10 metres audio cable going into PC = too long?

**Floyd L. Davidson**

(Don Pearce) wrote:
Just as your supposed "diagram" didn't show what a ground loop is,
your "evidence" isn't evidence.

Your posting was essentially an assertion that if you connect up a
microphone wrongly, it doesn't work properly. Now maybe you don't
understand why you shouldn't connect a microphone the way you suggest,
but it is a fact.

My web site evidence showed - and yes it did show - that when you know
what you are doing and connect everything up properly, there is no hum
when you touch a microphone body.

You haven't shown anything.

And I notice that, even though this URL has been posted twice before,
you don't have a word to say about it.

64.70.157.146/pdf/Bondingcableshields.pdf

*That* is evidence. And it clearly debunks virtually everthing you've
had to say in this thread.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

**Don Pearce**

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:13:33 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote:
Just as your supposed "diagram" didn't show what a ground loop is,
your "evidence" isn't evidence.

Your posting was essentially an assertion that if you connect up a
microphone wrongly, it doesn't work properly. Now maybe you don't
understand why you shouldn't connect a microphone the way you suggest,
but it is a fact.

My web site evidence showed - and yes it did show - that when you know
what you are doing and connect everything up properly, there is no hum
when you touch a microphone body.

You haven't shown anything.

And I notice that, even though this URL has been posted twice before,
you don't have a word to say about it.

64.70.157.146/pdf/Bondingcableshields.pdf

*That* is evidence. And it clearly debunks virtually everthing you've
had to say in this thread.

You clearly wouldn't know evidence if it bit you on the backside if
you believe a pdf carries more weight than an actual sample.

And of course the stuff in the pdf has no bearing on the actual issue,
which is that a ground loop necessitates a loop in the ground. One
would have thought that even a limited skill in reading would have
made that clear.

And you still haven't explained why you think it is a good idea to
connect the screen to one side of the capsule in a microphone - you
certainly didn't think it was a stupid thing to do when you posted it
- just bitched about the "fact" (sic) that a microphone hums when you
grab hold of it.

All through this thread you have revealed that you don't understand
what is going on, you post diagrams that contradict your position, you
believe a single connection constitutes a loop, you think that hum is
signal, you introduce common mode DC - and I still haven't fathomed
what that had to do with anything.

Now please, go away and reflect on all of these things, forget the
"theory" you have learned and find out how the real world actually
works.

OK?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

**Roy L. Fuchs**

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:37:05 GMT, (Don Pearce)
Gave us:

All through this thread you have revealed that you don't understand
what is going on, you post diagrams that contradict your position, you
believe a single connection constitutes a loop, you think that hum is
signal, you introduce common mode DC - and I still haven't fathomed
what that had to do with anything.

Noise IS a signal. If you knew what the word signal meant, you
would know that. ANY perturbation of a circuit is signal. You need
to learn that.

UNwanted signals get injected into circuitry all the time. With
audio circuit, we hear the result. That doesn't change the FACT that
it is still, nonetheless a signal.

Now please, go away and reflect on all of these things,

Please grow the **** up. GTFU

forget the
"theory"

You're a goddamned idiot.

you have learned and find out how the real world actually
works.

I retract that... you're a goddamned retard.

OK?

**** off. YOU go back and read what he said, now that you know what
constitutes a signal.

**Don Pearce**

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:07:41 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:37:05 GMT, (Don Pearce)
Gave us:

All through this thread you have revealed that you don't understand
what is going on, you post diagrams that contradict your position, you
believe a single connection constitutes a loop, you think that hum is
signal, you introduce common mode DC - and I still haven't fathomed
what that had to do with anything.

Noise IS a signal. If you knew what the word signal meant, you
would know that. ANY perturbation of a circuit is signal. You need
to learn that.

No - the wanted stuff is the signal - the rest is interference. Ever
heard of signal to noise ratio? You would call it signal to signal
ratio. Now that makes much more sense, doesn't it?

UNwanted signals get injected into circuitry all the time. With
audio circuit, we hear the result. That doesn't change the FACT that
it is still, nonetheless a signal.

No, noise gets injected into audio circuits when you don't know what
you're doing - like when you screw up the connections in a microphone
so it hums when you grab it. Have a listen to my MP3 and you will hear
just how wrong you are.

Now please, go away and reflect on all of these things,

Please grow the **** up. GTFU

GTFU? Did you put that bit in so you could read it as well?

forget the
"theory"

You're a goddamned idiot.

you have learned and find out how the real world actually
works.

I retract that... you're a goddamned retard.

A retard who, unlike you, can wire up a microphone so it doesn't hum
when you grab it. Seems to say it all, really.

OK?

**** off. YOU go back and read what he said, now that you know what
constitutes a signal.

I have explained that to you ad nauseam.

Now even from here, I can see you turning red - that vein on your
forehead is looking none too healthy, and all those burgers and fries
have probably raised your blood pressure to a dangerous level. I
wouldn't like give yourself a heart attack over this. Just take that
break, and go and think about it.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

**Floyd L. Davidson**

(Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:13:33 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

And I notice that, even though this URL has been posted twice before,
you don't have a word to say about it.

64.70.157.146/pdf/Bondingcableshields.pdf

....

Now please, go away and reflect on all of these things, forget the
"theory" you have learned and find out how the real world actually
works.

OK?

In other words Don, you can't understand what the paper says.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

**Don Pearce**

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 05:38:52 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:13:33 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

And I notice that, even though this URL has been posted twice before,
you don't have a word to say about it.

64.70.157.146/pdf/Bondingcableshields.pdf

...

Now please, go away and reflect on all of these things, forget the
"theory" you have learned and find out how the real world actually
works.

OK?

In other words Don, you can't understand what the paper says.

I haven't read the paper. I'm not interested in what it has to say -
it will either be right or wrong, but that is not the issue. The issue
is that you are wrong.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

**Floyd L. Davidson**

(Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 05:38:52 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:13:33 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

And I notice that, even though this URL has been posted twice before,
you don't have a word to say about it.

64.70.157.146/pdf/Bondingcableshields.pdf

...

Now please, go away and reflect on all of these things, forget the
"theory" you have learned and find out how the real world actually
works.

OK?

In other words Don, you can't understand what the paper says.

I haven't read the paper. I'm not interested in what it has to say -
it will either be right or wrong, but that is not the issue. The issue
is that you are wrong.

Giggle snort.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

**Don Pearce**

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 06:29:06 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 05:38:52 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:13:33 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

And I notice that, even though this URL has been posted twice before,
you don't have a word to say about it.

64.70.157.146/pdf/Bondingcableshields.pdf

...

Now please, go away and reflect on all of these things, forget the
"theory" you have learned and find out how the real world actually
works.

OK?

In other words Don, you can't understand what the paper says.

I haven't read the paper. I'm not interested in what it has to say -
it will either be right or wrong, but that is not the issue. The issue
is that you are wrong.

Giggle snort.

LIsten Floyd, sonny. I can see how desperate you are to shift the
argument away from you and onto somebody else, preferably somebody who
stands behind the pages of a book and can't be drawn in personally,
but your cowardice doesn't impress me at all. Stand up and be a man. I
stepped up to the plate and delivered an actual example of why I'm
right; all you have provided is a sheepish admission that when you
wire up a mic, it hums. That really isn't too impressive, you know.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

**Floyd L. Davidson**

(Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 06:29:06 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
I haven't read the paper. I'm not interested in what it has to say -
it will either be right or wrong, but that is not the issue. The issue
is that you are wrong.

Giggle snort.

LIsten Floyd, sonny. I can see how desperate you are to shift the
argument away from you and onto somebody else, preferably somebody who
stands behind the pages of a book and can't be drawn in personally,
but your cowardice doesn't impress me at all. Stand up and be a man. I
stepped up to the plate and delivered an actual example of why I'm
right; all you have provided is a sheepish admission that when you
wire up a mic, it hums. That really isn't too impressive, you know.

Uhmmm, Don... *I* am not the topic of discussion. Neither are
you.

The topic of discussion is a bit of technical theory. You
demonstrated quite well at the beginning of this thread that you
do not understand it. Since then you've shown that you have no
intention of learning either.

Don't give up your job flipping burgers...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

**Don Pearce**

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 07:00:38 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 06:29:06 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
I haven't read the paper. I'm not interested in what it has to say -
it will either be right or wrong, but that is not the issue. The issue
is that you are wrong.

Giggle snort.

LIsten Floyd, sonny. I can see how desperate you are to shift the
argument away from you and onto somebody else, preferably somebody who
stands behind the pages of a book and can't be drawn in personally,
but your cowardice doesn't impress me at all. Stand up and be a man. I
stepped up to the plate and delivered an actual example of why I'm
right; all you have provided is a sheepish admission that when you
wire up a mic, it hums. That really isn't too impressive, you know.

Uhmmm, Don... *I* am not the topic of discussion. Neither are
you.

The topic of discussion is a bit of technical theory. You
demonstrated quite well at the beginning of this thread that you
do not understand it. Since then you've shown that you have no
intention of learning either.

Don't give up your job flipping burgers...

The reverse is so clearly the case that this barely merits an answer.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com