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

"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

"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

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

"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.'

"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

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

"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

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 Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

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 Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

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 Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

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 Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"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

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

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

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 Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

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 Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

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

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 Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

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

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

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

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

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!

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.

-----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-----

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

"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

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

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.

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

"Fred Bloggs"



** Give me the gun and the bullets - make my day.

I sware I will bow this

CRIMINAL PSYCHO **** to pieces.




........ Phil

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.

Phil Allison wrote:

I sware I will bow this



Yes you will "bow" before me when I'm done with you....

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.

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

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

"Fred Bloggs Total **** "



** Give me the gun and the bullets - make my day.

I sware I will bow this

CRIMINAL PSYCHO **** to pieces.





........ Phil

"Fred Bloggs"


** Give me the gun and the bullets - please make my day.

I sware I will bow this

CRIMINAL PSYCHOTIC **** to pieces.







........ Phil

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