Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Telamon wrote: In article , Patrick Turner wrote: Telamon wrote: Snip The discussion has everything to do with listening to the BCB, and radio theory. If you would spend time reading the group you would see the several cross posted threads don't mesh well with rec.radio.shortwave. The group is generally about listening to SW, BCB and sometimes long wave. There is discussions about radios specifications, antennas and receiving challenges. Other topics revolve around the programming or hearing pirates and the like. Yes the group goes off topic a lot on what people listen to on short wave. There is no good reason to cross post these threads to three groups. I think you are outnumbered. Talks on BCB receiver designs cannot be bad for all three groups IMHO. Don't cross post unless there is a good reason to do so is a good general rule to follow. Some think there *is* a good reason. Three threads were cross posted at nearly the same time from rec.antiques.radio+phono, rec.audio.tubes. If I don't speak up why should I expect it to stop? Just be happy you ain't got all these nitwits raving on about politics, terrorists, etc, ad nausem. Patrick Turner. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Telamon wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote: The discussion has everything to do with listening to the BCB, and radio theory. If you would spend time reading the group you would see the several cross posted threads don't mesh well with rec.radio.shortwave. The group is generally about listening to SW, BCB and sometimes long wave. There is discussions about radios specifications, antennas and receiving challenges. Other topics revolve around the programming or hearing pirates and the like. Yes the group goes off topic a lot on what people listen to on short wave. There is no good reason to cross post these threads to three groups. I'm the one who started and cross-posted the related topics (of building a tube-based AM receiver) to the three newsgroups, including rec.radio.shortwave. I have read r.r.s. for a long time, and the start of the thread did cross over into r.r.s. land since I was interested in the tube design also being suitable for MW DX use, thus reaching out to MW DXers interested in this who otherwise don't read the other two newsgroups (and indeed a few people from r.r.s. chimed in saying they were quite interested in this general thread.) It is clear the thread was suitably on-topic for r.r.s., as it was on-topic for the other groups. It's definitely more on-topic to r.r.s. than the political crap which pervades r.r.s. (I personally think that the r.r.s. crowd should begin the long process to add moderation to the group, to get rid of the garbage -- or simply create a moderated YahooGroup and tell everyone we're moving there.) Of course, like all threads, they evolve. And the last couple days the focus has changed towards building a tube tuner most suitable for local high-powered stations, which is of less interest to the r.r.s. crowd. Nevertheless, I believe the threads are sufficiently on-topic to r.r.s. to not warrant some pro-active effort to try to stop. And as Patrick noted, all threads die of old-age, to be replaced by new threads. That's the dynamics of newsgroups (I've created and moderated dozens of newsgroups in the last 15 years, so I am very aware of their dynamics, which includes the birth and death of discussion threads.) Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion of the "channel TRF" tube tuner (and spinoff topics)! Jon Noring |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"RHF" wrote in message om... PT, Fair Play is after all FAIR PLAY ! When you're right, you're right! I guess we all at RRS should start posting Reception Reports to: * rec.antiques.radio+phono Sure, what are you hearing on your Scott? Is it sensitive? Selective? How's the audio fidelity? * rec.audio.tubes Yes, just who is transmitting good wideband AM? I'm sure they want to know! Just for the Fun of It ~ RHF . . If you're hearing good wideband audio on your Collins R-390, don't forget to share it with the rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors group. Frank Dresser |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
In article
, Telamon wrote: In article , wrote: In rec.antiques.radio+phono Telamon wrote: I've been reading it from here to and I'm not happy. Maybe you should not read it instead of trying to speak for people that don't want you to speak for them. Oh come on now and be a good net citizen and not cross post. If cross posting is bad net citizenship why is it a feature of usenet in the first place? Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
No highs.
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 01:50:04 +1000, Patrick Turner wrote: David wrote: The fixed-step (10 kHz) tuner is what killed music on AM radio. You can get a much more pleasant sound by detuning a few 100 Hz. This PLL crap sounds like ****. Howcome? Patrick Turner On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 00:36:21 GMT, Jon Noring wrote: [Following up on a thread dating back to January, similar to one I started recently. Responding to Patrick Turner's comments.] Patrick Turner wrote in January 2004: Jerry Wang wrote: 1. Even it is a single channel [AM] receiver, I would still suggest the use of one or two intermediate frequency (IF) stages. Because to achieve good sensitivity you need to have enough gain. Since you only want one channel, there is no need for a frequency converter or any IFTs or IF amps, and a TRF with four tuned circuits in the form of two critically coupled RF trannies will do nicely. Interesting. As I noted in a recent message, it is very intriguing to build a modernized, high-performance AM tube tuner using the "channel" approach. This takes advantage of the fact that licensed broadcasters today must broadcast on specific frequencies, every 10 khz in North America and 9 khz in Europe and elsewhere. So, instead of trying to be able to continuously tune across the BCB spectrum, we can think outside the box for the moment and consider the alternative of building reasonably optimized tuning circuits for each listened-to frequency. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
(RHF) wrote: = = = (John Byrns) wrote in message = = = ... In article , Telamon wrote: In article , wrote: In rec.antiques.radio+phono Telamon wrote: I've been reading it from here to and I'm not happy. Maybe you should not read it instead of trying to speak for people that don't want you to speak for them. Oh come on now and be a good net citizen and not cross post. If cross posting is bad net citizenship why is it a feature of usenet in the first place? Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ JB, Cross-Posting is like the Coloring Book and Crayons "Test" for 5 Year Old 'little' Boys. The ones that can Color-within-the-Lines are consider "AT" Grade. [ Normal Development. ] The ones that 'scribble everywhere' are identified for special attention and/or medication. The "Test" is given again in various forms at 8, 11 and 14 Years of Age to little Boys. Many of the ones who still refuse to Color-within-the Lines by Age 14 can be found in a Juvenile Custody Facility. {Lack of Self-Control and/or Acting Out Anti-Social Behavior} ~ RHF So what you are saying is that Usenet is some kind of giant testing facility for boys past the age of 14, else why have the cross posting facility in the first place? What about little girls, do they get a free pass? Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
(RHF) wrote: Cross-Posting is like the Coloring Book and Crayons "Test" for 5 Year Old 'little' Boys. The ones that can Color-within-the-Lines are consider "AT" Grade. [ Normal Development. ] The ones that 'scribble everywhere' are identified for special attention and/or medication. The "Test" is given again in various forms at 8, 11 and 14 Years of Age to little Boys. Many of the ones who still refuse to Color-within-the Lines by Age 14 can be found in a Juvenile Custody Facility. {Lack of Self-Control and/or Acting Out Anti-Social Behavior} ~ RHF The song "Flowers are Red" (Harry Chapin) expresses extremely well how I - and many others -- feel about such "coloring-book" nonsense... the terrible smothering of creativity by those blind to it... or worse - jealous of it... You might give it a listen... Cross posting: Let's see - we have roughly 20 serious DX radios in the house; several VERY good AM HiFi sets (& still trying to find my Fisher TA-600); 50+ general radio sets that were manufacturerd in the 20's 30's 40's 50' 60's and 70's (what no radio newer? nope). Have tube mono-blocks and tube stereo amps (some williamsons); JBLs from the 50's 60's & 70's; some vintage Sansui stuff; some decent R-R gear; Hammond A-100 w/Leslie 122 (three decent power (tube) amps between the two - just overhauled the leslie amp); Let's see - I've logged 80+ countries (R-390; R390A; R391; NC-120 (RAO-6); Philco 37-640; Zenith 5F233; Silvertone 7038; GE-P990); logged all 50 states on BCB; and play with a 5000W (AM) transmitter (daytime - a bit less after sundown ;-) which just happens to be on the (drum roll please) AM / BCB dial... So I'd say that's tube stuff, (listening, designing, just starring at the glow); Shortwave (did I mention we've been listening to RTTY since the early 70s? - yeah - and I wish I'd never sold my model 28); antique radio-phono - and most of the radios in the house are 50+ years old - and yes - there are several phonos here from a V-15III equipped SL-95 - to a Signet equipped SL-1300 (with the usual broken cuing mech). are appropriate groups... yet I tend to stay in only one. Point Jon was making - he wanted to tap talent / opinions from a broad pool... Seems to me - that talking about a HiFi AM receiver (last time I listened there was still a lot of AM on 19M) using tubes covers the above mentioned groups pretty well... esp. if one like to listen to OTR through their personal broadcaster over their HiFi receiver... (yeah not everyone gets to play with a 5KW Harris - but while I can tweak the crap out of it - I seldom get to pick what goes out over the air - difference in being the "engineer" and the "owner"... (though I do run some stuff while performing "maintenance" on ocassion big grin!!!!! Lighten up - ain't "your" group. -- randy guttery A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews so vital to the United States Silent Service: http://tendertale.com |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , Patrick Turner wrote: Telamon wrote: Snip The discussion has everything to do with listening to the BCB, and radio theory. If you would spend time reading the group you would see the several cross posted threads don't mesh well with rec.radio.shortwave. The group is generally about listening to SW, BCB and sometimes long wave. There is discussions about radios specifications, antennas and receiving challenges. Other topics revolve around the programming or hearing pirates and the like. Yes the group goes off topic a lot on what people listen to on short wave. There is no good reason to cross post these threads to three groups. I think you are outnumbered. Talks on BCB receiver designs cannot be bad for all three groups IMHO. I don't care about your opinion and did not ask for it. I don't care if other people posting from the other rec.antiques.radio+phono or rec.audio.tubes think as you do. I'm not interested in a debate about cross posting. I have made a repeated, polite requests for this to stop so are you guys from rec.antiques.radio+phono or rec.audio.tubes going to behave or not? Please respond as to whether you will stop or not that's all I want to know. This is it guys I'm not asking again. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
= = = (John Byrns) wrote in message
= = = ... In article , (RHF) wrote: = = = (John Byrns) wrote in message = = = ... In article , Telamon wrote: In article , wrote: In rec.antiques.radio+phono Telamon wrote: I've been reading it from here to and I'm not happy. Maybe you should not read it instead of trying to speak for people that don't want you to speak for them. Oh come on now and be a good net citizen and not cross post. If cross posting is bad net citizenship why is it a feature of usenet in the first place? Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ JB, Cross-Posting is like the Coloring Book and Crayons "Test" for 5 Year Old 'little' Boys. The ones that can Color-within-the-Lines are consider "AT" Grade. [ Normal Development. ] The ones that 'scribble everywhere' are identified for special attention and/or medication. The "Test" is given again in various forms at 8, 11 and 14 Years of Age to little Boys. Many of the ones who still refuse to Color-within-the Lines by Age 14 can be found in a Juvenile Custody Facility. {Lack of Self-Control and/or Acting Out Anti-Social Behavior} ~ RHF So what you are saying is that Usenet is some kind of giant testing facility for boys past the age of 14, else why have the cross posting facility in the first place? What about little girls, do they get a free pass? Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ JB, Cross Posting is just one simple outlet for some to 'act-out' Non-Violent Anti-Social Behavior ) ~ RHF .. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FCC: Broadband Power Line Systems | Policy | |||
Drake TR-3 transceiver synthesizer upgrade | Homebrew | |||
Drake TR-3 transceiver synthesizer upgrade | Homebrew | |||
a page of motorola 2way 2 way portable and mobile radio history | Policy | |||
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? | Antenna |