It's just frequency response. It's not a measure of dynamic response. That requires techniques that I'm not at liberty to disclose.
It's just frequency response. It's not a measure of dynamic response. That requires techniques that I'm not at liberty to disclose.
Nope. It's likely proprietary info that helps FAS create its products the way it has thus far. And no, no relation to China. Cliff has already gone out on a limb saying dynamic response. If we want to be even on the same playing field as Cliff, we'd better bone up on our engineering and physics. Cliff didn't get to the pros without doing his homework first.
Just curious, but what about the null tests, where the signals from the model and the real counterpart are played at the same time out of phase to see if they cancel out each other?
This is the part I'm most impressed by with my FM9. Getting the steady-state response right is one thing, but nailing the dynamic response for a system as complicated as a guitar amp + cab, with nonlinear distortion and all sorts of circuit interactions, sounds like a freaking nightmare. Just the process of calibrating & verifying it across all the different permutations of knob settings, input levels, etc. would be very difficult without machine learning.
The nice thing about encountering a sabotaged schematic and trying to model it is that the numbers won’t let their smoke out but they might make weird sounds happen.
The "ancient Chinese secret" is in humorous reference to an old TV commercial...a reference Cliff has jokingly used himself. He was not talking about an actual Chinese secret.
"Ancient" should have been a clue".The "ancient Chinese secret" is in humorous reference to an old TV commercial...a reference Cliff has jokingly used himself. He was not talking about an actual Chinese secret.
Apparently. I don't watch much TV these days myself, and if it was an old commercial, the 80's was a little hazy regards my memory, when I watched little if any TV....
Hmmm, interesting. So you believe tolerances can account for 6dB of difference. You realize 6dB is TWICE the amplitude, right?
You know I tried to look that up
I was pointing only on the curve shape.
are the differences “likely” to be attributed to the load the amp was modelled with? In one new modelling device it’s not clear how much of the impedance interactions are being handled with the cabs/IR section (which I find baffling).
I don't know. You can't (or at least shouldn't) do impedance interaction in the cab/IR sections since IRs are linear and the impedance interaction is a nonlinear process.
