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

[ChopSauce]

A taxonomy for modeling purposes... of course, this is of very little help for tube amp builders, which this forum is all about...

Right now, there's not an easy way to translate flavors...

Not sure how this relates to taxonomy. Aren't flavors subjective

[nworbetan]

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

I'm going out of my way to be informative to a person who thinks they're going to create a revolutionary new way of talking about amplifiers. I recommended learning how to read a schematic, the same way a person needs to crawl before they can walk, and he already thinks he's going to run faster than anyone's ever run before. Then the guy asked if all amplifiers have a first gain stage. Amplification and gain are synonyms.

I stand by my tone.

[pompeiisneaks]

I'm not sure I agree with the mentality of:

"Since I'm smarter, and know more, I'm going to belittle and demean those that don't understand it as well as I do."

You don't have to agree with him, you've made your opinion clear, what is gained by insulting the person? You feel superior to them?

I'm not sure I understand the benefit to you, or anyone else on the forums to demean someone for not understanding things the same way you do.

They may never understand why they are wrong, but making negative comments towards their character just guarantees they'll have less chance of understanding it.

You can decide very easily to step out of the conversation, instead of attempting to start a flame war.

~Phil

[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.

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

My intention in this thread was to attempting to explain to someone who's full of more hubris than knowledge that the task he's attempting to undertake is significantly more difficult than someone with his extremely limited knowledge will be able to accomplish.

What he's attempting to accomplish is to describe all of the technical aspects (and there are vastly more than he is aware) of an amp using non-technical words, for non-technical people like himself. An oversimplification via analogy, if you will. I used an easily relatable analogy to demonstrate to a non-technical person the concept of permutations, except I didn't use the word permutation because I wanted my analogy to be accessible. My analogy was also focused on emphasizing the importance of the details in each and every stage of these myriad permutations. Learning and sharing finer details of the finer amplifiers is the core reason why we are here, isn't it?

I understand that modeling amplifiers is a thing that people are interested in, and I also understand that there's a much more appropriate place for modeling people to talk about modeling.

Have I clarified myself enough yet? Do I need to continue defending myself?

[Nickerz]

A taxonomy for modeling purposes... of course, this is of very little help for tube amp builders, which this forum is all about...

Not sure how this relates to taxonomy. Aren't flavors subjective

Sure, but everyone agrees that if you change cathode values on a Fender to "traditional Marshall" that you've created a new type of flavor. Just like everyone agree when you make a very cold clipper and add another gain stage in the preamp you'll get some sort of "SLO clone."

My bet would be if you asked Dave Friedman if he can make a very cold clipping, high gain amp with HiFi style transformers with 1K8/1uF values that sounds like a Marshall he'd maybe take the challenge but concede that such a thing would come out sounding "more like a modern amp." Because no matter how much he plays with those ingredients, there are some that change the result enough that they become the type. Just like when the cascading gain stage was added to the Princeton\Bassman hybrid, it became the Mesa Mark I.

If you made the transformer less hifi, you'll drift closer to 5150. If you make the power section weaker, you'll drift closer to a rectifier. It just takes time to define what differences are worth noting. And if you can't note a difference, why does that circuit exist?

If I tell you that my hamburger is different because it uses salt from the mines of Trembloyai5-6, a distant mine in another galaxy, but it tastes like a meatloaf burger, does it make more sense to travel to a distant galaxy to recreate that burger, or to buy a meatloaf burger?

And to how this would help? Why wouldn't having reference of these topologies not be helpful in navigating novices?

[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.

My intention in this thread was to attempting to explain to someone who's full of more hubris than knowledge that the task he's attempting to undertake is significantly more difficult than someone with his extremely limited knowledge will be able to accomplish.

What he's attempting to accomplish is to describe all of the technical aspects (and there are vastly more than he is aware) of an amp using non-technical words, for non-technical people like himself. An oversimplification via analogy, if you will. I used an easily relatable analogy to demonstrate to a non-technical person the concept of permutations, except I didn't use the word permutation because I wanted my analogy to be accessible. My analogy was also focused on emphasizing the importance of the details in each and every stage of these myriad permutations. Learning and sharing finer details of the finer amplifiers is the core reason why we are here, isn't it?

I understand that modeling amplifiers is a thing that people are interested in, and I also understand that there's a much more appropriate place for modeling people to talk about modeling.

Have I clarified myself enough yet? Do I need to continue defending myself?

So is it accurate to state you don't think amp designs can be categorized in macro fashion and notate their technical novelties?

Or just that you think micro analysis is the only worthwhile input on this forum?

If you think either of these, is there a reason you even need to respond to this thread?

Is it that you don't think this information is helpful to you, or to anyone?

Also this has nothing to do with modelers, zero.

[nworbetan]

So is it accurate to state you don't think amp designs can be categorized in macro fashion and notate their technical novelties?

Or just that you think micro analysis is the only worthwhile input on this forum?

If you think either of these, is there a reason you even need to respond to this thread?

Is it that you don't think this information is helpful to you, or to anyone?

Also this has nothing to do with modelers, zero.

On the subject of macro categorization plus technical novelties, that's what we're already doing when we say things like such and such amp is a hot rodded JCM 800 with <variations>. For better or for worse, most amps are owned and played by people who want to sound as much like their heroes as they can. A lot of working musicians aren't trying to push any envelopes, they're trying to earn a living and they''ll mostly pick tried and true over new and unique if they have any kind of budget they need to stick to. Human behavior is how we got to where we are with most amps being variations on a limited number of themes. It works. It's not as thorough as the Dewey Decimal system, but amps are to books like apples are to oranges. There are so many possible ways to connect a handful of tubes and resistors and capacitors that a hundred years later the future possibilities are still endless.

Micro analysis is where the magic happens. The reason I'm emphasizing it so much is because if you really think this amp taxonomy is worth pursuing you really are going to need to know what you're doing. You asked about whether the first gain stage could just be set aside, but the input is usually the single gain stage that contributes more than any of the others to the overall sound. You made an offhand comment about it not mattering where in the chain the EQ is, and again you couldn't be more wrong (pre vs post overdrive EQ? huge difference, also a ton of gain stages have an EQ component too). You're going to make all kinds of other mistakes if you don't know how the nuts and bolts work. On top of the bigger mistakes like that, there are systemic challenges that will need to be addressed because nearly every stage interacts with and influences the preceding and following stages. So making big changes to how a gain stage works will influence how the EQ following it works, and nearly every decision becomes a balancing act between increasing X which decreases Y, but don't go too far with Y because then Z will happen, unless you also do... etc... Basic schematic literacy is a key part of actually hitting the target you're aiming at.

I opened the thread with enthusiasm because the concept is interesting, but then when I started reading I lost that enthusiasm pretty quickly. You're obviously not dumb, but you have a lot to learn about amps before you start making smart decisions about which micro details belong in which macro categories.

[pompeiisneaks]

I've never said anything negative about your point nworbetan, I've never debated the point. I've made the repeated attempts to ask you to stop personal attacks, and accept they don't have to agree with you. I never said you were wrong in your commentary, they may be debating it, but they're also not personally insulting you for having a differing point of view.

I'd still really like to have you stop the negativity, and focus on the thread, or just stop worrying about this thread.

One way or the other, these kinds of discussions are a major value to all involved, but they become way more useful if you keep a civil tone.

Please.

PLEASE.

Be kind, rewind.

And rock ON!

~Phil

[Nickerz]

So is it accurate to state you don't think amp designs can be categorized in macro fashion and notate their technical novelties?

Or just that you think micro analysis is the only worthwhile input on this forum?

If you think either of these, is there a reason you even need to respond to this thread?

Is it that you don't think this information is helpful to you, or to anyone?

Also this has nothing to do with modelers, zero.

On the subject of macro categorization plus technical novelties, that's what we're already doing when we say things like such and such amp is a hot rodded JCM 800 with <variations>. For better or for worse, most amps are owned and played by people who want to sound as much like their heroes as they can. A lot of working musicians aren't trying to push any envelopes, they're trying to earn a living and they''ll mostly pick tried and true over new and unique if they have any kind of budget they need to stick to. Human behavior is how we got to where we are with most amps being variations on a limited number of themes. It works. It's not as thorough as the Dewey Decimal system, but amps are to books like apples are to oranges. There are so many possible ways to connect a handful of tubes and resistors and capacitors that a hundred years later the future possibilities are still endless.

Micro analysis is where the magic happens. The reason I'm emphasizing it so much is because if you really think this amp taxonomy is worth pursuing you really are going to need to know what you're doing. You asked about whether the first gain stage could just be set aside, but the input is usually the single gain stage that contributes more than any of the others to the overall sound. You made an offhand comment about it not mattering where in the chain the EQ is, and again you couldn't be more wrong (pre vs post overdrive EQ? huge difference, also a ton of gain stages have an EQ component too). You're going to make all kinds of other mistakes if you don't know how the nuts and bolts work. On top of the bigger mistakes like that, there are systemic challenges that will need to be addressed because nearly every stage interacts with and influences the preceding and following stages. So making big changes to how a gain stage works will influence how the EQ following it works, and nearly every decision becomes a balancing act between increasing X which decreases Y, but don't go too far with Y because then Z will happen, unless you also do... etc... Basic schematic literacy is a key part of actually hitting the target you're aiming at.

I opened the thread with enthusiasm because the concept is interesting, but then when I started reading I lost that enthusiasm pretty quickly. You're obviously not dumb, but you have a lot to learn about amps before you start making smart decisions about which micro details belong in which macro categories.

"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."

What I was addressing was something to the effect of the Recto pre through a "hifi" bold poweramp. There are differences between the two (Recto pre & Soldano pre) but when you're looking at both separately (preamp vs poweramp) it's less important. I did say it's important for the total amp.

I used it as a segway to the realization that the poweramp itself needs it's own way of being categorized.

I think this was somewhat addressed by the Onetics guy who boiled it down to 5 transformers. So you have 5 transformer styles, and then you'd have some degrees of "feel" to address.

Something like bold(where overly so would be described as stiff), juicy(where overly so could be described as "saggy") and colored\dry.

Tubes\Tube family play a part for sure in how you arrive at that final conclusion.

e.g. Taking a Mesa Mark IIC+ (With it's notably Fenderesc distortion and power section) and then putting it through a JCM800 with it's "British" poweramp created one of the most legendary and unique tones of all time on Master of Puppets.

There are some mistakes I think you're making here.

1. Assuming I am not looking for your and everyone's input, I AM.
2. Assuming micro details are not important, they are. Absolutely it would be great to completely itemize the entire list of tricks from the 1st cascading gain circuit, to #39, to the hotmod and their influence on moving each amp iteration forward. The 1st cascading gain circuit is essentially analogous to what created the Mark series. Which eventually served as a template for the SLO obviously, which then birthed the 5150 etc etc etc.

The bolded example is the best exact situation I'm trying to describe. It is also similar to the SLO, where some modification made a large enough difference to warrant a completely different type of sound.

And as you note, "hot rod marshall" is a great topology to house the hotmod, #39 etc. And which of those eventually become the Friedmans\Bogner Shiva etc.

Like I can get pretty damn Bogner with a Carvin Legacy VL100 a boost and an EQ in the loop. And that was a calculated bet I took based on knowledge like this. They're two different approaches to the same end.

You are going bottom up, and I'm coming top down and we're trying to meet in the middle.

Think of the beauty of more people purchasing a cheapo Carvin Legacy and even being within a stones throw of a Bogner Ecstasy. Now think about how many qualities the Mesa Mark shares with either of those heads from either a circuit or description of tone? Not many. Hence why they can be easily classified in different ways.

So we started with gain stages, EQ placement... throw your hat in the ring. If you had to find a way to round these puppies up into groups, how would you do it?

[nworbetan]

If I were going to do this, I would do it correctly, because I understand that amplifiers are nothing more than an interesting arrangement of electron manipulators, and I understand how to manipulate electrons. And then I would publish the results under my name, and take the credit for myself, because I had done all of the hard work by clibming to the top of the hill and surveying the lay of the land myself.

[Nickerz]

This is way more top level than I originally wanted, and I expect I'll probably work on these things in tandem and as time goes on it'll be more refined. I will take any input that is interested in moving things forward.

I'll work on some of the circuit novelties over time as I learn their tricks etc and work it into some sort of linear note system. Spreadsheet style may work, hopefully I can get ideas here and keep going.

Criticism on the technical\history is certainly welcome. E.g. I forgot the SLO was influenced by the Mark before I started charting it out.

[roberto]

I forgot the SLO was influenced by the Mark before I started charting it out.

No it wasn't. This is why I suggested you to stick your website to what you know best, or at least study before implementing new areas.

SLO (1987) was influenced by Laney (4 stages + CF in 1983) and then by SIR mods (1985), Metaltronix was also a reference point, but was 3 stages + CF + EQ + a further stage after the EQ in the early days, and only after went to 4 stages + CF. Mesa Mark iiC+ is the first "modern" hi-gain amp, but is totally different compared to others.

[Nickerz]

I forgot the SLO was influenced by the Mark before I started charting it out.

No it wasn't. This is why I suggested you to stick your website to what you know best, or at least study before implementing new areas.

SLO (1987) was influenced by Laney (4 stages + CF in 1983) and then by SIR mods (1985), Metaltronix was also a reference point, but was 3 stages + CF + EQ + a further stage after the EQ in the early days, and only after went to 4 stages + CF. Mesa Mark iiC+ is the first "modern" hi-gain amp, but is totally different compared to others.

Awesome input, thank you. That's why I'm here. A lot of this stuff is mentioned very off the cuff and not by people who can read the circuits and understand the lineage, so it's sort of GIGO. Over time I'll be able to put 2 and 2 together. This stuff is interesting and cool.

1. Brings up a good point it's easier to shorthand gain stages in describing them. e.g. 4GS+CF, not sure if it'll be useful to separate it out this way yet. What circuits with 3GS would you still describe as "modern?" Or does 3GS stop at hot rodded JCM for you?
2. I'll branch Laney & SIR off of the hotrod marshall when I have a chance then SLO off that.

[roberto]

From a preamp perspective, it doesn't matter where the EQ is.

I'm sorry, but again no. If you EQ the sound before distorting it, you select which frequencies to overdrive more and which ones to keep cleaner (have you ever played a Mesa Mark?), with an EQ after the preamp you select the frequencies of an already overdriven sound to amplify more or less (or if you push your power amp to the limits, you can select the frequencies of an already distorted sound with which overdrive the phase inverter and power amp). It's totally different.

This is the reason why I suggest you not to expand your site with information that you don't have yet and with statements that lower the level of your site.

[Nickerz]

From a preamp perspective, it doesn't matter where the EQ is.

I'm sorry, but again no. If you EQ the sound before distorting it, you select which frequencies to overdrive more and which ones to keep cleaner (have you ever played a Mesa Mark?), with an EQ after the preamp you select the frequencies of an already overdriven sound to amplify more or less (or if you push your power amp to the limits, you can select the frequencies of an already distorted sound with which overdrive the phase inverter and power amp). It's totally different.

This is the reason why I suggest you not to expand your site with information that you don't have yet and with statements that lower the level of your site.

Is there an amp design that comes to mind that is only different in the EQ placement and makes the difference substantial enough to warrant it's own place in the topological hierarchy?

e.g. Mesa's power amp change to the SLO design?