Would a pedal without a tube mean that there is no point in having a tube amp?

[krock]

Just interested about what the effects putting non tube pedals infront of a tube amp would be instead of only tube pedals. Was wondering if some of you consider it to ruin the sound of the amp compared to only tube pedals

[Big Bill]

Let's have Fred answer this one.

[Dub-T-123]

Not at all.

 

Why would you get a pedal that ruins the sound of your amp? I try to pick the ones that make it sound better.

 

This is just my opinion, but I think most tube pedals are pretty gimmicky.

[EVOL!]

Not at all.

 

Why would you get a pedal that ruins the sound of your amp? I try to pick the ones that make it sound better.

 

This is just my opinion, but I think most tube pedals are pretty gimmicky.

 

What he said.

 

And most pedals with a tube in it are just a gimmick. Not all, but a lot of them.

[Riffster]

Yea, you need voltage to drive one of those suckers...(tube pedals)

 

A tube mic preamp is a different story, those sound pretty good

[Mojorule]

Think about it in terms of the classic guitar tones that you associate with valve amps, Krock. Clapton with Mayall? A Dallas Rangemaster (OC44 transistor, no valves) in front of a Marshall 1962. Tony Iommi on early Sabbath records? Same unit in front of Laney valve amps. Brian May? Same unit in front of Vox AC30s. Hendrix? A Fuzz Face (no valve in sight, just a germanium transistor) in front of a Marshall 1959 stack. Page? His Echoplex might have been valve-driven, but his Tonebender wasn't. Moving on in time a bit... SRV? An Ibanez Tube Screamer (as we all know, there's no tube in a TS) in front of a Fender Vibroverb. Brian Setzer? A Roland Space Echo (tape, but not valve, as I understand it) through a Fender. Move it on again... Jack White not only uses non-tube pedals, he uses non-analogue ones in front of his Fender Twin and Silvertones (Digitech Whammy anybody?). Not yet heard of a valve-driven wah, but there are lots of classic recordings featuring Voxes, Crybabies and Coloursounds through Fenders, Marshalls and Voxes. And think about all those players (Gilmour, Santana supposedly, Jack White again) who've put a Big Muff Pi through a valve amp and produced rather nice overdriven sounds...

[retrosurfer1959]

At least he's thinking it through?

 

and nope it's fine

 

 

 

Now the reverse would be - even the best boutique tube amps and pedals lose much of there tonal qualities if played through a low quality ss amp. I'm always kind of surprised when I see $1000 dollars worth of pedals plugged in a 80 dollar amp.

[Silenced Fred]

Let's have Fred answer this one.

 

I'm sure by commenting you are contributing to the fine discussion here.

 

Most pedals that are considered boutique don't have tubes, so it all depends on the circuitry. Most pedals will boost sound, and if you don't like them, then don't get it

[krock]

The reason I ask is because I know a really anal tone freak that wont put anything in front of his best tube amps unless they're valve driven. Im not sure what his theory is based on, but thats why I'm asking everyone on here.

[krock]

The reason I ask is because I know a really anal tone freak that wont put anything in front of his best tube amps unless they're valve driven. Im not sure what his theory is based on, but thats why I'm asking everyone on here.

[dbreslauer]

The reason I ask is because I know a really anal tone freak that wont put anything in front of his best tube amps unless they're valve driven. Im not sure what his theory is based on, but thats why I'm asking everyone on here.

 

 

it never stopped Page, Hendrix, Brian May, Rory Gallagher, Eric Clapton, SRV, etc, etc. :)

[djroge1]

 

This is just my opinion, but I think most tube pedals are pretty gimmicky.

 

Yes some are gimmics but not this one: Mesa Boogies V-Twin

 

 

I don't use it too much these days but I used to run this in front of my SS fender M-80.

[Dub-T-123]

The reason I ask is because I know a really anal tone freak that wont put anything in front of his best tube amps unless they're valve driven. Im not sure what his theory is based on, but thats why I'm asking everyone on here.

 

That's pretty stupid.

[jnastynebr]

Its nice to be able to get some good gain out of your tube amp, but having a few pedals will really open up your possibilities. I fell in love with putting a preamp pedal in front of the signal. Analog delay is pretty sweet, too.

[Andy R]

So by that logic you should have tube pickups, tube, volume and tone controls, and tube cables. A tube is really nothing more than a diode. It only allows current to flow one way. It turns an AC signal into a DC signal and boosts the small voltage signal created by the guitar pickup step by step depending on how many gain stages the device has. Most of the tube pedal stuff is using a 12ax7 preamp tube which has essentially two gain stages one with slightly higher output.

 

I have seen some schematics of some tube pedals that essentially the only thing it has hooked up is the 5 volt heater so it glows when you plug it in.... No signal even passing through it. Just a Gimmick. ( Not all )

 

Anyway the thought that you are negating the Tube amplifier by using non-tube pedals is silly. Sometimes it is actually better to have something that is more consistent and stable that uses solid state diodes in front of your amplifiers tube preamp section.

 

Anyway everybody has a right to their opinion and my opinion is if it sounds good to you who gives a fook?

 

my.1Cents

[stein]

i love this question. you really want to know? there are more than one reason. 1st, if we exclude overdrive and distortion and just consider fidelity, tubes are more accurate and alter the signal less than a transister. roughly speaking if things are equal a transister is going to hamper more of the origional signal than a tube curcuit will. so regardless of what is altered about the signal as far as requency responce there is still more of the origional signal coming through. consider that it is one thing to add treble or bass responce to a signal, but if you don't loose it in the first place you don't have too. another way to think of this is once you loose something in a circuit, you don't get it back. this is why tube amps are far more dynamic to playing responce than a transister curcuit.

now, consider the distortion we like to get from a tube amp. getting distortion from power tubes and getting distortion from preamp tubes creates very different effects. not only is the sound different, but the reaction and the dynamics are different. preamp distortion is very buzzy and harsh, quite nasty actually. power tube distortion cuts high frequencies first, and is reactive to volume as the power changes with relation to the interaction of the speakers. preamp distortion does not do this. preamp distortion sounds nothing like power amp distortion.

so, when a curcuit is made using preamp distortion, the cuircuit is altered quite a bit to make it sound and behave like power amp distortion. even if no transisters are used, a case can be made that the signal is altered more trying to make preamp tubes distorting sound like power tubes than the signal would be altered using a simple transister. most guitar players are unaware of how many preamp-tube distortion cuircuits actually have transisters, and also those that actually do not have transisters in them have so many electrical components in them the actually work much like a transister. marshall jcm 800 comes to mind, and as far as i know, all 2 channel marshalls use transisters for the gain channel. most amps do.

now, another point, problably the most important one for this thread, is most "tube" pedals do not provide the proper voltage to the preamp tubes they are using. if the tube is even in the circuit, it is not the tube the is making/altering the sound. and if it was, you wouldn't want to hear that sound. it would be flat nasty.

so i guess what you can say for sure is that getting distortion from a pedal is technically no less valed than getting it from the lead channel of an amp. and also that the dynamics and tone you get from playing a tube amp are still there no matter what you put in front of it.

[Mojorule]

The reason I ask is because I know a really anal tone freak that wont put anything in front of his best tube amps unless they're valve driven. Im not sure what his theory is based on, but thats why I'm asking everyone on here.

 

I think his theory is based on some sort of commodity fetishism.

 

(And not the same sort which makes all of us here want to own a Gibson... That's an obvious sort to do with branding and our ability to appreciate the tone of certain well-known instruments from the past. He's evidently bought into the myth that valves are intrinsically better sounding irrespective of the application. Seems less naive than just wanting a Gibson because you like Clapton's, Page's, Slash's, B.B. King's or Wes Montgomery's sound or whatever. But it's all the more pernicious given that it's grounded in pseudoscience rather than actual listening. I would reply to that myth with the statement that personally I find that my Russian Big Muff gives distorsion every bit as creamy and smooth as many a valve-driven amp, despite having cost only 25 quid as opposed to one hundred times that much. It's less touch responsive in truth, but it does clean up when you roll back the guitar volume, just like a valve amp does. That said, I wouldn't swap my Fender Pro for a transistor amp. I'm sure that Roland Jazz Chorus and Peterson fans have a point, but for my money you can't beat valves for clean sounds and for that point where they just start to break up.)

[Andy R]

i love this question. you really want to know? there are more than one reason. 1st, if we exclude overdrive and distortion and just consider fidelity, tubes are more accurate and alter the signal less than a transister. roughly speaking if things are equal a transister is going to hamper more of the origional signal than a tube curcuit will. so regardless of what is altered about the signal as far as requency responce there is still more of the origional signal coming through. consider that it is one thing to add treble or bass responce to a signal, but if you don't loose it in the first place you don't have too. another way to think of this is once you loose something in a circuit, you don't get it back. this is why tube amps are far more dynamic to playing responce than a transister curcuit.

now, consider the distortion we like to get from a tube amp. getting distortion from power tubes and getting distortion from preamp tubes creates very different effects. not only is the sound different, but the reaction and the dynamics are different. preamp distortion is very buzzy and harsh, quite nasty actually. power tube distortion cuts high frequencies first, and is reactive to volume as the power changes with relation to the interaction of the speakers. preamp distortion does not do this. preamp distortion sounds nothing like power amp distortion.

so, when a curcuit is made using preamp distortion, the cuircuit is altered quite a bit to make it sound and behave like power amp distortion. even if no transisters are used, a case can be made that the signal is altered more trying to make preamp tubes distorting sound like power tubes than the signal would be altered using a simple transister. most guitar players are unaware of how many preamp-tube distortion cuircuits actually have transisters, and also those that actually do not have transisters in them have so many electrical components in them the actually work much like a transister. marshall jcm 800 comes to mind, and as far as i know, all 2 channel marshalls use transisters for the gain channel. most amps do.

now, another point, problably the most important one for this thread, is most "tube" pedals do not provide the proper voltage to the preamp tubes they are using. if the tube is even in the circuit, it is not the tube the is making/altering the sound. and if it was, you wouldn't want to hear that sound. it would be flat nasty.

so i guess what you can say for sure is that getting distortion from a pedal is technically no less valed than getting it from the lead channel of an amp. and also that the dynamics and tone you get from playing a tube amp are still there no matter what you put in front of it.

 

 

Not to hijack...

 

Hmmm I agree with most of this but have to question a couple of your points. Not that they are wrong but maybe you can help me see your point more clearly. I'm not sure that a tube is more "accurate" than a transistor but maybe I am thinking of this in a different way than you are. From my experience and what I know of tubes in general is they are inherently inaccurate. That is what makes them sonically more pleasing in that they don't clip a signal harshly ( and accurately) like a transistor would which causes a more harmonically pleasing tone especially for distortion and provide for natural compression in somewhat of the way you described with the power tubes. My example would be take different 12ax7 ( same brand) tubes and swap them in the preamp section of your amp and you will end up with a different tone to varying degrees every time. Same with power Tubes and they are constantly changing and are effected even by fluctuations in normal power outlet deviations. Take a transistor and swap it out with almost any other matching transistor and the change will be unnoticeable. One of the quickest way to change the tone of your amp is to switch tubes.... So maybe I am misunderstanding your use of the term accurate.

 

I agree that preamp tube distortion/gain is different than power amp distortion but the distortion created by each is 2 different animals. Power tube distortion is a much more subtle affair than preamp distortion. If I plug my guitar directly into a tube power amp like my mesa and turn it up as loud as it will go it's not really going to add that much power tube saturation without the preamp gain stage in front of it. I also question your theory of dynamics in correlation with the speakers as there is a bit more to it than that. It also depends on if the amp is a class A or in the case of the typical marshall a class A/B which is a push pull relationship. The dynamics of a tube amp are all very interrelated to each section of the amp and how they are reacting with each other. This includes the rectifier ( if it is tube ) the filter caps and particular transformers ( not withstanding the speakers) and how they starve or feed the output tubes which creates Sag and compression ( dynamics) ...

 

Also the JCM800 amps at least up through the 2203 and 2204 didn't use transistors anywhere in the gain stage although they do use solid state diodes for the rectifier which pretty much all Marshalls past the JTM 45 use. I think maybe you are thinking of the JCM 900 which did use zener diodes ( which also happen to be one of the main ingredients in the tube screamers) in the preamp section. Also pretty much all tube marshals have been 2 channel amps up to the 2203 and 2204 where they used the second channel as an adjustable gain stage and master volume. So not all 2 channel amps use transistors in this case. Channel switching amps are possibly more prone to see a transistor somewhere in the gain stage as well as newer high gain amps.

 

Again these are just my understandings and am not trying to debate you just thought we might further the discussion here or somewhere else and possibly learn something from each other??...

 

 

regards,

 

 

Andy

[stein]

Not to hijack...

 

Hmmm I agree with most of this but have to question a couple of your points. Not that they are wrong but maybe you can help me see your point more clearly. I'm not sure that a tube is more "accurate" than a transistor but maybe I am thinking of this in a different way than you are. From my experience and what I know of tubes in general is they are inherently inaccurate. That is what makes them sonically more pleasing in that they don't clip a signal harshly ( and accurately) like a transistor would which causes a more harmonically pleasing tone especially for distortion and provide for natural compression in somewhat of the way you described with the power tubes. My example would be take different 12ax7 ( same brand) tubes and swap them in the preamp section of your amp and you will end up with a different tone to varying degrees every time. Same with power Tubes and they are constantly changing and are effected even by fluctuations in normal power outlet deviations. Take a transistor and swap it out with almost any other matching transistor and the change will be unnoticeable. One of the quickest way to change the tone of your amp is to switch tubes.... So maybe I am misunderstanding your use of the term accurate.

 

I agree that preamp tube distortion/gain is different than power amp distortion but the distortion created by each is 2 different animals. Power tube distortion is a much more subtle affair than preamp distortion. If I plug my guitar directly into a tube power amp like my mesa and turn it up as loud as it will go it's not really going to add that much power tube saturation without the preamp gain stage in front of it. I also question your theory of dynamics in correlation with the speakers as there is a bit more to it than that. It also depends on if the amp is a class A or in the case of the typical marshall a class A/B which is a push pull relationship. The dynamics of a tube amp are all very interrelated to each section of the amp and how they are reacting with each other. This includes the rectifier ( if it is tube ) the filter caps and particular transformers ( not withstanding the speakers) and how they starve or feed the output tubes which creates Sag and compression ( dynamics) ...

 

Also the JCM800 amps at least up through the 2203 and 2204 didn't use transistors anywhere in the gain stage although they do use solid state diodes for the rectifier which pretty much all Marshalls past the JTM 45 use. I think maybe you are thinking of the JCM 900 which did use zener diodes ( which also happen to be one of the main ingredients in the tube screamers) in the preamp section. Also pretty much all tube marshals have been 2 channel amps up to the 2203 and 2204 where they used the second channel as an adjustable gain stage and master volume. So not all 2 channel amps use transistors in this case. Channel switching amps are possibly more prone to see a transistor somewhere in the gain stage as well as newer high gain amps.

 

Again these are just my understandings and am not trying to debate you just thought we might further the discussion here or somewhere else and possibly learn something from each other??...

 

 

regards,

 

 

Andy

it could be here as i think it all relates, but this can get deep, man. i'll try and explain myself without too much grief for yall. concerning the accuracy of tubes, i used to be an audiophile, so i have some perspectives and knowledge from that that most guitarist/purist don't know or care about. but consider a stereo system, which is ideally supposed to reproduce an origional signal not only without "distortion" as we call it, but to reproduce accurately. most believe audiophiles like tube stereos because they produce a "pleasing" effect, but the truth is most have tube systems because they are more accurate, and they are made to be that way. consider this-most high end stereo systems do not have bass and trble controls. the reason is that if you don't lose the bass and treble in the first place, you don't then have to boost it again. but there is more than that. the better able you are to preserve the origional signal, the more you will hear of it, like the sound of the room and placement of the mikes, which you don't hear with a cheap system. now audiophiles have known for some time that once you reach a certain price point of affording a tube stereo, it becomes MORE of an engineering challenge to recreate the same quality in a transister system. transisters and tubes work in very much the same way, except a transister can be more cheaply made and made to different specs easier, but the signal passes through a lot of junk instead of air, like a tube. compared to a tube, transisters sound grainy in the treble and loose a lot of clarity. an inherent quality of tubes vs transisters is that even before we add gain and overdrive, and even with shifts in requency responce, there is much much MORE of the inherent signal preserved in a typical tube curcuit. we as guitar players take that for granted. boy, this is getting long, but the main point about that is that most transisters used in pro sound and guitar applications are cheap, and making a good one is expensive. and if you were comparing in a curcuit you would be able to tell differences from this standpoint as easily as different tubes.

[stein]

Not to hijack...

 

I agree that preamp tube distortion/gain is different than power amp distortion but the distortion created by each is 2 different animals. Power tube distortion is a much more subtle affair than preamp distortion. If I plug my guitar directly into a tube power amp like my mesa and turn it up as loud as it will go it's not really going to add that much power tube saturation without the preamp gain stage in front of it. I also question your theory of dynamics in correlation with the speakers as there is a bit more to it than that. It also depends on if the amp is a class A or in the case of the typical marshall a class A/B which is a push pull relationship. The dynamics of a tube amp are all very interrelated to each section of the amp and how they are reacting with each other. This includes the rectifier ( if it is tube ) the filter caps and particular transformers ( not withstanding the speakers) and how they starve or feed the output tubes which creates Sag and compression ( dynamics) ...

 

yea, of corse, and we must also consider that your mesa power amp section might be made to where it has enough headroom not to distort. if you have enough voltage to the tubes and the speaker is sensitve enough, it may never distort. but take an example of the deluxe reverb, put in a c12n or a 100 watt speaker, and it will be loud and may harder crunch at all maxed out, but put in a c12q and it may not be loud enough, and get crunch real early.

now, mesa imho makes some of the smoothest, most plaesing pre-amp distortion there is, but they also do a lot to the curcuit to do that. and look at the difference between an early jmp marshall crunch and a jcm800 metal wail. the 800 uses the sizzle of the preamp gain mixed in with the crunch to get that. pleasing, of corse. but compare the pure preamp sizzle of an 800 on its own without power amp distortion. kinda nasty. but pure. what am i trying to illustrate? pre amp distortion can be cool and useable, but sometimes it will be altered to sound more like power amp distortion to be pleasing to us, tone wise. to have pleasing pre-amp distortion, we have to cut a lot of the frequencies coming natually from the tube, where with power amp distortion those frequencies never are there in the first place by the natural phenonmena you have described in the first place by the other components of the power amp curcuit. when we make a pedal from a transister, of corse we are going to try and copy the latter.

regards,

 

 

Andy

[stein]

Not to hijack...

 

 

Also the JCM800 amps at least up through the 2203 and 2204 didn't use transistors anywhere in the gain stage although they do use solid state diodes for the rectifier which pretty much all Marshalls past the JTM 45 use. I think maybe you are thinking of the JCM 900 which did use zener diodes ( which also happen to be one of the main ingredients in the tube screamers) in the preamp section. Also pretty much all tube marshals have been 2 channel amps up to the 2203 and 2204 where they used the second channel as an adjustable gain stage and master volume. So not all 2 channel amps use transistors in this case. Channel switching amps are possibly more prone to see a transistor somewhere in the gain stage as well as newer high gain amps.

 

Again these are just my understandings and am not trying to debate you just thought we might further the discussion here or somewhere else and possibly learn something from each other??...

 

the first channel switching marshall was the 2 channell jcm 800. the lead channel does, in fact, use transisters for that. the single channell jcm800s do not have any in the curcuit at all, and are the same as the 2nd channell in the channell switching ones. you're right, and i think you know more about it than i do from the sounds of it. perhaps you thought of the regular one channell jcm800. i was relating really how most players with 2 channel amps might not be aware that they are playing through a transister when using the gain channel. which leads us back to the beginning, that there is nothing pure about using only tube pedals for yer gain sounds.

regards,

 

 

Andy

[Andy R]

it could be here as i think it all relates, but this can get deep, man. i'll try and explain myself without too much grief for yall. concerning the accuracy of tubes, i used to be an audiophile, so i have some perspectives and knowledge from that that most guitarist/purist don't know or care about. but consider a stereo system, which is ideally supposed to reproduce an origional signal not only without "distortion" as we call it, but to reproduce accurately. most believe audiophiles like tube stereos because they produce a "pleasing" effect, but the truth is most have tube systems because they are more accurate, and they are made to be that way. consider this-most high end stereo systems do not have bass and trble controls. the reason is that if you don't lose the bass and treble in the first place, you don't then have to boost it again. but there is more than that. the better able you are to preserve the origional signal, the more you will hear of it, like the sound of the room and placement of the mikes, which you don't hear with a cheap system. now audiophiles have known for some time that once you reach a certain price point of affording a tube stereo, it becomes MORE of an engineering challenge to recreate the same quality in a transister system. transisters and tubes work in very much the same way, except a transister can be more cheaply made and made to different specs easier, but the signal passes through a lot of junk instead of air, like a tube. compared to a tube, transisters sound grainy in the treble and loose a lot of clarity. an inherent quality of tubes vs transisters is that even before we add gain and overdrive, and even with shifts in requency responce, there is much much MORE of the inherent signal preserved in a typical tube curcuit. we as guitar players take that for granted. boy, this is getting long, but the main point about that is that most transisters used in pro sound and guitar applications are cheap, and making a good one is expensive. and if you were comparing in a curcuit you would be able to tell differences from this standpoint as easily as different tubes.

 

Well since no one else is chiming in here I guess it is OK to maybe diverge away from the main point a bit and discuss this a bit more. If the OP wants us to get a room we can move someplace else if you are interested in continuing. I find the topic interesting in a few ways and as I said I am not debating you as I am very open minded to the fact that what I believe to be true might not be.

 

I am definitely not an audiophile but understand the principle as well as the debates that happen in that community about this same topic. So let's start by defining some differences between the Audiophile philosophy and Goal and the Average guitar player's philosophy and Goal. It also appears that this same argument exists in the audiophile world as much or more than the guitar world.

 

Audiophile Goal - Listen/hear a pre-recorded piece of music( i assume maybe they want to listen to nature sounds as well? Who knows) in their home that best reproduces the true sound of what was recorded. Generally in an environment that is conducive to this and at a listening volume that would be equivalent to the Db level of the instruments/ music being played.... One question I have is does an audiophile want to best hear what was recorded or best hear what was recorded? For example would an audiophile want to best hear the Dark Side of the Moon as it was recorded as whole or would they prefer to truly hear let's say the true sound of the saxophone before it hit the mixing board??? I would think the latter would be impossible but just throwing it out there.

 

So to equate this to a guitar players signal chain and what components are involved in creating/recreating it I would see the goal of the audiophiles setup to be the following.

 

To start with you would need a recording of something that is the most accurate to the master recording. Seems to me most audiophiles prefer LP's (possibly reel to reels) but CD has some acceptance as well as the requirement for High End record Players and Cd players etc to boost the signal level to the point it could be amplified. I guess a record players voltage output is created in a similar manner to how a guitar pickup voltage is created so I assume there is not much electronics involved in the record player scenario.

In this case of the comparison the LP would essentially be the guitar strings and the pickups would be equivalent to the stylus output .

- So at this point if the Audiophile has the best/most accurate medium to begin with and the best/most accurate device that will provide an accurate output that would send enough signal voltage to the amplifier.

- So from my understanding if everything so far is as sonically as accurate as possible at this point you would want to amplify that to an accurate listening level as what the instruments/band/orchestra etc... would have been producing when recorded??... So let's say anywhere form 60 to 100db

- So your amplifier I would assume should be able to reproduce the sound directly from the record player output and increase its output volume to that listening level as transparently as possible and without introducing any false dynamic, tonal color or distortion..???

- So then you would want speakers that are also equally transparent, that can accurately reproduce original dynamics, not add any tonal color or create any frequency distortion at the accurate listening level..???

- Finally You would want to set this up in a room environment that does not create any false acoustics or frequencies

- Finally the last thing in the world an audiophile would want in his system is distortion and would like as much headroom available to create the listening level before distortion is introduced..???

Is this Essentially Correct?

 

It also brings me to a conclusion that an audiophile can never truly attain what they are trying to achieve because the only true representation of what the album was truly supposed to sound like played back you would have to be in the same room using the same equipment/amps/speakers etc... as where the album was mastered from tape. But that is a way different subject.

 

So in this scenario at least in the case of using a record player and comparing it to a guitar in the audiophile world we would bypass a preamp and take the signal directly into the amplifier. So again, as a guitar player if I were wanting the purest cleanest representation of what my guitar sounds like amplified then I would plug my guitar directly into an amplifier that could provide the output level I wanted without introducing any other tonal color or distortion.... And then have speakers that produced that accurately as well. This is interesting to me because I see a correlation between the record player stylus and head as acting pretty much like a guitar pickup if I am correct. So depending on the pickup or stylus/head used the original sound of the album/strings will be altered at that point in the signal chain already. So Your comment about the amplifier/stereo not needing Tone controls because the signal has not lost any signal is a bit confusing because at this point the signal has not seen a tube or transistor yet. What your truly depending on in this case is that the stylus and head ( or guitar pickup in our case) is truly recreating the sound.... Also don't most audiophile systems have a preamp as well??? Again some being tube and some being solid state? Both not containing treble or bass controls????

 

So.... let's say for the benefit of the doubt that both the stylus/head and the pickups are completely accurate. Now were back at the challenge of creating an amplifier that can cleanly and transparently amplify our signal to a certain listening level.... And the question being are tubes better at doing this more transparently without coloring the signal or adding distortion while achieving this than transistors???? This is where I question that a tube its self is truly more sonically transparent than a transistor or is it more to do with the circuitry involved to utilize a tube(s) for amplification is less complicated than that of a solid state amplifier. I still maintain that tubes themselves are not very transparent and color the sound where as Solid State will be more consistent but maybe not what you want to hear but it's the tubes inaccuracy that create more natural response to frequency and voltage changes than solid state transistors do. Now given that if you are trying to get a Solid State transistor to emulate the response and reaction of a tube then you are right because you are trying to use consistent components to reproduce an inconsistent sound thus needing more components to do so.

 

Now let's get to Guitar playing and what most guitars players are trying to do with pedals and pre-amps and amplifiers Which is usually the polar opposite of what audiophiles are trying to do. Most guitar players are looking for a certain Clean sound and or a certain distorted sound.

 

I guess depending on the type of "clean" tone your looking for you might swing between a solid state amplifier and a "Clean" Tube amplifier. To me a Roland JC-120 is a great electric clean tone and an old blackface twin is an excellent "Blues Clean" tone. Obviously distorted tones are probably the most elusive and sought after by tone chasers.

 

This for the very reason that tubes are unique in their quirks to me is what makes them desirable to to musicians especially for gain and distortion. It is what they don't reproduce that makes them desirable.

 

So after writing all of this and thinking along the way as well as come back to your point.

I disagree that "a tube" on its own is more sonically accurate or consistent.

I agree that a tube and the circuitry involved to make it work ends up producing a more musical pleasing output

I agree that if you are trying to emulate the tonal characteristics of a tube and how it interacts with the circuit running it you will end up using more components using Solid State circuits to try to achieve it. I also don't think it can really be done well in the case of gain and distortion. ( unless that's what you like)

 

So to try to tie this ramble back to the OP question I think Stein and I both agree that using a pedal without a tube with a tube amp ( assuming that it is negating the tube amp) I believe we are both agreeing no.

I believe there was also an assumption made that the pedal was only about creating distortion and gain. This is where I start to diverge from Steins path of thought. There is an assumption that whatever the pedal is it is only to add gain and distortion and that the desired distortion is actually powertube saturation and sag. In fact there is a lot of players that actually want more of the preamp gain/distortion than they want the powertube distortion. Thus tube Screamers and the like where you are shaping and boosting the guitar pickup signal before it hits the first gain stage in the preamp.

 

Another popular thing to do in the 80's was add an extra pre-amp tube providing an extra gain stage. Thus each gain stage is stepping up the voltage/gain on its way to the power amp section before making a quick pit stop at the tone controls the final gain stage and the phase inverter. From the phase inverter all of the signal shaping and initial gain stage gets boosted by the power tubes which also color the sound and add more or less gain and or sag depending on the output tubes used, the power and output transformers used as well as filter capacitors, and rectifier. Then to the speakers where the tone is even further colored. Depending on how hard you drive the amplifier you will also be adding the aforementioned power tube distortion and changing the dynamic behavior of the signal response.

 

To me it would be feasible to build a tube preamp pedal that is external to the amp instead of internal....

 

It's funny that Eddie Van Halen takes his speaker out of the amp ( so he can get the powertube distortion) and power soaks it back to line level and then re-amplifies with solid state amplifiers..... You would think that he would want to use another tube power amp if he doesn't want to color or lose his tone.....

 

 

Just my $10.00

 

 

Andy

[Kimbabig]

SHORTENED

[S t e v e]

Just interested about what the effects putting non tube pedals infront of a tube amp would be instead of only tube pedals. Was wondering if some of you consider it to ruin the sound of the amp compared to only tube pedals

 

no, the pedal will only produce a "tone" for which the valve/tube amp will amplify...so you will still hear the benifits of valve tone

[stein]

yea, it may seem like a debate to some, but i dont thing we are although the op topic is a debate-about the legitimacy of having a pedal without a tube. while the audiophile perspective is in a way hijacking, it relates diectly. and i say that andy, you get it. the whole point of me bringing up the point is there is a myth that both the audiophile community and the musician/pro sound cummunity have.

andy, you are correct in most ways and i'm impressed of your understanding as it is obvious you are not connected to the audiophile community. i would point out that there are in fact systems that do away with the preamp. your assesment of the lp is a good one as well. the word "transparency" is a common term. let me clarify that the goal of and audiophile "reproductive" system is to build a system the alters the signal as little as possible. and you cannot reproduce by replicating, you must preserve. so, ideally, if a saxaphone was recorded 5 feet and to the left of the mike, what you would hear is a saxaphone 5 feet and to the left of the speaker. and there is a tube vs solid state debate, and both have their challenges. what is not debated, is these inherent advantages of the transparencies of a tube vs. the inherent advantages of ss. here are 2 separate problems: a loss of information in the signal chain, and a alteration of the information in the signal chain. the debate in the audiophile community is which is more important? is it more acceptable to accept a a signal that has inaccuracies in its reproduction, such as an inflated loose bass or recessed treble or is it more acceptable to accept a signal that has proper proportion qualities at the cost of not getting all the origional signal? at the heart is this-transister devices have a tendancy to cloud the signal and block information coming trough, as well as have a sratchy, grainy reproduction in the treble. the general public tends to think exactly the opposite of reality, partly because of lack of awareness of these effects by transister devices, and most have never heard a descent tube stereo and experienced that kind of transparency to have an idea how much is left behind in a solid state design.

now, here is where it gets cool: as guitar players, we aren't concerned with colorations, we tend to like them. so the DISADVANTAGES of tubes in this way is not a detriment. what we often don't relize is that the inherent advantage of having MORE of the origional signal in the design of a typical tube amp. more of the information coming from your playing is happening playing a tube amp than a typical solid state amp. and this is true even as we color the sound and distort it.

now, the REAL debate as suggested by the op is if this tube only philosophy believed by some is doing what he thinks it does. the answer is clearly no. the thread here just got really deep in trying to explain/prove why.

 

r.l. burnside: "she asked me why. i just went on and told her"