[thesteve]

Originally Posted by andrewama

No I havent found a buyer...its seems to me that having lots of head room is a bad thing...though I dont understand any of this...headroom IMO...I'm unfamiliar with these terms...and Matt what do you mean I really need to crank it!?!?! O yea how do you use your amp Matt? I borrowed footpedal from friend and I just use the 1 channel for cleans and 2 channel for distortion...and with my fulltone fulldrive into the 1 channel.....seems to me i should be keeping my orange since i got a great deal and for its quality!!!

Originally Posted by AXguitar

headroom is a good thing... very good thing, that means it stays clean at higher volumes... a 30 will break up long before a 140, that's what the 140 is for i think... for massive amounts of head room...

Basically headroom is a description of how well the power amp stays clean as it's turned up. A high wattage solid state amp is going to have ALOT of headroom, but it will suddenly clipping VERY heavily. A low wattage tube amp will have less headroom but clip smoothly producing a subtle overdrive initially and progressively get heavier.

Headroom isn't really a good or bad thing. One of the reasons I love my Acoustic 150 is because it's a clean machine (one of the characteristics of a good solid state amp), however, for some players, being able to OD a low-wattage (and thus low headroom) tube amp is where they find tonal heaven. Very likely, Matt would fall into this second category of players that really needs to turn it up to hit the sweet spot.

[Ax]

well, turn me around and call me corrected.. i should just start wearing a shirt that says "Pwnt"

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by thesteve

The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is betting on one.

seriously guys...it's a subjective opinion. Nowhere in the thread did I ever get the feeling that AXguitar's subjective opinion was voiced with the intent that it be taken objectively. I really don't see why it's still going back and forth, especially when AXguitar already conceded to the point of subjectiveness here:

My issue was that he keeps saying "better", which is an objective statement, but tries to make it subjective by saying it's his opinion. The objective truth is that both the AC30 and an Orange have great tone by all objective standards. Subjectively, if he wants to say he prefers one to the other, then ok. But the use of "better" is an objective term, not subjective. He didn't concede to the point of subjectivity because he still used the term "better" and he then goes on to say how the Orange also looks better and that Voxes look "dull".

But whatever. I'll concede for the sake of this not being that important of an issue in the grand scheme of things. I'm merely harping on his use of objective terms but trying to pass them off as subjective.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

But whatever. I'll concede for the sake of this not being that important of an issue in the grand scheme of things. I'm merely harping on his use of objective terms but trying to pass them off as subjective.

ok...

The objective truth is that both the AC30 and an Orange have great tone by all objective standards.

what exactly are the objective standards used for judging tone?

[Ax]

i think we are bordering off topic here...

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by thesteve

what exactly are the objective standards used for judging tone?

Haha, well that's certainly a can of worms...

In the same way that there are objective standards to good art, the same holds for guitar tone. Although these standards in both tone and art may largely be based on cultural values, it doesn't negate the existence of said standards. It's why the drawing of an 8 year old can't compare to a Van Gogh. It's why people go to art school and the good ones get paid more. In the same way, it's why a Crate solid state practice amp can't compare to a Dr. Z boutique tube amp. It's why certain amps cost a lot more money (besides the amps that are more expensive for the mere name on them).

I feel like we're trying to hold a Monet and a Van Gogh next to each other and say, "Well the Monet is simply much better." That's an absurd statement because of the subjectivity involved at that level. But then, one cannot say "all is subjective", otherwise you could say the 8 year old's drawing would be just as good as the Van Gogh, when that's obviously not true.

So what I'm saying is that all is not subjective.... but neither is it all objective.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

Haha, well that's certainly a can of worms...

In the same way that there are objective standards to good art, the same holds for guitar tone. Although these standards in both tone and art may largely be based on cultural values, it doesn't negate the existence of said standards. It's why the drawing of an 8 year old can't compare to a Van Gogh. It's why people go to art school and the good ones get paid more. In the same way, it's why a Crate solid state practice amp can't compare to a Dr. Z boutique tube amp. It's why certain amps cost a lot more money (besides the amps that are more expensive for the mere name on them).

I feel like we're trying to hold a Monet and a Van Gogh next to each other and say, "Well the Monet is simply much better." That's an absurd statement because of the subjectivity involved at that level. But then, one cannot say "all is subjective", otherwise you could say the 8 year old's drawing would be just as good as the Van Gogh, when that's obviously not true.

So what I'm saying is that all is not subjective.... but neither is it all objective.

so basically what you're saying is that they are both objectively good amps because they both sound good...it seems a very subjectively objective statement.

The problem is that so often "objective standard" really just means "industry standard". What was the perfect amp for the Beatles, would've been completely useless to Dick Dale. Everything has to be held in a subjective context in a discussion like this, otherwise it leads to no productive end. It seems much more valuable to say, "well it might be your opinion that Orange is better than Vox, but I think they're both great amps and personally I'd be happy with either" than to spend three pages going back and forth on the validity of "IMO" as a qualifier for the statment rendered being personal preference instead of fact.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Yeah, you're probably right. I was just harping on semantics really. I should have let it go a lot earlier.