AW: Re: external input (again)

[Matt Haines]

>There are many ways to improove the design, but I'll choose
>you one that will use as few components as yours, but has much
>better performance in case you don't crank the pot fully up,
>and still slightly better performance, if you do.
>

Ah! Thanks very much. While I had all my mail deleted from my new provider,
including this message, I hadn't successfully uns*bscribed from DIY on the
old provider. So I got your message after all, and I'm glad I did!

You know, I was thinking that I'd want the pot in the feedback loop of the
op-amp, but that was before I saw the envelope follower circuit. Since I
can't design stuff from the beginning yet, I thought it was a good thing to
use. But now that I think of it, you never actually HEAR the audio in an
envelope follower. So there's no need for the quality to be high. Duh. :)

I think I will definitely implement your suggestions. Thanks.


.       .       .       .       .       .       .       .       .
    .       .       .       .       .       .       .       .
.       .       .       .       .       .       .       .       .
Matt Haines  haines at apc.net         .       .       .       .
control-X:to:abort:transmission .       .       .       .       .
    .       .       .       .       .       .       .       .
.       .       .       .       .       .       .       .       .
    .       .       .       .       .       .       .       .
Moonlight, Muzak, Knick-Knack, Paddywack