3rd Power making AXE-FX friendly poweramp, asking 4 feedback

A

aksman

Inspired
So the 3rd Power amp was clearly geared toward the Digidesign Eleven cosmetically, and I asked about removing the faceplate a while back.

I got this email out of the blue today:

"Hi Adam,

Depending on the interest level, availability looks like it could be around 90 days. I took some time to refine the design of the amp to accommodate AXE-FX owners (please see pic). This is an artist rendering of what the unit would look like without the orange bezel mounted.

Please provide me some feedback on your thoughts.

Regards,

Jamie Scott
3RD POWER Amplification"

AND this pic was included:
SV3015Frontno-bezel.jpg


I figured I'd share it with the community and direct him to the thread...
 
If you're not getting all the "pure tube tone" you want from your Axe-Fx, then IMO you either haven't yet figured out how to use it or it's time to move on to other gear. Why anyone would use a modeler to emulate a highly colored tube power section and then route that signal through another highly colored tube power section is beyond me.
 
Jay Mitchell said:
If you're not getting all the "pure tube tone" you want from your Axe-Fx, then IMO you either haven't yet figured out how to use it or it's time to move on to other gear. Why anyone would use a modeler to emulate a highly colored tube power section and then route that signal through another highly colored tube power section is beyond me.
Click to expand...
[Confused] +1 [/Confusion] :p
 
On a side note did anyone see those triangular speaker cabs? I don't know why, but i really want a set of 3 to make a nice w/d/w setup.
 
jdurso said:
On a side note did anyone see those triangular speaker cabs? I don't know why, but i really want a set of 3 to make a nice w/d/w setup.
Click to expand...

they look cool,but aren't the front and back still parallel?aren't the standing waves worse directly behind the speaker?
 
this would not be loud enough on a gig where you would need a good amount of clean headroom.
 
For a 2 space power amp that matches the axe cosmetically, if you really want tubes and don't mind the weight, go with a mesa 50/50. Can be found used for around 500, and it has plenty of push and headroom. Cosmetically almost identical to the axe, black with some understated white lettering and small knobs. Mine blows doors, but I don't use it live because I prefer a light single rack space power amp (currently a carvin DCM150). For more overkill and insane weight I guess you could look at a mesa 2:90. I've heard VHT's are good with the axe too, but I haven't used one.

But 2x30 watts, that's not going to have enough muscle and I suspect it will dramatically color the sound (the mesa is actually pretty neutral, but adds some sibilance at the high end and lots of breath and headroom). And that price is pretty stout for 2x30 unless you are really looking for color, which as has already been noted is not needed with the axe.
 
RDeraz said:
they look cool,but aren't the front and back still parallel?
Click to expand...
The idea that non-parallel surfaces has any effect on standing waves is largely a fallacy. Parallelism of enclosure panels is immaterial to standing waves in a speaker cab.

aren't the standing waves worse directly behind the speaker?
Click to expand...
"standing waves" only occur inside an enclosure. Standing waves in a room have nothing to do with the shape of the source of sound, (i.e., the cab), but with the shape and proportions of the room.
 
thanks Jay. :) so it has more to do with the type and amount of damping material?to the OP,sorry about the sidetrack thread.
 
Jay Mitchell said:
If you're not getting all the "pure tube tone" you want from your Axe-Fx, then IMO you either haven't yet figured out how to use it or it's time to move on to other gear. Why anyone would use a modeler to emulate a highly colored tube power section and then route that signal through another highly colored tube power section is beyond me.
Click to expand...



I haven't ever tried the Axe through a SS (I use a Carvin TS100). I've been debating picking up a DCM200L, but I figure that since the Atomic Monoblock is tube, there must be something to it...
 
aksman said:
I haven't ever tried the Axe through a SS (I use a Carvin TS100). I've been debating picking up a DCM200L, but I figure that since the Atomic Monoblock is tube, there must be something to it...
Click to expand...
Nope, nothing to it. From Tom King in recent thread in the Lounge:

"Here is my take on this topic as founder of Atomic Amps:

· First and foremost - the Axe-Fx does not require a tube amp to sound or feel like one. In order for the Axe-Fx to live up to its full potential for live use it should be paired with a high quality, linear amplifier (tube or solid state) and either with a well-matched, high-quality FRFR cabinet or with a traditional guitar cabinet.

· Atomic was in the business of making tube amps prior to partnering with Fractal and before the Axe-Fx existed. It was natural for us to adapt our successful, highly regarded designs to create a great sounding amplifier and speaker compliment for the Axe-Fx and other products that required a full range solution for personal monitoring."
 
I think thats the point.

Ofter a year I came to terms with the fact that the Art SLA (at least my SLA-1) isnt a "good quality" amp (at least when pushed past half way). Its great for the money , but next to the Axe (and my PRSs) it was by far the weekest link.

I tried a Lab Gruppen and it was a lot better, though the Marshall 9100 I tries was maybe a touch better - but JUST a touch.

I couldnt get hold of a Powersoft to try. As their lighter than the Lab,and 1U it may have been a better candidate, but also may not have been so good due to the class each runs in.

I ended up ordering a VHT 2:50:2. Not because it was valve - and certainly not because it was light, but because from all accounts its the most neutral of the Valve power amps - and and a snip of £650 ex demo was cheaper than the £880 for the Lab or £900+ for the powersoft.

I think Ive ended up with a top quality - fairly neutral (if not exactly linear) Amp. Whether I have or havent, it still sounds better than the Art did.
 
Powersoft are one rack space and very light, but they are quite deep. If you want high power/light weight the Carvin L series are the same technology. The DCM 1540L is two rack spaces but much shallower (10") than a powersoft, so it will fit in a shallow rack that doesn't look odd sitting on a cabinet. The DCM200L is one rack space but may not have the horsepower for big headroom if you want a huge sound. I'm toying with the idea of trying one out.
 
RDeraz said:
thanks Jay. :) so it has more to do with the type and amount of damping material?to the OP,sorry about the sidetrack thread.
Click to expand...


Or you design an internal ported baffle and call it the Afterburner... see Mills Acoustics.
 
Jay Mitchell said:
"standing waves" only occur inside an enclosure. Standing waves in a room have nothing to do with the shape of the source of sound, (i.e., the cab), but with the shape and proportions of the room.
Click to expand...

Right but when you're talking standing waves within the cabinet itself, the cabinet design is equivalent to the room. Still not sure how a triangular shape can eliminate standing waves (maybe limit them) but the cabinet designs I've played that limit/eliminate standing waves have always had a more desirable bass response and in some cases more of a 3D spread, at least to my ears.
 
jdurso said:
Right but when you're talking standing waves within the cabinet itself, the cabinet design is equivalent to the room.
Click to expand...
There is a major, fundamental difference: the ratio between enclosure (room or cab) dimensions and wavelengths of sound. Standing waves can only exist in a space when the greatest dimension exceeds 1/2 wavelength. The range of frequencies of interest for guitar is 80 Hz (lower for detuned guitar) to approximately 8kHz. The wavelength of 80 Hz is 14 feet. The smallest enclosure in which you can possibly have a standing wave at 80 Hz will have at least one dimension that is 7 feet or larger.

Taken from the opposite end - working from cab dimensions to frequency - the lowest frequency at which standing waves can exist in a cab that is, say, 15" wide (inside dimension, with depth and height i.d. being no greater than that) will be ~450 Hz. By far the most effective way to control standing waves from this frequency range upward is with acoustic absorption. With the range of dimensions that can actually be used for a guitar cab, the shape of the cabinet will have no detectable effect on standing waves.

the cabinet designs I've played that limit/eliminate standing waves have always had a more desirable bass response and in some cases more of a 3D spread, at least to my ears.
Click to expand...
One then must ask how or whether it was verified that the cabs in question had actually managed to "limit/eliminate" standing waves. It's one thing for the builder to claim that property for his design, another altogether to actually achieve it.
 
Jay Mitchell said:
jdurso said:
the cabinet designs I've played that limit/eliminate standing waves have always had a more desirable bass response and in some cases more of a 3D spread, at least to my ears.
Click to expand...
One then must ask how or whether it was verified that the cabs in question had actually managed to "limit/eliminate" standing waves. It's one thing for the builder to claim that property for his design, another altogether to actually achieve it.
Click to expand...


Well the two examples of the cabinet designs that are built to limit/eliminate standing waves are the Mesa Thieles and the Mills Acoustic Afterburner cabs. Can i 100% say that they are achieving what they claim? Nope... nor do i really care to test that out. But the way in which they go about killing standing waves in their designs are sound as far as i can tell (engineering major, math and physics minors). Also when compared side by side with the traditional 4 sided/no frills designs that use the same speaker(s) you can hear the difference in bass response and improved clarity using the same guitar and amp.

Now I'm not saying this triangular design achieves what they claim to achieves, but until its disproven by putting it through its rounds or testing it using a more scientific method, i dont think we can say one way or another.
 
jdurso said:
Well the two examples of the cabinet designs that are built to limit/eliminate standing waves are the Mesa Thieles
Click to expand...
Which is nothing but a rectangular, ported loudspeaker enclosure. How is it alleged that this box is "built to limit/eliminate standing waves?" I see no such assertions on the Mesa website....

and the Mills Acoustic Afterburner cabs.
Click to expand...
Here's a quote from their website: "Our method of controlling these internal waves is based on a principle of "disrupting the timing of reflectivity" within the cab and scattering the remaining residual waves away from the speakers. As a result, our "AFTERBURNER BAFFLE" was born. It "neutralizes" the back panel in the same way that a chambered cab does without having to actually chamber the cab into smaller cubicles. It also acts as a diffuser, to scatter the remaining reflected waves. "

That's quite an entertaining blurb, especially so given that what they claim to have accomplished is not physically possible. There's so much BS in the above that it's not worth the time that would be required to refute it point by point. A reasoned, accurate refutation would be far beyond the comprehension of anyone who could bring themselves to make such absurd claims anyway. Suffice it to say that the required ratio of size vs. wavelength for an object to work as a diffuser is such that no diffuser that is effective at guitar frequencies could hope to fit inside a guitar cab.

Can i 100% say that they are achieving what they claim?
Click to expand...
I can say with 100% certainty that the Mills cab is not achieving what they claim. It's those pesky laws of physics that everyone gets busted when they try to break. :cool:

But the way in which they go about killing standing waves in their designs are sound
Click to expand...
Nope. See above. One of the keys to an engineering-level understanding of acoustics behavior is to develop a feel for the required scale. When the size of an object must be several wavelengths in order for it to have certain behaviors (e.g., diffusion), it should be intuitively evident that no such object will ever reside in a guitar cab.

Now I'm not saying this triangular design achieves what they claim to achieves,
Click to expand...
I'm saying - and you can take this to the bank - that it does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom