agedhorse

Actually, it wasn’t an amp design issue. The LEDs were an early SiC type, some ended up with intermittent lead bonds to the die inside the LED package. This defect inside the part didn’t even begin to show up until after about 3 years of production and thousands of Streamliners sold, and affected maybe 10% of the amps, and we replaced them at no charge for over 10 years. In North America, when an amp comes in for service, we still replace them at no charge. Yes, it was unfortunate. There was no way that we could have predicted it. Fortunately most players were more forgiving.

Yes, units manufactured. I mentioned this because these sorts of issues tend to show themselves after many speakers are out in the field used in a variety of applications. Same sort of thing often occurs with fatigue related reliability issues, which is one reason why more comprehensive modeling and aging analysis is done in higher volume commercial products (especially if a long warranty is offered). I thought that some folks here might be interested in the information I provided, if I was wrong then I’m sorry for wasting my time.

Stevie- Wow, your response is not just off the mark but is insulting as well (complete with a Trump reference which is totally uncalled for). Why do you think it’s necessary to act like this towards others? The entire point of my comment was to share information, specifically related to the question of the port being so deep that it comes within 1/2-1 diameter of the back of the cabinet and the aspect ratio of the smaller ports with equivalent area chuffing (as Phil had mentioned). Specifically, what Phil experienced is an example of the aspect ratio non-linearity that I had addressed that can introduce additional factors and calculation errors with regards to tuning suitability. Just because you are unaware of this or don’t agree doesn’t make the information wrong, or me arrogant. When a port comes to between 1/2 and 1x the port diameter, the static pressure of the air mass against the back of the cabinet can come into play, this too is a non-linear term. Non-linear terms result in a cabinet’s tuning changing with level (all cabinet tuning will change to some extent, but the more non-linear the greater the shift with level. This is especially problematic in compact cabinets. Have you ever modeled the non-linear math behind this? Stevie - my comments were general in nature, not specific to your precious design. Perhaps you should re-read my comments with your big boy comprehension.

Respectfully Stevie, I have designed commercially successful bass guitar and pro audio cabinets for over 40 years, including compact LF cabinets. Not just a few dozen or a hundred cabinets but tens of thousands of cabinets. There’s nothing “weird” about my assertion, when the port depth extends to within between 1/2 and 1 times the diameter of the back of the cabinet, additional lossy (and non-linear) terms enter the calculations for the dynamic tuning of the cabinet (ie. the tuning varies with level). With many (not all) 10” drivers suitable for bass guitar, it’s not uncommon to find that in a compact cabinet a 4” port results in a depth that’s too deep for commonly accepted cabinets. When encountering this condition, the options are to either make the cabinet deeper or to reduce the port area to reduce the depth. For example, if the ratio of depth to area is 2:1, a reduction of port are by only 10% affects the depth by (roughly) 20%. This might be enough to mitigate the issues without impacting port velocity significantly. I never suggested decreasing the port diameter to 3”, just to be aware that sometimes, recognizing that there may be an issue, a small adjustment may be helpful. It’s all part of managing the trade offs. That’s all, nothing more.

What you are experiencing with your port depth being so long is because the port area is too large for the driver and displaced volume. As the port becomes more than a few times the diameter of the port, there can be non-linear terms that affect the tuning (one reason why calculated and measured port responses can vary). Also, the resistance (or lossy) term of the port can add a non-linear variable, especially when the end of the port gets close to t he back of the cabinet. The way to prevent this is to calculate the port area and length, then verify that the length is reasonable. If not, you may need to adjust the port area to get length down to a reasonable value... though there are those who will bend the port like a pipe with an elbow (but this too adds non-linearities). In general, a port length of less than 2x the diameter ends up to be a reasonable compromise IME.

For 1/4" speaker applications, use TS (tip-sleeve), do not use TRS cables because of the potential for miswiring of the ring which would short to the sleeve in some types of jacks.

I don't know, I didn't design the amp.

Designer's choice.

Have you looked at the owner’s manual to see how it’s supposed to work?

There, I fixed it for you Paul

Exactly right, colloquialisms across the pond go both ways and I didn't want to leave out either the northeast or the south (easterly), but I probably should have thrown in a "cool man" or "dude" or two for the west coast

What exactly are you having difficulties with?

Why is it that folks who clearly do not understand something feel they are qualified to accuse others of something that they do not even understand? There are SOME manufacturers who use optimistic power metrics when rating their amps, they are almost always manufacturers offering product at the lower levels of performance and budget, resulting in their need to use metrics that have larger numbers for marketing purposes (which works very well when the customer doesn't understand). There are also many manufacturers that do not feel the need to do so, they clearly state the power based on Watts (RMS) and at whatever THD the power is measured at. These manufacturers are generally marketing towards players who understand more about gear, and are looking for performance first, with cost as a secondary concern. Why is there a particular need to be rude here? Have a wicked pissah day y'all.

He was a great songwriter but in his later years both his playing and singing suffered. I worked with him several times as he was winding down his touring, people bought tickets more for the stories he told and his legend status than anything else. He is also a great guy to work with and his personality was an inviting aspect to his show.

No, not all amp manufacturers are more guilty of this. Don’t accuse others of something you don’t yet understand.

No, the amp is rated for a 4 ohm minimum load in bridged mode.

Yes, this will work fine, the TS plug will ground reference the transformer driven output. Be sure the other plug can not come in contact with anything.

DeOxit D-5 has just the right amount of lubricant for rotary pots. F5 has too much, but works better with linear pots. TINY amount only.

Use the tiniest amount possible, less is more. If the pot is sealed, it must be replaced.

Yes, that would work as long as the ring is tied to the sleeve at the TS end. The TS-TS cable does that for you automatically. This applies specifically to transformer driven (floating) balanced outputs into an unbalanced input. The Rane notes contain good information, but you really need to understand that a transformer output is fundamentally different from an active driven balanced output. The necessary conditions are different.

Yes.

If you are feeding a balanced input, you must use TRS on the amp’s end but if you are feeding a unbalanced input, you will need to use a TS cable which automatically grounds the ring (to the sleeve)

On balanced outputs that are transformer driven (possible with this amp if the signal is taken from the secondary of the output transformer), a TRS will not work if the ring terminal on the input jack on the amp of the amp is not grounded. It depends on the type of input jack, and the way it is wired into the circuit.

Happy to do so ‘ol man!