Are the big amps history?

[eigentone]

I would like to know how it work then.

But I guess I can't force you to explain it to me.

I don't have to explain it. It's been done.

Here's one starting point:
https://www.amazon.com/Signals-Syst...499431599&sr=1-1&keywords=Signals+and+Systems

In the event the link changes, it's Signals and Systems by Oppenheim and Willsky.

 

[Coolhandjjl]

SVT sales will still be strong for Ampeg for lots of reasons for quite a while yet. The rest of the full size tube/big iron heads, not so much. The recent article about new guitar sales in a steady decline says a lot about what's going on.

 

[B-line]

I'd say that should read "The big guys are provided as backline because the Pros use them".
As Jimmy mentioned, bigger is better for bass, backline rental providers stock what band riders call for, and what you find on big league band contract riders is specification for "300 watt tube bass amp system, Ampeg SVT or equivalent", not "Class D Micro Amp with Neo loaded cabinet".

Yes big tube rigs are expensive, and a major PITA to schlep around, impractical and out of budget for the average amateur player. That said, almost always when $ and logistics isn't a factor, pro's who can play anything they want go with the big tube guns.

Unless of course they also have a lucrative endorsement deal from a manufacturer that requires them to have "Brand X" visible on stage...

I'm going to say, that based on my experiences, the number of touring acts, bassist included, that are given the option to specify what rig they want onstage is way smaller than the number of touring acts who either supply their own set-up or just play through what the venue provides as backline.

... I did note that you said "Big League Band Contract Riders". in your reply, so you're off the hook!
Naturally whoever is touring in support of a Billboard Top 100 track probably has a good choice ftom S.I.R., And if they're part of a super-big act, like say Katy Perry etc. (ughhh) their stuff, including their stage, is loaded in big-rigs from the outset, and awaaaaay they go.

My tour wasn't near that level, but it wasn't too shabby either!
Both scenarios were at play. We brought our own gear, including PA, and if backline was provided-mostly at outdoor festivals,-sometimes at more prominent clubs like House of Blues (at the time)- we were happy to pass on load-in & use that. I had mostly SVT's and G-K provided; IIRC, one Ashdown rig too, somewhere in N'awleans.

Soundmen ranged from "Disco" to some REAL- I mean REAL pros. I learned a lot, and I think that sometimes TB bassists tend to give them **** by generalizing, although I've had my share of incompetents too.

Anyhoo- Mr. OP asked if "Big Amps" are History"?

NOPE.

 

[NoiseNinja]

Poor analogy. Anyone who has worked in a darkroom knows this isn't true. Silver grains and all.

I'm not saying that poorly made optics photographers and people who lags skills in developing a negative doesn't exist, what I am saying is that our finest fully analog photo equipment is still better at reproducing information based on visible light than our finest fully digital systems specialized in doing that.

On the other hand if we are talking the capability of analyzing information, digital systems beats analog systems by miles, but when we are talking about reproducing information as detailed and as true to the source as possible analog systems are still the best.

 

[spiritbass]

Are big amps history? Of course they are, in the sense that they came before the smaller and lighter amps of today. Big, heavy tube amps will be around as long as replacement tubes are available.

 

[agedhorse]

"Resolution" is limited by the noise floor in analog systems and grain size in photography systems. Noise and resolution go had in hand as noise interferes with the ability to resolve information. This is why design pros spend so much effort and cost to reduce noise floor (and grain size) where possible.

 

[eigentone]

I'm not saying that poorly made optics and people who lags skills in developing a negative doesn't exist, what I am saying is that our finest fully analog photo equipment is still better at reproducing light information than our finest fully digital systems specialized in doing that.

If we are talking the capability of analyzing information though digital systems beats analog systems by miles, but when we are talking about reproducing information as detailed and as true to the source as possible analog systems are still the best.

We have had the ability for many years to produce and represent audio and visual data in the digital domain at qualities which far surpass the abilities of analog systems. That is, it is the analog systems which fail to reproduce these digital signals accurately. We could process your images and audio at 64 bits per channel easily (and do in some cases), but there is no monitor capable of reproducing that quality.

Your lens analogy fails because you are comparing a lens to pixels. It's an apples to oranges comparison. You do know that digital cameras have lenses, right? Then your analogy ought to compare the two storage formats: Film vs a digital image. You wrote: "Digital pictures will have a limit of how much you can zoom in…" -- The same applies to film.

You said "…when we are talking about reproducing information as detailed and as true to the source as possible analog systems are still the best.". By what measure? Digital audio systems used in recording and mastering facilities have lower noise, greater dynamic range, and wider/flatter frequency response than the 2" machines. That digital recording format is capturing the source signal with greater accuracy.

As I wrote earlier: So you prefer analog. Use it. But don't pass this information along as truth. Pretty pleeeeaasee

 

[Honch]

think of this, but Ampeg 8x10s instead plus dummy heads... it's all visual props, and backdrops:

they look "big" too don't they...

 

[david barnes]

From what I see happening, there are less and less "Big" amps on the market. Sure, if you mean big like an SVT they will always be around and sought after.
Offhand, I can think of:
Ampeg
Fender
Marshall
Ashdown
still building "big",meaning all-tube amps. There are other smaller more boutiques too, Reeves comes to mind.

I know I've left out some lesser available/known builders, Laney, e.g, and someone may reply with ones I've overlooked of course.

But it seems that now the emphasis is on smaller, lighter, powerful heads, with cabs that also have reduced weight, using neo drivers.

The Pros might well use the big guys because they are provided as backline.

i have a ashdown 410 crt I forget the exact model name. but I think I fried the transitor caps or something. don't work. any one know whats up with it . its a rare amp and its for sale for anyone who wants to fix it

 

[Siggy]

I hope so!

 

[socialleper]

i know most pros still use the the big guys but why are the big expensive amps not getting sold? Too heavy? Good deals out there on the big iron..

First, "big" and "expensive" aren't necessarily linked. My Barefaced cab is much smaller, lighter, and expensive than a lot of other cabs. There are also class a/b or tube designs that cost less than some class D designs.
Heavy solid state amps may be in trouble, but heavy tube amps are still very popular with both local and touring musicians. It comes down to tone vs convenience, and some will err on the side of tubes over portability. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Actually, with this odd fascination with everything being retro (analog recording, vinyl, cassettes, old Fender and Gibson designs, etc) I think we will see a little more of this for a while.
The "super cab" trend is still a little new, so I'm not sure how that will shake out. Like tubes vs SS class D, I think people have chosen sides on the ceramic or neo debate. There are guys that will never give up their 150lbs 8x10, and in some ways I can't blame them. If you are a touring musician playing big enough stages and have transportation for big ol' cabs, they are pretty cool. A small 212 can be made just as loud as a fridge, but it looks funny on a giant stage surrounded by full stacks.

Now why is this happening along specific divisions is a whole different conversation. The short version is money and it is a visible symptom of real instrument live music's reduced status in the entertainment world.

 

[Bill Whitehurst]

While I, personally, am happy enough just moving a light class D amp and neo cab
I can surely see that the only way to get real big tube amp sound is to just use the real deal.
Then again, I am 65 and have already put in over a half century of moving big stuff.

Then too, there is a visual consideration.
Even though my rig has 9 times the power of the full stack guitar rig on the other side of the stage
it just doesn't look as impressive.

Also, quality big tube amps, Ampeg, Sunn, Marshall, etc. can be keep going for a long time
and I think there will always be some out there willing to do whatever it takes to continue using them.
Both as a sound consideration and a matter of pride.

Another factor to consider are big SS amps.
There are millions of PVs out there that will out live us all.
If I had a Mark whatever and two 215s that I liked, I'd keep using it.
G-Ks are in that same nearly indestructable catagory.
If I were little 13 year old Billy 'just got my first Squier last week'
I might want to get a big used SS amp to impress my friends instead of a
brand new light weight combo for the same bux.

 

[gln1955]

I'm not saying that poorly made optics photographers and people who lags skills in developing a negative doesn't exist, what I am saying is that our finest fully analog photo equipment is still better at reproducing information based on visible light than our finest fully digital systems specialized in doing that.

It has nothing to do with poor optics or poor photographers. Your premise is just technically wrong. Grain size becomes a limiting factor in film and print paper. This is one reason (not the only one) why digital rules in technical photography, where this stuff matters.

 

[NoiseNinja]

We have had the ability for many years to produce and represent audio and visual data in the digital domain at qualities which far surpass the abilities of analog systems. That is, it is the analog systems which fail to reproduce these digital signals accurately. We could process your images and audio at 64 bits per channel easily (and do in some cases), but there is no monitor capable of reproducing that quality.

Your lens analogy fails because you are comparing a lens to pixels. It's an apples to oranges comparison. You do know that digital cameras have lenses, right? Then your analogy ought to compare the two storage formats: Film vs a digital image. You wrote: "Digital pictures will have a limit of how much you can zoom in…" -- The same applies to film.

You said "…when we are talking about reproducing information as detailed and as true to the source as possible analog systems are still the best.". By what measure? Digital audio systems used in recording and mastering facilities have lower noise, greater dynamic range, and wider/flatter frequency response than the 2" machines. That digital recording format is capturing the source signal with greater accuracy.

As I wrote earlier: So you prefer analog. Use it. But don't pass this information along as truth. Pretty pleeeeaasee

So if digital systems equals oranges and analog systems equals apples, what does lemons then equal to you?

Also if digital systems are so perfect why do they rely 100% on imperfect analog systems to work?

 

[NoiseNinja]

It has nothing to do with poor optics or poor photographers. Your premise is just technically wrong. Grain size becomes a limiting factor in film and print paper. This is one reason (not the only one) why digital rules in technical photography, where this stuff matters.

Yes, paper is highly flawed, we should replace it with 0's and 1's floating in thin air, cause that surely would work much better.

 

[moogieotter]

I sold all my Class D heads and small cabs because I decided big is back. Gots me a 2x15. Our inner self-hatred is really why we play and being old and deaf w lower back problems is part of the craft.

 

[eigentone]

So if digital systems equals oranges and analog systems equals apples, what does lemons then equal to you?

Also if digital systems are so perfect why do they rely 100% on imperfect analog systems to work?

Digital doesn't rely on analog to work. I can generate/synthesize and process audio and visuals using my computer, then write it to a file or stream it to another device without ever converting it to an analog signal. What "100% reliance" on analog do you see in this scenario?

 

[rodv66]

Cds are not inferior in qaulity unless you are talking about down loading lossless audio files at high resolution. Mp3s are garbage and most all wav files are 44.1 16 bit same as a cd. Everything now a days is being pushed as aac or mp3 both of which suffer from artifacts and aliasing issues from the encoding process.

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

 

[NoiseNinja]

Digital doesn't rely on analog to work. I can generate/synthesize and process audio and visuals using my computer, then write it to a file without ever converting it to an analog signal. What "100% reliance" on analog do you see in this scenario?

Is your computer then made of 0's and 1's by 0's and 1's?

What good would you have of a bunch of something and nothing ordered in specific patterns without some kind of analog media to store and represent them to you in a meaningful way?

And finally, is time continuous to you or made up by a series of points in between which there is absolutely nothing?

 

[rodv66]

Don't see tube amps dropping very much. SS, hell yeah. I can't even give my extra combo away.

Just ordered a PF 500, will see how it goes as a back up head. I have noticed that, at least playing them in GC, class D amps seem a little more sterile in tone. Don't know how else to describe it