Test Equipment Anonymous (TEA) : Discussion and Group Therapy Thread

[bd139]

There's quite a lot of general purpose TE in that catalogue, including bench DMMs. Use the search function for "Tektronix", "HP", "meter", "spectrum" etc, to cut down the amount you have to wade through to see what you are interested in, and avoid digital frame store synchroniser timebase correctors etc.

What I find off putting is that you have to collect the items and it's a long drive up to Lincolnshire. To make it worthwhile I'd have to bid successfully for a couple of items and they'd need to be fairly pricey things I got at lowish prices. Note the buyer's premium and VAT. If it was in Swindon, lets say, it would be much more interesting.

I don't mind going somewhere if there is an opportunity for a hike, some scenery or some nice activities but quite frankly there's fuck all in Lincolnshire apart from Morlocks.

[Cerebus]

Is there any good reason why we should keep images no bigger than they need be, such as cost, or running out of space?

Yes, comfort of the reader. If you get a page with 30 or 40 high res images it can take a comparative age to load and the layout goes all squirmy and unsettled until they have loaded. Case in point is ZeptoBars dies shots on the eevblog, one of the fuller pages there can take 15-20 seconds to load. It's not just the bandwidth, it's also the time the browser spends repeatedly re-doing the layout.

Also some people may still be on the Internet equivalent of a wet piece of string. Some of our American cousins have very limited or no competition in whom they may buy access from, with the resultant service being what one would expect from what are effectively monopolies.

[bd139]

I would prefer bigger ones because the small ones look like ass on a HiDPI display.

[tggzzz]

I don't mind going somewhere if there is an opportunity for a hike, some scenery or some nice activities but quite frankly there's fuck all in Lincolnshire apart from Morlocks.

Lincolnshire in general, yes. Oh yes. Prime aggieLand, and it feels like it makes Norfolk Feel Normal[1]. (Lincoln is OK)

Aunby isn't actually in Linconshire, it is just north of Ryhall in https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lin ... -0.1601246
But is it surrounded by Lincs on 3 sides

Stamford a few miles south is in Lincs, but... It is quite historic, being on the A1 and the last town before the sea/wetlands. It is also quite pretty, largely being made from the same stone as Bath, since it is at the other end of the "Cotswolds". Stamford has a reasonable vibe, for an occasional visitor.

But anywhere downstream of Stamford is indeed Morlock territoty.

[1] NFN used to be found on doctor's notes, where "normal for Norfolk" meant somewhat mentally slow.

[tggzzz]

Agreed, it is 200 mile round trip for me, about 4 to 5 hours driving and around £38 in fuel, so It's not really viable for me either, although I have done it once, 3 and a half years ago actually, when the fuel would have around £20 so with 2 x Solartron 7050 plus bench DMM's I was collecting and the subsequent flipping of them after some repair work was done to them, I probably came out on the right side of the equation in the end. But without a delivery option I would not want to repeat it today.

320 miles for me.

If I decide I want something, I conveniently ignore the travel costs.

If I decide I ought not to want something, I count the petrol, depreciation and (dubiously) insurance cost => 25p/mile or £80 for that trip. Given the increasing cost of petrol and secondhand (or new) cars, I ought to recalculate the costs to 30-35p/mile

[bitseeker]

I don't recall a byte limit, but the dimension limit is currently 2000 x 2000 pixels. I'll dig around to see what I can see.

I'm sure when I added photos to a post a few days back, the limit was 256kB. It's now 10Mb. You may have increased it.

I didn't see a byte limit for images (only dimension limits) previously because images are synonymous with attachments. So, they are controlled by the same byte limit for all attachments, which was 256 kB by default. I upped that to 10 MB last night. Fortunately, the forum thumbnails all image attachments. Hopefully, no one will upload a post full of photos at 10 MB each and manually inline them all.

Is there any good reason why we should keep images no bigger than they need be, such as cost, or running out of space?

I'm not quite sure if your question is about the reason to have limits. I will assume that's what you meant and there are many reasons to have reasonable limits. There are technical ones such as PHP having size limits on POST attachments (i.e., even if you remove the limit on the forum, then you will still be limited by the underlying language interpreter it's implemented in), load for maintaining many simultaneous long transfers, and eventually running out of space among other issues. There are also practical reasons that impact technical ones such as people generally (i.e., not the conscientious, responsible types currently testing the forum) doing the absolute minimum to attach files (e.g., 12-megapixel photo straight from the camera or attaching full ISOs rather than a file from it), leading to storage and bandwidth waste that is more disruptive and harder to reign in later (not to mention cleaning up such waste and orphaning the posts that refer to them).

At this time, I don't know what will be the best choices for limits. So, I'm trying some out and making adjustments to fit our needs. Feedback is always appreciated.

[Zenith]

I'm sure when I added photos to a post a few days back, the limit was 256kB. It's now 10Mb. You may have increased it.

I didn't see a byte limit for images (only dimension limits) previously because images are synonymous with attachments. So, they are controlled by the same byte limit for all attachments, which was 256 kB by default. I upped that to 10 MB last night. Fortunately, the forum thumbnails all image attachments. Hopefully, no one will upload a post full of photos at 10 MB each and manually inline them all.

Is there any good reason why we should keep images no bigger than they need be, such as cost, or running out of space?

I'm not quite sure if your question is about the reason to have limits. I will assume that's what you meant and there are many reasons to have reasonable limits. There are technical ones such as PHP having size limits on POST attachments (i.e., even if you remove the limit on the forum, then you will still be limited by the underlying language interpreter it's implemented in), load for maintaining many simultaneous long transfers, and eventually running out of space among other issues. There are also practical reasons that impact technical ones such as people generally (i.e., not the conscientious, responsible types currently testing the forum) doing the absolute minimum to attach files (e.g., 12-megapixel photo straight from the camera or attaching full ISOs rather than a file from it), leading to storage and bandwidth waste that is more disruptive and harder to reign in later (not to mention cleaning up such waste and orphaning the posts that refer to them).

At this time, I don't know what will be the best choices for limits. So, I'm trying some out and making adjustments to fit our needs. Feedback is always appreciated.

In turn I'm surprised at your confusion. There are obviously limits somewhere. 1 GB images are clearly out of the question.

You've provided this most excellent space for discourse on TEA. I consider myself to be a guest here. As a guest, I think I have obligations to get on with, and if possible, entertain other guests, and if turn if I wasn't entertained, I wouldn't stay. I also have an obligation not to abuse your hospitality.

Now part of this is presenting images. I thought when I posted on the Hitachi V-525, the size of image allowed was a little limiting. The camera I like to use isn't great at shades of grey when it comes to image size. Cerebus pointed out practical reasons in terms of not annoying other guests, for not posting huge images. There's also the question of the inconvenience and cost to you, our host.

I'm inclined to think that an image size max of 2MB would be fine.

[Zenith]

320 miles for me.

If I decide I want something, I conveniently ignore the travel costs.

If I decide I ought not to want something, I count the petrol, depreciation and (dubiously) insurance cost => 25p/mile or £80 for that trip. Given the increasing cost of petrol and secondhand (or new) cars, I ought to recalculate the costs to 30-35p/mile

Hauling ass up there might be worth it if you'd secured several pieces at significantly less than ebay prices, (something that can't be guaranteed) or that rare thing you've been looking for for years. There might be something entertaining to do there. Otherwise three hours of driving, loading your purchase(s), and another three hours back home. I reckon that at just less than £40 for diesel alone.

I don't say I won't bid in that auction but there are certainly sobering factors.

Now if it was in Chepstow, these wouldn't be considerations.

[bitseeker]

In turn I'm surprised at your confusion. There are obviously limits somewhere. 1 GB images are clearly out of the question.

Oh, I'm sure it won't be the last time I'm confused about what someone writes. Incorrect assumptions can lead to undesirable misunderstandings.

You've provided this most excellent space for discourse on TEA. I consider myself to be a guest here. As a guest, I think I have obligations to get on with, and if possible, entertain other guests, and if turn if I wasn't entertained, I wouldn't stay. I also have an obligation not to abuse your hospitality.

I appreciate your conscientiousness. Unfortunately, not everyone will necessarily be similar (intentionally or otherwise).

Now part of this is presenting images. I thought when I posted on the Hitachi V-525, the size of image allowed was a little limiting. The camera I like to use isn't great at shades of grey when it comes to image size. Cerebus pointed out practical reasons in terms of not annoying other guests, for not posting huge images. There's also the question of the inconvenience and cost to you, our host.

The 256 kB limit was the default value (rather than one that I intentionally set) and is identified as being for "attachments." There's a separate setting for maximum image dimensions (but not their file size), so it wasn't obvious that the attachment file size limit also applied to photos. It's unfortunate that image file size and attachment file size are the same limit.

I'm inclined to think that an image size max of 2MB would be fine.

Agreed. A 2 MB limit probably is plenty for a photo, but it isn't a lot for a file attachment. Maybe something in between 2 and 10 MB will work best in the long run -- yet to be determined.

So, what it boils down to is that I need to find what will work for most people most of the time while preventing less desirable outcomes by less aware users in the future. We'll continue iterating and tweaking.

[mnementh]

I suspect in my case it was a) the fact I'm using a Mac with old OS (which makes it a total PITA to actually see full details of a image file) and 2) the stoopit way it resizes images by default (again, utter shite discoverability in that process) hitting up against the 2k pixel/side limit.

I rarely want to pop up a file bigger than a meg or two, except when I'm posting something archival like the work I was doing on that 54621D mainboard; then I'd really have liked to been able to put a full 8ish MP image from my Canons up for future reference.

In deference to many gripers and the limited storage on groups.io, I've tried to get in the habit of resizing images if ridiculously huge filesize, and I've always made it a habit to limit the default view size when posting inline.

mnem

[bitseeker]

Yes, I'd like to have a solution for archive-oriented content (i.e., information library). It'll likely be adjacent to the forum and, hence, not subject to its quirks, limitations, etc. -- all in due time.

[Cerebus]

[1] NFN used to be found on doctor's notes, where "normal for Norfolk" meant somewhat mentally slow.

I was alway led to believe that NFN encompassed a much broader variety of indica such as "Has n toes : n ∈ {4, 5, 6, 7}", and so on around the rest of the body.

[Cerebus]

I suspect in my case it was a) the fact I'm using a Mac with old OS (which makes it a total PITA to actually see full details of a image file)

Select file in finder, and either hit command-i, or right click and select "Get Info" and lo a window will open with all the details you could want.

Screenshot 2022-11-05 at 23.24.05.png

[vk6zgo]

I don't mind going somewhere if there is an opportunity for a hike, some scenery or some nice activities but quite frankly there's fuck all in Lincolnshire apart from Morlocks.

How about poachers? (Or is that too much of a "niche" joke?)

[mansaxel]

Agreed. A 2 MB limit probably is plenty for a photo, but it isn't a lot for a file attachment. Maybe something in between 2 and 10 MB will work best in the long run -- yet to be determined.

So, what it boils down to is that I need to find what will work for most people most of the time while preventing less desirable outcomes by less aware users in the future. We'll continue iterating and tweaking.

Today, most phones barf out JPEGen at about 6-8MiB, so, 10 would be appropriate, for when one doesn't want to lose image resolution.

OTOH, I tend to be a naughty forum person and post links to my own storage instead. This leaves the only consideration (except my storage costs, which are insignificant) loading time.

2MiB would if nothing else make forum backups easier, so I'll accept that.

[bd139]

I don't mind going somewhere if there is an opportunity for a hike, some scenery or some nice activities but quite frankly there's fuck all in Lincolnshire apart from Morlocks.

How about poachers? (Or is that too much of a "niche" joke?)

I don't think the non-hams will get that one

[Peter_O]

Robert, what do you like most and least about the HP 3325A? I often see them for sale.

...Apart from the size there is nothing not to like for what it is...

Yes, size is a limiting factor. When I started TEA, I was going to stick with only half rack width equipment, but that only lasted a few years. So space is a problem

Hi guys!
I finally managed to check in for an account over here.
Thx for setting up this space!

A 3325B is just nice to have. I mean: better to have one than not.
It just combines nicely e.g. with an 5335.


You can 'script' e.g. a series of sweeps (2nd output comes from the back):

Got mine somewhat battered but cheap. Cleaning was mostly successful, as the picture above shows.


Regarding the size it's deeper than wide, right.
But isn't that an advantage, as you can stack any TE on top without problem?!
Best TE to stack on top would be a 2nd 3325.

Or you decide to grab the two-synthesizer 3326 directly. Same footprint.

[Zenith]

There's something solid and reassuring about HP kit from that era. You open it up and see the beautiful layout, the excellent metalwork and the lavish use of gold. Very often it's still pretty much in calibration. There can be problems such as plastic knobs and gears breaking up with age and hybrid circuits dying.

[Peter_O]

There's something solid and reassuring about HP kit from that era. You open it up and see the beautiful layout, the excellent metalwork and the lavish use of gold. [...]

Here's some pic from the inside of the 3325B:

top


bottom


and to make it complete:

[mnementh]

I suspect in my case it was a) the fact I'm using a Mac with old OS (which makes it a total PITA to actually see full details of a image file)

Select file in finder, and either hit command-i, or right click and select "Get Info" and lo a window will open with all the details you could want.

Screenshot 2022-11-05 at 23.24.05.png

As opposed to "Set default view on the folder" to include these details, so you can see them on every file in a folder as you scroll by. What you're describing involves actually opening each file with multiple clicks and selecting a tab to get down to the info you want.

PITA.

Another thing I find infuriating is that you can set some defaults on folder view but not all, and more than once I've had defaults that were once set pretty close to exactly the way I liked them (at least as close as MacOS was willing to tolerate) revert to other defaults for no apparent reason. And lets not even start talking aboot setting those attributes such that they apply to child folders, etc... near as I can tell, you're going down to CLI for that kind of granularity.

Don't think I'm hating on MacOS... this old MacPro is actually the machine I use most of the time now, because sleep/resume just plain fucking work on it, which is an absolute joy. But there are some things that the Apple mantra of "UI so simple your grandmother can use it" turns into a serious amount of assache.

mnem

[bd139]

Monterey and Ventura don't suffer from that any more. Seems to stick. They really have their shit together recently.

[mnementh]

I understand this, particularly from folks like you exposing me to "the new stuff"; which is why I adjusted my original gripe with the "Mac with old OS" modifier.

mnem
moo. or don't.

[mansaxel]

near as I can tell, you're going down to CLI for that kind of granularity.

That is what you end up with. Which IMNSHO is good. People should be spending more time in CLI.

Besides, the amount of info in for instance a JPEG file is so large it would kill the UI were you to display it all.

[bd139]

People should be spending more time in CLI.

As someone who spends most of the day in a CLI, hell no. I'll write an essay one day on how broken it is conceptually.

[mansaxel]

People should be spending more time in CLI.

As someone who spends most of the day in a CLI, hell no. I'll write an essay one day on how broken it is conceptually.

I knew you'd say exactly that. I think we'll have to agree to disagree