I had one of those, it was called an IC150...
If memory serves me Peter mcGrath sold a ML pre-amp at the time for 2K , I paid 600 bucks for a used C22 back then..
Median wages are past flat today , they are Barber Greene ....
Not that it matters to the high end, one of yesterdays comments applies in that the competition is whatever the dot-com hipsters are into these days. In SF $300-$400 pre-fix + wine restaurants are fully booked even on Tuesday night. Actually wine is sort of out now, far higher margins on fancy cocktails. Even more over the top entertainment dollars spent in Chicago, NY, LA, etc. Speaking of Chitown poor Charlie Trotter, at least I got in one visit (but it cost me).
Last edited:
The highend $$$ has done great , the last 5 yrs best ever, you should come out with a 5K chip with gold pins...
Might be interesting with a complimentary FET pair in DC series with valve cascode. Would give some second cancellation and the valve's high output voltage capacity. (p-channels' drain to V- and n-channel's drain to valve's cathode).
It's surprising you could get a patent on the Rush cascode, but there ya go.
Thanks, as always,
Chris
Last edited:
Circa 5k in the gate of the IP JFET and 100k in the zero OP amp - input did not help matters either.
Lots of other strange things going on.
Very idiosyncratic in my view, but there ya go! If it makes you feel good . .
Don't tell me your wife stops at the Lancome counter...
LOL - you clearly understand !
and my wife's daughter is a spokes person for Lancome and others. She does not have to buy any of the stuff... but also dont use most of it because it is so bad for you to put on your skin.
-RM
A friend of mine is in that business. Says he: 'as long as there's water coming out of the spigot, I'm in business'.
Jan
Thank you Dave for posting your measurement results.
The Ls plot seems OK to me but the Rs plot doesn’t fit the scenario of eddy current induced at the nearby metals. The D plot does fit this scenario.
The C plot is indeed strange. Proximity with metal should raise the capacitance of a cable. This is known and verified from metal shielding RF circuits and components.
I am starting to suspect that within the “Three foot clearance all around the free hanging cable” there was an invisible alcladed Martian keeping notes of your strange -for a human- behaviour.
Oh boy. There are so many things that have to be characterised just for to do a bunch of measurements. I hope you don’t take it as an offence.
You can tease me as much and harder when I will start posting my plots.
George
Hi George,
The original measurements behind those graphs were taken several years back while working on cables for shunt comparison applications. It would be a bit too time consuming right now to re-run the entire plot for Rs but I can vouch that I did many measurements between many cable changes and the Rs measurements were always consistent and repeatable. It wasn't too much trouble to set up and retest the capacitance at a single frequency - just as before it dropped by ~1pf per foot at 1kHz when I lay it back across the same bench vs. free air. I even checked to see if it was the fixture on vs. off the bench with no significant contribution found there.
To be fair, it is impossible to know exactly how the cable was positioned on the bench back then to accurately recreate the original test setup. I did move it around to a number of different positions and all had essentially the same result. The capacitance goes down when on the bench.
Invisible Martians aside, "of your strange -for a human- behavior" cracks me up. Very true. It is a pain to do all of those open/short calibrations while being careful to not move the fixture or cable any more than necessary to avoid skewing the data. No one in their right mind looks forward to endless connection changes like that.
No offence taken. You're absolutely right about the setup. I even built a fixture that allowed very low and repeatable contact resistance between calibration and cable switches because it was not repeatable without it.
I wont be too hard on you... I am looking forward to seeing your data!
It's interesting how native English speakers use "complimentary" instead complementary so often.
True.
There instead of their
Alot instead of a lot (a common mistake I noted in England)
Quiet instead of quite
However, I make loads of mistakes, and that's why, even after using the spelling and grammar checker, it pays to have a different at of eyes look at a document.
The other option is to come back a few weeks later and re- read a document you have written - the mistakes really jump out then.
There instead of their
Alot instead of a lot (a common mistake I noted in England)
Quiet instead of quite
However, I make loads of mistakes, and that's why, even after using the spelling and grammar checker, it pays to have a different at of eyes look at a document.
The other option is to come back a few weeks later and re- read a document you have written - the mistakes really jump out then.
Because there is no spell checker to check the context and ask you which you really want (at least I don't have one). When doing work in video my copy of Word always wanted to substitute chiromancer for chrominance.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.