Pondering Some New Ideas, Need Some Input

[lug]

The one thing that surprised on my current cheapass amp was the built-in tuner. I didn't consider it had any importance at all but find I love having it on live gigs since I like bass -> amp -> speakers and nothing else when going live. KISS principle.

 

[agedhorse]

I like the idea of being able to buy any of the amplifiers front end section in a preamp form, but I think that there may be limitations to this concept. For example if there was a WD preamp in a box and I plugged it into my D800 would it be possible to emulate the WD800 output circuitry variable damping control? That would be a real trick if it could be done.

On a different note, if control panel real estate limits features, why not make some features operable by my iPhone? A multi-band graphic EQ for example. I say this not knowing if I would actually want this feature myself. The D800 is the newest amplifier I own, and some of my other amplifiers were made way before 1967, so I can live without any new-fangled phone app controls on an amplifier, but lets face it, this kind of technology is not going away. I'm just spit-balling an R&D idea on this one.

In my opinion, the MG-800 has a wider range of tonal options than the D-350, and that's coming from somebody who really likes the D-350 he uses almost daily

In response to: "I'm after a small, quiet (like the genzler) amp", the D-350 fits the bill perfectly, even a little better than an MG350 or 800 could.

I feel a Subway 800 series amp could command a stage more confidently than a D-350 given the two 350w/8Ohm cabs proposed and have capacity to add a third cab later if ever necessary. I believe the D800+ is making lots of people happy.

My solution has been a stack of two D-350, but OP mentioned import pricing being a constraint.

The damping control is not part of the preamp, it’s power amp based.

App based features are problematic to support on products with a 30+ year expected lifespan. Nobody’s crystal ball is good enough to predict compatibility for even 5-10 years at this point.

 

[Passinwind]

@agedhorse : glad to see you stepping out of regulatory "happiness" for a bit, that can't be any fun. My bosses in my old day job in fisheries science had to do way too much of that, it really wore them down over the years.

 

[DJ Bebop]

Cool
This is the third time I got to see an amp being developed by @agedhorse in conjunction with the communities input!

Good times

 

[mikewalker]

...

There is the Ampeg V-4B but respectfully, it's not that great and it's made in China. There is the Orange AD-200, which could be an option...but I think Mesa Boogie could hit this type of head out of the park....

Indeed I agree that a new 100W all-tube Mesa bass amp would be a Beautiful Thing. I have employed a 100W Mesa Mk.IIB to good effect as a studio / rehearsals bass amp. But in the current 100W bass tube head market, don't forget the Traynor!

 

[Wisebass]

Hi Andy

long, tedious and mind numbing regulatory projects

Welcome to Europe! I am really sorry for the mess!

I got asked quite a few times about revisiting the Bass 400/400+ concept except in a lighter weight package.

Make it the Bass 40/ 40 +

All tubes! Can be run without a cab. Post power amp D.I.

Advertise that your clients actually don't have to send it back to get the "humbuster" mod after it was sold.

so maybe it was a feature that made more sense back then than today?

Back then everybody had a casette player, an amp and a 8 band EQ in the car!

12 band at home with the Hifi stereo..
And nearly everybody was using it the wrong way!

Of course it made sense then! Because some of us actually knew how to use it!

But it doesn't make any sense at all today! (not in a bass amp) IMO!


How to get that 400/ 400+ sound without the EQ?

A pre shape switch (or two) that get you the "classic" sounds combined with...

Well that's your job!


In a more and more ampless scene, I would certainly also like to see a pedal pre that can do

a good job for compressed tube sounds, in combination with a filter (HPF/ cab sim combined?)


greetings

wise(b)ass

 

[MCF]

Indeed I agree that a new 100W all-tube Mesa bass amp would be a Beautiful Thing. I have employed a 100W Mesa Mk.IIB to good effect as a studio / rehearsals bass amp. But in the current 100W bass tube head market, don't forget the Traynor!

I’ve gone back and forth about the Traynor. They started at $699 when they came out in ‘20. They’re now $1059. And somewhat difficult to get here given the lack of dealers. But I still think I want one. Unless MESA was to do one which I’ll be shocked if that ever happens.

 

[agedhorse]

I had a chat this morning with Randy and Doug about this, and since Randy designed the original Bass 400 we discussed the graphic eq in the context of the original design.

It turns out that the original amps did not have the GEQ, it was an added factory option based on the Mark guitar amps that also used the feature. In later versions a band was also added. Back in the day, the speaker cabinets were NOTHING like what we have today in terms of frequency response and voicing. The best of the best were using either D/K-140's or EVM's and while these were reasonably flat to the time, yet neither had good low frequency extension. Additionally they had emphasized mid voicings that helped make up for lack of volume. The GEQ was a valuable tool to help overcome (or at least mask) the limitations of the era. Most players were in fact using the equivalent of glorified guitar speakers, and the EQ could be used to cut some of the huge mid peaks that these speakers generated.

It turns out that a lot of our players bypass the EQ, especially when playing modern cabinets because it's not as necessary as back in the day.

 

[Hoochie Coochie Man]

"Advertise that your clients actually don't have to send it back to get the "humbuster" mod after it was sold."

Ouch!

(Edit to add that I own a PF50T and it is one of my favorites).

 

[JimmyThunder]

I recall somebody here mentioning those synergy amps where you can swap modules….markbass had a similar idea years ago and I don’t know why it wasn’t more popular. Momark it was

Because it was a fun concept but almost pointless execution. You choose between solid state or tube preamps, which are very similar, and then choose how many EQ knobs you prefer (or sliders). There's no reason to swap modules unless you want to try the other preamp or get more knobs than you had. They were so close...an effects module would have made all the difference.

But their "no knobs" EQ module was the key to building my minimalist dream amp.

 

[sunbeast]

I had a chat this morning with Randy and Doug about this, and since Randy designed the original Bass 400 we discussed the graphic eq in the context of the original design.

It turns out that the original amps did not have the GEQ, it was an added factory option based on the Mark guitar amps that also used the feature. In later versions a band was also added. Back in the day, the speaker cabinets were NOTHING like what we have today in terms of frequency response and voicing. The best of the best were using either D/K-140's or EVM's and while these were reasonably flat to the time, yet neither had good low frequency extension. Additionally they had emphasized mid voicings that helped make up for lack of volume. The GEQ was a valuable tool to help overcome (or at least mask) the limitations of the era. Most players were in fact using the equivalent of glorified guitar speakers, and the EQ could be used to cut some of the huge mid peaks that these speakers generated.

It turns out that a lot of our players bypass the EQ, especially when playing modern cabinets because it's not as necessary as back in the day.

I suspect many of us 400/+ lovers probably aren’t/weren’t using it in quite the fashion that Randy designed it for (which I would guess was fat, clean, clear). I used mine with a Bergantino NV610 (basically his upgraded take on the sealed Ampeg 810 design) about 90% of the time and that combination with the EQ shift switches on definitely made for a very mid-forward tone, but in the best way possible to my ears. I also occasionally used it with a Mesa RR215 and it also killed (unfortunately that wasn’t my cab). The TT on the other hand was much smoother and mildly scooped to my ears through the same cab at pretty much all settings. I suspect a combo of the passive EQ of the 400 with a few bands of semi-parametric EQ like the WD800 could achieve some of what was missing to my ears in the TT. Then again I also accept that what I liked was maybe not the “norm” from those amps!

 

[Wasnex]

I had a chat this morning with Randy and Doug about this, and since Randy designed the original Bass 400 we discussed the graphic eq in the context of the original design.

It turns out that the original amps did not have the GEQ, it was an added factory option based on the Mark guitar amps that also used the feature. In later versions a band was also added. Back in the day, the speaker cabinets were NOTHING like what we have today in terms of frequency response and voicing. The best of the best were using either D/K-140's or EVM's and while these were reasonably flat to the time, yet neither had good low frequency extension. Additionally they had emphasized mid voicings that helped make up for lack of volume. The GEQ was a valuable tool to help overcome (or at least mask) the limitations of the era. Most players were in fact using the equivalent of glorified guitar speakers, and the EQ could be used to cut some of the huge mid peaks that these speakers generated.

It turns out that a lot of our players bypass the EQ, especially when playing modern cabinets because it's not as necessary as back in the day.

(officially) First Mesa Amp

Supposedly closely related to Fender Showman. Not sure if the D180 came next.

I know the graphic was optional with the D180.

I don't remember ever seeing an image of a 400 or 400+ sans graphic.

We did discuss this amp a few years back and theorized it was either a prototype or interim model between the D180 and 400

The circuit cards in this amp look more like the D180 cards to me.

We also discussed this amp

The circuit card appears to be the same card used in the 400.

This is from a mid-production 400. Notice the card is labeled BassMaster.

BassMaster images from this thread: https://www.talkbass.com/threads/is-this-a-mesa-d-180-a-bassmaster-400-or-a-hybrid.1462218/

Yes, some players don't use graphic. I would be surprised if it's the majority. I also get the idea that many don't use the graphic for what I consider a misguided reason that will not be relevant in a modern hybrid; essentially they are "tube purist" and avoid the graphic because it is solid state. This is self-reported rather than my assessment.

Regardless of the original intent, my belief is the graphics in these amps are not particularly transparent or HiFi. That's why I think they are an important part of the amp's tonal range and voice. I don't find the graphics in these amps particularly useful for compensating for room acoustics or speaker limitations. However, I do find them useful for massaging the basic voice of the amps.

IMHO the tone without the graphic is good but not really special. If I were asked to choose between my AD200B and 400, and told I could not use the graphic, I would probably choose the AD200B. The AD200B sounds just a touch better. If allowed to use the graphic, I would choose the 400. Some gentle tweaks on the 400 gives a slightly more desirable tone.

I do agree that graphics are pretty much passe and don't belong on a modern Subway hybrid. It's a bit of a dilemma as I generally don't like presets. I use the flat voice on my M9. I do find it necessary to use voice 2 on the Strategy. Oddly, the Strategy's flat voice rolls off the lows prematurely (see following graphic).

From BGM Strategy Amp Lab

 

[agedhorse]

These Bass 400's are all similar preamps, the power amps were more different. The D-180 preamp was different.

There were Bass 400 (not 400+) models without graphic eq, this note is directly from the manual:

The production history is not crystal clear, this was 40 years ago, but in general it was:

1982-1985 - ~680 D-180's built, most did not have GEQ but there were later versions that did have a 6 band graphic. Serial numbers all contain the D prefix

1985-1989 - ~1200 Bass 400's built, the earlier ones were built into left over D-180 chassis (they were very expensive chassis), many of the earlier ones did not have the GEQ (in part because there were surplus faceplates that were not punched for them), but like the D-180 they were available both ways. At some point later in the production cycle, the non-graphic version may have gone away, but the schematic shows the option being available through the end of production. Serial numbers all contain the B prefix even those that used the D-180 chassis.

1989-1990- ~ 475 Bass 400+'s built using the 6 band graphic. This was the shift away from 6 x 6550's to 12 x 6L6. Serial numbers all contain the B prefix, no breakout for the plus version

1990-2009- ~4000 Bass 400+'s built using the 7 band graphic, this was by far the most popular model, also using the B serial number prefix.

The BassMaster model designator was used on the earlier Bass 400's, starting with the D-180 faceplates but in spite of the internet claiming only 25 "rare, vintage" BassMasters were ever built, we are all pretty sure there were quite a few more than that. The name was then shortened to Bass 400.

 

[ardgedee]

It turns out that a lot of our players bypass the EQ, especially when playing modern cabinets because it's not as necessary as back in the day.

That brings up a point that I haven't seen discussed yet: to what extent are you trying to reach players who want to sound traditional (straight out of Motown or a mid-70s guitar jam), relative to players who are more interested in finding never before heard sounds?

 

[Hoochie Coochie Man]

That brings up a point that I haven't seen discussed yet: to what extent are you trying to reach players who want to sound traditional (straight out of Motown or a mid-70s guitar jam), relative to players who are more interested in finding never before heard sounds?

Or both. Why not?

 

[J Wilson]

This is way past my pay grade, but I would hope, Andy, that you NEVER go 1/8" headphone/aux in jacks. For me they are a quick trip to the plugs that size getting snapped right off, and real/pro headphones are always 1/4".

I'd also clock in for an onboard tuner. And I'm still a sucker for the under/good/overload input LED's on the original Trace preamps.

Thanks,

JW

 

[U4EA]

Mesa was regarded as a tube amp manufacturer in my eyes and now there's none. They should at least have one offering, now it's all class D. Wonderful selection of amps the Subway offers as I own and have owned different models and I think the Boogie already covers the 400 series.
I think Mesa should re introduce a tube amp resembling the Prodigy with reliable tubes, scaleable from 50 to 250 watts, tone selector for 400 series with grunt or clean, Carbine voiced/slam, Phat voicing ,Blend distortion / overdrive voicings from deep and dark to bright and sheer, hpf. Make it very tweekable more so than the prodigy for voicing and 2 ohm capable for scaling preferences. Please and thank you.

 

[agedhorse]

Or both. Why not?

This is a good point, I have always been known to design (for the most part) fairly versatile amps because one trick pony amps tend to have a limited shelf life before they are no longer fresh and relevant. For example, the Shuttle and Streamliner amps are still relevant and current today even though they were designed 15-20 years ago.

 

[agedhorse]

This is way past my pay grade, but I would hope, Andy, that you NEVER go 1/8" headphone/aux in jacks. For me they are a quick trip to the plugs that size getting snapped right off, and real/pro headphones are always 1/4".
Thanks,

JW

Good point, I have ALWAYS favored 1/4" jacks for aux in and headphone out because there is no practical way to ruggedize 1/8" jacks/plugs in a way that they will last 20+ years on the road. For a product with a 3 year shelf life it's probably not a big deal but... we offer a 5 year warranty and expect to see these amps out there for 20-30+ years. It's a lot cheaper to replace an adapter than the jack on the amp.

Mesa was regarded as a tube amp manufacturer in my eyes and now there's none. They should at least have one offering, now it's all class D. Wonderful selection of amps the Subway offers as I own and have owned different models and I think the Boogie already covers the 400 series.
I think Mesa should re introduce a tube amp resembling the Prodigy with reliable tubes, scaleable from 50 to 250 watts, tone selector for 400 series with grunt or clean, Carbine voiced/slam, Phat voicing ,Blend distortion / overdrive voicings from deep and dark to bright and sheer, hpf. Make it very tweekable more so than the prodigy for voicing and 2 ohm capable for scaling preferences. Please and thank you.

I have certainly looked at this several times, but until we have a better picture of what the longer term outlook for power tubes (specifically 6550's) is, I'm reluctant to stick my neck out very far, and those above me respect my concern. Doesn't mean that it won't happen though, it all depends.

 

[chazsundance]

I'd love to see a new 400 but IMO the simpler the better. 400 along with BB750 revamp would be excellent.