The more I think about it, the more I come around to the idea of having a closed thread - after all, the FAQ is intended to help people with technical questions, such as ohms, and SS vs tubes - things less open to differing opinions or much in the way of discussion. I now think that we should concentrate on these aspects, in a closed thread, rather than, as you say Mike, bogging the FAQ down with a load of subjects and threads that could just be part of the current forum.
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.
Amps FAQ - any ideas?
- Thread starter MikeyD
- Start date
The more I think about it, the more I come around to the idea of having a closed thread - after all, the FAQ is intended to help people with technical questions, such as ohms, and SS vs tubes - things less open to differing opinions or much in the way of discussion. I now think that we should concentrate on these aspects, in a closed thread, rather than, as you say Mike, bogging the FAQ down with a load of subjects and threads that could just be part of the current forum.
So, how about if we agree on an initial list of topics that we *hope* aren't particularly controversial. Then we open *active* threads to forward ideas as to the most appropriate, clear, and correct answer to each topic. Once we seem to agree on the best ideas, the moderators can copy them into a closed thread - either in the main FAQ or in some other "static" web page linked to it.
That said, we can ALWAYS debate about these topics in the normal threads - nothing but the moderators here to dampen that activity. If, at any time, there is a lot of dissent about the content of a FAQ, then the moderators could decide if a change to the FAQ is warranted.
What I'm saying is that we keep the FAQ protected and uncluttered - but this does not mean that its contents cannot be debated, albeit in other, *active* threads - not in the FAQ itself. In fact, the FAQ could *also* include links to past threads that make particularly good reading on a subject. The FAQ then remains a "living document", but changeable only by moderators with input from all the rest of us via the active threads. You guys with me on this?
- Mike
That said, we can ALWAYS debate about these topics in the normal threads - nothing but the moderators here to dampen that activity. If, at any time, there is a lot of dissent about the content of a FAQ, then the moderators could decide if a change to the FAQ is warranted.
What I'm saying is that we keep the FAQ protected and uncluttered - but this does not mean that its contents cannot be debated, albeit in other, *active* threads - not in the FAQ itself. In fact, the FAQ could *also* include links to past threads that make particularly good reading on a subject. The FAQ then remains a "living document", but changeable only by moderators with input from all the rest of us via the active threads. You guys with me on this?
- Mike
I got a bit behind since I had to work tonight, but I'll try and catch back up.
I think the best way to do it is what ya'll are suggesting....things that are in no way controversial (ohms, impedence, etc.) should be in closed threads once we agree upon the contents of them. Then, in the closed thread we might do as someone suggested and put links to particularly good places on TB (or elsewhere on the web) just in case they want to go a bit deeper than we did, or maybe if they still don't quite get it.
Then, the controversial threads could be open, but closely moderated so that they aren't extremely cluttered with rubbish.
BTW, whoever came up with that disclaimer idea, here's a big
I think the best way to do it is what ya'll are suggesting....things that are in no way controversial (ohms, impedence, etc.) should be in closed threads once we agree upon the contents of them. Then, in the closed thread we might do as someone suggested and put links to particularly good places on TB (or elsewhere on the web) just in case they want to go a bit deeper than we did, or maybe if they still don't quite get it.
Then, the controversial threads could be open, but closely moderated so that they aren't extremely cluttered with rubbish.
BTW, whoever came up with that disclaimer idea, here's a big
I'd like to volunteer for tech editor (thanks for the nomination PBG!). And I'd start with copying my article http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=8346
which hasn't had a single view in months.
Maybe it would be a good idea to have more than one guy do this, as the info will get quite extensive, and should not reflect one man's views on things. I know my tech knowledge has some (
) gaps...
which hasn't had a single view in months.
Maybe it would be a good idea to have more than one guy do this, as the info will get quite extensive, and should not reflect one man's views on things. I know my tech knowledge has some (
) gaps...Yes, Joris, go for it! 
I still think you can seek out volunteers (including yourself) to write up answers for particular topics. Then you and the moderators can review the "drafts" and decide if you want to make changes, hopefully in consultation with their authors. If we make this participatory and cooperative it should go fairly smoothly. Everyone has particular areas of expertise or lack thereof, so if we account for that, we'll be fine.
- Mike
I still think you can seek out volunteers (including yourself) to write up answers for particular topics. Then you and the moderators can review the "drafts" and decide if you want to make changes, hopefully in consultation with their authors. If we make this participatory and cooperative it should go fairly smoothly. Everyone has particular areas of expertise or lack thereof, so if we account for that, we'll be fine.- Mike
That's a big 10-4 on that, MikeyD, I copy.
Really, from what I've seen, I think the only ones who will be qualified to take potshots at any content will be a select few like yourself, Psycho, brianrost, throbbinnut, Joris, Spacegoat, and a couple of others who don't readily come to mind at the moment.
So, what I'm saying is that the smart money says we won't see many, if any, threads started contesting the info. In fact, if someone has a nitpick about Carvin R series heads made between 11:14am, 12/22 and 4:32pm, 1/15 not having SMT chassis, they could even send a P.M. to the appropriate contact instead of opening a thread that is so esoteric it is of interest to only a handful of tech studs.
What's Paul's view on this whole topic? Has one of you mods been in contact with him about this?
Hi, everyone - I've reorganized ideas for topics for the FAQ on Amps collected through May 22, 2001, which are listed below. Please let me know if I've left any out or if you have some additional ideas to suggest.
- Mike
1. What are resistance, impedance, and ohms?
2. How do I calculate resistance and impedance? What are serial and parallel connections?
3. What are the frequencies of pitches (based on the A-440 standard)?
4. What are the types of bass amplification? What are preamps (preamplifiers), power amps, cabinets, heads, combo amps, and rack systems?
5. Amplifier specifications - what do these mean?
__ (a) Watts - what are they, how are they measured, RMS, peak, etc.?
__ (b) Tubes vs. Solid State - what are they, loudness, advantages and disadvantages of each, etc.
__ (c) Frequency response
__ (d) Output impedance
__ (e) Distortion, clipping - what it is, how to avoid it
__ (f) Bi-amping vs. full range operation
__ (g) Balanced vs. unbalanced inputs, phone jacks vs. XLR, etc.
__ (h) Stereo amps and bridging outputs
__ (i) Equalization - what it is, types, how it's used, advantages, drawbacks
__ (j) Effects loops, side chain
6. Speaker/cabinet specifications - what do these mean?
__ (a) Raw speaker (driver) sizes, including net radiating area
__ (b) Cabinet types (closed box, ported/vented, horn-loaded, other), cabinet design, tradeoffs (size, weight, frequency response, efficiency, cost, etc.), applications
__ (c) Tweeters, tweeter/speaker protection - types
__ (d) Crossovers - active, passive
__ (e) Loudspeaker drivers for bass amplification
__ (f) Power handling - what is it, how measured, RMS, peak, etc.
__ (g) Loudspeaker efficiency and sensitivity
__ (h) Frequency response
__ (i) Impedance
__ (j) Loudspeaker phasing and distortion
7. Speaker cables and connectors - types, gauges
8 How we hear - acoustics and psychoacoustics of bass guitar (sound power, sound pressure level, decibels, perceived loudness, loudness vs. frequency, even/odd harmonics, acoustics of rooms and outdoor spaces, etc.); why does my amp's sound change in different rooms?
9. Solid state amplifier maintenance
10. Tube amplifier maintenance
11. How to tell if speakers may be damaged
12. Links to amp design information
13. Links to speaker design information
14. Links to manufacturers' and suppliers' web sites, etc.
- Mike
1. What are resistance, impedance, and ohms?
2. How do I calculate resistance and impedance? What are serial and parallel connections?
3. What are the frequencies of pitches (based on the A-440 standard)?
4. What are the types of bass amplification? What are preamps (preamplifiers), power amps, cabinets, heads, combo amps, and rack systems?
5. Amplifier specifications - what do these mean?
__ (a) Watts - what are they, how are they measured, RMS, peak, etc.?
__ (b) Tubes vs. Solid State - what are they, loudness, advantages and disadvantages of each, etc.
__ (c) Frequency response
__ (d) Output impedance
__ (e) Distortion, clipping - what it is, how to avoid it
__ (f) Bi-amping vs. full range operation
__ (g) Balanced vs. unbalanced inputs, phone jacks vs. XLR, etc.
__ (h) Stereo amps and bridging outputs
__ (i) Equalization - what it is, types, how it's used, advantages, drawbacks
__ (j) Effects loops, side chain
6. Speaker/cabinet specifications - what do these mean?
__ (a) Raw speaker (driver) sizes, including net radiating area
__ (b) Cabinet types (closed box, ported/vented, horn-loaded, other), cabinet design, tradeoffs (size, weight, frequency response, efficiency, cost, etc.), applications
__ (c) Tweeters, tweeter/speaker protection - types
__ (d) Crossovers - active, passive
__ (e) Loudspeaker drivers for bass amplification
__ (f) Power handling - what is it, how measured, RMS, peak, etc.
__ (g) Loudspeaker efficiency and sensitivity
__ (h) Frequency response
__ (i) Impedance
__ (j) Loudspeaker phasing and distortion
7. Speaker cables and connectors - types, gauges
8 How we hear - acoustics and psychoacoustics of bass guitar (sound power, sound pressure level, decibels, perceived loudness, loudness vs. frequency, even/odd harmonics, acoustics of rooms and outdoor spaces, etc.); why does my amp's sound change in different rooms?
9. Solid state amplifier maintenance
10. Tube amplifier maintenance
11. How to tell if speakers may be damaged
12. Links to amp design information
13. Links to speaker design information
14. Links to manufacturers' and suppliers' web sites, etc.
WOW!!!! Paul will be able to charge admission fees! All of that in one place and not scattered among old issues of Bass Player.
Well, everyone, I've spoken to Paul about it, and he's up for it. He doesn't really want it stuck at the top of the forum, but he's told me that if the FAQ is submitted to him in HTML or Word format, then he can put it into a thread, with a button linking to it next to the Post New Thread one - hopefully, it'll catch a few people's attention before they start asking old questions.
Anyway, the time has come to actually begin work on the FAQ. We'll start by opening threads and discussing different subject matter, and what should go in. Then, once a final answer is decided I'll copy it, compile the FAQ, and then post it in a thread for any comments, corrections, etc. to be suggested. Then, when everyone's happy, it'll go to Paul.
Okay, now the groundwork's been covered, let's get the ball rolling!
Anyway, the time has come to actually begin work on the FAQ. We'll start by opening threads and discussing different subject matter, and what should go in. Then, once a final answer is decided I'll copy it, compile the FAQ, and then post it in a thread for any comments, corrections, etc. to be suggested. Then, when everyone's happy, it'll go to Paul.
Okay, now the groundwork's been covered, let's get the ball rolling!
Good, Yawnsie! This past week there has already been a number of "worn out" questions posted in Amps that could easily be handled by the FAQ.
So - I suggest that people comment on the list I gave a few days ago. We need at least Joris's feedback on it. If we adopt the list of topics, then we can ask for volunteers to write up answers (or find suitable material from other sources, such as archived posts). Some answers could benefit greatly by pictorials, and if we can put them in .jpg format, these might be most useable. For example, it would be easier to show how to connect wires in parallel or series with a diagram. We could post words along with it, but a picture adds a lot.
Anyway - let's adopt a list of topics and get going, as you suggest.
- Mike
So - I suggest that people comment on the list I gave a few days ago. We need at least Joris's feedback on it. If we adopt the list of topics, then we can ask for volunteers to write up answers (or find suitable material from other sources, such as archived posts). Some answers could benefit greatly by pictorials, and if we can put them in .jpg format, these might be most useable. For example, it would be easier to show how to connect wires in parallel or series with a diagram. We could post words along with it, but a picture adds a lot.
Anyway - let's adopt a list of topics and get going, as you suggest.
- Mike
Well, for who gets final edit on the content, I'd hope those folks would be Mike and Joris, at the least. You're two of the most technically qualified I know of here....plus, (and this is important), you guys seem to be able to stick to facts without injecting opinions.
Thanks for your confidence, Rick. I think Joris and I try to be as technically unbiased as we can, but I know I have "opinions" based on gut feel of certain things. For example, right now I'm pondering something bgavin (who is also quite knowledgeable) has said about horn-loaded speakers which does not set well intuitively. My first impulse is to refute it, but my scientific side compels me to do more reading first so I have a basis for "knowing what I'm talking about". I've had differences with Joris on some issues, too, but I tend to back off when my knowledge of something is not where it should be (e.g., amplifier design topologies) to be a persuasive debater. This is good, because it will bolster my knowledge of the subject further, and then I can help others understand it once I do. As an engineering consultant (my day job), I'm paid to know what I'm talking about, and I cannot risk saying something that I'm unsure of.
- Mike
- Mike
From now on let's cut all the compliments etc. to MikeyD, bgavin, PsychoBassGuy, and all the tech heads here, including me. It makes me feel weird, m'kay? One guy knows a lot about car exhausts, the other about Swiss watches, and some people know a lot about music amplification. Simple as that. I hope no-one ever thinks I might be bragging about it. Other than that, it's completely free of charge, and I'm happy to supply it.
The list Mike gave is very satisfactory, to me. Along the way we'll see how it works out.
I think a good place to start is the link I gave a few days ago.
So how do we keep track of everything? Start a thread for every topic in Mike's list - and everyone contributes his part - and then some of us edit them into an article - which goes to Paul?
I suggest at least starting with a short, but complete answer to the specific question, written by one of the techies, and let everyone add to or improve on the contents.
The list Mike gave is very satisfactory, to me. Along the way we'll see how it works out.
I think a good place to start is the link I gave a few days ago.
So how do we keep track of everything? Start a thread for every topic in Mike's list - and everyone contributes his part - and then some of us edit them into an article - which goes to Paul?
I suggest at least starting with a short, but complete answer to the specific question, written by one of the techies, and let everyone add to or improve on the contents.
Well, Joris, I've seen your very good post about technical questions, and if you don't mind, I'd like to put it up in a new thread so that people can make suggests, improvements, etc. I think that it might maybe benefit from going into a bit more detail, but it's an excellent place to start, and should get through a few subjects.
Thanks for your approval of it, Joris. I guess it's time for folks to speak up if they want any changes.
I think it might be a good idea to ask for volunteers to work on each topic. There are at least a few I'm interested in contributing to. And some may get multiple volunteers (which is great, in my mind, as long as there aren't *dozens* of us!). If some topics don't get volunteers, maybe we could post or send PM's to members who we think would be knowledgeable and interested and ask if they could contribute. Then each of us can go off for awhile and come up with some answers and post them in separate threads (for each topic). Joris, if you are the technical editor, we'll need you to try to moderate in a sense and decide what material to use for the FAQ. If you could keep track of the submissions and perhaps copy them into a word processor at your computer, that might be one way to organize the info.
- Mike
Maybe we should do the same for the effects section. You know, write up how effects work, how they sound, maybe even little sound samples. An attachment of 102kB per post is allowed, enough for a short glimpse of an effect sound (mp3).
