• 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.

Blind test! Trickfish Minnow vs Ampeg PF-20T (flat settings)!

Which one do you prefer?

  • 1

  • 2

  • Carrots

Results are only viewable after voting.
J_Bass

J_Bass

Supporting Member
Feb 7, 2008
4,857
19,542
Porto, Portugal
#1
Hey everyone,

I'd love to get your opinion on this quick comparison between two setups:
  • Trickfish Minnow preamp
  • Ampeg PF-20T tube amp

Both are completely flat — no EQ, no extra pedals or effects in the chain.

Each unit was tested in two ways:
  1. Through a QSC CP-12 cabinet, recorded with a Sennheiser e-609 microphone.
  2. Direct to the audio interface (DI).

All knobs are set flat, except for the Minnow's Master, which had to be slightly lower to match output levels.

Please take a listen and let me know which one you prefer — and why.

Curious to hear which tone comes across as fuller, warmer, or more natural to your ears.

Thanks in advance for the feedback!


I will tell which one it is in 48 hours.

8997011F-5C0A-4DA0-B42E-89FF8F088714.jpeg
9FB30AED-52B9-49F9-B8EB-09B849A642E7.jpeg
IMG_4774.jpeg



Through Mic:

1:


2:




Through DI:

1:


2:




Thank you!
 
#6
J_Bass said:
I see. This was recorded directly to the iPhone, I didn't match the levels or edit anything.
Click to expand...
These kinds of tests can be tedious because the levels need to be impeccably matched to present a truly valid comparison. Also, the input (how you play) needs to be as absolutely consistent as possible. The timidness I hear in #1 is more likely the playing and less to do with the signal chain. That's not to criticize your ability, but just to say that the passage wasn't performed as purposefully the first time.

If you do a lot of studio work, you'll recognize instantly when you didn't play a punch with the correct intensity. The same thing happens with gear comparison tests where you need to play the same passage as consistently as you can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrWolf14, gtirard, dmt and 2 others
#7
lowfreqgeek said:
These kinds of tests can be tedious because the levels need to be impeccably matched to present a truly valid comparison. Also, the input (how you play) needs to be as absolutely consistent as possible. The timidness I hear in #1 is more likely the playing and less to do with the signal chain. That's not to criticize your ability, but just to say that the passage wasn't performed as purposefully the first time.

If you do a lot of studio work, you'll recognize instantly when you didn't play a punch with the correct intensity. The same thing happens with gear comparison tests where you need to play the same passage as consistently as you can.
Click to expand...
Good point, thanks!
 
  • Like
Reactions: dmt and lowfreqgeek
#10
For the sake of casting a vote, I'm going with 2. I agree with some of the observations already stated.

I'm not familiar with either device, but the manuals for each one state "flat" at noon for the EQ, so it's good to know "flat" isn't some alternative knob position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J_Bass
#13
J_Bass said:
Number 1 is the Minnow.
Number 2 is the Ampeg.


I think the difference is very subtle, of course not counting with the difference in volume.

I really can't decide which one I prefer.

On the Minnow, I like the smoother tone, but the Ampeg seems to have a more tridimensional tone, more depth.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

I have a Minnow and I love it. It's punchier, clearer, and more present than my high-end tube DI.

Which one did you record first?
 
  • Like
Reactions: J_Bass
#17
J_Bass said:
Number 1 is the Minnow.
Number 2 is the Ampeg.


I think the difference is very subtle, of course not counting with the difference in volume.

I really can't decide which one I prefer.

On the Minnow, I like the smoother tone, but the Ampeg seems to have a more tridimensional tone, more depth.
Click to expand...
Now that you've done this, it's time to experiment with gain and tone controls. Both preamps undoubtedly have some degree of "baked-in tone." I've never been an Ampeg enthusiast, but I've played SVT backlines and have owned a couple of SVP's. I currently own a Minnow and a Bullhead .5K and I've owned at least three Bullhead 1K's. With these and tons of other pre's and amps I've owned (and own), I've almost never been satisfied with gain and tone controls at their presumed flat position. These knobs were meant to be turned -- have some fun with this!
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrWolf14, 6thplanet and J_Bass
#18
J_Bass said:
I see. This was recorded directly to the iPhone, I didn't match the levels or edit anything.
Click to expand...
That's not what you said in your initial post. You lowered the Minnow's master to "match output levels." To my ears, the Minnow is quieter in both the mic and DI samples than the Ampeg. Others seem to have heard the volume the same way. No harm or foul, but the gain disparity definitely makes a difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J_Bass
#19
J_Bass said:
Hey everyone,

I'd love to get your opinion on this quick comparison between two setups:
  • Trickfish Minnow preamp
  • Ampeg PF-20T tube amp

Both are completely flat — no EQ, no extra pedals or effects in the chain.

Each unit was tested in two ways:
  1. Through a QSC CP-12 cabinet, recorded with a Sennheiser e-609 microphone.
  2. Direct to the audio interface (DI).

All knobs are set flat, except for the Minnow's Master, which had to be slightly lower to match output levels.

Please take a listen and let me know which one you prefer — and why.

Curious to hear which tone comes across as fuller, warmer, or more natural to your ears.

Thanks in advance for the feedback!


I will tell which one it is in 48 hours.

View attachment 7363286View attachment 7363287View attachment 7363288


Through Mic:

1:


2:




Through DI:

1:


2:




Thank you!
Click to expand...

#1 is more articulate, and I prefer it for that reason. #2 might be described as warmer, but I'd just call it blurry. In the Di comparison, you have mismatched levels - #2 is considerably hotter, which normally tilts the preference in the direction of the louder unit=. If you want a fair comparison, you'll need to fix that. The speaker comparison is, well I think what most folks are going to hear is just the artifacts of the speaker - it's distortion products are kinda tough to hear past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J_Bass
#20
I liked #2 better for both, but I figured that #2 was the Trickfish. Basically, louder things (up to a point) will sound better, and the #2 track was louder so, as has been said, it wasn't a fair comparison for #1. I thought maybe you had a bit of an agenda favoring the Trickfish or an unintentional bias and so recorded it louder and with slightly more definitive playing*. However, I was wrong! The track I thought sounded better, #2 for both mic and DI, turned out to actually be the Ampeg amp…


*(sounded like the #1 tracks would have benefited from a compressor to even out the levels between notes, like maybe you were playing it too softly/timidly. I'm not talking about anything major, but I could hear that, whereas with the playing on the #2 tracks, I didn't get that impression at all. The difference might be that tubes introduce a natural compression to the extent that they're pushed, and I heard a slight amount of hair on the notes in the #2 tracks — another point in the comparison I felt biased things slightly in favor of the #2 tracks [I was figuring (incorrectly) that the #2s were done with a tiny bit of overdrive via the Gain setting on the Minnow to enhance things a touch].)

Final thoughts — the Minnow might sound more like the real deal with just the tiniest bit of overdrive added (just so you can detect it) and a light compression, and then of course the levels matched.

Interesting experiment; thanks for posting it and sharing it with us. My thought after all that is, the Ampeg amp is, as would be expected, better, but wow, I think could actually work with that pedal to get it close… (and the pedal would be a lot smaller/lighter/cheaper, and meanwhile that's an amp I've long considered buying but have never pulled the trigger on as it is a little expensive and the head would be awkward to transport and wouldn't cover a lot of situations, etc. — so, I've just never quite worked myself up to actually pulling the trigger and buying one).

An important point though is that there's more to a tube amp than just the recorded sound. A tube amp, if not played too quietly, and also the speaker/cab is a big factor, the whole combination, starts interacting with your playing in the way that a solid state rig won't. I'm not saying solid state is bad, I'm just saying that something cool happens when a tube rig gets pushed, something that might not even be well reflected in a recording so as to be definitively better, but is something that is felt by the player while playing
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: J_Bass and gtirard

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back