Are the big amps history?

[GreyBeard]

Big bass amps came about back in the day before PA support when the bass player had to compete with a Marshall 100 watt head and 8x12's. Back in those days we either used big amp like an SVT or Acoustic 360 or we just didn't get heard. These days the bass player can literally play and be heard with nothing more than a DI and as long as he/she can hear him/herself and you have a sound tech who knows what they are doing, they will do just fine. So are big amps one their way out? Maybe.
Edit
Big bass amps, like big guitar amps (Marshall stacks etc.) are no longer necessary now that we have FoH support. And, like others have said, the less sound you have coming off the stage the easier it is to get a good mix through the FoH. (comb filter cancellation etc.) Big bass amps? I don't think anybody really needs one but a lot of players still like having one. I personally still use a 2x15 cab with a 500 watt head, not because a 1x15 or 2x10 won't due but because I just like the way it sounds and so do my band mates.

 

[B-line]

RE:
The posts that state that FOH, DI's, IEM's , etc. will cause the demise of the "Big Rigs" making them as extinct as the Dinosaurs! Here's a thought:

You may be right!

But then again, I started to think that a lot of SVT's, as well as the older Acoustics, Sunn, et al may be used by Bassists in bands that don't get much farther than either the Garage or the local Bar. (Assuming they can fit an SVT in there!)

I've seen 100's of kids in GC for example plugging into the bigger Ampegs and whatever else might be on the showroom, digging the size, power, and output.
If they can swing it, I'm betting many are sold to just such players who have no intention (other than a dream/fantasy) to play "Live at Leeds" or at an arena concert with whoever is Pop/Rock/Metal Star of the day. They just dig having a Big Rig with POWER! when you want it. Nothing wrong with that at all.

So as long as that may be true, the remaining builders that do offer Big Rigs will continue to make them, and they'll have their share of the Market. For the "Working Man" bassist, ranging from a Week-end Warrior to maybe say, a road trip, the convenience and quality of the smaller rigs is usually the ticket. That's why everyone's building a version.

So- I just read that Fender discontinued the BassMan 300, I don't know if that's an indication of anything, but...We'll see!

Just a (late-night) thought!

 

[JimmyM]

It's the same with bass rigs these days. FOH soundmen don't want to know about too low frequencies occuring on stage anyway. The leak into other mics and it gets harder to get any decent sound at all on all the other frequencies. I can tell you for now, with all the IEM monitor concerts I've been to (vocalists not only bassists) at the same venue, and the same band, the sound out at the front have always been better than with onstage wedge and side fill monitors. Considerably better. Canadian prog stalwarts Rush finally made the decision, and instead of getting "the dough" from using dummy stacks, they did a total send up of all the stack things and big rigs, and ridiculed it all by placing washing machines, vending machines on stage, just to poke fun at this. Their drums it's what's acoustic on stage. Rest is through IEM. Geddys sound is still as good as ever. No doubt, that the dryers, and washing machines weighs a ton too...

Here's your big bass rig...

Works and sounds best at 90 degrees celsius... without shrinking...no bleaching gives him that growl.

Missed this post before. Funny you mentioned Geddy. He's said that he goes along with what Rush's soundguy wants and that's why he's been cabless, although he did say he used cabs a couple times in recent years and he loved it, but the sound tech wants him not to, and I guess he's been with them for a while and Geddy trusts him, so he defers. Of course, Geddy could tell the guy to get bent, but I guess he feels that it's best if the soundguy thinks it's best.

Odd thing is that I've rarely seen anyone on here who's seen Rush multiple times say they like Geddy's live sound better now than when he was using amps. An overwhelming majority have said it isn't as good. I wouldn't know...the last and only time I saw Rush was in 1982. And their sound was absolutely stellar.

 

[JimmyM]

So- I just read that Fender discontinued the BassMan 300, I don't know if that's an indication of anything, but...We'll see!

Bassman 300 or the Super Bassman? They are different amps, and the Bassman 300 was discontinued years ago while the Super Bassman is still listed on their site and available at all the usual retail outlets.

 

[5thsand4ths]

I recently played two outdoor gigs. Sound guy said it didn't matter what amp I used because it was being DI'd and would be plenty powerful. So I used a d-class amp. Listened to recording and it sounded thin and skinny. Plenty of volume but something lacking. Second time around I used a SVT-CL. It was night and day. Sounded rich and full.

But it doesn't surprise me that the big amps don't sell like they used to. Nothing in the music industry does.

 

[okcrum]

That's for sure, but sure as h*ll they didn't have to haul it from gig to gig...

Actually, they did. The Wall of Sound was the first use of line arrays on tour, though not in their present form.

There were three crews and three sets of scaffolding, plus the regular show crew. One set was being erected, one was built, awaiting the show crew, and one was being torn down, to leapfrog to the next venue. The logistics were crazy.

 

[B-line]

Bassman 300 or the Super Bassman? They are different amps, and the Bassman 300 was discontinued years ago while the Super Bassman is still listed on their site and available at all the usual retail outlets.

Hmmm.. Actually read that in a thread elsewhere here on TalkBass!

This is what I thought it referred to:

Invalid Link Removed

But as you stated, its on their site; and listed as "available soon" at Sweetwater e.g.
...Either I need to read more carefully- Or not believe everything I read on TB!

 

[alaskaleftybass]

Oh yes, it sure did. But I find these days, like Fender Rumble new series comes with lightweight amp designs but NO neo speakers at all built in. They seem to have dodged that one for some reason. I think the most valid one would be PRICE even though neos are cheaper these days, they're still not as cheap. On the amp side, it's almost the opposite, that lightweight D amps with more power are way cheaper if you compare price to wattage. There it's a win win situation almost. Weight/Price/Efficiency ratio.

I'm frankly surprised how light the Fender Rumbles and Gallien Krueger CX series are. Both claim, I believe, ceramic speakers. I like that a lot because 1. they're lighter (than older style speakers), and 2. we don't need to buy neodymium from China.

EDIT: While I am on a quest for the perfect mini rig of doom, if I were back in the field in a larger city gigging every weekend, I would want a big amp. Even at my age. If you're playing larger gigs there is just no substitute for the feeling of an amp rumbling on stage. The whole band rides your notes like a wave. The current rig I'm looking for probably wouldn't be sufficient on a 20 x 40 stage. For those bigger stages, bring out the big iron! And no, you can't achieve the same effect with IEM's and monitors with only a pre. I know someone's going to disagree--so there, I said it anyway. Just NOT the same as a big amp behind you.

 

[Honch]

sure they did, its just there van was bigger than yours

Actually, they did. The Wall of Sound was the first use of line arrays on tour, though not in their present form.

Well, "they" means neither the band nor the bassist himself. They had TWO of these systems that worked as a leap-of-frog. Someone else was already at the next venue setting up the elephantiasis second rig, while they were playing somewhere else.

Heck, even these days, when I worked in the business too way back in the 70s-80s, NO ROADIES of the band hauled stacks, rigs themselves. It was/still is the local promotors responsibility to gather up a posse of young male youngsters that would haul the PA stacks from the trailers and lift them on to the flyers or to stack rigs. No one in the regular crew lifts something anywhere. The local "staff" just works now and then, and the pay is getting in for free. Roadies just connected the stuff, and plugged it in and did soundchecks, set up instruments (drums keys). If they had to haul things each day, it wouldn't take a week even before they had to bail out of the tour due to sick leave, and slipped discs in their backs. Believe me Ampeg SVT and 8x10 stacks included. Roadies may have rolled the flightcases and take off the lids, but that's about it.

The young male "local staff" was doing this once in a blue moon and couldn't care less. They just wanted to bask with the idols...and of course, getting freebies if the gig had sold out, and get in for free. During the gig they werent allowed anywhere but the audience area.

- - - - - - -

Don't recognize anyone of the band members hauling anything anywhere in this vid, do you?:



"The rising cost of fuel and personnel, as well as friction among many of the newer crew members and associated hangers-on, contributed to the band's October 1974 "retirement."

Wall of Sound (Grateful Dead) - Wikipedia

No kiddin' ?

 

[Honch]

I do think one thing's for sure though, regarding "Big" amps. If they/you want anything with tubes in it and iron transformers, they will be still around. But I think in terms of "big" when it comes to solid state big amps they've been on the way out for ages by now. Either you want the modern lightweight type of stuff OR the old real tube ones. I do think class D lightweigth amps have replaced the old solid state bass amps. Solid state bass amps with huge iron transformers could be just as big as well. Like, if you should use old school heavy and big amps you might as well stay with the tubes anyway. There's no real benefit using "old school" solid state big amps these days.

 

[BogeyBass]

lol

 

[Honch]

Odd thing is that I've rarely seen anyone on here who's seen Rush multiple times say they like Geddy's live sound better now than when he was using amps. An overwhelming majority have said it isn't as good

How about the rest of the guy's sound? Geddys voice/vocals too? Maybe occupational hazard to just go listening for the gtrds sound, if you're a gtrd you listen only too Lifesons sound, and drummers listen to Pearts sound, and bassist just listens to bass sound. They couldn't care less if the vocal mikes feeds back....

I agree with you, that they always sounded stellar to me anyway. But I think overall, much better these days. But that's an acquired taste, since I like Geddys voice these days more than back in the days. It was just too shrill. Now he's mellowed down, and doesn't "eeeeeeech" me as much...remember one thing: People hears with their eyes when at concert. Geddy has had as much props and dummy stacks, just to show the punters. And he may just as well having been DI:ed just a long time ago. And did this transition period.


Geddys sound these days includes - to be - both voice, bass, keys together. As in getting the whole picture. Even if it's Moving Pictures or not. They don't want any Permament Waves on stage any more these days, especially when they Test For Echo. The Signals are all dimed.

 

[Honch]

Anyone started to use - for real - these kinetic sound platforms as of yet? Anyone tried them to get that low end connection through the bones and flesh?

Does this count as a "big amp" ? I don't know, but I think this one is fairly "big" if you'd ask me. Amp or not. Even compared to cabs.

 

[brianrost]

There is no loss in the sense that what you send, the series of 0's and 1's you simplified the source information to, are still there when it reach the receiving side, but you are at least equally misinformed if you think that the conversion from the source signal, say the persons you see speaking in a news program, is perfect.

OK, now you're really getting into faulty logic.

1. The source information is not "simplified" other than the loss of frequencies above the sampling rate.

2. The conversion of audio from the source is impacted more than anything else by the non-linearities of microphones, phono cartridges, tape heads, pickups and speakers. This imperfection goes way beyond anything created by A/D and D/A conversions.

I'm a former night club dj. Vinyl sounds better, until it's scratches or warped

Vinyl sounds different. LPs have to be mastered to deal with the physical limitations of the playback medium. The CD and LP may have the same mix, but not the same master and that is enough to make them sound different.

Better is subjective and a personal preference.

 

[NoiseNinja]

OK, now you're really getting into faulty logic.

1. The source information is not "simplified" other than the loss of frequencies above the sampling rate.

2. The conversion of audio from the source is impacted more than anything else by the non-linearities of microphones, phono cartridges, tape heads, pickups and speakers. This imperfection goes way beyond anything created by A/D and D/A conversions.



Vinyl sounds different. LPs have to be mastered to deal with the physical limitations of the playback medium. The CD and LP may have the same mix, but not the same master and that is enough to make them sound different.

Better is subjective and a personal preference.

Well, I am not the one claiming there is no loss of information, I was answering to someone who claimed that if there were any loss of information from the source your flat screen TV wouldn't work.

Now that's nonsense.

1. So there is no simplification, except there actually is.

Yes, that would be flawed logic.

 

[chadds]

Here on TB "big" may mean more than two SVTs with matching fridges. It may mean larger than a 1x10 Neo.

 

[NoiseNinja]

Ummm... in the end, the opposite is true.

Analog, at the lowest possible levels - IS digital. Light for example has discrete quanta, called photons.

No. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle shows that to be impossible.

Cause there is not such thing as quantum reality, right?

 

[brianrost]

I was answering to someone who claimed that if there were any loss of information from the source your flat screen TV wouldn't work.

That someone was me. Digital sampling is based on some pretty basic mathematical principles. If the math was wrong, digital signal processing wouldn't work at all. Is there some loss? Only if deliberate lossy processing is in the chain (like mp3 or JPEG).

BTW, all TV and video whether analog or digital is lossy because of the non-infinite frame rates. Yet we don't sit and whine about lost information when we go to the cineplex, do we?

This is getting way OT...and I know I am not going to convince you I'm right, I'm only posting this for folks reading your opinions.

 

[NoiseNinja]

That someone was me. Digital sampling is based on some pretty basic mathematical principles. If the math was wrong, digital signal processing wouldn't work at all. Is there some loss? Only if deliberate lossy processing is in the chain (like mp3 or JPEG).

BTW, all TV and video whether analog or digital is lossy because of the non-infinite frame rates. Yet we don't sit and whine about lost information when we go to the cineplex, do we?

You are aware you are contradicting yourself then, right?

But I guess all that matters is winning the argument, and time is an illusion, and since it is impossible to go back in time, who would ever find out anyway.

Congratulation!

BTW, no, who would ever care about quality, pthh!

Totally irrelevant to anything in this thread whatsoever.

 

[brianrost]

You are aware you are contradicting yourself then, right?

But I guess all that matters is winning the argument, and time is an illusion anyway, and it is impossible to go back in time, so who would ever find out anyway.

And the contradiction was? There is no loss of information from an individual frame of a video just because it's digital. There is loss of information between every frame of video whether digital or analog because frames are only being recorded a small number of times per second...as few as 16 times a second for some film formats. Samplking of audio is something quite different if that's what you think the contradiction is.

Now we're into trolling, goodbye.