Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?)

Subject	Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?)
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.misc
References	(17 earlier) <7mydndIrMYhsBRX6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <w26iP.425991$2xE6.132754@fx18.iad> <vmb5m4$3hp9n$2@dont-email.me> <CaadnYrkutW9bxT6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@earthlink.com> <vmddrr$8tl$12@dont-email.me>
From	"186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net>
Organization	wokiesux
Date	2025-01-17 23:30 -0500
Message-ID	<bAqdnWZvTeTIsxb6nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@earthlink.com> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On 1/17/25 6:10 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 17/01/2025 06:01, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> No. He (and his dad)  built his  own guitar, but I think the pickups 
>>> were P90s. The amp was always a (number of)  Vox AC30(s), well known 
>>> for a unique sound due to stuff you wouldn't be interested in
>>
>>    Hey, we're tekkies here - we're interested in lots
>>    of stuff  🙂
>>
>>    From May's sound, it's clear the amp has a somewhat
>>    exaggerated higher-end response with some interesting
>>    harmonics. A lot of the older transistor amps had
>>    a kinda 'hard' sound too and kinda heavier on the
>>    odd harmonics. Dunno if that was inherent, or
>>    by-design - intentionally emulating the AC30 sound.
> 
> The AC30 is a development of the original Mullard application note to 
> use four EL84s - a small pentode - as a 25W power amplifier. Subesquent 
> units used a pair of EL34s.
> 
> Being British, when it needed more gain, instead of adding an extra 
> tube, they simply *removed the negative feedback* from the power amplifier.
> You don't care much about distortion in a guitar amplifier.
> 
> Of course this had another effect, instead of just increasing the gain 
> it increased the output impedance so much (~100ohm) that the 
> loudspeakers were practically current driven, rather than voltage driven.
> 
> This had two effects. The first one was a result of the induction of the 
> loudspeaker voice coil. Normally with a constant volatage, you get 
> constant-ish output with frequency. But with a high impedance feed the 
> loudspeakers got effectively a 6dB per octave treble boost all the way 
> from somewhere around 1kHz. To tame this they added a simple 'tone 
> control' that rolled off the treble only.
> 
> The other effect was that the loudspeaker cone was no longer tightly 
> controlled by the amplifier - it was free to flap. And it so happens 
> that the two 12" loudspeakers and the open backed cabinet had both a 
> nice woodenish  cardboardy sort of sound and a massive bass resonance 
> peak at around 100Hz, which is very close to and lies between bottom E 
> and bottom A on the guitar.
> 
> All this made for a classic 'boom and chink' sound perfect  for the beat 
> groups of the era, and all with as few valves (tubes) as they could get 
> away with.
> 
> British amps sounded good because they were in fact BAD. Whilst a Fender 
> is a reasonable copy of a hi fi amplifier of the period, British designs 
> were over driven done on the cheap and had in many cases horrible 
> distortion.

   Well, for 'rock', a fair bit of distortion is desired
   most of the time. However the intro to "Stairway" would
   not have sounded so good with too much distortion added.
   Sometimes you want something closer to Spanish guitar.

   That's one of the coolest things about electric guitar,
   they can sound anything from wood instruments up to the
   coming of the Viking gods just by turning a knob or two.

> The Marshall being the prime example of 'all of the above'.  The classic 
> 'attack' is caused by the amplifier having plenty of HT voltage - until 
> you want to sustain power. Then the mains transformers sighs and gives up.
> 
> So a 'power chord' has a sharp attack and then sustains at lower volume...

   Before the triode, there were MECHANICAL audio amps that
   worked by various means. They were oft employed as public
   PA systems - very popular at big political rallys because
   the voice band was so piercing. Hitler woulda loved 'em.

   http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/COMMS/trumechamp/trumechamp.htm

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_gramophone

   http://www.vias.org/crowhurstba/crowhurst_basic_audio_vol1_028.html

   The more common design was compressed air modulated by something
   like a needle attached to the mic diaphragm - a spring would
   counterbalance the air pressure partially - they were basically
   class-A amps. Feed that modulated air into a big folded horn
   assembly and some say you could get 120db.

Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-09 11:18 -0500
  Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-09 18:33 +0000
    Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-09 15:38 -0500
      Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-10 07:27 +0000
        Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-10 03:34 -0500
          Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-10 09:09 +0000
            Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-11 01:15 -0500
              Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-11 12:15 +0000
        Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-10 07:12 -0500
          Diversity - good or bad ? Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-01-10 21:17 +0000
            Re: Diversity - good or bad ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-10 22:45 +0000
              Re: Diversity - good or bad ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-01-11 01:11 +0000
            Re: Diversity - good or bad ? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-01-11 05:23 +0200
              Re: Diversity - good or bad ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-11 00:48 -0500
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-11 07:02 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-11 09:00 -0500
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-11 19:50 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-11 19:19 -0500
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-12 02:02 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-11 22:19 -0500
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-12 06:51 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 11:09 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-12 20:46 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 20:48 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-13 00:43 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 11:05 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-12 11:49 +0100
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> - 2025-01-12 14:06 +0100
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-12 19:40 +0100
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-01-12 13:46 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 14:00 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-01-12 14:52 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2025-01-12 17:09 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-12 19:42 +0100
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-12 23:51 -0500
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-13 10:32 +0100
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-13 23:03 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2025-01-14 00:52 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-14 04:13 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-16 04:18 -0500
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-14 21:55 +0100
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-13 21:11 -0500
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-01-14 12:28 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-14 22:00 +0100
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-14 23:15 -0500
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-15 10:07 +0100
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-01-15 06:16 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-01-15 06:18 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-15 10:13 +0100
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-16 00:28 -0500
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-01-16 11:27 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-16 14:39 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-17 01:01 -0500
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-17 11:10 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-17 23:30 -0500
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-16 16:57 +0100
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-16 20:59 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-17 10:15 +0100
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-17 19:40 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-18 11:40 +0100
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-18 19:42 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-19 11:44 +0100
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-17 01:41 -0500
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-17 10:55 +0100
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-17 19:44 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-18 11:41 +0100
                Scandinavian Humor and Other Myths Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-01-18 14:46 +0000
                Re: Scandinavian Humor and Other Myths The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-18 15:03 +0000
                Re: Scandinavian Humor and Other Myths D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-18 18:07 +0100
                Re: Scandinavian Humor and Other Myths rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-18 19:36 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2025-01-12 18:53 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-01-13 13:06 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2025-01-13 16:17 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-13 20:51 +0100
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 20:23 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-01-13 13:40 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-13 17:08 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-13 00:31 -0500
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-13 06:33 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2025-01-12 17:06 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2025-01-12 18:53 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-13 10:16 +0100
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-13 10:51 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-13 20:48 +0100
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2025-01-13 16:17 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 20:24 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-12 21:32 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2025-01-12 21:47 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-01-13 02:41 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2025-01-13 03:00 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-01-13 13:47 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-13 22:56 +0000
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-12 23:29 -0500
                Re: New Pi 5 (Diversity - good or bad ?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-13 06:24 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 10:23 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-12 00:44 +0100
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-12 02:10 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-12 11:53 +0100
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-12 21:03 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 10:56 +0000
              Re: Diversity - good or bad ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-11 12:13 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-11 09:21 -0500
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-11 14:58 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-12 00:44 +0100
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 11:03 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-12 19:36 +0100
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 20:30 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-13 10:20 +0100
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-13 04:32 -0500
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-13 12:03 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-12 23:42 -0500
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-13 10:38 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-01-13 13:11 +0000
            Re: Diversity - good or bad ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-11 12:04 +0000
              Re: Diversity - good or bad ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-11 19:52 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-11 19:21 -0500
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-12 02:23 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-11 23:00 -0500
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-12 06:59 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 10:46 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-12 20:54 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 10:44 +0000
                Re: Diversity - good or bad ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 10:39 +0000
        Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-10 22:15 +0000
          Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-11 12:06 +0000
            Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-11 20:00 +0000
              Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-01-11 21:57 +0000
                Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-12 02:33 +0000
                The Joys of Motorola Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-01-12 14:40 +0000
                Re: The Joys of Motorola rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-13 00:19 +0000
                Re: The Joys of Motorola "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-13 03:56 -0500
                Re: The Joys of Motorola rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-13 23:46 +0000
              Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-11 19:38 -0500
                Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-12 02:46 +0000
                Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-11 23:08 -0500
                Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-12 07:05 +0000
                Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-01-12 12:07 +0000
                Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 12:23 +0000
                Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-12 21:19 +0000
                Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-13 00:21 -0500
                Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-13 06:17 +0000
                Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-13 03:23 -0500
                Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-01-14 03:42 +0000
                Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-14 03:59 +0000
    Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-11 12:48 +0100
      Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-11 12:29 +0000
        Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-12 00:41 +0100

csiph-web