Thursday, September 24, 2009

Don't you just love these guys?

Head Office Branch
Plot 84, Ajose Adeogun Street
Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria.

RE:YOUR PAYMENT NOTIFICATION
From:Dr Kingsley Paul.
Remittance Manager.
Zenith Bank Of Nigeria.

ATTN: Esteemed Beneficiary,
This is to officially inform you that we have verified your contact file presently in our database, as regards your African Union (AU)solidarity fund that was awarded to you upon been one of the lucky Beneficiary in its last draw on the 15TH of September 2009.
This award is funded by the African Union( AU) and the United Nations(UN) so as to strengthen tires between Africa and the rest of the world with particular reference to Nigeria.

We have discovered you have not received your payment due to your lack of co-operation and not fulfilling the obligations giving to you in respect to your contract payment.
Secondly, you are hereby advised to stop dealing with some non-officials in the bank as this is an illegal act and will have to stop if you so wish to receive your payment immediately. After the board meeting held at our headquarters, we have resolved in finding a solution to this problem, and as you may know, we have arranged your payment through our SWIFT CARD PAYMENT CENTRE in Europe, America,Africa and Asia Pacific, which is the instruction given by our president, ALAHAJI USMAN AMIR YARADUA (GCFR) Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The ATM Card Value is $7.000.000.00 (Seven Million Dollars). Our bank( Zenith Bank Plc) will send you an ATM CARD which you will use to withdraw your money totaling to a tune of $7.000.000.00 (Seven Million Dollars) in an ATM MACHINE in any part of the world, but the maximum is ($15,000) per transaction. So, if you like to receive your fund this way, reply to this office immediately for the issuing of your (ATM) CARD with the below Information.

(1) Your Full Name:
(2) Address where you want the payment center to send your ATM CARD:
(3) Phone And Fax Number:
(4) Bank Name:
(5) Occupation:
(6) Age:

Alternatively, you can come down to the header address to claim your fund with the original notification mail that will be sent to you shortly.
We shall be expecting to receive your information you have to stop any further communication with anybody or office apart from this office of the presidency.
On this regards, do not hesitate to contact me for more details and direction, and also please do update me with any new development.
Thanks for your co-operation.

Note: Because of impostors, we hereby issue you with our code of conduct, which is (406) so you have to indicate this code when contacting or emailing this CARD CENTER.

Regards,
Dr. Kingsley Paul
Remittance Manager
Zenith Bank Plc.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Marshallness, or an amp's guide on how not to be tweedy

Number 2 - the Marshall sound

The Marshall overdrive sound is instantly recognisable. If ‘crunch’ is the word, then this is the crunch of broken glass underfoot. Anything further removed from the Isley Brothers’ ‘Summer Breeze’ kind of overdrive – or the Carlos Santana type of overdrive – is impossible to imagine. Marshallness is toppy, aggressive, harsh… and the instantly recognisable core sound of rock.

Marshall overdrive was certainly available from the very first amps Ken Bran put together in the back of Jim Marshall’s drum shop in 1962 (though he may not have meant you to turn them up to 10 to obtain it). And it hasn’t changed that much. From the JTM45, through the plexis and JMPs, the Master Volumes, the JCM800 and 900s through to the DSLs and TSLs, that mouthful-of-ground-glass sound remains essentially the same. Marshall have been pretty good at synthesising it in their solid state amps too (if you see a 5005 ‘Lead 12’ at the car boot, buy it – Billy Gibbons recorded some classic ZZ Top numbers on this 12-watt solid state Marshall, and it sounds, well yes, just like a Marshall).

So if the Marshall sound was there from the start, we should be able to see it being shaped in those early JTM45 circuits, and follow its essential elements down the years.

You may know that the essentials of the classic Marshall circuit are very close to those of the 1959 ‘tweed’ Fender Bassman. The 1950s Tweed Fenders tend to go into overdrive sooner than the 60s Fender classic 'blackface' models, and in that respect to resemble Marshalls. However, tweed overdrive is softer and looser than ballsy Marshall crunch. An understanding of the reasons for the differences beween tweed Fender overdrive, and the overdrive sound of the basically very similar Marshall amps, will help us to understand the components of the Marshall sound.

The Marshall/tweed Fender Bassman circuit is more complex and sophisticated than that of the basic AC30 circuit I wrote about last time. The basic AC30 preamp has just one gain stage and a volume control. The Marshall/Bassman circuit, however, goes like this:

input gain stage > volume control/attenuation > gain stage > EQ driver > three-knob EQ

As you can see there are two extra stages in there before the EQ, which on these amps is the full treble-middle-bass array (the presence control is elsewhere, in the negative feedback circuit). The volume control comes before these stages and is perhaps better described as a gain control, as it also controls the degree to which those 'extra' stages are overdriven. The reason for the first of the two, the extra gain stage, is that a three-knob passive EQ saps loads of gain out of a preamp. The second, the driver stage that also comes before the EQ, is a ‘cathode follower’. It has no intrinsic gain, but serves to make the signal low-impedance and high-current, the more efficiently to drive the EQ. It isn't actually that necessary though, it's an electronic luxury. Fender didn't bother using it in the blackface preamps they went on to design (and they were ok!).

By the way, I have a sneaky feeling that a cathode-follower stage in itself changes the tone for the better somehow. The Vibro-King has a cathode follower as its first stage; it drives the complicated valve reverb in that amp, but an experience I once had when building a Vibro-King preamp circuit into another amp suggested to me that the cathode-follower stage actually brings something good to the sound – perhaps in the way it drives the next stage. One fine day when I'm not too busy failing to fix your amp I will try an experiment…

Anyhow, back to the story. Remember that we haven’t yet said what makes the difference between the Fender tweed Bassman and the Marshall; we’re still looking at the shared nature of their very similar circuits.

The EQ is the last stage in the Bassman/Marshall preamp. It comes after preamp overdrive has already happened. Modern overdrive preamp designs all do it this way around, but many earlier amps made the mistake of putting the tone-shaping controls earlier in the preamp. My beloved Rivera-era Fender Concert falls into this category – and that is the reason why its overdrive only sounds good at certain settings of the gain controls. The right way is to create the overdrive, then have an EQ stage to shape it. Back in 1959, as in so many other things, Leo Fender got it right.

You do in fact need to do something about the signal EQ before you overdrive anything, too. And there Marshall diverges crucially from Fender... I will come to this...

Ok let’s look at the differences between the Marshall circuit and its American predecessor. The first one is that Fender used a much lower gain preamp valve – a 12AU7 – in the first stage. Marshall plugged in an 12AX7/ECC83 – the high-gain type that most guitar preamps use in most positions. This gave much more gain pushing right through the rest of the preamp, and it means that the preamp goes into overdrive sooner. Whether this was deliberate or not is a moot point – quite possibly it wasn’t, because just after the volume control Marshall also introduced a larger value series resistor, which cut down the signal a little (though not removing anywhere near as much gain as that high-gain ECC83 valve had introduced). Much more crucially in producing the Marshall sound, though, on the ‘lead’ preamps they parallelled this resistor with a capacitor designed to let higher frequencies through. Here is where the pre-overdrive EQ shaping that I was talking about, happens. In a little parallel box that brakes the signal with a resistor, and shapes it with a cap that lets higher frequencies through.

So this resistor/capacitor filter that follows the volume control in the classic Marshall circuit has the effect of cutting back the bass and boosting the treble. I would guess that this was probably a response to guitarist’s demands that the amp help them ‘cut through’ and be heard. Well you know what guitarists are like (...oh I forgot, you are one).

Anyhow what it did in my view was to shape the Marshall overdrive sound. Toppy, harsh, aggressive. What Marshalls do via this filter and the extra gain in the first stage is to drive lots of high-end frequencies through the first three stages, then let the player shape the sound with the TMB knobs and the presence control. Not that I imagine they intended to do that - in 1962 nobody was designing amps to create distortion. As I wrote, I expect they were going for a treble boost so guitarists could rise above the general racket with a solo - same thing Vox were after when they put a treble boost in front of the simple AC30 preamp. And with the same probably unintended result - not searing clean solos but screaming treble-y overdrive when the amp was turned up higher than it was ever designed to be.

You know how bass controls on Marshalls are. Kind of pointless. Doesn’t really matter much what you do with them. That’s because the filter I’m talking about cuts back the bass so much that there’s little left for the bass control to do (it comes last in the chain, remember) . As I said, this may well have been the result of the designer trying to help guitarists ‘cut through’, but what it also did was to create an overdrive sound that people liked to hear. Overdriven bass does not sound good, it’s muddy and, well, farty. Overdriven middles with the treble rolled off gives you ‘woman tone’, and brings that jasmine into bloom. Open up the treble and drive it and you’re listening to the sound of rock, the Marshall sound.

A little later, in the early 70s, Marshall cottoned on to this essential misuse of their amplifiers and, after listening to their customers, introduced a master volume control to tame output levels whilst allowing some overdrive, and also tacked on an extra gain stage at the front end of the preamp. This too was followed by a resistor/cap filter, rolling off the muddy bass before overdrive, and shaping what was still the same Marshall sound, with the same essential components. At the heart of the DSL/TSL preamps is the same basic circuit.

So the Fender/Marshall differences that make all the difference are (a) a high-gain valve in the Marshall stage one, and (b) a filter after the volume control that cuts the bass and boosts the treble. Now all the Marshall was waiting for was for Eric Clapton to come along and turn it up to 10.

But there’s a couple more crucial differences. For one, the Marshall has a bit more negative feedback than its ol’ pappy the tweed Fender. This actually cuts down the gain a little (but the Marshall still has plenty to spare thanks to its ECC83 in stage one). It also produces a sound that is little more controlled, a little less ‘natural’ maybe. This adds the final touch, keeping the Marshall’s inherent wildness in check just enough. Turn a Bassman up full and you will often get some slightly odd effects on loud notes. With an ECC83 in stage one a Bassman becomes almost untameable, and these ugly overtones, which are caused by too much gain causing blocking distortion and/or internal oscillation, become intrusive. I would suggest that Marshall found this to be the case after putting in that ECC83, and introduced a touch more negative feedback, and a slightly bigger series resistor after the volume control, to tame things a wee bit. Then they added the cut-through-the-band cap to give guitarists' fragile egos a bit of a support. And they were nearly there.

One last difference. The Fender has four 10" alnico speakers in an open back cabinet. Sweet and airy. Marshall really wanted a 2 x 12" cab for reasons of economy, and they were used to making closed back units because they had started out making bass cabs in response to bass players’ understandable grumbles about how the likes of 'bass' amps with 4 x 10" open back cabs (can you think of one?) were not helping them compete with guitarists. But speakers in those days couldn’t handle much more than 15 watts, and Marshall kept burning their little voice coils out in 2 x 12"s when they turned up these new 40-plus watt amps they'd been building. And so, in response to some very simple maths, the closed-back 4 x 12" cab was born, right back at the start of Marshall history, the little box was stacked on top of the big box, it sounded like rock music, it looked like rock music, and the circle was closed.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Voxiness: what makes the AC30 sound that way?

- An occasional series which will attempt to account for the character of the great classic guitar amps. First, the Vox AC30.

The AC30 has a characterful clean sound, not at all hi-fi and quite 'coloured'. Turned up loud it has a fat smooth overdrive. Wonderful and unique, but how does it do what it does?

The basic non-top-boost AC30, played through one of its non-vib/trem channels, is as simple a guitar amplifier as you can imagine. There is a gain stage (just the one), a volume control, and a power amp with a tone cut control. That's it.

The absence of a tone stack, indeed of any tone controls at all in the preamp, means that the AC30 preamp's one little gain stage is actually capable of pushing the power amp into overdrive. Tone stacks - especially the three-knob sort - suck out loads of gain, and usually have at least one extra gain stage to drive them. With none of that in the way, in the basic AC30's signal chain there are a minimal number of components and stages between your guitar and the power amp. Good for gain, and really good for clarity and 'chime' and that lovely airy thing you get from such glorious simplicity in a valve amp.

The top boost section on the 'brilliant' channel (if you have treble and bass controls, then you have a top boost version), adds a gain stage and a further 'cathode follower' stage dropping the impedance and bringing up the current, before introducing its two tone controls. However it adds them after the basic AC30's gain stage and volume control are allowed to overdrive these extra stages, making the preamp portion of the overdrive sound subject to the tone-shaping power of the bass and treble controls. Which is good - you want your tone stack after your distortion so you can shape the crunch the way you like it. The overall result on the top-boosted Brilliant channel is a still-simple preamp, though now with three stages and some more stuff in the signal chain, which puts out distinctly more gain than the basic preamp, and which can itself be overdriven internally.

Is that all there is to the AC30? Nope, there's the power amp, which has several unique tone-shaping factors. But first, some philosophising...

I think it helps to understand the nature of old equipment if you first try to work out why its manufacturers did what they did in designing it, rather than looking at the fascinating but misleading business of how it was actually used by the wayward genuises of popular music in creating works of musical art. So what was in Dick Denny's mind when he sat down in a smoke-filled room at Jennings Musical Instruments and sucked his pencil with a new amp in mind? Well one thing we can be sure of is that he was not thinking about the Brian May squeal, the Rory Gallagher howl, chimey Beatley strumming, or any of that. Above all he definitely was not thinking about overdrive, as he sat down to plan an amp that was to give some of the best overdrive sounds the world has ever grooved to. One thing we can be absolutely sure of is that he was thinking about the market as it was in the late 50s/early 60s, and doing so with some responsive accuracy, or his designs would not have sold.

If you've ever taken the back off an old AC30 you will have seen quite a bit of complexity inside there - and thus you might now be wondering how I can I describe it as an utterly, beautifully simple amplifier. The explanation is even simpler - the majority of the components in there are not employed in amplifying your guitar, but in creating the vibrato and tremelo options you probably never use. Tremelo - the regular variation in volume familiar from many early Sixties amp designs, especially blackface Fenders - involves an oscillator, and some way of applying the wobble it makes to the signal - 'modulating' the basic sound. Vibrato, which the AC30 also offers, is a much rarer beast and involves a regular variation in the pitch of the output. The same oscillator can be used for both vibrato and tremelo but a different and more complex modulation system is required for the variation in pitch that vibrato requires. That's what most of the guts of the AC30 is doing - oscillating and modulating - and nowadays hardly anyone uses the options those circuits provide, especially the most complex one, vibrato.

The Jennings company's first product had been a valve synthesiser called the Univox. It was either this, or the very similar Clavioline, that was used to produce the space-age melody line on 'Telstar'. I happen to have one of these - a quite complex piece of valve technology. If you think of where the company was coming from when they began to expand their range it's easier to understand the AC30's design. 

This was a synth manufacturer moving into the growing guitar market. Rock'n roll bands were forming all around them. There was a market for their piano-add-on space-age sound-generator, but a much bigger market was taking off, and it featured guitars - and those innovative bass guitars. These bands needed amplifying so the guitars could keep up with the drums - and Vox offered them a one-box solution. An amplifier with a section for bass, a section for a bright-sounding guitar, and an effects section to build on their brand's reputation for spooky sputnicky sounds - each section with two inputs, and each with a volume knob to get the mix right. The AC30 was conceived as a band-in-a-box amp, but this was a synthesiser firm, and to build on that reputation the AC30 circuit was also designed as a guitar sound synthesiser, making the then-radical new vibrato and tremelo effects available to enhance the sound. 

With all these things to think of, each of those channels needed to be as simple as possible, as every complexity designed into in the preamp channels was going to be multiplied by three. 

So the simple guitar amplifier that sounds so wonderful in its simplicity is kept so simple in order to make room for three channels, and for some state-of-the-art sound-processing circuitry.  

My reading of the development of this circuit is that the prime goal in designing the Vox amplification circuits was to keep the preamp down to one gain stage, which is only really possible with no tone control at all. Just a gain stage and a volume control to turn up nice and high.

Which brings us to the stage after the preamp, where Denny put his one tone control - the phase inverter, or PI, which splits the signal waveform into top and bottom halves for the push-pull power amp to drive into the two-part output transformer. He used a long-tailed pair PI, which has some inherent gain and good fidelity. It is possible to use a single triode for the PI (eg in the 'concertina splitter' that I discussed a month or two ago), but despite its economy this doesn't give any gain. The AC30 needed that extra gain - but it is more economical to provide it in the PI, which all three input sections use, rather than trebling the effort by putting extra gain into each of those sections.

The PI splits the signal into two inverse halves. If you mix those halves together they will cancel each other out, the result being silence. Denny put a high-frequency filter across the two halves, and made it adjustable, so that if you turned it up you cancelled out the tops. Which is why the Vox's 'cut' control works the 'wrong way round' for a treble control - the more you turn it  up, the more tops it cuts out. It's a very effective filter for the sharp highs of this amp's brilliant channel - and it costs nothing in preamp gain. It is there because you can't put tone controls in single gain stage preamps. Oh, and it just happens to provide exactly the top cut you need to smooth out an AC30's overdriven sound, though nothing could have been further from its designer's mind.

Now to the AC30 power amp. It uses EL84 valves, which were a UK design and make. Very important, that, in those days of import controls. To get the amp up to the 30 watt (ok, 27) that Vox felt (quite rightly) was necessary to keep up with rock'n roll drummers, you needed four of these slim, light, cheap British valves. And you needed to run them hot. Denny knew that you could drive these little beasts above their normal plate dissipation for extra watts, and he did so. Perhaps he had noticed that Leo Fender was doing the same to squeeze extra volume out of USA valves - more voltage, more current, more watts. He biased his quartet of El84s with a single resistor on the cathodes, and bypassed it with a fat capacitor to maximise gain. That cheap, simple method of biasing - 'cathode bias' - also provided a sweet compression that Fenders didn't have when you opened them up - but once again, that was a completely unintentional byproduct of a market-driven design.

One more thing about this power amp. It has no negative feedback. Negative feedback is just what it sounds like - you take a part of the signal from late in the amp's signal chain, often from the speaker output itself, and you feed it back into an earlier part of the amp where the wave is running a negative version of the signal you are using. It's a bit like the two halves of the signal in the PI, so to avoid cancelling the signal out you cut down the fed back part to a fraction of the signal at the point where you're feeding it back in. It cuts down the gain a bit, but it also flattens down the response, making it more linear and hi-fi. It helps control that demon of the high-gain amplifier, internal oscillation. Leo Fender always used it, probably because his amps without it were prone to oscillation and it helped avoid tiresome fiddling at the quality control stage. But the relatively low-gain design of Denny's AC30, with its spacious chassis and good layout, avoided oscillation problems anyway, so Denny could dispense with negative feedback. Probably he had his one-stage preamps in mind, and avoided everything that might stop him wringing every last ounce of gain out of his amp. 

Negative feedback doesn't sound bad in itself - but when I sit nine of out ten guitarists down by the bench with a guitar in their hands and lift the negative feedback out of their amps, they want me to leave it out. The sound without it is a bit gainier, and a bit less 'tight', a bit more 'natural' and a bit less hi-fi. And that, my friends, is the final piece in the complex sonic jigsaw that makes the AC30 circuit the unique musical instrument that we all know it to be. Especially cranked.

Oh yes and alnico speakers. Jennings fitted a good pair of current-manufacture speakers to their amp, which seem to have been chosen for their high efficiency - giving more volume. The famous Celestion blue alnicos. As it happens, they also compress the sound quite nicely as they approach their relatively low power ceiling, putting the finishing touch to the the overdriven AC30 sound - a sound it was not designed to produce! 

Do you have an AC30 with ceramic-magnet speakers, and are you thinking of buying it an expensive pair of Celestion Blues for its birthday? Here is a wee hint to end with - don't change both speakers, just change one. The mix gives you the best of both worlds. Try it and see, and save yourself £120 or whatever it is these days.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Pulling out valves, running without a speaker, and other output impedance matching issues

Greetings and welcome to all my patient readers. I received the following questions from one of you (thanks Steve, by the way!):

I have read your FAQ with great interest, learning a lot and answering questions I have had for years. It has reminded me though of two points that I really want to understand and which I cannot find straight answers to. Please could you help?
The first is why I can't simply take two of the 4 EL34 valves out of my 100 watt amp to get it to run at lower power? The valves seem to be in parallel pairs and so surely taking out one from each pair would just cut the power getting through to the output transformer?? I'd love to be able to do this but Marshall warn against doing this but without saying why (just that it will damage the remaining valves/transformer but not why)
The second query is why switching a valve amp on with no load is so bad for it. OK I have lived for years just accepting I shouldn't do it but the kid inside me wants to know why.

In my experience the kid in you is way more likely to run amps with no speakers plugged in than is the intelligent questioning adult. If I plotted proportion of jobs featuring burned output transformers against the average age of clients I think we would have an indicative curve.

Both of these are output impedance matching issues, so I have to explain that first before moving on to specifics.

Impedance is resistance to AC. It's measured in ohms, the same as resistance, but you can't read it on an ohmmeter.*

Your output valves will work best if they are looking into (or driving, or loaded by, pick your metaphor) a certain output (or 'plate') impedance range. This will be a few thousand ohms per valve; each valve type has different expectations, and the type of circuit changes impedance expectations too. Your output transformer is an impedance converter (amongst other things) - it multiplies your speaker impedance into something your output valves want to see.

A typical output transformer will turn an 8 ohm speaker load into, say, 8000 ohms for the valves - in a typical push-pull amp with paired output valves, 4000 ohms per side.

Valve output impedance is a ball-park affair. A given set of valves might be happy looking into anything from (say) 3000 to 8000 ohms. So plugging 16 ohm speakers into an 8 ohm load is probably not too scary.

Right now let's deal with pulling two valves out. This doubles the output impedance that the amp requires from its speaker (equal impedances in parallel, like the two valves one one side of a push-pull quartet, produce half the impedance of each component). So to match the doubled impedance requirement from the valves, we should double the speaker impedance. Or if possible turn the selector down one click. So... with two output valves pulled out playing into 8 ohm speakers we should have the selector on 4 ohm - or arrange to have a 16 ohm speaker loading. But if you don't do that it will probably still be ok, output impedances being a ball-park business.

Why do Marshall say don't do it? Because for all they know you are 17 (Sorry 17 yr olds but statistics are statistics).

Why do output valves need a certain output impedance range? Because that impedance will also set a voltage/current relationship that they can handle. V=IR, or voltage = current x resistance, as every 17 yr old once knew and has now forgotten anyway.

OK now for running valve amps without a speaker. With no speaker plugged in there is, in the typically-wired amp, no load at all, which is an infinite impedance. Put an infinite value for R into V=IR, remembering that the bias and the potential in the amp will try to hold I constant, and have a think about it. What happens is that the valves make attempts to chuck out enough voltage to drive an infinite impedance. They can't, of course, but they are high-voltage devices and they have a damn good try. The flash voltages they generate can be high enough to cause arcing inside your output transformer- and outside it too, spectacularly. Arcs can occur inside the valves too, and on the valve bases. Internal feedback from these events probably makes things even worse. Typically one or more valves go out, and there are fused turns in the output transformer, causing either no output or reduced, distorted output.

There you are. Any questions (or indeed corrections, I'm a repairman not a scientist remember) - use the comment button.


*Indeed you can't measure impedance on an ohmmeter, but if you want to know the impedance of a speaker or combination of speakers, an ohmmeter across the terminals or the jack will read approximately 70% of the impedance in ohms. So an 8 ohm speaker will read 5 or 6 ohms.

Saturday, January 3, 2009

The form 696 petition

Below is an article worth reading, just in case you hadn't yet heard of this issue.

To sign the current petition to the Goverment protesting against this latest wearisome sign of the times, click the link: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Scrapthe696/

from The Independent, Friday, 21 November 2008:

How Form 696 could pull the plug on the capital's music scene

Warning sounded over new piece of bureaucracy that forces licensees to reveal a mass of information about performers

Teenage kicks will be harder to get if publicans and managers of other small venues are forced to comply with a new piece of bureaucracy called Form 696, a former punk rock star has warned.

The form demands that licensees give police a mass of detail, including the names, aliases, private addresses and phone numbers of all musicians and other performers appearing at their venue, and the ethnic background of the likely audience. Failure to comply could mean the loss of a licence or even a fine and imprisonment.

The police say they need the information demanded on Form 696, which runs to eight pages, so they can pinpoint which acts and venues attract troublemakers, and make sure venues are safe. But Feargal Sharkey, who rose to fame during the punk era as the vocalist on the single "Teenage Kicks" by the Undertones, is so angry about what he sees as a threat to live music that he is consulting lawyers about how to stop it.

As the boss of UK Music, which campaigns for musicians, he will be applying next week for a judicial review into whether a local authority has the right to make it a condition of a publican's licence that they have to fill in Form 696. The scheme was introduced by the Metropolitan Police after incidents at live music concerts in 2006, some involving guns. In theory, it applies to any licensed premises where there is live entertainment, but Detective Chief Superintendent Richard Martin, head of the Met's pubs and vice squad, said that in reality it will apply only to performances likely to draw large crowds.

It applies in 21 London boroughs, but professionals in the music business fear that if it becomes accepted, it will be copied in other cities. Martin Rawlings, director of the Pub and Beer Association, said: "I know of licensees faced with this saying they are just not going to put live music on. Form 696 is being used only in London so far, but there are similar things going on around the country, where the police are asking publicans to sign various protocols. It has gone too far, frankly."

Mr Sharkey has also complained to the Equality and Human Rights Commission that the police appear to be focusing on the music enjoyed by black and Asian teenagers. One of the questions on the form requires the licensee to specify the type of music that will be performed, giving as possible examples "Bashment, R'n'B, Garage". Another question asks, "Is there a particular ethnic group attending?"