New Darkglass 200 Watt Amps

[drpepper]

I wouldn't run a 4 and an 8 load in parallel with an amp marked 3.

So, we differ...recognizing that they're nominal ratings, I would, and I'd feel fine about it.

But I generally cannot feel comfortable drinking milk after the sell by date, so there's that

I guess we all define living dangerously for ourselves.

 

[paskisti]

(Also...Darkglass is centering the low-mid control on the Microtubes one at 1 kHz? They're calling that low mids? Huh. Guess I'll be interested to read how that works in actual playing too.)

This has longer history. B7K had low mid in 1khz and only v2 have push button to select 1khz or 500hz.

 

[DWBass]

$500?? Nope.

 

[ArtechnikA]

$500?? Nope.

i'm hoping that's MSRP and 'street' prices will be less.
but i agree that's too rich for my blood for what's on offer...

 

[ole Jason]

$500 is the price on Sweetwater. Not a good deal given the features IMO.

 

[Smurf-o-Deth]

Seriously. Get some other 200 watt head and stick a B3k in front of it for less money and more flexibility.

 

[matante]

It looks cool and I'm sure it's fun to play around with, but it's a bit of a head-scratcher, really.

A 200W amp into a 4x10 cabinet or a couple of 15s wouldn't be near loud enough? Sure about that? There really isn't a big difference between 200w and say 500w. It's about having enough speaker area for the gig, not watts. I think more players are realizing this and that's why the smaller amps are becoming more popular. Better to spend the money on a better cabinet than on unnecessary watts.

 

[NeonVomit]

I

A 200W amp into a 4x10 cabinet or a couple of 15s wouldn't be near loud enough? Sure about that? There really isn't a big difference between 200w and say 500w. It's about having enough speaker area for the gig, not watts. I think more players are realizing this and that's why the smaller amps are becoming more popular. Better to spend the money on a better cabinet than on unnecessary watts.

I mean I get you, my 500v2 is plenty loud enough for any situation I'm playing in and haven't noticed much of a difference with the 900, but I think 200 might get pushed a little too hard.

 

[matante]

I mean I get you, my 500v2 is plenty loud enough for any situation I'm playing in and haven't noticed much of a difference with the 900, but I think 200 might get pushed a little too hard.

When I started out lots of pros played clubs to stadiums using 200w or 250 w solid state heads. It's plenty as long as you have the right cab(s) for the job. The younger players are used to hearing numbers like 500w 800w 1000w, so by comparison, 200 seems like a small number. The thing is all the 1000w heads are overkill and not much louder than the 200w heads. The main reason to get the amps with more power is that the manufacturers load them with more features. If you really need those features, it's worth it. Otherwise...

 

[EncoremMP]

In watching Patrick Hunters review/video, at 6:10 in, he confirms that the DI out is unaffected etc.

 

[mrjim123]

Hmm, could be the right interpretation...maybe not. In terms of interpreting, it's easier and takes less space to print 3Ω than it does to print 2.67Ω, and since speaker ratings are nominal and there isn't a 3 ohm standard or a combination of standard impedance speakers that would equal exactly 3 ohms, it certainly could also be shorthand/rounding for 2.67 ohms, which is unnecessarily precise.

I'd have to agree. "3" ohms just doesn't make sense; they've gotta be thinking that those who want to load down to 2.67 ohms won't be afraid to do so.

 

[bobbybass85]

I wrote Darkglass because I was wondering the same thing about the 3ohm rating, here's the response from DG


"Thank you for contacting us and we hope you are doing well.
The mentioned data specification of the power module is 2.7 Ohm of minimum load which has been rounded up from 2 ⅔.

The combination of a 4 Ohm and 8 Ohm in parallel should work fine as a 2.666 Ohm of total load.

In case a specific combination of cabinet/loads connected does not work, it will not harm the amplifier but there will probably be no output passed as a safety/precaution function.

If you require any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us."

 

[Slevage]

Hmm, could be the right interpretation...maybe not. In terms of interpreting, it's easier and takes less space to print 3Ω than it does to print 2.67Ω, and since speaker ratings are nominal and there isn't a 3 ohm standard or a combination of standard impedance speakers that would equal exactly 3 ohms, it certainly could also be shorthand/rounding for 2.67 ohms, which is unnecessarily precise.

If it has 3 ohms on the back of the amp, I would not run 4 ohms in parallel with 8 ohms.
4 in parallel with 16, ok, but still a bad idea for different reasons.

 

[drpepper]

If it has 3 ohms on the back of the amp, I would not run 4 ohms in parallel with 8 ohms.
4 in parallel with 16, ok, but still a bad idea for different reasons.

What would an amp need to have printed on it in order for you to be willing to run 4 ohms in parallel with ohms?

Edit: Ahhh, now I see! I was kind of wondering how my post got plucked out of the time machine and see that we've already done this last fall...

So it does seem that you're saying that in order for you to be willing to run a nominal 2.67 load (sorry about rounding up that second decimal place to 7), it'd be necessary for and impedance rating of that or less to physically be printed on the amp.

This amp has "3 ohms" printed on it. Having an understanding of impedance ratings being nominal, logic says that's a rounded number. It turns out the manufacturer says it's a rounded number. To me, your insistence on the precision of the number printed on the amp and that being the sole guidance you'll accept is some pretty damn OCD stuff, but as I said before, you do you, Rainman-style.

 

[Slevage]

What would an amp need to have printed on it in order for you to be willing to run 4 ohms in parallel with ohms?

Edit: Ahhh, now I see! I was kind of wondering how my post got plucked out of the time machine and see that we've already done this last fall...

So it does seem that you're saying that in order for you to be willing to run a nominal 2.67 load (sorry about rounding up that second decimal place to 7), it'd be necessary for and impedance rating of that or less to physically be printed on the amp.

This amp has "3 ohms" printed on it. Having an understanding of impedance ratings being nominal, logic says that's a rounded number. It turns out the manufacturer says it's a rounded number. To me, your insistence on the precision of the number printed on the amp and that being the sole guidance you'll accept is some pretty damn OCD stuff, but as I said before, you do you, Rainman-style.

Having worked in the industry for many years (including being an OEM for electronic devices), I have a great respect for manufacturer's "suggestions". This is especially important with heating and loading.
I don't try to lift 3000 pounds with a hoist labeled 2000 lbs maximum.
Repair shops need work.

 

[drpepper]

Having worked in the industry for many years (including being an OEM for electronic devices), I have a great respect for manufacturer's "suggestions". This is especially important with heating and loading.
I don't try to lift 3000 pounds with a hoist labeled 2000 lbs maximum.
Repair shops need work.

The post directly above yours that brought this thread back was that from the manufacturer comes this...

"Thank you for contacting us and we hope you are doing well. The mentioned data specification of the power module is 2.7 Ohm of minimum load which has been rounded up"

Being able to understand that the rating printed on the amp is a rounded number is hardly the same thing as a ignoring the maximum weight on a hoist by 50%. You're focusing on the number to the exclusion of any other information.

This is more like someone with your 2000 lbs maximum hoist wanting to lift 2000 lbs 1 oz, contacting the hoist manufacturer, and being told, "The 2000 lbs maximum is a safe and approximate, round number. The actual physical limit is hundreds of pounds more, so you can certainly use our hoist EVEN THOUGH the label says 2000 lbs maximum."

In that scenario, would you say, "I don't try to lift 2000 pounds and 1 ounce with a hoist labeled 2000 lbs maximum."?

 

[Slevage]

The post directly above yours that brought this thread back was that from the manufacturer comes this...

"Thank you for contacting us and we hope you are doing well. The mentioned data specification of the power module is 2.7 Ohm of minimum load which has been rounded up"

Being able to understand that the rating printed on the amp is a rounded number is hardly the same thing as a ignoring the maximum weight on a hoist by 50%. You're focusing on the number to the exclusion of any other information.

This is more like someone with your 2000 lbs maximum hoist wanting to lift 2000 lbs 1 oz, contacting the hoist manufacturer, and being told, "The 2000 lbs maximum is a safe and approximate, round number. The actual physical limit is hundreds of pounds more, so you can certainly use our hoist EVEN THOUGH the label says 2000 lbs maximum."

In that scenario, would you say, "I don't try to lift 2000 pounds and 1 ounce with a hoist labeled 2000 lbs maximum."?

I'll stick with the printed information on the device. It's real easy to print 2.7 or 3.
I'd bet the person who came up with the rounding of digits had little to do with the decision.
Thanks for keeping the repair techs working.

 

[Gigas444]

Hello, I'm writing in this thread to avoid a new one, maybe it will be interesting for someone since I've used the microtubes 200 for the past few weeks (I run it into my Markbass traveler 102p 4 ohm):
- distortion => it's the B3K circuit in my opinion and not the Vintage Microtubes one, and I love it, it's far more versatile than the Alpha/Omega (which I use in pedal format), I mean you can go from "good ol' tube aggressive vibe" till modern super compressed distortion and everything in between without losing any of the bass frequencies (which is the first thing every user search in a distortion pedal IMHO)
- clean tone => here we come with something which really surprised me: you can go from old school scooped sound to super modern mid oriented vibes, the EQ is great and very responsive (I love Darkglass choice of frequencies in their EQ's)
- volume => this tiny thing is damn loud (expecially with distortion engaged), using a 4 ohm cab really makes this head scream, and when needed I can pair it with another 8 ohm cab (since it can handle a 2.67 ohm charge), this way this little monster is going to be enormous, but I do not think I will ever be in need of more volume

the only thing I feel I'm missing is the possibility to use a pedal to engage/disengae the distortion circuit, but that's not a show stopper for me, so I'm super happy , clearly even if this amp is very versatile (which I did not expect, what I wanted is trademark Darkglass sound and this things delivers tons of it) I believe it will suit more the players searching for modern sounds, for all the others there's Markbass and the Fender Rumble series (I love them both by the way)

 

[SJan3]

When I started out lots of pros played clubs to stadiums using 200w or 250 w solid state heads. It's plenty as long as you have the right cab(s) for the job. The younger players are used to hearing numbers like 500w 800w 1000w, so by comparison, 200 seems like a small number. The thing is all the 1000w heads are overkill and not much louder than the 200w heads. The main reason to get the amps with more power is that the manufacturers load them with more features. If you really need those features, it's worth it. Otherwise...

For years I used a GK 400RB which is rated at 200 watts @4ohms into a Peavey 2x15" BW cabinet. It was stonkin loud!