Matchless Chieftan - WTH

[g1]

OK, sorry about the sidetrack. I did a bit of research, and is often the case, it lead me right back to this forum.
Seems we had this Eminence FDM discussion before. If anyone is interested in the long (and weird ) discussion, here's the link:
http://music-electronics-forum.com/t21491/

[bob p]

I hate it when that happens -- I'll go looking on the internet for information, only to find that the search engines direct me back to my own threads. It's sad to think that there are topics that I don't know enough about, where the search engines point to my threads as reference material. What's up with that? Search engines don't seem to be very smart when they direct me back to my own posts.

[Chuck H]

Search engines are using more intuitive criteria for your selections now because they think they know what you want better than you do. They watch what you do and put you in a box. So if you look up fishing rods today, tomorrow when you look up lightning rods you'll get some results that include fishing rods (presumably because both searches include the word "rod"). That is a mild example and it's actually MUCH worse than that. Now that my searches are stuffed with pseudo results of whatever narrow criteria a program has used to determine "who I am" I can hardly find anything because of the pile of crap being thrown at me, that they think I'll like (because, apparently most people do) INSTEAD of just showing results based on the words I put in the search engine. It's stupid technology that's not going to get better as long as there's something to sell.

[The Dude]

Well, if they're watching my internet history, I dare not type "rod" in the search box.

[Justin Thomas]

Search engines are using more intuitive criteria for your selections now because they think they know what you want better than you do...

Well, they might be getting more intuitive, but certainly not more intelligent... I don't know why anyone (read as, "me") searching for vintage tube gear would get nothing but ads for Sili-Cootie-loaded modeling junk and video games I mean recording software... And I didn't think thermodynamic harmonic cosmatrons (yes I made that part up) had anything to do with my Concert... anyway, it's really funny to me that in 15 years of web surfing for me, they've yet to get single sale from banner ads and search engine results that lead off with 20 stores hawking crap I don't want...

Pardon my rant & carry on!

Justin

[Chuck H]

Well, they might be getting more intuitive, but certainly not more intelligent... I don't know why anyone (read as, "me") searching for vintage tube gear would get nothing but ads for Sili-Cootie-loaded modeling junk and video games I mean recording software... And I didn't think thermodynamic harmonic cosmatrons (yes I made that part up) had anything to do with my Concert... anyway, it's really funny to me that in 15 years of web surfing for me, they've yet to get single sale from banner ads and search engine results that lead off with 20 stores hawking crap I don't want...

Pardon my rant & carry on!

Justin

Still need two like buttons

[bob p]

JMHE...

I've built resistive attenuators into some of my amps, but my personal attenuator uses the load design from the Randall Aiken article:

Designing a Reactive Speaker Load Emulator

instead of a resistor. Now, my design uses a rheostat as a sort of parallel valve to tell the amp which load (speaker or other) to play into. So in that regard it's partly resistive all the time. Using my active load attenuator side by side with the purely resistive units I'd have to say that the reactive element in my design sounds better. Especially at low settings. Since tone is subjective, of course, YMMV.

I don't doubt that attenuators that add inductance to the model are better than purely resistsive designs, or that something that shapes impedance vs. frequency to resemble a speaker load would be better yet.

So Chuck, explain something for me --

That Aiken gadget is actually a speaker emulator, right? I mean, it's not designed to be an attenuator per se, it's designed to be a load box for a speakerless amp, right? I'm thinking that if anyone decided to build the Aiken thingy, then it would be used for loading an amp that's being driven hard, presumably with signal being fed to a mixing console or a re-amping input via the amp's line-out jack.

I suppose that you could use this type of emulator in parallel with a speaker, though that'd only get you -3dB. I'm thinking that a variable load resistive attenuator (Airbrake type) or a traditional ladder attenuator, would provide more flexibility with a speaker.

How are you deploying the Aiken thingy? I'm thinking that to get the most bang out of it you'd need to have the ability to variably divide output between it and a real speaker.

[bob p]

Well, they might be getting more intuitive, but certainly not more intelligent... I don't know why anyone (read as, "me") searching for vintage tube gear would get nothing but ads for Sili-Cootie-loaded modeling junk and video games I mean recording software...
...
anyway, it's really funny to me that in 15 years of web surfing for me, they've yet to get single sale from banner ads and search engine results that lead off with 20 stores hawking crap I don't want...

I'ts not that search engines like Google are not intelligent -- it's that they're being willfully disobedient.

Search engines SUCK. I hate them. The problem is not that their algorithm does not work, or that it's becoming "more intuitive" -- the problem is that their algorithm places a higher value on their ability to show you and ad and bill a third party for it, than it places on you getting the results that you wanted.

Example: I'll formulate a very specific Boolean request to specifically eliminate some irrelevant items from the search results using the minus sign. What happens? Google ignores my specification NOT to include specific items in the search results and provides them anyway. They're turning a blind eye to what we really want, and they're feeding us the line of crap that they want us to see.

The problem is not that search engine algorithms are inaccurate -- the problem is that search engines make their billions by shoving their ad-shit into your face, fully knowing that you don't want to see it, and not caring that you don't want to see it. They do this because they get to bill an advertiser for being included in the search results. They prefer that the criteria for display are relaxed somewhat, as that allows them to purposefully allow inaccurate results to be co-mingled with accurate results -- if it results in a click through then they've made their money.

[Jazz P Bass]

Ad Blockers work wonders.

[TimmyP1955]

..... and, to top it off, that square wave you mentioned is holding the speaker at full excursion and incursion for longer periods of time than a sine wave would, so there is even more heat generated and less time for cooling.

No. A square wave is not the + and - DC pulse that it appears to be on a scope - if it were, it would be a repetitive "thunk". A square wave is comprised of a bunch of sine waves. Look at one on a scope displaying FFT.

[The Dude]

Understood. However, a speaker does not usually respond to those harmonic frequencies well. It mostly sees it as a square wave. It can't reach top and bottom of excursion that quickly. So, it sit's there at one end or the other for longer periods of time.

[bob p]

A square wave is comprised of a bunch of sine waves.

well yeah, that's the basis of Fourier theory. But if you look at the power spectrum of those sine waves, it's evident that the power is concentrated in the LF content and the HF content is there to "fill in the corners" when drawing the composite square wave.

[Enzo]

"comprises a bunch of sine waves" not comprised of.



What would you pay for a non-advertising supported search engine? Either by subscription or by search?

[ric]

"comprises a bunch of sine waves" not comprised of.

Right again. I had to look up that nit after you picked it, and sure enough: comprised is the past tense (and the past participle, whatever that is) so: is comprised-wrong, was comprised-right.

[Enzo]

Well, the problem is the "of", not the tense. My gear list comprises three amplifiers and two guitars. My gear list comprised three amplifiers and two guitars. No "of". My team comprises four workers. My team is composed of four workers.


Comprise has a sense similar to include. If you can substitute "include" for comprise in your sentence and have it make sense, then it is right.

My menu includes three omelet dishes, but never my menu includes of three omelet dishes.

SO save the "of" for the next time you need one.


(Just a personal crusade, considering all the other grammatical errors I make daily)