XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: sophi.2@invalid.org   
      
   On 3/2/2011 8:52 PM, John Larkin wrote:   
   > On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:40:27 -0600, John - KD5YI   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 3/2/2011 8:32 PM, John Larkin wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:59:58 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman   
   >>>    wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Mar 3, 2:11 am, John Larkin   
   >>>>    wrote:   
   >>>>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:36:25 -0600, John Fields   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>    wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 08:40:42 -0800, John Larkin   
   >>>>>>    wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I've always sort of liked the classic "GE" tape head/mic preamp   
   >>>>>>> circuit:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GEcircuit.jpg   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> but it occurred to me that it might also make a nice headphone amp...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GE_headphone_amp.JPG   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Audio tends to be nonsense, but at least the audio guys have fun   
   >>>>>>> playing with circuits, whether they make a lot of sense or not.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> John   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> ---   
   >>>>>> Even though you scorn and ridicule audio, there's nothing wrong with   
   >>>>>> anyone seeking perfection there, just as there's nothing wrong with   
   >>>>>> your search for perfection in the genre which pleases _you_ to pursue.   
   >>>>>> So, speaking of fun, why don't you do a complete design and assign   
   >>>>>> values to the circuit components and identify the semiconductors?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You're not playing the game. You are sitting in the henhouse, clucking   
   >>>>> about the people who do.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> He's not playing your game, which involves telling John Larkin how   
   >>>> cute his circuits are.   
   >>>   
   >>> He's not designing circuits, which is what this newsgroup is about.   
   >>>   
   >>> You aren't either. Both of you start to cluck and peck when people do   
   >>> design circuits. No surprise.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> Or is that legwork _we're_ supposed to do in order to flesh out your   
   >>>>>> divine revelation?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Chickenleg work!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It's half the story - a few component values make it a lot easier to   
   >>>> work out what a circuit is doing.   
   >>>   
   >>> You can't look at a circuit this simple and see what it's doing? OK,   
   >>> no surprise.   
   >>>   
   >>> John   
   >>   
   >> Well, I thought designing a circuit included supplying component values.   
   >> No?   
   >   
   > I posted topologies. Values can be scaled to the application, but you   
   > need a topology first. If I were actually going to build this, for   
   > money, of course I'd have to define specs and then compute values.   
   > That's just grunt work.   
   >   
   > John   
      
   Not really. I have a few circuits I could throw out and claim that they   
   are topologies and you would not be able to use them without values.   
   Granted, mine are more complex than the one being discussed, but I'm   
   hoping to make a point.   
      
   John (not Larkin)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)