The difficulty in using the term "effects box" is inherent in its definition. "Effects units are electronic devices that alter how a musical instrument or other audio source sounds". In other words they are constructed by design with the intention of altering the audio source. The amplifiers and other equipment we make are not deliberately designed to do so - quite the opposite. So - forgive me here for falling back on my profession as a psychologist - it's a question of motivation. The term "effects box" implies some wilful and deliberate distortion on the part of the designer. Since none of us act out of the motivation to distort sound I believe the term is misplaced and this is where people can react against its use.
Well, if you claim that you can hear the effects of different cathode bypass capacitors in your amp, it's an effects box by your definition. Or you're imagining those differences. One or the other.
I have a single ended tube amp running in my lab to give us Music to Mix Chemicals By. Yes, despite the manufacturer's claim of it being a neutral hifi amp, it's absolutely an effects box. I haven't checked to see what is used for the cathode bypass cap.
I have a single ended tube amp running in my lab to give us Music to Mix Chemicals By. Yes, despite the manufacturer's claim of it being a neutral hifi amp, it's absolutely an effects box. I haven't checked to see what is used for the cathode bypass cap.
That's not the point I'm making. Your amp or my amp or anyone else's amp may distort the incoming signal in any number of ways. But they are not designed to do so. You are confusing the effect of an action with the motivation for an action. Since there is no motivation to distort the signal, the term is not correct. We don't "build effects boxes" - we build amplifiers. That's why they are sold as amplifiers and not sold as effects boxes. If they were, then that would be a breach of the trades descriptions act because it's not what they are constructed to do. Cars are sold as cars. They may have the effect of injuring pedestrians, but they are not sold or made as "devices to injure pedestrians" and this would be an incorrect description.
Last edited:
If it is agreed that, by definition, "distortion" means any discrepancy between the amplifier's actual output voltage and a literal magnified copy of the input voltage, then it seems to me that yes, there *is* a motivation and intent to distort the signal. Not in some random and horrible way, of course, but in certain specific ways that have been found to give rise to more pleasing sounds. The terminology "distortion" may sound somewhat perjorative, but technically speaking it is perfectly valid.
Chris
Last edited:
Hello Chris, I see the point you are making. I can't speak for other constructors who may harbour deliberate plans to distort, but I think for the majority of us what happens is that we juggle alternatives or possibly what you would call compromises. The intent is only in choosing one rather than another. I don't call that a motivation to create a device that by design is intended to distort the source in obvious ways. So no, I don't think the term has any useful currency at all.
So when the flamemode is already on let me open up another can of worms.
What if we don´t want a perfectly linear amp just to compensate for lacks in the rest of the system ?
Speakers aren´t perfect neither are rooms.
The human ear isn´t a very linear device either.
Is it the total sum or the individual parts that counts ?
What if we don´t want a perfectly linear amp just to compensate for lacks in the rest of the system ?
Speakers aren´t perfect neither are rooms.
The human ear isn´t a very linear device either.
Is it the total sum or the individual parts that counts ?
Or defects in the recordings. That's a perfectly valid point, and ultimately, the sound you want is up to you- as amateurs, we have a customer base of one, and we can tailor things to what that finicky fellow wants.
The difficulty comes when not recognizing that this is indeed the goal and designing appropriately.
I can only answer for myself. These days I tend to build with valves for the following reasons:Shoog said:
1. Nostalgia - I can now afford all the things I could only look at 40 years ago.
2. Experience - I find that I can get valve circuits to be stable whereas my experience with transistors in both audio and amateur radio is that they tend to be more finicky unless I am very careful. I have successfully built VHF receivers using MOSFETs for both broadcast and ham reception, but attempts at a fairly straightforward 'Doug Self' type audio power amp design failed due to persistent instability.
3. Anti-specmanship - I don't chase after zeroes after the decimal point on distortion figures. I know my ears and speakers aren't that good and I believe that optimising one thing too vigourously is likely to degrade other things.
4. Age - my eyesight and manual dexterity are not what they were 30 years ago so nice big tags suit me much better than tiny components on a PCB.
5. Simplicity - a reasonable valve amp is simpler than a transistor amp of similar performance.
Maybe one day I will have another go at my SS amp, but before that I have a valve phono preamp to design and build, and a valve communications receiver and maybe a valve AM transmitter for 3.5MHz or 70MHz.
Why I like some amps and dislike others? I don't know, that's my best answer. I don't know why I like A and dislike B. Maybe because A is linear and B is crooked, or maybe it is because one is telling the truth while the other lies. Maybe, just maybe some people like creative lies and crooked personalities....
I think, especially in Spain, these people are called politicians, bankers and property developers......
As somebody who loves Spain, I feel for you!
I agree they're everywhere but Spain is a fertile soil to grow such species. Not that I care anymore, it's been happening for so long that it's getting boring....Hamlet anyone?
I agree with you, DF96. Nostalgia, the glow of the tubes, and all that... I don't strongly believe that what I achieve with tubes is the best possible sound, but it is pretty good, and there is a lot of satisfaction in doing it with a rather simple circuit. I am also very keen on building OTL amplifiers, and that has the added charm of doing something I'd never have believed possible when I was first tinkering with tubes back in the 1960's.
Chris
^ditto here.....i belong to that camp that does not believe in the tubes vs. ss debate......nor SET vs. PP, nor mosfet vs. bjt's.........i do not put myself inside a fence this way....i am free to explore and create things for myself...
All amplification by the 2nd law of thermodynamics are effects boxes, gain without distortion doesn't exist.
That means microphones with their preamps are by Sy's definition effects boxes, all recordings are the product of effects boxes, the ear is an effect box, the air the sound travels thru, the room, and so on and so on.
The tricky part is quantifying the term "effects" as we are dealing with perception and therefore consciousness. Music ain't Science as much as some would like it to be it just ain't.
That means microphones with their preamps are by Sy's definition effects boxes, all recordings are the product of effects boxes, the ear is an effect box, the air the sound travels thru, the room, and so on and so on.
The tricky part is quantifying the term "effects" as we are dealing with perception and therefore consciousness. Music ain't Science as much as some would like it to be it just ain't.
I think that we all are trying to reproduce the live experience as good as we can.
There are alot of obstacles along the road some we can´t do anything about (hate modern mastering....)
There are few speakers acting as a resistive load......perhaps a magneplanar.
Starting with a good mastertape (the best start i can think of) the problems start at the tape head.....
I think what we really is arguing about is our different aproaches of the problem...not the goal.
There´s nothing perfect in this world, but one can try to make the best out of what we got.
There are alot of obstacles along the road some we can´t do anything about (hate modern mastering....)
There are few speakers acting as a resistive load......perhaps a magneplanar.
Starting with a good mastertape (the best start i can think of) the problems start at the tape head.....
I think what we really is arguing about is our different aproaches of the problem...not the goal.
There´s nothing perfect in this world, but one can try to make the best out of what we got.
I still run a Gainclone in my computer room. I like it and it has a very pleasant sound. I am certain that it measures better than all of my valve amps. However as soon as I moved from gainclones to valves I noticed a significant step up in detail and air to the sound.
I hate the fact that, for what is a relatively small difference, my valve amps are massively inefficient and relatively more expensive to run. However I am going to believe my ears and stick with the measurably worse performance of my valve amps because they just sound better.
Shoog
I hate the fact that, for what is a relatively small difference, my valve amps are massively inefficient and relatively more expensive to run. However I am going to believe my ears and stick with the measurably worse performance of my valve amps because they just sound better.
Shoog
The ear is a very forgiving device and adapts to the enviroment.
A small amount of low order distorsion is often registered as warmth by the ear.
Right now a EICO ST-70 that i saved from the dump is playing in the living room.
It´s not a hifi amp by modern measures but neither unpleasent to listen to....
If i should do any major improvement getting rid of my old Carlsson speakers is the way to go but i like thoose old ortho acoustic things 🙂.
I have the drivers for a linesource and one of theese days...
A small amount of low order distorsion is often registered as warmth by the ear.
Right now a EICO ST-70 that i saved from the dump is playing in the living room.
It´s not a hifi amp by modern measures but neither unpleasent to listen to....
If i should do any major improvement getting rid of my old Carlsson speakers is the way to go but i like thoose old ortho acoustic things 🙂.
I have the drivers for a linesource and one of theese days...
And we shall not forget that everything in audio is a subjective thing.... we can pretend it is objective because we spent hours and hours with planning, simulating, building, tweaking numbers etc. etc... but what we hear in the end is entirely subjective.... our judgement depends on a myriad of factors including personal preference, the pride of having achieved something special, the rest of the audio chain and so on.
We can fall in love with the sound of a certain component or a certain way of amplifying our music, and very sure it will sound really good... but whether the device is really true to the source is only judged by the builder and therefore subjective.
And it is good like that...there's nothing wrong about that, absolutely not... DIY audio (building audio gear) is a fascinating thing to do... a very creative way of occupying ourselves with a fundamental aspect of the human kind... music! And whether an SE-DHT amplifier is better in portraying the "soul" of the music or whether it is the wire with gain-whatever-amplifier ... I don't care.
We all have our preferences, we have our pride, and we should continue to have our fun in building things. I don't object with SY's terminology of an "effects box"... I keep reading that since I logged in on Diyaudio for the first time some 9 years ago... essentially it is absolutely true what he says but there is no need to get upset. Hey, it's all subjective!
OT. Me might as well argue about which red wine is the best from what country... or even worse..… speak about the beauty of women.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.