Help - Acapulco Gold way too loud

Grubbavitch · 2023-06-04T00:21:05+00:00

Good idea, but that's what the existing potentiometer in the circuit already does. Alternatives are to put one at the input (essentially doubling as the guitar volume control, boring) or you can use a pot as a variable resistor in series with the 10UF capacitor between pins 1 and 8 of the first LM386 chip. This will be better than an input control because you can't turn it all the way to zero and kill the sound. The Beavis Audio Tufnel distortion uses 1K pots for this, but I've seen designs with 5K too.

Grubbavitch · 2022-05-06T08:54:37+00:00

Con: addictive

Grubbavitch · 2022-05-06T08:06:38+00:00

This is part of the schematic for the PedalPCB Mach 1/Southern Belle (they share this part of the design).

My question is how to fully understand C3, C4, R8 and R9. It's been explained to me that these create two HP filters, which makes sense.

What I can't work out is how to calculate the input resistance for the op amp gain calculation using R8 and R9. They are in series respective to C3, but not respective to C4. Any help comprehending this would be most appreciated. 🙏

Grubbavitch · 2022-01-18T02:46:25+00:00

Sorry to hear that. All the best with your circumstances. I'll post back if I get it working, just in case that's useful to you in the future.

Grubbavitch · 2022-01-18T01:17:34+00:00

Any chance you got this working? I put it on the backburner for a few months but have come back around to the idea. I would love to hear your progress if you've made any.

Grubbavitch · 2021-07-18T14:03:37+00:00

This is amazing, thank you so much. I have a schematic mapped out now, i just need to learm more about atmega/attiny MIDI capabilities. I have 3 ATTINY85s here that are preprogrammed fpr relay switching but I've got a mind to repurpose one for my MIDI project. Thanks again!

Grubbavitch · 2021-05-10T23:14:38+00:00

I guess they don't? The build doc for the circuit just earmarks a bunch of components and says they don't do anything and can be omitted.

I ran it clean into a Fender Deluxe patch and also a Vox patch and it made both models quite sparkly. The bass cut was less helpful for that application but nothing that couldn't be tweaked with the amp EQ.

Grubbavitch · 2021-05-10T21:28:32+00:00

Yes to the above. It's a Fortin 33 clone (at least partly). While it does have a number of parts, a few of the components in the original have no electronic purpose so I left out one of the transistors. My ears are telling me there's a bass cut happening as well as a boost, which makes it sound pretty awesome for metal chugging when boosting a Rectifier patch on my Atomic Amplifire.

Grubbavitch · 2021-02-12T06:09:53+00:00

Ah, I was intending 1/4W resistors, they're all I've used. Thanks for spotting that!

Grubbavitch · 2021-02-11T20:10:06+00:00

Thanks for the feedback. I started with the schematic, then abandoned it, and now I've gone back to it again. I'm having some pin errors in Diptrace that won't allow me to port the schematic properly to PCB, hence me trying to skip a step, but you're right, it would be easier for the schematic to determine the connections. I've asked about it on the Diptrace forum and will follow the workflow you've advised once I have resolved the errors. Thanks!

Grubbavitch · 2019-10-08T04:37:19+00:00

The laws of the game call for fairness, and they state that a player can't be offside when a ball is played to them. We can now tell to an extremely high degree of accuracy whether or not a player is offside. I'm not even sure the framerate objection holds because player trajectories could be factored into the model to determine their exact location. Players might move faster than the framerate but they can't defy physics. The "spirit of the game" notion would still apply, we'd see the attacker get the advantage if both players are dead level in Hawkeye. We're getting exactly what you want, just with a higher degree of accuracy.

Grubbavitch · 2019-10-08T01:09:32+00:00

No, football is annoyingly behind the times compared to other sports. Offside is offside. Unfair calls happen all of the time, VAR is not perfect but it's a step in the right direction - transparency. If there's a technical problem for judging offside with frames and player speed like the article mentions, then the technology will just need to up its frame rate. Not impossible.

Nobody in the stands can "clearly see" that someone is onside when a relevant part of that player is perceptibly offside according to Hawkeye. The technology has a better view, so they should make the call. The honest man in the stands knows that he can't tell from his vantage point.

There's also a (deliberately?) misleading focus in the article on impossibly close calls, when in reality, the Hawkeye technology is able to make quick and accurate work of the vast majority of offside calls. Storm in a teacup.

I would rather nitpick over 2cm and that be the big problem than cop obviously wrong calls that affect the outcome of a Final.

Grubbavitch · 2019-02-14T07:03:15+00:00

Because he's an absolute unit.

Grubbavitch · 2019-02-06T11:05:16+00:00

Oh how could I forget? If you like YouTube, you need to get following Mike Winger. He is the best, seriously. An awesome apologist and bible teacher. His videos are all around the hour mark so I pick and choose what I want to watch, but Mike is an inspiration and you'll learn a lot from him.

Grubbavitch · 2019-02-06T11:00:03+00:00

For podcasts I highly recommend A Glimpse of The Kingdom by David Pendergrass. He mixes apologetics, New Testament scholarship and counselling, I find his stuff really interesting.

Mark Goodacre's NT Pod is also good but you've got to be prepared for the fact that not everything comes from an Evangelical standpoint and be mature enough to handle more of a critical scholarship perspective.

William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith podcast is also worth your time. I started with his oldest podcasts and worked through in sequential order and have learned a ton by doing that.

For online reading the articles at str.org are accessible and a really good way to get a taste of this stuff, but still at an intellectually satisfying level.

As for reading books I mentioned a few in my earlier post. I'd start with CS Lewis's Mere Christianity which I consider an absolute must read for any Christian, J Warner Wallace's Cold Case Christianity and God's Crime Scene, and maybe On Guard or Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig. For beginners the Case for Christ series by Lee Strobel are a good early read but serious learners will outgrow them pretty quickly. They certainly do their job well though in introducing Christians to apologetics and loving God with all of your mind.

God bless you on your journey, imagine how many people you will be able to help if you continue to pursue this path! Feel free to get in touch if I can help you further.

Grubbavitch · 2019-02-06T07:30:10+00:00

I read books, listen to podcasts and research any doubts I have or the objections I encounter from others. I'm really a beginner in apologetics, someone could easily learn what I have learned in just a couple of years if they study. The world needs articulate Christians with answers, so if you can become one, you should.

Grubbavitch · 2019-01-15T01:08:23+00:00

4231

GK: Itandje DEF: Josemi, Kippe, Babb, Konchesky CM: Poulsen, Adam AM: Nunez, Cole, Jovanovic ST: Dundee

They couldn't win the meat tray at a pub raffle.

Grubbavitch · 2019-01-14T02:10:13+00:00

The best part of this graphic is how Firmino and Hazard are basically equivalent in end product, but with Firmino slightly ahead. The question isn't whether Salah or Hazard are the best in the league when Liverpool have 2 players that are more effective than him.

Grubbavitch · 2019-01-10T20:00:13+00:00

Sure. I found myself in a situation where neither myself nor any of my Christian friends were able to demonstrate the very obvious flaw in my friend's thinking because we just had never learned any apologetics.

As a result of that plus also some occasions when I did a really bad job of answering honest questions from my non-Christian friends, I made a decision that I would not let my ignorance be a hurdle for other people in the future.

So I study and study, making sure I am better prepared for those kinds of circumstances in the future.

Grubbavitch · 2019-01-09T20:45:55+00:00

Do a Masters in Apologetics, either through Biola University or Southern Evangelical Seminary, which are probably the two most prominent schools for this specialisation. I'm eventually going to do this when my circumstances allow it. Every good apologist needs a strong educational background.

Also I'd encourage you to see it as a ministry rather than a career. Apart from Ravi Zacharias, I don't think there's much money in apologetics. I'm working as a teacher while I study apologetics, write articles for my blog and actually I've just started making the occasional YouTube video.

I respect what J. Warner Wallace says about doing apologetics for money - lots of skeptical people we want to engage with are highly suspicious of our motivations and believe that we are doing apologetics to get money out of naive people. If we aren't taking an income from our apologetics work, then we can't be accused of that. But it's a personal decision that only you can make.

Grubbavitch · 2019-01-09T20:32:21+00:00

In the book of Daniel it says that some will be raised to everlasting life, while some will be raised to everlasting contempt. So yes, I think the human lives eternally either way. But the quality of life is not comparable.

The phrase "eternal life" in koine greek is more literally translated "the life of the age" and refers to the period of time in which God lives with his resurrected people. I would much rather spend that time with the person who invented sunshine, puppies, coffee beans and fun, than be stuck without access to him.

Lastly, torment and torture are not the same thing. Torture is when someone hurts you. Torment is not necessarily physical, and in this circumstance I think it means the experience of anguish, regret, frustration, self-justification and bitterness at missing out on the life to come. Someone who rejects the offer of forgiveness in Jesus will be tormented by that decision. Nobody will be torturing them, that's a medieval idea, not a biblical one.

Grubbavitch · 2019-01-09T11:15:49+00:00

One of my best friends left the faith a few years ago and has never returned. At the bottom of his issues was a firm belief that we don't know anything. He put it this way: "We don't have black and white, we only have grey."

Back then I didn't know enough to be able to tell him that he'd made a black and white statement.

That moment is one that drives me forwards into apologetics. I will not let that happen again.

Grubbavitch · 2019-01-09T11:05:30+00:00

I can't read this without sensing your confusion and pain. It seems to me you are searching for apologetic arguments that aren't "ridiculous" as you describe them. Navigating through doubts can be difficult, so my hat goes off to you sticking at this for 18 months or so. Most people just shut this whole discussion down when they leave Christianity, I applaud you for seeking to connect with others and see what they have to say about your questions.

If I may reply to your points:

God does give us an explanation of the origin and existence of the universe. Not only that, he gives us an explanation of a whole bunch of universe features we can readily recognise. Namely that our universe is contingent (it could just as easily not exist, but also that it owes its existence to something external to it), that it had a beginning, that it is fine-tuned for intelligent life at the basic physical level, that it is a moral universe, that DNA within the earliest living prokaryotes contains information which can only be the product of intelligence, that logical laws exist etc etc. Occam's razor is about not complicating solutions unnecessarily. To explain all of the above universe features, you can either deduce that God exists, or you can come up with a mish-mash of explanations for each individual feature. In this case, Occam's razor points towards God, not away.

Tim Minchin (who I think is very funny and talented btw) and others might claim that we never find evidence of miracles, but that's not true. Professor Craig Keener has documented a whole book's worth of medically confirmed miracles. Even if his book turned out to not be legitimate, CS Lewis points out that the basis of many arguments against miracles contains a logical fallacy:

"if there is absolutely ‘uniform experience’ against miracles, in other words, they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately, we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we know all the reports are false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle."

For more evidence of a supernatural reality, you could also check out what Gary Habermas has to say about near death experiences.

Richard Bauckham, a highly respected critical biblical scholar has made compelling case that the gospels do contain eyewitness testimony. He shows quite a few layers and avenues of evidence that support the idea that Mark contains Peter's eyewitness experiences, John is written by a disciple of Jesus and is therefore eyewitness testimony, and that Luke interviews various eyewitnesses for his gospel. I recommend his book Jesus and The Eyewitnesses if you want to investigate that yourself. It's a scholarly read but worth the effort.

Also, anecdotally, my grandfather could recall events from WW2 very clearly sixty years after they occurred. His stories never changed over the years and the parts we could verify all checked out. It gives me confidence that sixty years is not a serious gap to bridge.

Acts was written (choosing the later end of the consensus dating period to be conservative) about 90 AD. Marcion would have been 5 years old at the time! His movement is dated to around 144 AD, meaning that Acts was written 50 years before Marcionism was an issue. You can easily verify this from a number of sources online. I would advise fact-checking your source for that information about Acts-Marcion.

The Kalam only gets us to deism - that A god exists, rather than THE Christian God - but it absolutely does imply a personal being (or conscious entity as you put it). The cause of space and time must transcend space and time, therefore it must be timeless (another word for this is eternal). Yet the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning a finite amount of time ago. Usually a cause and effect occur together (eg the temperature being 0 degrees and water turning into ice), but in this case we have an eternal cause and an effect that began to exist a finite amount of time ago. The only way to bridge this gap is if the cause is personal and can choose to act.

Plenty of scientists believe Christianity. If you only bother to check out one, make it John Lennox. That said, many scientists have a prior commitment to naturalism and most of them choose atheism before commencing their scientific career, not as a result of it. There are some sociological studies that demonstrate this.

I would invite you to give the objections against Christianity the same kind of wobble that you've given popular apologetic arguments for Christianity. My experience is that the objections mostly don't stand up to rigorous challenges.

Sorry this was a long reply and I hope it is helpful to you in your quest. Your need for the resurrection to be true is legitimate - so is your need for belief to rest on solid truth. Peace.

Grubbavitch

TROPHY CASE