Discussion:
Need a Power Amp? GNU/Linux Has It!
(too old to reply)
F. Russell
2017-03-22 23:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Do you desire a world-class, high-end, power audio amplifier
but just cannot afford the $5000 to $10,000 price?

Well, my friend, do not despair. Such an amplifier can be
obtained for about $30 in parts plus the DIY labor.

THIRTY FUCKING DOLLORS for a world-class, high-end power audio
amplifier!!! How is that possible?

It is, my friend, the magic of the electronics revolution.

Note that there are on this group certain "professional" assholes
who will now have their face rubbed into the bitter truth. These
"one-trick ponies" could never fathom the possibilities.

Here is the schematic of an audio power amp, based on the LM12
operational amplifier integrated circuit, that can provide at
least 50 Watts (per channel) of output power. The amp itself
is shown in the upper figure:

Loading Image...

That's it. For $30 pocket change you can have the absolute
BEST audio power amp in the entire fucking world.

Actually, I am ignoring the necessary power supply which must
provide at least a +/- 18 volt swing between the power rails,
but that should be only about $25 extra.

But how does this power amp perform?

Examine the bottom figure. Here we see the total harmonic distortion
for this particular power amp.

Now, the total harmonic distortion is only one of many possible
methods of measuring amplifier performance, but since it is almost
an industry standard we include it here.

Holy fucking shit! Look at that bottom curve which applies to
a 50 watt power amp. The distortion is, for all practical purposes,
almost non-existent. This performance is nothing short of phenomenal --
and for only THIRTY FUCKING DOLLARS!

Unfortunately, the LM12 op amp is no longer in production, but
if you search hard enough you should be able to find a close equivalent.

The op amp design, of course, includes other phenomenal characteristics
such as extremely low input noise, extremely high input impedance,
and extremely low output impedance. These remarkable parameters make
the LM12 very easy to interface with other components such as pre-amps,
etc.

So let those "professional" assholes go and fuck themselves. They
have missed, because of their stupidity, the electronics revolution
and now can drop dead.

Oh yes, I almost forgot. The GNU/Linux spice program can be used
to aid you in your design quest. GNU/Linux spice, free of charge,
is the rival of thousand dollar commercial software.

Let those "professional" assholes read it and weep.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
flatfish
2017-03-22 23:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by F. Russell
Do you desire a world-class, high-end, power audio amplifier
but just cannot afford the $5000 to $10,000 price?
Well, my friend, do not despair. Such an amplifier can be
obtained for about $30 in parts plus the DIY labor.
THIRTY FUCKING DOLLORS for a world-class, high-end power audio
amplifier!!! How is that possible?
It is, my friend, the magic of the electronics revolution.
Note that there are on this group certain "professional" assholes
who will now have their face rubbed into the bitter truth. These
"one-trick ponies" could never fathom the possibilities.
Here is the schematic of an audio power amp, based on the LM12
operational amplifier integrated circuit, that can provide at
least 50 Watts (per channel) of output power. The amp itself
http://s13.postimg.org/607u0liif/lm12.png
That's it. For $30 pocket change you can have the absolute
BEST audio power amp in the entire fucking world.
Actually, I am ignoring the necessary power supply which must
provide at least a +/- 18 volt swing between the power rails,
but that should be only about $25 extra.
But how does this power amp perform?
Examine the bottom figure. Here we see the total harmonic distortion
for this particular power amp.
Now, the total harmonic distortion is only one of many possible
methods of measuring amplifier performance, but since it is almost
an industry standard we include it here.
Holy fucking shit! Look at that bottom curve which applies to
a 50 watt power amp. The distortion is, for all practical purposes,
almost non-existent. This performance is nothing short of phenomenal --
and for only THIRTY FUCKING DOLLARS!
Unfortunately, the LM12 op amp is no longer in production, but
if you search hard enough you should be able to find a close equivalent.
The op amp design, of course, includes other phenomenal characteristics
such as extremely low input noise, extremely high input impedance,
and extremely low output impedance. These remarkable parameters make
the LM12 very easy to interface with other components such as pre-amps,
etc.
So let those "professional" assholes go and fuck themselves. They
have missed, because of their stupidity, the electronics revolution
and now can drop dead.
Oh yes, I almost forgot. The GNU/Linux spice program can be used
to aid you in your design quest. GNU/Linux spice, free of charge,
is the rival of thousand dollar commercial software.
Let those "professional" assholes read it and weep.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
You're a fucking moron.

Bryston.

I have 4 of them in my studio.
Desk Rabbit
2017-03-23 17:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by F. Russell
Do you desire a world-class, high-end, power audio amplifier
but just cannot afford the $5000 to $10,000 price?
Well, my friend, do not despair. Such an amplifier can be
obtained for about $30 in parts plus the DIY labor.
THIRTY FUCKING DOLLORS for a world-class, high-end power audio
amplifier!!! How is that possible?
It is, my friend, the magic of the electronics revolution.
Note that there are on this group certain "professional" assholes
who will now have their face rubbed into the bitter truth. These
"one-trick ponies" could never fathom the possibilities.
Here is the schematic of an audio power amp, based on the LM12
operational amplifier integrated circuit, that can provide at
least 50 Watts (per channel) of output power. The amp itself
50 Watts? FFS, have you never heard of headroom?
Post by F. Russell
http://s13.postimg.org/607u0liif/lm12.png
That's it. For $30 pocket change you can have the absolute
BEST audio power amp in the entire fucking world.
Actually, I am ignoring the necessary power supply which must
provide at least a +/- 18 volt swing between the power rails,
but that should be only about $25 extra.
So you know nothing about power supplies for high quality audio amps as
well?
Post by F. Russell
But how does this power amp perform?
Examine the bottom figure. Here we see the total harmonic distortion
for this particular power amp.
Now, the total harmonic distortion is only one of many possible
methods of measuring amplifier performance, but since it is almost
an industry standard we include it here.
Holy fucking shit! Look at that bottom curve which applies to
a 50 watt power amp. The distortion is, for all practical purposes,
almost non-existent. This performance is nothing short of phenomenal --
and for only THIRTY FUCKING DOLLARS!
Unfortunately, the LM12 op amp is no longer in production, but
if you search hard enough you should be able to find a close equivalent.
So after all that it's an end of life component.
Post by F. Russell
The op amp design, of course, includes other phenomenal characteristics
such as extremely low input noise, extremely high input impedance,
and extremely low output impedance. These remarkable parameters make
the LM12 very easy to interface with other components such as pre-amps,
etc.
If you can find an LM12............

The nearest replacement is probably the OPA541.
Post by F. Russell
So let those "professional" assholes go and fuck themselves. They
have missed, because of their stupidity, the electronics revolution
and now can drop dead.
Oh yes, I almost forgot. The GNU/Linux spice program can be used
to aid you in your design quest. GNU/Linux spice, free of charge,
is the rival of thousand dollar commercial software.
Let those "professional" assholes read it and weep.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
chrisv
2017-03-23 17:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Desk Rabbit
Post by F. Russell
Actually, I am ignoring the necessary power supply which must
provide at least a +/- 18 volt swing between the power rails,
but that should be only about $25 extra.
So you know nothing about power supplies for high quality audio amps as
well?
Yeah, a good power supply will be the most expensive part, by far.
--
"Try reading it in the context of '3 new distros per day' and view it
that way." - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel"
chrisv
2017-03-23 18:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by Desk Rabbit
Post by F. Russell
Actually, I am ignoring the necessary power supply which must
provide at least a +/- 18 volt swing between the power rails,
but that should be only about $25 extra.
So you know nothing about power supplies for high quality audio amps as
well?
Yeah, a good power supply will be the most expensive part, by far.
Oh, and a +/- 18V power supply would deliver, at most, 20W RMS into 8
ohms, or 40W RMS into 4 ohms. In practicality, even less.
--
"ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings
to determine if the code functions correctly. (chrisv is) one of the
few idiots who thinks otherwise." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly
DFS
2017-03-27 16:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
"ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings
to determine if the code functions correctly. (chrisv is) one of the
few idiots who thinks otherwise." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly
That's what you said:


Jeff Relf: "Testing is how you know if the code works or not, not
compile-time warnings."

shitv reply: "Heh. One doesn't need to be a pro, to know how stupid
that is..."


Only you are lying shamelessly.
Peter Köhlmann
2017-03-27 16:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by chrisv
"ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings
to determine if the code functions correctly. (chrisv is) one of the
few idiots who thinks otherwise." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly
Jeff Relf: "Testing is how you know if the code works or not, not
compile-time warnings."
shitv reply: "Heh. One doesn't need to be a pro, to know how stupid
that is..."
Only you are lying shamelessly.
Well, you may now explain why his reply is "lying"

After all, Relfs claim is maximum stupid. Someone like Relf should not be
allowed anywhere near a compiler
DFS
2017-03-27 17:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by DFS
Post by chrisv
"ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings
to determine if the code functions correctly. (chrisv is) one of the
few idiots who thinks otherwise." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly
Jeff Relf: "Testing is how you know if the code works or not, not
compile-time warnings."
shitv reply: "Heh. One doesn't need to be a pro, to know how stupid
that is..."
Only you are lying shamelessly.
Well, you may now explain why his reply is "lying"
shitv's reply isn't a lie - it's just stupidity.

His lie is that I was 'lying shamelessly'.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
After all, Relfs claim is maximum stupid. Someone like Relf should not be
allowed anywhere near a compiler
What Relf said is 100% correct and reasonable.
J***@.
2017-03-27 18:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Jeff Relf: " Testing is how you know if the code works or not,
not compile-time warnings. "
Relf's claim is maximum stupid.
Someone like Relf should not be allowed anywhere near a compiler.
I edited, compiled and debugged X.CPP yesterday,
in order to test the speed and accuracy of various "pay" servers.

When was the last time Peter Köhlmann _personally
( hiring a plumber doesn't make you a plumber )
edited, compiled and debugged a .C file ?

With "warnings as errors", turn off these warnings:

c4702: UnReachable code.

A tempory "return" is needed, at times, when debugging.

c4100: unreferenced parameter.
c4101: unreferenced local variable.
c4189: local variable is initialized but not referenced.

Variables gets commented out, at times, when debugging.
UnUsed code is informative, and might be needed again.

c4430 missing type specifier - int assumed; No C++ support.
c4508 'Func': function should return a value; 'void' assumed.

"Func() {}" is cleaner/nicer than "void Func() {}".

c4456 declaration of 'P' hides previous local declaration.
c4457 declaration of 'P' hides function parameter.
c4459 declaration of 'P' hides global declaration.

P ( a ShortTerm, local pointer ) is cleaner/nicer.

c4996 'sprintf': This function may be unsafe.

Str( Err, L"0x%x", Enum ) is cleaner/nicer than
swprintf_s( Err, 22, L"0x%x", Enum ).
Global: #define Str swprintf

c4239 type conversion; No C++ support.
c4312 conversion from a smaller type to a larger type.
c4305 truncation from 'double' to 'float'.
c4302 conversion from a larger type to a smaller type.
c4244 '=': conversion from 'int' to 'char', possible loss of data.
c4838 conversion from 'int' to 'wchar' requires a narrowing conversion
c4311 64-bit pointer truncation ( storing shorts in a pointer ).

Implicit casting is cleaner/nicer.

c4127 conditional expression is constant.

while(1) is OK.
"if ( ComplexExpression, 1 )" is a good debugging technique.

c4706 assignment within conditional expression.
c4709 comma operator within array index expression.

Often, it's cleaner/nicer to assign stuff in an expression;
same for array indices, "R_[ i++, i %= 4 ]".

c4554 check operator precedence for possible error ( Level 3 ? ! )

Fewer parenthesis is cleaner/nicer; just know the precedence.

c4474 'swprintf' : too many arguments passed for format string.

A format string, passed to a macro,
might have default (unused) arguments.

c4458 declaration of 'a' hides class member.

<D2D1helper.H> needs it, don't know why.

c4238 nonstandard extension used: class rvalue used as lvalue.

Needed when a simple int is (foolishly) defined as an overly
convoluted/Byzantine class ( like ID2D1SolidColorBrush ).
Peter Köhlmann
2017-03-27 18:39:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by DFS
Post by chrisv
"ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings
to determine if the code functions correctly. (chrisv is) one of the
few idiots who thinks otherwise." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly
Jeff Relf: "Testing is how you know if the code works or not, not
compile-time warnings."
shitv reply: "Heh. One doesn't need to be a pro, to know how stupid
that is..."
Only you are lying shamelessly.
Well, you may now explain why his reply is "lying"
shitv's reply isn't a lie - it's just stupidity.
His lie is that I was 'lying shamelessly'.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
After all, Relfs claim is maximum stupid. Someone like Relf should not be
allowed anywhere near a compiler
What Relf said is 100% correct and reasonable.
It was incredibly stupid. To disable most warnings is tantamount to failure.
His "testing" is pure unadultered bullshit. The next compiler version can
already produce different code.

Example: Having a loop accesss a array and getting out of bounds "because
you know that after the normal boundery there is similar data"

This /may/ work with a compiler version, even if it issues warnings about
the "out of bounds" situation. Be aware that this is a "undefined behaviour"
for the compiler, the code generated may work. Or not.

It is practically impossible to test all possible types and sizes of data,
on all relevant parts of the project, and to test it yet again with a new
compiler version. Result will be that there *are* errors, and without the
warnings you will have a hard time to repair the code. Switch them back on
and you will be inundiated under massive amounts of errors and warnings,
just rewriting those sections of code will take a *long* time.

In short: You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. And Relf knows
even less

Every programmer who works like that Relf twit is a irresponsible cretin
chrisv
2017-03-27 19:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
His lie is that I was 'lying shamelessly'.
Nope. You are a bald-faced liar.

It's actually my "favorite" quote, of yours. It nicely encapsulates
what a dumb fscking liar, you are. Anyone who has ever programmed
immediately sees it as a ridiculous lie.
Post by DFS
What Relf said is 100% correct and reasonable.
LOL

Get one real, unbiased programmer to agree with you, you fscking liar.
Get one real, unbiased programmer to agree that my calling the
statement "stupid" shows "ignorance" on my part.

Hell, as stupid as he is, I doubt that even Relf would support your
idiotic statement. His statement may be stupid and wrong, but it's
not a ridiculous fscking *lie*, like your statement is.

Face it, Dumfsck, I've got you cold. You are a documented liar.
--
"ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings
to determine if the code functions correctly. (chrisv is) one of the
few idiots who thinks otherwise." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly
DFS
2017-03-27 19:26:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by DFS
His lie is that I was 'lying shamelessly'.
Nope. You are a bald-faced liar.
It's actually my "favorite" quote, of yours. It nicely encapsulates
what a dumb fscking liar, you are. Anyone who has ever programmed
immediately sees it as a ridiculous lie.
Post by DFS
What Relf said is 100% correct and reasonable.
LOL
Get one real, unbiased programmer to agree with you, you fscking liar.
Get one real, unbiased programmer to agree that my calling the
statement "stupid" shows "ignorance" on my part.
Hell, as stupid as he is, I doubt that even Relf would support your
idiotic statement. His statement may be stupid and wrong, but it's
not a ridiculous fscking *lie*, like your statement is.
Face it, Dumfsck, I've got you cold. You are a documented liar.
You got NOTHING, luser. You never did, and you never will.
Silver-Tongued Heel
2017-03-27 20:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by DFS
His lie is that I was 'lying shamelessly'.
Nope. You are a bald-faced liar.
It's actually my "favorite" quote, of yours. It nicely
encapsulates what a dumb fscking liar, you are. Anyone who has
ever programmed immediately sees it as a ridiculous lie.
Post by DFS
What Relf said is 100% correct and reasonable.
LOL
Get one real, unbiased programmer to agree with you, you fscking
liar. Get one real, unbiased programmer to agree that my calling
the statement "stupid" shows "ignorance" on my part.
Hell, as stupid as he is, I doubt that even Relf would support
your idiotic statement. His statement may be stupid and wrong, but
it's not a ridiculous fscking *lie*, like your statement is.
Face it, Dumfsck, I've got you cold. You are a documented liar.
In your eyes, _everyone_ is a documented liar.


- --
Silver Tongued-Heel
Korora Linux Sponsor
EFF & OpenMedia Member
Gab.ai: @silverslimer
chrisv
2017-03-28 12:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Silver-Tongued Heel
Post by chrisv
Get one real, unbiased programmer to agree with you, you fscking
liar. Get one real, unbiased programmer to agree that my calling
the statement "stupid" shows "ignorance" on my part.
Hell, as stupid as he is, I doubt that even Relf would support
your idiotic statement. His statement may be stupid and wrong, but
it's not a ridiculous fscking *lie*, like your statement is.
Face it, Dumfsck, I've got you cold. You are a documented liar.
In your eyes, _everyone_ is a documented liar.
Nope, but anyone who claims that I think that running a program, to
make sure it works as intended, is less important than having no
compiler warnings, sure is a liar. Obviously.

It's truly mind-blowing that anyone would make such a *ridiculous*
charge, because I called Relf's statement, eschewing the importance of
compiler warnings, "stupid". Utterly *shameless* lying.

Well, I now have this over Dumfsck, and his hopefully-deceased pal
Ezekreep, for all time. Uncontrovertible proof that they *lie* to
attack.
--
"It doesn't change the fact that *testing* is the way to determine if
code works correctly or not. There is no substitute for *testing* an
application." - Ezekreep, claiming (lying) that someone in cola
didn't know that
DFS
2017-03-28 14:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by Silver-Tongued Heel
Post by chrisv
Get one real, unbiased programmer to agree with you, you fscking
liar. Get one real, unbiased programmer to agree that my calling
the statement "stupid" shows "ignorance" on my part.
Hell, as stupid as he is, I doubt that even Relf would support
your idiotic statement. His statement may be stupid and wrong, but
it's not a ridiculous fscking *lie*, like your statement is.
Face it, Dumfsck, I've got you cold. You are a documented liar.
In your eyes, _everyone_ is a documented liar.
Nope, but anyone who claims that I think that running a program, to
make sure it works as intended, is less important than having no
compiler warnings, sure is a liar. Obviously.
That's what you said, dumbass:

Jeff Relf: "Testing is how you know if the code works or not, not
compile-time warnings."

shitv reply: "Heh. One doesn't need to be a pro, to know how stupid
that is..."


It's right there in black and white: you clearly and unequivocally
believe compiler warnings are preferred over testing to know if the
program functions correctly.

You're a moron.
Post by chrisv
It's truly mind-blowing that anyone would make such a *ridiculous*
charge, because I called Relf's statement, eschewing the importance of
compiler warnings, "stupid". Utterly *shameless* lying.
Well, I now have this over Dumfsck, and his hopefully-deceased pal
Ezekreep, for all time. Uncontrovertible proof that they *lie* to
attack.
The only lie is you trying to rewrite history and shed that veneer of
stupidity that accompanies every post you make.
DFS
2017-03-28 14:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by DFS
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by DFS
Post by chrisv
"ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time
warnings to determine if the code functions correctly.
(chrisv is) one of the few idiots who thinks otherwise." -
DumFSck, lying shamelessly
Jeff Relf: "Testing is how you know if the code works or not,
not compile-time warnings."
shitv reply: "Heh. One doesn't need to be a pro, to know how
stupid that is..."
Only you are lying shamelessly.
Well, you may now explain why his reply is "lying"
shitv's reply isn't a lie - it's just stupidity.
His lie is that I was 'lying shamelessly'.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
After all, Relfs claim is maximum stupid. Someone like Relf
should not be allowed anywhere near a compiler
What Relf said is 100% correct and reasonable.
It was incredibly stupid. To disable most warnings is tantamount to failure.
'most warnings'... heh! You're an idiot and a liar.

In his latest post, he claims to disable 24 out of ~3000 available
warnings.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
His "testing" is pure unadultered bullshit. The next compiler version
can already produce different code.
Example: Having a loop accesss a array and getting out of bounds
"because you know that after the normal boundery there is similar
data"
This /may/ work with a compiler version, even if it issues warnings
about the "out of bounds" situation. Be aware that this is a
"undefined behaviour" for the compiler, the code generated may work.
Or not.
It is practically impossible to test all possible types and sizes of
data, on all relevant parts of the project, and to test it yet again
with a new compiler version.
What are you talking about? If the code can be written, the code can be
fully and completely tested.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Result will be that there *are* errors,
and without the warnings you will have a hard time to repair the
code. Switch them back on and you will be inundiated under massive
amounts of errors and warnings, just rewriting those sections of code
will take a *long* time.
In short: You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. And Relf
knows even less
Every programmer who works like that Relf twit is a irresponsible cretin
I don't agree with disabling ANY compiler warnings. Not one. If I get
an innocuous warning like 'variable declared but not used' I change the
code.

But testing is FAR more important than compiler warnings to know if the
program functions correctly. Obviously.

Jeff Relf: "Testing is how you know if the code works or not, not
compile-time warnings."

But then this bit of drool appears:

shitv reply: "Heh. One doesn't need to be a pro, to know how stupid
that is..."

Only a Linux "advocate" idiot would say something so moronic.
Lawrence Washington
2017-03-28 12:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by DFS
Post by chrisv
"ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings
to determine if the code functions correctly. (chrisv is) one of the
few idiots who thinks otherwise." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly
Jeff Relf: "Testing is how you know if the code works or not, not
compile-time warnings."
shitv reply: "Heh. One doesn't need to be a pro, to know how stupid
that is..."
Only you are lying shamelessly.
Well, you may now explain why his reply is "lying"
- What Relf said is 100% correct and reasonable.

Why aren't these two here to tell us that if you want to know if your
code/program works you rely on compiler warnings and NOT testing to find
out.

LOL.
Peter Köhlmann
2017-03-28 12:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Washington
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by DFS
Post by chrisv
"ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings
to determine if the code functions correctly. (chrisv is) one of the
few idiots who thinks otherwise." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly
Jeff Relf: "Testing is how you know if the code works or not, not
compile-time warnings."
shitv reply: "Heh. One doesn't need to be a pro, to know how stupid
that is..."
Only you are lying shamelessly.
Well, you may now explain why his reply is "lying"
- What Relf said is 100% correct and reasonable.
Why aren't these two here to tell us that if you want to know if your
code/program works you rely on compiler warnings and NOT testing to find
out.
LOL.
Idiot. You naturally test your program. But ignoring compiler warnings is
lunatic stupid. Someone who turns them off has no idea at all about
programming
owl
2017-03-28 13:53:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Washington
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by DFS
Post by chrisv
"ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings
to determine if the code functions correctly. (chrisv is) one of the
few idiots who thinks otherwise." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly
Jeff Relf: "Testing is how you know if the code works or not, not
compile-time warnings."
shitv reply: "Heh. One doesn't need to be a pro, to know how stupid
that is..."
Only you are lying shamelessly.
Well, you may now explain why his reply is "lying"
- What Relf said is 100% correct and reasonable.
Why aren't these two here to tell us that if you want to know if your
code/program works you rely on compiler warnings and NOT testing to find
out.
LOL.
Below, testing alone shows nothing wrong, but there is definitely
something wrong.

***@lowtide:~/code$ gcc -Wall -o warn1 warn1.c
***@lowtide:~/code$ gcc -Wall -o warn2 warn2.c
warn2.c: In function ‘blah’:
warn2.c:19:6: warning: unused variable ‘x’ [-Wunused-variable]
int x=4;
^
***@lowtide:~/code$ ./warn1
x: 7
y: 4
sum: 11
***@lowtide:~/code$ ./warn2
x: 7
y: 8
sum: 15
***@lowtide:~/code$

The problem: a line was unintentionally commented out in warn2.c,
but with warnings turned off you might never bother to take another
look at the code:

***@lowtide:~/code$ diff -u warn1.c warn2.c
--- warn1.c 2017-03-28 09:41:01.170947342 -0400
+++ warn2.c 2017-03-28 09:40:50.098839592 -0400
@@ -17,8 +17,8 @@
void blah(void)
{
int x=4;
- y=x;
-/* printf("leaving blah\n");
+/*y=x;
+ printf("leaving blah\n");
*/
}

***@lowtide:~/code$
J***@.
2017-03-29 02:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by owl
Below, testing alone shows nothing wrong,
but there is definitely something wrong.
You didn't list some the printf()'s
and none of your outputs say "leaving blah".

Please show _all of the code and outputs.
owl
2017-03-29 03:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by J***@.
Post by owl
Below, testing alone shows nothing wrong,
but there is definitely something wrong.
You didn't list some the printf()'s
and none of your outputs say "leaving blah".
Because that is the part that is commented out.
Post by J***@.
Please show _all of the code and outputs.
***@lowtide:~/code$ cat warn1.c
#include <stdio.h>

void blah(void);

int x=7;
int y=8;
int main(void)
{
int sum=0;
blah();
sum=x+y;
printf("x: %d\ny: %d\n",x,y);
printf("sum: %d\n",sum);
return 0;
}

void blah(void)
{
int x=4;
y=x;
/* printf("leaving blah\n");
*/
}

***@lowtide:~/code$

***@lowtide:~/code$ cat warn2.c
#include <stdio.h>

void blah(void);

int x=7;
int y=8;
int main(void)
{
int sum=0;
blah();
sum=x+y;
printf("x: %d\ny: %d\n",x,y);
printf("sum: %d\n",sum);
return 0;
}

void blah(void)
{
int x=4;
/*y=x;
printf("leaving blah\n");
*/
}

***@lowtide:~/code$
J***@.
2017-03-29 05:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by owl
Post by J***@.
Post by owl
- y=x;
-/* printf("leaving blah\n");
+/*y=x;
+ printf("leaving blah\n");
*/
none of your outputs say "leaving blah".
Because that is the part that is commented out.
Oops... I see that now -- it was _very confusing.

I'd use "//" with lots of spaces, not your tight "/**/", above.
Also, my diff is _much clearer; to wit: Loading Image...
Post by owl
int x, y ;
Set_yTo4() { int z = 4 ;
// y = z ;
// printf( "Leaving Set_yTo4().\n" );
}
main() { x = 7, y = 8, Set_yTo4();
printf("x: %d, y: %d, sum: %d\n", x, y, x + y ); }
Variables gets commented out, at times, when debugging.
With "warnings as errors", you don't want it to stop the debuging.
UnUsed variables are informative, and might be needed again, later.

Commenting out " y = z ; " produces a large/obvious change;
depending on the circumstances, it could crash the app.
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2017-03-29 05:09:13 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 22:06:54 -0700 (Seattle), LO AND BEHOLD;
"Jeff-Relf.Me @." determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
Post by J***@.
Post by owl
Post by J***@.
- y=x; -/* printf("leaving blah\n"); +/*y=x; + printf("leaving blah\n");
*/
none of your outputs say "leaving blah".
Because that is the part that is commented out.
Oops... I see that now -- it was _very confusing.
I'd use "//" with lots of spaces, not your tight "/**/", above. Also, my
diff is _much clearer; to wit: http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Diff.PNG
Post by owl
int x, y ; Set_yTo4() { int z = 4 ; // y = z ; // printf( "Leaving
Set_yTo4().\n" ); } main() { x = 7, y = 8, Set_yTo4(); printf("x: %d,
y: %d, sum: %d\n", x, y, x + y ); }
Variables gets commented out, at times, when debugging. With "warnings
as errors", you don't want it to stop the debuging. UnUsed variables
are informative, and might be needed again, later.
Commenting out " y = z ; " produces a large/obvious change; depending on
the circumstances, it could crash the app.
you seem to have learned programming from someone who enjoyed torturing people with java and OOP.
--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT


-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
owl
2017-03-29 06:10:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by J***@.
Post by owl
Post by J***@.
Post by owl
- y=x;
-/* printf("leaving blah\n");
+/*y=x;
+ printf("leaving blah\n");
*/
none of your outputs say "leaving blah".
Because that is the part that is commented out.
Oops... I see that now -- it was _very confusing.
I'd use "//" with lots of spaces, not your tight "/**/", above.
Also, my diff is _much clearer; to wit: http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Diff.PNG
That's pretty, but can you feed it to a patch utility?
Post by J***@.
Post by owl
int x, y ;
Set_yTo4() { int z = 4 ;
// y = z ;
// printf( "Leaving Set_yTo4().\n" );
}
main() { x = 7, y = 8, Set_yTo4();
printf("x: %d, y: %d, sum: %d\n", x, y, x + y ); }
Variables gets commented out, at times, when debugging.
With "warnings as errors", you don't want it to stop the debuging.
UnUsed variables are informative, and might be needed again, later.
Commenting out " y = z ; " produces a large/obvious change;
depending on the circumstances, it could crash the app.
There is no obvious problem with testing alone:

***@lowtide:~/code$ ./warn1
x: 7
y: 4
sum: 11
***@lowtide:~/code$ ./warn2
x: 7
y: 8
sum: 15
***@lowtide:~/code$

The only clue you get that there might be a problem is the warning.
J***@.
2017-03-29 06:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by owl
Post by J***@.
my diff is _much clearer; to wit: http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Diff.PNG
That's pretty, but can you feed it to a patch utility?
No, I've no need for that.
I run diffs all the time, just to be sure;
I just like looking at it, and it's often very informative.

At times, diff doesn't help because recent changes
are just a huge blur of red and green.
August 2007 is my oldest backup.
Post by owl
Post by J***@.
// y = z ;
// printf( "Leaving Set_yTo4().\n" );
Variables gets commented out, at times, when debugging.
With "warnings as errors", you don't want it to stop the debuging.
UnUsed variables are informative, and might be needed again, later.
Commenting out " y = z ; " produces a large/obvious change;
depending on the circumstances, it could crash the app.
y: 4
y: 8
The only clue you get that there might be a problem is the warning.
The error is _obvious when you compare outputs, no need for the warning.

When _only 4 works, and all else crashes the app, it's _really obvious.
owl
2017-03-29 07:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by J***@.
Post by owl
Post by J***@.
my diff is _much clearer; to wit: http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Diff.PNG
That's pretty, but can you feed it to a patch utility?
No, I've no need for that.
I run diffs all the time, just to be sure;
I just like looking at it, and it's often very informative.
At times, diff doesn't help because recent changes
are just a huge blur of red and green.
August 2007 is my oldest backup.
Post by owl
Post by J***@.
// y = z ;
// printf( "Leaving Set_yTo4().\n" );
Variables gets commented out, at times, when debugging.
With "warnings as errors", you don't want it to stop the debuging.
UnUsed variables are informative, and might be needed again, later.
Commenting out " y = z ; " produces a large/obvious change;
depending on the circumstances, it could crash the app.
y: 4
y: 8
The only clue you get that there might be a problem is the warning.
The error is _obvious when you compare outputs, no need for the warning.
It is not at all obvious. Both sums are correct. The app appears
to be functioning normally. There is no way to tell from the output
that anything is wrong. What if there were no printfs, but the
result was a subtle, deeply nested glitch down the line?
Post by J***@.
When _only 4 works, and all else crashes the app, it's _really obvious.
Obviously other values work, or else the sum would be incorrect.
The app did not crash, but missiles might have launched.
Moral: Don't turn off warnings.
J***@.
2017-03-29 07:45:27 UTC
Permalink
I use my diff routines to compare outputs and code; to wit:
http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Diff.PNG

I check it all the time... testing shit.

You ( Owl ) don't have that, not like me, so you keep with your
warnings instead, changing lots of code, only to change it back again,
just so you can debug after commenting out some code
that referenced variables ( assuming WarningsAsErrors ).
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2017-03-29 08:08:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:45:27 -0700 (Seattle), LO AND BEHOLD;
"Jeff-Relf.Me @." determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
Post by J***@.
http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Diff.PNG
I check it all the time... testing shit.
You ( Owl ) don't have that, not like me, so you keep with your warnings
instead, changing lots of code, only to change it back again, just so
you can debug after commenting out some code that referenced variables
( assuming WarningsAsErrors ).
so... does your ignorance of my replies happen to pivot on the fact that it can't handle UTF-8, or what?

i offered advice about your MID conundrum to help you fix it.

the only reason that i can think of for this outcome is that perhaps you are also several other people who are neo-nazi types that i have offended personally?

just wondering.
--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
http://youtu.be/iB6B8jGSdLA

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
J***@.
2017-03-29 18:44:33 UTC
Permalink
You ( CaptainPissBucket ) were schooled arts and humanities,
not science and programming; e.g. you quote my code like it was
a review of the Mona Lisa -- you don't respect my WhiteSpace.

So please forgive me if I (mostly) ignore you here, in this thread.

Mr. Owl has the same problem,
he should use " // comments ", like me, with lots of whiteSpace,
instead of the tight "/*+-y*/" that he's shown here, in this thread.
owl
2017-03-29 18:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by J***@.
You ( CaptainPissBucket ) were schooled arts and humanities,
not science and programming; e.g. you quote my code like it was
a review of the Mona Lisa -- you don't respect my WhiteSpace.
So please forgive me if I (mostly) ignore you here, in this thread.
Mr. Owl has the same problem,
he should use " // comments ", like me, with lots of whiteSpace,
instead of the tight "/*+-y*/" that he's shown here, in this thread.
No.
vallor
2017-03-29 20:36:14 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:08:01 -0500, Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus
Post by Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:45:27 -0700 (Seattle), LO AND BEHOLD;
and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
Post by J***@.
http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Diff.PNG
I check it all the time... testing shit.
You ( Owl ) don't have that, not like me, so you keep with your warnings
instead, changing lots of code, only to change it back again, just so
you can debug after commenting out some code that referenced variables (
assuming WarningsAsErrors ).
so... does your ignorance of my replies happen to pivot on the fact that
it can't handle UTF-8, or what?
i offered advice about your MID conundrum to help you fix it.
the only reason that i can think of for this outcome is that perhaps you
are also several other people who are neo-nazi types that i have
offended personally?
just wondering.
Maybe he doesn't realize you actually coded your own newsreader.
--
-v
owl
2017-03-29 18:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by J***@.
http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Diff.PNG
I check it all the time... testing shit.
You ( Owl ) don't have that, not like me, so you keep with your
warnings instead, changing lots of code, only to change it back again,
just so you can debug after commenting out some code
that referenced variables ( assuming WarningsAsErrors ).
-Wall does not set -Werror.
Melzzzzz
2017-03-29 07:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by owl
Moral: Don't turn off warnings.
I like warnings. More warnings, better.
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
chrisv
2017-03-29 12:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by owl
Moral: Don't turn off warnings.
I like warnings. More warnings, better.
Some fools treat warnings like they are an unnecessary burden.

Warnings are there to *help* the programmer. They can make otherwise
difficult-to-find bugs easy pickings.
--
"What's wrong with it?" - DumFSck, regarding the use of a #pragma to
disable 17 different types of compiler warnings
f***@gmail.com
2017-03-29 18:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by owl
Moral: Don't turn off warnings.
I like warnings. More warnings, better.
Some fools treat warnings like they are an unnecessary burden.
Warnings are there to *help* the programmer. They can make otherwise
difficult-to-find bugs easy pickings.
What is the point of all this useless banter?

One must understand the difference between SYNTAX errors and SEMANTIC
errors.

Once all the compiler warnings (-Wall -Wextra) have been exhausted
there still may be significant semantic errors.
Larry Washington
2017-04-01 22:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Don't be a bird brain owl. Your example sux. If your "testing" doesn't
detect that 2/3rds of the values are wrong then you ain't testing.
Post by owl
warn2.c:19:6: warning: unused variable ‘x’ [-Wunused-variable]
int x=4;
^
x: 7
y: 4
sum: 11
x: 7
y: 8
sum: 15
Warnings mostly tell you if your code has any legal but suspect constructs.
It's valid to use a uninitialized variable though probably not intentional.
Same with " if ( x = 0 ) " because odds are someone wanted a comparison and
not an assignment.

Warnings are great for finding common mistakes or typos. But they can't
possibly tell you if your code is going to work.

Testing : Will tell you if your code works or not.
Compiler warnings : Will tell you that your code might not work because (ex)
you're passing in a wrong type to some function.

- LW
Post by owl
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by DFS
Post by chrisv
"ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings
to determine if the code functions correctly. (chrisv is) one of the
few idiots who thinks otherwise." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly
Jeff Relf: "Testing is how you know if the code works or not, not
compile-time warnings."
shitv reply: "Heh. One doesn't need to be a pro, to know how stupid
that is..."
Only you are lying shamelessly.
Well, you may now explain why his reply is "lying"
- What Relf said is 100% correct and reasonable.
Why aren't these two here to tell us that if you want to know if your
code/program works you rely on compiler warnings and NOT testing to find
out.
LOL.
Below, testing alone shows nothing wrong, but there is definitely
something wrong.

***@lowtide:~/code$ gcc -Wall -o warn1 warn1.c
***@lowtide:~/code$ gcc -Wall -o warn2 warn2.c
warn2.c: In function ‘blah’:
warn2.c:19:6: warning: unused variable ‘x’ [-Wunused-variable]
int x=4;
^
***@lowtide:~/code$ ./warn1
x: 7
y: 4
sum: 11
***@lowtide:~/code$ ./warn2
x: 7
y: 8
sum: 15
***@lowtide:~/code$

The problem: a line was unintentionally commented out in warn2.c,
but with warnings turned off you might never bother to take another
look at the code:

***@lowtide:~/code$ diff -u warn1.c warn2.c
--- warn1.c 2017-03-28 09:41:01.170947342 -0400
+++ warn2.c 2017-03-28 09:40:50.098839592 -0400
@@ -17,8 +17,8 @@
void blah(void)
{
int x=4;
- y=x;
-/* printf("leaving blah\n");
+/*y=x;
+ printf("leaving blah\n");
*/
}

***@lowtide:~/code$
Chris Ahlstrom
2017-04-02 00:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Washington
Warnings are great for finding common mistakes or typos. But they can't
possibly tell you if your code is going to work.
No, but they can flag the possibility that it will not work.
Post by Larry Washington
Testing : Will tell you if your code works or not.
Compiler warnings : Will tell you that your code might not work because (ex)
you're passing in a wrong type to some function.
Ah, you get it, "Larry". Now stop stealing your neighbor's bandwidth and
tell your mother to pay for a better Internet service provider. :-D
--
Are you ever going to do the dishes? Or will you change your major to biology?
Chris Ahlstrom
2017-04-02 00:56:03 UTC
Permalink
I prefer my code compile cleanly. Then I know I've at least satisfied the
compiler. Plus, if a new warning appears I will notice immediately.
Finally, warnings are far too sloppy for me to tolerate. Details count.
--
Debian Hint #17: Need someone to talk to about Debian? If you're comfortable
with Internet Relay Chat (IRC), just install your favorite IRC client, and
join #debian on irc.debian.org.
chrisv
2017-03-27 17:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by DFS
Post by chrisv
"ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings
to determine if the code functions correctly. (chrisv is) one of the
few idiots who thinks otherwise." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly
Jeff Relf: "Testing is how you know if the code works or not, not
compile-time warnings."
shitv reply: "Heh. One doesn't need to be a pro, to know how stupid
that is..."
It is stupid. I was right.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by DFS
Only you are lying shamelessly.
LOL

Weirdo.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Well, you may now explain why his reply is "lying"
After all, Relfs claim is maximum stupid. Someone like Relf should not be
allowed anywhere near a compiler
Only in the up-is-down, lies-are-truth world of a shitty troll, like
Dumfsck or Ezekreep, is being correct "ignorant" or a "lie".

It's pretty funny, when the best they have "against" me is quoting me
being correct, and then putting such a ridiculous spin on it that the
"Snit" thing would blush.
--
'(chrisv is) the same dimwit who thinks that determining if software
works or not is accomplished through "compile time warnings" and not
by actually testing the software.' - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel",
lying shamelessly
Silver-Tongued Heel
2017-03-27 18:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by DFS
Post by chrisv
"ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time
warnings to determine if the code functions correctly. (chrisv
is) one of the few idiots who thinks otherwise." - DumFSck,
lying shamelessly
Jeff Relf: "Testing is how you know if the code works or not,
not compile-time warnings."
shitv reply: "Heh. One doesn't need to be a pro, to know how
stupid that is..."
Only you are lying shamelessly.
Well, you may now explain why his reply is "lying"
After all, Relfs claim is maximum stupid. Someone like Relf should
not be allowed anywhere near a compiler
Near people either.


- --
Silver Tongued-Heel
Korora Linux Sponsor
EFF & OpenMedia Member
Gab.ai: @silverslimer
F. Russell
2017-03-23 19:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Desk Rabbit
have you never heard of headroom?
You obviously have LOTS of room in your head.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
F. Russell
2017-03-23 20:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Desk Rabbit
So after all that it's an end of life component.
Not for me. I've got spare parts to last for a thousand
years.

But the main theme of this posting, which you have been unable
to determine, is not the details of construction but rather
that such construction is indeed possible to accomplish.

You are NOT an innovator. The LM12 is "ancient" but you were
never aware of its existence or the possibilities of revolutionary
electronics in general. You just sit on your fat, flabby ass
and accept the status quo as being inviolable.

I have been building revolutionary components for a LONG time
that can blow your $$$$$$ crap out of the fucking water, and
I will continue to do so while all you will do is develop idiotic
counterarguments to deny the undeniable reality.

Get back to your cage, you blind, crippled dog.
Peter Köhlmann
2017-03-23 20:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by F. Russell
Post by Desk Rabbit
So after all that it's an end of life component.
Not for me. I've got spare parts to last for a thousand
years.
But the main theme of this posting, which you have been unable
to determine, is not the details of construction but rather
that such construction is indeed possible to accomplish.
You are NOT an innovator. The LM12 is "ancient" but you were
never aware of its existence or the possibilities of revolutionary
electronics in general.
It is fine. It is just too limited in its power

80W is not enough
f***@gmail.com
2017-03-27 16:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
80W is not enough
You've got to be joking.

I have LM12 configured for 20W (per channel) and that is almost
unbearable.

If you need 80W, then your ears must be clogged with wax, dirt,
and filth from not having bathed in 10 years.
Peter Köhlmann
2017-03-27 17:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Köhlmann
80W is not enough
You've got to be joking.
I have LM12 configured for 20W (per channel) and that is almost
unbearable.
Idiot
Post by f***@gmail.com
If you need 80W, then your ears must be clogged with wax, dirt,
and filth from not having bathed in 10 years.
If you want to hear a classic orchestra, even 200W might be to little.
Per channel, naturally
Desk Rabbit
2017-03-28 09:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Köhlmann
80W is not enough
You've got to be joking.
I have LM12 configured for 20W (per channel) and that is almost
unbearable.
If you need 80W, then your ears must be clogged with wax, dirt,
and filth from not having bathed in 10 years.
It's not about loudness, it's about headroom. You clearly know very
little about audio amplifiers.
Desk Rabbit
2017-03-28 09:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Desk Rabbit
Post by f***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Köhlmann
80W is not enough
You've got to be joking.
I have LM12 configured for 20W (per channel) and that is almost
unbearable.
If you need 80W, then your ears must be clogged with wax, dirt,
and filth from not having bathed in 10 years.
It's not about loudness, it's about headroom. You clearly know very
little about audio amplifiers.
Apologies, I meant volume not loudness, different things but you
probably wouldn't know that anyway.
Loading...