What's the point of 100 watt amps?

[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***]

[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???

[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!

[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:



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 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???

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.

[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 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!

[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.