Question for Lord Valve

[CYP2D6]

Can you explain to me how a cathode follower works and why that
particular design might be used? I'm not sure I understand it properly
and if I'm going to ask for advice online, I want to be sure I get an
expert's insight into how they actually work.

[Defiant]

Some libtards seem to have nothing better to do than bang away at LV's
boot...

[JHATG]

In article <pan.2013.05...@nospam.com>,

Defiant <tras...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Some libtards seem to have nothing better to do than bang away at LV's
> boot...

Some righttards have nothing better to do than suck his dick.

[Lord Valve]

Suck monkey cock, RS.

[White Spirit]

Is there any particular species of monkey that you would recommend?

Btw., the headers don't suggest RS in the slightest.

[Lord Valve]

White Spirit wrote:

> On 09/05/13 19:51, Lord Valve wrote:
>
> > CYP2D6 wrote:
>
> >> Can you explain to me how a cathode follower works and why that
> >> particular design might be used? I'm not sure I understand it properly
> >> and if I'm going to ask for advice online, I want to be sure I get an
> >> expert's insight into how they actually work.
>
> > Suck monkey cock, RS.
>
> Is there any particular species of monkey that you would recommend?

A large one, with syphilis.

> Btw., the headers don't suggest RS in the slightest.

Run with that.

[RS]

Now there's a vote of confidence! :-) The guard dogs are so
accustomed to snapping into defense mode to protect those boots that
they might forget...there are people out there still under the
delusion that Valvie actually knows this stuff. After all, he named
himself "Lord Valve," didn't he?

Nah, I'm gonna agree with Deficient here--Valve probably has no clue,
even though CF's would be around p15 of "Electronics for Pretentious
Blowhards." The question must be from the all-pervasive enemy who
wants to expose him as a hack.

I'll give him a chance though! :-) How's a cathode follower work,
Valvie? Nothing to lose--even your guard dogs have realized that you
have no chops. Some just served you a hanging slider right over the
plate.

[RS]

Not me. I thought it must be one of Valvie's old fans, serving him a
slow pitch like that. Still gonna fly right past him though, I see.

[Bruce Morgen]

Translation: "I think I know
the answer, but I'm so unsure
of myself that I'll just take
an adolescent potshot at a
real design engineer and run
away instead."

[Bruce Morgen]

Yup, won't even venture a
guess and too lazy to look
it up.

[RS]

Nice detective skills, sad old doof. Given the simplicity of the
question, I think it's probably one of your old admirers giving you a
chance to show your stuff. What do you have to lose? Even your
lapdogs seem to acknowledge that you're a hack.

I'll answer the guy's question, but I'll give you a day to figure out
how a cathode follower works first. At worst, you'll just miss another
one. But who knows, you might get lucky.

I'm curious about something. You're so obsessed with defending
yourself from omnipresent imaginary foes like Denver-based terrorists
and commies (and this guy who asked you a tech question) that you're
building a private arsenal. Yet you don't equip yourself to defend
your sorry ass on aga. You routinely show up to get your butt kicked
every day. All it would take is reading a few electronics and math
books. At least then it wouldn't be such an easy slam dunk.

[Lord Valve]

Some part of "suck monkey cock" you didn't understand?

[RS]

CYP2D6 (bio sciences, or recreational?),
I'm sure you've noticed that ol' Valve is hardly an expert, but who
knows, maybe he'll get this one. He may be the one to comment on
CYP2D6 though.

I'll get back soon, after Valvie gives it a try. Let me know if
there's anything special about the configuration (driver? impedance
translation for tone stack?) and I'll address that context.

[Kaie Fabiaen]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 15:24:21 -0400, RS <R...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:

>Not me. I thought it must be one of Valvie's old fans, serving him a
>slow pitch like that. Still gonna fly right past him though, I see.

..like your comment about amps that *I* went into detail about
how the POWER SUPPLY works towards ADSR. You ignored it all.

Yet, history proves me right. You just are blind, or too text book
blind, or..wait..this *IS a GUITAR AMP GROUP.. write that down.

Not CDs, not home Hi-Fi. Not headphones... Need a pen?

You pick and choose whatever lame response you need to fuel
your jerk off battle with LV and others, yet when faced with
GUITAR AMP REALITY..you fall flat on your face...or run & hide..

..need I remind you this is a GUITAR AMP GROUP..???

...and I slow'd yer machine right down...

The most amazing thing is, I just laugh about it. I've been going
thru PAPER from the 70's on when I started working with AMP
companies, and M'Lady & I just chuckle. 2 many stones in crowns.

..because it just don't matter. People like you can recite text books
till you shit yer pants, and hey, I have to say, you know ya shineola
there..but in the GUITAR AMP WORLD..ya are peons. Wanna' bee's.

I respect LV because HE is in the same boat, and while we may not
agree politics wise (THIS IS A GUITAR AMP GROUP) the real world, the
REALITY of that world you kiddies buy and dream of..well..he's there.

Tell me, RS..in the last 30+ years, how many GUITAR AMP BIZ owners
know you by name, have dealt with you, and good or bad, remember.?

It blows my mind seeing all the UK and US stuff I saved, paper wise.

And I can back up my big mouth, RS.. People want to buy the paper..

Why, I have no idea, except in some ways, it settles their old wars...

...kayfabe.. You are on the inside, or watch it happen from the
stands..what ticket to you have RS..row 32, seat 12 ? hehehe..

..need I remind you this is a GUITAR AMP GROUP..???

Let me know, I'll get you a back stage pass...


JJTj


I wear Brooks clothes and white shoes all the time
I wear Brooks clothes and white shoes all the time

Get 3 "Cs," da "D" & think checks from home sublime

I don�t keep no dogs or women in my room
I don�t keep no dogs or women in my room

But I�ll love my Vincent Baby, until the day of doom

Rinehart, Rinehart, I�m a most indiff�rent guy
Rinehart, Rinehart, I�m a most indiff�rent guy

But I love my Vincent Baby, and that�s no Harvard lie

Institute and Porky are my clubs
Institute and Porky are my clubs

And I think that girls at Radcliffe all are dubs

Went to Groton and got a big broad A
Went to Groton and got a big broad A

Now at Harvard and follow an indiff�rent way

Do my drinking down in the cool Ritz Bar
Do my drinking down in the cool Ritz Bar

Dad is Racquet and Chilton is my ma.




http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/09/i-love-my-vincent-baby-html







*> SENT FROM CELL MAKNAMB DOCK9# KLAO*^*L7NMJKAAYJ&*HM <*
*> DATE REPLY MODEFINE GIGANEWS 2988777##ZJU78YTT-AKIOL78II6<*

[Bruce Morgen]

Kaie Fabiaen <the real world.reality.konk> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 May 2013 15:24:21 -0400, RS <R...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Not me. I thought it must be one of Valvie's old fans, serving him a
>>slow pitch like that. Still gonna fly right past him though, I see.
>
>..like your comment about amps that *I* went into detail about
>how the POWER SUPPLY works towards ADSR. You ignored it all.
>
>Yet, history proves me right. You just are blind, or too text book
>blind, or..wait..this *IS a GUITAR AMP GROUP.. write that down.

Guitar amps are first and
foremost *amps* -- write
that down!

>
>Not CDs, not home Hi-Fi. Not headphones... Need a pen?

The same principles apply,
they're just applied
differently due to
different design goals.
If you don't understand
those principles to a
mathematical certainty,
you're not a design
engineer. Period.

>
>You pick and choose whatever lame response you need to fuel
>your jerk off battle with LV and others, yet when faced with
>GUITAR AMP REALITY..you fall flat on your face...or run & hide..

Jay, RS's technical advice
to me was spot-on, and even
before the project was
complete it resulted in the
best small amp I've ever
used -- and I bought my
first amp, a BF Dual Showman
with JBL D-130Fs, in 1969,
so I know what good amps
sound like.

>
>..need I remind you this is a GUITAR AMP GROUP..???
>
>...and I slow'd yer machine right down...
>
>The most amazing thing is, I just laugh about it. I've been going
>thru PAPER from the 70's on when I started working with AMP
>companies, and M'Lady & I just chuckle. 2 many stones in crowns.
>
>..because it just don't matter. People like you can recite text books
>till you shit yer pants, and hey, I have to say, you know ya shineola
>there..but in the GUITAR AMP WORLD..ya are peons. Wanna' bee's.
>
>I respect LV because HE is in the same boat,

Yup, you're both long-in-
the-tooth bench techs with
delusions of design chops.

>and while we may not
>agree politics wise (THIS IS A GUITAR AMP GROUP) the real world, the
>REALITY of that world you kiddies buy and dream of..well..he's there.

He's a small market bench
tech with a mail order tube
business. Whoop-dee-doo...

>
>Tell me, RS..in the last 30+ years, how many GUITAR AMP BIZ owners
>know you by name, have dealt with you, and good or bad, remember.?
>
>It blows my mind seeing all the UK and US stuff I saved, paper wise.
>
>And I can back up my big mouth, RS.. People want to buy the paper..

That makes you a nostalgia
collector, not a designer.

>
>Why, I have no idea, except in some ways, it settles their old wars...
>
>...kayfabe.. You are on the inside, or watch it happen from the
>stands..what ticket to you have RS..row 32, seat 12 ? hehehe..

This demonstrates that you
know how to suck up -- which
makes you a de facto groupie,
not a designer.

>
>..need I remind you this is a GUITAR AMP GROUP..???
>
>Let me know, I'll get you a back stage pass...
>

Don't bait him, Jay -- he'll
granulate you (or any bench
tech with delusions of design
chops) without even breaking
a sweat. Your ego, like your
butt-buddy's, is writing
checks your knowledge can't
cash. He's honchoed more MI
design projects than all the
wannabes on AGA combined, and
no amount of implied name
dropping can change that.

Sincerely, someone who's
supervised bench techs and
worked with legitimate
design engineers for decades
and therefore knows the
difference between the two.

[RS]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 16:03:08 -0600, Lord Valve

None of it, but if you can explain how that's done, I'll explain
cathode followers for you. :-)

Ha! Like I said, you're defenseless. So you can't answer the OP's
question then. That's pitiful.

OK then, JJTj, it's up to you. Your buddy Valve has failed again. The
aga-right-wing-nut-o-sphere is counting on you for redemption.
How's a cathode follower work? Extra points for coherent English.

[Les Cargill]

Bruce Morgen wrote:
> Kaie Fabiaen <the real world.reality.konk> wrote:

<snip>
>... He's honchoed more MI

> design projects than all the
> wannabes on AGA combined, and
> no amount of implied name
> dropping can change that.
>

See, I did not know that! The plot thickens - I
am utterly ignorant of this man's resume.

That's not a request for info; just
an observation.

> Sincerely, someone who's
> supervised bench techs and
> worked with legitimate
> design engineers for decades
> and therefore knows the
> difference between the two.
>

--
Les Cargill

[Kaie Fabiaen]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:09:09 -0400, Bruce Morgen <edi...@juno.com>
wrote:

>Guitar amps are first and
>foremost *amps* -- write
>that down!

..that work a certain way...

If you don't understand that..you don't need to find a pen...

>>Not CDs, not home Hi-Fi. Not headphones... Need a pen?

>The same principles apply,
>they're just applied
>differently due to
>different design goals.

If you think a guitar pluged into a Marshall stack is the same
as in CD player, buck-o, start flipping hamburgers...

>If you don't understand
>those principles to a
>mathematical certainty,
>you're not a design
>engineer. Period.

..then do the 'math' on ya CD player.

Ya Marshall stack ain't the same...

Or do you know why a Marshall is NOT a Hiwatt..?

..and do you know why effects differ between the two..or more...?

Plug THAT thru ya ipuke..

>>You pick and choose whatever lame response you need to fuel
>>your jerk off battle with LV and others, yet when faced with
>>GUITAR AMP REALITY..you fall flat on your face...or run & hide..

>Jay, RS's technical advice
>to me was spot-on, and even
>before the project was
>complete it resulted in the
>best small amp I've ever
>used --

You haven't used many good amps. THAT is what pisses me
off about RS..he DOES know the math..just not the MoJo..

I never said he was stupid. I learned by reading boiks LONG ago,
it's not so cut and dry in the R&R world. *THAT* was what got me
'kayfabe' with the big boyz. I knew how to play what game that
needed to be played to make the buyer happy..I LEAREND what
made 'x' icon amp sound that way. I started at 18. U ? RS ?

When 'icon' stars needed UK amps fixed in my area, all the
'bench techs' stayed home. I was called. "..kayfabe.."

..I'm talking GUITAR AMP BIZ DIRECT CONTACT WISE..

>...and I bought my

>first amp, a BF Dual Showman
>with JBL D-130Fs, in 1969,
>so I know what good amps
>sound like.

..great amp..got 2 of them..no sheit, but do you all
know just WHY it sounds so good with JBLs, yet better
with Altecs..I mean besides, Fender's deal with JBL..

>>I respect LV because HE is in the same boat,

>Yup, you're both long-in-
>the-tooth bench techs with
>delusions of design chops.

..oh please..while I need not speak for LV, as far
as me, I never..ever would of worked for multi amp
companies in the R&D/Tech factory field if they thought
I was a hack.. How many YOU work for...? I'll hold..

...............................................
....................................

>He's a small market bench
>tech with a mail order tube
>business. Whoop-dee-doo...

..yet the folks I mention his name to trust him..

They have no clue who you are...

>That makes you a nostalgia
>collector, not a designer.

..history has a funny way of proving facts...you got any...?

>>Why, I have no idea, except in some ways, it settles their old wars...

>>...kayfabe.. You are on the inside, or watch it happen from the
>>stands..what ticket to you have RS..row 32, seat 12 ? hehehe..

>This demonstrates that you
>know how to suck up -- which
>makes you a de facto groupie,
>not a designer.

..wow..that hurt..and proves you to be a loser wanna be...

>>..need I remind you this is a GUITAR AMP GROUP..???

>>Let me know, I'll get you a back stage pass...

>Don't bait him, Jay -- he'll
>granulate you (or any bench
>tech with delusions of design
>chops) without even breaking
>a sweat. Your ego, like your
>butt-buddy's, is writing
>checks your knowledge can't
>cash. He's honchoed more MI
>design projects than all the
>wannabes on AGA combined, and
>no amount of implied name
>dropping can change that.

..wow..you all speak of others backing up LV..and now the above?

..do you wear PJ's with his name on it. I seldom think of LV, and
often do not agree with his politics, yet gawdess, I think RS would
be insulted by the above statement. I even respect him more.

>Sincerely, someone who's
>supervised bench techs and
>worked with legitimate
>design engineers for decades
>and therefore knows the
>difference between the two.

Some people replace parts. Some people know how GUITAR AMPS
work..some people wrestle, some people 'job'. Some are fans, or
groupies, others are 'kayfabe'. RS I give credit for knowing his
craft, maybe not how GUITAR AMPS work, but you are a joke..

JJTj




..All ya folks just knew, that in 1995, ya hit the
*B*I*G* time, when ya head lin'd the TV tape's
for the big show on 4/7, @ 8 pm, at the old time
Pikeville KY College Gym. Ringside, $8, 'GA' $6
Kids $5. "..Golden Circle $15.." 606 432-x3xx..

Wrestling TV ad. 1995

[Kaie Fabiaen]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:20:32 -0400, RS <R...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:

>OK then, JJTj, it's up to you. Your buddy Valve has failed again. The
>aga-right-wing-nut-o-sphere is counting on you for redemption.
>How's a cathode follower work? Extra points for coherent English.

..give me a break..

I've proven my know how in the GUITAR AMP world here..

THIS IS A GUITAR AMP GROUP..

I did not 'bait' you into anything..

..and sheit, if this guy can't find said info on
the internet other then waiting for you to bait
me or anyone else, he should be flipping burgers.

So go for it, tell him. I mean, it's simple, and does
involve whatever circuit he's dealing with in the 1st place.

..you DO understand that a 'cathode follower' is like that..?

I replied to your statements with direct answers from
decades of GUITAR AMP BIZ know how. You ignored them.

..I don't dance to your tunes.. You ignore my reality

..GUITAR AMP REALITY..

All the guy has to do is 'google' 'cathode follower'...

...I don't dance to your tunes, I just gave the guy the means to
find out what he needs, and you just want to bait others...

Just tell him, RS.. I know you know the answers...

..or do you just want to play stupid games here...?


I don't play ANYONE's games...

...not even my own... :)

JJTj

[Bruce Morgen]

Kaie Fabiaen <the real world.reality.konk> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:09:09 -0400, Bruce Morgen <edi...@juno.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Guitar amps are first and
>>foremost *amps* -- write
>>that down!
>
>..that work a certain way...
>
>If you don't understand that..you don't need to find a pen...

Don't try and pull rank on
me again like you did
regarding patent apps -- in
fact, they work a number of
different ways, depending on
the technology employed and
the design goal involved,
but regardless real chops
are involved.

>
>>>Not CDs, not home Hi-Fi. Not headphones... Need a pen?
>
>>The same principles apply,
>>they're just applied
>>differently due to
>>different design goals.
>
>If you think a guitar pluged into a Marshall stack is the same
>as in CD player, buck-o, start flipping hamburgers...

...and if you think that's
a relevant and effective
response, I suggest
remedial English
instruction ASAP.

>
>>If you don't understand
>>those principles to a
>>mathematical certainty,
>>you're not a design
>>engineer. Period.
>
>..then do the 'math' on ya CD player.
>
>Ya Marshall stack ain't the same...
>
>Or do you know why a Marshall is NOT a Hiwatt..?
>

Yeah, the circuitry is
different, as are the
speakers and cabs, for
starters.

>..and do you know why effects differ between the two..or more...?
>
>Plug THAT thru ya ipuke..

Whatever that's supposed to
mean or imply...

Never had one with Altecs,
so I won't comment. Both
JBLs and Altecs are better
than the usual run of
guitar speakers because
they were designed to a
performance goal and not a
price point -- features
like cast aluminum frames,
precision-machined magnet
gaps, and edge-wound voice
coils take skill and money
to do right, and your
typical Oxford or Jensen
"MI" speaker is much
easier and cheaper to make.

>>>I respect LV because HE is in the same boat,
>
>>Yup, you're both long-in-
>>the-tooth bench techs with
>>delusions of design chops.
>
>..oh please..while I need not speak for LV, as far
>as me, I never..ever would of worked for multi amp
>companies in the R&D/Tech factory field if they thought
>I was a hack.. How many YOU work for...? I'll hold..
>

I'm not a design engineer
and never claimed to be --
for 40+ years I was a tech
writer/editor who had the
privilege of working with
design engineers, and I
know who is or who ain't
one.

>...............................................
>....................................
>
>>He's a small market bench
>>tech with a mail order tube
>>business. Whoop-dee-doo...
>
>..yet the folks I mention his name to trust him..

Sure -- how can you fuck up
selling a tube when most
folks don't have enough of
an ear to tell the
difference? As for simple
repairs, that *is* usually
just changing parts,
hopefully preceded by
accurate troubleshooting
-- which usually only
requires reading schematics
marked with the designed-
in voltages required and
competent use of test
equipment, both of which
are far below the skill and
knowledge level required of
a design engineer.

>
>They have no clue who you are...
>

There are many famous
incompetents in the MI
industry -- you can get
away with an awfully big
knowledge deficit by
"designing" trivial
variants on existing
products, and if some rich
rocker likes the result,
hey, abracadabra, you're
an instant "designer!"

>>That makes you a nostalgia
>>collector, not a designer.
>
>..history has a funny way of proving facts...you got any...?

A collection of data sheets
and brochures is not
technical knowledge -- it's
only paper, and just proves
you're a collector. Hell,
I've *written* a fuktonne
of those myself, and I'm
nowhere near a design
engineer after decades of
churning out that stuff.

>
>>>Why, I have no idea, except in some ways, it settles their old wars...
>
>>>...kayfabe.. You are on the inside, or watch it happen from the
>>>stands..what ticket to you have RS..row 32, seat 12 ? hehehe..
>
>>This demonstrates that you
>>know how to suck up -- which
>>makes you a de facto groupie,
>>not a designer.
>
>..wow..that hurt..and proves you to be a loser wanna be...
>
>>>..need I remind you this is a GUITAR AMP GROUP..???
>
>>>Let me know, I'll get you a back stage pass...
>
>>Don't bait him, Jay -- he'll
>>granulate you (or any bench
>>tech with delusions of design
>>chops) without even breaking
>>a sweat. Your ego, like your
>>butt-buddy's, is writing
>>checks your knowledge can't
>>cash. He's honchoed more MI
>>design projects than all the
>>wannabes on AGA combined, and
>>no amount of implied name
>>dropping can change that.
>
>..wow..you all speak of others backing up LV..and now the above?

Like I stated, I'm no design
engineers, but I do know
enough to tell the name-
dropping poseurs from the
guys who've got the chops. I
may not agree with a
particular designer's
decisions (or his client's
design goals), but I know
competence when I see it,
same goes for quasi-technical
book$hit, which is utterly
rampant in much of the MI
industry because the best
talent tends to follow the
money into more lucrative
opportunities elsewhere.

>
>..do you wear PJ's with his name on it. I seldom think of LV, and
>often do not agree with his politics, yet gawdess, I think RS would
>be insulted by the above statement. I even respect him more.
>
>>Sincerely, someone who's
>>supervised bench techs and
>>worked with legitimate
>>design engineers for decades
>>and therefore knows the
>>difference between the two.
>
>Some people replace parts. Some people know how GUITAR AMPS
>work..some people wrestle, some people 'job'. Some are fans, or
>groupies, others are 'kayfabe'. RS I give credit for knowing his
>craft, maybe not how GUITAR AMPS work, but you are a joke..
>

Unlike you, I make no claim of
design engineering chops, so
the above observation, true or
otherwise, is irrelevant. I
do know enough to know what I
don't know and who to ask when
I want to know. That won't be
you or Lard Vulva, ever, so
stand down from red alert.

I think you might have taken
too many flying elbows from
the top rope, champ -- it might
be wise to get a brain MRI.
Seriously...

[WB]

You likely need to axe someone who really knows
electronic tube design and theory.

Someone who resells Ted Weber amp kits is
really not a reliable source for tube questions.



--
--
---
Loon Party: http://www.twitpic.com/8zi369/full

[RS]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 20:35:04 -0400, Kaie Fabiaen <the real
world.reality.konk> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:20:32 -0400, RS <R...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:
>
>>OK then, JJTj, it's up to you. Your buddy Valve has failed again. The
>>aga-right-wing-nut-o-sphere is counting on you for redemption.
>>How's a cathode follower work? Extra points for coherent English.

>So go for it, tell him. I mean, it's simple, and does
>involve whatever circuit he's dealing with in the 1st place.
>
>..you DO understand that a 'cathode follower' is like that..?

Did I mention extra points for coherent English?

>..I don't dance to your tunes.. You ignore my reality
>
>..GUITAR AMP REALITY..

That was excellent! It's like the amp tech version of Spinal Tap.

>All the guy has to do is 'google' 'cathode follower'...

Not exactly. There's lots of data out there on followers, but most
deals with linear operation. You're claiming superior knowledge of
musical instrument amps, so just explain how CF circuits work in
guitar amp context.

>...I don't dance to your tunes, I just gave the guy the means to
>find out what he needs,

What?

>I don't play ANYONE's games...
>
>...not even my own... :)
>
>JJTj

Yikes. Seriously, are you giving up this easily? If the circuit is
so easy to find on Google, just do it and explain how it relates to
musical amps.

[RS]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 20:24:10 -0400, Kaie Fabiaen <the real
world.reality.konk> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:09:09 -0400, Bruce Morgen <edi...@juno.com>
>wrote:
>

>>Jay, RS's technical advice
>>to me was spot-on, and even
>>before the project was
>>complete it resulted in the
>>best small amp I've ever
>>used --

>You haven't used many good amps. THAT is what pisses me
>off about RS..he DOES know the math..just not the MoJo..

Again, JJ, what are you talking about? I've worked for a lot of
musical instrument companies, mostly in design and R&D. Guitars, amps,
FX, keyboards, studio automation, MIDI circuitry, composition
software, synth firmware, tape synch circuitry, etc. (In aga, we just
scratch the surface of what actually goes on in design labs)

That's as close to a resume as you're gonna get from me. Point is,
there are many reasons for knowing the actual science and theory.
First of all, you won't get into any reputable lab if you don't know
how electrons function.

More important: You need to be able to understand the chemistry of
good sounding circuits. What you refer to as 'mojo' is a combination
of component interactions. You can't just toss 'em together and hope
for the best. And if you do come up with a good circuit, it's best to
know why it sounds good so you can do it again or even improve on it.
Example: I've come up with some unique guitar amp circuit designs that
looked good on paper. Confirmed that they worked by prototyping them.
Then what...solder for hours to try to improve them by hit or miss? I
learned to write software to model their response. Hence, math. And
insights that cannot be gained from soldering.

And of course if you don't know the math, your stuff could go up in
smoke. I've seen both you and Valvie blow simple calculations for
power supply components, for example.

>I never said he was stupid. I learned by reading boiks LONG ago,
>it's not so cut and dry in the R&R world. *THAT* was what got me
>'kayfabe' with the big boyz. I knew how to play what game that
>needed to be played to make the buyer happy..I LEAREND what
>made 'x' icon amp sound that way. I started at 18. U ? RS ?

Engineers in my family worked in the musical instrument industry, and
taught me from when I was very young. It's all I ever wanted to do as
a kid. Somewhere there's a picture of me at age 4 with a soldering
iron, in my grandfather's electronics shop (no, I'm not just kidding
ol' JJ). So pulling rank with pretend 'mojo' BS and 'many years' is
rather silly. There's no magic. It's a craft. Anyone can learn it.

> I respect LV because HE is in the same boat,

It takes a man to admit something like that JJ.

Seriously, you wouldn't get into nearly as much trouble if you stopped
defending that idiot Valve. That's why you're in this thread as well.
Valve is the main reason this group is so ugly. And fer gods sake,
stop beating your own drum with this mystical resistor shaman stuff in
every post. It's a sure way to convince people that you -don't- know
what you're doing.

An informative post about cathode followers would go a lot further
than more drum beating. Cathode followers do have specific functions
in guitar amps, and you said that's your domain. Go for it...

PS: Bruce, thanks for the kind words! Glad to hear that your amp
worked out!

[Bruce Morgen]

It sure did -- and the fully
modded one is on the back
burner and should be even
better when I get "a round
tuit," which has been
impossible for many months
due to my mother-in-law's
illness and extremely slow
recovery (she's 88 and it's
been wickedly rough on her
and very time-consuming for
me). Meanwhile, my first
stab sounds gorgeous -- just
the right amount of clean
headroom and a very sweet,
lively sound with all my
guitars -- and unlike my
Twin, it's really small and
quite light for a tube combo.

[nm...@wt.net]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 8:51:12 PM UTC-5, RS wrote:

>
> Yikes. Seriously, are you giving up this easily? If the circuit is
>
> so easy to find on Google, just do it and explain how it relates to
>
> musical amps.

Well, it's not quite like there is nothing floating around on
the subject.. :/

This guy probably stated it fairly well for the use at hand,
which is audio amps.

---------------------------------------------------------
The cathode follower is an amplifier stage, but not a
voltage amplifier in the typical sense. It is used as a
"buffer" amplifier, which means it has a high input
impedance and a low output impedance. This means it
does not appreciably load the previous stage it is
connected to, and the very low output impedance allows
it to drive low impedance loads without much signal
voltage loss.
----------------------------------------------------------
unquoteth..

Probably the most common use on geetar amps is driving
tone stacks. It's commonly used in RF gear too..

Enough on the subject to get him started..
You can argue over who is the most accurate when you all
get through with the amp buoy pecker measuring debate.
:/

http://www.answers.com/topic/cathode-follower
http://www.dolphin-hsl.com/articles/circuits.html
http://www.freewebs.com/valvewizard/accf.html
http://www.freewebs.com/valvewizard1/dccf.htm
http://ampbooks.com/home/amplifier-calculators/cathode-follower/
http://billmaudio.com/wp/?page_id=141
http://www.tubecad.com/2007/04/blog0104.htm
http://ampbooks.com/home/classic-circuits/fender-bassman-voltage-amp/
http://diyaudioprojects.com/Technical/Papers/Direct-Coupled-6V6-Cathode-Follower-Amplifier/
http://diyaudioprojects.com/Schematics/12AU7-Cathode-Follower-Tube-Preamplifier.htm
http://ampworkshop.yuku.com/topic/4615#.UYx-LmfsR4c

There is plenty more out there, but I got tired of pasting it..
This should be enough to get a pseudo grip on the subject as
it relates to geetar loudenboomer devices.

[The Repair Guy]

Is there any reason you wouldn't answer this, LV?

The Repair Guy

[???]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 3:35:42 PM UTC-7, Kaie Fabiaen wrote:
>
> ..need I remind you this is a GUITAR AMP GROUP..???

SADLY, yes.

[CYP2D6]

On 09/05/13 23:11, RS wrote:

> On Thu, 09 May 2013 06:55:24 +0100, CYP2D6 <cyp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Can you explain to me how a cathode follower works and why that
>> particular design might be used? I'm not sure I understand it properly
>> and if I'm going to ask for advice online, I want to be sure I get an
>> expert's insight into how they actually work.

> CYP2D6 (bio sciences, or recreational?),

Recreational. I can't buy an AR15 where I live but I can buy three
different types of opiate without needing a prescription :D

> I'm sure you've noticed that ol' Valve is hardly an expert, but who
> knows, maybe he'll get this one. He may be the one to comment on
> CYP2D6 though.

I just wanted to encourage him to make an on-topic post for once. A
forlorn hope, it seems.

> I'll get back soon, after Valvie gives it a try. Let me know if
> there's anything special about the configuration (driver? impedance
> translation for tone stack?) and I'll address that context.

Thanks. It's for the tone stack in particular that I'm interested in.

[CYP2D6]

On 10/05/13 06:14, nm...@wt.net wrote:

> Enough on the subject to get him started..
> You can argue over who is the most accurate when you all
> get through with the amp buoy pecker measuring debate.
> :/

> http://www.answers.com/topic/cathode-follower
> http://www.dolphin-hsl.com/articles/circuits.html
> http://www.freewebs.com/valvewizard/accf.html
> http://www.freewebs.com/valvewizard1/dccf.htm
> http://ampbooks.com/home/amplifier-calculators/cathode-follower/
> http://billmaudio.com/wp/?page_id=141
> http://www.tubecad.com/2007/04/blog0104.htm
> http://ampbooks.com/home/classic-circuits/fender-bassman-voltage-amp/
> http://diyaudioprojects.com/Technical/Papers/Direct-Coupled-6V6-Cathode-Follower-Amplifier/
> http://diyaudioprojects.com/Schematics/12AU7-Cathode-Follower-Tube-Preamplifier.htm
> http://ampworkshop.yuku.com/topic/4615#.UYx-LmfsR4c

Thank you. I will read them now.

[Defiant]

No, in fact the headers strongly suggest *YOU*.

Like I said, one of the AGAtards that LV proudly owns decided to hump his
shoe leather... again. Congratulations, loser.

[RS]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 20:35:04 -0400, Kaie Fabiaen <the real
world.reality.konk> wrote:

>..and sheit, if this guy can't find said info on
>the internet other then waiting for you to bait
>me or anyone else, he should be flipping burgers.
>

>.. You ignore my reality
>..GUITAR AMP REALITY..
>
>All the guy has to do is 'google' 'cathode follower'...

PS: All the talk about guitar-specific mystery mojo, and it comes down
to 'google cathode followers.' That's the depth of the mojo-related
insight.

There are aspects of CF's that do affect guitar amp sound. Not likely
to be jumping out at you in a Google search.

[RS]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 22:14:07 -0700 (PDT), nm...@wt.net wrote:

>On Thursday, May 9, 2013 8:51:12 PM UTC-5, RS wrote:
>
>>
>> Yikes. Seriously, are you giving up this easily? If the circuit is
>>
>> so easy to find on Google, just do it and explain how it relates to
>>
>> musical amps.
>
>Well, it's not quite like there is nothing floating around on
>the subject.. :/

Well, 178, it's not like the 2nd amendment and "Obama is a Kenyan
Communist" haven't been covered on enough newsgroups and websites
either. Check this out...Everyone could just google themselves silly
rather than posting more conspiracy crap... Almost 4,000,000 hits:
https://www.google.com/search?as_q=obama+kenyan+communist

JJ the psychic amp healer also chooses to forego the mystical realm
and recommend Google as the fountain of amp circuit mojo. :-)

So, while, a post about amp electronics does seem strangely off-topic
in aga2013, maybe it's not entirely misplaced, considering this.....

>This guy probably stated it fairly well for the use at hand,
>which is audio amps.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>The cathode follower is an amplifier stage, but not a
>voltage amplifier in the typical sense. It is used as a
>"buffer" amplifier, which means it has a high input
>impedance and a low output impedance. This means it
>does not appreciably load the previous stage it is
>connected to, and the very low output impedance allows
>it to drive low impedance loads without much signal
>voltage loss.
>----------------------------------------------------------
>unquoteth..

Actually wrong. It's a common misconception about how followers work
and where you'd use them. In reality, you can't drive low impedance
loads with a CF, and evidently the poster never tried it.

The general idea is that the output has a low -virtual- impedance due
to the way feedback works in a closed system. But the mechanism only
works when followed by relatively high impedance loads*. Sounds
ironic, doesn't it. I'll explain why in my reply to the OP now that
Lords JJ and Valve have abdicated.

Another way of thinking about this: Opamps work by roughly the same
principal. The feedback loop causes a very low virtual output
impedance, and it will react as a low output impedance--until you try
to actually drive something with it. IOW, a plain 741 opamp can
present an output impedance that's an effective fraction of an ohm.
But you can't drive a speaker with it, can ya.

There's lots of relevant math in texts on opamps, for anyone
interested. That's possibly the best source for insight on feedback/
impedance transformations, since it's how an opamp functions.

As for high input impedance, that is technically correct: The feedback
mechanism also increases the input impedance. But that's hardly of any
concern with a vacuum tube, which already has a very high input
impedance. At least high enough to satisfy any guitar amp circuit
(with another caveat here re grid conduction, but that's not what the
writer above was referring to).

Sample-holds or other circuits that would need input impedances higher
than a vanilla common cathode tube stage are now invariably done with
solid state circuitry.

Google not always your friend. :-)

(* = or in unidirectional 'source current mode,' which I'll try to
explain later as well.)

[RS]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:03:02 +0100, CYP2D6 <cyp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 09/05/13 23:11, RS wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 06:55:24 +0100, CYP2D6 <cyp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Can you explain to me how a cathode follower works and why that
>>> particular design might be used? I'm not sure I understand it properly
>>> and if I'm going to ask for advice online, I want to be sure I get an
>>> expert's insight into how they actually work.
>
>> CYP2D6 (bio sciences, or recreational?),
>
>Recreational. I can't buy an AR15 where I live but I can buy three
>different types of opiate without needing a prescription :D

Ha! Well, that wouldn't be a good combo anyway.

It's bio-sciences for me. I recognized the enzyme nomenclature.

>> I'm sure you've noticed that ol' Valve is hardly an expert, but who
>> knows, maybe he'll get this one. He may be the one to comment on
>> CYP2D6 though.
>
>I just wanted to encourage him to make an on-topic post for once. A
>forlorn hope, it seems.

I keep wondering why he'd be happy spending his days like this. He
says he's a musician. Certainly playing should feel more rewarding
than trashing a newsgroup and getting Whack-A-Mole'd every day.

>> I'll get back soon, after Valvie gives it a try. Let me know if
>> there's anything special about the configuration (driver? impedance
>> translation for tone stack?) and I'll address that context.
>
>Thanks. It's for the tone stack in particular that I'm interested in.

Very good then. I'll get back when I have time to type a bit. And if
you're designing something, I'll try to help with that if you wish. My
own idea of recreation.

[Carl]

That's a great question. I was wondering the same. I think that LV has
become so paranoid that he can't separate a person asking him a legitimate
amp-related question from someone yanking his chain.

I gave CYP2DX credit for trying and I was astounded at the direction the
thread of his question took. It is a shame when you can't get any usable
information from a question asked on a newsgroup originally intended for
just such questions...

[RS]

Also odd that the only advice he got was to 'check google,' as if
tech questions on aga are now out of place. Discouraging for me, as
I've been hoping the group would recover eventually.

Two reasons for Valve's silence:

1. He knows what a cathode follower looks like, but he doesn't really
understand much about how it works. That's a fact. His knowledge of
electronics is very thin. And JJ is in the same boat (by his own
admission--which is correct).

2. He's so paranoid at this point that he's sure everyone is out to
trap him. He still thinks that I posed the original question under a
fake account (which I didn't).

Keep in mind that only a few actual tech-knowledgable people remain on
aga, due primarily to the political and gun noise. I hang around to
see a couple friends. Otherwise I wouldn't bother either.

If anyone is interested, I did post some info on CF's in reply to
ENMA5k's 'go to google' post (which also listed incorrect info on
CF's). I'll follow up with a more in-depth post when I get an extra
few minutes.

[Carl]

It is discouraging. But that's often how unmoderated things go when left up
to the design of the average person.

It's the same reason why I think that both the financial institutions and
healthcare ones require federal regulation. Left unregulated (ie.
unmoderated) they go the same way as this n.g.

I think, if I'm not mistaken, that that's why the founding fathers developed
the electoral college system for choosing a president: they understood that
the average group of people can't moderate themselves maturely.

I will qualify what I've said here with stating that I know of two other
musician-related, unmoderated n.g.'s that have not gone astray as this one
has. Those guys (gals) seem to have a generally more mature and respectful
attitiude toward both each other and the purpose of the n.g. I guess
there's a certain 'type' of musician who has a more intelligent perspective
of their art/hobby. I'll keep them anonymous for now to protect their
integrity.

[Defiant]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 04:47:18 -0400, RS totally steps on his crank:

> Actually wrong. It's a common misconception about how followers work
> and where you'd use them. In reality, you can't drive low impedance
> loads with a CF, and evidently the poster never tried it.

You sure about that? You're making a blanket generalization, which is the
first clue that you *think* you know what you're talking about, when in
reality you don't.

>
> The general idea is that the output has a low -virtual- impedance due
> to the way feedback works in a closed system. But the mechanism only
> works when followed by relatively high impedance loads*. Sounds
> ironic, doesn't it. I'll explain why in my reply to the OP now that
> Lords JJ and Valve have abdicated.

Virtual impedance, huh? Do you even know what impedance is, or how to
calculate it? Show me, mathematically, the difference between "virtual"
impedance and "real" impedance.

>
> Another way of thinking about this: Opamps work by roughly the same
> principal. The feedback loop causes a very low virtual output
> impedance, and it will react as a low output impedance--until you try
> to actually drive something with it. IOW, a plain 741 opamp can
> present an output impedance that's an effective fraction of an ohm.
> But you can't drive a speaker with it, can ya.

Holy crap! Dumbass alert!

>
> There's lots of relevant math in texts on opamps, for anyone
> interested. That's possibly the best source for insight on feedback/
> impedance transformations, since it's how an opamp functions.

Too bad you don't understand any of it.

>
> As for high input impedance, that is technically correct: The feedback
> mechanism also increases the input impedance. But that's hardly of any
> concern with a vacuum tube, which already has a very high input
> impedance. At least high enough to satisfy any guitar amp circuit
> (with another caveat here re grid conduction, but that's not what the
> writer above was referring to).

Good thing you only manage to hack guitar stuff.

>
> Sample-holds or other circuits that would need input impedances higher
> than a vanilla common cathode tube stage are now invariably done with
> solid state circuitry.
>
> Google not always your friend. :-)
>
> (* = or in unidirectional 'source current mode,' which I'll try to
> explain later as well.)

Oh, this should be classic. LOL!

[Kaie Fabiaen]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 21:16:02 -0400, RS <R...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:

>Also odd that the only advice he got was to 'check google,' as if
>tech questions on aga are now out of place. Discouraging for me, as
>I've been hoping the group would recover eventually.

Why so odd? Considering this GUITAR AMP GROUP has become
a political jokeyard, I would find it 'odd' that anyone came here
1st for an answer that could be found so easy, and with better
detail elsewhere..as people here pointed out. Smells fish'ee..

>Two reasons for Valve's silence:

You forget the most important, he doesn't dance to your tune
on command like the bunch of you all do to him..simple?

>1. He knows what a cathode follower looks like, but he doesn't really
>understand much about how it works. That's a fact. His knowledge of
>electronics is very thin. And JJ is in the same boat (by his own
>admission--which is correct).

See above. I know. And I've worked directly under many ICON
electronic people, just learning what I can, and to be blunt, RS,
many of them make you look like a k/garden wanna be. And I have
stated many times, you know yer shit..I'll say more then me.

..but this is a GUITAR AMP GROUP, and buck-o, my history in
*THAT* field, from the companies to the icon rock stars, out
shines anything you did, TTBOMK. Since I was 17. YOU?

*MY* years of posting 'amp-porn', to the paper with *MY*
name on it now being sold for $$$$$$$ proves my big mouth.

OK, it's easy with a last name like mine, but if asked, said above
people take my calls, remember me, and we all have good memories.

..not just pay stubs from the office..although I do have them..

I'm just amazed I saved it all. And people want it. NOT because
of me, but because I was there..and they know it.. 'kayfabe'..

>2. He's so paranoid at this point that he's sure everyone is out to
>trap him. He still thinks that I posed the original question under a
>fake account (which I didn't).

...sorry, it looks that way only because you all keep it going
just to keep jerking off to ya LV jones fix... The ?? was answered,
and yet, ya all keep it going. LV is laughing at you all. Me 2.

>Keep in mind that only a few actual tech-knowledgable people remain on
>aga, due primarily to the political and gun noise. I hang around to
>see a couple friends. Otherwise I wouldn't bother either.

Then shut the flock up about politics, LV, me etc, and talk about
GUITAR AMPS... Otherwise, you are just fueling the wheel on fire.

>If anyone is interested, I did post some info on CF's in reply to
>ENMA5k's 'go to google' post (which also listed incorrect info on
>CF's). I'll follow up with a more in-depth post when I get an extra
>few minutes.

That is all you had to do if you really cared to answer the ?
in the 1st place. Instead, you used it for your own means.

..I figured you had more honor then that...


JJTj


oh..and BTW... Just the start... Click da 1st photo..


http://www.maverick-music.com/autographed/1982-ronnie-lane-signed-photograph-letter

[jh]

Am 11.05.2013 14:51, schrieb Kaie Fabiaen:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 21:16:02 -0400, RS<R...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Also odd that the only advice he got was to 'check google,' as if
>> tech questions on aga are now out of place. Discouraging for me, as
>> I've been hoping the group would recover eventually.
>
> Why so odd? Considering this GUITAR AMP GROUP has become
> a political jokeyard, I would find it 'odd' that anyone came here
> 1st for an answer that could be found so easy, and with better
> detail elsewhere..as people here pointed out. Smells fish'ee..
>
>> Two reasons for Valve's silence:
>
> You forget the most important, he doesn't dance to your tune
> on command like the bunch of you all do to him..simple?
>
>> 1. He knows what a cathode follower looks like, but he doesn't really
>> understand much about how it works. That's a fact. His knowledge of
>> electronics is very thin. And JJ is in the same boat (by his own
>> admission--which is correct).
>
> See above. I know. And I've worked directly under many ICON
> electronic people, just learning what I can, and to be blunt, RS,
> many of them make you look like a k/garden wanna be. And I have
> stated many times, you know yer shit..I'll say more then me.
>

> ...but this is a GUITAR AMP GROUP, and buck-o, my history in

> *THAT* field, from the companies to the icon rock stars, out
> shines anything you did, TTBOMK. Since I was 17. YOU?
>
> *MY* years of posting 'amp-porn', to the paper with *MY*
> name on it now being sold for $$$$$$$ proves my big mouth.
>
> OK, it's easy with a last name like mine, but if asked, said above
> people take my calls, remember me, and we all have good memories.
>

> ...not just pay stubs from the office..although I do have them..

>
> I'm just amazed I saved it all. And people want it. NOT because
> of me, but because I was there..and they know it.. 'kayfabe'..
>
>> 2. He's so paranoid at this point that he's sure everyone is out to
>> trap him. He still thinks that I posed the original question under a
>> fake account (which I didn't).
>

> ....sorry, it looks that way only because you all keep it going

> just to keep jerking off to ya LV jones fix... The ?? was answered,
> and yet, ya all keep it going. LV is laughing at you all. Me 2.
>
>> Keep in mind that only a few actual tech-knowledgable people remain on
>> aga, due primarily to the political and gun noise. I hang around to
>> see a couple friends. Otherwise I wouldn't bother either.
>
> Then shut the flock up about politics, LV, me etc, and talk about
> GUITAR AMPS... Otherwise, you are just fueling the wheel on fire.
>
>> If anyone is interested, I did post some info on CF's in reply to
>> ENMA5k's 'go to google' post (which also listed incorrect info on
>> CF's). I'll follow up with a more in-depth post when I get an extra
>> few minutes.
>
> That is all you had to do if you really cared to answer the ?
> in the 1st place. Instead, you used it for your own means.
>

> ...I figured you had more honor then that...

>
>
> JJTj
>
>
> oh..and BTW... Just the start... Click da 1st photo..
>
>
> http://www.maverick-music.com/autographed/1982-ronnie-lane-signed-photograph-letter
>
>
>
>
>
>

would you please push the needle one groove further?

broken record

jh

[Kaie Fabiaen]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 15:04:57 +0200, jh <us...@domain.invalid> wrote:

>would you please push the needle one groove further?
>
>broken record
>
>jh

But that's all you got?

At least the record is not a bootleg..

I just luv it when you rubes are faced with
facts, and all ya can resort to is insults...

..and in your case..lame ones at that...

JJTj




I've got something in my front pocket for you.
Why don't you reach down in my pocket and see what it is?
Then grab onto it, it's just for you.
Give a little squeeze and say: "How do you do?"
There's something in my front pocket...
There's something in my front pocket...
There's something in my front pocket!

[Lord Valve]

Another leftwing putz opined:

> I was astounded at the direction the
> thread of his question took.

Noob.

> It is a shame when you can't get any usable
> information from a question asked on a newsgroup originally intended for
> just such questions...

...

The only reason YOU are here is to push your disgusting
pro-abortion gungrabber agenda. Fuck you with a rake.


Lord Valve
American - reconsidering

Got guns? Wave 'em in this asshole's face.

[jh]

Am 11.05.2013 15:42, schrieb Kaie Fabiaen:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 15:04:57 +0200, jh<us...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>> would you please push the needle one groove further?
>>
>> broken record
>>
>> jh
>
> But that's all you got?
>
> At least the record is not a bootleg..
>
> I just luv it when you rubes are faced with
> facts, and all ya can resort to is insults...
>

> ...and in your case..lame ones at that...

>
> JJTj
>
>
>
>
> I've got something in my front pocket for you.
> Why don't you reach down in my pocket and see what it is?
> Then grab onto it, it's just for you.
> Give a little squeeze and say: "How do you do?"
> There's something in my front pocket...
> There's something in my front pocket...
> There's something in my front pocket!
>

jj

we all know it already. You keep repeating the same ad nauseum.

Truth is truth - no problem. But the fact that you've seen some amps of
"icons" from the inside is nice. That you even worked on them is even
nicer. That you worked for PV is something worthwile for you to remember.

But you've posted this at least a thousand times. Il m'�nerve.

Time to go to the now and not only the past. And you're not the only one
who knows a bit about amps.

For lame insults - please tell me, when I insulted you. And that in a
lame way. Please dig it out.

I apologise in advance - i did not mean it. The only thing which really
pisses me off is this permanent repetition of the same stories from long
ago.

And for this group being an amp group. Please consider MY S/N Ratio.

regards

Jochen

PS: I'm also tired of this pissing contest - disguised as an "On
Topic-Thread"

[Kaie Fabiaen]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:03:56 +0200, jh <us...@domain.invalid> wrote:

>jj

>we all know it already. You keep repeating the same ad nauseum.

You have to admit, it beats the off topic political crap from ANYONE..

>Truth is truth - no problem. But the fact that you've seen some amps of
>"icons" from the inside is nice. That you even worked on them is even
>nicer. That you worked for PV is something worthwile for you to remember.

PV, Hiwatt, Marshall, VOX, Gibson, Schecter, M/Mite, EKO, STRAMP,
UNIVOX, GMT/GK etc. Do you REALLY want me to start naming rock stars?

I'm just proving MY point when 'certain people' tell me I'm a hack..

Maybe my digging out all this old paper just fuels reality..but it
does back up my big mouth. I don't need to prove it to anyone
here, yet it just pisses me off when others call me a hack...

>But you've posted this at least a thousand times. Il m'énerve.

..yet others fart at me like I'm a hack..and *I* can back up
*MY* cake hole..them..? well, all Usenet words.. puke..

>Time to go to the now and not only the past. And you're not the only one
>who knows a bit about amps.

..ya missing the point here..it's not just the 'amp'..it's the whole
deal, the marketing, the designs, the people who bought and sold
said trade names/companies, etc. Sorry, I was a Unicord dealer at 17.

...a GMT n/east coast sales rep in '73. The only one they had then..

..and along comes someone like RS (whom my post was aimed at, not you)
claiming I'm a hack. I even more then once said he has more book
tech chops then me. I'd guess ya all are better players. I hope so.

Yet when the US/UK companies needed things done, they called ME.

>For lame insults - please tell me, when I insulted you. And that in a
>lame way. Please dig it out.

well, the record groove thing. If it wasn't ment as one, it was my
bad, sorry. Maybe I'm just a little over wanked here.

>I apologise in advance - i did not mean it. The only thing which really
>pisses me off is this permanent repetition of the same stories from long
>ago.

No prob, yet again, it wasn't posted to you, it IS on topic, and in
reply to someone who was nasty to me. I just proved my point.

>And for this group being an amp group. Please consider MY S/N Ratio.

..I do...and think of mine. Go back years, mine is very low too..

I just get pissed when attacked. And I hold up my banners..

If I have to do it many times, well...I have to..

...at one time this group didn't need banners held up, we
all knew who was who, what they did, etc. And that goes for
everyone. I have *MANY* times d/dared folks to forget the politics,
and BS, and just go back to GUITAR AMPS. YEARS of me posting
what I coined as 'amp-porn' ed-u-m-cat'ing' folks about the history
of the business. RS did alot too. LV also. Now, it's a joke.

I will not be made fun of by anyone..anyone. Esp when MY
background in the GUITAR AMP BUSINESS cripples any..any of ya..

..this is a GUITAR AMP GROUP, btw...

>regards

>Jochen

Peace, friend. Sorry if I was a asshole. I'm 2 good at it. :)

>PS: I'm also tired of this pissing contest - disguised as an "On
>Topic-Thread"

AMEN...


JJTj




As I walk through
This wicked world
Searchin' for light
in the darkness
of insanity.

I ask myself
Is all hope lost?
Is there only pain
and hatred,
and misery?

And each time I feel like this inside,
There's just one thing I wanna know:
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?
ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?

And as I walked on
Through troubled times
My spirit gets so down-hearted
..sometimes...
So where are the strong?
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony...

'cause each time I feel it slippin' away,
just makes me wanna cry.
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?
ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?


So where are the strong?
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.

'cause each time I feel it slippin' away,
it just makes me wanna cry.

What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?
ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?
ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?

[jh]

Hi JJTj,
to get back to some politness, which is currently not so present within
AGA; my responses are within your post....
I anything in there might appear offensive, polemic, cynical or anithing
like that - it's not intended. Please remember that English is NOT
mother tongue. Tis post purely is meant to be "positive"

regards

Jochen

PS: I anyone finds a typo - he can keep it....

Am 11.05.2013 21:09, schrieb Kaie Fabiaen:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:03:56 +0200, jh<us...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>> jj
>
>> we all know it already. You keep repeating the same ad nauseum.
>
> You have to admit, it beats the off topic political crap from ANYONE..
>

Sure

>> Truth is truth - no problem. But the fact that you've seen some amps of
>> "icons" from the inside is nice. That you even worked on them is even
>> nicer. That you worked for PV is something worthwile for you to remember.
>
> PV, Hiwatt, Marshall, VOX, Gibson, Schecter, M/Mite, EKO, STRAMP,
> UNIVOX, GMT/GK etc. Do you REALLY want me to start naming rock stars?
>
> I'm just proving MY point when 'certain people' tell me I'm a hack..
>
> Maybe my digging out all this old paper just fuels reality..but it
> does back up my big mouth. I don't need to prove it to anyone
> here, yet it just pisses me off when others call me a hack...
>

>> But you've posted this at least a thousand times. Il m'�nerve.
>
> ...yet others fart at me like I'm a hack..and *I* can back up

> *MY* cake hole..them..? well, all Usenet words.. puke..

It seems that you think a lot about *that*. Just one suggestion for a
bit of selfreflection - what was it - and *why*...

>
>> Time to go to the now and not only the past. And you're not the only one
>> who knows a bit about amps.
>

> ...ya missing the point here..it's not just the 'amp'..it's the whole

> deal, the marketing, the designs, the people who bought and sold
> said trade names/companies, etc. Sorry, I was a Unicord dealer at 17.
>

> ....a GMT n/east coast sales rep in '73. The only one they had then..
>
> ...and along comes someone like RS (whom my post was aimed at, not you)

> claiming I'm a hack. I even more then once said he has more book
> tech chops then me. I'd guess ya all are better players. I hope so.
>
> Yet when the US/UK companies needed things done, they called ME.

We lready know the story. When did this happen? 70ies? 80ies? I know
that way back then, if you did not form your own knowledege, nobody
could help you - no usente - no common database. Doing that alone is
admirable; Sorry, but a lot of urban myths come from that time.

I have to admit, that a lot of your insiders are really interisting to
know. The xeroxed PCBs and so on. 1 time, 2 times.....

>
>> For lame insults - please tell me, when I insulted you. And that in a
>> lame way. Please dig it out.
>
> well, the record groove thing. If it wasn't ment as one, it was my
> bad, sorry. Maybe I'm just a little over wanked here.

Sorry to repeat it. We all know of your connections to The Edge, PV,
Hiwatt, Marshall, VOX, concerts, joints and weed on the stage or in
cabinets sent from abroad; the white ampegs; 6146s; GMT;

come on - it's all there. Do an "ego search" on google and you will
surely find any aspect of your life you ever posted. Yes - and most of
us (whoever that is) have read your posts and know what you have written.

Please stop making a clown out of yourself.

>
>> I apologise in advance - i did not mean it. The only thing which really
>> pisses me off is this permanent repetition of the same stories from long
>> ago.
>
> No prob, yet again, it wasn't posted to you, it IS on topic, and in
> reply to someone who was nasty to me. I just proved my point.

Why did you do that in a response to *me*?

>
>> And for this group being an amp group. Please consider MY S/N Ratio.
>

> ...I do...and think of mine. Go back years, mine is very low too..

>
> I just get pissed when attacked. And I hold up my banners..

doing that like a prayer wheel does not really help

>
> If I have to do it many times, well...I have to..

see above

>
> ....at one time this group didn't need banners held up, we

> all knew who was who, what they did, etc. And that goes for
> everyone. I have *MANY* times d/dared folks to forget the politics,
> and BS, and just go back to GUITAR AMPS. YEARS of me posting
> what I coined as 'amp-porn' ed-u-m-cat'ing' folks about the history
> of the business. RS did alot too. LV also.

..nuke mecca. Remember - that's when it *really* started. Anythin before
was - at least neglectible.

Now, it's a joke.

I still look up - perhaps for nostalgical reasons. Phoenix - ashes -
hope dies last.

>
> I will not be made fun of by anyone..anyone. Esp when MY
> background in the GUITAR AMP BUSINESS cripples any..any of ya..
>

> ...this is a GUITAR AMP GROUP, btw...

just relax

>
>> regards
>
>> Jochen
>
> Peace, friend. Sorry if I was a asshole. I'm 2 good at it. :)

:-)

>
>> PS: I'm also tired of this pissing contest - disguised as an "On
>> Topic-Thread"
>
> AMEN...

ditto

regards

Jochen

>
>
> JJTj
>
>
>
>
> As I walk through
> This wicked world
> Searchin' for light
> in the darkness
> of insanity.
>
> I ask myself
> Is all hope lost?
> Is there only pain
> and hatred,
> and misery?
>
> And each time I feel like this inside,
> There's just one thing I wanna know:

> What's so funny 'bout peace love& understanding?
> ohhhh
> What's so funny 'bout peace love& understanding?

>
> And as I walked on
> Through troubled times
> My spirit gets so down-hearted

> ...sometimes...

> So where are the strong?
> And who are the trusted?
> And where is the harmony?
> Sweet harmony...
>
> 'cause each time I feel it slippin' away,
> just makes me wanna cry.

> What's so funny 'bout peace love& understanding?
> ohhhh
> What's so funny 'bout peace love& understanding?

>
>
> So where are the strong?
> And who are the trusted?
> And where is the harmony?
> Sweet harmony.
>
> 'cause each time I feel it slippin' away,
> it just makes me wanna cry.
>

> What's so funny 'bout peace love& understanding?
> ohhhh
> What's so funny 'bout peace love& understanding?

[RichL]

"jh" <us...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:kmm93q$n98$1...@dont-email.me...

> ..nuke mecca. Remember - that's when it *really* started. Anythin before
> was - at least neglectible.
>
> Now, it's a joke.

It's really bad when the supposed "experts" respond to a legitimate question
(like the one that started this thread) with a flame, presuming the OP is a
"sock" or (like another "expert" said) suggest Googling the answer.

I am not an expert, real or imagined. I'm a guitar amp *user*, hoping to
learn more about the innards of amps. I came to this group seven years or
so ago. In the first few years I learned a lot, just reading the posts of
different folks and using resources they mentioned. So I know more than I
did at the beginning. But I'd say in the last two or three years, the rate
at which I've gained knowledge from this group has slowed to a crawl.

I keep reading the group in the hope that things will improve. In the
meantime, I guess I've taken a mentality of "if you can't beat 'em, join
'em". To me, it's either do that or become increasingly frustrated at the
lack of on-topic content.

[RS]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:51:34 -0400, Kaie Fabiaen <the real
world.reality.konk> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 May 2013 21:16:02 -0400, RS <R...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Also odd that the only advice he got was to 'check google,' as if
>>tech questions on aga are now out of place. Discouraging for me, as
>>I've been hoping the group would recover eventually.
>
>Why so odd? Considering this GUITAR AMP GROUP has become
>a political jokeyard,

Who do you figure is the main factor? Why jump to his defense
constantly. I told you that's what gets you in trouble. If you're
concerned with your own rep (which goes without saying), rethink that.

> I would find it 'odd' that anyone came here
>1st for an answer that could be found so easy, and with better
>detail elsewhere..as people here pointed out. Smells fish'ee..

If there's any meaning to the 'guitar mojo' thing that you keep
referring to, then you could explain cathode followers in the context
of guitar amps, which presumably involves more than normal Google
data. BTW, I do agree with that; though the circuits always behave
according to laws of physics.

Also, as I've pointed out to NM, the data that you find via Google is
often wrong anyway, as was the data posted.

>>Two reasons for Valve's silence:
>
>You forget the most important, he doesn't dance to your tune
>on command like the bunch of you all do to him..simple?

There's a difference between "doesn't" and "can't," and you're doing
the above again--defending the biggest source of pure garbage on aga
while simultaneously saying you want a guitar group. Can't have both.

>See above. I know. And I've worked directly under many ICON

>electronic people,...but this is a GUITAR AMP GROUP, and buck-o,

>my history in *THAT* field, from the companies to the icon rock stars,

>outshines anything you did, TTBOMK. Since I was 17. YOU?

>*MY* years of posting 'amp-porn', to the paper with *MY*
>name on it now being sold for $$$$$$$ proves my big mouth.

>people take my calls, remember me, and we all have good memories.
>..not just pay stubs from the office..although I do have them..

>because I was there..and they know it.. 'kayfabe'..

SQUIRREL!!!!

[RS]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 05:11:23 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
<tras...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 May 2013 04:47:18 -0400, RS totally steps on his crank:
>
>> Actually wrong. It's a common misconception about how followers work
>> and where you'd use them. In reality, you can't drive low impedance
>> loads with a CF, and evidently the poster never tried it.
>
>You sure about that? You're making a blanket generalization, which is the
>first clue that you *think* you know what you're talking about, when in
>reality you don't.
>
>> The general idea is that the output has a low -virtual- impedance due
>> to the way feedback works in a closed system. But the mechanism only
>> works when followed by relatively high impedance loads*. Sounds
>> ironic, doesn't it. I'll explain why in my reply to the OP now that
>> Lords JJ and Valve have abdicated.
>
>Virtual impedance, huh? Do you even know what impedance is, or how to
>calculate it? Show me, mathematically, the difference between "virtual"
>impedance and "real" impedance.

[mercy snip]

Deficient is gonna try his hand at science again, as if no one
remembers what happened last time. No actual contradictory info
offered, so in case anyone is curious, I'll just cc a brief sentence
from WP that addresses the opamp virtual impedance thing:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opamp
"..output impedance of the amplifier limits the maximum power that can
be provided. In configurations with a voltage-sensing negative
feedback, the output impedance of the amplifier is effectively
lowered; thus, in linear applications, op-amps usually exhibit a very
low output impedance indeed. Negative feedback can not, however,
reduce the limitations that Rload in conjunction with Rout place on
the maximum and minimum possible output voltages; it can only reduce
output errors within that range."

IOW, feedback makes the output impedance appear low...until it can't.
Cause the output impedance isn't really low--it just reacts as if it
is due to the voltage sensing mechanism. But that mechanism runs out
of room when the physical limitations are exceeded. Hence:

>> Another way of thinking about this: Opamps work by roughly the same
>> principal. The feedback loop causes a very low virtual output
>> impedance, and it will react as a low output impedance--until you try
>> to actually drive something with it. IOW, a plain 741 opamp can
>> present an output impedance that's an effective fraction of an ohm.
>> But you can't drive a speaker with it, can ya.
>
>Holy crap! Dumbass alert!

So a 741 can drive a speaker, eh? :-) Dumbass indeed.

PS: Arf! Arf!

[Kaie Fabiaen]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 22:22:49 +0200, jh <us...@domain.invalid> wrote:

>Hi JJTj,
>to get back to some politness, which is currently not so present within
>AGA; my responses are within your post....

>PS: I anyone finds a typo - he can keep it....

me 2. My phone just cant grow no lips..

>It seems that you think a lot about *that*. Just one suggestion for a
>bit of selfreflection - what was it - and *why*...

When attacked, and not by you..I respond..

Sometimes people forget. Other times, they ignore,
and too often they spew. AGAIN, my 1st response was
not to you..the 2nd was, and was kinder..as your's was.

>We lready know the story. When did this happen? 70ies? 80ies? I know
>that way back then, if you did not form your own knowledege, nobody
>could help you - no usente - no common database. Doing that alone is
>admirable; Sorry, but a lot of urban myths come from that time.

History kinda sucx that way, I guess. RS blasted me for not
responding about a CF circuit. I mentioned where said info could
be found. He then (not you) insulted my GUITAR AMP know how.

..and I slowed his machine, right down...

Take this to the bank, it's called 'kayfabe'. When you have
BEEN THERE and DEALT THERE with ICONS, it matters squat
to *ME*. When meeting rock 'stars', the ONLY way you got to
fix their gear was, that you were NOT a idiot fan/wanna be..

..it was because..in the case of U2..VOX asked me to do it..

..Do you think, in any way shape or form, just ANY 'tech' could
of walked into the room, taken apart that ripp'd cloth AC30, and
fixed it. Oh sure, no big deal to do..but "..in with the IN crowd.."

..and I'm finding the paper that proves by cake hole...

You seem upset over my rantings. Well, sorry if history upsets
the applecart. I have been there. AND THAT is what PISSED me
off about folks like (insert name here) who just go on and on about
politics, and I'll include LV here, yet *MY* history in..oh wait..

THIS IS A GUITAR AMP GROUP !!!!!!!!

..slow's ya machine right down...

Maybe I'm amazed I'm finding all this old paper, the
stuff between heads of companies and *ME*, etc...

..if ya all don't like it, kill file me and run and hide..

>Sorry to repeat it. We all know of your connections to The Edge, PV,
>Hiwatt, Marshall, VOX, concerts, joints and weed on the stage or in
>cabinets sent from abroad; the white ampegs; 6146s; GMT;

..wow..you are keeping track. No matter what, I defy anyone else
here to call me a 'hack'. You can't make this stuff up..not including
names/dates/times and private details..want some..inflate ya shoes:

Mighty Mite..I was in Cam/Ca, staying at Randy's Z's house..

He came home and found he left his dob dog in a room, and, well,
said dog shit in a corner. RZ tried to beat the dog with a belt tillI
stopped him. Later that week, he 'fired' his mom and dad over the
phone because $$$ income was..well, nothing. I was outside da door.

He wrote a song called 'The Joker'...want a copy on .mp3..?

At one time Schecter, M/Mite etc was all one big company who had
the brass parts made by *ONE* machine shop..who did M/cycle work.

M/Mite had their PU's wound by the inmates at Cam/Ca because they
did it so well..the same place Larry "wild man' Fischer was sent to..

..ya can't make this all up... Where is Randy Z today..call me..

MI HISTORY..RS... not your textboiks...

>come on - it's all there. Do an "ego search" on google and you will
>surely find any aspect of your life you ever posted. Yes - and most of
>us (whoever that is) have read your posts and know what you have written.

'Google the CF' idea I said..& when I said that, I was called a hack.

>Please stop making a clown out of yourself.

The truth never needs to wear make-up.

>> I just get pissed when attacked. And I hold up my banners..

>doing that like a prayer wheel does not really help

I only pray to one God..and no one here on in the MI field,
past or present come close. Yer pushing strings at that point..

>..nuke mecca. Remember - that's when it *really* started. Anythin before
>was - at least neglectible.

So my years of giving free 'amp-porn' to the world is 'neglectible' ?

I ain't bleeding you, I'm feeding u..but yer 2 fucking slow..

>I still look up - perhaps for nostalgical reasons. Phoenix - ashes -
>hope dies last.

"..learn, or be sold to..." (JJTj)


Hey RS..cat got ya mouth?

Sheit, MY cat has more MI history then you have...

..no sheit..really..she's 18, and been there..done that..MI wise..


JJTj


I am frolicsome, I am easy,
Good tempered and free,
And I don't give a single pin, me boys
What this world thinks of me.





*> SENT FROM CELL MAKNAMB DOCK9# ZVHO%^*L7NMJKAAYJ&*HM <*
*> DATE REPLY MODEFINE GIGANEWS 2768987##KUYTRHHJ-AKIOL78II6<*

[Lord Valve]

RatShit farted into his hand and took a sniff:

> >Holy crap! Dumbass alert!
>
> So a 741 can drive a speaker, eh? :-) Dumbass indeed.

Ooops. I'll let Defiant administer the coup de grace...how embarassing for
you.

[Kaie Fabiaen]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:10:14 -0400, RS <R...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:


>Who do you figure is the main factor? Why jump to his defense
>constantly. I told you that's what gets you in trouble. If you're
>concerned with your own rep (which goes without saying), rethink that.

Yet you all bait him over n over again..

I only state that. No defense. My 'rep' has nothing to do
with him. Or you. I just say you all jerk off to whatever he
posts, and I often say I don't agree with what he says.

..last I heard, I had that right..as U do..

..twist that how you need..but history shows my point..

>If there's any meaning to the 'guitar mojo' thing that you keep
>referring to, then you could explain cathode followers in the context
>of guitar amps, which presumably involves more than normal Google
>data. BTW, I do agree with that; though the circuits always behave
>according to laws of physics.

How many fucking times have I said..here, write it down again..that
I feel you..RS..do have more tech chops then me. Yet, buck-o, in the
GUITAR AMP world, I shut yer machine right down. Need I repeat ?

I just said, that instead of folks baiting LV (see the header) then
the person should 'google' and find info he needed from people
better then you (RS) or me, and get the data he needed/asked for..

Instead, YOU turned it into a pissing match that, sorry, I won't play.

>Also, as I've pointed out to NM, the data that you find via Google is
>often wrong anyway, as was the data posted.

Said shienola happens..

>>>Two reasons for Valve's silence:

>>You forget the most important, he doesn't dance to your tune
>>on command like the bunch of you all do to him..simple?

>There's a difference between "doesn't" and "can't," and you're doing
>the above again--defending the biggest source of pure garbage on aga
>while simultaneously saying you want a guitar group. Can't have both.

Give me a fucking break. All of ya just bait him, and he doesn't
take the bait, so ya get pissed. BOO-HOO. I said, I don't agree
with everything LV posts, but his MI know how beats yers anyday.

Don't whine when he laughs at ya futile works for fodder...

>SQUIRREL!!!!

Yet you can't deny it..not that YOUR opinion matters. Because
it happened. You just run and hide with yer head in the sand..

Now please, post more crap, beg for LV to respond so ya
can all jerk off. Sad. M'Lady and I..well, we're going out...

JJTj



I'm so tired of working every day...
Now the weekend's come I'm gonna throw ALL my troubles away
If you've got the cab fare, m'lady, you'll do alright.
I want to see the bright lights tonight

Meet me at the station now, n don't be late
I need to spend some money and it just won't wait
Take me to the dance and hold me tight
I want to see the bright lights tonight

There's crazy people running all over town
There's a silver band just marching up and down
And the big boys are all spoiling for a fight
I want to see the bright lights tonight

Meet me at the station don't be late
I need to spend some money and it just won't wait
Take me to the dance and hold me tight
I want to see the bright lights tonight

A couple of drunken nights rolling on the floor
Is just the kind of mess I'm looking for.
I'm gonna dream 'till Monday comes in sight
I want to see the bright lights tonight

Meet me at the station now, and don't be late !!!!!
I need to spend some money and it just won't wait
Take me to the dance and hold me tight
I want to see the bright lights tonight

Take me to the dance and hold me tight
I want to see the bright lights tonight

[Lord Valve]

Kaie Fabiaen wrote:

> On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:10:14 -0400, RS <R...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Who do you figure is the main factor? Why jump to his defense
> >constantly. I told you that's what gets you in trouble. If you're
> >concerned with your own rep (which goes without saying), rethink that.

Take a good look at that, J.

Read it a coupla times. This dude is a *punk*, he thinks
he's yer fuckin' MOM. Really, I have no idea why you
respond to him at all - it's a waste,of time. He's in the
nosebleed seats, and you can tell by the way he won't
post his name or his CV that he's a poser.

<shrug>

[RS]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 05:11:23 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
<tras...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 May 2013 04:47:18 -0400, RS totally steps on his crank:
>
>> Actually wrong. It's a common misconception about how followers work
>> and where you'd use them. In reality, you can't drive low impedance
>> loads with a CF, and evidently the poster never tried it.
>
>You sure about that? You're making a blanket generalization, which is the
>first clue that you *think* you know what you're talking about, when in
>reality you don't.

PS: I'll toss you an easy one. Electronics 101:

Let's say you have a conventional Marshall type cathode follower: a
12ax7 with a 100k resistor from cathode to ground. Your input signal
swings the grid toward ground, and the tube goes into cutoff--it's
effectively open circuit, infinite ohms. Now the output circuit
consists of a 100k to ground and infinite ohms to B+.
What's the output impedance?

Simple example, posted more for anyone who's actually interested in
tube circuitry. I doubt that Deficient actually cares. (He did reel
Valvie in with one of his electronic-trolls once though!)

If you can understand the above, then you'll see why you can't drive
low impedance loads reliably with a cathode follower. Yet the myth
prevails.

[Kaie Fabiaen]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:20:00 -0600, Lord Valve
<detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Take a good look at that, J.

..kayfabe.. LV... 'nuff said.. U's right..

I know. M'Lady is pissed now that I bother..

People here just don't get 'it'.

It's being on the inside, or the outside. Paying retail,
or being comp'd. Knowing reality or what the ads say.

No matter what these losers say, they only dream of
what they think they should be doing to jerk off to..

It's like the new TV ad..get this..

3 kids are on chairs, pushing screens on their toys
to re-create "Smoke on the water". NONE of them
are playing anything that even ipukes a real instrument.

'dad' comes in, on cue, banging on some iron pan, creating
the noise from the song..the idiot kids look at him like he's
got the clap. Idiot dad hides away, tail between legs..

The ad is about how the whole family can share data..

..yup..push them buttons kid..no real strings for you..

The real audio has Howard K seeing the fire, and saying:

"..FIRE.. Arthur Brown,in person.."

Then FZ directed the crowd out..safely..

No ipukes..


JJTj

[Bruce Morgen]

Kaie Fabiaen <the real world.reality.konk> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 May 2013 21:16:02 -0400, RS <R...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:
>

[snipped]

>
>oh..and BTW... Just the start... Click da 1st photo..
>
>
>http://www.maverick-music.com/autographed/1982-ronnie-lane-signed-photograph-letter
>

Take it to rec.deadrockers.nostalgia
-- it's just as off-topic here as
all the political and gun nut noise.
Just like you can't establish guilt
by association, you can't establish
competence or credibility by
association -- it doesn't matter
*who* you know if *what* know
doesn't amount to anything useful.

[RS]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:20:00 -0600, Lord Valve
<detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Kaie Fabiaen wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:10:14 -0400, RS <R...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Who do you figure is the main factor? Why jump to his defense
>> >constantly. I told you that's what gets you in trouble. If you're
>> >concerned with your own rep (which goes without saying), rethink that.
>
>Take a good look at that, J.
>
>Read it a coupla times. This dude is a *punk*, he thinks
>he's yer fuckin' MOM. Really, I have no idea why you
>respond to him at all - it's a waste,of time.

You don't respond, but you're still reading every word for some
reason.

> He's in the
>nosebleed seats, and you can tell by the way he won't
>post his name or his CV that he's a poser.

That's right, unlike you and JJ, I'm a nobody with no electronics
chops or engineering experience whatsoever. And you and JJ both
understand exactly how a cathode follower works, but you just...er...
don't want to say right now. :-)

[RS]

I will look forward to your upcoming Youtube demo. A 741 will run on
+/- 15v, so what kinda wattage do you figure?

Not the first time that Valve has been reeled in by an electronic
troll from his own doggie! Much more entertaining than the political
stuff.

[Bruce Morgen]

Kaie Fabiaen <the real world.reality.konk> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:20:00 -0600, Lord Valve
><detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Take a good look at that, J.
>
>..kayfabe.. LV... 'nuff said.. U's right..
>
>I know. M'Lady is pissed now that I bother..
>
>People here just don't get 'it'.
>
>It's being on the inside, or the outside. Paying retail,
>or being comp'd. Knowing reality or what the ads say.

Yeah, right, here's little
Jay again, wearing his cute
and colorful "The Ultimate
Insider" costume -- and it
isn't even Halloween! He's
got an adorable routine to
go with that outfit too --
whenever he's caught short
of actual know-how, he goes
into a a frantic dance
number touting his utterly
useless "know-who."
>
[snip]

[boardjunkie1]

On May 11, 6:40 pm, Kaie Fabiaen <the real world.reality.konk> wrote:

> It's like the new TV ad..get this..
>
> 3 kids are on chairs, pushing screens on their toys
> to re-create "Smoke on the water".  NONE of them
> are playing anything that even ipukes a real instrument.
>
> 'dad' comes in, on cue, banging on some iron pan, creating
> the noise from the song..the idiot kids look at him like he's
> got the clap.  Idiot dad hides away, tail between legs..
>
> The ad is about how the whole family can share data..
>
> ..yup..push them buttons kid..no real strings for you..
>

That "noise" wasn't in the song. But apparently it needed *more
cowbell*....

[jh]

Am 11.05.2013 23:30, schrieb Kaie Fabiaen:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 22:22:49 +0200, jh <us...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Hi JJTj,
>> to get back to some politness, which is currently not so present within
>> AGA; my responses are within your post....
>

SNIP

>
> History kinda sucx that way, I guess. RS blasted me for not
> responding about a CF circuit. I mentioned where said info could
> be found. He then (not you) insulted my GUITAR AMP know how.
>

> ...and I slowed his machine, right down...

Although anything in his description was right on track, including the
inability of a CF to "drive" anything....

>
> Take this to the bank, it's called 'kayfabe'. When you have
> BEEN THERE and DEALT THERE with ICONS, it matters squat
> to *ME*. When meeting rock 'stars', the ONLY way you got to
> fix their gear was, that you were NOT a idiot fan/wanna be..
>

> ...it was because..in the case of U2..VOX asked me to do it..
>
> ...Do you think, in any way shape or form, just ANY 'tech' could

> of walked into the room, taken apart that ripp'd cloth AC30, and
> fixed it. Oh sure, no big deal to do..but "..in with the IN crowd.."
>

> ...and I'm finding the paper that proves by cake hole...

>
> You seem upset over my rantings. Well, sorry if history upsets
> the applecart. I have been there. AND THAT is what PISSED me
> off about folks like (insert name here) who just go on and on about
> politics, and I'll include LV here, yet *MY* history in..oh wait..
>
> THIS IS A GUITAR AMP GROUP !!!!!!!!

Yes - we know...

>
> ...slow's ya machine right down...

>
> Maybe I'm amazed I'm finding all this old paper, the
> stuff between heads of companies and *ME*, etc...
>

> ...if ya all don't like it, kill file me and run and hide..

>
>> Sorry to repeat it. We all know of your connections to The Edge, PV,
>> Hiwatt, Marshall, VOX, concerts, joints and weed on the stage or in
>> cabinets sent from abroad; the white ampegs; 6146s; GMT;
>

> ...wow..you are keeping track. No matter what, I defy anyone else

> here to call me a 'hack'. You can't make this stuff up..not including
> names/dates/times and private details..want some..inflate ya shoes:
>

As I already wrote: there is no need to "keep track". You have repeated
it so many times. It's already hammered in...

> Mighty Mite..I was in Cam/Ca, staying at Randy's Z's house..
>
> He came home and found he left his dob dog in a room, and, well,
> said dog shit in a corner. RZ tried to beat the dog with a belt tillI
> stopped him. Later that week, he 'fired' his mom and dad over the
> phone because $$$ income was..well, nothing. I was outside da door.
>
> He wrote a song called 'The Joker'...want a copy on .mp3..?
>
> At one time Schecter, M/Mite etc was all one big company who had
> the brass parts made by *ONE* machine shop..who did M/cycle work.
>
> M/Mite had their PU's wound by the inmates at Cam/Ca because they
> did it so well..the same place Larry "wild man' Fischer was sent to..
>

> ...ya can't make this all up... Where is Randy Z today..call me..

>
> MI HISTORY..RS... not your textboiks...
>
>> come on - it's all there. Do an "ego search" on google and you will
>> surely find any aspect of your life you ever posted. Yes - and most of
>> us (whoever that is) have read your posts and know what you have written.
>
> 'Google the CF' idea I said..& when I said that, I was called a hack.
>
>> Please stop making a clown out of yourself.
>
> The truth never needs to wear make-up.

I was
I know
I met
It was me
I
I

>
>>> I just get pissed when attacked. And I hold up my banners..
>
>> doing that like a prayer wheel does not really help
>
> I only pray to one God..and no one here on in the MI field,
> past or present come close. Yer pushing strings at that point..
>
>> ..nuke mecca. Remember - that's when it *really* started. Anythin before
>> was - at least neglectible.
>
> So my years of giving free 'amp-porn' to the world is 'neglectible' ?
>
>

*This* was related to the drift of AGA to a POLITICAL NONSENSE debating
club. It began with LVs hillarious rants against all "towelheads".

It was not related to your amp porn
Before that the "political discussions" were amusing. Afterwards....BS
It throws a rale bad light on the actual situation in the USA. I would
not want to live in a country filled with about 35% village idiots
bearing arms

And yes - I expect a few "Fucking Kraut", "NAzi", "where would you be
without D-Day", "We*) liberated you" - Comments.

*) whoever that was, but rarely someone who's posting today.

I ain't bleeding you, I'm feeding u..but yer 2 fucking slow..

???

H�h?

I'm not sitting in achat room, ain't i?

>
>> I still look up - perhaps for nostalgical reasons. Phoenix - ashes -
>> hope dies last.
>
> "..learn, or be sold to..." (JJTj)
>
>
> Hey RS..cat got ya mouth?
>
> Sheit, MY cat has more MI history then you have...
>

> ...no sheit..really..she's 18, and been there..done that..MI wise..

[jh]

But the 741 *can* drive a speaker. Smokey amps used them... =:o

Ok - "driving" is propably not what it should be called. Slight
excitement - that better?

[RS]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:06:46 -0600, Lord Valve queefed:
<detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>>>> IOW, a plain 741 opamp can
>>>> present an output impedance that's an effective fraction of an ohm.
>>>> But you can't drive a speaker with it, can ya.

>>Defiant:
>> >Holy crap! Dumbass alert!

>> RS:

>> So a 741 can drive a speaker, eh? :-) Dumbass indeed.

>Valve:

>Ooops. I'll let Defiant administer the coup de grace...how embarassing for
>you.

Haven't heard back from Deefi or Valve yet. Here's the interesting
part--an oldie but goodie:

>Valve wrote:
(Speaking of a 741-type circuit)
>Figure it out yet, college boy? The level is *way*
>too low to drive a QSC power amp with.
>You assholes are so obsessed with counting
>coup you forgot shit any half-assed roadie
>learns on his first tour. In this case, YOU CAN'T
>DRIVE A POWER AMP WITH A DIRECT BOX.
>Fucking dumbasses, Jeezuz on a Harley...
>Lord Valve
>Expert (and you're not)

The DI in question was based on a 741-type opamp. At the time of the
post above, a 741-type opamp was apparently too wimpy to drive the
6Kohm input of a power amp, but now a 741 can drive an 8ohm speaker
directly.

This is a rather ironic twist. At the time of the 6K controversy,
Valve Productions released a Youtube video to prove that an
opamp-based DI could NOT drive a 6K input of a power amp, but now it
doesn't even need the power amp! (Will there be another video? One
can hope. :-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For any electronics buffs still on aga:

In reality, any 741-type has always been able to drive 6K with no
trouble, but even at 6K you can notice some minimal drop in output
voltage swing. As for driving an 8ohm speaker, well no.

The normal parts spec for a 741 calls out 75 ohms for typical output
stage, but the self-correcting mechanism of the feedback loop
effectively makes that look like a fraction of an ohm (I covered this
up-thread, and this is apparently what Valve and Defiant oddly have a
poblem with).

From James Cox's "Fundamentals of Linear Circuits: Integrated and
Discrete Circuitry": "A 741 opamp has a typical output impedance of
75 ohms. Once the opamp is connected in circuit with negative
feedback, the output impedance drops to near zero ohms."

Again, that's due to the feedback mechanism, as nothing internal to
the opamp changes whatsoever. IOW, it does not magically attain the
ability to drive any more current. But in fact, in-circuit, it behaves
like it could -until it is loaded down-.

To confirm, here is the 741 spec sheet:
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm741.pdf

Page 3 has specs for "Output Voltage Swing,"
At RLoad = 10k, output voltage is +/- 12.
At RLoad = 2k, output voltage is +/- 10.

Now you could use your imagination to figure what happens when RLoad
drops to 8 ohms. But as an interesting exercise, I thought I'd run
some numbers.

To figure the effective 'working' output impedance from those two
specs, you can regard the opamp as having an output impedance of "X"
ohms, fed by internal voltage "V". Two equations result:

(V * 10k) / (10k + X) = 12
(V * 2k) / (2k + X) = 10

For the 'xperts' that would be the normal way to calculate a simple
resistive divider.

That's enough info to solve for V and X as simultaneous equations.
V = 12.63 v
X = 526 ohms
(Rich and others can check my math, but I believe that's close)

The 12.63v makes sense cause bipolar devices have a saturation voltage
which does not allow full voltage swings (supply was +/- 15).

And the 526 ohm figure is how the opamp is actually behaving under
load, despite having a virtual output impedance of near zero.

Of course this will not be a completely linear function. It is only an
approximation of how it's operating within the range of the two
figures that TI specifies. Obviously they don't spec output swing at
8 ohms, cause nobody does that. The part was not designed for it.

But if you figure an optimistic 75 ohms, the ratio becomes
(75 + 8) / 8 : 1. That's what...about a 20db loss, even if the part
remains functional (it's only spec'd to provide 10ma+ into short
circuit).

If it were to continue linearly from the 526 ohms calc'd above, that's
(526 + 8) / 8 : 1. That's about -35 db.

I kinda hope that Deefi and Valve try this cause now I'm curious about
where the actual output swing will land. I've never thought to try
out such a thing.

BTW, if you go purely by rated current into short circuit, that's
W = I^2 * R, so 10ma would yield .0008 watts. *micro*watts.
Better have an efficient speaker.

[Defiant]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:25:26 -0400, RS tried to bullshit:

> On Sat, 11 May 2013 05:11:23 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
> <tras...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 May 2013 04:47:18 -0400, RS totally steps on his crank:
>>
>>> Actually wrong. It's a common misconception about how followers work
>>> and where you'd use them. In reality, you can't drive low impedance
>>> loads with a CF, and evidently the poster never tried it.
>>
>>You sure about that? You're making a blanket generalization, which is the
>>first clue that you *think* you know what you're talking about, when in
>>reality you don't.
>>
>>> The general idea is that the output has a low -virtual- impedance due
>>> to the way feedback works in a closed system. But the mechanism only
>>> works when followed by relatively high impedance loads*. Sounds
>>> ironic, doesn't it. I'll explain why in my reply to the OP now that
>>> Lords JJ and Valve have abdicated.
>>
>>Virtual impedance, huh? Do you even know what impedance is, or how to
>>calculate it? Show me, mathematically, the difference between "virtual"
>>impedance and "real" impedance.
>
> [mercy snip]

You mean deflection snip.

>
> Deficient is gonna try his hand at science again, as if no one
> remembers what happened last time. No actual contradictory info
> offered, so in case anyone is curious, I'll just cc a brief sentence
> from WP that addresses the opamp virtual impedance thing:
>
> from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opamp
> "..output impedance of the amplifier limits the maximum power that can
> be provided. In configurations with a voltage-sensing negative
> feedback, the output impedance of the amplifier is effectively
> lowered; thus, in linear applications, op-amps usually exhibit a very
> low output impedance indeed. Negative feedback can not, however,
> reduce the limitations that Rload in conjunction with Rout place on
> the maximum and minimum possible output voltages; it can only reduce
> output errors within that range."

So, a Wikipedia quote rather than mathematics. Thanks for playing.

Note this sentence:

"in linear applications, op-amps usually exhibit a very low output
impedance indeed"

There is nothing about "virtual impedance". As long as the device is
operated in it's linear region, the output impedance IS low.

>
> IOW, feedback makes the output impedance appear low...until it can't.

Wait, you mean physical devices have limitations? Tell me it aint so!

> Cause the output impedance isn't really low--

Yes it is.

>it just reacts as if it is due to the voltage sensing mechanism.

It reacts as if it is because IT IS. It can be shown mathematically,
and it can be proven on the bench with a real device. There is nothing
"virtual" about it. You stepped on your dick. Admit it.

> But that mechanism runs out
> of room when the physical limitations are exceeded. Hence:

Well, no shit. State the obvious much?

>
>>> Another way of thinking about this: Opamps work by roughly the same
>>> principal. The feedback loop causes a very low virtual output
>>> impedance, and it will react as a low output impedance--until you try
>>> to actually drive something with it. IOW, a plain 741 opamp can
>>> present an output impedance that's an effective fraction of an ohm.
>>> But you can't drive a speaker with it, can ya.
>>
>>Holy crap! Dumbass alert!
>
> So a 741 can drive a speaker, eh? :-) Dumbass indeed.
>
> PS: Arf! Arf!

You most certainly CAN drive a speaker with a 741. Power will be a meager
5mW or so, but it is doable. Back in the days it used to be done at schools
on a regular basis, before dedicated "power" op-amps like the LM386 were
developed.

Again, you stepped on your crank. Keep going, this is entertainment.

[RS]

LOL! Well, I thought that was an LM386, which is an actual power amp,
but that still sounds horrible. I don't see any reason for using a
741 there, as 386's are cheap. But maybe it is!

I kinda like quirky little buzz things sometimes, but I was surprised
at the Smokey. I had seen some cool circuits from Bruce Zinky
(designer), so I was rather surprised to hear the Smokey amp. He
should have filtered some of the rasp.

It will be interesting to see how Defiant and Valve follow up to this,
considering that they've committed to yet another wacky electronics
theory.

I just posted some tech info about 741's and such, so maybe there is
some redeeming info among the chaff. See what you've done? :-) I do
try to intersperse tech stuff here and there, but it's tough to tell
if anyone is interested these days.

[Defiant]

No need to wait for me. I'm guessing you've driven speakers or headphones
with a 741, just like 100's of thousands of other students have the world
over? ;)

[RS]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:12:05 +0000 (UTC), Defiant

<tras...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:25:26 -0400, RS tried to bullshit:
>
>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 05:11:23 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
>> <tras...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 May 2013 04:47:18 -0400, RS totally steps on his crank:
>>>
>>>> Actually wrong. It's a common misconception about how followers work
>>>> and where you'd use them. In reality, you can't drive low impedance
>>>> loads with a CF, and evidently the poster never tried it.
>>>
>>>You sure about that? You're making a blanket generalization, which is the
>>>first clue that you *think* you know what you're talking about, when in
>>>reality you don't.

NOTE again: You can't drive low impedance loads with a CF. They are
not suited for it.

>So, a Wikipedia quote rather than mathematics. Thanks for playing.

Post the math if you know it.

>Note this sentence:
>
>"in linear applications, op-amps usually exhibit a very low output
>impedance indeed"
>
>There is nothing about "virtual impedance". As long as the device is
>operated in it's linear region, the output impedance IS low.

And evidently you think that a 741 into 8 ohms will be in its (no
apostrophe) linear region. Interesting theory.

>> Cause the output impedance isn't really low--
>
>Yes it is.

Strangely enough, a 741 has an actual rated output impedance, and it's
not near zero.

>>>> Another way of thinking about this: Opamps work by roughly the same
>>>> principal. The feedback loop causes a very low virtual output
>>>> impedance, and it will react as a low output impedance--until you try
>>>> to actually drive something with it. IOW, a plain 741 opamp can
>>>> present an output impedance that's an effective fraction of an ohm.
>>>> But you can't drive a speaker with it, can ya.
>>>
>>>Holy crap! Dumbass alert!
>>
>> So a 741 can drive a speaker, eh? :-) Dumbass indeed.
>>
>> PS: Arf! Arf!
>
>You most certainly CAN drive a speaker with a 741. Power will be a meager
>5mW or so, but it is doable. Back in the days it used to be done at schools
>on a regular basis, before dedicated "power" op-amps like the LM386 were
>developed.

In the same sense, you could dig the Panama Canal with a soup spoon.
Or cross the Atlantic in a Volkswagen...if the tide was right.

This is it? This is the grand "Coup de Grace" that Valve declared?
pfft. Very disappointing.

In the rather bizarre sense that you could "use a 741 to drive a
speaker", you could also use a cathode follower to drive a low
impedance FX loop. It would work just about as well. You go for it.
I don't post misleading advice like that.

I had a feeling that the thread was headed some place like this. You
got Valvie again though. That was worth the price of admission.

[RS]

Would you say you could you drive a 600ohm load with an opamp then?
Just curious.

[RS]

Actually, make that 6K.

[Defiant]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:21:58 -0400, RS once again stepped on his crank:

> On Sat, 11 May 2013 05:11:23 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
> <tras...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 May 2013 04:47:18 -0400, RS totally steps on his crank:
>>
>>> Actually wrong. It's a common misconception about how followers work
>>> and where you'd use them. In reality, you can't drive low impedance
>>> loads with a CF, and evidently the poster never tried it.
>>
>>You sure about that? You're making a blanket generalization, which is the
>>first clue that you *think* you know what you're talking about, when in
>>reality you don't.
>
> PS: I'll toss you an easy one. Electronics 101:
>
> Let's say you have a conventional Marshall type cathode follower: a
> 12ax7 with a 100k resistor from cathode to ground. Your input signal
> swings the grid toward ground, and the tube goes into cutoff--it's
> effectively open circuit, infinite ohms. Now the output circuit
> consists of a 100k to ground and infinite ohms to B+.
> What's the output impedance?

Seriously? In what universe is a tube driven to cutoff considered a
linear amplifier? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Hey, LV! You need to sigfile this shit!

>
> Simple example, posted more for anyone who's actually interested in
> tube circuitry. I doubt that Deficient actually cares. (He did reel
> Valvie in with one of his electronic-trolls once though!)
>
> If you can understand the above, then you'll see why you can't drive
> low impedance loads reliably with a cathode follower. Yet the myth
> prevails.

If you understood the above, then you realize why RS is a total moron.

[jh]

Sorry for the confusion - of course the smokey used the 386.

I was wrong

regards

Jochen

[jh]

found a loophole

eh?

[RS]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:58:51 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
<tras...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:21:58 -0400, RS once again stepped on his crank:

>> PS: I'll toss you an easy one. Electronics 101:
>>
>> Let's say you have a conventional Marshall type cathode follower: a
>> 12ax7 with a 100k resistor from cathode to ground. Your input signal
>> swings the grid toward ground, and the tube goes into cutoff--it's
>> effectively open circuit, infinite ohms. Now the output circuit
>> consists of a 100k to ground and infinite ohms to B+.
>> What's the output impedance?
>
>Seriously? In what universe is a tube driven to cutoff considered a
>linear amplifier? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
>
>Hey, LV! You need to sigfile this shit!

You're getting boring now. Answer the question.

[RS]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:05:51 +0200, jh <us...@domain.invalid> wrote:

>Am 12.05.2013 09:29, schrieb RS:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:54:30 +0200, jh<j...@org.de> wrote:
>>> But the 741 *can* drive a speaker. Smokey amps used them... =:o
>>>
>>> Ok - "driving" is propably not what it should be called. Slight
>>> excitement - that better?
>>
>> LOL! Well, I thought that was an LM386, which is an actual power amp,
>> but that still sounds horrible. I don't see any reason for using a
>> 741 there, as 386's are cheap. But maybe it is!
>>
>> I kinda like quirky little buzz things sometimes, but I was surprised
>> at the Smokey. I had seen some cool circuits from Bruce Zinky
>> (designer), so I was rather surprised to hear the Smokey amp. He
>> should have filtered some of the rasp.

>Sorry for the confusion - of course the smokey used the 386.
>
>I was wrong
>
>regards
>
>Jochen

I guess the upshot is that you -can- drive a 600ohm FX loop with a
cathode follower! *

* fine print: It will sound like a Smokey Amp. :-)

[Defiant]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 03:50:50 -0400, RS wrote:

> On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:12:05 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
> <tras...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:25:26 -0400, RS tried to bullshit:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 05:11:23 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
>>> <tras...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 10 May 2013 04:47:18 -0400, RS totally steps on his crank:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually wrong. It's a common misconception about how followers work
>>>>> and where you'd use them. In reality, you can't drive low impedance
>>>>> loads with a CF, and evidently the poster never tried it.
>>>>
>>>>You sure about that? You're making a blanket generalization, which is the
>>>>first clue that you *think* you know what you're talking about, when in
>>>>reality you don't.
>
> NOTE again: You can't drive low impedance loads with a CF. They are
> not suited for it.

Again, a vague blanket statement. RS never defines "low" impedance, nor does
he say how much power needs to be delivered.

>
>>So, a Wikipedia quote rather than mathematics. Thanks for playing.
>
> Post the math if you know it.

I'm not the one stating that op-amps have a "virtual" output impedance and
a "real" output impedance.

>
>>Note this sentence:
>>
>>"in linear applications, op-amps usually exhibit a very low output
>>impedance indeed"
>>
>>There is nothing about "virtual impedance". As long as the device is
>>operated in it's linear region, the output impedance IS low.
>
> And evidently you think that a 741 into 8 ohms will be in its (no
> apostrophe) linear region. Interesting theory.
>

Assuming output is limited to prevent current limiting, then yes it will.

You stated as a "fact" that a 741 "will not drive a speaker", which is
demonstrably false. In fact, one can use a speaker as a load in a simple
bench test to show the output impedance of the 741 is indeed in the
milliohm range. Do *you* know how you could use a speaker to measure the
output impedance of a 741?

>>> Cause the output impedance isn't really low--
>>
>>Yes it is.
>
> Strangely enough, a 741 has an actual rated output impedance, and it's
> not near zero.

No, it has a rated output resistance that is measured open loop. Can you tell
the class how that is related to closed loop output impedance? The math is
pretty basic.

>
>>>>> Another way of thinking about this: Opamps work by roughly the same
>>>>> principal. The feedback loop causes a very low virtual output
>>>>> impedance, and it will react as a low output impedance--until you try
>>>>> to actually drive something with it. IOW, a plain 741 opamp can
>>>>> present an output impedance that's an effective fraction of an ohm.
>>>>> But you can't drive a speaker with it, can ya.
>>>>
>>>>Holy crap! Dumbass alert!
>>>
>>> So a 741 can drive a speaker, eh? :-) Dumbass indeed.
>>>
>>> PS: Arf! Arf!
>>
>>You most certainly CAN drive a speaker with a 741. Power will be a meager
>>5mW or so, but it is doable. Back in the days it used to be done at schools
>>on a regular basis, before dedicated "power" op-amps like the LM386 were
>>developed.
>
> In the same sense, you could dig the Panama Canal with a soup spoon.
> Or cross the Atlantic in a Volkswagen...if the tide was right.
>
> This is it? This is the grand "Coup de Grace" that Valve declared?
> pfft. Very disappointing.

You made a generalization, and you were wr..wr..wr...wrooooonggg.

>
> In the rather bizarre sense that you could "use a 741 to drive a
> speaker", you could also use a cathode follower to drive a low
> impedance FX loop. It would work just about as well. You go for it.
> I don't post misleading advice like that.

Try defining some parameters before making YET ANOTHER vague generalization.

>
> I had a feeling that the thread was headed some place like this. You
> got Valvie again though. That was worth the price of admission.

The fact that you are deliberately avoiding showing any of your "expertise"
is worth the price of admission.

[Defiant]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 04:25:30 -0400, RS whined:

I already did. What you are postulating is a mode of operation NO engineer
would want to occur if linear amplification is the objective. Are you using
the tube as an amplifier, or a switch? You DO know the difference, right?

Seriously, you're making this too easy. ROTFLMAO!!!!

[Kaie Fabiaen]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:40:09 -0400, Bruce Morgen <edi...@juno.com>
wrote:

>Take it to rec.deadrockers.nostalgia

Thank you for proving yourself to be a complete
wanker. I was blessed to of known him, in a limited
way, and you just need to be a wanker over a TALENT
beyond your, mine, or ANYONE here's wildest dreams.

But hey..be a wanker..

You don't even have a last row stand seat, you are
one of those who looks thru the window, as the cops
come by and tell you to move along...a wanna be..

..and you proved it..not me...


JJTj

[Kaie Fabiaen]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:54:30 +0200, jh <j...@org.de> wrote:

>But the 741 *can* drive a speaker. Smokey amps used them... =:o

..and sound like shit..

>Ok - "driving" is propably not what it should be called. Slight
>excitement - that better?

I can take a 9vt batt and make air move on a 2" spkr.

Ain't gonna make u R & R.. Ask ya ipuke...

[Kaie Fabiaen]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 03:29:08 -0400, RS <R...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:

>I just posted some tech info about 741's

Gawdess, RS..are you base'n yer spew on 741's..?

I made car payments changing them to real (then available to me)
better drop in ICs that might prove your point better then a 741..

..and that was decades ago, buck-o. hehehehehehehehe

Now, you may be trying to prove a point that said 741 is sooo
old, and can drive a 2" spkr under 1/00000 a watt..fine...

..but if others say I'm living in the
dark ages..man, 741 chips? duh?

[Kaie Fabiaen]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 03:50:50 -0400, RS <R...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:

>In the rather bizarre sense that you could "use a 741 to drive a
>speaker", you could also use a cathode follower to drive a low
>impedance FX loop. It would work just about as well. You go for it.
>I don't post misleading advice like that.

VOX did it years ago..not done well, but it worked..

Tube CF direct out to FX loop..

..Kayfabe.."

If you were not up in the cheap seats, you would know that..

[boardjunkie1]

On May 12, 2:54 am, jh <j...@org.de> wrote:
> Am 11.05.2013 23:25, schrieb RS:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 11 May 2013 05:11:23 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
> > <trash....@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 10 May 2013 04:47:18 -0400, RS totally steps on his crank:
>
> >>> Actually wrong.  It's a common misconception about how followers work
> >>> and where you'd use them.  In reality, you can't drive low impedance
> >>> loads with a CF, and evidently the poster never tried it.
>
> >> You sure about that? You're making a blanket generalization, which is the
> >> first clue that you *think* you know what you're talking about, when in
> >> reality you don't.
>
> >>> The general idea is that the output has a low -virtual- impedance due
> >>> to the way feedback works in a closed system. But the mechanism only
> >>> works when followed by relatively high impedance loads*. Sounds
> >>> ironic, doesn't it. I'll explain why in my reply to the OP now that
> >>> Lords JJ and Valve have abdicated.
>
> >> Virtual impedance, huh? Do you even know what impedance is, or how to
> >> calculate it? Show me, mathematically, the difference between "virtual"
> >> impedance and "real" impedance.
>
> > [mercy snip]
>
> > Deficient is gonna try his hand at science again, as if no one
> > remembers what happened last time. No actual contradictory info
> > offered, so in case anyone is curious, I'll just cc a brief sentence
> > from WP that addresses the opamp virtual impedance thing:
>

> > fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opamp

> > "..output impedance of the amplifier limits the maximum power that can
> > be provided. In configurations with a voltage-sensing negative
> > feedback, the output impedance of the amplifier is effectively
> > lowered; thus, in linear applications, op-amps usually exhibit a very
> > low output impedance indeed. Negative feedback can not, however,
> > reduce the limitations that Rload in conjunction with Rout place on
> > the maximum and minimum possible output voltages; it can only reduce
> > output errors within that range."
>
> > IOW, feedback makes the output impedance appear low...until it can't.
> > Cause the output impedance isn't really low--it just reacts as if it
> > is due to the voltage sensing mechanism.  But that mechanism runs out
> > of room when the physical limitations are exceeded. Hence:
>
> >>> Another way of thinking about this: Opamps work by roughly the same
> >>> principal. The feedback loop causes a very low virtual output
> >>> impedance, and it will react as a low output impedance--until you try
> >>> to actually drive something with it.  IOW, a plain 741 opamp can
> >>> present an  output impedance that's an effective fraction of an ohm.
> >>> But you can't drive a speaker with it, can ya.
>
> >> Holy crap! Dumbass alert!
>
> > So a 741 can drive a speaker, eh?  :-)  Dumbass indeed.
>
> > PS: Arf!  Arf!
>
> But the 741 *can* drive a speaker. Smokey amps used them... =:o
>
> Ok - "driving" is propably not what it should be called. Slight
> excitement - that better?

No, that was an LM386 Jurgen.

[jh]

>>>>> present an output impedance that's an effective fraction of an ohm..

>>>>> But you can't drive a speaker with it, can ya.
>>
>>>> Holy crap! Dumbass alert!
>>
>>> So a 741 can drive a speaker, eh? :-) Dumbass indeed.
>>
>>> PS: Arf! Arf!
>>
>> But the 741 *can* drive a speaker. Smokey amps used them... =:o
>>
>> Ok - "driving" is propably not what it should be called. Slight
>> excitement - that better?
>
> No, that was an LM386 Jurgen.

I have already realized my mistake....and corrected myself

Jochen

[Bruce Morgen]

Kaie Fabiaen <the real world.reality.konk> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:40:09 -0400, Bruce Morgen <edi...@juno.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Take it to rec.deadrockers.nostalgia
>
>Thank you for proving yourself to be a complete
>wanker. I was blessed to of known him, in a limited
>way, and you just need to be a wanker over a TALENT
>beyond your, mine, or ANYONE here's wildest dreams.
>
>But hey..be a wanker..

Better that than a groupie
name-dropper trying to
borrow a dead man's rep to
shore up his beleaguered
ego.

>
>You don't even have a last row stand seat, you are
>one of those who looks thru the window, as the cops
>come by and tell you to move along...a wanna be..
>
>..and you proved it..not me...
>

Once again, the sad little
dance of "The Ultimate Insider"
-- all "know-who," no knowhow.

NNB

[boardjunkie1]

Disregard....I shoulda scrolled down further to the later posts.
Disregard the incorrect name too ;) I think I got you mixed up with
someone on a different forum.

[jh]

no problemo ;-)

[morris....@gmail.com]

I think of this situation as a matter of current swing. With enough negative feedback, you can bring the small-signal impedance of an output stage as low as you like. But the level you'll be able to get out of it is going to be limited by the current you can swing. If I had a 12AX7 cathode follower idling away at 1.5 mA, I'd expect that it could give 'clean' current swing of +- 1mA or so. Into a 600 ohm load, that'd cleanly let you put out 0.4V rms. Is that 'line level'? No. Would it drive a power amp? Not well. Is it useless? For some things. Depends on what. Would it be fine for a cheapo FX loop? It might. And a 12AT7 circuit pulling more idle current would be somewhat less marginal.

John Broskie has quite the archive of cathode-follower type circuits which operate low-impedance headphones and the like. All of them basically work by running a fairly high idle current through fairly hefty tubes and just burning up dozens of watts to put out milliwatts. Could they drive a speaker? I suppose that depends. If you had a few 16 ohm drivers in series, and were willing to listen in a quiet room, you might think they were perfectly good.

[JHATG]

In article <518E4EFA...@ix.netcom.com>,
Lord Valve <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> your disgusting pro-abortion agenda.

Not disgusting. Abortions are good. Cope...

[RS]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:50:29 -0700 (PDT), boardjunkie1
<boardj...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 12, 2:54 am, jh <j...@org.de> wrote:

>> > Deficient:

>> >> Holy crap! Dumbass alert!

>> RS:

>> > So a 741 can drive a speaker, eh?  :-)  Dumbass indeed.
>>
>> > PS: Arf!  Arf!
>>
>> But the 741 *can* drive a speaker. Smokey amps used them... =:o
>>
>> Ok - "driving" is propably not what it should be called. Slight
>> excitement - that better?
>
>No, that was an LM386 Jurgen.

And the 386 is way better equipped to drive a speaker than a 741,
which wasn't designed to drive anything below about 2k. At least the
386 is spec'd to drive loads in the range of a speaker.

I was never tempted to try a 741 for driving a speaker, but it's not
gonna even get in the range of the raspy gritty Smokey sound.

I had always held Zinky up to be one of those designers that I'd like
to hang out and talk with, so I was really disappointed w the Smokey.
He could have done way better with about the same component count.

[RS]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 11:10:41 -0700 (PDT), morris....@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:50:50 AM UTC-4, RS wrote:

[snipped Deficient's "You can use a 741 to drive a speaker..."]

>> In the rather bizarre sense that you could "use a 741 to drive a
>>
>> speaker", you could also use a cathode follower to drive a low
>>
>> impedance FX loop. It would work just about as well. You go for it.
>>
>> I don't post misleading advice like that.
>>
>>
>>
>> I had a feeling that the thread was headed some place like this. You
>>
>> got Valvie again though. That was worth the price of admission.

Hi Morris,

>I think of this situation as a matter of current swing. With enough
> negative feedback, you can bring the small-signal impedance of an
> output stage as low as you like. But the level you'll be able to get
> out of it is going to be limited by the current you can swing.

Well, there's the hitch.

> If I had a 12AX7 cathode follower idling away at 1.5 mA, I'd expect that
> it could give 'clean' current swing of +- 1mA or so.

This is why I suggested the thought experiment up-thread. At more
extreme signal negative signal swings, the 12ax7 becomes less and less
a part of the circuit, until at cutoff, the sole remaining component
is the resistor from cathode to ground. As the tube starts to turn
off, the drive current is proportionally at the mercy of the
cathode-side resistance to drive it.

If the circuit is a Marshall-like follower (which actually -has- been
used by some who have misinterpreted the C.F. lore), then the load
will effectively be driven by 100k or so. Not exactly a great current
sink. You wouldn't be able to effectively sink anything near 100k
load, much less a low impedance. (Hence my original post)

Source side will be a little better than that but still at the mercy
of a 12ax7 in saturation to provide current. And just as you wouldn't
normally consider using 600 ohms as the cathode to ground resistor,
you wouldn't want to do the equivalent with a low impedance load.
Needless to say the tube won't be up for it.

And of course we're talking about very asymmetrical operation between
source vs sink.

I tend to think in terms of solid design practices, so I can
understand why someone considering a 741 as a viable power amp could
consider a regular CF as suitable for driving low impedances. It would
work about as well. :-)

> Into a 600 ohm
> load, that'd cleanly let you put out 0.4V rms. Is that 'line level'?
> No. Would it drive a power amp? Not well. Is it useless? For some
> things. Depends on what. Would it be fine for a cheapo FX loop? It
> might. And a 12AT7 circuit pulling more idle current would be
> somewhat less marginal.

"Less marginal" being the key phrase. There is no practical reason to
do that though. I've seen many posts here and there about "I can't
drive my FX box from my amp's FX loop" and quite often it turns out to
be impedance related. Good designers should know to use an opamp.

Tube purists, on the other hand, generally use variants of White
Followers, which can at least provide more symmetry between source and
sink: http://www.tubecad.com/october99/page4.html

I believe the old Valley and Wallman text from MIT Radiation Labs
covers some of this. You should be able to find a PDF. If not, I'll
find it if you wish.

>John Broskie has quite the archive of cathode-follower type circuits
> which operate low-impedance headphones and the like. All of them
> basically work by running a fairly high idle current through fairly
> hefty tubes and just burning up dozens of watts to put out
> milliwatts. Could they drive a speaker? I suppose that depends. If
> you had a few 16 ohm drivers in series, and were willing to listen in
> a quiet room, you might think they were perfectly good.

There ya go, but again you would need a cathode resistor that could
sink current into the speaker. Stack up a ton of tubes to drive it
and you'll have the side benefit that it will keep you warm in the
winter.

I'd imagine that Broskie must also experiment with White follower
variants, no? I've seen those used in headphone drivers.

So...how did you do with the joystick project?

[RS]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 11:10:41 -0700 (PDT), morris....@gmail.com
wrote:

>John Broskie has quite the archive of cathode-follower type circuits

Come to think of it, didn't Broskie design a practical
White-follower-type circuit that he uses for driving relatively low
impedances?

[RS]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:06:46 -0600, Lord Valve
<detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>RatShit farted into his hand and took a sniff:
>
>> >Holy crap! Dumbass alert!
>>

>> So a 741 can drive a speaker, eh? :-) Dumbass indeed.
>

>Ooops. I'll let Defiant administer the coup de grace...how embarassing for
>you.

There hasn't been this kind of tense anticipation since Geraldo opened
Al Capone's mystery vaults--and found the equivalent of a 741
connected to a speaker!

Just checking in to see if you realized what's going on yet. Deficient
is the same guy who just posted the grand news story about Bloomberg
and the pizza guy which reeled you in, and of course turned out to be
from a joke site. Lucy--Charlie Brown--Football. No, he's not on my
payroll but it's something to consider when you plan your next
glorious coup de grace.

But back to the topic: 741...can it drive a speaker or not? You know
this one!

[RS]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 06:41:14 -0400, Kaie Fabiaen <the real
world.reality.konk> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 May 2013 03:29:08 -0400, RS <R...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:
>
>>I just posted some tech info about 741's
>
>Gawdess, RS..are you base'n yer spew on 741's..?

"741" = granddaddy general opamp. No one remembers the 709.
I don't use them, but someone was talking about driving speakers with
'em!

>I made car payments changing them to real (then available to me)
>better drop in ICs that might prove your point better then a 741..
>
>..and that was decades ago, buck-o. hehehehehehehehe

So...what are your favorites?

>Now, you may be trying to prove a point that said 741 is sooo
>old, and can drive a 2" spkr under 1/00000 a watt..fine...

Divide by zero error! Infinite watts!

[morris....@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:59:45 PM UTC-4, RS wrote:

> This is why I suggested the thought experiment up-thread. At more
>
> extreme signal negative signal swings, the 12ax7 becomes less and less
>
> a part of the circuit, until at cutoff, the sole remaining component
>
> is the resistor from cathode to ground. As the tube starts to turn
>
> off, the drive current is proportionally at the mercy of the
>
> cathode-side resistance to drive it.
>

Here's what I THINK actually happens if you push the 12AX7 into cutoff ... I assume we cap-couple the load, right? We probably would, I think. Then we get a circuit consisting of the 100K resistor, the cap (with about 150 VDC across it), and our low-impedance load. I'd guess that what initially happens is that the cap discharges through the load and the 100K resistor ... if the idle current had been 1.5 mA, the cap & resistor are now sinking 1.5 mA from the load ... this lasts until the cap runs down, I'd guess.

That's pretty much why I figure such circuits are all about the idle current.

>
> If the circuit is a Marshall-like follower (which actually -has- been
>
> used by some who have misinterpreted the C.F. lore), then the load
>
> will effectively be driven by 100k or so. Not exactly a great current
>
> sink. You wouldn't be able to effectively sink anything near 100k
>
> load, much less a low impedance. (Hence my original post)
>

I don't know the real WHY that Jim Marshall put that circuit in there. Probably some of the older guys might know the folklore. I figure it has something to do with the midrange EQ of the tone stack, and also provides some hard asymmetrical clipping as part of the "Marshall Sound".

Yeah it'd be silly to use it as a line driver. But people do it, I've even tried it. It isn't a great FX loop. Kind of gritty sounding. But it does sort of work. It'd probably be better with a 12AT7. Or the truly flashy way to do it, with a 12AT7 driving a stepdown transformer.

The joystick-controlled filter is still on hold. The 4SJ sticks have arrived, and they are truly tough-looking. As I feared, I have to do a whole new PCB layout and even modify the case layout a little.

Broskie has a whole lot of cathode followers, White-based and otherwise, plenty of push-pull SRPP line driver stages and his own "Aikido" push-pull driver that incorporate power supply noise-bucking.

[morris....@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 4:16:25 PM UTC-4, RS wrote:
>
> But back to the topic: 741...can it drive a speaker or not? You know
>
> this one!

I swear that I remember a Radio Shack electronics kit circuit which used a 741 to drive a speaker through a 1000:8 ohm stepdown transformer. About 10 milliwatts of output, the speaker itself being specified for 250 mW. It was some sort of noisemaking circuit.

[jh]

Putnam?

LA2A

regards

Jochen.

[Lord Valve]

OK, if you wankers are finished stroking each other...

Is this a speaker?

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=279-090

It appears to have a voice coil, a magnetic gap,
a magnet, and a diaphragm to which the VC
is attached, from which sound will be radiated.
Last time I checked, this would be called a
speaker.

Second - will this circuit drive it?

http://ebookbrowse.com/headphone-amp-741-pdf-d101631918

Yeah, in fact, it will.


Third, is this statement bullshit or is it accurate?

"IOW, a plain 741 opamp can present an output
impedance that's an effective fraction of an ohm.
But you can't drive a speaker with it, can ya."

Looks like bullshit to me. Game over, have a nice fuckin' day.


Lord Valve
Expert (fuck you)

[jh]

Am 12.05.2013 22:33, schrieb morris....@gmail.com:
> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:59:45 PM UTC-4, RS wrote:
>
>> This is why I suggested the thought experiment up-thread. At more
>>
>> extreme signal negative signal swings, the 12ax7 becomes less and less
>>
>> a part of the circuit, until at cutoff, the sole remaining component
>>
>> is the resistor from cathode to ground. As the tube starts to turn
>>
>> off, the drive current is proportionally at the mercy of the
>>
>> cathode-side resistance to drive it.
>>
>

> Here's what I THINK actually happens if you push the 12AX7 into cutoff ... I assume we cap-couple the load, right? We probably would, I think. Then we get a circuit consisting of the 100K resistor, the cap (with about 150 VDC across it), and our low-impedance load. I'd guess that what initially happens is that the cap discharges through the load and the 100K resistor .... if the idle current had been 1.5 mA, the cap& resistor are now sinking 1..5 mA from the load ... this lasts until the cap runs down, I'd guess.

>
> That's pretty much why I figure such circuits are all about the idle current.
>
>>
>> If the circuit is a Marshall-like follower (which actually -has- been
>>
>> used by some who have misinterpreted the C.F. lore), then the load
>>
>> will effectively be driven by 100k or so. Not exactly a great current
>>
>> sink. You wouldn't be able to effectively sink anything near 100k
>>
>> load, much less a low impedance. (Hence my original post)
>>
>
> I don't know the real WHY that Jim Marshall put that circuit in there. Probably some of the older guys might know the folklore.

No need for older guys "folklore" for the "Marshall thingy"... Ken Bran
chose to clone the Fender Bassman 5F6-A. This one had the CF - hence the
JTM45 had one too.

"Folklore" is needed for the reason of the CF in the Bassman. Propably
something out of a 50s textbook (RCA, WE or something like that) or
something Leo "invented".

I really don't want to diss Leo Fender. He was a genius to take ideas
from where-ever and design some real ingenious bulletproof and
mass-producable products around them. Nobody else in *this* league way
back then.

Why he changed the first bassman-design to the CF-type? I don't know;
someone else propably does.

I figure it has something to do with the midrange EQ of the tone stack,
and also provides some hard asymmetrical clipping as part of the
"Marshall Sound".
>

> Yeah it'd be silly to use it as a line driver. But people do it, I've even tried it. It isn't a great FX loop.Kind of gritty sounding. But it does sort of work. It'd probably be

better with a 12AT7. Or the truly flashy way to do it, with a 12AT7
driving a stepdown transformer.

The stepdown might be the "perfect" choice to drive a typical low
impedance load.

But for FX loops - what's the typical input impedance of the following
stage? 47k?

In this case, I'd simply say cap coupled CF to reduce any effects of the
length of the cords and forget about it. No "real" drive needed there....

A 12AX7 CF is at least better than a passive Break Point succeeding an
anode follower. A 12AT7 CF (or an 12AU7) will do it without any
perceivable side effects....

If they are "gritty" - my good - i can't hear it.

Hope this is no boomerang

regards

Jochen

[morris....@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 5:21:40 PM UTC-4, Lord Valve wrote:
> morris....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sunday, May 12, 2013 4:16:25 PM UTC-4, RS wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > But back to the topic: 741...can it drive a speaker or not? You know
>
> > >
>
> > > this one!
>
> >
>
> > I swear that I remember a Radio Shack electronics kit circuit which used a 741 to drive a speaker through a 1000:8 ohm stepdown transformer. About 10 milliwatts of output, the speaker itself being specified for 250 mW. It was some sort of noisemaking circuit.
>
>
>
> OK, if you wankers are finished stroking each other...
>
>
>
> Is this a speaker?
>
>
>
> http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=279-090
>
>

Yes, that is a speaker.

> Second - will this circuit drive it?
>
>
>
> http://ebookbrowse.com/headphone-amp-741-pdf-d101631918
>
>
>
> Yeah, in fact, it will.
>

Remember Toonces, the cat who could drive a car (but not very well)?

Not very well.

You picked a 16 ohm speaker with a power rating of 0.25 W. That means to drive it to full power you need a current of 125 mA, RMS. The poor old 741 is hard pressed to deliver 10 mA RMS. Yeah, it'll make some noise, fizzle a little, but it won't be rocking. Plus, running the 741 at full current limit, you're not going to exactly have high fidelity here, expect slew-rate limit and the high end to get all blurry in a hurry. The Internet is sure full of shitty op-amp headphone amp circuits that sound like butt. But at least you didn't pick one of them as your example circuit. No, you picked a guitar 'practice amp' circuit. So high fidelity isn't even a requirement.

And there's even a single-chip headphone/small speaker driver, the LM386, which makes a perfectly good guitar practice amp. Why use an op-amp instead of a purpose-designed part?

"I guess he can drive! Just not very well!"
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/toonces-the-cat/n9792/

[Lord Valve]

morris....@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 5:21:40 PM UTC-4, Lord Valve wrote:
> > morris....@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sunday, May 12, 2013 4:16:25 PM UTC-4, RS wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > But back to the topic: 741...can it drive a speaker or not? You know
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > this one!
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I swear that I remember a Radio Shack electronics kit circuit which used a 741 to drive a speaker through a 1000:8 ohm stepdown transformer. About 10 milliwatts of output, the speaker itself being specified for 250 mW. It was some sort of noisemaking circuit.
> >
> >
> >
> > OK, if you wankers are finished stroking each other...
> >
> >
> >
> > Is this a speaker?
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=279-090
> >
> >
>
> Yes, that is a speaker.
>
> > Second - will this circuit drive it?
> >
> >
> >
> > http://ebookbrowse.com/headphone-amp-741-pdf-d101631918
> >
> >
> >
> > Yeah, in fact, it will.
> >
>
> Remember Toonces, the cat who could drive a car (but not very well)?
>
> Not very well.

That's a lame-ass answer, and you know it.

> You picked a 16 ohm speaker with a power rating of 0.25 W.

...

I could have just as easily picked a Sennheiser headphone
driver that had an impedance of 600 ohms, but the pictures
on the Sennheiser site were lousy. Obfuscate much?

> That means to drive it to full power you need a current of 125 mA, RMS. The poor old 741 is hard pressed to deliver 10 mA RMS. Yeah, it'll make some noise, fizzle a little, but it won't be rocking. Plus, running the 741 at full current limit, you're not going to exactly have high fidelity here, expect slew-rate limit and the high end to get all blurry in a hurry. The Internet is sure full of shitty op-amp headphone amp circuits that sound like butt. But at least you didn't pick one of them as your example circuit. No, you picked a guitar 'practice amp' circuit. So high fidelity isn't even a requirement.

That would be a "yes," then.

> And there's even a single-chip headphone/small speaker driver, the LM386, which makes a perfectly good guitar practice amp.

And the LM380, and many others, etc. So?

> Why use an op-amp instead of a purpose-designed part?

Who said I wanted to?

Y'see, Mr. Slutzky, this fuckin' wanker RS thinks he has it
goin' on in the MI department, and most of the stuff he
says exposes him as a rookie. If you'll recall, some time
ago there was a thread here (endlessly regurgitated by
you-know-who) regarding using a certain direct box to
drive a certain amplifier. My contention was that it was
a bad idea, and in fact, it was. The specified DI was
unable to drive the specified power amp to anywhere
near full power, and the intended purpose of the combination
was as a BASS AMPLIFIER, which, as we all know, needs
to have all the power you can squeeze out of it. I went so
far as to obtain the specified DI, and hook it up to the
specified amplifier (which I was a dealer for and had
several of in stock) and sure enough, the DI wimped out
at around half power from the amplifier.

And THAT, Mr. Slutzky, is *exactly* the same argument
you just used above. If it's good for you, it damnsure ought
to be good for me, but you guys don't play that way. You
figure that sheepskin on your wall is a talisman which
guarantees infallibility; it's been my experience - which
is in fact considerable - that such a document is nowhere
near to being proof that the document's holder is not
completely full of shit. Ahem.

The clueless wanker tried to cover his ass by saying something
truly lame about how "loud" the amp would be at the available
output level, but everyone here knew he was full of shit...
including, if you'll recall, Mr. Slutzky, YOURSELF. In fact,
you put up a post which solidly agreed with my position,
and you noted that the results I obtained on the bench
were in fact extremely close to what the math you did
had predicted. Of course, once you began to take flack
for agreeing with The Eeeeevyl Vlave, you bowed out of
the thread and disappeared for several months. Perfectly
understandable; I realize balls are in short supply on the
bookish end of things, and truly, I don't fault you for it. It's
hard cheese for college boys to admit there's even a
ghost of a chance they might not know everything. Take,
for instance, NASCAR. You know where that came from?
Moonshiners. Those boys weren't automotive engineers,
and they didn't have a lot of money. They needed fast cars
to haul the heavy loads of shine and at the same time have
enough power to outrun the police, so they figured out
ways the Detroit college boys never even thought about
to tweak and tune those motors for maximum performance.
After a while, the Detroit boys said, "Hey, wait a minute...
those motors are pretty cool, let's see what those boys are
doing..." Took 'em a coupla decades, but they finally caught
up.

Enough.

[Carl]

RichL wrote:
> "jh" <us...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
> news:kmm93q$n98$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> ..nuke mecca. Remember - that's when it *really* started. Anythin
>> before was - at least neglectible.
>>
>> Now, it's a joke.
>
> It's really bad when the supposed "experts" respond to a legitimate
> question (like the one that started this thread) with a flame,
> presuming the OP is a "sock" or (like another "expert" said) suggest
> Googling the answer.
> I am not an expert, real or imagined. I'm a guitar amp *user*,
> hoping to learn more about the innards of amps. I came to this group
> seven years or so ago. In the first few years I learned a lot, just
> reading the posts of different folks and using resources they
> mentioned. So I know more than I did at the beginning. But I'd say
> in the last two or three years, the rate at which I've gained
> knowledge from this group has slowed to a crawl.
> I keep reading the group in the hope that things will improve. In the
> meantime, I guess I've taken a mentality of "if you can't beat 'em,
> join 'em". To me, it's either do that or become increasingly
> frustrated at the lack of on-topic content.
>
You're not alone in what you've said here. Ditto. A sincere post.

[morris....@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 6:47:54 PM UTC-4, Lord Valve wrote:
> Y'see, Mr. Slutzky, this fuckin' wanker RS thinks he has it
>
> goin' on in the MI department, and most of the stuff he
>
> says exposes him as a rookie.

> Of course, once you began to take flack
>
> for agreeing with The Eeeeevyl Vlave, you bowed out of
>
> the thread and disappeared for several months. Perfectly
>
> understandable; I realize balls are in short supply on the
>
> bookish end of things, and truly, I don't fault you for it. It's
>
> hard cheese for college boys to admit there's even a
>
> ghost of a chance they might not know everything.

I've totally gone to college. But NOT for this stuff.

Despite your anger and tendency to flood the group with bile, I do think you know your history and know what to do with an amp on a bench. I'd bet you could set up a PA and run a board too. But that's not what these discussions usually end up about - when people get to talking about circuit design, it sounds like you haven't necessarily done as much of it as some other folks on here. Different things. Why get so worked up about it? Yeah, NASCAR versus SAE, sure. But remember were it not for card-carrying engineers, standing on the shoulders of their physicist forefathers, there'd have been no motors for the 'shine boys to tweak out. Someone had to crack a book at some point.

Had you picked a 600 ohm driver, by the way, I would have questioned you about VOLTAGE swing as opposed to current. My personal philosophy of headphone amps is that there's no reason not to design them with miles of headroom, both voltage and current, so why wouldn't you? That's probably why my personal headphone amp is the size of a shoebox, runs as warm as an adorable kitten, and makes an audible 'clunk' when I switch it on.

[Lord Valve]

Dude -

*I* didn't suggest using a 741 for a headphone amp. His
Imperial Wankership made a blanket statement - completely
out of the blue - that you couldn't drive a speaker with a 741.
He is, of course, completely full of shit, since people have
been using them for headphone amps for *decades*. There
are certainly better chips for that purpose - that was not the
point. The point is that RS (name, CV, and location unknown)
is wrong *again.* And that's about all I have to say on the subject.

LV