RSS

[rastis]

pitu napísal:

Rastis - obidva samostatne aj skresžujú? Myslím ten plne tranzistorový a plne lampový preamp.

Cely aparat funguje stale rovnako, myslim ovladanie a spravanie sa kanalov. Akurat sa vzadu da prepnut, ci to bude lampove alebo to pojde cez tranzistorovu cestu. Koncom 70-tych rokov to bola casta koncepcia, ze tranzistorovy preamp a lampovy koniec. Takze tito, kedze chceli asi byt najvacsi frajeri tam dali na vyber aj lampy aj tranzistory . Sranda je, ze zvuk sa az tak zasadne nezmeni. Je to pocit hlavne pod rukami, citit to na poloskreslenych zvukoch a na dynamike. Pre posluchaca sa nejaka velka zmena nekona. Hlavne este nemam ten aparat tak dlho a tak vychytany v roznych situaciach. A to ma na nom bavi najviac - to postupne zoznamovanie sa B) .

[ff]

rastis napísal:

Ma to bud plne lampovy alebo plne tranzistorovy preamp a da sa prepinat, ktory z nich ide. Spomina sa to aj v clanku.

No,ono to má na vstupe FET tranzistor a tým prepínačom si volíš či použiješ lampu,alebo tranzistor.Ale len na vstupe!Takže žiaden tranzistorový preamp,ale normálna celolampa s možnosťou volby vstupu.Schémy si môžete pozrieť na tejto stránke acoustic360.homeunix.net

[Martinlm]

No skutocne je to tak... Aky to ma zmysel?

[rastis]

Moze byt, pretoze naozaj sa tym prepnutim ziska iba malo. Zmysel to ma asi taky, aby sa z toho dalo vymacknut este viacej + trochu marketing, ze \"aha, co vsetko sme do toho zosilovacu narvali\". Inak podobny pocit mam aj pri niektorych aparatoch MB . Viem si predstavit ze sa ten tranzistor vyuzije, ak je poziadavka na tvrdsi charakter zvuku - na cistom kanaly je tomu trochu tak.

[Martinlm]

V inej teme (http://gitaristi.sk/index.php?option=com_simpleboard&Itemid=27&func=view&id=48932&catid=44) som daval link na stranku http://homepage.mac.com/mesaboogie/MarkIIB.html. Mesa Boogie Mark IIA, IIB a neskore modely Mark I boli zaujimave aj tym, ze obsahovali akysi fetron a dalo sa prepinacom nastavit, ci bude prvy zosilnovaci stupen tento fet tranzistor, alebo lampa. Vraj kvoli moznym problemom s moznou mikrofonickostou lampy pri vyssom skresleni. Takze rovnako to asi bude aj s Acoustic.

[rastis]

Ano, je to tak. Hovoril som o tom s fotrom, ktory mal najprv kombo Acoustic 164 a potom kombo MB Mark II neviem ake. A ze v tomto bol ten Acoustic lepsi, ze tam sa miesto prvej lampy iba prepinacom da prepnut tranzistor a na Mesa Boogie trebalo prvu lampu vybrat a nahradit tou blbostou. A ze ucel bol presne taky, ze ak by pri vysokych skresleniach mali nastat nejake problemy s brumom alebo sumom, dalo sa to vyriesit vyhodenim tej lampy. Co mi dnes pride trochu az usmevne, ale zase v tych rokoch boli aj Marky, aj tieto Acoustoci total hi-gain oproti ostatnym aparatom, takze vyrobcovia boli z toho trochu vyplaseny mozno...

[rastis]

U \"konkurencie\" na instrumento.cz mi poskytli zaujimavu ukazku komba Acoustic 16? a singloveho stratocasteru:

http://gitaristi.sk/files/rastis/acoustic/acoustic_VR.mp3

[rastis]

Nasiel som ceskeho fanusika a zberatela Acoustic (respektive oslovil ma ), ktory dokonca na podiu miesto odposluchov pouziva k 12-strunke dve 20W tranzistorove kombicka Acoustic (samozrejme gitarove, klasicke, hnede, stylove ) . Na jeho stranke som nasiel taku malu zaujimavost:

\"...jsou doplněny 5-ti pásmovým parametrickým ekvalizérem, který ještě rozšiřuje zvukovou variabilitu tohoto stařečka. Opět zajímavostí je, že právě tento ekvalizér byl svého času předmětem soudního sporu mezi Acoustic Control Corporation a Mesa Boogie. Soudní spor nakonec po právu vyhrál Acoustic a tak autorství a patent patří Acousticu, přesněji Stevu Marksovi a Stevu Rabemu, který byl zároveň hlavním vývojovým konstruktérem modelu G100T... \"

Ono je totiz naozaj pravda, ze 5-pasmovy EQ, ktory je dnes akoby \"poznavacim\" znamenim markovych Bugin sa vykytoval na aparatoch Acoustic o par rokov skorej.

Link na chalanove stranky:

http://www.pirk.estranky.cz

Inak chalan je tak trochu aj fanda japonskych Stratov konca 70-tych rokov od Fuji-Gen Gakki .

[proghopik]

Kurnik a mne sa zdalo, ze ten ekvalizer je mi nejaky povedomy z Bugin a ze musel byt skor.

[rastis]

Inspirovany Progovou Hiwatt ukazkou pridavam aj ja cosi:

http://gitaristi.sk/files/rastis/acoustic/acoustic.mp3

Tentoraz je to vlastnorucna kriva ukazka mojho zosilovacu. Cosi som nahraval a popri tom som sa hrajkal, skusal si mikrofony a tak. Snazil som sa vymacknut z toho vintage kusku co \"najmodernejsie\" skreslenie. Je mi jasne, ze sucasny americky hi-gain je inde, ale aj tak som celkom spokojny B) .

Je to gitara -> zosilovac -> 2x12\"box -> mikrofon (Shure PG57) -> mix -> zvukovka. Jo - gitara moj hand made strat so singlami a miniHB DiMarzio pri kobyle (co rozhodne nie je ziadny silak ani drtic snimac).

[proghopik]

Dobry zvuk, citit ale, ze to uz je prechod \"starej\" skoly do modernejsich poli. Co sa mi lubi, ze tam ostava zachovany charakter gitary a nerobi to moc dz dz dz pilu.

[styrioci]

celkom sa mi ten zvuk paci..vedel by som si predstavit, ze by som si na takom zvuku \"zavrzukal\"

[Martinlm]

rastis napísal:

Snazil som sa vymacknut z toho vintage kusku co \"najmodernejsie\" skreslenie. Je mi jasne, ze sucasny americky hi-gain je inde, ale aj tak som celkom spokojny B) .

Od o 0:17 sa ti to celkom podarilo, paci sa mi ako to znie s tym mini HB. Palmmutingy zneju zaujimavo. Ten zvuk miestami zvlastne bzuci. Napriklad v 0:40 tie tlmene E akordy. Velmi sa mi paci.

Naposledy upravil martinlm, : 20.10.2006 o 14:28

[rastis]

B) B) B)

[shanike]

"Opět zajímavostí je, že právě tento ekvalizér byl svého času předmětem soudního sporu mezi Acoustic Control Corporation a Mesa Boogie. Soudní spor nakonec po právu vyhrál Acoustic a tak autorství a patent patří Acousticu, přesněji Stevu Marksovi a Stevu Rabemu, který byl zároveň hlavním vývojovým konstruktérem modelu G100T... "

tuto informaciu by som nebral prilis vazne. nepriamo sa k danej veci vyjadril randall smith v jednom rozhovore (citacia, formou otazka - odpoved):

So, have you been granted the patent for the Duo-Class design? Could you walk us through that process?

Yeah, sure. The patent was issued rather quickly, number 7,173,488. It should be a real strong one because it’s very clear cut; it’s how to get an amp to switch between push-pull and single-ended.

For those interested, patents are comprise of two main parts, the Specification and the Claims.The Spec part describes the history, background and application of the invention and provides both a general and a detailed description of the invention itself in plain language. The Claims are written in an arcane legal language that hopefully describes the invention in general and generic terms. Properly written, the Claims will be broad enough to anticipate minor variations so that infringers can’t use them to circumvent the patent. But if those Claims are written too broadly, they open the door to prior art that infringers will cite to invalidate the patent, even if the prior art has nothing to do with the invention. So patent litigation, and I know a bit about this, often becomes a contest between the Claims and the Specification. I always write the Specifications part myself because it saves money and forces me to think really clearly. After all, I do know more about something I’ve discovered or invented than some lawyer would. That only makes sense, and I’d advise anyone considering a patent to read in the same field and follow the format in writing their own Specification.

But the Claims, my God! I recall reading the Claims part of my first patent – 4,211,893 – and I couldn’t even understand it! That was after the writer who was the retired head of the Amplifier Art division of the Patent Office said that my Spec was the best-written one he’d seen! Unfortunately, he drew the Claims narrowly enough that it wasn’t that hard to circumvent, but also broadly enough that it did open the door to a prior art that bore no relationship whatever! He was a real genius. Of course, he kept telling me the problem with the invention was “it will distort!” That should have been my first clue.

Maybe, in retrospect, it was a good thing. If that had have been a bullet-proof patent, we’d be the only ones building channel switching amplifiers with clean and lead sounds, and we’d still be battling over it. Bottom line – patents have some value, but not as much as you want. The funny thing is it’s like catching someone inside your house, stealing your shit. When you challenge them, they say they have every right to because first, they’re not stealing it, second, it’s not your shit, and third, it’s not really your house because someone else has a house like this one so the shit inside isn’t yours. What you’ve got to understand most of all is that defense lawyers are paid to lie on behalf of their clients. They will sit across the table from you and tell you with a straight face what everybody knows is simply not true! Now I always write a few of the Claims myself, that way there is at least something in there that makes basic, real sense and describes the invention. We’ve actually got a stellar record defending our patents and trademarks, but the process sucks because you’re often forced to deal with people of limited integrity.