• 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.

Bass Gear mag and their amp tests

#21
Gopherbassist said:
What's an issue cost? Since Guitar World Bass was discontinued, I've been trying to find a bass magazine that I can stand. Bass Guitar from the UK is pretty good, but the price is way too much for an imported magazine, and it actually ends up being cheaper for me to buy it at the stands than get a subscription. If this mag is a quality one and is fairly priced, I may check it out.
Click to expand...

Print subs are $30 for 6 issues in the USA, $36 in Canada, and $50 for international print subs. The online digital subscription is free, and PDF versions of all issues can be downloaded for $1.99.

Regarding the online version, we are hoping to have a dramatically improved version in place for issue #4. It'll cost us some dough, but I'm committed to doing this.
 
#22
JimmyM said:
The one by my house near Orlando had like 3-4 issues of each. However, it looks like Sam Ash is discontinuing magazines. They didn't have the last two issues of BP, and the one in Cerritos, CA (where I was this weekend) said they lose about $300,000 a year on magazines. Don't know if this is just one store or the whole chain, but that's a lot of scratch to lose.
Click to expand...

Well, most Sam Ash stores ordered issue #3, so hopefully they'll stick with us. :cool:

Tom, that's what I was driving at...the first issue tests the LMII at 220w @ 8 ohms and like 400w @ 4, while in issue 2, all the amps seem a lot closer to their rated power, and even exceeding it on a couple. Very interested in your redux's on those amps.
Click to expand...

When Tom Lees came on board, he put his own spin on our bench-testing, so it's only fair to retest the earlier amps.
 
#27
tombowlus said:
Please note that we did change our bench test procedures for amps beginning with issue #2. Based upon what we saw with the Carvin B1500 (tested in issue #2), I believe that the test procedures used in issue #1 treated the more powerful heads somewhat unfairly. Accordingly, please do not judge the GBE 1200 by the output ratings achieved in issue #1. I have every reason to believe that the tested output numbers will change (most likely, it will show more output with the new test procedures).

Of course, the output for the LMII, M-300 and M6 Carbine may also change. We plan on retesting all of the heads in issue #1 so that we can build a database of consistent test results.

Tom.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification Tom.

Testing amplifiers that use complex signal processing requires a more in depth understanding of what's going on under the hood (and below the radar) than what the original tech had (IMPO). When I explained what was happening technically and why the tests were not even remotely valid, I was met with what amounted to a blank stare. (to the tech as well)

It's unfortunate that we were the guinea pig and the only really big amp tested in that first issue. Any big amp by any manufacturer would have fared the same due to the AC input voltage sag that is proportional to the current draw in the tech's setup.

I am tired and frustrated from answering e-mails and PM's and thread comments that resulted from this unfortunate situation. We re-tested the same GBE-1200 amp BGM tested, under proper conditions and it did indeed meet the design power specifications with no problems. My test bench circuit is 120 volts, under load and exhibits a natural regulation of 0.5% max. This is pretty much standard for testing power amps. Ask the pro audio industry, which is where I'm from.

[rant off]
 
#28
Jazzdogg said:
I have all three issues before me, and IMO, they're an outstanding freshman effort. Yes, proof reading needs work, and some of the writing lacks economy, punch, and succinctness; the absence of a skilled editor is conspicuous. But overall, BGM is like an oasis in a desert of bass journalism.

For the time being, I'm willing to treat BGM as a buffet concocted by a brash but exuberant young chef: I select what appeals to me while overlooking the half-baked offerings. This culinary apprentice shows promise, and although he could benefit from supervision by a master chef for awhile longer, I'm eager to see what's he's cooking a few years from now.
Click to expand...


I am pretty sure I can't add anything to that.
 
#29
LOVE IT myself!!!! I agree that the ONLY mag that comes CLOSE- & it's a LONG way off still- is UK's "Bass Guitar".
I thought a cuppla months ago "Can 'Bass Player' (US mag) get any worse??" Then the issue w/ Phil Lesh has about 10-15 mins reading in it!! & that's not great!!!!!!! It's gotten worse from 2 issues ago even!! I only buy it when I am bored/flush/both, usually about 2/3 issues a year. But NO MORE it's $15AUD & worth about $0.20c!!!
 
#30
Hard to blame you for feeling that way, Andy. The problem is that not many people on here know enough about amps to comment intelligently on these tests, so that might explain the initial blank stares. But that first issue came under fire on here eventually, and it looks like Tom did the responsible thing and changed some things up. And that's why I asked about it publicly...to get opinions from those who are in the know such as yourself to see if the testing is more accurate.

BTW, let me say that I wasn't trying to embarrass anyone at Bass Gear publicly. I figured that the issue with the tests was already out in the open. I have nothing but good to say about anyone involved, both at BG and GB, and I wish all of you well.
 
#31
tombowlus said:
Please note that we did change our bench test procedures for amps beginning with issue #2. Based upon what we saw with the Carvin B1500 (tested in issue #2), I believe that the test procedures used in issue #1 treated the more powerful heads somewhat unfairly. Accordingly, please do not judge the GBE 1200 by the output ratings achieved in issue #1. I have every reason to believe that the tested output numbers will change (most likely, it will show more output with the new test procedures).

Of course, the output for the LMII, M-300 and M6 Carbine may also change. We plan on retesting all of the heads in issue #1 so that we can build a database of consistent test results.

Tom.
Click to expand...
Just curious. Did you happen to print a retraction to this effect on the Issue #1 tests in one of the following issues? Sorry, I haven't had a chance to read any of them yet but was wondering if you had addressed this to your readership.
 
#32
Kelly Lee said:
Just curious. Did you happen to print a retraction to this effect on the Issue #1 tests in one of the following issues? Sorry, I haven't had a chance to read any of them yet but was wondering if you had addressed this to your readership.
Click to expand...

Not yet, but we will. We are in the process of making a few tweaks to our test methodology. As we test different amps - tube output sections, "hybrid" heads, class-D, etc. - we have found new wrinkles to deal with. Some are minor, but some can impact how we test and how representative the numbers may be. However, after talking to Andy and several other very knowledgeable individuals, working up a number of different test methods, running a bunch of additional tests, we are very close to finalizing a new set of bench tests. Once it's final (and peer-reviewed), we will re-run these new tests for all heads tested under the "old" tests (meaning issue #2 and #3 heads, as well as #1), publish the new test results, and do our best to explain the differences between the old and new tests.

Tom.
 
#33
I would like to clarify to everybody that testing amps is WAY more difficult than most of you guys could possibly imagine. There are so many variables that can be manigulated in the tests to give different and valuable (for an engineer) information but to distill it down to several bullet points that can be uniformily applied across all different amp types and approaches is really impossible. This is why amplifiers sound and feel different, and for different players and music styles, one amp approach may be better than another but for a different style the choices may be reversed. As I have mentioned before, I don't think it's possible to make a practical generalization based on bench tests alone, nor do bench tests give a complete picture of an amp's performance in the real world. IMO, Tom has made a noble attempt to do the impossible. Now, we just need to find a way to make it practical and at least somewhat useful across the various platforms. PA amp testing is running into much the same thing regarding the very large class D products. These 8-10kW amps have a totally different power profile and as such are not run with the same duty cycle as their smaller brethren... to do so would be impractical because they would destroy speakers in fractions of seconds. Therefore different testing methodologies must be employed. The same is starting to happen in the bass world as we begin to adopt similar topologies and approaches.

I would be happy to peer review and then explain to you guys what the new tests mean, what they actually test for, how the results can be interpreted, and what to be aware of regarding the potential for misleading results.

This stuff applies to all manufacturers out there, not just us.
 
#34
agedhorse said:
I would be happy to peer review and then explain to you guys what the new tests mean, what they actually test for, how the results can be interpreted, and what to be aware of regarding the potential for misleading results.

This stuff applies to all manufacturers out there, not just us.
Click to expand...

Andy, you made the "mistake" of offering to do some peer-review for us at NAMM, so you are definitely on our short list. :D Actually, I was talking with Tom Lees about the new tests last night, and we should have something to run by you (and a few others) fairly soon. :cool:
 
#36
LedBelli Bass said:
I'm a subscriber from day one, and I'm as persnickity as they come...BUT . . . TOM! How did you let the photograph of Dan Boul in issue #3, pages 88-89 end up like that. Is he a cyclops??!! I cannot lay my magazine flat enough to see what he really looks like.

To be honest, if that photograph had been my first exposure to Bass Gear Mag, I would've passed . . . proofreading is one thing; proof photo layout is another!

A terrible faux pau --- an apology to Mr. Boul is in order!
Click to expand...
I take the blame for that one. I create all the artwork and do the layouts. It was a compromise. The focus of that photo was the amp and the room decoration - Boul, eventhough he is the designer, was somewhat incidental to the other parts of the photo. Cutting him in the center was the lesser of two evils. Still, I don't like it and could've found a better solution. On the other hand, I rarely get comments about our labor-of-love art dept, so I appreciate them, good or constructive!
 
#38
macmrkt said:
<SNIP> I create all the artwork and do the layouts. <SNIP> I rarely get comments about our labor-of-love art dept, so I appreciate them, good or constructive!
Click to expand...

I appreciate the way BGM celebrates creativity, :D but find that the way text and graphics are combined can sometimes make BGM very difficult for my middle-aged eyes to read. :hmm:

One example is the use of black text on a purple background in the equipment reviews; in order to read these parts I use the magnified lamp at my drafting table! :help:

Another example is on page 51 of issue #3, where the text is superimposed over a photograph of flames - I got a headache reading this, and had to set the magazine aside for awhile before continuing. :scowl:

I salute your creativity, but ask that you find a way to make the text as legible as possible for those of us who become frustrated when we can only read BGM under optimal lighting conditions. Increasing font size would also be welcome.

Thank you!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back