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