sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Chris <cbx@noreply.com>: Nov 09 09:51AM Hi all,   Without venturing into 'stupid money territory' the best quality audio by far I've ever heard came from one particular solid state stereo amplifier I'd be interested in re-acquainting myself with. Unfortunately I can't recall the make or model number which is obviously a big barrier to the desired reunion. However, if I mention some scant details I *do* remember about it, maybe it will jog someone's memory. What I _do_ recall is the following:-   It wasn't a Technics branded amp but neither was it one of the budget brands. It wasn't of European manufacture (I'm pretty sure it was Japanese). It was the standard "separates" size of the late eighties/early nineties and I owned one briefly 16 years ago so it can't be any later than 2003 and probably much earlier. It had an all black finish. It was only 60W per channel but punched above its weight in this respect and produced _the_ most outstanding sound quality. It was massively heavy on one side so must have had a _very_ substantial transformer for such a relatively low power amp. It had an unusual (and very cool) feature I'd never seen before or since which hopefully will identify it: a quite small volume knob with a little red LED on one edge of it which lit-up and physically rotated whenever the remote control unit's volume button was activated.   Does that ring any bells with anyone? I wouldn't mind trying to find another one!

bje@ripco.com: Nov 09 11:01AM > which hopefully will identify it: a quite small volume knob with a little > red LED on one edge of it which lit-up and physically rotated whenever > the remote control unit's volume button was activated.     Pretty vague.   There were probably other companies but Yamaha had several in the "Natural Sound" series (that name is probably generic) that had motor driven mechanical remote-controled volume controls.   They also were lopsided with weight balance.   "produced _the_ most outstanding sound quality" is subjective and could apply to 1000's of receivers along with the power rating.   Thats the best I can come up with.   -bruce bje@ripco.com

John-Del <ohger1s@gmail.com>: Nov 09 03:09AM -0800 On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 4:51:34 AM UTC-5, Chris wrote: > about it, maybe it will jog someone's memory. > What I _do_ recall is the following:-   > It had an all black finish.   Well, most receivers and separate amplifiers of the 90s through the 2000s were black, so that's not much help...     > It was massively heavy on one side so must have had a _very_ substantial > transformer for such a relatively low power amp.   All receivers/amplifiers from that era had a 50/60hz power transformer, which meant weight. Every one I've ever worked on had the transformer mounted on one side, so any receiver of that era would list one way or the other.     > which hopefully will identify it: a quite small volume knob with a little > red LED on one edge of it which lit-up and physically rotated whenever > the remote control unit's volume button was activated.   There were several receivers/amplifiers that were remote controlled had the same feature. I remember some Sonys, Luxmans,   > Does that ring any bells with anyone? I wouldn't mind trying to find > another one!   What pops in my head is Yamaha or Denon. They made a lot of relatively lowered powered receivers and amps during those years, and they sounded pretty good, but I don't recall any real standouts in sound quality in the typical consumer level of components. The Luxman would be the best sounding I guess but they were more money. I wonder if the sound you remember was more a function of the speakers you used with the amp, not the amp itself.   But I've seen a Sonys, Pioneers, JVC, Technics, Onkyo, etc. with all black cabinets, heavy on one side, and a probably a red LED in the motorized volume control.

Mike Coon <gravity@mjcoon.plus.com>: Nov 09 11:22AM In article <qq6273$bug$1@dont-email.me>, cbx@noreply.com says... > the remote control unit's volume button was activated.   > Does that ring any bells with anyone? I wouldn't mind trying to find > another one!   I still have my JVC amp/receiver/cassette with rotating & flashing volume control. But clearly not the same as your recollection!   Mike.

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Nov 09 03:35AM -0800 Chris wrote:   > Hi all,   ( bloody cross poster !!)     From sci.electronics.design:     ** Might it be a Proton AM30 or similar ??   https://archiwum.allegro.pl/oferta/integrated-amplifier-proton-am-30-2x80w-better-nad-i7105457465.html   Lotsa weight on LH side, 80wpc, all black, simple, very good specs and almost a top name brand.     .... Phil

Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com>: Nov 09 12:28PM On Sat, 09 Nov 2019 11:22:26 +0000, Mike Coon wrote:   > I still have my JVC amp/receiver/cassette with rotating & flashing > volume control. But clearly not the same as your recollection!   JVC certainly rings a bell... But this was only an amplifier.         -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com>: Nov 09 12:31PM On Sat, 09 Nov 2019 12:28:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:     >> I still have my JVC amp/receiver/cassette with rotating & flashing >> volume control. But clearly not the same as your recollection!   > JVC certainly rings a bell... But this was only an amplifier.   And on the one I had, the LED was a different colour (green IIRC).       -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Al <iqbalali898@noreply.com>: Nov 09 12:40PM On Sat, 09 Nov 2019 11:01:32 +0000, bje wrote:   > "Natural Sound" series (that name is probably generic) that had motor > driven mechanical remote-controled volume controls.   > They also were lopsided with weight balance.   got to be a Pioneer shirley? They made some massive knobs with lights that wekt around but usually never in black.

Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net>: Nov 09 07:46AM -0500 On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 09:51:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris <cbx@noreply.com> wrote:   >the remote control unit's volume button was activated.   >Does that ring any bells with anyone? I wouldn't mind trying to find >another one!   Crown had made some low THD amps back in the 80's I had a summer gig at Picker, that used them to test position transducers.   Cheers

Dan Green <dgomnipot@hotmail.es>: Nov 09 02:29PM On Sat, 09 Nov 2019 07:46:17 -0500, Martin Riddle wrote:   > Crown had made some low THD amps back in the 80's I had a summer gig at > Picker, that used them to test position transducers.   Any other pointless reminiscences you'd care to share?

HW <none@no.no>: Nov 09 12:42PM +0100 On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 04:24:20 -0800 (PST), John-Del <ohger1s@gmail.com> wrote:   >tooth damage as well, so if you get it to work it will thump   I am guessing the tooth damage came first. The repeated hammering each time the tooth skipped, caused the gear to crack.

John Doe <always.look@message.header>: Nov 09 04:38AM I agree, stun guns are silly. You may as well carry a 9 V battery and ask them to stick out their tongue.   Besides a real gun, I carry a Mace Pepper Gun. They say people who are of a certain mental state can handle pepper spray. That may be true, but most people cannot fight unless they can breath. Pepper spray is NASTY stuff.

Alex Borroughs <alexb@att.net>: Nov 08 12:25PM -0500 I've been looking for a cheap, possibly DIY solder smoke solution. I did see the device here that someone shared, but it appears to use water and it looks like he's adding the carbon later. I had hoped for something simpler, then I came across this:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH5APw_SLUU     My local home improvement store has this filter:   https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00TUDHPS8/ref=twister_B07YT5F24V?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1     That particular filter, although somewhat expensive (MERV=12), is supposed to remove smoke along with a host of other pollutants. It looks like there are one or two filters also available at even higher MERV ratings, but more expensive and I wanted the cheapest alternative that would still take care of the smoke. Using a filter like this in front of the box fan and placing near my soldering area would no doubt suck in the smoke, but what about the effectiveness? Anyone ever try it or use this method? Also, as I wouldn't be running the combination all the time, it should last a lot longer than 3 months.   Thanks.

"pfjw@aol.com" <peterwieck33@gmail.com>: Nov 08 09:58AM -0800 That would certainly clear the smoke out of a room, but I think it misses the point of a smaller device that could be directed to a specific location. A fan of that size takes up considerable real-estate, makes a good deal of noise, and cannot be easily directed.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com>: Nov 08 10:17AM -0800 On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:25:02 -0500, Alex Borroughs <alexb@att.net> wrote:   >or use this method? Also, as I wouldn't be running the combination all >the time, it should last a lot longer than 3 months.   >Thanks.   How would you know if it works?   --   John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement   jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Alex Borroughs <alexb@att.net>: Nov 08 01:18PM -0500 > That would certainly clear the smoke out of a room, but I think it misses the point of a smaller device that could be directed to a specific location. A fan of that size takes up considerable real-estate, makes a good deal of noise, and cannot be easily directed.   > Peter Wieck > Melrose Park, PA   Quite right. I liked the smaller unit posted here recently, but he's using watered down filters. I had hoped to avoid that mess, plus he says they take a long time to dry. If dry layers could have been used instead, that would have been a winner for me, but I don't know enough about it.   I liked the box fan-filter idea because it was so simple. True, it will take up a lot more space then the other device, but I can have it ready in a pinch and not worrying about drying out afterwards.

Alex Borroughs <alexb@att.net>: Nov 08 01:23PM -0500 On 11/8/19 1:17 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> the time, it should last a lot longer than 3 months.   >> Thanks.   > How would you know if it works?   The best way I know how might be to try burning something smoky like incense for a few minutes and see if the smell clears the room. I know that's probably not the best way. I was relying more on filter specs than anything else. That seemed to be the lowest strength that filtered smoke also.

Steve Wilson <no@spam.com>: Nov 08 06:49PM >>the time, it should last a lot longer than 3 months.   >>Thanks.   > How would you know if it works?   I use a pair of Dylos Pro Particle counters:   http://www.dylosproducts.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIwurowqDb5QIVAY_ICh3nzwtYEAA YASAAEgIPRfD_BwE   One at the input of the filter, one at the output.   Ordinarily, particle counters are useless for home use since they cannot distinguish between organic particles such as dust mite excretement, cat dander, etc., and harmless mist from taking a shower or cooking.   However, a pair of particle counters are excellent at determing the effectiveness of a filter.

"pfjw@aol.com" <peterwieck33@gmail.com>: Nov 08 11:23AM -0800 On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 1:18:57 PM UTC-5, Alex Borroughs wrote:   > says they take a long time to dry. If dry layers could have been used > instead, that would have been a winner for me, but I don't know enough > about it.   The water-filters increase the efficiency of the filters used. There are any number of dry carbon-filters that would also do the trick, and there are any number of methods to treat the water so that mold/mildew would not form in the filters. My concerns with a simple particle filter are as follows:   a) Particle filters (MERV-13) are useless against gasses, odors and pretty much useless against micro-contaminants (smaller than one (1) Micron. b)The components of solder-rosin smoke that are (sometimes) harmful would pass right through it. c) Footprint - no matter how large a bench one has, there is always just a little bit too-little room on it.   https://www.digikey.com/en/product-highlight/a/apex-tool-group/wsa350-smoke-absorber?utm_adgroup=xGeneral&slid=&gclid=CjwKCAiAwZTuBRAYEiwAcr67OWVP14Ng285ePVKo_gxZuLUmWGEVA9JBroBt_3iUslC77NDd8jZPYxoCyHkQAvD_BwE   Depending on how much your time is worth, this would solve the problem once and for all at a not-ridiculous cost.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

Alex Borroughs <alexb@att.net>: Nov 08 02:35PM -0500 On 11/8/19 1:49 PM, Steve Wilson wrote: > dander, etc., and harmless mist from taking a shower or cooking.   > However, a pair of particle counters are excellent at determing the > effectiveness of a filter.   Great idea until I saw the price, ouch, but probably the no doubt best way.

Alex Borroughs <alexb@att.net>: Nov 08 02:39PM -0500 > .... and there are any number of methods to treat the water so that mold/mildew would not form in the filters.   Well, if I didn't have to remove, wash and dry the filters each time in the device Horton used, how would I go about treating the water to prevent mold build up?       > https://www.digikey.com/en/product-highlight/a/apex-tool-group/wsa350-smoke-absorber?utm_adgroup=xGeneral&slid=&gclid=CjwKCAiAwZTuBRAYEiwAcr67OWVP14Ng285ePVKo_gxZuLUmWGEVA9JBroBt_3iUslC77NDd8jZPYxoCyHkQAvD_BwE   > Depending on how much your time is worth, this would solve the problem once and for all at a not-ridiculous cost.   I will check this out, thank you.

"pfjw@aol.com" <peterwieck33@gmail.com>: Nov 08 12:28PM -0800 Understand two things first. The filters are to be kept DAMP, not saturated. So, there is not a lot of water in there in the first place. I expect that they would dry out (in a normal interior climate) before the 'grew' in any case - much as the sponge on your tip-cleaner if you use that method. Second, any filter you use will either need to be cleaned or replaced with some frequency depending on use.   With that in mind, synthetic filters are not attacked by most common solvents and disinfectants. So, one tablespoon of household bleach per pint of water, a 10% solution of isopropyl alcohol and water, two jiggers of vodka per pint of water, a teaspoon of borax per pint of water and so on all would take care of any growth issues.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

Alex Borroughs <alexb@att.net>: Nov 08 03:32PM -0500 > Understand two things first. The filters are to be kept DAMP, not saturated. So, there is not a lot of water in there in the first place. I expect that they would dry out (in a normal interior climate) before the 'grew' in any case - much as the sponge on your tip-cleaner if you use that method. Second, any filter you use will either need to be cleaned or replaced with some frequency depending on use.   Got it.     > With that in mind, synthetic filters are not attacked by most common solvents and disinfectants. So, one tablespoon of household bleach per pint of water, a 10% solution of isopropyl alcohol and water, two jiggers of vodka per pint of water, a teaspoon of borax per pint of water and so on all would take care of any growth issues.   All I have is Everclear and of course rubbing alcohol here, so one will do!   > Peter Wieck > Melrose Park, PA   Thank you. I think what Horton posted is what I will go with after all.

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.