Bloody EU - this is quite worrying..

impmann

Gentlemen,

Power does not necessarily mean efficient - and in my experience there is a reason why all professional cleaning companies use the same vacuum cleaners...

http://www.numatic.co.uk/products4.aspx?id=1

Plus they haven't banned the making of parts to repair vacuum cleaners - so of course if you chose wisely, and bought cleaners that can be repaired and that you can buy parts for, when your current cleaner turns up its toes you could repair it and keep it going. This is actually the most environmentally friendly solution...

Sadly in my experience, the only cleaner that you can repair/buy parts for easily is

http://www.numatic.co.uk/products4.aspx?id=1

Its no wonder Mr Dyson is clenched.

BTW - is this all relevant to amplifiers? How many watts does an average guitar amplifier consume?

ICBM

impmann said:

BTW - is this all relevant to amplifiers? How many watts does an average guitar amplifier consume?

"Average" - not sure. It depends what the average amp is nowadays. A Line6 Spider - I think the biggest selling model range at the moment - is pretty efficient, and probably only uses a few tens of watts at most when it's running at 'idle' level, and possibly a couple of hundred when cranked (for the 75W model).

A Fender Hotrod Deluxe - the biggest-selling valve amp model - uses about 100W at idle and also about 200W cranked, I think (I don't have one to measure right now.) A "Class A" amp like an AC30 will use a bit more at idle.

The most powerful 'normal' valve amps - 100-watters - use up to 400W or so when fully cranked.

But it could become relevant to guitar amps - it isn't the outright consumption that bothers the Eurocrats, it's the efficiency - which is why small transformer power supplies are being phased out in favour of switch-mode ones… they don't use much power, but they're very inefficient and use almost as much at idle as at full output. Although, there are a hell of a lot of them - unlike guitar amps. So perhaps we will escape being noticed.

That said, I still really don't understand why large, powerful, high-complexity valve amps are still being made in the 21st century - it cannot be beyond the wit of man to make solid-state ones that sound as good. (Simple vintage-style valve amps will always have a place, for different reasons.) But I think change gonna come.

imalone

Actually, aren't we always told that valve amps are louder than solid state of the same power rating? That equates to more efficient.

ICBM

imalone said:

Actually, aren't we always told that valve amps are louder than solid state of the same power rating? That equates to more efficient.

Yes, in terms of watts in to final perceived volume they may be. But it's very difficult to assess perceived volume, so the Eurocrats won't understand that. The difference is much less for actual measured volume.

And anyway, we're being constantly told that we don't need much volume any more - just mic it and put it through the PA.

The big problem with low-powered valve amps or high-powered ones running at low volume is that they're much less efficient than high-power amps running at high volume because the valve filament current draw (which is constant irrespective of volume) is then the greatest energy use, not the signal power - and significantly less efficient than solid-state amps, where the power draw is much more closely related to the output volume.

A 100W valve amp might be about as efficient as a 200W solid-state amp when both are running loud, but a 50W solid-state amp is going to be more efficient than a 15W valve one at any volume.

DartmoorHedgehog

imalone said:

Actually, aren't we always told that valve amps are louder than solid state of the same power rating? That equates to more efficient.

Even without getting into whether this is really true or just to do with the way they're rated, it's not output power that matters for efficiency.  Valve amps consume more power at the input for a given output power than most solid-state amps, so are using the power from the mains less efficiently.

I have a valve amp AND a vacuum cleaner - I'll see you all in prison

thecolourbox

Id better stock pile all the 1600 watt plus amps ive ever wanted then

Surely this is based more on the majority of households having a vacuum cleaner, so reducing the watts where they aren't necessary (plenty of lower powered well designed vacuum cleaners) would make a noticeable difference across the board. I don't know what the rate of high powered guitar amps would be pee household across Europe but i cant imagine it being as much of a problem?

Standard shaped and sized banana anyone?

57Deluxe

@impmann...Vacuum Tubes... 

(to give them their full title...)

I love it when a plan comes together...!

http://www.layabozi.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/vacuum_tube_radio_hat.jpg

impmann

Vacuum Tubes... only in America, dear boy, we're British... and so its a Valve. ;-) (Pedants, stop right there... its a joke...)

Strange day - I agree with ICBM about it not being beyond the wit of man to build a great sounding (non-digital modelling) transistor amp. And really, although I like the sound of my HRD I hate the fact it's a fragile valve amp (mine is occasionally crackling/frying bacon which I know means I'll need to spend yet more money on f*cking stoopid valves). 

VimFuego

ICBM said:

 

That said, I still really don't understand why large, powerful, high-complexity valve amps are still being made in the 21st century - it cannot be beyond the wit of man to make solid-state ones that sound as good. (Simple vintage-style valve amps will always have a place, for different reasons.) But I think change gonna come.

I believe it's the space inside the valve allows the tone to move and develop, which is clearly can't do in a transistor. This is why vintage valves are better, as the space itself is vintage.

Phil_aka_Pip

Instead of being better off without valves - lets face it just how much extra load is there on the national grid on a Friday night because a few guitarists are playing gigs - we'd all be far better off without the EU.

Fretwired

57Deluxe said:

OK - I don't need a Vacuum cleaner right now but if I did I would be seething!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28878432

The worry is that our love for powerful, full featured Tube amps is ripe in so many ways for the EU to interfere likewise....

Right Ba$tards... 

"Oi  - Nigel...!"

Unlikely as every home will have a vacuum cleaner but very few will have a valve amp. James Dyson is planning to sue the EU as he believes it favours cleaners with bags and is in direct response to his company's dominance of the market.

impmann

James Dyson is an idiot, then. 

impmann

VimFuego said:

ICBM said:

 

That said, I still really don't understand why large, powerful, high-complexity valve amps are still being made in the 21st century - it cannot be beyond the wit of man to make solid-state ones that sound as good. (Simple vintage-style valve amps will always have a place, for different reasons.) But I think change gonna come.

I believe it's the space inside the valve allows the tone to move and develop, which is clearly can't do in a transistor. This is why vintage valves are better, as the space itself is vintage.

@VimFuego - are you Aspen Pitman? Thats the sort of marketing twaddle I'd expect from him...

VimFuego

can't remember who it was who came out with the space in the valve improving the tone. It's just stuck in my head ever since.

ICBM

VimFuego said:

can't remember who it was who came out with the space in the valve improving the tone. It's just stuck in my head ever since.

Howard Dumble.

Or more accurately, he said something like "fragile harmonics cannot survive in the crystal lattice of a transistor".

Despite using a JFET input buffer for at least one of his amps, right where you would think the fragile harmonics most need to be preserved...

Or he might have been taking the piss, because I think it was in the notorious Henry Kaiser video.

thecolourbox

Howard Dumble.

From Harry Potter?

Dave_Mc

imalone said:

(a) Even massive guitar amps are low power compared to most consumer appliances. My computer power supply is supposedly 600W, the microwave is 800W. Suspect amps are a small enough issue that it wont come up (then again it's small enough it could get dragged in under some other broad umbrella), similarly valves, they're not used in enough new devices for people to worry about.
(b) The vacuum cleaner thing is annoying, and I can't imagine it's a massive proportion of power use (unless lots of people are like my mum), but I suppose they're trying to push manufacturers to higher efficiency. I've got a cheap one which is 2300W (but adjustable power, usually about 3/4), the previous even cheaper one was 1500W and was awful, but I also saw the BC article which says all dysons are under the 1600W limit, so efficiency must be a big factor.

Dave_Mc said:

 It's like "green" versions of products which are useless and then you end up buying the "less green" version anyway once it becomes apparent the supposedly environmentally friendly version is no use. That actually hurts the environment more because you have all the waste/pollution which went into making and distributing the supposedly-green version which you just dumped )

(c) Fortunately I don't think they plan to go around forcing you to throw out your old vacuum.

(a) That's a good point, hopefully you're right. Kettles for example are nuts when it comes to power. I remember when I first got my Engl my mum said she hoped it wouldn't put our electricity bill way up. This is my mum who drinks about 6 million cups of tea a day (made by aforementioned kettle).

(b) Yeah. I'm frankly surprised my own patented method of environmentally-friendly vacuuming hasn't caught on. Just don't ever vacuum.

(c) Oh absolutely, I realise that. But eventually the one you currently have will wear out and die, and you'll have to buy a new one. Unless people are going to keep like 10 unopened NOS vacuum cleaners in their closets.

ICBM said:

imalone said:

Actually, aren't we always told that valve amps are louder than solid state of the same power rating? That equates to more efficient.

Yes, in terms of watts in to final perceived volume they may be. But it's very difficult to assess perceived volume, so the Eurocrats won't understand that. The difference is much less for actual measured volume.

And anyway, we're being constantly told that we don't need much volume any more - just mic it and put it through the PA.

The big problem with low-powered valve amps or high-powered ones running at low volume is that they're much less efficient than high-power amps running at high volume because the valve filament current draw (which is constant irrespective of volume) is then the greatest energy use, not the signal power - and significantly less efficient than solid-state amps, where the power draw is much more closely related to the output volume.

A 100W valve amp might be about as efficient as a 200W solid-state amp when both are running loud, but a 50W solid-state amp is going to be more efficient than a 15W valve one at any volume.

So basically we need to get the EU to force us all to buy 100 watt full stacks (more speakers = slightly more volume, right?) and crank them all the time, right?

Are they going to force us to buy vintage 30s? Or eminence because they're optimistically-rated? Is eminence secretly in league with the EU?

:-S

gearaddict

Maybe there's a case to be made for an exception for the UK since, unlike the rest of the EU, there is still a high prevalence of bathroom carpet, necessitating a vacuum cleaner with industrial cleaning powers.

Where will Scotland stand on this issue, following independence?

57Deluxe

/\... Dunno - but no doubt they will enjoy bickering over it incessently...

impmann

If Howard Dumble said it then it must be true... after all, look at the tonal magic that comes out of his amplifiers...

</sarcasm>