|
|
Intelligence and RIAA
robert casey wrote: Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on. "There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065 amps. ...... :-( Ha! The one I liked was mhos, made by spelling ohms backwards, now renamed siemens presumably because the measurement is sponsored by the German electronics Gmbh. Andre Jute Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the Borg. -- Robert Casey, a great Irishman |
Intelligence and RIAA
robert casey wrote: Eeyore wrote: robert casey wrote: And how many pints in a gallon, this gets to be a PITA. How many fl oz in a pint ? It's different if it's a US or Imperial pint. Then again..... A pint of beer in Australia or New Zealand is 570 mL, except in South Australia where a pint is 425 mL and 570 mL is called an imperial pint. A 375 mL bottle of liquor in the US and the Canadian maritime provinces is referred to as a “pint”, hearkening back to the days when liquor came in actual US pints, quarts, and half-gallons. United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations (Imperial) 1 pint = 20 fluid ounces = 568.26125 mL ? 568 mL United States 1 pint (wet) = 16 fluid ounces = 2 cups ? 473 mL Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on. "There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065 amps. ...... :-( Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla. Graham |
Intelligence and RIAA
I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player, Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about 5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of 29.9. Obese is 30. If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case, using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth. No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height (but only while riding). Rugby player... Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Intelligence and RIAA
On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:24:35 GMT, Eeyore
wrote: robert casey wrote: Eeyore wrote: robert casey wrote: And how many pints in a gallon, this gets to be a PITA. How many fl oz in a pint ? It's different if it's a US or Imperial pint. Then again..... A pint of beer in Australia or New Zealand is 570 mL, except in South Australia where a pint is 425 mL and 570 mL is called an imperial pint. A 375 mL bottle of liquor in the US and the Canadian maritime provinces is referred to as a “pint”, hearkening back to the days when liquor came in actual US pints, quarts, and half-gallons. United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations (Imperial) 1 pint = 20 fluid ounces = 568.26125 mL ? 568 mL United States 1 pint (wet) = 16 fluid ounces = 2 cups ? 473 mL Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on. "There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065 amps. ...... :-( Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla. Graham Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though? d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Intelligence and RIAA
Gerry wrote: On May 14, 4:42 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote: Gerry said: RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge. What the hell is "bodge"???? It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but the meaning is plain. My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in school and ask the child to clue you in. It was not 'obvious' at all. Yes it was. No - it was not. It's an archaic word not used on a regular basis in America. Webster's 1956 Dictionary describes bodge as an obsolete version of the word botch. Well yes. A bodge is a kind of half-botched fix-up. Graham |
Intelligence and RIAA
|
Intelligence and RIAA
On 2007-05-15, Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:24:35 GMT, Eeyore wrote: robert casey wrote: Eeyore wrote: robert casey wrote: And how many pints in a gallon, this gets to be a PITA. How many fl oz in a pint ? It's different if it's a US or Imperial pint. Then again..... A pint of beer in Australia or New Zealand is 570 mL, except in South Australia where a pint is 425 mL and 570 mL is called an imperial pint. A 375 mL bottle of liquor in the US and the Canadian maritime provinces is referred to as a “pint”, hearkening back to the days when liquor came in actual US pints, quarts, and half-gallons. United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations (Imperial) 1 pint = 20 fluid ounces = 568.26125 mL ? 568 mL United States 1 pint (wet) = 16 fluid ounces = 2 cups ? 473 mL Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on. "There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065 amps. ...... :-( Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla. Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though? I have a friend who quotes integrated circuit die areas in nanoacres. Another quotes speed in milli-furlongs per micro-fortnight. Is this normal or do I have some unusual friends? -- John Phillips |
Intelligence and RIAA
On Tue, 15 May 2007 14:53:44 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote: (Don Pearce) said: Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla. Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though? Hah! Did you know the average snail travels 3 furlongs per fortnight? Bet you didn't! ;-) Well, I just looked it up, and they do 0.03mph - which is about 80 furlongs per fortnight. You have slow snails! d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Intelligence and RIAA
Andre Jute wrote: robert casey wrote: Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on. "There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065 amps. ...... :-( Ha! The one I liked was mhos, made by spelling ohms backwards, now renamed siemens presumably because the measurement is sponsored by the German electronics Gmbh. No sunshine. It's in recognition of the work of Ernst Werner von Siemens. You knew that of course didn't you but felt compelled to make an anti-German remark ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Werner_von_Siemens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_(unit) It's pronouncded zeemens not seamens btw. Graham |
Intelligence and RIAA
On 15 May 2007 12:57:18 GMT, John Phillips
wrote: On 2007-05-15, Don Pearce wrote: On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:24:35 GMT, Eeyore wrote: robert casey wrote: Eeyore wrote: robert casey wrote: And how many pints in a gallon, this gets to be a PITA. How many fl oz in a pint ? It's different if it's a US or Imperial pint. Then again..... A pint of beer in Australia or New Zealand is 570 mL, except in South Australia where a pint is 425 mL and 570 mL is called an imperial pint. A 375 mL bottle of liquor in the US and the Canadian maritime provinces is referred to as a “pint”, hearkening back to the days when liquor came in actual US pints, quarts, and half-gallons. United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations (Imperial) 1 pint = 20 fluid ounces = 568.26125 mL ? 568 mL United States 1 pint (wet) = 16 fluid ounces = 2 cups ? 473 mL Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on. "There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065 amps. ...... :-( Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla. Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though? I have a friend who quotes integrated circuit die areas in nanoacres. Another quotes speed in milli-furlongs per micro-fortnight. Is this normal or do I have some unusual friends? I am perfectly normal; every one of my friends is unusual. I suspect I'm not alone in this. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Intelligence and RIAA
|
Intelligence and RIAA
Gerry wrote: On May 14, 4:42 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote: Gerry said: Actually Gerry didn't, and wouldn't want to, say: RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge. I said it. What Gerry said was What the hell is "bodge"???? And then George replied: It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but the meaning is plain. My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in school and ask the child to clue you in. And Gerry stubbornly insisted: It was not 'obvious' at all. George: Yes it was. Gerry: No - it was not. It's an archaic word not used on a regular basis in America. Webster's 1956 Dictionary describes bodge as an obsolete version of the word botch. Some snips of childishness for bandwidth, then George asks, reasonably in the circumstances: Sort of, but not precisely. Is English not your first language? Gerry: American English is. but the meaning was not at all clear in the original post. George: Was too. Blazingly obvious. Gerry: The whole initial post is rather muddled and unclear because of such uncommon verbiage as bodge. Lovely. Yo, Gerry, I'm a professional communicator. I say exactly what I mean, no more, no less. If you do not follow, it is because either a) I intended for you not to understand or b) you are a thicko below my horizon. You might consider that everyone else understood what I meant. The only acceptable excuse for not understanding me when I speak that plainly is that you are unfamiliar with the technicalities underlying RIAA emphasis and de-emphasis, in which case you should, rather than attack my language, say you don't understand, and you will receive a courteous explanation from the few remaining on RAT who still honour the open-door principles of the ARRL. Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain |
Intelligence and RIAA
On 2007-05-15, Don Pearce wrote:
On 15 May 2007 12:57:18 GMT, John Phillips wrote: I have a friend who quotes integrated circuit die areas in nanoacres. Another quotes speed in milli-furlongs per micro-fortnight. Is this normal or do I have some unusual friends? I am perfectly normal; every one of my friends is unusual. I suspect I'm not alone in this. To conjugate the irregular verb: - I have an independent mind - You're eccentric - He's round the bend -- John Phillips |
Intelligence and RIAA
Andre Jute wrote: Yo, Gerry, I'm a professional communicator. You mean windbag. Graham |
Intelligence and RIAA
On 15 May 2007 13:17:26 GMT, John Phillips
wrote: On 2007-05-15, Don Pearce wrote: On 15 May 2007 12:57:18 GMT, John Phillips wrote: I have a friend who quotes integrated circuit die areas in nanoacres. Another quotes speed in milli-furlongs per micro-fortnight. Is this normal or do I have some unusual friends? I am perfectly normal; every one of my friends is unusual. I suspect I'm not alone in this. To conjugate the irregular verb: - I have an independent mind - You're eccentric - He's round the bend Or in the northern idiom." All folks is queer 'cept thee and me. And I'm not so sure about thee!". d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Intelligence and RIAA
Andre Jute said: Gerry said: Actually Gerry didn't, and wouldn't want to, say: Running short of nits to pick? but the meaning was not at all clear in the original post. Was too. Blazingly obvious. The whole initial post is rather muddled and unclear because of such uncommon verbiage as bodge. Lovely. Gerry is one of those clods who blunders around wearing a "Kick Me" sign, then complains whenever somebody kicks him. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
Intelligence and RIAA
John Byrns wrote:
In article , Eiron wrote: John Byrns wrote: In article , Eiron wrote: You have that graph upside down. HF is boosted for disc cutting and reduced on playback to reduce noise (among other reasons). No, I have the graph exactly the correct way around. The RIAA disk cutting curve reduces the high frequency groove amplitude by roughly 12 dB using a shelving equalizer with time constants of 318.3 usec. and 75 usec. You are the one that has his RIAA groove amplitude graph upside down, I suggest doing a little homework before making further comment so as not to embarrass yourself in public. I suggest doing a little homework before making further comment so as not to embarrass yourself even more in public. And just to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization It is always best to read the Wikipedia with a jaundiced eye. In this case they have omitted an explanation of some of their unstated assumptions. The first two paragraphs are OK, but the graph and the following paragraphs can't be correctly interpreted without understanding the assumptions made by the Wikipedia article. The primary problem is that the article fails to mention that they are assuming a velocity responsive pickup that gives an output that rises at 6 dB/octave with increasing frequency, for a constant recorded groove amplitude. If you compensate the playback curve graph shown in the Wikipedia article for this effect you will end up with a playback curve that is exactly the complement of the recording curve I described, where in playback the groove amplitude must be compensated by boosting the high frequencies by approximately 12 dB. I know from past discussions here that the nature of the groove amplitude cut on an RIAA equalized LP is a difficult concept for most in this group to get their minds around, but if you drop your prejudices, and take some time to do your homework as I suggested, understanding can be achieved. Your previous answer to Serge Auckland explains your confusion. The rest of the world is not wrong and understands perfectly that the signal is represented by the stylus velocity, not its displacement. -- Eiron. May contain traces of irony. |
Intelligence and RIAA
In article .com,
Andre Jute wrote: I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead. Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player, and officially certified to have "the heart of an ox". The heartrate monitor is to keep my heart beating in the aerobic regions; when the HRM beeps those who cycle with me know to slow down. Did the wife also give up the car, or does she still use it? Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
Intelligence and RIAA
Sander deWaal wrote:
(Don Pearce) said: Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though? Hah! Did you know the average snail travels 3 furlongs per fortnight? A furlong per fortnight is very nearly 1cm/minute, so a useful measure. -- Eiron. May contain traces of irony. |
Intelligence and RIAA/cycling and fitness.
Peter Wieck wrote: I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead. Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player, Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about 5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of 29.9. Obese is 30. I'm 1.872M x 77Kg, which gives bmi = 21.948, and about the same as i was when 25. but last year in July I was 95Kg, and bmi = 27, and I considered myself overweight. Between last July and January, I rode about 200km a week, or about 5,000km, and my weight reduced from 95Kg to 77Kg and probably I lost 20Kg of fat, about the weight of a seriously good monoblok tube amp, or the equivalent of at least 5 x 4Litre cans of olive oil, and put on about 2 Kg of muscle which keeps me riding as fast as guys 30 years younger. At one stage my daily weight records showed I lost Kgm a week. I amused myself when I stalled trying to ride up some hills last July. The riding is not a leisurely activity just to take in the sights and sounds of nature, but a form of self inflicted pain which is excruciatingly enjoyable, especially when riding up steep long hills with elevated heart rates, or pushing hard along a flat stretch to catch some dude way out in the distance, or to hang on behind the 30 year old. If you ride real slow, say no faster than you'd jog, you get a sore arse and get bored, and the energy consumption is less than walking, good for you, but not nearly as good if you elevate the heart rate for 3 hours straight and could barely talk to anyone if they were present. But not all the time, not while going down hill. At a sweat inducing level, especially on a freezing cold day, one can burn huge amounts of fats. So best value from cycling is in the winter time, and because snow is so very rare here, the cold cloudless skies of about now to September seem to have been designed by God for cyclist pleasure. Even at my age perhaps i burn 600cals per hour and so a 4 hr ride uses 2,400 cals, or about the same amount as I use in a 24hr day of sedentary life. This equals about 200gms of fat, so 8 hrs a week uses 400gms of fat if you still eat the same as when sedentary. So the bicycle can create a calorie deficit. The only way I could lose weight easily without feeling hungry all the time was to cycle, and switch my diet to a big salad each day and a reduction of meat and fat and carbohydrates to a minimum. I completely gave up bread for the 6mths after July. Processed food is the very worst crap you can ever eat, so i don't, and if everyone was like me and couldn't be fooled easily, the whole food producing industry of the world would go stone motherless broke. The excess food that would then be available as natural produce from US and Oz farmers could then feed the rest of the hungry world with ease. When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from a common 64BPM down to say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. A young bloke of 25 who did the exercize I take would benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45. When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM. Of course when you exercize, the body rebels to the torture, and becomes more efficient about processing the food, so a little food goes a long way, so you won't lose weight if you exercize and eat a pile of crappy fat rich garbage afterwards. I like cabage based salads, 4 apples a day, maybe two bananas and an orange, a large serve of cooked oats and yogurt for breakfast; forget about ham, bacon, sausages, soft drinks, cheeses, white breads, butter margerine, and all that crap in plastic packets with lots of numbers on the label which mean its riddled with dangerous chemicals to make you feel hungry, and eat more. protein comes from eggs, and lean meat and fish, which I cannot get enough of because what is now beiong sold as fish is often not fish, or its really crappy, because mankind has cleaned out the world's oceans of fish. So I feel guilty eating fish from the sea, not to mention its 5 times the price of lean bargain meats selling for $7 a Kg, enough to last me a week. I do use some olive oil. Its good for anyone, and better than the fats which I won't eat, and trim off the meat before I cook it. Animal fat is also where a lot of pesticide and hormone residues end up, so don't eat fats. You don't need them and we didn't evolve to survive off fats. I never buy deep fried chips, or drink coka cola, its all crap. Nathan Pritikin said in his book about nutrition for runners that all you need is to eat so that 80% of the energy comes from complex carbohydrates, 10% from proteins, and 10% from fats. Since most UNREFINED grains or breads made with real wholemeal flour has the whole goodness kept in, not pulled out to get greed driven sales elsewhere, then it has the 20% of protien and fat you need, and the CH slow burning energy. But even most wholemeal wheat breads are now using rapid yeasts and chemicals and I don't eat that anymore, and buy rye natural breads instead, and only need a couple of slices a day. People in the US, UK and Oz are rapidly assuming pig like proportions. When I am at the supermarket, I am appalled at the fat arse queus lining up with trolleys full of crap. Probably they suffer affluenza, the dysfunctional syndrome of living too high and being anxious about everything, so they ain't fit, don't relate well, and don't ****, and feed their mouth instead. I continue to ride about 150km a week and weight has stabilised, and bmi appears to be a lot better in the mirror. I treat myself to the occasional 100gm bar of Lindt 70% cocoa choclate. Its ****ing divine this stuff. Its much better than buying a 600gram milk chocolate bar with less cocoa and piled high with fats and sugar, and chemicals to make you buy more, along with hydrogenated fats to give long shelf life, but which are really terrible for your heart. There are attempts to ban what they are putting into foods now, and as fast as the banners get stuff banned, the chemists with no conscience dream up new chemicals. If I have done 100km on a saturday, I will treat myself to a large serve of Bavarian Apple from Pancake Parlour, with ice cream and cream, and unlike a couple of fat guys who play chess while I am there, I don't have diabetes, and have earned the treat, which won't hurt me. These fatsos don't do anything except sit around, and they are paying the price. Too much sitting on me arse chatting on news groups and typing up website pages and doing electronics had made me heavy. Now when i have to go into a computer shop there are all these young dudes and they all look a bit crook, a bit overweight, and kinda grey, like their PCs have sucked the very life out of them. I played Rugby Union when at school, and frankly it was guys just tumbling over each other, and I went home sore and sorry after most games. Lord knows how many unseen injuries meant trouble later in life. Cycling is much better, unless you fall off, but even if you do, you recover so fast it matters not. Cycling has speed, exhilaration, changing scenery, weather, varied circumstances, and needs alertness, rapid reflexes, careful judgements, and you learn lessons about life. I am really lucky that there are hundreds of Km of cycling paths here to ride on, and that don't include the mountain trails through the bush for which a mountain bike becomes sensible. Mountain biking is about getting hot riding up steep climbs slowly, and descending with care and putting up with a far rougher ride than on the road. Modern bikes have suspension and are useable by folks like me over 50 without enduring injuries. And even though Canberra has 330,000 people I only have to ride 4Km and I am in the middle of sheep paddocks and horse paddocks, and big wide country areas. It ain't like London or NY, or Sydney. If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case, using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth. No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height (but only while riding). Rugby player... Peter Wieck So how do you stay fit Peter? Patrick Turner. Wyncote, PA |
Intelligence and RIAA/cycling and fitness.
In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote: When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from a common 64BPM down to say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. A young bloke of 25 who did the exercize I take would benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45. When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM. But how do you tell time properly if your resting heart rate isn't a nice 60 BPM? Also notice that 60 neatly factors into 2*2*3*5. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
Intelligence and RIAA
On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns wrote:
No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface noise. From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records By: Don Hoglund http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude swings of the original signal into velocity - the rate at which the stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much wider than the grooves on an equalized disk. Wider grooves take up more room which reduces the available recording time. They are also much harder for the cartridge to track which increases distortion. ***The solution is to reduce the amplitude of low frequencies during disk cutting and then boost them with a reverse curve during playback. *** Another problem is distortion and signal-to-noise ratios in the high frequencies. Early disc recording equipment did not have the extended high frequency capabilities of today's modern equipment. However, as disk cutters improved during the 1940's through the 1960's the need to address the high frequencies increased.*** The solution was to boost the high frequencies during cutting and then reduce them during playback.*** Now there was a high and low curve with a "knee" frequency. Asterisks are mine. The two curves superimposed at the end of the article are interesting. *Boosted* on recording. *Reduced* on playback. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Intelligence and RIAA
John Byrns wrote: In article .com, Andre Jute wrote: I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead. Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player, and officially certified to have "the heart of an ox". The heartrate monitor is to keep my heart beating in the aerobic regions; when the HRM beeps those who cycle with me know to slow down. Did the wife also give up the car, or does she still use it? My wife is one of those people who resist driving. I bought her a nice new Volvo estate when our son was born but, since I work at home, I was always available to drive her. When we came to Ireland over a quarter-century ago, we could bring only one car taxfree. I would have had to pay an enormous amount of import duty for my Citroen SM (a grand tourer with a Maserati engine and hydraulic suspension, both impossible to service here back then) and so chose to bring the new, virtually unused Volvo; I breathed on the Volvo engine and suspension to make it suitable for enthusiastic driving. But we live in a village because I wanted my son to have the same sort of country upbringing I had. We walk to the shops and the shopkeepers deliver and carry the parcels into the kitchen; our son walked to a school less than five minutes away. People tend to come to me when they want me, or to pick me up and drive me to social occasions, because otherwise I don't go, so in about fifteen years the Volvo was used about 30k miles, mainly for going to the UK or the Continent or driving visitors around Ireland; every time I wanted to use it, I had to fit a new battery because it was used so infrequently. It was like new when I sold it. It's probably amazing to you but I don't miss the car; I just don't lead a car-based life. Andre Jute Greener than thou |
Intelligence and RIAA/cycling and fitness.
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Peter Wieck wrote: I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead. Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player, Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about 5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of 29.9. Obese is 30. I'm 1.872M x 77Kg, which gives bmi = 21.948, and about the same as i was when 25. but last year in July I was 95Kg, and bmi = 27, and I considered myself overweight. Between last July and January, I rode about 200km a week, or about 5,000km, and my weight reduced from 95Kg to 77Kg and probably I lost 20Kg of fat, about the weight of a seriously good monoblok tube amp, or the equivalent of at least 5 x 4Litre cans of olive oil, and put on about 2 Kg of muscle which keeps me riding as fast as guys 30 years younger. At one stage my daily weight records showed I lost Kgm a week. I amused myself when I stalled trying to ride up some hills last July. The riding is not a leisurely activity just to take in the sights and sounds of nature, but a form of self inflicted pain which is excruciatingly enjoyable, especially when riding up steep long hills with elevated heart rates, or pushing hard along a flat stretch to catch some dude way out in the distance, or to hang on behind the 30 year old. If you ride real slow, say no faster than you'd jog, you get a sore arse and get bored, and the energy consumption is less than walking, good for you, but not nearly as good if you elevate the heart rate for 3 hours straight and could barely talk to anyone if they were present. But not all the time, not while going down hill. At a sweat inducing level, especially on a freezing cold day, one can burn huge amounts of fats. So best value from cycling is in the winter time, and because snow is so very rare here, the cold cloudless skies of about now to September seem to have been designed by God for cyclist pleasure. Even at my age perhaps i burn 600cals per hour and so a 4 hr ride uses 2,400 cals, or about the same amount as I use in a 24hr day of sedentary life. This equals about 200gms of fat, so 8 hrs a week uses 400gms of fat if you still eat the same as when sedentary. So the bicycle can create a calorie deficit. The only way I could lose weight easily without feeling hungry all the time was to cycle, and switch my diet to a big salad each day and a reduction of meat and fat and carbohydrates to a minimum. I completely gave up bread for the 6mths after July. Processed food is the very worst crap you can ever eat, so i don't, and if everyone was like me and couldn't be fooled easily, the whole food producing industry of the world would go stone motherless broke. The excess food that would then be available as natural produce from US and Oz farmers could then feed the rest of the hungry world with ease. When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from a common 64BPM down to say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. 60 eh? - I'm 60 *tomorrow*!! :-) A young bloke of 25 who did the exercize I take would benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45. When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM. Of course when you exercize, the body rebels to the torture, and becomes more efficient about processing the food, so a little food goes a long way, so you won't lose weight if you exercize and eat a pile of crappy fat rich garbage afterwards. I like cabage based salads, 4 apples a day, maybe two bananas and an orange, a large serve of cooked oats and yogurt for breakfast; forget about ham, bacon, sausages, soft drinks, cheeses, white breads, butter margerine, and all that crap in plastic packets with lots of numbers on the label which mean its riddled with dangerous chemicals to make you feel hungry, and eat more. protein comes from eggs, and lean meat and fish, which I cannot get enough of because what is now beiong sold as fish is often not fish, or its really crappy, because mankind has cleaned out the world's oceans of fish. So I feel guilty eating fish from the sea, not to mention its 5 times the price of lean bargain meats selling for $7 a Kg, enough to last me a week. I do use some olive oil. Its good for anyone, and better than the fats which I won't eat, and trim off the meat before I cook it. Animal fat is also where a lot of pesticide and hormone residues end up, so don't eat fats. You don't need them and we didn't evolve to survive off fats. I never buy deep fried chips, or drink coka cola, its all crap. Nathan Pritikin said in his book about nutrition for runners that all you need is to eat so that 80% of the energy comes from complex carbohydrates, 10% from proteins, and 10% from fats. Since most UNREFINED grains or breads made with real wholemeal flour has the whole goodness kept in, not pulled out to get greed driven sales elsewhere, then it has the 20% of protien and fat you need, and the CH slow burning energy. But even most wholemeal wheat breads are now using rapid yeasts and chemicals and I don't eat that anymore, and buy rye natural breads instead, and only need a couple of slices a day. People in the US, UK and Oz are rapidly assuming pig like proportions. When I am at the supermarket, I am appalled at the fat arse queus lining up with trolleys full of crap. Probably they suffer affluenza, the dysfunctional syndrome of living too high and being anxious about everything, so they ain't fit, don't relate well, and don't ****, and feed their mouth instead. I continue to ride about 150km a week and weight has stabilised, and bmi appears to be a lot better in the mirror. I treat myself to the occasional 100gm bar of Lindt 70% cocoa choclate. Its ****ing divine this stuff. Its much better than buying a 600gram milk chocolate bar with less cocoa and piled high with fats and sugar, and chemicals to make you buy more, along with hydrogenated fats to give long shelf life, but which are really terrible for your heart. There are attempts to ban what they are putting into foods now, and as fast as the banners get stuff banned, the chemists with no conscience dream up new chemicals. If I have done 100km on a saturday, I will treat myself to a large serve of Bavarian Apple from Pancake Parlour, with ice cream and cream, and unlike a couple of fat guys who play chess while I am there, I don't have diabetes, and have earned the treat, which won't hurt me. These fatsos don't do anything except sit around, and they are paying the price. Too much sitting on me arse chatting on news groups and typing up website pages and doing electronics had made me heavy. Now when i have to go into a computer shop there are all these young dudes and they all look a bit crook, a bit overweight, and kinda grey, like their PCs have sucked the very life out of them. I played Rugby Union when at school, and frankly it was guys just tumbling over each other, and I went home sore and sorry after most games. Lord knows how many unseen injuries meant trouble later in life. Cycling is much better, unless you fall off, but even if you do, you recover so fast it matters not. Cycling has speed, exhilaration, changing scenery, weather, varied circumstances, and needs alertness, rapid reflexes, careful judgements, and you learn lessons about life. I am really lucky that there are hundreds of Km of cycling paths here to ride on, and that don't include the mountain trails through the bush for which a mountain bike becomes sensible. Mountain biking is about getting hot riding up steep climbs slowly, and descending with care and putting up with a far rougher ride than on the road. Modern bikes have suspension and are useable by folks like me over 50 without enduring injuries. And even though Canberra has 330,000 people I only have to ride 4Km and I am in the middle of sheep paddocks and horse paddocks, and big wide country areas. It ain't like London or NY, or Sydney. If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case, using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth. No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height (but only while riding). Rugby player... Peter Wieck So how do you stay fit Peter? He probably lost a couple of hundred calories scrolling through this post!! :-) |
Intelligence and RIAA
On May 15, 11:17 am, Andre Jute wrote:
People tend to come to me when they want me, That explains a great deal of your behavior here. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Intelligence and RIAA
Gerry wrote:
On May 14, 4:42 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote: Gerry said: RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge. What the hell is "bodge"???? It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but the meaning is plain. My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in school and ask the child to clue you in. It was not 'obvious' at all. Yes it was. No - it was not. It's an archaic word not used on a regular basis in America. Webster's 1956 Dictionary describes bodge as an obsolete version of the word botch. You American's keep forgetting that the USA is only a small part of the world. The word 'bodge' is in common parlance throughout the British Commonwealth which is just a tad bigger than the USA. IAn |
Intelligence and RIAA
In article . com,
Peter Wieck wrote: On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns wrote: No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface noise. From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records By: Don Hoglund http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong? However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude swings of the original signal into velocity - This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the "turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover" frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites, as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head. You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment. Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal. the rate at which the stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much wider than the grooves on an equalized disk. This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive distortion. The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB. Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it is that you take issue with? Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
Intelligence and RIAA
In article . com,
Andre Jute wrote: John Byrns wrote: In article .com, Andre Jute wrote: I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead. Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player, and officially certified to have "the heart of an ox". The heartrate monitor is to keep my heart beating in the aerobic regions; when the HRM beeps those who cycle with me know to slow down. Did the wife also give up the car, or does she still use it? My wife is one of those people who resist driving. I bought her a nice new Volvo estate when our son was born but, since I work at home, I was always available to drive her. When we came to Ireland over a quarter-century ago, we could bring only one car taxfree. I would have had to pay an enormous amount of import duty for my Citroen SM (a grand tourer with a Maserati engine and hydraulic suspension, both impossible to service here back then) and so chose to bring the new, virtually unused Volvo; I breathed on the Volvo engine and suspension to make it suitable for enthusiastic driving. But we live in a village because I wanted my son to have the same sort of country upbringing I had. We walk to the shops and the shopkeepers deliver and carry the parcels into the kitchen; our son walked to a school less than five minutes away. People tend to come to me when they want me, or to pick me up and drive me to social occasions, because otherwise I don't go, so in about fifteen years the Volvo was used about 30k miles, mainly for going to the UK or the Continent or driving visitors around Ireland; every time I wanted to use it, I had to fit a new battery because it was used so infrequently. It was like new when I sold it. It's probably amazing to you but I don't miss the car; I just don't lead a car-based life. Not amazing at all, in my ideal world cars would not be necessary for day to day transportation, cars would essentially be toys reserved for sport and pleasure, sort of like the horses that preceded them into transportation history. Unfortunately we still have a very lot of work to do before we will have a workable mass transit system here in the US. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
Intelligence and RIAA
On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:52:53 GMT, John Byrns
wrote: In article . com, Peter Wieck wrote: On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns wrote: No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface noise. From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records By: Don Hoglund http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong? However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude swings of the original signal into velocity - This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the "turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover" frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites, as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head. You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment. Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal. the rate at which the stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much wider than the grooves on an equalized disk. This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive distortion. The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB. Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it is that you take issue with? Regards, John Byrns John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about 1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz. *Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Intelligence and RIAA
Time for Poopie's p.m. feeding. You mean windbag. High-class donkeys don't bray in public, you filthy equine monstrosity. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
Intelligence and RIAA
On May 15, 12:52 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article . com, Peter Wieck wrote: On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns wrote: No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface noise. From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records By: Don Hoglund http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong? However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude swings of the original signal into velocity - This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the "turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover" frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites, as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head. You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment. Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal. the rate at which the stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much wider than the grooves on an equalized disk. This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive distortion. The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB. Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it is that you take issue with? Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ John: Whoops: http://www.graniteaudio.com/phono/page5.html should get you there. For the record: Whatever positions and suppositions you may take, and from whatever point of view, whichever cutting head and system, the actual subject-at-hand is the *present* RIAA Curve as practiced each day. This is presumably a fixed value both on recording and playback. That curve is at the bottom of the article. The Bass Boost and the Treble Cut on playback cross the Bass Cut and Treble Boost on recording at ~1.2Khz.... not quite what you are writing. References are at the bottom of the article. Some interesting stuff also on cartridge loading (impedance and capacitance), something that I have kept in mind for now over 30 years, and something that few of the more recent converts to vinyl do not understand. Back in the day, better components would list input capacitance at a given impedance. Some even had adjustments, and ways to vary both to a fixed value as needed. Most good TTs listed the capacitance of their cables as well. So it is not just the phono-stage but what feeds it as well that has effects on the overall results. John, sometimes your experience and history vastly overcomplicate what is a pretty simple issue. What 'should be' in the best of all possible worlds simply ain't necessarily so. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Intelligence and RIAA
On May 15, 1:08 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
John, my apologies. I have only just noticed that you are posting from rec.audio.tubes as your prime group. Ignore everything I wrote above - you are right and I am wrong. Just as Alice found when she stepped through the mirror into looking glass land, everything there works backwards from the real world. Don: Be careful. John is a literalist. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Intelligence and RIAA
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote: On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:02:56 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:52:53 GMT, John Byrns wrote: In article . com, Peter Wieck wrote: On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns wrote: No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface noise. From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records By: Don Hoglund http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong? However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude swings of the original signal into velocity - This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the "turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover" frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites, as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head. You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment. Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal. the rate at which the stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much wider than the grooves on an equalized disk. This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive distortion. The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB. Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it is that you take issue with? John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about 1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz. *Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in. John, my apologies. I have only just noticed that you are posting from rec.audio.tubes as your prime group. Ignore everything I wrote above - you are right and I am wrong. Just as Alice found when she stepped through the mirror into looking glass land, everything there works backwards from the real world. Don, I don't understand what the prime group I am posting from has to do with this issue and your sudden understanding? Could you please explain? Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
Intelligence and RIAA
On May 15, 9:08 am, Andre Jute wrote:
Yo, Gerry, I'm a professional communicator. I say exactly what I mean, no more, no less. If you do not follow, it is because either a) I intended for you not to understand or b) you are a thicko below my horizon. You might consider that everyone else understood what I meant. The only acceptable excuse for not understanding me when I speak that plainly is that you are unfamiliar with the technicalities underlying RIAA emphasis and de-emphasis, in which case you should, rather than attack my language, say you don't understand, and you will receive a courteous explanation from the few remaining on RAT who still honour the open-door principles of the ARRL. Andre Jute Oh, I see. You would rather show off how edjumicated you are rather than be kind enough to share information and write in laymen's terms so EVERYone can understand. You are a Professional elitist snob, apparently. Rude son-of-a-bitch, too. |
Intelligence and RIAA
On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:56:32 GMT, John Byrns
wrote: In article , (Don Pearce) wrote: On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:02:56 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:52:53 GMT, John Byrns wrote: In article . com, Peter Wieck wrote: On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns wrote: No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface noise. From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records By: Don Hoglund http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong? However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude swings of the original signal into velocity - This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the "turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover" frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites, as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head. You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment. Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal. the rate at which the stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much wider than the grooves on an equalized disk. This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive distortion. The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB. Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it is that you take issue with? John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about 1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz. *Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in. John, my apologies. I have only just noticed that you are posting from rec.audio.tubes as your prime group. Ignore everything I wrote above - you are right and I am wrong. Just as Alice found when she stepped through the mirror into looking glass land, everything there works backwards from the real world. Don, I don't understand what the prime group I am posting from has to do with this issue and your sudden understanding? Could you please explain? Regards, John Byrns Don't worry, John. Peter just put me straight. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Intelligence and RIAA
On May 15, 9:20 am, Eeyore
wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Yo, Gerry, I'm a professional communicator. You mean windbag. Graham Precisely! |
Intelligence and RIAA
John Byrns said: John, my apologies. I have only just noticed that you are posting from rec.audio.tubes as your prime group. Ignore everything I wrote above - you are right and I am wrong. Just as Alice found when she stepped through the mirror into looking glass land, everything there works backwards from the real world. Don, I don't understand what the prime group I am posting from has to do with this issue and your sudden understanding? Could you please explain? He say you toobies live in Bizarro world. Him stay, you go home! Har! -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
Intelligence and RIAA
In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote: (Don Pearce) said: Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though? Hah! Did you know the average snail travels 3 furlongs per fortnight? Bet you didn't! ;-) Well, I just looked it up, and they do 0.03mph - which is about 80 furlongs per fortnight. You have slow snails! We feed 'em beer, so they're mostly running around in circles. Lucky Lager was especially good for that. Stephen |
Intelligence and RIAA
Gerry wrote:
On May 15, 9:08 am, Andre Jute wrote: Yo, Gerry, I'm a professional communicator. I say exactly what I mean, no more, no less. I see, said Alice. -- Nick |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk