Calculating the power/volume relation for amp wattage?
~*Freebird*~
Cybermonk wrote in message <776fin$fqe$1...@dns2.serv.net>...
>A common assumption is that a 5 watt amp is 1/10 as loud as a 50 watt amp,
>as far as perceived loudness. That's 10% as loud.
>
It isn't something so easily calculated. There are MANY other factors that
contibute to the volume of an amp. There is by no means any direct
relationship between wattage and decibal level output.
Rob
Ned Carlson
>
>If you are dealing with power the formula is:
>
>db=10*log(p1/p2)
>
>and 3 db is a minimum volume change:
>
>10 db is considered twice as loud.
>
>your EG: 50/3=16.66
>
>log(16.66) = 1.22 times 10 = 12.2db
>
>now it gets subjective... its more than twice as loud...but just a
>bit. (30 is twice, and going to 50 is barely noticiable.)
Note that if you're going to make a real comparison between
the actual loudness at clipping two amps of given powers,
you have to take into consideration the efficiency of the
output transformer (some are pretty crappy and could eat
a fair portion of the power) and the speakers.
Now, beyond clipping, that's another question,
it's not hard for me to believe that differences in
transformers, power supplies, and tubes could make a
quite a difference in the clipping headroom
even between amps of identical clean power levels,
let alone between amps of varying power.
Maybe the easiest way to determine that would be with
a sound-level meter.
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>
Cybermonk
A 5 watt amp is 50% as loud as a 50 watt amp.
A 10 watt amp is 50% as loud as a 100 watt amp.
To increase volume by a factor of 2, increase the power by a factor of 10.
To reduce volume by a factor of 2, reduce the power by a factor of 10.
There must be a simple calculation to determine X in the statement below:
A 3-watt amp is X% as loud as a 50-watt amp.
How can I calculate X?
Here are some of my attempts.
log(10) x = y
log 50 = 1.698970004336
log 5 = 0.698970004336
log 10 = 1
10^^x = 1
2V = 10P
V=5P
Polfus
>From: bl...@gleeb.com (Cybermonk)
>I have been told that:
>A 5 watt amp is 50% as loud as a 50 watt amp.
I don't think so, dude.
>A 10 watt amp is 50% as loud as a 100 watt amp.
No way.
Polfus
Cybermonk
as far as perceived loudness. That's 10% as loud.
Some people have said that a 5 watt amp is much louder than 10% as loud as
50 watts -- they say it's 50%, not 10%.
(For such comparisons, we should assume these amps are driving the same
speaker cabinet.)
leo...@nospam.com
If you are dealing with power the formula is:
db=10*log(p1/p2)
and 3 db is a minimum volume change:
10 db is considered twice as loud.
your EG: 50/3=16.66
log(16.66) = 1.22 times 10 = 12.2db
now it gets subjective... its more than twice as loud...but just a
bit. (30 is twice, and going to 50 is barely noticiable.)
>bl...@gleeb.com (Cybermonk) wrote:
>I have been told that:
>A 5 watt amp is 50% as loud as a 50 watt amp.
>A 10 watt amp is 50% as loud as a 100 watt amp.
Gilbert Bates
>
>If you are dealing with power the formula is:
>
>db=10*log(p1/p2)
>
>and 3 db is a minimum volume change:
>
>10 db is considered twice as loud.
>
If I'm not mistaken...
3db is twice as loud and 10 db is ten times as loud. :-)
Asad Aboobaker
Hate to say it, but you are mistaken :)
The previous post is correct.
Asad
remove "!"s to mail
Ross M Stites
>>Subject: Calculating the power/volume relation for amp wattage?
>>From: bl...@gleeb.com (Cybermonk)
>>I have been told that:
>>A 5 watt amp is 50% as loud as a 50 watt amp.
>I don't think so, dude.
Actually he's right. All else being equal, it takes a 10 fold increase
in power to double volume.
>>A 10 watt amp is 50% as loud as a 100 watt amp.
>No way.
Believe it. It's basic physics.
Ross
Ross M Stites
>Cybermonk wrote in message <776fin$fqe$1...@dns2.serv.net>...
>>A common assumption is that a 5 watt amp is 1/10 as loud as a 50 watt amp,
>>as far as perceived loudness. That's 10% as loud.
>>
>It isn't something so easily calculated. There are MANY other factors that
>contibute to the volume of an amp. There is by no means any direct
>relationship between wattage and decibal level output.
There is a direct relationship between power and volume. You just
have to remember that many other things contribute to the final
volume: namely # of speakers and speaker efficiency. The other
problem comes from the fact that many manufacturers measure power
differently and tube amps by their very nature are a bit difficult
to measure. Still, output volume is directly correlated with
output power.
Ross
Suzanne Archibald
Gilbert Bates <gil...@peakpeak.com> wrote in message
3696d455...@news2.peakpeak.com...
>On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 03:02:40 GMT, leo...@nospam.com wrote:
>
>>
>>If you are dealing with power the formula is:
>>
>>db=10*log(p1/p2)
>>
>>and 3 db is a minimum volume change:
>>
>>10 db is considered twice as loud.
>>
>
>If I'm not mistaken...
>
>3db is twice as loud and 10 db is ten times as loud. :-)
>
3db is twice the level in linear terms (as long as we're talking power
levels), 10db is twice as loud to the human ear (since the human ear isn't
linear). The human ear can only tell differences greater than 3db (or so
they say)
Suzanne
rst...@ihug.com.au
for you for the general case.
Here's the full explanation. The results here assume that the same signal is
plugged through the system for comparisons, otherwise it gets complicated.
Keep in mind peoples perception varies slightly as well.
My use of x% is 200% is twice as loud, 100% is the same loudness, and 50% is
half as loud. This is different than yours but more intuitive.
Loudness: To double the percieved loudness of a signal you must increase the
sound pressure level by 10dB. This is true for average sound levels but not
true for very loud or soft signals. This has been derived from tests of
peoples perception of sound levels, there's no other way to come up with this
figure.
So if you increase the sound pressure level by DB it will be perceived as:
x% = (2 ^ (DB/10))*100%
or = (10 ^ (0.301 * DB/10)) * 100%
Example, increasing the SPL by 23dB will be (2^(23/10)/100 = 492% ie five
times louder.
Power: The change in DB corresponding to changing the power level from P1 to
P2 is, by definition,
DB = 10 log10 (P2/P1)
So if we double the power we get 10 log10(2/1) = 3dB, this is not percieved
as double the loudness and is why a lot of people get confused.
Perceived Loudness vs Power To compare two amps we must make the assumption
that the amplifiers are driving the same speakers. (Driving a 4x12" box will
be much louder than a single 10" cab probably 6dB or more louder.)
To get a comparison between loudness and power we combine the two results
above to get:
x% louder = 2^log10(P2/P1) * 100%
or the same thing is,
x% louder = (10 ^ (0.301 log10(P2/P1))) * 100%
Example 100W amp vs 20W amp
x% = (10 ^ (0.301 * log10(100/20))) * 100%
= (10 ^ (0.301 * log10(5))) * 100%
= (10^ (0.301 * 0.699)) * 100%
= 1.62 * 100%
= 162%
or doing it in two stages we get,
DB = 10 * log(100/20) = 6.99dB
x% = (10 ^ (0.301 * 6.99/10)) * 100% = 162%
Believe it or not.
Regards
Rob
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Cybermonk
>"~*Freebird*~" <free...@ovation.net> writes:
>Ross
Thank you. The main focus of this thread is purely on the power/volume
relation, not so much on the question of what factors contribute to
producing a resulting volume out of a given number of watts.
Let us assume "all other things being equal". That is, the amps (3, 5, 10,
50, and 100 watts) all:
o Are made by the same company.
o Use output transformers (and so on) of the same efficiency.
o Are measured using the exact same cab and speakers.
A 3 watt amp is X% as loud at a 50 watt amp.
What is the value of X, and how do you calculate it?
Cybermonk
>If you are dealing with power the formula is:
>db=10*log(p1/p2)
>and 3 db is a minimum volume change:
>10 db is considered twice as loud.
>your EG: 50/3=16.66
>log(16.66) = 1.22 times 10 = 12.2db
>now it gets subjective... its more than twice as loud...but just a
>bit. (30 is twice, and going to 50 is barely noticiable.)
Thank you very much.
10dB is twice as loud, and the difference between 3 and 50 watts is a little
greater than that: 12.2 db. That's 2.2 db more than twice as loud; that is,
3 watts is slightly less than half as loud as 50 watts; say, 80% as loud.
But I already knew that estimate; I was hoping for a simple calculatable
percentage.
For a 1 watt amp:
50/1 = 50
log(50) = 1.698970004336
x 10 = 16.98970004336 db
So a 50 watt amp is 17 db louder than a 1 watt amp (all other factors being
equal). A 1-watt amp is 17db quieter than a 50 watt amp. 17 db is almost
20 db, which is a four-fold reduction. 1 watt is a little louder than 1/4
as loud as 50 watts. I knew that already, from the following train of
reasoning, and am hoping for a calculatable percentage.
5 watts is 1/2 the volume of 50 watts.
1/2 watt is 1/4 the volume of 50 watts.
So 1 watt is slightly louder than 1/4 the volume of 50 watts.
Let us assume "all other things being equal". That is, the amps (3, 5, 10,
50, and 100 watts) all:
o Are made by the same company.
o Use output transformers (and so on) of the same efficiency.
o Are measured using the exact same cab and speakers.
A 3 watt amp is X% as loud at a 50 watt amp.
What is the value of X, and how do you calculate it? We know it's a little
less than 50% -- say around 40%.
Dan Stanley
Polfus wrote in message <19990108211524...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Calculating the power/volume relation for amp wattage?
>>From: bl...@gleeb.com (Cybermonk)
>
>>I have been told that:
>>A 5 watt amp is 50% as loud as a 50 watt amp.
>
>I don't think so, dude.
It's true, though. Sheehy or Garvin or Mullhaupt could 'splain, along with a
whole bunch of ather sramt guys who hang out here.
>>A 10 watt amp is 50% as loud as a 100 watt amp.
>No way.
Way.
Dan
Suzanne Archibald
Suzanne Archibald <suz...@nospam.here> wrote in message
777no2$quk$0...@208.133.29.144...
>
>3db is twice the level in linear terms (as long as we're talking power
>levels), 10db is twice as loud to the human ear (since the human ear isn't
>linear). The human ear can only tell differences greater than 3db (or so
>they say)
>
>Suzanne
>
>
Just thought I'd better clarify a point here, this is assuming that the
speakers give a linear translation from power levels to SPL levels, since if
a 10dB drop in power results in more than a 10dB drop in SPL, then you'll
certainly hear the output a lot lower than 50%.
markel
Bible
Gilbert Bates wrote in message <3696d455...@news2.peakpeak.com>...
>On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 03:02:40 GMT, leo...@nospam.com wrote:
>
>>
>>If you are dealing with power the formula is:
>>
>>db=10*log(p1/p2)
>>
>>and 3 db is a minimum volume change:
>>
>>10 db is considered twice as loud.
>>
>
Suzanne Archibald
dealing with power, 3dB is a 100% increase in power levels, when dealing
with voltage or current 6dB is a 100% increase in levels.
as derived from
Gain(v) = 20*log(V1/V2)
Gain(p) = 10*log(P1/P2)
As such a 20dB (more likely to be around 18dB i would bet) change in voltage
would produce double the audible level. Many people seem to confuse the fact
that 3dB ( or 6dB for voltage/current) results in a double in levels, with
the required change in levels for an audible difference of 2x.
markel <mar...@tdi.net> wrote in message 77864i$hcm$1...@adonis.tdi.net...
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
markel wrote in message <77864i$hcm$1...@adonis.tdi.net>...
>I've always heard that 6dB is a doubling of apparent volume. Source: EV PA
>Bible
There's always this confusion over the factor of two when people use dB
because some people are squaring and others aren't inside the logarithm.
Now there is a lot of agony when people use log for something other than the
logarithm. There is only one logarithm. You can tell it from impostors
because it's the one with
log(e)=1
where e is Euler's number (2.71828....). For a long time idiots used log as
a shorthand; they wrote log(x) when they really meant
log(x) / log(10)
and went so far as to start calling this the logarithm; it even appears as
such in many elementary Calculus texts, with the abomination "ln" used for
the actual logarithm.
Unfortunately, it is necessary to shoot such people to prevent them from
propagating this heretical confusion. A dirty job, but someone's got to do
it.
The Bel of a ratio x is defined as log(x)/log(10). The deciBels (tenths of a
Bel) of a ratio must, therefore, be
10 * log(x) / log(10).
Now it happens that it's often convenient to refer to a ratio of 2; and
since
log(2)/log(10) = 0.30103...
so in deciBels (dB) a ratio of two is:
10 * log(2)/log(10) = 3.0103...
So 3dB is not exactly a doubling, but it's well within one percent of the
true value.
It is important to keep in mind that Bels (and deciBels, kiloBels, MegaBels,
etc.) measure ratios; engineers will note these are "dimensionless"
quantities.
But it is not unusual to see absolute signal levels quoted in dB. This must
always be in terms of the ratio of that signal to an implied fixed standard
level. Sometimes there is a letter appended to dB to refer to make this
standard explicit.
The final point of confusion is usually whether or not we are talking about
amplitude or energy. In a large variety of physical situations, energy
scales as the _square_ of the amplitude. In such cases, it is not unusual to
find people giving expressions for the deciBels of _energy ratio_ in terms
of (easier to measure) amplitude ratio; you get something like this:
10 * log(E1 / E2) / log(10) = 10 * log(A1^2 / A2^2) / log(10)
and using the fact that log(x^2) = 2 * log(x)
10 * log(E1 / E2) / log(10) = 20 * log(A1 / A2) / log(10)
which, although a bit cross-gartered, is not an unusual thing to come
across. It's what makes people talk about 6dB as a doubling.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Daniel R. Haney
[stuff on deciBels and Napierian logarithms]
> The final point of confusion is usually whether or not we are talking about
> amplitude or energy. In a large variety of physical situations, energy
> scales as the _square_ of the amplitude. In such cases, it is not unusual to
> find people giving expressions for the deciBels of _energy ratio_ in terms
> of (easier to measure) amplitude ratio; you get something like this:
Yup. I'm kunphyoozd. I thought it was a ratio of POWER transfer,
as in (i1*v1 / i2*v2) or (i1^2 / R) / (v2^2 / R) but where the load
resistance is constant and drops out, leaving you with the ratio
of the squares of the voltages. Then you do the logarithmic
manipulations.
If you have a source-input resistance mismatch, don't the numbers
look more conservative because the resistance terms stay in?
Finally, I get a chuckle when I see the Rocktron Gainiac preamp
sporting gain specs of 70dB. Even using the conservative dB
definition, you get rough gain of 3000 which translates to
300 volts at the output given a 100 mV 6-string chord slammed
into the input.
Line level to a power amp is, oh...about 1 volt, right?
-drh
--
"Who cares? It's only Usenet."
John Sheehy
>It's true, though. Sheehy or Garvin or Mullhaupt could 'splain, along with a
>whole bunch of ather sramt guys who hang out here.
Sorry. I used to know this stuff, but I don't remember the exact
figures. I am aware of the logarithmic nature of subjective volume, but
I don't remember how it's scaled. Andrew posted something about it.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Cybermonk
>What you have been told is correct. I'll try to explain why and do the math
>for you for the general case.
> x% louder = 2^log10(P2/P1) * 100%
Thank you very much for the formula.
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.
50mW is 13% as loud as 50 watts
20mW is 10% as loud as 50 watts.
10mW is 8% as loud as 50 watts.
5mW is 6% as loud as 50 watts.
1mW is 4% as loud as 50 watts.
0.5mW is 3% as loud as 50 watts.
0.1mW is 2% as loud as 50 watts.
50uW is 1.6% as loud as 50 watts.
10uW is 1% as loud as 50 watts.
There are only two tube power amps I've heard of that get down to the 10 mW
level: the LXH2 project and the Studio amp by London Power. I have heard a
cranked 5 watt tube amp but not driving a serious speaker cabinet. The 5 or
6 watt Fender Champ is far too loud for my needs, and so is the 5 watt Crate
VC508. The Studio is particularly interesting as far as pointing the way
for designers of truly low-power tube amps, because it can be adjusted
instantly to any value from 0 to 10 watts, and was tested in the milliwatt
range, while of course keeping the output transformer and speaker system
constant. The enables easy testing of the above calculations about
perceived volume vs. wattage. This amp is supposed to produce the same
classic amp-breakup tone whether at 10mW or the wide-open 10 watts, so a
brief test with this amp should be able to settle whether or not cranked-amp
tone must necessarily involve driving speakers hard and pushing air hard.
Let us hope that top-notch tone can be achieved at 10mW, as the LXH2 and
Studio claim, and give it a try, in more designs.
_________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone, quiet cranked-tube-amp tone,
low-wattage power tube products
Cybermonk
leo...@nospam.com
I totally agree with you - in fact when I reached for my calculator to
do the example, I was kind of wondering what kind of log it would do.
Most of my calculators always did real logs and I would divide by 10 -
but I see now they do base10 with the log button - and have a ln
button too.
But his question - percentage of volume - boy its so subjective!!! How
the hell can someone say," Yup - thats twice as loud, no, no , up a
little bit, THERE!!" I think its impossible.....
>The final point of confusion is usually whether or not we are talking about
>amplitude or energy. In a large variety of physical situations, energy
>scales as the _square_ of the amplitude. In such cases, it is not unusual to
>find people giving expressions for the deciBels of _energy ratio_ in terms
>of (easier to measure) amplitude ratio; you get something like this:
>
leo...@nospam.com
My amps S/N ratio is about 60db, and with full volume I can easily
clip the shit out of it with a single note - so I would say the amps
total gain is above 70 - but the useful gain has to stay at 60 because
of the clipping - right?? of course on the scope I can see crap
extending 2 times above the clip point when I really drive it - you
don't get this effect with SS but I guess the transfo kind of rings
and gives a supply boost at certain freqs. I guess you could design
any gain you want - even 100db if you want - but it wouldnt be usefull
would it? mmmmmm maybe for fuzz!!!
Rich Koerner
>
> I totally agree with you - in fact when I reached for my calculator to
> do the example, I was kind of wondering what kind of log it would do.
> Most of my calculators always did real logs and I would divide by 10 -
> but I see now they do base10 with the log button - and have a ln
> button too.
>
> But his question - percentage of volume - boy its so subjective!!! How
> the hell can someone say," Yup - thats twice as loud, no, no , up a
> little bit, THERE!!" I think its impossible.....
You are totally right!
Audio memory retention is very short.
There are too many variables acoustically, electro-mechanically, and
along with that, the human factor.
It is better to use an SPL meter, and not a watt meter!
This is a more accurate indicator of what is actually impacting the
human ear.
Regards,
Rich Koerner,
Time Electronics.
http://www.timeelect.com
rst...@ihug.com.au
It's not so simple.
If you are interested in preserving TONE there are a few aspects of sound
reproduction you should be aware of:
1) The frequency response of your ears varies quite DRAMATICALLY with the
sound pressure level. Generally the perceived loudness of the low and high
end drops off as the level is reduced. This is why your stereo seems to lack
bass at low levels and sounds kind of thin like a transistor radio. I'm sure
the thinning of tone and drive of a guitar will also be the case. Some
stereos have a laudness switch which supposed to counteract this effect.
2) As you reduce volume the ability for you to detected subtlties in tone
diminishes and the sound may become kind of bland, lacking nuance.
3)If the amp you speak about uses a power-soak technique it may affect the
damping of the speaker and possibly change the amps response. Hence the tone
will be modified. Also cabinet and room vibrations, which do add to tone,
will be different at very low levels.
4) At very low levels the hysteresis effect in the speaker, which are hard to
quantify, may affect the way the speaker behaves.
5) At high levels, where most amps sound great, the speakers add there own
non-linear effects.
When you consider all of these factors what you think is comparing apples with
apples turns into comparing apples with bannanas.
A way of getting around these problems play the signal through headphones to
bring the sound pressure level back up to a reasonable level. You can
even mic the speaker - more problems. However it is difficult to preserve the
characteristics of the speaker as well.
Good Luck
Cybermonk
>the hell can someone say," Yup - thats twice as loud, no, no , up a
>little bit, THERE!!" I think its impossible.....
Being exactly precise is impossible. But estimating the relative loudness
of amps at various wattages is possible, meaningful, helpful, and essential.
I think of myself as a defender and advocate of the guitarist who simply
wants cranked-tube-amp tone at a quiet level at home so that his housemates
do not hear. To finally come through with an amp-rig design to successfully
meet the needs of this typical guitarist-at-home, to finally take seriously
the needs of the guitarist at home, we must do these calculations, and also
use an SPL meter, and also try out various ultra-low-power amps. These
calculations and these online discussions indicate that designers have
utterly missed the mark with the so-called "low-power" amps. As a result, I
have read many amp reviews in which the guitarist remarks "this 15 watt amp
is amazingly loud". Guitarists need to stop being "amazed", and instead,
*understand* the mathematical relation between wattage and perceived volume.
We've seen all too much of this terrible pattern: guitarist buys 50 watt
amp, discovers that getting great amp tone at home is *impossible*, because
the amp is way, way too loud; buys 30 watt amp, discovers that getting great
amp tone at home is *impossible*, buys 20 watt amp, discovers that getting
great amp tone at home is *impossible*, buys 15 watt amp, discovers that
getting great amp tone at home is *impossible*, buys 10 watt amp, discovers
that getting great amp tone at home is *impossible*, buys 7 watt amp,
discovers that getting great amp tone at home is *impossible*, buys 5 watt
amp, discovers that getting great amp tone at home is *impossible*, buys 3
watt amp, discovers that getting great amp tone at home is *impossible*...
This is the current mode of operation of the guitar-gear industry, and it's
an abomination. We need to put a stop to this slow-witted incomprehension,
quit buying today's "low-power" amps without understanding how loud they
actually are, do the calculations, and discover that the wattage that is
actually needed for near-silent cranked-amp tone is 10mW-1 watt -- not 25
watts, or 15, or 10, or 5, or 3.
Today's state of knowledge of the *basics* of amp tone is abysmal. People
can't even differentiate between a preamp and a power amp, and don't know
about the nonlinearity of the power/volume relation, and don't know why echo
before a cranked power amp sounds cruddy... The status quo of guitar gear
has been dragging on for too long, too loud. Yesterday I had to explain
four times to the young Guitar Center salesman that when I said the
Signature 284 is a 3-watt tube amp, I *meant* it.
There is a conspiracy of cluelessness across the whole guitar-gear industry
-- they keep on churning out 50 watt amps, ever more 50 watt amps, with an
occassional "low-power" 15-watt amp "perfect for getting cranked-amp tone at
home". What is the guitarists at home expected to do? "Oh, just use a
Power Brake or Hot Plate, or an amp simulator." The guitarist at home is
offered grossly overpowered amps, or the 3rd-rate tone of an amp simulator,
but there is no technological reason for it. It should be fairly trivial to
make a 1/2 watt or 1-watt tube amp, with a standard full set of controls and
a serious speaker system.
There is one thing stopping this from happening: the industry and designers
are completely out of touch with the needs and high tonal standards of
guitarists at home, and don't know anything about truly low-power amp
wattage, and are totally biased toward the guitarist-on-stage. At home, he
is supposed to use a "practice amp" with "practice tone" -- yuck! This lack
of intelligent design is without any good technological reason -- the
industry just needs to learn the basics of amp tone principles and the
basics of quiet cranked-amp tone.
Calculating the power/volume relationship is essential to driving home these
points. The "amazed" results that too many beleaguered guitarists, robbed
by the ignorance of the industry and sold thousands of dollars of
inappropriate gear, supports the findings of the power/volume curve. Let
them stop being amazed at how loud a 5 watt amp is, and start studying the
equation and understanding, and start asking for 1/2 watt amps.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone
Dan Stanley
leo...@nospam.com wrote in message <3698071b...@news.total.net>...
>
>I totally agree with you - in fact when I reached for my calculator to
>do the example, I was kind of wondering what kind of log it would do.
>Most of my calculators always did real logs and I would divide by 10 -
>but I see now they do base10 with the log button - and have a ln
>button too.
>
>the hell can someone say," Yup - thats twice as loud, no, no , up a
>little bit, THERE!!" I think its impossible.....
>
A person might not be able to do it by ear (then again, there is probably
someone out there who can!) but certainly any doofus CAN use an SPL
measuring device. SPL isn't the same as "power", really, but...
Dan
Bill Bolton
> A 3 watt amp is X% as loud at a 50 watt amp.
> What is the value of X, and how do you calculate it?
Did you see the post that said that a 3dB difference is about the
smallest that can be reliably detected as a noticeable volume change
by any significant sample of listeners?
Given that, it is not possible to realistically work out than an amp
is, say, 43% the volume of another amp. You can only work in
relatively large steps and those large steps are still relative to one
end or the other.
In other words, all else being equal, your 3 Watt amp is going to be
sound "half as loud" as 50 Watt amp to most listeners, no matter what!
In other words, the calculation you want to make is largely pointless
in any practical sense.
Cheers,
Bill
Bill Bolton
> Thank you very much for the formula.
>
> 5 watts is 50% as loud as 50 watts.
> 3 watts is 43% as loud as 50 watts.
etc...
Users will not perceive it this way.... see my other post in this
thread.
I *strongly* suggest you do some serious reading on the field of
psycho-acoustics before you go too much further with your low power
experiments. You may end with a technically elegant but largely
"unhearable" result for the majority of impartial listeners, even if
you can persuade yourself and other partial listeners it can be heard.
Cheers,
Bill
Bill Bolton
> Guitarists need to stop being "amazed", and instead, *understand*
> the mathematical relation between wattage and perceived volume.
There's nothng secret about, it been known for decades by many
musicians. Again I suggest you would be better starting off from
considering why most guitarists just dont care.... the psychological
aspects are rather more imporant in prcatice than the technical ones.
Cheers,
Bill
John Stanley
John Sheehy wrote in message <36a5c701...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>"Dan Stanley" <stan...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
>>It's true, though. Sheehy or Garvin or Mullhaupt could 'splain, along with
a
>>whole bunch of ather sramt guys who hang out here.
>
>Sorry. I used to know this stuff, but I don't remember the exact
>figures. I am aware of the logarithmic nature of subjective volume, but
>I don't remember how it's scaled. Andrew posted something about it.
>--
>
Isn't it something about "10 log 50W"?
This would give a dB figure
same for the other amp. I thought it was a change of 3dB meant a doubling or
halving of power. Am I on track with this one or what?
Mark Garvin
>Polfus wrote in message <19990108211524...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
>>>Subject: Calculating the power/volume relation for amp wattage?
>>>From: bl...@gleeb.com (Cybermonk)
>>
>>>I have been told that:
>>>A 5 watt amp is 50% as loud as a 50 watt amp.
>>
>>I don't think so, dude.
>It's true, though. Sheehy or Garvin or Mullhaupt could 'splain, along with a
>whole bunch of ather sramt guys who hang out here.
I'm catching this thread kinda late (my ISP's news has been down).
Not that I'm one o' those ather sramt guys, but I posted something on
computing db's by volts vs watts last year. Not sure if it applies,
but I just dug up a copy. I did try to make it readable anyway.
The other thing that often applies is the *perceived* output level.
Once the system starts distorting a bit, it will often sound louder.
That's where relative levels get harder to measure.
MG
Repost of volts vs watts vs db's article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> GP wrote:
>> >I don't have textbook handy but here's what I remember:
>> >dB SPL = 20 log P/Pref
>RS wrote:
>> Shouldn't this be 10 log P/Pref?
>>
>> If not, then 6 dB, not 3 dB, is the doubling point. If used to
>> measure power, 10logP is the correct formula for dBw (dB Watts),
>> but I'm not sure about sound.
>>
>> A further clarification for those who wish to do the math:
>> log = log10 = log base 10
> GP wrote:
>Nope. 20 log P/Pref is correct for sound pressure level. Note that for
>_signal_ level 10 log P/Pref is correct. Why that is I have no idea :)
MGarvin:
It's actually 20 * log (Voltage_ratio) or 10 * log (Wattage_ratio).
For anyone interested...
If you understand ohms law and a simple formula for wattage, the decibel
thing is easy:
Current is voltage / resistance (I = E / R) derived from ohm's law.
Watts is voltage times current (W = E * I)
So...
Watts = voltage * voltage / resistance (W = V squared / R)
In the case of a guitar amp, resistance is 8 ohms (or 4 ohms or whatever).
It remains constant.
Since the wattage is voltage SQUARED over resistance, doubling voltage will
give *4* times the wattage.
EX:
10 volts squared / 4 ohms = 25 watts
20 volts squared / 4 ohms = 100 watts
No matter whether you use the formula:
db = 10 * log (WATTAGE ratio)
or
db = 20 * log (VOLTAGE ratio)
The end result is exactly the same!
Engineers designing amp circuits constantly use 20 * log (voltage_ratio)
to determine effective output. Increasing 10 volts to 20 volts yields:
20 * log (2)
That's 6.02 db.
When that voltage is applied to a speaker, the example is as above:
10 volts squared / 4 ohms = 25 watts
20 volts squared / 4 ohms = 100 watts
(That's a 1:4 increase!)
The wattage ratio is:
10 * log (4)
That's ALSO 6.02 db.
Same thing, ya see.
MGarvin
Cybermonk
>Not that I'm one o' those ather sramt guys, but I posted something on
>computing db's by volts vs watts last year. Not sure if it applies,
>but I just dug up a copy. I did try to make it readable anyway.
Thank you.
The thread has a lot of substantial math along these lines; it is worth your
reading.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g216.htm -- Web/DejaNews interface to my
postings and threads
Cybermonk
>> the mathematical relation between wattage and perceived volume.
>There's nothng secret about, it been known for decades by many
>musicians. Again I suggest you would be better starting off from
>considering why most guitarists just dont care....
You assert that most guitarists do not care about the nonlinear relation
between wattage and volume. That is debatable. Many guitarists at home
care a great deal about very low power amps, and are surprised and confused
when they spend their hard-earned money on a 15 or 5 watt amp and then find
that, in practice, this "quiet, low-power amp appropriate for use at home"
is actually *far* too loud to crank without the housemates and neighbors
hearing.
Stage-oriented guitarists have no sympathy or comprehension of the quest for
getting authentic cranked-amp tone at home at near-silent levels.
Home-oriented guitarists ("the guitarist at home") understand and share this
interest, and typically do not know the nonlinear relation that is crucial
toward their goal.
>the psychological aspects are rather more important in prcatice than
>the technical ones.
Call it "psychological" or "technical", the bottom line is, when guitarists
understand that 3 watts is extremely loud (almost half as loud as a 50 watt
amp), and look at the calculations, they will finally realize that the power
level they actually need is 1/2 watt, not 15, 10, 7, 5, or 3 watts -- and
they will realize this *without* continuing to shell out thousands of
dollars to buy the inappropriate, stage-oriented amps that are the only
option offered to them by the biased guitar-gear industry. The industry
gives 90% of its attention to blasting amps on stage, 9% of its attention to
"quiet" [sic] 15-watt amps "for the studio" -- that is, for the
professional, expensive, soundproofed recording studio, *not* the home
studio -- and gives only 1% of its attention to the guitarist at home, such
as in an apartment. The 1% of the design effort and gear that is oriented
toward the guitarist at home is still far too loud (3 watts) or produces
3rd-rate sound (cab-sim filters, amp simulators, modelling amps played at
headphone level).
This casual, inadequate attention to the guitarist at home is drastically
out of proportion with the huge demand for top-notch cranked-amp tone at
home. Half, or more, of the market for guitar gear lies in the home market,
and I don't mean "home studio" -- I mean an ordinary bedroom or living room
in a typical house or apartment. The industry has been woefully out of
touch with its own potential market.
The Lexicon Signature 284, a 3-watt rackmount tube amp, is a successful, hot
product, but it took me four tries last Saturday before one of the Guitar
Center salesmen believed me, that there is a 3-watt rackmount tube amp.
Another Guitar Center salesman did know about the 284, but said that
Corporate was not planning on stocking them, and the two special-ordered
284's that the store ordered were immediately snapped up. It is as though
Guitar Center, Marshall, Fender, and Musician's Friend were in a conspiracy
to provide two options: monster amps, and crappy practice amps and
simulators. "Either buy our $600 amp, or sound bad."
The industry is blind to the real needs and high standards of the huge
number of guitarists at home, and the additional potential guitarists at
home which there would be if there were more appropriate products for home
amp-cranking. And many stage-oriented guitarists are blind to the need for
ultra-low-power amps and the need for an authentic tone, not a "practice
tone", while at home. But of course the market exists and the need exists.
What guitarist would *not* be thrilled to get actual cranked-amp tone at
home without the housemates or neighbors hearing? It's a huge, unmet
demand, and the efforts to fill this demand so far have been grossly
over-powered or grossly compromised in sound.
The relation between rated wattage and perceived volume may have been in
some sense "known for decades by musicians", but that knowledge has not
effectively spread throughout the guitar industry and throughout the
guitarists at home.
_________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone, low-power tube amps
Cybermonk
>> 3 watts is 43% as loud as 50 watts.
>Users will not perceive it this way.... see my other post in this
>thread.
>I *strongly* suggest you do some serious reading on the field of
>psycho-acoustics before you go too much further with your low power
>experiments. You may end with a technically elegant but largely
>"unhearable" result for the majority of impartial listeners, even if
>you can persuade yourself and other partial listeners it can be heard.
You seem to think that I am promoting 3 watt amps rather than 5 watt amps as
the solution to the problem of getting cranked-amp tone without others
hearing, as though 50% as loud as 50 watts is too loud, while 43% is just
right. If so, you don't understand my point at all. My point is that
halving power (moving from 50 to 25 watts, or from 5 to 2.5 watts) is
completely ineffective in reaching the goal of private cranked-amp tone. To
the guitarist in an apartment, 3 watts, 5 watts, and 50 watts are all in the
same range: far, far too loud. 3 watts is pretty much the same as 50 watts
-- 43% as great. Thus we need to look at a radically reduced power range,
we need to drop our eyes way down the list of power ratings I posted, down
to the 10mW level. Only at that level do we enter the single-digit
percentages compared to 50 watts.
The only thing interesting about 43% is that it is "some figure that is far
too great". If we debate out these percentage figures, the only really
relevant debate concerns the figures around the 5% range, not the 43% range.
In comparing 3 vs. 5 watt amps, my point is not that the percentages are
*different*, but that they are approximately the same because halving power
actually has negligible effect on perceived volume, despite the widespread
assumption that halving power halves the perceived volume.
Cybermonk
>bl...@gleeb.com (Cybermonk) wrote:
The calculation is useful because it supports what you and I are saying: for
all practical purposes, 3 watts is about the same loudness as 5 watts, and
both are a good half as loud as a 50 watt amp. 3, 5, and 50 watts are all
far too loud for private cranked-amp tone. The calculations demonstrate
that halving power utterly fails to achieve the typically expected goal of
halving the volume. To halve the volume of 50 watts you must drop all the
way down to 5 watts, not 25 watts. The halve the volume again, you must
drop way down to 0.5 watts, not 2.5 (or 3) watts.
You might want to read the beginning of this thread, which makes my points
and goals for this calculation clear.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g216.htm -- Web/DejaNews interface to my
postings and threads: "Calculating the power/volume relation for amp
wattage?"
pe...@3-cities.com
> A 10 watt amp is 50% as loud as a 100 watt amp.
> To increase volume by a factor of 2, increase the power by a factor of 10.
> To reduce volume by a factor of 2, reduce the power by a factor of 10.
>
> There must be a simple calculation to determine X in the statement below:
>
> A 3-watt amp is X% as loud as a 50-watt amp.
>
> How can I calculate X?
You must also factor frequecy response and the voice of the amp. An amp with
a very focused sound can sound louder than an open amp (granted the signal
source is a guitar) just because of the focus in the midrange, which happens
to be the most sensitive range of our hearing. These kinda amps sound loud
and cut through no matter where you have them set!
PR
pe...@3-cities.com
"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> markel wrote in message <77864i$hcm$1...@adonis.tdi.net>...
> >I've always heard that 6dB is a doubling of apparent volume. Source: EV PA
> >Bible
>
Ya, what he said :^)
Cybermonk
miscalculation about the ideal power level for private amp-cranking.
Many guitarists buy a 50 watt amp, and find it's too loud to crank at home.
They figure that it's ten times too loud, so that 5 watts would be about
right. So they buy a 5 watt amp, delighted to have in their hands such a
tiny, quiet, personal amp to crank. But then they find that 5 watts is
still amazingly loud. It does not sound 10% as loud as 50 watts, but
rather, a whopping 50% as loud. Then they wonder what power rating *would*
sound just 10% as loud as 50 watts.
Understanding the relation between power and volume would have enabled them
to go directly to the desired power range, which is 20mW, for 10% the volume
of a 50 watt amp.
Not understanding the tenfold rather than twofold power reduction required
for halving volume, the guitarist then reasons:
This 5 watt amp is still 5 times too loud (it's 50% rather than 10% as loud
as the 50 watt reference). So I don't know why, but I need to reduce the
volume by another factor of five, compared to 5 watts. 5 watts / 5 = 1
watt.
After they spend a lot of time and money building the 1 watt Moonlight Amp,
because there are no commercial products that provide a 1 watt tube power
amp, they will find that 1 watt is still louder than they bargained for.
The calculation would have showed them that the goal of 10% the volume of a
50 watt amp is theoretically achieved by a 20mW amp, not a 5 watt or even a
1 watt amp. Knowing this would have saved the guitarist time, money,
confusion, and frustration. If designers and reviewers understood this
relation, there would be many 1/2 watt or 1 watt tube amps, and few people
would spread the misconception that a 15 watt amp is significantly quieter
than a 50 watt amp. 15 watts is so monstrously loud, I didn't even bother
to include it in my list of calculations before -- it's a huge 70% as loud,
not the expected 1/3 as loud.
A 15 watt amp is 70% as loud as a 50 watt amp -- yet magazines call them
"quiet" and "appropriate for cranking at home". This shows beyond a doubt
that the industry as a whole has no inkling of the correct power/volume
relation and is giving very bad advice to the guitarist-at-home. As far as
the false equating of small cabinet size and low power and quiet volume,
putting a 5 watt tube amp into an undersized cabinet with an undersized
speaker only reduces volume for the same reason as putting a 50 watt amp
into such a dinky format. If a 5 watt amp sounds smaller than 50 watts,
it's because of crippling the speaker system, not because of the mere
tenfold change in power. It's okay if the magazines call typical 5-watt or
15-watt amps "small", but they are terribly wrong to call these amps
"low-power" or "quiet".
X% louder = 2^log10(P2/P1) * 100%
40 watts is 94% as loud as 50 watts.
30 watts is 86% as loud as 50 watts.
25 watts is 81% as loud as 50 watts.
15 watts is 70% as loud as 50 watts.
10 watts is 62% 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.
50mW is 13% as loud as 50 watts
20mW is 10% as loud as 50 watts.
10mW is 8% as loud as 50 watts.
5mW is 6% as loud as 50 watts.
1mW is 4% as loud as 50 watts.
0.5mW is 3% as loud as 50 watts.
0.1mW is 2% as loud as 50 watts.
50uW is 1.6% as loud as 50 watts.
10uW is 1% as loud as 50 watts.
I don't necessarily maintain that 20mW is in fact, in practice, the right
power for 10% of the volume of a 50 watt amp, but the point is, 5 watts is
far too loud -- 50% not 10% as loud as 50 watts -- and the real goal lies
somewhere in the milliwatt range. After designers and guitarists get some
experience in this region, of 1mw, 50mW, 1/2 watt, and 1 watt amps, then we
can re-assess what the ideal power level is for private amp-cranking.
How loud is rock music when heard at a moderate level in typical full-size
headphones? Probably about 20mW. What about on a boombox played at a
moderate, quiet, personal level? Perhaps 50 mW. So it's reasonable to
design a tube amp that can saturate at less than 0.1 watt (100 mW). The
LXH2 and Studio amps can do this, and there should be a hundred more models
and several packaging configurations to choose from. At this level, it
becomes attractive to include such a low-power amp right into a multifx
processor (with time fx properly placed *after* it) or in a stompbox as just
one more pedal in a chain.
_________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone, low-power tube amps, designing
better combinations of existing technologies
Steve
>
> The calculation is useful because it supports what you and I are saying: for
> all practical purposes, 3 watts is about the same loudness as 5 watts, and
> both are a good half as loud as a 50 watt amp. 3, 5, and 50 watts are all
> far too loud for private cranked-amp tone.
I fail to understand why ALL the tone of an amp MUST come from
a TOTALLY cranked power section. The judicious use of SOME pedal and SOME preamp tube
compression/distortion with SOME (moderate) power section saturation
would seem to make a 5-7watt amp with inefficient speaker perfectly
satisfactory for home use. I.E. you wouldn't need to use ALL the amps
5 watts. (When I think about it, almost *all* my favorite guitar tones were created
using *some* pedal and/or preamp distortion along with power section
saturation).
A single speaker with 97db efficiency
will in effect produce a half-power cut compared to a speaker with
100db efficiency.
Furthermore, if you add a THD hotplate or other similar device and
use it with only 4db reduction your are down to around 2 watts, and
at 8db 1 watt or so I would guess.
For near silent recording, some kind of speaker isolation box is the solution.
So in my mind, all the low-volume solutions are out there.
It's not THAT complicated.
Steve
John Sheehy
>Did you see the post that said that a 3dB difference is about the
>smallest that can be reliably detected as a noticeable volume change
>by any significant sample of listeners?
Yeah, *I* did, and I decided to raise the volume of my stereo 2.9 dB at
a time, up to full volume, so that my neighbors wouldn't hear the volume
increase. Doesn't work, as a couple of police officers explained to me,
without going into the technical details.
Les Cargill
John Stanley wrote:
>
> John Sheehy wrote in message <36a5c701...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >"Dan Stanley" <stan...@tiac.net> wrote:
> >
> >>It's true, though. Sheehy or Garvin or Mullhaupt could 'splain, along with
> a
> >>whole bunch of ather sramt guys who hang out here.
> >
> >Sorry. I used to know this stuff, but I don't remember the exact
> >figures. I am aware of the logarithmic nature of subjective volume, but
> >I don't remember how it's scaled. Andrew posted something about it.
> >--
> >
>
> Isn't it something about "10 log 50W"?
> This would give a dB figure
Keerect.
>
> same for the other amp. I thought it was a change of 3dB meant a doubling or
> halving of power. Am I on track with this one or what?
Yup. 10 * sqrt(10) is approximately 3
The problem is, a given 5 watt amp may generate more signal than
"-10dB" of a given 50 watt amp.
Amp watts are almost as bogus as using horsepower ratings to compare
cars. It ain't about power, it's about torque*. Yet another example of
theory and practice not intersecting 100%.
*Torque is related to power, but that discussion is beyond the
scope of the group.
--
Les Cargill
http://home.att.net/~lcargill/
Cybermonk
>a TOTALLY cranked power section.
I have never said that all the desirable amp tone comes from the power amp.
Nor have I asserted that an amp must be completely 100% cranked to sound its
best.
>The judicious use of SOME pedal and SOME preamp tube
>compression/distortion with SOME (moderate) power section saturation
Agreed. But even just "moderate" power-amp saturation at 5 watts is far too
loud for a typical apartment, and too loud to play without the housemates
hearing significantly.
When you add preamp clipping, you only make the problem worse.
Suppose you want 25% saturation of the power stage, when you initially pluck
the string. Without preamp clipping, you will hit this occassionally. With
preamp clipping added, you will have to have a loud level a greater
percentage of the time, to reach 25% saturation. Playing a 5 watt at 7-watt
peaks will sound much louder if you have preamp clipping as well, because
that 7-watt peak will be drawn out longer.
>would seem to make a 5-7watt amp with inefficient speaker perfectly
>satisfactory for home use. I.E. you wouldn't need to use ALL the amps
>5 watts. (When I think about it, almost *all* my favorite guitar tones were created
>using *some* pedal and/or preamp distortion along with power section
>saturation).
>A single speaker with 97db efficiency
>will in effect produce a half-power cut compared to a speaker with
>100db efficiency.
>Furthermore, if you add a THD hotplate or other similar device and
>use it with only 4db reduction your are down to around 2 watts, and
>at 8db 1 watt or so I would guess.
>For near silent recording, some kind of speaker isolation box is the solution.
>So in my mind, all the low-volume solutions are out there.
Some traditional-type low-efficiency speakers are out there - more research
is needed, such as the coneless experiments and transducer ideas at Weber.
There is a decent selection of power attenuators -- not a wide selection.
They are all listed at my site.
There is an inadequate selection of commercial isolation cabinets. There
are only two, and one is undersized. More designers should experiment in
this area. There are many possible approaches.
There is only a single rackmount amp less than 5 watts - the well-received
Signature 284. There is only a single 5-watt tube amp at Guitar Center: the
dubious Crate VC508 with a crummy preamp and joke speaker system. (Used
gear and out-of-production modesl don't count.) All told, there are only
about 8 tube amps currently commercially available under 10 watts, so the
low-volume solutions are *not* out there in any decent, reasonable number.
Your proposed solution is for all these thousands of home guitarists to
understand the problem and solution (how will they even find out about this
unusual information?), go out and track down a 5-7 watt tube amp (good luck
finding one), research and purchase an inefficient guitar speaker, and then
spend $500 on an isolation cabinet and $300 on a power attenuator.
This is too complicated, inelegant, expensive, unreliable, and wasteful, and
does not constitute a reasonable selection of low-volume solutions.
>It's not THAT complicated.
The real solution is for many designers to offer appropriate power levels in
the first place, as a stray one or two companies have started to do, in a
wide variety of formats (rackmount, combo, head
My site lists a fair number of products, but it only looks like a fair
number. Many of the products have been discontinued, some are not yet
available, and the list is comprehensive, showing actually how very *few*
such products are available. And the great number of categorizations I've
had to create show how complicated these options are. The other day I
spec'd out a rig that would satisfy my demands for a full pro-studio
processing chain integrated into a standalone amp rig, with private
cranked-amp tone. It was challenging to come up with a reasonably elegant
setup, given the limited selection from among the kind of equipment that
currently fills up the guitar stores. Even then I would have to do a
special-order request to get a 5-watt amp other than the VC508.
________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone, low-power tube amps, power
attenuators, speaker isolation cabinets, speaker specs
Steve
> Your proposed solution is for all these thousands of home guitarists to
> understand the problem and solution (how will they even find out about this
> unusual information?), go out and track down a 5-7 watt tube amp (good luck
> finding one), research and purchase an inefficient guitar speaker, and then
> spend $500 on an isolation cabinet and $300 on a power attenuator.
No---my solution is to get a 15 watt tube amp (2xEl84 or 6v6)
(remember 15watts is NOT much louder than 5watts), that
has a good master volume circuit, and a nicely designed
overdrive channel (multi-stage preamp tube distortion), AND/or
a good OD pedal (Centaur of FDII if you have the $$$); use a single
lower efficiency speaker, and that's it. Period.
That is NOT too loud for home use. ANY musical instrument is
going to make SOME noise (Flute, trumpet, violin etc).
The above setup is perfectly fine for MOST folks.
If you do have plenty of time and interest there is nothing
wrong with pursuing even MORE ideal low-volume setups (like I have!)
involving "boutique" lower wattage amps, attenuators etc.
Steve
Danny Russell
I had the day off, so I thought I'd make a list of things that I don't
fully understand. Maybe you could help me out.
1. What would be involved in devising a tool that measures the sound
quality of an amp? It would be good to be able to make accurate (or at
least very precise) measurements of this very important amplifier
characteristic. In this way, all the currently manufactured amplifiers
could be compared side-by-side using long, detailed lists. This would
prevent consumers from inadvertently buying bad-sounding amps.
2. Why is it that "good" sounding amp generally sound better when turned
up, while "bad" sounding amps usually sound better when turned down?
Could the influence of this phenomenon affect the design of the sound
quality meter mentioned in question 1?
3. Why does harmonic-distortion of any type generally seem more
agreeable after a few beers? Could this information somehow be used to
design better sounding guitar amplifiers, or possibly even a novel type
of "breath-alyzer" for use by State and local law enforcement agencies?
Could it be modified in some way so as to be able to detect the use of
other controlled substances as well?
4. What would be involved in retrofitting an amp with a 3-axis joystick
for use as a tone control? Could this possibly result in some
interesting new tones never heard before? What would the tone-stack
look like? Would it work OK used in the power amp section, or only in
the preamp?
5. If a field-coil speaker with variably-adjustable field-strength were
to be used in novel fashion as a means to adjust the overall volume
level of an overdriven power section, how would this affect the
relationship between wattage and volume? Would it still be a logarithm?
6. If you're already playing at a low volume and someone tells you to
turn down further, is it OK to punch their lights out?
I don't get a whole lotta free-time, but when I do, I'll think up some
more stuff.
-Danny
Rick Suter
John Sheehy wrote in message <36b25095...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>billboltonRE...@computer.org (Bill Bolton) wrote:
>
>>Did you see the post that said that a 3dB difference is about the
>>smallest that can be reliably detected as a noticeable volume change
>>by any significant sample of listeners?
>
>Yeah, *I* did, and I decided to raise the volume of my stereo 2.9 dB at
>a time, up to full volume, so that my neighbors wouldn't hear the volume
>increase. Doesn't work, as a couple of police officers explained to me,
>without going into the technical details.
Nice try though...
Seriously, as hesitant as I am to stir up the nest, I thought that the
threshold of noticeable difference under carefully controlled conditions
was more like 1 dB than 3 dB. Wrong?
(maybe you need to try it again at 0.9 dB increments...)
-rick-
Mic Cullen
>>Subject: Calculating the power/volume relation for amp wattage?
>>From: bl...@gleeb.com (Cybermonk)
>
>>I have been told that:
>>A 5 watt amp is 50% as loud as a 50 watt amp.
>
>I don't think so, dude.
The word "so" is redundant here...
>>A 10 watt amp is 50% as loud as a 100 watt amp.
>
>No way.
Yup. Just because *you* don't have a clue about this issue doesn't mean it
isn't so. (We've had this discussion before, have not?)
have a good one,
Stevie DejaToobjerkFAQNaziMi©
Polfus
>Yup. Just because *you* don't have a clue about this issue doesn't mean it
>isn't so. (We've had this discussion before, have not?)
Go fuck yourself, loser. You have had a discussion with yourself, kind of like
each morning as you look in the mirror..."I'm good enough, I'm smart enough,
and doggone it, people like me!". Keep telling yourself that, kangaroo-fucker.
You're gay, right? You follow me around like you want to fuck me, but you
can't.
Sorry.
You have certainly sent me enough emails to let me know you think of me *all*
the time...get a life, mate. Are your little feelings hurt because I won't
write you back? LOL!
And a 10 watt solid state Dean Markley K15X amp on 10 with a single 61/2"
speaker is 50% as "loud" as an all tube 100 watt Marshall thru a 4x12 cabinet
on 5.
Right.
Shove your calculator up your asshole, buddy...then try to add determining
factors like speaker size and efficiency, miking distances, sound transmission
thru air, clipping, cable resistance and length...
Jeff Beck used 50 watt Marshalls exclusively, and ran 'em around little more
than half power, apparently, with a Rat distortion pedal for gain tones.
Why didn't he use a 5 watt amp full blast then instead on gigs?
Think about it.
Civily,
Polfus
STRATQUEEN
In article <19990112081214...@ng-fi1.aol.com>, pol...@aol.com
(Polfus) writes:
>Go fuck yourself, loser. You have had a discussion with yourself, kind of
>like
>each morning as you look in the mirror..."I'm good enough, I'm smart enough,
>and doggone it, people like me!". Keep telling yourself that,
>kangaroo-fucker.
>
>You're gay, right? You follow me around like you want to fuck me, but you
>can't.
>
Why do you continue to write this stuff? Do you have ANY idea how badly you
are embarassing yourself? You have put the true nature of your sexuality at
issue with all these homosexual references.
--Sharon
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/STRATQUEEN/index.html">Stratqueen's Page</A>
Bill Bolton
> You seem to think that I am promoting 3 watt amps rather than 5 watt amps
I understand what you are "promoting". What you don't seem to
understand is that while you *may* come up with something which
achieves your goal of ultra-low volume overdriven sounds, its is
highly unlikely that you will end up with the "neat, scientific"
explanation for why it does so that you seem to so desperately desire.
> relevant debate concerns the figures around the 5% range, not the 43% range.
<sigh>
There is no 5% or 43% range per se... you are still missing the point
of use of dBs in relative power rating!
Bill
Polfus
>of use of dBs in relative power rating!
>
>Bill
Yup.
Peace,
Polfus
Polfus
>From: strat...@aol.comNOSPAM (STRATQUEEN)
>Date: Tue, Jan 12, 1999 08:50 EST
>Message-id: <19990112085001...@ngol05.aol.com>
>
>
>In article <19990112081214...@ng-fi1.aol.com>, pol...@aol.com
>(Polfus) writes:
>
>>Go fuck yourself, loser. You have had a discussion with yourself, kind of
>>like
>>each morning as you look in the mirror..."I'm good enough, I'm smart enough,
>>and doggone it, people like me!". Keep telling yourself that,
>>kangaroo-fucker.
>>
>>You're gay, right? You follow me around like you want to fuck me, but you
>>can't.
>>
>
>Why do you continue to write this stuff? Do you have ANY idea how badly you
>are embarassing yourself? You have put the true nature of your sexuality at
>issue with all these homosexual references.
>
>--Sharon
Thats sweet.
Polfus
Daniel R. Haney
> And a 10 watt solid state Dean Markley K15X amp on 10 with a single 61/2"
> speaker is 50% as "loud" as an all tube 100 watt Marshall thru a 4x12 cabinet
> on 5.
You may need to compare apples with apples here by
using a the same speaker system.
Comparing a BF Fender Champ to a BF Twin Reverb through
a Marshall half stack could be a lot of fun.
Half stacks are very efficient and you can get pleasantly
loud with only a handful of watts.
-drh
--
"Who cares? It's only Usenet."
John Stanley
Les Cargill wrote in message <369A529C...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
>
>John Stanley wrote:
>>
>> John Sheehy wrote in message <36a5c701...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>> >"Dan Stanley" <stan...@tiac.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>It's true, though. Sheehy or Garvin or Mullhaupt could 'splain, along
with
>> a
>> >>whole bunch of ather sramt guys who hang out here.
>> >
>> >Sorry. I used to know this stuff, but I don't remember the exact
>> >figures. I am aware of the logarithmic nature of subjective volume, but
>> >I don't remember how it's scaled. Andrew posted something about it.
>> >--
>> >
>>
>> Isn't it something about "10 log 50W"?
>> This would give a dB figure
>
>Keerect.
>
>>
>> same for the other amp. I thought it was a change of 3dB meant a doubling
or
>> halving of power. Am I on track with this one or what?
>
>Yup. 10 * sqrt(10) is approximately 3
>
>The problem is, a given 5 watt amp may generate more signal than
>"-10dB" of a given 50 watt amp.
>
>Amp watts are almost as bogus as using horsepower ratings to compare
>cars. It ain't about power, it's about torque*. Yet another example of
>theory and practice not intersecting 100%.
>
IThanks for the enlightenment on this. This is pretty interesting and I'm
going to futher delve into this subject. Got 3 or 4 old tube PA amps I'm
going to fix up and see what kind of sound I can get out of them. Once I can
keep them old caps from sizzlin.
Cybermonk
>Steve
"As loud as a trumpet" might as well be 100 watts. My house rental
agreement says no musical instruments are allowed, as do many apartment
rental agreements, because even a violin, flute, stand-up bass, trumpet, and
so on, is too loud. However, like electronic keyboards, the solid-body
electric guitar has an advantage: it is nearly silent when not amplified.
15 watts into an inefficient speaker is far too loud for most houses and
apartments, if your goal is to get some fair degree of power-stage
saturation without being heard by housemates or neighbors. You are
proposing to get negligible power-stage saturation and use almost all preamp
distortion instead. If you try to get both a decent amount of preamp and
power amp distortion, 15 watts is going to be quite loud, even with an
inefficient speaker. Your standards for what is reasonable and moderate are
radically out of sync with that of many guitarists, who would get complaints
playing even at *one* watt. Instead of getting grossly overpowered, 15 watt
amps, and attempting to get a significant volume reduction through an
inefficient speaker, the industry should simply make more appropriate power
levels available in the first place.
I am running a 15 watt tube amp into a Greenback speaker in a double-layered
isolation cabinet, and it's still so loud, the housemates on another floor
can hear it. If you consider it acceptable to play as loud as a trumpet,
then we are seeking entirely different levels of "acceptable volume" and
your solutions don't match my problem domain.
John Stanley
Polfus wrote in message <19990112081214...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
>>
>>Yup. Just because *you* don't have a clue about this issue doesn't mean it
>>isn't so. (We've had this discussion before, have not?)
>
like
>each morning as you look in the mirror..."I'm good enough, I'm smart
enough,
>and doggone it, people like me!". Keep telling yourself that,
kangaroo-fucker.
>
And instead of a mirror, you use RMMG. Albeit at the grave expense of the
rest of the group.
>You're gay, right?
Why? Need a date?
You follow me around like you want to fuck me, but you
>can't.
>
Quentin Tarantino? Is that you?
>Sorry.
>
Very, if you could only see it.
>You have certainly sent me enough emails to let me know you think of me
*all*
>the time...get a life, mate. Are your little feelings hurt because I won't
>write you back? LOL!
You probably don't know this, but you appear to be the most emotional girl
in the group. By far.
>
>Right.
>
If you say so Polfus. Then it is right.
>Shove your calculator up your asshole, buddy..
Are the same person that is supposed to have all that over-zealous
compassion for AIDS and cancer victims? Who are you today?
.then try to add determining
>factors like speaker size and efficiency, miking distances, sound
transmission
>thru air, clipping, cable resistance and length...
>
>Jeff Beck used 50 watt Marshalls exclusively, and ran 'em around little
more
>than half power, apparently, with a Rat distortion pedal for gain tones.
OK
>
>Why didn't he use a 5 watt amp full blast then instead on gigs?
>
>Think about it.
>
OK, I will. But the great statement that "you are a festering boil on the
once smooth buttocks of RMMG" comes to mind every time. Thanks to whoever
wrote that one.
>Civily,
>Polfus
Why no "That's Sweet" in this post? You're slacking.
cya toots,
john
Les Cargill
Right, so far as I understand it.
>
> (maybe you need to try it again at 0.9 dB increments...)
Still, after 4 increments, he's gone up 3.6 dB.
>
> -rick-
O'Connor
>
> >> Guitarists need to stop being "amazed", and instead, *understand*
> >> the mathematical relation between wattage and perceived volume.
>
> >There's nothng secret about, it been known for decades by many
> >musicians. Again I suggest you would be better starting off from
> >considering why most guitarists just dont care....
>
> You assert that most guitarists do not care about the nonlinear relation
> between wattage and volume. That is debatable. Many guitarists at home
> care a great deal about very low power amps, and are surprised and confused
> when they spend their hard-earned money on a 15 or 5 watt amp and then find
> that, in practice, this "quiet, low-power amp appropriate for use at home"
> is actually *far* too loud to crank without the housemates and neighbors
> hearing.
>
> Stage-oriented guitarists have no sympathy or comprehension of the quest for
> getting authentic cranked-amp tone at home at near-silent levels.
> This casual, inadequate attention to the guitarist at home is drastically
> out of proportion with the huge demand for top-notch cranked-amp tone at
> home. Half, or more, of the market for guitar gear lies in the home market,
> and I don't mean "home studio" -- I mean an ordinary bedroom or living room
> in a typical house or apartment. The industry has been woefully out of
> touch with its own potential market.
> The relation between rated wattage and perceived volume may have been in
> some sense "known for decades by musicians", but that knowledge has not
> effectively spread throughout the guitar industry and throughout the
> guitarists at home.
The biggest problem with mass produced guitar amps is the prevalent
notion that "low power" must mean "low Quality" and reflect a
non-seriousness on the part of the low-watt-amp consumer. Consequently,
the low watt amps are also the low-end amps and are built to a dollar
target instead of a tone target. You end up with electronics that will
"do" and a table-radio spoeaker in a puny cabinet. This makes for a
"small" sound".
Not that these same manufacturers pay that much more attention to
quailty or tone on their high-end amps. Dollars drive the design again,
and you get the smallest cabinet that will hold the speakers and
electronics. In almost all cases, the speaker arrangement cripples tone
and ultimate playing satisfaction. More power is required to try to
compensate for the compromised speaker and cabinet, so connsumers get
used to the "compromised convention" and unwittingly believe they need
more power than mathematical discussions suggest. This is the result of
trying to cram too much into a small space.
Large cabinets do not have to be heavy or even expensive. The razor-like
tone that most new speakers on combo amps produce can be easily tempered
by acoustic diffusion and a large detuned cabinet. Suddenly, they even
play louder, too. So the woefully inadequate 10W becomes a drum killer!
Unfortunately, there are not many speakers made today that sound
outstanding, that do not also cost quite a bit of money. However, a
single unit or pair of these in proper cabinets can easily compete with
drums, bass, and obnoxious cookie-cutter cabinets.
When it comes to tone, size matters!
Happy New Year
Kevin O'Connor
evil twin®
>Go fuck yourself, loser.
Translation: It's been months since I've been laid.
>Keep telling yourself that, kangaroo-fucker.
Translation: Oh, I desperately wish I was in Auxstralia.
>You're gay, right?
Translation: I find you attractive.
>You follow me around like you want to fuck me, but you
>can't.
Translation: I haven't come out of the closet yet.
>Shove your calculator up your asshole, buddy...
Translation: I find mathematics stimulating.
>Civily,
Translation: Screw you.
>Polfus
Translation: Moron.
Hope this helps.
Rich Koerner
>
> Cybermonk wrote:
> > Your proposed solution is for all these thousands of home guitarists to
> > understand the problem and solution (how will they even find out about this
> > unusual information?), go out and track down a 5-7 watt tube amp (good luck
> > finding one), research and purchase an inefficient guitar speaker, and then
> > spend $500 on an isolation cabinet and $300 on a power attenuator.
>
> No---my solution is to get a 15 watt tube amp (2xEl84 or 6v6)
> (remember 15watts is NOT much louder than 5watts), that
> has a good master volume circuit, and a nicely designed
> overdrive channel (multi-stage preamp tube distortion), AND/or
> a good OD pedal (Centaur of FDII if you have the $$$); use a single
> lower efficiency speaker, and that's it. Period.
> That is NOT too loud for home use. ANY musical instrument is
> going to make SOME noise (Flute, trumpet, violin etc).
> The above setup is perfectly fine for MOST folks.
> If you do have plenty of time and interest there is nothing
> wrong with pursuing even MORE ideal low-volume setups (like I have!)
> involving "boutique" lower wattage amps, attenuators etc.
>
> Steve
If I may add just one more possible solution.
When is was in 9th grade electronics class in school, a fast easy 3.5
watt all tube guitar amp was as simple as modifying an old clock radio.
Many of us did that as we could only afford the money for the guitar
first. Amps came much later. Till then, there was the clock radio,
that every household had back then.
So, a trip to the flea markets, or garage sales may turn up a $1.00
project radio. $10.00 for a few caps, a resistor or two, a jack and some
wire. So, for under $20.00, a 3.5 watt guitar amp. Cheap enough I
would think the way things cost now.
However, you will need an inter-lock wire to pull the back off of some
of the more expensive models if you want the Open Back Sound!
Oh, one last thing. Disconnect the buzz thingie! You wouldn't want
that to go off accidentally while recording a guitar track. The *shock*
of one of them going off would scare the life out of ya, and surely pin
every VU indicator which could be enough to pop something for sure.
They were said to wake the dead! :)
Regards,
Rich Koerner,
Time Electronics.
http://www.timeelect.com
Cybermonk
>"do" and a table-radio spoeaker in a puny cabinet. This makes for a
>"small" sound".
>you get the smallest cabinet that will hold the speakers and
>electronics. In almost all cases, the speaker arrangement cripples tone
>and ultimate playing satisfaction. More power is required to try to
>compensate for the compromised speaker and cabinet, so connsumers get
>used to the "compromised convention" and unwittingly believe they need
>more power than mathematical discussions suggest. This is the result of
>trying to cram too much into a small space.
>Large cabinets do not have to be heavy or even expensive. The razor-like
>tone that most new speakers on combo amps produce can be easily tempered
>by acoustic diffusion and a large detuned cabinet. Suddenly, they even
>play louder, too. So the woefully inadequate 10W becomes a drum killer!
>Unfortunately, there are not many speakers made today that sound
>outstanding, that do not also cost quite a bit of money. However, a
>single unit or pair of these in proper cabinets can easily compete with
>drums, bass, and obnoxious cookie-cutter cabinets.
I would like to know a speaker system with these properties:
2x12 cabinet (reasonably portable, unlike 4x12)
General-purpose speakers (what model?)
General-purpose rock sound
Widely available
What cabinet and speakers do you recommend?
Tom Kochie
(finger jointed pine). It holds Weber P12S's. Sounds KILLER when hooked up to
my 15 watt Blues Jr.
The cab is not widely available but there are a number of cab. makers out
there
that you can order from.
Tom
gallard
Cybermonk wrote:
> , the industry should simply make more appropriate power
> levels available in the first place.
In the first place industry didnt create the guitar amp for home players
and the mindset all these years has been to cater to the needs of the
working player. Not the home hobbiest player who plays for his own
enjoyment. But I agree there is a vast market out there for extremely
low wattage amps for the person who has to play in secret lest he/she
get tossed out on the street. Its funny how you arent allowed to play a
guitar in your apartment these days but yet its ok for your neighbors to
blast reruns of I Love Lucy so loud you cant take a nap several doors
away.
Cybermonk
>Cybermonk wrote:
>> , the industry should simply make more appropriate power
>> levels available in the first place.
>In the first place industry didnt create the guitar amp for home players
>and the mindset all these years has been to cater to the needs of the
>working player. Not the home hobbiest player who plays for his own
>enjoyment. But I agree there is a vast market out there for extremely
>low wattage amps for the person who has to play in secret lest he/she
>get tossed out on the street.
The irony is that the supposedly business-driven guitar-gear industry caters
to the "working player" rather than the mere "home hobbyist" player -- but
which set of guitarists has the greater numbers and the greater amount of
expendable income? Quite likely the mere "hobbyist" market, rather than the
"professional performing" market.
>Its funny how you arent allowed to play a
>guitar in your apartment these days but yet its ok for your neighbors to
>blast reruns of I Love Lucy so loud you cant take a nap several doors
>away.
The point that should be emphasized is considerate volume -- not the type of
source producing that volume.
Apartment rules are somewhat fair, at least, in that they prohibit playing a
stereo loud. Typically they make no mention of loud TVs, they state that
stereos must not be played loudly, and they prohibit all types of musical
instruments, even the most quiet and innocuous, such as flute.
How many watts is used for typical TV listening? How many dB's? There is a
large untapped market for guitar amps of that same wattage and dB level.
________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone, low-power tube amps, quiet
cranked-tube-amp tone
Steve
>
> The irony is that the supposedly business-driven guitar-gear industry caters
> to the "working player" rather than the mere "home hobbyist" player -- but
> which set of guitarists has the greater numbers and the greater amount of
> expendable income? Quite likely the mere "hobbyist" market, rather than the
> "professional performing" market.
One reason why there may NOT be such a huge and vocal demand for ultra-low-wattage
amps is that a great percentage of players have NOT, for whatever reason, reached the
conclusion that that a cranked-*power*-section is THE key to the tone(s) they want.
Steve
gallard
sad reality is that most of the players out here use amps that cannot be
driven into power tube saturation/overload, (for whatever reason), and
need to use the pedals and preamp overload to get as close as possible
to "the tone"
Mic Cullen
[snipped Fullpus' raging homosexual desires]
>And a 10 watt solid state Dean Markley K15X amp on 10 with a single 61/2"
>speaker is 50% as "loud" as an all tube 100 watt Marshall thru a 4x12 cabinet
>on 5.
>
>Right.
I see, you don't think it's a good idea to compare amps through the same
speakers? I presume this is the prelude to your "all speakers are the same
in sound and efficiency" post? Should make as much sense as your other
efforts...
>Shove your calculator up your asshole, buddy...then try to add determining
>factors like speaker size and efficiency, miking distances, sound transmission
>thru air, clipping, cable resistance and length...
Oh, you know they exist? Your previous statement seemed to indicate that
you didn't know about them. Still, I'm sure you've got all the terms and
concepts wrong. Do the volts run in all directions, or just in one
direction "across" the cable?
>Jeff Beck used 50 watt Marshalls exclusively, and ran 'em around little more
>than half power, apparently, with a Rat distortion pedal for gain tones.
>
>Why didn't he use a 5 watt amp full blast then instead on gigs?
Because it wasn't the tone he was after? Lots of reasons like headroom,
etc. I'm sure others will add others.
>Think about it.
You could take your own advice, as a starting point. Time for you to go
back to saving lives, I think.
Polfus
cable?
You just follow "Polfus" around like a lost puppy...and its *pathetic* you do
so.
Flattering, but *pathetic*.
Mutt!
Polfus
evil twin®
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>
>I must have missed something. Polfus works in medicine, in an important
>capacity at a respected instituion, and as such is involved in "saving lives"
>on a daily basis. What about that is amusing?
The part about Polfus. He's just a funny guy.
>If you doubt it, engage him in
>some "medico" talk and you'll find he's for real.
I think I witnessed him engaging in some 'medico' talk with
Sef and Dan just a couple days ago.
Cybermonk
>Cybermonk wrote:
>>
>> The irony is that the supposedly business-driven guitar-gear industry caters
>> to the "working player" rather than the mere "home hobbyist" player -- but
>> which set of guitarists has the greater numbers and the greater amount of
>> expendable income? Quite likely the mere "hobbyist" market, rather than the
>> "professional performing" market.
>One reason why there may NOT be such a huge and vocal demand for ultra-low-wattage
>amps is that a great percentage of players have NOT, for whatever reason, reached the
>conclusion that that a cranked-*power*-section is THE key to the tone(s) they want.
>Steve
Indeed, for some reason or no real reason, many guitarists have not reached
the conclusion that a cranked tube power-amp section is the main key to
their desired tone. Their reasons or lack of them, or lack of
conclusiveness, are important.
Some guitarists understand the character of preamp distortion, power-amp
saturation, and other tone factors, and have consciously concluded that
power-amp saturation is not a significant factor in their amp tone. This
would typically be young Metal players who are accustomed to bedroom Metal
sound, produced entirely by preamp distortion and equalization. I am
addressing amp tone needs of a broader range of guitarists and musical
styles.
Some guitarists do not understand the distinction between preamp distortion
and power-amp saturation, and believe that having any sort of tube anywhere
in their rig provides "tube amp tone". They have not reached any clear
conclusion about the balance of the two because they do not distinguish
between the two.
Some guitarists take their cue from Pantera and favor solid-state power
amps, which do not highlight a cranked power section (even if Pantera might
push the power stage into some degree of saturation). My system of
understanding amp tone applies to guitarists who want a broad spectrum of
classic amp-breakup sounds, rather than the limited palette provided by
solid-state power amps.
For one reason or another, or no real reason, a significant percentage of
guitarists have not concluded that power-stage saturation is an essential
factor in many of the amp sounds they want to be able to get. On the other
hand, a large percentage of guitarists *have* concluded that they need
power-stage saturation for many of their desired sounds, including playing
quietly at home.
Many guitarists are dissatisfied with their tone, but don't know how to dial
in any chosen degree of preamp distortion and power-stage saturation. Many
guitarists are dissatisfied and do understand that many classic amp-breakup
sounds require a saturating power stage, and are accustomed to producing
these sounds on stage, but wish that they could obtain some sort of
power-stage saturation at far quieter levels when at home. Milliwatt-level
tube power amps address the needs of this large percentage of guitarists.
As far as obtaining a classic spectrum of amp tones using conventional loud
amps, I adhere to what I consider is the standard, traditional, conservative
party line about what is important in amp distortion tone. I aim to
systematize the typical approaches and recommendations expressed in the
guitar magazines, but try to scale these principles and this gear down to
headphone level. Cranked-amp tone might not be a conscious or unconscious
goal for many guitarists, but for many, typical guitarists, cranked-amp tone
*is* their goal and their accustomed stage sound, and they want to obtain
cranked-amp tone at far quieter levels. Reading many reviews of
ever-lower-power tube amps, all indications are that the move from 15 watts
to 10, 5, and then 3 watts (and beyond) is solidly a move in the right
direction for quiet cranked-amp tone.
________________________________
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone, distortion voicing concepts
STRATQUEEN
In article <36abe25c...@news.primary.net>, ha...@primary.net (evil twin®)
writes:
>I think I witnessed him engaging in some 'medico' talk with
>Sef and Dan just a couple days ago.
Was that the dicussion re: offers of tongue bathing testicles and invading
rectums? Yeah, real "medico".
STRATQUEEN
In article <19990114063848...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
mws...@aol.comdelete (MWS2468) writes:
>
>I must have missed something. Polfus works in medicine, in an important
>capacity at a respected instituion, and as such is involved in "saving lives"
>on a daily basis. What about that is amusing? If you doubt it, engage him
>in
>some "medico" talk and you'll find he's for real.
His profession has nothing to do with the tiring discussion of "grain" and
"figure", and the fact he is a "professional" just makes all this nasty
homosexual talk all the more offensive.
Carlginger
>Was that the dicussion re: offers of tongue bathing testicles and invading
>rectums? Yeah, real "medico".
>
>--Sharon
>
>
What else do you do?
Carl
Polfus
>rectums? Yeah, real "medico".
>
>--Sharon
That appears to be *your* specialty.
Polfus
Polfus
>From: carlg...@aol.com (Carlginger)
>Date: Thu, Jan 14, 1999 11:37 EST
>Message-id: <19990114113750...@ng150.aol.com>
>
>>
>>Was that the dicussion re: offers of tongue bathing testicles and invading
>>rectums? Yeah, real "medico".
>>
>>--Sharon
>>
>>
>
>
>Carl
She does a pretty good" two-faced" imitation as well.
Polfus
Polfus
>I must have missed something. Polfus works in medicine, in an important
>capacity at a respected instituion, and as such is involved in "saving lives"
>on a daily basis. What about that is amusing? If you doubt it, engage him
>in
>some "medico" talk and you'll find he's for real.
Thanks Mark.
I cuss like a sailor sometimes, true, but that is *outside* my profession.
As far as this newsgroup, "Polfus" is just a screen character...like a video
game...and I hold no punches here.
Those whom I have spoken with privately on this newsgroup know me to be
different fella, and hopefully quite helpful and a nice guy.
Peace,
Polfus
Dan Stanley
Polfus wrote in message <19990114120157...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
>>
>>I must have missed something. Polfus works in medicine, in an important
>>capacity at a respected instituion, and as such is involved in "saving
lives"
>>on a daily basis. What about that is amusing? If you doubt it, engage
him
>>in
>>some "medico" talk and you'll find he's for real.
>
>Thanks Mark.
>
>I cuss like a sailor sometimes, true, but that is *outside* my profession.
>
>As far as this newsgroup, "Polfus" is just a screen character...like a
video
>game...and I hold no punches here.
"Pong" springs to mind as the only video game vapid enough...
>Those whom I have spoken with privately on this newsgroup know me to be
>different fella, and hopefully quite helpful and a nice guy.
...until they disagree with you. THEN they get grief from you here, and
their ISP's get grief from you directly.
Love,
Dan
Greg Peterson
Polfus <pol...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990114120157...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
> Those whom I have spoken with privately on this newsgroup know me to be
> different fella, and hopefully quite helpful and a nice guy.
>
> Peace,
> Polfus
Let me guess, they send you e-mail telling you this, right?
STRATQUEEN
In article <19990114115506...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, pol...@aol.com
(Polfus) writes:
>
>She does a pretty good" two-faced" imitation as well.
>
I told you straight out what I thought about you. Take it like a man, or get
the fuck out of the NG.
STRATQUEEN
In article <19990114113750...@ng150.aol.com>, carlg...@aol.com
(Carlginger) writes:
>
>What else do you do?
>
You must have had a brain fart, Carl. You know I was talking about the
exchanges between Polfus, Dan and Mic the other day. You want to start AGAIN?
STRATQUEEN
In article <19990114115419...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, pol...@aol.com
(Polfus) writes:
>>>Was that the dicussion re: offers of tongue bathing testicles and invading
>>rectums? Yeah, real "medico".
>>
>>--Sharon
>
>That appears to be *your* specialty.
>
Bullshit. You're the one who keeps posting those nasty offers and bizarre
fantasies, not me. And don't call me anymore, either, okay?
Carlginger
>I told you straight out what I thought about you. Take it like a man, or get
>the fuck out of the NG.
>
>--Sharon
>
>
Bark out those orders!!
He's on all fours as we speak!!!
Carl
Carlginger
>You must have had a brain fart, Carl. You know I was talking about the
>exchanges between Polfus, Dan and Mic the other day. You want to start
>AGAIN?
>
>
>--Sharon
Yes, but it sounded so sexy, I had to type that response with my....ooops!!
Carl
Carlginger
>Bullshit. You're the one who keeps posting those nasty offers and bizarre
>fantasies, not me. And don't call me anymore, either, okay?
>
>--Sharon
Sounds like a break-up!!!!
Carl
evil twin®
>Those whom I have spoken with privately on this newsgroup know me to be
>different fella, and hopefully quite helpful and a nice guy.
Most of them think you're a lunatic.
Polfus
>the fuck out of the NG.
>
>--Sharon
Thats sweet!
But be careful...you sound like me, Sharon.
STRATQUEEN
In article <19990114211957...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, pol...@aol.com
(Polfus) writes:
>
>Thats sweet!
>
>But be careful...you sound like me, Sharon.
>
I am NOTHING like you. Pullleeeez!
Polfus
>From: "Greg Peterson" <gsp...@concentric.net>
>Date: Thu, Jan 14, 1999 21:40 EST
>Message-id: <01be4033$f67dc560$1cd21fd1@syke>
>> different fella, and hopefully quite helpful and a nice guy.
>>
>> Polfus
>
>Let me guess, they send you e-mail telling you this, right?
Jealous?
Scotty
STRATQUEEN wrote in message
<19990114220113...@ngol04.aol.com>...
>
>In article <19990114211957...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, pol...@aol.com
>(Polfus) writes:
>
>>
>>Thats sweet!
>>
>>But be careful...you sound like me, Sharon.
>>
>
>I am NOTHING like you. Pullleeeez!
>
>--Sharon
>
Where in the f$%#@ did this come from??? If SQ ever said this to me, I'd
have to slip a ring on her finger!!! :-)
Scotty
John Stanley
Polfus wrote in message <19990114120157...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
>>
>>I must have missed something. Polfus works in medicine, in an important
>>capacity at a respected instituion, and as such is involved in "saving
lives"
>>on a daily basis. What about that is amusing? If you doubt it, engage
him
>>in
>>some "medico" talk and you'll find he's for real.
>
>Thanks Mark.
>
>I cuss like a sailor sometimes, true, but that is *outside* my profession.
>
>As far as this newsgroup, "Polfus" is just a screen character...like a
video
>game...and I hold no punches here.
>
>different fella, and hopefully quite helpful and a nice guy.
>
>Peace,
>Polfus
>
>
Man, ever here of Narcissism? Why does it take YOU to complement YOURSELF?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
John Stanley
STRATQUEEN wrote in message
<19990114192556...@ngol05.aol.com>...
>
>In article <19990114115419...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, pol...@aol.com
>(Polfus) writes:
>
>>>>Was that the dicussion re: offers of tongue bathing testicles and
invading
>>>rectums? Yeah, real "medico".
>>>
>>>--Sharon
>>
>>That appears to be *your* specialty.
>>
>
>fantasies, not me. And don't call me anymore, either, okay?
>
>--Sharon
>
seriously.
STRATQUEEN
In article <369ed...@news3.paonline.com>, "Scotty" <sco...@stratoman.com>
writes:
>Where in the f$%#@ did this come from??? If SQ ever said this to me, I'd
>have to slip a ring on her finger!!! :-)
Too bad, Scotty...you're my type but you're already taken.
TubeBlaster
Cybermonk wrote in message <77l20o$2d2$1...@dns2.serv.net>...
>As far as obtaining a classic spectrum of amp tones using conventional loud
>amps, I adhere to what I consider is the standard, traditional,
conservative
>party line about what is important in amp distortion tone. I aim to
>systematize the typical approaches and recommendations expressed in the
>guitar magazines, but try to scale these principles and this gear down to
>headphone level. Cranked-amp tone might not be a conscious or unconscious
>goal for many guitarists, but for many, typical guitarists, cranked-amp
tone
>*is* their goal and their accustomed stage sound, and they want to obtain
>cranked-amp tone at far quieter levels. Reading many reviews of
>ever-lower-power tube amps, all indications are that the move from 15 watts
>to 10, 5, and then 3 watts (and beyond) is solidly a move in the right
>direction for quiet cranked-amp tone.
>
>________________________________
>http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone, distortion voicing concepts
>
Care to make any predictions on whether there will be any new releases at
NAMM at the end of the month that will feature micro-wattage power amps?
Wayne
stevi...@hotmail.com
You miss the jar?
srd
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Cybermonk
I would expect to see around three products in the range of 5 watts or less.
I am not familiar with NAMM and what has been released there or when. I
don't have experience predicting NAMM product releases. Is there a
comprehensive list of past NAMM product releases? The lists I've seen have
been very selective and limited.
London Power: Studio amp, 0-10 watts, with Power Scaling. This is entering
mass production, so I would expect to see it at NAMM. I think this Power
Scaling technology represents genuinely new tube circuit designs, and is
important. Much of the testing and development of this design was done in
the milliwatt range (the level of a boombox played at work for background
music).
JLA: Lawbreaker amp/pedal, 4 watts. This product has been dragging out for
a couple years now. Jarrod Lee told me that it is entering production this
Spring, so I would expect to see it at NAMM.
I would not expect to see the AX84 amp there, though its design is
essentially complete. It is a do-it-yourself project.
The Signature 284 stands to be highly influential, within a couple years,
being 3 watts instead of the more familiar 5 watts, and being rackmount
rather than a malnourished-combo format. It's a *serious* very-low-power
tube amp, more in line with the full-featured Hi-Mu 5.5 head (originally
5-1/2 watts). The Signature 284 is essentially the McIntyre Bluesmaker MKII
SPL-3, renamed. The 284 was released in the past year.
I would hope to see the Paradox 4-watt tube amp head from Rising Force in
Bulgaria, but I would not expect it. It seems to have some sort of power
attenuation and cabinet simulation filter.
You might see the Warwick Quadruplet "bass preamp", which includes an EL84
power tube (but does not have a speaker jack; it always drives the built-in
dummy load). When I tested it, I needed a strong-boost pedal such as the
Klon Centaur, and the instructions to figure out how to hear power-stage
saturation only, not preamp distortion. It's a new product. When I asked
for literature recently, it had not been printed yet, and there was no
product page on the Web.
You might see the Guytron 3-stage amp there (tube preamp, saturating tube
power amp, dummy load, fx loop, linear final tube amp). I think that is
about a year old.
I would hope to see the Tuber 1/2 watt rackmount amp, but this is a small,
custom, 1-off operation.
It's probably too early to see Bill Young's StudioPlex line. There are at
least 3 Champ clones on the market; Bill has come through with roughly the
equivalent for Marshall sound: a Marshall Plexi clone that is just 4 watts.
You will probably see the Crate VC508 5 watt combo. I predicted this
appearing in Guitar Center, 1 week before it happened; I demo'd it.
I predict you'll see some new 15 watt amps and new 5 watt amps, in the
undersized-combo format, but nothing really new such as more 3-watt combo
amps like the Clark Lil' Bit, or a 1-watt combo tube amp.
You might see a couple under-10-watt TS-type hybrid amps (tube preamp,
solid-state power amp), such as the Little Lanilei. Inspect their marketing
material and talk to their reps, to see whether they ever deviate from the
established language conventions and call their hybrid amp a "tube amp".
Don't forget to look for half-power capability, like with the Trace-Elliot
Velocette 12R (*only* the 12R), which can saturate the power stage at either
7.5 or 15 watts.
You will probably see the Emery Sound: Spotlight 8 watt combo amp; I would
especially like to see the separate head and cabinet format.
These 8 watt amps are so misguided. The whole *reason* for an 8-watt amp is
quiet cranked-amp tone, but they fail to deliver, because they are not
*nearly* low-power enough. What's needed is 20mW or 1/2 watt, not merely a
move from 50 watt monster amps to 8 watt monster amps.
I can't find any Net info about the Bluesland: BabyBlues B10 10-watt tube
amp. This seems to be a new product.
If you see any amps with built-in power attenuation, the first thing to ask
is what is the minimum power, and is the attenuation on the tube side of the
output transformer, or on the speaker side -- is the attenuation before the
output transformer, or after it. Before sounds better than after.
One of the new 15 watt amps you might see is the Orange combo (1x10 or
1x12). But 15 watt amps (into a serious speaker cabinet) are practically as
loud as 50 watts. There are already more than enough 15 watt amps; that
phase is past, the experiment has been run, and people know that 15 watts is
still way too loud for private amp-cranking. We could see a shake-out, with
several 15 watt amps being discontinued. They fail to achieve their claimed
goal. Or, maybe there will be a major migration from 50 watt to 15 watts as
the new standard for "normal", with the adjective "low-power" switching from
15 watts to 5 watts and less. Monster amps (50-100 watts) are just too
limited in their applicability -- they are good for large playing spaces and
heavily insulated studios, and that's all. People want the even
distribution of sound that a PA provides, without the pinpoint noise source
of a single blasting amp.
A tricky thing to keep an eye out for: units that use a preamp tube as a
power tube, as with the H&K Cream Machine, the Moonlight Amp, and the ADA
Ampulator.
You will probably see several new 1-watt solid-state amps. It's important
to monitor what's going on in the extremely low-power solid-state world. It
would be significant to see the 3-watt Pignose repackaged with full
features, even lower wattage, and a serious speaker cabinet. Look for the
Smokey cigarette-box amp and listen to how very loud 1 watt is, when driving
a serious speaker cabinet (imagine you are in an apartment, at 1 a.m.). You
should also see the 1-watt Spectraflex tiny color-cube amps. Imagine the
toy miniature Marshall, Fender, Vox or Danelectro "HoneyTone" amp,
reconfigured with better features and casing. It's interesting that the
tiny new Smokey and SpectraFlex amps so prominently suggest driving a
serious speaker cabinet -- these people realize that 1 watt is the right
volume level for home playing, when not crippled by a miniature toy speaker.
These are miniature amps that are starting to take themselves seriously, a
portentious trend that will influence tube products.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar/g171.htm -- List of tiny solid-state or
hybrid amps, for blasting, experimentation, and parts
The above products are all covered at my site.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone and Effects Placement, quiet
cranked-amp tone, products containing a low-wattage power tube
Charles Ott
cater to the home type of player. I have been repairing and selling
amps for a while and there are certain words that spark a
non-professionals ears. Power is the first one. 100 Watts sound better
(verbally not tonally) than 12 Watts although the 12 Watt amp may sound
better tone wise. Also any features like chorus, reverb, supraoverdrive
are selling points on allot of the mainline amps. Some of the semi pros
and older guitar players that have been playing for a while do perfer
tube because they have been using them forever and know the magic of
overdriven power tubes. They are more than likely to buy a Fender champ
than a PV SS with built in DSP.
Charles Ott
jsams...@geocities.com
CEO Productions
Dallas, Texas
Steve wrote:
>
> Cybermonk wrote:
> >
> > The irony is that the supposedly business-driven guitar-gear industry caters
> > to the "working player" rather than the mere "home hobbyist" player -- but
> > which set of guitarists has the greater numbers and the greater amount of
> > expendable income? Quite likely the mere "hobbyist" market, rather than the
> > "professional performing" market.
>
> One reason why there may NOT be such a huge and vocal demand for ultra-low-wattage
> amps is that a great percentage of players have NOT, for whatever reason, reached the
> conclusion that that a cranked-*power*-section is THE key to the tone(s) they want.
>
> Steve
Cybermonk
>NAMM at the end of the month that will feature micro-wattage power amps?
>Wayne
At NAMM, keep an eye out for products that combine a low-wattage power tube
with any of the following: dummy load, power attenuator, cab-sim filter.
In addition to keeping an eye on very-low-wattage hybrid and solid-state
amps, it's important to keep an eye on several other product categories, if
you are interested in quiet cranked-amp tone. Ideas spill across product
categories. You might ignore modelling amps and modelling processors, and
then one day find that modelling amps have converged with low-wattage
power-tube products. There are rich potentials for technology overlap, so
you need to keep an eye on neigboring technologies.
Modelling amps - Yamaha DG100
Amp simulators - check out the Zoom 503 "amp simulator" as opposed to the
overly popular Zoom 505 preamp/processor. I keep thinking of the Ibanez
VA-3 Virtual Amp (amp simulator) -- the right goals, it's a direct
competitor to the POD, perhaps more than the Morley JD-10 and CB Labs
PRX-902 amp simulators.
Amp-modelling processors - Line6 POD, Yamaha DG-1000 processor
Power attenuator/dummy load/cabsimfilter - McIntyre SPA-25 Speaker
Attenuator
Power attenuator/dummy load - Trainwreck Airbrake Mark II, Kendrick Power
Glide
Dummy loads
Cabinet-simulation filters: Whirlwind: Mic Eliminator
Speaker Isolation Cabinets -- keep an eye out for any sort of baffling or
muffling approach being used anywhere on the floor
MIDI rackmount EQs (roll-your-own distortion voicing and modelling amp) -
the Peavey Autograph II is pretty new, and I think was presented at the last
NAMM. I have only found 5 such products (product families).
Distortion pedals with pre-distortion EQ to control the distortion voicing -
this seems like a design approach that's ready to take off, because there
are one or two recent products with a little of this capability, or products
expressly meant for pre-distortion EQ. Rocktron Austin Gold overdrive pedal
with pre-bass control. (All Rocktron rackmount processors have pre-dist EQ
as well as the conventional post-dist EQ, so I would keep a close eye on
Rocktron distortion pedals.) The Stringer Very-Tone Dog is a pre-dist EQ
filter.
FX processors with a well-placed FX loop (Lexicon MPX G2, Rocktron Prophecy)
enabling to wrap the processor not merely around the amp's preamp section,
but even better, wrap the processor entirely around a miked tube amp, with
EQ and level presets both before and after the amp (roll-your-own modelling
amp).
Software-oriented systems: keep an eye out for multifx processors and amp
simulators moving online. What is particularly interesting is provisions
for looping out to physical gear and back into the computer. This would
enable wrapping the computer around a miked cranked tube amp, the latter
serving as a Tone Engine. Line6 Amp Farm.
These products are covered at my site.
http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone, distortion voicing concepts
STRATQUEEN
>> Yes, but it sounded so sexy, I had to type that response with my....ooops!!
>>
>> Carl
>
>You miss the jar?>
I still can't believe Carl typed that! LMAO!