HY60
 

In article , Jim Lesurf
scribeth thus
In article , tony sayer

wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
scribeth thus


Well, to me the results on R3 sound preferrable to the results via FM.
And of course Freeview is a more logical choice than FM for World
Service and R7 since they aren't available here on FM.

Well there seems to be a lot of instances of distortion via Freeview on
Radio 4 recently which the BBC seems unaware of which isn't quite how it
should be...

Can't say I've noticed that. However I mostly listen to R3 via DTTV, not
R4. And I am getting signals from Durris/Angus not CP.


Maybe I notice the drawbacks of FM more easily than yourself.


Maybe we have a better TX feed than you do;?..

Which gives you less ignition interference and level compression?

Not a problem here at home or in my car, and the radio in that is
nothing special!..

The compression isn't the fault of the FM system as such, its more to do
with how the broadcaster sees it!..


[snip]

And to think they, the BBC, have all that bandwidth available on
satellite and they still stick with 192K MP2...

An utter disgrace for a broadcaster:((...

I can understand their dilemma on DAB. But I'd agree than I'd much prefer
it if all 'sound radio' used 256k for the sound. DTTV has much larger
capacity than DAB so that shouldn't really be a problem for the BBC even if
commercial broadcasters are driven by 'bits cost cash' worries. Ditto for
satellite.

Cost is hardly an issue, its more to do with bloody mindedness and
stupidity:(..

Consider how much it must cost to distribute upteen variations of BBC
One!..


Personally, I would not weep if the BBC were simply allowed to spread
across the bandwidth left largely vacent or vacuous by commercial stations.
I could like without 'telesales' and similarly brain-dead commercial
fillers. I also think they'd be better off dumping BBC3 and combining their
two kiddie channels to give more bitspace for their other channels.

Its still not a problem -space- and -bandwidth- on satellite that is..

But regardless, I find that R3 and BBC4 on DTTV do generally deliver good
results. And I welcome WS and R7 even if they are squeezed in at low rates.

Problem here is that 'regulation' aimed at keeping up quality has
essentially been abandoned by all and sundry, and the BBC have been made to
feel that they have to be 'popular' to 'justify' the fees. Gresham's Law
then comes into force with the results we have. In some ways I'd say it was
remarkable that the BBC have resisted this to the extent they have given
the commercial interests that would just as soon have the BBC evaporate.


I don't see the BBC would have a problem if it dropped its silly ratings
war. I don't think the viewing public are quite as stupid as they think
and they should educate them anyway!..

Given my 'druthers I'd have blocked all the 'flogging crap to bored
dimwits' channels and the 'delayed 10 mins for those who made a cup of tea'
ones. I'd also have kept much of the old limits on levels of repeats,
durations of adverts, etc, and made them apply to DTTV. This would have
swept out the crud that takes up so much bandspace. But maybe then we
simply would not have as many muxes...

My bias is that to me the bulk of commercial broadcasting seems to be
things I'd be happy to see vanish. But then a lot of daytime BBC1 strikes
me as also being in this category. One prog after another about buying and
selling homes or antiques. sigh So I must be one of the "Toff's TV"
sector. :-)


Well lets hope the British obsession with the worth if their homes is
coming to an end...

With some of the above especially the children's programming one could
conclude that the learned gent is shall we say .. showing is age a
bit;!..
--
Tony Sayer

HY60
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Well, to me the results on R3 sound preferrable to the results via
FM. And of course Freeview is a more logical choice than FM for
World Service and R7 since they aren't available here on FM.

Well there seems to be a lot of instances of distortion via Freeview on
Radio 4 recently which the BBC seems unaware of which isn't quite how it
should be...

I've experienced it and am at a loss to explain it. Sounds like something
in an analogue part of the chain to me. It's intermittent - and no real
pattern to it. I've heard it on live broadcasts which would rule out a
rogue play in device.

It could also be local to just one transmitter or group of transmitters.


Whatever make you think its an analogue component it the chain Dave
thats all digital now?..
--
Tony Sayer

HY60
 

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I've experienced it and am at a loss to explain it. Sounds like
something in an analogue part of the chain to me. It's intermittent -
and no real pattern to it. I've heard it on live broadcasts which would
rule out a rogue play in device.

It could also be local to just one transmitter or group of transmitters.


Whatever make you think its an analogue component it the chain Dave
thats all digital now?..

It's not. Starting with the microphone...;-)

It sort of sounds like overload on an analogue circuit, not something I've
heard with a digits fault. But I'm willing to be educated. How would you
describe it? Incidentally, not noticed it during the last couple of days
despite being in all day with R4 on.

--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

HY60
 

In article , tony sayer

wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
scribeth thus


Maybe I notice the drawbacks of FM more easily than yourself.


Maybe we have a better TX feed than you do;?..

Which gives you less ignition interference and level compression?

Not a problem here at home or in my car,

Odd that you don't notice the level compression on R3 when at home.


and the radio in that is
nothing special!..

The compression isn't the fault of the FM system as such, its more to do
with how the broadcaster sees it!..

You can also say that the level of data compression on DAB/DTTV isn't a
fault of the system as such, its more to do with how the broadcaster sees
it! :-)



Problem here is that 'regulation' aimed at keeping up quality has
essentially been abandoned by all and sundry, and the BBC have been
made to feel that they have to be 'popular' to 'justify' the fees.
Gresham's Law then comes into force with the results we have. In some
ways I'd say it was remarkable that the BBC have resisted this to the
extent they have given the commercial interests that would just as soon
have the BBC evaporate.


I don't see the BBC would have a problem if it dropped its silly ratings
war. I don't think the viewing public are quite as stupid as they think
and they should educate them anyway!..

But some of the critics of the BBC in our journalistic and political
classes *are* that stupid as it suits their agenda. The argument they shove
out is the weary one "how can you justify making everyone pay the fee if
you only make programmes a minority will view/hear?"

They rely on people resenting paying for anything at all, combined with
them not realising how output aimed at educating and informing can raise
standards and provide info which even those who don't watch/hear will find
affecting and informing the debate or environment around them. Good
programmes put out into the public domain information, etc, that then can
spread by other means to those who didn't see/hear the orginal programmes.

Alas, ideas like that aren't on the radar for critics who follow the line
that only having an 'audience' can justify the fees.

BTW If you haven't read it already, try reading "Flat Earth News" by Nick
Davies. It does a good job of exposing the way journalism, etc, have
essentially been dumbed down by the mentality of grocers and accountants
whose only interest is making a cash return. Including its effect upon the
BBC who are expected to 'compete' on a similar basis.

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

Stevenson = Charlatan
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


bassett wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
TT wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Fleetie wrote:
"Phil Allison" wrote
"Eeysore = Graham Stevenson = Lying Criminal Charlatan

** You will not go back three posts - to one YOU
replied to.

You will not go back even one.

You REFUSE to read the one in front of you as well.

Go get cancer and die -

you CRIMINALLY INSANE POMMY MANIAC

...... Phil

Well, Graham?

Phil has thrown down the gauntlet.

Now what are you going to do? Are you going to remove him
from
usenet as you threatened?

He's back to the wishing fatal cancer on people that
outraged you
last time.

So, your move.

Valid comment. I'm absolutely tied up in stuff right now
though and
couldn't give a tinker's cuss about Phyllis.

Perhaps spend less time swapping abuse with Philthy and use
that time to get his account pulled. Only a thought to help
with your time management problem ;-)

FFS, I want to get Bwian pulled and now you want me to get Phyllis
burnt
at the stake too ?

Gimme a break !

Your the one running his mouth Graham,, nice to see your still cross
posting..

'Fleetie' originated the cross-post. I hadn't noticed it.

You DO know how to work that out do you ? Woof Woof ?

Graham


I know how to work out most things, including you.

I had the lady from the RSPCA round the other day

.. She's of the same opinion as me, about you.

All bluff and no bloody grunt.

bassett

HY60
 

"Woody" wrote in message
...
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...

"TonyL" wrote in message
...
I've found a couple of HY60 amplifier modules in my junk box. I have a
data sheet which indicates a +/- 25v power supply voltage rails
requirement but no indication of current. Power into 8 ohms is 30W. If I
put a power supply together what sort of current should I be expecting
to supply to each module ? Presumably, a simple dual rail
transformer/rectifier/electrolytic type of supply would be OK ?

Any gotchas with this project ?

Thanks

TonyL

Nice little amps!

Assuming that you're not going to be using these amps to drive some
extreme loads, then 30 watts into 8 ohms is a current of 1.94 amps, add a
little for the amp's overhead, and so you need a minimum of 2 amps per
amplifier. If you're building a single supply to power both amps, then I
would go for a 5 amp supply. If the 'speakers you're going to use are
closer to 4 ohms than 8, you may like to double the current capacity.

No particular "gotchas" with these as far as I'm aware, they do what they
say they do.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com


Agreed. Of their time superb amps. They were later replaced with a power
MOSFET version which had a somewhat higher slew rate, but nontheless the
HY was a very good amp.

Just make sure, as above, that the supply can provide the current. You
should even consider a regulated supply as (and I'm sure someone will
enlighten us) you will get better and cleaner bass. Although the HY60s
have built-on heatsinks it would still be wise to attach them to a chassis
that is capable of dissipating at least some of the heat.

I built a dual mono MOSFET power amp based on the Ambit boards containing
a Hitachi design. It was good and provided 110wpc without difficulty. I
then built the regulated supply designed by the late great John
Lindsey-Hood and fitted that - and the aural difference was dramatic, and
not least that it did 110W into 8R and 220W into 4R. The PSU design also
provides d.c. offset protection for the speakers. I think I have a copy of
the circuit of anyone wants it.

**Those figures are, of course, impossible in this universe. Particularly
with MOSFETs. You may get close to a doubling in power, but You'll never
quite get there, regardless of power supply regulation.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

HY60
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:

TonyL wrote:

I've found a couple of HY60 amplifier modules in my junk box. I have a
data
sheet which indicates a +/- 25v power supply voltage rails requirement
but
no indication of current. Power into 8 ohms is 30W. If I put a power
supply
together what sort of current should I be expecting to supply to each
module ? Presumably, a simple dual rail
transformer/rectifier/electrolytic
type of supply would be OK ?

Yes.

You can work out the current for yourself of course, but then it varies
depending on whether you plan to drive it hard continuously or just play
light
orchestral.

Graham


Do you think most off the shelf amplifiers are designed to be driven hard
continuously, and if not, how is the sound affected?

**Yep and not at all. Unless it is utter crap, of course.


I still don't understand this 'all modern amplifiers sound the same'
thing - hence the question!

**Few people actually say such things. Amplifiers may sound different for a
variety of reasons. Mostly when they are presented with abnormal operating
requirements. Some amplifier cope better with being asked to operate beyond
what many designers consider 'normal'. Then there's these quite silly SET
amplifiers. They are deliberately designed to distort.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Stevenson = Charlatan
 

bassett wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
bassett wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
TT wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Fleetie wrote:
"Phil Allison" wrote
"Eeysore = Graham Stevenson = Lying Criminal Charlatan

** You will not go back three posts - to one YOU
replied to.

You will not go back even one.

You REFUSE to read the one in front of you as well.

Go get cancer and die -

you CRIMINALLY INSANE POMMY MANIAC

...... Phil

Well, Graham?

Phil has thrown down the gauntlet.

Now what are you going to do? Are you going to remove him
from
usenet as you threatened?

He's back to the wishing fatal cancer on people that
outraged you
last time.

So, your move.

Valid comment. I'm absolutely tied up in stuff right now
though and
couldn't give a tinker's cuss about Phyllis.

Perhaps spend less time swapping abuse with Philthy and use
that time to get his account pulled. Only a thought to help
with your time management problem ;-)

FFS, I want to get Bwian pulled and now you want me to get Phyllis
burnt
at the stake too ?

Gimme a break !

Your the one running his mouth Graham,, nice to see your still cross
posting..

'Fleetie' originated the cross-post. I hadn't noticed it.

You DO know how to work that out do you ? Woof Woof ?

Graham

I know how to work out most things, including you.

I had the lady from the RSPCA round the other day

. She's of the same opinion as me, about you.

All bluff and no bloody grunt.

bassett

I'm trembling in fear !

HY60
 

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Woody" wrote
"Serge Auckland" wrote
"TonyL" wrote

I've found a couple of HY60 amplifier modules in my junk box. I have a
data sheet which indicates a +/- 25v power supply voltage rails
requirement but no indication of current. Power into 8 ohms is 30W. If I
put a power supply together what sort of current should I be expecting
to supply to each module ? Presumably, a simple dual rail
transformer/rectifier/electrolytic type of supply would be OK ?

Any gotchas with this project ?

Nice little amps!

For their day, certainly. Still credible I'd say.


Assuming that you're not going to be using these amps to drive some
extreme loads, then 30 watts into 8 ohms is a current of 1.94 amps, add a
little for the amp's overhead, and so you need a minimum of 2 amps per
amplifier. If you're building a single supply to power both amps, then I
would go for a 5 amp supply. If the 'speakers you're going to use are
closer to 4 ohms than 8, you may like to double the current capacity.

No particular "gotchas" with these as far as I'm aware, they do what they
say they do.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Agreed. Of their time superb amps. They were later replaced with a power
MOSFET version which had a somewhat higher slew rate, but nontheless the
HY was a very good amp.

Just make sure, as above, that the supply can provide the current. You
should even consider a regulated supply as (and I'm sure someone will
enlighten us) you will get better and cleaner bass. Although the HY60s
have built-on heatsinks it would still be wise to attach them to a chassis
that is capable of dissipating at least some of the heat.

I built a dual mono MOSFET power amp based on the Ambit boards containing
a Hitachi design. It was good and provided 110wpc without difficulty. I
then built the regulated supply designed by the late great John
Lindsey-Hood and fitted that - and the aural difference was dramatic, and
not least that it did 110W into 8R and 220W into 4R. The PSU design also
provides d.c. offset protection for the speakers. I think I have a copy of
the circuit of anyone wants it.

**Those figures are, of course, impossible in this universe. Particularly
with MOSFETs. You may get close to a doubling in power, but You'll never
quite get there, regardless of power supply regulation.

"Woody" is clearly a Grade One imbecile.

Graham

HY60
 

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



Do you think most off the shelf amplifiers are designed to be driven hard
continuously,

Depends on what's meant by "hard and continuously". If you mean "full rated
power with a sine-wave" then no, most off-the-shelf domestic amplifiers are
not designed to be used that way and will overheat. Of course by the time
that happens the speakers will have long since perished!

and if not, how is the sound affected?

**Yep and not at all. Unless it is utter crap, of course.


I still don't understand this 'all modern amplifiers sound the same'
thing - hence the question!

**Few people actually say such things. Amplifiers may sound different for
a variety of reasons. Mostly when they are presented with abnormal
operating requirements. Some amplifier cope better with being asked to
operate beyond what many designers consider 'normal'. Then there's these
quite silly SET amplifiers. They are deliberately designed to distort.


Oh but think of the advantages of SET amplifiers! Apart from all that 2nd
harmonic distortion adding "musicality", the endless fun that can be had
debating the sonic improvement that can be got by using different sorts of
filament supply etc. and the useful way they can remove unwanted weight from
your wallet; the *real* advantage is the status value, after all how many
other people use them? and don't they look pretty?

David.