Watts?

[markstuk]

[quote name='leschirons' timestamp='1476863481' post='3157790']
I've come to the conclusion that they don't make watts like they used to back in the good old days. When I started in bands in 1968, they were proper watts they were.
[/quote]

very true.. The summers were better, christmas was special, children respectful, wax cylinders were known to be better than those flat shellac 78's, there were fewer old people to clog the system up and authority figures were beyond criticism :-)

[markstuk]

[quote name='mikel' timestamp='1476868940' post='3157864']
What I discern, even from the more technically minded on here, is that there is no answer as to why bassists now need 1000 watts when back in the day, when gigs and indeed rehearsals were loud enough to make me temporarily deaf, 100 was fine.. So as one wag just said, watts are obviously not what they used to be.
[/quote]

Your hearing was better then :-)

[wateroftyne]

I'm going to struggle to be convinced that the power stage in, for example, a commonly-available 900w micro bass head genuinely puts out as much as a pro-audio equivalent power amp.

When it comes to playing bass, it's not about how loud it is. It's what it's doing with the volume that counts.

[EliasMooseblaster]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1476830237' post='3157714']
Modern equipment is as loud at midrange and high fequencies as it ever was, but where it excels is in the low frequencies as you need huge amounts of power to get the bass frequencies to double in volume. An increase of volume in the bass range is a lot less noticeable to the human ear.
[/quote]

This is pretty much the crux of it. One of the loudest bass players around in the early '70s was probably John Entwistle, but his sound on those live recordings (I'm thinking [i]Leeds[/i] and [i]IoW 1970[/i], chiefly) is overdriven to buggery, and whilst it's rich in mids, it's a bit lacking in 'true' bass. If that's the kind of sound you're after (I am) then running a 100W valve amp into a modest-sized cab going to serve you very well for smaller gigs - heck, I've even managed to gig a 30W valve amp in some venues.

This will not be true if you want clean, tight and funky, however. You'll need something that can produce clean tones with deeper bass frequencies, and that will require a lot more power to achieve comparable perceived volume - hence the 500 or 1000W SS heads that are so commonly seen nowadays. Granted, my 100W valve amp might be able to honk all over a 100W solid state amp, but the tone will be very different.

[grandad]

Frequencies below and above 3 - 4 kHz need to be greater in amplitude to sound equally loud.

An E string at 40Hz - ish would need 40dB - ish more power to sound as loud as 4kHz.

So it all depends on where you use those watts, i.e. which frequencies are greater in amplitude.

That, together with what has been said about the 'soft-clipping' of valves gives them an advantage regarding headroom.

I certainly find manufacturer's spec's misleading or useless. A watt is a measure of the rate of energy conversion over time,
(1W = 1 joule/sec), not a measure of loudness.

A couple of lead guitarists at our music club bring along their prized valve amps, old Peavey and Mashalls, each 30W. I use my SS Peavey 120W. Thats a ratio of 1:4 with the volumes at 12ish.

Just thought, that's comparing bass to lead not bass to bass, ah well never mind I'll post it anyway!

Edited October 19, 2016 by grandad

[Conan]

[mikel]

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1476879796' post='3158009']

[/quote]

Ahhhh. Real vintage Watts. None of your solid state mularky there.

[Dan Dare]

Yep. Charlie doesn't need any of this Class D nonsense.

[stingrayPete1977]

There was a guy on here a while ago contemplating moving a Genz 600 head on for something bigger as it wasn't cutting the mustard with his 2x10 cab, I pointed out that my genz 300 head with a 2x12 would blow anything away that he puts through that 2x10 as the cab was the limiting factor, I said try it through a pair of 4x10s but he wasn't having it, more watts would have to be louder, I gave up in the end.

So what I'm saying is "why was my old 200 watt head and a pair of 4x12s louder than my 1000 watt head and a Barfaced one10?", speakers that's what's watt.

[Conan]

[quote name='Dan Dare' timestamp='1476880471' post='3158027']
Yep. Charlie doesn't need any of this Class D nonsense.
[/quote]

His bandmates certainly seemed to favour class A...

[PaulWarning]

there's also the way manufacturers measure watts, my Trace Elliot 200 watt SS head (at 4 ohms) is as loud if not louder than my Rumble 500 watt, and yes I use the same speaker cab
it's been on here before but worth another look
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI6YbqrRK3g[/media]

Edited October 19, 2016 by PaulWarning

[drTStingray]

[quote name='mikel' timestamp='1476868940' post='3157864']
What I discern, even from the more technically minded on here, is that there is no answer as to why bassists now need 1000 watts when back in the day, when gigs and indeed rehearsals were loud enough to make me temporarily deaf, 100 was fine.. So as one wag just said, watts are obviously not what they used to be.
[/quote]

As has been pointed out, bassists suffered in the 70s as not having enough power to produce a decent bass sound. I have the opposite problem now - I keep a decent bass sound at high power - sometimes enough to drown guitarists who are very loud on stage but drowned by the bass further back.

The speaker coil power compression is interesting - I was not aware of that and have noticed when using one rather than two 2 X 10s. I had put it down to everyone else turning up but maybe not.

Edited October 19, 2016 by drTStingray

[Fisheth]

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1476889023' post='3158164']
His bandmates certainly seemed to favour class A...
[/quote]

Boom! Boom!

[drTStingray]

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1476879796' post='3158009']

[/quote]

Are you absolutely sure there's no solid state assistance there 🙂

[ivansc]

[quote name='markstuk' timestamp='1476867161' post='3157838']
Not true of all Neos - the 3012HO from Eminence will do 100+ dB at 1w/1m..
[/quote]

I was talking about my particular Celestion green label neos. Which if I recall ARE that inefficient, although slapping the LM3 through them gives me all the loud I need.

Oh and FWIW my old Orange cab had two 16 ohm 150 watt rated 15" Altecs in parallel and the Orange set to 8ohms. If I hooked the 2x10 neo up to the Orange it would indeed have been a bit naff as the Orange didnt have a 4 ohm tap. And of course the LM3 to the Orange cab would have restricted power output of the LM3 to about 300-350 watts. And given me a hernia with that bloody Orange cabinet to lug around again.

[Phil Starr]

[quote name='drTStingray' timestamp='1476903780' post='3158380']


The speaker coil power compression is interesting - I was not aware of that and have noticed when using one rather than two 2 X 10s. I had put it down to everyone else turning up but maybe not.
[/quote]

Yep, a few of the speaker manufacturers put up their thermal compression figures. Losing 3db at high temperatures is not too unusual and IME it absolutely happens under gig conditions. As you say it's quite possible that we put it down to other people turning up when we lose the bass halfway through the second set.

[Japhet]

I'd liken the whole debate to the difference between petrol and diesel engines. Petrol engines may produce a lot of peak horsepower but produce way less torque than a diesel engine unable to get anywhere near the peak horsepower rating. People seem to be obsessed with horsepower, whereas torque is really a much more telling statistic. (I know much more about engines than I do about sound engineering )

[xgsjx]

[quote name='Japhet' timestamp='1476949491' post='3158649']
I'd liken the whole debate to the difference between petrol and diesel engines. Petrol engines may produce a lot of peak horsepower but produce way less torque than a diesel engine unable to get anywhere near the peak horsepower rating. People seem to be obsessed with horsepower, whereas torque is really a much more telling statistic. (I know much more about engines than I do about sound engineering )
[/quote]
My 220 BHP petrol Honda was much quicker than my brother's 550 BHP diesel Scania, but his Scania could tow 40 tonnes behind it with ease. The Honda would struggle with 4 tonnes.

[Michael J]

[quote name='Japhet' timestamp='1476949491' post='3158649']
I'd liken the whole debate to the difference between petrol and diesel engines. Petrol engines may produce a lot of peak horsepower but produce way less torque than a diesel engine unable to get anywhere near the peak horsepower rating. People seem to be obsessed with horsepower, whereas torque is really a much more telling statistic. (I know much more about engines than I do about sound engineering )
[/quote]

Petrol actually produces more torque than diesel when compared like for like. It's true. Believe it or not, it's still true.