Lab Series L-5 impressions

[Jim]

Initial impressions on my "new" Lab Series/Norlin/Moog L-5 (1980
production):

First off, the amp came to me with a lot of general noise and horribly
dirty pots. Other than missing the reverb tank (will order this week),
everything was functional. So I bought it.

Cleaning the pots turned out to be a royal PITA. The preamp board is
directly behind the control panel. Pots are board mounted, sandwiched
between the chassis and the board. The board itself fits into two long
mounts with grooves that grab the edge of the board. So you don't have
to take off a slew of pot nuts (just four jacks), but that might've been
easier! And there's a power board directly behind the preamp, with a
power resistor that makes it nearly impossible to pull the preamp board
without pulling the other board. But I managed to wiggle the preamp
free.

After cleaning it up, the noise is gone! The preamp board sources
ground from the chassis via a star washer behind the input jacks. Mine
must've been loose and/or corroded. The pots are also now DEAD quiet.
Hope they stay that way, because I don't look forward to tearing it
apart again!

That was last night. Today I spent my lunch hour playing with it.

This is a VERY tweakable amp. If you plug in and expect to find your
tone in 30 seconds, you will likely be disappointed. The features of
the amp really need to be dialed in. If you spend 5 minutes balancing
the preamp overdrive, adjusting tones (including semi-parametric mids
and notchy "multifilter"), and balancing the compressor with the master
volume... You can get the best touch sensitive overdrive tone that I've
gotten out of a SS amp.

And the power/volume levels? It's not unusual to play a "100 watt"
solid state amp that cannot hold its ground next to a 20W tube amp. But
this amp seems very true to the power rating (100W RMS). The OD and
compressor no doubt help. It's loud, it's punchy, it just sounds right.

I also discovered that the "HI" jack does NOT mean high sensitivity. To
get that, you plug into "LO." So apparently "LO" means low guitar
output level, so more gain.

The bass and treble controls are fairly typical, but the semi-parametric
mids is very reactive. No Q, but you get two controls for center
frequency and cut/boost.

Add to that a "MUILTIFILTER" control, which Miles O'Neil describes as:

"The multifilter is essentially a six-band EQ with fixed settings,
where you control only how much of the signal through it gets mixed
back with the main signal, sort of like a flanger's comb filter
with the sweep set to zero. The frequency centers are at 1000Hz,
1370Hz, 1900Hz, 2630Hz, 3630Hz and 5000 Hz."

What does the multifilter do? With distortion, I hear a more aggressive
tone, and a more harmonic "tube-like" cut.

Next comes the built-in compressor. It works in conjunction with the
master volume. If you dime the master, and pull the compressor down,
you lose almost all headroom. But if you dial in your distortion tone,
then your actual volume with the master, then adjust the compressor so
that the LED flashes on the attack... You can mimic the natural
compression of overdriven tubes. And the OD level cleans up GREAT
through the guitar volume.

This amp will NOT replace my tube amps. But it is WAY better than an OD
stompbox into a clean tube amp. The overdrive is more natural, and more
articulate. Lead runs don't get mushed together, you can still hear the
individual notes in the chords. A couple internet searches came up with
an impressive list of owners/users. We all know BB King, but other
users include Ty Tabor (King's X), Ronnie Montrose, Eric Clapton, Alan
Holdsworth, Jim Messina, Joe Bonamassa...

I'll see how I feel about it in a couple of months, but this could be a
keeper!

[Miles Ahead]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:24:28 -0700, Jim <ask@first> wrote:

>Initial impressions on my "new" Lab Series/Norlin/Moog L-5 (1980
>production):

The L5, designed by Moog, is a complete gem, so easy to mod too.

As you found out, the knobs will need cleaning. The whole pre amp
stage is attached to the knobs. While out, replace every cheap op amp
(yes, there IS a 741 even there) with low profile sockets. Now you
can use some neat and swiftly ICs, and they drop right in. Other then
that, I'd change little, if anything. The output stage is very good,
loud, and stable, and can be, if ya insane, made into a 200 watt
(L11) combo. I've mod'd a few that scraped the output stage, and
replaced it with some UK'ish 100 watt tube stage. It can be done.

>I'll see how I feel about it in a couple of months, but this could be a
>keeper!

They can be had cheap, seems no one wants them, last one I bought
was $375 in 9+ cond. Put better speakers into it. One I did the IC
trick to works on the road today, with JBLs in it. Weighs a tone,
but oh, da tone. Cons? Funky on/off thingie on the back, some
later ones came with pure crap speakers, Cab could of been deeper.

Schematics are everywhere, I have a original Moog book. I wonder why
Moog of today doesn't build them. A great design that sounded real,
good name, I doubt if Norlin will bitch. Norlin imported bad beer..


JJTj





"..As I leaned over to correct her spelling of the
words: "..Boogie-Woogie..", I realized I loved her.."

[Jim]

On 10/4/2011 5:07 PM, Miles Ahead wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:24:28 -0700, Jim<ask@first> wrote:
>
>> Initial impressions on my "new" Lab Series/Norlin/Moog L-5 (1980
>> production):
>
> The L5, designed by Moog, is a complete gem, so easy to mod too.
>
> As you found out, the knobs will need cleaning. The whole pre amp
> stage is attached to the knobs. While out, replace every cheap op amp
> (yes, there IS a 741 even there) with low profile sockets. Now you
> can use some neat and swiftly ICs, and they drop right in. Other then
> that, I'd change little, if anything. The output stage is very good,
> loud, and stable, and can be, if ya insane, made into a 200 watt
> (L11) combo. I've mod'd a few that scraped the output stage, and
> replaced it with some UK'ish 100 watt tube stage. It can be done.
>
>> I'll see how I feel about it in a couple of months, but this could be a
>> keeper!
>
> They can be had cheap, seems no one wants them, last one I bought
> was $375 in 9+ cond. Put better speakers into it. One I did the IC
> trick to works on the road today, with JBLs in it.

Are there many 16 or 4 ohm JBL's out there? I don't really pay
attention. But honestly, I'm happy with the stock CTS at this point.

Weighs a tone,
> but oh, da tone. Cons? Funky on/off thingie on the back,

Yeah, that was a surprise. I'm glad I had a little LED flashlight with
me. I figured it out quickly. But had the shine the light again to
find the weird little "off" tab!

some
> later ones came with pure crap speakers, Cab could of been deeper.

Another odd thing: They used a wood grain grill frame. My cloth is
very thin in a spot, and it looks like cheesy 60's/70's paneling.

I'd like to find replacement grill cloth, but may settle for simple
Marshall type basket weave. I'd also like to find the logo badge, as
mine is missing.

[Miles Ahead]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:33:26 -0700, Jim <ask@first> wrote:

>Are there many 16 or 4 ohm JBL's out there? I don't really pay
>attention. But honestly, I'm happy with the stock CTS at this point.

They are not bad. Already there too...

>...Cons? Funky on/off thingie on the back,

>Yeah, that was a surprise. I'm glad I had a little LED flashlight with
>me. I figured it out quickly. But had the shine the light again to
>find the weird little "off" tab!

Some one once found a drop in part to fix it, but I never
saw one. Weird.. Ya can still replace it OEM today..

>Another odd thing: They used a wood grain grill frame. My cloth is
>very thin in a spot, and it looks like cheesy 60's/70's paneling.

Many amps around that 'era' used real cheap cabs, it was always
a afterthought. After all, it only holds the speakers. No big deal.

>I'd like to find replacement grill cloth, but may settle for simple
>Marshall type basket weave. I'd also like to find the logo badge, as
>mine is missing.

The grill is almost a 'brown' tinted black, but yeah, try others.

Sorry, don't have a logo. Any old LAB will do ya.


JJTj




You know those Kix just keep getting harder to find..
...and Frosted Flakes ain't giving you peace of mind..
You better chow down more Bran cakes, now..
..and get yer ass straight...

[Jim]

On 10/4/2011 7:10 PM, Miles Ahead wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:33:26 -0700, Jim<ask@first> wrote:
>
>> Are there many 16 or 4 ohm JBL's out there? I don't really pay
>> attention. But honestly, I'm happy with the stock CTS at this point.
>
> They are not bad. Already there too...
>
>> ...Cons? Funky on/off thingie on the back,
>
>> Yeah, that was a surprise. I'm glad I had a little LED flashlight with
>> me. I figured it out quickly. But had the shine the light again to
>> find the weird little "off" tab!
>
> Some one once found a drop in part to fix it, but I never
> saw one. Weird.. Ya can still replace it OEM today..
>
>> Another odd thing: They used a wood grain grill frame. My cloth is
>> very thin in a spot, and it looks like cheesy 60's/70's paneling.
>
> Many amps around that 'era' used real cheap cabs, it was always
> a afterthought. After all, it only holds the speakers. No big deal.

Baffle and cloth frame look like MDF (and only uses two little tabs of
velcro). But the baffle is thicker than most. The rest looks like
plywood.

The way I see it, woods are less important in an open combo, as compared
to a sealed or ported cab.

>
>> I'd like to find replacement grill cloth, but may settle for simple
>> Marshall type basket weave. I'd also like to find the logo badge, as
>> mine is missing.
>
> The grill is almost a 'brown' tinted black, but yeah, try others.
>
> Sorry, don't have a logo. Any old LAB will do ya.

I'll put one of those E-mail notification searches on ebay. And hope
they don't get the same money as vintage long tail Fender, early
Polytone, or Sunn (I need them all, also with a head cab to fit a Sunn
2000S chassis I have sitting here -- which also uses an odd cloth on it).

[Miles Ahead]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:11:16 -0700, Jim <ask@first> wrote:

>The way I see it, woods are less important in an open combo, as compared
>to a sealed or ported cab.

I agree..but here's why I'm confused.

At PV, in the mid'ish 90s, there was a meeting of the powers
that be. HP,..all of R&D (which is only why I was there)
and the cab people. PV had, even in those days, got the
cab building thing down pat, we could get a combo cab
'beta'd' in 90 mins. I'd guess it's better now.

PV then built the 'Dual 212' that is a mf'r kick ass 'twin'
they sold then for chump change. Find one, buy it..

The cab sucked. Thin cheap wood, that by the time
the dealers stopped buying them, it was over.

It was then where HP laid down whatever law too
upgrade wood in all new designs. Here's why :

We had this roto wheel thing that balanced the numbers,
and told us folks what might or might not work. Stupid me,
I sold mine years ago (still got scanned pix). But HP said:

"..it doesn't suck for the money.." (HP)

He could, at that moment, with all the ##s in or not in
front of him, decide if a product was worth the effort
to pimp. IMMSMW, he was right 86% of the time.

Yet what was the kicker.. It was *1* guy with complete
verbal control to do 'it'. And he know's his sheit..

Those years in Meridian beats Yale anyday.

..I mean.. 4 da $...

JJTj


Building A went apeshit whenever the battle cry:

"Elvis is in the building.." (or even the word 'elvis')

..hit the air. HP was there, and it was more times a good thing
then bad, because he got things done. Welcome, stranger.

Delorean and all. He luved the thing, parked at the side.

Yup, I'm bored, trying to stay on topic, and re-writimg this
flocking boik. Kill file my fat arse. Please. U promise?

[Jim]

You must be kidding about the kill-file, because this is interesting
stuff. More on topic than anything else going on!

BTW, The other amp I was buying that day was an early Mace. Would've
been my second. But it sold out from under me. Sold my first one
because I was always tempted to play too loud.

I don't mind the people who have low opinions of Peavey. Makes it
easier to find deals! I know that they made a lot of good stuff. Maybe
shear volume of product makes a lot of people think it's too common, so
it must be junk. Maybe the dated cosmetics of the metal side trim.
Whatever. I've owned Peavey in the past and probably will in the
future. But I recently traded off my Triple X head because it was just
TOO MUCH GAIN, got too buzzy to quick for my tastes.

And to add to the amp content:

I fired up my '64 Princeton tonight. Came to me with a cooked power
transformer. Installed a grounded power cord, replacement power
transformer, the new production 20/20/20/20 filter can, bias cap, known
good tubes, and she sounds pretty good. Definitely on the clean side.
It came with a non-original Jensen P10R alnico that worked, but when I
pushed it, it started to rub and seize up. It'll get reconed next week.

I measured the resistors, a couple were slightly over 10% off, but I
left them in anyway. Also pulled an end of each cathode bias cap, and
they all measure to spec with a meter. So I left all of them in place.
Voltages look pretty good, less than 10% off. So that CE replacement
works fine! No center tap on the filament, so I did the two 100 ohm to
ground deal a the pilot light.

[Lord Valve]

Some snotty asshole from Seattle wrote:

> Also pulled an end of each cathode bias cap, and
> they all measure to spec with a meter.

OK, class -

Anyone here know why this doesn't matter, and those
caps could all be pure shit even though they measure
the "right" amount of capacitance?

We'll see, eh?


Got guns?


Lord Valve
American - so far

[IUnknown]

>
> PV then built the 'Dual 212' that is a mf'r kick ass 'twin'
> they sold then for chump change. Find one, buy it..
>

I've got one ... a duel 212 ... loaded with a quad of phillips JAN NOS
6L6 glass. It has the stock peavey speakers - no label (rebranded
eminence).

It is *loud* and *clean*. Don't really like the overdrive sound on it
at all.

It also weighs a billion pounds.... I put handles *and* casters on
the thing. Only helps a little :)

[John Wood]

Shouldn't caps in a tube circuit be measured with close to operating
voltage applied?

Just checkin'...

John

[The Repair Guy]

Jim <ask@first> wrote:

>BTW, The other amp I was buying that day was
>an early Mace.

I owned a Mace some time in the early '80s.
Lousy distortion (IMO) but loads of VERY
loud clean - 2 Black Widow 12's.
Built like a tank. As heavy as a tank :-)

The Repair Guy
http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/

[Jim]

I know that checking with a meter isn't a guarantee that they'll work.
But these are lower voltage cathode caps, and I really want to keep the
'64 board stock, if at all possible. It sounded great, but didn't want
to get dirty. Plenty of headroom, only started to break up at extreme
settings.

[Jim]

On 10/6/2011 9:56 AM, John Wood wrote:

>

> Shouldn't caps in a tube circuit be measured with close to operating
> voltage applied?
>
> Just checkin'...
>
> John

BTW, I've experienced filter caps spitting out the electrolyte after
they tested w/i spec with a meter. In my '68 Bandmaster, but caps were
dated somewhere in the 80's. It was during initial testing, would've
ended up replacing them anyway.

I suppose I can check cathode voltages (to make sure that they aren't
shorted). The one good thing is that the amp had been used until recently.

Lord Wackadoo once called B.S. when I said that electrolytic filter caps
really ought to be changed out if they're over 20 years old. Guess I
was right for THAT amp. And yes, the one that spewed was a Sprague (not
a cheaper replacement).

[TD Madden]

Jim, I've got a '63 taht really kids ass...filter caps change...all
other parts original. Try one of those blue-frame Fender 10's (Angela
Istruments has 'em cheap)...pretty good sound!

[Lord Valve]

Still nothin' Fuckin' posers, as usual.


Lord Valve
Expert (please obsess)

[RichL]

"Lord Valve" <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4E8E6171...@ix.netcom.com...

Looking for a bit of help on this, are you?

If you're talking about electrolytics, one fairly common failure mode is
that they get "leaky", leaky enough in fact that they'll start drawing
substantial levels of current at operating bias. And when they do, they'll
start taking out other stuff. Or the cap itself will explode.

[Lord Valve]

RichL wrote:

Nope. Another fucking poser pops off.

Lord Valve
Expert (choke on it)

[boardjunkie1]

The K bypass caps in a Princeton are all in the front end, so there's
very little voltage on them. But with old caps, ESR and dielectric
absorbtion come into play as far as how well the part does its job.

I have a Sencore cap/coil analyzer that checks caps for value/leakage/
ESR/DA, but for anything *that* old, I just replace all lytics with
fresh parts without even checking the condition. There's no reason not
to. Its just cheap insurance...especially for any bias filters.
And...a marginal K bypass cap in the trem oscillator can fuck with its
operation.

Jim....you *did* replace the bias filter cap right?

[Lord Valve]

boardjunkie1 wrote:

> But with old caps, ESR and dielectric
> absorbtion come into play as far as how well the part does its job.

OK, we got a winner.

Rocket science, eh?

[John Wood]

Yes, the factors you mention are so basic to correct cap operation I
barely give them thought any more. After so many years at this some
procedures are just automatic, y'know?

I had one of those Sencores years ago and would like another. Which
model is it?

John

[boardjunkie1]

LC77. I'm on my second one. The other one quit recognizing the
presence of the leads some time ago. Sencore gets stupid money to even
open up the box upon arrival so its cheaper to just get another one.

[RichL]

"Lord Valve" <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4E8EEE3B...@ix.netcom.com...

> RichL wrote:

>> If you're talking about electrolytics, one fairly common failure mode is
>> that they get "leaky", leaky enough in fact that they'll start drawing
>> substantial levels of current at operating bias. And when they do,
>> they'll
>> start taking out other stuff. Or the cap itself will explode.
>
> Nope.

Really? So what I wrote is incorrect?

[Lord Valve]

What you wrote is correct (sometimes) but irrelevant to the question.

Hope this helps, professor Polesmoker. And I'm not
playing your snotty little game - someone else already
got it right anyway - so fuck you with a rake.

[RichL]

"Lord Valve" <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4E8F7F8F...@ix.netcom.com...

> RichL wrote:
>
>> "Lord Valve" <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:4E8EEE3B...@ix.netcom.com...
>> > RichL wrote:
>>
>> >> If you're talking about electrolytics, one fairly common failure mode
>> >> is
>> >> that they get "leaky", leaky enough in fact that they'll start drawing
>> >> substantial levels of current at operating bias. And when they do,
>> >> they'll
>> >> start taking out other stuff. Or the cap itself will explode.
>> >
>> > Nope.
>>
>> Really? So what I wrote is incorrect?
>
> What you wrote is correct (sometimes) but irrelevant to the question.

Nope. The question was "Anyone here know why this [capacitance measuring to
spec] doesn't matter, and those caps could all be pure shit even though they

measure the "right" amount of capacitance?"

The question has multiple correct answers, and mine was one of them.

>
> Hope this helps, professor

That's a bit ironic, since you asked a question (presumably knowing "the"
answer) rather than simply provide it yourself.

> And I'm not
> playing your snotty little game - someone else already
> got it right anyway - so fuck you with a rake.

Yeah, I've noticed that John W. has a tendency to cut to the chase rather
than bullshit like you.

[Jim]

Yes!

As far as the cathode caps: My general SOP is to ALWAYS just replace
all cathode bias caps. ALL electrolytics. (When I once posted that
practice, Lord Wackadoo called B.S.). I just hate to be the one to make
a change on that original pre-cbs board. I suppose I can save the old
parts, in case I sell and the buyer objects to the new caps.

[John Wood]

Its not unheard of for collectors (not players) to insist on ALL
original parts, functioning or not.

Whatever keeps the dust off'n your shelves.

John

[John Wood]

Old film making reference.

I love it!

:-)

John

[Lord Valve]

RichL wrote:

Wood is a fucking putz.

It was boardjunkie who got it. So fuck you.

[Miles Ahead]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:49:10 -0500, John Wood <jwoo...@mchsi.com>
wrote:

>Its not unheard of for collectors (not players) to insist on ALL
>original parts, functioning or not.

I've boinked a few icon amps in the old (fartdays.com) and none of
them, IMMSMW, bitched big time if the 1812 VOZ AZ-30 was dead
stock. The Edge's cloth torn 30 was held together with paper clips,
and I installed RCA screen resistors in the thing. Not cricket.

..I bought the parts at Radio-shuck...

Players have a need for the thing to work. Collectors want MoJo.

Both have their place. I just doubt big time that U2 gave a real
rat's arse about the amp compared to the public now needs to
chicken choke over the rip'd cloth' headstone AC30 I worked on.

..believe me, it was a POS. Even by POS AC30 rules.

Sometime bad is bad. He loved it, liked my work, and a few
years later, 'retired' it. He also toured with those 25th aniv
silver badged 30's, I applied each sticker (still got a few)

THAT 'Pr1mo' era AC30 was a good amp. Good cab, good
build (last of the real 'shim'ed'chassis) but suck tubes n spkrs.

Tom Petty used those silver stickered amps too. He put good
spkrs and tubes in them, and they worked day & night.

That era VOX included the 'VENUE' range of 'blah' SS badly
constructed poo that will rot in hell for no other reason,
but the chassis mounted to the cab by 2 screws on each
end that, if you had to turn, bent the frame and ya NEVER
got it back in (and EVER out again) without big time bitch'in.

..and they needed work..often..

Then there was the 'Concert' series. The 50 was a 2 EL34,
1 12 Venue looking combo, but with Diamond grill. I sounded
ok, not many were made, and all we pimped had GEC 77's.

..and the Concert 100 stack. WOW. Pure shit, the cabs
were so badly built, cheap wood, bad glue. I god a head
and one cab in storage. It was the 2nd time (maybe 3rd)
VOX tried the slanted top 4-12 in a 8-12 stack, but this
looked like Crate rejects. Sound was piss poor. Yet
it's just about the few diamond grilled stacks Vox made.

http://www.jtashjian.com/ampporn/a.jpg

(sorry, it's the only catalog scan I got nearby)

JJTj




Let me ride on the Wall Of Death one more time
Let me ride on the Wall Of Death one more time
You can waste your time on the other rides
This is the nearest to being alive
Oh let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death

You can go with the crazy people in the Crooked House
You can fly away on the Rocket or spin in the Mouse
The Tunnel Of Love might amuse you
Noah's Ark might confuse you
But let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death

On the Wall Of Death all the world is far from me
On the Wall Of Death it's the nearest to being free

Well you're going nowhere when you ride on the carousel
And maybe you're strong but what's the good of ringing a bell
The switchback will make you crazy. Beware of the bearded lady
Oh let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death

Let me ride on the Wall Of Death one more time
Oh let me ride on the Wall Of Death one more time
You can waste your time on the other rides
This is the nearest to being alive
Oh let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death
Let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death
Oh let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death

[Lord Valve]

Lord Valve wrote:

...

And, Mr Polesmoker, we're talking about cathode bypass
caps on preamp tubes, which are usually all in parallel with
resistors. Leakage, schmeakage. Most of them have
less than three or four volts across them, and the liklihood
of explosion is vanishingly small. And - contrary to AGA-tard
opinion - replacement of these caps with new parts does
*not* guarantee any improvement in tone or reliability,
since there are plenty of dogshit parts floating around out
there with "big" names on them that will crap out early
and that, even when new, exhibit high ESR - which is
*the* tone-killer in this situation. Checking these caps
with an ESR meter or cap analyzer which can read
ESR or DA is the definitive test, not a capacitance
reading, since the actual capacitance can be +/- 50%
without making a significant audible difference. NEW
parts must pass this test, since quality will vary from
brand to brand and even batch to batch. After one has
performed this test on many different brands and batches
over a period of decades, one develops a list of the types
which are crap, acceptable, and superior for this application.

The possession of such a list is what makes me Lord Valve.

The lack of such data - or even knowlege of the necessity of
such - is what makes you a putz with his finger up his ignorant
commie ass.

Hope this clears things up for ya, putz. I'm out.

Lord Valve
Expert - kiss my fat ass if you don't like it

[RichL]

"Lord Valve" <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4E9060B4...@ix.netcom.com...

> we're talking about cathode bypass
> caps on preamp tubes, which are usually all in parallel with
> resistors. Leakage, schmeakage. Most of them have
> less than three or four volts across them, and the liklihood
> of explosion is vanishingly small. And - contrary to AGA-tard
> opinion - replacement of these caps with new parts does
> *not* guarantee any improvement in tone or reliability,
> since there are plenty of dogshit parts floating around out
> there with "big" names on them that will crap out early
> and that, even when new, exhibit high ESR - which is
> *the* tone-killer in this situation. Checking these caps
> with an ESR meter or cap analyzer which can read
> ESR or DA is the definitive test, not a capacitance
> reading, since the actual capacitance can be +/- 50%
> without making a significant audible difference. NEW
> parts must pass this test, since quality will vary from
> brand to brand and even batch to batch.

Good, finally extracted some tech info out of you. Now, why couldn't you
have just said that in the first place rather than generating the usual
ANGST?

[DGDevin]

"RichL" wrote in message
news:qtidnf_JnO_tEw3T...@supernews.com...

> Good, finally extracted some tech info out of you. Now, why couldn't you
> have just said that in the first place rather than generating the usual
> ANGST?

Ummm, because chest-thumping, sneering and ranting are primarily what he's
after, technical discussion is waaaaaay down Willie's list.

[RS]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 08:39:48 -0600, Lord Valve
<detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:


> Wood is a fucking putz. ... So fuck you.
>
>And, Mr Polesmoker,...

[mercy snip] That wasn't very nice, was it.

>The possession of such a list is what makes me Lord Valve.

Not exactly. Your strange prancing and preening like a bloated
flatulent peacock when you finally get one right and usually even
when you get them wrong, your attempts to fart every truly
knowledgable engineer and tech out of the room, and your continued
prolific crapping where you claim to eat...-That- is what makes you
the "Lord Valve" that everyone knows. It's a great image.

As for your laughable strutting about a very elementary capacitor
question, be assured that you still don't understand how electrons
work. A rather astonishing lack of intuition and insight, actually.

For example, explain why said it was necessary to use distilled water
to cool 8 ohm resistors in a dummy speaker load. You should make
another Youtube demo video about that! The last one is still a source
of great amusement among some of the engineers who used to hang here.
You never answered--how long did it take you to make that? I'm
guessing at least a day, maybe two? Where did it go?

>The lack of such data - or even knowlege of the necessity of
>such - is what makes you a putz with his finger up his ignorant
>commie ass.

[ahem]

>Hope this clears things up for ya, putz. I'm out.
>Lord Valve

Out? Wouldn't that be something. The aga addiction is eating up what
remains of your life. You'll never kick it.

RS

PS: Hope everyone has been well! I've taken most of the summer
off, but I do scan aga once in a while. Some funny threads here!
I couldn't resist this one. I'll try to stop back soon. Valve has
obviously missed me.

[Lord Valve]

Suck monkey cock, schmuck.

[RS]

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 20:32:24 -0600, Lord Valve
<detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>RS wrote:
> [summary: Willie got his ass whooped again]

>Suck monkey cock, schmuck.

LOL! Ain't struttin' now, eh?

Here it is again: ">> Explain why you said it was necessary to use

distilled water to cool 8 ohm resistors in a dummy speaker load."

Both Rich and Jim got that right in the original thread. Intuition and
understanding of electronics either comes naturally, or as a result of
study. Either way, you don't have it.

Next question: You told someone on the jazz guitar group that he could
swap in 12ax7's in place of 12at7's in his Fender amp. Do tell,
'Expert', do you understand what plate dissipation means?

>> >Valve:

>> >The lack of such data - or even knowlege of the necessity of
>> >such - is what makes you a putz with his finger up his ignorant
>> >commie ass.

Well, at least you're not a commie.

[Jim]

On 10/4/2011 2:24 PM, Jim wrote:
> Initial impressions on my "new" Lab Series/Norlin/Moog L-5 (1980
> production):

Brief update: I installed a new correct reverb tank (missing when
purchased). It works well, which made me VERY happy because I didn't
want to troubleshoot and track down the SS components. Also installed
new black basketweave grill cloth.

I'm still liking this amp. The features that keep me interested are the
semi-parametric mids, the multifilter notch boost, and the way the built
in compressor works with the master volume. The mids and notch boost
make it versatile, and the interaction of the compressor and master
volume avoids the common solid state harshness when it gets dirty.

[RS]

And Valve runs away from the thread again. Well, you know what they
say about playground bullies.

[RS]

Glad to hear that you got your amp working, Jim.

Low Q swept mid boost is a great feature to have for jazz players and
for those wanting more balls from single coils. High Q isn't necessary
for mid boost, IMO, except for those looking for a more nasal
wah-with-no-sweep, but that can sound cheap. Probably more trouble
than it's worth to add a Q control. (Nice to have options, but many
designers argue "never include a 'suck' control cause someone is gonna
turn it and say 'hey, this sucks!'").

High Q mid -cut- -is- very useful though, especially if multiple bands
are available. Lends a sort of choral or multi-mic'd effect to
overdriven sounds, though I don't find much use for it on clean tones.
For clean, I just prefer smooth, relatively linear Fender-type
controls with the addition of the low-q mid boost as above.

Both low-q boost and multi high-Q notch are much more difficult to
implement with tubes, so they're a natural choice for solid state
amps. I'm surprised that hasn't been done more often, especially with
those sections dedicated to clean and dirty channels respectively.
Best make the best of SS if that's the implementation. Anyway, good
design ideas in general.

I used to talk with Bob Moog at NAMM and other trade shows, but never
discussed the guitar amps. I regret that now. I've heard that he
designed or had a large part in at least one of the L-series, and they
no doubt used some circuitry from the MiniMoog or elsewhere. Maybe the
Mini's cool ladder filter.

[RS]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 02:37:20 -0400, RS <R...@nospam.com> wrote:


>I used to talk with Bob Moog at NAMM and other trade shows, but never
>discussed the guitar amps. I regret that now. I've heard that he
>designed or had a large part in at least one of the L-series, and they
>no doubt used some circuitry from the MiniMoog or elsewhere. Maybe the
>Mini's cool ladder filter.

PS: Here are a couple links that may be of interest:

http://www.diyguitarist.com/GuitarAmps/LabSeriesL5.htm
http://www.till.com/articles/moog/patents.html

The second has highlights of Moog patents. The ladder filter is first
(probably deservedly). I think somewhere around the middle there's a
unique phase shift circuit that was used in the Maestro Phaser. It
sort of turned the normal Univibe-type phase shift stage backwards,
which afforded more options in implementing it (I adapted a similar
circuit to optical control for a phaser I designed long ago...worked
extremely well).

About 2/3 of the way dow is "Amplifier with Multifilter", which is the
Lab amp filter. Now that I look at it, it's probably a peak-based
filter, though I think they could have got similar or better effect
with a notch version. Both will generate comb-filter type response
(named for that curve you see at the top), but a notch version can be
expected to generate more of a 'whoosh' effect when used as a speaker
sim or multi-mic simulator, especially with overdrive. That was a
rather adventurous and expensive thing to do, BTW.

Now I'm curious about the bandpass filter. I think I have a paper
schematic somewhere but it would be buried pretty deep. Do you happen
to have a pdf version? If so, I'll be able to tell you what it's
doing.

[Jim]

The L-5 schematic says "Moog Music, Inc. Buffalo NY." Not a mention of
"Lab Series," Norlin or Gibson.

[Jim]

It is peak based, and I used "notch" incorrectly.

>
> Now I'm curious about the bandpass filter. I think I have a paper
> schematic somewhere but it would be buried pretty deep. Do you happen
> to have a pdf version? If so, I'll be able to tell you what it's
> doing.
>

Yep:
http://www.rru.com/~meo/Guitar/Amps/Lab/Images/Lab_Series_L5_L7_L9_L11_scheme.pdf

[Floyd R Turbo]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:57:16 -0700, Jim <inse@ttle> wrote:

>The L-5 schematic says "Moog Music, Inc. Buffalo NY." Not a mention of
>"Lab Series," Norlin or Gibson.

My Lab schematic book shows on the last page (back) that
everything is copyrighted 1979 by MOOG, nothing can be
re-produced without permission of MOOG. ONLY Norlin
NY/Canada and the Netherlands (Norlin Music B.V.) are
mentioned. But the Lab series were 100% MOOG.

IMMSMW, as I was a auth repair for them then, all my dealings
were with Moog directly. Norlin owned Moog, or the rights to
dist it at least, but remember, very little 'MOOG' was being made
then, Maybe a 'mini' at best. All Lab PCBs were etched 'MOOG".

Today, there is no 'Norlin' to speak of, I doubt if Gibson has
the rights to the Lab series, but Moog, a bigger company today
then ever, should think about re-doing the Lab 5 at least. They
could do it in their sleep. PCBs are ready, use better ICs, and
maybe a better cab. A tube output stage is a no brainer, I've
built many of them. I spoke with them a few yrs ago, and there
was "..*NO*.." interest. Maybe I'll call them again, ya never know.

..then again, it WAS over 30 years ago... he he he he he..

JJTj





God Bless us, because we is funky...
Making our own rules, no matter the price..
and you best believe...we NEVER think twice...

[RS]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:50:06 -0400, Floyd R Turbo <Floyd R Turbo>
wrote:

>
>On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:57:16 -0700, Jim <inse@ttle> wrote:
>
>>The L-5 schematic says "Moog Music, Inc. Buffalo NY." Not a mention of
>>"Lab Series," Norlin or Gibson.
>
>My Lab schematic book shows on the last page (back) that
>everything is copyrighted 1979 by MOOG, nothing can be
>re-produced without permission of MOOG. ONLY Norlin
>NY/Canada and the Netherlands (Norlin Music B.V.) are
>mentioned. But the Lab series were 100% MOOG.

I believe Norlin owned both Moog and Gibson at the time. Gibson's RD
Artist guitar, for instance, had Moog-designed electronics but was
built by Gibson.

Also, the L5 design may have been from the Moog -Company- but Bob Moog
himself had left around 1978 to form Big Briar. My speculation about
how much was designed by Moog referred to Bob himself, who left quite
a legacy of innovative circuitry, including designs that originated
with previous products. He may have still been involved at the point
the amp was designed though.

BTW, when I said I used to run into Bob at the NAMM conventions, he
was with Kurzweil then. He influenced the direction of the industry
quite a bit, not just via Moog synthesizers.

>Today, there is no 'Norlin' to speak of, I doubt if Gibson has
>the rights to the Lab series, but Moog, a bigger company today
>then ever, should think about re-doing the Lab 5 at least. They
>could do it in their sleep. PCBs are ready, use better ICs, and
>maybe a better cab. A tube output stage is a no brainer, I've
>built many of them. I spoke with them a few yrs ago, and there
>was "..*NO*.." interest. Maybe I'll call them again, ya never know.

ICs: I like the 356N, which they used for the input stage. I used that
in a few designs and never had any trouble with it. I don't like the
way they used it (feeding the inverting input, so input impedance is
only 220K), but that's another story.

I don't think that amp would ever be rebuilt with a tube output stage.
Dealing with transformers, tube sockets, weight, expense, and
additional heat concerns would create a different set of problems. It
is convenient to use opamps up front due to versatility, but look at
what happened with the Music Man series that did that (admittedly
badly).

[RS]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:57:16 -0700, Jim <inse@ttle> wrote:

>> RS wrote:
>> I used to talk with Bob Moog at NAMM and other trade shows, but never
>> discussed the guitar amps. I regret that now. I've heard that he
>> designed or had a large part in at least one of the L-series, and they
>> no doubt used some circuitry from the MiniMoog or elsewhere. Maybe the
>> Mini's cool ladder filter.
>
>The L-5 schematic says "Moog Music, Inc. Buffalo NY." Not a mention of
>"Lab Series," Norlin or Gibson.

Norlin owned both Gibson and Moog then, so the design itself may have
been Moog (hence the schematic markings) but I wouldn't be surprised
if Gibson contributed re the build itself. And of course Norlin was
calling the shots.

BTW, I took a look, and the amp doesn't use the Moog ladder filter. I
always thought that would be an interesting thing to do in a SS guitar
amp, but of course High-Q is not needed there.

[Floyd R Turbo]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:07:18 -0400, RS <R...@nospam.com> wrote:

>I believe Norlin owned both Moog and Gibson at the time. Gibson's RD
>Artist guitar, for instance, had Moog-designed electronics but was
>built by Gibson.

AH, the RD series. Not a bad idea, just one basic flaw.

The whole system worked off the TWO pickups. when all the
ducks were lined up, ya could get some interesting sounds.

Flip one switch, and said warm fuzzy goes away. The 1st switch
a player goes for is the cream or black cap'ed PU sw. On a RD,
flip said switch before you flop one of the smaller ones, and
the shineola hits the fan. Once a player learned that, the
guitar made interesting sounds. My schematic shows more
Gibson then Moog. Long afterwards, Moog designed a much
more compact PCB that had 2 units on board, one for EACH
PU. working the coils off each other, not the sep PUs.

It was all over at that point.

>Also, the L5 design may have been from the Moog -Company- but Bob Moog
>himself had left around 1978 to form Big Briar. My speculation about
>how much was designed by Moog referred to Bob himself, who left quite
>a legacy of innovative circuitry, including designs that originated
>with previous products. He may have still been involved at the point
>the amp was designed though.

I doubt, Bob being the class act he was, he would of just walked away
from projects already happening he had a hand in. He told me he was
aware of the amp series, but paid little interest. Yet, more then
once, I called about a LAB and he was there. No data info.

>BTW, when I said I used to run into Bob at the NAMM conventions, he
>was with Kurzweil then. He influenced the direction of the industry
>quite a bit, not just via Moog synthesizers.

It made quite a bang when he showed up in the K booth, I was
at that show. Face it, the whole KB industry would be years
behind if not for him. I can't play KB worth shit, yet I own
a old Mini. And I can make it sing. Electric lonesome turkey.

>ICs: I like the 356N, which they used for the input stage. I used that
>in a few designs and never had any trouble with it. I don't like the
>way they used it (feeding the inverting input, so input impedance is
>only 220K), but that's another story.

My L5 schematic shows a 741 around that, and most op-amps were 558's
(not THAT bad for the time) yet today there are some neat toys.

And the entire pre-amp stage (sans reverb) is on a pot mounted PCB
whose layout is on every schematic...yes, slightly off %. NOT 1:1 !!!

>I don't think that amp would ever be rebuilt with a tube output stage.
>Dealing with transformers, tube sockets, weight, expense, and
>additional heat concerns would create a different set of problems.

I also doubt if there would be a production run tube o/stage.

The old L5/11's had some real good SS output stages. Same PCB,
diff values, bigger trans. To re-pro that today will not work.

I've mod'ed quite a few L5/11's. A L11 in a L5 cab, one nasty
200 wt combo. Stock L5 spkrs handled it. Yet to put a tube o/stage
in a L5 is simple. It's all tranz. And said tranz weighs less then
the heat sink designed. Needs a better cab. But think:

A Moog feeding some UK class-A 80 watt combo?

I've built them...It can be done.

Think of the statement it could make?

>..It

>is convenient to use opamps up front due to versatility, but look at
>what happened with the Music Man series that did that (admittedly
>badly).

The same trick to replace IC's in a Lab, work in a MM. Better cabs,
diff amp. Some of those output stage tricks were just too weird..

Hey, here's another amp that walks that way..

The OLD H|H heads, IC sumthing. Genesis used them, T-Rex
too, lots of folks. ALL SS. They also used 741 chips, and replacing
them to better sand worked wonders. Yea, a old thin amp
that lit the front panel in off-green. got one here somewhere.

EVH swore by the H|H MosFet power amps, every amp he used
was re-spent thru a H|H 800. H|H on their schematics used
off ## out sand, yet once ya knew the score..bingo....

Since PRS seems to be selling their 'amps' at insane $$, I promise
you, a Moog/tube/class-a/etc amp could kick ass. See, everything
is $$/cost controlled. Less $ = suck. If I was to put my $$ into
any of them, I'd go with Moog. Raise the bar, and all dat kinda rot.

And it's already designed.


JJTj




You come to the end
And the light there is dimmer
And chances are slimmer
Of findin' your way
You find that you stay out
Of trouble and danger
'Cause everything's stranger
Than it used to be

You're a scary old place out there world
But I couldn't be happy without you
And I swear all my thoughts are about you
The most beautiful world in the world

Well the light can be bright there
And everything's right there
The end of the night there might
...be a big band
Or a heavenly choir
Or it might be the fire
But no matter what happens
I bet it's OK

You're a scary old place out there world
But I couldn't be happy without you
And I swear all my thoughts are about you
The most beautiful world in...da worlid..

AH...AH..AH AH ..AHHHHHAAA!

Your mountains when you're mad
Your rivers when your sad
And those deep blue seas
I love you for your snow
Your deserts down below
I love the way you wear your trees

The most beautiful world in the world
And though there are times when I doubt you
I just couldn't stay here without you
So when you get older, and
over your shoulder
You look back to see if it's real
Tell her she's beautiful
Roll the world over

..And give her a kiss...
...........and a feel...

So long, folks!
Goodbye, Harry.
See you next album, Richard.
GOODBYE!

[RS]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:50:06 -0400, Floyd R Turbo <Floyd R Turbo>
wrote:

...


PS: 1.e4 ???

[RS]

jj, you didn't get that?

[RS]

No reply? OK, it was the opening move for over 50% of all chess games.
A chess player would have known to reply 1. .... e5 or whatever. I
follow the chess groups, and saw a reply by "JJTj" to a crosspost to
all chess groups + alt.seduction.fast. Naturally, due to the
moralizing posts to aga, I assumed that you were a chess player. No?

[JJTj]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 04:10:13 -0400, RS <R...@nospam.com> wrote:

>No reply? OK, it was the opening move for over 50% of all chess games.
>A chess player would have known to reply 1. .... e5 or whatever. I
>follow the chess groups, and saw a reply by "JJTj" to a crosspost to
>all chess groups + alt.seduction.fast. Naturally, due to the
>moralizing posts to aga, I assumed that you were a chess player. No?

Na, sorry, never played. Those are old posts that involved one
'Ray Gordon'. If you have read the Chess NG, you know about
him, I'm sure. As far as the ASF group, it was his haunting
grounds. Dull and boring now, but then it was quite sad.

JJTj

[RS]

I just saw those, so maybe they got reposted?

So those posts about 'picking up strippers' were because you followed
Ray Gordon to 'alt.seduction.fast'? The only other x-post groups
were chess groups. No big deal, it's your life. I just thought you
were married or something.

[RS]

Jim, I promised to get back with some comments on the circuit and
bandpass filters, but I think my first reply to this got lost.

Anyway, the schematic above shows a lot of opamps, so a couple words
on how they work: Internally, opamps are generally a string of very
high gain 'differential stages,' with a '+' (noninverting) and a '-'
(inverting) input. They'd never be remotely stable if not for the
addition of negative feedback around the entire opamp. That's key.

The theory gets complex, but basically what happens is that negative
feedback is fed from the output back to the '-' input. That negative
feedback causes the '+' input to look like an ultrahigh impedance, and
causes the '-' input to appear ultralow, what's known as a 'virtual
ground'. This is virtualized behavior, but electronically treated
simply as high and near-zero input impedances.

The gain will be determined liked this: You have a resistor from the
output that couples back to the '-' (inverting) input. Call it Rf. And
another resistor from the '-' input to ground, or perhaps to your
source signal (as is the case in the L5's input stage). Call it Rin.
If you feed signal into Rin (again, as in the L5), the gain is
determined by dividing Rf by Rin, but the output signal is
inverted--out of phase. So "inverting gain = -(Rf/Rin)."

The high gain inputs of the L5 use a 220k as Rin, and 4.7M as Rf. The
math is easy (aside from the fact that Rin would actually include the
output impedance of your guitar--ignore that for now). Since the '-'
input is at virtual ground, the input impedance of that amp is going
to be 220k. That's relatively low for a guitar amp, especially for
humbucking pickups. Some Gibson players use a 250k pot to
intentionally roll off highs. It's much like that.

The '+' (noninverting) side has a very high impedance all on its own,
so it wouldn't suffer the same loading effects. The gain will be
computed the same as the '-' input, but add 1. And of course the
signal will not be inverted. So "noninverting gain = (Rf/Rin) + 1".

It wouldn't be real difficult to alter the L5's input circuit to use
the '+' input. A couple resistors. I wouldn't have used a 4.7M for the
feedback resistor either. Not sure why they did all of that when the
'+' input was available.

Anyway, the filters:

Obviously, what gets fed back to the '-' input will get subtracted, so
if you feed back only highs and lows, you'll get more mids out of the
opamp. That's how those filters work. The stack of opamps on the chart
start with A106. R139 diverts mids to ground. C118 and C119 pass
treble directly back to the '-' input. R138 passes bass to '-'.

The other nice thing about opamps is that the '-' input can be used as
a mixer, with the signals joining there at what's called a 'summing
junction.' Here, A109's '-' input serves as the summing junction.
R155 adds signal from the top channel, R156 is the bottom channel,
R167 (pot) and R166 are from the bandpass filters, and R164/R165 add
in the reverb. The individual gains of those inputs are isolated,
with each being determined by its own resistor (above) and the
feedback resistor R157. The cap C140 just provides DC iso. You could
replace that with a high quality cap if you're concerned about an
electrolytic being in series with signal.

If you wanted to, you could make a primitive graphic eq by putting
pots on the outputs of the individual bandpass filters. Or maybe even
experiment with adding in or out of phase.

That's it for now. How bout that...a tech post.

[Bruno Puntz Jones]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:08:54 -0400, RS <R...@nospam.com> wrote:

>I just saw those, so maybe they got reposted?

Who knows.

>So those posts about 'picking up strippers' were because you followed
>Ray Gordon to 'alt.seduction.fast'?

That was Gordon Roy 'Ray Gordon' Parker's crap, not mine. There could
be a whole book written about that asswipe. Here's a link..:

http://www.rayfaq.com/

This was all before I got involved. He made a dire enemy of a close
childhood friend of mine, tried to sue us both, then shaved his head
and decided to be anti-women. He lived the title 'newsloon'..

ALL of what is on that site is true. He's one sick fuck, brags that
he has herpes, prys on strippers, and is dirt poor. One sick fuck.

I don't want to even deal with him these days, but below are a
few tidbits of his..all his posts..that proved his mental sickness.

Compared to grp-ie, Fritz is a nice guy...

> I just thought you were married or something.

I'm not, but in a very strong relationship. M'Lady and
I go way back, she puts up with me..it has to be love...

And I have never had time for strippers, that's all 'grp-ie' (as he is
nicknamed). Read the data and decide for yourself.

JJTj




------------- Gordon Roy Parker on the day of 9/11 ------------------

>>"There was no significant loss of life in those towers. Not
>>a one."
>> - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001


>>"This attack happened in my HOMETOWN, a hometown I do not
>>live in or work in because of illegal behavior. I hope those
>>who swiped my ability to live there enjoy the message they got from GOD
>>today.........."
>> - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001


>>"In that building existed little more than a bunch of companies
>>which hire "office whores" and the like. I have no sympathy for
>>employment discriminators, and if someone had to die in this attack, I
>>couldn't think of a better group of people for the terrorists to pick."
>> - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001


>>"Now you know what it's like to see your horrors mocked the way mine
>>have been. That's not mental illness, that's a political message,
>>apparently delivered quite brilliantly."
>> - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001


>>"There was no significant loss of life in those towers. Their own
>>evil is what prevented me from being among the dead, and which added the
>>"Unknown Office Whore" to their numbers because god forbid some loser
>>executive would have to hire a man.Those corporations could have hired
>>me, put me to work in that building, let me live in NYC, and experience
>>all of the fun that's going on up there now."
>> - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11


----------------

Gordon Roy Parker stating women deserve to be raped & murdered :



>>From: r____a__...@juno.com (Outfoxing The Foxes)
>>Subject: Re: Need A Piece Of Advice
>>Date: 1998/11/02
>>Message-ID: <19981102.144604.2648...@juno.com>
>>Organization: mail...@nym.alias.net
>>Mail-To-News-Contact: postm...@nym.alias.net
>>X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-5,10-14,23-29,32-45,47-50,55-58,60-61,74-77,
>>79-87,95-97,99-102,105-112,121-122,130-131,138-139,146-147,
>>156-157,160-161,163-164,181-182,196-197,199
>>Newsgroups: alt.romance

>>Look at the way women treat "losers" and you will see
>>why they wind up beaten, murdered, raped, robbed, disrespected, and
>>oppressed. It is because women DESERVE it. The ones who harmed me
>>should thank their lucky stars that I didn't react like a primate and
>>just dump them six feet underground. Unfortunately, premeditated murder
>>would ruin this ethical thing I have going for me, although on a primal
>>level it is quite appealing.

-----------------------------


> Path:
> sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!feeder.qis.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!how
> land­.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey
> 04.news.a­ol.com!not-for-mail Lines: 56
> X-Admin: n...@aol.com
> From: iteachhypno...@aol.come4menow (Ray Gordon)
> Newsgroups: alt.romance
> Date: 20 Feb 2001 00:04:52 GMT
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Subject: AMAZING PROOF WOMEN ARE WHORES
> Message-ID: <20010219190452...@ng-bd1.aol.com>
> Xref: sn-us alt.romance:325108
>
>
> I go online as a female secretary looking for work again.
>
>
> Idiot lawyer solicits me for a job.
>
>
> Gives me his REAL name.
>
>
> His pic.
>
>
> The name of his firm.
>
>
> The name of the previous secretary he "wore out" before firing her.
>
>
> And a TON of other evidence which I could EASILY use to verify his
> identity.
>
>
> I thought about all the "Defenders of women" and how SILENT they'd be
> EVEN IF I posted all the evidence here.
>
>
> Never mind that he SOLICITED A PROSTITUTE in addition to
> discriminating.
>
>
> This is a very good-looking man. Very successful.
>
>
> What you folks would call a "winner."
>
>
> I wonder what God would call him?
>
>
> Of course, people would STILL say it's MY attitude, even in the face
> of evidence like this.
>
>
> Nothing makes me suicidal more quickly than to see this up front.
>
>
> I believe suicide should be a fundamental legal right.
>
>
> Suicide on demand.
>
>
> My body, my choice.
>
>
> A lawsuit can make that a reality. If I win, EVERY person gets the
> right to end their lives at any time for any reason.
>
>
> I think of all the neurotic women who would go off the deep end at
> some point under that law and how the gene pool would self-cleanse so
> quickly.
>
>
> I do have pity for the people who know these truths and ignore them,
> and what God will do to them for trying to blame me and for ignoring
> what happens to "women" while pretending to be their defenders.
>
>
> DISCLAIMER: I left USENET but have returned as "one-way Ray." I post
> but refuse to respond to people who can't handle truth about women and
> who feel compelled to lie about me.
>
>
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html (Seduction Library)
>
>

----------------------------

EVERYBODY SING !!!!!

"..OHHHHHHHHHHHHH <me me me me me..U U U U U...>

A-nod-har Sat-urd-ay nite and he ain't got no-boddieeee
..he got no money and he can't get laid..
So he haunts the Net till his, um, 'hellen' goes nite-nite..
..It sure sucks to be ray...

(CONGA LINE !!!!!)

A-nod-har Sat-urd-ay nite and he ain't got no-boddieeee
..he gots no money while he can't get laid..
....he haunts the Net till his dollies goes nite-nite..
..It sure sucks to be ray...

(NOW, a SOLO from Fuz da BUN ! )

..it's always Saturday nite and he ain't got ladies:
..he got no money and 'hellen' can't get paid..
..REALITY is so much fun, come join us and party....
..oppps..I forgot.., the coward's name is ray..

(NOW JUST THE WOMEN)

A-nod-har Sat-urd-ay nite and he ain't got no-boddieeee
..even if with tons of money he just can't get laid..
HEY, his dolly(s) get more HOT action then he does....
..It sure sucks to be ray... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

(now the men..)

HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA

..IT SURE SUCKS TO BE RAY....

<in closing, for those of U on drugs....>

A-nod-har Sat-urd-ay nite and he ain't got no-boddieeee
..he got no money and he can't get laid..
So he haunts the Net till his, um, 'hellen' goes nite-nite..
..It sure sucks to be ray...

G U R you..?

<I'm not at ALL happy with the Flash-Card section !!!!!>

[It's that Guy again...]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:02:58 -0400, RS <R...@nospam.com> wrote:


>That's it for now. How bout that...a tech post.

..and a good one..

JJTj

[RS]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:21:52 -0400, Bruno Puntz Jones <Somewhere in
yer dreams.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:08:54 -0400, RS <R...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>I just saw those, so maybe they got reposted?
>
>Who knows.
>
>>So those posts about 'picking up strippers' were because you followed
>>Ray Gordon to 'alt.seduction.fast'?
>
>That was Gordon Roy 'Ray Gordon' Parker's crap, not mine. There could
>be a whole book written about that asswipe. Here's a link..:
>
>http://www.rayfaq.com/
>
>This was all before I got involved. He made a dire enemy of a close
>childhood friend of mine, tried to sue us both, then shaved his head
>and decided to be anti-women. He lived the title 'newsloon'..
>
>ALL of what is on that site is true. He's one sick fuck, brags that
>he has herpes, prys on strippers, and is dirt poor. One sick fuck.

Well, I don't know anything about all that. Just surprised to see you
there and was more curious about whether you were a chess player.

As for Mr. Gordon, he might want to reconsider calling himself "Mr.
Miniature" if he's also posting to a seduction group. (A miniature is
a very short chess game, but to prospective seductees, it may carry a
different connotation). Of course if he hates women, that raises the
question of who he is planning to seduce. Don't leave your wine
spritzer unguarded.

[RichL]

"RS" <R...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:srffa7plehvdvgv6q...@4ax.com...

Heh, I had to chuckle, 'cause I learned chess before the algebraic notation
was common.

"Ah, he meant p-K4!"

[RS]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:50:15 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"RS" <R...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:srffa7plehvdvgv6q...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:20:39 -0400, RS <R...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:23:45 -0400, RS <R...@nospam.com> wrote:

>>>>PS: 1.e4 ???
>>>
>>>jj, you didn't get that?
>>
>> No reply? OK, it was the opening move for over 50% of all chess games.
>> A chess player would have known to reply 1. .... e5 or whatever.

>Heh, I had to chuckle, 'cause I learned chess before the algebraic notation
>was common.
>
>"Ah, he meant p-K4!"

Algebraic does lend a quicker grasp of a given move for me. I end up
having to mentally translate descriptive->alg., so it's a bit
distracting.

You never see descriptive notation any more except in older books, and
many great ones will probably not be translated to algebraic. So it's
still necessary to know descriptive for that reason, but all the
modern books and transcripts are algebraic. Yeah, it seems like that
change occurred in a blink.

[Jim]

On 10/26/2011 1:02 PM, RS wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:59:49 -0700, Jim<inse@ttle> wrote:
>
>> On 10/16/2011 12:08 AM, RS wrote:
>
>>> Now I'm curious about the bandpass filter. I think I have a paper
>>> schematic somewhere but it would be buried pretty deep. Do you happen
>>> to have a pdf version? If so, I'll be able to tell you what it's
>>> doing.
>>>
>>
>> Yep:
>> http://www.rru.com/~meo/Guitar/Amps/Lab/Images/Lab_Series_L5_L7_L9_L11_scheme.pdf
>
> Jim, I promised to get back with some comments on the circuit and
> bandpass filters, but I think my first reply to this got lost.
>
> Anyway, the schematic above shows a lot of opamps, so a couple words
> on how they work: Internally, opamps are generally a string of very
> high gain 'differential stages,' with a '+' (noninverting) and a '-'
> (inverting) input. They'd never be remotely stable if not for the
> addition of negative feedback around the entire opamp. That's key.

I seem to remember certain Burr-Brown that are completely stable with no
negative feedback?

>
> The theory gets complex, but basically what happens is that negative
> feedback is fed from the output back to the '-' input. That negative
> feedback causes the '+' input to look like an ultrahigh impedance, and
> causes the '-' input to appear ultralow, what's known as a 'virtual
> ground'. This is virtualized behavior, but electronically treated
> simply as high and near-zero input impedances.

Good details. I knew the concept, having utilized the - input on a
distortion pedal mod that I experimented with. I start with the DOD
Death Metal, which is every high gain and a bit noisy stock. But it has
decent tone controls and can be had relatively cheap. So it's a good
platform for me. I add the Tube Screamer type clipping in the negative
feedback loop. This particular pedal uses just output clipping.
...which I also modify. I use switches for asymmetrical clipping
(there's enough signal for 3 series silicon diodes on one side, and two
on the other). Throw the switch and it changes to LED's that flash
through the case. My young nephews thought that was pretty cool.

>
> The gain will be determined liked this: You have a resistor from the
> output that couples back to the '-' (inverting) input. Call it Rf. And
> another resistor from the '-' input to ground, or perhaps to your
> source signal (as is the case in the L5's input stage). Call it Rin.
> If you feed signal into Rin (again, as in the L5), the gain is
> determined by dividing Rf by Rin, but the output signal is
> inverted--out of phase. So "inverting gain = -(Rf/Rin)."
>
> The high gain inputs of the L5 use a 220k as Rin, and 4.7M as Rf. The
> math is easy (aside from the fact that Rin would actually include the
> output impedance of your guitar--ignore that for now). Since the '-'
> input is at virtual ground, the input impedance of that amp is going
> to be 220k. That's relatively low for a guitar amp, especially for
> humbucking pickups. Some Gibson players use a 250k pot to
> intentionally roll off highs. It's much like that.

Interesting. It's currently out on loan to a touring band, but I'll
have to see whether I think highs get attenuated too much. I can't say
that I noticed it before. I really liked the tone with my 335 type,
using Jazz/JB pickups.

>
> The '+' (noninverting) side has a very high impedance all on its own,
> so it wouldn't suffer the same loading effects. The gain will be
> computed the same as the '-' input, but add 1. And of course the
> signal will not be inverted. So "noninverting gain = (Rf/Rin) + 1".
>
> It wouldn't be real difficult to alter the L5's input circuit to use
> the '+' input. A couple resistors. I wouldn't have used a 4.7M for the
> feedback resistor either. Not sure why they did all of that when the
> '+' input was available.
>
> Anyway, the filters:
>
> Obviously, what gets fed back to the '-' input will get subtracted, so
> if you feed back only highs and lows, you'll get more mids out of the
> opamp. That's how those filters work. The stack of opamps on the chart
> start with A106. R139 diverts mids to ground. C118 and C119 pass
> treble directly back to the '-' input. R138 passes bass to '-'.
>
> The other nice thing about opamps is that the '-' input can be used as
> a mixer, with the signals joining there at what's called a 'summing
> junction.' Here, A109's '-' input serves as the summing junction.
> R155 adds signal from the top channel, R156 is the bottom channel,
> R167 (pot) and R166 are from the bandpass filters, and R164/R165 add
> in the reverb. The individual gains of those inputs are isolated,
> with each being determined by its own resistor (above) and the
> feedback resistor R157. The cap C140 just provides DC iso. You could
> replace that with a high quality cap if you're concerned about an
> electrolytic being in series with signal.

I'm going to have to print this and read in more detail with schematic
in hand.

>
> If you wanted to, you could make a primitive graphic eq by putting
> pots on the outputs of the individual bandpass filters. Or maybe even
> experiment with adding in or out of phase.

Like the Mesa Mark series EQ?

>
> That's it for now. How bout that...a tech post.

This forum is doing just fine, as long as you "k" all of Lord Wackadoo's
threads (along with the liberal political stuff, of course).
Thunderbird kills a thread when you hit "k."

[RS]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:40:29 -0700, Jim <ask@first> wrote:

>On 10/26/2011 1:02 PM, RS wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, the schematic above shows a lot of opamps, so a couple words
>> on how they work: Internally, opamps are generally a string of very
>> high gain 'differential stages,' with a '+' (noninverting) and a '-'
>> (inverting) input. They'd never be remotely stable if not for the
>> addition of negative feedback around the entire opamp. That's key.
>
>I seem to remember certain Burr-Brown that are completely stable with no
>negative feedback?

??? Not any normal opamp. Gain is way too high. Which one were you
thinking of?

>> The theory gets complex, but basically what happens is that negative
>> feedback is fed from the output back to the '-' input. That negative
>> feedback causes the '+' input to look like an ultrahigh impedance, and
>> causes the '-' input to appear ultralow, what's known as a 'virtual
>> ground'. This is virtualized behavior, but electronically treated
>> simply as high and near-zero input impedances.
>
>Good details. I knew the concept, having utilized the - input on a
>distortion pedal mod that I experimented with. I start with the DOD
>Death Metal, which is every high gain and a bit noisy stock. But it has
>decent tone controls and can be had relatively cheap. So it's a good
>platform for me. I add the Tube Screamer type clipping in the negative
>feedback loop. This particular pedal uses just output clipping.
>...which I also modify. I use switches for asymmetrical clipping
>(there's enough signal for 3 series silicon diodes on one side, and two
>on the other). Throw the switch and it changes to LED's that flash
>through the case. My young nephews thought that was pretty cool.

Different color LEDs will clip differently, at different voltages, ya
know. But I like the sound of 1N400- series rectifier diodes in that
type of circuit. Just string 'em in series for higher voltage, or
take a look at Marshall's clipper circuit inside their JCM900 amps.
It's sort of a rectifier bridge. You could just switch a different
type of diode into the center spot. But you'd always have at least
three diodes in series (or two if you shorted the center instead of
putting an LED or diode there).

>> The high gain inputs of the L5 use a 220k as Rin, and 4.7M as Rf. The
>> math is easy (aside from the fact that Rin would actually include the
>> output impedance of your guitar--ignore that for now). Since the '-'
>> input is at virtual ground, the input impedance of that amp is going
>> to be 220k. That's relatively low for a guitar amp, especially for
>> humbucking pickups. Some Gibson players use a 250k pot to
>> intentionally roll off highs. It's much like that.
>
>Interesting. It's currently out on loan to a touring band, but I'll
>have to see whether I think highs get attenuated too much. I can't say
>that I noticed it before. I really liked the tone with my 335 type,
>using Jazz/JB pickups.

220k is not unbearably low, so it won't put you in 'muddy' territory,
but it won't sound as crisp as higher impedance would.

>> If you wanted to, you could make a primitive graphic eq by putting
>> pots on the outputs of the individual bandpass filters. Or maybe even
>> experiment with adding in or out of phase.
>
>Like the Mesa Mark series EQ?

I think their circuit is more like a conventional EQ, but if you're
interested in this, I'll check the Mesa for point of comparison later.

>> That's it for now. How bout that...a tech post.
>
>This forum is doing just fine, as long as you "k" all of Lord Wackadoo's
>threads

That would be "Whack-A-Mole".

> (along with the liberal political stuff, of course).

And that would probably be me.

I don't worry too much about what's posted here. When the Whack-A-Mole
wises up and realizes he's humiliating himself, aga might slowly
evolve back to an amps group. Until then, there's the mallet.

[Jim]

That's what I did. In fact, I've measured a bunch of LEDs and filed
them by voltage. There's a slight variation within color.

But I like the sound of 1N400- series rectifier diodes in that
> type of circuit.

I plan to try that some time.

I wasn't even thinking of you. I don't notice a lot of politics from
you. But then, I kill 99% of those threads from the outset.

I try to stay on topic. Discussing politics around here is kind of like
beating your head against the wall, anyway. You won't change anybody's
mind. You might earn the right to say "told you so," (like my early
posts doubting WMD and questioning motives for Iraq). But in the end,
is THAT really worth the hassle?

Besides, the Republican core is beginning to realize that the GOP's
platform consistently benefits the top 1% at the cost of the 99. Who
cares what a few nutters on AGA think?

OOPS, I just broke my rule. ;^)

[RS]

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:23:12 -0700, Jim <inse@ttle> wrote:

>On 10/31/2011 11:04 PM, RS wrote:

>> Different color LEDs will clip differently, at different voltages, ya
>> know.
>
>That's what I did. In fact, I've measured a bunch of LEDs and filed
>them by voltage. There's a slight variation within color.

Voltage is not everything. Keep in mind that with higher breakover
voltage, you won't get as much drive. And you can just string several
diodes in series for whatever compromise in drive vs output voltage
that you want. (Actually, in an opamp circuit, gain is free, so
there's not a lot of sense in going specifically for higher voltage
except for asymmetry on one side of a waveform)

> But I like the sound of 1N400- series rectifier diodes in that
>> type of circuit.
>
>I plan to try that some time.

I've designed a lot of experimental overdrive circuitry using
everything from MOSFETS and JFets to multistage logarithmic circuits.
I think 1N400x's sound as good as anything else in simple circuits.
(And for anyone listening in, by 1N400x, I mean 1N4001, 1N4002, etc.
-- all virtually identical for this app, and readily available at
Radio Shack).

>>> This forum is doing just fine, as long as you "k" all of Lord Wackadoo's
>>> threads
>>
>> That would be "Whack-A-Mole".
>>
>>> (along with the liberal political stuff, of course).
>>
>> And that would probably be me.
>>
>> I don't worry too much about what's posted here. When the Whack-A-Mole
>> wises up and realizes he's humiliating himself, aga might slowly
>> evolve back to an amps group. Until then, there's the mallet.
>
>I wasn't even thinking of you. I don't notice a lot of politics from
>you. But then, I kill 99% of those threads from the outset.

I don't get carried away with political stuff, but tech posts do tend
to get drowned out by the high volume of other stuff. I was here way
before Lord Whack-A-Mole, so I did witness the degeneration of the
group. The cause was obvious. Anyone who wants to trash a newsgroup
can do so almost single-handedly if they're obsessive enough. But he's
well on his way out.

>I try to stay on topic. Discussing politics around here is kind of like
>beating your head against the wall, anyway. You won't change anybody's
>mind.

True no matter what the forum. Politics and religion are a dead end as
far as any actual debate. I like to think that I'm open-minded and
scientific, but there's a certain skepticism that becomes ingrained
after a while.

>Besides, the Republican core is beginning to realize that the GOP's
>platform consistently benefits the top 1% at the cost of the 99. Who
>cares what a few nutters on AGA think?

You'd think musicians would be particularly sensitive to BS from the
right, so it's always a surprise to see that stuff here, of all
places. But there will always be a few chickens voting for Colonel
Sanders.

[Jim]

On 11/1/2011 3:15 PM, RS wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:23:12 -0700, Jim<inse@ttle> wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/2011 11:04 PM, RS wrote:
>
>>> Different color LEDs will clip differently, at different voltages, ya
>>> know.
>>
>> That's what I did. In fact, I've measured a bunch of LEDs and filed
>> them by voltage. There's a slight variation within color.
>
> Voltage is not everything. Keep in mind that with higher breakover
> voltage, you won't get as much drive.

Yes, and that's why I put a few in series in that DOD pedal. TOO MUCH
drive, stock.

And you can just string several
> diodes in series for whatever compromise in drive vs output voltage
> that you want. (Actually, in an opamp circuit, gain is free, so
> there's not a lot of sense in going specifically for higher voltage
> except for asymmetry on one side of a waveform)
>
>> But I like the sound of 1N400- series rectifier diodes in that
>>> type of circuit.
>>
>> I plan to try that some time.
>
> I've designed a lot of experimental overdrive circuitry using
> everything from MOSFETS and JFets

I've been wanting to experiment with JFETs, but I'm trying to fix all of
my project, then finally build my AC30 before I get distracted with
something new. As it is, I haven't finished my goldtop project. It
really only needs sanding, buffing, and installation of hardware. The
hard part is done.

to multistage logarithmic circuits.
> I think 1N400x's sound as good as anything else in simple circuits.
> (And for anyone listening in, by 1N400x, I mean 1N4001, 1N4002, etc.
> -- all virtually identical for this app, and readily available at
> Radio Shack).

I have several 1N4007 on hand, when they happened to be a good price at
the time I placed an order.