Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums
https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/

Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6151		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Steven Kaplan [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
This can offer enough sound distribution over 300+ acres ? Is wattage a subjective word, where speaker output fluctuates in accordance to speaker efficiency vastly ?  and how does "Gain" differ or factor in ?   Was Woodstock 69 just a matter of more headroom from cabs, and less wattage ?    I wouldn't think given the number's of people, open area, that 3500 watt's would've offered enough sound for that area ?
Author:  Lonman [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
Steven Kaplan @ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:19 pm wrote:
This can offer enough sound distribution over 300+ acres ?


Not in todays standards by no means.  But then again, they did have massive speaker columns set-up & if configured correctly, they may have been able to get away with it.  Every time the speakers are doubled, it effectively raises overall volume by around 3 db.
Author:  Steven Kaplan [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
I suppose I'm confused Lonman, because todays speakers are more efficient than 35 years ago, aren't they ?   Although tranny wattage is perceived (I believe) when not cranked all the way up because of calibration being more even than tube wattage which often reaches higher volumes when the potentiometer is first turned abit.....Isn't 3500 actual watt's tube..... still 3500 actual watt's tranny ?   Needless to say, I'm confused, and will shutup and listen to the answer. With efficiency today is the conversion   (sound output 3:1  Tranny:Tube loudness ) still a factor ?

You mentioned speaker doubling awhile back Lonman, and what confused me regarding the headroom aspects is doubling to what point ?  Wouldn't you reach a point of diminishing returns ?   Here's my question,  Sure a 30 watt pignose can power a Marshall stack and even sound pretty decent.....Yet there'd be only so many speaker cabs this small amp can actually drive without loss.. Principle of diminishing returns I believe...You need sufficient wattage to drive many cabs and retain volume..At least I thought you did... If I try driving 10 8X12 stacks with a 30 watt RMS head,  would there be sound loss ?   or enormous sound ?  One head can only push so much sound
Author:  karyoker [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
Quote:
This can offer enough sound distribution over 300+ acres ?


Yup After this event that county and the state passed more spl and outdoor event sound laws (not to mention drug laws)  The key word is distortion It was less watts but more spl at a lower amount of bandwidth...With the increased bandwidth now more power is required but the gain increase in spl is not linear with the added power. Woodstock 94 was 1.5 megawatts
Author:  EElvis [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
watts are just that watts. But comparing 3500 tube watts to 3500 transistor watts.....That isnt fair to those poor transistors. The tube wattage would sound like 3 times as much. Why do you think the tube guitar amps are still so popular?
Author:  Lonman [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
Steven Kaplan @ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:28 pm wrote:
I suppose I'm confused Lonman, because todays speakers are more efficient than 35 years ago, aren't they ?   Although tranny wattage is perceived (I believe) when not cranked all the way up because of calibration being more even than tube wattage which often reaches higher volumes when the potentiometer is first turned abit.....Isn't 3500 actual watt's tube..... still 3500 actual watt's tranny ?   Needless to say, I'm confused, and will shutup and listen to the answer. With efficiency today is the conversion   (sound output 3:1  Tranny:Tube loudness ) still a factor ?


I don't think watts was really a factor, the more speaker you add the louder the sound will be - that will never change.  Say a speaker can push 90db, 2 speakers will push a couple db more which almost effectively increase volume perception by half.  Can't find any info on what kind or how many were actually set-up.
Author:  Steven Kaplan [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
Tube amps are popular because of the smoother distortion offered.  Also tube technology offers a type of natural dampening, while tranny is harsher...Look at it this way....


You're listening to a symphony.... Does it sound better sitting right on top of the orchestra where sound will appear harsh ?  or from several row's back ? That's the analogy that was explained to me in terms of how transister vs Tube amp technology differs in terms of how our ears perceive two amps of comparable sound output, and why tube distortion is preferable... (tranny....harsher and less natural dampening)  yet tube technology was more like sitting abit away where there's a  natural sound dampening..  Tube distortion is perceived as smoother, and hence preferable for classic rock, and blues styles.....Sounds warmer because of the wave formation.. Tranny is clean and accurate, yet to the ear not as smooth and warm for styles many like to listen to...

What bother's me about this, is that even though many swear that tube  technology offer's certain qualities that tranny or even hybrid does not to most discerning listeners....Scientist's still call the difference "subjective"...Because it's perceived by the senses....this isn't considered fact.... This stuff can drive you crazy... LOL
Author:  Steven Kaplan [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
Yet I'm not a tech, so I'm willing to take a beating like a man on my last post regarding tube vs tranny amp preference..... It's all about the distortion, and natural dampening offered by tube..... (as was explained to me ages ago)


Thanks Lonman, and Karyoker


I just don't understand how a 20 or 30 watt class A tube head can push a stage full of speakers without sound loss...and perceived volume increase only til a point...after which sound level drops off...

I don't know...
Author:  Lonman [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
Steven Kaplan @ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:28 pm wrote:
You mentioned speaker doubling awhile back Lonman, and what confused me regarding the headroom aspects is doubling to what point ?  Wouldn't you reach a point of diminishing returns ?   Here's my question,  Sure a 30 watt pignose can power a Marshall stack and even sound pretty decent.....Yet there'd be only so many speaker cabs this small amp can actually drive without loss.. Principle of diminishing returns I believe...You need sufficient wattage to drive many cabs and retain volume..At least I thought you did... If I try driving 10 8X12 stacks with a 30 watt RMS head,  would there be sound loss ?   or enormous sound ?  One head can only push so much sound


I don't know in reality, it has worked for me but on a much smaller scale.  We did an outdoor show (live) & were using 4 dual 18's per side being pushed by 2 Carvin DCM2000 amps per 2 stack.  We were still lacking on the bass we needed so we added 4 more per side - using the same amps.  Had to configure wiring to a serial/parallel configuration to compensate for the added load to get the ohms back to where they needed to be.  Result was MUCH better than we anticipated & actually had to turn the bass down after that.
Author:  karyoker [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
I started a similar thread on prosound web a couple years ago their explanation was  todays speakers with more bandwidthtakes  more watts...Lonman is right a speaker  array if designed right and on towers will light a big pasture...
Author:  Steven Kaplan [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
True Lonman,  It does work to a point, granted.... Yet my JCM-800 2205 (50 watt tube head) did not do well with two stacks outdoors... I had to use the 2210 100 watt head to get the headroom out've the 16 12 inch speakers.. (50 watt head sounded really weak)..  Most of us that have played in outdoor area's that are reasonably sized (without going into a PA) won't even attempt using a 50 watt head.. and more cabs..... The 100 watt head is necessary to fill out the sound outdoors, even with fewer speakers....(for guitar that is, blues and classic rock)...

I won't insist on this being true... It's just been something that I've tried and tested....
Author:  Lonman [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
Steven Kaplan @ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:52 pm wrote:
True Lonman,  It does work to a point, granted.... Yet my JCM-800 2205 (50 watt tube head) did not do well with two stacks outdoors... I had to use the 2210 100 watt head to get the headroom out've the 16 12 inch speakers.. (50 watt head sounded really weak)..  Most of us that have played in outdoor area's that are reasonably sized (without going into a PA) won't even attempt using a 50 watt head.. and more cabs..... The 100 watt head is necessary to fill out the sound outdoors, even with fewer speakers....


But how were they all wired or connected to the head?
Author:  Steven Kaplan [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
You've got me there lonman !   When getting into series, and parallel wiring, I'm lost...I can't answer that....don't have the knowledge, nor can I tell you what preamping even means....or powered cabs.... So I just don't know..WIsh I did LOL

Perhaps,  (and you folks are certainly more technical than I am) if there were in fact a way for complete efficiency when running one head through alot of cable without loss from cable length....the indefinate doubling concept would work,,,,again, I'm curious but dunno about this type thing
Author:  Lonman [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
Steven Kaplan @ Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:58 pm wrote:
You've got me there lonman !   When getting into series, and parallel wiring, I'm lost...I can't answer that....don't have the knowledge, nor can I tell you what preamping even means....or powered cabs.... So I just don't know..WIsh I did LOL


That quite possibly was the problem as they may not have been wired correctly to accomodate for the additional load to the head.  There should be a very noticeable difference in volume - even with the 50 watt head.  
Man I miss my Peavey Classic 50 head - sorry daydreaming! :(
Author:  karyoker [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
Quote:
watts are just that watts. But comparing 3500 tube watts to 3500 transistor watts.....That isnt fair to those poor transistors. The tube wattage would sound like 3 times as much. Why do you think the tube guitar amps are still so popular?


 Tubes as they get hotter and the filament gets hotter conducts more cathode current ... With proper idle  bias might increase the power out With wrong bias it would increase but with distortion...In other words hot was good.

With solid state devices heat or thermal runaway is their biggest downfall That is why the heat sinks on tranny amps are so huge...At a certain internal temp a transistor is no longer in the linear portion of the operating curve (distortion) and is putting out less power than they are capable of...

A tuber is a voltage amp and a solid state is a current amp....
Author:  Steven Kaplan [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
The Classic 20, 30, and 50 were excellent amps,   DAMN fine tone !   I'll grab those anyday.... The Crate vintage 50's with 3x10's were fine sounding amps too....Yet the Peavey classic 30 for indoor distortion cranked was my favorite to be honest...Liked that more than ANY JCM-800 or 900 combo I ever played....Kudo's to Peavey....They did make some great stuff....(even though it lacked the "bigger names")...WHO CARES....IMHO..... Of course from the perspective if the vintage collector, different story...yet from the perspective of gigging musicians....Peavey classic seriously offered FINE vintage sound

(I'll be honest, I had the Fender Blues Deluxe, and BLues Deville amps.... Peavey classic series was everybit as nice...IMHO)
Author:  Steven Kaplan [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
Quote:
Tubes as they get hotter and the filament gets hotter conducts more cathode current ... With proper idle  bias might increase the power out With wrong bias it would increase but with distortion...In other words hot was good.



What is it about a tube amp that enables it to qualify as "Class A" ?


I think another consideration is that Griffis <SP> Airbase was huge... Wasn't it something like 2 miles between the stages ?  It was also a vast flat area..... Even by todays standards vs the standards of 1969.... Yasgur's 300 acres wasn't nearly as large, and the terrain was quite different.. You can be sure assuming another concert was setup where Woodstock 69 was situated, on Yasgurs location..The wattage needed wouldn't be comparable to Griffis, which was a massive wide open area...

 On a side interesting note..... Back in those days they didn't have delay's like they used between towers at the latest woodstock did they ?   Sound would've likely echoed all over during Woodstock 1969..

Original Woodstock might've been 3500 watts, but Griffis was over 3500 acres... and flat...Quite a difference...


http://www.yasgurs.com/   just an interesting link
Author:  karyoker [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
Quote:
What is it about a tube amp that enables it to qualify as "Class A" ?


 Simply put a class a amp has plate current and the amplified signal on the plate replicates the input  during 360 or full cycle... It is never cutoff or saturated.  A classab is cutoff somewhere between 180 and 360 degrees.  Thus the input signal amplitude is limited by the power supply voltage which in turn establishes the bias.. If the tube is cutoff at  0 volts and has a bias of 10 volts then the input cant exceed 20 volts peak to peak...

A class b is cutoff for exactly half of the cycle...This is used in pushpull amps where one tube handles the neg half and the other tube handles the pos half..They are fed with a 180 phase inverter That way each only has to pass half the current and is not concerned with full cycle capabilities.
Author:  Steven Kaplan [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
Thanks Karyoker,  I think for my own pruposes...not to mention sorely limited knowledge on my part,  I will just have to settle for Class A= better tube amp for classic rock and blues styles....LMAO...

I couldn't tell you if the plates in my amps are China or Stoneware  :(
Author:  karyoker [ Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Woodstock69. Total watts 3500 (real watts)
Actually there is nothing complicated about vacum tubes. After they found out that a filament could put out light or heat in a vacum it progreesed from there. I a triode the filament was provided with 6 volts filament voltage and heater agitated the electrons into a cloud .. A plate or smooth surface with a high positive voltage attracted the electrons hence a plate current was established.  The it was found that a control grid (less area but closer to the electron cloud) could control the plate current with a lot less voltage than the plate. So lets say you have a gain of 10,  a 1 volt signal on the control grid would produce a 10 volt change on the plate... So now it is amplifying.. The bias on the control grid deternines operating paramters and gain..

Then it was found that some electrons in the cloud never left so an accelerator grid was added close to the control grid  to attract and repel them to the plate (tetrode)...Hence more efficiecny.. Then the problem was the accelerated electrons were in their accelerated state bouncing off the plate  So a suppressor grid was added close to the plate to repel them into the plate (pentode).... So the final result is an amplifier with elements that have interelectode capacitance that has more effect as the frequency increases... Thus the high frequency response rolls off. I cant think right now how bass is affected (senilaty)   But basically that is tubes in a nutshell
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/