History Lesson: 600 ohm balanced line
disto...@yahoo.com
I am looking for a Greybeard of sorts. I have recently been thrown
into the audio realm, particularly testing with semiconductor PA's,
and I am curious to know where the 600 ohm impedance originated from.
For example, most testing I have done is with 4 ohm to 8 ohms with
PA's and 16 ohms or 32 ohms with headphones for portable audio
(computing, MP3, cell phone) and there is generally no need for
impedance matching.
I have managed to piece together some basic information from multiple
Google searches that 600 ohms originated from the POTS and was adopted
by the pro audio crowd decades ago, but I would like some more
'historical' information of when, why, and how.
What prompted this question is that another group uses an HP 8903B
which has either a 50 ohm or 600 ohm impedance to test audio analog
CMOS switches and 600 ohms is selected for THD+N measurements.
The philosophy of the impedance difference intrigued me and thus has
lead me on a search to understand where the 600 ohms standard came
from and why some equipment only has this option.
Any tips, notes, or thoughts will be greatly appreciated.
David Gravereaux
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I am looking for a Greybeard of sorts. I have recently been thrown
> into the audio realm, particularly testing with semiconductor PA's,
> and I am curious to know where the 600 ohm impedance originated from.
An old telephone standard.
> For example, most testing I have done is with 4 ohm to 8 ohms with
> PA's and 16 ohms or 32 ohms with headphones for portable audio
> (computing, MP3, cell phone) and there is generally no need for
> impedance matching.
A more correct term might be power matching. When you have a device
with an output impedance, such as the plate of an electron tube, it
becomes important to match the impedances so that you get greatest power
transfer. Best power transfer is when output impedance matches input
impedance. The drawback is that half the voltage is lost. Search on
the term "Thevenin's equivalent".
> I have managed to piece together some basic information from multiple
> Google searches that 600 ohms originated from the POTS and was adopted
> by the pro audio crowd decades ago, but I would like some more
> 'historical' information of when, why, and how.
Correct and I don't know the details.
> What prompted this question is that another group uses an HP 8903B
> which has either a 50 ohm or 600 ohm impedance to test audio analog
> CMOS switches and 600 ohms is selected for THD+N measurements.
> The philosophy of the impedance difference intrigued me and thus has
> lead me on a search to understand where the 600 ohms standard came
> from and why some equipment only has this option.
> Any tips, notes, or thoughts will be greatly appreciated.
Apply Thevenin's equivalent on a circuit with a 50 ohm output impedance
and a 10K input impedance and things look a whole lot different. As the
load is greater than ten times the output, that system is called 'equal
voltage transfer' as opposed to a power matched system.
Soundhaspriority
<disto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e946b299-92c7-4990...@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
One would have to have a very gray beard ;)
From http://www.sizes.com/units/decibel.htm
"The reference level is 1 milliwatt across an impedance of 600 ohms. The "m"
stands for milliwatt. The 600 ohms came from standards in the telephone
industry, the technology of the early 20th century, in which maximizing
power transfer by matching output and input impedances was an important
consideration. Note that a 0 dBm signal in a circuit with an impedance of
600 ohms corresponds to 0.775 volt rms. A signal change of -3 dBm is about a
halving of the power.
See also volume unit."
Practically every university science library with a strong engineering
school has all the volumes of the Bell System Journal. It provides a journey
through time, before the era of Lee DeForest, up to the development of what
was quaintly called "LSI" integrated circuitry. I once measured the shelf
space of the Journal; I can't remember the exact number, but I imagine it to
be around 30 feet. It's worth a trip to a library.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Don Pearce
<davy...@pobox.com> wrote:
>disto...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Hello Everyone,
>>
>> I am looking for a Greybeard of sorts. I have recently been thrown
>> into the audio realm, particularly testing with semiconductor PA's,
>> and I am curious to know where the 600 ohm impedance originated from.
>
>An old telephone standard.
>
>> For example, most testing I have done is with 4 ohm to 8 ohms with
>> PA's and 16 ohms or 32 ohms with headphones for portable audio
>> (computing, MP3, cell phone) and there is generally no need for
>> impedance matching.
>
>A more correct term might be power matching. When you have a device
>with an output impedance, such as the plate of an electron tube, it
>becomes important to match the impedances so that you get greatest power
>transfer. Best power transfer is when output impedance matches input
>impedance. The drawback is that half the voltage is lost. Search on
>the term "Thevenin's equivalent".
>
>> I have managed to piece together some basic information from multiple
>> Google searches that 600 ohms originated from the POTS and was adopted
>> by the pro audio crowd decades ago, but I would like some more
>> 'historical' information of when, why, and how.
>
>Correct and I don't know the details.
>
The matched 600 ohm lines are important for phones because the lines
are so long. When the load is mismatched power bounces and reflects
back the way it came. the result with a cable that stretches across a
country is an echo, which is mighty off-putting. So a minimum matching
standard was imposed, which restricted the amplitude of echoes to an
acceptable level. On long lines echo becomes a problem long before any
mismatch power loss matters.
d
Soundhaspriority
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:mq6dnY0qbK6zI4TX...@giganews.com...
>
[snip]
>
> Practically every university science library with a strong engineering
> school has all the volumes of the Bell System Journal. It provides a
> journey through time, before the era of Lee DeForest, up to the
> development of what was quaintly called "LSI" integrated circuitry. I once
> measured the shelf space of the Journal; I can't remember the exact
> number, but I imagine it to be around 30 feet. It's worth a trip to a
> library.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511
it has been published only since 1922, it came after the development of the
triode in the timeframe of 1908-12.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Chris Hornbeck
> I am curious to know where the 600 ohm impedance originated from.
Others here will have better detail, but it's the "characteristic
impedance" of conductors spaced a couple inches apart in free air.
Characteristic impedance is the resistive value that an infinitely
long line would look like. Another way to describe it is that it's
the resistive load applied to that not-infinitely-long line that makes
it look like a resistor (and, of that value).
All the best fortune,
Chris Hornbeck
Soundhaspriority
"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbe...@att.net> wrote in message
news:nufj15de2k4tbqttm...@4ax.com...
Good point, it's "ladder line", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_line .
But since telephony audio was never transmitted over ladder line, it seems
they picked 600 ohms as a standard audio impedance simply because it was a
number they knew.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Chris Hornbeck
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Good point, it's "ladder line", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_line .
>
>But since telephony audio was never transmitted over ladder line, it seems
>they picked 600 ohms as a standard audio impedance simply because it was a
>number they knew.
Two conductors in free air with an occasional spacer at a coupla
inches is about 600 Ohms.
It wasn't so much arbitrarily chosen as mandated by fundamentals.
Kinda like the World is 73 Ohms, but different!
Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck
Soundhaspriority
OK, correct me on this. Way back when, did they actually transmit long
distance audio telephony over ladder line? Perhaps they did, before they
developed effective insulation.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Richard Crowley
> OK, correct me on this. Way back when, did they actually transmit long
> distance audio telephony over ladder line? Perhaps they did, before they
> developed effective insulation.
Bare conductors spaced a few inches apart and hung from
*telephone poles*. That was the technology for long-distance
lines back before plastic-insulated multi-conductor cable came
into use. At audio frequencies (vs. RF) it is essentially "ladder-
line" and had the 600-ohm characteristic impedance.
But more fascinating to me is the technique I saw implemented
for miles and miles out in the Mojave desert (and similar desolate
places in S.Calif.) They sent RF over single bare conductors
(like old telephone lines). But instead of just a big glass insulator
on the utility pole, there would be a pair of "funnels" back to back
so that the RF field was "funneled" down to effectively a short
(a few inches) length of "coaxial cable" and then back out to the
bare conductor in air. I thought it was called "G line" or something,
but casual Googling didn't reveal anything.
Eeyore
disto...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I am looking for a Greybeard of sorts. I have recently been thrown
> into the audio realm, particularly testing with semiconductor PA's,
> and I am curious to know where the 600 ohm impedance originated from.
Telegraph wires.
Graham
Soundhaspriority
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:IuudnZ_W3oMbR4TX...@posted.pcez...
Try this one: "G-line ground wave" ,
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=PV3&q=G-line+ground+wave&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=Bob Morein(310) 237-6511
Don Pearce
That's actually a waveguide mode - can't remember the designation
either, but it needs to be launched by those funnels (actually quarter
wave matching transformers). The wire is only used for guiding, and
all the actual power transfer is done in the surrounding air, so the
loss is extremely small - many miles of transmission are easily
possible.
Any normal two conductor system uses transverse electromagnetic mode,
which is the same as the radio wave that propagates in free air, and
relies on current in the conductor in quadrature to the surrounding
magnetic field (TEM). The single conductor mode either has no magnetic
component so is probably TE1, or no electric component, so is TM1).
d
Soundhaspriority
"Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4a25e7d3.662406234@localhost...[snip]
>
> Any normal two conductor system uses transverse electromagnetic mode,
> which is the same as the radio wave that propagates in free air, and
> relies on current in the conductor in quadrature to the surrounding
> magnetic field (TEM). The single conductor mode either has no magnetic
> component so is probably TE1, or no electric component, so is TM1).
>
> d
Don, I would dispute that. The wire is a guide for a surface wave. Surface
waves are mixed mode.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Don Pearce
This is all a long time ago, and I've been trying to find my reference
books - I remember doing experiments with it back in university (1971
ish). I really can't remember this being a mixed mode propagation,
though.
d
Soundhaspriority
Don, you can read about it here: http://www.corridor.biz/parts123.pdf
As far as the books, I have the same problem. I've had seven graduate course
in E-M theory, but do I really want to work the texts just to win an
argument with you? :)
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Don Pearce
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
No more than I do, I'm sure - this isn't a contest after all, just
sharing some dim and distant memories.
d
Don Pearce
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
A quick read suggests that the line is indeed TM, but with a
considerable evanescent region of TEM at the start and finish, so yes,
very mixed mode towards the ends of the line.
d
disto...@yahoo.com
line" for audio across telephone lines being 600 ohms looks like the
answer I was looking for. I am also going to look through the Bell
Systems Technical Journal (great find and thanks!) for the actual
papers discussing telephony.
Paul Stamler
> Google searches that 600 ohms originated from the POTS and was adopted
> by the pro audio crowd decades ago
Actually, at the time the standard was adopted, the pro audio crowd *was*
the POTS people, at least as far as electrical stuff was concerned. Nobody
but the phone company was doing electrical things with audio. The phonograph
recording world was entirely acoustical.
Later on folk began messing with electrical audio for other things, like
sound films, radio broadcasting and recordings. Much of that work was done
by Western Electric and Bell Labs, both branches of the monopoly AT&T,
better known as Bell Telephone Co..
A lot of audio equipment adhered to the phone company standard because it
had to; radio stations, for example, linked master control to the
transmitter by leased phone lines, so the consoles that drove the lines had
to match the telco standard, and so did the inputs to the transmitters at
the station. It was possible to make gear for internal studio use which
wasn't telco-compatible, but practically nobody did, because that would
limit its applicability, particularly if the station's console was all 600
ohm in and out for telco compatibility.
It was really the 1970s before pro equipment began to be built to a
different standard.
Peace,
Paul
Trevor Wilson
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:4A1889A2...@notmail.com...
**I dunno if your emails are bouncing or not. Can you send another please?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Soundhaspriority
Don, you can read about it here: http://www.corridor.biz/parts123.pdf
As far as the books, I have the same problem. I've had seven graduate course
in E-M theory and still those shitholes at Drexel wouldn't give me my
degree. I really want to work the texts just to win an
argument with you, but clearly I'm intellectually superior to you so why
should I bother?
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Scott Dorsey
<disto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hello Everyone,
>
>I am looking for a Greybeard of sorts. I have recently been thrown
>into the audio realm, particularly testing with semiconductor PA's,
>and I am curious to know where the 600 ohm impedance originated from.
If you have open-wire transmission lines with two 18 ga. wires about
five inches apart on the telephone pole, you have a line with a 600
ohm characteristic impedance. This was the standard telephone circuit
well into the 1920s, and as a result the phone company adopted 600 ohm
lines and termination for almost everything.
A sidelight: 20 ga twisted pair with thick cotton insulation tends to
be around 150 ohms characteristic, so the phone company also used that
as a standard, starting in the teens. For many years, CBS Radio used
150 ohms as their transmission line standards, so their equipment would
not interoperate with the rest of the industry without adding more
matching transformers. A lot of gear still had 150 ohm taps well into
the seventies.
>For example, most testing I have done is with 4 ohm to 8 ohms with
>PA's and 16 ohms or 32 ohms with headphones for portable audio
>(computing, MP3, cell phone) and there is generally no need for
>impedance matching.
Right, in the modern world almost everything has a high-Z input and a
low-Z output, and you don't care about the cable characteristic impedance
unless you are running cables for tens of miles (as the telcos do).
>I have managed to piece together some basic information from multiple
>Google searches that 600 ohms originated from the POTS and was adopted
>by the pro audio crowd decades ago, but I would like some more
>'historical' information of when, why, and how.
>What prompted this question is that another group uses an HP 8903B
>which has either a 50 ohm or 600 ohm impedance to test audio analog
>CMOS switches and 600 ohms is selected for THD+N measurements.
>The philosophy of the impedance difference intrigued me and thus has
>lead me on a search to understand where the 600 ohms standard came
>from and why some equipment only has this option.
>Any tips, notes, or thoughts will be greatly appreciated.
You want goofy, look up where the 50 and 75 ohm transmission line
standards came from...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>
> You want goofy, look up where the 50 and 75 ohm transmission line
> standards came from...
That's not goofy. The impedance of free space is (about) 75 ohms, as
is, not accidentally, the impedance of a matched dipole antenna.
The minimum loss of a coaxial transmission line with air insulation
occurs at 75 ohms (for the same reason!) while the minimum
loss for a coax line with plain polyethylene insulation is at
50 ohms approximately. Foam insulation line is intermediate.
It is a pain in the butt that TV (cable and receiving antennas) uses 75 ohm
lines while almost all other RF electronics equipment is 50 ohm.
Doug McDonald
Don Pearce
ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>
>> You want goofy, look up where the 50 and 75 ohm transmission line
>> standards came from...
>
>
>That's not goofy. The impedance of free space is (about) 75 ohms, as
>is, not accidentally, the impedance of a matched dipole antenna.
>
The impedance of free space is 377 ohms (120 pi)
>The minimum loss of a coaxial transmission line with air insulation
>occurs at 75 ohms (for the same reason!) while the minimum
>loss for a coax line with plain polyethylene insulation is at
>50 ohms approximately. Foam insulation line is intermediate.
>
Minimum loss (at which copper loss and dielectric loss cross) comes at
about 67 ohms. There are cables at that impedance, but I've never seen
one.
>It is a pain in the butt that TV (cable and receiving antennas) uses 75 ohm
>lines while almost all other RF electronics equipment is 50 ohm.
>
Very true.
d
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
> On Mon, 25 May 2009 11:40:48 -0500, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH
> ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> You want goofy, look up where the 50 and 75 ohm transmission line
>>> standards came from...
>>
>> That's not goofy. The impedance of free space is (about) 75 ohms, as
>> is, not accidentally, the impedance of a matched dipole antenna.
>>
>
> The impedance of free space is 377 ohms (120 pi)
You are of course right! I had a brain lapse! I was equating FOLDED
dipole to plain dipole. It's bad getting old!
> Minimum loss (at which copper loss and dielectric loss cross) comes at
> about 67 ohms. There are cables at that impedance, but I've never seen
> one.
>
>
I've actually used them. I've also used the 125 ohm lines,
and even 250 ohm rigid ones (with teensy inner conductor held
in place with nylon fishing line.
Doug McDonald
Doug McDonald
mako...@yahoo.com
> Minimum loss (at which copper loss and dielectric loss cross) comes at
> about 67 ohms. There are cables at that impedance, but I've never seen
> one.
>
Copper loss dominates at frequencies below about 1 GHz for most
standard cables.
For a given outer diameter Foam cable has lower loss because the lower
dielectric constant allows the cable to have a larger center conductor
therefore reducing the copper loss. It is not because the dielectric
losses are lower. This is a common misconception.
Dielectric losses are not an issue for most cables below microwave
frequencies.
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/wiring/cable_impedance.html
Mark
ixtar...@yahoo.com
showing off how big and thick his dick is. It is not necessary to
really understand transmission line theory in audio (unless you are
the phone company). Explaining the principle of common vs.
differential mode is enough.
isw
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> >
> > You want goofy, look up where the 50 and 75 ohm transmission line
> > standards came from...
>
>
> That's not goofy. The impedance of free space is (about) 75 ohms, as
> is, not accidentally, the impedance of a matched dipole antenna.
>
> The minimum loss of a coaxial transmission line with air insulation
> occurs at 75 ohms (for the same reason!) while the minimum
> loss for a coax line with plain polyethylene insulation is at
> 50 ohms approximately. Foam insulation line is intermediate.
75 ohms answers the question "what impedance has the lowest attenuation
per unit length for a given outside diameter?". I believe that is true
*regardless* of the dielectric.
The fact that 75 ohms (and 300 ohms) are antenna impedances is
convenient, but not the main reason for the prevalence of 75 ohm cable
-- the preponderance of antennas are vertical quarter-wave devices, and
those run around 50 ohms.
50 ohms (sort of) answers the question "what impedance has the greatest
power handling capacity for a given outer diameter?". I believe that is
true *regardless* of the dielectric.
The precise answer is around 37 ohms, but the curve is very broad, and
50 (or 51.5 or 52) ohms is useful for (vertical) antennas, so that's the
impedance cable is built to. Incidentally, the lower DC resistance of 50
ohm cable made it the best choice for Ethernet (over 75 ohm's lower
attenuation) because it makes collision detection work better.
Propagation delay limits the length of an Ethernet segment anyhow, and
that doesn't vary greatly with impedance.
> It is a pain in the butt that TV (cable and receiving antennas) uses 75 ohm
> lines while almost all other RF electronics equipment is 50 ohm.
I suspect that the length of coax in use for cable TV RF plus baseband
video far, far exceeds all other uses of any other impedance of cable,
and in those uses, low transmission loss is more important that anything
else. Plus, of course, the major antenna type used for TV is the
(folded) dipole, which, at 300 ohms, has an impedance that is
"convenient" for use with 75 ohm coax.
Isaac
Richard Crowley
You completely missed both the content and the intent of the
question. But thanks for playing. Shoulda known that this sort
of garbage slops over from r.a.o
disto...@yahoo.com
> <distort...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
This is a shame that a golden information like this is not
documented. I get the feeling that there are many people who know the
history but have never put it in pen form. I am not lucky enough to
work under a greybeard mentor who not only knows the electrical
aspects of audio, but also knows the reasons behind the way things are
done. As the older generation retires there is certainly lots of
knowledge that goes along with them.
Scott Dorsey
I'm not sure I understand what a "nontechnical audio audience" is. Audio
is necessarily a technical field.
Scott Dorsey
>This is a shame that a golden information like this is not
>documented. I get the feeling that there are many people who know the
>history but have never put it in pen form. I am not lucky enough to
>work under a greybeard mentor who not only knows the electrical
>aspects of audio, but also knows the reasons behind the way things are
>done. As the older generation retires there is certainly lots of
>knowledge that goes along with them.
ALL of this stuff is very thoroughly documented, much better than developments
today are being documented. Take a trip to a good college library and look
for old issues of the Bell System Technical Journal. Just about all of the
foundations of audio technology today can be found in there.
A couple years ago, in fact, I saw a paper on a new distortion mechanism
that a microphone manufacturer had discovered. Then I found a 1934 paper
in the BSTJ describing the same mechanism....
David Ballinger
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ELWdnbAlZoKUU4TX...@giganews.com...
cross arms with green or clear glass insulators, yes open wire pairs, multi
pair cable hadn't been perfected yet, the last few places that used open
wire were the railroads for signals and com. the phone company started
frequency multiplexing on open wire lines 12 channels on 2 pairs just in
time for WWII. we have come a long way in a short time, not everybody had
telephones back then usually the rich and the Doctor and the sheriff, had 8
party lines too. Very few trunk lines between cities, it would take hours
to set up a long distance call, some of the little companies didn't talk to
each other at all. It wasn't exactly ladder line but the wires were
stretched tight enough they never crossed and stayed equidistant,
occasionally there would be a mid span cross-over device to minimize
crosstalk on the multiplex. I started with Bell Tel in 1970, my observation,
new technology is built on old, you have a system of standards in place that
works and everyone has in common. All of our program audio ckts were 600
ohms, all of the test sets were 600, 900, or 1200 ohm impedance, for 19 or
22 or 24 or 26 gauge wire. When I was in the Navy I noticed the military had
an affinity for 500 ohm ckts ?? another convention. For Bell it was all
defined in the Bell System Practice, It said what and how and how often, if
you didn't follow the practice you could get a day off or fired. 0 dbm at 1
kHz into 600 ohms = 1 milliwat, I'm not going to complain it works for me.
Best regards,
David____________
Scott Dorsey
>>
>Yes I have a gray beard, Nobody here remembers when telephone poles had
>cross arms with green or clear glass insulators, yes open wire pairs, multi
>pair cable hadn't been perfected yet, the last few places that used open
>wire were the railroads for signals and com. the phone company started
>frequency multiplexing on open wire lines 12 channels on 2 pairs just in
>time for WWII. we have come a long way in a short time, not everybody had
>telephones back then usually the rich and the Doctor and the sheriff, had 8
>party lines too. Very few trunk lines between cities, it would take hours
>to set up a long distance call, some of the little companies didn't talk to
>each other at all. It wasn't exactly ladder line but the wires were
>stretched tight enough they never crossed and stayed equidistant,
>occasionally there would be a mid span cross-over device to minimize
>crosstalk on the multiplex.
I hate to say it, but there are places in the world where it is still
like this. I had a guy call me from Burkina Faso with a Nagra problem
last year, and calling him back was just like making a long distance call
most of a century ago, with a dozen operators on the line at the time,
chatting away as they waited for the operator at the end of the line to
complete the circuit to the next station along the way. Then I got to
the village telephone and they sent out a runner to get the guy. MCI
decided to charge me for all the call setup time too.
George M. Middius
Scott Dorsey said:
> I'm not sure I understand what a "nontechnical audio audience" is. Audio
> is necessarily a technical field.
I'm not sure you understand what music is.
Ben Bradley
>Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.feminazis
>...
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@buzzardnews.com
Woops, the faker added crossposting here, and it got a few RAP
responses - watch where your responses are going, folks!
(no further comments neccesary to this branch of the thread)
On Mon, 25 May 2009 18:54:00 +1000, Soundhaspriority
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
<snipped>
Mr.cly...@yahoo.com
> In article <101bd4fe-99dd-454e-b8cb-14a5c6d2c...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <ixtarbru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Anyone who goes this far with a nontechnical audio audience is
> >showing off how big and thick his dick is. It is not necessary to
> >really understand transmission line theory in audio (unless you are
> >the phone company). Explaining the principle of common vs.
> >differential mode is enough.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what a "nontechnical audio audience" is. Audio
> is necessarily a technical field.
> --scott
> --
It is not a field, it is a hobby.
the primary hobby is music, audio is secondary
Mr.T
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:gvgrf2$o44$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> A couple years ago, in fact, I saw a paper on a new distortion mechanism
> that a microphone manufacturer had discovered. Then I found a 1934 paper
> in the BSTJ describing the same mechanism....
And that's probably where they "discovered" it!
Common practice for manufacturers to not mention "minor" details like that
when they have products to promote.
MrT.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> The precise answer is around 37 ohms
I like that: kinda like saying it's exactly approximately.
Scott Dorsey
>com>,
>>
>> =A0<ixtarbru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Anyone who goes this far with a nontechnical audio audience is
>> >showing off how big and thick his dick is. It is not necessary to
>> >really understand transmission line theory in audio (unless you are
>> >the phone company). Explaining the principle of common vs.
>> >differential mode is enough.
>>
>io
>> is necessarily a technical field.
>
Strange, I thought people were actually making money doing audio work. Do
I have to give it all back?
>the primary hobby is music, audio is secondary
Audio and music are related but by no means the same thing. Hell, lots of
people do plenty of fine audio work that involves no music at all, just
dialogue and talking head stuff.
Richard Crowley
> <Mr.cly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>It is not a field, it is a hobby.
>
> Strange, I thought people were actually making money doing audio work. Do
> I have to give it all back?
Scott, I think you are right. Hardly anything cross-posted from
another newsgroup (and especially r.a.o) is worthy of reading,
much less replying to.
Serge Auckland
<dpierce.ca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:881d7515-6d0c-48fc...@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
I like that: kinda like saying it's exactly approximately.
Or very unique, or one of the only...sort of thing that makes me cringe when
I hear it on TV News.
Ron Capik
[cringe away]
Later...
Ron Capik
--
Mr.cly...@yahoo.com
> In article <1665eee3-9154-4660-9b95-b954dcab3...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 26 Mai, 09:34, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >> In article <101bd4fe-99dd-454e-b8cb-14a5c6d2c...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
>
> >> =A0<ixtarbru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Anyone who goes this far with a nontechnical audio audience is
> >> >showing off how big and thick his dick is. It is not necessary to
> >> >really understand transmission line theory in audio (unless you are
> >> >the phone company). Explaining the principle of common vs.
> >> >differential mode is enough.
>
> >> I'm not sure I understand what a "nontechnical audio audience" is. =A0Aud=
> >io
> >> is necessarily a technical field.
>
> >It is not a field, it is a hobby.
>
> Strange, I thought people were actually making money doing audio work. Do
> I have to give it all back?
>
People make money off of hobbies.
Such diverse sorts of hobbies would include motorcycling, model
building,
macrame, audio, drag racing, whitewater rafting, etc.
Still, they are hobbies.
The people that fuel the demand for
the accutrements for these various hobbies
are the HOBBYISTS themselves.
George M. Middius
Scott Dorsey said:
> >It is not a field, it is a hobby.
>
> Strange, I thought people were actually making money doing audio work. Do
> I have to give it all back?
Depends. Which commercial recordings were you responsible for?
pf...@aol.com
a cross-posted troll.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
David Nebenzahl
> <dpierce.ca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:881d7515-6d0c-48fc...@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>
> On May 26, 12:27 am, isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>>
>> The precise answer is around 37 ohms
>
> I like that: kinda like saying it's exactly approximately.
>
> Or very unique, or one of the only...sort of thing that makes me cringe when
> I hear it on TV News.
"Very unique" irritates me too. Like saying someone is "sort of pregnant".
You either is or you isn't.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
Mr.cly...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 09:47:34 -0700 (PDT), Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 27 Mai, 10:42, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >> In article <1665eee3-9154-4660-9b95-b954dcab3...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On 26 Mai, 09:34, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >> >> In article <101bd4fe-99dd-454e-b8cb-14a5c6d2c...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.=
> >> >com>,
>
> >> >> =A0<ixtarbru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Anyone who goes this far with a nontechnical audio audience is
> >> >> >showing off how big and thick his dick is. It is not necessary to
> >> >> >really understand transmission line theory in audio (unless you are
> >> >> >the phone company). Explaining the principle of common vs.
> >> >> >differential mode is enough.
>
> >> >> I'm not sure I understand what a "nontechnical audio audience" is. =A0Aud=
> >> >io
> >> >> is necessarily a technical field.
>
> >> >It is not a field, it is a hobby.
>
> >> Strange, I thought people were actually making money doing audio work. Do
> >> I have to give it all back?
>
> >People make money off of hobbies.
>
> equipment "for a living," not as a 'hobby'.
>
> >Such diverse sorts of hobbies would include motorcycling, model
> >building,
> >macrame, audio, drag racing, whitewater rafting, etc.
> >Still, they are hobbies.
> >The people that fuel the demand for
> >the accutrements for these various hobbies
> >are the HOBBYISTS themselves.
>
> engaged in a 'hobby' nor does it diminish the technical expertise that
> goes into the 'field'.-
Well, you can expect hobbytsts to be talking about their interests
from their point of view as hobbyists.
If you want technical talk or talk for audio professionals, there
are two particular groups just for you. Oone of them is crossposted
here
Mr.cly...@yahoo.com
Isn't there supposed to be a big explosion'when the universe and anti-
universe meet?
George M. Middius
flipper flapped:
> The 'question' here was the, IMO, rather silly assertion that 'audio'
> is "not a (technical) field, it is a hobby."
Are you always this stupid, or only when you have to interact with
Normals?
George M. Middius
flipper flubbed:
> I appreciate the concern but it only appears that way to the
> intellectually challenged.
It wasn't "concern", and your stupidity, whether feigned or involuntary,
is a fact.
I posit it's the involuntary sort because you actually seem to believe
that the only possible way to talk about audio is in technical terms. That
is something a truly stupid individual might say. Or a robot, I guess. Are
you a robot?
Mr.cly...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:58:22 -0700 (PDT), Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com
> the question, and a different question even at that.
>
> The 'question' here was the, IMO, rather silly assertion that 'audio'
>
> Now, it is certainly the case that for some people it's a 'hobby', and
> others may not even give it a second thought, but then there are those
> for whom, in one form or another, it's a profession.
>
> As for the hobbyist's "point of view," that's not uniform either. Some
> may find it little more than an amusing diversion while others tinker
> a bit while still others can be intensely interested in even the most
> minute technical details.
>
> >If you want technical talk or talk for audio professionals, there
> >are two particular groups just for you. Oone of them is crossposted
> >here
>
And I'm posting from one inhabited by hobbyists.
We tend to be interested in listening to music.
and waht audio paraphenalia makes the experience more enjoyable
Mr.cly...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 17:27:36 -0700 (PDT), Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com
> as well.
>
> >We tend to be interested in listening to music.
> >and waht audio paraphenalia makes the experience more enjoyable
>
> the experience more enjoyable.-
That sure takes away from the time you have left for enjoying the
listening, too bad.
George M. Middius
flipper fibbed:
> You're the one who said it, not me, so I'll defer to your assessment
> of the stupidity in doing so.
Ah, the moronic resort to an IKYABWAI. Typical for a witless nerd.
And no, I didn't say it. I think Dumbo Dorsey said it. You agreed with it.
Remember this? This is you:
> >> >> The 'question' here was the, IMO, rather silly assertion that 'audio'
> >> >> is "not a (technical) field, it is a hobby."
Sorry for reading and understanding what you actually said. It's a truism
in Normal-Land (of which RAO is the only oasis in the rec.audio hierarchy)
that 'borgs have a lot of difficulty saying what they mean.
> > Or a robot, I guess. Are
> >you a robot?
>
> I suppose you figure that's a 'brilliant' guess.
Thank you. I meant it facetiously, hardly expecting it to be factual. I'll
take your reply as an assent to my earlier supposition about your
stupidity.
Richard Crowley
> Yes, but what's even more amazing to me are the lengths some people
> will go attempting to validate a thoughtless comment.
And it would appear that they don't come any more thoughtless
than those from "flipper".
plonk and trim
Mr.T
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:4a1d82e2$0$2713$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> On 5/27/2009 8:22 AM Serge Auckland spake thus:
>
> You either is or you isn't.
Nah, "little bit pregnant" is often used for someone in the first trimester,
when they aren't showing. Not correct English sure, but then MANY of our
common sayings aren't.
At least "very unique" is not a contradiction like "precisely.... about"
MrT.
Don Pearce
>At least "very unique" is not a contradiction like "precisely.... about"
I'd say the two are identical. In both cases you have an extreme
adjective which is hauled back somewhat by its adverb. Ok, in the
second example the adverb is extreme and pulled back by the adjective,
but the effect is the same.
d
Adrian Tuddenham
'Unique', 'pregnant etc. have binary meanings, thay are not amenable to
further analogue qualification.
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Don Pearce
adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:
>Don Pearce <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 May 2009 16:55:30 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>>
>> >At least "very unique" is not a contradiction like "precisely.... about"
>>
>> I'd say the two are identical. In both cases you have an extreme
>> adjective which is hauled back somewhat by its adverb. Ok, in the
>> second example the adverb is extreme and pulled back by the adjective,
>> but the effect is the same.
>
>'Unique', 'pregnant etc. have binary meanings, thay are not amenable to
>further analogue qualification.
I think it is reasonable to qualify "unique" by "almost". Pregnant, I
will agree, can't be modified that way in the normal sense, although
it is modified by terms like "heavily" shortly before birth.
d
Adrian Tuddenham
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 10:49:15 +0100,
> adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:
>
> >Don Pearce <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 28 May 2009 16:55:30 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
> >>
> >> >At least "very unique" is not a contradiction like "precisely.... about"
> >>
> >> I'd say the two are identical. In both cases you have an extreme
> >> adjective which is hauled back somewhat by its adverb. Ok, in the
> >> second example the adverb is extreme and pulled back by the adjective,
> >> but the effect is the same.
> >
> >'Unique', 'pregnant etc. have binary meanings, thay are not amenable to
> >further analogue qualification.
>
> I think it is reasonable to qualify "unique" by "almost".
Not in good written English, it isn't; in everyday conversation you
might get away with it (as long as you didn't say it to a pedant like
me).
pf...@aol.com
> Isn't there supposed to be a big explosion'when the universe and anti-
> universe meet?
Um... the total energy released by a meeting of Morein-the-Whiner and
Morein-the-Buzzard wouldn't light a gasoline-soaked rag.
However, were they both to disappear by mutual cancellation, that
*would* be a good thing.