If you were going to give amp designs a taxonomy, how would you do it?

[Nickerz]

I've been thinking about this a lot. It seems almost pointless right now that people are so wrapped up on whether or not XYZ is a "clone of ABC." When really we should be coming up with ways to create a taxonomy of this gear so that we can increase the free flow of people in and out of great gear\circuits.

e.g.

1. There are some actual related circuits like the TX4 Triaxis Red channel (recto, pre "fat mod"), SLO pre, Rectifier pre...
2. Then there are circuits with no micro-similarity, but I suspect topographical (macro) similarities (Fryette Pitbull Lead 2\Deliverance\SigX 2\GP3 2 channel).
3. I do not know enough about preamp design to state this accurately, but for instance, if I was right, could we group this under "cold clipping, very cold clipping, 2 gain stages or greater, 1K8/1uF cathode resister\bypass type)

This would include the 5150, rectifier, SLO, Triaxis, (I suspect) the Pitbull pre, Framus Cobra etc. But not the Friedman (where it would differ by cathode\bypass). And if you changed the cathode\bypass you could include the Friedman, exclude the ones listed here, and also exclude earlier, single gain stage Marshalls.

Ultimately, the way I'm viewing this, in order to get a "British" sound, someone would have to change the cathode\bypass type.

This moves on to the power section. Where someone famously called the Recto an SLO with a weak poweramp. And so you could categorize poweramps by other values to define their headroom etc.

e.g. 220uF at the plate supply/ filter choke + 110uF at the screen supply = Stiff

As I understand this, this is something of a ratio not an absolute value which makes this "stiff."

If we can work this out, I've been working on an interesting web framework to publish it to. I think we can work together to reduce amp fetishism and stop the whole "what is this a clone of" concern. This happened long ago with guitars.

e.g. 24.75 w/ mahogany body, set mahogany neck w/ medium output humbuckers is LP style. A Caparison Horus can be ordered as a LP in superstrat clothes. No one would give a second thought to picking up a Caparison Horus given they like the body and neck style and want a LP style guitar. Where as amps have become much more difficult navigate. I know some of you are way more versed\acclimated to this, so take in mind I think I'm representing more of a layperson view of amps here, at the edge of layperson.

[roberto]

There are ways to do it, but the approach "is a clone of" just because it has the same number of gain stages is very wrong.

One option is
- GS EQ GS (+GS) (Fender, Mesa, Dumble, many more)
- GS EQ GS GS GS (Mesa, Dumble, many more)
- GS GS CF EQ (Marshall, Vox, many more)
- GS GS/CS GS CF EQ (Marshall, many more)
- GS GS/CS GS/CS GS CF EQ (Marshall, Mesa, many more)
- GS GS/CS GS/CS GS GS CF EQ (5150)
- GS GS/CS GS/CS GS EQ (Splawn, many more)

If by "Soldano" you mean SLO100, the loop is part of its sound, so it should be considered:
- GS GS CS GS CF GS CF EQ

legenda:
GS = gain stage
CS = gain stage biased cold
CF = cathode follower
EQ = equalisation

[bluesoverlord]

This is very interesting. I’ve been wanting to do a genealogy chart of amps to get a detailed understanding of this progression. It would be nice to have a video of a basic circuit followed by overlays of changes or “improvements” in a different colors. It would be like watching ape turn into man...er, maybe man turning into ape.

Anyway....a suggestion. How about:

G = gain stage
C = cold stage
F = cathode follower
E = eq/tone stack

So that the 5150 is, for example: GGCGCGGCE .....but, that’s cumbersome. It’s got the GS/CS describing a cold biased gain stage. Collapse that into just “C”, right?

How about GCCGGCE....Less cumbersome, but still an eye full. At least it conveys the order of stages. Maybe GC2G2CE? Not sure that helps.

The question though, is the order ultimately important enough to keep the clutter or could you just tally the stages and make a taxonomy based on that, like....

G3C3E

Never mind. I like organizing things. It’s a problem I struggle with......

[Phil_S]

I like DADGAD.

[bluesoverlord]

I like EEEEEE...... I only need one finger.

[Nickerz]

There are ways to do it, but the approach "is a clone of" just because it has the same number of gain stages is very wrong.

I for sure. I've never built an amp in my life, that's why I'm asking for help.

One option is
- GS EQ GS (+GS) (Fender, Mesa, Dumble, many more)
- GS EQ GS GS GS (Mesa, Dumble, many more)
- GS GS CF EQ (Marshall, Vox, many more)
- GS GS/CS GS CF EQ (Marshall, many more)
- GS GS/CS GS/CS GS CF EQ (Marshall, Mesa, many more)
- GS GS/CS GS/CS GS GS CF EQ (5150)
- GS GS/CS GS/CS GS EQ (Splawn, many more)

So I bolded two parts here to show you were we need to expand together. The general basis here is to come up with a topology which is more functional than just plain circuit analysis. But beyond that, the circuit analysis can ALSO be useful.

e.g.

The Rectifier, 5150 and SLO are all very close from a preamp perspective. If you send them all through the same poweramp, they're pretty damn close. But the 5150 will be much more different than the SLO\Rectifier (these are actual clones of each other). So you can see they're under the same umbrella even from a topology perspective. Even if they differ where the 5150 offers an additional gain stage, they share their topology up to that. So you can see they are related, and even more than that (this was my original point that they have different values that separate them from traditional british circuits). Now which Marshalls share this with Mesa? The DSL\TSL?

If by "Soldano" you mean SLO100, the loop is part of its sound, so it should be considered:
- GS GS CS GS CF GS CF EQ

legenda:
GS = gain stage
CS = gain stage biased cold
CF = cathode follower
EQ = equalisation

In this regard you show it's important to categorize the preamp, poweramp and complete topology. From a preamp perspective, it doesn't matter where the EQ is. From a poweramp perspective, it doesn't matter either. From an amp perspective, it is worth noting.

Let me put it this way. Again, I assume that the VHT\Fryette D120 would share most of the things we could categorize with the SLO (depending on channel). I don't remember if channel 2 has two independent gain knobs, but if it did, that would be novel from a categorical perspective, but not necessarily so. It probably still shares the cap value system divergence that the SLO, Rectifier\5150 share, probably does not have the extra gain stage of the 5150, has a stiff power amp and large transformers (which we can create a methodology to categorize).

It would be most accurate to say this system would serve it's best purpose to categorize BREEDS and FLAVORS. e.g. The BE100 and Framus Dragon I would assume are the same breed but different flavors. Where they share the major topology, but may differ on some micro level. The SLO and VHT D120 I suspect are the same breed, and different flavors. This would aid players who like for instance, the SLO, to know they MIGHT like the rectifier. All though they share many features in their preamp TYPE, they have totally different poweramp styles.

Some Qs

1. Which amps don't have a first gain stage? And if none, then we can eliminate that from the topology and then separate them into 2EQ and 2GS (secondary EQ stage, secondary gain stage styles)
2. 2GS CF EQ (Marshall, Vox, many more) I assume this is the Marshall 18? In this case, we'd have to figure out what separates them. Do they have different CF values\BP values?

[nworbetan]

Not all gain stages sound the same. Not all cathode followers sound the same. Not all EQs sound the same. Etc...

I get that you're learning, and you have to start somewhere, but this isn't going to be anywhere near as useful as learning how to read a schematic.

[nworbetan]

Just as a trivial example, here's my favorite hamburger recipe:

bun
condiments
meat
bun

[Nickerz]

Not all gain stages sound the same. Not all cathode followers sound the same. Not all EQs sound the same. Etc...

I get that you're learning, and you have to start somewhere, but this isn't going to be anywhere near as useful as learning how to read a schematic.

I don't think you understand what I'm really getting at here. Please see the hamburger analogy below.

Just as a trivial example, here's my favorite hamburger recipe:

bun
condiments
meat
bun

Right, I'm trying to categorize the types of hamburger recipes. For instance, I am a fan of steak grind style,high fat hamburgers that primarily use salt and pepper to season. The type of steak fat used, percentages and all that, prep etc all make a difference. But there's still a TYPE. Doesn't mean I'd like everyone's. We stopped at "high gain, american style" and that's just not descriptive enough unless someone's taste in amps is satisfied at Dual Recto, nothing beyond that.

As I was saying when I opened this thread, I'm trying to provide avenues for people to explore amps much in the same way that pandora allows people to explore music. Pandora boils music down by "dna" as well, and that doesn't mean that if you listen to Zakk Wylde you'll also like Pantera, but you probably will. And if you don't like that, eventually they'll figure out what you don't like etc.

e.g. I like the very cold clipper style preamps, bold power amps for leads.

I think evolving this method of classification is better than nothing and certainly better than only using clones as a reference.

[roberto]

If we can work this out, I've been working on an interesting web framework to publish it to.

1. Which amps don't have a first gain stage?

It is mandatory to have a first gain stage. Don't you think it would be better to keep the site focused on the area you are experienced into? Or at least gain some experience before expanding it?

[nworbetan]

Right, I'm trying to categorize the types of hamburger recipes. For instance, I am a fan of steak grind style,high fat hamburgers that primarily use salt and pepper to season. The type of steak fat used, percentages and all that, prep etc all make a difference. But there's still a TYPE. Doesn't mean I'd like everyone's.

It's obvious you don't understand how far out of your depth you are. The level of detail you mentioned about your meat preferences are relevant in every single part of the hamburger, which is why I chose that as an example that was painfully easy to understand. The TYPE is a hamburger. The details are what makes one hamburger different from the rest. All of the details of the bun matter. All of the details of the condiments matter. All of the details of the meat matter. All of the details of the other bun matter.

In this oversimplified and deliberately easy to follow hamburger analogy, each gain stage is a piece of bread. It might be a whole wheat bun. It might be a dinner roll. It might be rye. It might be Wonder bread. It might be a lettuce wrap. It might be kale. It might be made from something unusual, like quinoa. The sky is the limit, and all of the details of each gain stage matter. There are multiple gain stages in all guitar amps, and they're all different for a lot of different reasons.

Next in this oversimplified and deliberately easy to follow hamburger analogy, the EQ section is the condiments. Go to your local walmart and start counting how many different condiments some crazy lunatic might possibly put onto a hamburger. The amount of potential variety in EQ sections in an amplifier is even bigger than that. Yes, most traditional designs stick with the classics like ketchup, mustard, pickles, onion, but again all of the details of all of even the basic bitch condiments matter.

The final stage of this oversimplified and deliberately easy to follow hamburger analogy, the power section is the meat. What animal is it? That's a matter of taste. If it's meat people will make a burger out of it. If it's vegetables, people will make a burger out of it. If you have strong feelings about what kind of animal, what part of the animal, how that particular cut is prepared and seasoned, then you've just taken the first step on your way to understanding in a general sense just how much variety there can be in the power section of a guitar amp.

At this point it should be painfully obvious that this oversimplified analogy that was carefully chosen to be easy for a newbie to follow is going off the rails. And we haven't even started talking about speakers yet.

Electrical engineering is an exact science, and amp designing and building is an art that requires a solid grasp on the science before you can accomplish anything that's not on accident.

Guitar players have been working on this taxonomy you want for the last 70+ years. We call lots of amps American style because that's the type they are, we call lots of other amps British because that's the category they fit into. Some are Dumble-esque and smooth as butter, some amps are wild and crazy and hard to tame. Some amps are boring and non-descript on paper but sound absolutely magical and otherworldly in the hands of a talented musician.

If you think you can come up with a better categorizing system than that on the back of a napkin, well, good fucking luck.

[ChopSauce]

What's under debate - from my point of view - is the interest of any taxonomy.

Any such taxonomy is of almost no help at all for my modest concerns and I doubt that it is any different for the many professionals sharing their recipe details here. I also doubt that it could be of any help to someone willing to learn some more on the matter of this forum.

Coincidently, you should observe that for example Marshall amps enter various categories, which suggests that the taxonomy may be of (very) little help in caracterizing the amps.

I've been thinking about this a lot. It seems almost pointless right now that people are so wrapped up on whether or not XYZ is a "clone of ABC." When really we should be coming up with ways to create a taxonomy of this gear so that we can increase the free flow of people in and out of great gear\circuits.

What seems to you as being a great idea might not actually work. What you feel being pointless actually is the point, because the complexity is there, which you can't reduce.

Of course it helps managing to use some method rather than randomly scratching the surface but these guys you're reading actually are awesome professionals "playing" with some kind of electronic clusters (similarly as scientists in some fields would be sharing concepts) which are far from obvious.

One last note, please: this forum is almost entierely dedicated to the work of a few top amp builders and it is not really the first place to start studying, yet the name of the forum suggests that there are plenty of gentle tinkerers here. I mean if you feel like the matter of the forum is very complex, well it's normal! It's just the same as a peer reviewed scientific journal is not designed to be read by anyone without some minimal scientific background and you can't reduce the complexity of their field without loosing almost all the matter.

[Nickerz]

> What's under debate - from my point of view - is the interest of any taxonomy.
>Any such taxonomy is of almost no help at all for my modest concerns and I doubt that it is any different for the many professionals sharing their recipe details here. I also doubt that it could be of any help to someone willing to learn some more on the matter of this forum.

Right now, there's not an easy way to translate flavors. Let me give you a good example.

Laney Superlead\AOR are superlead inspired circuits. But you'd never be able to approximate it using any Marshall circuit. This would be your claim that "everything is different." But truth be told, you need only change one value to approximate one. Change the V1 to Fender/1.5k 22uF cathode setting. Again, the goal here isn't to define exactly the circuit differences, it's to highlight the priminant differences. Because once you turn up the gain and volume, the differences are pretty minor at a certain point. Once you control for these more major differences, e.g. The Fender cathode setting vs Marshall, I think people would be hard pressed to tell the differences between similar ordered circuits.

Here's another example. What exactly makes the SLO "special?"

Outside of the very cold clipping style which defined that preamp circuit, it's obviously the giant and hifi esc transformers. I doubt many people could tell the difference between a genuine SLO and a X88 through a VHT2150, Pitbull power section, Strategy 400 etc. You can define this, as I'm stating, and all of these recipes are approximate substitutes. There are reasons for this.

Some applications include

1. Being able to model amps not included in modellers.
2. Being able to cross reference and approximate preamp modules\poweramp pairings for modular systems.
3. Understand what "flavors" you like.
4. Pair down your gear
5. Understand gear better
etc

The tl;dr here is if I owned all the gear I want to own, my kids would starve. But I've learned that some gear, can fill a lot of roles. I'm almost there and wanted to create something from this journey. This is just one of those things were there aren't many people in the world that can come together and figure this out.

[nworbetan]

You seem to be lost, let me help you get the help you need.

https://www.kemper-amps.com/forum/

[pompeiisneaks]

You seem to be lost, let me help you get the help you need.

https://www.kemper-amps.com/forum/

That kind of tone isn't really called for. If you don't agree with their belief in the way things should be, you don't need to be dismissive. Just agree to disagree and have a great day.

I'm not 100% sure of the tone you're intending here. Maybe you can clarify that I'm missing something. I highly appreciate your input and knowledge, please keep things civil.

~Phil