Actually 1600 watts into 4 ohms (which is actually more usable for most bassists) unless you're talking about running multiple speakers or not talking about the Carvin in your signature. Amps that bridge to 2 ohms are rare.
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.
Does class D have the Heft of SS
- Thread starter MrCash
- Start date
Actually 1600 watts into 4 ohms (which is actually more usable for most bassists) unless you're talking about running multiple speakers or not talking about the Carvin in your signature. Amps that bridge to 2 ohms are rare.
To be fair, Tripath hasn't existed for about 9 years. Its Cirrus Logic, who bought the rights to the Tripath designs after Tripath itself went bankrupt, that's miking the old designs.
Its totally not shocking that outfits like B&O who keep investing in pushing the state of the art manage to do better than a 10+ year old design.
Not sure I understand the last bit. Is that sarcasm? Or is b&o actually doing a good job.
As many people on forums (not me) have said that amps with the module are not as good as other power supply's.
HI Brad Johnson, I know you we can buy 1000 watts for $400 to $600, but they tend to be the lower end brands. I remember reading in the Subway 800 amp forum a list of about a half a dozen class D amps that used a bigger power supply than some of the 500 watt and below amps. Would one of those amps have more heft, real or perceived at moderate to somewhat loud levels than the units with the smaller power supply? Not overdriving type volume.
Yah baby! And it's time to wake up some neighbors!
(I'm only playing into a 4 ohm tonight, too lazy to hook things up. Actually too much in pain, as I ran a broken 18" drill bit into my ankle a few hours ago :-\)
okcrum
in your chest
To be fair, Tripath hasn't existed for about 9 years. Its Cirrus Logic, who bought the rights to the Tripath designs after Tripath itself went bankrupt, that's miking the old designs.
Its totally not shocking that outfits like B&O who keep investing in pushing the state of the art manage to do better than a 10+ year old design.
This is the same Cirrus Logic that's a been a major and innovative chip house for a few decades, and I would be surprised if all they did was milk the Tripath name dry. It would not be surprising to find out Cirrus is now supplying OEM-only class D amp building blocks for faster design turnaround. I have used their small filterless class D amps before.
It's pretty standard to market the heck out of designs as they age since there's little or no overhead cost. The back end of the sales cycle is where you make the real money in this kind of tech.
Last edited:
Mine all have plenty of juice, and pump the lows well..they're just really clean. I use a little tube simulation in my pedal chain, but power is no issue. The closest comparison I've made regarding the topic is a Markbass 800 (class D) against a Peavey CS800 (A/B SS)..but it's tough for me to get a fair comparison because of the difference in load characteristics between them (The CS 800 bridges at 800 watts @ 8 ohms and is not rated for less, while the class D 800 watt amps bridge at 800 watts @ 4 ohms)
Hey Andy. Good to hear from you. What you are saying above are exactly the points I am trying to make. There are some inherent differences in the way different topologies behave. When you talk about "saggy line frequency power supplies" and differences in damping factors, these are all factors that lead players to have preferences, whether or not they are aware of what is going on under the hood, or not. The saggy, non linear power supply that changes as volume is increased is one of the key elements that I like about traditional class A/B designs so much.
As far as people being able to pick designs in blind listening test, we conducted the very same test when we choose a power section for the Valkyrie, which incidentally, started out as a class D amp. In our test, we certainly couldn't listen and say that's class A/B bi-polar, that's class A/B MOSFET, that's class D, that's class H, but everyone in the studio was able to hear subtle differences in the way our preamp sounded and felt with each of the amp designs.
Besides the factors you mentioned above, listening test have a lot to do with how well educated the ears are of those doing listening. I'm not trying to sound like an audio snob, I'm just keeping it real. I know plenty of big name players who wouldn't be able to tell the difference between boosting 3k and boosting 6k on a graphic EQ, or could tell the difference between 100Hz and 250Hz. And I certainly don't knock anyone who can's tell the differences either. It takes years, if not decades to develop some of these skills and plenty of my bass heroes that I've met at NAMM are totally not gear heads and could care less about all this. All they want to do is plug in and turn up and have it sound good and that's fine too. What really matters is the music, not the tone! My point is that it takes a very trained set of ears to know what one is listening for in the first place. When you know that you are listening for difference in specific things like reserve power, power supply sag, damping factor and what it means to the interaction with your cabinets, it's a different experience from just asking a random group of players to pick the class D amp.
People tend to to misunderstand my take on class D and think I have something against it. I actually think it's a very cool technology and it offers a lot of cool benefits. I also don't feel these amps are a compromise, are not as good as, or are lacking in any way when compared to class A/B. All I've ever said is that class D (as it applies to the class D modules in most bass amps) has some different sonic characteristics when compared to traditional class A/B designs, as you have stated above. Whether you like those charatcteristics is totally up to personal preference. It's just like asking people if Alnico 5 magnets sound better than Alnico 3 magnets, or if yellow is a better color than blue.
Last edited:
I always miss out on these discussions till they're 100 posts in. Then they go off on tangents, and I feel silly if I route it back to the original question. But I'm going to anyway
I cannot comment with authority about how amps are built. I can only tell you how they sound to me. First thing I'll say is that heft comes from me, and there are very few amps that don't sound hefty in my hands, and they are usually broken. However, just like in the 70's and 80's when amp makers tried to convince us that SS amps could sound every bit as good and authoritative as tube amps even though I could clearly hear a difference, I believe that there's a lot of that going on with the lightweight SS stuff as well. Yes, the design has a lot to do with it. But even in some of the very best and "hefty" sounding lightweight stuff, I still hear a difference in authority between it and the more traditionally built amps. A lot of PA guys tell me the same thing as well, and while they have gone almost totally to class D power amps, so many of them tell me it's because it's light and they have to carry so many amps that it's a no-brainer. And as far as bass amps go, hey, I think my SVT 7 Pro sounds terrific, but even a tube amp as light on wattage as my 64 B-15N or my PF-50T sounds more ballsy to me.
Vail Johnson once got roundly criticized on here for saying that he never played a lightweight amp he respected. He said they sound "saggy, like tube amps." I do find it kind of funny that he's switched over to tube amps in recent years but I don't disagree with that assessment, and it's actually a reason I like the lightweight stuff. But I don't think anyone who's played the TH500 and DB751 next to each other is going to tell you they prefer the TH500 for any other reason than it's lighter. True, the DB751 does have a better preamp, but I don't think that's the only reason, as I hear the TH500 as having a commonality with its sound that every micro I've played has, likewise with the DB751. Now Andy has argued with me about this, and has told me it's all in the design, and I respect his opinion greatly. But all I can tell you is what I hear from the many different micros I've played through over the years vs the SS and tube amps I've played through the years, and I hear a difference in all of them that is unique to their topology. Sorry but I do. Yes, the design can affect how good an amp is, but there are some commonalities to each type of design that I still hear after all these years.
But that doesn't mean I can't take my little 200w Micro VR and get an absolutely kickass hefty tone out of it! It just means that I think my B-15, watt for watt, sounds heftier. If people are happy with their gear, that is the important thing, way more important than these types of discussions. And like I said, I don't know how amps are built. But I do have good ears, and my ears tell me there's a difference, and the differences between tube vs trad SS/hybrid vs micro SS/hybrid are as relevant now as they were in 1970.
I cannot comment with authority about how amps are built. I can only tell you how they sound to me. First thing I'll say is that heft comes from me, and there are very few amps that don't sound hefty in my hands, and they are usually broken. However, just like in the 70's and 80's when amp makers tried to convince us that SS amps could sound every bit as good and authoritative as tube amps even though I could clearly hear a difference, I believe that there's a lot of that going on with the lightweight SS stuff as well. Yes, the design has a lot to do with it. But even in some of the very best and "hefty" sounding lightweight stuff, I still hear a difference in authority between it and the more traditionally built amps. A lot of PA guys tell me the same thing as well, and while they have gone almost totally to class D power amps, so many of them tell me it's because it's light and they have to carry so many amps that it's a no-brainer. And as far as bass amps go, hey, I think my SVT 7 Pro sounds terrific, but even a tube amp as light on wattage as my 64 B-15N or my PF-50T sounds more ballsy to me.
Vail Johnson once got roundly criticized on here for saying that he never played a lightweight amp he respected. He said they sound "saggy, like tube amps." I do find it kind of funny that he's switched over to tube amps in recent years
but I don't disagree with that assessment, and it's actually a reason I like the lightweight stuff. But I don't think anyone who's played the TH500 and DB751 next to each other is going to tell you they prefer the TH500 for any other reason than it's lighter. True, the DB751 does have a better preamp, but I don't think that's the only reason, as I hear the TH500 as having a commonality with its sound that every micro I've played has, likewise with the DB751. Now Andy has argued with me about this, and has told me it's all in the design, and I respect his opinion greatly. But all I can tell you is what I hear from the many different micros I've played through over the years vs the SS and tube amps I've played through the years, and I hear a difference in all of them that is unique to their topology. Sorry but I do. Yes, the design can affect how good an amp is, but there are some commonalities to each type of design that I still hear after all these years.But that doesn't mean I can't take my little 200w Micro VR and get an absolutely kickass hefty tone out of it! It just means that I think my B-15, watt for watt, sounds heftier. If people are happy with their gear, that is the important thing, way more important than these types of discussions. And like I said, I don't know how amps are built. But I do have good ears, and my ears tell me there's a difference, and the differences between tube vs trad SS/hybrid vs micro SS/hybrid are as relevant now as they were in 1970.
That's because herding wild threads back to their original topic is not very TalkBass cool.
Brother Jimmy, I think that is an important point. In comparing technologies of amp, we can't really compare watt for watt if we don't consider $/watt. At least most of us. It's best to compare a $500 amp to a $500 amp of another topology.
Fortunately, I invented Talkbass coolThat's because herding wild threads back to their original topic is not very TalkBass cool.
Well gee whiz, how can you do that? Micros are always so much cheaper than any other type.
- Feb 12, 2006
- 61,062
- 5
- 221,103
- Disclosures
- Development Engineer-Mesa Boogie, Development Engineer-Genzler (pedals), Product Support-Genz Benz
What I am saying Roger, is that manipulating the right variables allows an amp to sound and feel like the designer wants. I can design a solid state amp to sound "tubey" and a tube amp to "sound solid state" if I wanted to, but in general I focus on designing an amp that suits as many of the player's needs most of the time. Much of this relates to usable voicings that are player friendly in a variety of situations. I'm specifically not trying to design a tube amp using class D (or other) topologies. We already have the tube bass amp platform well covered IMO.
It's not just the engineering chops that are necessary, it's the bigger picture of how different approaches combine to yield the desired results, and what approaches diverge from the target goals. Any designer can get "lucky" with the right product in the right place at the right time. Look at the designers who have a history of successful products, amps that are well respected over an extended period of time, and you will tend to find the older, more experienced guys who understand the bigger picture. There are plenty of examples IMO.
It's not just the engineering chops that are necessary, it's the bigger picture of how different approaches combine to yield the desired results, and what approaches diverge from the target goals. Any designer can get "lucky" with the right product in the right place at the right time. Look at the designers who have a history of successful products, amps that are well respected over an extended period of time, and you will tend to find the older, more experienced guys who understand the bigger picture. There are plenty of examples IMO.
It's weird how many folks are referencing stuff like the TH500 in this thread.
Some people think it's a great amp, so I can see it being a somewhat valid example but they're 5 years old now and aren't quite reflective of current cutting edge class D amps.
Honestly if you haven't tried a Genzler, Mesa D800 or Darkglass amp then your point of reference is a generation back.
Some people think it's a great amp, so I can see it being a somewhat valid example but they're 5 years old now and aren't quite reflective of current cutting edge class D amps.
Honestly if you haven't tried a Genzler, Mesa D800 or Darkglass amp then your point of reference is a generation back.
not sure if it counts as "heft" or not, but my GK MB800 will knock your b@||$ off when it's pushing my two mesa ph 410s. I also have an SVT 2pro and an SVT 4pro. They are great amps - no question. but they don't push the speakers to full excursion like the GK does. I don't know how GK does it, but the MB800 is a very efficient, muscular amp IMO.
I agree 100%, but one has to keep in mind that the "manipulation" is coming from the preamp. There's no manipulating the OEM class D module itself (that I know of) as doing so would violate the warranty on that module. So yes, the preamp can be manipulated to account for some characteristics the class D will impart, but in the end, your still dealing with the amplifier being at the end of the food chain and it will always impart a little of it's own personality in the mix.
Trust me, I'm not trying to argue with anyone here. The OP asked if the class D amps have the same heft and I was simply trying to impart some of my findings on the subject. Anyone reading my post over the years is most likely aware that I never claim to be an engineer, or have the experience of someone like Andy. I'm simply relating my own point of view and experience on the subject as it relates to my experience from 40 years as a bassist and from experience that came from in building my own amplification products.
We'll see
I'm only mentioning it because I *really* don't get along with the TH350/500s but I'm smitten with my D-800.
I'll relate my direct experience.
Local rehearsal studio upgraded to all Aguilar gear last year. At the time my main amp was a WT-550.
I always brought that to rehearsals because I never felt the TH500s at that studio projected well enough for the loud punk/metal band I played with.
Now that I have a D800 I've brought that to rehearsals at the same spot, and am considering going back to the WT-550 as the D800 is actually a little too hefty for the room.
Local rehearsal studio upgraded to all Aguilar gear last year. At the time my main amp was a WT-550.
I always brought that to rehearsals because I never felt the TH500s at that studio projected well enough for the loud punk/metal band I played with.
Now that I have a D800 I've brought that to rehearsals at the same spot, and am considering going back to the WT-550 as the D800 is actually a little too hefty for the room.
The big reasons are size (1 and 2 rack spaces), weight and electrical efficiency. In some venues, even on big tours, available power can be a problem, so amps with 85 -90% effficiency are a must
Gaolee
Official leathers tester and crash dummy
Probably because it works and because heft sucks. This coming from a Luddite who still plays through an Acoustic 360 because he likes the way it sounds (and looks).
I got no problem admitting that what I like is purely idiosyncratic and that there's probably a better way that I'm ignoring because what I already have works and I can still move it just fine.
