[besson3c]

I've had a number of discussions with musicians about what is lost moving from an all acoustic setting to an all electric setting and vice versa. They really seem like vastly different mediums, particularly when it comes to intimacy.

What I mean by intimacy is the sort of connection you have with a musician or band when you are sitting right in front of them and can hear every single little nuance to their sounds and are in a small enough of a setting that the experience is more direct with the musicians, as opposed to being in a giant stadium to hear music that might be uncomfortably loud to get too close to the band.

This is not to say that acoustic is better than electric or vice versa. Not at all. In fact, a lot of my favorite music these days is electric. It is different though.

There is a gap, generally speaking. You don't generally hear guitar players wail away and shred at a gazillion decibels or a singer singing at the top of their lungs if you are playing a Simon and Garfunkle song true to its original form, for instance. In a more intimate setting it seems that note choices, having a pleasant acoustic sound, etc. are a little more important perhaps than in a less intimate setting which provides a more overall sonic experience where many of these subtle nuances are swallowed up. However, obviously there are many musical tools and that sort of grand, epic presentation that are not available in more acoustic settings. This is what I mean by the "gap", although this is probably not the best word to use.

What I'm curious about are attempts to sort of bridge this gap. Have you heard a band that has brought electric instruments (synths, etc.) that are generally heard in less intimate (i.e. loud) settings to more intimate settings? That same sort of intensity? How many dudes can you think of that do both exceedingly well?

It is also interesting to me how musicians of all sorts used to have to produce that sort of loudness without the benefit of electronics. For instance, opera singers, broadway, big band soloists, etc. This sort of thing seems to be a lost art form, with exception to opera. A lot of musicians seem more interested in stuffing their faces/instruments into a mic than really learning how to project and produce that intensity in their sound, perhaps smartly given the prevalence of amplification. The musicians who ended up developing their skill set had a unique set of distinctness to their sounds as a consequence. I often find myself imagining what bands and musicians actually did to compensate with a lack of amplification and what their worlds were like. Is music better off leaving loudness to amplification as often as it does? There seems to be some sort of connection between that amplification and a loss of intimacy.

Again, I'm not saying that electric is good, acoustic is bad... They are just different. I will say that I can't relate to people who live and breath one to the exclusion of the other in their listening. I love going back and forth between the two for the sake of variety!

[imitchellg5]

I'm kind of disappointed...

[starman]

NIN
Webster Hall
August, 2009
"The Downward Spiral" beginning to end.

That's all you need to know.

[besson3c]

please explain, Starman.

[starman]

Re: 2009.08.23 - New York, NY [Webster Hall]

[Doofy]

Bess, you don't seem to be appreciating the level of skill required to keep a Dual Recto under control. It's not just amplification - it's an extension of instrument.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by starman 

Re: 2009.08.23 - New York, NY [Webster Hall]

Okay, I checked out the video here: nin.com - Wave Goodbye 2009: North America - 8.23.09 - New York, NY, US

How does this relate to this conversation? Are you saying that this is an intimate setting/performance?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Bess, you don't seem to be appreciating the level of skill required to keep a Dual Recto under control. It's not just amplification - it's an extension of instrument.

2 Girls 1 Instrument?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Bess, you don't seem to be appreciating the level of skill required to keep a Dual Recto under control. It's not just amplification - it's an extension of instrument.

What makes you say that I don't appreciate it, and how does this relate to the conversation? It's cool if it doesn't, I'm just trying to figure out if I should be looking for connections

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What makes you say that I don't appreciate it, and how does this relate to the conversation? It's cool if it doesn't, I'm just trying to figure out if I should be looking for connections

Well, you appear to believe that amplification is there simply to make things louder. It's not - it's part of the instrument these days. Hence the gap you perceive - an acoustic guitar is a completely different instrument than an electric one through a good loud amp.

I get it - you come from the jazz world where amplification is generally as clean as possible to attempt to remain true to the guitar's "sound". In other worlds, the amplification isn't just to amplify the sound - it's part of the sound. Thus, you'll never get that Marshall "sound" in an intimate setting since the sound is actually caused by how loud they are.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What I'm curious about are attempts to sort of bridge this gap. Have you heard a band that has brought electric instruments (synths, etc.) that are generally heard in less intimate (i.e. loud) settings to more intimate settings? That same sort of intensity? How many dudes can you think of that do both exceedingly well?

Here, I immediately think of Amiina. They play very electricised music (sometimes very analogue instruments, like violins, saws, and drinking glasses; but usually fed though various electric thingamajigs for various effects) and many of their ‘instruments’ are ProTools loops and higgamajugs, even in their live shows. Their music is mostly very quiet and intimate.

I’ve seen them play at Vega (a fairly big venue here in Copenhagen—perhaps about 5,000 people in the audience; they were the warm-up band for Sigur Rós, with whom they’ve also played for many years), and I’ve seen them play a concert in a living room for about 25 people. Obviously, the sheer size of the venue made the latter more intimate than the former; but the music itself was equally intimate in both places, despite the fact that in Vega, it was coming from a whole slew of speakers and amplifiers and whathaveyous, while in the latter, it was all output through just two regular stage-speakers, and the saw and vocal bits were completely acoustic, with no microphones or speakers being used.

[starman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, I checked out the video here: nin.com - Wave Goodbye 2009: North America - 8.23.09 - New York, NY, US

How does this relate to this conversation? Are you saying that this is an intimate setting/performance?

Are you saying it's not? It's a small club.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, you appear to believe that amplification is there simply to make things louder. It's not - it's part of the instrument these days. Hence the gap you perceive - an acoustic guitar is a completely different instrument than an electric one through a good loud amp.

I get it - you come from the jazz world where amplification is generally as clean as possible to attempt to remain true to the guitar's "sound". In other worlds, the amplification isn't just to amplify the sound - it's part of the sound. Thus, you'll never get that Marshall "sound" in an intimate setting since the sound is actually caused by how loud they are.

Ahhh... Okay, I see what you mean.

For the record, I was using sloppy shorthand using amplification to not only refer to loudness, but also all that generally comes with it, including greater overall intensity, a loss of intimacy, etc. If the size of the sound is just a part of the instrument though like you are saying, fair enough, there are exceptions!

That being said, even in terms of pure loudness, do you ever get to a point where you feel your ears as being assaulted? I'm not saying that acoustic music (or jazz) doesn't have this same effect in different or identical ways, but I used to know this guy that listened to nothing but punk rock super super super loudly. I was amazed that he never seemed to reach a threshold where he had enough of that, cause I reach some sort of threshold with most music!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by starman 

Are you saying it's not? It's a small club.

I couldn't tell the size of the club from the video.

Oisin and Starman, perhaps it would ensure that we are on the same page if you were to describe what you think of as musical intimacy? I'm not trying to suggest that we differ on this, I just want to make sure... I'm not even sure about what I wrote myself and whether it makes sense to anybody but me

[boy8cookie]

I play rock and roll when I'm getting intimate with a female. In my head, at least.

[besson3c]

Another interesting angle when it comes to intimacy: live recordings. Some are great, some not so much, but what often seems great about the ones that are are their intimacy, particularly smaller groups and smaller settings where you can hear individual people talking and stuff...

[starman]

I was going by this:

What I'm curious about are attempts to sort of bridge this gap. Have you heard a band that has brought electric instruments (synths, etc.) that are generally heard in less intimate (i.e. loud) settings to more intimate settings? That same sort of intensity? How many dudes can you think of that do both exceedingly well?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That being said, even in terms of pure loudness, do you ever get to a point where you feel your ears as being assaulted?

All the time. Unfortunately, in my genre the "sound" can't really be had from anything less than 7/10 volume on a 100 watt Marshall/Mesa. The "sound" comes from pushed power amp valves and the high volume interaction loop between guitar, amp and speakers. Various people have tried to replicate it via digitally modelled replacement products, but nothing really comes close.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not saying that acoustic music (or jazz) doesn't have this same effect in different or identical ways, but I used to know this guy that listened to nothing but punk rock super super super loudly. I was amazed that he never seemed to reach a threshold where he had enough of that, cause I reach some sort of threshold with most music!

Yeah, I used to be like that. Head in bass bins at Motorhead gigs, that sort of thing. Went to one gig which was so loud my girlfriend actually had to go to the first aid tent - but it didn't bother me at all. Now I'm older, I like things a bit quieter.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

All the time. Unfortunately, in my genre the "sound" can't really be had from anything less than 7/10 volume on a 100 watt Marshall/Mesa. The "sound" comes from pushed power amp valves and the high volume interaction loop between guitar, amp and speakers. Various people have tried to replicate it via digitally modelled replacement products, but nothing really comes close.



Yeah, I used to be like that. Head in bass bins at Motorhead gigs, that sort of thing. Went to one gig which was so loud my girlfriend actually had to go to the first aid tent - but it didn't bother me at all. Now I'm older, I like things a bit quieter.

Have you lost any hearing?

There is another variable at play with acoustic vs. electric bands, and that is cost and production which obviously I don't need to tell you. I'm wondering though, we were talking a little bit one time about Return to Forever that Stanley Clarke used to play in. That same group minus their guitar player is touring now playing many of the same tunes in a more acoustic, simplified setting. I recall reading something from Chick Corea about how he wanted to return to a more intimate setting, but there is more to this than just musical preferences and looking under new musical rocks. From the business standpoint, there is also the costs of having to haul around all that equipment, the crew, the time it takes to setup for a concert and tear down after one, having to book larger venues which have the space for all of this gear and can justify the costs, etc.

What I'm wondering is the rock bands that are not super super well off, in tough economic times like this where one of the first things people cut back on is entertainment including live music, whether they often slim down in a similar manner? How does this work out? Can fans walk away satisfied at a rock concert if it is somewhat paired down in terms of gear and costs?

This isn't to say in any way that rock stars rely on their gear or anything, and I know that some are cool in a variety of settings, but I'm just wondering whether you hear of rock bands looking for more intimacy and/or opting to pair down for business reasons?

[besson3c]

I have another question for you, Uncle Doofy...

You think of me as a hardcore jazz dude, but I'm actually more interested in improvisation than I am what often jumps into ones head when they think of jazz as a style. However, I reach certain points where I'm reached my threshold with whatever it is that I'm into and I feel inclined to turn to something else outside the realm of whatever it is that I'm listening to. When you reach that threshold, what sorts of music do you turn to?

For me, I find that that sort of escape is often more acoustic if I'm listening to electric, and vice versa. You? How does acoustic music fit into your musical life? Could I ever find Doofy listening to Beethoven or something? Will you admit this in a public forum such as this?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What I'm curious about are attempts to sort of bridge this gap. Have you heard a band that has brought electric instruments (synths, etc.) that are generally heard in less intimate (i.e. loud) settings to more intimate settings? That same sort of intensity? How many dudes can you think of that do both exceedingly well?

I know what you're getting at, but I really don't see the point.

What's the advantage of trying to use instruments that naturally don't create intimacy, and bend them hard to create what they just don't do well.

It's like wanting a banana that's shaped like an apple and tastes like an apple. Well, eat the friggin apple and forget the banana.

See, acoustic instruments just "work" when it comes to this "intimacy".
I rally don't understand the need to find a replacement for that.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Have you lost any hearing?

Couple of kHz off the top end, but that's about it. As you know, it's kind of normal to lose a bit off the top end as we age so nothing to worry about.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is another variable at play with acoustic vs. electric bands, and that is cost and production which obviously I don't need to tell you. I'm wondering though, we were talking a little bit one time about Return to Forever that Stanley Clarke used to play in. That same group minus their guitar player is touring now playing many of the same tunes in a more acoustic, simplified setting. I recall reading something from Chick Corea about how he wanted to return to a more intimate setting, but there is more to this than just musical preferences and looking under new musical rocks. From the business standpoint, there is also the costs of having to haul around all that equipment, the crew, the time it takes to setup for a concert and tear down after one, having to book larger venues which have the space for all of this gear and can justify the costs, etc.

I hear ya. But someone saying that they want to do more intimate gigs can also be a way of disguising the fact that they can't fill stadiums any more because their fan base has dwindled.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What I'm wondering is the rock bands that are not super super well off, in tough economic times like this where one of the first things people cut back on is entertainment including live music, whether they often slim down in a similar manner?

No, they don't.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Can fans walk away satisfied at a rock concert if it is somewhat paired down in terms of gear and costs?

No, it's not possible. Luckily, most small rock venues have most of the gear already there in house. So it's just a case of "bring yer amp" and you're done.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This isn't to say in any way that rock stars rely on their gear or anything

Well, we do!

Here's Schenker at a small gig. He's on his uppers, having been bankrupted by his ex-wife and all sorts. But we still get the Marshall stacks at the gig.
YouTube - Michael Schenker - On And On - Live 2009

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I know what you're getting at, but I really don't see the point.

What's the advantage of trying to use instruments that naturally don't create intimacy, and bend them hard to create what they just don't do well.

It's like wanting a banana that's shaped like an apple and tastes like an apple. Well, eat the friggin apple and forget the banana.

See, acoustic instruments just "work" when it comes to this "intimacy".
I rally don't understand the need to find a replacement for that.

-t

Because there are some instruments that work brilliantly in both settings. The guitar is a great example (e.g. classical guitar vs. rock), as are pretty much all horns and many strings, percussion, etc.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Because there are some instruments that work brilliantly in both settings. The guitar is a great example (e.g. classical guitar vs. rock), as are pretty much all horns and many strings, percussion, etc.

What kind of guitar ?

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I have another question for you, Uncle Doofy...

You think of me as a hardcore jazz dude, but I'm actually more interested in improvisation than I am what often jumps into ones head when they think of jazz as a style. However, I reach certain points where I'm reached my threshold with whatever it is that I'm into and I feel inclined to turn to something else outside the realm of whatever it is that I'm listening to. When you reach that threshold, what sorts of music do you turn to?

For me, I find that that sort of escape is often more acoustic if I'm listening to electric, and vice versa. You? How does acoustic music fit into your musical life? Could I ever find Doofy listening to Beethoven or something? Will you admit this in a public forum such as this?

OK, I'm not so much into classical because to me it doesn't appear to have much structure. But I'll listen to almost anything else - exceptions being for the British indie sound (which I detest) and the current American rap/hip hop/R&B style junk (old school rap/hip hop, I like).

Acoustic? Well, rock has a long history of being in bed with the folk/acoustic movement, so we get stuff like this and this all the time.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Couple of kHz off the top end, but that's about it. As you know, it's kind of normal to lose a bit off the top end as we age so nothing to worry about.

Good to hear, pardon the pun!

I hear ya. But someone saying that they want to do more intimate gigs can also be a way of disguising the fact that they can't fill stadiums any more because their fan base has dwindled.

Quite true, although that also brings up a whole other variable too: artists that want to make money vs. artists that want to explore their art, whatever that is, no matter what the inconvenience/penalty for purely personal reasons. Again, no judgements either way on this... However, my point is that the latter wouldn't care as much about filling stadiums, and may actually *prefer* the feedback from a more intimate setting.

Here's Schenker at a small gig. He's on his uppers, having been bankrupted by his ex-wife and all sorts. But we still get the Marshall stacks at the gig.
YouTube - Michael Schenker - On And On - Live 2009

He sounds pretty darn good! He is a hero of yours?

Thanks for answering my other questions too!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What kind of guitar ?

-t

The instrument family itself allows the flexibility to move between different settings. I don't know exactly what is involved to move between acoustic and electric guitar, but people obviously do, and within the realm of electric guitars alone they can be used in all sorts of settings. There are obviously differences between the types of electric guitars and practice is needed to sound good on new gear (just as there is for any other instrument), but this gap/learning curve is manageable from a technical standpoint, if you are musically up to the switch. In other words, if you are a kick ass guitar player you can figure out how to play on different gear if you are adequately musically guided.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

OK, I'm not so much into classical because to me it doesn't appear to have much structure. But I'll listen to almost anything else - exceptions being for the British indie sound (which I detest) and the current American rap/hip hop/R&B style junk (old school rap/hip hop, I like).

Acoustic? Well, rock has a long history of being in bed with the folk/acoustic movement, so we get stuff like this and this all the time.

The structures are there if you are referring to song form, they are just pretty complicated since the song structures are often asymmetrical and irregular. A lot of common practice music such as Bach has a pretty predictable structure to it, which I guess would have been necessary for people to sing at their churches! If you mean compositionally, I'm still learning a lot myself, but a lot of symphonic stuff has distinctive themes that various counterpoint and variations are built around. Not knowing anything about your musical background in terms of classical musical study, I don't mean to insult your intelligence, just writing this for whomever...

What about the Beatles? They did some acoustic stuff, didn't they? Are you a fan of old time rock? Beatles?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

He sounds pretty darn good! He is a hero of yours?

Yep, he's one of the masters. He sounds pretty crap there actually - I was just using it to show you how a small rock gig goes down.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The structures are there if you are referring to song form, they are just pretty complicated since the song structures are often asymmetrical and irregular. A lot of common practice music such as Bach has a pretty predictable structure to it, which I guess would have been necessary for people to sing at their churches! If you mean compositionally, I'm still learning a lot myself, but a lot of symphonic stuff has distinctive themes that various counterpoint and variations are built around. Not knowing anything about your musical background in terms of classical musical study, I don't mean to insult your intelligence, just writing this for whomever...

Yeah, I never studied classical music - it always bored me, so I didn't bother.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What about the Beatles? They did some acoustic stuff, didn't they? Are you a fan of old time rock? Beatles?

Not a big fan of the Beatles. I guess I overdosed on it at a very young age. And it's a little too close to "British indie" for my tastes.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Because there are some instruments that work brilliantly in both settings. The guitar is a great example (e.g. classical guitar vs. rock)

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The instrument family itself allows the flexibility to move between different settings. I don't know exactly what is involved to move between acoustic and electric guitar, but people obviously do, and within the realm of electric guitars alone they can be used in all sorts of settings. There are obviously differences between the types of electric guitars and practice is needed to sound good on new gear (just as there is for any other instrument), but this gap/learning curve is manageable from a technical standpoint, if you are musically up to the switch. In other words, if you are a kick ass guitar player you can figure out how to play on different gear if you are adequately musically guided.

This is a rather disingenuous - in fact, completely wrong IMHO - tack to take.

That's like saying keyboards have the flexibility to work in both settings. An acoustic guitar, a ukulele, and an electric guitar are all played by plucking strings tuned over a fretboard, but they are completely different instruments.

A Bösendorfer concert grand is as similar to a MemoryMoog or completely overdriven Hammond B-3 as a classical guitar is to a Les Paul through a cranked Marshall stack. They're operated through the same interface - that's all.

A good musician, adept at operating such an interface, may be able get useful results of some sort out of most instruments of a family, but you can usually tell *immediately* if a player, no matter how much of a technical virtuoso, has the slightest clue of what the strengths of a particular instrument are, and how to take advantage of the peculiarities that set it apart from all others.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

This is a rather disingenuous - in fact, completely wrong IMHO - tack to take.

That's like saying keyboards have the flexibility to work in both settings. An acoustic guitar, a ukulele, and an electric guitar are all played by plucking strings tuned over a fretboard, but they are completely different instruments.

A Bösendorfer concert grand is as similar to a MemoryMoog or completely overdriven Hammond B-3 as a classical guitar is to a Les Paul through a cranked Marshall stack. They're operated through the same interface - that's all.

A good musician, adept at operating such an interface, may be able get useful results of some sort out of most instruments of a family, but you can usually tell *immediately* if a player, no matter how much of a technical virtuoso, has the slightest clue of what the strengths of a particular instrument are, and how to take advantage of the peculiarities that set it apart from all others.

Fair enough, but my point I was trying to make was that guitar players are not tethered to a particular make/model of guitar, they can and do switch around fairly effortlessly. Their might be exceptions just as there are for trumpets (my instrument), but this generally holds true.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Fair enough, but my point I was trying to make was that guitar players are not tethered to a particular make/model of guitar, they can and do switch around fairly effortlessly. Their might be exceptions just as there are for trumpets (my instrument), but this generally holds true.

In my experience, it's actually kind of rare that a good electric guitarist can achieve anything more than a passable attempt at acoustic. And vice versa.
The feel of the instruments is generally too different - string tension and all that.

For example, I can do electric and can do classical (the string tensions are close enough). Steel-strung acoustic? Not if my life depended on it... the string tension is way too high for my light touch - I simply don't have the required "thuggery" in my technique to do acoustic properly. It's the same for a lot of players.

[besson3c]

Right, I should have included the exception of acoustic/electric crossover stuff... Not that I really know much about the technicalities there, but what you wrote doesn't surprise me. What I wrote was about using different electric gear. Musicians are constantly trying new gear, right?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Musicians are constantly trying new gear, right?

I've been using the same plank design, amps, strings and plectrums for 20 years. Sometimes I'll try something new for a week then go back to using the old faithful stuff with a "yeah, I got it right first time" thought in my head.

I guess it's the same for a lot of peeps. Check the Satriani signature model guitar, for example - the neck on it is actually an exact copy of his favourite old Fender neck. Vai has been using the same model for 23 years. Malmsteen has been using the same setup forever. This is generally how guitar and amp manufacturers can have signature models - because the musician has been using the same thing for so long he's become identified with it.
Talking of Fender, if musos like to try out new gear why haven't Fender (and Gibson) gone bankrupt? They're still turning out the same stuff they turned out 50 years ago! I'm pretty much the new fangled experimental guy, with my "signature" guitar designed only 23 years ago*.

(* I use the cheaper version of the Vai model - got a nicer neck on it.)

[besson3c]

I guess it depends on the instrument too... There are always improvements made to brass instrument technology, and pro trumpets cost in the neighborhood of $1000-1500 USD, so there is a lot of switching around gear. Other instruments such as cellos, not so much for cost alone, but I also sense that the newer stuff is not as attractive as the newer trumpets are.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are always improvements made to brass instrument technology

Knowing absolutely nothing about brass, the mind boggles! Shinier?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Knowing absolutely nothing about brass, the mind boggles! Shinier?

You'd be surprised! A lot can be done to personalize your trumpet sound, it might be the most "natural" instrument next to the human voice. So, changing the weight of certain parts of the instrument alters the sound, changing the bore and lead pipe diameter can change its sound and ease of blowing, many other adjustments to tubing can impact intonation, changing the shape of the tuning slide can also affects the play the horn plays.

Then, there are mouthpieces which provide even greater changes and variables, as playing on the wrong mouthpiece is like wearing a shoe that doesn't fit, so people are constantly changing mouthpieces depending on what kind of playing they do. There is rim size, cup size and depth, throat size, materials/feel of rim, and intonation.

If you ever go to a trade show you'll also find a bunch of trumpet players playing very high notes on the equipment on the show floor there. Equipment also impacts the ability to play in the upper register which is an obsession to some players, so there is that too. It's a pretty weird thing to outsiders, actually.

There is a staggering amount of study and disagreement that goes on with equipment issues. The trumpet has existed for centuries yet we still haven't figured out how to blow into a hunk of metal and make it work, both equipment wise and pedagogically!

New toys are like candy to some players though: heavy valve caps, different tuning slides, horns, mouthpieces, braces, weights, etc. There are endless combinations variables, and since we are all physiologically different and play in different ways the results are different for everybody. There are placebo effects too since the way we play changes from day to day too due to lip swelling, muscles that haven't fully rejuvenated (there are tons of little muscles around the mouth).

More than you ever cared to know, I'm sure!

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Bess, you don't seem to be appreciating the level of skill required to keep a Dual Recto under control. It's not just amplification - it's an extension of instrument.

Or a Triple Recto and Bogner 20th Anniversary, like mine:

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Or a Triple Recto and Bogner 20th Anniversary, like mine:

:drool:
(especially @ the Bogner)

But where's the other half of the cabs?
(what on earth are you running in a 2x12 that can cope with 150 watts of Triple Recto?)

[RAILhead]

I'm too old to lug around a 4x12!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

I'm too old to lug around a 4x12!

I had the pleasure of lugging an old Hiwatt one the other day. Owner calls it "the pig". Felt like it was made out of specially-designed-to-be-heavy concrete.