• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

The Tube Challenge

Which amp is the tube amp?

  • Amp 1

    Votes: 73 44.8%

  • Amp 2

    Votes: 90 55.2%
  • Total voters
    163
JimmyM

JimmyM

Apr 11, 2005
127,255
125,172
Plymouth NC
Disclosures
Endorsing: Yamaha, Ampeg, Line 6, EMG
#1
AMP 1:

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

AMP 2:

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

This was just an excuse to trot out my SVT cab with its killer new recones, but I thought it would be fun:

Both of these samples were recorded using an SX PJ with broken-in rounds, a 69 SVT cab loaded with newly reconed CTS speakers, a Shure SM-58 placed on axis to an upper row cone, an ART Dual MP tube pre, into an M-Audio Audiophile 2496 card.

The only thing different on each track was the head. One is an Ampeg B-15N head from 1977, the other a Markbass Little Mark II. Both heads were set flat and recorded at the same medium volume, and the mic was never moved. The files are mono 96K MP3's using Lame, which sound identical to the WAV's in headphones. It's not the most hi-fi of conditions, but there were no other variables besides the head so I think it's a valid test.

So are you tube-o-philes ready to put your ears where your mouths are? The answers will be posted Thursday evening. That means you have 4 1/2 days, and that should be plenty of time for everyone to vote, so don't come in here after the fact claiming that you knew the difference if you didn't vote. If you didn't express an opinion before the poll, you can't express one after the poll, 1@m3rz!
 
#13
1st off jimmy, due to the unfortunate back & forth we had earlier this week i must preface this post with a respectful virtual handshake, and you should know that digital audio is my living and i am not making a fuss over this thread to retaliate in any way toward you. that being said...

i prefer tube amps because of the presence & feel they provide in a live, onstage setting.

heck, a software bass guitar modeler can fool a trained ear in a recording context.

considering most folks will be listening to these highly compressed files through onboard audio chips & cheesey desktop speakers, it's really futile. i say post short, 16bit/44k .wav files so people with decent monitoring systems (that provide detail) can chime in.

critical listening to 96k mp3's, recorded with a cheap dynamic mic that has an eq curve that is far from flat (large bump @ 4k) through a "tube" pre (oh, the irony - starved plate bass amp through a starved plate mic pre...) over consumer satellite speakers results in an end product that is so far from the original source it could be equated to watching an HD broadcast on an 8" b&w television while wearing sunglasses.

this is a fun comparison, it just needs a better signal chain. do you have an accurate condenser mic that you could slap up and re-record 10 second clips & post at least 16/44 files?

regards,

-j
 
#16
I must admit that i think #2 is the ampeg. #1 seems to have a more detailed sound, while #2 is a bit darker. From what i've heard about the markbass amps, I think they are brighter sounding. I'm probably totally wrong tho as i've been able to get the brighter tone (ala #1) very easily from my SVT :)

But im not sure, dont have any experience with either of the amps used. And im a firm believer of the sound being the sum of the components.

Have to agree with an earlier post, you can fool a trained ear pretty well when recording. In a live context I find it completelly different tho.

Interesting comparison tho :)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back