Why do guitar amps never have the design considerations of hi-fi speakers?

[soundmasterg]

I also wasn't thinking of guitar amplifiers as "tone coloring" devices. I mean... obviously they are. Overdrive and distortion aren't something that the guitar string or pickup is doing. So, it makes perfect sense that a guitar amp is not JUST a device to make a signal stronger i.e. louder. It filters and colors the sound probably to a great degree... and God bless them.

One very important thing to keep in mind when talking about sound is that we don't hear things linearly, so we like peaks and valleys and distortion to a certain degree in what we hear, and the other thing to remember is that everyone hears differently. If you use test equipment to measure what is happening with the sound, then you can define what you observe in a way that is clearly measurable and definable rather than saying it sounds bright or muddy or whatever. BUT, test equipment can't measure everything that we hear, and sound and how we hear isn't something that is fully understood either. Sometimes it requires you to step out from your engineering background and approach it from an artist's standpoint in order to understand why things have been done the way they are. Most guitar players who have been playing for a long time and have experimented with different amps and guitars and what not would know naturally that a hi-fi setup or horns just sounds bad with guitar, unless you are trying to get really clean and clinical with your tone.

Greg

[Rhodesplyr]

I think it might help to think about it historically.

The traditional sound of the electric guitar, what we think of as "good," is the result of a process of evolution that began with simple tube amps. No tube amps and no speakers = no amplified guitar.

Early tube audio predated HiFi audio. It was common back then to have an amp with a single "full range" speaker (even though it wasn't really full-range) in a simple open-backed box. It's how many radios were built, and some early guitar amp builders had been radio repairmen. And it didn't really make that much sense to have full audio bandwidth (i.e., 20Hz to 20kHz) since the sources at the time (early records) were limited themselves.

During the 1950s, modern HiFi began to separate itself from the more bare-bones approach of the table-top radio and guitar amp, but the template for the synergistic electric guitar/guitar amp combination was already established. Also, speakers were relatively more expensive than other parts of an amp back then than they are now, so a more complex speaker arrangement would have been more expensive, not to mention heavier and less portable.

In contrast, when Don Leslie was designing an improved speaker cabinet for Hammond Organs, he started, from the beginning, in the 1940s, with a crossover for a 15" woofer in a bass reflex cabinet plus a horn driver. That's because the organ goes down to 30Hz. The Leslie itself is far from HiFi, but it covered the range of frequencies needed. Hammond Organs weren't readily portable, so the speaker cabinets didn't need to be portable.

So I'd say that guitar amps are not HiFi because the sound that people found pleasing -- from the beginning -- was not HiFi, nor did the complicated and expensive equipment needed for HiFi lend itself to the life of a gigging musician.

There have been some overlaps between guitar amps and HiFi as when Sunn took the Dynaco MkIII circuit and turned it into a guitar amp, but it takes a larger and more expensive output transformer for HiFi bandwidth.

[Dolmetscher007]

One very important thing to keep in mind when talking about sound is that we don't hear things linearly, so we like peaks and valleys and distortion to a certain degree in what we hear, and the other thing to remember is that everyone hears differently. If you use test equipment to measure what is happening with the sound, then you can define what you observe in a way that is clearly measurable and definable rather than saying it sounds bright or muddy or whatever. BUT, test equipment can't measure everything that we hear, and sound and how we hear isn't something that is fully understood either. Sometimes it requires you to step out from your engineering background and approach it from an artist's standpoint in order to understand why things have been done the way they are. Most guitar players who have been playing for a long time and have experimented with different amps and guitars and what not would know naturally that a hi-fi setup or horns just sounds bad with guitar, unless you are trying to get really clean and clinical with your tone.

Greg

Thanks Greg! This is a very helpful post.

There are a lot of things in life that are like this. I used to be in food & bev as a chef, and one of the things I had to learn and learn to teach to others was similar to this. Some things have an
obvious flavor or sensation. For example, if something is salty... as long as your biology is in order, pretty much anyone can tell when something is salty. Sure some people like things to be saltier than others and vice versa, but for the most part... salty is salty. If you drink a 1/4 cup of undiluted red wine vinegar, pow! you know instantly that it is sour. And if you eat a heaping tablespoon of white sugar, Zoink! It's sweet. But... if you add the sugar to the vinegar... suddenly it's not really sweet anymore per se, and it's not really sour... It's that weird undescribably "sweet & sour" or "agrodolce" as the Italians say.

Also... over time... if you are making one of those all-day thick ragu's with 5 different meats stewed in tomato sauce and a ton of other stuff, after a while of tasting and tasting and tasting for seasoning... you have officially lost the plot my friend. Your tongue is no longer in any position to tell which way is up or down. Is it too salty, not salty enough...? So you usually end up adding salt little by little, trying to "get it to taste right," but in the end, you've made a kettle of salt stew that only YOU think tastes fine.

I always thought that it would be so awesome if there were just some kind of easy "paper stip" that could measure salinity, and when you make a batch of whatever that is your absolute ballz-out best work... you can just test it, and always shoot for that level of salinity. That way... even if your taster is all blown, you can at least say... "Well... the test paper says it's salty enough."

I can't help but think that audio measuring devices could be similar. If a "'65 Fender Blah Blah 212" is widely known to be this pinicle of circuit perfection, wouldn't it be possible to just measure the living shit out of it's output, and use that data to at least get into the ballpark of whatever you are trying to do? I'm not sure if my analogy is holding strong or if everyone is scratching their heads. I'm kinda scratching my head at this point.

Need more coffee.

[eschertron]

I like your train of thought. Keep in mind that music is dynamic, that is, it changes over time. Only recently has the ability to measure and record with any accuracy what the "Fender zigurrat 65", at any circuit point, is doing in the time domain (I know, 'recently' has many contexts for the audio engineer vs the home hobbyist). Then you have to know why you're measuring a certain point and what you expect to understand from the measurement.

And then we should realize that hearing what the signal is doing - and seeing a test instrument's readings - may not be in any way intuitively comparable. If I'm testing point 'B', but the character of the amp's tone is predominately being generated at point 'A' somewhere earlier in the preamp, I have to know without looking through a lot of tedious analysis that I should be hooking my instruments to a different test point. Testing only the output - without any prior knowledge of how the tone is shaped through the amp's signal path - would be largely futile, IMHO.

Is 'distortion' like 'saltiness'? Probably more like a row of canisters in the spice rack: "I can hear the coriander, but there's some cumin that becomes obvious in the louder passages. And I can sense some graininess from the oregano during the note's decay". There are folks who can hear a note played and explain what's happening in the amp over time as the note attacks, sustains, whatnot... These people are the master chefs, the maestros of amp design, who have an intimate familiarity with the amp's nature and behavior. They are familiar with every part, so can 'unpack' the way the signal is affected by the amp from input to output.

[Enzo]

Your cooking example will serve. You proposed a salinity tester, but how about a whole taste tester? Guitar amps are like cooking. Your original idea was to make amps that sounded exactly like the original guitar. Well, as a chef imagine cooking a steak that tasted exactly like a steak, and nothing else. That would be a steak cooked with no salt, no seasoning at all. just plain old cooked meat. tastes flat and awful. When you cook a steak, you salt the meat. You cannot put salt on the meat after cooking and get the same result. You might also add pepper, and some garlic powder. Not to make the steak taste more steak-like, but to make the steak taste good. And how about some more distortion: sauteed onions. More distortion: steak rub before cooking. What is in that? WHo knows, maybe paprika and/or cayenne, cumin, etc. And maybe instead of the flat top, you grille it over coals or wood, adds yet more flavor. Again, you are not trying to make the thing taste like a pure steak, you are going for something that is pleasing to taste. What could be more boring than a slab of meat tossed on a dry skillet and then served? And in an electric guitar amp, little would be more boring than the plain old sound of the guitar pickups coming out a hifi speaker?

[nosaj]

Your cooking example will serve. You proposed a salinity tester, but how about a whole taste tester? Guitar amps are like cooking. Your original idea was to make amps that sounded exactly like the original guitar. Well, as a chef imagine cooking a steak that tasted exactly like a steak, and nothing else. That would be a steak cooked with no salt, no seasoning at all. just plain old cooked meat. tastes flat and awful. When you cook a steak, you salt the meat. You cannot put salt on the meat after cooking and get the same result. You might also add pepper, and some garlic powder. Not to make the steak taste more steak-like, but to make the steak taste good. And how about some more distortion: sauteed onions. More distortion: steak rub before cooking. What is in that? WHo knows, maybe paprika and/or cayenne, cumin, etc. And maybe instead of the flat top, you grille it over coals or wood, adds yet more flavor. Again, you are not trying to make the thing taste like a pure steak, you are going for something that is pleasing to taste. What could be more boring than a slab of meat tossed on a dry skillet and then served? And in an electric guitar amp, little would be more boring than the plain old sound of the guitar pickups coming out a hifi speaker?

Stop Stop Stop the madness Enzo....now I must have steak.......

nosaj

[Justin Thomas]

and a large 100W mega amp

If you think 100W is a mega amp you should check the G.E.C. Application Guides from the 60s. One of thrm I believe has a 700W or 1,000W amp in it. Yes, tube.

Or look for "Ken Gilbert BAGA". Also all tube.

Justin

[mikepukmel]

Please do.
FWIW my first Guitar amp was a Gibson GA5 ... a shameless copy of a Champ, the second was a Bassman 50 , both straight out of Jack Darrīs book (which I suggest you read).

The first one point to point on terminal strips; the second one on eyeletted board made with a bench press I bought specially to be able to do things "the way Fender did".

Stilll faithfully working like 49 years ago, applying eyelet terminals to speaker cones and frames, and now and then on simple boards for quick speaker crossovers , supplies, you-name-it .

My best investment so far.

So start climbing the ladder step by step ... you can reach real high if you go on.

If you want to play it safe, Ted Weber or Hoffman kits are good and inexpensive and Ceriatone ones excellent, sometimes better than originals

For me, the fun part was searching around learning about various types of parts, making a BOM, then the endless fiddling that happens when you figure out its not 1964 and you can't get tubes and whatever that sounds 'just like the originals'.

[mikepukmel]

<clip...>

My biggest problem with amp kits, and the ONLY reason why I haven't already ordered one from StewMac, is that the StewMac kits come with the amp enclosure, the speaker, and all that jazz. I am a HUGE woodworker, furniture designer, and in general, I just love the physical design of amps. I don't want to build a Fender knock-off that costs the same as a Fender amp, AND even looks just like one. I feel like it's a waste of money to buy one of those kits, and toss all the enclosure stuff, build a new one, and... ya know what I mean? I'd be looking for a kit that is just chasis and components. I'd even like to buy my own switches, input jacks, etc. Hell... I'd pay good money for a very specific parts list, a schematic, and step-by-step instructions, and I can source all the stuff myself.

Does anything like that exist, to your knowledge?

Thanks guys! You've all been really helpful and awesome!

Oh yeah, Im no wood worker (wish I knew how to), but I wanted a similar 'thing'. Yes, look around, you can get a chassis and a big bag-o-parts w/o the cabinet.

You can find places like Valvestorm, prices are a little higher, but you can just check off the parts you want (cabinet or no) and you'll get a big bag with parts you wanted. This guy sells just chassis: http://www.juicyamps.com/chassis_order_form.html Also, check out ebay, you can get a fender like chassis, or marshall chassis from there, then buy most of the parts from, say Antique Electronic Supply and Mouser.

[mikepukmel]

These guys have lots of chassis, I have one in a deluxe like thing, good prices, solid product: https://www.ebay.com/str/zhmusicparts

[J M Fahey]

I can't help but think that audio measuring devices could be similar. If a "'65 Fender Blah Blah 212" is widely known to be this pinicle of circuit perfection, wouldn't it be possible to just measure the living shit out of it's output, and use that data to at least get into the ballpark of whatever you are trying to do? I'm not sure if my analogy is holding strong or if everyone is scratching their heads. I'm kinda scratching my head at this point.

Possible in theory but problem is the parameter we are trying to measure is very very very complex to be adequately expressed by a "single number" which is what any meter would show on its screen.

You can measure saltyness and show it in a single number, such as "1.5% Sodium content" but how do you express, with a single number, the difference between the strained juice from Bolognesa sauce from Filetto from Puttanesca from Portuguese from Pomodoro juice just out of the can, or even humble Ketchup, without further processing?
Once strained and either poured over Pasta or simply tasted with a spoon, all are "reddish tomato based liquids" , all **completely** different and easy to differentiate ... but no "single number" will tell you anything.

At most, the salt content

MANY things in human experience can be easily differentiated, yet *impossible* to express as a measurement.

[Justin Thomas]

But until someone goes to all the trouble to thoroughly measure, you just completely justified "mojo," Juan!



Justin

[eschertron]

But until someone goes to all the trouble to thoroughly measure, you just completely justified "mojo," Juan!



Justin

I don't care... sigged now!

But seriously - I'm thinking Juan meant impossible to measure as a simply-dimensioned quantity

[J M Fahey]

But until someone goes to all the trouble to thoroughly measure, you just completely justified "mojo," Juan!



Justin

No, quite the contrary

I say "sound" or "tone" is a way too complex "parameter" to quantify.

Mojo, on the other hand is superstitious simplistic:"you use this magical/mojo_full [tube/transformer/wire/magnet/capacitor/resistor/transformer/etc.] and instantly you sound [bluesy/warm/vintage/expressive/whatever]" which is a truckload of bullshit, nothing depends on a single element, used in isolation.

Isnīt superstitious simplistic a too harsh description?
Not really, compare it side by side with other simplistic explanations such as:
* earth trembles because God Boongaboonga is angry
* Larry Carlton sounds so good because he uses a Dumble
* a $250 power cord will correct all wiring problems between you and Niagara Falls Hydro station

and so on and on.

Just this morning I answered a guy at DIY Audio who wanted to power his TDA2030 practice guitar amp with an EZ80 (not kidding) , since "tube rectifiers improve amplifier warmth and pick sensitivity".

He was somewhat dismayed when I answered that heīd need 15 of them to feed his amplifier, and a 200VA rated custom power transformer (just filament needed a 9A rated winding and estimated 35V supply needed to actually be designed as a 95V one because of tube 60V drop at full current) for meager 14W RMS output.

But since True Believers only "read" what matches their beliefs and ignore everything else, all he got was: "I was right!!! , you CAN feed a chipamp with EZ80!!!!" ... which of course is true ... sort of.

[Justin Thomas]

I know what you meant; I'm just messing around.

Jusrin