What can we do now that the guys in the Golden Age would have done if they could?

[R.G.]

Title says it all: what can we do now that the guys in the Golden Age would have done if they could?

I have a few things that I've posted over time that I think would qualify, but what do you think?

[Mark Hammer]

Hey buddy, good question.

But perhaps an ugly answer. I suspect those golden-agers would have done more - as much as we can now - to virtually eliminate clipping. Keep in mind that the negative feedback from the transformer was intended to keep "all that unwanted harmonic content" at bay.

They might also have used more efficient and lighter speakers, perhaps neodymium mags to keep down the weight.

And maybe they would have also included pedal supply "convenience outlets" (like the Workhorse did), to complement the frequently found AC convenience outlets on the back.

[Chuck H]

Well, if this is in reference to innovation I must admit that I'm not honestly sure.

If this is in reference to guitar amps, I think we're doing it. Since the industry changes with trends we keep the function of designs contemporary. Not that we tend to be trendy, but I think we contribute here and there in small ways. At the very least we keep the dream alive lest it fall to programmed, digital simulation.

As to innovation I think there have been a few really great ideas born here that have found their way into the overall industry to greater or lesser significance. I mean, it's not like we just developed this technology so we're probably past the time of big, WOW moments. But on that note, there have been some innovations with semiconductors built with inert separators that seem to exhibit something closer to the finer performance of vacuum tubes for audio. There's also been some new tech with nano tubes. Not that we did this, but we helped inspire it by being part of the genre that wants/needs new and alternative tech in that area. Part of the "movement". And it may yet turn out that if the technology is developed into a product we may be one of the sources for idealizing circuits as they relate to audio. Especially WRT guitar amps

[Dave H]

They wanted to make amplifiers that didn’t distort for a reasonable price so today they would use transistors, opamps, bridge rectifier power supplies and no output transformer or even a class D output stage. We are lucky they didn’t have those components or we wouldn’t have the deliciously distorting valve amps we have today.

[Enzo]

I think they would have ditched tubes. (GASP!!!)

We have elevated tubes to some mystical level, but back then, tubes were simply what audio was made from. If they had reliable semiconductor diodes, they'd have gotten rid of the 5v winding and the rectifier tube. That saves the cost, the weight, and the heat.

They'd have realized that paralleling transistors or ICs was much more efficient that paralleling 100 tubes.

[Sowhat]

[QUOTE=Enzo;363658]I think they would have ditched tubes. (GASP!!!)

I remember back in the 60's when I was taking electronics, one day the instructor came in carrying a garbage can, reached inside and pulled out a beam pentode and announced to the class that this was a history lesson. He took the next 15 minutes and described the theory and operation and that was that, no more tubes. As I remember it, back then that was the plan but tubes just would not go completely away although they really should have. For the most part they are indeed history except with musical instrument amplifiers and high end hi-fi... of course, all those people are crazy, right?

[mcgruff]

From what I can gather, Leo Fender mostly wanted to keep costs down. If he could I'm sure he would have churned out cheap digital modelling gear. It was pure chance that the components available at the time (tubes & transformers) actually produced some great sounds.

[Tooboob]

I agree with mcgruff, DaveH, Enzo, etc. The original tube guys were indeed wizards. Look at the RDH. But Fender, Gibson, and Marshall were experimental, looking for ways to make a market for electric guitars. Because the sounds became iconic idioms, the sound of those cheap amps became electric blues, jazz guitar, rock... When I look at them and play them, there's definitely a nod to sounding good, but the circuits show that reducing cost and component count were paramount.

I see the same thing in guitars. The original Tele is about as cheap as you can make a two-pickup guitar. I've got a FrankenTele version of one, and it's one of my favorites. Did Leo nail it on the first guess, or is it a matter of being the first to establish the iconic tone? I mean, we're speaking English, but if you ask a Chinese guy who's learning English what he thinks of it, he'll tell you it's pretty nuts, and he speaks Mandarin!

1. One thing that bothers me is today's drive channels. You can turn up the "gain" by boosting a signal somewhere, but you can't really change the characteristics of the distortion. I can envision a knob that goes from smooth to clean to biting.

2. If we're going to take advantage of power stage distortion, let's experiment with different feedback forms. The current PI architecture actually increases the abruptness of clipping as it tries to compensate for the tubes as they reach their limit.

3. Preamp (single-ended) distortion would benefit greatly from a polyphonic one-per-string approach.

4. A little silicon can be very useful. I'd rather have FET switches than relays, and actual regulation can keep things tighter. We've already embraced SS diodes for the B+ rectification, and it has a sonic impact that we usually don't put in an easy correction for.

5. Since the designers allowed headroom for instruments with weak output, there was a happy accident where angry kids on drugs could turn up the amp too far, and created another iconic tone. Unfortunately, you need a wimpy amp, or a stadium. Power Scaling works, and we can make this state reachable at lower volume. There are many objections, but the only big one to me is the lack of acoustic feedback back to the guitar. It's an iconic sustain. A properly designed "sustainer" circuit would help.

6. Basement recording could use a line output that doesn't sound like doodoo and the ability to push the power stage without driving a speaker. DSP processing for this function is OK with me.

I see lots of nice sounding, innovative gear get rejected because it doesn't sound just like a Fender, Gibson, Marshall, etc. That's strange to me. Fenders don't sound like Marshalls, and Marshalls don't sound like Fenders either.

We really should be able to do better than our predecessors if we design for pleasing overdrive distortion intentionally. Maybe we need white short-sleeved shirts, pocket protectors, and bamboo slip-sticks.

[tubeswell]

They would've incorporated a Digital Audio Workstation with an iPad touchscreen interface into the pre-amp?

[Tom Phillips]

They would have made guitar necks with computer controlled machines to eliminate the variations. And they would have based the models they produced on the shapes that players had already told them they liked best. Since people have different preferences they would have made several variants of each model that one could order in the size that suited them best.

[gui_tarzan]

I've said many times over the years that I believe all of the "new" discoveries have been made, the "new" inventions have been thought of. Everything we have today is just something that was modified, built-up, improved and so on. The light bulb was invented in 1802, today we still have light bulbs based on the same makeup. The TV is an off-shoot of a vacuum tube. There are many thousands of examples of things we use today that are nothing more than improved versions of something that was invented decades ago. LEDs? Sure, but they're nothing more than a diode that emits light. If you look at it from the most basic level, it's not that hard to understand. The silicon diode is a newer version of the original vacuum tube diode.

Think about coffee - how did that get discovered? Who thought about putting this fruit in water and boiling it to get the resulting drink? Did someone actually have that going through their mind at the time? Gee, I wonder if I pick this "bean", dry it, cook it, and boil it in water, will it give me something besides plain water to drink? Was it simply a matter of someone cooking it to eat and discovering that the flavored water was actually good? Who had the idea that they could take some plastic tape with a magnetic coating and somehow transfer audio to it? Think about TV, the camera and the method to transmit that signal.

It really does make you wonder when you take it all the way back to the ground level. How many people died from eating fake Morels before they discovered the difference? The cashew nut is actually the seed of a poisonous fruit. Who thought it would be a good idea to roll the leaves of a particular type of plant and come up with a cigar? Much less the fermenting process, the drying process, etc. The microwave oven - someone noticed they were getting hot when they stood near the transmitter so they left a sandwich near a MW transmitter and it cooked it. Viola! So many things that have been created from base level technology but where is the "new" base level technology? There are of course exceptions such as GPS, but that is also computer technology enhanced. Cell phones are a combination of the telephone and wireless technology.

It seems to me all that can be invented has been invented. But I'm not of the mindset of the original "you'll never need more than 64k of RAM", there are always way to improve or develop new products from others but I just don't see the next light bulb anywhere.

Yeah, I've been told many times that I think too much.

[trobbins]

To my mind, the most changes made to a 'golden age' amp during a renovation focus on protection, overdrive performance, and grounding. Vintage amp examples can be found that did show some focus on protection and grounding, but I don't recall any specifically targeting overdrive performance (as per the intent of guitar amp design).

I've come across over-voltage protection of output transformers - including 6AL3 damper diodes for anode 'catch diodes', and arc gaps from P-to-P. Vintage parts like SiC varistors were used for over-voltage protection in some applications (eg. TVs), but I don't recall in valve amps (except for vibrato effect!) , indicating that modern MOVs would have been used if available back then.

Protection in the form of ease of servicing of mismatched output stage valves was almost non-existent - maybe not a 'design' shortfall, but more a lack of impetus for future proofing against device/part degradation. The Williamson provided simple bias adjustment, but no direct mechanism to measure individual bias levels, and most constructions relied on pots never having open wipers, and unused pot ends were almost never taken to the wiper. Bias adjustment was mainly only seen for quad's and higher, and then only for fixed bias configurations. I guess this in general points to the significant cost aspect of amps back then, as compared to a lack of understanding or parts availability.

Some forms of protection we add in nowadays weren't needed back then, or the problem sources weren't as prolific, such as a HAM operator next door compared to putting a mobile/cell phone next to your equipment. Which points to the use of stoppers, which were used, but ferrites weren't available and would have offered a simpler solution (eg. for input stage grids, and for output valves such as 807's that were prone to themselves being the 'emitter').

There was no known awareness of distributed star grounding that I've come across. Only the highest end amps would have something close to well-implemented star grounding - of which I have a 1950 Williamson that gets a 9/10 rating, but that example would be rare even amongst Williamson variants.

And overdrive performance improvement doesn't always mean a consequential degradation of hifi performance, but more a means of entering overdrive in a more graceful manner. So there was no focus on the nowadays generic use of grid stoppers, and co-ordination of when stages are entering overdrive and tone shaping.

[Chuck H]

What would those guys do.?.

Considering some of the whacky stuff that was introduced and then discontinued almost immediately (like guitars with slanted frets, amp guitar combo packages with the amp controls on the guitar, and a multitude of tape and magnet driven echo effects) I say it might be time for a five way speaker system. Just one amp, but then five other little amps that buss an effects loop so you can create a true three dimensional sound. It'd be cheap to make and seems in keeping with audio trends that often influenced new gear in the golden age.

Of course it would suck, and be discontinued shortly... BUT, it's very possibly what they would do.

[Alan0354]

I think if they built the first amp with transistor and opamp, then all the great players would be using it and create history with it. Then all the people would follow the trend and use it as standard by which all other amps are being judged, just like we still hang onto Fender BF and SF, Marshall Plexi and Vox AC30. It's all about trend, we relay the sound to the great players we looked up to.

[Gingertube]

Ditch Tube Rectifiers.
Use bias servos to monitor/control output tube idle points.

To stand the question on its head - What should modern HiFi designers do with ancient technology?
Just about anything would be an improvement. Modern HiFi Amps are designed to the "Infinite Gain/Infinite Feedback" theory of design.
Cut the feedback to absolute minimum, then you would need to use the most linear amplifying device ever invented - a triode tube.

Cheers,
Ian