Amplifier power
 

GregS wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
APR wrote:

What difference would you expect a different IC to make over the 4558's?

Just to put this into perspective, the 4558 is little better than the rightly
maligned (today) 741 op-amp.

4558s are most commonly found in low-rent DJ gear.

I was redoing some cheap DJ stuff. One time I put in some National
chips, one of the newer designs at the time, and I found one chip
with popcorn noise. First time I ever heard that.

I got popcorn noise from a failing TI BC184 once but that's it.

What did fox me for days was a noisy channel in a hi-fi amp that was caused by a leaky c-b ceramic
cap.

Graham

Amplifier power
 

Don Pearce wrote:

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.

LOL !

Graham

Amplifier power
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
et...
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"?



Just a rounding thing. If you round by truncating you get 11277, if you do
it to the nearest you get 11278.

Rounding isn't truncating!. I said "to the nearest metre" and that is 11278m

I suspect the number has more to do with the autopilot demand setting than
the actual height, though.

That's as maybe, but the numbers went up and down when the plane climbed and
descended.

David.

Amplifier power
 

wrote:

"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.

Hey, you know the VW in the much later Beatles rip-off of that ?

A friend of mine found that on a forecourt in a local garage and bought
it. He later auctioned it. Not sure what he made on the deal. Must ask
sometime.

Graham

Amplifier power
 

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"?

And they say computers don't make mistakes !

Graham

Amplifier power
 

Don Pearce wrote:

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"?

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.

Not to mention that if they don't know the exact barometric pressure it'll be a
bit off anyway, that why ATC give them the baro reading for landing.

Graham

Amplifier power
 

David Looser wrote:

"tony sayer" wrote

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!

Seriously ?

So it's AAaaaarrrrggghhhhhhh! all the way through then ?

Graham

Amplifier power
 

David Looser wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
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"?



Just a rounding thing. If you round by truncating you get 11277, if you do
it to the nearest you get 11278.

Rounding isn't truncating!. I said "to the nearest metre" and that is 11278m

I suspect the number has more to do with the autopilot demand setting than
the actual height, though.

That's as maybe, but the numbers went up and down when the plane climbed and
descended.

It'll be the FMS / FMC sending the data then.

Graham

Amplifier power
 

Eeyore wrote:
Hey, you know the VW in the much later Beatles rip-off of that ?

A friend of mine found that on a forecourt in a local garage and bought
it. He later auctioned it. Not sure what he made on the deal. Must ask
sometime.

Quote from the Guardian Newspaper, 1989:-

"The 1968 Volkswagen was sold at a Sotheby's auction three years ago to
an American collector for £2,530. They say it even runs."

Another, more up to date, site says :-
"Later, this car sold in an auction for 23,000 dollars and is now in a
museum"

I believe it's still about somewhere, as it was mentioned in a classic
car magazine a few months back.

--
Tciao for Now!

JOhn.

Amplifier power
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

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! ;-)

Well OK I could have read my boring novel, or attempted to watch the
in-flight movie on a really crappy LCD monitor with the sound from a pair of
cheap earphones trying to compete with the background noise level. I think
I'd rather watch the numbers!

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

Goodness knows!, but whilst trundling around San Fransisco airport it
hovered around 42 feet, if that proves anything.

David.