Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[andshesbuyingastairway]

does anyone know what kind of op-amps various automation systems use?  such as ultimation, flying fader, supertrue/ total recall etc.  

i'm assuming GML uses something discrete, and that uptown 990 is as well being the 990.

also as if that wasn't enough, do you know what most factory VCA uses for op-amps (even if in simplified monolithic vs. discrete terms) say neotek for example

no ptp banter allowed  

[tom eaton]

My Otari Concept Elite uses THAT 2150a vcas, and a ton of different opamps... the auto is built into the channel, so no real "auto-only" amp stages.

My old Angela used dbx vcas, not uncommon...202?  Not entirely sure, it was Optifile and the chips were standard issue 5534/TLO72.

No idea about GML or Uptown...

tom

[Former Oceanway drone]

andshesbuyingastairway wrote on Sat, 09 June 2007 04:08

no ptp banter allowed

"Yes, your highness."

You really are quite the jackass. We're not here to serve you.

Contempt,

Alan Tomlinson

[Andy Peters]

andshesbuyingastairway wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 19:08

does anyone know what kind of op-amps various automation systems use?  such as ultimation, flying fader, supertrue/ total recall etc.   i'm assuming GML uses something discrete, and that uptown 990 is as well being the 990. also as if that wasn't enough, do you know what most factory VCA uses for op-amps (even if in simplified monolithic vs. discrete terms) say neotek for example no ptp banter allowed

So the automation puts a motorized fader in place of the standard job.

No other part of the audio circuitry is affected.

So WTF are you on about?

NB: there may be op-amps as part of the stepper motor driver circuit but these devices are not in the audio path.

Many faders are wired point-to-point into the circuit.

-a

[andshesbuyingastairway]

wish we could ask GML to verify that information.

\
is andy's information correct?  and in VCA i assume there would be an op-amp in the audio path.  

[Dave Hecht]

andshesbuyingastairway wrote on Sat, 09 June 2007 13:28

wish we could ask GML to verify that information.

 Here we go again. Alex, you've already been suspended once. If you're going to start in with challenging answers again, I'll make it permanent. And GML does not use any discrete opamps in the automation system. I've worked on dozens of GML systems. Care to challenge my response?

Dave Hecht

[bblackwood]

'Alex' is banned from REP permanently.

[Larrchild]

If you go point to point on his posts, he's hardly discreet.
As Chairman of the Board, you saw his knowledge was in a state of flux, and flux-removal is the first step to a clean, shiny board.

[J.J. Blair]

I'm just checking in for the first time in a few days.  I've dinner with George the last two nights, and we talked about why he stopped going into forums.  I wish he were here to see this, though.  

Wow.  Talk about somebody who doesn't understand jackshit about jackshit.  You use moving faders so that you can use a fader and NOT have to go through any type of circuit other than the fader/resistor.

The funny thing is that all the systems named use pretty much the same P&G faders.

[Larrchild]

We really mean well here.

But don't pull our chain, lol.

He meant the buffer opamp that is sometimes on a fader package.
That's not the point. The question was framed in a combative posture.

[CHANCE]

Larrchild wrote on Sun, 10 June 2007 13:17

his knowledge was in a state of flux, and flux-removal is the first step to a clean, shiny board.

Excellent!

[J.J. Blair]

I repeated the question to Massenberg about an our ago.  Here's his response:

"Stupid questions like these are why I stopped going into forums."

[RMoore]

J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 11 June 2007 02:25

I repeated the question to Massenberg about an our ago.  Here's his response: "Stupid questions like these are why I stopped going into forums."

The question was formulated to sow confusion and dischord, for reasons only known to the poster,

No way was it a 'for real' query..

Those stairway to heaven posts began red flag waving already with the mention of point to point and SSL desks in the same sentence...

The weird thing is it must be someone who actually knows enough about all of those technical elements to be able to pose 'questions' that 'appear' to be clued out or worded in such a way so as to annoy others who are tech savvy..

He's probably tickled pink to know the shenanigans pulled here managed to rile Mr Massenburg...

[J.J. Blair]

I think you're giving Alex to much credit.  I think he's just another fucking idiot who read some buzzwords or some other shit on Gear Slutz and is trying to sound like he knows what he has some idea of what's supposed to sound good.  

He reminds me of Andy Simpson, except Andy comes up with hypothesis that are based on some information that he learned, and he's trying to prove a useless point.  Alex is asking useless questions.

[ssltech]

J.J. Blair wrote

Andy {snip happens}'s trying to prove a useless point.  Alex is asking useless questions.

Dude...

We've GOT to get those two together on a date or something...!



Keef

[Dave Hecht]

 I have to agree with Ryan on this. When this clown started posting, we decided to give him the benefit of the doubt, as his first couple of posts could have just been a seriously misinformed beginner. His follow up posts, however, clearly indicated he was just trying to stir things up. Whatever his motivation, I don't have the time to waste on him, and I doubt anyone else has, either.  As I warned him, this forum is not going to turn into Gearslutz. And I consider his being banned as a serious improvement.

Dave Hecht

[J.J. Blair]

Hear, hear.