"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Genome wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
Genome wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Genome wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Genome wrote:

On the basis of the above analysis..... the gain is going to
vary
all over the shop as Bnpn (and other stuff) varies. So yes it is
crap.

WRONG !

Every serious pro-audio mixer has a mic pre-amp circuit that's
not a
heck of a lot different to this since the late 1970s.

It performs really rather well. Has no-one yet considered
simulating
it ?

So, your counter to my 'analysis' is....

"WRONG

Every serious pro-audio.........."

Is that some sort of donkeymoron[1]?

How does the fact that someone uses something prove an analysis of
it
is incorrect?

I'll look forward to seeing your improvement on Phil's design. Trust
me, if you come up with a blinder, I'll be the first to give it
credit.

Perhaps you can clarify something for me?

Sure thing.


In the equation.

'your response' = irrelevancy^N

What value of N did you think you were using?

I know, well I think, it's not an integer because my best guess is
something between 2 and 3.

Look Sunshine.

Either you have something to contribute to this thread (other than your
vague inanity) or you don't.

Make your mind up and post it or STFU and for God's Sake grow up too.


....... I did.

Someone suggested the circuit was crap and asked for an analysis.

Jim Thompson did.


I gave an analysis

You did ? Do tell me more.


that showed it was crap.

Obviously you're crap at analysing circuits then !


You said my analysis was wrong because 'pro-audio' people use the
circuit.

That was part of my 'argument' for sure. Your analysis was clearly
defective
since the circuit in question does the job asked of it really quite well.


I suggested that your argument was not relevant, and possibly quite
silly.

That's the kind of thing I'd expect from you. But then I know you're silly
so I
dismiss any such frivolity.


You countered with more irrelevancy so I was looking for clarification on
how
irrelevant you thought you were being.

One sugar or two?[1]

Why don't you actually *really* analyse the circuit ? Esp wrt the aspects
that
are important for pro-quality audio.

Graham


Cripes, snipped quoting 'and' in-line posting.

'Why don't you actually *really* analyse the circuit ? Esp wrt the aspects
that are important for pro-quality audio.'

Cheap **** that does the job then?

Or would you care to suggest something else.

Tea's gone cold.

Bonus, possible maximum of two sugars saved.

DNA