• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

22 years later vacuum tubes still available...

PE,

IMAX 3D is a very impressive cine system. The 65mm negative (15 Perf frame) contains a HUGE amount of information. Another impressive systems is "Showscan".

From what I have read on the Internet it appears that IMAX are moving to digital. Hopefully only for some programming....
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/03/imax_theaters_to_ditch_film_use_digital_dlp_projectors-2.html

65/70mm 5 perf movies are almost gone now. Despite the new modern small cameras and the fact that the film stock budget is a small % of a feature production, it appears that quality is less of a consideration than other factors.

Emulsion.
 
Yes "Gizmodo, the gadget guide. So much in love with shiny new toys, it's unnatural." So, I wonder how much of this hype is unnatural wishful thinking. After all, how long have we been hearing that digital motion picture projection is "just around the corner". I have seen a theater presentation of the newest Kodak system here in Rochester and was not impressed. It was " ho hum ". In fact, it was, how shall I say it? -- mmmmm- Digital.

PE
 
The unfortunate thing about theatrical exhibition of movies is this. While 35mm film "can" be superior to digital projection, it seldom is, due to insufficient training and skill of the projector "operator". I won't say projectionist, as that Union position went away long ago in most smaller towns. Back when a projectionist had to have training, film projection was wonderful. Now, with automation, for years it has been barely acceptable. Digital provides better "hands off" image quality in many locations. I know, I used to own theatres.

Back when I was growing up, and working as a projectionist, we used to clean lenses, projectors, lamp houses, etc. on a regular schedule, we never let film hit the floor, or any other thing that would allow it to pick up dirt or dust, and in the best houses one print (one single print) of a film could be run for 6 months and still look brand new. That would be 2 or 3 shows per day for six months. The only venues that have this type of quality nowdays are the I-max and Iwerks type theatres, where the operators are "still" well trained.
 
One thing that hasn't been mentioned about vacuum tubes is this. Vacuum tubes don't have a shelf-life. Once made, it can sit unused for decades, and be as good as it left the factory, therefore a "run" of a certain tube can be made, and may not have to be made again for 5 or 10 years, depending on demand. Big difference with a dated product like film, that has to be sold within a fixed period of time. You can take a brand new tube from the 1920's, (for example) and use it and it will deliver the same results as it did when it was made. If not used, and not broken, it doesn't age.
 
I have been to an IMAX theatre only only once for a full-length feature, and saw a very short one at Disney World I think.

The full-length feature made me wonder what was so special about it. It was so damn loud I sat in an uncomfortable position covering my ears for a good portion of the movie, and I have never done that in a theatre, except maybe a 3rd row seat at Saving Private Ryan' - I assume it's possible they simply had the volume up too high, and it has nothing to do with the technology. (I avoided 'Earthquake').

However, at the same show, the image looked out of focus or there were at least two different 'projections' (it is projected, right?), that were out of register.

I can't really say what I was seeing but it gave me a headache after a while. Again, this could have been an operator training issue or some other lack of proper procedure. The net effect was that I did not see any advantage in paying more for an IMAX ticket.
 
Murray;

You were apparently looking at a 3D image witihout the goggles or were having fusion problems with the goggles they gave you due to a bad fit.

PE
 
Wikipedia link

Good photographs of some of the equipment. I could do with a Xenon bulb like that for my enlarger!
 
AutumnJazz said:
Tube amps exhibit a lot of distortion. So technically, solid state is better.
Click to expand...

This is an important point and I think it is important to distinguish between audio systems and guitar amplifiers. With the former (and I am not an audiophile, so I could be wrong), you want faithful reproduction of the sound source (whether CD, disk, whatever). On the other hand, guitar amplifiers colour the sound of the original signal and this colouration is an integral part of the sound.

If you were to amplify exactly the sound of a metal string vibrating on a solid hunk of wood (e.g., a Fender Telecaster), it wouldn't sound very interesting. However, each element in the chain, from the electromagnetic pickups on the guitar, to the tube amplifier, to the speakers, are designed to modify and colour the sound. What we recognize as the sound of an electric guitar is not a faithful reproduction of the sound of that vibrating string - far from it - but a sound rich in particular kinds of overtones, attack and decay transients, and so on. Furthermore (and every guitarist knows this), a tube amplifier responds differently depending on the way you play (the way you touch the strings, pick, and so on), particularly when it is running really "hot."

As several folks have pointed out, there is now a huge cottage industry in tube guitar amps, and most of them are more or less reproductions of 1950s/early 60s guitar amps, with some modifications which make them more versatile in modern performance situations. Also, the days of giant stacks of huge amplifiers are now over and no one but the most stubborn of heavy metal dinosaurs goes there. Much more common is a low wattage tube amp, just like the 50s and 60s, but now miked and run through the PA.

For all you amp nerds, just for the record, my amplifer is a 1960 Fender Concert 4x10 (brown tolex) with a "voice of God" tremolo. I have a matching Fender reverb tank from the same era. Sounds like honey.
 

Especially when you put a DOD FX-56 "American Metal" pedal in the middle of that chain!
 
Kirk Keyes said:
Especially when you put a DOD FX-56 "American Metal" pedal in the middle of that chain!
Click to expand...

Ah, pedals! Another world altogether. Who remembers the famous Fuzz Face? I don't use very many, but I do have a little digital delay that I like for slapback. I think it is a DOD, about 20 years old.
 
I prefer the Big Muff Pi myself...for a fuzz pedal. The Fuzz Face has been reissued, BTW. Have not tried it.
 
Also, the days of giant stacks of huge amplifiers are now over and no one but the most stubborn of heavy metal dinosaurs goes there.
Click to expand...

Oi! I resemble that remark

Anyway I thought that Marshall have a selection of empty stacks for setting the stage for the true Spinal Tap look

And they go all the way up to 11 !
 
Aurum said:
Oi! I resemble that remark

Anyway I thought that Marshall have a selection of empty stacks for setting the stage for the true Spinal Tap look

And they go all the way up to 11 !
Click to expand...

I sold my 1958 Tremolux a few years ago, and it went to 12! Nyah nyah.

Empty stacks. That wouldn't surprise me! What is the photographic equivalent?
 
Don Wallace said:
Ah, pedals! Another world altogether. Who remembers the famous Fuzz Face? I don't use very many, but I do have a little digital delay that I like for slapback. I think it is a DOD, about 20 years old.
Click to expand...

Slapback delay is all I use. I have a valve Watkins Copycat for that.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Slapback delay is all I use. I have a valve Watkins Copycat for that.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Steve, they were my favourite back in the day, along with the German-made Echolette (not sure of the spelling). I have a 1960 Fender tape echo that needs repair and if I get around to it, the DOD may take a back seat.
 
I don't play guitar, but I do have a vintage fOXX Tone Machine that was given to me in the early 80s. It's covered in fuzzy red velour, and the couple times I've heard a guitar played through it, it sounded wonderful.
http://foxxpedals.com/products.htm

I see someone has one with a buy-it-now for $360 on the bay. Mine looks better than that one!

My only other vintage effects is a Roland SRE-555 Chorus-Echo tape delay. It's the final evolution of the RE-201 Space Echo. It does tape delay, chorus, stereo spring reverb, something called "Sound-on-Sound", and it rack mountable. And it weighs like 25 lbs. I bought mine in Minneapolis in 1990 (I like to think that Prince once owned it) for $100. I carried it home in a big suitcase. Now I see one on the bay with a buy-it-now for $1450!!!

My 2 year old likes to twist the knobs on it when she gets tired of playing my Roland Jupiter-8...
 

Oh believe me, I know the differences between a transducer amp (headphone/speaker) and a guitar amp. I was speaking of transducer amps.
 
Don Wallace said:
If you were to amplify exactly the sound of a metal string vibrating on a solid hunk of wood (e.g., a Fender Telecaster), it wouldn't sound very interesting.
Click to expand...

But that's only because it's what we are now used to.

If 1940's amplifier technology was much better i.e. very high fidelity, what we now think of as the 'standard' guitar sound would not have happened. We would have just had the boring hi-fi guitar sound.

Amplifier manufacturers in the 1940's and 1950's were not thinking about how they could use the inherent distortion and harmonic content to augment the guitar's sound, they were trying to get a pure a sound as possible but were not able to due to the limitations of the technology at the time.
It was musicians who realised the potential of using the amplifier's shortcomings to their musical advantage.

Even in the 1960's Fender engineers were trying to get a more hi-fi sound. In the early years after Fender was sold to CBS, engineers managed to introduce modifications and new models using distributed load output stages for more linearity. Things which Leo Fender was not totally in favour of as he prefered keeping things simple.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
If 1940's amplifier technology was much better i.e. very high fidelity, what we now think of as the 'standard' guitar sound would not have happened. We would have just had the boring hi-fi guitar sound.
Click to expand...

That's what I was trying to say. Thanks Steve!
 
Don Wallace said:
That's what I was trying to say. Thanks Steve!
Click to expand...

I'm envious of your Fender Concert!

Despite loving valves and being a builder of valve equipment, I actually gig using a Line 6 Flextone amplifier.

This is an modelling amplifier which emulates the sound of classic guitar amplifiers. It is actually very good and is ideal for gigging as it is one box which does everything I want as it has a tape echo emulator built in as well.

My Copycat and home made valve amp does go out occasionally but I need to re-build it into a more portable package.


Steve.
 
All of this effort to get more sound and more effects. Sounds like a digital guy using photoshop to get more color and distort the image.

How about plain old classic guitar with no amp? That is music to my ears.

So, without an amp at all, I hear what I think is better sound and at the right sound level.

PE
 

I see your point, although it is not quite the same thing. As Steve said, the electric guitar sound we know now is the product of some rather simple technology that was not particularly high fidelity. You might say that we have been socialized into this sound.

As for "plain old classic guitar with no amp," it is definitely one of my favourite sounds. I no longer play professionally (at least not much, although I do teach) so most of playing these days is on an acoustic guitar (for the guitar nerds in the forum - and there appear to be lots - it is a Beneteau, handmade in Ontario, Canada. About a 00 Martin size with wide nut, slotted peghead, rosewood sides and back. A real fingerpicker).

When I do play professionally the odd time with my acoustic, the sound guys are always annoyed because I don't use a pickup and instead insist on a microphone placed in front of the soundhole. Sort of like guys who insist on film. There are no pickups for acoustic guitar that sound as good as a decent mike. Go ahead, try and convince me. I have played most of them. If anyone has seen Allison Krause and her band recently, they sometimes perform with only ONE mic for the whole band, just like in the 1930s. They position themselves around it and when there is a solo, that person steps closer. I love it but it is more demanding on the player.

The BEST sound, as PE suggests, is no amplification at all, not even through the PA with a mic. That limits the audience of course, but it is awful nice.

As it says in the signature of someone in this forum, everything is analogue, even digital (eventually).
 
PVia said:
Yep...I use vacuum tube guitar amps exclusively. Tubes are a little more expensive now than they used to be, but they sound great. There is no comparison...just like film.
Click to expand...

I make 'em, guitar amplifiers that is, with tubes. The US made the best quality tubes. veroamps.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register