Lexicon Signature 284 vs. London Power: Studio
Cybermonk
achieves these goals including usability and sonically, I cannot say. Owner
Scott has intelligent criticisms, shown at my Studio page, yet still he
implies that it's the only product that is well suited for great, truly
quiet cranked-amp tone.
The 284 and Studio are the two hottest rackmount tube amps for private
amp-cranking at home, and I recommend you compare them in detail.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g059.htm -- London Power: Studio
Inflexibility: only drives a speaker cabinet; no built-in dummy load.
Flexibility: has ideal power attenuation and can play loud at 10 watts or
quietly at (say) 10mW.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g154.htm -- Lexicon Signature 284
Inflexibility: only produces 3 watts (or 3 per channel) -- no more, no less.
Flexibility: can drive a speaker cab or internal dummy load and cab-sim
filter.
You can add a dummy load and cab-sim filter to the Studio to match that
feature of the 284. But you cannot add pre-transformer power attenuation to
the 284 to match the Studio. Thus the Studio inherently supports a broader
range of approaches, with better sound when using extreme attenuation, than
any scheme of using the 284. The 284 has too diffuse of a feature set. It
tries to be a fairly low-power amp while also providing full DI
capabilities. The Studio concentrates on being the best possible power amp,
with flexible features strictly related to power amps (notably the abilitiy
to saturate at both 10mW and 10 watts, as well as 3 watts); it does not also
attempt to provide built-in DI features.
The *Studio* is the hottest design and lowest power -- and most flexible; it
also has *more* power than the 284, as well as less. Other amps have a
built-in power attenuator, but they use a soak approach, *after* the output
transformer rather than integrated into the power-amp stage.
The 284 is too loud for private amp-cranking at home. The 284 has a
convenient built-in dummy load and cab-sim filter, but these were the worst
part, in the full Guitar Player review Nov. 1998.
O'Connor refuses to have anything to do with dummy loads and cab-sim
filters. He wants people to instead turn the Studio down to the milliwatt
level and drive a good standard conventional speaker cabinet -- that is the
way to get the best sound at the quietest volume.
I would buy the Studio, not the 284.
One thing I favor about the 284 is that the same company, Lexicon, also
makes an intelligently designed rackmount preamp/processor with a
well-placed effects loop: the MPX G2. So you can go to this one company and
effortlessly make a great sounding, complete, speakerless distortion and
processing system. Simply insert the 284 with dummy load into the fx loop
of the MPX G2. Place eq and level presets on either side of the fx loop, in
each MIDI channel. Set the 284's controls to one position and leave them
there. This forms a far better sounding, user-voiced modelling amp. To go
all the way, use a miked speaker rather than a dummy load and cab-sim filter
(still remaining in the G2's fx loop, following the 284). But the latter
approach is far too loud; 3 watts is a whopping 43% as loud as 50 watts.
X% louder = 2^log10(P2/P1) * 100%
3 watts is 43% as loud as 50 watts.
1 watt is 31% as loud as 50 watts.
1/2 watt is 25% as loud as 50 watts.
1/10 watt is 15% as loud as 50 watts.
50mW is 13% as loud as 50 watts
20mW is 10% as loud as 50 watts.
10mW is 8% as loud as 50 watts.
So, instead, I want to buy the Studio, which has no dummy load, but is so
quiet, it doesn't need one; just drive the speaker at a whisper level, out
in the open. (There is debate about the importance of driving the speaker
hard.) Doing an important recording? Then, you can turn up the Studio to a
blasting 10 watts to get some speaker response. What is *killer* about the
Studio is that it is *flexible* as far as power level. It's the only amp
that is quiet enough for 3 a.m. in an apartment and loud enough to accompany
drums. This extreme flexibility is worth far more than the convenient but
compromised sound of the 284's optional built-in dummy load and cab-sim
filter. The Studio provides far more important capabilities/features than
the 284. The 284 has stereo -- but you should not mess with stereo until
you have an ideal mono setup, scaled for private playing. Power Scaling
blows away all the other very-low-power amps, because it can go lower, and
because it can also go higher.
A company that recently offered a below-10-watt tube amp is now working on a
2-watt amp. But again, this power reduction is still not enough. Even 1
watt is too loud for private amp-cranking, when driving a serious speaker
cabinet. Everyone needs to study the power/volume equation.
I have not heard the 284 or the Studio. I evaluate these based solely on
design goals and reviews, including reviews from people who have each
experimented with many products for quiet cranked-tube-amp tone.
_________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone and Effects Placement
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Cybermonk wrote in message <77qn9m$1nk$1...@dns2.serv.net>...
> But you cannot add pre-transformer power attenuation to
>the 284
Sure you can. You can put it in the effects loop. A simple resistive load
like a volume pedal or a reactive load if you like. Remember that a reactive
load is also called "a filter". The reason you can't just put EQ after the
power stage of most guitar amps is that you have to dissipate so much power.
At low levels, this is no problem. A lot of the interest in using the MPX-G2
or MPX-1 with the 284 is that those devices have lots of places in the
signal chain where good attenuation can be provided.
I haven't tried it yet, but I believe you can run the slave out of one
channel of the 284 into the effects return of another which would allow you
to stack the power stages. All this Guytron talk is making me curious to
think it through more carefully.
Another trick with the 284 is that you can run one channel dry and the other
wet, or drive different cabs with the different channels.
> to match the Studio.
I don't know if you can match one of these amps with another.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Cybermonk
>Sure you can. You can put it in the effects loop. A simple resistive load
>like a volume pedal or a reactive load if you like.
I don't understand. How is a volume pedal in an effects loop a "load"
creating *power* attenuation before the output transformer? What is being
"loaded" in that setup? My goal is to produce power-tube saturation at
greatly reduced wattages. How can you use a volume pedal or reactive load
in an amp's fx loop, for power attenuation?
Apparently you are proposing this chain:
284 preamp
284 saturating power amp, left channel
284 output transformer, left channel
reactive load
284 power amp, right channel
284 output transformer, right channel
final monitor speaker
This chain permits you to *call* this "power attenuation before the output
transformer". But that is not what I mean; that is the bad type of power
attenuation. Relative to the left output transformer and left power tube,
the power attenuation is occuring *after* "the" output transformer. You
happen to go through an additional power transformer later, but it's too
late; you've already run the first power amp at the full 3 watts, and then
soaked away the needlessly generated power. The good type of attenuation
avoids generating all that excess power in the first place. (We would need
to clarify whether the "load" above is a dummy load or guitar speaker.)
With the 284, to generate power-tube saturation directly driving a guitar
speaker, you have to play that guitar speaker at a full, blasting, 3 watts;
there is no way to obtain power tube saturation, directly driving a guitar
speaker, at less than 3 watts.
A major, important assumption here is that we are using an actual guitar
speaker as the load for any saturating tube power amp, because this sounds
much better than using a dummy load. With the Studio, you can do this
quietly; with the 284, you can't, even if you add outboard dummy loads or
attenuation. The Studio, however,
>Remember that a reactive
>load is also called "a filter". The reason you can't just put EQ after the
>power stage of most guitar amps is that you have to dissipate so much power.
>At low levels, this is no problem. A lot of the interest in using the MPX-G2
>or MPX-1 with the 284 is that those devices have lots of places in the
>signal chain where good attenuation can be provided.
The best way to combine the 284 3-watt tube amp and G2 preamp/processor:
G2 preamp & pre-processing
G2 fx Send
284 fx Return (left)
284 power amp (left) (saturating)
284 dummy load (left)
284 DI Out (left)
G2 fx Return
G2 post-processing
284 fx Return (right)
284 power amp (right) (linear final amp)
284 Spk Out (right)
Monitoring speaker
If you use a full-range speaker for the monitoring speaker, use the cab-sim
filter in the G2 rather than the one in the 284; the G2's would have
programmability. If you use a guitar speaker for the monitoring speaker,
don't use a cab-sim filter anywhere -- but this approach doesn't provide a
finished line-level signal that includes a guitar-speaker curve.
For the best, pro-studio sound and chain, shun the dummy load, and use a
(blasting) guitar speaker there, for loading and for coloration. Then use a
full-range speaker for the monitoring speaker. If you want to use the right
284 power amp for stereo power-amp saturation, you'll need an additional
amp, for final monitoring -- such as the amp in a powered monitor (Mackie
824). If you are into near-silent amp-cranking, you will have to use a
speaker isolation cabinet (miked, or branched with a cab-sim filter). The
Studio is better than the 284 in this (the most common) scenario, because
you can drive a conventional cabinet openly, but at a whisper, while still
directly driving that speaker with saturating power tubes..
>I haven't tried it yet, but I believe you can run the slave out of one
>channel of the 284 into the effects return of another which would allow you
>to stack the power stages. All this Guytron talk is making me curious to
>think it through more carefully.
The main chain I think of first is:
preamp & pre-processing
284 left saturating tube power amp
load
post-processing
284 right linear tube power amp
final monitor speaker
See my "3-stage..." pages for the 5 standard rig architectures I've
identified so far.
The fact that the 284 has two tubes amps isn't terribly exciting, for
constructing a 3-stage amp rig, because the second power amp might as well
be solid-state; you'll probably want to operate it in the linear region, for
linear, final amplification of the already saturated/processed signal. By
similar reasoning, for people who are playing at headphone levels, the fact
that the Guytron's final amp is a tube amp does nothing but greatly increase
the cost of the Guytron. For such quiet playing, it would sound the same,
be less expensive, and be more reliable, and lighter weight, if the
Guytron's final amp were solid-state. Where there is distortion, use tubes;
where there is not, use solid-state.
I pointed out this same capability to O'Connor for one of his two-in-one
guitar amps.
Beware of squealing, in certain chains, due to inadvertant signal leakage
from the second channel back to the first channel. I hit that when I used a
stereo eq as follows:
Left eq channel
High-gain distortion
Right eq channel
The signal found an internal positive-feedback path from the right channel
back to the left channel, aided by the high gain factor.
Cybermonk
>speaker as the load for any saturating tube power amp, because this sounds
>much better than using a dummy load. With the Studio, you can do this
>quietly; with the 284, you can't, even if you add outboard dummy loads or
>attenuation. The Studio, however,
The Studio, however, provides a superset of the 284's capabilities: you can
add a dummy load product and a cabsimfilter product to the Studio to do
everything the 284 does (short of stereo saturating tube power amps), but
there is no way to combine power attenuation with the 284 so as to reduce
the wattage at which the power tubes saturate. You can put a power
attenuator immediately after a power-amp channel of the 284, but that won't
sound as good as attenuation circuitry that is immediately before the output
transformer of that saturating power-amp channel, which is what the Studio
is all about.
Here is the distinction between post- and pre-output-transformer power
attenuation:
Design approach A: post-transformer power attenuation
preamp
power amp
output transformer
heavy power attenuation
guitar speaker
Design approach B: pre-transformer power attenuation
preamp
power amp with integral heavy power attenuation
output transformer
guitar speaker
B, used by the Studio, sounds better than A (used by Guytron, for example),
just as a saturating 5 watt amp, directly driving a speaker, sounds better
than a saturating 100 watt amp, soaked away to 5 watts, then driving a
speaker.
Steve
>
>
> The Studio, however, provides a superset of the 284's capabilities: you can
> add a dummy load product and a cabsimfilter product to the Studio to do
> everything the 284 does (short of stereo saturating tube power amps)
Assuming the Studio sounds as good as it claims to, the
BIGGEST problem with the amp is it's PRICE!!
$2,279+ship! According to the O'Connor web site.
The Lexicon 284 goes for around $800.
With the price being so high, and the amps "made to order"
I can't imagine many people buying one, not at least
until there are some detailed objective reviews available.
Steve
Paul Braunbehrens
is no volume control AFTER the power stage. This means that adjusting the
distortion of the power stage also affects the volume and there is no way
to control that. I'm still looking for a little box with a single power
tube in it in a class A config with two knobs, input and ouput volume.
Cheers,
--
Interested in Digital Audio on the Mac? Check out this free resource:
http://www.daw-mac.com
For all you automated e-mail spammers, the F.C.C.:
rhu...@fcc.gov jqu...@fcc.gov sn...@fcc.gov rch...@fcc.gov
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Cybermonk wrote in message <77qumq$1nk$6...@dns2.serv.net>...
>>>you cannot add pre-transformer power attenuation to the 284
>
>
>>Sure you can. You can put it in the effects loop. A simple resistive load
>>like a volume pedal or a reactive load if you like.
>
>I don't understand. How is a volume pedal in an effects loop a "load"
>creating *power* attenuation before the output transformer?
Any source of attenuation or dissipation can be called a load. And since
it's in front of one power section, it's therefore in front of the output
transformer as well.
> What is being "loaded" in that setup?
The amp.
>Apparently you are proposing this chain:
>
>284 preamp
>284 saturating power amp, left channel
>284 output transformer, left channel
>reactive load
>284 power amp, right channel
>284 output transformer, right channel
>final monitor speaker
That's one way to do it. You would actually use the internal reactive loads
of the 284 by just taking the speaker emulation outs of the left side into
the right channel power section.
>This chain permits you to *call* this "power attenuation before the output
>transformer". But that is not what I mean; that is the bad type of power
>attenuation. Relative to the left output transformer and left power tube,
>the power attenuation is occuring *after* "the" output transformer.
Output transformers are typically quite linear, some to within about 120dB.
This means you can apply the inverse filter to the output transformer quite
accurately by EQ in the load. That chain will have essentially the effect of
only one output transformer; the right channel.
>With the 284, to generate power-tube saturation directly driving a guitar
>speaker, you have to play that guitar speaker at a full, blasting, 3 watts;
The chain I suggest gives you saturation of the first power tube, the sound
of which can be attenuated before the second gain stage, which if run clean
will give you the power tube saturation but delivering quite a bit less than
the full 3 Watts at the final output.
>A major, important assumption here is that we are using an actual guitar
>speaker as the load for any saturating tube power amp, because this sounds
>much better than using a dummy load.
It's pretty much a false assumption if you are careful about the dummy load.
The problem with dummy loads for big amps is that you really can't do a lot
with them since you have to dissipate so many Watts. With the 3 Watts of one
side of the 284, it's not trivial, but it's not a particularly exigent
attenuation requirement.
You can get an extremely transparent loading through a purely resistive
load, which steps down the signal to where you can apply just about any
filter technology you want to it; so you can afford a very close approximate
realization of the speaker.
>>Remember that a reactive
>>load is also called "a filter". The reason you can't just put EQ after the
>>power stage of most guitar amps is that you have to dissipate so much
power.
>>At low levels, this is no problem. A lot of the interest in using the
MPX-G2
>>or MPX-1 with the 284 is that those devices have lots of places in the
>>signal chain where good attenuation can be provided.
>
>The best way to combine the 284 3-watt tube amp and G2 preamp/processor:
>
>G2 preamp & pre-processing
>G2 fx Send
>284 fx Return (left)
>284 power amp (left) (saturating)
>284 dummy load (left)
>284 DI Out (left)
>G2 fx Return
>G2 post-processing
>284 fx Return (right)
>284 power amp (right) (linear final amp)
>284 Spk Out (right)
>Monitoring speaker
Not for me. I run guitar into the G2, out the G2 into the 284. Then stereo
send back to the G2 and stereo return back to the 284 and stereo out to the
stereo cab. Live I'd probably use the two 1x12s separately miked and run a
submix along with my keys direct to the board.
A lot of guitar players don't believe in stereo. As a keyboard player I
don't come from there. I run very wide stereo whenever possible. A lot of
former Rhodes players will not give up the stereo tremolo effect, and I'm
one of them.
> If you use a guitar speaker for the monitoring speaker,
>don't use a cab-sim filter anywhere -- but this approach doesn't provide a
>finished line-level signal that includes a guitar-speaker curve.
It does when you run the cab mikes through your submixer.
>The fact that the 284 has two tubes amps isn't terribly exciting, for
>constructing a 3-stage amp rig, because the second power amp might as well
>be solid-state;
Another nonlinear gain stage can always be interesting. I don't really
groove on cascading gain stages but there are some sounds that you'd want to
use that for.
>you'll probably want to operate it in the linear region, for
>linear, final amplification of the already saturated/processed signal.
Actually, I don't agree. There are times when cascading _nonsaturating_
stages gives you a nice smooth overdrive. Different sounds call for
different decisions.
>Beware of squealing, in certain chains, due to inadvertant signal leakage
>from the second channel back to the first channel. I hit that when I used
a
>stereo eq as follows:
There's very little crosstalk in the 284 as far as I've been able to
discern.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
tommya...@my-dejanews.com
guytron....the tron blew it out of the water !!!!!!along with every other amp
i could find. i now own two!!!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
O'Connor
> >the 284
>
This is not what was meant by "pre-transformer attenuation". Cyb was
refering to the Power Scaling technique used in the STUDIO amp which
allows the amp to maintain its tone while power output is dialled down
to near-zero. There are no power attenuaters per se and it is not just a
starved splitter as in other designs, it is a power stage control
method.
> > to match the Studio.
>
> I don't know if you can match one of these amps with another.
Exactly! Each has its specialties with very little over-lap. Later this
year, we will be introducing a fully integrated guitar amp incorporating
Power Scaling that will do what the 284 does both louder and quieter,
but again, without any speaker output attenuators.
Have fun
Kevin O'Connor
Alan Thompson
watts"! Do you live in a fucking monastery?
A.T.
pietrzak
As I understand it, he lives in an apartment complex where musical
instruments are, by contract, not allowed. So, he is on a personal mission
to find an amp that allows him to jam so that it can't be heard much past
the next room (So a 3 watt per channel amp like a Lex is too loud). And, he
wants this amp to be around $250 to $300 and come as a combo if possible. He
does not like headphones, or amp modeling. For some reason the enclosed
mic'd speaker cab is not of interest to him either.
As I live in a townhouse, and have my whole adult life, I understand to
some extent, but am also aware that to some extent it is a personal mission
for him (Don't misunderstand, that is cool ... I have my own missions, as
most of us do). However, I have been able to get decent distortion tones
from my Blues Junior (and my Crate before I sold it) which were not
difficult for the neighbors to live with ... as have others I know in
apartments. But, no matter the device, for me there is no similar
experience to being physically hit by the distortion from a cranked amp. So
the experience will be very different for me for a low watt amp no matter
what it has for specifications This is the same reason I don't rarely like
to listen to George Thorogood at low volumes. It just isn't the same
experience ... when George comes on I invariably reach for the volume
control and crank it up. But, Cyber obviously sees this differently than I
do ...
Dale
Alan Thompson <Zomb...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:36A1C828...@worldnet.att.net...
Cybermonk
>> add a dummy load product and a cabsimfilter product to the Studio to do
>> everything the 284 does (short of stereo saturating tube power amps)
>Assuming the Studio sounds as good as it claims to, the
>BIGGEST problem with the amp is it's PRICE!!
>$2,279+ship! According to the O'Connor web site.
Yes, the London Power site shows a price of $2279.
http://www.wwdc.com/~power/pwr-prod.htm
I seem to recall designer Kevin O'Connor saying that the price at the site
would be changed to $1150, which is what my information page says.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g059.htm -- Studio
I have emailed him to determine the real price.
The Signature 284 is $1000 list.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g154.htm -- 284
Cybermonk
>I didn't like the 284 all that much, returned mine. With this amp there
>is no volume control AFTER the power stage. This means that adjusting the
>distortion of the power stage also affects the volume and there is no way
>to control that. I'm still looking for a little box with a single power
>tube in it in a class A config with two knobs, input and ouput volume.
That is like having a distortion box without a Level/Volume control, just a
Gain/Distortion control. As you dial in distortions from zero to moderate,
the volume coming out of the pedal would increase greatly.
Amps with a built-in dummy load should have three Level knobs:
o Preamp distortion gain
o Power-amp saturation gain
o Final monitoring level
What you are describing is exactly a strictly power-tube saturation pedal.
Your two Level controls would be:
o Power-amp saturation gain
o Final monitoring level
For preamp distortion control and for tone controls, you could use this
pedal chain:
o Distortion pedal
o EQ pedal
o Power-tube saturation pedal
You could also follow that by another EQ pedal.
Cybermonk
>>speaker, you have to play that guitar speaker at a full, blasting, 3 watts;
>The chain I suggest gives you saturation of the first power tube, the sound
>of which can be attenuated before the second gain stage,
*That* saturating power tube is not directly driving a guitar speaker, just
a dummy load -- so the signal won't sound as good as it could. (You debate
this below.)
>which if run clean
>will give you the power tube saturation but delivering quite a bit less than
>the full 3 Watts at the final output.
>>A major, important assumption here is that we are using an actual guitar
>>speaker as the load for any saturating tube power amp, because this sounds
>>much better than using a dummy load.
>It's pretty much a false assumption if you are careful about the dummy load.
>The problem with dummy loads for big amps is that you really can't do a lot
>with them since you have to dissipate so many Watts. With the 3 Watts of one
>side of the 284, it's not trivial, but it's not a particularly exigent
>attenuation requirement.
>You can get an extremely transparent loading through a purely resistive
>load, which steps down the signal to where you can apply just about any
>filter technology you want to it; so you can afford a very close approximate
>realization of the speaker.
Still, from everything I've read, a dummy load won't sound as good as a
guitar speaker. A guitar speaker shapes the tone in two distinct,
overlapping ways: it affects the power tube saturation character by loading
them a certain way, and it produces a certain audible response curve when
the speaker is listened to. I'm thinking of this as coloration from
backward effects (from speaker to power tube) and forward effects (from
speaker to air/ear). However, more research is needed, including the
approach you are suggesting -- some sort of RLC filtering up at the 3 watt
level rather than line level.
>>>Remember that a reactive
>>>load is also called "a filter". The reason you can't just put EQ after the
>>>power stage of most guitar amps is that you have to dissipate so much
>power.
>>>At low levels, this is no problem. A lot of the interest in using the
>MPX-G2
>>>or MPX-1 with the 284 is that those devices have lots of places in the
>>>signal chain where good attenuation can be provided.
>>
>I run guitar into the G2, out the G2 into the 284. Then stereo
>send back to the G2 and stereo return back to the 284 and stereo out to the
>stereo cab. Live I'd probably use the two 1x12s separately miked and run a
>submix along with my keys direct to the board.
I think you are doing the following:
G2 preamp
284 preamp
G2 digital fx (stereo)
284 power amps (stereo)
Writing this out to include jacks, yields:
guitar
G2 In jack
G2 preamp
G2 fx Send jack
284 In jack
284 preamp
284 fx Send jacks
G2 fx Return jacks
G2 digital fx
G2 Out jacks
284 fx Return jacks
284 tube power amps
284 Spk Outs
Stereo guitar speaker cabinet
Live:
Two 1x12 guitar speaker cabinets, separately miked
Run a submix along with my keys direct to the board.
>>The fact that the 284 has two tubes amps isn't terribly exciting, for
>>constructing a 3-stage amp rig, because the second power amp might as well
>>be solid-state;
>Another nonlinear gain stage can always be interesting. I don't really
>groove on cascading gain stages but there are some sounds that you'd want to
>use that for.
Yes, this could be interesting:
EQ/level 1
saturating tube power amp 1
dummy load
EQ/level 2
saturating tube power amp 2
guitar speaker and mic
EQ/level 3
When inexpensive power-tube saturation pedals become available, it will be
as easy to experiment with multiple stages of power-tube saturation in
series as it currently is to experiment with multiple distortion boxes in
series.
There are various sub-options, but I would not run two speaker eq curves in
series (from a miked guitar speaker or from a cab-sim filter), though
someone did claim good results from running 3 cab-sim filters in series.
__________________________________
Don Gauthier
perfect then just go to a great studio in the area and record with some great
amps. Other than that, simple, play for yourself music doesn't need super fancy
equipment.
Don
Cybermonk
>>Cybermonk, you are really weird! I love the part about "a full, BLASTING,
>>3 watts"! Do you live in a fucking monastery?
Do you know how very loud 3 watts is? 3 watts is a whopping 43%, almost
*half*, as loud as 50 watts, when driving a serious speaker cabinet. 50
watts is way way too loud for an apartment, so 3-5 watts is way too loud.
From http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g112.htm:
X% louder = 2^log10(P2/P1) * 100%
15 watts is 70% as loud as 50 watts.
5 watts is 50% as loud as 50 watts.
3 watts is 43% as loud as 50 watts.
1 watt is 31% as loud as 50 watts.
1/2 watt is 25% as loud as 50 watts.
1/10 watt is 15% as loud as 50 watts.
10mW is 8% as loud as 50 watts.
>As I understand it, he lives in an apartment complex where musical
>instruments are, by contract, not allowed.
I've lived in rented houses as well as apartments, that have this
requirement. I am breaking the agreement even when I play the guitar
unplugged. Even playing a classical guitar would break the agreement.
Therefore, it's not just a matter of not playing at a level that bothers the
neighbors; the neighbors must be literally *unable to detect* that I even
*have* a musical instrument. This is perfectly achievable; it can be
accomplished without any technological difficulty; it is simply a matter of
designing a regular 1/2 watt tube amp, using conventional, long-established
circuits.
>So, he is on a personal mission
>to find an amp that allows him to jam so that it can't be heard much past
>the next room (So a 3 watt per channel amp like a Lex is too loud).
I am not alone in this mission; quite the opposite. What guitarist would
*not* love to be able to get actual cranked-tube-amp tone at the same volume
level as listening to a TV?
My latest proposal is for conventional guitar amps that have two separate
tube power amps: 1/2 watt and 30 watts. This would be cost-effective due to
sharing the chassis, preamp, power supply, and speaker system.
>He wants this amp to be around $250 to $300 and come as a combo if possible.
The stripped-down version of a 1/2-1 watt tube amp should be priced like the
Crate VC508, Laney LC15, or Fender Pro Jr.
Just as preamp tubes were added to various product configurations, a 1/2
watt tube power amp should be integrated into various product packaging
approaches: combo amp, head and cab, stompbox, rackmount, and so on.
In a stripped-down pedal configuration, the price should be only a little
more than the price of a Tube King, Tube Driver, or Real Tube -- distortion
pedals with preamp tube. The least expensive power-tube saturation pedal
would have no preamp; it would intended for use in a chain such as:
Distortion pedal
EQ pedal
Power-tube saturation pedal
Miked guitar speaker
EQ pedal
>He does not like headphones,
The best sound is obtained through power tubes directly driving a miked
guitar speaker. That is why I must not eliminate the guitar speaker, using
a dummy load and/or headphones instead.
For monitoring a fully-processed signal, both approaches are required:
reference headphones and full-range studio monitor speakers.
>He does not like amp modeling.
What I don't like is the attempt to eliminate the power tubes, output
transformer, and/or guitar speaker. These are crucial elements that must be
supported as the default, to have a great-sounding amp rig capable of
producing a wide spectrum of classic amp sounds. I am greatly anticipating
the convergence of amp-modelling technology and actual power tubes and miked
guitar speaker. Imagine a modelling amp designed around the Guytron
"preamp" (tube preamp, low-wattage tube power amp, and dummy load). To
obtain even better sound, imagine that with a miked guitar speaker rather
than the dummy load. Amp modelling does not compete with low-wattage tube
amps; these are potentially intersecting technologies. The best amp
modelling technologies will very likely be integrated with the best
low-wattage tube-amp technologies, due to competitive pressure, demand for
better tone and quieter volume, and due to increased awareness of amp-tone
principles and design approaches across the industry (among designers,
reviewers, marketers, and guitarists).
>For some reason the enclosed mic'd speaker cab is not of interest to him either.
Speaker isolation cabinets are of very great interest to me and other
guitarists who are experimenting with quiet cranked-tube-amp tone. There
are several types of loads for low-wattage power tubes, and we need to have
many more products and research with all of these approaches. In order of
increasing deviation from the standard:
Guitar speaker in a conventional cabinet.
Guitar speaker in a conventional cabinet, placed in a large isolation box or
insulated closet or room.
Guitar speaker in an isolation cabinet.
Coneless guitar speaker
Dummy load and cab-sim filter
For best sound (but highest volume), use a guitar speaker in a conventional
cabinet. That is the starting point. Once you have a great rig with this
load setup, as a reference point, then you can attempt to use an approach
that is less loud. If you are in an apartment or hotel room, and you insist
on getting the best sound, by using saturated power tubes directly
interacting with a guitar speaker in a conventional cabinet, you will need
the lowest-wattage tube power amp you can get (10mW-1W).
>As I live in a townhouse, and have my whole adult life, I understand to
>some extent, but am also aware that to some extent it is a personal mission
>for him.
Mine is a "personal" commitment to fast-forwarding the industry, but this
mission is a shared mission; there are many of us actively researching
products for arbitrarily quiet cranked-tube-amp tone -- look at the DejaNews
listings on the product pages at my site. We have formed a research
network, and my web site is a repository gathering our research and
presenting it in summary form, for each other and the designers and the many
other guitarists who share this same goal of private cranked-amp tone.
>However, I have been able to get decent distortion tones
>from my Blues Junior (and my Crate before I sold it) which were not
>difficult for the neighbors to live with ... as have others I know in
>apartments.
"Not loud enough for the neighbors to complain when they hear it" is not
nearly quiet enough. The neighbors must not hear it at all -- any more than
they hear TV sound leakage, or leakage from a boombox played at
background-music level. There is no technological reason for guitar amps to
be unavailable (for saturation) at the same volume levels as a TV or a
boombox played quietly. Guitarists have given in and learned to live with
the fact that cranked-tube-amp tone requires sound leakage -- but it is
simply not true.
>But, no matter the device, for me there is no similar
>experience to being physically hit by the distortion from a cranked amp. So
>the experience will be very different for me for a low watt amp no matter
>what it has for specifications This is the same reason I don't rarely like
>to listen to George Thorogood at low volumes. It just isn't the same
>experience ... when George comes on I invariably reach for the volume
>control and crank it up. But Cybermonk obviously sees this differently than I do.
Listening to an amp or stereo quietly does not sound as good as listening at
loud levels. But the ability to saturate a tube amp at arbitrarily quiet
levels opens up far more sonic flexibility than keeping the power tubes
barely engaged, and is practical for playing privately at home for long
hours, at any time.
Why do guitarists acquiesce and accept whatever options happen to be
currently available? There is applause as 50 watt amps are complemented by
15 watt amps, then more as 5 watt amps then 3 watt amps become available.
Why then do people balk at the suggestion that we should not stop there, but
instead should accellerate this trend in reducing power by orders of
magnitude? You agree that the move from 50 watts to 3 watts is good,
appropriate, and reasonable, yet you declare that the move any further is
extremist and unnecessary -- despite 3 watts being 43%, nearly *half* as
loud as 50 watts. Why stop at half as loud as 50 watts? Why not keep
going, toward 1% as loud? There is no technological reason to stop here; 3
watts is not some sort of impassable barrier.
_________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone and Effects Placement, quiet
cranked-tube-amp tone
Scott & Kathryn Colborn
The Studio by London Power is $1,280 plus shipping. I've exchanged
e-mail with Kevin and he seems to be a real good guy, very knowledgeable.
When I decide to part with my monster `74 Marshall Super Lead 1/2 stack, I'm
considering purchasing the Studio from Kevin/London Power. It seems to be
about right for cranked stage power, and very versatile for recording. I
wish Kevin had some sound bites on his site so we could hear the amp!
Walk in Beauty, Peace. Scott
Scott & Kathryn Colborn
response to my question, Kevin said the amp is an all tube audio path, with
(2) 12AX7's and (2) 6V6's. Here is the site address for London Power:
www.londonpower.com Good informative site.
Cybermonk
>Just get a Flextone POD and have fun recording. If the point is to have it
>perfect then just go to a great studio in the area and record with some great
>amps. Other than that, simple, play for yourself music doesn't need super fancy
>equipment.
>Don
Like the Flextone amp when played quietly, the POD processor sounds
dynamically flat and only produces the preamp and eq sound of classic amps
-- omitting the most distinctive factor, tube power-stage saturation. This
produces 2nd-rate or 3rd-rate sound.
Supposing that a 1-watt amp can't sound as good as a 50-watt amp (debatable;
5-watt amps have gotten great reviews), but still sounds way better than a
solid-state amp, I would rate the options as follows (suppose we are running
each of these near the onset of power-stage distortion):
1st-rate tone: high-wattage tube amp
2nd-rate tone: very low-wattage tube amp
3rd-rate tone: solid-state amp, TS-type hybrid amp, modelling amp
You recommend that guitarists either settle for solid-state amp sound, or
spend the time and money to use a professional recording studio -- rather
than designing, buying, and cranking a 1-watt tube amp. Why? What is your
justification for avoiding using a 1-watt tube amp, and instead using a
power-tubeless modelling amp or a pro studio? There is no reason to avoid
continued reduction of power from 50 watts to 15, 10, 5, 3, and then beyond
to 1 watt, 1/2 watt, and less. Particularly home-friendly will be the
combination of amp modelling technology and low-wattage tube power amp
technology. POD/Flextone technology is not really an alternative to
low-power tube amps; rather, both types of products should be integrated
into one, for ease of use combined with great, non-simulated
cranked-tube-amp tone. (What would be "simulated" in this approach is a
*variety* of tube amps, simulated by using a single actual tube amp,
combined with distortion-voicing presets for the preamp and tube power amp.)
Do you assert that designers should not offer 10mW-1W tube amps, and that
people should not buy amps that can produce power-tube saturation at that
private volume level? If so, why not? Why is a solid-state modelling amp
(played quietly), or an amp simulator, more desirable than a 1 watt tube
amp? Why should a guitarist spend the time and money to use a pro recording
studio, instead of just cranking a 1-watt amp in the comfort of their home?
You offer these two recommendations as better than ultra-low-wattage amps,
but you have not provided justifications for your advice.
Cybermonk
>i got to play the lexicon for about a half hour at the namm show...and a
>guytron....the tron blew it out of the water !!!!!!along with every other amp
>i could find. i now own two!!!
What 284 setup did you use? This would be a fair comparison of the 284 and
Guytron:
284 Setup A:
284's preamp
284's left power amp (saturating)
284's left dummy load (cab-sim filter disengaged)
284's right power amp (played at 1 watt)
Marshall 4x12 cabinet with Vintage 30's
vs.
Guytron's preamp
Guytron's low-wattage power amp (saturating)
Guytron's dummy load
Guytron's final power amp (played at 1 watt)
Marshall 4x12 cabinet with Vintage 30's
The Guytron has an unfair advantage: it is an integrated system, including
the guitar speakers and cabinet. I also expect that it has better preamp
distortion voicing than the 284. As I see it, the Guytron is meant to be an
excellent preamp, power amp, and speaker system (for quiet cranked-amp
tone); the 284 is just meant to be an excellent power amp (for quiet
cranked-amp tone).
284 Setup B:
Typical decent outboard preamp
284 power amp
Great speaker cabinet (not the built-in dummy load)
I would expect setup B to sound better than the Guytron, which uses a dummy
load.
The Guytron, however, would be more flexible as far as the monitoring
volume; the above 284-based rig would blast the guitar speaker at the full
volume produced by 3 watts, a whopping 43% as loud as 50 watts. The Guytron
has the advantage, compared to 284 setup B, because it can play its complete
distortion sound far quieter (as well as far louder) and less obtrusively.
________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone and Effects Placement, quiet
cranked-tube-amp tone
Cybermonk
>I didn't like the 284 all that much, returned mine. With this amp there
>is no volume control AFTER the power stage. This means that adjusting the
>distortion of the power stage also affects the volume and there is no way
>to control that.
Yes it does have such a volume control, if you set up the two channels and
the preamp/power amp divides the correct way.
284 preamp
284 left power amp, saturating
284 left dummy load
284 left Line Out jack
Patch cable
284 right fx Return jack (right pwr-amp In jack)
284 right power amp (linear)
284 right Spk Out jack
Whenever you see an fx loop, that's great -- you have two devices instead of
one. Think of the 284 as three separate boxes that you can chain any way
you want:
o Preamp
o Left power amp and optional dummy load and optional cab-sim filter
o Right power amp and optional dummy load and optional cab-sim filter
>I'm still looking for a little box with a single power
>tube in it in a class A config with two knobs, input and ouput volume.
If there is such a box, it's probably at my site and you could research that
particular feature. The H&K Crunch Master might have 3 level controls
(preamp dist gain, tube power-amp gain, final monitoring volume). Maybe the
Interstellar Overdrive.
_________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone, quiet cranked-amp tone
Cybermonk
>Just get a Flextone POD and have fun recording. If the point is to have it
>perfect then just go to a great studio in the area and record with some great
>amps. Other than that, simple, play for yourself music doesn't need super fancy
>equipment.
>Don
In my call for 10mW, 1/2-watt, and 1W tube amps, I am not proposing "super
fancy equipment" -- not necessarily, at least. Instead of using new tube
circuit designs, you could simply combine a conventional 30 watt amp with a
conventional 1-watt amp -- as separate products or as a single integrated
product with both amps sharing the preamp, power supply, and chassis.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Cybermonk wrote in message <77tl19$dhv$3...@dns2.serv.net>...
>
>Still, from everything I've read, a dummy load won't sound as good as a
>guitar speaker.
Let me help you out, then. If you take care, you can construct a dummy load
which is essentially indistinguishable from a speaker being driven in a
weakly nonlinear regime. Unless you blow your speakers every few hours of
playing or so you're in the weakly nonlinear regime.
So unless you're trying to simulate a speaker on the edge of destruction,
you can simulate it with a load.
Most reactive dummy loads aren't capable of this kind of simulation because
they have too much power to deal with. But at low enough power, you have a
wide range of filter realizations. Digital gives you the most flexibility.
> A guitar speaker shapes the tone in two distinct,
>overlapping ways: it affects the power tube saturation character by
loading
>them a certain way,
This loading is highly linear and therefore you can commute the transfer
characteristic with other linear transfer functions. In other words, this is
why you can stick resistive attenuation a clean gain stage in between the
saturating tube and the power transformer as I suggested.
>I'm thinking of this as coloration from
>backward effects (from speaker to power tube) and forward effects (from
>speaker to air/ear).
The 'backward effects' can be replicated by a filter.
> However, more research is needed, including the
>approach you are suggesting -- some sort of RLC filtering up at the 3 watt
>level rather than line level.
I do this sort of filtering stuff for real. There are a several papers on my
web site about it.
>>>>Remember that a reactive
>>>>load is also called "a filter". The reason you can't just put EQ after
the
>>>>power stage of most guitar amps is that you have to dissipate so much
>>power.
>>>>At low levels, this is no problem. A lot of the interest in using the
>>MPX-G2
>>>>or MPX-1 with the 284 is that those devices have lots of places in the
>>>>signal chain where good attenuation can be provided.
>>>
>
>>I run guitar into the G2, out the G2 into the 284. Then stereo
>>send back to the G2 and stereo return back to the 284 and stereo out to
the
>>stereo cab. Live I'd probably use the two 1x12s separately miked and run a
>>submix along with my keys direct to the board.
>
>I think you are doing the following:
>
>G2 preamp
>284 preamp
>G2 digital fx (stereo)
>284 power amps (stereo)
Not always. The G2 is 'smart' in that it knows that if you aren't using any
analog effects it hard bypasses the analog section and if you aren't using
digital effects if hard bypasses the digital section. This means that for
some patches I am using that chain but others I may be using the G2 in only
one or the other link in the chain.
>>>The fact that the 284 has two tubes amps isn't terribly exciting, for
>>>constructing a 3-stage amp rig, because the second power amp might as
well
>>>be solid-state;
>
>>Another nonlinear gain stage can always be interesting. I don't really
>>groove on cascading gain stages but there are some sounds that you'd want
to
>>use that for.
>
>Yes, this could be interesting:
>
>EQ/level 1
>saturating tube power amp 1
>dummy load
>EQ/level 2
>saturating tube power amp 2
>guitar speaker and mic
>EQ/level 3
Actually one of my points is that overdriven power tube sections don't have
to be at saturation to get nice sounds. I find I use somewhat less overdrive
than saturation since I don't like the harsher clipping effects. This is one
reason that cascading gain stages what are not saturating but simply
overdriven can result in a nice complex kind of sound.
>There are various sub-options, but I would not run two speaker eq curves in
>series (from a miked guitar speaker or from a cab-sim filter), though
>someone did claim good results from running 3 cab-sim filters in series.
Running linear filters in series is called a cascade realization. There are
lots of realizations of filters. There are usually reasons to avoid most
common filter realizations, but that doesn't tend to stop people from using
them. The papers on my web site are particularly strong on good filter
realizations:
http://www.zen-pharaohs.com/publicat.htm
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
pietrzak
Say, why did you clip the section where I indicated your personal
mission was fine with me, as we all have missions of our own? Little
defensive these days?
Also, I might add, as long as you seem to feel I was attacking you ...
why rent in a place that does not allow musical instruments if you play one?
Seems that your choice of housing was not too hot? Or, you are intent on
violating your lease ... are the risks worth it?
Dale
Chris Gieseke
>
> Don Gauthier <do...@best.com> wrote:
>
> >Just get a Flextone POD and have fun recording. If the point is to have it
> >perfect then just go to a great studio in the area and record with some great
> >amps. Other than that, simple, play for yourself music doesn't need super fancy
> >equipment.
>
> >Don
>
> http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone and Effects Placement
Well of coarse you also have to keep in mind that some guitarists might
actually like the tone of direct recorded distorted guitar sounds.
I do quite a bit of songwriting and sometimes I find that a rythm guitar
track with an intentional direct sound thats big and fuzzy, sometimes
compliments the song perfectly where as a miced tube amp would not have
that same in your face, agressive sound. Of coarse I love a good
cranked tube amp also, I just wanted to express that its not the only
tone in the world. Many good albums (good-being subjective) were done
with direct guitar tracks to good effect. But keep on chugging, I also
would like to see more low-wattage (though inexpensive) tube amps out on
the market. Right now I have my eyes set on the little Crate 5-watt
tube amp...but I still haven't found one locally to try out yet.
Have you hear it yet Cybermonk? You think with a good tube preamp it
would do a good job for recording death metal? I also enjoy power tube
saturation for that genre of music...but I currently have to crank my
Stealth 50 watt tube amp to insane levels to achieve that...actually now
that I don't have my 4x12 cabinet anymore I can't even do that (damn).
So I'm looking into the little tube amps as well.
Chris G.
Ned Carlson
<kcol...@inetnebr.com> wrote:
>Additionally, the Studio by London Power comes with a flight case, and in
>response to my question, Kevin said the amp is an all tube audio path, with
>(2) 12AX7's and (2) 6V6's.
Heck, for $1,280, you could buy 2 Mill Hill Summer amps. ;-)
Ned Carlson Triode Electronics "where da tubes are!"
2225 W Roscoe Chicago, IL, 60618 USA
ph 773-871-7459 fax 773-871-7938
12:30 to 8 PM CT, (1830-0200 UTC) 12:30-5 Sat, Closed Wed & Sun
<A HREF="http://www.triodeel.com">http://www.triodeel.com</A>
Tube and Tube Amp info on the net...<A HREF="http://www.triodeel.com/tlinks.htm"> The Big Tube Links Page!</A>
pietrzak
things. Some of his most liked stuff as I recall.
Dale
Cybermonk <bl...@gleeb.com> wrote in message
news:77tumt$dhv$1...@dns2.serv.net...
>Don Gauthier <do...@best.com> wrote:
>
>>Just get a Flextone POD and have fun recording. If the point is to have it
>>perfect then just go to a great studio in the area and record with some
great
>>amps. Other than that, simple, play for yourself music doesn't need super
fancy
>>equipment.
>
>>Don
>
Cybermonk
>mission was fine with me, as we all have missions of our own? Little
>defensive these days?
*I'm* not being defensive -- *you're* being defensive.
That was a minor, tangential point, and I wanted to focus on whether or not
this could be called a "personal mission". I have a personal commitment,
but my activism and information publishing is emphatically *not* just for
me; it's so that *all* guitarists who want quiet cranked-amp tone at home --
and who wouldn't? -- can choose from a broad range of relevant products.
>why rent in a place that does not allow musical instruments if you play one?
>Seems that your choice of housing was not too hot?
There are many constraints and pro's and con's in looking for a place.
>Or, you are intent on violating your lease ... are the risks worth it?
It's only a minor violation, unlikely to result in action. The reason for
this rule against musical instruments is that the guitar industry has been
unresponsive and uninspired in coming up with appropriate products for
guitarists to get great sound at private levels. By working to change the
guitar-gear industry and accelerate the availability of such products, the
association of electric guitar and sound leakage will be eliminated, and
such leasing rules will become less prevalent. The equipment designers, not
the landlords, are to blame for the bias against electric guitar.
_________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone, quiet cranked-tube-amp tone
Cybermonk
>actually like the tone of direct recorded distorted guitar sounds.
>I do quite a bit of songwriting and sometimes I find that a rythm guitar
>track with an intentional direct sound thats big and fuzzy, sometimes
>compliments the song perfectly where as a miced tube amp would not have
>that same in your face, agressive sound.
Yes, Nine Inch Nails uses DI, as a rule. It's great if you want to sound
like NIN. DigiTech and Charlie Clouser of NIN have also developed the
Pixellator undersampler effect, which sounds like the digital whistling of a
really crappy 4-bit sound card, or drastically overcompressed MP3 file,
enabling you to get an even more synthetic, processed, artificial sound.
Mastery of a full spectrum of tones requires all sorts of approaches.
Obtaining DI sound quietly is too easy to warrant coverage. My main
emphasis is on obtaining the classic spectrum of amp breakup sounds, at
private, late-night apartment levels.
>Of course I love a good
>cranked tube amp also, I just wanted to express that its not the only
>tone in the world. Many good albums (good-being subjective) were done
>with direct guitar tracks to good effect.
Many DI sounds are good; few, if any, are great; most are 3rd-rate.
>But keep on chugging, I also
>would like to see more low-wattage (though inexpensive) tube amps out on
>the market. Right now I have my eyes set on the little Crate 5-watt
>tube amp...but I still haven't found one locally to try out yet.
>Have you hear it yet Cybermonk?
It has an inadequate preamp and an inadequate speaker system. It is the
least expensive widely available product for the lowest wattage power-tube
saturation. 5 watts is still too loud for private cranked-amp tone when
driving a serious speaker cabinet. My thorough testing in the store
indicated that it *might* have potential for good-sounding power-tube
saturation, if driven intelligently by a good outboard preamp, directly into
the Crate's fx Return jack, then driving a serious speaker cabinet. There
is no Spk Out jack; you need to construct an adapter with male speaker-type
tabs on one end, and an inline 1/4" jack on the other.
>Do you think with a good tube preamp, the VC508
>would do a good job for recording death metal?
With a good preamp and a serious speaker cabinet, yes.
>I also enjoy power tube
>saturation for that genre of music...but I currently have to crank my
>Stealth 50 watt tube amp to insane levels to achieve that...
>actually now
>that I don't have my 4x12 cabinet anymore
>I can't even do that (damn).
Too bad. I really would like to have some good conventional speaker
cabinets, because the speaker is so important for great amp sound.
>So I'm looking into the little tube amps as well.
I would look into the Moonlight Amp 1-watt DIY project at the AX84 site.
There are good designers at the AX84 site, and I expect they will come up
with an optimal tube, transformer, and chassis setup. I would like to trim
down that circuit to provide *only* a tube power amp; leave the preamp
processing to an easily obtained full-featured outboard preamp. I am
considering making and documenting an ultra-minimal version of the Moonlight
project, posted at my site. The goal is to piece together a 1-watt tube
power amp using literally only about 10 components, discarding such
irrelevancies as tone controls, volume control, preamp, and on-off switch.
Cybermonk
These $600-$1000 prices are absurd. A 3 watt amp with minimal components,
made in the U.S., should cost $250 list. That is the price of the 5-watt
made-in-U.S. Crate VC508; if you subtract the pointless, joke speaker, and
the toy preamp -- these only get in the way -- the remaining tube power amp
in a chassis would only cost about $250. There is too much conventional,
unimaginative thinking in designing "guitar amps". Don't think of designing
a "guitar amp", think of designing a miniaturized tube power amp... better,
think in terms of designing a budget power-tube saturation pedal. It's just
a distortion pedal; there is no justification for loading it with all kinds
of extra components that are not needed for a stompbox -- needless,
cost-inflating components such as a power on/off switch.
There is no reason, except lack of vision, for the lack of low-wattage tube
power amps priced in the same range as distortion boxes that use a preamp
tube. Designers need to learn to reign in their urge to pack their products
full of extra features and sell people three times the features that the
guitarist really needs. Who is taking care of the low end? Just Crate, it
seems, and their 5-watt amp follows all the money-wasting conventions, to
provide a malnourished-combo format.
Guitarists don't want to buy an 8" speaker system. They don't want to buy a
grossly inadequate toy preamp. They don't want to pay for 15 different
power-amp modes. First of all, they simply want to buy a simple, extremely
inexpensive, to-the-point, ultra low-power tube power amplifier, to add to
their existing components.
________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone, very low-wattage power-tube
products
Cybermonk
>These $600-$1000 prices are absurd. A 3 watt amp with minimal components,
>made in the U.S., should cost $250 list. That is the price of the 5-watt
>made-in-U.S. Crate VC508; if you subtract the pointless, joke speaker, and
>the toy preamp -- these only get in the way -- the remaining tube power amp
>in a chassis would only cost about $250.
I meant to say that a low-wattage tube power amp, in an absolute minimal
configuration, should cost $200 list.
$250 list
- 8" speaker
- cabinet
- preamp
=========
$200 list
pietrzak
>>why did you clip the section where I indicated your personal
>>mission was fine with me, as we all have missions of our own? Little
>>defensive these days?
>
>*I'm* not being defensive -- *you're* being defensive.
Actually, I amy be ... beats me. Long day. But, the point I was making you
missed and you went a direction entirely off where I had intended ... sorry
I was not clear.
>That was a minor, tangential point, and I wanted to focus on whether or not
>this could be called a "personal mission". I have a personal commitment,
>but my activism and information publishing is emphatically *not* just for
>me; it's so that *all* guitarists who want quiet cranked-amp tone at
home --
>and who wouldn't? -- can choose from a broad range of relevant products.
Actually, it was the main point. As I see it the difference between
"personal commitment" and "personal mission" is pretty thin hair splitting.
And, I don;t see lots of other folks on this quest with you. A few respond,
but the majority are not sending notes to the manufactures. I agree there
is likley a need and a market, just not as convinced as you that people are
as interested as you seem to be these days.
I see lots of posts on guitars, pedals, speakers, amps (non-low watt),
single coil vs bucker, technique, but if I pull your posts on low watt tube
amps there just doesn't seem to be much there. While you were gone (before
I arrived you were here is my interpretation) there was no substantive talk
about such devices.
>>why rent in a place that does not allow musical instruments if you play
one?
>>Seems that your choice of housing was not too hot?
>
>There are many constraints and pro's and con's in looking for a place.
But, does this justify your breaking a signed agreement you made to not do
what you are doing? You are, in essence, asking us to aid you in figuring
out how to break the rules and get away with it.
>>Or, you are intent on violating your lease ... are the risks worth it?
>
>It's only a minor violation, unlikely to result in action.
Then what does all of this matter? No consequesces, do what you want ...
rgardless of what you promised.
>The reason for
>this rule against musical instruments is that the guitar industry has been
>unresponsive and uninspired in coming up with appropriate products for
>guitarists to get great sound at private levels.
I must admit I have trouble seeing a consiracy between the housing industry
and guitar amp manufactures as this statement suggests. Or eiter of the
parties in general regarding musical instruments or guitars. I doubt you
really beleive this either (I hope). And, I would suggest this struggle for
great tone is not limited to guitar players. Do a search on headphones.
Research on theses has focused on this same issues you discuss in many
areas. They, in general, have the same complaints you do. Thus the
increasing sophistication of headphones. I see it as a supply and demand
issue. If there was money to be made, especially the serious money you
suggest, I do not believe the majority of manufactures would turn their
backs. Pignose alone would take this on if they believed there was enough
money in it. Think Fender would turn down making serious money?
>By working to change the
>guitar-gear industry and accelerate the availability of such products, the
>association of electric guitar and sound leakage will be eliminated, and
>such leasing rules will become less prevalent.
Well, I have lived in low income to high income housing, in urban and rural
areas, in 6 states in the past 15 years. I have yet to see a lease that
specificaly targets musical instruments, let along guitars. I am sure they
are there, but I am not to certain they are prevalent. There are noise
restrictions in many (most rental) places ... covering yelling, parties,
music (insturments, CD player or radios), and the like. I do not see these
restrictions as targeting the guitar players.
If, as you suggest, the difficulty is the manufactures then why do you
"preach to the choir," of us fellow converts, so to speak. Why not spend
this energy marketing the idea to the manufactuers? Show there where the
money to be made is ... they like money. Or, hire a few folks and start
building them ... you can market to us. Here is your chance to make some
serious money and show everyone. I would guess until some performer that
eveyone thinks is "god" (say hasn't that come up before? ;-) ) starts using
them on stage people won't buy very many of them.
>The equipment designers, not the landlords, are to blame for the bias
against electric
>guitar.
Actually, it is the guitar players that don't know how to be polite to the
neighbors that are at fault. Neither designers nor manufactuers will come to
your apartment and turn the volume knob up. Only the user does that, no
conspiracy that I can see (but hey I am a skeptic). As with most things that
make noise (as I indicated they are all generally targeted not just guitars)
it is a few inconsiderate users who create the situations as you describe,
not the manufactuers.
I guess, using your logic, it is the manufactuers that are at fault for the
people who put 1000 watt hi-fi gear in their cars and drive around at 3:00
in the morning and wake up the neighbors. There must be a manufactuer
conspericy at work there then, if there is with guitars. Rather, I would
suggest, people will make and sell what others will buy.
Dale
Again, I have not encountered this bias in my travels. I have never even
had a motel or hotel question the guitar when I travel, and I have been to
maost of the majro areas of the country now. .
>_________________________________
>http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone, quiet cranked-tube-amp tone
>
>
Cybermonk
>with you. A few respond,
>but the majority are not sending notes to the manufactures.
Most guitarists have a passive attitude about equipment and figure that if
their wants are unfulfilled, there is something lacking in their own
knowledge. They assume that to get cranked-amp tone, you just have to
blast the amp very loud, and that's the way things have to be. I have
recommended that guitarists take a more activist approach and contact the
guitar-gear companies and magazine editors, as I have been doing.
>I agree there
>is likley a need and a market, just not as convinced as you that people are
>as interested as you seem to be these days.
> I see lots of posts on guitars, pedals, speakers, amps (non-low watt),
>single coil vs bucker, technique, but if I pull your posts on low watt tube
>amps there just doesn't seem to be much there.
>While you were gone (before
>I arrived you were here is my interpretation) there was no substantive talk
>about such devices.
There is more than enough proof of tremendous interest in these subjects in
the newsgroups. There has been a great deal of interest and response in my
threads about low-wattage tube amps. You can see this via my DejaNews
interface page for my threads: http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g216.htm
and also in the DejaNews queries at the bottom of my product pages for
low-power tube amp products, power attenuator products, and power-tube
"preamp" products. There have been many thousands of postings on these
subjects. I am in contact with many other experimenters who have each used
a variety of products for quiet cranked-amp tone. I see all these postings
and the immense interest in these subjects because I am looking for it,
unlike some guitarists such as you. In a way, *every* rock guitarist is
interested in this subject; what guitarist does *not* want to get
cranked-amp tone at home, privately? Are you saying that though you
understand the potential, you would not be interested in buying a
full-featured 1-watt tube amp with a serious speaker cabinet? If so, you
are in a small minority.
>>>why rent in a place that does not allow musical instruments if you play
>one?
>>>Seems that your choice of housing was not too hot?
>>
>>There are many constraints and pro's and con's in looking for a place.
>But, does this justify your breaking a signed agreement you made to not do
>what you are doing? You are, in essence, asking us to aid you in figuring
>out how to break the rules and get away with it.
>>>Or, you are intent on violating your lease ... are the risks worth it?
>>
>>It's only a minor violation, unlikely to result in action.
>Then what does all of this matter? No consequesces, do what you want ...
>rgardless of what you promised.
I don't care about violating the contract, but I do care about getting
near-silent tube power amp products.
>I see it as a supply and demand
>issue. If there was money to be made, especially the serious money you
>suggest, I do not believe the majority of manufactures would turn their
>backs. Pignose alone would take this on if they believed there was enough
>money in it. Think Fender would turn down making serious money?
Yes. Guitar companies make fatal mistakes and misjudge the market all the
time. Example: Marshall's lack of high-gain preamp circuits until recently.
Vox'es switchover to solid-state amps (practically killed the company).
Startup companies that innovate more than the big companies and come up with
a successful product.
Big companies overlook market opportunities all the time. The industry
often makes mistakes and adopts poor conventions, shooting itself in the
foot.
Your "the companies know best" attitude is responsible for the way the
industry is swamped with unimaginative designs that promise, but fail to
deliver, great cranked-amp tone at home.
>If, as you suggest, the difficulty is the manufactures then why do you
>"preach to the choir," of us fellow converts, so to speak. Why not spend
>this energy marketing the idea to the manufactuers?
I am in frequent contact with parties all across the industry: marketers,
designers, guitarists, reviewers, sound engineers, and magazine editors. My
information site addresses all these perspectives. Awareness must be spread
to all parties in the industry, not just the manufacturers. For example,
the H&K Crunch Master was fatally mis-marketed at a "preamp" rather than as
a "tube recording amp" like the Signature 284. The manufacturers *have*
been offering great designs, but without awareness across the rest of the
industry, these products have little chance, and are discontinued. Without
efforts to spread awareness about innovative approaches such as the
Signature 284, Guytron 3-stage amp, Lawbreaker power-tube saturation pedal,
and other new products, these products are vulnerable to being discontinued
due to lack of awareness on the part of magazines and guitarists, despite
the fact that most guitarists desperately want a way to get actual
cranked-amp tone quietly at home and these products do exactly that.
>Show there where the money to be made is ... they like money.
There is money to be made, but only if the potential market comprehends what
these new types of products are about.
>Or, hire a few folks and start
>building them ... you can market to us.
I could only provide a few products. By directing my efforts to information
publishing instead, I can promote a far greater range of products becoming
available.
>Here is your chance to make some
>serious money and show everyone.
We're already on the cusp of understanding the potential of such products,
anyway. I'm just accellerating this trend that is coming soon. By the time
I could get some products out, there will be too many competitors anyway.
>I would guess until some performer that
>eveyone thinks is "god" (say hasn't that come up before? ;-) ) starts using
>them on stage people won't buy very many of them.
That's not true. Most guitarists don't know what equipment the guitar gods
use on stage. Huge bands have used speaker isolation boxes, but hardly any
guitarists have ever heard of the idea. Guitar-gear selection and
rig-design principles remain a black art, which is why my web site is,
unfortunately, so unique and badly needed.
>>The equipment designers, not the landlords, are to blame for the bias
>against electric
>>guitar.
>Actually, it is the guitar players that don't know how to be polite to the
>neighbors that are at fault. Neither designers nor manufactuers will come to
>your apartment and turn the volume knob up.
Guitarists are forced to turn the volume knob up, against their will -- it
is the only way that the companies currently provide, for obtaining
cranked-tube-amp tone, though it would be trivial to design 1-watt tube
power-amp products. Many gutarists at home feel trapped by this dilemma:
they wish they could get cranked-amp tone without being heard; they are very
considerate people but have been given no reasonable options.
>Only the user does that, no
>conspiracy that I can see (but hey I am a skeptic). As with most things that
>make noise (as I indicated they are all generally targeted not just guitars)
>it is a few inconsiderate users who create the situations as you describe,
>not the manufactuers.
Guitarists are not inconsiderate; manufacturers are uninspired.
>I guess, using your logic, it is the manufactuers that are at fault for the
>people who put 1000 watt hi-fi gear in their cars and drive around at 3:00
>in the morning and wake up the neighbors. There must be a manufactuer
>conspericy at work there then, if there is with guitars. Rather, I would
>suggest, people will make and sell what others will buy.
Car stereos do not change their sound dramatically as the volume is
increased. That is an irrelevant comparison.
>Dale
>Again, I have not encountered this bias in my travels. I have never even
>had a motel or hotel question the guitar when I travel, and I have been to
>most of the majro areas of the country now.
Have you ever tried to get actual cranked-tube-amp tone in a hotel room? I
doubt it. Effecitvely there is a bias against getting good tone in a hotel
room or apartment. To get away with cranking an amp there would require
equipment designed along my proposed lines.
_________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone, quiet cranked-amp tone
Alan Thompson
he move to another residence that will tolerate the "extreme" volume levels of a
"cranked" Fender champ, and shut up! In case he doesn't get the hints that many
have given him, his posts have been repetitious and BORING! I live in an
apartment, I found one that has block walls that allows me to play my 50 watt
Marshall from time to time without complaint (as long as it's not after 10 PM,
although I've managed to stretch that constraint from time to time). I for one
am extremely tired of his whiney posts about how manufacturers are conspiring to
neglect the needs of musicians in his particular situation...JUST CHANGE YOUR
SITUATION TO MEET YOUR NEEDS! I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time!),
but I don't believe most guitarists on this NG share his concerns.
A.T.
Alan Thompson
watt Fender Princeton Reverb, and a 50 watt Marshall, I live in an apartment, and I
generally play through the Marshall without complaint. My advice to you is to move
somewhere that will accomodate your needs, and stop crying about the the lack of 1 watt
amps! Shit, I thought I was anal about guitar stuff, you make me feel like I'm
conservative! My goal is to find a studio with a bed in the corner, so I can play
whenever I want, and sleep when I'm done. I feel that's more realistic than your quest
for "cranked-amp tone" at miniscule volume. Move to a warehouse, crank a 100 watt
Marshall, and chill out!
I feel better now that I've "vented", let the shit fly.....
A.T.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Alan Thompson wrote in message <36A44DF0...@worldnet.att.net>...
>Yes, I know how loud 3 watts is....NOT VERY MUCH!.
Do you know how loud 110 dB SPL is? It's what you can get with the Lexicon
284 amp and SB210 cabinet at 10 feet distance, which is 3 Watts per side.
It's also the same as an SPL measurement I once heard quoted from about
twenty rows back at a Judas Priest concert.
I would say that most people would say this is probably more than "NOT VERY
MUCH" loud.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Steve
>
>
> Do you know how loud 110 dB SPL is? It's what you can get with the Lexicon
> 284 amp and SB210 cabinet at 10 feet distance, which is 3 Watts per side.
But is that 110 dB when it is absolutely fully cranked?
As you said yourself, amps don't always sound best
at that setting.
Steve
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Steve wrote in message <36A49C...@sprintmail.com>...
>Andrew P. Mullhaupt wrote:
>>
>>
>> Do you know how loud 110 dB SPL is? It's what you can get with the
Lexicon
>> 284 amp and SB210 cabinet at 10 feet distance, which is 3 Watts per side.
>
>
>But is that 110 dB when it is absolutely fully cranked?
Yes.
>As you said yourself, amps don't always sound best
>at that setting.
However, 'half cranked' - (e.g. one stage all the way and the other half
way up) only cuts you down by approximately 6 dB SPL, etc. 104 dB SPL is
still pretty hard to take for any extended period.
The Lexicon Signature 284 is pretty loud. The trick of putting attenuation
in the FX loop so you can crank both sides is still necessary if you want to
crank both sides, but this is no problem to arrange.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] >guitar speaker.
Cybermonk,
I propose that you halt your remote conclusions and find some way to
actually listen to some of these units. I mean, c'mon now. Even
units of similar design will differ in character from mfg to mfg --
you can't be so convinced over design specs -- this is AUDIO. You have
to realize that eventually, it will come down to a subjective
evaluation, which may blow those specs right out of the water.
Chris
"What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything, and the
value of nothing." - Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
..............................................................
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
Xchr...@microsoft.comX -- Seattle, WA.
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[...]
[] Exactly! Each has its specialties with very little over-lap. Later this
[] year, we will be introducing a fully integrated guitar amp incorporating
[] Power Scaling that will do what the 284 does both louder and quieter,
[] but again, without any speaker output attenuators.
Kevin, when you say fully integrated, do you mean as in combo cabinet
(not rack-mount 'studio' unit)?
Thanks, Chris
Cybermonk
>Yes, I know how loud 3 watts is....NOT VERY MUCH!.
You have not mentioned what speaker system you are assuming. Is this
driving a single 8" speaker in a miniature cabinet, or a serious-sounding
speaker cabinet? The main reason 3 watts sounds quieter than its potential
level of nearly half as loud as 50 watts, is that 3-watt amps are
conventionally packaged with inadequate speaker systems.
>I have a 5 watt tweed Champ, a 12
>watt Fender Princeton Reverb, and a 50 watt Marshall, I live in an apartment, and I
>generally play through the Marshall without complaint.
That is certainly a different story than I am hearing from many guitarists.
You are in a tiny, insignificant minority if you can get away with turning
up a 50 watt Marshall in an apartment.
>My advice to you is to move
>somewhere that will accomodate your needs, and stop crying about the the lack of 1 watt
>amps! Shit, I thought I was anal about guitar stuff, you make me feel like I'm
>conservative! My goal is to find a studio with a bed in the corner, so I can play
>whenever I want, and sleep when I'm done. I feel that's more realistic than your quest
>for "cranked-amp tone" at miniscule volume.
Do you think that cranked-amp tone at miniscule volume is unrealistic? From
what I have read about 15, 10, 5, 3, and 1-watt tube amps, it is realistic
and is the most interesting trend in guitar gear, with tremendous potential.
Do you have evidence that 1-watt tube amps would sound bad? Are you
recommending that designers and manufacturers should not try making 1-watt
tube amps? Would you be uninterested in trying out and possibly buying a
1-watt tube amp?
>Move to a warehouse, crank a 100 watt
>Marshall, and chill out!
Blasting a 100-watt Marshall does not fit in with my day-to-day approach,
nor the approach of most guitarists at home.
There are some barbarian guitarists who simply cannot fathom what is wrong
with blasting an amp at deafening levels. Fortunately, they are in the
minority, and progress toward 1-watt amps, and lower, marches on.
Chris Gieseke
>
> Cybermonk <bl...@gleeb.com> wrote in message
> news:780r42$stb$4...@dns2.serv.net..
> >>mission was fine with me, as we all have missions of our own? Little
> >>defensive these days?
> >
> >*I'm* not being defensive -- *you're* being defensive.
>
> Actually, I amy be ... beats me. Long day. But, the point I was making you
> missed and you went a direction entirely off where I had intended ... sorry
> I was not clear.
>
> >That was a minor, tangential point, and I wanted to focus on whether or not
> >this could be called a "personal mission". I have a personal commitment,
> >but my activism and information publishing is emphatically *not* just for
> >me; it's so that *all* guitarists who want quiet cranked-amp tone at
> home --
> >and who wouldn't? -- can choose from a broad range of relevant products.
>
> Actually, it was the main point. As I see it the difference between
> "personal commitment" and "personal mission" is pretty thin hair splitting.
> And, I don;t see lots of other folks on this quest with you. A few respond,
> but the majority are not sending notes to the manufactures. I agree there
> is likley a need and a market, just not as convinced as you that people are
> as interested as you seem to be these days.
I for one am interested and have in fact contacted several companies
voiceing roughly the same thing. I basically just want a nice little
tube poweramp that is inexpensive but that can accept a wide range of
preamps and pedals for recording purposes. I'm also pretty open minded
about guitar tone though and I use direct recording and solid state amps
as well for many guitar tones, but I still agree with CyberMonk that it
would be something very nice to have. It would be interesting to find
out how well the 5 watt tube amps Crate makes, has been selling.
What Cybermonk is doing I think is just educating more guitarists with
home studios that they don't have risk eviction or the wrath of their
neighbors if they want a cranked tube amp in their apartment or home.
It's as simple as that. His web page also has lots of other neat
information and links. Nothing wrong with that. I'm not as active as
he is in the idea but I support him in his endeavors regardless whether
some people just think he's someone on an ego trip. He's always been
polite and answers questions in a well thought out manner for the most
part. I have disagreements with him also on some topics, but I don't
slam him or try to discourage him from continuing his quest for quite
low-wattage tube poweramps. No harm in what he's doing at all.
If he's putting out incorrect facts then by all means point them out,
but other wise I think it's silly to try to find some kind of hidden
agenda.
Right now I'm pumped about the Randall Dimebag Darrel amp that *may* be
coming out soon. Randall/Washburn hasn't made anything public yet as
far as I know, but in an interview in either Guitar World or Guitar
Player magazine (I fergot which) he talked about this amazing amp they
were almost finished finalizing which is supposed to have a graphic eq
on it, super high-gain metal distortion, an option of a 4x12 and even a
2x15 sealed guitar cabinet. The 2x15 bit blew me away. I've known alot
of extreme metal guitarists who use bass amps for the massive low end, I
think its really cool that Randall is putting out something that is as
fresh and imaginative as a guitar-voiced 2x15 cabinet designed for
extreme forms of metal. If I rememeber correctly I believe the cabinet
was called the sub-warhead or something along those lines.
Unfortunatly I don't remember if he said it was going to be tube,
solidstate, or a tube hybrid. I imagine solidstate though. Still even
so, I'm still very pumped about the amp. That amp also is supposed to
have internal digital effects. Has anyone heard anything else on it? I
already tried emailing Washburn and they haven't responded too me after
2 1/2 weeks. That's kinda disappointing though I'm still hoping they
will.
Chris G.
Cybermonk
>[] >guitar speaker.
>I propose that you halt your remote conclusions and find some way to
>actually listen to some of these units.
I have heard various power attenuators and dummy loads, and designed and
built my own resistive power attenuator. I have enough experience listening
to these products to intelligently read all the reviews I've read in
magazines and online, and share experiences with others.
>I mean, c'mon now. Even
>units of similar design will differ in character from mfg to mfg --
>you can't be so convinced over design specs -- this is AUDIO. You have
>to realize that eventually, it will come down to a subjective
>evaluation, which may blow those specs right out of the water.
In all my listening and all my reading, there is unanimous agreement that
the more you attenuate, the greater is the degradation of tone, and that
miked guitar speakers sound more realistic than dummy loads. The only real
negative comment Guitar Player had about the Signature 284 in the Nov. 98
issue was that the dummy load and cab-sim filter Recording Out did not sound
nearly as good as an actual miked guitar speaker.
Cybermonk
>[] Power Scaling that will do what the 284 does both louder and quieter,
>[] but again, without any speaker output attenuators.
>Kevin, when you say fully integrated, do you mean as in combo cabinet
>(not rack-mount 'studio' unit)?
Maybe it includes a full-featured preamp.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[....]
[] There is no reason, except lack of vision, for the lack of low-wattage tube
[] power amps priced in the same range as distortion boxes that use a preamp
[] tube. Designers need to learn to reign in their urge to pack their products
[] full of extra features and sell people three times the features that the
[] guitarist really needs.
Designers do not market these products. These products NEED to be
marketed to provide a viable supporting revenue for the company that
will own the manufacturing, distributing (and of course, marketing).
These things are not created and sold in a vacuum
Yes, there's small companies that provide the ideal, but if they
cannot make enough to supply several stores with product, then very
few retailers will pick them up. They could sell via the web and by
word of mouth--perhaps this will be common place in the future--but a
lot of people tend not to buy stuff that I haven't heard (with
exceptions). If you can't get the product out to these people some
how, it won't sell.
You need to understand the mechanics of what makes someone build these
things for you before you go knocking on their doors demanding they
create a product for you. Cyb, why don't you just commission exactly
what you need, pay some extra for it and be done with it? Better yet,
why don't YOU partner up with someone to try to sell them on the
market so you see what's going on here?
[] Guitarists don't want to buy an 8" speaker system.
Now see, there you go speaking for everyone again. This is another
business reality -- do some REAL research to see why your above
statement sounds so silly.
[] They don't want to buy a
[] grossly inadequate toy preamp.
The why has Digitech sold so many thousands of GSP (and later) model
preamps, something you have previously decided was inadequate.
[] They don't want to pay for 15 different power-amp modes.
Tell that to Mesa Boogie and ask them when they will FINALLY
discontinue thief very TriAxis model.
[] First of all, they simply want to buy a simple, extremely
[] inexpensive, to-the-point, ultra low-power tube power amplifier, to add to
[] their existing components.
Perhaps you need to tell them that, because I know a lot of people who
THINK they want something else.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] >[] >Still, from everything I've read, a dummy load won't sound as good as a
[] >[] >guitar speaker.
[]
[] >I propose that you halt your remote conclusions and find some way to
[] >actually listen to some of these units.
[]
[] I have heard various power attenuators and dummy loads, and designed and
[] built my own resistive power attenuator. I have enough experience listening
[] to these products to intelligently read all the reviews I've read in
[] magazines and online, and share experiences with others.
There's a hell of a lot of electronics wrapped around the load inside
of the Signature 284. This is audio.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] As I recall ... Henderix used to record direct from a fuzz pedal for some
[] things. Some of his most liked stuff as I recall.
[]
[] Dale
You mean, it didn't have a speaker, an amp, or even a real driven
speaker before going into the console?
Sam E. Trenholme
>> is the only way that the companies currently provide, for obtaining
>> cranked-tube-amp tone
>I'll perhpast
>talk with you again after you take control of your arms, fingers and various
>motor control back from the amp manufactuers. Until then ... try tinfoil,
>maybe some meds.
You missed the point. Can you, with a Marshall Stack, get that cranked up
"full blast" sound without cranking the actual amp? No.
What Tom Scholtz of Boston used to do was modify Marshall Stacks to get
that mull "cranked up to 11" Marshall sound without the Marshall being
fully cranked up. The original poster wants a similar modification to be
available in a commerical product, albeit with a much lower volume than
TOm used for tracking.
It is not about someone who cranks their stereo against their neighbors
wishes. It is about someone who wants a full "singing" cranked-up tube
sound without having to crank it up all the way.
Please read and understand the thread before posting a flame. A personal
attack looks bad on Usenet. A personal attack where you do not have the
facts right, and clearly do not understand the poster's original point,
looks downright foolish.
Take care,
- Sam (There are some problems with the poster's original idea that
I will not address here in consideration of the poster's somewhat
hurt feelings after getting in a silly flame war)
--
Email address here: http://www.samiam.org/ssi/mailme.shtml
Music I write here: http://www.mp3.com/sam http://www.samiam.org/mp3
Mp3 reviews here: http://www.samiam.org/music
Mark Fassett
using Sansamp or Pod or whatever.. I really don't have a need for significantly
better tone then I already have. Plus, what guitarists define as good tone
varies considerably from one player to the next, so one company's interpretation
is bound to disappoint most people.
Good luck finding a manufacturer who will fulfill your needs, but many have
tried, everything from Sansamp to ADA to Cabtone to Peavey to Morley to Zoom to..
-Mark
Cybermonk wrote:
> It's only a minor violation, unlikely to result in action. The reason for
> this rule against musical instruments is that the guitar industry has been
> unresponsive and uninspired in coming up with appropriate products for
> guitarists to get great sound at private levels.
--
-Mark/Particle Salad
^~`^~`^~`^~`^~`^~`^~`^~`^~`^~`^~`^
Particle Salad/Noom Room Studio
http://home.earthlink.net/~psalad
psa...@earthlink.net
^~`^~`^~`^~`^~`^~`^~`^~`^~`^~`^~`^
Mark Fassett
Cybermonk wrote:
> Car stereos do not change their sound dramatically as the volume is
> increased. That is an irrelevant comparison.
Uh.. have you ever heard of the Fletcher-Munsen(sp?) curve?
> Have you ever tried to get actual cranked-tube-amp tone in a hotel room? I
> doubt it. Effecitvely there is a bias against getting good tone in a hotel
> room or apartment. To get away with cranking an amp there would require
> equipment designed along my proposed lines.
There's no "bias." The manufacturers just don't see there's a market.. I'm not
sure there even IS a market. Most people I know who play loud rock have a
rehearsal space where they can play.
Anyway, I think you might want to partner up with a designer and create the
product you're looking for. It might be quite good!!
Bill Bolton
> *I'm* not being defensive....
It sure looks like it from here, whatever you may think it looks like
from where you are.
> The equipment designers, not the landlords, are to blame for
> the bias against electric guitar.
Others might say it is guitarists who refuse to use headphones who are
to blame.
Cheers,
Bill
piet...@ezo.net
<snip>
> Guitarists are forced to turn the volume knob up, against their will -- it
> is the only way that the companies currently provide, for obtaining
> cranked-tube-amp tone, though it would be trivial to design 1-watt tube
> power-amp products. Many gutarists at home feel trapped by this dilemma:
> they wish they could get cranked-amp tone without being heard; they are very
> considerate people but have been given no reasonable options.
Ok ... I did an evaluation for the court today. Same arguement ... my
[insert goofy crap here] made me do it. In my experiece at this point
discussion with folks so out their that they no longare are able to be
responsible for thier own body parts tend to be pointless. I'll perhpast
talk with you again after you take control of your arms, fingers and various
motor control back from the amp manufactuers. Until then ... try tinfoil,
maybe some meds.
> >Only the user does that, no
> >conspiracy that I can see (but hey I am a skeptic). As with most things that
> >make noise (as I indicated they are all generally targeted not just guitars)
> >it is a few inconsiderate users who create the situations as you describe,
> >not the manufactuers.
>
> Guitarists are not inconsiderate; manufacturers are uninspired.
Ah ... not only have you let the amp manufactures taken over your motor
control, you let UNINSPIRED amp manufactuerures do so. I am truely sorry.
> >I guess, using your logic, it is the manufactuers that are at fault for the
> >people who put 1000 watt hi-fi gear in their cars and drive around at 3:00
> >in the morning and wake up the neighbors. There must be a manufactuer
> >conspericy at work there then, if there is with guitars. Rather, I would
> >suggest, people will make and sell what others will buy.
>
> Car stereos do not change their sound dramatically as the volume is
> increased. That is an irrelevant comparison.
YOu missed the point, as usual. It is not the tone of the stereo that is the
focus of the paragragh. Rather, the focus is on the inconsiderate nature of
the person using the stereo, but in your analogy (I hope you see it as an
analogy ... not seek professiona help), it would be the inconsiderate natureof
the stereo manufacturer who forces the operater to turn it up "against their
will." I alway wondered why the noise ordance fines were assessed to
manfactuers and not the users. Thanks for clearing that up!
> >Again, I have not encountered this bias in my travels. I have never even
> >had a motel or hotel question the guitar when I travel, and I have been to
> >most of the majro areas of the country now.
>
> Have you ever tried to get actual cranked-tube-amp tone in a hotel room? I
> doubt it. Effecitvely there is a bias against getting good tone in a hotel
> room or apartment. To get away with cranking an amp there would require
> equipment designed along my proposed lines.
I am not as needful of the pefect tone you are searching for that it has
required me to crank a 300w stack inthe room ... so the answer is no I have
not. I practice in the room, goof around some, even write a little. I don't
require, or admittedly have a big desire to, get this perfect cranked tone. I
liked the SS distortion of my Crate <gasp!> when I had it, and with the Fab
Tone pedal on my Blues Junior <yet another gasp> at lower volumes. Sorry this
is your desire not mine. I have not let the amp folks control my body as yet
though, so perhaps that will come about later. I hope not ... well, if they
can keep me on my diet maybe, otherwise I sort of like personal control.
Hum ... if I give them contorl will they teach for me? Tenure?
Dale
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
piet...@ezo.net
After the last couple of exchanges I have come to realize it is pointless.
It is like the movie with Jack Nickleson typing away ... He has given up
control of his body (and thus the mind that is used to control it by default)
tothe amp manufactures.
Dale
In article <36A44DF0...@worldnet.att.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
piet...@ezo.net
were decent tones?
Dale
In article <780s5i$stb$5...@dns2.serv.net>,
> _________________________________
> http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Cybermonk
>what you need, pay some extra for it and be done with it?
I don't want to just have a 1-watt amp. I want a great variety of
low-wattage power-tube products to be widely available for all guitarists,
integrated with as many products as are preamp tubes.
>[] Guitarists don't want to buy an 8" speaker system.
>Now see, there you go speaking for everyone again. This is another
>business reality -- do some REAL research to see why your above
>statement sounds so silly.
>[] They don't want to buy a
>[] grossly inadequate toy preamp.
>The why has Digitech sold so many thousands of GSP (and later) model
>preamps, something you have previously decided was inadequate.
In the two points above, I'm criticizing the way that very low wattage combo
amps always conventionally are packaged with preamps with no features, and
shoebox-sized, shoebox-sounding speaker systems. DigiTech GSP preamps are
full-featured, good- or decent-sounding preamps.
My complaint about the GSP preamp/processors is that they have merely a
preamp tube, hyped as providing "the tube sound", and would sound far better
with an integrated 1-watt tube power amp and optional dummy load, before the
time effects.
>[] They don't want to pay for 15 different power-amp modes.
>Tell that to Mesa Boogie and ask them when they will FINALLY
>discontinue thief very TriAxis model.
I am talking about the low end. Guitarists don't want to be forced to pay
for many power-amp modes if all they want, first of all, in an inexpensive
low-wattage amp. Here I am criticizing the high price of the Studio and 284
-- both products are prohibitively expensive for most guitarists, because
these products are packed with relatively irrelevant features in addition to
the main feature, which is simply the low-wattage. A low-wattage amp is
technologically trivial and should be offered for $200 list, not around
$1000.
__________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone, low-wattage tube amps
4cxr...@my-dejanews.com
We have discontinued the one combo amp that we were making. "Combo" amps
include a speaker. An "integrated" amp has a preamp and power amp.
The new amp is called the SESSION and will be offered in two versions for
$1,550US without reverb, or $1,850US with reverb. These models share the
Power Scaling feature of the STUDIO but go from 0-50W. Both come in a
flight-case and are the same size as the STUDIO. Note the STUDIO amp is
$1,280US, as denoted on our site.
As an integrated amp, the SESSION has a typical preamp with a 'Drive, 'High',
'Mid' and 'Low' controls; Fixed/Cathode bias; Heat; Sparkle; Match; Shape;
Triode/Pentode and the Power Scale dial. The reverb amp loses the Shape
switch. The SESSION uses Svetlana SV-6L6GCs and two or three 12AX7s depending
on the version, plus a 12AT7 in the reverb model.
The signal path is simple, all-tube and voiced similar to vintage Fender
amps. The SESSION was designed in response to many friends and customers
wishes to be able to leave their vintage gear at home, and to also have a
consistent tone regardless of where they play. Some places, 25W will do;
others you need 50W; others 3W is too loud.
Like the STUDIO amp, the SESSION amps play clean beautifully, up the limits
of their power through whatever speaker you use. In most cases, the speaker
limits over-all loudness and clarity more than the electronics. As the names
of these units suggest, the STUDIO amp is intended for serious use in the
studio. The SESSION amp is intended for actual playing situations, where the
musician needs a few more typical controls and usually more power.
The big brothers to these amps, The SUSTAINOR 60+60W SE power amps plus
2-channel preamp with reverb and fx-loop; the 6060 power amp only (from the
SUSTAINOR); and the huge new SPECTRUM 700W bass amp are all Power Scaling
amps. They play great flat out, or you can scale things down as needed to
suit smaller places or quieter situations-- jamming at home without drums,
say. The power tubes used in these larger amps are so reliable that they are
covered by our Twenty Year Warranty.
This information is a few days in advance of our website up-date. An expose
about Power Scaling will also be in place, and briefly, it is a method of
scaling down the apparant size and capability of the _output stage_. It is
like being able to look at something from far away or close up. In this case,
it is your sound-- close up, it is loud, but far away it is quiet. This does
not have to be just for distorted tones, the STUDIO sounds great clean. It
uses parameters that can only be adjusted in a power amp to change tone, and
therefore acheives a wider range of sounds than would be expected from
typical amps.
I apologise for the length of this, but my news server has been down and Deja
News has shown a very long thread with much speculation of an erroneous
nature, that demanded correction.
Happy playing
Kevin O'Connor
Alan Thompson
putting out the same volume as one would receive in the 20th row at a metal
concert, than I would have to assume you have never experienced either one!
What a load.
A.T.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt wrote:
> Alan Thompson wrote in message <36A44DF0...@worldnet.att.net>...
> >Yes, I know how loud 3 watts is....NOT VERY MUCH!.
>
> Do you know how loud 110 dB SPL is? It's what you can get with the Lexicon
> 284 amp and SB210 cabinet at 10 feet distance, which is 3 Watts per side.
Alan Thompson
who blasts his amp at "deafening levels". In the first place, I believe you think your
ideas are shared with the majority of guitarists (I think not), in the second place I don't
blast my amp at deafening levels, I play at a level that sounds good to me. The point is,
why would someone who plays electric guitar and considers it an important part of his life,
move into an apartment with the kind of restrictions yours seems to have? (and then complain
endlessly about how equipment manufacturers have neglected those in his situation!).
And since you have chosen to malign me, I would like to add that you come off as a pompous,
anal jerk! Give us all here a break, WE'VE HEARD IT, ALREADY!
A.T.
Cybermonk wrote:
> Alan Thompson <Zomb...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Yes, I know how loud 3 watts is....NOT VERY MUCH!.
>
> You have not mentioned what speaker system you are assuming. Is this
> driving a single 8" speaker in a miniature cabinet, or a serious-sounding
> speaker cabinet? The main reason 3 watts sounds quieter than its potential
> level of nearly half as loud as 50 watts, is that 3-watt amps are
> conventionally packaged with inadequate speaker systems.
>
> >I have a 5 watt tweed Champ, a 12
> >watt Fender Princeton Reverb, and a 50 watt Marshall, I live in an apartment, and I
> >generally play through the Marshall without complaint.
>
> That is certainly a different story than I am hearing from many guitarists.
> You are in a tiny, insignificant minority if you can get away with turning
> up a 50 watt Marshall in an apartment.
>
> >My advice to you is to move
> >somewhere that will accomodate your needs, and stop crying about the the lack of 1 watt
> >amps! Shit, I thought I was anal about guitar stuff, you make me feel like I'm
> >conservative! My goal is to find a studio with a bed in the corner, so I can play
> >whenever I want, and sleep when I'm done. I feel that's more realistic than your quest
> >for "cranked-amp tone" at miniscule volume.
>
> Do you think that cranked-amp tone at miniscule volume is unrealistic? From
> what I have read about 15, 10, 5, 3, and 1-watt tube amps, it is realistic
> and is the most interesting trend in guitar gear, with tremendous potential.
> Do you have evidence that 1-watt tube amps would sound bad? Are you
> recommending that designers and manufacturers should not try making 1-watt
> tube amps? Would you be uninterested in trying out and possibly buying a
> 1-watt tube amp?
>
> >Move to a warehouse, crank a 100 watt
> >Marshall, and chill out!
>
> Blasting a 100-watt Marshall does not fit in with my day-to-day approach,
> nor the approach of most guitarists at home.
>
> There are some barbarian guitarists who simply cannot fathom what is wrong
> with blasting an amp at deafening levels. Fortunately, they are in the
> minority, and progress toward 1-watt amps, and lower, marches on.
>
Chris Gieseke
>
> So in ignoring my observations about Hendrix am I to assume you disagee these
> were decent tones?
>
> Dale
I know you were asking Cybermonks opinion but...
Decent tones? For what type of music? For his music, yeah fine, it
suited Jimi's style, but for other types of guitar based music Jimi's
different distorted guitar tones would sound like pure crap.
But whatever does it for you is fine since distortion tones are so
highly subjective.
Chris G.
Chris Gieseke
>
> So, let's see, I'm part of a "tiny, insignificant minority", and a "barbarian guitarist"
> who blasts his amp at "deafening levels". In the first place, I believe you think your
> ideas are shared with the majority of guitarists (I think not), in the second place I don't
> blast my amp at deafening levels, I play at a level that sounds good to me. The point is,
> why would someone who plays electric guitar and considers it an important part of his life,
> move into an apartment with the kind of restrictions yours seems to have? (and then complain
> endlessly about how equipment manufacturers have neglected those in his situation!).
>
> And since you have chosen to malign me, I would like to add that you come off as a pompous,
> anal jerk! Give us all here a break, WE'VE HEARD IT, ALREADY!
>
> A.T.
Whoooaa! Chill Allen. How the hell did he malign you?
You called yourself a "barbarian guitarist". And quite franky I agree
that you are in a tiny miniority. I know a lot of guitarists that live
in apartments I no absolutely none of them that record with tube amps at
love volumes. If I'm not mistaken I believe the purpose of Cybermonks
posts were concerning recording and not so much practicing. In
recording you are trying to strive to achieve the best possible guitar
tone possible. If you think your Marshall 50 watt is da bomb at low
volume that your entitled to that opinion, but quite frankly I've never
heard a Marshall tube amp that had satisfactory distortion tones at low
volumes except for some of their solidstate and valvestate amps. Most
other Marshall amp users that I know also feel the same way.
All I can say is that you're lucky not to have any complaints even
playing your Marshall 50 watt even at low volumes.
As for your opinion of Cybermonk, I think you had already made up your
opinion of him before you ever even typed a reply to him.
Chris G.
> Cybermonk wrote:
>
> > Alan Thompson <Zomb...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Yes, I know how loud 3 watts is....NOT VERY MUCH!.
> >
> > You have not mentioned what speaker system you are assuming. Is this
> > driving a single 8" speaker in a miniature cabinet, or a serious-sounding
> > speaker cabinet? The main reason 3 watts sounds quieter than its potential
> > level of nearly half as loud as 50 watts, is that 3-watt amps are
> > conventionally packaged with inadequate speaker systems.
> >
> > >I have a 5 watt tweed Champ, a 12
> > >watt Fender Princeton Reverb, and a 50 watt Marshall, I live in an apartment, and I
> > >generally play through the Marshall without complaint.
> >
> > That is certainly a different story than I am hearing from many guitarists.
> > You are in a tiny, insignificant minority if you can get away with turning
> > up a 50 watt Marshall in an apartment.
> >
> > >My advice to you is to move
> > >somewhere that will accomodate your needs, and stop crying about the the lack of 1 watt
> > >amps! Shit, I thought I was anal about guitar stuff, you make me feel like I'm
> > >conservative! My goal is to find a studio with a bed in the corner, so I can play
> > >whenever I want, and sleep when I'm done. I feel that's more realistic than your quest
> > >for "cranked-amp tone" at miniscule volume.
> >
> > Do you think that cranked-amp tone at miniscule volume is unrealistic? From
> > what I have read about 15, 10, 5, 3, and 1-watt tube amps, it is realistic
> > and is the most interesting trend in guitar gear, with tremendous potential.
> > Do you have evidence that 1-watt tube amps would sound bad? Are you
> > recommending that designers and manufacturers should not try making 1-watt
> > tube amps? Would you be uninterested in trying out and possibly buying a
> > 1-watt tube amp?
> >
> > >Move to a warehouse, crank a 100 watt
> > >Marshall, and chill out!
> >
> > Blasting a 100-watt Marshall does not fit in with my day-to-day approach,
> > nor the approach of most guitarists at home.
> >
> > There are some barbarian guitarists who simply cannot fathom what is wrong
> > with blasting an amp at deafening levels. Fortunately, they are in the
> > minority, and progress toward 1-watt amps, and lower, marches on.
> >
Chris Gieseke
>
> If you are seriously trying to tell me that my cranked Champ at 10 feet is
> putting out the same volume as one would receive in the 20th row at a metal
> concert, than I would have to assume you have never experienced either one!
> What a load.
>
> A.T.
If the facts can be verified and documented...can you dispute it?
I would be interested to know who did those measurements and where I
could find that information before casting them aside as lies.
Those measurements do however sound fishy. (Hmmm how do fish sound
like?) :)
Chris G.
> Andrew P. Mullhaupt wrote:
>
> > Alan Thompson wrote in message <36A44DF0...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > >Yes, I know how loud 3 watts is....NOT VERY MUCH!.
> >
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Chris Gieseke wrote in message <36A5CC...@txdirect.net>...
>Alan Thompson wrote:
>>
>> If you are seriously trying to tell me that my cranked Champ at 10 feet
is
>> putting out the same volume as one would receive in the 20th row at a
metal
>> concert, than I would have to assume you have never experienced either
one!
The SPL of the Champ may not get as high as that of the Lexicon 284, for
reasons which have been given many times before. But let's suppose that it
is.
And I've been to a metal concert.
But that is not as hard to take as playing (as I did for a few years) with a
JC-120 about three feet from my head at ear level.
>If the facts can be verified and documented...can you dispute it?
>I would be interested to know who did those measurements and where I
>could find that information before casting them aside as lies.
The Lexicon 284 measurement was done by Lexicon and is available on their
web site as proof of how loud the 284 can be.
The Judas Priest measurement I have from memory, it was a notorious number a
long time ago. Modern concerts can be somewhat louder today than they used
to be a long time ago, but I doubt that 110dB in the audience is atypical
for loud bands.
Keep in mind that in a big room, SPL drops off roughly as the square of the
distance from the source as long as you're in the 'near field'. So if twenty
rows back is about 100 feet from the PA, that PA has to put out roughly 100
times as much SPL as the Lexicon 284 at 10 feet to sound as loud. That's two
orders of magnitude. The reason the PA uses a lot more Watts to achieve this
SPL than you might expect is that the PA has to be broadband, and the bass
frequencies soak up _lots_ of Watts.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Admiral Ballsy
Alan Thompson <Zomb...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> If you are seriously trying to tell me that my cranked Champ at 10 feet is
> putting out the same volume as one would receive in the 20th row at a metal
> concert, than I would have to assume you have never experienced either one!
>
> A.T.
>
Not a load. Remember that SPL is a function that varies with the square of
the distance from the source.
The only amp I ever put a meter on was an Orange Graphic 120. With the SPL
meter about a foot from the grill cloth (one 4x12, 75W Celestions)
dead-center on one speaker, the amp put out 129dB, dimed. So, that's nearly
four times the SPL of the Guinness-recorded 110dB Who concert (which, IIRC,
was taked at 3ft from the PA stacks).
Let's say that the amp was putting out about 190W, dimed as it was (a figure
not uncommon for 100W tube amps). Let's also say that a dimed Champ delivers
10W (I have no idea if this is valid, but it seems reasonable).
Every 3dB requires a doubling in power. If you run the numbers, you can see
that, all else being equal (speaker efficiency, etc), you should expect about
116dB or so from a cranked Champ.
AB
piet...@ezo.net
Thanks for helping me sort that out. I was confused. If (I assume you can
follow your own advice here) you look at the orgial post I had when this
started this was what I summarized. Ol' Cyber then went into the "conspiracy
theory" and "loss of personal control" thing while explaining the need to tell
all of us that he knows what most all of us want. Check it out, as you say,
before you post.
Sorry if you didn't follow along on this one.
Dale
In article <783ioa$31b$1...@ucsee.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>,
s...@ucsee.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Sam E. Trenholme) wrote:
> >> Guitarists are forced to turn the volume knob up, against their will -- it
> >> is the only way that the companies currently provide, for obtaining
> >> cranked-tube-amp tone
>
> >I'll perhpast
> >talk with you again after you take control of your arms, fingers and various
> >motor control back from the amp manufactuers. Until then ... try tinfoil,
> >maybe some meds.
>
> You missed the point. Can you, with a Marshall Stack, get that cranked up
> "full blast" sound without cranking the actual amp? No.
>
> What Tom Scholtz of Boston used to do was modify Marshall Stacks to get
> that mull "cranked up to 11" Marshall sound without the Marshall being
> fully cranked up. The original poster wants a similar modification to be
> available in a commerical product, albeit with a much lower volume than
> TOm used for tracking.
>
> It is not about someone who cranks their stereo against their neighbors
> wishes. It is about someone who wants a full "singing" cranked-up tube
> sound without having to crank it up all the way.
>
> Please read and understand the thread before posting a flame. A personal
> attack looks bad on Usenet. A personal attack where you do not have the
> facts right, and clearly do not understand the poster's original point,
> looks downright foolish.
>
> Take care,
>
> - Sam (There are some problems with the poster's original idea that
> I will not address here in consideration of the poster's somewhat
> hurt feelings after getting in a silly flame war)
> --
> Email address here: http://www.samiam.org/ssi/mailme.shtml
> Music I write here: http://www.mp3.com/sam http://www.samiam.org/mp3
> Mp3 reviews here: http://www.samiam.org/music
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Cybermonk
>posts were concerning recording and not so much practicing.
I want to have great cranked-amp tone whether practicing scales for 8 hours
straight, or recording. This is reasonable and technologically trivial to
achieve, and potentially inexpensive; it simply requires 1-watt tube power
amps.
>All I can say is that you're lucky not to have any complaints even
>playing your Marshall 50 watt even at low volumes.
Alan was the first to point out, in the guitar newsgroups, the Mill Hill
Summer 3.5-watt tube combo amp, or it may have been the 5 watt
battery-powered tube combo amp, the Smicz Portablues 110 (search my home
page for info/links about these).
There is a lot of hypocrisy from those who complain about my efforts for
low-power amps, and my criticism of today's so-called "low power amps" as
not being *nearly* low-power enough. Those guitarists will be in line right
along with me and everyone else, to purchase low-wattage power-tube products
as they become available. But the newsgroups have always been filled with
contentiousness for its own sake.
When 1-watt tube amps become widely available, in a variety of formats, I
fully expect Alan to buy one. So his protesting amounts to empty arguing.
Why not lend a hand, instead, to accellerate this clear trend from 15 to 10,
5, 3, then 1-watt tube amps, and beyond?
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] piet...@ezo.net wrote:
[] >
[] > So in ignoring my observations about Hendrix am I to assume you disagee these
[] > were decent tones?
[] >
[] > Dale
[]
[] I know you were asking Cybermonks opinion but...
[] Decent tones? For what type of music? For his music, yeah fine, it
[] suited Jimi's style, but for other types of guitar based music Jimi's
[] different distorted guitar tones would sound like pure crap.
Exactly. Jimi himself would have given up his raging stack as he
moved further into jazz, as many of his peers have (John McLaughlin
included).
[] But whatever does it for you is fine since distortion tones are so
[] highly subjective.
[]
[] Chris G.
"What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything, and the
Chris Gieseke
>
> Yes, I know how loud 3 watts is....NOT VERY MUCH!. I have a 5 watt tweed Champ, a 12
> watt Fender Princeton Reverb, and a 50 watt Marshall, I live in an apartment, and I
> somewhere that will accomodate your needs, and stop crying about the the lack of 1 watt
> amps! Shit, I thought I was anal about guitar stuff, you make me feel like I'm
> conservative! My goal is to find a studio with a bed in the corner, so I can play
> whenever I want, and sleep when I'm done. I feel that's more realistic than your quest
> Marshall, and chill out!
>
>
> A.T.
Oooh doggies alright get ready to be flamed!...nah just kidding. :)
I actually agree with you, 5 watts, like you said still isn't very loud
at all...but...hook your little 5 watt buddy to a 4x12 cabinet and
you'll get some pretty beefy levels going on. I agree that some people
are getting a bit anal about the low-wattage amps however I for one
would still like to some ultra-low wattage guitar amps designed for
recording. Nothing wrong with that and they could be very useful, say
for example, if you're recording late at night in another part of the
house (or apartment) and don't want to wake anyone up.
So I think it would be great to have some little low wattage tubies on
the market, but even if I had one I'm still not going to quit recording
a cranked all-tube halfstack if I can get away with it.
So it's all good!
Chris G.
Alan Thompson
that in a roundabout way. I admit I was being a little flippant in suggesting he "move into a
warehouse and crank a 100 watt Marshall", but again my main point is that I don't see why someone
who considers playing electric guitar to be important in their life would move into an apartment
with the kind of restrictions his has. And my opinions of him are based on months of overlong,
repetitive posts on his part. I just think it's time that someone clue him in that everyone here
doesn't share his specific concerns, as he seems to think they do (I guess he considers anyone who
doesn't is on his "barbarian guitarist" list).
A.T.
Chris Gieseke wrote:
> Alan Thompson wrote:
> >
> > So, let's see, I'm part of a "tiny, insignificant minority", and a "barbarian guitarist"
> > who blasts his amp at "deafening levels". In the first place, I believe you think your
> > ideas are shared with the majority of guitarists (I think not), in the second place I don't
> > blast my amp at deafening levels, I play at a level that sounds good to me. The point is,
> > why would someone who plays electric guitar and considers it an important part of his life,
> > move into an apartment with the kind of restrictions yours seems to have? (and then complain
> > endlessly about how equipment manufacturers have neglected those in his situation!).
> >
> > And since you have chosen to malign me, I would like to add that you come off as a pompous,
> > anal jerk! Give us all here a break, WE'VE HEARD IT, ALREADY!
> >
> > A.T.
>
> Whoooaa! Chill Allen. How the hell did he malign you?
> You called yourself a "barbarian guitarist". And quite franky I agree
> that you are in a tiny miniority. I know a lot of guitarists that live
> in apartments I no absolutely none of them that record with tube amps at
> love volumes. If I'm not mistaken I believe the purpose of Cybermonks
> posts were concerning recording and not so much practicing. In
> recording you are trying to strive to achieve the best possible guitar
> tone possible. If you think your Marshall 50 watt is da bomb at low
> volume that your entitled to that opinion, but quite frankly I've never
> heard a Marshall tube amp that had satisfactory distortion tones at low
> volumes except for some of their solidstate and valvestate amps. Most
> other Marshall amp users that I know also feel the same way.
> All I can say is that you're lucky not to have any complaints even
> playing your Marshall 50 watt even at low volumes.
> As for your opinion of Cybermonk, I think you had already made up your
> opinion of him before you ever even typed a reply to him.
>
> Chris G.
>
> > Cybermonk wrote:
> >
> > > Alan Thompson <Zomb...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Yes, I know how loud 3 watts is....NOT VERY MUCH!.
> > >
> > > You have not mentioned what speaker system you are assuming. Is this
> > > driving a single 8" speaker in a miniature cabinet, or a serious-sounding
> > > speaker cabinet? The main reason 3 watts sounds quieter than its potential
> > > level of nearly half as loud as 50 watts, is that 3-watt amps are
> > > conventionally packaged with inadequate speaker systems.
> > >
> > > >I have a 5 watt tweed Champ, a 12
> > > >watt Fender Princeton Reverb, and a 50 watt Marshall, I live in an apartment, and I
> > > >generally play through the Marshall without complaint.
> > >
> > > That is certainly a different story than I am hearing from many guitarists.
> > > You are in a tiny, insignificant minority if you can get away with turning
> > > up a 50 watt Marshall in an apartment.
> > >
> > > >My advice to you is to move
> > > >somewhere that will accomodate your needs, and stop crying about the the lack of 1 watt
> > > >amps! Shit, I thought I was anal about guitar stuff, you make me feel like I'm
> > > >conservative! My goal is to find a studio with a bed in the corner, so I can play
> > > >whenever I want, and sleep when I'm done. I feel that's more realistic than your quest
> > > >for "cranked-amp tone" at miniscule volume.
> > >
> > > Do you think that cranked-amp tone at miniscule volume is unrealistic? From
> > > what I have read about 15, 10, 5, 3, and 1-watt tube amps, it is realistic
> > > and is the most interesting trend in guitar gear, with tremendous potential.
> > > Do you have evidence that 1-watt tube amps would sound bad? Are you
> > > recommending that designers and manufacturers should not try making 1-watt
> > > tube amps? Would you be uninterested in trying out and possibly buying a
> > > 1-watt tube amp?
> > >
> > > >Move to a warehouse, crank a 100 watt
> > > >Marshall, and chill out!
> > >
> > > Blasting a 100-watt Marshall does not fit in with my day-to-day approach,
> > > nor the approach of most guitarists at home.
> > >
> > > There are some barbarian guitarists who simply cannot fathom what is wrong
> > > with blasting an amp at deafening levels. Fortunately, they are in the
> > > minority, and progress toward 1-watt amps, and lower, marches on.
> > >
> > > _________________________________
Alan Thompson
listened to his full catalog. One might get that impression from just the "hit"
songs.
A.T.
Chris Gieseke wrote:
> piet...@ezo.net wrote:
> >
> > So in ignoring my observations about Hendrix am I to assume you disagee these
> > were decent tones?
> >
> > Dale
>
> I know you were asking Cybermonks opinion but...
> Decent tones? For what type of music? For his music, yeah fine, it
> suited Jimi's style, but for other types of guitar based music Jimi's
> different distorted guitar tones would sound like pure crap.
Alan Thompson
that want them, I just object to the notion that a majority of players are clamoring for
them. In my opinion, the majority of players are most likely content with their 5-to-100
watt amps for different applications, and those that desperately yearn for amps of miniscule
wattage are a minority.
A.T.
Chris Gieseke wrote:
> Alan Thompson wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I know how loud 3 watts is....NOT VERY MUCH!. I have a 5 watt tweed Champ, a 12
> > watt Fender Princeton Reverb, and a 50 watt Marshall, I live in an apartment, and I
> > generally play through the Marshall without complaint. My advice to you is to move
> > somewhere that will accomodate your needs, and stop crying about the the lack of 1 watt
> > amps! Shit, I thought I was anal about guitar stuff, you make me feel like I'm
> > conservative! My goal is to find a studio with a bed in the corner, so I can play
> > whenever I want, and sleep when I'm done. I feel that's more realistic than your quest
> > for "cranked-amp tone" at miniscule volume. Move to a warehouse, crank a 100 watt
> > Marshall, and chill out!
> >
P.KLuken
for a (pre) amp wich can gentle distort a little bit. Can the london power
do this? What is the internet adress to get the data? Now I play two
perfectly tuned Fender SuperTwins. After removing all components by older
and more expensive ones it sounds great, except the distortion, they are to
loud 2 times 180 watts R.M.S. Does the london power has a tube rectifier? I
read about the signature 284 and I have to decide, it is still not available
for Europe 220 volts. Thanks Peter.
Cybermonk heeft geschreven in bericht <77qn9m$1nk$1...@dns2.serv.net>...
>The Studio 0-10 watt rackmount tube amp has great design goals. Whether it
>achieves these goals including usability and sonically, I cannot say.
Owner
>Scott has intelligent criticisms, shown at my Studio page, yet still he
>implies that it's the only product that is well suited for great, truly
>quiet cranked-amp tone.
>
>The 284 and Studio are the two hottest rackmount tube amps for private
>amp-cranking at home, and I recommend you compare them in detail.
>
>http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g059.htm -- London Power: Studio
>Inflexibility: only drives a speaker cabinet; no built-in dummy load.
>Flexibility: has ideal power attenuation and can play loud at 10 watts or
>quietly at (say) 10mW.
>
>http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g154.htm -- Lexicon Signature 284
>Inflexibility: only produces 3 watts (or 3 per channel) -- no more, no
less.
>
>Flexibility: can drive a speaker cab or internal dummy load and cab-sim
>filter.
>
>You can add a dummy load and cab-sim filter to the Studio to match that
>feature of the 284. But you cannot add pre-transformer power attenuation
to
>the 284 to match the Studio. Thus the Studio inherently supports a broader
>range of approaches, with better sound when using extreme attenuation, than
>any scheme of using the 284. The 284 has too diffuse of a feature set. It
>tries to be a fairly low-power amp while also providing full DI
>capabilities. The Studio concentrates on being the best possible power
amp,
>with flexible features strictly related to power amps (notably the abilitiy
>to saturate at both 10mW and 10 watts, as well as 3 watts); it does not
also
>attempt to provide built-in DI features.
>
>The *Studio* is the hottest design and lowest power -- and most flexible;
it
>also has *more* power than the 284, as well as less. Other amps have a
>built-in power attenuator, but they use a soak approach, *after* the output
>transformer rather than integrated into the power-amp stage.
>
>The 284 is too loud for private amp-cranking at home. The 284 has a
>convenient built-in dummy load and cab-sim filter, but these were the worst
>part, in the full Guitar Player review Nov. 1998.
>
>O'Connor refuses to have anything to do with dummy loads and cab-sim
>filters. He wants people to instead turn the Studio down to the milliwatt
>level and drive a good standard conventional speaker cabinet -- that is the
>way to get the best sound at the quietest volume.
>
>I would buy the Studio, not the 284.
>
>One thing I favor about the 284 is that the same company, Lexicon, also
>makes an intelligently designed rackmount preamp/processor with a
>well-placed effects loop: the MPX G2. So you can go to this one company
and
>effortlessly make a great sounding, complete, speakerless distortion and
>processing system. Simply insert the 284 with dummy load into the fx loop
>of the MPX G2. Place eq and level presets on either side of the fx loop,
in
>each MIDI channel. Set the 284's controls to one position and leave them
>there. This forms a far better sounding, user-voiced modelling amp. To go
>all the way, use a miked speaker rather than a dummy load and cab-sim
filter
>(still remaining in the G2's fx loop, following the 284). But the latter
>approach is far too loud; 3 watts is a whopping 43% as loud as 50 watts.
>
>X% louder = 2^log10(P2/P1) * 100%
>
>1 watt is 31% as loud as 50 watts.
>1/2 watt is 25% as loud as 50 watts.
>1/10 watt is 15% as loud as 50 watts.
>20mW is 10% as loud as 50 watts.
>10mW is 8% as loud as 50 watts.
>
>quiet, it doesn't need one; just drive the speaker at a whisper level, out
>in the open. (There is debate about the importance of driving the speaker
>hard.) Doing an important recording? Then, you can turn up the Studio to
a
>blasting 10 watts to get some speaker response. What is *killer* about the
>Studio is that it is *flexible* as far as power level. It's the only amp
>that is quiet enough for 3 a.m. in an apartment and loud enough to
accompany
>drums. This extreme flexibility is worth far more than the convenient but
>compromised sound of the 284's optional built-in dummy load and cab-sim
>filter. The Studio provides far more important capabilities/features than
>the 284. The 284 has stereo -- but you should not mess with stereo until
>you have an ideal mono setup, scaled for private playing. Power Scaling
>blows away all the other very-low-power amps, because it can go lower, and
>because it can also go higher.
>
>A company that recently offered a below-10-watt tube amp is now working on
a
>2-watt amp. But again, this power reduction is still not enough. Even 1
>watt is too loud for private amp-cranking, when driving a serious speaker
>cabinet. Everyone needs to study the power/volume equation.
>
>I have not heard the 284 or the Studio. I evaluate these based solely on
>design goals and reviews, including reviews from people who have each
>experimented with many products for quiet cranked-tube-amp tone.
>
>_________________________________
>http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone and Effects Placement
>
>
O'Connor
>
> Hi, I am peter and I am a proffesional jazz guitarplayer. So I am looking
> for a (pre) amp wich can gentle distort a little bit. Can the london power
> do this? What is the internet adress to get the data? Now I play two
> perfectly tuned Fender SuperTwins. After removing all components by older
> and more expensive ones it sounds great, except the distortion, they are to
> loud 2 times 180 watts R.M.S. Does the london power has a tube rectifier?
> Cybermonk heeft geschreven in bericht <77qn9m$1nk$1...@dns2.serv.net>...
> >The Studio 0-10 watt rackmount tube amp has great design goals.
> Owner
> >Scott has intelligent criticisms, shown at my Studio page, yet still he
> >implies that it's the only product that is well suited for great, truly
> >quiet cranked-amp tone.
> >You can add a dummy load and cab-sim filter to the Studio to match that
> >feature of the 284. But you cannot add pre-transformer power attenuation
> to
> >the 284 to match the Studio. Thus the Studio inherently supports a broader
> >range of approaches, with better sound when using extreme attenuation, than
> >any scheme of using the 284.
> > The Studio concentrates on being the best possible power
> amp,
> >with flexible features strictly related to power amps (notably the abilitiy
> >to saturate at both 10mW and 10 watts, as well as 3 watts)
> >The *Studio* is the hottest design and lowest power -- and most flexible;
> it
> >also has *more* power than the 284, as well as less. Other amps have a
> >built-in power attenuator, but they use a soak approach, *after* the output
> >transformer rather than integrated into the power-amp stage.
> >
> >The 284 is too loud for private amp-cranking at home. The 284 has a
> >convenient built-in dummy load and cab-sim filter, but these were the worst
> >part, in the full Guitar Player review Nov. 1998.
> >
> >O'Connor refuses to have anything to do with dummy loads and cab-sim
> >filters. He wants people to instead turn the Studio down to the low-watt
> >level and drive a good standard conventional speaker cabinet -- that is the
> >way to get the best sound at the quietest volume.
> >
> >I would buy the Studio, not the 284.
> >So, instead, I want to buy the Studio, which has no dummy load, but is so
> >quiet, it doesn't need one; just drive the speaker at a whisper level, out
> >in the open. (There is debate about the importance of driving the speaker
> >hard.) Doing an important recording? Then, you can turn up the Studio to
> a
> >blasting 10 watts to get some speaker response. What is *killer* about the
> >Studio is that it is *flexible* as far as power level. It's the only amp
> >that is quiet enough for 3 a.m. in an apartment and loud enough to
> accompany
> >drums. This extreme flexibility is worth far more than the convenient but
> >compromised sound of the 284's optional built-in dummy load and cab-sim
> >filter. The Studio provides far more important capabilities/features than
> >the 284. The 284 has stereo -- but you should not mess with stereo until
> >you have an ideal mono setup, scaled for private playing. Power Scaling
> >blows away all the other very-low-power amps, because it can go lower, and
> >because it can also go higher.
Hi Peter
For stage use, you might want to check out our Power Scaling SESSION and
SESSION-3D (with reverb). These both have traditional guitar preamps--
Drive, High, Mid, Low-- but also have power-amp-only features like
triode/pentode, fixed/cathode bias and bias level switches, and
switchable output matching.
See our site for more details: <http://www.londonpower.com>
Good luck in your Tone Quest!
Kevin O'Connor