...Really, Even If You Can Make The Katana Sound Like One (Almost)...

And it turns out we're not done with Katanas yet...

Roland / BOSS have a thing called Tube Logic. I'd forgotten about it. It's some clever stuff that makes power transistors (or more to the point, an Op-Amp) sound more like power valves. More. Like. Not "exactly like". This is rock 'n roll. Nobody can hear your nuances over the drums.

In a last desperate attempt, to do something about the ineffably "blurry" clean tone I was getting from the humbuckers on the 594 with the power selector at 25W, the Master volume at 09:00 and the pickups at 6 / 7... I turned the volume to 12:00 and dialled the guitar volume back to 2 to bring the volume back to polite levels. It sounded almost identical to the first setting, but, I don't know, 10 lbs lighter?

Then out of curiosity, I turned the power selector to 0.25W (which takes all of 6dB off the 1W loudness of the speaker), and dialled the guitar volume back to 8. Oh Holy Moly! When played through an HX Effects channel with a Tube Screamer, or another distortion pedal, the clouds parted, and the sun shone through. Okay, we're not talking Mediterranean, but it was good enough.

You'll notice this is entirely counter to how Real Amps work. To get a clean tone on a Real Amp, keep the volume / gain below a certain level, and crank it up to get distortion. Cranking up the guitar, while turning down the amp, to get distortion, or cranking up the amp, while turning down the guitar, to get clean, is just being silly.

But that's Tube Logic for you. (Plug in via the Power Amp In socket, to by-pass the K's DSP, which you don't need because you've got a multi-effects pedal.)

It works for me. (For now.)

I do need to dedicate three blocks (two EQ and one compression) of the nine in an HX Effects circuit to what amounts to managing the Katana so it sounds vaguely like a proper amp, but I can live with that for the moment.

There's one combination I'd like to test: a Big Trees

 through a 1x12 cab. Not cheap, but then neither is a decent home hi-fi. And I think it looks cool.

...No, You Really Do Need A Valve Amp...

Hope you enjoyed the little psycho-drama. It had no resemblance to the inner workings of my mind. At. All.

I'm an engineer at heart. I don't collect, and I don't have that "pride of ownership" thing. Things are tools: cars, guitars, screwdrivers, espresso machines, lawnmowers, hi-fi's, whatever. I buy one because it does the job, and I can afford it. I prefer it to be well-made, with good materials, be comfortable to handle, and work with as little friction and bother as possible.

Guitar amps are made to compete with the singer, the bassist, maybe a horn section, a keyboard, the guys at the bar ordering drinks, the pool game over in the corner, the trucks leaving and arriving outside, and (shudder) a drummer, that monster capable of rendering any other instrument inaudible with a flick of the wrist. Nuance and subtlety of tone pretty much vanish when the band strikes up. Guitar amps are just fine for that purpose.

Ah, you say, but they are used in studios as well, where there isn't so much competition. Take a look at a video set in a 32-track (or more) recording studio. Not only does the mixing desk have more controls for things you didn't even know could be adjusted, there are racks of industrial-grade electronics to distort, warp, and modulate sound in ways that are not available on a Helix or a DAW. What comes out of the guitarist's amp into the mic and back to the mixing desk is mere raw material. What's on the record bears zero resemblance to what the band heard in the studio. In the 1960's the amp might have mattered, but not so much since the mid-1970's.

Guitar valve amps are not for home playing. They only come on song around 70dB, and the sweet edge-of-breakup only hits at 85dB or so. Unless it's a, yes, the K-word, which has some trickery in its Tube Logic.

Okay. Let's look at the gear.

Based on Guitar tube reviews, there's a bunch of valve and modelling combos priced below £600 from Marshall, Supro, Vox, Fender, and other familiar names. The clean tone sounds somewhere between suspiciously pristine and just okay, while the cranked tone is thin and fizzy, or boxy and fizzy. The so-called boost buttons do not add harmonic distortion, but just noise. Many of them have quality compromises even more than usual, often in the quality of the speaker, tubes or other components. See Psionic Audio's review of the AC10C1 for an example.

Let's go over the £600 line, and stay there.

Guitar-amp manufacturers have a house take on the clean, edge-of-breakup, and distorted sounds: the usual characterisations relate to the clean sound. Roland is super-clean; Fender is "scooped"; Vox is "chimey"; Marshall is "mid-range"; and so on. Each range has three variations on weight: 20-25 lbs, 40-50 lbs, and 60+lbs. Only the first of those will be going upstairs, so if you want an AC15 or a 4x12 Marshall stack, either you need to know a couple of strong lads prepared to get them up the stairs, or the studio needs to be in the garden or on the ground floor, and you will need a trolley.

So the questions for a bedroom player are: a) do I like the clean tone , b) can I get the thing up the stairs without getting a hernia, c) does it sound good at low volumes, d) will it treat my favourite pedals nice , e) what's the cool factor?, f) can I afford it?, g) will it make that much difference?

a) excludes Fender, because their clean tone is full of itself, and c) excludes Roland because even the JC-20 is WAY TOO LOUD at about 2 on the dial. b) excludes any combo over about 12kg or so, and hence restricts me to the smaller 5-15 watt combos, or a 1x12 and a head. f) depends a lot on the answer to g). To be fair to most modern gear, c) and d) are generally YES for the clean tone, and NO for edge-of-breakup or distortion.

e) Cool factor. That's a tricky one. None of the usual combos or head+cabinets are that cool. Even Marshall stacks are iconic rather than cool.

You Really Need To Get A Valve Amp...

My guitar-playing friend says that at some stage I really must get a valve amp, and I know he's thinking Fender. It's on my "things to vastly over-think" list.

Okay, so, which one should I get? Cue watching endless Guitar Tube videos comparing this and that.



(And that's just one of a zillion)

Wrong question. Better question: what benefit am I looking for or expecting? Is it realistic?

I mean, I've damn near tamed the Katana with the HX Effects. It does a really good impersonation of a valve amp clean tone. What more do I want?

I want edge-of-breakup! I want to sound like Tony "Bruno" Rey or John Roggio on their Saraya albums.



(Pouts. Folds arms defiantly.)

(Soothing but condescending tone) That's only for the Big Boys who can record and play at 100+ dBC. Now have a wash and change into your pajamas. Don't do that. It is not the end of the world. No. Life is not empty and meaningless. Don't be silly. Have you done your homework?

(Stamps foot.)

If I can't have that, I don't want one!

(Runs away to cry in secret.)

From Pendulums to p-Adic Numbers - A Philosophy of Mathematics

For quite some time I have been working on an essay on the philosophy of mathematics. It's gone through many changes since I first started jotting notes on the commute and in various cafes around London, and bears no resemblance to anything I thought I would write when I started. It isn't complete and probably never will be, since there are always more insights and examples to add. It does have most of the philosophical points I want to make, and talks about most of the maths I feel even half-way competent to discuss. So I'm going to make it available for whoever needs some light entertainment. It will get updated from time to time.

The link is here (link)

It's an attempt to answer these questions:

How is it mathematical techniques and tools are so suited to describe physical processes? 

How do mathematical concepts work?


What kinds of knowledge does mathematics provide?


How do we know that a theory does not harbour fatal inconsistencies? 

How do mathematicians get and develop their ideas?


How do we judge the value of a technique, theorem or subject? 

What constitutes progress in maths?

It proceeds through discussions of these issues in the context of differential equations, functional analysis, infinity, functions, numerical analysis and recursive functions, and the various types of numbers, from the counting numbers to the p-adics. There's a discussion of axiomatics and model theory and a brief look at category theory; the way mathematical ideas are structured and what mathematical knowledge is (epistemology); how we might appraise different mathematical theories (methodology); and what constitutes progress and then a discussion of how to get ideas and solve problems (heuristics).

What there isn't is detailed presentations and rebuttals of existing philosophies of mathematics, what I've called the “where Smith mistakes Jones’ summary of Brown’s critique of Frege’s

misunderstanding of Kant” school of scholarly discussion. 

Rigging

 

You know which boat this is, and where it's located. Worth clicking through to get a better view of all those cables and ropes, none of which are called "cables" or "ropes" by Real Sailors, but then. I'm not a Real Sailor.

Charlton House

 Most of it is open to the public, but sadly there's no historic furniture, art or decoration there. It's a ten-minute walk up the hill from Charlton station, and worth an amble around the park, a cup of coffee and slice of Victoria cake in the cafe. 

Negative Space, London Bridge Station

All the Kool Photographers talk about using "negative space", but I always thought it meant they exposed those part of the picture incorrectly. But this one seems to work.