Impedance question

[bob p]

How would that not happen with a speaker cord plugged into the back of an amp head?

I was thinking that the problem in having a junction box is that it effectively doubles the number of sites where a disconnect could occur.

if you trip over the cord the amp will probably come crashing down to the floor!

That's not a good scenario. But a drop to the floor might be a better option than incinerating an OT with a disconnect under full load. Granted, neither one of those are good options, which is why the safety resistor is so important.

It would be nice to look at the patent application to see what sort of principles are being used.

I did a patent search yesterday when I saw the PAF claims on the web site. I did this because US Patent law makes it illegal for anyone to claim that a patent has been applied for when it hasn't. This is because there used to be a problem with people making false PAF claims on devices that were not actually patented in order to intimidate competitors from copying a non-protected design. Knowing this aspect of the patent law I did a patent search to find out exactly what intellectual property was being protected but I came up empty-handed.

[Mango Moon]

Well? Well????? Its already been a couple of weeks, yet no further posts from local guru 'BobP' and the other self-appointed 'policemen' here on MEF. What gives? Have you made the calls? Have you bothered to get your 'learn-on' as you were advised? I mean, are you clowns gonna educate yourselves on the product in-question (the one you so vehemently ridiculed two-weeks ago), and apprise the rest of us on your expert findings, or are you just gonna continue to live-on in ignorance and run your mouths on things you know nothing about, hoping others that you've so hastily and unjustifiably ridiculed will simply fade away peacefully without a peep? If its the latter, I'm afraid you'll need to think again!

Are you honestly ignorant and foolish enough to continue believing that the Aracom PRX-150 attenuator is a sham, and that I and this thread were both a hoax? If so, then I respectfully suggest that you look into career employment with the Mossad or maybe the KGB, some place where your investigative skills can really be put to use.

C'mon, Detectives! Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

[Brad1]

Well? Well????? Its already been a couple of weeks, yet no further posts from local guru 'BobP' and the other self-appointed 'policemen' here on MEF. What gives? Have you made the calls? Have you bothered to get your 'learn-on' as you were advised? I mean, are you clowns gonna educate yourselves on the product in-question (the one you so vehemently ridiculed two-weeks ago), and apprise the rest of us on your expert findings, or are you just gonna continue to live-on in ignorance and run your mouths on things you know nothing about, hoping others that you've so hastily and unjustifiably ridiculed will simply fade away peacefully without a peep? If its the latter, I'm afraid you'll need to think again!

Are you honestly ignorant and foolish enough to continue believing that the Aracom PRX-150 attenuator is a sham, and that I and this thread were both a hoax? If so, then I respectfully suggest that you look into career employment with the Mossad or maybe the KGB, some place where your investigative skills can really be put to use.

C'mon, Detectives! Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

That seems really uncalled for. People explained themselves (which they really didn't have to do), and even offered something of an olive branch...and you take the branch and slap them in the face? Why?

Didn't you read the later posts. My first and only post civilly mentioned the usefulness of more relevant info, which had to finally be dragged out of you. If you had mentioned the models of equipment from the beginning, you may have gotten a more concise evaluation, more quickly. That evaluation may even have been "there is really not enough info available from the makers of the products to arrive at a definitive answer"...but it would have avoided a lot of unnecessary guessing. Sure, some speculation would have probably occurred, being as how people would be curious how they made a device work in the manner YOU specified, against common logic.

People have genuinely tried to help. These are talented, nationally well-respected, knowledgeable people who take time to give FREE advice, (that cost most of them years and many, many dollars to learn), and try to share knowledge. And what do you do? You get pissed off when you get a reply with a legitimate observation that you don't like, and crap all over the room. And then, when everything calms down...you come back later and puke in their faces!

You started off sounding like a decent person. You have just proven you're a vindictive, small-minded little twit who holds a grudge over zilch. Must be terribly lonely in that dark little place.

Bug off, Mango Moron.

Brad1

[Steve Conner]

I think we answered the original question to the best of our abilities.

None of us knows for sure how the Aracom attenuator works, and I for one wouldn't be willing to speculate when getting it wrong could result in a blown amp.

[Steve A.]

Hello folks,

I'm thinking about purchasing a new 50w (boutique) amp head that has two output jacks at 8/16 ohm, but after researching things here and elsewhere, I'm concerned about whether I can safely run two 8-ohm cabs with it? Can anybody help with this question?

As I understand it (via Ohm's law), running two 8-ohm cabs connected to a pair of output jacks listed as 8/16 in this way would amount to running at 4-ohms, and some say that although doing so yields less power, it is perfectly safe, because its "lesser" (4-ohms), not "greater" (16-ohms) impedance, but I'd like to be "certain" of this assertion. I own (and can use, if necessary) a decent attenuator with impedance control for just such applications, but I don't really NEED an attenuator in this application, so if possible, I'd like NOT to use it strictly for its impedance regulation function.

Can anyone shed some light on this subject for me? Can I plug my two 8-ohm cabs into the two 8/16 output jacks on this amp head and run at 4-ohms without any fear?

Thank you!

Did we not answer your question in your original post supplying you with schematics and wiring diagrams on how to construct a cable or box which would hook up your two 8 ohm cabs in series without having to use your "decent" attenuator? Since we were not able to find the patent application for the alleged "patent pending" design we can offer no further analysis and I would suspect that most of us consider this discussion to be dead hence the lack of replies between April 3 and April 14 which by my definition is not "a couple weeks."

I agree with Brad1's reply.

Steve Ahola

[Mango Moon]

You're each entitled to your opinion(s), and fortunately, you're entitled to mine as well.

It was YOU (not me!), and YOUR esteemed, self-impressed, but ignorant or ill-informed members that corrupted and perverted this perfectly innocent and legitimate thread into an unjustified assault on the PRX-150 attenuator. So think again before pointing fingers! A couple of you stepped in a puddle, and you did so with someone who wasn't (and isn't) going to rollover for you. When someone recklessly assaults my character and credibility or my "motivations" by leveling unfounded accusations about being an undercover salesman for the product and other such mindless rubbish, I'm gonna take a run at 'em! Capiche? And trust me, it'd be the very same if we were standing side-by-side in public. I don't tolerate such things, period!

I can't (and don't) know why this thread or the design of the PRX-150 proved to be such a heavy-lift for you outspoken geniuses, but like it or not, you've been rightly called-out for it, and I'll say it once again for the hard-of-hearing among you . . . my Aracom PRX-150 (and hundreds of others like it) has been used on over a dozen different tube amplifiers from 30-watts to 100-watts for no less than 300 hours of total use spanning a period of almost 3-years without damaging a single amp. Could I possibly be any clearer? Or are you just tone deaf? Just because you brainiacs can't pick up a phone or read a schematic or psychoanalyze its well-respected builder, doesn't give you the right to go around assailing the PRX or the people who use it. Not now, not ever. Got it? The bottom line is this . . . you've got a problem or two in your ranks and it ain't Mango Moon.

Next!

[R.G.]

To me (who is not involved on either side of any of the issues here), it looks like there's some major overreaction going on.

I'm reminded of the day I walked into the office and said "Good morning," to an associate, and got back - in a very assertive voice, with a scowl, "What's it to you? Who appointed you the judge of the quality of mornings?"

The bad thing about how this discussion is going is that it seems to have become far removed from the original questions, if any, and headed down the road of "Did so!!" "Did not!!" "Well, you are too!!" "Am not!!" "You can't say that to me!"

It's either childish, or there is something more underlying the responses by someone. Otherwise, there's no need for the heat.

[bob p]

Well? Well????? Its already been a couple of weeks, yet no further posts from local guru 'BobP' and the other self-appointed 'policemen' here on MEF...

Like I said in post # 37, I thought that The Googan was trying to play us all for fools in a twisted marketing game. I announced that I would not participate in any discussions about the device in question unless The Googan provided some photographs. Those photos never arrived, so I remain disinterested in feeding The Googan or in speculating about The Googan's device.

[Mango Moon]

To me (who is not involved on either side of any of the issues here), it looks like there's some major overreaction going on.

I'm reminded of the day I walked into the office and said "Good morning," to an associate, and got back - in a very assertive voice, with a scowl, "What's it to you? Who appointed you the judge of the quality of mornings?"

The bad thing about how this discussion is going is that it seems to have become far removed from the original questions, if any, and headed down the road of "Did so!!" "Did not!!" "Well, you are too!!" "Am not!!" "You can't say that to me!"

It's either childish, or there is something more underlying the responses by someone. Otherwise, there's no need for the heat.

Yup, no doubt. Sadly, in today's on-line realm, there's a complete lack of personal accountability - a total lack of consequences for one's words and/or actions. People nowadays (especially young people) take liberties with their tongues that they might not otherwise have taken in a more personal setting. That wasn't quite the case when I was young, and it isn't for any of my adult sons either, but this new-age dynamic has essentially created the very atmosphere that you're now witnessing, and anyone (literally anyone!), who chooses to defend themselves in such an arena is invariably going to be labelled "abrasive", "argumentative" or "overreactive" - its automatic! Well, so be it. You wanna run your mouth? Then learn to live with it - even the pseudo tuff guys like Bobby ("I Know Nothing") Pee.

As for children and childish? Look no further than his next post. Our colonial girlfriend can't even seem to dial a phone, so I'd imagine truly complex things like an attenuator or the instructions on a Stop sign are downright stupefying for him.

[Mango Moon]

Like I said in post # 37, I thought that The Googan was trying to play us all for fools in a twisted marketing game. I announced that I would not participate in any discussions about the device in question unless The Googan provided some photographs. Those photos never arrived, so I remain disinterested in feeding The Googan or in speculating about The Googan's device.

Oh, this is rich! Who gives a rats dangle what you "announced" to us all, Chief? Announcements are for bar mitzvahs and graduations and such, not your petty proclamations, so save it for your mother's wedding. And as far as photos go, this only furthers your miserable, bloody arrogance! I'm not about to unzip and void any warranty terms or offend its builder Jeff Aragaki by haplessly removing all of the sealed (painted-over) sheet metal screws on my PRX-150, just so 'Your Highness' can draw yet another one of his faulty/erroneous conclusions about its design and/or features. Got it? Good! Now go troll somewhere else or maybe pick up the stinking phone, jarhead!