Those Seymour Duncan Powerstage amps are utter tripe

[laxu]

Makes sense. I believe BluGuitar does this too, which would explain why the Mercury edition I played "felt" and sounded so damn good, despite being a class D power amp.

Yup. I couldn't tell much relevant difference running my Fractal into the Fryette PS vs BluGuitar. BluGuitar was less flat since it's a guitar amp and voiced like one. Much less idle noise at lower volume too.

There's a video on BluGuitar's YT channel where Blug plugs one of those Friedman or Bogner mini amps first into its own cheap ass class D SS poweramp and then the fx send to the Amp 1 fx return. The mini starts immediately sounding much better and more like a tube amp.

 

[Stratzrus]

Yup. I couldn't tell much relevant difference running my Fractal into the Fryette PS vs BluGuitar. BluGuitar was less flat since it's a guitar amp and voiced like one. Much less idle noise at lower volume too.

There's a video on BluGuitar's YT channel where Blug plugs one of those Friedman or Bogner mini amps first into its own cheap ass class D SS poweramp and then the fx send to the Amp 1 fx return. The mini starts immediately sounding much better and more like a tube amp.

Well, if it's on YouTube it must be true.

 

[Orvillain]

"They sound the same; but there is a difference in feel" are talking out of their ass/mis-naming their experience/whatever.

Being that I am quite often that person, no I don't think they're talking out of their ass

I thought we were discussing which is whether the "feeling" of sound somehow lets us make finer distinctions than our hearing can

I don't think that is quite accurate. I also conceeded the point that "feel" can't exist without ears. I think what we started off trying to figure out is why a Seymour Duncan Powerstage feels crap to play versus a valve amp. There was actually a bunch of pretty good discussion on this earlier in the thread, with talk of headroom, incorrect reportage wattage values, slew-rates, that kind of thing.

Which I don't really think deserves a "FEEL DON'T REAL" response to be honest.

Surely the deaf person isn't going to be able to distinguish a Les Paul from a Strat, much less an underpowered class D amp from a glorious tube amp.

Well actually, if you've got someone who is deaf and their hearing range doesn't go any higher than 4kHz, then it would be entirely possible for them to be able to perceive the difference between a Seymour Duncan PS170, and say even a Fryette Powerstation, because of the differences in the low-end output. So that would be 'sonics'.

But equally, they might be able to perceive that difference by registering how the frequencies vibrate in their chest differently. So that would be 'feel'.

The point about bringing up this hypothetical is to demonstrate the most extreme example of feel, and the work backwards from there to try and figure out if there is a point where the concept no longer becomes relevant to us.

When someone says two guitar playing experiences feel differently, do you think the feeling they are talking about is the result of the air pressure being generated by the guitar amp thingy, or something else?

I think it can be, but not necessarily always. Some people seem to be taking the "compression" angle, which is part sonics, and part "feel" I'd say.

For me, I'm trying to pinpoint our locus on how our bodies feel, and I'm trying to do that in order that we can attach something a bit more objective to the concept.

 

[jay mitchell]

Latency is one but there's also this one little aspect called time.

Uhh, the definition of latency is based on signal delay, which exists entirely in "this one little aspect called time."

When you run a sinewave to measure the frequency response ( what some people reduce "sound" to ) it's done momentarily ...

That's nothing but word salad. It is true that sine sweeps can be used as stimuli to identify transfer functions (aka impulse responses) and that such a sine sweep occurs in a finite period of time. Is that what you're attempting to articulate?

Have yet to see a multidimensional spectrum ... as in plot the frequency spectrum as a function of time ...

Then you haven't looked. There are several ways to generate this kind of display. More importantly, all the information required to create the plot is contained in the impulse response/transfer function.

So if an IR is a two dimensional vector ... make it three-dimensional ...

Nope. Signal level vs. time is a two-dimensional space. Frequency vs. time is derived by analyzing a series of segments on the time axis. That still exists entirely in the two-dimensional space of signal level vs. time....

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

Latency is one but there's also this one little aspect called time. When you run a sinewave to measure the frequency response ( what some people reduce "sound" to ) it's done momentarily ...
Have yet to see a multidimensional spectrum ... as in plot the frequency spectrum as a function of time ... that would be interesting.
So if an IR is a two dimensional vector ... make it three-dimensional ...

Uhem waterfall plot?

 

[AutomationBias]

Someone should make something like a small tube power amp head for modelers, just a clean flat tube amp without a preamp. Seems like a good idea.

Fryette LXII. I have one and I love it.

 

[SKU]

1. Uhh, the definition of latency is based on signal delay, which exists entirely in "this one little aspect called time."


2. That's nothing but word salad. It is true that sine sweeps can be used as stimuli to identify transfer functions (aka impulse responses) and that such a sine sweep occurs in a finite period of time. Is that what you're attempting to articulate?


3. Then you haven't looked. There are several ways to generate this kind of display. More importantly, all the information required to create the plot is contained in the impulse response/transfer function.


Nope. Signal level vs. time is a two-dimensional space. Frequency vs. time is derived by analyzing a series of segments on the time axis. That still exists entirely in the two-dimensional space of signal level vs. time....

1. What you call "time" I call "dimension".
2. What you call "finite period of time in the context of a guitar impulse response" I call mapping an input frequency to an output frequency which is momentarily.
3. I've yet to hear of two-dimensional ( three-dimensional in your terms ) IRs
4. What you call two-dimensional space I call "vector" where the index is the time "segment" and the value is the frequency.

So it seems we're mostly in agreement. We're making progress! That's good, that's good!

 

[SKU]

Uhem waterfall plot?

View attachment 18861

I know know those exist but I've yet to see such tools commonly used when analysing things like cabinet responses ... or rather I would like to see them used in next IR technology ... sort of three-dimensional IRs ... maybe that's what BlugGuitar is talking about with his dynamic IRs.
Edit: read about these dynamics IRs and it seems that they are indeed some sort of IR with an extra dimension but that dimension seems to be amplitude ...

 

[Byrdman]

Fryette LXII. I have one and I love it.

So what advantage does it give you over a 50w/100w head with an effects loop for less money?

Just trying to wrap my head around all these options, and thinking something like an Origin 50 for about half the money would provide a lot of options as a pedal platform for your average modeler.

Thanks!!

 

[Byrdman]

The Fryette is designed to be a completely flat, neutral power amp. The Origin will still color it a bit. Whether or not that matters to you is personal.

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks, PW!!

 

[jay mitchell]

1. What you call "time" I call "dimension".

No, "what I call 'time'" you also called "time."

2. What you call "finite period of time in the context of a guitar impulse response"

I called nothing that.

I call mapping an input frequency to an output frequency which is momentarily.

That is flatly incorrect. "Mapping an input frequency to an output frequency" isn't what is done. The operation, which maps system output to frequency (input and output frequency are identical in linear systems) occurs in the frequency, not the time, domain. It is plotted with frequency as the independent variable ("abscissa") and a complex (aka phasor or vector) quantity that includes magnitude and phase as the dependent variable ("ordinate").
If you only consider magnitude response (IOW, you neglect phase response), your data is completely time-blind; it could have occurred a few milliseconds or a few days after the input was applied and still have the same magnitude response. Any latency could be frequency-dependent as well.

3. I've yet to hear of two-dimensional IRs

Two dimensions - time and signal level - are required in order to plot an IR. An object that can exist in a single dimension has a name: straight line.

4. What you call two-dimensional space I call "vector" where the index is the time "segment" and the value is the frequency.

More word salad. I recommend you undertake some study of the subject of integral transforms, specifically Fourier and Laplace transforms. Maybe the light will come on.

So it seems we're mostly in agreement.

Nope. It is impossible either to agree or disagree with pseudo-technical gibberish.

 

[yeky83]

I know know those exist but I've yet to see such tools commonly used when analysing things like cabinet responses ... or rather I would like to see them used in next IR technology ... sort of three-dimensional IRs ... maybe that's what BlugGuitar is talking about with his dynamic IRs.
Edit: read about these dynamics IRs and it seems that they are indeed some sort of IR with an extra dimension but that dimension seems to be amplitude ...

What you fail to realize even when handed to you above by JM is that each slice of a waterfall plot shows the frequency content of a windowed part of an impulse response.

 

[jay mitchell]

I know know those exist but I've yet to see such tools commonly used when analysing things like cabinet responses ...

I use them routinely. Once again, your lack of awareness does not prove that something you don't know about is not existent or even widely used.

 

[SKU]

No, "what I call 'time'" you also called "time."

I called nothing that.

That is flatly incorrect. "Mapping an input frequency to an output frequency" isn't what is done. The operation, which maps system output to frequency (input and output frequency are identical in linear systems) occurs in the frequency, not the time, domain. It is plotted with frequency as the independent variable ("abscissa") and a vector quantity that includes magnitude and phase as the dependent variable ("ordinate").
If you only consider magnitude response (IOW, you neglect phase response), your data is completely time-blind; it could have occurred a few milliseconds or a few days after the input was applied and still have the same magnitude response. Any latency could be frequency-dependent as well.

Two dimensions - time and signal level - are required in order to plot an IR. An object that can exist in a single dimension has a name: straight line.

More word salad. I recommend you undertake some study of the subject of integral transforms, specifically Fourier and Laplace transforms. Maybe the light will come on.

Nope. It is impossible either to agree or disagree with pseudo-technical gibberish.

Now only if someone would apply all this knowledge to create some proper IRs...

 

[SKU]

What's a "proper IR"? Lots of really great IR's out there these days.

The holy grail so to speak ... the speaker simulator. Of course that would require inventing a new technique of capturing a speaker more advanced than simple IRs.
I think someone did some research back in 2007-2008 but it got nowhere due to feelings being hurt ... I don't like that feelings were hurt and I don't like that research has stopped. Or maybe it hasn't, who knows

 

[Will Chen]

What's a "proper IR"? Lots of really great IR's out there these days.

No...you just don't get it. What I'm looking for is the frequency independent Fourier transmutation modulus of the infinite dimensional crystal lettuce.

 

[yeky83]

The holy grail so to speak ... the speaker simulator. Of course that would require inventing a new technique of capturing a speaker more advanced than simple IRs.

Oh the irony, such a technique already exists.

 

[Byrdman]

No...you just don't get it. What I'm looking for is the frequency independent Fourier transmutation modulus of the infinite dimensional crystal lettuce.

 

[JiveTurkey]

Oh the irony, such a technique already exists.

Whatever happened to Gigsup?

 

[yeky83]

Whatever happened to Gigsup?

Still hanging around on TGP!