What creates a bass amp's "voicing"?

[Doner Designs]

As one of the guys who actually reads the manuals, I found it interesting that some of the GK Fusion 800 tone controls are asymmetrical. I don't remember if they all are, but do recall that the high mids can be cut by something like 10 or maybe 15 db but can only be boosted by 5db. On top of that, GK amps (I think) tend to be a little mid scooped at noon, so with the high mids maxed out it might only be 3db of boost vs flat.

It's a really nice amp and pretty much the only micro out there with a real tube preamp. It's also the only amp (until the new Mesa 800D+ came out) that had EQ points that I could live with. I'm a fan, but would like it better without the baked in tone or the restrictions on tone shaping. If the Mesa 800D+ with semi-parametric mids had been available at the time I might have gone for that one instead.

I guess I have diverged from the intent of this thread a little. My point really started with and is that asymmetrical boost/cut ability is another flavor of baked-in tone or voicing and one I had not heard of until I was researching this particular amp.

 

[Al Kraft]

But, can most amps, with proper EQ'ing be made to sound like any other amp?

If not, which is one amp whose voicing could not be duplicated?

In my opinion the hardest amplifier for most other amps to to duplicate is the theoretical standard of "a wire with gain only". As a an intentional design goal (or sometimes by shear happenstance) and/or a combination of interactions between circuits and components engaged by the user, almost every bass amp has some degree of inherent coloration/voicing.

Some amps can get into similar sonic territory to others, but there are many with "signature sounds/attributes" that are unique to their core design. A GK MB 500 will never be able to disguise itself as an Aguilar Tone Hammer 500 and vice versa. A Mesa Walkabout has desirable (to me) characteristics that I'm not sure I've ever seen matched even in other Mesa Simul-state series heads, let alone elsewhere.

Amp designers have a lot of recipes and ingredients to mix and match to accomplish most anything. Then, within that trade space for design there are some tricks, techniques and new discoveries which remain secret and likely prevent anyone from exactly duplicating their results. That's my take on it anyway.

 

[agedhorse]

As one of the guys who actually reads the manuals, I found it interesting that some of the GK Fusion 800 tone controls are asymmetrical. I don't remember if they all are, but do recall that the high mids can be cut by something like 10 or maybe 15 db but can only be boosted by 5db. On top of that, GK amps (I think) tend to be a little mid scooped at noon, so with the high mids maxed out it might only be 3db of boost vs flat.

It's a really nice amp and pretty much the only micro out there with a real tube preamp. It's also the only amp (until the new Mesa 800D+ came out) that had EQ points that I could live with. I'm a fan, but would like it better without the baked in tone or the restrictions on tone shaping. If the Mesa 800D+ with semi-parametric mids had been available at the time I might have gone for that one instead.

I guess I have diverged from the intent of this thread a little. My point really started with and is that asymmetrical boost/cut ability is another flavor of baked-in tone or voicing and one I had not heard of until I was researching this particular amp.

The asymmetrical boost/cut may be indicative of voicing but it may just be that the circuit itself is flat with asymmetrical cut/boost. There is no way of knowing this without running measurements and analyzing the data.

 

[peterpalmieri]

As a non technical party I would add and ask for comments from the experts.

The voicing of a "head" preamp power amp combination is often intentionally done to compliment a particular speaker cabinet or line of cabinets. I know the focus of this thread has been on the amplifier but to me the title implies a bass amp, in combination with a speaker. But little has been discussed with regards to cabinet voicing and if there is a chicken or egg discussion to be had, meaning is the typical design concept to voice a cabinet to match the amp or vice versa. Of course this only would apply to companies that do both.

As a bass player this has always been more of an art then a science, falling in love with an amp until you buy a new cabinet and the pairing is less then ideal. A cab with an inherent low end paired with an amp with similar characteristics can yield too much of a good thing or just the right combination. It all works nicely until the gig changes or you get a new bass.

 

[ofajen]

Just about every single solid state and hybrid bass amp ever built. The audio circuitry is completely transformerless.

In pro audio, the use of audio transformers was used historically for isolation between pieces of equipment located some distance apart. This was necessary to reduce the effects of ground loops and noise pick-up, but when high quality active balanced line drivers and differential input circuitry became practical we saw the end of transformers used for coupling.

There are some special cases where transformers are a better choice (high common mode voltages are one such situation) but their drawbacks must be considered in context of the problems they are being asked to solve.

I have designed both kinds of circuits, but most often transformerless wins out.

I/O transformers are big, heavy and expensive.

For example, transformers were a significant part of why pro audio tape machines were big, heavy and expensive.

When John Steohens created his radical, new machines, elimination of I/O transformers helped make his machines smaller, lighter and more affordable than the competition.

In particular, he pretty much owned the remote truck recorder business, since he could sell a 16 or 24 track machine that weighed about 100 pounds, while competing machines were 2-3 times bigger and weighed 300-600 pounds.

Transformers weren't the whole story. He also pioneered capstanless transports, eliminating many mechanical parts and a big heavy motor by clever use of servo-controlled transport motors.

Otto

 

[agedhorse]

As a non technical party I would add and ask for comments from the experts.

The voicing of a "head" preamp power amp combination is often intentionally done to compliment a particular speaker cabinet or line of cabinets. I know the focus of this thread has been on the amplifier but to me the title implies a bass amp, in combination with a speaker. But little has been discussed with regards to cabinet voicing and if there is a chicken or egg discussion to be had, meaning is the typical design concept to voice a cabinet to match the amp or vice versa. Of course this only would apply to companies that do both.

As a bass player this has always been more of an art then a science, falling in love with an amp until you buy a new cabinet and the pairing is less then ideal. A cab with an inherent low end paired with an amp with similar characteristics can yield too much of a good thing or just the right combination. It all works nicely until the gig changes or you get a new bass.

Yes cabinets are also part of the voicing equation. While some cabinets and amps are so heavily voiced as a combination, whereas neither has as much appeal by itself compared with the paring, there are also plenty of very mildly voiced amps and cabinets that play well with others. This has always been my philosophy because IME it tends to appeal to a wider variety of player and a wider range of music/playing styles.

History has also shown that with very heavily voiced products, they often appeal to the "one trick pony" crowd. This is fine if you are looking tor that one trick pony rig but that seems to be less and less popular these days. Just my opinion here.

 

[agedhorse]

I/O transformers are big, heavy and expensive.

For example, transformers were a significant part of why pro audio tape machines were big, heavy and expensive.

When John Steohens created his radical, new machines, elimination of I/O transformers helped make his machines smaller, lighter and more affordable than the competition.

In particular, he pretty much owned the remote truck recorder business, since he could sell a 16 or 24 track machine that weighed about 100 pounds, while competing machines were 2-3 times bigger and weighed 300-600 pounds.

Transformers weren't the whole story. He also pioneered capstanless transports, eliminating many mechanical parts and a big heavy motor by clever use of servo-controlled transport motors.

Otto

Yes, for line level transformers that had high overload margins at very low frequencies and THD, this is very true.

Transformers are often a necessary evil, and in the realm of low overload threshold electronics of the time period, the non-linearity of the transformer (when driven beyond it's strictly linear range) offered another graceful overload management option. Not that it was desired by design, but was less obnoxious than abrupt clipping and could add a couple of dB to the (perceived) low end headroom.

 

[KevInDaBassment]

Eden and GK are both known as amps that don't "color" the sound.

I like Ampeg and Hartke because I like the "color" they add.

I'm surprised because i see references to GK's 'baked in tone' quite often.

GK amps seem to have a good bit of baked in tone. My 700 RBII is pretty colored imo.

To the general populous:
Make no mistake, there is plenty of character in any GK amp that you plug a bass into. Whether the cabinet you plug it into represents it well is another story, but I've owned several GK heads over the years and of the two current ones I own (MB200 and 700RB-II) I can tell you there is plenty of grit to be had. Just take that "Boost" knob on the RB series heads and turn it up to noon...pluck or pick your bass and tell me how sterile the amp sounds after that lol

 

[Korladis]

Once you sit in the control room of a great recording studio playing your bass DIed and pumped through some great monitors you won't be thinking about how sterile it sounds, believe me.

Sure. But even then, I like the sound through my rig better. It's part of the instrument for me.

What creates a bass amp's "voicing"?

Everything ... the capacitors, the pots, the circuitry, the speaker type, the cabinet shape, etc ...

It is a full package

Exactly. It's a sum of the parts, rather than any one thing.

Eden and GK are both known as amps that don't "color" the sound.

I like Ampeg and Hartke because I like the "color" they add.

GKs, depending on how you set the knobs, can be either fairly neutral, or very "GKish" sounding.

I wouldn't, because you can change them up. Certain things one amp may do better or easier than another, but that can all be changed by the turn of a knob or a flip of a switch.

Yeah. Just like every bass can produce many different tones, so can every amp. With two different amps, just like with two different basses, some of their sounds will overlap, as in they'll be able to get some of the same sounds, but possibly not all of the same sounds.

It would IF there was an output transformer. Most transformer differences are due to either defects in the design/implementation, or choices made with respect to opposing tradeoffs made during the design process. Sometimes, a tradeoff that might seem "bad" brings unforeseen benefits, these become "accidental features".

Seems like every sort of engineering/design involves trade-offs that ultimately come down to a judgment call of what the designer prioritizes.

Hey!

poopie in - poopie out...... Whats about "freedom of speech"?

No such thing on private property, such as a website. Freedom of speech only protects you from being tossed in prison for your speech. It doesn't prevent a private entity like Talkbass from choosing what kinds of content they will and will not host.

Ampeg definitely has its own "Ampeg sound." As does Fender, Marshall, and Vox. And as did Acoustic and Sunn.

Get away from hifi amps and you have a lot of colors to choose from.

Seems there's two schools of thought here. The first is the hifi amp admirers who mainly want a super-clean amp that mostly just makes the instrument sound louder, but still has a flexible tonestack so that very precise tonal shadings can be dialed in. The other school is the crowd who sees an amp more as an additional musical instrument and doesn't object to it bringing its own color and response into the overall mix. These old-style amps have a baked-in sound. But since it's the sort of sound their owner seem to want anyway, no worries.

Consider: a Fender PBass going through an old Bassman is a very different "instrument" than it is when played through and SVT or a B-15N. And it's a completely different beast if you plug it into a super-clean hifi amp. Same goes for whether you're playing through a folded horn enclosure with an 18", a ported 15" enclosure, a 4x10 cab, or something by Bag End or Greenboy. You can't completely isolate the player and the instrument from the amp and the cab. It's all one piece of cloth.

Some of the more modern amps do their best to keep things neutral and completely under the control of the player. Others don't. But either way, both have their pluses and minuses. It just comes down to finding the one that works best for your present preferences (which will usually change over time) and not worry too much about the details.

Or so I think anyway.

Exactly. Some see their amp and cab as just a monitoring system. Others see it them as essential tone shaping parts of the instrument. Nothing wrong with either approach.

As one of the guys who actually reads the manuals, I found it interesting that some of the GK Fusion 800 tone controls are asymmetrical. I don't remember if they all are, but do recall that the high mids can be cut by something like 10 or maybe 15 db but can only be boosted by 5db. On top of that, GK amps (I think) tend to be a little mid scooped at noon, so with the high mids maxed out it might only be 3db of boost vs flat.

It's a really nice amp and pretty much the only micro out there with a real tube preamp. It's also the only amp (until the new Mesa 800D+ came out) that had EQ points that I could live with. I'm a fan, but would like it better without the baked in tone or the restrictions on tone shaping. If the Mesa 800D+ with semi-parametric mids had been available at the time I might have gone for that one instead.

I guess I have diverged from the intent of this thread a little. My point really started with and is that asymmetrical boost/cut ability is another flavor of baked-in tone or voicing and one I had not heard of until I was researching this particular amp.

There are actually quite a few amps with, at least according to the manuals, asymmetrical EQ controls. I tend to assume that this is because of some trade-off decision made during the design process, as AgedHorse mentioned.

 

[gregmon79]

I had never heard this term before joining here, but I see it mentioned a lot. Lots of talk about an amps "tone" as if there is a massive variety. I'm skeptical, but, I'm not an amp or electronics pro, so bear with me.

AFAIK, amps have a preamp stage before it reaches the power supply. It is my guess that this is what primarily "voices" the tone. You then have a variety of knobs depending on the amp you can use to change the sound.

I can't imagine that the preamp does much more than set specific frequency points for boost and cut, and may have some sort of circuit to reduce noise or similar. But, at the end of the day, can't you just adjust one amp compared to another so that the frequencies that are boosted or cut are the basically the same? Granted, some amps are much more complex with more options for tone shaping, and it may vary slightly from amp to amp but the idea is the same.

Anyway, with all the amps I've used throughout the years, I've been able to get all the basic sound setups I've ever wanted. A scoop, mid boost, whatever, and regardless of the amps quality, it has varied from amp to amp very little IME. I'm not hating on the people that like or buy expensive preamps "for the tone", I just don't know what they are paying for.

How long have you been playing bass? And how long have you really been a tone hound? If you are....

I ask these with sincerity. Really.

I know for me, you could've asked me this question even 5/6 years ago and I wouldn't have been able to tell you what the difference was between high and low mids. Seriously. I'm still not great at it. Much better than I sued to be though. What I'm getting at though is the fact that our ears get trained over time the more we mess with gear. I dont know about you, but I can hear very subtle differences in a lot of things now that I couldn't a few years ago. So that too could have a lot to do with opinions formed in what your thread is about. Aside from the mathematics and science of it.

 

[peterpalmieri]

How long have you been playing bass? And how long have you really been a tone hound? If you are....

I ask these with sincerity. Really.

I know for me, you could've asked me this question even 5/6 years ago and I wouldn't have been able to tell you what the difference was between high and low mids. Seriously. I'm still not great at it. Much better than I sued to be though. What I'm getting at though is the fact that our ears get trained over time the more we mess with gear. I dont know about you, but I can hear very subtle differences in a lot of things now that I couldn't a few years ago. So that too could have a lot to do with opinions formed in what your thread is about. Aside from the mathematics and science of it.

I agree, this is great forum with really good search capabilities. Which should spark the OP if he has real interest to now take what he's learned in this thread and dig in deeper.

 

[FingerDub]

How long have you been playing bass? And how long have you really been a tone hound? If you are....

I ask these with sincerity. Really.

I know for me, you could've asked me this question even 5/6 years ago and I wouldn't have been able to tell you what the difference was between high and low mids. Seriously. I'm still not great at it. Much better than I sued to be though. What I'm getting at though is the fact that our ears get trained over time the more we mess with gear. I dont know about you, but I can hear very subtle differences in a lot of things now that I couldn't a few years ago. So that too could have a lot to do with opinions formed in what your thread is about. Aside from the mathematics and science of it.

I'm definitely not a tone hound! I've been playing for almost 20 years, just practicing and jamming with friends and such. I decided to get serious about 4-5 years ago with some encouragement from a bass player at our congregation. I bought my Aguilar cabs on his recommendation, (and when I had a better job). Since that time, I've gotten considerably better, and play now in 2 semi oft gigging bands so my needs have changed, and am on the hunt for a new main amp. Maybe a new cab set up also. I was really looking mostly for power and features, and I'm surprised at how many people here think how differently their amps sound.

I really like my Aguilar cabs and think that most of the sound a person is looking for comes from their speaker before the amp. I've had other cabs and it's really noticeable. But amps, not. I've had a GK, Ampeg, and Hartke and it never struck me that one of them sounded *THAT* much better through the same speakers. The only think I've noticed here so far is a Darkglass pedal that sounded super clear. But I'm not the type to buy that super high end stuff.

 

[SteveCS]

...

... and think that most of the sound a person is looking for comes from their speaker before the amp. I've had other cabs and it's really noticeable. But amps, not....

QFT, IMHO.

 

[Ewo]

There are characteristics in an amp that are not 'preamp tone stage related'. That may be in the early gain stages or after that fact. Things like harmonic (and not so harmonic) distortion, compression characteristics, etc. I find that my current preamp shapes the note envelope differently and specifically from other preamps.

Yeah, those non-EQ-knob-related characteristics are what sold me on the Mesa D-800. The notes seem to develop differently from other amps, in a way that pleases me.

Tone goals are personal, as is one's touch on the instrument, of course. Just agreeing with BurningSkies that EQ is not the only difference between one amp and another.

 

[Aidenn7]

Baxandall EQ, Fender tone stack, Bob Gallien's GK tone stack and GIVE circuitry, etc. come to mind for me. In fact I would add the Tone Hammer gain and drive circuit design with their interactive nature, as well as the voicing control on the new Subway D-800/800+. as examples of "transformer-less circuits" that play a critical role in an amp's voice.

Thank you for answering the question. I don't desire most modern amps. the Baxandall is a great eq. and adds a lot to the b15. the Fender tone stack another awesome choice. the GK- no desire to play those, but when I was bi amping I looked at them, but the vibe just wasn't there even with distortion. I don't know anyone using the D-800. and I haven't use a lot of digital amps. I keep going back to my thunderfunk. The main amp I've seen that was some what desirable as a hybrid was the SWR 900. it's a cousin to my amp. just my opinion.

Just about every single solid state and hybrid bass amp ever built. The audio circuitry is completely transformerless.

In pro audio, the use of audio transformers was used historically for isolation between pieces of equipment located some distance apart. This was necessary to reduce the effects of ground loops and noise pick-up, but when high quality active balanced line drivers and differential input circuitry became practical we saw the end of transformers used for coupling.

There are some special cases where transformers are a better choice (high common mode voltages are one such situation) but their drawbacks must be considered in context of the problems they are being asked to solve.

I have designed both kinds of circuits, but most often transformerless wins out.

the most desirable amps from mesa to me were m-2000 and 400+other than that haven't messed with many their other amp. other than fieldy's use of your tube/ss hybrids. but I don't use that my eqing. I usually just set my amp flat as possible and turn up the volume and gain to like 6 the power amp does the heavy lifting. that's my form of eqing

 

[peterpalmieri]

I'm definitely not a tone hound! I've been playing for almost 20 years, just practicing and jamming with friends and such. I decided to get serious about 4-5 years ago with some encouragement from a bass player at our congregation. I bought my Aguilar cabs on his recommendation, (and when I had a better job). Since that time, I've gotten considerably better, and play now in 2 semi oft gigging bands so my needs have changed, and am on the hunt for a new main amp. Maybe a new cab set up also. I was really looking mostly for power and features, and I'm surprised at how many people here think how differently their amps sound.

I really like my Aguilar cabs and think that most of the sound a person is looking for comes from their speaker before the amp. I've had other cabs and it's really noticeable. But amps, not. I've had a GK, Ampeg, and Hartke and it never struck me that one of them sounded *THAT* much better through the same speakers. The only think I've noticed here so far is a Darkglass pedal that sounded super clear. But I'm not the type to buy that super high end stuff.

You can either be satisfied with what you believe and buy an amp for its features alone because it doesn't matter that much to you. And in reality a lot of folks feel this way. Or you can be open to the idea that maybe your experience is limited and there is more to it.

As long as you are happy with the decision. Personally I concern myself with every detail and that can be a fault too

 

[agedhorse]

Thank you for answering the question. I don't desire most modern amps. the Baxandall is a great eq. and adds a lot to the b15. the Fender tone stack another awesome choice. the GK- no desire to play those, but when I was bi amping I looked at them, but the vibe just wasn't there even with distortion. I don't know anyone using the D-800. and I haven't use a lot of digital amps. I keep going back to my thunderfunk. The main amp I've seen that was some what desirable as a hybrid was the SWR 900. it's a cousin to my amp. just my opinion.

You have mentioned amps that have just about every basic eq approach out there. I'm not sure how you can attribute any particular eq as being responsible for the desirable sound of an amp. What might surprise you is the number of variations on the Baxandall low-high eq being used on amps that you "don't get along with" either, so much for it being "great eq" in these cases?

the most desirable amps from mesa to me were m-2000 and 400+other than that haven't messed with many their other amp. other than fieldy's use of your tube/ss hybrids. but I don't use that my eqing. I usually just set my amp flat as possible and turn up the volume and gain to like 6 the power amp does the heavy lifting. that's my form of eqing

The M-2000 and 400+ are REALLY different, totally different eq (aside from the graphic) and basic voicing so I don't know what you might like and/or why.

Why do you feel the need to set the eq flat? What is there to gain by doing so? Using the power amp for eq? That's about as far from eq as you can possible get. Man, you have me really puzzled by your comments and I design this stuff...

 

[FingerDub]

You can either be satisfied with what you believe and buy an amp for its features alone because it doesn't matter that much to you. And in reality a lot of folks feel this way. Or you can be open to the idea that maybe your experience is limited and there is more to it.

As long as you are happy with the decision. Personally I concern myself with every detail and that can be a fault too

When people comment on my playing after shows, they usually only say things like, "that was really good, man your bass sounded great." If someone, one day says to me, "Hey man, your tone was super clean, the harmonic frequencies were noticeable and was wondering what kind of transformer your amp uses?" - then I know that its probably one of you guys.

 

[gregmon79]

I'm definitely not a tone hound! I've been playing for almost 20 years, just practicing and jamming with friends and such. I decided to get serious about 4-5 years ago with some encouragement from a bass player at our congregation. I bought my Aguilar cabs on his recommendation, (and when I had a better job). Since that time, I've gotten considerably better, and play now in 2 semi oft gigging bands so my needs have changed, and am on the hunt for a new main amp. Maybe a new cab set up also. I was really looking mostly for power and features, and I'm surprised at how many people here think how differently their amps sound.

I really like my Aguilar cabs and think that most of the sound a person is looking for comes from their speaker before the amp. I've had other cabs and it's really noticeable. But amps, not. I've had a GK, Ampeg, and Hartke and it never struck me that one of them sounded *THAT* much better through the same speakers. The only think I've noticed here so far is a Darkglass pedal that sounded super clear. But I'm not the type to buy that super high end stuff.

It's taken me years too man. I played for about 12 years before I started learning more about the instrument and really becoming passionate about my tone, sound and gear. I love it. All of it. Cabs, amps, basses, pedals, modding, hardware, accessories, the whole nine.

I feel amps and cabs are all voiced their own way. Now I'm no expert, but I've played a few amps and cabs. Some are less colored than others. Some are super voiced and flavored by said builder/manufacturer. I think every amp has its own voice but a lot of your tone comes from your cab, your bass and fingers/playing style/attack. To me those are the 3 top things that really color your tone the most. It's just like a bass, you wouldn't think they make much a difference bass to bass. But oh boy do they. Even an American made fender to P bass to the next. Amps are probably more consistent in that realm of tone and feel. But I do know what you mean in that a lot of amps sound the same. But it's all about what the player does with it. I can take the same exact rig with all its components of one of my bass heros and play it and I'll sound different than him. That tells me a lot.

 

[Al Kraft]

I'm not sure how you can attribute any particular eq as being responsible for the desirable sound of an amp.

Respectfully, I think how an amp's tone stack/voicing filters are designed can have a lot to do with how that amp might sound to me in practical use, especially if I start turning knobs. Every amp has some type of tonal profile when everything is in its most neutral position (which may or may not be ruler flat). And I would have to assume that "defaultt point" tone and associated frequency curve are the sum total of everything in the amp's design signal path including its tone stack/voicing filters.

I would totally agree that the EQ/voicing filters might only play a small role in an amps overall voice, but it seems unlikely to me that the EQ section isn't somewhere in the mix relative to an amp having a desirable sound for me. I'm pretty sure that some of things I like best about the amps I own are the EQ points/voicing filters and how the designers offered me sounds I have a hard time getting with competitor's products.

Perhaps I misunderstood your comment or have simply missed the boat...in any case, standing-by to learn!