Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Amplifiers' started by Boogie, Jul 6, 2019.
I'm just confused in general
Damn, Bob, that’s impressive. Good for you.
Thx. I owe it to clean living.
As someone who is new to this and who doesn’t have an emotional stake in any particular technology, I’m coming understand the following, from the brief research that I’ve done
1) subjective measurement is highly unreliable (duh!) and is strongly correlated to expectations and emotional state
2) confirmation bias rules the roost. (Again, duh! See above)
3) It seems that statements about solid vs hollow state technologies and how the overtone series presents in each, are usually quite oversimplified, and often not consistent with data presented in FFT graphing. A caveat being that I lack the gear to test these things myself, so I’m relying on various articles.
4) Topology is rarely discussed in forum type conversations on this topic, and seems to be highly important. Possibly more important than solid vs hollow. My point on lack of first person experience applies here as well- by this I mean no experience building, repairing, designing, and measuring amplifiers.
5) The emotional amplitude of the amplification debate (as with most debates) presents the risk of limiting one’s sonic exploration. See 1 & 2 above
Duh, it's your nose. Picket?
Am using an old kitchen trick: Ever have a peach that wasn't quite ripe, but you want it to ripen? Stuff if in a paper bag with an apple and a banana, wrap it up and the peach will be ripe within a day. The ethylene gas is what ripens the fruit. Any of you plan on making peach cobbler, I'll be here with the ice cream...
There are always people that will be more than happy to stick with what they know and feel that if its good enough for Hendrix or the Beatles, its good enough for them. Always people that don't want the old to disappear and be replaced by the new and I am NOT referring to just Guitar Amps or even just Musicians gear.
However, as this is a site dedicated to a single brand in the Music category, I will keep to examples in music. In the same way that some people rejected CD's because they were 'too clean' and lacking the hiss/crackles they had from Vinyl, there are people that don't want new technology in their Guitars and want the guitars to be made as they were in the 50's. Using a CNC to carve a body is somehow taking away the soul off the guitar, that its no longer made by hand. Even if the company used a jig with a router that someone could use to copy a carved top - still not carved by hand, even if they use templates to ensure the cavities are routed out in the right place with a power tool - still not done by hand or even a 'Luthier' that's somehow better. Its obviously not better for the company as it takes a lot longer and not as consistent as well as other issues.
All you have to do is look at Gibson over the past couple of years - particularly the HP models with an all access neck (as they call it), Richlight fretboards, Titanium adjustable nut, dip switches that allow the artist to pick between a 'split' or 'tapped' humbucker, the fact it even had push-pull splitting, push pull phase reverse etc was also 'wrong' as the 'Standard' proved. All things that you would think adds to the versatility and tonal palette of the musician - and still sounded like a Les Paul if you just used the humbuckers as humbuckers. I know the Robot tuning was a bit too much as it added to the weight but the concept isn't a bad idea. People couldn't cope with the traditional Les Paul, the non-weight-relief, no push pull guitar that they made in the past was actually called the 'Traditional' - it had to be called the Standard.
If people can't cope with Gibson trying to be modern and innovative, wanting them to just make guitars the way they did 60yrs ago, then those people aren't likely to accept a Kemper or Axe-FX to plug their 'vintage' (as in built like they were in the 60's) style Les Paul into. It won't matter if the Digital option is 'superior' (not saying they are at all but hypothetically superior in every way), they must have 1950's Valve powered Amps - nothing else is acceptable - just like a Gibson Les Paul must not be brought into the modern era. If Gibson want to try 'innovation' then they have to come up with a completely new guitar and not mess with anything they already make.
There isn't really anything wrong with wanting to keep using guitars and amps that haven't changed too much and have their roots firmly in the 50's if that's what they want and that's what they need to inspire them. However they also shouldn't criticise or make themselves appear superior because they only play Valve amps and/or guitars that are no/little different from the 50's/60's. If a musician wants to explore digital technology and expand their options, explore and expand their tools, then they shouldn't be made to feel inferior, that they aren't as good as someone else who only uses 50's technology for their sonic palette. If they want to limit themselves to just 50's tech, then that is their choice and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that but by the same token, there is nothing wrong with having a Helix (for example) for all your pedals, amps, cabs and mics either.
Indeed. In many ways it reminds me of some of the absurd and insular arguments in classical and symphonic circles, in the early and mid 20th centuries, against the saxophone. Arguments which ultimately didn’t harm the larger impact of the sax, but did represent a senseless bit of self limiting culture within the classical and symphonic world. One that has attitudes that still exist today. I still hear composers parroting the trope that saxophones can’t “blend” into an orchestra, as a section instrument; that they can only work for solos. Regardless of whether or not you like the saxophone, the issue of “blending” is a non-issue. Purely fabricated based on attitude.
At the end of the day, the sax didn’t suffer, but a few generations of symphonic music had a sort of self imposed limitation. And not the kind of limitation that helps feed creativity; but the kind that serves no good purpose
This is the sort of thing that troubles me when it comes inflexible attitudes. Not that people like or dislike one thing or an other. And not that the attitudes prevent me from using what I want. It’s the rapid replication and parroting of opinions, as facts, which can result in a less rich artistic landscape overall
Sounded more like some awesome chicken salad with cheese for lunch...
Would like to give you a straight answer, but it's complicated...
Friday night. Gin t the max. Beyond confused. Means I'm gonna buy something
Here you go. You’re welcome
Paul Reed Smith Private Stock #7977 Hollowbody II Cedar with Piezo 2019 Natural Smoked Burst
If you’re lucky. I’m a lucky man.
Ah different strategies. When you get confused, you buy stuff. When I get confused, I post silly stuff.
I guess if buying stuff doesn’t get you in trouble, your strategy must be better than mine, which sometimes does.
“Boobs and toobs!”
And...poor once again...
Nope. Self control won the night. It lost the battle this morning, but by that time, someone beat me to it.
It’s not a matter of choosing to be “limited” to 50s tech at all. Quite the contrary, it’s simply a matter of trying to determine what sounds best - I can only speak for myself here, of course.
To my way of thinking, the modeling guys and gals impose the less acceptable limitation on themselves, because they compromise their sound by using a flawed copy instead of the original. I think it serves them less well, but that’s their call.
Anyone can point fingers and label those who disagree with them as having confirmation bias - the same thing could be said of those who spring for a $2,000 toaster, and then confirm that it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread (you see what I did there ).
There’s plenty of labeling and finger-pointing out there, and it doesn’t serve much purpose.
The last time I played an ‘identify the track that’s tube vs modeler’ game, between tube recorded tracks and an Axe FX Version 1, I scored 10 out of 10, so it certainly isn’t confirmation bias or the other accusations that tube aficionados are saddled with. However, I’ve lived with how this stuff works for many years, and perhaps have logged more studio hours than most folks. It’s no wonder; my ears are trained.
10 out of 10 isn’t random chance. But I’m also cursed with the ability to tell the difference between speaker cables, something that pissed off my EE tech years ago; I got that one right 9/10.
And, hey, I won stuff, like free beers and food!
That assumes an “either/or” attitude. Some may like to explore and understand as many options as possible