Seriously, dude...try not to post any more pix until you can post one of your new crossover-less jack plate.
Last edited:
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Ampeg Isovent - Jack Plate Circuit Board.
- Thread starter Nicholas Orick
- Start date
- Status
It’s the antici.......
pation that I can’t stand.
pation that I can’t stand.
- Feb 12, 2006
- 61,038
- 5
- 220,968
- Disclosures
- Development Engineer-Mesa Boogie, Development Engineer-Genzler (pedals), Product Support-Genz Benz
Amen Francis!
How about the guys getting all excited about precision while blowing off accuracy?
A number to the 6th decimal place doesn't matter one bit of the accuracy is only possible to 1 decimal place.
What about guys that can't get the math right and base their "strongly held opinions" on incorrect math or formulas that don't apply to their problem even though they have "most of the same variables"! I see this crap all the time on DIY technology sites where somebody is convinced they have discovered something earth shattering... like perpetual motion!!!
Well I don't know what to say about the math & physics Ampeg did on the Isovent.
The Isovent is a challenge, but something tells me Ampeg somehow missed the mark on it originally, and now we are trying to fix something that had serious limitations going against it to begin with.
Actually this is why I am NOT getting bent out of shape with this project. We all already know it had a lot going against it to begin with, and for me, anyway from my perspective, it is like trying to make something fly that wasn't meant to fly.
If this makes any sense.
However I am beginning to really like the Isovent, and maybe when the technology to make the Isovent work didn't exist years ago, maybe today we have the capability of making it work, when maybe it shouldn't, and overall, I am beginning to like it.
So we will see what happens. I think it is a cool concept, but when Ampeg couldn't exactly get it right the first time years ago, today we are having a Go at it, and well, I can't help but be a little obstinate about it.
As a good friend of mine said about me years ago, this after somebody called me "Stubborn", he said people were confused about me, and "it isn't that you are Stubborn, but instead you are Very Determined, and there is a Very Big Difference between the two".
And Yes I am patiently waiting to see what we come up with after my friend finishes ReWiring it. However in knowing my friend, he is likely to do a bit more than just ReWire the cab.
Oh and believe it or NOT, my friend does have a life also. For example he plays guitar, and had some kind of Battle of the Bands type of gig the night before last, had another gig tonight, and he is married with kids, so no matter how anxious I/we may be to see what happens with the Isovent, sometimes we just have to be patient, even though we are impatiently waiting. Anyway we have to wait for the parts to come in, so he might as well do the Battle of the Bands, and see his wife and kids, since there is NOT much else to be done to the Isovent until the parts come in.
This would be a good time to go practice some scales, arpeggios, riffs, basslines, and chord changes, and so on, Or anyway, since we are so lousy at math, some math problems.
Last edited:
Indeed, and accuracy is often the hardest thing to establish. In many cases, relative measurements are easier than absolute measurements, because many errors cancel out when you compare two things. So for instance, I can reliably measure a 0.1 dB change in a response function if I'm careful, but would be skeptical of being able to measure the absolute sensitivity of a speaker to within even plus or minus 3 dB. Likewise for an amplifier power measurement. And those things also tend to be the most controversial.
In many cases, I trust theory better than an iffy measurement. I use very simplistic peak amplitude measurements of power amps when planning my speaker designs, rather than trying to measure or understand rated power.
This holds in my day-job work too. Some measurements can only be trusted to produce qualitative results, such as "there is probably some benzene in this mixture, but I don't know how much." Other measurements are trusted to be quantitative when performed with care: "There is 0.15 percent of benzene in this mixture." The quantitative measurements often use some sort of before-after comparison.
Science is fun, but it's also hard. The things that make it hard are often the same things that make it fun. Like playing music well.
Indeed, and accuracy is often the hardest thing to establish. In many cases, relative measurements are easier than absolute measurements, because many errors cancel out when you compare two things. So for instance, I can reliably measure a 0.1 dB change in a response function if I'm careful, but would be skeptical of being able to measure the absolute sensitivity of a speaker to within even plus or minus 3 dB. Likewise for an amplifier power measurement. And those things also tend to be the most controversial.
In many cases, I trust theory better than an iffy measurement. I use very simplistic peak amplitude measurements of power amps when planning my speaker designs, rather than trying to measure or understand rated power.
This holds in my day-job work too. Some measurements can only be trusted to produce qualitative results, such as "there is probably some benzene in this mixture, but I don't know how much." Other measurements are trusted to be quantitative when performed with care: "There is 0.15 percent of benzene in this mixture." The quantitative measurements often use some sort of before-after comparison.
Science is fun, but it's also hard. The things that make it hard are often the same things that make it fun. Like playing music well.
I hear you on this, and even though I am way in over my head with this stuff, maybe somehow gathering plotted Mean Averages verses Peak Averages and Uppermost Peak Values could play a part in this. Moreover I notice when looking at the LEDs on my mixer, when changing gear, or other variables involved, there is a difference between Electrical Impulse and Sound Pressure Level, and when maybe the assumption would be to say the two coincide, actually my observation is - they do NOT. This is why measuring Electrical Impulse and SPLs are two very different things.
Anyway just a Simple Minded Observation from an Amateur.
Oh and here is a Technical Problem for all of you.
How do you handle your cat pissing on your sound proofing rug?
Now this is a challenge which can try the patience of the Most Determined.
I was practicing bass this morning when I began to realize somebody took a leak nearby.
I mean it was getting Bad.
I Love my cats but they sure have a way of pissing me off.
Actually I was more annoyed when my wife was more pissed off.
So like, um er, what kind of math do you have to offer for this kind of problem?
I am tellin' ya, if it ain't one thing, it's another.
.
How do you handle your cat pissing on your sound proofing rug?
Now this is a challenge which can try the patience of the Most Determined.
I was practicing bass this morning when I began to realize somebody took a leak nearby.
I mean it was getting Bad.
I Love my cats but they sure have a way of pissing me off.
Actually I was more annoyed when my wife was more pissed off.
So like, um er, what kind of math do you have to offer for this kind of problem?
I am tellin' ya, if it ain't one thing, it's another.
.
Last edited:
- Feb 12, 2006
- 61,038
- 5
- 220,968
- Disclosures
- Development Engineer-Mesa Boogie, Development Engineer-Genzler (pedals), Product Support-Genz Benz
Trying to fly things that don't fly is a good way to get killed. The Air Force is probably not your branch.
Stubborn is continuing to do the same thing again and again against the science and expecting different results. Determined is doing something again and again working with the science to determine why the results does not agree.
I've worked with both, stubborn is much less productive IME.
Stubborn is continuing to do the same thing again and again against the science and expecting different results. Determined is doing something again and again working with the science to determine why the results does not agree.
I've worked with both, stubborn is much less productive IME.
You sound very positive.
Throughout my life I have done the Impossible via my Determination.
You can say what you want, I know me way better than you do, and you can choose to work with me, or NOT.
Your choice.
When the Marines were originally part of the Navy, the Air Force was originally part of the Army, so there is a kin ship between the two, and the Air Force habitually makes things Fly that other wise could NOT.
As a matter of fact, during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, for the first time in Human History, Heavy Main Battle Tanks were flown directly into Combat.
When you say it CANNOT be done, given my experiences in life, I would have to say I am NOT so sure about that, and I would have to check on it.
Also you haven't asnwered my question.
What would you recommend that could be considered "More Modern"?
Something Self Powered.
And I don't want your guys making excuses for why you can't answer.
I'm pretty sure it took engineers and not a dude with an IsoVent cabinet to figure out how to fly those tanks in...
Believe it or NOT, the Dude who would later buy the Isovent, had a lot more to do with Flying Tanks then maybe you'd want to admit to yourselves.
Long Story.
Let us just say, before we got to 2003, we already knew it could be done, because we had already tested it, and a lot of us were involved with turning the idea into a reality.
When I am having trouble with my toan I think to myself "How would the Marines fix this?"
Good for you.
I am Happy for you.
The Army trains the Marines in how to fix and use tanks.
We also show the Marines how to Fly them.
However it is the Marines and Navy who really know about Shipping Tanks and using Hovercrafts to get them ashore.
Good going to the Marines in using Hovercraft for getting tanks to shore.
.
Last edited:
Wait, that tank doesn't have its own wings to fly directly in, does it? If not, it was indirectly flown in.
Wait, that tank doesn't have its own wings to fly directly in, does it? If not, it was indirectly flown in.
The point is, we as humans do things that otherwise wouldn't or couldn't or shouldn't be done.
It is through sheer Ingenuity and Determination that we do these things.
Wait, that tank doesn't have its own wings to fly directly in, does it? If not, it was indirectly flown in.
And if it weren't for the Active On Board Computer System, the B2 would Fly Right, and this is yet another example of people doing something that otherwise couldn't be done.
- Status
