Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
I can get a much more powerful guitar amp for a lot less money if it's MOSFET-based. The MOSFET amp is also more reliable.
This I won't dispute. Tubes are unreliable (when moved and repeatedly powered on/off). Tubes are expensive.
If I'm going for venue performance volume, I probably want a MOSFET amp. If I'm performing in a studio, I'd probably want a tube amp.
Whoa there cowboy! power output != volume output. "twice as loud" is defined as an increase in sound pressure by 3 dB. It's not a linear scale by any means; it's logarithmic. The amount of power to go up in volume by 3 dB is roughly equal to 10 times the amount of power. Alternatively, you can double the amount of speakers. But, this lowers the total load impedance (amplifiers designed for a 4 ohm load really dislike a 2 ohm load).
No, the real solution to venue performance volume is an external sound reinforcement system (read: play the guitar through the PA and keep the on-stage volume at a reasonable level). If the musician can't hear himself, turn up the stage monitor. I've done both live sound engineering and studio recording/mastering. It's not about raw power output or raw volume -- it's how you shape and reinforce the sound you have. A novice engineer with the best, top-of-the-line gear probably can't do any better than a seasoned veteran using mid-range or even low-end equipment.
So no, you always want the equipment that produces the best sound, not the equipment that is more powerful/louder. The, "but it goes to 11" argument is silly.
-kelsey -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
