Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get?

tabb...is a lunatic and a liar


>
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's certainly way off. Domestic valve gear typically runs a couple of 
> > > > > decades before needing a new valve.
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > ** More meaningless bollocks. 
> > > > 
> > > >  Valves have a useful life of only a few thousand hours - less if abused. 
> > > 
> > > horse crap. I've run them way longer.
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > ** Meaningless crap. 
> 
> No, it has a definite meaning. 
>

  **  Massive, blatant lie. 

 
> >   You are using fake facts.
> > 
> >   The only kind you ever have.
> 
> Well here's the first random search result
> http://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38181&page=2
> ... it doesn't agree with you either.


**  Nothing in there proves a damn thing. 



> 
> But hey, maybe there's a large number of us that share the delusion of running valve gear on a heavy use basis for many years and having very few failures. 


** Must be a delusion - cos it contradicts the experience of all others.

  Or just plain old bullshit made up by valve freaks. 

  I told you to fuck off.

  Do so or I will hound you off this NG. 


..... Phil

 
  

On Thursday, 16 March 2017 02:44:36 UTC, Phil Allison  wrote:
> tabby wrote:

> > > ** Should be "see figure 20". 
> > 
> > Mfr admits to 11% distortion.
> 
> 
> 
> ** Blatant lie. 

I checked it again. The graph does go upto 11% claimed distortion as its frequency increases. It's on the figure 20 you referred to. No doubt about it.



>  You really are a piece of shit. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > ** Thoroughly fact based, fair comment. 
> > > 
> > >  You are a prize bullshit artist
> > 
> > A sensible person would ask why might it have produced so much distortion.
> >
> 
> 
>  ** Nope.
> 
>  Asking why before you have the facts straight is pure fuckwittery. 
> 
>  Your one and only talent. 
> 
> 
>  Piss off, arsehole. 
> 
> 
> 
> ....   Phil

Did someone piss in your cheerios when you were a kid or something? You really are very dysfunctional, and equally unreasonable.


NT

On Thursday, 16 March 2017 03:15:28 UTC, Phil Allison  wrote:
> tabb...is a lunatic and a liar
> 
> 
> >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It's certainly way off. Domestic valve gear typically runs a couple of 
> > > > > > decades before needing a new valve.
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > ** More meaningless bollocks. 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  Valves have a useful life of only a few thousand hours - less if abused. 
> > > > 
> > > > horse crap. I've run them way longer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 
> > > ** Meaningless crap. 
> > 
> > No, it has a definite meaning. 
> >
> 
>   **  Massive, blatant lie. 
> 
>  
> > >   You are using fake facts.
> > > 
> > >   The only kind you ever have.
> > 
> > Well here's the first random search result
> > http://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38181&page=2
> > ... it doesn't agree with you either.
> 
> 
> **  Nothing in there proves a damn thing. 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > But hey, maybe there's a large number of us that share the delusion of running valve gear on a heavy use basis for many years and having very few failures. 
> 
> 
> ** Must be a delusion - cos it contradicts the experience of all others.
> 
>   Or just plain old bullshit made up by valve freaks. 


It's the collective experience of far more people than you. And clearly people with far more experience & knowledge in this area.


>   I told you to fuck off.
> 
>   Do so or I will hound you off this NG. 
> 
> 
> ..... Phil

You aren't capable of it. Time for goodbyes I think, you're too far out there. Bye. Plonk.

Anyone can look at that figure 20 and see the claimed 11% distortion plain as day.


NT

tabb...is a lying POS 

> 
> > > > ** Should be "see figure 20". 
> > > 
> > > Mfr admits to 11% distortion.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ** Blatant lie. 
> 



 ** And you are lying your arse off again. 

    You are a real piece of shit. 
  
    A trolling NG criminal. 


.... Phil 

tabb...is a criminal lunatic and a liar


> > 
> > 
> > ** Must be a delusion - cos it contradicts the experience of all others.
> > 
> >   Or just plain old bullshit made up by valve freaks. 
> 
> 
> It's the collective experience of far more people than you.
>

 ** No it's not - you pathetic lying POS. 



> >   I told you to fuck off.
> > 
> >   Do so or I will hound you off this NG. 
> > 
> 
> 
> You aren't capable of it. 
>

 ** Fact is, I am very good at it and very successful. 


> 
> Anyone can look at that figure 20 and see the claimed 11% distortion 
> plain as day.
> 

** And they can see you posted a MASSIVE LIE as well.

 You are a one sad & sorry fuckwit without a single shred of decency in you.  

 Lying on a technical NG is incredibly moronic.

 Folk like you are pox on the face of the earth. 

 Drop dead. 



....  Phil 

 

On 15/03/2017 12:39, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 12:10:36 UTC, Martin Brown  wrote:
>> On 14/03/2017 13:58, tabbypurr wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 09:22:05 UTC, Martin Brown  wrote:
>>>
>>>> There used to be old school analogue function generator chips
>>>> that made a triangle wave and then applied diode shaping to get
>>>> a pseudo-sine wave. HP made one design implementation that was
>>>> surprisingly good. Intersils 8038 was the poor mans alternative
>>>> for DIY.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/intersil/documents/icl8/icl8038.pdf
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
I built one of those decades ago. What a car crash. The wave forms
>>> were hopeless. I don't remember the details to know why, I
>>> presume the problem was the 8038 though.
>>
>> It was never anything like as good as a Wein bridge sine wave but
>> it was good for about 0.5% THD if you trimmed it properly. I
>> suspect manufacturing tolerances made it inconsistent batch to
>> batch.
>>
>> Cute chip in its day, but that was a long time ago.
>
> I doubt it managed 50%, let alone 0.5%. It had 3 outputs, sine square
> & triangle. At some frequencies one output looked more like one of
> the others should, and the others were just a mess. It was dire, and

I built one a long time ago. I found it in my parents attic whilst 
clearing the house recently. I might test it to see how good/bad it is 
next time I have chance. You have inspired me not to just throw it out.

> yes I followed the advised circuit. It might manage 0.5% at some
> frequency, but as a sig gen it was a real failure. If I ever get the
> time I'll look at it again one day, it's on a shelf somewhere.

It was fine as a rough sine wave over the audio range as long as you 
were not trying to measure hifi amplifier distortion. The tweak in fig 4 
would trim THD to <1% over most of the audio range at least it did for 
me. Symmetry of the triangle waveform was essential to minimising THD - 
most of the errors did not come from the sine shaping network.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 15/03/2017 16:36, rickman wrote:
> On 3/15/2017 8:46 AM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 23:57:20 UTC, rickman  wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2017 3:23 PM, oldschool@tubes.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:27:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Thanks to all who replied. I read that WIkipedia article, which
>>>> explained what these things are, (even though that article was like
>>>> reading a legal manual).
>>>
>>> Wikipedia often is written by those with a certain level of elitism
>>> rather than an interest in explaining topics to all who wish to learn.
>>> It is not uncommon for a technical article to be written at such a high
>>> level that a reader needs much more than just a casual understanding of
>>> the topic.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, this is one of the ways Wikipedia has failed.
>>
>> Surely that beats a dumbed down retardopedia. Some topics just aren't
>> that simple. There's always the simple-wiki articles aimed more at
>> children. Wiki has its problems, but I'm not convinced that is one of
>> them.
>
> I may not be an expert in various areas of electronics and computers,
> but I am far from a novice.  There are various electronics related pages
> on Wikipedia that I can't read without going to the references and
> studying.  That is ridiculous.

Why do you think it is ridiculous. If you dip into a book chosen at 
random and find a complicated equation that describes reality it isn't 
the fault of the book that you don't understand what is written there.

> When only the experts in a field can even read and understand an
> encyclopedia entry I'm not sure that's any better than a "retardopedia".
>   It essentially becomes the same thing, a web page that conveys very
> little information to very few people.

It requires you to actually work at reading the more complex content by 
looking up the references. I find that in the technical sphere there is 
little to criticise in Wiki there are usually decent references both to 
prior art and more basic information with the core article usually 
written at about the same level as a university textbook. A few links 
are broken at any given time but Wayback will often still get them.

The same is not true for Wiki entries about politicians and public 
figures which variously get hacked by zealots to say completely insane 
things at times.

> I think the editors end up being full of themselves trying to be
> "expert" or "professional".  In the end they become irrelevant.

Why do you want to denigrate experts at every opportunity?
They are freely sharing their knowledge for the public good.

If you don't like what they have written you are not forced to use it.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 3/16/2017 8:52 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 15/03/2017 16:36, rickman wrote:
>> On 3/15/2017 8:46 AM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 23:57:20 UTC, rickman  wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2017 3:23 PM, oldschool@tubes.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:27:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Thanks to all who replied. I read that WIkipedia article, which
>>>>> explained what these things are, (even though that article was like
>>>>> reading a legal manual).
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia often is written by those with a certain level of elitism
>>>> rather than an interest in explaining topics to all who wish to learn.
>>>> It is not uncommon for a technical article to be written at such a high
>>>> level that a reader needs much more than just a casual understanding of
>>>> the topic.
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion, this is one of the ways Wikipedia has failed.
>>>
>>> Surely that beats a dumbed down retardopedia. Some topics just aren't
>>> that simple. There's always the simple-wiki articles aimed more at
>>> children. Wiki has its problems, but I'm not convinced that is one of
>>> them.
>>
>> I may not be an expert in various areas of electronics and computers,
>> but I am far from a novice.  There are various electronics related pages
>> on Wikipedia that I can't read without going to the references and
>> studying.  That is ridiculous.
>
> Why do you think it is ridiculous. If you dip into a book chosen at
> random and find a complicated equation that describes reality it isn't
> the fault of the book that you don't understand what is written there.

If someone experienced in the field has to do research just to read the 
article, how widely read can it be?  Wikipedia is supposed to be a 
resource for a wide range of audiences, not a college level text book.


>> When only the experts in a field can even read and understand an
>> encyclopedia entry I'm not sure that's any better than a "retardopedia".
>>   It essentially becomes the same thing, a web page that conveys very
>> little information to very few people.
>
> It requires you to actually work at reading the more complex content by
> looking up the references. I find that in the technical sphere there is
> little to criticise in Wiki there are usually decent references both to
> prior art and more basic information with the core article usually
> written at about the same level as a university textbook. A few links
> are broken at any given time but Wayback will often still get them.

I am saying that is a problem.  But it depends on the level of 
university textbook.  Freshman level intro would be appropriate for most 
material rather than graduate level which I have seen.


> The same is not true for Wiki entries about politicians and public
> figures which variously get hacked by zealots to say completely insane
> things at times.
>
>> I think the editors end up being full of themselves trying to be
>> "expert" or "professional".  In the end they become irrelevant.
>
> Why do you want to denigrate experts at every opportunity?
> They are freely sharing their knowledge for the public good.

"Every opportunity"???  Lol.

If someone wishes to communicate, they need to consider the audience. 
Targeting an encyclopedia to advanced college level is not "sharing" 
knowledge with very many, which is my point.


> If you don't like what they have written you are not forced to use it.

Yes, the "America, love it or leave it" argument...  Thanks for sharing.

-- 

Rick C

On Thursday, 16 March 2017 05:24:13 UTC, Phil Allison  wrote:
> tabb...is a criminal lunatic and a liar
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ** Must be a delusion - cos it contradicts the experience of all others.
> > > 
> > >   Or just plain old bullshit made up by valve freaks. 
> > 
> > 
> > It's the collective experience of far more people than you.
> >
> 
>  ** No it's not - you pathetic lying POS. 
> 
> 
> 
> > >   I told you to fuck off.
> > > 
> > >   Do so or I will hound you off this NG. 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > You aren't capable of it. 
> >
> 
>  ** Fact is, I am very good at it and very successful. 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Anyone can look at that figure 20 and see the claimed 11% distortion 
> > plain as day.
> > 
> 
> ** And they can see you posted a MASSIVE LIE as well.
> 
>  You are a one sad & sorry fuckwit without a single shred of decency in you.  
> 
>  Lying on a technical NG is incredibly moronic.
> 
>  Folk like you are pox on the face of the earth. 
> 
>  Drop dead. 
> 
> 
> 
> ....  Phil

Mr Allison is plainly nuttier than I expected.
http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/intersil/documents/icl8/icl8038.pdf
Figure 20 on p10 plain as day shows upto 11% distortion on sine waves, and figure 18 admits upto 10% linearity on triangle waves. What sort of loon sits there lying on something so trivial for every reader to go see. What a - I don't know what he is. Just a nut.


NT

On 3/16/2017 1:07 PM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Mr Allison is plainly nuttier than I expected.

No argument there and I have no idea what you expected.

> http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/intersil/documents/icl8/icl8038.pdf
> Figure 20 on p10 plain as day shows upto 11% distortion on sine waves, and figure 18 admits upto 10% linearity on triangle waves. What sort of loon sits there lying on something so trivial for every reader to go see. What a - I don't know what he is. Just a nut.

I believe the context of this discussion was "audio" gear.  The high 
distortion of the ICL8038 is only in the frequency range above 20 kHz.

-- 

Rick C