"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:11:19 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Curious - I didn't get my own reply...????



How does that present a problem if the sub has its own amp with,
presumably,
a volume control?


No, I mean it is a problem when you share the main speakers' power amp
via a crossover. With a plate amp all problems vanish.


OK, that's what I thought/hoped, although I'm not out of the woods yet - the
dual driver design appears to be suggesting one sub per channel which I
don't think will work from a 'standard' plate amp....??

No worries, I'll sort it....

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:28:46 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:11:19 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Curious - I didn't get my own reply...????



How does that present a problem if the sub has its own amp with,
presumably,
a volume control?


No, I mean it is a problem when you share the main speakers' power amp
via a crossover. With a plate amp all problems vanish.


OK, that's what I thought/hoped, although I'm not out of the woods yet - the
dual driver design appears to be suggesting one sub per channel which I
don't think will work from a 'standard' plate amp....??

No worries, I'll sort it....


Frankly for a sub you may as well mix the two channels to mono through
a couple of resistors. There really is no directional information down
there. Then one plate amp will serve the two drivers. Also positioning
one sub is hard enough - when you have two the problems are far more
than double.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:28:46 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:11:19 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Curious - I didn't get my own reply...????



How does that present a problem if the sub has its own amp with,
presumably,
a volume control?


No, I mean it is a problem when you share the main speakers' power amp
via a crossover. With a plate amp all problems vanish.


OK, that's what I thought/hoped, although I'm not out of the woods yet - the
dual driver design appears to be suggesting one sub per channel which I
don't think will work from a 'standard' plate amp....??

No worries, I'll sort it....

Actually, thinking about it, a few years ago a friend made a sub which
was aesthetically acceptable to his distaff side by modelling it as an
Ottoman. You could even use it as a seat. You can get a lot of volume
in with minimal wifely shrieking by being sneaky.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote


Frankly for a sub you may as well mix the two channels to mono through
a couple of resistors. There really is no directional information down
there.


Yes, I'm aware of that, but....


Then one plate amp will serve the two drivers. Also positioning
one sub is hard enough - when you have two the problems are far more
than double.


.....the design I referenced is dual driver and there is only the one cabient
to place - it looks like it would go in a corner nicely.

(My trouble is I really am in a tiny room now, hence the problems with
speakers like my Paladins....)

"Don Pearce" wrote



Actually, thinking about it, a few years ago a friend made a sub which
was aesthetically acceptable to his distaff side by modelling it as an
Ottoman. You could even use it as a seat. You can get a lot of volume
in with minimal wifely shrieking by being sneaky.



Crafty.....

Or even have a (superfluous) chimney built and use that...??

:-)

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:25:23 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote



Actually, thinking about it, a few years ago a friend made a sub which
was aesthetically acceptable to his distaff side by modelling it as an
Ottoman. You could even use it as a seat. You can get a lot of volume
in with minimal wifely shrieking by being sneaky.



Crafty.....

Or even have a (superfluous) chimney built and use that...??

:-)


Now that was popular back in the 60s/70s with real chimneys when
everyone was switching over to central heating. Come to think of it, I
could do that myself - didn't think of it :-(

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:25:23 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote



Actually, thinking about it, a few years ago a friend made a sub which
was aesthetically acceptable to his distaff side by modelling it as an
Ottoman. You could even use it as a seat. You can get a lot of volume
in with minimal wifely shrieking by being sneaky.



Crafty.....

Or even have a (superfluous) chimney built and use that...??

:-)


Now that was popular back in the 60s/70s with real chimneys when
everyone was switching over to central heating. Come to think of it, I
could do that myself - didn't think of it :-(



If one's usual brilliance is only *highlighted* by the occasional slip like
that, it put's me up there with Max Planck - the number of ****-ups I'm
managing to perpetrate these days...... :-)

One interesting thing I just discovered and only a tiny bit *bloggy* (I
should be back down the garage making a mess, instead of on this bloody
computer) - the Pie Eater PJ I recently got with its own (really quite good,
4 speaker 'subbed') sound system...

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/pie%20eater.JPG

will play CDs when 'switched off', but put an MP3 disk in and it'll play
that also but puts the bloody lamp on so you can read the track titles!!

Clever innit? :-)

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:53:50 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

will play CDs when 'switched off', but put an MP3 disk in and it'll play
that also but puts the bloody lamp on so you can read the track titles!!

Clever innit? :-)


Inscrutable, that's what I call it.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:53:50 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

will play CDs when 'switched off', but put an MP3 disk in and it'll play
that also but puts the bloody lamp on so you can read the track titles!!

Clever innit? :-)


Inscrutable, that's what I call it.



I find, as I get older, there's more and more I can't scrute....

Nick Gorham wrote:
Rob wrote:


Cheers Nick - you're quite right in the sense of Jim's post. My point
was that there are other methods, and anomalies within that method,
and reliance on observable phenomena (which that methods tends
towards) will end in tears.

Well I think its a central point of the method that for something to
exist it should be observable, either directly or through its effect on
other things.


'The' method can have a problem here. To cut a long story short are
'society's structures' observable? Of course, that method might deny
their existence because of difficulties in observation and 'proof'.
Similarly religion and power - difficult to get empirical purchase. But
just because you have difficulty measuring (and in these terms
observing), it doesn't mean they don't exist. These are methodological
issues - the logic you use to define the method. You are in a massive
majority. Your 'effect on other things' is significant, except I think
you've bundled it as something already known - an 'it' that can have an
effect.


I'd add that the good ol' Wiki is not always accurate - I've put a
couple of things up that have never been challenged or edited.
Frightening :-)

Rob

Its an odd think Wiki, I don't think its any less accurate than most
other sources, its just its inaccuracy is obvious, where most texts as
they have no means of being changed are assumed to be fixed in stone.
Its at least as accurate as any history book, it works on the basis of
the truth being what enough people agree it is :-).


Nature recently tested the accuracy of Wiki - found it little worse that
Britannica :-)

Rob