[rollei_list] Re: OT: Slide Film and E6
- From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:33:02 -0800
That is because it was a day in the past when tubes were mostly in vogue.
They still are in some and the fact that tubes offered a smoother transition
into clipping, had a high dynamic range and sounded smoother were and are
reasons they are still used. But the problem with tubes (speaking from
experience in many bands back in the 70s) tube amps were heavier, and you
had to replace the tubes every 9-12 months to maintain peak performance.
They were also noisier and the amps ran hot. Me, I opted for a Solid State
Ampeg BT25L (1968 model with light up front) all solid state. Had the output
caps redone to ensure highs did not clip plus 2 15 inch Altec 318 speakers
helped throw the sound out further and clearer than the standard CTS. Which
leads to another reason amps had a particular sound, the speakers. Marshalls
and Vox sounded a certain way not only because of the heads but because they
used Celestion speakers. They had a unique sound. For Bass depending on the
sound you opted for JBL or Altec Lansing, but here I date myself. FWIW, in
those days gone by you could plug a guitar into 3 of the same amps and they
ALL sounded different. Not uniform at all like it is today.
But today solid state has come a long way and with newer preamp designs they
are every bit as good IMO. This is much like digital versus medium format if
you think about it. There are also newer digital amps which convert all to
digits and allow you to manipulate them. Gone are the days of walls of high
powered amps. Many instruments are mic'd through a PA system these days.
Much different than 30-40 years ago.
Peter K
On Dec 22, 2007 9:08 PM, Peter J Nebergall <iusar4s@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes, the great Rock band amps were almost all tube... The best still
> are, and not just for sound. Tubes can handle overloads better; they
> just heat up. Transistors blow up. Personal experience here.
>
> Peter Nebergall
>
>
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:46:36 -0800 "Richard Knoppow"
> <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 3:46 PM
> > Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Slide Film and E6
> >
> >
> > Thanks Richard. My error. I did notice Portra BW was
> > disco'd. Glad to see
> > there are still some films that remain. 2007 has surely been
> > the year of
> > digital. I hope film sticks around a while longer.
> >
> > So do I. There is evidently still a pretty large market
> > for "conventional" photographic products, just not the
> > enormous market there was until digital began to erode it.
> > The problem is that the larger companies, like Kodak, Agfa,
> > Fuji, and Ilford, have technology which the small, mostly
> > formerly eastern european, companies do not have and are not
> > likely ever to develop. This makes more difference to film
> > than paper but results in both products being behind the
> > times and in rather poor quality control.
> > Fuji makes good B&W printing paper but sells it only in
> > Japan. I don't know why they are not interested in a larger
> > market but there may be good business reasons that are not
> > obvious.
> > There have been other transistions in technology
> > historically that are somewhat comparable, for instance the
> > supplanting of vacuum tubes by transistors and the
> > supplanting of steam locomotives by diesel-electric. In the
> > U.S. some vacuum tube manufacturers managed to make the
> > transision but others died out and none of the three makers
> > of main-line steam locomotives survived.
> > Agfa was already in other businesses so it simply dropped
> > out of making chemical photographic products. Kodak, I
> > think, would have like to do so but its main product line
> > was chemical photography. Ilford has managed to hold on
> > perhaps because they are a much smaller company and more
> > flexible. Fuji is also in many other businesses and it
> > appears they have managed to continue to find photographic
> > products sufficiently profitable to keep on with them.
> > Digital is not going to go away but, one hopes, neither
> > will chemical photography.
> >
> > ---
> > Richard Knoppow
> > Los Angeles, CA, USA
> > dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > ---
> > Rollei List
> >
> > - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> > in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> >
> > - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
> > www.freelists.org
> >
> > - Online, searchable archives are available at
> > //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >
> >
> >
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
--
Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬
Other related posts:
