Bass Amp Clone Wars

Jibudo said:

It’s just me who thinks this are the same amps?
View attachment 4245720View attachment 4245722 View attachment 4245723

Wattage are the same, equal layouts, it seems to me they are the same with some colour changes. I’ve never played none... What do you think?

Click to expand...

Similar, but the Elf and the BAM200 are pretty different in action.

It's a bit like overdrive pedals, many seem to have the same layout and functions, and while many are probably clones of the same thing, many are very different. I suppose when you try to build an amp that small you are restricted as to what controls etc you can fit in, and if a particular layout works well it's likely that a few manufacturers will build something similar.

Hasty said:

Honestly... I’d be willing to give up the headphone out and the entire EQ section if they could use that same space to make this in the 500 to 700 watt range. So many of us use a separate preamp. So a power switch, input, output, gain, and level. I don’t even want the DI, cause that comes off my pre. Heck... let’s make an even 1000watts and keep the price point in the same range. I’d probably buy two.

Click to expand...

I imagine that with tiny amplifiers like these, cooling might become an issue at some point if you increase their power. I have a BAM200 [1] and it gets quite warm as it is.

whero said:

Not sure he was trying to whelm anyone - just show that stacked knobs give you a bunch of extra controls for the same panel real estate.

Click to expand...

Oh it wasn't a comment on what Jeff was saying. Just an observation/reminiscence of how uninspired and lackluster SWR got in those final years, being a fan of their stuff myself.

Jeff Scott said:

Here's one way to do so.View attachment 4246583

Click to expand...

Stacked knobs indeed get you more controls, but I don't like using stacked or push-pull knobs except in very specific applications. Some problems: (puts on UI/UX designer hat)

* Stacking knobs implies that the two functions on the knob are closely related. In the case of EQ level/EQ frequency, this makes sense...but in other cases, like FX blend and compression, they're completely unrelated and you're just confusing people.
* There's an argument for sweepable mids, but sweepable bass and treble thresholds (as on the SWR) is more likely to get you in trouble ("why isn't this working like I expect") than help your sound. One of the old-school Peavey mistakes was to give people too many options, many of which sounded bad because people didn't really understand what they did. (Fully parametric EQ on low-end bass combos was one of them.)
* Push/pull knobs have similar problems: there are few intuitive uses for them besides turning a feature on and off, which you can generally also do by turning the knob full CCW...and if you put something unrelated to the knob's function on the push-pull, as SWR did, you're just confusing people.

My preferred solutions don't involve stacked knobs or push-pull pots. I haven't seen any manufacturers implement them yet, either!

Hasty said:

Honestly... I’d be willing to give up the headphone out and the entire EQ section if they could use that same space to make this in the 500 to 700 watt range. So many of us use a separate preamp. So a power switch, input, output, gain, and level. I don’t even want the DI, cause that comes off my pre. Heck... let’s make an even 1000watts and keep the price point in the same range. I’d probably buy two.

Click to expand...

There's a good argument for that product, especially with floor preamps becoming more common!

In this case, the pictured SWR power amp does mostly what I'd do. Specifically, the LED VU meter is very important so that you know your input levels are good. However, I would add a mute switch, with a big flashing red light to let you know that it's muted, so that you can calibrate the input level to full range without disconnecting the cabinets or blowing everyone's ears out. I'd also add an instrument/line level switch, or make the input range wide enough to be compatible with stompbox level outputs as well as line level, so you could just run your pedalboard into it without having a separate preamp or DI. (I'd also add a DI out for this reason.) If the marketing department told me I had the budget, I'd add a second input and input level control -- stereo, that gets summed to mono -- so you can practice along with your phone, plug in a keyboard or other noisemaker, etc.

mcnach said:

I imagine that with tiny amplifiers like these, cooling might become an issue at some point if you increase their power. I have a BAM200 [1] and it gets quite warm as it is.

Click to expand...

True... but with all the real estate you’ve gained by removing the entire EQ and the DI would hopefully provide enough space for a heat sink and a fan. Sure it’s an oversimplification of the issue, but we’re in the concept phase of this discussion.

Have you noticed how all basses looks very similar, and almost all of them are tuned the same way too?

Coincident?

I think not!

Very suspicious!

mcnach said:

I imagine that with tiny amplifiers like these, cooling might become an issue at some point if you increase their power. I have a BAM200 [1] and it gets quite warm as it is.

Click to expand...

It is in fact quite a challenge.

MOTORHEADBANGER said:

Oh late Fender-era SWR, how underwhelming you were.

Click to expand...

You totally missed the point. But, for the record, I have owned several SWR products, all pre-7ender era.

whero said:

Not sure he was trying to whelm anyone - just show that stacked knobs give you a bunch of extra controls for the same panel real estate.

Click to expand...

This.

spatters said:

Stacked knobs indeed get you more controls, but I don't like using stacked or push-pull knobs except in very specific applications. Some problems: (puts on UI/UX designer hat)

Click to expand...

I agree. They can be quite finicky to operate depending on the implementation; primarily, the design, shape, and size of the knobs used, and if they tend to "stick" together when rotated. I never like the concentric controls on the Jazz Bass I had with that layout, nor the SWR Baby Blue I owned years ago.

TVs, phones, laptops, cars/vehicles in their class, and books are all the same.

Jibudo said:

It’s just me who thinks this are the same amps?
View attachment 4245720View attachment 4245722 View attachment 4245723

Wattage are the same, equal layouts, it seems to me they are the same with some colour changes. I’ve never played none... What do you think?

Click to expand...

Passinwind said:

Nope, The ELF uses a proprietary power amp section, per the Peavey designer who used to be a regular Talkbass poster.

Click to expand...

agedhorse said:

Correct, they are all different amps, different designs with very similar layouts.

Click to expand...

Only one of them makes me want a slice of Keylime Pie.

agedhorse said:

It is in fact quite a challenge.

Click to expand...

Fine. I’m willing to make a few concessions. If we agree to remove the EQ, DI, and all the other unnecessary bric a brac... I’ll allow an extra centimeter of height to make room for cooling.

Hasty said:

Fine. I’m willing to make a few concessions. If we agree to remove the EQ, DI, and all the other unnecessary bric a brac... I’ll allow an extra centimeter of height to make room for cooling.

Click to expand...

Unnecessary for you perhaps, but essential for most other players.

agedhorse said:

Unnecessary for you perhaps, but essential for most other players.

Click to expand...

Probably true. So I guess we could call it the hyperbole edition.
A boy can dream.

mcnach said:

I imagine that with tiny amplifiers like these, cooling might become an issue at some point if you increase their power. I have a BAM200 [1] and it gets quite warm as it is.

Click to expand...

Heat likes to go up, but spilled drinks like to go down. Also people like to set things on top of flat surfaces.

This has always been one of the central conundrums of high-power amplifier design. What you want is to let the heat passively rise out of the top...but if you vent the top, you're putting the electronics at risk, either from spilled liquids or from solid objects blocking the vent. (Or, in the case of rack gear, you're in the middle of a stack of other gear.)

Old-school tube heads and combos solved this problem by leaving the back of the cabinet completely open. (Even then, old-school musicians will recall pointing a desk fan at the back during really hot weather so the amps wouldn't overheat. The SVT even had a built-in fan!) Home gear solved this problem by leaving everything on top, and trusting someone who bought a McIntosh not to spill drinks on it.

But today, tiny, lightweight amps of absolute minimum size and weight are sexy. The entire ELF is smaller than an Ampeg output transformer, and much lighter.

So you need "active cooling" to push or pull air through: a fan.

But these tiny pocket amplifiers are so thin, top to bottom, that you can only fit a tiny fan on the sides. This tiny fan doesn't move much air and has to run at high RPM to compensate. This is why the ELF and other pocket amps have loud fans. You could easily solve this problem by making the amp thicker, top to bottom...but the selling point is minimum size, "fits in the gig bag."

There is another complicating factor: air has to come in as well as go out, and the airflow through the amplifier has to carry the heat away from the hot parts. But you can't make the holes too big or someone's pick is going to slip inside and get stuck. (Remember, "fits in the gig bag.") Airflow design starts getting into basic fluid dynamics and is a whole topic unto itself!

Returning to the subject of the thread: these amplifiers look very similar, inside and out, because they're solving the same set of highly constrained problems in the obvious way. I believe it's possible to improve upon the designs, and that I know some ways to do it...but if those improvements were obvious, someone would have already made them!

spatters said:

Heat likes to go up, but spilled drinks like to go down. Also people like to set things on top of flat surfaces.

This has always been one of the central conundrums of high-power amplifier design. What you want is to let the heat passively rise out of the top...but if you vent the top, you're putting the electronics at risk, either from spilled liquids or from solid objects blocking the vent. (Or, in the case of rack gear, you're in the middle of a stack of other gear.)

Old-school tube heads and combos solved this problem by leaving the back of the cabinet completely open. (Even then, old-school musicians will recall pointing a desk fan at the back during really hot weather so the amps wouldn't overheat. The SVT even had a built-in fan!) Home gear solved this problem by leaving everything on top, and trusting someone who bought a McIntosh not to spill drinks on it.

But today, tiny, lightweight amps of absolute minimum size and weight are sexy. The entire ELF is smaller than an Ampeg output transformer, and much lighter.

So you need "active cooling" to push or pull air through: a fan.

But these tiny pocket amplifiers are so thin, top to bottom, that you can only fit a tiny fan on the sides. This tiny fan doesn't move much air and has to run at high RPM to compensate. This is why the ELF and other pocket amps have loud fans. You could easily solve this problem by making the amp thicker, top to bottom...but the selling point is minimum size, "fits in the gig bag."

There is another complicating factor: air has to come in as well as go out, and the airflow through the amplifier has to carry the heat away from the hot parts. But you can't make the holes too big or someone's pick is going to slip inside and get stuck. (Remember, "fits in the gig bag.") Airflow design starts getting into basic fluid dynamics and is a whole topic unto itself!

Returning to the subject of the thread: these amplifiers look very similar, inside and out, because they're solving the same set of highly constrained problems in the obvious way. I believe it's possible to improve upon the designs, and that I know some ways to do it...but if those improvements were obvious, someone would have already made them!

Click to expand...

This is the most well-reasoned, logical, and clear post I've ever read on TalkBass.





Keep it up and you'll get the boot!

spatters said:

Returning to the subject of the thread: these amplifiers look very similar, inside and out, because they're solving the same set of highly constrained problems in the obvious way.

Click to expand...

Bigger gig bag pockets!

musicman556 said:

This is the most well-reasoned, logical, and clear post I've ever read on TalkBass.
Keep it up and you'll get the boot!

Click to expand...

Thank you! It's my job, as a designer and engineering manager, to create the best product possible within the constraints of my available resources. A large part of this involves presenting the tradeoffs to a skeptical panel of upper management who don't understand why they can't just have every feature of every competitor's product in a smaller box that also costs less to manufacture, and whose design can be finished in a few months without external resources...

...while selling them on sinking development time and money into something that's unique enough to maintain a brand identity and be worth developing, but not so unique that they can't envision a market for it.

It's a skill that I've spent years developing. As a result, though I'm not an analog engineer like @agedhorse, it's my job to listen carefully to people like him, to ask them intelligent questions, and to understand enough of what they tell me to summarize it for management and make reasonable decisions for the project.

(No, I don't currently work in the music field, though I would enjoy doing so!)

To add to @spatters comments, one of the most difficult and necessary parts of any design is to understand what features to leave off.

Wasnex said:

My thought is these little amps are cool, but you are paying an extra price premium and sacrificing both performance and features to have the absolute smallest amp possible. If you can accept a slightly larger package, I think the value/dollar spent ratio goes way up. In other words you get more for your money.

Good Luck.

Click to expand...

This is hard to believe at the price point of the Warwick. 129€ for a 200W amp at Thomann; show me a better deal.

I kinda miss the GK MB 200 in this list. (Yes it is a bit different to the others. A bit.)

King Louie said:

This is hard to believe at the price point of the Warwick. 129€ for a 200W amp at Thomann; show me a better deal.

I kinda miss the GK MB 200 in this list. (Yes it is a bit different to the others. A bit.)

Click to expand...

Yes that comes out to $155.96 USD, which I agree is really inexpensive. Compare to the TE ELF which commonly costs $299 USD. Perhaps with modern manufacturing there is no price premium for a smaller amp, but the sacrifice in performance and features is definitely relevant IMHO.

I have no need for an amp to fit in my pocket. I would rather have a slightly larger amp with more power and more features.

It's your money. If you think the Warwick is a good deal, go for it .