Are the big amps history?

[aborgman]

I am interested to hear how so - or do you mean quantized? Which is different than digital.

No, it isn't.

Digital does not mean only two states (binary) - it just means DISCRETE states... and in the end, we can't subdivide electrons.

 

[tom_305]

<<1. It looks damn cool.>>

Nothing looks cool about hauling a giant rig up two flights of stairs in those two story venues midwesterners like to put live clubs in. Especially the "Subterranean" in Chicago. When you're halfway up that torture chamber, you learn to love DI boxes, small amps and supplied backlines.

 

[Son of Wobble]

... and in the end, we can't subdivide electrons.

Not even with a REALLY big amp??

 

[Mark Reccord]

A bigger problem was that they just took the masters that had been mastered for vinyl and transferred them to CD without re-mastering for the new medium.

There was also that, but the early CD players were pretty awful sounding. No problem to hear the difference between them and later versions when they figured out oversampling.

 

[bryan gibson]

Why? Because it's part of "the show". It's part of the draw.

I'm seriously thinking about having a "SVT" empty cab built (for my big-stage band), with a hinged door on the back, empty but with racks, and it being a big roadcase for cables, drums, etc. All while using my Carvin Micro stack.

 

[Dluxe]

As long as someone else has to lug it around I'm all for it. Otherwise I used IEM's and let the PA do all of the work.

 

[Son of Wobble]

I'm seriously thinking about having a "SVT" empty cab built (for my big-stage band), with a hinged door on the back, empty but with racks, and it being a big roadcase for cables, drums, etc. All while using my Carvin Micro stack.

Make it big enough and your band can kip down in it after gigs.
An excellent way to address the new economic realities of touring.

 

[BASSKADET]

I think LP's are much more clear and lifelike than CD's. I buy CD's for convenience or for playing in my car and buy LP's for sound quality.

Analog is king.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Professional studio recording standard is 24 Bit 96 Khz, not speaking of that most customers chose to just buy the Mp3 version anyway, or that maybe even the original masters are not being made available in higher quality than what a CD is capable of reproducing, unless it come out on on vinyl, or is available on that media in a true analog version where there have been no digital downgrading of the source involved.

With good equipment to reproduce audio the difference between CD quality and 24 Bit 96 Khz quality will be almost as apparent as the difference between 128 Kb/s Mp3 quality and 16 Bit 44,1 Khz Cd quality.

So yes CD quality is very much inferior to today's digital standards, and digital technology will always have inherent limitations making it inferior to analog systems of similar quality in the aspect of reproducing information that is true and accurate to the source.

Analog technology by definition reproduce all the information and subtleties of the original source, in theory at least a 1:1 relationship, only limited by quality of the hardware, digital technology on the other hand will always be an approximation or emulation basically made up of 0's and 1's.

Digital equipment will in other words always be limited by how fast it can pick up and process the information coming form the source, cause in a digital system information will with 100% certainty be left out, maybe not on a level that humans consciously are able to perceive if we are talking recent digital standards, but non the less it will miss a lot of information.

That can be useful in some situations, sometimes you would want a system to not to pick up what would be cocidered irrelevant information in the context.

In the very nature of how digital systems work always having to shut on and off, basically everything a digital system reproduce will be split up in small chunks of information, hence why we call it resolution, with analog technology the flow of information is unbroken and you will have all of it, again theoretically, which means the resolution will basically be infinite.

Pictures are a nice and easy way to understand this:

Digital pictures will have a limit of how much you can zoom in depending on how many squares the given digital system is capable of reducing the source to.

Analog pictures will only be limited by the quality of the lens used to capture the light that makes up the picture.

At this point it is still not possible to make a digital camera that is capable of splitting the information it receives up in so small parts that it is more sufficient at reproducing a accurate image then the most clear and powerful lens we can make are at picking up light.

Digital systems no doubt are much cheaper, flexible and predictable though.

And to have a system that can reuse information and easily can be programmed to handle almost whatever kind of information in whatever way you may wish just by lining up the right sequence of something and nothing while not easily being disturbed by irrelevant information, instead of having to physically create systems made from scratch each time it has to take new assignment or task, is no doubt very practical, but it doesn't make it better in every aspect, far from.

Analog is still better at being true to the source material, even if that means picking up irrelevant information in the context such as "noise" from the system it self.

Maybe a bit like the difference between playing with Lego and clay.

Both have their obvious strength and weaknesses, but one thing is for sure if you put clay into a mold you will get something that looks like what formed the mold almost exactly, if using Lego blocks, well not that much.

Incorrect.

CD is a delivery format. Recording is done at higher sample rates and bit depths to allow flexibility for all sorts of processing before the final mix. You can get very excellent results even from the basic red book CD format by optimizing the final product to the format of 16 bits at 44.1 Hz.

Pictures are a very good analogy for this: You shoot and process the image at a much higher resolution than is required for the final output, such as print. But the final output is downscaled to suit the medium. You say that analog pictures are only limited by the quality of the lens, but you might be too young to remember putting up with film grain, esepcially on higher ISO films, in images. Analog resolution is not in any way infinte unless its bandwidth is also infinite, and that is not a realistic option in any system. And analog is not necessarily better at being true to the source material unless you're comparing a crappy digital system with a good analog one.

 

[Stewie]

I play an upright bass. The visual is the biggest reason to do so, considering that amplified, it doesn't sound like itself. My rig has to be as big as my bass, right?

 

[MrLenny1]

Most of the venues I play are small sports bars
and do not require a big rig.
I go FOH on larger venues.
Lots of lead sleds on CL for sale.

 

[bherman]

I am not talking about Mp3's here.

My sound interface is capable of recording in 24 Bit 128 Khz sample rate, in that aspect and taking into account how old CD technology is by now, I would call CD quality inferior.

Technology based on digital systems do not age well.

Professional studio recording standard is 24 Bit 96 Khz, not speaking of that most customers chose to just buy the Mp3 version anyway, or that maybe even the original masters are not being made available in higher quality than what a CD is capable of reproducing, unless it come out on on vinyl, or is available on that media in a true analog version where there have been no digital downgrading of the source involved.

With good equipment to reproduce audio the difference between CD quality and 24 Bit 96 Khz quality will be almost as apparent as the difference between 128 Kb/s Mp3 quality and 16 Bit 44,1 Khz Cd quality.

So yes CD quality is very much inferior to today's digital standards, and digital technology will always have inherent limitations making it inferior to analog systems of similar quality in the aspect of reproducing information that is true and accurate to the source.

Analog technology by definition reproduce all the information and subtleties of the original source, in theory at least a 1:1 relationship, only limited by quality of the hardware, digital technology on the other hand will always be an approximation or emulation basically made up of 0's and 1's.

Digital equipment will in other words always be limited by how fast it can pick up and process the information coming form the source, cause in a digital system information will with 100% certainty be left out, maybe not on a level that humans consciously are able to perceive if we are talking recent digital standards, but non the less it will miss a lot of information.

That can be useful in some situations, sometimes you would want a system to not to pick up what would be cocidered irrelevant information in the context.

In the very nature of how digital systems work always having to shut on and off, basically everything a digital system reproduce will be split up in small chunks of information, hence why we call it resolution, with analog technology the flow of information is unbroken and you will have all of it, again theoretically, which means the resolution will basically be infinite.

Pictures are a nice and easy way to understand this:

Digital pictures will have a limit of how much you can zoom in depending on how many squares the given digital system is capable of reducing the source to.

Analog pictures will only be limited by the quality of the lens used to capture the light that makes up the picture.

At this point it is still not possible to make a digital camera that is capable of splitting the information it receives up in so small parts that it is more sufficient at reproducing a accurate image then the most clear and powerful lens we can make are at picking up light.

Digital systems no doubt are much cheaper, flexible and predictable though.

And to have a system that can reuse information and easily can be programmed to handle almost whatever kind of information in whatever way you may wish just by lining up the right sequence of something and nothing while not easily being disturbed by irrelevant information, instead of having to physically create systems made from scratch each time it has to take new assignment or task, is no doubt very practical, but it doesn't make it better in every aspect, far from.

Analog is still better at being true to the source material, even if that means picking up irrelevant information in the context such as "noise" from the system it self.

Maybe a bit like the difference between playing with Lego and clay.

Both have their obvious strength and weaknesses, but one thing is for sure if you put clay into a mold you will get something that looks like what formed the mold almost exactly, if using Lego blocks, well not that much.

And this has what to do with the OP's topic??

 

[Xandrell]

And this has what to do with the OP's topic??

Nothing. Skewing off into a tangent is sometimes the norm. It's amazing how off it gets. I actually like it. drool

 

[tom-g]

No, it isn't.

Digital does not mean only two states (binary) - it just means DISCRETE states... and in the end, we can't subdivide electrons.

Sorry, but what you are getting at has nothing to do with how digital is defined:

Definition of DIGITAL

 

[EricssonB]

And this has what to do with the OP's topic??

I accidentally bit and was dragged off into some existential realm. Hadn't been there in a while.

 

[matthewbrown]

Big tube amps are just sitting on craigslist with the prices dropping. Guess the younger dudes don't want them and the older guys have them.

"The older guys have them -- permanently installed in their basements."
FIFY

 

[JGbassman]

I bring an SVT to every gig I do and will continue to do so until I can't lift them anymore. I don't bring one to impress the audience I do it to impress my own ears.

That's funny. My main rig is an Ampeg SVTCL into a Heritage HLF 410 cab, sprinkled with some processing. Everytime I bring my small rig (GK212 cab with 200watt head). My drummer is like, "aw, you didn't bring the Ampeg?) then gives me the sad face, lol. Point is he loves the sound when I bring my tube head and bigger cabs, and gives me smiles all night. So that's one guy that can definitely tell and appreciate the difference in the different amps I bring.

For me, the Ampeg stuff really sounds great on stage. Even ran from its post pre into my in ears, it sounds amazing. I just wish it weight ten pounds....

(Fishman amp is the harp players)

 

[Artobass]

I use what sounds best to me, and that's an all tube amp. I don't normally need 300 watts, so 100 watt tube works perfectly for me. I do use a lighter 212 cab. YMMV

 

[B-line]

That's funny. My main rig is an Ampeg SVTCL into a Heritage HLF 410 cab, sprinkled with some processing. Everytime I bring my small rig (GK212 cab with 200watt head). My drummer is like, "aw, you didn't bring the Ampeg?) then gives me the sad face, lol. Point is he loves the sound when I bring my tube head and bigger cabs, and gives me smiles all night. So that's one guy that can definitely tell and appreciate the difference in the different amps I bring.

For me, the Ampeg stuff really sounds great on stage. Even ran from its post pre into my in ears, it sounds amazing. I just wish it weight ten pounds....

I agree, Ampegs are built to take the stage.

And in the future,
When there are gigs on the Moon and/ or Mars (The SVT will still be being produced) the weight differentials will make load-in easy!

 

[JGbassman]

I agree, Ampegs are built to take the stage.

And in the future,
When there are gigs on the Moon and/ or Mars (The SVT will still be being produced) the weight differentials will make load-in easy!

They are the cockroaches of the bass world. They were here before us, and will be around after we are gone. Rumor has it dropping a full stack Svt stage rig off a ten foot stage caused a big enough impact to make the dinosaurs become extinct....