|
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
Genome wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message 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. Graham |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Genome wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message 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. Graham Perhaps you can clarify something for me? 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. DNA |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
"MassiveProng" wrote in
message ... The term "vulgar" is relative. You'll have to explain that one. There is a very clear absolute difference between "excuse me" and "****head". Tim -- Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk. Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
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. Graham |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
"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. Graham ........ I did. Someone suggested the circuit was crap and asked for an analysis. I gave an analysis that showed it was crap. You said my analysis was wrong because 'pro-audio' people use the circuit. I suggested that your argument was not relevant, and possibly quite silly. You countered with more irrelevancy so I was looking for clarification on how irrelevant you thought you were being. One sugar or two?[1] DNA [1] Hint, the correct response is not 'If you can design a better teacup then show me.' |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
"Genome" Someone suggested the circuit was crap and asked for an analysis. ** But he was a neo- Nazi TROLL. I gave an analysis that showed it was crap. ** Shame how that "analysis " was laughable. The gain equation has been posted & is quite independent of normal device beta spread - by virtue of local negative feedback. Now, enjoy the * local negative feedback* YOU are getting. ****WIT ! ....... Phil |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
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 |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
"Phil Allison" wrote in message ... "Genome" Someone suggested the circuit was crap and asked for an analysis. ** But he was a neo- Nazi TROLL. I gave an analysis that showed it was crap. ** Shame how that "analysis " was laughable. The gain equation has been posted & is quite independent of normal device beta spread - by virtue of local negative feedback. Now, enjoy the * local negative feedback* YOU are getting. ****WIT ! ...... Phil Gosh, I thought I was quite denigrating of myself when I posted my original analysis. I even managed to suggest it might be wrong.... Don't suppose you'd like to post the gain equation in response to this one would you? Tah. DNA |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:02:57 -0500, John Fields
wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:38:08 -0700, MassiveProng wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:22:48 -0700, Jim Thompson Gave us: (3) I'm off to get my (eye) lens replacement. Probably won't be back for at least 4 hours. My bet is there will still be no analysis. Wimpy wooses ;-) I hope you ****ing have a problem with the procedure, go blind, and NEVER post your retarded bull**** here again, ****head! --- He's not so bad, and that's just mean. Why not wish him the best? If he's happy then that happiness will radiate out from him and will affect everyone around him in a positive way. On the other hand, if you wish for him to go blind, and he does, then you'll think you had a hand in his misfortune for the rest of your life and you'll believe that the responsibility for his unhappiness was, at least partly, yours. That's just another weight you'll have to bear forever. Think about how _your_ life would change if you went blind at someone's behest and you might change your viewpoint. MinimumDong's curse was to no avail. I'm back, but seriously considering an exit. There is minimal engineering here, and when I attempt to be a teacher of my craft I get nothing but BS. They are going to build a satellite of the community college nearby. I think I'll go offer my services for free. That and the newspaper column should keep me occupied. After all this is "sci.electronics.DUMMIES" ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:34:29 GMT, Fred Bloggs
wrote: The usual way of gaining, and broadbanding the gain of, the compound follower: View in a fixed-width font such as Courier. . . . .-----. . | | . --- | . R2 . | ve -ve . +----+----------+---Rg---- . | | | . | | gm1veb1 | . hie1 /|\ R4 . vd | \v/ | . -- ----' | +---- -vo/2 . 2 | | . +-----. | . | | | gm2vbe2 . R3 hie2 /|\ . | | \v/ . | | | . '-----+----' . | . --- . . . . . vo . Av= -- = ????? --Thompson insert answer here . vd Let's hold-off a bit and see if anyone else can get the answer ;-) (Since I do this all the time in CMOS... one presently in the hopper uses this very thing at a 2.2V supply, but has current sources in appropriate places.) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:40:51 -0500, John Fields
wrote: On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:20:44 +1100, "Phil Allison" wrote: "Jim Thompson" I'm curious. Do you think I'm unemployed? I typically work a 60 hour week. ** YOU LIE !! Being a total asshole takes 168 hours a week , minimum. --- So you work 8 days a week? ;-) Besides, I'm not a "total" asshole, I'm a "PERFECT" asshole ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:13:24 GMT, Fred Bloggs
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 ? Not really concerned with assessment of basic performance, the basic configuration is crude, problematic, lacks precision, and operator tuning significantly alters operating characteristic. Then the one component with well-matched differential components is underutilized. But I bet you'll find it in Win's GOOD DESIGNS section ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
"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 |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:46:24 +0000, 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 ? --- Why not get off of your lazy ass, ass, and do it yourself? -- JF |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:02:57 -0500, John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:38:08 -0700, MassiveProng On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:22:48 -0700, Jim Thompson (3) I'm off to get my (eye) lens replacement. Probably won't be back for at least 4 hours. My bet is there will still be no analysis. Wimpy wooses ;-) I hope you ****ing have a problem with the procedure, go blind, and NEVER post your retarded bull**** here again, ****head! He's not so bad, and that's just mean. Why not wish him the best? If he's happy then that happiness will radiate out from him and will affect everyone around him in a positive way. Problem with that is, JT and his ilk are only happy when they're killing infidels, who is anybody who doesn't march in lockstep with his Lord and Master's edicts. It's fitting that he has eye problems - there is none so blind as he who will not see, after all. And "heart attacks" - your heart doesn't attack you; thaey're caused by heartlessness, which he seems to have in spades, as do his beloved infallible rulers. Thanks, Rich |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:17:12 GMT, "Genome"
wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message ... [snip] 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 "Cripes" indeed. Since I nominally ignore Eeyore, do I read Eeyore's quoted comments above that this configuration is useful "Esp wrt the aspects that are important for pro-quality audio" ?? Bwahahahahahaha! What an idiot you are Eeyore! The circuit started with some good ELEMENTS, then turned to CRAP through misapplication! ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:29:25 -0500, John Fields
wrote: On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:46:24 +0000, 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 ? --- Why not get off of your lazy ass, ass, and do it yourself? The circuit is CRAP... thus I nominate it for AoE ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
Jim Thompson wrote:
snip I'm back, I hope all went well. but seriously considering an exit. I'm in no position to tell you what to do. If you leave, you'll be missed. Whatever you decide, best wishes. There is minimal engineering here, and when I attempt to be a teacher of my craft I get nothing but BS. Some of us have not given you BS, and do appreciate the teaching. Ed |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:29:09 GMT, ehsjr
wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: snip I'm back, I hope all went well. but seriously considering an exit. I'm in no position to tell you what to do. If you leave, you'll be missed. Whatever you decide, best wishes. There is minimal engineering here, and when I attempt to be a teacher of my craft I get nothing but BS. Some of us have not given you BS, and do appreciate the teaching. Ed Thanks, Ed! ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
Jim Thompson wrote:
After all this is "sci.electronics.DUMMIES" ;-) Someone needs to tell Eeyore. He thinks that its sci.electronics.donkeys :( -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
Jim Thompson wrote: "Genome" wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message Why don't you actually *really* analyse the circuit ? Esp wrt the aspects that are important for pro-quality audio. 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. "Cripes" indeed. Since I nominally ignore Eeyore, do I read Eeyore's quoted comments above that this configuration is useful "Esp wrt the aspects that are important for pro-quality audio" ?? Things like very low noise and distortion. EIN for this design (with a 200 ohm resistor across the input) with a low noise transistor a bit better than the 2N4403 can be as low as -129dBu (275 nV). The thermal noise of the 200 ohms alone is 250nV ! Bwahahahahahaha! What an idiot you are Eeyore! The circuit started with some good ELEMENTS, then turned to CRAP through misapplication! ...Jim Thompson The fact of the matter is that that circuit works admirably well. Yes, it's been improved on by degrees over the years but I bet you'll find it still being made today. Graham |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
John Fields 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 ? --- Why not get off of your lazy ass, ass, and do it yourself? I've done better than that. I've sold it to the public. Graham |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
Jim Thompson wrote: There is minimal engineering here, and when I attempt to be a teacher of my craft I get nothing but BS. I'm waiting to hear a meaningful critique and see an improved design. Graham |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:20:42 -0600, "Tim Williams"
Gave us: "MassiveProng" wrote in message ... The term "vulgar" is relative. You'll have to explain that one. There is a very clear absolute difference between "excuse me" and "****head". Well, EXCUUUUUSE MEEEEE!, ****HEAD! Bwuahahahahahha! |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
Late at night, by candle light, Jim Thompson
penned this immortal opus: On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:02:57 -0500, John Fields wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:38:08 -0700, MassiveProng wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:22:48 -0700, Jim Thompson Gave us: (3) I'm off to get my (eye) lens replacement. Probably won't be back for at least 4 hours. My bet is there will still be no analysis. Wimpy wooses ;-) I hope you ****ing have a problem with the procedure, go blind, and NEVER post your retarded bull**** here again, ****head! --- He's not so bad, and that's just mean. Why not wish him the best? If he's happy then that happiness will radiate out from him and will affect everyone around him in a positive way. On the other hand, if you wish for him to go blind, and he does, then you'll think you had a hand in his misfortune for the rest of your life and you'll believe that the responsibility for his unhappiness was, at least partly, yours. That's just another weight you'll have to bear forever. Think about how _your_ life would change if you went blind at someone's behest and you might change your viewpoint. MinimumDong's curse was to no avail. I'm back, but seriously considering an exit. There is minimal engineering here, and when I attempt to be a teacher of my craft I get nothing but BS. Maybe that's due to your being such a master of BS. - YD. -- Remove HAT if replying by mail. |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 Jim Thompson wrote: [.............] I'm back, I hope your eye recovers just fine. but seriously considering an exit. What? No more politics?? I must say, for a wanna-ba political commentator, your electronic engineering is pretty acceptable. Would I miss your political comments? Not likely. Would I miss insightfull postings about electronics? Always. After all this is "sci.electronics.DUMMIES" ;-) Well, I quite like France, so you wouldn't want my support, anyway :-) Best Regards Jens - -- Key ID 0x09723C12, Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mandriva Linux / odds and ends http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 211 585 "Daphne! You're leading again" Osgood, 'Some like it Hot' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFF95ieimJs3AlyPBIRAlaOAKDTSYUogkmuXmo01mgqJi EblbGTNACgw1Qj G3yQJGgqytB0IuANd4tD7Qs= =RQr8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields 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. that doesnt prove anything, other than its common. So is Herpes. It performs really rather well. Has no-one yet considered simulating it ? --- Why not get off of your lazy ass, ass, and do it yourself? I've done better than that. I've sold it to the public. Graham did it come with a bridge? thats a ****-poor argument too. Bill Gates has sold squazillions of copies of Win98 to the public - does that mean it performs well? All it would take to shut Jim up (if the circuit really is that great) would be a reasonably detailed analysis. Yet you just waffle. Cheers Terry |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
"Genome" wrote in message ... "Phil Allison" wrote in message ... "Genome" Someone suggested the circuit was crap and asked for an analysis. ** But he was a neo- Nazi TROLL. I gave an analysis that showed it was crap. ** Shame how that "analysis " was laughable. The gain equation has been posted & is quite independent of normal device beta spread - by virtue of local negative feedback. Now, enjoy the * local negative feedback* YOU are getting. ****WIT ! ...... Phil Gosh, I thought I was quite denigrating of myself when I posted my original analysis. I even managed to suggest it might be wrong.... Don't suppose you'd like to post the gain equation in response to this one would you? Tah. DNA Oh, all right then. I went and found it myself. Fair enough I didn't post a proper analysis of the actual circuit, I'm not clever enough. Well actually I couldn't be bothered to take it further. However, I did work out an equation for the gain of your compound differential pair that seems fairly close to the mark..... Bpnp = 05 Av = 56.9dB Bpnp = 10 Av = 60.6dB +3.7dB Bpnp = 20 Av = 64.4dB +3.8dB Bpnp = 40 Av = 67.8dB +3.4dB Bpnp = 80 Av = 70.5dB +2.7dB That looks, more or less, like the gain depends on Beta in the manner suggested. Of course I've not considered the effect of the remaining 22R resistor and since re @ 1ma is at about 25R that may well reduce the dependence as well as reducing the maximum achievable gain. Thanks for explaining stuff. Cheers DNA |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
Genome wrote: However, I did work out an equation for the gain of your compound differential pair that seems fairly close to the mark..... Bpnp = 05 Av = 56.9dB Bpnp = 10 Av = 60.6dB +3.7dB Bpnp = 20 Av = 64.4dB +3.8dB Bpnp = 40 Av = 67.8dB +3.4dB Bpnp = 80 Av = 70.5dB +2.7dB That looks, more or less, like the gain depends on Beta in the manner suggested. You reckon the beta is 5 ? Try an average figure of around 200. Those numbers look way out anyway. Graham |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
Phil Allison wrote: ** Jim only asked for a gain equation - then ignored it when it was posted by me. Your equation was wrong and the entire article is mere mindless dictate. There is no explanation of circuit operation because there is no understanding of it. The operating characteristics of the gain elements are only nominally regulated and the THD is bad. I don't believe the equivalent en of 2nV per root-hz or the CMRR of 60dB for one second, those figures are extremely improbable. Then the comparison to the SSM2017 performance and architecture is the penultimate misrepresentation, the circuit concepts are completely different, and your kluge just isn't the same leagues. You would have been better off using a TL074. |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
Fred Bloggs wrote: Phil Allison wrote: ** Jim only asked for a gain equation - then ignored it when it was posted by me. Your equation was wrong No it wasn't. Since you reckon you're so clever why not give a 'better' one ? and the entire article is mere mindless dictate. There is no explanation of circuit operation because there is no understanding of it. The operating characteristics of the gain elements are only nominally regulated and the THD is bad. Absolute nonsense. What level of THD do you predict ? I don't believe the equivalent en of 2nV per root-hz It's probably better than that in fact. or the CMRR of 60dB for one second, those figures are extremely improbable. Really ? That configuration typically exceeds that figure. Then the comparison to the SSM2017 performance and architecture is the penultimate misrepresentation, the circuit concepts are completely different, and your kluge just isn't the same leagues. You would have been better off using a TL074. Using a TL074 for a low Z mic input ? Bwahahahahahahahaha ! You're another IDIOT. Graham |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
"Fred Bloggs" ** Give me the gun and the bullets - make my day. I sware I will bow this CRIMINAL PSYCHO **** to pieces. ........ Phil |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
Eeyore wrote: Fred Bloggs wrote: Phil Allison wrote: ** Jim only asked for a gain equation - then ignored it when it was posted by me. Your equation was wrong No it wasn't. Since you reckon you're so clever why not give a 'better' one ? I already did, stupid. and the entire article is mere mindless dictate. There is no explanation of circuit operation because there is no understanding of it. The operating characteristics of the gain elements are only nominally regulated and the THD is bad. Absolute nonsense. What level of THD do you predict ? Bad numbers like 5-10%. I don't believe the equivalent en of 2nV per root-hz It's probably better than that in fact. No way at low gains, the Q2 noise referred to the input is large by my calculations. or the CMRR of 60dB for one second, those figures are extremely improbable. Really ? That configuration typically exceeds that figure. Not possible with 1% resistors, the claim is bogus. Then the comparison to the SSM2017 performance and architecture is the penultimate misrepresentation, the circuit concepts are completely different, and your kluge just isn't the same leagues. You would have been better off using a TL074. Using a TL074 for a low Z mic input ? Bwahahahahahahahaha ! You're another IDIOT. Graham Thompson's SPICE simulation show 2x worse noise than the '074. |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
Phil Allison wrote: I sware I will bow this Yes you will "bow" before me when I'm done with you.... |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
See the article
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0720081130.htm Studies Find Narcissists Most Aggressive When Criticized Then let's look at Allison and a perfectly exemplary response of same, he's as predictable as an insect. Phil Allison wrote: "Fred Bloggs" ** Give me the gun and the bullets - make my day. I sware I will bow this CRIMINAL PSYCHO **** to pieces. |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
Fred Bloggs wrote: Eeyore wrote: Fred Bloggs wrote: and the entire article is mere mindless dictate. There is no explanation of circuit operation because there is no understanding of it. The operating characteristics of the gain elements are only nominally regulated and the THD is bad. Absolute nonsense. What level of THD do you predict ? Bad numbers like 5-10%. And why do you think that ? Only at very high gains does it climb even as high as 0.05%. You're out by a factor of around 100 times. I don't believe the equivalent en of 2nV per root-hz It's probably better than that in fact. No way at low gains, the Q2 noise referred to the input is large by my calculations. It doesn't matter very much at low gains. Some similar but more modern input devices themselves are good for about 0.7nV/sqrt Hz. or the CMRR of 60dB for one second, those figures are extremely improbable. Really ? That configuration typically exceeds that figure. Not possible with 1% resistors, the claim is bogus. I've measured it and it doesn't get that bad. There's a neat way to fix the impedance to ground on each leg btw if that's what you meant. Then the comparison to the SSM2017 performance and architecture is the penultimate misrepresentation, the circuit concepts are completely different, and your kluge just isn't the same leagues. You would have been better off using a TL074. Using a TL074 for a low Z mic input ? Bwahahahahahahahaha ! You're another IDIOT. Thompson's SPICE simulation show 2x worse noise than the '074. At 60dB gain ? Graham |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
Fred Bloggs wrote: Phil Allison wrote: I sware I will bow this Yes you will "bow" before me when I'm done with you.... Says the man whose prediction of THD is out by a factor of 100 ! Graham |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
"Fred Bloggs Total **** " ** Give me the gun and the bullets - make my day. I sware I will bow this CRIMINAL PSYCHO **** to pieces. ........ Phil |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
"Fred Bloggs" ** Give me the gun and the bullets - please make my day. I sware I will bow this CRIMINAL PSYCHOTIC **** to pieces. ........ Phil |
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:08:08 +0000, Eeyore
wrote: John Fields 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 ? --- Why not get off of your lazy ass, ass, and do it yourself? I've done better than that. I've sold it to the public. --- P.T. Barnum was right, then, but that's not the point. The point is, if you're asking for a simulation why don't you do it yourself instead of expecting someone else to do your leg work for you? -- JF |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter