C-Audio schematic?
in [Live Sound]
|
Prev: Advice needed
Next: Rock Band PA Suggestions
From: Denny Strauser on 2 Jul 2008 23:13 Phil, In spite of what you think, I know that you have much intelligence to share. But, your abrasiveness masks that. (Read: Prior Posts - Your Choice) -Denny
From: Eeyore on 3 Jul 2008 00:14 bob(a)yeruncle.com wrote: > To be technically correct, RF would apply to any frequency capable of generating > radio waves, which is actually any alternating current, even within the audio > range, EG the USA military talks to it's submarines with an 11khz RF > transmitter... but it's important to note the difference between audio and > electrical energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EM_Spectrum_Properties_edit.svg Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Jul 2008 00:21 Phil Allison 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. So WHY did YOU 'correct' me once for innocently making exactly the same mistake ? Yes, we KNOW you're perfect. Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Jul 2008 00:21 Phil Allison wrote: > <bob(a)yeruncle.com> > > > > To be technically correct, RF would apply to any frequency capable of > > generating > > radio waves, > > ** WRONG. > > The context being * audio amps * makes it wrong usage. RF starts @ ~ 10 kHz. Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Jul 2008 00:23
Phil Allison wrote: > "Eeysore rabid fuckwit and lying charlatan " > > > >> Well actually it was to clear up whether "RF" is the correct term for the > >> frequencies involved or not. > > ** The * correct term* is the one in common uses for the matter. COMMON or CORRECT ? Graham |