Layout 5th Generation 183

[Structo]

How many amps have you built Tag?

Played enough to know there are no other HADs around. Part of my opinion on his ability to due the above is based on having played 4 Dumbles side by side. For one example, his ability to get tones so similar using both EL34 and 6L6 tubes is pretty amazing.

You claim to have good ears, yet you can't tell the difference in tone between 6L6 and EL34's?

I think 183 definitely has an EL34 tone to it. It's more gritty, less smooth than 6L6.
More buzzy to put it in your terms.

Your hearing ability is very evident in the clips you post.
I don't think I have heard one clip from you that I would call good.

Way too much reverb, clipping, poor quality.

You can make a decent mp3 if you try, but you are too busy spouting off about it rather than getting serious with the quality aspect of recording.

[Max]

I tend to believe his more outstanding amps were happy accidents

.

Hi nix,

another obvious possibility would of course be that the Dumble amps, which you personally did not like that much, did exactly what the customers who ordered these amps have been asking for, but that these customers had a different personal taste concerning "outstanding" than your personal taste concerning "outstanding".

Cheers,

Max

[nix]

I tend to believe his more outstanding amps were happy accidents

.

Hi nix,

another obvious possibility would of course be that the Dumble amps, which you personally did not like that much, did exactly what the customers who ordered these amps have been asking for, but that these customers had a different personal taste concerning "outstanding" than your personal taste concerning "outstanding".

Cheers,

Max

I quite understand the semantics of 'difference' and 'preference'. Different isn't necessarily better or worse, just not the same. I have enough personal experience to know that no two amplifiers sound EXACTLY the same (this is not subjective), no matter who builds them...HAD included.
That was my only point.
Unlike others here, I'm not trying to stir the pot, I simply take exception to the myth that Dumble is a god who can perform the impossible. He is a great amp designer/builder... honestly, one of the rare ones that has his own thing.
That's cool enough without attaching unnecessary hyperbole.

[Max]

I quite understand the semantics of 'difference' and 'preference'. Different isn't necessarily better or worse, just not the same.

Hi nix,

You wrote:

It's been my observation that some Dumbles of the same circuit-style/generation perform considerably better for certain sounds than others. The only explainable difference is often components used. I tend to believe his more outstanding amps were happy accidents...

And in the world in which I live "better" and "more outstanding" are no words to express a difference but a subjective preference.

I have enough personal experience to know that no two amplifiers sound EXACTLY the same (this is not subjective), no matter who builds them...HAD included.

IMO this depends on what you mean with "exactly":
If you are using "exactly" in a scientific sense you are of course right. But with "tonal clone" I did (or at least intended to) talk about two musical instruments that are similar enough in all there tone, feel and overall "behavior" and "quality" (quality in the sense of "how" they are and not if "good" or "bad") that they can be used by a player as tools of the same "quality" in a practical sense.

That was my only point.
Unlike others here, I'm not trying to stir the pot, I simply take exception to the myth that Dumble is a god who can perform the impossible. He is a great amp designer/builder... honestly, one of the rare ones that has his own thing.
That's cool enough without attaching unnecessary hyperbole.

It is your personal belief and opinion that building what I call a "tonal clone" with different parts would be "impossible". And only based on this personal opinion and from the point of view of this personal belief someone who does this has to be a "god". So you first build up your own windmill and then you fight it.

IMO it is not necessary to be a "god" to build a "tonal clone" of a given amp but to be a well educated scientist who knows the laws of physics and how humans perceive sound and how to apply this knowledge in psychoacoustic engineering (and that is amp building in my view - a sort of sound engineering and design).

IMO guys like Alexander Dumble or Adrian Newey ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Newey ) are in my opinion no "gods" but clever engineers with a vast amount of knowledge, experience and intuition.

But IMO it would be necessary to be at least someone a bit like a "god" to know exactly what all is "impossible" - as you claim to know.

Cheers,

Max

[nix]

I quite understand the semantics of 'difference' and 'preference'. Different isn't necessarily better or worse, just not the same.

Hi nix,

You wrote:

It's been my observation that some Dumbles of the same circuit-style/generation perform considerably better for certain sounds than others. The only explainable difference is often components used. I tend to believe his more outstanding amps were happy accidents...

And in the world in which I live "better" and "more outstanding" are no words to express a difference but a subjective preference.

I have enough personal experience to know that no two amplifiers sound EXACTLY the same (this is not subjective), no matter who builds them...HAD included.

IMO this depends on what you mean with "exactly":
If you are using "exactly" in a scientific sense you are of course right. But with "tonal clone" I did (or at least intended to) talk about two musical instruments that are similar enough in all there tone, feel and overall "behavior" and "quality" (quality in the sense of "how" they are and not if "good" or "bad") that they can be used by a player as tools of the same "quality" in a practical sense.

That was my only point.
Unlike others here, I'm not trying to stir the pot, I simply take exception to the myth that Dumble is a god who can perform the impossible. He is a great amp designer/builder... honestly, one of the rare ones that has his own thing.
That's cool enough without attaching unnecessary hyperbole.

It is your personal belief and opinion that building what I call a "tonal clone" with different parts would be "impossible". And only based on this personal opinion and from the point of view of this personal belief someone who does this has to be a "god". So you first build up your own windmill and then you fight it.

IMO it is not necessary to be a "god" to build a "tonal clone" of a given amp but to be a well educated scientist who knows the laws of physics and how to apply them in psychoacoustic engineering (and that is amp building in my view - a sort of sound engineering and design).

IMO guys like Alexander Dumble or Adrian Newey ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Newey ) are in my opinion no "gods" but clever engineers with a vast amount of knowledge, experience and intuition.

But IMO it would be necessary to be at least someone a bit like a "god" to know exactly what all is "impossible" - as you claim to know.

Cheers,

Max

I'm not really inclined to edit and paste, but re-read my statement about 'better'. If you've construed that to mean I am showing a preference for something in particular, that was not what I obviously failed to get across.

And thank you for conceding my point, scientifically speaking. I certainly meant what I said in that light. No two amps can possibly sound exactly alike. They can obviously get really damned close, though.

Also, I'm no less like a god than Newey (whom I admire, btw...too bad Vettel hasn't quite figured it out yet) or Dumble. I have my positives and negatives just as they do.
In case you don't realize it, you're attacking the wrong guy...I wasn't antagonizing you, and unlike a certain know-it-all around here, I won't make any claims that aren't backed by a reasonable amount of qualification and experience.

[Mr Dumble]

Played enough to know there are no other HADs around. Part of my opinion on his ability to due the above is based on having played 4 Dumbles side by side. For one example, his ability to get tones so similar using both EL34 and 6L6 tubes is pretty amazing.

You claim to have good ears, yet you can't tell the difference in tone between 6L6 and EL34's?

Neither could anyone else who was there, or you for that matter. I can post clips that will prove this since you could not be there in person.

I think 183 definitely has an EL34 tone to it. It's more gritty, less smooth than 6L6.
More buzzy to put it in your terms.

With many of the clips, I agree. Its because I am setting the amp that way. The harmonic content is so thick and juicy, I actually will now take that and give away some smoothness for many of the tunes I use overdrive on. I have plenty of clips that show the smooth side of 183 as well.

Your hearing ability is very evident in the clips you post.
I don't think I have heard one clip from you that I would call good.

I would.

Way too much reverb,

Thats how much reverb I want.

clipping,

Not on my recently made ones.

poor quality.

Ah! But I do not process them in the way that say Scott Lerner and some others do. I do not compress them or the backings, or add anything at all othr than SOMETIMES some verb. Most of the verb and delay is from actual pedals in the loop, so you are really hearing how the amp sounds. I think many of my clips are of quality that shows how the amp actually sounds, and they are not enhanced.

You can make a decent mp3 if you try, but you are too busy spouting off about it rather than getting serious with the quality aspect of recording.

Yes I could, but see above. Now lets stop the stupid bickering.

[dreric]

Tom......... (in fun)

STOP!

DROP THE TAG!

PUT YOUR HANDS ON YOUR HEAD!

STEP AWAY FROM THE TAG!

I REPEAT, STEP AWAY FROM THE TAG!

(TAG for someone who doesn't care what anyone thinks you sure spend a lot of time and energy trying to impress us)

Eric

[Mr Dumble]

Tom......... (in fun)

STOP!

DROP THE TAG!

PUT YOUR HANDS ON YOUR HEAD!

STEP AWAY FROM THE TAG!

I REPEAT, STEP AWAY FROM THE TAG!

(TAG for someone who doesn't care what anyone thinks you sure spend a lot of time and energy trying to impress us)

Eric

Hey eric,
I am enthusiastic about this dumble stuff obviously, and its fun! I have been touting the Emerald Pro for 10 years now, and am still trying to find something that gets me those last few degrees closer to the real deal! I think I piss some guys off with the put up or shut up thing, but there is so much BS talk, and so little posting of comparison clips, its kind of sickening. All these cloners, and Carol Ann is the only one I know of who has posted direct A/B clips of his amp and a real dumble side by side. (GOOD for him!!) Of all these "Clones", why are there not all kinds of clips from the cloners of their amps next to the supposed Dumble it was cloned from? Thats why I tried to post as many clips of #183 in A/B situations as I could when I had it. Just to keep things honest. I dont care WHO ends up getting it dead on. I am hoping the Quinn does it, but if not, I will keep searching. Dont tell me one of these builders cant go out and buy a great sounding Dumble, then tweak it untill its dead on. I was hoping Scott would buy mine and do it, but it did not work out. So now the pressure is on Quinn. Dont go listening to guys who have an agenda against myself or Quinn either. I will be honest, and post direct clips to show if he has nailed it or not. Again I will state I have played lots of clones, and lots of original Dumbles, and I have not heard any clone that sounded as good as the best Dumbles. NONE.

[Mr Dumble]

Tom......... (in fun)

STOP!

DROP THE TAG!

PUT YOUR HANDS ON YOUR HEAD!

STEP AWAY FROM THE TAG!

I REPEAT, STEP AWAY FROM THE TAG!

(TAG for someone who doesn't care what anyone thinks you sure spend a lot of time and energy trying to impress us)

Eric

Hey Doctor Eric!
I am enthusiastic about this dumble stuff obviously, and its fun! I have been touting the Emerald Pro for 10 years now, and am still trying to find something that gets me those last few degrees closer to the real deal! I think I piss some guys off with the put up or shut up thing, but there is so much BS talk, and so little posting of comparison clips, its kind of sickening. All these cloners, and Carol Ann is the only one I know of who has posted direct A/B clips of his amp and a real dumble side by side. (GOOD for him!!) Of all these "Clones", why are there not all kinds of clips from the cloners of their amps next to the supposed Dumble it was cloned from? Thats why I tried to post as many clips of #183 in A/B situations as I could when I had it. Just to keep things honest. I dont care WHO ends up getting it dead on. I am hoping the Quinn does it, but if not, I will keep searching. Dont tell me one of these builders cant go out and buy a great sounding Dumble, then tweak it untill its dead on. I was hoping Scott would buy mine and do it, but it did not work out. So now the pressure is on Quinn. Dont go listening to guys who have an agenda against myself or Quinn either. I will be honest, and post direct clips to show if he has nailed it or not. Again I will state I have played lots of clones, and lots of original Dumbles, and I have not heard any clone that sounded as good as the best Dumbles. NONE.

[67plexi]

Ok time out…..
This is my take on the now famous #183 amp. Thanks to Jason for the fine boards.
I have a 4 button foot switch will add one extra OD channel (think HRM)
1968 plexi 100 watt output transformer, the real deal.
Quad of GEC KT-66 or RFT EL-34 Need a chassis and power transformer.

Steve.

[CHIP]

I'm in the process of building a 183 clone also. I decided to use the CE chassis I got a few months ago for this. I'm using Jason's boards also. Probably have it finished in Jan.
Where did you get those large radial caps on the power supply board?

[mcinku]

Guys make sure you report back and post some clips when you're done...

[Max]

No two amps can possibly sound exactly alike. They can obviously get really damned close, though.

IMO to sound "exactly" the same in a scientific sense is of no practical interest at all concerning two musical instruments. If – as an example - a musician has or wants to change guitars on stage for tuning he may perhaps want two guitars that feel and sound close enough to avoid even a short period of feeling uncomfortable after such a change in order to be able to keep his focus on the music. So he will perhaps ask someone to build two identical guitars with all identical specs. And even if this should have been accomplished in his view, at least to the degree he has asked for to feel at ease with both guitars, you would of course find differences in measurements and tone in a scientific kind of research - at least when using an electron microscope and the Bose or Fraunhofer sound research laboratory.

But AFAIK there is no scientific reason why "no two amps can possibly sound exactly alike", at least if you define "exactly alike" in such a practical kind of sense. How much alike two guitar amps sound is IMO no magic or wonder but the result of their design and manufacturing process.

Now, as we all know, the evaluation and the design of sound nowadays is a rather usual part of product design in general – and not only in the design of a pleasing guitar amplifier. No Panasonic razor and no BMW car will be designed today without an evaluation of its sound(s). And as is proven by the fact that we perceive an mp3 file as "music" at all, the science of psychoacoustics nowadays has reached a level, that the results now can be used in the design and evaluation of sound with rather interesting and perhaps even promising results – the Axe-Fx being one of them, the engine and exhaust pipe sound of a Porsche 911 another one.

IMO you can look on the design of a "sound replica" of #183 as a kind of "modelling", too. You have a signal present at the input of a kind of signal processor and you want to "process" this signal by this "processor" in a way that the signal present at the output of the processing device is similar to a certain degree (this degree would have to be defined yet in order to evaluate the results) to the one present at the output of #183 (given exactly the same input signal of course).

Because the "processing device" is no computer but shall be a tube amplifier the designer has to know how exactly the "signal processing" in a tube amp is done and how to chose all its parameters to get the same output signal as present at the output of #183.

Just like the engineer of a modelling amp has to know how to set all the parameters of the hardware and software of his modelling device to get the results he wants. In the end the building and the evaluation of a "sound replica" of #183 is a "sound design process", too, and in its general structure not that different from the design of the sound that is emitted by the engine of a Porsche 911 or a digital Piano.

Now don’t take me wrong: IMO the traditional intuitive approach to sound design and evaluation of people like Alexander Dumble or Jimmy D’Aquisto obviously is a very efficient way to design and evaluate sound, and currently perhaps still the most efficient one – at least in regard to musical instruments of the highest level. But the problem is that the "sound designer" then of course needs this kind of personal intuition or "genius", as it’s called sometimes, to do it in the traditional intuitive way.

Here’s the proof that one of the guys (if not "the guy") who perhaps started "electric guitar tone design", instead of just "amplifying", very obviously didn’t need the results of psychoacoustics but could do it in the old-fashioned intuitive way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP7qI5RVtxw

But let’s face it: Perhaps not every one of us may have the mastery and intuition of a Stradivarius. So if some here may perhaps be interested how the sound of a closing car door, of an idling car engine, of a loudspeaker, of a modelling device or a tube based Dumble clone, etc. could be designed and evaluated in a scientific way, just google "psychoacoustics" or "sound design" or "sound evaluation" etc. and you will find a lot of very interesting stuff (IMO) in regard to how sound can be designed and evaluated in a scientific way:

Just some results of such a kind of Google search:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics

How we all are always "fooled" when we listen to mp3 clips:

http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/EN/bf/amm/ ... /index.jsp

Two of the standard works:

http://books.google.com/books?id=qgsst2 ... &q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=eGcfn9 ... &q&f=false

Two examples for applications of psychoacoustics:

http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/publ/pdf/06/06fas3.pdf

http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/asf/bnam04/ ... rs/o05.pdf

Examples for lecture materials:

http://computing.unn.ac.uk/staff/cgpv1/ ... terial.htm

http://computing.unn.ac.uk/staff/cgpv1/ ... es/vsp.pdf

Two examples for design and evaluation software:

http://www.01db-metravib.com/nvh-instru ... e.558/?L=1

http://www.01db-metravib.com/nvh-instru ... n.560/?L=1

Thesis:

"In extended psychoacoustic studies an optimal sound for a specific product is "tailored" and it is the task of the engineers to modify the physics of the sound generation in such a way as to arrive at a sound which is as close as feasible to the target sound." ( source: http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/publ/pdf/06/06fas3.pdf )

Have fun,

Max

[Teleguy61]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0

[Structo]

Whew boy!

That took a lot of effort! (the one above Rodney King)