View Full Version : TANNOY 3128 speaker 1012 and HPD315A crossover. What's the difference?
tonymorris
27-03-2017, 00:34
First may I say this my 1st post on here (or any forum) so I don't know if this is the correct protocol, Sorry.
I have been asked to build a crossover for the TANNOY 3128 driver. Some say the 3128 has similar properties to the earlier HPD315A driver.
I notice the 3128 had a crossover designated 1012 when used in the Cheviot cabinet.
So, ... the question ... Can anyone tell me the difference between a 1012 crossover and the HPD315A crossover PLEEEESE?
Also when the 3128 was used in the Bradley a totally different and much simpler design was used. If anyone has info on this I would be interesred too.
Thanks to all who take time to answer. I bet Paul Coupe would know but I have no idea how to get in touch!!!:scratch:
Cheers
Tony M
Spectral Morn
27-03-2017, 10:07
Hi Tony
Welcome to AoS.
I have moved this post from the Welcome section because it will get more attention here than there as its a question, need for help rather than a general introduction post.
I can't help you but I am sure there are folks here who can.
RothwellAudio
27-03-2017, 16:01
You'll find Paul's contact details here
http://www.referencefidelitycomponents.co.uk/contact/
The 3128 used a time compensated crossover for the ABF type motor, typically, the time compensated 1020 crossover, as used in the Balmoral. It is not the same as the earlier AlNiCo HPD crossover which cannot be substituted. It requires time compensation due to the shorter magnet body and horn dimension meaning that, unlike earlier HPD and MG drive units, the horn phase response is not time aligned.
Tannoy adopted a version of a lattice all pass time delay circuit originally attributed to Harry F. Olson which was used to delay the HF response for the 3128. It was the same all pass lattice system that they used in many other of their later designs, including some of the K series and later drive units.
The problem is, that it doesn't integrate the HF well, and can be audible in circuit as a result.
Adopting the HPD crossover won't work because both the acoustic and impedance response of the later drive unit is not the same as the earlier HPD. You really need to use the 1020 time compensated crossover.
Something that has intrigued me over the years is the short horn K series Pro Monitors came with the all pass (sync-source) network on a separate little circuit board but the Prestige/Time Compensated series didn't include one at all. Perhaps better electronics minds than me can point to what Tannoy have done in the networks.
Below is the network for the 'Time Compensated' Mk1 RHR
https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3929/33570044891_dac61c3042_b.jpg[/url]
Something that has intrigued me over the years is the short horn K series Pro Monitors came with the all pass (sync-source) network on a separate little circuit board but the Prestige/Time Compensated series didn't include one at all. Perhaps better electronics minds than me can point to what Tannoy have done in the networks.
Below is the network for the 'Time Compensated' Mk1 RHR
https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3929/33570044891_dac61c3042_b.jpg[/url]
The horn design changed a little since the RHR.
I understand that the reasons for dropping the TC circuit (not shown in the above schematic) was partly because it didn't work well (partially as the time delay may not have been accurate enough for the actual time domain difference at crossover) and secondly because, being cynical about it, costs were cut and crossover designs for what is quite a complex electro-acoustic design were simplified. Not because this made them any better (sadly, the reverse is true IME with the prestige line) but because it was cheaper to manufacture. The autoformers which used to be used to impedance match the nominally 10 Ohm (at DC) horn from around 18 Ohms at crossover to closer match the LF were also dropped for the prestige line plus earlier models. There are other ways though to balance a circuit without them (I use an HF compensated circuit for my own designs and shun the autoformer although it would be easy enough to get them made).
Tannoy, instead played with component quality, marketing in particular the use of VDH cables and "high quality" cost-no-object type poly capacitors. It is a shame then that they simply connected said "quality VDH" cables using cheap gold plated push fit spade connectors and plastic automotive-type connector blocks (to the drive units). It is just inconceivable with speakers costing what they do, that such cheap and nasty methods of connecting cables were used. Caps, despite the hype, are bog standard re-branded for Tannoy polys. It was a triumph of marketing over common sense good design. The accountants though were probably responsible for directing the engineers, who have to play to the budgetary fiddle.
I built some Arundels in 1982 using 3828 drivers, I recently found an old receipt for a pair of 'Arundel 'time compensated' 1019 crossovers' from Tannoy for £184/pr!-they didn't supply an all pass network even then.
They looked very like Arden/Berkeley etc crossovers and had the auto formers(and the Molex connector).
There's a pic of the network here;
http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/details/649023002-tannoy_arundel_15in_vintage_speakers_restoredupgra ted/
tonymorris
28-03-2017, 19:55
I would like to offer my sincere thanks to everyone, particularly Paul C at RFC and also Cooky, of course for responding to my plea.
I have learned, over the years, to take the plethora of Tannoy Crossover diagrams on the Internet with heavy scepticism. So I don't use them. Being able to undertake real time analysis of electrical output under real speaker load conditions confirms my doubts.
There is much to be praised for Mr. Coupes' contributions to this forum. I thank him and appreciate his learned analyses. Thank you sir.
To conclude this discussion, my client has a set of the small Bradley with speakers with 3128 drivers but no crossovers???. I have passed your comments to him and reasserted the concerns as detailed here. I await a reply.
Thanks again all
As the reality is that the Prestige /Balmoral range didn't use any extra time compensation circuitry you could use the Cheviot 2 crossover(it used the 12" K series driver).
if you wish add the sync-source circuit to taste.
http://www.hilberink.nl/codehans/tannoy34.htm
As the reality is that the Prestige /Balmoral range didn't use any extra time compensation circuitry you could use the Cheviot 2 crossover(it used the 12" K series driver).
if you wish add the sync-source circuit to taste.
http://www.hilberink.nl/codehans/tannoy34.htm
It would seem safe to assume that there were minimal differences between the 1012 X/O used in the Mk2 end-of-run Cheviots (themselves using the 3128) and the 1020 time compensated X/O used in later Balmoral/Bradly and Chertsey lines.
The time comp circuit in the latter series were separate from the X/O board itself, hence why it is sometimes assumed that the Balmoral for example, didn't use time compensation (it did, and Tannoy produced measurements for the effects on phase which were a published part of the specifications). There are always pairs that have been altered though and this circuit was often removed by owners. That's a different debate though as the answer, failing any other option, is to use the 1012 circuit if you have that Tony. You can build the TC circuit and have it fitted to the HF input via a switch (ie switch in or out).
Off topic, I know, but seeing as Tony has his answer, it's interesting to mull over some development aspects of the DC drivers in general:
Tannoy marketed the newer ABF motor as "superior" to the earlier HPDs but it wasn't quite as well received in some quarters. The whole thing needed refinement, but as previously mentioned, the TC circuit was dropped in later Prestige lines, which bizarrely used the superior Tulip Waveguide only in the entry level models and the pepperpot in the more expensive ones (a nod to the fact that Tannoy were targeting the nostalgia buyer or tannoyista fetishist for sales rather than pushing what was technically superior!). I had this conversation with their Technical Director a few years ago, and he admitted that the main market (Far East) were less inclined to run with technical advances in DC design, such as the Tulip Waveguide and more efficient motors, and more inclined to buy a newer nostalgia model in the belief that it was superior, hence the DC was never really finally developed the way it should have been. The irony here is that the very fans that want it, only want the older designs in the belief that they're all superior, which is not the case. They exhibit higher HF distortion as the HF pepperpot designs break up resonance occurs lower down whilst the TWG can extend cleanly to 30KHz and is smoother within the audible band. Sadly, marketing drives what is developed, not common sense or best technical solution.
It would seem safe to assume that there were minimal differences between the 1012 X/O used in the Mk2 end-of-run Cheviots (themselves using the 3128) and the 1020 time compensated X/O used in later Balmoral/Bradly and Chertsey lines.
The whole thing needed refinement, but as previously mentioned, the TC circuit was dropped in later Prestige lines, which bizarrely used the superior Tulip Waveguide only in the entry level models and the pepperpot in the more expensive ones (a nod to the fact that Tannoy were targeting the nostalgia buyer or tannoyista fetishist for sales rather than pushing what was technically superior!). I had this conversation with their Technical Director a few years ago, and he admitted that the main market (Far East) were less inclined to run with technical advances in DC design, such as the Tulip Waveguide and more efficient motors, and more inclined to buy a newer nostalgia model in the belief that it was superior, hence the DC was never really finally developed the way it should have been. The irony here is that the very fans that want it, only want the older designs in the belief that they're all superior, which is not the case. They exhibit higher HF distortion as the HF pepperpot designs break up resonance occurs lower down whilst the TWG can extend cleanly to 30KHz and is smoother within the audible band. Sadly, marketing drives what is developed, not common sense or best technical solution.
Agree 100%, it's heresy to say so but the tulip is a far better unit-particularly when taken to its ultimate refinement in the Super Dual.
It's always of interest to watch developments in the Kingdoms and in that DC mid top Tannoy have abandoned the pepperpot and moved to a slotted phase plug(a la TAD/JBL/Radian) and a 3" diaphragm which allows them the drop the crossover freq to 700hz.
tonymorris
29-03-2017, 14:26
[QUOTE=Reffc;849639]It would seem safe to assume that there were minimal differences between the 1012 X/O used in the Mk2 end-of-run Cheviots (themselves using the 3128) and the 1020 time compensated X/O used in later Balmoral/Bradley and Chertsey lines.
The question now seems to be ; Does anyone know what was/is the different between the 1012 and the HPD315A crossover? I guess a shift in frequency from the 'alleged' 1kHz to 1.2kHz was needed? So a relatively easy choice of different smaller HF capacitor and a smaller substituted LF coil perhaps? Who knows, anyone?
Yes, as previously mentioned Tony, there's a lot of difference...the two are just not interchangeable. The 315 has different T&S parameters, a different motor, different chassis, different voice coil, different cone and a different horn. If you base your design on the 315, the crossover point will be wrong and the driver matching wrong. Leave it with me and I'll see whether I can dig up the 1012 schematic for you. It could be a day or two unless someone here has that crossover and swould be willing to post the schematic.
tonymorris
29-03-2017, 19:34
The guy I am trying to help is very eager indeed to get his 3128 Bradleys up and running. I have trawled all over the place trying to uproot the schematic for the Bradley X/O. It 'seems' he has no separate TC circuit present / available. If you could come up with a diagram Paul, both me and my desperate Bradley owner would be very happy.
Hold everything!
I have just managed to unearth the following. http://www.hilberink.nl/tannoy/jpvanson/speakers.pdf
It states crossover was a 1056 first order at 1.2kHz. This is getting VERY confusing now!
"
SL65 Bradley
Surrey Series 1983 1985
34.6"x16.2"x15" 60 65 Walnut Brown Floor Standing
Bass Reflex
38Hz‐20kHz +/‐3dB
90dB/W/M 8 6 50‐180 2 1 First Order, Passive, Time Compensated
1056 1200 3128E (x1)"
You are a star for even offering to look Paul. Cheers.
The guy I am trying to help is very eager indeed to get his 3128 Bradleys up and running. I have trawled all over the place trying to uproot the schematic for the Bradley X/O. It 'seems' he has no separate TC circuit present / available. If you could come up with a diagram Paul, both me and my desperate Bradley owner would be very happy.
Hold everything!
I have just managed to unearth the following. http://www.hilberink.nl/tannoy/jpvanson/speakers.pdf
It states crossover was a 1056 first order at 1.2kHz. This is getting VERY confusing now!
"
SL65 Bradley
Surrey Series 1983 1985
34.6"x16.2"x15" 60 65 Walnut Brown Floor Standing
Bass Reflex
38Hz‐20kHz +/‐3dB
90dB/W/M 8 6 50‐180 2 1 First Order, Passive, Time Compensated
1056 1200 3128E (x1)"
You are a star for even offering to look Paul. Cheers.
FWIW, The 315a and 3128 drivers use the same lf/hf cone/dia/voice coil assemblies and share the same T&S parameters.
The shorter horn probably means you need to shift the required notch position.
From Tannoy; http://www.hilberink.nl/codehans/tannoy39.htm
FWIW, The 315a and 3128 drivers use the same lf/hf cone/dia/voice coil assemblies and share the same T&S parameters.
The shorter horn probably means you need to shift the required notch position.
From Tannoy; http://www.hilberink.nl/codehans/tannoy39.htm
The magnet/motor assembly was different. The horn length is different. The Force factor (BL) is different, and the Le was slightly different (measured). The horn notch values will be different because of the phasing differences. That's just the way the horn works. The crossover was also higher at 1200 Hz.
The phase response will therefore be different and because the motor Force factor and efficiency were different, the T&S parameters cannot be identical, despite what is found on that site. Indeed, Tannoy didn't actually publish T&S parameters when first manufacturing HPDs because they didn't exist and were only later attributed to them.
You have to be very careful with what you take as gospel from web sources when it comes to Tannoy. I wish that I had kept my measurements for that driver, but the crossovers are simply not interchangeable between the two. It isn't safe to second guess these things, it is only by actually measuring them that you can draw any conclusions really.
FWIW, The 315a and 3128 drivers use the same lf/hf cone/dia/voice coil assemblies and share the same T&S parameters.
The shorter horn probably means you need to shift the required notch position.
From Tannoy; http://www.hilberink.nl/codehans/tannoy39.htm
The magnet/motor assembly was different. The horn length is different. The Force factor (BL) is different, and the Le was slightly different (measured). The horn notch values will be different because of the phasing differences. That's just the way the horn works.
The phase response will therefore be different and because the motor Force factor and efficiency were different, the T&S parameters cannot be identical, despite what is found on that site. Indeed, Tannoy didn't actually publish T&S parameters when first manufacturing HPDs becausethey didn't exist and were only later attributed to them.
You have to be very careful with what you take as gospel from web sources when it comes to Tannoy. I wish that I had kept my measurements for that driver, but the crossovers are simply not interchangeable between the two. It isn't safe to second guess these things, it is only by actually measuring them that you can draw any conclusions really.
The information posted comes from Tannoy. The letter is reproduced on Han's site.
Usual caveats in place of course but here's Phil Shorts investigations into tweaking the short horn DC's..http://www.hilberink.nl/codehans/tannoy53.htm
Hi Frank,
How's it going? :)
Just a quick one, off-topic I know, but just to say that you made a fab job of renewing the surrounds on Ian's Canterburys - sonically, it's made quite a difference!
Also, Ian was showing me some of the fabulous artwork you do of 'music legends'. They're superb, mate, but you're not charging anything like enough for them!! ;)
Anyway, if you'd like any frames (for nowt), I've got loads of off-cut lengths lying in the workshop I was going to chuck out, so if you do your own framing, or they're of any use to you, then you're welcome to them :cool:
Marco.
Hi Frank,
How's it going? :)
Just a quick one, off-topic I know, but just to say that you made a fab job of renewing the surrounds on Ian's Canterburys - sonically, it's made quite a difference!
Also, Ian was showing me some of the fabulous artwork you do of 'music legends'. They're superb, mate, but you're not charging anything like enough for them!! ;)
Anyway, if you'd like any frames (for nowt), I've got loads of off-cut lengths lying in the workshop I was going to chuck out, so if you do your own framing, or they're of any use to you, then you're welcome to them :cool:
Marco.
Hiya mate, I'm fine thanks hope you are well.
Thanks for the kind words re the 'icons'. Oddly enough I was thinking of branching out a bit regards the canvas/boards and indeed after Ian had mentioned your framing work you were front of mind for some future work if I move away from the box canvas route.
Ian's like a pig in shhh, since I did his Canterburys
Yeah, they're significantly improved: faster, tighter, seemingly more extended in the bass, more detailed/less coloured elsewhere, I guess because the drivers are now behaving as they were designed.
Anyway, if I can help at all with framing, you know where I am. Also, if you'd like to link to your Facebook page, in your signature here, feel free to do so. Might help generate some more interest in your artwork :cool:
Marco.
Yeah, they're significantly improved: faster, tighter, seemingly more extended in the bass, more detailed/less coloured elsewhere, I guess because the drivers are now behaving as they were designed.
Anyway, if I can help at all with framing, you know where I am. Also, if you'd like to link to your Facebook page, in your signature here, feel free to do so. Might help generate some more interest in your artwork :cool:
Marco.
Agreed on the Cants-thing is they weren't as 'gone' as some I've seen but just goes to show a tacky surround is a knackered surround...
On the arty front that's most kind of you-I'm in the process of sorting web stuff out at the mo'-the FB page is a mess ;-)
walpurgis
01-04-2017, 14:50
Here is the SRM 12X crossover diagram, which I suspect would be largely similar. The drivers share many parts. I think the main difference is the cone and surround.
You would need to establish the values across the tapped inductor. They can be measured if anybody has one handy.
http://i65.tinypic.com/34rsi8i.png
The information posted comes from Tannoy. The letter is reproduced on Han's site.
Usual caveats in place of course but here's Phil Shorts investigations into tweaking the short horn DC's..http://www.hilberink.nl/codehans/tannoy53.htm
Alas, that doesn't make it right, neither is it right!;) Ahhh, the perils of t'ut interweb :doh:
The explanation for the autoformers given there isn't strictly correct either. They were there to impedance match the drive units, not just for reasons of energy which can be got around by other means. Also, the input (green) winding of the input is most certainly not 4mH to ground. That is one of those errors which has plagued Tannoy internet crossover schematics and now I see where it originated! The LF value commonly ascribed to 315 HPDs is also wrong. It is not 1.2mH. It may be for the ceramic magnet version (but that I doubt) but it is most certainly the wrong value for the HPDs.
Again, Tannoy never originally published T&S specs because they simply didn't exist at the time and the letter refers to the values for the HPD, provided many years after the fact. It very much looks like the person who wrote that letter just assumed that the later ones would be the same. They can't be unless someone re-wrote the laws of physics in the intervening period. That can be proved. How can you have the same T&S parameters when different magnets and different horns were used? The Fs differs, the BL factors differs etc etc etc.
You can sometimes lead a horse to water but when people keep on insisting that duff information is correct, I have to shake my head and just give up. Hopefully people looking in will not be tempted to run with information gleaned from sources which do not ascribe the true values to fact (ie measurement).
Here is the SRM 12X crossover diagram, which I suspect would be largely similar. The drivers share many parts. I think the main difference is the cone and surround.
You would need to establish the values across the tapped inductor. They can be measured if anybody has one handy.
http://i65.tinypic.com/34rsi8i.png
May I ask where that came from Geoff? The values look about right and I do have the values for the tappings should anyone require them.
walpurgis
01-04-2017, 18:48
May I ask where that came from Geoff? The values look about right and I do have the values for the tappings should anyone require them.
I'm afraid I don't remember Paul. It was stashed away in the PC's files. I obviously kept it in case I wanted to replicate the circuit. Those tapping values might be handy.
Alas, that doesn't make it right, neither is it right!;) Ahhh, the perils of t'ut interweb :doh:
Again, Tannoy never originally published T&S specs because they simply didn't exist at the time and the letter refers to the values for the HPD, provided many years after the fact. It very much looks like the person who wrote that letter just assumed that the later ones would be the same. They can't be unless someone re-wrote the laws of physics in the intervening period. That can be proved. How can you have the same T&S parameters when different magnets and different horns were used? The Fs differs, the BL factors differs etc etc etc.
You can sometimes lead a horse to water but when people keep on insisting that duff information is correct, I have to shake my head and just give up. Hopefully people looking in will not be tempted to run with information gleaned from sources which do not ascribe the true values to fact (ie measurement).
With respect, I'm attempting a dialogue here. Anyone dipping into this thread will be wondering why, rather than shaking your head you don't produce your 'correct' T&S parameters for the HPD and K series to back up your assertion/contradiction of the Tannoy numbers.
What we have is cone/surround/spider/vc assemblies common across the 2 ranges so we know Mms, Cms, Re, Rms, Sd, and Le, it would be interesting to know if in redesigning their ceramic motors Tannoy achieved similar BL figures to the AlNiCo's-much like JBL did when they had to make a similar move;
When JBL were forced to abandon AlNiCo they redeveloped the 2231a driver-it's replacement was the ceramic 2235-Same cone/surround/mass ring/voice coil but a progressive spider which altered the compliance, other than a different Vas the T&S are very similar with BL of 21 and 20.5 respectively and Fs around 18hz-maybe JBL rewrote the laws of physics;-).
With respect, Paul is in business and works hard to get the info he has. I dont blame him if he wants to keep his measurements to himself.:)
With respect, Paul is in business and works hard to get the info he has. I dont blame him if he wants to keep his measurements to himself.:)
I'm just a horse looking for a drink of water mate.:)
With respect, Paul is in business and works hard to get the info he has. I dont blame him if he wants to keep his measurements to himself.:)
Thanks Grant.
As you're aware, I don't have to offer any justification (my information is sound) so I won't rise to the bait. There's always those on these forums waiting to creep out of the woodwork and argue with no real knowledge or basis for their ill conceived arguments.
As far as Tony's dilemma is concerned, I have a possible solution for him if he'd like to contact me privately to take this one off-air as it's just a waste of time for everyone concerned otherwise. Geoff, if you need the tapping values, please PM me and I'll supply them for you.
Thanks Grant.
As you're aware, I don't have to offer any justification (my information is sound) so I won't rise to the bait. There's always those on these forums waiting to creep out of the woodwork and argue with no real knowledge or basis for their ill conceived arguments.
I haven't posted one single piece of duff info,.
So far you recommended a crossover for it's 'time compensation' that didn't include any, stated the HPD/3** have different cones, different voice coils-wrong again, stated that to design a ceramic magnet using the same cone/coil/spider to have the same BL as an AlNiCo magnet goes against the laws of physics-wrong again.
If you have info that contradicts the Tannoy published T&S information-not sure which you are saying is wrong btw, the K series or the HPD..in any case given the number of Tannoy enthusiasts there are around that could enjoy the benefit, your refusal to share it says plenty.
Given the age of these drivers-in particular the HPD with it's AlNiCo mag I'm surprised there aren't lots of independent T&S measurements on the web-that said the nature of the beasts means those measurements are only good for that individual driver and any figures shown wouldn't have any commercial value.
While were on the subject of no real knowledge on the Tannoy Legacy thread you state the Legacy cabs with the TW(tulip waveguide) drivers will need time compensation and a notch filter-utterly wrong. The TW are time aligned and the horn uses a low compression waveguide-it doesn't have the resonance present in the pepperpots throat.
In the £3k xta sourced Tannoy pro digital crossover for these tulip DC drivers no LF time delay is applied and any peq is very wide band and gentle on the hf-no notch required.
I can't comment on the technicalities of this particular discussion, in terms of who's 'right' or 'wrong', as I'm not qualified to do so. However, what I do insist upon is that no-one on this forum automatically appoints themselves as the 'official guru' on ANY subject, Tannoys or otherwise, as that's not how we operate here.
How we operate, is to encourage input from *everyone*, and when two people who clearly have a level of expertise in the subject concerned 'lock horns', for want of a better description, the idea of the exercise is to respect each other's expertise/experience, and conduct a mutually beneficial dialogue that will (hopefully) educate and be put to good use by the membership.
Therefore, scoring points to feed egos, or a selfish desire to be seen as 'the main man', should always come second to that. Just sayin'... ;)
Marco.
I can't comment on the technicalities of this particular discussion, in terms of who's 'right' or 'wrong', as I'm not qualified to do so. However, what I do insist upon is that no-one on this forum automatically appoints themselves as the 'official guru' on ANY subject, Tannoys or otherwise, as that's not how we operate here.
How we operate, is to encourage input from *everyone*, and when two people who clearly have a level of expertise in the subject concerned 'lock horns', for want of a better description, the idea of the exercise is to respect each other's expertise/experience, and conduct a mutually beneficial dialogue that will (hopefully) educate and be put to good use by the membership.
Therefore, scoring points to feed egos, or a selfish desire to be seen as 'the main man', should always come second to that. Just sayin'... ;)
Marco.
No one is being any sort of a guru Marco. I always offer honest advice but when other people who clearly haven't grasped some of the concepts then appoint themselves as judge and jury, I will respond accordingly. Just saying ;)
If you'd rather I didn't bother, then that's absolutely fine with me as it's often a thankless task. I have nothing to prove or to justify and won't be playing those games. If that is what this forum is coming to, then I'm equally happy to drop out without any contribution. It has nothing to do with points scoring so please be very careful with what you are saying. I know what I'm about and it's taken years of learning, and am not an amateur in these things. I don't claim to be any sort of expert either but can only respond with honesty. That's me done with entering these discussions. I only entered this one because Tony was after advice from me. Over and out.
No one is being any sort of a guru Marco. I always offer honest advice but when other people who clearly haven't grasped some of the concepts then appoint themselves as judge and jury, I will respond accordingly. Just saying ;)
Well, that's absolutely fine, and you're entitled to do so, as long as you don't make it personal. Similarly, I *will* respond as I see fit, when I consider it warranted ;)
If you'd rather I didn't bother, then that's absolutely fine with me as it's often a thankless task. I have nothing to prove or to justify and won't be playing those games. If that is what this forum is coming to, then I'm equally happy to drop out without any contribution. It has nothing to do with points scoring so please be very careful with what you are saying. I know what I'm about and it's taken years of learning, and am not an amateur in these things. I don't claim to be any sort of expert either but can only respond with honesty. That's me done with entering these discussions. I only entered this one because Tony was after advice from me. Over and out.
I've addressed the above in a PM, which you will read, so there no point in going over old ground. The basic premise here is that ALL contributions are welcome, on ANY subject, and when 'techies' get involved and offer their input, no-one's relevant expertise is considered as the 'most authoritative'!
That's it. It's a general point, and thus not directed at anyone specific :)
Marco.
Guys, I insist that this thread gets back on-topic, so any further backchat (from those who think that they're entitled to have the last word) will be deleted without further warning, and if such persists, the thread will be closed.
Marco.
tonymorris
13-03-2020, 16:00
Wow.
I have been away from the forum for a while. I had no idea that my initial somewhat naive query would create such angst .
I am so so sorry guys.
Tony M
oh we like a good bit of angst:eyebrows:
walpurgis
13-03-2020, 16:34
Three years on, this might have been best left consigned to history.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.