"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
Yup. The audio people tend to be like that, way out of the mainstream
of rational electronic design. They tend to fiddle with bizarre
circuits until some big-shot's hearing-damaged subjective response is
satisfied. There's a lot of superstitious learning involved. And a lot
of plain BS.

Almost amusingly, the audio industry is full of so much nonsense that there's
a lot of conterfeit merchandise out the You're probably familiar with the
"white van" speakers scam (e.g.,
http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2010/07...-three-queens/)
and there are entire websites devotes to fake headphones
(http://fakeheadphones.com/).

I have to believe that -- besides plain old greed -- one of the reason the
counterfeiters do so well is because so few people can actually hear the
difference between, e.g., $100 headphones and $500 headphones, or $250
speakers and $2500 speakers.

---Joel

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:25:15 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:39:51 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
. ..
Yup. The audio people tend to be like that, way out of the mainstream
of rational electronic design. They tend to fiddle with bizarre
circuits until some big-shot's hearing-damaged subjective response is
satisfied. There's a lot of superstitious learning involved. And a lot
of plain BS.

Almost amusingly, the audio industry is full of so much nonsense that there's
a lot of conterfeit merchandise out the You're probably familiar with the
"white van" speakers scam (e.g.,
http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2010/07...-three-queens/)
and there are entire websites devotes to fake headphones
(http://fakeheadphones.com/).

I have to believe that -- besides plain old greed -- one of the reason the
counterfeiters do so well is because so few people can actually hear the
difference between, e.g., $100 headphones and $500 headphones, or $250
speakers and $2500 speakers.

That might be true but I think another thing that might be true is so
many have little to no frame of reference, especially with
'electronic' music (aka rock & roll or any of the others).

To make matters worse, human hearing, and perception in general, is
adaptive so we get 'acclimated' to things.

In the audio world, that's called "burn-in."

John

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:25:15 -0500, flipper wrote:
To make matters worse, human hearing, and perception in general, is
adaptive so we get 'acclimated' to things.
In the audio world, that's called "burn-in."

You have to be sure to orient the speaker cables the correct way and color the
edges of your CDs with a green marker as well. :-)

---

Malcolm Steward is, I think, going to forever regret reviewing a hard drive
(SATA) cable and claiming it improved the sound quality of his
network-attached hard drive serving up audio files:
http://www.ultrahighendforum.com/vie...t=2754&start=0 . Quoting:

"My only guess is that the Super SATAs reject interference significantly
better than the standard cables and in so doing lower the noise floor
revealing greater low-level musical detail and presentational improvements in
the soundstage and the 'air' around instruments.

The most marked and worthwhile difference, I felt, was in the increased
naturalness in both the sound of instruments and voices, which seemed more
organic, human and less 'electronic', and in the music's rhythmical
progression, which was also more natural and had the realistic ebb and flow
that musicians exhibit when playing live. In short, recordings sounded more
like musical performances then recordings.

The photo here shows the original, Generation 1 cable but there is now a more
advanced, wider bandwidth Generation 2 version that is soon going to be
available from the same American manufacturer. They will, of course, be more
expensive than 'ordinary' SATA cables - the red and grey insulated flat cables
that come free with hard disks or sell for around £2.99. But their superior
performance easily justifies the extra expense."

He's been quite roundly criticized for this nonsense and pretty quickly pulled
the article from his web site!

---Joel

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:21:42 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:48:30 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:25:15 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:39:51 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
m...
Yup. The audio people tend to be like that, way out of the mainstream
of rational electronic design. They tend to fiddle with bizarre
circuits until some big-shot's hearing-damaged subjective response is
satisfied. There's a lot of superstitious learning involved. And a lot
of plain BS.

Almost amusingly, the audio industry is full of so much nonsense that there's
a lot of conterfeit merchandise out the You're probably familiar with the
"white van" speakers scam (e.g.,
http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2010/07...-three-queens/)
and there are entire websites devotes to fake headphones
(http://fakeheadphones.com/).

I have to believe that -- besides plain old greed -- one of the reason the
counterfeiters do so well is because so few people can actually hear the
difference between, e.g., $100 headphones and $500 headphones, or $250
speakers and $2500 speakers.

That might be true but I think another thing that might be true is so
many have little to no frame of reference, especially with
'electronic' music (aka rock & roll or any of the others).

To make matters worse, human hearing, and perception in general, is
adaptive so we get 'acclimated' to things.

In the audio world, that's called "burn-in."

John


Do you actually 'work' at being useless or does it just come
naturally?

---
In all fairness, Larkin isn't useless, but his attempts at pretending
to be privy to what he knows nothing about makes it seem so.

---
JF

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:02:45 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:21:42 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:48:30 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:25:15 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:39:51 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
om...
Yup. The audio people tend to be like that, way out of the mainstream
of rational electronic design. They tend to fiddle with bizarre
circuits until some big-shot's hearing-damaged subjective response is
satisfied. There's a lot of superstitious learning involved. And a lot
of plain BS.

Almost amusingly, the audio industry is full of so much nonsense that there's
a lot of conterfeit merchandise out the You're probably familiar with the
"white van" speakers scam (e.g.,
http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2010/07...-three-queens/)
and there are entire websites devotes to fake headphones
(http://fakeheadphones.com/).

I have to believe that -- besides plain old greed -- one of the reason the
counterfeiters do so well is because so few people can actually hear the
difference between, e.g., $100 headphones and $500 headphones, or $250
speakers and $2500 speakers.

That might be true but I think another thing that might be true is so
many have little to no frame of reference, especially with
'electronic' music (aka rock & roll or any of the others).

To make matters worse, human hearing, and perception in general, is
adaptive so we get 'acclimated' to things.

In the audio world, that's called "burn-in."

John


Do you actually 'work' at being useless or does it just come
naturally?

---
In all fairness, Larkin isn't useless, but his attempts at pretending
to be privy to what he knows nothing about makes it seem so.

---
JF

Larkin is like Slowman... if his head isn't roaring he thinks he's
dead ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Democrats are best served up prepared as a hash
Otherwise the dogs will refuse to eat them

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:21:42 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:48:30 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:25:15 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:39:51 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
m...
Yup. The audio people tend to be like that, way out of the mainstream
of rational electronic design. They tend to fiddle with bizarre
circuits until some big-shot's hearing-damaged subjective response is
satisfied. There's a lot of superstitious learning involved. And a lot
of plain BS.

Almost amusingly, the audio industry is full of so much nonsense that there's
a lot of conterfeit merchandise out the You're probably familiar with the
"white van" speakers scam (e.g.,
http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2010/07...-three-queens/)
and there are entire websites devotes to fake headphones
(http://fakeheadphones.com/).

I have to believe that -- besides plain old greed -- one of the reason the
counterfeiters do so well is because so few people can actually hear the
difference between, e.g., $100 headphones and $500 headphones, or $250
speakers and $2500 speakers.

That might be true but I think another thing that might be true is so
many have little to no frame of reference, especially with
'electronic' music (aka rock & roll or any of the others).

To make matters worse, human hearing, and perception in general, is
adaptive so we get 'acclimated' to things.

In the audio world, that's called "burn-in."

John


Do you actually 'work' at being useless or does it just come
naturally?

I just design electrinics. That's not work.

John

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:02:45 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:21:42 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:48:30 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:25:15 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:39:51 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
om...
Yup. The audio people tend to be like that, way out of the mainstream
of rational electronic design. They tend to fiddle with bizarre
circuits until some big-shot's hearing-damaged subjective response is
satisfied. There's a lot of superstitious learning involved. And a lot
of plain BS.

Almost amusingly, the audio industry is full of so much nonsense that there's
a lot of conterfeit merchandise out the You're probably familiar with the
"white van" speakers scam (e.g.,
http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2010/07...-three-queens/)
and there are entire websites devotes to fake headphones
(http://fakeheadphones.com/).

I have to believe that -- besides plain old greed -- one of the reason the
counterfeiters do so well is because so few people can actually hear the
difference between, e.g., $100 headphones and $500 headphones, or $250
speakers and $2500 speakers.

That might be true but I think another thing that might be true is so
many have little to no frame of reference, especially with
'electronic' music (aka rock & roll or any of the others).

To make matters worse, human hearing, and perception in general, is
adaptive so we get 'acclimated' to things.

In the audio world, that's called "burn-in."

John


Do you actually 'work' at being useless or does it just come
naturally?

---
In all fairness, Larkin isn't useless, but his attempts at pretending
to be privy to what he knows nothing about makes it seem so.

---
JF

I've designed a bit of audio, enough to know that the audio biz is
populated mostly by idiots. And enough to know that it doesn't pay
very well.

John

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:14:31 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:35:22 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:21:42 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:48:30 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:25:15 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:39:51 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
news:e3uk861h4r0ttoq9d4hbtrrk6gp9n8mafg@4ax. com...
Yup. The audio people tend to be like that, way out of the mainstream
of rational electronic design. They tend to fiddle with bizarre
circuits until some big-shot's hearing-damaged subjective response is
satisfied. There's a lot of superstitious learning involved. And a lot
of plain BS.

Almost amusingly, the audio industry is full of so much nonsense that there's
a lot of conterfeit merchandise out the You're probably familiar with the
"white van" speakers scam (e.g.,
http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2010/07...-three-queens/)
and there are entire websites devotes to fake headphones
(http://fakeheadphones.com/).

I have to believe that -- besides plain old greed -- one of the reason the
counterfeiters do so well is because so few people can actually hear the
difference between, e.g., $100 headphones and $500 headphones, or $250
speakers and $2500 speakers.

That might be true but I think another thing that might be true is so
many have little to no frame of reference, especially with
'electronic' music (aka rock & roll or any of the others).

To make matters worse, human hearing, and perception in general, is
adaptive so we get 'acclimated' to things.

In the audio world, that's called "burn-in."

John


Do you actually 'work' at being useless or does it just come
naturally?

I just design electrinics. That's not work.

John


Well, we're making progress, having eliminated the 'work' theory.

I tried it once or twice, and didn't like it.

John

"John Larkin" wrote in
message ...
I've designed a bit of audio, enough to know that the audio biz is
populated mostly by idiots. And enough to know that it doesn't pay
very well.

Typical conversation on an audio forum:

OP: (Some inane 'design' pieced together from disparate sources)

Smart person: "That sucks, try it this way"

Everyone else: "omgz0rz! u n00b! everyone does it this way!"

Smart person: "So? Then they're all wrong."

Everyone else: "They can't all be wrong! It works because we believe it
works! Facts have no place in audio!!!"

Smart person: "..."


Honestly, some people believe Sharpie markers on the edges of CDs make a
difference. Actually, I forget if they're Sharpie specifically, or if it
only "works" with some other brand. Anyway, if that doesn't sum up
"audio" for you, maybe you're already one of them...

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:25:33 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:37:53 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:02:45 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:21:42 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:48:30 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:25:15 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:39:51 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
news:e3uk861h4r0ttoq9d4hbtrrk6gp9n8mafg@4ax .com...
Yup. The audio people tend to be like that, way out of the mainstream
of rational electronic design. They tend to fiddle with bizarre
circuits until some big-shot's hearing-damaged subjective response is
satisfied. There's a lot of superstitious learning involved. And a lot
of plain BS.

Almost amusingly, the audio industry is full of so much nonsense that there's
a lot of conterfeit merchandise out the You're probably familiar with the
"white van" speakers scam (e.g.,
http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2010/07...-three-queens/)
and there are entire websites devotes to fake headphones
(http://fakeheadphones.com/).

I have to believe that -- besides plain old greed -- one of the reason the
counterfeiters do so well is because so few people can actually hear the
difference between, e.g., $100 headphones and $500 headphones, or $250
speakers and $2500 speakers.

That might be true but I think another thing that might be true is so
many have little to no frame of reference, especially with
'electronic' music (aka rock & roll or any of the others).

To make matters worse, human hearing, and perception in general, is
adaptive so we get 'acclimated' to things.

In the audio world, that's called "burn-in."

John


Do you actually 'work' at being useless or does it just come
naturally?

---
In all fairness, Larkin isn't useless, but his attempts at pretending
to be privy to what he knows nothing about makes it seem so.

---
JF

I've designed a bit of audio, enough to know that the audio biz is
populated mostly by idiots. And enough to know that it doesn't pay
very well.

I'm impressed that you worked with "most" of the 'audio biz'.

John

Post a schematic of something you've designed.

John

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 21:07:47 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 07:41:55 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:25:33 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:37:53 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:02:45 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:21:42 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:48:30 -0700, John Larkin
m wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:25:15 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:39:51 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
news:e3uk861h4r0ttoq9d4hbtrrk6gp9n8mafg@4 ax.com...
Yup. The audio people tend to be like that, way out of the mainstream
of rational electronic design. They tend to fiddle with bizarre
circuits until some big-shot's hearing-damaged subjective response is
satisfied. There's a lot of superstitious learning involved. And a lot
of plain BS.

Almost amusingly, the audio industry is full of so much nonsense that there's
a lot of conterfeit merchandise out the You're probably familiar with the
"white van" speakers scam (e.g.,
http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2010/07...-three-queens/)
and there are entire websites devotes to fake headphones
(http://fakeheadphones.com/).

I have to believe that -- besides plain old greed -- one of the reason the
counterfeiters do so well is because so few people can actually hear the
difference between, e.g., $100 headphones and $500 headphones, or $250
speakers and $2500 speakers.

That might be true but I think another thing that might be true is so
many have little to no frame of reference, especially with
'electronic' music (aka rock & roll or any of the others).

To make matters worse, human hearing, and perception in general, is
adaptive so we get 'acclimated' to things.

In the audio world, that's called "burn-in."

John


Do you actually 'work' at being useless or does it just come
naturally?

---
In all fairness, Larkin isn't useless, but his attempts at pretending
to be privy to what he knows nothing about makes it seem so.

---
JF

I've designed a bit of audio, enough to know that the audio biz is
populated mostly by idiots. And enough to know that it doesn't pay
very well.

I'm impressed that you worked with "most" of the 'audio biz'.

John

Post a schematic of something you've designed.

John

That'll run you $50,000 up front.


As they say in Texas, all hat and no horse.

John

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:20:34 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:19:22 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:47:41 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Fred Abse wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Do please especially explain the relevance of the letter Q to indicate a
transistor or U for an IC.
No sillier than "L" for inductance, or "Z" for impedance, or "Y" for
admittance, or "B" for susceptance, or "G" for conductance.
What kind of equations do you use for calculating impedances ?

For example Z = 2.pi.f.L is a common one.

---
That's only true because:

Z = sqrt (R² + (Xl - Xc)²)

and it's the only circuit element being considered.

More correctly, 2pi f L is considered to be the "inductive reactance"
of an inductor, and the equation is written:

Xl = 2pi f L
---

L is clearly a well-understood 'shorthand' for inductance along with R
and C for resistance and capacitance.

I don't know of any components requiring designation on a schematic or
PCB that require defining by Y, B or G,

---
"Y" is the reference for any sort of resonator, but more particularly
for the ubiquitous quartz crystal resonator.

"B" is the reference designator for a blwer, motor, or synchro, and
"G" is the reference designator for, among other things, a generator.

In the USA only.

Graham

Post a real schematic of something you've designed.

John

What a nice absurdity that you (JL) should post that here.

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:45:13 -0500 "Tim Williams"
wrote in Message id: :

Honestly, some people believe Sharpie markers on the edges of CDs make a
difference. Actually, I forget if they're Sharpie specifically, or if it
only "works" with some other brand.

Must have something to do with not allowing the laser light to reflect out
the edge of the disc.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:58:52 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:29:03 -0400, JW wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:45:13 -0500 "Tim Williams"
wrote in Message id: :

Honestly, some people believe Sharpie markers on the edges of CDs make a
difference. Actually, I forget if they're Sharpie specifically, or if it
only "works" with some other brand.

Must have something to do with not allowing the laser light to reflect out
the edge of the disc.

http://www.snopes.com/music/media/marker.htm#add

The article uses the term "no valid scientific reason" when discussing
audio!

One of the many problems with audiophool thinking is that they tend to
apply their primitive analog electronic concepts to a digital world.

John

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:23:52 -0700,
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:20:34 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:19:22 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:47:41 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Fred Abse wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Do please especially explain the relevance of the letter Q to indicate a
transistor or U for an IC.
No sillier than "L" for inductance, or "Z" for impedance, or "Y" for
admittance, or "B" for susceptance, or "G" for conductance.
What kind of equations do you use for calculating impedances ?

For example Z = 2.pi.f.L is a common one.

---
That's only true because:

Z = sqrt (R² + (Xl - Xc)²)

and it's the only circuit element being considered.

More correctly, 2pi f L is considered to be the "inductive reactance"
of an inductor, and the equation is written:

Xl = 2pi f L
---

L is clearly a well-understood 'shorthand' for inductance along with R
and C for resistance and capacitance.

I don't know of any components requiring designation on a schematic or
PCB that require defining by Y, B or G,

---
"Y" is the reference for any sort of resonator, but more particularly
for the ubiquitous quartz crystal resonator.

"B" is the reference designator for a blwer, motor, or synchro, and
"G" is the reference designator for, among other things, a generator.

In the USA only.

Graham

Post a real schematic of something you've designed.

John

What a nice absurdity that you (JL) should post that here.

I post lots of schematics, some doodles and occasionally actual
production stuff. Mostly I put them on my FTP site or Panoramio and
post links in SED. Or do ASCII art for the simple stuff.

Do you ever post schematics?

John

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:58:52 -0500 flipper wrote in
Message id: :

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:29:03 -0400, JW wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:45:13 -0500 "Tim Williams"
wrote in Message id: :

Honestly, some people believe Sharpie markers on the edges of CDs make a
difference. Actually, I forget if they're Sharpie specifically, or if it
only "works" with some other brand.

Must have something to do with not allowing the laser light to reflect out
the edge of the disc.

http://www.snopes.com/music/media/marker.htm#add

I'll bet that you could market a thin silver foil tape that sticks to the
edge of the CD for a few bucks a foot. 10X the performance of a green
Sharpie!

Hmmm...

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 06:49:54 -0500 flipper wrote in
Message id: :

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 05:52:49 -0400, JW wrote:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:58:52 -0500 flipper wrote in
Message id: :

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:29:03 -0400, JW wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:45:13 -0500 "Tim Williams"
wrote in Message id: :

Honestly, some people believe Sharpie markers on the edges of CDs make a
difference. Actually, I forget if they're Sharpie specifically, or if it
only "works" with some other brand.

Must have something to do with not allowing the laser light to reflect out
the edge of the disc.

http://www.snopes.com/music/media/marker.htm#add

I'll bet that you could market a thin silver foil tape that sticks to the
edge of the CD for a few bucks a foot. 10X the performance of a green
Sharpie!

Hmmm...

I don't think you paid attention to the 'theory' because the notion
behind the green marker is it supposedly prevents reflection, not be
'better' at it (which I presume is why you picked silver foil).

Ahh, but you misunderstand my train of [ahem] thought. The silver foil
actually creates a brighter more intense musical experience and sound due
to the *concentration* of the laser light. Or something like that. Magic
markers are so last year.

No doubt a good marketing droid will be required.

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 06:49:54 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 05:52:49 -0400, JW wrote:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:58:52 -0500 flipper wrote in
Message id: :

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:29:03 -0400, JW wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:45:13 -0500 "Tim Williams"
wrote in Message id: :

Honestly, some people believe Sharpie markers on the edges of CDs make a
difference. Actually, I forget if they're Sharpie specifically, or if it
only "works" with some other brand.

Must have something to do with not allowing the laser light to reflect out
the edge of the disc.

http://www.snopes.com/music/media/marker.htm#add

I'll bet that you could market a thin silver foil tape that sticks to the
edge of the CD for a few bucks a foot. 10X the performance of a green
Sharpie!

Hmmm...

I don't think you paid attention to the 'theory' because the notion
behind the green marker is it supposedly prevents reflection, not be
'better' at it (which I presume is why you picked silver foil).

That would make the sound too bright, degrade inner macrodynamics, and
make the soundstage too circular. Isotopically pure liquid-nitrogen-
treated gold leaf would sell, oops I meant sound, better.

John

"flipper" wrote in message
...
I don't think you paid attention to the 'theory' because the notion
behind the green marker is it supposedly prevents reflection, not be
'better' at it (which I presume is why you picked silver foil).

Silver foil will never work.

Apparently, silver is too conductive, or shiny, or not pricey enough or
something, and often sounds "harsh" or "bright". Only the best made
silver cables pass muster. Silver foil would get the same complaints, but
you can't pack anything on top of it to hide its "harsh silveriness".

Makes sense, right?!

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:27:37 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 04:15:51 -0700,
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:38:55 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:


snip
John

Very much like you.

Be a jerk. Or post some electronics. Take your pick.

John

The simulation does not match the test jig results, just the same:

Have fun with it.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:27:37 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 04:15:51 -0700,
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:38:55 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:


snip
John

Very much like you.

Be a jerk. Or post some electronics. Take your pick.

John

The simulation does not match the test jig results, just the same:

Have fun with it.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:27:37 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 04:15:51 -0700,
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:38:55 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:


snip
John

Very much like you.

Be a jerk. Or post some electronics. Take your pick.

John

The simulation does not match the test jig results, just the same:

Have fun with it.
Version 4
SHEET 1 880 680
WIRE -256 -288 -512 -288
WIRE -112 -288 -256 -288
WIRE 192 -288 -112 -288
WIRE -112 -272 -112 -288
WIRE -256 -192 -256 -288
WIRE -112 -144 -112 -192
WIRE -112 -128 -112 -144
WIRE -256 -80 -256 -112
WIRE -224 -80 -256 -80
WIRE -208 -80 -224 -80
WIRE -176 -80 -208 -80
WIRE 64 -48 -32 -48
WIRE 192 -48 192 -288
WIRE -208 -32 -208 -80
WIRE -160 -32 -208 -32
WIRE -512 -16 -512 -288
WIRE -112 -16 -112 -32
WIRE 464 -16 304 -16
WIRE 592 -16 464 -16
WIRE -160 0 -160 -32
WIRE 304 0 304 -16
WIRE -112 32 -112 -16
WIRE -80 32 -112 32
WIRE -32 32 -32 -48
WIRE -32 32 -80 32
WIRE -16 32 -32 32
WIRE -256 48 -256 -80
WIRE -16 48 -16 32
WIRE -160 96 -160 64
WIRE -80 96 -80 32
WIRE -80 96 -160 96
WIRE 64 96 64 16
WIRE 64 96 48 96
WIRE 80 96 64 96
WIRE 192 96 192 32
WIRE 192 96 160 96
WIRE 304 96 304 80
WIRE 304 96 256 96
WIRE 304 112 304 96
WIRE 464 128 464 -16
WIRE -80 160 -80 96
WIRE -256 208 -256 128
WIRE -16 208 -16 144
WIRE 304 208 304 192
WIRE 304 208 -16 208
WIRE 304 224 304 208
WIRE -512 336 -512 64
WIRE -256 336 -256 288
WIRE -256 336 -512 336
WIRE -160 336 -256 336
WIRE -80 336 -80 224
WIRE -80 336 -160 336
WIRE 304 336 304 304
WIRE 304 336 -80 336
WIRE 464 336 464 192
WIRE 464 336 304 336
WIRE 592 336 464 336
WIRE -160 368 -160 336
FLAG -160 368 0
FLAG -112 -144 Ve2
FLAG -224 -80 Vb2
FLAG -112 -16 Vc2
SYMBOL ind2 288 -16 R0
SYMATTR InstName L1
SYMATTR Value 400m
SYMATTR Type ind
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=40
SYMBOL ind2 288 96 R0
SYMATTR InstName L2
SYMATTR Value 100µ
SYMATTR Type ind
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=1
SYMBOL ind2 288 208 R0
SYMATTR InstName L3
SYMATTR Value 1m
SYMATTR Type ind
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=2
SYMBOL cap 448 128 R0
SYMATTR InstName C1
SYMATTR Value 2.2n
SYMATTR SpiceLine V=250
SYMBOL cap 256 80 R90
WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName C2
SYMATTR Value 4.7µ
SYMATTR SpiceLine V=16
SYMBOL cap -96 160 R0
SYMATTR InstName C3
SYMATTR Value 100µ
SYMATTR SpiceLine V=16
SYMBOL cap 48 -48 R0
SYMATTR InstName C4
SYMATTR Value 10n
SYMBOL res 176 80 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 220
SYMBOL res 176 -64 R0
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 47k
SYMBOL npn2 48 48 M0
SYMATTR InstName Q1
SYMATTR Value BC547B
SYMBOL pnp2 -176 -32 M180
SYMATTR InstName Q2
SYMATTR Value BC557B
SYMBOL res -272 -208 R0
SYMATTR InstName R3
SYMATTR Value 2.2k
SYMBOL res -272 32 R0
SYMATTR InstName R4
SYMATTR Value 330
SYMBOL res -272 192 R0
SYMATTR InstName R5
SYMATTR Value {10k*x}
SYMBOL voltage -512 -32 R0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 24 132 Left 0
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=.5
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value 5
SYMBOL res -128 -288 R0
SYMATTR InstName R6
SYMATTR Value 100
SYMBOL cap -176 0 R0
SYMATTR InstName C5
SYMATTR Value 47a
TEXT 288 -48 Left 0 !K1 L1 L2 L3 0.95
TEXT -464 232 Left 0 ;R5 is 10 k pot, \nused as a dimmer
TEXT -544 392 Left 0 !.tran 100m
TEXT 608 152 Left 0 ;Output to EL wire
TEXT 288 -88 Left 0 ;The core is something like a TDK PC40EF25-Z
TEXT -544 424 Left 0 !.step param x 0.1 1.1 .2

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:27:37 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 04:15:51 -0700,
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:38:55 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:


snip
John

Very much like you.

Be a jerk. Or post some electronics. Take your pick.

John

The simulation does not match the test jig results, just the same:

Have fun with it.
Version 4
SHEET 1 880 680
WIRE -256 -288 -512 -288
WIRE -112 -288 -256 -288
WIRE 192 -288 -112 -288
WIRE -112 -272 -112 -288
WIRE -256 -192 -256 -288
WIRE -112 -144 -112 -192
WIRE -112 -128 -112 -144
WIRE -256 -80 -256 -112
WIRE -224 -80 -256 -80
WIRE -208 -80 -224 -80
WIRE -176 -80 -208 -80
WIRE 64 -48 -32 -48
WIRE 192 -48 192 -288
WIRE -208 -32 -208 -80
WIRE -160 -32 -208 -32
WIRE -512 -16 -512 -288
WIRE -112 -16 -112 -32
WIRE 464 -16 304 -16
WIRE 592 -16 464 -16
WIRE -160 0 -160 -32
WIRE 304 0 304 -16
WIRE -112 32 -112 -16
WIRE -80 32 -112 32
WIRE -32 32 -32 -48
WIRE -32 32 -80 32
WIRE -16 32 -32 32
WIRE -256 48 -256 -80
WIRE -16 48 -16 32
WIRE -160 96 -160 64
WIRE -80 96 -80 32
WIRE -80 96 -160 96
WIRE 64 96 64 16
WIRE 64 96 48 96
WIRE 80 96 64 96
WIRE 192 96 192 32
WIRE 192 96 160 96
WIRE 304 96 304 80
WIRE 304 96 256 96
WIRE 304 112 304 96
WIRE 464 128 464 -16
WIRE -80 160 -80 96
WIRE -256 208 -256 128
WIRE -16 208 -16 144
WIRE 304 208 304 192
WIRE 304 208 -16 208
WIRE 304 224 304 208
WIRE -512 336 -512 64
WIRE -256 336 -256 288
WIRE -256 336 -512 336
WIRE -160 336 -256 336
WIRE -80 336 -80 224
WIRE -80 336 -160 336
WIRE 304 336 304 304
WIRE 304 336 -80 336
WIRE 464 336 464 192
WIRE 464 336 304 336
WIRE 592 336 464 336
WIRE -160 368 -160 336
FLAG -160 368 0
FLAG -112 -144 Ve2
FLAG -224 -80 Vb2
FLAG -112 -16 Vc2
SYMBOL ind2 288 -16 R0
SYMATTR InstName L1
SYMATTR Value 400m
SYMATTR Type ind
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=40
SYMBOL ind2 288 96 R0
SYMATTR InstName L2
SYMATTR Value 100µ
SYMATTR Type ind
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=1
SYMBOL ind2 288 208 R0
SYMATTR InstName L3
SYMATTR Value 1m
SYMATTR Type ind
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=2
SYMBOL cap 448 128 R0
SYMATTR InstName C1
SYMATTR Value 2.2n
SYMATTR SpiceLine V=250
SYMBOL cap 256 80 R90
WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName C2
SYMATTR Value 4.7µ
SYMATTR SpiceLine V=16
SYMBOL cap -96 160 R0
SYMATTR InstName C3
SYMATTR Value 100µ
SYMATTR SpiceLine V=16
SYMBOL cap 48 -48 R0
SYMATTR InstName C4
SYMATTR Value 10n
SYMBOL res 176 80 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 220
SYMBOL res 176 -64 R0
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 47k
SYMBOL npn2 48 48 M0
SYMATTR InstName Q1
SYMATTR Value BC547B
SYMBOL pnp2 -176 -32 M180
SYMATTR InstName Q2
SYMATTR Value BC557B
SYMBOL res -272 -208 R0
SYMATTR InstName R3
SYMATTR Value 2.2k
SYMBOL res -272 32 R0
SYMATTR InstName R4
SYMATTR Value 330
SYMBOL res -272 192 R0
SYMATTR InstName R5
SYMATTR Value {10k*x}
SYMBOL voltage -512 -32 R0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 24 132 Left 0
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=.5
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value 5
SYMBOL res -128 -288 R0
SYMATTR InstName R6
SYMATTR Value 100
SYMBOL cap -176 0 R0
SYMATTR InstName C5
SYMATTR Value 47a
TEXT 288 -48 Left 0 !K1 L1 L2 L3 0.95
TEXT -464 232 Left 0 ;R5 is 10 k pot, \nused as a dimmer
TEXT -544 392 Left 0 !.tran 100m
TEXT 608 152 Left 0 ;Output to EL wire
TEXT 288 -88 Left 0 ;The core is something like a TDK PC40EF25-Z
TEXT -544 424 Left 0 !.step param x 0.1 1.1 .2

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:06:18 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:23:52 -0700,
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:20:34 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:19:22 +0100, Eeyore
om wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:47:41 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Fred Abse wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Do please especially explain the relevance of the letter Q to indicate a
transistor or U for an IC.
No sillier than "L" for inductance, or "Z" for impedance, or "Y" for
admittance, or "B" for susceptance, or "G" for conductance.
What kind of equations do you use for calculating impedances ?

For example Z = 2.pi.f.L is a common one.

---
That's only true because:

Z = sqrt (R² + (Xl - Xc)²)

and it's the only circuit element being considered.

More correctly, 2pi f L is considered to be the "inductive reactance"
of an inductor, and the equation is written:

Xl = 2pi f L
---

L is clearly a well-understood 'shorthand' for inductance along with R
and C for resistance and capacitance.

I don't know of any components requiring designation on a schematic or
PCB that require defining by Y, B or G,

---
"Y" is the reference for any sort of resonator, but more particularly
for the ubiquitous quartz crystal resonator.

"B" is the reference designator for a blwer, motor, or synchro, and
"G" is the reference designator for, among other things, a generator.

In the USA only.

Graham

Post a real schematic of something you've designed.

John

What a nice absurdity that you (JL) should post that here.

I post lots of schematics, some doodles and occasionally actual
production stuff. Mostly I put them on my FTP site or Panoramio and
post links in SED. Or do ASCII art for the simple stuff.

Do you ever post schematics?

John


Yes, and sometimes with component values. I don't remember yours
having component values; maybe it is just very infrequent for you to
include them.

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:54:27 -0700, Fred Abse
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:04:30 -0700, josephkk wrote:

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:27:37 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 04:15:51 -0700,
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:38:55 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:


snip
John

Very much like you.

Be a jerk. Or post some electronics. Take your pick.

John

The simulation does not match the test jig results, just the same:

Have fun with it.


It'd help if you checked the "Convert Greek mu to 'u'" box, in Control
Panel Netlist Options. Copy-and-paste, here mangles mu into some sort of
"quoted printable" string that makes LTSpice barf. I have to edit them all
out.

I found the settting, done.