Genz Streamliner 600/900 tone control primer

[KJung]

I have to kick in here. If anyone's thinking of a Streamliner, don't take our words as 'gold'. Buy it with a return policy and TRY it! I've tried mine with 2 setups, both Bergantino:
Bergantino HT/EX stack (non ER) - I *could* have made it work, but, 2 things: 1) I'm pumping 900w into the stack that wants to see 4-600w. 2) consider the tiny size of the venerable stack and it makes sense that it's too much amp. I still LOVE that stack though.
Bergantino HT-322 - so far, a match made in heaven. Ken (bless his soul, and no sleight to much of his advice) made a statement (prefaced with IMO) about Berg "HT" series not being a great match. Not so with this monster cab IME.

Bottom line: "talking about music is like dancing about architecture".
Only one way to know for sure...you gotta try it out.

+1 in that the best one can do is talk about 'for most or many' when discussing this stuff.

The HT322 with Streamliner (which I've never tried, but played the modular version of the HT322 with lots of heads on many gigs) seems to be in the same kind of tonal area with the Streamliner as with the 15/6 boxes like the fEarful. Some guys LOVE that fat, creamy, smooth, relaxed sort of BIG sound. For me, that is too much of a good thing with the Streamliner, but that is just me. I need to hear a little growl down low and a little grind up top to be happy in a mix, and neither of those cabs really have that sort of voicing in them.

You can kind of hear the tone I dig with the Streamliner on my clips, and I just can't get there with cabs that are too 'smooth, deep and relaxed', and also cabs that have a pretty good dip in the upper mids (which, to my ear, the HT322 has in a big way, giving it that 'smooth, creamy' sort of sound).

Pure IMO there... great cabs all!

To your point, that surely does not make those matchups 'bad

 

[LarryR]

Ken,
It's all about what we hear in our heads. Or, what we want to feel hitting our backs. Your advice to me about HT/EX vs HT-322 was spot on. Fact is, in the end, I really was looking for a compact 215 sound. With the HT-322 I got it. It certainly isn't everyone's tone being SOOooo deep and wide...creamy, smooth. But, I can dial in mids and the HT-322 translates the overdrive grind pretty well. With my Ashdown subharmonic (lower octave) engaged the HT-322 has no problem presenting it clearly.

That said, I did replace the 12AX7 in v1 with an 12AU7 cutting down the gain by what, 75%? I'm going to JohnK_10 today to some more rolling, A/B'ing etc. I'll report our "journey" later. Hopefully he will too. He's never heard a Bergantino.

 

[LarryR]

I had an HT322 for a bit, and though I loved the sound, the tone was just too "big" for what I was doing. However, as I run around up here with my STL900 inflicting it on every cab I can find, I'm beginning to realize that I am most satisfied with it's sound - particularly with a J bass - when 10" speakers are involved. I wonder if that's what the HT322 brings to the table?

Are you finding that you need to dial the bass control back, or does boosting the mids get you the sound you're looking for?

Hey man. I haven't had my Streamliner for a month. Today I'll be putting it through its paces again (with my HT-322) and I'll have JohnK_10's ear as well. As I said to Ken, I did a tube replacement on v1 which has to have a big impact on the tone. Reality check to come....

 

[KJung]

Ken,
It's all about what we hear in our heads. Or, what we want to feel hitting our backs. Your advice to me about HT/EX vs HT-322 was spot on. Fact is, in the end, I really was looking for a compact 215 sound. With the HT-322 I got it. It certainly isn't everyone's tone being SOOooo deep and wide...creamy, smooth. But, I can dial in mids and the HT-322 translates the overdrive grind pretty well. With my Ashdown subharmonic (lower octave) engaged the HT-322 has no problem presenting it clearly.

That said, I did replace the 12AX7 in v1 with an 12AU7 cutting down the gain by what, 75%? I'm going to JohnK_10 today to some more rolling, A/B'ing etc. I'll report our "journey" later. Hopefully he will too. He's never heard a Bergantino.

Very cool. Lots of ways to get a great sound!!!

 

[esoxhntr]

Ken,
It's all about what we hear in our heads. Or, what we want to feel hitting our backs. Your advice to me about HT/EX vs HT-322 was spot on. Fact is, in the end, I really was looking for a compact 215 sound. With the HT-322 I got it. It certainly isn't everyone's tone being SOOooo deep and wide...creamy, smooth. But, I can dial in mids and the HT-322 translates the overdrive grind pretty well. With my Ashdown subharmonic (lower octave) engaged the HT-322 has no problem presenting it clearly.

That said, I did replace the 12AX7 in v1 with an 12AU7 cutting down the gain by what, 75%? I'm going to JohnK_10 today to some more rolling, A/B'ing etc. I'll report our "journey" later. Hopefully he will too. He's never heard a Bergantino.

This has been covered in the tube thread, but you might try that 12AU7 tube in the V2 position as well to tame the bass a little, if necessary.

 

[johnk_10]

it was great to have LarryR come visit today, and after comparing our cabinets, we rolled some tubes in the STM900 with excellent results. we rolled the tubes one at a time, going back and forth with the stock VS NOS tubes.
as i expected, replacing the first one with a GE 5751 opened up the whole amp. it took away the 'cloudiness' and alot of the compression that these amps have a bit of, yet still retained most of the gain and retained all of the punch. we tried a couple of 12AU7's up front (an RCA, a GE 5814A triple mica (12AU7) and an RFT, and while it was extremely smooth and open sounding, it lost quite a bit of it's punch. while it did sound 'prettier than the stock JJ EC83S, IOO (in our opinion), it made it a bit too smooth and 'polite'. IMO, if there's any one tube to replace in these heads, that would be the one. it gives the amp a tone. transparency and response much closer to an SVT.

next we moved on to V2. we tried a 12AU7, but my favorite by quite a large margin was an Amperex (holland) 12AX7. we tried a 1967 Mullard 12AX7 there too, but the Amperex was the most musical, full and round without being muddy at all. the stock Ruby was much cloudier and seemed to mask the adjacent frequencies, so the Amperex stayed in the amp. moving on to V3, we tried the NOS Mullard, NOS Amperex, and NOS RCA (all 12AX7's), and my personal favorite was the Mullard , but the Amperex was probably just as good. I didn't want to donate another one of my Amperex's or Mullards, so we went with the RCA which was pretty much equal to the other two. it took away any harshness in mids and high end compared to the stock Ruby.

all in all, i'm very pleased to find that all three of the tubes in this amp make a difference in it's overal feel and tone, which to me, proves that the tubes in are really doing something, as opposed to alot of the new hybrids that don't make any difference what tubes you run in it.

also, IMO, the Berg HT322 sounded great with this head and i could basically dial any type of tone that i could ever want with it. i think that Larry's STM900 is now completely on par with an SVT. i thought that i sounded very good stock, but with the NOS tubes, it now sounds absoulutely great. it's much more open & transparent, with better 3D depth and much more responsive to dynamics.

 

[smeet]

it was great to have LarryR come visit today, and after comparing our cabinets, we rolled some tubes in the STM900 with excellent results. we rolled the tubes one at a time, going back and forth with the stock VS NOS tubes.
as i expected, replacing the first one with a GE 5751 opened up the whole amp. it took away the 'cloudiness' and alot of the compression that these amps have a bit of, yet still retained most of the gain and retained all of the punch. we tried a couple of 12AU7's up front (an RCA, a GE 5814A triple mica (12AU7) and an RFT, and while it was extremely smooth and open sounding, it lost quite a bit of it's punch. while it did sound 'prettier than the stock JJ EC83S, IOO (in our opinion), it made it a bit too smooth and 'polite'. IMO, if there's any one tube to replace in these heads, that would be the one. it gives the amp a tone. transparency and response much closer to an SVT.

next we moved on to V2. we tried a 12AU7, but my favorite by quite a large margin was an Amperex (holland) 12AX7. we tried a 1967 Mullard 12AX7 there too, but the Amperex was the most musical, full and round without being muddy at all. the stock Ruby was much cloudier and seemed to mask the adjacent frequencies, so the Amperex stayed in the amp. moving on to V3, we tried the NOS Mullard, NOS Amperex, and NOS RCA (all 12AX7's), and my personal favorite was the Mullard , but the Amperex was probably just as good. I didn't want to donate another one of my Amperex's or Mullards, so we went with the RCA which was pretty much equal to the other two. it took away any harshness in mids and high end compared to the stock Ruby.

all in all, i'm very pleased to find that all three of the tubes in this amp make a difference in it's overal feel and tone, which to me, proves that the tubes in are really doing something, as opposed to alot of the new hybrids that don't make any difference what tubes you run in it.

also, IMO, the Berg HT322 sounded great with this head and i could basically dial any type of tone that i could ever want with it. i think that Larry's STM900 is now completely on par with an SVT. i thought that i sounded very good stock, but with the NOS tubes, it now sounds absoulutely great. it's much more open & transparent, with better 3D depth and much more responsive to dynamics.

Wow, great info!
Now some particulars for a toob noob like myself. Where is a good place to buy these tubes reliably and for a good price?

Also are the names you gave good enough to get the right item, or is there a further specification (smooth plate, long plate, grey plate, etc.)?

 

[johnk_10]

GE triple mica 5751 can be found here: Invalid Link Removed

NOS amperex 12AX7's: ebay or online tube dealers

NOS Mullard or RCA 12AX7's ebay or online tube dealers

tube dealers:
12AX7 Tubes in Stock

 

[suraci]

GE triple mica 5751 can be found here: Invalid Link Removed

NOS amperex 12AX7's: ebay or online tube dealers

NOS Mullard or RCA 12AX7's ebay or online tube dealers

tube dealers:
12AX7 Tubes in Stock

+111111 !!

You are not only a great bass player but know the bass from the side that mystifies many of us. Thanks again

 

[nutdog]

all in all, i'm very pleased to find that all three of the tubes in this amp make a difference in it's overal feel and tone, which to me, proves that the tubes in are really doing something, as opposed to alot of the new hybrids that don't make any difference what tubes you run in it.

This is the first of 4 hybrids that I could tell a difference, and up until now I have considered the tube preamp to be purely marketing. I mentioned before that boosting the gain really made things more lively, and I experienced that again today. Not enough to get furry distortion, but something pleasing is happening.

Perhaps one day I'll try the different tubes. Are these differences obvious? Would clumsy ears like mine notice?

 

[johnk_10]

Perhaps one day I'll try the different tubes. Are these differences obvious? Would clumsy ears like mine notice?

replacing the first 12AX7 with a 5751 is an obvious difference and i think that you'd notice it immediately. to me, the stock JJ 12AX7 in the first stage compresses a bit too much. V2 and V3 make a more subtle difference, but i think that you'd notice their improvement too. IMO, it's not a giant tonal change but has to do more with its repsonse. they make the amp much more transparent and lively, and open up it's soundstage, instead of having every note thump no matter how hard or soft that you play it.

 

[LarryR]

John,
Thanks a million for your time and experience. OT: Dude, your basses are sick. I want a 3 p/u RickenKallas!

According to this chart a 12AU7 shows a gain structure that's a meer 19% of a 12AX7. The 5751 you provided is 70%. Fwiw, I'm sticking with your recommendation. The 12AU7 in a LIVE setting might be too polite. Sounds sweet at home, but, you’re right, it may be too sweet and not aggressive enough. The cloudiness you spoke of earlier I def heard. Stock JJ baseline. 12AU7 less cloudy, 5751 GE even less, but, a wholer sound if that makes sense! Thanks again for selling it to me. It *did* bring the amp closer to the SVT. You were right all along. Not until I get some gigs under my belt will I consider rolling the 5751.
This should probably go into the tube rolling thread, and maybe it’s obvious, but,if anyone decides to roll tubes I think it's helpful to be with another person/bassist/good ear to be able to articulate differences. Also, you gotta be as consistent as possible in your playing. Same attack, maybe the same bass line. John's right hand is a machine. Also, you don't want to take any more time than you have to powering off/carefully changing tube/powering on, to keep focus and memory of nuances that are presented. Again, 2 or more people and consistent technique is key. Bottom line: going back to the Ruby’s was an obvious difference to us. That’s no knock to Genz-Benz. They can’t be expected to load new amps with NOS tubes.

 

[johnk_10]

John,
Thanks a million for your time and experience.

the pleasure was all mine Larry, and thanks for going to the trouble of bringing your berg cab over for me to hear it. i was very impressed with it. funny how similar it actually was to my whappo jr, although i think the berg is a little more tight and punchy, and maybe slightly more efficient (and i love my whappo jr.) IMO, the whappo is a little more polite in the high end, but that's about it's only advantage over the berg.

it's always fun when we get together and you know that you're more than welcome come come out here any time.

best,

john

 

[steve_rolfeca]

...maybe it’s obvious, but,if anyone decides to roll tubes I think it's helpful to be with another person/bassist/good ear to be able to articulate differences. Also, you gotta be as consistent as possible in your playing. Same attack, maybe the same bass line. John's right hand is a machine. Also, you don't want to take any more time than you have to powering off/carefully changing tube/powering on, to keep focus and memory of nuances that are presented. Again, 2 or more people and consistent technique is key.

Even johnK isn't a machine. For even more useful and predictable results, do what I did:

1. Use a good DI (the Streamliner DI is fine, if you set it pre-EQ), and record a high-resolution clip or clips of yourself playing a pattern that covers a fair amount of fingerboard territory. Include some short, burpy, staccato notes, and some long, sustaining ones, maybe a double stop if you can fit one in.

NOTE: if you have a Mac, a fancy audio interface isn't really necessary. The line input jack is virtually flat across the audio range, and if you keep your levels reasonable, fidelity is pretty good.

2. Using flat-response playback software, level match the output of your clip to the output level of your bass, trying to play the bass with the same attack intensity as you used on the clip.

NOTE: Don't use iTunes for playback. It adds a significant amount of EQ on playback, darkening up your tone. Audacity is good, and it's freeware.

3. Use your clip to test the amp (this works for tube rolling OR EQ testing)- that way, your hands are not involved, and your mind is free to really evaluate what you're hearing.

If you have access to a decent mic, you can record the result. This is REALLY useful, as you can rest your ears, and then go back for as many listening sessions as you need.

Best of all, you can share your results with the rest of the TB community!

PS: if anyone would like a copy of my test clip (44.1KHz .wav) for consistency, PM me. The file is short, and it's only about half a meg.

 

[johnk_10]

IME, tube rolling is best done by actually playing thru the amp with a good speaker cab with it sitting in front of you to get the 'feel' of the amp. listening back to a recording only will give you part of the picture, but if that works for you, that's great.

 

[agedhorse]

NOTE: Don't use iTunes for playback. It adds a significant amount of EQ on playback, darkening up your tone. Audacity is good, and it's freeware..

I-Tunes can be just fine, but be sure you go into options and set for flat playback and all eq options are set off.

 

[steve_rolfeca]

IME, tube rolling is best done by actually playing thru the amp with a good speaker cab with it sitting in front of you to get the 'feel' of the amp. listening back to a recording only will give you part of the picture...

I think both are useful.

There's a "feel factor" that you can't get unless you are actually digging in, particularly with tubes, and especially as they get closer to saturation.

But IME, critical listening is the other side of the coin. Some tube combinations have a dynamic response that I find inspiring, yet the sonic performance fails to satisfy when I'm able to sit down and really concentrate on what I'm hearing.

 

[steve_rolfeca]

I-Tunes can be just fine, but be sure you go into options and set for flat playback and all eq options are set off.

I've checked the settings in iTunes on my Mac, and the enhancer, etc. are all turned off. There's still a definite EQ on playback, as though it's optimized for earbuds.

 

[agedhorse]

Is it possible that there was eq applied during the encoding process?

I have recorded and played back pink noise and it was pretty flat give or take a dB between friends.

 

[steve_rolfeca]

Is it possible that there was eq applied during the encoding process?

I have recorded and played back pink noise and it was pretty flat give or take a dB between friends.

Grrr...

Anything's possible. I've been slagging the Soundcloud player as well, but I was just taking a look at my mp3's, and discovered that they weren't encoded at the rate I originally intended.

I guess I've got to go back to Audacity, and see if I had a settings slipup in the export process...