Jump to content

SteinbergerHack

Members
  • Posts

    32,416
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    138

Posts posted by SteinbergerHack

  1. Personally, I absolutely love my XTC. It's the only amp I've ever really been satisfied with, and I've owned a lot of 'em.

    That said, I've never been a Mesa fan at all - I just can't get the sound I'm looking for from them for some reason.

    To the OP - why not just find a stocking location for each and play them both? If you're going to spend that sort of coin, it's probably worth the cost of a road-trip to try it in person.

  2. I've always likened some of his best solos to running as fast as you can, legs fumbling and
    almost
    falling down, but catching yourself and carrying it out. Does that make any sense?



    EXACTLY!!!!!!!


    Add to that the fact that he writes/plays some of the coolest rhythm guitar lines ever created for guitar and, well....

    ...and he got Valerie Bertinelli. He screwed it up in the end, but he basically lived the fantasy life for all of us who were in junior high in the late 70s.

  3. You forgot another one: When gas prices doubled this last year and people were waiting in gas lines (or unable to get gas in the SouthEast after Hurricane Ike), NASCAR racing events continued on as if nothing happened.

     

    Race cars don't really use much in the way of gas. There is FAR less gas consumed by the race cars at a NASCAR or IRL event then the fossil fuels consumed to power the lights at a night baseball game, and I won't even go into the gas consumed by the people driving to the stadium. Do the math - 40 cars at 500 miles = 20,000 miles. At 5 MPG, that's about 4000 gallons. Now, for a stadium that has 20,000 people in it, averaging a 40-mile round trip to the park, that's 800,000 miles. At 20 MPG, that's 40,000 gallons - ten times what is consumed by the racecars.

  4. Originally posted by dcooper830

    I don't believe that Halliburton was the ONLY company with the resources and capacity to "bid" on those contracts.



    If you don't have access to the capital equipment to perform the task, then you cannot bid.

    And what do you mean by the time and money wasted trying to solicit bids from other companies???????



    Ever been through a RFP/RFQ process with a government contract? Apparently, not..... The time and effort involved with this process is why certain brandhes of the federal government create IDIQ schedules to cover items that can't easily be opened out for general bidding.

    Were we THAT much in a hurry to go to war????

    Don't you think this whole war is a waste of time and money????



    That's irrelevant to the Halliburton issue. Once the troops are in-country, it would be dereliction of duty to allow a paper-shuffling exercise to delay getting supplies support personnel into the are.

    I think it would be quite naive to think there is no connection between Dick Cheney and Halliburton being awarded multi billion dollar contracts.



    Frankly, I think it's ludicrous and time-wasting to question it. If you think Halliburton should be excluded from government contracts, then you need to propose an alternative supplier. Nobody has ever been able to do this. Has it ever occurred to you that if Halliburton was actually making the 'obscene profits' that the naysayers refer to that somebody else would make the investment to become a competitor and take some of those profits for themselves? Think about it for more than 5 seconds, and it becomes obvious.....

    The Iraq war was being planned out LONG before 9-11.


    Paul Wolfowitz had written a lengthy report back in 1993 on why it would be necessary to invade Iraq.



    Perhaps. What this has to do with the issuing of logistics contracts is exactly nothing.

  5. Originally posted by telephant

    Werd. Not mention Moore used a interview the guy gave to ABC that aired on national television.



    That does not automatically confer on Moore the right to edit the footage and re-use it in whatever manner he sees fit.

    Defamation, slander, and libel are all very old offenses.....

  6. Originally posted by dcooper830

    Speaking of (Bush administration) misleading (Bush administration) information.


    And how many BILLION did Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton make off of no-bid contracts in Iraq?



    How many other companies were there with the resources and capacity to bid on those contracts?

    How much time (and money) would have been wasted by trying to solicit bids from companies that don't exist?

    How many government contract bids have you ever been involved with?

    I'm not a big Halliburton fan, but I just can't believe that this issue keeps coming up; it's a pure red herring. The only people who fall for it are those who don't appear to understand the process for contracting these services.

  7. Originally posted by Negative K3 fan

    lol, but why 85 million????? thats absurd



    The film grossed $119 million.

    Interestingly, it seems that only the media and the far left refer to the film as a 'documentary'. I'm not even sure Moore has ever called it that. It's pretty clear that it is NOT a documentary, any more than 'JFK'....

  8. Originally posted by NITEFLY182

    Why dont you just tell us what youve designed and made at high volumes. I dont understand the ambiguity of your statements, it isnt helping your credibility at all.

     

    I can't, due to requirements from my company. My industry is really small, and identifying what I work on would effectively identify myself and my company, thus making everything I say on this board a reflection on my employer.

     

    I've already been through this on another board and have been warned no to allow any linkages back to my day gig, under threat of termination.

     

    Sound stupid? Yes, but I can't do anything about it until I change jobs or retire.

     

     

    As for my credibility, I don't see where that's at stake. Noone has yet refuted ANY of the observations I've made.

     

     

     

    BTW, Doug, if you're limiting your statements to tube amps, I think I come a lot closer to agreeing with you.

     

    To put a cap on it, when I said vast majority, I was including EVERYTHING on the market, not just the good stuff. If you look at the low-end products out there, most of which are SS, I'll stand by my statement. I don't think that these products are designed to stand up to touring, and they are clearly not designed by the 'A-team'.

     

    Roccaforte Amps
    Now, if you want to talk about solid state guitar amplifiers,

    I'm with you 100%. A couple of the big longtime survivors who build both tube and SS amplifiers way under design their SS amps.

    Using 1watt zener diodes that blow where a 5watt will last.

    Why I don't work on crap like that anymore.

     

    :thu:

     

    I have a hybrid head from one of the majors that is flat horrible in its design. Sounds good, but it's pretty atrocious inside. I burned one up within 2 years of steady gigging (multiple failures); bought another and keep it at home for recording and practice now.

     

    There are too many tube guitar amplifiers being built as we speak that will last many years of touring, and vibrations.

    I know, I build them, and work on many others.

     

    Yes, there are some very good designs. I think the Bogners are good - I have an XTC, and I expect it to work well for a long time. Frankly, yours looks pretty good (if a bit labor-intensive). There is also some pretty poorly built junk out there; it may sound good, but that doesn't mean it will last.

     

    I can agree, though, that if you limit the discussion to tube amps, the overall quality gets much higher. This is really the high-end of the market, so the companies that do both tend to put their best stuff in the tube models.

  9. Originally posted by Roccaforte Amps


    Since you're asking, don't get offended. The answer is both.

    You have no experience with guitar amplifier manufacturing,

    repairing ect.... yet you threw out a comment like you do.

    To say "the vast majority" means to me "most", correct?

    If I'm right about your statement, and also right about

    your experience with guitar amplification, you really shouldn't be making comments like this.

     

    I'll go back to my initial statement. I've pointed out design deficiencies that ARE present in most current amp designs. Do you have a technical response to this, or do you want to continue to attack me personally?

     

    Frankly, I find it a bit immature to question whether someone who has executed multi-processing designs with a 20-year design life for harsh conditions can make a reasonable judgement as to the design quality of a much lower-tech item. Bluntly, the designs I am responsible for can get people killed if they fail, so I think I have a clue about electronics design.

     

    How many designs have you completed and rolled into actual factory production? At what volume? How many design FEMAs have you conducted? What's your average first-pass yield? Field failure rate at 5 years? What level of six-sigma certification have you achieved?

     

    As far as passing table shaking, and oven testing, I can name a million consumer products we use daily that wouldn't pass those types of testing. They really don't need to.

     

    Sure an iPod, desktop PC, or home theater receiver doesn't need to. However, the intended use of a guitar amp is far more like an industrial product than most consumer items. They undergo significant vibration (sitting on a 4x12 cab at 120dB DOES create some vibration). They get transported regularly, with all the shock loading that this entails. They get subjected to and operated in uncontrolled temperatures - ever run an outdoor gig in August? The expected design life of guitar amps is far higher than a PC or plasma TV; those products are intentionally designed to fail at 5-7 years because they are intended to be disposable. I, for one, don't like to see amps designed at this level.

     

    The gut shots you showed appear to have a very high level of craftsmanship - I applaud you for that. However, craftsmanship and proper DFX/DFM are NOT the same thing.

  10. Originally posted by Roccaforte Amps


    Thanks. Here's the channel switching Rockie;

    ROCKIEchhSMALL.jpg

     

    That looks like a pretty good PTP job. All the wiring is dressed properly, and none of the chassis-mount components are used as support for the board. There also appears to be pretty good separation between signal and power (read: noise) lines.

     

    It's certainly far better than the average product out there today...

  11. Originally posted by Nik



    Now, those are really poorly designed PCBs!

     

    Agreed. Look at the way the filter caps are attached - single-ended radials with no retention other than the leads. This is a vibration failure waiting to happen.

     

    Also, none of the point-soldered leads are retained in any manner other than their solder connection (or removable connector). A handful of zip-ties would go a long way here....

     

    None of the pots are the type that have separate mechanical mounting tabs.

     

    Also, look at the distance between the mounting screws that support the board - there's a lot of flex potential there. Again, this is a vibration/fatigue failure waiting to happen.

     

    Sockets? The same.

     

    I won't even begin to go into the trace issues - what layout package did this guy use? It looks like an old tape-masked design, done by someone who never took drafting. [There are sometimes reasons to use such strange routings, but I have a hard time believing that this is optimized.

  12. Originally posted by Roccaforte Amps


    But you said "the vast majority", yet you've only been inside of a few amplifiers. Anyway, take care, I need go now.

     

    No, I said it was a 'limited sample'. I haven't been inside everything on the market (haven't looked inside a Diezel or Krank yet), but I've certainly looked over more than a few.

     

    Are you disagreeing with any of the specific observations I've described, or are you just trying to say I'm full of it on general principles?

  13. Originally posted by Roccaforte Amps

    "the vast majority of guitar amp designs suck in terms of manufacturability, consistency, and reliability."


    That's really not true. [...]


    I can name many amplifier companies who build very reliable

    products that are very consistent, I know because I service them.

    Manufacturability? Who's having trouble?

    I'm not trying to argue with you, but I just don't agree.

    Doug

     

    OK - I'm looking at the amps (that I've been inside - admittedly a limited sample) vs. what I would be expected to provide in a design that would need to last 20+ years in a harsh environment.

     

    I'd bet that 80% or more of the amps on the market today would not consistently pass the 3-axis "shake'n'bake" test - a combination of vibration and thermal cycling. The board and component support used in a lot of these designs just isn't up to snuff, so it can be expected to fail sooner than something that is designed right. Using a component as a support point is a no-no here, and this is something that is far too commonly done in amps with pots and jacks. Single-ended support of heavy components is just a bad idea, but seems to be tolerated in this industry - I don't know why.

     

     

    There are a couple of relatively high-profile amp companies who have products on the market today that have suffered from numerous build quality problems; I'd rather not point fingers, but their designs just ain't robust.

     

    As far as manufacturability - I'm comparing to the steps that a mid- to high-volume producer uses to reduce fallout and cost. One of the first things you do is get rid of leaded through-hole components wherever possible. Hot-melt is a no-no, as well.

     

    Can you build an amp this way? Sure. Is it the most cost-effective and highest-reliability way to do it? No.

     

    Make sense?

  14. I'm just coming into this thread, and I really don't get it.

     

    Having worked in electronics design and medium-volume manufacturing, I'd like to point out that the vast majority of guitar amp designs suck in terms of manufacturability, consistency, and reliability.

     

    Reasons:

     

    1) PTP manufacturing is not easily repeatable, and the resulting reliability is extremely dependent on the person actually doing the soldering.

     

    2) Most PCB designs use low-grade PCBs that have poor temperature performance, too-thin plating, and poorly sized thru-holes. All of the above lead to reliability issues and inconsistency,

     

    3) Many (not all) designs rely on soldered board connections to support such components as input/output jacks, pots, tubes sockets, caps, etc. [The proper way is to retain these parts to the board with mechanical fastening, and use the solder only as an electrical connection point.

     

    There are more reasons that have to do with manufacturing techniques, but I won't keep going. Anyone who understands electronic assembly techniques for volume manufacturing knows where I'm going.

     

    The good news is that a hand-wired PTP design made by a really good technician is generally better than a cheap PCB job. However, it's FAR more expensive, due to the insane labor content. The bad news is that a PTP design will never be as consistent as a proper PCB design, because the wires will never be in exactly the same place, so there will always be differences in the reponse.

     

    The better news is that some of the high-end amp designers (Bogner I'm sure of, and I've heard that a few others have gotten it right) have figured out how to do a proper PCB design. If you use heavier plating, better base material, proper mechanical mounting techniques, and proper hole-sizing and thru-plating, you can get a VERY high-quality product with a PCB. This is still more expensive than a cheap PCB, and taes more time to design. However, in volume, it will end up being less expensive than PTP, and will be more reliable.

×
×
  • Create New...