terminology

In article , Woody wrote:
If you want a laugh get on Russ Andrews' mailing list and look at the*
stuff he sends out occassionally. I got one a few weeks ago and I*
couldn't believe what he was saying. I couldn't cry, I was laughing so*
much! The worrying thing is that there are clearly suckers out there who*
believe it. An example: a mains plug for the removal of spikes from the*
supply - i.e. it contains a couple of varistors costing at tops about*
40p each - sell for anything between £18 and £255 - yes that is right,*
two hundred and fifty five pounds!

I once saw a magazine article about a "passive preamplifier" costing about
1100GBP. It looked very nicely made, but what it amounted to was a few
sockets, a selector switch and a potentiometer in a metal box. I've built
things like this in toffee tins, and I doubt a pretty one would sound any
different. Quite apart from the absurd asking price, I thought they had a
bit of a nerve calling it a preamplifier if it didn't amplify.

Rod.

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
...
certainly enjoyed the business. Maybe I should have gone into aerial
rigging instead of boring old computing. But maybe that would have
gotten just as boring if I'd done it long enough. Bill?

At the moment my view is jaundiced, due to doing too much. However, the
delight of this job is that we meet so many interesting people. In the
course of a week I will normally have dealings with everyone from convicted
murderers to pillars of the community!

Bill

"Halmyre" wrote in message
...
What a waste of money. You do know that the higher the aerial, the further
the electrons have to fall, so they are moving faster when they get to
your
TV and so the signal is stronger, and no need for fancy cable.

But don't forget that electrons are very light, so they don't fall very fast
anyway.

Bill

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
I once saw a magazine article about a "passive preamplifier" costing about
1100GBP. It looked very nicely made, but what it amounted to was a few
sockets, a selector switch and a potentiometer in a metal box. I've built
things like this in toffee tins, and I doubt a pretty one would sound any
different. Quite apart from the absurd asking price, I thought they had a
bit of a nerve calling it a preamplifier if it didn't amplify.

A certain manufacturer of masthead amplifiers sells a red plastic box with
no insides. It is a 'junction box', and I've no doubt that many are used for
that purpose. But they are also a favourite of the cowboys, who fit them on
the mast in cases where amplification is unneccessary or even undesirable,
so that they can charge for a 'booster'. I've removed many a one.

Bill

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:16:10 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


"Woody" wrote in message
...
Then we got oxygen free copper, unidirectional signal wires (oh yes we
did)

Well, unidirectional signal cables are well documented. See
http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/directionalcoaxial.html

Bill

My speaker cables are unidirectional (Acoustic Research), yet they
weren't even that expensive (£20 for 30 metres). I've never tried
them the wrong way round, and if I did, I doubt they will sound any
different.

Marky P.

"Woody" wrote in message
...
Litz wire - that brings back memories.

I remember an article in a hi-fi mag sometime in the early 70's where some
pillock (actually a Frenchman) noted that he had rewired the connections
to his front door bell in Litz wire and it improved the 'tintinabular
sonority' of the bell when it rang.

Then we got oxygen free copper, unidirectional signal wires (oh yes we
did) and on and on.........

Oh joy of memories.


I have no particular knowledge of this area but I wouldn't be surprised if

the windowed leaky-coax aerials they run through tunnels have

a defined head and tail end so the cable becomes progressively

more leaky to compensate for the losses. Does anyone know?



--
Graham

%Profound_observation%

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:21:12 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


"Marky P" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:33:21 -0800 (PST), Geo wrote:

This reminds me of a time back in about 1979, my mate worked in the
local Hi-Fi/TV shop. I was in visiting, and playing with the stuff in
the shop when a neighbour of mine came in. He was on about music
centres, and how stupid people must be to buy all this expensive
stereo equipment, he'd made his record player stereo by soldering (he
knew all about technical things) another speaker onto the existing
speaker connections, only cost him a few quid. He seemed pleased with
it.
I did that with an old Dansette. It was suppose to be a stereo unit
with external speaker, but I think a valve had gone, so I just wired
the external speaker to the internal one. Pretty pointless really.
That was my first record player. My brother got me it second hand in
the 70's.

I had an Alba (like a Dansette but cheaper). I fitted a stereo cartridge and
fed the two outputs to (a) a Sinclair transistor amp, and (b) the gram
socket of a pre-war radio. The speakers were Wharfdale 8" co-axial built
into concrete pipes. It all worked splendidly, or so it seemed at the time.
I had to run the Sinclair off an old car battery because I hadn't got a 12V
psu.

I got a mention on the Light Programme because of the apeakers. I walked
tall the next day, I can tell you.

Bill

Something I just remembered! I put two 4 track mono reel to reel
machines side by side to make a stereo one. Put tape spool on first
machine, past the heads of both machines (but avoiding the pinch
roller of the first machine) then onto the take up spool of the second
machine. Set one machine to track 1, second machine to track 2. It
sort of worked.

Marky P.

In message ,
Marky P Proclaimed from the tallest
tower:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:21:12 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


"Marky P" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:33:21 -0800 (PST), Geo wrote:

This reminds me of a time back in about 1979, my mate worked in the
local Hi-Fi/TV shop. I was in visiting, and playing with the stuff
in the shop when a neighbour of mine came in. He was on about music
centres, and how stupid people must be to buy all this expensive
stereo equipment, he'd made his record player stereo by soldering
(he knew all about technical things) another speaker onto the
existing speaker connections, only cost him a few quid. He seemed
pleased with it.
I did that with an old Dansette. It was suppose to be a stereo
unit with external speaker, but I think a valve had gone, so I just
wired the external speaker to the internal one. Pretty pointless
really. That was my first record player. My brother got me it
second hand in the 70's.

I had an Alba (like a Dansette but cheaper). I fitted a stereo
cartridge and fed the two outputs to (a) a Sinclair transistor amp,
and (b) the gram socket of a pre-war radio. The speakers were
Wharfdale 8" co-axial built into concrete pipes. It all worked
splendidly, or so it seemed at the time. I had to run the Sinclair
off an old car battery because I hadn't got a 12V psu.

I got a mention on the Light Programme because of the apeakers. I
walked tall the next day, I can tell you.

Bill

Something I just remembered! I put two 4 track mono reel to reel
machines side by side to make a stereo one. Put tape spool on first
machine, past the heads of both machines (but avoiding the pinch
roller of the first machine) then onto the take up spool of the second
machine. Set one machine to track 1, second machine to track 2. It
sort of worked.

Marky P.

Wasn't there a noticible delay between the left and right channels as the
tape travelled from one set of heads to the other...?
I'd have thought you'd have got an audible 'echo' effect for anything that
was in the middle of the 'sound stage'(??)

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

"Graham." wrote in message
...
I have no particular knowledge of this area but I wouldn't be surprised if

the windowed leaky-coax aerials they run through tunnels have

a defined head and tail end so the cable becomes progressively

more leaky to compensate for the losses. Does anyone know?

This is strongly reminiscent of a conventional VHF/UHF tap-off line, as used
in a TV distribution system.

Bill

ChrisM wrote:

In message ,

Something I just remembered! I put two 4 track mono reel to reel
machines side by side to make a stereo one. Put tape spool on first
machine, past the heads of both machines (but avoiding the pinch
roller of the first machine) then onto the take up spool of the second
machine. Set one machine to track 1, second machine to track 2. It
sort of worked.

Wasn't there a noticible delay between the left and right channels as the
tape travelled from one set of heads to the other...?
I'd have thought you'd have got an audible 'echo' effect for anything that
was in the middle of the 'sound stage'(??)

Presumably this set up was also used to record the tapes, in
which case the displacement doesn't matter. Isn't it a bit like
cinema film where the optical audio track is displaced from the
related picture frames?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.