What's the point of 100 watt amps?

[Eric]

I should start this out by saying that I've only ever played through one 100W half stack: a H&K tri-amp or something like that. It was OK.

What I've been wondering about lately is what 100w amps are good for. Pretty much every amp I've ever owned has been too loud for me when I've turned it up to max -- if I ever even got there. I know sound is logarithmic or something, so that a doubling of volume requires 10x the wattage, but I guess I just don't understand the role of huge amps. Are they something you use when you want a lot of headroom? When you're playing outside and you don't have a powerful PA to mic the amp? When you want to feel your clothes flap around you? When you just want to feel like a rock star, playing in front of a huge amp?

I'm guessing the answer to the above questions is yes to all of them, but doing that would miss the point. I'm curious what the primary motivation is for using big amp heads. I notice a lot of pros use them, and a lot of the time they use three 100w amps (Mayer, Bonamassa, etc.). Certainly there must be some reason they use three amps, right? They're playing mostly venues with as much PA as they need, and oftentimes I think they even use isolation boxes, so what is it that those giant amps give you that little ones don't?

I think I've fleshed out this question enough by this point, so hopefully someone has some knowledge about it. Thanks!

[sunvalleylaw]

Not that I know for sure, but they used to be necessary before PA systems were used, for large concerts, etc. Nowadays, not sure they are necessary for anything. But they are part of the history of rock, so they live on.

[Bookkeeper's Son]

And some folks just like LOUD.

[Tig]

So when it goes to 11, it ends the world.

http://www.founditemclothing.com/itgoesto11/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/nigel-tufnel-it-goes-to-11-11-11-holiday-obama-shepardfairey-spoof.jpg

[mapka]

I am sure there are many of Newbies out there that figure that more power means better. I have a 50W Marshall stack that I bought in the early 1990's. Back then there were lots of big rooms to play and the 50w was needed to fill them. Now small rooms only mean 30W max IMHO. Funny story about the Marshall.... Lent it to a friend who used it in a high school auditorium for a show he was doing with the kids. Had a pro sound man mixing. He had the amp up about half way and had to turn it down cause the sound man had everything else turned up so high to match it, it started to have all kinds of feedback. BTW the amp was not even mic'd!

[marnold]

For guitar, that's all true. 100 watts will be overkill for most applications. Of course, that amph might sound awesome, so that's a reason to have one even if the power is unnecessary. Joe B. doesn't use all his amphs at the same time, much less at full blast. He also has plexiglass in front of his cab to keep the stage volume manageable.

Bass, on the other hand, requires a ton of wattage. 100 watts won't be enough even for a smallish venue, unless you're going into the pa system. I used to use a 50 watt combo, but I had the only electric instrument and the drummer showed restraint. We never played any place huge either.

When I tried to get a metal band together, you couldn't even tell I was there.

[Katastrophe]

Amphs started small, and wattage grew along with venue size for major acts. PA systems got louder, too, and folks started realizing that you could mike the amphs and keep stage volume to a minimum.

Jimi Hendrix had a couple of full size Marshall stacks on stage, and soon everyone wanted to look cool (like him) with those big stacks.

I remember in Austin in the early 90s EVERYONE that played rock had a half stack, even in some tiny clubs.

[Eric]

Jimi Hendrix had a couple of full size Marshall stacks on stage, and soon everyone wanted to look cool (like him) with those big stacks.
This is my general impression of why people use huge amps, along with marnold's point about how sometimes the best-sounding amps just happen to be high-wattage.

However, I did see some interview with Joe Bonamassa once where he said amp manufacturers are always coming up to him, telling him he has to try out their latest 30 watt amp, and that he won't be able to tell the difference between it and a 100 watt amp. He goes on to say that he will be able to -- something like he'll take the Pepsi challenge and win. So that whole thing makes me think that there must be something about big amps that he specifically needs/wants, and that it's not just about the appearance on stage. Don't know. I could be wrong, but I guess I just feel like I might be missing something.

Maybe if I get some big-*** amp at the other end of the guitar cable sometime, I might understand. Maybe someday?

[Katastrophe]

One thing is cool, though, about a big amph through a 4x12 cab is the WHUMP. Turn that amph up, stand in front of the cab, and hit a power chord. The feeling when the sound hits you in the chest (the WHUMP, that's the best way I can describe it) is incredible. There really is nothing like it.

Of course, there really is nothing like tinnitus either, so I like my smaller amph. ;)

[Tig]

Back in the late 70's and onward, bands like Van Halen as well as most hard rock/metal bands would put up a giant wall of amps and full stack cab's. As teens, we thought is was real.
http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/1/4/9/6/21066941-21066944-slarge.jpg

Sadly, bands like Slayer still do it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/MarshallStack_Slayer.jpg/800px-MarshallStack_Slayer.jpg

I'm not sure who this is, but it is pathetic:
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z261/Heretic_KG/ImmortalFake.jpg

[Eric]

I'm not sure who this is, but it is pathetic:
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z261/Heretic_KG/ImmortalFake.jpg
I originally saw that photo over at The Gear Page. I think they concluded it was the band Immortal (http://www.allmusic.com/artist/immortal-p212822).

On that note, when I saw Dream Theater, Petrucci had something like 3 full stacks of mesa dual rectifiers. My friend later said that they're all fake, and that he keeps one behind them that's actually mic'ed up. So I guess it's something that's not too uncommon.

[NWBasser]

The purpose of 100 watt amps is to piss off bass players.:thwap

[deeaa]

One thing is cool, though, about a big amph through a 4x12 cab is the WHUMP. Turn that amph up, stand in front of the cab, and hit a power chord. The feeling when the sound hits you in the chest (the WHUMP, that's the best way I can describe it) is incredible. There really is nothing like it.

Exactly.

My Ceria can be halved 18/36W and the funny thing is, the 36W doesn't really sound any louder than 18W when played alone, BUT when I drop it to 18W, I just lose the bass punch and it won't cut thru the band no more.

4 me the 36W is quite perfect, the volume is just right for a loud drummer/band on almost full blast, at the point after which it starts getting ugly overtones already. But I would not mind a 50W or 100W amp for leads; I can't quite get a sufficiently clean and powerful sound I'd want for single strings with the 36W, because there is simply too much power tube distortion going on already.

Any amp, to me, should have at least 3 channels; cleaner, a dirty channel and a REALLY loud lead channel. Sadly, usually the lead channel just means more saturation which sucks. I like to play leads on a sound that is often cleaner than my rhythm sound, and it's a problem to get those to push thru the rest of the band, unless there's plenty of power in the amp.

Thus the need for 100W amps is in that sometimes less just won't do...with a loud band 50W will certainly be enough, but going for 100W will only add some more punch and headroom even at the same volume - if that's what you like. For very clean, unsaturared sounds LOUD you do need all the wattage you can get. At least something like 400W for clean clean bass sounds, and 100W is just perfect for a really punchy metal guitar sound that oesn't rely on power tube drive at all.

Furthermore, the usual speaker wattage is 75-120W still, making the classic Marshall 4x12" cab rated at about 400W, and it simply won't 'open up' with a lesser amp. I had a 60W Peavey tube amp and believe it or not, it failed to really open up the basic Marshall JCM800 cab when I used it in a studio! Hooked up a 100W JCM series and the speakers came alive.

So wattage can be a bit like horsepower. A farm tractor needs very little horsepower really with its low gears(have you ever checked out, they can be like under 100hp easily), but there's a whole different sound and feeling blasting a 400hp hemi truck, even if it can't pull even as much weight as the farm tractor....

[Eric]

Exactly.

My Ceria can be halved 18/36W and the funny thing is, the 36W doesn't really sound any louder than 18W when played alone, BUT when I drop it to 18W, I just lose the bass punch and it won't cut thru the band no more.

4 me the 36W is quite perfect, the volume is just right for a loud drummer/band on almost full blast, at the point after which it starts getting ugly overtones already. But I would not mind a 50W or 100W amp for leads; I can't quite get a sufficiently clean and powerful sound I'd want for single strings with the 36W, because there is simply too much power tube distortion going on already.

Any amp, to me, should have at least 3 channels; cleaner, a dirty channel and a REALLY loud lead channel. Sadly, usually the lead channel just means more saturation which sucks. I like to play leads on a sound that is often cleaner than my rhythm sound, and it's a problem to get those to push thru the rest of the band, unless there's plenty of power in the amp.

Thus the need for 100W amps is in that sometimes less just won't do...with a loud band 50W will certainly be enough, but going for 100W will only add some more punch and headroom even at the same volume - if that's what you like. For very clean, unsaturared sounds LOUD you do need all the wattage you can get. At least something like 400W for clean clean bass sounds, and 100W is just perfect for a really punchy metal guitar sound that oesn't rely on power tube drive at all.

Furthermore, the usual speaker wattage is 75-120W still, making the classic Marshall 4x12" cab rated at about 400W, and it simply won't 'open up' with a lesser amp. I had a 60W Peavey tube amp and believe it or not, it failed to really open up the basic Marshall JCM800 cab when I used it in a studio! Hooked up a 100W JCM series and the speakers came alive.

So wattage can be a bit like horsepower. A farm tractor needs very little horsepower really with its low gears(have you ever checked out, they can be like under 100hp easily), but there's a whole different sound and feeling blasting a 400hp hemi truck, even if it can't pull even as much weight as the farm tractor....
So what I'm getting from this is a few points:

1. If you want a clean lead sound that has enough punch to cut through when playing with a band, you'll need the added power.
2. The sound/feel of playing a big amp is cool.
3. Sometimes you need the extra power just to drive the speakers and have them sound good.
4. The whole thing is predicated on playing with a band and without any extra monitoring to boost your amp volume

I think the key for me is point 4, maybe a little bit of 3. I assume that if you have a PA set up, you'll just run through that to normalize the volumes. I guess a big amp might be warranted if you're not micing the amps through the PA and you want some extra headroom. I think.

Did I miss anything? You had a lot of points in there.

[Duffy]

It can be very useful to have a big tube amp when you are playing outside and the sound man working the PA doesn't give a shi# about your sound and he keeps turning you down. You can turn up your amp and get to where you want to be.

Also, you may "need" a big amp to drownd out a belligerent loud drummer. You also might be in a super loud band - the house is not going to let you blow up their expensive PA, as has happened many a time.

A big amp isn't for everything, absolutely, but it is sure fun to crank one up once in a while and really roar, if only for your own pleasure.

And believe it that Bonamassa has his reasons for needing big amps; like Deeaa was saying, and so on.

[deeaa]

Yep Eric I think that sums it up pretty well indeed.

Although the 'red knob' twin never was a greatly appreciated or lusted after an amp, it was by far the best Fender I ever played...it had the switches to turn it into a 100W, 50W or 25W amp.
It had killer cleans, like any regular Twin, when on 100W, but when you dropped it to 25W you could get quite un-fendery, singing drive sounds from the thing.

I would LOVE to have an amp that could do that with a footswitch...instead of just adding another more driven channel it would actually really double the wattage...that would be perfect.

Because, despite how good master volume can be, the really really best guitar sounds for me will always come near the max volume of the amp, when the power tubes are already working hard hard hard. So if you always want to be in that zone, there is no way to effectively go any louder or quieter without destroying the sound...the wattage halving on the fly would solve that problem.

Hm. Actually a switch to kick in an attenuator would do just about the same. Hm. I wonder how hard it would be to build one working on a relay.

[Eric]

Hm. Actually a switch to kick in an attenuator would do just about the same. Hm. I wonder how hard it would be to build one working on a relay.
I was thinking that two amps and an A/B box would probably be the easiest route for that. Would doing that with an attenuator adversely affect an amp in any way?

[deeaa]

Yep, A/B would be best...but of course somehow incorporating everything into one chassis would be simple.

But, it's true...attenuators & big tube amps aren't a very good combination at least in long run. Perhaps just a little attenuation would work, though...just a few dB would do I think.

[NWBasser]

Also, you may "need" a big amp to drownd out a belligerent loud drummer.

.

I would take exception to this. If you feel the need to drown out another musician, then you are in an adversarial band situation where nobody is going to be happy and you won't be making good music.

If you want to be a super-loud superstar, then forget about being in a band.

When a guitar player drowns out my bass, then I figure my contribution is not needed and I pack up and walk. The only way I'd put up with that is for loads of $$$. Pay me enough and I'll smile and plunk root notes all day while you wank away at top volume.

[Duffy]

The point here being, NW, is that there "are" belligerent super loud drummers that actually are adversarial and it's nice to have that reserve power to bring to bear if needed, before you walk. It was kind of a joke actually, but in reality these guys are out there and I'm sure you have met a few and steer clear. Same thing with other superstar guitar players, and it turns into the battle of the loudest.

100 watts isn't a bad thing, even 30 watt players can be obnoxiously loud and no fun to play with.

I agree, no one likes to be drownded out and it's not fun.

[Algonquin]

A knowledable Gent I once worked for explained wattage and db levels to me like this... 'It takes 10 x's the wattage to double the decible level' From this it reasons a 100 watt amp will only be twice as loud as a 10 watt amp, but the clean headroom it gives you is incredible!

There are many amps out there that operate at half wattage like the Marshall Jubilee 2550, or the Traynor YCS50 which can run in a 15 watt mode.

I don't think either of these amps run at the lower wattage really reduce the overall volume much, but it does give them a different feel.

[bigoldron]

One thing is cool, though, about a big amph through a 4x12 cab is the WHUMP. Turn that amph up, stand in front of the cab, and hit a power chord. The feeling when the sound hits you in the chest (the WHUMP, that's the best way I can describe it) is incredible. There really is nothing like it.

Of course, there really is nothing like tinnitus either, so I like my smaller amph. ;)

+1

[Ch0jin]

Thanks Algonquin, I was hoping that would come up. Yes, it's true, a 100W amp is actually only 23% louder than a 50W amp. Here's the formula, go nuts!

2^log10(100W/50W) = 2^log10(2) = 2^.30102999…. = 1.23. (Just 23%!)

It's fundamentally flawed to apply linear math to guitar amps when you're thinking about power ratings. As the guys here who have used 100W amps have said, it's not necessarily about being a lot louder. Frequently it's about clean headroom (sorry, I don't have a formula for that, but more power amp reserve typically equals more clean headroom, important for all those Jazz gig's we play at metal volume) and/or more low frequency grunt.

It's also been mentioned that bass guitar amps typically run massively higher wattage than comparable guitar rigs, whilst completely true, I'd like to make it clear the same theory applies to Guitar amps.

If you want more perceived volume from the lower frequencies (any 7 string players want to comment?) you'll need more power.

So yeah, if you want stomach churning, pants flapping, brass vibrating, snare rattling, ear rupturing, foundation crumbling bass response in your guitar tone. Keep shopping the 100 Watt amps.

As a personal anecdote though, I jam with another guitarist/bass player and a loud rock drummer and I usually have a 60W all tube Peavey run with the MV wide open and the clean and crunch channel volumes pretty much maxed too. All through a very old (so i'm thinking, inefficient) 4x12 and I usually leave those jams thinking of buying a 100W head. Then I get home and think "H'mm a 5 watt combo would be sweet"

There is a place for both :)

[Ch0jin]

Pay me enough and I'll smile and plunk root notes all day while you wank away at top volume.

Hey that sounds like heaps of fun! How much do I have to pay exactly? I hate it when bass players step all over my non-stop solo's with their fancy scales and such.

(joking)

[deeaa]

I would take exception to this. If you feel the need to drown out another musician, then you are in an adversarial band situation where nobody is going to be happy and you won't be making good music.

If you want to be a super-loud superstar, then forget about being in a band.

When a guitar player drowns out my bass, then I figure my contribution is not needed and I pack up and walk. The only way I'd put up with that is for loads of $$$. Pay me enough and I'll smile and plunk root notes all day while you wank away at top volume.

I don't want to sound like an *** or aggravate or anything, but seriously, I don't get your approach.

Would you not play with, say Jimi Hendrix or Joe Bonamassa if they insisted on playing louder than hell? Does everybody in a band have to be equal, would it not be good to have a superstar in the band whom others accompany, more or less?

I don't think it basically matters usually - if someone is a louder player, you arrange monitoring so that you hear yourself. You talk with the others, and make a joint decision, you have a band meeting, you make the best of it. But I don't believe it's good to force everybody into some mold just for some minor detail like that, or leave because of it. I'd be concerned of ever getting to be in a good band if I was so eager to jump out at such a small trouble detail.

I've been in dozens of bands, and the best ones always were the ones that didn't have the best players or best volume appreciations of others etc. but great unity and feel and whatnot.
And despite it pains me to say this because I really don't wish to say anything annoying or insulting - but the truth is that if there's anyone in the band who's expandable, it's the bassist. Pretty much any band I've ever been in, it's been more of a case of just making sure the bass doesn't rumble too much and is about on time, that's all that is needed and cared for. Many a band of mine has swapped bassists for whatever reason, and it hardly has mattered usually overall, but you can't change any other member like a guitarist or singer or drummer without changing the band sound and feel drastically. Bass is a support instrument, and 90% of time it should only be noticed if it's missing, not as a separate instrument all the time.

Not that I don't appreciate a great bassist, but to be honest in a band meeting situation if a bass player complains about too loud a guitarist, well, he's not going to get much support from the rest of the band I fear, unless it's really really loud a guitarist. I know because I've been a bassist in a touring band. Many a time I didn't hear myself at all either, but it was rock music so the guitar is the king. I've had a superb, totally professional bassist who made his living on playing bass entirely in my band, and he was excellent, but when he had to quit we took a guitar player to spank the bass instead thru an old guitar amp, and it was just as good from band perspective and we made some of our best stuff after that.

Many times people - especially good/exceptional players - can be too loud or have some other issues. But I don't think that makes for bad music, quite the contrary. If everybody needs to be constantly happy about their sounds and volumes and overall just too much worry about such things, or change band members based on any similar issue etc, well, I don't think _that_ makes for making good music either.

Of course, it could be the bassist who's the superstar too! The friend pro who played in my band a few years has his own jazz bands, in which he's basically playing leads on bass as well and in that, HE's the star and the guitarist just supports him.

Our other guitarist drowns me quite completely at times, many a times, but I don't mind, as long as he's keeping it down at least in some spots that matter. Same with vocals, I have practically never been in a band where I could hear the vocals well in rehearsals, because the PA stuff is expensive and had to get loud in a small room without feedback.

So to sum it up...yeah it sucks if some person/persons are drowning the others with volume, but I don't see it as black and white - sometimes it's good for the band, sometimes someone needs to be loud, and in any case it's just a matter of arranging monitoring and / or talking about how to correct the problem. Maybe the guitar amp can be turned to other direction and he can play in front of it a little farther off or something, or maybe the band can get an ear monitor for the bassist...it's just technical and not a good reason to just leave a band, IMO.

[NWBasser]

Deeaa,

I see what you're saying and agree with you that the bass isn't very important in a hard rock/heavy metal context. In that genre, the bass can be inaudible.

I don't play metal though. Maybe it's for that reason that I rarely even listen to metal anymore.

From my perspective and my own opinion, in playing other less guitar-focused, music, bass is important. If I can't be heard clearly, then my presence or absence doesn't matter.

Think of what R&B, funk, soul, jazz and so on would be without a strong bass line to move the music along. I don't think you could have easily replaced James Jamerson and gotten the Motown that you hear today.

The simple fact is, there are a whole lot of nice and creative baselines in popular music where the bass player makes a huge difference. If you have some time on your hands, I can begin reciting examples...

Going back to your first point though, no I wouldn't play with Bonamossa, Hendrix, etc. unless I were being paid hansomely to destroy my hearing.

For my part, and in my opinion, everyone should be heard clearly in a band. It's my belief that the best music is made where everyone has an equal contribution.

BTW - I don't take any offense to your posting. I happen to have a fairly different musical perspective.

[Duffy]

100 watt amps can be very cool indeed, like the Blackheart 100 watt head with six preamp tubes.

As far as great contributing bass players in rock bands, in a few "rock" bands of old the bass players were key players and irreplaceable, at least in terms of the band sounding the same. Three of these being Hendrix's Experience, Noel Redding; The Who's, John Entwhistle; Led Zepellin's, John Paul Jones; and the Stones', Bill Wyman. The Stones, in particular, just don't sound the same without Bill Wyman, in my opinion. Redding, Jones, and Entwhistle had unique styles and were integral to the overall sound of the bands. Of course, Paul McCartney's bass contribution can not be discounted, although he uses a guitar player to play bass in his current band on must songs - a beautiful Gibson SG bass.

Typically though, I would agree that in average gigging cover bands that a lot of different bass players could probably do just as excellent a job in supporting the band.

One thing I noticed in most modern real heavy metal bands, screamo, etc., the bass players and drummers are generally super excellent and super loud and the guitars and vocals sound buried behind their booming rhythm - at least in my observation listening to a lot of the music my son listens to and bands he has been in. A friend of mine has a 2000 watt per channel bass power amp and he uses it in clubs: super loud, including incredibly loud head busting drummer that is proud of breaking a snare head each show. Obviously a lot of people would not want to be in a band like this but you wouldn't believe how many super loyal fans they have. They are called "Farewell Rescue".

[NWBasser]

100 watt amps can be very cool indeed, like the Blackheart 100 watt head with six preamp tubes.

As far as great contributing bass players in rock bands, in a few "rock" bands of old the bass players were key players and irreplaceable, at least in terms of the band sounding the same. Three of these being Hendrix's Experience, Noel Redding; The Who's, John Entwhistle; Led Zepellin's, John Paul Jones; and the Stones', Bill Wyman. The Stones, in particular, just don't sound the same without Bill Wyman, in my opinion. Redding, Jones, and Entwhistle had unique styles and were integral to the overall sound of the bands. Of course, Paul McCartney's bass contribution can not be discounted, although he uses a guitar player to play bass in his current band on must songs - a beautiful Gibson SG bass.

Typically though, I would agree that in average gigging cover bands that a lot of different bass players could probably do just as excellent a job in supporting the band.

One thing I noticed in most modern real heavy metal bands, screamo, etc., the bass players and drummers are generally super excellent and super loud and the guitars and vocals sound buried behind their booming rhythm - at least in my observation listening to a lot of the music my son listens to and bands he has been in. A friend of mine has a 2000 watt per channel bass power amp and he uses it in clubs: super loud, including incredibly loud head busting drummer that is proud of breaking a snare head each show. Obviously a lot of people would not want to be in a band like this but you wouldn't believe how many super loyal fans they have. They are called "Farewell Rescue".

Interesting take on bass Duffy.

I wasn't aware that there was extremely bass heavy metal.

Funny thing, I really enjoy listening to the guitars when I'm playing, but not so much if they're burying me. IMO, a great mix is where everyone is heard clearly. With my 600-watt bass rig, I could bury my guitarist's combo amp, but I enjoy hearing him too.

[Eric]

Funny thing, I really enjoy listening to the guitars when I'm playing, but not so much if they're burying me. IMO, a great mix is where everyone is heard clearly. With my 600-watt bass rig, I could bury my guitarist's combo amp, but I enjoy hearing him too.
I think I'm somewhere between you and deeaa. I do like things best when everybody can be heard and it's balanced, but I've found good, stable musical experiences to be fleeting. I think I'd probably take a backseat for a bit or play with a less-than-great musician if it meant that the whole band/package thing worked. Maybe with time I'll have more luck WRT bands, but it's been a tricky thing for me so far.

[Ch0jin]

I wasn't aware that there was extremely bass heavy metal.



Ever hear of a little indie band from the UK called Iron Maiden?

Listening to early Maiden made me want to learn bass because the bass was so prominent in the mix in most of their songs. Have a re-listen, the bass really drives their tunes.

[deeaa]

Yeah, LOL, Maiden would be nothing without the bass!

I have BTW also noticed that these days when I see a band on stage, the emphasis seems to be pretty heavily on the rhythm section quite often, and guitars are - especially in metal bands - often scooped-sounding, buried 'whassssshhhhh' in there that you only hear a constant steady roar of somewhere there.

My preference is absolutely in LOUD guitars, I want to hear the guitar loud, not so important about the rest :-) but that is an exaggeration, I love good bass too, but the bass I like is usually more like guitar sounding, think Maiden indeed, or Motörhead...

[NWBasser]

Ever hear of a little indie band from the UK called Iron Maiden?

Listening to early Maiden made me want to learn bass because the bass was so prominent in the mix in most of their songs. Have a re-listen, the bass really drives their tunes.

Oh boy, talk about a tangent!

I thought we were discussing 100 watt amphs! ;-)


Maiden was one of my favorite bands back in the day. The early stuff was really good.

I better revisit their older material.

Thanks for reminding me of that Chojin!

[NWBasser]

The point here being, NW, is that there "are" belligerent super loud drummers that actually are adversarial and it's nice to have that reserve power to bring to bear if needed, before you walk. It was kind of a joke actually, but in reality these guys are out there and I'm sure you have met a few and steer clear. I agree, no one likes to be drownded out and it's not fun.

LOL!

Yeah Duffy, I have run across those sort of drummers!

Unfortunately, I can't afford the two-kilowatt bass rig necessary to subdue that type. I just have to wave the white surrender flag.

Yes, it would be rather fun to lay them out with a 100-watt full-stack guitar rig!

[NWBasser]

I don't want to sound like an *** or aggravate or anything, but seriously, I don't get your approach.

Would you not play with, say Jimi Hendrix or Joe Bonamassa if they insisted on playing louder than hell? Does everybody in a band have to be equal, would it not be good to have a superstar in the band whom others accompany, more or less?


I just re-read this and thought it would be worthwhile to offer some clarification on the matter. What I was referring to earlier is getting completely drowned out to the point that the bass isn't even heard. Why bother even playing if that's that case? May as well sit around and drink beer.

I didn't mean that everyone had to be at parity volume although that's my general preference. I could handle playing with a much louder guitar as long as I could hear myself too.

Listening to Hendrix or Joe B, and you can hear some bass.

[deeaa]

Maiden up to Somewhere in Time is all great, after that there's a song or two per album that are good. Except the bailey era...But since Dickinson came back the newest albums have been very good too - in my mind they will never top the classics but to be fair, they are bloody good albums and I totally enjoy them too, some superb songs there, only took me a while to listen to them a few times to start appreciating them...but they are worth getting to know, in some sense they can be even better than old stuff.

[marnold]

Continuing the derailment, "Brave New World" (the first album with Dickinson back) is one of their classics, IMO.

But yeah, how 'bout them big amphs *cough* As a child of the 80s, I totally understand the "big stack(s) and a cloud of smoke" thing. It's just overkill for most of us.

[Ch0jin]

Yeah, like Marnold said, plenty of us grew up watching our guitar hero's rocking out in front of full/half stacks so that's what we naturally wanted to emulate. The music biz is massively about image, so it's unsurprising that "overkill" is the norm. Even now, I know I don't NEED another powerful amp (I have a 60w, am building a 45W) but I still WANT a 100W PTP Marshall head at some point.

[deeaa]

Specifically, I never did understand the 100W Marshall JCM800 head too well actually...I get it well with clean amps like Twins and I also had a 120W all tube Ampeg at some point, and the JCM900 100W also behaved quite OK, but that 100W 800 series was just insanely loud when it properly opened, it really ripped at the ears even with some protection on, because it just has such a cutting midrange.

[sunvalleylaw]

I keep getting mental pictures of Marty (McFly) getting blown back about 20 feet after he dimes everything and hits the strings at Doc's house. :)

[Tig]

http://images.wikia.com/bttf/images/9/9c/Amplifier.jpg

[sunvalleylaw]

I was looking for vid, but couldn't find any. Great pic, right before it all cuts loose!

[kiteman]

I have no need for a 100 watt 4x12 half stack but when MF was blowing out Peavey Windsor half stacks at $399 (plus $60 for shipping) I thought I have to have a taste of it so I bought one. The tone wasn't that great but I was impressed with it. Standing in front of it while slightly cranked really gave me a rush. It was fun while it lasted because the fellas I was supposed to start playing with never worked out so it sat for a while. Then I sold it and got $400 from a puck rocker. I'm sure he's happy with it. :)

[Eric]

Then I sold it and got $400 from a puck rocker.
Is that like someone who plays rock music at hockey games??? :poke

[Robert]

I have an amph that runs 0.4 watts, I have 18 watt amps, 40 and 60 watt amps, and I also have a 100 watt Marshall. There is something very strikingly different between the 100 watt head and the other amphs.

Besides the volume difference, there is a huge difference in bottom end between a 100 watt amp and a, say 18 watt amp. It doesn't matter so much for cleaner sounds, but for more of a rock tone, it makes a big difference. That is one reason you seldom see big acts (with more of a rock tone) with 18 or 25 watt amps. It's just a very distinct difference in thump and low end punch from a 100 watt amp than a smaller amp. Even between a 50 and a 100 watt Marshall, this is clearly distinguishable.

As for me, I do play cleaner stuff most of the time, so I don't really NEED to use my 100 watt amp all the time. I have it because I got it for a steal used, and I do immensely enjoy playing it once in a while, for that young rocker in me! :dude

[Eric]

Besides the volume difference, there is a huge difference in bottom end between a 100 watt amp and a, say 18 watt amp. It doesn't matter so much for cleaner sounds, but for more of a rock tone, it makes a big difference. That is one reason you seldom see big acts (with more of a rock tone) with 18 or 25 watt amps. It's just a very distinct difference in thump and low end punch from a 100 watt amp than a smaller amp. Even between a 50 and a 100 watt Marshall, this is clearly distinguishable.
Interesting. I know deeaa touched on that earlier, but that seems to be the most concise answer yet. I was wondering how much of the sound difference might be due to the cabinet you use with it, but since you mentioned the 50/100 difference, I gather that it's an actual amp difference, eh? Thanks for the input.

[Robert]

Interesting. I know deeaa touched on that earlier, but that seems to be the most concise answer yet. I was wondering how much of the sound difference might be due to the cabinet you use with it, but since you mentioned the 50/100 difference, I gather that it's an actual amp difference, eh? Thanks for the input.

I'm no electronics wizard, but I wonder if it may have to do with the output transformer being beefier? There is an interesting article here http://www.legendarytones.com/guitouttrans.html

[deeaa]

I too think the transformer may be the reason. I don't know exactly all that the 18/36W switch on my Ceria does, but regardless of volume the difference in low end is really very noticeable, much more prominent than the volume difference.

When I swapped the transformer in my Valve Jr. for a beefier one, that too gave it a whole different low end response and overall it sounded much clearer with the breakup happening only later, here's my video on it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJLBAhbXFeE

Also serves as a good example how EMG85's always sound with EL84 amps, more or less...thru a 1x10" Marshall speaker here. My favorite response type :-)

Furthermore, the 120W Ampeg I had, it had so much clean bass end I could easily produce more low end than our bassist...and it had transformer big as a child's head, making the amph weigh like hell...and the reason I sold it. No casters even!

[Ch0jin]

I'm no electronics wizard, but I wonder if it may have to do with the output transformer being beefier? There is an interesting article here http://www.legendarytones.com/guitouttrans.html

Funny thing is Robert, being an electronics wizard only gives part of the picture. You'd also need some pretty specific anatomy skills too.

I vaguely recall posting about this here before so apologies if I'm repeating myself, but I'll try to keep it simple.

As our four stringed friends know all too well, the lower the frequency you want to amplify, the more power you need. This applies bass, guitars, home stereo, anything like that. Most people are happy to just accept that as fact (and it is) but the reason behind it has to do with our ears, not electronics.

Our ears are not linear, not by a long way.

If you wan't to prove it, swap an audio taper pot used as volume in something, anything really, and replace it with a linear one. Now sweep the volume through it's range whilst you have some kind of audio signal and you'll very obviously notice that all the volume control seems to be "bunched up" at one end of the control.

How can that be if we use a linear control though?

Simple, our ears, as I mention, are not linear in their response. Not linear in terms of perceived volume; it takes exponentially more and more sound pressure to result in a seemingly linear increase in volume (part of the reason 100W heads are only a little louder than 50W heads, not double. In fact, in terms of perceived loudness, a 100W amp is actually double a 10W amp) and not linear across the Audio Frequency (AF) range from 20Hz to 20KHz.

This last fact is what really causes this whole "more power for bass frequencies" scenario.

If you want loads of technical info, go have a read HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contours) about Equal Loudness Contours.

The guts of it is that our ears are not so good with low frequency (and if you are my age or older, high frequencies).You need to throw far more sound pressure at them to hear bass guitar frequencies at the same perceived level as guitar frequencies.

So all that proves what we all already know, more power = better bass. Whilst we love to use words like "bottom end" and "thump" and "grunt" and so on, ALL of that is just ways of saying "lower frequencies".

To bring it all back to the specific topic, a 100W amp, with it's ability to generate more sound pressure, will sound "phatter, bassier, ballsier, thicker" because our ears translate that extra low frequency pressure into volume.

I could now dive into the electronic theory as well, but I'm guessing eyes are already glazing over........

[Eric]

I could now dive into the electronic theory as well, but I'm guessing eyes are already glazing over........
Just about a sentence or two away from doing that, so good timing! Thanks for the info -- I knew the bit about logarithmic power in amps, but not the thing about frequencies.

[Ch0jin]

Just quickly because I skipped it before.

YES

Transformers make a difference. Bigger typically means more current handling which means more power which means more perceived low end.

But I think we all kinda already knew that.

[kiteman]

Is that like someone who plays rock music at hockey games??? :poke

Dunno but that kid sported a mohawk dyed with colors and he picked up the 100 lb cab and carried it to his van. I'm struggling with the 50 lb head. :thwap

[NWBasser]

Funny thing is Robert, being an electronics wizard only gives part of the picture. You'd also need some pretty specific anatomy skills too.

I vaguely recall posting about this here before so apologies if I'm repeating myself, but I'll try to keep it simple.

As our four stringed friends know all too well, the lower the frequency you want to amplify, the more power you need. This applies bass, guitars, home stereo, anything like that. Most people are happy to just accept that as fact (and it is) but the reason behind it has to do with our ears, not electronics.

Our ears are not linear, not by a long way.

If you wan't to prove it, swap an audio taper pot used as volume in something, anything really, and replace it with a linear one. Now sweep the volume through it's range whilst you have some kind of audio signal and you'll very obviously notice that all the volume control seems to be "bunched up" at one end of the control.

How can that be if we use a linear control though?

Simple, our ears, as I mention, are not linear in their response. Not linear in terms of perceived volume; it takes exponentially more and more sound pressure to result in a seemingly linear increase in volume (part of the reason 100W heads are only a little louder than 50W heads, not double. In fact, in terms of perceived loudness, a 100W amp is actually double a 10W amp) and not linear across the Audio Frequency (AF) range from 20Hz to 20KHz.

This last fact is what really causes this whole "more power for bass frequencies" scenario.

If you want loads of technical info, go have a read HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contours) about Equal Loudness Contours.

The guts of it is that our ears are not so good with low frequency (and if you are my age or older, high frequencies).You need to throw far more sound pressure at them to hear bass guitar frequencies at the same perceived level as guitar frequencies.

So all that proves what we all already know, more power = better bass. Whilst we love to use words like "bottom end" and "thump" and "grunt" and so on, ALL of that is just ways of saying "lower frequencies".

To bring it all back to the specific topic, a 100W amp, with it's ability to generate more sound pressure, will sound "phatter, bassier, ballsier, thicker" because our ears translate that extra low frequency pressure into volume.

I could now dive into the electronic theory as well, but I'm guessing eyes are already glazing over........

This is entirely in line with my understanding of these things.

That was an excellent expanation!:applause

[Duffy]

That explains a lot, Chojin, in terms that the average person can understand. I had no idea that the response of the ear to the frequencies of sound, and the SPL too I suppose, has such an affect on the sound we perceive; as opposed, I guess to the actual sound wave pattern generated by the amp and speaker and pushed thru the air. It sounds like what we hear is regulated by our human condition; and this seems to me to suggest why dogs, for instance, can hear things we cannot hear and can also hear things way "before" we hear them. The condition of being a dog bears with it an ability to perceive sound, as it moves thru the air, differently from us because their ears respond to sound differently from our ears do. Is this why dogs will often howl in response to a fire siren, while we respond to it passively?

Our sensory perception as humans, in this case the perception of sound waves, is seemingly limitted to only part of the full spectrum of sound wave frequencies and wavelengths in nature or the physical world. I am aware somewhat of that, just like our eyes perceive only a fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum - visible light. But the graphic representation of what our ears actually perceive as the volume of sound waves must form a curve on an x/y graph where the steadily increasing volume of a frequency is a straight line on the graph. And furthermore, from your description, the curve on the graph representing the volume our ears perceive must be a differently shaped curve for all frequencies as the volume of that frequency is increased.

Or something like this if represented in a graph where the volume of a frequency increases linearly on a graph and is represented on the graph as a straight line.

This phenomenon must have been a great mystery to early sound engineers or the predecesors of sound engineers, and must have been difficult to explain until the science of human hearing had been developed. Experts in the arts and science of sound must have been aware of this phenomonon long before it could be definitively explained and their theories validated.

A lot of us are still unaware of these principles, but dudes playing in bands, especially loud bands, figured out quite unscientifically that more powerful amps produced bass sounds more satisfying to the ear.

Is this similar, in a sense, to why deep bass woodwind instruments tend to be huge; such as in huge bass or baritone saxiphones? And in the case of drums, the need for a large bass drum instead of just tuning down a smaller tom for instance?

Why someone would need a 100 watt amp has turned out to have a lot more to it than I would have casually thought. Excellent thread.

[Robert]

Chojin, you rawk.

Thanks for removing the mud and bringing clarity to this topic!

[NWBasser]

Is this similar, in a sense, to why deep bass woodwind instruments tend to be huge; such as in huge bass or baritone saxiphones? And in the case of drums, the need for a large bass drum instead of just tuning down a smaller tom for instance?


Further examples would include jumbo acoustic guitars and of course the double bass!

One aspect that hasn't really been addressed though is how a thumpy and bassy guitar sound affects the whole band mix. In my experience, some awesome tones that sound great on their own can be disastrous in a band setting with other instruments. For example, a mid-scooped bass tone sounds sweet on its own but is a cloak of sonic invisibilty when put into a band context.

[Eric]

One aspect that hasn't really been addressed though is how a thumpy and bassy guitar sound affects the whole band mix. In my experience, some awesome tones that sound great on their own can be disastrous in a band setting with other instruments. For example, a mid-scooped bass tone sounds sweet on its own but is a cloak of sonic invisibilty when put into a band context.
I was also wondering about why bass can be muddy, which might be part of that same discussion. I used to own a 50w Crate amp where it was bass all over the place unless you turned the EQ knob off completely, but it was wild and boomy bass -- not something I'd want in a band or even on my own.

[Katastrophe]

Further examples would include jumbo acoustic guitars and of course the double bass!

One aspect that hasn't really been addressed though is how a thumpy and bassy guitar sound affects the whole band mix. In my experience, some awesome tones that sound great on their own can be disastrous in a band setting with other instruments. For example, a mid-scooped bass tone sounds sweet on its own but is a cloak of sonic invisibilty when put into a band context.

Man, lot of good info in this thread! IMO, it's mids that provide the punch to cut through for bass or guitar. Lose mid frequencies on both (like a lot of metal bands do), and it can become a woofy, mushy mess. Then, a band will compensate by turning up the volume on the 100 watt (or more for the bass) stack, creating a loud, woofy, mushy mess that becomes a roar of nothing but noise.

[Eric]

Man, lot of good info in this thread! IMO, it's mids that provide the punch to cut through for bass or guitar. Lose mid frequencies on both (like a lot of metal bands do), and it can become a woofy, mushy mess. Then, a band will compensate by turning up the volume on the 100 watt (or more for the bass) stack, creating a loud, woofy, mushy mess that becomes a roar of nothing but noise.
It's funny, 'cause at times I like big giant messes of sound, like in some...well, I'm not sure what they're considered (Black Angels, Darker My Love)...bands. I love the sound of the Big Muff on Siamese Dream by Smashing Pumpkins, but that's the whole point of that pedal.

Anyway, I don't know if I have a point. I guess it's just that if you're actually going for a big fizzy mess a la fuzz tones, I think it can be pretty sweet if done right. But I know that wasn't really your point.

[Ch0jin]

...... I had no idea that the response of the ear to the frequencies of sound, and the SPL too I suppose, has such an affect on the sound we perceive; as opposed, I guess to the actual sound wave pattern generated by the amp and speaker and pushed thru the air. It sounds like what we hear is regulated by our human condition;

If you enjoy mulling that concept over in your mind, consider that the exact same situation occurs with what we see. I'll be brief cause it's wildly OT, but light is also a wave (yes I know it can also be a particle, but leave that out for now). When we look at a something, the colours we "see" are in reality just our brain interpreting the eye's response to different frequencies. Blue is not "Blue". Blue is what our brain comes up with when our eyes are hit with a frequency of around 650THz.

Think about that for a while. :)

I have some info around the rest of your post too, but work beckons. I'll get back to the physics lesson later ;)

[NWBasser]

I was also wondering about why bass can be muddy, which might be part of that same discussion. I used to own a 50w Crate amp where it was bass all over the place unless you turned the EQ knob off completely, but it was wild and boomy bass -- not something I'd want in a band or even on my own.

My experience with Crate bass amps is that they're not very well voiced (being polite here).

However, the boomines that you describe may well be the result of boundary effects in the room.

Bass can be a female dog to EQ and amplify correctly due to standing waves, reflections, phase cancellations....

[deeaa]

One thing that can have an unbelievably strong effect is also wall proximity, both behind the amp and in front. Bass waves have such a long wavelength that they literally aren't audible in spaces smaller than the frequency demands. Also guitar amps, particularly open-backed Fenders etc. can sound drastically different when placed against a wall/in a corner; especially crunchy sounds can change totally. Battled with these issues a lot gigging in very small venues back in the day, both as a bassist and guitarist.

[NWBasser]

One thing that can have an unbelievably strong effect is also wall proximity, both behind the amp and in front. Bass waves have such a long wavelength that they literally aren't audible in spaces smaller than the frequency demands. Also guitar amps, particularly open-backed Fenders etc. can sound drastically different when placed against a wall/in a corner; especially crunchy sounds can change totally. Battled with these issues a lot gigging in very small venues back in the day, both as a bassist and guitarist.

This is a common misconception. If it were true, then you wouldn't be able to hear any bass in headphones.

The idea that bass waves take space to develop is false. What actually happens is that in a certain point of a room you may get phase cancellations from room reflections leading to the false idea that more space is needed for the sound wave to "develop". The bass sound waves are fully developed right at the speaker.

[Duffy]

My thinking is that low frequency bass wavelengths such as those produced by guitar and bass amps are many feet long for one full wave. How this corresponds to how we perceive the bass sound in a small room or from headphones, I'm not sure. Of course, not being unidirectional, a lot of the waves are not going to have the space to fully form their waves before being reflected and atenuated. They are bouncing all around at high amplitudes reinforcing each other and cancelling each other out.

Here are the frequencies and wavelengths for the strings on a 4 string bass +/-:

String – Frequency - Wavelength
G - 97.9989 Hz - 11.531 ft.
D - 73.4162 Hz - 15.392 ft.
A - 55.000 Hz - 20.545 ft.
E - 41.2035 Hz - 27.425 ft. (329.098 in.)

The above wavelengths will occur in a free space, a space free of obstructions, walls, ceilings, people, etc.

Since our amps are located near walls, have open backs, are in enclosed rooms, etc., there are going to be a lot of powerful high amplitude sound waves bouncing around reinforcing each other and cancelling each other out, as the case may be in any given space. This is what I think Dee is talking about - the situation where you have sound waves bouncing all around and affecting what our ears perceive. Therefore, experimenting with the placement of the amps and speakers, aiming, etc., can have a big effect on how we hear our music. Because of this recording engineers go to great length to try to deal with this problem and the bass frequencies are particularly problematic for them and they go to great length, in some cases, to try to get it right or at least "better" sounding.

Also, it is seemingly confusing why we can hear a 40HZ bass note correctly thru a set of earphones. The amplitude of the sound wave at 40HZ coming to our ear from the headphones is much lower than the amplitude coming out of a bass amp. But the wavelength is still about 27 feet long, so our ears and brains must be processing that E note somehow so that it sounds right, even if the note is very short in duration such as one tenth of a second - it still sounds right.

[deeaa]

Exactly. You can hear bass in headphones quite OK, but that's a completely different experience from hearing the actual waves in a space where they have room to function...proper low bass will literally cause your heart to try to adjust to its beat...in headphones it's just a faximile...you know this of course from how in a large space a real strong bass will make you literally weak in the knees, even in an orchestra concert...thus any proper mastering studio will be deep enough to allow for true bass reproduction. And yes, the bouncing waves have everything to do with it, it's a science on its own to adjust a room to portray true frequencies as they are...not an easy task.

[Bookkeeper's Son]

..you know this of course from how in a large space a real strong bass will make you literally weak in the knees.......
Are we going to start debating the "brown note" now?:cool:

[NWBasser]

...a lot of the waves are not going to have the space to fully form their waves before being reflected and atenuated.

Actually, the waves are fully formed right at the speaker (electro-mechanical to acoustic energy transfer). For a sound wave to gain amplitude (i.e., fully form) in free space, it would need some sort of energy input.
Sort of like when a bullet exits the barrel of a gun, it's going full velocity at that point and it won't speed up in the air on its own accord.

However, like a bass wave, a bullet can ricochet around and do all manner of odd things. But it certainly won't be going any faster.

[Duffy]

I think the frequency and the wavelength of a 40HZ bass note will remain the same no matter what. The wave will not move faster, that would change the frequency - the number of cycles the wave makes per second. The frequency of a bass E note is always going to be about fourty cycles per second and the wavelength is going to always be about twenty seven feet long. What changes when we add more energy to the speaker, watts, is that the amplitude of the waveform increases.

It might not seem to make sense, but frequency (cycles per second), wavelength, and the third component of a waveform - amplitude are involved. The amplitude is the variable that changes and makes the sound louder. Frequency and wavelength of a given note remain the same. In order to increase the amplitude there needs to be an increase of power at the speaker to make it louder.

For the sake of discussion this is interesting, but for all practical purposes it may or may not be of interest to a muscian, and definitely is not necessary to know in order to be among the best of muscians. It's kind of like noisy single coils - some muscians like them and some don't, and the reason why they are noisy doesn't really have anything to do with why a musician may have a personal preference. I'm sure there is more to the whole equation and what it means to how we hear sound, way more than I know.

For some people 100 watt amps intuitively sound great and others don't like them. You can turn them down or turn them up and satisfy just about anyone. And like Eric suggested, some muscians may not have any need for a 100 watt tube amp.

[Katastrophe]

It's funny, 'cause at times I like big giant messes of sound, like in some...well, I'm not sure what they're considered (Black Angels, Darker My Love)...bands. I love the sound of the Big Muff on Siamese Dream by Smashing Pumpkins, but that's the whole point of that pedal.

Anyway, I don't know if I have a point. I guess it's just that if you're actually going for a big fizzy mess a la fuzz tones, I think it can be pretty sweet if done right. But I know that wasn't really your point.

You're right, in the right context, that "amp is about to explode fuzz sound" can be pretty cool. There are a few Smashing Pumpkins tunes that I dig for that very reason... Here's a "wall of sound" recording that I think they used some half stacks to good effect:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrxmrS9FIzc

Note that the bass plays simply, but there would definitely would be something missing if he wasn't there.

[Eric]

You're right, in the right context, that "amp is about to explode fuzz sound" can be pretty cool. There are a few Smashing Pumpkins tunes that I dig for that very reason... Here's a "wall of sound" recording that I think they used some half stacks to good effect:

Note that the bass plays simply, but there would definitely would be something missing if he wasn't there.
That was pretty neat. Thanks for the link.

[cebreez]

Its all about the physics. In the studio you can dub and over dub, pan and fade, or double and delay to your hearts content but it will take some effort on the engineers part to recreate that massive air'ish feedback sound. Even onstage if you mic a small amp it will still sound like a small amp to the mixer. But set a mic in front of a large stack and it will sound like a large stack as it pushes volumes of air and sound towards and around the mic. Just because you point a mic at one speaker doesn't mean thats the only speaker it will pick up. My only point is small amps sound small and big amps sound big. Sounds stupid I know but I love my Peavey Classic 30 112 and the tone I get but sometimes my buddies 212 sounds so much larger even if mine is louder.

[Ch0jin]

Are we going to start debating the "brown note" now?:cool:

Myth Busted. I saw the episode where they tried it.