C-Audio schematic?
Joe Kotroczo
Two questions: does anybody know what happened to the company called
C-Audio?
And: does anybody happen to have a schematic for a C-Audio ST600 amplifier?
There's one here that came back from a job smelling of "magic smoke", and a
look inside showed a bunch of burned resistors. Burned to the point where
the colour rings are gone, of course.
The amp still works, bizarrely, but we didn't test it properly, just hooked
up a small speaker and a cd player.
If anyone's interested, I can take a couple of pics tomorrow at the
warehouse.
--
Joe Kotroczo kotr...@mac.com
Eeyore
Joe Kotroczo wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> Two questions: does anybody know what happened to the company called
> C-Audio?
Bought by Harman UK who moved them to Borehamwood, firing all the assembly
staff in Cambridge and then realised they hadn't a clue what to do with the
pile of parts they'd bought.
> And: does anybody happen to have a schematic for a C-Audio ST600 amplifier?
> There's one here that came back from a job smelling of "magic smoke", and a
> look inside showed a bunch of burned resistors. Burned to the point where
> the colour rings are gone, of course.
>
> The amp still works, bizarrely, but we didn't test it properly, just hooked
> up a small speaker and a cd player.
>
> If anyone's interested, I can take a couple of pics tomorrow at the
> warehouse.
2u job ? With one puny fan at the back blowing blistering hot air over the
reservoir caps at the front ?
If it's the model I think it is, I could tell you a thing or two about that.
Graham
Denny Strauser
Joe,
I'm interested. Send the pics - to MY email. Anyone with common sense
can deduce my email address w/ info given. Hopefully bots can't.
Thanks,
-Denny
Joe Kotroczo
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Two questions: does anybody know what happened to the company called
>> C-Audio?
>
> Bought by Harman UK who moved them to Borehamwood, firing all the assembly
> staff in Cambridge and then realised they hadn't a clue what to do with the
> pile of parts they'd bought.
So they're gone.
>
>> And: does anybody happen to have a schematic for a C-Audio ST600 amplifier?
(...)
> 2u job ? With one puny fan at the back blowing blistering hot air over the
> reservoir caps at the front ?
>
> If it's the model I think it is, I could tell you a thing or two about that.
It's a 2U job, with a single fan in the back, but the front half only
contains a big transformer.
It's this one: http://www.gbaudio.co.uk/data/st600.htm
--
Joe Kotroczo kotr...@mac.com
Joe Kotroczo
"Denny Strauser" <dennysound_comcast_net> wrote:
(...)
>>
>> If anyone's interested, I can take a couple of pics tomorrow at the
>> warehouse.
>>
>
> Joe,
>
> I'm interested. Send the pics - to MY email. Anyone with common sense
> can deduce my email address w/ info given. Hopefully bots can't.
I'll get the pics this afternoon.
--
Joe Kotroczo kotr...@mac.com
Eeyore
Joe Kotroczo wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote:
>
> >> Two questions: does anybody know what happened to the company called
> >> C-Audio?
> >
> > Bought by Harman UK who moved them to Borehamwood, firing all the assembly
> > staff in Cambridge and then realised they hadn't a clue what to do with the
> > pile of parts they'd bought.
>
> So they're gone.
Kinda. I see no effort on Harmans's part to ressurect the name. The did sell
C-Audio's crappiest amplifier as a badged Crown for a while though. CE series ? 3u
high.
> >> And: does anybody happen to have a schematic for a C-Audio ST600 amplifier?
Well I did once. God only knows where it is now after 3 company moves.
> > 2u job ? With one puny fan at the back blowing blistering hot air over the
> > reservoir caps at the front ?
> >
> > If it's the model I think it is, I could tell you a thing or two about that.
>
> It's a 2U job, with a single fan in the back, but the front half only
> contains a big transformer.
>
> It's this one: http://www.gbaudio.co.uk/data/st600.htm
That's the one ! I'll save the story of shame for later.
Graham
Joe Kotroczo
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
(...)
>>>> And: does anybody happen to have a schematic for a C-Audio ST600 amplifier?
>
> Well I did once. God only knows where it is now after 3 company moves.
>
>
>>> 2u job ? With one puny fan at the back blowing blistering hot air over the
>>> reservoir caps at the front ?
>>>
>>> If it's the model I think it is, I could tell you a thing or two about that.
>>
>> It's a 2U job, with a single fan in the back, but the front half only
>> contains a big transformer.
>>
>> It's this one: http://www.gbaudio.co.uk/data/st600.htm
>
> That's the one ! I'll save the story of shame for later.
I've put the pictures here:
http://homepage.mac.com/kotroczo/PhotoAlbum62.html
Am I right in assuming that the left side should be the same as the right
side? Same value resistors? It looks like that, but I'd rather be safe than
sorry.
--
Joe Kotroczo kotr...@mac.com
Joe Kotroczo
"Denny Strauser" <dennysound_comcast_net> wrote:
(...)
>> If anyone's interested, I can take a couple of pics tomorrow at the
>> warehouse.
>>
>
> Joe,
>
> I'm interested. Send the pics - to MY email. Anyone with common sense
> can deduce my email address w/ info given. Hopefully bots can't.
I've put the pics here: http://homepage.mac.com/kotroczo/PhotoAlbum62.html
Do you still want me to email them?
--
Joe Kotroczo kotr...@mac.com
Eeyore
Joe Kotroczo wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote:
>
> >>>> And: does anybody happen to have a schematic for a C-Audio ST600 amplifier?
> >
> > Well I did once. God only knows where it is now after 3 company moves.
> >
> >>> 2u job ? With one puny fan at the back blowing blistering hot air over the
> >>> reservoir caps at the front ?
> >>>
> >>> If it's the model I think it is, I could tell you a thing or two about that.
> >>
> >> It's a 2U job, with a single fan in the back, but the front half only
> >> contains a big transformer.
> >>
> >> It's this one: http://www.gbaudio.co.uk/data/st600.htm
> >
> > That's the one ! I'll save the story of shame for later.
>
> I've put the pictures here:
> http://homepage.mac.com/kotroczo/PhotoAlbum62.html
>
> Am I right in assuming that the left side should be the same as the right
> side? Same value resistors? It looks like that, but I'd rather be safe than
> sorry.
I'd say that's a pretty safe assumption. Odd parts to burn out though, tends to
suggest 'RF' oscillation on that channel perhaps, or RF on the input.
I see they've changed the internal layout a bit too, replacing the more durable
metal can output devices with plastic encapsulated ones.
Check for symettrical clipping btw. They EAT output devices by running them too hot
which then fail 'open' so it's not initially obvious.
Graham
Phil Allison
"Eeysore"
> I see they've changed the internal layout a bit too, replacing the more
> durable
> metal can output devices with plastic encapsulated ones.
>
> Check for symettrical clipping btw. They EAT output devices by running
> them too hot
> which then fail 'open' so it's not initially obvious.
** Plastic pack lateral MOSFETS do not fail open - since there are no
fusible drain bonding wires as in the TO3 kind.
..... Phil
Phil Allison
"Joe Kotroczo"
"Joe Kotroczo"
** You are a fucking film crew puke - you lying cunt.
Joe Kotroczo: born November 1976, in Luxembourg.
You have no place here in a live sound NG.
Fuck Off WOG ASSHOLE !!!!
...... Phil
Phil Allison
"Joe Kotroczo"
>
> Am I right in assuming that the left side should be the same as the right
> side? Same value resistors? It looks like that, but I'd rather be safe
> than
> sorry.
** Take it to an audio tech - you fucking MORON !!
Phil Allison
"Joe Kotroczo"
** You are a fucking film crew puke - you lying cunt.
Gareth Magennis
"Joe Kotroczo" <kotr...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:C490438C.5B21A%kotr...@mac.com...
Those 3 power resistors that look burnt are possibly part of the Zobel
network. If you simply replace them they may just go again until you find
why they burnt, which may be RF oscillations. Check also the capacitor(s)
in this network, or better still just replace it as well. And the one on
the other side for good measure.
The old C Audio RA series used to sometimes suffer from RF problems and
subsequent burnt Zobel networks, I heard it was some kind of poor grounding
design, maybe someone else here could elaborate on causes and/or cures.
Gareth.
Phil Allison
"Gareth Magennis"
>
> Those 3 power resistors that look burnt are possibly part of the Zobel
> network. If you simply replace them they may just go again until you find
> why they burnt, which may be RF oscillations.
** RF oscillation - BOLLOCKS !!!
Supersonic frequency oscillation is the only cause.
> Check also the capacitor(s) in this network, or better still just replace
> it as well.
** Correct.
> The old C Audio RA series used to sometimes suffer from RF problems
** BOLLOCKS.
Wot the fuck is this insane " RF " crapology ?
It's an audio power amp - not a bloody radio transmitter !!!
....... Phil
Gareth Magennis
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:6d11lk...@mid.individual.net...
In my book RF stands for Really High Frequency Above The Range Of Human
Hearing, but writing RHFATROHH is a bit long winded, so RF will do.
But you are correct, I do mean HF, and replacing the entire (and why not
both) Zobel Network is a good idea in my book, as I have done in quite a few
C Audio RA series amplifiers, which had suffered from RHFATROHH problems.
By the way, "supersonic" is a bit last year, don't you think?
Gareth.
Gareth Magennis
Anyway, don't MOSFETS, which C Audio mostly used as their output devices,
suffer from real RF if the PCB etc is not carefully designed?
Gareth.
gwatts
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:6d11lk...@mid.individual.net...
>> "Gareth Magennis"
>>
>>> Those 3 power resistors that look burnt are possibly part of the Zobel
>>> network. If you simply replace them they may just go again until you
>>> find why they burnt, which may be RF oscillations.
>>
>> ** RF oscillation - BOLLOCKS !!!
>>
>> Supersonic frequency oscillation is the only cause.
>>
>>
>>> Check also the capacitor(s) in this network, or better still just replace
>>> it as well.
>>
>> ** Correct.
>>
>>
>>> The old C Audio RA series used to sometimes suffer from RF problems
>> ** BOLLOCKS.
>>
>> Wot the fuck is this insane " RF " crapology ?
>>
>> It's an audio power amp - not a bloody radio transmitter !!!
>>
>> ....... Phil
>
> In my book RF stands for Really High Frequency Above The Range Of Human
> Hearing, but writing RHFATROHH is a bit long winded, so RF will do.
The ITU starts its allocation table at 9 kHz, 'Radionavigation.'
> But you are correct, I do mean HF, and replacing the entire (and why not
> both) Zobel Network is a good idea in my book, as I have done in quite a few
> C Audio RA series amplifiers, which had suffered from RHFATROHH problems.
We had a gig where the MC was a host from a local AM station and we were
playing the station over the system before the show. When the quippies
powered up the bass rig it wiped out the radio. His rig was ringing at
about 600 kHz. It wasn't supposed to be a radio transmitter, and when
we unplugged his speakers it wasn't. His quippie reconfigured his
speaker cabling and it went away.
> By the way, "supersonic" is a bit last year, don't you think?
'Supersonic' usually implies a velocity, not frequency.
Phil Allison
>
>>> The old C Audio RA series used to sometimes suffer from RF problems
>>
>> ** BOLLOCKS.
>>
>> Wot the fuck is this insane " RF " crapology ?
>>
>> It's an audio power amp - not a bloody radio transmitter !!!
>>
>
> In my book RF stands for Really High Frequency Above The Range Of Human
> Hearing,
** ROTFL !!
Wot ASININE FUCKING CRAPOLOGY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go shove that fictitious BOOK right up your fat arse - fool.
> But you are correct, I do mean HF,
** MORE BOLLOCKS !!
HF = the short wave band
- you DOPEY FUCKING ASS !!
> By the way, "supersonic" is a bit last year, don't you think?
** NO !!!
And YOU do not think at all.
..... Phil
Phil Allison
"gwatts" == who ???
** This trolling, psycho fuckwit is one:
" Galen K. Watts " of Arbovale, WV.
= dangerous, gun toting, criminal ham radio operator, call sign W8LNA.
> Very good, psycho-boy can use an internet search engine.
** The vile cunt's home address and phone number are DEAD easy to find.
> Here ya go:
> HC 63 Box 309
** That would be: 14 Hanna Run Road.
> Arbovale, WV 24915-9741 304-456-5430
** So you have his home number.
> '...DEAD...' ha-ha, come here and try it, I'll mail your passport home
> for ya. Remember, we all have guns here.
** No surprise that some stinking ASSHOLE like " Galen K. Watts " is
100% in favour of gun murder at whim and treats publishing deaths threat
on AAPLS as a joke.
It aint no damn joke.
But a criminal scumbags like Galen K. Watts are.
..... Phil
Rupert
'Ultrasonic' would be the correct term. Common mistake just like
calling 'infrasonic' "subsonic." No such thing as a subsonic filter,
unless it's a filter that slows down mass at given vector. Infrasonics
are frequencies below the established human hearing range.
Rupert
Eeyore
Phil Allison wrote:
You know, I did wonder when I mentioned that. I'd originally imagined it was
a die failure mode thing.
So, did Hitachi simply use wimpy bonding wire compared to say Motorola ?
Of course the big MOT devices used those damn 'prongs' didn't they.
Geaham
Eeyore
Gareth Magennis wrote:
> "Joe Kotroczo" wrote
> >"Eeyore" wrote:
> >
> >>>>> And: does anybody happen to have a schematic for a C-Audio ST600
> >>>>> amplifier?
> >>
> >> Well I did once. God only knows where it is now after 3 company moves.
> >>
> >>>> 2u job ? With one puny fan at the back blowing blistering hot air over
> >>>> the reservoir caps at the front ?
> >>>>
> >>>> If it's the model I think it is, I could tell you a thing or two about
> >>>> that.
> >>>
> >>> It's a 2U job, with a single fan in the back, but the front half only
> >>> contains a big transformer.
> >>>
> >>> It's this one: http://www.gbaudio.co.uk/data/st600.htm
> >>
> >> That's the one ! I'll save the story of shame for later.
> >
> > I've put the pictures here:
> > http://homepage.mac.com/kotroczo/PhotoAlbum62.html
> >
> > Am I right in assuming that the left side should be the same as the right
> > side? Same value resistors? It looks like that, but I'd rather be safe
> > than sorry.
>
> Those 3 power resistors that look burnt are possibly part of the Zobel
> network. If you simply replace them they may just go again until you find
> why they burnt, which may be RF oscillations.
Agree 100%. Or inadvertent 'RF' on the input.
> Check also the capacitor(s)
> in this network, or better still just replace it as well. And the one on
> the other side for good measure.
Not quite sure why you suggest that, unless they're physically burnt.
> The old C Audio RA series used to sometimes suffer from RF problems and
> subsequent burnt Zobel networks, I heard it was some kind of poor grounding
> design, maybe someone else here could elaborate on causes and/or cures.
Well, I always thought they were a bit over-rated. I know someone who was
involved in designing the early ones and he wasn't what I'd call an analogue
design guy.
Graham
Eeyore
Phil Allison wrote:
> "Gareth Magennis"
> >
> > Those 3 power resistors that look burnt are possibly part of the Zobel
> > network. If you simply replace them they may just go again until you find
> > why they burnt, which may be RF oscillations.
>
> ** RF oscillation - BOLLOCKS !!!
>
> Supersonic frequency oscillation is the only cause.
Ultrasonic.
Come one - we're saying the same thing here. Don't argue over it. Please ?
Graham
Eeyore
Gareth Magennis wrote:
> By the way, "supersonic" is a bit last year, don't you think?
Concorde's no longer in service ! :-(
Graham
Eeyore
Gareth Magennis wrote:
> Anyway, don't MOSFETS, which C Audio mostly used as their output devices,
> suffer from real RF if the PCB etc is not carefully designed?
That's one way to make them oscillate ! LOL ! They were fun to tame when they
came out.
Good point though. Check the value of the series gate resistors. Expect anything
between 100 and 1000 ohms. Quite possibly ~ 330.
Graham
Gareth Magennis
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:486BCABD...@hotmail.com...
I seem to remember coming across a faulty one in a C Audio, and ever since
have just replaced them along with the resistors as they are so cheap. If
the resistors have burnt, then the caps may well have taken a beating too,
or may even have caused the problem, and I don't have to worry about them
any more.
Gareth.
gwatts
7/19 Prospect Rd
Summer Hill NSW 2130
Ph: +61 02 9799 8242
ABN: 88 719 310 180
wrote:
> "gwatts" == who ???
>
> ** This trolling, psycho fuckwit is one:
> " Galen K. Watts " of Arbovale, WV...
etc etc.
Ya been gone a while, Phil. I missed ya, but my aim is improving!
Gee Phil, wrong about 'supersonic' AND off your meds again.
Tsk tsk.
Oh, by the way: BANG!
Har har har! Almost got ya!
Denny Strauser
> Ya been gone a while, Phil. I missed ya, but my aim is improving!
> Gee Phil, wrong about 'supersonic' AND off your meds again.
> Tsk tsk.
> Oh, by the way: BANG!
> Har har har! Almost got ya!
Thanks for your insight ... just what we need. Someone to encourage &
participate in the pissing contest.
Not that I don't appreciate the entertainment. But..........
-Denny
Gareth Magennis
What kind of frequencies are we talking when they oscillate like this?
Gareth.
Eeyore
Gareth Magennis wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote
> > Gareth Magennis
> >
> >> Anyway, don't MOSFETS, which C Audio mostly used as their output devices,
> >> suffer from real RF if the PCB etc is not carefully designed?
> >
> > That's one way to make them oscillate ! LOL ! They were fun to tame when
> > they came out.
> >
> > Good point though. Check the value of the series gate resistors. Expect
> > anything between 100 and 1000 ohms. Quite possibly ~ 330.
>
> What kind of frequencies are we talking when they oscillate like this?
Crikey ! Now you're stetching an old man's memory without digging out the
Hitachi app notes. Low MHz or high 100's of kHz typically IIRC.
Enought to be a bugger.
It most likely wouldn't hurt to 'up' those Rg values by one E6 value btw.
Graham
Denny Strauser
While we're on the topic of oscillation problems, I'd like to ask
another question regarding the same.
On Yahama 3K, 4K & Midas Venice, I've experienced something that sounds
like an oscillation problem. On these consoles, when an EQ gain is
turned up the whole way & Frequency is swept while passing a signal,
there seems to be some sort of oscillation.
What is this?
-Denny
Gareth Magennis
>
>
> Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote
>> > Gareth Magennis
>> >
>> >> Anyway, don't MOSFETS, which C Audio mostly used as their output
>> >> devices,
>> >> suffer from real RF if the PCB etc is not carefully designed?
>> >
>> > That's one way to make them oscillate ! LOL ! They were fun to tame
>> > when
>> > they came out.
>> >
>> > Good point though. Check the value of the series gate resistors. Expect
>> > anything between 100 and 1000 ohms. Quite possibly ~ 330.
>>
>> What kind of frequencies are we talking when they oscillate like this?
>
> Crikey ! Now you're stetching an old man's memory without digging out the
> Hitachi app notes. Low MHz or high 100's of kHz typically IIRC.
>
> Enought to be a bugger.
Well actually it was to clear up whether "RF" is the correct term for the
frequencies involved or not. A certain Australian adamantly declares it is
not, another poster cited definitions to support it. I was just wondering
which ballpark we are in.
I have often heard such oscillations to be termed RF, which is why I used
it, but then many terms are misnamed, yet accepted, since we all know what
we are talking about really.
Actually, it really doesn't matter that much, does it. I'm off to bed.
Gareth.
Eeyore
Denny Strauser wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Gareth Magennis wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" wrote
> >>> Gareth Magennis
> >>>
> >>>> Anyway, don't MOSFETS, which C Audio mostly used as their output devices,
> >>>> suffer from real RF if the PCB etc is not carefully designed?
> >>> That's one way to make them oscillate ! LOL ! They were fun to tame when
> >>> they came out.
> >>>
> >>> Good point though. Check the value of the series gate resistors. Expect
> >>> anything between 100 and 1000 ohms. Quite possibly ~ 330.
> >> What kind of frequencies are we talking when they oscillate like this?
> >
> > Crikey ! Now you're stetching an old man's memory without digging out the
> > Hitachi app notes. Low MHz or high 100's of kHz typically IIRC.
> >
> > Enought to be a bugger.
> >
> > It most likely wouldn't hurt to 'up' those Rg values by one E6 value btw.
>
> While we're on the topic of oscillation problems, I'd like to ask
> another question regarding the same.
>
> On Yahama 3K, 4K & Midas Venice, I've experienced something that sounds
> like an oscillation problem. On these consoles, when an EQ gain is
> turned up the whole way & Frequency is swept while passing a signal,
> there seems to be some sort of oscillation.
>
> What is this?
Pot mistracking due to lack of regular use. One side of the frequency circuit goes
nearly open and it creates an oscillator around that EQ section..
Whizz the Freq pot back and forth a few times and it'll go away.
Graham
Eeyore
Gareth Magennis wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote
> > Gareth Magennis wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" wrote
> >> > Gareth Magennis
> >> >
> >> >> Anyway, don't MOSFETS, which C Audio mostly used as their output
> >> >> devices,
> >> >> suffer from real RF if the PCB etc is not carefully designed?
> >> >
> >> > That's one way to make them oscillate ! LOL ! They were fun to tame
> >> > when they came out.
> >> >
> >> > Good point though. Check the value of the series gate resistors. Expect
> >> > anything between 100 and 1000 ohms. Quite possibly ~ 330.
> >>
> >> What kind of frequencies are we talking when they oscillate like this?
> >
> > Crikey ! Now you're stetching an old man's memory without digging out the
> > Hitachi app notes. Low MHz or high 100's of kHz typically IIRC.
> >
> > Enought to be a bugger.
>
> Well actually it was to clear up whether "RF" is the correct term for the
> frequencies involved or not. A certain Australian adamantly declares it is
> not, another poster cited definitions to support it. I was just wondering
> which ballpark we are in.
Yes, you can safely ignore Phyllis on this point. He may have been thinking of
ultrasonic INPUT signals causing trouble which would also be a certain
possibility.
> I have often heard such oscillations to be termed RF, which is why I used
> it, but then many terms are misnamed, yet accepted, since we all know what
> we are talking about really.
Well, most ppl say 'RF' and leave it at that.
> Actually, it really doesn't matter that much, does it. I'm off to bed.
Have a good snooze.
Graham
Joe Kotroczo
Magennis" <sound....@btconnect.com> wrote:
(...)
>>
>> I've put the pictures here:
>> http://homepage.mac.com/kotroczo/PhotoAlbum62.html
>>
>> Am I right in assuming that the left side should be the same as the right
>> side? Same value resistors? It looks like that, but I'd rather be safe
>> than
>> sorry.
> Those 3 power resistors that look burnt are possibly part of the Zobel
> network. If you simply replace them they may just go again until you find
> why they burnt, which may be RF oscillations. Check also the capacitor(s)
> in this network, or better still just replace it as well. And the one on
> the other side for good measure.
>
> The old C Audio RA series used to sometimes suffer from RF problems and
> subsequent burnt Zobel networks, I heard it was some kind of poor grounding
> design, maybe someone else here could elaborate on causes and/or cures.
Thanks for the info.
--
Joe Kotroczo kotr...@mac.com
Joe Kotroczo
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I've put the pictures here:
>> http://homepage.mac.com/kotroczo/PhotoAlbum62.html
>>
>> Am I right in assuming that the left side should be the same as the right
>> side? Same value resistors? It looks like that, but I'd rather be safe than
>> sorry.
>
> I'd say that's a pretty safe assumption. Odd parts to burn out though, tends
> to suggest 'RF' oscillation on that channel perhaps, or RF on the input.
>
> I see they've changed the internal layout a bit too, replacing the more
> durable metal can output devices with plastic encapsulated ones.
>
> Check for symettrical clipping btw. They EAT output devices by running them
> too hot which then fail 'open' so it's not initially obvious.
Thanks.
--
Joe Kotroczo kotr...@mac.com
b...@yeruncle.com
wrote:
To be technically correct, RF would apply to any frequency capable of generating
radio waves, which is actually any alternating current, even within the audio
range, EG the USA military talks to it's submarines with an 11khz RF
transmitter... but it's important to note the difference between audio and
electrical energy.
I don't know the lowest practical frequency that can be used, but when talking
about audio equipment most people refer to 'ultrasonic' or 'supersonic'
frequencies rather than 'RF frequency's', which is usually used to refer to
interference, such as cell phone or such. Most audio amp SS units can't function
at real RF frequency's... although some tubes can!! :)
But I like the reference to RF as meaning "Really high Frequency!!! I'll have
to use that one on my boss!!!
P S the highest freq. osc. I've seen on an audio amp was around 85khz, but I
once saw a power supply oscillating above the capability of my scope... that was
caused by having some filter caps grounded on the phono pre amp board, I tried
adding all kinds of caps here and there, of all types, and nothing cured it,
till I un-soldered the existing electrolytic caps' ground leads and flew them
over to the main supply ground - some kind of design flaw I guess... worked
perfectly after that. The phono board had some kind of + - supply chip, probably
not bypassed properly. That was a long time ago!!
Denny Strauser
>
> Denny Strauser wrote:
>> On Yahama 3K, 4K & Midas Venice, I've experienced something that sounds
>> like an oscillation problem. On these consoles, when an EQ gain is
>> turned up the whole way & Frequency is swept while passing a signal,
>> there seems to be some sort of oscillation.
>>
>> What is this?
>
> Pot mistracking due to lack of regular use. One side of the frequency circuit goes
> nearly open and it creates an oscillator around that EQ section..
>
> Whizz the Freq pot back and forth a few times and it'll go away.
>
> Graham
>
Thanks for your insight. But, after hearing your opinion, I doubt it's
lack of regular use, but lack of cleaning the pots. Am I right? All of
these consoles were used constantly, but not serviced regularly.
A friend of mine (my former repairman, who now installs & repairs
electron microscopes) told me that there my be electromagnetic crosstalk
in the system. Due to poor shields and/or high power speaker cables near
mic cables.
Any thoughts on this?
-Denny
Phil Allison
"Rupert"
'Ultrasonic' would be the correct term. Common mistake just like
calling 'infrasonic' "subsonic." No such thing as a subsonic filter,
** Wot idiotic pedantic twaddle.
What IS common usage IS correct !!!!
The terms " supersonic oscillation " and " subsonic filter " ARE the
correct terms cos they are part of audio electronics jargon.
..... Phil
Phil Allison
<b...@yeruncle.com>
>
>
> To be technically correct, RF would apply to any frequency capable of
> generating
> radio waves,
** WRONG.
The context being * audio amps * makes it wrong usage.
...... Phil
Phil Allison
"Denny Strauser"
>
> Thanks for your insight. But, after hearing your opinion, I doubt it's
> lack of regular use, but lack of cleaning the pots. Am I right? All of
> these consoles were used constantly, but not serviced regularly.
** The pots used in the Midas Venice are near impossible to clean - they
are fully sealed types.
IME, they all go bad after only a few years and cause major problems, then
there are the dodgy ribbon cables.
A desk to avoid.
> A friend of mine (my former repairman, who now installs & repairs electron
> microscopes) told me that there my be electromagnetic crosstalk in the
> system. Due to poor shields and/or high power speaker cables near mic
> cables.
** Wot ridiculous BOLLOCKS !!!
ROTFL !!
...... Phil
Phil Allison
"Eeysore rabid fuckwit and lying charlatan "
>
>> Well actually it was to clear up whether "RF" is the correct term for the
>> frequencies involved or not.
** The * correct term* is the one in common uses for the matter.
> Yes, you can safely ignore Phyllis on this point.
** Very bad advice - from a very arrogant and stupid charlatan.
>> I have often heard such oscillations to be termed RF,
** By the terminally ignorant.
> Well, most ppl say 'RF' and leave it at that.
** Not where I live nor any audio electronics text I have seen.
>> Actually, it really doesn't matter that much, does it.
** The potential for misunderstanding the cause is ENORMOUS if you use the
term RF - cause that will get associated with radio mics and or radio / TV
broadcast signals being the cause of amplifier smoking.
...... Phil
Phil Allison
"Eeysore"
>
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
>> "Gareth Magennis"
>> >
>> > Those 3 power resistors that look burnt are possibly part of the Zobel
>> > network. If you simply replace them they may just go again until you
>> > find
>> > why they burnt, which may be RF oscillations.
>>
>> ** RF oscillation - BOLLOCKS !!!
>>
>> Supersonic frequency oscillation is the only cause.
>
> Ultrasonic.
** Wrong term - fuckwit.
And it ain't RF either.
...... Phil
Phil Allison
"Eeysore lying charlatan"
>
>> Those 3 power resistors that look burnt are possibly part of the Zobel
>> network. If you simply replace them they may just go again until you
>> find
>> why they burnt, which may be RF oscillations.
>
> Agree 100%. Or inadvertent 'RF' on the input.
** So it got too close to a radio mic on 600MHz - eh ??
FUCKWIT !!
...... Phil
Rupert
Maybe, maybe not. It's a slippery slope. You slide too far and you end
up with the likes of "ebonics". That said there are now additions for
supersonic to mean above the range of human hearing and subsonic to
mean below the range of human hearing in most dictionaries, thought
that wasn't previously the case. Pedantic, sure, but the those words
were technically incorrect in the give context not so long ago. I
figured someone as skilled as you in electronics would appreciate
that. I believe we had a similar discussion a while back about "watts
rms" which is also technically not correct though it's widely accepted
as technical jargon now. I don't see the harm in pointing out the
differences in origination of the terms and what is technically more
correct than the other. Technically by today's dictionary standards
your terminology is acceptable, right or wrong. What's your take on
polarity invert switches being called "phase" invert switches - a very
common console labeling for a switch that doesn't have any affect on
the time domain that a phase label would imply.
Rupert
Phil Allison
"Rupert the Fucking Pedantic IDIOT"
> 'Ultrasonic' would be the correct term. Common mistake just like
> calling 'infrasonic' "subsonic." No such thing as a subsonic filter,
>
> ** Wot idiotic pedantic twaddle.
>
> What IS common usage IS correct !!!!
>
> The terms " supersonic oscillation " and " subsonic filter " ARE the
> correct terms cos they are part of audio electronics jargon.
>
> ..... Phil
Maybe, maybe not. It's a slippery slope. You slide too far and you end
up with the likes of "ebonics".
** More asinine pedantic TWADDLE
- peeeeeeeeukkkkeeeeeee !!
That said there are now additions for
supersonic to mean above the range of human hearing and subsonic to
mean below the range of human hearing in most dictionaries, thought
that wasn't previously the case.
** WRONG.
The meaning is given is many old dictionaries.
The usage of " supersonic oscillation " dates way back to the early days
of electronics.
Pedantic, sure, but the those words
were technically incorrect in the give context not so long ago.
** WRONG !!!!
The term has been in common use among audio electronics folk for 60 years,
at least.
Something a colossal, bullshitting fuckwit like YOU would have no clue
about.
...... Phil
Phil Allison
"Rupert the bullshitting fucking LIAR " "
That said there are now additions for
supersonic to mean above the range of human hearing and subsonic to
mean below the range of human hearing in most dictionaries, thought
that wasn't previously the case.
** See:
This famous article by D.T.N. Williamson was written in 1947.
It contains the words:
" With component values as specified no trouble should be experienced from
instability due to the effects of unintentional positive feedback. Should
instability arise it will probably appear as oscillation at a supersonic
frequency. "
So, the term was already well established back then
- all of **61 years ago ** !!!!!
PISS OFF - YOU DAMN MORON !!!
...... Phil
Denny Strauser
Geesh!
I'll save the readers from re-reading the flaming quotes on this NG;
they're there for anyone to read.
I'd just like to suggest that the flaming "NOISE" quite often masks the
coherent "SIGNAL" that some people offer.
Am I wrong?
-Denny
Phil Allison
"Denny Strauser"
> Am I wrong?
** Entirely.
Get back to giving tips to sax players by email.
At least they paid to produce a load of worthless hot air.
..... Phil
Denny Strauser
In spite of what you think, I know that you have much intelligence to
share. But, your abrasiveness masks that. (Read: Prior Posts - Your Choice)
-Denny
Phil Allison
"Denny Strauser"
> In spite of what you think,
** Fuck off - Denny.
You are just another dumb TROLL wasting folk's time and misinforming.
How come you never attack the REAL TROLLS here - instead of wrongly
abusing me.
Fuck off.
..... Phil
Rupert
> "Rupert the bullshitting fucking LIAR " "
>
> That said there are now additions for
> supersonic to mean above the range of human hearing and subsonic to
> mean below the range of human hearing in most dictionaries, thought
> that wasn't previously the case.
>
> ** See:
>
>
> This famous article by D.T.N. Williamson was written in 1947.
>
> It contains the words:
>
> " With component values as specified no trouble should be experienced from
> instability due to the effects of unintentional positive feedback. Should
> instability arise it will probably appear as oscillation at a supersonic
> frequency. "
>
> So, the term was already well established back then
>
> - all of **61 years ago ** !!!!!
>
> PISS OFF - YOU DAMN MORON !!!
>
> ...... Phil
After some research it seems the word came into existance between 1915
and 1920 in relation to the speed of an object vs. the speed of sound.
In 1935 the meaning of sound beyond human hearing was added to the
dictionary. I stand corrected. What's your opinion on the polarity vs.
phase thing?
Rupert
Denny Strauser
> ** Fuck off - Denny.
> You are just another dumb TROLL wasting folk's time and misinforming.
> How come you never attack the REAL TROLLS here - instead of wrongly
> abusing me.
I'll probably hate myself in the morning for responding to this; but in
case you haven't noticed, I've tried my best to bring the the topic of
this NG back to Live-Sound, sans flaming. If you feel singled out,
please read my posts.
I'm an equal opportunity realist - for better or worse. It is unlikely
that anyone here can embarrass me more than I'm capable of on my own.
I'd just like this NG to be a comfortable place for intelligent dialog
to take place.
Don't you?
-Denny
Phil Allison
>
> That said there are now additions for
> supersonic to mean above the range of human hearing and subsonic to
> mean below the range of human hearing in most dictionaries, thought
> that wasn't previously the case.
>
> ** See:
>
> http://www.dc-daylight.ltd.uk/Valve-Audio-Interest/Articles-for-the-W...
>
> This famous article by D.T.N. Williamson was written in 1947.
>
> It contains the words:
>
> " With component values as specified no trouble should be experienced from
> instability due to the effects of unintentional positive feedback. Should
> instability arise it will probably appear as oscillation at a supersonic
> frequency. "
>
> So, the term was already well established back then
>
> - all of **61 years ago ** !!!!!
>
> PISS OFF - YOU DAMN MORON !!!
>
After some research it seems the word came into existance between 1915
and 1920 in relation to the speed of an object vs. the speed of sound.
In 1935 the meaning of sound beyond human hearing was added to the
dictionary. I stand corrected.
** Listen - you FUCKING DEMENTED CUNTHEAD !!
The meaning of **technical terms** is NOT to be found in a standard
dictionary at all !!
They may be found in a technical glossary or technical dictionary pertaining
to the particular subject matter.
The SAME word may have very different meanings when used in ordinary
language as compared to some special area of expertise or activity.
Go look at any legal dictionary for example.
The kindly go drop fucking dead.
..... Phil
Phil Allison
** Fuck off - Denny.
You are just another dumb TROLL wasting folk's time and misinforming.
How come you never attack the REAL TROLLS here - instead of wrongly
abusing me.
Fuck off.
..... Phil
Eeyore
b...@yeruncle.com wrote:
> To be technically correct, RF would apply to any frequency capable of generating
> radio waves, which is actually any alternating current, even within the audio
> range, EG the USA military talks to it's submarines with an 11khz RF
> transmitter... but it's important to note the difference between audio and
> electrical energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EM_Spectrum_Properties_edit.svg
Graham
Eeyore
Denny Strauser wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Denny Strauser wrote:
>
> >> On Yahama 3K, 4K & Midas Venice, I've experienced something that sounds
> >> like an oscillation problem. On these consoles, when an EQ gain is
> >> turned up the whole way & Frequency is swept while passing a signal,
> >> there seems to be some sort of oscillation.
> >>
> >> What is this?
> >
> > Pot mistracking due to lack of regular use. One side of the frequency circuit goes
> > nearly open and it creates an oscillator around that EQ section..
> >
> > Whizz the Freq pot back and forth a few times and it'll go away.
>
>
> Thanks for your insight. But, after hearing your opinion, I doubt it's
> lack of regular use, but lack of cleaning the pots. Am I right? All of
> these consoles were used constantly, but not serviced regularly.
Unusual. Freq pots don't see THAT much service usually and therefore aren't likely to be
physically badly worn.
The above method has always worked for me.
Any *decent* console should NOT need 'pot cleaning'. Mostly these days they are moulded
and sealed types.
You might also want to whizz the +/- pot back and forth a few times too for good
measure.
> A friend of mine (my former repairman, who now installs & repairs
> electron microscopes) told me that there my be electromagnetic crosstalk
> in the system. Due to poor shields and/or high power speaker cables near
> mic cables.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
Sounds like complete bollocks I'm afraid.
Graham
Eeyore
Phil Allison wrote:
So WHY did YOU 'correct' me once for innocently making exactly the same
mistake ?
Yes, we KNOW you're perfect.
Graham
Eeyore
Phil Allison wrote:
RF starts @ ~ 10 kHz.
Graham
Eeyore
Phil Allison wrote:
> "Eeysore rabid fuckwit and lying charlatan "
> >
> >> Well actually it was to clear up whether "RF" is the correct term for the
> >> frequencies involved or not.
>
> ** The * correct term* is the one in common uses for the matter.
COMMON or CORRECT ?
Graham
Eeyore
Phil Allison wrote:
Any competent audio tech knows EXACTLY what I mean.
RF starts @ 10kHz.
Graham
Eeyore
Rupert wrote:
> What's your take on
> polarity invert switches being called "phase" invert switches - a very
> common console labeling for a switch that doesn't have any affect on
> the time domain that a phase label would imply.
Too right by half !
Should be 'POL' or somesuch.
Graham
Eeyore
Denny Strauser wrote:
Antipodean noise is especially troublesome.
Graham
Eeyore
Denny Strauser wrote:
When Phyllis gets involved in a thread, it's best abandoned and restarted under
an unassuming name.
Graham
Phil Allison
"Eeysore the lying charlatan "
** When Graham Stevenson gets involved in a thread
- it will go on for hundreds of meaningless, stupid post that inform
no-one.
.... Phil
Phil Allison
"Eeysore Criminal LIAR"
>
> So WHY did YOU 'correct' me once for innocently making exactly the same
> mistake ?
** Post under the words you are referring to and do not snip relevant
context material - an absolute rule of usenet posting.
Only the worst ASD fucked morons * allude* to their mad internal thoughts
as fact.
..... Phil
Phil Allison
"Eeysore Criminal LIAR"
>
>> > To be technically correct, RF would apply to any frequency capable of
>> > generating radio waves,
>>
>> ** WRONG.
>>
>> The context being * audio amps * makes it wrong usage.
>
> RF starts @ ~ 10 kHz.
** The context being * audio amps * makes it wrong usage.
You fucking Asperger's syndrome fuckwit.
..... Phil
Phil Allison
"Eeysore Criminal LIAR"
> Any *decent* console should NOT need 'pot cleaning'.
** WRONG.
Mostly these days they are moulded
> and sealed types.
** WRONG - plus irrelevant to the need for cleaning,
...... Phil
Phil Allison
** Where does the meaning of words and terms come from ??????
You fucking Asperger's fucked, demented cunthead.
...... Phil
Phil Allison
** Irrelevant, wrong context nonsense.
The ASD fucked, fucking MORON will be telling us about RF tweeters next
!!!!!
ROTFLMAO !!!
...... Phil
gwatts
> gwatts wrote:
>> Ya been gone a while, Phil. I missed ya, but my aim is improving!
>> Gee Phil, wrong about 'supersonic' AND off your meds again.
>> Tsk tsk.
>> Oh, by the way: BANG!
>> Har har har! Almost got ya!
>
> Thanks for your insight ... just what we need. Someone to encourage &
> participate in the pissing contest.
>
> Not that I don't appreciate the entertainment. But..........
>
> -Denny
I think you're one message too far down the thread.
gwatts
>
> Denny Strauser wrote:
>
>>> Gareth Magennis wrote:
>>>> "Eeyore" wrote
>>>>> Gareth Magennis
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, don't MOSFETS, which C Audio mostly used as their output devices,
>>>>>> suffer from real RF if the PCB etc is not carefully designed?
>>>>> That's one way to make them oscillate ! LOL ! They were fun to tame when
>>>>> they came out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point though. Check the value of the series gate resistors. Expect
>>>>> anything between 100 and 1000 ohms. Quite possibly ~ 330.
>>>> What kind of frequencies are we talking when they oscillate like this?
>>> Crikey ! Now you're stetching an old man's memory without digging out the
>>> Hitachi app notes. Low MHz or high 100's of kHz typically IIRC.
>>>
>>> Enought to be a bugger.
>>>
>>> It most likely wouldn't hurt to 'up' those Rg values by one E6 value btw.
>> While we're on the topic of oscillation problems, I'd like to ask
>> another question regarding the same.
>>
>> On Yahama 3K, 4K & Midas Venice, I've experienced something that sounds
>> like an oscillation problem. On these consoles, when an EQ gain is
>> turned up the whole way & Frequency is swept while passing a signal,
>> there seems to be some sort of oscillation.
>>
>> What is this?
>
> Pot mistracking due to lack of regular use. One side of the frequency circuit goes
> nearly open and it creates an oscillator around that EQ section..
>
> Whizz the Freq pot back and forth a few times and it'll go away.
I've seen/heard it on brand new Furman PQ-3's, implying I don't think
it's a worn or dirty pot, more the filter circuit going unstable due to
the frequency related topology* changing while the gain is high. I've
only had it happen while sweeping and with the Q set for less than 1/2
octave width. Just keep the gain lower until you find the right
frequency, then adjust the gain to suit.
* If you want to go in to poles and zeros I will, but that gets a bit
pedantic.
0jun...@bellsouth.net
On 2008-07-03 phila...@tpg.com.au said:
>** The pots used in the Midas Venice are near impossible to clean -
>they are fully sealed types.
>IME, they all go bad after only a few years and cause major
>problems, then there are the dodgy ribbon cables.
>A desk to avoid.
A friend of mine in the midwest who *will* not read this
group concurs with PHil's opinion here.
ONly been behind one, iirc short faders.
>> A friend of mine (my former repairman, who now installs & repairs
>>electron microscopes) told me that there my be electromagnetic
>>crosstalk in the system. Due to poor shields and/or high power
>>speaker cables near mic cables.
>** Wot ridiculous BOLLOCKS !!!
IF there's poor shielding it's inside the desk imho. Again
iirc the Venice was MIdas' attempt at the budget end of the
market.
Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider
Phil Allison
0jun...@bellsouth.net>
phila...@tpg.com.au said:
>
> >** The pots used in the Midas Venice are near impossible to clean -
> >they are fully sealed types.
> >IME, they all go bad after only a few years and cause major
> >problems, then there are the dodgy ribbon cables.
> >A desk to avoid.
>
>
> A friend of mine in the midwest who *will* not read this
> group concurs with PHil's opinion here.
** You have an intelligent friend.
> ONly been behind one, iirc short faders.
** Yep.
A piece of way over-priced crap.
Made by the same Kraut assholes who bought the name "Dynacord" after that
famous firm went belly up.
Then re-badged as Midas - to fool the congenitally gullible.
One per minute birth rate .....
...... Phil
Joe Kotroczo
"0jun...@bellsouth.net" <0jun...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
We had a thread on this back in 2001:
http://groups.google.lu/group/alt.audio.pro.live-sound/browse_thread/thread/
18c7364e88b2047c/c1f0daff17978ca2?lnk=st&q=midas+venice+dynacord#c1f0daff179
78ca2
The claim was that the Venice is a Dynacord with a Midas label on it.
--
Joe Kotroczo kotr...@mac.com
bob urz
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2003-05-19-hss_x.htm
bob
> ROTFLMAO !!!
>
>
>
> ...... Phil
>
>
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Eeyore
Phil Allison wrote:
> "Phyllis the lying charlatan "
>
> ** When Phil Allison gets involved in a thread
Eeyore
gwatts wrote:
Must be very poor track matching I'd imagine then. Higher Qs would exacerbate the
problem.
Graham
Eeyore
Joe Kotroczo wrote:
> "0jun...@bellsouth.net" <0jun...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > IF there's poor shielding it's inside the desk imho. Again
> > iirc the Venice was MIdas' attempt at the budget end of the
> > market.
>
> We had a thread on this back in 2001:
>
> http://groups.google.lu/group/alt.audio.pro.live-sound/browse_thread/thread/
> 18c7364e88b2047c/c1f0daff17978ca2?lnk=st&q=midas+venice+dynacord#c1f0daff179
> 78ca2
>
> The claim was that the Venice is a Dynacord with a Midas label on it.
Which in turn was previously a DDA. It may even have made a brief appareance as
an Altec IIRC.
Graham
b...@yeruncle.com
wrote:
>>
>>
>> To be technically correct, RF would apply to any frequency capable of
>> generating
>> radio waves,
>
>
> ** WRONG.
>
> The context being * audio amps * makes it wrong usage.
>
>
>
>...... Phil
>
So you say that because it's an audio amp any oscillations in the amp have to be
related to audio - IE supersonic rather than radio frequency?
Fair enough I guess... I never thought about it before.
Thanks Phil
Bob
Phil Allison
<b...@yeruncle.com>
>>> To be technically correct, RF would apply to any frequency capable of
>>> generating radio waves,
>>
>>
>> ** WRONG.
>>
>> The context being * audio amps * makes it wrong usage.
>>
>>
> So you say..
** What I wrote.
Not some dopey shit YOU wrote.
...... Phil
Eeyore
b...@yeruncle.com wrote:
> "Phil Allison" wrote:
> ><b...@yeruncle.com>
> >>
> >> To be technically correct, RF would apply to any frequency capable of
> >> generating radio waves,
> >
> > ** WRONG.
Correct. Therer are however conventions that seek to separate the accepted bands.
> > The context being * audio amps * makes it wrong usage.
> >
> >...... Phil
>
> So you say that because it's an audio amp any oscillations in the amp have to be
> related to audio - IE supersonic rather than radio frequency?
>
> Fair enough I guess... I never thought about it before.
>
> Thanks Phil
Except that *SUPERSONIC* means something else entirely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic
I accidentally used the term once myself here when I meant ultrasonic and Phil gave
me no end of trouble over it. You see Phil is in his mind 'never wrong', he has a
mental illness, so he's not to be taken entirely seriously although he is quite
technically competent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound
Is the one you want, but most techs call oscillation in 50-100kHz+ or so region
'RF'.
Graham
Eeyore
Phil Allison wrote:
>
> > So you say..
>
> ** What I wrote.
>
> Not some dopey shit YOU wrote.
>
> ...... Phil
SHUT UP you pompous windbag.
Graham
Phil Allison
"Eeysore"
** That is outrageous nonsense.
Some fuckwit anonymous asshole was writing his own words and claiming I said
them.
He is an utterly ignorant pig.
But the Graham Stevenson criminal charlatan makes him look good.
...... Phil
Phil Allison
>> So you say that because it's an audio amp any oscillations in the amp
>> have to be
>> related to audio - IE supersonic rather than radio frequency?
>>
>
> Except that *SUPERSONIC* means something else entirely.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic
** See:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supersonic
http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/supersonic
You ignorant, fucking TWAT !!!!
> I accidentally used the term once myself here when I meant ultrasonic and
> Phil gave
> me no end of trouble over it.
** Entirely false.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound
** Ultrasound refers only to sound waves.
> Is the one you want, but most techs call oscillation in 50-100kHz+ or so
> region
> 'RF'.
** Entirely false.
The term is "supersonic oscillation" - it has been part of audio
electronics terminology since the 1930s or longer.
Williamson used it in his famous 1947 paper:
The only "techs" that might use "RF" instead are completely incompetent
jerk-offs like Graham Stevenson who came down in the last shower and were
raised on computer terminology.
..... Phil
Eeyore
Phil Allison wrote:
Clutching at 1947 straws now ?
Graham
Phil Allison
"Eeysore Fucking LIAR and Criminal Charlatan "
> Clutching at 1947 straws now ?
** A drowning charlatan will clutch at one.
Gurgle, gurgle, gurgle .......
Here come the sharks .....
...... Phil
b...@yeruncle.com
wrote:
>
Well, I mistakenly thought you were a civilized human being... I was wrong on
all counts...
You are sick, son, really sick... seek help... really... before someone takes
care of you permanantly...
Phil Allison
<b...@yeruncle.com>
( snip idiotic abuse from this POS moron)
** Go drop FUCKING dead
- you colossally stupid FUCKWIT !!
...... Phil
b...@yeruncle.com
Well, I've done my share of work on RF equipment, from short wave radio to
business UHF and VHF FM, including communication towers and city wide cell
transmitters, so I know the definition of RF : RADIO FREQUENCY ; which can be
found in defective audio equipment.
There is something definitely wrong with that Phil character! Imagine swearing
at everything anyone says that doesn't exactly fit your concepts! Wow, what a
psycho! There must be a name for that disease, beside delusions of grandeur...
maybe he's short and has a Napoleon complex! There are a few like that at
work... but nowhere near as bad. I bet he works alone, no company would accept
a toxic personality like that for long... he acts like everything everyone says
is some kind of challange to him!
And I also bet money he ain't married! Possibly that's part of his psychosis,
hasn't been laid since the 60s!!
I'll make a point of ignoring him from now on, that really bums the trolls!
Phil Allison
b...@yeruncle.com
> Well, I've done my share of work on RF equipment, from short wave radio to
> business UHF and VHF FM, including communication towers and city wide cell
> transmitters, so I know the definition of RF : RADIO FREQUENCY ; which can
> be
> found in defective audio equipment.
** So YOU have no knowledge of audio amplifier terminology nor the
slightest idea what "supersonic oscillation " of an audio power amp really
is nor what causes it.
Nor the slightest idea that publicly putting your words in someone else's
mouth is the act of a complete ass.
Nor the slightest idea that posting insane abuse when you simply cannot
understand what is being said by a person far more knowledgeable about
something than YOU = the act of a TOTAL CUNT.
Kindly get cancer and die - you
FUCKING MORONIC PIG.
...... Phil
Eeyore
Phil Allison wrote:
> ** So YOU have no knowledge of audio amplifier terminology nor the
> slightest idea what "supersonic oscillation " of an audio power amp really
> is nor what causes it.
Hey Phildo,
Your claim is to stop peole talking crap on here. How about taking on Allison
and his 'supersonic' oscillations ?
Graham
Phil Allison
> Hey Phildo..........
** A drowning charlatan will even clutch at an enemy for help.
Gurgle, gurgle, gurgle .......
Here come the hungry sharks to rip him to pieces.
The ugly, fat vile pommy pig will make a nice snack.
...... Phil
b...@yeruncle.com
b...@yeruncle.com
wrote:
>
>b...@yeruncle.com
>
>> Well, I've done my share of work on RF equipment, from short wave radio to
>> business UHF and VHF FM, including communication towers and city wide cell
>> transmitters, so I know the definition of RF : RADIO FREQUENCY ; which can
>> be
>> found in defective audio equipment.
>
>
>** So YOU have no knowledge of audio amplifier terminology nor the
>slightest idea what "supersonic oscillation " of an audio power amp really
>is nor what causes it.
yes I do, but you don't know what RF is, I'm not surprised since you aren't a
radio technician, only an audio cretin... let me know when you improve your
education to include frequencies above 75khz...
>Nor the slightest idea that publicly putting your words in someone else's
>mouth is the act of a complete ass.
I never did any such thing, I was repeating your IDEAS which you later said were
"dopey"... think about it... funny!
>Nor the slightest idea that posting insane abuse when you simply cannot
>understand what is being said by a person far more knowledgeable about
>something than YOU = the act of a TOTAL CUNT.
total cunt? Those are your words... the insane abuse is YOUR doing, as
everyone knows...
BTW the use of words describing a woman's anatomy as swear words shows your
hatred of women, due to the fact you haven't been laid since the 60s...
>Kindly get cancer and die - you
>
> FUCKING MORONIC PIG.
>
well at least I'm fucking, a task you perform alone no doubt...
>
>
>...... Phil
>
I've often wondered how someone could prove he was a psychopath, and here you
are offering us all a public demonstration! Keep up the good work, jock-o !
Phil Allison
<b...@yeruncle.com
** This TROLLING asshole IS A FUCKING MORON !!
>
>>
>>** So YOU have no knowledge of audio amplifier terminology nor the
>>slightest idea what "supersonic oscillation " of an audio power amp
>>really
>>is nor what causes it.
>
> yes I do,
** No you do not - YOU FUCKING LIAR !!
>>Nor the slightest idea that publicly putting your words in someone else's
>>mouth is the act of a complete ass.
>
> I never did any such thing,
** Yes you did - YOU FUCKING LIAR !!
>>Nor the slightest idea that posting insane abuse when you simply cannot
>>understand what is being said by a person far more knowledgeable about
>>something than YOU = the act of a TOTAL CUNT.
>
> total cunt?
** A TOTAL CUNT is exactly what YOU ARE .
A completely brain dead, autistic CUNT !!
Get cancer and die - you
FUCKING MORONIC TROLL !!!
...... Phil
Phil Allison
<b...@yeruncle.com>
>>
>>** So YOU have no knowledge of audio amplifier terminology nor the
>>slightest idea what "supersonic oscillation " of an audio power amp
>>really
>>is nor what causes it.
>
> yes I do,
** Then post *your* explanation in here:
We all need a good laugh.
--------------------------------------------------------
Audio power amps used in live sound systems can suffer damage from breaking
into " supersonic oscillation " which is caused by the following:
1.
2.
3.
---------------------------------------------------------
..... Phil
Eeyore
Phil Allison wrote:
> <b...@yeruncle.com>
> >>
> >>** So YOU have no knowledge of audio amplifier terminology nor the
> >>slightest idea what "supersonic oscillation " of an audio power amp
> >>really
> >>is nor what causes it.
> >
> > yes I do,
>
> ** Then post *your* explanation in here:
>
> We all need a good laugh.
Application of Super Sonic Oscillation for Tooth Preparation: Report of 3 Cases
Accession number;03A0793496
Title;Application of Super Sonic Oscillation for Tooth Preparation: Report of 3
Cases
Author;IWASAKI SATORU(Meikai Univ., School of Dentistry) YAMADA
TOSHIHIDE(Meikai Univ., School of Dentistry) MIYAMOTO MEGUMI(Meikai Univ.,
School of Dentistry) ISHIHARA SACHIYO(Meikai Univ., School of Dentistry)
KATAYAMA TADASHI(Meikai Univ., School of Dentistry)
Journal Title;Journal of Meikai University School of Dentistry
Journal Code:Z0804A
ISSN:0916-0701
VOL.32;NO.1;PAGE.168-176(2003)
Figure&Table&Reference;FIG.33, REF.13
Pub. Country;Japan
Language;Japanese
Abstract;The new concept of MI (minimal intervention) has been recommended in
recent years. Super sonic oscillation for tooth preparation can be a useful
part of MI. In these presently described cases, SONICflex cariex with sonic
oscillation for tooth preparation to treat proximal surface caries. Sonicsys
Inlay was used in conjunction with composite resin. The new sonic oscillation
for tooth preparation and the clinical technique for its use are discussed. As
a result, major advantages of this method were tooth preparation using MI, the
lack of pain, esthetic results, and safety of preparation. (author abst.)
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200324/000020032403A0793496.php
Phil Allison
"Eeyore" = Pooh Bear = Poopie = Graham Stevenson = Pommy Ratbag
> There's only a couple on here who are IMHO
> a shame to the group
** One of them is YOU - Stevenson.
YOU are a disgrace, a monstrous charlatan and fake, an insufferable
egomaniac and pox on the face of the planet.
You spread your PIG IGNORANCE about with every post impeding the flow of
real information.
Get off usenet and stay off.
YOU are a usenet CRIMINAL.
..... Phil