How long of a gap are we talking here? When was your prior experience? Perhaps the difference is not in the amp itself but in the speakers. (old 1x15 vs today's 1x12 plus tweeter).
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
How long of a gap are we talking here? When was your prior experience? Perhaps the difference is not in the amp itself but in the speakers. (old 1x15 vs today's 1x12 plus tweeter).
You ever hear people raving about early '70s Fender SS amps? The ones with the zodiac names and Fender grey grill cloth with red sparkle thread.
Perhaps I'm using incorrect nomenclature when I think of class D digital amplification. My thoughts aside where that in order to accommodate a smaller chassis and to curb weight, the amp is running "flavoring" to give it character.
I could use some clarification on the matter but, when I think of digital, I think of programmed to sound good enough in a small package. I use a digital rig now --TCRH750, and find that the tube factor sounds like it's baked in. My only complaint is your paying a premium price for less material that is mass produced to save cost.
It's high consumption that cost the manufacturer little to nothing to produce. Probably why micro amps are hard to save when they experience near critical failures but, I digress.
Here is a good article that explains class D digital amps: Invalid Link Removed
I could use some clarification on the matter but, when I think of digital, I think of programmed to sound good enough in a small package. I use a digital rig now --TCRH750, and find that the tube factor sounds like it's baked in. My only complaint is your paying a premium price for less material that is mass produced to save cost.
It's high consumption that cost the manufacturer little to nothing to produce. Probably why micro amps are hard to save when they experience near critical failures but, I digress.
Here is a good article that explains class D digital amps: Invalid Link Removed
I think it's that vintage amps and speakers sounded more muffled and warm by default, no matter where you set your knobs, but that modern amps can sound perfectly clear. You can get modern amps to sound vintage, but they also give you settings that probably sound harsh to someone used to the old sound.
This is tedious. With all the modeling stuff that's out there, you can get any amp/cabinet combo you want. You want to know what modern amps are? They're lighter. I was as old-school as you can get, lugging around a Musicman HD 150 for years and years, and finally someone talked me into trying out a Genz Benz Shuttle. Lately I'm using a Streamliner 900, and it beats the living daylights out of the HD 150, and it weighs less than six pounds.
there are certainly more "hi-fi" "full-range" and "clinical" choices now than there were in the 70's, but that hardly means that the tradition of wooly, bassy, muddy amps is a thing of the past. There are plenty of examples already posted of amps that can do that sound.
What we have nowadays, quite simply, are more choices. If an old school sound is what you want, then go and buy one of those.
Personally, I don't like the old school sound. For the kind of music I play, an Ampeg B-15 and 8x10 fridge just doesn't cut it. I need stuff that will project every nuance and overtone that my pickups produce, both evenly and loudly. As such, I've chosen gear that lets that happen. And thank god for the ability to do so.
What we have nowadays, quite simply, are more choices. If an old school sound is what you want, then go and buy one of those.
Personally, I don't like the old school sound. For the kind of music I play, an Ampeg B-15 and 8x10 fridge just doesn't cut it. I need stuff that will project every nuance and overtone that my pickups produce, both evenly and loudly. As such, I've chosen gear that lets that happen. And thank god for the ability to do so.
Yeah... again, I don't know... that's not really a great article. In fact they seem to get a lot, if not completely wrong, at least not quite right.
Take this paragraph for instance:
"With digital there are – and this is no joke – 200+ watt heads that are well under 5 pounds in weight. Because of the compact nature of digital (due to the fact boards can be machined so small), all the bulky weight of those older solid-state and tube-type heads are a thing of the past."
Board machining probably has the least impact on why powerful amps have been able to be micro-ized.
Here, I used this reference a few days ago in a different thread and I thought it did a good job. Check out the section on Class-D and switch mode power supplies.
Last edited:
Well, look at the case of the Mesa D800. Outside of two very small boards, you have ample room for the powerplant. Compared to the tube and class A/B amps before it, there really isn't much there. If the boards aren't part of the equation for smaller footprint, then what is?
I would say my head phones, and DI, have a warmer sound than what comes out of the cab. Perhaps I just haven't found the right cab yet.
About 12 years. From 2004 or 2005 to 2016.
For warm and clean, manufacturers like Trace Elliot, Fender, and Warwick immediately spring to mind, along with many others. Just takes some shopping around and watching youtube videos to steer you toward a choice that works for you
We're getting out of my league a bit here, so I'll let others give a better explanation if they so choose, but if I'm not mistaken it call comes down to efficiency. Due to the very way that Class-D and switch mode power supplies operate, they're ridiculously efficient - therefore smaller components can be used, particularly transformers and cooling elements like heat sinks. Again, I'll stop here and wait to be corrected, or for additional details to be added by those much smarter than me.
Edit: Just to be clear, when I read "due to the fact boards can be machined so small" it makes me think of improvements in pcb etching and the like. I suppose it's possible that I could have taken the article the wrong way, but I don't think so after rereading it.
Last edited:
I think it's more a function of the current vogue in bass tone (i.e. "cutting through the mix") and a more aggressive style of playing on the part of many bass players rather than it being something intrinsic to the gear itself - although the decline in popularity of the 15" cab probably contributed a little to it.
Maybe. In the years I wasn't playing, I was mixing. Ironically the "cut through the mix" tone that a lot of players have, and is just what you mentioned, doesn't actually cut through the mix that well. If you wanna do that, just go get a stingray. Even a P with a nice Pre between it and FOH will do the trick (that pre can come off the DI of a head post-eq to for what its worth.
That makes two of us.
When you look at Mesa marketing, they mention that they took the best of all of their previous amps circuitry to make the D800 sound very good. Again, my thoughts are that one possible way to achieve that is by chipset/digital means to control the front end of the preamp.
I'm relatively new to Class D amps but, that is the only way I can think of modern amps being able to sound so good. Another good reason why so many bass preamps are being offered in a pedal vs rack mount nowadays. I would believe that you can ditch circuit board space for onboard chipsets. Something that most pedals and amps used in the early 2000's.
Not according to the modern amps I own:
D800
Streamliner 900
Shuttlemax 12.0
Fender Rumble 200 Combo
Frankly, I wouldn't buy something that sounded too harsh or Hi-Fi... I'd say the main trouble you're having is with your cab - pair that Subway amp with a Subway 115 and tell me it's "harsh"...
Modern amps are harsh? Compared to the hifi-ass amps of the 80s and 90s? Hell no. You're stoned.
