• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Solid state/class d vs tube amps

I'm in the vast minority, but my favorite tone from an SVT is the clean tone. That amp has no problem getting CLEAN and LOUD!
Well it's a minority of at least two. I really love the clean SVT tone. :thumbsup:
You're not in the minority at all. Internet know-it-alls who never touched a tube amp in their lives like to talk out of their butts about how only players who like distortion use tube amps. While I like distortion, yes :D I use tube amps because of their awesome tubey clean sounds most of all. The inventors of these amps never dreamed anyone at all would be using distortion in their amps, even for guitar amps, and high power tube amps such as the SVT were invented to give bassists a lot of clean power. The distortion was merely an after-the-fact bonus, and the majority of tube amp users still run them clean to this day.
 
You're not in the minority at all. Internet know-it-alls who never touched a tube amp in their lives like to talk out of their butts about how only players who like distortion use tube amps. While I like distortion, yes :D I use tube amps because of their awesome tubey clean sounds most of all. The inventors of these amps never dreamed anyone at all would be using distortion in their amps, even for guitar amps, and high power tube amps such as the SVT were invented to give bassists a lot of clean power. The distortion was merely an after-the-fact bonus, and the majority of tube amp users still run them clean to this day.
Excellent post. I thought about this often. Turns out the downfall of tube technology when pushed past it's design limits sounds awesome. I think it would make for a great Phd dissertation on how this serendipity shaped modern music!
 
You're not in the minority at all. Internet know-it-alls who never touched a tube amp in their lives like to talk out of their butts about how only players who like distortion use tube amps. While I like distortion, yes :D I use tube amps because of their awesome tubey clean sounds most of all. The inventors of these amps never dreamed anyone at all would be using distortion in their amps, even for guitar amps, and high power tube amps such as the SVT were invented to give bassists a lot of clean power. The distortion was merely an after-the-fact bonus, and the majority of tube amp users still run them clean to this day.

Good to hear sanity still prevails somewhere in the music world.

On those rare occasions when I want something resembling distortion I'll stomp on a box to get it. And even then it'll be a mild OD rather than a distortion or fuzz effect. :laugh:
 
As far as built-in DIs on solid-state amps go, I haven't been overly impressed by them. When I need a DI I'll always use an external unit even though my amp has its own. But most of my gear is non-boutique and fairly old so maybe the newer internal DIs work better than the ones I'm used to seeing. I'll let somebody more familiar with the current crop of amps weigh in on whether or not they think the built-ins are now up to speed. For live use I'm sure they're probably at least adequate. In the studio however, it may be a different case.

Anybody?

It depends on the equipment, some not so good, others, very good.

For example, Neve transistorized studio equipment from the 70’s is sought after and still in production today. They used Class A transistor designs and very good transformers to make it sound as goodas it does. Solid state is the standard today for mixing desks and tape recorders. Many people use computers and software plugins to do everything digitally.

The studio is always a different story. You see people performing with a rig but you can’t assume that is how they got their sound in the studio.

As for amps with DI’s, you are right, some built in DI’s seem to be almost an afterthought. They include the feature but do it on the cheap. Some are balanced, some are not. In a lot of cases, it is sonically better to use a good external DI.
 
So, you are saying that you will not see differences in a sweep between 1% and 5% resistors regardless of the tolerance of the design? Hmmm....
Of course I don't advocate 1% all the way around. This would be foolish. Many designers don't understand that 1% resistors are favorable in some locations due to the lower thermal noise inherent in their metal film construction as opposed to the carbon film construction of 5% parts.

In most areas of the amp, no you will not see any meaningful difference unless the design is "so poor" that everything must be "perfect"... though those amps rarely if ever see the light of day because they are not stable enough for real world applications. This is especially true of complex feedback designs (not often seen in tube topologies but they do exist) There can be areas where tighter tolerances can be useful, but in general they are few and far between on a guitar or bass amp. Specifically differential or impedance balanced circuits, and circuits with lots of complex feedback like some filter topologies that can become unstable... again a poor choice for a manufactured design.

Having the screens tied to the plates is indeed what makes the Williamson output. This makes the pentodes operate more like a triode with it's inherent lower distortion.

Screen taps ala ultralinear output was not developed by Williamson, but by Blumlein in the late 30s. This returns negative feedback from the output transformer primary taps to lower distortion approaching that of a triode connection, while maintaining the higher power efficiency of the pentode.

As far as I know, most guitar amp manufacturers used a standard low impedance screen supply and only employed negative feedback from the output transformer secondary to stabilize and reduce some of the distortion produced by the output transformer.

Wait a minute here, this didn't sound right from (foggy) memory BUT I just happen to have a copy of the Williamson 1990 reprints in by bookcase and sure enough my memory was correct. All of the elements of the "Williamson design" were well established long before, all they consist of is the assemblage or optimization of these elements to make the complete amp. In fact, the most significant contribution was the global feedback extending all the way to the cathode circuit of the input stage.

With components than vary it also depends on how many and where. 1.05+0.95=2.00, 1.00+1.00=2.00, so in some applications (and I am talking generically here) then variation doesn't necessarily make a difference at all, as long as you have many components and a sensible distribution. With just two components then 1.05+1.05=2.10, which might be important, or it might not. If it's 50% variation then 1.50+1.50 might be very undesirable.

This is the basis of the statistics and distribution of tolerances that I previously mentioned

My exposure to tube bass heads is limited, but my understanding was that you need to mic a cab with them because they don't often have DIs, and if they do, they don't always capture both the power and pre amp. I was lead to believe that if you like "tube grit" you have to use a mic.
Am I wrong?

Many tube heads do in fact have DI's, some are taken post output transformer. This is not the same as micing the speaker, but is another viable option that may be better for some and not as good for others.

Negative feedback was used long before Williamson entered the scene.

It was, what set Williamson's designs apart was the combination of elements plus global feedback all the way to the input stage's cathode circuit. All of these elements were used on their own, but he appears to have put them all together first (though even that is doubtful, as a lot of the developments of the era were accomplished simultaneously by different designers).

I've had good results with DIs in the newer crop of amps - IME, Aguilar, Ampeg, and back when I played Eden amps, those DIs were very good, IMO.

Smart designers have learned a lot from earlier attempts, plus what the market was asking for. This is how improvements happen in practice.
 
You're not in the minority at all. Internet know-it-alls who never touched a tube amp in their lives like to talk out of their butts about how only players who like distortion use tube amps. While I like distortion, yes :D I use tube amps because of their awesome tubey clean sounds most of all. The inventors of these amps never dreamed anyone at all would be using distortion in their amps, even for guitar amps, and high power tube amps such as the SVT were invented to give bassists a lot of clean power. The distortion was merely an after-the-fact bonus, and the majority of tube amp users still run them clean to this day.

I loved my amps - a 100W White (apparently much like a Sound City, but more Hi Watt style trim) and a circa 80W Traynor YBA-1A. I never tried to run either dirty intentionally for bass. I tried with guitar into the YBA-1A, but had to use a very inefficient speaker to remain able to hear. The White amp I just stuck an overdrive pedal in front of.

It was the power:weight ratio I wasn't keen on. Plus the White caught fire on stage.
 
In most areas of the amp, no you will not see any meaningful difference unless the design is "so poor" that everything must be "perfect"... though those amps rarely if ever see the light of day because they are not stable enough for real world applications. This is especially true of complex feedback designs (not often seen in tube topologies but they do exist) There can be areas where tighter tolerances can be useful, but in general they are few and far between on a guitar or bass amp. Specifically differential or impedance balanced circuits, and circuits with lots of complex feedback like some filter topologies that can become unstable... again a poor choice for a manufactured design.
Drain, collector or anode load resistors came to mind when writing my last post. Constant current source biasing resistors as well. Agree on the complex feedback networks as well. Lower noise in critical areas of a circuit still remains a very good reason to go with 1%. Nice post.


Wait a minute here, this didn't sound right from (foggy) memory BUT I just happen to have a copy of the Williamson 1990 reprints in by bookcase and sure enough my memory was correct. All of the elements of the "Williamson design" were well established long before, all they consist of is the assemblage or optimization of these elements to make the complete amp. In fact, the most significant contribution was the global feedback extending all the way to the cathode circuit of the input stage.



This is the basis of the statistics and distribution of tolerances that I previously mentioned



Many tube heads do in fact have DI's, some are taken post output transformer. This is not the same as micing the speaker, but is another viable option that may be better for some and not as good for others.



It was, what set Williamson's designs apart was the combination of elements plus global feedback all the way to the input stage's cathode circuit. All of these elements were used on their own, but he appears to have put them all together first (though even that is doubtful, as a lot of the developments of the era were accomplished simultaneously by different designers).



Smart designers have learned a lot from earlier attempts, plus what the market was asking for. This is how improvements happen in practice.
 
My exposure to tube bass heads is limited, but my understanding was that you need to mic a cab with them because they don't often have DIs, and if they do, they don't always capture both the power and pre amp. I was lead to believe that if you like "tube grit" you have to use a mic.
Am I wrong?
Most modern tube amps have DIs on the back. Some are just preamp out, some are at the output transformer to capture the power section's tone as well.

My head is at least 30 years old, and has a DI (though not a very good one).

Not true and true. Since about 25-30 years ago, they almost all have DI's (Heritage B-15 and B-15N are notable exceptions, but hey...they're B-15's), though it's true that most don't capture both the pre and power amp (a handful do, though). That's easily taken care of, though...just stick a DI that does speaker level between amp and cab.


I prefer it with a mic, but when you remove the highs past 4 or 5k, tube grit through the DI can sound pretty awesome.

BTW, I should point out that not all of us like tube amps because of their grit. Some of us run them dead clean.
If someone fails to mic a B-15, they should have their sound engineer card taken away.
 
My exposure to tube bass heads is limited, but my understanding was that you need to mic a cab with them because they don't often have DIs, and if they do, they don't always capture both the power and pre amp. I was lead to believe that if you like "tube grit" you have to use a mic.
Am I wrong?

Although mic'ing a cab isn't that big a deal, another option in that situation is using a speaker level DI(Radial JDI, Countryman 85, etc...) - either way, it really isn't a deal breaker by any means...
 
I went from an SVT II Pro to a 1001RB-II in my quest for more articulation. I love my GK, but should've held onto the SVT. A couple of years ago, I picked up YBA 200-2, swapped out my AX pre tubes for ATs for a cleaner tone, and have been thoroughly digging that amp. I can eq them to sound identical tonewise, but the GK has an amazing note clarity that I haven't found in any other amp I've played through. However, in the 30 years I've been playing, I've only owned 6 amps and still have 3 of those. I use them according to the music. GK & 810 for modern rock, metal, and funk. Traynor & 215 for classic rock and reggae. I find my tube amp to be more forgiving regarding sloppiness. I love my amp options, but if I could only have 1, it'd be the GK.
 
What kind? Yes, they're a blast to play with!

A Colorsound Tone Bender Mark III, a four knob version of the Vox Tone Bender from the 60’s.

What’s turning out to be nice about this one is that there are pots that adjust the bias of the three transistors. Normally the bias is fixed. These adjustments really change the character of the sound. There’s a lot of good sounds in every little tweak. I’m going to have to sit with it for a while to get my head around it.

The one in the image below with McCartney is a two knob mark I.

2D3F762F-865D-476B-9891-2EBAC330E12B.jpeg
 
I..... swapped out my AX pre tubes for ATs for a cleaner tone, and have been thoroughly digging that amp. I can eq them to sound identical tone wise, but the GK has an amazing note clarity that I haven't found in any other amp I've played through. However, in the 30 years I've been playing, I've only owned 6 amps and still have 3 of those. I use them according to the music. GK & 810 for modern rock, metal, and funk. Traynor & 215 for classic rock and reggae. I find my tube amp to be more forgiving regarding sloppiness. I love my amp options, but if I could only have 1, it'd be the GK.
Have you tried the ever elusive AY tubes, It my understanding, they are expensive as the dickens, and have no European equivalent. AU's while replaceable probably won't do any thing for your tone.
 
A Colorsound Tone Bender Mark III, a four knob version of the Vox Tone Bender from the 60’s.

What’s turning out to be nice about this one is that there are pots that adjust the bias of the three transistors. Normally the bias is fixed. These adjustments really change the character of the sound. There’s a lot of good sounds in every little tweak. I’m going to have to sit with it for a while to get my head around it.

The one in the image below with McCartney is a two knob mark I.

View attachment 2789002
Sweet! I used to have an MXR Bass Fuzz Deluxe, which is supposed to be a Tone Bender, though I don't know which one.

I didn't know that Sir Paul had used a fuzz.
Indeed. He used that very fuzz on a song called "Think For Yourself" on Rubber Soul. There were two bass parts...one normal, one a counterpoint fuzz bass.