Pondering Some New Ideas, Need Some Input

[agedhorse]

The real issue is the software/firmware development. The cost of hardware development pales in comparison to what it costs to develop a piece of reliable and almost entirely debugged software. And it’s still an expensive and labor intensive exercise that doesn’t scale well or build on earlier code despite all the efforts made towards the goal of “reusable software.” Which is why legacy software and systems still persist. Before I left working in IT I had clients that still had critical business programs that were written in COBOL running inside virtual machines that emulated long gone hardware and operating systems.

Major improvements in software almost always start with a blank sheet of paper and a solo or extremely small team of developers. Some developments in AI may eventually lead to huge efficiency improvements in the software development processes. And we’re already seeing some of that when it comes to things like code optimization. But we’re still a ways off from feeding an AI system a list of requirements and hardware specs and getting back a fully optimized and debugged chunk of executable code.

Well stated. Especially the part about “almost debugged” software. In some cases, software compatibility is like trying to hit a fast moving target, or playing a game of whack-a-mole.

 

[GMSweet]

Well stated. Especially the part about “almost debugged” software. In some cases, software compatibility is like trying to hit a fast moving target, or playing a game of whack-a-mole.

I work in the IT field and generally refer to it as one of two games: The aforementioned Whack-a-Mole and, Chutes & Ladders. Too many times I've been "almost there" to get sent back to the start.

I think in all of the design questions and ideas, I would like to know that Mesa/Gibson has either found or is looking for UnagedHorse to pick up the torch for you. Someday you deserve to retire or just go into tinker mode, and someone will need to be walking with you before then to try and fill your shoes. Easier said than done, I know.

I have no problem stating that the D800+ in front of me is largely because of your involvement here with the users of the products you've helped put into the world.

 

[bassguitarist85]

I forgot to add my biggest question, as a Peavey VB-3 owner, why haven't any other manufacturers used the SMPS power section in their tube bass amps. The most repeated complaint about tube amps is the weight. A 300 watt SVT head is about 90 lbs. My VB-3 is also 300 watts but weighs only 37 lbs. thanks to not needing a very heavy power transformer. I'm hoping that agedhorse might expound on this.

This is where I discussed the VB-3 and VB-MA with SMPS.

https://www.talkbass.com/threads/poll-thread-idea-ginormous-tube-amps.1625989/page-4#post-27886029

Peavey was the only company who had the balls in 2007 to innovate with the SMPS. They are also the only company, if they had the balls today who could release an SMPS power tube amp with the least amount of overhead.

For other amp companies, there are high R&D costs, UL rating tests, and other ancillary costs. Peavey is the only company who has the approved designs for UL with the VB amps. They already paid for those. No other company would have the moxy to release an SMPS amp due to economics.

Unfortunately today's market would not bode very well for a high-powered tube amplifier.

Another detractor, many techs lack the ability/knowledge to service an SMPS at the component level. They don't understand it, plus it's dangerous with risk to arcing high voltages. I just fixed somebody's VB-3 today repairing the heater delay circuit in the power supply, but that's only because I knew where to look for the problem.

I treat the VB amps as a piece of history. The tech is there for lightweight tube amps, but if there is little market demand that's exactly what they will be.

 

[agedhorse]

This is where I discussed the VB-3 and VB-MA with SMPS.

https://www.talkbass.com/threads/poll-thread-idea-ginormous-tube-amps.1625989/page-4#post-27886029

Peavey was the only company who had the balls in 2007 to innovate with the SMPS. They are also the only company, if they had the balls today who could release an SMPS power tube amp with the least amount of overhead.

For other amp companies, there are high R&D costs, UL rating tests, and other ancillary costs. Peavey is the only company who has the approved designs for UL with the VB amps. They already paid for those. No other company would have the moxy to release an SMPS amp due to economics.

Unfortunately today's market would not bode very well for a high-powered tube amplifier.

Another detractor, many techs lack the ability/knowledge to service an SMPS at the component level. They don't understand it, plus it's dangerous with risk to arcing high voltages. I just fixed somebody's VB-3 today repairing the heater delay circuit in the power supply, but that's only because I knew where to look for the problem.

I treat the VB amps as a piece of history. The tech is there for lightweight tube amps, but if there is little market demand that's exactly what they will be.

I don't think you quite understand how safety and EMC compliance works...

1. The safety certification would have been to the 60065 class safety standard, this is no longer acceptable today. Therefore, a new product would need to be designed and tested to the new standard 62368 class which is more stringent in some power supply specific areas.

2. Quite a few of the parts used in the original design are now obsolete and unavailable (in production quantities). This means that new parts must be used which will require a new, updated design, plus new safety and EMC compliance testing.

All the money that was invested in compliance testing in 2007 (ish) is now water under the bridge. The cost of swimming in the regulatory compliance pool is very, very significant for custom SMPS products.

I had an approved SMPS design (used in the NeoPak) that could have easily been migrated to a higher voltage suitable for a tube power amp, but there simply wasn't ever the interest in the marketplace, Peavey proved this to all of us. Looking at my experience in regulatory, plus the lack of interest by the customers and I wouldn't go there now either.

 

[bassguitarist85]

I don't think you quite understand how safety and EMC compliance works...

1. The safety certification would have been to the 60065 class safety standard, this is no longer acceptable today. Therefore, a new product would need to be designed and tested to the new standard 62368 class which is more stringent in some power supply specific areas.

2. Quite a few of the parts used in the original design are now obsolete and unavailable (in production quantities). This means that new parts must be used which will require a new, updated design, plus new safety and EMC compliance testing.

All the money that was invested in compliance testing in 2007 (ish) is now water under the bridge. The cost of swimming in the regulatory compliance pool is very, very significant for custom SMPS products.

I had an approved SMPS design (used in the NeoPak) that could have easily been migrated to a higher voltage suitable for a tube power amp, but there simply wasn't ever the interest in the marketplace, Peavey proved this to all of us. Looking at my experience in regulatory, plus the lack of interest by the customers and I wouldn't go there now either.

Damn, too bad about all that. Just goes back to what we discussed awhile back about the economics of an SMPS tube amp, it's not practical in today's market. The regulatory stuff you mention reminds me of a project I was working on with the American Association of Railroads with restricted commodities. The rules kept changing till the project was scrapped, too much cost for little ROI.

Cheers bud!

 

[J Wilson]

This reminds me of Jay Leno's experience as a MacLaren F1 owner: While he and his staff are more than able to see to the mechanical needs of owning and operating this uber-classic, it has some onboard computers: MacLaren has to send a guy from the UK with an ancient Commodore computer as it's the only thing, all these years later, which still is compatible with the onboard electronics, there are no updates into modern MS or Apple that they can use.

 

[ardgedee]

MacLaren has to send a guy from the UK with an ancient Commodore computer as it's the only thing, all these years later, which still is compatible with the onboard electronics, there are no updates into modern MS or Apple that they can use.

There can be -- Commodore computers are some of the platforms that emulation developers have spent the most focus on (probably second only to Nintendo consoles) Gamers are a ruthless lot and demand replications of old systems with accuracy so high that even the original hardwares' flaws are perfectly emulated. In addition the C-64 and some versions of the Amiga have even had limited edition hardware replicas made in modernized forms. You can boot up a Commodore 64 in your web browser right now - it's a faithful replica and will even work on your phone.

The current problems are partly the physical ports tended to use proprietary connectors and communicate directly with the CPU, which becomes a challenge when the computer itself is virtual (and probably something you don't want to halfass when tuning the engine of a car that costs more than a San Francisco condo). And the other problem is the obvious one, that the old systems will get older and older, never modernized, forever dependent on enthusiasts (who themselves will get old, tired of working on it, and eventually later generations will have no interest) rather than having the currency necessary to be maintained.

so, basically: not an insurmountable problem, but if it's economically infeasible for a company making cars routinely priced in the seven digits, it's probably not going to happen.

 

[gtirard]

There can be -- Commodore computers are some of the platforms that emulation developers have spent the most focus on (probably second only to Nintendo consoles) Gamers are a ruthless lot and demand replications of old systems with accuracy so high that even the original hardwares' flaws are perfectly emulated. In addition the C-64 and some versions of the Amiga have even had limited edition hardware replicas made in modernized forms. You can boot up a Commodore 64 in your web browser right now - it's a faithful replica and will even work on your phone.

The current problems are partly the physical ports tended to use proprietary connectors and communicate directly with the CPU, which becomes a challenge when the computer itself is virtual (and probably something you don't want to halfass when tuning the engine of a car that costs more than a San Francisco condo). And the other problem is the obvious one, that the old systems will get older and older, never modernized, forever dependent on enthusiasts (who themselves will get old, tired of working on it, and eventually later generations will have no interest) rather than having the currency necessary to be maintained.

so, basically: not an insurmountable problem, but if it's economically infeasible for a company making cars routinely priced in the seven digits, it's probably not going to happen.

I love how this thread opens up larger perspective

 

[GMSweet]

A question out of ignorance, but still related to the TT ponderings. Without venturing into the hi-power bass amp range, could one of the existing tube Boogie power plants be retrofitted with the TT frontend?

For example, take the tweaked TT channel that comes from this brainstorming session and mount it into a Badlander or Rectifier 100 (in Bronco Orange please). Would the power supply be sufficient for the extra low octave of information? As to how many would buy a ~$2,800 100-watt bass amp, I couldn't hazard a guess other than not many. It's more at the "could" part of Jeff Goldblum's equation rather than then "should" portion.

I'm mentally referencing the old Ampeg V4/V4B I had back in the early 90's. That 100 watts through a 2x15 (JBLs) was really all I needed until I went power crazy. I sold and traded more gear out of ignorance than I should've.

 

[LSM07]

I don't think you quite understand how safety and EMC compliance works...

1. The safety certification would have been to the 60065 class safety standard, this is no longer acceptable today. Therefore, a new product would need to be designed and tested to the new standard 62368 class which is more stringent in some power supply specific areas.

2. Quite a few of the parts used in the original design are now obsolete and unavailable (in production quantities). This means that new parts must be used which will require a new, updated design, plus new safety and EMC compliance testing.

All the money that was invested in compliance testing in 2007 (ish) is now water under the bridge. The cost of swimming in the regulatory compliance pool is very, very significant for custom SMPS products.

I had an approved SMPS design (used in the NeoPak) that could have easily been migrated to a higher voltage suitable for a tube power amp, but there simply wasn't ever the interest in the marketplace, Peavey proved this to all of us. Looking at my experience in regulatory, plus the lack of interest by the customers and I wouldn't go there now either.

Have major artists ever expressed interest to you about SMPS amps? It feels like an SVT or Super Bassman that was ~30lbs would be a hit for obvious reasons, which makes me surprised that they aren't more common or at least more in demand.

 

[agedhorse]

A question out of ignorance, but still related to the TT ponderings. Without venturing into the hi-power bass amp range, could one of the existing tube Boogie power plants be retrofitted with the TT frontend?

For example, take the tweaked TT channel that comes from this brainstorming session and mount it into a Badlander or Rectifier 100 (in Bronco Orange please). Would the power supply be sufficient for the extra low octave of information? As to how many would buy a ~$2,800 100-watt bass amp, I couldn't hazard a guess other than not many. It's more at the "could" part of Jeff Goldblum's equation rather than then "should" portion.

I'm mentally referencing the old Ampeg V4/V4B I had back in the early 90's. That 100 watts through a 2x15 (JBLs) was really all I needed until I went power crazy. I sold and traded more gear out of ignorance than I should've.

It could, but in reality it would result in an expensive amp that sells in low volume with all the regulatory costs associated with the tube amps. The problem remains trying to sell a $3k amp to players who have mostly moved on from that type of amp.

Have major artists ever expressed interest to you about SMPS amps? It feels like an SVT or Super Bassman that was ~30lbs would be a hit for obvious reasons, which makes me surprised that they aren't more common or at least more in demand.

Not much. The cost would be even higher than a conventional tube amp model which kind of kills the concept.

 

[gtirard]

Not much. The cost would be even higher than a conventional tube amp model which kind of kills the concept.

I already mentioned Jad Freer Volta, indeed very light for a 200w tube. But very pricey too. I don't know if it doesn't sell well because it's pricey, or if it's pricey because the demand is low, but you get the idea.

 

[agedhorse]

I already mentioned Jad Freer Volta, indeed very light for a 200w tube. But very pricey too. I don't know if it doesn't sell well because it's pricey, or if it's pricey because the demand is low, but you get the idea.

Could also be both simultaneously?

 

[GMSweet]

It could, but in reality it would result in an expensive amp that sells in low volume with all the regulatory costs associated with the tube amps. The problem remains trying to sell a $3k amp to players who have mostly moved on from that type of amp.

I figured as much. A niche portion of an already niche market which puts it more into a collector's item instead of bass player's tool. Move to where the market is and is going, rather than where we've been. I know I would want one, but even though I could afford it, I couldn't see me buying one.

 

[agedhorse]

I figured as much. A niche portion of an already niche market which puts it more into a collector's item instead of bass player's tool. Move to where the market is and is going, rather than where we've been. I know I would want one, but even though I could afford it, I couldn't see me buying one.

I’ve come up with a lot of cool, unique product ideas that made no commercial sense, I have a file cabinet full of them! Knowing which ones not to pursue is an art unto itself.

 

[joel the bass player]

Gonna go out on a limb here, but picture this:
A Subway 8x10 that can climb stairs on its own.

 

[Passinwind]

There can be -- Commodore computers are some of the platforms that emulation developers have spent the most focus on (probably second only to Nintendo consoles) Gamers are a ruthless lot and demand replications of old systems with accuracy so high that even the original hardwares' flaws are perfectly emulated. In addition the C-64 and some versions of the Amiga have even had limited edition hardware replicas made in modernized forms. You can boot up a Commodore 64 in your web browser right now - it's a faithful replica and will even work on your phone.

The current problems are partly the physical ports tended to use proprietary connectors and communicate directly with the CPU, which becomes a challenge when the computer itself is virtual (and probably something you don't want to halfass when tuning the engine of a car that costs more than a San Francisco condo). And the other problem is the obvious one, that the old systems will get older and older, never modernized, forever dependent on enthusiasts (who themselves will get old, tired of working on it, and eventually later generations will have no interest) rather than having the currency necessary to be maintained.

so, basically: not an insurmountable problem, but if it's economically infeasible for a company making cars routinely priced in the seven digits, it's probably not going to happen.

Yep. I am currently beta testing a new "digital bucket brigade" emulator chip for a company that specializes in keeping legacy designs going. It comes with all the classic flaws, but by offering an optional more hifi experience when desired that company is hedging their bets on market longevity, and firmware updates in the field to implement new features over time are a feasible thing. Basically a digital black box that looks analog for all control functions and requires zero programming experience, which I think is pretty cool. Other testers are concentrating on old school analog multitap delays, but I wanted noiseless stereo panning and depth via pedal control, which is trivially easy on my end now that I've done the needed firmware upgrade. Dunno if all this is actually commercially viable, but apparently the first production units are in-process and my prototype board's form factor will be obsolete within weeks. Interesting to see how this all works, and as Andy says knowing what ideas are even worth running with is a huge part of the picture.

 

[gtirard]

Gonna go out on a limb here, but picture this:
A Subway 8x10 that can climb stairs on its own.

Well this is more realistic. Not a Subway, but a 22,5 Kg - 49,6 lbs 810.
But modern cabs are so efficient that nobody would really need to be that loud. The only reason to buy this would be for the "look, mine is bigger" effect. And if that's the need, you can buy a 212 or a 410 and add a cartboard fake cab just for the look

 

[joel the bass player]

Well this is more realistic. Not a Subway, but a 22,5 Kg - 49,6 lbs 810.
But modern cabs are so efficient that nobody would really need to be that loud. The only reason to buy this would be for the "look, mine is bigger" effect. And if that's the need, you can buy a 212 or a 410 and add a cartboard fake cab just for the look

It was always just a different feeling in front of all those speakers, high up pushing air. I've used smaller cabs for years but still think about what once was.

 

[_Some Dude]

I'm a little late. 16 pages is a lot to read through.

How interested would folks be with a Bass 400 dedicated version (no channel switching) along the lines of the WD representing the Walkabout?

Yes. One of the reasons I never bought a TT-800 was because I had no interest in two channels and didn't want to pay for a feature I wasn't going to use.

Then the question becomes what features are important/essential, what new features might be interesting to explore, what features should be avoided (other than the obvious size/weight), etc. The goal would be to see what could be done to take it beyond what it is given the changes we have seen in the music and the needs of today's player. For those would would want an exact copy, they can be bought in decent condition for less than it costs us to build one today. A new one would be in the $5k range, which is awfully expensive (to me anyway) I think.

I'm just looking for some inspiration, and what you players might want to see (and also not see). I have no idea where this might go, what it might evolve to, but I owe it to the Bass 400 to at least explore the concept.

Sag - Part of what I've dug in Mesa tube designs is the explosive power. The separation of the attack transient and the response. It gives the amp a feeling of weight as it overcomes inertia to explode. Ka....BOOM.

That said, maybe include the damping option. For those that want a Carbine-esque sledgehammer without the sag?

Voice Switch - I like that a graphic or voice control can take the amp into territory that can't really be reached with standard B/M/T controls.

As a practical alterative to a graphic EQ, I prefer the 5 position voice switch. I liked the one on the Strategy and Carbine amps (I also liked the voice control on the D800). Yes, a lot of people whined about them being mid scooped, but some of those voices produced a ferocious sound that sat in a mix well with very little tweaking of the bass/mid/treble, which free those controls up to fine tune rather than voice the amp.

In general, I never used the graphic EQ and usually left it flat. Only thing I occasionally used it for was to cut the lowest band to reduce room resonance, which is probably better accomplished with a HPF.

A Subway version of a Powerhouse cabs - With a Subway 400+ I would love a more aggressive take on the Subway cabs. Something more heavily voiced, that has the clank I prefer in a rock/metal cab.

Tube driven DI - I don't even know exactly what I mean when I say this, it's more of an idea. Devices like the REDDI or Nobel are known for having a particular quality that isn't quite present in solid state DIs. If that sort of response/bandwidth could be captured in a Subway amp's DI and fed to FOH...

I don't know if this is what you achieved with the TT-800, but it's a thought I had.

If the preamp will be configured for dirt, it might be worth considering separate DI outs designed with the idea that the soundman will mix and blend both clean and dirty DI at FOH? I don't know how this would perform practically and will defer to others experience here, and I'm not really sure how many users would benefit from this option.

I personally like the aux in/headphone out, and think the tuner out should remain standard.

Low priority request - If the USB out is retained, it'd be nice if it could provide more current than the one on my WD800 as that one is unable to power my iPad Pro. Now that iPhones no longer have a headphone out, if the USB could also be the Aux In it'd make it so I didn't need to carry around a headphone dongle and could charge my phone while practicing to songs.

The 400/plus excelled (imho) when utilized as the latter as the note envelope has a more pronounced initial peak transient. The follow on bloom had less upper harmonics and more fundamental.

Yes. This.

As a follow-up question, would a Carbine inspired amp along these lines be more or less interesting?

As a long time fan of both legacy Mesa and Subway, I would like a more aggressive Subway option.

I think someone said it earlier where the Subways were a little more refined, Strategy/Carbine were maybe too over the top, and the 400/400+ were a happy medium.

Maybe there's a way to have a user selectable response that'll satisfy all three crowds at once?