Budget home guitar studio.

[thesurfingalien]

There's really no comparison between the speakers in a guitar amp and those in most audio systems. I don't think that thesurfingalien's correct about the reason audio systems can't take the heat but speakers in guitar amps can ("...they are very stiff and therefore are compressing the output by nature". The stiffer the piston, the less compression and distortion it imparts - that's why the latest drivers have very stiff cones. Even vintage paper cones are pretty stiff, but they do deform when compressed by the voice coil. This adds distortion ("cone breakup") that's desirable to a blues or rock guitarist but the enemy of jazz, pedal steel and surf guitarists.

 

Hi bluesman,

 

I could be wrong in my explanation, but that is what I heard from (I hope) reliable sources when I build my own guitar-amp. I am not sure what you mean by a stiff piston though... I am not talking about the stiffness of the cone, but the stiffness of the cone-surround (the part that connects the cone to the outside frame) and the spider, which keeps the voice-coil centered.

 

That stiffness limits cone-excursion, and the voice-coils of loudspeakers are more robust to handle the excessive power. So, you get "natural" compression.

 

Your are also referring to the diameter of the voice-coils, not the height... That (usually) means they can handle more power, but it has nothing to do with maximum (linear) excursion-levels.

 

Not trying to be Mr. Know-it-all here, so if you have more accurate information I would like to know!

 

Kind regards,

Peter

[bluesman]

I am not talking about the stiffness of the cone, but the stiffness of the cone-surround (the part that connects the cone to the outside frame) and the spider, which keeps the voice-coil centered.

 

That stiffness limits cone-excursion, and the voice-coils of loudspeakers are more robust to handle the excessive power. So, you get "natural" compression.

Hi, Peter!

 

It would be counterproductive to intentionally stiffen the cone's suspension beyond that necessary to control it at its low frequency limits in an open back cab, as that would add mechanical resistance to voice coil motion and increase its temperature with no benefit. The surround is a major determinant of the speaker's "free air" resonant frequency (which determines its usable lower frequency limit in an open back cabinet), and it's part of the cone's suspension so it damps cone motion (which affects low frequency response). The purpose of stiffer surrounds and spiders in older speakers was to tighten the lows when used in open-back cabinets. Speakers for cabs that change the response curve (ported, tuned, sealed, transmission line etc) have suspensions designed for the specific cabinet in which they go, and they're usually much more loosely damped because the cabinet is a significant component of the suspension too. From soundonsound.com:

 

"The way in which low frequencies are handled also depends on how well the cone assembly is damped, which itself depends on both the cone material and the surround. If the cone has a tendency to overshoot, the bass will sound loose, whereas a well-damped speaker will produce a tighter-sounding bass."

 

Xmax and Xlim are the parameters of interest regarding voice coil excursion, and suspension compliance tells you about the stiffness of the surround and spider. You're correct that the diameter of a voice coil does not relate directly to its range of excursion - they're not in the same ballpark. The Eminence EJ1250 has a VC diam of 44mm, an Xmax of 1.2mm, and suspension compliance of 12mm/N. The Eminence Commonwealth 12 has a 100mm voice coil, an Xmax of 0.7mm and a suspension compliance of 0.24mm/N. The EJ (Eric Johnson signature model) is designed for bluesier breakup and compression, while the Commonwealth is marketed for clean tone with maximum headroom. So the speaker with the shorter excursion and stiffer suspension is by far the cleaner and more dynamic of the two. This is typical of speakers for guitar and bass amp use.

 

Best regards -

 

David

[redscott]

A greater size speaker wouldn't necessarily make a difference. Power input ratings would matter to some degree

 

Chris

 

Hi again, this is interesting, I was talking to a friend of mine, who uses PA speakers for gigging with multifx units for his guitar rig and he just suggested that there wouldn't be any reason not to use a PA speaker at home for my purposes, im guessing PA speakers are alot more rugged and would avoid the problems mentioned in this thread?

[baddog]

Is your goal to have a practice amp, do recording, or something else? Depending on what your intent is, this would influence whether you go with a guitar amp (or head and speaker cabinet), something like a Line6, Fractal, or similar product paired with a a powered PA, or monitor speakers and recording hardware/software? I thought your original intent was a home guitar studio?

 

What do you currently play your guitar through?

[crisnee]

Hi again, this is interesting, I was talking to a friend of mine, who uses PA speakers for gigging with multifx units for his guitar rig and he just suggested that there wouldn't be any reason not to use a PA speaker at home for my purposes, im guessing PA speakers are alot more rugged and would avoid the problems mentioned in this thread?

 

Well, yes they are a lot more rugged, but they're a whole different animal sound-wise. I think you better make up your mind as to what you exactly want function-wise and then decide on the equipment.

 

Chris

[thesurfingalien]

Hi, Peter!

 

It would be counterproductive to intentionally stiffen the cone's suspension beyond that necessary to control it at its low frequency limits in an open back cab, as that would add mechanical resistance to voice coil motion and increase its temperature with no benefit. The surround is a major determinant of the speaker's "free air" resonant frequency (which determines its usable lower frequency limit in an open back cabinet), and it's part of the cone's suspension so it damps cone motion (which affects low frequency response). The purpose of stiffer surrounds and spiders in older speakers was to tighten the lows when used in open-back cabinets. Speakers for cabs that change the response curve (ported, tuned, sealed, transmission line etc) have suspensions designed for the specific cabinet in which they go, and they're usually much more loosely damped because the cabinet is a significant component of the suspension too. From soundonsound.com:

 

"The way in which low frequencies are handled also depends on how well the cone assembly is damped, which itself depends on both the cone material and the surround. If the cone has a tendency to overshoot, the bass will sound loose, whereas a well-damped speaker will produce a tighter-sounding bass."

 

Xmax and Xlim are the parameters of interest regarding voice coil excursion, and suspension compliance tells you about the stiffness of the surround and spider. You're correct that the diameter of a voice coil does not relate directly to its range of excursion - they're not in the same ballpark. The Eminence EJ1250 has a VC diam of 44mm, an Xmax of 1.2mm, and suspension compliance of 12mm/N. The Eminence Commonwealth 12 has a 100mm voice coil, an Xmax of 0.7mm and a suspension compliance of 0.24mm/N. The EJ (Eric Johnson signature model) is designed for bluesier breakup and compression, while the Commonwealth is marketed for clean tone with maximum headroom. So the speaker with the shorter excursion and stiffer suspension is by far the cleaner and more dynamic of the two. This is typical of speakers for guitar and bass amp use.

 

Best regards -

 

David

 

Hi David,

 

I think we are talking cross-purpose here because what you wrote above is exactly what I was trying to tell; guitar-amp speakers are designed to handle the load. I am not saying that the cone-suspension is stiffer than what is necessary.

 

BTW, I am a big EJ fan

 

Kind regards,

Peter

[redscott]

Is your goal to have a practice amp, do recording, or something else? Depending on what your intent is, this would influence whether you go with a guitar amp (or head and speaker cabinet), something like a Line6, Fractal, or similar product paired with a a powered PA, or monitor speakers and recording hardware/software? I thought your original intent was a home guitar studio?

 

What do you currently play your guitar through?

 

Previously I had an amp which I bypassed the preamp using "kontrol rig" into the fx return (audio interface within a guitar pedal board), however both my amp and my kontrol rig broke (at different times), I would get another kontrol rig but they are discontinued, also since my amp broke I thought it would be a good opportunity to get a new system in place, one more focused on recording. I pretty much just want to record and practice at home, so the way i original thought i could do both of these at the same time was to simply get an audio interface and monitors and use my existing software (which is very good), so I could use standalone programmes for practice and use the same programmes as vst pugins in any given DAW.

 

You bring up a good point bplexico, there are units which do the processing instead of your pc which have inbuilt usb interfaces, i.e. Line 6 pod hd, axe fx etc (with these you may as well just use a decent power amp with guitar cabs) however im not a fan of line 6/zoom/boss amp sims, and axe fx and the eleven unit is out of my budget - the more apt point is I really do like my existing software, and I also love the sound people get out of "Revalver", in my view it absolutely stomps line 6 etc so this is the route i wanted to go down, thus what I want to do is, guitar -> usb interface -> software -> usb interface -> monitors. The last part can be replaced by alot of solutions, 1) getting a regular amp and bypass the preamp stage (although this is needlessly costly), 2) studio monitors, 3) studio headphones, or 4) PA speaker(s). Hopefully this is clearer, thanks for taking an interest btw guys, its muchly appreciated.

[bluesman]

I think we are talking cross-purpose here because what you wrote above is exactly what I was trying to tell

Hi, Peter -

 

It appears that you may have written something other than what you meant.

 

I am not talking about the stiffness of the cone, but the stiffness of the cone-surround (the part that connects the cone to the outside frame) and the spider, which keeps the voice-coil centered.

 

That stiffness limits cone-excursion, and the voice-coils of loudspeakers are more robust to handle the excessive power. So, you get "natural" compression.

What I provided is a typical example - 2 speakers from the same manufacturer, one of which was designed for smooth "cone breakup" and inherent compression for sustain. The other was designed for maximum clean headroom and articulation. The one with the wider dynamic range has much stiffer susepnsion (i.e. surround and spider) than the one designed for compression and breakup. This is the opposite of what you wrote. Of course, none of this matters to me as a guitar player - all I care about is how it sounds in the cabinet or amplifier I'm using.

 

Keep on rockin'!

 

David

[thesurfingalien]

Hi, Peter -

 

It appears that you may have written something other than what you meant.

 

 

What I provided is a typical example - 2 speakers from the same manufacturer, one of which was designed for smooth "cone breakup" and inherent compression for sustain. The other was designed for maximum clean headroom and articulation. The one with the wider dynamic range has much stiffer susepnsion (i.e. surround and spider) than the one designed for compression and breakup. This is the opposite of what you wrote. Of course, none of this matters to me as a guitar player - all I care about is how it sounds in the cabinet or amplifier I'm using.

 

Keep on rockin'!

 

David

 

Hi David,

 

Indeed I did! I am not sure where I go wrong here... The stiffness of suspension does not necessarily limit dynamic range, but enhances control, and in combination with the used motor it and cone-design will result in a much cleaner sound and high dynamic range.

 

Anyway, the suspension of a hifi-speaker (the woofer or the other cone-based loudspeaker-units) is a lot less stiff than any guitar-speaker. They are designed to give a flat frequency-response at much lower frequencies. Guitar-loudspeakers usually drop of in frequency-range rather sharp before 100 Hz and after 4000-5000 Hz.

 

I am not an expert in any way on guitar-speakers, and base what I mentioned to redscott on information provided to me years ago by people whom I thought were knowledgeable. They told me that the stiffness of the suspension was (besides other things) intentional to compress the sound to deal with the high excursions of the strings. You are more knowledgeable here, so I stand corrected.

 

Bottom line here is that one has to be very careful when other than guitar-loudspeakers are used for reproducing guitar. If readscott would do a search on it, he could find quite a few reports of people who have destroyed their hifi-speakers this way.

 

Thanks & kind regards,

Peter

[baddog]

... I pretty much just want to record and practice at home, so the way i original thought i could do both of these at the same time was to simply get an audio interface and monitors and use my existing software (which is very good), so I could use standalone programmes for practice and use the same programmes as vst pugins in any given DAW.

 

...the more apt point is I really do like my existing software, and I also love the sound people get out of "Revalver", in my view it absolutely stomps line 6 etc so this is the route i wanted to go down, thus what I want to do is, guitar -> usb interface -> software -> usb interface -> monitors. The last part can be replaced by alot of solutions, 1) getting a regular amp and bypass the preamp stage (although this is needlessly costly), 2) studio monitors, 3) studio headphones, or 4) PA speaker(s). Hopefully this is clearer, thanks for taking an interest btw guys, its muchly appreciated.

 

Ok, this helps, what software are you using, that would help in recommending the appropriate USB interface.

[bluesman]

the suspension of a hifi-speaker (the woofer or the other cone-based loudspeaker-units) is a lot less stiff than any guitar-speaker.

Remember that the speaker cones (or other active elements like ribbons etc) are part of an oscillating system that also includes the suspension and damping elements. The part of a speaker that pressurizes the air into sound waves is like the tire/wheel combo on a car. Motion of the wheel/tire unit is controlled by all the suspension elements, from shocks and springs to the bushings through which fasteners are inserted.

 

The cabinet is an integral part of the suspension of a speaker. There are few (if any) currently produced audio speaker systems in open-back cabinets - and those that are use drivers with much stiffer suspensions. Every speaker you're going to encounter today has some kind of internal damping / pressure control, be it a port, a transmission line, a damped passive radiator, or just a fully sealed acoustic suspension. Guitar speakers are used in open back cabs or in closed cabs that add less stiffness to driver element suspension than do closed audio speakers (e.g. because they have larger cabinet volumes, less restrictive porting etc). So guitar speakers need stiffer mechanical suspensions because their cabinets provide relatively less of it than do audio speaker cabinets.

[redscott]

Ok, this helps, what software are you using, that would help in recommending the appropriate USB interface.

 

The software I currently own is Guitar Rig 3, although I intend to upgrade this to 5, and probably purchase Peavey's "Revalver" also. As for DAW, unsure right now, need to get some advice on that to be honest (one thing which may determine which usb interface I get is software, if all other variables are eliminated, that is - for instance this comes with alot of software Komplete : Audio Interfaces : Komplete Audio 6 | Products ).

 

I am kinda following bluesman and surfingaliens posts, but to be honest I am very new to the technology of music, but all in all I think the end point is if I am going to use amplification equipment which isn't a guitar cabinet then I need to be "careful" - to be honest, even though I am sure this is the truth I don't want to be worrying that if I buy monitors they could blow at any moment, so any concrete advice on what to get considering what I want to do would be very appreciated.

 

I am not sure if someone answered this in a round about way or not, but how does a PA speaker and a studio monitor differ? Is it not both the job of the PA and the studio monitor to reproduce whatever signal is going into it, i.e. a flat response? Are PA speakers just more robust? (I have been looking around and alot of guitarists who use standalone fx processors, i.e. axe fx, line 6 HD, use this for live and home use, and swear by it, Alto TS112A Active PA Speaker (Single) )

[bluesman]

how does a PA speaker and a studio monitor differ?

Speakers for live sound reinforcement are designed for maximum SPL, efficiency, and reliability within the limits of their price and quality points and their intended use. They tend to have larger cabinets and sacrifice the extremes of frequency range in inverse proportion to their cost (i.e. the better the PA speaker, the wider and flatter the frequency response). Studio monitors are designed for maximum accuracy and flat frequency response, so that they can be made to sound like whatever the producer wants them to sound (e.g. when mixing down for broadcast radio vs vinyl vs CD, mixing for background music vs club use vs stage use etc). And studio monitors are designed with dispersion patterns appropriate for the sound fields encountered during recording / mixdown / mastering, e.g. within 3 feet of the engineer's ears on a huge mixing board bridge vs large studio playback vs the inside of a truck (yes, the Rogers LS3/5a was designed as a monitor for use in the back of the BBC's remote broadcast & recording trucks).

 

Sound reinforcement speakers are also designed for toughness and low maintenance. They're banged around, dragged around, shipped, shoved into trucks and hauled from gig to gig etc. And they have to be able to dissipate the heat generated by the level of use for which they're intended, e.g. 90 minute arena sets at max volume.

[baddog]

Short answer to PA versus studio monitor question - this is a generalization but PA monitors are intended for Live performance and handling a good amount of volume and propagating it. Studio monitors are meant to be listened to in the near field/mid field, at volumes suitable for recording and playback of said recordings. Not intended to be used in a live situation. Both can have reasonably good responses, but accuracy is a more primary design goal for studio monitors.

 

In the end it is a question of intent, budget and trade offs. So based on your budget now and in the long term, and how you intend to use the speakers should guide your decision. If you were going to use only at home, and based on how loud you can or cannot play at home (based on neighbors et al) than i would recommend studio monitors. I have an Axe FX, I have a powered 2*12 cabinet for it, that allows to me both use it live with a band and also for practicing at home. However I would never use the 2*12 cabinet as my monitors for recording.

 

There is an insane amount of information and knowledge here:

 

The Gear Page - Powered by vBulletin

[redscott]

Thanks guys, this has been exceptionally useful to me, I the main thing I was stuck on was trying to have a "one fit all" solution, I want both a practice amplification solution and to dabble in recording.

 

I think I will still use an audio interface for both recording and practice but amplify the signal in different ways for recording and practice, so I will get some semi decent studio headphones for recording and get either a PA speaker/powered cab for home practice, this way when I want to play louder at home for practice reasons I don't have to worry about damaging speakers because I will use a PA speaker or powered cab. Also this is kinda future proofing my set up since if I do play live I will probably look into axe fx or something similar.

 

So if this is makes sense we have come full circle, any suggestions on good audio usb audio interfaces? (latency being the biggest factor) - I think ive got it limited down to: Komplete : Audio Interfaces : Komplete Audio 6 | Products or Tascam US-322 USB Audio Interface or Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 « Audio interface

[Audio_ELF]

I apologise in advance if I am wrong / outdated in my knowledge; but for recording don't you usually use a traditional guitar amplifier mic'd up (a mic positioned to record the speaker of the guitar amp)?

 

Eloise

 

After writing that I read this -- http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug98/articles/20tips.html -- which may help you too.

[redscott]

I apologise in advance if I am wrong / outdated in my knowledge; but for recording don't you usually use a traditional guitar amplifier mic'd up (a mic positioned to record the speaker of the guitar amp)?

 

Eloise

 

 

Hi Eloise, yeah thats the traditional method of recording guitars, although its vastly impractical for me, I am after a variety of tones and fx, many many non professional guitarists use standalone units which they record directly with (axe fx, pod hd pro, eleven rack) and the ones without so much money tend to use dedicated guitar software via a soundcard or firewire/usb interface. Both these options open up so many tones and fx's, where a mic'd amp is very limited when on a budget, not only do you need a decent valve amp but you also need many fx pedals, the cost adds up very quickly, and also if you don't have a conditioned room to mic up in you are wasting tone very quickly, something else which is costly. Unless you go to an actual studio micing up amps for recording purposes really isn't efficient without having many thousands of $/£ to spend.

[bluesman]

I apologise in advance if I am wrong / outdated in my knowledge; but for recording don't you usually use a traditional guitar amplifier mic'd up (a mic positioned to record the speaker of the guitar amp)?

 

Eloise

Hi, Eloise!

 

That's how many pros do it to capture the "true" sound of the guitar-amp combo. But in a studio, we can isolate the mic / amp from extraneous noise, which is very hard to do at home without an isolation box enclosing the amp or speaker & the mic -

 

 

These are expensive and big enough to be a problem in the average home or apartment.

 

Most home recordists use guitar processors that "emulate" or simulate the tonal characteristics of famous amplifiers to achieve the sound they want or "a reasonable facsimile thereof", since amp simulators don't really sound exactly like the real thing (at least to me). They plug the simulator's output into the recording console / mixer / input and voilà, they're Clapton in the recording (technique, taste and style aside).

 

 

It's also common to use mic'ed amps on stage for live sound reinforcement, for the same reason. The sound of a fine guitar driving a Fender Deluxe or a Boogie Mk 1 is a beautiful thing, and it just doesn't sound the same when reinforced by a sound system fed through a DI ("direct in" box) as it does from the speaker.

 

David

[mayhem13]

Redscott......interesting thread and approach.....which might all be in vain if your goal is recording and capturing the best tone possible. As indicated, studio monitors while better suited for nearfield use and smooth response aren't the best overall solution for end of the chain studio guitar work. IMO, electric guitar NEEDS the feedback loop established by dedicated guitar amplification and speakers AND true tone and natural analog overdrive and distortion cannot be recreated without the cone breakup mode of large format drivers being used Fullrange. Wanna playback your recordings with monitors....yes sir, that's the way to do it, but to get the best tone, attack, sustain and distortion possible, record with a mic on a 12" speaker or two. There's simply no substitute in the digital realm that comes close.

 

As suggested, you 'could' build an isolation box which protects you, the player....but this approach still falls short on developing resonant feedback. These even order Harmonic distortions are what makes the great guitarists sound..well....great? If you're serious about all of this, isolate the space from the living space mechanically if possible....an extra layer of 3/4" acoustic wallboard glued not screwed usually is all that's needed.

[redscott]

Hi mayhem13, you know you are totally correct, mic'd speakers from a valve amp within a insulated room of some sort would be ideal, but for the moment I don't have an ideal budget, nor have I much experience with recording, I agree with bluesman that simulation software doesn't sound exactly like the real thing, it misses warmth and responsiveness, for the moment im just looking for a first time set up, get used to good DAW and plugin software. My main aim is to have fun with it for now, maybe think about a more pure set up in the future. I have learned alot from this tread already and im looking forward to get things going.

[mayhem13]

Learning the recording process is gonna be a blast for you.....so much to experiment with and explore. You may be at an advantage as a clean 'canvas', free from influence to develop as you may. That's a rarity these days.

 

P.S. Just needlessly added to my collection with a '62 reissue Sorrento.....what a great guitar!

[bluesman]

P.S. Just needlessly added to my collection with a '62 reissue Sorrento.....what a great guitar!

Ouch! Never, ever ever say that again! NO guitar is unneeded - do you realize that there are children around the world so unfortunate that they're being forced to play accordions?????

 

I remember the '62 Sorrento well - it was a great piece, and the reissues are fine players. I was in high school and was able to score a used ES-175DN (yes - with PAFs) while I was saving for a new blond Sorrento. I lusted after a single, sharp cutaway jazz box from the minute I laid eyes on the cover of "The Incredible Jazz Guitar of Wes Montgomery". Hearing the first notes of Airegin solidified it and by the end of the 2nd track (D-Natural Blues), I was hard wired for it. I switched to 7-string about 20 years ago, though, and sold all my mainstream 6-string guitars. Here's my working jazz box for the last 15 years or so (Ibanez AF-207 posing in front of our G1J grand):

 

[bluesman]

These even order Harmonic distortions are what makes the great guitarists sound..well....great?

The older you get, the fewer knobs you need, guys. You can quote this ol' bluesman: it ain't what you play, it's how you play it. BB sounds like BB playing any guitar through any amp - he could get a standing ovation with an Ovation. The problem for (and with...) most players is that they're all trying to sound like someone else, rather than developing their own tones and styles. Trying to sound like Clapton or Stevie Ray or Wes or Johnny Smith is a fool's errand because their sounds are in their chops, not their tools.

 

Attack, sustain, bloom etc come more from how you play than from what you play. Albert Collins didn't pick at the strings, he snapped them between his thumb and index finger. Pat Martino is a very hard picker, using what are now very heavy strings (E1 = 0.016", which was standard when I was a kid learning to play). Freddie King used 10s, 11s and 12s at various times, but Albert King was a very light picker who used the thinnest strings he could get (as thin as E1 = 0.008"). Stevie Ray used very heavy strings for a blues player (0.013" to 0.060"), set the action so high that the bridge saddles were all the way at the top of their screws, and detuned his guitar to Eb. Detuning took some tension out of the strings so it was easier for him to bend notes on such heavy strings, although that's not the reason he offered for doing it - he said he couldn't sing in E. But he was also a very hard picker - his fingers would actually bleed by the end of long gigs.

 

As for amps, I agree that the mechanical interaction between guitar and amp is essential for some players - but it's not a factor for straight-ahead jazz, commercial, and the many genres for which the guitar is heavily processed anyway (e.g. smooth jazz). In fact, if you want to sound like Captain Fingers, use a dry, active pickup and develop your tone electronically. Feedback, power supply sag, "Brown sound" etc are critical for the tones of many blues and classic rock players - but there's a reason so many players embrace technology. A tube rectifier is romantic, but it won't get you the tones most modern players want and use. Emulators and processors will achieve most of those tones - they just won't get you the sound and passion of a fully cranked Vibrolux in heat. If Redscott's music doesn't require the kind of tone most of us can only get from tubes / paper cones and bobbins / breakup / feedback etc (and you have to remember that BB uses Legend SS amps), he'll be thrilled with direct recording through processors and emulators - it's the only way to go for most styles and sounds.

 

I've sold off all my big guns - Mk 1 Boogie, Bassman, Vibrolux, Magnatone 4x12, Ampegs.....all gone. For the last year, I've been gigging with 5 triode watts through a D120 in a Boogie closed, ported cab or a Raezor's Edge 10" bass cab. Scary great tone!

For commercial gigs, I use Phil Jones stuff - I have a Cub (12x12x6", 11 lbs, 100 watts) and a Briefcase (16x17x17, 29 lbs) - two old man's amps for sure! I record almost everything in my home studio from the direct outs on these:

 

[jcn3]

as far an audio interfaces go, if you're just trying to record yourself, take a look a a focus scarlett 2i2. it's inexpensive and comes bundled with abelton live lite. abelton live lite is not the best in the world, but it'll definitely get your started and you can buy something else when you outgrow it.