Audio, hi-fi and car audio - A challenge to the Dutch

Audio Banter (https://www.audiobanter.co.uk/forum.php)

- uk.rec.audio (General Audio and Hi-Fi) (https://www.audiobanter.co.uk/uk-rec-audio-general-audio/)

- - A challenge to the Dutch (https://www.audiobanter.co.uk/uk-rec-audio-general-audio/7019-challenge-dutch.html)

A challenge to the Dutch

Peter Wieck wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I'm unsure that a person with Jute's err preferences would ever have
descendents...

He has claimed both wife and son. I would expect or at least hope that
even as spavined a specimen as Andre would not lie about such core
issues.

I suppose being a poofter doesn't mean he couldn't have a wife and son.

Graham

Poopie Stevenson admits he's a permanent loser About Andre Jute

A challenge to the Dutch

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:50:38 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

He has claimed both wife and son. I would expect or at least hope that
even as spavined a specimen as Andre would not lie about such core
issues.

I suppose being a poofter doesn't mean he couldn't have a wife and son.

Are we anti-gay here? I mean, obviously the Australians will be. But
the rest of us, with non-criminal ancestries?

Poopie Stevenson admits he's a permanent loser About Andre Jute

A challenge to the Dutch

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:50:38 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

He has claimed both wife and son. I would expect or at least hope that
even as spavined a specimen as Andre would not lie about such core
issues.

I suppose being a poofter doesn't mean he couldn't have a wife and son.

Are we anti-gay here?

Just anti-Jute.

Graham

Eeyore's tube projects/knowledge

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro. None
of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

That may very well be true, but so far you haven't shown us any evidence
to suggest that it is actually true. Why don't you start by describing
some of your tube projects, then we can better judge. Don't hold back,
your descriptions don't have to be up to Patrick's high standards.

Even if you do know more about tubes than I do, that doesn't foreclose
the possibility that there are a few things I know about tubes that you
don't, which would seem to be the relevant issue here.

Here's an example
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...3791&ssPa geN
ame=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=007

Thanks, I take it that by posting that link you are saying that you
designed the "STUDIOMASTER Leadmaster 60W 112 VALVE Guitar TUBE Amp"?

In that case you certainly know a lot more about the design of tube
guitar amps than I do as I don't know the first thing about them,
although I did once design a transistor guitar amp, but I didn't have a
clue what I was doing, nor did the two people directing my efforts.

I guess this illustrates the split personality of this group which
includes the two completely divergent fields of audio amplifiers and
guitar amps, which are largely unrelated disciplines.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to imply that guitar amp design isn't
an honorable field, only that it is different than audio design.

At least that helps me to understand where you are coming from, what
your knowledge base is, and the reason for the obvious gaps in your
knowledge.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Eeyore's tube projects/knowledge

On Oct 28, 8:18 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro. None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

That may very well be true, but so far you haven't shown us any evidence
to suggest that it is actually true. Why don't you start by describing
some of your tube projects, then we can better judge. Don't hold back,
your descriptions don't have to be up to Patrick's high standards.

Even if you do know more about tubes than I do, that doesn't foreclose
the possibility that there are a few things I know about tubes that you
don't, which would seem to be the relevant issue here.

Here's an examplehttp://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=17015752379...

Graham

All right, Poopie, it's a guitar amp.

So, what does either a guitar amp or you have to do with high fidelity
sound reproduction?

Or are we supposed once more to read something between the lines of
your obscure low-rent soundbites?

Andre Jute

A challenge to the Dutch

On Oct 28, 4:58 pm, "Chronic Philharmonic"
wrote:
But all right, Mijnheer van Gennip, you want to be a slim jannie --and
in English too! So show us how you would design an amplfier either
Class A or with substantial Class A output (i.e. Class AB) in which
"the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal
condition". Note the important qualification "under any signal
condition". That means exactly what it says in plain English: you
design the amplifier, I choose the signal level to be vastly larger
than the specified bias, then you prove it still operates in Class A.

So, drive the amplifier outside its design parameters? It sounds like you
are parsing semantics here. In a formal debate, one might lose points for
failing to say "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal
condition /within its rated parameters/". But in a newsgroup, it isn't often
clear when the formal rules are switched on or off. It seems people
arbitrarily like to switch them on and off for their own benefit.

That, dear Chronic Philharmonic (nice monicker!), is precisely what I
am complaining about.

Follow the steps:

A class A amplifier is one in which the devices never cease
conducting, right. We all know it means while the signal is limited so
as not to drive it out of class.

Graham "Poopie" Stevenson claimed, in order to win an argument against
someone he hates for often exposing his ignorance, that a Class A
amplifier is on in which "the device(s) never cease conducting under
any signal condition." The words "under any singal condition" clearly
negate the prior part of the definition, because any signal condition
must by definition include overload that will drive the amp to
device(s) to cutoff. Arny "Slapdash" Krueger and Don "Bluster" Pearce
explicitly supported Poopie's gross misdefinition for personl reasons
of their own.

A hundred acrimonious messages later, Poopie added a phrase to the
effect of "under any signal condition that will not drive the amp
outside Class A conditions". That whole phrase is then tautological
because the latter half merely cancels out the erroneous first half.

We were back to where decent engineers would have started: "A class A
amplifier is one in which the devices never cease conducting." That
already includes limiting the signal so it cannot be driven out of
class.

So, all of this was an attempt by Poopie Stevenson, Slapdash Krueger
and Bluster Pearce to win an argument by perverting a scientific
definition for their own petty personal reasons.

As I say, you got it in one, except that you missed out on the
despicable personal reasons driving the assault on scientific decency
by these clowns Poopie, Slapdash and Bluster.

Andre Jute
Habit is the nursery of errors. -- Victor Hugo