A piece of Cleveland baby-boomer history is up for sale: the organ used on the Cleveland production of Romper Room (allegedly) is currently on Craigslist. The seller is based in Euclid, a suburb of Cleveland (for any non-NE Ohio folks).
Here's the link:
http://cleveland.craigslist.org/msg/3702311343.html
The listing itself is rather matter-of-fact:
baldwin organ $49 (euclid) pic
This organ was originally used for Romper Room. Needs repair and some
tlc. It powers on but the actual organ pitches need tuned. Will take
trades also. Call 216 406 1699
(A screen capture is below; all CL ads are transitory..)
Romper Room was a long-running children's television program shown mostly in the USA, but also internationally. It was notable because cities could host individual franchises instead of the national broadcast. Cleveland hosted a local production, starring "Miss Barbara" Plummer. While not the first Cleveland hostess, "Miss Barbara" will always remembered locally as the face of Romper Room; the highlight of the production which ran on WEWS from 1958 until 1971.
Tell me, tell me, tell me, do. Magic mirror, tell me today.
Have all my friends had fun at play?
As crude as TV F/X were in the early 60's, the Magic Mirror closing sequence of RR is probably the first TV special effect I remember from my childhood...
So any Do Bee out there with enough living-room space can purchase a bit of local broadcast history...
Here's a publicity still from the new action movie, Olympus Has Fallen, starring Gerard Butler.
Wow, that just looks crazy good; I bet it's an intelligent, tightly-crafted thrill-ride...
(Original image by Tom Freeman. More info here...)
Less than 12 hours after the Steubenville rape trial verdict, my Google News page/feed--yeah the one that's supposedly customized to the "individual preferences" of the reader--shows no links or references to the case, one of the biggest stories of the day. Not under the "Top Stories" nor the "US" sections.
To be sure, Google isn't my main source of news. We subscribe to, or read, up to five newspapers a day, depending on the day. I don't use my real name on any Google services, and don't intend to. I'm fairly serious about using ad-blocking and script-blocking when I browse, so I am harder to "data mine."
And Gmail? It's just a disposable alternative to my normal email account. You know--the one you use for Craigslist or when you're required to enter an email address online. I have Google+ account, but won't use my real name, of course (don't bitch Google--I'm not even on Facebook). So again, I'm resisting their profiling efforts, at least a token amount...
Still--honestly--how bad is an algorithm when it can't recognize I might be interested in this type of news? ...especially when I personally customized my page by modding UP the New York Times and modding down Fox.
But beyond that--shouldn't we all be reading about the Steubenville verdict? Why is Google News (or ANY news source) so bent on giving me only the news they think I might want? Yes, I know the answer-- $$$$$ rule.
We need a return to the traditional paradigm: one where actual editors define the news mix, one based on common humanity, solid news judgement and informed experience.
A year or so ago I picked up a Danelectro DM 25, in need of much repair. After replacing a few components it works quite well, although it's missing the peizo reverb tank.
But the front panel is a mess...
I'll have to make up a replacement. This can't be salvaged.
To that end, I photographed the old Danelectro logo on the front of my Dano DM10, an amplifier that's contemporary to the DM 25. The DM 10's condition is much better. Even so, there's plenty of corrosion evident on the smaller amp. It's not enough to warrant replacement, though.
This image file was then imported that into Inkscape, a great freeware vector image editor. Inkscape has a powerful autotrace function for bit-mapped images which is super useful for converting photos into vector format. After a little tweaking, here's the result, which is very true to the original:
The old-school logo isn't quite the same as the modern one. It's a little rougher, a little more vintage. The above image is a JPG file, but I'm glad to share the vector file for other users:
Danelectro Logo, SVG
This link will display (at least on Firefox), but download Inkscape to edit or resize it. Remember--it's a vector file, so there's no pixellation when enlarging... Enjoy!
Yesterday I traded a DiMarzio "Very Metal" pedal for an Electro Harmonix Holy Grail Reverb pedal, the EH power supply included. It's the original "wide" model (and has Rev A on the PCB). I'm excited to have a compact reverb, for use with those amps that don't have it. My Lafayette "Echo-Verb" is cool, but it's big and needs maintenance (bypass get's muddy when the effect is set over halfway--probably needs new caps, or just a relay-driven bypass).
I love trading gear. Everyone wins--you clean out unused and unwanted stuff, and replace it with (hopefully) stuff you want, and might actually use. I never used the Very Metal pedal; it's really not my sound. Plus the non-true bypass wasn't very transparent. Yeah, it looked ironically cool, and probably will continue to be collectable, but that's mostly based on the famous "knobs that go to 11." But I generally only keep things I use; if it sits, let someone else enjoy it.
I crack open the Grail to check the type of bypass--and find it's a true-bypass version. Some of the first versions didn't have it.
I don't know if it was home modded or factory, but I'm happy...
 |
| True bypass |
|
Oh the Noise Noise Noise!
Plug in the Electro Harmonix power supply, and the Holy Grail works fine. However, it's noisy, especially set above halfway. Overall, I'm somewhat disappointed with the noise floor at such a noticeable level. I half expected this from online comments.
What do we suspect first with noisy digital pedals? --the power supply. The original EH power supply is a standard step-down transformer/rectifier type, a likely culprit.
So I try the Holy Grail with a 1Spot switching supply, daisy-chained with other pedals. Cool! It's much quieter! But when the Cry Baby wah is engaged there's a very noticeable high-pitched whine as the treadle is pushed down toward the treble position. Not good.
Next option: use a second 1Spot, dedicated to the Holy Grail alone. I keep a second 1Spot on hand to use with effect loops. Success! The Holy Grail is whisper-quiet, and now some of the subtleties of the effect can finally be heard.
You may take this as gospel ;-) -- always use a separate, dedicated switching power supply for the EH Holy Grail Reverb pedal.
Using a 1Spot with the Holy Grail requires an adapter cable to fit the 3.5mm jack. FYI, the polarity is fairly standard--shaft negative, tip positive, +9V. Ironically, I had the adapter already, for the Very Metal.
Overall Impression of the Electro Harmonix Holy Grail Reverb
I like it a lot. It's smaller than an external spring reverb. It does a decent job of simulating reverb for amplifiers that don't have the option. I can't say I LOVE it, but then I'm spoiled by the real thing...
The Hall setting is particularly good, if not something that I'd use often, or use live. But it's very cool.
And the Flerb setting? (Flanger/reverb)--it's great fun! Again, maybe not a "live" effect, but cool anyways.
Goodbye "Very Metal"
Here's portrait of the DiMarzio pedal. Very Metal, I hope you've found a home, but I won't miss you...(except for your knobs that go to 11).
I got you in a previous trade for the equivalent of $25, and I traded you for something I wanted...more. Pedal love is fickle...
EDIT:
After further testing, a tiny amount of high frequency noise is still present with the dedicated 1Spot. But it's very small compared to the hiss and whine of the other options...
Did two loops of the Hudson Springs Park trail today in the rain, about 4.2 miles total. With temps hovering around 39 F, it's a grey, dreary day.
One highlight--a dude playing Frisbee golf in the cold rain, rocking the hair. Brilliant. Reminded me of the guy in the Allstate commercial ("It's like we're connected").
He even stopped to wave. Outstanding.
Unlike the newer Ultra Plus amps, my Peavey Ultra 60 amp project doesn't have a NFB resonance control. I could experiment with any NFB loop filter, but why not start by reversing the Ultra Plus circuit? There isn't much info available on it, so it makes for a little detective work...
The Ultra Plus resonance control is a three-position switch type, labeled TIGHT, MED and LOOSE. The filter setting are preset at the factory. There's no adjustable POT like some resonance controls utilize.
One fact is known from the start--the Ultra and the Ultra Plus are VERY similar in nearly all aspects. The point on the phase inverter--where the feedback is routed--and the transformer tap (the 8 ohm secondary) are identical in both amps. The Ultra Plus merely adds some addtional components between the two points.
Off to the web to research. First off, it looks like Peavey went to some length to hide / obfuscate the feedback loop circuit. There are versions of the Ultra Plus schematic that omit both the feedback control schematic and it's small circuit board, too. And some experienced Peavey Techs even commented on that fact on the interwebs. There's also a little note on the "sanitized" schematic how "THIS CIRCUITRY IS PROTECTED BY U.S. PATENT NOS..." bla bla bla. Look up the patents if you wish, they are easily found. The 5,197,102 patent seems somewhat applicable. But I don't see anything groundbreaking there (i.e., anything unique) that applies to the Ultra Plus resonance circuitry...
After more searching, eventually I did find a schematic with the NFB loop filter intact:
OK--for all the fuss, it's not a very complicated design. And not that different from other NFB filters, such as the Fender Bassman AC568 for one, and several older Gibson amps.
But the switch diagram and the switch description are confusing. The switch, tagged S3, certainly looks like a standard DPDT switch on the schematic, but the parts list says SPTT (or Single Pole Triple Throw). The drawing is not a single pole switch in the normal sense. More obfuscation, or just in-house terminology?
Moreover, it doesn't "decode" correctly as a standard DPDT switch, either. That is, it wouldn't function correctly using a standard switch. Too bad I don't have an Ultra Plus to poke around it's insides...
After several failed sketches and more research, I found the best candidate for the switch; a DPDT on-on-on switch, where the contacts on each pole are opposed in the middle position. It works like this:
(Of course, one wonders why this isn't termed a DPTT switch...)
Anyhoo, with this type of switch all three functions work correctly (as I read the schematic). If you'd rather not trace the paths yourself, I drew each setting individually:
Position 1) bypasses C10
Position 2) parallels C10 with an 82K resistor
Position 3) parallels C10 with a 330K resistor
(..there's also a 68K resistor between the filter and the PI, as noted below..)
And that's the resonance control for the Peavey Ultra Plus. Could this be added to the Ultra 60 and Ultra 120? Sure! To replicate it exactly, order the switch from Peavey directly.
Can it be modified? Yup, easily! Replacing the switch and the fixed resistors with a POT, say 500K or 1 Meg would work. The bypass switch would effectively remove the resonance circuit completely, which would be a "stock" Ultra 60 NFB loop.
For comparison, below is the resonance / presence circuit for the Peavey 5150 ii. I've drawn a simplified version--this amp has dual controls, one for the clean and one for the lead channel, and the image below has been reduced to a single set of controls.
Note that the Peavey Ultra (and the Plus) has a fixed feedback resistor of 68K in the loop between the transformer and the phase inverter (and the Ultra Plus inserts the resonance control between the resistor and the transformer), while the 5150 has a 39K resistor between the transformer secondary and the filter circuitry, probably due to the addition of the Presence control--or the different sonic characteristics of the amp itself.
So if adding both Resonance AND Presence is your thing, give it a go...
One additional note: the aforementioned patent (5,197,102) seems more applicable to this circuit than the Ultra Plus... But I'm no lawyer, of course, so don't take my word on it. Wink.
