• 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.

Tech 21 lost their minds?

#81
MDBass said:
We get it, you won't be buying one ;)

I don't personally feel that gas should cost much more than $1 per gallon, but according to the market it does...

If these features are what a consumer wants, the only way to build it is to make it significantly larger, ~5U, and STILL more expensive. The only way to build it cheaper is to totally change some of the parameters (leaving out the compressor, using pedals instead of the more fully featured rack units, etc.), and it will still be larger.

I won't be spending $1800 on it either, but that doesn't mean that it's priced incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Aww dangit! Reverse psychology is going to make me want to buy it now!! ;)

Yes, which I agree with. If it works for somebody then great, not making a blanket statement for everyone with my posts, just saying why I don't feel it works for me. This apparently offends some.


I bet you won't with your sweet endorsement discount! I may buy you a few drinks and "trade" some cash for a few Tech 21 pedals you may "come across" if I'm in LA ;)

Good company to have a relationship with, I'd love to do the same someday.
 
#82
You're reading a lot into this. I'm not worked up, and I have no interest in the amp, and as such have no dog in the fight.

You're assigning all of these extra variables to make your point, and I'm trying to keep it to only what's essential to the OP: The price is only out of line if you can build a comparable system with the same feature set for less money. As of yet, no one has shown that that's possible, so I disagree with the OP and others saying that the cost is out of line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thisguy, MDBass and AndyLES
#83
KevInDaBassment said:
I am talking about whether the cost is justified. Value is subjective, but mediocre features in a package doesn't make it superior to another route to go.
Click to expand...

How do you know any of it's features are mediocre?

How would you get this tone using pedals/whatever and how much $ would it save over buying a dUg 1000 instead? Break it down for us and make your case. :thumbsup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndyLES
#84
silky smoove said:
You're reading a lot into this. I'm not worked up, and I have no interest in the amp, and as such have no dog in the fight.

You're assigning all of these extra variables to make your point, and I'm trying to keep it to only what's essential to the OP: The price is only out of line if you can build a comparable system with the same feature set for less money. As of yet, no one has shown that that's possible, so I disagree with the OP and others saying that the cost is out of line.
Click to expand...

58564762.jpg
 
#85
I forgot to include: you're getting the entire package I described in post #61 in a "Semi-Boutique" set up, almost hand built to order by a very reputable company.

One could even make the argument that the dUg is underpriced. (I realize I forgot to include some sort of footswitching ability AND a DI in my initial breakdown, which increases the value of the dUg further, BTW)
 
#86
andrew said:
How do you know any of it's features are mediocre?

How would you get this tone using pedals/whatever and how much $ would it save over buying a dUg 1000 instead? Break it down for us and make your case. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Yes, let me go and procure an extensive personal relationship with an amp that isn't even on the market yet...just to impress you :p

I'll be sure to PM you when I have a Ph.D-level dissertation on hand using high-end audio assessment gear. I just need to procure a home loan first. Can I count on you for a reference? :D
 
#87
Crater said:
Made in America by workers paid a living wage?
Click to expand...


There you go, you get what you pay for. If you adjust for inflation that is a fair price. What makes it seem expensive is the rediculosly cheap imported gear available now.

When I was starting, in the 80's, a loaf of bread cost 1.50, cigarettes 125, milk 200, ,and fed minimum wage was about 4.00. So an 1800 amp would have cost about 6- 800 (just roughly estimating, I don't know anything about finance) . At the same time you couldn't get an Ibanez Gio for $120, brand new, I don't think you could get any thing playable for than $300.
The mac we bought to use midi cost about 1500, and equivalent tech now would cost maybe 500 (not equivalent as in processing power or memory, that would run you about $50 probably)


I hope it's a killer amp, I sure couldn't afford it, but I am glad no compromise high quality work is being put out.
 
#88
This amp isn't my cup of tea, but I'm not going to pass judgement on anyone who is happy to part with the $$$ and wants a dUg head. I'm an AxeFxII owner, and everyone knows how crazy overkill that thing is for bass guitar, both features and cost, so...what's it to ya? But since I do own the AxeFx, I've already got all the preamp tools that the dUg has...and a lot more. Of course, dUg was touted as an AxeFx guy, but I've no idea if he's using it these days. FWIW, you could probably get something reasonably close to this in a Boss GT10B ($499) and a power amp...whether it would sound as good is another question, but it would certainly be a much more flexible rig...IMHO. I would have guessed the dUg to be priced south of $1400, closer to $1200. Will be interesting to see how it sells.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andrew
#90
KevInDaBassment said:
Yes, let me go and procure an extensive personal relationship with an amp that isn't even on the market yet...just to impress you :p

I'll be sure to PM you when I have a Ph.D-level dissertation on hand using high-end audio assessment gear. I just need to procure a home loan first. Can I count on you for a reference? :D
Click to expand...

Ah, I assumed when you said it had mediocre features and you could get the same tone with pedals for much less $ you actually looked into it before letting random unsubstantiated ideas roll off your brain and into your keyboard. My bad. ;)
 
#92
Fuzzbass said:
The clips I've heard mostly feature dUg's signature tone, along with a brief demo of the clean-ish tone that also seemed processed. Perhaps this device is a lot more versatile, but it seems designed for a specialty market: bassists who want dUg/Geddy/Entwistle/Sheehan tones. Weekend warriors playing "Mustang Sally" and "Play That Funky Music" will get a lot of fancy circuitry that they will rarely if ever use. Also, the controls are pretty advanced... many young rockers will be confused/turned off by LPF, HPF, etc.
Click to expand...

That's also the impression that I get. From the YouTube demo, it sounds like a great amp, even when played by someone who's obviously not a bass player. But while I love King's X, I've never really wanted to base my whole sound around Doug Pinnick's sound. It's like Peter Steele's sound: It's awesome in the context of Type O Negative, but it really doesn't have much utility outside of that context save for maybe a select few songs any given bass player - even playing originals - may play. Based upon the voicing, the dirty channel seems like it really only has any usefulness when combined with the clean channel. It's a neat idea but one that may be much more practical and attractive to a player if it were in pedal form.

In that regard, the price tag makes sense, because as another poster said, with what will probably be low demand Tech21 can't take advantage of economies of scale.
 
#95
I gotta tell you, I was there when this amp got lit up a few times and the NAMM police must've been on the other side of the convention center. What impressed me was the thump and how warm it felt. Processed tones can tend to get a little "ice picky" to my ear especially when cranked. This amp just stayed warm as all get out while giving some of the gnarliest top end OD/distortion I've ever heard.

On another note, I did hear the amp without the two channels combined. With the mid boost up it had a nice, "normal" bass tone that I think would sit just fine in most mixes. The cool thing is, as most of you probably know, is the mid boost cuts out when you combine the two channels because you'll have your "high end" channel dialed for your mids at that point...essentially not have 2 mids competing against each other. Pretty slick if you ask me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MDBass, Fuzzbass, BrBss and 1 other person
#97
andrew said:
Ah, I assumed when you said it had mediocre features and you could get the same tone with pedals for much less $ you actually looked into it before letting random unsubstantiated ideas roll off your brain and into your keyboard. My bad. ;)
Click to expand...

Oh no, others here already asserted that my method of using pedals was sacrilege to this thread and therefore should be squelched. I didn't want to be burned at the stake, I'm rather allergic to death, bro. I can count knobs though, and 1 vs 3 knobs on a compressor does lead me to believe the options may be limited compared to something with more tweakable parameters. But hey, 3 > 1 is obviously an unsubstantiated idea...it'll never catch on ;)
 
#99
KevInDaBassment said:
I can count knobs though, and 1 vs 3 knobs on a compressor does lead me to believe the options may be limited compared to something with more tweakable parameters. But hey, 3 > 1 is obviously an unsubstantiated idea...it'll never catch on ;)
Click to expand...

Hahaha, more knobs = better.

While extra controls for the compressor would allow some other form of shaping that doesn't indicate the compressor in the amp isn't a nice sounding comp suitable to the needs of the amp just because it has one knob. None of us know one way or the other yet, including you. But I like that you're just going for it, facts be damned, it's keeping this thread entertaining. :)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back