Those Seymour Duncan Powerstage amps are utter tripe

[yeky83]

Even though the whole thread is predicated on empirical observation?

OKAY THEN CHET.

I'm not talking to the whole thread, try to keep up.

 

[yeky83]

That's not what materialism is ... it's about ignoring the object between the guitar and the amp and replacing it ( the perceiver ) with a set of limited mathematical measurements.

It was a play on words to show the worse kind of materialism you seem to be advocating.

 

[Orvillain]

I'm not talking to the whole thread, try to keep up.

No. You're picking the low hanging fruit instead of dealing with the fundamental topic.

 

[yeky83]

No. You're picking the low hanging fruit instead of dealing with the fundamental topic.

Yeah, cus I'm not going to try to explain electrical engineering concepts here, sorry?

 

[SKU]

It was a play on words to show the worse kind of materialism you're advocating.

It's just that being a materialist and being materialistic mean different things. And all this talk about there's no such thing as a "class D" typology but rather there are a multitude of class D amp instances that share no similarities borders on nominalism.
It's a common thing nowadays ...

It's also ironic that the name itself "Class D" signifies a class, a category of amps that share similar features that are distinct from other classes.

 

[Orvillain]

Yeah, cus I'm not going to try to teach electrical engineering here, sorry?

What question are you asking here?

I think if you're going to take the view that class D poweramps can be as powerful and fullfiling as - in my comparison - a dual rectifier... then you need to bring something to the table right???

At the moment you're just sorta snidely Mitchelling your way through it.

No one is advocating for a woo-woo homeopathic view on this. So there's no need to be Mr. Scientist or James Randi lite about it.

If that isn't the view you're proffering, then I don't know what you're angle is. I'm confused.

 

[yeky83]

What question are you asking here?

I think if you're going to take the view that class D poweramps can be as powerful and fullfiling as - in my comparison - a dual rectifier... then you need to bring something to the table right???

At the moment you're just sorta snidely Mitchelling your way through it.

No one is advocating for a woo-woo homeopathic view on this. So there's no need to be Mr. Scientist or James Randi lite about it.

If that isn't the view you're proffering, then I don't know what you're angle is. I'm confused.

I'm not asking questions. I haven't been snide, sorry if anything came across that way. I have no angle, I'm just replying to things I want to reply to. @SKU seems to be advocating for a woo woo homeopathic view, dunno, he's free to explain for himself if he's not, maybe I've got him wrong.

 

[Orvillain]

I'm not asking questions. I haven't been snide, sorry if anything came across that way. I have no angle, I'm just replying to things I want to reply to. @SKU seems to be advocating for a woo woo homeopathic view, dunno, he's free to explain for himself if he's not, maybe I've got him wrong.

I think you may have. He isn't coming across that way to me at least.

"Sorry?" made me think you were asking a question.

I don't think that valve amps are magic. I just think that possibly their inaccuracies and inadequacies are actually responsible for the things we like about them.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

Even though the whole thread is predicated on empirical observation?

OKAY THEN CHET.

I think he just got bent out by the anti-empirical-observation statement that tube amps have a "feel" that separates them sonically, despite microphones not being able to capture that sonic difference. i.e., "Empirical evidence doesn't support this observation, but Imma make it anyway".

 

[SKU]

I'm not asking questions. I haven't been snide, sorry if anything came across that way. I have no angle, I'm just replying to things I want to reply to. @SKU seems to be advocating for a woo woo homeopathic view, dunno, he's free to explain for himself if he's not, maybe I've got him wrong.

That there's a human aspect to music and sounds is "woo woo homeopathic" to you? LOL

 

[SKU]

I think he just got bent out by the anti-empirical-observation statement that tube amps have a "feel" that separates them sonically, despite microphones not being able to capture that sonic difference. i.e., "Empirical evidence doesn't support this observation, but Imma make it anyway".

But what is empirical evidence anyway? How can you be sure you are observing everything there is to observe?

 

[Will Chen]

Let's not forget that the issue is not necessarily with how an amp sounds but rather how it feels. So it's not always just the materialistic aspect of these things i.e. let's record how it sounds and you tell me if you like it or well the audience is very happy with my tone.

I mean, I kinda know what you're saying, but really...unless you can define feel and a way to measure it that's getting into the world of X piece of gear has fairy dust and Y doesn't.

 

[Orvillain]

I think he just got bent out by the anti-empirical-observation statement that tube amps have a "feel" that separates them sonically, despite microphones not being able to capture that sonic difference. i.e., "Empirical evidence doesn't support this observation, but Imma make it anyway".

Empiricism is about observation. It explicitly does support the concept of valve amp feel. If someone observes something in a room with an amp, no amount of recording it is going to be able to capture that observation because of the limitations of the recorded format.

A mic'd up recorded signal is not observation. It is a particular slice of experience, which is a subset of the original event that was observed. It isn't even a slice of experience of the observation itself, because of subjectivity.

This is the entire problem with the "amp in the room" sound concept in the first place. If you're not in the room, then you're simply not able to reproduce the "in the room" sound.

When it comes to valve amp feel. I think most people would agree it is real. In fact there are comments in this thread that would support this. All of the talk about class D power amps compressing in an particular way, or filtering low frequencies in order to allow for more headroom before clipping, or reducing their available wattage based on the input frequencies.... these are statements that support the concept of "feel" for those class D amplifiers. Why isn't the same true for valve amps?

To me, a valve amp feels responsive to my playing. If I chug on a palm mute, I can feel the reactance under my fingers in a much different way to a solid state poweramp; even one that isn't class D.

I think it is a real phenomenon and I don't think it falls into the category of woo-woo.

 

[SKU]

I mean, I kinda know what you're saying, but really...unless you can define feel and a way to measure it that's getting into the world of X piece of gear has fairy dust and Y doesn't.

Buy you see, we don't have to define or prove anything since this is not a science fair. Many people know these things are fact, they've been known for a long time. It's only that some people take gratuitous ofense when reading that other people observe things they don't.

 

[Orvillain]

Drum samples.

It doesn't matter how many times you sample a ride cymbal. Playing a real one feels significantly different to playing a sample based one. The resonance build up is completely different, the reactivity is completely different.

I say that as someone who has sampled ride cymbals and other drums in great detail, for over a decade.

Just because we cannot quantify a phenomenon, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Will Chen]

Empiricism is about observation. It explicitly does support the concept of valve amp feel. If someone observes something in a room with an amp, no amount of recording it is going to be able to capture that observation because of the limitations of the recorded format.

A mic'd up recorded signal is not observation. It is a particular slice of experience, which is a subset of the original event that was observed. It isn't even a slice of experience of the observation itself, because of subjectivity.

This is the entire problem with the "amp in the room" sound concept in the first place. If you're not in the room, then you're simply not able to reproduce the "in the room" sound.

When it comes to valve amp feel. I think most people would agree it is real. In fact there are comments in this thread that would support this. All of the talk about class D power amps compressing in an particular way, or filtering low frequencies in order to allow for more headroom before clipping, or reducing their available wattage based on the input frequencies.... these are statements that support the concept of "feel" for those class D amplifiers. Why isn't the same true for valve amps?

To me, a valve amp feels responsive to my playing. If I chug on a palm mute, I can feel the reactance under my fingers in a much different way to a solid state poweramp; even one that isn't class D.

I think it is a real phenomenon and I don't think it falls into the category of woo-woo.

We're getting way off topic moving towards the experience vs observation and the flaw of personal perception and impact of confirmation bias. But I digress...if you love amps and they help you make music, all good. They're all just tools. Post up some clips and I'll bang my head to it. Fucking metal!

 

[yeky83]

It's just that being a materialist and being materialistic mean different things. And all this talk about there's no such thing as a "class D" typology but rather there are a multitude of class D amp instances that share no similarities borders on nominalism.
It's a common thing nowadays ...

It's also ironic that the name itself "Class D" signifies a class, a category of amps that share similar features that are distinct from other classes.

Who said there's no class D typology? And stop it with the sophomoric use of philosophical terms please lol.

That there's a human aspect to music and sounds is "woo woo homeopathic" to you? LOL

That the "human aspect" is "oo this doesn't actually sound nicer but it feels nicer cus it has the brand/specs/etc. I like" reeks of woo woo homeopathic materialism to me.

I don't think that valve amps are magic. I just think that possibly their inaccuracies and inadequacies are actually responsible for the things we like about them.

100% agreement there.

 

[Will Chen]

Buy you see, we don't have to define or prove anything since this is not a science fair. Many people know these things are fact, they've been known for a long time. It's only that some people take gratuitous ofense when reading that other people observe things they don't.

They're not facts, see my previous post. But whatevs. If a 100w Marshall, an AxeFX into monitor, or a Rockman via headphones floats your boat all good. Make some music, post it up, and I'll bang my head to it.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

Empiricism is about observation. It explicitly does support the concept of valve amp feel. If someone observes something in a room with an amp, no amount of recording it is going to be able to capture that observation because of the limitations of the recorded format.

A mic'd up recorded signal is not observation. It is a particular slice of experience, which is a subset of the original event that was observed. It isn't even a slice of experience of the observation itself, because of subjectivity.

This is the entire problem with the "amp in the room" sound concept in the first place. If you're not in the room, then you're simply not able to reproduce the "in the room" sound.

When it comes to valve amp feel. I think most people would agree it is real. In fact there are comments in this thread that would support this. All of the talk about class D power amps compressing in an particular way, or filtering low frequencies in order to allow for more headroom before clipping, or reducing their available wattage based on the input frequencies.... these are statements that support the concept of "feel" for those class D amplifiers. Why isn't the same true for valve amps?

To me, a valve amp feels responsive to my playing. If I chug on a palm mute, I can feel the reactance under my fingers in a much different way to a solid state poweramp; even one that isn't class D.

I think it is a real phenomenon and I don't think it falls into the category of woo-woo.

Meh. I disagree. The only differences there can be are SONIC differences. You have clearly articulated what SOUNDED off to you, and I can clearly describe what SOUNDS off to me with an amp that is not performing properly. But if somebody can't tell me what the sonic differences are and have to resort to the word "feel", then they are observing shit with their spider-senses. I get that sonic differences are more easily experienced first hand, etc., but once it gets to "uh, it feels different" and one can't describe, even poorly and inarticulately, what the actual sonic difference is... its not an empirical observation, imo, its an emotional/biased/whatever response. Which is totally fine. Play what makes you feel happy, regardless of the reasons. All of this is just passing time until death comes knocking on the door.

 

[SKU]

We're getting way off topic moving towards the experience vs observation and the flaw of personal perception and impact of confirmation bias. But I digress...if you love amps and they help you make music, all good. They're all just tools. Post up some clips and I'll bang my head to it. Fucking metal!

My friend, there is no "observation" in absence of an observer! All these things are inherently human. There is no such thing as objective perception for example ...