• 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.

Tech 21 VT Bass 1969 head!

No, not at all. I do sell pedals, but they do not overlap directly with Tech21's pedals, so they are not really competition; and I don't sell amps at all--which is what we're talking about.

Plus, I like the VT pedal, and have said so many times.
 
Plus, I like the VT pedal, and have said so many times.

This is key. I don't think anyone here is hating on Tech 21, and I believe the reason any of us are participating in this thread is because we are fans of Tech 21's gear. Tech 21 gets a lot of well deserved love on TB.

I think having criticism of a particular product (or in this case the product's promotion :D ) doesn't mean the product is crap. A lot of the talk here seems to be getting taken as "this amp is bad", when I think it's actually "this amp could be very popular if only..." .
 
...
The HPR 12 has a 400 watt class H amp for the low end driver and a 100 watt class AB+B for the HF driver. 500 watts

The K and KW Series share the same power amplifiers. Two Class D power amps running 500 watts each for 1000 watts continuous power and 2000 watts peak.

Why do I mention all of this? They all produce the same maximum SPL. 131 dB.

This is not to imply in any way that QSC is misrepresenting their products. ...

I will say that I seen Bob from QSC a few times on this board mention the 500w on K series treble is never going to fully used. Essentially saying "1000w" in this case is a marketing ploy.

It may be that it's just cheaper to make a 500w+500w, since the majority of amps in the world are stereo. It would probably cost more to make a 500w+100w amp configuration.

I'll also say that if I go to QSC site, read the specs, and see 131 Max SPL it is something I can believe. I'm sure they actually tested and measured it and just didn't calculate it from the driver specs. QSC has all kinds of measurements for their products. Frequency charts, polar charts, EIA Ratings - that I can believe. I can directly compare one product to another and predict how they'll work in the real world. I'll never see this with bass gear. Specs will stay unmeasured, or hidden.
 
This is key. I don't think anyone here is hating on Tech 21, and I believe the reason any of us are participating in this thread is because we are fans of Tech 21's gear. Tech 21 gets a lot of well deserved love on TB.

I think having criticism of a particular product (or in this case the product's promotion :D ) doesn't mean the product is crap. A lot of the talk here seems to be getting taken as "this amp is bad", when I think it's actually "this amp could be very popular if only..." .

+1

I think most of the people here who are complaining about "haters" don't realize that the people critiquing the pedal (for the most part) are fans of the VT pedal and Tech21. We want to see Tech21 do well, and that's why we are offering our critiques.
 
Then please explain what you meant by saying that "analog" amps sound great with their power section driven into heavy clipping, because they don't have limiters. Because that's just false.

I don't recall where I said that "all" analog amps sound great with their power sections driven into heavy clipping. I do recall saying that "our" power amps are designed so that when pushed beyond their rms limit will clip in a "musical" way. Our amp was designed in house to do that. Most amps used for sound reinforcement applications are designed for full range systems and are not designed for guitar or bass amplification specifically. Full range systems by their very nature will not work well with any amplifier that is clipping whether it be solid state, tube or digital. You will more than likely fry the high frequency drivers. We don't build our cabs with tweeters for this very reason.


I will say that I seen Bob from QSC a few times on this board mention the 500w on K series treble is never going to fully used. Essentially saying "1000w" in this case is a marketing ploy.

It may be that it's just cheaper to make a 500w+500w, since the majority of amps in the world are stereo. It would probably cost more to make a 500w+100w amp configuration.

I'll also say that if I go to QSC site, read the specs, and see 131 Max SPL it is something I can believe. I'm sure they actually tested and measured it and just didn't calculate it from the driver specs. QSC has all kinds of measurements for their products. Frequency charts, polar charts, EIA Ratings - that I can believe. I can directly compare one product to another and predict how they'll work in the real world. I'll never see this with bass gear. Specs will stay unmeasured, or hidden.


Not to keep dragging QSC into this but my point was more about why to get the same SPL and coverage out of similar sets of speakers the cabs that are using digital amps seem to require more power than their analog counterparts. Also as a consumer if I buy 1 cab rated at 500 watts and another rated at 1000 watts should I expect one do be louder than the other? These are specifications from the same manufacturer.
 
Not to keep dragging QSC into this but my point was more about why to get the same SPL and coverage out of similar sets of speakers the cabs that are using digital amps seem to require more power than their analog counterparts.

I still don't see how this is making the point, when you can get digital amps that are as loud as your 300 watt analog amp (even if it takes more watts) at the same price point that weigh a third of what the Landmark 300 and 1969 do.

In my opinion (and it's just my opinion) you need to make a monster power amp to put into your Landmark and 1969 amps. If you could do an amp that sounds as good as your Landmark amps (and I'm sure your 1969 will sound) with the power section of an amp like the Mesa M-9 (also a 2 rackspace amp) you'd have people drooling. While a certain faction of bassists just like the extremely lightweight digital amps and aren't looking at heavier fare these days, there are still people happy with analog amps and their accompanying weight if they give them the wattage they need. The M-9 (for example) has a lot of fans on here and in general, despite not being a 7 lb. digital amp. I'm sure you could crack that market too with a more powerful (and similarly weighing) amp as these.
 
I don't recall where I said that "all" analog amps sound great with their power sections driven into heavy clipping.
It seems we went through this wattage thing a couple of months ago. ... there is no limiter circuit as there is in most digital amps so the power section of the VT Bass head is running wide open. It was designed so that even if the amp is run to the point of clipping it will behave like an overdriven tube amp and this increases your usable power. Just like a Marshall 100 watt tube guitar amp is rated at 100 watts clean it can run at 200 watts when distorted.
I don't believe I said a Digital or class D amp had any inherent problem. It was more of an explanation of the difference between a conventional solid state power amp and one that is using a switching power supply. ...We chose to use our power amp because ...It is not a PA amp with a limiter circuit in it. This is why it can deal with the peaking transients that a bass guitar will produce.
The difference between an analog amp and a digital amp in terms of power is that a digital amp cannot exceed it's rated output as digital distortion is completely unusable. This is why digital amps have built in limiters.
Tech21 website said:
Equipped with 300 analog watts, these heads will turn yours. The difference is that analog watts are real world power output (RMS) with peak transients typically twice as high. Class D wattage is generally quoted at the peak transient number, say 500 watts, but in reality, one is playing at about half that for most of the gig.

Can you maybe understand where I'd get the idea that you are trying to get consumers to buy into the idea that "analog" doesn't suffer from all the failings of "solid state", and that the complaints people have traditionally had about solid state, your company is now trying to pin on "digital"?

Does it not bother you to know that most solid-state analog amps also contain limiters?
Most amps used for sound reinforcement applications are designed for full range systems and are not designed for guitar or bass amplification specifically. Full range systems by their very nature will not work well with any amplifier that is clipping whether it be solid state, tube or digital. You will more than likely fry the high frequency drivers. We don't build our cabs with tweeters for this very reason.
What on earth does that have to do with your amp versus others?
Not to keep dragging QSC into this but my point was more about why to get the same SPL and coverage out of similar sets of speakers the cabs that are using digital amps seem to require more power than their analog counterparts.
You have not demonstrated any such thing. I'm sorry, you just haven't. You also haven't shown what your point had to do with QSC versus any other brand--including Tech21. If you want to make a valid point, you have to compare apples with apples, and eliminate variables.

Here's what a reasonably credible claim from Tech21 could sound like: "our specially designed power section sounds powerful and musical when driven into clipping, unlike many other solid state amps". Reading that, I would be very interested in checking out your amp, and maybe buying it.

But all this other business about your analog rocket monster and how it is different because it doesn't have a limiter "like digital amps do" is extremely misleading, and a huge turnoff.

Stick with the credible, we'll respect you in the morning.
 
My job here is not to sell our products. I'm here to provide information, correct misinformation and help anyone that may be having issues with any of our products.

It seems some have taken offense to the term analog watts. The truth is digital amps have limiters and this is no secret. Many sound reinforcement solid state amps do as well. Our new amp is conservatively rated at 300 watts rms. To do a direct comparison you would need to compare our amp with a 300 watt rms digital amp. If you slap your bass hard, this will create a transient that in our amp could be a short burst of 600 watts and it will still sound musical. The same sound going through the digital amp will engage the limiter and you will not exceed the rated output. The bottom line really comes down to SPL level and that figure is also very dependent on your speaker system.

The most important factor of your rig is ultimately the "tone." That should always be your starting point. What sounds the best to you. When it comes to being loud enough everyone will have a different set of requirements and usually most of us have a few different rigs for different applications. If our new amp sounds like it might be for you, just try it.

Cheers.
 
The most important factor of your rig is ultimately the "tone." That should always be your starting point. What sounds the best to you. When it comes to being loud enough everyone will have a different set of requirements and usually most of us have a few different rigs for different applications. If our new amp sounds like it might be for you, just try it.

Cheers.

Problem is, if the amp isn't loud enough to be heard, it sounding good is no help.

This thread inspired me to revisit the Landmark 300. I played with it for a couple hours last night. That is a killer sounding amp, full of good rock tones I really dig. The heartbreak is it just isn't loud enough for my needs. I wish it was. That much good tone in two rack spaces makes me pretty happy, but it's just not loud enough to get me where I need to go.