RMMGA/RAP postings on Acoustic Guitar Amps (2003)

610 Messages in 120 Threads:

• Q. re Duncan Tara amps [1]
• Acoustic amps and such [11]
• Ibanez Acoustic Amp [1]
• practical advice needed to EQ an electric guitar amp [5]
• Ultrasound-No Problem [2]
• AcGtrMag Amp Reviews - Phantom Pwr Ques [6]
• AER Compact 60 versus Behringer Ultracoustic? [2]
• acoustic amps advise. [17]
• Marshall/Fender acoustic amps [6]
• Ultrasound Amps [7]
• Acoustic guitar amps? [6]
• Another watts + watts =watts? question [9]
• Ultrasound And Other Amp/Mic Issues [3]
• Ultrasounds and Hey Doc [1]
• Opinions on Ultrasound AG-30P [4]
• Another Amp Question... [5]
• louder - AER Compact 60 or Ultrasound 50? [2]
• Hey Doc, whassup with the coax speakers? [7]
• Ultrasound with mics only (no pickup) [6]
• Battery powered amplification - Passport Delux? [9]
• SWR Workingman's 12 [7]
• AMP recommendations Crate CA112D vs CA125D ??? [3]
• Ultrasounds Aloft?! [5]
• ultrasound 50w ext. cab with a mackie? [2]
• Amps, in the final analysis... [15]
• Amp question from the clueless [2]
• Strawberry Blonde Acoustic Amo [4]
• AI Coda (was Strawberry Blonde Acoustic Amo) [1]
• Seek basic info about amplifying an acoustic guitar [2]
• Yorkville AM50... bad move? [3]
• Review: Walker Labs mini-PA [1]
• Using microphone with acoustic amp? [15]
• AER Acousticube v Roland Jazz Chorus..? [10]
• G.A.S. Relief - K&K and Ultrasound [3]
• Ultrasound's Most Excellent Customer Service [1]
• Amplification Problems - Follow Up... [2]
• AER 60 and Genz Benz [1]
• Amp v. PA [2]
• Best acoustic amp with a mic input [15]
• Ultrasound [1]
• got AER Compact 60 [1]
• Building a"P.A." onto my amp. [4]
• Acoustic amp/pa [12]
• pa systems [1]
• Roland Jazz Chorus [6]
• acoustic amps? [3]
• R: acoustic amps? [1]
• Ultrasound 30W practice amp [1]
• R: Ultrasound 30W practice amp [1]
• AER AG8 amp / monitor [1]
• R: AER AG8 amp / monitor [1]
• AER AG8 amp / monitor [1]
• Any updated Behringer reviews - ACX1000? [2]
• just starting one man scene [5]
• AER "Line" input impedance [3]
• Are all amps like this? [10]
• A belated answer (from Opinions ... Hi-end speakz) [1]
• acoustic amps vs. pa systems [4]
• Ground loop or PADI flaw? [13]
• How to use a three to two prong adapter safely [1]
• Used a Peavey Escort system again..... [1]
• amp vs pa again [8]
• Fender Acoustisonic Jr. Amp [10]
• Tube Amps ? [3]
• Fender Acoustasonic 30 Guitar Amplifier?? [4]
• AER experience/report [1]
• US/UK Acoustic Amp [4]
• Amp sound off [13]
• Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question [15]
• Roland Jazz Chorus HISS?? [2]
• Ultrasound amp new look [3]
• Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency [17]
• AER Compact 60 gig bag [4]
• Impedance matching mixer does it matter? [4]
• Good acoustic amp to play and SING through [29]
• Tips on shipping a 50 pound amplifier? [1]
• RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar [18]
• Behringer ACX1000 - Opinions, Please [2]
• Three channel acoustic amps [6]
• Hughes & Kettler Amps [2]
• amplifier for acoustic/electric [2]
• Best Acoustic Amp <$500? Genz-Benz? SWR? Trace? Ultrasound? [1]
• Best Acoustic Amp <$500? Genz-Benz? SWR? Trace? Ultrasound? [3]
• Humming Practice Amp [6]
• More volume from an acoustic guitar? [6]
• acoustic amp [3]
• Marshall "Acoustic Soloist" AS80R [3]
• Ultrasound 100? [5]
• General question about 2 channel amps [4]
• Preamp to the PA or Amp to the PA? [12]
• Acoustic amp or small PA [10]
• Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum [25]
• Ground Hum [7]
• Another Ultrasound question [11]
• Trace acoustic, DI installation? [6]
• UltraSound Info [1]
• Re- Trace acoustic, DI Installation? [3]
• OPINIONS WANTED: Peavey Ecoustic 112 Amp [4]
• why is it? [1]
• Acoustisonic line-out??? [1]
• REQ: Info on Operating Your Amp [1]
• Fishman loudbox..GAS attack [6]
• Genz Benz Shenandoah v. SWR California Blonde [3]
• Genz Benz UC5 112T [1]
• Bose L1? [3]
• Acoustic amp question [6]
• New type of PA system!!! [1]
• OK, Who Has A Behringer ACX1000? [4]
• Bose Cylindrical Radiator-- a report [2]
• For those of us who suffer ground loops: [2]
• Thanks Doc! [1]
• I'm looking for a new old amp. [3]
• Ultrasound amps [11]
• Amplifier for a Taylor 414-CE [6]
• Ultrasound Question [4]
• Schertler Unico and AER amps [5]
• Ultrasound dust covers [1]
• Bose PAS Update (long) [2]
• Ultrasound 50D2S Questions [6]
• George's UltraSound Issue [4]

Q. re Duncan Tara amps

From: Robert L. Abramowitz <abramowitz@att...>
Subject: Q. re Duncan Tara amps
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 16:46:11 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

Hello and Happy New Year to all. Here's my first question for 2003:

Ampmeisters-what can you tell me about the Duncan Tara acoustic amp?
I have an opportunity to purchase one locally at a good price; it's an
older amp on perfect shape, and it appears to be a quality unit, but I'm
not an amp maven by any means so I'd like to find out where this amp
fits in the acoustic amp food chain.

Thanks for any help.

Bob Abramowitz

From: Ed Maier <evmaierfalseaddy@sbcglobal...>
Subject: Acoustic amps and such
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 20:04:49 -0600
Organization: Stwawbewy Fields Fowever

What are the differences between an acoustic amp and a
regular ol' guitar amp? The only amps I've ever owned
were an old 1960 Gibson GA30 (long since gone; don't
even remember where it went) and a Marshall VS15R that
I tried using with a magnetic soundhole pickup last
year. Ugh. I didn't even know until six months ago
that there were amps designed specifically for acoustic
guitars. There's just a whole lot of this stuff that's
all new to me. (Probably what I deserve for a 20 year
guitar hiatus.)

Next, I think I want to install a PUTW stealth w/ preamp
in either the Tacoma DM9 or DM18 and maybe buying an
Ultrasound 30. Any comments on this combination would
be appreciated.

Thanks,
Ed Maier
Arlington, TX
--
My real email is evmaier at sbcglobal dot net.

From: <please@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amps and such
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 02:16:00 GMT
Organization: None

Ed Maier <<evmaierfalseaddy@sbcglobal...>> wrote:

>What are the differences between an acoustic amp and a
>regular ol' guitar amp?

Regular amps for electric tend to be midrangey and rolled off highs.
Acoustic amps have flatter frequency response and more treble
response.

>Next, I think I want to install a PUTW stealth w/ preamp
>in either the Tacoma DM9 or DM18 and maybe buying an
>Ultrasound 30. Any comments on this combination would
>be appreciated.

What do you want to do with it? I like both but it depends on your
intended application. Not trying to be obtuse, but the 30 is not a
high-powered amp. There are other options if you want to cover a
larger room.

Al Sato

--
Reply to al_guitar "at" clifftopmusic "dot" com

From: Ed Maier <evmaierfalseaddy@sbcglobal...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amps and such
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 20:42:48 -0600
Organization: Stwawbewy Fields Fowever

<please@nospam...> wrote:
> Ed Maier <<evmaierfalseaddy@sbcglobal...>> wrote:
>
<snip>

>>Next, I think I want to install a PUTW stealth w/ preamp
>>in either the Tacoma DM9 or DM18 and maybe buying an
>>Ultrasound 30. Any comments on this combination would
>>be appreciated.
>
>
> What do you want to do with it? I like both but it depends on your
> intended application. Not trying to be obtuse, but the 30 is not a
> high-powered amp. There are other options if you want to cover a
> larger room.

I want to hear what it and I sound like from across the room
rather than from under my armpit. <G> My intended application
is mainly for my own listening, and maybe the occasional jam
with other amplified players. I can always buy a bigger amp
later if I think I really need it, but I don't think I will.

--
My real email is evmaier at sbcglobal dot net.

From: <please@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amps and such
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 03:18:17 GMT
Organization: None

Ed Maier <<evmaierfalseaddy@sbcglobal...>> wrote:

><please@nospam...> wrote:
>> Ed Maier <<evmaierfalseaddy@sbcglobal...>> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>
>>>Next, I think I want to install a PUTW stealth w/ preamp
>>>in either the Tacoma DM9 or DM18 and maybe buying an
>>>Ultrasound 30. Any comments on this combination would
>>>be appreciated.
>>
>>
>> What do you want to do with it? I like both but it depends on your
>> intended application. Not trying to be obtuse, but the 30 is not a
>> high-powered amp. There are other options if you want to cover a
>> larger room.
>
>I want to hear what it and I sound like from across the room
>rather than from under my armpit. <G> My intended application
>is mainly for my own listening, and maybe the occasional jam
>with other amplified players. I can always buy a bigger amp
>later if I think I really need it, but I don't think I will.

The Ultrasound 30 will serve that purpose admirably. It is a
good-sounding amp suitable for practice and for playing in rooms where
not a whole lot of amplification is necessary. The 50 is a whole
'nother story. I like the sound of the Ultrasound amps I've tried and
the 30 is a good way to get your feet wet.

The Stealth has been a very good pickup for me. I use it along with
the #27 for a dual-source setup (sometimes called stereo). The
Stealth by itself is a very good undersaddle pickup, one of the two
best that I have any experience with (the other is the B-band UST).
My setup is passive, meaning that I don't have a preamp in my guitar.
My acoustic amp has a high-gain input where I can plug in a passive
pickup as well as a low-gain input for active pickups. I don't know
if the Ultrasound 30 has that kind of thing, and I don't know whether
you will require a preamp to be able to plug into it. I also have a
preamp/blender that I use when I'm plugging into my (or someone
else's) PA. It's made by Raven Labs and I think it is a pretty good
piece of equipment. I personally prefer a passive pickup arrangement
because I don't like loosening all the strings and reaching inside to
repace a battery so I'd rather carry some extra equipment around.

If you opt for no internal pickup, DAvid also has a little box called
the Power Plug that plugs into the jack on your guitar and contains a
preamp. I have one of those and it comes in handy when I don't want
to carry a larger preamp around.

Finally, get good cables. David Enke sells some very good ones that
you can order when you order the Stealth, if you go that way.

Al Sato

--
Reply to al_guitar "at" clifftopmusic "dot" com

From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amps and such
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:32:40 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Ed Maier" <<evmaierfalseaddy@sbcglobal...>> wrote in message
news:<BAF7FE9042292676.6846168922B6884E.80CC81191673BA59@lp...>
et...

> What are the differences between an acoustic amp and a
> regular ol' guitar amp? The only amps I've ever owned
> were an old 1960 Gibson GA30 (long since gone; don't
> even remember where it went) and a Marshall VS15R that
> I tried using with a magnetic soundhole pickup last
> year. Ugh. I didn't even know until six months ago
> that there were amps designed specifically for acoustic
> guitars. There's just a whole lot of this stuff that's
> all new to me. (Probably what I deserve for a 20 year
> guitar hiatus.)

Hi Ed,

Here's a rundown on the differences:

-------------------------------------
Electric guitar amp:

* In the smaller formats, they usually have just a single speaker,
typically 12", designed for a strongly midrange tone. This is the
sound we're all trained to hear as "electric guitar." When you use
bigger cabinets, it's just a bigger array of 12" speakers pumping
out a bigger midrangy tone.

* EQ tends to be very conservative and based on historic models
(including odd conventions like the "presence" knob).

* The amp is considered to be an essential part of the
tone-producing chain, adding a very strong color to the sound. You
match a specific guitar and its pickups, to a specific amp model,
driven at a certain power setting, to get a specific tone.

* Sometimes electric amps have a second channel with a second EQ
section. It's designed for separate voiceing for distorted leads,
and clean rhythm playing.

* Often has fairly low input impedance, designed for classic
"damped" tones with passive magnetic pickups.

* Electric guitar amps are extremely power-efficient. They dump most
of their energy in the midrange, and they use high-efficiency
speakers... mostly for historical reasons involving early breakup of
the paper cone when overdriven, and so on. You can get very loud
without many watts in the power amp section.

You can sometimes get away with playing an acoustic guitar through
an electric amp, especially something with a lot of power and
headroom like a Fender Twin. But it's going to sound muddy compared
to a good acoustic amp or PA system.

------------------------------------
Acoustic guitar amp:

* Always has more than one speaker, sometimes a woofer and a
tweeter, sometimes a full three-way system. The system is designed
for a more full range, "hi fi" tone extending further into the bass,
and further into the high frequencies than an electric amp.

* EQ tends to be more "modern" and evenly spread across the
frequency range, with (ideally) the addition of a notch filter
(parametric EQ) to control feedback.

* The amp is considered to be a neutral way of reproducing the
guitar and pickup sound, and is ideally "color free" in the way it
reproduces sound.

* Acoustic amps sometimes include a second channel with separate EQ,
designed to handle a vocal mic in addition to guitar.

* Usually has high impedance inputs, to prevent loading with passive
pickups.

* The speakers used are often lower efficiency (more "hi fi"), and
therefore the total system usually requires more power and clean
headroom than an electric guitar amp. An old 25 watt tube electric
guitar amp will fill a decent sized venue, because you don't care
that it's midrangey and distorting at full outut. To fill the same
venue with an acoustic amp, you might need one or two hundred watts
of clean amplification.

And then there are various small and large PA systems, which are
basically like acoustic guitar amps on steroids. So it's helpful to
think of an acoustic amp as a "mini PA system in a box."

> Next, I think I want to install a PUTW stealth w/ preamp
> in either the Tacoma DM9 or DM18 and maybe buying an
> Ultrasound 30. Any comments on this combination would
> be appreciated.

I'll let someone else comment on that, since I haven't used that amp
or guitar. I'm sure the Ultrasound would be better than the average
electric guitar amp.

Mike Barrs

From: JoelT <joeltepp@ix...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amps and such
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 05:20:57 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

I had a Trace Elliot TA50 and was very pleased, but sold it to one of
the fiddlers in one of my bands so that he would have a matched sound
with the other fiddle.

Now I'm using an older Gallien Kruger 250ML. The internal speakers
aren't quite as full range as the Trace, but there is an additional
powered speaker output. I combine it with a little monitor (1x12" and
a tweeter) and the overall sound is much nicer than the one piece
combo amps I tried. I has two input channels. I sometime use it for
a house concert and put the mike through the balanced input channel
and the guitar through the other (line) input. Separate mixes but
the wame EQ, so I EQ it for voice and use and eq'd input preamp with
the guitar. The Boss AD5 has enough filtering to eliminate most
feedback and add some other effects as well.

The whole setup is light, small and quite portable.

From: Greg Cisko <gcisko@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amps and such
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 01:39:14 -0600

Simple...

Electric amp = midrange
Acoustic Amp = HiFi type range (20hz-20,000hz)

For me though, my Seagull M-6 acoustic sounds fine on
my Marshall Valvestate 2000 AVT50.

--

<gcisko@hotmail...>

"Ed Maier" <<evmaierfalseaddy@sbcglobal...>> wrote in message
news:<BAF7FE9042292676.6846168922B6884E.80CC81191673BA59@lp...>...
> What are the differences between an acoustic amp and a
> regular ol' guitar amp? The only amps I've ever owned
> were an old 1960 Gibson GA30 (long since gone; don't
> even remember where it went) and a Marshall VS15R that
> I tried using with a magnetic soundhole pickup last
> year. Ugh. I didn't even know until six months ago
> that there were amps designed specifically for acoustic
> guitars. There's just a whole lot of this stuff that's
> all new to me. (Probably what I deserve for a 20 year
> guitar hiatus.)
>
> Next, I think I want to install a PUTW stealth w/ preamp
> in either the Tacoma DM9 or DM18 and maybe buying an
> Ultrasound 30. Any comments on this combination would
> be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Ed Maier
> Arlington, TX
> --
> My real email is evmaier at sbcglobal dot net.
>

From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amps and such
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:20:27 -0700

For those that want to compare the typical
tone curves of various amps, here's an applet
I ran across that does exactly that.

http://www.duncanamps.com/tsc/

lumpy
--
Lumpy and the Lump-O-Licious Babes
2003 CD release party, January 17th! -
http://www.digitalcartography.com/Lumpy_mp3.htm

From: whirligig <look@this...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amps and such
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 23:53:19 +0000

On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 7:39:14 +0000, Greg Cisko wrote
(in message <3e153c95$<1_6@nopics...>>):

> Simple...
>
> Electric amp = midrange

> Acoustic Amp = HiFi type range (20hz-20,000hz)

That'll be the day. I haven't head one that did much more than 100Hz to 8kHz
I'd even settle for a solid fundamental at 60Hz to cover a C tuning, but I
suppose none of us clapped out old farts would be able to pick it up ;-)

Adrian

--
www.adrianlegg.com

From: donh <bounce.spam@driveway...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amps and such
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 22:17:11 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

In <<ohs91vgsvjko0rd7uo9q5adnujb2d85u31@4ax...>>, on 01/03/03 at 02:16 AM,

   please@nospam.us said:

>Ed Maier <<evmaierfalseaddy@sbcglobal...>> wrote:

>>What are the differences between an acoustic amp and a
>>regular ol' guitar amp?

>Regular amps for electric tend to be midrangey and rolled off highs.

The guitar amps I have looked at (that would be lots and lots of them over three
decades of repair work) have all kinds of highs. where the treble gets rolled
off is in the speakers. I have taken a regular old tube-type guitar amp and
patched in a tweeter and it did a decent job as an acoustic amp.

>Acoustic amps have flatter frequency response and more treble
>response.

and their speaker systems tend to have tweeters in them . . . . .

>>Next, I think I want to install a PUTW stealth w/ preamp
>>in either the Tacoma DM9 or DM18 and maybe buying an
>>Ultrasound 30. Any comments on this combination would
>>be appreciated.

>What do you want to do with it? I like both but it depends on your intended
>application. Not trying to be obtuse, but the 30 is not a high-powered amp.
>There are other options if you want to cover a larger room.

agreed :-)

-don-
donh at audiosys dot com

From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amps and such
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 16:07:46 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises

"donh" <<bounce.spam@driveway...>> wrote in message
news:3e18aede$5$qbau$<mr2ice@news...>...
> In <<ohs91vgsvjko0rd7uo9q5adnujb2d85u31@4ax...>>, on 01/03/03 at 02:16 AM,
> <please@nospam...> said:
>
> >Ed Maier <<evmaierfalseaddy@sbcglobal...>> wrote:
>
> >>What are the differences between an acoustic amp and a
> >>regular ol' guitar amp?
>
> >Regular amps for electric tend to be midrangey and rolled off highs.
>
> The guitar amps I have looked at (that would be lots and lots of them over
three
> decades of repair work) have all kinds of highs. where the treble gets
rolled
> off is in the speakers. I have taken a regular old tube-type guitar amp
and
> patched in a tweeter and it did a decent job as an acoustic amp.
>
> >Acoustic amps have flatter frequency response and more treble
> >response.
>
> and their speaker systems tend to have tweeters in them . . . . .
>
> >>Next, I think I want to install a PUTW stealth w/ preamp
> >>in either the Tacoma DM9 or DM18 and maybe buying an
> >>Ultrasound 30. Any comments on this combination would
> >>be appreciated.
>
> >What do you want to do with it? I like both but it depends on your
intended
> >application. Not trying to be obtuse, but the 30 is not a high-powered
amp.
> >There are other options if you want to cover a larger room.
>
> agreed :-)

One of the absolute best acoustic guitar sounds I've ever heard was Nick
Forster (from Hot Rize, E-town) playing a Martin with a passive film pickup
going straight into his blackface twin reverb. The twin had been upgraded
with better caps, and had cast frame JBL's with a much broader frequency
responce then the original blue label Jensen's. The headroom on this amp
gave enormous 'punch', the gain was high and clean, and the high impedance
value was also correct for a passive pickup (not so in later years).

David (one of my fonder memories) Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<putw@webcoast2coast...>
719-742-5303

From: Janine <janine@ncci...>
Subject: Ibanez Acoustic Amp
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 16:25:46 -0500
Organization: OWDS Inc.

Hi folks,

I received a couple of private emails from folks asking
about this amp - I did post an update which included a
mini-review, but those who sort their posts by thread may
not have seen it - I had put in in a previous older thread.
So I'm posting it here again separately.

**********************************************************************************************

A few days ago I posted about the Ibanez Troubaour TA 225C
acoustic amp that I received from one of the well known
online retailers - has a defective reverb circuit - appeared
to be a re-packaged return, as usual. ;-) Probably been to
Pluto & back. (You know how those "Plutonians" tear stuff up!)

First - the customer service issue:

I really like the amp & want a replacement rather than a
refund. (I'm assuming the bad circuit was either a fluke, or
the result of being abused by its first "owner" or from
being banged around going back & forth, & not an Ibanez QC
issue.) Sent an email - received reply saying would send
return authorization, just let them know if I want refund or
exchange. Sent reply - gave up after another 5 emails - kept
receiving email "form letters" that made no sense - so I
called this morning. As usual w/this company - no problem -
they will send prepaid UPS shipping label - but - not very
friendly - all business - just the facts, ma'am - absolutely
no apology for my problems. Said they were wiped out of this
item during Christmas - 4 week backorder wait. So, my
Christmas present this year may arrive by next Christmas. ;-)

More on the amp itself:

This is a 2 X 25 watt stereo acoustic amp, that has received
some very good customer & mag reviews. Price - around $390
online. Very nice looking, IMO. Has two 10" speakers and two
tweeters, as opposed to two 8" speakers w/one horn or one
tweeter found in most other acoustic amps around the same
size/power, & has a larger cabinet, which Ibanez claims
helps produce richer low end response. Three input channels
- guitar, mic (XLR & 1/4"), & Aux (stereo - L & R). Reverb
on both channels - but no way to mix or switch (one knob),
chorus on guitar channel, effects loop on guitar channel,
parametric EQ on guitar channel, stereo line out.

To my ear, it has a very clean natural sound, that is so
important for decent acoustic amplification - made my
acoustic/electrics really come alive. I haven't heard an
Ultrasound yet - I assume it is a better amp, but much more
$$$$ for their 2 channel, 50 watt. As I previously posted,
interestingly, some users stated in their reviews that they
preferred the Ibanez to Fender or Marshall acoustic amps
around the same size.

I had previously mentioned that I was disappointed to find
that this model Ibanez amp does not have a headphone jack,
but I easily got around that by plugging into my Zoom
effects box (in bypass mode if you want to keep your clean
sound!) from the stereo line out on the amp, & then plugging
my headphones into the line out/stereo phone jack on the
Zoom box. The headphone volume can then be controlled by
the individual channel volume controls on the amp (output
level of pre-amps), & the amp speaker volume can be muted by
turning down the master volume on the amp. Why do this
instead of just playing directly thru the Zoom box when
using headphones? Because you get more volume using the
amp's pre-amps going into the box, you also get a stereo mix
of both the mic & guitar channels (plus Aux if you use it),
& you have the EQ, reverb, & chorus, from the amp. I think I
have that figured out?! :-)

Here's an article I found at Harmony Central - also has a
better pic of the controls (click to zoom) than what I
posted the other day:

http://www.harmony-central.com/Newp/2000/TA225C.html

So, I would recommend that anyone looking for an acoustic
amp consider checking out Ibanez, & I would be interested in
hearing any opinions from anyone who is able to do a side by
side comparison w/a Fender, Marshall, Ultrasound, etc.

BTW, I have no affiliation w/Ibanez, except that I own two
Ibanez A/E's, & one electric. And, IMHO, my AEF-30 is the
best looking guitar in the universe! :-) (I always say, if
you can't play, at least have an instrument that looks
great! LOL)

Pics:

http://www.zzounds.com/love.music?p=p.IBAAEF30MS&z=1579918817595
http://www.music123.com/item/?itemno=33823&t=4#tab

(I have the Marine Sunburst, but would love to have the
Transparent Violet also, so if anyone feels sorry for me for
getting a defective amp for Christmas, please feel free to
send one of these! :-) )

Happy New Year!

Janine

From: Paul Robins <paul.robins@free...>
Subject: practical advice needed to EQ an electric guitar amp
Date: 16 Jan 2003 07:53:02 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Before we start - I know, I should get an acoustic amp but believe me
I can't.

I'm a guitarist in an electric band and I want to play acoustic on a
few songs using my existing equipment, mostly strumming along whilst I
sing, so it doesn't really have to sound liked an acoustic guitar
mic'd up properly. Just something that doesn't sound too bad and makes
the most of what gear I have.

The guitar is a Seagull S6 with a fishman rare earth single coil. I'll
be running it into a Peavey Transtube Bandit II on the clean channel
with all EQ set at half way up (that's how I run it with my
Telecaster). I have quite a few pedals, including a Boss GE-7 graphic
EQ and I intend using this with the acoustic to try to compensate a
bit for the limitations of the amp. I may add a bit of chorus too -
hope that doesn't shock anyone ;)

So, the question is, to get me started, what kind of 'shape' EQ
setting should I be starting with? some kind of a 'smile' perhaps
(less mid, more bass/treble) or maybe just more treble? or something
else? are there any particular frequency bands that require special
attention? has anyone done this kind of thing? Are there any general
recommendations (apart from the obvious "don't do it").

thanks in advance

Paul

From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: practical advice needed to EQ an electric guitar amp
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:10:29 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Paul Robins" <<paul.robins@free...>> wrote in message
news:<c6680bd.0301160753.4c8ffe97@posting...>...

<snip>
> The guitar is a Seagull S6 with a fishman rare earth single coil.
I'll
> be running it into a Peavey Transtube Bandit II on the clean
channel
> with all EQ set at half way up (that's how I run it with my
> Telecaster). I have quite a few pedals, including a Boss GE-7
graphic
> EQ and I intend using this with the acoustic to try to compensate
a
> bit for the limitations of the amp. I may add a bit of chorus
too -
> hope that doesn't shock anyone ;)
>
> So, the question is, to get me started, what kind of 'shape' EQ
> setting should I be starting with? some kind of a 'smile' perhaps
> (less mid, more bass/treble) or maybe just more treble? or
something
> else? are there any particular frequency bands that require
special
> attention? has anyone done this kind of thing? Are there any
general
> recommendations (apart from the obvious "don't do it").

If it were me, I'd start by reading the manual to find out how to
set the knobs for a flat EQ setting on that Peavy amp. Leave the amp
EQ in that position and try putting a "smiley face" dip in the
midrange on your Boss graphic EQ pedal. You may also need a little
bit of treble boost, either on the EQ pedal or the amp, to make up
for the lack of a tweeter in your speaker system. Every amp sounds
different when used this way, so just follow your ears.

The main thing to watch out for is body resonance feedback, although
the Rare Earth will be a little more immune to that, compared to
other pickup systems. Body resonance will sound like a low rumble,
and you'll be able to damp it out by pressing on the soundboard. If
you get that, you'll have to notch it out by cutting the nearest
frequency band on the Boss EQ pedal.

Good luck!

Mike Barrs

From: Lee D <mrbigaxeatyahoodotcom>
Subject: Re: practical advice needed to EQ an electric guitar amp
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 23:16:36 -0600
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 80,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.

"Paul Robins" wrote
> Before we start - I know, I should get an acoustic amp but believe me
> I can't.
>
> I'm a guitarist in an electric band and I want to play acoustic on a
> few songs using my existing equipment, mostly strumming along whilst I
> sing, so it doesn't really have to sound liked an acoustic guitar
> mic'd up properly. Just something that doesn't sound too bad and makes
> the most of what gear I have.
>
> The guitar is a Seagull S6 with a fishman rare earth single coil. I'll
> be running it into a Peavey Transtube Bandit II on the clean channel
> with all EQ set at half way up (that's how I run it with my
> Telecaster). I have quite a few pedals, including a Boss GE-7 graphic
> EQ and I intend using this with the acoustic to try to compensate a
> bit for the limitations of the amp. I may add a bit of chorus too -
> hope that doesn't shock anyone ;)
>
> So, the question is, to get me started, what kind of 'shape' EQ
> setting should I be starting with? some kind of a 'smile' perhaps
> (less mid, more bass/treble) or maybe just more treble? or something
> else? are there any particular frequency bands that require special
> attention? has anyone done this kind of thing? Are there any general
> recommendations (apart from the obvious "don't do it").
>
> thanks in advance
>
> Paul

I have tried to accomplish this with several different EQ's and my Fender
amp. It ain't happening. You might have better luck with the Peavey, but I
doubt you will get anything that you like.

I have one suggestion. Don't work on it for more than about fifteen minutes
at a time. After about 15 minutes, you start getting pissed off and every
setting sounds worse than the last setting - even when you go back to the
previous one.

The idea of setting the amp to a flat position and the EQ to a smiley face
probably has the most potential.

Good luck, and let us know if you get an acceptable sound out of your setup.

Lee D

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

From: JL Venable <Jonboy3NS@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: practical advice needed to EQ an electric guitar amp
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 07:54:09 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

use your ears,,,that's why you have em.

j

From: donh <bounce.spam@driveway...>
Subject: Re: practical advice needed to EQ an electric guitar amp
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:21:10 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

In <BEOV9.61$<u52.5652@bgtnsc04-news...>>, on 01/17/03 at 07:54
AM,

   "JL Venable" <Jonboy3NS@worldnet.att.net> said:

>use your ears,,,that's why you have em.
>j

BINGO! the best answer, imnsho

to expand a bit: try plugging straight in to the guitar amp, fiddle all
controls to hear what they do (yes, try tio figure out what so-called "flat" is
for each piece of gear), then add each piece of gear into the signal chain and
fiddle their knobs while listening (and thinking). it will be quite interesting
what you learn.

AND: save the smiley-face for the front of your head, it's downright silly on
an EQ

have fun :-)

-don-
donh at audiosys dot com

From: Brent Marchbanks <marchbanks@execu...>
Subject: Ultrasound-No Problem
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:57:19 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Ultrasound users-Don't let this happen to you.

While experimenting with a jerry-rigged two source system, the mic
channel on my 50DS2 suddenly stopped working.

Bought new cord-zip. New mic battery-nada. Mic worked fine in the other
channel-so, no problem with the mic iteself.

Ultra fixed the problem even before I called the toll-free
number!!!!!!!!!!

Because while looking for the toll-free number on the brochure, I saw
the previously encrypted, invisible message that you must put a plug in
the other jack when using the mic channel to override the mute function.

Since I'm on the subject, and as one who ususally ends up dissatisfied
with new stuff after a few months, I must say I still believe that
Ultras are among the very best ac. guitar amps available and BY FAR the
best value. And given the light weight and the absence of
roadies/groupies to carry my stuff, I wouldn't trade it for ANY other
amp.

Cheers,

brent

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

From: No Busking <nobusking@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound-No Problem
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:28:58 GMT

> Because while looking for the toll-free number on the brochure, I saw
> the previously encrypted, invisible message that you must put a plug in
> the other jack when using the mic channel to override the mute function.

You're not the only one...

Last year at EC5, we had a bunch of amateur sound guys, one professional,
and two Ultrasound employees in the room while we were doing the first round
of open mics...running through a couple of Ultrasound amps. Our Emcee's mic
stopped working halfway through the set, and we checked cables, mics,
connections, EVERYTHING (well, almost everything).

It was only later that it occurred to us that it stopped working every time
we unplugged the guitar chord. We all hit our head against the wall in
unison...

> Since I'm on the subject, and as one who ususally ends up dissatisfied
> with new stuff after a few months, I must say I still believe that
> Ultras are among the very best ac. guitar amps available and BY FAR the
> best value. And given the light weight and the absence of
> roadies/groupies to carry my stuff, I wouldn't trade it for ANY other
> amp.

Agreed...they're great amps and nice people.

Cheers,

Mike

From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: AcGtrMag Amp Reviews - Phantom Pwr Ques
Date: 16 Jan 2003 17:48:41 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

I've been reading the reviews of amplifiers built for ac/elec guitars that is
in the latest Acoustic Guitar Magazine.

I notice that the phantom power voltages very widely and none (so far) offer
the standard 48volts that I am so accustomed to finding in studio gear.

This is a bit mysterious to me.

Tho the new, inexpensive Chinese- and Korean-made condensor mics may be suited
to working on lower voltages, I wouldn't expect a nice condensor mic (like an
AT 4050 for example) to sound up to its usual self with only 13.7 volts coming
to it...

48v chipsets CAN'T be that expensive, nor take up any more physical space than
these other voltage units ... I wonder why these folks use all these different
voltages?

Other'n that, there sure are a bunch of cool choices for you folks who might
want to use these amps!

Thanks,

stv

From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: AcGtrMag Amp Reviews - Phantom Pwr Ques
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:10:04 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Hedberg" <<hhedberg@swbell...>> wrote in message
news:<hmr97vo6ckb7hpndtqcp8u01uopnhbe9vb@4ax...>...
> On 16 Jan 2003 17:48:41 GMT, <tarbabytunes@aol...> (TarBabyTunes)
> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >
> >48v chipsets CAN'T be that expensive, nor take up any more
physical space than
> >these other voltage units ... I wonder why these folks use all
these different
> >voltages?
> >
> [...]
>
> How hard/expensive is it to get well regulated 48
> vdc from a 12 vac wall wart?

You can buy a 48v phantom power supply box for about $50, if you're
worried about it.

I think I remember reading somewhere that the voltage isn't that
critical when it comes to powering condenser mics, and it can vary
over a certain range without problems. But I'm not 100% sure, and I
can't scare up a reference at the moment. Maybe one of the sound
reinforcement pros can jump in here with the answer.

Mike Barrs

From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: AcGtrMag Amp Reviews - Phantom Pwr Ques
Date: 17 Jan 2003 00:44:20 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<< "Hedberg" wrote:
>
>
> How hard/expensive is it to get well regulated 48
> vdc from a 12 vac wall wart?

And Mike Barrs chimes in:
<< You can buy a 48v phantom power supply box for about $50, if you're
worried about it. >>

Well, I'm not, but thanks!

I have about 60 channels of phantom power in my house, with preamps, in mixers
and in separate little portable phantom-only boxes.
And those can be had for well under $50 nowadays too.

But that wasn't the issue. I don't have a problem with the practices of the
amp makers, I'm just mystified at the logic at work and hope someone else knew
why they do that way.

<< I think I remember reading somewhere that the voltage isn't that
critical when it comes to powering condenser mics, and it can vary
over a certain range without problems. >>

That is generally true, but at the ends of that range, or with wide swings, the
voltage difference may/can affect the performance (read: sound) of the mic(s).

And it varies with different generations of gear. Older mics were made with
wider tolerances since power was not all that usual/predictable. I think that
there is a middle period in which mics were made for specific voltages and
respond poorly to variation. The newest condensor mics, even the cheapest
ones, are said to be very tolerant of voltage swings.

<< Maybe one of the sound
reinforcement pros can jump in here with the answer. >>

Yep, I had hoped so.

The folks who build these amps know more about the phantom power needs of
'acoustic' amp users than I do, and I'd like to find out how that suggests
using lower voltages than the 'standard' 48v.

My first guess was cost, but I'm not sure that is the defining criteria
either...

Thanks, guys!

stv

From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: AcGtrMag Amp Reviews - Phantom Pwr Ques
Date: 17 Jan 2003 01:40:52 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<tarbabytunes@aol...> wrote:

<snippage>

>The folks who build these amps know more about the phantom power needs of
>'acoustic' amp users than I do, and I'd like to find out how that suggests
>using lower voltages than the 'standard' 48v.
>
>My first guess was cost, but I'm not sure that is the defining criteria
>either...
>
>Thanks, guys!

Maybe it's the difference between true "phantom" power, as from a mixer, and T-
or bias power which typically runs 9-15 volts and is sufficient to power these
mini-mics that are typical of dual source set-ups in guitars. I believe this
is how Rane refers to the power coming off of their AP13 mic channel. Bias
power. Any experts confirm?

mk

From: Joe Thibodeau <jetcode@allvantage...>
Subject: Re: AcGtrMag Amp Reviews - Phantom Pwr Ques
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:18:31 -0800
Organization: http://www.TeraNews.com - FREE NNTP Access

This is what I know about phantom power and transducers. The goal of
phantom power is to place the transducer at a static DC level such
that AC signals can be generated on the DC voltage in a linear fashion
much like the biasing of a transistor amplifier. If a transducer is
given a voltage outside it's range non-linear distortion in the form
of crackling may be heard. This is the transducer being overdriven or
underdriven meaning there is not enough headroom for the AC signal to
operate linearly. The signal is clipping. I saw this happen when I
sold a Lowden to someone with a Donnell Mic installed. The phantom
power for that mic was 15v. This person was applying 48v and the
result was lots of crackling and abnormal sensistivity. I believe the
high voltage was causing the condensor to freeze so to speak. Limiting
it's movement by providing too much energy. This of course is
hypothesis and I am certainly not an expert on transducers.

Also I believe that transducers for guitars are much smaller than
those for professional microphones hence the different voltages.

Joe

On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:10:04 -0800, "foldedpath"
<<mbarrs@NOSPAM...>> wrote:

>"Hedberg" <<hhedberg@swbell...>> wrote in message
>news:<hmr97vo6ckb7hpndtqcp8u01uopnhbe9vb@4ax...>...
>> On 16 Jan 2003 17:48:41 GMT, <tarbabytunes@aol...> (TarBabyTunes)
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> >
>> >48v chipsets CAN'T be that expensive, nor take up any more
>physical space than
>> >these other voltage units ... I wonder why these folks use all
>these different
>> >voltages?
>> >
>> [...]
>>
>> How hard/expensive is it to get well regulated 48
>> vdc from a 12 vac wall wart?
>
>You can buy a 48v phantom power supply box for about $50, if you're
>worried about it.
>
>I think I remember reading somewhere that the voltage isn't that
>critical when it comes to powering condenser mics, and it can vary
>over a certain range without problems. But I'm not 100% sure, and I
>can't scare up a reference at the moment. Maybe one of the sound
>reinforcement pros can jump in here with the answer.
>
>Mike Barrs
>

From: M Musement <mmusement@aol...>
Subject: Re: AcGtrMag Amp Reviews - Phantom Pwr Ques
Date: 17 Jan 2003 13:19:08 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

stv,

	It is my understanding that he entire 48V issue is a part of a mythology

created in and perpetuated from a time when circuitry was largely powered by a
120 AC circuit. The electronics plugged into those devices were made to take
advantage of the voltage and the current that were available.

	Things changed with transistor circuitry that used ever less voltage and

current. At first, there were AC primarys which were stepped down to DC
supplies that had plus and minus voltage rails. Then the circuitry evolved to a
single sided supply that ios as low as 1.5 Vdc.

	The post that comments on suppyling a  48 V supply to the Donnel is observing

exactly what would occur when one had a mic element that was "looking for" a
1.5 volt supply and someone fed it 48 V. YIKES SPIKES.

	Imagine if you tried to run your car with a 384 Volt source or your light

bulbs in your house with a 3840 AC supply............ which are both
proportionatly equal........ your car or the light bulb would not behave as
designed...... ;-)

	A misunderstanding comes from the fact that less than 5% of all of the

microphones sold in today's market use more than a 9 volt supply in their
internal circuitry. Most have step down voltage regulation at their input stage
within the microphone itself.

	So, the issue of what voltage is being sent by any preamp to power any

condenser is not the issue that one may think.

	What I would suggest is for us all to understand two things, first what is the

voltage and current requirements of the device we are trying to use and second
is to learn what the voltage and current supplies of the preamps we are
interested in, are. Then make your selection based on the compatability of both
to each other. Note that you can not expect either to work in all other
combinations with all other equipment. It just will not happen.

	The posts wondering how to get 48 volts of of a 12 V wall wart are valid

questions. Simply put, it is a matter of the transformer in the wall wart. The
secondary of the transformer would have to supply a plus and minus rail with
current that would create the 48 volts that you would require / desire. Few
step down transformer wall wart devices have this capability. It is not a part
of the transformer's manufacture nor of the secondary regulation's capability
to supply a plus and minus 48 volt rail.

	Note also that very few of the old "48 V" style microphones actually used the

48V supply . Most often if that voltage sent from the preamp, it was stepped
down internally to charge of the element. More often, the 48V was used to
power a tube or other circuitry in line between the preamp of the console and
the mic element.

	The simple fact is as you and the others who responded are all talking about

the same condition.

	You are each observing the elephant by holding onto a different part of it's

body and thus concluding what the larger object was ;-).

	AUDIOS,
	Christopher

From: Jibba <jibba80@hotmail...>
Subject: AER Compact 60 versus Behringer Ultracoustic?
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 23:53:10 +1000
Organization: Chariot Internet - http://www.chariot.net.au

Any opinions on either of these amps?

From: Brett Foster <brett_fosterr@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: AER Compact 60 versus Behringer Ultracoustic?
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 09:50:16 +1000

On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 23:53:10 +1000, "Jibba" <<jibba80@hotmail...>>
wrote:

>Any opinions on either of these amps?
>
>

I can't claim to have done an A/B comparison but I am happy with my
AER Compact 60 for solo use. I do however find it does have trouble
keeping up in a full rock band scenario (especially in terms of low
end.
But if you are looking to solo work or acoustic ensemble it will serve
you very well.

Good Luck,

Brett Foster

From: walterlane <lane@walterlane...>
Subject: acoustic amps advise.
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:09:14 -0500

I'm trying an Ultrasound 30 watt amp. Great as it sounds, I may need
something bigger and more powerful and I just don't want to pay the
price for the bigger Ultrasound amps. The other two contenders are
Fender Acoustasonic Jr. and Behringer Ultrasonic with the Ultrasonic
in the lead because of the good reviews, power and loads of features
and a good price by web-order. (Oddly, the _lack_ of features, the
simplicity of the Ultrasound, appeals to me.) The only negative I've
heard about the Behringer Ultrasonic is a low, intermittent buzzing.
But that may not be a problem for me. I've read a lot of good things
about the Fender Acoustasonic Jr. as well. Both seem like good amps.

Do you like the Behringer Ultrasonic? How about the Fender
Acoustasonic Jr.? And most importantly, do they compare well to the
Ultrasound in sound quality? Thanks.

From: <please@nospam...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps advise.
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 20:28:31 GMT
Organization: None

"walterlane" <<lane@walterlane...>> wrote:

>I'm trying an Ultrasound 30 watt amp. Great as it sounds, I may need
>something bigger and more powerful and I just don't want to pay the
>price for the bigger Ultrasound amps. The other two contenders are
>Fender Acoustasonic Jr. and Behringer Ultrasonic with the Ultrasonic
>in the lead because of the good reviews, power and loads of features
>and a good price by web-order. (Oddly, the _lack_ of features, the
>simplicity of the Ultrasound, appeals to me.) The only negative I've
>heard about the Behringer Ultrasonic is a low, intermittent buzzing.
>But that may not be a problem for me. I've read a lot of good things
>about the Fender Acoustasonic Jr. as well. Both seem like good amps.
>
>Do you like the Behringer Ultrasonic? How about the Fender
>Acoustasonic Jr.? And most importantly, do they compare well to the
>Ultrasound in sound quality? Thanks.

In my opinion, you get what you pay for. More accurately, what
I think is that you rarely get anything more than you pay for.
The Ultrasounds are good value for the dollar, in my opinion. I
have a Clarus Coda that I like quite well that also represents
good value to me. If I were you, I'd audition the amps you are
considering. The Ultrasound 50 is definitely gig-ready, and
several on this newgroup gig with them.

Al Sato

--
Reply to al_guitar "at" clifftopmusic "dot" com

From: misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps advise.
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 16:24:25 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

<please@nospam...> wrote:
> "walterlane" <<lane@walterlane...>> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm trying an Ultrasound 30 watt amp. Great as it sounds, I may need
>>something bigger and more powerful and I just don't want to pay the
>>price for the bigger Ultrasound amps. The other two contenders are
>>Fender Acoustasonic Jr. and Behringer Ultrasonic with the Ultrasonic
>>in the lead because of the good reviews, power and loads of features
>>and a good price by web-order. (Oddly, the _lack_ of features, the
>>simplicity of the Ultrasound, appeals to me.) The only negative I've
>>heard about the Behringer Ultrasonic is a low, intermittent buzzing.
>>But that may not be a problem for me. I've read a lot of good things
>>about the Fender Acoustasonic Jr. as well. Both seem like good amps.
>>
>>Do you like the Behringer Ultrasonic? How about the Fender
>>Acoustasonic Jr.? And most importantly, do they compare well to the
>>Ultrasound in sound quality? Thanks.
>
>
> In my opinion, you get what you pay for. More accurately, what
> I think is that you rarely get anything more than you pay for.
> The Ultrasounds are good value for the dollar, in my opinion. I
> have a Clarus Coda that I like quite well that also represents
> good value to me. If I were you, I'd audition the amps you are
> considering. The Ultrasound 50 is definitely gig-ready, and
> several on this newgroup gig with them.
>
> Al Sato
>
> --
> Reply to al_guitar "at" clifftopmusic "dot" com

I'll second Al's recommedation for the UltraSound 50DS2. I have
one of those and a 50 watt extensions cabinet. Together they do
a pretty good job. For a smaller room, a single 50 will do.

I'm not sure I understand what it is you're looking for with
this. If you want more volume, and you like the UltraSound
sound, why not go for a larger one? If you're trying to get more
power, is either the Fender or the Behringer going to save you
enough to offset the difference in sound quality? Only you can
answer.

	-Ralph

--
Misifus-
Ralph Seibert
mailto:<rseibert@cox-internet...>
http://www.ralphandsue.com

From: walterlane <lane@walterlane...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps advise.
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:19:47 -0500

> I'll second Al's recommedation for the UltraSound 50DS2. I have
> one of those and a 50 watt extensions cabinet. Together they do
> a pretty good job. For a smaller room, a single 50 will do.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what it is you're looking for with
> this. If you want more volume, and you like the UltraSound
> sound, why not go for a larger one? If you're trying to get more
> power, is either the Fender or the Behringer going to save you
> enough to offset the difference in sound quality?

I was wondering how the other amps I mentioned, the Behringer and the
Acoustasonic, compare in sound quality with the Ultrasound., if they
are pretty close. But sound quality is the issue and I could, I guess,
afford to get the bigger Ultrasound. But after I first posted it
occurred to me I could simply get one of the fifty or maybe hundred
watt Ultrasonic extension amps to add to my present 30 watt amp if I
need more power and take advantage of the portability of the 30 watt
amp if I needed to. I used the 30 watt amp in public tonight for the
first time. Just got it yesterday. I played in church and the amp
dispersed sound well and had a real presence in the music mix and
sounded good as far as I could tell. That volume imbalance with my
Washburn I posted about was noticeable but didn't ruin things,
especially just playing chords. I have the rest of this week to try
out the Ultrasound 30 watt. But the way I feel right now, I'll
probably keep it or maybe just get the 50 watt amp suggest here. I'm
still deciding.

From: <please@nospam...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps advise.
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 04:49:53 GMT
Organization: None

"Peter Colin" <<pcolin@colinet...>> wrote:

>Al,
>
>What speakers do you use with your Clarus?
>
>Pete Colin

The Coda is a combo with a 3-way cab that sits under a Clarus
head, so the choice was already made for me. I guess I'd like
to try a Raezer's Edge RE-12ER (the one with the tweeter) if I
had a Clarus head all by itself. I might still get one as an
extension cab, but it is noticeably louder than the built-in cab
so its sound will dominate the combination.

I got a sideman gig once with my mandolin and my Coda. I had to
put the Coda on the floor and nobody beyond the first couple of
rows was able to hear me. The low point of the gig was when I
was told, "I can see that you're playing but I can't hear you at
all." The high point was being told by the young woman at the
table in front of where my wife was sitting, "You're wonderful!"
I think that's when I decided to start getting serious about the
mandolin... :-) Be that as it may, next time I'll insist on at
least putting the Coda on top of a chair or something. No amp
can project from the bottom of a well. The (tenuous) connection
between all of this and the question is that an extension cab
would have been useful at this particular gig.

Al Sato

--
Reply to al_guitar "at" clifftopmusic "dot" com

From: Joe Jordan <jjordan@hotpop...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps advise.
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 22:33:18 GMT
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet

walterlane wrote:

>I'm trying an Ultrasound 30 watt amp. Great as it sounds, I may need
>something bigger and more powerful and I just don't want to pay the
>price for the bigger Ultrasound amps. The other two contenders are
>Fender Acoustasonic Jr. and Behringer Ultrasonic with the Ultrasonic
>in the lead because of the good reviews

Hi Walter,

Where are you reading the reviews on the Behringer? I don't
recall anyone around here having written that they've even
seen one yet.

Joe

--

Joe D. Jordan
Mobile, AL

From: walterlane <lane@walterlane...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps advise.
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:25:00 -0500

The reviews were customer reviews on a guitar store site. There were
quite a few of them. I'm sorry I can't remember which site it is. The
amp got very good reviews but more than one mentioned that
intermittent buzzing. Due to my terrible memory, take this with a
grain of salt. But I do think it was the Behringer amp they were
writing about.

"Joe Jordan" <<jjordan@hotpop...>> wrote in message
news:<d17r3vo7t3k181t1h61vjasvg1b4tpg78b@4ax...>...
> walterlane wrote:
>
> >I'm trying an Ultrasound 30 watt amp. Great as it sounds, I may
need
> >something bigger and more powerful and I just don't want to pay the
> >price for the bigger Ultrasound amps. The other two contenders are
> >Fender Acoustasonic Jr. and Behringer Ultrasonic with the
Ultrasonic
> >in the lead because of the good reviews
>
> Hi Walter,
>
> Where are you reading the reviews on the Behringer? I don't
> recall anyone around here having written that they've even
> seen one yet.
>
> Joe
>
>
> --
>
> Joe D. Jordan
> Mobile, AL

From: Lee D <mrbigaxeREMOVE@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps advise.
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:35:01 -0600
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 80,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.

"walterlane" wrote
> The reviews were customer reviews on a guitar store site. There were
> quite a few of them. I'm sorry I can't remember which site it is. The
> amp got very good reviews but more than one mentioned that
> intermittent buzzing. Due to my terrible memory, take this with a
> grain of salt. But I do think it was the Behringer amp they were
> writing about.
>

Be wary of reviews that you read on websites that are selling the products.
If you look around you will usually find that all the amps they sell have
many good reviews about them. They can't all be that good. I've tried a
few Genz Benz amps that had great reviews that really sounded horrible. I
would put a lot more stock in what the folks in here have to say about these
things.

As far as the amps you mentioned, the lil Fender Ac. Jr. sounds okay, but is
not a great sound. If you have an Ultrasound now, you will probably not be
happy with the Fender. IMHA, Fender knows electric amplification, but their
attempts at acoustic amplification are merely acceptible.

Lee D

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

From: walterlane <lane@walterlane...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps advise.
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:05:32 -0500

Come to think of it, I think I read those reviews of The Behringer amp
at http://www.epinions.com

"walterlane" <<lane@walterlane...>> wrote in message
news:b1kr5k$13l250$<1@ID-71359...>...
> The reviews were customer reviews on a guitar store site. There were
> quite a few of them. I'm sorry I can't remember which site it is.
The
> amp got very good reviews but more than one mentioned that
> intermittent buzzing. Due to my terrible memory, take this with a
> grain of salt. But I do think it was the Behringer amp they were
> writing about.
>
>
> "Joe Jordan" <<jjordan@hotpop...>> wrote in message
> news:<d17r3vo7t3k181t1h61vjasvg1b4tpg78b@4ax...>...
> > walterlane wrote:
> >
> > >I'm trying an Ultrasound 30 watt amp. Great as it sounds, I may
> need
> > >something bigger and more powerful and I just don't want to pay
the
> > >price for the bigger Ultrasound amps. The other two contenders
are
> > >Fender Acoustasonic Jr. and Behringer Ultrasonic with the
> Ultrasonic
> > >in the lead because of the good reviews
> >
> > Hi Walter,
> >
> > Where are you reading the reviews on the Behringer? I don't
> > recall anyone around here having written that they've even
> > seen one yet.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Joe D. Jordan
> > Mobile, AL
>
>

From: Jonathan Kendall <letseatpaste@RATATAT_TAThotmail...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps advise.
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:54:13 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

i love my ultrasound 30 watt, and i've found it plenty loud for playing
coffee shops/churches and whatnot, usually with room to spare on the volume
knob... would probably be different if i were trying to compete with drums
or other loud instruments, but if i ever play with drums there's usually a
PA... i'd like to upgrade to the 50 watt just to have the capability of
plugging in a mic as well as the line input, but i have no need for anymore
volume... plus it's nice having an amp that won't break my back and fits
just about anywhere.

jonathan

"walterlane" <<lane@walterlane...>> wrote in message
news:b1ju42$13btq2$<1@ID-71359...>...
> I'm trying an Ultrasound 30 watt amp. Great as it sounds, I may need
> something bigger and more powerful and I just don't want to pay the
> price for the bigger Ultrasound amps. The other two contenders are
> Fender Acoustasonic Jr. and Behringer Ultrasonic with the Ultrasonic
> in the lead because of the good reviews, power and loads of features
> and a good price by web-order. (Oddly, the _lack_ of features, the
> simplicity of the Ultrasound, appeals to me.) The only negative I've
> heard about the Behringer Ultrasonic is a low, intermittent buzzing.
> But that may not be a problem for me. I've read a lot of good things
> about the Fender Acoustasonic Jr. as well. Both seem like good amps.
>
> Do you like the Behringer Ultrasonic? How about the Fender
> Acoustasonic Jr.? And most importantly, do they compare well to the
> Ultrasound in sound quality? Thanks.
>
>
>

From: walterlane <lane@walterlane...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps advise.
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:29:25 -0500

I see your point. I do, however, play with drums in church. In fact, I
seated right beside them but they are behind a polyglass partition so
that helps a lot. But I used the amp tonight for the first time and
was pleased with how it performed. I had to do some positioning to
find the "sweetspot" to sit the amp so I could hear it as well as the
house. I finally found a good spot right in front of the polyglass
partition.

--

Before anyone was "left behind" a battle raged for
the soul of one man. Fearmonger, a novel.
http://www.walterlane.com

"Jonathan Kendall" <<letseatpaste@RATATAT_TAThotmail...>> wrote in
message news:<v3r8clkkgv6i22@corp...>...
> i love my ultrasound 30 watt, and i've found it plenty loud for
playing
> coffee shops/churches and whatnot, usually with room to spare on the
volume
> knob... would probably be different if i were trying to compete with
drums
> or other loud instruments, but if i ever play with drums there's
usually a
> PA... i'd like to upgrade to the 50 watt just to have the
capability of
> plugging in a mic as well as the line input, but i have no need for
anymore
> volume... plus it's nice having an amp that won't break my back and
fits
> just about anywhere.
>
> jonathan
>
>
> "walterlane" <<lane@walterlane...>> wrote in message
> news:b1ju42$13btq2$<1@ID-71359...>...
> > I'm trying an Ultrasound 30 watt amp. Great as it sounds, I may
need
> > something bigger and more powerful and I just don't want to pay
the
> > price for the bigger Ultrasound amps. The other two contenders are
> > Fender Acoustasonic Jr. and Behringer Ultrasonic with the
Ultrasonic
> > in the lead because of the good reviews, power and loads of
features
> > and a good price by web-order. (Oddly, the _lack_ of features, the
> > simplicity of the Ultrasound, appeals to me.) The only negative
I've
> > heard about the Behringer Ultrasonic is a low, intermittent
buzzing.
> > But that may not be a problem for me. I've read a lot of good
things
> > about the Fender Acoustasonic Jr. as well. Both seem like good
amps.
> >
> > Do you like the Behringer Ultrasonic? How about the Fender
> > Acoustasonic Jr.? And most importantly, do they compare well to
the
> > Ultrasound in sound quality? Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

From: Jonathan Kendall (ihatespam) <jonathan_kendall@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps advise.
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:02:50 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

if you mainly use it as a monitor to hear yourself, then i would just use
the 30watt and get a little amp stand that tilts it back, then just have it
facing back at you, and run the direct out to the house PA for the soundman
to control.

jonathan

"walterlane" <<lane@walterlane...>> wrote in message
news:b1krdt$1325q3$<1@ID-71359...>...
> I see your point. I do, however, play with drums in church. In fact, I
> seated right beside them but they are behind a polyglass partition so
> that helps a lot. But I used the amp tonight for the first time and
> was pleased with how it performed. I had to do some positioning to
> find the "sweetspot" to sit the amp so I could hear it as well as the
> house. I finally found a good spot right in front of the polyglass
> partition.
>
> --
>
> Before anyone was "left behind" a battle raged for
> the soul of one man. Fearmonger, a novel.
> http://www.walterlane.com
>
>
> "Jonathan Kendall" <<letseatpaste@RATATAT_TAThotmail...>> wrote in
> message news:<v3r8clkkgv6i22@corp...>...
> > i love my ultrasound 30 watt, and i've found it plenty loud for
> playing
> > coffee shops/churches and whatnot, usually with room to spare on the
> volume
> > knob... would probably be different if i were trying to compete with
> drums
> > or other loud instruments, but if i ever play with drums there's
> usually a
> > PA... i'd like to upgrade to the 50 watt just to have the
> capability of
> > plugging in a mic as well as the line input, but i have no need for
> anymore
> > volume... plus it's nice having an amp that won't break my back and
> fits
> > just about anywhere.
> >
> > jonathan
> >
> >
> > "walterlane" <<lane@walterlane...>> wrote in message
> > news:b1ju42$13btq2$<1@ID-71359...>...
> > > I'm trying an Ultrasound 30 watt amp. Great as it sounds, I may
> need
> > > something bigger and more powerful and I just don't want to pay
> the
> > > price for the bigger Ultrasound amps. The other two contenders are
> > > Fender Acoustasonic Jr. and Behringer Ultrasonic with the
> Ultrasonic
> > > in the lead because of the good reviews, power and loads of
> features
> > > and a good price by web-order. (Oddly, the _lack_ of features, the
> > > simplicity of the Ultrasound, appeals to me.) The only negative
> I've
> > > heard about the Behringer Ultrasonic is a low, intermittent
> buzzing.
> > > But that may not be a problem for me. I've read a lot of good
> things
> > > about the Fender Acoustasonic Jr. as well. Both seem like good
> amps.
> > >
> > > Do you like the Behringer Ultrasonic? How about the Fender
> > > Acoustasonic Jr.? And most importantly, do they compare well to
> the
> > > Ultrasound in sound quality? Thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

From: JoelT <joeltepp@ix...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps advise.
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 05:30:02 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

Here's an off the wall suggestion.

I have a Fender Acousatasonic 30 and it is a very decent amp, although
I did have to get a warranty repair on the reverb section. The dealer
said that was relatively common. However I find myself using
another setup much more often for a lot of reasons.

I use a Gallien Kreuger 200MV, which is a predecessor of the Trace
Elliott in design. It is small but has a lot of power. There are two
5" speakers built in, but unlike the Trace there is also a separate
powered output for an external speaker. The sound is a little boxey
with just the 5"s although it is reasonably useful. When I combine it
with a smaller monitor (1x12" and a tweeter with the ability to handle
65 watts) It round out the sound beautifully. It iws also very easy
to transport just the amp or the amp with external speaker. I use
the 5" built-in speakers as a monitor and point the external monitor
towards the crowd. It's great for smaller rooms (50-75 people)

It's also quite affordable. You can find these with a little looking
in the $200 to $250 range in the used market and the monitor is
commonly found for $50 to $75, also used.

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:09:14 -0500, "walterlane" <<lane@walterlane...>>
wrote:

>I'm trying an Ultrasound 30 watt amp. Great as it sounds, I may need
>something bigger and more powerful and I just don't want to pay the
>price for the bigger Ultrasound amps. The other two contenders are
>Fender Acoustasonic Jr. and Behringer Ultrasonic with the Ultrasonic
>in the lead because of the good reviews, power and loads of features
>and a good price by web-order. (Oddly, the _lack_ of features, the
>simplicity of the Ultrasound, appeals to me.) The only negative I've
>heard about the Behringer Ultrasonic is a low, intermittent buzzing.
>But that may not be a problem for me. I've read a lot of good things
>about the Fender Acoustasonic Jr. as well. Both seem like good amps.
>
>Do you like the Behringer Ultrasonic? How about the Fender
>Acoustasonic Jr.? And most importantly, do they compare well to the
>Ultrasound in sound quality? Thanks.
>
>

From: Grady Musick <bluedawg@mail...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps advise.
Date: 3 Feb 2003 09:15:26 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

<joeltepp@ix...> (JoelT) wrote in message news:<<3e3dfd94.9619823@news...>>...
> Here's an off the wall suggestion.
>
> I have a Fender Acousatasonic 30 and it is a very decent amp, although
> I did have to get a warranty repair on the reverb section. The dealer
> said that was relatively common. However I find myself using
> another setup much more often for a lot of reasons.
>
> I use a Gallien Kreuger 200MV, which is a predecessor of the Trace
> Elliott in design. It is small but has a lot of power. There are two
> 5" speakers built in, but unlike the Trace there is also a separate
> powered output for an external speaker. The sound is a little boxey
> with just the 5"s although it is reasonably useful. When I combine it
> with a smaller monitor (1x12" and a tweeter with the ability to handle
> 65 watts) It round out the sound beautifully. It iws also very easy
> to transport just the amp or the amp with external speaker. I use
> the 5" built-in speakers as a monitor and point the external monitor
> towards the crowd. It's great for smaller rooms (50-75 people)
>

Hi,
I use a Peavey Ecoustic($399.00 new) with a Fender Satellite
SFX($200.00 new).
It gives me 180 watts,2 12 inch speakers,and great Acoustic tone.

I find the Ultrasound amps tend to distort with the little 8 inch
speakers and they don't seem to handle vocals very well.

I play Solo Acoustic Blues in large clubs,and I need the 12-inch
speakers
that are cable of handling the thump that is needed for this style of
music.

I do not run my vocals thru the SFX,the vocal channel on the Peavey is
plenty loud.

I had read reviews of the Ecoustic stating that the amp has a little
hum to it.
Using quality cables takes care of that.

Minor Amp hum is only an issue if you are going to use the amp for
recording.

I don't expect amps to be totally quiet,I tried everything I could get
my hands on before purchasing the rig that I have now.

To each his own but I feel that there isn't a $600.00 amp out there
that can compete with my rig for Power and tone.

GM

> It's also quite affordable. You can find these with a little looking
> in the $200 to $250 range in the used market and the monitor is
> commonly found for $50 to $75, also used.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:09:14 -0500, "walterlane" <<lane@walterlane...>>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm trying an Ultrasound 30 watt amp. Great as it sounds, I may need
> >something bigger and more powerful and I just don't want to pay the
> >price for the bigger Ultrasound amps. The other two contenders are
> >Fender Acoustasonic Jr. and Behringer Ultrasonic with the Ultrasonic
> >in the lead because of the good reviews, power and loads of features
> >and a good price by web-order. (Oddly, the _lack_ of features, the
> >simplicity of the Ultrasound, appeals to me.) The only negative I've
> >heard about the Behringer Ultrasonic is a low, intermittent buzzing.
> >But that may not be a problem for me. I've read a lot of good things
> >about the Fender Acoustasonic Jr. as well. Both seem like good amps.
> >
> >Do you like the Behringer Ultrasonic? How about the Fender
> >Acoustasonic Jr.? And most importantly, do they compare well to the
> >Ultrasound in sound quality? Thanks.
> >
> >

From: walterlane <lane@walterlane...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps advise.
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 04:27:12 -0500

I returned the Ultrasound 30 today. Just not enough power to satisfy
me. While at the store, I looked over the Fender Ultrasound Jr. Nice
sound by too much circuit hiss. For only a little more, I could get
the Ultrasound 50 with two eight inch speakers and digital effects and
more.

"Walter Lane" <<walterlane@netzero...>> wrote in message
news:<ad018d83.0302040243.60aeadca@posting...>...
> I too have concerns about pushing the 8" speaker of my Ultrasound
too
> much. Every speaker has it's limits. I'm still trying to decide
> wheather to keep it, but I'm sure I'm going for for a bigger amp.
> Perhaps I'll break down and get the 50 watt with the two 8"
speakers.
> The Fender Acoustasonic Jr. is not out of the running, however. I'm
> going to try and look one over today.
>
> <bluedawg@mail...> (Grady Musick) wrote in message
news:<<de1ffd83.0302030915.21582d31@posting...>>...
> > <joeltepp@ix...> (JoelT) wrote in message
news:<<3e3dfd94.9619823@news...>>...
> > > Here's an off the wall suggestion.
> > >
> > > I have a Fender Acousatasonic 30 and it is a very decent amp,
although
> > > I did have to get a warranty repair on the reverb section. The
dealer
> > > said that was relatively common. However I find myself using
> > > another setup much more often for a lot of reasons.
> > >
> > > I use a Gallien Kreuger 200MV, which is a predecessor of the
Trace
> > > Elliott in design. It is small but has a lot of power. There
are two
> > > 5" speakers built in, but unlike the Trace there is also a
separate
> > > powered output for an external speaker. The sound is a little
boxey
> > > with just the 5"s although it is reasonably useful. When I
combine it
> > > with a smaller monitor (1x12" and a tweeter with the ability to
handle
> > > 65 watts) It round out the sound beautifully. It iws also
very easy
> > > to transport just the amp or the amp with external speaker. I
use
> > > the 5" built-in speakers as a monitor and point the external
monitor
> > > towards the crowd. It's great for smaller rooms (50-75 people)
> > >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > I use a Peavey Ecoustic($399.00 new) with a Fender Satellite
> > SFX($200.00 new).
> > It gives me 180 watts,2 12 inch speakers,and great Acoustic tone.
> >
> > I find the Ultrasound amps tend to distort with the little 8 inch
> > speakers and they don't seem to handle vocals very well.
> >
> > I play Solo Acoustic Blues in large clubs,and I need the 12-inch
> > speakers
> > that are cable of handling the thump that is needed for this style
of
> > music.
> >
> > I do not run my vocals thru the SFX,the vocal channel on the
Peavey is
> > plenty loud.
> >
> > I had read reviews of the Ecoustic stating that the amp has a
little
> > hum to it.
> > Using quality cables takes care of that.
> >
> > Minor Amp hum is only an issue if you are going to use the amp for
> > recording.
> >
> > I don't expect amps to be totally quiet,I tried everything I could
get
> > my hands on before purchasing the rig that I have now.
> >
> > To each his own but I feel that there isn't a $600.00 amp out
there
> > that can compete with my rig for Power and tone.
> >
> > GM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > It's also quite affordable. You can find these with a little
looking
> > > in the $200 to $250 range in the used market and the monitor is
> > > commonly found for $50 to $75, also used.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:09:14 -0500, "walterlane"
<<lane@walterlane...>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I'm trying an Ultrasound 30 watt amp. Great as it sounds, I may
need
> > > >something bigger and more powerful and I just don't want to pay
the
> > > >price for the bigger Ultrasound amps. The other two contenders
are
> > > >Fender Acoustasonic Jr. and Behringer Ultrasonic with the
Ultrasonic
> > > >in the lead because of the good reviews, power and loads of
features
> > > >and a good price by web-order. (Oddly, the _lack_ of features,
the
> > > >simplicity of the Ultrasound, appeals to me.) The only negative
I've
> > > >heard about the Behringer Ultrasonic is a low, intermittent
buzzing.
> > > >But that may not be a problem for me. I've read a lot of good
things
> > > >about the Fender Acoustasonic Jr. as well. Both seem like good
amps.
> > > >
> > > >Do you like the Behringer Ultrasonic? How about the Fender
> > > >Acoustasonic Jr.? And most importantly, do they compare well to
the
> > > >Ultrasound in sound quality? Thanks.
> > > >
> > > >

From: David Eidelberg <DavidEidelberg@msn...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps advise.
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:11:13 -0500

When I need something louder than my Ultrasound, I use my Centaur Acoustic
P.A. with very good results.

"walterlane" <<lane@walterlane...>> wrote in message
news:b1ju42$13btq2$<1@ID-71359...>...
> I'm trying an Ultrasound 30 watt amp. Great as it sounds, I may need
> something bigger and more powerful and I just don't want to pay the
> price for the bigger Ultrasound amps. The other two contenders are
> Fender Acoustasonic Jr. and Behringer Ultrasonic with the Ultrasonic
> in the lead because of the good reviews, power and loads of features
> and a good price by web-order. (Oddly, the _lack_ of features, the
> simplicity of the Ultrasound, appeals to me.) The only negative I've
> heard about the Behringer Ultrasonic is a low, intermittent buzzing.
> But that may not be a problem for me. I've read a lot of good things
> about the Fender Acoustasonic Jr. as well. Both seem like good amps.
>
> Do you like the Behringer Ultrasonic? How about the Fender
> Acoustasonic Jr.? And most importantly, do they compare well to the
> Ultrasound in sound quality? Thanks.
>
>
>

From: JGreen <john_k_green@lycos...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps advise.
Date: 11 Feb 2003 08:50:51 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

I have the Centaur as well , very clean mine is 60 watts . Not sure
what they go for new , but I paid about 220.00 used

From: Dan Carey <dcarey@cox...>
Subject: Marshall/Fender acoustic amps
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 21:29:40 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications

Hi all!

Do any of you have any experiences, good or bad, with the Marshall
AS50R acoustic amp?
I don't need anything big and I'm on a limited budget so I'm wavering
between that and the Fender Acoustasonic 30.

Thanks,
Dan

From: LittleBoyLuke <littleboyluke@aol...>
Subject: Re: Marshall/Fender acoustic amps
Date: 03 Feb 2003 22:03:15 GMT
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk

I have the AS50 R, the ASD100 sounded a lot nicer but was double the price.

To be honest I dont have enough experience to give a detailed review, but at
the price it sounds good to me - I use a Taylr 314ce fwiw.

Michael

From: Steven Dillon <laswd@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Marshall/Fender acoustic amps
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 23:36:51 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications

"Dan Carey" <<dcarey@cox...>> wrote in message
news:8bB%9.151459$<ui1.3974651@news1...>...
> Hi all!
>
> Do any of you have any experiences, good or bad, with the Marshall
> AS50R acoustic amp?
> I don't need anything big and I'm on a limited budget so I'm wavering
> between that and the Fender Acoustasonic 30.
>
Hello Dan,
I started with the Marshall, then bought a Fender Acoustasonic Jr. I
had the Fender for quite some time and compared to the Marshall it
had a much more "real" sound. The Marshall (at least to my ears) has
a distinct sound/tone/feel to it (not unlike their electric amps - you know,
the Marshall sound and all - it's recognizable). The Fender did not
"suffer"
from that exact problem, although it too has a color all it's own. To me,
the best part of the Fender is the Chorus - best I've ever heard or used.
Now, that's subject to change as I just got my T.C. Electronics Chorus
box today. I still have the Fender, but I'm now using an Ultrasound.
You should consider their product. As I recall, the pricing was similar
to an Acoustasonic Jr (maybe a tad more than what you would like to
spend, but well worth the money). The Ultrasound will be hard to beat
for the price. Their sound is so true. They have a saying, "It sounds just
like your guitar only louder" and that is right on the money! There is no
extra color added to their sound. Do yourself a favor and give Ultrasound
a listen.

Good luck and happy amp-hunting.

Keep Picking,

Steven Dillon

http://www.stevendillon.com
http://mp3.com/stevendillon

From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Marshall/Fender acoustic amps
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 00:07:31 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

Dan Carey wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> Do any of you have any experiences, good or bad, with the Marshall
> AS50R acoustic amp?
> I don't need anything big and I'm on a limited budget so I'm wavering
> between that and the Fender Acoustasonic 30.
>
I have it, it's very nice but sounds much better by far if you use an
angled floor stand.
My stand puts it about nine inches off the floor and tilted back about
15 degrees. It has a little noise if you overcrank the FX. The gain
level is exceptional though and you can play with the main volume down
to about a 10 degree turn, just using the channel gains. Then it is
really clean.

David

From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Marshall/Fender acoustic amps
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 21:52:01 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...

On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 21:29:40 GMT, "Dan Carey" <<dcarey@cox...>> brewed
up the following, and served it to the group:

>Hi all!
>
>Do any of you have any experiences, good or bad, with the Marshall
>AS50R acoustic amp?
>I don't need anything big and I'm on a limited budget so I'm wavering
>between that and the Fender Acoustasonic 30.

Hey, Dan. I've had a Fender Acoustasonic Jr. (the 40-watt model) for
a few years now. I like it--good sound, solid amp. Not powerful
enough for anything larger than a very small room, especially if
you're using it for both guitar and vocals, but for a small room, it
is great.

Haven't tried it in a full band setting--would like to eventually...

-----
"'This ain't a dream,' he said. 'It ain't life either. It's just a
song Hank Williams never got around to writing.'"

                  --Kinky Friedman, "Steppin' On A Rainbow"

       the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.

the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://artists.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Bill_Chandler/ some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler

                   ...bc...

From: Dave Hallsworth <david.hallsworth@wadham...>
Subject: Re: Marshall/Fender acoustic amps
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:20:21 -0000
Organization: Oxford University, England

Hi,

I've never tried the Acoustasonic, but I have just bought a AS50R and am
very pleased with it. It does give it that 'marshal colour', but it's quite
easy to get rid of if you put a few well chosen effects through the loop -
that is, of course, if you want to get rid of it!

Used on its own, it has a nice warm feel to it and reproduced the guitar
sound pretty well (I'm using an Ovation Balladeer). I haven't tried it with
a mic, but the aux input for CDs, etc seems to work well. I have only
gigged with it a couple of times, and each times I have used it to drive a
PA and thus act as a monitor. It seems to work nicely, and the notch /
phase controls kill most feedback.

For the price, I think it's a pretty good amp (but I still want one of those
sweeeet AERs)

Dave

From: John Williams <jwms@halcyon...>
Subject: Ultrasound Amps
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:26:15 -0800

I just ordered a little Ultrasound amp from FQMS (nice folks). I didn't
realize those amps were so affordable. I've never heard one but am going by
the almost universal high esteem they are held in here. I like to play
really small rooms without amplification when possible and this amp might
slightly stretch the size of the room I can play without bringing an actual
PA.

I've had a Trace TA50 for years and never really liked it. I loaned it out
quite a while ago and never asked for it back. I just saw them at GC for
around $800! Maybe I should get it back.

--

John Williams
http://www.johnwms.com

From: Jonathan Kendall (ihatespam) <jonathan_kendall@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Amps
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 14:07:08 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"John Williams" <<jwms@halcyon...>> wrote in message
news:tLT0a.5981$<A25.77725@news...>...
> I just ordered a little Ultrasound amp from FQMS (nice folks). I didn't
> realize those amps were so affordable. I've never heard one but am going
by
> the almost universal high esteem they are held in here. I like to play
> really small rooms without amplification when possible and this amp might
> slightly stretch the size of the room I can play without bringing an
actual
> PA.
>
> I've had a Trace TA50 for years and never really liked it. I loaned it
out
> quite a while ago and never asked for it back. I just saw them at GC for
> around $800! Maybe I should get it back.
>
> --
>
> John Williams
> http://www.johnwms.com

Did you get the 30 watt? I love mine, sounds great, plenty of volume from a
small package... and it just looks cool.

jonathan

From: Hojo2x <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Amps
Date: 07 Feb 2003 22:04:38 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

John -

I think you'll like the Ultrasound - they're very nice amps. I use a couple of
them, including their powered extension cabinet when size or acoustics of the
room require it.

Don't let the enthusiasm expressed here mislead you into thinking that the
Ultrasounds are miraculously shrunken PA systems, or something - they're not.
They're still amps.

But they're great little amps.

You know from personal experience that for years I've loved those little
Gallien-Kruegers, which you're more indifferent towards.

Well, this Ultrasound will reinforce that opinion, I think.

If my Ultrasounds make me angry about anything, it's that they forced me to
outgrow my fondness for those little G-Ks....

Hope that makes sense.

Wade Hampton Miller
Chugiak, Alaska

From: Hojo2x <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Amps
Date: 08 Feb 2003 03:03:25 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

The shy and retiring Dan Gore wrote:

>Wade,
>
>You mean UltraSound is not the end all to be all? My fondness for them is
>limitless but then again you could accuse me of prejudiced 8>)

Actually, Dan, in an amplifier format I have difficulty imagining being able to
get a better sound than that from the Ultrasounds I've played through. They
are very nice, no, BEYOND nice.

Simply put, I think they're great.

Wade Hampton Miller
Chugiak, Alaska

From: John Williams <jwms@halcyon...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Amps
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 13:02:04 -0800

"Hojo2x" <<hojo2x@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20030207170438.04263.00000211@mb-fj...>...

<snip>

> Don't let the enthusiasm expressed here mislead you into thinking that the
> Ultrasounds are miraculously shrunken PA systems, or something - they're
not.
> They're still amps.
>
<snip>

Obviously a higher power PA with more speakers that reproduced a wider range
with a flatter response could sound more accurate. But given a "shrunken
PA" of similar power and similar speaker configuration, what would the
difference be? Just curious.

--

John Williams
http://www.johnwms.com

From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Amps
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 23:06:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband

in article ilz1a.1408$%<l5.93836@news...>, John Williams at
<jwms@halcyon...> wrote on 2/9/03 1:02 PM:

> "Hojo2x" <<hojo2x@aol...>> wrote in message
> news:<20030207170438.04263.00000211@mb-fj...>...
>
> <snip>
>
>> Don't let the enthusiasm expressed here mislead you into thinking that the
>> Ultrasounds are miraculously shrunken PA systems, or something - they're
> not.
>> They're still amps.
>>
> <snip>
>
> Obviously a higher power PA with more speakers that reproduced a wider range
> with a flatter response could sound more accurate. But given a "shrunken
> PA" of similar power and similar speaker configuration, what would the
> difference be? Just curious.
>
> --
>
> John Williams
> http://www.johnwms.com

    Shrunken PA:

    2 speakers cabs 12" x 12" x 22"

    4 rackspace nylon bag, about 20" x 18" x 9", containing equipment and

cables.

    Components:  Pendulum, TC Electronics, Hafler, Daedalus

    Sound:  Wonderful

    Definitely not an amp.

    Spendy though.

--
Stephen T. Boyke

From: walterlane <lane@walterlane...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Amps
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 03:23:42 -0500

I had a 30 watt model Ultrasound and, as great as the sound quality
is, I returned it because I wanted something with more power. I've
found a scratch-and-dent special on a Behringer Ultrasonic and
ordered it last night. I'm waiting on delivery.

--

  Walter Lane

"John Williams" <<jwms@halcyon...>> wrote in message
news:tLT0a.5981$<A25.77725@news...>...
> I just ordered a little Ultrasound amp from FQMS (nice folks). I
didn't
> realize those amps were so affordable. I've never heard one but am
going by
> the almost universal high esteem they are held in here. I like to
play
> really small rooms without amplification when possible and this amp
might
> slightly stretch the size of the room I can play without bringing an
actual
> PA.
>
> I've had a Trace TA50 for years and never really liked it. I loaned
it out
> quite a while ago and never asked for it back. I just saw them at
GC for
> around $800! Maybe I should get it back.
>
> --
>
> John Williams
> http://www.johnwms.com
>
>
>
>
>

From: Picker <nospam@nospam...>
Subject: Acoustic guitar amps?
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:02:37 +0100
Organization: Planet Internet

I am looking for a good amp for my Ovation Elite and my handmade dreadnought
with Baggs pick-up. Not only for performance, but also for recording, so it
should transform the harsh piezo sound into a more pleasing 'acoustic'
sound.

I tried a small AER and an Ashdown, and both were pretty good. The Ashdown
was a little more versatile, the AEX more 'plain'. Anyone having suggestions
for other brands?

I play mainly fingerpicking, mostly Celtic and Trevis style.

Thanks for your advice / experiences!

From: Abdul Tom <tbrundin@barbican...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar amps?
Date: 13 Feb 2003 07:15:19 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

"Picker" <<nospam@nospam...>> wrote in message news:<b2fn1o$q5n$<1@reader08...>>...
> I am looking for a good amp for my Ovation Elite and my handmade dreadnought
> with Baggs pick-up. Not only for performance, but also for recording, so it
> should transform the harsh piezo sound into a more pleasing 'acoustic'
> sound.
>
> I tried a small AER and an Ashdown, and both were pretty good. The Ashdown
> was a little more versatile, the AEX more 'plain'. Anyone having suggestions
> for other brands?
>
> I play mainly fingerpicking, mostly Celtic and Trevis style.
>
> Thanks for your advice / experiences!

Try SWR California Blonde or Strawberry Blonde. Also the Trace Elliott
TA50 and TA100, but I think they're no longer made. Generally most
people desire total transparency in an acoustic amp, so you probably
need to EQ it to help the piezo sound (personally I HATE the piezo
sound - record with a MIC - an SM57 will do the job just fine).Baggs,
Zoom and Yamaha all do pre-amp / DI products that help model your
sound prior to amplification. The baggs DI box is pretty good.

From: acoustic.les <acoustic.les@virgin...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar amps?
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:33:34 -0000
Organization: Virgin Net Usenet Service

www.acousticfolkmusic.co.uk
Hello Picker
This has a load of features as yet I have not had the opportunity to try one
out.New Behringer ULTRACOUSTIC ACX1000 acoustic amp.
Ultra-flexible 2 x 60-Watt, 2-channel stereo acoustic instrument amplifier
with digital multi-effects processor.This amp looks real useful and is
priced very well. I use a Behringer mixing desk which has been superb. I
will probably try this amp myself very soon. At last acoustic musicians are
getting quality kit. Check out SPECS
http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=acx1000&lang=eng .
Peace out Acoustic Les

"Picker" <<nospam@nospam...>> wrote in message
news:b2fn1o$q5n$<1@reader08...>...
> I am looking for a good amp for my Ovation Elite and my handmade
dreadnought
> with Baggs pick-up. Not only for performance, but also for recording, so
it
> should transform the harsh piezo sound into a more pleasing 'acoustic'
> sound.
>
> I tried a small AER and an Ashdown, and both were pretty good. The Ashdown
> was a little more versatile, the AEX more 'plain'. Anyone having
suggestions
> for other brands?
>
> I play mainly fingerpicking, mostly Celtic and Trevis style.
>
> Thanks for your advice / experiences!
>
>
>

From: Dave Hallsworth <david.hallsworth@wadham...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar amps?
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:18:51 -0000
Organization: Oxford University, England

I've just got a Marshall AS50R acoustic amp, and am pretty satisfied with
it. Nice full sound, pretty versatile, lots of inputs / outputs, including
piezo channel, DI out and effects loop. I play an Ovation Balladeer through
it and put a Zoom 504II acoustic pedal through the loop. Sounds really
good. It also drives a PA pretty well if you hook it up right. Check out
the Marshall site for specs, nice price too

Dave

From: jennifer robinson <allrobinsons@optusnet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar amps?
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 07:15:01 +1100

The ingredients for a good sound are all there.
The AER performs well with the Baggs pick-up but make sure you use the Paddy
(DI box to shape the sound) .I own a compact AER 60 and for fingerstyle
solo work is adequate.
cheers,
enjoy the experience.
Gazza

"Picker" <<nospam@nospam...>> wrote in message
news:b2fn1o$q5n$<1@reader08...>...
> I am looking for a good amp for my Ovation Elite and my handmade
dreadnought
> with Baggs pick-up. Not only for performance, but also for recording, so
it
> should transform the harsh piezo sound into a more pleasing 'acoustic'
> sound.
>
> I tried a small AER and an Ashdown, and both were pretty good. The Ashdown
> was a little more versatile, the AEX more 'plain'. Anyone having
suggestions
> for other brands?
>
> I play mainly fingerpicking, mostly Celtic and Trevis style.
>
> Thanks for your advice / experiences!
>
>
>

From: Scott McAllister <scott.mcallister@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar amps?
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:41:45 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

You might want to give the Yamaha AG stomp, in addition to whatever amo you
buy, a try. Definitely reduces the harsh piezo sound of the pickups.

"Picker" <<nospam@nospam...>> wrote in message
news:b2fn1o$q5n$<1@reader08...>...
> I am looking for a good amp for my Ovation Elite and my handmade
dreadnought
> with Baggs pick-up. Not only for performance, but also for recording, so
it
> should transform the harsh piezo sound into a more pleasing 'acoustic'
> sound.
>
> I tried a small AER and an Ashdown, and both were pretty good. The Ashdown
> was a little more versatile, the AEX more 'plain'. Anyone having
suggestions
> for other brands?
>
> I play mainly fingerpicking, mostly Celtic and Trevis style.
>
> Thanks for your advice / experiences!
>
>
>

From: JimLowther <jimlowther@aol...>
Subject: Another watts + watts =watts? question
Date: 17 Feb 2003 05:04:38 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Okay:

I see this amp combo advertised as a 100 watt amp (RMS). What it really is is
a 60 watt amp going into a 15 inch cone and two 20 watters going into a pair of
(stereo) horns. So is this really the same as a 100 watt amp?

Best wishes,

Dr. Jim Lowther

From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Another watts + watts =watts? question
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:33:57 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

JimLowther wrote:
> Okay:
>
> I see this amp combo advertised as a 100 watt amp (RMS). What it really is is
> a 60 watt amp going into a 15 inch cone and two 20 watters going into a pair of
> (stereo) horns. So is this really the same as a 100 watt amp?
>

Probably much better than - it sounds like a triamped powered speaker
system, very little loss, crossovers occur before amp stage etc. Could
be equal to a 150W combo or a 100 + 100 PA system with long speaker
cables. What is it?

David

From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Another watts + watts =watts? question
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:42:02 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"JimLowther" <<jimlowther@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20030217000438.25673.00000562@mb-me...>...
> Okay:
>
> I see this amp combo advertised as a 100 watt amp (RMS). What it really
is is
> a 60 watt amp going into a 15 inch cone and two 20 watters going into a
pair of
> (stereo) horns. So is this really the same as a 100 watt amp?
>
No, it should be sold as 100 watts of power

 not a 100 watt amplifier.  as it is  clearly 3 seperate amplifier , from

your description
George

From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Another watts + watts =watts? question
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:24:59 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

<jimlowther@aol...> (JimLowther) wrote in
news:<20030217143439.05380.00001017@mb-mp...>:

> "George Gleason" <g.p.gleason@worldnet...> wrote:
>
>>> I see this amp combo advertised as a 100 watt amp (RMS). What it
>>> really
>>is is
>>> a 60 watt amp going into a 15 inch cone and two 20 watters going
>>> into a
>>pair of
>>> (stereo) horns. So is this really the same as a 100 watt amp?
>>>
>>No, it should be sold as 100 watts of power
>> not a 100 watt amplifier. as it is clearly 3 seperate amplifier ,
>> from
>>your description
>
>
> Alright, then--is this 100 watt combo the equivalent to a 100 watt
> amp?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dr. Jim Lowther
>

Hi Jim,

It's tough to figure out equivalencies based on specs alone. It's
reasonable to assume that a bi-amped system with 100 watts of total
power might be roughly the same output volume as a single 100 watt amp
driving a speaker array. But you couldn't tell for sure, without
comparing them in person. There are just too many variables -- speaker
impededance, parallel vs. series wiring, speaker efficiency, porting
efficiency, etc.

As a general rule, bi-amped or tri-amped designs usually sound better
than a single amp of the same total power driving a full-range speaker
array. But it also depends on the quality of the components and the
design. An expensive, well-designed system using a single amp driving a
passive speaker array, can sound much better than an inexpensive bi-
amped system using cheap components. You just have to audition the amps
in person, to really know how two amps compare to each other.

Does that make sense?

And for what it's worth, I always try to err on the side of having too
much amp wattage rather than too little, as long as it doesn't break my
back to schlep it around.

--
Mike Barrs

From: No Busking <nobusking@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Another watts + watts =watts? question
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:23:51 GMT

> And for what it's worth, I always try to err on the side of having too
> much amp wattage rather than too little, as long as it doesn't break my
> back to schlep it around.

...unless it's a tube amp for an electric guitar, in which case the opposite
is usually the best approach.

I hate it when I show up at a jam and some guy's carting in a 100 watt
Marshall with a 4X12 speaker cab. I've started packing ear plugs for just
that reason.

Cheers,

Mike

From: donh <bounce.spam@driveway...>
Subject: Re: Another watts + watts =watts? question
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:53:24 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

In <<20030217143439.05380.00001017@mb-mp...>>, on 02/17/03 at 07:34 PM,

   jimlowther@aol.com (JimLowther) said:

>Alright, then--is this 100 watt combo the equivalent to a 100 watt amp?

Jim,

yes, it is roughly equivalent, and perhaps/probably even more than, a system of
similar quality with a single 100-watt amp

-don-
donh at audiosys dot com

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Another watts + watts =watts? question
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:21:33 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

foldedpath wrote:
>
> It's tough to figure out equivalencies based on specs alone.
> [snip some good stuff]
>
> As a general rule, bi-amped or tri-amped designs usually sound better
> than a single amp of the same total power driving a full-range speaker
> array. But it also depends on the quality of the components and the
> design.
> [snip more good stuff]

Yeah, what he said! 8-) It also depends on the signal you are using
it for, and where the crossovers are. E.g., if you were a bassist,
so the majority of the sound energy you want is likely to be below
the crossover, the 40 watts to the tweeters might go largely unused,
so the amp will be weaker than a 100 watt single amp (all other things
equal). For a full range signal like a keyboard, it might well sound
better at the same volume. As others have said, you really have to
check it out.

For that matter, it's probably worth emphasizing that two 100 watt
amps can sound quite different in both tone and volume, even with
speakers of the same size, depending on the speaker efficiency and
the cabinet (geometry, open vs. closed, port size, etc.). Also,
the wattage of an amp is a somewhat "loose" spec---it's the
power from the output stage when the distortion just reaches an
unacceptably high level. But as far as I know, there is no industry
standard on what that unacceptable level of distortion is, so it's
quite possible that one manufacturer's 80 watt amp will sound
better at a very loud SPL than a competitor's at the same SPL.

Amp output power is one of those specs that is rather tricky to
understand in detail; it's better to think of it as just a ballpark
indicator of the SPL you can get from the amp.

Peace,
Tom

From: JimLowther <jimlowther@aol...>
Subject: Re: Another watts + watts =watts? question
Date: 18 Feb 2003 18:56:33 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

donh <bounce.spam@driveway...> wrote:

>>Alright, then--is this 100 watt combo the equivalent to a 100 watt amp?
>
>Jim,
>
>yes, it is roughly equivalent, and perhaps/probably even more than, a system
>of
>similar quality with a single 100-watt amp

Okay, let me pose this question:

If you had a 30 watt Ultrasound amp (just to pick a name), and you wanted more
power, why not get another 30 watt amp and split the input between the two
rather than get the 50 watt Ultrasound?

Doe that make sense?

Best wishes,

Dr. Jim Lowther

From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Another watts + watts =watts? question
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:25:11 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

<jimlowther@aol...> (JimLowther) wrote in
news:<20030218135633.18280.00000497@mb-mc...>:

> donh <bounce.spam@driveway...> wrote:
>
>>>Alright, then--is this 100 watt combo the equivalent to a 100 watt
>>>amp?
>>
>>Jim,
>>
>>yes, it is roughly equivalent, and perhaps/probably even more than, a
>>system of
>>similar quality with a single 100-watt amp
>
> Okay, let me pose this question:
>
> If you had a 30 watt Ultrasound amp (just to pick a name), and you
> wanted more power, why not get another 30 watt amp and split the input
> between the two rather than get the 50 watt Ultrasound?
>
> Doe that make sense?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dr. Jim Lowther

I can't find any specs for what speakers are used in the different
Ultrasound models on their web site, but the cabinet size and weight
isn't much different between the 30 and 50 watt models. So, assuming the
speakers are identical, then the reason you'd want two 30 watt models
would be to run in stereo, or to have a wider, more dispersed audience
coverage with a mono signal, or to be able to run one as a monitor and
the other as a main audience amp. It also gives you a backup if one dies
during a gig. Two amps is a more flexible setup, for lots of reasons.

On the other hand, the reason you might want a single 50 watt amp is
fewer cables and AC cords to set up, a single trip from the car, and
less room needed in your car seat, trunk, or whatever.

I think the output volume between the two setups would be roughly the
same, but maybe someone else here can verify that (I don't own an
Ultrasound amp).

Note: for some acoustic amp brands (maybe most of them?), the amp itself
scales up in low driver speaker size and overall cabinet size when the
wattage is increased. So for some amp manufacturers, this comparison of
two lower watt models vs. one higher watt model wouldn't be quite as
easy. You'd be choosing between two smaller amps with less bass
response, vs. one larger amp with better bass response.

--
Mike Barrs

From: John Williams <jwms@halcyon...>
Subject: Ultrasound And Other Amp/Mic Issues
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:00:37 -0800

My 30 watt Ultrasound finally got here and it's great. It seems very hi-fi.
Much more so than the Trace and even a bit more than a PA. Very responsive,
too. It is a very low-powered amp but it's also very small (and cool
looking) and I intend to only use it in very small venues.

On a slightly related note, I played a small hall, about 50 people, this
Saturday with my OM-28v mic'ed with an AKG C-411 contact mic. I've used
this mic many times for recording but never live. I wouldn't recommend it
for recording a "featured" acoustic track but for background rhythm tracks
the mic solves a lot of problems for home studios.

All the acoustic guitars on both of my "band" CDs were done with the C-411
and "Nothing Lost," which was on one of the RMMGA CDs (I think the first),
which is a solo-acoustic tune, was done with two of them. There's an old
article on the mic in the "articles" section of my website along with
pictures.

I used a little Kustom Profile One PA for the gig and the C-411 worked
really well through it. It was very smooth and had an "immersed" sort of
sound. It wasn't as good as a real mic, say, my TLM103, but it was better,
IMHO, than an under-saddle set up. It does, however, require phantom power
and comes with an XLR.

I have a couple of them for various uses around the studio. They work okay
on other instruments too. They cost about $150 and stick on with a bit of
goo. I've been using the same bit of goo for a couple of years on one of
them and have had no problems with it sticking to the finish of an
instrument.

--

John Williams
http://www.johnwms.com

From: George W. <geowirth@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound And Other Amp/Mic Issues
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:07:38 -0500

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:00:37 -0800, John Williams wrote:

>My 30 watt Ultrasound finally got here and it's great. It seems very hi-fi.
>Much more so than the Trace and even a bit more than a PA. Very responsive,
>too. It is a very low-powered amp but it's also very small (and cool
>looking) and I intend to only use it in very small venues.

John,

I was looking at this amp at a show yesterday. I know it's very basic
(and small) but is this the type of amp you might use with a guitar
and vocal mic? I guess you'd need a mixer since there's no mic channel
on the amp. I guess the AG50-DS2 would be better suited for this. (?)
It was about $450 as I recall....

G.

From: John Williams <jwms@halcyon...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound And Other Amp/Mic Issues
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:52:52 -0800

Unless I want to clear a place out I don't sing. I sometimes set up a mic
but I don't talk much either. I anticipate using the Ultrasound in very
small rooms where I might be tempted to only play acoustically. It will
allow me to play with a lighter touch on the guitar.

The amp only has one input so you would, as you say, need a mixer to get a
mic into it. I see Behringer has a new "5" channel mixer (really only three
"channel strips") for $50 at GC. It has one mic pre and two stereo/mono
inputs. That might be a reasonable add-on but you're starting to get into
toting more gear and might as well get the Ultrasound 50 or a conventional
PA. I picked up my Kustom for $300 but I suspect the 50 watt Ultrasound
sounds better, especially for acoustic guitar.

I believe Wade Hampton Miller is doing full-sized, professional shows with
his US50 and an extension cab.

--

John Williams
http://www.johnwms.com

"George W." <<geowirth@comcast...>> wrote in message
news:<ug135v0d8q5ak77blqilnn2bfckdtdsra8@4ax...>...
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:00:37 -0800, John Williams wrote:
>
> >My 30 watt Ultrasound finally got here and it's great. It seems very
hi-fi.
> >Much more so than the Trace and even a bit more than a PA. Very
responsive,
> >too. It is a very low-powered amp but it's also very small (and cool
> >looking) and I intend to only use it in very small venues.
>
> John,
>
> I was looking at this amp at a show yesterday. I know it's very basic
> (and small) but is this the type of amp you might use with a guitar
> and vocal mic? I guess you'd need a mixer since there's no mic channel
> on the amp. I guess the AG50-DS2 would be better suited for this. (?)
> It was about $450 as I recall....
>
> G.

From: Sherm <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Ultrasounds and Hey Doc
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:13:44 GMT

I'm really digging this Shape switch, Doc. Kudos to the team. It was
unuseable with the Fishman but its great with the new B-Band. Nice
little 'value-added' surprise on the B-Band purchase. No combination
of eq-ing on the mixer or the amp itself that I can find will
duplicate the sound I get by just setting everythng flat and throwing
that switch. Its a little Behringer mixer and the EQ-ing's probably
not ideal for acoustic guitar, right? Maybe that's why. Anxious to
gig with the whole U/S rig again on the 8th and check it out there..

Sherm

From: Dan Lash <visanic@comcast...>
Subject: Opinions on Ultrasound AG-30P
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:38:00 -0500

I'm in the market for an acoustic amp, and have heard great things
about Ultrasound.

I'm not looking for anything fancy, and 30w would be fine for me,
because I really only play at home.

If I ever play out again- I'll revisit my amplifier decision.

Anyway, the difference between the AG-30P and AG-30 is only
the LINE OUTS.

Are these basically used for going to a PA or external speaker?

I'd like to eventually record some MP3's of my playing- is this output
needed (I'm new to the whole recording thing).

The AG-30 is only about $30 or $40 more than the "P", but I don't want
to buy something that I'm never going to use.

Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Dan

From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Opinions on Ultrasound AG-30P
Date: 23 Feb 2003 21:04:37 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Hi Dan,

The AG-30 has a Line Out and Direct Out. You can use the Direct Out for
recording. Call me and we can discuss particulars.

The Doc
888-308-1557

From: John Williams <jwms@halcyon...>
Subject: Re: Opinions on Ultrasound AG-30P
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:38:45 -0800

I just picked up an AG-30P and I really like the sound. It is very
low-powered for playing out but I intend to use it where I can almost get by
acoustically but need just a bit of help. It's also very good-looking and
appears to be well-built.

I don't understand getting an amp for home use only. In that situation,
where you also want to record, it seems much more sensible to spend the
money on a microphone and pre-amp.

In any case, you won't be disappointed with the Ultrasound.

--

John Williams
http://www.johnwms.com

"Dan Lash" <<visanic@comcast...>> wrote in message
news:<1b-dnVmFDf3vrMSjXTWcqA@comcast...>...
> I'm in the market for an acoustic amp, and have heard great things
> about Ultrasound.
>
> I'm not looking for anything fancy, and 30w would be fine for me,
> because I really only play at home.
>
> If I ever play out again- I'll revisit my amplifier decision.
>
> Anyway, the difference between the AG-30P and AG-30 is only
> the LINE OUTS.
>
> Are these basically used for going to a PA or external speaker?
>
> I'd like to eventually record some MP3's of my playing- is this output
> needed (I'm new to the whole recording thing).
>
> The AG-30 is only about $30 or $40 more than the "P", but I don't want
> to buy something that I'm never going to use.
>
> Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks.
> Dan
>
>

From: Ed Maier <evmaierfalseaddy@sbcglobal...>
Subject: Re: Opinions on Ultrasound AG-30P
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:32:45 -0600
Organization: Stwawbewy Fields Fowever

John Williams wrote:
> I just picked up an AG-30P and I really like the sound. It is very
> low-powered for playing out but I intend to use it where I can almost get by
> acoustically but need just a bit of help. It's also very good-looking and
> appears to be well-built.
>
> I don't understand getting an amp for home use only. In that situation,
> where you also want to record, it seems much more sensible to spend the
> money on a microphone and pre-amp.

I bought the AG-30P strictly for home use, but I had a fairly
good reason. I had just installed the PUTW stealth undersaddle
pickup and preamp in a guitar, and I had nothing to play it
through. I mean, what good's a pickup without an amp? :-)

Ed "pure logic" Maier
--
My real email is evmaier at sbcglobal dot net.

From: George W. <geowirth@comcast...>
Subject: Another Amp Question...
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:22:00 -0500

Actually I've asked this before but it didn't seem to show up. Sorry
if I'm repeating myself....

What causes the difference between an acoustic guitar w/pickup played
through:

(a) a regular home stereo receiver and speakers

(b) a small PA system

(c) a dedicated acoustic guitar amp

Assuming volume isn't an issue is it basically a question of speaker
design and EQ? Dynamic range? And which of these systems provides the
best way to judge the quality of an acoustic guitar pickup?

Thanks.

G.

From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Another Amp Question...
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:12:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband

in article <6lhi5vgn951fq8tsltnhrftsaaprvsa8pn@4ax...>, George W. at
<geowirth@comcast...> wrote on 2/23/03 2:22 PM:

> Actually I've asked this before but it didn't seem to show up. Sorry
> if I'm repeating myself....
>
> What causes the difference between an acoustic guitar w/pickup played
> through:
>
> (a) a regular home stereo receiver and speakers
>
> (b) a small PA system
>
> (c) a dedicated acoustic guitar amp
>
> Assuming volume isn't an issue is it basically a question of speaker
> design and EQ? Dynamic range? And which of these systems provides the
> best way to judge the quality of an acoustic guitar pickup?
>
> Thanks.
>
> G.

    I know enough about this stuff to be dangerous.  Generally, you will

hear a world of difference between the three situations you described. The
"dedicated acoustic guitar amp" or acoustic guitar component system will
sound the best, although there are PA systems that do well. I guess a
$15,000 audiophile home stereo (with proper matching of impedence, dBu
levels, etc.) would sound great too.

    Here's some basic info:

    1)  One pickup on the guitar can sound good, but a dual source system is

better, much better. Stereo is better than mono, much better.

    2)  You generally get what you pay for, but at some point the

cost/benefit ratio gets out of hand.

    3)  The biggest problems with amplifying acoustic guitar are (i) dealing

with the quick transient responses, (ii) accurately reproducing the lower
midrange response and (iii) amplifying accurately the tone and nuance of the
acoustic instrument overall. It is hard to do. Many studio cats will tell
you acoustic guitar is difficult to do well, even with very high end
equipment.

    Generally, a totally flat mic (and/or pickup), a totally flat preamp, a

totally flat amplifier and totally flat speakers should (theoretically)
sound "just like" the guitar you are playing. This is basically true,
assuming the signal path and gain structure are clean. For example, look at
the specs for many PA speakers (e.g., 60 - 20,000 Hz +- 10dB). Look at
Daedalus speakers (50 to 20,000Hz +- 3dB). There is a world of difference
here. Look at the response graphs. Listen.

    All amps, preamps, microphones, pickups, have abilities.  Some better,

some less.

    When it comes to cost/benefit, there are several choices out there.

Wanna good acoustic guitar sound and "PA" for vocals? Get a pair of
Ultrasound 50Es of 100Es, add a good mixer or preamp. Add a really good mic
or two and decent pickups in the guitar(s). You're there. State of the
art (more or less). Your audience will not complain about the sound system.

--
Stephen T. Boyke

From: George W. <geowirth@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Another Amp Question...
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:18:59 -0500

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 02:30:10 GMT, John E. Golden wrote:

>George W. <<geowirth@comcast...>> wrote:
>
>> (a) a regular home stereo receiver and speakers
>
>How do you play an electric guitar through your home stereo system? How do
>you plug it in? Which Input has sufficient gain?

An IBeam active in a Larrivee OM-05 into and out of a Behringer mixer.
One output to a recorder, one to aux in on a receiver. It's an old
setup I used for recording/monitoring, either with headphones or
through a set of Ohm C2 speakers. An acoustic guitar amp sounds
better and I'm just trying to understand why. I suspect it's because
home speakers are full range while amp speakers are...something else.
(A Baggs PADI helps some.) I was hoping someone could explain the
differences in the systems. What is it that makes an acoustic amp
special?

From: Mitch <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Another Amp Question...
Date: 24 Feb 2003 23:50:32 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 02:30:10 GMT, John E. Golden wrote:
>
>>George W. <<geowirth@comcast...>> wrote:
>>
>>> (a) a regular home stereo receiver and speakers
>>
>>How do you play an electric guitar through your home stereo system? How do
>>you plug it in? Which Input has sufficient gain?
>
>An IBeam active in a Larrivee OM-05 into and out of a Behringer mixer.
>One output to a recorder, one to aux in on a receiver. It's an old
>setup I used for recording/monitoring, either with headphones or
>through a set of Ohm C2 speakers. An acoustic guitar amp sounds
>better and I'm just trying to understand why. I suspect it's because
>home speakers are full range while amp speakers are...something else.
>(A Baggs PADI helps some.) I was hoping someone could explain the
>differences in the systems. What is it that makes an acoustic amp
>special?
>

Well, I waited to weigh in for the experts, but since they're asleep at the
wheel, I give ya my 0.02.

1) Sherman's Nemesis - Impedance. The input impedance on an acoustic amp will
be substantially higher than any input on a home stereo, and even so on any
PA mixer. The PADI should cover that issue, so then we move to...

2) dB's. A home stereo shouldn't be made to want a line level signal like a PA
or an acoustic amp, so you're talking instant overdrive here. I would say
don't even turn the PADI input gain up to go into the home stereo.

3) Speakers - home stereo speakers are made to reproduce the heavily mixed,
processed, compressed, etc. ad nauseum sound of pre-recorded music, not the
live thing. So the freq response isn't there, the ability to handle the
transients, etc. as it is for the AC Amp or PA speakers.

Whew! My fingers are tired. You got what you paid for....

Mitch

From: donh <bounce.spam@driveway...>
Subject: Re: Another Amp Question...
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 03:11:27 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

In <<6lhi5vgn951fq8tsltnhrftsaaprvsa8pn@4ax...>>, on 02/23/03 at 05:22 PM,

   George W. <geowirth@comcast.net> said:

>Actually I've asked this before but it didn't seem to show up. Sorry if I'm
>repeating myself....

you are not . . . . .

>What causes the difference between an acoustic guitar w/pickup played through:

they are all the same, and they are all different, it depends depends diapers
depends

>(c) a dedicated acoustic guitar amp

    this is essentially a mini-special-purpose-PA 

>(b) a small PA system

    this is essentially a larger more cumbersome acoustic guityar amp w/o the

hi-Z guitar pickup input

>(a) a regular home stereo receiver and speakers

    this is something made to play already-recorded music.  it can work.  and

you can damage it easier than you think, too.

they all have different methods of EQ and different front-ends (ie: ways of
routing the signals), with essentially similar components

>Assuming volume isn't an issue is it basically a question of speaker design and
>EQ? Dynamic range? And which of these systems provides the best way to judge
>the quality of an acoustic guitar pickup?

the answer here is obvious to someone who knows the guts of the designs, and
rather difficult (perhaps even impossible) to explain to someone lacking the
language of that design process.

please consider judging the quality of the guitar pickup by two methods:

    a)  comparing pickups thru the exact same signal chain every time
    b)  comparing thru similar equipment, typically the same gear you'll use to

play out (wherever "out" may be)

for the purpose of "b)", consider an acoustic amp and a PA to be damn near
identical

>Thanks.

yer welcome

-don-
donh at audiosys dot com

From: Carlos Alden <calden3@msn...>
Subject: louder - AER Compact 60 or Ultrasound 50?
Date: 26 Feb 2003 17:37:49 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Hi All:

I'm participating via Google. My damn server or OE or SOMETHING is
not picking up any newsgroups, so I'm not entering the daily fray and
havent' for a week or so. I miss you all.....

Anyways, I love my Genz-Benz Shenandoah but really hurt my back toting
it to church last sunday. I'm turning 50 the end of March and just
need to bite the bullet and get something lighter. So I'm looking at
either the AER Compact 60 or the Ultrasound 50 with the additional mic
input. I would ideally like the power the GB put out - it is a
fantastic sound, really - and wanted to get reactions on which amp
would have more cojones (sp?)

Please email me if you can -
<calden3@msn...>
and let me know what ya think. I'm looking into trade-in
possibilities for the GB, but I also wanted to put out that I might be
selling it, so if anyone's potentially interested...

Thanks, and if anyone has any ideas on what the f*%&$^ck is going on
with my newsgroups, let me know. Mac 8.6, OE for Macintosh, MSN
internet connection and MSN newsserver.

Carlos

From: Steven Dillon <laswd@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: louder - AER Compact 60 or Ultrasound 50?
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 04:21:47 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications

"Carlos Alden" <<calden3@msn...>> wrote in message
news:<7dae586f.0302261737.499696bd@posting...>...
> Anyways, I love my Genz-Benz Shenandoah but really hurt my back toting
> it to church last sunday. I'm turning 50 the end of March and just
> need to bite the bullet and get something lighter. So I'm looking at
> either the AER Compact 60 or the Ultrasound 50 with the additional mic
> input. I would ideally like the power the GB put out - it is a
> fantastic sound, really - and wanted to get reactions on which amp
> would have more cojones (sp?)
>
Hey Carlos,
I didn't care for the sound of the AER Compact 60 compared to my
Ultrasound. Didn't really crank it up that loud to see which one had
more umph though. You know, you can get the extension cabinet (like
I have) and the 50 for less than you'll pay for the AER. I was worried
about the Shenandoah being a little heavy. Carrying around an
Ultrasound is going to be a breeze after having the GB.

Did you ever get the CD I sent you for your radio show?

Keep Picking,

Steven Dillon

http://www.stevendillon.com
http://mp3.com/stevendillon

From: Pete Greenwood <petegreenwoodSPICED-HAM@yahoo...>
Subject: Hey Doc, whassup with the coax speakers?
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:05:32 -0600

I recently bought an Ultrasound AG50DS2. It's an amazing little creature;
very warm and natural sounding. Plus it's pretty much noiseless. So far
I'm very impressed, particularly for the price.

But I'm perplexed about the coaxial speakers. Why not separates? I was
always under the impression that coax speakers were inferior, and only used
in cars because they cover a broad frequency range in a small footprint. Am
I wrong? All of the Ultrasounds have plenty of room on the baffle to sneak
in a tweeter or two, so what gives?

No complaints here, just curious.

Pete

From: Steve Hawkins <res0pf02@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Hey Doc, whassup with the coax speakers?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 06:43:51 GMT

"Pete Greenwood" <<petegreenwoodSPICED-HAM@yahoo...>> wrote in
news:<0bCcnVXIj6B7fcOjXTWc-w@speakeasy...>:

> I recently bought an Ultrasound AG50DS2. It's an amazing little
> creature; very warm and natural sounding. Plus it's pretty much
> noiseless. So far I'm very impressed, particularly for the price.
>
> But I'm perplexed about the coaxial speakers. Why not separates? I
> was always under the impression that coax speakers were inferior, and
> only used in cars because they cover a broad frequency range in a
> small footprint. Am I wrong? All of the Ultrasounds have plenty of
> room on the baffle to sneak in a tweeter or two, so what gives?
>
> No complaints here, just curious.
>
> Pete

My guess would be better performance and lower cost. I think the coax
tweeter used on the Ultrasound is much more natural sounding than the
piezeo horns used on the other amps. More speakers mean more
assembly and component cost. The speakers used in the PRO 200 model are
even more impressive sounding. I didn't pull the grill off, but they look
like a coxial design with a stacked voice coil/magnet setup. The throat of
the horn goes right though the middle of the woofer voice coil. Ultrasound
increased the power output and managed to keep the tone they're known for.

Steve Hawkins

From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Hey Doc, whassup with the coax speakers?
Date: 28 Feb 2003 12:51:13 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Morning Pete,

Steve said it all. When we were designing the amp we were looking for a good
speaker at a reasonable cost. These folks delivered. The PRO on the other
hand was a different matter. We went to Eminence and asked them to build
something that duplicated our current horns performance. Cost was/is not an
issue with the PRO.

The Doc

From: David Enke <putw@webcoast2coast...>
Subject: Re: Hey Doc, whassup with the coax speakers?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:58:40 -0700
Organization: Ye 'Ol Disorganized NNTPCache groupie

I think the coax's are one of the reasons the Ultrasounds sound so good. On
many other amps, I notice phase coherency issues between the speakers, and
the Ultrasounds are smooth and seamless by comparison.

David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<putw@webcoast2coast...>
719-742-5303

From: Pete Greenwood <petegreenwoodSPICED-HAM@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Hey Doc, whassup with the coax speakers?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:59:34 -0600

"Ultraamps" <<ultraamps@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20030228075113.27504.00000485@mb-cg...>...
> Morning Pete,
>
> Steve said it all. When we were designing the amp we were looking for a
good
> speaker at a reasonable cost. These folks delivered. The PRO on the
other
> hand was a different matter. We went to Eminence and asked them to build
> something that duplicated our current horns performance. Cost was/is not
an
> issue with the PRO.
>
> The Doc

Interesting. How much do you feel the speakers contribute to the
"Ultrasound tone"? Could any good full-range speaker do the job, or do
these color the sound in just the right way?

I'm blown away by the smoothness and detail I never heard from other
acoustic amps. This amp sounds superb with my Collings 0001A / PUTW #27 /
PADI setup. It also sounds damn good with my Martin D35 / Fishman combo,
which never gave good tone before. I figured the speakers were the secret
sauce.

Thanks Doc.

Pete

From: Misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Hey Doc, whassup with the coax speakers?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:43:46 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

David Enke wrote:
> I think the coax's are one of the reasons the Ultrasounds sound so good. On
> many other amps, I notice phase coherency issues between the speakers, and
> the Ultrasounds are smooth and seamless by comparison.
>
> David Enke
> Pick-up the World
> www.pick-uptheworld.com
> <putw@webcoast2coast...>
> 719-742-5303
>
>

I think David's hit it. Despite what you may have heard, some
very high end stereo speakers use coaxial tweeters, specifically
for phase coherence. If it works, don't fix it.

	-Ralph

--
Misifus-
Ralph Seibert
mailto:<rseibert@cox-internet...>
http://www.ralphandsue.com

From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Hey Doc, whassup with the coax speakers?
Date: 01 Mar 2003 13:00:16 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Pete,

The speakers were a "gift." One of those moments in manufacuturing where you
go, I think we just got lucky. We knew what we wanted the speakers to do and
came across these speakers early on. The speakers contribute a lot to the
performance of the amp. Everyone knows one of the gigs on the amps was volume
but we were more concerned about the tone. And that is something we have
remained faithtul too. In fact, when we built the PRO, we went to Eminence and
said we want X wattage but it must match these perfomance specs, which they
did.
Another example would be the extension cabinet. We did not appreciate what
would happen until we actually tried the setup.

Of course a lot of manufacturing is hard work with a little luck thrown in.

From: George W. <geowirth@comcast...>
Subject: Ultrasound with mics only (no pickup)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 22:20:37 -0500

Just wondering...Is anyone playing guitar/vocals through an Ultrasound
using two mics, one for voice and one for guitar? (Assuming the guitar
doesn't have a pickup.) Types of mics....condenser or dynamic? Does
this work well or is it really not the best setup for this?

G.

From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound with mics only (no pickup)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:51:27 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"George W." <<geowirth@comcast...>> wrote in message
news:<a3i56v076ieu6ub27ergfmdt73pepe51ct@4ax...>...
> Just wondering...Is anyone playing guitar/vocals through an Ultrasound
> using two mics, one for voice and one for guitar? (Assuming the guitar
> doesn't have a pickup.) Types of mics....condenser or dynamic? Does
> this work well or is it really not the best setup for this?
>
> G.
I haven't tried it at a pub yet, but I've done it at weddings with pretty
good results.
I am using a mixer however, and a separate reverb unit for the vocal mic.
Bob Dorgan

From: Mitch <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound with mics only (no pickup)
Date: 03 Mar 2003 22:35:14 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>"George W." <<geowirth@comcast...>> wrote in message
>news:<a3i56v076ieu6ub27ergfmdt73pepe51ct@4ax...>...
>> Just wondering...Is anyone playing guitar/vocals through an Ultrasound
>> using two mics, one for voice and one for guitar? (Assuming the guitar
>> doesn't have a pickup.) Types of mics....condenser or dynamic? Does
>> this work well or is it really not the best setup for this?
>>
>> G.
>I haven't tried it at a pub yet, but I've done it at weddings with pretty
>good results.
>I am using a mixer however, and a separate reverb unit for the vocal mic.
>Bob Dorgan

I'm doing it using a small mixer, a dynamic mic for my vocal, and a small cap
condenser for my guitar. It sounds, in a word, AWESOME.
So ask away.

Mitch

From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound with mics only (no pickup)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:22:38 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Riddley" <<riddley@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20030304115028.09137.00000006@mb-mh...>...
> I have the single input Ultra 50. What would be a good suggestion for a
> multi-input to one small mixer for the rig? Did I say that right?
> Gerry Rosser

Any small mixer will work okay.
I've recently read reviews on the Behringer and it looks okay. The PAMM that
Ultrasound sells works well for this, and is small enough to mount on a mic
stand.
There are a lot of viable choices.
I'm use the PAMM most of the time because it has everything I need in a
small package.
Bob Dorgan

From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound with mics only (no pickup)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:57:18 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Riddley" <<riddley@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20030305093722.22848.00000072@mb-cv...>...
> Bob, as I recall don't you use the Ultrasound plus extension cab as your
rig? I
> think you've expressed pleasure with it.
> Am conisidering adding the extension cab for my A/C powered needs, still
> pondering my busking rig.
> Thanks for the tip on mixers, I might get a PAMM while I'm at it.
> gerry rosser

Yep, I'm very happy with it.
I'm impressed with how easy it is to set up, run a quick sound test and be
on your way.
Good package for the money.
The Daedalus equipment is as good as anything I've ever heard, but the cost
is prohibitive (for my uses).
Bob Dorgan

From: Al Evans <al@tbtm...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound with mics only (no pickup)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:22:52 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com

In article <<t03c6vo2tbidskr62cs6io8p574rhrr7si@4ax...>>, George W.
<<geowirth@comcast...>> wrote:

> Can't someone give me a reason why I shouldn't get an amp? <g>

Oh, you bet.

Day 1 with new amp, pickup, whatever: Oh wow! That sounds just like my
guitar, only louder!

Day 2: Hmmm, maybe it doesn't sound JUST like my guitar. I'll tweak the
EQ some. There, that's better. Now it sounds just like my guitar.

Day 3: Well, it's not QUITE there yet. Maybe if I add just a little
reverb and chorus. There, that's got it.

Day 4: Dang it! I still can't get it exactly right. I bet an external
preamp would help, give me more EQ control. I'll post on RMMGA and ask
what everybody there thinks.

[...a couple of months snipped to protect the tender sensibilities of
our viewers...]

Day 74: Well, I guess that's as close as I can get from the four
internal pickups. But it's STILL not right. Maybe I should add an
external microphone or two....

[...a few years go by....]

Day 1238: Damnit, I'm going to have to trade the van in on a
tractor-trailer rig for all this PA equipment....

Do duh woids "slippery slope" mean anyt'ing to yez?

                                        --Al Evans--

From: Jon Boyes <mail@spam...>
Subject: Battery powered amplification - Passport Delux?
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 09:58:45 -0000

Hi folks - this is my annual post to the land of the steel stringers :-)

A few years back I got some good recommendations here to amplify my
classical guitar for busking (I had a Fishman fitted under the saddle and
bought a Peavey Solo).

Anyhow, things have moved on since then. I'm now gigging regularly with a
400w PA rig playing some solo material and some with backing tracks. I
still like to go busking though, and also play a fair few very small gigs
(eg restaurants with 20 people) where the 400w PA rig would be complete
over kill.

I'm looking to upgrade my amplification (currently the Peavey) for small
gigs/busking, so it has to have a battery powered option. I realise I
could buy a third rig (a larger combo maybe) for the small gigs and keep
the Peavey for busking, but to be honest I want to improve on my busking
sound and now I'm using backing tracks the Peavey really isn't really up
to it.

Only option I've seen that fits the bill is the Fender Passport, which
doesn't look too great judging by the RMMGA archives on the subject.
Having said that, it has to be a lot better than my tiny 15w Peavey solo
and the new delux model has a speaker cabinet designed by Bose which is
supposed to sound a lot better...

Any comments on the Passport Delux Vs the old model?

Any other options out there for a battery powered system that would suit
nylon guitar plus stereo backing tracks?

Ta.
--
Jon
www.jonboyes.co.uk
www.mp3.com/Jon_Boyes

From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Battery powered amplification - Passport Delux?
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:05:20 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

Jon Boyes wrote:

> Any other options out there for a battery powered system that would suit
> nylon guitar plus stereo backing tracks?
>

If you want stereo, it's not that easy. I have found most battery
powered amps don't make nylon string acoustic sound good. But I've found
one stupidly cheap alternative which sounds 100 per cent natural, and
it's what I use with my Lowden S25J for exactly the size of gig you
describe - the Nobels Streetman SM-15

http://www.nobels.de/cgi-bin/products/show.pl?e_sm-15

It's only 10-15 watts and it's only mono.... but it has a stereo phono
input for a CD player, it has battery power via 6 D cells (I use
rechargeables) and then it also has a 9v socket OUT for running your FX
pedal; it has two inputs, one well optimised for active pickup guitar,
and the other ideal for mini condensor mikes (I use a headset); it has a
built-in button which produces an accurate 440 cycle A tone for tuning;
it has an external speaker socket and it really produces some volume
when plugged into a 12 inch speaker; it has three-band EQ!!! Lo Mid Hi
which means you can properly shape the sound.... and it weighs almost
nothing... and it runs off a car socket or a 12v battery pack, which
bumps the output up to 15W from 10W... (but also takes the 9v power out
socket up to 12v, not so clever) and it has a shoulder strap so you can
wander round (when appropriate) and have slightly amped guitar go with
you. It also has a clamp system which allows you to mount it on a mike
stand.

The volume is moderate, but with the amp placed on a bar or table, or
stool next to me, it's about what is needed for a small restaurant or
bar to give the impression that you are playing a guitar, but have
everyone hear. The open back design produces a very distortion free
sound. It is 300 per cent better than, say, a Fender Amp Can for
acoustic guitar (it is next to useless for electric as it produces no
distortion and has a very clean sound).

I only have the black fabric covered basic model which cost me under
$100 but the natural ash wood cabinet version would be what I'd get now.

This is an almost unknown product but possibly one the best companion
amps for an acoustic guitarist wanting to keep lightweight and elegant -
that is, not to be lugging big gear into a place.

David

From: Jon Boyes <mail@spam...>
Subject: Re: Battery powered amplification - Passport Delux?
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:25:46 -0000

In article <<3E64886C.5000103@btconnect...>>, <iconmags2@btconnect...>
says...

> If you want stereo, it's not that easy. I have found most battery
> powered amps don't make nylon string acoustic sound good. But I've found
> one stupidly cheap alternative which sounds 100 per cent natural, and
> it's what I use with my Lowden S25J for exactly the size of gig you
> describe - the Nobels Streetman SM-15
>
> http://www.nobels.de/cgi-bin/products/show.pl?e_sm-15

Ta for that David. I don't supposed you heard the Peavey solo, have you?
Its just that obviously there would be no point in exchanging the Solo if
there's not that much difference in quality. They are rated the same at
15w mains 10w battery.

My main concern though, would be the lack of power. I'd have a 15w
practice amp, a 400W pa rig and nothing in between. I have a wedding
coming up soon which will be basically background solo classical guitar
while guests arrive and while they sign the register etc. My main rig
with great big Yamaha speaker cabs on poles would be overkill, but I'd be
concerned about a little 15W combo delivering enough juice or having the
'spread' for a room with 90 guests.

It just seemed to me that a Passport 150D would be the ideal amp to suit
these applications.
--
Jon
www.jonboyes.co.uk
www.mp3.com/Jon_Boyes

From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Battery powered amplification - Passport Delux?
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:43:28 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

Jon Boyes wrote:
> In article <<3E64886C.5000103@btconnect...>>, <iconmags2@btconnect...>
> says...
>
>
>>If you want stereo, it's not that easy. I have found most battery
>>powered amps don't make nylon string acoustic sound good. But I've found
>>one stupidly cheap alternative which sounds 100 per cent natural, and
>>it's what I use with my Lowden S25J for exactly the size of gig you
>>describe - the Nobels Streetman SM-15
>>
>>http://www.nobels.de/cgi-bin/products/show.pl?e_sm-15
>
>
> Ta for that David. I don't supposed you heard the Peavey solo, have you?
> Its just that obviously there would be no point in exchanging the Solo if
> there's not that much difference in quality. They are rated the same at
> 15w mains 10w battery.
>
Tried it - alongside the Pignose, Carvin and a couple of others. A-Bd
alongside the Nobels.
There was just no comparison. All the other amps made the nylon string
in particular sound like a funny sort of electric guitar, the Nobels was
impossible to distinguish from the guitar. With about a quarter turn
down on the MID control, the only way I can tell the amp is on is when I
turn it off.

The Peavey is a great electric guitar amp but for vocals and acoustic,
the Nobels wins (it can no achieve the same solo output - no way - you
just can't crank it to do steel string solos at all though - I have an
AmpCan to do that).

David

From: <marc@rycooder...>
Subject: Re: Battery powered amplification - Passport Delux?
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:05:14 +0100
Organization: NV Multikabel

Before you do anything, listen to this one:
http://www.crafterguitars.com/more_info/dsp-1.php3

It's the new Carver amp. Never heard of it? Neither did I, but it sounds
absolutely terrific!
The best there is for acoustic instruments.
(I don't own any shares in the company, this is genuine excitement.)

Marc.

--

______________
Marc van de Graaf
the Netherlands

http://www.rycooder.nl
http://rawdata.org

From: Mike Dodds <mdodds@thinkaboutit...>
Subject: Re: Battery powered amplification - Passport Delux?
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:14:42 -0000

Jon,

Have you considered using a voltage invertor to get 240 Volts from car
battery. Halfords have them for around £30.

A 30watt amp is unlikely to require more than 1 amp at 240 Volts and so with
an invertor drawing say 20 amps at 12 volts, a 60 amp/hour battery would
give you up to 3 hours (may be better to assume 40 amps for 1.5 hours as the
invertor will not be anywhere near 100% efficient). You would be best to use
a 'leisure battery' rather than a car battery, they are designed to cope
with deep discharging cycles.

Obviously you would get much longer from a car battery with an amp designed
to run from 12v, but the invertor may give you more choices.

Cheers,

Mike

"Jon Boyes" <<mail@sp...>&chips.jonboyes.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<MPG.18ceac3e4f9565f2989b0e@news...>...
> In article <<1046779494.12001@cach...>>, <marc@rycooder...> says...
> > Before you do anything, listen to this one:
> > http://www.crafterguitars.com/more_info/dsp-1.php3
>
> Looks nice, but I don't see any mention of batteries?
> --
> Jon
> www.jonboyes.co.uk
> www.mp3.com/Jon_Boyes
>

From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Battery powered amplification - Passport Delux?
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:40:16 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

hobart xaxinojo wrote:
> "Jon Boyes" <<mail@sp...>&chips.jonboyes.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<MPG.18ce892cc6451de3989b0b@news...>...
>
>>Hi folks - this is my annual post to the land of the steel stringers :-)
>>
>>A few years back I got some good recommendations here to amplify my
>>classical guitar for busking (I had a Fishman fitted under the saddle and
>>bought a Peavey Solo).
>>

> pignose amps are worth looking a look. they have battery powered and
> rechargeables.
>

Having tried every single one of them from tiny to almost combo sized I
can state that they sound totally crap on acoustic guitar, especially
nylon string, and have a very poor impedance match to piezo active
systems (even worse for passive). They are great for Strats and the
overdriven channel is superb if you want that. But for classical
acoustic, even the biggest Pignose battery powered amp is an expensive
way to get a very mediocre sound.

I also had high hopes of their guitar with an amp built in - like a sort
of mini electric. It is HORRIBLE unless you are mini Metallica and
aged ten!

David

>

From: Riddley <riddley@aol...>
Subject: Re: Battery powered amplification - Passport Delux?
Date: 04 Mar 2003 16:37:37 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

AER makes a battery powered amp that is quite expensive, but which might suit
you. A company named Walker has some interesting-sounding battery powered rigs,
an acoustic guitar amp, a bass amp, and a small PA system with a powered mixer
and two small speaker cabs to go with it. They say they have a 10-day approval
policy, so, I guess but for shipping cost, there's little risk. They intrigue
me, and I may just try out either the acoustic guitar amp or the PA shortly.
www.walker-labs.com
Gerry Rosser
No, I don't have a stake in Walker!

From: David Enke <putw@webcoast2coast...>
Subject: Re: Battery powered amplification - Passport Delux?
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:20:53 -0700
Organization: Ye 'Ol Disorganized NNTPCache groupie

Hi Jon,
take a look at AER. These are a bit pricey here in the states, but might be
reasonable where you are. They do the job admirably, are pretty full range,
and lots of power.

David Enke

"Jon Boyes" <<mail@sp...>&chips.jonboyes.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<MPG.18ce892cc6451de3989b0b@news...>...
> Hi folks - this is my annual post to the land of the steel stringers :-)
>
> A few years back I got some good recommendations here to amplify my
> classical guitar for busking (I had a Fishman fitted under the saddle and
> bought a Peavey Solo).
>
> Anyhow, things have moved on since then. I'm now gigging regularly with a
> 400w PA rig playing some solo material and some with backing tracks. I
> still like to go busking though, and also play a fair few very small gigs
> (eg restaurants with 20 people) where the 400w PA rig would be complete
> over kill.
>
> I'm looking to upgrade my amplification (currently the Peavey) for small
> gigs/busking, so it has to have a battery powered option. I realise I
> could buy a third rig (a larger combo maybe) for the small gigs and keep
> the Peavey for busking, but to be honest I want to improve on my busking
> sound and now I'm using backing tracks the Peavey really isn't really up
> to it.
>
> Only option I've seen that fits the bill is the Fender Passport, which
> doesn't look too great judging by the RMMGA archives on the subject.
> Having said that, it has to be a lot better than my tiny 15w Peavey solo
> and the new delux model has a speaker cabinet designed by Bose which is
> supposed to sound a lot better...
>
> Any comments on the Passport Delux Vs the old model?
>
> Any other options out there for a battery powered system that would suit
> nylon guitar plus stereo backing tracks?
>
> Ta.
> --
> Jon
> www.jonboyes.co.uk
> www.mp3.com/Jon_Boyes
>

From: d.g.f. <dgf@swbell...>
Subject: SWR Workingman's 12
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 23:31:56 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com

 Awhile back, I acquired a SWR Workingman's 12 bass amplifier, 

intending to use it for my fretless bass work. Just for grins, I
plugged my Hummingbird (with Fishman Acoustic Matrix) into it.... and
... HEAVEN!! What a wonderful sounding acoustic amplifier. I've come
to respect this amp more for its acoustic properties, than as a bass
amp. (And it's a tough little bass amp indeed... it continues to
endure jam sessions, cranked up to 10, with no problems....)

I emailed SWR, asking if the Workingman's 12 was in truth a beefed-up,
stripped down version of the California Blonde. Never got a response
from them.

The owner of a local music shop told me that he did a special order of
a Workingman's 10 for a customer, who backed out of the deal. The
owner elected to keep the Workingman's 10 for himself, as his personal
acoustic amp. His experience with it is identical to mine.

Anybody have any similar experiences with the SWR bass amp line?

Later - d.g.f.

From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: SWR Workingman's 12
Date: 07 Mar 2003 00:10:36 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

I haven't used it much with acoustic guitars, but I did try my Wm's 10 with
acoustic and electric guitars and found much of what you did.

I just don't plug in the acoustics much. The old ('70)
Guild 212 12-string sounds wonderful and the 335 is great, albeit a tad ...
'hi-fi' for me. But with the treble turned down is has a "phat" jazz tone!

It does a splendid job on bass for me. I use a Jack Casady bass and play with
an otherwise all-acoustic band (two guitars, dobro, mandolin, fiddle and
singers) and the SWR Workingman's 10 gives me all the tones I want a nicely low
volumes.

Money (not much, even!) well spent!

Thanks,

steveV

From: gozy <Gozy@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: SWR Workingman's 12
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:50:37 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications

Yes, I use a Workingmans' 10. I have the matching extension speaker if the
stage volume is going to the house unamplified, or if I need more low end in
a given situation. I use this rig for everything; acoustic, electric, bass
or synth. Just have to set the EQ for what you need. I get all my effects
from outboard gear.

From: JD <jdb5025@NOSPAMyahoo...>
Subject: Re: SWR Workingman's 12
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:58:03 GMT

"d.g.f." <<dgf@swbell...>> wrote in message
news:<Xns9336B258D6065dgfswbellnet@151...>...
> Awhile back, I acquired a SWR Workingman's 12 bass amplifier,
> intending to use it for my fretless bass work. Just for grins, I
> plugged my Hummingbird (with Fishman Acoustic Matrix) into it.... and
> ... HEAVEN!! What a wonderful sounding acoustic amplifier. I've come
> to respect this amp more for its acoustic properties, than as a bass
> amp. (And it's a tough little bass amp indeed... it continues to
> endure jam sessions, cranked up to 10, with no problems....)
>
> I emailed SWR, asking if the Workingman's 12 was in truth a beefed-up,
> stripped down version of the California Blonde. Never got a response
> from them.
>
> The owner of a local music shop told me that he did a special order of
> a Workingman's 10 for a customer, who backed out of the deal. The
> owner elected to keep the Workingman's 10 for himself, as his personal
> acoustic amp. His experience with it is identical to mine.
>
> Anybody have any similar experiences with the SWR bass amp line?
>
>
> Later - d.g.f.

Absolutely! I have a Workingman's 10 with the extension cab. I use the amp
for a personal monitor and the extension sits right behind the drummer's
throne and then I run the XLR out into the board. As you've found, it also
works like a champ with my acoustics and since it's so clean and neutral it
works great running my POD and Strat through it. What I like best about it
besides it's versatility is that now the sound guy gets to do the heavy
hauling while I walk into a gig with amp in one hand and bass in the other.

JD

From: Jay & Robin Lowe <lowes@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: SWR Workingman's 12
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:07:16 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

d.g.f.:

Of course, I'm not old enough to know first hand ;~) but I've heard from
some older guys that back in the days before many folks made acoustic amps,
running an acoustic guitar through a bass amp or a keyboard amp wasn't so
uncommon.

Not long ago, I went into the local shop and plugged an A/E Seagull into a
big Peavey bass amp. One of the salesman almost freaked out. After 20 or so
minutes, everybody in the store agreed that it sounded much better that way
than plugged into the Peavey acoustic amp sitting next to it.

But like I say, I'm not old enough to remember when those were about the
only options.

Jay "Forever Young" Lowe

From: Pete KE9OA <n.gianakopoulos@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: SWR Workingman's 12
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 08:08:50 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

Dedicated acoustic amps usually have things like notch controls, and chorus,
but with the active electronics that are going into acoustic guitars
nowadays, that's no longer an issue. I've had some of the SWR bass
amplifiers; right now, I am using a GK bass amp. In all cases, the bass
amps have a better sound than the dedicated acoustic amps. Could be from
the beefier power supplies that the bass amps use.

Pete

Jay & Robin Lowe <<lowes@cox-internet...>> wrote in message
news:<v6g2tfbgj6hs2a@corp...>...
> d.g.f.:
>
> Of course, I'm not old enough to know first hand ;~) but I've heard from
> some older guys that back in the days before many folks made acoustic
amps,
> running an acoustic guitar through a bass amp or a keyboard amp wasn't so
> uncommon.
>
> Not long ago, I went into the local shop and plugged an A/E Seagull into a
> big Peavey bass amp. One of the salesman almost freaked out. After 20 or
so
> minutes, everybody in the store agreed that it sounded much better that
way
> than plugged into the Peavey acoustic amp sitting next to it.
>
> But like I say, I'm not old enough to remember when those were about the
> only options.
>
> Jay "Forever Young" Lowe
>
>
>

From: Brian Wrenn <wrennbrian@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: SWR Workingman's 12
Date: 7 Mar 2003 08:46:07 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

"Anybody have any similar experiences with the SWR bass amp line?"

I've used my Workingman's 15 with my acoustic. It sounds narrow and
muffeled IMO. On the other hand, it sounds beefy if you like to play
percusively. It's a great bass amp but there are better alternatives
to amplify an acoustic.

From: Charlie <texasbluesman@austin...>
Subject: AMP recommendations Crate CA112D vs CA125D ???
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 22:24:46 GMT
Organization: Road Runner - Texas

Would appreciate comments on these two Crate acoustic amps.

--
- Charlie

- Charlie's BLUES Songs - free BLUES mp3's

   http://www.texasbluesman.net

From: Steve Comeau <notcomeaus@comcast...>
Subject: Re: AMP recommendations Crate CA112D vs CA125D ???
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:35:16 -0500

For what it's worth, Jorma Kaukonen of Hot Tuna uses the Crate 112D.

I test drove a 112D in a Guitar Center private listening room several months
back. Good amp I liked the overall tone and the bells and whistles, but it
was too large for my needs. I took home a CA30D, which has some of the 112D
features, but returned it because it had too much ambient noise (hiss) for
my tastes. I believe that the 112D was a lot quieter.

By the way, I ended up with an AER Compact 60 from a local guitar shop.

Unfortunately, Guitar Center didn't have a CA125D at the time so I can't
comment on that model.

All the best,

Steve Comeau

(remove the anti-spam word "not" from my return address to reply directly)

"Charlie" <<texasbluesman@austin...>> wrote in message
news:OaPaa.18761$<z54.1034893@twister...>...
> Would appreciate comments on these two Crate acoustic amps.
>
> --
> - Charlie
>
> - Charlie's BLUES Songs - free BLUES mp3's
> http://www.texasbluesman.net
>
>
>

From: Sherm <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: AMP recommendations Crate CA112D vs CA125D ???
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 23:51:12 GMT

On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 22:24:46 GMT, "Charlie"
<<texasbluesman@austin...>> wrote:

>Would appreciate comments on these two Crate acoustic amps.
>
>--
>- Charlie

Buddy of mine uses an older version of one of those and it sounds
pretty good. I'll sell ya my Crate CA30 for $125.

Sherm
(Is that opportunity I hear knocking?)

From: Sherm <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Ultrasounds Aloft?!
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:48:26 GMT

Anybody use their 50w U/S's on speaker stands? I might have a line
on a job in a small venue where it'd be nice to get these things up
above people heads.

Any and all opinions & advice much appreciated.
Sherm

From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds Aloft?!
Date: 11 Mar 2003 15:29:59 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Sherm,

They work just fine. Some folks have special ordered their extension cabs this
way. It is not a big deal to do and you can call Greg for his input.

The Doc

From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds Aloft?!
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:12:43 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband

in article <3e6df527.4838063@news...>, Sherm at
<jshermannospam@lorainccc...> wrote on 3/11/03 6:48 AM:

> Anybody use their 50w U/S's on speaker stands? I might have a line
> on a job in a small venue where it'd be nice to get these things up
> above people heads.
>
> Any and all opinions & advice much appreciated.
> Sherm
>
>

    Yes.  Pair of 50Es.  Speaker stand sockets installed at factory, but any

Ultrasound (except the 30) can be retrofitted, provided you don't already
have the tiltback accessory attached.

    Speaker stands (not mic stands) run about $50 each, but you cvan spend

more.
--
Stephen T. Boyke

From: Marshall Woodall <woodall@pipeline...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds Aloft?!
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:35:16 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises

I have put a speaker stand socket on my Ultrasound and it works beautifully
with my Ultimate Support Stand. You are going to need a hole saw (like the
kind used to put door knobs in doors), a Drill, a Tape Measure, and, a
tennis ball or some other device to locate the amps center of gravity.
While you have the amp opened up you might consider putting some kind of
damping material around the outside of the chassis where it meets the
cabinet( i.e. 1/2" self adhesive foam door jam insulation etc.). I had a
pretty heavy low end rattle in my amp until I did this but now it is quieter
than our Democratic representatives regarding Iraq. Good luck-

Marshall

Sherm <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3e6df527.4838063@news...>...
> Anybody use their 50w U/S's on speaker stands? I might have a line
> on a job in a small venue where it'd be nice to get these things up
> above people heads.
>
> Any and all opinions & advice much appreciated.
> Sherm
>
>

From: Misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds Aloft?!
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:55:26 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Sherm wrote:
> Anybody use their 50w U/S's on speaker stands? I might have a line
> on a job in a small venue where it'd be nice to get these things up
> above people heads.
>
> Any and all opinions & advice much appreciated.
> Sherm
>
>

Well, Jeff, I discussed this very thing with Doc Gore at TX-3.
He allowed as to how Teja Gerken of Acoustic Guitar wanted the
same thing, so he offered to install the fittings for the
speakers stands on my 50s at the same time he did Teja's. I had
to wait a little, and, of course, I paid for the extra, but they
work great. I've used them up on stands for the gigs I've done
since I got them. I seems to help get the sound out over
people's heads, and I reach the back of the room better than if
they were down.

	-Ralph

--
Misifus-
Ralph Seibert
mailto:<rseibert@cox-internet...>
http://www.ralphandsue.com

From: wengr <wengr@worldnet...>
Subject: ultrasound 50w ext. cab with a mackie?
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 02:03:13 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

hello, since I already have a little Mackie 1204 in which the pres aren't
bad, and it has all kinds of ins and outs I was wondering if I can use it as
a front end for an Ultrasound 50 watt extension cab? can I expect good sound
quality comparable with an AG-50? any reason I should'nt do this? the guitar
has a highlander uts. I don't really need the alesis effects. any info
appreciated, greg

From: Mitch <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: ultrasound 50w ext. cab with a mackie?
Date: 12 Mar 2003 03:53:19 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>hello, since I already have a little Mackie 1204 in which the pres aren't
>bad, and it has all kinds of ins and outs I was wondering if I can use it as
>a front end for an Ultrasound 50 watt extension cab? can I expect good sound
>quality comparable with an AG-50? any reason I should'nt do this? the guitar
>has a highlander uts. I don't really need the alesis effects. any info
>appreciated, greg

Hi Greg. I have both an amp and an extension. I have the Mackie 1202 and the
setup sounds great. When you use the amp as another powered speaker, you plug
into the effects return and bypass the amp's pre.

Many times, I am very glad I have the complete amp with direct out, notch
filter, shape switch, etc. When I need the quick and easy stage monitor or just
a single amp in a small room of people, it is much more suitable to the job
than just a powered speaker. Mine is sans FX, but sometimes I wish I had
sprung for those as well. Sometimes, it's just handy to have a nice sounding
box that can do it all. If the cost isn't an issue, I say get he whole
enchilada. You'll appreciate the versatility in the long run.

Mitch

From: Jerry Ranch <jerry.ranch@pioneer...>
Subject: Amps, in the final analysis...
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:38:11 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

The discussion over the past year on amps, mixers, etc on the list has
been great.

I haven't purchased anything yet..but this is what I've learned to
begin to evaluate.

It seems that if one were going the route of an amp for guitar and
voice for a first time buyer....all the comments seem to point to an
Ultrasound amp (50 probably), a multi input mixer, a multi input mic
pre-amp, a PADI, condensor mic (# of good manufacturers) for guitar,
cardoid mic for voice (# of good manufacturers), but with a caveat
that one should try the equipment first if possible. This way one
could either mic the guitar and/or plug it into the amp.

Make sense?

Jerry

From: Mark McDonald <mdm@sonic...>
Subject: Re: Amps, in the final analysis...
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:22:59 GMT

I don't know that I have ever mentioned my setup before but I will for
anyone that may interested in amp/small P.A, systems.

I have two Peavey KB60 amplifiers and a Soundcraft Notepad mixer. My set up
is a SM 58 for vocals/harmonica and a Shure 57 for guitar. I use up to 4
guitars on stage and none of them have pickups, I mic them with the 57. I
can use just one KB60 for small rooms and both of them for bigger rooms. I
look at the KB60s as powered speakers with reverb.

The KB60 is a very transparent amplifier and I have used them for many
years. It is a nice compromise for guitar and voice.

If you are looking for a fine acoustic amp then you should probably like at
the Ultras or find an older (pre Gibson) Trace Elliot but if you need your
speakers to multi task then you might want to look at this setup.

--
Mark McDonald
<mdm@sonic...>
http://www.markmcdonaldblues.com

From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Amps, in the final analysis...
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 01:14:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband

in article <tij17vkf3bktfigigovfd72l42frlbitnf@4ax...>, Jerry Ranch at
<jerry.ranch@pioneer...> wrote on 3/13/03 10:38 AM:

> The discussion over the past year on amps, mixers, etc on the list has
> been great.
>
> I haven't purchased anything yet..but this is what I've learned to
> begin to evaluate.
>
> It seems that if one were going the route of an amp for guitar and
> voice for a first time buyer....all the comments seem to point to an
> Ultrasound amp (50 probably), a multi input mixer, a multi input mic
> pre-amp, a PADI, condensor mic (# of good manufacturers) for guitar,
> cardoid mic for voice (# of good manufacturers), but with a caveat
> that one should try the equipment first if possible. This way one
> could either mic the guitar and/or plug it into the amp.
>
>
> Make sense?
>
> Jerry

    Jerry,

    I don't know if most would say using an external mic for the guitar is

best for live performance, but this is mostly because of feedback issues.
An external mic will generally sound better than a pickup or internal mic.
Most players use an internal pickup or mic (or both) and use an external mic
for vocals (obviously).

    You're right on about the Ultrasound products.  As far as preamps or

mixers go, that's where you will find numerous different views and opinions.
Most of the combinations are fine, and there are so many good to great
products out there that there are many many combinations that work well.
Nevertheless, you generally get what you pay for.
--
Stephen T. Boyke

From: Mitch <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Amps, in the final analysis...
Date: 14 Mar 2003 02:47:09 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Jerry asked:

The discussion over the past year on amps, mixers, etc on the list has
been great.

I haven't purchased anything yet..but this is what I've learned to
begin to evaluate.

It seems that if one were going the route of an amp for guitar and
voice for a first time buyer....all the comments seem to point to an
Ultrasound amp (50 probably), a multi input mixer, a multi input mic
pre-amp, a PADI, condensor mic (# of good manufacturers) for guitar,
cardoid mic for voice (# of good manufacturers), but with a caveat
that one should try the equipment first if possible. This way one
could either mic the guitar and/or plug it into the amp.

Make sense?

Jerry

Hi Jerry. I'm one of those using external mics in my solo setup. Cardioid
condenser for guitar, cardioid dynamic for vocals, into a Mackie mini mixer,
out to Ultrasound 50-watt amps. This setup sounds spectacular for solo work,
and feedback is not an issue. So you can scratch the multi-input mic pre and
the PADI in this arrangement. The Mackie mixer has great pres for the mics;
can't vouch for other brands of mixers. They may be fine too.

Mitch

From: Dick Thaxter <Richard.Thaxter@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Amps, in the final analysis...
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 02:42:12 GMT

Jerry Ranch wrote:
> The discussion over the past year on amps, mixers, etc on the list has
> been great.
>
> I haven't purchased anything yet..but this is what I've learned to
> begin to evaluate.
>
> It seems that if one were going the route of an amp for guitar and
> voice for a first time buyer....all the comments seem to point to an
> Ultrasound amp (50 probably), a multi input mixer, a multi input mic
> pre-amp, a PADI, condensor mic (# of good manufacturers) for guitar,
> cardoid mic for voice (# of good manufacturers), but with a caveat
> that one should try the equipment first if possible. This way one
> could either mic the guitar and/or plug it into the amp.
>
>
> Make sense?
>
> Jerry

Not necessarily. Are you talking about live performance? Vocals and
guitar? If you're sold on the Ultrasound--and why not it's a great
sounding amp and a great value--start with that. Don't remember what
your pickup system is, but try plugging in direct. You may find that a
PADI or other preamp helps. For voice you could start with a $80 mic
like an SM58, a Sennheiser 835E, or the similarly priced Audix. Since
the Ultrasound needs a mixer for two inputs you could use the one
Ultrasound sells--folks report good results, or one of the inexpensive
small mixers from Behringer, etc. (I think the inexpensive smaller
Soundcraft Spirit mixers don't get mentioned enough in these threads).

Your list included things like a quality mic preamp, decent condensor
mic. These you might want to pick up later and will be useful for
recording, but as part of a live performance rig with just the
Ultrasound it seems like overkill.

Dick Thaxter

From: Mitch <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Amps, in the final analysis...
Date: 14 Mar 2003 02:55:46 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>These you might want to pick up later and will be useful for
>recording, but as part of a live performance rig with just the
>Ultrasound it seems like overkill.
>
>Dick Thaxter

Not overkill Dick. It's KILLER is what it is. I'll never do pickups again
unless the sitch demands it (loud, LOUD stage).

Mitch

From: Dick Thaxter <rtha@loc...>
Subject: Re: Amps, in the final analysis...
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 07:42:10 -0500
Organization: Library of Congress

Mitch wrote:

> >These you might want to pick up later and will be useful for
> >recording, but as part of a live performance rig with just the
> >Ultrasound it seems like overkill.
> >
> >Dick Thaxter
>
> Not overkill Dick. It's KILLER is what it is. I'll never do pickups again
> unless the sitch demands it (loud, LOUD stage).
>
> Mitch

Mitch,

I was responding to Jerry, who said:

> The discussion over the past year on amps, mixers, etc on the list has
> been great.
>
> I haven't purchased anything yet..but this is what I've learned to
> begin to evaluate.
>
> It seems that if one were going the route of an amp for guitar and
> voice for a first time buyer....all the comments seem to point to an
> Ultrasound amp (50 probably), a multi input mixer, a multi input mic
> pre-amp, a PADI, condensor mic (# of good manufacturers) for guitar,
> cardoid mic for voice (# of good manufacturers), but with a caveat
> that one should try the equipment first if possible. This way one
> could either mic the guitar and/or plug it into the amp.
>
>
> Make sense?

It doesn't make sense to me for a first time buyer to rush out and spend

$400 for an amp
$150 for a cheap mixer
$250 for a mic pre
$125 for a PADI
$200 for a condensor mic
$100 for a dynamic mic

This just sounds like a G.A.S. attack to me.

That's well over $1000 even if I overestimated some of the amounts.
What I said was start out the the amp and a vocal mic. ($500 total) If he's
unhappy with his guitar pickup then he can start messing around with a PADI or
mic the guitar and spend the bucks on a condensor and a separate mic pre.

Dick Thaxter

From: Jerome Ranch <ranchjp@mchsi...>
Subject: Re: Amps, in the final analysis...
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 07:45:31 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

>
>$400 for an amp
>$150 for a cheap mixer
>$250 for a mic pre
>$125 for a PADI
>$200 for a condensor mic
>$100 for a dynamic mic
>
>This just sounds like a G.A.S. attack to me.
>
>That's well over $1000 even if I overestimated some of the amounts.
>What I said was start out the the amp and a vocal mic. ($500 total) If he's
>unhappy with his guitar pickup then he can start messing around with a PADI or
>mic the guitar and spend the bucks on a condensor and a separate mic pre.

Well Dick
Maybe a bit of GAS.
I do have the PADI already.
You're idea of purchasing the components in stages makes sense (shesh
why didn't I think of that...GAS speaking perhaps)

So I get the amp and a reasonable vocal mic first.
See what it does for me.
Then gradually add on whatever else when necessary.

I'm planning to do some open mics real soon, but what's holding me
back is that I have yet to practice vocals through a mic.
I have no freaking idea what my voice sounds like, or how to
manipulate my vocie with respect to the microphone etc.
This is a whole new level of practice, and I need to have something at
home to do this with. So wudl I need a monitor too?

Most of the open mic venues locally have PA's that I'd plug into
(perhaps through my PADI), and I'd use the US at the PS-less joints.

Jerry

From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Amps, in the final analysis...
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:17:16 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Jerome Ranch" <<ranchjp@mchsi...>> wrote in message
news:<iom37vk1ik4eidaon06t4okp13d649c8br@4ax...>...
> >
> >$400 for an amp
> >$150 for a cheap mixer
> >$250 for a mic pre
> >$125 for a PADI
> >$200 for a condensor mic
> >$100 for a dynamic mic
> >
> >This just sounds like a G.A.S. attack to me.
> >
> >That's well over $1000 even if I overestimated some of the amounts.
> >What I said was start out the the amp and a vocal mic. ($500 total) If
he's
> >unhappy with his guitar pickup then he can start messing around with a
PADI or
> >mic the guitar and spend the bucks on a condensor and a separate mic pre.
>
>
> Well Dick
> Maybe a bit of GAS.
> I do have the PADI already.
> You're idea of purchasing the components in stages makes sense (shesh
> why didn't I think of that...GAS speaking perhaps)
>
> So I get the amp and a reasonable vocal mic first.
> See what it does for me.
> Then gradually add on whatever else when necessary.
>
> I'm planning to do some open mics real soon, but what's holding me
> back is that I have yet to practice vocals through a mic.
> I have no freaking idea what my voice sounds like, or how to
> manipulate my vocie with respect to the microphone etc.
> This is a whole new level of practice, and I need to have something at
> home to do this with. So wudl I need a monitor too?
>
> Most of the open mic venues locally have PA's that I'd plug into
> (perhaps through my PADI), and I'd use the US at the PS-less joints.
>
>

You won't need a monitor to get started.
In fact, in most solo or duo situations I hate using them.
My recommendation:
If you've already got the guitar, the Padi, and the pickup, buy an AG50DS2,
a couple of decent quality cords, a mic stand and the mic of your choice.
Experiment with the mic and spend the time learning how to "work it" during
the particular songs you'll be singing.
By "work it", I mean varying or not varying your proximity to it as the song
dictates.

If the situation warrants a monitor, the US will be fine as a monitor in
those places that have PAs. If you find you really need a monitor in the
PA-less venues, chances are the US won't be enough rig anyway.
Now, go forth and kick some open-mic ass.
Make us proud.
Bob Dorgan

From: Mitch <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Amps, in the final analysis...
Date: 14 Mar 2003 14:19:52 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>Mitch wrote:
>
>> >These you might want to pick up later and will be useful for
>> >recording, but as part of a live performance rig with just the
>> >Ultrasound it seems like overkill.
>> >
>> >Dick Thaxter
>>
>> Not overkill Dick. It's KILLER is what it is. I'll never do pickups again
>> unless the sitch demands it (loud, LOUD stage).
>>
>> Mitch
>
>Mitch,
>
>I was responding to Jerry, who said:
>
>> The discussion over the past year on amps, mixers, etc on the list has
>> been great.
>>
>> I haven't purchased anything yet..but this is what I've learned to
>> begin to evaluate.
>>
>> It seems that if one were going the route of an amp for guitar and
>> voice for a first time buyer....all the comments seem to point to an
>> Ultrasound amp (50 probably), a multi input mixer, a multi input mic
>> pre-amp, a PADI, condensor mic (# of good manufacturers) for guitar,
>> cardoid mic for voice (# of good manufacturers), but with a caveat
>> that one should try the equipment first if possible. This way one
>> could either mic the guitar and/or plug it into the amp.
>>
>>
>> Make sense?
>
>It doesn't make sense to me for a first time buyer to rush out and spend
>
>$400 for an amp
>$150 for a cheap mixer
>$250 for a mic pre
>$125 for a PADI
>$200 for a condensor mic
>$100 for a dynamic mic
>
>This just sounds like a G.A.S. attack to me.
>
>That's well over $1000 even if I overestimated some of the amounts.
>What I said was start out the the amp and a vocal mic. ($500 total) If he's
>unhappy with his guitar pickup then he can start messing around with a PADI
>or
>mic the guitar and spend the bucks on a condensor and a separate mic pre.
>
>Dick Thaxter

Gotcha. I think our messages crossed. I suggested about the same except with
the addition of a condenser mic. No need for the mic pre and the PADI in my
scenario either. Or a pickup system for that matter, unless you need it in
there to play loud venues or you're all over the place when you play.

Mitch

From: T-Bone <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Amps, in the final analysis...
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:50:51 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Dick Thaxter" <<Richard.Thaxter@verizon...>> wrote;
>
> Not necessarily. Are you talking about live performance? Vocals and
> guitar? If you're sold on the Ultrasound--and why not it's a great
> sounding amp and a great value--start with that. Don't remember what
> your pickup system is, but try plugging in direct. You may find that a
> PADI or other preamp helps. For voice you could start with a $80 mic
> like an SM58, a Sennheiser 835E, or the similarly priced Audix. Since
> the Ultrasound needs a mixer for two inputs you could use the one
> Ultrasound sells--folks report good results, or one of the inexpensive
> small mixers from Behringer, etc. (I think the inexpensive smaller
> Soundcraft Spirit mixers don't get mentioned enough in these threads).
>
> Your list included things like a quality mic preamp, decent condensor
> mic. These you might want to pick up later and will be useful for
> recording, but as part of a live performance rig with just the
> Ultrasound it seems like overkill.
>
> Dick Thaxter
>

Small nit--
the newer Ultrasounds do not need an external mixer for two inputs. For a
singer/guitarist, it is possible to walk out the door for a gig with guitar,
amp, mic, cables, and mic stand. Any other items that are necessary are only
necessary because of the pickup in your guitar or mics you are using require
them.
Bob Dorgan

From: Michael McCollum <eadric@visi...>
Subject: Re: Amps, in the final analysis...
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:32:04 -0500

"Dick Thaxter" <<Richard.Thaxter@verizon...>> wrote in message
news:<3E714109.2040002@verizon...>...
>
> Not necessarily. Are you talking about live performance? Vocals and
> guitar? If you're sold on the Ultrasound--and why not it's a great
> sounding amp and a great value--start with that. Don't remember what
> your pickup system is, but try plugging in direct. You may find that a
> PADI or other preamp helps. For voice you could start with a $80 mic
> like an SM58, a Sennheiser 835E, or the similarly priced Audix. Since
> the Ultrasound needs a mixer for two inputs you could use the one
> Ultrasound sells--

Dick, let me correct you on one small point. UltraSound amps (DS2 series)
are now, and have been, available as a two channel amp.
Mike

From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Amps, in the final analysis...
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:51:58 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Jerry Ranch" <<jerry.ranch@pioneer...>> wrote in message
news:<k4u37v8mukcicdbfouuu94gff9hv7egdfu@4ax...>...
> Might I eventually consider a compressor for either guitar or vocal?
> I do have a lot of dynamics in my playing...
>
> Many local players do use these devices
> Jerry

    Yes, you might consider it, and it might become a valuable tool for you.

It depends on a lot of circumstances.
For example, if you end up micing the guitar rather than using a pick up, a
compressor can be very handy in smoothing out the spikes you can get with
inadvertent movement. The only way you'll know if you want one is to
experiment.
Bob Dorgan

From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Amps, in the final analysis...
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 04:03:04 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband

in article <7o657v88en82hmjd0km8sirdn23ha9fth6@4ax...>, Jerome Ranch at
<ranchjp@mchsi...> wrote on 3/14/03 7:18 PM:

> If you put it THAT way, you don't have life without highs and lows
>
>
>>
>> Traditional view: Dynamics are part of music. It cannot breathe without
>> it.
>>
>> Modern view: Dynamics are evil. Crush it with compressors and limiters.
>>
>> Take your pick.
>

    I only mention it because of the pervasive overuse of compression in

most music production these days, all geared to sound as "loud" as possible
on the radio. Apparently, the money behind commercial music believes louder
equals more bucks.

    As far as acoustic guitar goes, compression is only needed, if at all,

in very modest amounts. The natural dynamic range of the instrument is
smaller than other instruments and compressing that range neutralizes
expression, phrasing and transients.

    Vocals are another subject, as is whether how compression should be used

when playing live (particularly in an acoustic guitar/vocal setting).

--
Stephen T. Boyke

From: David Eidelberg <DavidEidelberg@msn...>
Subject: Re: Amps, in the final analysis...
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 08:54:54 -0500

I think it really "depends." The ultrasound amps have great sound, but
don't have a lot of volume for the wattage. If you're looking to play out
in a venue of any real size, a 50 watt Ultrasound will not be loud enough.
They make larger/more powerful models and a 50 watt powered extension
cabinet.

If I need some real volume and don't want to take a p.a., I just take my
Centaur Acoustic P.A.

"Jerry Ranch" <<jerry.ranch@pioneer...>> wrote in message
news:<tij17vkf3bktfigigovfd72l42frlbitnf@4ax...>...
> The discussion over the past year on amps, mixers, etc on the list has
> been great.
>
> I haven't purchased anything yet..but this is what I've learned to
> begin to evaluate.
>
> It seems that if one were going the route of an amp for guitar and
> voice for a first time buyer....all the comments seem to point to an
> Ultrasound amp (50 probably), a multi input mixer, a multi input mic
> pre-amp, a PADI, condensor mic (# of good manufacturers) for guitar,
> cardoid mic for voice (# of good manufacturers), but with a caveat
> that one should try the equipment first if possible. This way one
> could either mic the guitar and/or plug it into the amp.
>
>
> Make sense?
>
> Jerry

From: No Busking <nobusking@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Amp question from the clueless
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:10:56 GMT

> I could throw it on Ebay but I think I'd put it back in the closet and
> buy another more moderate amp for the archtop before I'd go through that
> level of hassle...

Actually, if you really want an archtop sound, the Marshall probably isn't
the right tool to use.

For matched sets, you should get something like a Roland Jazz Chorus JC-90
($560) for the archtop, get a Fender Vibrolux for the Telecaster ($1000),
and buy a Les Paul Standard to go with the Marshall ($2000).

Then mail the Telecaster/Fender and Les Paul/Marshall rigs to me, since
they're obviously not your thing.

The Marshall will work fine for practicing in your music room (and will be
great for impressing your daughter's friends), but if you want a typical
jazz guitar tone that highlights your beautiful archtop, it will probably
fall a little short. Dorgan had it right...use the clean channel and roll
off the treble.

I don't know much about jazz guitar amplification, but I believe that the
Roland mentioned above is a pretty commonly used piece of gear. Since
you're looking for fidelity rather than midrange honk, acoustic amps like
Ultrasound would also be good solutions. I know that the Ultrasound 100 is
often used for jazz applications.

Cheers,

Mike Pugh

From: Corbeau <Corbeau@Unkindness...>
Subject: Re: Amp question from the clueless
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:30:30 -0000
Organization: Corvids-R-Us

"No Busking" <<nobusking@yahoo...>> wrote in
news:QEWea.1351$<TW2.760947@news1...>:

>> I could throw it on Ebay but I think I'd put it back in the closet
>> and buy another more moderate amp for the archtop before I'd go
>> through that level of hassle...
>
>
> Actually, if you really want an archtop sound, the Marshall probably
> isn't the right tool to use.
>
> For matched sets, you should get something like a Roland Jazz Chorus
> JC-90 ($560) for the archtop, get a Fender Vibrolux for the Telecaster
> ($1000), and buy a Les Paul Standard to go with the Marshall ($2000).
>
> Then mail the Telecaster/Fender and Les Paul/Marshall rigs to me,
> since they're obviously not your thing.
>
> The Marshall will work fine for practicing in your music room (and
> will be great for impressing your daughter's friends), but if you want
> a typical jazz guitar tone that highlights your beautiful archtop, it
> will probably fall a little short. Dorgan had it right...use the
> clean channel and roll off the treble.
>
> I don't know much about jazz guitar amplification, but I believe that
> the Roland mentioned above is a pretty commonly used piece of gear.
> Since you're looking for fidelity rather than midrange honk, acoustic
> amps like Ultrasound would also be good solutions. I know that the
> Ultrasound 100 is often used for jazz applications.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike Pugh
>

Thanks Mike. I'm most likely going to go with one of the Acoustic Image
products - either the Coda combo or the Clarus head with a small Raezors
Edge cabinet. Not immediately though, I'll just make do with the
Marshall for a while since I've got a Kim Walker SJ to pay for in a
couple months...

Thomas

From: SouthTexas <tbroso@charter...>
Subject: Strawberry Blonde Acoustic Amo
Date: 22 Mar 2003 19:56:02 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Anyone know these and what do you think? I just want one to fool
around with and the California Blonde looks pretty professional!

From: Big Bone Bailey <Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>
Subject: Re: Strawberry Blonde Acoustic Amo
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:19:46 -0800

SouthTexas wrote:

> Anyone know these and what do you think? I just want one to fool
> around with and the California Blonde looks pretty professional!

California Blonde? Isn't that the amp with the bo-tox injections and
fake boobs?

<G>

Seriously, I had someone leave a Strawberry Blonde, which ever is the
smaller, over here for a few weeks and I diddled around with it a bit.
(As one should do with a strawberry blonde, if one has the
opportunity.) While it didn't realistically recreate the sound of an
acoustic as well as separate components seem to, it still sounded quite
good. If you need a stand-alone unit for playing out, I can see how it
might just do the trick.

TW

--
ÐÏࡱá

From: Mr Zee <>
Subject: Re: Strawberry Blonde Acoustic Amo
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 00:38:15 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

I've used a California Blonde for the past three years gigging on the
weekends. During the week it rides in my trunk back in forth to my day job,
60 miles each way. I've NEVER had a problem with it yet. Great sound! I
use a Martin OM-45 in Drop D tuning and a ES-175 in normal with it. I'd buy
another in a heartbeat!

From: <please@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Strawberry Blonde Acoustic Amo
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:41:04 GMT
Organization: None

<tbroso@charter...> (SouthTexas) wrote:

>Anyone know these and what do you think? I just want one to fool
>around with and the California Blonde looks pretty professional!

There are two products put out by SWR. One is the California
Blonde, the other is the Strawberry Blonde. As I recall, the
California is the larger of the two.

There is a big difference to my ears between the two. The
larger one is vastly superior, IMO. There are many other
products that compete in the same sonic and feature class as the
California Blonde. You owe it to yourself to also check those
out. I own an Acoustic Image Coda. Ultrasound makes some very
fine amps for acoustic guitar. Genz Benz, AER and others make
competing products. You should listen to at least a couple of
these and maybe others and make your decision based on what you
hear.

Al Sato

--
Reply to al_guitar "at" clifftopmusic "dot" com

From: <please@nospam...>
Subject: Re: AI Coda (was Strawberry Blonde Acoustic Amo)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:11:49 GMT
Organization: None

Corbeau <<Corbeau@Unkindness...>> wrote:

>Al,
>
>What's your impression of the Coda for solo guitar having used it for
>a while?
>
>I'm looking at options for my new archtop but it would be nice for it
>to be able to double up on my classical too. I'm having trouble
>deciding on the Coda or pulling out the stops and gettng a Clarus &
>Raezors Edge 12ER.
>
>Thomas

Thomas,

I like the Coda very much. It is a nice combo in a small
package that works very well with my several guitar-like
instruments and mandolin but also gives a credible performance
with an electric bass. I've played through a Raezer's Edge 12
(not ER) and it gives a much more forward jazz tone to my ears.
I've never gigged with an RE cab so I don't know how critical
the placement of the cab would be, but the Coda needs to get up
off the ground if the audience is close to the stage. Makes
sense - you're projecting sound into people's legs.

If I were not playing through a PA most of the time now, I'd
like to try the RE12ER as an extension cab. The only thing I'd
recommend for you to do is try both setups and see what you
like. I think that the Clarus head is pretty impressive and
it's the same head on the Coda. It sounds very neutral and
uncolored to me. You should try to buy from one of the dealers
who will let you play both at home and let you return the one
you like less.

I'm sorry I can't help you with a specific recommendation. What
I will say is that if I were playing mostly jazz I'd get the
separates for the jazz tone they give. As it is, one small unit
that can also double as a stage monitor is very useful for me.

Al Sato

--
Reply to al_guitar "at" clifftopmusic "dot" com

From: R <R@yahoo...>
Subject: Seek basic info about amplifying an acoustic guitar
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 03:32:51 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications

I'm sure this has been asked a million times, sorry (did a google search &
was overwhelmed with over-information).

Could someone give some *very basic* information about amplifying an
acoustic guitar - on the amplifier side, not the pickup side?

My guitar is a ca. 1970 Guild D-40 that I bought new back then, & I recently
had a Baggs active IBeam pickup installed & use a Baggs gigpro belt preamp.
For now, I'm mainly using it to play roots-rock (blues-, country-,
folk-rock), classic rock, etc with an electric band. I haven't yet played
amplified solo acoustic, but might like to - that would be more finger
picking & also slide. I'm a 52 year old amateur hobbyist & am not trying to
do anything very exotic or ambitious or loud, just have a bit of fun.

I have a Fender Bassman reissue ('59), & it feeds back pretty badly with the
acoustic guitar. Btw, I also play harmonica & got a little box called a
Holmes Harp Commander (http://www.holmeseng.com/HarpGear.html) which helps
get harp volume & control feedback pretty well.

- I gather that electric guitar amps are not the most preferred amps for
acoustics, but can anyone recommend settings on an electric guitar amp to
control feedback & get volume?

- I'd prefer not to buy & carry around a second amp for acoustic, but if
did, can anyone recommend some good models?

- Or should I want to go through the PA? How?

- ...And if I want to play solo acoustic & amplify it?

These are a lot of questions, I know. Maybe someone could recommend some
good info websites that can address them...

Thanks, R

--
-

From: Gozy <Gozy@Hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Seek basic info about amplifying an acoustic guitar
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:03:17 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications

>
> I have a Fender Bassman reissue ('59), & it feeds back pretty badly with
the
> acoustic guitar. >
> - I gather that electric guitar amps are not the most preferred amps for
> acoustics, but can anyone recommend settings on an electric guitar amp to
> control feedback & get volume?

Pull back on the mids and tease up the highs. Put a stopper (one is a
Feedback Buster) into the soundhole to attenuate low and low-mid feedback.
You won't get a great sound but you'll improve what you're getting now.

>
> - I'd prefer not to buy & carry around a second amp for acoustic, but if
> did, can anyone recommend some good models?

I get good results with my SWR Workingman's 110. Has lots of low end, power
and a switchable tweeter. No FX though. I use outboard effects. I use
this amp for all my guitars. Cheaper than dedicated acoustic amps but some
feel the extra cost can be heard.

>
> - Or should I want to go through the PA? How?

If the board is near the stage plug into a channel and take the guitar back
in the monitor. If it isn't you need a DI box to carry your signal through
the snake. I use a Whirlwind IMP 2; not too expensive but there are other
DI boxes offering more features such as parametric eq for added feedback
supression.

>
> - ...And if I want to play solo acoustic & amplify it?

Same as above

These are my solutions, but there are as many solutions as there are people
on this board.

From: JPAltes <jpaltes@aol...>
Subject: Yorkville AM50... bad move?
Date: 24 Mar 2003 22:32:37 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

I bought one of these... pretty cheap... on Ebay. Needed something to "self
monitor" myself (that's okay to say here, isn't it? We're among friends,
right?). Playing through the house at our church, and wanted to hear more of
my guitar than I felt comfortable asking for in the mix (only have one mix).
Haven't set it up yet. What is your take on Yorkville stuff? Junque?
Okay-for-the-money? Big mistake?

Patrick

From: Hank Alinger <hoink2@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Yorkville AM50... bad move?
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:52:22 -0500

Patrick:

JPAltes wrote:

> I bought one of these... pretty cheap... on Ebay. Needed something to "self
> monitor" myself (that's okay to say here, isn't it? We're among friends,
> right?). Playing through the house at our church, and wanted to hear more of
> my guitar than I felt comfortable asking for in the mix (only have one mix).
> Haven't set it up yet. What is your take on Yorkville stuff? Junque?
> Okay-for-the-money? Big mistake?
>
> Patrick

I played several Yorkville's at a music store recently and thought they were
pretty nice. Very clean and reasonably loud.

Enjoy!

Hank

From: donh <bounce.spam@driveway...>
Subject: Re: Yorkville AM50... bad move?
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:50:03 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

In <<20030324173237.01192.00000160@mb-cu...>>, on 03/24/03 at 10:32 PM,

   jpaltes@aol.com (JPAltes) said:

>I bought one of these... pretty cheap... on Ebay. Needed something to "self
>monitor" myself (that's okay to say here, isn't it? We're among friends,
>right?). Playing through the house at our church, and wanted to hear more of
>my guitar than I felt comfortable asking for in the mix (only have one mix).
>Haven't set it up yet. What is your take on Yorkville stuff? Junque?
>Okay-for-the-money? Big mistake?

Patrick,

Some folks seem to like their stuff quite well, but my experience with it is
that it's built quite sturdily and as something to listen to or enjoy or
understand whatever is being attempted to be communicated thru it: it's built
quite sturdily!

iow: try it out, and if you find yourself less happy with your sound once it's
louder thru your spiffy new amp, then you know what to do :-)

  -don-

donh at audiosys dot com

From: Riddley <riddley@aol...>
Subject: Review: Walker Labs mini-PA
Date: 07 Apr 2003 14:42:53 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

I am posting this here because I just bought a battery-powered PA system from
Walker Labs, called the "lunchbox" system, and I am impressed, and it might be
of interest to others (it's part of their "Freedom" series which includes a
battery-power guitar amp, and also a battery-power bass amp). I have absolutely
no interest in this company, and probably was somewhat impetuous in ordering
sight-unseen based on advertising (Acoustic Guitar mag) website
(www.walker-labs.com) and a phone call.

It's a powered mixer with two speakers. Mixer runs on battery, but if you plug
it into AC power, with the little charger, you have no worries about losing
power (it's supposed to give you several hours on battery anyway). Mixer is in
a watertight case w/handle, 4 channels, all with XLR and phone jack, 60 watts
into 4 ohms, 3 band EQ on each channel, no EFX. Speakers have 6.5" woofers.
Website says mixer, and each speaker, weighs 12 lbs., but it feels lighter to
me. Speakers have "top hat" fittings. Oh, there is also a channel to plug
stereo jacks in for your backup music, or between sets music).

I purchased the rig as a package, which also included two very lightweight
collapsible speaker stands (put the speakers about standing ear height), two
dynamic mikes (haven't tried them), and two speaker cables and two mike cables,
and a wheeled carrying case for the whole shooting match. Just over $1000 with
shipping (did I already mention this could have been an expensive fiasco?).
I've actually put the rig on a wheeled luggage dolly (from Staples, the one
with black tubing, and two attached bungee cords).

I'll probably try it out with a little busking shortly. You can get a thingy to
charge it in the car, too, although I haven't purchased same as of yet.

I've only had it about 5 days, and am impressed. The sound repro is comparable
with Ultrasound (yes, I own one). Haven't wrung out volume totally yet, but, I
think, it's quite adequate (well, not for the Albert Hall). I tried it with my
Collings OM, and Fisman Rare Earth Blender pickup (with microphone on the
outside of the guitar, not inside) sounded just ducky. Added my SansAmp
Acoustic DI, and it was even better. The only mic I've tried with it is my
AKG1000 (using the internal battery, no phantom power on the mixer--as far as I
can tell). Sounded ducky (well, I hope I sing better than a duck!). No noise in
the system.

If anyone wants to ask me more about this, that's fine. Again, I have no
interest in this company.
Gerry "Riddley" Rosser