where it is on most op-amps.
> >
> >
> > ** THERE IS NO CROSSOVER DISTORTION PROBLEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Dorsey never gets a single fact right !!!!
>
>
> & what has your contribution been to the edification of the audio
community,
> apart from silly errors & abusing decent people?
>


** Exposing fakes and charlatans is a very valuable service to the
community.

Only other fakes disagree - fakes like you Natalie.



> Mr. Dorsey is kind enough to share his extensive experience with us all.


** You forgot he also shoves his insane pseudo-technical crap down gullible
folk as well.

And don't forget his public slandering of those who dare to correct even
his worst errors.

And don't forget how he slanders perfectly good items of gear because of
his mad ideas.

Scott is indeed a man of many talents - shame they are noxious.





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

[Phil Allison]

"Natalie Drest"
> "Phil Allison"
> > >
> > > I don't think you do, since the crossover problem is on the input side
> > > rather than the output side where it is on most op-amps.
> >
> >
> > ** THERE IS NO CROSSOVER DISTORTION PROBLEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Dorsey never gets a single fact right !!!!
>
>
> & what has your contribution been to the edification of the audio
community,
> apart from silly errors & abusing decent people?
>


** Exposing fakes and charlatans is a very valuable service to the
community.

Only other fakes disagree - fakes like you Natalie.



> Mr. Dorsey is kind enough to share his extensive experience with us all.


** You forgot he also shoves his insane pseudo-technical crap down gullible
folk as well.

And don't forget his public slandering of those who dare to correct even
his worst errors.

And don't forget how he slanders perfectly good items of gear because of
his mad ideas.

Scott is indeed a man of many talents - shame they are noxious.





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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Mr. Dorsey is kind enough to share his extensive experience with us all.
> What is more, he frequently does it while he's WORKING- actually recording
> stuff, or dubbing, or whatever.
> What do you do? Do you actually produce anything of value?

From what I can conclude, someone posting under the name Phil Allison
has been in the electronics business for 20 years. We aren't sure of
his real name because e-mail to him bounces "user unknown." He may be
giving the REAL Phil Allison, who has apparently published a few
articles in an Australian electronics magazine ten years ago a bad
name. I don't mind talking ABOUT him with others, but have given up on
having a meaningful discussion WITH him.

> Go hug someone & say you're sorry.

Not me, please. I don't want that posting pustule to get that near
me. I might catch his disease.

--
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Mr. Dorsey is kind enough to share his extensive experience with us all.
> What is more, he frequently does it while he's WORKING- actually recording
> stuff, or dubbing, or whatever.
> What do you do? Do you actually produce anything of value?

From what I can conclude, someone posting under the name Phil Allison
has been in the electronics business for 20 years. We aren't sure of
his real name because e-mail to him bounces "user unknown." He may be
giving the REAL Phil Allison, who has apparently published a few
articles in an Australian electronics magazine ten years ago a bad
name. I don't mind talking ABOUT him with others, but have given up on
having a meaningful discussion WITH him.

> Go hug someone & say you're sorry.

Not me, please. I don't want that posting pustule to get that near
me. I might catch his disease.

--
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers" >

> From what I can conclude, someone posting under the name Phil Allison
> has been in the electronics business for 20 years.


** 32 years actually.


> We aren't sure of
> his real name because e-mail to him bounces "user unknown."


** An anti spam measure.


> He may be giving the REAL Phil Allison, who has apparently published a few
> articles in an Australian electronics magazine ten years ago a bad
> name.


** ROTFLAMO !!!!!!!

A featherless parrot thinks that I am impersonating myself !!!!





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

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers" >

> From what I can conclude, someone posting under the name Phil Allison
> has been in the electronics business for 20 years.


** 32 years actually.


> We aren't sure of
> his real name because e-mail to him bounces "user unknown."


** An anti spam measure.


> He may be giving the REAL Phil Allison, who has apparently published a few
> articles in an Australian electronics magazine ten years ago a bad
> name.


** ROTFLAMO !!!!!!!

A featherless parrot thinks that I am impersonating myself !!!!





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

[Jim Kollens]

<< > Dorsey never gets a single fact right !!!!
>
> ............. Phil >>

So now you're starting with Scott Dorsey. Man, you won't win any freinds on
this newsgroup.

[Jim Kollens]

<< > Dorsey never gets a single fact right !!!!
>
> ............. Phil >>

So now you're starting with Scott Dorsey. Man, you won't win any freinds on
this newsgroup.

[Kurt Albershardt]

Phil Allison wrote:
>
> "Mike Rivers"
>
>
>> We aren't sure of his real name
>> because e-mail to him bounces "user unknown."
>
>
> An anti spam measure.


OK, so what IS your email address?

[Kurt Albershardt]

Phil Allison wrote:
>
> "Mike Rivers"
>
>
>> We aren't sure of his real name
>> because e-mail to him bounces "user unknown."
>
>
> An anti spam measure.


OK, so what IS your email address?