| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
I have just uploaded the page on the 845 amps I completed last month.
I invite you all to try the link to see the amps at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/monobloc845se55.html Please let me know if there are any browsing problems. Patrick Turner. |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
Patrick Turner wrote:
I have just uploaded the page on the 845 amps I completed last month. I invite you all to try the link to see the amps at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/monobloc845se55.html Very impressive! |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
Hi RATs!
Nice stuff  Happy Ears! Al |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
Patrick Turner wrote: I have just uploaded the page on the 845 amps I completed last month. I invite you all to try the link to see the amps at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/monobloc845se55.html Please let me know if there are any browsing problems. Patrick Turner. Stunning design and craftsmanship, Patrick. I like the liberal (but not thoughtlessly stupid) use of chokes; they're an underrated component these days. You will not be surprised to discover I have already downloaded your protection schematic... There are no browsing problems but there is a formatting solecism in that your software has added a hard break at the end of lines. Would you like me to download that page, fix it and email it to you to post back up? Andre Jute Mucho impressed |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
Andre Jute wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: I have just uploaded the page on the 845 amps I completed last month. I invite you all to try the link to see the amps at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/monobloc845se55.html Please let me know if there are any browsing problems. Patrick Turner. Stunning design and craftsmanship, Patrick. I like the liberal (but not thoughtlessly stupid) use of chokes; they're an underrated component these days. You will not be surprised to discover I have already downloaded your protection schematic... Chokes are good, no doubt about it. the alternative woud have been more R&C sections, which I sometimes employ where there isn't room to put a choke. So if you have large C values, like the seriesed 470uF caps for 235uF, it has 6.8 ohms reactance at 100 Hz. If R is 68 ohms, you have 100Hz attenuation facto of 1/10. 3 such sections give AF = 1/1,000. so if Idc was 200mA, then Vdc drop over 204 ohms = 40V, and PdR = 8W, which isn't too bad, and Vripple at C3 = 1.9mV. A choke of 4H has X = 2.5k, so one LC section after C1 has AF = 1/2,700, so Vr = 0.7mV. But there is an LC resonance between 4H and 235uF at 5.2Hz, and the amp load isn't low enough to damp it with its shunt loading across the C. So the other way to damp it is to have some added series R of approximately 1.4 x XL or XC at Fo, ie, 180 ohms. The dcr of the choke is about 40 ohms, so an added 100 ohms gives a dampiing effect to stop LF noise from mains noise causing somewhat high undulations of the B+ centred around 5.2Hz. Ad to assist further, I've added another R&C section of 100 ohms plus 235uF, so the PS B+ ands B- rails are fairly quiet, and well damped against LF transients generated either from the damn mains or the amp itself. Very slow frequencies in PS rails below 5Hz are highly attenuated elsewhere in the amp circuit. There are no browsing problems but there is a formatting solecism in that your software has added a hard break at the end of lines. Would you like me to download that page, fix it and email it to you to post back up? What is a hard break? formatting solecism? The Mozzilla wyswyg composer does not promt you about such things, and I just blithely carry on ingnorantly sometimes....... The trouble with computing is that the human cannot fully know or remember what he's doing. Yes, you may return a corrected version of the page, pehaps without the images included because of the email size. Maybe its easier to somehow apply a simple command like "remove all hard breaks" at this end. BTW, KR Audio make a range of amplifiers using their own tubes. One is a 30W + 30W integrated amp with a KRT100 tube, which is very like the 845, but Ra = 1.2k instead of 2.2k at the same Ea and Ia as the 845. Biasing is about the same as the 845, and the KRT100 would work in any circuit needing an 845 Except for one DAMN thing, the cathode heating needed is 2.5V x 2A, which means the KRT100 is NOT a plug in replacement for the 845. There is one of these integrated KR 3030 amps in alocal hi-fi shop here and the price is usd 14,400. It will take them years to sell that amp here. It uses a solid state input and drive amp circuit. So it just ain't the full real Mc'coy tube amp. However, the KRT100 will run happily at Ea = 800V, and with Ia at a safe 100mA for Pda = 80W, and because RL could be 5.6k, then DF will be about 4 without loop FB, and nearly as good as an 845 with Ea = 1,050V, and RL = 12k, with DF = about 5. The lower RL at the lower Ea means you could have a 50H choke fed anode, and use a 50uF polypropylene cap to couple a Hammond 1650P OPT which is rated for 6k6 : 4,8, and 16 ohms. Ppl would not have to construct or buy a complex and expensive air gapped OPT. I thought of doing choke feed in my 845 amps, but chickened out in favour of doing things traditionally, with the only "compromise" of the split rail to avoid HV dc across the OPT insulations. Prices for KR845 AND KRT100 are about usd $534 retail now from what I see. But availablity is whole other issue, and apparently there are no stocks in Prague where the KR company operates, and production of 845 is not due to commence until October 08, and lord only knows if any quanity will emerge. Meanwhile, the most basic cheap version of Shuguang 845 works just fine at less than 1/3 the KR price. This Chinese triode seems like a faithful copy of the original US mades, and comes without frills such a a copper base which seems to only add to the price. A pair of 845 used in SE parallel and Ea = about 1,000V can have a 50H choke feed, and have a cap coupled Hammond 1650P, OK for 60W into 6.6k, or maybe better 1650R, rated for 100W into 5k 4,8,16 if you wish. The 50H choke for the choke feed isn't very difficult to make. In my OPT, only about 1/3 of the winding space in the 76mm x 25 mm window is used for the primary wire. That is because of the space needed for P-S insulation and the secondaries. The core has a 51mm tongue x 72mm stack, and if 3/4 of the winding window was filled only with fine wire as for a choke, there'd be about 6,000 turns, and the L value would become huge. Its probably better is to have two slightly smaller chokes in series to make the Cshunt of the choke feed lower, and the halve the ac voltages across the coils. The chokes don't need to have GOSS, and any old lams you have laying around or from cooked old PT will do, and the winding need not be layer wound and can be random wound but using a fairly slow traversing speed to keep wire crossing angles very shallow. Varnish can be sprayed on from a can of clear varnish from a hardware store as you wind, and you don't need to count the turns, just fill the bobbin, using about 0.45 Cu dia wire. Patrick Turner. Andre Jute Mucho impressed |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
Jon Yaeger wrote: in article , Patrick Turner at wrote on 9/13/08 1:36 AM: I have just uploaded the page on the 845 amps I completed last month. I invite you all to try the link to see the amps at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/monobloc845se55.html Please let me know if there are any browsing problems. Patrick Turner. A masterpiece, Patrick. Brilliantly executed in all respects. BRAVO! Jon Thanks Jon. I'm now slowly proceeding to include details and schematics for total or partial reformation in the following list of amps including... My SEUL22W monblocs with 13E1, ARC VT100, 8585W dual channel, Manley Labs Snapper monos, 85W, Jolida 502 5050W integrated, Audion Silver Knight 25W monos with 2 x pp 300B, CR audio Developments Woodham, 5050W integrated. And anything else interesting I may have done in the last few years. I have a pair of Dynaco Mk-III to totally re-wire. I also have a old and humming VTL 4040 stero amp to fix, but I doubt it needs a full re-wire. Patrick Turner. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
Fascinating stuff, Patrick. I had some vintage transformers once for
845 and, instead of letting them go on amps, should have saved at least one to take apart and get copied. Water under the bridge. **** Your formatting problem is that the hard returns at the end of lines makes your page (and others on your site) difficult and sometimes ugly reading unless the reader uses *exactly* the same font, font size preferences and window width as you. That never happens, so your site will never be pretty while you have those hard line returns. What happens is that the paragraphs do not reformat smoothly as the window width is made narrower. Instead you get line and a half, line and a half and so on. You're right, you should really learn how to do it rather than me doing a single page for you and leaving you with the rest. Okay. You can fix it easily in Microsoft Word or any other text processor, using search and replace. First, understand the structure of your page. Text is real simple. A paragraph is two hits of the return key. A piccie fits in the middle line of three hits of the return key. That makes for a simple, elegant structure anyone's browser will read. There should be no other paragraph marks, particularly not in the middle of sentences (the line- end breaks we're trying to lose). To see paragraph marks, switch on whatever they call Show Formatting in the text processor you use; be sure to switch it off again when you no longer need it or you might carry garbage into HTML and that can be hell to get rid of. (Don't try for fancy stuff -- the ladylike elegance of my site is because I know all the fancy stuff and save it for paying customers. At most, centre each of your illustrations on its line, by simply selecting the Centre picon on the formatting palette, which should automatically centre the piccie too. Next, protect the paragraph breaks of double paragraph marks (two hits of the return key) by finding all double par marks (copy a set and paste in the Find box) and replacing them with hash marks or something else you don't use in your text. Now find and replace all single par marks with a space (spacebar in the Replace With box). Now you have one long piece of text with hash marks indicating the par breaks. Find the hash marks and Replace each one with a double hit of the return key. Automatically, eh, with Find and Replace facility. Manually add an additional return for each illustration and check feed back to the HTML to check that the gubbins haven't screwed you again. In MSW you can save web pages; make one and test it. If you just use text from MSW, the form in which you save it may also add linespaces, so experiment with the options before you commit to a lot of work. I find it useful when I do that sort of editing on multiple files (admittedly very large ones in most of my cases) to have a written list of actions to be performed in sequence. You will of course work in a copy, keeping an original in a safe place lest you screw up and have to start over. Here's the biggest tip of all: MSW will work with Find and Replace on all open files together. You just have to select the All Open Files tickbox in the dialogue box. So you make separate files of all the pages you want to tidy up, close everything on your desktop, then open only these files, and tell Word to work with all open files, and you can reformat a lot of stuff very quickly. Once you have a satisfactory page, save a copy under another name as a template to save time in future. HTH. Andre Jute Neddy tips from Neddy himself On Sep 14, 2:50*am, Patrick Turner wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: I have just uploaded the page on the 845 amps I completed last month. I invite you all to try the link to see the amps at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/monobloc845se55.html Please let me know if there are any browsing problems. Patrick Turner. Stunning design and craftsmanship, Patrick. I like the liberal (but not thoughtlessly stupid) use of chokes; they're an underrated component these days. You will not be surprised to discover I have already downloaded your protection schematic... Chokes are good, no doubt about it. the alternative woud have been more R&C sections, which I sometimes employ where there isn't room to put a choke. So if you have large C values, like the seriesed 470uF caps for 235uF, it has 6.8 ohms reactance at 100 Hz. If R is 68 ohms, you have 100Hz attenuation facto of 1/10. 3 such sections give AF = 1/1,000. so if Idc was 200mA, then Vdc drop over 204 ohms = 40V, and PdR = 8W, which isn't too bad, and Vripple at C3 = 1.9mV. A choke of 4H has X = 2.5k, so one LC section after C1 has AF = 1/2,700, so Vr = 0.7mV. But there is an LC resonance between 4H and 235uF at 5.2Hz, and the amp load isn't low enough to damp it with its shunt loading across the C. So the other way to damp it is to have some added series R of approximately 1.4 x XL or XC at Fo, ie, 180 ohms. The dcr of the choke is about 40 ohms, so an added 100 ohms gives a dampiing effect to stop LF noise from mains noise causing somewhat high undulations of the B+ centred around 5.2Hz. Ad to assist further, I've added another R&C section of 100 ohms plus 235uF, so the PS B+ ands B- rails are fairly quiet, and well damped against LF transients generated either from the damn mains or the amp itself. Very slow frequencies in PS rails below 5Hz are highly attenuated elsewhere in the amp circuit. There are no browsing problems but there is a formatting solecism in that your software has added a hard break at the end of lines. Would you like me to download that page, fix it and email it to you to post back up? What is a hard break? formatting solecism? The Mozzilla wyswyg composer does not promt you about such things, and I just blithely carry on ingnorantly sometimes....... The trouble with computing is that the human cannot fully know or remember what he's doing. Yes, you may return a corrected version of the page, pehaps without the images included because of the email size. Maybe its easier to somehow apply a simple command like "remove all hard breaks" at this end. BTW, KR Audio make a range of amplifiers using their own tubes. One is a 30W + 30W integrated amp with a KRT100 tube, which is very like the 845, but Ra = 1.2k instead of 2.2k at the same Ea and Ia as the 845. Biasing is about the same as the 845, and the KRT100 would work in any circuit needing an 845 Except for one DAMN thing, the cathode heating needed is 2.5V x 2A, which means the KRT100 is NOT a plug in replacement for the 845. There is one of these integrated KR 3030 amps in alocal hi-fi shop here and the price is usd 14,400. It will take them years to sell that amp here. It uses a solid state input and drive amp circuit. So it just ain't the full real Mc'coy tube amp. However, the KRT100 will run happily at Ea = 800V, and with Ia at a safe 100mA for Pda = 80W, and because RL could be 5.6k, then DF will be about 4 without loop FB, and nearly as good as an 845 with Ea = 1,050V, and RL = 12k, with DF = about 5. The lower RL at the lower Ea means you could have a 50H choke fed anode, and use a 50uF polypropylene cap to couple a Hammond 1650P OPT which is rated for 6k6 : 4,8, and 16 ohms. Ppl would not have to construct or buy a complex and expensive air gapped OPT. I thought of doing choke feed in my 845 amps, but chickened out in favour of doing things traditionally, with the only "compromise" of the split rail to avoid HV dc across the OPT insulations. Prices for KR845 AND KRT100 are about usd $534 retail now from what I see. But availablity is whole other issue, and apparently there are no stocks in Prague where the KR company operates, and production of 845 is not due to commence until October 08, and lord only knows if any quanity will emerge. Meanwhile, the most basic cheap version of Shuguang 845 works just fine at less than 1/3 the KR price. This Chinese triode seems like a faithful copy of the original US mades, and comes without frills such a a copper base which seems to only add to the price. A pair of 845 used in SE parallel and Ea = about 1,000V can have a 50H choke feed, and have a cap coupled Hammond 1650P, OK for 60W into 6.6k, or maybe better 1650R, rated for 100W into 5k 4,8,16 if you wish. The 50H choke for the choke feed isn't very difficult to make. In my OPT, only about 1/3 of the winding space in the 76mm x 25 mm window is used for the primary wire. That is because of the space needed for P-S insulation and the secondaries. The core has a 51mm tongue x 72mm stack, and if 3/4 of the winding window was filled only with fine wire as for a choke, there'd be about 6,000 turns, and the L value would become huge. Its probably better is to have two slightly smaller chokes in series to make the Cshunt of the choke feed lower, and the halve the ac voltages across the coils. The chokes don't need to have GOSS, and any old lams you have laying around or from cooked old PT will do, and the winding need not be layer wound and can be random wound but using a fairly slow traversing speed to keep wire crossing angles very shallow. Varnish can be sprayed on from a can of clear varnish from a hardware store as you wind, and you don't need to count the turns, just fill the bobbin, using about 0.45 Cu dia wire. Patrick Turner. * Andre Jute Mucho impressed |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
Andre Jute wrote: Fascinating stuff, Patrick. I had some vintage transformers once for 845 and, instead of letting them go on amps, should have saved at least one to take apart and get copied. Water under the bridge. Vintage trannies for 845? That'd mean they probably were for PP op. And being vintage, expect poor bandwidth, because 100Hz to 8kHz was thought of as good in 1940 as an industry standard in a world when the best audio to be heard came from an AM radio during a direct broadcast. So let that water run free under that bridge..... **** Your formatting problem is that the hard returns at the end of lines makes your page (and others on your site) difficult and sometimes ugly reading unless the reader uses *exactly* the same font, font size preferences and window width as you. That never happens, so your site will never be pretty while you have those hard line returns. What happens is that the paragraphs do not reformat smoothly as the window width is made narrower. Instead you get line and a half, line and a half and so on. OK, I don't have a clue how to fix that this end. I am using Mozilla to compose pages though, wysiwyg..... You're right, you should really learn how to do it rather than me doing a single page for you and leaving you with the rest. Okay. You can fix it easily in Microsoft Word or any other text processor, using search and replace. Gee, that's already looking like I have to walk a tightrope....... First, understand the structure of your page. Text is real simple. A paragraph is two hits of the return key. I don't appear to have a key labelled "return". I'm already lost. A piccie fits in the middle line of three hits of the return key. That makes for a simple, elegant structure anyone's browser will read. But I don't know what key you mean. I am dumber than the most dumb when it comes to PC use and unless someone assumes I am really dumb, as they should, then I won't understand the advice which of course I'd like to be able to take to make the website more easily digestible if possible. I have half a dozen new pages still to prepare and post up. There should be no other paragraph marks, particularly not in the middle of sentences (the line- end breaks we're trying to lose). To see paragraph marks, switch on whatever they call Show Formatting in the text processor you use; be sure to switch it off again when you no longer need it or you might carry garbage into HTML and that can be hell to get rid of. (Don't try for fancy stuff -- the ladylike elegance of my site is because I know all the fancy stuff and save it for paying customers. At most, centre each of your illustrations on its line, by simply selecting the Centre picon on the formatting palette, which should automatically centre the piccie too. I rarely ever click 'source' to see the html coding behind what appears as I compose except perhaps to change a title of a page, because I always somehow cock up the addresses of images, and its always good luck that I get a page to work when it does with images. And I don't do this stuff all the time....so I don't get better.... Next, protect the paragraph breaks of double paragraph marks (two hits of the return key) by finding all double par marks (copy a set and paste in the Find box) and replacing them with hash marks or something else you don't use in your text. Now find and replace all single par marks with a space (spacebar in the Replace With box). Now you have one long piece of text with hash marks indicating the par breaks. Find the hash marks and Replace each one with a double hit of the return key. Automatically, eh, with Find and Replace facility. Manually add an additional return for each illustration and check feed back to the HTML to check that the gubbins haven't screwed you again. In MSW you can save web pages; make one and test it. If you just use text from MSW, the form in which you save it may also add linespaces, so experiment with the options before you commit to a lot of work. I find it useful when I do that sort of editing on multiple files (admittedly very large ones in most of my cases) to have a written list of actions to be performed in sequence. You will of course work in a copy, keeping an original in a safe place lest you screw up and have to start over. Here's the biggest tip of all: MSW will work with Find and Replace on all open files together. You just have to select the All Open Files tickbox in the dialogue box. So you make separate files of all the pages you want to tidy up, close everything on your desktop, then open only these files, and tell Word to work with all open files, and you can reformat a lot of stuff very quickly. Once you have a satisfactory page, save a copy under another name as a template to save time in future. Thanks a lot for the explanation, but I don't quite get it. Two dumb. Maybe three dumb, and just a triodologist. HTH. Andre Jute Neddy tips from Neddy himself But Blim Bottle was none the wiser either, but there's hope, I usually wake up before the explosion...... If I work out what the return key is, I'll be on the window ledge. I'd still have to step out onto the wire between the me and the next skyscraper..... People wondered what the heck went on in my brain while designing OPT. So did I. I seemed to just read a few books, wind 3 of 4 trannies, test them, and then what i read made sense with the test results, and I was away. Well, during the last 5 years, at least two IT university students have tried to convert what my mind says into code, and thus build a program to design an OPT and including the preparation of a bobbin section drawing that can be handed to a tradesman or tradeswoman on a winding lathe and ask "Could you have that wound by 3pm please?" So I finally identified all the steps of thought and choices and considerations and checks and tests and parameters to get from zero tranny to having something you bolt to a chassis. These multiple steps are listed out on my website. But the two uni students both gave up trying to produce a working program which tells you a design including actual wire sizes, interleaving patterns, and insulation thicknesses, and allows you to change the turn ratio, load, power output max, make a click, and have an alternative winding design presented. I'm getting more than 500 hits a day at my site. I'd like to improve the way it appears though if that is easily possible, bearing in mind someone has to explain how extremely simply. Maybe you or someone else knows a URL which spells it out for complete IT idiots. I use wysiwyg to avoid having to touch any html at all, or use any other programs that don't assume I am a complete ****wit about the finer points of webpage composition. I did try MS Front Page but found that way too hard to learn. One of my local customers made an attempt to prepare the last edition of my site in FP. I didn't like it much because it made me look too slick and commercial like so many other websites, and information-less. My site is about information, not sales talk BS. My pages appear OK if I browse them with Firefox or other browsers, but not with my old Netscape 4.7 about 12 years old. It would also be nice if I could prepare the website so that when someone tries to download the whole caboodle, now about 20MB, they could print it out into lord knows how many A4 pages, but each page looking well, and numbered, reminiscent of RDH4. I'd like to prepare the website in hard copies as a kind of design manual that ppl can read in bed. Not essential though, because regardless of format bother I think ppl get my drift mostly. And I have limited time. Patrick Turner. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
On Sep 15, 4:49*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Patrick: Don't sweat it. Your work speaks for itself, the pictures are excellent, the text cohesive and comprehensive, the schematic clear - and the work simply stunning. As to the rest of it, Andre is jealous. And sufficiently small-minded as to be forced to demonstrate his "superiority" with a bunch of smoke and chaff of no actual utility to you. Didn't the transformer remark right out of the gate give it away? Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
On Sep 15, 9:49 am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Andre Jute wrote: Fascinating stuff, Patrick. I had some vintage transformers once for 845 and, instead of letting them go on amps, should have saved at least one to take apart and get copied. Water under the bridge. Vintage trannies for 845? That'd mean they probably were for PP op. And being vintage, expect poor bandwidth, because 100Hz to 8kHz was thought of as good in 1940 as an industry standard in a world when the best audio to be heard came from an AM radio during a direct broadcast. They were intended for a radio station in Berlin that was never built because the Berlin Blockade ended. They were stranded in Ireland and eventually came to me. I thought they sounded just fine, and so did everyone else who heard them. What I had in mind when I said I shoulda kept one for reverse engineering that even with your low labour rates, it would still probably be cheaper to get one of those copied by winders in the north who actually wind some famous transformers for the owners of the famous names... So let that water run free under that bridge..... Regrets, of which men our age should probably be able to list a truckload, are unproductive and a waste of time. Your other minor problem, the formatting: I've sent you three files with the formatting sorted, one in MSWord format, one in HTML (the net language), and one as plaintext *without lines returns". If the HTML doesn't work for you, try the plaintext and then the Word format. All you have to do is add the graphics back and repost the page. The RETURN key of which I speak is probably labelled ENTER on your keyboard; it is simply the key that ends a paragraph. Andre Jute Boy Scout |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 15, 9:49 am, Patrick Turner wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Fascinating stuff, Patrick. I had some vintage transformers once for 845 and, instead of letting them go on amps, should have saved at least one to take apart and get copied. Water under the bridge. Vintage trannies for 845? That'd mean they probably were for PP op. And being vintage, expect poor bandwidth, because 100Hz to 8kHz was thought of as good in 1940 as an industry standard in a world when the best audio to be heard came from an AM radio during a direct broadcast. They were intended for a radio station in Berlin that was never built because the Berlin Blockade ended. They were stranded in Ireland and eventually came to me. I thought they sounded just fine, and so did everyone else who heard them. What I had in mind when I said I shoulda kept one for reverse engineering that even with your low labour rates, it would still probably be cheaper to get one of those copied by winders in the north who actually wind some famous transformers for the owners of the famous names... So let that water run free under that bridge..... Regrets, of which men our age should probably be able to list a truckload, are unproductive and a waste of time. Your other minor problem, the formatting: I've sent you three files with the formatting sorted, one in MSWord format, one in HTML (the net language), and one as plaintext *without lines returns". If the HTML doesn't work for you, try the plaintext and then the Word format. All you have to do is add the graphics back and repost the page. The RETURN key of which I speak is probably labelled ENTER on your keyboard; it is simply the key that ends a paragraph. Ah, yes, I thought it might have been... Click once, and the curser whips to the LHS, one line down, click twice, and curser drops another line, and leaves a space indicating new paragraph. The junk edited out rides after the curser, so once youv'e ended a paragraph you gotta delete the junk, and click delete or enter again to get the break between paragraphs to look right. It seems virtually the same as with plain text.... Now I'll read your post again to see if makes sense, but I fear I have just trained myself to just do whatever is intuitively necessary to get a page to look right here and when that's done, it is *supposed* to look right on anyone else's 17" screen. Your right about Regret, the colt that got away, down by the Snowy River..... Banjo made a real story about that one, but let the damn horse run free I say. I've sent you my thoughts on the files you sent. Patrick Turner. Andre Jute Boy Scout |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
Patrick Turner wrote:
I have just uploaded the page on the 845 amps I completed last month. I invite you all to try the link to see the amps at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/monobloc845se55.html Please let me know if there are any browsing problems. Patrick Turner. Very pretty Patrick, but 92KG weight 1224 volts on the output stage and a 500 VA power transformer needed to get 110 watts. No wonder the world has moved on. Keith |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote: Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 15, 9:49 am, Patrick Turner wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Fascinating stuff, Patrick. I had some vintage transformers once for 845 and, instead of letting them go on amps, should have saved at least one to take apart and get copied. Water under the bridge. Vintage trannies for 845? That'd mean they probably were for PP op. And being vintage, expect poor bandwidth, because 100Hz to 8kHz was thought of as good in 1940 as an industry standard in a world when the best audio to be heard came from an AM radio during a direct broadcast. They were intended for a radio station in Berlin that was never built because the Berlin Blockade ended. They were stranded in Ireland and eventually came to me. I thought they sounded just fine, and so did everyone else who heard them. What I had in mind when I said I shoulda kept one for reverse engineering that even with your low labour rates, it would still probably be cheaper to get one of those copied by winders in the north who actually wind some famous transformers for the owners of the famous names... So let that water run free under that bridge..... Regrets, of which men our age should probably be able to list a truckload, are unproductive and a waste of time. Your other minor problem, the formatting: I've sent you three files with the formatting sorted, one in MSWord format, one in HTML (the net language), and one as plaintext *without lines returns". If the HTML doesn't work for you, try the plaintext and then the Word format. All you have to do is add the graphics back and repost the page. The RETURN key of which I speak is probably labelled ENTER on your keyboard; it is simply the key that ends a paragraph. Ah, yes, I thought it might have been... Click once, and the curser whips to the LHS, one line down, click twice, and curser drops another line, and leaves a space indicating new paragraph. The junk edited out rides after the curser, so once youv'e ended a paragraph you gotta delete the junk, and click delete or enter again to get the break between paragraphs to look right. It seems virtually the same as with plain text.... Now I'll read your post again to see if makes sense, but I fear I have just trained myself to just do whatever is intuitively necessary to get a page to look right here and when that's done, it is *supposed* to look right on anyone else's 17" screen. Andre is correct, the text on that page just doesn't flow correctly on the screen, the right hand margin is all chopped up. I haven't looked at your other pages recently so I don't know if they share this problem. The text on most web pages has a uniform right hand margin. -- Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
Keithr wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: I have just uploaded the page on the 845 amps I completed last month. I invite you all to try the link to see the amps at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/monobloc845se55.html Please let me know if there are any browsing problems. Patrick Turner. Very pretty Patrick, but 92KG weight 1224 volts on the output stage and a 500 VA power transformer needed to get 110 watts. No wonder the world has moved on. Indeed, no wonder. But there is still a demand........ Patrick Turner Keith |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
John Byrns wrote: In article , Patrick Turner wrote: Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 15, 9:49 am, Patrick Turner wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Fascinating stuff, Patrick. I had some vintage transformers once for 845 and, instead of letting them go on amps, should have saved at least one to take apart and get copied. Water under the bridge. Vintage trannies for 845? That'd mean they probably were for PP op. And being vintage, expect poor bandwidth, because 100Hz to 8kHz was thought of as good in 1940 as an industry standard in a world when the best audio to be heard came from an AM radio during a direct broadcast. They were intended for a radio station in Berlin that was never built because the Berlin Blockade ended. They were stranded in Ireland and eventually came to me. I thought they sounded just fine, and so did everyone else who heard them. What I had in mind when I said I shoulda kept one for reverse engineering that even with your low labour rates, it would still probably be cheaper to get one of those copied by winders in the north who actually wind some famous transformers for the owners of the famous names... So let that water run free under that bridge..... Regrets, of which men our age should probably be able to list a truckload, are unproductive and a waste of time. Your other minor problem, the formatting: I've sent you three files with the formatting sorted, one in MSWord format, one in HTML (the net language), and one as plaintext *without lines returns". If the HTML doesn't work for you, try the plaintext and then the Word format. All you have to do is add the graphics back and repost the page. The RETURN key of which I speak is probably labelled ENTER on your keyboard; it is simply the key that ends a paragraph. Ah, yes, I thought it might have been... Click once, and the curser whips to the LHS, one line down, click twice, and curser drops another line, and leaves a space indicating new paragraph. The junk edited out rides after the curser, so once youv'e ended a paragraph you gotta delete the junk, and click delete or enter again to get the break between paragraphs to look right. It seems virtually the same as with plain text.... Now I'll read your post again to see if makes sense, but I fear I have just trained myself to just do whatever is intuitively necessary to get a page to look right here and when that's done, it is *supposed* to look right on anyone else's 17" screen. Andre is correct, the text on that page just doesn't flow correctly on the screen, the right hand margin is all chopped up. I haven't looked at your other pages recently so I don't know if they share this problem. The text on most web pages has a uniform right hand margin. So why, in simple explainable terms for complete idiots? We don't line up what we write here on both sides of the page, we just have it all lined up on the left, and then put returns after clicking enter wherever we feel like it. Maybe I'm too used to what I read here. Patrick Turner. -- Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
Patrick, when your critics insist on separating fly-**** from pepper,
you must realize that they are desperately jealous. Don't sweat the small stuff - your web pages are clear, give excellent information and direction and are enough that a stubborn, dedicated, skillful reader could duplicate your efforts. And the rank amateur reader can actually learn something if so-minded. Check out when the last time that was possible from either of your recent critics. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Page layout for tubie pages on the net Deep Space 845 55W SETamps.
On Sep 16, 3:35*pm, Patrick Turner wrote:
John Byrns wrote: In article , *Patrick Turner wrote: Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 15, 9:49 am, Patrick Turner wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Fascinating stuff, Patrick. I had some vintage transformers once for 845 and, instead of letting them go on amps, should have saved at least one to take apart and get copied. Water under the bridge. Vintage trannies for 845? That'd mean they probably were for PP op. And being vintage, expect poor bandwidth, because 100Hz to 8kHz was thought of as good in 1940 as an industry standard in a world when the best audio to be heard came from an AM radio during a direct broadcast. They were intended for a radio station in Berlin that was never built because the Berlin Blockade ended. They were stranded in Ireland and eventually came to me. I thought they sounded just fine, and so did everyone else who heard them. What I had in mind when I said I shoulda kept one for reverse engineering that even with your low labour rates, it would still probably be cheaper to get one of those copied by winders in the north who actually wind some famous transformers for the owners of the famous names... So let that water run free under that bridge..... Regrets, of which men our age should probably be able to list a truckload, are unproductive and a waste of time. Your other minor problem, the formatting: I've sent you three files with the formatting sorted, one in MSWord format, one in HTML (the net language), and one as plaintext *without lines returns". If the HTML doesn't work for you, try the plaintext and then the Word format. All you have to do is add the graphics back and repost the page. The RETURN key of which I speak is probably labelled ENTER on your keyboard; it is simply the key that ends a paragraph. Ah, yes, I thought it might have been... Click once, and the curser whips to the LHS, one line down, click twice, and curser drops another line, and leaves a space indicating new paragraph. The junk edited out rides after the curser, so once youv'e ended a paragraph you gotta delete the junk, and click delete or enter again to get the break between paragraphs to look right. It seems virtually the same as with plain text.... Now I'll read your post again to see if makes sense, but I fear I have just trained myself to just do whatever is intuitively necessary to get a page to look right here and when that's done, it is *supposed* to look right on anyone else's 17" screen. Andre is correct, the text on that page just doesn't flow correctly on the screen, the right hand margin is all chopped up. *I haven't looked at your other pages recently so I don't know if they share this problem. *The text on most web pages has a uniform right hand margin. Hang on a minute, John. There are two entirely different issues with a righthand margin, one of which is Patrick's error and one of which is a matter of choice by the page designer. Patrick's current problem of uneven line lengths on screens (or windows) not precisely the width of his (or with different prefs set in the browser) arises from his habit of hitting the return (ENTER) key at the end of every line. *Once he has fixed that* the possibility arises to choose either a ragged right or a justified right edge. Ragged right is where the line breaks are naturally uneven (but not as uneven as at present on Patrick's page); justified is an artificial forcing of text to make an absolutely straight right hand edge as in a book or a newspaper. Notice on my site that I don't use justified right edges on the net because it can very easily go wrong on someone else's computer; the entire concept of justified right, never mind the intricate reprographic details are entirely beyond Patrick's ken, and rightly so. He doesn't want to be baffled by bull**** while he's still struggling with the basics of page layout. So why, in simple explainable terms for complete idiots? The wrong way to enter text: When you come to the end of the line, Patrick, you currently hit the return (ENTER) key, like on a typewriter. Your computer enters an end of paragraph mark. When the screen width or the font size is changed, the linewidth that you wrongly created with the return key cannot fit and is awkwardly broken. The right way to enter text: When you come to the end of a line do nothing, just keep typing. The computer will run on to the next line. When you come to the end of a paragraph, hit the return key twice to make a linespace and a new paragraph. Keep typing until the end of the next paragraph without touching the return key again, then hit it twice, and so on. Now, you are about to write to me and say, yes, but if you do what I say, the text disappears off the right of your screen and you can't see what you're typing. Okay, that is because you made another mistake common to amateurs at page layout: you didn't set the measure, which is the width of the text you want. Across the top of the page in eg MS Word you will find a ruler with a marker on it. Select all your text (if you don't, it will just set the measure for the par your cursor is in) and drag the marker until you have the text width you want. Next you're going to object that this is all a lot of work. It isn't. You see, you make a template of that page when it is perfect, duplicate it, then make all your new pages by just deleting text in the template and writing and dragging in pics. **** As I wrote to you privately yesterday, I wouldn't worry overly much about poncey graphic designers not finding your pages perfect; they probably buy only transistor amps: "On your netsite you're in the business of providing highclass electronic information, not smartarse graphic design. You're not going to lose any sales because your netsite doesn't have pimptastic self-adjusting text. I only mentioned the minor detail because you asked." What I'll do is that tonight, if I'm not on the effing phone to LA the whole night, I'll remake your page complete with illustrations and send it complete in a form you can upload. You can then use my remake as a template which should work universally. We don't line up what we write here on both sides of the page, we just have it all lined up on the left, and then put returns after clicking enter wherever we feel like it. See above. Maybe I'm too used to what I read here. I know. But you have to think of your readers. Andre Jute Author of Grids: The Structure of Graphic Design and Graphic Design in the Computer Age: Publications for Professional Communicators, etc, see http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 05:36:34 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote: I have just uploaded the page on the 845 amps I completed last month. I invite you all to try the link to see the amps at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/monobloc845se55.html Please let me know if there are any browsing problems. Patrick Turner. Beautiful! I did run across a slight browsing problem, though. A blooming hurricane. Just got land phone service back but I'm low on battery power by now so just a quick post. |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Page layout for tubie pages on the net Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
In article ,
Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 16, 3:35*pm, Patrick Turner wrote: John Byrns wrote: In article , *Patrick Turner wrote: Now I'll read your post again to see if makes sense, but I fear I have just trained myself to just do whatever is intuitively necessary to get a page to look right here and when that's done, it is *supposed* to look right on anyone else's 17" screen. Andre is correct, the text on that page just doesn't flow correctly on the screen, the right hand margin is all chopped up. *I haven't looked at your other pages recently so I don't know if they share this problem. The text on most web pages has a uniform right hand margin. Hang on a minute, John. There are two entirely different issues with a righthand margin, one of which is Patrick's error and one of which is a matter of choice by the page designer. Patrick's current problem of uneven line lengths on screens (or windows) not precisely the width of his (or with different prefs set in the browser) arises from his habit of hitting the return (ENTER) key at the end of every line. *Once he has fixed that* the possibility arises to choose either a ragged right or a justified right edge. Ragged right is where the line breaks are naturally uneven (but not as uneven as at present on Patrick's page); justified is an artificial forcing of text to make an absolutely straight right hand edge as in a book or a newspaper. Notice on my site that I don't use justified right edges on the net because it can very easily go wrong on someone else's computer; the entire concept of justified right, never mind the intricate reprographic details are entirely beyond Patrick's ken, and rightly so. He doesn't want to be baffled by bull**** while he's still struggling with the basics of page layout. Hi Andre, Sorry, by łuniform˛ I didn't mean to imply łjustified˛ as in a book or newspaper. I'm am not an expert on matters relating to text layout and didn't make it clear what I meant. I did not mean to imply that Patrick's web pages should have the text perfectly aligned to the right margin without any raggedness at all. What I meant is that the text should flow towards the right margin with no more raggedness than necessary to accommodate the varying word lengths involved. The text on Patrick's web pages is very ragged, with some lines being half the length of others in the same paragraph, and yet others having only a single word while the next line is full length. The exact line lengths, and appearance, vary depending on the width you set your browser window to, and the font you select as a default. This all seems to be due to Patrick's liberal use of hard line breaks in his HTML code. I assume this overabundance of hard line breaks is a result of the web page design software he is using, combined with his explicitly entering the return/enter key as he types in each line, rather than letting the line breaks be implicit so that they are automatically inserted by the readers browser as needed. He should use explicit line breaks only at the ends of paragraphs. Or if he wants more control over how the page displays, complete with all the explicit line breaks, he should specify a font and a page width in his HTML code. I notice that Patrick's newsgroup postings also have this same excessively ragged effect at the right margin. So why, in simple explainable terms for complete idiots? The wrong way to enter text: When you come to the end of the line, Patrick, you currently hit the return (ENTER) key, like on a typewriter. Your computer enters an end of paragraph mark. When the screen width or the font size is changed, the linewidth that you wrongly created with the return key cannot fit and is awkwardly broken. The right way to enter text: When you come to the end of a line do nothing, just keep typing. The computer will run on to the next line. When you come to the end of a paragraph, hit the return key twice to make a linespace and a new paragraph. Keep typing until the end of the next paragraph without touching the return key again, then hit it twice, and so on. Now, you are about to write to me and say, yes, but if you do what I say, the text disappears off the right of your screen and you can't see what you're typing. Okay, that is because you made another mistake common to amateurs at page layout: you didn't set the measure, which is the width of the text you want. Across the top of the page in eg MS Word you will find a ruler with a marker on it. Select all your text (if you don't, it will just set the measure for the par your cursor is in) and drag the marker until you have the text width you want. Next you're going to object that this is all a lot of work. It isn't. You see, you make a template of that page when it is perfect, duplicate it, then make all your new pages by just deleting text in the template and writing and dragging in pics. Sounds about right to me, although not being a "poncey graphic designer" myself, I can't really be sure. -- Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
Peter Wieck wrote: Patrick, when your critics insist on separating fly-**** from pepper, you must realize that they are desperately jealous. Don't sweat the small stuff - your web pages are clear, give excellent information and direction and are enough that a stubborn, dedicated, skillful reader could duplicate your efforts. And the rank amateur reader can actually learn something if so-minded. Check out when the last time that was possible from either of your recent critics. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA I don't have time to check that out. But I do have time to listen to a snippet of criticism. And because I am fairly conscientious person about how I present my products and the message behind them to the world, if I learnt an easy way to fix a problem they say they have, and without me taking an extraordinary amount of my time, perhaps even lessening the time I spend long run, then the criticism is worth everyone's effort and time. The stubborn and dedicated diyer or business person could duplicate what I have done, but I doubt it'd make them any richer because of the time it takes to get from A to B with the projects I design. I ain't afraid of people who might copy me. Many might simply find the satisfaction I find when I make something. But they need to have a high level of inner knowledge, because when you copy without understanding what your'e copying, a blunder or two will be made, leading to smoke, and when that comes out it cannot be persuaded to go back in. I'm doing more pages at present, and am going to spend a few days doing my tax returns for the past two years. The little tiny bothers I incur here at the news group pale into insignificance with problems I face in daily life. Patrick Turner. |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Page layout for tubie pages on the net Deep Space 845 55W SETamps.
Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 16, 3:35 pm, Patrick Turner wrote: John Byrns wrote: In article , Patrick Turner wrote: Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 15, 9:49 am, Patrick Turner wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Fascinating stuff, Patrick. I had some vintage transformers once for 845 and, instead of letting them go on amps, should have saved at least one to take apart and get copied. Water under the bridge. Vintage trannies for 845? That'd mean they probably were for PP op. And being vintage, expect poor bandwidth, because 100Hz to 8kHz was thought of as good in 1940 as an industry standard in a world when the best audio to be heard came from an AM radio during a direct broadcast. They were intended for a radio station in Berlin that was never built because the Berlin Blockade ended. They were stranded in Ireland and eventually came to me. I thought they sounded just fine, and so did everyone else who heard them. What I had in mind when I said I shoulda kept one for reverse engineering that even with your low labour rates, it would still probably be cheaper to get one of those copied by winders in the north who actually wind some famous transformers for the owners of the famous names... So let that water run free under that bridge..... Regrets, of which men our age should probably be able to list a truckload, are unproductive and a waste of time. Your other minor problem, the formatting: I've sent you three files with the formatting sorted, one in MSWord format, one in HTML (the net language), and one as plaintext *without lines returns". If the HTML doesn't work for you, try the plaintext and then the Word format. All you have to do is add the graphics back and repost the page. The RETURN key of which I speak is probably labelled ENTER on your keyboard; it is simply the key that ends a paragraph. Ah, yes, I thought it might have been... Click once, and the curser whips to the LHS, one line down, click twice, and curser drops another line, and leaves a space indicating new paragraph. The junk edited out rides after the curser, so once youv'e ended a paragraph you gotta delete the junk, and click delete or enter again to get the break between paragraphs to look right. It seems virtually the same as with plain text.... Now I'll read your post again to see if makes sense, but I fear I have just trained myself to just do whatever is intuitively necessary to get a page to look right here and when that's done, it is *supposed* to look right on anyone else's 17" screen. Andre is correct, the text on that page just doesn't flow correctly on the screen, the right hand margin is all chopped up. I haven't looked at your other pages recently so I don't know if they share this problem. The text on most web pages has a uniform right hand margin. Hang on a minute, John. There are two entirely different issues with a righthand margin, one of which is Patrick's error and one of which is a matter of choice by the page designer. Patrick's current problem of uneven line lengths on screens (or windows) not precisely the width of his (or with different prefs set in the browser) arises from his habit of hitting the return (ENTER) key at the end of every line. *Once he has fixed that* the possibility arises to choose either a ragged right or a justified right edge. I am one to never leave a ragged sharp edge on any metalwork I make. Try as you might, you won't cut a finger on any amp of mine. So to I like to round the edges of what i type, but at the end of each line of text I always hit 'enter' to return teh curser to the left and start a new line. Then I might hit enter twice, and you get a paragraph break. That's how I type, but whathave I got to do that's different? Notice how the right hand side of my lines posted here end away from any definite margin? Ragged right is where the line breaks are naturally uneven (but not as uneven as at present on Patrick's page); justified is an artificial forcing of text to make an absolutely straight right hand edge as in a book or a newspaper. Notice on my site that I don't use justified right edges on the net because it can very easily go wrong on someone else's computer; the entire concept of justified right, never mind the intricate reprographic details are entirely beyond Patrick's ken, and rightly so. He doesn't want to be baffled by bull**** while he's still struggling with the basics of page layout. Your lines here appear closely aligned at the left, and all are about 150mm across my screen and end within +/- 5mm of some average finishing margin on the right hand side. I don't know an easy way to make my lines do the same thing, or ensure that when someone downloads a page with a small screen, the page auto corrects from something automatic I have installed in the page code. I could have two margins, and type it all like the newspaper articles and technical journals have it, but I know only to use one left margin and let the text stop at the right at very different points. The only silly way I know to make it look better would be type up the text in MS Paint, and make a bitmap image, then monochrome bmp, then convert that to a GIF, and post all the texts as GIF. I don't know if double column pages are doable in Mozilla Composer. And when I just looked as menu options I didn't see one for setting line wrapping or setting text width... So why, in simple explainable terms for complete idiots? The wrong way to enter text: When you come to the end of the line, Patrick, you currently hit the return (ENTER) key, like on a typewriter. Your computer enters an end of paragraph mark. When the screen width or the font size is changed, the linewidth that you wrongly created with the return key cannot fit and is awkwardly broken. The right way to enter text: When you come to the end of a line do nothing, just keep typing. OK, The computer will run on to the next line. When you come to the end of a paragraph, hit the return key twice to make a linespace and a new paragraph. Keep typing until the end of the next paragraph without touching the return key again, then hit it twice, and so on. Hmm, I'll have to learn a whole new way of typing because I am always ending every line with an enter hit, and I edit so darn much. If I set the line width to the set number of letters, and let the PC make up its mind when to return, then i will be still hitting enter sometimes and not remembering, and not knowing how to undo all the enter strokes. I thought that it didn't matter how many edits and fiddles and enter clicks you did, if a sentence continued on a line below there was no paragraph break and what-you-see-is-what-you get, so how you type didn't matter. Now, you are about to write to me and say, yes, but if you do what I say, the text disappears off the right of your screen and you can't see what you're typing. Okay, that is because you made another mistake common to amateurs at page layout: you didn't set the measure, which is the width of the text you want. You are right about setting a measure. I've never set one for any of my pages which have all been done in Mozilla wysiwyg. If wysiwyg, it should not matter as long as someone else's PC screen can accomodate my lines, and I think most would. Across the top of the page in eg MS Word you will find a ruler with a marker on it. Select all your text (if you don't, it will just set the measure for the par your cursor is in) and drag the marker until you have the text width you want. But if I compose in one program, then cut and paste it to a Mozilla Composer page, bye bye to the formatting, and maybe Moz won't even open the MS doc. Next you're going to object that this is all a lot of work. It is if I have to stop using enter all the time. It isn't. You see, you make a template of that page when it is perfect, duplicate it, then make all your new pages by just deleting text in the template and writing and dragging in pics. **** As I wrote to you privately yesterday, I wouldn't worry overly much about poncey graphic designers not finding your pages perfect; they probably buy only transistor amps: "On your netsite you're in the business of providing highclass electronic information, not smartarse graphic design. You're not going to lose any sales because your netsite doesn't have pimptastic self-adjusting text. I only mentioned the minor detail because you asked." What I'll do is that tonight, if I'm not on the effing phone to LA the whole night, I'll remake your page complete with illustrations and send it complete in a form you can upload. You can then use my remake as a template which should work universally. But will that allow me to type without being sent to the gulag in the Simpson Desert where they force old amp makers to type differently for the NG and their websites. We don't line up what we write here on both sides of the page, we just have it all lined up on the left, and then put returns after clicking enter wherever we feel like it. See above. Maybe I'm too used to what I read here. I know. But you have to think of your readers. Yes, I do think of them all the time. I am thinking, will they ever understand what I am saying? Somehow this wysiwyg business isn't working very well it seems. I am using the same typing here as I do here at my site. If I reduce the widow size to 1/2, the text does what you say, wraps awkwardly, with maybe a few words at one line transfered to the next below with the rest of the line unfilled. I can simply try to keep my site's longer text lines even shorter than they are if there isn't any way to make the text auto return and adjust properly when a small screen is used. It means the page becomes long, because lotsa space on the right side is wasted. In Mozilla, I dunno how to fit text on the left side with a picture to the right. I could do it in Netscape, but I gave up composing in that before 2005. Maybe I need a new wysiwyg composer that KEEPS IT ****ING SIMPLE. Patrick Turner. If I manage to get your templated page to work here, OK, maybe its easy enough for me to adopt. I have a dental appointment in an hour which reminds me the older I get, the better I was. Patrick Turner. Andre Jute Author of Grids: The Structure of Graphic Design and Graphic Design in the Computer Age: Publications for Professional Communicators, etc, see http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
Flipper wrote: On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 05:36:34 GMT, Patrick Turner wrote: I have just uploaded the page on the 845 amps I completed last month. I invite you all to try the link to see the amps at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/monobloc845se55.html Please let me know if there are any browsing problems. Patrick Turner. Beautiful! I did run across a slight browsing problem, though. A blooming hurricane. Just got land phone service back but I'm low on battery power by now so just a quick post. Hope you are OK. Didn't you mean a slight breezing problem? Patrick Turner. |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Page layout for tubie pages on the net Deep Space 845 55W SETamps.
John Byrns wrote: In article , Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 16, 3:35 pm, Patrick Turner wrote: John Byrns wrote: In article , Patrick Turner wrote: Now I'll read your post again to see if makes sense, but I fear I have just trained myself to just do whatever is intuitively necessary to get a page to look right here and when that's done, it is *supposed* to look right on anyone else's 17" screen. Andre is correct, the text on that page just doesn't flow correctly on the screen, the right hand margin is all chopped up. I haven't looked at your other pages recently so I don't know if they share this problem. The text on most web pages has a uniform right hand margin. Hang on a minute, John. There are two entirely different issues with a righthand margin, one of which is Patrick's error and one of which is a matter of choice by the page designer. Patrick's current problem of uneven line lengths on screens (or windows) not precisely the width of his (or with different prefs set in the browser) arises from his habit of hitting the return (ENTER) key at the end of every line. *Once he has fixed that* the possibility arises to choose either a ragged right or a justified right edge. Ragged right is where the line breaks are naturally uneven (but not as uneven as at present on Patrick's page); justified is an artificial forcing of text to make an absolutely straight right hand edge as in a book or a newspaper. Notice on my site that I don't use justified right edges on the net because it can very easily go wrong on someone else's computer; the entire concept of justified right, never mind the intricate reprographic details are entirely beyond Patrick's ken, and rightly so. He doesn't want to be baffled by bull**** while he's still struggling with the basics of page layout. Hi Andre, Sorry, by łuniform˛ I didn't mean to imply łjustified˛ as in a book or newspaper. I'm am not an expert on matters relating to text layout and didn't make it clear what I meant. I did not mean to imply that Patrick's web pages should have the text perfectly aligned to the right margin without any raggedness at all. What I meant is that the text should flow towards the right margin with no more raggedness than necessary to accommodate the varying word lengths involved. The text on Patrick's web pages is very ragged, with some lines being half the length of others in the same paragraph, and yet others having only a single word while the next line is full length. The exact line lengths, and appearance, vary depending on the width you set your browser window to, and the font you select as a default. My Firefox and IE seem to give exactly how I have typed it. But even in my Index page the text width I typed varies from nearly right across the 17" screen to only a few words on the left, so things you select to click are evenly spaced down a short page to scroll. I find no difficulty with browsing my pages with such a messy style. This all seems to be due to Patrick's liberal use of hard line breaks in his HTML code. Maybe, but I typed my index page and other with long lines, so when they wrap in somebody else's PC, maybe it gets mauled. I assume this overabundance of hard line breaks is a result of the web page design software he is using, combined with his explicitly entering the return/enter key as he types in each line, rather than letting the line breaks be implicit so that they are automatically inserted by the readers browser as needed. He should use explicit line breaks only at the ends of paragraphs. I use Mozilla, and always return the curser using the enter key before starting a new line. Or if he wants more control over how the page displays, complete with all the explicit line breaks, he should specify a font and a page width in his HTML code. I notice that Patrick's newsgroup postings also have this same excessively ragged effect at the right margin. I use the same habits of typing for everything. So why, in simple explainable terms for complete idiots? The wrong way to enter text: When you come to the end of the line, Patrick, you currently hit the return (ENTER) key, like on a typewriter. Your computer enters an end of paragraph mark. When the screen width or the font size is changed, the linewidth that you wrongly created with the return key cannot fit and is awkwardly broken. The right way to enter text: When you come to the end of a line do nothing, just keep typing. The computer will run on to the next line. When you come to the end of a paragraph, hit the return key twice to make a linespace and a new paragraph. Keep typing until the end of the next paragraph without touching the return key again, then hit it twice, and so on. Now, you are about to write to me and say, yes, but if you do what I say, the text disappears off the right of your screen and you can't see what you're typing. Okay, that is because you made another mistake common to amateurs at page layout: you didn't set the measure, which is the width of the text you want. Across the top of the page in eg MS Word you will find a ruler with a marker on it. Select all your text (if you don't, it will just set the measure for the par your cursor is in) and drag the marker until you have the text width you want. Next you're going to object that this is all a lot of work. It isn't. You see, you make a template of that page when it is perfect, duplicate it, then make all your new pages by just deleting text in the template and writing and dragging in pics. Sounds about right to me, although not being a "poncey graphic designer" myself, I can't really be sure. I'm too use to wysiwyg, its all I know, and when I looked in Mozzilla, I saw no way to set anything with line wrapping and paragraph endings other than by making it look about right to me. I didn't take formal lessons at typing, but just do it all 2 fingers and I hope what I SEE is what YOU SEE. To start a new line, one click on enter, two for a gap and new paragraph, or when to enter an image. Maybe I need better than Mozilla Composer, something that does it better. I hate paying for programs though, so what free page composer is there that's better? And it better deal with the issues we've raised. Patrick Turner. -- Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
On Sep 16, 9:42*pm, Flipper wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 05:36:34 GMT, Patrick Turner wrote: I have just uploaded the page on the 845 amps I completed last month. I invite you all to try the link to see the amps at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/monobloc845se55.html Please let me know if there are any browsing problems. Patrick Turner. Beautiful! I did run across a slight browsing problem, though. A blooming hurricane. Just got land phone service back but I'm low on battery power by now so just a quick post. I hope you're okay, Flipper. -- Andre Jute |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Page layout for tubie pages on the net Deep Space 845 55W SETamps.
On Sep 16, 11:24*pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article , *Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 16, 3:35*pm, Patrick Turner wrote: John Byrns wrote: In article , *Patrick Turner wrote: Now I'll read your post again to see if makes sense, but I fear I have just trained myself to just do whatever is intuitively necessary to get a page to look right here and when that's done, it is *supposed* to look right on anyone else's 17" screen. Andre is correct, the text on that page just doesn't flow correctly on the screen, the right hand margin is all chopped up. *I haven't looked at your other pages recently so I don't know if they share this problem. The text on most web pages has a uniform right hand margin. Hang on a minute, John. There are two entirely different issues with a righthand margin, one of which is Patrick's error and one of which is a matter of choice by the page designer. Patrick's current problem of uneven line lengths on screens (or windows) not precisely the width of his (or with different prefs set in the browser) arises from his habit of hitting the return (ENTER) key at the end of every line. *Once he has fixed that* the possibility arises to choose either a ragged right or a justified right edge. Ragged right is where the line breaks are naturally uneven (but not as uneven as at present on Patrick's page); justified is an artificial forcing of text to make an absolutely straight right hand edge as in a book or a newspaper. Notice on my site that I don't use justified right edges on the net because it can very easily go wrong on someone else's computer; the entire concept of justified right, never mind the intricate reprographic details are entirely beyond Patrick's ken, and rightly so. He doesn't want to be baffled by bull**** while he's still struggling with the basics of page layout. Hi Andre, Sorry, by łuniform˛ I didn't mean to imply łjustified˛ as in a book or newspaper. *I'm am not an expert on matters relating to text layout and didn't make it clear what I meant. *I did not mean to imply that Patrick's web pages should have the text perfectly aligned to the right margin without any raggedness at all. *What I meant is that the text should flow towards the right margin with no more raggedness than necessary to accommodate the varying word lengths involved. The text on Patrick's web pages is very ragged, with some lines being half the length of others in the same paragraph, and yet others having only a single word while the next line is full length. *The exact line lengths, and appearance, vary depending on the width you set your browser window to, and the font you select as a default. This all seems to be due to Patrick's liberal use of hard line breaks in his HTML code. *I assume this overabundance of hard line breaks is a result of the web page design software he is using, combined with his explicitly entering the return/enter key as he types in each line, rather than letting the line breaks be implicit so that they are automatically inserted by the readers browser as needed. *He should use explicit line breaks only at the ends of paragraphs. Or if he wants more control over how the page displays, complete with all the explicit line breaks, he should specify a font and a page width in his HTML code. I notice that Patrick's newsgroup postings also have this same excessively ragged effect at the right margin. So why, in simple explainable terms for complete idiots? The wrong way to enter text: When you come to the end of the line, Patrick, you currently hit the return (ENTER) key, like on a typewriter. Your computer enters an end of paragraph mark. When the screen width or the font size is changed, the linewidth that you wrongly created with the return key cannot fit and is awkwardly broken. The right way to enter text: When you come to the end of a line do nothing, just keep typing. The computer will run on to the next line. When you come to the end of a paragraph, hit the return key twice to make a linespace and a new paragraph. Keep typing until the end of the next paragraph without touching the return key again, then hit it twice, and so on. Now, you are about to write to me and say, yes, but if you do what I say, the text disappears off the right of your screen and you can't see what you're typing. Okay, that is because you made another mistake common to amateurs at page layout: you didn't set the measure, which is the width of the text you want. Across the top of the page in eg MS Word you will find a ruler with a marker on it. Select all your text (if you don't, it will just set the measure for the par your cursor is in) and drag the marker until you have the text width you want. Next you're going to object that this is all a lot of work. It isn't. You see, you make a template of that page when it is perfect, duplicate it, then make all your new pages by just deleting text in the template and writing and dragging in pics. Sounds about right to me, although not being a "poncey graphic designer" myself, I can't really be sure. -- Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, *http://fmamradios.com/ Patrick is running around blaming his software for his lack of knowledge of a pretty esoteric subject (it's a tiny pinpoint within the art of reprographics) and his appalling work methods. But I'm not interested in sorting out his long list of misunderstandings. That will just confuddle all of us further. He may even be right: there was once a good browser which had an excellent HTML editor (was it called Netscape) which I used myself until they stopped developing it; I think it morphed into Mozilla, the one Patrick is using, without adequate further consideration of evolving standards (by which I mean that one has to go along with Microsoft's ballsups because if you don't your pages end up looking like ****). I want to teach Patrick a couple of simple tricks which will see him right and see him out. He doesn't need a fancy netsite, just a tidy one. This business of justified text (a flat right edge to the column) is so tricky on the web that by itself it is probably responsible for so many people sending up PDFs rather than HTML. Fellows like you and me, who remember writing HTML by hand, before the front end editors arrived, could probably manage -- but are too smart to try! Andre Jute Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the Borg. -- Robert Casey |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Page layout for tubie pages on the net Deep Space 845 55W SETamps.
Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 16, 11:24 pm, John Byrns wrote: In article , Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 16, 3:35 pm, Patrick Turner wrote: John Byrns wrote: In article , Patrick Turner wrote: Now I'll read your post again to see if makes sense, but I fear I have just trained myself to just do whatever is intuitively necessary to get a page to look right here and when that's done, it is *supposed* to look right on anyone else's 17" screen. Andre is correct, the text on that page just doesn't flow correctly on the screen, the right hand margin is all chopped up. I haven't looked at your other pages recently so I don't know if they share this problem. The text on most web pages has a uniform right hand margin. Hang on a minute, John. There are two entirely different issues with a righthand margin, one of which is Patrick's error and one of which is a matter of choice by the page designer. Patrick's current problem of uneven line lengths on screens (or windows) not precisely the width of his (or with different prefs set in the browser) arises from his habit of hitting the return (ENTER) key at the end of every line. *Once he has fixed that* the possibility arises to choose either a ragged right or a justified right edge. Ragged right is where the line breaks are naturally uneven (but not as uneven as at present on Patrick's page); justified is an artificial forcing of text to make an absolutely straight right hand edge as in a book or a newspaper. Notice on my site that I don't use justified right edges on the net because it can very easily go wrong on someone else's computer; the entire concept of justified right, never mind the intricate reprographic details are entirely beyond Patrick's ken, and rightly so. He doesn't want to be baffled by bull**** while he's still struggling with the basics of page layout. Hi Andre, Sorry, by łuniform˛ I didn't mean to imply łjustified˛ as in a book or newspaper. I'm am not an expert on matters relating to text layout and didn't make it clear what I meant. I did not mean to imply that Patrick's web pages should have the text perfectly aligned to the right margin without any raggedness at all. What I meant is that the text should flow towards the right margin with no more raggedness than necessary to accommodate the varying word lengths involved. The text on Patrick's web pages is very ragged, with some lines being half the length of others in the same paragraph, and yet others having only a single word while the next line is full length. The exact line lengths, and appearance, vary depending on the width you set your browser window to, and the font you select as a default. This all seems to be due to Patrick's liberal use of hard line breaks in his HTML code. I assume this overabundance of hard line breaks is a result of the web page design software he is using, combined with his explicitly entering the return/enter key as he types in each line, rather than letting the line breaks be implicit so that they are automatically inserted by the readers browser as needed. He should use explicit line breaks only at the ends of paragraphs. Or if he wants more control over how the page displays, complete with all the explicit line breaks, he should specify a font and a page width in his HTML code. I notice that Patrick's newsgroup postings also have this same excessively ragged effect at the right margin. So why, in simple explainable terms for complete idiots? The wrong way to enter text: When you come to the end of the line, Patrick, you currently hit the return (ENTER) key, like on a typewriter. Your computer enters an end of paragraph mark. When the screen width or the font size is changed, the linewidth that you wrongly created with the return key cannot fit and is awkwardly broken. The right way to enter text: When you come to the end of a line do nothing, just keep typing. The computer will run on to the next line. When you come to the end of a paragraph, hit the return key twice to make a linespace and a new paragraph. Keep typing until the end of the next paragraph without touching the return key again, then hit it twice, and so on. Now, you are about to write to me and say, yes, but if you do what I say, the text disappears off the right of your screen and you can't see what you're typing. Okay, that is because you made another mistake common to amateurs at page layout: you didn't set the measure, which is the width of the text you want. Across the top of the page in eg MS Word you will find a ruler with a marker on it. Select all your text (if you don't, it will just set the measure for the par your cursor is in) and drag the marker until you have the text width you want. Next you're going to object that this is all a lot of work. It isn't. You see, you make a template of that page when it is perfect, duplicate it, then make all your new pages by just deleting text in the template and writing and dragging in pics. Sounds about right to me, although not being a "poncey graphic designer" myself, I can't really be sure. -- Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ Patrick is running around blaming his software for his lack of knowledge of a pretty esoteric subject (it's a tiny pinpoint within the art of reprographics) and his appalling work methods. But I'm not interested in sorting out his long list of misunderstandings. That will just confuddle all of us further. He may even be right: there was once a good browser which had an excellent HTML editor (was it called Netscape) which I used myself until they stopped developing it; I think it morphed into Mozilla, the one Patrick is using, without adequate further consideration of evolving standards (by which I mean that one has to go along with Microsoft's ballsups because if you don't your pages end up looking like ****). I think you are right Andre, even about my "appalling work methods" I've tried a few things in MSW, and so far, so good. With Mozilla, you can't even make a custom color for the background of the page but have to select from just few over bright color. But setting up a page with a picture used as the background page image that has been reduced in brightness and contrast was doable, but I first had to change a picture to the one needed for the background before installing it. Maybe MSN does it better, easier, without having to use photoshop etc. I did select a picture OK for the new page the SE32, with all the stuff about using big 13ei power tetrode to handle Mozart properly, ( or even Blastasonoffabich, that russian dude ). I want to teach Patrick a couple of simple tricks which will see him right and see him out. He doesn't need a fancy netsite, just a tidy one. Precisely. This business of justified text (a flat right edge to the column) is so tricky on the web that by itself it is probably responsible for so many people sending up PDFs rather than HTML. Fellows like you and me, who remember writing HTML by hand, before the front end editors arrived, could probably manage -- but are too smart to try! I've never created a pdf. Many people send out invoices with pdf attachments though. html does seem to work well enough... Andre Jute Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the Borg. -- Robert Casey Anyway, I'll try to stay with MSW. Patrick Turner. |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Page layout for tubie pages on the net Deep Space 845 55W SETamps.
On Sep 17, 11:13*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 16, 11:24 pm, John Byrns wrote: In article , *Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 16, 3:35 pm, Patrick Turner wrote: John Byrns wrote: In article , *Patrick Turner wrote: Now I'll read your post again to see if makes sense, but I fear I have just trained myself to just do whatever is intuitively necessary to get a page to look right here and when that's done, it is *supposed* to look right on anyone else's 17" screen. Andre is correct, the text on that page just doesn't flow correctly on the screen, the right hand margin is all chopped up. *I haven't looked at your other pages recently so I don't know if they share this problem. The text on most web pages has a uniform right hand margin. Hang on a minute, John. There are two entirely different issues with a righthand margin, one of which is Patrick's error and one of which is a matter of choice by the page designer. Patrick's current problem of uneven line lengths on screens (or windows) not precisely the width of his (or with different prefs set in the browser) arises from his habit of hitting the return (ENTER) key at the end of every line. *Once he has fixed that* the possibility arises to choose either a ragged right or a justified right edge. Ragged right is where the line breaks are naturally uneven (but not as uneven as at present on Patrick's page); justified is an artificial forcing of text to make an absolutely straight right hand edge as in a book or a newspaper. Notice on my site that I don't use justified right edges on the net because it can very easily go wrong on someone else's computer; the entire concept of justified right, never mind the intricate reprographic details are entirely beyond Patrick's ken, and rightly so. He doesn't want to be baffled by bull**** while he's still struggling with the basics of page layout. Hi Andre, Sorry, by łuniform˛ I didn't mean to imply łjustified˛ as in a book or newspaper. *I'm am not an expert on matters relating to text layout and didn't make it clear what I meant. *I did not mean to imply that Patrick's web pages should have the text perfectly aligned to the right margin without any raggedness at all. *What I meant is that the text should flow towards the right margin with no more raggedness than necessary to accommodate the varying word lengths involved. The text on Patrick's web pages is very ragged, with some lines being half the length of others in the same paragraph, and yet others having only a single word while the next line is full length. *The exact line lengths, and appearance, vary depending on the width you set your browser window to, and the font you select as a default. This all seems to be due to Patrick's liberal use of hard line breaks in his HTML code. *I assume this overabundance of hard line breaks is a result of the web page design software he is using, combined with his explicitly entering the return/enter key as he types in each line, rather than letting the line breaks be implicit so that they are automatically inserted by the readers browser as needed. *He should use explicit line breaks only at the ends of paragraphs. Or if he wants more control over how the page displays, complete with all the explicit line breaks, he should specify a font and a page width in his HTML code. I notice that Patrick's newsgroup postings also have this same excessively ragged effect at the right margin. So why, in simple explainable terms for complete idiots? The wrong way to enter text: When you come to the end of the line, Patrick, you currently hit the return (ENTER) key, like on a typewriter. Your computer enters an end of paragraph mark. When the screen width or the font size is changed, the linewidth that you wrongly created with the return key cannot fit and is awkwardly broken. The right way to enter text: When you come to the end of a line do nothing, just keep typing. The computer will run on to the next line. When you come to the end of a paragraph, hit the return key twice to make a linespace and a new paragraph. Keep typing until the end of the next paragraph without touching the return key again, then hit it twice, and so on. Now, you are about to write to me and say, yes, but if you do what I say, the text disappears off the right of your screen and you can't see what you're typing. Okay, that is because you made another mistake common to amateurs at page layout: you didn't set the measure, which is the width of the text you want. Across the top of the page in eg MS Word you will find a ruler with a marker on it. Select all your text (if you don't, it will just set the measure for the par your cursor is in) and drag the marker until you have the text width you want. Next you're going to object that this is all a lot of work. It isn't. |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
Patrick wrote:
I invite you all to try the link to see the amps at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/monobloc845se55.html Impressive engineering, Patrick. Congratulations. One thing I would have agonised over: how did you decide which way to run each set of bars on the cages? I would have ended up with both, and used a mesh, because anything else would have looked unresolved, but actually looking as an outsider at yours, I wonder if it matters. But then it does seem to naturally raise a question, which I suppose is what unresolved means. Ian |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Page layout for tubie pages on the net Deep Space 845 55WSET amps.
Patrick Turner wrote:
Maybe I need better than Mozilla Composer, something that does it better. I hate paying for programs though, so what free page composer is there that's better? And it better deal with the issues we've raised. Patrick Turner. There is really nothing wrong with your web pages but if you do want to do something more sophisticated, you could do worse than to go to http://www.microsoft.com/express/vwd/ and download Visual Web Developer 2008 Express edition. It is a full featured web page designer, and, strangely for Microsoft, it is entirely free. It may be more than you want or need, but it beats Word hands down (Word had a very poor reputation for the quality of the HTML that it produces). Keith |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Page layout for tubie pages on the net Deep Space 845 55W SETamps.
Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 17, 11:13 am, Patrick Turner wrote: Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 16, 11:24 pm, John Byrns wrote: In article , Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 16, 3:35 pm, Patrick Turner wrote: John Byrns wrote: In article , Patrick Turner wrote: Now I'll read your post again to see if makes sense, but I fear I have just trained myself to just do whatever is intuitively necessary to get a page to look right here and when that's done, it is *supposed* to look right on anyone else's 17" screen. Andre is correct, the text on that page just doesn't flow correctly on the screen, the right hand margin is all chopped up. I haven't looked at your other pages recently so I don't know if they share this problem. The text on most web pages has a uniform right hand margin. Hang on a minute, John. There are two entirely different issues with a righthand margin, one of which is Patrick's error and one of which is a matter of choice by the page designer. Patrick's current problem of uneven line lengths on screens (or windows) not precisely the width of his (or with different prefs set in the browser) arises from his habit of hitting the return (ENTER) key at the end of every line. *Once he has fixed that* the possibility arises to choose either a ragged right or a justified right edge. Ragged right is where the line breaks are naturally uneven (but not as uneven as at present on Patrick's page); justified is an artificial forcing of text to make an absolutely straight right hand edge as in a book or a newspaper. Notice on my site that I don't use justified right edges on the net because it can very easily go wrong on someone else's computer; the entire concept of justified right, never mind the intricate reprographic details are entirely beyond Patrick's ken, and rightly so. He doesn't want to be baffled by bull**** while he's still struggling with the basics of page layout. Hi Andre, Sorry, by łuniform˛ I didn't mean to imply łjustified˛ as in a book or newspaper. I'm am not an expert on matters relating to text layout and didn't make it clear what I meant. I did not mean to imply that Patrick's web pages should have the text perfectly aligned to the right margin without any raggedness at all. What I meant is that the text should flow towards the right margin with no more raggedness than necessary to accommodate the varying word lengths involved. The text on Patrick's web pages is very ragged, with some lines being half the length of others in the same paragraph, and yet others having only a single word while the next line is full length. The exact line lengths, and appearance, vary depending on the width you set your browser window to, and the font you select as a default. This all seems to be due to Patrick's liberal use of hard line breaks in his HTML code. I assume this overabundance of hard line breaks is a result of the web page design software he is using, combined with his explicitly entering the return/enter key as he types in each line, rather than letting the line breaks be implicit so that they are automatically inserted by the readers browser as needed. He should use explicit line breaks only at the ends of paragraphs. Or if he wants more control over how the page displays, complete with all the explicit line breaks, he should specify a font and a page width in his HTML code. I notice that Patrick's newsgroup postings also have this same excessively ragged effect at the right margin. So why, in simple explainable terms for complete idiots? The wrong way to enter text: When you come to the end of the line, Patrick, you currently hit the return (ENTER) key, like on a typewriter. Your computer enters an end of paragraph mark. When the screen width or the font size is changed, the linewidth that you wrongly created with the return key cannot fit and is awkwardly broken. The right way to enter text: When you come to the end of a line do nothing, just keep typing. The computer will run on to the next line. When you come to the end of a paragraph, hit the return key twice to make a linespace and a new paragraph. Keep typing until the end of the next paragraph without touching the return key again, then hit it twice, and so on. Now, you are about to write to me and say, yes, but if you do what I say, the text disappears off the right of your screen and you can't see what you're typing. Okay, that is because you made another mistake common to amateurs at page layout: you didn't set the measure, which is the width of the text you want. Across the top of the page in eg MS Word you will find a ruler with a marker on it. Select all your text (if you don't, it will just set the measure for the par your cursor is in) and drag the marker until you have the text width you want. Next you're going to object that this is all a lot of work. It isn't. You see, you make a template of that page when it is perfect, duplicate it, then make all your new pages by just deleting text in the template and writing and dragging in pics. Sounds about right to me, although not being a "poncey graphic designer" myself, I can't really be sure. -- Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ Patrick is running around blaming his software for his lack of knowledge of a pretty esoteric subject (it's a tiny pinpoint within the art of reprographics) and his appalling work methods. But I'm not interested in sorting out his long list of misunderstandings. That will just confuddle all of us further. He may even be right: there was once a good browser which had an excellent HTML editor (was it called Netscape) which I used myself until they stopped developing it; I think it morphed into Mozilla, the one Patrick is using, without adequate further consideration of evolving standards (by which I mean that one has to go along with Microsoft's ballsups because if you don't your pages end up looking like ****). I think you are right Andre, even about my "appalling work methods" I've tried a few things in MSW, and so far, so good. With Mozilla, you can't even make a custom color for the background of the page but have to select from just few over bright color. But setting up a page with a picture used as the background page image that has been reduced in brightness and contrast was doable, but I first had to change a picture to the one needed for the background before installing it. Maybe MSN does it better, easier, without having to use photoshop etc. Jesus. Forget background pictures, Patrick. They will really **** up your pages. Every wonder why I don't use fancy stuff like that on the net, since for me it is a breeze? Most of the people in the world who want to read your page, or anyone's, use painfully slow modems, old computers, equipment that takes a week to load up a page my setup shows in seconds. Long before your artyfarty backgrounds finish loading, they will lose patience and click through to something else. I too click away from slow-loading pages and curse their makers for idiots who didn't read the instructions on the box. Forget it. By the way, if you are offered a choice of picture loading speed, choose progressive so pages in the hands of readers don't lock up until all the photos have loaded; at least they can scroll the text and read it. Also break long, heavily illustrated pages into several linked parts. The SE55 page is too long for a page so heavily illustrated. Maybe you are right and staying with plain color on backgrounds is better. And maybe many of my pages are way too long. Some folks don't muck around though, and just down load the whole site and navigate it on their disc. If I make changes and announce them, then they just download the whole site again to replace what's there. I still get over 500 hits a day so despite the page length the ppl don't seem to mind. And the sort of people my site and my reason for being might appeal to are not lazy and don't have short attention spans and know good things come to those who wait a bit if they realise I have a lot of things to say worth hearing. And they have by now obtained broadband connection to the Net so pics that took 30 seconds on dial up now take 0.5 seconds. And they have PCs with Windows XP and fast processors and huge memory, and hard drives with 80GB capacity. So what we laboured with in 2000 is now very easy to handle. I did select a picture OK for the new page the SE32, with all the stuff about using big 13ei power tetrode to handle Mozart properly, ( or even Blastasonoffabich, that russian dude ). I want to teach Patrick a couple of simple tricks which will see him right and see him out. He doesn't need a fancy netsite, just a tidy one. Precisely. This business of justified text (a flat right edge to the column) is so tricky on the web that by itself it is probably responsible for so many people sending up PDFs rather than HTML. Fellows like you and me, who remember writing HTML by hand, before the front end editors arrived, could probably manage -- but are too smart to try! I've never created a pdf. Many people send out invoices with pdf attachments though. html does seem to work well enough... Andre Jute Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the Borg. -- Robert Casey Anyway, I'll try to stay with MSW. Patrick Turner. I learned reprographics under a time-served master craftsman from a period when the apprenticeship was seven hard years... On my first day he said, "I am not impressed by your educational qualifications. I've arranged for you to go help the Times install their new press. If the fitters or the rollers don't kill you, come back in three months and we'll see." A big rotary press close up is a frightening monster. On the trial the paper got loose and cut through a sheet of corrugated roofing standing next to the concrete stairs behind which I dived; one of the fitters lost all the fingers on his left hand; it was like a rippling blade a hundred meters long. The internet is so much easier. And getting easier and easier and with data storage increasing so hugely that vast data storage parks in huge barn like buildings are springing up like mushrooms in the countryside. Google has invented Chrome, and some expert ppl on radio said last week the Internet was about to be taken away from "The People" and into the hands of big business and its multitude of big brothers so that all you try to do in your own pc happens outside somewhere in some remote data processing place which is all monitored for commercial benefits. This picture of the future looked quite bleak to me. The world moves from no PCs to ppl having them then moves on to some other way so more can happen with everyone losing their privacy and their control of their own little world. Lord knows where we will be in the year 3008. Bows and arrows? I know where I will be then. Patrick Turner. Omnia vincit nexus. Cyber Nexus (1) Pontiff http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...20CYCLING.html (1) The cyclist who before his elevation was known as Andre Jute |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deep Space 845 55W SET amps.
Ian Iveson wrote: Patrick wrote: I invite you all to try the link to see the amps at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/monobloc845se55.html Impressive engineering, Patrick. Congratulations. One thing I would have agonised over: how did you decide which way to run each set of bars on the cages? I would have ended up with both, and used a mesh, because anything else would have looked unresolved, but actually looking as an outsider at yours, I wonder if it matters. But then it does seem to naturally raise a question, which I suppose is what unresolved means. The cages over the tubes gurad them from most missles heading their way, such as a pair of drunken yuppies falling down on them during a Motzartian moment in lovemaking. My style isn't all mincy pretty but industrial ruggedness. Like 1940 stuff brought forward to 2008 but with dramatic improvements like wide hi-fi bandwidth and very low distortion. There are far uglier audio components around the Net than the ones I make though. Vertical bars on the vertical planes of the cages mean things heading towards a tube slide downwards, and don't get caught by a horizontal bar. And vertical bars don't get very dusty. The cages are made using 5mm dia round steel bars and 10mm square steel bars. The square section is arc welded at corners, and bars sweat soldered into neat 5mm holes in the bars. The structure becomes integrally strong, and one top cross bar can be unscrewed to allow easy removal of an 845 without removal of the whole cage. Its so people won't try to remove the cages and then lose them which happens a lot. Then tubes get broken. Some people might remember there is a bar with a thread and others won't so they'll do things the hard way. I'm now working on the 845 page to make it tidier, and replacing some bull**** in the text. If the tubes get fed up with their yuppy owners and try to leave they find it hard to get a grip on the vertical bars and they just slip back into their sockets. Patrick Turner. Ian |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Page layout for tubie pages on the net Deep Space 845 55WSETamps.
Keithr wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Maybe I need better than Mozilla Composer, something that does it better. I hate paying for programs though, so what free page composer is there that's better? And it better deal with the issues we've raised. Patrick Turner. There is really nothing wrong with your web pages but if you do want to do something more sophisticated, you could do worse than to go to http://www.microsoft.com/express/vwd/ and download Visual Web Developer 2008 Express edition. It is a full featured web page designer, and, strangely for Microsoft, it is entirely free. It may be more than you want or need, but it beats Word hands down (Word had a very poor reputation for the quality of the HTML that it produces). Keith I'm so far so good with MS Word. Ta for the tip though. Patrick Turner. |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Page layout for tubie pages on the net Deep Space 845 55WSETamps.
On Sep 18, 10:03 am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Keithr wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Maybe I need better than Mozilla Composer, something that does it better. I hate paying for programs though, so what free page composer is there that's better? And it better deal with the issues we've raised. Patrick Turner. There is really nothing wrong with your web pages but if you do want to do something more sophisticated, you could do worse than to go to http://www.microsoft.com/express/vwd/ and download Visual Web Developer 2008 Express edition. It is a full featured web page designer, and, strangely for Microsoft, it is entirely free. It may be more than you want or need, but it beats Word hands down (Word had a very poor reputation for the quality of the HTML that it produces). Keith I'm so far so good with MS Word. Ta for the tip though. Patrick Turner. I wouldn't touch any of the current dedicated HTML editors even with Keith's dick. Why? After all, some are fabulously good and some are even free. Simple: ask a more relevant question than how good or inexpensive they are. How many *dedicated* HTML shells have been dropped by Microsoft and others, leaving their users in the lurch, with pages that have to be laboriously reedited -- if they are even recoverable? Dozens. Hundreds. I always use the best, I'm vastly more knowledgeable than most on the net, and I've still been screwed three times in fifteen years. Word may have its failings as an HTML editor, but you will never discover them, Patrick. I made your template among other things to steer you away from the lacunae in Word's adherence to the lowest common denominator HMTL standard. Ask yourself a simple question: Will Microsoft drop Word, its biggest- selling application? Hardly. And those pages you're making in Word are so simple, you'll always be able to get them back, whatever "standard" eventually takes over. I think as a cyclist you'll live to be 90, Patrick, and I don't see you needing anything except Word until then. Keith should stick to his own last and butt out of what he knows nothing about, like tubes and creating HTML pages. *** Just for the record, for professional web design, I now recommend that critical web materials be made in QuarkXPress (a professional page layout programme for print that costs a couple of thousand and takes years to learn fully, the gold standard of the print trade) and written out as a protected (more costly software) PDF before being let into any hands but the designer's; a copy of the text must be saved in the current lowest common denominator Word format and annually updated, and a folder of edited illustrations must be kept in the lowest common denominator JPEG format and updated annually for format changes. The layout in QuarkXPress must be read in and the prefs confirmed every six months, and a copy must be manually checked for conformity with the original, and adjusted to match, every time a new version of QuarkXPress appears; that includes x.xx changes. Paranoid archivists may also wish to store a high-res laserproof of the finished article as in QXP and in PDF (they should match in every detail). That's as future-proof as we can make it, short of limiting ourselves to plaintext and sending hardcopy of every electronic communication. PDF, for those who don't know, is a portable document format which (almost) guarantees that the document the designer signs off on is reproduced faithfully on the customer's printer, without being buggered around by the medium of transmisison, the net. (Patrick and I in private mailings have just seen a triple example of the medium of transmisison messing up the designer's intent.) But all of that is a long way over the heads of 99% per cent of even "professional" web designers, and usually unnecessary for the fleetingly transient materials they produce. I can't see it being necessary either for any tubie pages (except those with many tables) -- by the time it becomes relevant, tubies and smokers will be hunted in the streets by the PC police as enemies of the environment. Andre Jute A cautious man is never surprised |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Page layout for tubie pages on the net Deep Space 845 55WSETamps.
Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 18, 10:03 am, Patrick Turner wrote: Keithr wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Maybe I need better than Mozilla Composer, something that does it better. I hate paying for programs though, so what free page composer is there that's better? And it better deal with the issues we've raised. Patrick Turner. There is really nothing wrong with your web pages but if you do want to do something more sophisticated, you could do worse than to go to http://www.microsoft.com/express/vwd/ and download Visual Web Developer 2008 Express edition. It is a full featured web page designer, and, strangely for Microsoft, it is entirely free. It may be more than you want or need, but it beats Word hands down (Word had a very poor reputation for the quality of the HTML that it produces). Keith I'm so far so good with MS Word. Ta for the tip though. Patrick Turner. I wouldn't touch any of the current dedicated HTML editors even with Keith's dick. Why? After all, some are fabulously good and some are even free. Simple: ask a more relevant question than how good or inexpensive they are. How many *dedicated* HTML shells have been dropped by Microsoft and others, leaving their users in the lurch, with pages that have to be laboriously reedited -- if they are even recoverable? Dozens. Hundreds. I always use the best, I'm vastly more knowledgeable than most on the net, and I've still been screwed three times in fifteen years. Word may have its failings as an HTML editor, but you will never discover them, Patrick. I made your template among other things to steer you away from the lacunae in Word's adherence to the lowest common denominator HMTL standard. OK. Well, maybe I could use a 40 foot pole rather than K's d. The only spot of bother I had tonight was to try to re-create the index page of mine in MSW, and I found whenI had a version looking real good and saved it and then re-opened it in IE and Firefox and in both the text had gaps and things seemed all badly spaced, so back to MSW where I found it impossible to easily set the tabs and get the text to auto return as I typed, and especially between where I have a small picture on the right and the left margin. There should be a menu item you can select about how you want the text to behave, and be placed. I then opened it in Mozilla, which showed the same thing as IE and Firefox with considerable **** ups. Then I corrected the thing in MOZ by wysiwyg method where basically anything goes about how you type it up and it still should appear the same when browsed. In MSW, while an image remained in the page, it just wouldn't let me do what I could so easily in Mozzilla. In Moz by selecting all I could see long lines of nothing and I deleted these and finally got no long lines where something was inducated on a text line but nothing was, and then saved that and re-opened it with IE and Firefox and it looked just fine, exactly as I had edited it. Firefox then wouldn't get the page colour. Hmm, very hard to set it. The color codes were a nine number letter or a set of 6 letters and numbers, and I spent an hour ****ing around trying to reset the page colur so all browsers would include it. MSW doesn't have a nice easy way to select page colours. Plain white is too glary for me. But when I used MSW to open the new version of the index page, the picture wasn't included. IE included it. Crazy. Next step is to cut and paste text into your template and delete the 845 stuff and see how that goes. I often do an enormous number of re-edits and cuts and pasts and deletes when i work on a page. It doesn't happen easily for me. I don't know how whatever setting you have in your template will hold up after what i do. Maybe it'd be better for me to have a template that's completely free of anything, say blank page, so all i have to do is open that from a file that's saved, but all the settings for text rules you have in the template are all there. Html seems to lurk where you don't see it and can act like a hidden hand controlling what you type. After working on the index, I realized there is some repetition and awkwardness about how I say what I actually do, and surfers can't quickly see where to click for repairs, so I need to re-group the links to directories under 4 big banners, Repairs, Manufacturing, Re-engineering and Information. I still don't know how to put an image into a page so it occupies half the width and text occupies the other half which is handy with small images and schematics as one talks about them in the text. I've forotten how I done it 3 years ago in Mozilla but I recall I spent a lotta time trying and its the only place on my site where i have text beside an image. Everywhere else the images are just stacked vertically with text. I'll get there. Maybe later rather than sooner.... I take so long to do things I am good doing things that take time. Point taken about what you have below. I once tried to use MS Front Page. A guy said that'd be easy and he seemed to know how to drive it. But after several tries i just abandoned this vehicle and walked to Mozilla where driving things were far easier. 3am, see ya. Patrick Turner. Ask yourself a simple question: Will Microsoft drop Word, its biggest- selling application? Hardly. And those pages you're making in Word are so simple, you'll always be able to get them back, whatever "standard" eventually takes over. I think as a cyclist you'll live to be 90, Patrick, and I don't see you needing anything except Word until then. Keith should stick to his own last and butt out of what he knows nothing about, like tubes and creating HTML pages. *** Just for the record, for professional web design, I now recommend that critical web materials be made in QuarkXPress (a professional page layout programme for print that costs a couple of thousand and takes years to learn fully, the gold standard of the print trade) and written out as a protected (more costly software) PDF before being let into any hands but the designer's; a copy of the text must be saved in the current lowest common denominator Word format and annually updated, and a folder of edited illustrations must be kept in the lowest common denominator JPEG format and updated annually for format changes. The layout in QuarkXPress must be read in and the prefs confirmed every six months, and a copy must be manually checked for conformity with the original, and adjusted to match, every time a new version of QuarkXPress appears; that includes x.xx changes. Paranoid archivists may also wish to store a high-res laserproof of the finished article as in QXP and in PDF (they should match in every detail). That's as future-proof as we can make it, short of limiting ourselves to plaintext and sending hardcopy of every electronic communication. PDF, for those who don't know, is a portable document format which (almost) guarantees that the document the designer signs off on is reproduced faithfully on the customer's printer, without being buggered around by the medium of transmisison, the net. (Patrick and I in private mailings have just seen a triple example of the medium of transmisison messing up the designer's intent.) But all of that is a long way over the heads of 99% per cent of even "professional" web designers, and usually unnecessary for the fleetingly transient materials they produce. I can't see it being necessary either for any tubie pages (except those with many tables) -- by the time it becomes relevant, tubies and smokers will be hunted in the streets by the PC police as enemies of the environment. Andre Jute A cautious man is never surprised |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Page layout for tubie pages on the net Deep Space 845 55WSETamps.
Andre Jute wrote:
Don't listen to Keith, he is the devil, I am your only true friend and an expert above all others in all things. I wouldn't touch any of the current dedicated HTML editors even with Keith's dick. Neither would I, it has better uses Why? After all, some are fabulously good and some are even free. Simple: ask a more relevant question than how good or inexpensive they are. How many *dedicated* HTML shells have been dropped by Microsoft and others, leaving their users in the lurch, with pages that have to be laboriously reedited -- if they are even recoverable? Dozens. Hundreds. I always use the best, I'm vastly more knowledgeable than most on the net, and I've still been screwed three times in fifteen years. Err Andre, they output HTML, if, in the unlikely event that M$ walks away from their product, you have 2 choices, continue using it as it won't evaporate or explode if M$ discontinues support or simply take the HLML that it made and feed it to a new editor. Unless you have used non standard extensions, (which Word does by default) HTML is HTML a world standard not beholden to any individual company. Word may have its failings as an HTML editor, but you will never discover them, Patrick. I made your template among other things to steer you away from the lacunae in Word's adherence to the lowest common denominator HMTL standard. Ask yourself a simple question: Will Microsoft drop Word, its biggest- selling application? Hardly. And those pages you're making in Word are so simple, you'll always be able to get them back, whatever "standard" eventually takes over. I think as a cyclist you'll live to be 90, Patrick, and I don't see you needing anything except Word until then. Of course, as a helpful professional, you could have made Patrick a nice cascading style sheet that would obviate the need for a template, and ease the task of producing a consistent style right across the site. That is what professionals do, possibly too complex for you though Andre. Keith should stick to his own last and butt out of what he knows nothing about, like tubes and creating HTML pages. Interesting that you know the sum of my knowlege Andre, perhaps you can let us in on the secret of how you do that Keith |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Page layout for tubie pages on the net Deep Space 845 55WSETamps.
flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:14:43 GMT, Patrick Turner wrote: Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 18, 10:03 am, Patrick Turner wrote: Keithr wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Maybe I need better than Mozilla Composer, something that does it better. I hate paying for programs though, so what free page composer is there that's better? And it better deal with the issues we've raised. Patrick Turner. There is really nothing wrong with your web pages but if you do want to do something more sophisticated, you could do worse than to go to http://www.microsoft.com/express/vwd/ and download Visual Web Developer 2008 Express edition. It is a full featured web page designer, and, strangely for Microsoft, it is entirely free. It may be more than you want or need, but it beats Word hands down (Word had a very poor reputation for the quality of the HTML that it produces). Keith I'm so far so good with MS Word. Ta for the tip though. Patrick Turner. I wouldn't touch any of the current dedicated HTML editors even with Keith's dick. Why? After all, some are fabulously good and some are even free. Simple: ask a more relevant question than how good or inexpensive they are. How many *dedicated* HTML shells have been dropped by Microsoft and others, leaving their users in the lurch, with pages that have to be laboriously reedited -- if they are even recoverable? Dozens. Hundreds. I always use the best, I'm vastly more knowledgeable than most on the net, and I've still been screwed three times in fifteen years. Word may have its failings as an HTML editor, but you will never discover them, Patrick. I made your template among other things to steer you away from the lacunae in Word's adherence to the lowest common denominator HMTL standard. OK. Well, maybe I could use a 40 foot pole rather than K's d. The only spot of bother I had tonight was to try to re-create the index page of mine in MSW, and I found whenI had a version looking real good and saved it and then re-opened it in IE and Firefox and in both the text had gaps and things seemed all badly spaced, so back to MSW where I found it impossible to easily set the tabs and get the text to auto return as I typed, and especially between where I have a small picture on the right and the left margin. There should be a menu item you can select about how you want the text to behave, and be placed. For obvious reasons I'm jumping in a bit 'late' here but it seems to me things are getting needlessly complicated. The Mozilla Editor, which I am assuming is the same as, or similar to, the one in Seamonkey, may not be the cat's meow best in the world but it's sufficient for your needs and slapping MSW into the equation just makes things more confusing. If I gather correctly, the original 'complaint' was with breaking at the end of each line and that's easily solved in Mozilla (or any other) by simply not typing a return at the end of them and nothing else need be done to 'fix' that. Just to add a bit of explanation, the viewing browser might have different window sizes, fonts, etc, so the publisher can't know 'exactly' how things will look. The 'solution' is to let the viewing browser do some on the fly formatting so, to that end, things are organized as "paragraphs" and not 'lines', per see. Meaning you only do a return to denote the end of a 'paragraph' and the viewing browser will then word wrap to the viewer's window. There are ways to prevent that if you want a 'fixed' size window, see below. I then opened it in Mozilla, which showed the same thing as IE and Firefox with considerable **** ups. Then I corrected the thing in MOZ by wysiwyg method where basically anything goes about how you type it up and it still should appear the same when browsed. In MSW, while an image remained in the page, it just wouldn't let me do what I could so easily in Mozzilla. In Moz by selecting all I could see long lines of nothing and I deleted these and finally got no long lines where something was inducated on a text line but nothing was, and then saved that and re-opened it with IE and Firefox and it looked just fine, exactly as I had edited it. Firefox then wouldn't get the page colour. Hmm, very hard to set it. The color codes were a nine number letter or a set of 6 letters and numbers, and I spent an hour ****ing around trying to reset the page colur so all browsers would include it. MSW doesn't have a nice easy way to select page colours. Plain white is too glary for me. That's a problem with a lot of HTML editors and why I use a rather innocuous 'cork' background image. But when I used MSW to open the new version of the index page, the picture wasn't included. IE included it. Crazy. Next step is to cut and paste text into your template and delete the 845 stuff and see how that goes. I often do an enormous number of re-edits and cuts and pasts and deletes when i work on a page. It doesn't happen easily for me. I don't know how whatever setting you have in your template will hold up after what i do. Maybe it'd be better for me to have a template that's completely free of anything, say blank page, so all i have to do is open that from a file that's saved, but all the settings for text rules you have in the template are all there. Html seems to lurk where you don't see it and can act like a hidden hand controlling what you type. After working on the index, I realized there is some repetition and awkwardness about how I say what I actually do, and surfers can't quickly see where to click for repairs, so I need to re-group the links to directories under 4 big banners, Repairs, Manufacturing, Re-engineering and Information. I still don't know how to put an image into a page so it occupies half the width and text occupies the other half which is handy with small images and schematics as one talks about them in the text. I've forotten how I done it 3 years ago in Mozilla but I recall I spent a lotta time trying and its the only place on my site where i have text beside an image. Everywhere else the images are just stacked vertically with text. That's 'html'. The 'picture' is 'on-the-same-line' with the text. You can do the side-by-side by inserting a table, then put the picture in one cell and the text in another. And since formatting is 'by cell' the text will wrap inside it's cell and the picture can be independently aligned inside it's cell. As mentioned above, that's also a way to 'set' a 'fixed' size for text, or a whole page. You could, for example, insert a 1 cell table, which you can set the width of, and then type in the table. I do that to make text 'fixed' at 800. I center format the 'whole table', putting it in the middle of the page, so if the viewing browser's window is larger you get a 'big border' but the text remains limited to 800. I'll get there. Maybe later rather than sooner.... I take so long to do things I am good doing things that take time. Point taken about what you have below. I once tried to use MS Front Page. A guy said that'd be easy and he seemed to know how to drive it. But after several tries i just abandoned this vehicle and walked to Mozilla where driving things were far easier. That's why I suggest you stick with Mozilla, You're already comfortable with it and your 'problems' take little effort to solve. Mainly, just don't type return at the end of each line, just when you want to end a paragraph, and practice with inserting tables for the 'new' thing you'd like to try (side by side text/pictures). Not saying my home page is 'great' but it uses tables and, of course, 'paragraphs' so the lines word wrap. http://flipperhome.dyndns.org/ The 'whole page' border is just the border of the one cell table I made so the page is 'fixed' at a width of 800. The "Recommended Browser" (eyeballs) joke is another table showing, yes, you can put a table inside a table. The text and eyeballs are in one cell and the eyeballs on 'on the same line' as the text. The picture is in another cell. Oh, and another note. It's sometimes convenient to put an 'extra' cell in between the ones you plan to put things in so you can 'space' things to your liking. I.E. use the empty cell for padding. Note you see no border on the "Recommended Browser" table. You can turn borders on and off, per table, as well as specify the line width and type. The 'multi line' paragraphs are simply typed with no returns and, on that page, they don't 'change' with the window size because of the fixed size table they're inside, however, if you go here http://flipperhome.dyndns.org/13FD7%...Williamson.htm and scrunch your browser window way down, under 800, you'll see the main title and picture 'title' texts center themselves in the window. That's because I just center justified them on the raw page and did not put them in tables so the viewing browser formats them to the window center on the fly, while the 'big things' run off the page, because they don't fit. Note the side by side filament supply picture and text. That doesn't 'change' size, and neither does the text inside it, when you mess with the browser window, because the table is a fixed width. Unless I missed one last time I edited, all my pages have the 'paragraph text' inside tables so they remain the same width but, like those picture titles, the "HOME" button (center justified) and (c) text (right justified) is page justified so they're always there. Oops, I take that back. I didn't use tables on one of them. http://flipperhome.dyndns.org/6AW8PCSpkr.htm Scrunch the browser window way down and you'll see the text reformat to it because that text is 'on the page' and not in a table. Note. again, the speaker picture and side by side text in a table that doesn't change. The pictures are center justified on the page but look at the text under the very bottom picture. If you make your browser real wide the text keeps reformatting to the window while the picture, of course, is fixed at 800, because that's it's size. That makes things look 'unorganized' with text extending beyond the picture, which is why I put fixed size tables under the others but was apparently in a hurry with that one and forgot. But it does illustrate 'on the fly' formatting and why you don't want a return on each line, because what *you* see as a 'line' may not 'fit' the viewer's window. You should get used to the 'no return on a line' thing because that's standard word processing, publishing, and HTML editing practice since the processor can reformat 'as you type' and when you make changes, etc. Same thing with this post. I have word wrap set to 70 and I type return only to end a paragraph so as I futz around with mistakes, changes, and such, the text automatically rewraps 'to fit'. I hope that helps. Let's see if this line wrap setting works here. My Netscape wrap wasn't turned on for outgoing messages but I just turned it on and a line is over 72 things. So just when I make a change to a wrap setting and click OK to stop myself needing to hit enter at the end of a line, it ****ing don't work as I type it and I still have to keep hitting enter. I don't know how to adjust Netscape to give auto return and line wrap while I type. I opend a copy of the MSW page template I have from Andre and deleted all content so its a blank page but with width settings intact. Then I copied and pasted the index page content from a saved file of last night's efforts and continued to work until it looked just fine except the little photo I have at my index showing a few of my things had to be put on a line of its own. And I could not type between the picture and a margin. If you put in an image, you shoud be able to put in anything else in the empty page space each side of it including text without ****ing around with tables and BS. OK, there may have to be a prompt or two. No prompts though in MSW. How dumb is this for a web page maker? Real Dumb, I reckon. After getting it looking right, I saved this version as 'index2' in the 'my documents' folder. Then I opened it with IE and Firefox. In both browsers it appeared all ****ed up with spacings and lines and paragraphs way different to how I had it looking. I just cannot handle anything else that does not conform stricly to WYSIWYG. If this rule is broken, the web page maker is useless to me. So it looks like I will have to stay with Mozilla but I don't quite know how to type to get automatically returning text yet. I have not got all year to become a ****ing expert on html. I do get 500 hits a day at my site, and from all of these over the last 3 years since I began using Mozilla I have not had one email about any site dysfunctional when someone browses it. The other thing I really don't like about inserting images and MSW is that the images become blurred and ****ed up when you paste them in. You select the image after you have pasted it and then adjust the image size. But you never know how the size MS selected is the quite the same as the original. In Mozilla, if you copy and paste an image into a page you get exactly that damn image, nothing is CHANGED without MY control. MS changes the visual fidelity of the image. I am interested in hi-fi, and like most ppl my eyes still work OK. BTW, I looked at your two pages above, and the text looks fine, even thought where text appears beside a schematic it is aligned left beside the right side of the schema and sentences end raggedly on the right hand side of the text body. Looks OK to me. And also BTW, if you have any tolerance of me, allow me to say I like using terminal strips with turrets or using hardwood 10mm x 8mm in section with 4g brass screws placed each side of tube sockets under the chassis. This allows many R&C components to be better held in position and neater and wiring can be routed more against the chassis bundled more and neater. Then you find servicing is easier because less gets in the way of a soldering iron. And its easier to place components as you built the amp. I'm just tiny bit against "rat's nest" wiring. Compared to your site, I have much more text and where to put the darn stuff is my bother. Patrick Turner. |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Page layout for tubie pages on the net Deep Space 84555WSET amps.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:06:27 +1000, Keithr wrote:
snip Of course, as a helpful professional, you could have made Patrick a nice cascading style sheet that would obviate the need for a template, and ease the task of producing a consistent style right across the site. That is what professionals do, possibly too complex for you though Andre. snip Can I second this suggestion for the use of CSS? It's a very neat system and lets you change the look of a complete site by editing a single ordinary text file. This gives a nice indication of how it works: http://www.strangebanana.com/ Note that all the pages produced when you update the demo page use the same HTML code, only the separate CSS file changes. This makes it a doddle to update a couple of hundred pages at the same time! -- Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!) Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net Filtering everything posted from googlegroups to kill spam. |
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Page layout for tubie pages on the net Deep Space 845 55WSETamps.
Andre Jute wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:03 am, Patrick Turner wrote: Keithr wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Maybe I need better than Mozilla Composer, something that does it better. I hate paying for programs though, so what free page composer is there that's better? And it better deal with the issues we've raised. Patrick Turner. There is really nothing wrong with your web pages but if you do want to do something more sophisticated, you could do worse than to go to http://www.microsoft.com/express/vwd/ and download Visual Web Developer 2008 Express edition. It is a full featured web page designer, and, strangely for Microsoft, it is entirely free. It may be more than you want or need, but it beats Word hands down (Word had a very poor reputation for the quality of the HTML that it produces). Keith I'm so far so good with MS Word. Ta for the tip though. Patrick Turner. I wouldn't touch any of the current dedicated HTML editors even with Keith's dick. Why? After all, some are fabulously good and some are even free. Simple: ask a more relevant question than how good or inexpensive they are. How many *dedicated* HTML shells have been dropped by Microsoft and others, leaving their users in the lurch, with pages that have to be laboriously reedited -- if they are even recoverable? Dozens. Hundreds. I always use the best, I'm vastly more knowledgeable than most on the net, and I've still been screwed three times in fifteen years. Word may have its failings as an HTML editor, but you will never discover them, Patrick. I made your template among other things to steer you away from the lacunae in Word's adherence to the lowest common denominator HMTL standard. Ask yourself a simple question: Will Microsoft drop Word, its biggest- selling application? Hardly. And those pages you're making in Word are so simple, you'll always be able to get them back, whatever "standard" eventually takes over. I think as a cyclist you'll live to be 90, Patrick, and I don't see you needing anything except Word until then. Keith should stick to his own last and butt out of what he knows nothing about, like tubes and creating HTML pages. *** Just for the record, for professional web design, I now recommend that critical web materials be made in QuarkXPress (a professional page layout programme for print that costs a couple of thousand and takes years to learn fully, snip There are alternatives to expensive (Quark Express), limited (html editors) and kludges (Word). I would recommend Serif Web Plus X2. It has been around for many years, is well supported (you actually get two printed manuals with it) and allows you to create great we sites without using html (although you can if you want and use java too). It also has flash support and various add-ons like counters, handles images, site upload etc etc. A proper dedicated web design tool. Cheers Ian |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| WHERE DOES SPACE BEGIN BEFORE SPACE EXISTS ?? (QUIT HURTING BY OTHER KMD USA) ... MASS PRODUCTION OF SPACE HAPPENS BY VORTICES OF SUPERSUPERSUPERSUPERSUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES THAT ARE AT LEAST 1 MILLION TIMES THE SIZE OF THE BIGGEST OF CURRENTLY | Tech | |||
| Car and Deep Cycle Battery FAQ | Car Audio | |||
| JVC KD-S891, how deep can you go? | Car Audio | |||
| 19" Rackmounts DEEP PAN PLEASE.... ? | Pro Audio | |||
| Deep Base | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
