Speaker cab with a volume knob

Tazo

New member
I've got a question for the electronics gurus out there. I have an old Traynor all tube head that sounds killer in it's sweet spot. Unfortunately for it to reach that sound it is very loud and my current accommodations wouldn't allow for that. The best information I can find from Traynor is that it's a 45 watt head. There aren't much in the way of distinguishing markings on it. What I would like to do is build a 2x12 speaker cab and insert some type of volume knob between the output of the head and the speakers so I can drive the tubes enough to achieve the sound I'm looking for and control the overall volume at an acceptable level. Can it be done? I would imagine I that would need a high power variable resistor, possibly a diode, and a way to dissipate heat in a way that would be quiet enough to not render it useless for recording purposes. I don't want to melt the transformer in the process. Any info you could give me or point me in the direction of some good resources would greatly be appreciated.
Thanks!!
 
all you're talking about is a power soak or attenuator.
Yes, you could build one of your own but they can be fiddly things .... best to just buy one.
Search for guitar amp attenuators or power soaks.
 
This has been the Holy Grail for 912 years. How do you make your amplifier sound like 'that' but at a lower volume? You can't. If you have a hankering for chasing your own tail, spend the rest of your life doing just that, but you'll never catch up to it. Sorry. However, the chase sure is fun.
Power Soak devices are not the answer. They have so many flaws, but they still sell them because people still buy them. Then people started looking for 5-watt amplifiers that sounded just like their 50-watt amplifiers. :laughings:
It's kinda sorta like expecting a Honda Civic to drive just like an Iso Grifo (or whatever). People have pulled tubes from their Twin Reverb or 100-watt Marshall, installed Master Volume controls, had all sorts of mods, bought the latest 'most transparent overdrive pedal' (whatever the f*ck that means), and it's all well and good, but nothing replaces the physical feeling of a speaker cone pushing air. You can't make a 4-cylinder engine perform like an 8-cylinder, no matter what anyone tells you. 1-watt trying to push a speaker cone will never, ever, ever sound like 100-watts pushing that speaker cone. Period. Until science comes up with a different speaker, or God redesigns our ears, it ain't gonna happen.
Your Traynor will have a tag board, making it easy to mod, and you can get some great overdrive tones, but it still won't sound like amplifier cranked up. So, if you'll accept a different, albeit great, tone, mod the amp slightly, and look for a decent 'boost' pedal. That's probably as good as you can get it.
 
You can't make a 4-cylinder engine perform like an 8-cylinder, no matter what anyone tells you. .

Yes you can. Pound for pound, an 8 cyl will always make more torque and horsepower than a 4 cyl, but you can make a 4 cyl perform like an 8. A properly turbo'd 4 can run away from a stock 8 all day long.

How that applies to amps and speakers....I have no idea. :D
 
It means since day two people have tried to 'cheat' physics, in all areas of life. It's like inventing a perpetual motion machine.
Granted, Volkswagen brought out their forced induction V6, which does match up torque and HP with an 8-cylinder relying on intake produced strictly by atmospheric pressure. But my bitching was more about..... bitching. Why do people always want a shortcut? It reminds me of my son; one second after he gets home with a new video game, he's online looking for cheat codes. Why not play the game and learn? It's too difficult, apparently.
Why try and make a 50-watt amplifier try and behave like a 5-watt amplifier? Even a Yellow Jacket can't take into account the speaker not moving the cone as much (and this is where bass response comes from), so any power attenuation always sounds thin and lacks low end 'oomph'. You only get that when you are moving some air.

1x15" = 225 cu. inches
2x15" = 450 cu. inches
1x12" = 144 cu. inches
1x10" = 100 cu. inches
2x10" = 200 cu. inches
4x10" = 400 cu. inches


You can't fight physics. A 15" speaker just has more low end response than an 8" speaker, so that Vox Pathfinder will always sound thin. The 7L Iso Grifo engine made 435 HP. The 1.2L Honda D12 engine produced a whopping 72HP. The 80-whatever Lbs-ft torque wouldn't win much against the 435 Lbs-ft of the Chevy 427. But those are almost extremes. You can have a great V6 like I said, and it does rate favorably against a lot of V8's. And there are many 15-watt amplifiers that sound great, and when recorded rate as good as any 'stack'. But it's a loaded question. A huge can of worms.
 
A properly turbo'd 4 can run away from a stock 8 all day long.

How that applies to amps and speakers....I have no idea. :D

When the guy in his turbo'd 4 cyl is flying down the road with his Hip-Hop cranking --- THUMP-THUMP-THUMP...
...he'll drive away from you that much quicker than if he was in a stock 8 cyl...
...so less chance of you getting a headache.
 
When the guy in his turbo'd 4 cyl is flying down the road with his Hip-Hop cranking --- THUMP-THUMP-THUMP...
...he'll drive away from you that much quicker than if he was in a stock 8 cyl...
...so less chance of you getting a headache.

That's racism and cylinderism.
 
Thanks for the insight. I guess I'll have to try and figure something else out or take my rig mobile.
 
Attenuators can do a good job and achieve much of what you want. You'll have to read/ask/try around to find the best for your circumstances.
However, I've recently discovered that not all tube/valve amps work well with attenuators so you ought to check with some folk who'd know - amp techs etc.
 
Thanks for the insight. I guess I'll have to try and figure something else out or take my rig mobile.
did you not see the responses that said 'yes you can do that .... it's called an attenuator' ?

You can do exactly what you asked ...... it's called an attenuator.

As for ranjams' rant ..... he raises some valid points but first, not everyone agrees with him on all of that and second, it was a rant in general and didn't really address your very specific question.
Regardless of the validity or not of his position, it's simply not possible for a lot of people to crank an amp with a big cab so they have no choice but to find a way to play softer. An attenuator will allow you to do that.
Go google attenuators and you'll find a bunch of them.
Weber makes some good ones IMO so check them out.
 
Last edited:
Yes you can. Pound for pound, an 8 cyl will always make more torque and horsepower than a 4 cyl, but you can make a 4 cyl perform like an 8. A properly turbo'd 4 can run away from a stock 8 all day long.

You're not comparing stock for stock. You can't say "I'll add turbos to my 4 cyl but your 8 cyl has to stay stock" for your comparison to work.

You put that same turbo on 8 cylinders, and your four banger is STILL just a wimpy little four banger.

Apples for apples. Don't go modifying one side of the equation, without balancing it on the other. That's called a failing grade in debate.
 
You're not comparing stock for stock. You can't say "I'll add turbos to my 4 cyl but your 8 cyl has to stay stock" for your comparison to work.

You put that same turbo on 8 cylinders, and your four banger is STILL just a wimpy little four banger.

Apples for apples. Don't go modifying one side of the equation, without balancing it on the other. That's called a failing grade in debate.

Do you have trouble reading? I said "pound for pound"- meaning all things being equal, the 8 will always potentially make more torque and power than a 4. Of course, with the same mods the 8 will always beat a 4. That should go without saying. I didn't think that had to be specifically spelled out for anyone. I guess I was wrong in your case. That wasn't the issue though. The claim was made that a 4 cyl can't perform like an 8, and I showed how it could. A turbocharged 4 cylinder can perform like an 8 cylinder. Perform like - meaning similar.

As for balancing the equation - I guess you don't race much. forced induction 4 cylinders are raced against natty 8's all the time. The forced induction on the 4 balances the equation because a natural 8 naturally makes more torque and power just by having 8 cylinders. The 4 needs the help to maintain a level playing field. It happens all the time. It's completely fair to compare a forced induction 4 to a naturally aspirated 8. Not vice-versa.
 
for a good while in Formula One (not sure it was called that 30 years ago but ...) the trend was towards 4 cylinder engines. Why was that?
I'm curious.
 
for a good while in Formula One (not sure it was called that 30 years ago but ...) the trend was towards 4 cylinder engines. Why was that?
I'm curious.

I'm not an F1 expert, or even a fan, but horsepower is dependent on RPM's. The more RPM's you can turn, the more power you can make. HP = torque x rpm/5252. Physics dictates that the more torque you make at higher RPMs, the more horsepower you will make, and horsepower wins races. Torque matters, but only in regards to making horsepower. A 4 cyl has less moving parts and lighter components. They don't make shit for torque, but they can turn a shitload of RPMs, so they can still make power. I assume that back in the day, the technology dictated that 4cyl's were the better option. Or maybe it was a rules thing. I don't know. The problem is that in real world applications, a 4 cyl can't turn enough RPM's to make significant power. F1 isn't real world though. That shit is like NASA of auto racing. But these days, last I paid attention, F1 engines are small displacement 8 cyls that can turn approx 19,000 RPM's. A 2 liter F1 engine turning those kinds of RPM's can make around 800 hp. That's significant for such a small engine.
 
Something else that usually blows people's minds is that horsepower between different engines means different things. Let's pretend we have a 600 hp small-block Chevy drag racing against a 600 hp big-block Chevy. The small block is a 350, the big-block is a 454. Exactly identical cars in both size and weight. Same transmissions and rear-ends. Same driver even. A clone of himself. The only difference is the size of the engines, but they make the exact same peak horsepower - 600. Who will win? The smaller engine will win. Every time. Why? Because even though they make the same horsepower, the smaller engine is turning more RPM's to do it, therefore it is making that power faster than the big-block does. The small-block will win the drag race.
 
I'm not an F1 expert, or even a fan, but horsepower is dependent on RPM's. The more RPM's you can turn, the more power you can make. HP = torque x rpm/5252. Physics dictates that the more torque you make at higher RPMs, the more horsepower you will make, and horsepower wins races. Torque matters, but only in regards to making horsepower. A 4 cyl has less moving parts and lighter components. They don't make shit for torque, but they can turn a shitload of RPMs, so they can still make power. I assume that back in the day, the technology dictated that 4cyl's were the better option. Or maybe it was a rules thing. I don't know. The problem is that in real world applications, a 4 cyl can't turn enough RPM's to make significant power. F1 isn't real world though. That shit is like NASA of auto racing. But these days, last I paid attention, F1 engines are small displacement 8 cyls that can turn approx 19,000 RPM's. A 2 liter F1 engine turning those kinds of RPM's can make around 800 hp. That's significant for such a small engine.
cool.

I was thinking about the Offenhauser engines which were inline 4s and dominated Indy car racing for a good while.
But the last time they won a race was maybe in the 70's and they quit competing in the 80's.
I did a quick google and found out that part of it was the rules committee kept reducing the allowed displacement.
I suppose with a way restricted displacement (at one point limited to 80 c.i.) that would also put a 4 cylinder in an advantageous position.
 
Back
Top