"Fleetie" wrote in message
...

Studiomaster were a UK company founded in the 1070s

Been around for quite a while then!

David.

David Looser wrote:
"Fleetie" wrote in message
...
Studiomaster were a UK company founded in the 1070s

Been around for quite a while then!

David.



They recorded the Bayeux tapestry.

d

On Oct 21, 8:33 am, "David Looser"
wrote:
Studiomaster were a UK company founded in the 1070s

Does that mean their claim that they helped record the
Battle of Hastings is suspect? Come to think of it,
the album cover where William the Conquerer is crossing
Abbey Road and there's a 1068 Morris Minor parked in
the background should have tipped me off.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Interesting that he seems able to narrow down all orchestras to a 1dB
range
like that. Reminiscent of the way undergrads sometimes write down a lab
experiment result to as many significant figures as their hand calculator
displays - regardless of having input figures only roughly accurate. :-)


I've just flown back from the USA on a plane that was, according to the
"flight information" channel on the in-flight entertainment screen, flying
at a constant height of 37,000 feet - or 11277m. (Actually, according to my
calculations, to the nearest metre, that should have been 11278m). Or is it
possible that the actual height was 37,000 feet plus or minus quite a bit,
and that there was a spurious precision to the "11277"?

David.

David Looser wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
Interesting that he seems able to narrow down all orchestras to a 1dB
range
like that. Reminiscent of the way undergrads sometimes write down a lab
experiment result to as many significant figures as their hand calculator
displays - regardless of having input figures only roughly accurate. :-)


I've just flown back from the USA on a plane that was, according to the
"flight information" channel on the in-flight entertainment screen, flying
at a constant height of 37,000 feet - or 11277m. (Actually, according to my
calculations, to the nearest metre, that should have been 11278m). Or is it
possible that the actual height was 37,000 feet plus or minus quite a bit,
and that there was a spurious precision to the "11277"?

David.



Just a rounding thing. If you round by truncating you get 11277, if you
do it to the nearest you get 11278. I suspect the number has more to do
with the autopilot demand setting than the actual height, though.

d

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

No but theres a local station round these parts where the engineer does
give a monkeys but the programme controller only knows LOUD LOUD and
LOUDER!!! cos the bloke at the other station down the road is the same;;

All thinking LOUD is better..


Did anyone hear on the news recently that the new CD from "Metallica" is so
heavily compressed that even Heavy-Metal fans are complaining in their
thousands? Good for them I say!

David.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


For me, radio is all but finished. Apart from Radio 4 of course. It's the
same pap
from every broadcaster. I can even recall several times changing channel
and finding
the very same track being played on the new one. Grrrrrrrr.


You should try American Radio.
I've recently spent many hours driving through California with only the
radio for "entertainment". It makes UK commercial "pop" radio sound like
high-culture by comparison!

David.

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Interesting that he seems able to narrow down all orchestras to a 1dB
range like that. Reminiscent of the way undergrads sometimes write
down a lab experiment result to as many significant figures as their
hand calculator displays - regardless of having input figures only
roughly accurate. :-)


I've just flown back from the USA on a plane that was, according to the
"flight information" channel on the in-flight entertainment screen,
flying at a constant height of 37,000 feet - or 11277m. (Actually,
according to my calculations, to the nearest metre, that should have
been 11278m). Or is it possible that the actual height was 37,000 feet
plus or minus quite a bit, and that there was a spurious precision to
the "11277"?

I suspect your plane was more than 1 metre tall. :-) Did they say if the
height was measured to the seat of the pilot's chair, or to some other
reference? :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Interesting that he seems able to narrow down all
orchestras to a 1dB range
like that. Reminiscent of the way undergrads sometimes
write down a lab experiment result to as many
significant figures as their hand calculator displays -
regardless of having input figures only roughly
accurate. :-)

I've just flown back from the USA on a plane that was,
according to the "flight information" channel on the
in-flight entertainment screen, flying at a constant
height of 37,000 feet - or 11277m. (Actually, according
to my calculations, to the nearest metre, that should
have been 11278m). Or is it possible that the actual
height was 37,000 feet plus or minus quite a bit, and
that there was a spurious precision to the "11277"?

If you are worried about an airplane's altitude to the 5th digit, you
obviously need to find something else to do with your mind! ;-)

BTW, which part of the plane was the measurement centered at? ;-)

GregS wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
GregS wrote:

The RC4136 was used in a lot of stuff. It had a faster slew rate, and I
measured up to 1.8 v/us, and was called a quad 741. Weird pins too.

I know the one. Avoided it like the plague if only for the pinout !

Didn't TI make a TL075 with the same pinout ?

Right, and I always wanted to use them in my old Soundcraftmen equalizer, then I could not get them.
I was set up to make conversion boards but never finished. I still have that equalizer but I don't use it.

TI have now deleted it. Little demand I suppose. I only know because I have a very early copy of the bifet
manual.

Graham