Uncle GAS Needs You: Help Design an All Tube Amp!!!

I agree with jokerjkny for the most part.

The weight issue doesn't really bother me as long as it stays below 100 lbs. However, the effects loop and pad are a must for me.

A couple more things I would like to see:
Foot switchable mute/tuning
Dedicated tuner out that works in standby mode
2, 4, and 8 ohm taps

One other thing that might be nice is if the head was engineered so that it could be in a somwhat tradional head type case but could be removed for rack mounting. 4 spaces or less please. I rack everything so it would be another one of those must haves for me.

 

I agree with most of the points made by joker and Kelly Lee. However, I'd rather see a taller and more shallow enclosure for the amp (3U or 4U, max 14" depth).

I'd go with fixed biasing because despite the moniker, fixed biasing is the one you can adjust and cathode bias is the fixed (non-adjustable) way of doing it.

I'd also like to see something different than the passive Fender tone stack in the EQ section. Maybe a four-band active tube-driven EQ circuit with shelving filters for the lowest and highest band and fully parametric functionality for the intermediate bands?

2, 4 and 8 ohm taps on the OT would be very nice. Toroidal transformers for the PT and OT à la SA200 might be feasible depending on which price category the amp will be designed for.

Just a side comment: the fact that the SA200 runs EL34 tubes should not affect the transformer weight because the amp can also run 6550s/KT88s. The power supply and OT must naturally be designed with maximum power consumption and output power in mind.

 

I'm going to be quite honest, I don't think this will be all that great unless he A) copies a successful bass amp design or B) spends alot of time with a ew different bass players until they are all pleased.

Guitarists just don't know what a bassist wants, it's no knock against guitarists, but unless you have done numerous gigs on bass guitar, you just cannot understand what the essentials are.

Example, 100 watts? switchable down to 50 watts? That thing would be nothing more than a glorified practise amp.

 

OK, why not. First off, tell your friend to go to Ampage (www.firebottle.cm) and ping a guy named Ken Gilbert. He's famous for the BAGA, aka Big *.* Guitar Amp. Ken's written up a bunch of stuff about using unusual power tubes and the rest of what goes into makng a megapower audio tube amp for musical instruments. I can't post a direct link (TB rules), but it's easy to find.

To get me interested, it'll have to have a scary lightweight switching power supply, so it technically won't be all tube. Most bassists live without tube rectifiers though, shouldn't be a deal breaker. It'll likely be very tricky and expensive to implement though.

Instead of fully parametric EQ, I'd go with switch networks for a few different different frequency centers and Qs. A transformer-coupled EFX loop like the Fender Vibro King uses would also be cool. I'd love to see balanced in and outs in the loop.

To me, this is a waste of time for anything under 3-400 watts, but I'd shoot for something bigger, just because. I'd probably break it down into two boxes that each weighed 50 pounds or so. I don't want to say a lot more, 'cause I am still contemplating building something like that for sale eventually. Honestly though, I have a lot of other things on my plate that look more worthwhile. But it's fun to speculate on when someone else is doing the work.

 

100 Watts is unacceptable pretty much. I'd say at the VERY least 200, preferably 300. And i also think a DI and Pre-out are crucial. If he didn't make these changes i think he'd seriously be short changing himself.

 

You know what I want? A tube amp with the transformer (or whatever the really heavy part is) in a separate package so I don't have to lug a 100lb head around.

 

It seems like this guy makes vintage sounding studio amps, so I don't think high wattage is a major issue. Now, I think this should have 2 channels, one clean and one with a bit of vintage overdrive. It should also be able to take different types of tubes, with at least 4 tube sockets (max 200 watts with 6550s/KT-88s). FX loop would be great. 2, 4, 8 Ohm sockets/switch. Class A, AB biasing switch. Adjustible bias pots. Is there going to be a matching cab? If so, I think it should be a 410 sealed or 115 sealed or both. Thats about all I can come up with... Oh maybe a tube driven para EQ. And it should be a rack mount thing but they should have custom vintage looking racks they can put em in (and look like a vintage head). Must be able to see the tubes all lit up from the front via a grill.

 

well what is this guy like, does he make feature rich amps, or 'pure' amps that ooze tone? In my opinion it's often a compromise between these, the feature rich amp will sound a bit less good, but that's imo

anyway, as he's new to bass he should probably opt for the first. He does have to decide what he likes, so get him to listen to a couple of classic tube bass tones, then start comparing what the succesfull tube bass amps have for features, find combinations and comprises, you don't want to make a mistake someone else has made already, but you don't want to make a different looking SVT either.

I think he should opt for something that will have a good balance between smooth tone and grindy tone, not just the one or the other.
And a power button on the front

 

Hey this is Brad Jackson with Jackson Ampworks.

That make an excellent question. I'm am certainly about building simple amps that deliver tone above everything else. I'm wanting to build a bass amp tone machine that will deliver some of the warmest, vintage tones along with enough power and flexibility to cover some of the modern tones.

Right now I'm thinking a quad of KT88's roughly 200W. Baxandall tone stack (hi-fi TREBLE and BASS) with a MID-SHIFT control and either a DEEP or PRESENCE control.

Definitely I'll have a DI or at least line or mic out. I'm still gathering opinions on the FX loop. I can see that an FX loop would be cool for running compressors or EQ inline with the signal.

The half power idea is out the window after gathering some feedback from other players.

Thanks for all of the info guys. Feedback from gigging players is CRITICAL to designing and building an amp that players will dig.

Thanks again!

Brad Jackson
Jackson Ampworks
http://www.jacksonampworks.com

 

Why not both deep and presence? Most bass amps tend to have both and they are both pretty useful IMO.

 

Not a bad idea really! I think I'll have the real estate for it on this one.

 

Glad you like the idea . The more stuff you change the more i like the way this amp is shaping up! You can put me on the list of future buyers

oh, and i vote for the FX loop if you can pull it off.

 

I may hold you to that!

Regarding the FX loop, making a simple loop is DEAD easy. Making a tube driven FX loop is a bit more involved. Again this is a decision that will be made after extensive testing of the two to decide which one sounds better.

Thanks for the support!

 

With the way you're approaching the project you can definately hold me to that (especially since i'm about to get a new higher paying job ) Nothing's cooler than seeing people come on here and getting feedback for a new product from the very people who will be using it.

I never knew there was difference about the loops. I'm a total moron when it comes to the electrical engineering (clearly ) but knowing you'll be doing extensive testing beforehand is quite reassuring. I'm sure this badboy is gonna be up there with the heavyweights of tube head-dom. Best of luck bro!

 

Thanks so much for the kind words. I take great pride in my products. I have to since I put my name on them.

Regarding the FX loops, a simple loop that simply breaks the preamp connection to the power amp is easy to make as it is nothing more than two 1/4" jacks with a switch on one of the jacks. When a plug is inserted into the jack, the preamps connection to the power amp is broken and the signal is forced to go into the device that is placed in the loop. Pretty simple really.

A tube driven FX loop is obviously more complex but still not bad at all. The simple FX loop will likely work great, but it's worth testing the tube driven unit.

 

Haha joker, i thought i was the only guy on the east coast still online! Time flys sitting in front of the comp practicing and checkin' TB. (you have a PM from me!)

(This is open to anyone being that i'm sure brad is sick of my posts by now hehe )

What would the theoretical benefits of having a tube FX loop be? Are there any units out there with tube driven FX loops already?