• 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.

Why isn't Ashdown popular?

#83
JimmyM said:
Had Trace not sold out to the kiss of death for good brands known as Gibson (to be fair, how was anyone to know? Gibson was making killer stuff under their own name at the time), I think they'd still be right up there.

But I think Captain's point was that other foreign countries have no problem selling to musicians in America. I don't see Markbass struggling too hard to sell stuff. Nor do I see brands that are made in China struggling as long as they make products that people over here like. I really don't think it's being foreign that's caused Ashdown's lack of recognition in America. I think it's higher pricing combined with some newer products that weren't setting the world on fire. Maybe the Kentucky factory will help them make stuff cheaper in this market and expand their market. Kind of weird that our country is now being viewed as a place to outsource labor, but I guess all that stuff is cyclical, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Its quite strange that the Ashdown is higher priced in the US compares to Europe, but then maybe not.
In Europe the Ashdown is one of the cheapest brands one can get a hold on. The MAG and the ABM amps are the cheapest non class D here, Hartke close behind. Not counting Behringer.
I just think that Ashdown is quite behind the others in the class D game. One can get the ABM500 or the GK MB500 for about the same price, but..... The GK is far lighter.
 
#84
JimmyM said:
Um, actually, yes, Ampeg does make the "best" amps.
Click to expand...

As the owner of an early '70's V4-B, a BA-115 (used as a practice amp) and one each of the following: SVT 810 Squareback, SVT 410HLN, SVT 115, 1975 V4, I resemble that remark.

And BTW the Rolling Stones thank Ampeg for saving their 1969 tour. Hiwatt's were toast - Ampeg SVT to the rescue.
 
#86
fingerbun said:
Sure there was good marketing and endorsements, but it's still great gear.

When I used Ampeg I plugged in and got a solid sound straight away. Partly that's because they defined the sound by being on seminal recordings, but it's still true. And fwiw, same with my Fender Precision. Not spectacular, but absolutely perfect in a certain context.

I don't own Ampeg, and I own other basses besides my Precision, but credit where it's due....
Click to expand...

I was just explaining why they became the 'gold standard', percieved as the best amps etc. If you read the whole post/look at my signature, I certainly couldn't dis them, quite fond of my SVT-II ;)
 
#87
JAUQO III-X said:
The last time Trace Elliot did any thing significant in the states was when they first came out and that ended when TE was sold. After that and even to this day TE in the states is far more scarce/elusive than the Ashdown brand is in the US..

And Marshall hasn't been relevant to the bass market in the state in almost 20 years. Even more scarce/elusive than Ashdown and TE combined.


I used TE in the 80's and loved the sound.
Click to expand...

It's a shame Marshall didn't promote the VBA400 in the US a bit better, granted, not everyone is out for a beast of a tube amp, but it sure is nice. Dare say the price tag from a non-US company probably doesn't help matters too much either!

Played some of the newer TE gear a few years back, was pretty nice!
 
#88
Duke21 said:
Its quite strange that the Ashdown is higher priced in the US compares to Europe, but then maybe not.
In Europe the Ashdown is one of the cheapest brands one can get a hold on. The MAG and the ABM amps are the cheapest non class D here, Hartke close behind. Not counting Behringer.
I just think that Ashdown is quite behind the others in the class D game. One can get the ABM500 or the GK MB500 for about the same price, but..... The GK is far lighter.
Click to expand...

Ashdown prices have dropped considerably over the past few years. It makes sense that US prices are higher, after all they are imported to the US.

Unlike Markbass, which costs twice as much here in Europe (Italy included!) compared to USA. Hmm..
 
#90
There are so many options now for a good, cheap, lightweight clean bass amp that a heavier more expensive amp even if it has a nice sound isn't that interesting. Ashdowns are not super distinctive sounding, just good solid clean tone, which is great, but when I look at a Markbass head for instance ... you're getting an equally nice sound in a lighter and cheaper package.

When I think of distinctive bass tones I think Ampeg, GK, Mesa, Aguilar ... most other bass amps can be made to sound like each other pretty easily. Even Mesa and Aguilar are sort of borderline depending on the model.

I guess I'm ignoring the octave and overdrive on the ABMs ... neither of those appealed to me much, the drive is pretty soft and furry for my taste and I never use octave.

Don't get me wrong, nice heads, I'd happily gig them, but I think this contributes to them not being explosively popular.
 
#92
I used an Ashdown ABM 2x10 combo w/a a 2x10 ext for years. GREAT AMP, no probs and loved it. As for Ampeg making the best amps, nah, Im not so sure.... Most popular yes, best - nah.... The reason retailers carry them (im a retailer but I do not carry them) is this, theyre popular, theyre reasonably priced AND you get an A-level discount off list price just like a toaster. They are very retail friendly.
 
#93
Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion (even if it's wrong). But when someone who has an "arrangement" with a particular amp company says those amps are "the best", people reading those comments should know better than to necessarily take them at face value.

He still didn't really give any reasons why he says that other than that they seem to be the most popular and that he likes them.

And maybe he does prefer Fender to Ken Smith, but that's just what it is, a preference. There's no question that an average Smith is FAR better constructed out of better materials and typically a lot more tonally versatile than an average Fender. Obviously you pay for that in most cases. But the higher end Fenders rival Smiths for pricing, and even those are typically lesser basses.

Fender and Ampeg are where they are because they were some of the first on the scene and have managed to hold their ground in that position by not screwing up SO bad that the public would just completely lose faith in them (not for lack of trying!). Fender has put out tons of crap in the last 60 years, but they've traded on their good name and their handful of solid products as well as sheer strength in numbers to stay in the game. I'm not an Ampeg expert, but the consensus seems to be they've done basically the same thing. Same with Marshall, Gibson, etc... These companies get to the point where they feel invincible and "too big to fail". And they're right, because of their market position, they can bring stuff out at such low prices that it's very hard for smaller companies to compete in purely economic terms.

Look at SWR. They were KILLING it in the 80s and 90s. Tons of pretty high profile players using their stuff, high quality Made in the USA products that sounded great, etc... Fender must have thought "well, we can't have this" so they bought them out and now SWR is clearly not the great company they were 15+ years ago. Almost like Fender sabotaged their own subsidiary to make their own name look better (since their bass amp lineup has always been pretty lackluster).

Anyway, my point is that sales numbers/market share really mean jack sh!t in terms of how good a product is, especially if you don't take into account all the other market variables at work.
 
#94
jungleheat said:
Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion (even if it's wrong). But when someone who has an "arrangement" with a particular amp company says those amps are "the best", people reading those comments should know better than to necessarily take them at face value.

He still didn't really give any reasons why he says that other than that they seem to be the most popular and that he likes them.

And maybe he does prefer Fender to Ken Smith, but that's just what it is, a preference. There's no question that an average Smith is FAR better constructed out of better materials and typically a lot more tonally versatile than an average Fender. Obviously you pay for that in most cases. But the higher end Fenders rival Smiths for pricing, and even those are typically lesser basses.
Click to expand...

Leaping a bit to Jimmy's defense, he was a one-eyed Ampeg bigot long before they endorsed him. :) I've always found his comments helpful and thoughtful, and I love his enthusiasm.

Fender vs Ken Smith .... I choke a bit on the notion that preferring Fender is a preference but preferring Ken Smith is fact. I have played Smiths and they don't excite me. Glad they work for you though.
 
#96
I'm not talking about preference, I'm talking about build quality, materials quality, etc...

Some people "prefer" crappy 60s Sears guitars, doesn't mean it's a "better" guitar.

The fit and finish on a Smith is undeniably better than on a Fender, besides maybe in some rare cases. That is something that is an objective fact. You pick up a Fender in a shop, it will probably have a tree trunk neck, bridge cable action, possibly frets sticking out the side of the neck, etc... With a Smith, unless you get one that's been used and abused (and typical Smith buyers generally don't abuse their gear), it will almost certainly play like a dream, feel buttery smooth all over, and work precisely as it should. A lot of the Fender problems can be fixed by a good setup and some tweaks by someone who knows what they're doing and puts some loving attention into the instrument. But the Smith you can pull off the wall and walk out on stage and it will be ready to rock through a gig just like that. Because they're made right to begin with.

Now, naturally I've tried out FAR more Fenders than Smiths. At this point, I rarely even bother picking up a Fender in a store because they're almost universally disappointing. But if I see a Smith, I've got to get my hands on it, because I know it's almost certainly going to be killer.

And I didn't have to use uber expensive/boutique Smith. Look at Carvin. Their basses are excellently made right in California, they play great, sound great, look great, and you can get your choice (within limits) of woods, electronics, finishes, and other options, all for probably the same or less as an American Fender made just up the road a little ways. They're another lesson in market share not being tied to quality. The reason there aren't a lot of Carvins out there and why their resale value is lower than it should be is because they sell direct. They're not in every store, so unless you've had the luck of stumbling onto a used one that's been taken care of, you'll have no idea other than word of mouth. But for me, I've had plenty of experience with both their guitars and basses (owned 2 guitars, played a few others, and have 2 basses on long term loan, plus have a guitar preamp, bass combo, and have played a few of their guitar amps), so you give me a choice between a Carvin and a similarly priced Fender, 9 times out of 10 I'd go for the Carvin. Because it's almost certainly the superior instrument. Their quality control is pretty narrow, whereas Fender's is all over the map. If you buy a Fender, it could be the best thing you've ever played, or it could be the absolute worst (or anything in between). With a Carvin, you're basically guaranteed at least a "this thing is damn good".

So yeah, market share, popularity, etc... is not only insignificant in figuring this stuff out, it's almost more of an indicator of what's NOT the best.
 
#97
At some point I managed to get an ABM 500 EVO-II from a trade - powerful, well built amp. Lookwise it was killer. BUT...it didn't work so well with my cab (Kustom DeepEnd 410) - the rig sounded too boomy and bassy for my taste, and I couldn't get a nice growly modern tone out of it.

I love the Ashdown aesthetically, but the sound it's not my cup of tea (I prefer GK). Too bad, 'cause indeed their stuff is pretty low priced in EU so it's easy to built a decent rig without spending a lot.
 
#99
jungleheat said:
Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion (even if it's wrong). But when someone who has an "arrangement" with a particular amp company says those amps are "the best", people reading those comments should know better than to necessarily take them at face value.

He still didn't really give any reasons why he says that other than that they seem to be the most popular and that he likes them.

And maybe he does prefer Fender to Ken Smith, but that's just what it is, a preference. There's no question that an average Smith is FAR better constructed out of better materials and typically a lot more tonally versatile than an average Fender. Obviously you pay for that in most cases. But the higher end Fenders rival Smiths for pricing, and even those are typically lesser basses.

Fender and Ampeg are where they are because they were some of the first on the scene and have managed to hold their ground in that position by not screwing up SO bad that the public would just completely lose faith in them (not for lack of trying!). Fender has put out tons of crap in the last 60 years, but they've traded on their good name and their handful of solid products as well as sheer strength in numbers to stay in the game. I'm not an Ampeg expert, but the consensus seems to be they've done basically the same thing. Same with Marshall, Gibson, etc... These companies get to the point where they feel invincible and "too big to fail". And they're right, because of their market position, they can bring stuff out at such low prices that it's very hard for smaller companies to compete in purely economic terms.

Look at SWR. They were KILLING it in the 80s and 90s. Tons of pretty high profile players using their stuff, high quality Made in the USA products that sounded great, etc... Fender must have thought "well, we can't have this" so they bought them out and now SWR is clearly not the great company they were 15+ years ago. Almost like Fender sabotaged their own subsidiary to make their own name look better (since their bass amp lineup has always been pretty lackluster).

Anyway, my point is that sales numbers/market share really mean jack sh!t in terms of how good a product is, especially if you don't take into account all the other market variables at work.
Click to expand...

Wow... Somebody got pussy hurt here, and sounds like an elitist.

His opinion cannot be wrong unless he states it as a fact. Which it might have come cross to you as. Jimmy is generally knowledgeable. Personally, I have only ever used one Fender that was slightly wrong; and had no Ampeg product fail, and I semi-endorse GK. By the way, I can't stand Ken Smith equipment, as it sounds & feels 'wrong' to me.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back