In Reply to: RE: "Neither would thank me for my support" - why? I would, and in fact did - not for support per se,.... posted by Ugly on December 8, 2014 at 19:09:33:
"You mean it would be entertaining for someone to point out the obvious things you apparently missed such as the fact the device in question lacks a "class B" rating and so should never have made it to your short list in the first place if your goal is reducing EMI?"
Class A and B EMI specifications relate to protecting obsolete broadcast technology, especially analog TV broadcasting. Audio equipment can and should be designed to perform well in environments where the EMI levels are far greater, including proximity to high powered (licensed) transmitters.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: "Neither would thank me for my support" - why? I would, and in fact did - not for support per se,.... - Tony Lauck 12/9/1409:56:04 12/9/14 (7)
- and your point is? - Ugly 11:21:00 12/9/14 (4)
- RE: and your point is? - Tony Lauck 13:06:45 12/9/14 (3)
- RE: and your point is? - Ugly 18:16:21 12/9/14 (2)
- RE: and your point is? - Tony Lauck 08:42:14 12/10/14 (1)
- RE: and your point is? - Ugly 19:49:05 12/10/14 (0)
- But you have to agree, that explanation WAS mildly entertaining - just as I predicted. N/T - carcass93 10:19:29 12/9/14 (1)
- RE: But you have to agree, that explanation WAS mildly entertaining - just as I predicted. N/T - Tony Lauck 11:19:53 12/9/14 (0)