C-Audio schematic?
in [Live Sound]
|
Prev: Advice needed
Next: Rock Band PA Suggestions
From: gwatts on 3 Jul 2008 07:54 Denny Strauser wrote: > gwatts wrote: >> Ya been gone a while, Phil. I missed ya, but my aim is improving! >> Gee Phil, wrong about 'supersonic' AND off your meds again. >> Tsk tsk. >> Oh, by the way: BANG! >> Har har har! Almost got ya! > > Thanks for your insight ... just what we need. Someone to encourage & > participate in the pissing contest. > > Not that I don't appreciate the entertainment. But.......... > > -Denny I think you're one message too far down the thread.
From: Eeyore on 3 Jul 2008 15:01 Phil Allison wrote: > "Phyllis the lying charlatan " > > ** When Phil Allison gets involved in a thread > > - it will go on for hundreds of meaningless, stupid post that inform > no-one. > > .... Phil
From: bob on 3 Jul 2008 20:39 On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:21:42 +1000, "Phil Allison" <philallison(a)tpg.com.au> 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. > > > >...... Phil > So you say that because it's an audio amp any oscillations in the amp have to be related to audio - IE supersonic rather than radio frequency? Fair enough I guess... I never thought about it before. Thanks Phil Bob
From: Eeyore on 3 Jul 2008 21:15 bob(a)yeruncle.com wrote: > "Phil Allison" wrote: > ><bob(a)yeruncle.com> > >> > >> To be technically correct, RF would apply to any frequency capable of > >> generating radio waves, > > > > ** WRONG. Correct. Therer are however conventions that seek to separate the accepted bands. > > The context being * audio amps * makes it wrong usage. > > > >...... Phil > > So you say that because it's an audio amp any oscillations in the amp have to be > related to audio - IE supersonic rather than radio frequency? > > Fair enough I guess... I never thought about it before. > > Thanks Phil Except that *SUPERSONIC* means something else entirely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic I accidentally used the term once myself here when I meant ultrasonic and Phil gave me no end of trouble over it. You see Phil is in his mind 'never wrong', he has a mental illness, so he's not to be taken entirely seriously although he is quite technically competent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound Is the one you want, but most techs call oscillation in 50-100kHz+ or so region 'RF'. Graham
From: bob on 3 Jul 2008 22:59
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:15:30 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >bob(a)yeruncle.com wrote: > >> "Phil Allison" wrote: >> ><bob(a)yeruncle.com> >> >> >> >> To be technically correct, RF would apply to any frequency capable of >> >> generating radio waves, >> > >> > ** WRONG. > >Correct. Therer are however conventions that seek to separate the accepted bands. > > >> > The context being * audio amps * makes it wrong usage. >> > >> >...... Phil >> >> So you say that because it's an audio amp any oscillations in the amp have to be >> related to audio - IE supersonic rather than radio frequency? >> >> Fair enough I guess... I never thought about it before. >> >> Thanks Phil > >Except that *SUPERSONIC* means something else entirely. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic > >I accidentally used the term once myself here when I meant ultrasonic and Phil gave >me no end of trouble over it. You see Phil is in his mind 'never wrong', he has a >mental illness, so he's not to be taken entirely seriously although he is quite >technically competent. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound > >Is the one you want, but most techs call oscillation in 50-100kHz+ or so region >'RF'. > >Graham Well, I've done my share of work on RF equipment, from short wave radio to business UHF and VHF FM, including communication towers and city wide cell transmitters, so I know the definition of RF : RADIO FREQUENCY ; which can be found in defective audio equipment. There is something definitely wrong with that Phil character! Imagine swearing at everything anyone says that doesn't exactly fit your concepts! Wow, what a psycho! There must be a name for that disease, beside delusions of grandeur... maybe he's short and has a Napoleon complex! There are a few like that at work... but nowhere near as bad. I bet he works alone, no company would accept a toxic personality like that for long... he acts like everything everyone says is some kind of challange to him! And I also bet money he ain't married! Possibly that's part of his psychosis, hasn't been laid since the 60s!! I'll make a point of ignoring him from now on, that really bums the trolls! |