| 00:11.41 | arossdotme | MistahDarcy, bobthebuilder@maker:/home/bobthebuilder/projects$ xdg-stanard eoma-cf | mkdevice handheld |
| 00:11.44 | arossdotme | heh :) |
| 00:12.45 | arossdotme | bobthebuilder@maker:/home/bobthebuilder/projects$ xdg-standard --url eoma-cf |
| 00:13.00 | arossdotme | http://rhombus-tech.net |
| 00:13.04 | arossdotme | heh bit of fun |
| 00:13.12 | arossdotme | but with a point |
| 00:14.10 | arossdotme | lolz.... |
| 00:15.40 | arossdotme | for device in "laptop-15inch portablegamesconsole box mox freedombox handheld tablet-7inch, tv, microwave " mkdevice $device |
| 00:15.51 | arossdotme | ;done |
| 00:16.17 | arossdotme | for device in "laptop-15inch portablegamesconsole box mox freedombox handheld tablet-7inch, tv, microwave " ;do mkdevice $device ; done |
| 01:43.57 | DocScrutinizer05 | wpwrak: \o/ |
| 01:45.22 | DocScrutinizer05 | arossdotme: ??? |
| 01:47.23 | DocScrutinizer05 | ohmy rhombustech, phoneblokes |
| 01:49.38 | DocScrutinizer05 | the idiocy of a consumer society that's *creating* demand to keep production and economy *growing* can _not_ get cured by smarter design exploiting sorts of modularity. Rather that modularity (if it would even work) furthers the compulsive hw upgrade idiocy |
| 01:51.33 | DocScrutinizer05 | what is needed is a new approach to product longevity |
| 01:52.52 | DocScrutinizer05 | why do we need new computers today to browse webpages that didn't work on PCs 10 years ago? what was wrong with the internet as it been 10 years ago? why it had to get transformed into this crap we have today? |
| 01:54.28 | DocScrutinizer05 | when you're concerned about this avalanche of upgrades in every aspect of our technical life, don't search for better modularity but just say NO |
| 01:55.53 | arossdotme | DocScrutinizer05, you have valid points, i ponder about them too... |
| 01:55.53 | *** join/#qi-hardware archang (~archang@111.198.29.53) |
| 01:58.31 | arossdotme | i do wonder wont the humans just buy tons of cpu cards... but then i think thats a lesser of the evil then hole new devices. I also know and acknowledge that social/human brain/society/psychology issues cant be fixed by better tech. only by better people |
| 01:59.49 | arossdotme | but then wont pepole buy lots of new device variants but then i think that they can also invest in just one 15inch laptop thats extra well made instead of lots of cheep ones that ware out after 2 years of abuse. |
| 02:02.40 | arossdotme | so if the psychology it can help the plant=us but if its not then it can continue the unsustainable status quo. unlike the current status quo it also enables a more sustainable way of having devices that are fast and can be upgrade (or shall i call it swap-up) easily |
| 02:03.18 | arossdotme | * so if the psychology along the right sort of lines |
| 02:05.17 | arossdotme | i also see how all the fancy stuff makes what used to be a simple article a several mb of ram hog. is you need a 8gb+ ram to have more then 30 tabs open |
| 02:07.33 | arossdotme | but i can also see the side of it making, opening possibliltys of experiments in design of information.... then on a small side it also means thanks to webrtc i might be able to video chat with people once in my life :) |
| 02:07.57 | arossdotme | hmm aggh |
| 02:07.59 | arossdotme | :/ |
| 02:12.59 | arossdotme | DocScrutinizer05, for me and if i may, i think for luke too. modularity is not the god of anwser but instead is a side ways answer to getting free software computer hardware, buy expanding our needs we can enable possibilities that favour us and help others, help innovations (new cpus,socs,archs,small scale manufacture/designed devices like a gitar effects box, gnu+linux microwave i think would befit a lot from eoma-68), oh and also |
| 02:12.59 | arossdotme | an hw platform for reducing waste with the right mental attitude |
| 02:14.00 | arossdotme | sounds like the marketing for rhombus-tech needs err innovation.... |
| 02:14.35 | arossdotme | cus i donât remember "mental attitude" being mentioned |
| 02:15.09 | arossdotme | so with what i just said, whats your thoughts back? id like to know :) |
| 02:15.25 | arossdotme | thanks btw |
| 02:17.06 | DocScrutinizer05 | my take on 'modular' stays unaltered and in line with many others here: it's basically not really feasible and multiplies resource demand for same class of product, while you hardly ever can save enough resources during lifetime of the product to compensate for that |
| 02:17.28 | arossdotme | k |
| 02:18.37 | wpwrak | unless you're building PC mainboards. then it still works, barely ;-) |
| 02:18.54 | arossdotme | so what do you think is feasible? if its not a silly question. neo900 but on a mass production scale with a few $mill to fund it? |
| 02:19.35 | DocScrutinizer05 | when you see that mudular design needs maybe 2 to 3 times the resources, you need to extend the product lifespan by same factor, plus the resources needed for module updates during that period on top |
| 02:20.08 | DocScrutinizer05 | and then you just achieved break-even |
| 02:21.03 | DocScrutinizer05 | use your $device just a few months longer and you do way more for environment and resource savings than with any modular design |
| 02:23.06 | DocScrutinizer05 | Neo900 is not really a modular design. If it does anything for "green" (except trying to use politically and environmentally correct resources) then it's the strict planned-anti-obsolescence in the design |
| 02:23.52 | DocScrutinizer05 | we hope the device will be useful for at least 5 years |
| 02:24.02 | arossdotme | yea :) |
| 02:24.06 | arossdotme | im afraid i dont see what you mean or how it "needs maybe 2 to 3 times the resources"? with socs its basically a connector between the soc/ram and the device. the ardunio-like chip that does various bits (like gpio to basic audio even) is no worse (if not better heh) than whats in x86 laptops |
| 02:24.07 | DocScrutinizer05 | and for sure will work that long, and longer |
| 02:24.28 | arossdotme | neo900 well made by germans :D |
| 02:24.46 | arossdotme | (well not just germans i think) |
| 02:24.53 | arossdotme | (?) |
| 02:25.07 | DocScrutinizer05 | (2 to 3 times resources) your biggest savings nowadays in electronics are from integration |
| 02:25.36 | DocScrutinizer05 | when you want modularity you can't use integration |
| 02:25.52 | arossdotme | yea, the arduino-like chip, doesnât that take care of most of the integration? |
| 02:26.25 | arossdotme | and the brains are integrated into the cpu card. cpu,gpu,video,ram. |
| 02:26.32 | arossdotme | oh and usb |
| 02:27.00 | DocScrutinizer05 | nowadays you got system-on-a-chip almost everywhere |
| 02:27.08 | arossdotme | so is it not the integration cut into 2 halfs that go together? |
| 02:27.09 | DocScrutinizer05 | zilch modularity |
| 02:27.30 | DocScrutinizer05 | no, yiou can't cut a chip into two halves |
| 02:28.12 | DocScrutinizer05 | that makes it two chips and both have cost for packaging etc, which otherwise are only one time and now you pay for them 2 times |
| 02:28.20 | wpwrak | arossdotme: arduino is a great example for the enormous cost of modular hardware :) most arduino circuits could be implemented for a tiny fraction of the cost of arduino + shield by just putting the MCU and whatever peripheral in their own circuit |
| 02:28.31 | DocScrutinizer05 | this is exactly where my factor 2 to 3 (to even 5) comes from |
| 02:30.49 | arossdotme | not the cpu or gpu or ram etc but why not the pwr, audio,gpio separately? like a brain-on-chip and a gpio/io-on-chip ? |
| 02:30.54 | wpwrak | arossdotme: the modular design forces you to over-design the base module, because it has to fit a large number of use cases, then adds interconnection elements (headers), and if you're unlucky, you need components that work around constraints of the interface. e.g., a voltage regulator or some mux/demux circuit |
| 02:31.12 | DocScrutinizer05 | ohmy, this is all one chip nowadays |
| 02:31.15 | DocScrutinizer05 | maybe 2 |
| 02:32.12 | DocScrutinizer05 | wpwrak: level shipters, phy chips, signal shapers at large... |
| 02:32.15 | arossdotme | socs with every thing in one is also from a market of throw away devices so what does it matter. these days are there not moves to reduce that all-in-one nature of socs? i remmber that was it allwinner had less in there mutl core soc.... |
| 02:32.50 | DocScrutinizer05 | *sigh* |
| 02:33.09 | arossdotme | sorry |
| 02:33.15 | arossdotme | :/ |
| 02:33.21 | DocScrutinizer05 | adding "GPIO" to a chip costs 5 ct, adding a separate GPIO chip costs 2 bucks |
| 02:33.56 | DocScrutinizer05 | now consider the whole SoC only costs 5 bucks |
| 02:34.06 | wpwrak | arossdotme: the main drive is to offer as many of the features you may want. if i get Soc A that has feature Y I need for my design, and soC B that needs an extra chip for it, it's usually a design win for A. |
| 02:34.33 | wpwrak | DocScrutinizer05: you sure buy your GPIOs expensively ;-) |
| 02:34.46 | DocScrutinizer05 | I talked about TCO |
| 02:35.02 | arossdotme | wpwrak, yea isnt though when there are optional things in the standard? theres no optinal thing in eoma-68. just the basics, and sane voltage levels |
| 02:35.20 | DocScrutinizer05 | throw in 3 GPIO extender chips instead of a SoC that has 48 more GPIO pins |
| 02:35.24 | arossdotme | ok i guess i see where you comming from.... |
| 02:35.55 | *** join/#qi-hardware sb0 (~lekernel@123202036228.ctinets.com) |
| 02:36.22 | wpwrak | arossdotme: there isn't much of a "standard" in the SoC world. chip manufacturers make some bundle, with things they hope will attract customers |
| 02:36.55 | wpwrak | also, most chips have lots of unused features. that's not a problem, since it actually makes everything cheaper |
| 02:37.09 | arossdotme | the old days of separate chip for $thing was very expensive and lead to bulky products. hench to have a mp3 player arduino is $$ cus it you needs this and that chip for the basics and it all gets messy |
| 02:37.55 | wpwrak | so instead of producing N x chip A with core + X and M x chip B with core + Y, you make (N + M) x chip C with core + X + Y |
| 02:37.58 | wpwrak | much more efficient |
| 02:39.47 | arossdotme | taking of making everything cheeper. all these small production quantities products stuggle to get there hands of socs cus they are so small and if they do get soc it costs extra. with the eoma-68 approach. all projects benefit from of original bulk bug of the socs to make the brain cards. so its lot cheeper for those projects to get socs into there products |
| 02:40.16 | arossdotme | bulk bug = bulk buy |
| 02:40.45 | DocScrutinizer05 | chip C with core + X + Y is cheaper than either chip A with core + X and chip B with core + Y |
| 02:41.14 | arossdotme | you know i never said it was cheaper. |
| 02:41.45 | arossdotme | its only cheaper if it means you didnt have to buy a hole new device to get something faster. |
| 02:42.03 | arossdotme | then its a lot cheaper than a few $ |
| 02:42.15 | DocScrutinizer05 | it's not |
| 02:42.34 | wpwrak | chances are that by then technology has advanced also in other areas. so you'll want a more modern display, too |
| 02:42.37 | DocScrutinizer05 | a modular §device will be 2 to 5 times more expensive |
| 02:43.12 | wpwrak | and perhaps some new interface has come along as well, e.g., USB C. then you need an adapter chip that translates whatever old you have to USB C. and so on. |
| 02:43.13 | DocScrutinizer05 | so any savings you might be able to do are only relative to that way higher price |
| 02:43.17 | arossdotme | than a few or some $ diff between soc in device vs soc not fixed into device |
| 02:43.42 | arossdotme | what if the aim so not cutting edge but good enough? |
| 02:44.02 | arossdotme | usb 3.1 is going to be around for the next decade, no? |
| 02:44.11 | DocScrutinizer05 | prolly not |
| 02:44.24 | wpwrak | i mean, even with PC mainboards, you often build the whole core system in one step. you don't build it incrementally. because after a relatively short while, some of your modular interfaces will become obsolete |
| 02:44.35 | DocScrutinizer05 | I bet they already work on USB4 standardization, and a draft of USB5 |
| 02:45.18 | arossdotme | yea but so what? usb4+ is for the next decade and will properly but by light and not wire? |
| 02:45.19 | wpwrak | so there it's not about longevity but about flexibility when combining parts. also, individual items tend to be relatively expensive. so the relative cost of modularizing is smaller. |
| 02:46.00 | wpwrak | i think the USB generations are actually accelerating ;-) |
| 02:46.09 | DocScrutinizer05 | indeed |
| 02:46.51 | arossdotme | screens, for a portable device $screensize at full hd is good enough for this decade right? |
| 02:47.24 | arossdotme | pcs where about latest cutting edge within budget ranges |
| 02:47.38 | DocScrutinizer05 | and claiming "it's just good enough for the next NN years" is a point on my side, since you're better off with a decent long-lifecycle monolithic device then, rather than with a modular stuff for 5 times the cost |
| 02:48.38 | arossdotme | so there was no long term then a year upgrade component path, just the original flexibility of what you config your new system too. |
| 02:49.01 | arossdotme | idk cus well look at the bom of the eoma-68 cards and laptop |
| 02:49.53 | arossdotme | even at small quantityâs its pretty dam cheep. |
| 02:50.14 | DocScrutinizer05 | look, even server manufs go for SoC instead of the archetypical modular server design |
| 02:51.15 | DocScrutinizer05 | I dunno and actually don't care much about eoma |
| 02:51.16 | arossdotme | i forget the numbers but i think end prices for laptop with brain card it was around £300-400 thats what i would pay in the uk for $brand laptop |
| 02:51.27 | arossdotme | ok i respect that |
| 02:52.03 | DocScrutinizer05 | the typical laptop once had CPU and RAM socketed |
| 02:52.06 | arossdotme | server are also specialist, cpu, sata and ethernet. |
| 02:52.23 | DocScrutinizer05 | so you could upgrade the CPU a little, and you can extend the RAM |
| 02:52.25 | wpwrak | preciousss sssocketsss |
| 02:52.44 | arossdotme | and theres no cpu or ram socket on a eoma-* one cus there as one, fixed, inside the card |
| 02:53.02 | DocScrutinizer05 | now they move to soldered CPU and RAM, because of the cost for the mere sockets |
| 02:53.16 | arossdotme | and cus there good enough |
| 02:53.39 | DocScrutinizer05 | you seem to switch direction of your arguments |
| 02:54.08 | arossdotme | 2x core 1.*ghz+ 2gbram+ min specs good enough.. |
| 02:54.22 | DocScrutinizer05 | so??? where's the modularity? |
| 02:54.23 | arossdotme | arrgh i was fearing i might come across like that |
| 02:55.05 | arossdotme | cus i want 4cores with 4gb+ ram in my netbook but i cant cus its not in a module :( |
| 02:55.23 | DocScrutinizer05 | o.O |
| 02:55.29 | arossdotme | *faster 4cores, already got 4cores :) |
| 02:55.55 | DocScrutinizer05 | sorry I can't follow anymore. What you're after, what's your point? |
| 02:55.56 | arossdotme | mainy i want more ram but im stuck to intels limit :( |
| 02:57.16 | wpwrak | maybe we should just assure arossdotme that we also think eoma-68 is a great idea. then everyone is happy and we can go back to making our efficient monolithic designs ;-) |
| 02:57.21 | arossdotme | ive used my netbook for 4years plus now but i really need more ram at lest. if it was a eoma-68 netbook then i could have swapped the soc up to something newer |
| 02:57.55 | arossdotme | wpwrak, :D ok ok i try to push my luck. |
| 02:58.09 | DocScrutinizer05 | ERRRR??? >>and theres no cpu or ram socket on a eoma-* one cus there as one, fixed, inside the card<< |
| 02:58.54 | DocScrutinizer05 | vs >>if it was a eoma-68 netbook then i could have swapped the soc up to something newer << |
| 02:59.01 | DocScrutinizer05 | you comletely lost me now |
| 02:59.48 | DocScrutinizer05 | are you sure we even use the same terminology? |
| 03:00.04 | arossdotme | wondering that my self.... |
| 03:01.24 | DocScrutinizer05 | quite usual marketing strategy to use fuzzy weird incorrect terminology to make a selling point out of nothing |
| 03:01.44 | arossdotme | aww thats not my intention :( |
| 03:01.51 | DocScrutinizer05 | not yours |
| 03:01.54 | DocScrutinizer05 | maybe eoma's |
| 03:02.14 | arossdotme | no not eomaâs also |
| 03:02.26 | arossdotme | but i wonder about the modular word now |
| 03:02.44 | DocScrutinizer05 | ~wiki module |
| 03:03.24 | arossdotme | lolz i knew that was asking for problems that sentence. what i was getting at is that i feel your in the mind set of modularity used to be about cutting edge chips that you upgraded/swamped each chip to kind of "perfection". wheres for me its not to that level, modularity is hmmmmm |
| 03:03.26 | arossdotme | ... |
| 03:04.15 | DocScrutinizer05 | sorry, chip complexity is not directly related to modularity |
| 03:04.26 | arossdotme | awww |
| 03:05.06 | DocScrutinizer05 | it's just it doesn'tmake sense to ahve a modular function $X if same function $X is already to be found in the SoC and the SoC doesn't get more expensive because of that |
| 03:05.40 | DocScrutinizer05 | functions in SoC come almost for free |
| 03:05.51 | arossdotme | for a not the best example, sry: more like a err fire place. you can swap out the burner for a diff design but its still a fireplace, a brick wall with an chimney |
| 03:06.05 | DocScrutinizer05 | so it makes sense to cram in as many as you could imagine and find pins for |
| 03:06.31 | arossdotme | in the monolith design yes |
| 03:06.43 | arossdotme | total sense on that case |
| 03:06.51 | arossdotme | on=in |
| 03:06.51 | DocScrutinizer05 | a chip is *always* monolithic |
| 03:06.58 | arossdotme | aggh |
| 03:07.09 | DocScrutinizer05 | (inless it's a very special multi-die chip) |
| 03:07.10 | arossdotme | :| this is hard |
| 03:07.55 | DocScrutinizer05 | it's basically the packaging that makes a lot of the chip cost. Split the chip in two halves and more than double the cost |
| 03:08.04 | arossdotme | i guess i need to be a full hw tech to talk with an full depth hw tech |
| 03:08.14 | DocScrutinizer05 | (well, simplified picture, but still...) |
| 03:08.17 | arossdotme | yes |
| 03:09.48 | DocScrutinizer05 | think of a swiss army knife. It doesn't make sense to build that thing 'modular' |
| 03:10.29 | DocScrutinizer05 | actually for chips it's worse: next year's twice as large knife with double the tools costs same as this years predecessor model |
| 03:11.06 | DocScrutinizer05 | and both are by magnitudes cheaper than a "modular" approach where each tool is independent |
| 03:11.31 | arossdotme | yes comparing monlithic to monlithic. what about totial cost of ownership, having $device for the rest of you life. your never going to have one laptop. what if your new laptops were staged. each say decade you got a new $device instead of several hole devices |
| 03:12.07 | arossdotme | *hole new devices |
| 03:12.31 | *** join/#qi-hardware DocScrutinizer05 (~saturn@openmoko/engineers/joerg) |
| 03:12.36 | DocScrutinizer05 | sorry, I'm busy. BBL |
| 03:12.40 | arossdotme | ok |
| 03:12.45 | arossdotme | thanks for your time |
| 03:15.30 | arossdotme | i know its a pain and i imaine it feels like im not listening. i am reading and aknowaging to myself what you write and think, im.... trying to well i guess it feels like im trying to breakthough and get to another argument an higher level but then you see holes at this lower level and so are trying to fill them in :) |
| 03:15.42 | arossdotme | *imagine |
| 03:16.55 | arossdotme | i know its a pain and i imagine it feels like im not listening. i am reading and acknowledging to myself what you write and think, im.... trying to well i guess it feels like im trying to breakthrough and get to another argument and a higher level but then you see holes at this lower level and so are trying to fill them in :) |
| 03:18.05 | arossdotme | thanks so much for keeping on trying to discuss with me. :) |
| 03:18.24 | arossdotme | see ya |
| 03:32.04 | arossdotme | got this amp board but with a damaged ferrite. while it seams to work. this newbie/user wonders what cons there are from it being damaged? http://bayimg.com/FAIkiaagH |
| 03:34.06 | *** join/#qi-hardware archang (~archang@122.133.52.113.static.ximdns.com) |
| 03:41.29 | DocScrutinizer05 | hard to tell. Prolly will work within parameters (possibly getting a little hotter than usual) until you drive it at high load where it might distort or shutdown or overheat and burnout. Also for sure it creates more electrical noise (EMI) |
| 03:44.12 | DocScrutinizer05 | if it's a class-D with the ferrite beads just in the speaker lines to eliminate noise, then you don't need to worry much about anything |
| 03:49.36 | DocScrutinizer05 | actually the damage to the ferrite looks more severe than it is. The properties of that inductivity are prolly almost unaltered |
| 03:57.46 | arossdotme | ok thx |
| 03:57.52 | arossdotme | yes its class-d |
| 04:04.46 | arossdotme | tpa3118 blt mono |
| 04:05.01 | arossdotme | pblt |
| 04:07.23 | arossdotme | the board was less than £4 inc ship for mono 60w |
| 04:09.12 | arossdotme | amazing and it sound fairly good. im concerned about THD at high levels, need to test it again but with 24v dc instead of 19v dc i guess to get the best THD. noise floor was fairly good to |
| 05:14.09 | DocScrutinizer05 | hmmhmmmhmmmmm http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/group-buys/269855-wiener-tpa3118-amplifier-card.html |
| 05:18.12 | DocScrutinizer05 | oh, that's another board |
| 05:44.07 | *** join/#qi-hardware MistahDarcy (~crash@66-169-224-12.dhcp.gvrb.ca.charter.com) |
| 05:44.07 | *** join/#qi-hardware MistahDarcy (~crash@fsf/member/MistahDarcy) |
| 05:48.44 | DocScrutinizer05 | so yes, the ferrite coils are just output filters, shouldn't do any harm, except marginally worse EMI radiation on speaker cable |
| 06:05.03 | DocScrutinizer05 | of course when you start to worry if your speaker is 7 or 8 Ohms and tune the filtering to match the speaker impedance, then you can't accept such defect ;-) |
| 07:16.06 | *** join/#qi-hardware sandeepkr_ (~sandeep@111.235.64.4) |
| 07:26.01 | *** join/#qi-hardware sb0 (~lekernel@59.152.213.90) |
| 08:46.37 | *** join/#qi-hardware pcercuei (~paul@137.71.226.54) |
| 09:43.36 | *** join/#qi-hardware jwhitmore (~jwhitmore@91.123.229.11) |
| 12:06.35 | arossdotme | oh hmm, i might be using 8ohm speakers, tested it on one last night.... hmm |
| 13:08.36 | *** join/#qi-hardware sb0 (~lekernel@123202036228.ctinets.com) |
| 13:08.41 | *** join/#qi-hardware dandon (~dandon@88.151.72.65) |
| 13:58.26 | *** join/#qi-hardware azkay (~azkay@c110-23-4-9.rochd7.qld.optusnet.com.au) |
| 17:49.25 | *** join/#qi-hardware pcercuei (~pcercuei@2a03:a680:2020:ff1d:1af4:6aff:fec5:1c8f) |
| 18:08.16 | *** join/#qi-hardware rjeffries (~rjeffries@pool-74-106-217-43.snloca.dsl-w.verizon.net) |
| 18:22.39 | *** join/#qi-hardware jwhitmore (~jwhitmore@109.77.200.103) |
| 18:57.00 | *** join/#qi-hardware jwhitmore (~jwhitmore@109.77.200.103) |
| 19:49.33 | DocScrutinizer05 | nevermind, this was tongue in cheek |
| 19:50.14 | DocScrutinizer05 | as a matter of fact, you don't even know for sure what "Ohms" your speaker is |
| 19:50.33 | DocScrutinizer05 | since it's no resistor after all, but a complex load |
| 19:52.28 | DocScrutinizer05 | the Ohms are a roughballpark value to distinguish N (4) from 2N (8) or 4N (16), any more precise values don't make any sense at all, and the filters in such D-class amp don't need tuning to the speaker either |
| 19:53.43 | DocScrutinizer05 | just like such amp doesn't need a 500 bucks 16mm^2 oxigen-free copper power cable |
| 19:54.06 | DocScrutinizer05 | that's all voodoo |
| 19:54.19 | DocScrutinizer05 | the poor sort of voodoo |
| 19:57.03 | DocScrutinizer05 | lemme put it this way: cheap designs prolly simply omit the ferrite chokes and accept acting non-compliant to FCC rules regarding RF noise emission |
| 19:58.13 | DocScrutinizer05 | you'll need a shortwave radio (or spectrum analyzer) to detect the difference from your broken ferrite |
| 19:59.19 | DocScrutinizer05 | and even then I doubt it's easy to tell |
| 20:00.20 | DocScrutinizer05 | type and length of speaker cable will have way more impact on RF emission than that little broken part of the choke |
| 20:01.33 | DocScrutinizer05 | and absolutely no impact on the intended purpose of this circuit: playing audio |
| 20:02.10 | DocScrutinizer05 | I couldn't tell that from beginning since I didn't know the circuit / chip used |
| 20:02.21 | DocScrutinizer05 | now I can tell for sure |