Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

High Wattage Amps


Rocky4

Recommended Posts

Part of the high-wattage amp use is about being macho.

 

It's the same thinking that people have when they insist on cars with 500 horsepower engines, but mostly use them to drive to the corner store to get a bag of Doritos.

 

Or when they buy massive, almost monster-truck-like off-roading SUVs, but never take them outside the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people don't realize that the relationship between perceived volume and wattage is not linear. A 100 watt amp is not twice as loud as a 50 watt amp. Doubling amp power only increases perceived volume by a mere THREE decibels.

 

Similarly, decreasing power from 100 to 50 watts, and from 50 to 25 watts, decreases volume only moderately.

 

The relationship between volume and wattage is logarithmic ... this is why lower powered amps can be "almost as loud" as higher powered ones ... especially when used with high efficiency speakers.

 

power-db.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Fender Twins from the mid 50s packed over 50 watts. Before rock took hold, why was such high wattage needed?

 

Mid 50s amps also had low efficiency speakers. In 1955, the 5E8 version of the Fender Twin had a pair of 6L6s, but also low-sensitivity Jensen speakers.

 

Vintage Jensens from that era were in the neighbourhood of 92 db sensitivity ... the sensitivity of many modern speakers, in comparison, is closer to the 101 db. Going from a contemporary 101 db speaker to a vintage 92 db speaker would produce about half the perceived volume. Put another way, a 50 watt amp with a 92 db speaker isn't much louder than a 5 watt amp with a 101 db speaker.

 

So the need for higher powered amps back in the 1950s was due, in part, to speaker technology of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mid 50s amps also had low efficiency speakers. In 1955, the 5E8 version of the Fender Twin had a pair of 6L6s, but also low-sensitivity Jensen speakers.

 

Vintage Jensens from that era were in the neighbourhood of 92 db sensitivity ... the sensitivity of many modern speakers, in comparison, is closer to the 101 db. Going from a contemporary 101 db speaker to a vintage 92 db speaker would produce about half the perceived volume. Put another way, a 50 watt amp with a 92 db speaker isn't much louder than a 5 watt amp with a 101 db speaker.

 

So the need for higher powered amps back in the 1950s was due, in part, to speaker technology of the day.

 

Exactly, speaker quality, not to mention what I mentioned in my original post, HEADROOM!!!!! Back in the later 50s, the amp of choice was the Fender Deluxe (Tweed). Nobody miced amps (or any instrument, really) back then. To be heard, us demon axe slingers had to turn our amps up, and what happens when you turn up a low watt, class A amp with a low wattage speaker? IT OVERDRIVES!!!! Of course, WE like it, but did THEY like it? No, they didn't (such party poopers, eh! LOL!). They wanted dead, squeaky, spanky (that explains why humbuckers weren't popular back then...), John Denver clean tones. They wanted headroom, which meant HIGH POWERED AMPLIFICATION!!!! (40 watts or more running off of high powered tubes such as 6L6s). So, being the nice fellow he was, Mr. Leo Fender and his buddies went around SoCal, asking many a picker for what they wanted in an amp, and, long story short, the high-powered Twin was born. Along with some new Jensen speakers that could handle the power. As years went by, the Twin design kept evolving (from the Blonde/Brownface amps of the early 60s to the Silverface amps of the late 60s), getting CLEANER AND CLEANER. And, in 64 it gained a reverb tank. That would be the story of the Spaghetti Western guitar player in SoCal in 1957 that just did not like distortion.... This is also a reason why the Bassman never caught on as a bass amp.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clarify my question. I understand the use of Marshall stacks in the late 60s and on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Fender Twins from the mid 50s packed over 50 watts. Before rock took hold, why was such high wattage needed? Can you imagine a Tele played at that volume back in 50s? I think the sound would go through your head like a nail.

 

In the 50's they weren't playing in front of the same amount of people of the late 60's and 70's. Most 50's gigs were in theaters and music halls, not arenas and festivals. Even then, with all the headroom of those Fender Twins and so on, they didn't need to crank the volume up all the way, because at 5-6 they were able to be loud enough for everyone to hear.

 

Once they realized that the tubes started to distort at higher volumes (although not really any louder, just the knob was cranked), they made the amps at a higher wattage so they wouldn't break up so quickly. Which directly related to even louder breakup!

 

 

 

Anyways, what's the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Kaleb's earlier answer still covers it. The PA systems back then just didn't have the oomph to fill a room up, so the amps had to compensate. The 60's and 70's saw even bigger venues, and that's where things got really crazy. A friend that I used to jam with had a vintage Orange OR120 from the 70's. It didn't have a master volume. It was the loudest thing I've ever heard in my life. Louder than Motorhead.
I completely agree. Although it causes the testsosterone levels of guitar players to fall every time I say this, the big stack is an anachronsim that was driven by the inadequacy of PA systems in the late 60's and early 70's to cover the new large crowds that rock'n'roll was attracting. However, the picture of a guitarist standing in front of 2 or 3 dual 4X12 stacks had become ingrained in the mythology of the period. Now that good PAs are common, I find a much better sound in the room is acheived by using a small amp in stage and miking it, rather than attempting to supply all the guitar "dIrect" to the audience from a large stack, which is often very very directional, and is killing on half of the audience while the other half can't hear it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree. Although it causes the testsosterone levels of guitar playere to fall every time I say this, the big stack is an anachronsim that was driven by the inadequacy of PA systems in the late 60's and early 70's to cover the new large crowds that rock'n'roll was attracting. However, the picture of a guitarist standing in front of 2 or 3 dual 4X12 stacks had become ingrained in the mythology of the period.

 

 

Now that good PAs are common, I find a much better sound in the room is acheived by using a small amp in stage and miking it, rather than attempting to supply all the guitar "dIrect" to the audience from a large stack, which is often very very directional, and is killing on half of the audience while the other half can't hear it.

all this about the large amps makes me wonder what will be said about 500 hp cars in 30 to 40 yrs! [lol][omg]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there IS a physical "feeling" one gets, playing in front of a "Stack,"

that no mic'd little amp, regardless of how good it sounds, can produce.

That feeling, often drives the player's performance, as much as the great

feedback, of a good audience can. It's not always about shear volume, but

the "vibe" a full sounding amp, "stack" or otherwise," produces.

 

In smaller venues, you can get that feeling, with a smaller amp, at it's

"sweet spot." But, outdoors, or in very large venues, where you're not

crowed onto a small stage/area, you may "need" that larger amp, to get the

"vibe," as well as the tone. You'll notice, too...that a lot of players are

using 1/2 stacks, or even full stacks...unstacked (side by side), with plexi

sound baffles in front, as to disperse the sound, more evenly, without killing

the audience, in the process. In bars, we do that, by turning the amps, toward

the wall, if/when there's no baffle available.

 

The "best" way, is whatever works, with all those variables, for all concerned.

I've never managed to get the same "vibe" or feeling, from hearing my guitar

through the monitor, of a great PA, as I do when standing in front of it, with

my pant legs flapping, from the speakers. [thumbup][biggrin]

 

Just some observations...

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my head and amps never were thought of as CB mentions... I've always been more into a dialog with audience than with just the sound force itself. I wonder if that's a factor of era and my age at the time - clear up to today.

 

Yeah, I got my 120-watt tube jobbie because everybody else was playing with twins or the equivalent and bass players with a bassman or equivalent and usually with 4-10 cabs. It was loud enough for any saloon I played in with some pretty low volume settings. Yeah, it had a master volume too, but I mostly was playing pretty clean regardless of variation of rock or country. PAs even into the 70s didn't have to be all that big either in saloons I was playing. So balance was the object, not just volume.

 

Nowadays I'm definitely more into the PA thing largely for the same reason that regardless of the venue, a well-considered PA gets the sound out with better balance than going strictly from stage regardless of equipment.

 

But then I can understand the other perspective of getting charged up by the physical feeling of the sound outa the amp. It just ain't what tripped or trips my own trigger.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my observations, were not JUST personal...it's from observing other's

reactions, as well. Hitting that "power chord," or punching into that lead

riff, where the audience reacts, in a very positive way, to that "rush."

Much like a race car driver, or pilot may react, to the sound of the car or

airplane engines. It gets the juices going, etc. "Dialogging with the audience,"

is part of the whole process, and often, the sound is just as much a part of it,

as actions, expressions, or theatrics...IMHO. But, maybe that's just me, or my

own "justification" if you like, for loving what I love! LOL I DO love good

"Dynamics," though. Knowing when to crank it up, and when to back off, as well.

When that's used, and things are tight, and full toned, it's pretty awesome!

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had 3M foam earplugs in,...

 

:( You need to treat your ears right and get a pair of high fidelity plugs. Why hear the music all muffled? Foam plugs are for the riffle range and jackhammering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't just the late 70s and early 80s that acts used several Marshall heads and bottoms.In the mid 60s Pete Townshend and John Entwhistle started the wall of Marshalls trend.They inevitably used 2 100W tops each and 4 100W bottoms.Jimi Hendrix started adding more stacks than anyone and triggered a contest of one upmanship often using 4 to 6 tops and a dozen or more cabinets as some of the 100W and 200W Marshall amps were capable of running 4 4-12 bottoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't just the late 70s and early 80s that acts used several Marshall heads and bottoms.In the mid 60s Pete Townshend and John Entwhistle started the wall of Marshalls trend.They inevitably used 2 100W tops each and 4 100W bottoms.Jimi Hendrix started adding more stacks than anyone and triggered a contest of one upmanship often using 4 to 6 tops and a dozen or more cabinets as some of the 100W and 200W Marshall amps were capable of running 4 4-12 bottoms.

 

I AM AWARE!!!! I just think that the best example of a wall of Marshalls is British Steel- era Priest! IMHO of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...