Any Interest in a New Bass Head Design?

[stvnscott]

I've been working with a lot of guitar players for the past 2 years and the bass players in the bands are getting jealous--asking when I'm going to design a bass head for them.

It looks like it's finally time to get around to it, so I have questions:

1. Is 200W from a quad of 6550s enough to get it done? That should roughly match the output of a 350W SS amp.
2. Would it be better to have a pair of 100W output sections so you can drive the top and bottom independently? Maybe with separate preamps or tone controls or something?
3. The power amp would be massive in terms of capacitors and transformers to be able to push the low end of a 5 or 6 string bass. That translates into weight. How heavy is too heavy?
4. What kind of voicing do people prefer for bass? Any opinions on preamp designs?
5. What features are needed? Must have? Like to have?
6. How expenisve is too expensive? It will cost > $1000 just in parts (>$600 just in transformers). I don't have final pricing yet, but it won't be cheap by the time I figure in labor and a little margin.

Any thoughts and ideas are appreciated!

[PB+J]

I'm primarily a bass player, gigging usually 4-8 times a month, all local. I'd say no--there are just too many good solid state options out there. 300 watts is IMHO pretty much the minimum wattage you need these days, especially if you play a five string or want a clean tone. That's always going to be one honking big heavy tube amp. Speaking for myself, I'm just not interested anymore--I love the tone, but not the cost or the weight, and bass technology has just exploded over the last five years


How heavy is too heavy? Digital switching amps and neo mag speakers make that a hard question. I have a markbass 1x12 combo that's rated at 500 watts and weighs under 30 lbs--that's the whole combo. I have an Acoustic image digital switching amp that's 600 watts and weighs 3.5 lbs. If I use a tonebone or a sansamp as a preamp I have a whole 600 watt rig that fits in my gig bag and weighs about 5 lbs. It's just too tempting. Would I rather play an SVT? Does a tube ampo sound better? Yes, but come load out time I can carry the bass, the markbass combo and an extension cab in one trip. A 200 watt tube amp alone weighs more than my entire 600 watt 2x12 rig. I just can't see going back to a tube amp.

Probably there are people here who would disagree

[mainsale]

I pretty much agree with the above but as technology advances and there was a way to produce a good bass amp with tubes and light weight....you would have a winner. I think Genz-Benz used a new light weight transformer design in their Neo-pak 3.5. If that tchnnology could be used with tubes..................???????????

[2 Loud 4 You]

I'm biased as I'm not a tube bass amp guy. I like a real clean, hi-fi tone with as little break up as possible and playing a 6 string bass, 200 watts isn't going to cut it for me. I know there are a lot of guys out there that love tube bass amps and if you can find enough of them then you could probably sell some but weight will be your biggest killer.

[jazzercountry]

I would advise staying away from a dedicated biamp setup, as most of the guys who dig the biamp thing are going to be into the solid state gobs of power thing.

As far as a tube bass head goes, I think there's a market for someone to start making a version of the Matchless Thunderchief again. From what I understand these things sounded amazing, and very very few of them were ever made.

Weight is something we come to expect with tube heads (my classic 400 was every bit of 150 lbs.) so everyone knows what they're getting into there.

As far as price goes, Sadowsky's SA200 is not cheap, and they're selling pretty well from what I hear.

[soldierscry]

I myself have been on the hunt for a good tube bass head. My ideal head would be:

around 200-300watts
two channels with independent pre amp sections for each. (one normal, one overdriven)
controls would go like this :
normal channel(volume/6or 10 band graphic eq/presence)
overdrive channel(Gain/treble/mid/bass/volume/precence)

I like your idea of the output sections so you can drive the top and bottom independently, but i would like the option to run it with one cab at full wattage. maybe some thing like two speaker outputs one with a post power amp EQ that would isolate the lower bass frequency's (basically a sub option)

built in DI would be also nice.
2/4/8 ohm speaker selector.

weight isn't a big issue for me. under 100lbs would be nice though....lol.

[jokerjkny]

as a low B player,

- if its tubes, at least 300 watts. (less than 55 lbs., 6550 tubes)

- if its SS, at least 800 watts. (at least less than 20 lbs.)

and check out alot of the bass amps already out there, which have addressed many issues bassists have come to appreciate:

www.aguilaramp.com
www.epifani.com
www.euphonicaudio.com
www.eden-electronics.com
www.acoustic-img.com
www.thunderfunk.com

[SlowOrNotAtAll]

I'd say
200 watts with individually driven bass and treble sounds like a dream haha.
6550s are fine, I've found that kt88's have a lot more character though, so being compatable with both would be huge.
Compact, sturdy designs are the best. Like the Sovtek mig 50's, that have the transformers perpandicular for a more compact house.
Weight isnt an issue, great sound should be heavy. **** solid state mosfet neodym bullshit.
I'd love to see an all tube head start at around 1600. 2000 seems to be the standard rate lately.

Thats just my two cents.

[BassHog]

200 watts from a tube head is plenty for pretty much any gig. While I do own a 400 Watt tube head, I play my 200 watt head more often.
I like the idea someone else mentioned about having a clean and an overdrive channel that is footswitchable.
Simple pre-amp similar to a Hiwatt DR201.
2/4/8 ohm output transformer.
A good DI is always helpful as well.
A half power switch for recording
The bigger the transformers the better
A presence control
I don't care how heavy it is as long as it sounds amazing

[]-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T ! ©]

For me, it's not about weight per se... it's about the built-in wheels and handle. A real handle that doesn't require me to hunch over to pull the amp. Build a strong cab with removable front and back panels, wheels, and a solid handle - then make is as heavy as you want.

As far as specs go? 300 tube watt minimum with a preamp gain and master volume. Now that Ampeg is a Vietnamese amp, find a way to produce a no-kidding players amp for under $2000 and you're in business. I love the idea of adding a built-in space to mount an Avalon U5.

[Podgorny]

All discussions about power aside, I have to say, I'd love to see a bass amp with some good EQ. Perhaps something inductor-based, with frequencies I need for tweaking bass sounds (low shelving at 100Hz, lo-mid cut switchable from 220Hz-500Hz, hi-mid boost switchable from about 800Hz to 3k). It could be a 1073 sort of thing, but it should have stepped knobs for repeatability and ease of documentation as well as to keep things from getting messed up during transport.

It might be cool to have an insert that's switchable for pre/post EQ so that one could use a compressor in their rig post gain stage.

Maybe I'm too much of an audio nerd.

[Antero]

I think 200 watts is plenty. I mean, it won't be crystalline when it's up high, but... that's kind of the fun of it, right? Get some Entwhistle action going on. My bassist tried out Orange's bass head with a 4x10/1x15 rig, that's 200 watts tube and loud enough to destroy a building.

[The Golden Boy]

Any thoughts and ideas are appreciated!
I'm one of those 'gobs of SS power' guys, so you can take my opinion for what it's worth.


1. Is 200W from a quad of 6550s enough to get it done? That should roughly match the output of a 350W SS amp.
I think 200 watts is plenty. I mean, it won't be crystalline when it's up high, but... that's kind of the fun of it, right?

I think of tube bass amps are used for two reasons- the round depth that you can only get with a tube amp and the "charm" of the retro warmth of a tube amp. HOWEVER, being able to provide SS headroom and response would be an awsome plus for any head. Being able to provide the power to be able to eliminate the sag and (comparative) lack of focus of a tube amp at volume for a 3-5 piece rock band means more than 200w. Especially if you're providing an amp that's going to a "boutique" clientele, you don't want to have to say "my amp can't do what that $500 Hartke can do."

2. Would it be better to have a pair of 100W output sections so you can drive the top and bottom independently? Maybe with separate preamps or tone controls or something?

One of the things I was looking for was seperate volumes for seperate channels- I guess it's referred to as "stereo" but more like 'dual mono.' I have a 4 ohm cab that handles less power than my 8 ohm cab- I wanted to have a volume for each cab. My old Seymour Duncan SS amps are switchable between BiAmp/Dual Mono/Mono-Bridged operation. That's handy. However, I can see only having 2 100w power sections to be a major drawback. One of the biggest failings in the design of the GK 800RB is that it only did 300w into 4ohms plus 100w into 8 ohms. If you didn't run the amp biamped or were running only 1 cab, that 100w was pretty much wasted.

Regarding BiAmping... You'd be wasting power to give your high the same amount of power you'd be sending to the bottom end.

3. The power amp would be massive in terms of capacitors and transformers to be able to push the low end of a 5 or 6 string bass. That translates into weight. How heavy is too heavy?

The old Fender 400PS had it's own stand. 435w of tube power has a way of weighing a fair amount- however it's acceptable. Figure out a way to integrate a stand/dolly type thing with the head- and you might be onto money there.

4. What kind of voicing do people prefer for bass? Any opinions on preamp designs?
Figure what people really look for in their bass tones- something like Jamerson, something like Entwistle, something like Geddy Lee, something like Jaco and something like Flea. (yeah there's plenty on either ends and in between- just basic idea of those types of sounds)

Out of all the EQ sections I've used, really liked the straighforwardness of SWR's old Bass 750.
5. What features are needed? Must have? Like to have?
Controllable line out and DI.

1/4" and Speakon out.

Effects loop- although I don't use them, I can understand people wanting to use their own preamp section or whatever.

Tuner out- possibly mutable.

A switchable pair of EQs would be cool. Independent and combinable... That's one of the features of the SWR SM-900 that I really like. I rather like the idea of Mesa's Bass 400+ EQ- Combine that graphic EQ with something like the SWR Bass 750. I don't like parametric/semi-parametric EQ- but I understand why someone would.

Front to rear (or rear to front) cooling- figure it's going to be rack mounted- being able to draw fresh air across the guts is a big deal. Nothing is quite as embarrassing as an amp blowing up. Some people have issues about fan noise- have the fan(s) come on at a certain temp as well as an option to have them on all the time.

Easily biasable.

Here's another stupid idea... One of the things that bugs me about running my amp in a rack is having to have a power supply or power strip or something like that- have the power switch on the front- have 1 or 2auxilliary power outlets so your tuner or effects or whatever can run off the amp without losing a rack space or two for a power supply. I have my amp and a tuner in my rack. I have to have a seperate power supply- it's cool because the switch is in the front, and I can power up both the amp and tuner with one switch, instead of having to reach around the back, and only plug one unit in, but it would be nice to do so without losing a rack space....



Another cool thing, whether it's a travesty to tube afficianados- a fadable SS preamp... In heads like the old Marshall 400w or the Hartke 7000- a fader between a tube and SS preamp is really nifty.

6. How expenisve is too expensive? It will cost > $1000 just in parts (>$600 just in transformers). I don't have final pricing yet, but it won't be cheap by the time I figure in labor and a little margin.

I'm not in the market for a tube bass head- but I don't see $2000 being a problem for that market.



All in all- get a tube amp to have the features and be able to mimic the performance of sucessful SS amps, and still retain the "tube" goodness...

I think it would rock to "upgrade" the Mesa Boogie Bass 400+.

[Antero]

See, I don't put much stock in the whole "MASSIVE WATTAGE DESTROY WORLD" thing. My band is a trio and the active, melodic bass is an extremely important part of our sound, and the bassist uses... an Ampeg B100R.

1x15 and 100 watts SS. That's it. We're still damn loud, and he can always be heard clearly.

On two occasions we've loaned the amp to other bands on the bill due to gear malfunctions. A five-piece (guitar/guitar/guitar/drums/bass) used it and it was STILL audible over the racket (more so than some of the guitars, even), and a guitar/guitar/bass/drums band used it and it cut through fine even though one of the guitarists was using a freaking Twin and was incredibly loud.

So I'm with the camp that says massive power? Overrated. 200 watts tube? Still enough to crush testicles at 50 feet. I think cab design, speaker efficiency, and EQ are going to be more vital.