7 watt tube amp design is still far too loud
Cybermonk
I have been in correspondence with product designers at various companies.
One friendly designer replied that he is designing a 7 watt tube amp. I
commended him but encouraged him to consider even further reductions of
power, even if the industry is not consciously ready for it though it's what
people really need and unconsciously want. Like the H&K Crunch Master, a
1/2 watt tube amp would be essentially a perfect solution for what people
need, but too far ahead of its time. Here is my reply to him.
_______________________________________________
Thanks for the response. It's good to know that designers are working on
very low-power tube amps. You might also consider a 1-watt or 3-watt
version, or some sort of power-starving capability. I haven't seen the
power-starving circuits, but I get the *impression* that it's not very hard;
I'd like to study some products such as the Studio 0-10 watt rackmount tube
amp by London Power. I will probably build the 1-watt Moonlight amp soon
(when that new project at the AX84 site is ready), or the 3-watt AX84 amp.
It's taking the amp industry a while to get down to *truly* low,
apartment-level volumes. The industry has a certain sluggishnish due to
settling for halfway there -- for example, for ten years people thought that
a preamp tube for a gain stage would sound like a tube power amp, and for
five years, 15 watts was considered to be "low power, appropriate for
apartments". I seriously consider 15 watts to be high power -- I have read
many times, in user reviews of 15 watt amps, "when driving a serious
cabinet, 15 tube watts are plenty loud enough for knocking down the walls."
It's usually said as though that's a good thing -- but for apartment studios
and quiet jamming, of course it's *bad* that 15 watts is so loud. So, we
need to reduce power by orders of magnitude: from 50 watts not merely down
to 15 watts, but rather, to 5 watts. 15 and 50 watts are in the same
ballpark. To get truly quiet, for (as Kevin O'Connor of London Power
states) 3 A.M. in an apartment, we need another order of magnitude
reduction: from 5 watts down to 1/2 watt... and another: from that 500
milliwatts, down to 50 milliwatts. Much of the testing of the Studio amp by
London Power was done in the *milliwatt* range, which implies less than 1/2
watt. There is a huge audience for this -- larger, I think, than the
audience for a 7 watt amp.
When you built a low-power tube amp, such as a 7 watt amp, for a home
recording studio project, I don't see how you could accurately monitor what
the mic was hearing, given that 7 saturating tube watts would be far louder
than the level in your nearby monitor speakers or headphones. Only during
playback would you be able to meaningfully hear what the mic and post-amp
processing sounded like. This assumes that you have essentially no isolated
control room, for separation between the monitor speakers and the guitar
speaker cabinet.
The industry continues in self-contradiction: thinking in terms of the
irrelevant measure, "I want lots of watts for my buck," while out of the
other side of their mouth they wish for great tone without bothering anyone.
I am trying to fully express what the industry is only starting to
consciously realize: tone comes before volume, tone comes before special
effects, tone comes before everything. Another meme that is ready to be
discarded is the "practice amp" idea -- and even the "studio amp" label. A
low power amp is simply a quiet amp -- how one uses it is arbritrary, and
can be any application: practicing scales, pro studio recording, playing an
arena via sending a mic signal to the PA. Playing a tiny club is about the
only thing that a 1/2 watt tube power amp is poorly suited for, unless used
in a more complicated way such as:
low-watt power amp -> speaker -> mic -> bigger amp with full-range
speakers
or
low-watt power amp -> load -> bigger amp with guitar speakers
If I review a 7-watt tube power amp, I will probably still have to use my
speaker isolation cabinet, and even then I worry about sound leakage (bass
booming that leaks through my *double* layer, insulated, iso cab). Even
though my jamming space is in the basement, of a house, my lease states *no
musical instruments* -- so my landlord must not know that I even *have* a
guitar or amp. It has to be a stealth solution. The *majority* of rock
guitarists are in the same boat. Despite their shortsighted wish to get
lots of watts for their dollar, most guitarists, most of the time at home,
have a great unmet wish and need for a stealth-level tube power amp,
something that can be disguised as just a home stereo played at very
moderate levels. "Oh, that wasn't a live electric guitar, that was just
some music on the stereo." Discussing this product concept and
implementation with designer Kevin O'Connor and user Scott Hunt, I think the
London Power - Studio tube amp has achieved this ideal, without using any
post-power-tube attenuation (which tends to sound fizzy) or cabinet
simulation filter (which tends to sound flat). Scott Hunt's interesting
review is on my Studio page. They both assert that speaker distortion and
pushing air hard are *not* required for authoritative cranked-tube-amp tone.
That's why I'm interested in building (or buying) a 1-watt tube amp, or even
much lower wattage.
There's one point that warrants repeating: the home-studio jammer does not
necessarily want to hear the guitar speaker directly -- just like in a
recording studio, the recording engineer does not want to hear the
instruments directly. That's why there is a heavily insulated control room
-- to *avoid* hearing the guitar speaker. What matters, for the studio, is
hearing the processed mic signal, *only*. The home studio does not have the
advantage of an isolated control room, so the guitar speaker needs to be
*far* quieter than the level used in a recording studio. I see, we really
need to add a qualifier before "studio amp". 6 watts, or even 15 watts, is
indeed a good level for a studio -- as long as it's a pro recording studio.
But *home* studios... that's very different; take everything down yet
*another* order of magnitude. A 5 watt amp is good for a pro studio, a 1/2
watt amp is what's really needed for a home studio. Specifically, I want
this chain at home, which is the pro recording studio processing chain:
EQ-based effects
preamp
EQ
tube power amp
guitar speaker (not heard directly)
mic
compression
EQ
time-based effects
monitors (*this* is what I want to hear)
With no control-room isolation, the guitar speaker needs to be vanishingly
quiet. 7 watts is a nice level for monitoring *directly*, but that's not
where I want to monitor, as the recording engineer in my nonexistent control
room.
I applaud this move from 15 watts down to 7 watts (the level of a trumpet)
and look forward to telling people about your very low power amp, once it's
announced. I look forward to further power reductions as well. Perhaps you
could consider a future design that is as great a reduction from 7 watts as
7 watts is from 50 watts. I think that the audience would be there to buy
it, *if* there is clearer thinking in the industry, about the needs and
potential for top-notch, stealth home recording and jamming. My ultimate
main vision seems to be heading toward this: a laptop computer with software
fx modules onscreen, looping out to a miniature tube power amp, guitar
speaker cabinet, and mic, then more processing onscreen, and finally,
headphones -- and no one can hear the guitar speaker, because it's only at
1/2 watt. There are other packaging combinations, but that one really
captures the spirit the best, turning the guitar rig into a sheer
abstraction, except retaining, in miniature, quiet form, an actual cranked
tube power amp and speaker, halfway along the processing chain. You have
every reason to consider reducing the power by yet another order of
magnitude -- it's what home jammers want, even if they are confused about
what they want and think that more power is better even as they complain
about needing quieter amps. Basically, the *purchasers* of the gear are
just as slow as the designers, reviewers, and the rest of the industry, in
realizing that a 1/2 watt tube power amp is what they really need and should
want.
-- Cybermonk
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone and Effects Placement,
headphone-level cranked-tube-amp tone, integrating a power tube into
modelling amps and preamp/multifx processors, low-power tube amps
__________________________________
What do you think about this view? Is a 7 watt tube amp what guitarists now
*think* they want but it's actually far too loud? Is what guitarists
*really* want, but don't know it, a 1/2 watt tube power amp? How many years
will it take for power to be commonly reduced from the current standard for
"low power" of 15 watts or recently, 7 watts and 5 watts, down to *truly*
low levels below the 3 watts (Clark Lil Bit, Signature 284, AX84 project)
such as 1 watt such as the Moonlight amp, 1/2 watt, or 20 mW such as the
LXH2 EL84 amp or the power-starving Studio amp by London Power?
Should I be satisfied with a 7 watt amp, even though I'm constantly worried
about neighbors, roommates, or landlord hearing me, when I should be relaxed
and creative? And though I'm unable to monitor my processed mic signal
because the guitar speaker is ten times louder than my headphones or monitor
speakers?
Melissa and Bill
> my lease states *no musical instruments* -- so my landlord must not know
> that I even *have* a guitar or amp. It has to be a stealth solution. The
> *majority* of rock
I've never heard of such a thing. Damn, that sucks.
>
> I applaud this move from 15 watts down to 7 watts (the level of a trumpet)
Is 7 watts really that loud? The built-in amps on PC sound cards
always say they're 3-4 watts, and those can't power a set of
mini-speakers enough to hear more than 10 feet away. Is there a
difference in the rating system?
Bill
David Kurtz
[snip]
> What do you think about this view? Is a 7 watt tube amp what guitarists now
> *think* they want but it's actually far too loud? Is what guitarists
> *really* want, but don't know it, a 1/2 watt tube power amp?
[snip]
I have a Fender Champ (6 watts) and although its quiets are quiet enough
for my dorm room, the good tone doesn't come on until about 6 or 7, and by
then it's too loud to play without being inconsiderate to my neighbors.
So, yeah, i'd be interested in an even lower-powered amp if it meant I
could get a better sound out of it without shaking walls (which even a
Champ will do).
--
David Kurtz -- remove the underscore from my email address to reply
PGP key and more... http://www.lightside.net/~david/
AT
>
>I have been in correspondence with product designers at various companies.
>One friendly designer replied that he is designing a 7 watt tube amp. I
>commended him but encouraged him to consider even further reductions of
>power, even if the industry is not consciously ready for it though it's what
>people really need and unconsciously want. Like the H&K Crunch Master, a
>1/2 watt tube amp would be essentially a perfect solution for what people
>need, but too far ahead of its time. Here is my reply to him.
Why go to all that trouble? Old Fender Princeton Reverbs have like 12
watts. Those 5 watts are not going to make that big of a difference.
What about old tube Fender Champs? Are they not also very low wattage?
If your landlord is that paranoid stick to head phones or accoustic
guitar.
gerry garavaglia
>
> Cybermonk wrote:
> > my lease states *no musical instruments* -- so my landlord must not know
> > that I even *have* a guitar or amp. It has to be a stealth solution. The
> > *majority* of rock
>
>
> >
>
> always say they're 3-4 watts, and those can't power a set of
> mini-speakers enough to hear more than 10 feet away. Is there a
> difference in the rating system?
>
> Bill
Have you tried the 5 watt crate tube amp? it is damn loud.
Gerry
Frank Johansen
we're after "quality", in this case, not "volume".
anything that needs to be loud either finds another application, or is
miked.
Cybermonk wrote in message <74rinp$ooh$1...@dns2.serv.net>...
>
>I have been in correspondence with product designers at various companies.
>One friendly designer replied that he is designing a 7 watt tube amp. I
>commended him but encouraged him to consider even further reductions of
>power, even if the industry is not consciously ready for it though it's
what
>people really need and unconsciously want. Like the H&K Crunch Master, a
>1/2 watt tube amp would be essentially a perfect solution for what people
>need, but too far ahead of its time. Here is my reply to him.
>
>_______________________________________________
>
<really great stuff *snipped*>
Wink
gerry garavaglia wrote in message <36716E4A...@ford.com>...
: Have you tried the 5 watt crate tube amp? it is damn loud.
Yeah I bought the Crate with recording intentions. It sounded about right in
the large room at the store, but in the house it's way too loud. Maybe if I
stick it in a closet? While I think it sounds decent (kinda Vox-ish
character) it's not very flexible tone-wise and lack of reverb really sucks.
I think a 1 to 2 watt version would be just about right (as long as your not
after a clean setting). I finally ended up getting a SansAmp PSA-1 and it
works great if you don't expect true amp emulations and like to do lots of
tweaking.
Wink
Ross M Stites
>Cybermonk wrote:
>> my lease states *no musical instruments* -- so my landlord must not know
>> that I even *have* a guitar or amp. It has to be a stealth solution. The
>> *majority* of rock
>I've never heard of such a thing. Damn, that sucks.
>>
>> I applaud this move from 15 watts down to 7 watts (the level of a trumpet)
>Is 7 watts really that loud? The built-in amps on PC sound cards
>always say they're 3-4 watts, and those can't power a set of
>mini-speakers enough to hear more than 10 feet away. Is there a
>difference in the rating system?
There are a couple of things going on here. First, we're pushing tube
amps to their limits to get good tone. For example, a typical 100 W Marshall
is 100 W at something like 1% THD and is 170 W at 10% THD (THD - total
harmonic distortion). A typical stereo system will max out at its
power output. It also has to spread this power over the entire frequency
range (think bass), but a guitar amp is limited to a fairly narrow range.
Second, speaker efficiency is generally much higher for guitar amps than
for stereo systems. Stereo speakers are designed for even frequency
response first and efficiency second. Guitar speakers are generaly
the opposite.
Ross
Aaron Turner
: Is 7 watts really that loud? The built-in amps on PC sound cards
: mini-speakers enough to hear more than 10 feet away. Is there a
: difference in the rating system?
There's peak, RMS, programme, and PMPO watts...
PMPO seems to be quite an inflated figure compared to RMS (although I
don't know how they calculate PMPO)
Aaron Turner
John Ladasky
>> my lease states *no musical instruments* -- so my landlord must not know
>> that I even *have* a guitar or amp. It has to be a stealth solution. The
>> *majority* of rock
>
>
>>
>
>always say they're 3-4 watts, and those can't power a set of
>mini-speakers enough to hear more than 10 feet away. Is there a
>difference in the rating system?
>
The PC sound cards are like stereo systems. They need to distribute
their power evenly, into a broad range of frequencies. The output in dB
per watt is relatively low. A guitar amp is not trying to reproduce a com-
plex external sound, it's part of the sound. So the guitar amp can get away
with not being flat across the range of response, rolling off at the lowest
and highest range, etc. This results in more dB per watt.
I played an electric guitar with distortion pedal straight into a
decent quality 250-watt home stereo once, and was surprised. It didn't
seem any louder than a 50-watt guitar amp.
--
Rainforest laid low.
"Wake up and smell the ozone,"
Says man with chainsaw. - John Ladasky
leo...@nospam.com
There sure is a differance in rating systems - its called "lieing" !!
The speakers on my puter say 50 watts but I really really doute it!!
My stereo uses Voice of the Theater speakers and most people put
their fingers in their ears at 1 watt - that is 103db on these
mothers!!
According to a chart I have, with my 200 watt amplifier, I am only shy
of a few decibels to reproduce a 105mm Howitzer at 100 yards!!
Guitar speakers are typically efficiant - I'd say 7 watts could be
very loud indeed.
leo...@nospam.com
You know what to do? Head into the basement or attic or garage, and
dig up that old 5-tube radio that you threw away years ago and mod it
for guitar. I just remembered I have an old am-fm 7 tuber somewhere
I'm going to look into this weekend. They must be 1 watt or so?
Wayne Larmon
>
> You know what to do? Head into the basement or attic or garage, and
> dig up that old 5-tube radio that you threw away years ago and mod it
> for guitar. I just remembered I have an old am-fm 7 tuber somewhere
> I'm going to look into this weekend. They must be 1 watt or so?
>
No! Don't do it!
A lot of those 5 tube radios have no power transformer. All the
circuitry is connected directly to the 120 volt line. This can really
spoil your day.
Wayne Larmon
Patrick F. Coleman
>Cybermonk wrote:
>> my lease states *no musical instruments* -- so my landlord must not know
>> that I even *have* a guitar or amp. It has to be a stealth solution. The
>> *majority* of rock
>I've never heard of such a thing. Damn, that sucks.
>>
>> I applaud this move from 15 watts down to 7 watts (the level of a trumpet)
>Is 7 watts really that loud? The built-in amps on PC sound cards
>always say they're 3-4 watts, and those can't power a set of
>mini-speakers enough to hear more than 10 feet away. Is there a
>difference in the rating system?
>Bill
I practice quite often through my Creative CS120 computer speakers.
I run them off the line out on the RP7, with a tape deck run into the
RP7 as well as my guitar.
You have to be careful with how much bass you use.. but these have
treble/bass controls.
I can close the door, one room away from my son watching tv, and it
doesn't bother him a bit.
Or the neighbors.
They just think it's the stereo playing.
They have only ten watts. They are easy to connect and move from the
PC to the practice room, and are really nice when you can't be loud,
but are tired of using headphones.
No wires dangling off your shoulder, and you can be louder with them
yet still not have to get up to tell the cops you're sorry.
I had a friend who bought a super dooper set of extra powerful
headphones because he lived in an apartment and liked his music loud.
One night he cranked the stereo up to 8 with the phones on...
but forgot to turn the speakers off!
Twang!
prairie lakes internet sucks
Ed F
The main thing is that people go overboard with power. It takes
10 times the power to double the sound output. That means to
double the output of a 5watt amp, you need to have a 50watt amp.
So you wonder why all the extra power (transient spikes, etc) ??
The low power amps that are being built are almost all 'tube' based
because the solid state stuff doesn't handle going over anywhere
near as nice as tube amplification(clipping).
Ed
Melissa and Bill wrote in message <36715BF4...@gatecom.com>...
>Cybermonk wrote:
>> my lease states *no musical instruments* -- so my landlord must not know
>> that I even *have* a guitar or amp. It has to be a stealth solution.
The
>> *majority* of rock
>
>I've never heard of such a thing. Damn, that sucks.
>
>>
>> I applaud this move from 15 watts down to 7 watts (the level of a
trumpet)
>
Chris Gieseke
part in his own thread....I definatly would love to have little 1 or 2
watt tone machine for the studio. I remember the last time I tried to
get power tube distortion out of a 50 watt Marshall JCM-800...my entire
house turned into a giant speaker cabinet. I'm very suprised I didn't
crack any windows...the neighbors did indeed call the police though,
probably because I was rattling their windows.
On a side note though, my Crate Stealth 50 watt all-tube head actually
achieves some nice power tube saturation at about 6 on its master
volume at least I think it's power tube distortion I'm hearing because
the tone noticably improves and opens up into extra richness and depth.
Even though that setting is still quite loud, it is quite enough to not
piss the neighbors off unless they are outside in their yard.
Also I have a question...I used to run a graphic eq into my Crate
Stealth's effects loop which would noticably drop the volume level of
the preamp section. This allowed me to crank the master volume to 10
and too me it sounded better. By doing this am I still achieving
powertube saturation or does the preamp need to be driving the power
tubes hard to make them begin to distort? I'm using my amp for
high-gain metal sounds so sometimes through all the distortion it's hard
to tell if it's preamp or power amp tube distortion that I'm hearing.
Chris G.
O'Connor
> implementation with designer Kevin O'Connor and user Scott Hunt, I think the
> London Power - Studio tube amp has achieved this ideal, without using any
> post-power-tube attenuation (which tends to sound fizzy) or cabinet
> simulation filter (which tends to sound flat). Scott Hunt's interesting
> review is on my Studio page. They both assert that speaker distortion and
> pushing air hard are *not* required for authoritative cranked-tube-amp tone.
Although you do not have to push air "hard", most guitar players want to
push "some" air. And although you prefer to have a silent recording
method with post processing of the dry sound, I-- and most players I
talk to-- prefer to incorporate effects into the guitar sound. The fact
is that you interact with your system and its tone. If you have some
reverb or a delay, say, you will tend to hold a note differently or
apply vibrato differently than if the sound was totally dry.
There is more than one "studio" method, and certainly as many right ways
to record guitar as there are players.
> the power-starving Studio amp by London Power?
We use POWER SCALING technology-- which achieves the goal of scaling
down an amp's output without changing tone. Power _starving_ methods are
used by Tubeworks.
And with respect to mini-speakers: These do not come anywhere close to
the efficiency of a typical guitar speaker or cabinet. So if a
mini-speaker is your only impression of what 10W does, then you do not
have a complete picture.
Nor do you get any sense of what 10W can do with most 10W guitar amps.
Traditionally, amp makers have linked their best speakers and features
with their highest power product. Low-watt amps were not looked at as
"serious" designs for "serious" players. You could really get put off
playing guitar when your first amp is a 10W junker with a 6" speaker.
The tone is crippled by a cost-driven design and maximum volume is
limited by the speaker arrangement.
But-- take a decent 10W amp with a properly designed preamp and plug it
through a big cabinet like a 4x12 or one of our Standard Tone cabinets
and suddenly 10W can keep up with drums and bass!
We will be introducing more Power Scaling products to satisfy stage and
loud jammers' needs.
Keep the faith!
Kevin O'Connor
Brendan Minish
>
>I have been in correspondence with product designers at various companies.
>One friendly designer replied that he is designing a 7 watt tube amp. I
>commended him but encouraged him to consider even further reductions of
>power, even if the industry is not consciously ready for it though it's what
>people really need and unconsciously want. Like the H&K Crunch Master, a
>1/2 watt tube amp would be essentially a perfect solution for what people
>need, but too far ahead of its time. Here is my reply to him.
>
A Friend of mine (A Guy called John Tuber ) who is an Ex-WEM Engineer
is building 1/2 W all tube Guitar amps which are switchable from Class
a to a/b from the front panel, They come with Direct out's Effects
loop etc, They have a rather small speaker built into the lid but also
have an output so that you can connect it to your favorite Speaker
cab, They are mounted into 19" rack cases (2U I think ) and are
designed for the touring musician. all outputs are available from the
back and front panels.
John Builds to order for people from His house in Co,Kerry
Ireland. He has build several Power Amplifiers For me (Solid State)
and they are built like tanks and have performed flawlessly for a no.
of years.
If anyone wants to contact John Tuber I can pass on his
address and telephone no's if you contact me directly via E-mail.
Robert Macy
On 11 Dec 1998, John Ladasky wrote:
> The PC sound cards are like stereo systems. They need to distribute
> their power evenly, into a broad range of frequencies. The output in dB
> per watt is relatively low. A guitar amp is not trying to reproduce a com-
> plex external sound, it's part of the sound. So the guitar amp can get away
> with not being flat across the range of response, rolling off at the lowest
> and highest range, etc. This results in more dB per watt.
>
> I played an electric guitar with distortion pedal straight into a
> decent quality 250-watt home stereo once, and was surprised. It didn't
> seem any louder than a 50-watt guitar amp.
>
> --
> Rainforest laid low.
> "Wake up and smell the ozone,"
> Says man with chainsaw. - John Ladasky
>
>
Max sound at 250W compared to 50W is only 7 dB more. Not really
that discernible.
- Robert -
Cybermonk
>part in his own thread.
I started the thread yesterday and there have been 18 follow-ups already.
Sometimes similar threads have generated no follow-ups, even after a week.
>I definitely would love to have a little 1 or 2
>watt tone machine for the studio.
Yes, I no longer think in terms of a "guitar amp", but rather, a tone
processor -- final amplification can potentially be distinct from tone
generation -- in fact, that's the case for all but one scenario: playing
live without a PA. In arena rock, a 100-watt Marshall is mostly used as a
tone machine rather than for public amplification. (It's used as a signal
processor, personal monitor, feedback device, and visual prop - but *not* as
an "amplifier" in the sense of a public amplifier.)
> I remember the last time I tried to
>get power tube distortion out of a 50 watt Marshall JCM-800...my entire
>house turned into a giant speaker cabinet. I'm very suprised I didn't
>crack any windows...the neighbors did indeed call the police though,
>probably because I was rattling their windows.
Formative experience:
I played my 50 watt Marshall tube combo for 3 minutes. The people across
the lake immediately called me and asked me to stop.
Formative experience:
In a 40-foot university music practice room, I did sound checks with my 50
watt Marshall. A man asked me whether I would play long, and why I played
so loud. I explained that though guitarists want great tone at low levels,
and tube amps have to be driven hard in order to saturated and sound like a
guitar amp, the industry does not provide low-power tube amps. I dedicate
my research to him.
Formative experience:
In a cottage, I played my 100 watt 70s tube Peavey combo amp. It threatened
to shake the walls and windows hard enough to damage them.
>My Crate Stealth 50 watt all-tube head actually
>achieves some nice power tube saturation at about 6 on its master
>volume at least I think it's power tube distortion I'm hearing because
>the tone noticably improves and opens up into extra richness and depth.
It was probably 50% preamp distortion and 50% power-tube saturation
(including output transformer and speaker response).
> Even though that setting is still quite loud, it is quite enough to not
>piss the neighbors off unless they are outside in their yard.
That's way, way, way.... too loud. For home playing especially, volume is a
noxious pest, an out-of-control weed, something to be eliminated at all
costs. How to extract the juice -- that is, the Tone -- from the unwanted
pulp -- that is, the volume? It is no fun playing while worrying about
others hearing you. If good guitar amps were available at less than 1 watt,
guitar would be more fun and rewarding, there would be more guitarists, and
so guitar gear companies would have a bigger market.
>Also I have a question...I used to run a graphic eq into my Crate
>Stealth's effects loop which would noticably drop the volume level of
>the preamp section. This allowed me to crank the master volume to 10
>and too me it sounded better. By doing this am I still achieving
>powertube saturation or does the preamp need to be driving the power
>tubes hard to make them begin to distort? I'm using my amp for
>high-gain metal sounds so sometimes through all the distortion it's hard
>to tell if it's preamp or power amp tube distortion that I'm hearing.
If the power tubes are saturating, say, 33%, this will always happen at the
same resulting listening level. If your speakers are quieter, then your
power tubes are saturating less. Thus, there's no combination of preamp
level and final level, in a conventional amp, that will give more power tube
saturation at a lower listening level. The better sound was probably due to
changes in EQ and distortion voicing.
Cybermonk
>>One friendly designer replied that he is designing a 7 watt tube amp. I
>>commended him but encouraged him to consider even further reductions of
>>power, even if the industry is not consciously ready for it though it's what
>>people really need and unconsciously want. Like the H&K Crunch Master, a
>>1/2 watt tube amp would be essentially a perfect solution for what people
>>need, but too far ahead of its time. Here is my reply to him.
>A Friend of mine (John Tuber ) who is an ex-WEM engineer
>is building 1/2 W all-tube rackmount guitar amps which are switchable from Class
>A to A/B from the front panel. They come with Direct Out's, effects
>loop, etc. They have a small speaker built into the lid and also
>have an output socket so that you can drive your favorite speaker
>cab. All outputs are available from the back and front panels.
>John Builds to order for people from His house in Co,Kerry
>Ireland. He has build several solid-state power amplifiers for me
>and they are built like tanks and have performed flawlessly for years.
Perfect! It is very encouraging to find out about this -- an actual, not
figurative, 1/2 watt tube amp. (What output transformer, I wonder?) I have
done so much research yet I keep hearing about more products. The
innovative products and packaging approaches are out there, for the most
part. They *have* been designed -- it's just a matter of raising awareness
that these provide the solution to the problems faced daily by guitarists,
especially at home.
Conspiracy-theory time: Where is Marshall? Where is Fender? I don't see
postings from them, in this thread. It's a good thing that for tube gear,
they are totally entrenched in the monster-amp paradigm. It gives upstarts
a chance. Marshall probably *likes* the fact that good tone is only
available in 50 watt, expensive, very profitable amps. But that's another
thread. I think Marshall would profit from selling a $200 1/2 watt tube
combo amp, or other packaging configurations. Would it impact their
monster-amp profits?
I hope that H&K reissues the Crunch Master and perhaps the simpler,
lower-power Cream Machine.
Cybermonk
>method with post processing of the dry sound, I-- and most players I
>talk to-- prefer to incorporate effects into the guitar sound. The fact
>is that you interact with your system and its tone. If you have some
>reverb or a delay, say, you will tend to hold a note differently or
>apply vibrato differently than if the sound was totally dry.
>There is more than one "studio" method, and certainly as many right ways
>to record guitar as there are players.
I need to keep clear about what I have recommended. I would not say that I
"prefer a silent recording method with post processing of the dry sound,
rather than incorporating effects into the guitar sound". "Post processing"
could mean any of several different approaches. My main approach I promote
for home jamming and possibly for home recording is:
multifx preamp/processor 1
low-power tube amp and miked speaker (or, load-and-filter, if need silence)
multifx preamp/processor 2
mixer
Some of the best multifx/preamps, such as Rocktron's Prophecy, can support
properly placed multiple eqs and a loop for the tube power amp, all in a
single unit.
I have made a variety of suggestions for obtaining headphone-level
cranked-tube-amp tone, and for recording and processing that tone. One of
my main principles is: establish a simple, basic amp tone all the way
through the power stage, *before* adding time-effects. Here is a
generalized total processing chain from guitar to mixer output:
EQ-based effects, compression
Preamp distortion
EQ
Tube power amp
Guitar speaker and mics -- or, dummy load and cabinet sim. filter
Compression (e.g. tape compression) and EQ (e.g. mixer tone ctrls)
Time-based FX (e.g. delay & reverb via mixer's fx loop)
Mixer
Whether you immediately apply the post-amp processing to the initial
recording, or add it during mix-down, that is generally the overall classic
processing chain which is the recommended starting point and reference point
for processing and recording guitar. My overall concern is how to reproduce
that *total* processing chain, with post-amp placement of time effects, at
home, including retaining the actual cranked tube amp, like in a typical pro
studio setup, but scaling it down to the 1/2 watt level, because at home,
there is usually no acoustic soundproofing or isolated control room.
>> the power-starving Studio amp by London Power?
>We use POWER SCALING technology-- which achieves the goal of scaling
Cybermonk
>You know what to do? Head into the basement or attic or garage, and
>dig up that old 5-tube radio that you threw away years ago and mod it
>for guitar. I just remembered I have an old am-fm 7 tuber somewhere
>I'm going to look into this weekend. They must be 1 watt or so?
I have considered that and written a little about it. But we would all, in
the guitar gear industry, be much farther ahead if we would design more
appropriate *new* equipment, mass produce it, *keep* it on the market, and
make various packaging approaches available. Appropriately low-power tube
amps for home use involve almost no new technology and very little R&D, at
least to make a minimalist, passable design -- it's almost entirely a matter
of breaking away from exclusive use of solid-state tube amp emulation, and
simply repackaging existing technologies. The very best is to combine a 1/2
watt tube amp with modelling amps and with multifx processors. Again, this
is almost entirely a matter of repackaging existing technologies in line
with the needs of guitarists at home, rather than a matter of creating new
technologies. It's not so much a matter of technology, as a matter of
vision and packaging.
______________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar - Amp Tone and Effects Placement,
headphone-level actual cranked-tube-amp tone
Cybermonk
>for my dorm room, the good tone doesn't come on until about 6 or 7, and by
>then it's too loud to play without being inconsiderate to my neighbors.
>So, yeah, i'd be interested in an even lower-powered amp if it meant I
>could get a better sound out of it without shaking walls (which even a
>Champ will do).
I'm glad to hear that so clearly; designers, take note. If more people
would simply state as much, the designers and marketers would provide a wide
range of products to choose from, at competitive prices. If guitarists
think that 20 or 15 watts is "low power", they will learn the hard way and
will have to buy another amp - 5 watts - and learn again, the same lesson.
That's why we need to jump straight to considering the 10 mW-1 watt range,
now, not after another 10-15 years of learning the same expensive lesson.
The essential problem is, the tendency to cut power in half rather than
tenfold. We need to step up the reduction factor from 2 to 10 -- or 100 or
1000!
The 6 watt Champ, a compact yet still wall-shaking amp, is well-suited for
pro recording studios, when driving a serious speaker cabinet, and
optionally using an outboard preamp. But for home use, a low-power amp is
recommended instead (such as 1 watt, 1/2 watt, or less), to avoid disturbing
the neighbors.
Cybermonk
>watts. Those 5 watts are not going to make that big of a difference.
>What about old tube Fender Champs? Are they not also very low wattage?
>If your landlord is that paranoid stick to head phones or accoustic
>guitar.
Many guitarists are too satisfied and complacent, when the guitar gear
industry needs a jolt to repackage their technology in a way that's more
responsive to the actual needs of guitarists. Don't guitarists wish they
could buy a 1 watt tube amp, easily? And beyond that, a variety of
processors that incorporate a 1 watt power tube? Is the only alternative to
5 watt tube amps (the level of a blasting trumpet) 3rd-rate DI tone, or
complete abandonment of the electric guitar?
There is no reason to abandon electric guitar or use unconvincing DI
devices. My research has revealed that there are a few alternatives, so
far, and there could and should be many more, and the market is very much
ready. For example, I'm happy with my speaker isolation cabinet, though I'd
be happier with a lower-power tube amp such as the 3-watt Signature 284 or
the 3-watt Clark Lil Bit or the 3-watt AX84 amp, etc. My rig gets sounds
that are totally out of the reach of today's modelling amps, multifx
processors, preamp tube distortion units, and amp simulators. I know from
my own experiments that true cranked-amp-tone is possible at truly low
levels. Given that it is possible, and not really that hard, guitarists
should be emphatically asking the designers and marketers to provide such
products, by simply repackaging existing technologies. 1-watt tube amps
used to surround people in their daily lives; it should be *trivial* for the
amp and fx companies to provide them again -- and they would, if guitarists
would simply ask that they do so. I have taken the initiative, contacted
the companies, have *not* been complacent. Others can and should do the
same, if they want a decent selection of products that can produce actual
cranked-tube-amp tone without the neighbors hearing.
50 watts, 12 watts, and 5 watts are all in the same ballpark: they are all
far too loud for an apartment or typical house. Way, way, way... too loud.
The move from 50 to 5 watts is an order of magnitude of power, cutting the
perceived volume in half (that's assuming they are driving the same speaker
cabinet).
A fully saturating tube watt is much louder than a fully saturating
solid-state watt. There are many different ways of rating and claiming a
wattage figure. Even louder than a high-fidelity tube watt, is a *guitar*
tube watt. So an amp that can play a full-range signal at a certain level
without clipping, could play guitar at a far greater volume, when fully
saturating.
The industry currently has a bad standard connotation for "very low power"
tube amps. 5 watts should not be called "very low power". I would save
that term for 3 watts and under, or for less than 1 watt.
1/2 watt should be fine for recording clean Fender-type tones, if it's not
necessary to drive a speaker hard. You might have to deal with some hiss
and mic leakage problems though. It's irrelevant if the tube amp is barely
audible -- as long as it's loud in the mixer. I don't want to hear the tube
amp and speaker directly, anyway; I only care about the sound in the
headphones, or monitor speakers, after further processing. I wish a tiny
tube amp and tiny speaker driver were locked away inside a dense, compact
MXR pedal - that's how much I *don't* want to hear the guitar speaker
directly (my Links page shows one speaker research company that is
considering such an approach).
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
>> I applaud this move from 15 watts down to 7 watts (the level of a
trumpet)
>
>Is 7 watts really that loud?
7 Class A Watts is plenty unless you have a very large stage.
> The built-in amps on PC sound cards
>always say they're 3-4 watts, and those can't power a set of
>mini-speakers enough to hear more than 10 feet away. Is there a
>difference in the rating system?
Sort of. There really isn't a rating system, in any consistent sense. Some
amp manufacturers rate their amps at "clean" sounds, but almost no guitar
amp is clean in any sense you would want to use for stereo monitor systems.
And your PC sound card may be wildly optimistic or pessimistic about the
speakers that you use.
What you want to know is the sound pressure level SPL you get when you run
the amp. With the Signature 284 (3 Watts per side stereo) and the Lexicon
SB210 cabinet cranked up, Lexicon has measured 110dB SPL at 10 feet. That is
loud enough for most people; it's actually going to be painfully loud for
some people.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Cybermonk wrote in message <74utef$d82$6...@dns2.serv.net>...
>
>I'm glad to hear that so clearly; designers, take note.
I think it's more like "consumers take note". The design techniques are
there to do all sorts of cool stuff but it isn't going to happen unless the
market looks like it will pay for it.
>That's why we need to jump straight to considering the 10 mW-1 watt range,
>now, not after another 10-15 years of learning the same expensive lesson.
I think that somewhere between 0.5 and 1 Watt is about right.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
markel
>
>Although you do not have to push air "hard", most guitar players want to
>method with post processing of the dry sound, I-- and most players I
>talk to-- prefer to incorporate effects into the guitar sound. The fact
>is that you interact with your system and its tone. If you have some
>reverb or a delay, say, you will tend to hold a note differently or
>apply vibrato differently than if the sound was totally dry.
>
>There is more than one "studio" method, and certainly as many right ways
>to record guitar as there are players.
>
There is something to say about the effect of the sound waves from the
speaker on the body of the guitar. Even in the studio, I find that this
phenomenon is an integral part of the tone one achieves. markel- off for the
first time on a Saturday in 9 years!!!
M P Gilbert
versions of their JCM 2000 series are now appearing London, I think the
first all-tube (assuming no silicon to help out the preamp) low-watt
Marshall in many years. Due to a mismanagement, they have the product out
in small quantities before any literature. 20 watts is of course too loud
for most home use, but it loosens fewer bricks than the 50s and 100s.
leo...@nospam.com
Not to worry - I am a tech and plan to use an old iso transformer I
dont have any other use for. Funny thing - its bigger than the radio!!
I found the radio and its - well - a mess!! Guess I'll strip it down
to its sockets more or less and try to copy a Champ circuit or close
to it. I just want a little practice amp - input, volume and tone.
Will let you guys know what happens.
(Now I wish I'd hung on to that old Roberts 770X I used to have. Maybe
I can buy it back if I can find it. 2 channels of tubes with a NAB
tape preamp? perfect!!)
>Wayne Larmon <wla...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>leo...@nospam.com wrote:
>>
>> You know what to do? Head into the basement or attic or garage, and
>> dig up that old 5-tube radio that you threw away years ago and mod it
>> for guitar. I just remembered I have an old am-fm 7 tuber somewhere
>> I'm going to look into this weekend. They must be 1 watt or so?
>>
>
>No! Don't do it!
>
>A lot of those 5 tube radios have no power transformer. All the
>circuitry is connected directly to the 120 volt line. This can really
>spoil your day.
>
>Wayne Larmon
>
OH NO not xmas again...
Thank God I'm an atheist..
Lyle Caldwell
Personally, I'd love to have a very low wattage AC30 type design. Anyone
know anyone at Matchless?
--
Lyle
The RAP CD in Blue web site is at:
http://www.hoohahrecords.com/rap/index.htm
Andrew P. Mullhaupt <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:74v692$6...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com...
Kevin Maier
You are looking for a guitar amp with the following specs:
1- Power Output: about 1-watt RMS
2- All Tube design
3- No loop feedback, so distortion rises nicely when driving hard
4- Extremely low-noise making it useful for studio recording (via miking or
direct-out)
5- Small size for Apartment use and easy portability
6- High-Quality unit with a long, stable life.
7- Minimal controls... volume, tone, power and possibly a mute switch
8- A small high-quality speaker... 8- or 10-inch?
Does the above seem to "fit" the bill?
Regards, KM
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Lyle Caldwell wrote in message <1YHc2.1596$jj2.6...@news1.mco>...
>This is one of the most interesting threads I've seen in a while.
>Personally, I'd love to have a very low wattage AC30 type design. Anyone
>know anyone at Matchless?
Matchless does the Lightning, which is 15 Watts, and that is _way_ too loud,
although you can use it clean.
I think there are some low power Class A amps around, but the Lexicon 284
might be the closest I've come across, although it is far more flexible than
either the Matchless or the Vox amps.
You'll have to try one out and hear for yourself.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
O'Connor
> Also I have a question...I used to run a graphic eq into my Crate
> Stealth's effects loop which would noticably drop the volume level of
> the preamp section. This allowed me to crank the master volume to 10
> and too me it sounded better. By doing this am I still achieving
> powertube saturation or does the preamp need to be driving the power
> tubes hard to make them begin to distort? I'm using my amp for
> high-gain metal sounds so sometimes through all the distortion it's hard
> to tell if it's preamp or power amp tube distortion that I'm hearing.
>
In this situation, you are not likely getting any power tube distortion
in the usual sense, since you state that the FX drop the level.
You can tell when you get to ouptut clipping when your low level
distortion sound becomes bassier as you dial up the master. The spikes
that give you an "edge" or "crispiness" at low volumes are the first to
be clipped as the amp runs out of headroom, so that edge is lost. If you
keep dialing up, you clip the rest of the signal and now have a square
wave going to the speaker. It may sound slightly edgier than the
clipped-peak sound but not as bright as the low level preamp distortion
tone.
Keep in mind that this is only ONE distortion effect and TONE effect
produced by power tubes. The rest is there at ALL levels and even
contributes to the clean sound. Swap in a different tube type and your
tone at all levels changes.
Have fun
Kevin O'Connor
ricknovak
> >Although you do not have to push air "hard", most guitar players want to
> >push "some" air.
> There is something to say about the effect of the sound waves from the
> speaker on the body of the guitar.
And what about feedback?
How many Watts does a Pignose have? They've been around forever
and produce some interesting sounds at relatively low volume but always
have pretty much the same tone.
There's a company that makes an isolation speaker box with a 12"
greenback in it mic-ed with a shure 57. The speaker faces inward.
Virtually silent on the outside while the speaker roars inside. Anybody
use it? I can't imagine the tone would be very good but I'd love to be
wrong. What if there was some tunnel-y tube type tuba-like thing
attached to it so you could also get a more distant, room type sound
with a second mic?
Nice thread, y'all. Obviously there's a good sized market for a
high quality, low power tube guitar recording amp waiting to be tapped.
Maybe a good product for EveAnna and Fletcher to conspire on? A Manley
Mercenary Micro Monster Masher? I'd buy one sight un-seen. (Sound
un-heard?)
Cheers, Rick Novak.
Melissa and Bill
>
> So, after reading through some of this thread, I'm thinking the following...
>
> You are looking for a guitar amp with the following specs:
>
> 1- Power Output: about 1-watt RMS
> 2- All Tube design
> 3- No loop feedback, so distortion rises nicely when driving hard
> 4- Extremely low-noise making it useful for studio recording (via miking or
> direct-out)
> 5- Small size for Apartment use and easy portability
> 6- High-Quality unit with a long, stable life.
> 7- Minimal controls... volume, tone, power and possibly a mute switch
> 8- A small high-quality speaker... 8- or 10-inch?
>
> Does the above seem to "fit" the bill?
>
> Regards, KM
>
Why minimal controls? I didn't see that mentioned anywhere.
Bill
kev...@hotmail.com
_____________
FWIW-
Someone in alt.guitar.rickenbacker pointed me to this 3 watt amp:
<http://www.clarkamplification.com/li'lbit.htm>
<http://www.clarkamplification.com/Amplifiers.htm#Lil' Bit>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
micha...@nospammindspring.com
<cald...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>This is one of the most interesting threads I've seen in a while.
>Personally, I'd love to have a very low wattage AC30 type design. Anyone
>know anyone at Matchless?
>
>--
Put me on the list. Ill take one. No someone has to design the
f*****g thing!!!
Mike <micha...@nospammindspring.com>
...Remove "nospam" in return address to reply by email...
Adam Jones
wanted to know if i put two 6L6's in push pull, could i get all the
tone, and low end response but still internally attenuate the power to
get this 3 or 4 watts? i am not really a fan of these low power tubes,
but could someone make a marshall micro stack(low power head still
driving 4x12) that would sound like a real stack only less volume?
thats why all us metal players use cheesy pedals. ide love to get a
cranked stack sound at 3 watts so i could jam without rattling the
windows(even thought thats sometimes fun too :) )
Danny Russell
>
> Perfect! It is very encouraging to find out about this -- an actual, not
> figurative, 1/2 watt tube amp. (What output transformer, I wonder?) I have
> done so much research yet I keep hearing about more products. The
> innovative products and packaging approaches are out there, for the most
> part. They *have* been designed -- it's just a matter of raising awareness
> that these provide the solution to the problems faced daily by guitarists,
> especially at home.
>
> Conspiracy-theory time: Where is Marshall? Where is Fender? I don't see
> postings from them, in this thread. It's a good thing that for tube gear,
> they are totally entrenched in the monster-amp paradigm. It gives upstarts
> a chance. Marshall probably *likes* the fact that good tone is only
> available in 50 watt, expensive, very profitable amps. But that's another
> thread. I think Marshall would profit from selling a $200 1/2 watt tube
> combo amp, or other packaging configurations. Would it impact their
> monster-amp profits?
>
> I hope that H&K reissues the Crunch Master and perhaps the simpler,
> lower-power Cream Machine.
I'm 100% percent certain that it is a total conspiracy, and I'm in on it
with both Fender and Marshall, 'cause I ain't building or selling any
micropower amps either. How about you? What's your story? You're
preaching from the hills that the waters fine, but I don't see you out
there swimming in it. I ain't trying to bust your balls, but you asked
the question, to wit: how come these companies are not scooping up the
sure profits to be had by marketing micropower amps? I answer: Your
much smarter than they are, so why not build a batch, find your
price-point, then watch them fly off the shelves, thereby proving your
point with true conviction and passion. I'm willing to bet that you'll
find longer odds than you predict. -Danny
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
leo...@nospam.com wrote in message <3674871c...@news.total.net>...
>
>So heres a question for you - how many people here would buy a 1 watt
>tube guitar amp if one was presented for sale?
If one had the sounds I wanted, I wouldn't care if it had tubes or what.
> And more important - how much would you pay?
As much as how good it sounded.
>If there arn't enough people to warrent doing an assembly line type
>production, there is always the custom one-of market. This price may
>be higher, but thats life. Of course it won't go near the artsy-fartsy
>market of 1000$ and up - I envision something closer to say $200 or
>so.
If you make an amp that sounds better than my Lexicon 284 with less power
for less than $1000 I would want one, even if it didn't have all the
features.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Mark Heustis
Lyle Caldwell wrote in message <1YHc2.1596$jj2.6...@news1.mco>...
>Personally, I'd love to have a very low wattage AC30 type design. Anyone
>know anyone at Matchless?
Kendrick makes a low-wattage combo. I think it's called the roughneck. I
believe it is similar to a tweed champ in design. One 6v6 tube single ended
class A.
Should rate at about 5 watts or so. I think it is point to point with all
quality components.
Mark
Cybermonk
amp.
Dear John Tuber,
Please send information about your 1/2 watt tube amplifier and other guitar
equipment that you offer.
I would like to start a web page about your amp, which could generate some
business and publicity. My site has generated a lot of enthusiasm and I
have written to numerous guitar-gear designers and guitar magazine editors
recommending that they focus on low-wattage power-tube products, with my
site as an organized guide to such products. I want to add contact
information to my web page, but your address is a home address. Is there a
post-office box or business address or phone number that I could add to my
web page, so that people can contact you to order an amplifier?
The industry has been too slow to learn that for very quiet cranked-tube-amp
tone such as at home, power must be reduced by factors of 10, not by half.
Magazines review 20 watt amps, calling them "low power" and asserting that
they are appropriate for home studios and apartment recording studios. But
20 watts is practically as loud as 50 watts, and even 5 watts is still in
the same range; 5 watts is as loud as a trumpet and remains far, far too
loud for most apartments and for many houses. But the entire industry has
been slow to learn and accept this. People *think* that the quiet level
they want is achieved by a 5-watt tube amp; but what they really need, for
that level, is a 1-watt, 1/2 watt, or 10mW tube amp. I have been spreading
awareness fairly effectively, through my web site and the newsgroups and
email to designers and editors, that we need a discontinuous, radical jump,
down several orders of magnitude in power, to reach the goal of personal,
private, headphone-level cranked-tube-amp tone, without the neighbors or
housemates being able to hear that an electric guitar is being played.
There are just a few tube power amps that are truly low-power, though there
is a tremendous demand or wish for private, quiet cranked-tube-amp tone.
One reason that radically low-power tube amps are required for the home
studio, as opposed to the pro studio, is that the home studio is really no
studio at all; there is no acoustic isolation between a control room and
performance room, therefore, it's impossible to clearly hear the monitor
speakers or headphones when the guitar speaker is blasting away at 5-50 watt
levels. Mic positioning, mixer tone controls, and other post-amp processing
thus can only be adjusted effectively during playback of a recording -- when
the guitar speaker is not in use. Thus, for recording or monitoring a
post-processed signal at home, the guitarist emphatically does *not* want to
hear the guitar speaker directly.
Many beginning guitarists, who are unaware of recording and post-processing
considerations, are satisfied with the idea of playing a guitar amp fairly
loudly; they think that that is an appropriate listening level and a
reasonable, necessary fact of life that they have to accept. But for
recording and post-processing, a blasting 5-watt tube amp is impractical,
almost impossible to monitor accurately, and also simply unnecessary: the
world used to be filled with 1/2 watt and 1 watt tube amps, in radios.
Guitarists are too accepting of the status quo, even though it's a looming
problem that they complain about: the amp only sounds good when it is played
at a level that generates complaints from neighbors and housemates. Yet the
guitarists are not demanding low power amps -- they just don't think in
terms of exerting pressure to change what products are available; they have
a certain helpless attitude when it comes to available tube amp power
ratings. The solutions they try for the volume problem are everything
except the most obvious and straightforward. They try attenuators, DI
units, amp simulators, and so on, and none of these produce an authentic
cranked-tube-amp tone, but what's really needed is simply lower-wattage tube
power amps. So I have been encouraging guitarists to ask for truly
low-power tube amps. When guitarists start asking for such products, the
industry will provide them in suitable quantity, with a variety of packaging
approaches (micro-compact combos, head-and-cabinet, rackmount, pedal, floor
processor, and so on).
My site has information about products and projects which are similar to
yours. The Studio amp by London Power (Kevin O'Connor) uses Power Scaling
for 0-10 watts output, and much of the testing during product development
was done at the milliwatt level. The Lexicon Signature 284 has 3 watts for
the left channel and 3 for the right, and can drive guitar speakers directly
*or* use a built-in dummy load and cabinet simulation filter. The
Lawbreaker pedal is a 4-watt amp that supports those same two options --
though 4 watts is too loud for home use, in many cases. The Cream Machine
and the Moonlight Amp project both use a preamp tube as a 1-watt power tube;
the Cream Machine can drive an internal dummy load and cabinet simulation
filter, or drive a guitar speaker. The Guytron, Warwick ProTube IV, and
ProTube IX are heads that have an EL84 driving an internal load followed by
a final, high-power amp; the EL84 is used purely as a
tone-generator/processor, rather than for audible amplification. The AX84
is a collective project, now complete, to build a 3-watt tube amp, with a
custom, traditional metal casing available, and full design specs to assist
modifications and teach tube amp design. The LXH2 amp is an EL84-based 20
mW tube power amp. These and related products are covered in some detail at
my web site, along with resources such as some 20 tube amp design books.
I would especially like to see a 1/2 watt tube amp treated as a signal
processing module and incorporated into various packaging approaches such as
modelling amps, multifx units, software processing systems, heads, floor
processors, and pedal chains. My solution to the "tube amp or modelling
amp" debate is to combine the two; integrate a 1/2 tube amp in the middle of
a multifx processor *before* the time-based effects. The processing chain
would then be the same as the chain that is actually the standard used in
pro studios when you look at the *entire*, actual, processing path all the
way from the guitar's output jack to the mixing board's output jacks:
Compressor
EQ-based effects (wah, phaser, pre-dist. EQ)
Preamp distortion
EQ
Tube power amp
Guitar speaker(s) and mic(s) (and support internal dummy load and
cab.sim.filter as an additional alternative)
Post-amp EQ (like tone controls of mixer)
Time-based effects (post-amp, for amp tone clarity) (like fx loop of mixer)
Post-amp compression (like tape saturation and FM broadcast preparation)
Using today's multifx processors, this processing chain can be implemented
with the following product chain:
Multifx processor 1
Low-power tube amp, speaker, mic (or amp, load, filter)
Multifx processor 2
A few of the best processors, such as the Rocktron Prophecy, can handle both
pre-amp and post-amp processing, with full, ideal processing order; the
post-amp time-fx placement is achieved via customizable fx-loop placement.
Your 1/2 watt amp could provide the breakthrough example and demonstration
that what guitarists really need, to fulfill their goal of quiet
cranked-tube-amp tone, is a milliwatt-range tube power amp, rather than 5
watts, and that such a small amp could be thought of as another processing
module, rather than a public monitoring amplifier, and combined with other
processors, to achieve what the current [preamp] tube multifx units and
modelling amps and can only claim: a harmonious, musical combination of
authoritative, actual, non-simulated cranked-tube-amp tone, quietly, with
complete tonal and effects processing.
_________________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone and Effects Placement. Very
low-power tube amps, headphone-level cranked-tube-amp tone, power
attenuators, dummy loads, cabinet simulation filters, amp emulators,
modelling amps, DI products, speaker isolation cabinets and closets,
integrating a power tube into modelling amps and multifx processors.
leo...@nospam.com
So heres a question for you - how many people here would buy a 1 watt
how much would you pay?
If there WAS a serious market for such a thing - I know people who
could help me build and market this item. I am in Montreal, and there
is quite a large amount of small fabrication going on around here. For
example, my friends brother owns a sheet metal shop - chassis are no
problem. Parts like tubes and trannys are also available. And there
are lots of furniture factories dying to get work. Small boxes would
not present a problem.
Any investors out there? Actually I dont need capitol - I just need
market study! (customers...)
If there arn't enough people to warrent doing an assembly line type
production, there is always the custom one-of market. This price may
be higher, but thats life. Of course it won't go near the artsy-fartsy
market of 1000$ and up - I envision something closer to say $200 or
so.
SO PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS !!!
I don't ask for commitment at this time - merely interest.
Kevin Maier
Melissa and Bill wrote:
> Why minimal controls? I didn't see that mentioned anywhere.
>
> Bill
Why not?? If you are designing/building a small guitar amp... keeping the controls
simple is a good idea. The more you add, the more circuitry is required and using
tubes drives the number of components (along with cost and size/weight) up by a much
higher percentage than with equivalent solid-state. A simple tremolo circuit adds
another tube or two plus a handful of resistors, caps and some pots. The same can be
said for most common functions. I personally dislike passive EQ (outside of basic
Tone) and don't consider it very useful. Active EQ while much better also requires
another handful of parts and another tube... and the additional power supply to run
it. Filaments are where the bulk of power goes in any preamp and input driver
circuitry and is also what generates the greatest amount of heat and hum. Of
course... it's all personal preference here.
Also, there are tons of effects boxes available, so getting fancy is easy. The real
challenge appeared to be getting the "right" amplifier. Is this the only problem
with the list?
KM
ricknovak
RNA?) But I can't imagine them sounding great with less than a 10 or 12
inch speaker moving some air. And if it's too quiet you'll run into
problems with sounds like traffic noise or birds chirping leaking into
the mics and drowning out the raging guitar! :>) I bet you'd have to
put a decent size speaker into some kind of an isolation box to make the
concept work. But I'd love to be proven wrong!
Cheers, R.N.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt wrote:
>
> leo...@nospam.com wrote in message <3674871c...@news.total.net>...
> >
> >So heres a question for you - how many people here would buy a 1 watt
> >tube guitar amp if one was presented for sale?
> >If there arn't enough people to warrent doing an assembly line type
> >production, there is always the custom one-of market. This price may
> >be higher, but thats life. Of course it won't go near the artsy-fartsy
> >market of 1000$ and up - I envision something closer to say $200 or
> >so.
>
Bill Young
preamp..... Bill
micha...@nospammindspring.com wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Dec 1998 05:07:09 GMT, "Lyle Caldwell"
> <cald...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >This is one of the most interesting threads I've seen in a while.
> >Personally, I'd love to have a very low wattage AC30 type design. Anyone
> >know anyone at Matchless?
> >
TubeBlaster
Cybermonk wrote in message <751m7u$50$1...@dns2.serv.net>...
>Using today's multifx processors, this processing chain can be implemented
>with the following product chain:
>
>Multifx processor 1
>Low-power tube amp, speaker, mic (or amp, load, filter)
>Multifx processor 2
>
>A few of the best processors, such as the Rocktron Prophecy, can handle
both
>pre-amp and post-amp processing, with full, ideal processing order; the
>post-amp time-fx placement is achieved via customizable fx-loop placement.
Integrating a low wattage power amp into the signal chain of an effects
processor would be the most useful to me. I don't use effects at all right
now, and one of the reasons is that I don't like screwing around with a
bunch of stuff during setup. It's pretty easy to just plug in a good tube
amp and guitar, and in 10 minutes (including tuning) you're on the air.
Just the simple addition of an effects unit, like an RP-20, annoys me. You
have to plug in that stupid wallwart, and use an extra guitar cord. Then of
course, you can't get the sound of a cranked tube amp because the signal
placement is wrong.
The ideal unit for me would be a head with everything included in it,
including effects processing. If I wanted to play low wattage, I'd flip a
switch on the back. If I wanted to play at 15 watts for a club, I'd flip
the switch the other way. If I wanted to record at home, and/or line out to
the PA, the speaker compensated XLR's would be there for that. There'd be a
stereo effects loop. Also, if I didn't want anything but an all tube signal
path, the effects could be taken completely out of the circuit.
For all this convenience, I'd gladly pay $1500. Of note, the current
modeling amps provide most of these features, except for the tone. The
Line6 AX2 and Johnson Millenium, from an ease of use and features
perspective are about what I'd be looking for, just add a full tube signal
path to the equation, and some flexibility on volume (2 power amps?), and
you'd have a winner (for me at least.)
Wayne
Cybermonk
> So, after reading through some of this thread, I think you are looking for a guitar amp with the following specs. Does this fit the bill?
>1- Power Output: about 1-watt RMS
Yes.
>2- All Tube design
This is not all that important. There is room for a variety of approaches,
anything except the ersatz "hybrid" amp in the sense of tube preamp,
solid-state power amp. (Music Man amps did it the right way, with
solid-state preamp and tube power amp.) The important thing is that there
be a tube power amp somewhere in the circuit. For example: solid-state
preamp, 1 watt tube power amp, dummy load and maybe cab-sim filter, then
solid-state final power amp. The LXH2 20 mW amp combines op-amp with power
tubes.
(It might be best to include a tube rectifier -- I would use a tube for that
before using a preamp tube. Power amp including power supply - *that's*
where the most important, critical tone happens -- preamp distortion is
secondary in importance.)
>3- No loop feedback, so distortion rises nicely when driving hard
Ok. It might be easy to provide a variable control, for flexibility.
>4- Extremely low-noise making it useful for studio recording (via miking or
>direct-out)
Ok. This is not a distinctive factor.
>5- Small size for Apartment use and easy portability
Ok, but not a high priority.
>6- High-Quality unit with a long, stable life.
Ok. This is not a distinctive factor.
>7- Minimal controls... volume, tone, power and possibly a mute switch
Either way: minimal or standard number of controls. If it has such minimal
controls, then I would market this as working best with an outboard preamp.
>8- A small high-quality speaker... 8- or 10-inch?
Perhaps not. For standard conventional combo amps that happen to be very
low-power, I am against undersized speakers and cabinets -- unless they are
specially developed. It does make some sense to pair low-power amp with
low-power speaker, but many people say a low-power amp sounds best through a
standard 4x12 cabinet. I *would* however like to see a 4x12 type cabinet
that only contains a single 15 watt 12" driver, or some similar setup.
There are potentially many ways to package a very low wattage tube amp,
though currently there are very few products with *any* type of packaging,
incorporating a low-wattage tube power amp.
For a conventional but low-power tube combo amp, the Hi-Mu amp provided a
good model but also shows the need to *keep* good designs on the market;
good low-power tube amps have already been designed but many of them are not
currently in production. The Hi-Mu was originally a 5.5 watt amp (which was
radically low power, relative to the other amps in the late 1980's) yet it
had full features and a serious speaker cabinet with 12" speaker. His
approach was, "who says a low-power amp must always be packaged with an
inadequate preamp and cabinet? I have thrown out that rulebook, that
convention." The Hi-Mu provides a good model for one approach, and I also
encourage the industry to provide many other packaging approaches as well.
Your design-point list above is ok, but what I would like to see *first*, is
the following:
Minimalist, inexpensive power-tube saturation pedal - no tone controls or
preamp distortion. Just 1/2 watt or 1 watt. Meant to be used with pre and
post processing. Has internal dummy load and cab-sim filter, but can also
drive miked guitar speaker, followed by post-processing. Like H&K Cream
Machine.
Full-featured power-tube saturation pedal - like Lawbreaker, but just 1/2 or
1 watt, instead of 4 watts.
Full-featured very low power tube amp with 12" speaker
I am not simply looking to buy a single guitar amp for myself. I am trying
to influence both supply and demand so that a variety of low-wattage
power-tube devices is available for all guitarists, and other musicians such
as bassists, blues harpists, synth players and keyboardists, and rock string
players.
There are several packaging approaches that should all be available:
Conventional combo amp
Conventional amp head
Modelling amps incorporating a power tube
Multifx guitar preamp/processor units incorporating a power tube
Miniature tube amp in a pedal configuration (power-tube saturation pedal
such as the Lawbreaker, or the 1/3 rackspace Cream Machine or Crunchmaster.
Minimalist rackmount tube power amp, without preamp, but perhaps with
controls unique to power amps - such as Class A vs. A/B switching
There are also software-centered approaches (looping out to a small tube amp
and miked speaker) and MIDI possibilities (MIDI control of Class A vs. A/B
switching, power reduction, and other settings specific to power amps).
_____________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone and Effects Placement,
low-power tube amps, incorporating a low-wattage power tube into modelling
amps and multifx processors, attenuators, dummy loads, cabinet simulators
Cybermonk
People *are* starting to offer truly low-wattage tube power amps, in various
configurations. Along with other factors such as increased information
about the advantages and appropriate power level of such designs, I feel
pretty confident that the market is ready to give this approach a decent
chance. If this approach doesn't take off now, it probably is just due to
lack of awareness among marketers, designers, guitarists, producers,
recording engineers, salesmen, reviewers, and magazine editors, and will be
able to take off in a couple years. That's why my efforts are devoted to
providing information, rather than a product. Established companies such as
H&K have come out with excellent designs such as the Crunch Master but have
then discontinued production due to lack of manifest demand. Why did too
few people buy the Crunch Master? There was certainly a lot of complaining
about conventional amps being too loud.
But instead of paying attention to this unusual scaled-down actual tube amp,
people pursued other, flashier, hyped approaches, such as multifx units with
a preamp tube, convenient modelling amps that reproduce the voicing but not
the power-stage breakup of tradtional amps (at least not at the desired,
very low monitoring levels), and amp simulators for DI. The Crunch Master
was nearly alone, in a new product category that the various parties in the
industry did not understand or promote. Everyone *wished* that they could
dispose of the power tube, along with the guitar speaker and mic. They
wanted to give alternatives to the power tube a try. Now we have, and many
in the industry have concluded that for the near future, only an actual
power tube (and perhaps an actual speaker and mic) can manage to sound
convincingly like a saturating power tube. I don't write off these
alternative technologies as failures; when they are combined with an actual
power tube, we'll have an ideal range of technology packaging combinations
to choose from.
I really don't want to have to start my own company. My goals are too much
for one company to provide. I would like to see low-wattage power tubes
incorporated into ten different types of processors, from combo amps to
multifx units and stompboxes.
You seem to think that Marshall and Fender are smart. It is easy to argue
that they are not all that smart or responsive to the real needs of home
guitarists. The Power Brake licenses technology borrowed from Groove Tubes'
speaker emulator. The Hot Plate gets better reviews than the Power Brake.
It took years of people deviating from the stock Marshall preamp distortion,
before Marshall finally added more preamp gain (after consumers had already
purchased competing brands of amp, which *were* quickly responsive to market
demands).
The Fender Pro Jr. 15 watt tube amp gets rave reviews, yet they discontinued
the tweed model, and the Bullet amp remains solid state and so hardly gets
any reviews, good or bad, and Fender has no rereleased the 5 watt Champ,
which is a highly respected amp, which Aspen Pittman cited as his favorite
sounding amp, in the first edition of The Tube Amp book.
Too many guitarists are complacent and assume that if they are not satisfied
with the realities of using today's gear, there must be something wrong with
them. The problem is not with guitarists; the problem is poor marketing and
design vision in the established dominant companies. I do not bow to the
supposed marketing wisdom of Fender, Marshall, or Vox. Vox is a story of
foolishness, wishful thinking, and self-deceit, on the part of some of the
managers; the company pretty much self-destructed. Fender and Marshall
aren't that brilliant. Ibanez and then other companies made Strat copies
that were arguably better than the original, and Fender didn't offer a
humbucker in the bridge position until many years after EVH. Thanks to the
traditionalism and less than comprehensive vision of large companies, the
market has room for upstarts who build better, or more relevant, gear to
fulfill the needs of different guitarists.
On the other hand, the market demand is indeed not there yet. Guitarists
are only just now realizing that they have been naive and self-deceived,
expecting a mere preamp tube used as a gain stage, to sound like a
saturating tube power amp driving guitar speakers. So these guitarists buy
a "low power" 15 watt tube amp, thinking that this will prevent the
neighbors from hearing them loud and clear, when in fact they need 1 watt or
less, to achieve that goal. My efforts thus address both parts of the
equation: informing guitarists (the buyers), and informing designers and
marketers and reviewers (the suppliers).
___________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone and Effects Placement, low-power
tube amps, low-wattage power-tube devices
Scott Dorsey
>
>So heres a question for you - how many people here would buy a 1 watt
>how much would you pay?
I've already got one. And I like it. It's got a 50C5 tube as the final
and a transformer with a cut core to handle the DC offset on it.
I think if I were building something like this today, I'd use a 6SN7
with two halves in push-pull as the output tube, since they are dirt
cheap and can put out a good watt or so, and a filament transformer as
the output transformer. The latter, if done well, can produce really
fine tone.
>If there WAS a serious market for such a thing - I know people who
>could help me build and market this item. I am in Montreal, and there
>is quite a large amount of small fabrication going on around here. For
>example, my friends brother owns a sheet metal shop - chassis are no
>problem. Parts like tubes and trannys are also available. And there
>are lots of furniture factories dying to get work. Small boxes would
>not present a problem.
I bet you could make the electronics for less than $20 in parts; getting
a good small speaker is a problem, though. I've used some of the 8"
Quam drivers for baby guitar amps and they actually do seem to hold
up reasonably well though the tone isn't as wonderful as you might like
(though for seven bucks a pop that is understandable).
>If there arn't enough people to warrent doing an assembly line type
>production, there is always the custom one-of market. This price may
>be higher, but thats life. Of course it won't go near the artsy-fartsy
>market of 1000$ and up - I envision something closer to say $200 or
>so.
Most of the cost will be the cabinet, speaker, controls, and assembly.
Get these cheap and you'll be good to go.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Cybermonk
>I am doing some 5 watt 6v6 amps with a classic Marshall style 4 hole
>preamp..... Bill
<emailed for info>
Cybermonk
>believe it is similar to a tweed champ in design. One 6v6 tube single ended
>class A.
>Should rate at about 5 watts or so. I think it is point to point with all
>quality components.
I have fairly detailed information and resource pages for the *relatively*
low-power Kendrick amps. 5 watts is still way, way, way... too loud for
apartments and for many houses; the industry needs to realize this
immediately, rather than in 5 or 10 years. That's still *ten times* too
much power. We've gone from 50 to 20 to 15 to 7, and now we're going to 5
watts, and recently 3, with the Signature 284... isn't anyone getting
impatient? Let's *plan* and project, intelligently. 20 watts was called
"quiet", then we learned it isn't. 15 watts was called quiet, then we
learned it isn't. 8 watts was called quiet, then we learned it isn't. 7
watts was called quiet, then we learned it isn't. 5 watts was called quiet,
then we learned it isn't. 3 watts was called quiet, then we learned it
isn't.
It took years to move from 50 to 3 watts, and most of the industry is still
under the delusion that 15 watts is "quiet", and suitable for typical house
or apartment playing. One can only conclude that the industry has been too
dense and slow to learn: for reduction in perceived volume, power must be
cut by factors of *ten*, not just *two*. It is time that we finally learned
this sound engineering lesson, and jump directly to the right level to
achieve the desired goal. This level seems to be somewhere around 0.5
watts, *not* 5 watts.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g097.htm - Kendrick Roughneck - 6 watt 1x8
tube combo (6550 power tube)
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g095.htm - Kendrick - 118. 5-watt 1x8 tube
combo. $589. Almost a dead-on remake of the classic tweeed Fender Champ.
Point-to-point wiring on a fiber circuit board. 2 in jacks. Vol konob which
is an on-off switch as well. 12AX7 and 1 6V6 power tube, and 5Y3 rectifier.
plate voltage 360 volts NOS phenolic tube sockets, Switchcraft jacks, 3.2
ohm Kendrick 8" Blackframe speaker. Replacement spk available $69.
Better than Champ, it has a hum reduction circuit, Line-out with voltage
divider for line-level signal, and 1/4" output jack.
William Sommerwerck
> I have fairly detailed information and resource pages for the *relatively*
> low-power Kendrick amps. 5 watts is still way, way, way... too loud for
> apartments and for many houses; the industry needs to realize this
> immediately, rather than in 5 or 10 years.
Would someone explain how 5 watts -- or even 50 watts, or 500 watts --
is "way too loud"?
You see, there's this little thing called a "volume control" on an
amplifier. And even if the control goes "all the way to 11," you can
still TURN IT DOWN!
Duh... Duh, duh, duh...
(Please note that no one said "Five watts is much more than I need for a
reasonable level, and I wish they would make a lower-powered,
_less-expensive_ amplifier." No. They said it was TOO LOUD. How can an
amplifier with a volume control on it ever be TOO LOUD?)
Cybermonk
>markel wrote:
>> >Although you do not have to push air "hard", most guitar players want to
>> >push "some" air.
>> There is something to say about the effect of the sound waves from the
>> speaker on the body of the guitar.
> And what about feedback?
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -
<a href="g129.htm">Feedback helps the tone sound authentic; Fernandes
Sustainer ($850), PlusEBow ($120), Maniac Sustainiac</a><br>
> How many Watts does a Pignose have? They've been around forever
>and produce some interesting sounds at relatively low volume but always
>have pretty much the same tone.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -
<a href="g171.htm">List of tiny solid-state or hybrid amps, for blasting,
experimentation, and parts</a><br>
> There's a company that makes an isolation speaker box with a 12"
>greenback in it mic-ed with a shure 57. The speaker faces inward.
>Virtually silent on the outside while the speaker roars inside. Anybody
>use it? I can't imagine the tone would be very good but I'd love to be
>wrong. What if there was some tunnel-y tube type tuba-like thing
>attached to it so you could also get a more distant, room type sound
>with a second mic?
The attachment is along the lines I've been thinking.
When you monitor the mic signal via headphones and gradually close the
cabinet door (with the guitar playing back automatically via digital
recorder), the sound closes up quite a bit, so I recommend using a
parametric EQ and a sweeper/analyzer, and multiple mic's.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g096.htm - Demeter Silent Speaker Chamber
SSC-1, $500
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g104.htm - Folded Space Micro Room, $400
More iso cab articles:
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/index.html#isocab - Speaker isolation
cabinets, cabinet isolation principles
Isolation closets are the best way to go; this approach gives the bass waves
room to develop, and you can put any conventional speaker cabinet you want,
into the closet.
> Nice thread, y'all. Obviously there's a good sized market for a
>high quality, low power tube guitar recording amp waiting to be tapped.
There is a *huge* but latent market; almost all guitarists wish they could
crank an actual tube amp, at a level preventing others from hearing. A
couple such products have been designed and then languished, but I'm
confident that was due to competition from hopeful alternatives that, in the
end, didn't pan out, and due to lack of information and awareness on the
part of all parties in the guitar-gear industry.
Often, unsympathetic or uncomprehending guitarists suggest settling for all
sorts of sonic compromises, saying "you can't expect to get top-notch tone
so quietly; just accept that and use a Rockman when at home." But that sort
of compromise is not necessary; we can do better, with innovative
combinations of well-established technologies.
>Maybe a good product for EveAnna and Fletcher to conspire on? A Manley
>Mercenary Micro Monster Masher? I'd buy one sight un-seen. (Sound
>un-heard?)
I'm not familiar with these designers or their products, so I haven't such a
clear mental picture of the Micro Masher as you do.
> Cheers, Rick Novak.
Cybermonk
>At $200 a pop you'd sell a lot of these, *IF* they sounded good. (An
>RNA?) But I can't imagine them sounding great with less than a 10 or 12
>inch speaker moving some air. And if it's too quiet you'll run into
>problems with sounds like traffic noise or birds chirping leaking into
>the mics and drowning out the raging guitar! :>) I bet you'd have to
>put a decent size speaker into some kind of an isolation box to make the
>concept work. But I'd love to be proven wrong!
Kevin O'Connor, designer of the 0-10 watt power-scaling rackmount tube amp,
and user Scott Hunt, assert that using a serious cabinet with full-sized
speakers is important, but driving them very hard is not important.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g059.htm - London Power - Studio 0-10 watt
rackmount tube amp
Scott concurs that you run into such problems at very low (20 mW) levels,
such as the sound of your picking leaking directly into the mic on the
speaker.
Isolation boxes *do* work, but isolation *closets* sound more open and
require less post-mic equalization.
Cybermonk
mv...@aol.com (Mvsik) wrote:
>>Of course it won't go near the artsy-fartsy
>>market of 1000$ and up - I envision something closer to say $200 or
>>so.
>>
>>
>Thats what I'd go for-
>Something with minimal controls for around $200 is reasonable.
I would buy a good-sounding truly low-wattage tube power amp in a compact
casing, with minimal controls and good tone, for $200.
Is anyone else up for a "power-tube saturation pedal"? It's important to
express serious interest and market demand, to encourage the designers,
marketers, reviewers, and others on the supply side.
Cybermonk
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g109.htm - Rising Force - Paradox (4 watt
EL84), Dwarf and PassAmp (7 watt, EL84's), $133
Listed in 98/99 Guitar Player buyer's guide.
Rising Force - The Paradox. 4-watt head. 1 ECC83. 1 EL84. $133.
Single-ended. 2 in's. Loudness control. Tone controls. Power Mute circuit.
Attitude Selector. Standby. Ground-lift switch. Tone-shaped multipurpose
outlet. Option: reverb.
Handmade in Bulgaria. 1-channel, low-tech. Direct pricing does not include
shipping. Various combo setups available, between $194 and $279 total.
Cybermonk
>Someone in alt.guitar.rickenbacker pointed me to this 3 watt amp:
><http://www.clarkamplification.com/li'lbit.htm>
><http://www.clarkamplification.com/Amplifiers.htm#Lil' Bit>
My information and resource page about this amp is:
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g090.htm - Clark lil' bit 3 watt 1x8 tube
combo, Champ clone, $600 list
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
ricknovak wrote in message <3674C1...@worldnet.att.net>...
>At $200 a pop you'd sell a lot of these, *IF* they sounded good. (An
>RNA?) But I can't imagine them sounding great with less than a 10 or 12
>inch speaker moving some air.
I run my Lexicon Signature 284 (3 Watts per side) through a 2x12. Nobody
said anything about wanting teeny tiny speakers. I've run the thing through
2 4x12 cabs - sounds great.
> And if it's too quiet you'll run into
>problems with sounds like traffic noise or birds chirping leaking into
>the mics and drowning out the raging guitar!
3 Watts per side is still too loud, but just barely. I think of it as
'headroom'.
You would not have a problem with traffic noise in a reasonable studio - 1
Watt Class A cranked is louder than you can sing. 3 Watts is _way_ louder
than you can sing. So unless your studio sucks for vocals, you're OK for 1
Watt guitar amps.
> :>) I bet you'd have to
>put a decent size speaker into some kind of an isolation box to make the
>concept work. But I'd love to be proven wrong!
I think you can test pretty well how this works with a Signature 284, and
that there is no need for an iso box. Isolation boxes have their own set of
problems. Unless you blow speakers on a regular basis, then speaker
distortion is not really that much of your sound and there is no need for an
iso box.
There is probably a 'half power' mod for the S284 that someone could come up
with; and I think at that point I'd be satisfied, even though it's more than
the target range of 0.5-1 Watt.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
William Sommerwerck wrote in message <36752B...@nwlink.com>...
>
>Would someone explain how 5 watts -- or even 50 watts, or 500 watts --
>is "way too loud"?
>
>You see, there's this little thing called a "volume control" on an
>amplifier. And even if the control goes "all the way to 11," you can
>still TURN IT DOWN!
When you are looking for the nonlinear overdriven sound coming from the
power stage, then you cannot turn it down - it gets more linear (cleans up)
and you get a different tone.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Scott Dorsey
>There is a basic point that has not been explicitly pointed out in this
>thread, just taken for granted. Tube amps are conventionally played at the
>rated power level, so that the power tubes saturate to some degree. Backing
>off the volume is not viable, because this would just run the power amp in
>the linear region, which is not where the great, classic tube amp tone lies.
>Therefore, people select a 5 watt tube amp for playing relatively quietly
>(though 5 saturating tube watts is still very, very loud), a 20 watt tube
>amp for playing in a somewhat larger room, and a 50 watt tube amp for
>playing a bigger room, and a 100 or 200 watt tube amp for playing arenas.
Not all of that sound comes from saturating the tube, though! A lot of it
comes from running the output transformer on the ragged edge too. So not
only do you want a small output stage, you want a dinky transformer to go
with it.
Jeffrey S. Jewell
you turn up even a 5w amp to this level, it's too loud for places like
apartments and many houses.
You apparently came in in the middle of the thread and didn't bother to see what
everyone was talking about before tossing out a bunch of "Duh"s.
Jeff
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Cybermonk wrote:
>
> > I have fairly detailed information and resource pages for the *relatively*
> > low-power Kendrick amps. 5 watts is still way, way, way... too loud for
> > apartments and for many houses; the industry needs to realize this
> > immediately, rather than in 5 or 10 years.
>
> Would someone explain how 5 watts -- or even 50 watts, or 500 watts --
> is "way too loud"?
>
> You see, there's this little thing called a "volume control" on an
> amplifier. And even if the control goes "all the way to 11," you can
> still TURN IT DOWN!
>
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
TubeBlaster wrote in message <3674f...@news1.ibm.net>...
>
>Integrating a low wattage power amp into the signal chain of an effects
>processor would be the most useful to me.
>
>including effects processing. If I wanted to play low wattage, I'd flip a
>switch on the back. If I wanted to play at 15 watts for a club, I'd flip
>the switch the other way. If I wanted to record at home, and/or line out
to
>the PA, the speaker compensated XLR's would be there for that. There'd be
a
>stereo effects loop. Also, if I didn't want anything but an all tube
signal
>path, the effects could be taken completely out of the circuit.
Well, the Lexicon Signature 284 and a one space multieffects unit comes
close. You only get 6 Watts (3 per side stereo) but that's pretty loud if
you crank it.
The Lexicon MPX-G2 does all you want for effects (analog/digital, before the
amp/in the effects loop(s), including hard bypass of effects). With the
MPX-R1 foot controller you'd be pretty close to your ideal.
Your problems here are:
1. It's more than the $1500 - the MPX G2 and MPX R1 cost more than that
alone. The Signature 284 is $1000, but can be had in deals for about $800.
2. You don't get the 15 Watts - only 6.
But you get everything else you asked for.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Cybermonk
thread, just taken for granted. Tube amps are conventionally played at the
rated power level, so that the power tubes saturate to some degree. Backing
off the volume is not viable, because this would just run the power amp in
the linear region, which is not where the great, classic tube amp tone lies.
Therefore, people select a 5 watt tube amp for playing relatively quietly
(though 5 saturating tube watts is still very, very loud), a 20 watt tube
amp for playing in a somewhat larger room, and a 50 watt tube amp for
playing a bigger room, and a 100 or 200 watt tube amp for playing arenas.
produce a classic tube amp sound. A cranked tube amp sounds very different
than a tube amp played below its rated wattage, in the linear region.
Perhaps I should clarify this at my amp tone site, which has many articles
and archived postings on this and related subjects.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar - Amp Tone
Grant W. Petty
>
>It took years to move from 50 to 3 watts, and most of the industry is still
>under the delusion that 15 watts is "quiet", and suitable for typical house
>or apartment playing. One can only conclude that the industry has been too
I have a 15W Fender Blues Jr. amp and I rarely turn it past about 2
because it gets too loud. And this is in the basement of my house in the
country, with my wife and kids out shopping, and with no nearby neighbors!
- Grant
--
Grant W. Petty |Assoc. Prof., Atmospheric Science
Dept. of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences |Voice: (765)-494-2544
Purdue University, 1397 CIVL Bldg. |Fax: (765)-496-1210
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1397, USA |Email: gpe...@purdue.edu
Cybermonk
>I think it's more like "consumers take note". The design techniques are
>there to do all sorts of cool stuff but it isn't going to happen unless the
>market looks like it will pay for it.
For these types of products to catch on and stay in production, *all*
parties in the guitar and music industries must become aware of power vs.
perceived volume issues, and the potential for products using power tubes
running at 1 watt and under: marketers, reviewers, salesmen, magazine
editors, guitarists, producers, recording engineers, and others.
Thus my efforts include contacting and conversing with magazine editors, amp
designers, and effects processor designers, as well as guitarists, and
presenting information at my web site in a way that speaks to the outlook of
each party. For designers, there is a Books page with some 20 tube-amp and
tube circuit design books. For marketers, there are product pages
categorizing and describing competing or previously available products. For
guitarists, there are rig setup articles. A comparable cross-industry
awareness shift happened during the 1980's rackmount trend, during the
1990's tube-amp trend, and during the mid-80s to late-90s preamp tube trend.
I have had encouraging exchanges with magazine editors, designers, and
guitarists. There is unquestionably a tremendous interest in this sphere of
product designs; bringing this potential new generation of products to
market and *keeping* them on the market is a separate matter, and definitely
a timely challenge. You could say that I am just trying to accellerate the
inevitable, already visible trends.
I encourage all guitarists to look over the sorts of products that have been
available, and clearly ask the companies to provide more such products. I
have managed to find email addresses for many relevant companies and
designers; other guitarists can do the same. I encourage designers and
marketers to carefully evaluate the potential, nascent demand for products
using power tubes running at 1 watt or less. The same goes for other
capabilities, such as products that permit post-power-tube placement of time
effects, and control over distortion voicing, such as pre-distortion EQ, and
a greater variety of speaker isolation cabinets and MIDI rackmount EQs.
>I think that somewhere between 0.5 and 1 Watt is about right.
Thanks, I'll cite that range, as well as 20 or 50 mW. Apparently, 3 watts
is too loud, but 1 watts and less is the real destination for truly quiet,
private, cranked-tube-amp tone.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar - Amp Tone and Effects Placement, low-wattage
power-tube products
Chris Gieseke
> >with the following product chain:
> >
> >Multifx processor 1
> >Low-power tube amp, speaker, mic (or amp, load, filter)
> >Multifx processor 2
> >
> >A few of the best processors, such as the Rocktron Prophecy, can handle
> both
> >pre-amp and post-amp processing, with full, ideal processing order; the
> >post-amp time-fx placement is achieved via customizable fx-loop placement.
>
> now, and one of the reasons is that I don't like screwing around with a
> bunch of stuff during setup. It's pretty easy to just plug in a good tube
> amp and guitar, and in 10 minutes (including tuning) you're on the air.
> Just the simple addition of an effects unit, like an RP-20, annoys me. You
> have to plug in that stupid wallwart, and use an extra guitar cord. Then of
> course, you can't get the sound of a cranked tube amp because the signal
> placement is wrong.
>
> including effects processing. If I wanted to play low wattage, I'd flip a
> switch on the back. If I wanted to play at 15 watts for a club, I'd flip
> the switch the other way. If I wanted to record at home, and/or line out to
> the PA, the speaker compensated XLR's would be there for that. There'd be a
> stereo effects loop. Also, if I didn't want anything but an all tube signal
> path, the effects could be taken completely out of the circuit.
>
> modeling amps provide most of these features, except for the tone. The
> Line6 AX2 and Johnson Millenium, from an ease of use and features
> perspective are about what I'd be looking for, just add a full tube signal
> path to the equation, and some flexibility on volume (2 power amps?), and
> you'd have a winner (for me at least.)
>
> Wayne
Oooookay....Most newer tube amps have effects loops...use them. I know
it's bitch hooking it all up, but if you want the best of everything
thats the way to go. Once you find your dream amp, then you just have
to find your dream effects processor that won't destroy your tone.
Overall I think the small tube amp idea is cool, but I think there is
still a place for big ass half-stack tube monsters in the studio. For
some tones you need massive low end that you are not going to be able to
get at extremely low volumes. However a few gabos can usually take care
of excessive volume levels, though if you live in an aparment that
problaby won't work due to the low end that gets transfered through
walls, floors, and ceilings (putting the amp up on a chair or table can
help). For lead guitar work, clean tones or lighter overdrive tones,
I'm sure a micro tube amp would work just fine
but I don't know how well they would work for super massive modern
sounding metal sounds (examples: White Zombie, Pantera, Metallica, Fear
Factory, Testament, ect...).
Hopefully someone will prove me wrong and make a super duper metal
machine designed for the studio.
Now if someone can design one of these little micro tube amps for around
$200 and it actually sounded good, then hell yeah I would buy one even
if it wasn't a metal machine, but if its a high-end boutique type amp
like the Lexicon studio amp, I can't afford that type of money when I
could get a regular full size amp for the same amount that is much more
versatile for studio and stage work. Right now I'm really enjoying my
Crate Stealth for deep throated metal tones. Also for recording I use a
lot of solid state amps with pretty good success. Tubes are not the
end-all-be-all in guitar tone. There are plenty of great sounding solid
state amps. It all just depends what tones you are looking for. For
example I actually really really like the distortion on my solid-state
Peavey Chorus 2x12 solid state amp (though most people hate it's
solidstate distortion on the reviews of that amp on Harmony Central).
It's extremely processed sounding and non-tubey but it gives me a deep
growling distortion sound with the chorus that I really enjoy (it
sounds exactly like the guitar tracks the Type-O-Negative song
"Black#1"). It also sounds fantastic on recordings as it goes to tape
very nicely without a lot of micing hassles.
What it really comes down to what you like in guitar tone. I'm
personally very open-minded and use whatever works for song, be it a
bluesy overdrive tone or a skull-crushing metal tone.
I appreciate your efforts Cybermonk and I think it's a good cause and
needs to be pursued, but I just want people to keep in mind that using
itty-bitty tube amps (or tube amps in general) is not the only way to
record good guitar sounds...at least in my opinion. :)
So any disigner's here got anything under $300 to offer in the way of
micro tube amps?
Chris G.
Danny Russell
>
> >I'm 100% percent certain that it is a total conspiracy, and I'm in on it
> >with both Fender and Marshall, 'cause I ain't building or selling any
> >find longer odds than you predict. -Danny
Don't get me wrong, I think the LOWATT idea is great, I just don't think
your price-point is anywhere near realistic. Everything that goes into
a larger combo will go into the microwatt combo. A real tube amp won't
have 48 volt on the plates and/or a diode clipper etc. A real combo
will also have a chassis, a speaker, and an output transformer. The
cheapest REAL micropower amps in my prediction will more realistically
fall-in around $400, maybe $500. Union-workers that insist on buying
U.S. union-made will pay more than that wouldn't they? American-made
doesn't include being assembled a quarter-mile north of the border by
illegals. Maybe "Buy American" isn't even an issue anymore, I don't
know, but any $200 micrpower combo to find it's way to market just in
time for next Christmas will most likely end up being the equivalent of
a ZOOM-505 pedal. All plastic, fragile, made in China, and probably
sound totally shitty like a 48-volt PAIA tube-squasher deal. I bet the
price wont even include the wall-wart. You got the passion C.M., so you
just go ahead and bring a $200 high-quality finished product to market
and prove me wrong. -Danny
Cybermonk
with two halves in push-pull as the output tube, since they are dirt
cheap and can put out a good watt or so, and a filament transformer as
the output transformer. The latter, if done well, can produce really
fine tone.
That approach is used in the 1-watt Moonlight Amp, which is becoming a
full-fledged project at the AX84 site. So if the marketers, designers,
editors, and reviewers fail to come through, guitarists can still build
their own 1-watt tube amp, easily and inexpensively -- though it will be far
better for companies to provide products, so that we have a variety of
packaging approaches available, with ease-of use, such as incorporating a
power tube in the middle of modelling amps and multifx processors --
essentially inserting an ADA Ampulator or H&K Cream Machine circuit into the
middle of the circuitry of the DigiTech 2120 processor, POD Processor,
Rocktron Prophecy, or Flextone amp. The Guitar Player comparative review of
preamps emphasized that the best results, by *far*, were obtained not with a
preamp-tube-based preamp by itself, nor with an Ampulator by itself, but
with a conventional preamp driving the Ampulator, working in conjunction.
"The great Direct sounds just kept on coming." David Torn concurs; he got
exceptional results by running a Rivera amp's preamp through the Ampulator,
into the mixer. The recording engineers could not believe him when he
claimed that he used DI. This demonstrates that the approach most likely to
succeed, with current technology, is *combining* a power tube with a
preamp/processor.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g194.htm - Moonlight Amp - 1 watt tube
amp project
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g023.htm - ADA Ampulator - power-tube
saturation rackmount amp simulator and mic'd cab simulator, using a 12AX7 as
a power tube into an internal dummy load and filter
ricknovak
One thing we haven't addressed in this thread is that we don't
always want the amp to be open throttle all the time. It would be nice
if our micro amp was also capable of cleaner sounds as well. How would
you implement that?
BTW, thanks for all the work you're doing on this on all our
behalfs. You're clearly a man on a mission! Hopefully you're keeping
Fender and Marshall updated as well, although apparently you're not
terribly fond of them. The reality is, where they go, the guitar world
follows.
Cheers, Rick Novak.
Cybermonk
few days, enter this DejaNews query as the URL in your web browser.
This shows most of the postings, from the alt.guitar.amps version of the
thread. There has been only slight splitting of the thread; I am glad
people are preserving the full distribution:
alt.guitar.amps,rec.music.makers.guitar,alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro
_________________________________
Cybermonk
particularly for a rackmount or pedal or floor-unit configuration, and
especially, if it were designed strictly for use with an outboard preamp.
The Crate VC508 proves this point about as well as anything could.
I imagine that some tube radios with a 1-watt amplifier cost less than the
equivalent of $300, back in mid-century.
Crate VC508 - 5 watt 1x8 all-tube combo, $250 list. As I recall, the Crate
site says these are made in the U.S.
I demo'd this thoroughly in Guitar Center. I don't think the preamp or dinky
speaker/cabinet are any good. But the power amp alone
could be worth the $200 street price. Here is how I got the purest
power-tube saturation tone: Compressor, EQ for bass cut,
huge increase in signal level without any distortion, guitar cable plugged
halfway into the headphone jack so that I'm going into
the FX return thus bypassing the Crate preamp entirely and going straight to
the power tubes. Turn the crate volume up all the
way. You definitely hear power tube saturation this way. The next step would
be to slip the speaker wire connectors off of the
speaker tabs, and use Radio Shack tabs and a 1/4 mono inline jack, to form
an adapter. Then run a speaker cable between
that adapter and a 4x12 cabinet or mic'd speaker isolation cabinet. This
way, I'm ignoring the Crate's preamp and speaker and
cabinet entirely, using my own preamp and speaker and cabinet instead.
Vintage Club 8" Speaker
5 Class A Tube Watts
1 EL84 and 1 12AX7 Tubes
Single Channel
Gain, Tone and Level
12"x13"x7.5"
The U.S. made VC508 is 5 watts. A 1-watt version shouldn't be any more
expensive to make, perhaps a little less expensive.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g094.htm - my VC508 information and resources
page
If hobbyists at the AX84 site can assemble a 3-watt all-tube guitar amp for
$200 (which was at least their original goal, I need to check the final
parts price total), then mass-produced 3-watt tube amps should be possible
in that same price range.
je...@op.net
>Conspiracy-theory time: Where is Marshall? Where is Fender? I don't see
>postings from them, in this thread. It's a good thing that for tube gear,
>they are totally entrenched in the monster-amp paradigm.
Let's face it.... until Eddie Van Grody, Mrs Hole, or Marilyn Manson
proclaim their godlike tone, everyone's gonna buy the Testosterone
Inducers.
I mean c'mon.... no one will get a woody over 1/2w!
1/2w is a power measurement for resistors :)
But if they were to do this, they could do it like so:
1. house it in the 100w case
2. have a 100w amp with switch for 1/2 power, pentode-triode, and
1/200 power.
3. don't sell it without the accompanying 8x12 cabinet
4. beat Michael Stipe to a fruit juicy pulp with it
5. Have Trash.. err... Slash stand next to it with a porn star
Lyle Caldwell
Actually, my Zoom Driver pedal into a SansAmp PSA1 gets that metal sound
direct. No excessive volume, all the low end and attitude you'd want.
I never use that sound, but it's there in spades. Seriously. And I'm a
guitar tone snob.
--
Lyle
The RAP CD in Blue web site is at:
http://www.hoohahrecords.com/rap/index.htm
Chris Gieseke <chri...@txdirect.net> wrote in message
news:36755E...@txdirect.net...
Lyle Caldwell
ideas?
I know I need to take it to a tech, just feeling lazy.
--
Lyle
The RAP CD in Blue web site is at:
http://www.hoohahrecords.com/rap/index.htm
Grant W. Petty <gpe...@rain.atms.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:753hd8$b...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...
Lee MacMillan
> $200 is a reasonable list price for a simple, low-end, 1-watt tube amp,
> particularly for a rackmount or pedal or floor-unit configuration, and
> especially, if it were designed strictly for use with an outboard preamp.
> The Crate VC508 proves this point about as well as anything could.
>
>
> If hobbyists at the AX84 site can assemble a 3-watt all-tube guitar amp for
> $200 (which was at least their original goal, I need to check the final
> parts price total), then mass-produced 3-watt tube amps should be possible
> in that same price range.
Maybe so but who, outside of a couple dozen regulars on this newsgroup, is
going to buy one?
Lee
--
Indiana's best equipped hack guitar player.
Remove _no_spam_ to reply.
Chris Gieseke
>
> Chris,
> Actually, my Zoom Driver pedal into a SansAmp PSA1 gets that metal sound
> direct. No excessive volume, all the low end and attitude you'd want.
> I never use that sound, but it's there in spades. Seriously. And I'm a
> guitar tone snob.
>
> --
> Lyle
>
> The RAP CD in Blue web site is at:
> http://www.hoohahrecords.com/rap/index.htm
Which Zoom driver pedal do you have? The old big black and red pedal
(wasn't it called the Zoom 5000?) or one of the newer ones? The old
Zoom equipment had vastly different distortion sounds then their new
stuff. I've also been sucessful at getting some very intense direct
sounds by layering cabinet simulators.
I run my SansAmp GT-2 pedal into my Marshall Mini stack, then from their
I take a preamp out into a Hughes & Kettner RedBox cab sim which in turn
goes to a ART Tube MP preamp, which then goes into my Ibanez VA-3
Virtual amp. This gives me some very intense direct distortion sounds
that sound very heavy and detailed sounding.
Chris G.
> Chris Gieseke <chri...@txdirect.net> wrote in message
> news:36755E...@txdirect.net..
Chris Gieseke
Do you know anyone who has actually succesfully ordered one of these or
is there a distributor here in the U.S.?
Chris G.
Chris Gieseke
You forget that we are talking about a recording amp, not a
"to-get-laid,fire-breathing,wall-of-sound" gigging amp. More and more
musicians, especially guitarists, are setting up home studios. Low
wattage amps do fill a real gap for those who can not max their tube
amps out due to noise restrictions where they live.
However I do agree with you that good sleazy marketing can go a long
way. They should have a full-page add with a picture of some bad-ass
semi-nude model holding it and saying, "I told you size doesn't matter".
Chris G.
Fletcher
>
> I love my Blues Jr! But the reverb circuit hums if I turn it above 3. Any
> ideas?
> I know I need to take it to a tech, just feeling lazy.
>
> --
> Lyle
>
anymore...isn't this thread a bit off topic for r.a.p? Maybe (this is
just a suggestion) that the rest of the entrants should pull r.a.p. from
the list of NG's?
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
Cybermonk
>Hi Cy,
> One thing we haven't addressed in this thread is that we don't
>always want the amp to be open throttle all the time. It would be nice
>if our micro amp was also capable of cleaner sounds as well. How would
>you implement that?
There has been some mention of clean tones, but there could be more. I
would hope that a small amp capable of power-tube saturation could simply be
run at a lower signal level, for a great clean tone.
> BTW, thanks for all the work you're doing on this on all our
>behalfs. You're clearly a man on a mission! Hopefully you're keeping
>Fender and Marshall updated as well, although apparently you're not
>terribly fond of them. The reality is, where they go, the guitar world
>follows.
> Cheers, Rick Novak.
I have never been a brand advocate. I emphasize how to run *types* of gear.
Good tone should be possible using any decent amp or preamp, when run in an
ideal setup. It's good that these giants are not so wise and omniscient as
their presence suggests; these blind spots give startups a chance.
I haven't found email addresses for Fender or Marshall yet. Please send me
their email addresses if you have them. Otherwise I might have to phone
them to get the email address, or even write them a letter. My real
address: cybe...@cybtrans.com
Cybermonk
that many guitarists who don't see a problem with 15 watt tube amps for home
use are young, beginning guitarists, oriented toward the obvious extreme
preamp distortion sound. They aren't attuned to the relatively subtle
character of power-stage saturation.
ricknovak
> I demo'd this thoroughly in Guitar Center.
Ooohhh, so that was you! Now it's all starting to make sense. (Just
kidding. :>)
R.N.
ricknovak
> > $200 is a reasonable list price for a simple, low-end, 1-watt tube amp,
Lee MacMillan wrote:
> Maybe so but who, outside of a couple dozen regulars on this newsgroup, is
> going to buy one?
If just 1% of the people who buy "Electronic Musician", "EQ", ADAT or
Mackie bought it, it would be a huge success. The market exists. R.N.
Cybermonk
>sounds by layering cabinet simulators.
>I run my SansAmp GT-2 pedal into my Marshall Mini stack, then from their
>I take a preamp out into a Hughes & Kettner RedBox cab sim which in turn
>goes to a ART Tube MP preamp, which then goes into my Ibanez VA-3
>Virtual amp. This gives me some very intense direct distortion sounds
>that sound very heavy and detailed sounding.
Where do you use a cab sim filter? Just once in the chain, right? The GT-2
and Red Box and VA3 all have a cab sim filter, I believe. You don't run
through 3 cab sim's in series do you? That would roll off all the highs.
Cybermonk
>is there a distributor here in the U.S.?
I don't know. All I know is on my page. I sure wish all products had an
official web page with full information.
Cybermonk
I'm the one who was looking for a compressor then EQ pedal, all turned to
maximum, with bass rolled off, ignoring the VC508's preamp jack and sending
the abnormally high signal directly to the power stage via a guitar cable
plugged halfway into the VC508's effects loop jack, with the VC508's volume
at max. I would have driven a serious cabinet too, but there were just tab
connectors, no 1/4" Ext Spk jack or inline jack. These two techniques can
be used to isolate the tube power amp of a combo amp, to hear what the tube
power amp sounds like when it's not being crippled by a crummy preamp and
toy cabinet as is the industry convention. For this purpose, I'm now
looking for an extremely strong clean-boost pedal with no coloration,
perhaps the Klon Centaur or Hot Cake.
Cybermonk
processor. It's a non-amp; the idea and main point is *not* to amplify, but
merely to process. The connotations of the term 'amplifier' are limiting
the thinking of guitarists and the rest of the industry, preventing people
from embracing the signal processor and microscopic power scale that would
fulfill their need for sound without volume. I don't want to amplify the
electric guitar; it already makes enough noise, even when unplugged. I just
want to *process* the sound through a power tube. The idea is to
*eliminate* the amp. What amp do I want to use at home? None, just a
processor that contains a 1-watt, practically silent tube power amp. The
term 'amp' here has more accurate, relevant connotations than the term
'amplifier'. The tone, not the gear, is the goal. So to speak, the ideal
is a purely virtual, software, abstract amp, like the Amp Farm -- my amp is
a virtual 200-watt monster Marshall stack -- there it is, on the screen.
(Amp Farm would sound far more authentic if it looped out to an actual power
tube and miked speaker, then more software post-amp processing.)
_______________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar - Amp Tone, headphone-level cranked-tube-amp
tone
leo...@nospam.com
So there is a little interest at least!
BUT there are more questions now -
push-pull or 1 tube out? If the proper tone can be had with 1 tube
like a champ than that would certainly help the price. 2 tubes means
bigger and more complex. Also - 1 tube would self bias and be better
in the long run. But the question is tone.
Speaker? I envision a small box small amp small speaker ? But again
its the tone that will matter here. I wouldn't go with an amp only -
use your own speaker kind of thing because that would screw the tone
equasion!! Some ones speaker could make the amp sound lousy. Also it
would be no good for miced recording use because then you got to get
another speaker and blah blah... this should have several markets:
stand alone practice amp - recording 'device' - miced thru PA on a gig
etc... . Also it could always have a speaker jack.
As for power supply - I think a 35 or 45 volt transformer with a 6volt
winding would be good because they are easily available. High volts
would be obtained with a diode ladder. How many people think a vacuum
tube rectifier is a nessecity? it could be added to the chain maybe.
thats it for now - back to butchering my 5 tube radio.....
>ricknovak <rick...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>At $200 a pop you'd sell a lot of these, *IF* they sounded good. (An
>RNA?) But I can't imagine them sounding great with less than a 10 or 12
>inch speaker moving some air. And if it's too quiet you'll run into
>problems with sounds like traffic noise or birds chirping leaking into
>the mics and drowning out the raging guitar! :>) I bet you'd have to
>put a decent size speaker into some kind of an isolation box to make the
>concept work. But I'd love to be proven wrong!
> Cheers, R.N.
>
OH NO not xmas again...
Thank God I'm an atheist..
O'Connor
> Don't get me wrong, I think the LOWATT idea is great, I just don't think
> your price-point is anywhere near realistic. Everything that goes into
> a larger combo will go into the microwatt combo.
I agree with Danny. The $200 US price point is difficult to achieve if
any semblance of quality is hoped for.
The simplest low-watt power amp that people would be familiar with is a
reverb driver. This is most often a 12AT7 with both sections paralleled
into a single-ended transformer producing about 400mW or so. The tube
and socket cost about $10, the output transformer about $9, and a
suitable power transformer would cost about $12 in quantities and
provide world-wide voltage compliance. A couple of filter caps for $1
each and other low wattage resistors and caps might be about $2.
We're up to $35 and still need input and output jacks, a volume pot and
knob, a circuit-card/PCB/or some terminal strips, a chassis that meets
regulatory approvals-- easy in this case since maximum heat generated is
low and a fully enclosed 20-guage steel box will suffice-- a power entry
socket and a fuse-- this can be internal-- and maybe just for luxury, a
power indicator. All this stuff adds in another $35 but maybe more if
you need any silk-screening on the unit. Some labeling is required for
approvals regarding power consumption. If you add in the cost of
regulatory approvals, then the total COST will be around $100.
With all of this what do we get? A triode power amp that produces no
odd-harmonics-- at least not until you clip the output-- and should
sound "smooth" or "muddy" depending on your opinion. The sensitivity may
be low and require a hefty line level signal to achieve clipping to the
extent that some players desire. This is easy to get, though, from most
preamps with little or no modification, and definitely available from
home-brew preamps--tube or solid-state does not matter.
You could substitute an EL-84 with little increase in cost. Pentodes
create odd-harmonics which most people are actually used to as part of
ALL classis and vintage tones. So this will sound more familiar than the
triode stage above. Which sounds better is up to the individual.
Now-- what we have looked at is the parts COST. Add manufacturing labour
and the price doubles. At distibution cost and it triples. Add the
retailer's margin and it is five times! Of course, the dealer then plays
the "nice guy" and trims off 20% from MSL but he is sSTILL getting
twenty points. The list is then $500 and the street price might be
$400-- if your lucky. Definitely do-able but difficult to sell!
All these numbers rely on mass production and effiecient manufacturing.
A large distribution network and advertising would be nice, too. The
perception by marketers for the "need" and "market viabilty" has
obviously suggested that such a venture would be "unprofitable at this
time".
Fortunately, they are not always right, and the market changes daily.
Just some thoughts
Kevin O'Connor
Melissa and Bill
>
> produce a classic tube amp sound. A cranked tube amp sounds very different
> than a tube amp played below its rated wattage, in the linear region.
>
That may be why I've never liked tube amps. I've
always played them at a reasonable volume.
Bill
Scott Dorsey
>
>push-pull or 1 tube out? If the proper tone can be had with 1 tube
>like a champ than that would certainly help the price. 2 tubes means
>bigger and more complex. Also - 1 tube would self bias and be better
>in the long run. But the question is tone.
No, this is several seperate issues. You can do self-bias with two tubes
as easily as with one. Yes, if you go push-pull, an additional splitter
stage is required, BUT it also means you can use a much cheaper transformer
that doesn't need a split core. In general, push-pull will tend to be
cheaper today. Thirty years ago when you could buy split core transformers
for table radios for a buck at Lafayette, this was not the case.
>Speaker? I envision a small box small amp small speaker ? But again
>its the tone that will matter here. I wouldn't go with an amp only -
>use your own speaker kind of thing because that would screw the tone
>equasion!! Some ones speaker could make the amp sound lousy. Also it
>would be no good for miced recording use because then you got to get
>another speaker and blah blah... this should have several markets:
>stand alone practice amp - recording 'device' - miced thru PA on a gig
>etc... . Also it could always have a speaker jack.
Go out and try a bunch of low priced speakers. Since you're not hitting
the speaker too hard, you can probably get away with a less rugged driver
that isn't intended for instrument amp use. Get a bunch of 8" drivers
out of the Quam catalogue and try them all.
>As for power supply - I think a 35 or 45 volt transformer with a 6volt
>winding would be good because they are easily available. High volts
>would be obtained with a diode ladder. How many people think a vacuum
>tube rectifier is a nessecity? it could be added to the chain maybe.
Voltage multipliers are a pain. Consider some of the flatpack transformers
from Signal... they are low profile PC mount and available with 230V
secondaries for ten bucks or so. You could make a tube rectifier
(maybe a 6X4?) available as an option but I think series resistance before
the final filter cap would have a similar effect.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Cybermonk
>like a Champ than that would certainly help the price. 2 tubes means
>bigger and more complex. Also, 1 tube would self bias and be better
>in the long run. But the question is tone.
I would try 1 tube first, because I strongly favor low cost.
I just don't think high cost is really necessary. This should just be a
very simple, inexpensive tube amp. Too many products get carried away with
so many enhancements, we end up with yet another $800 boutique amp or
high-end rackmount amp. All those enhancements are nice, but the typical
guitarist needs something much more modest and affordable, and low-key, like
a mere distortion pedal, with two or three knobs, that happens to use a
power tube. For a first design, I lean strongly toward simplicity and the
fewest possible number of parts, to counter feature-bloat and the
concomitant high price, associated with high-end products such as the $600
Lawbreaker power-tube saturation pedal. My attitude and reality check is
"Jeez, it's just a simple 1-watt tube amp, how expensive and complicated
does it need to be?" I keep thinking of the original Champ spec in The Tube
Amp Book -- sweet and simple.
>Speaker? I envision a small box small amp small speaker ? But again
>its the tone that will matter here. I wouldn't go with an amp only -
>use your own speaker kind of thing because that would screw the tone
>equasion!! Someone's speaker could make the amp sound lousy.
For a first design, something that would be widely available to many
guitarists, I think I would prefer a head or rackmount, rather than a combo,
because this way, the speaker and mic can be moved away from the amp
controls, in a separate room, and the guitarist might hate undersized
speakers, or might already have a serious cabinet, or might want to buy a
separate serious cabinet along with the head. Most of all, cutting out the
speaker and combo cab would reduce cost. Personally, I would much rather
have separates, so I can pick my own cabinet. Also, combos have problems
with microphonics, because the speaker shakes the tubes.
Reducing cost is the #1 reason why I would first like to see a head,
rackmount, or pedal or floormount amp, rather than a combo with speaker and
cabinet. But in the longer run, all forms of packaging are needed.
Cybermonk
But actual existing examples seem to disprove your figures.
If a simple good amp is inherently so expensive, then how does Laney manage
to offer a 15-watt tube combo for just $300 list? How does Epiphone manage
to offer a 10-watt tube combo for just $360 list? How does Crate manage to
offer a 5-watt tube combo for just $250 list?
________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar - Amp Tone, low-power tube amps
Mike Rejsa
: >Push-pull or 1 tube out? If the proper tone can be had with 1 tube
: >like a Champ than that would certainly help the price. 2 tubes means
: >bigger and more complex. Also, 1 tube would self bias and be better
: >in the long run. But the question is tone.
: I would try 1 tube first, because I strongly favor low cost.
I find that I don't usually like the sound of single-ended amps... a
push-pull output stage is a must for me.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mi...@primenet.com http://www.primenet.com/~miker/
<This signature intentionally left blank>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Dorsey
>Thank you for the realistic pricing, with an effort to keep the price down.
>But actual existing examples seem to disprove your figures.
>
>If a simple good amp is inherently so expensive, then how does Laney manage
>to offer a 15-watt tube combo for just $300 list? How does Epiphone manage
>to offer a 10-watt tube combo for just $360 list? How does Crate manage to
>offer a 5-watt tube combo for just $250 list?
A combination of quantity pricing and tight cost-containment engineering.
They're designed for quick and easy manufacture with as little labor as
possible and the transformers are custom which really brings the prices down
in large quantity runs but brings them up in a small run. Cases and chassis
are shared with other models so they get big economies of scale on them.
That's partly why I was recommending the filament transformer trick. Come
to think of it, you could use a 6SN7 or 6SL7 as a see-saw inverter, and
put the transformer across the two plates directly. That is, you have a
single stage which is both a splitter and a power output stage. You get
half the mu, admittedly, so you'll need at least one more stage preceding
it, but a 12AX7 is cheap. That could save a lot right there.
Chris Gieseke
>
> >I've also been sucessful at getting some very intense direct
> >sounds by layering cabinet simulators.
> >I run my SansAmp GT-2 pedal into my Marshall Mini stack, then from their
> >I take a preamp out into a Hughes & Kettner RedBox cab sim which in turn
> >goes to a ART Tube MP preamp, which then goes into my Ibanez VA-3
> >Virtual amp. This gives me some very intense direct distortion sounds
> >that sound very heavy and detailed sounding.
>
> and Red Box and VA3 all have a cab sim filter, I believe. You don't run
> through 3 cab sim's in series do you? That would roll off all the highs.
You betcha! Nah, actually there's still plenty of high-end, in fact
sometimes too much so. It actually warms and enrichens the sound up
very nicely when I layer all the cabinet simulators together. That's
given me the closest simulation to miced guitar sound so far.
It works great! If you have a bunch of cab sims or processors with
cabinet/amp simulators lying around, try layering them.
Chris G.
Chris Gieseke
Hmmm...are you talking live or on tape. If you are talking about
getting good metal sounds on tape...now I mean *REALLY* good massive
full-bodied metal tones that actually mix well with the rest of a song,
then I bow to you as being a master engineer and I would really love to
hear your recordings. If you have some good recordings with some
examples of what you consider a good metal tone, I would love to hear an
MP3 sample of it. I would be glad to share with you some MP3s of my
recordings using direct recording methods.
I personally find that type of music to be the most challenging type of
music to record and mix well.
By the way...the reason some of us don't see 15+ watt tube amps as a
problem is not always because we are beginner guitarists but because
some of us are able to crank up our amps to insane levels much as they
do in large studios. For metal, small tube amps are rarely used on
commercial releases, though I know occasionally they are. I also do
know for a fact that the solid-state Marshall Lead 12 Ministack has been
used for a few metal albums with good results. There's a million
different ways to go about recording extreme metal guitar tracks, but
nevertheless, it is for me quite difficult, and unfortunatly for me also
my favorite type of music to record. I'm still interested in trying
some small tube amps for this purpose though so I'm not tuning you out
or anything. I just like playing the devil's advocate to keep things in
perspective. Keep it coming!
Chris G.
Chris Gieseke
>
> >I've also been sucessful at getting some very intense direct
> >sounds by layering cabinet simulators.
> >I run my SansAmp GT-2 pedal into my Marshall Mini stack, then from their
> >I take a preamp out into a Hughes & Kettner RedBox cab sim which in turn
> >goes to a ART Tube MP preamp, which then goes into my Ibanez VA-3
> >Virtual amp. This gives me some very intense direct distortion sounds
> >that sound very heavy and detailed sounding.
>
> and Red Box and VA3 all have a cab sim filter, I believe. You don't run
> through 3 cab sim's in series do you? That would roll off all the highs.
I fergot to add...if you're interested in hearing some samples of my
direct recorded guitar tones I can email them to you. I would love to
know what you think of them. Also my track on the rec.audio.pro:
R.A.P. CD in Blue compilation was done using direct guitar methods.
It's on CD#2 Track 14 "Through Her Eyes". Though since then I've
gotten much better at getting good direct guitar sounds but I also use
many different metal tones depending on what the song calls for.
Sometimes it will be blatantly harsh and "direct" sounding and sometimes
it will sound more like a miced guitar amp.
Chris G.