• 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.

The Tube Challenge

Which amp is the tube amp?

  • Amp 1

    Votes: 73 44.8%

  • Amp 2

    Votes: 90 55.2%
  • Total voters
    163
#41
I still think #1 is the tube amp...

The compression in the slapping part sounds tubey to me.

Plus the treble in the second fingerstyle line during Amp #2 sounds much more clear, and thus solid statey to me.

Edit: To the other posters, make a guess! Yes, it's fact that we'd easily be able to tell the difference in a live, high volume setting. The settings are not ideal, and thus no one is going to flame your "golden ear" if you're wrong. This thread will be much more interesting if we all weigh in opinions and back them up. It's an examination of nuances. Pretty cool, I think. I'm not trying to be abrasive, I just think it would be cool if we could set our egos aside for a minute and discuss this. Think of it less as a test of your ear and more of a test of the effectiveness of low-volume tube-emulation technology.
 
#43
Time Consumer said:
Thats exactly what I thought, but unless he warmed up the tube amp first, #1 sounds almost too "tubey" to be the tube amp.
Click to expand...

That's a good observation, I didn't think about that. That may be the x factor. I guess the fact that we can take factors like that into consideration is a plug for MarkBass! If it's too tubey to be real, they must be doing a good job (as long as the goal is to emulate tubes).
 
#46
This is interesting. Almost a 50/50 split. I think that tells us someting about the good ol' LMII:D
Can't wait to see which is which next thursday.
When you reveal that, please let us know what settings you used on the LMII. I'm guessing it was set flat with the filters off.:bassist:
 
#47
anderbass said:
I think the feel I get from using certain amps in person, is just as (or possibly more) important than any recorded samples could ever accurately convey.
Click to expand...

I agree with this man ^^

Also I will say that both recordings sound fat (or maybe I should say PH-a-t) and punchy. Thumbs up to both tones.
:bassist:

I'll take a guess and say number 1 is tube, however my computer speakers are crappy but I did turn the volume up and try to listen.
This was fun. thanks!

What kind of bass and strings are you using?
 
#48
Ok, so I voted #1 for the tube...

I agree with what's been said. Number one feels much more dynamic to me, the tone feels much more 'alive' and it seems to compress the tone like a tube amp in the slapping section.

Just as much came down to it for me... #2 sounded lifeless to my ears. Honestly, #2 was warmer, but it bored me, just like all the LMII's that I've played have. But I have also never heard in person (read as: without post production) a B-15N, however, I own a, and have played many, tube heads.

One way or the other, its close. I actually had to put thought into it, but I made my choice. Regardless, it means that I perhaps didn't give the LMII a chance, and that it obviously puts up a pretty good fight on the tube sound.
 
#49
OK, let me address a few points brought up in this thread:

The MP3's are 96K MONO, not stereo, which would represent a 192K bitrate in stereo. I personally don't feel there's a difference when I listen to both clips in either MP3 or WAV, but I'll post the WAV's in a few minutes. I made them 96K mono to save everyone from having a PITA download, but if you want the WAV's, I'll link them in the first post, so check back in a few minutes and they'll be there.

Second, my recording methods are my recording methods, and sure, we'd all love to hear a pushed tube amp breaking up and recorded with a Neumann U47, but until the price of a U47 goes down to about $300, I won't ever own one. And had I pushed the B-15 into breakup, it would have made it completely obvious which one was which. I recorded it at max volume before breakup with a well-warmed-up amp. Would you like me to give you the answers before you vote, too? ;)

So I will post the WAV files, but for the rest of the test, you're either going to have to play it as it lays or you'll have to lay out. I don't have any other options. Personally, when people complain about the recording methods or add qualifiers, I see it as a copout. The question is which is the tube amp, not how would you have recorded it to make it dead obvious which was the tube amp.

Anyhow, check back in a few whilst I go to the other computer and I'll post the WAV's. Thanks for all the interest in this poll.

BTW, the voting is dead even at this point...that means half of you are wrong ;)
 
#54
Surly said:
I agree with this man ^^

Also I will say that both recordings sound fat (or maybe I should say PH-a-t) and punchy. Thumbs up to both tones.
:bassist:

I'll take a guess and say number 1 is tube, however my computer speakers are crappy but I did turn the volume up and try to listen.
This was fun. thanks!

What kind of bass and strings are you using?
Click to expand...
Thanks Surly and others who liked the tones. I used an SX PJ copy with D'addario EXL's that are currently in the broken-in phase.

But I do have to ask Anderbass how the feel with tubes would be different in a live setting if the amps sound so much alike. Unless you're going for tubey breakup, I can't see how the amp source would affect the feel, all other things being equal of course.
 
#58
Since both are set for similar tones, they do sound pretty close, but Amp 2 is more compressed and warmer. I won't make a definite diagnosis though. It also has a MUCH more even frequency response compared to Amp 1. I reserve the right to say that an SM58 into an ART preamp is too far from being a reference source.

I know you don't like it as well, but a '57 (which you have, IIRC) would be more honest in the low end. What I hear most is the mic. An FFT analysis shows that that everything below 80Hz is just line noise. The mic isn't picking up anything down there. SM58's are specced down to 50Hz, but that drops off higher with age or abuse.

The levels on those wav files are seriously too low with an average of -25 dB for the fingerstyle and -11 dB for the peaks of the slap lines and both amps aren't even close to breaking a sweat so they're both very faithful to their source. This is a point I've been screaming here for years: tube amps are no more inherently distorted than solid state when used within their limits.

Another x-factor is that you're running a B15N expecting an 8 ohm cab into a 4 ohm cab, which shifts its entire tonal response, as the cab is "loading" the amp the same way too low an input impedance can load a pickup.

So what is my prediction? the test is far too biased to be a fair measure of either amp. I will say I like Amp 2's sound more, but since you like a more midrangey tone than me, I won't bet it's the B15.
 
#59
Hmmm, interesting about the 58 since I bought it new in 1994. I have an even older one, too. But I'll tell you, specs aside, I have AB'd these two mics with brand new ones and they all sound identical to me. I am considering getting either an EV RE 20 or a Heil PR 40, but I haven't made my mind up about which one yet. I think I might order both and send back the one that I like the least, even though I consider that a bit lame.

The levels are low because of a limitation in my recording gear. Any time the level peaks at all, the bass clips very audibly and nasty. You don't get any leeway. So I intentionally record bass quiet. I considered boosting the levels after I recorded it, but that would just raise the noise floor. In my actual recordings with bands nobody ever notices it, but this is just plain bass. So I left it as is.

And I have to say this again...this is not meant to be some scientific experiment under controlled conditions with the finest of gear. This was just me goofing around with my SVT cab, ABing it with a couple different heads, and recording the results. In many ways, I consider this a much more important test because it's more of a real world scenario that really requires you to use your ears instead of scoping out the waveforms (cheater!). I also recorded this cab with my SVT 3 Pro and SWR SM-500. They sounded great, but you could tell right away which was which IMHO. The Markbass head, not so much.

So even though I think you cheated with your hi-falutin' audio gear, you did make some valid points and in the end you let your ears decide.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back