"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1089118480k@trad...

(entire message quoted to avoid annoying Phil Allison)


In article writes:



** But the ignorant prick still snips out people's names
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



"Logan Shaw"
Laurence Payne wrote:

So why is it you think that RF can't exist at audible frequencies?

What's the definition of "RF" on your planet? :-)

Of course, even if these frequencies weren't allocated, this would
not mean that the phenomenon known as "radio" can't happen at those
frequencies. And you can also argue (and I'll agree) that they aren't
the most useful frequencies of the spectrum. But the point is that
RF can exist at audible frequencies.



** However the term "RF" does ***not*** usually refer to such low
frequencies.

The term "RF interference" when used in relation to audio gear refers
to
audible signal breakthrough due to nearby transmitters operating on the
broadcast band, short wave bands, the VHF and UHF bands and even
microwave
radars.

Interference from signals that are already in the **audio band** is
called
just that - audio interference.

The BIG difference is that the latter do not need to be "detected" (
ie
demodulated) to become audible.

I would say that you're describing the difference between
electromagnetic interference and acoustical interference.



** Only a complete and utter ****wit would think that. The sort of ****wit
who does not even know what "demodulated" means. Mike Rivers for example.



Would you go away happy (going back several days) with the
substitution of "electromagnetic" for "RF" in the context of my
original message?


** The CMRR of a balanced input does not act to defeat "RF interference" -
but it does act against EM interference which exists in the audio band.




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