"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote

So you want me to stand by, while you cast aspersions
upon one of the most helpful and interesting contributors
to Usenet tube-audio discussion?

Not a chance!

If by "one of the most helpful and interesting contributors...." you mean
Andre Jute, it seems to me that his intent in posting his original
"question" here was entirely malicious. He asked a question that he
clearly already knew the answer to, and then responded to the replies in
the most obnoxious way.

I cannot understand why you would defend someone who behaves like that.

David,

Judging from your posting history, I get the impression you
may be fairly new to audio Usenet.

Also, I don't seem to recall your taking part in discussion
on RAT (rec.audio.tubes) the first group to which Andre's
questionn was addressed.

If you had done so, you would know that Andre is one of
the most active and helpful people.

Some years ago, I asked a question about AC ripple in
tube/valve amp power supplies. There were several
replies but I still could not fathom it out. In those days, I
had a slow internet connection with a very small inbox.
Andre had made an Excel spreadsheet for PSU calculations,
which he copied to a diskette and sent to me by post.
He would take no recompense for his time, the disk or
the postage.


I can only speak as I find.

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote


Judging from your posting history, I get the impression you
may be fairly new to audio Usenet.

I've been a contributor to various usenet groups since around 1990, but have
"only" been contributing to uk.rec.audio for about 5 years. I don't know
whether that counts as "new".

Also, I don't seem to recall your taking part in discussion
on RAT (rec.audio.tubes) the first group to which Andre's
questionn was addressed.

Well no, because I don't subscribe to r.a.t.

If you had done so, you would know that Andre is one of
the most active and helpful people.

That's as maybe. I was talking about the tone of his responses to the
discussion here, such as:

quote
We have three idiots pontificating about a simple number, which all
three have got it wrong -- but not one of them has bothered to look it
up! But meaningwhile these three morons are smacking their chops in
glee that someone else got it "wrong." How childish. No wonder these
newsgroups remain in intensive care.
unquote

and that was far from the most offensive. Which seems to me to indicate
someone who posted here just to stir up dissent and to allow himself to crow
as he did in the quote above. And I notice that his sig is composed of OTT
praise of himself, which suggests someone who is just a little bit too much
in love with his own cleverness.

I can only speak as I find.

Likewise.

David.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote


Judging from your posting history, I get the impression you
may be fairly new to audio Usenet.

I've been a contributor to various usenet groups since around 1990, but
have "only" been contributing to uk.rec.audio for about 5 years. I don't
know whether that counts as "new".

Hmm. I had the feeling it was a much shorter time. But I am
no longer a regular reader of UKRA, so I cannot be sure.


Also, I don't seem to recall your taking part in discussion
on RAT (rec.audio.tubes) the first group to which Andre's
question was addressed.

Well no, because I don't subscribe to r.a.t.

So then you don't know the valuable, knowledgeable
and interesting contribution that Andre has made in
audio fori for so many years.

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote


Judging from your posting history, I get the impression you
may be fairly new to audio Usenet.

I've been a contributor to various usenet groups since around 1990, but
have "only" been contributing to uk.rec.audio for about 5 years. I don't
know whether that counts as "new".

Hmm. I had the feeling it was a much shorter time. But I am
no longer a regular reader of UKRA, so I cannot be sure.


Also, I don't seem to recall your taking part in discussion
on RAT (rec.audio.tubes) the first group to which Andre's
question was addressed.

Well no, because I don't subscribe to r.a.t.

So then you don't know the valuable, knowledgeable
and interesting contribution that Andre has made in
audio fori for so many years.


Clearly not. But if he is so knowledgeable, why does he need to ask such an
elementary question? And then why does he need to respond to those who reply
in such an gratuitously offensive and obscene manner?

That he may have provided "valuable, knowledgeable and interesting"
contributions in other groups does not excuse such behaviour here.

David.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Good point. Every Jute amplifier schematic I've seen
looked like it was copied from someplace.

Oh Arny! You are such a *nice* Christian.

And piling on like this somehow makes you better than me?

I am hard-pressed to think of a single person whom
I do not consider to be better than you:-)

That is all about how hatred-driven you are, Iain.

For the record I don't hate you Iain, I just find you a little pathetic.

No, it makes you lower than me because you could have
kept out of it.

So you want me to stand by, while you cast aspersions
upon one of the most helpful and interesting contributors
to Usenet tube-audio discussion?

Casting aspersions on Jute is mild compared to how he is usually treated by
people who can see through his schtick. It's amusing but it gets old when
you realize how thoroughly he has fooled himself.

"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Iain Churches" wrote

So you want me to stand by, while you cast aspersions
upon one of the most helpful and interesting contributors
to Usenet tube-audio discussion?

Not a chance!

If by "one of the most helpful and interesting
contributors...." you mean Andre Jute, it seems to me
that his intent in posting his original "question" here
was entirely malicious. He asked a question that he
clearly already knew the answer to, and then responded to
the replies in the most obnoxious way.
I cannot understand why you would defend someone who
behaves like that.

The sad news is that I've gone around and round with Iain long enough to
fully understand why he defends Jute. They are different sides of the same
bad coin.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message

On Sep 9, 6:59 am, "Iain Churches"
wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

...





Time to return to tech-talk.

In a modest-sized room (by horn standards anyway) I
want to rig up a singleton of my modded semi-Fidelio
bicor horns for Lowther PM6A. I thought I'd do the
monoing in a specially made 1 metre cable between the
CD player and the power amp.

The QUAD CD expects to see at least 10K impedance on
its outputs. Output of the CD player is 2Vrms and about
0.5Vrms of that is required to drive the amp to enough
power to handle the horns, so high value resistors can
be used in the monomaker if there is any advantage to
be gained.

However, the sound is NOT intended to be reprocessed as
stereo downstream (home installation, not studio); if I
want stereo again, i'll just plug in a stereo cable.

The pot on the integrated amp is probably (the board
won't be here until Tuesday and i can't read the spec
on the piccie) 50K Alps but I can replace it with a
DACT of which I have a good selection of values.

So what value resistors would you use for monoing?

How many? Only two, or three?

With your choice of values, what can I expect to lose
from the monoing in bandwidth as distinct from gain?

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for
the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing
vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Hello Andre.

Good to see you posting again.

I would try three R's arranged as a Y, with the
top two arms (R=10K each) connected at the sources,
and the bottom leg (R=2k2) to ground,
with the mono output taken from the junction of
the three resistors.

I don't get this, Iain. You and David both want a low
value resistor shunted to ground. But it seems to me
you're looking backward to the series resistors whereas
the important direction is forwards to the unknown pot,
with which the shunt resistor will be in parallel. If the
shunt resistor is low, the parallel combination will be
grotesquely
low.

If you knew anything about circuit theory Andre, you'd know that resistor
networks are linear circuits which are bi-directional. The source impedance
at the output node of the 3-resistor network is the equivalent parallel
resistance of all three resistors.

On Sep 6, 9:26*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

For openers, the title "QUAD CD" *does not describe a single piece of
equipment, or even a single family of related products. There are at two
families of Quad CD players, *the 67 family and the 99 family. * The Quad 99
series players further compound the situation by having two different sets
of outputs with very difference performance specs.

I suspect that Jute is basing his alleged specification on the standard IHFM
line level load which includes a 10K resistive component. If that's the case
then he's still in error because the proper way to address that load is with
a device that expects to see 10K or *less*.

Where are IHFM standards located?

Bret L wrote:
On Sep 6, 9:26 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

For openers, the title "QUAD CD" does not describe a single piece of
equipment, or even a single family of related products. There are at
two families of Quad CD players, the 67 family and the 99 family.
The Quad 99 series players further compound the situation by having
two different sets of outputs with very difference performance specs.

I suspect that Jute is basing his alleged specification on the
standard IHFM line level load which includes a 10K resistive
component. If that's the case then he's still in error because the
proper way to address that load is with a device that expects to see
10K or *less*.

Where are IHFM standards located?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=913

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Iain Churches" wrote

So you want me to stand by, while you cast aspersions
upon one of the most helpful and interesting contributors
to Usenet tube-audio discussion?

Not a chance!

If by "one of the most helpful and interesting
contributors...." you mean Andre Jute, it seems to me
that his intent in posting his original "question" here
was entirely malicious. He asked a question that he
clearly already knew the answer to, and then responded to
the replies in the most obnoxious way.
I cannot understand why you would defend someone who
behaves like that.

The sad news is that I've gone around and round with Iain long enough to
fully understand why he defends Jute.

I defend no one.

I simply pointed out to David that Andre has for
many years been one of the most helpful people on
audio Usenet. I cited an excellent example (which
David carefully snipped) of how I posted a question
about AC ripple in a valve p.s.u. At that time, I had a
slow internet connection with a very small inbox,
which bounced the Excel spreadsheet which Andre
sent me, so he copied it to diskette, and posted it to
me in Finland. He would take no recompense for his
time, the disk or the postage.

That's what I call helpful.

Iain