green amps (enviromentally friendly)

[labguitar1003]

hey guys, Ive been fiddling around with the idea that you can make amps that leave a very small to no carbon footprint that sound good but wont break the bank. (isn't that what we all want). some ideas would be using old electronics that are gonna be sent to landfills for parts, using renewable wood for the cabs, speakers will be hard to come by (maybe old stereos out of cars). tubes from old radios ive heard work really well also.

Ik im missing some stuff but its still a concept, and with your guys help i might be able to turn it into a career path for myself.

Any input would be great and hopefully ill be working on a prototype in the next few months.

                                                                                                                    Thanks as always,
                                                                                                                    ,Labguitar                                  :rock-on:

 

[AutoBat]

Amp modeling software would be a good alternative if you already own a laptop.  Aside from an optional foot switch, no additional hardware is needed!

 

[labguitar1003]

Amp modeling software would be a good alternative if you already own a laptop.  Aside from an optional foot switch, no additional hardware is needed!

but you can tell if its software or a real amp, even the newest amp simulators that cost thousands of dollars don't sound like the original,
I see your point though, but for those of us who want a little more realism in our ever growing computer based lives its nice to just sit down and plug into a nice warm tube amp beside turning on the computer.

 

[bagman67]

but you can tell if its software or a real amp, even the newest amp simulators that cost thousands of dollars don't sound like the original,

Shenanigans.  Most of the time, with the more recent developments, most ears cannot tell the difference. 


But to respond more meaningfully to  the original question: 

It'd be an interesting exercise, at least, to determine what the failure rates would be for components harvested from old electronics, vs. new - and see whether the labor and energy inputs necessary to harvest those parts and to QC them would be any less than it is to manufacture new ones - and further, to examine the undesirable outputs in the form of carbon emissions and other pollutants.  Some manufactured goods are not made the way they used to be made because they were more environmentally unfriendly  than current options.  See, e.g., the elimination of Freon as a refrigerant in the USA.

As a separate issue, a lot of what is marketed as "green" technology is simply stuff that uses less fossil fuels or generate less carbon emissions in the hands of the consumer .  See, e.g., hybrid vehicle technologies (which rarely if ever mention energy and material inputs attendant upon such things as manufacture of nickel-metal hydrides and other materials unique to their manufacture).  Without claiming to have an informed opinion on the objective green-ness of such technologies, I'd suggest there's a fair amount of snake-oil being sold among the legitimate environmentally sound stuff.  Certainly, in the USA,  viable alternatives to dependence on foreign oil are desirable, but the public has proven highly resistant to real change such as willingness to enact public financing for mass transit, and then USE the mass transit constructed thereby.  But what many Americans have done -- believing they are doing the environmentally friendly thing --  is to buy into a version of eco-friendliness that lets them own 2 cars per family, and so on. 

All of this is of course more complex than I can hope to discuss meaningfully on an internet forum, and in any case, I realize I've veered into territory that is perhaps more political than this forum's charter permits, so excuse the drift...

Bagman

 

[bagman67]

I realize I was a total killjoy to your initial post, Labguitar -

I think you could make a serious killing on serious boutique-level eco-friendly amplifiers made from re-purposed components, and you could put them in cabinets made of recycled lumber, and so on - see http://www.wideplankflooring.com/our-wood-our-craft/the-woods-we-offer/fsc-antique-reclaimed-woods/ for an example of a successful flooring product based on reclaimed lumber.  You could build cabs out of that stuff, and clothe yourself in glory.

Surely there must be zillions of speakers in need of a recone with organic hemp paper, or some such - another way to frame it for the right audience.

And you can stock NOS tubes, claiming there were no new enviornmentally unfriendly Chinese or Eastern European factories involved as well.

 

[labguitar1003]

Thank you for your input Bagman, I do agree that a lot of stuff nowadays is being marketed as green even though it isn't this is a shame because companies are using this "green title" to sell regular products for higher prices.
Thank you also for your advice about speaker cones and nos tubes it really helps.  :icon_thumright:

 

[labguitar1003]

another idea would be using old car vinyl to cover the amps.

 

[Jusatele]

why stop with old vynil, we can recycle all those wagons the used to travel west by using them for the cabinets, aged solid wood

 

[Superlizard]

carbon footprint

I understand your thesis here, but I gotta say one thing:

"carbon footprint"

No.  Just plain NO. 

Please don't fall for BS terminology solely invented to squeeze more taxes out of the average schmoe.

 

[Alfang]

I say screw the carbon footprint, afterall, if you were to make a big business in either making Green equipment, or suddenly became a famous musician, your jetset lifestyle would be a hypocritcal one, kinda like Al Flippen Gore, flyen all over the damn place telling everyone to ride bicycles to work

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

What is renewable wood?

 

[pabloman]

I could show you but its NSFW :headbang1:

 

[Cagey]

I seriously doubt the idea could develop into a career path. I'm not sure it could even develop into a hobby, unless you're capable of a great deal of self-delusion and have a high tolerance for poor performance. You'd do the world much more good by developing a taste for pigeons and roaches, but even there you wouldn't make a dent in the problem. People would at least appreciate the effort, though <grin>

 

[Steve_Karl]

I've tried quite a few amp modeling software offerings and hearing the difference is not the issue I have with them.
Feeling the difference when playing the instrument is what I don't like about them.
But ... I also hate amps and having to mic them.

My current new ( new to me ) solution is this and it's way more satisfying ( to the touch and the ears ) than any software package I've tried.

Guitar > to sans amp > to sound card.

I'm also a big fan of guitar direct to sound card with nothing else involved.

I do prefer "in the box" FX ( reverb, delay, chorus etc. ) to analog FX.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

I could show you but its NSFW :headbang1:

Ha!  I could've predicted that response.  But seriously, trees by their nature are a renewable resource, unless they're used faster than replaced.  But that is a management issue.  It's like one of the latest water conservation campaigns, "Nothing can replace it".  Do people believe that?

 

[bagman67]

Well, the buzzwords fly fast and thick in the area of environmentally sound products - I think "renewable" in this case is mistakenly used in place of another buzzword, "sustainable," which does indeed seem intended to mean "we're planting trees faster than we're harvesting them."

 

[Cagey]

Do people believe that?

People believe all sorts of wild things. It's easy to do, since it requires no facts or basis in reality whatsoever.

 

[labguitar1003]

I seriously doubt the idea could develop into a career path. I'm not sure it could even develop into a hobby, unless you're capable of a great deal of self-delusion and have a high tolerance for poor performance. You'd do the world much more good by developing a taste for pigeons and roaches, but even there you wouldn't make a dent in the problem. People would at least appreciate the effort, though <grin>

The big picture here is using what we already have. im not BSing anyone into believing this is the right or wrong way,  yes you as a person have an impact on the environment, we all do, its part of living.
The truth is even building these amps has an impact but its less of an impact than going and cutting down trees,wasting metal to make a cut out for the amp then throwing the rest away then selling it for $2000 cause its the latest thing, at least im trying to make a difference here instead of sitting on the computer telling people there ideas wont work.
Any way of changing anything starts with the ideas of one single person but can grow into an industry changing standard and I wont be deterred by being told i wont make a difference.

 

[kboman]

Rock on, man.

 

[OzziePete]

I think we all agree here that tube amps do have a superiority in their design (sound wise)  compared to alternatives...It IS the sound the majority of guitarists want to hear....The amp sim people go to considerable lengths to replicate what happens within a tube amp's circuitry and STILL some people will attest to being able to hear the difference.
But making tube amps is probably an issue environmentally as it uses the tubes which are made of glass, and glass making is power intensive. :dontknow:

The Tech 21 people have cleverly used digital (?) simulation and solid state circuitry to do some very good DI boxes that offer an amp sim sound without needing a computer.

I also dislike amp sim software principle as it inevitably becomes fixated to the OS that it can work off and over time will become obsolete. As opposed to being able to power up a 1960s amp and get a sound immediately. If there had been a decent amp sim software package at the outset of PC recording in the 1980s, the package would now be obsolete as the main OS in those days was not Windows variants, but Ataris and Commodore 64s! The thing that guitarists want is being able to hold onto that tone they worked out. Not having to upgrade/cross grade and re-learn. That said, part of my arsenal of sound IS Amplitube 3, but I have seen where it's weaknesses are in principle, and am striving not to become wholly reliant upon the software. I feel that non-OS reliant hardware is the way to go......

So maybe if you can work out a decent amp sim pedal, have it's firmware not reliant upon Windows or Apple OS compatibility but merely an OS within to deliver the sounds..Have an XLR balanced output so you can go 'straight to desk'.....Maybe take a note from Novation and the people who are now producing Control Units for various platforms of recording software and utilise knobs and faders, but have them commanded from a boot up program within the pedal (instead of where the Control Units get identified by the PC's software that it will control via MIDI or USB communication) as to what parameters they control.