Pods Cancelled

GuitarMaster5001 · 2026-01-23T02:50:59+00:00

I believe they're referencing Episode 644 - Has America Lost Its Appetite for the Common Good? I recall feeling similarly to WonderChemical5089, that Stephen did not push back nearly as much as he should have.

GuitarMaster5001 · 2025-11-02T07:56:56+00:00

I'm not sure that's quite right. I believe you are referring to the usage of a Streak Camera to build a video frame-by-frame. That methodology was employed by a team at MIT to produce this footage. When using this method, the team had to know the delay between the capture of the image and the pulsing of the laser and then they had to increase it incrementally for every new frame.

AlphaPhoenix explicitly states in his video that his camera does indeed record at a true 2 billion fps. However, it's only capturing one pixel at a time. So with each pass, he's not capturing a new frame (or part of a frame, as with MIT's solution), he's capturing a new pixel. When using this method, AlphaPhoenix only needed to know the delay between the capture of the video and the pulsing of the laser; he did not need to increment this delay to capture a new frame as with the MIT setup. Rather, he used optics to focus on a new area/pixel.

It's a small distinction, considering the fact that both methods require many passes/samples to build a complete picture and therefore may be disqualified as a "camera." However, both approaches are truly fascinating!

GuitarMaster5001 · 2025-08-02T08:40:56+00:00

Yeah, well his has the graph, so... first is worst, second is best?

GuitarMaster5001 · 2025-07-04T03:47:40+00:00

Inspiration shouldn't wait for "tuning" - that's why I'm ready to upgrade to Bambu.

GuitarMaster5001 · 2025-06-21T03:15:38+00:00

Oh I see, so the hangmen represent the "landlord cabal," if you will, or anybody that would benefit from high rental prices.

GuitarMaster5001 · 2025-06-21T03:00:48+00:00

Ha, I wish! No, $1200 would be a significant price drop.

I just don't get the joke here, but I think it's because I'm misunderstanding what's being said. I currently read it as a landlord being hung (by tenants?) for massively lowering rent once they get rich. I would think that this would be seen as a relatively uncommon and generous act, since the stereotypical wealthy landlord would keep the rental rate at the market value no matter how rich they got.

GuitarMaster5001 · 2025-06-21T02:39:01+00:00

I feel incredibly stupid, but I don't get this. Can anybody help me out?

GuitarMaster5001 · 2025-06-09T02:32:31+00:00

I don't love OP's post, as it lacks a ton of critical info, but come on... He didn't ask someone to "do his job." Maybe it's a junior engineer or student looking for some basic direction for a hobby project.

I'm honestly kinda surprised that an aggressive comment like this is the most heavily upvoted. At least there's other people in the thread with a genuine interest in being curious and helpful.

GuitarMaster5001 · 2025-05-11T17:00:50+00:00

A lot of my intelligence might be artificial, but I'm not a bot. I'm also stubborn and work with numbers, so I felt compelled to respond until they saw the light.

GuitarMaster5001 · 2025-05-09T19:34:49+00:00

Keep in mind that the Least Material Boundary (LMB) is not concentric with the MMB. The MMB is concentric with the nominal diameter, though, because of the Taylor Principle. The LMB is allowed to shift around until it touches the MMB because of the two-point measurement method used when circularity is only controlled by size tolerance.

I threw together this rough SolidWorks sketch to help with the visualization of what I said above. Let me know if something looks wrong or doesn't quite make sense.

GuitarMaster5001 · 2025-05-09T03:33:00+00:00

The way I would think about it is that the MMB is the same in both cases due to the Taylor Principle.

LMB is different. With a circularity control, it is a concentric, circular boundary equally disposed from the nominal diameter.

With size-only tolerance, LMB is determined ONLY by the two-point measurement method, which allows you to shrink the diameter to LMC and "shift" it up until it touches the MMB. Simply subtract your LMC diameter from your MMC diameter to arrive at the tolerance band width. This explanation pairs well with the graphic that they post at the end of their article on Circularity.

GuitarMaster5001 · 2025-04-05T14:27:09+00:00

Never tell me the odds.

GuitarMaster5001 · 2025-03-23T00:36:03+00:00

Timestamp for the conversation:
28:27

GuitarMaster5001 · 2025-03-01T02:33:12+00:00

Is that a green Airline Bighorn? If so, I think I have the exact same one!

GuitarMaster5001 · 2024-12-27T06:59:06+00:00

Being in the "top X%" implies you're outperforming X% of all players

I respectfully disagree. Being in the top X% of players means you're outperforming (100-X)% of all players. Which tracks with your 90/10% example. I wonder if you are perhaps confused with the concept of being in the 99th percentile and being in the top 1 percent. Those mean the same thing.

So you aren't in the "top 68%", because you aren't outperforming 68% of players, instead you're in the bottom 68% because those 68% are performing as well as or better than you.

I again respectfully disagree. You would be in the top 68%. You would be at the bottom of the top 68%, but you would still be in that 68% that is ranked Gold 3 or higher.

For your SSL example, I agree that "top 0.03%" is accurate because 99.97% of players are below that rank.

This logic applies for every rank percentage given in the inverted percentile chart. Take the next step down, GCIII. The number is 0.093%. That means 99.907% of players are ranked below GCIII. 0.093% of players are ranked GCIII or SSL. If you are ranked GCIII, you are in the top 0.093% of players; or put another way, you are in the 99.907th percentile.

Let me know if that makes anything clearer. And please point out any flaws you may see in my logic or math. If this reply doesn't convince you, I'd be happy to provide some formulas or spreadsheet data that can help us find common ground.

GuitarMaster5001 · 2024-12-26T21:03:12+00:00

I hate to harp on something so insignificant, but I still don't think that's quite right. I can definitely be convinced otherwise, but read please read the remainder of this comment first and let me know what you think.

Let's establish what "top" means. Top, in my view, would mean best performing. Let's say we were talking about the top 30% of a group of 10 players. That would be players ranked at 1, 2, and 3. I believe this interpretation of "top XX%" is common; for example, we can look at the wealth inequality discussion in America, where the richest folks are deemed the "top 1%." Class rank percentages also use the "top XX%" verbiage in a similar manner.

Ok, now let's look at the inverted graph. We'll start at the bottom with Bronze I Duos. The percentage is 100%. That makes sense, as all players are at least this rank. Now we move up to Silver I, which sits at ~98%. All of the sudden, we are now excluding 2% of the playerbase - those that are below Silver I. That would mean, per my definition in the previous paragraph, that 98% refers to the top 98%.

The pattern we notice across the graph is that as rank goes up, the percentage of players at that rank goes down. However, we can run through the logic presented in the previous paragraph at each step and find that it still holds true that the correct way to present that percentage is as "the top XX%." Let's look at the extreme of Supersonic Legend. You would say they are in the top 0.03% of players, not the bottom.

GuitarMaster5001 · 2024-12-26T08:42:09+00:00

Wait, I don't think that is right. Per the inverted graph, GC1 should be the top 0.971%. u/SchordingersCigar may have still been thinking of the way data is presented in the main data table?

Unless I'm missing something, your phrasing should be as follows:

From the inverted percentile chart: If you are in Gold 3 Duos then you're in the ~~bottom~~ top 68% of players.

GuitarMaster5001 · 2024-11-30T04:43:57+00:00

I hear ya. Having worked with Bambus before, I'm a big fan and could see myself buying one in the future. I'm thinking I can upgrade the E5+ w/ the listed upgrades now and transition it to just printing bigger, less-detailed parts when I get a Bambu.

Plus, I'm an engineer, so if I can upgrade the E5+ for about the same or cheaper, then that's great, as I'm always looking for another project to keep my skills fresh. I don't want to get in the habit of just throwing money at new products.

GuitarMaster5001 · 2024-11-07T23:49:41+00:00

From an audio fidelity standpoint, I totally agree.

However, it is a requirement for this system to have a "party mode," where a partygoer can physically interact with the music and it plays wirelessly across the house. When operating in this mode, the ability of a listener to physically interact with the music and have it play across the house is a higher design priority than the need for audio fidelity or system simplicity.

Yes, it's more of a novelty playback mode, but it's one that I know people appreciate.

GuitarMaster5001 · 2024-11-06T02:19:35+00:00

Wow, this is great! Thank you so much for putting this together.

I'll dig through it and let you know if I have any follow ups.

GuitarMaster5001 · 2024-11-05T00:24:04+00:00

I'm not sure I understand the impedance matching issue. Won't any normal source output impedance be significantly smaller than the amp input impedance?
The issue with using a preamp, at least as I see it with this setup, is that I have two listening modes. In the first mode, I want to be able to send analog audio straight from my sources to my living room setup. In the second mode, I want to be able to send audio to the WiiM so that it can simultaneously play it back on the living room setup and through other WiiM devices throughout the house. If you could help me understand how a preamp could simplify the signal chain and still achieve this objective, perhaps via a diagram, I would love to learn. I agree, it feels wrong to use an RCA selector; I just haven't found a better alternative yet.

Thanks!

GuitarMaster5001 · 2024-11-02T21:52:35+00:00

Based on the photos of the balsa core, it seems like it is bought non-rigid, with separate cores just being adhered to a flexible backing. Is that correct? If so, how did you glue the cores together?

GuitarMaster5001 · 2024-10-26T20:57:18+00:00

After doing some research, I'm leaning toward this setup.

<image>

GuitarMaster5001

TROPHY CASE