This is effectively a power factor problem. There's a fix, though it converts the power supply into a (partial) switching supply with its high frequency stuff that can be harder to filter than 60/120Hz. This makes the charging of the capacitor spread over the whole waveform, preventing that flattop at the peak line voltage.
This is for the input of a switching supply, but you can do the same thing after the secondary and bridge of a traditional big transformer:
Power Supply Design Basics: Active Power Factor Correction | Nuvation Engineering
If you do this you might as well replace the big transformer and big caps with a switching supply, but then you'd have to add bricks to give it the heft of a True High-Power Power Amplifier.
You are right, I don't know what is a class, I don't know what is a method, what is an event, what is a property, what is an interface, what is a delegate, what is the inheritance, what is a service, what is a web service, what is a WCF, a collection, a list of objects, a component, a semaphore, a watch dog, a pointer, a DLL, a framework and so on.
I wonder how I was able to interface GPIB instrument, PLC, DB, SOAP, JSON and so on.
I've been writing random software code for years, just like the one in the attached picture.
However, I feel more comfortable when I write source code for a Rochester's machine like in the second picture.
Because I have not to restart the OS several times a day.
I wonder if you understand what I'm writing.
Attachments
I said with all due respect. He's not really due any. You can call me whatever you like, I'm good with that.
At the end of the day, he's some random IT guy that thinks he is special because he can write an ugly Winforms app and prepared SQL statements.
No one asked him to stalk syn08's posts, dig one up from over a month ago, and rant on software development (which he appears to be a rank amateur at). Anyone putting forth the arguments he has in this thread is incredibly naive.
Last edited:
Thanks Mark, but that's not a problem, I'm used to being insulted.
It is the favorite sport of those who have no arguments.
In fact, I am not capable of developing software, several companies have paid me for years to do it (as well as they currently pay me), but obviously I am a cheat.
And now we also have the judge who tells us if an application is beautiful or ugly, maybe we need a measurement, the feedback from the users does not matter (like the listening).
I actually like* FORTH for one of it's intended goals, being control of simple machines. Some of the research implementations I have read about scare me horribly as I would not want to try anything hard with it. ColourForth scares me.
*And I accept that marks me as a deviant.
A PDP8 would certainly count, but I will give you a pass!
The problem with hand toggling is that the display indicating line number or such was with incandescent lamps, so when one failed you might load the loader incorrectly. Of course changing the lamp usually resulted in others failing.
Anyone else here ever used a vacuum tube computer?
It's your claim, not mine.
For me every DAC sounds different.
Your words:
"Every level matched double blind listening test I've read about show no audible difference between expensive and cheap contemporary DACs."
Last edited:
To you, "there is no difference between expensive and cheap contemporary DACs" and "Every level matched double blind listening test I've read about show no audible difference between expensive and cheap contemporary DACs." are the same. Like I explained before, your language barrier is to blame. And you wrote "Your barrier is that you don't know what you write"
It's funny that you still haven't asked how many none level matched none double blind listening test I've read about.
I didn't start with binary (couldn't afford an Altair or IMSAI) but my first computer was a single-board kit w/ 8080 CPU. It had an octal keypad, which was a natural for that processor since the 3-digit numbers aligned perfectly with a lot of the register etc. callouts in its instruction set. as many of you might remember. It wasn't long before I had the instruction set memorized, since it was easy to recall the basic opcode, then plug the register values into the remaining 1 or 2 octal numbers.
Next was another single board kit w/ a Z80, which used an extension of the 8080 instruction set. However, this thing had a hexadecimal keypad! Completely screwed up my game; very frustrating. I thought about remapping it to the old familiar octal arrangement, but never got around to it, finally moving on to higher level languages, whereupon I had to actually learn to type (still working on that part).
Yes, "difference" and "audible difference" are exactly the same.
What difference we are looking for?
Weight, color, size?
I don't think, we are only looking for "audible difference".
When you write "Every level matched double blind listening test I've read about" you are subscribing the claim.
Otherwise you should write "I will do my tests to understand the difference between cheap and expensive DACs, then I will claim my results. For the while I don't know".
But if the favorite sport of those like you is insulting me and Mark (and also JC), your second favorite one is it is to borrow the opinions of others, just copy and paste.
My first "personal" computer was an Ohio Scientific Superboard. It had BASIC crammed into a small (8k, 16k?) ROM, when dumped a few bytes at the end were used for copyright Bill Gates and a date.
The first "computer" I built played the game of life on an o-scope screen and used a 4K magneto-strictive delay line as memory and nothing but 7400 series TTL.
The first "computer" I built played the game of life on an o-scope screen and used a 4K magneto-strictive delay line as memory and nothing but 7400 series TTL.