[thesteve]

Originally Posted by Visirale

It's not toooooooo bad. If I used the stock reccomended tubes, the tubes would cost 100 and the install would be 50ish (I have no electrical or mechanical inclination at all, so I don't bother). But no, I have to be an ultra snob, and hotrod it with bigger tubes... I believe my amp came stock with around 150 watts and 6l6s. I dropped some KT-88s, and now it's pushing around 200 or 250. The KT-88s and preamp tubes go for around 200.

Ah...the tube amps I've been looking at were either 6x6L6 or 6xKT88...I remember the KT88s pricing out to nearly $300 for just the power tubes...I can remember where the 6L6s came out...I think around $150-$200...

either way, I'm an amateur player. I figure if solid state was good enough for Jaco and the other 90% of professional bassists, then I can deal with it. I honestly see myself trading out my cabinets before I trade out my amp.

[Visirale]

Haha, I got sick of my head. It weighed far too much. Once I had it in a 6 space rack with a power conditioner it weighed well over 60 lbs. That's ridiculous in my book. It couldn't even fit in my trunk. I couldn't get enough clean headroom out of it either... so I loaded it up, took it to GC and traded it on a Markbass Little Mark II. 500 watts at 4 ohms and it weighs 6 lbs. Literally a tenth of the weight of my old head.

It sounds beautifullll. It'll be a long time before I look to tubes for bass again.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by Visirale

Haha, I got sick of my head. It weighed far too much. Once I had it in a 6 space rack with a power conditioner it weighed well over 60 lbs. That's ridiculous in my book. It couldn't even fit in my trunk. I couldn't get enough clean headroom out of it either... so I loaded it up, took it to GC and traded it on a Markbass Little Mark II. 500 watts at 4 ohms and it weighs 6 lbs. Literally a tenth of the weight of my old head.

It sounds beautifullll. It'll be a long time before I look to tubes for bass again.

haha...from tube snobbery to this...and it only took 1 week!

Markbass is definitely making a name for themselves quickly in the bass community.

[twinreverb]

Originally Posted by Sinker

Is it me?

Seems like an awful lot of questions about non-tube amps get answered with 'buy a tube amp.'

ex:
Q: I've narrowed my choices down to these two solid state amps, should I get A or B and why?
A: Neither, for the same money you can buy a tube amp.

Q: Which of these two stomp boxes gives the best distortion?
A: Neither, use the drive channel of a tube amp.


Can you help me understand the reasoning behind these types of answers?

Mainly because tube amps will sound a lot more organic and pleasing to the ear due to how they work. Someone once did a scholarly article on it, how a certain sustain and/or attack pattern is beautiful to the ears. Me, I've tried both solid state and tube, and when I got my Twin Reverb and fixed it up, I was sold on the sound. It's just up to the one playing the amp, really.

You may prefer solid state, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just one of those things where most guitar players prefer tube due to how pleasing to their ears the sound is, hence we're in the majority. Majority don't make it right, but that's why you seem to attract "tube snobbery' when you ask such questions. That's all.

[tht00]

Originally Posted by twinreverb

Mainly because tube amps will sound a lot more organic and pleasing to the ear due to how they work. Someone once did a scholarly article on it, how a certain sustain and/or attack pattern is beautiful to the ears. Me, I've tried both solid state and tube, and when I got my Twin Reverb and fixed it up, I was sold on the sound. It's just up to the one playing the amp, really.

You may prefer solid state, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just one of those things where most guitar players prefer tube due to how pleasing to their ears the sound is, hence we're in the majority. Majority don't make it right, but that's why you seem to attract "tube snobbery' when you ask such questions. That's all.

Tube vs. solid state is a dying debate. Certainly, there will still be crumby solid state amps down the road, and there will still be a plethora of amazing tube amps (and for starters, it isn't fair to compare the two)... and yes, there are 'legendary' solid state amps.

In any case, digital modeling is a whole new ball game. Vox and Line6 have made some pretty amazing stuff.

[twinreverb]

Originally Posted by tht00

Tube vs. solid state is a dying debate. Certainly, there will still be crumby solid state amps down the road, and there will still be a plethora of amazing tube amps (and for starters, it isn't fair to compare the two)... and yes, there are 'legendary' solid state amps.

In any case, digital modeling is a whole new ball game. Vox and Line6 have made some pretty amazing stuff.

True. However, the assumption by many that eventually solid state will perfectly replicate tube is an annoying assumption at best. I think the makers of solid state modelers have realized this, because they could easily make something much more accurate, complete with controls, but this would be very cost prohibitive. I saw some people when I was 16 working with a highly expensive keyboard for church that sounded exactly (and I mean exactly) like a string orchestra, complete with bow noises and finger noises, etc), but that's the point: the keyboard must've cost like $50K at least. We should question why we want modeling in the first place: other than for convenience or cost, it's a losing battle in the end. The only place I can see myself using modelers is if I was a guitarist in that one game show where you have to be able to sing the right lyrics to all those songs: basically, only in a karaoke role. However, I essentially was in such a role lat time I played in a non-Christian band (as a replacement guitarist) and my Twin Reverb and ME-50 (no modeling on it at all) with an ESP with the Duncan Hot Rodded combo with the push/pull splits wired in served me perfectly well.

I'm not trying to start a solid state versus tube war, nor a modeling versus native war, just so you know. I'm just questioning some of the logic fan boys use, that's all.

[thesteve]

I don't think anyone who really follows the amp market thinks that solid state amps will ever perfectly replicate tube amps. Most of the people who go with SS amps go with amps that aren't trying to replicate tube amps but rather are doing their own thing, and there have been plenty of professionals over the years that have used SS amps for their strengths. Trying to use an SS amp when what you want is tube tone is definitely a losing battle.

As for modeling, well like you said, they're extremely versatile, and for many church musicians it's a great thing to have 32 amp models at your feet. However, I don't think we've even began to see the tip of the iceberg for modeling technology. As computers get faster and better, modeling can only improve. The sort of technology that guitarists are dealing with now in modeling technology is in it's infant stages. Line 6 formed as a company in 1996 and has been innovating fairly frequently ever since. Compare this to Fender, who struck a goldmine in the 1960s and hasn't really changed anything since. I really only feel that time will tell how far digital modeling can go...sure after ten years it doesn't compare to a product that's been around for 60 years...but how far can innovation take a product in the next five, ten or fifteen years?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by thesteve

I don't think anyone who really follows the amp market thinks that solid state amps will ever perfectly replicate tube amps. Most of the people who go with SS amps go with amps that aren't trying to replicate tube amps but rather are doing their own thing, and there have been plenty of professionals over the years that have used SS amps for their strengths. Trying to use an SS amp when what you want is tube tone is definitely a losing battle.

As for modeling, well like you said, they're extremely versatile, and for many church musicians it's a great thing to have 32 amp models at your feet. However, I don't think we've even began to see the tip of the iceberg for modeling technology. As computers get faster and better, modeling can only improve. The sort of technology that guitarists are dealing with now in modeling technology is in it's infant stages. Line 6 formed as a company in 1996 and has been innovating fairly frequently ever since. Compare this to Fender, who struck a goldmine in the 1960s and hasn't really changed anything since. I really only feel that time will tell how far digital modeling can go...sure after ten years it doesn't compare to a product that's been around for 60 years...but how far can innovation take a product in the next five, ten or fifteen years?

Modeling will come into its own when it stops emulating other amps and creates all new digital, but desirable tones in my opinion. Otherwise its just an emulation which can never be better than the original.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Modeling will come into its own when it stops emulating other amps and creates all new digital, but desirable tones in my opinion. Otherwise its just an emulation which can never be better than the original.

For the time being, I think a lot of digital modeling devices use the model names solely for marketing means. If Line 6 were to just come out and say that they have a digital pre-amp that has settings for everything from classic blues to modern metal the words just sound like cheesy catch phrases. When they connect amps to those names and say it does everything from Fender Tweed to Marshall stack, the general playing population becomes interested.

Because of the nature of music right now, the convention guitar amp modeling system is where the money is because that's where it makes sense for it to be. Certainly I do think that eventually the bulk of models will be fresh digital ideas, and in a sense Line 6 has already started to try to push in that direction with their Line 6 signature models such as the "Line 6 Mood" and "Spinal Puppet"

[twinreverb]

Originally Posted by thesteve

As computers get faster and better, modeling can only improve.

They've been saying this since I was a teenager. I'm not holding my breath, obviously

Originally Posted by thesteve

For the time being, I think a lot of digital modeling devices use the model names solely for marketing means. If Line 6 were to just come out and say that they have a digital pre-amp that has settings for everything from classic blues to modern metal the words just sound like cheesy catch phrases. When they connect amps to those names and say it does everything from Fender Tweed to Marshall stack, the general playing population becomes interested.

Because of the nature of music right now, the convention guitar amp modeling system is where the money is because that's where it makes sense for it to be. Certainly I do think that eventually the bulk of models will be fresh digital ideas, and in a sense Line 6 has already started to try to push in that direction with their Line 6 signature models such as the "Line 6 Mood" and "Spinal Puppet"

True, to an extent. For what it's worth, however, I use several distortion models on my ME-50 that aren't patterned after a pedal, but after an idea: "Crunch", "Lead", and "Natural" being the most usable ones, then "Loud" if I just want to be in a Queens of the Stone Age mood. Honestly if they came out with "killer" sounds, that might be better than the same old "Fender Twin" (because someone who owns one will hear it and say "yuck"). However, the pedal market is already extremely saturated: now they're making pedals that are an artist-in-a-stomp because they've ran out of unique sounds. So both sides of that coin, in my opinion, are old and worn.

So I agree, but also disagree. My honest opinion is that eventually the "winner" will be the one (market-wise) who creates something new. Here's something new they could create: a multi-effects box that is 100% analog and designed similar to the ME-50 (knobs). They internally are controlled digitally but only for circuit pathways: the actual tone production would be analog. If they could create such a thing, and do it 100% legit and convincing, they may turn the market on its ear. People don't want the same modeling, and same old pedals, in my opinion.

Some things don't change because they're done right and done well. Fender, while innovative, once they hit their gold mine dug deeper, and I don't blame them. The Twin is going to be a legend for a very long time, as well as the Bassman and the Hot Rod amp lines. Honestly, I don't know why they even bothered with "reissue" amps: just make the same amp and sell it as a "new old stock". Purist turn up their nose to the reissues because some, if not most, are not point to point wired, but I digress.

Beyond which, the strength of point to point wiring is that your local amp tech can repair them, or you even can if you're willing to learn and be very careful about it. They appeal to the pro as well due to them being able to afford bringing a tech with them and/or buying a brand new one if time is an issue. But I digress.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by twinreverb

They've been saying this since I was a teenager. I'm not holding my breath, obviously

and modeling hasn't improved at all in that time period? Like I brought up earlier, Line 6 has only been around for 11 years. If you look at the '65 Twin as Fender's best, it took them 19 years to come up with their definitive amp model, and they weren't dealing with new technology.

However, the pedal market is already extremely saturated: now they're making pedals that are an artist-in-a-stomp because they've ran out of unique sounds.

this might be true of certain major companies, but these same companies aren't in the pedal making business to do unique things. They're in the business to make a dollar or three. When you want to make some cash it makes sense to emulate several of some guitar hero's tone and put it in a pedal. Things definitely sell when there's a famous name attached to it.

a multi-effects box that is 100% analog and designed similar to the ME-50 (knobs). They internally are controlled digitally but only for circuit pathways: the actual tone production would be analog. If they could create such a thing, and do it 100% legit and convincing, they may turn the market on its ear.

this may be possible when nanotechnology takes off, if it has any sort of general electronics application. For the time being, building something like that would just result in a floorboard that weighed a ton.

Honestly, I don't know why they even bothered with "reissue" amps: just make the same amp and sell it as a "new old stock". Purist turn up their nose to the reissues because some, if not most, are not point to point wired, but I digress.

Beyond which, the strength of point to point wiring is that your local amp tech can repair them, or you even can if you're willing to learn and be very careful about it. They appeal to the pro as well due to them being able to afford bringing a tech with them and/or buying a brand new one if time is an issue. But I digress.

I agree that PTP is definitely a turn on for a lot of players because of reliability and ease of repair issues. However Fender, like many other companies switched to PCB boards because they're easier to manufacturer and result in lower production costs and higher customer value because the company can pretty much put out the same product for much cheaper than a PTP model.

From what I understand, the problem that some techs have with repairing PCB amps (and IMO, any amp tech worth his salt should be able to repair an amp given that he has a schematic for it regardless if it's PCB or PTP) isn't that the circuitry is PCB based but that the manufacturers make accessing the boards and getting into the spots that need repairs extremely difficult to do because of how the internal workings of the chassis were designed.

[tht00]

Originally Posted by twinreverb

So I agree, but also disagree. My honest opinion is that eventually the "winner" will be the one (market-wise) who creates something new. Here's something new they could create: a multi-effects box that is 100% analog and designed similar to the ME-50 (knobs). They internally are controlled digitally but only for circuit pathways: the actual tone production would be analog. If they could create such a thing, and do it 100% legit and convincing, they may turn the market on its ear. People don't want the same modeling, and same old pedals, in my opinion.

That really wouldn't be much new at all... that would just be a conglomeration of existing technology, in a new form. I'm assuming you're talking about modeling stomp-boxes and other effects as there'd be no point in amp modeling with (analog) SS circuits.

I think that most people don't mind digital modeling, so long as it sounds good -- which, I admit, not all of them do (at least not to my ears). I think the success of Line6, Vox, Boss, Roland, etc. have shown this.

Originally Posted by twinreverb

Honestly, I don't know why they even bothered with "reissue" amps: just make the same amp and sell it as a "new old stock".

Maybe because that would be lying?

'New old stock' (NOS) refers to vintage equipment that hasn't been used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_old_stock

Originally Posted by twinreverb

I'm not trying to start a solid state versus tube war, nor a modeling versus native war, just so you know. I'm just questioning some of the logic fan boys use, that's all.

I wouldn't call myself a modeling fanboy at all. Originally, I was very critical of Line6 and the Pod, mostly because of reading anti-modeling and anti-Pod forum posts and websites. After hearing samples here and there (and thinking, 'woah, that's coming from a Pod??'), I started looking into them curiously. Long story short, I got one and love it.

Now, I think here's the catch. If you're okay with the fact that the models may not sound exactly like the originals (which is impossible anyway, as there is so much variance between original amps, varying year models, how they aged, etc) -- if you don't mind that, modeling may work well for you. If you're expecting the 'Twin' model to sound exactly like your Fender Twin with all its nuances, you're setting up yourself for disappointment.

I'm fine with having amp and pedal models that are close and capture the essence of the original. It also gives me amazing flexibility. I'd otherwise have to get thousands of dollars of tube amps to get anywhere near the tonal flexibility I have out of the XLT... sorry, but I don't have $k's to throw at the constant pursuit of tone.

The Pod really is amazing. Call me a fanboy if you want. To me, it makes sense to use it, but I'm also aware that they aren't for everyone. Nice single/two-channel tube amps are another tried and true method of building a sweet rig. If that works for you, awesome. Take it and run with it. Just please don't bash what works for other people either.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

The inherent problem with modeling for guys like me is simple. There is nothing tactile to change to vary the sounds. Sure there are knobs and parameters and such, but it isn't the same on some level as messing around trying to get your tubes nuanced right, modding things, etc.

I'll admit it. Part of why I love tube amps is their relative simplicity and the fact that I can tweak them. Yes I could write a patch for a POD but I guarantee you it would not be the same sort of experimental feeling.

[tht00]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

The inherent problem with modeling for guys like me is simple. There is nothing tactile to change to vary the sounds. Sure there are knobs and parameters and such, but it isn't the same on some level as messing around trying to get your tubes nuanced right, modding things, etc.

I'll admit it. Part of why I love tube amps is their relative simplicity and the fact that I can tweak them. Yes I could write a patch for a POD but I guarantee you it would not be the same sort of experimental feeling.

Yeah, you can't mod the models. I'm interested in tubes, electronics, and whatnot (I still have a tube amp project that has stalled due to not having any time to devote to it), but that's really not a huge deal to me. I really haven't even had the time to tweak and fix the tube amp I've already got.

I can definitely know the draw to build and tweak your own equipment. There's nothing quite like it. All the same, I don't have the time, money, and (currently) interest to do all that.

[twinreverb]

Originally Posted by tht00

Maybe because that would be lying?

'New old stock' (NOS) refers to vintage equipment that hasn't been used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_old_stock

Yeah, my bad on that one....

Originally Posted by tht00

Now, I think here's the catch. If you're okay with the fact that the models may not sound exactly like the originals (which is impossible anyway, as there is so much variance between original amps, varying year models, how they aged, etc) -- if you don't mind that, modeling may work well for you. If you're expecting the 'Twin' model to sound exactly like your Fender Twin with all its nuances, you're setting up yourself for disappointment.

Well I guess the reason is because I'm a purist. I guess since I've heard good vintage tube amps and spent my hours drooling over their tone, that's why they're disappointing to me because I keep thinking they'll hit it on the head.

For what it's worth, if I was on "Don't Forget The Lyrics" as a guitarist, I'd have to use the POD out of necessity because I could not afford all the rigs of all the greats. However, I've been in an almost similar circumstance before, and my Twin Reverb with ME-50 worked just fine with a guitar that had the Hot Rodded combo and splits.