Re: C-Audio schematic?

Phil Allison wrote:

> "Eeysore Steaming Great Pommy ****wit "
>
> >> So you say that because it's an audio amp any oscillations in the amp
> >> have to be
> >> related to audio - IE supersonic rather than radio frequency?
> >>
> >
> > Except that *SUPERSONIC* means something else entirely.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic
>
> ** See:
>
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supersonic
>
> http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/supersonic
>
> You ignorant, ****ing TWAT !!!!
>
> > I accidentally used the term once myself here when I meant ultrasonic
and
> > Phil gave
> > me no end of trouble over it.
>
> **  Entirely false.
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound
>
> ** Ultrasound refers only to sound waves.
>
> > Is the one you want, but most techs call oscillation in 50-100kHz+ or
so
> > region
> > 'RF'.
>
> ** Entirely false.
>
> The term is  "supersonic oscillation"  -  it has been part of audio
> electronics terminology since the 1930s or longer.
>
> Williamson used it in his famous 1947 paper:
>
>
http://www.dc-daylight.ltd.uk/Valve-Audio-Interest/Articles-for-the-Web/Williamson-Amplifier-1947/Williamson-WW-May-1947.html
>
> The only "techs" that might use "RF" instead are completely incompetent
> jerk-offs like Graham Stevenson who came down in the last shower and
were
> raised on computer terminology.

Clutching at 1947 straws now ?

Graham