Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
I love this topic. It is interesting how lack of clarity in semantics can confuse the actual factors at stake (not pointing fingers by any means, as this is very common). For example, remember when some of us a while back were discussing the alleged fullness of Reaktor patches vs. MAX/MSP patches? I believe the final word was that you get what you program in MAX/MSP. If you want full...you program that with various objects (EQ, etc). In the case of the tube vs. S.S. debate, I find, again, that semantics gets in the way and obfuscates the issue and allows folks to argue about apples and oranges, because often times the terminology we use does not reflect the complexities and nuances of the "empirical perceptions" of amplifier output vs. SS output. What I mean is that terms like warm, harsh, etc...are technically inadequate to make comparisons. For example, when comparing an old vintage Fender tube amp and a solid state Roland JC-120, some might suggest that the tube amp is "warmer" than the Roland, or that the Roland has a harsh tone compared to the Fender (and I personally attach no value to these terms, suggesting that "warmer" is neither good nor bad, but different). But is this really the right way to frame the comparison? What do we mean by "warm"? If we are talking about audible difference in frequencies, notching of undesirable frequencies, boosting sweet spots, etc, then surely either amp can achieve this by tweaking EQ, whether graphic, parametric, etc. Some folks say solid state amps are harsh, perhaps meaning that there are some offensive mid and high frequencies. I haven't found a SS amp yet, that I couldn't make "not harsh" by turning the treble or presence down to 1 or 2...IF what we meann by harsh is analyzable down into sense data of frequencies. In reality, there are probably many, many "sense-data" terms that we should use to compare tones of amps, tubes, vs. ss, etc. I won't pretend to know what they all are, but it would be an interesting categorization project for someone. For instance, my personal experience with tube amps vs. SS is that neither is inherently warmer or brighter than the other, but that there are some factors that I can't describe with a simple frequency notch or boost. What are they? I'm not certain. There is this "sponginess" that I feel in a tube amp....that's not a technical term, I know, but it has to do with playing a note, and the tone of the output changing, nano-second by nano-second from the instant I pluck the string to when the tone ends. It's like the attack is different, and the tone and timbres change dynamically...like a sponge, when you squeeze it...you do not compress it instantly with one squeeze, rather it compresses slowly. Whereas with my solid state amps, the tonal output is much more consistent and uniform, and some folks might call this "sterile", though that seems a bit evaluative. The attack is quick and the tone does not evolve as much, nano-second after nano-second, or ms. I think I'm getting more descriptive here than just saying that the tube amp is "warmer". This is just an experiment of thought. I invite others to help develop a more granular semantics to compare tube and SS. It think it is fascinating. I'm guessing some engineers have done extensive spectral and frequency analyses of tube amps vs. ss amps? I assume that when engineers developed DSP technology, they did some analyses like this and tried to simulate the evolving and dynamic tone of a tube amp. Now, having played many tube amps in my past, these new DSP SS amps, like the Fender FM65 I just bought, have an uncanny ability to simulate the feel I mentioned above. It's not exact, but very close. It's so close that I have had guitarists come up to me and complicate my tone, thinking it was tube....because they heard that subtle change in tone, when I picked harder, or when let notes extend...they heard that subtle and dynamic evolution of the tone. It wasn't EQ they were noticing but something much more complex. Heck, I can take any tube amp, turn the low end to 0, and the MID and High to 10, and make it sound horrendous. It's not about the EQ, but the subtle and dynamic evolution of tone in very short periods of time. Afterall, we are not talking about flaky metaphysics here...whatever it is that one person thinks sounds better in a tube amp than a SS amp, MUST (in my opinion) be expressible in empirical language. I don't personally believe there is anything else at stake, but empirical data that we can percieve or measure in the output of an amp. Then the mysterious are resolved, and we can let the DSP/SS engineers of the future continue developing a SS amp that will eventually satisfy the tube purist via a blind test. Kris ----- Original Message ----- From: "mark sottilaro" <zerocrossing2001@yahoo.com> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:56 AM Subject: RE: Tubes in Pre-amps: your expertise and honest opinion. > --- "Goddard, Duncan" <goddard.duncan@mtvne.com> > wrote: > >> I'm so tired of seeing this "warmer" expression >> trotted out lazily every time someone is trying to >> market something with a bottle in it. >> what exactly is it supposed to mean? is it to do >> with noise-floor, frequency response, distortion, >> what? > > One part of it has to do with the way tubes respond to > a load as opposed to the way a transistor does. (or > doesn't I should say) A tube/load circuit creates a > kind of filter. That warmth people often speak of is > just high frequency attenuation. This is all grossly > simplified, but that's the main deal. I do know that > for some reason the tube stage in my Tonelab makes my > guitar sound damn good. It's not in the preamp stage > though, it's before a virtual load to mimic the above > phenomena. Does it really help? I don't know but I > like it more than the Line6 stuff. > > Mark > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > >