Audio Myth Buster Thread

That completely depends on both the amp and what exactly you're looking for. I could name any number of guitarists whose tone depends on solid state break up. I could also name a number of tube amps that sound like shit when they distort.

Except that it mostly depends on the speaker and cabinet.
 
There's always the odd exception to everything...but the reality (no myth) is that tube guitar amps by far are the standard for guitar amp distortion...and everything solid state or sim is trying to emulate a tube guitar amp sound, because that is the reference to judge against...always has been.
 
miroslav said:
Regardless...tube guitar amps sound better when distorting than solid state guitar amps.

No myth. :)
Click to expand...

miroslav said:
There's always the odd exception to everything...but the reality (no myth) is that tube guitar amps by far are the standard for guitar amp distortion...and everything solid state or sim is trying to emulate a tube guitar amp sound, because that is the reference to judge against...always has been.
Click to expand...

I didn't wanna have to be the one to say this ^^^^ because the butthurt response has been at an all time high lately, but I'm glad someone said it.
 
The fact that so many people but into the myth is no myth. I agree to that extent. But a Roland JC70 cranked beyond its limits can be a beautiful thing. It's not trying to sound like tubes. In fact, if you turn on the "tube style" drive circuit it sounds like ass. It is, however, a very usable sond, and very similar to the foundation of the signature tones of folks like Steve Albini, East Bay Ray. And that dude from the Melvins.

On the other end up the spectrum you have the Wurlitzer piano. A very important part of the warmth and depth of that keyboard comes from what happens when you hit that little transistor amp. Then there's the folks who talk about the warmth of a fat analog synth. No tubes there.

OTOH we don't plug Marshall heads into PA speakers for a very important reason. ;)
 
Those "signature tones" of the early punk rock guys were the result of necessity, not so much choice. They used what they had, and there's nothing wrong with that, but given the choice or opportunity you don't think they'd go for better? I do.
 
How about that a certain mic (e.g., SM7B) needs "to be driven by a preamp with a lot of gain" - seems to me like there's more than one thing wrong with that notion. If anything, the mic is driving the preamp instead of the other way around, but even that doesn't make complete sense. Also, in a 24 bit digital world, it seems fine to me to record at vanishingly low levels and make up with noiseless digital gain later (and also for monitoring while recording). More important for a mic with low output is a preamp with low self noise.

Also, the perception that the self noise of a preamp, and therefore the signal to noise ratio, worsens as you turn it up. I dunno - some things do change when you turn up, like distortion, which can be good or bad, but to me it seems like the self noise is still the same, just amplified along with everything else so it seems worse.

I can't back either of these challenges up with actual data, but these are things I've learned to disbelieve and I'm having a much better time since I did.
 
antichef said:
How about that a certain mic (e.g., SM7B) needs "to be driven by a preamp with a lot of gain" - seems to me like there's more than one thing wrong with that notion. If anything, the mic is driving the preamp instead of the other way around, but even that doesn't make complete sense.
Click to expand...

It's just shorthand for "the SM7B's signal needs a lot of gain". The mic "drives" the preamp, the preamp "drives" the next stage. You're taking it too literally.

antichef said:
Also, in a 24 bit digital world, it seems fine to me to record at vanishingly low levels and that make up with noiseless digital gain later (or also for monitoring while recording). More important for a mic with low output is a preamp with low noise.

Also, the perception that the self noise of a preamp, and therefore the signal to noise ratio, worsens as you turn it up.

I can't back either of these challenges up with actual data, but these are things I've learned to disbelieve and I'm having a much better time since I did.
Click to expand...

If you're just going from preamp to converter then sure, all you need is a really quiet preamp. For that matter you could connect the mic right to the converter. But if, like many bigger studios, you need to run the signal through other processing before conversion (assuming the signal ever goes digital) you need the voltage to be in the right range, which is the whole point of a mic preamp, to take the various voltage levels resulting from different mics and sources and bring them up to the standard range.

At least some mic pres, perhaps most, definitely get noisier as you gain up.
 
ashcat_lt said:
The fact that so many people but into the myth is no myth. I agree to that extent.
Click to expand...

I think the bigger myth was when they thought SS guitar amps would replace tube guitar amps. :D

There's a lot of guys around here that actually went through that period...so frankly, the return of the tube guitar amp in a huge way, was/is no myth.

This is not to say that tube anything sounds better than SS anything...not at all...or this notion that as long as there's a tube in it, it will sound "warmer"...
...but when it comes to guitar amps, especially where crunch/distortion and that thicker/fatter tone is concerned, the tube amp is still THE preferred choice for most players....and I'm talking about people who play, and not about those who just use a guitar as an FX platform, where there may be a different set of tonal goals.
 
Excellent tone has always had a few common things.

1) An excellent player
2) A strat, Tele or Les Paul. (Or some variation of those)
3) A Marshall or Fender TUBE amp (Or some variation)

Are there exceptions? Shure.

But as a general rule the above three elements are a staple of good guitar tone.
 
antichef - Self noise in preamps comes in two different forms. Some have most of their noise basically before the gain so that - like you said - the noise stays proportional to the signal and gets turned up with everything else as gain is added. Others though have a sort of noise floor that must come "after" the gain, so that the noise level is fixed, and adding gain tends to bring the signal up without increasing the preamp noise. Some of course have a bit of both. With the first type you usually can just leave them all the way down and add gain ITB. With the second you're better off turning it up in analog. You need to figure out which category your specific preamps fit into.
 
A digital dictionary is only as good as the number of people who subscribe to its definitions.
the BIG divide between UK & US spelling is the 1755 publication of Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language which set the "American standard" that was deliberately & obviously at variance to UK dictionaries.
Until the US established global economic & cultural dominance through Apple Works & Word the non US English speaking world strongly resisted the new spelling etc so that the world had two large, intractable and different positions, (much like the metric vs empirical systems of measurement). Now the majority of the English speaking world begrudgingly accepts the almost unchanged Johnson's version of things rather than fight auto spelling check & constantly reset the version of English. I don't though.
Judging from this debate there'd be at least 2 dictionaries written.
 
3) A Marshall or Fender TUBE amp (Or some variation)
Click to expand...

I'd put every good tone that has used amps from Vox, Orange, Mesa or any other manufacturer, any any good tone made with solid state amp into the exceptions category, which is enough in my opinion to make this a myth.
 
Greg_L said:
Since every tube amp hails from the Fender in some way, they all can be good....
Click to expand...

That's a fair point. But unless it's a Fender or Marshall branded amp it wouldn't qualify with these arbitrary criteria. - Also, making the distinction between the two is pointless if we call all tube amps Fenders.

For the people who need myths busting this would be an important distinction - they might not know the history of modern guitar amps...

in the right hands
Click to expand...

Ha! I agree.
 
Not all tube amps are Fenders. They just come from that design. Marshalls became Marshalls because they were made in England and they didn't have the exact parts to mimic a Fender exactly. So they made do with what they had and the Marshall sound was born. From there they made further tweaks demanded by the users of the time. Then they became legend.

For me, I could get by just fine with only a Fender and a Marshall. Hell, I do just fine with only Marshalls. I like other amps, but none of them make me want to buy one.
 
The only exception to the rule about tube amps would be the Lab Series L7 and L5. BB King and Santana used these things in the 70's.
 
miroslav said:
He made up for it with great sustain.... ;)

Actually...some of his stuff sounds good...probably when he used tube amps. :D
Click to expand...

Lol. I really don't know. I only know his "hits" and none of them, not one note, does anything for me. I can appreciate good tone in songs I don't like. Like Boston. Lol. Cheesy songs, but epic 70s rock guitar tones. I can't say I've ever appreciated Santana tone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top