Trouble Free
Well-Known Member
Hey you said SIMPLE build, all them other things require too much work......
although if you could design one for me......... ha ha
-
We are looking to make improvements to the Classifieds! Help us determine what improvements we can make by filling out this classifieds survey. Your feedback is very appreciated and helpful!
Take survey
Simple Attenuators - Design And Testing
- Thread starter JohnH
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
Hey you said SIMPLE build, all them other things require too much work......
although if you could design one for me......... ha ha
Trouble Free
Well-Known Member
I didn't realize the small resistors were going to be so small, I think I would get higher wattage next time. The terminals were pretty small for the wire.
Dwayne Eash
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2020
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 103
Right, it's a 50 watt amp but later I might play out. And wrong about my default attenuation, because your right about the always on, but your wrong about usually on, which includes the 2nd and the 3 stages.
So usually on is 11 db's, baseline attenuation, not 5 dB as we both wish it was, but since I appreciate clean boosts, I differ accordingly.
You see, if I feel that less attenuation is better, I can give up one of my two clean boosts, and that brings the total dB's down to either 7 or 9 dB's. At least I would still have one clean boost left and the sound would be less squished.
This is why we have been wanting for the first stage to go even lower. It purely rubs me wrong to end up with 37 instead of 36 dB's which is resolvable down to 3. I sorta love it when 3 is involved in my designs. We were so close if only we could have gone to 4 dB reduction in the fist stage of speaker emulation.
For the last time, what would I loose when going lower??? I need to know what, or else I will experiment using 4 instead of just 5 in the circuit! Because it might be good enough! PLEASE TELL ME, I'VE ASKED LIKE THREE TIMES ALREADY.
Last edited:
Dwayne Eash
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2020
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 103
How about this, maybe I should include "two" speaker emulation circuits instead of just one. One would be 4 dB's and the other is around 6 or 7 dBs, probably 6, or whatever is optimum functionality, and yet also favoring a minimal value of dB's.
Or would that cost too much?
That way, I can choose between a "proper" speaker emulation circuit, and a mostly / partly correct emulation circuit, sacrificing some sonic transparency, for a much needed smaller total dB startup or default attenuation.
I honor your view and expert advice, and I also feel the clean boosts should be more central to such a great design. Or maybe just design it with one clean boost stage. To each their own.
I happen to appreciate transparent clean boosts, as I love how my amp sounds better than any overdrive pedal or distortion. So for me, the best clean boost, comes naturally from the amp, so I am passionate about wanting transparent clean boosts.
Or would that cost too much?
That way, I can choose between a "proper" speaker emulation circuit, and a mostly / partly correct emulation circuit, sacrificing some sonic transparency, for a much needed smaller total dB startup or default attenuation.
I honor your view and expert advice, and I also feel the clean boosts should be more central to such a great design. Or maybe just design it with one clean boost stage. To each their own.
I happen to appreciate transparent clean boosts, as I love how my amp sounds better than any overdrive pedal or distortion. So for me, the best clean boost, comes naturally from the amp, so I am passionate about wanting transparent clean boosts.
JohnH
Well-Known Member
You have asked and I have explained. I am not offering any more options. The first stage loses the consistency of tone as we force it to be smaller db's. If you want the values for -5db I will PM them to you. I am not working out any more options, nor any designs that I don't believe in. I am not going to work out a -4db option.
Dwayne Eash
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2020
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 103
So was I mistaken in the understanding that someone built your design using a 3.5 speaker emulation stage??? I listed that as an example for why going lower in size for the speaker emulation stage, has been tried and apparently they didn't complain much about it not working right, so I assumed it worked at least partly ok.
If I was mistaken about that, then I wish that would have been explained a long time ago, as I have been asking about this for several times and I think the point deserves an answer instead of holding unanswered presumptions against me.
And I already got the general idea that tone is sacrificed by going smaller in size. I never asked you to believe in my design, I just asked to see if it can be done. Some people don't appreciate what others do, and I accept that you apparently don't appreciate some things like I do.
Maybe I should not have followed this project as closely as I did, and asked questions about it so I could understand, because of the way some of my questions were overlooked and not answered. I still do not know if I was correct in assuming someone did make your design using 3.5 dB's of attenuation for the speaker emulation circuit. And that presumption was crucial to my quest for lower dB's in the first stage, but you didn't touch that, so I have been left wondering.
That is why I have repeatedly asked what is lost if we go lower in the first stage dB's of attenuation, besides some tone losses. If it's going from 3% tone loss, to 9% then I might be ok with that trade off, but if it's like going from 3% tone loss, more like 30%, then no way, that's way too much tone loss.
So how much tone is lost, is an important question when considering engineering trade off's for a smaller dB attenuation first stage.
If it's too much of a bad thing, I'm good with learning whatever the answer actually is, but not answering is not teaching is not learning, is not my fault because I asked, so please don't blame me for not knowing and for being interested in replicating your project my way.
I guess you don't care about that either... Sorry if I offend you for caring about your project in a way that you don't BELIEVE IN. I had no idea I had to sell belief in my version of your project. Are you saying everyone must think about your project like you do or it's not something to believe in? That's an odd way of addressing someone who lavishes praise on your work. You don't believe in what I'd like to do with your project. That is a curious notion.
Last edited:
Dwayne Eash
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2020
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 103
R U just jealous because my idea of foot switchable clean boosts functionally doubles the value of your project, but I thought of it and you didn't? Just kidding, but you seemed to have taken this discussion to a different place.
Because I must have asked about the trade off for going lower in dB's several times, including the 3.5 example, that I did not ask to go even that low!
So if someone else was fine with building your design using 3.5 dB's at the first stage, then it's eminently reasonable to ask the question, how much tone is lost when going down to a higher level than 3.5, like say 4 or 5.
Because you never answered about my presumptions that 3.5 was already done, maybe it was, maybe it was not, thus I have zero knowledge to go off of, other than my cloudy presumption I asked you about several times and usually not no response on the 3.5 dB version. If you had just responded to that repeated comment slash question, then I would not have pursued what should not be pursued.
I am just struck by the fact that my asking to replicate your project, is met by disapproval for not already knowing what is or is not acceptable over it. So many pages, so many graphics, M version, M2, M3 M4 but which is the correct updated version... IDK. Some are probably just differences in the number of output jacks, so that's a natural amendment.
You know your own project the best, that's why we ask the questions that we ask. I could ask the same question 4 or 5 times, but as some point, asking should no longer be viewed as the problem to not be believed in. But as other humans who are genuinely interested in your awesome project.
If you had answered my question a week or two ago, probably none of this would have happened. Maybe the 3.5 version of this project is top secret,, IDK.
But I'm surely wrong for asking..
Because I must have asked about the trade off for going lower in dB's several times, including the 3.5 example, that I did not ask to go even that low!
So if someone else was fine with building your design using 3.5 dB's at the first stage, then it's eminently reasonable to ask the question, how much tone is lost when going down to a higher level than 3.5, like say 4 or 5.
Because you never answered about my presumptions that 3.5 was already done, maybe it was, maybe it was not, thus I have zero knowledge to go off of, other than my cloudy presumption I asked you about several times and usually not no response on the 3.5 dB version. If you had just responded to that repeated comment slash question, then I would not have pursued what should not be pursued.
I am just struck by the fact that my asking to replicate your project, is met by disapproval for not already knowing what is or is not acceptable over it. So many pages, so many graphics, M version, M2, M3 M4 but which is the correct updated version... IDK. Some are probably just differences in the number of output jacks, so that's a natural amendment.
You know your own project the best, that's why we ask the questions that we ask. I could ask the same question 4 or 5 times, but as some point, asking should no longer be viewed as the problem to not be believed in. But as other humans who are genuinely interested in your awesome project.
If you had answered my question a week or two ago, probably none of this would have happened. Maybe the 3.5 version of this project is top secret,, IDK.
But I'm surely wrong for asking..
Last edited:
JohnH
Well-Known Member
Dwayne. So I'll chat with you further in PM, but not here anymore. This discussion is filling up this thread too much.
Nobody that I know of has built a reactive front end less than the -7db of the base designs. I know you wish for less, and I have worked on your request from last weekend:
And working that out was several hours work. And I can see the tonal control reducing at -5 db so -4 will be less good again so I'm not going there. I'm out of time, I'm not designing any more. If you still want this one with -5db front end, send me a PM.
Nobody that I know of has built a reactive front end less than the -7db of the base designs. I know you wish for less, and I have worked on your request from last weekend:
And working that out was several hours work. And I can see the tonal control reducing at -5 db so -4 will be less good again so I'm not going there. I'm out of time, I'm not designing any more. If you still want this one with -5db front end, send me a PM.
LordoftheLivingRoom
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2020
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 11
On a positive and uplifting note, I've finally received all the parts to being building a 16 ohm M2.
The enclosure I bought is steel with back plastic front and black panels (aliexpress). I've had to get creative with the inductor mounting due to the steel enclosure, and I think I've come up with a good solution. Cable ties and silicon adhesive will fix the inductor in place. Speaking of which, if you are in Australia and you want air core inductors, try Speakerbug. Luckily for me he's only a few minutes drive form my place, but he's still cheaper than ebay or aliexpress, even when you include shipping. Nice guy, good service.
I'm staying true to the standard M2. -7dB standard, no bypass. Wiring the attenuation switches in a BCD style layout (reminds me of octal programming...
I'm very thankful for your work Mr. JohnH.
The enclosure I bought is steel with back plastic front and black panels (aliexpress). I've had to get creative with the inductor mounting due to the steel enclosure, and I think I've come up with a good solution. Cable ties and silicon adhesive will fix the inductor in place. Speaking of which, if you are in Australia and you want air core inductors, try Speakerbug. Luckily for me he's only a few minutes drive form my place, but he's still cheaper than ebay or aliexpress, even when you include shipping. Nice guy, good service.
I'm staying true to the standard M2. -7dB standard, no bypass. Wiring the attenuation switches in a BCD style layout (reminds me of octal programming...
I'm very thankful for your work Mr. JohnH.
Attachments
Dwayne Eash
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2020
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 103
You can PM me if you want to know what it feels like to be not believed in and blame-shifted against.
SnickSound
Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2020
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 33
You can PM me if you want to know what it feels like to be not believed in and blame-shifted against.
WTF does that even mean?
John has done nothing but try to help you, on his own time, but you won't accept his answers because you are looking for a does-it-all device with minute changes in volume that anyone with experience with an attenuator knows is wasted. He told you why less than 7dB first stage is not recommended but you just read past that and keep pushing his buttons.
This is just a fun thread for a fun project that people can do at home at minimal cost. John is not your personal head of engineering.
And thank you John for all your help in this thread. Feel free to ignore this person in the future we will understand.
Dwayne Eash
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2020
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 103
I accepted his answers until he blamed me for him not answering my question about the 3.5 version of his design, a question that was posed in different ways several times and he never answered that part of the question but then blamed me for seeking the answer to it.
I NEVER showed the man one iota of disrespect, then I find out, he's not been believing in me and my project, thus exposing why he just ignores some of what I say to him, only to have him blame me for it. If you go back and read what was said, you would not have this question, or false view.
JohnH
Well-Known Member
I'll just say this. What I meant was, I don't want to offer any design of mine that I don't believe would work well. There's no problem having a vision of what you want, that's how we get new ideas, But when it is found that the engineering can't deliver it properly, then I don't want to put it out there. It wasn't about beleiving in your idea.
Last edited:
Dwayne Eash
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2020
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 103
So he's the reason I wrote so much asking for the same information repeatedly. If he doesn't want extra posts on his topic, them maybe he should not blame shifting and start answering clear and repeated questions of central importance.
I also did not want to fill up his thread with my endless questions. That was not purely my fault but him avoiding my project which he does not believe in, HIS PROJECT Im replicating with HIS help, HE doesn't believe in that.
That is not my doing or fault, so stop blameshifting against me, your own issues. I asked about the 3.5 build probably 3 different former times, and he never said, I know of no such design or build, yet that was the presumption going on in my head that it might work partly well enough, but maybe not ideal. IDK until someone clues me in, and so I asked about that, but I never got any answers on it, just the same old generalization that less dB's in the first stage is a bummer on the tone.
Right, that's was not the question, the question was, how much of a bummer is it, like if you don't go quite as far as 3.5? He never ever touched that question and I asked it possible four times as it was central to my project. So to blame me for too much text and asking for what has already been answered, is simply not true.
Did we have a communication problem, obviously, but to turn it into such a personal affront, seems petty and unproductive. And in my case, simply not true. I am on other forums and other threads here, bragging about this project.
So you don't believe in it. WTF is that??? Is what should be asked. Im trying to do your project, and the guys is like, nope, I don't believe in it.
I suggest people stop getting triggered so easily. But who am I, one not to be believed in!!! LOL
I also did not want to fill up his thread with my endless questions. That was not purely my fault but him avoiding my project which he does not believe in, HIS PROJECT Im replicating with HIS help, HE doesn't believe in that.
That is not my doing or fault, so stop blameshifting against me, your own issues. I asked about the 3.5 build probably 3 different former times, and he never said, I know of no such design or build, yet that was the presumption going on in my head that it might work partly well enough, but maybe not ideal. IDK until someone clues me in, and so I asked about that, but I never got any answers on it, just the same old generalization that less dB's in the first stage is a bummer on the tone.
Right, that's was not the question, the question was, how much of a bummer is it, like if you don't go quite as far as 3.5? He never ever touched that question and I asked it possible four times as it was central to my project. So to blame me for too much text and asking for what has already been answered, is simply not true.
Did we have a communication problem, obviously, but to turn it into such a personal affront, seems petty and unproductive. And in my case, simply not true. I am on other forums and other threads here, bragging about this project.
So you don't believe in it. WTF is that??? Is what should be asked. Im trying to do your project, and the guys is like, nope, I don't believe in it.
I suggest people stop getting triggered so easily. But who am I, one not to be believed in!!! LOL
Dwayne Eash
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2020
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 103
Ok, thanks for clarifying.
JohnH
Well-Known Member
On a positive and uplifting note, I've finally received all the parts to being building a 16 ohm M2.
The enclosure I bought is steel with back plastic front and black panels (aliexpress). I've had to get creative with the inductor mounting due to the steel enclosure, and I think I've come up with a good solution. Cable ties and silicon adhesive will fix the inductor in place. Speaking of which, if you are in Australia and you want air core inductors, try Speakerbug. Luckily for me he's only a few minutes drive form my place, but he's still cheaper than ebay or aliexpress, even when you include shipping. Nice guy, good service.
I'm staying true to the standard M2. -7dB standard, no bypass. Wiring the attenuation switches in a BCD style layout (reminds me of octal programming...
I'm very thankful for your work Mr. JohnH.
Looks good and thanks for the tip about the coil. The place where I bought them for my two builds in in Queensland, but don't list them anymore. But for another Australian link, I've been noting Wagner online in Sydney for next time.
And your coil saddle looks like a good idea, especially with a steel case since it looks like it keeps the axis of the coil away from the ferrous metal of the case.
Dwayne Eash
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2020
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 103
I was going to call it, the proper speaker emulation circuit, and the partial one. That way no one would be confused as to the partial one was the one you meant as the proper one. It's designed as a not really right version, but it's smaller in size.
That's why it would not sound quiet as good. However, in practice, because we are talking about the modest end of attenuation, and this change makes it even more modest, and so the amp itself actually sounds better when you attenuate less. So in fact, and in practice, it's partly not as good sounding, and it's partly better sounding, both at the same time, such that it's likely that few might be able to notice this sonic difference.
Frankly, you mostly notice this sort of issue, the more you attenuate, but this issue, does not require heavy power attenuation, and that is not the purpose for this design, so it seems you are concentrating, on what I am not wanting to do. Which I guess is your free will option, if that is your preference.
At the minimum, the idea was worth investigating. However, I do not wish to impose on others, or ask too much. That was never my intent. My personal interest demonstrated, and the quest to learn more, was sincere. I never changed loving this project and wishing to make my own..
.. Until I was welcomed to be rejected, for something I did not do, but felt forced to be a part of, our soggy communications drug out for sooo long, because my questions were sometimes repeatedly avoided, because of a lack of belief. I did not realize I had to connect with you spiritually, or on a one on one belief system of share values or something. hehe
That can not be held against me, for not answering my questions, clearly and repeatedly offered. But, if you must hold that against me, be your guest. I don't push myself on others. Sorry for sincerely asking. It was because I truly wanted to know. But if you are offended by my inquiry, then sadly, I accept it.
That's why it would not sound quiet as good. However, in practice, because we are talking about the modest end of attenuation, and this change makes it even more modest, and so the amp itself actually sounds better when you attenuate less. So in fact, and in practice, it's partly not as good sounding, and it's partly better sounding, both at the same time, such that it's likely that few might be able to notice this sonic difference.
Frankly, you mostly notice this sort of issue, the more you attenuate, but this issue, does not require heavy power attenuation, and that is not the purpose for this design, so it seems you are concentrating, on what I am not wanting to do. Which I guess is your free will option, if that is your preference.
At the minimum, the idea was worth investigating. However, I do not wish to impose on others, or ask too much. That was never my intent. My personal interest demonstrated, and the quest to learn more, was sincere. I never changed loving this project and wishing to make my own..
.. Until I was welcomed to be rejected, for something I did not do, but felt forced to be a part of, our soggy communications drug out for sooo long, because my questions were sometimes repeatedly avoided, because of a lack of belief. I did not realize I had to connect with you spiritually, or on a one on one belief system of share values or something. hehe
That can not be held against me, for not answering my questions, clearly and repeatedly offered. But, if you must hold that against me, be your guest. I don't push myself on others. Sorry for sincerely asking. It was because I truly wanted to know. But if you are offended by my inquiry, then sadly, I accept it.
Last edited:
Dwayne Eash
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2020
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 103
And it can not be said I asked too much as I always qualified wishes that I am most passionate about, with, but, if I must make due with only one boost stage, then so be it, in order to make the default on attenuation stages, low enough to ensure better sound quality options.
We don't want to put out a design that is attenuated so much that although it does what it says, it's quieter, but it starts out sounding kinda damp in tone, and it just gets worse. No, we prefer, it starts out a little quieter, but the tone is still quite natural and good.
So, even though so far you have been allowing me two clean boost stages, that luxury, increases the "constantly on" dB's of attenuation, which functionally trades tone purity, for attenuation, and if you do that too much, the attenuator could get a reputation for, yes it works, but it's kinda drab on the tone, and we don't want that.
I feel bad if you spent so much extra time, and yet if all were told, perhaps some of that was spent on things not really resolved upon between us, or because of "disbelief" in something I was never told required belief in.
I agree that you do not want to put out something that would not work well, but so far, I don't think I'm asking that. I pretty much always said, if my wishes or plans do not work out, then ok, I defer to your expert understanding. I had to demonstrate this to you, and you accepted it.
~~~
You don't have to answer me if you don't want to. And you can listen to others who welcome you to reject me, if you want to. I am not here to push myself on anyone. I didn't realize there is a personal aspect, involving unspoken personal beliefs, concerning getting straight answers to repeated questions, about replicating this project, we all love, or are passionately interested in.
I find it "amusing" that personal belief, ever was considered,, you judging my person, and discovered that I am not worthy of your cooperation with replicating your project.
I realize and openly acknowledged that I was likely pushing the envelope, and I even though you wrongly assumed that I was not respectful enough of your expert advice, so I showed you how how I already demonstrated that was not true. And you said something to the effect of, very well, and we moved on.
But this is not about me wishing to blame you, that is why I just kept repeating the same question instead of making a personal judgment. It is not for me to judge why you avoid some of what I say. That is on you. But you will not blame me for the extra text involved because you did not answer what I had thus to repeat and repeat.
We don't want to put out a design that is attenuated so much that although it does what it says, it's quieter, but it starts out sounding kinda damp in tone, and it just gets worse. No, we prefer, it starts out a little quieter, but the tone is still quite natural and good.
So, even though so far you have been allowing me two clean boost stages, that luxury, increases the "constantly on" dB's of attenuation, which functionally trades tone purity, for attenuation, and if you do that too much, the attenuator could get a reputation for, yes it works, but it's kinda drab on the tone, and we don't want that.
I feel bad if you spent so much extra time, and yet if all were told, perhaps some of that was spent on things not really resolved upon between us, or because of "disbelief" in something I was never told required belief in.
I agree that you do not want to put out something that would not work well, but so far, I don't think I'm asking that. I pretty much always said, if my wishes or plans do not work out, then ok, I defer to your expert understanding. I had to demonstrate this to you, and you accepted it.
~~~
You don't have to answer me if you don't want to. And you can listen to others who welcome you to reject me, if you want to. I am not here to push myself on anyone. I didn't realize there is a personal aspect, involving unspoken personal beliefs, concerning getting straight answers to repeated questions, about replicating this project, we all love, or are passionately interested in.
I find it "amusing" that personal belief, ever was considered,, you judging my person, and discovered that I am not worthy of your cooperation with replicating your project.
I realize and openly acknowledged that I was likely pushing the envelope, and I even though you wrongly assumed that I was not respectful enough of your expert advice, so I showed you how how I already demonstrated that was not true. And you said something to the effect of, very well, and we moved on.
But this is not about me wishing to blame you, that is why I just kept repeating the same question instead of making a personal judgment. It is not for me to judge why you avoid some of what I say. That is on you. But you will not blame me for the extra text involved because you did not answer what I had thus to repeat and repeat.
Last edited:
Trouble Free
Well-Known Member
Dwayne It might be time to move on. Start your own thread about attenuators and you can discuss any unhelpful, Unrealistic, Complicated attenuator you want.
This is maybe the best thread on the forum and you have added nothing. Perhaps go back and read this thread and understand what is going on here. Read the Title "Simple"
Despite your idiotic ideas and left handed compliments John has done nothing but help you, time and time again.
Every time he gives you something you don't like it or change your mind to something else.
Or you need proof by wasting his time making recordings for you to diss his amp, again not helpful, and not up to him to prove his design to you. If you don't like or appreciate what he has done here, more specifically what he has done for you over the last 4+ pages than move on.
Maybe if you hired an Engineer to do your designs he would be willing to design complex time consuming crap.
This is maybe the best thread on the forum and you have added nothing. Perhaps go back and read this thread and understand what is going on here. Read the Title "Simple"
Despite your idiotic ideas and left handed compliments John has done nothing but help you, time and time again.
Every time he gives you something you don't like it or change your mind to something else.
Or you need proof by wasting his time making recordings for you to diss his amp, again not helpful, and not up to him to prove his design to you. If you don't like or appreciate what he has done here, more specifically what he has done for you over the last 4+ pages than move on.
Maybe if you hired an Engineer to do your designs he would be willing to design complex time consuming crap.
Last edited:
Gene Ballzz
Well-Known Member
@Dwayne Eash
Those of us who've been fighting the cranked tube amp being too loud battle for years (I've been a steadily gigging singer/gutarist for +50 years) have been through most of the same trials, tribulations, "new" ideas and schemes that you're cooking up. We've found what works and what certainly doesn't and are simply sharing our combined experiences with you. This has been an ongoing war since guitars first got plugged into amplifiers and got "THAT SOUND!"
One of the best additions to your rig involves how you use your guitar and in the long run boils down to developing very specific and controlled playing techniques and skills. One of those skills is hard earned playing/picking dynamics. I can plug a guitar with no volume and/or tone controls into a massively powerful amplifier cranked into its sweet spot and be "almost" whisper quiet and clean, with amazing clarity, tone and blissful harmonic overtones and tonal complexity by simply softly and judiciously "controlling" what my hands do on said guitar! I can then dig up a little dirt by "digging in" a tiny bit harder and then I can kill small pets and vaporize Rosemary's baby (she should know better than to bring a baby to a rock show, but that's another story) by really hammering on my guitar! Unfortunately, that blazing volume that gets produced is way more than most sane people (including venue operators) are willing to endure!
A bit more about dynamics. If we make a scale where "0" is silence and "10" is as blazingly hard as you can slam, many (MOST) folks keep their dynamic "average" (rhythms, etc.) somewhere between "6" and "8" and are then disappointed that slamming to "10" doesn't put their solo or other part "out front" in the mix. There's really not a very big, audible difference in "volume/sound pressure level" from "7" to "10"!
Now let's look at a more effective and beneficial way of controlling our volume. If a player develops the technique of keepin their dynamic average somewhere in the "3" to "4" range, dropping to "1" or "0" is still pretty dramatic and allows for nice dynamically apparent "stabs" into that "6" to "7" range, while still allowing blazing stings and/or solos at the "9" to "10" range. This is how many of the really great players have attacked this for years!
Now, I can certainly understand the attraction of stepping on some switch to make up for not wanting to put in the long hard hours of developing great techniques. The main purpose/intent of these great attenuator designs that @JohnH has worked so diligently and hard to develop and generously share with the world at large (for free) is to allow us crazy guitarsts and tone hounds to use larger than practical amps at sane and acceptable volume levels, without losing our precious tone, nuances and dynamic response to playing techniques! It also helps to tame our volume levels when our exuberance in the heat of performance gets the better of us! It does not seem that the intent was ever to turn these attenuators into some new stomp/foot/pedal/thingie/toy to try to make up for the hard, diligent practice required to become a truly stellar artist! Might I politely suggest that if stomping on a pedal to control your sound is what you're really looking for, maybe you should look into high end modeling amps and/or boutique stomp boxes!
For me, these designs have been the most liberating pieces of gear I've ever owned! I will never be without one and plan to build enough of them to end up having one permanently installed and custon tailored for each in every amp I own!
Just My $.02 & Likely Worth Much less!
Gene
Those of us who've been fighting the cranked tube amp being too loud battle for years (I've been a steadily gigging singer/gutarist for +50 years) have been through most of the same trials, tribulations, "new" ideas and schemes that you're cooking up. We've found what works and what certainly doesn't and are simply sharing our combined experiences with you. This has been an ongoing war since guitars first got plugged into amplifiers and got "THAT SOUND!"
One of the best additions to your rig involves how you use your guitar and in the long run boils down to developing very specific and controlled playing techniques and skills. One of those skills is hard earned playing/picking dynamics. I can plug a guitar with no volume and/or tone controls into a massively powerful amplifier cranked into its sweet spot and be "almost" whisper quiet and clean, with amazing clarity, tone and blissful harmonic overtones and tonal complexity by simply softly and judiciously "controlling" what my hands do on said guitar! I can then dig up a little dirt by "digging in" a tiny bit harder and then I can kill small pets and vaporize Rosemary's baby (she should know better than to bring a baby to a rock show, but that's another story) by really hammering on my guitar! Unfortunately, that blazing volume that gets produced is way more than most sane people (including venue operators) are willing to endure!
A bit more about dynamics. If we make a scale where "0" is silence and "10" is as blazingly hard as you can slam, many (MOST) folks keep their dynamic "average" (rhythms, etc.) somewhere between "6" and "8" and are then disappointed that slamming to "10" doesn't put their solo or other part "out front" in the mix. There's really not a very big, audible difference in "volume/sound pressure level" from "7" to "10"!
Now let's look at a more effective and beneficial way of controlling our volume. If a player develops the technique of keepin their dynamic average somewhere in the "3" to "4" range, dropping to "1" or "0" is still pretty dramatic and allows for nice dynamically apparent "stabs" into that "6" to "7" range, while still allowing blazing stings and/or solos at the "9" to "10" range. This is how many of the really great players have attacked this for years!
Now, I can certainly understand the attraction of stepping on some switch to make up for not wanting to put in the long hard hours of developing great techniques. The main purpose/intent of these great attenuator designs that @JohnH has worked so diligently and hard to develop and generously share with the world at large (for free) is to allow us crazy guitarsts and tone hounds to use larger than practical amps at sane and acceptable volume levels, without losing our precious tone, nuances and dynamic response to playing techniques! It also helps to tame our volume levels when our exuberance in the heat of performance gets the better of us! It does not seem that the intent was ever to turn these attenuators into some new stomp/foot/pedal/thingie/toy to try to make up for the hard, diligent practice required to become a truly stellar artist! Might I politely suggest that if stomping on a pedal to control your sound is what you're really looking for, maybe you should look into high end modeling amps and/or boutique stomp boxes!
For me, these designs have been the most liberating pieces of gear I've ever owned! I will never be without one and plan to build enough of them to end up having one permanently installed and custon tailored for each in every amp I own!
Just My $.02 & Likely Worth Much less!
Gene
Last edited:
Similar threads
