Wiring question
Stuart
networking etc.
The telephone socket is downstairs by the window in the front room. The
computers are to be set up in the back bedroom and wireless networking is
not really an option for the RPC.
I propose to put a telephone extension in the back bedroom and set
everything up, including the router, there.
When buying the parts I was told that for broadband I should use a
"master" socket in the bedroom instead of an ordinary extension one and
only use connections 2 and 5.
This seems strange to me as my own set up uses a fully wired phone
extension socket (from the days of dial-up) and seems to work fine.
Any views on the matter?
Stuart
Martin Wynn
Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
Assuming that you do not require a phone in the back bedroom, the way
I would do it is to put the router by the existing master socket and
run a cat 5 cable to the back bedroom. Sorted :-) Or if wiring is an
issue use ethernet home plugs.
Martin.
--
Martin Wynn, Newport, Shropshire.
A. HTML.
Q. What are the two most annoying things about emails?
Dave Plowman (News)
The master socket comprises a surge arrester across the line and an R/C
circuit which puts the ringing volts on a third wire minus the DC. So I'm
not quite clear how the supplier works out that adding a second R/C
network and supressor across the line would improve the broadband carrier.
These days few phones actually use the third wire - it was a BT quirk.
I could understand the theory of not having a master socket at all for
broadband - although I don't know if it would improve matters.
> Stuart
--
*If at first you don't succeed, avoid skydiving.*
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Brian Howlett
> Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> I propose to put a telephone extension in the back bedroom and set
>> everything up, including the router, there.
>>
>> When buying the parts I was told that for broadband I should use a
>> "master" socket in the bedroom instead of an ordinary extension one
>> and only use connections 2 and 5.
>>
>> This seems strange to me as my own set up uses a fully wired phone
>> extension socket (from the days of dial-up) and seems to work fine.
>>
>> Any views on the matter?
> Assuming that you do not require a phone in the back bedroom, the way
> I would do it is to put the router by the existing master socket and
> run a cat 5 cable to the back bedroom. Sorted :-) Or if wiring is an
> issue use ethernet home plugs.
In my view, the best way to deal with this is to have the router in
the room where the computers are, and run CAT 5 cable with RJ11
connectors through from the router's DSL port to the microfilter,
which should be plugged in to the main telephone socket.
That way, you aren't relying on internal telephone wiring to carry the
last few metres of your signal. Telephone cable is much more
susceptible to interference than CAT 5.
--
Brian Howlett - Email to From: address deleted unseen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it strange that the same people that laugh at gypsy fortune
tellers take economists seriously?
Dave Plowman (News)
Brian Howlett <news-s...@brianhowlett.me.uk> wrote:
> That way, you aren't relying on internal telephone wiring to carry the
> last few metres of your signal. Telephone cable is much more
> susceptible to interference than CAT 5.
That's as maybe, but I've got 10 pair telephone cable (unscreened) running
all round the house carrying 5 balanced stereo audio circuits, and there's
no audible crosstalk or interference on them.
--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> Or if wiring is an issue use ethernet home plugs.
- which have the huge advantage that you can unplug them and move them
around the house... I bought some not quite believing they'd work, but
they do.
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsre...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "nnn" by "284".
charles
> > Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> I propose to put a telephone extension in the back bedroom and set
> >> everything up, including the router, there.
> >>
> >> When buying the parts I was told that for broadband I should use a
> >> "master" socket in the bedroom instead of an ordinary extension one
> >> and only use connections 2 and 5.
> >>
> >> This seems strange to me as my own set up uses a fully wired phone
> >> extension socket (from the days of dial-up) and seems to work fine.
> >>
> >> Any views on the matter?
> > Assuming that you do not require a phone in the back bedroom, the way
> > I would do it is to put the router by the existing master socket and
> > run a cat 5 cable to the back bedroom. Sorted :-) Or if wiring is an
> > issue use ethernet home plugs.
> In my view, the best way to deal with this is to have the router in
> the room where the computers are, and run CAT 5 cable with RJ11
> connectors through from the router's DSL port to the microfilter,
> which should be plugged in to the main telephone socket.
That is the way my system is installed. It works well.
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
John Sandford
> My daughter has just moved into a new house and I have to set up the
> networking etc.
> The telephone socket is downstairs by the window in the front room. The
> computers are to be set up in the back bedroom and wireless networking is
> not really an option for the RPC.
Wireless networking with a RPC is easy with a wireless bridge. mostly
needs a PC to setup once, after that it just plugs into the bridge via
cat5e cable.
John
--
John Sandford West Herts UK
Hemel Hempstead RISC OS User Group email info @ hhrug.org
Stuart
John Sandford <fornew...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Wireless networking with a RPC is easy with a wireless bridge.
Unfortunately this was ruled out because of cost, especially with having
to buy a PCI wireless card for the desktop PC as well.
--
Stuart Winsor
Stuart
Martin Wynn <m.w...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Assuming that you do not require a phone in the back bedroom, the way
> I would do it is to put the router by the existing master socket and
> run a cat 5 cable to the back bedroom. Sorted :-) Or if wiring is an
> issue use ethernet home plugs.
Having a large quantity of CAT5 cable available, this was the first option.
However, the place has been newly decorated and trying to find a way of
inconspicuously running two lengths of bright purple network cable was
something of an issue.
Running a single length of telephone cable round the outside of the
building, allowing the option of also putting a telephone in the room,
seemed more attractive
--
Stuart Winsor
Stuart
Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> The master socket comprises a surge arrester across the line and an R/C
> circuit which puts the ringing volts on a third wire minus the DC. So
> I'm not quite clear how the supplier works out that adding a second R/C
> network and supressor across the line would improve the broadband
> carrier.
Me neither, hence the question here where more knowledgeable people "hang
out"
--
Stuart Winsor
Steve Fryatt
<d9c125cb...@bhowlett.adsl24.co.uk>:
> In my view, the best way to deal with this is to have the router in the
> room where the computers are, and run CAT 5 cable with RJ11 connectors
> through from the router's DSL port to the microfilter, which should be
> plugged in to the main telephone socket.
Or better still, use a filtered faceplate on the master socket, and run the
CAT5[1] direct into that. It also simplifies any extensions, as they don't
require microfilters of their own (being connected to the filtered side of
the faceplate).
http://www.clarity.it/xcart/product.php?productid=16134&cat=262&page=1
1. Here, I've got three-pair phone wire (again from Clarity) which carries
the unfiltered A/B pair to the router and the filtered two-pair extension in
the same wire. I assume standard CAT5 would do just as well.
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England
Chris Johnson
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk>
wrote:
> Martin Wynn <m.w...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > Or if wiring is an issue use ethernet home plugs.
> - which have the huge advantage that you can unplug them and move
> them around the house... I bought some not quite believing they'd
> work, but they do.
Yes, I do the same. I also found that, by putting the router at the
socket where the phone line enters the house, and using the ethernet
home plugs to feed to the computers at the other end of the house, I
gained over 1000 kbps in sync rate.
Chris...
--
Chris Johnson
Kevin Wells
>My daughter has just moved into a new house and I have to set up the
>networking etc.
>
>The telephone socket is downstairs by the window in the front room. The
>computers are to be set up in the back bedroom and wireless networking is
>not really an option for the RPC.
>
[snip]
>Any views on the matter?
>
>Stuart
>
What I have is a wireless access point upstairs where the computers are
and the router downstairs by the telephone master socket.
The computers are plugged into a network switch box which is then
plugged into the wireless access point.
Both the Risc PC and the A9 both work with this set up.
The�wireless access point is a Netgear WG602
--
Kev Wells http://riscos.kevsoft.co.uk/
http://kevsoft.co.uk/ http://kevsoft.co.uk/AleQuest/
ICQ 238580561
http://www.englishclaimofright.com/
Chris Hughes
Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
Goto the www.clarity.it website which has a number of guide and things
available to help you.
--
Chris Hughes
Russell Hafter News
> My daughter has just moved into a new house and I have to
> set up the networking etc.
> The telephone socket is downstairs by the window in the
> front room.
Sounds just like my arrangement. Totally useless situation
IMHO, and it used to keep corroding where BT installed it
(and then replaced it every other year or so).
Then they agreed to move it. I tried to persuade them to put
it in the room with the computers, and I thought the
engineer agreed - then he installed the latest one about six
inches above where it had always been in the past,
presumably above the damp-proof course.
> The computers are to be set up in the back bedroom and
> wireless networking is not really an option for the RPC.
This too, though it is not a bedroom. So I was stuck with
using the existing socket in the room - and still am.
This has a faceplate with ADSL and PSTN (BT) sockets. The
ADSL socket is connected by a standard ethernet cable to the
router. This connects to the RPC and the Win PC in this
room, the third socket goes to a homeplug which allows
connection to the other two RPCs and the other Win PC.
No problems.
Speed is variable, anything from 2.9 to 4.6, but I suspect
that that is as much to do with being at the very far end of
the run from the local exchange. Only the two houses 150
yards up the road are further from the exchange than I am.
But that seems fast enough for what I need it for.
> I propose to put a telephone extension in the back
> bedroom and set everything up, including the router,
> there.
The phones were already connected when I moved in.
> When buying the parts I was told that for broadband I
> should use a "master" socket in the bedroom instead of an
> ordinary extension one and only use connections 2 and 5.
Did he really mean a second master socket? Or that the
master socket should be in the same room as the computers?
I have heard several times that disconnecting the connection
from terminal 3 can result in a useful increase in speed,
but I would imagine that you do need to be sure that it does
not stop some, at least of the phones ringing. I have a
somewhat complex phone system in the office with the router
- the PSTN - BT socket serves two boxes that filter the
ringing signal - and again, I have no idea how they would
work if I disconnected the wire from connection 3.
HTH
--
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
Dave Higton
Brian Howlett <news-s...@brianhowlett.me.uk> wrote:
> Telephone cable is much more susceptible to interference than CAT 5.
Where on earth do you get that idea from?
There's no fundamental difference in the interference susceptibility
of telephone cable and CAT 5 - unless you use shielded CAT 5 /and/
make off the shield appropriately at both ends.
Dave
Richard Porter
write:
You should never need a second master socket. The master socket should
be where your phone line enters the building or surfaces inside, and
shoudn't be altered.
What you're suggesting in paragraph 3 should be fine, but use a normal
ADSL/telephone filter faceplate on the extension, and a plug-in filter
for your telephone downstairs.
--
Richard Porter
rich@ / www. richardporter.me.uk
"You can't have Windows without pains."
Chris Evans
> On 17 Dec, Martin Wynn wrote:
>
> > Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >>
> >> I propose to put a telephone extension in the back bedroom and set
> >> everything up, including the router, there.
> >>
> >> When buying the parts I was told that for broadband I should use a
> >> "master" socket in the bedroom instead of an ordinary extension one
> >> and only use connections 2 and 5.
> >>
> >> This seems strange to me as my own set up uses a fully wired phone
> >> extension socket (from the days of dial-up) and seems to work fine.
> >>
> >> Any views on the matter?
>
> > Assuming that you do not require a phone in the back bedroom, the way
> > I would do it is to put the router by the existing master socket and
> > run a cat 5 cable to the back bedroom. Sorted :-) Or if wiring is an
> > issue use ethernet home plugs.
>
> In my view, the best way to deal with this is to have the router in
> the room where the computers are, and run CAT 5 cable with RJ11
> connectors through from the router's DSL port to the microfilter,
> which should be plugged in to the main telephone socket.
Rather than making up a cable we do suitable cables up to 20m!
We call them ADSL linecords
http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/micros/individual/newprodpages/prodinfo.php?prodcode=VAR-ADSLLC20M
> That way, you aren't relying on internal telephone wiring to carry the
> last few metres of your signal. Telephone cable is much more
> susceptible to interference than CAT 5.
> --
> Brian Howlett - Email to From: address deleted unseen
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't it strange that the same people that laugh at gypsy fortune
> tellers take economists seriously?
>
Chris Evans
--
CJE Micro's / 4D 'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: 01903 523222 Fax: 01903 523679
ch...@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN
The most beautiful thing anyone can wear, is a smile!
Chris Evans
Or untwisted telephone cable! All the ready made extension cables I've seen
look untwisted to me. I expect they get away with it as it is over
comparitively short distances.
Chris Hughes
Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/micros/individual/newprodpages/prodinfo.php
> ?prodcode=VAR-ADSLLC20M
That is expensive
--
Chris Hughes
Alan Calder
I have a Belkin Wireless Access Point/Range Extender. I used it to provide
wireless abilities for my network but eith a new wireless router I no
longer need it.
I am not an expert and hopefully someone here will set me right but it
looks as if this might do the necessary in its Range Extender mode. It has
one network port into which you could plug the RPC, picking up the wireless
signal from your router. I am assuming that your router is a wireless one
as you write above of buying a wireless card.
Cost me some 56ukp from CJE in January 2007 but I'd accept 20ukp plus a
little more for p&p - doesn't weigh much so that would be small.
Let me know
Cheers
Alan
--
Alan Calder, Milton Keynes, UK.
Dave Higton
Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <139941cb50...@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton
> <URL:mailto:daveh...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > In message <d9c125cb...@bhowlett.adsl24.co.uk>
> > Brian Howlett <news-s...@brianhowlett.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Telephone cable is much more susceptible to interference than CAT 5.
> >
> > Where on earth do you get that idea from?
> >
> > There's no fundamental difference in the interference susceptibility
> > of telephone cable and CAT 5 - unless you use shielded CAT 5 /and/
> > make off the shield appropriately at both ends.
>
> Or untwisted telephone cable! All the ready made extension cables I've seen
> look untwisted to me. I expect they get away with it as it is over
> comparitively short distances.
OK, you got me there. I was thinking about proper telephone cable for
permanent installation, which most emphatically /is/ twisted. It never
occurred to me that anyone would install cable unsuitable for
permanent installation.
Dave
Steve Fryatt
<50cbcfa59bS...@orpheusinternet.co.uk>:
> In article <924b35cb...@o2.co.uk>,
> Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Goto the www.clarity.it website which has a number of guide and things
> > available to help you.
>
> "Not acceptable" error! An appropriate representation of the requested
> resource / could not be found on this server. Additionally a 404 Not found
> error was encountered while trying to use an errordocument to handle the
> request.
Sounds like a temporary blip -- it's working fine here now.
Tim Hill
I can commend these with a but. A pair overcame problems in an office
installation where wireless wouldn't pass though walls. I had to wait
until their regular IT guy was out of the way as he said quite
categorically that home plugs wouldn't work. They do. His Wireless didn't
work, even with all his careful placing of dongles, 'boosters' (as he
called them - a wireless bridge), and aerial extensions - of which they
now have a small redundant collection. HomePlugs and CAT5e works
beautifully though this was a system using only pee seas on which a bit
of software was used to register each machine with the homeplugs. I don't
know if they can be used with RISC OS as I have never tried.
How you you register a RISC OS machine with a homeplug?
--
Tim Hill
...................................................
tjrh.eu
... "God forgive us all !" Macbeth, Act v, Sc.1
Chris Johnson
You don't need to - just plug it in with an ethernet cable.
I currently have three home plugs (Devolo) - the modem connects to
one, a laptop to a second (wireless has been a problem), and the
third is connected to an ethernet switch, to which several other
machines are connected. With the Devolo ones, you just treat it like
a standard ethernet socket and plug a device in to it.
I always plug in the Iyonix to a new plug to test it is working ok.
--
Chris Johnson
Russell Hafter News
> I don't know if they can be used with RISC OS as I have
> never tried.
Most certainly can - I have four homeplugs, at one time
three of them were connected to RPCs (now 2 RPCs and 1 Win
PC). The fourth is connected to the router.
> How you you register a RISC OS machine with a homeplug?
AFAIR you do not need to these days - you just plug them in
and they work.
The instructions talk about registering, but it does not
seem to be necessary.
My brother-in-law spent hours trying to register a set from
his Macs - the provided software did not work. he finally
rang the suppliers who told him they were "Plug and Play"
and they were.
Very useful items, even if not cheap!
Alan Adams
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid>
wrote:
> In article <50cc29...@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
>> I don't know if they can be used with RISC OS as I have
>> never tried.
> Most certainly can - I have four homeplugs, at one time
> three of them were connected to RPCs (now 2 RPCs and 1 Win
> PC). The fourth is connected to the router.
>> How you you register a RISC OS machine with a homeplug?
> AFAIR you do not need to these days - you just plug them in
> and they work.
> The instructions talk about registering, but it does not
> seem to be necessary.
> My brother-in-law spent hours trying to register a set from
> his Macs - the provided software did not work. he finally
> rang the suppliers who told him they were "Plug and Play"
> and they were.
I recall an earlier discussion where it was pointed out that if you
don't register, your neighbours can potentially plug and play into
your network. It's like running an unsecured wireless network.
--
Alan Adams, from Northamptonshire
al...@adamshome.org.uk
http://www.nckc.org.uk/
Steve Fryatt
<629d46cc50...@laptop.adamshome.org.uk>:
> In message <50cc3068...@walkingingermany.invalid>
> Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid>
>
> > My brother-in-law spent hours trying to register a set from his Macs -
> > the provided software did not work. he finally rang the suppliers who
> > told him they were "Plug and Play" and they were.
>
> I recall an earlier discussion where it was pointed out that if you don't
> register, your neighbours can potentially plug and play into your network.
> It's like running an unsecured wireless network.
ISTR being told that modern ones have a security button on them which does
this without software intervention.
Chris Hughes
Alan Adams <al...@adamshome.org.uk> wrote:
Yep, I have heard the story as well. Its one of those "in theory"
story. If someone wants to waste time trying they are welcome. Your
more likely to have your wi-fi hacked.
--
Chris Hughes
Chris Hughes
Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <9d4d24c...@mw004f6960.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Martin Wynn <m.w...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> use ethernet home plugs
> I can commend these with a but. A pair overcame problems in an office
> installation where wireless wouldn't pass though walls. I had to wait
> until their regular IT guy was out of the way as he said quite
> categorically that home plugs wouldn't work. They do. His Wireless didn't
> work, even with all his careful placing of dongles, 'boosters' (as he
> called them - a wireless bridge), and aerial extensions - of which they
> now have a small redundant collection. HomePlugs and CAT5e works
> beautifully though this was a system using only pee seas on which a bit
> of software was used to register each machine with the homeplugs. I don't
> know if they can be used with RISC OS as I have never tried.
> How you you register a RISC OS machine with a homeplug?
Well I have 4 homeplugs here and using 2 RiscPC's with them.....
None have been "registered" as such.
Maybe it depends on version/make
--
Chris Hughes
Chris Johnson
Alan Adams <al...@adamshome.org.uk> wrote:
> I recall an earlier discussion where it was pointed out that if you
> don't register, your neighbours can potentially plug and play into
> your network. It's like running an unsecured wireless network.
The later versions do use encryption - a randomly generated key can
be used.
--
Chris Johnson
Dave Plowman (News)
> don't register, your neighbours can potentially plug and play into
> your network. It's like running an unsecured wireless network.
What range does it have? Houses are normally wired to alternate phases to
balance the load so the nearest one would be two doors away.
--
*I don't work here. I'm a consultant
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
charles
> Alan Adams <al...@adamshome.org.uk> wrote:
> > I recall an earlier discussion where it was pointed out that if you
> > don't register, your neighbours can potentially plug and play into
> > your network. It's like running an unsecured wireless network.
> What range does it have? Houses are normally wired to alternate phases to
> balance the load so the nearest one would be two doors away.
That is a very old fashioned idea. Yes, it was true, once - but I know a
local estate of 20 bungalows all on one phase. In my case, I have all 3
phases incoming. When the one I was origianlly on kept having intermittent
breaks, the supply authority (yes, that long ago) put me on adiffferent
phase.
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
Richard Porter
decided to write:
> On 18 Dec, Stuart wrote in message
> <50cbcfa59bS...@orpheusinternet.co.uk>:
>> In article <924b35cb...@o2.co.uk>,
>> Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Goto the www.clarity.it website which has a number of guide and things
>>> available to help you.
>>
>> "Not acceptable" error! An appropriate representation of the requested
>> resource / could not be found on this server. Additionally a 404 Not found
>> error was encountered while trying to use an errordocument to handle the
>> request.
> Sounds like a temporary blip -- it's working fine here now.
Sounds like Mod_Security to me!
Mike Tomlinson
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes
> I've got 10 pair telephone cable (unscreened) running
>all round the house carrying 5 balanced stereo audio circuits, and there's
>no audible crosstalk or interference on them.
That's because you know what you are doing.
--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png
Rob Kendrick
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > That way, you aren't relying on internal telephone wiring to carry
> > the last few metres of your signal. Telephone cable is much more
> > susceptible to interference than CAT 5.
>
> That's as maybe, but I've got 10 pair telephone cable (unscreened)
> running all round the house carrying 5 balanced stereo audio
> circuits, and there's no audible crosstalk or interference on them.
As maybe, but audio uses a far narrower ranging of frequencies than the
megahertz (or even gigahertz) that data cabling may be asked to carry.
B.
Dave Plowman (News)
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> > > That way, you aren't relying on internal telephone wiring to carry
> > > the last few metres of your signal. Telephone cable is much more
> > > susceptible to interference than CAT 5.
> >
> > That's as maybe, but I've got 10 pair telephone cable (unscreened)
> > running all round the house carrying 5 balanced stereo audio
> > circuits, and there's no audible crosstalk or interference on them.
> As maybe, but audio uses a far narrower ranging of frequencies than the
> megahertz (or even gigahertz) that data cabling may be asked to carry.
But is less robust to interference.
--
*i souport publik edekashun.
Rob Kendrick
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > > That's as maybe, but I've got 10 pair telephone cable (unscreened)
> > > running all round the house carrying 5 balanced stereo audio
> > > circuits, and there's no audible crosstalk or interference on
> > > them.
>
> > As maybe, but audio uses a far narrower ranging of frequencies than
> > the megahertz (or even gigahertz) that data cabling may be asked to
> > carry.
>
> But is less robust to interference.
Only because of the poorly-designed non-recoverable analogue protocol :)
B.
Richard Porter
write:
I don't understand that point. Analogue audio circuits don't have a
"protocol" or any error recovery other than filtering out the unwanted
megahertz and gigahertz that may stray across.
Rob Kendrick
Richard Porter <dontu...@address.uk.invalid> wrote:
> > Only because of the poorly-designed non-recoverable analogue
> > protocol :)
>
> I don't understand that point. Analogue audio circuits don't have a
> "protocol" or any error recovery other than filtering out the
> unwanted megahertz and gigahertz that may stray across.
Precisely. It's perfectly possible to implement error recovery in
analogue systems.
B.