If combos get the job done then why do they make 120w, 150w, and 200w tube amp heads?

[riffy]

Right now, I have been using an Axe-FX direct to PA for my live sound... In the past, I have always used 50 or mostly 100 watt heads and 1 4x12 cab to get the job done...

 

A Marshall 100 watt head, ( I use a 76 JMP and old greenback loaded cab) just sounds bigger than the 50 watt counterpart... I am not talking about volume either. The bigger iron in the higher wattage head adds a bigger sound... Ya really need to experience it for yourself to appreciate it. Honestly.

[(Ë)]

 

can you guarantee that everyone who posts here in favour of combos or low/medium watt amps uses them correctly? There is not much of a decibel difference between a medium watt amp and a high powered amp....

No, I can't, but that wasn't my point. I'll try to elaborate a bit more. The question is: who's the best judge of a guitarist's live sound?

 

A lot of posters here (naturally) will say that it's the guitarist himself. And there are good reasons for that: he spends the most time with his gear, he actually has the opportunity to A/B a two tube vs. a four tube amp, he reads all the gear magazines and message boards, etc...

 

Then again the same factors make the guitarist incredibly biased, and that leads to bad tradeoffs: Sure, it's great that you have picked the better sounding amp by A/B-ing two vs. four tubes. But odds might be that 80% of your audience won't hear the slight difference between them, yet will hate you if you play at excessively loud volumes. Would it be a good tradeoff to pick the better-sounding-yet-louder amp here?

 

When you say "that's just misuse" you have to ask yourself why that misuse happens. Is it because each and every one of those that do it is a total moron? Or might it be the case that some of them are better than that, but just can't overcome their strong inherent bias?

 

(Coming back to your mention of combos: Of course the same bias could lead someone to pick an inappropriately underpowered combo. But somehow I can't remember ever having witnessed that, while I've heard the opposite case more than once.)

[SteinbergerHack]

 

Yeah, the poor unwashed masses just don't understand. We just pray for the guitar elite to grace us with their enlightenment once in awhile.

 

 

C'mon - that wasn't my point, and I think you know it.

 

 

My main point, as well as some others here, I think, is that stacks are probably overused. There's a time and a place for them, but those circumstances are fairly limited. Maybe your circumstance is one of those.

 

 

I would agree that a good many beginners have the idea that 'bigger is better'. However, I think that the idea that going ampless or as small as possible is equally incorrect. You need to have the right tool for the job, and a high-power amp is the right tool for a lot of gigs. One example is country acts - the steel players often carry very high-wattage rigs, because they want a crisp, clean sound; even at relatively low volumes, you have to have a lot more power for a very dry clean tone.

 

 

I've run sound on and off for several years, and I've had a lot of musician friends who play in clubs. None of them have lugged around full stacks, but then, most of the clubs that they've played in have had PA systems that can handle more than vocals.

 

 

You say you're in Maryland. What clubs? I've played a lot of clubs in Maryland, and frankly, I've found most of the local sound systems to be extremely lacking in monitors. What comes out of the front is irrelevant to what the band hears - it's about stage sound, and if the monitors can't handle more than vocals, it doesn't matter how great the fronts are.

 

I'll give an example - there is one local club in Baltimore that has a beautiful room and a very nice sound system. I've played there twice in the past few months. Everyone who has heard us play there has said that the sound out front is GREAT (and it is good, from what I heard of the opening acts). However, I personally don't ever want to play there again, because the monitors SUCK! Both times we played there, the lead singer and I completely blew our throats out after about a set-and-a-half. Bottom line - the sound guy does a great job with the front mix, but takes a set-and-forget approach to monitors, and uses some sort of compressor/limiter that absolutely destroys the singers' ability to hear their relative levels and dynamics. Trying to add guitars or bass into the mix would do nothing but make a bad situation worse.

 

FWIW, I generally use a 4x12 for just about anything, though I may carry a 2x12 into smaller rooms. The power of the tube head, though, is absolutely necessary to get the clean tones up to a volume that keeps up with the drums in a heavy rock gig. I have smaller amps, and they just don't do the job FOR THAT STYLE; it not about volume, it's about clarity. Obviously, I scale back and use a smaller head (or turn off a few tubes) for different styles (which generally don't have the aggressive drumming).

[JoJo68]

 

Good points all. I don't know what fantasy world most of the people on this board live in but out of the hundreds of gigs I've done through the years, I can count less than 10 times where I would consider us having good stage sound where I could hear everything in the monitors. It is really freaky and cool when that happens and it was the biggest place we used play, a 1200 capacity theater usually as a part of a festival. Got to play there 3-4 times over the years. Great sound guys/system and excellent mix in the monitors. They have touring bands go through the place and they know what they are doing. Even the bigger rock clubs have terrible stage sound. A few other times we could get sound. There was this little dive club in a strip mall we played a few times that had overhead monitors (from the ceiling) and had maybe a 10 foot ceiling in the place. I liked that a lot also, could hear things pretty well.

 

 

Both of these are great points, we NEVER get to use own own pa. It's funny the better halls we play , the bigger the stages get and the worse the monitors are ! Damn I hate that. Like curse said I bet out of the hundreds of gigs I've played only a couple had decent monitors. My old band played numerous gigs here at The Hard Rock Cafe and hell it was the worse for sound.

 

It's weird out of all of the combo vs. stack /gibson vs Agile vs fender threads I see on here it's like people are arguing over what's better because they don't have, don't want or can't afford the other, not real legitmate reasons. If you play quieter music like blues,jazz or church music I would expect you wouldn't need or want stacks. My band is gonna play loud have a have good time doing it.If you want quiet music don't come ! It's not like I play my stack in my bedroom going dude I'm sooo cool.I have a practice amp. We played a great venue in december and they had an awesome pa, there was no need to push our stacks, we turned down and compensated . Great monitor mix, that was rare case.

[SteinbergerHack]

 

No, I can't, but that wasn't my point. I'll try to elaborate a bit more. The question is: who's the best judge of a guitarist's live sound? A lot of posters here (naturally) will say that it's the guitarist himself. And there are good reasons for that: he spends the most time with his gear, he actually has the opportunity to A/B a two tube vs. a four tube amp, he reads all the gear magazines and message boards, etc... Then again the same factors make the guitarist incredibly biased, and that leads to bad tradeoffs: Sure, it's great that you have picked the better sounding amp by A/B-ing two vs. four tubes. But odds might be that 80% of your audience won't hear the slight difference between them, yet will hate you if you play at excessively loud volumes. Would it be a good tradeoff to pick the better-sounding-yet-louder amp here? When you say "that's just misuse" you have to ask yourself why that misuse happens. Is it because each and every one of those that do it is a total moron? Or might it be the case that some of them are better than that, but just can't overcome their strong inherent bias? (Coming back to your mention of combos: Of course the same bias could lead someone to pick an inappropriately underpowered combo. But somehow I can't remember ever having witnessed that, while I've heard the opposite case more than once.)

 

 

Once again, there is an inherent assumption in your post that power=volume. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Certainly it is easier to be stupid with a 100W Marshall stack than it is with a Blues Jr., but at the end of the day (or set), a guitar player should be matching the drums' volume on stage. The amount of power available simply determines how clean and punchy the sound can be at that level.

 

If the guitarist is too loud, he's too loud. Blame it on the player, not the rig.

[JoJo68]

 

C'mon - that wasn't my point, and I think you know it. I would agree that a good many beginners have the idea that 'bigger is better'. However, I think that the idea that going ampless or as small as possible is equally incorrect. You need to have the right tool for the job, and a high-power amp is the right tool for a lot of gigs. One example is country acts - the steel players often carry very high-wattage rigs, because they want a crisp, clean sound; even at relatively low volumes, you have to have a lot more power for a very dry clean tone. You say you're in Maryland. What clubs? I've played a lot of clubs in Maryland, and frankly, I've found most of the local sound systems to be extremely lacking in monitors. What comes out of the front is irrelevant to what the band hears - it's about stage sound, and if the monitors can't handle more than vocals, it doesn't matter how great the fronts are. I'll give an example - there is one local club in Baltimore that has a beautiful room and a very nice sound system. I've played there twice in the past few months. Everyone who has heard us play there has said that the sound out front is GREAT (and it is good, from what I heard of the opening acts). However, I personally don't ever want to play there again, because the monitors SUCK! Both times we played there, the lead singer and I completely blew our throats out after about a set-and-a-half. Bottom line - the sound guy does a great job with the front mix, but takes a set-and-forget approach to monitors, and uses some sort of compressor/limiter that absolutely destroys the singers' ability to hear their relative levels and dynamics. Trying to add guitars or bass into the mix would do nothing but make a bad situation worse. FWIW, I generally use a 4x12 for just about anything, though I may carry a 2x12 into smaller rooms. The power of the tube head, though, is absolutely necessary to get the clean tones up to a volume that keeps up with the drums in a heavy rock gig. I have smaller amps, and they just don't do the job FOR THAT STYLE; it not about volume, it's about clarity. Obviously, I scale back and use a smaller head (or turn off a few tubes) for different styles (which generally don't have the aggressive drumming).

 

 

You seem to know what you're talking about, we have a huge venue here we play from time to time. The sound out front is awesome ! On stage hahaha, your little combo ain't gonna be heard from the other side of the huge ass stage and drum riser ! Hell, my stack is hard to hear over there , we ALWAYS have to angle one of our guitars cabs, just so our drummer can use it as a reference. Bring your own mixer when there's 30 bands and you have a few minutes to set up between sets bwhahahaaa, seriously what planet are some of you living on !

[Welladjusted]

Two reasons:

 

4x12's sound different than combos.

guitarists don't like change.

[(Ë)]

Blame it on the player

I'm not sure why that elicited a bold-and-underlined reply. (I guess I could make a snarky remark about hitting too close to home... :poke: )

[curseoftruth]

Here is my last point. I like my big Marshall and Orange. They sound great and are loud. They do what I need them to do give me plenty of headroom and get up over the drummer. They are appropriate for the kind of music I play. Never once have I had an audience member come up to me and say I was to loud. I've had many people come up and say how great my tone was though. Works my application. Works for my band. Works for my music. If you don't like it, don't come to my shows.

[SteinbergerHack]

Blame it on the player

I'm not sure why that elicited a bold-and-underlined reply. (I guess I could make a snarky remark about hitting too close to home... :poke: )

 

Touche':wave: I bolded and underlined it because I think it merits repeating, not as a shot at you, per se. Just because I am defending the need for higher power for certain sounds does NOT mean that I am defending playing at a volume level that's not correct for the venue and style.

 

[FWIW, I would also say that some clubs are just too small for heavy rock. I went to a place called Stone Cellar last night and heard a really cool jazz trio. They sounded great; the room was really small, though, with rock walls. There is no way in the world that I would try to book my metal band into that room; the drums by themselves would be unbearable even before we turned on a guitar.]