Steven asked me to post this as he does not have his own profile set up here. Enjoy...
I could not gain any information from the video, since there was an audio compressor or limiter killing all the dynamics of the amps.
Did I hear that correctly?
The only "compression" is the result of youtube compression. I believe I mentioned in the video that the viewers listening experience would be limited in that regard.
And there is another issue that's bothering me:
I am always faced with esotheric voodoo and misleadings about the speaker impedance curve and the interaction with the power amp.
What is true:
Every speaker has an impedance curve.
With solid state amps this curve is highly damped to create a linear frequency responce. This is what I would call an high interaction between the speaker and the amp.
Tube amps damp much less and let the speaker live their natural frequency responce. I would consider this as low interaction, in difference to other experts.
I do not qualify low or high interaction as good or bad, it's just aspects of sound.
But I think it's funny that this interaction term has been invented decades ago and cited since then by experts and amateurs without questioning. Why is that? Well, it's a great marketing term!
With tube amps and lower damping the speakers develop an emphasized high end, but even more a low end peak with a reasonable Q-Factor. This is why they will sound loose and spongy (dynamic?), while damped speakers sound tight and dry. .
Display More
I would agree with you as a general principal. In fact, a "laymans" level explanation of this very point was discussed in Volume II (the 11R demo) , and the discussion is also referenced in both Volume III (the KPA demo) and IV (the Pod HD demo). If we know what we are talking about in the first place, we must be fundamentally in agreement.
What is not true:
When someone states that the change in sound that you hear is not a change in frequency responce but a change in dynamics. Not true.
What is kept secret:
The non-damped behaviour of the speaker does not make the sound more dynamic. Also the tube amp does not add dynamics, when driven in the linear region.
All what happens is that the speaker develops a different frequency responce, compared to the damped version. That's all! The tubes are not involved.
Again I would agree in principal, and again, the technical discussion in Volume II stated this in very general terms. The point here, from my perspective, is that the discussion is not about "dynamic range" in the scientific sense. What is being discussed is "playing dynamic" and I was very careful in my choice of terminology here in describing how the player perceives the esoteric - to use your term - interplay between the components. It should also be noted that the player in general does not always understand the strict difference between frequency response as represented graphically and the subtle shift in frequency emphasis due to the interaction between components resulting from the impedance curve of the speaker and enhanced or suppressed by the speaker enclosure design and amplifier damping behavior. Scientific language often converys little to the player looking primarily to find their ultimate medium of expression and that there is in fact some basis for the acceptance of certain "esoteric" concepts that players perceive, if only intuitively. The only ones keeping "secrets" are the ones who cannot or choose not to accept the juxtaposition of the scientific and esoteric aspects of this discussion.
This frequency responce is present at any volume, thus not dynamic. But it gives a more dynamic feel.
The change in frequency responce can easily be created by a simple equalizer in front of a modern solid state power amp, even by an analog circuit for a few bugs.
Spoken like a true acoustics professor However, even you are not immune to the presence of "feel" in such a conversation, naturally because no matter how you state it, the eoteric aspect is not always easy to express in scientific terms. Therefore "more dynamic feel" is a realistic attempt to convey a somewhat esoteric concept. Hopefully you'll pardon my wandering public speaking ability. I'm not at ease speaking with a camera in my face. Perhaps I can I look forward to your live video presentation in the near future for guidance?
The profiles in the KPA have these frequency responces coded in the cabinet section.
When you switch off the cabinet or select "MonitorCabOff", you still have these frequency responce aspects on your hand by adjusting the Monitor EQ.
It is not my intention to talk against tube power amps, but I will fight against esotheric arguments and attributes to make tube power amps look different than they are.
I will be happy to start a discussion about that, and to prove me wrong.
I think the Monitor EQ argument is where our positions differ - and only in real world application. No EQ curve I have ever encountered, no matter how closely it resembles a static graphical representation, has been able to accurately represent the esoteric interaction between a tube amplifier and speaker cabinet driven by the complex signals generated by a guitar. At some point, a modeler will be able to do enough math to make it possible, but I suspect that's a long way off and current "esoteric" gear does it so much better right now.
Despite that, it seems like we are more in agreement tnan not. It appears that where we differ is in application of various components and interpretation of results. Music appreciation and performance involves a lot of tactile and emotional interplay, and in that, I will continue to induldge my love for the gear that brings me the greatest satisfaction and inspiration. This in no way is any indictment of modeling gear, and I said as much very clearly in the introduction to each video, pointing out the relative strengths of each product. And I believe my appreciation for various aspects of the KPA is quite obvious, so hopefully you are simply nitpicking where I appear to be critical of the KPA and modelers in general. I don't think it is unfair for me to take the position that one can be impressed by technological advancement and keep one foot in the traditional or esoteric realm at the same time.
So I guess, I have no need to try to prove you wrong when it's obvoious that you are simply trying to be very precise, whereas I am simply interested in trying to communicate with guitar players with whom I share a passion for instruments that inspire spontaneity.