|
|
Amplifier power
"Fleetie" wrote in message
... Studiomaster were a UK company founded in the 1070s Been around for quite a while then! David. |
Amplifier power
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 |
Amplifier power
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. |
Amplifier power
"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. |
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"? 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 |
Amplifier power
"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. |
Amplifier power
"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. |
Amplifier power
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 |
Amplifier power
"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? ;-) |
Amplifier power
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 |
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
|
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. |
Amplifier power
"Eeyore" wrote in message
... 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 Radio 4 says, they even played a bit to show just how awful it is. So it's AAaaaarrrrggghhhhhhh! all the way through then ? Absolutely David. |
Amplifier power
John Williamson wrote: 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. Not bad. I think he only paid a few hundred for it. I'll see if Peter knows it's in a museum now. Didn't say which did it ? He probably saved it for posterity by recognising the number plate. Graham |
Amplifier power
David Looser wrote: "Eeyore" wrote 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 Radio 4 says, they even played a bit to show just how awful it is. Good old Radio 4. One of the last good bits of the BBC. So it's AAaaaarrrrggghhhhhhh! all the way through then ? Absolutely LOL ! Someone tried to convince me a few weeks back that Metallica weren't REALLY 'heavy metal' there were actually some tunes somewhere in there. I was sceptical. Graham |
Amplifier power
Eeyore wrote:
John Williamson wrote: I believe it's still about somewhere, as it was mentioned in a classic car magazine a few months back. Not bad. I think he only paid a few hundred for it. I'll see if Peter knows it's in a museum now. Didn't say which did it ? He probably saved it for posterity by recognising the number plate. Google for LMW 281F. Opinion favours the VW factory museum. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
Amplifier power
David Looser wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote 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! I take my own headphones. Beyer DT331s. You can get an adaptor for the dual sockets on 747s too I recently discovered. Graham |
Amplifier power
On 2008-10-21, David Looser wrote:
"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! I was stunned how bad the earphones were on my last transatlantic flight (United). I didn't realize you could make something that sounded that bad. Even the "free" earbuds that came with my last mp3 player were high-end in comparison. BTW, which part of the plane was the measurement centered at? ;-) And, indeed, where is the reference point for the other end? Goodness knows!, but whilst trundling around San Fransisco airport it hovered around 42 feet, if that proves anything. I once sat in a 747 on the ground at Kai Tak waiting for takeoff (a long time ago) and noticed that we were apparently at -4 metres. -- John Phillips |
Amplifier power
In article , John Phillips
wrote: I once sat in a 747 on the ground at Kai Tak waiting for takeoff (a long time ago) and noticed that we were apparently at -4 metres. Sound like the pilot was a little late with the round-out during the previous decent. Perhaps understandable given the approach. :-) 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 |
Amplifier power
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
... I suspect your plane was more than 1 metre tall. :-) It was a 747. I believe they are over 1m tall :-) Did they say if the height was measured to the seat of the pilot's chair, or to some other reference? :-) Nope. David. |
Amplifier power
"tony sayer" wrote in message
... Funnily enough we've got four Band 1 transmitters , yes those frequencies are still used, and the cores in one have all disintegrated away whereas in the other their fine all about the same age!.. What do they transmit? David. |
Amplifier power
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
In article , John Phillips wrote: I once sat in a 747 on the ground at Kai Tak waiting for takeoff (a long time ago) and noticed that we were apparently at -4 metres. Sound like the pilot was a little late with the round-out during the previous decent. Perhaps understandable given the approach. :-) I don't think its big enough to handle 747s, but I've visited this airport in person, and it will send plane altimeters even further in the negative direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea_Airport |
Amplifier power
Jim Lesurf wrote: John Phillips wrote: I once sat in a 747 on the ground at Kai Tak waiting for takeoff (a long time ago) and noticed that we were apparently at -4 metres. Sound like the pilot was a little late with the round-out during the previous decent. Perhaps understandable given the approach. :-) LOL ! On one of many trips to Bombay / Mumbai on landing it's wasn't the usual BA 'greaser' (i.e. you hardly notice the touchdown). It wasn't a BAD landing, just not quite their usual standard. Shortly after the F.O. came on the PA to apologise on account of them having to avoid a dog crossing the runway ! Crazy country. p.s. I've always found BA's cabin crew great too. And avoid Air India. 'Palace in the skies' my arse! They have the sulkiest cabin crew I've ever come across bar possibly Air France. Equal score actually I'd say. Lufthansa scores for sheer Germanic efficiency and consistency. Swissair (as was) scores for the most beautiful member of cabin crew who relayed my request to the Captain and I got to stay awhile on the flight deck of a 747-300 and learnt a few things from him. And then there was the flirt from a Easyjet 'air hostess'. That brightens your day up too. Graham |
Amplifier power
|
Amplifier power
Robert Orban wrote: says... Thanks Bob ! Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB and FM ever more distorted;!... All modern DSP-based Optimods can be operated as exremely pure protection limiters if that is what the broadcaster prefers, and we offer presets to make this easy. I just make the artillery; I don't have any say in how broadcasters choose to set it up! Just how smart are the Optimods these days ? I assume they're DSP based now (oh you said so) and probably for some time. I always though your objective was to reduce to the minimum any unwanted audible artifacts through multiple band processing and the like.. Grham |
Amplifier power
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:54:32 -0800, Robert Orban
wrote: Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB and FM ever more distorted;!... All modern DSP-based Optimods can be operated as exremely pure protection limiters if that is what the broadcaster prefers, and we offer presets to make this easy. I just make the artillery; I don't have any say in how broadcasters choose to set it up! It's also worth keeping in mind that, in America at least, overmodulation is illegal. May not be much policed these days, but still illegal. It's back to the Wild West here in many respects, and violations not involving the female breast or words learned in elementary school are ignored in the interest of Free Enterprise. Such is life. Blaming tools for business decisions is misplaced. Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck |
Amplifier power
Robert Orban wrote: says... Thanks Bob ! Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB and FM ever more distorted;!... All modern DSP-based Optimods can be operated as exremely pure protection limiters if that is what the broadcaster prefers, and we offer presets to make this easy. I just make the artillery; I don't have any say in how broadcasters choose to set it up! BTW, did you ever use 'optical' compression ? Vactrols etc. Graham |
Amplifier power
In article ,
Robert Orban scribeth thus In article , says... Thanks Bob ! Graham Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB and FM ever more distorted;!... All modern DSP-based Optimods can be operated as exremely pure protection limiters if that is what the broadcaster prefers, and we offer presets to make this easy. I just make the artillery; I don't have any say in how broadcasters choose to set it up! Give 'em the weapons and they'll fight the ratings war;!... -- Tony Sayer |
Amplifier power
In article , Chris Hornbeck
scribeth thus On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:54:32 -0800, Robert Orban wrote: Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB and FM ever more distorted;!... All modern DSP-based Optimods can be operated as exremely pure protection limiters if that is what the broadcaster prefers, and we offer presets to make this easy. I just make the artillery; I don't have any say in how broadcasters choose to set it up! It's also worth keeping in mind that, in America at least, overmodulation is illegal. May not be much policed these days, but still illegal. Its illegal most everywhere unless you're a London pirate, then you set it wherever it will go ... -- Tony Sayer |
Amplifier power
In article , David Looser
scribeth thus "tony sayer" wrote in message ... Funnily enough we've got four Band 1 transmitters , yes those frequencies are still used, and the cores in one have all disintegrated away whereas in the other their fine all about the same age!.. What do they transmit? David. Their used for Audio links either Mono or Stereo further info here... http://www.jfmg.co.uk/pages/freq/ground/40_100mhz.htm -- Tony Sayer |
Amplifier power
In article ,
says... Robert Orban wrote: says... Thanks Bob ! Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB and FM ever more distorted;!... All modern DSP-based Optimods can be operated as exremely pure protection limiters if that is what the broadcaster prefers, and we offer presets to make this easy. I just make the artillery; I don't have any say in how broadcasters choose to set it up! Just how smart are the Optimods these days ? I assume they're DSP based now (oh you said so) and probably for some time. They're pretty smart :-). All of the manuals are available for free download from ftp.orban.com, and these provide detailed descriptions of their features. Our current top of the line processors are the 8500 for FM, the 9400 for AM, the 6300 for digital media, and the 8585 for surround. (The 8585 manual is coming soon; the otehr manuals are currently available.) I always though your objective was to reduce to the minimum any unwanted audible artifacts through multiple band processing and the like.. Yes. One can use a special form of multiband processing (with coupled bands that only uncouple when necessary to prevent audible spectral gain intermodulation) for protection limiting. To process for loudness, one really needs to start with multiband processing and complement it with various peak limiting tricks like distortion- cancelled clipping, where the clipping distortion is removed in some frequency bands. The nice side effect of doing such complex loudness processing is that when backed off to give a more "purist" sound, the processor causes far fewer audible artifacts than a simpler processor would. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:46 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