From: Phil Allison on 2 Jul 2008 21:35
> Phil Allison wrote:
>> "Gareth Magennis"
>> > Those 3 power resistors that look burnt are possibly part of the Zobel
>> > network. If you simply replace them they may just go again until you
>> > find
>> > why they burnt, which may be RF oscillations.
>> ** RF oscillation - BOLLOCKS !!!
>> Supersonic frequency oscillation is the only cause.
** Wrong term - fuckwit.
And it ain't RF either.
From: Phil Allison on 2 Jul 2008 21:37
"Eeysore lying charlatan"
>> Those 3 power resistors that look burnt are possibly part of the Zobel
>> network. If you simply replace them they may just go again until you
>> why they burnt, which may be RF oscillations.
> Agree 100%. Or inadvertent 'RF' on the input.
** So it got too close to a radio mic on 600MHz - eh ??
From: Rupert on 2 Jul 2008 21:58
On Jul 2, 6:18 pm, "Phil Allison" <philalli...(a)tpg.com.au> wrote:
> 'Ultrasonic' would be the correct term. Common mistake just like
> calling 'infrasonic' "subsonic." No such thing as a subsonic filter,
> ** Wot idiotic pedantic twaddle.
> What IS common usage IS correct !!!!
> The terms " supersonic oscillation " and " subsonic filter " ARE the
> correct terms cos they are part of audio electronics jargon.
> ..... Phil
Maybe, maybe not. It's a slippery slope. You slide too far and you end
up with the likes of "ebonics". That said there are now additions for
supersonic to mean above the range of human hearing and subsonic to
mean below the range of human hearing in most dictionaries, thought
that wasn't previously the case. Pedantic, sure, but the those words
were technically incorrect in the give context not so long ago. I
figured someone as skilled as you in electronics would appreciate
that. I believe we had a similar discussion a while back about "watts
rms" which is also technically not correct though it's widely accepted
as technical jargon now. I don't see the harm in pointing out the
differences in origination of the terms and what is technically more
correct than the other. Technically by today's dictionary standards
your terminology is acceptable, right or wrong. What's your take on
polarity invert switches being called "phase" invert switches - a very
common console labeling for a switch that doesn't have any affect on
the time domain that a phase label would imply.
From: Denny Strauser on 2 Jul 2008 22:56
I'll save the readers from re-reading the flaming quotes on this NG;
they're there for anyone to read.
I'd just like to suggest that the flaming "NOISE" quite often masks the
coherent "SIGNAL" that some people offer.
Am I wrong?
From: Phil Allison on 2 Jul 2008 23:00
> Am I wrong?
Get back to giving tips to sax players by email.
At least they paid to produce a load of worthless hot air.