Genz Streamliner 600/900 tone control primer

[johnk_10]

i agree with you. what i like about it is that there are no surprises when you plug it in, other than it sounds frickin' awesome for an amp the weighs so little. i feel very 'at home' on it. to me, it's super simple to get a great tone out of it, no matter where you set the eq. i did hear a little compression in it (it actually has a bit more compression than my SVT's), but i'm assuming that's to emulate a tube power section.

 

[Red Planet]

Yeah sounds more like a tube amp than a tube amp.

 

[sunbeast]

maybe compared to the previous standard genz benz amps, but not any more low end than my other bass amps.

I know I personally have never played an amp with this much low end when set flat- If you'll look back at one of Steve's first comments, the bass boost is pretty dramatic (though you could choose to look at it as a mid scoop instead I suppose!)-
"With the gain button out and all the preamp controls roughly at noon, the frequency response of the preamp section shows two broad humps. The response is roughly flat between about 600 and 1KHz, the bass is boosted across a broad plateau between 30 and 100Hz, and the response rises to a gently-rounded plateau between 3 and 20KHz. The peak of the upper hump is at 10K.

The bass hump is about +9dB relative to 1K, and the treble is about +8dB."

And FWIW, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'd say the bigger issue with me regarding the low end is that the Bass control is not as powerful as I'm used to, so to cut it to where I like it requires turning it nearly all the way down at times. It sounds really friggin huge regardless, it just requires some fairly drastic EQ'ing for me personally to get it where I want it (I am used to using a Mesa Walkabout, which remarkably for me sounds nearly perfect set "flat). Concluding disclaimer- I am NOT the kind of bassist that looks for bowel-loosening low end punch/extension for my own rig, though I do appreciate it at times in the rigs of others...

 

[SactoBass]

It sounds really friggin huge regardless, it just requires some fairly drastic EQ'ing for me personally to get it where I want it (I am used to using a Mesa Walkabout, which remarkably for me sounds nearly perfect set "flat).

Sunbeast,

Ignoring power differences for a moment, what would you say is the difference in tone between the Streamliner and the Walkabout?

 

[sunbeast]

Maybe not the right thread for this comparison, but...I'm not the greatest at describing these things, but I'll put it out there the way I hear it!

The Walkabout has a whole lot of midrange complexity going on with it- the mid control on that amp is extremely powerful and the voice of the amp has a natural mid boost as opposed to the scoop of the Streamliner. The Walkabout voicing has a dramatic built in mid boost, while the Mid control is a passive cut-only control which sounds weird in theory, but works really well in practice. I feel it is much easier to me to get a nice low-mid defined punch with the Walkabout without mud or lost definition in the high mids, where the punch from the Streamliner is deeper and can be muddy without some finesse. There is defintely a general grindiness to the mids of the Walkabout the way I set it, but it is not at all harsh. The lows are much more controlled to my ear at higher volumes with the Walkabout, which I'm sure has alot to do with the big power difference, and the range of the Bass control is much more dramatic. The Walkabout's treble is probably slightly rolled off when flat, certainly less bright than the Streamliner, allowing the definition to come from the upper midrange (though this may just be the difference in midrange presence between the two amps vs the treble extension- I play through a tweeterless cab so I get little of the zing anyway).

As far as "feel" differences, the Walkabout "feels" to me much closer to a tube amp, compression and all- I played a Mesa 400+ and SVTs for years before the Walkabout and it has done a pretty valiant job giving me most of what I loved from those amps (minus the feeling of nearly limitless power!) in a much lighter package. As I've mentioned before- the Streamliner to me sounds very similar to a large tube amp at low volumes, before the compression accentuates the midrange (which I guess is part of what the 3dpm/ limiter technology in the Streamliner is supposed to emulate- though I've never been able to push it hard enough to make the limiter engage!). It's hard to hate the huge amount of girthy punch the Streamliner seems to put out effortlessly, it's just not the tone in my head when I think of tube amps. Good thing I wasn't looking for a tube amp when I bought it!

 

[SactoBass]

Thanks Sunbeast. That was very informative and helpful. I wanted to get your comments on that since you own both of those amps.

 

[Red Planet]

I think folks are missing why the Streamliner has that built in tone shape and where that all is really coming from.

When you think about old tube amps Ampegs, Fenders, etc.... the designs began looking for less distortion or less perceived distortion. As tube amps progressed from the 40's into the early 70's the goal was to get more power with less distortion. Rock and Roll came along and changed that but that's another story.

The reason for the scoop in the first place was a good deal of the mid frequencies were quicker to yield perceived distortion. Think of it as a way of cheating if you will. Frequencies around 1k can turn razor sharp (because of the human ear) at the onset of audible distortion. Something bass players were trying to get away from. All the while you have the compression that goes along with tube amps.

Genz guys correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the goal was to capture "that" tone in a small lightweight product. Similar in function, tone/sound, and compression/feel. I believe they went a little further with the "tube tone" dial/feel to greater emphasize the tube vibe. After all there would be guys running around saying it's not tubey enough. You have to make a Class D amp sound more like a tube amp than a tube amp or folks will be saying it doesn't.

The end result is an amp that cops tube tone better than anything I've come across (including tube amps). An amp that has some tubes in it for us old tube junkies to play around with. An amp that (for us old men) is very familiar in the EQ control department. An amp that again us old men are capable of carrying to a gig and not having to be too concerned about our sciatica.

I believe it's quite simple. If your looking for modern "flat" (Amp, SWR, Eden, MarkBass) bass tone this amp isn't for you. I'm also pretty sure a Walkabout never came into the equation.

 

[agedhorse]

Genz guys correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the goal was to capture "that" tone in a small lightweight product. Similar in function, tone/sound, and compression/feel. I believe they went a little further with the "tube tone" dial/feel to greater emphasize the tube vibe. After all there would be guys running around saying it's not tubey enough. You have to make a Class D amp sound more like a tube amp than a tube amp or folks will be saying it doesn't.

That's pretty accurate.

One reason why the mild mid scoop sounded good, and why it came about, is because (MI) speakers of that day were all about efficiency and the design tradeoffs made to increase efficiency was to increase Fs through a lighter weight moving mass and a stiffer suspension. The side effect of this was a more midrangy sounding speaker voicing (combined with the ear's sensitivity to midrange) and the old eq networks complimented this well. Our approach keeps some of this flavor but tailors it closer to the more modern speaker voicings which are more extended into the low end (hence the reason for the eq thickness which is a partial hold-over from historic eq flavor). Taking the older tube amps and play through today's modern extended low end speaker cabinets and they too will be weighted more towards the low end. That's the part of the tube amp emulation that's often missed or perverted.

 

[sunbeast]

We definitely hear things differently, but I at least understand more where you're coming from now. I came into playing music through rock, and so it is the sounds of rock history that have informed my tonal goals. In order to make tube amps louder for rock, the choice was more mids and/or more amp- thus the birth of the SVT. The SVT had a built-in high-pass filter to more efficiently use the power, and was paired with cabs/speakers that simply didn't reproduce the kind of deep bass we are used to today at any sort of useable volume. Certainly alot of recordings weren't just mic'd cranked SVT rigs, but I still don't hear alot of actual sub bass on my rock records from the 60s or 70s- the limitations of the technology helped create a certain bass sound that I hold as the "classic" tube bass sound for me. The Streamliner is not voiced that way in my opinion. As far as whether it sounds or feels like a B-15 or Showman for example, I couldn't say- though I'm certain you were not hearing Streamliner-esque low end through the matching cabs!

It's always interesting to see so many older guys on here saying "good riddance" to all the old gear they had to use back in the day- I can appreciate that. Hell- I use a cellphone now, but doesn't mean there weren't many advantages to having a landline instead!

EDIT: agedhorse replied while I was writing this, so I'll add that I have used this same cab with 2 SVTs, a Mesa 400+, a Fender Bassman 100, and a MusicMan HD-130 and never experienced the kind of girth very evident in the Streamliner without some pretty wild EQ'ing (I think the 400+ coulda gotten closest). This very well might have to do with the large increase in headroom, which I would venture is the same reason the Mesa Walkabout doesn't tend to be too bass-heavy for me at high volumes.

Also- I hope my posts are not coming off as attacks on the amp. I think this amp is a marvel of tiny amp design- sounds as/more powerful as any amp I've owned at less than half the weight! I just think it is beneficial to add my experience to the information available on here, as I feel many might be looking to this amp for things it really wasn't designed for.

Now hopefully back to the original subject of the thread- I am very interested to see what is actually going on with the EQ voicings!

 

[Red Planet]

That's pretty accurate.

One reason why the mild mid scoop sounded good, and why it came about, is because (MI) speakers of that day were all about efficiency and the design tradeoffs made to increase efficiency was to increase Fs through a lighter weight moving mass and a stiffer suspension. The side effect of this was a more midrangy sounding speaker voicing (combined with the ear's sensitivity to midrange) and the old eq networks complimented this well. Our approach keeps some of this flavor but tailors it closer to the more modern speaker voicings which are more extended into the low end (hence the reason for the eq thickness which is a partial hold-over from historic eq flavor). Taking the older tube amps and play through today's modern extended low end speaker cabinets and they too will be weighted more towards the low end. That's the part of the tube amp emulation that's often missed or perverted.

Agreed. The cabs accentuated what I'm talking about.



Disbelievers, connect the Streamliner into a 2x15 Fender Showman Cab with JBL's or a Sealed SVT 8x10 and then explain to me how it does not sound like an old tube amp. I believe there are too many folks playing the Streamliner into modern cabs and exclaiming it could not possibly sound like an old tube amp. I would like to see some video sound clips of classic tube amps AB'ed with the Streamliner into identical cabs. What I keep hearing being asked is that the Streamliner should sound more like a modern amp midrange wise for the EQ section because that would make it sound more like an old tube amp. This is called an oxymoron I believe.



To go back to the discussion of EQ and Tone; I use my Streamliner 900 into one or two Berg HT112ER Cabs and the following Basses--

Emanuel Wilfer Upright into David Gage Realist into Fdeck Type I Pre. With the Upright I tend to play above the end of the finger board as I like the tone better. I use the Fdeck HP Filter to control the room. Generally I will cut a small amount of low mids when using the Upright on the Streamliner EQ contrary to TB popular belief.

Fender 53 reissue P Bass with it's classic 2k heavy midrange karang and warm roundness. I set the Streamliner usually flat across the board including the volume controls. Sometimes I will cut the Bass a little if I'm in a boomy room.

Fender 62 reissue P Bass with the familiar split coil PUP. With this Bass I have to boost 2.5K as it is too far away in tone from my 53 Fender. I end up missing that karang but pretty easy to get back.

New Music Man Stingray Classic. I basically set the amp flat, the treble control on the bass at 12:00, and the bass control at 2:00.


Of late I've been playing a regular Gig with my Blues band at a local friendly Bar/Restaurant. We are there two weekends a month. The place is mall, the floors are tile, there is no stage. We setup on the floor in a corner of the main room. Even though the place is small I have no boominess problem there as the floor, walls, and building construction yields for solid thump.

I would like to see some tests of the same nature of several tube amps. I'm fairly certain this would yield some interesting results.

 

[Red Planet]

I spent a little time today ABing the Streamliner and the Shuttle 9.0 and comparing the two.

I hooked each amp into one Berg HT112ER cab as I have two. I swapped the cable from one amp to another. I used my 53 reissue P Bass with no pedals between bass and amp.

With all the controls at noon you can hear the drastic difference in tone between the two amps. The Shuttle 9.0 has much more midrange happening, too much for my tastes (set flat).

In a nut shell one would have to boost both 800 hz and 2.5k to get really close to the Shuttle tone (which you cannot do). That being said I could get the two relatively similar by adjusting the Shuttle though there still is a major difference around the upper midrange.

To me the Streamliner is much sweeter and more cushy sounding than the Shuttle 9.0. Oh how I love thee Streamliner.

I know this thread is directly about the Streamliner but I find this comparison yields insight as to the inherent shape of the Streamliner sound.

 

[johnk_10]

here's a TrueRTA chart showing the freq response of setting the ST900 with the tone controls adjusted as flat as i could get it:

rather than describe where the knobs were to get it, here's a pic of the front panel when i swept the preamp (w/stock tubes):

 

[nutdog]

Interesting. Very interesting.

Any thoughts after the gig last night?

 

[Jazzdogg]

here's a TrueRTA chart showing the freq response of setting the ST900 with the tone controls adjusted as flat as i could get it:

rather than describe where the knobs were to get it, here's a pic of the front panel when i swept the preamp (w/stock tubes):

Thanks, Johnk_10; Great stuff!

 

[esoxhntr]

here's a TrueRTA chart showing the freq response of setting the ST900 with the tone controls adjusted as flat as i could get it:

Yup, that's pretty flat. Treble down, 2.5K up I see, haven't used that a lot yet. What bass were you using, and do you think that a different bass would change the frequency profile?

 

[JGR]

Cool, thanks for posting! That's pretty extreme tweaking needed to get it flat. Too bad, because for me it takes away a lot of the flexibility. I'd probably own one by now if it was more neutral; I knew when I tried one out through an NV412 and couldn't get the mids I like that it wouldn't work for me.

 

[johnk_10]

Yup, that's pretty flat. Treble down, 2.5K up I see, haven't used that a lot yet. What bass were you using, and do you think that a different bass would change the frequency profile?

when you do a frequency sweep, you don't use a bass. you use a pure clean sine wave and sweep it from 10hz to 20khz.

 

[johnk_10]

Cool, thanks for posting! That's pretty extreme tweaking needed to get it flat. Too bad, because for me it takes away a lot of the flexibility. I'd probably own one by now if it was more neutral; I knew when I tried one out through an NV412 and couldn't get the mids I like that it wouldn't work for me.

for me, i really don't look for a perfectly flat signal response from an amp, and when i play thru it, it actually sounds pretty neutral to me (or at least it sounds like a good tube amp). IMO, using the 200 or 600 mid band will give it more mid bass or mids than i'd ever need.

 

[woolysock]

I find these frequency response examples to be really useful. It's great to set the amp as indicated and hear what "flat" sounds like. It's even more useful to have this information when you're playing a live gig in a boomy room. Thank you!

PS: Love the Streamliner 900.

 

[Tunaman]

here's a TrueRTA chart showing the freq response of setting the ST900 with the tone controls adjusted as flat as i could get it:

rather than describe where the knobs were to get it, here's a pic of the front panel when i swept the preamp (w/stock tubes):

Thats crazy, my EXACT favorite settings.
This is where I start & change from here

Just look at how different that is from a normal amp that starts with all knobs on noon.