Quote from: Roly on January 01, 2013, 02:40:06 AM
Actually in this case it was poor "stompability" and he had to rebuild it into something a bit more durable after he stomped the switch right through the top.

That gives a new meaning to crunch.

I'll give it my thoughts as well. I haven't read the other replies (yet) BTW. My experience is mainly based on the excellent Vox AD120VTH top, that I have applied to several different cabs, plus the occasional checking out of other amps in shops.

Quote1. In what areas do you believe amp modelling surpasses real tube amps?

The short answer is: It doesn't. At least not on the parameters in which tube amps excel. Modelling is handy if you are recording, and it brings a lot of versatility to the table. "Proper" amps, tube or SS, have one type of sound, while a modelling amp will have many.

Quote2. Likewise, in what areas to you believe tube amps are still superior?

Tube and SS amps will last forever, as they are made of discrete components and are repairable. Modelling amps are built with custom chips that will eventually die. When this happens you may as well throw out the amp. That is the plain truth!

Quote3. In your experience it is possible to achieve an modelled sound that is indistinguishable from the original amp?

No. Is it the purpose? I think a modelling amp can get very close, but indestinguishable? No. But that said, a modelling amp can get plenty of very useful sounds. In my book there are three equally rated types of amps; valve, solid state and modelling. I proudly own and play all three types.

Quote4. Regardless of how similar it is to the original amp, can you achieve a sound using modelling that you enjoy as much as a sound shaped by a real tube amp? Again, if only certain products achieve this, please state which.

Yes, but only with the Vox AD120VTH, and the secret here is, that the output stage really is a valve coupled with a transformer and speaker with a feedback loop to the valve. A very unique feature for the original Blue Vox Valvetronix series (AD60VT/VTX, AD120VT/VTX). When these Vox are turned up loud (!), they really push like a true valve amp. All other modelling amps I have tried lack that satisfying sound, including Johnson Millenium and Line 6. Pure modelling from line-out sounds way artificial.

Quote
5. To what extent do you believe that DSP modelling devices sound 'digital'. Can you describe the sound, or tell-tale signs? If this only applies to some products and not to others, then please state which apply.

All amp modelling plugins I have heard on for instance Garageband sound ridiculously fake. Amp models on my effects units also sound fake. The main problem is the lack of feedback from amp to instrument, but modelling also sounds like it has some unnatural high frequency content.
I tried to put the Vox through an on Defiant cab. The Defiant has a Midax horn that enhances high frequency. The Vox sounded horrible through this cab with weird high freq artifacts I have never heard before, and I am sure this gave the amp away as being a modelling amp. On a traditional 2x12" cab it sounds just right though. But the real difference is what happens when you push the amp. A pure modelling amp - without an output stage like the Blue Vox Valvetronix - will not feel right when pushed. The Vox provides that crucial feedback from amp to instrument.

Quote6. To what extent do you find the number of options available to the user overwhelming? Might this prevent you from purchasing a particular product?

No. But I keep it simple anyway. In general I use only the same 4-5 amp models, and same similar presets, and then add what I need from time to time. Blackface Twin, Tweed, 60'ies Marshall and Boutique Clean. I don't even use the Vox models, as I have the real thing. Better approach, I think, to get familiar with a limited set of sounds before moving on to other sounds. Also, I don't rely on the built in effects, but always use my traditional set of stomp boxes.

Quote7. Do you believe that price of amp modelling devices is restrictive for most? Which products specifically are pricing themselves out of the market?

No, not in general. Actually I think you get a lot of value for the money.

Quote8. As a performing musician, are you willing to sacrifice a degree of sound quality for convenience and simplicity? Or will you not compromise on sound, regardless of how much gear you need to lug about on public transport, or in your car?

I could definitely live with the Vox AD120VTH as my main performance amp, but then I don't think that is a compromise. I would not use another modelling amp.

Quote9. Clearly the more you pay, the higher-spec hardware you get, resulting (usually) in better models and more complex algorithms in the case of DSP devices, or more complex circuitry in the case of analogue products. Which product do you believe offers the cheapest professional-quality solution, that achieves an acceptable sound?
To rephrase that, where is the price threshold, where modelling becomes acceptable for professional use?

I disagreed with the "the more you pay..."-sentence. I believe that the Vox Valvetronix Blue series is still the best value for the money that ever was in the modelling market. Forget about later Valvetronix. It's cheap and it doesn't have the same output stage. The new Valvetronix Pro are said to have the same quality output stage of the original, using an EL84, but they are too expensive considering that the old Blue series is practically up for grabs. Paying more that the used price of the Blue series amps is a waste of money. I'd rather stock up a number of AD120VT's for the future.

Quote10. In your rehearsals or live performances, do you regularly switch between clean and overdrive sounds within the same song? If the answer is yes, are floor-based modelling systems with built-in foot switches more attractive to you, or do you prefer a rack-mountable/other system, with an optional foot controller? Are you aware of any advantages or disadvantages with either design?

I prefer real stomp boxes, anytime. The only built in effects I really use are those that are commonly associated with the actual amps modelled, such as tremolo, reverb and sometimes fixed frequency wah as it sounds like the old SS Vox MRB effect. I would like a foot controller for those, though.
And then, I'm a real old school guitar player, who believes that the coolest way to switch between clean and overdrive is by using the guitar volume knob. This demands a lot from the amp (model). If the DSP sucks, it will not deliver the proper dynamic response to the volume knob setting.

The Vox Pathfinder is underrated. And cheap too. So cheap that when it was introduced, I bought two - just to be on the safe side!

/Frank

Please report back on the amp if you get it. It looks like it has solid electronics.

The pots on my old mixer were really beyond repair. A large number of them were completely stuck, and malfunctioning, and I couldn't get access to clean them. My guess is that the mixer had been exposed to a very smokey environment, moisture and whatever, and I don't necessarily think that it was a problem with the build quality. It sounded allright on those channels that worked.

The brand is in fact called "Export". I had an "Export " mixer with the same coloring scheme and knobs. The pots and faders on that mixer were crap, and I eventually had to throw it out. I think the mixer was made in Portugal, so the amp is probably likewise. The amp could be a fine amp though. I have no idea.

Quote from: Roly on October 05, 2012, 01:17:25 AM
A DX-7 is "my main man", so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.  My general experience with Yammy electronics is that they are pretty solid.

Me too. I have two original DX7, and a TX802. I once had a TX7, but it literally went up in smoke at a gig.

Quote from: Roly on October 05, 2012, 01:17:25 AMA friend has an Ensoniq ESQ-1 sampling synth which was a lovely instrument but has a pretty crappy 3.5 inch 360kB disk drive, and when you couldn't buy 360kb disks any more...

Ensoniq were particularly fond of custom chips, making them particularly hard to repair. Floppy drives don't make things easier.

Quote from: Roly on October 05, 2012, 01:17:25 AMIf I could get my claws on it today I'd consider trying to knock up something like an Arduino as a fake FDD-to-SD card, or similar.  I think it was Z-80 based, while my E-MU Proteus/1 has a 68000 inside, so you at least have some idea of what you are dealing with; but when it's an in-house anono-chip...   

Actually a really good idea! While I still had a functioning floppy drive, I took all my old Macintosh OS7-8-9 floppies and transferred the contents into images on my present HD. You can have a lot of floppies on a modern HD! The idea is to make them available to a virtual OS9 machine some day.
A similar thing could be done with the Ensoniq floppies. But as far as I remember, you need a special DOS-program to even read those discs and control the drive. But, if you overcome that problem, then using something like Arduino to present the machine with a virtualisation of the floppies is a really good idea.

So why do I hijack the thread to talk about this? Because, maybe a similar hi-tech type approach is the future of rescuing our DSP-based amps. If we can get a future electronic device - similar to the Arduino, but likely more powerful of course - to simulate the software running the Vox amp simulations, then maybe we would be able to virtualise the Vox software, and repair these amps with replacement boards made of such general purpose template boards. A good idea in fact!

/Frank

Voxman almost lynched me over on the Valvetronix site for raising the same concern about digital amps and digital equipment in general some years ago. But the longevity of digital circuits really is their main problem. Once it goes, it goes. We can prolong their life by hoarding amps, and swap circuit boards and that will keep us going for a while, but eventually we will run out of functional boards. This is also a major concern in respect to digital synthesizers. I own an Ensoniq TS-12 packed with specialized chips, and I know that one will go too eventually. In the synth area, things started to get problematic about the time the DX7 was launched.

This is really a shame, because my AD120VTH head sounds incredibly good. Vox did a really good job on the models in this amp.

But my trusty 1964 AC30 will live forever. So will my 1967 Vox Conqueror solid state. And my MiniMoog. And my Hammond organs.

Quote from: Moby on May 30, 2011, 07:25:29 PM
I had a yamaha 2x12 combo many years ago.  I forget the model but it was (something)100.  It had a parametric EQ that I loved.  Does the G100 have a parametric EQ?

Yes and no. It depends on which series G100 we talk about.

I have learned this much, that the Yamahas came in three generations, commonly called series I, II and III respectively. The series I amps were black with white lettering and silver on the knobs. They were single channel amps. This is the G100 head that I have. My memory is that these amps came on the market around 1978. I know I have the original colour brochure for this series somewhere, but I couldn't find it.

Series II came with a brownish colour grill and panel and were two channel amps. These amps came pretty soon after the series I. My memory dates it somewhere around 1980-81. I remember both these amp series from back then, as I had a series I G50-112.

I know nothing about the series III, except that it exists. (I had lost interest in Yamaha amps at that time).

The series I amps did not have parametric EQ. There were simple bass, middle, treble and bright tone controls. Internally these amps were made with discrete transistors. The distortion was a classic two diode clipping design, much like those found in old fuzz pedals.

The series II i believe came with the EQ, but were made with op-amps. They are another design.

One of the series is said to have been designed by Paul Rivera, who also designed amps for Fender. But I can not find any conclusive answer on the web to whether it was the series I or II that he designed. I suspect it was probably the series one, with the descrete transistors.

Quote from: teemuk on May 29, 2011, 09:55:43 AM
Reminds me of a funny story that I've seen repeating itself a few times with different amps...

QuoteSolid state sounding??? I can see 2 tubes in the back and could smell them cookin while I was playin. The tubes have covers and I was too lazy to take them off but from the size they look like 6L6.

...

Look, SS can't POSSIBLY sound this good and be touch sensitive and have such a smooth drive. If that is so then the tube amp Gods have been lying all along and my life's quest for tone is all for nothing.

...Needless to mention, the guy who posted the quoted rants about his G100 to some forum saw two big filter caps that were sticking out of the chassis and made a mistake thinking they were tubes. If it looks like a tube amp, it sounds like a tube amp.

I found that quote on the web too. Hilarious. Reminds me of my first band. I played my G50-112, but my buddy played a big Vox amp. It sounded so much better than mine. I looked for a long time inside it, to spot the valves, but there was nothing glowing in there. Turns out his amp was a Vox Dynamic Bass solid state amp! The british Vox ss amps of the late 60'ies just sound better.

Quote

QuoteI wonder if there are design differences between the models in this series that can explain the difference in sound between G50 and G100? It certainly sounds better.

There are. The preamp designs in series I and II are very different from another.

Yeah, but both my old G50 and this G100 are series I, single channel amps in black and silver. I remember just one or two years later, Yamaha started using a brown design, and two channels, but I never played any of those.

Quote
Few minutes with google search should however locate complete service manuals for G50 and G100, and for all three versions I, II and III too.

I already found the G100 service manual. I'll try and track down the G50 and compare.

Frank

Hi!

Just picked up a Yamaha G100 top and 4x12" cab. It is a much better sounding amp than I expected.

30+ years ago, my dad bought me my first amp - a brand new Yamaha G50-112 - and it served me for many years. But I never liked its sound. My guitar back then was a copy of a Gibson Melody Maker model D, with single-coil pickups, and the combination of the two was just so glassy bright and shrill. The distortion was awful too. I sold that amp when I got my first Vox valve amp, and stayed clear of Yamaha solid states for years.

Then I found this G100 in a garage sale. I checked it out, and was very surprised to find out how good it sounds! I played a lot of classic rock stuff on it with a tele, and it just kept sounding good.Nothing like my memories of the G50-112, though it is the same series of amps. The G100 distortion seems to smoothen the sound, unlike how I remember my old G50-112 distortion, which had a raspy fuzzy sound. It has much richer lows that the G50 too, but that is probably due to the 4x12 cab. (I once ran my G50 through a 4x10 cab, and that sounded a lot better). The G100 has a nice tremolo too. The reverb on this particular head is very weak. Must be some failing components, as I remember the G50 had a loud clean reverb. I wonder if there are design differences between the models in this series that can explain the difference in sound between G50 and G100? It certainly sounds better.  

I remember the G100 very well from the catalogue (that I still have), and our bass player used to play the B100 head. It is suppose to have been designed by Paul Rivera, and the ads at the time boasted valve-like frequency response. With the G100 this is almost believable. Another thumbs up to a solid state amp, and the G100 really gives these old Yamahas a bit of vindication in my book.

Frank

Hi

I put together some more samples of the sixties classics the Vox Conqueror and the Vox Defiant:

Vox Conqueror:

Normal channel:
http://www.etcetera-music.eu/public/instruments/Vox/voxspec_files/Conqueror/Flying1.mp3

Brilliant channel with fuzz on minimum:
http://www.etcetera-music.eu/public/instruments/Vox/voxspec_files/Conqueror/LikeCreedence.mp3
_{Edit: I wondered why it sounds so similar to the original guitar sound. After some research, I found out that John Fogerty played a Rickenbacker 325 into a solid state Kustom K200-4, which had the same set of effects as the Vox in fac. No wonder it sounds so similar! Kustom amps must also be said to be solid state classics.}

Clean brilliant channel:
http://www.etcetera-music.eu/public/instruments/Vox/voxspec_files/Conqueror/Prudence.mp3
http://www.etcetera-music.eu/public/instruments/Vox/voxspec_files/Conqueror/StrawberryFields.mp3

Brilliant channel, with fuzz and its six variations of the mid range boost (MRB) effect:
http://www.etcetera-music.eu/public/instruments/Vox/voxspec_files/Conqueror/Stones.mp3

Vox Defiant:
http://www.etcetera-music.eu/public/instruments/Vox/voxspec_files/Conqueror/Flying2.mp3

The last one is there, because Flying is suppose to have tremolo, and the tremolo on my Conqueror stopped working while I made this recording. So I switched to the Defiant (which sounds almost identical anyway). I put all the remaining instruments on today. The other guitar is also clean Defiant in brilliant channel, and the bass is played through a Vox 710 BTW.

And another important info. The guitar is in all cases a Rickenbacker 360.

Frank

I'll have to work on some samples of the clean amp sound, but for a starter here is a couple of recordings of the Vox Conqueror through its brilliant channel with the fuzz on and MRB-effect (mid-range-boost) on. Guitar is either a Washburn Falcon or an SG with humbuckers (it's a long time ago, and I don't remember for sure):

http://www.etcetera-music.eu/public/instruments/Vox/voxspec_files/lemonmix.mp3
http://www.etcetera-music.eu/public/instruments/Vox/voxspec_files/wholelo.mp3

Frank

Hi

Just found this forum yesterday. The history of solid state amps must have more mention of both the american and UK made Vox amps. These are important pieces of amp history.
In 1965 Thomas Organ Vox designed a series of ss Vox amps featuring lots of effects. These had english sounding names such as Buckingham, Westminster, Viscount, Beatle a.o. but were US made and solely sold in the US. These amps were used by many american top acts, such as Iron Butterfly and Paul Revere, and even briefly the Beatles on their last US tour.

Dick Denney of Vox UK (the proper Vox) brought home some ideas from the Thomas amps and first designed the Triumph made Vox hybrid amps 715, 730, 760, 7120, 430, 460 and 4120 with solid state pre-amps as a testing bed for the all
solid state series Vox amps of 1966. The all ss UK series, with models Traveller, Conqueror, Defiant, Supreme, Dynamic Bass, Foundation and Super Foundation are among the best sounds solid state amps of the 60'ies. They had a class A output stage and transformer, and a sophisticated pre-amp with tremolo, reverb, fuzz and mid-range boost effects. The Beatles famously used Vox Conqueror ss amps on Sgt. Pepper, Mystery Tour, Yellow Submarine and even the White Album. The Stones also used these amps.

I personally own a Conqueror and a Defiant of the late 60'ies, and they truly are fantastic sounding amps. The fuzz and overall sound is easily reckognisable as a Beatles type of sound.

There is a lot of info about these amps at http://www.voxshowroom.com/

Frank