• 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.

Micro Bass Heads, why doesn't everyone use them?

#121
seamonkey said:
For the vast majority of Amplifiers.
The same signal is presented to the drivers from Class-H, Class-AB, Class-D
The same power delivered from SMPS or 60hz transformer supplies to the amplifier...
Click to expand...

Yes, electricity is electricity, but where a SMPS and a transformer differ quite a bit is in how that power is stored and delivered to the amplifier and in how the particular amplifier design reacts to the power it receives. We tried a couple SMPS designs in the Valkyrie and none of them had the same tone and feel as the large toroidal transformer we went with. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, but the differences can be quite audible.

During the design process, I tended to classify the differences as the SMPS having a very tight, more immediate feel, especially when you would slap or pop. The toroidal transformer had a bit plusher, looser feel and more of a compressed sound as the amp got louder. I felt the transformer gave me more of the qualities I like in a tube amp over the SMPS. My engineer got into a million details, way over my head, as to what was happening here, but essentially, he said I was pretty much right on with my description.
 
#123
Fwiw, I DON'T feel I'm 'compromising' my tone when I use a class D/micro amp.
My other main amp is all tube.
I like SOME of the new micros better than ANY old solid state amp I've ever used.
Even in the late 80's, when many bassists were preaching to me just how good the S.S.amps of the day were. I couldn't find ANYTHING that sounded as good as my older all tube beast.
Now,I find class D amps sound better than any old S.S. 'lead-sled'. But this is all imo.
 
#124
R Baer said:
Yes, electricity is electricity, but where a SMPS and a transformer differ quite a bit is in how that power is stored and delivered to the amplifier and in how the particular amplifier design reacts to the power it receives. We tried a couple SMPS designs in the Valkyrie and none of them had the same tone and feel as the large toroidal transformer we went with. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, but the differences were quite audible.
Click to expand...
Sounds like an opinion.
So we are talking about latency? Or are we talking about proper regulation? Not to criticize but, seems like alot of this debate could be resolved with some factoids from manufacturers. I do not own a microamp, nor do I have an EE, but it seems like most manufacturers have made all new pre amps to accompany these class D power sections? Based on this assumption, comparisons even amongst models from the same manufacturer will always be apples to oranges, and be entirely subjective.
 
#125
mbelue said:
Sounds like an opinion.
So we are talking about latency? Or are we talking about proper regulation? Not to criticize but, seems like alot of this debate could be resolved with some factoids from manufacturers. I do not own a microamp, nor do I have an EE, but it seems like most manufacturers have made all new pre amps to accompany these class D power sections? Based on this assumption, comparisons even amongst models from the same manufacturer will always be apples to oranges, and be entirely subjective.
Click to expand...

Anytime we are talking about gear, the whole conversation is always 100% purely subjective and of course it's simply my opinion, as we all hear things differently. Our engineer will literally ramble on for hours about the differences in power supplies and amplifier design, that are way over my head. Me, I tend to just trust my ears and I know what I like when I hear it. Once again, I'm not taking sides here and saying one is better than the other, but I just don't happen to agree with the concept that a SMPS will behave and sound exactly like a large toroidal transformer.
 
#126
NoFretsNoWorry said:
An old movie camera/projector shutter can be considered "digital" when you confine your scale and scope of observation to the "open" and "closed" states of the shutter. The quality of the image with respect to composition is not digital. But the movement via either "open" or "closed" states of the shutter is digital... albeit, in a primitive form.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious. There is nothing digital about it. I understand what you are saying, but it's not exactly correct.

You wanna tell us that a pinhole camera is digital too? Since you have a sheet over the "shutter" which represents a 0 and once you take it off that represents a 1?

Digital in it's primitive form would be ENIAC, and I'm not even sure that statement is technically correct.
 
#127
bassgod0dmw said:
You can't be serious. There is nothing digital about it. I understand what you are saying, but it's not exactly correct.

You wanna tell us that a pinhole camera is digital too? Since you have a sheet over the "shutter" which represents a 0 and once you take it off that represents a 1?

Digital in it's primitive form would be ENIAC, and I'm not even sure that statement is technically correct.
Click to expand...

How would you define "digital" then? :)

PEACE
 
#129
R Baer said:
...The toroidal transformer had a bit plusher, looser feel and more of a compressed sound as the amp got louder. I felt the transformer gave me more of the qualities I like in a tube amp over the SMPS. My engineer got into a million details, way over my head, as to what was happening here, but essentially, he said I was pretty much right on with my description.
Click to expand...

I agree!

I have used toroidal transformers for years. To me, they simply sound more musically complete and translate even the slightest nuances very well.

PEACE
 
#130
R Baer said:
Anytime we are talking about gear, the whole conversation is always 100% purely subjective and of course it's simply my opinion, as we all hear things differently. Our engineer will literally ramble on for hours about the differences in power supplies and amplifier design, that are way over my head. Me, I tend to just trust my ears and when I have a few people in the room who I consider to have some of the best ears in the business and we are all hearing the same thing, then I think I think it's safe to assume the differences we hear are real and not imaginary. Once again, I'm not taking sides here and saying one is better than the other, but I just don't happen to agree with the concept that a SMPS will behave and sound exactly like a large toroidal transformer.
Click to expand...

+1
Regardless of the numbers I truly do the EAR is our most important metric.

Seems like every day a new thread is started based on pure opinion, which I believe addresses the same issue; manufacturer transparency. Many of us have questions about why X sounds like it does, and we don't get that in any empirical way from manufactures. The days of protecting intellectual property through obfuscation are long gone, so folks might as well be honest about their designs.
 
#131
BurningSkies said:
The problem is that by your definition, which is so wide as to be nearly meaningless nearly everything is digital. Like my lightswitch. Like a camera. Like anything that has an on and off state.
Click to expand...

Then I ask you as well, for your definition of "digital"....or even google's results. :) Look for yourself! The definition is not mine alone.

A computer microprocessor is merely millions of tiny gates "switches" by another name, not unlike a light switch.

PEACE
 
#132
NoFretsNoWorry said:
Then I ask you as well, for your definition of "digital"....or even google's results. :) Look for yourself! The definition is not mine alone.

A computer microprocessor is merely millions of tiny gates "switches" by another name, not unlike a light switch.

PEACE
Click to expand...

Here's a neat little bit from PC Magazine that sums things nicely:

Class D was not coined for "digital;" it was the next letter after Class C. However, it does produce a "digital-like" output because the signals are generated by turning a switch fully on or off. But it is not technically digital because the output is not digital data. It is a modulated audio signal that is feeding analog speakers and is equivalent to the output of a traditional analog amplifier. Some call this a "synthesized analog" output.

But if you want to get down to things, the real answer in the amp situation is to consider Class D as PWM, which not only involves what is on or off, but how long it remains in each state to amplify the actual wave form. It's not breaking down the signal into a digital representation (those ones and zeros) of the signal then reassembling out the other end.

Pulse-width modulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#133
NoFretsNoWorry said:
How would you define "digital" then? :)

PEACE
Click to expand...

I'm not going to define "digital" but I'll define digital. By way of Wesbter's. Please see definitions 4-7. I'm not going off on more than a tangent than this. Oh wait, I just typed off on. Those two words must be digital :)

1
: of or relating to the fingers or toes <digital dexterity>
2
: done with a finger <a digital rectal examination>
3
: of, relating to, or using calculation by numerical methods or by discrete units
4
: of, relating to, or being data in the form of especially binary digits <digital images> <a digital readout>; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals <a digital broadcast> &#8212; compare analog 2
5
: providing a readout in numerical digits <a digital voltmeter>
6
: relating to an audio recording method in which sound waves are represented digitally (as on magnetic tape) so that in the recording wow and flutter are eliminated and background noise is reduced
7
: electronic <digital devices>; also : characterized by electronic and especially computerized technology <the digital age>
 
#134
ok. im going to keep it on topic here (even though i did do combinational logic in college and know about digital)

not everyone digs them. accept it. if some people want to destroy they're backs then let them. its more of a mental state than any other.
the micro guys will lord it over the big rig guys and vica verca. you see this all the time.

the big rig guys carry in there rigs and the micro guys will say somthing like "having trouble there?"
and while the micro guys are sound checking the big rig guys will usually say somthing along the lines of "is there even a amp on stage?"

its the way of the world. accept it and move on.
 
#135
BurningSkies said:
Here's a neat little bit from PC Magazine that sums things nicely:

Class D was not coined for "digital;" it was the next letter after Class C. However, it does produce a "digital-like" output because the signals are generated by turning a switch fully on or off. But it is not technically digital because the output is not digital data. It is a modulated audio signal that is feeding analog speakers and is equivalent to the output of a traditional analog amplifier. Some call this a "synthesized analog" output.

But if you want to get down to things, the real answer in the amp situation is to consider Class D as PWM, which not only involves what is on or off, but how long it remains in each state to amplify the actual wave form. It's not breaking down the signal into a digital representation (those ones and zeros) of the signal then reassembling out the other end.

Pulse-width modulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I fully agree and this supports the link I posted earlier regarding class D behaving "digital-like".

Let me ask you this, do we as humans ever truly hear or truly see things "digitally"? Light and sound waves are analog.

*hint* the answer is no! Unless seeing/hearing it directly from an analog (non digitally converted) source, we only truly see/hear digital/analog conversions of original analog waveform......things can be altered in the conversion.

So how does anything "digital" interpret analog?

How does any digital pathway (analog to digital to analog) interpret the truly analog vibrations (waveform) of a bass string?

These questions give rise to creative solutions in amp class, tube emulation, and D/A converters to more accurately represent the original analog vibration of a bass string. This is the biggest challenge to engineers! There is a lot of grey area!

PEACE
 
#138
R Baer said:
Yes, electricity is electricity, but where a SMPS and a transformer differ quite a bit is in how that power is stored and delivered to the amplifier and in how the particular amplifier design reacts to the power it receives. We tried a couple SMPS designs in the Valkyrie and none of them had the same tone and feel as the large toroidal transformer we went with. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, but the differences can be quite audible.

During the design process, I tended to classify the differences as the SMPS having a very tight, more immediate feel, especially when you would slap or pop. The toroidal transformer had a bit plusher, looser feel and more of a compressed sound as the amp got louder. I felt the transformer gave me more of the qualities I like in a tube amp over the SMPS. My engineer got into a million details, way over my head, as to what was happening here, but essentially, he said I was pretty much right on with my description.
Click to expand...

SMPS power supplies adjust the same - add more capacitance.

It's your amp.
You can market it however you want. I don't think you expect to get rich.

Some people are going to knock toroidals. Edison didn't even want AC
 
#140
To the original poster: It's hard to know why everyone doesn't use a micro head. I've used a lead sled, big amps, and now have two micros: A Genz Benz Streamliner 900 and an EA Micro. Both are wonderful amps. So easy to carry, such fine tone. As the two resolves to the five, which resolves to the one, surely everyone will eventually one day arrive in the same place.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back