Actually there has been good research on that. The only reason it is still touted as the great mystery is that mystery sells.
If you ever watch the expert on any subject interviewed by a TV show and then watch what airs it is very educational. Typical interview is: Statement of credentials, Review of the mystery and then The likely educated answer. Guess what gets edited out? Of course if the answer is aliens did it, or some other nonsense it stays in.
The pyramids were made of a base material that is crumbling now, but used to be completely covered with a capstone that was much harder.
At one site they found an obelisk that was being formed but broke so it was never finished being excavated. They also found a number of the tools used.
And of course there was the fellow who looked at the composition of the base stone and found if you mixed the ingredients with water you got a material similar to concrete. So if you can make square or cubical form work what shape would the resulting building be? Much trickier to make other form shapes.
Now the Sphinx is a different issue! No capstones.
Or just for Scott, the pyramid technology was spread by the Atlanteans when Atlantis flooded. They were the successors to the Lemurians who had the same role in the previous cycle of civilization. The Lemurians followed the Hyperborians from the prior cycle.
Of course this is so easily proven by the left over Lemurian eggs!
But then some nonsense is actually silly enough most people can figure out when they are being had!
Last edited:
OK everyone, let us read EXACTLY what I said: "After all, I had just designed a mixing board with Radiation Inc's RA911's. You know, the company where you got the topology to make your AD797 in the '90's." I DIDN'T say that the RA911 had the SAME topology as the AD797, I said that the COMPANY produced a design that had the SAME topology as the AD797 for the most part. SY knows this, he put it up, on this website, in the past.
Last edited:
Look I don't know what is upsetting everyone. First, I gave a capsule history of audio measurement, then pointed out some potential pitfalls with 'modern' measurements that are now available to just about anybody. I speak from experience, using the 'wisdom' of some of those who came before me. IF anyone here would read Richard Heyser's Anthology that is published by the AES, you would find what I am saying here, put forth by Richard Heyser, in principle, published 35 years ago. In my considered opinion, Richard was way ahead of his time. The only other person I was ever acquainted with, who thought at his level, was Michael Gerzon.
Actually Harris started out making printing equipment, paper cutters I think, they bought lots of folks. Appears there is just not much business making type anymore.
The company history says the first successful product was a sheet feeder.
Last edited:
I will amend my last speculation: Looking at the HISTORY of Harris and Radiation Inc., I find that Harris Intertype (a mechanical company) purchased Radiation Inc in the late '60's. However, when I first designed with their product in 1970, they still used 'Radiation Inc' as their name for their IC's and as I recall, the first name that I worked with was the RA911 or RA2911. Later, apparently when they merged with other semiconductor companies, they changed everything to Harris. This is where you will find some of the most exotic IC's that also include topologies similar to modern devices, including differential folded cascode input stage, current mirror load and buffered follower output stage. (seem familiar?) They even made a complementary differential input stage for their really fast stuff. Very advanced for an IC company. Of course, by then, we had gone on to complementary differential jfets, and they have never duplicated that in an IC to the best of my knowledge.
The topology is strictly the same, we re not talking of the absolute perfs,
or use of fets at the inputs..
As for audio history, well i think that this schematic is very useful to
trace some integrated audio gears designs origins...
I do not know if you can call that commercial but my FPS i described in Linear Audio Vol.0 is all balanced, in to out including the RIAA. It is availlable as a Half Kit from Pilgham Audio. What i found quite nice is that a twisted pair of solid core cable is all it needed to get the humm away. I also have a balanced phono stage from Horwege that has a balanced input, this time with an INA163. It shows the same hum bucking action. As concerned about sound i do not think that they sound any better then an unbalanced stage but they are easier to use when you got humm problems. The main disadvantage is 3dB more noise with the same amount of input devices but that has being beaten to death here before. A good transformer has it both though but again this devides into fans and haters too.
Balanced input, for me, is rather trivial, but it makes for easier design, and is always noisier. In my experience, single ended works just as well, and it is quieter, as far as input noise is concerned, unless you get balanced with an input transformer. Then, you have all the problems, real or imagined, of any input transformer, and they are numerous.
Not at all, unless you are subjectively happy with transformers and willing to pay for them, and good ones are NOT cheap. We designed out transformers, 40 years ago, for good reason. They were redundant, expensive, and potential added eddy current noise, as well as DCR noise. This did NOT mean that they could not be useful, or even necessary in some situations. However, their need is overrated by many. Up to this time, I am not using any input or output transformers in my audio designs, including phono, line, power amps, mixing boards, or master analog recorders, to name a selection of successful products over the last few decades.
I am not going to compare 'apples' to 'oranges'. Just yesterday, I struggled to make 1nV/rtHz from 4 quality low noise jfets in differential input mode.
Had it been single ended, 0.5nV would have been achieved with the same devices. This is just a matter of engineering tradeoffs. Take your choice.
Hum pickup is almost always avoidable by intelligent placement of the hum SOURCES relative to the phono cartridge and phono connecting cables. For a short run of a meter, or so, I have never had any problems. However, if, for example, one had to locate the phono turntable at some distance, such as another room, perhaps because of WAF or to reduce acoustic feedback, then balanced could be relatively useful, with the tradeoff of 3 dB more hiss in the midrange. That is the tradeoff, without using a transformer. Of course, IF you use a transformer, then balanced comes for free, without this tradeoff. You then get other tradeoffs, previously discussed at length on this website on the Blowtorch thread. The deeper I looked, the more problems I found. Subjectively, I must admit that transformers can sometimes make a marginal environment into a very good one, by getting rid of ground loops, RFI, and even input noise. However, I never found one that didn't either measure fairly poorly at low frequencies or have an audible sound quality (as expressed by the designers, themselves), take your choice.
Had it been single ended, 0.5nV would have been achieved with the same devices. This is just a matter of engineering tradeoffs. Take your choice.
Hum pickup is almost always avoidable by intelligent placement of the hum SOURCES relative to the phono cartridge and phono connecting cables. For a short run of a meter, or so, I have never had any problems. However, if, for example, one had to locate the phono turntable at some distance, such as another room, perhaps because of WAF or to reduce acoustic feedback, then balanced could be relatively useful, with the tradeoff of 3 dB more hiss in the midrange. That is the tradeoff, without using a transformer. Of course, IF you use a transformer, then balanced comes for free, without this tradeoff. You then get other tradeoffs, previously discussed at length on this website on the Blowtorch thread. The deeper I looked, the more problems I found. Subjectively, I must admit that transformers can sometimes make a marginal environment into a very good one, by getting rid of ground loops, RFI, and even input noise. However, I never found one that didn't either measure fairly poorly at low frequencies or have an audible sound quality (as expressed by the designers, themselves), take your choice.
I would like to follow up on message #186 where I mentioned Radiation Inc, the company that I first knew, because of its superior IC's back in 1970. Apparently, sometime before September 1971, Radiation Inc changed its spec. sheets to Harris Semiconductor.
In Sept. 1971, they released a VERY INTERESTING op amp called: HA-2600 (series). I do not know IF they make them today, but these devices have a very interesting and 'modern' schematic that looks very much like some IC's today in many general respects. The ONLY problem area that I see is NOISE, because they do NOT specify it, so it is probably relatively lousy. This would be a very interesting design to describe here in detail, as it 'could' modified to be the optimum JC-3 IC front end, if we get the noise down, yet keep or improve its other specifications. Can anyone find the data sheet for this part, and put it up for discussion? I just found it, and I can scan it, if necessary, but I can't post it directly, without help.
In Sept. 1971, they released a VERY INTERESTING op amp called: HA-2600 (series). I do not know IF they make them today, but these devices have a very interesting and 'modern' schematic that looks very much like some IC's today in many general respects. The ONLY problem area that I see is NOISE, because they do NOT specify it, so it is probably relatively lousy. This would be a very interesting design to describe here in detail, as it 'could' modified to be the optimum JC-3 IC front end, if we get the noise down, yet keep or improve its other specifications. Can anyone find the data sheet for this part, and put it up for discussion? I just found it, and I can scan it, if necessary, but I can't post it directly, without help.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.