Covid 19 the future of Jobs and the population's demographic emergency 'reverse Tsunami.'

 

Covid 19 is one factor in the population's demographic emergency

Since 1960, 5 generations have had the ability to choose to have a family or not, the freedom of choice has significant implications for our future as a species. He's why...

Covid, Brexit and family planning have contributed to a 'reverse tsunami effect' on our society. Go back to my grandparents, from the Victorian and Edwardian eras and they usually came from families of anything from 5 + children from 2 parents, some were from 11 or 13 children families which was not uncommon.

Years ago, in a job I was in, the organisation found recruitment a problem, because the area had high housing costs and was not attracting the 20-35 year olds the business needed. This was the 1990s and the lack of humans to jobs is now becoming a real issue, even with the spread of automation. I conducted a straw poll about 10 years ago as an exercise of people I was at school with, I found that at least half had not had a family.

An analytical funnel graph - we can use this shape to 

easily illustrate the human generational declines by generation, below

In the above graph we can show the top blue area as the 1900-1920 generation, where many children in a family were possible. Green is the 1940's when due to the second world war, families were mostly 2 children. The 1950's and into the 1960's can be the orange and yellow bands, where the same 2 children average prevailed.

The grey last band is more transparent and shows how this era to the present day has changed the game. Here we see how many have chosen to avoid producing children for many reasons - they like their lifestyle, they like the freedom, they have exciting careers, environmental reasons and other reasons including housing costs.

In China, the 1 child policy has lead to 150 million males who will never marry or have a woman partner because males are usually first born and without a possible female as a second child, the deficit is obvious -  4 old people now rely on 1 young person.

The problem here is when the 1 does not reproduce and in time the recession in the nation's replacement people can lead to unviability. In China's case this will take many years.

For Britain, many EU citizens returned home, where wages have risen markedly in thrown countries since they came to Britain to live and work. Changes in immigration have deterred some new arrivals. The underlying problem is a general ageing working population.

A place I know has about 12 staff, 4 are under 40, the rest are over 45, most over 50 in this bracket. Recently, they advertised a job, it attracted over 30 applicants, 5 were invited to an interview and only 1 responded to that invitation. This is the second time they advertised the same job. 5 years ago the situation was different. 

In the UK since 1970 as a general datum point, successive young people not having families and 'replacing' at the least themselves has led to the UK having a reported less than 2 children per generation. Extrapolate this out ver 4 or more generations and you have a problem.

Automation has taken many jobs since 1960, but similarly, we are now seeing a population decline. A local rural primary school in my area has been under threat of closure for 15 years as the roll falls annually with few new pupils. You only have to see the empty seats on the small school bus going by to see how fragile the viability of that school is. Within 10 years I see this school closing due to lack of numbers.

This is worrying because these people are our future, if this pattern is repeated across the nation, we are in trouble. Obesity, other health issues like Covid, lack of population etc will all cull people, but without new people growing and replacing themselves, we are facing an uncertain future.

Automation is taking what were exclusive job roles - accountants, tax experts, solicitors as well as hitting the lower skilled and manual workers roles. But there is demand in some other jobs. An accountancy job attracted 200 + applicants, a social media role in the same company none.

The reverse Tsunami I talked about is coming - this is when the people 'wave' starts to fall back on itself, a situation I have identified with this term some years ago, the old fabric and structure collapses back on itself because the structure that should be behind it (people) is not there anymore.

We need to rethink our whole future as a species as a consequence!

Boris Johnson - Working from home is part of the future Human jobs market, it helps cut climate missions too.

 

Some of us love working from home!

To a lot of people, the recent working from home (WFH) scenario as been something we have been saying we can do for years and wanted to - but, deaf ears would not listen, now we have proved it can be done as it has been forced on the workplace over the last year. 

Boris Johnson asking Civil Servants to go back to their desks as a gesture of reassurance isn't perhaps what they wanted to hear. Some of us have smelt the fresh air and we want it. 

Boris Johnson wants people to return to offices - one reason is to save the local businesses, but many of these are teetering on unviability and some have leases due to end, many of which will not be taken up again by the current tenants. 

Every day since 2016, 15 High Street shops a day closed their doors for good. Pushing people back into offices is not going to work, will not be popular and many will seek to move to working from home jobs if it is denied to them at present when barriers are lifted.

Boris may have a valid point in his gesture, but recent surveys suggest many people now want to work from home permanently. Why not just reduce the rates burden on small businesses to compensate for the loss of trade on the High Street? 

Greedy councils charging high parking charges, high rail fares, high fuel costs - why travel if you can avoid it? Surely this reduced travel is better for the environment a point that we are so frequently lectured about.

The lockdown has seen much of the day to day business go on-line and thrive. The genie is out of the bottle, people are going that way in preference to going out to shop. Why struggle into a town, pay a fortune to park, get a fine for overstaying and maybe not get what you want? Why not do it on-line, find what you want and use the time you have not wasted to enjoy yourself? Unless I know I can get what I want in my local town, I buy on-line.

This survey below shows most people want to continue the WFH scenario. Another one I saw showed over 33% wanted full time WFH, 19% to go back to the office 100% of the time and the rest adopt a hybrid model of home and work locations.

WFH works for me because I save more than £2000 a year not travelling to an office to do work I can do from home. I don't have to put up with people I would rather not have to associate with. I don't have to endure office politics, the stress and I get more done. So its a win win situation for me and the business.

I have reduced the stress involved in going to work greatly. All the time I was able to work 5 days a week from home in lockdown, I felt much better being at home, I can start earlier and finish earlier, I don't waste 70 minutes a day travelling to a place I can do without going to and frankly don't want to, just to do the majority of what I can at home. 

My quality of life is much better too. It is obvious where my future is - not in an office. I can look out on countryside and have cats around me as I work, real coffee, proper tea, why should I go into an office in a town to be with people who I have to tolerate, when I can do the same work at home with less stress and have no exposure to danger on the roads in my daily commute which I don't have to do?

It just works better all round for me. WFH is great. I want it. It is the future for me.

WFH has been coming - I have been saying for years it should be an option, in 2000 I did partly work from home saving me then 2 hours and 84 miles travelling per day. 

We have now replaced the commuter rush hour, we are using less resources to get to do a job - now a zoom call or just working on-line does it for many. Not every job can be done like this but many banks and other businesses are going this way. It saves them buildings only half full.

Why rush to a location where everyone else is rushing to get to a place of work all at the same time frame? This is outdated lunacy in an age when we can go into Space and walk on other Planets.

A salesman from a tool company I know said he is hardly travelling much now due to people changing how they want to do business - people want to do business by phone or on-line it seems. Air travel has been curtailed, in my view a lot of it was not necessary. 

Automation is now swallowing more human jobs than ever before

We are now reaching a point where I have been saying for some time that in the next 20 years, many jobs will have been taken over by robots. Since 2009, I have watched the job market decline, both in terms of quality and quantity of jobs. 

The demographic time bomb is also kicking in as we have fewer younger people coming into the workplace - the HGV drivers crisis has been coming for years. 5 generations since 1960 have been able to choose to have a family or not - now the deficit of fewer younger employees available to work is coming to be a reality. Robots will help bridge that gap by automating a lot of the boring things we don't have to.

We will need a Basic Income Guarantee System to pay people whose jobs and careers will have been lost to automation. Even niche jobs like Lawyers, Solicitors, Accountants will not be immune from automation. At the other end of the scale, low skilled work like fruit picking can be done more efficiently and cheaper by automation. Humans in the work place are becoming an endangered species. Boris Johnson - this is something you should be aware of. This isn't going away.

A lot of human work is basically quite futile, it can be done by machines better, faster and with less error. Why don't we free up our human society to live proper lives? 

We should use this work transition to enrich people's lives. Basic Income means that we can dump the useless, chaotic and draconian Universal Credit system too. We can streamline all benefits with a Basic Income program and cut out job centres, benefits offices and save millions here in this sector and the billions paid out in benefits system errors.

Our human future starts now, with the shift for some to home working, then as the robots take over more human jobs, we can enjoy a better life with a safety net of Basic Income. The money will go round so what is paid out will come back and it will benefit the High Street - with premises being taken for new ventures as the financial safety net is there. 

It just needs some vision and to look forward rather than at just the work from home deficit that is current thinking. 

Until we can unite all humans on this planet to adopt a plan where we all work together and live peacefully then we will achieve little from the possible open to us.

E5 and E10 Petrol is dangerous and not 'Green' at all - it increases the Climate Change 'problem' - it must be discontinued!

 

E5 & E10 Ethanol blended Petrol is not as 'Green' as is made out - here's the story -

E10 is set to be introduced in September this year - be warned

The facts are:

You need to burn more E5 & E10 to get the same performance as straight Petrol because the blended fuel is less volatile.

Water condensation combines with the sugar-derived Ethanol in E5 and E10 and forms a bacteria (thanks to the Sugar base of the Ethanol) which is acidic and damages fuel systems - requiring replacement parts to be made - hardly 'green'. E10 is far more damaging than E5 in this respect - neither are particularly good for your vehicle.

It is recommended to discard any E10 fuel over 30 days old in Lawnmowers and other garden equipment fuel systems to prevent damage - this wasted fuel and the disposal problem is hardly 'green.' E10 has a short storage life. 

In the UK this could lead to an eye watering 2 Million Gallons of fuel having to be disposed of a year - this is hardly green - most will end likely up on bonfires which is extremely dangerous!

Any CO2 absorption by growing Sugar Beet to make into Ethanol is likely lost in the less efficient fuel blend which generates more CO2 to get comparable vehicle performance, plus the added CO2 deficit of the transport required to cultivate, distil and move the Ethanol negates any further 'green' gains which are already lost from being a less efficient fuel product.

Cheap Sugar base products may be grown in third world nations by deforesting areas to meet the demand for the base Sugar to distil, hardly 'green.' Additionally, this process removes Sugar from the local food chain, potentially causing poverty and making third world local populations to the crop worse off through food poverty.

The acidic attack on fuel systems from Ethanol generated bacteric acid can destroy plastic fuel system parts and some fuel lines leading to vehicle fires - hardly 'green' to produce needless toxic smoke fires and avoidable danger to life? 

Plus scrapping cars which can't run on E5 or E10 and building others that can is also CO2 heavy and not very green.

So, here are a basic set of arguments that destroy any notions of E5 and E10 petrol being environmentally friendly - the sum of the parts is that these fuels are more destructive than they are beneficial and cause more problems than they solve.. 

Vehicles are many more times efficient and less polluting today than at any time in our recent history, moving to non-hazardous Synthetic Bio fuels are the answer, rather than going down the route of battery powered vehicles on which China has a majority control on the elements needed to build the batteries. (Bio fuels in this context do not include E5 and E10 fuels). 

Worse still is fuel wastage, if E10 becomes the only petrol from the pumps, as I said earlier in this article it is estimated that about 1million gallons per year used in garden machinery will end up being wasted and stale which will have to be disposed of, because the fuel loses its volatility if not used within a month. 

All of the above deficits can be avoided and will save more of the Planet than these blended fuels - how Green is that? E10 introduction is not as Green as it is made out to be.

As an aside, illegally introduced Wild Boar in the UK done as part of 're-wilding' now dislodge more CO2 from the ground through foraging than 1 million cars produces a year. Go figure. Which is a long way from doing anything about China's 25% of total emissions produced a year I grant you. Ours is less than 1%.

Are Electric cars and Carbon Neutrality a big con - and is climate change just another political bandwagon to hitch a ride on?

Are we being conned over electricity and the Green agenda?

We have had access to free energy since 1954 but we are denied it. Why?

Electric cars are being toted as clean and green and the future. Far from it. 1 in 5 Californian electric car owners are trading their electric cars back in for gasoline cars - because the range isn't there, nor is the quickness of charging time or availability of charging points.

Motor manufacturers are currently engaged in an apparent race to the bottom by not planning or introducing new models of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles as governments career headlong into a potential fool's paradise of no having no new ICE vehicles sold as of 2030. The future is not electric cars. It is not battery cars. It is bio fuelled cars.

In California, they are apparently falling out of love with Electric Cars!

Modern vehicles are infinitely more efficient and cleaner and they have ever been, the future for transport is bio fuels not the direction being navigated down the battery route. Battery power units are not at a development stage that means we are going to get a really good range or power output then there is the question of the battery charging rate that will differ between batteries and of course the costs to charge a battery. We likely don't have the source power to charge the batteries required.

Battery cars are driving the wrong end of the problem - they drive the wheels directly, losing 25% efficiency there due to frictional forces, plus the load on the battery. Why not use the battery to drive a brushless generator and create through rectification more power than you put in, thus your battery car would go further and quicker for long operations such as motorway driving, perhaps a 70mph motorway cruise range of 400 miles could be achievable this way, not the environmentally heavy demanding theoretical ranges now in place.

As I predicted, this battery technology is quite new and what happens if like computers, one system quickly supersedes another? You are going to have Apple envy and a divisive battery car snobbery, with entry level vehicles looked down on, rather than a level playing field battery system.

What happens to old batteries? Can they be recycled, what happens to the rest of the vehicle which less the battery is about valueless except for scrap? Because the battery is built in to the structure in current vehicles and is not easy to remove.  

Slowly, some proponents of the carbon neutral folly are removing their green tinted spectacles and starting to see that China effectively now controls the majority of materials needed for battery cars and renewable energy. 

A lot of these resources are situated where China has invested in their extraction and controls the materials holdings in the regions. If China holds considerable access rights to these materials, it can dictate the price to supply and even if it wants to supply other nations. 

The risk is that when 2030 hits and people cannot buy ICE cars perhaps because of battery cost just for example leave alone the availability factor, what then? Some people could be looking mighty stupid as the rest of us say 'we told you so'. 

The risk is that having lost 10 years of development on ICE cars which may be even more cleaner then and possibly using greener by development, and use of bio fuels, we will be doubly disadvantaged. 

The Covid situation has meant more people can work from home and are choosing to do so, thus a 'commuting less workforce' saves the environment by cutting car use painlessly. This will probably achieve as much as this battery vehicle folly might in CO2 reduction alone.  

In 2030 when we are standing around wanting batteries or materials, we are going to look like a load of fools when these are either not available or priced at a premium rate many will not be able to afford. This is akin to the largest schoolboy error in the history of our species occurring, within plain sight. A real slow motion car crash if ever there was one. 

So then in addition, how does using child labour in some countries to extract Cobalt and other rare earth minerals sit with the typically left-leaning, climate change wokesters bent on sending us down the electric and renewables route? 

These are the sort of people who spout on media platforms on black lives and slavery issues, yet seem strangely less vocal when effectively both of these issues these days can involve their pet causes, such as obtaining materials for their beloved electric cars in some cases? Strange that.

Face the facts - in the United Kingdom alone, 33 million vehicles will need replacing with electric ones, plus the charging point infrastructure and the generated power required to fuel these items to be in place in less than 9 years, it is probably not achievable in the timescale nor practical. Nor likely affordable to the average motorist.

Yet some politicians and activists are intent on careering the motoring population down their sanctimonious road to a situation that is probably the wrong road. (We have been encouraged to adopt private transport by governments of all persuasions in the past.) Many people can't afford the alternative to ICE vehicles, the savings of these electric cars are lost in other costs - the worst cost is to the planet. 

Covid 19 has slashed air travel, much of which was a luxury, unnecessary and a colossal waste of resources. A large jet aircraft for instance generates on takeoff the equivalent of one automobile's total CO2 output for 10 years of average driving during that 10 minutes of takeoff activity. Multiply that with every jet leaving Heathrow in a day and you'll see the obvious savings to the planet. by reducing air travel alone.

How are we going to have a net CO2 output with air travel operating at previous levels?  Have these people not thought this through? How can you have a commerce based economy without generating CO2? It is not presently possible. 

With Covid starting to recede in some areas there is a rush to get air travel going again - how does this square with the same politicians clamouring for switching to electric vehicles on environmental grounds trumpeting a return to flying? You could not make it up. The hypocrisy is both obvious and risible. Wanting one pie in the sky ideal and another highly polluting one simultaneously. 

Around Heathrow airport a new low emission zone for road vehicles is in force whilst the same airport is planned for massive air travel expansion dubbed 'good for business'. Road vehicles (who use the is new zone) pay 80% of the cost of their fuel purchase price already as tax, aircraft fuel is devoid of tax I believe? What is the logic here? Pollute massively for no cost, pay to pollute and be charged twice?

Free energy you are asking? Yes. It exists, we have been standing on the basis of it since our species first stood on this planet. It is under our very feet. 'We have the means to take ET home' it has been said, so that means we already have very advanced power systems available to us, far in excess of what we mostly know of today, which we could be using to subvert climate change perhaps with clean energy.

'We have had the potential for 'free energy' since 1954' - we have also been told - but you can't tax free energy or control it unless you control the technology that can utilise it. We could have changed our way of living more than 60 years ago it seems for the better, for cleaner and quicker travel - but it's all about control - control of resources, control of energy, control of political power, revenue, taxes from things we use and lastly control of the population. 

How much of our atmosphere is made up of CO2? a small percentage, less than half of 10%. In the time of the Dinosaurs, CO2 made up a far bigger proportion of the atmosphere than today. This is one reason why trees and vegetation grew so large in those times, not to mention the creatures. Less gravity was a factor too, of course.

Hydrogen as a usable fuel is a pipe dream today, it can be used but it is not feasible at present -  by more efficient use of fuels we have, use of bio and synthetic fuels which will capture CO2 in their growth will help, as will reduction in the human population are the solution. Even the ecologists agree on this last point.

Like racism, climate change has been stoked up into an emotive subject that some see as a means of making a career from, or a bandwagon in some cases to jump onto. 

We live in a commercial world based on trading, manufacturing and commerce - like it or not since the last industrial revolution at least. That world needs resources, fuels and energy at a minimum to operate on. Free energy isn't in that equation today, but it should be.

We do not live in a 'one world society', we do not enjoy a civilisation that is geared to a common set of ideals to maintain the population and its future for one population, living in a harmonious and forward thinking situation. 

We exist in a world divided by factions, religious and political outlooks, one where the forces of nature - dog eat dog et al, operate. We really need to change society, change who we are as people to change the world and that isn't going to happen all the time that there is money to be made from societal division, warfare, where a supply and demand commerce situation exists and is actively helped to exist.Whilst beliefs differ, so will outcomes. You only have to look at the Palestine situation to see the rocky relationship there.

Ask yourself who really gains from Carbon neutrality? Who has their fingers in the Green pie? Sure as eggs is eggs, a lot of the same movers and shakers in commercial business will be taking their fingers out of one pie and sticking it into the eco industry one. As the saying goes, 'where there's muck, there's brass.' This applies here to this subject.Carbon seen as muck, there's money in a solution - the brass. 

The frightening thing is how school children have as a result been scared and mentally damaged by the climate change doom and gloomers, into thinking the world is going to end in 10 years or less. 

How does business work? It is basically making a profit by taking care of someone else's problem and providing a solution for the problem at a cost - Carbon neutrality is that problem being promoted today and there are probably plenty of organisations lining up to take care of it and present their invoices for doing so. 

Sure, they will have skilled public relations messaging and content to soft soap the population into accepting how 'good' this low carbon solution is for our world, but you can be darn sure that there are those looking to make big money from the 'problem' by being part of the 'solution.' That's how business works. Think about it for yourselves and ask yourselves where is the smart money being made today? 'Solving' the climate issue.

At the moment, unless we change to the potential free energy situation and re-evaluate what we are doing and where we are going as a species, we are prisoners of Doctors who seemingly allow infection to continue but also provide medication to help cure it every so often.

The question you should be asking is why not change the world beyond this issue? Can you not see that replacing one mode of transport's motive power is not the end of the problem. There are a set of problems to conquer. Not just one.

The world's outlook needs changing. Who we are, who we want to be in the future, do we need this type of world or society? What is the human future, what should we be doing for mankind's future? The problem is that we are all such different people, that it  is unlikely to work or for people agreeing to a common plan of action.

These are the type of questions that need to be asked. Just messing about like kids in a sandpit pushing toy cars about and pretending yours is electric powered and is going to save the world, is just a diversion from what really needs to change and why. The species has to fundamentally change to make this truly work.

The bottom line with business is making a profit. Until humanity is put on the spot to redefine their future and come up with a workable plan, it is likely to just be business as usual.

 

Guitar reviews for you: Vox AC4 C1 BL Limited edition Blue Covering

Guitar reviews for you: Vox AC4 C1 Bl Limited edition Blue Covering

The Vox AC4 C1 in Blue

Small is beautiful they say and the Vox AC4 C1 BL is in that bracket. Having owned an original early 1960's Vox AC4 I was intrigued to see how this new reissue of sorts would compare.

This example featured had been little used and came through an Ebay seller.

If you are looking for a small amplifier for studio recording that you can crank up, or a small amplifier with a distinctive tone for jazz, instrumental or just general playing this one should suit. Add a few pedals and a great sound can be obtained.

Many bands now mic up their whole equipment so you could still use this miked up through the band PA system and still be heard. So this small amplifier offers you great versatility and it is also light to carry about. There is plenty of volume for bedroom or practice room use too.

The Gain does start to crank things up, with zero Gain and volume about 1 o'clock, start to bring the gain up to hear the amplifier start to really work, it doesn't need much to start to hear the difference between clean and 'agitated' as I would say, I didn't really go mad with the Gain as I don't play with that sound. I like a nice working sound, just a bit of presence. A bit like Hank Marvin's early sound with the Shadows.

Simple Gain, Bass, Treble and Master Volume controls

Back to back against the original 1960's version, the differences between the two amplifiers are the original has a classic Vox chassis mounting the valves and electronic circuitry as opposed to the new AC4 that uses a printed circuit board to do much the same job.

Compact and retro even down to the white handle and vent!

Size against the 1960's one is around the same for this version, although the special edition C1 with the 12" speaker is slightly taller to accommodate that bigger unit.

The original has a partially open back and this one is a closed back which I think makes it run hotter and the sound will be different with an opened back.

Closed back with socket output option to an external speaker

The vinyl covering on my original was in a smooth Rexine vinyl type fabric in a blue grey colour, this new AC4 is a darker blue and with a textured Tolex weave type textured finish as found on the modern AC15 and 30's although their cases have the textured finish in Black Tolex. The speaker cabinet front covering is the classic brown diamond on the early 60's one I owned and grey 'Tygon' weave on this new one which was used c. 1963 on some amplifiers.

The simple PCB Control panel of the AC4 C1

Control wise, both are very simple layouts with minimal controls. The original has 2 inputs normal and a vib term channel, the new one has no vib trem and just a single input. Both AC4s share some same controls, the new AC4 has a Gain circuit to allow you to ramp up the amplifier at low volume.

Played clean the amplifier sounds very nice, even on the original valves, some owners change these out for JJ, Mullard or others to suit. 12AX7 x 2 and an EL84 x 1 provide the real valve sound.

Played through with a Stratocaster on Kinman pickups at a bedroom level of volume the amplifier sounded clear and raising the Gain did start a bit of break up sound, as though you were at a higher level of volume on one of the bigger Voxes like an AC15 or AC30.

With a Gretsch 6120 plugged in it gave me the instantly obvious George Harrison sound, more so when I used the Behringer time machine pedals well. The Brian Setzer sound was obvious making this a nice Rockabilly amplifier with added Reverb to enhance the tone.

I'm not a great fan of overdriven sounds, mostly preferring the cleaner sound for instrumental playing work and in small jazz bands - which this amplifier would suit. Both picked notes and strummed chords sounded full, clear and had the right tone. I will try some effects such as the old Watkins tape echo and a Zoom reverb unit to see how that changes the sound on this AC4.

The Behringer Vintage Time Machine age the AC4 a lift

I connected up my Behringer Vintage Time Machine to the Vox and this gave it quite a lift, the level control on the time machine helps you to increase the input volume and the box gave the AC4 an enhanced and fuller sound. 

I found that the Behringer really improved the sound, making it more 'studio' like - think Abbey Road. The Stratocaster sounded great too, I tried a Mex 50's fitted with Custom Shop Fat 50's and a 1960 replica I made with a Mex 50's red body and rosewood neck, the obvious Hank Marvin and Shadows sounds were there on both.

A Treble control set at about 1 o'clock and a Bass at around 10 o'clock seemed to give a nice Hank Marvin sound, with some delay added and a bit of input boost from the Time Machine, it was sounding nice.

The AC4 sounds great with this old Watkins Copycat tape echo plugged into it

I did try the old Watkins Copycat tape echo machine on the AC4 and it sounds really great, some very nice Hank Marvin sounds can be had with a bit of work adjusting the controls. The really nice glassy tone of the AC4 can be brought out even at a low volume and adjusting the treble on the AC4 does vary the tone. 

I had the Gain set quite low, as the Watkins has channel volume gain controls which help drive the AC4. Most delay pedals don't have an input gain level which is a shame as this helps drive the signal - all too often I try a delay pedal and as soon as you engage it the volume is sucked out of your signal. These are worse than useless unless you put a booster of some sort in front of it - a Compressor with volume gain or an overdrive to get the sound 'alive' with a slight edge.

Overall I think this is a great Vox valve amplifier for the price I paid, my original was £59 in 1985 and this one was £200 so I suppose they ratio out about the same cost in real terms in comparison. 

Roqsolid make great amplifier covers and I have ordered one for this amplifier, I use their covers on all my equipment, reasonably priced and great quality, so I highly recommend them.

Try one of these AC4's and I think you will find it a nice small amplifier, if you need a bit more volume before distortion sets in then the AC10 C1 may be more to your requirement. These are slightly smaller and a bit lighter than the AC15 C1. 

My only points I would like to see added are reverb and a Vib trem but I might be able to add this later on. 

The amplifier seems to get hot and I wonder whether I should make a new back panel with vents and maybe fit a couple of small CPU fans inside to help with cooling. The old AC4 has an open back which helps with that and the sound is not forced out only through the front as on this AC4.

A great amplifier for Studio use I would say, you can get the real Vox sound, the Top Boost alluded to in the Vox writing is not as controllable as on the AC30 which allows dedicated controls for that, for Drive and Volume level. But the sound is quite clear and glassy so you can probably fine tune the volume and treble to suit. I like it and you might too.