concerning theory : purely resistive circuits and frequency.
tonequester here.
In trying to understand electronics theory better, a question has come to mind. This may be a very elemental question(s) with a simple answer, but please bear with me. I understand that resistance increases with an increase in frequency. Why then, is it that a common modification made to volume controls on an electric guitar
is to place a .001 cap across the input and output legs of the volume pot so that higher frequencies can by-pass the pot. This being done to compensate for loss of treble when turning the volume down. This has been said to occur more noticeably(treble loss) with log, or audio pots than with linear pots(which have their own reasons for not
being good choices for volume pots). Any explanations of opinions are greatly appreciated. Thanks. tonequester.
Where do you understand that from? Resistance is not reactive and has no frequency component. There must be more to the concept you propose.I understand that resistance increases with an increase in frequency.
A cap across a volume control is what we often refer to as a brightness cap.
Education is what you're left with after you have forgotten what you have learned.
That is not necessarily true. Some will say “not true at all” depending on how you interpret the semantics of the statement.Originally Posted by tonequester
The resistance of an ideal resistor does not change with frequency.
The “impedance” of a capacitor goes down with rising frequency and the impedance of an inductor goes up with rising frequency. The measurement units for impedance and resistance are both expressed in Ohms which can be confusing until you understand the concept of “reactance.”
All this should be well explained in the components chapter of the ARRL handbook that you purchased a while back. Give that section a read and then post more questions if needed.
Because the capacitor has a lower impedance at higher frequencies. Thus the higher frequencies find an easier path thru the volume pot / bright cap circuit. That is, until the volume pot is turned all the way up in which case there is theoretically no resistance left to bypass around and all frequencies are already passing through with minimum attenuation. By the way the bright cap value is more like 100pF which is 0.0001 µF.
Cheers,
Tom
I think maybe he means because the resistance of the pot can interact with the capacitance of the long cord you plug into the amp with making a low pass filter?
Tonequester,
A little better direction: In my 1965 version of the Radio Amateur's Handbook the chapter I referred to is "Electrical Laws and Circuits", subsection "Reactance."
Cheers,
Tom
Austin, that is why I asked, because by itself the statement he made is not correct. If it is in the context of combining with cable capacitance, all well and good, as long as we specify that as a condition.
Education is what you're left with after you have forgotten what you have learned.
To begin with, the post title refers toso there's no way to guess otherwise.purely resistive circuits
Juan Manuel Fahey
If we literally want totally pure resistance we are in for a difficult quest. Even a short bond wire has inductance and parasitic capacitance. This is of special concern to a microwave circuit designer.
tonequester here.
Enzo. i know you don't like long replies, but after reading all of the comments I feel that I must "defend" myself. I don't write down all of my sources or I'd get nothing else done. So I Googled up some for you. First. www.furakawa.co.jp<home>r & d. Article : The Integrated New Products Family "KANZACC" of Kyowa Wire Co.,ltd. "KANZACC anga" Sulphuration Resistant Silver Plating Film. Figure 9., Frequency-Resistance graph(plotting 2 conductors) The graph shows resistance increasing with frequency. A quite noticeable increase at 10khz, and hugh increase at 100khz. I figured a wire company might be a fair source. I realize that the 10khz is above the range of a 24 fret guitar, including it's 2nd and 3rd order harmonics, ....but still. Second, www.analog.com/library/analoguedialogue/ard. Under Figure 12.31 : "The skin effect has the consequence of increasing the resistance of a conductor at high frequencies. Note also that this effect is separate from the increase in impedance due to the effects of self-induction of conductors as frequency is increased." Third : ENGINE ROOM wikipedia.org/wiki/electrical_conduct. "Another complication of AC circuits is that resistance and conductance can be frequency dependent." "One reason, mentioned above is skin effect(and the related proximity effect)." "Another reason is that resistance itself may depend on frequency(see Drude model, deep-level traps, resonant frequency, Kramer-Kronig relations atc.)".
I could list more, but in digging deeper I've determined that there is no concensus as to if this 'skin effect" makes much difference at audio frequencies or not. Some say it does, and some say it doesn't. However, it is undeniable fact that at high ENOUGH frequency, resistance increases. Even my 1957 ARRL handbook maintains that it does at radio frequencies. I wish I had
dug deeper before posting, as until doing so I had never found anything except the simple statement : Resistance increases at higher frequencies. Being totally AUDIO oriented, I just assumed higher audio frequencies. Thats what happens when you try to learn theory on your own, and on the fly at that. Mr Phillips, I believe, was on to something in his reply as he mentioned microwaves. At least I now know that R increases with fq. It probably doesn't make that much difference with an audio frequency signal, but I have not read ANYTHING
that proves that one way or another. As this was mostly a misunderstanding on my part, I would like to re-phrase the original question. I fully understand the "bright" cap and have always used one on every guitar I've owned. My ears here an improvement in treble with their use. Why...does a volume control at low volume setting "lose" treble, or brightness ?
Thanks for the replies folks, especially to Enzo for making me dig deeper. I won't forget the lesson learned. Now....about that treble loss thing??????? tonequester.
VERY short answer: forget all about skin effect.
Even the name.
Absolutely irrelevant in MI amplification.
Is that clear?
Juan Manuel Fahey
tonequester here.
Already stated as much in my last posts(2). Is THAT clear ! The point is.....the statement was CORRECT. Thanks JM.
No, the statement is in error. You specified resistance and frequency having a relationship and that premise is wrong. Resistance is a calculated parameter, not a thing. Be definition there is no time or period factor in its calculation so can't be frequency dependent.
If you search for terms and get an answer you think supports your belief, you can find anything about any subject and be totally wrong. Consider that your search and the results you got are not on point of your belief requiring you to jump to a conclusion that was in error. Making a search that is not so prone to errors requires knowing enough of the subject to be able to separate the 95% inappropriate information or just dead wrong information from relevant information.
Why not ask a direct question that you want the answer to instead making assumptions that mislead you in how to ask the question?
For example, you would be a lot less confused and have less inappropriate information if you wanted to know the purpose and function of the cap in a guitar tone network, just ask what the cap does.
When you brought in "resistance" it has a specific meaning and has nothing to do with frequency. But what you did not realize that any real circuit with a resistive element, also as inductive and capacitive reactance which are related to frequency. The values of reactance in resistors, wires and pots is low to the point that they can be ignored for low frequency applications. Skin effect also has little impact on very high frequencies in practical circuits because designers use hollow wires or tubing that has very little difference between low frequency current flow and high frequency current flow. Resistance of a conductor is directly related to cross-sectional area. Since high frequency energy tends to concentrate current flow towards the surface, there is a difference in direct current flow capacity which would flow evenly over the whole cross section and high frequency energy which would see an effective smaller cross section because the center would have less concentration of electron flow. The solution is simply to use wires or conductors which have a high surface area to diameter ratio such as a hollow tube or a flat foil where current flow concentration would be essentially the same for DC and very high frequency energy. None of this has ANYTHING to do with low frequency energy that you will be dealing with. And frequency does not relate to resistance.
tonequestr here.
Greetings km6xz. Thanks for the reply, and the thourough confusion ! (humor intended) Steve Conner replied as well. He's an electronics engineer, and he says that I am correct in my statement that resistance increases at high frequency(s). Nobody knows better than I what confusion arrises when you confer with a bunch of experts' on any subject.
I was told that if I would only check out my newly required ARRL Handbook,circa 1957 under components, that I would find this so. I quote the handbook on page 19 under skin effect :
"The resistance of a conductor is not the same for alternating current as it is for direct current." "When the corrent is alternating there are internal effects that tend to force the current to flow mostly in the outer parts of the conductor." "This decreases the cross-sectional area of the conductor, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE RESISTANCE INCREASES." (emphasis mine)
So much for the handbook, as I'm sure there were no "experts' in 1957. I now fully understand that this "effect" has no bearing on my original post, and probably has no effect on audio frequencies. I did point this out in my replies, to all of the replies on my post.. I gave examples of source material that backed up mY STATEMENT, not that I was any longer laboring under the impression that skin effect was of concern to me. I am, and have always been aware that there is no such thing as pure resistance.
There is no perfection in resistors/conductors, electronics, or anything else on God's green earth. I am also aware that when it fits their needs, men of science will make use of an impossible
entity like "pure resistance" to prove a point or to get around an obstacle. Read Steve Conner's reply and then you can correct him. I being an admitted idiot, will reply to every comment made on the outstanding posts that I have on this forum, while never making another. For every reliable piece of information I received which I could make use of from the forum, I received
double in WRONG information, bad attitude, uncouth manners, and plain old grouchiness. My time in dealing with this is too much of a waste, and tends to raise my anxiety level to an inappropriate level.I was a Master Printer for twenty years, considered an "expert" in my field. I taught and trained many who became Master Printers in their own right. I NEVER instructed
anyone in an ill-mannered or insulting way....not ONCE ! There are too many "experts' on this forum, including the guy that runs it. I've always been a seeker of knowlege. Therefore, I am not afraid to ask questions that may not be easily answered. I believe that skin effect is a whole topic that is yet to be completely understood. There is too much disagreement on the internet concerning it. If you had read my replies, you would know that I already re-phrased my original question. The question is now put forth, and I paraphrase here : Why, when a volume cotroll on a guitar is turned down, is there treble loss. My not merely rolling over on Enzo's reply, was because I could just see him thinking that I had pulled "that original statement"
out of my" posterior." I had no other intention than to prove that I had found that statement all over the web, from a variety of sources like wire/conductor manufacturers, articles about 400hz power transmission, speaker wire vendors, Wikipedia, and the list goes on. I could really care less about who is right on the subject and who is wrong. Skin effect be damned ! I have
"bigger fish to fry". One thing I won't allow if possible, is to let someone get away with denying my honesty, or questioning my motives. I came here to learn a few things, and the most important thing that I've learned is that this forum is more about inflated ego's than sharing real world knowlege on electronics. I actually would have thought that you would have checked
my reply to Enzo before complicating the matter unnecesarily by not having all of the facts of the situation, BEFORE giving yet another expert opinion. That's another thing I've discovered about this forum. opinion out numbers fact exponentially. I"ll post no longer because opinions are free anywhere you go, and the quality of the opinions you get here are so much "straw" in
my estimation. Thanks for your interest, and all of the other advice you have given me. I truly appreciate it.The next time you wish to lay down some law of physics to someone, please, get all of the correspondence, as well as facts together first. Especially when it concerns a controversial subject like Skin Effect. Nobody deserves to be talked down to, even by an expert.
tonequester.
Last edited by tonequester; 08-12-2012 at 11:40 PM. Reason: typos
Rtonequester here.
Hey Tom. I don't care about the impedance of a capacitor although I understand it well. Everybody is up in arms about my statement concerning higher resistance
at higher frequency.Tthere's no such thing as an ideal resistor. The concept is used in science when someone, usuallky an "expert" wants to qualify or quantify something that he can't do otherwise. There is nothing perfect, ideal, por absolutely pure on god's green earth. My statement stands and if you read my reply to Enzo you'll perhaps understand why. Right here on this forum, and concerniong this post we have two experts in disagreement, 180 degrees, about the subject. I,ve already stated that I now belived that Skin Effect" does not cause noticeable effects in audio apps. I will pass along another thing that I've already stated. The 1957 ARRL Handbook has this to say on page 19, under skin effect : The resistance of a conductor is not the same for alternating current as it is for direct current. When the current is alternating there are internal effects that tend to force the current to flow mostly in the outer parts of the conductor. this decreases the effective cross-sectional area of the conductor, with the result that THE RESISTANCE INCREASES my emphasis. The difference between D.C. and A.C. is that A.C. has a component known as "frequency". Steve Conner, an electronics engineer, says my statement is correct. Check my reply to Enzo for much more on this subject( a very controversial subject). I have already admitted my error in applying this to audio frequency, although I have found sources which believe that it does. I have already re-phrased my question to, and I paraphrase here : "Why does a guitar's volume pot when turned down cause treble loss." I'll leave all "experts" and those who think that they are to "hash" this one out.
No disrespect intended. thanks for the reply. tonequester.
This Forum is *so* good that your question was answered in full 6 hours *before* you asked it."Why does a guitar's volume pot when turned down cause treble loss." I'll leave all "experts" and those who think that they are to "hash" this one out.
No disrespect intended. thanks for the reply. tonequester.
How's that?
Just read post #3 on the thread
last word on my last post
It even includes answers with and without the skin effect.
And includes a Radio Amateur specific example, in the spirit of the 1957 ARRL book.
Juan Manuel Fahey
Trying to follow this & the 'last post ever'.
Why is this guys panties in a wad?
Sheesh.
(He is really fortunate that SGM did not apply his rhetoric.)
Last edited by Jazz P Bass; 08-13-2012 at 05:17 PM. Reason: spelling: rhetoric
toinequesterhere.
For your information I don't were panties, do you ? What I do wear is not in any kind of "bunch" This much is for sure... you are a late comer to this post and if you are trying to upset me in anyway, forget it. I have plenty who respond thoughtfully to my posts. I haven't time for you, or your over-generlized, under-powered opinions. Also, evidently this SGM is the forum "enforcer"(un-official). If you intend to "sick" him on me now, It's just another
excuse to find a different way to learn and share. I don''t take to threats very well. Especially as I am covered by the American Disabilities Act of 1990. I have threatened nobody here or anywhere else. Don't want to be an a__, Don't want to be treated as an a__. As I told JM Fahey, I can';t make you mad, or upset.
Only you can alow yourself to BE mad or upset. I'm just trying to let this thing die, but it isn't working. now I'll turn to a strategy that I don't like but eventually works.The complete shut out of those who insist on being negative or insulting. tonequester. P.S. Your "dog isn't in this hunt", if you intend to
have this SGM contact me, he better do his homework. I have EVERYTHING in print. Debate dose not instill fear, and only by winning does one gain respect.
Last edited by tonequester; 08-13-2012 at 04:59 AM. Reason: typostypos
Funny that you *claim*to google everything, even the most obscure things, if you *think* it may be serve you in a discussion you created .... but have not cared to google "panties in a wad".
Here, from:
Urban Dictionary: panties in a wad
1. panties in a wad
to get all upset over something trivial, as if one's underwear has rolled up into an uncomfortable ball between one's butt cheeks
-Cheri: "Did you see what he did to my iPod? I can't believe he put that song on there."
-Bobbi: "Oh don't get your panties in a wad over it, you can always take it off."
EDIT:No, you are not, you are doing your best to first, light a fire where there was none (nor there should be) and then add gasoline to it.I'm just trying to let this thing die, but it isn't working.
Juan Manuel Fahey
I am truly sorry if you took my explanation as a put down. It was not intended or worded in such a way to convey that. You made some statements that a better understanding of the facts would have benefited from being detoured from an incorrect direction.
You probably do not care now but the whole thing came from misreading or believing information on the interest that is either wrong or intentionally misleading. When I said resistance is not frequency depended in its properties it is the plain fact, believe it or not. You present a non-equivilant situation, high frequency energy, to defend a point that you believe. The point was made about cross section, it is key and you ignore that. Equal cross section, total area of current flow, results in equal resistance for DC or 1Ghz. If one conductor is 1mm in effective cross section, and another is 10mm you will see a difference measured resistance but that does not change the fact that the same cross section will have the same resistance to per unit of equal area. The problem is you introduced a variable that has nothing to do with the property of resistance.
OK, ignore posts that are made with a bit of effort, that is your choice, but please preface your questions with " I only want a popular answer, not an accurate answer" so people who care about the craft will save themselves the frustration.
There are other factors in the hf bypass besides frequency dependent gain, it has to do also with your ears. Since you do not want a real explanation here, just look up Fletcher-Munson equal-loudness contours. Loudness and volume are different concepts and change how you perceive sound relative frequency content. If that cap was not there, turning down the volume would mean your perception would suggest the sound got duller, not just quieter.
There is more to good sound and good music than internet superficial myths claim. If wrong is good enough for you, that is fine, just don't expect the results to be as you hope.
If Drew Barrymore or Jessica Alba asked me to put on some panties for some crazy wild night of partying, well of course I would.
Anyway this thread is actually rather interesting as it got me reading about something dealing with electronics that I would have never even thought of researching. Being new to learning about electronics these debates are exactly the best ways to learn some general concepts. I hope Tonequester that you see that this thread is not about you and is about the group here... You put your head on the chopping block and sometimes that can lead to confrontation if you allow that to take place. I am not saying to not defend yourself, but don't think anyone here is against you just because they don't agree. I know one thing and that is that I know nothing.
When the going gets weird... The weird turn pro!
tonequester.
JM. Are you red-faced ? Best check that B.P. I wouldn't want you to stroke out. You must be running out of "steam" for some reason, as now you are stealing othjers insults
to pour gas on the fire ! Honestly, Googling "panties in a wad"? You aren't even a talented muckracker. As I said before, I don't wear panties, and I'm the only one who could possibly know either way. So, that speculation is utterly wrong. You failed at the first definition.you also fail number two, because I'm not upset, nor have I been. Again, I'm the only one who could possibly know. Once again you have struck out, and in only two tries.Now that's an accomplishment in itself. Oh, here"s the third strike. You used the Urban dictionary to get the definition
you so very much desired. The Urban dictionary ? A man of science would have turned to Britannica at least. Maybe you should practice Googling more often, then you might not look such\a fool. You also have NO RIGHT, and NO PROOF to conclude that I am not trying to let this thing die. I did some dictionary work(and not on some cheap quality online dictionary), However, I decided not to play your adolescent GAME. Another good reason was that everytime I checked a definition which I felt suitable for you it was either utterly in bad taste, like yours was,
or it contained obscenities. Unlike you, I won't stoop to such a low level. Also, trivial IS an opinion, not a fact. Of course, you have already urinated on a number of those. Yor are "beyond"
facts. You are J M the MIGHTY. King of Argentina, probable Nobel candidate for all catagories(ecxcept Peace). You say I'm not putting an end to this, watch and learn.
NEVER again will I reply to ANYTHING that has JM Fahey attached. Find someone else to provide your perverted entertainment. If you can't find some other unfortunate on the forum.
Surely, somebody in Argentina will let you abuse them....for a goat, or perhaps a chicken. Best wishes with your personality disorder. Pass it along, that I AM ending this thing in just this manner. No useful information, any insults at all, no reply........except to say good- bye. Good-bye JM.
tonequester here.
Greetings DrGonz78, I figured that you were a man of wisdom and integrity from your replies to my posts. For once, I was right. Please, believe when i say that if iI would have known that I was about to "put my nhead non the chopping block", I would have tried to do a better job in researching, and found a better way to express my original question in "that
post". I,ve made it profusely clear that I'm a beginner in the extreme, especially concerning theory. I will no longer reply to negative posts, except to put an end to those which attempt to
insult me. I am un-insultable, but I will tell anyone so inclined as to try...a permanent good-bye. There are plenty of forum members who like you, are not on some ego trip.
I find in every aspect nof life ther are those who try to inflate themselves by deflating others. The best way to "let the air out of them is to ignore them. I look forward to further coorespondence with you, and those like you sir. Thanks very much for the message. tonequester.
Gentlemen, please un-wad your panties! Shorts, if you're offended by the concept of an all-American man wearing panties.
SGM is certainly not the forum's "enforcer". There are several moderators including Enzo, tboy and myself, who have the power to edit and delete other members' posts. We haven't had to use this on a real human (as opposed to an automated spambot) for as long as we can remember. The "disappearing posts" were not deliberately censored: they were simply thrown away by the forum software because they were entered in the wrong place. You can not make a post on the forum by replying to the notification e-mails.
Beginners have a talent for spotting the hard questions and asking them. The original questions on frequency-dependent resistance and treble bleed in guitars are quite subtle and will challenge anyone's understanding of electronics. JM suggests that it is the Thevenin resistance of the volume pot forming a low-pass filter with the guitar cord capacitance, however we just disproved that in another recent thread. What actually happens is that the series resistance introduced by the volume pot as it is turned down damps the resonant circuit formed by the pickup inductance and the cable capacitance, which is similar to what the guitar's tone pot does.
So, I suggest to tonequester that he opens a new thread in the Guitar Tech forum, clearly asking the specific question: "Why is there treble loss when the guitar volume is turned down?" Let's unwad that underwear and try again.
"Enzo, I see that you replied parasitic oscillations. Is that a hypothesis? Or is that your amazing metal band I should check out?"
tonequester here.
Greetings Steve. Glad to know about the disappearing post thing. as for re-wording the original question, I have already done just that, almost word for word as you stated.
I'll be interested to here this effect explained. I can understand some of what you say, but I haven't run across Thevenin resistance yet. If it forms a lownpass filter, I can grasp that. However, disproved later, I believe I'll let that "dog" lay. Now damping a resonant circuit caused by the interaction of inductance and capacitance at the pick-up sounds like something
I could study up on and stand a chance nof understanding. thanks for the lead, the explanation, and a shared desire to unwad that underwear. Have a great day Steve. tonequester.
Juan, do you get the impression that we are witnessing a sad psychological breakdown or mental crisis occurring in words on our screens?
He even misspelled his own nickname in several posts. Whew....
I am always surprised when people using English as a second or third language are more familiar with common phrases, grammar and usage than many native speakers. Don't take it personally, after all this, he still has it wrong.
From reading this bizarre thread, I note that only one person has made an attempt to use personal attacks and insulting comments.....and it was not you.
A comment on the use of Dictionaries.
There are *many* (surprise), some general purpose, some specialized.
For best results, the proper one must be chosen.
To begin with, "Britannica" is an Encyclopedia, not a Dictionary. Different thing.
For general purpose use searching proper British English words, one of the classic ones is recommended, can't go wrong with those made by the great Universities, Oxford or Cambridge. There are others, of course, such as Longman's.
From an American point of view, an American one may be better (duh !).
Although , say, Oxford or Longman have an American English section, you may be better served by, say, Merriam Webster.
Now, for popular, everyday speech and colloquialisms, it's better to go to a *specialized* dictionary.
In British English, you should refer to some Slang Dictionary.
Cool, but not much use in the US, since Slang is regional by definition.
So, which would be the best slang/colloquialism/urban speech Dictionary in the US?
The one that pops up consistently ahead of the pack is... Urban Dictionary !!!
Juan Manuel Fahey
Urban Dictionary is such a high-quality reputable source that it's blocked by my workplace's web filter. :-O
"Enzo, I see that you replied parasitic oscillations. Is that a hypothesis? Or is that your amazing metal band I should check out?"
Well, it *does* contain a few 4 lettered words!!!
That's why it's "Urban". Everyday casual speech.
Funny it was rated among the best 50 Web sites in the World by none less than Time Magazine
Urban Dictionary - 50 Best Websites 2008 - TIME
And what do they say about it?
They even have a special section to help Parents understand what their Kids are talking about.Forget about learning Spanish or Chinese. The language you really need to know to keep up — in the U.S. anyway — is street lingo. To stay hip, visit Urban Dictionary, which has millions of user-submitted words and definitions.
Not bad, huh?
To translate your kids' geek speak, check out the Internet Slang Dictionary & Translator, which includes the top 25 slang words that parents should know and a quiz to find out if you're clt (cool like that).
Juan Manuel Fahey
As usual, km6xz gets it right....We are indeed witnessing a sad psychological breakdown.
In tonequester's profile he states that he suffers from bi-polar disorder.At the time of that statement he said it was under control.
What we are seeing is a breakdown of that control, manifested in a classic manic phase, complete with obsessive behavior,persecution fantasies,paranoia,grandiose delusions,graphomania, anxiety etc.....I imagine it's been quite a while since he's slept.
One can only hope that he avails himself of the medical/psychological help that he needs.
The man is suffering from a serious mental illness...Compassion and understanding should be the order of the day.
To further engage him on the issues of this thread only exacerbates an already bad situation.
SG
Sorry tonequester, didn't know.
All my answers were always in good faith (as you'll notice some day) , same as answers by *all* others.
And the idea was always (sorry for repeating) to help you get the sound you dream about, which *includes* (to be fair) correcting any visible misconception you might seem to have.
Hope you feel well soon, and achieve your sound goals.
Keep in touch, remember you have a bunch of good friends here.
And please forgive friends for being a little rough sometimes, that's how friends are !!
Good luck.
Juan Manuel Fahey
TQ, way back at the start, my only intent was that we know the CONTEXT of your question. That frequency CAN have an effect on the resistance of a circuit element at SOME high frequencies is only relevant here if it is within the context of guiitar amps. SO when i asked where you knew this from, I was not casting negatives at your thoughts, I was merely asking in what setting do you ask this?
For example, making a printed circuit board for the UHF tuner in your TV set, they have to be careful not to make sharp right angle curves in the copper traces, because at those frequencies, a right engle bend in the copper acts like an inductor. But at audio frequencies, you can make all the little right angles you want. COntext matters. SO if you were to ask about the inductance of circuit board traces, unless you specified UHF frequencies, I would respond that there is no inductance to worry about, because it is assumed we are discussing guitar amps. Yes, the inductance exists, but only in contexts other than those we operate within.
Education is what you're left with after you have forgotten what you have learned.
[QUOTE=km6xz;271046]Juan, do you get the impression that we are witnessing a sad psychological breakdown or mental crisis occurring in words on our screens?
He even misspelled his own nickname in several posts. Whew....
I am always surprised when people using English as a second or third language are more familiar with common phrases, grammar and usage than many native speakers. Don't take it personally, after all this, he still has it wrong.
From reading this bizarre thread, I note that only one person has made an attempt to use personal attacks and insulting comments.....and it was not you.[/QUOTE/
As one who readily admits to giving up on America, and so choses to live in St. Petersburg your comments on my English grammer, spelling, etc., amount to so much smoke on a windy day. I have seen more poor spelling and grammer on this forum than anywhere else in my life. Much of it has been done executed by "old timers"
and self touting "experts' with much more formal education than I posess. To top things off, you are now a psychiatrist, diagnosing my mental illness. If that isn't over-blown, over-the-top ego, I don't know what could be. Another issue, is that I now understand the questioned effect(skin effect) quite well for a layman. If you kave thoroughly read ALL of my comments, I
cannot understand how you could have missed the admissions of error that I made. I admit to still being confused about the matter(especially when Steve Conner made the reply to my post telling me "flat out" that I was correct) but giving much more information, that I could not fully understand. I quickly did understand that in any case, the effect did not apply to my, or any audio situation. I re-phrased the question well before I got your advice to do so. This also makes me wonder about a "pick and choose" method of following a post. I started out , indeed taking it personally, but only because of the uncouth manner and lack of common manners of one (not you). Then I remembered
that some people exist in this world seeming to have their sole purpose in life,to be an ocassion to lift themselves up, by putting others down. You have always treated me with
good manners, and I believe good intentions. However, the post that I am now replying to, could have easily had the other guys name on it. You question my sanity, and then say "Don't take it personally". Stop for a minute and think about that." After all he still has it wrong." I don't have it either way. Electronics "experts" who definitely
know more than I do are in disagreement. Even on this forum. Even on this very post. You gave up on America. I really don't blame you for doing so. I do have a problem
with the fact that you were willing to give up your integrity, and your kindness in order to "stick with the clique", or perhaps theory, in your way of thinking is like religion or politics for so many. The mentioning of the misspelling my name was an amateurish cheap shot. this is not a spelling forum. I could cheap shot as well. How about this : You left the U.S. because you are just too intelligent to live here. Perhaps you did not get the proper credit that was OWED to you for your years of toil in the U.S.
Maybe you are a closet Communist, who chose the right time to go to St.Petersburg because there could no longer be any concequences of doing so. Any fool can be a cheap shot man. Evidently, it's not always beneath the gifted of this world either. I also notice that you go to exteme in always expressing just how better folks in St. Petersburg
are at English grammer, musical tastes, and even "the American Dream". Are you trying to convince me, or yourself. If you truly love something, you don't leave it only to "slip back" when it is your desire to "stir the pot". Don't bother to reply. I've started a list of those who's posts and replies I will never again read. It started with the "expert" who during my time on this forum, has only once posted in a non-derogatory fashion to me. That was when he found out that I had chosen to build a s.s. power amp kit which was the very one he uses(He must have been filled with GLORY to find this out). It continues with you, a man I once respected and never once thought badly of, about your re-location to St.Petersburg. The above was
merely examples of how anyone could easily think. I still don't hold it against you, but as I said, you can continue to shoot your mouth off about this "debacle", or you can be a man and drop it. The choice is yours to make. I've made mine. Start a post about just how insane I am for all it will get you. You and JM havce been 100% effectively
deleted from my existance, cares, or concerns. Good-bye and Best Wishes, tonequester. P.S. Please pardon the less than perfect form, after all, you have diagnosed me as suffering a mental breakdown before your very eyes. I'm too busy trying to put square pegs in a round hole for this crap. Finito !
tonequester here.
I have zero problems with you in any way Enzo. You have been nothing but a help to me, and i'm sorry if you thought otherwise. I also apologize for your being dragged into such a debacle. I actually understood more than you might have thought on my first reply, but I did not know that the questioned effect was not applicable to audio frequencies. In looking for some validation of what I knew I had read on a number of ocassions, I slowly learned that the effect is real, but almost never truly applicable. I will say that those who have,
led me to believe that the theory(and only the theory) does not exixts. I wouldn't have minded it at all, if I had been told that the theory is in dispute(even though it really isn't). I'm not about to get involved in that with intent to do so. However, I kind of got sucked into a pretty similar situation anyway. One thing I intend to make sure of, is that I don't learn someone's opinion as Gospel, and then find out later that it is not true. All of my life I've been told(on this forum as well) that I ask lots of hard to answer questions. I see nothing wrong with this, and will continue to do so. I'm not going to crap if I don't get the answer I suspect, an answer that I don't like, or even a wrong answer. I do, always try to verify, if it's complicated or sketchy.
The people who have attacked me personally on this issue(I'm "throwing gas on the fire" for entertainment value.," I am having a psychological breakdown, meltdown before our screens"
from a man who has no back-ground in mental illness diagnosis, and I could go on and on)are being cut-off in the manner I first should have used. I wil totally ignore their posts, and replies, to me and anybody else. they are bveing made non-entities. All of this personal attack goes against the rules of the forum as explained by the same people who now find it permissable to question my sanity in the music-forum section. Funny how those who are "full of themselves" have no problem breaking the rules. This thing will slowly die out as I say my final good-byes to those individuals, and make sure that they understand that they can't insult me when they don't exist to me. You are not on "my list' and I would always appreciate your advice and opinions. You are good at what you do because you know your S___ and because you are not egotictical. I believe that you have not forgotten that at one tome you were a "beginner".
I hope you can understand me here, as I've just been accused of being a less than perfect speller on top of everything else. I must go now, and have a good cry !
Thanks again Enzo. Have a great day ! tonequester.
Last edited by tonequester; 08-14-2012 at 07:06 PM. Reason: typo
AHEM!!!.....
You know what happens on the Internet? People whose tone of voice, facial expression, or hand gestures might permit what they say in normal conversation to be interpreted as playful, tongue in cheek, appropriately sarcastic, or even discouraged, can come across entirely differently when confined to words alone. People who have not been deliberately insulted or challenged can feel like they have. And people whom you would otherwise be happy to have as neighbour, co-worker, or seated beside you at a movie or concert, or sharing a drink with, can end up appearing like someone whom you wonder why they have not been murdered in their sleep already.
So everybody, just PLEASE back away. Assume the best of intentions of each other, even if not the greatest verbal skill. Recognize that none of the other parties is in any favoured position to know you or your intentions by anything other than what you've written, and that, just as in your actual life, words on a screen can misconvey and be misinterpreted.
So let's simmer down, put our angry words in a paper bag at the back of the cupboard, and carry on.
I've been on this forum for something like 15 years, and seen too many of these explosions. Nobody needs them, and Steve/T-boy does not need to be fielding complaints from people, or allocating time to managing such things. He's good to us, so let's be good to him.
Thank you for your cooperation.
tonequester here.
I started this post, much to my regret. I will no longer participate in it in any way, shape, or form. Anyone who wishes to show their true character by continuing
to make use of it for personlal attack, or to further inflate an abnormal ego may do so. I was warned that it is not proper forum propocol to use this part of the forum for personal
reasons. Some of those who warned me, now do the exact same thing. The regret I speak of is merely that I did not completely cut-off those who wish to perpetuate negativity.
As I said, I started the post, now I bring it to an end as far as I am concerned. I will no longer read it, and I will cetainly not respond. E-mail notifications concerning new replies to this post will be immediately deleted. For my part, I apologize for letting myself get upset about what has been said. As for any other post I might make, there are those who should easily figure out
that in no way will I interact with them on any level. I figure this may still go on for some time. This will only, in the end, show who is so obsessed as to "beat a dead horse" so to speak.
At that time, someone else's sanity may come under scrutiny. tonequester.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
12Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks