Genz Streamliner 600/900 tone control primer

[johnk_10]

Last but not least, John only took the Gain up as far as 1:30. There's a distinct change in the graphs as you get up around 3:00 o'clock. If you keep your levels below the clipping point, you actually get a fairly hefty treble rolloff- I think this was illustrated in the first set of graphs that I posted.

actually, i took the gain up to 3:00 (the blue line), it was just a typo on my part.

but yes, as Ken said, once you plug it into a cabinet, all of this stuff goes out the window, since no cab has a flat frequency response (at least none that i've ever played thru).

as far as using it on friday's gig, i took it with me, but due to the way that the gig was set up, i never got a chance to use the GB to compare it to the SVT. we did one long 2 hour set with only 5-10 second breaks between songs.

 

[greenboy]

I don't see how you can say it goes out the window. It's still there. Whatever enclosure is downstream just further filters whatever is going on upstream.

Also, below 100 Hz there is considerable difference in those high-gain plots compared to the lower-gain ones. Overlaid at the same approximated output level with what Steve is saying about chart scaling, it's even more obvious.

 

[johnk_10]

I don't see how you can say it goes out the window. It's still there. Whatever enclosure is downstream just further filters whatever is going on upstream.

Also, below 100 Hz there is considerable difference in those high-gain plots compared to the lower-gain ones. Overlaid at the same approximated output level with what Steve is saying about chart scaling, it's even more obvious.

while there are some differences with the gain set at different levels, when i'm actually playing a bass thru it instead of a signal sweep, all i really noice it the amount of distortion, and not a lack of low end.

 

[greenboy]

Sure. But that's a different thing altogether. Absolutely no criticism is intended. Just goes to show how the ear tends to concentrate on the more obvious stuff in some instances (where other instances may change that focus entirely - and which is perhaps why some people end up chasing their tails).

 

[johnk_10]

Sure. But that's a different thing altogether. Absolutely no criticism is intended. Just goes to show how the ear tends to concentrate on the more obvious stuff in some instances (where other instances may change that focus entirely - and which is perhaps why some people end up chasing their tails).

+1.

 

[Red Planet]

At this point I believe it's quite clear that Genz Benz aimed for a specific mark and hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

[agedhorse]

while there are some differences with the gain set at different levels, when i'm actually playing a bass thru it instead of a signal sweep, all i really noice it the amount of distortion, and not a lack of low end.

Correct, response varies with both amp gain within the different stages as well as the absolute audio levels versus the gain stages. The real plot is multi-dimensional just like many tube amps and classic tube amp circuits. This is a big part of what makes one amp feel differently from another even though they may measure similarly at one point. You don't play an amp at only 1 point, and how it respondes over a wide range of audio levelos can be revealimng in one's personal preference.

Any plot at one audio level and one set of control positions is only a snapshot or many overlaid response curves.

 

[nutdog]

How much "flatness" works for you, depends on how much you like the natural sound of your basses and cabs. With my current rig, I don't need much EQ at all.

Still, I'm not sure that any of us have an obsession about it. I'm probably one of the strongest advocates of flat-response amps and cabs on TB, yet I rarely run them absolutely flat on stage.

The biggest deal about flat, is simply that it gives you a more predictable starting point for further EQ. Most bass cabs are highly coloured to start with. When you combine one with a highly coloured head, if the two curves don't line up well, you're going to be in trouble.

Also, if you know where "flat" is, it makes it easier to predict what a given EQ change will do, and what gear combinations will work for a given situation.

For example, one curve that I can't dial into the Streamliner without external EQ, is a nice sharp hump, up around 2.5-3KHz. This probably explains why Ken Jung likes it better with his P than his Jazz basses...

My current rig doesn't require much EQ either. Just what I showed in the picture.

As long as you get where you want to go and nobody dies I suppose it doesn't matter how you do it. And perhaps this amp won't get someone where they want to go. I'm not sure what I'd do with a sharp 3k hump.

The shuttle wouldn't take me where I wanted to be. I liked where the Thunderfunk and LMII could go but they never ventured into what some have well described as the "creamy" or "gooey" territory of the STM.

And for now, creamy goo (or is it gooey cream?) is where I want to be. Of course this is all subject to change.

Correct, response varies with both amp gain within the different stages as well as the absolute audio levels versus the gain stages. The real plot is multi-dimensional just like many tube amps and classic tube amp circuits. This is a big part of what makes one amp feel differently from another even though they may measure similarly at one point. You don't play an amp at only 1 point, and how it respondes over a wide range of audio levelos can be revealimng in one's personal preference.

Any plot at one audio level and one set of control positions is only a snapshot or many overlaid response curves.

Which is why I think this focus on flat, while not useless, is not a preeminent indicator of performance. Even with the controls set for "flat" on the STM and the GK, I doubt they sound alike.

BTW agedhorse, if you are responsible for this amp, nice work! Me likey.

 

[johnk_10]

the things that i like about the STM900 is that no matter where i have the eq or gain set set, all of the notes are big and punchy with no 'holes' in it's response, yet is also articulate enough to capture subtle nuances when playing dynamically. all of my basses sound natural and distinctive and different thru it (even multiple p or j basses) so it doesn't 'mask' their tone and just 'stamp' it's own signature over them. that, and if desired, it has some of the nicest grit i've ever heard, from slight to heavy distortion, and IMO, much better than most 100% tube amps and way better than any distortion/overdrive pedal that i've ever used. add all of that up and i find it very hard to beat, and that's not even mentioning it's lightweight and portability.

 

[Highfox]

the things that i like about the STM900 is that no matter where i have the eq or gain set set, all of the notes are big and punchy with no 'holes' in it's response, yet is also articulate enough to capture subtle nuances when playing dynamically. all of my basses sound natural and distinctive and different thru it (even multiple p or j basses) so it doesn't 'mask' their tone and just 'stamp' it's own signature over them. that, and if desired, it has some of the nicest grit i've ever heard, from slight to heavy distortion, and IMO, much better than most 100% tube amps and way better than any distortion/overdrive pedal that i've ever used. add all of that up and i find it very hard to beat, and that's not even mentioning it's lightweight and portability.

(sorry a little off topic) but...
+1, to your post.
After reading some of the reviews I was half expecting my 600 when it turned up to sound too dark and be unsuitable for me. I needn't of feared it's nice and punchy, clear, rounded and warm coming through my GB Neox 212 and through the DI-post I get a great recording sound and sweet FOH. All this with a P and J-bass strung with flats.
Great little amp and took me the least amount of time to EQ in the sound I liked from any amp I have owned before

 

[agedhorse]

BTW agedhorse, if you are responsible for this amp, nice work! Me likey.

It was combination of Scott and myself along with artistic input from Roger, Jeff and a couple of select players in our "secret stable".

 

[Red Planet]

After ABing my 9.0 and my 900 I am astonished at how organic the Streamliner is. There is definitely some magic mojo going there. Very 3D, wet, buttery, smooth, pleasing, gooey, creamy, tubey and plenty of girth and gription.

I do not have a lot of time but I want to plan on ABing some more to figure what works best for my Upright or how I can make the Streamliner better get the job done for my Upright. I pretty much use the Streamliner at most gigs.

 

[N. Kentucky Bass]

I do not have a lot of time but I want to plan on ABing some more to figure what works best for my Upright or how I can make the Streamliner better get the job done for my Upright. I pretty much use the Streamliner at most gigs.

My "upright" is a Rob Allen Deep 4 acoustic bass guitar. I have two amps: an EA Micro and the SL900. The acoustic bass sounds most like an upright with the EA. An extremely close approximation. However I just used the SL900 for a duo instrumental gig with a clean-tone Gibson electric guitar. I chose the SL900 because it added quite a bit of warmth to the signal, which created a more solid sonic foundation, and it provided more sustain. Both of those worked very well in the duo. However, if I were playing in a more traditional jazz band of 3, 4 or more players, I'd go with the EA because it sounds more like an acoustic upright played "au natural."

My SL900 settings for the Rob Allen were gain button OFF, gain and volume at noonish, bass cut to 10:30, mid boost to 1:00, mid freq 2.5K, treble cut to 10:30. Controls on the Rob Allen were neutral.

 

[Jazzdogg]

My "upright" is a Rob Allen Deep 4 acoustic bass guitar. I have two amps: an EA Micro and the SL900. The acoustic bass sounds most like an upright with the EA. An extremely close approximation. However I just used the SL900 for a duo instrumental gig with a clean-tone Gibson electric guitar. I chose the SL900 because it added quite a bit of warmth to the signal, which created a more solid sonic foundation, and it provided more sustain. Both of those worked very well in the duo. However, if I were playing in a more traditional jazz band of 3, 4 or more players, I'd go with the EA because it sounds more like an acoustic upright played "au natural."

My SL900 settings for the Rob Allen were gain button OFF, gain and volume at noonish, bass cut to 10:30, mid boost to 1:00, mid freq 2.5K, treble cut to 10:30. Controls on the Rob Allen were neutral.

Since you've played your Rob Allen through both amps, how would you describe the difference? Does the Streamliner's baked-in "warmth" make it difficult to hear the harmonics responsible for the Rob Allen's woody timbre?

 

[KJung]

Since you've played your Rob Allen through both amps, how would you describe the difference? Does the Streamliner's baked-in "warmth" make it difficult to hear the harmonics responsible for the Rob Allen's woody timbre?

Just to offer my take on this, I would answer yes. The Streamliner results in my Rob Allen being huge down low, and wonderfully 'big and girthy', but takes the RA in a direction that I don't particularly like. The beauty of the RA is, as you say, that woody sort of upper midrange articulation that brings to mind a DB if played in that spirit. The Streamliner, even with some pretty extreme EQ, has not delivered that for me personally. In my case, the Markbass F500 gets me there quite nicely.

I believe Ukiah has put up a few clips of his rig, and his tone goals are very different than mine.... big low end, very little going on above 400hz to my ear. That is a cool tone, but not my thing (just to put my comments in context).

 

[N. Kentucky Bass]

Since you've played your Rob Allen through both amps, how would you describe the difference? Does the Streamliner's baked-in "warmth" make it difficult to hear the harmonics responsible for the Rob Allen's woody timbre?

Yes, this is accurate.

The recordings KJung mentioned are almost two years old, and were experimental as i first began using a 15/6 cab. I like much more midrange than 400hz! The upper range has less interest for me, which is why I do not use tweeters.

In general, each instrument, band requirement, and venue has its own needs for fabulous sound and there is no one size fits all solution. The RA acoustic sounds very good with the SL900. It sounds fabulous with the Ea Micro. By comparison, my Fender Aerodyne Jazz almost always sounds better with the SL900. And I usually play it with the P pickup on full and the J bridge pickup off, treble on full ( on the bass). Solely relying on amp EQ settings will not always provide the optimum solution.

 

[KJung]

Yes, this is accurate.

The recordings KJung mentioned are almost two years old, and were experimental as i first began using a 15/6 cab. I like much more midrange than 400Khz! The upper range has less interest for me, which is why I do not use tweeters.

In general, each instrument, band requirement, and venue has its own needs for fabulous sound and there is no one size fits all solution. The RA acoustic sounds very good with the SL900. It sounds fabulous with the Ea Micro. By comparison, my Fender Aerodyne Jazz almost always sounds better with the SL900. And I usually play it with the P pickup on full and the J bridge pickup off, treble on full ( on the bass).

400hz is a lot higher in the midrange than most would think. Pretty much anything coming out of a 6" driver would be considered 'upper midrange' by most.

Anyway, I can imagine that the RA sounds great with the EA Micro, which is voiced a bit less aggressively but similarly to the F500. I've gotten the best sound with my RA with very mid oriented rigs, specifically that RH450/RS210 rig. That warm, mid complexity can be quickly overwhelmed by the huge low end and sparkly upper treble that the piezo pickup sends into a rig IMO.

However, hard to make the RA sound bad, and most of what I'm talking about is pure personal taste and 'tonal vision' for that unique instrument.

 

[agedhorse]

400hz is a lot higher in the midrange than most would think. Pretty much anything coming out of a 6" driver would be considered 'upper midrange' by most.

Pretty darn true... and the reason why this is inportant is because harmonics on the bass itself can be as much as 40% of the fundamental so when you work out the numbers, the higher stuff (specifically the balance of various harmonics) really contributes to the tonality and personality of a bass's character.

 

[Jazzdogg]

Thank you, gentlemen.

Sounds like my doubling rig might have to comprise two amps; one like a Streamliner for electric, and one like an EA Doubler or AI Clarus for DB.

 

[N. Kentucky Bass]

Pretty darn true... and the reason why this is inportant is because harmonics on the bass itself can be as much as 40% of the fundamental so when you work out the numbers, the higher stuff (specifically the balance of various harmonics) really contributes to the tonality and personality of a bass's character.

I've become a firm believer in this aspect of EQ. And it's why I now leave my Fender's tone knob with treble full on. That puts the instrument's full range of tone into the SL900 .. take it from there. Sounds much better in the mix. Funny, the thing that got me originally pointed in this direction was Duck Dunn's story about recording bass at Stax. They used a Fender bass and an Ampeg B-15 for recording and most live gigs. He said the amp EQ would be bass on 5 and treble "cranked." He hated the sound in front of the cab. He loved it in the control room and on the records.